In reaction to linguistic inequality relating to multilingualism in Germany’s education system, language pedagogy has become a key component of teacher education in some federal states (Berkel-Otto et al. 2021). While scholarly work on multilingualism in education has brought forward numerous pedagogical approaches, studies show that concepts are not equally implemented in teacher education and school practice (Putjata et al. 2022). However, multilingual learners can only benefit from improved teacher education, if teachers apply what they learned in theory to their teaching practice. Thus, teacher induction holds an enormous potential to bridge theory and practice.

Teacher induction in Germany is organised by the federal states. To obtain an official teaching certificate, teachers need two academic degrees (undergraduate and postgraduate) as well as a teaching degree after 1.5 years of induction. Throughout the induction phase, pre-service teachers teach at a school part-time and attend several weekly seminars at regional teacher induction centres (IC) (König 2013). They are guided by mentors at the school as well as by teacher educators at the IC. Compared to other countries, ICs as institutions and the overall complex structure of teacher induction in Germany can be described as rather unique (Abs & Anderson-Park 2014). Regrettably, there is hardly any empirical research on language education and multilingual pedagogy as a content area of teacher induction in Germany (Böning 2023).

The research project presented in this paper addresses this desideratum in connection to language pedagogy, asking the following research questions:

• How is multilingual pedagogy implemented as a subject area within teacher induction?
• What relevance and meaning does it have for different stakeholders?

Employing a “top-down” research strategy, teacher induction’s curriculum in Germany’s federal state North-Rhine-Westphalia (NRW) and the process of implementation were analysed. In academic teacher education as well as in practical induction, learning about (teaching in) linguistically diverse learner groups is part of the mandatory curriculum. Thus, the federal state’s curriculum is regarded as the curricular macro level and the starting point of analysis. On a meso level, IC’s training plans have been analysed. On a meso level also, interviews were conducted with experts from the field, focusing on institutional knowledge, the conceptualization of multilingual learners and language pedagogy. On a micro level, a survey was carried out with teacher educators to gain a representative picture of how the curriculum is interpreted. The “top-down” research approach of the project is supported by curriculum theory of the intended, implemented and achieved curriculum and its interconnectedness on different levels (macro, meso and micro) (van der Akker et al. 2010). In addition, the linguistic perspective is based on theory on language policy in society and education with a critical focus on language norms and linguistic equality (Johnson 2013).

The overall data speak for a consistent implementation of language education as a subject area of teacher induction in NRW on all analysed levels. However, didactical approaches and methods are oriented towards educational demands of teaching and supporting academic linguistic register of German (such as linguistically responsive teaching and scaffolding). Even though embracing multilingualism and supporting linguistic diversity as a learning objective is a consistent part of the curriculum, multilingual pedagogy is not considered a common-sense strategy of teaching.

The paper will present the results more detailed and discuss them, considering complex curricular dynamics within teacher induction and relating them to academic teacher education as well as international contexts.

The project follows different levels of the teacher education induction phase (macro to micro), alongside the curriculum implementation process (intended to implemented) in a mixed-methods design. While the research strategy is “top-down”, the process of curriculum implementation is regarded as a complex process. Research phase one (intended curriculum): The core curriculum for teacher induction in the federal state of NRW (macro level) as well as training plans of 30 out of 33 IC (meso level) which were available open access were collected (814 documents with 1.250.000 words). The corpus includes training plans of all school subjects and school types. They were analysed with the help of summative content analysis (Hsieh & Shannon 2005) and a digital tool for data analysis, MaxQDA (VERBI 2022). Research phase two (intended/ implemented curriculum): 13 semi-structured expert interviews were conducted with senior teacher educators from the ICs that are involved in management and planning of teacher induction but also teach seminars for pre-service teachers (meso level). Two experts that participated in the interviews are in charge of teacher education of middle school teachers, two for vocational schools, six for primary schools and three for high schools. The data was analysed using qualitative content analysis (Kuckartz & Rädiker 2022) and a digital tool for data analysis, MaxQDA (VERBI 2022). Research phase three (implemented curriculum): A questionnaire was distributed to all available teacher educators (meso/ micro level) by official gatekeepers. Out of 1250 teacher educators, 217 completed the questionnaire (17.4%). Teacher educators who participated in the survey come from all school types and subjects. The majority of the sample consists of teacher educators who are working with pre-service teachers for high schools (47.5%), 18.0% are working with pre-service teachers for middle schools, 14.7% for primary schools and 10.1% for special education. The data was analysed statistically, using descriptive and regression analysis.

The overall data speak for a consistent implementation of language education as a subject area of teacher induction on all analysed levels. The core curriculum uses wide and open concepts such as ‘multilingualism’ that are ambiguous and leave room for interpretation and elaboration. What is intended in the core curriculum on a federal state level concerning multilingual pedagogy (e.g. considering linguistic development in German and language education in every subject) is implemented in the IC’s training plans and the course design by teacher educators. Alongside the process of implementation, a focus on specific didactical approaches and methods of teaching was revealed. This institutional ‘canon’ of linguistic pedagogy appears rather selective when comparing it to the wide range of options of concepts that are available in scholarly work (García & Flores 2012). While multilingualism as a mainstream characteristic of learning groups is prevalent in the training plans and described as normal by the experts, it is not self-evident as a learning objective of pedagogy. Instead, didactical approaches and methods are oriented towards educational demands of teaching and monolingual norms that go with a specific academic or technical linguistic register of German (such as linguistically responsive teaching and scaffolding). More specifically, selective institutional knowledge about multilingualism, pedagogical approaches and its aims seem to have an effect on how the curriculum is interpreted and put into practice, excluding a way of holistic interpretation of the intended curriculum. Furthermore, the results illustrate the interconnectedness of agency of specific stakeholders within the system that have multiple dependencies and needs. The paper will present complex policy dynamics in more detail and discuss teacher education in multilingual societies at the interface of theory and (school) practice, also considering studies on academic teacher education in this content area as well as teacher education in international contexts.

Abs, H. J. & Anderson-Park, E. (2014). Programme zur Berufseinführung: die zweite Phase der Lehrerbildung. In E. Terhart, H. Bennewitz & R. Martin (Ed.), Handbuch der Forschung zum Lehrerberuf. Waxmann (pp. 489-510). Berkel-Otto, L., Hansen A., Hammer, S., Lemmrich, S., Schroedler T. & Uribe, Á. (2021). Multilingualism in Teacher Education in Germany: Differences in Appraoching Linguistic Diversity in Three Federal States. In M. Wernicke, S. Hammer, A. Hansen & T. Schroedler (Ed.), Preparing teachers to work with multilingual learners. Multilingual Matters (pp. 82–103). Böning, C. (2023). Ein phasenübergreifender Blick auf sprachliche Bildung in der Lehrkräftebildung zwischen Theorie und Praxis: Das Desiderat Vorbereitungsdienst. k:ON. Kölner Journal für Lehrer*innenbildung, 7/2023, 262-281. DOI: 10.18716/ojs/kON/2023.13 García, O. & Flores, N. (2012). Multilingual Pedagogies. In M. Martin-Jones, A. Blackledge & A. Creese (Ed.). The Routledge Handbook of Multilingualism. Routledge (pp. 232-246). Hsieh, H. F. & Shannon, S. E. (2005). Three Approaches to Qualitative Content Analysis. Qualitative Health Research 15(9). 1277-1288. DOI: 10.1177/1049732305276687. Johnson, D. C. (2013). Language Policy. Palgrave Macmillan. König, J. (2013). First comes the theory, then the practice? On the acquisition of general pedagogical knowledge during initial teacher education. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education 11. 999-1028. Kuckartz, U. & Rädiker, S. (2022). Qualitative Content Analysis: Methods, Practice and Software. SAGE. Putjata, G., Brizić, K., Goltsev, E., & Olfert, H. (2022). Introduction: Towards a multilingual turn in teacher professionalization. Language and Education, 36(5), 399–403. DOI: 10.1080/09500782.2022.2114804 MAXQDA, Software für qualitative Datenanalyse (2022). VERBI Software. Consult. Sozialforschung GmbH, Berlin, Deutschland. van der Akker, J., Fasoglio, D. & Mulder, H. (2010). A curriculum perspective on plurilingual education. Council of Europe. https://rm.coe.int/16805a1e57