Multilingual Education Yearbook 2020: Teacher Education and Multilingual Contexts 3030412105, 9783030412104

Table of contents :
Contents
Preparation of Teachers and Multilingual Education: Ethical, Just, and Student-Focussed Practices
1 Multilingual Context of Teacher Education
1.1 Plurilingual Competence
1.2 Language Classrooms
1.3 Multilingualism and Educational Demands
2 Challenges for Teacher Education
2.1 Reconceptualization of Pedagogies
2.2 Language Awareness in Teacher Education Programs
3 Educating Teachers for Multilingual Pedagogies
3.1 Multilingual Educators
3.2 Understanding Bilingual Students and Their Families
3.3 Knowledge of Language and Bilingualism/Multilingualism
3.4 Awareness of How to Deliver Pedagogies for Multilingualism
4 Conclusion
References
Critical Pre-service Intersections: Parental Engagement in EAL/D Contexts
1 Introduction
2 Sociocultural and Ecological Foundations of Parental Engagement
2.1 Sociocultural Foundations
2.2 Ecological Foundations
3 Parental Engagement in EAL/D and Diverse Contexts
3.1 Policy Barriers and Current Situation
4 Research Design and Key Findings
4.1 Teacher Educator Perspectives
5 New Directions
References
Preparing Teachers as Multilingual Educators: Optimizing Achievement of National English Language Education Policy Objectives in China
1 Introduction
2 Cantonese in Guangdong
3 English Language Education and English Language Teacher Education Policy
4 The Monolingual Approach to Language Teaching
5 Multilingual Approaches to Language Teaching and Teacher Education
5.1 Multilingual Classrooms in Chinese ELT
6 The Way Forward
References
EAL Teachers’ (Un)Preparedness to Implement Classroom Practice for Multiliteracies Pedagogy
1 Introduction
2 Context for the Study
3 Literacy, Multiliteracies and the Preparation of Teachers for Multilingual Contexts
4 Methodology: Participants, Data Collection and Analysis
4.1 Findings and Discussion
4.2 Diverse Contexts Need More Prepared Teachers
5 Conclusion
References
Decolonialization in the Concrete: Honoring the Expertise of Local Teachers in EFL Contexts
1 Introduction
2 International Context
3 The Project
3.1 Theoretical Framework
4 Methodology
4.1 Findings
5 Discussion and Implications
References
Language-Focused Feedback and Written Communication Difficulties of Multilingual Students: Improving Teacher Preparedness
1 Background
1.1 Language-Focused Feedback and Development of ELD and Written Communication
2 Conceptualising the Project
2.1 Phase 1: Taking Action for Understanding
2.2 Phase 2: Working with Emerging Understandings
3 Data and Analysis
3.1 Phase 1 Findings
3.2 Phase 2 Findings
4 Discussion
5 Conclusion and Implications
References
The Future for Ethnic Korean Minority Education in China: A Challenge for Teacher Education
1 Introduction
2 The Changing Context of Ethnic Korean Minority Education
3 Issues and Policy Responses for Ethnic Korean Education
3.1 Korean Mobility and Bilingual Teacher Demand
4 The Future for Ethnic Korean Teacher Education: Recommendations and Conclusions
5 Conclusion
References
English Language Teacher Education for Multilingual Singapore: Responding to the Fourth Industrial Revolution
1 Introduction
2 Singapore’s Bilingual Education Policy
2.1 English-Knowing Bilingualism in Singapore
2.2 Survival-Driven Education (1965–1978)
3 Future-Ready English Teachers for Future-Ready Learners
3.1 Future-Ready Attributes
3.2 Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK)
3.3 Pedagogical Knowledge
3.4 Knowledge of Context (Professional Awareness)
3.5 Subject Matter Knowledge
3.6 Developing Digital Information Discernment
4 Conclusion
References
Multilingualism in Teaching Chinese to Speakers of Other Languages (TCSOL): Insights from TCSOL Teacher Education
1 Introduction
1.1 Mono- and Multilingual Approaches and Language Education
2 Teaching Chinese as a Foreign Language (CFL)
3 TCSOL Teacher Education
3.1 Origins of Data
3.2 Observations
4 Discussion
4.1 Factors of Practice
5 Concluding Remarks
References
Norms of Practices and Pre-service Teacher Education for Multilingual Mathematics Classrooms in South Africa
1 Introduction
2 Norms and Mathematics Teaching and Learning
3 Theoretical Orientation
4 The Study
4.1 Method of Analysis
4.2 Findings from Study
5 Discussion
6 Concluding Remarks
References
Teachers’ Cognitions on Motivating Language Learners in Multilingual Hong Kong
1 Introduction
2 Teacher Cognition
2.1 Autonomy and Agency
2.2 Motivational Teaching Practice
3 The Study
3.1 Context: Medium of Instruction Policy in Hong Kong
3.2 Participants
3.3 Interviews
3.4 Analysis
3.5 Findings
4 Conclusion
References

Citation preview

Multilingual Education Yearbook

Wenhao Tao Indika Liyanage   Editors

Multilingual Education Yearbook 2020 Teacher Education and Multilingual Contexts

Multilingual Education Yearbook Series Editor Indika Liyanage, School of Education, Deakin University, Burwood, VIC, Australia Advisory Editors Bob Adamson, Department of International Education and Lifelong Learning, The Education University of Hong Kong, Tai Po, Hong Kong SAR, Hong Kong Suresh Canagarajah, Department of Applied Linguistics and English, Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA, USA Andy Kirkpatrick, Department of Humanities, Languages and Social Science, Griffith University, Nathan, QLD, Australia Parlo Singh, Griffith Institute for Educational Research, Griffith University, Mt. Gravatt Campus, Mount Gravatt, QLD, Australia

The Multilingual Education Yearbook publishes high-quality empirical research on education in multilingual societies. It publishes research findings that in addition to providing descriptions of language learning, development and use in language contact and multilingual contexts, will shape language education policy and practices in multilingual societies. The Multilingual Education Yearbook is highly relevant to researchers in language and education, language education professionals, and policy makers, covering topics such as: • The effects of multilingual education and literacy education on the maintenance and development of multilingualism. • The effects of the introduction of English as a curriculum subject and/or medium of instruction upon multilingual and literacy education. • The respective role(s) of vernaculars and ‘local’ languages, national languages and English in education, especially where the languages are of different language families, and scripts are different or languages lack an orthography. • The role in multilingual education of other major languages such as Arabic, French, Hindi, Mandarin and Spanish. • The effects of multilingual and/or English language education on school drop out and retention rates. • The effects of the ‘internationalization’ of universities worldwide, potential privileging of the English language and of knowledge published in English. • Bilingual/multilingual acquisition of non-cognate and ‘different-script’ languages. • Takeholder attitudes toward notions of multilingualism and related notions of linguistic proficiency, standards, models and varieties. • Critical evaluations of language policy and its implementation.

More information about this series at http://www.springer.com/series/15827

Wenhao Tao Indika Liyanage •

Editors

Multilingual Education Yearbook 2020 Teacher Education and Multilingual Contexts

123

Editors Wenhao Tao School of Foreign Languages Beijing Normal University Tangjia, Zhuhai, Guangdong, China

Indika Liyanage School of Education Deakin University Burwood, VIC, Australia

ISSN 2522-5421 ISSN 2522-543X (electronic) Multilingual Education Yearbook ISBN 978-3-030-41210-4 ISBN 978-3-030-41211-1 (eBook) https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-41211-1 © Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020 This work is subject to copyright. All rights are reserved by the Publisher, whether the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission or information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology now known or hereafter developed. The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use. The publisher, the authors and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the authors or the editors give a warranty, expressed or implied, with respect to the material contained herein or for any errors or omissions that may have been made. The publisher remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. This Springer imprint is published by the registered company Springer Nature Switzerland AG The registered company address is: Gewerbestrasse 11, 6330 Cham, Switzerland

Contents

Preparation of Teachers and Multilingual Education: Ethical, Just, and Student-Focussed Practices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Indika Liyanage and Wenhao Tao

1

Critical Pre-service Intersections: Parental Engagement in EAL/D Contexts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Luke Cuttance

23

Preparing Teachers as Multilingual Educators: Optimizing Achievement of National English Language Education Policy Objectives in China . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Minli Zhang

43

EAL Teachers’ (Un)Preparedness to Implement Classroom Practice for Multiliteracies Pedagogy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Leonardo Veliz and Shokouhi Hossein

63

Decolonialization in the Concrete: Honoring the Expertise of Local Teachers in EFL Contexts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Douglas Fleming

81

Language-Focused Feedback and Written Communication Difficulties of Multilingual Students: Improving Teacher Preparedness . . . . . . . . . . Nara Tsedendamba, Vittoria Grossi, and Michael Volkov

95

The Future for Ethnic Korean Minority Education in China: A Challenge for Teacher Education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 113 Lyu Hongbo English Language Teacher Education for Multilingual Singapore: Responding to the Fourth Industrial Revolution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 129 Ee-Ling Low

v

vi

Contents

Multilingualism in Teaching Chinese to Speakers of Other Languages (TCSOL): Insights from TCSOL Teacher Education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 149 Li Lei Norms of Practices and Pre-service Teacher Education for Multilingual Mathematics Classrooms in South Africa . . . . . . . . . . . 169 Anthony A. Essien Teachers’ Cognitions on Motivating Language Learners in Multilingual Hong Kong . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 193 Mairin Hennebry-Leung

Preparation of Teachers and Multilingual Education: Ethical, Just, and Student-Focussed Practices Indika Liyanage and Wenhao Tao

Abstract Preparing teachers for practice in multilingual education settings, across all education sectors and configurations, is increasingly a pressing issue for teacher education. This chapter canvasses several key issues confronting teachers—of language/s, of linguistically diverse student cohorts, of pedagogic practices, and in bi/multilingual education—that are indicative of new paradigms and considerations teacher education programs must accommodate. Traditional monolingual conceptualizations of language/s and bi/multilingualism that informed teacher preparation for language teaching and responding to the educational needs of linguistically diverse students are contested by more flexible, dynamic, and integrated models. These have significant implications for preparing teachers to adopt overarching approaches to multilingual classroom teaching, and day-to-day and moment-to-moment practices that are advantageous to their students, whether in schools or higher education. In doing so, teacher educators must also prepare preservice teachers to respond to local community needs, and more global needs expressed as public policy priorities, such literacy, technology, or bilingual education. The unavoidable phenomenon of internationalization of higher education means teacher educators themselves must consider how their own programs and practices can align with the needs of multilingual student cohorts in order to model appropriate practices, maximize learning, and equip graduates with the perspectives and skills to respond to diverse contexts in transfer and adaptation of pedagogies. In discussing these issues, we aim to foreground some current research that can contribute to development, reform or restructure of teacher education programs to achieve alignment with the demands of effective multilingual education and prepare teachers to respond to the circumstances they encounter with ethical, just, and student-focussed practices.

I. Liyanage (B) School of Education, Deakin University, Geelong, Australia e-mail: [email protected] W. Tao School of Foreign Languages, Beijing Normal University, Tangjia, Zhuhai, Guangdong, China e-mail: [email protected] © Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020 W. Tao and I. Liyanage (eds.), Multilingual Education Yearbook 2020, Multilingual Education Yearbook, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-41211-1_1

1

2

I. Liyanage and W. Tao

Keywords Critical teacher education · Monolingual pedagogies · Multilingual pedagogies · Multilingualism · Plurilingual practices

1 Multilingual Context of Teacher Education Preparing teachers for practice in multilingual education settings, across all education sectors and configurations, occupies an important position in efforts to improve educational outcomes and quality for all stakeholders, and is increasingly a pressing issue for teacher education. The manifestation of multilingualism in the early twentyfirst century “goes beyond the mere expansion of individuals’ linguistic knowledge, or augmentation of languages, and the growing number of multilinguals and multilingual countries” (Aronin, 2015, p. 5) to the processes that sustain global activities that impact on the lives of almost every human. Multilingual education is vital to both just and competitive participation in these global processes and for opportunities to enjoy the benefits of increases in prosperity. In preparing teachers for practice as multilingual educators, teacher education must address both demand for multilingualism through languages education and the challenges of teaching in diversely multilingual classrooms (García & Kleyn, 2013), both important foci of education policy and institutional priorities. Teacher education itself, and particularly English language teacher education, is a global commodity, and teacher educators cannot ignore the need for multilingual pedagogies in their own work with students of diverse language backgrounds. So pervasive is the multilingual nature of contemporary education that in many contexts, the demand for responses to achieve quality outcomes for learners is manifested in state-administered standards and performance cultures that regulate entry to and practice of the profession of teaching. These developments are opportunities for educators of teachers at all levels to provide programs that equip practitioners with the knowledge, understandings, and skills to adopt multilingual pedagogies. This chapter attempts to foreground how these and other challenges and complexities interact in the preparation and subsequent practice of teachers, both of language/s and of other curriculum content areas, and how they impact on educational processes, developments and outcomes.

1.1 Plurilingual Competence Multilingualism, in the sense of plurilingual competence (Council of Europe, 2001), has long been a feature of everyday life for the majority of the world’s population (Cenoz, 2013), but it is only comparatively recently that conceptualizations of language(s) and language(s) use as target and medium of learning in educational settings have begun to come to terms with the idea that languages might not constitute discrete sets of knowledge, and that multilingualism is not “plural monolingualisms … (but rather) the mobilization of diverse language resources” (Makoni & Pennycook,

Preparation of Teachers and Multilingual Education: Ethical …

3

2012, p. 439). The implications of these ideas for approaches to language pedagogy, and to teaching and learning in linguistically diverse classroom are profound, and the omnipresence of multilingual education settings means that all teachers, not only language teachers and specialist teachers, need to be prepared to adopt multilingual pedagogies (García & Kleyn, 2013) that take full advantage of the linguistic resources of their students to advance learning (Catalano & Hamann, 2016). Although the competencies essential for effective multilingual pedagogies are grounded on principles that extend beyond mere knowledge of language, what multilingual educators do need to know about learning of and through language reflects increasingly diverse contexts and models of language learning and of using language to learn. In linguistically diverse mainstream classrooms, the focus on acquisition of dominant languages and subtractive models of bilingual education needs to be supplanted by recognition of the cognitive advantages of multilingualism and multiliteracy. Teachers need to be ready to engage as part of their classroom practices in negotiation of “complex discursive practices in order to make sense and communicate” (García & Kleyn, 2013, p. 4) so they can leverage the language resources of students as assets in learning. In specialist language learning classrooms, research (Hall & Cook, 2012) suggests learners’ existing language resources are very much in use by both teachers and learners, and as an affordance too valuable to be ignored or avoided, teachers need to be equipped with research-based principles and strategies that enable them, and their learners, to capitalize on the knowledge they bring to their learning.

1.2 Language Classrooms Multilingual education in the sense of dedicated foreign or second language classrooms, or the presence in otherwise linguistically homogeneous classrooms of migrant children from non-dominant language backgrounds does not mean teaching in those classrooms is grounded in multilingual pedagogies. The settings, policies and practices of multilingual education are diverse, but monolingual orientations to language/s, and to the concept of multilingualism itself, have supported advocacy of monolingual pedagogies in teacher education for what is ostensibly multilingual education. Certainly, in the “current multilingualism” (Aronin, 2015), language learning classrooms and linguistically diverse classrooms are ubiquitous in education settings around the globe; multilingual classrooms are the inescapable reality for teachers of the estimated 40% of children across the globe unable to access education in their home language/s (Walter & Benson, 2012), but the teaching approaches adopted are frequently monolingual in orientation, language development and literacy in the home language for these learners ignored, and use of learners’ own language/s sometimes even punished (Alidou & Brock-Utne, 2011). Much of the teaching and learning of dominant languages, such as English or Mandarin, is driven by the international mobility of students in higher education. Teachers in university classrooms, in Anglophone nations in particular, have many

4

I. Liyanage and W. Tao

students learning through the medium of an additional language, despite an ongoing uncertainty “about whether general English proficiency (as measured even by a test such as IELTS which contains some academic language) and/or academic language proficiency (as provided by a general EAP programme) are sufficient” (Macaro, Curle, Pun, An, & Dearden, 2018) for effective participation in learning. In Australia, for instance, international students, overwhelmingly multilingual and/or from language backgrounds other than English, are around 23% of on-campus enrolments (Ferguson & Sherrell, 2019), yet languages other than English have no recognised place in classrooms, and the linguistic resources of students from language backgrounds are frequently considered by teachers to be not an asset, but an impediment or problem (Haugh, 2016; Liyanage & Walker, 2014). In other regions or classrooms in which the bulk of teachers and learners do share a local language, monolingual sensibilities underpin popular approaches and policies for teaching language/s and other curriculum areas (Cook, 2001), such as bilingual education, language immersion programs and content and language integrated learning, or the use of dominant languages such as English as medium of instruction across education sectors from primary to higher education. Yet both teachers and learners frequently lack the language proficiencies to teach and learn as successfully as they would if able to access their common language (Brock-Utne, 2012, 2016; Macaro et al., 2018), and teachers often struggle to sustain the strict compartmentalization of languages that these approaches prescribe, or compromise in response to context, circumstance, and the practicalities of teaching (Hall & Cook, 2012).

1.3 Multilingualism and Educational Demands In essence, the current multilingualism is making new demands on education that the monolingual conceptions of language/s and monolingual pedagogies that predominate in many educational settings do not satisfy. The unfortunate reality is that as populations have become more mobile and connected, and monolingual thinking that originated in the Western nation states has been challenged by exposure to plurilingual practices common elsewhere, geopolitical relations have meant that monolingual approaches to language in education and to language education have become, in theory at least, globally ascendant. Multilingual teacher education globally is frequently positioned by policy oriented to economic development, educational competitiveness, or national identity, influenced by Western educational approaches and academic research guided by implicit assumptions that reflect the political, social and cultural context of educational practice in Western settings. As the implications of the current multilingualism for education become clearer, teacher education has a central role in transforming education to use language advantageously and to equip learners with language knowledge necessary for effective communication in a world “where complex and incomplete bits and pieces of diverse language practices make up the linguistic repertoire of most speakers” (García & Flores, 2012, p. 244). This chapter sets out some of the key challenges for teacher education in preparation of

Preparation of Teachers and Multilingual Education: Ethical …

5

multilingual educators and draws on the chapters in this volume to foreground the nature, extent, and/or success of responses in a variety of settings.

2 Challenges for Teacher Education The challenges facing teacher education in the current multilingualism are far from straightforward. Each multilingual classroom community is multilingual “in their own way” (Aronin, 2015, p. 12), and language teaching/learning is a socially and culturally situated activity, and one in which the linguistic demands vary according to a range of factors (Hall & Cook, 2012)—the purpose/s of learning, the existing linguistic resources of learners, the setting/s of use, etc. Generic foreign and second language pedagogies that target ‘native-like’ proficiency, or assume use only with monolingual speakers of the additional language, do not account for the dynamic and fluid nature of language ecologies in which language/s are used today. Overgeneralization (Hall & Cook, 2012), based on assumptions that language pedagogies are equally applicable and useful in all settings, has meant a lack of specificity in preparing teachers for teaching particular languages to specific groups; as Hall and Cook (2012, p. 276) point out, it is largely “common sense [that] …the teaching of English to Chinese speakers would demand a different approach from the teaching of English to French speakers.” Language teacher education needs to be built around pedagogies that prepare learners for participation in multilingual societies in which many users of ‘target languages’ often have extensive multilingual resources available for achieving communicative goals, varieties of ‘dominant’ languages are commonplace, and plurilingual practices such as ‘codeswitching’ are unremarkable. To prepare teachers to practise in schools where it is not uncommon for students of dozens of linguistic backgrounds to come together demands a cross-curricular approach that moves from ‘multicultural’ perspectives that ‘showcase’ linguistic and cultural backgrounds of students as points of difference in relation to a dominant group(s), to one that situates teachers and students as co-participants in the dynamic hyperdiversity of classrooms (Liyanage, Singh, & Walker, 2016). The emphasis on diversity in teacher education tends to “position teachers as identifiers of ethnolinguistic diversity, as responders to diversity, as accommodators of diversity” (Liyanage et al., 2016, p. 211), implicitly establishing supposed norms against which difference is too easily judged as deficit (Bourne, 2003). Preservice teachers in many settings enter their preparation with dominant language ideologies that reflect widespread and entrenched views of linguistic uniformity as necessary and advantageous in education, and in fact as one of the goals of education in multilingual settings (Hélot, 2012). A teacher education responsive to the current multilingualism must aim to disrupt these patterns of thinking to shift teachers’ pedagogic responses to non-dominant language resources from compensatory remediation to expansion and development as highly valuable educational social resources aligned with the demands and opportunities of the current multilingualism (Hélot, 2012).

6

I. Liyanage and W. Tao

2.1 Reconceptualization of Pedagogies Critical teacher education pedagogy will need to acknowledge and explore the linguistic ideologies that inform linguistic prejudices not just in the domain of education, but across whole communities; overturning monolingual ideologies in the thinking of teachers is a necessary first step to reconceptualization of pedagogies for multilingual literacies. The first step in achieving this reorientation is to support preservice teachers to reflect on and recognise “their own understandings of themselves in relation to others and how societal norms, expectations, and worldviews have been integral to shaping their images and perceptions of themselves and others” (Milner, 2010, p. 120). It is vital that this process of reflection be explicit and sustained, as research on teacher cognition (Borg, 2003), or the beliefs and values that guide teachers’ pedagogic decision-making in practice, suggests conceptions of teaching formed prior to professional learning are resistant to change. This resistance has been identified specifically in relation monolingual predispositions and introduction of multilingual pedagogies (Portolés & Martí, 2018). Furthermore, as beliefs about teaching become entrenched through practice, and socialization into teaching reinforces dominant language ideologies, any change becomes even more unlikely without sound understanding of viable alternatives (Catalano, Moundiba, & Pir, 2019). It is an illjudged assumption that pedagogies advocated in language teacher education, and teacher education more generally, are those subsequently practised in classrooms by graduates (Borg, 2003; Lortie, 1975). For example, in a study of the use of learners’ own language/s by teachers in English language classrooms, involving 2,785 ELT teachers from more than one hundred countries, Hall and Cook (2013) found that although both pre- and in-service teacher-training programmes were strongly identified as discouraging own-language use in class … that own-language use is an established part of ELT classroom practice, and that teachers, while recognising the importance of English within the classroom, do see a range of useful functions for the own language in their teaching. (pp. 26–27)

What these findings tell us is that the approaches that have for many decades dominated language teaching research and literature, and language teacher education, are not always enacted in classrooms around the world. Although Hall and Cook (2012, p. 278) suggest this indicates that ELT classrooms, at least, have been multilingual “in spite of the monolingual principles and norms which have been assumed within the language teaching literature over the last hundred years”, the preparedness of teachers to engage in practices such as codeswitching might be evidence that teachers make decisions about their teaching practices on the basis of complex individual knowledge shaped by experience, beliefs, context, and practicality (Borg, 2003), but it is not evidence of theoretically justified and considered multilingual pedagogies. What it does suggest, to begin, is that the formal preparation of multilingual educators needs to attend to how teachers can and do develop and refine their practice given the variables research has identified, rather than prescribing specific methods or approaches. This aligns well with the need to prepare teachers to be multilingual

Preparation of Teachers and Multilingual Education: Ethical …

7

educators who work with, rather than resist, linguistic diversity as it is encountered and as a learning resource, whether it be in the specialist language classroom, or in settings in which multilingual approaches can be integrated across the curriculum.

2.2 Language Awareness in Teacher Education Programs One approach to cultivating multilingual sensibilities, suggested by Hélot (2012), is introduction of language awareness in teacher education programs, to direct preservice teachers attention to attitudes to language and to encourage reflection on “the relationships between language and power in the classroom and in the curriculum” (de Mejía & Hélot, 2015, p. 274). But this needs to be embedded in a multilingual teacher education pedagogy that reflects and models the whole-curriculum approach required in schools, that values the multilingual resources and experiences of pre-service teachers, that prioritizes multilingual pedagogies as valuable in school communities, and that collaborates with schools to ensure programs integrate experiences in linguistically diverse classrooms. There are, however, structural obstacles that need to be addressed. In many settings, monolingual ideologies and language policies have privileged dominant languages as requisite for entry to the teaching profession and resulted in structural marginalization of members of minority language groups. In countries such as Australia, for example, policies require preservice teachers from other language backgrounds (including language teachers) to demonstrate near-‘native’ English proficiency in recognized tests of language, especially in speaking and listening (Liyanage & Walker, 2014). This monolingual bias has resulted in a teacher workforce that includes relatively few teachers of language backgrounds other than English educated outside Australia, that is, few teachers who closely resemble many of the students in Australian classrooms (McKenzie, Weldon, Rowley, Murphy, & McMillan, 2014; Noble & Watkins, 2014; Reid, Collins, & Singh, 2014). Without necessary policy reform that overturns the current preference for linguistic homogeneity in preservice teacher cohorts, teacher educators will find it difficult to disrupt monolingual perspectives that see diversity as something that involves others, and not be able to provide a learning environment in which multilinguality and plurilingual practices can be productively explored, and students in schools will be denied examples of diversity of language practices being valued not just by their teachers, but in their teachers.

3 Educating Teachers for Multilingual Pedagogies Multilingual pedagogies are grounded not only in conceptions of language which question the notion of named languages and boundaries between them, and which validate the use in classrooms of dynamic and fluid hybrid language practices characteristic of multilingual interaction. There is also a parallel question of social justice

8

I. Liyanage and W. Tao

to address “the linguistic inequalities that come about when students are forced to strictly separate languages (e.g., they are corrected for mixing languages to fill a communicative gap), or when varieties they speak … are devalued or invisible in schools” (Catalano et al., 2019, p. 57). Despite a significant body of work on theoretical and practical aspects of multilingual pedagogies (e.g., Catalano & Hamann, 2016; Catalano et al., 2019; García & Flores, 2012; García & Kleyn, 2013; García & Li, 2014; Lucas & Villegas, 2013; Macaro, 2009; Swain, Kirkpatrick, & Cummins, 2011; Tian & Macaro, 2012; Zhao & Macaro, 2016), the implications of these ideas generally appear daunting to teachers, constrained not only by institutional policy frameworks and/or by monolingual preconceptions discussed above, but for teachers across the curriculum by the complexities of including (ever-changing) diverse linguistic and culturally-situated resources of students in teaching and learning, of adapting to broader community, policy and social changes in school and higher education settings and prescribed curriculums (García & Flores, 2012). This need for flexibility that underpins multilingual pedagogies means teacher educators need to provide overarching theoretically-sustained principles that can guide practice, rather than “just a set of activities to include the numerous languages of students in a class” (Hélot, 2012, p. 224).

3.1 Multilingual Educators García and Kleyn (2013, pp. 1–2) propose three strands of competencies for teacher education programs for multilingual educators: “(a) understanding about bilingual students and their families, especially students from language minority backgrounds; (b) knowledge of language and bilingualism/multilingualism; and (c) awareness of how to deliver pedagogy for multilingualism.” Central to these is recognition of the value and validity of all language knowledge and practices, and of language/s as resource/s that can be built upon for learning across curriculums (Catalano et al., 2019). Multilingual educators need to be prepared with “strategies that make it possible for learners to transfer knowledge and cognitive strategies across languages, to compare language use and critically assess information” (Hélot, 2012, p. 224). In the remainder of this chapter we introduce explorations of these ideas from a variety of settings, and with a variety of perspectives, that are presented in the chapters that comprise this volume. They provide insights into teacher education for specialist language teachers, for teachers working with classrooms of linguistically diverse students, and into the practices of teacher educators themselves. What becomes clear is not just the challenges confronting teacher educators in preparation of multilingual educators, but the urgent need for multilingual pedagogies that are aligned with the current multilingualism and to ensure language is used justly as an affordance in teaching and learning.

Preparation of Teachers and Multilingual Education: Ethical …

9

3.2 Understanding Bilingual Students and Their Families The need for preparation of multilingual educators to include a focus on developing understanding about bilingual students and their families, especially students from language minority backgrounds, is a pressing issue given that, as noted earlier, 40% of children across the globe are unable to access education in their home language/s (Walter & Benson, 2012). Teacher education, whether in settings that are historically multilingual or are increasingly so due to mobility and migration, both voluntary and humanitarian, has a responsibility to find ways to prepare teachers for enacting pedagogies that value and embrace the diverse backgrounds, practices, resources, and broader life contexts of learners (Liyanage, 2019a, 2019b). This foregrounds the competence to collaborate with the families of students, and their communities, as a key element of teacher practice in multilingual education, one that can be developed and refined through experience, but for which preservice teachers must be readied by teacher educators. Geopolitical circumstances have positioned English as a dominant language, and teacher education around the world is tasked with preparation of teachers for practice in a variety of classrooms devoted to developing “multilingualism with English” (Hoffmann, 2000, p. 3). These include specialist language classrooms, English medium instruction (EMI) and/or bilingual classrooms for ostensibly linguistically homogeneous cohorts of language backgrounds other than English, and English dominant EMI settings in linguistically diverse classrooms across all curriculum areas. Cuttance (2020) uses the perceptions of teacher educators to investigate the success of teacher education programs in Australia in preparation of graduates for initiating and encouraging engagement with the parents of English-as-an-additionallanguage (EAL) students in mainstream classrooms to facilitate “fitting together their knowledge of children, teaching and learning, with teachers’ knowledge” (Pushor & Ruitenberg, 2005, p. 13). What emerged was a failure of the teacher education curriculum to align theory with practice. Sociocultural and ecological theoretical perspectives on education foregrounded in programs assume additional significance, Cuttance argues, in the learning of EAL students and emphasise the vital importance of teachers taking steps to know and understand the social and language practices of students in their lives outside the classroom. Teacher educators in the study acknowledge that teacher capability for parental engagement is a key element of successful multilingual schooling for EAL students, but also that it is marginalized in teacher education curriculums. There are implicit expectations that exposure to multilingual classrooms and school communities during teaching practicums and students’ own lived experiences will suffice, and a failure to provide any structured experiences or practical orientation to development of relationships that will enable access to knowledge of EAL students and their families. Ironically, given the advantages of linguistic diversity in the current multilingualism, the alignment of accreditation requirements of teacher education programs with the demands of employing authorities has meant a prioritization of teaching competencies directed toward convergent homogenization rather than building on the value of diversity as an asset. Competence in parental

10

I. Liyanage and W. Tao

engagement is positioned as useful but not core to teacher practice, and the focus for teacher educators in a crowded curriculum is preparing their students to satisfy the more instrumental demands of employers. In a broad sense, teacher education is guided by neoliberal performativity that, especially in an English-dominant setting, prioritizes linguistic homogenization. The reflections of the teacher educators revealed a piecemeal approach to multilingual education, and an absence of multilingual pedagogies in teacher education itself; the perception is that multilingual pedagogy is appropriate in particular teaching settings and specializations, and thus not, as García and Kleyn (2013, p. 1, emphasis in the original) contend, “the only way to educate children in the twenty-first century … (for which) all teachers must be prepared.”

Understanding of Bi/Multilingual Students as an Essential Competence Within Teacher Education The understanding of bi/multilingual students identified by García and Kleyn (2013) as an essential competence for teacher education extends beyond students, their learning practices in the classroom, and the home language and cultural practices of families and communities, to include the socio-political contexts of students’ lives. Linguistic rights in education for minority communities are frequently matters of policies that privilege dominant languages, and by extension the approaches by teacher education. There are notable exceptions. In linguistically diverse South Africa, for example, multilingual and translanguaging pedagogies are practised in higher education, including teacher education (see Catalano & Hamann, 2016, pp. 268–269). Elsewhere in Africa, the picture is mixed, and the many educational responses to complex linguistic ecologies have “failed the majority of those children who have had access to school systems” (Heugh, 2011b, p. 105) during and post colonization, and Heugh (2011a) identifies poorly prepared teachers as a significant contributing factor. Teacher education is frequently conducted in dominant languages (sometimes that of former European colonizers) in which minority language teacher candidates lack necessary proficiency. Teacher educators are themselves often ill-equipped to prepare teachers for practice in multilingual classrooms, so much so that in 2002 a South African university commenced a program ‘Training of Trainers for Multilingual Education’ (Heugh, 2011a, p. 282) “to equip teacher educators and language education policy and planning officials with the information they require to take the decisions which will best accommodate the language learning and educational needs of students in their respective African country.” Likewise, policy approaches in linguistically diverse nations in the Asian region vary. Indonesia, where more than 700 language are in use, has used the national language, identified by less than ten per cent of the population as their primary language, to pursue a unified national identity through a progressively more monolingually-oriented approach to language in education (Walker, Liyanage, Madya, & Hidayati, 2019). China, on the other hand, has a long standing policy promoting bilingual education for the numerous recognized ethnic minorities (Gao & Wang, 2017), although

Preparation of Teachers and Multilingual Education: Ethical …

11

grounded in a monolingual ethos. While the models used in education vary (Shan, 2018), they are all constructed on separation of languages, that is, bilingualism as a dual competence (MacSwan, 2017) conceived of as “two [or more] monolinguals in one body” (Creese & Blackledge, 2010, p. 105). The mandatory learning of Putonghua (Mandarin) as national lingua franca and official medium of school instruction “within a discourse of progress, opportunity, national unity and harmonious society” (Beckett & Postiglione, 2013, p. 3) is viewed by some as a long term exercise in assimilation in the guise offering minorities educational and economic opportunities. One issue, among many, confronting the diverse iterations of bilingual education in China remains education of quality teachers to deliver quality ethnic minority language and bilingual and trilingual (minority, Mandarin, and English languages) education that satisfies the needs of diverse minority communities, and diverse expectations of education within those communities. An illustrative example of the dilemmas facing multilingual teacher education is offered by Lyu’s (2020) examination of the current state of Korean ethnic minority education. Ethnic Korean education in China, especially in Yanbian autonomous prefecture in the east of Jilin Province near the border with North Korea, has been enabled by local teacher education institutions for more than one hundred years (Qingxia & Yan, 2001), well before the system of ethnic minority education was established in 1951 by the new People’s Republic of China. Teachers have been prepared for two key objectives—to teach Korean as a heritage language for preservation of Korean cultural values and practices, and to provide high quality schooling for the Korean community, which holds education in high esteem. The decades of success as a model of ethnic minority education in China (Lee, 1987) suggests achievement of social justice for a minority language group, but changing socio-political circumstances have seen a decline in student, school, and teacher numbers, curriculum and geographic structural imbalances in the teacher workforce, and a crisis of quality. At a time when reforms opening China’s economy to international engagement have reconfigured the perception of Korean as invested with more value than simply a heritage language, paradoxically many ethnic Koreans are opting out of bilingual education in preference for Mandarin-medium schools. Lyu (2020) argues that revitalization of teacher education to revive the successes of the past requires a reorientation and restructuring of the teacher preparation educational programs currently offered, and adoption of multilingual pedagogies that reflect the new economic and social realities of the ethnic Korean population, as well as recognizing the potential that lies in reconceptualization of multilingualism as plurilingual competence more suited to the contemporary relevance of Korean in the current multilingualism. Ethnic Korean teacher education needs to respond to the languaging practices not just of young Koreans, but to position teachers to offer linguistic capital to students of non-Korean backgrounds, hopefully transforming Korean bilingual education to meet the more diverse needs of what is increasingly recognized a diverse community. Preservation of language and culture is not necessarily a universal first priority among Chinese Koreans, and many are looking beyond bilingual education to trilingual curriculums that advance both in-community heritage language maintenance and

12

I. Liyanage and W. Tao

development of capacities and skills relevant to the more open and connected world. Ethnic Korean education in China provides an example of the need for teachers to be prepared for development of a “socio-political consciousness” (García & Kleyn, 2013, p. 2) of their students and families as a complex community with diverse expectations of education.

3.3 Knowledge of Language and Bilingualism/Multilingualism Without knowledge and understanding of language, language development, and language practices, and of multilingualism, teachers cannot “be prepared both to advance the plurilingual competencies of students, as well as teach students with different home language practices and bilingual abilities” (García & Kleyn, 2013). Monolingual conceptions of languages as separate and bounded that have historically guided preparation of language teacher specialists and language support teachers do not account for the reality of language practices, both in and out of classrooms. If we accept that all teachers are involved with development of language and literacy, then all teachers, not just specialist language teachers, need to understand that all the language knowledge of emergent bi/multilinguals (García, Kleifgen, & Falchi, 2008) is a resource for development of multilingual literacy and further learning across the curriculum (Catalano & Hamann, 2016). Although theoretical knowledge of cognitive processes and sociolinguistic issues is essential, teacher education needs to familiarize preservice teachers with social and language practices that can support multilingual learning. The use of students’ (and teachers’) own language/s (Hall & Cook, 2012) and communicative practices in conjunction with new language knowledge or the language of instruction as a communicative and learning resource involves translanguaging, “the process by which students and teachers engage in complex discursive practices in order to make sense and communicate in multilingual classrooms” (García & Kleyn, 2013, p. 4). While many of these practices can be analysed from a monolingual perspective as code-switching, or crossing boundaries between two defined linguistic codes, in translanguaging the language user draws upon different linguistic, cognitive and semiotic resources to make meaning and make sense. The identities of individual languages in structural and/or sociopolitical terms only become relevant when the user deliberately manipulates them. Moreover, translanguaging defines language as a multilingual, multimodal, and multisensory senseand meaning-making resource. In doing so, it seeks to challenge boundaries: boundaries between named languages, boundaries between the so-called linguistic, paralinguistic and non-linguistic means of communication, and boundaries between language and other human cognitive capacities. (Li, 2018, para. 4)

While specialist language teachers who share language/s with learners have particular opportunities to deploy practices strategically as well as on an ad hoc basis in response to students’ use of their own language/s, teacher educators need to introduce

Preparation of Teachers and Multilingual Education: Ethical …

13

all preservice teachers to the various learning opportunities offered by translanguaging and specific strategies for doing so as valid classroom practice that supports learning of both language and content (García & Li, 2014). In many settings, however, policy exerts restrictions on the use of students’ (and teachers’) own languages.

Target Language and Medium of Instruction (MOI) In China, the Ministry of Education, influenced by language teaching approaches imported from the West, such as communicative and task-based language teaching, recommends that language teacher education programs promote the use of the target language as MOI (medium of instruction) (Ministry of Education, 2001a, in Zhang, 2020). Teachers are warned that failure to keep languages completely separate has a negative impact on learning of the ‘target’ language (Zhang, 2020). In this context, Zhang (2020) discusses the preparation of English teachers of millions of young Cantonese English language learners in Chinese schools in Guangdong province. The linguistic status of Cantonese is an unresolved question; although its tens of millions of users are convinced of its distinctiveness, within mainland China it is accorded the status of dialect, and, unlike the many ethnic minority languages, accorded no recognized place in school classrooms. Cantonese-speaking children learn Putonghua (Mandarin) as the official language of school instruction, and with English advocated as the MOI in English as a foreign language classes, their Cantonese language resources are officially marginalized in classroom learning. Zhang (2020) outlines the case for multilingual language-as-resource approaches (Catalano & Hamann, 2016; Cook, 2001; Cummins, 2007) and argues that the extensive local research indicating widespread use of both Cantonese and Putonghua by both teachers and learners in English language instruction is evidence that English language teacher educators should abandon monolingual approaches and adopt multilingual approaches with the attendant advantages for learning. By doing so, Zhang (2020) argues, teachers could be prepared to develop language pedagogies that make planned and judicious, rather than ad hoc, use of students existing language knowledge, practices and literacies, including both Cantonese and Putonghua, and furthermore, be freed of the guilt and dilemmas they currently experience when contravening official policy and curriculum guidelines. A similar situation in the preparation of language teachers is described by Li (2020), but of teachers of Chinese to speakers of other languages (TCSOL). Li (2020) investigated whether first/other language-as-teaching-and-learningresource pedagogies are evident in the curriculum of a TCSOL bachelor program in a Chinese university. The reflections of a TCSOL teacher educator and several of her TCSOL preservice teachers were considered in the context of core textbooks used in two CFL pedagogy courses taught by the teacher educator, a process that revealed inconsistent and ambiguous beliefs, attitudes, and practices. Preservice teachers observed that their practices during teaching assignments were inconsistent with their own beliefs and with those advocated by their teacher educator. Emphasis by both teacher educator and texts on learners’ own/first language/s as

14

I. Liyanage and W. Tao

points of difference and difficulty in learning promoted a negative attitude to use of existing language knowledge, and preservice teachers experienced dilemmas when their natural inclinations were to take advantage of their own and learners’ language resources. On the basis of a general objective of using Chinese-only in classroom interaction, TCSOL teachers were encouraged to evaluate their classroom practice on the basis of percentages of target language they used during a whole lesson, rather than any theoretically-framed choices about judicious language choice in particular situations. Li (2020) calls for teacher educators to engage in a re-evaluation of these current monolingual approaches in the light of the considerable theoretical and research literature, and adoption of a multilingual approach that values all learners’ and teachers’ language knowledge as resources to advance language learning in TCSOL classrooms.

Universal English Language Learning in School Curricular In the current manifestation of multilingualism described by Aronin (2015), the position of English as the global hypercentral (Cook, 2013) language has resulted in language education policy in many settings that mandate universal English language learning in school curricular. China, for example, introduces English language to all students from the third grade of primary school until the third year of high school (Zhang, 2020). Given the significant influence of learner motivation on success in language learning (Masgoret & Gardner, 2003), to support compulsory additional language education teacher education needs to equip language teachers with sound and practical knowledge and understanding of motivation in language teaching and learning and appropriate strategies for teacher practice (Hennebry-Leung, 2020). Compulsory English language learning in school education in multilingual Hong Kong is conducted in a variety of modes, including content-based instruction models using English as the medium of instruction across the curriculum, although other curriculum options are Chinese or mixed Chinese/English medium instruction (Hennebry-Leung, 2020). This offers a suitable context for an investigation conducted by Hennebry-Leung (2020) of the preparation of teachers to implement and adapt motivational strategies in their teaching practice across a range of multilingual settings, including contentbased instruction. What emerged was failure of many teachers to account for the diverse multilingual settings of their practice, a disconnect between formal learning and teacher practice in motivation of learners, and a reliance by many teachers on what Hennebry-Leung (2020) calls ‘everyday theories’ that do not reflect the dynamic nature of language learner motivation highlighted by research that also foregrounds role of teachers in influencing learner motivation. To achieve a more satisfactory outcome, Hennebry-Leung (2020) recommends teacher educators strive for a more multilingual pedagogy that uncovers pre-service teachers’ cognitions to provide opportunities for reconceptualizations of individuals’ understandings to align more closely with the need for informed strategic responses to motivation of diverse learners.

Preparation of Teachers and Multilingual Education: Ethical …

15

Knowledge of the Literacies and Information and Communication Technology (ICT) Knowledge of the literacies associated with connectedness and virtual mobility offered by information and communication technologies is an integral dimension of the current multilingualism which teacher education for multilingual education cannot ignore. Language practices that entail new forms of digital or multiliteracies and modes of meaning-making transform traditional boundaries of language knowledge. In all multilingual classrooms, teachers are needed with the knowledge to facilitate learners’ development of these new forms of literacy and meaning-making using the language resources at their disposal. Teacher educators in multilingual Singapore have engaged with this task by adoption of the goal of preparing future-ready English teachers (Low, 2020). With three recognized local languages and English as the medium of instruction in all education, plurilingual Singaporeans regularly engage in practices of mixing languages in domains of daily life, including education (Bolton & Botha, 2019), practices additionally complexified by the local English variety, Singlish. Singapore’s English teacher educators offer a curriculum for English-language teachers that ensures preservice teachers engage with questions of context, domain, and appropriacy of the language practices of their plurilingual students, and with issues of digital and critical literacy in the global setting of what Low (2020) refers to as the fourth industrial revolution. To achieve this, teachers’ knowledge of language includes an emphasis on technological pedagogical content knowledge, embedding technology-enabled language practices in pedagogies that account for the literacies that sustain relations in multiple online platforms. Turning from objectives to outcomes, the findings from Veliz and Shokouhi (2020) suggest that, in the case of Australia at least, preparation of teachers of multilingual students for pedagogies focussed on multimodal and multiliteracies is not systematically pursued. Drawing on reflections of practising EAL teachers, Veliz and Shokouhi (2020) argue that multimodal resources must be used consistently and explicitly by teacher educators to provide the foundations of a multiliteracies pedagogy for EAL classroom practice that is open to diverse language forms, modes, and practices. More broadly, the reflections of the EAL practitioners in the study conducted by Veliz and Shokouhi (2020) focussed attention on what appears to be a universal requisite for preparing multilingual educators. This includes the need to devote more attention to developing future teachers’ sensitivity to, and experience of, multilingual classroom settings, and how cultural, situational and contextual dimensions of multilingual cohorts both constrain practice and afford opportunities for learning.

16

I. Liyanage and W. Tao

3.4 Awareness of How to Deliver Pedagogies for Multilingualism Language Practices The teacher competences for multilingual pedagogies advocated by García and Kleyn (2013) are grounded on social justice and social practice. We argue that, if multilingual pedagogies are to be understood, endorsed, and adopted by preservice teachers, these competences need to be demonstrated by teacher educators in the design and delivery teacher preparation programs. This argument is supported by Essien (2020) who reports on the language practices of teacher educators in multilingual South African mathematics teacher education classrooms. Following an analysis of norms of practice in classroom interactions, Essien (2020) concludes that the knowledge of language practices that foster and facilitate learner interaction in multilingual mathematics classrooms common in South Africa need to be in use in multilingual teacher education classes, as well as given explicit attention rather than assuming exposure is adequate for incorporation to future practice. Norms of practice include both the language practices of mathematics and the language practices of classroom teaching and learning. As Essien (2020) points out, many teachers in multilingual teacher education classrooms, and this is the case not just in South Africa, are developing their own language proficiency as well as engaging with content, and recognition of the need for practices that accommodate this is a matter of justice as well as pedagogically sound. Language practices of a different kind, those used to provide written corrective feedback, are a second example of how teachers can strive to provide a more just multilingual learning environment (Tsedendamba, Grossi, & Volkov, 2020). Tsedendamba et al. (2020) participated in a project in which lecturers and language support staff at an Australian University adopted a collaborative approach to address the language and curriculum needs of a university course with a high enrolment of multilingual students. Despite enrolment of significant numbers of international students from language backgrounds other than English, noted earlier this chapter, Australian universities have struggled to find a model that adequately addresses the language and learning needs of international students in a setting essentially guided by monolingual approaches. In this study reported by Tsedendamba et al. (2020), teaching and support staff were concerned student learning progress and success was constrained by lack of meaningful and constructive written feedback on the written assignments of multilingual students. Without specific and explicit advice attuned to their own language proficiencies and practices, assignment work cannot be a useful learning experience. An exploratory practice research cycle was initiated to develop a framework for education of casual tutors responsible for assessment of student assignments, and to create a resource to guide their work. The researchers ultimately conclude that a commitment to multilingual pedagogies in this type of setting requires institutional

Preparation of Teachers and Multilingual Education: Ethical …

17

responses to address structural constraints that ensue from staff employment conditions. This raises important questions, not least of social justice, about the absence of multilingual pedagogies in a sector that relies on enrolments of multilingual students.

Pedagogic Skills and Agency The global hypercentrality (Cook, 2013) of English has already been noted, above, as has the universality of English language learning, and thus it is not surprising that the education of English language teachers is likewise a global phenomenon, in fact commonly regarded as an industry. The education in the institutions of Englishdominant nations of English teachers from language backgrounds other than English is fraught with the politics of native-speakerism, standard varieties, and the export of language teaching methods, approaches, and materials. A project to develop the pedagogic skills and agency of a group of English teachers from rural Yunnan province in China, reported by Fleming (this volume), has attempted to address some of these issues. A multilingual approach is evident in the importance accorded knowledge of the teachers and the context of their work, the explicit foregrounding in the curriculum program of the political dimensions of English language teaching, and the deployment of multilingual academic teaching staff in delivery of the program. In order to overturn the conventional model of transfer of knowledge from centre to periphery, the project employed what Fleming (2020) describes as a flexible, decentralized model of delivery that gave participants the power to modify or adapt content and tasks to align with their needs and realities. By acknowledging the Yunnan teachers as the experts in teaching English in their setting, the project designers made explicit the value accorded the knowledge these teachers brought with them. By building the language teacher education around social justice principles of equality, diversity, and autonomy, by valuing and learning from the social and language teaching practices of the visiting teachers, and by working as collaborators in learning, Fleming (2020) and his colleagues offer much for consideration by teacher educators.

4 Conclusion Teacher educators have at their disposal a wealth of theoretical, research and practical literature that can inform advocacy of multilingual pedagogies, but as the chapters in the rest of this volume indicate, widespread adoption of multilingual pedagogies remains a work in progress in many settings. Beginning with their own pedagogies, teacher educators need to demonstrate to preservice teachers that the current multilingualism requires multilingual educators who have transformed their own understanding of language and the language practices of learning in a multilingual world. This implies an explicit recognition of the value of multilingualism not just in education, but in the world for which education is preparing students. In addition, without explicit discussion of preservice teachers existing beliefs about language,

18

I. Liyanage and W. Tao

“developing new relationships to language and languages, new understandings of how language is used in society” (Hélot, 2012, p. 215) will not happen. The prevalence of monolingual homogenization in education is well entrenched, and for many new teachers this reinforces their linguistic prejudices and the perception that multilingual education is just too difficult and impractical. These views need to be disrupted at the point of teacher education, because “unless teachers’ pedagogies include the language practices of students, and unless all students are taught in ways that support and develop their diverse language practices, there cannot be any meaningful participation in education, and thus, in society” (García & Flores, 2012, p. 232). For teacher educators, the responsibility is clear and vital, and the place to begin - and the place to continue - the shift to multilingual pedagogies in teacher education is their own practice.

References Alidou, H., & Brock-Utne, B. (2011). Teaching practices: Teaching in a familiar language. In A. Ouane & C. Glanz (Eds.), Optimising learning, education and publishing in Africa: The language factor: A review and analysis of theory and practice in mother-tongue and bilingual education in sub-Saharan Africa (pp. 159–185). Hamburg: UNESCO Institute for Lifelong Learning (UIL) & Development of Education in Africa (ADEA)/African Development Bank. Aronin, L. (2015). Current multilingualism and new developments in multilingualism research. In M. P. S. Jordà & L. P. Falomir (Eds.), Learning and using multiple languages: Current findings from research on multilingualism (pp. 1–28). Newcastle upon Tyne, UK: Cambridge Scholars Publishing. Beckett, G. H., & Postiglione, G. A. (2013). China’s language policy for indigenous and minority education. In G. H. Beckett & G. A. Postiglione (Eds.), China’s assimilationist language policy: The impact on indigenous/minority literacy and social harmony (pp. 3–17). Abingdon, UK: Routledge. Bolton, K., & Botha, W. (2019). Multilingualism and language mixing among Singapore university students. In I. Liyanage & T. Walker (Eds.), Multilingual education yearbook 2019: Media of instruction & multilingual settings (pp. 43–61). New York: Springer. Borg, S. (2003). Teacher cognition in language teaching: A review of research on what language teachers think, know, believe, and do. Language Teaching, 36(02), 81–109. https://doi.org/10. 1017/S0261444803001903. Bourne, J. (2003). Remedial or radical? Second language support for curriculum learning. In J. Bourne & E. Reid (Eds.), World yearbook of education 2003: Language education (pp. 21–34). London: Kogan Page. Brock-Utne, B. (2012). Language policy and science: Could some African countries learn from some Asian countries? International Review of Education, 58(4), 481–503. https://doi.org/10. 1007/s11159-012-9308-2. Brock-Utne, B. (2016). English as the language of science and technology. In Z. Babaci-Wilhite (Ed.), Human rights in language and STEM education: Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics (pp. 111–128). Rotterdam: Sense Publishers. Catalano, T., & Hamann, E. T. (2016). Multilingual pedagogies and pre-service teachers: Implementing “language as a resource” orientations in teacher education programs. Bilingual Research Journal, 39(3–4), 263–278. https://doi.org/10.1080/15235882.2016.1229701.

Preparation of Teachers and Multilingual Education: Ethical …

19

Catalano, T., Moundiba, H. C. T., & Pir, H. (2019). ‘I felt valued’: Multilingual microteachings and the development of teacher agency in a teacher education classroom. Critical Multilingualism Studies, 7(3), 55–76. Cenoz, J. (2013). Defining multilingualism. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 33, 3–18. https:// doi.org/10.1017/S026719051300007X. Cook, V. (2001). Using the first language in the classroom. The Canadian Modern Language Review, 57(3), 402–423. https://doi.org/10.3138/cmlr.57.3.402. Cook, V. (2013). ELF: Central or atypical second language acquisition? In D. Singleton, J. A. Fishman, L. Aronin, & M. Ó. Laoire (Eds.), Current multilingualism: A new linguistic dispensation (pp. 27–44). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Council of Europe. (2001). Common European framework of reference for languages: Learning, teaching, assessment. Retrieved from http://www.coe.int/t/dg4/linguistic/source/framework_en. pdf. Creese, A., & Blackledge, A. (2010). Translanguaging in the bilingual classroom: A pedagogy for learning and teaching? The Modern Language Journal, 94(1), 103–115. https://doi.org/10.1111/ j.1540-4781.2009.00986.x. Cummins, J. (2007). Rethinking monolingual instructional strategies in multilingual classrooms. Canadian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 10(2), 221–240. Cuttance, L. (2020). Critical pre-service intersections: Parental engagement in EAL/D contexts. In W. Tao & I. Liyanage (Eds.), Multilingual education yearbook 2020—Teacher education and multilingual contexts (pp. 23–42). New York: Springer. de Mejía, A. M., & Hélot, C. (2015). Teacher education and support. In W. E. Wright, S. Boun, & O. Garcia (Eds.), Handbook of bilingual & multilingual education (pp. 270–281). Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell. Essien, A. A. (2020). Norms of practices and pre-service teacher education for multilingual mathematics classrooms in South Africa. In W. Tao & I. Liyanage (Eds.), Multilingual education yearbook 2020—Teacher education and multilingual contexts (pp. 169–191). New York: Springer. Ferguson, H., & Sherrell, H. (2019). Overseas students in Australian higher education: A quick guide. Retrieved from https://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_Departments/ Parliamentary_Library/pubs/rp/rp1819/Quick_Guides/OverseasStudents. Fleming, D. (2020). Decolonialization in the concrete: Honoring the expertise of local teachers in efl contexts. In W. Tao & I. Liyanage (Eds.), Multilingual education yearbook 2020—Teacher education and multilingual contexts (pp. 81–94). New York: Springer. Gao, X. A., & Wang, W. (2017). Bilingual education in the People’s Republic of China. In O. García, A. M. Y. Lin, & S. May (Eds.), Bilingual and multilingual education (3rd ed., pp. 219–231). Cham, Switzerland: Springer. García, O., & Flores, N. (2012). Multilingual pedagogies. In M. Martin-Jones, A. Blackledge, & A. Creese (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of multilingualism (pp. 232–246). Abingdon, UK: Routledge. García, O., Kleifgen, J. A., & Falchi, L. (2008). Equity Matters. From English language learners to emergent bilinguals. Research review no. 1. Campaign for Educational Equity, Teachers College, Columbia University. Retrieved from http://www.equitycampaign.org/i/a/document/6532_ Ofelia_ELL__Final.pdf. García, O., & Kleyn, T. (2013). Teacher education for multilingual education. In C. A. Chapelle (Ed.), The encyclopedia of applied linguistics (pp. 1–6). Oxford: Blackwell. García, O., & Li, W. (2014). Translanguaging in education: Principles, implications and challenges. In O. Garcia & W. Li (Eds.), Translanguaging: Language, bilingualism and education (pp. 119– 135). New York: Palgrave Macmillan. Hall, G., & Cook, G. (2012). Own-language use in language teaching and learning: State of the art. Language Teaching, 45(3), 271–308. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444812000067. Hall, G., & Cook, G. (2013). Own-language use in ELT: Exploring global practices and attitudes (ELT Research Papers 13–01). London: British Council.

20

I. Liyanage and W. Tao

Haugh, M. (2016). Complaints and troubles talk about the English language skills of international students in Australian universities. Higher Education Research & Development, 35(4), 727–740. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2015.1137878. Hélot, C. (2012). Linguistic diversity and education. In M. Martin-Jones, A. Blackledge, & C. Angela (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of multilingualism (pp. 214–231). London; New York: Routledge. Hennebry-Leung, M. (2020). Teachers’ cognitions on motivating language learners in multilingual Hong Kong. In W. Tao & I. Liyanage (Eds.), Multilingual education yearbook 2020—Teacher education and multilingual contexts (pp. 193–213). New York: Springer. Heugh, K. (2011a). Cost implications of the provision of mother-tongue and strong bilingual models of education in Africa. In A. Ouane & C. Glanz (Eds.), Optimising learning, education and publishing in Africa: The language factor: A review and analysis of theory and practice in mother-tongue and bilingual education in sub-Saharan Africa (pp. 255–289). Hamburg, Germany: UNESCO Institute for Lifelong Learning (UIL) & Association for the Development of Education in Africa (ADEA)/African Development Bank. Heugh, K. (2011b). Theory and practice—language education models in Africa: Research, design, decision-making and outcomes. In A. Ouane & C. Glanz (Eds.), Optimising learning, education and publishing in Africa: The language factor: A review and analysis of theory and practice in mother-tongue and bilingual education in sub-Saharan Africa (pp. 105–156). Hamburg, Germany: UNESCO Institute for Lifelong Learning (UIL) & Association for the Development of Education in Africa (ADEA)/African Development Bank. Hoffmann, C. (2000). The spread of English and the growth of mulitlingualism with English in Europe. In J. Cenoz & U. Jessner (Eds.), English in Europe: The acquisition of a third language (pp. 1–21). Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters. Lee, C.-J. (1987). The Korean minority in China: A model for ethnic education. Korean Studies, 11, 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1353/ks.1987.0000. Li, L. (2020). Multilingualism in teaching Chinese to speakers of other languages (TCSOL): Insights from TCSOL teacher education In W. Tao & I. Liyanage (Eds.), Multilingual education yearbook 2020—Teacher education and multilingual contexts (pp. 149–167). New York: Springer. Li, W. (2018). Translanguaging and code-switching: What’s the difference? Retrieved from https:// blog.oup.com/2018/05/translanguaging-code-switching-difference/. Liyanage, I. (2019a). Migration and mobility in childhood (Australia). In W. Corsaro & L. Perry (Eds.), Bloomsbury education and childhood studies: Childhood: Australia (Web). London: Bloomsbury. Liyanage, I. (2019b). Migration and mobility in youth (Australia). In K. Tilleczek & L. Perry (Eds.), Bloomsbury education and childhood studies: Childhood: Australia (Web). London: Bloomsbury. Liyanage, I., Singh, P., & Walker, T. (2016). Ethnolinguistic diversity within Australian schools: Call for a participant perspective in teacher learning. International Journal of Pedagogies and Learning, 11(3), 211–224. https://doi.org/10.1080/22040552.2016.1272529. Liyanage, I., & Walker, T. (2014). Accommodating Asian EAP practices within postgraduate teacher education. In L. I. & W. T. (Eds.), English for Academic purposes (EAP) in Asia (pp. 1–12). Rotterdam, The Netherlands: Sense Publishers. Lortie, D. (1975). Schoolteacher: A sociological study. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Low, E.-L. (2020). English language teacher education for multilingual singapore: Responding to the fourth industrial revolution. In W. Tao & I. Liyanage (Eds.), Multilingual education yearbook 2020—Teacher education and multilingual contexts (pp. 129–148). New York: Springer. Lucas, T., & Villegas, A. M. (2013). Preparing linguistically responsive teachers: Laying the foundation in preservice teacher education. Theory Into Practice, 52(2), 98–109. https://doi.org/10. 1080/00405841.2013.770327. Lyu, H. (2020). The future for ethnic Korean minority education in China: A challenge for teacher education. In W. Tao & I. Liyanage (Eds.), Multilingual education yearbook 2020—Teacher education and multilingual contexts (pp. 113–128). New York: Springer.

Preparation of Teachers and Multilingual Education: Ethical …

21

Macaro, E. (2009). Teacher use of codeswitching in the second language classroom: Exploring ‘optimal’ use. In M. Turnbull & J. Dailey-O’Cain (Eds.), First language use in second and foreign language learning (pp. 35–49). Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Macaro, E., Curle, S., Pun, J., An, J., & Dearden, J. (2018). A systematic review of English medium instruction in higher education. Language Teaching, 51(1), 36–76. https://doi.org/10. 1017/S0261444817000350. MacSwan, J. (2017). A multilingual perspective on translanguaging. American Educational Research Journal, 54(1), 167–201. https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831216683935. Makoni, S., & Pennycook, A. (2012). Disinventing multilingualism: From monolingual multilingualism to multilingua francas. In M. Martin-Jones, A. Blackledge, & A. Creese (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of multilingualism (pp. 439–453). London; New York: Routledge. Masgoret, A. M., & Gardner, R. (2003). Attitudes, motivation and second language learning: A metaanalysis of studies conducted by Gardner and associates. Language Learning, 53(1), 123–163. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9922.00227. McKenzie, P., Weldon, P. R., Rowley, G., Murphy, M., & McMillan, J. (2014). Staff in Australia’s schools 2013: Main report on the survey. Retrieved from https://docs.education.gov.au/system/ files/doc/other/sias_2013_main_report.pdf. Milner, H. R. (2010). What does teacher education have to do with teaching? Implications for diversity studies. Journal of Teacher Education, 61(1–2), 118–131. https://doi.org/10.1177/ 0022487109347670. Noble, G., & Watkins, M. (2014). Rethinking multiculturalism: Reassessing multicultural education: Project Report Number 2: Perspectives on multicultural education. Penrith South, N.S.W., Australia: University of Western Sydney. Portolés, L., & Martí, O. (2018). Teachers’ beliefs about multilingual pedagogies and the role of initial training. International Journal of Multilingualism. https://doi.org/10.1080/14790718. 2018.1515206. Pushor, D., & Ruitenberg, C. (2005). Parent engagement and leadership. Saskatoon, Canada: Dr Stirling MacDowell Foundation for Research into Teaching. Qingxia, D., & Yan, D. (2001). The historical evolution of bilingual education for China’s ethnic minorities. Chinese Education & Society, 34(2), 7–53. https://doi.org/10.2753/CED1061193234027. Reid, C., Collins, J., & Singh, M. (2014). Global teachers, Australian perspectives: Goodbye Mr Chips, hello Ms Bannerjee. Singapore: Springer. Shan, F. (2018). Multilingual education in China: Taking the situation of Guizhou minority areas as an example. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 8(2), 197–202. https://doi.org/10.17507/ tpls.0802.03. Swain, M., Kirkpatrick, A., & Cummins, J. (2011). How to have a guilt-free life using Cantonese in the English class: A handbook for the English language teacher in Hong Kong. Hong Kong: Research Centre into Language Acquisition and Education in Multilingual Societies, Hong Kong Institute of Education. Tian, L., & Macaro, E. (2012). Comparing the effect of teacher codeswitching with Englishonly explanations on the vocabulary acquisition of Chinese university level students. Language Teaching Research, 16(3), 367–391. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168812436909. Tsedendamba, N., Grossi, V., & Volkov, M. (2020). Language-focused feedback and written communication difficulties of multilingual students: Improving teacher preparedness. In W. Tao & I. Liyanage (Eds.), Multilingual education yearbook 2020—Teacher education and multilingual contexts (pp. 95–112). New York: Springer. Veliz, L., & Shokouhi, H. (2020). EAL teachers’ (un)preparedness to implement classroom practice for multiliteracies pedagogy. In W. Tao & I. Liyanage (Eds.), Multilingual education yearbook 2020—Teacher education and multilingual contexts (pp. 63–80). New York: Springer. Walker, T., Liyanage, I., Madya, S., & Hidayati, S. (2019). Media of instruction in Indonesia: Implications for bi/multilingual education. In I. Liyanage & T. Walker (Eds.), Multilingual education yearbook 2019: Media of instruction & multilingual settings (pp. 209–229). New York: Springer.

22

I. Liyanage and W. Tao

Walter, S. L., & Benson, C. (2012). Language policy and medium of instruction in formal education. In B. Spolsky (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of language policy (pp. 278–300). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Zhang, M. (2020). Preparing teachers as multilingual educators: Optimizing achievement of national English language education policy objectives in China. In W. Tao & I. Liyanage (Eds.), Multilingual education yearbook 2020—Teacher education and multilingual contexts (pp. 43–62). New York: Springer. Zhao, T., & Macaro, E. (2016). What works better for the learning of concrete and abstract words: teachers’ L 1 use or L 2-only explanations? International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 26(1), 75–98. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijal.12080.

Indika Liyanage (Ph.D.) is Associate Professor of TESOL (Teaching of English to Speakers of Other Languages) at Deakin University. Indika has been a language teacher educator and doctoral student supervisor for many years. He has published widely and worked as an international consultant on TESOL. Wenhao Tao (Thomas Tao) (Ph.D.) is Professor and Dean of the School of Foreign Languages at Beijing Normal University, Zhuhai, China where he has supervised a number of research higher degree students. He has published widely in the fields of applied linguistics, language and teacher education.

Critical Pre-service Intersections: Parental Engagement in EAL/D Contexts Luke Cuttance

Abstract Preparation of pre-service teachers for parental engagement has struggled to find a consistent foothold within teacher education programs. A focus on EAL/D contexts brings many of the barriers and opportunities affecting parental engagement preparation into sharp focus, especially aspects confounded by neoliberal influences in teaching and learning such as the development of teacher professional capabilities requiring deeper relationality. This chapter draws on staple educational theories in teacher education programs, research literature, and relevant policy to contextualize the perspectives of three teacher educators on the place of parental engagement in addressing the demands of classrooms characterized by linguistic diversity. Issues at the intersection of these two important areas of teacher education, parental engagement in EAL/D contexts, are foregrounded and opportunities are identified for embedding effective preparation of preservice teachers to engage with these issues through a thematic approach. Keywords Parental engagement · Teacher education · English as an additional language/dialect · Relationality · Diversity · Neoliberalism

1 Introduction Classrooms in Australia include increasing numbers of young people from nondominant cultural backgrounds for whom English is an additional language/dialect (EAL/D). This chapter is an explication of issues located at the cross-section of two important areas of teacher capability in this setting: teaching for multilingual EAL/D contexts, and parental and community engagement. Productive, sustained parental engagement (as distinct from ‘parental involvement’) encapsulates a broad notion of partnership between families, schools and school communities (Muller as cited in Emerson, Fear, Fox, & Sanders, 2012), of interaction by parents with education and L. Cuttance (B) Deakin University, 221 Burwood Hwy, Burwood, VIC 3125, Australia e-mail: [email protected] © Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020 W. Tao and I. Liyanage (eds.), Multilingual Education Yearbook 2020, Multilingual Education Yearbook, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-41211-1_2

23

24

L. Cuttance

students’ learning. Developing the awareness in parents of the benefits of participating in the education of their children and equipping them with the necessary skills, shifts their role from mere involvement in specific activities that take place on school grounds, such as volunteering efforts, meetings with teachers, and other events within the bounds of the school (Clinton & Hattie, 2013), to enabling them ‘to take their place alongside educators in the schooling of their children, fitting together their knowledge of children, teaching and learning, with teachers’ knowledge’ (Pushor & Ruitenberg, 2005, pp. 12–13). Extant research on parental engagement of EAL/D students constitutes a foundation for more consistent approaches to teacher preparation for parental engagement in EAL/D contexts. Despite an impetus for the task of parental engagement within key education theories—sociocultural theory (Vygotsky, 1978) and ecological theory (Bronfenbrenner, 1979)—that are staples in initial teacher education (ITE) programs, there are obstacles to effective and consistent preparation of pre-service teachers for parental and community engagement (Saltmarsh, Barr, & Chapman, 2012). These obstacles are framed by well documented neoliberal modes of teaching and teacher education characterised by a ‘market-based, audit culture’ (Hara & Sherbine, 2018, p. 669), ‘marketization, metricization … managerialism and the accompanying elevation of performativity’ (Hall & McGinity, 2015, p. 1). Pressure to be a solution to ‘intransigent educational problems of our time’ (Mockler, 2013, p. 35) has engendered a range of distinctive characteristics in ITE, but key for the focus of this chapter is the effect on partnerships and relationships. Neoliberal ideologies within the teaching profession and teacher education exist in opposition to what has been called a ‘relational’ approach to teaching (Angus, 2013). As McGraw (2011) states, teachers, like young people are shoved forcefully to the side and pressured to conform to the political, social and economic agendas of the day. They too are left feeling disoriented, disarmed and disengaged. Amidst such pressure, opportunities for open dialogue are minimized and relationships suffer (p. 110).

Thinking about the effect of such forces on relationships in education is helpful for examining teacher capabilities that depend on unique types of relational capability and effort, for example, parental engagement in EAL/D contexts. This chapter first presents theoretical foundations for pursuing engagement with EAL/D parents as an educational objective and then canvasses current research on in EAL/D contexts that characterises the breadth of what appropriate parental engagement curricula and pedagogies must encompass, as well as what barriers might specifically derive from these characteristics. A brief review of reasons why parental engagement has struggled to find a consistent foothold within ITE programs is provided to contextualize discussion of the reflections on parental engagement in EAL/D settings of three Australian teacher educators. Through this discussion, a path for future research emerges for testing how a contextually thematic focus on preparation for parental engagement in EAL/D contexts can function as a practical pathway for resolving some of the tensions and barriers that confound pre-service preparation for parental engagement more generally.

Critical Pre-service Intersections …

25

2 Sociocultural and Ecological Foundations of Parental Engagement Two staple theories within ITE programs—sociocultural and ecological theories—provide a complementary and suitable foundation and impetus for further development of parental engagement preparation for EAL/D contexts.

2.1 Sociocultural Foundations Sociocultural theory in education is based on notions of education as a cultural activity (Lantolf, 2000) and of the cultural mediation of educational practice (Daniels, 2001; Kozulin, 2003). It holds that learning begins with social interaction, leading to complex cultural and psychological interactivity between the learner and the environment; education is ‘realized through the student’s own experience, which is wholly determined by the environment, and the role of the teacher then reduces to directing and guiding the environment’ (Vygotsky, 1997, p. 50). Language serves as the primary tool that mediates the environment because, in Vygotskyan theory, consciousness has a ‘semantic structure’ (Zavershneva, 2010, p. 41). Sociocultural theory does not suggest that an educational activity is intrinsically different simply because it is conducted in a different language (Lantolf, 2000), however, the student must be ready for the learning which is to take place. That is, the learning activity must fall inside the ‘Zone of Proximal Development’ (ZPD), which is the difference between a child’s actual developmental level as determined by independent problem solving and the level of potential development as determined through problem solving under adult guidance or in collaboration with more capable peers (Vygotsky, 1978, p. 86).

Given that the ZPD is determined in reference to a stage of development which is itself attained through social and cultural interactions, the ZPD has a distinctly cultural basis. In other words, the ZPD assumes a level of culturally and sociallyspecific development in the culture or language within which learning is to take place. In different linguistic and cultural contexts, the ZPD of the learner is not the same. Research demonstrating literacy as a basis for subsequent academic success (e.g., Leahy & Fitzpatrick, 2017), as well as contemporary language-learning research and research that holds culturally and linguistically inclusive pedagogy as simply ‘good pedagogy’, draws on such interpretations of Vygotskyan sociocultural theory (e.g., Ladson-Billings, 1995). An everyday communicative ability in the second language (L2) can be obtained in one to three years, but grappling with abstract concepts takes at least five to seven years of language learning (Garcia & Kleyn, 2013). The consequence of explicit acknowledgement of the ZPD’s grounding in a specific cultural and linguistic domain is that (a) students attain higher levels of content learning in cultural and linguistic contexts with which they are familiar; and (b) students will have to begin with simpler

26

L. Cuttance

learning where they do not have a background in the relevant instructional culture or language. Under this sociocultural view, partnership with parents of students from EAL/D backgrounds, for example, by drawing on their available linguistic resources and life learning experiences, engenders a sustainable pathway to improved student learning. Sociocultural theory serves as a foundational entry-point or initial buildingblock for pre-service teacher preparation for parental engagement in EAL/D contexts, through deeper thinking about the foundations for links between student learning and parental roles as important cultural relationships.

2.2 Ecological Foundations Bronfenbrenner’s (1974, 1979) theory of ecological systems has been used extensively as a basis for research exploring the effects of parental engagement on student learning in schools (e.g., Bronfenbrenner & Morris, 1998; Nzinga-Johnson, Baker, & Aupperlee, 2009). The theory holds that the development of a child is influenced within five systems—the microsystem, mesosystem, exosystem, macrosystem and chronosystem. These broadly and respectively relate to influences on child development from the spheres of family (micro), immediate family-community interactions (meso), distant but direct forces (exo), cultural attitudes and socio-political circumstances (macro), and time or history (chrono). It is the critical functioning of the mesosystem through an harmonious interactivity of school and family that enables an optimised educational environment to take hold for the child. Ecological theory, a staple across many teacher education programs in Australia, serves as a conceptual foundation for more consistent preparation of preservice teachers for parental engagement in EAL/D contexts. Hobbs et al. (1984), for example, found that relationships between home and school could be improved through schools’ recognition of family strengths. Such ecologically-based research findings conflict with any prevailing perspective that holds teachers and schools in a relationship of superiority to parents on the matter of their children’s education. Ecological perspectives in this way emphasise relationality and equality between parents and teachers on the matter of student learning. It is the possibility for parents to influence power decisions in educational settings that enhances the developmental environment for the child, and in turn contributes to effective learning and teaching: The developmental potential of a setting is enhanced to the extent that there exist direct and indirect links to power settings through which participants in the original setting can influence allocation of resources and the making of decisions that are responsive to the needs of the developing person and the efforts of those who act in his [and her] behalf (Bronfenbrenner, 1979, p. 256).

The ecological tradition provides important insights into parental engagement for EAL/D contexts that explicate and emphasise the diversity and heterogeneity of parents as something that parallels the well-acknowledged, equally-expansive diversity of students.

Critical Pre-service Intersections …

27

3 Parental Engagement in EAL/D and Diverse Contexts Extant research on parental engagement including evidence-based supports for EAL/D and other diverse contexts constitutes a foundation for more consistent approaches to teacher preparation for parental engagement in EAL/D contexts. This research also points to barriers that currently inhibit development of a more consistent approach and widespread implementation. It is important that parental engagement preparation for EAL/D contexts be sufficiently broad in principle, even if based in practical experiences, to encompass work with this growing evidence base over the course of a teacher’s career. One of the fundamental findings of research on support of refugee students and their parents/carers, for example, is that a commitment to social justice or equity within the school culture through recognition and embracement of diversity is critical in supporting learning in refugee students (Arnot & Pinson, 2005; Keddie, 2011; Taylor & Sidhu, 2009). Such environments often translate into welcoming environments, which migrant parents have identified as important for their engagement (Ramsden & Taket, 2013). Similarly, at schools where teachers and school leaders have positive views of diverse backgrounds and actively take an interest in their diverse student population, better learning outcomes are achieved (Ramsden & Taket, 2013; Villegas & Lucas, 2002), although Rutter (2006) warns against parental engagement practices that homogenise students from refugee backgrounds and treat refugees as victims. Shin and Robertson (2018) contend that pre-service teachers can be prepared through participatory learning experiences to enable importation of knowledge of parents from EAL/D backgrounds as a resource. In summary, the literature emphasises preparation for parental engagement needs to focus on ensuring pre-service teachers have a practical, experience-based understanding and capacity for working with diversity, focusing on the heterogeneity of parental backgrounds in a similar way that responding to diversity of student learning needs is the basis for good teaching. Barriers to communication often exist notwithstanding the sharing of a common desire for communication between teachers, school leaders and parents in many situations (Adams & Shambleau, 2006). However, the use of interpreters greatly enhances parental engagement in the school and children’s education (Paxton, Smith, Win, Mulholland, & Hood, 2011), and although positive results have been found in a number of jurisdictions, large schools still have trouble implementing the strategy consistently (Craig, Jajua, & Warfa, 2009). In Victoria, Australia, for example, even with state funding for interpreters, many schools do not routinely use them (Ramsden & Taket, 2013). It is noted by Melbourne’s Centre for Multicultural Youth Issues (2006) that such inconsistent use of interpreters disadvantages EAL/D families. Whilst teacher preparation for parental engagement must cover these key specific issues of school environment and language support, a broader, more conceptually robust and transferrable underpinning for parental engagement preparation is needed. The notion of ‘bridging capital’, therefore, which sits in positive relationship to parental efficacy, is helpful in undergirding parental engagement principles and pedagogies (Bassani, 2007, 2008). Hoover-Dempsey and Sandler (1997) found that

28

L. Cuttance

although a range of common barriers affecting parental engagement did not adversely affect parents’ personal role construction in relation to their children’s education, it caused a detriment to parents’ sense of efficacy. Thus, teachers must be prepared to develop skills for enabling parents from EAL/D backgrounds to ‘play the game’ that allows their children to succeed when it comes to the new school system they find themselves in (Bourdieu, 1977; Naidoo, 2015). Improvements to parental perceptions of self-efficacy through provision of appropriate support leads to benefits that flow on to students and the school (Bassani, 2008; Caldas & Bankston, 2007; Goddard, 2003). This needs to be perceived and understood by pre-service and graduate teachers as part of parental engagement preparation; such knowledge must find a place within the complex schema of factors that influence the choices teachers make about what strategies to spend time on in doing their job. Ramsden and Taket (2013) note in their study that, the development of bridging social capital occurred as relationships between the parents and teachers developed when the parents involved themselves in the schools’ activities, spent time in the classroom or talked to teachers about the range of issues that concern them as migrant parents living in Australia (p. 113).

Krajcovicova and Novotna (2015) similarly emphasise community and relational aspects of the profession to support parental engagement with EAL/D parents, for example, through building relationships with families to establish trust and to help those families meet and socialise with other families. Such activities that contribute to the development of ‘bridging capital’ are fundamentally relational, often take up time, and are therefore at odds with clinical, instrumentalist or neoliberalist approaches to education. Bridging capital, though, in turn has a positive effect on parental efficacy leading to benefits for student learning. The opportunity for parental engagement for EAL/D contexts to find a footing in teacher preparation programs appears at least in part to be dependent on a reframing of the profession away from instrumentalist and neoliberalist approaches. Such approaches have a history of clinically targeting particular aspects of EAL/D student learning as discrete or independent learning tasks, for example, by having a solitary focus on English language development, or programs that construct school community attitudes to race through lenses of ‘minority’ or ‘equality’ (Arnot & Pinson, 2005). Research outlining what parents from EAL/D backgrounds say they want in order to engage with their children’s education in more effective ways provides a depth of detail for introducing to pre-service teachers this framework of building parental efficacy through relationships and ‘bridging capital’. It suggests that parents from EAL/D backgrounds want explicit information about what is different in their new school system compared to prior experiences (Adams & Shambleau, 2006), and that parental engagement is supported when teachers find out about parental situations and adjust their expectations of parental engagement to those situations (Sainsbury & Renzaho, 2011). Similarly, a one-size-fits all approach to communications between home and school will disadvantage EAL/D students and families (Schneider & Arnot, 2018).

Critical Pre-service Intersections …

29

Such engagement between teachers and EAL/D parents, in an equal partnership that respects their knowledge and need to develop efficacy, may mean teachers and school leaders should review their vision of the role of families in their school community to build in non-formal modes of parental engagement (Mapp, 2003; Pugh, Every, & Hattam, 2012). Obviously, such reviews, if they make the effort needed to do parental engagement well, will most likely provoke tensions with neoliberalist educational pressures because it is oriented, not to the imperatives of standardization and utilitarian development of human capital, but to encouragement of processes of critical transformation, collectivist priorities and relational capability. Pre-service teacher preparation for parental engagement must equip graduates with the critical perspectives to interrogate and understand the educational contexts they will encounter if they are to transform the school/home relational environment when confronted with barriers of ideologically constructed existing policies and cultures.

3.1 Policy Barriers and Current Situation A key policy instrument that influences teachers’ engagement with discourses of diversity and the discursive construction of difference is the Australian Professional Standards for Teachers, which underpin ITE program accreditation (Liyanage, Singh, & Walker, 2016). In particular, Standard 1.3 requires teachers to ‘meet the needs of students with diverse linguistic, cultural, religious and socioeconomic backgrounds’ (AITSL, 2011, p. 10). The implicit community focus that is often inherently required in meeting the needs of EAL/D students is explicitly realized in Standard 7, that teachers ‘engage professionally with colleagues, parents/carers and the community’ (AITSL, 2011, p. 22). At the Graduate or entry level, Focus Area 7.3 requires teachers to ‘understand strategies for working effectively, sensitively and confidentially with parents/carers’ (p. 22). The standard required of more professionally developed ‘Lead’ teachers, is to “identify, initiate and build on opportunities that engage parents/carers in both the progress of their children’s learning and in the educational priorities of the school” (AITSL, p. 22). Looking at the continuum or trajectory of a Standard in this manner, from Graduate through to Lead, demonstrates, at policy level, the character of parental and community engagement to be cultivated across all teachers at various career stages. Explicit reference to the ‘priorities of the school’ (p. 22) in Standard 7.3 envisions a teacher capability characterised by an ability to deal with parents who are in an unequal relationship with teachers in relation to determining the educational priorities of the school that impact their child’s education. This aspect of parental engagement has been identified as an under-theorised area of teacher education (Daniel, 2011; Jordan, Orozco, & Averett, 2002). Further theorisation in this area could lead to deeper, more nuanced expression of the school-parent relationship in the Standards, and in other policy, that links to the extensive research on parental engagement. As it stands, Standard 7.3 cultivates a capability that places the teacher and the school in a position of power in relation to parental partnership and student learning, with

30

L. Cuttance

ostensibly little room for considering the resources of diverse parents in constitution of the learning context. Through such positioning of parents, schools, teachers, and learning in these Standards, ‘terms of engagement’ are effectively established that are not dissimilar from Pushor’s (2007) metaphor of the ‘protectorate’, which sees educators conduct their work in “isolation of parents and community members, using their ‘badge of difference’, their professional education, knowledge and experience, as a rationale for their claimed position as decision-makers in the school” (p. 2). Consequently, Standard 1.3, ‘meeting the needs of students with diverse linguistic, cultural, religious and socioeconomic backgrounds’, which implies a holistic and community approach that positions teachers and parents on a more equal footing in the pursuit of student learning, is at odds with this reading of Standard 7.3. In the context of current education policy and culture in Australia, there is overall support for the contention that parental engagement in ITE is not well addressed (Jordan et al. 2002; Saltmarsh, Barr, & Chapman, 2012). In fact, a mapping of how parental engagement is taught in Australian ITE programs may simply not be possible due to its ad hoc nature (Saltmarsh, Barr, & Chapman, 2012). Doecke et al. (2008) found that 82% of in-service teachers believed they needed more professional development to work with parents and community, the highest percentage of any category in their study. Little has changed in the subsequent ten years, with Mayer et al. (2017) finding that professional engagement with parents/carers and the community is one of four key areas for which graduate teachers feel less well prepared. Principals agreed with this assessment. Another key area in which graduate teachers considered that they are less well prepared is in teaching culturally, linguistically and socio-economically diverse learners (Mayer et al., p. 61). For example, some programs have been found to be ineffective in disarming pre-service teachers’ parochial cultural assumptions as they enter the profession and need to work with diverse parents (Graue & Brown, 2003). Further, Guo (2012) found that existing approaches to parental engagement preparation are primarily premised on dominant white ideologies relating to parental roles in education. Nevertheless, teacher engagement with parents and community is a crucial area of teacher professional practice, deserving of a better level of consistency across Australian teacher education programs (Saltmarsh, Barr, & Chapman, 2012). Research at the cross-section of the two areas of teacher capability in EAL/D contexts and parental engagement is underdeveloped, and these findings also indicate that the general feeling of preparedness amongst graduate teachers to facilitate parental engagement in EAL/D contexts is similarly lacking. More broadly, whilst there has been increasing consensus in recent decades about the positive effect of positive parental-school relations on student learning (Mattingly, Prislin, McKenzie, Rodriguez, & Kayzar, 2002), there have been far fewer studies on the best way to prepare teachers to achieve the espoused benefits of parental engagement in their school communities (Maynes, Curwen, & Sharpe, 2012; Ravn, 2003). In fact, whilst such research findings on the benefits of parental engagement have loomed large as scholarly facts, policymakers, teacher educators and school leaders have struggled to harvest measurable benefits from them (Mapp, 2013). These systemic factors can be new and therefore challenging for parents from EAL/D

Critical Pre-service Intersections …

31

backgrounds. It is only in ITE programs in which candidates might have undertaken a simulation or similar practical activities that they feel prepared for future engagement of parents as a teacher (Mayer et al., 2017). For many teachers, however, it is the workplace setting and on-the-job support in their post-ITE phase that determines how their capability in this area develops.

4 Research Design and Key Findings The three rich case study interviews with teacher educator participants used for this chapter are taken from an early phase within an ongoing project on teacher preparation for multicultural and multilingual contexts. The research is qualitative (Denzin & Lincoln, 2000; Merriam, 1998). Participants were selected on the basis of purposive sampling (Teddlie & Yu, 2007). Eighty teacher educator participants were selected from online university profiles with demonstrated experience relating to parental engagement preparation, EAL/D teacher education, or ITE leadership. The eighty participants were sent an invitation to complete an anonymous survey, and on completion of the survey were invited to indicate if they were willing to undertake an additional in-depth follow-up interview. The three selected interview participants, Simon, Maria and Eric (pseudonyms), are highly experienced teachers and teacher educators: Simon had extensive experience working with EAL/D communities in remote areas of northern Australia; Maria had instigated a successful development program working with teachers in the first years of their career in schools; and, Eric was a coordinator of an undergraduate ITE degree and therefore responsible for accreditation of the program at his institution as well as teaching into the program himself. Interviews were transcribed and names were replaced with pseudonyms in the transcripts. Data was coded into a framework of thematic ideas (Gibbs, 2007) and interpreted using a constructivist approach (Denzin & Lincoln, 2000; Merriam, 1998; Stage & Manning, 2003) whilst aiming to see the topic from the perspective of the participant (King, 2004).

4.1 Teacher Educator Perspectives Participants all considered that graduates of the ITE programs they delivered would find themselves teaching in multiculturally and multilingually diverse educational contexts, including Indigenous settings, if not upon graduation, then during their careers. Yet preparation in teacher education programs for parental engagement in general, and in EAL/D contexts in particular, is judged as problematic or inadequate by the participating teacher educators, and they cited complex reasons for this. All participants were cognisant of the foundational function of ITE programs, that is, ITE aims to produce graduates for the teaching profession as a first step in an ongoing journey of development towards higher levels of professional mastery. This factor

32

L. Cuttance

influenced or problematized the extent to which participants thought preparation for parental engagement in EAL/D contexts was necessary in the ITE programs in which they were involved. There are a range of content topics within ITE programs that participants perceived to be relevant, but references to parental and community engagement capability standards are weak. There is a perception the curriculum is ‘crowded’, and an expectation by teacher educators that school-based practicum experiences will enable pre-service teachers to attain these capabilities at the required standard. Yet within the practicum, teacher educators report that pre-service teachers each have very different experiences in developing capability in parental engagement. Pre-service teachers come from diverse backgrounds into varied teacher education programs (e.g., graduate-entry Master of Teaching and undergraduate Bachelor of Education programs) which potentially encourage diverse prioritisations by each student of the skills and knowledge they wish to develop within those programs. Teacher educators perceive that pre-service teachers see parental engagement as a peripheral or secondary skill to be developed during their program. Development of such a hierarchy of teacher education content is driven by employing authorities, perceived by pre-service teachers to prioritise certain neoliberal, instrumental or clinical skills and knowledge over others in their decisions regarding employment of graduates. Teacher educators report their perceptions that the most productive opportunities for deep thinking and experience in parental engagement preparation are occurring in units where there is a thematic contextual focus, such as EAL/D teaching and learning.

The Role of the Practicum Experience The practicum experience was noted as the primary way in which all programs at the various participants’ institutions enable pre-service teachers to meet AITSL Standards on parental and community engagement. Eric admitted that it was ‘perhaps the easiest way’ but because of the diversity of schools that are arranged for placements, ‘we have no control over those actual experiences … so it’s a bit hit and miss.’ On the other hand, the diversity of experiences that pre-service teachers may have with parents during practicums were also seen to be of benefit in reflecting the contextual dependencies that support or confound successful parental engagement. The problem in relation to EAL/D educational contexts for parental engagement capability is that a pre-service teacher will not, as a rule, always experience linguistically diverse students during their practicum. Accreditation requirements for teacher education programs, as they currently exist, were not seen by participants to trigger innovation in strategies to develop pre-service teachers for parental engagement in diverse contexts. Maria noted that in the most recent accreditation process in which she was involved at her institution, there was a focus on mapping an international travel opportunity onto the parental and community engagement Standard, rather than devising an experience that would particularly assure pre-service teachers of engagement with parents from diverse contexts in an experiential manner resembling the relational dynamics of future local employment.

Critical Pre-service Intersections …

33

Related Teacher Education Content Within the teacher education coursework that she was involved in, Maria considered that any content referring to publicly available data should be viewed as developing parental engagement capability, for example, ICSEA (Index of Community SocioEducational Advantage) (Australian Curriculum Assessment and Reporting Authority, 2019a), which provides an indication of the socio-educational backgrounds of students on the basis of parents’ occupation, parents’ education, a school’s geographical location, and proportion of Indigenous students, and MySchool (Australian Curriculum Assessment and Reporting Authority, 2019b), a website resource for parents, educators and the community that contains data on a school’s student profile, enrolment numbers and attendance rates, NAPLAN (National Assessment Program – Literacy and Numeracy) performance, funding levels and sources and other financial information. Such material, however, reveals high-level factual insights about a community, which are primarily driven by characteristics of the adult population, so the actual learning that takes place with pre-service teachers is simply a layer of background information rather than practical parental engagement strategies for diverse contexts. Similarly, Eric considered that the AITSL Standard, ‘know students and how they learn’, was a call for teachers to know students’ parents as well.

Barriers to Teaching Parental Engagement All three participants identified a range of barriers that affect the way they teach parental engagement for EAL/D contexts as teacher educators. A significant barrier noted by all participants was the fact that pre-service teachers need to be proficient in a significant amount of content across a range of knowledge domains, the notion that the ITE curriculum is already ‘crowded’ with content and pedagogical content knowledge. Maria, who has extensive experience working with alternative pathways and recently-graduated teachers who often work in EAL/D contexts, remarked that the multicultural and multilingual student-classroom setting is so challenging for new teachers, that the thought of working with parents in any sort of sustained, strategic way, would in her opinion probably ‘simply cause more stress’. Parental engagement, especially in multicultural and multilingual contexts, was seen by participants as an ‘additional’ area of capability that programs might struggle to include, simply due to time pressures, especially in two-year graduate-entry level ITE programs such as the Master of Teaching. In fact, all participants remarked that the type of teacher education program (e.g., a graduate-entry Master of Teaching vs. an undergraduate Bachelor of Education, as are the common offerings in Australia) will be a factor influencing the type of work done in parental and community engagement. The graduate-entry programs such as the Master of Teaching will usually have a shorter period of practical experience than a four-year undergraduate qualification in teaching such as a Bachelor of Education. Cohorts within Master of Teaching programs were perceived to often come from heavily content-focused backgrounds; even without work experience, these candidates were seen to enter with a specialised

34

L. Cuttance

undergraduate degree, and the development direction for pre-service teachers in this category may tend towards a content-linked focus, for example through a heavy focus on the development or exploration of pedagogical content knowledge. Thus, participants inadvertently revealed hierarchies of focus, mutually constructed by standards policies that shape program accreditation, teacher educators, and individual pre-service teachers. Maria and Simon considered that the ranking of knowledge or skills within a pre-service teacher’s hierarchy would be driven by perceptions they have of the skills and knowledge a candidate might need for a successful teaching job application process. In this context, they thought parental engagement capability would not be seen by pre-service teachers as important material required for a successful job application experience. Four-year undergraduate ITE programs such as a Bachelor of Education usually have additional practicum days embedded in the programs, which Maria believed would leave time for deeper exploration of capabilities that might be seen in this manner as peripheral or secondary. Simon noted the evidence that parental engagement has a positive effect on student learning, but remarked that in practice, pre-service teachers do not equate this with meaning there will be benefits to their teaching personally. He used a ‘return on investment’ analogy to explain the dilemma most teachers face in their first few years in schools in relation to parental engagement: They’ve got to own it philosophically. There’s so many different complexities around educating students, parental involvement is just one that’s on the periphery. How can they turn that into a valid return on investment so that they … spend time doing this and it actually brings more benefits than spending time doing other things?

All participants noted that dependence on the practicum as the setting in which parental engagement preparation takes place has some practical consequences that play out differently for each pre-service teacher in terms of how or whether they access meaningful experiences in this area. For example, Maria noted the fragility of schools’ existing relationships with parents as well as privacy concerns, which might render schools reluctant to provide pre-service teachers with an opportunity to work directly with parents. Furthermore, Maria and Eric both noted that the school leadership and school policy will usually have a particular approach established to guide the engagement of parents. It is difficult for pre-service teachers to have diverse experiences within those specific school contexts that are sometimes quite rigid or restricted in relation to parents. A key finding and recurring acknowledgement in the data is that the existing knowledge and experience, or ‘starting point’, for each pre-service teacher to learn parental engagement is different. This is reflected, for example, in pre-service teachers’ different senses of confidence, and of identity aligned to the notion parental engagement in diverse contexts. Participants considered that these diverse starting points nevertheless show some patterning according to the type of student cohort enrolled in either the undergraduate (e.g., B.Ed.) or the graduate-entry (e.g., M.Teach.) teacher education programs. Participants remarked that they generally expected a higher proportion of students who are parents in a graduate-entry program compared to an undergraduate cohort. Simon summarised his sentiment about

Critical Pre-service Intersections …

35

his graduate-entry cohort, saying, ‘they’re a lot more receptive to general notions of school community’. On the other hand, he acknowledged this is a general observation with many exceptions. Maria noted, in her experience, the absence of diversity in a profession still predominantly white and female. Because of this, the starting point for learning experiences is usually typical of this demographic, and accessing developmental experiences of diversity, let alone developing a reflective practice of challenging systemic racism in schools, is seen to be an identifiable and significant task in ITE. Simon used a frame of neoliberalism to understand and explain why complacency prevails in relation to preparation for parental engagement, especially in EAL/D contexts. His classroom experience, which informed his opinions about parental engagement and the way pre-service teachers are prepared for it, included many years teaching in Indigenous communities in a remote location in Australia. For Simon therefore, parental engagement is a difficult topic to position within contemporary ITE programs, because of the tension that he identifies between neoliberal or instrumentalist models of education and the relationality that the profession has otherwise been built on over many years. When I teach pre-service teachers about parental engagement, I’m conscious that I’m teaching in that context of students who don’t necessarily value that relationality towards the profession. And they just see it as a job—they do this, they perform, and the students just come out the other end being literate, numerate and knowledgeable. But they don’t make those connections back to what the profession’s actually been built on.

The inherent solution suggested by Simon in his interview was not to instil a counter-worldview of community, relationality and knowing, but at least to make pre-service teachers aware that there are conscious choices around the philosophies that can be developed as a foundation for personal teaching practice. He also noted that the prospect of a job on the completion of their degree will usually serve as a strong incentive for pre-service teachers to comply with models of teaching that in reality do not preference relationships with parents and the broader community: The discursive context of where we do this work is difficult to locate parental engagement, because the policies and the structures and the institutions are selecting against it.

Such views again reflect pre-service teachers’ development of prioritised individual hierarchies of the skills and knowledge to be gained in their program. This hierarchy is driven by a perception of what is most important for the pre-service teacher to obtain paid work on graduation. No distinction was made by Simon or other participants in relation to public or private school employment, but arguably there may be a difference that materialises in the hierarchies of knowledge for pre-service teachers aiming for paid work in private schools.

36

L. Cuttance

Prospective Alternative Ways of Preparing for Parental Engagement in Multicultural Contexts Noting that real and perceived barriers affect teacher education in this area, participants were asked to consider an innovative method for preparing pre-service teachers in EAL/D contexts. All participants underlined a focus on real-life experiences with parents from EAL/D backgrounds. Examples from participants centred on finding ways for pre-service teachers to think about and experience working with parents in realistic scenarios. As one example, Simon suggested that a possible useful scenario might focus on corroborating student and parent understanding about the student’s learning and interests in a literacy topic. Maria reflected on memories from an earlier time in her career as a teacher educator when some ITE programs allowed pre-service teachers to undertake non-teaching internships as part of their degree. Such internships, she argued, if conducted in structured community settings involving families of diverse or non-dominant cultural backgrounds, go some way to developing interpersonal and stakeholder engagement skills that would be transferrable and beneficial in a teaching career, but are no longer possible within programs. In addition to such, rather practical, examples of innovation in the development of parental engagement capabilities, Simon offered a more theoretical basis for shifting a range of domains of practice in teacher education through an increased focus on working with and negotiating ‘tensions.’ He considers that partnerships with parents can be constructed as tensions—for example, tensions between the cultural or linguistic backgrounds of students and families, and the cultural capital required for success in the unfamiliar school context. These remarks hold an affinity with our earlier discussion of teachers being asked to assist parents from EAL/D backgrounds with development of ‘bridging capital.’ But in Simon’s case, he finds it useful to think of teacher education as being about assisting pre-service teachers to negotiate tensions over periods of time. Other examples of such a construction of tensions include tensions between a parent’s own experience of school, and the way in which the school system operates in their adopted context; or the support that a student requires from parents in their learning environment and the actual presence, availability and willingness of parents to provide that support. This data suggests that preparation for parental engagement must be sufficiently broad and constitute formation of a framework for teacher practice in this challenging area of a graduating teacher’s first years of service.

The Multicultural and Multilingual Lens: Thematic Approaches to Parental Engagement Although preparation for parental engagement is perceived by teacher educators themselves as inadequate, participants recounted how thematic units on Indigenous education, multicultural or EAL/D education, or inclusive education, that they have

Critical Pre-service Intersections …

37

been involved in, showed significant promise for providing opportunities to preservice teachers to experience and think critically about the role of parents and about strategies for parental engagement to support student learning. One example is a unit chaired by Eric in an ITE program in a location with large Indigenous communities. This unit teaches culturally relevant pedagogies for Indigenous contexts, and in line with the community focus of Indigenous life, necessarily asks pre-service teachers to consider parental engagement in deep, culturallyconstructed ways. Although the unit is specifically focused on Indigenous education, Eric contends that pre-service teachers in the unit develop a more comprehensive understanding. Through the awareness of interculturality that this specificallyIndigenous experience brings, it also develops transferrable skills in intercultural capability—how to identify the differences, inequalities, and relationships in unfamiliar cultural and linguistic contexts and to be able to work with these in productive ways to support student learning. In order to find a stronger foothold for parental engagement preparation in ITE, as Simon argues, instilling a counter-narrative against neoliberal, instrumentalist and clinical models of education is not practical. Instead, future research should focus on determining the effectiveness of teaching parental engagement through a thematic approach, for example, with a focus on EAL/D contexts. Such a cross-section of capabilities, even in terms of the AITSL Teacher Professional Standards, is likely to achieve much of the deep learning required for successful parental engagement over the longer term of a teaching career. Such learning experiences for pre-service teachers are also likely to be sufficiently transferrable since parental engagement preparation needs to be useful in classrooms and school communities which are consistently unique across the system.

5 New Directions Perceptions reported here of three teacher educators that parental engagement preparation is an area on the periphery of ITE programs require further research to extend and test. On the basis of the findings presented in this chapter, parental engagement teacher capability in general is struggling to gain a consistent foothold in ITE programs, and this is amplified in the case of EAL/D contexts. Often, developers of ITE programs expect pre-service teachers to develop parental engagement capabilities during practicums, and there may be very little pre- or post-practicum attention within coursework components to development of understanding of the additional layer of complexity in the roles of EAL/D families and communities in learning. Marginalisation of parental engagement preparation does not sit easily with all teacher educators. It is an area of practice that is thought about deeply, theorised and problematised by teacher educators as they undertake their work. Teacher educators have innovative ideas for reforming learning about parental engagement, but for a range of complex reasons—a lack of time within programs; an already-congested

38

L. Cuttance

curriculum; preferences for particular knowledge; and skills ostensibly preferred by employers—do not introduce these ideas into ITE programs. Because of its perceived peripheral location in teacher education, thinking and talking about parents suffers from a homogeneity impulse. Parental engagement preparation must engage more deeply at a theoretical level to enable acknowledgement of the diversity in parent cohorts, diversity that is meaningful to teachers and schools in parallel to student diversity. Identifying and critiquing this homogeneity impulse will greatly assist with opening up meaningful pre-service pedagogies for parental engagement in EAL/D contexts. Units and learning contexts that have a strongly thematic focus on the diversity of the student learners have the potential to disrupt this impulse for homogeneity; teacher educators report they are having deeper, more meaningful conversations about parental engagement with pre-service teachers in these settings. Arguably, it is the openness to a heterogeneity of parents found in these units that establishes a firm basis for teaching about parental engagement in diverse contexts. Further research should be conducted to delineate how units with particular focuses on diversity—EAL/D, multicultural, inclusive, and so on—can successfully contend with neoliberal tendencies and forge into deep thinking and experience of supporting learning partnerships with diverse families and communities. As Simon reminds us, ‘in an Indigenous context, the notion of not having parental involvement is just not on the radar’, and the culturally-specific approaches to education that emphasise sociality, family, and relationality in many of the cultures present in Australian schools today present a way forward to prise open rigid neoliberal contexts that might otherwise marginalise parental engagement preparation and construct it in inadequate ways. It is important to reconcile some of the undergraduate and graduate-entry student cohort tendencies that have emerged from the research. Whilst on the one hand Maria suggested that graduate-entry ITE students were more likely to focus their efforts during a practicum on pedagogical technique and content-related capability such as pedagogical content knowledge, Simon and Eric considered that graduate-entry students were more open to notions of school community than four-year undergraduate students. These perceptions are not necessarily contradictory; to some extent the prior experiences of many graduate-entry ITE students mediate their perceptions of the skills they are trying to achieve during their programs, including their practicums. Graduate-entry teaching students are perceived to draw on a range of experiences from their prior study and working lives, which may present as an openness to deeper understandings about school and community, but it should be acknowledged that this prior experience constitutes a different ‘starting point’ and that the parental engagement preparation for such students must still take place. This chapter has foregrounded opportunities and issues, including barriers, that affect parental engagement preparation for EAL/D contexts in ITE. Despite parental engagement preparation finding a strong conceptual foothold in some of the staple and underpinning theories within ITE programs, it remains in practice marginalised within teacher education programs. Capabilities and efforts required for parental engagement, especially around relationality, are seen by teacher educators as often

Critical Pre-service Intersections …

39

conflicting with, and occasionally confounding, neoliberal, instrumental and clinical approaches to teaching and learning which heavily influence teacher education policy and practice. Practical resolutions to this dynamic on parental engagement preparation include opportunities located in contextually thematic modes such as pre-service EAL/D teaching and learning units. With further research, preparation for parental engagement through a contextually thematic mode such as an EAL/D lens potentially provides a sufficiently broad framing for pre-service learning experiences and sets up a structured practitioner space for graduating teachers applying the growing evidence base relating to advantages of parental engagement in addressing the educational demands of linguistically diverse classrooms.

References Adams, L., & Shambleau, K. (2006). Teachers’, children’s and parents’ perspectives on newly arrived children’s adjustment to elementary school. In L. D. Adams & A. Kirova (Eds.), Global migration and education: Schools children and families (pp. 87–102). New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Australian Institute for Teaching and School Leadership (AITSL). (2011). Australian professional standards for teachers. Melbourne: Author. Australian Curriculum Assessment and Reporting Authority. (2019a). Making a fair comparison—ICSEA. Retrieved from https://www.myschool.edu.au/more-information/information-forparents/making-a-fair-comparison/. Australian Curriculum Assessment and Reporting Authority. (2019b). MySchool. Retrieved from https://www.myschool.edu.au/. Angus, L. (2013). Teacher identity and the neoliberal condition: Asserting a participativeprofessional, socially democratic teacher imaginary in technical-managerial times. Journal of Educational and Social Research, 3(7), 170–177. Arnot, M., & Pinson, H. (2005). The education of asylum-seeker and refugee children: A study of LEA and school values, policies and practices. Cambridge: University of Cambridge. Bassani, C. (2007). Five dimensions of social capital theory as they pertain to youth studies. Journal of Youth Studies, 10(1), 17–34. Bassani, C. (2008). Parent classroom involvement and the development of social capital: A reading program in East Vancouver. Journal of Educational Enquiry, 8(2), 51–70. Bourdieu, P. (1977). Outline of a theory of practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Bronfenbrenner, U. (1974). Is early intervention effective? A report on longitudinal evaluations of preschool programs (Vol. II). Washington, DC: US Department of Health, Education & Welfare. Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). The ecology of human development. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Bronfenbrenner, U., & Morris, P. (1998). The ecology of developmental processes. In W. Damon & R. Lerner (Eds.), Handbook of child psychology: Theoretical models of human development (pp. 993–1028). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons. Caldas, S., & Bankston, C. (2007). Effect of school population socioeconomic status on individual academic achievement. The Journal of Educational Research, 90(5), 269–277. Centre for Multicultural Youth Issues. (2006). A three-way partnership? Exploring the experiences of CLD families in schools. Melbourne: Author. Clinton, J., & Hattie, J. (2013). New Zealand students’ perceptions of parental involvement in learning and schooling. Asia Pacific Journal of Education, 33(3), 324–337. Craig, T., Jajua, P., & Warfa, N. (2009). Mental health care needs of refugees. Psychiatry, 8(9), 351–354.

40

L. Cuttance

Daniel, G. (2011). Family-school partnerships: Towards sustainable pedagogical practice. AsiaPacific Journal of Teacher Education, 39, 165–176. Daniels, H. (2001). Vygotsky & pedagogy. London: Routledge. Denzin, N., & Lincoln, Y. (2000). Handbook of qualitative research (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage. Doecke, B., Parr, G., North, S., Gale, T., Long, M., Mitchell, J., … Williams, J. (2008). National mapping of teacher professional learning project: Final report. Melbourne: Monash University. Emerson, L., Fear, J., Fox, S., & Sanders, E. (2012). Parental engagement in learning and schooling: Lessons from research. Canberra: Family-School and Community Partnerships Bureau. Garcia, O., & Kleyn, T. (2013). Teacher education for multilingual education. In C. Chapelle (Ed.), The encyclopedia of applied linguistics (pp. 5543–5548). Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell. Gibbs, G. (2007). Analyzing qualitative data. London: Sage. Goddard, R. (2003). Relational networks, social trust, and norms: A social capital perspective on student’s chances of academic success. Educational Evaluation & Policy Analysis, 25(1), 59–74. Graue, M., & Brown, C. (2003). Preservice teachers’ notions of family and schooling. Teaching and Teacher Education, 19(7), 719–735. Guo, Y. (2012). Diversity in public education: Acknowledging immigrant parent knowledge. Canadian Journal of Education, 35(2), 120–140. Hall, D., & McGinity, R. (2015). Conceptualizing teacher professional identity in neoliberal times: Resistance, compliance and reform. Educational Policy Analysis Archives, 23(88), 1–16. Hara, M., & Sherbine, K. (2018). Be[com]ing a teacher in neoliberal times: The possibilities of visioning for resistance in teacher education. Policy Futures in Education, 16(6), 669–690. Hobbs, N., Dokecki, P., Hoover-Dempsey, K., Moroney, R., Shayne, M., & Weeks, K. (1984). Strengthening families. San Francisco: Jossey Bass. Hoover-Dempsey, K. V., & Sandler, H. M. (1997). Why do parents become involved in their children’s education? Review of Educational Research, 67(1), 3–42. Jordan, C., Orozco, E., & Averett, A. (2002). Emerging issues in school, family, and community connections. Austin, Texas: Southwest Educational Development Laboratory. Keddie, A. (2011). Pursuing justice for refugee students: Addressing issues of cultural (mis) recognition. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 16(12), 1295–1310. King, N. (2004). Using interviews in qualitative research. In C. Cassell & G. Symon (Eds.), Essential guide to qualitative methods in organizational research (pp. 11–22). London: Sage. Kozulin, A. (2003). Vygotsky’s educational theory in cultural context. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Krajcovicova, M., & Novotna, E. (2015). Cultural inclusion: Formal schooling for children from families of refugee backgrounds. Journal of Preschool and Elementary School Education, 2(8), 29–44. Ladson-Billings, G. (1995). But that’s just good teaching! The case for culturally relevant pedagogy. Theory into Practice, 34(3), 159–165. Lantolf, J. (2000). Introducing sociocultural theory. In J. Lantolf (Ed.), Sociocultural theory and second language learning (pp. 1–26). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Leahy, M., & Fitzpatrick, N. (2017). Early readers and academic success. Journal of Educational and Developmental Psychology, 7(2), 87–95. Liyanage, I., Singh, P., & Walker, T. (2016). Ethnolinguistic diversity within Australian schools: Call for a participant perspective in teacher learning. International Journal of Pedagogies and Learning, 11(3), 211–224. Mapp, K. (2003). Having their say: Parents describe why and how they are engaged in their children’s learning. The School-Community Journal, 13(1), 35–64. Mapp, K. (2013). Partners in education: A dual capacity-building framework for family-school partnerships. Washington, DC: Southwest Educational Development Laboratory. Mattingly, D., Prislin, R., McKenzie, T., Rodriguez, J., & Kayzar, B. (2002). Evaluating evaluations: The case of parent involvement programs. Review of Educational Research, 72(4), 549–576.

Critical Pre-service Intersections …

41

Mayer, D., Dixon, M., Kline, J., Kostogriz, A., Moss, J., Rowan, L., … White, S. (2017). Studying the effectiveness of teacher education. Singapore: Springer. Maynes, N., Curwen, T., & Sharpe, G. (2012). Examining preservice teachers’ self-reported knowledge and confidence to communicate with parents. Education, 18(2), 2–17. McGraw, A. (2011). Shoving our way into young people’s lives. Teacher Development, 15(1), 105–116. Merriam, S. (1998). Qualitative research and case study applications in education. San Francisco: Jossey Bass. Mockler, N. (2013). Teacher professional learning in a neoliberal age: Audit, professionalism and identity. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 38(10), 35–47. Muller, D. (2009). Parental engagement: Social and economic effects. Australian Parents Council, Launceston, Australia. Naidoo, L. (2015). Imagination and aspiration: Flames of possibility for migrant background high school students and their parents. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 40(3), 102–115. Nzinga-Johnson, S., Baker, J., & Aupperlee, J. (2009). The quality of teacher-parent relationships in fostering school involvement among racially and educationally diverse parents at kindergarten. Elementary School Journal, 110, 81–91. Paxton, G., Smith, N., Win, A., Mulholland, N., & Hood, S. (2011). Refugee status report: A report on how refugee children and young people in Victoria are faring. Melbourne: Department of Education and Early Childhood Development (DEECD). Pugh, K., Every, D., & Hattam, R. (2012). Inclusive education for students with refugee experience: Whole school reform in a South Australian primary school. The Australian Educational Researcher, 39(2), 125–141. Pushor, D. (2007, January). Parent engagement: Creating a shared world. In Ontario Education Research Symposium. Toronto, Canada. Retrieved from https://www.horizonsd.ca/Services/ Literacy/Documents/Pushor-Parent%20Engagement%202007.pdf. Pushor, D., & Ruitenberg, C. (2005). Parent engagement and leadership. Saskatoon, Canada: Dr Stirling MacDowell Foundation for Research into Teaching. Ramsden, R., & Taket, A. (2013). Social capital and Somali families in Australia. Journal of International Migration and Integration, 14(1), 99–117. Ravn, B. (2003). Cultural and political divergences in approaches to cooperation between home, school and local society in Europe. In S. Castelli, M. Mendel, & B. Ravn (Eds.), School, family, and community partnerships in a world of difference and changes (pp. 9–18). Gdanski, Poland: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Gdanskiego. Rutter, J. (2006). Refugee children in the UK. Berkshire: Open University Press. Sainsbury, W., & Renzaho, A. (2011). Educational concerns of Arabic speaking migrants from Sudan and Iraq to Melbourne: Expectations on migrant parents in Australia. International Journal of Educational Research, 50, 291–300. Saltmarsh, S., Barr, J., & Chapman, A. (2012). Preparing for parents: How Australian teacher education is addressing the question of parent-school engagement. Asia Pacific Journal of Education, 35(1), 69–84. Schneider, C., & Arnot, M. (2018). Transactional school-home-school communication: Addressing the mismatches between migrant parents’ and teachers’ views of parental knowledge, engagement and the barriers to engagement. Teaching and Teacher Education, 75, 10–20. Shin, H., & Robertson, K. (2018). Immigrant and minority parent engagement: A participatory approach in pre-service teacher education programme. In Y. Guo (Ed.), Home-school relations (pp. 267–284). Singapore: Springer. Stage, F., & Manning, K. (2003). Research in the college context: Approaches and methods. New York: Routledge. Taylor, S., & Sidhu, R. (2009). Supporting refugee students in schools: What constitutes inclusive education? International Journal of Inclusive Education, 16(1), 39–56. Teddlie, C., & Yu, F. (2007). Mixed methods sampling: A typology with examples. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 1, 77–100.

42

L. Cuttance

Villegas, A., & Lucas, T. (2002). Preparing culturally responsive teachers: Rethinking the curriculum. Journal of Teacher Education, 53(1), 20–32. Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes (M. Cole, V. John-Steiner, S. Scribner, & E. Souberman., Eds.; A. R. Luria, M. Lopez-Morillas, & M. Cole, Trans.), Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Vygotsky, L. (1997). Educational psychology. Boca Raton, FL: St. Lucie Press. Zavershneva, E. (2010). The Vygotsky family archive: New findings notebooks, notes, and scientific journals of L.S. Vygotsky (1912–1934). Journal of Russian and East European Psychology, 48(1), 34–60.

Luke Cuttance is a Research Associate in the School of Education and Institute Manager at the Alfred Deakin Institute for Citizenship and Globalisation at Deakin University. He began his career in the Australian Public Service, has taught Russian as a foreign language and worked extensively in community education roles. Recently, Luke coordinated a large portfolio of university-based research and engagement projects focusing on teacher professional learning in Victoria.

Preparing Teachers as Multilingual Educators: Optimizing Achievement of National English Language Education Policy Objectives in China Minli Zhang

Abstract China in the past decades has attached greater importance to English language teaching (ELT) and teacher education. Introduction in curriculum policy and English language teacher education of teaching approaches from Anglophone settings that advocate English-only in the English classroom is arguably out of step both with more traditional approaches and with current practices teachers adopt in English language classrooms. In this chapter I use the example of students with Cantonese language backgrounds to argue for reorientation of approaches to language teaching in English teacher education to embrace contemporary multilingual approaches to language teaching and learning, and to validate the educational value of language alternation practices already in use in many classrooms. Cantonese speaking English learners in Guangdong province are a significant but officially unacknowledged minority language group whose language learning could arguably be advantageously progressed if multilingual approaches that embraced all the linguistic resources learners have at their disposal were adopted. The chapter outlines the place of Cantonese in the linguistic landscape, includes an examination of current English policies and teaching approaches, provides a brief consideration of monolingual and multilingual approaches to language teaching, and surveys the research literature on practices of alternation of the language of instruction in English classrooms. The chapter concludes with a call for reorientation of English teacher education policies to acknowledge a multilingual approach to language teaching and learning that prepares teachers as multilingual educators capable of planned and judicious use of both their and learners’ language resources to optimize achievement of national language education policy objectives. Keywords ELT · English teacher education · Language policy · Multilingual · Cantonese · China

M. Zhang (B) School of Foreign Languages, Beijing Normal University, Zhuhai Campus, Beijing, China e-mail: [email protected] © Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020 W. Tao and I. Liyanage (eds.), Multilingual Education Yearbook 2020, Multilingual Education Yearbook, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-41211-1_3

43

44

M. Zhang

1 Introduction China is a multilingual country with a complicated linguistic landscape in which many people regularly use and/or draw on knowledge of two or more languages to communicate in the various domains of daily life (Duan, 2016). In recent years this multilinguality has taken a new turn; to improve the language proficiencies of its citizens, the Ministry of Education (MOE) (Ministry of Education, 2001b) has attached great importance to the universal school-based learning of foreign languages, but “in practice, however, only English flourishes” (Cheng, 2002, p. 259). English is recognized as a resource which may be utilized for “international exchange, fostering economic progress, acquiring scientific knowledge and technological expertise, and facilitating educational development” (Hu, 2002, p. 33). The dominance of English as the foreign language provided for primary and secondary students is clear from the positions of other foreign languages in the curriculum. For example, because of economic needs, Russian and Japanese are taught in some regions, but the number of schools that offer these languages is diminishing (Li, 2012), and less than one percent of secondary school students learn Russian and/or Japanese (Dai & Hu, 2009). Greater policy importance is attached to English Language Teaching (ELT) because it is considered a language vital for participation in the global knowledge economy and international education, for facilitation of foreign trade and other international exchanges. In these circumstances, English language teacher education is an important dimension of effective and successful language policy implementation. All students in schools must learn English as a foreign/additional language, but outside of their classrooms the use of local languages and/or dialects means many students are effectively bi/trilingual with extensive extant resources of language knowledge. The complex nature of China’s multilingualism has led to first languages being treated differently in different regions, and some contention over the linguistic status of dialects such as Cantonese. In Guangdong province, for instance, Mandarin, is the official language and medium of instruction (MOI) in schools and universities, as required by the ‘State Law on Common Language and Characters of the People’s Republic of China’ (National People’s Congress of PRC, 2001), while Cantonese, officially considered a local dialect of Han Chinese, is used outside classrooms by a significant proportion of students and their families. In the English as foreign language (EFL) classroom, with the promotion of Mandarin as MOI and of English as the additional language, the position of Cantonese, both as useful language knowledge and in teacher and learner classroom practices, is contentious (for more on the contested place and status of Cantonese, see Gao, 2012; Ng & Zhao, 2015; Xiong, 2018). Introduction in curriculum policy and English language teacher education of teaching approaches from Anglophone settings that advocate English-only in the English classroom is arguably out of step both with more traditional approaches and with current practices teachers adopt in English language classrooms. There are increasing arguments and growing evidence of the potential advantages of a multilingual approach to language teaching (Cook, 2001; Creese & Blackledge, 2010;

Preparing Teachers as Multilingual Educators …

45

He, 2012; Macaro, 2009) and of the benefits of teachers recognizing the value of first languages/dialects for learning, and exploiting these in second language teaching practice. Macaro (2009, p. 49), for example, suggests that “banning the first language from the communicative second language classroom may in fact be reducing the cognitive and metacognitive opportunities available to learners.” In these circumstances, introduction in teacher education programs of multilingual approaches that emphasize the role of learners’ first language in learning and in teacher classroom practices in multilingual settings may be helpful to shape future teachers’ confidence as multilingual educators who are open-minded and considerate This chapter outlines the place of Cantonese in the linguistic landscape, includes an examination of current English policies and teaching approaches, provides a brief consideration of monolingual and multilingual approaches to language teaching, and surveys the research literature on practices of alternation of the language of instruction in English classrooms, first involving Cantonese in Guangdong province, and then of the official medium of instruction, Mandarin, more generally. The chapter concludes with a call for reorientation of English teacher education policies to acknowledge a multilingual approach to language teaching and learning that prepares teachers as multilingual educators capable of planned and judicious use of both their and learners’ language resources to optimize achievement of national language education policy objectives.

2 Cantonese in Guangdong China is a multi-ethnic multilingual nation (Ministry of Education, 2017a) with one official language, Mandarin, the now-dominant dialect of the Han Chinese language. Although it is estimated that of the total population of 1.39 billion (National Bureau of Statistics of China, 2017) more than 70% are able to use Mandarin as medium of communication (Ministry of Education, 2017b), the multitude of local dialects, ethnic minority languages, and some introduced/foreign languages (such as English in Hong Kong and Portuguese in Macau) mean multilingual practices are the reality of communication in many people’s daily lives (Kang & Qiu, 2010; Ministry of Education, 2017a; Xiong, 2018). Mandarin is based on one of ten standard dialects of the Chinese Han language (Ministry of Education, 2017a), the Beijing dialect (Zhu, 2015), but there are also at least 130 ethnic minority languages and more than 30 written languages used by around 60 million people in China, (Huang, 2014). Far outnumbering ethnic minority language users are those who use other dialects of Chinese, such as Yue (which includes Cantonese), Wu, and Hokkein (Eberhard, Simons, & Fennig, 2019). Therefore, for many Chinese, their dialect or minority language is their first or home language, and Mandarin, the national language, is an additional language that serves a lingua franca. There are more than 80 million people in China for whom Cantonese, and its closely related dialects, is their first language (Wu, 2018), many of them among Guangdong Province’s 111.69 million permanent residents (National Bureau of Statistics of China, 2017). In different regions, however, Cantonese has different

46

M. Zhang

status; in Hong Kong and in Macau, for example, Cantonese has official status as a linguistic variety of Chinese, and is “widely used as a medium of instruction in Hong Kong” (Ng & Zhao, 2015, p. 359). Elsewhere in China, however, some researchers have expressed concerns about a “perceived marginalization and decline of Cantonese” (Xiong, 2018, p. 39) and He (2017, in Xiong, 2018, p. 39) proposes “protection of the linguistic ecological environments of regional dialects such as Cantonese.” As Xiong (2018) points out, with the promotion of Cantonese by the media in Guangdong province, and with Cantonese-language television programs from Hongkong and Macau allowed to be broadcast in Guangdong, the Cantonese vernacular itself continues to occupy an important place in the linguistic environment of the region. Interestingly, in the context of this chapter, after centuries of language contact in Guangdong’s ports, Cantonese has the largest number of words adopted from English of any Chinese dialect (Zhu, 2015). The linguistic status of Cantonese, that is, the question of whether it is a language or a dialect, is a matter of ongoing debate (see, e.g., Groves, 2010), but there exists a published Cantonese grammar (Matthews & Yip, 2010), and, in the context of Hong Kong in particular, Cantonese is frequently referred to as “a major language” (Lee & Leung, 2012, p. 2). Thus, officially Cantonese is denied recognition as a language in mainland China, and linguistically, the situation remains unresolved, but users have few doubts about the legitimacy of their claims of its distinctiveness. In places such as Guangdong, the MOE’s goals of increasing the number of communicatively proficient Mandarin users to 80% in 2020 (Ministry of Education, 2017b), and of the promotion of teaching English to primary school students (Ministry of Education, 2001b), fail to adequately acknowledge the wide use of Cantonese, marginalizing it in educational contexts in favour of Mandarin and English (Xiong, 2018). Although the widespread use of Cantonese across other less formal public domains means its vitality is not threatened, its official exclusion from classrooms risks further relegation in the future to marker of lack of education and socioeconomic status. Mandarin, as is stated in the State Law on Common Language and Characters of the People’s Republic of China, is the medium of instruction (MOI) of schools and other educational institutions (National People’s Congress of PRC, 2001). For students in Guangdong whose first language is Cantonese, Mandarin is learned as a second/additional language in primary school, and some even begin to learn Mandarin in kindergarten. The MOE recommends that language pedagogy courses in undergraduate language teacher education programs encourage teachers’ use of the target language (TL) as instructional medium in the language classroom (Ministry of Education, 2001a). Some (Chen, 2008) suggest that more English needs to be used in instruction in English classes, particularly in primary schools. Chen (2008), adopting a monolingual, or dual competence (MacSwan, 2017) approach, goes further, arguing that the first language should be avoided in English classes, and that English teachers who can’t, or don’t, use English in their teaching practice have a negative impact on students’ learning. For Cantonese background students, their English teachers are encouraged both by policy and in their teacher preparation to avoid even the use of their other additional language, Mandarin, in the English classroom, let alone the language with which they are most familiar. Although there is currently no official

Preparing Teachers as Multilingual Educators …

47

policy regarding L1 use as MOI in ELT (Yan, Fung, Liu, & Huang, 2016), this is illustrative of the monolingual approach that dominates in approaches to ELT that are advocated in curriculum documents and during teacher preparation, discouraging in classrooms both spontaneous and “planned and systematic use of two languages inside the same lesson” (Baker, 2011, p. 288).

3 English Language Education and English Language Teacher Education Policy Implementation of China’s policy position on ELT depends upon the preparation and continued development of English teachers for effective practice through quality pre- and in-service English teacher education programs. These programs need to develop teachers’ pedagogic content knowledge (Shulman, 1986) and skills that equip them for research-informed practice in order to achieve the best possible outcomes for learners, not least because English has assumed a very important position in the academic progress and outcomes of students at all levels of education, and in determination of their educational opportunities. Since 2002, the MOE has required that English should be taken by all students as a core course, commencing in Third Grade of primary school until the third year of high school (Ministry of Education, 2001b). At high school level, foreign language courses such as English account for 10 credits out of 116 credits of the compulsory courses (Ministry of Education, 2003), although the weighting given to English is about to be reduced with the reform of the English tests for National College Entrance Exam (Gaokao) (Zou & Yu, 2017), and there are trials being conducted for a move of the English exams out of the Gaokao to be “replaced by English tests held a number of times each year in order to give students the best chance of succeeding” (Gil, 2016, p. 62) In higher education, English teaching falls into the two types of English major and non-English major, and success in learning English continues to be critical to academic success. For nonEnglish major students, college English courses are compulsory during their first and second university years. During their university years, non-English major students have to achieve the general requirements set up by the MOE, with a vocabulary of 4,500 words and 700 phrases (Ministry of Education, 2004). English is also one of the majors under the foreign language category (Ministry of Education, 2018), and college graduates who have higher English proficiency tend to have higher salary in their jobs (Guo & Sun, 2014; Pan & Cui, 2016). Thus, as a result of policies that embed successful English language learning in academic progress and success, it is not surprising that “English flourishes” (Cheng, 2002, p. 259) and that consequently the importance of preparation of English teachers and of their practices is of great significance to individuals, their families and the nation more widely. As is argued by Hu (2005b), the policy favouring development of English education has generated demand for a high-quality ELT teaching workforce applying new classroom language teaching practices to implement the new English curriculum

48

M. Zhang

introduced in 2001. There is an emphasis on communicative approaches and target language input: … the revised syllabus advocates a more student-centered approach to language teaching. It states that teachers should adjust their views on language and language teaching and foster students’ creativity in language use. To ensure students’ participation in class, it suggests that teachers’ talking time should not exceed more than one third of class time, leaving the rest of the time for students’ practice. Language input should be authentic, interesting, and practical. (Wang, 2007, p. 95)

One reading of these aims could include recognition of learners’ existing language resources as the foundation for learning and creative language use, but the objective of greater use of English as the medium of instruction in ELT had been one argument for development of the new curriculum (Wang, 2007). Meeting this demand for ‘adjustment’ of teachers’ views has, however, been a long-term problem for English language teacher education in China (Hu, 2005a), and teacher preparation “has become a site where tensions and struggles between the old and new pedagogical cultures get played out” (He & Lin, 2013, p. 206). The stance adopted in this chapter is that the communicative models advocated in reforms are essentially representative of monolingual paradigms that discourage use of existing language resources in learning, and that tensions arise between efforts to develop new pedagogical cultures through teacher education and the multilingual practices that teachers then find they and their learners use. Given the evidence to be presented later in this chapter that use of Mandarin (and other language resources including Cantonese) is common practice in ELT classrooms in most of China’s secondary schools and universities (Yan et al., 2016), it is commonplace for English teachers to profess an aim to use English exclusively but to actually use of a combination of Mandarin and English as MOI in their classrooms in schools, whilst also considering this same practice as counterproductive in the process of learning English. Some argue English language teacher education has not played a facilitative role in policy attempts to introduce curriculum reforms and communicative practices of English teaching, instead concentrating on learning the content of English itself, and on transmission style delivery of theoretical knowledge of teaching and pedagogy without adequate practical opportunities to develop a corresponding skill base (Hu, 2005a; Zhan, 2008). This has produced English teachers who, without adequate familiarity with the teaching approaches advocated in curriculum reform (Cai & Cook, 2015; Gil, 2016), and with poor understanding of how to enact the practices they are encouraged to use, such as communicative language teaching (CLT), resort to a textbook and exam driven pedagogy (Cheng & Wang, 2004) that resembles the teaching they have experienced throughout their lives as students and language learners (Zhan, 2008). Thus, there is very often a mismatch between teachers’ theoretical knowledge and their practical experiential knowledge, that is, between “how teachers think about English teaching and what they actually put into practice” (Zhan, 2008, p. 63). Zheng (2013) points out that, in fact, teachers frequently hold conflicting or inconsistent beliefs about ELT, and that contextual dynamics influence both pedagogic approaches and teaching goals in different circumstances. Thus, teachers’ practices can be better characterized as pragmatic, evident in eclectic approaches that

Preparing Teachers as Multilingual Educators …

49

respond to context, sometimes prioritizing communicative approaches and goals as emphasized in teacher education and curriculum policy, and at other times more traditional examination-oriented approaches that focus on assessment outcomes. This helps to explain the phenomenon discussed later in this chapter, the expressed belief of teachers in the pedagogic benefits of using the target language only in English classrooms as promoted in their teacher education experiences, and the documented practice of using Mandarin and/or other language/s as the medium of instruction as a more effective approach given the imperatives of limited time and the significance of examination results. Reform of ELT has been equated in policy and curriculum documents, and in teacher preparation programs, with teaching methods imported from Anglophone nations (Mahboob & Lin, 2016) that espouse maximizing use of the TL in the classroom, and several have been promoted by education authorities. In the 1990s, CLT was promoted and more recently task-based language teaching (He & Lin, 2013), an “updated version” (Hu & McKay, 2012, p. 348) of CLT, is the “recommended teaching approach in many recent policy documents, including the English Curriculum Standards” (Gil, 2016, p. 63). At the local government level, English-only approaches have been taken further in what is regarded as a significant innovation in teaching practice in primary and secondary ELT classrooms, language immersion programs. First introduced in Shanghai, and initially termed content-based English instruction (CBEI) (Hu, 2002), to refer to the practice of using English as medium of instruction to teach a non-language subject (Hu & McKay, 2012) these programs are now referred to as ‘Chinese-English bilingual education’. Although the emphasis is on using only the target language, or at least maximizing its use, ‘English-medium’ bilingual programs in China in fact use both Chinese and English, with variations in the amount of English used (Gao & Wang, 2017). A number of variables have contributed to an apparent lack of anticipated success of content-based language education, not least the inability of teacher education programs to prepare graduates possessing the necessary combination of English language proficiency, language teacher pedagogy for EMI, and the content area knowledge and pedagogies to teach other curriculum subjects using English. More fundamentally, the current preparation of ELT teachers for teaching English as a foreign language emphasizes teaching approaches that advocate maximizing use of the TL in the classroom, such as communicative language teaching, task-based language teaching, or content-based language, approaches deeply rooted in monolingual conceptions of language and language learning that ignore or devalue the teaching and learning potential of integration of existing language knowledge and practices in language classroom practices.

4 The Monolingual Approach to Language Teaching Several fundamental differences distinguish the concept of a multilingual approach to language teaching from the monolingual approach that dominates Chinese ELT teacher preparation, in which there is “a general consensus among … educators that

50

M. Zhang

English should be used as much as possible as the medium of instruction” (Yan et al., 2016). Chinese English language teacher education is arguably typical of the same approach more universally; in a global survey of own-language use in ELT classrooms, which included a significant component of Chinese English language teachers, “participants overwhelmingly reported that both the pre-service and in-service teacher training programs that they had experienced discouraged own-language use in the ELT classroom” (Hall & Cook, 2013). Adamson (2004) observes that until recently, language study in China was very similar to the more traditional grammar translation found in Europe, and even methods imported more recently from the West, such as audiolingualism, suited Chinese approaches. The shift to the emphasis on monolingual approaches in preparation of teachers for classroom instruction was part of the reform movement in the 1970s emphasizing a more outward oriented China, and hence the need for communication using foreign languages, particularly English. This coincided with the widespread adoption and popularity of communicative approaches in the West. Premised on the objective of TL use in what were considered monolingual TL contexts, deployment of L1 for practices such as translation, or as a communicative strategy, was considered not required or even useful (Adamson, 2004; Hall & Cook, 2012). The idea and practice of using as much TL as possible in the classroom was also a practical response to settings in which teacher and learners didn’t share a L1, but there are several arguments that shape the theoretical ground of the avoidance of L1 in the language teaching classroom even if, as in classrooms in China, most teachers are able to speak the students’ L1 (Cook, 2001): • the argument from L1 learning, equating the learners’ experiences of learning their L1 with TL learning experience • the argument from language compartmentalization, that is, the separation of the TL from the L1 based on the assumption or idea that language knowledge is bounded, that knowledge of L1, L2, L3, etc., is cognitively separate, does not interact, and can in fact impede or complicate TL learning, and; • the argument for second language use in the classroom to provide as many opportunities as possible for the learners to experience the L2. The notion of maximizing the use of the TL and using as little L1 as possible was pervasive and an “anti-L1 attitude was clearly a mainstream element in twentieth-century language teaching methodology” (Cook, 2001, p. 405). This limited the exposure of language learners to various types of teaching methods (Cook, 2001), whilst universally promoting contemporary approaches such as CLT and its variant, task-based language teaching (TBLT). In addition, the concept of language immersion, which originated in Canada in the 1960s (Guo, 2016; Xi, 2009) and is usually regarded as one of the influences of China’s ELT trend, is different in its position in language learning. The aim of the Canadian immersion programs was to help young English-background Canadians who lived in French-speaking regions to grasp French. The schools set up an immersion environment for children to learn the additional language, which was also the MOI, and when compared with non-immersion language learners, the immersion group were more proficient and confident language

Preparing Teachers as Multilingual Educators …

51

users (Xi, 2009). In China, learning through language ‘immersion’ in English as MOI in English medium bilingual programs and content and language integrated learning (CLIL) programs has come to be seen as an “enticing” (Clegg, 2010, p. 46) policy option to implement widespread English language learning or to address shortcomings in conventional programs. The intention to avoid use of the first language in these classrooms is evident in the arguments of Chi and Niu (2010) that, despite limited vocabulary and low level of English language proficiency or learners, effective strategies could be adopted to overcome the disadvantages of learners’ limited knowledge of the additional language in immersion English class: offering students comprehensible input, helping students to learn the language pattern in a meaningful context, and using cooperative learning strategies. The arguments for continued promotion of monolingual teaching in English teacher education programs have been challenged. Cook (2001), for example, argued that it is unjustifiable to draw conclusions based on the experience of L1-only learners and apply them to bilingual learners; the comparison between the acquisition of L1 and L2 focused on L1 learned by children solely and completely in monolingual settings. Learners of additional language/s experience a different process from L1-only young children because of “more mature minds, greater social development, a larger short-term memory capacity” (Cook, 2001, p. 406), and, because their ultimate goal/s of learning language/s differs from that of L1 learners, their success should be judged according to a different set of standards. In addition, the argument of exposing L2 learners to authentic L2 language usage fails to acknowledge constraints on authentic language use in classroom discourse which is “restricted in conversational topics, roles, and language functions due to the different roles of students and teachers” (Cook, 2001, p. 409). As for the separation of L1 from L2, Creese and Blackledge (2010) point out that a monolingual approach conceives of the multilingual/bilingual student/teacher as “two [or more] monolinguals in one body” (Creese & Blackledge, 2010, p. 105), yet there is evidence L1 and L2 form an interwoven or integrated, or conceivably unitary, system in L2 learners’ mind (Cook, 2001). The notions of languages and codes, and of language alternation or codeswitching become problematic in any “critique of language as discrete, unified systems” (Makoni & Pennycook, 2012, p. 440) and views of knowledge as a unified resource (see MacSwan, 2017). Nonetheless, the communicative practice of drawing on all language knowledge—be it termed codeswitching, language alternation, translanguaging, multilanguaging, or codemeshing, among various current terms to describe what are argued to be distinct practices (see MacSwan, 2017, pp. 170–171)—is observed by researchers to be very common among bilingual language learners, and learners’ knowledge of their own language and “its relation to the new language” (Hall & Cook, 2012, p. 276) considered as essential for learners whether in a monolingually-oriented teaching setting, or not.

52

M. Zhang

5 Multilingual Approaches to Language Teaching and Teacher Education Preparing Chinese teachers of English to utilize the language resources of learners necessitates a conceptual shift in teacher education programs from a focus on what has been regarded in monolingual approaches as a discrete body of knowledge called English, isolated from learners’ other language resources (Cenoz & Gorter, 2013), to a focus on learners as developing or emerging multilinguals (Garcia & Kleyn, 2013). Situating English language teacher education in this approach will prepare teachers for the teaching and learning of English that can “better reflect the diverse and legitimate linguistic interests’ of learners” (May, 2008, p. 27) and also significantly improve access to participation in education of minority language individuals and groups disadvantaged as a result of restrictive, majoritarian language and language education policies (May, 2008). Some of the very broad terminology that permeates English language teacher education (and that is used freely in this chapter!) is illustrative of the hold of monolingual paradigms on the conceptual foundation of the goals of ELT. Being a teacher of English as a foreign language, an additional language, a second/third/fourth language, a target language, or to speakers of other languages, prepares teachers for a focus on the objective of learners acquiring a separate, bounded set of skills and knowledge of, invariably, a dominant variety of the language with ‘native-speaker’ standard as the ideal. Prospective English teachers in China need to be unburdened of striving for learners to achieve what Cenoz and Gorter (2013, p. 593) call “the unreachable goal of speaking English as if they did not know other languages,” and prepared for responsiveness to the diverse linguistic contexts of ELT as multilingual educators, rather than ‘English teachers’. This would seem an essential first principle in a setting such as China, so that preservice teachers understand that classroom practice is in conditions that demand a recognition that many learners will need to operate bilingually, that they will wish to preserve their own cultural and linguistic identity while speaking English, and that they will not necessarily be using English in a native-speaker environment, but as a lingua franca with other non-native speakers of English. (Hall & Cook, 2012, p. 276)

Teacher education that aims to prepares teachers to be more open to complexity and diversity of learners can refer to a growing body of literature that conceptualizes and documents practical multilingual approaches, and recognizes the existing resources of emerging multilingual learners, for example, in studies of bilingual teaching, and language alternation and choice in classrooms (Hall & Cook, 2012). Embedding multilingual approaches in English teacher education would have the effect not only of broadening the scope of pedagogic knowledge of teachers and equipping them for more versatile and responsive practice, but also of validating many practices teachers and students already engage in, but which teachers have been encouraged to consider poor practice, even a source of guilt (Cook, 2001; Swain, Kirkpatrick, & Cummins, 2011) stemming from “failure” (Cummins, 2007, p. 225) to use only English. Courses on theory and pedagogy of language teaching

Preparing Teachers as Multilingual Educators …

53

and learning in language teacher education programs need to overturn this unrealistic and unproductive English-only stance. Teacher educators can promote the critiquing of TL-only in both policy and as an assumption prevalent in the great bulk of coursebooks used in English teacher preparation by exposing preservice teachers to the extensive body of studies from across the world (see Hall & Cook, 2012) that report productive pedagogies involving what Hall and Cook (2012, 2013) term own-language use, even in settings in which policy discourages own-language use. Use of L1 by students happens “every day” (Cook, 2001, p. 405) and is arguably a natural behaviour; classroom practices involving the learners’ L1 are adopted by both teachers and students, often unconsciously, in response to a natural need to embody their consciousness as multilingual individuals in a multilingual community. Cummins (2007, pp. 226–227) points out that “the empirical evidence is consistent both with an emphasis on extensive communicative interaction in the TL (ideally in both oral and written modes) and the utility of students’ L1 as a cognitive tool in learning the TL.” Maximization of the use of the TL in language teaching classrooms does not deny the use of learners’ other language(s) knowledge in class, and, furthermore, avoiding use of this knowledge may actually limit the use of various ways that teachers might use it in their teaching (Cook, 2001). For example, a study in an English immersion classroom of translation activities (Manyak, 2004)—regarded in current orthodoxy as poor practice, although typical of traditional language-learning activities in Chinese classrooms—found that translation promotes the acquisition of English, biliteracy development, and identities of language competence, and furthermore establishes bilingualism as “a highly esteemed ability” (Manyak, 2004, p. 15). The proposition that bi/multilingual language learners do not have completely separate language systems in their minds, but rather a mutually supportive knowledge system in which existing language knowledge is a ‘bridge’ to new knowledge fits well with some more general theories of learning that are being promoted in China’s teacher education programs since announcement of “pedagogical reforms” (Tan, 2017, p. 238) in 2001, and with the ‘English Language Curriculum Standards’, also released in 2001 and grounded on constructivist theories of learning (Zhan, 2008). Constructivist theories that emphasize approaches centred on learners building new knowledge using prior knowledge, and the social mediation of learning through language, offer a conceptual rationale for valuing learners’ existing language/s skills and knowledge in language teaching. For students, language alternation happens in language classes even when teachers forbid them to use their other language/s, and “the reality is that students are making cross-linguistic connections throughout the course of their learning” (Cummins, 2007, p. 229). Thus, it is necessary for the teachers to be prepared to support them to channel this effort in the most efficient ways to “scaffold” (Swain et al., 2011) learning. Brooks and Donato (1994) observed that much of the use of first or other languages by learners is actually observable evidence of metacognitive engagement, “metatalk” (p. 266), that is, talk about the language they are using in completing the task with which they are engaged, and important for progressing interaction in the new language. For teacher educators who advocate an English-only approach to English language teaching, this conceptual alignment

54

M. Zhang

between constructivist learning and multilingual approaches offers an opportunity to validate some use of L1 by teachers and learners within communicative approaches as “a normal psycholinguistic process that facilitates L2 production and allows the learners both to initiate and sustain verbal interaction with one other” (Brooks & Donato, 1994, p. 268).

5.1 Multilingual Classrooms in Chinese ELT Research investigating language use by teachers and learners in ELT classrooms in China offers a vivid picture of the use of existing language knowledge and target language in the multilingual settings, including some explicitly focused on use of Cantonese. It offers evidence that the English-only approach in ELT classrooms that is recommended in policy and advocated in the communicative-oriented approaches promoted in English language teacher education programs is not the reality of dayto-day discourse of teachers and learners in language classrooms. Furthermore, both teachers and learners deploy existing language knowledge in ways that support and progress learning of English, and the management of that learning. In the example of ELT in Guangdong, English teachers—as well as their colleagues in other curriculum areas—need to be prepared for practice that can respond to and leverage the multilingual capacities of students. Most Cantonese-background learners of English, by the time they enter junior secondary school, possess a plurilingual proficiency (Council of Europe, 2007), that is, their linguistic repertoire encompasses at least Cantonese, Mandarin, and English, and they engage routinely in translingual practices. For example, they use and/or mix these as appropriate across and within domains (Wang & Ladegaard, 2008), although their skills in these languages may not be equivalent (Cenoz & Gorter, 2013). More generally, Mandarin has assumed an increasing presence in Guangdong, the heartland of Cantonese, because of both language policy and economically-driven internal migration that introduces diverse ethnic minority languages and Chinese dialects to the region. Mandarin is effectively a lingua franca in a linguistically diverse population, and Cantonese-Mandarin language mixing or alternation in particular has been noted for some time across various domains (Pan, 2000), including education. Language alternation is an expected, accepted, and desirable (Wang & Ladegaard, 2008) social practice among school students, especially in school environments where language contact is inevitable. In their study, Wang and Ladegaard (2008) found secondary students reported frequent and regular translingual mixing of Cantonese and Mandarin in school outside formal classroom settings, and in classrooms some Cantonesebackground students found it difficult to express some ideas in Mandarin, the official MOI. Zhu (2015) surveyed students in three secondary schools in Guangzhou, the capital city of Guangdong province, and found similar translingual practices, and as well, students described translingual practices of teachers of subjects other than English, in particular the introduction of English in Mathematics, Chemistry, and even Mandarin classes. Participants in the same study reported that Cantonese,

Preparing Teachers as Multilingual Educators …

55

despite lacking any official status as a language of instruction, was “often spoken, by both teachers and students in their interactions in and out of class” (Zhu, 2015, p. 232), and that more recent arrivals in Guangdong sometimes experienced difficulties in class when teachers used Cantonese. This adds another dimension to the use of Cantonese in school classrooms; in the plurilingual linguistic ecology of Guangdong, most newcomers from non-Cantonese backgrounds necessarily develop some Cantonese proficiency, and thus classroom translanguaging can assist students to meet the linguistic and social demands of daily life outside the classroom. To sum up, there is a disparity between, on the one hand, official MOI policy, the recommended approach to ELT, and the pedagogic approaches espoused in English language teacher education, and on the other hand, the day-to-day practices of teachers and learners in schools in Guangdong where Cantonese has a place in routine translanguage practices. Evidence from classroom research elsewhere in China supports the argument that practices of language alternation or translanguaging can be advantageous to learning, and that making teachers aware of their use on a planned and conscious basis will prepare them for ELT practice as multilingual educators. Studies of classrooms and of teacher education offer similar instances of monolingual approaches and mismatches between teacher education and actual classroom practices. In a study of cooperative learning in a tertiary non-English major, that “some students overused Chinese in order to get ideas across and complete tasks quickly” (Ning, 2011, p. 68) was considered a weakness, and strategies to discourage this were recommended. In their case study of dissonance between practices promoted in English teacher education and those encouraged in schools, He and Lin (2013, p. 211) described how a young preservice teacher, enthusiastic about using English-only in her teaching practice, was admonished by her supervising teacher—who justified her own use of the students own language to explain content as more direct and easily understood— because she had spoken “‘too much English’ which left the students ‘at a loss’ about her teaching.” In the process of adapting her theoretical learning to the practical circumstances of the school classroom, the preservice teacher adopted the supervising teacher’s practice of using the learners’ own language to teach key language points, and found students responded positively and their active involvement in learning increased. Use of languages other than the target language in English language classrooms at all levels, that is, primary, secondary, and higher education, is documented in numerous studies (He, 2012; Jiang, Zhang, & May, 2019; Liu, 2010; Qian, Tian, & Wang, 2009; Yan et al., 2016). The frequency of language alternation varies in relation to numerous factors, such as both teacher and learner proficiency, communicative context and participant relationships, and institutional context (Yan et al., 2016), and appears to decrease in classrooms of more experienced learners (Qian et al., 2009). But this is still a regular practice of both teachers and learners in university classrooms, even those in which English is the MOI, after many years of learning (Jiang et al., 2019). There is not always agreement, however, between learners and teachers about the acceptability of the practice, especially at higher levels (Cai & Cook, 2015). Yan et al. (2016) found language alternation is a regular practice in Chinese

56

M. Zhang

secondary school ELT classrooms and that the TL is mainly used in communication relating to curriculum content rather than communication itself. Across the various studies the functions of L1 or own language use include explanation of vocabulary and grammatical points, classroom management, and fostering of supportive teacherlearner relationships. Teachers often feel that in using learners’ own language they “ensure effective and accurate instruction …(and) that using Chinese to teach key conceptual knowledge is safer and time-saving” (Jiang et al., 2019, p. 112). From the perspective of teacher education, what are clearly widespread practices are currently not part of a theoretically supported pedagogy, planned or coordinated with the objective of maximizing the potential for learning afforded by the multilingual setting. While researchers conclude that many teachers are instinctively using language alternation “systematically for the benefit of L2 development” (He, 2012, p. 11) through building on learners’ linguistic knowledge and the differences and similarities between the target language, English, and learners L1/own language, these are not practices teachers are prepared for during their teacher education. To optimize learners’ existing language resources, there is “a need to move from excessive and unstructured use of own-language towards a more judicious and productive one” (Cai & Cook, 2015, p. 243) based on theoretically grounded and researched pedagogies introduced in teacher education. Some studies in Chinese classrooms have gone beyond mere observation of existing practices in attempts to provide a research base for a multilingual pedagogy that incorporates language alternation/code switching. Macaro and colleagues (Macaro, 2009; Tian & Macaro, 2012; Zhao & Macaro, 2016) have conducted various interventions in classroom learning of vocabulary to gauge the impact of L1 explanations by teachers compared to English-only explanations. The findings suggested introduction of L1 was advantageous, but the significance for the argument mounted here are the implications for English teacher education programs that encourage teachers to avoid use of learners existing language resources in learning the target language. Not only did Macaro and colleagues conclude that there is at least “no harm” (Macaro, 2009, p. 43) in giving L1 equivalents or explanations of words during the teaching activity around the reading texts in terms of long-term vocabulary acquisition, they further hypothesized that giving L1 vocabulary equivalents “lightens the cognitive load freeing up processing capacity to focus on the meaning of the text as a whole” (2009, p. 43) The point that emerges from the classroom research literature is that although there are variations in the extent of L1 use both by teachers and students in ELT, more and more researchers in China are arguing that in tandem with objectives of the maximization of TL use in classrooms, the L1 should also be used as resource to language learners. Macaro (2009) argues that avoidance of learners’ own language may in fact be a disadvantage in terms of optimization of learning. Therefore, with little evidence indicating that the judicious use of L1 in additional language learning creates any negative effect, and evidence showing the appropriate use of L1 might have positive influence in learners’ TL acquisition, I argue that this growing weight of opinion and evidence justifies the place of L1 in ELT, which means. This would encompass encouraging the appropriate use of some first languages that currently

Preparing Teachers as Multilingual Educators …

57

have no officially sanctioned role in classroom learning, for example, use of Cantonese by Cantonese-background learners, and planned and judicious use by their English teachers if they share the learners’ Cantonese language background. More generally, this suggests it is important that pre-service teacher education includes awareness of multilingual perspectives in both English teaching and learning before they start their career, so that learning can be facilitated and maximized by taking advantage of learners’ existing language knowledge and resources when and where relevant.

6 The Way Forward Many learners of English in China bring multilingual resources to the task, as do their teachers. In Guangdong province, for instance, a large proportion of the population use Cantonese as a first or home language, and secondary school students whose L1 is Cantonese will have been required to learn Mandarin in their primary schooling as well as beginning to study English. Multilingual teaching approaches seem to be suitable in such a multilingual community, but future English teachers need to be appropriately prepared through exposure to theoretical and research foundations of effective multilingual education that acknowledges the value of existing language knowledge as a teaching/learning resource. More specifically, in relation to use of learners’ L1/mother tongue/other additional languages in English classrooms, reviews of the most recent research “confirm the multi-functionality of L1 use reported in previous studies … for instructional purposes, … for classroom management or discipline, … (and) to build interpersonal relationships” (Shin, Dixon, & Choi, 2019, p. 3). Researchers in China itself are advocating that the most effective approach to bilingual education for ethnic minority children needs to be based on recognition that the mother tongue of students is indispensable in additional language learning (Li, 2017); this approach needs to be widened to include the diverse variants of the Chinese language, such as Cantonese. As Cai and Cook (2015, pp. 242–243) argue, “the debate has now progressed beyond the question of whether to allow own-language use to how much, how and in what circumstances.” Reorienting classroom practices and structures in this way will require that China’s policy makers and teacher educators continue their pursuit of the most effective approaches to language teaching in school settings, and this necessitates interrogation of the usefulness of continued adherence to monolingual conceptions of language in one of the world’s most linguistically diverse settings, and consideration of multilingual approaches in (English) language teacher education programs. At the very least, both students and teachers need to know that language alternation/translanguaging in a language classroom is not a shameful practice. Currently, the curriculum priority for communicative use of English has resulted in English teacher education adopting approaches, grounded in monolingual conceptions of language knowledge and language learning, that marginalize existing

58

M. Zhang

language knowledge of both teachers and students. Yet the classroom research introduced in this chapter suggests that teachers’ practices continue to draw on this knowledge in ways that more resemble a multilingual approach. However, research is needed that goes beyond documentation of use and purposes of L1s such as Cantonese in classrooms, to, as Lin (2013) suggests, develop understanding of how the practices we are aware of can be refined to prepare teachers for their planned and judicious use, and to think about the practices outside just cognitive outcomes of English language learning, to consider them from interpretive and critical perspectives of identity and ideology. The intersection of the two bodies of research evidence, that supporting multilingual approaches and that documenting classroom practices, provides grounds for teacher educators and their preservice English teachers to problematize the commitment of policymakers to imported communicative approaches and the unrealistic goal of English-only in the teaching of the language. Opportunities exist for reorientation of English teacher education policies to acknowledge a multilingual approach to language teaching and learning, one that includes re-evaluation of the status of dialects of the dominant language, such as Cantonese in Guangdong Province, to allow recognition as a teaching/learning resource for English teachers practicing as multilingual educators in multilingual classrooms. English language teachers in Guangdong province, for example, can be prepared to provide a classroom environment rich in TL use, whilst making professional decisions about specific classroom activities or procedures that are most effectively carried out using Cantonese and/or Mandarin, identifying for students occasions/activities when it is appropriate and advantageous to use Cantonese/Mandarin, and teaching students ways in which making use of their existing language knowledge can support their learning of the TL.

References Adamson, B. (2004). Fashions in language teaching methodology. In A. Davies & C. Elder (Eds.), The handbook of applied linguistics (pp. 604–622). Malden, MA: Blackwell. Baker, C. (2011). Foundations of bilingual education and bilingualism (5th ed.). Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters. Brooks, F. B., & Donato, R. (1994). Vygotskyan approaches to understanding foreign language learner discourse during communicative tasks. Hispania, 77(2), 262–274. Cai, G., & Cook, G. (2015). Extensive own-language use: A case study of tertiary English language teaching in China. Classroom Discourse, 6(3), 242–266. https://doi.org/10.1080/19463014.2015. 1095104. Cenoz, J., & Gorter, D. (2013). Towards a plurilingual approach in English language teaching: Softening the boundaries between languages. TESOL Quarterly, 47(3), 591–599. https://doi.org/ 10.1002/tesq.121. Chen, Q. (2008). 正确使用课堂教学用语,提高英语课堂教学效益 (Use the MOI correctly and improve the teaching efficiency in English class). 成都大学学报教育科学版 (Journal of Chengdu University, Educational Sciences Edition), 22(3), 70–71. Cheng, L., & Wang, H. (2004). Understanding professional challenges faced by Chinese teachers of English. TESL-EJ, 7(4), 1–14.

Preparing Teachers as Multilingual Educators …

59

Cheng, Z. (2002). English departments in Chinese universities: Purpose and function. World Englishes, 21(2), 257–267. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-971X.00246. Chi, Y., & Niu, X. (2010). The new trend of modern foreign language teaching: Integrated language and content instruction. Forward Position, 2010(14), 186–188. Clegg, J. (2010). The lure of English medium education. In P. Powell-Davies (Ed.), Access English EBE symposium: A collection of papers (pp. 46–62). Kuala Lumpur: British Council East Asia. Cook, V. (2001). Using the first language in the classroom. The Canadian Modern Language Review, 57(3), 402–423. https://doi.org/10.3138/cmlr.57.3.402. Council of Europe. (2007). Guide for the development of language education policies in Europe. From linguistic diversity to plurilingual education. Retrieved from https://www.coe.int/t/dg4/ linguistic/Guide_niveau3_EN.asp#TopOfPage. Creese, A., & Blackledge, A. (2010). Translanguaging in the bilingual classroom: A pedagogy for learning and teaching? The Modern Language Journal, 94(1), 103–115. https://doi.org/10.1111/ j.1540-4781.2009.00986.x. Cummins, J. (2007). Rethinking monolingual instructional strategies in multilingual classrooms. Canadian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 10(2), 221–240. Retrieved from http://www.aclacaal. org/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/7-vol-10-no2-art-cummins.pdf. Dai, W., & Hu, W. (Eds.). (2009). A study of the foreign language education development in China (1949–2009). Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press. Duan, Y. (2016). Research on the linguistic landscape under the globalization setting: A new approach of multilingual study. Hunan Social Science, 2016(2), 214–217. Eberhard, D. M., Simons, G. F., & Fennig, C. D. (Eds.). (2019). Ethnologue: Languages of the world: China (22nd ed.). Dallas, Texas: SIL International. Retrieved from https://www.ethnologue.com/ country/CN. Gao, X. (2012). ‘Cantonese is not a dialect’: Chinese netizens’ defence of Cantonese as a regional lingua franca. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 33(5), 449–464. https:// doi.org/10.1080/01434632.2012.680461. Gao, X. A., & Wang, W. (2017). Bilingual education in the People’s Republic of China. In O. García, A. M. Y. Lin, & S. May (Eds.), Bilingual and multilingual education (3rd ed., pp. 219–231). Cham, Switzerland: Springer. Garcia, O., & Kleyn, T. (2013). Teacher education for multilingual education. In C. A. Chapelle (Ed.), The encyclopedia of applied linguistics (pp. 1–6). Oxford: Blackwell. Gil, J. (2016). English language education policies in the People’s Republic of China. In R. Kirkpatrick (Ed.), English language education policy in Asia (pp. 49–90). Cham, Switzerland: Springer. Groves, J. M. (2010). Language or dialect, topolect or regiolect? A comparative study of language attitudes towards the status of Cantonese in Hong Kong. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 31(6), 531–551. https://doi.org/10.1080/01434632.2010.509507. Guo, Q., & Sun, W. (2014). Economic returns to English proficiency for college graduates in mainland China. China Economic Review, 30, 290–300. Guo, Y. (2016). On immersion teaching strategy of English. Exploring Science and Technology, 19, 198–199. Hall, G., & Cook, G. (2012). Own-language use in language teaching and learning: State of the art. Language Teaching, 45(3), 271–308. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444812000067. Hall, G., & Cook, G. (2013). Own-language use in ELT: Exploring global practices and attitudes (ELT Research Papers 13–01). London: British Council. He, A. E. (2012). Systematic use of mother tongue as learning/teaching resources in additional language instruction. Multilingual Education, 2(1), 1–15. Retrieved from http://www.multilingualeducation.com/content/2/1/1. He, P., & Lin, A. M. Y. (2013). Tensions in school–university partnership and EFL pre-service teacher identity formation: A case in mainland China. The Language Learning Journal, 41(2), 205–218. https://doi.org/10.1080/09571736.2013.790134.

60

M. Zhang

Hu, G. (2002). Recent important developments in secondary English-language teaching in the People’s Republic of China. Language, Culture and Curriculum, 15(1), 30–49. https://doi.org/ 10.1080/07908310208666631. Hu, G. (2005a). English language education in China: Policies, progress, and problems. Language Policy, 4(1), 5–24. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10993-004-6561-7. Hu, G. (2005b). Professional development of secondary EFL teachers: Lessons from China. The Teachers College Record, 107(4), 654–705. Hu, G., & McKay, S. L. (2012). English language education in East Asia: Some recent developments. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 33(4), 345–362. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 01434632.2012.661434. Huang, X. (2014). 当前我国少数民族语言政策解读 (The interpretation of the current language policy of China’s Ethnic Minorities). Journal of South-Central University for Nationalities (Humanities and Social Sciences), 34(6), 7–12. Jiang, L., Zhang, L. J., & May, S. (2019). Implementing Englishmedium instruction (EMI) in China: Teachers’ practices and perceptions, and students’ learning motivation and needs. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 22(2), 107–119. https://doi.org/10. 1080/13670050.2016.1231166. Kang, Z., & Qiu, D. (2010). 中国多语突显的社会功能及其走向 (The social function and development tendency of China as a multilingual-prominence society). Social Science Front, 2010(2), 168–177. Lee, K. S., & Leung, W. M. (2012). The status of Cantonese in the education policy of Hong Kong. Multilingual Education, 2(1), 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1186/10.1186/2191-5059-2-2. Li, Y. (2012). On the development of foreign language education policies in China. Beijing: Peking University Press. Li, Z. (2017). The choice of a progressive bilingual education model. Chinese Education & Society, 50, 25–32. https://doi.org/10.1080/10611932.2016.1262184. Lin, A. M. Y. (2013). Classroom code-switching: Three decades of research. Applied Linguistics Review, 4(1), 195–218. https://doi.org/10.1515/applirev-2013-00. Liu, J. (2010). Teachers’ code-switching to the L1 in EFL classroom. The Open Applied Linguistics Journal, 3, 10–23. Macaro, E. (2009). Teacher use of codeswitching in the second language classroom: Exploring ‘optimal’ use. In M. Turnbull & J. Dailey-O’Cain (Eds.), First language use in second and foreign language learning (pp. 35–49). Bristol: Multilingual Matters. MacSwan, J. (2017). A multilingual perspective on translanguaging. American Educational Research Journal, 54(1), 167–201. https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831216683935. Mahboob, A., & Lin, A. M. Y. (2016). Using local languages in English language classrooms. In W. A. Renandya & H. P. Widodo (Eds.), English language teaching today: Linking theory and practice (pp. 25–40). Cham, Switzerland: Springer. Makoni, S., & Pennycook, A. (2012). Disinventing multilingualism: From monolingual multilingualism to multilingua francas. In M. Martin-Jones, A. Blackledge, & A. Creese (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of multilingualism (pp. 439–453). London; New York: Routledge. Manyak, P. C. (2004). “ What did she say?”: Translation in a primary-grade English immersion class. Multicultural Perspectives, 6(1), 12–18. Matthews, S., & Yip, V. (2010). Cantonese: A comprehensive grammar. London: Routledge. May, S. (2008). Language education, pluralism and citizenship. In S. May & N. H. Hornberger (Eds.), Encyclopedia of language and education (Vol. 1): Language policy and political issues in education (2nd ed., pp. 15–29). Boston, MA: Springer. Ministry of Education. (2001a). 关于加强高等学校本科教学工作提高教学质量的若干意见 (Advice on Improving the Teaching Quality of the Undergraduate in Higher Education). Retrieved from http://old.moe.gov.cn//publicfiles/business/htmlfiles/moe/moe_1623/201006/88633.html. Ministry of Education. (2001b). 教育部关于积极推进小学开设英语课程的指导意见 (Guidelines for actively promoting the offering of English Courses in Elementary Schools. Retrieved from http://old.moe.gov.cn//publicfiles/business/htmlfiles/moe/moe_711/200407/665.html.

Preparing Teachers as Multilingual Educators …

61

Ministry of Education. (2003). Scheme for courses at General Senior High Schools (Trial version). Retrieved from http://www.moe.gov.cn/srcsite/A26/s8001/200303/t20030331_167349.html. Ministry of Education. (2004). Requirements on College English Education (Trial Version). Retrieved from http://www.moe.gov.cn/s78/A08/moe_734/201001/t20100129_729.html. Ministry of Education. (2017a). 中国语言文字概况 (An introduction to Chinese languages and characters). Retrieved from http://www.moe.gov.cn/jyb_sjzl/s5990/201711/t20171110_318848. html. Ministry of Education. (2017b). 国家通用语言文字普及攻坚工程实施方案 (National Implementation Plan on the Popularization of General Language and Character). Retrieved from http://www. gov.cn/xinwen/2017-04/01/content_5182853.htm. Ministry of Education. (2018). China national teaching quality standards for universities at the bachelor’s level. Beijing: Higher Education Press. National Bureau of Statistics of China. (2017). The total population of China in 2017. Retrieved from http://data.stats.gov.cn/search.htm?s=总人口. National People’s Congress of PRC. (2001). The state law on common language and characters of the People’s Republic of China [中华人民共和国国家通用语言文字法]. Retrieved from https://baike.baidu.com/item/中华人民共和国国家通用语言文字法/2342629?fr=Aladdin. Ng, D. F., & Zhao, J. (2015). Investigating Cantonese speakers’ language attitudes in mainland China. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 36(4), 357–371. https://doi.org/ 10.1080/01434632.2014.925906. Ning, H. (2011). Adapting cooperative learning in tertiary ELT. ELT Journal, 65(1), 60–70. https:// doi.org/10.1093/elt/ccq021. Pan, K., & Cui, S. (2016). 语言能力与大学毕业生的工资溢价 (Language Ability and Wage Premium for College Graduates). 北京大学教育评论 (Peking University Education Review), 14(2), 99–112. Pan, Y. (2000). Code-switching and social change in Guangzhou and Hong Kong. International Journal of the Sociology of Language, 146(1), 21–42. https://doi.org/10.1515/ijsl.2000.146.21. Qian, X., Tian, G., & Wang, Q. (2009). Codeswitching in the primary EFL classroom in China-two case studies. System, 37(4), 719–730. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2009.09.015. Shin, J.-Y., Dixon, L. Q., & Choi, Y. (2019). An updated review on use of L1 in foreign language classrooms. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, advance online publication, 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1080/01434632.2019.1684928. Shulman, L. S. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher, 15(2), 4–14. Swain, M., Kirkpatrick, A., & Cummins, J. (2011). How to have a guilt-free life using Cantonese in the English class: A handbook for the English language teacher in Hong Kong. Hong Kong: Research Centre into Language Acquisition and Education in Multilingual Societies, Hong Kong Institute of Education. Tan, C. (2017). Constructivism and pedagogical reform in China: Issues and challenges. Globalisation, Societies and Education, 15(2), 238–247. https://doi.org/10.1080/14767724.2015. 1105737. Tian, L., & Macaro, E. (2012). Comparing the effect of teacher codeswitching with Englishonly explanations on the vocabulary acquisition of Chinese university level students. Language Teaching Research, 16(3), 367–391. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168812436909. Wang, L., & Ladegaard, H. J. (2008). Language attitudes and gender in China: Perceptions and reported use of Putonghua and Cantonese in the southern province of Guangdong. Language Awareness, 17(1), 57–77. https://doi.org/10.2167/la425.0. Wang, Q. (2007). The national curriculum changes and their effects on English language teaching in the People’s Republic of China. In J. Cummins & C. Davison (Eds.), International handbook of English language teaching (pp. 87–105). New York: Springer. Wu, J. (2018). A case study of the ‘Argument of Cantonese’ on Tianya Online Virtual Community. Songs Bimonthly, 2018(5), 128–132 [Mandarin].

62

M. Zhang

Xi, C. (2009). An international comparative study of the immersion education of foreign languages. Education Exploration, 2009, 140–141 [Mandarin]. Xiong, T. (2018). Media representation of attitudes to multilingual education: Local language and culture in mainland China. In I. Liyanage (Ed.), Multilingual education yearbook 2018 (pp. 37– 54). Cham, Switzerland: Springer. Yan, E. M. Y., Fung, I. Y. Y., Liu, L., & Huang, X. (2016). Perceived-target-language-use survey in the English classrooms in China: Investigation of classroom-related and institutional factors. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 37(1), 75–96. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 01434632.2015.1029934. Zhan, S. (2008). Changes to a Chinese pre-service language teacher education program: Analysis, results and implications. Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education, 36(1), 53–70. https://doi. org/10.1080/13598660701793392. Zhao, T., & Macaro, E. (2016). What works better for the learning of concrete and abstract words: Teachers’ L 1 use or L 2-only explanations? International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 26(1), 75–98. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijal.12080. Zheng, H. (2013). The dynamic interactive relationship between Chinese secondary school EFL teachers’ beliefs and practice. The Language Learning Journal, 41(2), 192–204. https://doi.org/ 10.1080/09571736.2013.790133. Zhu, Q. (2015). Language attitudes of secondary school students in Guangdong. In A. Feng & B. Adamson (Eds.), Trilingualism in education in China: Models and challenges (pp. 223–241). Dordrecht: Springer. Zou, T., & Yu, H. (2017). 论新高考英语改革的四大价值取向 (The four value orientations on the reform of English tests for the National Entrance Exam). 教育理论与实践 (Theory and Practice of Education), 37, 26–28.

Minli Zhang is a lecturer in School of Foreign Languages of Beijing Normal University, Zhuhai, China. She is a Cantonese speaker and has been working as an English language teacher and researcher.

EAL Teachers’ (Un)Preparedness to Implement Classroom Practice for Multiliteracies Pedagogy Leonardo Veliz and Shokouhi Hossein

Abstract As a result of the pervasive presence of information and communication technologies (ICTs) in all facets of life, current Australian education policies and curricular frameworks have given increasing priority to development of student multiliteracies, and thus to integration in pedagogies of various modes of teaching and learning. The present study is an exploration of English as an Additional Language (EAL) teachers’ views of, and experiences with, the integration of multiliteracies pedagogies in their teacher preparation courses. Data from semi-structured interviews were gathered from five EAL teachers from three different language schools in Melbourne, Australia, to interrogate teachers’ preparedness and readiness to implement multimodal and multiliteracies teaching approaches in multilingual contexts. Analysis of the data revealed both perceived successes and shortcomings of EAL teacher education in preparation of teachers for inclusive EAL classroom practice that pursues the objectives of multimodal and multiliteracies pedagogies to meet the needs of 21st-century learners. Additionally, it shows specific challenges teachers face in the delivery of culturally-responsive pedagogies to respond to the complex ways in which EAL learners deal with texts in different modes. Keywords Multiliteracies · Multimodality · EAL · Teachers’ perceptions · Teacher education · Teacher readiness

1 Introduction The pervasiveness of information and communication technologies (ICTs) in almost every domain of life, and the increasingly varied demographic conditions of the world due to migration, has resulted in the ways in which we communicate being shaped by a complex socio-semiotic landscape which emphasizes various forms of meaning L. Veliz (B) · S. Hossein School Education, Deakin University, Victoria, Australia e-mail: [email protected] S. Hossein e-mail: [email protected] © Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020 W. Tao and I. Liyanage (eds.), Multilingual Education Yearbook 2020, Multilingual Education Yearbook, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-41211-1_4

63

64

L. Veliz and S. Hossein

(Siegel, 2012). In turn, the educational landscape around the globe has become more complex, and this has become particularly apparent in new ways of teaching and learning languages in multilingual classrooms. With the advent and greater availability of ICTs, the integration of multimodal and digital tools to enhance students’ language learning experiences is almost inevitable. New modes of communicating with others, blended socio-semiotic resources for meaning-making purposes, interactive and multimodal learning, reading, and writing, are just some of the features which characterize the learning contexts of language learners, and the ways in which they are becoming literate members of a technologically globalized world. These new ways of knowing and accessing information have called for a reconceptualization of traditional literacy practices, in that “if students are to be equipped with skills necessary to meet the challenging and diverse demands of different forms of communication brought about by the introduction of new technologies, then a broader definition of literacy is required” (Hesterman, 2011, p. 349). We argue that, if a broader definition of literacy is critical to consider changing views about what it means to be literate in another language and what it means to teach literacy in diverse multilingual contexts, it is fundamental that language teachers receive adequate training and preparation in their teacher education programs “to take due account of the diversity of language forms, both traditional and contemporary, formal and informal, literary and non-literary” (Rowsell, Kosnik, & Beck, 2008, p. 109). For this reason, this chapter focuses on English as an Additional Language (EAL) teachers’ pre-service teacher preparation and readiness for classroom practice that pursues the objectives of multimodal and multiliteracies pedagogies in multilingual settings. Through exploration of EAL teachers’ perceptions of successes and shortcomings of their teacher training courses in their preparedness to deal with multiliteracies, we aim to comprehend and examine the effectiveness of EAL preparation programs in preparing graduates to meet EAL students’ ‘literacies’ demands in a highly technologically globalized world. The study is guided by the following research questions: • What are EAL teachers’ perceptions of successes and shortcomings of their teacher preparation programs in their readiness to deliver classroom practice that pursues the goals of multimodal and multiliteracies pedagogies? • To what extent does a perceived lack of preparation for multiliteracies pedagogy and other associated challenges lead EAL teachers to adjust their practice to current demands?

EAL Teachers’ (Un)Preparedness to Implement Classroom …

65

2 Context for the Study Australia is an increasingly culturally and linguistically diverse country with large student populations that require some form of language support necessary for participation in English-medium instruction (EMI) (Ata & Kostogriz, 2015). The development of English language proficiency entails not only mastery of language conventions, and receptive and productive skills, but most importantly a thorough understanding of the variability of meaning making in different cultural, social or domainspecific contexts (Cope & Kalantzis, 2000, 2016). In order to meet the linguistic, social, and cultural needs of EAL learners in multilingual contexts, it is essential that EAL teachers are equipped with sound pedagogical content knowledge (Grossman, 1994) to respond to diverse settings in which they take up employment. This requires that EAL teachers be equipped not only with specialist language knowledge but also with pedagogical tools to provide culturally-responsive pedagogies to respond to the complex ways in which EAL learners deal with texts in different modes. This naturally entails that teacher preparation programs must provide the required preparation to pre-service teachers so that they “bridge the gap between traditional literacy and multiliteracies” (Ajayi, 2011, p. 6). The present study stems from an EAL teacher’s pedagogical practices and experiences with multimodalities and multiliteracies in the provision of English language support to students who have a language background other than English. In casual conversation, a teacher shared with the researchers anecdotes about the challenges and difficulties of implementing an integrated approach that fosters various meaning-making modes in the teaching of English and, in particular, literacy. This has provided a motivation to explore EAL teachers’ pre-service preparation for classroom practice that pursues the goals of multiliteracies pedagogies.

3 Literacy, Multiliteracies and the Preparation of Teachers for Multilingual Contexts Literacy, traditionally understood as ‘reading and writing’, has been a contested term. De Silva Joyce and Feez (2016) have argued that “the terms literacy and illiteracy have shifted in meaning over the years” (p. 4), and that we should no longer conceive of literacy as reading and writing printed materials. Rather, it should be seen as a set of practices which afford people with opportunities for learning and participation in a range of social contexts. Today, in the poststructuralist era, definition of the term literacy is complicated by an association with critical literacy and critical pedagogy (Bacon, 2017). Sluys, Lewison and Flint (2006) believe that literacy is concerned with how ideologies are achieved through it, an idea that strives to recognize the marginalized and the right of those that have less access to resources. So, literacy has surpassed its traditional linguistics view and is now associated with socio-political practices of everyday life, and is seen as transformative.

66

L. Veliz and S. Hossein

The transformational value of literacy has, to a great extent, grown out of reaction against the enormous emphasis placed on literacy as a form of regulation (Prinsloo & Stroud, 2014). Developing literacy skills has not only been a priority in most political agenda across the world, but also a greatly controversial matter of managerial control. As De Silva Joyce and Feez (2016) point out, “that literacy wars and crises can be so easily and regularly reignited in the public mind, no matter how disingenuously, is a reflection of how dependent post-industrial societies have become on literacy and numeracy to mediate all aspects of life” (p. 2). Such dependence on, and, above all, dominance of, literacy in education has led to emphasis on “setting high standards and establishing measurable goals, most of which are based on traditional literacy-as-skills views associated with static and monolingual norms” (Prinsloo & Stroud, 2014, p. 24). However, the heterogenous nature of speech communities around the globe, motivated by flows of people and information as well as more complex modes of communication, calls for a reconceptualization of ‘literacy’, and therefore prompts a great impetus for developing a ‘literacy’ approach for language education contexts of increasing diversity and multilingualism. The need for a reconceptualization of literacy is encapsulated in Lotherington’s (2011) call for extending the scope of literacy pedagogy since “bilingual and multilingual students’ competence in a variety of social literacies, spanning cultures, languages and media, fit poorly into the axiomatic model fixed on cognitive attainment and social fluency in English” (p. 2). Rethinking literacy requires, as Bearne (2003) points out, that we start looking in several different directions at once. This means recognizing that literacy exists not only on page, or printed material, but also on screen, and in “the practices that surround it, and the situations in which literacy is carried out” (Mackay, 2002, p. 38). In response to this, the New London Group, a group of 10 prominent scholars from different countries, developed a particularly distinct approach to literacy and literacy education that became known as ‘multiliteracies’. This notion describes two central arguments which emerge within the cultural, institutional and global order. The first relates to the multiplicity of communication channels and media, while the second is concerned with acknowledging the “increasing salience of cultural and linguistic diversity” (Cope & Kalantzis, 2000, p. 5). In their definition of multiliteracies, Provenzo, Goodwin, Lipsky, and Sharpe (2011) argue that the focus of multiliteracies should go beyond language. Whichever stance is taken towards multiliteracies, whether it is more ‘technology-based’, ‘diversity-oriented’, or both, what is clear is that, unlike traditional textual literacy, a multiliteracies approach is by nature more democratic and inclusive. As such, it has, and has had since its inception, important implications for pedagogy. A pedagogy of multiliteracies, according to Cope and Kalantzis (2000), focuses not only upon modes of representation other than language alone which vary according to culture and context, but also on the approaches to preparing students for the future, and to developing a capacity to function in social, cultural and civic settings as a way of preparing students for the future (Anstey & Bull, 2016). Rowsell et al. (2008) have pointed out that the term ‘multiliteracies’ “is apt, enormously important, and that promoting multiliteracies pedagogies should be a central

EAL Teachers’ (Un)Preparedness to Implement Classroom …

67

goal of teacher education” (p. 109). The centrality of multiliteracies to classroom practice, and, more specifically, to the preparation of teachers for ‘the 21st century’, has led to a series of questions and concerns about the integration of a multiliteracies approach in schools, and in the teaching of other languages, along with the preparedness of teachers to implement it in diverse contexts. Some of these questions concern the preparation of teachers “to face the challenges that emerge from students’ racial, linguistic, socioeconomic, and educational diversities” (Yuan, 2018), and the development of appropriate and up-to-date educational curricula to equip teachers with the teaching approaches to help bridge “home-school-society gaps in literacy learning” (Lotherington, 2011, p. 8). Central to the goals of multiliteracies pedagogy is the increasing concern for the individual. Individuals “remake themselves, reconstruct and renegotiate their identities” (New London Group, 1996, p. 76), rather than simply conforming to a pre-existing majority or minority culture. In their discussion on demands for a new approach to literacy teaching, Cole and Pullen (2009) suggest using a pedagogy of multiliteracies in order to facilitate culturally-responsive classroom practice. In teacher education courses, this entails embracing approaches that are premised on the genuine pursuit of knowledge, skills, dispositions, cultural sensitivity, awareness of diversity and the cultural identity and social background of teachers and students (Berniz & Miller, 2017). In Yuan’s (2018) view, educating preservice teachers for cultural diversity has become an important part of teacher education programs across the globe. According to Lo Bianco (2008), attention to what teachers are expected to possess in order to address the increasing challenges of multicultural and multilingual classrooms must be given at the moment of planning and designing effective language curricula. Fully aware of the complexity involved in preparing teachers for multicultural and multilingual contexts, Lo Bianco (2008) identifies the challenge for multiliteracies pedagogies of accommodation of a diversity of modalities such as e-mail and visual literacy alongside “the more substantive diversity of cultural and linguistic differences of learners” (p. 90). Extensive research conducted in a variety of contexts, mainly in K-12 settings, indicates that teaching and learning new literacies pose great challenges to both teachers and students. As far as the teaching of multiliteracies and teacher preparation are concerned, Rowsell et al. (2008), for example, reported on a longitudinal study of teacher preparation in Canada, findings of which reveal that although newly graduated teachers did receive some instruction and preparation on how to achieve the objectives of multiliteracies pedagogy, there were several challenges and inconsistencies in their teacher education course. Some of these included lack of clarity about the nature of multiliteracies pedagogy, limited resources, underdeveloped school-university partnerships, and insufficient explicit attention to inclusion and critique. A study conducted by Farias and Veliz (2019) explored the perceptions of and experiences with multimodal texts in English teacher preparation programs in Chile. Analysis of the data gathered from pre-service teachers and teacher educators revealed, for the most part, that although multimodal texts were used in teacher training courses, there was no systematic pedagogical preparation for pre-service teachers

68

L. Veliz and S. Hossein

to implement a multimodal or multiliteracies approach later in their teaching practices. This apparent lack of systematic promotion and inclusion of a multiliteracies approach in the preparation of teachers calls for ‘a new vision’ in the agenda for teacher preparation in order to “adequately prepare preservice teachers to play a central role in facilitating learning experiences for students” (Ajayi, 2011, p. 7). The study reported in this chapter investigated practicing teachers’ reflections on whether teacher education programs adequately prepared them for multiliteracies pedagogies in multilingual settings.

4 Methodology: Participants, Data Collection and Analysis The recruitment process involved contacting, via emails in which the study was briefly explained, school managers and Directors of Studies of three language schools in Melbourne, Australia, that offer English Language Intensive Courses (ELICOS), and cater to international students from diverse cultural and language backgrounds. Ten EAL teachers were recruited, but a sample of five, three females and two males, is used for the purposes of the present chapter. The five participants are linguistically diverse in their backgrounds; three are bi/multilingual with English an additional language. All possess bachelor degrees in teaching or education obtained in their country of origin, and postgraduate credentials in teaching English ranging from certificate to Master’s level. Years of teaching experience range from two and a half to sixteen, but for four that includes teaching outside Australia in non-Anglophone settings. Years of teaching experience in the Australian setting range from two and a half to ten. Participants are assigned pseudonyms for the purposes of reporting the study. Data were gathered through semi-structured interviews that explored two general areas pertaining to teachers’ preparation for multiliteracies pedagogies: (i) their stories about their pre-service teacher preparation for implementing multiliteracies pedagogies in multilingual contexts; and (ii) their readiness for classroom practice that pursues the goals of multiliteracies pedagogies. Framed by principles of qualitative methodologies, the present study mirrors some features of narrative inquiry and autobiographical research (e.g. Barkhuizen, 2011; Pavlenko, 2007). Through these lenses, participants’ personal stories can be explored and understood in relation to their past, present and future life trajectories. On the significance of stories, Kasper and Prior (2014) point out that personal stories help us organize experience in a tellable and understandable format, which provide clearer and more accessible ways of understanding forms of knowing, being and becoming in the world (Pavlenko & Lantolf, 2000). Within the frame of qualitative research strategies (e.g., participant observation, nonparticipant observation, archival strategies, interviews, etc.) we have employed in-depth semi-structured interviews as a tool to comprehend participants’ contextualized stories and experiences with multiliteracies in their teacher education programs, and how these experiences are now deployed in their teaching practices in multilingual contexts.

EAL Teachers’ (Un)Preparedness to Implement Classroom …

69

The analysis of the data involved working systematically through the transcribed interviews line by line in order to identify all aspects of teachers’ experiences with multimodal and multiliteracies pedagogies in their preservice preparation. Three emerging themes that resulted from this systematic analysis are outlined below: 1. ‘Not enough preparation for rapidly changing times’ 2. ‘Diverse contexts need more prepared teachers’ 3. ‘Responding to changing demands in practice’. In the next section, teachers’ responses are discussed in relation to these emerging themes.

4.1 Findings and Discussion Not Enough Preparation for Rapidly Changing Times A salient feature of teachers’ narratives is the ‘back-and-forth swing’ between their experiences ‘there and then’, namely their pre-service teacher preparation, and the ‘here and now’, their current practices. Some of them reflected on the pedagogies that, in their view, prevailed during their teacher preparation program, and pointed to the presence of ‘monotonous’ approaches to teaching and learning: A lot of the approaches to teaching, reading and writing, we were exposed to were quite unidirectional, with a lot of student participation of course, but because it was university studies it was quite lecture type of thing, and sometimes a bit monotonous. (Abby)

Although Abby recognizes the presence of ‘student participation’ in teaching and learning practices, the unidirectionality that seemed to characterize teaching as well as literacy practices (reading and writing) seem for her ‘a given’ in tertiary studies. However, she is aware that such an approach, according to her experience, is not suited to the real needs of students in a rapidly changing world, as she has pointed out the following reflection: The ways I communicate with my parents, friends, and even my own students are so different to how we are expected to teach English in super diverse contexts; the students are on their phones all the time doing whatever they’re doing, they read on all sorts of electronic devices…(Abby)

Despite the fact that Abby does not elaborate much on how ‘they are expected to teach’, the claims she makes seems to highlight apparent discrepancies between everyday forms of communication, classroom practice and they ways in which her students deal with technology and its role in their own literacy practices. On this matter, several authors (e.g. Knobel, 1999; Luke & Luke, 2001) have pointed to the dissonance between the types of literacy practices which are traditionally valued by society and schools, and the complex, multifaceted textual worlds that young students inhabit in their daily lives outside of their school contexts. A rather similar

70

L. Veliz and S. Hossein

observation is made by Sabrina who also comments not only on how she sees learning today but also on how she learned ‘the teaching skills’ back in her home country: 15 years back when I did my Bachelor in Teaching in EFL, we would need to go to the library to get books to study, but nowadays our students access everything on their devices. It wasn’t just the fact that we didn’t have much access to technology in our teaching training or teaching skills, but it was more the fact that we sadly weren’t taught to think about technology in our teaching, use it, exploit it, and promote other ways of learning. (Sabrina)

Sabrina’s reflection on ‘the past’ reveals the traditional teaching and learning practices she went through in her teacher training course, not only in terms of access to information mainly through printed materials, but also in terms of the lack of access to technology back then. What seems to be more concerning to Sabrina is the lack of teacher preparation to potentially deal with a multiliteracies approach, and ‘promote other ways of learning’. From ‘the past’ to ‘now’ Sabrina comments that such lack of teacher preparation has put great pressure on her to keep up with ‘the new ways of teaching and learning’. …because we didn’t really get proper methodological training or teaching preparation to use different approaches for literacy, it’s been hard for me to keep up with technology and find out about the resources that we can use in class to cater to all learning styles and the new ways of teaching and learning, so you always feel quite a bit of pressure to keep looking for apps that you can use in class. (Sabrina)

The lack of pre-service preparation has by no means been a discouraging experience to Sabrina. Despite the difficulty and pressure to keep up to date with technology, Sabrina is, first and foremost, well aware that different approaches to meaning making are needed to cater for diverse needs and learning styles of students. The fact that she seems to be constantly on the look out for ‘apps’ that can be used in class is a clear reflection of a genuine interest in trying to use a variety of social semiotic resources in her teaching. A similar sentiment is expressed by John, who reflects on his preparation overseas which he links to his current practice in Australia. My pre-service preparation prepared me for teaching five or seven years ago, but not for today. I’ve seen so many changes in such a short time. My students don’t read hardcopy books any more; they read in their ipads or phones; they barely write [with pen and paper]; now they type, so I think I would need to do another course to be more prepared for today’s world. (John)

John’s experiences with and recognition of students’ engagement with technology, and the ways in which it has shaped their literacy practices, concur with Bearne (2009) who points out that “the screen now takes a central place in public communications and increasingly in educational settings, changing the ways in which reading and writing are understood” (p. 156). John’s observation on the gap between the preparation (lack thereof) he received, which was suitable for ‘back then’, and what seems to be required for ‘today’s world’ is indicative, not only of the rapid pace of the ways in which students’ learning has been increasingly shaped by technology that has impacted new forms of reading and writing, but also of the increasing need for a more contemporary approach to prepare pre-service teachers for ‘new literacies’, which is what Rose also discusses in the following reflection:

EAL Teachers’ (Un)Preparedness to Implement Classroom …

71

The new literacies, all these new ways of reading and writing, reading on screen, maths on the screen, putting Facebook posts up, new tweets, and things like that, are things we have portrayed as ‘wicked’ or even like something that has to be banned at school. Failing to fully integrate these new forms of reading, writing, and doing things in general is really a big risk. (Rose)

Rose’s view of literacy clearly resides beyond the boundaries of traditional ‘reading’ and ‘writing’ and includes such practices as Facebook posts and tweets. This is intricately connected with the view of literacy as social practices that has been embraced to account for sociocultural influences on the various forms of meaningmaking in the production and comprehension of texts. Pahl and Rowsell (2005) point out that “the concept of literacy as a social practice helps us to see literacy as connected to other things” (p. 10). The connection between literacy and ‘other things’ has been, in Rose’s opinion, demonized in school practices, which ratifies the existing gap between the ways in which reading and writing are taught at school and the complex set of practices to which students are exposed outside of school. Moreover, this separation seems to evidence what teacher preparation courses are yet to do in order to equip pre-service teachers to provide students with richer and more complex learning experiences that go beyond the confines of traditional print-based materials. In sum, the observations and reflections presented and discussed in this section have revealed that approaches to teaching and learning, and more specifically to literacy, that have historically dominated in some teacher training courses have not prepared teachers for the changing nature of literacy practices. Teacher preparation programs face two challenges. First, the inescapable need to incorporate reconceptualized notions of literacy and, most importantly, to systematically promote the implementation of multiliteracies approaches that aim to bridge the gap between literacy in school and literacies outside the school. Second, the dynamic and changing literacy landscape entails ongoing revision of these conceptualizations to ensure continuing alignment of literacies developed in school with those demanded outside school. The ‘temporality’ dimension of teachers’ narratives about their experiences with multiliteracies in teacher training programs sheds light not just on potential curricular changes that may need to be considered so that teacher training courses embrace a view of literacy that encompasses the fluidity of language use and communication; the implications of the necessity for continuing professional learning and development are also clear. What role teacher education institutions can play as collaborators in building on pre-service preparation through facilitation or support of in-service learning is a question that employers and institutions could productively address.

4.2 Diverse Contexts Need More Prepared Teachers Most teachers acknowledged that a multiliteracies approach involves recognizing diversity: learners’ diverse needs, diverse learning styles as well as their diverse

72

L. Veliz and S. Hossein

backgrounds. Abby reflects on her teaching context in Australia, and critically compares it with her teacher preparation context and the setting in which she began her teaching career. I believe that learning to teach English in France was quite challenging because we have inherited a very traditional system of teaching and learning that didn’t really prepare us for the real world that’s more dynamic and diverse. Australia is so different as there’s not only more diversity in itself, but there’s more emphasis on trying to meet the language and learning needs of students. In France, it’s more like the same approach for all students, but still quite possible to change. (Abby)

As outlined earlier, Abby commented on the ‘unidirectionality’ and monotonous nature of the teaching approaches she was exposed to at university. Her recognition that rigid teaching philosophies underpinning the French educational system did not allow for the preparation of teachers for a ‘dynamic and diverse’ world seems to be a space for potential change. Opportunities for ‘change’ is a clear idea discussed by Sean who evokes memories about how he experienced diversity in a multimodal classroom in his teacher preparation course. My university context was pretty diverse in terms of ethnic and socio-cultural backgrounds of students, and also in terms of the resources used by lecturers which were mostly multimodal like lots of videos, audio, text, real-world objects, and things like that, which was good. Although a lot of the resources were multimodal, we weren’t really trained to use multimodal resources in our teaching. I mean I guess we all picked up things along the way, but we didn’t really have like a teaching multiliteracies subject, but I think it would be a lot about giving continuous professional development to teacher trainers, and that’s always feasible. (Sean)

Despite the multimodal nature of the resources to which Sean was exposed during his teacher education course, which he seems to have enjoyed, he feels that the actual use of a variety of modes of meaning-making did not prepare him for the actual use of multimodal or multiliteracies approaches. This, once again, evidences the apparent lack of systematic teacher preparation for a pedagogy that pursues the goals of a multiliteracies approach to teaching and learning. For Sean, however, moving from ‘using multimodality’ in teacher training programs to ‘preparing’ teachers to know how to use it appears to be a question of developing professional knowledge and skills of teacher trainers. This light of optimism that shines in both Abby’s and Sean’s narratives should work as a powerful driving force towards rethinking the ways in which multimodalities are used in the preparation of teachers-to-be. In this respect, this reorients responsibility to teacher educators Ajayi’s (2011) recommendation that the new forms of knowledge transfer and uptake connected to multiliteracies would require that pre-service teachers be given sufficient preparation so that they can competently facilitate their students’ learning and knowledge transfer. This concurs with John’s confidence in providing effective teaching in Spain but not in the multilingual classrooms he encountered in Australia: Because Spain is much less diverse than Australia, for example all the students have the same first language in the classroom, I feel much more confident teaching there but I feel less prepared in contexts like Australia to teach multiliteracies, I mean I’ve been teaching here for a while now, but it was difficult at the start. In Australia, you have to have more intercultural awareness, understand the diverse students’ backgrounds, differentiate teaching

EAL Teachers’ (Un)Preparedness to Implement Classroom …

73

and learning tasks, use different resources and make sure that you use bring the world to the classroom in the teaching of literacy and multiliteracies. (John)

John’s preparedness and confidence to teach English in a multicultural and multilingual context like Australia seems to have been challenged by, what Rowsell et al. (2008) call, ‘the diverse sociocultural structures in which literacies are embedded’. Despite the challenges associated with moving from a ‘less diverse’ to a ‘more diverse’ context, John was afforded the opportunity to develop a greater understanding of students’ diverse backgrounds, and to sharpen his pedagogical skills to cater to diverse learning needs and styles through the provision of differentiated teaching and learning tasks. All this seems to suggest that John’s immersion in a culturally and linguistically diverse context untethered a new world through which he became more aware of the visibility and variability of meaning-making in different sociocultural settings. This is clearly indicative that his lack of teacher preparation to face a diverse context, and to implement a multiliteracies pedagogy, led to a reconfiguration of John’s teaching and his capacity to exploit different resources so that ‘the world’ is brought into his classroom in the teaching of multiliteracies. This kind of independent professional development (Leung, 2009), based on reflective practice that identifies difficulties in aspects of the teaching/learning experience, can lead to advantageous outcomes for both teacher practice and learner outcomes (Villegas-Reimers, 2003); but without institutional support of more formal sponsored teacher professional learning (Leung, 2009), comprehensive enactment of effective multiliteracies pedagogies will continue to depend on the initiative of individual practitioners. Reform of EAL teacher education curricula will equip new graduates, but postgraduate in-service teacher education options, with flexible study arrangements and a range of durations, could satisfy the professional learning needs of more experienced teachers to access current thinking and approaches to ensuring they meet the multiliteracies needs of their learners. Sabrina, who has taught in Australia longer than she did in India, reflects on how her first English teaching job in a multilingual setting in Sydney provided her with fundamental tools to begin to approach a multiliteracies pedagogy, something she did not experience in her teacher training course, or her various teaching jobs in India. When I had the first English teaching job in Australia, in Sydney, it was a completely new territory for me. It was this school with amazing facilities, lots of technology, smart whiteboards, students from all walks of life, teachers from different ethnic backgrounds, so I guess although it was a bit of a learning curve in general, it was fascinating because I had to stop teaching the way I did in India, and start adopting more inclusive teaching, using technology to develop reading and writing skills, using images for vocabulary, and lots of things that helped me and my students develop multiliteracies. In India I didn’t have the preparation and I never did anything like this. (Sabrina)

As outlined earlier, it is rather limiting to conceive of multiliteracies pedagogies as being related only to the inclusion of technology in teaching and learning practices as a way of preparing students with skills for the 21st century. On the contrary, multiliteracies pedagogies involve providing culturally appropriate pedagogies that

74

L. Veliz and S. Hossein

pursue the goal of “promoting social equity and cultural and linguistic diversity” (Kiss & Mizusawa, 2018, p. 59). This central goal manifests itself in how Sabrina, despite having received little, if any, preparation to provide effective pedagogy for diverse backgrounds, quickly came to the realization that, as a result of the socioculturally and linguistically diverse contextual dynamics of her new teaching context, she needed to explore more heterogeneous classroom practice. Access to ‘amazing facilities’, technological innovation, and probably multimodal means of communication seem to have provided Sabrina with enough tools to provide a base to begin to deal with socially-constructed and dynamic forms of multiliteracies. From the narratives discussed in this section, a rather interesting pattern arises from the teachers’ lack of preparation to provide classroom practice that pursues the goals of multiliteracies pedagogy, which is the ways in which teachers deployed the interface of (a) their unpreparedness for diverse contexts, and (b) the increasingly dynamic and diverse classroom settings in Australia, in order to reconfigure their understandings of literacy, and, most importantly, their overall pedagogies to implement a multiliteracies approach. Thus, although their lack of readiness did not entirely hinder or jeopardize their teaching for diverse students, and acted as a springboard for opportunities to develop their professional knowledge and skills, they had to rely on their own resourcefulness to adjust their practices. While this is a reassuring affirmation of the professionalism and dedication of EAL teachers, embedding the theoretical base of a formal introduction to notions of multiliteracies and their implications for practice in teacher preparation programs is a preferable pathway for both teachers and learners. Ideally, independent learning about multiliteracies by already practising teachers can be nurtured through collaboration between English teaching institutions, teacher educators, and practitioners to provide both theoretical background and practical support.

Responding to Changing Demands in Practice In the complex and dynamic processes of implementation of multiliteracies pedagogies, all teachers unanimously observed having faced a variety of challenges relating to the literacy needs of the linguistically and culturally diverse learners they teach, the complex ways in which learners deal with texts in different modes, and, in some cases, issues relating to a potential lack of cultural sensitivity to certain ‘contextual and situational’ messages. John, who expressed ‘being less prepared to teach in contexts like Australia’, admitted to having ‘a great deal of difficulty’ delivering effective instruction to cater for the needs of what he terms ‘struggling readers’: At the start of my teaching in ELICOS with lots of students from different language and cultural backgrounds I had a great deal of difficulty implementing different literacy strategies to help struggling readers in class, those who would read and care a lot about, for instance, pronunciation when reading aloud, and those who would read and understand but would not produce much language output. (John)

EAL Teachers’ (Un)Preparedness to Implement Classroom …

75

With a particular focus on the difficulty in ‘implementing different literacy strategies’, John reflects on what he thinks his teacher preparation course ‘should have done’ to equip him with the right tools: Perhaps my inability to actually implement a variety of literacy strategies is due to the absence of sound approaches that we should have learned at university, and obviously kind of a failure of what our teacher training course should have done to help with the right strategies. (John)

This teacher’s apparent frustration about not possessing, or not having received, adequate preparation at university is most likely not an isolated case of subjective experience, but the result of a systematic need for incorporating a blend of approaches that provide pre-service teachers with sufficient professional knowledge and readiness to meet the literacy needs of EAL students. This seems to be a clear call for recognition and, most importantly, inclusion of what Yuan (2018) calls “multicultural and diversity issues in language curriculum planning” (p. 14) in the political agenda of language policy across countries. In order for teachers to be able to implement ‘different literacy strategies’, it is pivotal that (English language) teacher education programs help develop a thorough understanding of what Kalantzis and Cope (2001) call ‘the new basics’, which involves developing students’ capacities to engage with, comprehend, create, and use a multiplicity of texts, and, most importantly, teaching capabilities that align with Freebody’s (2000) metaphor, ‘crafting a mix of practice’, to refer to the pedagogical eclecticism needed in the 21st century. Freebody (2000) argues that it is, in fact, our sophisticated world that makes literacy teaching so complex, and, more often than not, irreducible to a single method or approach. Along these lines, Sean, reflects on the challenges he has faced regarding the rigid use of the prescribed textbook and testing system in his college which he feels does not allow for ‘flexibility in teaching’: …because we have all these weekly tests we have to give students at the end of the week, all of which are based on the textbook, I don’t feel there’s a lot of flexibility given by the textbook to assess students’ reading and writing differently, or administer like differentiated assessment tasks for different learning styles. (Sean)

What stands out in Sean’s comment, apart from his observation on the lack of flexibility provided by textbooks, is the college’s underlying ‘managerial’ view of what constitutes literacy, and what it means to assess students’ learning. The assessment of students’ progress by means of a ‘Friday’ test is not only a clear reflection of the widespread use of testing in the pursuit of accountability (Klenowski & WyattSmith, 2012), but also of the ‘singular’ view of literacy as a discrete set of reading and writing skills that is not enough for the 21st century (Hamston & Scull, 2007). A particular danger in the adherence to measuring students’ learning against a standardized weekly test is that the differentiated learning needs of students can be subsumed by “inappropriate instruments for measuring language proficiency” (Richgels, 2004, p. 474). Apart from the barriers of mandated weekly assessments driven by the prescribed textbook, the teacher has had to face challenges about not being able to make informed pedagogical decisions about when and where To implement a multiliteracies approach.

76

L. Veliz and S. Hossein Even if the school allowed for using other resources more flexibly in the assessment of students, I don’t think I would have the proper training to effectively use principles of multiliteracies, when and where, mainly because I didn’t receive enough prep at uni, like I could get the students to create posters, make videos on their phones, but if you ask me what the principles are, what is the approach like, I wouldn’t know, and I wouldn’t know to base my decisions on. (Sean)

This particular observation is in line with Rowsell et al. (2008) findings on recent graduates’ challenges in implementing multiliteracies pedagogy; one of the underlying challenges that new teachers had to face was not having sufficient understanding of the nature of multiliteracies pedagogy, and this still needs to be taken into consideration in building a multiliteracies approach in teacher education. Sean’s overt recognition of the lack of ‘proper training’ has not, however, stopped him from making adjustments to his teaching to ensure that ‘crafting a mix of practice’ (Freebody, 2000) is pursued at the service of the diverse needs of his learners: To compensate for the gaps in knowledge and preparation, I try to do quite a bit of reading, research by myself a lot of professional development, and a lot of collaboration with other teachers as well – what approaches they use, what ideas, what assessments, etc. because if we don’t find ways of adapting ourselves to the changes of this world, teaching won’t be meaningful to students. (Sean)

The need for adapting to a changing teaching environment is a challenge that motivates participants to seek alternative routes to providing effective and meaningful teaching practice to students. This is an indication not only of the teachers’ desire to ‘compensate’ for the absence of formal university preparation to deal with multiliteracies, but also of a concern for the individuality of learners (New London Group, 1996). Balancing diverse social, cultural and individual perspectives is a fundamental underpinning of multiliteracies pedagogy (Rowsell et al., 2008), and another challenge faced by teachers concerned their ‘lack of cultural understanding’ which they felt was needed to “make sense of students’ behavior in class’: I wish I had had an elective course on body language and cultural understanding or something like that, or even something like ‘how to overcome barriers of intercultural communication’ because that’s been a bit of a major issue in my practice…things like not being able to make sense of students’ behavior in class, or wanting students to call me by the first name, and students insisting on calling me ‘teacher’, etc. (Sabrina) Sometimes I felt like some students needed to adapt to certain conventions, forms of address, ways of responding, etc.… but then, I came to the conclusion that I also needed to adjust to their ways of engaging. (Rose)

Teachers need to recognize that students from culturally diverse backgrounds may have different behaviors. A thorough understanding of certain ‘contextual and situational’ messages is fundamental to identifying learner problems, making language diagnoses, and addressing issues in class. With the aim of developing teachers’ understanding of students’ cultural differences, Alberta Education (2007) outlines certain areas that should be taken into account when considering ‘deep culture’. Some of these include possible cultural sources of students avoiding eye contact and students’

EAL Teachers’ (Un)Preparedness to Implement Classroom …

77

reluctance to engage in debates, among others. Sabrina’s observation on what courses should have been offered in her teacher education course to aid the development of intercultural awareness and understanding is indicative of changes that must take place in the curriculum of EAL teacher education programs. Rose’s realization that adjusting to ‘certain conventions’ is a two-way street is also a reflection of the work that is yet to be done in the preparation of teachers to better cater for the diverse needs of multilingual learners. In order to prepare ‘competent multiliteracies teachers’, EAL teacher education programs must reorient their perspective on ‘who’ they are serving, whether they are serving the needs of teachers or learners. This is precisely what Farrell (2015) argues in his description of the ‘negative state’ of second/additional language teacher education and calls for changes in pedagogy. Part of the ‘state we are in’, he claims, is due to a loss in perspective on whose needs teacher educators are addressing when preparing second language teachers. It is vital, then, that unless initial teacher education prepares beginning teachers to learn to do much more thoughtful and challenging work…, traditional instruction is likely to persist in frustrating educational reform, and reformers’ visions are likely to continue not to permeate practice broadly or deeply. (Ball & Cohen, 1999, p. 6).

5 Conclusion This study has explored the success and shortcomings of EAL teacher education programs in the preparation and readiness of teachers for classroom practice that pursues the objectives of multimodal and multiliteracies pedagogies. The findings of the present study suggest that EAL teacher education programs completed by many practising teachers did not engage systematically in an approach that prepared them for a highly technologically globalized world within which multiple types of literacies are embedded. Some teachers’ narratives about the preparation they received in their teacher education programs have revealed that although multimodal resources were used by their teacher educators, these were not consistently used in manners that provided a pedagogical foundation for them to pursue successfully the objectives of multiliteracies in their classroom practice. Despite their perceived lack of readiness to teach in diverse contexts and to provide effective classroom practice that pursues the goals of a multiliteracies pedagogy, teachers took hold of all potential opportunities provided by their diverse teaching contexts to seek alternative routes to catering to the diverse needs of their EAL learners. This included adapting and changing their teaching styles, developing an understanding of intercultural differences, using a variety of resources and modalities to develop students’ literacies, and being more sensitive to and aware of the cultural, situational and contextual constraints and affordances of teaching in diverse multilingual settings, something which some had never experienced before.

78

L. Veliz and S. Hossein

Based on the findings gleaned from this study, it becomes particularly fundamental that EAL teacher education must address the real needs of both pre-service and practising teachers to be better prepared to deal with the multiplicity of textual forms to which learners are regularly exposed. They need to address the diverse literacy needs of learners in multilingual settings in ways that ‘crafting a mix of practice’ (Freebody, 2000), and differentiated learning tasks and assessment procedures are sought to meet learners’ needs. Since digital technologies make available a great variety of linguistic resources at the touch of a single button, it seems particularly necessary that EAL teacher education programs begin to bridge the gap between traditionally dominant forms of literacy historically included in teacher education curricula, those linked primarily to standardized literacy testing, and the various kinds of meaning-making resources which students utilize and exploit when dealing with multimodal texts (Bowcher, 2012). This change involves, first and foremost, the need for policymakers to reconceptualize literacy from the view of “individual achievement based on print texts” (Ajayi, 2011, p. 22), to a more pluralistic view of ‘literacies’ which embody diversity, different language forms, a constructivist view of learning, a balance of social and cultural perspectives, and a recognition of the multiplicity of a wide range of modes of meaning-making.

References Ajayi, L. (2011). Preservice teachers’ knowledge, attitudes, and perception of their preparation to teach multiliteracies/multimodality. The Teacher Educator, 46, 6–31. Alberta Education (2007). ESL guide to implementation (K–9). Edmonton, Alta: Alberta Education. Anstey, M., & Bull, G. (2016). Pedagogies for developing literacies of the visual. Practical Literacy, 21(1), 22–24. Ata, A., & Kostogriz, A. (Eds.). (2015). International education and cultural-linguistic experiences of international students in Australia. Samford Valley, Qld: Australian Academy Press. Bacon, C. K. (2017). Multilanguage, multipurpose: A literature review, synthesis, and framework for critical literacies in English language teaching. Journal of Literacy Research, 49(3), 424–453. Ball, D. L., & Cohen, D. K. (1999). Developing practice, developing practitioners: Toward a practicebased theory of professional development. In L. Darling-Hammond & G. Skyes (Eds.), Teaching as the learning professional: Handbook of policy and practice (pp. 3–32). San Francisco: JosseyBass. Barkhuizen, G. (2011). Narrative knowledging in TESOL [Special section]. TESOL Quarterly, 45, 391–414. https://doi.org/10.5054/tq.2011.261888. Bearne, E. (2003). Rethinking literacy: Communication, representation and text. Reading Literacy and Language, 37(3), 98–103. Bearne, E. (2009). Multimodality, literacy and texts: Developing a discourse. Journal of Early Childhood Literacy, 9(2), 156–187. https://doi.org/10.1177/1468798409105585. Berniz, K., & Miller, A. (2017). English language support: A dialogical multi-literacies approach to teaching students from CALD backgrounds. Journal of Pedagogy, 2, 101–120. Bowcher, W. (Ed.). (2012). Multimodal texts from around the world: Cultural and linguistic insights. New York: Palgrave. Cole, D., & Pullen, D. (2009). Multiliteracies in motion: Current theory and practice. London, UK: Routledge.

EAL Teachers’ (Un)Preparedness to Implement Classroom …

79

Cope, B., & Kalantzis, M. (2000). Multiliteracies: Literacy learning and the design of social futures. London: Routledge. Cope, B., & Kalantzis, M. (2016). A pedagogy of multiliteracies: Learning by design. New York: Palgrave. de Silva Joyce, H., & Feez, S. (2016). Exploring literacies: Theory, research and practice. Hampshire, UK: Palgrave. Farias, M., & Veliz, L. (2019). Multimodal texts in Chilean English teaching education: Experiences from educators and pre-service teachers. Profile: Issues in Teachers’ Professional Development, 21(2), 13–27. https://doi.org/10.15446/profile.v21n2.75172. Farrell, T. (Ed.). (2015). International perspectives on English language teacher education: Innonvations from the field. Bristol: Palgrave. Freebody, P. (2000). Crafting a mix: Programs and packages in literacy education. Newsletter of the Australian Literacy Educators’ Association. http://www.alea.edu.au/today.htm. Grossman, P. (1994). Teachers’ knowledge. In T. Husen & T. N. Postlethwaite (Eds.), The international encyclopedia of education (Vol. 10, pp. 6117–6122). Oxford: Pergamon. Hamston, J., & Scull, J. (2007). Extreme(s) makeover: Countering false dichotomies of literacy education in the Australian context. Literacy Teaching and Learning, 12(1), 1–18. Hesterman, S. (2011). A contested space: The dialogic intersection of ICT, multiliteracies and early childhood. Contemporary Issues in Early Childhood, 12(4), 349–361. Kalantzis, Mary, & Cope, Bill (Eds.). (2001). Transformations in language and learning: Perspectives on multiliteracies. Melbourne: Common Ground. Kasper, G., & Prior, M. (2014). Analyzing storytelling in TESOL interview research. TESOL Quarterly, 49(2), 226–255. Kiss, T., & Mizusawa, K. (2018). Revisiting the pedagogy of multiliteracies: Writing instruction in a multicultural context. Changing English: Studies in Culture and Education, 25(1), 56–68. Klenowski, V., & Wyatt-Smith, C. (2012). The impact of high stakes testing: The Australian story. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy and Practice, 19(1), 65–79. Knobel, M. (1999). Everyday literacies: Students, discourse, and social practice. New York: Peter Lang. Leung, C. (2009). Second language teacher professionalism. In A. Burns & J. C. Richards (Eds.), The Cambridge guide to second language teacher education (pp. 49–58). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Lo Bianco, J. (2008). Successful engagement in an early literacy intervention. Journal of Early Childhood Literacy, 8(2), 123–150. Lotherington, H. (2011). Pedagogy of multiliteracies: Rewriting goldilocks. London: Routledge. Luke, A., & Luke, C. (2001). Adolescence lost/childhood regained. English in Australia, 131, 35–48. Mackay, M. (2002). Literacies across media: Playing the text. London: Routledge. New London Group. (1996). A pedagogy of multiliteracies: Designing social futures. Harvard Educational Review, 66(1), 60–92. Pahl, K., & Rowsell, J. (2005). Literacy and education: Understanding the new literacy studies in the classroom. London: Paul Chapman Publishing. Pavlenko, A. (2007). Autobiographic narratives as data in applied linguistics. Applied Linguistics, 28, 163–188. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amm008. Pavlenko, A., & Lantolf, J. (2000). Second language learning as participation and the re(construction) of selves. In J. P. Lantolf (Ed.), Sociocultural theory and second language learning (pp. 155–177). Oxford, England: Oxford University Press. Prinsloo, M., & Stroud, C. (2014). Introduction. In M. Prinsloo & C. Stroud (Eds.), Educating for language and literacy diversity: Mobile selves (pp. 1–22). Bristol: Palgrave. Provenzo, E., Goodwin, A., Lipsky, M., & Sharpe, S. (2011). Multiliteracies: Beyond text and the written word. Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing. Richgels, D. J. (2004). Paying attention to language. Reading Research Quarterly, 39(4), 470–477.

80

L. Veliz and S. Hossein

Rowsell, J., Kosnik, C., & Beck, C. (2008). Fostering multiliteracies pedagogy through pre-service teacher education. Teaching Education, 19(2), 109–122. Siegel, M. (2012). New times for multimodality? Confronting the accountability culture. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 55(8), 671–680. Sluys, K. V., Lewison, M., & Flint, A. S. (2006). Researching critical literacy: A critical study of analysis of classroom discourse. Journal of Literacy Research, 38(2), 197–233. Villegas-Reimers, E. (2003). Teacher professional development: An international review of the literature. Paris: UNESCO, International Institute for Educational Planning. Yuan, H. (2018). Preparing teachers for diversity: A literature review and implications from community-based teacher education. Higher Education Studies, 8(1), 9–17.

Leonardo Véliz earned his Ph.D. at Deakin University where he currently lectures in undergraduate and postgraduate programs. His research interests include teacher cognition, language teacher education and metaphor and multimodality. His research outcomes have been published in reputable journals. Hossein Shokouhi Ph.D. is a Senior Lecturer at Deakin University. He has published widely in TESOL and applied linguistics, and has taught applied linguistics and TESOL in Australia and overseas. He held visiting scholar positions at Potsdam University, Germany, Deusto University, Spain, and La Trobe University, Australia.

Decolonialization in the Concrete: Honoring the Expertise of Local Teachers in EFL Contexts Douglas Fleming

Abstract This reports a study of a set of experienced rural Chinese English as a Foreign Language (EFL) secondary school teachers enrolled in a professionaldevelopment training program offered at a major Canadian university. The program’s purpose was to help the participants develop a deeper understanding of how to adapt alternative approaches to EFL pedagogy to local conditions. Teachers in foreign English language teaching and learning contexts face diverse challenges such as large class sizes, low student motivation, and limited classroom resources. English instruction in China has been dominated by teacher-fronted and grammar-focused pedagogy (Zhang and Li in Paper Presented May 2014 at International Conference on Education, Language, Art and Intercultural Communication (ICELAIC 2014), 2014). These conditions have resulted in significant challenges in terms of the development of English oral proficiency and in overall classroom management. Although some jurisdictions (such as the Shanghai School District) in China have recently experimented with assessment techniques that are alternatives to the traditional Gaokao college and university entrance examinations, these changes have yet to be felt in rural China. The data demonstrate that successful teacher training in this context requires carefully listening to participants so as to provide the theoretical knowledge and exposure to practical classroom treatment options so that they can exercise, in the interests of decolonialization, the agency to assess, appropriate, and apply what they see fit for their unique contexts. The findings also demonstrate that teacher trainers have much to learn from the participants in professional development training. As I note below, the follow up research in China showed that the participants made sophisticated choices in view of local contexts and that these local contexts were important to understand. Keywords Decolonialization · English as a foreign/second language · Qualitative research · China · Teacher professional development

D. Fleming (B) University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Canada e-mail: [email protected] © Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020 W. Tao and I. Liyanage (eds.), Multilingual Education Yearbook 2020, Multilingual Education Yearbook, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-41211-1_5

81

82

D. Fleming

1 Introduction Despite the passage of time and the growth of scholarly interest in critical applied linguistics (Pennycook, 2017) and critical second language pedagogies (Canagarajah, 2009; Kumaravadivelu, 2003), hegemonic forces in EFL contexts persist (Phillipson & Skutnabb-Kangas, 2012). As Kumaravadivelu (2016) argues, this dominance is most apparent in the development and implementation of curriculum, materials, standardized tests, and teacher-training, all of which is largely determined by Western universities and associated Western publishing houses and then disseminated to the local EFL contexts for whole-sale consumption. In this way, the ESL/EFL industry is a prime example of the Centre/Periphery model most notably promoted by Myrdal (1957). The project reported here involved thirty-five experienced English middle and secondary school teachers from Yunnan, a rural and relatively poor part of China that is among the world’s most ethnically and linguistically diverse regions. Yunnan is a large province located in Southwest China that borders Guangxi, Guizhou, Sichuan, Tibet, Vietnam, Myanmar and Laos. It has a highly diverse climate, biology and geography. Most of its 46 million people live in mountainous areas that are quite rural, poor and remote. Yunnan is home to twenty-five distinct ethnic and linguistic minorities (e.g., Yi, Bai, Dai, Zhuan, Hani, Miao), half of the total numbers of recognized minorities in China as a whole, making it the most multicultural and multilingual province in the country. The project was conducted in cooperation with Chinese school officials and universities and engaged these teachers in cultural and educational exchanges, English language acquisition, and the examination of fundamental concepts related to contemporary second language teaching methodologies. The emphasis in this project was on practical and concrete ‘hands-‘on’ exercises and on the interrelationship between theory and practice. This article first outlines the international context of the study. This is followed by a description of the project, an overview of its conceptual framework, and a brief account of the research methodology that was employed. However, the bulk of this article is devoted to the study’s findings. I conclude with a discussion of the implications for theory and practice, focusing on the progressive possibilities of particular forms of post-secondary internationalization that work in the interests of international cooperation and decolonialization.

2 International Context The expansion and growth of English as an international language (EIL) has increased the number of people around the world studying this language in different contexts and settings (Block, 2003). As Ellis (2008) argues, teachers in foreign English language teaching and learning contexts face diverse challenges. Student motivation is often low and classes are usually large. This results in significant challenges in terms of classroom management. In addition, the wages for these types of teachers

Decolonialization in the Concrete: Honoring the Expertise …

83

are commonly low and the available teaching resources limited. Instruction is commonly formal, teacher-centered and form-based. Students in these contexts have few opportunities to use English orally or practice spontaneous conversation. Without exception, the Yunnan teachers participating in the project faced all of these challenges. Moreover, as the participants stated, most students in rural China feel that they have little use for English. In China, English instruction has been dominated by a grammar form-focused pedagogy and the memorization of structures provided by the language teacher (Zhang & Li, 2014). However, as Li and Edwards (2013) note, China has embarked on wholesale educational reform aimed at shifting English instruction from models of pedagogy based on teacher-centered transmission to those that are communicative, task-based and student-centered. This is an integral part of changing Chinese national educational policy (as outlined in Gu, 2010). To implement the new curricular innovations and to improve the standards of teaching and learning English, the leading Chinese funder of international education, the China Scholarship Council (CSC), funds projects such as the one under study that sends teachers abroad for three months to participate in professional development projects in English speaking countries, including Australia, the UK, the USA, New Zealand, and Canada.

3 The Project The Project was delivered at the Faculty of Education of a large research-based bilingual university in Eastern Canada with the assistance of the university’s Language Institute. Extensive consultation around the curricular aspects of the project was held with the CSC, the Embassy of China, and the Beijing Languages and Culture University (BLCU). In view of the challenges and trends noted above, the CSC established two broad goals for this project: to help Yunnan English teachers improve their second language teaching practices and to improve their levels of English language proficiency. In consultation with CSC, the provincial educational authority selected schools from various localities to participate in this project and local school principals and colleagues then nominated who would be asked to participate. Some nominated teachers chose not to travel to Canada; however, most were enthusiastic about participating in the project, especially in view of the fact that most had never travelled beyond their home province. The thirty-five English teachers who took part in the project worked in middle and secondary schools throughout Yunnan. Half belonged to various ethnic and linguistic minorities themselves. Although some worked in urban centers, the vast majority came from outlying rural areas within the province. While several were relatively novice teachers, the vast majority had between 3 and 10 years of teaching experience, and some were veterans of over 20 years in the classroom. Three quarters of the teachers were women and one quarter were men. None of the teachers came from middle- or upper-income brackets. Some were homeroom teachers or heads of their local school English teaching department. However, most

84

D. Fleming

were ordinary classroom teachers with no additional responsibilities. All had English as their teaching subject. The teachers first participated in a month-long orientation to North American culture and pedagogy at BLCU. At the host Canadian university, the team of multicultural and multilingual professors and graduate students who delivered and designed the project were specialists in second language education. Most had extensive international teaching experience (several in China). Three professors and four graduate students formed the core of the teaching staff. Numerous undergraduate students were employed as one-on-one language facilitators. A manager organized the extra-curricular activities, tended to the logistics, and provided orientation. The syllabus was first drafted by myself, the lead professor, in consultation with the teaching team. The syllabus was then sent to CSC and Chinese Embassy for feedback. After several months of negotiations between these Chinese officials and the university, the syllabus was finalized and the logistics, accommodations, and financial arrangements approved. Upon arrival, the teachers were accommodated in university residences and given orientations to local stores, resources, the university, and city. The three-month program started with extensive visits to local schools over the course of two weeks. This was followed by a two-week introduction to pedagogical technology in computer laboratories and a one-week set of special lectures on learning theory. As a rule, most mornings started with a lecture on such topics as concrete approaches to lesson-planning, overall curriculum design, general linguistics, the creation and adaption of teaching materials, the role of grammar, bilingualism, decentralized curriculum decision-making, student-centered pedagogical approaches, antiracist education, critical multiculturalism, alternate forms of educational leadership, critical curriculum theory, problematizing Canadian culture, multicultural citizenship, globalization and post-colonial discourse. In the late mornings and afternoons, small group ‘hands on’ workshops centered on concrete aspects of teaching practice, classroom activities, and material development. The thirty-five teachers were divided into small breakout groups with the aim of providing more personalized opportunities for teaching strategies practice and English language conversation. Throughout the project, the teachers were taken on field trips and socio-cultural outings to various local points of interest, such as the museums, local music and ethnic festivals, and local government, and given the opportunity to go on overnight trips to urban centers in the rest of the province. The most significant of the extra-curricular activities, however, was a visit to a local First Nation school, where they learned about First Nation educational philosophy and met students, teachers, administrators, and elders in the community. It is noteworthy that the project endeavored to employ elements of indigenous models of education. That is, the project strived to create a learning environment that “honors the culture, language and world view” of students, as well as honoring “who they are and where they have come from” (Toulouse, 2017, p. 1). Most importantly, the project was designed to provide critical content (in both lectures and workshops) via a decentralized delivery instruction model focused on the Yunnan teachers’ needs and realities. Changes in curricular content occurred when a need became clear, for example, the teachers needed help in designing group

Decolonialization in the Concrete: Honoring the Expertise …

85

work tasks. The overall emphasis was on helping the teachers adapt communicative approaches to local Yunnan conditions. Moreover, the project content explicitly problematized the political nature of English teaching, the notions of native speaker, standardized privileged Anglo-American “core” English, and binary stereotypes of Eastern and Western pedagogy.

3.1 Theoretical Framework Some scholars (e.g. Phillipson, 1992) have argued that the teaching of English is inherently part of the Western (specifically Anglo-American) imperialistic enterprise. In opposition to this view, others (e.g. Crystal, 1998) have argued that English can be taught without such baggage. However, as outlined by Kachru (1992) and Schneider (2007), the international spread of the language has been complex and multi-varied. Pennycook (2006), in fact, argues that language itself is best thought of as a “flow” that is connected to culture in ways that are not fixed. This allows for the reclaiming of the “local” language in face of the “global” (Canagarajah, 2005). Ellis (2016) documents how alienation is a common feeling amongst Non-Native Teachers of English. Many teachers who seek professional development abroad feel that they essentially forfeit their positionality as experienced teachers and sources of linguistic knowledge or pedagogical expertise. Depending on how they experience this professional development, they commonly feel that they have (re)become students, receivers of knowledge, and novices. In short, they come to feel powerless. The best example of how decolonization manifested itself concretely in the project was in the various ways in which the project countered the myth of ‘nativespeakerism’. Inherent in the notion that there really is a thing called a ‘native speaker’ is the notion that there is one correct source of input for second language teaching. First coined by Leonard Bloomfield (1933), the notion became a fundamental aspect of Chomsky’s Transformational Linguistics (1965). As Cook (1997) and Firth and Wagner (1997) later argued, the notion of the ‘native speaker’ set up an impossible and monolingual ideal that represented most speakers of English as deficient. Even though some scholars, such as Reves and Medgyes (1994), have argued that ‘native’ and ‘non-native’ both have their place in second language teaching, Amin (2000) clearly documented that ‘non-native’ teachers of English (such as herself) are usually viewed as inferior to those considered ‘native’. Phillipson (1992) went even further by attacking the very notion as a fallacy that has led to a hierarchy within the profession closely linked to the discourse that English is owned by those born and raised within the linguistic mainstream of Anglo-American circle (Norton Pierce, 1997; Widdowson, 1994). To counter this prevailing discourse, the project drew upon multilingual faculty to represent the diversity of the Canadian linguistic landscape: the majority were speakers of French, Spanish, and Farsi who taught and worked in English. Likewise, to counter the potential of a unidirectional dissemination of knowledge from (Western) teacher to (Peripheral) learner (from the periphery), curriculum was intentional,

86

D. Fleming

constantly re-designed, and flexible enough to adapt to the unique professional and linguistic needs and goals of the Chinese teachers. As was continually emphasized in the lecture content and workshop facilitation, the participants were encouraged to evaluate (the multiplicity of) dominant trends within current second language teaching theory and classroom practice so that they could determine for themselves the most useful approaches for their own teaching contexts. The project’s orientation towards language and second language teaching is, as Widdowson (1997) put it, not a matter of the actual language being distributed but of the virtual language being spread and in the process being variously actualized. The distribution of the actual language implies adoption and conformity. The spread of virtual language implies adaptation and nonconformity. The two processes are quite different. (pp. 135–146)

4 Methodology The research team obtained ethics approval from the university’s review board before starting the data collection process. As per the protocol, informed consent was obtained (in translation) from the participants and the data kept in secure storage. In what follows, all proper names have been replaced by pseudonyms in the interests of protecting confidentiality. All the thirty-five teachers agreed to participate in an initial on-line survey and to allow their course assignments to be consulted. Following Miles and Huberman (1994), the survey and course assignments were used as background information to inform the questions asked in the subsequent interviews. Thirteen teachers volunteered to participate in these interviews: 9 males and 4 females. The age range was evenly distributed, with the youngest being 29 years of age and the oldest 40. Nine were from the Han majority and 4 were from the Bi, Lisu and Yi linguistic minorities. Seven were middle school teachers. Six taught in secondary schools. The interview data was collected through hour-long one-on-one interviews and one focus group arranged at times of their convenience. The interviews were audio-recorded and uploaded into a qualitative research software program. A thematic approach was used for analysis, starting with a set of categories and codes derived from demographics and the experiences of the participants. Emergent themes were then extracted.

4.1 Findings Teaching English in English Traditionally, in the fields of SLA and SLE, effective instruction entails teaching exclusively in the target language. Monolingual instruction has been endorsed as a

Decolonialization in the Concrete: Honoring the Expertise …

87

means to increase target language exposure as well as enable students to ‘think’ in the target language. For many of the visiting teachers, this was not practiced in their local EFL classrooms. Moreover, it was viewed as an unrealistic, and counterproductive, expectation. Instead, the Mandarin language was used in the classroom for classroom management, to give instructions, and particularly for English grammar, to give explanation. Salida, a junior secondary school teacher attributes the low use of English in the EFL classroom to the teachers themselves: It is difficult for us to express ourselves. We have no chance to express ourselves in English. I think maybe as teachers we are not good examples because we also cannot communicate in English. For all of the English teachers to go abroad is just a dream, so many teachers they teach English maybe their whole life but they have never spoken to a foreigner and very few foreigners come to our county.

Axel, a teacher in senior secondary school took a more critical approach, questioning the utility and feasibility of using English to teach English: I asked Beijing [education project administrators] what would happen if I just use English to teach my students. They just answered me “Are you kidding. The students cannot understand anything.” Actually, what I really wanted to get was some suggestions on how we can increase our use of English in our teaching, but she just thought I was joking. I think I will change [my teaching] in other ways… maybe in grammar lesson, I have to speak Chinese to make my students understand. Except for that I will try to speak English.

Teachers’ own language proficiency and confidence to deliver an entire lesson in English, coupled with the ability of students to meaningfully understand their instruction were real concerns. This was compounded by the fact that for many teachers and students, English was a third language, second to Chinese, the official language, and their native languages/dialects. As such, for many of the Yunnan teachers, conducting the lesson using as much English as possible required creative solutions such as, for example, a suggestion by Axel to use translated textbooks. For TESOL trainers, Salida and Axel’s views may provoke a range of reactions: Salida’s account may invoke sympathy followed by concern over the quality of instruction that EFL teachers with limited linguistic proficiency can provide. An obvious solution would be to provide enhanced language training, such as the language courses provided in the study abroad program. Likewise, trainers may disapprove of Axel’s use of translated texts and insistence that Mandarin is necessary for complex instruction. Language educators that are fluent in the target language (as ‘native’ speakers, or ‘near-native’ speakers) and used to teaching English in linguistically heterogeneous ESL classrooms, may have never experienced the necessity to, and the utility of, reverting to a common language. Axel’s transcript reflects the empowerment experienced when the visiting teachers remained the ‘expert’ of their local context and the ‘expert’ in deciding which pedagogies could best meet the needs of their students.

88

D. Fleming

Standardized English Tests as Opportunities for Mobility According to all of the participants, the gap between rich and poor, and rural and urban, contributes to issues of student retention at the junior and senior secondary school levels. Schools located in major cities offer more favorable educational conditions with many parents, including the visiting EFL teachers themselves, sending their children to urban schools for greater opportunity. One advantage associated with urban schools is preparation for post-secondary education, an opportunity made available through enhanced training and strong performance on the college-entrance examination. Standardized testing is a contentious issue with many educators that hold more ‘progressive’ views critical of its the exclusionary nature. On the other hand, some of the Yunnan teachers at the senior secondary-school level voiced support for the use of standardized tests. Standardized tests were viewed as an opportunity to break the cycle of poverty. Diverging views between the instructors and visiting teachers on this issue is expressed in this exchange: Researcher: Is there anything you would change about the educational system in China? Nova: I think the entrance examination is good. Some students and some colleagues might think that we are pushing them too hard. That the student have to rush into bridge, and some students will pass and other will fail. Maybe they think it’s terrible. Many students would describe this experience to be terrible or something like that, but I don’t think so because every child, every student has the chance if they study hard. All of them can have a chance to change themselves.

Note that the participant responds to the question by defending the use of examinations rather than explaining what she would change about the educational system. Nova’s reply can be viewed as an exercise of agency where she creates the opportunity to explain the merits of statewide exams to the researcher. In doing so, she makes her understanding of counter-arguments clear, but despite critiques of standardized testing (such as that espoused by many in Western education), her view remains based on the benefits it may hold for students fighting to escape the poverty and marginalization of growing up in rural Yunnan. Zane (from the Dai ethnic group) recalls his own experience writing the university entrance exam (Gao Kao): In 2002 it wasn’t easy for young people to go to university from minority nations because the entrance examination was very hard. Only 30 or 40% of senior secondary school students can get the chance to go to university in Yunnan at that time. Right now maybe 80 or 90% of senior secondary school students [in urban schools] can get more chance to study at different kinds of university. They can study in my province or they can go to another big city to study, but it depends on their performance test on their entrance examination.

But just as the entrance exam provides opportunities, it creates an environment of tension as teachers attempt balancing teaching for the test while maintaining student motivation and interest to study English. For some, these tensions produce unrealistic expectations on both teachers and students. Philomena explains: “We have spent so much time on English. And, finally we take part in the final examination. Also they get low marks, so they have wasted too much time. I think it’s not worth it.” As Axel explains, unrewarded efforts can lead to hostile student-teacher relationships:

Decolonialization in the Concrete: Honoring the Expertise …

89

For me…. even these days sometimes I even want to go back to teaching in junior school because the task is really hard you never know how much pressure I have teaching. Researcher: Because the students want to go to university? Where is that pressure coming from? Axel: The pressure is just … actually my students like me very, very much; I do have a very good relationship with my students. They said I really like you, but I really hate learning English. Some of them even just hate me because they hate English.

The striking divergence in opinions on standardized tests is a reminder for educators to step away from over-generalized views of how certain communities (should) think, act, and feel. Then, it is imperative to recognize that complexity exists even within institutionally uniform educational systems—in this case, the multiple roles, functions, and outcomes of mandated English language learning and testing within Yunnan province. To avoid the trap of stereotyping, teacher trainers must first be aware of the range of possible views and positions that local teachers may hold, and secondly, trainers must be open to these views even if these views counter the educational values espoused within their own EFL teacher training philosophy. Tolerance to difference is fundamental to redressing inequality and oppression in ELT, and this tolerance might entail accepting that different ways of doing may be justified for some (Nova and Zane) and not for others (Philomena and Axel).

Promoting Learner Autonomy Autonomy and self-directed learning were noted as prominent strengths in the Canadian education system, and respondents were impressed with Canadian students’ ability to work autonomously in class. In response to the pressure of teaching English in an exam-driven educational system fuelled by competition, some respondents expressed the need for students to become more self-directed autonomous learners. While the most recent curricular reform in China does in fact endorse the development of student autonomy, the teachers were skeptical of achieving these objectives in the current teacher-led exam-based system, especially when grappling with overcrowded classrooms and low student motivation. For learners to become more autonomous, learning conditions would have to change: Researcher: So if you were the leader of Hunan in education, Milagros, what would education look like in Yunnan? If you could change the rules, what would you decide? Milagros: I want the students to study by themselves. The most important thing is to give them time to improve themselves. For example, the best school in my region does not ask the students to have the evening classes. They have free time, yeah… They can have more time to sleep, so they are full of energy in the day. Our students arrive to class at 7:20 a.m. in the morning and study until 10:00 p.m. at night. They’re very tired, yeah.

However, Milagros was well aware that educational reform in China comes slow because of the federal system where change for one school could mean change for the entire country. Yet change can come about in other ways, including at the micro level, such as that by described by Jett:

90

D. Fleming Teachers are more relaxed here [in the project]. We have learnt that it is not always a good idea to be serious. You need to be relaxed and funny from time to time to keep your classes interesting. If a teacher is strict all the time, students will be afraid to participate…when I go back to China, I will walk around my classroom more instead of just standing still in the front. I will interact with the students. I will be more relaxed and less strict. If I am relaxed, my students will be relaxed and they will learn better.

Jett’s comments reflect the openness, flexibility, and bilateral engagement that the teacher-training program hoped to establish. As Jett and Milagros’s comments demonstrate, experience in Canadian culture and knowledge of the Canadian education system allowed teachers to reflect on their teaching practices and educational context in China. From the training course, teachers expressed greater awareness and interest in student-centered teaching, and the importance of creating an environment that is conducive to developing student respect and autonomy. At the time of their visit, the Chinese Ministry of Education was championing student-centered teaching and the development of student autonomy, but at the commencement of the project, many teachers were unsure of the benefits of these approaches and, more specifically, how to integrate them into their classroom practices. At the completion of the project, all teachers expressed enthusiasm for more student-led pedagogy and felt equipped to implement activities and strategies that enhance student engagement.

Follow up Research: Adapting What Was Learnt in Canada In November of this past year, research was conducted in China with 31 of the participants from the 2018 cohort. It was found that every one of the participants had attempted to modify their approaches to teaching to various degrees. In the vast majority of classes observed, it was clear that the model of passive student and teacher-centered instruction so common in rural China had, to a certain extent, been broken. Students enthusiastically participated in activities that the teachers had usually first been exposed to while in Canada, such as ‘running dictation’, critical thinking exercises, and integrated oral/written project work. However, these teachers met with different levels of success in relationship to how their innovations were viewed by administrators and the communities in which they worked. Several of the teachers said that they had abandoned their innovations because parental groups had argued that time spent on critical thinking exercises was taking away from memorizing facts for college entry exams. Through lesson observation and focus group interviews it became apparent that the teachers who had continued to implement innovations in their language classrooms had the support of local parents, colleagues and administrators. In fact, several teachers had recently been awarded promotions and awards for teaching. The innovations that were successful in this context were those that were tailored to local conditions. The kind of small group work that our team had recommended to the teachers while they were in Canada, for example, could not be simply adopted unmodified in typical rural Chinese classrooms of 60 or 70 students. Instead, the teachers adopted activities that they felt could be applicable and adapted them in diverse ways.

Decolonialization in the Concrete: Honoring the Expertise …

91

They used realia that was meaningful for their rural students, designed group activities that made extensive use of Wechat, chalkboards and PowerPoint platforms, and integrated games and activities that were closely built on previous deductively-based lessons. What was especially interesting in view of many of the findings outlined above in regards to standardized college entrance examinations, many of the teachers incorporated into their lessons vocabulary that explicitly referenced the content in college entrance exams. Moreover, the vast majority of the teachers had a sophisticated approach to the L1. In a manner reminiscent of recommendations made by Cummins (1979, 2008), the teachers made use of the L1 as a resource. They provided quick translations of unfamiliar vocabulary and would cover grammar explicitly in the L1 when they deemed it necessary. As our team had recommended while in Canada, the teachers did not enforce “English only” rules. Nor did they attempt to teach the L2 exclusively through the L1, which, as Zhang and Li (2014) have noted, is common in rural China.

5 Discussion and Implications The interview data demonstrate that the complexity of language learning in Yunnan deserves specific treatment that moves beyond easy generalizations of EFL experience in the periphery, Asia, or China for that matter. It requires actually listening to the teachers and then providing them with the theoretical knowledge, linguistic training, pedagogical approaches, educational resources, and agency to assess, appropriate, and apply what they see fit for their unique contexts. Based on the premise that the guest teachers are the ‘experts’ for their learning environment, our project reflected the principles of equality, diversity, and autonomy by offering space to reject and contest established traditions in SLA and imbalanced relations in Western TESL training. The language teaching methodology training in this project focused on encouraging participatory learning with the goal of empowering teachers to be active in seeking and creating solutions that meets the needs of local students. This requires a shift from a “functionalist-oriented, that is, from trainees being passive consumers of knowledge to being more transformative-orientated” (Kruger, 2012, p. 26). Ultimately, the objective was to empower teachers, as individuals, to be role models for their students. To return to theory: English can never be neutral or value-free (Naysmith, 1987). The language classroom is a “transcultural contact zone” (Pennycook, 2006, p. 30) in which we engage with the multiple voices of language users, learners and teachers. As Kruger (2012) expresses it, English language learning itself is shaped by its various actors, and “as language and language learning is not a neutral activity but a site of political, cultural and social acts, teachers should be aware of the role of English education in (re)producing global inequalities” (p. 19). Moreover, Kumaravadivelu (2016) identifies teaching methods as the most crucial area “where hegemonic forces find it necessary and beneficial to exercise the greatest control

92

D. Fleming

because method functions as an operating principle shaping all other aspects of language education: curriculum, materials, testing, and training” (p. 73). Language, and by extension, language teaching should not be seen as an a priori ontological system but as a social, political, and cultural act (Pennycook, 1999). Norton Pierce (1997) argues that we should not view any language as neutral, since “English, like all other language, is… a site of struggle over meaning, access, and power” (p. 405). Freire (1973) was of the view that teaching is a political act and that teachers need to raise students’ critical consciousness of their world. Working within a largely uni-directional flow of linguistic resources, knowledge, and capital, it is the goal of critical language educators to problematize and complicate the seemingly consensual cultural politics that perpetuates the imbalanced distribution of English language pedagogy. By recognizing the social, political, and cultural nature of language and language education, and the potentially oppressive nature of ELT training (where local pedagogies and languages are typically undervalued), this project attempts to create a study abroad professional development project for EFL teachers that is accountable to broader political and ethical visions. Often, these inequalities manifest in the language classroom, a “transcultural contact zone” (Pennycook, 2006, p. 30) where learners confront the practices, values, and ideologies of the dominant native speaker/native culture. The language classroom, and for that matter, EFL teacher-training projects, are the opportune space to raise critical awareness of the political nature of English language education and endeavor to work towards critical pedagogy that redresses the imbalance of power within ELT, and reinstates English language teaching into the hands of local teachers and learners.

References Amin, N. (2000). Negotiating nativism, minority immigrant women ESL teachers and the native speaker construct (Doctoral dissertation, National Library of Canada; Bibliothèque Nationale du Canada). Block, D. (2003). The social turn in second language acquisition. Washington DC: Georgetown University Press. Bloomfield, L. (1933). Language history: From language (1933rd ed.). New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston. Canagarajah, A. S. (Ed.). (2005). Reclaiming the local in language policy and practice. New York: Routledge. Canagarajah, S. (2009). The plurilingual tradition and the English language in South Asia. AILA Review, 22(1), 5–22. Chomsky, N. (1965). Aspects of the theory of syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Cook, V. (1997). Monolingual bias in second language acquisition research. Revista Canaria de Estudios Ingleses, 34(1), 35–50. Crystal, D. (1998). Language play. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Cummins, J. (1979). Linguistic interdependence and the educational development of bilingual children. Review of Educational Research, 49(2), 222–251.

Decolonialization in the Concrete: Honoring the Expertise …

93

Cummins, J. (2008). Teaching for transfer: Challenging the two solitudes assumption in bilingual education. In J. Cummins & N. H. Hornberger (Eds.), Encyclopedia of language and education (2nd ed., Vol. 5, pp. 65–75). New York: Springer Science/Business Media LLC. Ellis, E. (2016). The plurilingual TESOL teacher: The hidden language lives of TESOL teachers and why they matter. Boston, MA: De Gruyter Mouton. Ellis, R. (2008). Understanding second language acquisition. New York: Oxford University Press. Firth, A., & Wagner, J. (1997). On discourse, communication, and (some) fundamental concepts in SLA research. Modern Language Journal, 81(3), 285–300. Freire, P. (1973). Education for critical consciousness. London: Bloomsbury. Gu, M. M. (2010). Identities constructed in difference: English language learners in China. Journal of Pragmatics, 42(1), 139–152. Kachru, B. B. (Ed.). (1992). The other tongue: English across cultures. Chicago: University of Illinois Press. Kruger, F. (2012). The role of TESOL in educating for peace. Journal of Peace Education, 9(1), 17–30. Kumaravadivelu, B. (2003). A postmethod perspective on English language teaching. World Englishes, 22(4), 539–550. Kumaravadivelu, B. (2016). The decolonial option in English teaching: Can the subaltern act? TESOL Quarterly, 50(1), 66–85. Li, D., & Edwards, V. (2013). The impact of overseas training on curriculum innovation and change in English language education in Western China. Language Teaching Research, 17(4), 390–408. Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Myrdal, G. (1957). Economic theory and underdeveloped regions. London: Gerald Duckworth. Naysmith, J. (1987). English as imperialism? Language Issues, 1(2), 3–5. Norton Pierce, B. (1997). Language, identity, and the ownership of English. TESOL Quarterly, 31(3), 409–429. Pennycook, A. (1999). Critical approaches to TESOL. TESOL Quarterly, 33(3), 329–348. Pennycook, A. (2006). Global Englishes and transcultural flows. New York: Routledge. Pennycook, A. (2017). The cultural politics of English as an international language. New York: Taylor & Francis. Phillipson, R., & Skutnabb-Kangas, T. (2012). Linguistic imperialism and endangered languages. In T. Bhatia & W. Ritchie (Eds.), The handbook of bilingualism and multilingualism (2nd ed., pp. 495–516). New York: Wiley. Phillipson, R. (1992). ELT: The native speaker’s burden? ELT Journal, 46(1), 12–18. Reves, T., & Medgyes, P. (1994). The non-native English speaking EFL/ESL teacher’s self-image: An international survey. System, 22(3), 353–367. Schneider, E. W. (2007). Postcolonial English: Varieties around the world. Cambridge University Press. Toulouse, P. (2017). Integrating aboriginal teaching and values into the classroom. Retrieved from http://www.ericdigests.org/2003-3/. Widdowson, H. G. (1994). The ownership of English. TESOL Quarterly, 28(2), 377–389. Widdowson, H. G. (1997). EIL, ESL, EFL: Global issues and local interests. World Englishes, 16(1), 135–146. Zhang, X., & Li, B. (2014). Grammar teaching in the communicative classroom based on focus on form theory. Paper Presented May 2014 at International Conference on Education, Language, Art and Intercultural Communication (ICELAIC 2014). https://doi.org/10.2991/icelaic-14.2014.73.

Douglas Fleming is an Assistant Professor with the Faculty of Education at the University of Ottawa. He completed his Ph.D. in Second Language Education at the University of British Columbia in 2007. Doug’s research and teaching interests are primarily focused on English as a Second/Foreign Language methodology, decolonization, anti-racism, second language policy

94

D. Fleming

development, citizenship, equity, systematic functional grammar, French post-structural philosophy and critiques of national second language policy documents. Before becoming an academic, Doug taught ESL and Literacy for over 20 years in public school districts, community colleges and immigrant serving agencies. He has also supervised immigrant ESL programs and worked on numerous curriculum and professional development projects at the local, national and international levels. Most recently he has worked on projects in China, Nepal and Morocco. For more information go to http://douglasfleming.weebly.com or http://www.education.uottawa.ca/ profs/fleming.html.

Language-Focused Feedback and Written Communication Difficulties of Multilingual Students: Improving Teacher Preparedness Nara Tsedendamba, Vittoria Grossi, and Michael Volkov

Abstract A great proportion of Australian university classrooms are now linguistically and culturally diverse. Despite various strategies to improve academic literacy skills of students in these settings, written communication skills, in particular, continue to be a challenge. Provision of effective language-focused feedback is believed to have substantial potential in redressing this situation. The study reported in this chapter involves interactions between a team of Language and Learning Advisers (LLAs), and the teaching team (full-time academics/course leaders and casual marking tutors) of a core first year marketing course during a two phase project at an Australian university that aimed to help its large multilingual student cohort improve their English language development (ELD) and written communication skills. The project introduced a feedback framework to support written communication along with a suggested comments bank developed to support the course’s casual marking tutors to provide feedback on language use and writing. The application of the resources included delivering professional development (PD) sessions for marking tutors on the importance of continuously supporting students’ ELD and written communication using feedback. We use findings from analysis of documents and surveys to foreground the complexities involved in the provision of language-focused feedback in multilingual settings, including issues of tutor preparedness to tackle pedagogic needs of students. We conclude with insights as to how these findings extend to similar contexts where there is a need to prepare casual marking tutors with a view to alleviating issues of written communication skills of linguistically diverse students.

N. Tsedendamba (B) · V. Grossi Student Academic and Peer Support Services, Deakin University, Melbourne, Australia e-mail: [email protected] V. Grossi e-mail: [email protected] M. Volkov Macquarie University, Sydney, Australia e-mail: [email protected] © Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020 W. Tao and I. Liyanage (eds.), Multilingual Education Yearbook 2020, Multilingual Education Yearbook, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-41211-1_6

95

96

N. Tsedendamba et al.

Keywords Written communication skill · Multilingual students · Multilingual setting · Language-focused feedback · English language development

1 Background Development of academic writing is reported as being one of the biggest problems for university educators (Vance & Crosling, 1998). In Australian universities, most English language and written communication skills development support has been the responsibility of Academic Support Units, and this work is often done outside the curriculum, targeting students considered to be in need of ‘remedial support’. One of the limitations of such non-compulsory, often generic, ‘deficit’ models of language support is that it does not appear to help ‘weaker students’ who most need the support (Arkoudis, Baik, & Richardson, 2012; Murray, 2012; Wingate, 2006). Nor does it prepare students for the communicative demands in their specific disciplines of study (Wingate, 2018). In response, many Australian universities have re-evaluated their existing English language development (ELD) programmes designed to support increasingly multilingual and culturally diverse student cohorts. Among others, current strategies can include post-entry language assessment, embedding academic literacy, English language programs within disciplines, delivering workshops, and credit-bearing courses (e.g., Arkoudis & Doughney, 2014; Baik & Greig, 2009; Harper, 2013; Maldoni, 2018; Mort & Drury, 2012; Murray, 2012; Podorova, 2016). These were underpinned by a document outlining good practice principles (Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations, 2009), commissioned by the Australian Government to ensure that all receiving institutions establish and maintain ELD for their students. While many strategies have been successful in developing and improving students’ language skills, written communication remains an issue. Compared to most English speaking background (ESB) students educated in Australian secondary schools who have reasonably well-developed written communication skills, Englishas-an-additional-language (EAL) students, whose knowledge and skills developed in educational contexts in their home country, are often not in tune with the expectations and requirements of academic writing in the Australian higher education (HE) tradition (Murray, 2010). With increased linguistic diversity in the student populations of Australian universities, and with communication skills now recognized as a graduate attribute, the need for improving students’ written communication is more important than ever. Murray (2010) points out that development of students’ written communication skills must become part of academics’ teaching responsibilities. However, there is a lack of systematic and consistent support for, and from, discipline lecturers regarding their contributions to the enhancement of students’ ELD and written communication skills, hence they reject involvement in such initiatives (Arkoudis, 2018; Wingate, 2018). Also, discipline teachers are usually not involved in this work because focus is given to content knowledge with language seen merely as a tool that is used to acquire

Language-Focused Feedback and Written Communication …

97

it (Coffin & Donoheu, 2014). Coffin and Donohue (2014), however, argue that the development of language use should be seen as an equally important part of learning and teaching processes. Feedback, including corrective feedback, provided by course lecturers (with the support from Academic Support unit’s staff when necessary) (Wingate, 2018), is an effective way to address language development and improve written communication (Bitchener, 2012; Ene & Kosobucki, 2016). The question of responsibility for language development and provision of language-related feedback is additionally complicated in Australian universities where up to 80% of the teaching and marking of first-year courses is the work of sessional academics employed on a casual basis (Percy et al. 2008). Many Australian universities offer induction programs for sessional academic staff, but it has been found that casual academics are provided with few opportunities in the areas of preparation for teaching or professional development (PD) (e.g., see Andrews et al., 2016; Crimmins et al., 2016; Smith & Coombe, 2006), and published evaluations of their PD are scarce, particularly in the area of providing effective language-focused feedback to students’ summative assignments by marking tutors. One study with direct relevance to this research project reports that, given what are considered low hourly rates of pay and the limited time allocated for marking each assignment, provision of feedback in general is a major issue, and it is difficult to make marking tutors aware of exceptions around the amount and nature of feedback (Smith & Coombe, 2006). Huber and Harvey (2012) point to this issue and call for more evidence-based accounts of PD for casual academics. This study responds to this gap. This chapter reports a two-phase (2017–2018; 2018-mid 2019) Exploratory Practice (EP) research project on effective feedforward language-feedback involving a team of Language and Learning Advisers (LLAs), course leaders, and marking tutors of a core first-year marketing course at an Australian university. The aim of the project was to equip the course’s making tutors with ways to more explicitly describe language problems encountered in students’ written work at word, sentence, paragraph, and text levels, and to utilise the feedforward nature of the feedback to enable students to take up the advice to improve their written communication and future work. It is appropriate to note here that we did not implement this project without taking into consideration the workload implications for marking tutors. In fact, it was unrealistic and ineffective to expect marking tutors to provide more feedback (Carless & Boud, 2018). The project was not designed around an expectation that marking tutors provide ‘more feedback’, but instead an intention to support them to provide language-feedback without adding an extra burden to their workload.

1.1 Language-Focused Feedback and Development of ELD and Written Communication “Feedback is potentially the most individualised and specific instructional method” (Wingate, 2018, p. 352) and “is one of the most powerful influences on learning and

98

N. Tsedendamba et al.

achievement” (Hattie & Timperley, 2007, p. 1). Carless and Boud (2018, pp. 1315– 1316) define feedback as “a process through which learners make sense of information from various sources (e.g. teachers, peers, or friends) and use it to enhance their work or learning strategies.” Feedback is only effective when it is taken up by learners to improve future work (Johnson & Molloy, 2018). Within a context of second language (L2) pedagogy, the role and usefulness of corrective feedback has been widely discussed with many researchers highlighting its importance in successful L2 acquisition (e.g., Doughty & Long, 2003; Gass & Mackey, 2006; Long, 1996). Corrective feedback in writing is used where teachers correct errors encountered in student writing to identify a gap between their skill and the skill required (Ene & Kosobucki, 2016; Long, 1996) and to help them see what a correct form looks like (Chaudron, 1988). The intention of corrective feedback is to support development of students’ language and writing (Ene & Kosobucki, 2016). Corrective feedback is useful for learners because it helps them to continuously learn the language from their mistakes, correct forms, and the advice provided (Long, 1996). Despite a strong consensus among educators and researchers that feedback is key to students’ learning and success, effective feedback practices are not satisfactorily executed and utilised across the HE sector (Boud & Molloy, 2013; Sadler, 2010). The most persistent critique of feedback is that many students struggle to understand feedback provided in their written work, hence it has little impact on their learning and success (Sadler, 2010). Smith and Coombe (2006) found the quality of marking, including feedback, completed by casual academics to be lower compared to that of full-time academics due to limited PD opportunities available to casual academics in the area of feedback, and this is considered to pose a risk to student engagement and success (Crimmins et al., 2016). Therefore, providing PD on effective language-focused feedback to marking tutors is necessary. It is critical that all academics develop a good understanding of the role of academic literacy (includes use of English language and written communication) in student learning and how to scaffold it to enhance learning, without it being considered an extra burden (Wingate, 2018). This can be achieved with the support of Academic Support staff who have the expertise in English language teaching and academic literacies (Wingate, 2018). Research shows that students are more likely to take up advice in relation to their learning needs and English language development if it is provided by their course lecturers (Arkoudis & Doughney, 2014). So, direct and explicit language-feedback from their marking tutors will potentially help students take their language and written communication skills development seriously (Arkoudis & Doughney, 2014).

2 Conceptualising the Project Exploratory Practice (EP) has been used to frame and inform the development of this research project. EP is a form of a practitioner research that involves practitioners’

Language-Focused Feedback and Written Communication …

99

(e.g. teachers and learners) attempting to better understand their own pedagogical practices, not necessarily to change things but to work together to contribute to mutual development in a collegial environment without adding extra burden to teaching staff’s workload (Allwright, 2003; Hanks, 2017). EP uses pedagogical practices as investigative tools to understand a puzzle which may lead to enhanced practice (Allwirght, 2003). Allwright and Hanks (2009) point out that the word ‘puzzle’ encourages practitioners to develop a better understanding of the issue rather than rushing to look for solutions. Some key principles of EP relevant to this research project include, taking action for understanding, working with these understandings, and the expectation of collegial collaboration between different practitioners for mutual development (Allwright, 2003). Understanding the need to take action involves identifying puzzles in current practice, thinking about and/or discussing the puzzles, and planning with the hope to adapt or enhance the pedagogical practice (Allwright, 2003). The emerging understanding from this step is then used to inform the next step—working with these understandings. This involves sharing the collective understanding with others, discussing and refining understandings, and finally sharing the outcome with the hope to invite more practitioners to join the EP community of practice (Allwright, 2003). The expectation of collegial collaboration between different practitioners for mutual development is important in EP. To create a collegial atmosphere, Allwright (2003) suggests positioning practitioners in the context of the pedagogical practice, especially the practitioners who work outside the classroom teachers’ workplace. This research project uses the feedback practice in a first-year marketing course as an investigative tool. At the taking action for understanding stage, the research project was focused to (a) address inconsistencies and ambiguities in marking practices in providing actionable feedback. At the working with emerging understandings stage, the study was focused to (b) better equip the marking tutors with ways to more explicitly describe the language problems encountered in students’ written work and provide greater direction to existing resources and strategies designed to improve students’ written communication. Work done in Phase 1 informed Phase 2, hence in this research project, the stages of data collection and analysis were intertwined in many ways. Collegiality was achieved in that the LLAs and the course leaders successfully worked together on other prior projects and already had a well-established working relationship. The course’s marking tutors were invited to participate in collegial professional discussions about their experiences and involvement in the feedback practice, which were instrumental in the developmental and implementation stages of the research project. In the later stage of Phase 2, the course’s students were invited to participate in an online survey. The students were viewed as co-practitioners, not objects of the research. In EP research, learners are viewed as working together with other practitioners to contribute to understanding of the puzzle (Allwright, 2003; Hanks, 2017).

100

N. Tsedendamba et al.

2.1 Phase 1: Taking Action for Understanding Phase 1 of the project began when course leaders contacted LLAs via email seeking support to improve their feedback practice. The LLAs and the course leaders negotiated an approach to address feedback and approach this as a research project. A questionnaire was sent to course leaders in order to understand their needs and puzzles they were encountering in their feedback practice. Questionnaire results revealed that they were receiving a large number of queries from students after each assessment asking for further feedback or explanations of the feedback provided. The majority of the enquiries received indicated markers were not clearly articulating the errors identified in students’ work, were not suggesting solutions for improvement, and there was inconsistency in feedback across markers. They believed their feedback practice could improve “through training, providing examples of common errors and statements that markers can incorporate into their feedback when they identify errors (language issues in student writing)” (A comment from a course leader). To further understand the puzzles, the researchers analysed markers’ feedback provided on marked assignments of two assessments tasks (AT)—AT1: 750 words business report and AT2: 1500 words business report. The researchers randomly selected markers’ feedback from AT1 (292 marked assignments) and AT2 (288 marked assignments). Upon analyzing the markers’ feedback, it was found that the markers identified language problems associated with expression, grammar elementals, sentence structure, and paragraph structure, but there were recurring trends in relation to ambiguous, tentative or non-directive feedback. Also, there were few or no links to specific resources and strategies that can assist students to quickly and easily learn more about their writing. One suggestion was that students should seek assistance individually through the Academic Support staff. While this is useful, this approach is unsustainable, and at times unnecessary. LLAs understand that seeking online self-access resources is appropriate for some students. Further thinking and ongoing discussion informed the development of resources for marking tutors, including clear strategies for giving language-focused feedback, as well as a comments bank that can be easily used and adapted. The marking tutors were also invited to participate in an effective feedback PD before the beginning of a new teaching period. The PD focused on the value and feedforward nature of feedback and of the need for markers to have agreements/awareness of threshold writing standards, and what English language features they see as acceptable in the course. A questionnaire and online survey were used to understand the impact of the work done in Phase 1 (see Phase 1 findings). By the end of the first half of the 2018 teaching period, according to the University’s standardised student evaluation survey instrument’s quantitative results, student satisfaction in feedback in the course showed 87% satisfaction rate (n = 644, response rate = 20%). While the satisfaction rate was high, one of the key themes from the qualitative comments indicated that the feedback provided on the assessment still needed to be improved. This initiated Phase 2 of the study.

Language-Focused Feedback and Written Communication …

101

2.2 Phase 2: Working with Emerging Understandings To better help marking tutors, the researchers analysed marked assignments from the first half of the 2018 teaching period randomly selected from AT1 (974 marked reports) and AT2 (986 marked reports). It was identified that students received vague and tentative feedback comments, such as ‘… your writing reads as though it is a bit disjointed’ or ‘It would be improved with thoughtful paragraphing’. Our observations were that comments did not specifically describe the problems; phrases such as ‘disjointed’ and ‘thoughtful paragraphing’ would be difficult for students to interpret. In addition, there were no suggestions or links to resources to support development. Students’ understanding of feedback comments can be similar to “learning a foreign language” (Sutton & Gill, 2010, p. 8), and this is especially true for linguistically diverse students who are not fully proficient in the English language (Hyland & Hyland, 2006). The researchers developed: a ‘tentative feedback versus clear feedforward feedback’ resource to show the difference between tentative/general feedback (extracted from markers’ feedback) and clear feedforward feedback (suggested by the researchers) (see Table 1); a feedback framework to help marking tutors better understand the value of providing explicit feedback on language use to improve written communication (see Table 2), and; updated the comments bank adding more and detailed comments to address the common language errors students made in their assignments and to also highlight examples of good writing (see Table 3). Lastly, the course marking guide was reviewed and revised to reflect the changes. The aim of this resource was to highlight that ambiguous feedback is not useful for students because, first, they will not understand the feedback, and, second, they Table 1 Extract from a tentative/general feedback vs clear feedforward feedback: paragraph level Tentative/general feedback

Issues with the feedback

Clear feedforward feedback

Students may not have an idea of an acceptable paragraph length. It is also not clear what makes the writing disjointed so the comment might be confusing to the student

Be wary of paragraphs that have only 1–3 sentences as this will indicate that the paragraph is not fully and adequately developed. Aim at writing between 4 and 7 sentences in each paragraph Ideas joined with linking words such as ‘because’ or ‘however’ increase the flow and readability For more information, have a look at the Expectations and Essay structure sections in your assessment instructions

Paragraph level “Your paragraphs are too short. As a result, your writing reads as though it is a bit disjointed”

102

N. Tsedendamba et al.

Table 2 A feedback framework to support the development of written communication adapted from Murray (2012, p. 236) Grammatical competence concerned with well-formedness of language

Discourse competence knowledge of the connections in a text to form a meaningful whole

Word level

Sentence level

Paragraph level

Text level

Word choice/expression

Sentence length: long sentences or short sentences

Paragraph length

Report 750 words

Verb tenses in business reports

Ambiguous sentences

Paragraph structure

Report 1500 words

Subject and verb agreement

Incomplete sentences (sentence fragments)

Linking ideas

Articles

Sentences with inconsistent patterns (parallelism)

Critical analysis (demonstration of critical thinking in an assignment)

Spelling

Punctuation

Quoting, paraphrasing and summarising

Table 3 An extract from sentence and paragraph levels comments bank Grammatical competence: Sentence level comments Sentence length: Long sentences 1. Avoid writing long sentences that mix a number of different ideas. These sentences are difficult to follow and understand what exactly you are trying to say. Include only one or two ideas in each sentence and put explanations into separate sentences Sentence length: Short sentences 1. In this paragraph, you have written a number of short sentences and the connections between the ideas are not clear. Use linking words (e.g. because or however) to connect the ideas or conjunctions (e.g. where, as or that) to combine the short sentences Learn more: This resource on better sentences will help you write well balanced sentences. You might want to drop in and talk to a Writing Mentor too—Writing Mentor locations and times Discourse competence: Paragraph level comments Critical analysis (Demonstration of critical thinking in an assignment) 1. It is good to see that you have demonstrated your understanding of key aspects of the topic. However, it is predominantly descriptive; it lacks critical analysis. Try to critically analyse by comparing and contrasting the ideas and discussing which appears to be stronger and most relevant to your topic. Note that the major part of the assignment should analyse the key aspects of the topic that you have identified in your description Learn more: For information on how to critically analyse ideas and demonstrate this in your written work, go to Academic Skills guide Critical thinking, reading and note taking (see Critical Thinking section)

Language-Focused Feedback and Written Communication …

103

will not act on it whereas clear feedforward feedback does the opposite. Clear feedforward feedback will help students understand why certain areas of their writing need improvement and how they can improve for future work. The development of the feedback framework was underpinned by the concept of communicative competence, particularly grammatical competence, which is concerned with well-formedness of language at word and sentence levels, and discourse competence, which focuses on connecting ideas at paragraph and text levels (Canale, 1983; Murray, 2012). Academic style is achieved by attending closely to clarity of meaning at each of these levels (Thomson & Droga, 2012). Therefore, these levels are imperative to completing successful assignments. The feedback framework was then divided into word, sentence, paragraph and text levels. Grammatical competence helps to express ideas clearly but discourse competence helps to achieve a unified text (Murray, 2012). Feedback received in each of these levels will help students “understand and express meanings accurately and appropriately according to context” (Murray, 2012, p. 236). This has the potential to prepare students for communication in their disciplines. Providing targeted feedback on language use for an entire assignment is not feasible nor was it required. By using a feedback framework marking tutors were advised to highlight some of the recurring language issues in students’ written work, suggest a correct form where needed, and recommend relevant strategies and resources to students to improve their writing for future assessments. Thereby providing clear guidance to students, and enabling them to take personal responsibility for their learning improvement and future success. The development of the revised comments bank was guided by this framework. The comments bank was re-structured at word, sentence, paragraph, and text levels to help marking tutors to explicitly identify and describe language problems encountered in students’ written work. Research shows that many academic staff know what constitutes a good assignment, but at times they do not find it easy to identify and explain certain elements in the assignment, which would have been significant information to help the student improve the work (Arkoudis et al., 2012; Lea & Street, 1998). Marking tutors could select relevant comments from the comments bank while personalising the comments to aid individual learning. The comments bank could also be easily adapted to suit individual student’s level of achievement and progress. The comments bank also included direct links to resources and relevant services which can be interchanged as needed to offer the most appropriate academy literacy development support for the area or areas of need that markers identify in students’ work. The idea behind this resource was to make the marking process easier and quicker without adding extra burden to marking tutors’ workload.

Practitioners The practitioners were the researchers (two LLAs) and one of the course leaders, with the co-practitioners being two other course leaders, marking tutors and students. The main role of the three course leaders was to organise the initiative with the LLAs,

104

N. Tsedendamba et al.

help identify puzzles in the course feedback practice, and encourage marking tutors to participate in PD sessions. In Phase 1, 25 mixed ESB and EAL casual marking tutors participated in the study, some of whom had been teaching/marking in the course consistently for several years while others, were new to the team. In Phase 2 of the study, a total of 34 marking tutors participated in the study. Most of the participants in this phase were the same marking tutors from the previous year with a few new marking tutors having recently joined the course’s team. In Phase 2, 647 students who studied the unit in the first half of the 2019 teaching period were invited to participate in an online survey.

Professional Development for Marking Tutors LLAs facilitated the PD sessions to develop awareness of the importance of continuously developing students’ language use and written communication skills, along with the marking tutors’ involvement and responsibilities in this process. The intention of the sessions was to “foster collaborations (between LLAs and the marking tutors) in educational development that promote student learning and language development simultaneously” (Percy, 2014, p. 10). The marking tutors were encouraged to have further discussions about their feedback practices with the course leaders and LLAs if discrepancies were to occur. The dialogic nature of the PD sessions enabled better understanding of the marking tutors’ concerns and reactions, and their motivations to provide language-focused feedback. It was not the intention of the study to document these interactions, rather the focus was more on the social element of the PD which is in harmony of the social nature of EP—seeing research as a “social enterprise and a collegial process, leading to mutual development” (Perpignan, 2003, p. 264). It should be noted that the PD sessions were conducted at the beginning of the teaching periods during the course’s designated meeting times due to difficulties associated with organising extra time and funding.

3 Data and Analysis Data collection was designed to enable practitioners to present their growing understanding about the feedback practice. Data analysis involved a process of seeking and inscribing meanings situated within the pedagogical practice (Perpignan, 2003) with the view to understand the puzzles of the practice and use that understanding for mutual development. The research instruments used for gathering data were document analysis and procedures of self-report. Document analysis provides a rich source of information about an organisations’ archived materials and programs (Hill, 1993). In the context of this research project, document analysis as a method of collecting data was conducted by LLAs first having access to the course’s online learning management system (LMS) site where markers’ feedback provided on students’ past assignments were stored.

Language-Focused Feedback and Written Communication …

105

Access to the LMS and permission to analyse the markers’ feedback were carefully negotiated with the course leaders (Patton, 2002). Document analysis was used to develop an understanding of the types of language-focused feedback the marking tutors were providing on students’ work concerning their written communication. In Phase 1, questionnaires were used to collect data from the course leaders to identify factors that led them to wanting to improve the course’s feedback practice. As researchers performed analysis on data in each questionnaire, several recurring themes emerged which then were used to formulate the aims of the research project. Another questionnaire was sent to the course leaders to determine the extent to which the intervention was useful. A post hoc survey was also used to understand the impact of the PD on marking tutors’ ability to provide language-focused feedback. In Phase 2, a post hoc survey was used again to gather data from marking tutors and students. It was used to understand if the PD and feedback resources helped marking tutors to provide better feedback around written communication and the overall impact of the initiative on the pedagogical practice. To achieve triangulation of data, another survey was sent out to the course students to understand the extent to which they were satisfied with feedback they received on their assignments. Data triangulation strengthens a study by providing cross-data validity checks from different data sources, mainly for consistency (Patton, 2002). The key is to find any inconsistencies which then offers opportunities for better insights into the puzzles under study (Patton, 2002). The surveys were hosted online using Qualtrics. Tutors and students were recruited by providing the survey links through bulk emails. The recruitment period lasted for four weeks and the survey was open during the end of the teaching period when tutors had marked all assignments and students had received their marks and feedback. Both students and staff completed the surveys voluntarily in their own time and individual respondents were not identifiable. The survey platform itself is a comprehensive userfriendly tool that analysed the survey data. The number of respondents was low: 6 marking tutors in Phase 1, and 5 marking tutors and 37 students in Phase

3.1 Phase 1 Findings Two course leaders completed the pre and post hoc questionnaires (see Phase 1: Taking actions for understanding for pre-intervention questionnaire findings). The post-intervention questionnaire findings revealed that the collaboration was considered a success as they expressed, first, that they noticed a marked reduction in emails from students querying their feedback, and, second, their intention to promote the work to their colleagues. Particularly, the intervention: Assisted us in both developing a comprehensive marking guide and with our training sessions, this has improved both the consistency of feedback across markers and the quality of feedback to students. Providing a resource to assist staff improve students’ academic and English language development, through improving effective feedback practices that are bespoke to each subject, is

106

N. Tsedendamba et al.

an excellent way to assure and improve the quality of written work done by both staff and students.

Six marking tutors completed the online survey after the intervention. 66.67% of the marking tutors found the PD useful as they ‘learned a lot’, ‘were able to use the new skills’, and ‘improved confidence (in providing language-focused feedback)’. However, some marking tutors reported that they did not feel confident in providing effective feedback on language use because they are EAL background themselves. Their comments were ‘English is not my mother tongue’ and ‘I am sometimes unsure whether what I say is really useful to the student’. One marking tutor did not believe in the value of providing language-focused feedback. The marking tutor commented that ‘the feedback focus should still be on the demonstration of content rather than English language issues’. These comments provide insights into the different beliefs that inform markers approach to their work. The survey findings together with the University’s standardised student evaluation survey results (see Phase 1: Taking action for understanding), motivated the practitioners to commence Phase 2 of the research project (see Phase 2: Working with emerging understandings).

3.2 Phase 2 Findings Two separate surveys were sent to marking tutors and students in the middle of 2019 at the end of the teaching period. The timing was chosen in order to allow the marking tutors enough time to experience using the feedback resources. Survey results from five marking tutors show that overall they were appreciative of the quality of feedback resources and the feedback comments bank was reported favourably. However, some challenges were reported. The markers’ comments are characterised more by their preoccupation with time constraints, and this was a main concern among all respondents: ‘time consuming’, ‘not enough time to provide truly insightful feedback’, ‘time allocation need to be reconsidered’, and ‘allow more time for comments’. Although marking tutors were not expected to provide feedback on every language issue encountered in student writing, the time-consuming aspect of marking and the inevitability of falling back on generic comments due to varying levels of students’ skills was a recurring theme. As one marking tutor wrote, ‘I use the comments bank (but still) need to customise it for each student … this adds to the 12.5 min (marking time) for a 750–825 (word) report”. Another making tutor appeared to be unsure about the effectiveness of languagefocused feedback in making a difference in multilingual student writing, as ‘it (ELD) takes years to develop’, and suggested: We may take some initiatives to identify students who struggle a lot with language barrier and send the list to language support services. Markers’ feedback are directed to students to seek help for improvement. But this feedback could be forwarded to support services for special cases.

Language-Focused Feedback and Written Communication …

107

This comment indicates that promoting help-seeking behaviour in feedback is preferred over corrective feedback or providing advice/strategies to work on areas for improvement. The option of advising weaker students to see LLAs was encouraged during the PD. Analysis of students’ surveys focussed on triangulating the responses from marking tutors around the clarity and effectiveness of the feedback they received specific to their writing. Survey results from 37 students indicated that 58% of respondents agreed that the feedback provided was clear and justified, 76% indicated that the feedback was timely, 63% said that the feedback motivated them to improve future work, and 38% showed that the feedback met their expectations. Particularly, the feedback students received on their language use and written communication was useful to identify gaps in their written communication skills. The respondents overall agreed that the most useful aspects of the feedback were that it explained the problem, provided advice on how to improve writing for the next assignment, and consistency in feedback across markers was noted. For example, respondents wrote: It was clearly explained what should include in my next assignment. It was very helpful to do the second assignment. It was very in depth and specific to my own assignment, explaining exactly what I should try to improve. Other subjects sometimes give very limited responses. Feedback was much more timely and consistent marking fairness between all assessors.

However, while numbers are low, some students did not find the feedback useful as they reported that it was not clear what they had to do to improve for the next assignment (34.29%) and that it did not provide specific feedback on English language use (8.57%). Students also commented that there was a great discrepancy in the feedback received on each of the assignments: ‘there was no consistency in marking’, ‘written slightly different and required slightly different criteria’, and ‘my (feedback) was so short and vague it may as well have had no feedback at all’.

4 Discussion The findings indicate improvement in the marking tutors’ capacity to provide effective feedforward feedback on written communications in students’ written work when supported by the course leaders and LLAs. Findings from students suggest that students were overall satisfied with the quality of feedforward feedback they received on their assignments and their responses seemed to align with data from marking tutors who found the PD and feedback resources useful. This shows that modification in marking tutors’ language-focused feedback can potentially help multilingual students to make better use of feedback by allowing them to see the gap between their writing skill and the skill required, and thus improve writing. While this is encouraging, we are cautious in assuming that these features will lead to a positive effect on students’ written communication skills. They are important findings but in

108

N. Tsedendamba et al.

themselves they do not guarantee improvement in ELD and written communication skills. Findings also reveal a number of disconcerting complexities involved in the provision of language-focused feedback, particularly relating to marking tutors’ preparedness to address pedagogical needs of students in multilingual settings. This is due to several factors. One factor is that the marking tutors are not ‘one dimensional’. They are a diverse group of people ranging from novice to expert, some from English-speaking backgrounds and others for whom English is an additional language. On further reflection on the findings, this diversity may have impacted on the discrepancies in the feedback received. When students do not understand feedback provided on their written work, the feedback has little impact on their learning and success (Sadler, 2010). Given the rise in casual academics teaching and marking, and increases in multilingual students studying in Australian universities, provision of systematic and consistent PD opportunities for casual academics from the Faculty and the University is now more important than ever. To add to the complexity, the issue around time allocated for marking was a factor that influenced the way markers approached language-focused feedback. This finding was in line with Smith and Coombe’s (2006) finding that limited time allocated for marking each assignment is a major issue in provision of effective feedback to all students, not only multilingual students. Although the intention of the research project was not to add to marking tutors’ workload, and although they appreciated the quality of feedback resources and found the comments bank helpful, they did not fully embrace the idea of providing language-focused feedback. The fact that the marking tutors did not take up LLAs offer to seek help if needed, may be related to the ‘paid by the hour’ nature of their appointments. This indicates that, in these circumstances, it is not mutual understanding and development between practitioners that have the greatest potential to help multilingual students improve their written communication skills, but rather efforts made by the practitioners to harness institutional support that may make an impact on the course’s feedback practice. Last but not least, assisting multilingual students in their continuous ELD and written communication skills was still seen by marking tutors as an additional, rather than core, responsibility, despite the effort to develop mutual understanding on the effectiveness of using language-focused feedback. The marking tutors’ reluctance to be involved in this practice is, regrettably, understandable considering a lack of institution-wide support for academics to do so, as was pointed out by Arkoudis (2018), Podorova (2016) and Wingate (2018). It is our view that there is an ongoing, persistent attitude that any responses to problems with student writing are best dealt with by the Academic Support unit—that is, externally, and not embedded within the teaching course itself.

Language-Focused Feedback and Written Communication …

109

5 Conclusion and Implications This research project has reported on the development, implementation and effectiveness of PD on language-focused feedback designed for marking tutors of a large, compulsory, first year marketing course in an Australian university. Findings show that the effectiveness of such initiatives is enabled by developing a mutual understanding between practitioners where all parties aim towards a common goal, in this case, to assist multilingual students to improve their ELD and written communication skills. Within the scope of this research project, it was challenging to comprehensively evaluate the impact of the study on multilingual students’ learning in busy contexts with large student cohorts. In order to evaluate the impact of languagefocused feedback in multilingual students’ ELD and writing, qualitative research or case studies could be considered to develop an in-depth understanding of students’ experiences with language-focused feedback. The project also reveals that the development of mutual understanding alone is not enough to truly see a positive effect on marking tutors’ effort to provide feedforward language-focused feedback on multilingual students’ written work due to contractual arrangements made between the marking tutors and the University. As Ajjawi and Boud (2018) pointed out, research projects such as this highlight the implications of such initiatives on casual tutors’ workload. Given the potential of PD to strengthen the course’s feedback practice, the issue that pertains to the staff’s contractual arrangements need to be carefully addressed at the Faculty and University levels. It is recommended PD for casual academics include a number of short workshops over several weeks instead of a one-off workshop with little follow up (Meyers & Ryan, 2008). This was not possible in this research project. Like the ad hoc nature of PD practices for casual academics working in Australian universities, the work around embedding ELD and academic literacy initiatives for multilingual students within disciplines is also conducted in an ad hoc fashion, with limited systematic and consistent support from institutions. The principle that developing multilingual students’ written communication skills is the responsibility of both LLAs and academics’, and the associated issues of casual tutors and markers, should be more widely discussed and approached with the support of both Faculty and the University in a collegial professional conversation.

References Ajjawi, R., & Boud, D. (2018). Examining the nature and effects of feedback dialogue. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 43(7), 1106–1119. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2018. 1434128. Allwright, D. (2003). Exploratory practice: Rethinking practitioner research in language teaching. Language Teaching Research, 7(2), 113–141. https://doi.org/10.1191/1362168803lr118oa. Allwright, D., & Hanks, J. (2009). The developing language learner: An introduction to exploratory practice. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.

110

N. Tsedendamba et al.

Andrews, S., Bare, L., Bentley, P., Goedegebuure, L., Pugsley, C., & Rance, B. (2016). Contingent academic employment in Australian universities. Retrieved from https://melbourne-cshe. unimelb.edu.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0009/2564262/2016-contingent-academic-employmentin-australian-universities-updatedapr16.pdf. Arkoudis, S. (2018). Integrating communication skills through distributed expertise. HERDSA News, 40(1), 3–4. Retrieved from https://search.informit.com.au/documentSummary;dn= 339690457043707;res=IELHSS. Arkoudis, S., Baik, C., & Richardson, S. (2012). English language standards in higher education. Melbourne: Australian Council for Educational Research. Arkoudis, S., & Doughney, L. (2014). Good practice report—English language proficiency. Office for Teaching and Learning, Australian Government. Retrieved from https://melbourne-cshe. unimelb.edu.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0004/1489162/GPR_English_language_2014.pdf. Baik, C., & Greig, J. (2009). Improving academic outcomes of undergraduate ESL students: The case for discipline-based academic skills programs. Higher Education Research and Development, 28(4), 401–416. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360903067005. Bitchener, J. (2012). Written corrective feedback for L2 development: Current knowledge and future research. TESOL Quarterly, 46(4), 855–860. https://doi.org/10.1002/tesq.62. Boud, D., & Molloy, E. (2013). What is the problem with feedback? In D. Boud & E. Molloy (Eds.), Feedback in higher and professional education: Understanding it and doing it well (pp. 1–10). London: Routledge. Canale, M. (1983). From communicative competence to communicative language pedagogy. In J. Richards & R. Schmidt (Eds.), Language and communication (pp. 2–27). London: Longman. Carless, D., & Boud, D. (2018). The development of student feedback literacy: Enabling uptake of feedback. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 43(8), 1315–1325. https://doi.org/10. 1080/02602938.2018.1463354. Chaudron, C. (1988). Second language classrooms. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Coffin, C., & Donohue, J. (2014). A language as social semiotic-based approach to teaching and learning in higher education. Oxford, UK: Wiley-Blackwell. Crimmins, G., Nash, G., Oprescu, F., Alla, K., Brock, G., Hickson-Jamieson, B., et al. (2016). Can a systematic assessment moderation process assure the quality and integrity of assessment practice while supporting the professional development of casual academics? Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 41(30), 427–441. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2015.1017754. Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations (DEEWR) (2009). Good practice principles for English language proficiency for international students in Australian universities. Canberra Commonwealth of Australia. Retrieved from http://www.aall.org.au/sites/default/files/ Final_Report-Good_Practice_Principles2009.pdf. Doughty, C., & Long, M. (2003). Optimal psycholinguistic environments for distance foreign language learning. Language Learning & Technology, 7, 50–80. Ene, E., & Kosobucki, V. (2016). Rubrics and corrective feedback in ESL writing: A longitudinal case study of an L2 writer. Assessing Writing, 30, 3–20. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asw.2016. 06.003. Gass, S., & Mackey, A. (2006). Input, interaction and output: An overview. AILA Review, 3–17. https://doi.org/10.1075/aila.19.03gas. Hanks, J. (2017). Exploratory practice in language teaching: Puzzling about principles and practices. London: Palgrave Macmillan. Harper, R. (2013). From principles to practice: Implementing an English language proficiency model at UniSA. Journal of Academic Language & Learning, 7(2), A150–A164. Hattie, J., & Timperley, H. (2007). The power of feedback. Review of Educational Research, 77(81), 81–112. https://doi.org/10.3102/003465430298487. Hill, M. R. (1993). Archival strategies and techniques. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Language-Focused Feedback and Written Communication …

111

Huber, E., & Harvey, M. (2012). The design of a meta-evaluation study of learning and teaching projects in higher education. In Proceedings of Global TIME -Online Conference on Technology, Innovation, Media & Education (pp. 71–77). Retrieved from https://www.learntechlib.org/ p/39399.Hyland. Hyland, K., & Hyland, F. (2006). Feedback on second language students’ writing. New York: Cambridge University Press. Johnson, C., & Molloy, E. (2018). Building evaluative judgement through the process of feedback. In D. Boud, R. Ajjawi, P. Dawson, & J. Tai (Eds.), Developing evaluative judgement in higher education: Assessment for knowing and producing quality work (pp. 166–175). New York: Routledge. Lea, M. R., & Street, B. (1998). Student writing in higher education. Studies in Higher Education, 23(2), 157–172. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079812331380364. Long, M. (1996). The role of the linguistic environment in second language acquisition. In W. Ritchie & T. Bhatia (Eds.), Handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 413–468). San Diego, CA: Academic Press. Maldoni, A. M. (2018). Degrees of deception to degrees of proficiency: Embedding academic literacies into the disciplines. Journal of Academic Language & Learning, 12(2), A102–A129. Meyers, N., & Ryan, Y. (2008). Kift ALTC senior fellowship: Articulating a transition pedagogy. Commentary on First Year Curriculum Case Studies: Staff Development Teaching Council. Retrieved from http://transitionpedagogy.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/MeyersRyan_ Commentary_20Nov09.pdf. Mort, D., & Drury, H. (2012). Supporting student academic literacy in the disciplines using genrebased online pedagogy. Journal of Academic Language and Learning, 6(3), A1–A15. Murray, N. (2010). Conceptualising the English language needs of first year university students. The International Journal of the First Year in Higher Education, 1(1), 55–64. Murray, N. (2012). Ten ‘good practice principles’ … then key questions: Considerations in addressing the English language needs of higher education students. Higher Education Research & Development, 31(2), 233–246. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2011.555389. Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Percy, A. (2014). Re-integrating academic development and academic language and learning: A call to reason. Higher Education research & Development, 33(6), 1194–1207. https://doi.org/10. 1080/07294360.2014.911254. Percy, A., Scoufis, S., Parry, A., Goody, M., Hicks, I., Macdonald, K., Martinez et al. (2008). The RED resource, recognition—enhancement—development: The contribution of sessional teachers to Higher Education. Sydney: Australian Learning and Teaching Council. Perpignan, H. (2003). Exploring the written feedback dialogue: A research, learning and teaching practice. Language Teaching Research, 7(2), 259–278. https://doi.org/10.1191/ 1362168803lr125oa. Podorova, A. (2016). Academic language feedback toolkit: Making progress with post-entry language skills development. Journal of Academic Language and Learning, 10(1), A141–A154. Sadler, D. R. (2010). Beyond feedback: Developing student capacity in complex appraisal. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 35(5), 535–550. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 02602930903541015. Smith, E., & Coombe, K. (2006). Quality and qualms in the marking of university assignments by sessional staff: An exploratory study. Higher Education, 51(1), 45–69. https://doi.org/10.1007/ s10734-004-6376-7. Sutton, P., & Gill, W. (2010). Engaging feedback: Meaning, identify and power. Practitioner Research in Higher Education, 41(1), 3–13. Thomson, E., & Droga, L. (2012). Effective academic writing: An essay writing workbook for school and university. Sydney: Phoenix Education.

112

N. Tsedendamba et al.

Vance, S., & Crosling, S. (1998). Integrating writing skills into the curriculum of the disciplines: A social constructionist approach. In J. J. F. Forest (Ed.), University teaching: international perspectives (pp. 361–392). New York & London: Routledge. Wingate, U. (2006). Doing away with ‘study skill. Teaching in Higher Education, 11(4), 457–469. https://doi.org/10.1080/13562510600874268. Wingate, U. (2018). Academic literacies across the curriculum: Towards a collaborative instructional approach. Plenary speeches. Language Teaching, 51(3), 349–364. https://doi.org/10.1017/ s0261444816000264.

Nara Tsedendamba is a Senior Language and Learning Adviser at Deakin University. She holds a master’s degree in education and Ph.D. in applied linguistics. Her research interests include use of language learning strategies and its impact of second language academic and social discourse socialisation, international students’ experiences, and academic literacy development. Her work has been published in journals including English Language Teaching and Reflective Practice. Her research interests now extend to the use of feedback in the development of students’ English language and written communication skills Vittoria Grossi is a Team Leader, Student Academic Support Services, Student Academic & Peer Support, Deakin University. Her research interests include teaching academic literacies in the context of higher education, English as a global language and intercultural communication. She has published in the area language and learning advisors’ professional identity. Michael Volkov is Associate Professor (Marketing) at Macquarie University. With over 15 years’ experience in teaching and learning within the tertiary environment, he is an award-winning and recognised leader in the fields of teaching and learning, student engagement and success, and marketing education. Michael has received numerous international, national and institutional awards including the 2015 ANZMAC Distinguished Educator Award, 2013 Australian Award for University Teaching for Outstanding Contribution to Student Learning, 2018 ASCILITE Innovation Award, and the 2017 WJC Banks Award for Distinguished Contributions to Teaching and Learning. His scholarship of teaching and learning has been published in a number of international journals including Education + Training, International Journal of Pedagogies and Learning, Information Technology, Education and Society, Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, and e-Journal of Business Education and Scholarship of Teaching.

The Future for Ethnic Korean Minority Education in China: A Challenge for Teacher Education Lyu Hongbo

Abstract Teacher education has always been a structural issue in matching practice with policy in delivering quality education in the majority of China’s ethnic minority schools. Among the notable exceptions has been ethnic Korean education, well established prior to 1949, and with a record of quality learning outcomes above national averages. However, rapid social change in China since the reform period began in the 1980s has posed new challenges to ethnic Korean education, magnified by the continuing language education policy agenda of teaching Putonghua, (Mandarin Chinese) for use as an homogenizing lingua franca in a linguistically diverse nation, and amidst a growing mainstream demand for Korean language education. In one perspective the situation reflects the tensions between dominant and minority languages evident in many settings experiencing the effects globalization, but Korean language also has a practical utility as linguistic capital both in China and regionally, as well as its local cultural significance. Korean bilingual teacher education thus confronts a complex array of dynamic circumstances in preparation of teachers for the provision of quality education that satisfies not only ethnic minority education policy positions but also the diverse and competing needs of Korean families. Socioeconomic aspirations are driving mobility, shifting family educational choices, and student numbers are declining, schools are closing, and the teacher workforce is aging and shrinking, and teacher education programs struggle to attract high quality candidates. This chapter outlines the problems, dilemmas, and opportunities facing Korean-Chinese bilingual teacher education, and evaluates some of the reforms introduced with the aim of ensuring provision of quality bilingual teaching and equitable education outcomes for minority Korean students. Keywords Korean-Chinese · Bilingual teacher education · Ethnic Korean education · Korean language · Pre-/in-service teacher education

L. Hongbo (B) School of Foreign Languages, Zhuhai Campus, Zhuhai, China e-mail: [email protected] © Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020 W. Tao and I. Liyanage (eds.), Multilingual Education Yearbook 2020, Multilingual Education Yearbook, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-41211-1_7

113

114

L. Hongbo

1 Introduction Since the founding of the People’s Republic of China (PRC), language education policies in various iterations have featured in the national agenda to respond to a plurality of minority linguistic and cultural groups, but always advancing the objective of national unity through popularization and normalization of the national language, Putonghua, or Mandarin Chinese (Standing Committee of the Ninth National People’s Congress, 2012). Such explicit ideological framing indicates the social, political and economic significance of language/s at national, local and individual levels, and is a reminder that language ecologies, and the priorities of policymakers and of communities of individual language users, are dynamic and characterized by adjustment and change. It is also a reminder that groups that might in one respect be bonded by a common language can have diverse responses to language policies that reflect their own ideologies, attitudes, and values related to language. Such a situation has become increasingly evident amongst ethnic Koreans in China’s Jilin province, which comprises the majority of the area bordering with neighbouring North Korea. Within Jilin is the Yanbian Korean Autonomous Prefecture, an area with the greatest concentration of Korean-heritage Chinese citizens, and where for more than one hundred years ethnic Korean education has been firmly established (Qingxia & Yan, 2001) with a record of quality learning outcomes above national averages (Zhang, Wen, & Li, 2015). However, what was in the past a relatively cohesive ethnic group with a powerful sense of Korean identity (Park, 1987) has, in “the push and pull between homogenizing forces and indigenous cultures” (Gao, 2010a, p. 83) in the context of China’s modernization and internationalized orientation, changed to become more diverse in outlook, aspirations, and educational needs. These rapid changes have impacted significantly on the ethnic Korean education system, and present a challenge for teacher education to prepare teaching practitioners who can address not only the more complex and specific educational needs and priorities of ethnic Koreans, but also national language policy objectives. Although the social and cultural characteristics that have underpinned the success of ethnic Korean education are “substantially dissimilar” (Lee, 1987, p. 7) to the great majority of China’s other ethnic minorities, these challenges for teacher education policy are not unique to the circumstances of ethnic Koreans; they reflect the changing environment of most of China’s numerous ethnic minorities, and of minority groups in other settings that aim to negotiate identities whilst pursuing education that allows choices about participation in the opportunities presented by development and change. Teacher education has always been a structural issue in matching practice with policy to deliver quality education in China’s ethnic minority schools (Ma, 2007; Postiglione, 2002). Responding to changing circumstances and diverse needs in the context of multilingualism is a challenge faced by language education policymakers across the globe (Adamson & Feng, 2015), and in China this is magnified by the enormous diversity of local, bespoke models of language instruction and medium of instruction (Adamson, Anwei, Quanguo, & Qian, 2014) of ethnic minority education,

The Future for Ethnic Korean Minority Education in China …

115

which in turn complicates the staffing of schools with appropriately qualified teachers. Historically, Korean ethnic schools have not experienced many of the staffing problems related to supply and quality, especially in the areas of mathematics and the sciences, that have constrained the success of many other ethnic schooling efforts. They have enjoyed the reputation of being China’s most successful example of ethnic bilingual education (Gao, 2009a), a reputation that has been promoted by Chinese authorities as the prime example of the success of minority policies and as an exemplar for ethnic minority education more generally (Lee, 1987). Grounded in the teaching of Korean as a heritage language integral to preservation of Korean cultural values and practices, and a high esteem for education, this success has been facing growing challenges since the beginning of the reform period in China. Economic, social, and demographic changes have been reshaping the ethnic Korean education environment, and a continuation of the successes of the past requires a reorientation and restructuring of the educational programs offered, and of the teaching workforce that is capable of delivering them. From a multilingual perspective, although language teaching—Putonghua and a foreign language—has been an integral feature of ethnic Korean education, the foregrounding of English teaching and learning that has dominated language education policy across China since the turn of the century has reshaped ethnic school curriculums and models of language teaching and learning (Adamson & Feng, 2015). Until recently the language emphasis in ethnic minority education has been on bilingual education using the ethnic language, in this case Korean, and Putonghua in some form (Ma, 2007), and guided by the principle that “every ethnic group that has its own language and writing system should use that language for educational instruction and master its own language while also learning spoken and written Chinese” (Ministry of Education and the China State Ethnic Affairs Commission, 1980, in Ma, 2007, p. 15). Now, although there exists no formal policy of trilingual education, attempts to enact “different policy streams that have, by accident rather than design, produced this expectation” (Adamson et al., 2014, p. 1) mean that policy and practices at local sites have complicated existing bilingual models in ethnic minority schools and provoked a reassessment of priorities with a focus on trilingual competencies. There are significant obstacles to achievement of goals of trilingual ethnic minority education, some such as shortages of adequately qualified and experienced teachers in rural areas (Adamson et al., 2014), and others more particular to ethnic Korean education, such as increasingly diverse needs of Korean families and students, and issues around both declining numbers of Korean-origin school enrolments and increasing enrolments of non-Korean origin students. The latter can be attributed to a number of factors, but the changes in China since the beginning of the reform period have encouraged not only intra-territorial and/or trans-national mobility of Koreans, with accompanying flexibility in options for education, but also growing interest in the learning of Korean as an additional language; Korean is “more or less unique in its functional significance, especially in China’s reform period since the end of 1970s” (Gao, 2010b, p. 274), and more and more Chinese of non-Korean origins see advantages in Korean proficiency.

116

L. Hongbo

Thus, delivery of ethnic Korean education has become more complex, with local variations of ongoing objectives of nurturing cultural and linguistic identity coexisting, often uneasily, with changing demographics and priorities. To meet these pressing needs in the current circumstances, teacher education faces considerable policy challenges to ensure both pre-service and in-service learning equips teachers to meet the needs of the settings in which they practice. Although ethnic Korean minority education has aroused wide research attention (e.g., Gao, 2009a, 2010a; Gao & Park, 2012; Lee, 1987; Zhang & An, 2001; Zhou, 2014), the problems of teacher education for Korean ethnic minorities in multilingual contexts has been the subject of relatively little research (some instances include Cui, 2015; Jin & Piao, 2007; Liu, 2012, 2015; Ma, 2008; Pei, 2016; Yu, 2017). In this chapter, I outline in more detail the policy problems it is essential that ethnic Korean teacher education needs to address if the ethnic Korean education system is to be sustained. The next section provides the general background of ethnic Korean minority education, followed by an analysis of issues of Korean minority teacher quality and education quality due to some complicated reasons. Policy proposals for teacher pre- and in-service education to strengthen the provision and quality of the Korean-Chinese bilingual teacher workforce are offered. Education of quality teachers to staff ethnic Korean schools cannot be separated from the historical role of Korean education in protection and inheritance of Korean language and culture, and the teaching of Korean language more generally, but the focus here is also on the provision of quality teaching to ensure equitable education outcomes that meet the diverse needs of minority Korean students.

2 The Changing Context of Ethnic Korean Minority Education The current population of Korean language users in China, people who initially moved into north-eastern provinces from the Korean Peninsula at the beginning of the nineteenth century (Gao, 2012), is about 1.76 million. Nearly half of them live in the Yanbian Korean Autonomous Prefecture of Jilin Province, but most have been historically distributed mainly in the three northeastern provinces of Jilin, Helongjiang, and Liaoning (Wang, 1993). For more than a century, education has a been a priority for the Korean minority; in 1913 a teachers’ school was established to staff Korean elementary and middle schools (Qingxia & Yan, 2001), and a well-established system of minority education was in place when minority languages were recognized in 1951 by the new People’s Republic of China as official media of instruction in elementary and secondary minority schools (Zhang & Yang, 2018). Historically, since the early 1950s Korean minority education has adopted a bilingual model approach, with the dual aims of Korean language maintenance and development of proficiency in Putonghua, with emphasis on using Korean as medium of instruction (MOI) (Gao, 2010a). Currently, in the major Korean minority regions, students can choose to study,

The Future for Ethnic Korean Minority Education in China …

117

and to be assessed, in Korean language from elementary school to higher education (Adamson et al., 2014; Gao, 2009b), but the emphasis on Putonghua has increased, with earlier introduction of Putonghua in the first year of schooling, expansion of the knowledge of Putonghua required at primary school level, and assignment of equivalent curriculum loads to the two languages in secondary schools (Gao & Park, 2012). Korean minority education has played an important role in achieving national ethnic minority education policy goals, Koreans being the most educated ethnic minority among 55 minority nationalities in China (Dai, Cheng, Fu, & He, 1999; Gao, 2009a). However, changes are threatening the capacity and sustainability of ethnic Korean education. It is now troubled for a number of reasons by persistent structural problems, some of which are attributable to shortcomings of teacher education and employment policies, while others pose considerable challenges for teacher education policy now and in the future. Success has arguably contributed to the decline of ethnic Korean education as Koreans find a way “between cultural autonomy and cultural assimilation” (Zhao, 2010, p. 3), navigating competing desires for ethnic language and cultural maintenance on one hand, and upward social mobility on the other (Gao, 2010a). Three decades ago, Lee (1987) observed that ethnic Koreans did not exhibit the powerful intergenerational or religious continuities that characterize many of China’s ethnic minorities, and “the more educated and professionalized the Koreans are, the more adaptive they become toward the imperatives of China’s integrative forces” (p. 10). Student numbers are falling, not just because ethnic Koreans are leaving Yanbian Korean Autonomous Prefecture (hereafter, Yanbian) seeking economic opportunities, but also because parents are enrolling children in Han schools with greater curriculum emphasis on national and global perspectives. In addition, other factors, such as failure to attract high quality pre-service teachers, teacher attrition due to less favourable working conditions, and an aging teacher cohort, combine to threaten the quality of teaching and learning in schools already suffering the setbacks of dwindling enrolments. According to the (Ministry of Education, 2011) there is a general shortage of bilingual teachers for ethnic minorities. These problems have resulted in the need to re-evaluate the priorities and direction of ethnic Korean education and to develop appropriate teacher education policy in response.

3 Issues and Policy Responses for Ethnic Korean Education Policymakers have not been unaware of the changes and challenges confronting the sector, and how to stabilize the ethnic Korean education system has become a focus and important issue of the ethnic Korean masses and Korean educators. Reform agendas for teacher education generally have been accorded priority in achievement of national objectives of quality and equality of education (Fu, Yang, & Lin, 2015; Li, 2013, 2017; Shi & Englert, 2008), as has bilingual teacher education more specifically (Wang, 2016). One of the most pressing issues for teacher education and workforce

118

L. Hongbo

planning policy in the key ethnic Korean regions is demographic; there has been a decline in the Korean population in these areas in the past twenty-five years, not just because Koreans have one of the lowest birthrates of any minority group (Choi, 2001), but also because of opportunities for physical and social mobility of the population.

3.1 Korean Mobility and Bilingual Teacher Demand Until the relaxation of internal migration laws (Ehlert & Moore, 2014) nearly all ethnic Koreans lived in the North-East provinces, but since then migrations of Koreans to locations both inside and outside of China have been responsible for the decline. Since the early 1990s, with the deepening of China’s reform and policy of global engagement, the rapid development of a market economy, and the establishment of diplomatic relation between China and South Korea, many ethnic Koreans in Yanbian gave up stable jobs and sought economic opportunities in various ways. The imbalances of economic development among provinces, especially between the north and south China, have led large numbers of ethnic Koreans to leave their homes to seek better lives. A large number of Koreans from the Yanbian area go to South Korea and Japan to work temporarily (Lankov, 2013), but some then remain as permanent migrants. On the other hand, as the economy and science and technology of the major cities in mainland China advanced under economic reforms, many ethnic Korean families joined the nationwide internal migrations taking place within China (Youlu, 2017) to Beijing, Shanghai, Guangzhou, Shenzhen and other cities to seek economic opportunities (The Economist, 2018). Because of the serious loss of Korean students, especially in rural areas, many schools have almost no students or a small number of students and many schools are facing mergers and closures. Decreases in the number of students in Korean ethnic schools has inevitably led to decreases in the number of schools. In Yanji City, for example, between 1991 and 2016, the number of students in ethnic Korean schools fell from 25,000 to 15,000, and the number of primary and secondary schools from 34 to 19 (China Yearbook, 2017). In Jilin City, as another example, the situation is even more pronounced; the number of Korean students decreased by nearly half between 2000 and 2013. In addition, in roughly the same period, 1999–2010, the number of ethnic Korean middle schools in Jilin City fell from 19 to 5, while the number of ethnic Korean primary schools experienced an enormous decline from 147 to 15 (J. Cui, 2014). During the past 15 years, many schools have been merged, especially those in small towns and villages. At present, there are more than 20 schools each with fewer than 30 students in the whole of Yanbian, and some Korean schools currently have no students (Wang, 2016). As the number of ethnic Korean students decreases, and the number of schools shrinks sharply, there is a corresponding need for fewer teachers in the remaining schools, and many teachers are facing the results of merger, adjustment or closure (Piao, 2005). This reduces the enthusiasm of teachers, who lack a sense of security and belonging, and there exists unstable conditions among teachers. High quality

The Future for Ethnic Korean Minority Education in China …

119

teachers are reluctant to stay or have to leave these schools due to falling of student numbers. Without good teachers, the quality of teaching cannot be guaranteed.

Structural Issues in the Korean Bilingual Teacher Workforce As a result of the loss of students, school closures, and the falling numbers of ethnic Korean teachers, policymakers confront imbalances in the overall structure of the workforce in ethnic Korean schools. In the ten years 1991–2000, more than half (53%) of Korean teachers in Yanbian left the teaching workforce (Jin & Piao, 2007). The outflow of Korean teachers not only exists in the Korean-inhabited areas of Yanbian, but also in in the Jilin area and Heilongjiang Province. Between 1989 and 2010, affected by the development of market economy, a total of 1074 Korean teachers quit their jobs in Jilin area, accounting for 41.6% of the total number of Korean teachers. This leads to a serious shortage of teachers, especially English, Chinese, mathematics, and computer teachers (Jin, 2011), while the teachers of subjects such as history, politics and Japanese are overstaffed. This unbalanced discipline structure leads to unreasonable distribution of subjects, that is, some teachers teach subjects for which they are not qualified or experienced. For example, some courses such as English, physics, chemistry, etc., are taught by interdisciplinary teachers (Li & Luo, 2006), there are some Han English teachers who have no Korean language, or English courses are taught by other non-English major teachers. As a result, a high standard of teaching quality is not guaranteed (Li, 2004; Ma, 2008). Although there is a shortage, especially of full-time teachers in areas such as science, it is difficult to recruit new teachers. For example, in 2011–2015, the whole Yanbian Prefecture needed to recruit about 300 teachers for ethnic Korean schools in rural areas, but only 100 teachers were recruited. Therefore, some teachers teach courses inconsistent with their major, or temporary teachers are employed to maintain the daily teaching, but they also are sometimes poorly qualified to teach the curriculum areas they are given, so it is difficult to guarantee teaching quality (Yan, Wen, & Wang, 2018). Because of the serious loss of teachers in rural areas, including many excellent teachers and young teachers, the Ministry of Education and the Ministry of Finance jointly launched the implementation in 2006 of special post-graduation plans for school teachers in rural compulsory education stage (primary and junior high school). With financial support from the central government, university graduates are recruited to teach in rural areas for a period of three years. They can continue to serve after completion of a three-year contract, or they can leave to pursue their careers elsewhere (Yu, 2017). The aim is to alleviate the shortage of teachers, and to supplement young teachers in rural areas. So far, taking Yanbian as an example, the problem of rural teachers has been partly alleviated, but in the long run, there is a need for policymakers to plan reasonably and strengthen teacher training. Only by paying attention to and providing opportunities for teacher education graduates, can excellent teachers be retained and the quality of bilingual education improved.

120

L. Hongbo

Disintegration of Korean Community and Ethnic Korean Education There are also other reasons for the dramatic falls in numbers of students in Korean schools year after year. First of all, since the 1990s, the birth rate of the ethnic Korean population has been low, even negative growth (Xiong, Jacob, & Ye, 2016). Use of Korean as language of the home is also changing because of new marriage patterns. In the past, in order to safeguard the purity of ethnic Korean culture and language, ethnic Korean marriage was carried out in a relatively closed system of endogamy. With economic development, the marriage concept has changed, and it is acceptable for ethnic Koreans to marry outside the Korean community, which often means Korean will not be the home language of the family. To add to this, as a result of the outflow of the ethnic Koreans, and the movement of many inland Han people to Yanbian, the language environment has changed from historically Korean-dominant to nowadays Chinese-dominant. In conjunction with this, social changes are also impacting on the use of the Korean language. Ethnic Korean students pay more attention to other languages such as Putonghua and English that dominate the domains that interest them, although South Korean popular culture—films, television, pop music—is attracting more attention. Surveys (Yin, 2016) show that ethnic Korean primary school students use Korean language less and less when they communicate with their peers after class; they use Chinese language more and mix the languages, codeswitching between the two at the same time. One outcome of all these changes is that the proportion of ethnic Korean students choosing to study in Han schools has increased year by year (Liu, 2017; Xiong et al., 2016), despite the increasing presence of Putonghua in the curriculum of ethnic Korean bilingual schools. Although current data are not available, the Korean-Chinese population unable to speak Korean, estimated in 1996 to be around ten percent (Zheng, 1996, in Gao & Park, 2012), is considered to be increasing, not least because of declining enrolments of ethnic Koreans in bilingual schools (Gao & Park, 2012). A survey in three cities of Yanbian (Yanji City, Longjing City and Tumen City) shows that the proportion of ethnic Korean students in Han schools during the period 2013–2015 was 14.23%, 15.39% and 15.68%, respectively. The proportion shows an upward trend, and the growth rate seems small, but the actual situation is that the total number of Korean students in the First Grade of ethnic Korean primary schools fell by 5.31%. The number of ethnic Korean students choosing to study in Han schools out of Yanbian is even more astonishing. According to statistics in 2010, almost half of the ethnic Korean students in junior middle schools in Jilin City area are studying in Han schools (Cui, 2014). One reason more and more ethnic Korean parents transfer their children to Han schools is that they want to pursue high quality of education that is becoming harder to find in ethnic Korean schools because of the staffing problems described earlier, that is, shortages of teachers in key subjects such as English, computer, physics, and chemistry, and failure to guarantee the quality of teaching when teachers in other disciplines teach these courses. Therefore, some Korean parents transfer their children to Han schools in the hope of receiving higher quality education for better prospects in the future. Therefore, Korean students’ willingness to transfer to Han schools is generally strong, and this has led to the loss

The Future for Ethnic Korean Minority Education in China …

121

of a number of rural Korean schools. Given the various problems outlined in this section, it is obvious that bilingual education of ethnic Korean minorities is facing great challenges (Huang, 2011).

Competition for Ethnic Korean Bilingual Teachers The ethnic Korean teacher workforce is not only depleted and structurally imbalanced because of the confluence of population mobility and weakening of community solidarity that has seen declining student numbers. Since the establishment of diplomatic relation with South Korea, the demand for Korean language in China has increased; with emergence of a growing number of enterprises that trade with South Korea, bilingual talents who are proficient in Korean and Chinese languages are sought after (The Economist, 2018). Some private language schools in developed provinces introduced Korean language courses and trilingual ethnic Koreans teachers have a multilingual advantage of Korean/Putonghua/English proficiency in the competitive job market. With this advantage, the income of Korean teachers working abroad or outside the school education system is often much greater than that their schoolbased counterparts. In addition, because economic development in north China lags behind that in the south, and the salary of teachers is not high while the pressure of work caused by the higher expectations for the quality of education is not small, some ethnic Korean teachers feel that their work is out of proportion with their rewards, and begin to rethink their career choices. Some, especially those who receive education at a highly ranked university, are tempted to leave if they are not dedicated to teaching as a career, and this affects the quality of the teaching workforce (Jin & Piao, 2007). Yanbian, although prosperous by comparison to many other ethnic minority regions (The Economist, 2018), is located in the relatively remote northern border area of China, making it difficult to attract the best young Korean teachers. The great economic contrast has caused a large number of Korean teachers to go abroad for further study or work abroad, which naturally impacts the teaching staff (Piao, 2005). The best graduates of top Korean senior high schools can to apply to Yanbian University (the prominent university of Yanbian) or other local colleges, but may aim at entering China’s elite national or regional institutions of higher education (Choi, 2001) Only about 20% of the young ethnic Koreans who have been admitted to prominent universities have returned to Yanbian for employment (Wang, 2016), and even fewer of the graduates who major in Korean education have returned to Yanbian for employment (Choi, 2001). Many of them, especially those who have higher education, decide to pursue other opportunities and challenges, and as a result many of ethnic Korean teachers have left Yanbian to teach in private language schools, engage in business, or start their own business in coastal, economically developed regions (Jin & Piao, 2007). Thus, many of the best teachers are attracted by better paid teaching jobs or other career opportunities elsewhere. Even in the provincial capital cities, there are no teachers to be recruited, not to mention the villages and towns. Many schools have not recruited a Korean teacher for many years (Li & Luo, 2006).

122

L. Hongbo

4 The Future for Ethnic Korean Teacher Education: Recommendations and Conclusions The weakening of the bilingual Korean teacher workforce has come at a time when, paradoxically, the conventional notion of the “push and pull between homogenizing forces and indigenous cultures” (Gao, 2016, p. 467) is somewhat turned on its head. Development and openness at the national level has positioned the Korean language as more desirable among the broader population, while education outside the ethnic Korean bilingual schooling system is attracting more and more families enthusiastic about their children accessing opportunities in what is effectively a “de facto monolingual (Putonghua) market economy” (Gao & Park, 2012, p. 540) via the dominant language. The same forces of modernization and development are slowly fragmenting the ethnic Korean communities of north-east China through mobility, both of Koreans to other regions and of non-ethnic Koreans into the former enclave; at the founding of the PRC in 1949, 60% of Yanbian’s population was ethnic Korean, but now that figure is around half that (The Economist, 2018). The historical objectives of ethnic Korean bilingual education, language and cultural maintenance in tandem with integrative and instrumental purposes (Gao, 2011), have to be reconsidered given “socio-political and economic shifts (that) bring about reinvented and reinvigorated human activities with subsequent redistribution of language functions” (Gao & Park, 2012, p. 542). Although the difficulties being experienced by ethnic Korean education might prompt questions about whether it remains necessary, or if it will survive, the evolving circumstances suggest more pertinent questions revolve around why it is important for ethnic Korean bilingual schooling to survive as a high-quality educational option, and the role bilingual teacher education can play in transforming ethnic Korean schools to meet new circumstances, educational demands, and opportunities. With effective and responsive teacher education policies, Korean bilingual education can be repositioned to take advantage of opportunities for societal and individual advancement associated with Korean language proficiency, as well as fulfilling its mission of cultural maintenance. Unlike the languages of most other ethnic minorities in China, Korean has increasingly been perceived as valuable capital thanks to its functional utility outside the ethnic community (Adamson et al., 2014; Xiong et al., 2016), and the emphasis is on bilingual proficiency that is useful in economic advancement in China, in preference to well-paid but often demeaning jobs in South Korea (Gao & Park, 2012). Thus, what is demanded of teacher education by both the Korean community and broader society are teachers who can meet the demand for achieving high levels of bilingual proficiency in both Putonghua and Korean, as this is seen as facilitating both the local priorities of the Korean community, and national education national policy goals that link individual opportunity and advancement, achievement and competitiveness (Li, 2013; Peng et al., 2014). To this end, teacher education is “the first and foremost domain for reform” (Li, 2013, p. 317) in China’s current educational policy framework built around the objective of educational equity (Ling, 2017), and development of access to quality, the

The Future for Ethnic Korean Minority Education in China …

123

idea of “equality of quality” (Zhang, 2016). An important objective of the nationwide reform agenda in teacher education has been to address the structural issue of teacher shortages in rural areas, and the associated uneven quality of education between rural and urban areas, an urgent problem in the ethnic Korean schooling system. The policy of free education for pre-service teacher students enrolled in key national normal universities and colleges (the primary providers of teacher education) has been implemented at Northeast Normal University Jilin province with the aim of attracting more elite students and supporting the construction of rural teaching teams of teachers (Fu et al., 2015). In the Yanbian, however, Yanbian University has not benefitted from this policy, and while maintaining a focus on teacher education, has expanded its comprehensive offerings to offer for well-educated ethnic Koreans other career paths that take advantage of new and emerging opportunities for individuals with Korean linguistic and cultural backgrounds and skills (Li, 2010). Moreover, there are projected declines in the demand for teachers not just in ethnic Korean schools for the reasons outlined, but nationally as demographic developments mean that enrolments will decline (Shi & Englert, 2008) and teaching will become a more uncertain career choice. Keys obstacles to solving the problems facing teacher education that can improve the operation and quality of ethnic Korean schools are the coordination of national and local policy, and lack of research in teacher education for this area. So diverse are the situations of China’s many ethnic groups that a single policy cannot account for the unique circumstances of historical educational arrangements and achievements, demographic trends, geographic situation, cultural aspirations, and socioeconomic developments of individual ethnic populations (Xiong et al., 2016). The ethnic Korean population is in many of these respects unlike almost all other groups. While there is some clear alignment between the national economic goals of modernization and economic openness, and the local aspirations associated with advancement of Chinese-Koreans through education and economic participation, much of the responsibility for orienting objectives of ethnic education to encompass current circumstances lies at the provincial or local level. Research in the area of teacher education for working in ethnic minority schools is a relatively neglected area (Wang, 2018), and most continues to focus “almost exclusively on cultural literacy” (p. 235). If the national policy sees the quality of education as beginning with teacher education (Li, 2013), attention is needed to how to prepare teachers to respond to the unique circumstances of the Chinese-Korean community. Preservation of language and culture needs to be re-envisioned as serving dual objectives of in-community maintenance and development of externally relevant capacities and skills. Rather than families looking to Han schools using Mandarin MOI, the advantages of Korean-Mandarin bilinguality and intercultural understanding and skills need to be attracting more diverse student populations to ethnic Korean schools. At the same time, local policies need to be encouraging a more flexible integration of Korean language and culture through additional language study in the curriculums of mainstream Han schools, serving aims of both sustaining and reinvigorating Korean heritage in the region. To achieve these aims, the focus of teacher education needs to be on development of a

124

L. Hongbo

highly fluent bilingual teacher cohort prepared to teach language using a multilingual approach that reflects the ways the two languages and cultural knowledge are deployed in the various domains of day-to-day interactions locally, nationally, and internationally. In order to maximize the satisfactory effect of teacher education, some additional strategies should be implemented to arrest the decline in the quality of ethnic Korean education. The existing teacher workforce needs to be consolidated and steps taken to retain them. Provision of access to formal teacher education, especially for those teachers in rural areas, can encourage teachers to make the necessary personal investment in improving their qualifications. In cooperation with institutions such as Yanbian University, local authorities can introduce online access to programs and courses in bilingual education, and support teacher enrolments in innovative models, such as Massive Open Online Courses, to enable participation in domestic and foreign higher education courses and opportunities to learn about advanced teaching methods, especially to learn the latest knowledge of bilingual education at home and abroad. Schools need to cooperate with each other in organization of in-service bilingual teachers’ education, as well as sharing various kinds of educational and teaching resources. Opportunities to observe excellent models of teaching on which to base their own teaching, whether through the use of videotaped ‘lesson study’ or personal observation of teaching, are very important. At the same time, teachers could be encouraged to carry out collective lesson preparation with teachers of the same subjects, and communicate and share the discipline characteristics, teaching experience and resources. Young teachers need to be encouraged to pursue master’s or doctoral degrees related to Korean education, so as to make a good talent reserve for future Korean education experts. Opportunities for more experienced teachers to learn advanced teaching methods and update their knowledge can be offered in tandem with provision of financial support for teachers during their training. In particular, it is necessary to offer these sorts of opportunities to rural ethnic Korean school teachers to ultimately improve the quality of education across the sector. In order to achieve the desired results, teachers should be consulted about their professional learning needs to ensure training is relevant and has a practical effect, and the demand for specific subjects where there are shortages should be taken into account when providing training opportunities. The contents of training should be closely related to practical teaching needs of schools, and aim to help teachers master the knowledge of any subject/s they are not qualified for but might be expected to teach. In summary, teacher education should be emphasized and planned by schools and educational departments at all levels, and we should regard teacher education and training as routine task to improve teacher’s and teaching quality. The key to this is to combine the pre-service and in-service teacher education with effective evaluation. Ethnic Korean teachers’ pre-service and in-service training should be unified, consistent and continuous, so as to contribute to teachers’ professional development. With the continued improvement of teacher education and teachers’ quality, Yanbian Korean education will have a bright future.

The Future for Ethnic Korean Minority Education in China …

125

5 Conclusion For most of China’s ethnic minorities, bilingual education seeks to satisfy community priorities to sustain cultural identity and knowledge through teaching and use of minority languages, while recognizing the practical value of the national policy to introduce and entrench the dominant national language, in order to productively assimilate ethnic minorities as productive participants in the economic activities of a unified China. Ethnic Korean teacher education has been very successful at producing generations of teachers who have been integral to the success of ethnic Koreans as the model minority, educationally successful, and adept at forging identity as Chinese Koreans committed to individual and community advancement that aligns with national policy objectives. Now, a new perspective on the value of Korean language and culture comes at a time of decline in ethnic Korean education, arguably partially attributable to its own success. A revitalized of ethnic Korean education system can make a unique contribution to China’s continued progress and international interaction in the era of reform and openness, but this must be based on a reform of teacher education and professional development that embraces the new orientation to ethnic language and culture and responds to changing circumstances. National policies focused on teacher education to produce world class teachers (Li, 2013) need to be locally shaped in areas like Yanbian to fit the needs of ethnic Korean bilingual education, to prepare teachers to position both Chinese Koreans and the wider community favourably in a rapidly changing nation.

References Adamson, B., Anwei, F., Quanguo, L., & Qian, L. (2014). Ethnic minorities and trilingual education policies. In D. Besharov & K. Baehler (Eds.), Chinese social policy in a time of transition (Oxford Scholarship Online ed., pp. 1–18). https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199990313.003.0010. Adamson, B., & Feng, A. (2015). Trilingualism in education: Models and challenges. In B. Adamson & A. Feng (Eds.), Trilingualism in education in China: Models and challenges (pp. 243–258). Dordrecht: Springer. China Yearbook. (2017). Yanji City’s main year population statistics of all Ethnic Groups (1949– 2016). Retrieved from http://www.yearbookchina.com. Choi, W.-G. (2001). The Korean minority in China: The change of its identity. Development and Society, 30(1), 119–141. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/deveandsoci.30.1.119. Cui, J. (2014). The current situation of Korean Chinese schools’ educational development in the scattered community: Take Jilin Korean High School for example (Masters thesis). Retrieved from http://www.cnki.net [Mandarin]. Cui, M. H. (2015). Reflections on the present situation of post-service training for Korean primary and secondary school teachers. Modern Educational Science (2), 103–104 [Mandarin]. Dai, Q. X., Cheng, Y. Y., Fu, A. L., & He, J. F. (1999). Research on application of China’s minority language and orthographies. Kunming, China: Yunnan Nationalities Publishing House [Mandarin]. Ehlert, M. P., & Moore, D. (2014). Navigating and reconfiguring the “multi” in languages and identities: Six Chaoxianzu [ethnic Korean Chinese] teenagers in Beijing. IJE4D Journal, 3, 149–183. Retrieved from https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-01487434/.

126

L. Hongbo

Fu, G., Yang, L., & Lin, Y. (2015). Teacher education policy research in China: A decade review and reflection. Higher Education of Social Science, 8(4), 54–59. https://doi.org/10.1080/10611932. 2017.1330992. Gao, F. (2009a). Challenges of discourses on “Model Minority” and “South Korean Wind” for ethnic Koreans’ schooling in Northeast China. Diaspora, Indigenous, and Minority Education, 3(2), 119–130. https://doi.org/10.1080/15595690802584133. Gao, F. (2009b). Language and power: Korean students’ language attitude and practice. Journal of Multilingual & Multicultural Development, 30(6), 525–53434. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 01434630903147922. Gao, F. (2010a). Bilingual education among ethnic Koreans in China: Ethnic language maintenance and upward social mobility. Chinese Education and Society, 43(1), 82–92. https://doi.org/10. 2753/ced1061-1932430107. Gao, F. (2010b). Learning Korean language in China: Motivations and strategies of non-Koreans. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 13(3), 273–284. https://doi.org/ 10.1080/13670050903006929. Gao, F. (2011). Bilingual education and Korean minorities in China. In L. Tsung & K. Cruickshank (Eds.), Teaching and learning Chinese in global contexts: Multimodality and literacy in the new media age (pp. 81–95). London: Continuum. Gao, F. (2012). Imagined identity of ethnic Koreans and its implication for bilingual education in China. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 15(3), 343–353. https:// doi.org/10.1080/13670050.2011.636146. Gao, F. (2016). Paradox of multiculturalism: Invisibility of ‘Koreanness’ in Chinese language curriculum. Asian Ethnicity, 17(3), 467–479. https://doi.org/10.1080/14631369.2015.1090373. Gao, F., & Park, J. (2012). Korean-Chinese parents’ language attitudes and additive bilingual education in China. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 33(6), 539–552. https:// doi.org/10.1080/01434632.2012.692683. Huang, S. T. (2011). The current situation of bilingual education of Korean Nationality in Yanbian. Analysis of Education and Teaching Forum, 2011 (pp. 191–192) [Mandarin]. Jin, B. M., & Piao, T. Z. (2007). Reflections on the internationalization of teachers’ education: A focus on China’s ethnic Korean teachers’ education. Dongjiang Journal, 24(3), 80–84 [Mandarin]. Jin, L. (2011). The research of Chinese-Korean education choice in Jilin area compared with Chinese-Korean education choice in Yanbian autonomous prefecture (Masters thesis). Retrieved from http://www.cnki.net [Mandarin]. Lankov, A. N. (2013, June 3). The ‘third Korea’: Yanbian in decline. The Asian. Retrieved from http://www.theasian.asia/archives/75217. Lee, C.-J. (1987). The Korean minority in China: A model for ethnic education. Korean Studies, 11, 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1353/ks.1987.0000. Li, J. (2013). China’s quest for world-class teachers: A rational model of national initiatives and institutional transformations. Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education, 41(3), 316–330. https:// doi.org/10.1080/1359866x.2013.809053. Li, J. (2017). Educational policy development in China for the 21st century: Rationality and challenges in a globalizing age. Chinese Education & Society, 50(3), 133–141. https://doi.org/10. 1080/10611932.2017.1330992. Li, M. (2010). From teacher-education university to comprehensive university: Case studies of East China Normal University, Southwest University and Yanbian University. Frontiers of Education in China, 5(4), 507–530. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11516-010-0114-y. Li, S. B., & Luo, Z. R. (2006). Investigation report on Korean education in Heilongjiang province. Heilongjiang National Series, 95(6), 99–105 [Mandarin]. Li, S. Y. (2004). Research on some of the problems in the tri-language education system in Yanbian Korean minority primary and middle schools (Masters thesis). Retrieved from http://www.cnki.net [Mandarin].

The Future for Ethnic Korean Minority Education in China …

127

Ling, G. (2017). Current state and development trends of education policy research in China in the last decade (2004–2013): A statistical analysis of papers from eight core Chinese journals. Chinese Education & Society, 50(3), 162–180. https://doi.org/10.1080/10611932.2017.1331021. Liu, L. J. (2017). A study of ethnic education policy and the selection of Korean primary school students in Yanbian (Masters thesis). Retrieved from http://www.cnki.net [Mandarin]. Liu, M. K. (2015). Yanji Korean primary school Chinese teachers’ professional development present situation investigation and training advice (Masters thesis). Retrieved from http://www.cnki.net [Mandarin]. Liu, M. L. (2012). The present situation and countermeasures of primary and secondary school teachers in Yanbian Korean Nationality township (Masters thesis). Retrieved from http://www. cnki.net [Mandarin]. Ma, R. (2007). Bilingual education for China’s ethnic minorities: A key question in minority education—Language of instruction. Chinese Education and Society, 40(2), 9–25. https://doi.org/10. 2753/ced1061-1932400201. Ma, R. (2008). Research on professional development of English teachers of Korean Nationality junior high school in Yanbian (Masters thesis). Retrieved from http://www.cnki.net [Mandarin]. Ministry of Education. (2011). Suggestions on training ethnic minority bilingual teachers. Retrieved from http://www.moe.gov.cn/. Park, H. S. (1987). Political culture and ideology of the Korean minority in China. Korean Studies, 11, 13–32. https://doi.org/10.1353/ks.1987.0003. Pei, Y. (2016). The research of approaches to Chinese-Korean primary school teachers’ professional development: The case of primary school teachers in Longjing City (Masters thesis). Retrieved from http://www.cnki.net [Mandarin]. Peng, W. J., McNess, E., Thomas, S., Wu, X. R., Zhang, C., Li, J. Z., & Tian, H. S. (2014). Emerging perceptions of teacher quality and teacher development in China. International Journal of Educational Development, 34, 77–89. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijedudev.2013.04.005. Piao, J. H. (2005). The teaching staff in Korean Ethnic primary and secondary schools: Status quo, problems and countermeasures. Journal of Yanbian University, 38(2), 24–27 [Mandarin]. Postiglione, G. A. (2002). Ethnic minority teacher education in Guizhou Province. Chinese Education and Society, 35(3), 87–104. https://doi.org/10.2753/ced1061-1932350387. Qingxia, D., & Yan, D. (2001). The historical evolution of bilingual education for China’s ethnic minorities. Chinese Education & Society, 34(2), 7–53. https://doi.org/10.2753/ced1061193234027. Shi, X., & Englert, P. A. J. (2008). Reform of teacher education in China. Journal of Education for Teaching, 34(4), 347–359. https://doi.org/10.1080/02607470802401537. Standing Committee of the Ninth National People’s Congress. (2012). Law of the People’s Republic of China on the Standard Spoken and Written Chinese Language (Order of the President No. 37). Retrieved from http://www.gov.cn/english/laws/2005-09/19/content_64906.htm. The Economist. (2018, August 23). China’s ethnic-Korean enclaves have become less Korean. The Economist. Retrieved from https://www.economist.com/china/2018/08/23/chinas-ethnic-koreanenclaves-have-become-less-korean. Wang, W. (2018). Researching education and ethnicity in China: A critical review of the literature between 1990 and 2014. Frontiers of Education in China, 13(2), 216–244. https://doi.org/10. 1007/s11516-018-0012-2. Wang, Y. M. (2016). Investigation report on Korean education in Yanbian Korean autonomous prefecture. http://www.ybrd.gov.cn/ybrd/16dsq1/2016-10-11/173766.html. Wang, Y. X. (1993). A history of linguistic research on minority languages in China. Beijing: Central Nationalities College Press [Mandarin]. Xiong, W., Jacob, W. James, & Ye, H. (2016). Minority language issues in Chinese higher education: Policy reforms and practice among the Korean and Mongol ethnic groups. Frontiers of Education in China, 11(4), 455–482. https://doi.org/10.3868/s110-005-016-0037-0.

128

L. Hongbo

Yan, X. Y., Wen, X. Z., & Wang, X. (2018). The difficulty and countermeasures of the construction of Chinese-Korean teachers in Yanbian Area. Journal of Yanbian University, 51(4), 86–94 [Mandarin]. Yin, X. N. (2016). Survey of the cognition and application of Korean Language Standard among primary and middle school students. Journal of Yanbian University, 49(1), 136–144. Retrieved from http://www.cnki.net [Mandarin]. Youlu, S. (2017). “Migrating” or being “left behind”: The education dilemma of rural children in mainland China. Chinese Education & Society, 50(3), 217–244. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 10611932.2017.1331014. Yu, H. (2017). A study on the countermeasures of stability and stay of special post teachers: A case study of Tumen special post teachers (Masters thesis) [Mandarin]. Zhang, Q., & Yang, T. (2018). Reflections on the medium of instruction for ethnic minorities in Xinjiang: the case of bilingual schools in Urumqi. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 1–22 (Published online 26 Feb 2018). https://doi.org/10.1080/13670050.2018. 1442409. Zhang, Y. (2016). Moving towards the equality of quality in higher education: China’s institutional construction of higher education since 1949. In I. Liyanage & B. Nima (Eds.), Multidisciplinary research perspectives in education: Shared experiences from Australia and China (pp. 115–122). Rotterdam, The Netherlands: Sense Publishers. Zhang, Z., Wen, L., & Li, G. (2015). Trilingual education in China’s Korean communities. In A. Feng & B. Adamson (Eds.), Trilingualism in education in China: Models and challenges (pp. 47–64). Dordrecht: Springer. Zhang, Z. A., & An, F. C. (2001). On initial stage of English education based on bilingualism. Journal of Yanbian University, 34(1), 73–77 [Mandarin]. Zhao, Z. (2010). China’s ethnic dilemma: Ethnic minority education. Chinese Education and Society, 43(1), 3–11. https://doi.org/10.2753/ced1061-1932430100. Zhou, Q. S. (2014). On bilingual teaching model in conversion of ethnic minority. Journal of Xinjiang Normal University: Philosophy and Social Sciences, 35(2), 122–128 [Mandarin].

Lyu Hongbo is an associate professor in the Faculty of Foreign Languages of Beijing Normal University, Zhuhai Campus, China. She previously worked in China as an English teacher and her research interests include applied linguistics, contrastive study of Chinese and English, and teachers’ professional development. She has published a number of research articles in these areas.

English Language Teacher Education for Multilingual Singapore: Responding to the Fourth Industrial Revolution Ee-Ling Low

Abstract Singapore’s education system is set against a multilingual landscape where students learn English and their ethnically ascribed mother tongue in schools, leading to ‘English-knowing bilingualism’. Deliberate language policy and planning, selective teacher recruitment, and rigorous pre-service and continual professional development programmes have all contributed to Singapore’s educational success. Education in the 21st century cannot ignore the forces of globalisation set against the backdrop of the fourth industrial revolution, where digitalisation, interconnectivity, and the breakneck speed of knowledge transfer are taken as a given, and where the problems faced at both global and local levels are highly complex. This chapter argues the need to re-think traditional paradigms and approaches to teacher education, and showcases language teacher education in the 21st century from a Singaporean perspective where bold steps have been taken both to conceptualise and actualise a teacher education programme that aims to prepare future-ready graduates. Keywords English language teacher education · Singapore’s bilingual policy · Singapore’s multilingual education system · Innovative teacher education programmes · Pre-service and professional development programmes · Fourth industrial revolution

1 Introduction Education systems worldwide have got to grapple with entering the complex era of the Fourth Industrial Revolution (4IR). Even amidst the backdrop of the 4IR, literacy remains a primary skill to acquire, especially when strong communication skills are key for successful collaborations and negotiations. It is also clear that traditional jobs are becoming irrelevant or are being redesigned as quickly as new occupations are created. The transformational 4IR driving forces are highly complex and uncertain, with multiple parties of local and global governments, businesses, academia, and E.-L. Low (B) National Institute of Education, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore, Singapore e-mail: [email protected] © Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020 W. Tao and I. Liyanage (eds.), Multilingual Education Yearbook 2020, Multilingual Education Yearbook, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-41211-1_8

129

130

E.-L. Low

societies being increasingly interconnected (Schwab, 2016). The Singapore education system has to ensure that its young citizens are prepared to engage in this globally interconnected workplace and society, and in possession of an enterprising and innovative spirit that is grounded on well-established ever-green skills, like strong fundamentals in literacy and numeracy, that have seen the Singapore education system rise to meteoric success in internationally benchmarked tests of student achievement. Since 1987, English is used as the medium of instruction for all Singapore schools. All students learn English in school as the first language and their ethnically ascribed mother tongue as their second language, viz. Mandarin for the Chinese, Malay for the Malays, and Tamil for the Indians. Pakir (1991, p. 174) described this policy as “English-knowing bilingualism” where all Singaporeans are essentially bilingual, speaking English and their ethnically ascribed mother tongue. The late Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew considered a bilingual to be one who is rich in human experience and knowledge (Lee, 1978), and bilingualism has allowed Singapore to be successful in international collaborations. Deliberate language policy and planning, selective teacher recruitment, and rigorous pre-service and continual professional development programmes have all contributed to Singapore’s educational success as measured by internationally benchmarked tests of student achievement (Low, 2014). This chapter argues that traditional paradigms and approaches to English language teacher education now need to be re-thought against the volatile backdrop posed by the 4IR. The chapter will first explore the five historical education phases in Singapore before explaining how the National Institute of Education (NIE), the nation’s sole and national teacher preparation institute residing within the renowned and research-intensive Nanyang Technological University (NTU), ensures its English language teacher education programmes have taken bold steps both to conceptualise and actualise a teacher education programme that aims to prepare graduates who are future-ready so that they, in turn, can help their future students to be future-ready.

2 Singapore’s Bilingual Education Policy The following section provides a brief historical context of the five education phases of Singapore and discusses these in relation to the historical evolution of Singapore’s bilingual education policy. The phases began with pre-Independence education phase (1955–1964) and continued to the Survival-driven education phase (1965–1978), the Efficiency-driven education phase (1979–1997), the Ability-driven education phase (1997–2011) and the Values-driven, student-centric education phase (2011–2018). In 2019, Singapore is entering the next phase, which has been described as the Learn for Life: Remaking Pathways education phase (MOE, 2019). Throughout the phases of Singapore’s short but prolific history, the bilingual policy that has created Englishknowing bilinguals has not only been significant and important to the country’s educational success, but also become an integral part of the nation’s growth and development efforts.

English Language Teacher Education for Multilingual Singapore …

131

2.1 English-Knowing Bilingualism in Singapore Many scholars have written on the historical account of Singapore’s bilingualism policy (Bokhorst-Heng & Silver, 2016; Bolton & Ng, 2014; Chew, 2015; CurdtChristiansen & Sun, 2016; Dixon, 2005; Lim, 2015; Low, 2017; Low & Ao, 2018; Low & Pakir, 2018; Pakir, 1991; Tupas, 2011; Xie & Cavallaro, 2016), and how it has cultivated a nation of English-knowing bilinguals (Pakir, 1991). Additionally, other scholars have discussed how this policy is not without its challenges and unintended offsets, such as the birth of a colloquial variety of Singapore English known as Singlish (Bolton & Ng, 2014; Low, 2017; Low & Ao, 2018; Low & Pakir, 2018) and how bilingualism is still proudly known as the cornerstone of the entire Singapore education system (Curriculum Planning and Development Division [CPDD], Ministry of Education, Singapore [MOE], 2010, 2013; Low, 2017; Tan, 2014). Although it is not the objective of this chapter to provide a detailed historical context, it is nevertheless important to frame Singapore’s bilingualism policy against the global multilingual landscape in which Singapore exists. This section will provide the historical evolution of bilingualism situated according to the different educational phases of Singapore education (see Low, 2017, for more details), with the addition of a most recent emerging education phase in the midst of the 4IR.

Pre-independence Education (1955–1964) Granted that there was no bilingual policy in Singapore’s education system in the pre-independence era, this period saw the bilingual policy introduced. While Malaya was declared independent in 1957, the British gave gradually devolved power to Singapore, allowing it to be partially self-governed in 1955 before becoming fully self-governed in 1959. During this period in Singapore, there were more than just English-medium schools. Chinese-, Malay- and Tamil-medium schools were also in existence, but these were not the only languages that each ethnic group used; many Chinese used Hokkien, Cantonese, and Teochew or Bazaar Malay (Tan, 2014), while Malays used Javanese or Boyanese (Tan, 2014), and the Indian population used Bengali, Hindi, Punjabi, Urdu, or Gujarati (Bokhorst-Heng & Silver, 2016). In 1957, only 1.8% of the population used English at home, 0.1% spoke Mandarin, 13.5% spoke Malay and 5.2% spoke Tamil, while 74.4% spoke Chinese dialects at home (Low & Pakir, 2018). Chew (2015) notes that in 1959 there were 33 mother tongue languages spoken in Singapore. In 1955, youth activism from students from Chinese-medium schools appeared to have been responsible for staging the Hock Lee Bus Riot. In 1956, an All-Party Committee on Chinese Education was established. Their key recommendations pertaining to bilingual policy were: • the ‘Malayanisation’ of all textbooks used in both English and vernacular schools; • promoting bilingualism or trilingualism based on the four official languages: English, Chinese, Malay and Tamil; and

132

E.-L. Low

• providing students with opportunities for higher education in vernacular schools, with emphasis on utilising their skills, training and abilities through the teaching of English language. (Chew, 1956, as cited in National Library Board, Singapore [NLB], 2015). As evident from these recommendations, the All-Party Committee 1956 Report became the precursor for introducing the bilingual education policy. Along with these recommendations, two other significant policies were introduced. One was the declaration that Singapore would have four co-official languages, in order to ensure none of the ethnic languages have supremacy over the others, with English being the neutral lingua franca for interethnic communication (Chew, 2015; Low, 2017; Low & Pakir, 2018). The second was that Malay would be the national, though ceremonial, language (Chew, 2015; Low, 2017). This was a strategic decision as Singapore was surrounded by Malay-speaking neighbours (Low, 2017; NLB, 2016). Mr. Lee Kuan Yew also commented that, if Singapore were to modernise and industrialise effectively, Singaporeans needed to be bilinguals (Lee, 1978). The report also recommended that English be a mandatory second language from Primary One (Low & Pakir, 2018). From 1961, the different languages used as mediums of education were slowly integrated into a common system through the use of a common curriculum and syllabus (Tupas, 2011).

2.2 Survival-Driven Education (1965–1978) In 1966, the bilingual policy was implemented. Singapore had initially been part of the Federation of Malaysia from 1963 to 1965 as the ruling People’s Action Party, of which Lee Kuan Yew was secretary-general, who thought that Singapore could only survive if it tapped on the resources of its much larger neighouring country. At the point of complete independence in 1965, however, Singapore needed to survive on its own. Then Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew was quite convinced that effective bilingualism would be one factor helping the nation to survive: From my observation, the monolinguist is more likely to be a language chauvinist and a bigot. He only sees the world through one eye. He does not have binocular vision to see the world in depth, to realise that there are as rich, if not richer, worlds of human experience and knowledge, all expressed in beautiful words, elegantly, vividly and fluently in other languages. He does not understand other great civilisations which have expressed themselves in other languages. (Lee, 1978)

English was used as the medium of instruction (MoI) in all schools for all subjects except the mother tongue subjects. The ethically ascribed mother tongue languages (MTLs; i.e., Tamil for the Indians, Malay for the Malays and Mandarin for the Chinese) were taught in schools as separate subjects. Essentially, English was (and still is) considered the ‘first language’ and is the language for administration, governance, trade, and industry, which allowed Singapore to be able to communicate with other countries, especially Western countries such as the US and UK, while the MTLs

English Language Teacher Education for Multilingual Singapore …

133

were ‘anchors’ of Asian cultural roots (Xie & Cavallaro, 2016). This policy gave rise to what Pakir (1991), adapting Kachru, would term the English-knowing bilinguals in Singapore. English was considered a language for interethnic communication, originating from the nation’s colonial past and now seen as being able to carry the nation forward towards a stronger economic positioning in a globalised world where English is an international language (Bokhorst-Heng & Silver, 2016). During British colonial rule, however, English was seen as a language of prestige and was privy only to the few ‘natives’ who helped the British in their daily administrative tasks (Bolton & Ng, 2014; Dixon, 2005; Low & Pakir, 2018; Tupas, 2011). However, post-independence, English was seen as being ethnically neutral and helping all ethnic groups to communicate with each other using one common language. It was a homogenising force in the midst of ethnic diversity and helped to promote nation-building (Low, 2017; Xie & Cavallaro, 2016). The shift towards English, however, was not easy and the government attempted to ease the transition by first requiring all schools to teach mathematics and science in English in 1966, starting with Primary 1 (Yip et al., 1990, as cited in Dixon, 2005), before adopting English as the MoI for all subjects in all schools from 1987.

Efficiency-Driven Education (1979–1997) Progressing from mere survival, Singapore needed to thrive independently. As an international trade hub, effective bilinguals and its bilingual policy education system were needed to ensure this. Yet, the quality of English-knowing bilinguals was not uniform across the board. Graduating students were indeed bilingual, but with much of the curriculum being in English, the MTLs suffered, and the 1979 Goh Keng Swee Report (Gopinathan, 2001, as cited in Tupas, 2011) found that only 40% of learners had attained minimal competency in their first and second languages (Xie & Cavallaro, 2016). The Goh Report made further recommendations that were outlined in the New Education System and MTLs, vis-a-viz the ethnically ascribed mother tongues, were also made compulsory as second languages. With the majority of the population being Chinese, the Speak Mandarin Campaign (SMC) was launched in 1979 and many of the Chinese dialects were discouraged in favour of Mandarin (BokhorstHeng & Silver, 2016; Lim, 2015). SMC was seen as a means of raising the standard of attainment in Mandarin that was taught in schools. In 1985, it was made mandatory that a pass in English and an MTL were the minimum language prerequisites to enter into the local universities (Low & Pakir, 2018). By 1987, English was the MoI in all schools and the ethnically ascribed MTLs the second language (Lim, 2015; Low & Pakir, 2018). Lim (2015) commented that Singapore had nurtured Englishknowing bilinguals in a relatively short amount of time, at least amongst the younger generation. The shift and emphasis to Mandarin Chinese along with the other ethnically ascribed MTLs was not without unintended outcomes. One was the endangerment

134

E.-L. Low

of dialects of MTLs spoken by the population that were not ascribed as the second language to be studied in schools (i.e., anything other than Mandarin, Malay and Tamil). Low & Pakir (2018) cite statistics that show a clear shift in home language towards English across all ethnic groups in Singapore. Also, the bilingual education policy set against the backdrop of a multilingual society that was learning English at a formal level produced a colloquial variety, widely spoken by all Singaporeans, known as Singlish (Lim, 2015; Low & Ao, 2018). Low and Ao (2018) comment that Singlish was preferred by a large majority of Singaporeans because they felt that it helped them express their national identity. In later years, the popularity of the colloquial variety led to concerns about the falling standards of written and spoken English in Singapore.

Ability-Driven Education (1997–2011) The ability-driven phase of education really came into being when then-Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong announced the Thinking Schools, Learning Nation (TSLN) initiative. TSLN emphasised producing creative and critical thinkers who were able to be innovative and enterprising (Low, 2017; Tupas, 2011). These competencies, along with “lifelong learning, pursuit of innovation, independent decision-making skills and flexible attitudes towards differing ideas” (Tupas, 2011, p. 56), were considered essential in helping to enhance Singapore’s competitive economic edge and ensure continued progress. Languages, especially English, were deemed to play an important role in developing the competencies articulated in the TSLN initiative as communication in a globalised world was seen as key. The English Language Syllabus 2001 was focused on “language use – mainly for information, for social interaction and literary response and expression – determined by purpose, audience, context and culture, and within which grammar will be explicitly taught” (Tupas, 2011, p. 57). The National Education and Masterplan for IT in Education (IT Masterplan) initiatives, which were both launched in 1997, also helped to integrate literacy, critical and creative skills, and information technology skills into the English curriculum. It was also clear that Singapore had developed two varieties of English, Standard Singapore English and Colloquial Singapore English or Singlish (Low & Pakir, 2018). The growing prevalence of Singlish caused the government concern about declining standards of spoken and written English in Singapore. Singlish features were identified in classroom teacher talk (Alsagoff, 2007), and, except for the elite, Singaporeans were not always able to speak “sustained” Standard English (Wong, 2014, p. 18). Singlish was considered by some to be the poor and corrupt variant of English, and with the challenge to maintain Singapore’s competitive edge in areas of international education and economic trade, the government was fearful that the emergence of Singlish would lower the national standard of English proficiency (Low & Pakir, 2018).

English Language Teacher Education for Multilingual Singapore …

135

To address the issue of the widespread use of Singlish, the Speak Good English Movement (SGEM) was introduced in 2000. SGEM aimed to “encourage Singaporeans to speak grammatically correct English that is universally understood, with the help of partners who run interesting programmes and develop learning content for the Movement” and has continued to the present upholding pretty much the same original goals (SGEM, n.d.). Bolton and Ng (2014) comment that there was a rather balanced view of Singlish among Singaporeans: those who supported possessing a proficient level of Standard English were concerned with “academic achievement, economic advancement, intelligibility, Singapore’s national image, while those who advocate[d] the recognition of Singapore Colloquial English appeal[ed] to the importance of national identity and language rights” (p. 315).

Values-Driven, Student-Centric Education (2011–2018) The Singapore bilingual education policy helped Singaporeans to thrive in the landscape of a multilingual and multicultural world (Low, 2017). In 2015, according to the statistics (Department of Statistics, Singapore, 2015), English was the most frequently spoken language at home for 36.9% of the population, up from 32.3% in 2010. Since its conception in the first education phase and the recommendations made in the 1979 Goh Report, the original goals of the bilingual education policy are still upheld. English-knowing bilingualism is still considered the cornerstone of the education system, giving Singaporeans a competitive international edge while linking them to their Asian roots. The most recent changes to the bilingual policy were introduced through the 2010 Mother Tongue Language Review Committee which made the following recommendations: • • • •

Alignment of teaching and testing to achieve proficiency Enhancing different provisions for learners of different abilities Creating an environment conducive to MTL usage and learning Developing and deploying more MTL teachers (MOE, 2011)

This is reflective of the values-driven, student-centric phase that was introduced in 2012 by then Education Minister Heng Swee Keat, which focused on creating the teaching and learning environment to help every child to achieve their full potential by considering the diversity of learner abilities and talents (Low, 2017). How this is achieved is through a 21st Century Competencies and Student Outcomes Framework (MOE, 2018) where each child within the system must be equipped with the knowledge, skills, values, beliefs, and character necessary for future-readiness. MOE envisions that all children can be developed through the education system into confident persons, self-directed learners, active contributors and concerned citizens (MOE, 2018). As with the ability-drive phase, strong fundamentals in literacy skills is still an important factor to help every child flourish in the system. The future-ready Singaporean must be able to communicate, collaborate and possess information skills,

136

E.-L. Low

be a critical and inventive (or enterprising) thinker, and possess civic literacy, global awareness, and cross-cultural skills (MOE, 2018). Interestingly, these attributes do not detract from the original goals outlined by the bilingual education policy.

Learn for Life: Remaking Pathways Education (2019–Present) Singapore has very recently entered a new education phase that focuses on dealing with uncertainty in an age that is passing by much faster than was envisioned. This phase builds on lifelong learning in the era of the 4IR, which is taking businesses, societies, and nations by surprise. Yet, with the massive changes in jobs, computers, and even ways of life, literacy skills remain much needed and there is a requirement to balance a strong attainment in fundamental skills like literacy and numeracy with lifelong learning ability, as knowledge moves at a breakneck pace in the 4IR. Ryder (2018) observed that in this 4IR era, skills are important but are only “the icing on the cake”, making it important to “enable the most important attribute of all—an aptitude for lifelong learning” by underpinning it with “strong cognitive skills, such as literacy and numeracy” (para. 9). Dixon (2005) argued that Singaporean children develop competence in their home language/s as they develop their English competence, and this may enhance their English acquisition and even their academic skills. Yet, Dixon also posited that if both first and second languages could have equal weight by allowing certain subjects to be read in the home languages in which students are more comfortable, given that other subjects are read in English, there may be a chance for students to achieve even higher levels of academic outcomes. This, of course, has to be balanced with the reality that most subjects, such as maths and science, have research published in major world languages, such as English and Mandarin. Hence, access to scientific research and advancements still has to be mainly through English. The challenges of enacting the Singapore bilingual education policy as documented in Low (2017) still hold true, albeit with changes that need to be made due to the 4IR fast-paced changes. These involve ensuring a good standard of English proficiency for continued competitiveness and collaboration with other nations, and ensuring that competence in a second language helps Singaporeans develop a multicultural perspective in a multifaceted world. Bilingualism is indeed one of the key cornerstones of Singapore’s success and achievements, both in nation-building and education, and should continue to be so especially in this 4IR era. In attempting to solve the complex and perhaps yet unknown problems faced in the 4IR, communication is key, and being articulate and highly literate in the world’s most widely spoken languages can only be an advantage to Singaporeans.

English Language Teacher Education for Multilingual Singapore …

137

3 Future-Ready English Teachers for Future-Ready Learners Set against the 4IR era of a VUCA (volatile, uncertain, complex and ambiguous) world, pre-service teachers need to develop future-ready attributes in order to nurture future-ready learners. Five intertwined future-ready attributes have been identified by the NIE in the conceptualisation of its pre-service teacher education programmes, and its programme goals are driven by having to deliver on these future-ready attributes. These future-ready attributes provide student teachers at NIE, earlier described to be the sole and national institute of education that prepares all teachers for Singapore’s schools, with the disposition to dream big, and empowers them to embrace their important roles as nation-builders. Since Singapore’s independence, the role of teachers has been likened to that of nation-builders.

3.1 Future-Ready Attributes Envisioned as Creators of Knowledge, not merely consumers, future-ready teachers need to actively contribute to the knowledge-creation process in the areas of content, pedagogy, practice, and technology in their future classrooms. They are an integral element of the value chain as they continually develop themselves and others to create new value for the teaching fraternity through designing the strategies, technology, and knowledge needed for the educational domain and beyond. Future-ready teachers must be Facilitators of Learning, not merely passive transmitters, as it is paramount that learners are equipped the knowledge, skills and dispositions to learn for life. Students need to possess the willingness and ability to learn, and this in turn translates to deliberate efforts on the part of the teacher to help build these dispositions by facilitating learning in the most optimal way possible. The future-ready teacher is cognisant that creating the optimal learning environment is their responsibility as they are the Architects of Learning Environments, not merely implementers of the environments they find themselves operating within. Teachers are the architects of all aspects of the learning environment which goes beyond the physical (classroom layout), to encompass the cognitive (use of teaching materials and tools to promote thinking skills), affective (social and emotional), and digital multimodal (media, e-pedagogy) environment. They should be able to customise the best environment appropriate for the profile of their learners and should not just settle for what is provided. The Singapore society has high expectations of its teachers as they regard them as custodians and preservers of good character and societal values. Naturally, teachers are Shapers of Characters, not merely participants in the society. Given their influence over their students, they shape the community, ideally by role-modelling the character attributes they wish to see in their learners and by infusing values into the content of their lessons.

138

E.-L. Low

Finally, future-ready teachers are Leaders of Educational Change, not merely followers, starting with their classrooms, before moving onto their schools, and eventually permeating to leadership at the systemic level. Through their daily interaction with learners, they recognise the needs and potential of their learners. Future-ready teachers have the ability to make significant contributions towards nation-building, working with all stakeholders across the education system from their learners, to teacher educators, to parents, and policymakers. The attributes outlined in this section correlate to the notion that learners, teachers, and teacher educators must possess dispositions for lifelong learning (Ryder, 2018) and that their thinking must be “agile, flexible, and cooperative” (Gleason, 2018, p. 165). Cognisant of these needs, the pre-service programmes have moved to incorporate elements in their pedagogies and programmes that can ultimately help their student teachers to attain the future-ready attributes outlined herewith.

3.2 Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK) The theoretical underpinning of NIE’s teacher education is grounded upon Shulman’s (1986, 1987) work in understanding the knowledge base required in teacher education and professional development. He outlined three categories of knowledge required in teacher education: pedagogical knowledge, knowledge of context (professional awareness), and subject matter knowledge (content knowledge). With the leaps in digital technology, language educators are compelled to unpack the affordances of technology to accelerate language teaching and learning. Yet, the technological opportunities emerging, and impending threats, also call for future-ready language teachers to be vigilant in imparting the knowledge, skills, and disposition towards digital literacy, a domain that emerged and evolved with technological advancements. The intersection of the various knowledge bases intertwines with the knowledge of context that grows as teachers develop in the various schools in which they work, shaped by the leadership, culture, community and students they nurture. A centre of innovation in learning, called the Centre for Innovation in Learning or IN-Learning, was established in NIE to propel innovations in learning at the Institute (IN-Learning, n.d.). Staffed with educational technologists, the centre partners with various NIE faculty members to uplift the learning of student teachers in areas of pedagogy, content, technical skills, and professional skills. To ensure that teacher educators are kept abreast and ahead of the developments in technological enhancements, NIE published a guide, Learning and teaching @ NIE: Principles for education teachers for the 21st Century (NIE, 2018), to support faculty members to devise diverse instructional approaches that are enabled by learner-centred environments. English language teaching has also benefited from this inclusion of an innovation centre that is not only a part of the Institute, but also benefits from the interaction of the faculty and students. One such example is via the development of apps for teaching and learning, and specifically for language; the Well-Said app was co-developed by experts from the English language and literature academic group

English Language Teacher Education for Multilingual Singapore …

139

working with educational technologists from IN-learning and aims to provide a local model of standard English pronunciation for all learners. Another recent initiative is the roll out of the Student Learning Space (SLS) for all pupils in primary/elementary schools. This is an online learning platform developed by the MOE’s Educational Technology Division that contains resources and learning tools aligned to the curriculum of each subject. In the case of the English language, the SLS helps students to learn at their own time, space and pace, both individually and collaboratively and all teachers are meant to tap into this rich online resource in their teaching. The SLS is first introduced at the pre-service level to all student teachers in a generic course, and then more specifically within their teaching subjects. The next few sections will showcase how the nation took bold steps at the preservice level to prepare its English language student teachers in emerging areas of need, and to adapt to the ever-evolving global economy. Where relevant, specific course components and courses are mentioned to highlight how the pre-service curriculum for English language teachers is enacted.

3.3 Pedagogical Knowledge Student teachers undertake core courses designed to help them build their pedagogical knowledge. This body of knowledge is defined by the ‘how to teach’ aspect and is offered via Curriculum Studies (CS) courses. For example, when student teachers learn ‘how to teach reading’, they learn various theories and research-based practices on comprehension pedagogical strategies to teach students how to question the intent of the author, obtain fundamental understanding of a passage, predict the text, and think critically about why they are reading the text. ‘What are we teaching’ forms the other aspect of pedagogical knowledge where student teachers learn the latest curriculum goals for the national English Language Syllabus (CPDD, MOE, 2010). Designed to develop student teachers in the areas of competencies, strategies, and knowledge in the teaching of main language skills (i.e., reading, writing, oral speaking, and listening comprehension), these courses are further divided into primary, secondary, and junior college levels. The curriculum goals (primary and secondary levels) of the English language syllabus are emphasised (CPDD, 2010). All Singapore’s primary schools adopt the Strategies for English Language Learning and Reading (STELLAR) approach (Pang, Lim, Choe, Peters, & Chua, 2015) towards literacy development, positioned as part of the national curriculum. Pang et al. (2015) describes this approach in detail. Student teachers in the primary school track are equipped with the principles and approaches of STELLAR, specifically its methodology and materials. Given that they will have to enact the STELLAR approach upon graduation, our pre-service programme worked closely with the MOE to prioritise the areas of skills and competencies to acquire during pre-service preparation, and how professional development and school-based mentoring could further deepen teachers’ pedagogical knowledge. The MOE provides a comprehensive

140

E.-L. Low

teacher guide, lesson plans, and learning sheets. English language teacher educators are cognisant of the need to expose student teachers beyond the prescribed text and materials as they hope to instil the future-ready attributes into student teachers. Hence, deliberate measures have been made to allow student teachers to innovate, and opportunities were provided for student teachers to develop English language lesson packages, igniting the creator, architect, and facilitator in them. These skills equip them with the ability to differentiate instruction as they cater to the diverse needs of their learners.

3.4 Knowledge of Context (Professional Awareness) To prepare student teachers for the professional context, the pre-service teacher education programmes designed a suite of professional courses in tandem with the school-based clinical field experience and practicum. This deepens their knowledge of contexts in which English will be used. All student teachers attend the Communication Skills for Teachers (CST) course to equip them with the essential written and oral communicative skills. Tips to care for their voices are also shared and they are introduced to phonetics to equip them with tools to verify their pronunciation of words in dictionaries and via online tools. The Well-Said app earlier mentioned is one of the many ways English language teachers can practise pronunciation on the go, anywhere, anytime, independently, or collaboratively. The pronunciation model used in the app is of a local speaker of standard English. To enhance and prepare language student teachers in the secondary school track, English language teacher educators harness the affordance of the open-source elearning platform, Branch Track, to design simulated e-scenarios to psychologically prepare student teachers for the school environment. Branch Track helps student teachers consider deeply the issues they may encounter, how they should approach the challenges, and how they consider the possible outcomes and consequences for their actions as professional teachers. One challenge of Branch Track that student teachers have given feedback on was that they felt that they need more help navigating the professional aspect of being a teacher outside of the classroom. Exposure to clinical practice in schools is required for all student teachers at the pre-service level to ensure that they are exposed to the real expectations and demands of the teaching profession. For the 4-year undergraduate programme, student teachers spend up to 22 weeks in schools. In the first year of study, undergraduates participate in a 2-week-long school posting termed as School Experience. Student teachers observe and are mentored by a senior teacher. Student teachers are not expected to teach at this point. At the end of the second year, student teachers take on a 5week Teaching Assistantship, where they are required to pen down their reflections weekly. They will be provided opportunities to teach independently. Since 2014, student teachers can opt to do their Teaching Assistantship abroad in our global partner universities. At the end of the third year, student teachers undergo a 5-week Teaching Practice 1 where their lessons are observed by a NIE supervisor and their

English Language Teacher Education for Multilingual Singapore …

141

cooperating teacher in school. Teaching Practice 2 takes place in semester 2 of their final year and lasts 10 weeks. The incremental duration and expectations are designed to ease student teachers into the professional working environment of the school. The entire process is technology-enabled and recorded in their digital-portfolios designed to help student teachers to be organised, systematic, and deliberate in reflecting on their personal learning journeys.

3.5 Subject Matter Knowledge Banegas (2009) highlighted that on top of mastering knowledge about the English language, English language teachers ought to attain mastery in communicative competence. Communicative competence may be further divided into grammatical, discoursal, strategic, and sociolinguistic competences. Aside from developing overall communicative competence, subject matter knowledge relevant for English language teachers includes awareness of the range of linguistics that is directly linked to the setting of language classrooms, known as pedagogically relevant applied linguistics. School-relevant subject matter knowledge is also covered in NIE’s programmes to ensure Singapore’s English language teachers are adequately prepared for classroom teaching. See Low (2014) for an earlier articulation of this coverage in the English language teacher education programme.

Communicative Competence Grammatical competence refers to a deep understanding of linguistic components of a language (i.e., its semantics, phonetics, syntax, phonology, lexicon). For those studying English as an academic major discipline, specific courses are designed to help develop grammatical competence with the major subdivisions of linguistics introduced via examining the origins, development, and structure of the language. Basic phonetics and grammar are introduced along with other branches of linguistics in the higher years of undergraduate study. At the higher levels of study, Halliday’s (1973) systemic functional grammar and the ideational, interpersonal, and textual functions of texts are explained. Student teachers who major in the English language can further opt for courses on language development, or opt to study advanced phonetics and phonology and understand main research approaches in acoustic phonetic research to inform phonological instruction. Other electives include linguistics history, comparative linguistics, and translation theory. The advanced level courses prepare student teachers to conduct research should they decide to pursue postgraduate studies in linguistics. They also help student teachers to establish a strong research base from which to inquire into their own practice in the future. Sociolinguistic competence refers to the ability to use language appropriately in response to the audience, setting, timing, and context, to name a few considerations.

142

E.-L. Low

At the introductory level, student teachers develop critical language usage in spoken and written forms to attain purposeful communication. Fundamental models of sociolinguistics are expounded in addition to language variation in accordance to purpose, topic, audience, and domain of conversation. At the advanced levels, Singapore English linguistic features are presented with the intention to help student teachers understand the history, development, and varieties of Singapore English, leading them to deliberate on how to deal with these variations when using English as the medium of instruction in the classroom. Other electives include English language development in new cultural settings and the study of how the functions and roles of the development of new varieties of English around the world have impacted teaching and learning English as an international language. Bilingual education through the lenses of language planning and policy with an in-depth analysis of the repercussions on language culture and identity is examined in another course. These courses shed light on the sociolinguistic context of multilingual and multicultural Singapore with the goal of developing sociolinguistically competent English language teachers for the classrooms. In December 2016, NIE introduced the enhanced 16-month programme based on intensive consultation with stakeholders and international studies on how to further enhance the PGDE programme to prepare our student teachers to be future-ready. The enhanced programme outlined three main areas: strengthen theory–practice links, deepen foundations, and broaden teacher preparation. The “Practical Pronunciation for Teachers” course was introduced as an additional academic unit for all teachers. To cater to the needs of English language teachers, their version of the course was customised to strengthen their knowledge of phonetics and pronunciation to empower them to deliver the MOE English language syllabus in a more effective manner. The course covers pronunciation in the MOE English language syllabus where student English language teachers are introduced to the varieties of World Englishes and the adoption of Standard English in classroom instruction to counter issues with intelligibility. In this way, they are equipped with a better understanding of issues relating to pronunciation in Singapore. Systematically, the student teachers are introduced to the International Phonetic Alphabet (IPA) and resource materials for acquiring IPA to enhance their own pronunciation and to research issues their students may encounter. This segmental phonology skill is further developed through the identification and comparison of significant pronunciation features of the English language varieties spoken in Singapore. The student teachers learn to differentiate between English varieties, and learn about the target variety for oral communication in the classroom. To raise their awareness of the sounds, rhythm, and stress patterns of English and of ways to express meaning, the student teachers engage in a range of listening, speaking, and reading activities to acquire suprasegmental phonology skills. Furthermore, student teachers engage in the analysis and assessment of their pronunciation to identify the gaps and formulate learning activities to close these gaps that provide them with the skill to develop their students’ oracy in the future. These learning activities prepare them for their CS courses where their knowledge about English language is linked to classroom

English Language Teacher Education for Multilingual Singapore …

143

learning. Deliberate links are made to the prescribed syllabus at respective levels (primary and secondary) to demonstrate how the content covered on the course relates to curriculum coverage and their students’ needs. Discoursal competence refers to the ability to comprehend, create, and invent texts with the appropriate coherent and cohesive devices in place. The acquisition of the concept of semiosis and exploration of relationships among texts, people, and contexts (in order to understand written, spoken, and visual everyday discourse, especially in the context of education) is a foundation course that all English language undergraduates must take. At advanced levels, student teachers can take the Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA) course that examines how ideology and power are realised through language, and how the Hallidayan framework (1973) provides a foundation to analyse texts and a wider variability of discourses are examined through considering language and gender, language in relation to, for example the media. Strategic competence is the aptitude to respond to communication breakdowns in order to attain the objectives of communication. Foundational courses aim to demonstrate how people utilise meanings in English language in everyday conversations, the interaction of forms and meaning, and diverse meaning relationships and meaning development over time as a consequence of the creative use of language. At advanced levels, how meanings and conversations are produced in context help student teachers to develop the ability to comprehend the development of pragmatic competence that is vital to repair strategic breakdowns in conversations. Courses in this area of study highlight the significant role of the English language in Singapore’s education system. Student teachers learn from a critical standpoint how important English is as an MoI, for not just information and knowledge transfer but also how language can advance the quality of student learning outcomes. Reading and writing are examined from critical academic perspectives. The functions of how reading and writing are involved in language acquisition and learning processes are also studied. In the age of technological advancements, the role of information technology and media literacy as an enabling tool in the language classroom are expounded. The intention of this range of courses is to imbue linguistic rigour into teacher education programmes.

Tackling Singlish in the Singapore Classroom The stance of emphasising Standard Singapore English is also taken in the pre-service programmes, especially the English language programmes. Teachers and teacher educators have a calling to be educators of the society; effective teachers “are not just instructors of subject matter but, more importantly, preservers and custodians of the values of society and our nation” (NIE, 2018, p. 14). Likewise, teachers are meant to uphold high standards of Standard Singapore English in order to help with the academic achievements of all learners under their charge. This would require them to avoid using Singlish, as far as possible. In a multilingual and multicultural country, such as Singapore, the appearance of Singlish or Singapore Colloquial English and its entry into classrooms is bound

144

E.-L. Low

to happen. We accept that, arguably, Singlish does have its uses for identification and solidarity if used appropriately by teachers. As Low and Pakir (2018) have noted, some scholars have advocated for Singlish to be recognised as a language in Singapore due to its important role in maintaining national identity and as matter of language rights. Wong (2014) argued that speakers in Singapore who are able to sustain Standard Singapore English usage are rare. Non-standard features occur when Singaporeans attempt to speak Standard Singapore English for a prolonged length of time. Alsagoff (2007) also notes that there were Singlish features used in classroom teacher talk by both non-tertiary and tertiary educators. Wong (2014) concludes that it is difficult to establish Standard English as a common language of Singaporeans; it simply does not meet the communicative and cultural needs of Singaporeans. It might thus be said that the use of Singlish is not a choice, but in fact a necessity for Singaporeans if they want their Singaporean ways of thinking and values to be freely expressed. (p. 23)

Ironically, as Standard English was determined to not have the ability of being a mother tongue of Singapore due to its inability to express Asian cultural and heritage values, Singlish seems to tick all the boxes. Thus, it is important that teacher educators prepare teachers to help learners mitigate the use of Standard Singapore English and Singlish, and to judge when it is appropriate to use either of them.

3.6 Developing Digital Information Discernment Against the backdrop of a rapidly expanding digital world that permeates every level of society, digital and data literacy are deemed as fundamental. One must not only be able to comprehend digital text and navigate through multiple online sources, but also acquire the skills to discern information critically (OECD, 2019). For example, the proliferation of fake news calls for future-ready teachers to equip students with the disposition to be conscious of the phenomenon, and with the skills to spot fake news and stop the spread of it (Coughlan, 2017). Language teachers are in the forefront to develop media literacy and critical thinking in their learners, which necessitates the teaching of learners to be sagacious in the consumption of information, leaning towards the inclination to fact-check information they read. The following vignette illustrates how the teacher education programme creates the learning environment to facilitate the development of media literacy and critical thinking. It describes how teacher educators lead in this push towards being media literate in the digital world. Recently, a current affairs website, perspectives.nie.edu.sg, was launched that aims to nurture globally conscious student teachers and further develop media literacy and critical thinking in educators by highlighting key news articles and featuring frequent commentaries written by various teacher educators on trending topics (OTE, n.d.). The effort was three-fold, in order to develop the cognitive-affective capacities in student teachers. First, to nurture a sense of global sensitivity in student teachers who are cognisant of global affairs by providing curated international and local news.

English Language Teacher Education for Multilingual Singapore …

145

Second, to cultivate student teachers’ global understanding, the perspectives website deepens their ability to think critically and to comprehend multiple perspectives on an issue. Third, to foster the development of a global self, the sense of global citizenship that serves as a compass to direct one’s thoughts and actions (BoixMansilla & Gardner, 2007) may be found in how student teachers interact with the curated materials and the commentaries written by various NIE faculty members. This is supported by a research project (Tan & Koh, 2018) using the films Ahead of the Class and Dead Poets Society to engage NIE student teachers and school leaders on professional development with the various levels and abstract structures of the education system. Student teachers and school leaders had to exercise the principles of critical thinking and media literacy as they adopted a contextualised matrix to form a comprehensive assessment of the various issues in teaching and leadership in the films. They did so with consideration of the limitations, opportunities, barriers, and threats that were present. The analysis provided educators with opportunities to unpack the films through a contextualised cultural perspective to deal with various challenges in teaching and school leadership. Likewise, the perspectives website seeks to carry out the same principle of combining media literacy and critical thinking to analysis and assess issues, albeit through non-fiction, written articles rather than fictional moving images. The factual authenticity of the news articles lends a more direct application.

4 Conclusion This chapter has documented how Singapore as a nation has helped to build Englishknowing bilinguals and how language policy has been deliberate, planned, and managed in tandem with the different phases of the country’s development and needs. The careful, deliberate, and well implemented pre-service Language Teacher Education programme described herewith shows how policy is translated into implementation very seriously. A few remaining challenges remain to be answered: What other transformative steps must be taken in Singapore’s education system in the quest to produce a nation of future-ready individuals? How can English language teacher education continue to be enhanced in tandem with the nation’s development? In the 4IR era and beyond, will the bilingual policy even continue to be essential to Singapore’s success and growth? What other alternatives exist if any? It certainly falls beyond the scope of this chapter to provide answers to these important questions but certainly points the way to where future research should focus.

146

E.-L. Low

References Alsagoff, L. (2007). Singlish: Negotiating culture, capital and identity. In V. Viniti, S. Gopinathan, & Y. Liu (Eds.), Language, capital, culture: Critical studies and education in Singapore (pp. 23–46). Rotterdam, The Netherlands: Brill Sense. Banegas, D. L. (2009). Content knowledge in teacher education: Where professionalisation lies. ELTED Journal, 12, 44–51. Boix-Mansilla, V., & Gardner, H. (2007). From teaching globalization to nurturing global consciousness. In M. M. Suarez-Orozco (Ed.), Learning in the global era: International perspectives on globalization and education (pp. 47–66). Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. Bokhorst-Heng, W. D., & Silver, R. (2016). Contested spaces in policy enactment: A Bourdieusian analysis of language policy in Singapore. Language Policy, 16, 333–351. https://doi.org/10.1007/ s10993-016-9410-6. Bolton, K., & Ng, B. C. (2014). The dynamics of multilingualism in contemporary Singapore. World Englishes, 33(3), 307–318. https://doi.org/10.1111/weng.12092. Coughlan, S. (2017, March 18). Schools should teach pupils how to spot “fake news”. BBC news: Education and Family. Retrieved from https://www.bbc.com/news/education-39272841. Chew, P. G.-L. (2015). From third world to first: A case study of Lee Kuan Yew and language management in Singapore. Linguistics and the Human Sciences, 11(1), 31–50. https://doi.org/10. 1558/lhs.v11.1.19181. Curdt-Christiansen, X. L., & Sun, B. (2016). Nurturing bilingual learners: Challenges and concerns in Singapore. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 19(6), 689–705. https://doi.org/10.1080/13670050.2016.1181606. Curriculum Planning and Development Division (CPDD), MOE. (2010). English Language Syllabus 2010: Primary (foundation) and secondary (normal [technical]). Singapore: Author. Department of Statistics Singapore. (2015). Key findings. Retrieved from https://www.singstat.gov. sg/-/media/files/publications/ghs/ghs2015/findings.pdf. Dixon, L. Q. (2005). Bilingual education policy in Singapore: An analysis of its sociohistorical roots and current academic outcomes. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 8(1), 25–47. https://doi.org/10.1080/jBEB.v8.i1.pg25. Gleason, N. W. (2018). Singapore’s higher education systems in the era of the Fourth Industrial Revolution: Preparing lifelong learners. In N. W. Gleason (Ed.), Higher education in the era of the Fourth Industrial Revolution (pp. 145–170). Singapore: Palgrave Macmillan. Halliday, M. A. K. (1973). Explorations in the functions of language. London, UK: Edward Arnold. IN-Learning: Centre for Innovation in Learning, NIE. (n.d.). Our teams. Retrieved from https://www. nie.edu.sg/our-people/departments/office-of-the-chief-planning-officer/centre-for-innovationin-learning. Lee, K. Y. (1978). Address by the Prime Minister, Mr. Lee Kuan Yew, at the Malay Teachers’ Union Seminar on ‘Facing Educational Challenges in the 1980’s’ at DBS Auditorium on 31 May 1978. Retrieved from http://www.nas.gov.sg/archivesonline/data/pdfdoc/lky19780531a.pdf. Lim, L. (2015). Coming of age, coming full circle: The (re)positioning of (Singapore) English and multilingualism in Singapore at 50. Asian Englishes, 17(3), 261–270. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 13488678.2015.1090772. Low, E. L. (2014). Singapore’s English language policy and language teacher education: A foundation for its educational success. In S. K. Lee, W. O. Lee, & E. L. Low (Eds.), Educational policy innovations: Levelling up and sustaining educational achievement (pp. 85–102). Singapore: Springer. Low, E.-L. (2017). Singapore English. In E.-L. Low & A. Hashim (Eds.), English in Southeast Asia: Features, policy and language in use (pp. 35–54). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: John Benjamins Publishing. Low, E. L., & Ao, R. (2018). The spread of English in ASEAN: Policies and issues. RELC Journal, 49(2), 131–148. https://doi.org/10.1177/0033688218782513.

English Language Teacher Education for Multilingual Singapore …

147

Low, E. L., & Pakir, A. (2018). English in Singapore: Striking a new balance for future-readiness. Asian Englishes, 20(1), 41–53. https://doi.org/10.1080/13488678.2018.1423455. Ministry of Education, Singapore (MOE). (2011, January 18). Enhancing the teaching and testing of Mother Tongue Languages (MTL) to nurture active learners and proficient users— MTL Review Committee releases its recommendations. Press Releases, News, MOE website. Retrieved from https://www.moe.gov.sg/news/forum-letter-replies/bilingual-education-iscornerstone-of-singaporeand8217s-education-system. Ministry of Education, Singapore (MOE). (2013, January 31). Bilingual education is cornerstone of Singapore’s education system. Forum Letter Replies, News, MOE website. Retrieved from https://www.moe.gov.sg/news/forum-letter-replies/bilingual-education-is-cornerstone-ofsingaporeand8217s-education-system. Ministry of Education, Singapore (MOE). (2018). Framework for 21st century competencies and student outcomes. Retrieved from https://www.moe.gov.sg/education/education-system/21stcentury-competencies. Ministry of Education, Singapore (MOE). (2019). Learn for life: Remaking pathways. Retrieved from https://www.moe.gov.sg/microsites/cos2019/remaking-pathway.html. National Library Board, Singapore (NLB). (2015). Report of the All-Party Committee on Chinese Education, 7 Feb 1956. Retrieved from http://eresources.nlb.gov.sg/history/events/6c72d8e54087-4dcb-a008-7fb8616e2429. National Library Board, Singapore (NLB). (2016). Bilingual policy. Retrieved from http:// eresources.nlb.gov.sg/infopedia/articles/SIP_2016-09-01_093402.html. National Institute of Education, Nanyang Technological University (NIE/NTU). (2018). Learning and teaching @ NIE: Principles for education teachers for the 21st century. Singapore: Author. Retrieved from https://www.nie.edu.sg/docs/default-source/IN-Learning/[email protected]?sfvrsn=cbb065a7_0. Office of Teacher Education (OTE), National Institute of Education (NIE), NTU. (n.d.). Homepage, perspectives website. Retrieved from http://www.perspectives.nie.edu.sg. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). (2019). OECD future of education and skills 2030: Conceptual learning framework. Paris, France: Author. Retrieved from http://www.oecd.org/education/2030-project/teaching-and-learning/learning/ core-foundations/Core_Foundations_for_2030_concept_note.pdf. Pakir, A. (1991). The range and depth of English-knowing bilinguals in Singapore. World Englishes, 10(2), 167–179. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-971X.1991.tb00149.x. Pang, E. S., Lim, F. V., Choe, K. C., Peters, C., & Chua, L. C. (2015). System scaling in Singapore: The STELLAR story. In C. K. Looi & L. W. Teh (Eds.), Scaling educational innovations (pp. 105– 122). Singapore: Springer. Ryder, G. (2018, October 22). As tech disrupts our jobs, it’s not too late to turn pain into gain. World Economic Forum. Retrieved from https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2018/10/tech-disrupt-jobsfourth-industrial-revolution-ilo. Shulman, L. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher, 15(2), 4–14. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X015002004. Shulman, L. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reform. Harvard Educational Review, 57(1), 1–23. https://doi.org/10.17763/haer.57.1.j463w79r56455411. Speak Good English Movement (SGEM). (n.d.). Homepage. Retrieved from https://www. goodenglish.org.sg. Schwab, K. (2016). The fourth industrial revolution. Cologny/Geneva, Switzerland: World Economic Forum. Tan, C., & Koh, K. (2018). Signature pedagogies for educators using films: An example from Singapore. The Teacher Educator, 53(1), 86–100. https://doi.org/10.1080/08878730.2017. 1390713. Tan, Y.-Y. (2014). English as a “mother tongue” in Singapore. World Englishes, 33(3), 319–339. https://doi.org/10.1111/weng.12093.

148

E.-L. Low

Tupas, T. R. F. (2011). English-knowing bilingualism in Singapore: Economic pragmatism, ethnic relations and class. In A. Feng (Ed.), English language education across Greater China (pp. 46– 69). Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters. Wong, J. O. (2014). The culture of Singapore English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Xie, W., & Cavallaro, F. (2016). Attitudes towards Mandarin-English bilingualism: A study of Chinese youths in Singapore. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 37(6), 628–641. https://doi.org/10.1080/01434632.2015.1122603.

Professor Ee Ling Low obtained her BA (with Direct Honours) from the National University of Singapore (NUS), an M.Phil. and a Ph.D. in Linguistics (Acoustic Phonetics) from the University of Cambridge, UK, under the Nanyang Technological University–National Institute of Education Overseas Graduate Scholarship. She won the Fulbright Advanced Research Scholarship in 2008, which she spent at the Lynch School of Education at Boston College. She played a leading role in the conceptualisation of the NIE Strategic Roadmap: Towards 2017 and the development of the Teacher Education for the 21st Century (TE21 ) Model. In 2012, she was awarded the Public Administration Medal (Bronze) by the President of the Republic of Singapore for her dedication and commitment towards furthering the cause of education. She is Singapore’s representative for the Global Education Innovation Initiative of Harvard Graduate School of Education and the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) Education 2030 initiative.

Multilingualism in Teaching Chinese to Speakers of Other Languages (TCSOL): Insights from TCSOL Teacher Education Li Lei

Abstract The rapid development of China’s economy and society has meant that Chinese as a foreign language (CFL) has received unprecedented international recognition, and sparked a growing demand for teachers of Chinese to speakers of other languages (TCSOL). The controversy between an increasing emphasis on CFL teachers’ English competency and the pedagogical tradition of the Chinese-only principle is evident in TCSOL teacher education programs. In this chapter, I use data taken from interviews conducted with a TCSOL teacher educator and three pre-service CFL teachers, and from two major textbooks used by core courses, to report from a multilingual perspective on the presence and advocacy of first/other language-asteaching-and-learning-resource pedagogies in the curriculum of a TCSOL Bachelor program in a university in south-east China. Inconsistencies were revealed between the monolingually-oriented teacher education practices related to use of the existing language resources of learners promoted in this program, and what the preservice teachers believe and practice. The chapter concludes with a recommendation for an integration of a multilingual approach to language teaching into such programs to encourage future teachers to better exploit their students’ existing repertoires of language knowledge. Keywords Multilingual · TCSOL · First language use · Chinese as a foreign language

1 Introduction The rapid development of China’s economy and society has meant that the Chinese language, Mandarin, has received unprecedented international recognition, is used extensively across the world (Chan, 2018), and functions to some extent as lingua franca in much of East Asia (Plumb, 2016). It is one of twelve supercentral global languages (Cook, 2013) whose status is exceeded only by English, and identified L. Lei (B) School of Foreign Languages, Beijing Normal University, Zhuhai, China e-mail: [email protected] © Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020 W. Tao and I. Liyanage (eds.), Multilingual Education Yearbook 2020, Multilingual Education Yearbook, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-41211-1_9

149

150

L. Lei

by the U.S. Department of State for study and learning as a language “critical to [U.S.] national security and prosperity (Bureau of Education and Cultural Affairs, 2019, para. 2). Within China, the number of international students learning Chinese language has continued to grow rapidly, with around 400,000 enrolments from over 200 countries in 2015 (Wang, 2019). Given such a context, it is not surprising to see the development in teacher education degree programs for Teaching Chinese to Speakers of Other Languages (TCSOL) in Chinese universities. In 2017, 375 tertiary institutions in China offered TCSOL Bachelor programs (Gaokao, 2019). Graduates of these programs might teach Mandarin to users of minority languages in China, but many teach international students who are learning the language in institutions in China, or work in schools or universities overseas (Wang & Kirkpatrick, 2012). Interrogation of monolingual ideologies has meant language teaching and learning research has increasingly engaged with questions of medium of instruction (MOI) and the place of mother tongue in language classrooms, contesting advocacy and policies of target language (TL) MOI that have informed language teacher education as the optimal medium for learning. In this chapter, I use data taken from interviews conducted with a teacher educator and three pre-service teachers to report on the presence and advocacy of first/other language-as-teaching-and-learning-resource pedagogies in the curriculum of a TCSOL Bachelor program in a university in southeast China. My purposes are to investigate the approach/es taken to language teaching in this teacher education program, the extent to which students as pre-service language teachers are exposed to concepts and principles of multilingual approaches to teaching in language classrooms, and their views on practices of L1 use in CFL classrooms. Additionally, I will explore the potential advantages of learning language skills whilst at the same time accessing, developing and making connections with their mother tongue or home language. I begin with a review of previous research concerning multilingual approaches in language education in general, and in TCSOL and teacher education in particular. Before presenting and discussing the findings, I introduce briefly the curriculum arrangement of the program under investigation and outline the process of data collection and handling. I conclude that TCSOL teacher education, and CFL learning, would be enhanced if multilingual approaches to language teaching that recognized the benefits of planned and appropriate L1 use were to be embraced.

1.1 Mono- and Multilingual Approaches and Language Education In recent decades, advocates of a multilingual perspective have questioned monolingual approaches to language teaching and language teacher education. A monolingual approach “emphasizes instructional use of the [target language] TL to the exclusion of students’ [first language] L1, with the goal of enabling learners to think in the TL with minimal interference from L1” (Cummins, 2007, p. 223), whereas, advocates

Multilingualism in Teaching Chinese to Speakers of Other Languages …

151

of a multilingual approach refuse to accept the notion of the target language (TL) as separate from other language knowledge (Creese & Blackledge, 2010). Instead, proponents of multilingual approach hold the additional language learning process as one to “develop and integrate new language practices into a complex dynamic bilingual [or multilingual] repertoire” (García 2009, as cited in Lewis et al., 2012a, p. 662). The monolingual principle seems to have been established as “axiomatic” (Cummins, 2007, p. 224) in language teacher education. Its initial prevalence can be traced to over a century ago in the teaching approach of the direct method. Since then the systematic avoidance in language classrooms of learners’ first/own/home language/s, or any other languages of which they have knowledge, has been endorsed more or less by most language teachers as well as language teaching researchers, and in teaching approaches from audiolingualism to current task-based approaches (Cook, 2001). Ortega (2014) suggests that we should identify and unlearn the implicit assumptions upon which monolingual approaches rest, such as the taxonomy of native versus non-native speakers. These ideas have led second language acquisition (SLA) research astray, taking the bilingual development of additional language learners as equivalent to monolingual development of infants, especially in the majority of SLA research contexts where English is the sole dominant language. It has at least three consequences. The first is to take monolingualism as the implicit norm with multilingualism an unnatural and subordinating position. The second is to ignore the bilingual or multilingual competence of nonnative speakers, and consider them as only “budding monolinguals for the second time around” (Ortega, 2014, p. 36). The third is to confer on ‘native’ speakers a privilege of users of a ‘purist’ form of language, embedded with an ethical danger of equating non-nativeness with deficit. Macaro (2009) refers to a number of policy statements in the UK in the early 1990s that effectively forbad first language use in foreign language classrooms. In response he proposed a continuum of three positions. The virtual position is held by those who believe teachers should be encouraged to provide in the foreign language classroom a ‘virtual reality’ resembling the environment of first language learning. It is supported by theories prevalent in 1980s and 1990s with their emphasis rightly on language input, output, and interaction, but unfortunately with the deficiency of ignoring learners’ first language as a whole. The maximal position refers to the belief that the exclusive use of the second language in teaching is “an unattainable ideal” (Macaro, 2009, p. 36), but that teachers should use it as much as possible. An approach prescribed in many language teacher education programs, such a position explains the guilt (Cook, 2001) or failure (Cummins, 2007) felt by many language teachers whenever they deviate from that ideal of maximal use of the TL. The optimal position recognizes the value in first language use in teaching and learning of second languages, holding that it could be facilitative in certain circumstances. As to the pedagogical value of multilingual classroom discourse in formal language learning, researchers have made substantial progress through investigation of ‘codeswitching’ or ‘translanguaging’ (Lewis et al., 2012b) between the TL and learners’ L1, although some disagree on when such practices are useful for learning. For instance, Williams (2002), doubting the effectiveness for learners in the early

152

L. Lei

stages, focused mostly on learners with reasonable competency in both L1 and TL. García (2009), on the other hand, holds a different position and coined the term ‘emergent bilinguals’ to refer to beginners, arguing for the ‘scaffolding’ function of L1, both contextually and linguistically, as part of the “core of bilingual pedagogical strategies especially for emergent bilinguals in the beginning stages” (p. 329). Garcia & Li (2014) identify seven major pedagogical goals of translanguaging, and although their focus is general classroom programs rather than language learning programs, most of these goals and strategies—such as differentiation and adaptation of teaching on the basis of students’ linguistic repertoire, engagement with students’ investment in their linguistic identities, or interrogation of dominant language ideologies—can be applied to additional language teaching and learning. Their arguments for the desirability of “cross-linguistic transfer and metalinguistic awareness … [and] cross-linguistic flexibility” (Garcia & Li, 2014, p. 121) with the goal of development of language practices in the new language whilst consolidating existing practices in the first (or other) language/s have potential to transform the pedagogic approaches extolled in language teacher education, including TCSOL. Moreover, they propose possible classroom strategies to achieve the various pedagogic goals, categorized around meaning-making, classroom resources, and curriculum design and classroom organization, and ranging from translation and collaborative grouping to inner speech and multilingual writing. Similarly, Cook (2001) questions the century-long tradition of avoiding the L1 in language learning classrooms, arguing that as long as it benefits efficiency, learning, naturalness, or external relevance of TL teaching, there should be no obligation to avoid it. Furthermore, he suggests a systematic use of L1 as teaching and learning strategies. As for the former, teachers may use L1 to convey meaning and check comprehension, to explain grammar, to organize activities, to maintain discipline, or to test learners. As for the latter, students may use the TL in translation activity, or for mutual help and negotiation in classroom activities. They may also benefit from learning materials including bilingual dictionaries, dual language texts, or TL films with L1 subtitles.

2 Teaching Chinese as a Foreign Language (CFL) The linguistic ecologies of CFL classrooms can be complex. In many instances, the teacher and all the learners share a language in which they are communicatively and academically proficient, for example, English. In some other cases, however, the situation is made more complicated when students represent diverse linguistic backgrounds and do not share a language with all their peers or the teacher. Even before the concept of multilingual approaches to language teaching came into consideration in Western circles, Chinese scholars had argued about the MOI for teaching CFL, although often based on the assumption that English proficiency was shared by learners and teachers. Debate centred around three possible stances: (i) Chinese as the only MOI; (ii) English as a lingua franca in CFL teaching; and (iii)

Multilingualism in Teaching Chinese to Speakers of Other Languages …

153

learners’ L1 as MOI complementing Chinese. For example, Shi (1983) argued that international students came to China with a strong intention to learn Chinese well and preferred more opportunities to use the TL, and also that learners’ L1 usually tended to be used less and less as their Chinese competence improved during learning. Zhang (2003) agreed, proposing that from the very first class of CFL Chinese is necessary as MOI, from both the students’ perspective (who may not share their L1) and the pedagogical perspective. Thus, teachers should strive for 90% of MOI in Chinese. Similarly, Sun (2003) cited the complaints of learners about over-use of English as MOI because they “came to learn Chinese, not English!” (p. 101), and called for scholarly theorization of the “long-standing principle of teaching TL with TL” (p. 102). On the other hand, some scholars (Ji & Liu, 2017; Li & Jin, 2014; Wu, 2018) investigated the potential benefits of use of the TL as MOI in CFL teaching and argued that such a monolingual approach could cause certain problems. According to Walton (1989), the linguistic features of Chinese mean it is an intrinsically difficult language to learn. Given its notoriously challenging tonal and writing system, the currently dominant monolingual teaching methodology of Chinese-only (Wang & Kirkpatrick, 2012) is not making it more accessible for learners, especially those at the beginning level. In the earliest CFL programs in China in the 1950s, teachers used English as a classroom lingua franca, and teachers’ contrastive linguistic awareness has been the focus of teacher training since 1976, when the Cultural Revolution ended and English resumed its importance in China. This focus only shifted further to teachers’ English competence in 2000, in response to the new requirement of spreading Chinese culture. On the other hand, regulations and teaching syllabuses by the state authority diminish the use of English, and the scholars and teachers have shown more enthusiasm in promoting the Chinese-only principle in classroom instruction, in part associated with the popularity of the immersion approach. Wang and Kirkpatrick (2012) reviewed the controversy between an increasing emphasis on CFL teachers’ English competency and the pedagogical tradition of Chinese-only principle. Their research of 24 university CFL teachers’ belief and attitudes towards using English as classroom lingua franca in CFL teaching revealed that more than half of the participants advocated a TL only approach to classroom MOI, that is, an exclusively monolingual ‘virtual position’ as described by Macaro (2009). Major factors identified in their comments include university policies prohibiting L1 use in CFL classrooms, a conservative perspective of language learning theory, their national pride connected with an emphasis on the ‘purity’ of Chinese language, their lack of or insecurity about English language competence, an idealization of ‘total immersion’ teaching approaches in teacher education, a desire to maintain language equality among students who know and do not know English, and a concern of future overuse of English in CFL classrooms. When further investigating the actual practices of teachers using the positions described by Macaro (2009) as maximal and optimal, Wang and Kirkpatrick (2012) summarized the core functions of their use of English in CFL pedagogy as explanatory, managerial, and interactive, mirroring the strategic uses for L1 identified by Cook (2001). They suggested this was evidence of a “vital, flexible and adaptable” (p. 15) way to use English in classroom teaching and

154

L. Lei

called for “concrete but theoretically-motivated guidelines” (p. 15) for introducing these practices into CFL classrooms. In a later study in a university in Beijing of students from diverse linguistic backgrounds and Chinese teachers with differing levels of English competency, Wang (2019) found that regardless of whether the teacher participants held a positive ‘optimal’ position or a forbidding ‘virtual’ position, they all employed varying levels of translanguaging practices in their classrooms. These practices were for various purposes including explanatory, managerial or interpersonal strategies. This demonstrates how participants’ stated beliefs and practices about MOI might not match actual behaviour when observed in practice. Wang (2019, pp. 8–9) concludes that language teacher education should “respond to the development of translanguaging theories and practices” in three aspects, specifically, to reconstitute language teaching knowledge, to provide guidance on translanguaging strategies theoretically and practically, and to free teachers from the expectation of the role of sole and all-knowing authority. Without guidance on the judicious, strategic, and appropriate use of L1 on the part of the teacher, she warns against the “hegemonic power of English” (p. 9) as observed in her research context.

3 TCSOL Teacher Education According to Standards for Teachers of Chinese to Speakers of Other Languages (2012) developed by the Office of Chinese Language Council International, a qualified teacher should be able to demonstrate the following: 1. Chinese linguistic knowledge and skills, and basic principles for second language learning and teaching; 2. teaching methodology for Chinese language, including teaching methods for Chinese linguistic knowledge and skills, basic ability to compare languages and use modern educational technology; 3. ability to organize teaching and manage classroom, including familiarity with the teaching curriculum and teaching design, ability to adopt teaching materials and make use of other resources, ability to implement effective classroom, organize extracurricular activities and evaluate the leaners; 4. mastery of Chinese culture and competence of intercultural communication; and 5. professional ethics and professional development. Graduates of TCSOL programs in China do not only practice in China, with Chinese/Mandarin an increasingly popular foreign/additional language for study in schools, colleges, and universities around the world (Orton, 2011), and China’s National Office for Teaching Chinese as a Foreign Language enthusiastic about supplying CFL teachers “as messengers who spread Chinese culture in addition to the role of a language educator” (Wang & Kirkpatrick, 2012, p. 2). For CFL teachers who practice abroad in European nations, or in Anglophone settings, and those who teach international students in China, proficiency in the international lingua franca

Multilingualism in Teaching Chinese to Speakers of Other Languages …

155

of English has become essential for intercultural communication, and sometimes as a pedagogical skill (Orton, 2011). It is also mandatory for eligibility to practice in schools in countries such as Australia (e.g., see Victorian Institute of Teaching, 2019). Since 2007 English has been used as MOI in 50% of the curriculum of Master’s programs of Teaching Chinese to Speakers of Other Languages, and graduates are expected to be able “to teach and communicate fluently in English” (Wang & Kirkpatrick, 2012, p. 2). National Standards of teachers of CFL, among others, specify that Chinese teachers should be proficient English speakers, and the program investigated in the study reported in this chapter requires its undergraduates to pass College English Test (CET)-6, an equivalent of Common European Framework of Reference for Languages (CEFR) B2 level, before they graduate. Apparently, even at a higher level there seems to be a tendency to admit that English as MOI benefits the teaching of Chinese, especially for the aspects related closely with the reality of teaching contexts, rather than theory. Yet the ‘Chinese-only’ principle has been dominating the research and practice of CFL pedagogy and pre-service teacher education in China for many decades. Teacher education research has found that teachers are likely to teach how they have been taught (Catalano & Hamann, 2016), and without proper highlighted intervention, pre-service teachers undergoing mainly monolingual education would probably replicate that process in their future teaching career. Although recent classroom research (Wang, 2019; Wang & Kirkpatrick, 2012) has found use of L1 or English as lingua franca is not unusual in classes of CFL for international students, it remains an “illicit pedagogical strategy” (Garcia & Li, 2014, p. 124) over which teachers frequently experience unease or guilt. Only recently has this intrinsically monolingual approach been questioned, and any changes in approaches in preservice teacher education are an area for investigation. Study of multilingual teaching approaches in CFL classrooms, including “flexible instructional strategies” (Wang, 2019, p. 138) such as the pedagogic practice of translanguaging—“dynamic and creative linguistic practices that involve flexible use of named languages and language varieties” (Li, 2018, p. 14)—has been scarce, and researchers, for example, Shi (2016), have noticed current TCSOL Bachelor programs lack connection between theory and actual practice. As to the Master of TCSOL programs, they suffer from similar problems, that is, a failure to represent the current language teaching notions. As Wang & Kirkpatrick (2012, p. 3) note, “very few solutions or models are in existence, which are theoretically sound to equip CFL teachers with knowledge of how to employ [English or any L1] as an instructional strategy into classroom practices.” This chapter explores attitudes to and knowledge of multilingual approaches in CFL teaching of a TCSOL teacher educator and preservice CFL teachers, hopefully offering some insights into possible future reform of TCSOL programs.

156

L. Lei

3.1 Origins of Data Data were gathered in the context of a selected TCSOL teacher education program delivered in a university in southeastern China. Core courses in the program relevant to participants are Introduction to TCSOL, available in the first year, with 36 teaching hours, and Teaching Methods in TCSOL, available in the second year, with 72 teaching hours. These particular courses have close connections with the issue of classroom MOI, are taught by the teacher educator participant, and were a focus in the interviews with all participants. Data comprised three semi-structured interviews with a total of four participants, purposively selected on the basis of accessibility and as typical of the theoretical focus (Silverman, 2000), and augmented by the analysis of two textbooks used in Introduction to TCSOL and Teaching Methods in TCSOL. Both textbooks are regarded as authoritative and in wide use among similar programs in China. The interviewees are one teacher educator teaching in the TCSOL Bachelor program, who delivers courses that focus on teaching methodology, and three students, all recommended by teachers for their academic excellence. The educator (hereafter E1) is an Associate Professor, female, with teaching experience of over 10 years and a Ph.D. in the research field of Chinese ethnic minority languages. E1 teaches courses including Introduction to TCSOL, Teaching Methods in TCSOL and Applied Linguistics, and is also a language teaching practitioner with experience of CFL programs with students with varied language backgrounds from American middle schoolers to Pakistan Bachelor degree students. E1 is multilingual, proficient in Mandarin, Cantonese, has reasonable proficiency in an ethnic minority language, and advanced English proficiency. Two students are in the third year of the program, and were interviewed together, and the third student is in the fourth and final year. The third-year undergraduates, one male (hereafter S1) and one female (hereafter S2) have completed the courses Introduction to TCSOL and Teaching Methods in TCSOL, and attended the credited workshop of Teaching of CFL. S1 has been a teaching assistant (TA) to one course for the Chinese Language Bachelor program, assisting the teacher in the classroom, conversing with learners, helping with pronunciation, correcting assignments and preparing slides for teaching. In addition, he was a personal tutor teaching Chinese to a nine-year-old American boy for about one year. S2 has experience of being a ‘language buddy’, that is, a student designated by the school to help a CFL learner to accustom to the campus environment and meet twice a week after the class to practice Chinese speaking. The fourth-year student (hereafter S3) is female and has completed all credit courses in the program. Her teaching experiences includes one-year TA experience in her school, and part-time work providing individual tuition at a private language school. She has passed the national exam and been awarded the TCSOL certificate. The three students have all passed the CET-6 English examination, and thus have the capacity to use English in the CFL classroom. The interviews explored respondents’ awareness of multilingual conceptions of language and of multilingual approaches to language teaching and learning, and their motivation, confidence, knowledge and skills concerning the use of learners’ L1 or

Multilingualism in Teaching Chinese to Speakers of Other Languages …

157

other language resources. All interviews were conducted in Mandarin, recorded, and transcribed in Chinese. Observations of interviews and textbooks were focused on theoretical perspectives, MOI, language-teaching approaches, and the use of learners’ L1. These observations were considered to determine any alignment, or not, with the three positions—virtual, maximal, and optimal—described by Macaro (2009), and will be used to highlight the arguments in the ensuing sections. The data identified for use were translated into English by the author where necessary.

3.2 Observations Interviews reveal that the educator and the pre-service teachers do not necessarily share the same attitude or strategies concerning the value of Chinese learners’ existing language resources, and there seems to be theory-practice inconsistencies even between what individuals state as their attitudes and practices, and what they actually do in teaching reality. Similarly, an ambiguous attitude can be found in the textbooks used for two major relevant courses. In the following Sect. 1 identify these discrepancies using the three positions of virtual, maximal, and optimal (Macaro, 2009) as described above, and attempt to trace the connection between the interviewees’ position and the textbooks.

‘Maximal’ or ‘Optimal’ Position in Interviewees When asked about suggested MOI in CFL, E1 compared English to a ‘walking stick’ (L 127) that teachers use when beginners know nothing about Chinese. Even in this situation, she insisted, teachers should bear in mind that it has to be abandoned sooner or later, or the walking stick would ‘become part of the body and one’s leg may turn to useless, which is worse than learning without any walking stick in the first place’ (L 130–132). The use of English, or L1, is expected to become less and less until completely gone when the temporary task has been fulfilled. She agrees with those who think language teaching should aim at fostering the learners’ ability to think in TL, and using L1 to teach TL ‘is like having those learning swimming practice swimming moves on land. One has to jump into the water to learn swimming after all’ (L 145–147). Her position seems to be an adapted version of Macaro’s (2009) maximal position as the exclusive use of TL is regarded as an ideal, yet one that is possible to achieve at certain point. E1 recalled that in her teaching methodology class, which involves trial teaching, some students submitted their teaching plans, intended for English L1 intermediatelevel Chinese learners, yet the whole process was in English. Then she would tell them such planning is not in accordance with the learners’ Chinese competence, for an intermediate-level learner should be able to use about 1500 Chinese words and hundreds of sentence patterns. The pre-service teachers’ unnecessary use of English is considered a ‘showing off of their own English’ (L 138), where the sense of guilt,

158

L. Lei

a typical element in a maximal position connected with the use of languages other than the TL, is passed on to the pre-service teachers. She emphasized a standardized requirement that, even for the first class, English should not be used for more than half of the time. Instead, teachers are encouraged to speak Chinese slowly, use body language and visual aids, and use pinyin as a tool once it has been taught. In her opinion, English can be used as an appropriate portion, but bearing in mind that you may face learners who do not speak English, like the Thailand middle schoolers she had taught. The focus on the use of L1 in the CFL as a percentage of interaction, rather than the circumstances in which strategic use might be acceptable, suggests a lack of awareness of multilingual language pedagogy, and a monolingual perception of languages as discrete and separate. Nonetheless, her observation recognizes the complicated and diversified language ecology of classrooms where teachers and learners may or may not share a language. However, findings suggest the pedagogy advocated by E1 does not include research into multilingual teaching strategies for teachers facing either situation, especially how to make strategic use of the learners’ existing language resources when teachers do not share their language/s. S1 recalled above 85% Chinese MOI in the class in which he worked as a TA, but he explained that the percentage was based on his intuition rather than a formulated requirement, and English as MOI should be necessary more or less throughout the whole Chinese learning process. S3 observed only Chinese as MOI in the class in which she worked as a TA (the discrepancy may be attributed to different teachers or courses). However, she noticed that at least for one learner, a short-term exchange student from Portugal, the Chinese used by the teacher could not be understood adequately and thus she took the responsibility of a TA to sit beside her and helped her using English. Interestingly, S1 also commented on a Chinese professor, said to be able to teach Canadian undergraduates Chinese in Chinese, who said ‘“if one can teach Chinese successfully in Chinese exclusively, one is a real master”’ (L 236), which may indicate an persistent idealization of monolingual teaching approaches. On a certain point, it seems that S1 and S2 share an optimal position. S1 explained that when he was using English to build up a trusting relationship with a young reluctant learner and trying to make Chinese learning less intimidating, he did not feel guilty, for he felt it necessary to guide the learner in a way that the latter is familiar and comfortable with, and he could see the progress in the learner. S2 agreed with him and added that teachers should be flexible and adjust their MOI based on the learners they face. Addressing the classroom language used by learners in the class which he assists, S1 observed that they generally would speak Chinese, but occasionally their L1 to each other, which he attributed to a perception that ‘they treat learning less seriously than Chinese students do’ (L 388), which suggests a hidden disapproval of L1 use in class. When talking about the total immersion approach, S2 quoted the example of her friend’s brother who joined a short-term American STEM summer camp where all attendees learn and speak English exclusively, and commented that such immersion programs are popular among parents. S1 added that it is popular because it is effective, that those immersed in such an environment would develop ‘for sure a better language sensibility’ (L 446), and that progress in

Multilingualism in Teaching Chinese to Speakers of Other Languages …

159

language could be easily seen. Their idealization of immersion, an fundamentally monolingual approach, seems to demonstrate a maximal position. S3, on the other hand, takes the maximal position with little doubt. Although she uses some English in her part-time tutoring job, she insisted that use of L1 should be discouraged and explained the textbooks, her teachers and CFL circles advocate such a notion. Recalling the CFL class to which she had been a teaching assistant, she observed that when the teacher spotted the learners using their L1 to discuss in group work, he would give a hint to use the TL by asking “Can you tell me what you are talking about?” (L 215), and in slides English translation, if necessary, would appear in smaller typeface than Chinese. Both are nuanced approaches to subtly discourage use of L1, rather than make use of it in teaching and learning. She quoted the example of her Canadian professor who could teach the course of Academic English exclusively in English (even though he is a fluent Chinese speaker) to explain that it takes much experience and language competence for a language teacher to manage expressing something abstract with simple and brief TL, although unfortunately she cannot achieve that level herself currently. It seems that she is regarding her use of L1 in teaching or assistance as more or less a lapse caused by her lack of expertise or experience and perhaps feeling guilty for it.

Virtual or Optimal Position in Major Textbooks In most cases, the educators who initially designed the TCSOL courses chose the textbooks. Teachers usually would be cautious to change textbooks, as the current ones are regarded as the most authoritative and commonly used ones, and have undergone the authorization process at the university level. Courses and teaching materials tend to lack direct comment on multilingualism or monolingualism, but an inconsistent stance towards L1 use can be observed explicitly or implicitly in the two textbooks used for the most relevant courses. The course, Introduction to TCSOL, taken by first-year undergraduates uses Introduction to TCSOL Pedagogy (Liu, 2000), published in 2000 and reprinted 26 times, and considered authoritative. It makes some positive comments on the function of L1 concerning certain teaching approaches. For example, the Direct Method is criticized for its neglect or overrejection of L1, while Situational Language Teaching is praised for its balanced attitude to advocate that L1 and translation are not necessarily harmful. From this, a recognition of L1’s function and a position similar to optimal one can be seen. However, elsewhere it states directly as one of the ten CFL teaching principles that “the use of L1 or MOI (other than Chinese) should be controlled strictly” (Liu, 2000, p. 310), or avoided unless definitely necessary. Learners in the classroom should abide by an ‘immersion’ approach and use the TL exclusively except for necessary translation exercises. In the section about characteristics of CFL teaching in classrooms, the MOI again is required to be the TL, so that learners can learn the TL through the TL (Liu, 2000). A similar requirement is also proposed in a ‘teacher talk’ section, where it is suggested teachers are to try their best to use the TL to communicate with learners and avoid language shift or a mixture in either teacher or

160

L. Lei

learners’ talk (Liu, 2000, p. 351). Thus, it demonstrates a maximal, or even virtual position, positioning monolingual teaching as ideal. The second textbook, Practical Teaching Methodology in TCSOL (Xu & Wu, 2013), is used for the course, Teaching Methodology in TCSOL, for the second-year undergraduate, as an authoritative choice, first published in 2005 with the latest edition in 2013. This textbook introduces various language teaching methods, some of which refer to the place or use of L1 in language pedagogy. When Consciouscomparative Method is introduced, the authors explain that it has been based on the linguistic theory which regards “language as the physical carrier (or external shell) of thinking” (Xu & Wu, 2013, p. 34) and thus for the beginning language learners their thinking takes the physical form of L1, and L1 is a prerequisite for learning a second language well, and translation is indispensable for TL teaching. On the other hand, Pavlov’s dual signal system theory is introduced as supporting the method psychologically in that to learn the TL means to establish a new Secondary Signal System. During this process, L1, that is, the old Secondary Signal System would transfer both positively and negatively. As a result, TL teaching should compare it with L1 so as to enhance the positive side and control its negative one. Translation is regarded as essential for L2 learning due to the conviction that the new system (TL) can only connect with the Primary Signal System through the old Secondary Signal System. The textbook comments on Conscious-comparative Method as one that modified the classic Grammar-translation teaching method. Different from Direct Method based on mimicry, it emphasized mimicry is more effective and less mechanical with understanding supported by translation and explanation in L1. However, when the teaching method is evaluated, it is disparaged for going too far to the radical opposite of Direct Method and led to 80% of classroom teaching hours spent in explaining, analyzing and translation with L1, leaving only 20% for TL practice and hence a low level of speaking for the learners. The authors also describe the Cognitive Approach, in which making use of the L1 is regarded as one of its six basic principles (Xu & Wu, 2013, p. 39). Inspired by Chomsky’s Generative Grammar, this approach advocates that grammar of diverse languages have much in common and L2 learners would naturally transfer their L1 grammar to TL and facilitate the learning. At the same time, the differences between L1 and TL tend to cause interference and hence the necessity to compare them to avoid the confusion. This textbook makes an interesting point that comparison between L1 and TL used in teaching is particularly helpful for “a class consisting of predominately learners with the exclusive tendency” (Xu & Wu, 2013, p. 90), suggesting that they might change their stubbornness after comparison and become more open-minded to new knowledge. In analysis of the factors to consider when choosing CFL teaching materials, the textbook encourages consideration of any prior foreign language learning experiences by learners. It explains that those with such experience are more likely to have developed their own learning approaches and strategies concerning “how to memorize new words, how to compare and grasp grammar, how to consciously transform language rules into sentences or how to improve listening or reading comprehension” (Xu & Wu, 2013, p. 69). Such experiences and strategies, once transferred to

Multilingualism in Teaching Chinese to Speakers of Other Languages …

161

Chinese learning, would exert a huge influence positively. Additionally, an ideal textbook should provide annotation in the learners’ L1, for the simple fact that “almost all learners hope to use the teaching materials with annotation in their L1” (Xu & Wu, 2013, p. 74). This second textbook includes some language teaching approaches or methods that seem to adopt an optimal position and no monolingual, ‘Chinese only’ principles are explicitly stated. Some approaches included acknowledgement that the L1 as a language and learning resource has some benefits for language learning, and advocacy of a balanced use of TL and L1. Unfortunately, apart from translation and contrastive linguistic activities, a specific discussion of such balance or practical suggestions on how teachers can make strategic use of L1 across a variety of classroom teaching circumstances is not included, and, significantly, all teaching plans offered in the textbook use exclusively Chinese.

4 Discussion These more or less contradictory theoretical stances between and even within the textbooks might partly explain the inconsistent positions of the interviewees. Though they generally held a more flexible attitude to MOI and use of a L1 in their teaching practice, once they encountered a question about their views, they tend to hold exclusive use of TL as an ideal. Furthermore, the introduction of historical teaching approaches and trends in both textbooks probably explains why the most frequently mentioned multilingual teaching strategies included in TCSOL teacher education are translation and comparison between the TL and L1. For example, E1 emphasized the necessity to compare L1 and TL phonetically and grammatically so as to decide the difficult or important teaching points accordingly. In her opinion, it is essential for future teachers to learn solidly the International Phonetic Alphabet. Once they have grasped the complete system of IPA, the sounds for each specific language would be simply an abbreviated version. When their future students use wrong pronunciation of a certain sound, because they have a similar sound in their L1 and they have been replacing the Chinese sound with it, the teachers would be able to compare the two sounds in the IPA to see the similarity and difference between them. As a result, the learners’ pronunciation problem would become more apparent and easily remedied. At the same time, the focus on this language comparison, similarly influenced by theories in textbooks, tend to regard L1 as a negative element which brings about difficulties in learning and using an additional language. Though more sensible than ignoring the learners’ L1 completely, such a stance may lead graduate teachers to regard their learners’ mother tongue/s as more of a hindrance than a resource, and as a separate knowledge system that can be ‘borrowed’ from to create a new system, rather than viewing learning as adding to the existing knowledge. There are other problems attributable to the textbooks. The insufficient, if any, introduction of L1 use in Chinese learning, leaves an impression that the use of L1 is nearly equivalent to the grammar-translation approach abandoned by nearly all

162

L. Lei

practitioners and researchers of language teaching in the past decades, and replaced by monolingual approaches to teaching particularly connected with the immersion method, more or less idealized in the textbook of Liu (2000). The interviewees’ attention attached to teaching materials may also be derived from the textbooks. E1 quoted the example of the mainstream Chinese textbooks used in Indonesia with the local learners as their specific target users. She explained that although there is not much Indonesian in them, except for translation of new words, the editors’ understanding of Indonesian is like ‘salt melt in water’ (L 295); that is, instead of an explicit presence of a large amount of instruction or explanation in learners’ L1, it is their knowledge of the learners’ L1 that implicitly enables them to give sentence examples or explain the pronunciation in a more accessible way. On the other hand, E1, S1 and S3 admitted the theory of TCSOL is still underdeveloped, with S2 and S1 recognizing specifically the significance of further research on MOI. For example, S2 commented that ‘the boundary for use of MOI is blurred and there is no consensus on what proportion of MOI is appropriate for a specific level of Chinese’ (L 328). S1 agreed and added that, ‘We more or less go with our intuitive feelings’ (L 332). It seems that all participants have realized, with or without consciousness, the discrepancy between the theory as put in textbooks and the reality they have encountered in their teaching practice. As graduates, or near graduates, from a TCSOL course, the students are confronting a theory-practice dilemma where they have to decide whether to “subordinate a perfectly respectable ideal … to a bigger theory or ideology that can regulate the ideal” (Kegan, 1994, pp. 89–90), That is, if they adopt a more nuanced multilingual approach, they will have to manage possible feelings of guilt about violation of the ‘Chinese only’ maxim, and weigh their actions against the benefits for learning. Near the end of their teacher preparation the student participants are confronted with accommodation in their learning of “radical shifts in their thinking” (Dole & Sinatra, 1998) about a fundamental aspect of classroom practice that contradicts dominant orthodoxy. The unavoidable conclusion is that the monolingual approach that dominates CFL pedagogy (Wang, 2019) and is adopted by the TCSOL program, perhaps most clearly evident in the practice of timing the use of L1 and TL, is not an adequate preparation for this aspect of classroom practice. The final section of this discussion looks at the interaction in all interviewees, including the teacher educator, of existing perceptions gained from the TCSOL program and their hands-on training and teaching experiences, mediated by the influence of authority, to produce this situation of holding seemingly incompatible positions on multilingual practices in CFL classrooms.

4.1 Factors of Practice Though holding monolingual MOI as an ideal, all interviewees actually adopted a flexible attitude towards it. Different from the preservice teachers’ motivation mainly stemming from a wish to teach CFL successfully, E1’s motivation is based on an obligation felt to prepare her students for future teaching practically and theoretically.

Multilingualism in Teaching Chinese to Speakers of Other Languages …

163

This explains why it seems harder for her to question the long held monolingual teaching principle before she could confirm the reliability of a new trend, even though she is by nature an open-minded scholar and keeps encouraging students to learn an additional foreign language. Specifically, E1 started in her training of pre-service teachers with a requirement of no more than 30% English in teaching. Though not as restrictive as the policy statements forbidding L1 referred to by Macaro (2009), E1 experienced training from school authorities as an intern teacher more than ten years ago, to which her maximal position may in part be attributed. A teaching director timed her and kept a record of how much time she was teaching in Chinese and English respectively. If she reached a ratio of 50-to-50, he would be disappointed. English as MOI was required to be no more than 30%. Therefore, when she was training her students, she would ask them to start with 50% of English as MOI, and gradually decrease that to 40%, and then 30%, step by step so as to avoid over-dependence on Chinese and focus on the learning objective of TL. This blunt assessment of learners’ L1 as an unavoidable necessity but unwelcome intrusion in the CFL classroom demonstrates no appreciation of the numerous judicious uses of L1 that can leverage students’ existing language resources to support and manage learning. Students in the TCSOL program resorted to this quantitative assessment when asked about the use of L1 in classrooms they had experienced. S1 recalled his classroom teacher using about 85% Chinese, in contrast to less than 50% in his one-on-one tutoring of the young Chinese learner. S2 used mostly English for her language buddy task. S3 asked beginners to explain vocabulary in L1. Arguably, tolerance of MOI is connected with teaching experiences, and especially less formal teaching when a teacher faces a limited number of learners, which may provide more opportunities to observe what supports students’ needs and the resources they enjoy concerning their language background. Generally speaking, for formal classroom teaching, teachers tend to feel more confined by the approach prescribed by institutions, or the conventions suggested by language teaching textbooks. When asked, S1 and S2 estimated 85% of MOI was in Chinese when they worked as TA or taught for trial teaching, but when they taught as a language buddy or private tutor, English seemed to be their first choice. In S2’s case, she used mostly English even when dealing with intermediate learners who should be able to understand much Chinese. Similarly, S3, who worked as a TA and observed teachers using exclusively Chinese, offered English explanations to the Portuguese learner one-on-one when she found the latter’s difficulty in catching up with Chinese teaching. It is mainly through opportunities for teaching practice that pre-service teachers observe and accumulate experience concerning specific strategies for multilingual teaching approach, and begin to use more nuanced ways of discussing L1 use in CFL classrooms. For example, E1 advocated the teachers’ use of learners’ L1 to facilitate development of a personal bond with them after the class. S1 made exactly the same point with his teaching experience of gaining the young reluctant learner’s trust and making learning possible. Their experiences echoes Cook’s (2001, p. 416) observation that the use of L1 helps teachers to treat their students “as their real selves rather than dealing with assumed L2 personas.” Another important use as recalled by

164

L. Lei

the interviewees is, in Cook’s word, to “provide a short-cut for giving instructions and the explanations where the cost of the L2 is too great” (2001, p. 418). S1 mentioned the efficiency of explaining the abstract words in the learners’ familiar language so as to facilitate their understanding and memorizing. S2 added the example of ‘west wind’ (L 318–319) to illustrate a teaching point that takes complicated explanation and may benefit from L1 use. In Chinese culture, only east wind from the ocean brings warmth and raindrops, and is usually connected with a sign of victory in ancient stories, whereas the west wind, cold and dry, is an image with sad connotations in ancient Chinese poems. S3 bemoaned that she could not even teach Chinese grammar as simple as primary school level without code-switching, though she believed it was due to her lack of experience or expertise. Her reluctant admission demonstrates Cook’s (2001) point, as in many cases to explain grammar in the TL would only make it more abstract and intimidating, at best less efficient. We cannot help wondering how her teaching may improve if she had been prepared for the realities by learning about ways to manage L1 use as a learning resource and thus getting rid of her guilt and self-doubt. On the other hand, interviewees’ self-expectations to be the all-knowing authority and the center of teaching process may limit their MOI use. They probably would disagree with the argument that “student uses of the L1 do not necessarily mean that the teacher has to know the L1” (Cook, 2001, p. 417), arguably because their insights into multilingual practices originate in their (limited) experiences rather than a theoretical and research-based introduction through their teacher education program. For instance, E1 thinks if teachers accept all languages used by the learners in classrooms, as long as they can handle the language learning task in the end, it would be a great challenge for teachers, for that situation entails a command of all the languages possibly used. Otherwise, it would be useless. Reflecting this perspective, S1 expressed his concern that a teacher with only passable level of Portuguese should refrain from using her students’ L1, so as to avoid the risk of ambiguities or misunderstanding. English should be better than Portuguese in that situation, he argued, as the teacher was probably more proficient in English. In this case, he seems to take it for granted that English could be used as MOI, which both teachers and learners rely on as an additional language, regarding only the learners’ L1 as problematic. He even explained one of his reasons for choosing to use Chinese more than English is that his English is not necessarily better than the students’. Such a self-demand of omniscience actually deprives teachers of the possibilities of taking risks and allowing students to carry out collaborative meaning-making activities with their teacher using their language resources.

5 Concluding Remarks There are inconsistencies between the classroom practices related to use of the existing language resources of learners promoted in a TCSOL teacher education program and “what teachers and students think and do in reality” (Wang, 2019, p. 145), as revealed in the reflections of three pre-service teachers. This suggest that future

Multilingualism in Teaching Chinese to Speakers of Other Languages …

165

teacher education for teaching CFL may benefit if we incorporate into it a more constructive comparison between L1 and TL, for the existing theories concerning such comparison mostly focus on differences, ranging from pronunciation to grammar, and emphasize them as points of difficulty for learners. This tends to help formulate a negative stance towards the learners’ L1. In fact, if we can change this mindset and focus on the other aspect, it should be not difficult to find what can be helpful in all learners’ L1, though it may vary significantly from language to language. Such a reform would encourage future teachers to cherish their students’ language resources in the first place. If we are ready to accept the use of languages other than the TL as an inevitable and necessary part of multilingual education for additional language learning, then further study of when and how to use them to reap the most benefit should be conducted. Currently, only a blunt measurement is passed on from educators to future teachers, be it a percentage regarded as acceptable, or feedback such the use of L1 has exceeded what is necessary for this level of learners. However, preparing pre-service teachers for TCSOL as a complex system that involves more specific strategies concerning learner’s L1, language level, learning motivation, learning style, cultural background, and so on, is yet to be studied so as to guide adoption by practitioners of multilingual approaches. Furthermore, TCSOL programs may consider exposing their students to a dynamic bilingualism [multilingualism], as suggested by Garcia & Kleyn (2013, p. 4) that recognizes bilingual language practices as “complex and interrelated, rather than linear.” In this view, an ideal language teaching and learning process in multilingual classrooms should involve teachers and learners using existing language resources for interaction. This means the educator and the pre-service teachers wouldn’t be uncomfortable to imagine a Chinese teacher encouraging classroom use of a language in which she is not proficient for communication and learning.

References Bureau of Education and Cultural Affairs. (2019). Critical language scholarship program. https:// exchanges.state.gov/cls. Catalano, T., & Hamann, E. T. (2016). Multilingual pedagogies and pre-service teachers: Implementing “language as a resource” orientations in teacher education programs. Bilingual Research Journal, 39(3–4), 263–278. https://doi.org/10.1080/15235882.2016.1229701. Chan, J. Y. H. (2018). Attitudes and identities in learning English and Chinese as a lingua franca: a bilingual learners’ perspective. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 39(9), 759–775. https://doi.org/10.1080/01434632.2018.1438446. Cook, V. (2001). Using the first language in the classroom. The Canadian Modern Language Review, 57(3), 402–423. https://doi.org/10.3138/cmlr.57.3.402. Cook, V. (2013). ELF: Central or atypical second language acquisition? In D. Singleton, J. A. Fishman, L. Aronin, & M. Ó. Laoire (Eds.), Current multilingualism: A new linguistic dispensation (pp. 27–44). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

166

L. Lei

Creese, A., & Blackledge, A. (2010). Translanguaging in the bilingual classroom: A pedagogy for learning and teaching? The Modern Language Journal, 94(1), 103–115. https://doi.org/10.1111/ j.1540-4781.2009.00986.x. Cummins, J. (2007). Rethinking monolingual instructional strategies in multilingual classrooms. Canadian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 10(2), 221–240. http://www.aclacaal.org/wp-content/ uploads/2013/08/7-vol-10-no2-art-cummins.pdf. Dole, J. A., & Sinatra, G. M. (1998). Reconceptalizing change in the cognitive construction of knowledge. Educational Psychologist, 33(2–3), 109–128. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520. 1998.9653294. Gaokao. (2019). Chinese International Education. https://gaokao.chsi.com.cn/zyk/zybk/ specialityDetail.action?specialityId=73383463. García, O. (2009). Bilingual education in the 21st century: A global perspective. Oxford: WileyBlackwell. Garcia, O., & Kleyn, T. (2013). Teacher education for multilingual education. In C. A. Chapelle (Ed.), The encyclopedia of applied linguistics (pp. 1–6). Oxford: Blackwell. Garcia, O., & Li, W. (2014). Translanguaging in education: Principles, implications and challenges. In O. Garcia & W. Li (Eds.), Translanguaging: Language, Bilingualism and Education (pp. 119– 135). New York: Palgrave Macmillan. Ji, C., & Liu, F. (2017). Ouzhou kongzi xueyuan hanyu guoji chuanbo xianzhuang yu sikao [Current situation of and thinking on Confucius Institutes’ spreading of Chinese language in Europe]. Lilun Yuekan [Theory Monthly], 2017(2), 173–178. Kegan, R. (1994).In over our heads: The mental demands of modern life. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Lewis, G., Jones, B., & Baker, C. (2012a). Translanguaging: Developing its conceptualization and contextualization. Educational Research and Evaluation, 18(7), 655–670. https://doi.org/10. 1080/13803611.2012.718490. Lewis, G., Jones, B., & Baker, C. (2012b). Translanguaging: origins and development from school to street and beyond. Educational Research and Evaluation, 18(7), 641–654. https://doi.org/10. 1080/13803611.2012.718488. Li, Q., & Jin, X. (2014). Lun guoji hanyu jiaoxue yinxing ziyuan ji qi kaifa [The analysis of international Mandarin teaching resources and their development]. Yuyan Jiaoxue Yu Yanjiu [Language Teaching and Linguistic Studies], 2014(2), 26–34. Li, W. (2018). Translanguaging as a practical theory of language. Applied Linguistics, 39(1), 9–30. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amx039. Liu, X. (2000). Introduction to TCSOL Pedagogy (Duiwai Hanyu Jiaoyuxue Yinlun). Beijing: Language University Press. Macaro, E. (2009). Teacher use of codeswitching in the second language classroom: Exploring ‘optimal’ use. In M. Turnbull & J. Dailey-O’Cain (Eds.), First language use in second and foreign language learning (pp. 35–49). Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Ortega, L. (2014). Ways forward for a bi/multilingual turn in SLA. In S. May (Ed.), The multilingual turn: implications for SLA, TESOL, and bilingual education (pp. 32–53). London: Routledge. Orton, J. (2011). Educating Chinese language teachers: Some fundamentals. In L. Tsung & K. Cruickshank (Eds.), Teaching and learning Chinese in global contexts: CFL worldwide (pp. 151– 164). New York: Continuum. Plumb, B. (2016). On the possibility of Mandarin Chinese as a lingua franca. Journal of Educational Issues, 2(2), 48–59. https://doi.org/10.5296/jei.v2i2.9458. Shi, G. (1983). Waiyu zai duiwai hanyu jiaoxue zhong de zuoyong [Use of foreign languages in TCSOL]. Waiyu Jiaoxue Yu Yanjiu [Language Teaching and Linguistic Studies], 1983(2), 43–49. Shi, J. (2016). Hanyu guoji jiaoyu zhuanye rencai peiyang de xianzhuang, wenti he fazhan fangxiang [The current situation, problem and development trend of TCSOL education]. Guoji Hanyu Jiaoyu [International Chinese Language Education], 2016(1), 13–17. Silverman, D. (2000). Doing qualitative research: A practical handbook. London: SAGE.

Multilingualism in Teaching Chinese to Speakers of Other Languages …

167

Sun, D. (2003). Duiwai hanyu jiaoxue yuyan yanjiu chuyi [The pedagogical language used in Teaching Chinese as a Second Language (TCSL) and its studies]. Yuyan Wenzi Yingyong [Applied Linguistics], 2003(3), 98–105. https://doi.org/10.16499/j.cnki.1003-5397.2003.03.016. Victorian Institute of Teaching. (2019). Qualifications policy: English language competence policy. https://www.vit.vic.edu.au/registering-as-a-teacher/how-do-i-register-as-a-teacher/ qualifications/qualifications-policy#English. Walton, R. (1989). Chinese language instruction in the United States: Some reflections on the state of art. Journal or Chinese Language Teachers Association, 24(2), 1–42. Wang, D. (2019). Translanguaging in Chinese foreign language classrooms: Students and teachers’ attitudes and practices. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 22(2), 138–149. https://doi.org/10.1080/13670050.2016.1231773. Wang, D., & Kirkpatrick, A. (2012). Code choice in the Chinese as a foreign language classroom. Multilingual Education, 2(3), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1186/2191-5059-2-3. Williams, C. (2002). A language gained: A study of language immersion at 11–16 years of age. Bangor: School of Education University of Wales Bangor. http://www.bangor.ac.uk/addysg/ publications/Language_Gained%20.pdf. Wu, Q. (2018). Meijieyu zai chuji hanyu eryu jiaoxue zhong zuoyong de shizheng yanjiu [An empirical study of the use of medium of instruction in elementary CSL teaching]. Yuyan Jiaoxue Yu Yanjiu [Language Teaching and Linguistic Studies], 194(6), 48–57. Xu, Z., & Wu, R. (2013). Practical teaching methodology in TCSOL (Shiyong Duiwai Hanyu Jiaoxuefa). Beijing: Peking University Press. Zhang, H. (2003). Guanyu diyi tang hanyu ke de yuyan moshi chuangjian [The creation of a model for the very first Chinese language class]. Yuyan Jiaoxue Yu Yanjiu [Language Teaching and Linguistic Studies], 2003(5), 70–74.

Lei Li is currently Director of College English Department in the School of Foreign Languages of Beijing Normal University, Zhuhai. She specializes in teaching English Reading and Academic Writing to undergraduates. Her research interests include learning strategies and motivation in SLA, and multilingualism in language teaching.

Norms of Practices and Pre-service Teacher Education for Multilingual Mathematics Classrooms in South Africa Anthony A. Essien

Abstract In any (mathematics) classroom, there are norms, whether explicit or implicit, that guide social interactions and classroom practice in general. In multilingual classrooms, such as the ones in South Africa where students come to school with varying levels of proficiency in both their home languages and English (the language of teaching and learning), the types of norms that are constituted in class determine the nature of student participation in mathematical activities. This chapter investigates the norms of practice that are prevalent in three mathematics teacher education classrooms and how these norms co-construct the classroom community. Data were collected through classroom observations of three teacher education classrooms at two Universities in South Africa. The data were qualitatively analysed using Wenger’s notion of participation and relating this notion to three types of norms: conversational, conceptual, and interpersonal norms. Findings revealed that the nature of norms in each of the three classrooms prepared the pre-service teachers differentially for teaching in multilingual classrooms. Recommendations are made for teacher education multilingual classrooms. Keywords Norms of practice · Teacher education · Discourse · Participation · Language diversity

1 Introduction Research has long acknowledged the complexities involved in teaching mathematics in multilingual contexts. In South Africa, the context that gives rise to this complexity is multifaceted. The first is the nature of multilingualism itself. Of the 11 official languages, nine are indigenous African languages, the other two being Afrikaans and English. Seven of the African languages are generally grouped into two major groups based on their linguistic distance: the Sotho languages and the Nguni languages. Languages within the same group are mutually intelligible. The remaining A. A. Essien (B) University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, South Africa e-mail: [email protected] © Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020 W. Tao and I. Liyanage (eds.), Multilingual Education Yearbook 2020, Multilingual Education Yearbook, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-41211-1_10

169

170

A. A. Essien

two indigenous languages are autonomous languages with very little or no common lexicon. The second complexity is that of the political history of apartheid in the country. During the apartheid regime, mother-tongue education was used for very different reasons to those advocated by recent research on the importance of home language in the teaching and learning of mathematics. It was used as a tool of oppression in the sense that it was a mechanism used to keep the black population subjugated and inferior to the white population. This has had serious implications for how the use of indigenous languages in teaching and learning is perceived in South Africa (Setati, 2008). Finally, the complexity is seen in the fact that students and teachers come to class not only with different home languages, but also with varying proficiencies in their home language(s) and varying proficiency in English, the language of teaching and learning. As Young (1995) noted, one of the key challenges facing teacher education in South Africa is how to equip teachers with the necessary knowledge on how to deal with the complexity of teaching in a multilingual context such as that of South Africa. In South Africa, most teacher educators are multilingual; most pre-service teachers attend lectures in multilingual classrooms, and most would teach in multilingual classrooms after graduation. It is my contention that it cannot be taken for granted that at the end of their teacher preparation, newly qualified teachers automatically know how to teach effectively in multilingual classrooms by virtue of being multilingual themselves and having been trained in a multilingual context similar to the classrooms they will encounter in schools. I argue that a direct attempt to enculturate pre-service teachers into the intricacies of teaching in multilingual classrooms is needed. One way of doing this is creating and modelling situations in which the classroom environment lends itself to increased participation in discussions around the mathematical concepts at hand. Put differently, given that mathematics is a social activity (Bednarz, 1996; Cobb & McClain, 2001; Moschkovich, 2002), any teaching (and learning) involves some kind of interaction/talk or discourse; teacher-learner interaction, learner-learner interaction and learner-content interaction are of critical importance. As a social process, mathematics is learnt through discussion with others and the sharing of ideas to help develop mathematical understanding of concepts. The nature of this discussion, and who participates in the discussion, is in turn determined by the norms that guide classroom practice. In any mathematics classrooms, there are both mathematical practices and norms of practice that serve as regularities that guide social interaction and enable (or not) the acquisition or construction of knowledge. While mathematical practices, it can be argued, are concerned with the dynamics of the learning process, norms of practice are concerned with the dynamics of the discourse process. Hence, norms of practice are concerned with the patterns and rules of engagement that contribute to the stability of the mathematics discourse and the discourse community. The norms of a classroom community, whether implicit or explicit, influence the discourse patterns of the classroom by way of who speaks when and for what reasons, and whether the interaction is dialogic or authoritative (Mortimer & Scott, 2003) or a combination of both (Essien, 2013). As Güven

Norms of Practices and Pre-service Teacher Education …

171

and Dede (2017) argue, norms of practice are what differentiates one mathematics classroom from another classroom. There has been a lot of research focusing on norms of practices in mathematics classrooms in primary/high school levels but only limited research focus on teacher education mathematics classrooms. None of this research on norms in teacher education specifically focus on teacher education classrooms in a context of language diversity. The present chapter attempts to fill this gap by posing the question, What are the norms particularly needed in mathematics teacher education classrooms such as those in the South African multilingual mathematics context? In providing answers to this question, I explore the norms within three multilingual teacher education classrooms in South Africa, delineate the norms of practice that are prevalent in these classrooms, and how these norms co-construct the mathematics pre-service teacher education classrooms.

2 Norms and Mathematics Teaching and Learning Past research (e.g., Lee, 2014; Moore & Kearsley, 1996) has shown that there is a direct relationship between students’ active engagement and learning outcomes. This active engagement of students comes through the nature of talk that is inherent in a particular classroom. The extent to which students engage in the classroom is a function of what is normative in such classrooms. In their study of undergraduate teaching of first-order differential equations, Yackel, Rasmussen, and King (2000) focused on two key norms in which students were required, first, to explain their thinking and also to try to make sense of fellow students’ thinking, and, second, to ground their explanations in understanding of the rates of change. They found that the nature of classroom norms was a strong index as to the extent to which student were able to make sense of the mathematics at hand. This finding resonates with finding made by Fukawa-Connelly (2012) in his study of proofs in undergraduate abstract algebra course. Fukawa-Connelly’s (2012) study further found that when certain norms are fostered in class, they are likely to develop a sense of communal and joint responsibility for the co-construction of the mathematics at hand and thus lead to better grasp of proofs in abstract algebra. The study by Güven and Dede (2017) focused more specifically on teacher education. Using pre-service teachers as participants, they investigated what norms regulate mathematics classroom microcultures. What is interesting in their study is that they focused on delineating norms for both the mathematics content courses and mathematics education courses. Their study found that within the same teacher education programme, norms of different qualities can be established and sustained in both the mathematics content courses and the mathematics education courses. What comes to the fore in all the above research studies is the role of the teacher (or teacher educator) in fostering the (joint) development of mathematics classroom norms that enable not only content ‘acquisition’, but also productive engagement around the mathematics content at hand. In pre-service teacher education classroom,

172

A. A. Essien

my contention is that it is still not enough to foster these norms, but also to enculturate pre-service teachers into the importance of creating productive norms in mathematics classrooms that have the potential to lead to constructive discussion around the mathematics content.

3 Theoretical Orientation The overarching framework for this study is Wenger’s (1998) communities of practice theory, and very particularly, his notion of participation. Wenger (pp. 55–56) defines participation as …a process of taking part and also [to] the relations with others that reflect this process. [It is] the social experience of living in the world in terms of membership in social communities and active involvement in social enterprises. Participation in this case is both personal and social.

For Wenger, participation shapes and defines the way one belongs to the community in which one engages in some enterprises. Wenger (p. 56) also suggests that a defining characteristic of participation is its ability to bring about the “possibility of mutual recognition” and the mutual ability to negotiate meaning, but this does not necessarily entail equality or respect or even collaboration. Hence, for Wenger, participation does not necessarily refer to harmonious relations, but also to conflictual relationships, intimate as well as political, competitive as well as cooperative relations. The concept of participation, for Wenger, involves what he calls the “profoundly social character of our experience of life” (p. 57). Tusting (2005, p. 38) notes that, according to Wenger, participation “draws attention to the ‘social-ness’ of all sorts of activities which arise from particular identity and community affiliations, even when these activities may not appear in themselves social or participatory.” Participation shapes not only the individual but also the collective. In a multilingual class where teachers are faced with what Barwell (2009) refers to as the triple challenge of paying attention to mathematics, attention to English as the language of learning and teaching (LoLT), and attention to the mathematical language, the nature of participation can potentially develop both students’ spoken language and their mathematical language while at the same time enabling the development of mathematical meanings. Participation and norms have a dialectic relationship. In multilingual teacher education classrooms, how participation is organised and where authority stems from can shape what norms of practice are valued and how pre-service teachers are enculturated into the role these norms play in developing mathematical meaning in multilingual contexts. On the other hand, the types of norms that are constituted in any classroom determine the nature of participation that will occur in the classroom because norms are regularities that guide social interactions. Norms are expectations/obligations, implicit or explicit, that community members have of one another (Yackel, Cobb, & Wood, 1991). Yackel et al. (1991) argue that it is through the interlocking obligations in the mutual construction of classroom norms that make

Norms of Practices and Pre-service Teacher Education …

173

it possible for participants to act appropriately in specific situations, giving rise to observable interaction patterns. Drawing from different works on norms in mathematics classrooms, two constructs pertaining to norms of practice in mathematical classrooms became pertinent for the present framework: social norms, and sociomathematical norms (McClain & Cobb, 2001; Voigt, 1995; Yackel & Cobb, 1996). Perhaps, the most concise distinction between social norms and sociomathematical norms is provided by Yackel (2000, p. 11, italics in original): Social norms [] are generally classroom norms that could apply to any subject matter area. They are not unique to mathematics. […]. The distinction between social norms and sociomathematical norms is a subtle one. For example, the understanding that students are expected to explain their solutions and ways of thinking is a social norm, whereas the understanding of what counts as an acceptable mathematical explanation is a sociomathematical norm.

For the purpose of my study, I re-categorise both social norms and sociomathematical norms into three types: Conversational norms, conceptual norms and interpersonal norms. These are the categories used in delineating the norms of practice in the teacher education classrooms that provided context for my study. Conversational norms guide interaction in the class and do not relate directly to the content of the mathematics at hand. Examples would include the taking turns to speak norm, the speak-out norm, etc. Conceptual norms relate directly to the mathematical content under discussion. Examples include the justification norm, the mathematics justification norm, the consensus norm, the non-ambiguity norm, etc. Interpersonal norms are related to conversational norms, more particularly, these are norms that guide the interpersonal relations in the class. Examples of interpersonal norms include the avoidance of threat norm; the non-ridicule norm where one is expected not to ridicule the contributions of fellow students, etc. (see Essien, 2013; Essien & Adler, 2016). These three types of norms are intertwined and enable the participation that occur in classrooms (Fig. 1). Because participation is geared towards a goal (the understanding of a mathematical concept in mathematics classrooms), conceptual norms are at the centre of the framework. The conversational and interpersonal norms are essential in that they both regulate classroom interaction with the purpose of enabling sense making of Fig. 1 Framework of study

Conversational norms

PARTICIPATION

Conceptual norms

Interpersonal norms

174

A. A. Essien

the mathematical concept at hand. In a subsequent section, I provide a list of norms that emerged from the classrooms and their descriptors.

4 The Study The wider study for this research consisted of a sample of four universities in one province in South Africa. For the study reported in this chapter, three teacher educators, identified here using pseudonyms, were selected from two of these universities, hereafter, University A and University B. The choice of these teacher educators as a focus for this chapter is because the three present certain similarities but more importantly, some fundamental differences across the universities and across their individual classrooms. All three teacher educators teach the same kind of pre-service teachers in terms of the majority of the pre-service teachers’ linguistic background. In terms of their difference, Mbali (University A) is multilingual and shares a common language (or common languages) with most of the pre-service teachers in her class. English is a ‘second’ language for her. Esther (University B) is a bilingual second language English speaker and does not share a common first language with the pre-service teachers. Lebo (University B), on the other hand, is a monolingual first language English speaker and does not share a common first language with most of her pre-service teachers. The two universities were chosen because they present contrasting contexts, linguistic and otherwise, of pre-service teacher education. English is an additional language for the majority of pre-service teachers and teacher educators at University A. At University B, the pre-service teachers come from a range of linguistic backgrounds, while a good number of the teacher educators have English as their first language. I observed each of the teacher educators teach a mathematics topic from start to finish. Mbali and Esther taught statistics, while Lebo taught probability.

4.1 Method of Analysis For the purpose of the present study, I use three categorisations described previously to describe emergent norms in the pre-service teacher education classroom communities: conversational norms, conceptual norms and interpersonal norms (Essien & Adler, 2016). These three categorisations were recontextualised from literature dealing with norms of practice and guided by my own data. Hence the norms of practice in use were developed both a priori and a posteriori. The aim was not to examine how the norms were communally constituted, but to delineate the norms that were present in the mathematics classroom of each of the three teacher educators in order to make sense of how certain characteristics of the teacher education classroom practice and regularities in classroom activities are influenced by the social context of the

Norms of Practices and Pre-service Teacher Education …

175

community and how, in turn, they influence the dynamics of teaching and learning in the multilingual pre-service teacher education classrooms. What was important in developing conjectures about the emergent norms of practice in the mathematics classroom was to look for instances, regularities and patterns in the way the pre-service teacher education classroom communities acted and interacted as they engaged with classroom mathematical activities. For a norm to be considered to have occurred, there needed to be some recurrence. Only one instance of, for example prompts for rephrasing, was not sufficient. ‘Regularities’ used in the definition of norms imply that there is some form of consistent reoccurrence of a particular ‘instance of a norm’. Table 1 shows some of these norms and their recognition rules. In developing conjectures about the emergent norms of practice present/being constituted in each of the mathematics communities in this study, as with McClain and Cobb (2001, p. 241), I looked for instances, regularities and patterns (or breaches to the norms) in the way the pre-service teacher education classrooms acted and interacted as they engaged with classroom mathematical activities. For example: prompts for rephrasing/reiteration would indicate the non-ambiguity norm; also, words such as ‘why’ expressed through questions or the use of ‘because’ would indicate a justification norm. In the justification norm for example (as with other norms), I not only looked for instances where a member of the community is reminded to justify his/her answer or assertion (by, for example being asked a ‘why’ question), but also instances where a member of the community provides justification for his/her answer or conjecture without being asked/reminded directly to do so.

4.2 Findings from Study Mbali’s Classroom (University A) A series of lessons were observed in Mbali’s statistics class for third year pre-service teachers. As a product of the old South African curriculum, the pre-service teachers were encountering statistics for the first time, since they did not do statistics as a mathematics topic at high school level. English is not the home language for both the teacher educator and the pre-service teachers. The table below is an overview of the predominant norms of practice in Mbali’s classroom. Table 2, indicates that collaboration norm and choral response were the most ‘visible’ norms.1 Given that the choral response norm featured the most during explanations and proceduralisation in Mbali’s class, I now give it some attention by using

1 It

must be noted that due to the communicative approach and the pattern of discourse used by Mbali, it was difficult for me as an outsider to ascertain the presence of other norms.

176

A. A. Essien

Table 1 Some norms of practice and their descriptors (Essien, 2013, p. 102) Category: norms of practices

NP in use (sub-category)

Code

Code identification rule(s)

Conversational norms

Participation by all norm

[NP-PA]

The expectation that all members in the class participate in the classroom activity. This is evident, when for example: – the teacher educator calls to find out if some less active students are following the lesson; – the teacher educator directs question explicitly and overtly to members in class who have not given input in the discussion. Example: “Amelia, you have been quiet today. Please can you answer the question?”

Collaboration norm

[NP-CB]

Relates to group work. The expectation that all members of the group work together and engage to solve a mathematics problem

Speak-out norm

[NP-SO]

The expectation that members of the community should speak loud enough for everyone to hear. Phrases like ‘louder’, ‘speak up please’, etc. would indicate the speak-out norm

Mathematically sensible norm

[NP-MS]

The expectation that a member’s solution or solution strategy makes sense to others, or that a member’s explanation of a maths concept makes sense to others Words like, ‘does that make sense to you’, anyone wants to challenge that’ and ‘do you agree’ may depict such expectation

Conceptual norms

(continued)

Norms of Practices and Pre-service Teacher Education …

177

Table 1 (continued) Category: norms of practices

Interpersonal norms

NP in use (sub-category)

Code

Code identification rule(s)

Consensus norm

[NP-CS]

When group members are expected to reach an agreement on the solution to a maths question or on an explanation of a maths concept

Non-ambiguity norm

[NP-NA]

Expectation that mathematical expressions are clear and unambiguous, expressed through prompts for rephrasing Example: T: What is the formula we use to calculate the distance between 2 points? S: we use the same formula [laughter] T: what is that ‘the same formula’? What is that ‘the same formula’? Yes sir

Justification norm

[NP-JN]

The expectation that a member has to justify her/his opinion(s). Expressed through words such as “because”, “that is why”, “would you explain why…?”

No ridicule norm

[NP-NR]

The expectation that no member of the community may be derided or laughed at if he/she makes a mathematically or grammatically incorrect statement

No sole arbiter of knowledge norm

[NP-SK]

The expectation that no one (teacher or pre-service teacher) should be treated as having the final say in the discussion around a mathematical situation

There is obviously a blurred boundary between conceptual norm and mathematical practices because they are both mathematical in a sense. But if the consensus norm, non-ambiguity norm, justification norm, etc. are more normative (that is, taken as regularities that guided the classroom discourse), they can be talked about as norms

178

A. A. Essien

Table 2 Privileged norms of practice evident in Mbali’s classroom Nature of norms of practice

Norms of practice

Conversational norms

Participation by all [NP-PA]

1

Collaboration norm [NP-CB]

10

Conceptual norms

Taking turns to speak norm [NP-TT]

0

Mathematically sensible norm [NP-MS]

0

Consensus norm [NP-CS] Choral response Non-ambiguity norm [NP-NA] Interpersonal norms

Total

1 111 0

Justification norm [NP-JN]

0

No sole arbiter of knowledge norm [NP-SK]

0

No ridicule norm [NP-NR]

0

Privileged (sometimes I refer to prominent/dominant/predominant norms of practices. Prevalent practices can be said to be dominant practices which have been privileged by the communities) norms of practice evident in Mbali’s classroom

the excerpt below which is paradigmatic of the type of interaction that occurred in Mbali’s classroom (TE is Teacher Educator and PST is pre-service teacher). Excerpt 1 1

TE

Now how do we arrange a frequency distribution table? First we have to look at the score, right?

2

PSTs

Yes

3

TE

Identify the smallest number of the scores and then identify the largest. Then we can arrange this in ascending order. Right? You can also arrange this in descending order. This is not, that we do this, this should only be arranged in ascending order, you can also arrange the scores in descending order. Right, from the given scores, what is the smallest?

4

PSTs

4

5

TE

The smallest is 4, right?

6

PSTs

Yes

7

TE

And then what is the largest?

8

PSTs

10

9

TE

Alright, the choice of arrangement of these will be yours. Let’s arrange this in descending order. You are saying that the scores, the highest that we have is 10, right? [under Score in the table writes 10]

10

PSTs

Yes

11

TE

And then the smallest is 4. So I want you in the table that you’ve drawn please arrange these scores in descending order. You just write the scores there from the highest to the smallest. Write them please. [class works this out]

12

TE

Do you understand what you have to do?

13

PSTs

Yes (continued)

Norms of Practices and Pre-service Teacher Education …

179

(continued) 14

TE

OK [class continues working this out]

15

TE

No, no, look, that’s why I said that this side… [points to the table] look, you write the scores without repeating them, neh (isn’t it)?

16

PSTs

Oh

17

TE

You just indicate the numbers that are there that you can see from this [points to the numbers] Right?

18

PSTs

Yes

19

TE

Without any repetitions. I think the frequency will clarify those repetitions

20

TE

OK, let’s check from the table that you have. What are the scores that you have on the left hand side? You have 10, that’s the highest, right?

21

PSTs

Yes

22

TE

And then I want to arrange this in descending order. What would be the next number noted?

23

PSTs

9

24

TE

[writes 9] And then followed by?

25

PSTs

8

26

TE

[writes 8] OK?

27

PSTs

7

The class continued this way until the mathematics question was solved. From Excerpt 1, above, it is evident that the collective way of responding has become normative in Mbali’s conduct of her classroom. Clarke, Xu, and Wan (2013) distinguish between eight types of choral responses: Yes/no (select choice) responses in which a class is required to choose yes or no when given two or at most three options; Numerical responses in which students are required to recognise or provide a numerical answer to a given question; Mathematical symbolic expressions are choral responses that consist of a combination of numbers, pronumerals and mathematical symbols representing equations, algebraic expressions, ordered pairs, etc. (p. 202); Mathematical terms, where students are expected to respond using specific mathematical language; Mathematical procedures is a type of choral response in which students join the teacher by stating the procedures (steps) involved in the solution of the mathematics problem; Mathematical propositions is a choral response in which students are expected to state whether or not a statement is a mathematical fact. The last two types of choral responses are non-mathematical responses which are responses related to the organisational aspects of the task; and unclassified responses which are choral responses that do not fall into any of the above categories.

180

A. A. Essien

In Excerpt 1, the predominance of the Yes/no (select choice) responses, the numerical responses and the mathematical procedures types of choral responses is evident. The students responded to short simple mathematics questions with ‘yes’ and provided the numerical value needed in the mathematical steps as the mathematics question is solved. Even when the TE asked the ‘how’ question (turn 1, ‘Now how do we arrange a frequency distribution table?’), she did not specifically expect students to respond to the question and provided the details herself. In the excerpt it is also clear that Mbali only asked students questions or prompts that require short procedural choral answers. Choral response as a norm of practice has its own advantages. Wang and Murphy (2004) argue that the frequent use of choral responses can reinforce the students’ identification with the group and create a sense of solidarity. Wang (2005, p. 50) argues that, as a pedagogic strategy, choral responses provide a platform for every student to “get the floor without bidding”. But as with choral responses, Mbali favoured the group voice over the individual. The implications of this are, first, that pre-service teachers who may have been struggling to understand may have been overlooked, and, second, even though choral response by definition is a conceptual norm, the way it was used by Mbali did not foster the development of mathematical meaning. As Wang (2005, p. 50) puts it, “in Choral Response, the teacher is the only targeted listener, where[as] in individual response, an individual student speaks to both the teacher (primary recipient) and the rest of the class (the secondary recipients).” Another drawback of choral response as was evident in Mbali’s class was that there was no verbal feedback because, most of the times, members of the classroom community realised that the answers are obviously correct due to the nature of the questions posed by the teacher. Furthermore, choral responses that fall into the category of mathematical proposition and mathematical terms that would have given students the opportunity of developing their mathematics language, were not used by Mbali. This was a missed opportunity to develop students’ spoken and mathematical language given that the multilingual students in this particular class were still learning English, the language of teaching and learning.

Lebo’s Classroom (University B) The topic of the observed lessons in Lebo’s classroom community was probability. As products of the old South African curriculum, the pre-service teachers had not studied probability previously and were thus encountering it for the first time. Table 3 provides a summary of the norms of practice in Lebo’s observed lessons. Table 3 indicates that conceptual norms, notably, consensus norm and mathematical sensibility norm were the most ‘visible’ in Lebo’s classroom. One clear attribute of Lebo’s class is that she was able, to some extent, to provide opportunity for some extended participation by learners that goes beyond one-word to two-words

Norms of Practices and Pre-service Teacher Education …

181

Table 3 Prevalent norms in Lebo’s classroom Nature of norms of practice

Norms of practice

Conversational norms

Participation by all [NP-PA]

4

Collaboration norm [NP-CB]

1

Conceptual norms

Total

Speak-out norm [NP-SO]

4

Taking turns to speak norm [NP-TT]

0

Mathematically sensible norm [NP-MS]

16

Consensus norm [NP-CS]

28

Non-ambiguity norm [NP-NA] Interpersonal norms

2

Justification norm [NP-JN]

3

No sole arbiter of knowledge norm [NP-SK]

3

Avoidance of threat [NP-AT]

0

No ridicule norm [NP-NR]

0

responses, as can be seen from the transcript below where the class was discussing the terms ‘fair’ and ‘unfair’ as it relates to spinners. Excerpt 2 1

TE

2

[nods] Yes. Now the big issue is that this is what we call a fair spinner. What do I mean by ‘fair’? [students make comments]

3

TE

Hmm?

4

PST1

It’s because the system… It’s because the system? you know in?. It’s a fair system it’s because there’s no telling where that arrow’s gonna land and therefore there’s no human contamination

5

TE

Wow!

6

PSTs & TE

[laughter]

7

TE

That was quite a story. Alright, let’s put it easy. Let’s put it simply. If I say it’s a fair spinner… OK, let me put another question to you: If it’s an unfair spinner what would it look like? Would I draw that on the board? How would I draw it? [points to a student] Yes?

8

PST2

Couldn’t the one thing be a slightly larger shape than the others?

9

TE

What do you mean by ‘the one thing’?

10

PST2

Oh sorry, um, the little red colour part, quarter

11

TE

Alright, I’m gonna draw an unfair spinner according to you

12

PST2

OK, so it can have 4 parts but it doesn’t mean that they are equal in size

13

TE

So in other words the red one could be that big? [draws an ‘unfair’ spinner]

14

PST2

Yes

15

TE

The green one could be that big?

16

PST2

Same student: Uh huh

17

TE

The white one could be that big (continued)

182

A. A. Essien

(continued) 18

PST2

And the blue one could be that big

19

TE

[this spinner has parts where the green and blue are much larger than the red and white]

20

TE

And the blue one… Now would that be… Would you say that if you spun that arrow around that spinner over here, what is the most likely – hear my language – ‘most likely’ that it will land on?

21

Some PSTs

Green

22

TE

It will land on green or blue. But in a case like this [points to the ‘fair’ spinner] do you see what I’m saying?

Overall, unlike in Mbali’s class, and especially in turn 4, the pre-service teachers can be seen to engage with the mathematical substance of the discussion in ways that go beyond mere procedural participation. This can be attributed to the nature of conceptual norms that Lebo had fostered in her class. The consensus and the mathematically sensible norms which were prominent in Lebo’s class meant that students were given opportunities to use the LoLT and mathematical language in such a way that creates a potential for the development of both languages for these multilingual students. A prominent feature in Lebo’s class was the use of hedges. The use of hedges by the pre-service teachers featured as a discursive repertoire within the community which impacted on explanatory practices of the pre-service teachers (PSTs) and how they (PSTs) responded to questions posed by the teacher educator. Contrary to the finding of Rowland (1995), where hedges were used to denote uncertainty, in Lebo’s Classroom, hedges were used by the PSTs to answer a number of questions posed by the teacher educator because of how the teacher educator received incorrect answers and how she evaluated incorrect answers. In Excerpt 3 below, the class was discussing the probability fractions associated with the probability language on a metre scale. Excerpt 3 1

TE

…And so you’re learning that there are 3 types of numbers, all linked to each other. Fraction language, OK? So what number goes, what fraction goes here?

2

PST1

Isn’t it three quarters?

3

TE

Three quarters [under 1 and to the left of 75% TE writes in pink chalk: ¾] And what about this half way mark here? [TE makes a mark half way between 50% and 0%] What fraction?

4

PST2

S: 1 over 2

5

PSTs

[Some]: 1 over 4

TE

T: Excuse me?

6

PSTs

[Students shout out] A quarter, one quarter

7

TE

T: Who said 1 over 2? Hang your head in shame! (continued)

Norms of Practices and Pre-service Teacher Education …

183

(continued) 8 9

[laughter] TE

OK, so it’s 1 over 4

In the previous excerpt (Excerpt 2), where the pre-service teachers were asked what an unfair spinner is (turn 8), rather than respond with an answer which is a statement, the pre-service teacher responded with a question-like answer ‘Couldn’t the one thing be a slightly larger shape than the others?’. This is also the case with Excerpt 3, above, in turn 2. The PST’s use of the phrases, ‘couldn’t the one thing be…’, in Excerpt 2 and ‘isn’t it…’, in Excerpt 3 in PSTs’ explanation was a shield against being reprimanded by the teacher educator should the answers not be what the teacher educator was looking for. Esmonde (2009) argues that the use of hedges in explanations provide insight as to the ways in which explanations can position the explainer in relation to others in the classroom and in relation to their mathematical knowledge. While there is no evidence that the use of hedges may have stunted the language development of the multilingual students in Lebo’s class, what it (the use of hedges) did was to play a negative role in the development of interpersonal norms in such a way that diminished a more robust participation in class.

Esther’s Classroom (University B) Esther’s class was on Statistics with a focus on distribution in two variables. As background, the class was engaging with a pre-planned task that was given to them by the teacher educator. The first activity in the task involved determining the most important variables (the most important things to consider) for a transport company whose business is to move items (e.g., furniture) for people who are relocating. The next activity on the task was to narrow these variables down to the two most important ones so that a scatter plot/line of best fit/regression line can be drawn. The task started as depicted in the diagram below.

184

A. A. Essien

The Task

And on page 2, the task continued thus:

This task guided the whole discussion on distribution in two variables and ended with finding the formula for finding the regression line and the formula for the least square regression. Table 4, below, gives an indication of the prevalent norms of practice in Esther’s classroom. Table 4 indicates a number of prevalent norms, among them the speak-out norm, participation by all norm, consensus norm, and the justification norm. The table also indicates that the teacher educator valued the co-construction of knowledge by

Norms of Practices and Pre-service Teacher Education …

185

Table 4 Prevalent norms in Esther’s classroom Nature of N. practice

Norms of practice

Total

Conversational norms

Participation by all [NP-PA]

18

Collaboration norm [NP-CB] Speak-out norm [NP-SO] Taking turns to speak norm [NP-TT] Conceptual norms

0

Mathematically sensible norm [NP-MS]

12

Consensus norm [NP-CS]

19

Non-ambiguity norm [NP-NA] Interpersonal norms

2 13

1

Justification norm [NP-JN]

12

No sole arbiter of knowledge norm [NP-SK]

13

Avoidance of threat [NP-AT]

3

No ridicule norm [NP-NR]

7

all by not regarding herself as the sole arbiter of knowledge. This has implications especially for the kind of participation that was prevalent in Esther’s classroom as evident in Excerpt 4, below, where the class was discussing how to draw the line of best fit after plotting the points: Excerpt 4 1

TE

…That is how our reasoning proceeded right? We can choose 2 points, we connect all the points[drawing] all that, then we have 2 points on that line, to add another sentence, to choose the first point and the last point, I actually thought well that could actually be a line that goes through those sets somewhere. Whether they are the best point is the question

2

PST1

Ma’am, I was thinking, maybe cos remember at first we were asking how do we get those lines …the first thing we did after checking is to ask yourself is…and when I was drawing my line, I was thinking of it like this, when am constructing it, I’ll choose points whereby if am having the line even though the points won’t be equal, the points like below the line and on top of the line must be equal or something

3

TE

Do you follow her? She says she challenges me for choosing the first and the last point. And she says she had a line where she chose the line in such a way that it has an equal number of points above and below. There are 16 so 8 points there and 8 points there. That’s how she chose her line. So what did I tell you about error?

4

PST2

I didn’t think about it

5

TE

You can think about it now?

6

PST2

I don’t know how to put it

7

TE

Remember, try. If you try, we can make it better

8

PSTs

[Inaudible]

9

TE

Loud, loud. You are losing their attention

10

PSTs

[indistinguishable sounds and voices] (continued)

186

A. A. Essien

(continued) 11

TE

You have as many errors there as many errors here, meaning as many there as many here. Okay, so I see you do that, you say it’ll balance. Your 8 points there and 8 points there are your strategy to find the line. You have an idea the error should balance up, Isn’t it? The positive errors and the negative errors you want them to balance out. Isn’t it?

12

PSTs

Yeah

13

PST3

Ma’am I think that with this line that you put between these two points of course it’s a huge error where you underestimate otherwise your company won’t survive in six months

In turn 7, the teacher educator uses a shared language, ‘if you try, we can make it better’. This expression is used often by the teacher educator to encourage the PSTs to make contributions, even when they struggle to express themselves mathematically. Esther makes them understand that they have to first make an attempt to answer, and from there, the classroom community ‘can make it better’. This tolerance towards mathematical and grammar related errors was instrumental in creating a classroom where the norm of participation by all and the no ridicule norm were valued in the community. This tolerance also partly explains why there was a high level of participation in Esther’s classroom, sometimes even without the teacher posing a question, as seen in turns 1 and 2. Through probing questions that involved the teacher posing why questions, the teacher educator developed extended dialogue around the variables that are necessary to consider when determining the cost of moving items from one point to the other. By juxtaposing diverse PSTs’ perspectives, Esther investigated mathematical connections among those diverse perspectives and enabled a joint construction of knowledge around the task through meaning negotiation. In engaging with the task, there were a number of discursive repertoires that the community had developed over time in instances that call for further explanation. Excerpt 5 below, is an example of one of such specialised language in Esther’s Classroom and how it was used in developing the content knowledge of the PSTs through explanatory and justificatory practices in which the shared language ‘does it mean that’ was used to get PSTs back on track or to enable them understand the concept at hand. The excerpt is drawn from the discussion on how to draw the line of best fit after plotting the graph.

Norms of Practices and Pre-service Teacher Education …

187

Excerpt 5 1

TE

Have I lost you?

2

PSTs

[Chorus] Yes

3

TE

Okay then you have to tell me; if I have lost you then help me to find out where I have lost you. You have to tell me does it mean that, please can I have a few questions of ‘does it mean that’?

4

PST1

Does it mean that we are ignoring these points [points that show fuel deceases as load increases]

5

TE

Does it mean that we are ignoring these points? Yes it is. We ignore those points because we say hey they’re unusual. We say it is unusual to get situations in which your fuel will decrease if your load increases. …the logical trend that it should increase the fuel consumption should increase if the weight increases. So it does mean that. Another ‘does it mean that’ question?

6

PST2

Yes ma’am, I don’t wanna say does it mean we ignore other points but say, does it mean that we ignore other factors

In the excerpt above, the TE was attempting to explain to the PSTs that in drawing a trend line, it makes sense to be guided by where the points are clusters than by points which appear to be outliers. Another shared language ‘does it mean that’ was a shared reference that the class used as they negotiated the mathematical knowledge around the concept of trend lines in statistics. The expression positions the teacher educator as having more access to the mathematics knowledge than the pre-service teachers. It also positions the pre-service teachers as attempting to access this knowledge. But more importantly, the combination of participation by all norm, mathematical sensibility norm, consensus norm and the no sole arbiter of knowledge norm created a conducive and safe environment that made it possible for the students to freely critique conjectures made by both the teacher educator and their fellow students. Because these norms were promoted in Esther’s class, there was increased participation by students in the class. Research has shown that in a bilingual or multilingual classrooms where extended dialogue is used as a pedagogical strategy, interactions between the educator and the students have, over time, changed from one- or twoword responses to learners beginning to initiate questions and taking longer turns (see Dansie, 2001; Dooley, 2001, in Dooley, 2002; Garcia, 1997, in Khisty & Morales, 2002). It can be argued that because of the greater opportunity afforded to students to participate, there was greater opportunity for the development of the language of teaching and learning in Esther’s class.

5 Discussion It is evident that the nature of participation differs in each of the three multilingual mathematics classrooms due to the norms that had been constituted in each classroom. Mbali’s class mostly had choral response norms and student engagement was not focused on the mathematical substances. As a result, Mbali’s classroom

188

A. A. Essien

largely focused on procedures for arriving at the correct answer, or what Robertson and Graven (2018) refer to as ‘right answerism’. On the other hand, Lebo’s class had mostly conceptual norms and less of productive conversational and interpersonal norms. Esther’s class had a fairly even distribution of norms across the three types of norms. It was in examining how classroom practices shape and are shaped by the norms of practice present in the classrooms that, as a researcher, I saw differences in the mathematics teacher education multilingual classrooms. The three classrooms opened up different possibilities for the pre-service teachers as far as preparing for teaching mathematics in multilingual classrooms is concerned. For Mbali (University A), due to the types of norms constituted in her class, there was limited interanimation of ideas around the mathematical concepts which meant that the pre-service teachers had limited opportunity to develop both their spoken language and their mathematical language, and limited knowledge of how to make use of contributions in class to further the mathematical development of concepts. It also meant that the pre-service teachers had limited opportunities for engaging in extended discussions around mathematical concepts. On the other hand, the types of norms constituted in Esther’s class facilitated pre-service teachers’ participation in the co-construction of knowledge while at the same time providing the pre-service teachers with opportunities for the development of mathematical discourse. Students in multilingual classrooms who do mathematics in a language which is not their first or home language need opportunities to engage in extended interactions in the classroom that allow them to use the second language (LoLT), to manipulate it, and to hear from others how the discourse, especially the academic language in mathematics, is used (Krashen, 1982). Unlike the pre-service teachers in Mbali’s class, those in Esther’s classroom would more readily develop the academic language of mathematics and be better prepared to use it, and the LoLT, with more facility when ready to begin their teaching careers.

6 Concluding Remarks What does all this mean for the training of pre-service teachers who would teach in multilingual mathematics classrooms at the end of their teacher preparation? Conteh (2000) argues that the principles which underpin good practices in multilingual contexts are essentially the same as should operate in all classrooms. In a sense, this is true since multilingual mathematics classrooms are first and foremost mathematics classrooms. Thus, what needs to be attended to in these classrooms are not just issues of language and communication but also critical issues of access to mathematical knowledge and pedagogy. But while the different categories of norms may be present in all mathematics classrooms, in a multilingual classroom, they are more complex and impact differently not only on the nature of discourse that takes place in the classroom but also on the opportunities that are opened up or closed down for students to develop competence in a LoLT which they are still learning, through which they are learning, and through which they will teach at the end of their qualifications.

Norms of Practices and Pre-service Teacher Education …

189

The know-how of being able to engage with students by putting in place certain norms of practice in multilingual classrooms, therefore, is more complex and differs to a certain degree from non-multilingual settings. Thus, this know-how consists of skills that need to also be in focus in teacher training as such skills are learnt and not necessarily acquired through the pre-service teachers’ mere experience of being in a multilingual environment. Attention needs to be paid to enculturating pre-service teachers into norms that enable multilingual students to deepen their mathematical meaning through participation in classroom talk. As noted by the NCTM (2013), fostering norms of practice entails focusing students’ attention on not only contributing to the mathematics discussions, but on understanding ideas propounded by others and exploring the merits of these ideas. My notion of enculturation entails, in addition, that teachers or teacher educators explicitly engage students with what norms of practice influence the nature of mathematics discussion in multilingual contexts that in turn leads to how students experience the content of the mathematics being taught. Beyond enculturation through exposure to and participation in norms of practices within teacher education classrooms, in a multilingual context such as that of South Africa, teacher education programmes needs to include in their mathematics curriculum an explicit pedagogy that attends to and recognises the importance of the relationship between norms of practice and productive classroom engagement.

References Barwell, R. (2009). Multilingualism in mathematics classrooms: An introductory discussion. In R. Barwell (Ed.), Multilingualism in mathematics classrooms: Global perspectives (pp. 1–13). Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Bednarz, N. (1996). Language activity, conceptualization and problem solving: The role played by verbalisation in the development of mathematical thought in young children. In H. Mansfield, N. Pateman, & N. Bednarz (Eds.), Mathematics for tomorrow’s young children: International perspectives on curriculum (pp. 228–239). Dordrecht: Kluwer. Clarke, D., Xu, L., & Wan, V. (2013). Choral response as a significant form of verbal participation in mathematics classrooms in seven countries. In A. Lindmeier & A. Heinze (Eds.), Proceedings of the 37th Conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (Vol. 1, pp. 201–208). Kiel, Germany: PME. Cobb, P., & McClain, K. (2001). An approach for supporting teachers’ learning in social context. In F.-L. Lin & T. Cooney (Eds.), Making sense of mathematics teacher education (pp. 207–231). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer. Conteh, J. (2000). Multilingual classrooms, standards and quality: Three children and a lot of bouncing balls. Language and Education, 14(1), 1–17. Dooley, K. (2002). Genre-based pedagogy and cooperative learning: Integrating strategies to achieve high quality outcomes for ESL students in mainstream primary school classes. TESOL in Context, 11(2), 12–17. Esmonde, I. (2009). Explanations in mathematics classroom: A discourse analysis. Canadian Journal of Science, Mathematics and Technology Education, 9(2), 86–99. Essien, A. (2013). Preparing pre-service mathematics teachers for teaching in multilingual classrooms: A community of practice perspective. Unpublished Doctoral thesis. Johannesburg: University of the Witwatersrand.

190

A. A. Essien

Essien, A., & Adler, J. (2016). Operationalising Wenger’s communities of practice theory for use in multilingual mathematics teacher education contexts. In A. Halai & P. Clarkson (Eds.), Teaching & learning mathematics in multilingual classrooms: Issues for policy, practice and teacher education (pp. 173–1930). Sense Publishers. Fukawa-Connelly, T. (2012). Classroom sociomathematical norms for proof presentation in undergraduate in abstract algebra. The Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 31(3), 401–416. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.jmathb.2012.04.002. Güven, D., & Dede, Y. (2017). Examining social and sociomathematical norms in different classroom microcultures: Mathematics teacher education perspective. Educational Sciences: Theory & Practice, 17, 265–292. http://dx.doi.org/10.12738/estp.2017.1.0383. Khisty, L. L., & Morales, H. (2002). Discourse matters: Equity, access and Latino’s learning mathematics. Retrieved from http://www.icme-organisers.dk/tsg25/subgroups/khisty.doc. Lee, J.-S. (2014). The relationship between student engagement and academic performance: Is it a myth or reality? The Journal of Educational Research, 107(3), 177–185. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 00220671.2013.807491. McClain, K., & Cobb, P. (2001). An analysis of the development of sociomathematical norms in one first-grade classroom. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 32(3), 236–266. Moore, M., & Kearsley, G. (1996). Distance education: A systems view. New York: Wadsworth. Mortimer, E. F., & Scott, P. H. (2003). Meaning making in secondary science classrooms. Philadelphia: Open University Press. Moschkovich, J. (2002). A situated and sociocultural perspective on bilingual mathematics learners. Mathematical Thinking and Learning, 4, 189–212. NCTM. (2013). Norms and mathematical proficiency. Teaching Children Mathematics, 20(1), 28– 35. Robertson, S.-A., & Graven, M. (2018). Exploratory mathematics talk in a second language: A sociolinguistic perspective. Educational Studies in Mathematics. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10649018-9840-5. Rowland, T. (1995). Hedges in mathematics talk: Linguistic pointers to uncertainty. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 29(4), 327–353. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf01273910. Setati, M. (2008). Access to mathematics versus access to the language of power: The struggle in multilingual mathematics classrooms. South African Journal of Education, 28, 103–116. Tusting, K. (2005). Language and power in communities of practice. In D. Barton & K. Tusting (Eds.), Beyond communities of practice: Language, power and social context (pp. 36–54). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Voigt, J. (1995). Thematic patterns of interaction and sociomathematical norms. In P. Cobb & H. Bauersfeld (Eds.), The emergence of mathematical meanings: Interaction in classroom cultures (pp. 163–201). Hillsdale, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Wang, T. (2005). Choral response in two six-grade mathematics classrooms in China: From discourse, pedagogical, and cultural perspectives. Ed.D. dissertation, Harvard University. United States, MA: Dissertations & Thesis, The Humanities and Social Sciences Collection (Publication No. AAT 3176361). Wang, T., & Murphy, J. (2004). An examination of coherence in a Chinese mathematics classroom. In L. Fan (Ed.), How Chinese learn mathematics: Perspectives from insiders (pp. 107–123). London: World Scientific Publishing. Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning, and identity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Yackel, E. (2000). Creating a mathematics classroom environment that fosters the development of mathematical argumentation. Paper presented at the Ninth International Congress of Mathematical Education, Tokyo/Makuhari, Japan. Yackel, E., & Cobb, P. (1996). Sociomathematical norms, argumentation, and autonomy in mathematics. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 27(4), 458–477.

Norms of Practices and Pre-service Teacher Education …

191

Yackel, E., Cobb, P., & Wood, T. (1991). Small-group interactions as a source of learning opportunities in second-grade mathematics. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 22(5), 390–408. Yackel, E., Rasmussen, C., & King, K. (2000). Social and sociomathematical norms in an advanced undergraduate mathematics course. The Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 19(3), 275–287. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0732-3123(00)00051-1. Young, D. (1995). Preparing teacher trainees to teach in multilingual classes. In K. Heugh, A. Siegruhn, & P. Pluddemann (Eds.), Multilingual Education for South Africa (pp. 107–112). Johannesburg: Heinemann. Krashen, S. D. (1982). Principles and practice in second language acquisition. Oxford: Pergamon Press.

Anthony A. Essien is an Associate Professor and the Head of the Mathematics Education Division at the University of the Witwatersrand. He is also an associate editor of Pythagoras—the academic journal of the Association for Mathematics Education of South Africa. His field of research is in mathematics teacher education in contexts of language diversity. He is a C2 NRF (National Research Foundation) rated Scientist. He is also a current member of the International Committee (IC) for the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (IGPME).

Teachers’ Cognitions on Motivating Language Learners in Multilingual Hong Kong Mairin Hennebry-Leung

Abstract Rooted in data gathered from a large-scale study in Hong Kong, this chapter examines English language teachers’ cognitions on motivating learners in a multilingual context. In so doing it offers unique affordances to critically examine the mediating role of sociocultural context in language teacher education policy and practice. The chapter draws on observation and interview data from English language teachers across English, Chinese and mixed medium instruction secondary schools to explore their cognitions on language learning motivation and examine the role of sociocultural context in shaping their practices and beliefs. The data points to an ad hoc approach to motivating students that is reactive and not proactive, responding not to the multilingual needs of learners, but to immediate classroom events. The chapter suggests that while much is known about the nature of motivation, this knowledge has yet to be integrated into language teacher education curricula. The chapter argues the need for teacher education to incorporate an explicit focus on motivational teaching practice, equipping teachers with the tools to develop socioculturally responsive pedagogical frameworks that are sensitive to the needs of their learners as multilingual citizens rather than language learners. Keywords Motivation · Teacher cognition · Medium of instruction

1 Introduction Language teachers today face unprecedented motivational challenges, the nature of which varies between the teaching of English and the teaching of other languages. In many global contexts, the learning of English language has come to be integrated in national curriculums as a basic skill, taught at all levels from primary to tertiary, and assessed through high-stakes examinations (Graddol, 2006). This has resulted in heavy demands being placed on teachers, both from institutions seeking to raise standards, and from students who increasingly expect to be not only taught, but M. Hennebry-Leung (B) The University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, China e-mail: [email protected] © Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020 W. Tao and I. Liyanage (eds.), Multilingual Education Yearbook 2020, Multilingual Education Yearbook, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-41211-1_11

193

194

M. Hennebry-Leung

entertained in the classroom and are, therefore, less likely than their predecessors to take a submissive role in class (Lamb, 2017). Through examining observation and interview data gathered in secondary schools, this chapter focuses specifically on motivational challenges faced by teachers of English in multilingual Hong Kong and discusses the implications for teacher education. Existing research points to the fact that 18–33% of variation in language learning success is associated with learners’ motivation (Masgoret & Gardner, 2003). Given the important influence teachers have on that motivation, it is reasonable that a motivational dimension should be considered an essential component of courses or programmes focused on language teacher preparation. Indeed, increasing trends towards assessment and evaluation of student performance and demands for greater accountability of language teachers for their students’ performance, has prompted calls for motivation research to more substantially contribute to teachers’ professional development (Wigfield, Cambria, & Eccles, 2012; Lamb, 2017). Such a contribution can only be meaningful insofar as it accounts for the contexts in which teachers work, aligning not only with situated views of teacher learning (Tsui, 2007), but also with a more authentic person-in-context relational view of motivation (Ushioda, 2009), where ‘person’ refers not only to the learner, but also the teacher. Furthermore, richer understandings of the complexity of teacher learning have led to recognition that attempts to persuade novice or experienced teachers to use pre-ordained instructional strategies are likely to end in failure if these strategies do not align with teachers’ existing beliefs and values (Borg, 2003; Kubanyiova, 2012).

2 Teacher Cognition Teachers bring to the classroom and their classroom practices implicit but deeply ingrained ideas and beliefs about language teaching and learning processes, resulting from years of experience as language learners (Freeman, 2002). On the basis of these ideas and beliefs they generate everyday concepts of language teaching and learning, often based on superficial understandings of these processes (Johnson & Golombek, 2011). In this view, effective teacher learning requires that teachers develop an interplay between everyday concepts and scientific concepts, rooted in up-to-date research and theories and tested through their own systematic observation and theorisation (Johnson & Golombek, 2011), and must, therefore, begin by uncovering and understanding the beliefs that teachers hold. Conversely, however, Clarke’s (1994) seminal critique of the theory/practice dichotomy discourse argues that teachers are too often positioned as passive recipients of theory, rather than as agents in its development. Wright (2010) outlines a shift in teacher education towards challenging the ‘Applied Linguistics model’ splitting practice and theory. This view builds on arguments that attention should be given less to ‘apprenticing’ teachers into an academic knowledge base and more to the ways in which abstract principles can be manifested in real classroom instruction (Bartels, 1999). This aligns with the notion that teacher education should focus on teachers within the sociocultural

Teachers’ Cognitions on Motivating Language Learners …

195

contexts of their school, and the activity of teaching, rather than seeing teaching as a pre-determined body of knowledge to be passed down through academic coursework (Freeman & Johnson, 1998). Williams (1999) argues for a helpful distinction between public and private theory, where the former refers to theory contained in the body of received knowledge in the field, and the latter is reflected in beliefs and actions. She further proposes that practice arises from personal theories and reflection on practice. On the other hand, while public theories can be integrated into practice, they are only reconstructed in light of contexts and participants, such that practice lies at the heart of theory construction and is also a product of theory enactment. Echoing this, Tsui (2011) highlights the need for teacher educators to support teachers in drawing relationships between their learning of theories on their courses and their own specific contexts and experiences, arguing that discrepancies between beliefs and classroom practices tend to result from the interaction between teachers’ prior beliefs and the perception of the immediate context and learners. Thus, exploring language teachers’ personal theories and the ways in which these interact both with their own practices and with public theory is essential for understanding motivational teaching practices as they unfold in the classroom context. As Lamb (2017, p. 333) argues: If we want to understand why and how teachers adopt and adapt [motivational strategies], researchers need to engage with the literature on teacher cognition, and conduct in-depth qualitative studies of individual teachers as ‘persons-in-context’ (Ushioda, 2009) … [They need] to see how their thinking has evolved over time, how they orient to the profession, and how they perceive the affordances and constraints of their particular context (Kubanyiova & Feryok, 2015) …

Giving expression to teachers’ cognitions then, not only constitutes the foundation of effective teacher preparation for motivational language teaching, but also provides a means through which to enfranchise teachers, allowing front-line expertise and experience to contribute to the extension of motivational research. Furthermore, drawing directly on teachers’ experiences and beliefs enables the development of a robust framework of motivational language teaching practice that is still in the early stages, to be firmly rooted in and scrutinized by classroom practice from the outset. In such a way, emerging theory can more authentically respond to macro, meso and micro contexts contributing to contextually responsive pedagogical frameworks (Douglas Fir Group (DFG), 2016). How teachers enact their practices in school and bridge their declarative knowledge of motivational teaching with their procedural knowledge in the classroom is an essential question for research to address in order to inform teacher education for motivational teaching practice.

2.1 Autonomy and Agency Teacher autonomy is considered to play an important role in generating and maintaining motivation in the language classroom (Glas, 2015). Given that we have already said that a priori lists of motivational strategies can only go so far, teachers need to be

196

M. Hennebry-Leung

able to respond to classroom realities, working within and even against structural features to create spaces and approaches that support their learners’ motivation (Jiménez Raya et al., 2007). Given that independent behavior and the structures that support or restrict autonomy can be witnessed by others, teacher autonomy has traditionally been considered observable to the outsider. There is, however, also a subjective facet of autonomy, which can be considered teachers’ sense of agency (Glas, 2015). In order to exercise and exhibit autonomy, teachers need to have a personal sense of agency, a subjective awareness of being in control of their actions and being able to act in accordance with their professional judgment, rather than feeling restricted by outside factors (Beijaard, Meijer, & Verloop, 2004). Agency in this context can be understood as “the capacity of actors to critically shape their own responsiveness to problematic situations” (Biesta & Tedder, 2006, p. 5). Such agency depends not only on the individual, but is also context-bound and socioculturally mediated, as seen in Ahearn’s (2001, p. 112) definition of agency as “the socioculturally mediated capacity to act.” Drawing on this understanding, Glas (2015) proposes that, in relation to teacher agency, the meditational means can be seen to refer to the repertoire of motivational strategies they possess, their teaching materials, or other tools that support their engagement with students. Teachers’ sense of agency for motivating their students can be mediated by both internal and external constraints, where the former may refer, for instance, to lack of experience, lack of self-efficacy, certain beliefs about one’s students, or about the learning situation. External constraints may include curricular policies, assessment procedures, imposed teaching methodologies, all of which are themselves mediated by teacher cognitions. Qualitative approaches that give voice to teacher cognitions provide a means through which to understand not only the decisions that teachers make as they seek to motivate their students, but also why they make these decisions, what influences converge to shape these decisions, and how teachers mediate the constraints they experience. Any effective teacher education programme needs to start from this knowledge-base.

2.2 Motivational Teaching Practice Motivational teaching strategies can be understood as instructional interventions applied “to consciously generate and enhance student motivation, as well as maintain ongoing motivated behaviour and protect it from distracting and/or competing action tendencies” (Dörnyei & Ushioda, 2011, p. 103). Research has extensively explored learner motivation, generating robust theoretical frameworks. In an attempt to relate this theoretical understanding to classroom practice, frameworks of motivational teaching strategies have been developed. Further work has attempted to relate what is known about learners’ motivation to the classroom, drawing pedagogical implications for language teachers (e.g. Alison & Halliwell, 2002; Dörnyei, 2006). Dörnyei and Csizér’s (1998) study of Hungarian EFL teachers’ views about motivational language teaching identified groups of teaching techniques which the teacher

Teachers’ Cognitions on Motivating Language Learners …

197

participants perceived as effective in motivating learners. These ‘ten commandments’, as termed by the authors, paved the way for Dörnyei’s (2001) taxonomy of 102 motivational strategies, which he proposed should be applied at various stages of the teaching process, from creating the basic motivational conditions → generating initial motivation → maintaining and protecting motivation → encouraging positive retrospective self-evaluation. The development of this taxonomy inspired a number of studies seeking to empirically validate it (e.g. Cheng & Dörnyei, 2007; Sugita McEown & Takeuchi, 2010). Such research has provided further support for strategies that teachers across sociocultural contexts consider effective for motivating learners (e.g., Cheng & Dörnyei, 2007; Guilloteaux, 2013). Others have compared teachers’ views with those of students (e.g. Sugita McEown & Takeuchi, 2014; Ruesch, Bown, & Dewey, 2012). More complex studies have evaluated the effectiveness of motivational strategies by examining learner behavior and self-reported motivation (e.g., Papi & Abdollahzadeh, 2012), while the most sophisticated have conducted quasiexperiments identifying a set of contextually responsive motivational strategies and comparing their effects to those of ‘traditional’ teaching (e.g., Moskovsky, Alrabai, Paolini, & Ratcheva, 2012; Alrabai, 2016). Studies so far have supported the idea that some macro-strategies, such as promoting positive student-teacher relationships and supporting learner self-efficacy, are valued across sociocultural settings by both teachers and learners. On the other hand, research indicates not only that the relative importance of certain macro-strategies may vary across contexts, but also that the ways in which teachers implement strategies needs to vary according to the specific classroom (Cheng & Dörnyei, 2007; Guilloteaux, 2013; Wong, 2014). As Lamb (2017, p. 305) writes, “…it is simply not possible to reduce highly complex issues to pedagogical ‘dos or don’ts’. The successful motivator somehow learns when, where and how to deploy [motivational strategies] in particular lessons.” Thus, uncovering the thinking and decision-making processes of individual teachers offers particularly useful insights for understanding the way that theoretical conceptualisations of motivation can be translated into effective classroom practice. And yet teachers’ perspectives on motivational practice remain largely under-explored (Glas, 2015), despite the significant role that teachers play in creating and maintaining learner motivation (Chambers, 1993; Trang & Baldauf, 2007). While quantitative research has yielded insights into the relationship between teachers’ practices and student motivational outcomes, qualitative studies seeking to understand why teachers adopt certain strategies and avoid others are rare, though such studies would avoid the pitfall of quantitative work that typically adopts ‘ready-made’ lists of strategies and does not allow for the teachers’ own authentic practice to come through. Understanding these diverse aspects of teachers’ cognitions and practices for motivational teaching is essential in shaping relevant teacher education programmes.

198

M. Hennebry-Leung

3 The Study The research reported here constitutes part of a larger parent study surveying the English language learning motivation of students across eleven Hong Kong secondary schools. A discussion of student data generated by the study can be found in Hennebry and Gao (2018), while this chapter focuses on data gathered through interviews with teachers in five of the eleven schools. A key aim of the teacher phase of the study was to understand the thinking and decision-making of language teachers specifically in relation to motivating their students and it is this aim that constitutes the focus of the data reported here.

3.1 Context: Medium of Instruction Policy in Hong Kong Content-Based-Instruction (CBI) is widely implemented in Hong Kong and there is evidence to support the claim that this approach leads to better language learning (see Lo & Lo, 2014). By and large, research on the effectiveness of CBI has focused on academic achievement (e.g., Ho, 1986; Lazaruk, 2007) with some consideration for academic interest and motivation. The Fine-tuning policy, implemented in 2010, resulted in diverse language streams whereby students can learn all their content subjects through English, through Chinese, or through a combination of the two, where typically Mathematics and Science are taught through English and other subjects are taught through Chinese. Given the different learning contexts and learning needs of students across these diverse streams, motivational language teaching would depend on teachers’ awareness of motivational teaching strategies, their sense of agency to be able to shape practices that respond to learners’ needs, and their experience of autonomy-supporting structures that allow them flexibility for contextually-responsive practice. This represents a significant challenge arising directly from the introduction of Hong Kong’s Fine-tuning policy, but is also an issue for consideration in any context adopting medium-of-instruction policy. While previous studies have found that the linguistic context of students’ learning does impact on general measures of motivation (e.g., Salili & Lai, 2003), whether teachers are equipped for exploiting CBI to motivate their learners and are able to adapt their motivational practices according to learners’ context is unclear, and yet a key question in understanding the effectiveness of CBI and facilitating effective implementation of medium of instruction policy.

3.2 Participants All schools participating in the study were Subsidized Schools, accounting for the majority of the Hong Kong secondary school population, and were, therefore,

Teachers’ Cognitions on Motivating Language Learners …

199

Table 1 School and class data for each teacher School

MoI

Teacher

ELLM mean

SES

1

EMI

7

Ms. Hong

3.15

High

EMI

10

Mr. Akbar

2.83

Mid

2

CMI

9

Ms. Wong

3.56

High

CMI

10

Ms. Au

2.59

Low

Ms. Kong

3.10

High

Ms. Lo

2.40

Low

3.03

High

3

Form

MMI

7

MMI

10

4

EMI

7

Ms. Szeto

EMI

9

Ms. Tse

2.85

Mid

5

MMI

9

Ms. Chan

2.83

Mid

MMI

10

Ms. Lee

2.50

Low

Note EMI English Medium of Instruction, CMI Chinese Medium of Instruction, MMI Mixed Medium Instruction, ELLM English Language Learning Motivation, SES Socio-economic status

required to follow the curriculum indicated by the Government. Two teachers in each of the five schools participated in two interviews during one school term. Although observation data is not reported here due to lack of space, each of the teachers was observed three times during the term and these observations provided the context and stimulus for the interviews. Teachers were selected to ensure that data reflected teaching across the student grades, but also according to their willingness to commit to the study in full. This latter consideration was particularly important, given that the parent study sought also to relate student motivational outcomes to teacher practice. In this regard, teacher participants had to agree to all parts of what was a relatively demanding research schedule. Table 1 provides demographic data for the classes.

3.3 Interviews Mackey and Gass (2005) argue for the strengths of stimulated recalls as an introspective method providing participants with a tangible reminder of the event they are being asked to reflect upon. This is particularly so in cases where immediate recall is not possible, for instance in the case of a lesson whose flow cannot be interrupted to explore teachers’ decision-making. Of all introspective techniques, Ericsson (2002) suggests this to be the least reactive. The interviews took the form of a stimulated recall followed by a semi-structured interview component that explored teachers’ general cognitions on language learning motivation and the opportunities and challenges they experienced in their practice in this regard. Two interviews were conducted with each teacher. In both cases the interviews were conducted soon after a lesson observation, which employed the motivational orientation of language teaching (MOLT) observation schedule (Guilloteaux

200

M. Hennebry-Leung

& Dörnyei, 2008) and the video-recording from the lesson enabled a stimulated recall approach. During the stimulated recall, teachers watched the recording of the class and were prompted to identify any motivational practices they implemented, while sharing their reflections on their thought processes and decision-making during the episodes. The interviews further provided opportunity for the emergence of strategies teachers might have identified that were not already included in the MOLT. Following the stimulated recall component, teachers participated in a more general semi-structured interview, during which they were asked about the factors they believed impact on their motivational teaching practices, their understandings of what constitutes motivational teaching practice, as well as the extent to which they feel capable of enacting personal and public theories of language learning motivation in practice.

3.4 Analysis Analysis of interview data followed Miles & Huberman’s (1994) proposed stages for generating meaning from qualitative data. First frequencies of occurrences were noted, followed by observation of patterns and themes within and across interviews and the use of informed intuition to examine plausibility. Data was then clustered into categories, types and classifications, which are reflected in the organization of the findings reported in this chapter. Iterative analysis and re-analysis enabled intercoder agreement on the themes and identification of a core list of themes. Patterns and individualities were explored, allowing the emergence of personal and contextual differences and their relationship to motivational practices. Data reported below has been selected to demonstrate both general trends and idiosyncrasies. The former are indicated by data reported from more than one teacher, while the latter are represented by data reported from only one teacher, at times contrasted with others.

3.5 Findings Teachers’ Cognitions on Motivating Language Learners Interview data indicates that teachers did indeed have an awareness of a range of discrete strategies that could be implemented to promote language learning motivation and that could be seen to align also with those identified in previous literature, once again supporting the notion that certain strategies are perceived to be effective across sociocultural settings. Such examples included the use of interesting materials, designing activities with a communicative purpose, the use of team and individual competition as well as opportunities for collaborative work, using multimedia, selecting topics that are relevant to learners, building rapport with students, providing clear instructions, offering positive affirmation, and providing scaffolding

Teachers’ Cognitions on Motivating Language Learners …

201

for protecting learners’ self-esteem. Other strategies teachers identified are perhaps less commonly found in the literature, such as providing motivational talks akin to a sports coach, providing negative feedback, providing a role model. Yet, the data also suggested at times a degree of misunderstandings about what constitutes motivation and a lack of a coherent framework of motivational practice. Furthermore, though there was a clear awareness of diverse motivational strategies, their implementation emerged as rather reactive and extempore. While a number of themes emerged from the data, this chapter focuses on three that seem most closely to relate to teacher education concerns: (i) understanding what motivation is and how to promote it; (ii) attribution of responsibility for learner motivation; and (iii) theory versus practice. In discussing teachers’ responses data has been drawn from both the stimulated recall and the semi-structured components of the interviews.

Understanding What Motivation Is and How to Promote It The interviews explored teachers’ understandings of motivation, asking them to reflect on whether they believed their students were motivated and to indicate what evidence they drew on in making that assertion. Responses varied and indicated considerable variety in the degree to which teachers’ cognitions on language learning motivation could be seen to reflect theory and research. In line with a currently significant thread of motivational research, some teachers were aware of key influences directing and shaping motivation, though the precise nature of this relationship seemed more elusive. Medium of instruction was one such example, where teachers either explicitly acknowledged a lack of clarity: I don’t see the problem with the Chinese medium of instruction here but I would assume it may have an impact, I just assume but I can’t tell….I think the S1students might have some problems learning about all of these new vocabulary for science or for Humanities but say, in term 2, they are pretty much used to it. Some students might have problems catching up with the vocabulary but most of the students are pretty used to it and I myself have never taught in a CMI school so that’s why I have no idea whether there would be like huge differences in terms of students motivation. (Ms. Hong, Interview 2, lines 309–318)

Or, confusion became apparent as they expressed arguments that are in sharp contrast to research evidence, but that also suggest a lack of critical analysis: I don’t think the medium of instruction would have any effect, because since in most Chinese medium school, we only teach English and the use English in English lesson and since most of our students are SEN students, so I don’t think this will impact the English learning in English lesson. (Ms. Lam, Interview 1, lines 329–331)

Only Mr. Akbar raised a point that was more akin with a theoretical rationale: Overall if the entire school has English as a medium of instruction it usually helps…I think students are more comfortable using English. I think they get the message that English is not a subject, is not just confined to the four walls in the classroom. They feel that it’s something for communication. (Mr. Akbar, Interview 1, lines 316–320)

202

M. Hennebry-Leung

This divergence between teachers’ cognitions and theoretical conceptualisations of motivation was also evident in relation to other aspects. Comments from Ms. Tse and Ms. Wong seemed to suggest a perception that motivating students is only possible in the case where tasks and topics are in themselves stimulating and interesting: I do oral discussion, at least they can do something, everyone can participate. However, we cannot do speaking all the time… that’s why we do try to find something related from YouTube or pictures at least to have some more interesting visual things for them to help them understand and arouse interest… but then we can’t do it all the time…. (Ms. Tse, Interview 2, lines 152–162) It depends on the subject itself, I mean, what we are going to teach. (Ms. Wong, Interview 1, lines 101–102)

Ms. Tse seems resigned to the fact that in cases where visual aids cannot be used or oral activities are not the focus, arousing students’ interest will not be possible. Similarly, in the second statement, Ms. Wong felt her capacity to motivate students depended heavily on the nature of the topic. Such perceptions naturally lead to a sense of futility given that much school learning involves learners engaging with tasks and topics that may not hold intrinsic interest for them. In further exploring understandings of motivation with Ms. Wong and Ms. Tse, it also became evident that there was perhaps some conflation of the notions of motivation and discipline. Ms. Wong, for instance, indicated that her students were motivated because: They are very responsible students, they always did their work punctually. (Ms. Wong, Interview 1, lines 236–237)

Ms. Tse also saw motivation primarily in terms of student’s obedience to her instruction, stating that she was quite confident her students were motivated because: Most of them follow instructions, although sometimes I scold them. On the whole they follow instructions. Are they very interested in learning English? I can’t say they are… but somehow they would follow and are willing to do the tasks…. (Ms. Tse, Interview 1, lines 84–87)

In both cases it seems that students’ compliance with instructions was interpreted as an indication of motivation. Yet, in the case of Ms. Wong, she went on to highlight the motivational potential of showing students the real-world relevance of learning English and of teaching language from a cultural semiotic perspective, suggesting a more nuanced understanding of motivation: I am trying to encourage them to make sure they know that I need to learn English in order to connect with the world. If I don’t know English I cannot understand what the movie is about, what the sources are about. So I try to arouse motivation playing different cultural purposes, in order to invite them to join the English world. (Ms. Wong, Interview 1, lines 278–282)

While student participation may indeed be one indicator of motivation, it is also important to reflect on the extent to which students in a Chinese educational context

Teachers’ Cognitions on Motivating Language Learners …

203

comply with teachers’ instructions less out of an interest in language learning and more out of deference to cultural norms that define the teacher-student relationship. This possibility warrants a critical approach that questions assumptions and seeks to develop an evidence-base for better understanding learners’ experience. In the case of Ms. Tse particularly, a lack of criticality became particularly apparent as the interview progressed. She held seemingly strong views about learner’s motivation rooted primarily in her own everyday theories (Johnson & Golombek, 2011) that were not necessarily subjected to critique. One particularly salient example was a perception of competence and motivation as rigid and resistant to change: They do not make an effort in memorizing what they have learned. They fail to apply what they learned in their reading and writing… we try to highlight like ‘you can use this and that’ … some are able to do better, some cannot. That’s life. (Ms. Tse, Interview 1, lines 150–156)

Such beliefs can be problematic inasmuch as they can result in attributing problems with students’ learning to factors outside the teachers’ control leading, therefore, to resistance to changes in teaching practice. In the case of Ms. Tse, these beliefs were evidenced throughout the interview and seemed deeply engrained, resulting in a sense of defeatism. Contrasting with this stance, Mr. Akbar viewed motivation as resulting from a complex array of factors, which he believed bore specific and practical implications for his practice: …I’m using something that they hear on their televisions, they read on their phones… I think it does motivate them, it does make them think… students have to write a letter of complaint but the context may seem very unnatural, but here a very natural context is given to them…. (Mr. Akbar, Interview 1, lines 150–154) [English] should be treated more like a means of communication…these students do sit for exams but at the same time I want them to experience the language that is out there in the real world, so this is what I’ve done here… used something real, a news article, at the same time, create question types that they sort of struggle with and that will help them in the exams, so I think this motivates students. (Mr. Akbar, Interview 1, lines 190–195)

Evident in his responses was an understanding that motivational language teaching involves making learning relevant to students’ lived experiences, providing authenticity in the design of activities, promoting a communicative purpose, while also acknowledging the role of instrumentality in supporting motivation. In identifying these motivational elements, Mr. Akbar proposed an implicit conceptualisation of language learning motivation closely aligned with emerging frameworks of motivational teaching practice, identifying for instance a number of the strategies outlined in Dörnyei’s taxonomy (2001). What became evident through the interviews, particularly illustrated by the contrast between Ms. Tse and Mr. Akbar, was a distinction between teachers who were aware of a range of discrete motivational strategies that they implemented ad hoc, and not always with particular bearing on what was happening in terms of language learning itself, and those teachers who have a cohesive view of language teaching practice within which were embedded motivational strategies that were specifically relevant to the themes, topics and tasks at hand, responding also therefore to the diverse stages of students’ learning. This

204

M. Hennebry-Leung

contrast was a case in point of the argument that teachers need to not only be aware of a range of ‘universal’ strategies, but also to be able to adapt their strategies and approaches to flexibly respond to classroom realities (Jiménez Raya et al., 2007; Lamb, 2017).

Attributing Responsibility for Learner Motivation Ms. Tse’s reflections on her lessons and on her motivational practice focused primarily on the students’ role rather than her own, attributing a perceived lack of motivation to their own lack of interest: They are just not interested. I think boys do not like languages especially a foreign language and then they tend to sometimes even daydream, fall asleep or pretend to fall asleep. (Ms. Tse, Interview 2, lines 149–151)

Or, lack of effort: These days students are not very patient. They like something very quick. They don’t spend time thinking. They are very careless. (Ms. Tse, Interview 1, lines 144–145)

And, lack of ability: They tend to show a lack of motivation in learning English so definitely it has something to do with their capability…sometimes I just asked their feelings or ideas on certain issues for those weak students they were only able to tell me ‘ok, it’s so bad, so sad’… but if you switch the channel to Cantonese they were able to express their ideas freely. So I guess it has something to do with their English capability when it comes to their motivation. (Ms. Tse, Interview 1, lines 119–126)

On the other hand, there seemed also to be a tension between her account of what she considered to be her futile efforts to motivate her students: I tried to involve them… but then the point is you could see that they did not respond much (Ms. Tse, Interview 1, lines 105–107)

And her acknowledgement that perhaps she could do more if circumstances were different: of course I can spend more time thinking of a better way to motivate them but the thing is I don’t have time to do that. (Ms. Tse, Interview 2, lines 109–110)

Indeed, time was a variable brought up also by Ms. Szeto: Maybe student teachers can include more elements as they have more time to prepare their lessons so that’s why they can include different kinds of elements to arouse the students’ interest. (Ms. Szeto, Interview 2, lines 284–288)

Implicit in these comments was her attributing students’ seeming lack of motivation to a range of factors, all of which she perceived to be out of her control. This was particularly interesting because in discussing the lesson recordings, she was able to identify factors within her control that supported and promoted students’ motivation and yet appeared not to recognize a contradiction in her stance -

Teachers’ Cognitions on Motivating Language Learners …

205

I think the boys are quite active today; maybe the topic…it is one that they are familiar with and that they find funny… and they are interested. It’s more daily life and they can grab it from the news…. (Ms. Tse, Interview 2, lines 18–21) I think they are more willing to talk if I just generally ask a student to say something about the points that they have discussed before and then the other group members might join in… I would like to engage everyone… Everyone can respond to that particular idea…. (Ms. Tse, Interview 1, lines 123–139)

Despite evidence that she was aware of key factors that negatively impacted on students’ motivation: The topics may not be interesting to the students. The passages may not be so interesting…It’s difficult to choose a textbook. Sometimes they find it very boring, sometimes the tasks are repetitive… Sometimes drilling is also important but then they find it boring. (Ms. Tse, Interview 1, lines 193–198)

Throughout the interviews there was little evidence of any intention to address these issues or to mitigate the negative impact she identified. Instead, her reflections seemed tinged throughout by a note of resignation that she had done all she could: ‘This is the best way already given the limited time’ (Ms. Tse, Interview 1, lines 110–111), and, ‘We can develop a better way but then this is already quite good for a lesson I think.’ (Ms. Tse, Interview 1, lines 116–117). This was particularly interesting to contrast with Ms. Lo’s approach, who also recognized challenges presented, for instance, by the compulsory use of textbooks she judged inadequate, but who adopted instead a critical and pro-active response: You have to use it, but think about strategies of how you’re going to use them, so it’s kind of typical that I have to find other materials…I want to look at how my students are progressing and then I think about okay this may not be very suitable, so how do I help them from step one to step four… and even though okay I found some materials.. how about that girl who is really capable… so I have to find five sets of materials to cater for the needs. (Ms. Lo, Interview 1, lines 297–305)

More in line with Ms. Tse’s position, Ms. Yip seemed to view learner motivation as something to be addressed if and when possible, rather than as an integral aspect of her teaching practice: I really want to do that with them, I have to take in consideration of grammar and vocab, but I also remind myself from time to time that their motivation really matters as well, so I just try to… sometimes I come across some really interesting YouTube videos…. (Ms. Yip, Interview 1, lines 211–214)

Perhaps because of this, rather than developing a cohesive, student-centred approach to motivation grounded in sound educational principles, her practice seemed to resort primarily to a reward system for motivating students: I just told them ‘if you are able to get 5 marks more for those students, you will be rewarded a beautiful sticker or a stamp’. And they were able to do that. (Ms. Yip, Interview 1, lines 160–162) I rewarded her a sticker so she felt so motivated in that way because for the junior form students maybe material actually helps in that regard. (Ms. Yip, Interview 1, lines 166–167)

206

M. Hennebry-Leung

Ms. Law shared a similar approach: They have to collect some stamps and they are usually keen on getting some stamps. If they can get it right, maybe I will give them some stamps. So this is also a kind of motivation, especially for the weakest students. Usally games and competitions. (Ms. Law, Interview 1, lines 75–78)

Ms. Wong’s comment, referring to colleagues’ ‘tricks’ was also suggestive of a piecemeal approach to motivational teaching practice, rather than a coherent framework: Sometimes other colleagues use some tricks, it inspires me and then I use them in lessons. (Ms. Wong, Interview 1, lines 234–235)

This approach was also characteristic of Ms. Kwok’s motivational practice: If you ask them to do work definitely they don’t want to work… They just don’t want to learn English, because they don’t see the need, which is very true… only in a lesson that they have to use it. if not, where else? They don’t really need it. They are not even interested in the test; they don’t care whether they pass or not. So if you say what can interest them? Food; food is something that you can buy them food, prizes… our kids would be like ‘give me a reward, then I’m interested; then I will do a bit of your work’ (Ms. Kwok, Interview 1, lines 317–323)

The quote above suggest that Ms. Kwok, like Ms. Tse, held the view that her students were not interested in learning English, nor were they interested in gaining good grades. Thus, she seemed to believe that her only resort was to offer food as a means of motivating them. It is striking that while recognizing that part of the problem lies in students’ struggling to perceive the need for English, she does not consider adopting motivational strategies that target this particular issue; a possible reason for this is that she herself seems to struggle to see why they should need it. By contrast, Ms. Lo recognized the challenges students face and was able to identify teaching strategies and pedagogical approaches that she believed would respond to these challenges. She shared, for instance, a view that students needed to be encouraged to see a communicative purpose in language learning: These students they are not very good at relating to the text… so somehow I think language is a tool for communication and that’s why it would be good to think about what they’re reading and then in a way this kind of question I ask them to guess…. (Ms. Lo, Interview 1, lines 19–23)

She identified feedback as a means of supporting progression, promoting students’ self-esteem by acknowledging their contributions, and pointed to the role of the teacher in building a learning community within the classroom: I guess me asking questions is also kind of feedback, which actually helps students as what SLA says… you know, achieving the best to actually stretch potential more, instead of just having then get finished…without any more thought to what they have just said… and then I also asked them to ask other classmates to look at that because first of all I want them to get involved…. (Ms. Lo, Interview 1, lines 26–31)

Later, she also outlined the importance of building students’ confidence as foundational to encouraging their participation:

Teachers’ Cognitions on Motivating Language Learners …

207

I guess as a teacher, our role somehow is to listen, sometimes correct them, but one thing that is very important because…most students here are very passive and you can see they are not very comfortable speaking in front of the classroom…so I just want them to get used to it and I guess it’s a very good learning opportunity for them, you can see that he tries to think by then…. (Ms. Lo, Interview 1, lines 38–45)

Similar to Ms. Lo, Ms. Lam, who worked with students in a low SES school with a high number of students with special educational needs, also seemed to take on herself the responsibility of motivating her students. In her case this was enacted through a heavy emphasis on promoting personal relationships as a platform from which to build their confidence: The first thing is I want them to know I understand them, and the second thing is I just want them to try to challenge them somewhere because for some better ones actually is a time for them to show to me or show to others that they are more capable and they can do it, because with this encouragement they will do it next time, not just this time, but they will do it next time, and if next time they can do it, gradually they can move onto the next level. (Ms. Lam, Interview 1, lines 157–163)

Moving from Ms. Tse who seemed to place the responsibility for learner motivation in the hands of the students, to Ms. Lo and Ms. Lam, who appeared both in word and deed to consider the responsibility to lie with the teacher, it was also interesting to consider Ms. Szeto’s perspective: If the students are not motivated to learn they won’t learn, but it’s really difficult to do it. That depends on the teacher’s character, I’m sorry to say that some of the teachers are so boring. How can they motivate the students to learn? That depends on the personality of the teacher. But in society we can’t have the resources to choose like ‘ok, we need to have an interesting person. (Ms. Szeto, Interview 2, lines 298–303)

Ms. Szeto clearly recognized the significant role of motivation in supporting learning and acknowledged that motivating students was not an easy task. Furthermore, it was clear that she believed it was the role of the teacher to generate and promote motivation and yet somehow absolves the teacher of responsibility by suggesting that a teacher’s ability to motivate learners is a matter of personality, which she seemingly views as static; either a teacher ‘has it or they don’t’. These diverse perspectives and stances on learner motivation and motivational practice seem to stem from implicit beliefs about the dynamic and flexible nature of motivation. In the case of Ms. Lo, the reference to diverse strategies suggests a view of motivation as dynamic and responsive to teaching techniques. By contrast, Ms. Tse seems to hold an implicitly more static view of motivation as resistant to change and unresponsive to teaching strategies. Ms. Szeto’s perspective, on the other hand, is interesting in that it somehow absolves both learner and teacher of any responsibility and implies instead that any motivational potential depends on teacher personality traits that seem outside of their control, and yet, there is in her comment also a sense of futility in that neither student, teacher nor school seem to have any control. Also emerging through the teachers’ comments is the notion of agency. In line with Glas’ (2015) view, it was evident that a subjective sense of agency is mediated by external and internal mediational means for Ms. Tse, Ms. Lo and Ms. Szeto. While

208

M. Hennebry-Leung

the external factors seem to be common to all three teachers, it is the internal factors, specifically their varying beliefs about their students and the learning situation, which appear to result in vastly different approaches to their practice. If agency in this context refers to the teachers’ capacity to critically shape their responsiveness to problems (Biesta & Tedder, 2006), then it can be said that the teachers’ varying responses to what they perceive as motivational challenges among their students are attributable to varying degrees of a sense of agency.

Theory Versus Practice Understanding the kind of input on motivational practice that teachers felt they had received in their teacher preparation sheds some light on possible reasons for the apparent lack of cohesive frameworks of motivational practice, and for the ad hoc nature of the implementation of motivational strategies. Most teachers said they had received limited or no input, while others reported that the input they had received was difficult to relate to their classroom practice. Ms. Lo provided a succinct summary of teachers’ perceptions of the preparation they had received: We had a little touch on motivation theories but honestly you know theories are theories and how you are going to deploy it is another thing… it’s never really what they model to you… they never did. (Ms. Lo, Interview 1, lines 253–256)

Ms. Lo’s comment points clearly to the age-old struggle of teacher educators to support teachers in critically and reflectively implementing in their classroom practice the learning from their teacher preparation programme. The enactment of teacher learning is most likely to take place when it derives from and connects to the content and students they teach (Hammerness et al., 2005). Locating teacher learning within school contexts is likely to be more powerful than models developed in outside settings, such that Ms. Lo’s comment points to the struggle that faces teachers when there is a lack of integration between teacher learning and teacher practice. She went on to explain: even you are not taught about like intrinsic motivation, you know that all right cos you were a student yourself…but in terms of whether it’s a must I do have doubts yes, because to me rather than having this PGDE [Post-Graduate Diploma of Education]… I rather appreciate that maybe my mentor had shared her teaching experiences…. (Ms. Lo, Interview 1, lines 263–272)

Ms. Lo’s comment seems to implicitly point to her own ‘everyday theory’ of motivation generated on the basis of her own experiences as a language learner. In the context of this, she struggles to see the necessity of ‘scientific theories’, expressing instead a preference for ‘practical’ guidance that models classroom techniques. In this sense she seemingly divorces such ‘practical’ techniques from a theory base. Teacher learning that is situated and integrated within the school context offers opportunities for teachers to critically examine and test the veracity and robustness of both their own ‘everyday theories’ of learning and ‘scientific theories’ generated through theory and research in action, reconceptualising their understandings

Teachers’ Cognitions on Motivating Language Learners …

209

of learners and learning and developing an evidence-based pedagogy. The responsibility, however, does not lie only with teacher educators. While the field of language motivation research has articulated a range of principles that may guide motivational teaching practice and has made initial steps towards outlining frameworks for motivational practice, there is still work to be done in generating robust evidence to support these frameworks and particularly to examine their cultural relevance.

4 Conclusion A number of implications emerge from the data. First, there is evidence that teachers’ understandings of learner motivation vary considerably and are not always supported by theory and research, but rather seem based on ‘everyday theories’ of teaching and learning. This becomes particularly problematic when these ‘everyday theories’ result in practices that fail to support learner motivation or indeed that may work against it. Particularly significant misconceptions emerging from the data were, for instance, a static view of motivation or the perception that teachers could effect little change in learners’ motivation. Given the significant role of motivation in predicting language learning success, any teacher education initiative seeking to support effective practice needs to specifically equip teachers with a sound grasp of the nature of motivation, the factors that work for or against it and the significant role that teacher practice plays to this end. Such efforts must begin by uncovering teachers’ implicitly held beliefs and bringing these into the open for critical questioning and a reconceptualisation that more closely aligns with a broad evidence-base on motivational teaching and motivated learning. Second, teachers clearly highlighted a struggle in seeing the connection between their learning during their teacher education courses and their practice in the classroom. This is particularly interesting, given that the teachers participating in the study had all obtained a PGDE during which they engaged in teaching practicums that were intended precisely to support the theory-practice connection. The implication seems to be that it is important to support teachers in making these connections in relation to specific language teaching aspects and, furthermore, that unless motivation is explicitly addressed in this way it cannot be assumed that teachers will know what motivational teaching practice looks like or how they can enact it. Indeed, it was clear that teachers had an awareness of discrete strategies that could be used to promote learner motivation, but how these strategies come together in a planned and coherent framework of practice was less evident. There is a pressing need for teacher education to provide mechanisms through which to support teachers to connect theory to practice in action, supporting the development not only of individual strategies, but of how these strategies can be combined and coordinated to create sustained motivational conditions, and, particularly of how these complexes of strategies can be implemented and adapted to respond flexibly to changing classroom conditions and evolving learner needs. Such processes require that teacher education be closely

210

M. Hennebry-Leung

connected with teachers’ professional contexts such that they evolve in direct relation to what teachers experience on a daily basis. Apprenticeship models of teacher education, particularly when accompanied by effective mentoring, are best suited to support such teacher learning in that they allow teachers to intertwine learning, practice, and reflection in an integrated manner, with all three relating closely to the professional context. In the case of teacher education courses that continue to deliver input away from the context of practice, it is essential that opportunities be provided for teachers to identify a specific and explicit focus on motivation in their classroom and their practice, drawing on data generated in their classrooms to critically examine incidents and issues as the basis of a developing theory of practice. Third, though the interviews did not explicitly explore teacher motivation and teacher efficacy, this seemed to play a part in discriminating between teachers who were willing to engage in ongoing reflection on their practice followed by re-examination and re-development of strategies and approaches, and those who saw little purpose in diversifying their approach. It is true that in any context teachers will face institutional or environmental constraints within which they must learn to work. In the case of the interviewees, such constraints were identified as inadequate materials, insufficient time, an over-emphasis on assessment, or a lack of a supportive learning outside the classroom. These constraints are not unique to the Hong Kong context and do not affect only motivational teaching practice. Rather they are all-pervasive, being present across educational contexts and impacting on practices across subjects and subject dimensions. One response to this must, therefore, be for teacher education to better equip teachers to work effectively within these constraints and to nurture also in them the professional efficacy that will allow them to persevere in the face of difficulty. This becomes all the more important when teachers all too often lack the professional communities that are well-known to play a fundamental role in supporting teacher confidence and enabling innovation and risk-taking. The field of language learning motivation research has made great strides in recent decades, establishing a wealth of knowledge in relation to the nature of learner motivation, and has begun to make inroads into understanding possible pedagogical strategies that support and promote motivation. The future needs to be marked by a focus on further enhancing understandings of effective motivational teaching practice, as well as the ways in which such practice should and could be adapted in response to individual learners and to diverse sociocultural contexts. In particular, the field needs to make stronger inroads into teacher education if its impact on language education is to reflect the important role of motivation in language learning. The feasibility of these inroads will depend, on the one hand, on the development of a strong research agenda that generates a rigorous evidence-base from which to inform robust pedagogy. On the other hand, it will depend also on the willingness of teacher educators to make room on their courses and programmes to explicitly address motivation as core to the notion of effective practice; as long as teacher educators consider motivational teaching as something to be referred to in passing, teachers too will consider it a passing concern and an optional extra and will continue to struggle to enact effective practice.

Teachers’ Cognitions on Motivating Language Learners …

211

References Ahearn, L. (2001). Language and agency. Annual Review of Anthropology, 30, 109–137. https:// doi.org/10.1146/annurev.anthro.30.1.109. Alison, J., & Halliwell, S. (2002). Challenging classes: Focus on pupil behaviour. London: Centre for Information on Language Teaching and Research. Alrabai, F. (2016). The effects of teachers’ in-class motivational intervention on learners’ EFL achievement. Applied Linguistics, 37(3), 307–333. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amu021. Bartels, N. (1999). How teachers use their knowledge of English. In H. Trappes-Lomax & I. McGrath (Eds.), Theory in language teacher education (pp. 46–56). London: Prentice Hall. Beijaard, D., Meijer, P. C., & Verloop, N. (2004). Reconsidering research on teachers’ professional identity. Teaching and Teacher Education, 20, 107–128. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate. 2003.07.001. Biesta, G., & Tedder, M. (2006). How is agency possible? Towards an ecological understanding of agency-as-achievement (Working Paper 5). Exeter: The Learning Lives Project. Retrieved from https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Michael_Tedder/publication/228644383_How_is_ agency_possible_Towards_an_ecological_understanding_of_agency-as-achievement/links/ 00b4952cadd9bd2b6a000000.pdf. Borg, S. (2003). Teacher cognition in language teaching: A review of research on what language teachers think, know, believe, and do. Language Teaching, 36, 81–109. https://doi.org/10.1017/ S0261444803001903. Chambers, G. N. (1993). Taking the ‘de’ out of demotivation. The Language Learning Journal, 7, 13–16. https://doi.org/10.1080/09571739385200051. Cheng, H., & Dörnyei, Z. (2007). The use of motivational strategies in language instruction: The case of EFL teaching in Taiwan. Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching, 1(1), 153–174. https://doi.org/10.2167/illt048.0. Clarke, M. (1994). The dysfunctions of the theory/practice discourse. TESOL Quarterly, 28(1), 9–26. https://doi.org/10.2307/3587196. Dörnyei, Z. (2001). Motivational strategies in the language classroom. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Dörnyei, Z. (2006). Individual differences in second language acquisition. AILA Review, 19, 42–68. https://doi.org/10.1075/aila.19.05dor. Dörnyei, Z., & Csizér, K. (1998). Ten commandments for motivating language learners: Results of an empirical study. Language Teaching Research, 2(3), 203–229. https://doi.org/10.1177/ 136216889800200303. Dörnyei, Z., & Ushioda, E. (2011). Teaching and researching motivation (2nd ed.). Harlow: Pearson Education. The Douglas Fir Group. (2016). A transdisciplinary framework for SLA in a multilingual world. The Modern Language Journal, 100, 19–27. https://doi.org/10.1111/modl.12301. Ericsson, K. A. (2002). Towards a procedure for eliciting verbal expression of non-verbal experience without reactivity: Interpreting the verbal overshadowing effect within the theoretical framework for protocol analysis. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 16, 981–987. https://doi.org/10. 1002/acp.925. Freeman, D. (2002). The hidden side of work: Teacher knowledge and learning to teach. Language Teaching, 35, 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444801001720. Freeman, D., & Johnson, K. E. (1998). Reconceptualizing the knowledge-base of language teacher education. TESOL Quarterly, 32(3), 397–417. https://doi.org/10.2307/3588114. Glas, K. (2015). Opening up ‘spaces for manoeuvre’: English teacher perspectives on learner motivation. Research Papers in Education, 31(4), 442–461. https://doi.org/10.1080/02671522.2015. 1049287. Graddol, D. (2006). English next. Plymouth: The British Council.

212

M. Hennebry-Leung

Guilloteaux, M.-J. (2013). Motivational strategies for the language classroom: Perceptions of Korean secondary school English teachers. System, 41(1), 3–14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2012. 12.002. Guilloteaux, M. J., & Dörnyei, Z. (2008). Motivating language learners: A classroom-oriented investigation of the effects of motivational strategies on student motivation. TESOL Quarterly, 42(1), 55–77. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.1545-7249.2008.tb00207.x. Hammerness, K., Darling-Hammond, L., Bransford, J., Berliner, D., Cochran-Smith, M., McDonald, M., & Zeichner, K. (2005). How teachers learn and develop. In Preparing teachers for a changing world (pp. 358–390). San Fransisco: Jossey-Bass. Hennebry, M., & Gao, X. S. (2018). Interactions between medium of instruction and language learning motivation. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1080/13670050.2018.1530190. Ho, K. K. (1986). The effect of written language in Chinese or English on Form 1 social studies achievement. Education Research Journal, 1, 16–21. Jiménez Raya, M., Lamb, T., & Vieira, F. (2007). Pedagogy for autonomy in language education in Europe: Towards a framework for learner and teacher development. Dublin: Authentik. Johnson, K. E., & Golombek, P. R. (2011). A sociocultural theoretical perspective on teacher professional development. In K. E. Johnson & P. R. Golombek (Eds.), Research on second language teacher education (pp. 1–13). New York: Routledge. Kubanyiova, M. (2012). Teacher development in action: Understanding language teachers’ conceptual change. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Kubanyiova, M. & Feryok, A. (2015). Language teacher cognition in Applied Linguistics Research: Revisiting the territory, redrawing the boundaries, reclaiming the relevance. The Modern Language Journal, 99(3), 435–449. Lamb, M. (2017). The motivational dimension of language teaching. Language Teaching, 50(3), 301–346. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444817000088. Lazaruk, W. (2007). Linguistic, academic, and cognitive benefits of French immersion. Canadian Modern Language Review/La Revue canadienne des langues vivantes, 63(5), 605–627. https:// doi.org/10.3138/cmlr.63.5.605. Lo, Y. Y., & Lo, E. S. C. (2014). A meta-analysis of the effectiveness of English-medium education in Hong Kong. Review of Educational Research, 84(1), 47–73. https://doi.org/10.3102/ 0034654313499615. Mackey, A., & Gass, S. M. (2005). Second language research: Methodology and design. Mahwah, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum. Masgoret, A. M., & Gardner, R. (2003). Attitudes, motivation and second language learning: A metaanalysis of studies conducted by Gardner and associates. Language Learning, 53(1), 123–163. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9922.00227. Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis. London: Sage. Moskovsky, C., Alrabai, F., Paolini, S., & Ratcheva, S. (2012). The effects of teachers’ motivational strategies on learners’ motivation: A controlled investigation of second language acquisition. Language Learning, 63(1), 34–62. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9922.2012.00717.x. Papi, M., & Abdollahzadeh, E. (2012). Teacher motivational practice, student motivation, and possible L2 selves: An examination in the Iranian EFL context. Language Learning, 62(2), 571–594. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9922.2011.00632.x. Ruesch, A., Bown, J., & Dewey, D. P. (2012). Student and teacher perceptions of motivational strategies in the foreign language classroom. Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching, 6(1), 15–27. https://doi.org/10.1080/17501229.2011.562510. Salili, F., & Lai, M. K. (2003). Learning and motivation of Chinese students’ in Hong Kong: A longitudinal study of contextual influences on students’ achievement orientation and performance. Psychology in the Schools, 40(1), 51–70. https://doi.org/10.1002/pits.10069. Sugita McEown, M., & Takeuchi, O. (2010). What can teachers do to motivate their students? A classroom research on motivational strategy use in the Japanese EFL context. Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching, 4(1), 21–35. https://doi.org/10.1080/17501220802450470.

Teachers’ Cognitions on Motivating Language Learners …

213

Sugita McEown, M., & Takeuchi, O. (2014). Motivational strategies in EFL classrooms: How do teachers impact students’ motivation? Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching, 8(1), 20–38. Trang, T. T. T., & Baldauf, R. B. (2007). Demotivation: Understanding resistance to English language learning—The case of Vietnamese students. The Journal Of Asia TEFL, 4(1), 79–105. Tsui, A. B. M. (2007). Complexities of identity formation: A narrative inquiry of an EFL teacher. TESOL Quarterly, 41(4), 657–680. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.1545-7249.2007.tb00098.x. Tsui, A. B. M. (2011). Teacher education and teacher development. In E. Hinkel (Ed.), Handbook of research in second language teaching and learning (Vol. 2, pp. 21–40). New York: Routledge. Ushioda, E. (2009). A person-in-context relational view of emergent motivation, self and identity. In Z. Dörnyei & E. Ushioda (Eds.), Motivation, language identity and the L2 self (pp. 215–228). Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Wigfield, A., Cambria, J., & Eccles, J. S. (2012). Motivation in education. In R. M. Ryan (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of human motivation (pp. 463–478). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Williams, B. T. (1999). Learning teaching: A social constructivist approach theory and practice or theory with practice? In H. Trappes-Lomax & I. McGrath (Eds.), Theory in language teacher education (pp. 45–56). London: Prentice Hall. Wong, R. M. H. (2014). An investigation of strategies for student motivation in the Chinese EFL context. Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching, 8(2), 132–154. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 17501229.2013.777449. Wright, T. (2010). Second language teacher education: Review of recent research on practice. Language Teaching, 43(3), 259–296. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444810000030.

Mairin Hennebry-Leung is Assistant Professor at the Faculty of Education, University of Hong Kong. Before embarking on a career in higher education, Mairin qualified as a Modern Languages’ teacher and worked in secondary school classrooms. Her research areas focus on language learning and teaching with a focus language learning motivation; language teacher education; and the relationship between language teaching and citizenship. Mairin’s work has been published in journals such as TESOL Quarterly, the International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, System, Language learning Journal and the Oxford Review of Education, among others. She is Co-editor of the journalSystem: An International Journal of Educational Technology and Applied Linguistics, and of the Edinburgh University Press Textbooks in Applied Linguistics series. Mairin has delivered invited and keynote lectures, workshops and seminars in diverse contexts including the United Kingdom, Ukraine, South Sudan, China and Hong Kong.