Headnote
Abstract
This paper focuses on the multilingualism in teacher education and puts a new education policy in the spotlight: the German DaZ-Modul - German for pupils with an immigrant background, which has been implemented as part of regular teacher training. In light of increasing linguistic diversity and transnational mobility, the potential of such a module is of particular significance. In order to analyse this potential, a qualitative study was conducted with pre-service teachers using a triangulation of pre- and post-group discussions with learning diaries. The findings offer deep insights into participants perceptions of linguistic normality and its reconstruction in course of the training. Drawing on these findings, the paper discusses implications for teacher education in a multilingual society: the need to include multilingual subject-oriented didactics and to combine them with reflective and biographical methods.
teacher training, language policy, multilingual pedagogy, language beliefs
Zusammenfassung
Der Beitrag befasst sich mit Mehrsprachigkeit und rückt eine neue bildungspoli-tische Maßnahme in den Mittelpunkt: das „DaZ-Modul - Deutsch fiir Schüler:in-nen mit Migrationshintergrund", das im Rahmen der regulären Lehrkräftebildung eingeführt wurde. Angesichts der zunehmenden sprachlichen Heterogenität und transnationalen Mobilität ist das Potenzial eines solchen Moduls von besonderer Bedeutung. Um dieses Potenzial zu analysieren, wurde eine qualitative Studie mit angehenden Lehrkräften durchgeführt, in der eine Triangulation von Gruppengesprächen im Prä-post-Design mit Lerntagebüchern verwendet wurde. Die Ergebnisse bieten tiefe Einblicke in die sprachlichen Normalitätsvorstellungen der Teilnehmenden und deren Rekonstruktion im Verlauf der Ausbildung. Auf der Grundlage dieser Ergebnisse werden Implikationen für die Lehrkräftebildung in einer mehrsprachigen Gesellschaft diskutiert: der Einbezug fachintegrierter mehrsprachiger Ansätze kombiniert mit reflexiven und biografischen Methoden.
Schlagworte
Lehrkräftebildung, Sprachenpolitik, mehrsprachige Ansätze, sprachbezogene Überzeugungen
Keywords
1. Introduction
In Germany, multilingual realities are often opposed by predominantly monolingual mindsets in educational contexts. This not only has been shown in various international contexts to affect multilingual language acquisition and cognitive development, but also the academic careers of children from migration-induced multilingual families (Cummins, 2019). In response, researchers have called for a multilingual turn in education, which would regard multilingualism as a norm. However, despite strong psycholinguistic and socio-political arguments and a range of existing methods of multilingual pedagogy, these strategies are infrequently implemented and research across countries and educational settings reveal that monolingual mindsets prevail among teachers (May, 2019; Putjata et al., 2022).
The present paper draws on this body of research and analyses the potential of one specific language policy for a possible multilingual turn: the German DaZ-Modul - German for pupils with an immigrant background- a course module that has been implemented as a mandatory part of regular training for all future teachers, through an official policy in North Rhine-Westphalia. In light of increasing linguistic diversity and need for multilingual pedagogy, the potential of such a module is of particular significance. In order to analyse this potential, the paper will first present a literature review on multilingual turn in education, teachers' perception of linguistic normality as well as the findings from trainings programs. Framed by the theoretical concepts of language beliefs, language education policy and language awareness, the main part of the paper will first present the specific context for the DaZ-Modul and its implementation. It will then present a qualitative study with prospective teachers, which aimed to reconstruct their language beliefs from a triangulation of group discussions in pre-post-design and learning diaries. The qualitative data allow deep insights into the construction and reconstruction processes of language-related normality. The paper will conclude with consequences for further research on the multilingual turn and will formulate implications for professionalization in plurilingual societies.
2. Literature Review: Multilingualism in Teacher Training
This section will briefly summarize the discourse on the multilingual turn in education (2.1) and present international findings on teachers' perception of language-related normality, as well as teacher training on multilingualism (2.2).
2.1 Multilingual Turn in Education
Arguments from psycholinguistic research emphasize the importance of all linguistic resources in the processes of thinking and learning. In Germany, these findings are referred to in discussions on educational programs, leading to the claim that 1) multilingual children should be encouraged to think and act in all the languages and linguistic varieties available to them in their everyday life and in the classroom and 2) that existing family languages should also be actively promoted in the educational system (Reich & Krumm, 2013; May, 2019).
In Germany, socio-political research focuses on the social justice and consequences of a negative evaluation of languages, especially the languages of social minorities. Studies on (self)positioning practices form the basis of these arguments in the educational science discourse: a constructive inclusion of linguistic diversity in the classroom is important to overcome a deficit-oriented perspective on members of linguistic minorities and to make use of the linguistic-cultural resources of the "migration society" (Panagiotopoulou et al., 2020). Against the background of equal participation, multilingual pedagogies would enable different members of society to "communicate with each other as equals" (Fraser, 2003 in Gomolla, 2010, p. 205).
Finally, the presented psycholinguistic and socio-political arguments are completed by the findings from empirical research on multilingual pedagogy: Over the last fifteen years, studies, also in Germany, have shown that the inclusion of all language resources has proven to be beneficial for learning processes of all pupils (Me- lo-Pfeifer & Helmchen, 2018; Busse & Hardy, 2023; Candelier et al., 2012; Veerman et al., forth.). However, despite this academic discourse, the scientific arguments, effective methods at the classroom level and school development concepts at the structural level, teachers in many countries, including Germany, continue to orient themselves toward a monolingual norm (Putjata & Koster, 2021 for Germany; Pulinx et al., 2015 for Belgium; Mary & Young, 2018 for France; Cunningham, 2019 for Great Britain). This leads, among others, to a series of monolingual practices: teachers try to prevent children from speaking family languages (Young, 2014), which has been addressed as linguistic discrimination in research on raciolinguistic ideologies (Thoma, 2020). Teachers' expectations for the homogeneous linguistic backgrounds of the pupils not only lead to pupils' educational disadvantage, but also strongly influence teachers' own feelings of self-efficacy. They perceive the prevailing linguistic diversity as a contradiction and a challenge for which they do not feel prepared, which consequently results in them feeling overburdened (BeckerMrotzek et al., 2012). This challenge results from the persistent idea that multilingualism constitutes an exception. How can this idea of a linguistically homogeneous norm undergo reconstruction among teachers? The following section will draw on this research body with a specific focus on teacher education in Germany.
2.2 Professionalization on Dealing with Language Diversity
Multilingual pedagogy becomes more and more important for all pedagogical professionals, as the increasing body of research on the multilingual turn in education shows (Conteh & Meier, 2014). Yet, in Germany, the topic of multilingual development has for a long time not been included in teachers' training. An increasing body of research on intervention shows positive effects of teacher training that focusses on multilingualism. Quantitative studies with pre-post-design (Fürstenau, 2017; Duarte & Günther-van der Meij, 2022) as well as qualitative studies on teachers' beliefs (Putjata, 2018) show how including multilingual language awareness in teacher training can help to achieve an educational turn toward multilingualism (De Jong & Gao, 2023); developing a deeper understanding of the complex interplay of language, ideology, and learning in the question of social justice (Cochran-Smith et al., 2010) e.g. through biographical assignment (Thoma, 2020; De Jong & Gao, 2023) or through ideological clarity (Venegas-Weber & Martinez Negrette, 2023), can allow teachers to become facilitators in language education processes and agents of multilingual empowerment. Authors across countries and educational contexts conclude that these changes should become a binding requirement for all professionals. Furthermore, such a multilingual curriculum should not be integrated in sporadic weekend programs, but in continuous training through all stages of a teacher's professional development (Fiirstenau, 2017; Young, 2014).
2.3 Theoretical Framework - Connecting Language Beliefs, Language Education Policy and Language Awareness
The theoretical basis for this study is provided by the following concepts: the model of the school as a Language Market (Bourdieu, 1990), the transformation processes of this market according to Language Education Policy (Shohamy, 2010), and the role of teachers with regards to the concept of Language Awareness (Donmall, 1985).
Bourdieu argues that languages constitute a symbolic capital (Bourdieu, 1990). According to the value of the language one brings to society, individuals are assigned a certain social position, whereby this value corresponds to prevailing power relations. On the individual level of the speakers, these views are reflected in so-called language beliefs. This concept describes ideas "about the world, and the relationships between objects of social significance: e.g. judgements of standard language varieties tending to be associated with high-status jobs" (Garrett, 2010, р. 23). It includes, for example, ideas about the role of language skills, how languages are learned and how useful they are. These language hierarchies are reproduced and circulated in schools. Knowledge of certain linguistic forms (e. g. the academic register of German or ancient Greek) is certified and institutionalised as capital. One's language capital is documented in certificates and constitutes a crucial criterion for educational success. What functions as relevant knowledge, whether it is ancient Greek or Turkish (one of the most-spoken family languages in Germany), is defined by the groups with the greatest volume of capital - policy makers (Blommaert, 1999). Thus, language hierarchies and power relations are produced and reproduced at school.
What is necessary to stop the reproduction of a monolingual mindset? Researchers suggest turning one's attention toward all levels - macro, meso, and micro - of policy making (Menken & Garcia, 2010; Putjata, 2019). They argue that language beliefs are shaped by the macro level of language policy, as these polices determine and regulate the use of language at the meso-level of educational institutions and finally affect the micro-level of individual linguistic practices. Consequently, new language policies would be necessary to transform the school language market, according to the findings on language policy making (Shohamy, 2010). A number of overt and covert top-down and bottom-up mechanisms become effective and can inhibit the implementation of the new policies. According to Shohamy (2010), the effectiveness of language policy decisions depends on the following points:
1. State-initiated evaluations and surveys
2. Explicit instruments (curricula, textbooks etc.)
3. Actors responsible for implementation
4. Degree of commitment to implementation
5. Financial security
With reference to education systems, it is argued that "at each level of an educational system, from the national ministry or department of education to the classroom, language education policies are interpreted, negotiated, and ultimately (re)constructed in the process of implementation" (Menken & Garcia, 2010, p. 1). Teachers play an important role as actors at the interface between top-down policy making and "de facto language practices" (Shohamy, 2010, p. 28). Furthermore, in the model of the Language Market, teachers act as ideology brokers, circulating language ideologies (Blommaert, 1999, p. 35). Shohamy (2010, p. 1) criticizes the fact that policies are often initiated by bypassing those who ultimately implement them in practice and pleads for the active involvement of teachers. This would, in turn, require teachers to see themselves as active actors of educational processes. In research on Language Awareness, the need for a "sensitivity to and conscious awareness of the nature of language and its role in human life based on knowledge, values and a deeper understanding of the complexities of living and learning in multiple languages" was first emphasized in 1985 by Donmall. Likewise, researchers in Germany underline the need "to create an awareness of the connection between language and educational success [...] among all those involved in school education" (Thiirmann &
Vollmer, 2017, р. 301). The theoretical background presented here illustrates how schools as institutions and teachers as their actors reproduce societal language beliefs. Hence, to facilitate a multilingual turn, transformation should include the level of teacher education, making multilingual pedagogy a well-established component of teacher training, explicitly including multilingual pedagogies. Yet, internationally, the field has so far been dominated by programmatic demands and visionary ideas of a need for multilingual pedagogies in teacher education. This paper builds on this paradigm shift: as numerous pilot projects have shown (see section 2.2), in order to sustain transformations in the constructions of linguistic normality, the findings of linguists and education scholars (see section 2.1) must be transferred from the realm of research to mainstream teacher education. This, in turn, requires policy measures that would make dealing with linguistic diversity an integral
part of teacher training. One such measure could be the binding teacher training modules on dealing with linguistic diversity that have been introduced throughout Germany in recent years. Politically anchored, they hold the potential for a shift toward multilingual pedagogies. To analyse this potential, the present study includes the macro level of policymaking, the meso level of implementation, and focuses in particular on the micro level of the future teachers in the DaZ-Modul. Because of the federalist character of German education system, the paper will first present the context of the research focusing on
3. Qualitative Study on the Potential of the DAZ-Modul
The DaZ-Modul in North Rhine-Westphalia was introduced with a reform in 2009 (here and further see Putjata & Danilovich, 2019b). In 2014, it was implemented in the curricula for future teachers of all subjects and school forms. The module consists of one lecture and one seminar. The lecture is jointly organized by German and Educational Studies. The seminars are divided into twelve subjects: Sports, Geography, History, Mathematics, Biology, Sociology, Physics, Politics, English, Dutch, German and Pedagogy. This concept aims to adjust to the specific (linguistic) needs of teachers of all subjects. To analyse the module with regard to multilingualism, several studies were conducted. First, the potentials of the module were examined at the macro level of policy and organization (Putjata et al., 2016). The focus was on the implementation of the official requirements for the DaZ-Module at all ten teacher training universities in the state of North Rhine-Westphalia. Putjata, Olfert and Romano-Bottke (2016) formulated theoretical categories based on Shohamy's (2010) criteria for language policy making: Based on these criteria, they concluded that the conditions for successful implementation are almost fulfilled. The measure is binding for all teachers (Shohamy, 2010, p. 23), as DaZ-seminars are to be offered in every studies subject. It is financially secured: funding was assured and new lecturers for DaZ in Mathematics, Biology etc. In addition, new instruments have been developed, such as curricula with newly formulated competencies that ensure the transfer of scientific findings on multilingual development and pedagogy into teacher training (see desideratum in section 2.3). According to the results of this first analysis, one significant point remained unclear: the module's implementation at each individual university. In their study, Putjata, Olfert and RomanoBottke (2016) examined the importance attached to multilingualism in the description of the courses. The findings show that while the title "German for pupils with an immigrant background" rather contributes to the reinforcement of a deficit-oriented perspective, all seminars in North Rhine-Westphalia have the binding subtitle "Multilingualism in the classroom". This title has the potential to construct the perception of multilingualism as a normality. The analysis of seminar descriptions in a total of twelve subjects has shown three types: the deficit-oriented (Type A), the resource-oriented (Type B), and the open perspective (Type C). Type A includes seminars with a deficit-oriented perspective on multilingualism. These seminars include approaches of compensatory didactics: the focus is on error analysis and "Stolpersteine (tripping stones/stumbling blocks)" of the German language. Seminars of type B reveal a productive dealing with multilingualism. These descriptions reference multilingual pedagogies. In type C, the perspective remains open. The description relies on neutral formulations such as "language-sensitive teaching" or "language comparisons". The results presented here draw on seminar descriptions. One further study was conducted with university lecturers focusing on their language beliefs (Goltsev et al., 2022).
The present research with future teachers draws on the findings of these previous studies conducted on the macro and meso level of policymaking: the analysis of the policy, the module description, the seminar content and interviews with DaZ-lecturer. The focus of the present study is on the micro level of the students, as captured in the questions: How do prospective teachers perceive migration-related multilingualism? Does this perception change during the course of the DaZ-Modul and, if so, how is this change initiated?
3.1 Data Collection
In order to answer these questions a study was conducted with prospective teachers using triangulation of group discussions in pre-post design and learning journals. So that data collection could be separated from the process of evaluation, these two elements of the study were conducted independently by different academic researchers.
The group discussions were held in three seminars. The seminars were embedded in English, Spanish and Education Studies. The choice of the seminars was theoretically guided: the research on language awareness has its origins in foreign language didactics (Donmall, 1985 in section 2.2), and professionalization in areas of multilingual teaching is an integral part of language didactics. While English seminars are explicitly offered in the DaZ-Modul, no seminars with a focus on multilingualism are offered in Spanish". The seminar in Education was chosen following the principle of maximum variation, since Education is listed as a "non-philological" course and the students are not expected to be interested in processes of language acquisition as compared to future teachers of English and Spanish. This may result in varying experience with and knowledge about migration-induced
tilingualism. A based on De Angelis (2011) and Pulinx et al. (2015), which focuses on participants (dis-)agreement with seven statements on multilingualism, was used as an instrument (Appendix 2). Participants completed the questionnaire in the first seminar session and explained their decision in small groups of four. This research method was chosen as attitudes and beliefs are rarely stated overtly, and it is in discussion with others that individuals reveal underlying subjective ideas. In the final seminar session, the questionnaire was filled out and discussed again. For the second time, the participants discussed in groups to what extent the answers were different this time. During the course, the students were asked to keep a learning diary (Paus & Jucks, 2013). This instrument was chosen because reflective writing has been shown to be significant to the professional development of pre-service teachers (Paus & Jucks, 2013, p. 127). Following the biographical perspective of teacher training, teachers can make new experiences in the course their professional lives and, thus, change their mindset, but this change requires a conscious reflection. For us as researchers, this instrument provided insight into self-perceived changes in the language beliefs of future teachers, as identified by the participants themselves.
3.2 Data Analysis: Triangulation of Group Discussions and Learning Diaries
The resulting data corpus consisted of 11 learning diaries and conversations in 10 groups (4 in English, 2 in Spanish, 4 in Education with 36 participants).? The data analysis was based on a triangulation of transcribed audio recordings of all group discussions as well as the learning diaries. The data evaluation was based on content analysis and argumentation analysis (Mayring, 2010). In order to analyse the different facets of the data, the material was summarised and structured using content analysis and coded by four researchers. The coding was based on a deductiveinductive categorization: theoretically guided, categories were formed on the meaning of languages as "individual" capital, as "social" capital, and as capital "in school" (Bourdieu, 1990 in section 2.3). In a second step, subcategories were identified for the three superordinate categories resulting from the data: language as a resource, language as a problem, and a neutral perspective. In a systematic argumentation analysis, existing language beliefs of the students were interpreted intersubjectively. The third step was a contrastive comparison of the conversational data at the beginning and end of the seminar. This step allowed us to analyse whether the beliefs of the students have changed in the different categories. In the analysis of the learning diaries, we focused specifically on the events and situations in the seminars that were described by the students themselves (e.g. discussing a particular topic or method) as source of a newly developed "awareness" or "sensitivity" (following the theoretical framework by Donmall, 1985 and Thürmann & Vollmer, 2017 in 2.3). This allowed us to draw conclusions about the context, whether it was on the level of the topic, of the didactic media, or of the social form. In the last step, the important events and situations named by the students in their journals were taken upon and a second analysis of the group discussion was conducting using this information marked as pivotal for the students themselves. Combined with the group discussions, this final step made it possible to reconstruct what led to the change in participants' language beliefs in their own perception. The following result section is organised along these identified contexts of shift in language beliefs.
4. Results
First, the analysis of the qualitative data confirms a deficit-oriented perspective on migration-related multilingual pupils (4.1). However, it also shows that change is possible: some of the participants reflect in their diaries that they have developed a new view on linguistic diversity. The following section will present what initiated these self-perceived changes and illustrate these findings with selected data from the corpus (4.2). These findings include linguistic perspectives on learning processes (4.2.1), sociological perspectives on one's own role as a teacher, and linkages between language, learning processes, and ideologies (4.2.2), methodological knowledge (4.2.3), as well as the implementation of multilingual practices and the family languages of the participants in the course (4.2.4).
4.1 Monolingual Beliefs as a Result of "Myths"
In 11 of 11 diaries students reflect on their monolingual mindset in the beginning of the Module, as for example: "When I was asked at the beginning of the semester whether one was allowed to speak further languages beside German in my classes, 1 said no" (D9_10)·. These statements continue in the reflection why they have to attend the seminar at all: ,A pedagogy seminar at this hour, which I don't understand why I have to take. After all, I study chemistry and biology and not German or any other language" (D3_ 1).
The reason behind the monolingual mindset is not reflected in the diaries, but can be reconstructed in the group discussions. One student, for example, cannot clearly decide for "agree" or "disagree" on the given item "Migrant pupils should speak family languages at home" and explains this uncertainty to her peers as follows:
It is ok if you speak another language, but this makes it quite difficult to learn German, because you need practice [...] and more time [...]. I would say that makes it much harder. My first thought was, okay, it's negative, it's evil and you can't forbid anyone to speak your own language at home or to use it, but I really believe that it makes it difficult to learn the language. (G1_E_T)
In this statement, the dilemma of the student becomes clear: on the one hand, it is "evil" to "forbid" the speaking of "your own language." On the other hand, she is concerned that it makes it "difficult" to acquire the dominant language, German. The change from "one" to "I really believe" shows that she personally is against language bans, but nevertheless considers them necessary. In all eleven group discus4 sions, we could find indications in the statements of the participants that this kind of discrimination (see raciolinguistics in Thoma, 2020 in section 2.2.) is conscious, but takes place as a consequence of some subjective assumptions about language: That speaking one language hinders learning of another language and that knowledge of the majority language, German, has the priority. In the group conversations, this priority is not justified, but is presented as universally valid, which reveals the prevailing idea of linguistic normality - the monolingual German norm. The participants see their task as teachers as to enable linguistic participation in education, which, by implication, means to prevent linguistic practices that deviate from this required norm. This is particularly remarkable as we have expected students of English and Spanish to have some knowledge of multilingual learning processes, as this topic is addressed at an early stage in foreign language studies. Using methods of inter-comprehension, or meta-linguistic awareness, the conscious creation of links between languages is part of regular, foreign-language teacher training (Melo-Pfeiffer & Helmchen, 2018; Candelier et al., 2012 in section 2.1); this content would seem to contradict the statements presented in the discussion. The discrepancy could be explained by the fact that these methods of multilingual didactics are often addressed with reference to institutionally implemented foreign languages such as French or Latin and only rarely take migration-related multilingualism into account.
4.2 Changes in Perception and Their Initiation
During the course of the seminar, a "change" has taken place, as 4 of 11 participants pants themselves state in their diary: "Especially [...] has changed me in my thinking" (Do 10), "which has changed my perspective on including family languages" (D11_6); "[...] my understanding of language support at school has fundamentally changed" (D3 1; also D5_8,), 5 students report on newly developed "awareness", some even multiple times throughout their diary (D4_6, 9, 12, 5, 13; D3_11, 12; D2_11; D11_1, 4, 9, 11; D8_10) and 4 students report a developed "sensitivity" (Dıo 10; Dı 6,10; D6 10; D4 10). These changes in perspective, the awareness or the sensitivity, however, vary substantially as will be presented in
the following. 4.2.1 Linguistic Perspective on Learning Processes as Part of
Regular Training Four reports from learning diaries mention the DaZ-lecture and the provided linguistic perspective (on cognitive and neurological language learning processes) to develop their argumentation (D3_1; Do_11; D5_3; D8_4). A further analysis of the group discussions in terms of triangulation reveals, however, a normative argumentation when relying only on
We also had the DaZ-lecture, so German as an additional language. I think that, in any case, one should look at multilingualism principally in a positive light, because I do think that in the past it was perhaps sometimes seen as negative that children switched back and forth between languages and that the teachers did not understand it. But I think that, in any case, it must not be seen as negative. (G1, $, IT)
This quote is from the last group discussion in Spanish. Here, the participant expresses the need to look at multilingualism "positively". The "DaZ-lecture" is considered relevant and is even introduced as the context in which a reflection on the topic took place. It seems to have played a particular role for the student; she transfers this knowledge from the lecture with a specific focus on the German language to the new content in the Spanish seminars, although, no specific seminars are offered in Spanish in this module. At the same time, this statement reveals that migration-related multilingualism is not seen as an asset, in Bourdieu's (1990) terms. No potential for learners or society is mentioned, only the normative statement that "one should" see multilingualism "principally in a positive light." This choice of wording is reinforced by the lack of justification. The content conveyed so far in the lectures on language acquisition processes and language diagnostics seems to be insufficient and leads to normative statements about multilingualism. A resource-oriented ented understanding of multilingual resources requires further reflection and experience on several occasions, as data from learning diaries and the comparison with statements made in group discussion in the English
seminar of DaZ-Module shows. The following statement is from a discussion at the end of the English seminar. The students are working with the questionnaire for the second time and one student notes that she evaluates the statement "Knowledge of family languages helps pupils with a migration background to learn another
language" differently this time: It is helpful in general, not only to learn another language [... but] also because of What we discussed in the seminar, in the sense of theoretical knowledge because of the theory we covered, like the ... Cummins was his name, right? Okay, and his study, which shows that it's also helpful for cognitive development, not just competence in a language, but cognitive development. And that's why I would agree more now than I did earlier this
semester. (G1 En II) 4.2.2 The Role as a Teacher and Linkage Between Language,
Learning Processes, and Ideologies However, the sociological perspective also seems to be important. Six of eleven students reflect on their "role" (Dı 1, Do 11, D11_11), and their "task" (D6 4, D2 2, D5_5) as those who organize learning processes and,
It almost depends on the society. We live in a society that thinks that some European languages are more important or more famous than others." (G1 En II)
And we have learned, as future teachers, that you should always encourage them. I think there are many teachers who tell the parents that if a child has problems with German, then they should stop speaking the [other] language with that child at home. But we should do the opposite. (G1_S_IT)
"Every teacher, from every subject can contribute [to language education]" (G2_ Ed_ II). If one compares the student's statement in G1_En_ II with the statement at the beginning of the Module (that even at home the use of family languages should be reduced to the advantage of German), a newly developed awareness becomes apparent: the fact that some languages are "more important" and that this value is constructed "by society." Against the theoretical background on language awareness presented in 2.3., this can be interpreted as an awareness of social power relations. This awareness continues in the statement in G1 S II that pupils should be "encouraged" to use migration-related language resources in class. This can be observed, as stated in the previous section, among all other participants. While at the beginning of the seminar they were convinced that language bans are necessary in order to enable language learning, they now express how important it is to support children by including all language resources. Particularly striking in this context is the mention of their own role as teachers: only a few weeks before, they themselves legitimised language bans. Now they criticise this behaviour of "many teachers." In view of the presented literature, knowledge of the complex linkages between social power relations, language, and the role of teachers seems important for the development of this awareness. The perception of their role becomes clear in the choice of words "we as prospective teachers."
At the same time, choice of the wording "we should" in Gı S II appears normative and reveals a reproduction of norms she learned in the course, which she contrasts with the presumed practices of teachers. In doing so, she has neither an affirmative nor a critical attitude towards these norms and seems to merely reproduce items from an internalized catalogue of norms. This may be linked to questions of social appropriateness in research settings. Or, an interpretation that we rather support, is that the Spanish seminars does not include multilingual didactics as a topic so that the normative perspective stems from the DaZ- lecture and lacks the actual methodological knowledge as we will see in contrastive comparison with those seminars that do offer this topic.
4.2.3 Methodological Knowledge
The importance of multilingual didactics as presented in the previous section can be illustrated in the juxtaposition of the following two statements:
I also think that it is possible to work with multilingualism somehow, since, as I said, these children definitely have an advantage if this multilingualism is specifically taken into account in class. A pupil may notice that it is similar in his mother tongue, and then I think it is good if he can express it in this way. But I cannot learn all languages. (G1_S_ 11)
I think, as we learned here in our DaZ-seminar and as we saw with the different teaching activities, we, especially as teachers, we should encourage them and in general do more of this practical stuff with other languages and include them in our teaching practices. I think this is particularly important nowadays [H: mhm, yes]. And it is possible, as we saw here in the seminar, so, there are possibilities to even teach grammar and make references to other languages, it is not impossible. (G2_En_ II)
First, it should be noted that both, students in G1_S_II and G2_En II consider the inclusion of "other languages" and the "advantages" for their teaching practice to be possible. However, while for the student in G1_S_II this topic remains "somehow" undefined, the student in G2 En II indicates a number of "practical things." This difference continues in the argumentation: while the person in G1 S II believes that the use of multilingual teaching methods may be possible if "a pupil notices it," for G2 En Il it is "we as teachers" who are tasked with including multilingualism in everyday practices. The last sentences of each passage make the difference: While G1 S II continues to see it as a challenge, since he considers the teacher's own multilingualism to be an important precondition, G2_En_ II repeatedly emphasizes the feasibility of multilingual pedagogy, e.g. "it is feasible", "it is not impossible." This awareness seems to be particularly important and has emerged in the course of the "various activities" of the study program. This contrast makes it clear that, in those seminars where the students learn abstractly about psycholinguistic and socio-political arguments, their ideas remain vague. It also remains the task of "these" multilingual children to take things into their own hands. The prospective teachers do not see themselves as capable or responsible for multilingual practices. This is different in statements of those future teachers who report having tried to and reflected on new translingual practices, as further data in the learning diaries confirm. This knowledge (or the need for it) was mentioned by 6 of 11students in their diaries. They report that it is because of the different "methods" (D4_12, 13, D6_10), "instruments" (D6_10) or knowing "how much one can do" (D2_11) that they now feel "more secure" in dealing with multilingual groups (D6 10, D4 13) or do not perceive the "need to overcome the discrimination of multilingual children" as an "Utopia" (D2_11). By contrast, students who do not reflect on methodological knowledge (because it was not provided, as, for example, in the Spanish seminar or because they did not experience or remember this), remain on the normative level or even sceptical reporting that they "reach their limits of imagination" (D1_8) or "lack imagination" (D10_4) on how the "work of a teacher might look like" (D1_8) if "more than 20 languages are spoken in the classes" (D10_4).
4.2.4 Multilingual Biographical Work
The final momentum in the data evaluation references was the importance of language biographical work in the seminar:
I can only vaguely remember the initial time at the new school here in Germany [...]. It sounds highly helpless and I would like to tell this girl that everything will soon turn out for the better. On an emotional level, I can put myself in the shoes of the multilingual children and understand how they feel. However, I lacked the theoretical framework and after the first session, I was already able to reflect on what I had learned and link it to my own experiences [...]. (D7_12)
Language biographical practices in the seminar prove to be very important: Reflecting on experience as a multilingual person in German education system (D7_12; D3_ 3) or in foreign language use during Au Pair (D1_ 6, D4_5) or Erasmus (D10_5, D5 10). These findings are in line with the presented results from research on raciolinguistics in other contexts (Thoma, 2020, section 2.2). Reflecting on these situations in groups also led to a re-thinking on the part of students who did not speak migrant languages themselves.
You are in Germany, speak German ...! is one of the frightening sentences that I took from the session on 12.03. [...]. My fellow student said that being a Turkish-speaking pupil at school herself, she found this statement 'disgusting'. This is exactly the kind of institutional discrimination that happens when we do not let children speak their own language in our institutions. With every 'You are in Germany, speak German ...! we damage the children's identity. (D6 10)
Sharing one's own experience with language bans as a fellow student and future colleague seems to be a particularly emotional experience for the students and promotes empathy and respect more than just discussing theories and studies. The students transfer this experience of a multilingual fellow student with language bans at school, which she describes as "disgusting," to their future teaching practice and reflect on the consequences of monolingual practices not only for the linguistic development, but also for the overall development of the child.
5. Summary and Discussion
The DaZ-Modul offers potential for a reconstruction of monolingual orientations. As the results of the qualitative study with prospective teachers show, it can contribute to a multilingual turn - the transformation of existing notions of a homogeneous monolingual pupil body as a norm and multilingualism as a deviation from this norm. The political establishment of the module as a regular part of teacher training has led to a maximum degree of liability. With this binding requirement at the macro level, the dealing with linguistic diversity within the framework of teach- er training gains great importance: it is no longer a mere additional qualification, but rather the condition sine qua non for access to the teaching profession as defined by educational policy. This measure could, if multilingual pedagogies are taken into account at the meso level of the universities and the concrete design of the module in individual courses of study, provide a high market value to professionalization in the field of migration-related multilingualism. These findings at the meso level are reflected in the results at the micro level: in their considerations of linguistic diversity, all prospective teachers without exception refer to the DaZ-Modul.
The extent to which linguistic diversity is seen as a norm depends largely on the content of the course. Topics like language diagnostics in the dominant language German, as suggested in the title of the module ("German for pupils with an immigrant background"), lead to a strengthening of the existing perception that monolingualism is the norm. In order to contribute to a shift in this perception, according to the findings of the study at the micro level, it is necessary to provide psycholinguistic content on the importance of all language resources in learning processes from a cognitive, emotional, and communicative perspective (4.2.2). A second ponent is socio-political perspective on the close interaction between language, ideology, and learning; that is, how important it is to overcome the deficit perspective on minority groups and to recognize one's own role as a teacher in this process (4.2.3). The third reconstructed condition is multilingual teaching methods
The application and reflection of the new practices lead the prospective teachers to move from the normative and abstract level to a concrete action-oriented level and to understand linguistic diversity as a potential resource for the entire pupil body. Yet, research on multilingual didactics in subject (content) learning is still underdeveloped (Putjata & Danilovich, 2019a). These should be anchored vertically (in all phases of teacher training) and horizontally (in all subjects) in the sense of continuous language education. Finally, multilingual practices in the seminar itself - e.g. language comparisons, multilingual literature research, and language biographical elements - seem to be important not only for migration-related multilingual students themselves, but also for their fellow students without migration experience. This requires further research into explicit didactic methods for multilingualism as pedagogy in teacher training, using the existing resources of the course (4.2.5). These results are visualized in the model on "Reconstruction of language related notions of normality in teacher training" (Fig. 1) as follows:
And yet, in light of the role of language beliefs in teachers' actions and of teachers as agents at the interface between policy making and de facto practices, the presented findings contribute to a better understanding of a possible multilingual turn in education: an inclusive approach to linguistic diversity as a binding part of teacher education can make a decisive contribution to shifting the paradigm toward multilingualism as a social norm.
Acknowledgements
I thank Anita Krajina, Julia Komusin and Elena Pinnow for their participation in research as well as assistance with data collection and evaluation. I am also grateful to Nadja Thoma for comments on an earlier version of the paper. Any remaining errors and inconsistencies are mine alone.
References
References
Becker-Mrotzek, M., Hentschel, B., Hippmann, K., & Linnemann, M. (2012). Sprachförderung in deutschen Schulen - die Sicht der Lehrerinnen und Lehrer [Language support in German schools - the teachers' perspective]. Mercator Institut.
Blommaert, J. (Ed.). (1999). Language ideological debates (2010th ed.). De Gruyter. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110808049
Bourdieu, P. (1990). Was heißt sprechen? Die Ökonomie des sprachlichen Tausches [What does it mean to speak? The economy of linguistic exchange]. Braumüller.
Busse, V., & Hardy, I. (2023). Literalität und Mehrsprachigkeit: Begriffsklärungen, Fôrderansätze und Forschungsbefunde. Unterrichtswissenschaft, 51(2), 149-168. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42010-023-00175-0
Candelier, M., Camilleri-Grima, A., Castellotti, V., de Pietro, J.-F., Lorincz, I., Meißner, F.-J., & Schrôder-Sura, A. (2012). A framework of reference for pluralistic approaches to languages and cultures: Competences and resources. Council of Europe. https://doi.org/10.1080/17501229.2012.725252
Cochran-Smith, M., Gleeson, A.M., & Mitchell, K. (2010). Teacher Education for Social Justice: What's Pupil Learning Got To Do With It? Berkeley Review of Education, 1(1), 35-51. https://doi.org/10.5070/B81110022
Conteh, J., & Meier, G. (Eds.). (2014). The multilingual turn in languages education: Opportunities and challenges. Multilingual Matters. https://doi.org/10.21832/9781783092246
Cummins, J. (2019). Should schools undermine or sustain multilingualism? An analysis of theory, research, and pedagogical practice. Sustainable Multilingualism, 15(1), 1-26. https://doi.org/10.2478/sm-2019-0011
Cunningham, C. (2019). 'The inappropriateness of language': Discourses of power and control over languages beyond English in primary schools. Language and Education, 33(4), 285-301. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500782.2018.1545787
De Angelis, G. (2011). Teachers' beliefs about the role of prior language knowledge in learning and how these influence teaching practices. International Journal of Mul-tilingualism, 8(3), 216-234. https: //doi.org/10.1080/14790718.2011.560669
De Jong, E., & Gao, J. (2023). Preparing teacher candidates for bilingual practices: to-ward a multilingual stance in mainstream teacher education. International nal of Education and Bilingualism, 26(4), 472-482. https://doi.org/10.1080/13670050.2022.2119072
Donmall, B.G. (1985). Language awareness. Centre for Information on Language Teaching and Research.
Duarte, J., & Giinther-van der Meij, M. (2022). 'Just accept each other, while the rest of the world doesn't' - Teachers' reflections on multilingual education. Language and Education, 36(5), 451-466. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500782.2022.2098678
Fiirstenau, S. (2017). Unterrichtsentwicklung in Zeiten der Neuzuwanderung. In N. McElvany, A. Jungermann, W. Bos, & H.G. Holtappels (Eds.), Ankommen in der Schule: Chancen und Herausforderungen bei der Integration von Kindern und Jugendlichen mit Fluchterfahrung (pp. 41-56). Waxmann. [Teaching development in times of new immigration].
Garrett, P. (2010). Attitudes to language. Cambridge Univ. Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511844713
Gomolla, M. (2010). Diversität, Internationalität und Nachhaltigkeit im Kontext aktuel-ler Bildungsreform: Konzeptionelle Überlegungen in Anlehnung an die Gerechtig-keitstheorie Nancy Frasers. Tertium Comparationis, 16, 200-229. [Diversity, in-ternationality and sustainability in the context of current educational reform: Con-ceptual considerations based on Nancy Fraser's theory of justice].
Mary, L., & Young, A. (2018). Parents in the playground, headscarves in the school and an inspector taken hostage: Exercising agency and challenging dominant deficit discourses in a multilingual pre-school in France. Language, Culture and Curricu-lum, 31(3), 318-332. https://doi.org/10.1080/07908318.2018.1504403
May, S. (2019). Negotiating the multilingual turn in SLA. The Modern Language Jour-nal, 103(Supplement 2016), 122-129. https://doi.org/10.1111/modl.12531
Mayring, P. (2010). Qualitative Inhaltsanalyse. In G. Mey, & K. Mruck (Eds.), Hand-buch qualitative Forschung in der Psychologie (pp. 601-613). VS Verlag für Sozi-alwissenschaften/Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-531-92052-8_42
Melo-Pfeifer, S., & Helmchen, C. (2018). Plurilingual literacy practices at school and in teacher education. Peter Lang D. https://doi.org/10.3726/b13093
Menken, K., 87 Garcia, O. (Eds.). (2010). Negotiating language policies in schools: Edu-cators as policymakers. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203855874
Panagiotopoulou, J.A., Rosen, L., & Strzykala, J. (Eds.). (2020). Inclusion, Education and Translanguaging: How to Promote Social Justice in (Teacher) Education? Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-28128-1
Paus, E., & Jucks, R. (2013). Reflexives Schreiben als Seminarkonzept in den Lehr-amtsstudiengängen. Zeitschrift für Hochschulentwicklung.
https://www.zfhe.at/index.php/zfhe/article/view/505/528 (Original work published September 30, 2022) [Reflective writing as a seminar concept in teacher training courses].
Putjata, G. (2018). Multilingualism for life - language awareness as key element in educational training: Insights from an intervention study in Germany. Language Awareness, 27(3), 259-276. https://doi.org/10.3224/zdfm.v4i1-2.07
Putjata, G. (2019). Normalitätsvorstellungen angehender Lehrkräfte im Wandel. Empirische Studie zu Potentialen des Moduls „Deutsch für Schülerinnen und Schüler mit Zuwanderungsgeschichte". Zeitschrift für Diversitätsforschung und -Management, 81-94. [Changing perceptions of normality among prospective teachers. Empirical study on the potential of the module 'German for migrant pupils']. https://doi.org/10.3224/zdfm.v4i1-2.07
Putjata, G., Brizié, K., Goltsev, E., & Olfert, H. (2022). Introduction: Towards a multilingual turn in teacher professionalization. Language and Education, 36(5), 399- 403. https: //doi.org/10.1080/09500782.2022.2114804
Putjata, G., & Danilovich, Y. (2019a). Perspektiven der Lehre und Forschung auf sprachliche Bildung im Kontext des DaZ-Moduls: Zusammenfassung und Ausblick. In Y. Danilovich, & G. Putjata (Eds.), Edition Fachdidaktiken. Sprachliche Vielfalt im Unterricht: Fachdidaktische Perspektiven auf Lehre und Forschung im DaZModul (pp. 243-249). Springer. [Teaching and research perspectives on language education in the context of the DaZ module: Summary and outlook]. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-23254-2_14
Putjata, G., & Danilovich, Y. (2019b). Sprachliche Vielfalt als regulárer Bestandteil der Lehrerbildung: Zum Bedarf fachlicher und fachdidaktischer Perspektiven. In Y. Danilovich, & С. Putjata (Eds.), Edition Fachdidaktiken. Sprachliche Vielfalt im Unterricht: Fachdidaktische Perspektiven auf Lehre und Forschung im DaZ-Modul (pp. 1-14). Springer [Linguistic diversity as a regular part of teacher training: On the need for subject-specific and didactic perspectives]. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-23254-2_1
Putjata, G., Olfert, H., & Romano, S. (2016). Mehrsprachigkeit als Kapital - Móglichkeiten und Grenzen des Moduls »Deutsch fiir Schiilerinnen und Schiiler mit Zuwanderungsgeschichte« in Nordrhein-Westfalen. ODaF-Mitteilungen, 32(1), 34-44 [Multilingualism as capital - possibilities and limitations of the module "German for migrant pupils' in North Rhine-Westphalia]. https://doi.org/10.14220/0daf.2016.32.1.34
Reich, H.H., & Krumm, H.-J. (2013). Sprachbildung und Mehrsprachigkeit: Ein riculum zur und Bewältigung sprachlicher Vielfalt im Unterricht. Waxmann. [Studies on the effectiveness of teaching in the language of origin - state of research, research problems, need for research].
Shohamy, Е. (2010). Cases of language policy resistance in Israel's centralized educational system. In K. Menken, & O. Garcia (Eds.), Negotiating language policies in schools: Educators as policymakers (pp. 182-197). Routledge.
Thoma, N. (2020). 'I don't want to be pushed into an islamic school': Biography and raciolinguistic ideologies in education. Race Ethnicity and Education, 33(1), 1-19.
Thiirmann, E., & Vollmer, H.J. (2017). Sprachliche Dimensionen fachlichen Lernens. In М. Becker-Mrotzek, H.-J. Roth, & С. Lohmann (Eds.), Sprachliche Bildung - Grundlagen und Handlungsfelder (Sprachliche Bildung, Band 1) (pp. 299-320). Waxmann. [Linguistic dimensions of subject learning].
Venegas-Weber, P., & Martinez Negrette, G. (2023). From ideological clarity to linguistic ideological clarity: Critical reflections, examination of language ideologies, & interrogation of pedagogical practices. Linguistics and Education, 76, online first. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.linged.2023.101201
Young, A.S. (2014). Looking through the language lens: Monolingual taint or plurilingual tint? In J. Conteh, & G. Meier (Eds.), The multilingual turn in languages education: Opportunities and challenges (pp. 89-109). Multilingual Matters. https://doi.org/10.21832/9781783092246-009
Veerman, E., Duarte, J., Gaikhorst, L., & Volman, M. (forthcoming). A systematic review of empirical studies into multilingual pedagogies and their outcomes in primary education. Review of Education Research.
Footnote
