In-service teachers’ multilingual language teaching and learning approaches: insights from the Basque Country

Abstract

This study investigates the beliefs of primary school teachers about multilingual language teaching and learning approaches and examines the relationship between these beliefs and the current ideas on multilingualism. This paper reports key elements of the multilingual educational reality in the Basque Country, where a minority language (Basque), a majority language (Spanish), and an international language (English) share space in the curriculum. The study adopts a mixed methods approach combining a specifically designed online questionnaire regarding beliefs (N = 418), and four focus groups (N = 20). The findings indicate that teachers believe fluency is essential in the language learning process, prioritize the non-native multilingual teacher model, and show awareness of the influence parents’ linguistic attitudes have on students’ language learning outcomes. Teachers hold welcoming beliefs toward multilingual language teaching approaches and regard translanguaging as suitable for upper levels of Primary education. A major implication of this study is that teachers have a positive point of departure from which to develop and promote multilingual teaching approaches; however, the provision of valuable and applicable training plans based on the current school of thought on multilingualism should be considered in the near future.

Keywords:

• Teachers’ beliefs
• translanguaging
• multilingual teaching approaches
• multilingualism
• minority languages

1. Introduction

Language teaching and learning processes are evolving rapidly toward multilingual approaches due to the expansion of English in the world (Cenoz and Gorter 2022). In multilingual contexts such as the Basque Country there has been a paradigm shift in the educational field; education plans, which used to be rooted in bilingualism, are now moving toward more multilingual grounds (Gartziarena and Villabona 2022). In recent years, there has been an increasing interest in teachers’ beliefs on multilingualism and foreign language teaching, usually as L2 (speaker’s second language) and L3 (third language). However, little research has been conducted in the field of teachers’ beliefs on multilingual language teaching and learning approaches in the class. From an international view, the true potential of students’ multilingualism is gaining recognition for teaching languages in multilingual contexts (Lundberg, 2019; Putjata 2018; Turner, Nguyen, and Premier 2022). To date, more studies researching areas where a minority language coexists with a majority or/and an international language are needed to gain a deeper understanding of the hidden and significant views teachers hold in such multilingual contexts, and the main teaching approaches these key protagonists use in their every day practices in the classroom.

This paper explores the beliefs of primary school language and content teachers on language teaching together with learning processes in the Basque Country, and how they relate to the current school of thought about multilingualism. The paper gives an account of in-service teachers’ beliefs on multilingual language teaching approaches, by analyzing how they understand this complex process, the multiple shortcuts they implement when teaching languages, and the principal obstacles involved in this specific multilingual context. The current study aims to contribute to this growing area of research in which a minority language under normalization, a state language, and an international language share space in the educational context, emphasizing the need to provide an effective response to the curricular demands and the sociolinguistic challenge faced by the Basque language.

2. Multilingualism in Europe and in the Basque Country

In recent years, there has been an increase in the teaching of L2 and L3, English being the most widespread option taught because of the current globalization phenomenon (Cenoz and Gorter 2022). Political measures to foster multilingualism are common in the European Union (EU) as the learning of at least two additional languages to the L1 are encouraged for three main reasons: one, to promote a robust economy based on multilingualism; two, to provide EU citizens linguistic rights in their own and European languages; and three, to foster more advanced language learning (European Commission 2022).

Current literature considers bilingualism to be part of the broad concept of multilingualism, as they both mainly refer to the knowledge and use of at least two languages for communicative purposes (Cenoz and Gorter 2019; Cummins 2021; García and Otheguy 2020; García and Wei 2014). In this regard, current research embraces the specific understanding of a multilingualism that avoids looking at speakers’ proficiency levels that bolster artificial isolation and strict separation of languages. The concept of multilingualism moves from the idea of the unattainable and imaginary native speaker model to the real and multilingual language learner. As a consequence, multilingual learners cannot be compared with monolinguals, as they have developed various language learning strategies and lived through unique language learning experiences that render both concepts distinct from each other (Cenoz and Gorter 2019).

Although the benefits of using a students’ language repertoire have been embraced in the literature, traditional and monolingual language teaching and learning approaches seem to be still predominant in school practice (Cenoz and Gorter 2022). Consequently, one of the main challenges multilingual schools pose is the shift toward more multilingual language teaching approaches that may capitalize on all the learning opportunities students’ multilingual repertoires can offer. It is in this educational context where multilingual approaches such as translanguaging gain relevance, having a direct impact on how languages are understood in the classroom and applying more multilingual teaching practices in the classroom (Cenoz and Gorter 2022; García 2009; García and Otheguy 2020). These multilingual approaches bolster the inclusion of students’ multilingual repertoires in the class and lead the way to the application of multilingual teaching strategies, i.e. pedagogical translanguaging, to promote more efficient language learning and greater language transfer (Orcasitas-Vicandi and Perales-Fernández-de-Gamboa 2022).

Coming to the context of the study, Basque and Spanish have official status in the Basque Autonomous Community since the Statue of Autonomy in 1979. In 1982 the Law of Normalization of Basque issued the right to decide on the linguistic model. Since then, families have had the chance to choose among different immersion programs: a total immersion in Basque program, a Spanish and Basque balanced program or a total immersion in Spanish. More recently, the pedagogical plan in the Basque Country has been reformed aiming for an effective update in the adjustments within the EU recommendations on curricular competences (Basque Government 2020) so the basis for the new Education Plan is being discussed and negotiated between different political parties, agents and institutions. Preliminary documents on this matter indicate that some of the biggest updates include, for instance, the elimination of existing linguistic models and the creation of a unique and universal linguistic model based on a multilingual language teaching approach that includes Basque, Spanish and English. Overall, the latest events in education provide further evidence to indicating and reinforcing that Basque education is taking firm and decisive steps to move forward to a strong multilingual identity in education and thus at all society levels.

3. Teachers’ beliefs and research on multilingualism and multilingual language teaching and learning approaches

The beliefs of teachers about language learning processes, curricular contents, students and about themselves as educators are determinant and have a direct effect on pedagogical actions and didactic choices (Borg 2015). Rokeach (1968) suggests that beliefs are made of three main elements: cognition, affection and emotions. The first one is closely related to teachers’ knowledge; the second, to the elements triggering emotions; and the third, to the behavioral aspect of teachers’ actions. In other words, teachers’ beliefs are neither isolated nor unconnected, and they possess the capacity to affect teachers’ pedagogical actions in the classroom (Pajares 1992). Beliefs are broadly reckoned as teachers’ multifaceted recollection of experiences and understandings that they start developing as learners and continue evolving thereafter (Haukås 2018). Beliefs have an effect on judgments connected to teaching and learning as well as how students’ languages are valued and understood (Kalaja and Barcelos 2019). Thus, the investigation of teachers’ beliefs concerning language teaching and multilingualism is key to better understanding teaching approaches in the classroom (Vikøy and Haukås 2021) as they guide teachers’ conscious and unconscious pedagogical actions (Borg 2015). Therefore, teachers’ beliefs about language teaching and learning processes should be considered of paramount importance.

A considerable amount of literature has been published on teachers’ beliefs about multilingualism. Data from these studies suggest that in places where multilingualism is present and fostered, teachers hold positive beliefs toward it, although some monolingual views about the languages may also be present. Among these studies, the following stand out and describe key characteristics, elements and focal points on the matter.

In Finland, Alisaari et al. (2019) quantitative investigation (N = 820) reports teachers’ overall positive beliefs on multilingualism in the classroom and underlines the positive impact teachers’ language awareness has on multilingual teaching approaches. The paper highlights the need to train teachers in these approaches to exploit the true potential of multilingualism and students’ multilingual resources. Similar conclusions were drawn in Lundberg’s (2019) study, which reported the positive beliefs of Swedish teachers toward the principles of translanguaging and current multilingual approaches. A more recent study (Putjata and Koster 2021) compares the beliefs of teachers at monolingual and bilingual schools in the region of Rhine-Westphalia in Germany and raises the issue of language hierarchies as findings indicate that teachers appreciate multilingualism as combined with the official languages integrated in the curriculum, but not in the case of students’ home languages.

In Norway, Haukås (2016) contribution focuses on the divergent language teaching approaches when teaching the L1/L2 and the L3; in this study, teachers tended to make strictly limited use of students’ multilingual repertoire in the L1 and L2 classroom, while it was common to use this resource when teaching additional languages. In this line, Vikøy and Haukås (2021) highlight the urgency of designing curricular material based on multilingual teaching approaches and training teachers in these strategies.

With regard to the inner tensions between the native and the non-native language teacher model, Calafato (2019) conducted a critical review of research on the field during 2009–2018. Findings reveal that traditional beliefs, which used to consider non-native language teachers as deficient teachers due to their multilingual identity, are on a paradigm shift. In recent years, there has been a growing trend towards the acceptance of non-native teachers. These teachers are gaining status and recognition due to their multilingual characteristics, such as their greater language awareness, and the possible pedagogical applications of their own language learning experience. More precisely, Putjata (2018) examines multilingual teachers’ language awareness as a way to move to more multilingual teaching approaches. The paper identifies professionalization, the practice on multilingual strategies, the construction of knowledge on multilingualism and training in language awareness as key elements in implementing multilingual approaches successfully.

In the context of the Basque Country, teachers hold positive views about multilingualism and protective beliefs towards the minority language, Basque (Gartziarena and Villabona 2022). Studies in this context have also shown the positive effects of a professional development course on multilingualism and translanguaging on teachers’ beliefs and reported practices (Cenoz and Santos 2020; Gorter and Arocena 2020). Teachers, after completing the training course, demonstrate being less convinced that separating languages is a good idea and have more favorable views toward using more than one language in the classroom, understanding that languages can support each other in the learning process. In this regard, beliefs and teaching practices can be modified with considerable time and effort, although teachers must have theoretical input in the new approach, and have the chance to experience, observe, and reflect on it (Kirsch, Duarte, and Palviainen 2020). To date, the vast majority of the studies have focused exclusively on the exploration of the benefits that teachers’ beliefs may offer, however, much less is known about the inclusion and the relationship between these stated beliefs and teachers’ pedagogical actions in the classroom.

4. Research questions, objectives and research scope

This paper aimed to fill some of the abovementioned gaps in knowledge by providing a deeper understanding of teachers’ beliefs in the Basque context. In order to do so, we formulated the following research question:

What beliefs do primary school teachers hold concerning multilingual language teaching and learning approaches?

The purpose of this investigation was to explore and describe in-service teachers’ beliefs about language teaching and learning processes to detail their major characteristics and relate them to multilingual approaches. This study sought to obtain data that will help to understand the views of primary school teachers on teaching the languages of the curriculum in the multilingual education settings in the Basque Country. Additionally, this research examined the emerging role of a minority language, Basque in this case, on the configuration of teachers’ beliefs and the relationship with multilingual language teaching approaches.

5. Methodology

5.1. Sample

418 primary school teachers participated in the study. Of the respondents, 79.2% were female, 19.9% male and 0.9% non-binary. The average age of the participants was 43.3 years old. Almost half of the participants (45.5%) indicated Spanish as their L1, circa four in every ten indicated Basque (41.6%), 19.1% considered both as their L1, and a much smaller number of participants noted other languages (0.6%). Table 1 below shows the data about both programs in which the participants were enrolled during their school years and those in which they were teaching at the time of the study.

Table 1. Teachers’ data about the program at school during their school years and the current program taught.

In-service teachers	D model	B model	A model	G model	Other
	(Basque immersion)	(Bilingual Spanish-Basque program)	(Spanish immersion with compulsory Basque subject)	(Spanish immersion with no Basque)
Program at school	47.8%	8.9%	23.2%	18.4%	1.7%
Program taught	84.4%	6.2%	4.8%	2.6%	1.9%

Out of 418 in-service teachers, 30.6% were content teachers (teachers of Social and Natural Sciences, Mathematics, etc.) while 69.4% were language teachers (Basque and Literature, Spanish and Literature and English). Finally, as for the language of instruction, Basque was the working language for 50% of the participants, both Basque and Spanish for 25.7%, English for 9.8%, both Basque and English for 6.7%, Spanish for 3.8% and other languages for 4%.

5.2. Data collection and analysis

For the quantitative data, an online questionnaire with 26 items was designed to gather data on beliefs of primary school teachers. The data-gathering tool was partially based on previous investigations conducted by the DREAM research group. Taking into account that participants were multilingual teachers, the questionnaires were fully available in Basque, Spanish and English, and participants had the option to select their language of preference (Calafato 2022). The questionnaire was classified into two main sections: multilingualism and language learning and teaching approaches. This paper presents the results obtained from the Language learning and teaching approaches section, as the findings regarding teachers’ beliefs on multilingualism have been reported elsewhere. The selected section consisted of 15 items related to language teaching and learning approaches in multilingual contexts. The structure of the questionnaire was closed and it measured the level of agreement toward the statement by using a Likert-Scale ranging from 0 to 4.

In full length, the questionnaire was designed to be completed in approximately 30 minutes. School principals from all educational centers in the Basque Country received the email invitation to participate in the study. The link to the questionnaire was provided to all who accepted, and these principals were the only ones who shared the link with the teaching staff. The questionnaire did not collect any confidential, sensitive and personal information or data that could identify the participants. The invitation explicitly mentioned and ensured that participation was voluntary and that would not affect their teaching or employment in any way. The link to the questionnaires was active for about two months, and several gentle reminders during these weeks were sent to enhance participation. Quantitative data were analyzed by using SPSS (version 26), and descriptive analyses were conducted in order to observe and explore these beliefs. The investigation received ethical approval from the University of the Basque Country UPV/EHU and the researchers followed their procedures and guidelines for data collection and analysis (identification code: M10_2017_143).

For the qualitative data, 4 focus group discussions were conducted, one in each of the 4 provinces of the Basque Country to assess the existing diverse sociolinguistic reality. Five primary school teachers who had previously completed the questionnaire participated in each of the meetings (N = 20). The focus group discussions were semi-guided and semi-structured and had the mission to engage teachers in insightful conversations that brought to the surface their inner thoughts, beliefs, and attitudes in a relaxed environment. The questionnaire, being the quantitative part, helped to identify overarching trends while the discussions provided ‘a more fine-grained analysis’ (Cohen, Manion, and Morrison 2011, 96). These were conducted at the very end of the 2017/2018 academic year and the beginning of the 2018/2019 school year. They were sex-balanced and lasted approximately one hour each. The participants had the opportunity to choose Basque, Spanish, and English as the language of communication (Calafato 2022), but Basque was chosen in all four cases. The focus groups covered the main topics included in the questionnaire: the balance between language accuracy and use when teaching and learning languages, its relationship with language teaching approaches, the inner tensions between the native-speaker teacher model and the non-native, the relevance of parental attitudes toward languages and the perceived impact on students, the early introduction of English, the implementation of multilingual teaching approaches, and the hypothetical integration of different languages in the same class and subject. Qualitative data obtained from the focus group discussions were analyzed through content analysis using Atlas.ti (version 8). The codes used in the excerpts presented can be summarized as follows. FGB4: The first two letters refer to Focus Group; the third is the first letter of the province the focus group took place (i.e. Biscay); and the ID number given to each participant.

6. Results

6.1. Quantitative findings about teachers’ beliefs on multilingual language teaching and learning approaches

The level of agreement towards the statements in the questionnaire is reported in Table 2, consisting of fifteen items on a five-point Likert-scale to elicit teachers’ affinity toward the items. The distribution of the scores per item shows the degree of agreement or disagreement with each item. The mean ranges from 0 to 4; a low score would be translated into more disagreeing positions and a high score would show agreement toward the statement.

Table 2. Descriptive data about teachers’ beliefs on multilingual teaching and learning approaches.

Item	n	M	SD	TD^1	D^2	NAND^3	A^4	TA^5
1. The higher the level of the language, the better the academic results.	418	2.9	0.9	3	29	91	182	113
				0.7%	6.9%	21.8%	43.5%	27%
2. Priority must be given to accuracy rather than to the use of the language.	418	1.2	0.7	49	238	114	15	2
				11.7%	56.9%	27.3%	3.6%	0.5%
3. More class hours bring a greater learning outcome.	418	2.2	0.9	6	100	133	149	30
				1.4%	23.9%	31.8%	35.6%	7.2%
4. The teacher must be a native speaker of the language he/she is teaching.	418	1.8	1	34	142	136	86	20
				8.1%	34%	32.5%	20.6%	4.8%
5. Language learning is easier thanks to technology.	418	2.5	0.8	4	45	145	193	31
				1%	10.8%	34.7%	46.2%	7.4%
6. Nowadays, language learning continues virtually outside the classroom.	418	2.8	0.6	0	12	113	254	39
				0%	2.9%	27%	60.8%	9.3%
7. Complete learning of the target language cannot be guaranteed only by school.	418	3.2	0.7	1	13	33	228	143
				0.2%	3.1%	7.9%	54.5%	34.2%
8. Language is learnt by using it.	418	3.6	0.5	1	0	5	143	269
				0.2%	0%	1.2%	34.2%	64.4%
9. It is beneficial to start learning English at the age of 4.	418	2.5	0.9	7	36	158	156	61
				1.7%	8.6%	37.8%	37.3%	14.6%
10. Parents’ linguistic attitudes condition student’s language learning.	418	3.2	0.7	0	5	46	211	156
11. The English learning process is not altered whether the student’s mother tongue is Spanish or Basque.	418	2.6	0.9	0	45	121	189	63
				0%	10.8%	28.9%	45.2%	15.1%
12. The learning outcome of the target language can be improved by using the student’s mother tongue in class.	418	2.4	0.9	6	52	168	152	40
				1.4%	12.4%	40.2%	36.4%	9.6%
13. Languages should be taught in an isolated manner in class.	418	1.2	0.9	72	207	106	27	6
				17.2%	49.5%	25.4%	6.5%	1.4%
14. Coordination is necessary among language teachers.	418	3.4	0.6	1	3	23	203	188
				0.2%	0.7%	5.5%	48.6%	45%
15. Language teaching must be the core of the curriculum.	418	2.9	0.9	2	24	82	200	110
				0.5%	5.7%	19.6%	47.8%	26.3%

As the percentages in Table 2 showed, there were four items teachers agreed with most. Item 8, ‘Language is learnt by using it’ (98.6%), was close to receive total agreement (TA = 64.4; A = 34.2). Item 14, ‘Coordination is necessary among language teachers’ (93.6%) also met extensive consensus (TA = 45; A = 48.6). 88.7% (TA = 34.2; A = 54.5) agreed with item 7 ‘Complete learning of the target language cannot be guaranteed only by the school’ and 87.8% (TA = 37.3; A = 50.5) agreed with item 10 ‘Parents’ linguistic attitudes condition student’s language learning’. The mean value for these four items was higher than 3.

To a lesser degree, three more statements gathered significant levels of agreement. Item 15 ‘Language teaching must be the core of the curriculum’ was agreed with by up to by three quarters of the sample (TA = 26.3; A = 47.8). Seven out of ten reported agreement toward items 1 ‘The higher the level of the language, the better the academic results’ (TA = 27; A = 43.5) and 6 ‘Nowadays, language learning continues virtually outside the classroom’ (TA = 9.3; A = 60.8). The mean value for these three items was within the range of 2.8 to 2.9.

Six out of ten agreed with item 11 ‘The English learning process is not altered whether the student’s mother tongue is Spanish or Basque’ (TA = 15.1; A = 45.2). Item 5 ‘Language learning is easier thanks to technology’ (TA = 7.4; A = 46.2) was agreed up to by 53.6%, and item 9 ‘It is beneficial to start learning English at the age of 4’ (TA = 14.6; A = 37.3), 51.9%. 46% of the participants agreed with Item 12 ‘The learning outcome of the target language can be improved by using the student’s mother tongue in class’ (TA = 9.6; A = 36.4). The mean value for these four items ranged from 2.4 to 2.6.

Teachers seemed to disagree most with two items at similar levels. First, item 2 ‘Priority must be given to accuracy rather than to the use of the language’ (TD = 11.7; D = 56.9), and second, item 13 ‘Languages should be taught in an isolated manner in class’ (TD = 17.2; D = 49.5), as 68.6% and 66.7% disagreed, accordingly. Both items had 1.2 mean values.

There were items that showed neutral positions, which may be translated into divergent points of view. Specifically, item 3 ‘More class hours bring greater learning outcomes’ with a mean value of 2.2 and a roughly balanced frequency distribution (TD = 1.4; D = 23.9; NAND = 31.8; A = 35.6; TA = 7.2), and item 4 ‘The teacher must be a native speaker of the language he/she is teaching’ (TD = 8.1; D = 34; NAND = 32.5; A = 20.6; TA = 4.8), with 1.8 mean value.

6.2. Qualitative findings concerning teachers’ beliefs on multilingual language teaching and learning approaches

In this section, teachers were asked about their beliefs on the main themes reported in the quantitative chapter. These views shed light on key aspects of their understanding of language teaching and learning processes.

With regard to the tension on keeping a balance between language accuracy and fluency, in-service teachers’ common belief was to give priority to fluency. They demonstrated being highly aware of the fragility of this equilibrium; however, experienced teachers attested that achieving language accuracy was always unattainable if fluency was not put at the very heart of the learning process.

FGA6: Fluency is fundamental. A huge linguistic structure is built on this process and language accuracy has its place there. Of course, you need to keep a balance, and progressive correction assists that process.

Excerpt 1

Teachers believed fluency to be the engine of this whole learning process. Interestingly, some teachers shared their experience on language teaching and learning, and stressed the need to modify current language teaching approaches:

FGB2: Fluency is the way to achieve accuracy. I mean, you may have a very high language level, learn a lot, but if you don’t use the language…

FGB4: That’s it!

FGB5: You actually “lose” what you have learnt, and accuracy comes as a consequence of using that language.

FGB1: We must change the focus when teaching languages.

Excerpt 2

The previous excerpts shed light on how languages are understood in educational settings and may reveal the friction between two distinct language teaching approaches: the traditional, grammar-based approaches and the communicative. These beliefs surfaced mainly due to the new social and linguistic challenges in the Basque education system: the need to train students for communicative purposes. This phenomenon is easily recognizable with Basque as teachers tend to supply speakers with the sufficient linguistic tools required for successful communication and therefore increase the use of the minority language at all levels. Another topic that was discussed in the focus groups was that of the profiles of language teachers and the native speaker vs. non-native speaker dichotomy.

FGG2: You don’t necessarily need to be a native speaker. A non-native speaker can also be a very engaged and capable teacher. And perhaps teachers don’t need the highest command of the language, but great skills in transmitting knowledge.

FGG1 and FGG3: Yes, absolutely!

FGG3: I think teaching has its own requirements. You may be a native speaker of Basque or English, but other abilities are needed.

FGG1: Communicative skills, for instance.

Excerpt 3

Teachers demonstrated holding very strong positive beliefs toward the non-native teacher model. Teachers praised communicative abilities rather than linguistic aspects. In other words, teachers prioritized the educator’s pedagogical value over full mastery of the target language.

According to these teachers, parents’ influence over students’ language learning processes and outcomes is obvious. In this vein, teachers reckoned parents as a key element to achieve success and highlighted the potential to boost the positive attitudes coming from school. Excerpt 4 resumes teachers’ common beliefs toward this issue.

FGA4: I think it all starts at home.

FGA5: Sure, if you start attending English lessons at the age of three, even if you don’t like them, I think you’re fueling that transmission.

FGA2: I think you need to work side by side with families. Schools have to work for the families’ interests to impact students’ linguistic development positively. And we’re actually doing it, with languages too. Honestly, is that our duty? I don’t have an answer, but if we aim to achieve these goals, we’ve got to do it!

Excerpt 4

Teachers demonstrated high awareness about the crucial role of parental attitudes towards language learning. Teachers reflected on the dialogical duty schools and teachers have with families, and although they seem doubtful about whether it is their responsibility or not, they accept the challenge. Delving deeper, teachers gave details on the strategies used with parents in this direction:

FGN2: In pre-primary, although students’ home language is Spanish, we recommend parents that they talk about Basque positively. That’s our main advice: cherish your languages.

FGN1: I consider it a way to give prestige to the languages. As parents, if your will is to transmit something valuable to your children, it must be valued at home first. This way, children will value learning languages too.

Excerpt 5

A considerable number of teachers in areas where Basque experiences a weaker sociolinguistic reality put the spotlight on parents to connect the minority language with positive values. Teachers are well aware of the benefits that the parents’ positive attitudes may bring to students’ language learning processes.

The early introduction of the L3 was another interesting topic of debate. Teachers participating in the focus groups expressed opposite beliefs and only a few teachers were in favor of introducing English in Early Childhood Education.

FGG2: I think there are other and greater relevant factors in play [when learning a new language]. You don’t learn a language by just receiving two one hour-classes per week. That’s not enough to learn a language!

FGG4: You say it’s not enough, but that’s better than nothing! That student has some advantages compared to the one who didn’t hear a word in that language. We are talking about little details; however, I think that the earlier you start learning a language, the better.

Excerpt 6

Data coming from the discussions revealed two opposing and often conflicting discourses toward learning the L3 in the Basque Country. On the one hand, the first teacher argues that there are other relevant factors affecting the learning of the L3, and what is more, claims that the number of hours invested must be considerably greater than two hours per week. On the other hand, the common belief ‘the sooner, the better’ when learning languages is presented.

Delving deeper into multilingual language teaching approaches, the translanguaging strategy was introduced. First of all, brief introductory explanations were delivered by the moderator so as to guarantee every participant understood its key features and therefore assure that teachers were able to discuss the main ideas with the group. The most widespread reaction to this pedagogical strategy was of reluctance, as they considered that very high mastery levels of the three languages in the curriculum would be needed for its implementation to be successful. Teachers also considered that specific training on translanguaging would be essential, and many concerns aroused regarding the role of the minority language, Basque, within this approach. Nevertheless, in half of the focus groups, a large proportion of teachers viewed switching between languages pedagogically as natural for multilingual speakers. Even if unconsciously, some of them were implementing this strategy in class:

FGN2: I think that’s something natural.

FGN3: That’s when you speak more than one language or just multitask on your computer: you pick up something in English, then you discuss it with your partner in Spanish and end up summarizing it in Basque. You know, we do it naturally.

FGN2: Although English is our working language, I use texts in Basque and Spanish many times in my class. We make use of authentic materials, and then we comment on them or make a summary in English.

FGN4: That’s good, but we must be careful in our case! The presence of Basque in our surrounding is quite limited. Therefore, we must increase the presence of Basque, otherwise…

FGN1: Yes, I’m also afraid of that.

Excerpt 7

These quotes underline and summarize the main ideas about multilingual teaching approaches and the inner conflicts and worries about keeping a balance between the three languages embodying multilingualism in the educational setting while bolstering the knowledge and use of the minority language. Teachers show positive beliefs toward multilingual teaching approaches, although worries on the effect of translanguaging on the minority language were presented. In general, teachers believed that strategies such as translanguaging would be a better alternative for secondary education, once students have developed a good command of Basque, the habit of using the minority language have been consolidated, and a minimum level of English has been achieved. However, teachers were cautious and hesitant about this approach in terms of the possible negative repercussions for Basque, as it could have a negative impact in areas where the minority language does not have a strong presence socially.

7. Discussion and conclusions

This study set out with the aim of answering the following research question: What beliefs do in-service teachers hold concerning multilingual language teaching and learning approaches?

In general, findings show that the beliefs held by Basque teachers are in line with current understanding of multilingualism and multilingual education approaches. The participants of this study principally demonstrated a tendency towards communicative approaches to teaching, underlining, for example, the importance of fluency over accuracy, the belief that languages are best learned by their real-life use, as well as the benefits of using L1 in the FL classroom. In fact, teachers show positive beliefs toward the use of multilingual approaches such as translanguaging, although some of them were concerned about the role of Basque in such multilingual practices.

Our findings indicate that teachers’ systems of beliefs emerge from the ‘you learn languages by using them’ idea. A possible explanation for this may be related to the changing the focus of languages to more communicative ends, as the recent adjustments in the Basque Education Plans advance toward more multilingual approaches aiming to enhance students’ communicative abilities when learning the curricular languages (Basque Government 2020).

The qualitative findings reinforced the central importance fluency reportedly has on language learning. Findings demonstrate that teachers have constructed a solid belief about the fundamental role of fluency in language learning achievement. Furthermore, teachers are well aware of the tensions between language accuracy and fluency, which may parallel the friction between traditional and multilingual language teaching approaches, and urge for a change in the focus when teaching languages so as to train students in using their multilingual repertoire for communicative situations. These findings support Alisaari et al. (2019) final remarks on the educational possibilities that multilingual approaches may give to multilingual learners, and support the contribution of Vikøy and Haukås (2021) expressing the necessity to design curricular material based on multilingualism and to training educators on multilingual approaches.

The current study also found that teachers strongly believe they have tacit beliefs about the influence that parents’ linguistic attitudes have on students’ language learning processes, and they play a central role in regulating and catalyzing students’ language learning outcomes. Another important finding is that, at a theoretical level, teachers seem to break with the traditional approach to teaching languages in an isolated manner, and hold firm beliefs toward the inclusion of languages. These findings confirm the association of teachers’ beliefs in the Basque Country with the current trends and multilingual approaches aiming to exploit multilingual learners’ potential (Cenoz and Gorter 2022), and demonstrate consistency with international contributions which emphasize the shift and the recognition that multilingual approaches are gaining in multilingual contexts (Lundberg, 2019; Putjata 2018; Turner, Nguyen, and Premier 2022).

Another important finding of this study is the reported beliefs on the native vs non-native teacher as language teachers. Although clear consensus on this issue was not present in our quantitative results, the participants of our focus group discussions showed clear positive beliefs toward the non-native teacher model. In fact, teachers specify that there is no need to be a native speaker of the target language nor to have the greatest mastery level of the target language but prioritize ‘other’ abilities such as communicative skills, ability to transmit knowledge, possession of human values and appropriate pedagogical values. There are similarities between the findings of this study and the critical review conducted by Calafato (2019) in which non-native teachers are progressively considered less deficient teachers and more suitable holders of that multilingual identity. This view is mirrored in the growing acceptance, higher status and recognition of these multilingual features.

Other findings in this study detected that teachers may hold differing, even opposing views, towards the early introduction of the L3 with some teachers claiming that learning the L3 is unachievable with just two hours of weekly exposure, and late immersion strategies in upper stages can be therefore implemented. However, it seems very common for teachers with positive beliefs toward the early introduction of the L3 to show ‘the sooner you start learning the language the better’ belief reported by Portolés and Martí (2020).

On the question of implementing multilingual approaches in the class such as translanguaging, teachers’ first common reaction was of reluctance, believing this strategy to request very high mastery levels and complex and specific training. Teachers also have to deal with a large number of concerns and fears with the side effects it may have on the minority language. Nevertheless, all teachers agree on the benefits and positive effects of this strategy of mixing the three languages pedagogically if focused on Basque. Another significant finding is that some teachers (mainly L3 teachers) were using this pedagogical strategy unconsciously in their classes. There are also similarities between the findings reported in this investigation and those described by Haukås (2016). These results support the evidence that L3 teachers tend to implement more multilingual language teaching approaches, and appear to differ somewhat from the monolingual strategies that L1 and L2 teachers use when teaching languages. A possible explanation for this phenomenon in the Basque Country is in all probability connected with the protective beliefs that L1 and L2 teachers hold concerning securing the knowledge of the minority language and trying to increase its use.

A limitation of this research is the generalizability of the findings. Although the sample size of the study is considerable (N = 418), the findings are not absolutely representative and generalizable to the population of teachers in the Basque Country. Nevertheless, it would be of relevant scientific interest to conduct a second investigation to compare and possibly contrast these findings and report on the evolution of these beliefs. Therefore, further research and didactic work are required to design and implement significant training courses to provide training on multilingual language teaching approaches. This paper is in line with a series of recent and relevant publications highlighting the need to train educators in this respect (Alisaari et al. 2019; Cenoz and Santos 2020; Gartziarena and Villabona 2022; Gorter and Arocena 2020; Iversen 2021; Kirsch, Duarte, and Palviainen 2020; Lundberg, 2019; Vikøy and Haukås 2021). Furthermore, these training courses need to be instructive enough to extend the range of successful multilingual teaching strategies that may enable shortcuts in students’ language learning and provide more tuned language teaching practices to their daily multilingual communicative situations.

Disclosure statement

No conflict of interest has been reported by the authors.

Additional information

Funding

This work was supported by Basque Government [grant number DREAM IT1666-22]; European Regional Development Fund through the Agencia Estatal de Investigación [grant number PID2019-105818GB-100.

Notes

1 TD: Totally disagree

2 D: Disagree

3 NAND: Neither Agree Nor Disagree

4 A: Agree

5 TA: Totally Agree