Teacher beliefs about multilingual learners: how language ideologies shape teachers’ hypothetical policymaking

Figures & data

Table 1. LBS Factors identified by Fitzsimmons-Doolan (2014).

Factor	Example item	α for our sample
Pro-Multilingualism (8 items)	In the US, the use of native languages other than English is helpful for sharing tradition	.75 (acceptable)
Pro-Monolingualism (8 items)	Language represents a national identity	.71 (acceptable)
Multiple languages as a problem (3 items)	The use of more than one language makes social mobility difficult	.90 (excellent)
English as a tool (2 items)	In the US, using English is important for gaining material wealth	.71 (acceptable)
Language as an intelligence standard (3 items)	One can know a person’s intelligence from how they use a language.	.35 (not acceptable)

Table 2. Correlation between LATS and LBS.

	Multiple Languages as a Problem	Pro- Monolingualism	Language as an Intelligence Standard	Pro- Multilingualism	English as a Tool
LATS total	−.42*	−.61*	−.50*	.52*	−.14
Language Politics	−0.31*	−0.69*	−0.39*	0.32*	−0.14
LEP Intolerance	−0.43*	−0.45*	−0.44*	0.39*	−0.14
Language Support	−0.27*	−0.25*	−0.36*	0.61*	−0.04

*p < .001

Figure 1. Decision tree model of how demographic characteristics related to LATS scores. Note: Darker shading = higher score; solid border = highest score; dashed outline = lowest score). Scores shown are the average total LATS score for each subgroup, with higher scores indicating relatively more positive attitudes toward linguistic diversity/language support than lower scores (Byrnes & Kiger, 1994).

Figure 2. Decision tree model of how demographics related to LBS Pro-Multilingualism scores (Note: Darker shading = higher score; solid border = highest score; dashed outline = lowest score). Participants responded to the 6-point Likert-scale questions (5 = strongly agree, 4 = agree, 3 = somewhat agree, 2 = somewhat disagree, 1 = disagree, 0 = strongly disagree). A score of 4.7 shows that the subgroup averages a score between agree strongly agree.

Figure 3. Decision tree model of how demographic characteristics relate to LBS Pro-Monolingualism scores (note that shading and borders are reversed here, so that darker still indicates a more positive stance toward linguistic diversity). Participants responded to the 6-point Likert-scale questions (5 = strongly agree, 4 = agree, 3 = somewhat agree, 2 = somewhat disagree, 1 = disagree, and 0 = strongly disagree). A score of 2.2 shows that the subgroup averages a score between somewhat disagree and somewhat agree.

Figure 4. Decision tree model of how demographic characteristics relate to DLBE support. Note: Darker shading = higher score; solid border = highest score; dashed outline = lowest score. Participants responded to the 6-point Likert-scale questions (5 = strongly agree, 4 = agree, 3 = somewhat agree, 2 = somewhat disagree, 1 = disagree, and 0 = strongly disagree). A score of 3.6 shows that the subgroup averages a score between somewhat agree and agree.

Table 3. Demographic variables that lead to increased scores on language ideologies measures (RQ 1a) and support for DLBE (RQ 1b).

RQ 1a			RQ 1b
LATS (Tree 1)	LBS Pro-Multilingualism (Tree 2)	LBS Pro-Monolingualism* (Tree 3)	Support for DLBE implementation (Likert score) (Tree 4)
↑ Teaching Experience (> 2.3 years)	↑ Teaching Experience (> 3.3 years)	↑ Teaching Experience (> 4.5 years)	↑ Teaching Experience (> 3 months)
↑ Person of Color	↑ Person of Color	↑ White
↑ Has Not Lived Outside US		↑ Has Lived Outside US	↑ Has Not Lived Outside US
		↑ Lives in Arizona	↑ Lives outside Arizona
↑ Master’s Program			↑ Undergraduate
	↑ Over 30 (with >3.3 years’ teaching) ↑ Under 23 (with <3.3 years’ teaching)		↑ Over 23
↑ Female	↑ Female		↑ Female
		↑ Studied Another Language	↑ Multilingual

*Grey column reminds readers that on Pro-Monolingualism, higher scores indicate greater focus on English’s importance across contexts

↑ = associated with higher scores on measure

Figure 5. Decision tree model of how reasons relate to DLBE support. Note: Darker shading = higher score; solid border = highest score; dashed outline = lowest score. Participants responded to the 6-point Likert-scale questions with higher number indicating more DBLE support (5 = strongly agree, 4 = agree, 3 = somewhat agree, 2 = somewhat disagree, 1 = disagree, and 0 = strongly disagree).

Figure 6. Decision tree model of how reasons relate to LATS scores. Note: Darker shading = higher score; solid border = highest score; dashed outline = lowest score. Scores shown are the average total score on the LATS for each subgroup with higher scores indicating relatively more positive attitudes toward linguistic diversity than lower scores (Byrnes & Kiger, 1994).

Figure 7. Decision tree model of how reasons relate to LBS Pro-Multilingualism scores. Note: Darker shading = higher score; solid border = highest score; dashed outline = lowest score. Participants responded to the 6-point Likert-scale questions (5 = strongly agree, 4 = agree, 3 = somewhat agree, 2 = somewhat disagree, 1 = disagree, and 0 = strongly disagree). Each subgroup in this model averages a score between agree and strongly agree.

Figure 8. Decision tree model of how reasons relate to LBS Pro-Monolingualism scores.

Note that shading and borders are reversed here, so that darker still indicates a more positive stance toward linguistic diversity. Participants responded to the 6-point Likert-scale questions (5 = strongly agree, 4 = agree, 3 = somewhat agree, 2 = somewhat disagree, 1 = disagree, and 0 = strongly disagree). A score of 2.4 shows that the subgroup averages a score between somewhat disagree and somewhat agree.

Table 4. Reason shaping support for DLBE implementation and language ideologies.

RQ 3a	RQ 3b
Support for DLBE (Likert score) (Figure 5)	LATS (Figure 6)	LBS Pro-Multilingualism (Figure 7)	LBS Pro-Monolingualism (Figure 8)
↑ Benefits to heritage students	↑ Benefits to heritage students	↑ Benefits to heritage students	↑ Bilingualism’s importance in a globalizing/diversifying world
	↑ Benefits to students in general	↑ Benefits to students in general
		↑ Collective benefits
↑ Practical concerns	↑ Practical concerns	↑ Practical concerns
↓ Misunderstandings	↓ Broader societal ideologies		↑ Misunderstandings

↑ = associated with higher score on the above measure

↓ = associated with lower score on the above measure

Table

Items from the Language Beliefs Survey (LBS), organized into factor structure found by Fitzsimmons-Doolan (2014) (which we used in this paper)
	F1	F2	F3	F4	F5
Pro-monolingualism
Language represents a national identity.	.687
The success of a nation depends on the use of a national language.	.680
In the U.S., public communication should occur in English.	.636
In the U.S., knowing English helps a person to be American.	.605
The standard- or model-form of a language is the most appropriate form for school.	.572
Using one language to complete a task is better than using two languages.	.463
In the U.S., the use of more than 1 language should be promoted.	−.400
Schools must teach native languages of students.	−.462
Pro-multilingualism
In the U.S., the use of native languages other than English is helpful for sharing tradition.		.681
Native languages are beautiful.		.646
One should be patient with people learning a second language.		.588
In the U.S., the use of multiple languages is an economic asset.		.588
In the U.S., the use of more than one language should be promoted.		.559
A person’ s linguistic abilities are assets.		.525
Different forms of language are appropriate for different contexts.		.527
The use of language is a human right.		.514
Multiple languages as a problem
The use of more than one language makes social mobility difficult.			.785
The use of more than one language makes social unity difficult.			.752
The use of more than one language creates social problems.			.746
English as a tool
In the U.S., using English is important for gaining material wealth.				.856
In the U.S., using English is important for social gains.				.768
Language as an intelligence standard
Languages stay the same over time.					.607
A language has one standard form.					.597
One can know a person’s intelligence from how he or she uses a language.					.410

Table

Demographic Characteristic	n	%
Gender^12
Female	118	88.1
Male	16	11.9
Lived outside the US
Yes	43	32.1
No	91	67.9
Lives in Arizona
Yes	104	77.6
No	29	21.6
No Answer	1	0.7
Age
18–22	67	50
23–29	33	24.6
30–39	24	17.9
40–49	7	5.2
50–59	3	2.2
Race
Black/African/African American	3	2.2
East Asian	1	0.7
Latine/Hispanic	31	23.1
Latine/Hispanic + Native American	1	0.7
Latine/Hispanic + White	4	3
Native American	2	1.5
Southeast Asian	4	3
White	87	64.9
No Answer	1	0.7
Multilingual?
Yes	43	32.1
No	91	67.9
Languages Spoken by Multilingual Participants^13
Spanish	27	62.8
Italian	2	4.7
Mandarin	2	4.7
ASL	1	2.3
French	1	2.3
Hebrew	1	2.3
Japanese	1	2.3
Laotian, Thai	1	2.3
Mandarin & Fujianese	1	2.3
Mandarin & Unnamed Chinese dialect	1	2.3
Navajo	1	2.3
Romanian	1	2.3
Spanglish	1	2.3
German & Spanish	1	2.3
Yoruba	1	2.3
Formal P-16 Teacher Experience
Yes	54	40.3
No	80	59.7
Program Enrolled
Undergraduate Teacher Prep	96	71.8
Master’s	38	28.2

Table

	Code	Subcodes	n	Examples
REASONS IN FAVOR OF DLBE (N = 156)
	I. Individual benefits specific to emergent bilingual, Spanish-speaking, and/or Latine students		59
		a. DLBE is better for English learning compared to other program models	32	It will allow students whose native language is Spanish to feel comfortable in the class and easier transition for their learning in English (P46) These students would be able to truly recognize Spanish as an asset and utilize it as a tool to help them learn English. I anticipate that their ability to acquire English will be accelerated due to their deepened understanding of the Spanish language (P22) If they strengthen their understanding of how their home language works, it will create a strong foundation in learning English as a second language (P19)
		b. Sustaining/strengthening language, culture and identity	15	It is important for students to continue to utilize their native language in order to maintain their cultural identity, and to interact with their families and communities (P132) This would help students not lose their native language (P30)
		c. Supports English learning while providing immediate/ equal access to content through instruction in Spanish	12	Gives students a chance to learn English without getting behind in their other classes and material (P111) This would enable students to learn English while achieving content goals (P119) All children deserve to be educated. Even if that is in their native language and slowly moving toward English (P73)
	2. Individual benefits not specific to heritage students		50
		2a. DLBE is good way to learn language	17	I think this is a great idea because it will help children become bilingual (P112) Both native Spanish and English speakers can greatly benefit from learning the other language through careful immersion (P35) For those students whose first language is English, the change will offer an early opportunity to gain/use a second language (P125)
		2b. DLBE provides future opportunities stemming from being bilingual	15	It opens up so many opportunities for work, travel, and study (P8) It opens more doors for the students … there are many other languages and being able to communicate with others in their future career will help them succeed in their lives (P62)
		2c. Being bilingual has cognitive benefits	8	When children learn two languages more of their brains are in use and makes them more adept to learning new things (P123) Studies have shown that children who are bilingual or multilingual increases children’s ability to focus and perform mental tasks (P5)
		2d. Saber de otros: Learning about other cultures	6	They can meet new people, have new experiences and gain a cultural understanding of other people they might meet in their lives (P103) They get to learn about other cultures as well (P56)
		2e. Conocer a otros: Building solidarity and empathy	4	Exposure to other languages and cultures promotes empathy in students … the school system can begin to craft a community that values the contributions of others rather than view them as outsiders (P32)
	3. Collective Benefits		33
		3a. Future benefits to society at large	17	Individuals who are bilingual are able to bring forth much more to the economy and to the work industry (P68) It seems necessary to speak multiple languages to further improve peaceful communication with the world (P66)
		3b. Present benefits to the school/surrounding community	16	This could really benefit the students and families of the community in an amazing way (P1) It allows traditions to be upheld, while also allowing us to make connections with one another. It could bridge the language barrier between students who speak different first languages (P76)
	4. Learning a second language is easier/ better when younger		8	Language is best learned at a younger age. Thus, it is ideal to learn a language in elementary school (P26) Teaching a new language at an early age while the plastic brain is still developing will make the process of becoming bilingual much easier (P79)
	5. Multilingualism is important in a globalizing/ diversifying world		8	I think it’s important to have a dual language program because our cities are becoming more diverse with different backgrounds and cultures (P41) Because of globalization and diversity, children need to learn more than one language to meet the challenge in the future (P122)
	6. General, positive responses		8	Bilingualism is an asset to everyone (P120) A bilingual school could be beneficial (P38)
REASONS AGAINST DLBE (N = 42)
	7. Misunderstandings about DLBE		20	The school is responsible for educating students in so much material there isn’t a reason to add bilingual into it (P80) My main concern is in regards to the segregation that would occur by a school exclusively having native Spanish speakers and no native English speakers … I think it is beneficial both socially and academically for students with different native languages to learn together (P72) We would be doing students a disservice as when they join the work force that is predominantly English speaking and they were not brought up in that (P81)
	8. Ideologies about language and society		16	While I am all for children speaking their native language well, and even more frequently than English. I do believe teaching children English opens up future opportunities for them and helps them to have a bigger world (P89) If a parent really wanted their child to learn Spanish then they could teach them their selves or have them go to an extra tutoring place to learn (P80) Learning a second language where English is the common tongue should be a choice, not a requirement. In regards to it being a choice, students should have the ability to choose which language they wish to speak … you give the students options rather than require them to learn a language they may never use again (P84)
	9. Concern with a 90–10 language ratio		6	10) I think that beginning with 90% Spanish and 10% English is too much. I think the percentages should be closer together. 90% is a lot (4)
PRACTICAL CONCERNS (N = 29)
	10. Practical issues to consider		29	How do we support students who have a home language other than Spanish or English? (P36) Teachers in the school district will need to be put through any additional training that is necessary. (P97) I think it’s necessary to consider how English and Spanish would be split 50/50, for example, would math classes only be taught in English throughout elementary, and science only be taught in Spanish? Or would there be exposure to subjects in both languages? (P134) Converting a school should depend on the demographic of the area. How many students would benefit from the new school, or how many families would want to participate? (P130)

Fitzsimmons-Doolan, S. (2014). Language ideologies of Arizona voters, language managers, and teachers. Journal of Language, Identity & Education, 13(1), 34–52. doi:10.1080/15348458.2014.864211

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Byrnes, D., & Kiger, G. (1994). Language attitudes of teachers scale (LATS). Educational and Psychological Measurement, 54(1), 227–231. doi:10.1177/0013164494054001029

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar