Appreciation of multilingual teaching activities by secondary school students in Germany: findings from a quasi-experimental intervention study on teaching French

ABSTRACT

Recognising and appreciating linguistic diversity and different cultural identities is an important educational goal for the development of our societies [Council of Europe 2007. From Linguistic Diversity to Plurilingual Education: Guide for the Development of Language Education Policies in Europe. Council of Europe Publishing; 2020. Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: Learning, Teaching, Assessment – Companion Volume. Council of Europe Publishing]. This paper presents the results of a quasi-experimental pre–post control-group study on the implementation of multilingual teaching activities in teaching French as a second foreign language at secondary grammar schools in Germany (in total n = 221 students, a convenience sample of 207th grade classes). Results of analysis of questionnaires and interviews with students show a positive appreciation of multilingual teaching activities, especially among students with migration background who have been raised plurilingually, and an increase in the appreciation of multilingual teaching activities among students who have been raised monolingually in the lingua franca German. Furthermore, the results indicate that the intervention was relevant to students’ intercultural learning in terms of fostering their appreciation of multilingual teaching activities, even though the teaching materials prepared for the study were not implemented consistently in all participating classes.

KEYWORDS:

• Plurilinguality
• intercultural learning
• foreign language teaching
• culturally responsive teaching
• linguistically responsive teaching

Introduction

Due to historical, recent, and current migration, teaching in a dynamic space of linguistically and culturally heterogeneous classrooms has become a widespread reality (Vertovec 2023). This also applies to German schools having a proportion of about 40% of students with immigration experience within their families (German Federal Statistical Office 2022). Political statements in Germany and Europe call for the recognition and appreciation of linguistic diversity and related cultural identities as educational goals (Council of Europe 2001; 2020; KMK 2023). However, there is an intense debate about how to refer to linguistic diversity at the level of a society or at the level of individual linguistic experiences, and we had to decide on the wording. In this paper, we use the term ‘plurilingualism’ to describe individual communicative competence ‘to which all knowledge and experience of language contribute and in which languages interrelate and interact’, and we will use the term multilingualism to describe the use of multiple languages in societies, these terms are in line with the work of the Council of Europe (Coste, Moore, and Zarate 2009; Council of Europe 2001, 4).¹

As recognising the prevalence of societal multilingualism and promoting individual plurilingualism are significant objectives for Europe (Council of Europe 2007; 2020), schools in Europe are called upon to recognise and promote individual plurilingualism and the acceptance of cultural and linguistic diversity (Coste, Moore, and Zarate 2009). Consequently, students’ cultural and linguistic experiences should be used as resources for learning through culturally and linguistically responsive teaching (Cenoz and Gorter 2021; García 2009; Gay 2015; 2018; Lucas and Villegas 2013).

Research on language teaching and learning has been primarily focused on research on English as a target language, given its relevance as lingua franca in the globalised world. However, the increasing linguistic diversity of modern societies calls for a shift towards a multilingual approach in language teaching and learning research (De Bot 2015; Ushioda and Dörnyei 2017).

As language teaching in schools explicitly aims at the formation of individual plurilingual profiles, it is particularly suited to address not only the target language, but all language competences related to previous language learning, plurilingual socialisation and students’ identities (Schmelter, Göbel, and Buret 2023; Ushioda 2017). Didactic reflections on foreign language teaching, such as the Whole School Language Curriculum (Hufeisen and Jessner 2018), require a greater recognition of societal multilingualism and individual plurilingualism as they bring together different levels of language learning (Cenoz and Gorter 2021). Systematically integrating all students’ linguistic experiences may enhance their openness to linguistic diversity, making it a potential means to address intercultural learning in language teaching (Beacco et al. 2016; Göbel, Lewandowska, and Diehr 2017). Nevertheless, valuing and appreciating students’ plurilingual experiences still appears to be a challenge in schools in general and in language teaching in particular (Calafato 2021; De Angelis 2011).

In recent years several empirical studies have investigated multilingual teaching activities in language education (e.g. Busse et al. 2020). The present paper is intended to contribute to the discussion on multilingual teaching activities in foreign language teaching by addressing students’ perceptions in a quasi-experimental pre–post study on French as a foreign language at secondary schools in Germany.

The relevance of appreciating plurilingualism for social integration and intercultural learning in schools

Linguistic and cultural diversity are obvious features of today’s world (United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization 2019). In Germany, about one in three students grows up with at least one other language besides German (Olfert 2019). However, migrant-related skills in low-prestige languages, and the use of migrant-related heritage languages, such as Turkish in Germany, are mostly perceived as barriers to students’ academic achievement rather than learning resources (Gogolin 2019). Similarly, German secondary school students hold negative views of migrant languages, especially Russian and Turkish, and value foreign languages such as English and Spanish (Busse 2017; Plewnia and Rothe 2011). The negative image of migrant students’ family languages in schools and society has been assumed to hinder students’ plurilingual development (Gogolin 2019). Still, students’ home (i.e. family) languages are relevant reference points for their identity development (Vedder and van Geel 2017). Research on the immigrant experience suggests that positive identification with family culture and language enhances students’ social and emotional resources and is helpful in integrating and succeeding at school (Makarova 2008; Preusche and Göbel 2022). The intercultural and multilingual orientation of schools and teaching content as well as opportunities to engage with one’s own (pluri)cultural identity and respective languages are considered to be supportive (Civitillo and Juang 2020; Haenni Hoti 2015; Sleeter and Owuor 2011), especially for learners with migration backgrounds (Celeste et al. 2019). Appreciation of plurilingualism can provide plurilingual students with psychosocial resources to help them cope with the process of acculturation (Göbel and Frankemölle 2020; Horenczyk 2010; Schachner et al. 2019). Conversely, failing to recognise plurilingualism in schools and discriminating against pupils’ family languages and cultures can reinforce students' tendencies to withdraw into their own cultural community, hindering their processes of adapting to school (Horenczyk et al. 2013; Vedder and van Geel 2017). Current concepts and empirical evidence on language learning also point to possible resources that plurilingual learners may have in terms of language learning and psychological benefits. However, not all empirical evidence points in the same direction (e.g. Berthele 2021; Cenoz 2013; Festman 2021; Lehtonen et al. 2018; Poarch and Bialystok 2017).

To promote openness to other languages and cultures and the integration of students with migration-related plurilingual language learning experiences, several disciplines have called for the inclusion of students’ linguistic diversity in the classroom (Bialystok and Poarch 2014; Gogolin and Meyer 2014). Concepts for their integration into teaching (e.g. Beacco et al. 2016; Lucas and Villegas 2013; Reich and Krumm 2013) and some specific materials (e.g. Behr 2005; Schader 2012) already exist.

Multilingual perspectives in foreign language teaching

The concept of a Whole School Language Curriculum and multilingual didactic approaches, which can be understood as a call for the integration of individual plurilingualism and societal multilingualism, assume that the actual teaching of foreign languages lends itself to the integration of different languages of learning (Candelier et al. 2011; Council of Europe 2007; 2020; Hufeisen 2011). In this sense a variety of multilingual approaches have been developed to promote language learning, language awareness, and intercultural strategies, but not all of them have been designed with the family languages of migrant students in mind (Cenoz and Gorter 2021; Creese and Blackledge 2015; García et al. 2017; Meißner and Morkötter 2009).

Nevertheless, ‘translanguaging’ pedagogies, in the sense of taking into account students’ complex linguistic resources and valuing all the languages and cultures present in the classroom, have been adopted in language teaching in schools (Cenoz and Gorter 2021). Translanguaging aims to support students’ multiple cultural and linguistic identities, develop language and metalinguistic competencies and enhance students’ well-being in class (García et al. 2017). Translanguaging might therefore be described as being conceptually similar to other integrative multilingual didactics or language-sensitive practices (Cenoz and Gorter 2019). Yet, the concept of translanguaging has provoked conceptual debates about deconstructivist perspectives on languages (Bonacina-Pugh, da Costa Cabral, and Huang 2021) on the one hand, and the notion of linguistic diversity as a socially relevant issue on the other (Cummins 2021; MacSwan 2022). As translanguaging concepts are primarily based on the accessibility of the languages involved for all participants (Cenoz and Gorter 2017), the transfer of this concept on language teaching in migrant contexts seems challenging, as not all students speak or comprehend every language involved.

Another prominent foreign language teaching concept for integrating students’ linguistic repertoires is intercomprehension. Intercomprehension didactic approaches aim to develop students’ awareness of intercomprehensive strategies in order to support their language learning process (Meißner and Morkötter 2009). These approaches are based on the assumption that language learning can be supported by inter – and intralingual comparisons of lexical, morphological and syntactic structures. The ability to apply comprehensive strategies from previously learned languages to the learning of a new language needs to be explicitly taught (Hufeisen and Jessner 2018). Intercomprehensive teaching concepts mostly address languages taught in school, while the languages that students speak at home are rarely considered (Martinez 2015), nevertheless, these languages and students learning experiences are a resource in language teaching to accelerate learning and to foster language learning motivation by experiences of self-efficacy (Meißner 2010). Several family languages of migrants that are frequently spoken in Germany can be seen as good ‘linguistic bridges’ (e.g. for French teaching) and could therefore be used to illustrate lexical transfer strategies (Klein and Stegmann 2000).

Results from small-scale experimental qualitative studies in Germany conducted outside the regular foreign language teaching and its progression, have indicated positive effects of teaching strategies for language learning and language awareness (e.g. Marx 2005). A study by Hopp and Thoma (2021) in primary schools, in which an intervention to encourage reflection on grammatical similarities and differences between FL and German in grammar-focused EFL classes was implemented, showed higher gains in the intervention groups than in the control-group, regardless of the students’ home language. The findings suggest that the implemented multilingual FL instruction was appropriate and helpful for all primary school FL learners in the study even though they had different linguistic experiences. However, empirical research on the effectiveness of teaching strategies for intercomprehensive learning in schools is still limited (Hopp and Jakisch 2020).

Teachers’ perspectives on multilingual teaching

Teachers’ general beliefs and attitudes play a prominent role for the implementation of multilingual teaching activities (Haukås 2016; Lucas and Villegas 2013). Although language teachers mostly report positive attitudes toward plurilingualism and toward comparing languages in a contrastive way, studies from different contexts show that language teachers hold problematic attitudes regarding the impact of their students’ plurilingualism on their learning development (De Angelis 2011; Haukås 2016; Lundberg 2019). Few language teachers seem to include multilingual perspectives in their actual teaching. If they do, they tend to refer to languages they are familiar with – mostly foreign languages taught in schools and rarely minority languages – and do so in a mostly spontaneous way without using specific teaching materials (Alisaari and Heikkola 2020; Brehmer and Mehlhorn 2015; Göbel and Vieluf 2014; 2018; Kianiparsa and Vali 2022). A comparative study of language teachers in Norwegian and Russian schools shows that EFL teachers are even less interested in multilingual activities in their classrooms than teachers of other foreign languages (Calafato 2021). Existing teaching materials in Germany rarely address students’ plurilingualism (Marx 2014; Mehlhorn 2015). Given that language teachers are still hesitant and feel insecure about integrating multilingual activities into their teaching, the development of teaching materials and the design of intervention studies are important aims of applied linguistics and research.

Students’ engagement in multilingual teaching activities

As the family languages of migrant students are often associated with low prestige, the inclusion of these languages in the school curriculum could support a perceived increase in the value of these languages and their speakers, which in turn could increase learners’ self-esteem, language awareness, and language learning (Gibson and Hufeisen 2007; Meißner 2010). From the perspective of self-determination theory and the related conceptualisation of basic personal needs (Deci and Ryan 2000), it can be argued that students who perceive that their linguistic competences (whether family or school languages) are addressed in the context of multilingual classroom activities may feel more competent, enjoy these activities, and evaluate them positively (Vieluf and Göbel 2019). A study by Rück (2009) confirms this view, showing that the more teachers considered and valued learners’ home languages, the more learners themselves valued the importance of these languages. A student-centered recourse to the intercultural and linguistic experiences of all learners has been shown to have positive effects on language learning and student motivation in EFL teaching at secondary level (Göbel and Vieluf 2014; 2018; Vieluf and Göbel 2019). Studies in the context of university teaching have also shown positive student perceptions of multilingual teaching (e.g. Caruso 2018; Fallas Escobar 2019; Klapwijk and van der Walt 2016).

However, it is worth noting that plurilingually raised students in German schools often face negative and inadequate attitudes towards their native language (Gogolin 2019). Therefore, the integration of these languages into teaching activities could potentially lead to concerns among plurilingual students regarding potential judgment based on their ethnicity (e.g. stereotype threat or othering; Froehlich et al. 2022; Helmchen 2019). Perceiving multilingual teaching as a threatening situation might result in negative emotions and a rejection of these activities by plurilingual students (Cook et al. 2012; Dirim 2016; Froehlich et al. 2022; Schmader, Johns, and Forbes 2008).

The need to feel competent is seen as relevant to well-being and learning, drawing on self-determination theory (Deci and Ryan 2000). In the context of multilingual teaching activities monolingual students might perceive themselves as less ‘good’ language learners and experience inhibitions when asked to use an unfamiliar language (Rück 2009). Binanzer and Jessen (2020) report that German monolingual students tend to prioritise the use of German as a lingua franca in the sense of a single language and express feelings of discomfort when confronted with plurilingual students conversing in their family language at school. In the context of multilingual teaching activities, monolingual students might feel frustrated since they have fewer linguistic resources at their disposal than plurilingual students, which might lead them to rejection (Dirim 2016).

In recent years, several intervention studies implementing multilingual teaching activities have emerged focusing on the teaching of English as a foreign language (EFL) in primary schools in Germany. A study by Busse and colleagues, in which students were asked to use all their linguistic resources, shows that students in the intervention-group generally report higher positive affect throughout the intervention, higher plurilingual self-aspirations, and higher vocabulary gains than the control-group (Busse et al. 2020). Positive affect may be due to the language intervention and to the experiential activities which were in place (Busse et al. 2020). In another intervention study in primary EFL, teachers provided linguistic scaffolding, asked students to draw on their linguistic resources or encouraged an appreciation of plurilingualism when working on a textbook unit. Again, students in the intervention-groups show higher learning gains and report greater well-being than students in the control-group (Busse, McLaren, and Dahm 2021). The studies show that multilingual teaching should be carefully developed and managed in order to foster appreciative perspectives towards multilingual teaching activities and their languages. More studies are needed to explore the effectiveness of multilingual teaching activities by developing and evaluating different approaches in order to better understand their impact on learning gains and the appreciation of multilingualism (Cenoz and Gorter 2019; Duarte et al. 2023; Gogolin 2014).

The present study

As multilingual teaching activities have rarely been addressed in research on regular teaching of French as a foreign language after English as a foreign language, the present study addresses this research gap. Multilingual teaching materials were developed and implemented in the second year of French as a foreign language in German secondary schools by means of a quasi-experimental pre–post control-group study. The focus of this paper is on the students’ views on multilingual teaching activities.

Research questions

The paper investigates the following research questions:

1. Are there differences regarding the perception and appreciation of multilingual teaching activities from pre – to post-test between intervention-group and control-group?

2. Do students’ perceptions and appreciation of multilingual teaching activities in the intervention group differ between monolingually and plurilingually raised students?

Given the various theoretical considerations mentioned above, hypotheses for the present study could go in different directions. Most probably students will not have much multilingual teaching experiences before the intervention (e.g. Haukås 2016). Hence, it might be expected that the implementation of didactically well-designed multilingual classroom activities should be perceived as a change in teaching by all students in the multilingual intervention-group. Maybe even more for monolingual students, as they might be less familiar with multilingual experiences. Concerning the appreciation of multilingual teaching activities, the studies of Busse et al. (2020; 2021) hint at a general positive evaluation of all students. Nevertheless, it can be argued that multilingual students may have different perceptions of multilingual classroom activities more positively than their monolingual peers, as they especially recognise their linguistic competences (self-determination-theory; Deci and Ryan 2000). However, if the multilingual activities are perceived to support the activation of negative stereotypes about migrant languages (stereotype threat; e.g. Weber, Kronberger, and Appel 2018), plurilingual students could reject these activities. On the other hand, for monolingual students, multilingual activities could confront them with their lack of linguistic experience, which would lead to rejection of multilingual activities (e.g. Binanzer and Jessen 2020; Deci and Ryan 2000; Dirim 2016). Given the diverse possible outcomes and in the light of the exploratory design of the study no specific hypothesis are formulated.

Method

Design and participants

To address the research questions a quasi-experimental pre–post intervention study was implemented and quantitative and qualitative methods were combined in the sense of mixed methods. The study follows a sequential design by first collecting quantitative data from students and conducting qualitative semi-structured interviews with students and teachers² after post-test for in-depth purposes (Creshwell and Clark 2011).

The study was implemented during the academic year 2018/19 with a total of n = 221 students from 20 7th grade classes in 12 secondary grammar schools in North Rhine-Westphalia, Germany. Students in grade 7 are typically 13 years old. Informed consent for participation in the study was obtained in advance from the students’ parents. Although the promotion of plurilingual appreciation and intercultural openness are important goals explicitly mentioned in language learning curricula in Germany, the curricula hardly provide any methodological guidelines beyond the formulation of competence standards to be achieved (NRW 2019). Therefore, a multilingual teaching intervention for teaching French as a foreign language was developed and implemented in regular French as a second foreign language classes being taught to the students after English. Students were in their second year of learning French, the level of difficulty corresponded to language proficiency level A1 (Council of Europe 2020).

Drawing on the concepts of language and intercultural awareness (Beacco et al. 2016; Reich and Krumm 2013; Schader 2012), and cross-linguistic learning and intercomprehension (Behr 2005; Meißner 2010; Morkötter 2019), the training materials for the project were developed with the intention of raising language awareness, fostering an appreciation of multilingualism and plurilingualism, as well as promoting lexical transfer strategies through guided language comparisons to promote the use of students’ language competencies for learning French. A pilot study was carried out to test and revise the training and the instruments. The training materials were designed to be integrated into the textbook-based teaching of French in grade 7 over a period of 10–12 weeks (i.e. one unit per week), taking about 15 minutes time. The sequence of tasks begins with a general reflection on multilingualism and plurilingualism in society and in the classroom, continues with lexical transfer at word level and lexical transfer at text level, with reference to the students’ family languages and school languages, and includes intercultural reflection. It ends with a reflection on students’ languages. Teachers could choose between two tasks with different themes each week, and could integrate tasks individually, in teams or as group work (Göbel et al. 2021; Schmelter, Göbel, and Buret 2023). The participating teachers were prepared for the intervention in an intensive workshop in which they reflected on their language experiences and on the tasks they had to implement in their lessons.

Classes were assigned to the intervention conditions on the basis of cognitive ability (KFT, Heller and Perleth 2000) and French language proficiency (C-Test, Göbel et al. 2021) at the pre-test in order to increase the comparability of the individual input conditions of the intervention and control groups. Nine of the 20 classes were allocated to the intervention-group and the other 11 classes were assigned to the control-group. To ensure that all teachers and classes could profit from the multilingual teaching activities, the control-group was defined as a waiting-list control-group to receive the training materials after the post-test was completed.

The post-test revealed that not all teachers had fully implemented the intervention, with teachers reporting that finding time for the whole intervention was a major challenge (Göbel et al. 2021). The marked differences in the intensity of the implementation of the training material led to the decision to differentiate between two intervention-groups; the groups were formed after the intervention, depending on how many of the tasks (time on task; e.g. Carroll 1964) the teachers implemented in their teaching. The sample was divided into three groups as follows:

• Control-group: students in classes in the control-group did not complete the multilingual training units (n = 107)

• Intervention-group I (IG I): students in classes in IG I completed less than 10 of the 12 units of multilingual training (n = 41)

• Intervention-group II (IG II): students in classes in IG II completed at least 10 of the 12 multilingual training units (n = 73).

The students in the different groups are comparable in terms of gender and age (Table 1). Thirty-seven students from both IGs participated in post-test interviews, these students were pre-selected by gender, and linguistic background to obtain balanced groups (54.1% female, 54.1% plurilingual; 17(45.9%) from IG I, 20(54.1%) from IG II).

Table 1. Description of the sample^a.

		CG (n = 107)	IG I (n = 41)	IG II (n = 73)
Gender	Female Male	60(56.1%) 47(43.9%)	25(61.0%) 16(39.0%)	48(65.8%) 25(34.2%)
Age	M(SD)	12.54(0.50)	12.41(0.59)	12.42(0.60)
Language acquisition	Plurilingual Monolingual	32.7% 67.3%	39.0% 61.0%	45.2% 54.8%

Note: Intervention-group who completed at least 10 of the 12 multilingual training units. A χ²-test showed significant differences between the control-group (22.4% / 10.3%) and IG I (12.2% / 26.8%) and IG II (20.5% / 24.7%), with a lower proportion of successive bilingual students in the control-group. However, in the analyses, simultaneous and successive plurilingual students are grouped together due to the small group sizes.

^a CG: control-group; IG I: students from classes in the intervention group who completed at least 10 of the 12 multilingual training units; IG II: students from classes in the

Regarding students’ home/family languages, students were asked Which of these languages did you learn first in your family? (If you speak more than one language in the family, please write them all down). In total, the students in the sample spoke 31 different family languages besides German; the most common family languages were Turkish, English, Arabic, Russian, and Polish.³

In the given sample, all plurilingual students⁴ had migration background. The proportion of plurilingual students was slightly higher in the IG I and IG II than in the control-group. However, this difference in the composition of groups was not found to be statistically significant: χ²(5, n = 221) = 1.849, p = .397.

Analytical method

Questionnaires

All participants (intervention and control-groups) took part in a written pre–post – test to assess their perception and appreciation of multilingual teaching activities. The instrument (Table 2) was developed in the context of preliminary work (Göbel 2014). The dimensionality of the instrument was demonstrated by confirmatory factor analysis, with acceptable fit statistics for the 2-factor model of perception and appreciation of multilingual teaching activities (RMSEA⁵ <0.08, SRMR < 0.08, TFI/CFI >0.95; cf. Hu and Bentler 1999; Vandenberg and Lance 2000).

Table 2. Perception and appreciation of multilingual teaching activities.

Scale	Number of items	Example item	Cronbach’s αt1/t2	nt1/t2
Perception of implementation of multilingual teaching activities	9	‘In French classes, we are made aware of similarities and differences to the vocabulary of other languages’.	.78/.86	188/203
Appreciation of multilingual teaching activities	6	‘I think it is important for the class community that the languages and cultures of all classmates are included in the lessons’.	.76/.79	201/204

Note: t1 = pre-test, t2 = post-test.

The questionnaire items were assessed using a four-point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree, 2 = rather disagree, 3 = rather agree, 4 = strongly agree). Acceptable reliability coefficients were found at both times of measurement (Table 2). Group-specific reliability coefficients for the subdimensions (perception and appreciation of multilingual teaching activities) are also satisfactory at both pre-test and post-test (α_CG= .73–.85; α_IGI= .89–.90; α_IGII= .68–.81).

Interviews

To explore students’ perspectives on actual multilingual teaching activities in more detail, we interviewed 37 students from the intervention-groups (IG I and IG II) after the intervention. From each class in the intervention group, at least four students were selected on the basis of gender and family language experience (2 monolingually and 2 plurilingually raised students; 2 male, 2 female, whenever possible). Narrative prompts and follow-up questions focusing on students’ experiences with the multilingual teaching activities were designed for the semi-structured interviews (Helfferich 2014). After some ice-breaking questions to create a comfortable atmosphere, students were asked⁶ about their perception of multilingual teaching activities in the classroom. Students should describe how they perceived the integration of tasks into the lessons, how they evaluated the inclusion of other languages than French (e.g. English and family languages) into French lessons, if they enjoyed the multilingual teaching activities and if they appreciated these activities for language and intercultural learning.

Plan of data analysis

Quantitative analysis

To examine the group-specific changes in the general perception of implementation of multilingual teaching activities and in the appreciation of multilingual teaching activities (research question 1), mean differences between the pre- and post-test measurement (Döring and Bortz 2016) were calculated for all groups and tested for statistical significance (paired sample t tests and Wilcoxon tests). The data were further examined using repeated measures ANOVAs, whereby the factors time of measurement and group (variation of the treatment) were taken into account as independent variables. This procedure is recommended for the investigation of general changes from pre-test to post-test and differences between the groups concerning their changes in mixed designs (Field 2013). The assumptions for our analyses were checked in advance.⁷ Normal distribution of the residuals and variance homogeneity were only met when CG and IG II are integrated into the analysis, which is why we decided to exclude IG I from the group comparison (research question 2).

To learn more about the possible impact of the intervention on specific learner groups (monolingually and plurilingually raised students), we additionally conducted exploratory analyses with subgroups of the intervention-groups (research question 3). Given the different group sizes, statistical comparisons were not conducted with all subgroups and times of measurements. Differences between monolingual and plurilingual students in the two intervention-groups were tested using unpaired sample t tests (Mann–Whitney U test). The effect sizes (Cohen’s d) were calculated by using the standard deviation from the difference of the means (paired t tests) or the pooled standard deviation (unpaired t tests).

For all analyses, the significance level α was fixed at 5%. However, multiple testing of a sample is associated with the risk of alpha error accumulation. Therefore, Bonferroni corrections for the different groups analysis are reported.

Qualitative content analysis

The interviews were transcribed and all transcripts were analysed via qualitative content analysis (Kuckartz 2014). Thematic and evaluative categories were developed in two steps: First, the material was coded along thematic main categories, which were derived from the theoretical framework, the research questions and from the guidelines for the interviews. Second, the categories were further developed and differentiated along the material, i.e. subcategories are formed and the entire material was coded again. The coding unit was a minimum of one complete sentence and a maximum of the student’s complete response to an interview question. The coding scheme was applied independently by two trained coders.

All categories show acceptable intercoder reliability (kappa coefficient; Brennan and Prediger 1981; Table 3). For the analysis, coded categories are presented quantitatively, further exploratively identified lines of students’ argumentation are presented to enrich the findings.

Table 3. Categories for the analysis of student interviews^a.

Categories	Description	κ
Evaluation of the multilingual teaching activities	Utterances in which students reflect on and evaluate multilingual teaching activities. Including utterances dealing with language comparisons and occurrence of other languages in French lessons. Subcategories: Important – Interesting – Helpful – Ambivalent – Negative	.87
Evaluation of English as referred to in the training	Utterances in which students reflect on inclusion or non-inclusion of English as a transfer language and evaluate occurrence or non-occurrence of English in French lessons. Subcategories: Positive – Ambivalent – Negative	.91
Evaluation of other languages integrated in the training	Utterances in which students reflect on inclusion or non-inclusion of other/first languages and evaluate the occurrence or non-occurrence of these languages in French lessons. Subcategories: Positive – Ambivalent – Negative	.89

^a Intercoder reliability reported using kappa coefficients (Brennan and Prediger 1981) for main categories. Similar kappa coefficients were shown for the respective subcategories.

Results

RQ 1: Differences regarding perception and appreciation of multilingual teaching activities from pre – to post-test between intervention-groups and control-group: survey results

Table 4 presents the means of perception and appreciation of multilingual teaching activities. Group-specific mean values for the scale perception of implementation of multilingual teaching activities are below 2.50 at pre-test, indicating a low level of agreement and thus a limited implementation of multilingual activities in French teaching at pre-test. In contrast, the group-specific mean values for the scale appreciation of multilingual teaching activities are slightly above 2.50 at both times of measurement, indicating generally positive attitudes toward multilingual teaching.

Table 4. Comparison of study groups: perception and appreciation of multilingual teaching activities.

Scale	CG (n = 107)			IG I (n = 41)			IG II (n = 73)
	M (SD) pre	M (SD) post	p	M (SD) pre	M (SD) post	p	M (SD) pre	M (SD) post	p
Perception of implementation of multilingual teaching activities	2.32 (0.47)	2.42 (0.55)	.084	2.27 (0.61)	2.41 (0.73)	.265	2.33 (0.53)	2.68 (0.52)	<.001
Appreciation of multilingual teaching activities	2.80 (0.60)	2.62 (0.58)	.015	2.82 (0.82)	2.57 (0.81)	.033	2.84 (0.59)	2.89 (0.56)	.390

Note: CG: control-group; IG I: students from classes in the intervention-group who completed less than 10 of the 12 multilingual training units; IG II: students from classes in the intervention-group who completed at least 10 of the 12 multilingual training units. Mean values based on four-point Likert scales (1 = strongly disagree, 2 = rather disagree, 3 = rather agree, 4 = strongly agree); p-value of the paired t-test (difference between pre-test and post-test score)

The results of paired t tests indicate changes in the general perception and appreciation of multilingual teaching activities in all groups. For the scale perception of implementation of multilingual teaching activities, a slightly more positive assessment becomes apparent at post-test in IG II (post–pre-difference Δ =  0.35; t(72) = −6.149; p < .001; Bonferroni corrected p = .003); with a medium effect size (|d| = 0.720; Cohen 1988). Regarding the average appreciation of multilingual teaching activities, students in the control-group show a decrease at post-test (post–pre difference Δ = −0.18), proving to be statistically significant having a small effect (t(105) = 2.479; p = 0.015; Bonferroni corrected p = .045; d| = 0.241). A slight decrease in appreciation of multilingual teaching activities at post-test was found for students in IG I with small effect size (post–pre difference Δ = −0.22, t(39) = −2.215; p = .033; Bonferroni corrected p = .099; |d| = 0.350).

Further analysis comparing the control-group and IG II (rmANOVAs) indicates differences at pre-test and post-test. For perception of implementation of multilingual teaching, a significant effect of measurement repetition (F(1, 178) = 31.042, p < .001, η² = .148) is evident; in both groups, a slightly more positive assessment becomes apparent at post-test (Table 4). A significant interaction effect (F(1,178) = 10.581, p < .01, η² = .056) indicates that groups differ with regard to the extent of this increase. While change in the control-group falls short of the 5% significance level, the comparisons of the mean for students in IG II illustrate a statistically significant increase with regard to perception of implementation of multilingual teaching activities at post-test. At post-test, groups differ significantly in their mean perception of implementation of the multilingual teaching activities (t(178) = −3.252, p = .001, Bonferroni corrected p = .002, |d| = 0.494). Similarly, a significant group difference is evident for the average appreciation of multilingual teaching activities at post-test (t(177) = −3.037, p = .003, Bonferroni corrected p = .006, |d| = .463). Analysis of variance reveals a significant interaction effect, indicating differences between the groups concerning changes in appreciation of multilingual teaching activities from pre-test to post-test (F(1,176) = 5.186, p < .05, η² = .029). While students from classes in IG II evaluate multilingual teaching activities slightly more positively at post-test than prior to the intervention (post–pre difference Δ = 0.04), students in the control-group show a decrease in appreciation of multilingual teaching activities at post-test (post–pre difference Δ = −0.18).⁸

RQ 2: Perception and appreciation of multilingual teaching activities by monolingually and plurilingually raised students in the intervention-groups: survey results

Results examining the differences between monolingual and plurilingual students in IG I and IG II are presented in Table 5.

Table 5. Comparison of monolingually and plurilingually raised students in the intervention-groups.

	IG I (p value of Wilcoxon t test)
	Monolingual (n = 25)			Plurilingual (n = 16)
	M (SD) pre	M (SD) post	p	M (SD) pre	M (SD) post	p
Perception of implementation of multilingual teaching activities	2.27 (0.54)	2.45 (0.76)	.162	2.27 (0.73)	2.34 (0.71)	.856
Appreciation of multilingual teachings activities	2.76 (0.79)	2.57 (0.74)	.144	2.92 (0.89)	2.57 (0.92)	.190
	IG II (p value of paired t test)
	Monolingual (n = 40)			Plurilingual (n = 33)
	M (SD) pre	M (SD) post	p	M (SD) pre	M (SD) post	p
Perception of implementation of multilingual teaching activities	2.27 (0.50)	2.65 (0.49)	<.001	2.41 (0.56)	2.72 (0.56)	.002
Appreciation of multilingual teachings activities	2.61 (0.45)	2.80 (0.50)	.041	3.09 (0.65)	3.00 (0.61)	.389

Note: Mean values based on four-point Likert scales (1 = strongly disagree, 2 = rather disagree, 3 = rather agree, 4 = strongly agree).

In IG I, perception and appreciation of multilingual teaching activities did not change over time for monolingual or for plurilingual students and no significant differences between the group of monolingual (n = 25) and plurilingual students (n = 16) were found, although plurilingual students show a slightly higher appreciation of multilingual teaching activities at pre-test. In IG II, the average perception of implementation of multilingual teaching is slightly higher for plurilingual students (n = 33) than for monolingual students (n = 40); however, none of these differences are significant. In IG II a significant increase of perception of implementation of multilingual teaching activities for both monolingual (t(39) = −5.198; p < .001, Bonferroni corrected p = .004, |d| = 0.822) and plurilingual students (t(32) = −3.456; p = .002, Bonferroni corrected p = .008, |d| = 0.602) can be reported.

The appreciation of multilingual teaching activities is rated more positively by plurilingual students than by monolingual students in IG II, which proves to be significant only at pre-test (t(71) = 3.578, p = .001, Bonferroni corrected p = .004), with a large effect size (|d| = 0.841). Monolingual students in IG II show a more appreciative attitude toward multilingual teaching after the intervention; the increase is statistically significant (t(38) = −2.199, p < .001, Bonferroni corrected p = .004), although the effect is rather small (|d| = 0.339).

RQ 1 and 2: Students’ perception of multilingual teaching activities in the intervention-groups: insights from interviews

Students from both intervention-groups express mostly positive views regarding the multilingual activities realised in their French lessons. They appreciate the integration of different languages into the lessons and perceive the multilingual activities as interesting and helpful for language learning. Still, some differences between the groups can be observed. Appreciation of multilingual teaching activities is slightly more positive in IG II than in IG I, further somewhat more ambivalent expressions were given by students in IG I compared to those in IG II (see Table 6).

Table 6. Evaluation of multilingual orientation (student interviews).

	IG I
Categories	Subcategories	Monolingual (n = 8)		Plurilingual (n = 9)
		Doc.(%)	Total items coded	Doc.(%)	Total items coded
Evaluation of the multilingual orientation of the training
	Positive in general	6(75.0)	9	7(77.8)	14
	Positive/Important	0(0.0)	0	2(22.2)	3
	Positive/Interesting	4(50.0)	4	2(22.2)	2
	Positive/Helpful	5(62.5)	5	7(77.8)	9
	Ambivalent	5(62.5)	6	2(22.2)	3
	Negative	1(12.5)	1	0(0.0)	0
Evaluation of the languages used in the training
Evaluation of English as transfer language	Positive	3(37.5)	3	7(77.8)	9
	Ambivalent	0(0.0)	0	1(11.1)	1
	Negative	0(0.0)	0	0(0.0)	0
Evaluation of other integrated languages	Positive	0(0.0)	0	5(55.6)	6
	Indifferent	1(12.5)	1	5(55.6)	6
	Negative	2(25.0)	2	0(0.0)	0
	IG II
		Monolingual (n = 9)		Plurilingual (n = 11)
Categories	Subcategories	Doc.(%)	Total items coded	Doc.(%)	Total items coded
Evaluation of the multilingual orientation of the training
	Positive in general	9(100)	24	11(100)	22
	Positive/Important	0(0.0)	0	2(18.2)	2
	Positive/Interesting	8(88.9)	14	9(81.8)	15
	Positive/Helpful	6-(66.7)	9	4(36.4)	5
	Ambivalent	1-(11.1)	2	1(9.1)	1
	Negative	0(0.0)	0	0(0.0)	0
Evaluation of the languages used in the training
Evaluation of English as transfer language	Positive	6(66.7)	6	6(54.5)	6
	Ambivalent	0(0.0)	0	0(0.0)	0
	Negative	0(0.0)	0	0(0.0)	0
Evaluation of other integrated languages	Positive	2(22.2)	2	7(63.6)	13
	Indifferent	4(44.4)	5	3(27.3)	3
	Negative	0(0.0)	0	2(18.2)	2

Note: ‘Doc.’ denotes the number of documents (= transcripts) in which codes were assigned to the respective categories. Accordingly, ‘Total items coded’ quantifies the number of utterances in all documents within a certain category, whereby multiple answers were possible. The percentages quantify the proportions of documents within a specific group of students who made the respective statement. Due to the possibility of multiple statements, they do not add up to 100%.

When looking at differences between monolingual and plurilingual students, the interviews reveal that both groups appreciated the multilingual activities in their French lessons. Still, this rating is more positive in IG II (monolingual:100.0%, plurilingual:100.0%) than in IG I (monolingual:75.0%, plurilingual:77.8%). When classifying the positive evaluations into the subcategories ‘important’, ‘interesting’, and ‘helpful’, some differences appear. In general, both monolingual and plurilingual students in IG II rate the multilingual orientation, namely the inclusion of other languages in French lessons, as interesting.⁹

However, plurilingual students in IG II evaluate the training as more interesting than those in IG I (X² (1, n = 20) = 7.10, p = .008). Concerning the integration of other languages, only plurilingual students (in both IG I and IG II) stated that multilingual teaching was important.¹⁰

Interview analysis reveal ambivalent expressions by monolingual students concerning the multilingual teaching activities, especially in IG I (χ²(1, n = 17) =  4.89, p = .027). Some of the students experience the language comparisons as difficult or do not understand how they were supposed to help them learn French.¹¹

Most of the interviewed students evaluate the integration of English as a language of transfer and reflection as positive and helpful for the language learning process (22 positive, 1 ambivalent, 0 negative). They were able to recognise similarities between English and French in the areas of lexis, grammar, and orthography, which is described with examples.¹²

Regarding the evaluation of other languages integrated into multilingual teaching activities, it appears that plurilingual students perceived the use of migration-related family languages more positively than monolingual students did. The inclusion of migration-related family languages was reported to be helpful for French language learning.¹³

Furthermore, plurilingual students repeatedly state that they perceive their multilingualism as a positive resource in the classroom as for the first time, they were referred to as experts by the teacher; this made them feel particularly valued, as stated by a multilingual student in IG II.¹⁴

Plurilingual students’ appreciation of the intervention was evident in both intervention-groups, but the overall positive evaluation of multilingual teaching activities was stronger in IG II than in IG I.

Discussion

Results regarding the perception of multilingual teaching activities show similar levels in all groups at pre-test, which are below the theoretical mean, indicating that students in all researched groups experienced only a quite limited implementation of multilingual activities in their French lessons. This finding is in line with several empirical studies on the implementation of multilingual teaching activities in foreign language teaching in general (De Angelis 2011; Göbel and Vieluf 2018; Haukås 2016; Lundberg 2019). When looking at students’ appreciation of multilingual activities, students of all groups report positive assessment of the use of all languages in class. This finding suggests that students in the sample have a mostly positive perspective toward multilingual teaching activities, indicating a general openness of all students towards linguistic diversity being in line with findings from Norwegian students (Haukås, Storto, and Tiurikova 2022). The finding somewhat contrasts the study of Plewnia and Rothe (2011), and the idea of a negative perception of migration related family languages (Gogolin 2019).

In relation to the change in the perception of implementation of multilingual teaching activities, results show a positive change for both intervention-groups – although being significant only for students in IG II. In the control-group this assessment remains stable. Students exposed to an extended intervention (at least 10 multilingual units, IG II) perceive a significant change in the teaching regarding multilingual activities. The intensity of implementation and time spent with multilingual teaching activities seems important for the perception of change, thus for students in IG I, the intensity of the implementation might not have been sufficiently perceivable (Gottfredson et al. 2015). Differences in perception may be due to the intensity of training, but also to differences in implementation quality and teachers’ enthusiasm for the multilingual units (e.g. Binanzer and Jessen 2020). For some of the teachers in our study, the implementation of the full intervention in everyday French teaching may have been demanding, even though an intensive training programme was carried out to prepare teachers to implement the multilingual teaching activities. Preliminary results of qualitative data from teacher interviews suggest that the quality of implementation of the intervention varied between teachers due to time constraints in schools (Göbel et al. 2021). However, the actual time and energy devoted to the multilingual intervention may also have been influenced by differences in teachers’ attitudes towards implementing the intervention (e.g. Haukås 2016). Concerning changes in students’ appreciation of multilingual teaching activities, our analysis reveals differences between the groups, with a slight but significant decrease in the control-group and a slight increase in IG II. The interviews with students of the intervention-groups confirm this finding, revealing more appreciative attitudes toward multilingual teaching in IG II than in IG I. The findings can be seen in line with the studies of Busse et al. (2020; 2021) indicating generally positive attitudes of students towards multilingual teaching activities and the inclusion of migration related family languages and may in consequence lead to a greater recognition of societal multilingualism and individual plurilingualism (Cenoz and Gorter 2021).

Regarding the perception of the implementation of multilingual teaching activities, the study does not reveal any relevant differences between monolingual and plurilingual students, neither before nor after the implementation. Students seem to perceive the integration of multilingual teaching activities in a similar way, despite their different linguistic experiences. In contrast to findings from Busse et al. (2020; 2021), our study shows differences in attitudes of students depending on their language and migration experience. Regarding the appreciation of multilingual teaching activities, plurilingual students in particular appreciated the multilingual intervention, expressing a slightly more positive attitude toward multilingual teaching activities than their monolingual peers already at pre-test. Despite potential negative perception of students with migration experience and their languages (Gogolin 2019), the appreciation of multilingual teaching activities by plurilingual students and the lack of negative emotions in this group leads to the assumption that the intervention was well-implemented and did not activate ‘othering’ or the ‘stereotype threat’ in this group (Froehlich et al. 2022 Helmchen 2019; Weber, Kronberger, and Appel 2018). The results could also be interpreted as being related to school type, as students with migrant experience in grammar schools may have higher self-efficacy than their peers in lower school tiers (Walper and Gienwocz 2019). As the positive attitude remains at post-test, the multilingual intervention may have supported a positive recognition of language competencies reinforcement for plurilingual students, which is also reflected in the student interviews (Deci and Ryan 2000). This experience may have led to a more positive experience of foreign language teaching and it possibly increased their motivation to continue language learning (Gibson and Hufeisen 2007). On the other hand, results show that monolingual students, particularly those in IG I, express more critical remarks about multilingual teaching activities. Their criticism of multilingual teaching activities may be a result of having experienced fewer linguistic resources at their disposal than their plurilingual peers (Deci and Ryan 2000; Dirim 2016; Rück 2009). However, this finding could also be attributed to the ‘inadequate’ implementation of the intervention, as monolingual students in IG II seem to have particularly benefited from the extended intervention, as their appreciation of multilingual teaching activities increased thereafter. The findings increase of appreciation of multilingual teaching activities for monolingual students in IG II support the idea of intercultural learning specially for this group (Council of Europe 2007; Göbel, Lewandowska, and Diehr 2017). Results mark the potential of multilingual teaching activities for intercultural learning (Beacco et al. 2016) which has not been addressed in former studies (e.g. Busse, McLaren, and Dahm 2021). Multilingual teaching activities should therefore be strongly supported in teacher education and teacher training and further research is needed on the relevant factors that foster or limit respective activities.

Being quasi-experimental, the study can claim high ecological validity; however, it was also faced with the reality of teaching in today’s schools and classroom settings. As a result, the level of implementation fidelity varied across the sample. Teachers are central factors determining the quality and impact of teaching (e.g. Haukås 2016) and probably have a decisive influence on the success of the intervention. The complexity of real-life teaching situations might have led to rather small but meaningful effects for actual teaching practice. To control for interferences such as teaching quality, more controlled environments (e.g. laboratory school) might be another factor to help monitor or prevent interfering processes (O’Donnell 2008). As the intervention is of a rather low-threshold character with short units over a period of about 10 weeks only, strong effects could not be expected. Thus, further development of the intervention would also be desirable. A strength that needs mentioning is the mixed methods design of the study, which permitted in depth perspectives of students towards multilingual teaching activities. Nevertheless, there may have been a positive self-selection of more motivated students who agreed to be interviewed. Due to sample size limitations, the subsamples of monolingual and plurilingual students in the intervention groups are rather small, consequently our results must be interpreted with caution. The relevance of simultaneous versus successive plurilingualism could not be addressed; this aspect should be considered in further research. Although classes were assigned to the intervention conditions on the basis of cognitive ability and French language proficiency at the pre-test to increase the comparability of the individual input conditions, resulting data are still nested within classes. Due to sample size, these nested sub-samples could not be addressed via multilevel analysis. The results presented here are only a partial analysis of the existing body of data. Further analyses regarding teachers’ views on the intervention and regarding the impact of the training on language and multilingual learning strategies will be conducted.

Acknowledgements

Ethical review was not carried out for this study since the items used within the questionnaire study were based on validated scales and therefore, did not require further investigation of ethical questions. Furthermore, the inclusion of an ethic committee was not common within the department. The study was reviewed by an officer from the protection of data security department at the [University of Duisburg-Essen]. The officer reviewed the questionnaire and data handling process in terms of the general data protection regulation from 2018 (DGSVO / GDRP).

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Additional information

Funding

This work was supported by the German Research Foundation (DFG) [grant number GO798/4-1/SCHM2389/3-1].

Notes

1 It is quite difficult to name the complex language acquisition and learning background of individuals with a single term. Nevertheless, there are some ‘natural’ (see Berthele 2021) phenomena and differences which we took into account in our study as they seemed important to us. This paper sometimes uses the simplified expressions ‘monolingual students’ and ‘plurilingual students’ to describe participants in the study, meaning that these participants are being monolingually or plurilingually raised in their families. Plurilingual students will have acquired two or more languages prior to entering formal education. In our study all plurilingual students have migration background and speak migrant languages in their families. Since our intervention is placed in the domain of the written language, we also limit our definition of plurilingualism to (codified) written languages (Schmelter 2015). In fact, at the time of participating in the study, all participating students in the French classes were plurilingual in the sense of the European Framework of Reference (Council of Europe 2001; 2020), because they acquired already basic competences in English due to compulsory lessons since primary school in addition of their competences in German which is the lingua franca of society and school in Germany. Some of the students, however, acquired and used one or more additional language(s) other than German as family language(s) because of their migration background. Against the background of bilingualism research, we assumed that these students had specific and important plurilingual and pluricultural experiences; even before French classes began, for example, they could compare linguistic structures, communication and learning experiences between more than two languages and transfer these experiences to different languages and the learning of these languages. Thus, plurilingual and pluricultural competencies in learning French were available to them, which were not available to students who previously only had experiences with German as a family language and English as a foreign language in school.

2 This paper does not present data on teacher interviews.

3 Other languages mentioned were Albanian, Azerbaijani, Bengali, Berber, Bosnian, Czech, French, Georgian, Greek, Hungarian, Indian, Italian, Kurdish, Papiamento, Persian, Pidgin, Portuguese, Punjabi, Romanian, Russian, Serbian/Serbo-Croatian/Croatian, Slovak, Spanish, Tamil, Thai, Turkish, Turkmen, and Ukrainian.

4 Plurilingual students were defined as having at least one other family language than German, the subsample includes simultaneous bilingual first-language acquisition up to the age of two years, and successive second-language acquisition (2–5 years).

5 Pre-test: χ² (89) = 181.406, p > .001; RMSEA = 0.061; CFI/TLI = 0.890/0.870; SRMR = 0.059; Post-test: χ² (89) = 193.667, p > .001; RMSEA = 0.062; CFI/TLI = 0.936/0.924; SRMR = 0.048).

6 Prompts were used to maintain the students’ narrative and to obtain more specific information.

7 In the context of unpaired t tests, for example, the prerequisite of variance homogeneity was automatically checked as part of the calculation in SPSS and could be confirmed for our analysis. The prerequisites of paired t tests were also checked in advance: normally distributed mean difference scores are given in all groups.

8 The relevance of the group (IG II vs. CG) was confirmed in covariance analyses, which showed a significant effect of the group on both dependent variables at post-test. Also, in multilevel regressions realised with the statistic software MPlus, the group factor–controlling for class membership (as a cluster variable)–proved to be a relevant predictor for the general appreciation of multilingual teaching activities.

9 S: I think it’s actually interesting that you can compare them and then also find out what similarities there are. I often do that myself. When I go through vocabulary or something like that, I notice that it also occurs in this language or similar. (WE_EG+_02.03._AP18H)

10 S: […] It is important to find connections to the language we are learning through other languages. For example, I knew that there were some similarities with Turkish and French because … we also speak Turkish very often at home, and these were very simple words that you could understand directly. But that there were so many words, I didn’t know that yet. (MM_EG-_03.06._SM28S)

11 S: […] words you didn’t really understand, why this should help you in French or English because it’s a completely different language that you don’t intend to learn, and the fact that it’s suddenly (being confronted with) a completely different language in the French lessons was strange. (WE_EG+_01.02._CM71E)

12 I: When you were working on the tasks, you also spoke English a bit, I think, and maybe you know another language; could that help you somehow?

S: Yes, a little bit. Then for example … so with some things, uhm, for example, crier, you think of cry or something like that for example, so that’s pretty similar, not pronounced with the accents and so also, but that’s … at least spelled the same, so. (ME_EG+_02.04._RJ91S)

13 I: So there was Polish, Russian, Turkish, English, and German. Which languages helped you the most?

S: Well, English helped a lot, and Polish I think, yes […] And German, too. So, English, German, and Polish. (MM_EG-_01.01._AA09N)

14 I: How did you feel about the fact that your mother tongue or first language was explicitly included? How was that for you?

S: It was pleasing because you don’t hear the language so often in other lessons. Because it’s just encouraging about your own culture. That you can do something with your own language. (MM_EG+_03.05._RY16R)

Appendix

Table

Item	Definition (German)	Definition (English)
Perception of implementation of multilingual teaching activities
AvM_ImplSpratra_1	Wir vergleichen im Französischunterricht Satzstrukturen des Französischen mit anderen Sprachen.	In French classes, we compare sentence structures of French with other languages.
AvM_ImplSpratra_2	Im Französischunterricht werden wir auf Gemeinsamkeiten und Unterschiede zur Grammatik anderer Sprachen hingewiesen.	In French classes, we are made aware of similarities and differences with the grammar of other languages.
AvM_ImplSpratra_3	Wir vergleichen im Französischunterricht französische Wörter mit anderen Sprachen.	In French classes, we compare French words with other languages.
AvM_ImplSpratra_4	Wir vergleichen im Französischunterricht Regeln für die französische Sprache mit anderen Sprachen.	In French classes, we compare rules for French with other languages.
AvM_ImplSpratra_5	Im Französischunterricht werden wir auf Gemeinsamkeiten und Unterschiede zur Satzstruktur einer anderen Sprache hingewiesen.	In French classes, we are made aware of similarities and differences to the sentence structure of other languages.
AvM_ImplSpratra_6	Im Französischunterricht werden wir auf Gemeinsamkeiten und Unterschiede zum Wortschatz anderer Sprachen hingewiesen.	In French classes, we are made aware of similarities and differences to the vocabulary of other languages.
AvM_ImplSpratra_7	Im Französischunterricht kommen Verweise in Bezug auf die englische Sprache vor.	In French classes, references are made to the English language.
AvM_ImplSpratra_8	In unserem Französischbuch gibt es Verweise zu anderen Sprachen.	There are references made to other languages in our French book.
AvM_ImplSpratra_9	Wir werden im Französischunterricht gefragt, wie verschiedene Wörter in anderen Sprachen heißen (z.B.: "Wie heißt das Wort auf Türkisch, Russisch, …?").	We are asked in French class what different words are called in other languages (e.g.: "What is the name of the word in Turkish, Russian,...?").
Appreciation of multilingual teaching activities
AvM_BvMiU_1	Ich finde es interessant, gemeinsame Wurzeln und Bezüge von Sprachen festzustellen.	I find it interesting to identify common roots and references between languages.
AvM_BvMiU_2	Ich finde es für die Klassengemeinschaft wichtig, dass die Sprachen und Kulturen aller Mitschüler(innen) in den Unterricht einbezogen werden.	I think it is important for the class community that the languages and cultures of all classmates are included in the lessons.
AvM_BvMiU_3	Ich finde es spannend, wenn weitere Sprachen außer Deutsch und Englisch in den Französischunterricht einbezogen werden.	I find it exciting when languages other than German and English are included in French lessons.
AvM_BvMiU_4	Ich finde es spannend, wenn Deutsch und Englisch in den Französischunterricht einbezogen werden.	I find it exciting when German and English are included in French lessons.
AvM_BvMiU_5	Ich finde es wichtig, Sprachen miteinander zu vergleichen.	I think it’s important to compare languages with each other.
AvM_BvMiU_6	Es gefällt mir, dass in meiner Klasse so viele Sprachen vorhanden sind.	I like that there are so many languages in my class.