Pre-service teachers’ attitudes about teaching and learning in multilingual classrooms. Insights from the Austrian-wide summer school programme in 2021

ABSTRACT

COVID-19-related school closures have caused educational disadvantages for school children around the world. Against this background, many countries have introduced catch-up programmes to counteract the growing educational inequality. The Austrian summer school was offered as such a supportive measure and primarily targeted learners with learning gaps, lower language skills, and German as an additional or second language (L2). In addition, pre-service teachers (PSTs) were, and still are, mainly involved in teaching during summer school. This study examines the extent to which PSTs believe they have the requisite knowledge and skills concerning linguistically and culturally responsive approaches to teach in multilingual classrooms to support students in catching up with potential learning losses. For this purpose, an online survey study was conducted during the nationwide implementation of the Austrian summer school 2021. Altogether, 109 PSTs in Western and Northeastern Austria were surveyed before and after participating in the summer school. The results show that despite their lack of knowledge and skills around linguistically responsive teaching approaches, PSTs experienced the summer school as a positive learning opportunity that improved their understanding of multilingualism and, according to their own assessments, supported their teaching skills in linguistically and culturally diverse contexts.

KEYWORDS:

• Pre-service teachers
• multilingualism
• summer school programmes
• lost learning
• COVID-19 lockdown
• Austria

Introduction

Since the outbreak of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic in mid-March 2020, more than 616 million students worldwide have missed out on the academic learning and knowledge acquisition they would have gained through conventional face-to-face instruction (UNICEF, 2022). To reduce the risk of infection, educational institutions in Austria, as in many countries around the world, were partially or completely closed and switched to distance learning (Helm et al., 2021). Not only did COVID-19-related school closures affect student learning (in particular in the case of younger students, cf. König & Frey, 2022) in general, but increased inequalities exacerbated an already existing educational crisis, particularly for disadvantaged populations who were already vulnerable before the Covid-19 pandemic (Bremm & Racherbäumer, 2020). In accordance, further research in Austrian education revealed that teachers consider school closures as a measure with particularly high developmental risks for students of lower socioeconomic status, many of whom have special educational needs and a lower linguistic proficiency in German, which is the language of instruction (Gitschthaler et al., 2022; Huber et al., 2020).

Against this background, policymakers have been called upon to support learners that have suffered the most during the pandemic-related school closures (Helm & Postlbauer, 2021), especially through catch-up programmes during the summer holiday (Doms et al., 2020). For the first time, the Austrian Federal Ministry of Education, Science and Research (BMBWF) implemented a nationwide summer school in 2020 as a supportive measure in cooperation with schools and universities. The Austrian summer school lasted two weeks and aims to provide students with targeted individual support to improve their academic language skills in order to counteract their educational disadvantages and compensate for their learning deficits (BMBWF, 2020). While the summer school in 2020 offered only German lessons for students with lower grades, in particular students with special learning needs, the programme in 2021 was extended by mathematic lessons and made available to all students in Austria, regardless of their learning level and need, who were willing to participate voluntarily (BMBWF, 2021). The pedagogical concept of the summer school 2021 aimed to strengthen language awareness in the language of instruction in the areas of reading, writing, listening comprehension, and speaking, as well as basic mathematical skills. In addition, by promoting German as the language of instruction, students were given the opportunity to acquire the necessary language skills to enable a better grasp of all their subjects in the upcoming school year. Another goal was the promotion of self-confidence and social skills so that students could exchange and communicate with others in diversity-sensitive interactions and group dynamic processes in order to plan and carry out a joint project during the summer school (BMBWF, 2021). Due to the subject-related and target-group extension as well as the increasing numbers of multilingual learners in this programme, previous research in the field of summer school particularly focused on exploring the topics of language-sensitive teaching and professional awareness of multilingualism in the summer school (Jesacher-Rößler et al., 2021; Majcen & Wöhrer, 2021).

Theoretical background

Pedagogical approaches for teaching and learning in multilingual classrooms

The growing number of linguistically and culturally diverse students is not an Austrian phenomenon, but a global trend that has led to an expanding number of theories, pedagogical approaches, and practices for teaching and learning in multilingual contexts that explicitly dissociate from the monolingual approaches (Gogolin, 2008) prevalent in mainstream education. These considerations include linguistically responsive teaching, which takes a broad perspective on the orientations, knowledge and skills teachers need to teach multilingual learners (Lucas et al., 2008). In order to teach in a linguistically responsive way in multilingual classes, teachers need to understand the basic characteristics of language learning and the common linguistic markers of their subjects (not other languages themselves) (Lucas & Villegas, 2013). They also need to recognise the academic language demands of the tasks and activities they provide, together with the key principles of language learning and instructional support. Moreover, linguistically responsive pedagogy (Heineke et al., 2012; Lucas et al., 2008) intersects with other transformative pedagogies, such as translanguaging and culturally responsive pedagogy. Translanguaging is based on the use of students’ entire linguistic repertoire in their meaning making, in which the teachers’ task is to enhance students’ language and content learning for the (co)construction of knowledge through the flexible and creative use the available multilingual resources and the students’ personal experiences (García & Li, 2014). Therefore, culturally responsive pedagogy (Gay, 2018) empowers teachers to foster culturally and linguistically conscious learning environments and to create critical, equitable, and inclusive language instruction that acknowledges and affirms all students’ diverse cultures, languages and identities (Lucas & Villegas, 2013). An essential component of linguistically responsive teaching is that teachers embrace these skills and awareness as an integral part of their profession and take the responsibility to integrate the available multilingual resources of students in their instruction and to advocate for multilingual learners (Lucas, 2011; Lucas & Villegas, 2013). Another important component of linguistically responsive teaching is a critical awareness of language policies that hierarchically order languages, and thereby discriminate against some students by viewing their multilingualism as a deficit or challenge for learning (Herzog-Punzenberger, 2019; Hoch & Wildemann, 2019; Purkarthofer, 2017). This means that when all stakeholders in schools are both critically aware and have the appropriate knowledge and skills to work together, schools can effectively promote the social, cultural, linguistic, and academic achievement of their students through linguistically responsive pedagogy and practice (Heineke et al., 2012; Lucas & Villegas, 2013).

Related to the Austrian context current research emphasises, the necessity of inclusive, continuous language education, increased training in multilingualism, diversity and language aware teaching at all school levels and in all subjects. This in turn requires teachers to be appropriately qualified both during initial teacher training and continuing professional training (Erling et al., 2021; Herzog-Punzenberger et al., 2022). It is important to mention that even through the reform of Austrian teacher education ‘PädagogInnenbildung Neu’ in 2013 has led to a greater focus on the benefits of linguistic and cultural diversity and the promotion of multilingualism of learners in initial teacher education, the results achieved have not been particularly convincing so far, despite developments in the multilingual discourse (Dalton-Puffer et al., 2019). In addition, linguistic diversity is still not perceived and used by teachers as a learning resource for students (Erling et al., 2021; Resch et al., 2022). This is also evident in the research findings on teachers’ beliefs about Covid-19-related distance learning. Steiner et al. (2020) could show that teachers believe that it leads to more learning losses, especially in language skills, particularly for students who speak German as an L2 (Steiner et al., 2020). Furthermore, another survey on the attitudes of PSTs in summer school 2020 demonstrated that 27.1% of the participants were convinced that multilingualism hinders the development of the school language and that teaching was disturbed by the first language of learners (Majcen & Wöhrer, 2021). Therefore, especially according to the aforementioned theories on linguistically responsive instruction, teacher education programmers should encourage PSTs to critically reflect on their beliefs, attitudes, ways of thinking and assumptions about teaching and learning in culturally and linguistically diverse classrooms.

In our article, we use the term linguistically responsive instruction (LRI) as a lens to examine the skills, knowledge, and experiences of PSTs toward linguistically responsive pedagogy and practice generally, and particularly with regards to the multilingual approaches they adopted during their participation in the summer school. This is because, due to the cultural and linguistic diversity of learners in Austrian summer school, a conscious approach to multilingualism and language-sensitive teaching was gaining more importance for its success (Majcen & Wöhrer, 2021; Schimek & Kaluza, 2021).

Pre-service teachers as central actors in the Austrian summer school

In order to ensure the implementation of the Austrian-wide summer school, teacher trainees were recruited as teaching staff. For the duration of the summer school, PSTs are required to prepare, implement and reflect on lessons in culturally and linguistically heterogeneous learning groups on site at least partially (Doms et al., 2020; Lauss, 2021). During the Covid-19-related distance learning many PSTs in Austria only had the opportunity to gain teaching practice experience in online instruction (Resch et al., 2022). Thus, this additional learning opportunity for teaching practice within the summer school (BMBWF, 2021) was well received among PSTs. What is more, as compensation for the voluntary engagement PSTs can obtain academic credit points for practical training or other optional courses for their studies (BMBWF, 2021). In the course of the reform of Austrian teacher education (see above), such practical training opportunities have gained increasing importance and are viewed as essential for professional learning (Resch et al., 2022) as they support PSTs career orientation and teaching experience, the transfer between theory and practice through guided reflection, and thereby contribute to the acquisition and development of competencies (Bach, 2020).

Until now, the Austrian summer school has taken place two years in a row, and some evidence about PSTs’ experiences and (mainly self-reported) learning during that time is already available: There appears to be a consensus that PSTs experience this practical learning opportunity as rewarding and as supportive for their own professionalisation (Jesacher-Rößler et al., 2021; Lauss, 2021). Furthermore, there is some evidence indicating significant gains in PSTs’ proficiency dealing with heterogeneity, as well as some adverse trends in their attitudes toward diversity during the summer school (Groß Ophoff et al., submitted). However, Majcen and Wöhrer (2021) report that despite PSTs’ positive attitudes towards multilingualism, they expressed the belief that students’ multilingualism can have a negative impact on instruction and the development of the instructional language. In accordance, Jesacher-Rößler et al. (2021) report that PSTs rated their professional competence in dealing with students with low German proficiency and academic language skills still as insufficient.

Because of the expected cultural and linguistic diversity of the learners in the summer school, cultural and linguistic awareness and language-sensitive teaching is viewed as important for the intended learning gains (Majcen & Wöhrer, 2021). But until now, it remains unclear, on which experiences in the field of multilingualism the PSTs can rely, which LRI-methods, – materials they were aware of and familiar with before the summer school, and which of these did they actually apply during that time. Therefore, this paper aims at answering the following research questions:

RQ1. To what extent did the PSTs report having had opportunities to learn about multilingualism, German as L2, and cultural/religious diversity during their studies before the summer school 2021?

RQ2. Which methods and materials in LRI did the PSTs claim to have learned about and gained experience with during their teacher training and which did they report to have used during the 2021 summer school?

RQ3. Which LRI-related strategies did PSTs report knowing about before, and to what extent were these applied during the summer school 2021?

Methods

In order to gain deeper insight into the (self-reported) experience with LRI teaching and the related professional knowledge and use of methods, materials, and strategies, a survey study was carried out before the Austrian summer school in August 2021 (t₁) and subsequently in October 2021 (t₂). The methodological procedure will be explained below.

Procedure and survey instruments

The presented results are based on an online survey carried out via LimeSurvey (in German as the language of everyday instruction at Austrian schools) at the University of Innsbruck. A major part of the survey aimed at exploring changes of attitudinal, motivational, and competency attributes relevant to teaching and learning during summer school. For reasons of brevity, this article focuses on prerequisites for teaching linguistically and culturally diverse learners (e.g. opportunities to learn about teaching in multilingual contexts, knowledge of and experience with LRI), and the actual implementation of LRI and multilingual approaches during the summer school 2021. Other results from this survey study, like differences in repeated but still pseudo-longitudinal measures of PSTs’ stance on linguistic and socio-cultural diversity in school, lesson-related self-efficacy beliefs, or adaptive teaching competency are published elsewhere (e.g. Groß Ophoff et al., submitted).

Most of the survey statements (based on self-ratings) were developed for the purposes of this study in consideration of the current state of research in the field of LRI. The questionnaire encompasses the following aspects of the LRI: Knowledge of theoretical content on linguistic, cultural and religious diversity (see Table 2); Use of materials and methods for LRI (see Table 3); Knowledge and extent of application of LRI strategies (see Table 4).

Even though this study was designed as a longitudinal survey, for the LRI-related questions, only a pseudo-longitudinal comparison is possible for the following reasons: First of all, selected topics were identified as relevant at only one point of time. For example, the scale on opportunities to learn about multilingualism was to be investigated as an important prerequisite of LRI during summer school that can be acquired during both formal (e.g. teacher initial education: ‘During my studies, I dealt with theoretical content on multilingualism and German as a second language.’, cf. Table 2) and informal (e.g. among friends and family: ‘I have had experiences with cultural and religious diversity in my personal environment’, cf. Table 2) learning experiences. Other aspects were addressed at both times in the form of parallel items, but the answer dimension was changed to differentiate between relevant preconditions (t₁: know of and has experience with concrete methods and materials, cf. Table 3) and the actual implementation during summer school (t₂: could apply methods/materials). Another example is the survey instrument on LRI-related strategies, which in its original form (Decker-Ernst et al., 2020) operationalises the self-rated level of strategic knowledge (t₁). For the second assessment point in time (t₂), the answer dimension was shifted in order to investigate the self-reported extent of strategy application. In other words, the focus of this paper is on contrasting the LRI toolkit available to Austrian PSTs before the summer school and the actual use of methods, materials and strategies in retrospect.

Sample

The study participants were invited to take part in the survey during accompanying university courses or via e-mail by lecturers as well as by the internship office in the teacher training cluster West (Tyrol, Vorarlberg) and in the Northeastern cluster (Vienna). Interested participants were informed that participation was voluntary and could be stopped at any point of the study without any disadvantages. Furthermore, they were informed that no personal data was collected, which is why the data set is anonymous and no conclusions can be drawn about individuals or schools, where the summer school took place. To start the online survey then, participants had to confirm that they read and agreed to this information. The study design required no deception, so no debriefing was required. An e-mail contact was at the start and the end of the survey, and a short result report was announced (to be conveyed by supporting lecturers). The survey was accessed by 66 participants before the summer school (t₁), of which 17 participants (28%) dropped out after entering their personal information. After the summer school (t₂), 99 students started the survey. But again, 18% dropped out early and are not included in the following analysis. Thus, 49 data sets are available for t₁, and 81 data sets for t₂. Based on a personal identification code, 21 PSTs could be explicitly identified as participants at both the first and the second assessment point in time. Overall, this results in a total sample of N = 109 (t₁: 28; t₁– t₂: 21; t₂: 60) PSTs from Western and Northeastern Austria. Moreover, one-third of the PSTs participating at t₁ reported another language than German as the dominant language in their everyday life or as a language spoken in their family (English: 16.3%; Italian: 8.2%; Turkish: 6.1%; and Other: 6.1%; Table 1).

Table 1. Personal characteristics of participants before and after the implementation of the Austrian summer school in 2021

	t2: n = 49	t2: n = 81
1) PST from cluster ‘West’	73.4%	67.9%
2) PST at bachelor level	53.1%	65.4%
3) Female PST	85.7%	82.7%
4) PST with German not as dominant language	32.7%

Data analysis

Due to the rather small sample sizes at t₁ and t₂, and the different, only partially intersecting composition of the two samples, no inferences from pairwise comparisons are drawn. Instead, the results below are mainly based on contrasting measures of central tendency for self-reports on specific LRI-related methods, materials, and strategies. Associated with this is the objective of exploring PST’s knowledge of and experience with a wide array of options for LRI at the summer school, which we expected to be in contrast to the practical implementation under such difficult conditions as little time or limited professional support for the preparation of the daily lessons or lesson units, as well as limited knowledge about subject-specific proficiencies and deficiencies of learning groups that were composed on short notice for the duration of the summer school. In order to gain more in-depth insights in the participating PSTs prerequisites and experiences, we complemented our data by selected quotes from written (for this study anonymised) reflections of the PSTs who participated in the accompanying courses in the cluster West as well.

Results

Learning opportunities of PSTs

Prior to the summer school 2021, the participating teacher trainees reported that they mainly had the opportunity to learn about multilingualism, German as L2, and cultural/religious diversity during the theoretical and practical phases of their studies (formal learning: e.g. items 1, 2, 4, and 6 in Table 2), but they were made aware of such issues via media or personal experiences as well (informal learning, e.g. items 3, 4, and 7 in Table 2). Considerably more seldom, they reported having grown up multilingually or in a family with migration experiences (informal learning, e.g. items 9 and 10 in Table 2).

Table 2. Self-reported opportunities to learn about multilingualism, German as L2, and cultural/religious diversity before the summer school 2021 (sorted in ascending order).

	M (SD): t1
1) During my studies, I dealt with theoretical content on multilingualism and German as L2.	3.18 (0.86)
2) During my studies, I dealt with theoretical content on cultural and religious diversity.	3.00 (0.80)
3) I have followed the presentation of these issues in the media (e.g. news reports in newspapers and on television).	2.93 (0.89)
4) I have gained experience with cultural and religious diversity during the practical training phases or while working as a substitute teacher.	2.87 (1.01)
5) I have had experiences with cultural and religious diversity in my personal environment. (e.g. neighbourhood, school or association).	2.82 (1.07)
6) I have gained experience with multilingualism and German as L2 during the practical training phases or while working as a substitute teacher.	2.69 (1.13)
7) I have independently studied the topic of cultural and religious diversity (e.g. through books or other media).	2.69 (0.93)
8) I have independently studied the topics of multilingualism and German as L2 (e.g. through books or other media).	2.42 (0.84)
9) I grew up multilingual or learned German as L2.	1.49 (1.04)
10) I grew up in a family with migration experiences.	1.47 (0.94)

Note: At t₁, the scale items were introduced by the following instruction: We would like to learn about your previous opportunities to learn about multilingualism, German as L2, cultural/religious diversity. Please rate for each statement to what extent they apply. Response format: Likert scale (1 = does not at all apply to 4 = does fully apply). Abbreviations: M (SD) = scale mean (standard deviation).

Knowledge and use of materials and methods for linguistically responsive instruction

There appears to be a clear discrepancy between the knowledge of materials and methods for LRI before the summer school and the actual application during the instruction. Teaching during the summer school obviously provided more opportunities to apply the methods and materials (last column from right) than the conventional teacher training study programmes (second column). For all aggregated measures of knowledge and use of methods/materials for LRI before and during summer school (last row), no significant differences for personal characteristics, such as gender, cluster location, or study level, emerged.

Looking at the particular methods and materials given in the questionnaire, the majority of PSTs reported familiarity with methods such as language portraits (Silhouette, see Busch, 2006) (item 7: 83.7%), vocabulary exercises (item 2: 81.4%), scaffolding concept (item 4: 74.4%), or specific materials, such as learning cards (item 12: 79.1%), worksheets with a focus on German as L2 (item 3: 74.4%), vocabulary cards (item 11: 72.1%), or bilingual dictionaries (item 14: 72.1%). On the contrary, the PSTs were considerably less familiar with indirect language stimulation strategies (item 8: 23.2%) or freely available materials, such as ‘KIESEL Neu’ provided by the Austrian Language Center (ÖSZ, item 15: 30.2%). They were also considerably less frequently able to apply such methods or materials during their studies and before summer school. For example, they reported being able to gather some experience with language portraits (Silhouette) (item 7: 41.9%, see third column from left in Table 3), but substantially less frequently (11.6%) to being familiar with indirect language stimulation strategies (item 8) or translanguaging strategies (item 9). Encouragingly, they had more opportunities to apply pedagogical methods and linguistically sensitive materials during the summer school, in particular general language learning activities (item 1: 78.9%, see last column from left in Table 3), vocabulary exercises (item 2), or specific worksheets (item 3:).

Table 3. Methods and materials for LRI that PSTs learned and could apply during their theoretical and practical studies (t₁) and that were applied (t₂) during summer school 2021 (sorted in ascending order in the last column from right)

	known: t1	applied before summer school: t1	applied during summer school: t2
Methods
1) Language learning games	69.8%	39.5%	78.9%
2) Vocabulary exercises	81.4%	39.5%	75.4%
3) Worksheets with focus on German as L2	74.4%	32.6%	63.2%
4) Scaffolding	74.4%	32.6%	51.8%
5) Modelling Methods (Syntactic/Semantic Completion, Morphological Transformation)	37.2%	16.3%	43.6%
6) Structural exercises	60.5%	25.6%	38.6%
7) Language portraits (language silhouettes)	83.7%	41.9%	35.7%
8) Indirect language stimulation strategies (parallel talking, questioning strategies)	23.2%	11.6%	30.9%
9) Translanguaging strategies	37.2%	11.6%	23.2%
10) Materials for a reading and writing workshop	55.8%	27.9%	57.9%
11) Vocabulary cards	72.1%	34.9%	38.6%
12) Learning cards	79.1%	20.9%	33.3%
13) Materials from Josef Leisen*	41.9%	20.9%	19.6%
14) Bilingual dictionaries	72.1%	23.3%	19.3%
15) KIESEL neu of the Austrian Language Center (ÖSZ)**	30.2%	11.6%	14.5%
16) Bilingual books/texts	69.8%	32.6%	12.3%
18) FörMig materials***	39.5%	16.3%	5.4%
17) Others	23.3%	11.6%	10.0%
M total sum (M (SD))	10.26 (4.24)	4.51 (3.62)	6.42 (3.55)

Note: At t₁, the scale was introduced by the following instruction: With which of the following materials and methods for LRI did you come into contact with during the theoretical and practical phases of your studies? Response format either ‘learned to know’ = 1 or ‘could apply’ = 1. At t₂, the instruction was: Please mark for the given materials and methods of LRI, whether you were able to apply them during the summer school. Response format ‘could apply’ = 1.

* Materials from Josef Leisen: Josef Leisen is professor for didactics of physics at the University of Mainz and offers numerous publications and materials for language-sensitive subject teaching, language teaching and language learning available at: http://www.sprachsensiblerfachunterricht.de/sprachbildung.

** KIESEL Neu of the Austrian Language Center (ÖSZ): Materials for multilingualism, include ten-volume series on the topic of ‘Children discover languages’. The current booklets 1, 2 and 3 offer recommendations for language workshops and language festivals as well as tips on how to deal successfully with multilingualism, available at http://www.oesz.at/OESZNEU/main_01.php?page=0151&open=13&open2=33.

*** FörMig materials: The model programme FörMig focuses on language support for children with a migration background and addresses the following topics: language diagnostics, cooperative language support, language support networks, language support at transitions in the education system, language support in all lessons, multilingualism as a resource, available at https://www.foermig.uni-hamburg.de/.

The most well-known method that most PSTs reported being familiar with is the use of language portraits (Silhouette), which was implemented by 36% during the summer school. Interestingly enough, this particular method was addressed rather frequently in the written reflections and was mainly used to gain a better understanding of the students’ linguistic backgrounds:

The main focus on the first day was the creation of the language portraits. First, I explained the concept of this portrait to the students and presented my personal portrait […] they were very interested and motivated to create their own Silhouette. (RR9)

We talked about the language diversity and the languages the children […] had contact with so far. The bilingual children spoke up and enthusiastically gave examples of the languages they knew. Subsequently, we introduced language portraits, and they were allowed to create their own. (RR41)

By contrast, bilingual dictionaries (item 14: 19.3%) and bilingual books and texts (item 16: 12.3%) were used rarely, which can be explained by difficult organisational conditions at the respective school facilities (e.g. school staff on vacation, inaccessible materials/rooms). It is interesting that the PSTs appear to have been aware of their (yet) untapped potential, which is expressed in their demand for a more comprehensive (subject-specific) preparation for teaching in culturally and linguistically diverse classes:

I would like to get more training in language-sensitive and language-enhancing teaching. I think that more intensive exposure to linguistically responsive methods, such as scaffolding and the integration of multiple languages in the classroom, would be very helpful and increasingly needed in the future, too. (RR15)

Knowledge and extent of application of linguistically responsive instruction strategies

Another section of the survey was focused on the self-perceived level of knowledge in LRI and multilingual approaches represented by different teaching strategies (see Table 4), and to what extent it was possible to apply such strategies during the summer school. On the level of single items, PSTs appeared to be quite convinced of their knowledge toward LRI strategies, particularly with regard to using methods/measures to activate learners’ prior knowledge (item 1), identifying difficult words and phrases in tasks and texts (item 2), analysing tasks’ linguistic comprehensibility (item 3), and distinguishing between different linguistic registers (item 4). According to the PSTs’ reports, they used these strategies in most of their lessons. One of the only deviations is the strategy of identifying national cultural and stereotypical attributions in texts and pictures (item 13): Even though the participating PSTs reported being quite knowledgeable in that regard, they used this strategy only in some lessons. A similar, though less pronounced pattern emerged for the strategy of investigating texts in textbooks for their linguistic characteristics and/or stumbling blocks (item 12).

Table 4. Self-perceived level of knowledge of LRI strategies (t₁) and self-reported extent of application of LRI (t₂) during summer school 2021 (sorted in ascending order in the last column from right).

	Level of knowledge before summer school M (SD): t1	Extent of application during summer school M (SD): t2
1) Using methods/measures to activate learners’ prior knowledge	4.61 (0.95)	3.15 (0.73)
2) Identifying difficult words and phrases in tasks and Texts	4.80 (1.03)	2.76 (0.79)
3) Analysing tasks with regard to their linguistic comprehensibility	4.70 (1.00)	2.69 (0.86)
4) Distinguishing between different linguistic registers (e.g. everyday and academic language)	4.86 (1.29)	2.68 (0.98)
5) Using remedial methods/measures to support the reading process	4.30 (1.11)	2.67 (0.77)
6) Using methods/measures to guide the reading process	4.30 (1.21)	2.47 (0.93)
7) Identifying difficult grammatical structures in tasks and texts	4.48 (0.95)	2.44 (0.95)
8) Using methods/measures to support text production	4.25 (1.14)	2.38 (0.89)
9) Using methods/measures to plan text production	4.14 (1.25)	2.38 (0.94)
10) Identifying functions of illustrations in teaching and learning materials	4.36 (0.99)	2.27 (0.89)
11) Using methods/measures for text revision	4.14 (1.13)	2.27 (0.97)
12) Investigating texts in textbooks for their linguistic characteristics/stumbling blocks	4.39 (1.08)	2.14 (0.86)
13) Identifying national cultural, stereotypical attributions in texts and pictures.	4.50 (1.42)	1.89 (0.91)
M total (without item 4 and 9)	4.41 (0.89)	2.39 (0.60)

Note. At t₁, the scale items were introduced by the following instruction: We would like to learn about your knowledge level in LRI. Please rate your knowledge level for each of the statements below. Response format: Likert scale (1 = very low to 6 = very high). At t₂, the instruction was: We would like to learn to what extent you were able to use your knowledge in LRI during the summer school. Please rate the extent for each of the statements below. Response format: Likert scale (1 = in none of the lessons; 2 = in some lessons; 3 = in most lessons; 4 = in all lessons). Abbreviations: M (SD) = scale mean (standard deviation).

In order to calculate an aggregated measure of the knowledge (t₁) and extent of the application (t₂) of LRI strategies, an in-depth item analysis was performed subsequently. Item 4 showed low item-scale correlation for both t₁ ($r_{4{(t-4)}_{}}^{}$ =  .394) and t₂ ($r_{4{(t-4)}_{}}^{}$ =  .310). The same applies to item 9 at t₂ ($r_{9{(t-9)}_{}}^{}$ =  .348). After excluding the two items from further analysis, both scales show very good reliability (t₁: Cronbach’s α = .922; t₂: α = .873). Therefore, according to the total mean of M_t1 = 4.41; 95%-CI = 4.15/4.67 (which lies significantly above the scale middle of 3.5) the PSTs appeared rather confident in their knowledge of LRI and multilingualism. During the summer school, the PSTs reported they were generally able to use the LRI strategies in only a few lessons (M = 2.39; 95%-CI = 2.25/2.53, but not significantly below the scale middle of 2.5).

In some reflections, the PSTs reported their experience, that the level of German knowledge and skills varied considerably among (linguistically diverse) students, that they describe as rather demanding. One PST indicated that he/she found the handling of the different proficiency levels and the adequately supporting of the students according to their needs somewhat challenging due to limited teaching experience (RR8). Another PST experienced a student as particularly challenging during the two weeks of summer school due to his/her lack of linguistic proficiency in the language of instruction ‘because he/she […] hardly understood or spoke a word of German’ (RR18). Overall, such situations appear to entail the risk of feeling overstrained, which becomes apparent in the following quote:

The overall wide disparity in the students’ command of German made even frontal instructional phases impossible, which I realized already after the first day. Even though I tried to offer targeted support at the second day [of the summer school] via word lists, image commentaries, and repetitions in order to pull all students along, I was disheartened afterwards, because I had the impression of not being able to meet the requirements of weaker students. (RR33)

Actually, some PSTs were quite dedicated to helping improve the students’ language skills through targeted instruction and grammar exercises and perceived themselves as quite efficient in that regard. They were also convinced that – despite the demanding situation – they were able to use the selected materials and methods successfully and effectively, and they reported being quite content with their approach to language responsive teaching during the summer school. Such positive experiences with LRI notwithstanding, the written reflections overall indicate that the PSTs usually preferred more conventional, worksheet-based instruction and teacher-centred lessons.

Challenging for me […] were the German lessons themselves. Since there were students from all levels of lower secondary school, I only saw the possibility of creating different worksheets and letting the students work individually. (RR28)

This appears to have been further corroborated not only by the (usually present at schools) principals, but also by parents.

Everybody expected teacher-centered instruction in German, English, and Math. Even the principal, who was aware of [the officially by the BMBWF articulated aspiration of] project-based instruction, expressed the wish for “conventional” teaching. (RR25)

In conclusion, the results of the PSTs’ reflection reports demonstrate, that the goals expressed by the BMBWF (e.g. project-based and language-sensitive instruction) were apparently not shared by principals and parents, who rather expected individual tutoring to compensate for learning gaps that were enhanced by the Covid-19-related school closures.

Discussion and conclusion

In line with other studies on the experiences of PSTs involved during the Austrian summer school in 2020 and 2021 (Jesacher-Rößler et al., 2021; Lauss, 2021; Majcen & Wöhrer, 2021), our study demonstrates that the PSTs perceived the summer school as a positive learning opportunity for themself. Looking back, they experienced this remedial measure as an opportunity to learn that led to higher competencies in teaching in linguistically diverse contexts. This study aimed at exploring how well the PSTs felt prepared for teaching linguistically and culturally diverse learning groups, with particular focus on their knowledge of and experience with the methods, materials, and teaching strategies before and during the summer school 2021. This is closely tied to the expectation of providing individual support in order to address possible (pandemic-related) educational disadvantages and compensate for learning losses. There is some evidence available that the PSTs had positive attitudes in general toward multilingualism and LRI, and generally shared the idea of using multilingual teaching approaches in heterogeneous classes as well (Groß Ophoff et al., submitted; Majcen & Wöhrer, 2021). However, our findings indicate that there are no simple answers to the question of whether and to what extent PSTs are actually prepared for teaching and learning in multilingual classrooms, or which methods, materials, or strategies they actually used during the Austrian summer school. Accordingly, the surveyed PSTs appeared to be well equipped for LRI, as they reported of learning opportunities in the theoretical and practical phases of their training. They also felt enabled to deal with multilingualism and German as L2 as well as cultural and religious diversity and to address the need of multilingual learners (RQ1). It may be well assumed that the participating PSTs were aware of the requirement of LRI due to the officially communicated objectives of supporting learners with lower language proficiency, learning gaps, and German as L2 (BMBWF, 2020), and thus prepared themselves during the accompanying courses at their educational facilities. This particular notion is supported by the PSTs’ written reflections, according to which they believed in being able to effectively support multilingual learners’ (German) language development and outcomes via worksheet-based instruction and grammar exercises, even though they described the different language levels of multilingual learners as challenging (Steiner et al., 2020). However, due to the main goal of promoting and learning the language of instruction (BMBWF, 2020) as well as a monolingual-focused instructional practice (Gogolin, 2008), this might be an indicator that the benefits of multilingual resources and learners’ linguistic repertoires cannot be harnessed during summer school. Furthermore, the PSTs reported to be familiar with different LRI-related methods and materials and that they had already gained some experience with that (RQ2). Yet, our findings identified a discrepancy between self-reported knowledge of and experience with multilingual and LRI approaches, materials, and methods beforehand and the self-reported use during the summer school. On the one hand, rather conventional, but still well-known methods, such as language learning games and vocabulary exercises, were reported to having been implemented frequently during the summer school. On the other hand, other common methods, such as language portraits (Busch, 2006) and vocabulary and learning cards, were used surprisingly rarely, which might be explained by impeding organisational conditions (e.g. limited availability of materials or contact persons) in the schools during the summer vacation. However, it is all the more surprising, that simply and conveniently accessible free materials (e.g. FörMig, Gogolin et al., 2020; Kiesel Neu ÖSZ, 2017; Leisen, 2019) were to some extent known, but only rarely used. Contemporary approaches to indirect language stimulation strategies or translanguaging (García & Kleyn, 2016) were remarkably rarely applied. The same pattern could be observed for LRI strategies (RQ3): While more up-to-date strategies, such as investigating the linguistic characteristics of textual stumbling blocks or identifying cultural stereotypical attributions in texts and pictures, were known, but only used in some lessons. Instead, more conventional instructional strategies, such as activating prior knowledge or identifying difficult words and phrases in texts, were reported to be applied in most lessons. However, due to the rather small sample size in this study (n < 100), such results need to be interpreted with caution. Nonetheless, these findings highlight the necessity of investigating PSTs’ knowledge, opportunities to learn, and actual use of LRI strategies based on larger, longitudinally investigated samples from different Austrian teacher training clusters in the following years.

Another limitation of the present study is that the reported findings are based on self-ratings of knowledge, learning opportunities, or use, which do not necessarily correspond with actual competence (e.g. Lowman & Williams, 1987) or give any indication of whether students profited from the extra tuition during the summer school. This is another desideratum for future research, namely the longitudinal investigation of student learning, ideally in relation to PSTs’ professional competencies or development during summer school. Even though there is some evidence of overall attitudinal and proficiency changes during the summer school (e.g. Groß Ophoff et al., submitted), it cannot be determined conclusively for multilingualism and LRI, if the above-addressed LRI methods, materials, and strategies actually exerted an impact on student performance during the summer school in general and on multilingual students in particular. Furthermore, it cannot be concluded whether the conventional worksheet-based (instead of the intended project-oriented, cf. BMBWF, 2021) instruction is due to lacking opportunities to learn during the teachers’ initial education. An alternative explanation might be the organisational or contextual conditions, such as parents’ expectations of individual tutoring (e.g. Kalian, 2020), or the significantly restricted mentoring opportunities by experienced teachers (Groß Ophoff et al., submitted), which is a well-grounded, widely established element of regular practical training phases in teacher education (cf. Bach, 2020). The latter might contribute to increase the risk of so-called de-professionalizing effects (Bonnet & Hericks, 2014) of the specific realisation of the Austrian summer school: Teaching is mainly carried out by PSTs before completion of their teacher training, even though they are still in the role of learners (e.g. Hascher & Kittinger, 2014). Such tendencies might be enhanced further by difficult organisational challenges and the diverse group of students that could have been so overwhelming that the PSTs experienced some kind of ‘practice shock’ (Dicke et al., 2016). On that note, the increased willingness to participate and thus share their experiences in the survey after the summer school, is probably an indication of a general dissatisfaction with the organisation and implementation of the summer school (e.g. Jesacher-Rößler et al., 2021), but also of high strain – a situation that usually leads to (over-)relying on intuition (i.e. heuristic processing: Kahneman, 2012) and on the PSTs’ own experiences as students during their school days (e.g. Bonnet & Hericks, 2014).

In summary, the Austrian summer school does have the potential to provide authentic teaching experiences for PSTs, during which they can develop professional skills and teaching competencies. At the same time, it has the potential to address learning gaps that were enhanced during the Covid-19 pandemic. It is important to note, that the potential of these catch-up programmes is most likely to have the intended added value for PSTs, if they are organised and implemented in the same way as traditional practical teacher training programmes (provided that they are actually effective, cf. Bach, 2020), particularly if the PSTs are professionally supervised and supported by qualified mentors (Gröschner & Klaß, 2020).

Yet another unresolved question is whether the Austrian summer school can actually support students’ learning. Up until now, no conclusive evidence is available. Accordingly, further research is needed to gain insights into how to prevent de-professionalisation processes and, instead, to ensure PSTs’ professional development during practical phases like summer school. In Austria, there remains a paucity of research examining how to optimally design the content of teacher education curricula to provide teacher trainees with the requisite skills for teaching in multicultural classes and to prepare them adequately for the needs of multilingual learners (Dalton-Puffer et al., 2019; Erling et al., 2021; Herzog-Punzenberger et al., 2022). Considering our results in the broader context of education, particularly in terms of achieving the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) to ‘ensure inclusive and equitable quality education and promote lifelong learning opportunities for all’ (cf. SDG 4 – Quality Education in UNESCO, 2017, p. 18), it can nevertheless be concluded that teacher training programmes should reflect more on diversity and the associated challenges and opportunities in everyday school life. Within this perspective, professional biographical reflection becomes even more important to convey the shortcomings of one's own experiences and to intensively practice ways of applying culturally and linguistically responsive teaching approaches. However, this requires a profound knowledge of language acquisition theories, language varieties, language awareness, and (self-) reflection, as well as competencies in handling with cultural and linguistic diversity in the classroom (García & Kleyn, 2016; Lucas & Villegas, 2013; Wernicke, 2019). In particular, it is crucial that culturally and linguistically responsive pedagogies are integrated as a comprehensive, and cross-curricular element in initial teacher education in order to substantiate future teachers’ professional understanding of their role as facilitators of linguistically and culturally diverse education in a society faced with enduring global crises such as the COVID-19 pandemic and the recent war in Ukraine.

Acknowledgements

We would like to express our sincere gratitude to the anonymous reviewers and the journal editor for their valuable comments and precious suggestions on the earlier drafts of this paper. We sincerely thank the pre-service teachers for their participation in this study.

Disclosure statement

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