Changing teachers' attitudes towards linguistic diversity: effects of an anti‐bias programme

Abstract

We discuss an intervention programme for kindergarten and school teachers' continuing education in Germany that targets biases against language outside a perceived monolingual 'standard' and its speakers. The programme combines anti-bias methods relating to linguistic diversity with objectives of raising critical language awareness. Evaluation through teachers' workshops in Berlin and Brandenburg points to positive and enduring attitudinal changes in participants, but not in control groups that did not attend workshops, and effects were independent of personal variables gender and teaching subject and only weakly associated with age. We relate these effects to such programme features as indirect and inclusive methods that foster active engagement, and the combination of 'safer' topics targeting attitudes towards linguistic structures with more challenging ones dealing with the discrimination of speakers.Keywords: anti-bias, critical language awareness, language and education in multilingual settings, language attitudes, linguistic discrimination Der Beitrag diskutiert ein Interventionsprogramm für die Weiterbildung von Lehrer/inne/n und Erzieher/inne/n, das Vorurteile gegenüber sprachlichen Praktiken außerhalb eines vermeintlichen monolingualen "Standarddeutschen" und seinen Sprecher/inne/n fokussiert (www.deutsch-ist-vielseitig.de). Das Programm verbindet Anti-bias -Methoden zur sprachlichen Vielfalt mit solchen, die auf eine Verstärkung kritischer Sprachbewusstheit abheben. Die Evaluation der Materialien in Lehrerfortbildungen in Berlin und Brandenburg weist auf positive und anhaltende Einstellungsveränderungen bei den Teilnehmer/inne/n, aber nicht bei Mitgliedern einer Kontrollgruppe, die nicht an den Fortbildungen teilnahm; die Effekte waren unabhängig von den personenbezogen Variablen Geschlecht und Lehrfach und nur schwach mit Alter assoziiert. Wir diskutieren diese Effekte im Zusammenhang mit Eigenschaften des Programms wie der Verwendung indirekter und inklusiver Methoden, die eine aktive Auseinandersetzung fördern, und der Verbindung von weniger "bedrohlichen" Themen, die sich auf Einstellungen gegenüber sprachlichen Strukturen beziehen, mit solchen, die die Diskrimierung von Sprecher/inne/n behandeln und daher eine größere Herausforderung darstellen Curricular framework specifications for schools in Germany do acknowledge such repertoires, and take into account different communicative choices including non-standard language use. However, this does not necessarily translate into a classroom reality where competences in domains other than an idealised monolingual 'standard German' are acknowledged and appreciated.In this paper, we discuss results from a programme designed to target this issue by counteracting attitudes in teachers that lead to negative stereotypisations and devaluations of language use and speakers. In what follows, we first describe the kind of negative attitudes that can be found at schools, and discuss existing intervention programmes (section 2). Against this background, we argue for...

Critical Perspectives on Linguistic Fixity and Fluidity

“…Teacher practices are otherwise seen as inspired by commonsensical beliefs about language learning (in particular, that total submersion is best). Very often, therefore, scholars call for awareness training or for an attitudinal change among Flemish teachers, in line with similar appeals elsewhere ( Alim 2010 ;Wiese et al 2017 ). In addition, they argue that teacher training education must be substantially reformed ( Agirdag et al 2013 ;Strobbe et al 2017 ;Van der Wildt et al 2017 ) and that language education policy should live up to a now multilingual reality.…”

Linguistic discrimination in pedagogical evaluation. A study of teachers of Hungarian language and literature in Slovakia, Ukraine, Romania and Hungary

“…The language attitudes of teachers have been surveyed in several speech communities (see e.g. Davies & Langer, 2014;Hagen, 2010;Tegegne, 2015;Wiese et al, 2015), although such studies have been rare and they vary greatly in methodology. The results do converge, however.…”

“…Few authors ever tackle the issue of how the assessment of the content knowledge of children of various social backgrounds acquired at school depends on the children's language varieties and general linguistic behaviour. From the other perspective, the teachers' language use also needs to be taken into account, namely what they require from the students and how they relate to differences with respect to their expectations (Bakshi, 2020;Wiese et al, 2015).…”

Soft power: teachers’ friendly implementation of a severe monolingual policy

“…Indeed, there are ample, favourable, accounts of how teachers accept or encourage pupils' non-curricular linguistic resources, and of how teachers integrate these resources into their pedagogical practice (see, among others, Ramanathan 2005; Hélot 2010; Flores and García 2013; Cooke, Bryers, and Wistanley 2018); these accounts sketch a picture of teachers as challengers of monolingual policies they find neglectful of pupils' own linguistic resources. Conversely, many other studies describe and contest teachers as 'loyal soldiers of the system' (Shohamy 2006, 78) whose 'monolingual habitus' (Gogolin 2002) makes them misrecognise significant parts of pupils' repertoires or to punish the use of noncurricular varieties (see, among others, Blommaert, Creve, and Willaert 2006;Alim 2010;Martín Rojo 2010;Young 2014;Wiese et al 2017). Clearly, in both cases, the focus is not simply descriptive but prescriptive.…”