Teachers’ Perspectives on Promoting Reading and Writing for Pupils with Various Linguistic Backgrounds in Grade 1 of Primary School

Abstract

The aim of this study is to gain a deeper understanding of teachers' perspectives on promoting reading and writing for pupils with various linguistic backgrounds in grade 1. Focus group interviews were conducted with 17 teachers who work in preschool classes and in grade 1. The teachers' perspectives on reading and writing can be characterised as balanced, in the sense that the teachers describe how they work with both the technical and the learning-oriented dimension. The number of different languages spoken in their classes is regarded in a positive manner, but it also leads to major challenges, such as not having enough time for all of the pupils and not having sufficient knowledge of multilingualism.

Reading Comprehension and Context of the Digital Generation of Secondary Engineering Schools’ Pupils in the Czech Republic

“…The relationship between the pupil’s acquisition of knowledge from vocational subjects rather than by self-study and their use of ancillary questions while reading and after reading the text has not been confirmed as well. Other researches have dealt with reading literacy or reading strategies of primary school pupils (Sandberg and Norling 2020 and Genlott and Grönlund 2013 ) and lower-secondary school pupils (Sieglová 2017 ). According to Oakhill et al ( 2014 , p. 4) “The ultimate aim of reading is not the process but to understand what we read and comprehension can take place at many different levels”.…”

“…The implementation of the constructivist concept of teaching in the Czech Republic lags behind the development in European and other developed countries, which may be the cause of the decrease in the reading literacy of the current digital generation, including students of technical schools. Tompkins ( 2006 ), Sandberg and Norling ( 2020 ), Oakhill et al ( 2014 ), Stuart and Stainthorp ( 2015 ), Hejsek ( 2015 ), Vicherková ( 2017 , 2018 ). Several findings have been provided by international literacy surveys (PISA 2009 , 2018 ) or Whitcroft ( 2018 ).…”

A review of Scandinavian writing research between 2010 and 2020

“…They deployed different methodologies and collected different types of data; from quantitative surveys to questionnaires, teacher diaries, interviews, group talk or Facebook threads about writing and writing instruction. The studies fall into three subgroups: one group investigated teacher perspectives on instruction in general (Graham et al, 2021;Hertzberg & Roe, 2016), with a specific focus on multimodal aspects of instruction (Tjernberg et al, 2017) or on ways of promoting early writing development (Anderson et al, 2019;Sandberg & Norling, 2020). Another group explored discourses about writing (Krogh, 2012;Sturk & Lindgren, 2019;Sturk et al, 2021), whereas the third group focused on teacher competences and practices; that is, teachers' metalanguage in talks about students' written texts (Folkeryd & Geijerstam, 2019;Liberg & Nordlund, 2019) and their documentation practices of students' reading and writing difficulties (Reichenberg 2016).…”

Conditions for Children’s Language and Literacy Learning in Swedish Preschools: Exploring Quality Variations with ECERS-3

“…How to encourage children's linguistic awareness is the focus of extensive research (McLachlan & Arrow, 2017;Mellgren & Gustafsson, 2011;Norling, 2014;Sandberg & Norling, 2020). Linguistic awareness is the goal of the Swedish preschool education, to support children's awareness to contextualize the use and construction of spoken and written language.…”