The Politics of Host Language Teaching and Learning and Belonging: A Case Study with Adult Migrants and Refugees Learning Portuguese in the North of Portugal

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This article addresses the important and timely topic of language education for migrants and refugees, which fits well with the profile of "Societies." It draws on rich empirical material obtained from interviews with teachers, trainers, volunteers, and students. This allows for a multi-perspective view of practices in an area that is still relatively underrepresented in the international literature. Furthermore, it contributes to the discussion on the relationship between HL teaching and processes of integration, citizenship, and belonging, drawing attention to the contradictions between educational policy and practice. At the same time, it requires some minor refinements:

1) The title accurately captures the tension between HL teaching policy and autonomy/citizenship; a slight clarification that this is a case study from northern Portugal could be considered.

2) In the abstract, it is worthwhile to explicitly indicate the number of participants, the method of analysis, and two or three key findings, which will enhance clarity and reader appeal.

3) The introduction provides a very good justification for the importance of the topic, but the research objectives and questions are somewhat scattered throughout the text—a clearer formulation is needed. Therefore, I suggest adding at the end of the Introduction: the main purpose of the study (1–2 sentences), and 2–3 specific research questions (e.g., regarding the understanding of educational autonomy by different groups, the role of HL as an emancipatory vs. subordinate tool, etc.). This will make it easier to follow the structure of the results and discussion, which is already rich but does not always directly "return" to the initial questions.

4) The "Materials and Methods" section is correct, but somewhat too brief for such an extensive qualitative analysis. I suggest adding the following: - participant recruitment (How exactly were teachers, trainers, volunteers, and students recruited? Was purposive, snowball, or other sampling used? What were the inclusion criteria (e.g., minimum time working with migrants, length of students' stay in Portugal); - sample characteristics (although numbers (n=...) are provided, a short table or a more concise description would be useful: gender, country of origin of students, length of stay in Portugal, type of institution (public school, IEFP, NGO, etc.); - analysis procedure (it was mentioned that NVivo and inductive content analysis were used, but it is worth elaborating a bit: how many researchers coded the material, whether double coding and category reconciliation were used, what was the process of moving from open codes to categories and themes). This will enhance the credibility and transparency of the qualitative procedure.

5) The article does not sufficiently address the issue of methodological limitations, which are only signaled and should be clearly described (see the note above: e.g., nature of the sample, scope of representativeness, limitations resulting from (This is due to qualitative research methods.)

6) The structure is ambiguous in places; individual sections could be more clearly organized, for example, the transition between the presentation of results and the discussion is fluid and partially blurred.

7) In the discussion, it would be worthwhile to more explicitly link the three themes discussed in the article (autonomy, political/subordinate education, difficulties) and address the following questions: - How exactly do difficulties (e.g., language barriers, lack of teaching materials, group diversity) limit educational autonomy? - How do more emancipatory practices (especially in social organizations) translate into mitigating the effects of these difficulties? One or two paragraphs synthesizing these three themes in the "Discussion" section would make the structure clearer and strengthen the main argument.

8) The study focuses on northern Portugal – to what extent are the results transferable to other regions of the country or other EU countries? Does the selection of institutions favor more engaged/inclusive environments (e.g., NGOs), which may lead to an underestimation of more "technocratic" forms of HL?

9) I propose adding a separate section on "Limitations and Future Research," with suggestions for further research (e.g., regional comparisons, longitudinal studies, triangulation with observational data).

10) The conclusions are interesting, but largely remain at the level of general reflection. I propose adding a separate subsection on "Implications for Policy and Practice" with 3-5 specific recommendations.

11) There are sections that require theoretical clarification or standardization of terminology (e.g., "autonomy," "agency," "subordination," "HL functionality").

I recommend making corrections in accordance with the above comments.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

First, thank you for your words about the article “The Politics of Host Language Teaching and Learning and Belonging: the case of adult migrants and refugees learning Portuguese in Portugal”. Your suggestions led us to significant reflection and further work, which we believe helped to improve the paper. We have received your comments and made improvements to the work based on your suggestions. Parts of the text that include changes are highlighted in yellow to facilitate their identification.

To the extent possible, we have attempted to respond to and incorporate all the suggestions, and we thank both reviewers for your comments on this article. To better understand and respond to the suggestions, we have divided them into sections according to the part of the text to which each suggestion corresponds. Please note that the attached file contains the revisions made by both reviewers.

• Title

To begin with, we were asked to clarify in the title that this article is a case study from northern Portugal. Therefore, we revised the title to: “The Politics of Host Language Teaching and Learning and Belonging: a case study with adult migrants and refugees learning Portuguese in the north of Portugal.”

• Abstract

It was suggested that we elucidate on the number of participants, the method of analysis, and some key findings more clearly. We added:

• “Drawing on interviews with teachers (n=10), trainers (n=4), volunteers (n=8), and students (n=20) involved in the HL learning process, the content analysis…”
• “The results indicate an emergent form of collective autonomy in the relationship among students, the host society, and teachers, which means that teaching practices encompass not only the development of communication skills but also the civic and political awareness of learners. Lastly, while the language teachers identified more practical barriers in these teaching and learning contexts, the students described emotional and sociocultural obstacles.”

 

• Introduction

We were asked to reformulate this section by adding, at the end, the main purpose of the study and some of the research questions.  So, we included:

• Pages 2-3: “Then, this study examines how different actors involved in HL provision (teachers, trainers, volunteers, and learners) interpret their roles and the pedagogical dynamics that shape learning. To do so, we address the following research questions: i) how do pedagogical practices in HL settings influence learners’ autonomy, agency, and experiences of inclusion? ii) in what ways do teachers, trainers, volunteers, and learners perceive the challenges, obstacles, and possibilities of HL teaching and learning? iii) what forms of empowerment or subalternization emerge within these learning spaces?”

 

• Materials and Methods

In this section, we clarified several aspects. So, the participants’ recruitment process, the sample characteristics, and the data analysis procedure were described more clearly.

• Page 3: “The participants were recruited through purposive sampling to capture different perspectives on the provision of Portuguese as a Host Language. Initially, institutional contacts were established with schools, training centers, NGOs, and community organizations offering HL courses. After explaining and presenting the study to various institutions, teachers, trainers, and volunteers were invited to participate via email dissemination, and learners were informed through in-person announcements during class sessions.”
• Page 3: “The study involved a heterogeneous group of participants, ranging in age from 18 to 70. Regarding teachers and trainers, we interviewed 11 women and 2 men, who varied greatly in their academic background. We spoke with nine Portuguese language teachers, trained to teach Portuguese to native speakers, three teachers of Portuguese and other foreign languages, and one teacher of Portuguese for foreigners. Their experience was also quite diverse, as some teachers were teaching the subject for the first time, while others had been doing so for at least five years. Some of the volunteers (five) were also teachers, while the other three were not trained as teachers. The inclusion criterion we defined was that these professionals would have to be teaching Portuguese as a host language during the academic year at the time of the interview. Finally, the students came from 12 different countries, including Argentina, Colombia, the Dominican Republic, France, India, Nepal, Nigeria, Pakistan, South Africa, Ukraine, the United States of America, and Venezuela. We spoke with 12 men and 8 women. Their length of stay in Portugal was also very diverse, ranging from 1 month to 7 years. The inclusion criterion was that these participants had to be enrolled in Portuguese classes during the school year at the time of the interview or during the previous school year. There were 12 students from public schools, 3 from NGOs, and 5 from community organizations. It is essential to note that we interviewed teachers, volunteers, and students from the same educational contexts. “
• Page 4: “To achieve this, we began by transcribing all the data and reading all the material. We then interpreted it through coding and categorization using NVivo software.”

We also added a paragraph concerning the methodological limitations, as suggested.

• Page 4: “We believe that this work has some methodological limitations, specifically some potential selection bias of the participating students: teachers, trainers, and volunteers may have selected some students who spoke best and were more linguistically confident, less shy, and positively engaged with host language experiences. In other cases, linguistic barriers may have affected the depth of some interviews or the participants’ ability to fully articulate their experiences.”
• Discussion

In this section, we were asked to more explicitly link the three themes discussed in the article. So, we included:

• Pages 9-10: “Overall, these results suggest an ambivalent role for the HL: while it enables autonomy, belonging, and participation, it can also perpetuate mechanisms of inequality and subalternity. These contradictions invite a deeper reflection on the political and pedagogical meanings of HL learning and a more explicit examination of how HL practices unfold across the three themes that structure this discussion: 1) the development of learners’ autonomy, 2) the role of HL as a form of political education that is conscious and critical without becoming subalternising, and 3) the obstacles and challenges that constrain these processes. In this next section, we will interpret these findings in light of critical and emancipatory perspectives, seeking to understand how HL classrooms can move beyond functional language acquisition to become spaces that strengthen autonomy, promote a politicised yet non-subaltern relationship with the language, and address the structural and pedagogical obstacles experienced by those learning and teaching.”

It was also suggested we addressed two questions:

1. how exactly do difficulties limit educational autonomy?
2. How do more emancipatory practices translate into mitigating the effects of these difficulties?

We combined the answers with the suggestion to synthetize the three themes in the “Discussion”. And we explained at the end of the section:

• Page 13: “Taken together, the three dimensions we exposed in the Discussion Section highlight how HL education operates at the intersection of autonomy, political awareness, and structural and pedagogical challenges. The difficulties highlighted by participants teaching the language, such as language barriers, a lack of teaching materials, and the diverse needs of students, constrain educational autonomy as they limit opportunities for active engagement, negotiation of meaning, and meaningful interaction within the classroom. These obstacles not only affect the development of linguistic competence but also hinder learners’ individual agency in social, civic, and institutional contexts [19, 35]. At the same time, the Results and Discussion sections also underlined emancipatory practices as particularly important in mitigating these effects. The promotion of dialogue, the recognition of learners’ linguistic repertoires, and the connection between language learning and civic and social participation help strengthen autonomy and foster a politically conscious, yet non-subaltern, engagement with the host society. The creation of safe, participatory, and emancipatory learning spaces enables learners to navigate obstacles, build confidence, and acquire not only language skills but also social and political agency [29, 46].”

The Reviewer also asked us two more questions:

• “To what extent are the results transferable to other regions of the country or other EU countries?”
  • We explained, on page 14: “As this study was conducted in Northern Portugal, the findings may not be transferable to other regions of the country or to other European countries, due to differences in migration profiles, educational policies, and available resources. Nonetheless, some of the broader principles emphasized (such as the importance of safe, participatory, and emancipatory learning spaces, the role of autonomy and citizenship in language learning) can inform research and practice in other contexts.”
• Does the selection of institutions favor more engaged/inclusive environments, which may lead to an underestimation of more “technocratic” forms of HL?
  • We answered, on page 15: “However, [the institutions] were not intentionally selected for their pedagogical approach; nevertheless, they proved to work through different methods, and some were found to be relatively inclusive and participatory learning environments.”

• Conclusion

We were asked to add a separate subsection on “Implications for Policy and Practice”. On page 15, it is possible to read:

• “5.1 Implications for Policy and Practice

From this article, several implications for policy and practice can be drawn. At the pedagogical level, it is essential to invest in the ongoing training of these professionals, as migration is a current reality that must be addressed effectively. It would also be important to adapt the curricular content to the concrete needs of students by incorporating activities that promote social participation, dialogue, and citizenship. Adequate pedagogical materials should be available to all learning institutions, and these spaces should be considered safe environments for students, reducing anxiety and promoting self-confidence and autonomy. Politically, it is essential to acknowledge and appreciate the linguistic and cultural diversity of newcomers and to provide access to host language learning programs for various immigrant groups. To think about citizenship as not only a formal criterion of integration, it is an important step forward in thinking about settlement processes holistically, taking into account the person who arrives.”

• Limitations and Future Research

The Reviewer also suggested adding a separate section on “Limitations and Future Research”, and we added it on page 15:

• “6. Limitations and Future Research

In addition to the limitations already identified in the methodological section of this article, we also believe that there are theoretical and contextual limitations. Theoretical limitations primarily stem from the scarcity of data regarding the relationship between assimilation, integration, and inclusion. Likewise, the absence of concrete pedagogical suggestions for action by HL teachers and a deeper analysis of specific language policies represent limitations to be addressed in future work. Regarding the institutions included in this study, we opted to choose different educational contexts to obtain a richer sample. However, they were not intentionally selected for their pedagogical approach; nevertheless, they proved to work through different methods, and some were found to be relatively inclusive and participatory learning environments. There is currently no data available regarding informal educational contexts, and we believe it would be beneficial to include the perspectives of migrants from Portuguese-speaking countries. Therefore, future research should focus on these aspects, as we consider it essential to also incorporate data from these educational contexts and the experiences of migrants from Portuguese-speaking countries, in order to gain a more comprehensive understanding of integration processes, autonomy, and the relationship with the Portuguese language.”

Again, thank you for all your interesting and important revisions.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This study offers an interesting and empirically grounded insight into perceptions of host language teaching and learning from the perspectives of all parties involved (teachers, trainers, volunteers, and learners). The authors collected interview data, which are analysed in the article across three overarching thematic areas. The results are clearly presented and supported with illustrative examples and quotations. The discussion likewise provides a thoughtful and well-reflected account of the relationship between language learning and inclusion at different levels and from the viewpoints of the participants. Overall, this is an enriching study that sensitively demonstrates that language teaching and learning are not “merely” a matter of acquisition and linguistic competence, but encompass multiple dimensions that, when adequately considered, can empower learners and strengthen their autonomy. It is a valuable contribution.
The only point of criticism concerns the level of detail provided in the methodological section. It would be desirable to include more specific information about the empirical procedures (e.g., interview length, development of the interview guide) and to characterise the participants more clearly in terms of their sociological profiles, as very little is currently conveyed about them. For instance, it remains unclear whether the different participant groups belonged to the same learning setting (e.g., whether teachers and learners from the same class were interviewed). This issue also extends to the presentation of the data analysis. More detail on how the data were processed and analysed, and how exactly the three thematic categories were derived, would strengthen the methodological transparency. Currently, the themes appear somewhat arbitrary; it would be essential to demonstrate more clearly how their relevance arises from the data.
I therefore recommend accepting the article with the above revisions.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

First, thank you for your words about the article “The Politics of Host Language Teaching and Learning and Belonging: the case of adult migrants and refugees learning Portuguese in Portugal”. Your suggestions led us to significant reflection and further work, which we believe helped to improve the paper. We have received your comments and made improvements to the work based on your suggestions. Parts of the text that include changes are highlighted in yellow to facilitate their identification.

To the extent possible, we have attempted to respond to and incorporate all the suggestions, and we thank both reviewers for your comments on this article. To better understand and respond to the suggestions, we have divided them into sections according to the part of the text to which each suggestion corresponds. Please note that the attached file contains the revisions made by both reviewers.

Reviewer 2 began by highlighting the lack of “detail provided in the methodological section”, describing how “It would be desirable to include more specific information about the empirical procedures (e.g., interview length, development of the interview guide) and to characterize the participants more clearly in terms of their sociological profiles, as very little is currently conveyed about them”. In order to answer it, we added on page 3:

• “These lasted between 20 and 40 minutes.”
• “The interview guides were developed with consideration for the group of participants we were going to talk with, and we described the main topics we wanted to hear about. It contained some examples of questions we could ask the participants, if that were the case.”
• “The study involved a heterogeneous group of participants, ranging in age from 18 to 70. Regarding teachers and trainers, we interviewed 11 women and 2 men, who varied greatly in their academic background. We spoke with nine Portuguese language teachers, trained to teach Portuguese to native speakers, three teachers of Portuguese and other foreign languages, and one teacher of Portuguese for foreigners. Their experience was also quite diverse, as some teachers were teaching the subject for the first time, while others had been doing so for at least five years. Some of the volunteers (five) were also teachers, while the other three were not trained as teachers. The inclusion criterion we defined was that these professionals would have to be teaching Portuguese as a host language during the academic year at the time of the interview. Finally, the students came from 12 different countries, including Argentina, Colombia, the Dominican Republic, France, India, Nepal, Nigeria, Pakistan, South Africa, Ukraine, the United States of America, and Venezuela. We spoke with 12 men and 8 women. Their length of stay in Portugal was also very diverse, ranging from 1 month to 7 years. The inclusion criterion was that these participants had to be enrolled in Portuguese classes during the school year at the time of the interview or during the previous school year.”

 

We are also asked to clarify if the different participant groups belonged to the same learning setting, and, so, we added on page 3:

• “There were 12 students from public schools, 3 from NGOs, and 5 from community organizations. It is essential to note that we interviewed teachers, volunteers, and students from the same educational contexts.”

Regarding data analysis, Reviewer 2 asked “how the data were processed and analysed, and how exactly the three thematic categories were derived” and we included, on page 4:

• “To achieve this, we began by transcribing all the data and reading all the material. We then interpreted it through coding and categorization using NVivo software.”
• “These three dimensions surfaced during a broader, ongoing PhD project on HL teaching and learning in Northern Portugal. Through iterative engagement with interviews, content analysis, and documents, we gradually noticed that these issues consistently appeared across different participants and contexts. Consequently, while not formally established as analytical categories at the outset, they became useful conceptual lenses for interpreting the findings and structuring the discussion in this article.”

Lastly, we were asked to “demonstrate more clearly how [the themes’] relevance arises from the data.” And so, we described:

• “Taken together, the three dimensions we exposed in the Discussion Section highlight how HL education operates at the intersection of autonomy, political awareness, and structural and pedagogical challenges. The difficulties highlighted by participants teaching the language, such as language barriers, a lack of teaching materials, and the diverse needs of students, constrain educational autonomy as they limit opportunities for active engagement, negotiation of meaning, and meaningful interaction within the classroom. These obstacles not only affect the development of linguistic competence but also hinder learners’ individual agency in social, civic, and institutional contexts [19, 35]. At the same time, the Results and Discussion sections also underlined emancipatory practices as particularly important in mitigating these effects. The promotion of dialogue, the recognition of learners’ linguistic repertoires, and the connection between language learning and civic and social participation help strengthen autonomy and foster a politically conscious, yet non-subaltern, engagement with the host society. The creation of safe, participatory, and emancipatory learning spaces enables learners to navigate obstacles, build confidence, and acquire not only language skills but also social and political agency [29, 46].”

Again, thank you for all the suggestions made to this work, and we hope to have met your expectations.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The revisions made, based on the suggestions in the Review, have, in my opinion, improved the substantive value of the manuscript. Therefore, I propose accepting the manuscript for publication.