Prepared for the Multilingual Classroom? Pre-Service Teachers’ Beliefs with Respect to Multilingualism

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The study addresses a well-identified gap in research on pre-service teachers' beliefs regarding multilingualism. This topic is of increasing relevance in today's linguistically diverse education settings. The methodology is solid and the sample is adequate for the study's aims allowing for meaningful conclusions to be drawn. The inclusion of the longitudinal component is one of the main strengths of the research design. 

In the references section I detected one year which is not in brackets. This could be revised. 

Author Response

The study addresses a well-identified gap in research on pre-service teachers' beliefs regarding multilingualism. This topic is of increasing relevance in today's linguistically diverse education settings. The methodology is solid and the sample is adequate for the study's aims allowing for meaningful conclusions to be drawn. The inclusion of the longitudinal component is one of the main strengths of the research design. 

In the references section I detected one year which is not in brackets. This could be revised. 

Dear Reviewer, thank you so much for your very positive response! The reference without brackets was detected and fixed. 

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The literature review, conducted in the section “Factors influencing beliefs” and  centered on scholarly works on pre-service teachers’ beliefs carried out in Germany, is comprehensive. However, from line 149 onwards, the authors also incorporate findings from studies on in-service teachers in other European countries and in the United Sates of America. Since this section opens (line 127) referring to “studies from Germany and the international context”, I would suggest to add the article by Aasne Vikøy & Åsta Haukås (2023) Norwegian L1 teachers’ beliefs about a multilingual approach in increasingly diverse classrooms, International Journal of Multilingualism, 20:3, 912-931, DOI: 10.1080/14790718.2021.1961779.

Given that some of the foreign language teachers participating in Raees Calafato’s (2020) study (Language teacher multilingualism in Norway and Russia: Identity and beliefs. European Journal of Education, 55: 602–617. https://doi.org/10.1111/ejed.12418) also teach Norwegian and Russian as a first language, the authors are also advised to read this paper.

The articles about teachers’ beliefs on multilingual students in the United States could also be supplemented with Gallagher, M. A., & Scrivner, S. (2024). Teachers’ Beliefs About Language Diversity and Multilingual Learners: A Systematic Review of the Literature. Review of Educational Research, 0(0). https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543241257533

Regarding the list of key words, the exclusion of the term “beliefs” is surprising, compared to the inclusion of “attitudes” and “competences”. Although it is widely accepted that the term  “beliefs” is part of a messy construct and it is often used interchangeably with “attitudes” in the literature, both notions are not exactly the same. That is why the authors might like to include a definition of “beliefs”. They are also kindly requested to clarify their understanding of the key term  “competences”, since it also figures in the title but only appears twice in the body text: in line 209 as a synonym for “knowledge, skills and beliefs” and in line 315, when talking about the “language competences” of students.

Other aspects to be reconsidered are:

• While the reference to Gogolin’s (2008) concept of “monolingual habitus” is introduced in the theoretical framework of the article, the concept of “harmonious bilingualism” by De Houwer (2020) does not appear until page 13 when results are discussed.
• Clarifying the meaning of the monolingualism-multilingualism index (see lines 389 and 390) would help the reader to interpret the mean figures in the discussion section. Case in point, the third paragraph on page 13. In that vein, in line 403, it is said that “1=most multilingual attitude”: does this mean that the lower the index, the more monolingual is the participants’ attitude?
• On page 10, when the items from Pulinx et al. (2017) from University A and University B are reported, I found that the figure of 42.6% of prospective language teachers at University B, agreeing with the first item (i.e. Non-German speaking students should not be allowed to speak their home language at school), in contrast with a lower percentage of 23.5% among teacher trainees from University A, deserves further comment.
• It is also confusing that in the abstract, the authors wrote “we investigate how a semester-long course on German as a second language influences pre-service teachers’ beliefs” and, in fact, the impact that is really measured is that of a lecture, as the reader is told in lines 398 and 502.
• Could you please further explain what is the meaning of “the more academically” minded pre-service teachers in lines 452-453.

The authors’ use of English is very good. Yet, they might like to revise the following lines:

-lines 64 and 65: “The beliefs that the teachers have on multilingualism are particularly important since they are believed to shape classroom practices”. Suggested alternative: “since they are found to shape…”

-lines 305 and 311: Is it “participant’s backgrounds” and “participant’s demographics” or participants’ in the plural?

-lines 351 and 352: please, reconsider the repetition of the sentence “Also, there was no significant…”

-lines 377 and 378: whole numbers in “6 semesters” and “7 semesters” should be written as words “six semesters” and “seven semesters” since they are less than 10.

-lines 423-424: In my view, the expression “at odds with” is too informal.

-line 444: reiteration of “here”.

-lines 464-465: “they should not be allowed for using”. The verb “allow” is followed by an infinitive: “they should not be allowed to use”.

-lines 502-503. Please, revise format and rewrite “c) The effects of a university-based intervention in the form of a lecture on German as a second language:” as a subheading, like the two previous ones: a) Perceived preparedness for the heterogeneous classroom and b) Beliefs towards multilingual students.

-line 509: Is it “to introduce a more obligatory classes” or “more obligatory classes” without the indefinite article “a”?

Author Response

Dear Reviewer, thank you so much for your careful review and the many useful suggestions. They have - as we hope - substantially improved our manuscript. 

The literature review, conducted in the section “Factors influencing beliefs” and  centered on scholarly works on pre-service teachers’ beliefs carried out in Germany, is comprehensive. However, from line 149 onwards, the authors also incorporate findings from studies on in-service teachers in other European countries and in the United Sates of America. Since this section opens (line 127) referring to “studies from Germany and the international context”, I would suggest to add the article by Aasne Vikøy & Åsta Haukås (2023) Norwegian L1 teachers’ beliefs about a multilingual approach in increasingly diverse classrooms, International Journal of Multilingualism, 20:3, 912-931, DOI: 10.1080/14790718.2021.1961779.

Thank you so much for this suggestion. We have incorporated the work of Vikøy & Haukås into the introdution and into the discussion.

Given that some of the foreign language teachers participating in Raees Calafato’s (2020) study (Language teacher multilingualism in Norway and Russia: Identity and beliefs. European Journal of Education, 55: 602–617. https://doi.org/10.1111/ejed.12418) also teach Norwegian and Russian as a first language, the authors are also advised to read this paper.

Thank you - yes, very suitable! We also integrated this paper into the theoretical background.

The articles about teachers’ beliefs on multilingual students in the United States could also be supplemented with Gallagher, M. A., & Scrivner, S. (2024). Teachers’ Beliefs About Language Diversity and Multilingual Learners: A Systematic Review of the Literature. Review of Educational Research, 0(0). https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543241257533

Thank you! Indeed this paper contributed a wealth of further information and details! We integrated it into many different areas of of the paper. 

Regarding the list of key words, the exclusion of the term “beliefs” is surprising, compared to the inclusion of “attitudes” and “competences”. Although it is widely accepted that the term  “beliefs” is part of a messy construct and it is often used interchangeably with “attitudes” in the literature, both notions are not exactly the same. That is why the authors might like to include a definition of “beliefs”. They are also kindly requested to clarify their understanding of the key term  “competences”, since it also figures in the title but only appears twice in the body text: in line 209 as a synonym for “knowledge, skills and beliefs” and in line 315, when talking about the “language competences” of students.

We focused the entire paper on the use of "beliefs". Thank you for this point. Also the term "competences" was generally avoided as we are studying the perceived level of preparedness, rather than competencies. 

 

 

Other aspects to be reconsidered are:

While the reference to Gogolin’s (2008) concept of “monolingual habitus” is introduced in the theoretical framework of the article, the concept of “harmonious bilingualism” by De Houwer (2020) does not appear until page 13 when results are discussed.

Thank you. We decided to omit the reference to De Houwer altogether and replaced it with reference to Vikøy & Haukås and Gallagher & Scrivner  (2024) as those were referred to before. 

Clarifying the meaning of the monolingualism-multilingualism index (see lines 389 and 390) would help the reader to interpret the mean figures in the discussion section. Case in point, the third paragraph on page 13. In that vein, in line 403, it is said that “1=most multilingual attitude”: does this mean that the lower the index, the more monolingual is the participants’ attitude

We added the explanation and THANK YOU for catching the actual mistake (in what was previously line 403)- it should be the other way around, of course. We fixed that.  

On page 10, when the items from Pulinx et al. (2017) from University A and University B are reported, I found that the figure of 42.6% of prospective language teachers at University B, agreeing with the first item (i.e. Non-German speaking students should not be allowed to speak their home language at school), in contrast with a lower percentage of 23.5% among teacher trainees from University A, deserves further comment.

Yes, in the context of the pre-service teachers being overall more multilingually-oriented, that is correct. We added a further comment in the text: 

“At University B, agreement to Statement 1 was even higher (42.6%), which could denote a strong agreement with monolingual policies, however, looking at other statements, at University B overall, beliefs were slightly more multilingually-oriented, e.g. only 1.4% of the participants thought that students should be punished for using their heritage language.”

It is also confusing that in the abstract, the authors wrote “we investigate how a semester-long course on German as a second language influences pre-service teachers’ beliefs” and, in fact, the impact that is really measured is that of a lecture, as the reader is told in lines 398 and 502.

Thank you! We changed all reference to "course" to "lecture". 

Could you please further explain what is the meaning of “the more academically” minded pre-service teachers in lines 452-453.

Thank you! We exchanged the text with the following: 

"Interestingly, the further along pre-service teachers are in their studies, the more their attention appears to shift towards subject-specific content. This tendency is particularly evident among students in the natural sciences, where language-related aspects of teaching tend to be considered less relevant. In terms of language-sensitive teaching approaches (e.g., Gibbons, 2002), this suggests that awareness among pre-service teachers needs to be particularly strengthened in non-language disciplines, where linguistic aspects may otherwise be overlooked."

The authors’ use of English is very good. Yet, they might like to revise the following lines:

-lines 64 and 65: “The beliefs that the teachers have on multilingualism are particularly important since they are believed to shape classroom practices”. Suggested alternative: “since they are found to shape…”

Thank you, we changed that accordingly. 

-lines 305 and 311: Is it “participant’s backgrounds” and “participant’s demographics” or participants’ in the plural?

Absolutely, yes, thank you. We changed that. 

-lines 351 and 352: please, reconsider the repetition of the sentence “Also, there was no significant…”

This was rephrased and wording varied. 

-lines 377 and 378: whole numbers in “6 semesters” and “7 semesters” should be written as words “six semesters” and “seven semesters” since they are less than 10.

Thank you, this was changed. 

-lines 423-424: In my view, the expression “at odds with” is too informal.

Thank you, this was changed to "in contrast to"

-line 444: reiteration of “here”.

Wording was varied. 

-lines 464-465: “they should not be allowed for using”. The verb “allow” is followed by an infinitive: “they should not be allowed to use”.

Thank you, this was changed accordingly. 

-lines 502-503. Please, revise format and rewrite “c) The effects of a university-based intervention in the form of a lecture on German as a second language:” as a subheading, like the two previous ones: a) Perceived preparedness for the heterogeneous classroom and b) Beliefs towards multilingual students.

Thank you, this was changed. 

-line 509: Is it “to introduce a more obligatory classes” or “more obligatory classes” without the indefinite article “a”?

Of course, thank you! 

Thank you again for your close reading and great suggestions! 

 

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I thoroughly enjoyed reading this paper and would be happy to recommend its acceptance in its current form. The paper presents a well-structured and engaging analysis, offering valuable insights into the broader social and political context of multilingualism in Germany. This contextual framing is both clear and concise, supported by concrete and illustrative examples that enrich the reader’s understanding.

The text is generally well-written, with a clear line of argumentation and no unnecessary digressions. At the same time, it provides all the necessary explanations to make the content accessible and coherent. I particularly want to highlight the strength of the argumentation and the logical structure of the paper. The introduction effectively sets up the research context, and the problem is well-framed. The research questions and hypotheses are plausible and thoughtfully formulated.

The empirical part of the study is equally convincing. The data collection and evaluation are carefully conducted, and the presentation of results is transparent and informative.

As a minor suggestion for further improvement, the authors might consider slightly expanding the discussion section. In particular, it could be valuable to more explicitly situate the findings within the broader field of education in multilingual settings. A brief comparison with other multilingual contexts globally—whether in Europe or beyond—might help to highlight the specificities and insights of the German case even more clearly. This could further enhance the contribution of the paper and open up fruitful avenues for comparative perspectives.

That said, I leave this entirely up to the authors. Overall, this is a strong and thought-provoking contribution that I believe will be of interest to both researchers and practitioners in the field.

Author Response

I thoroughly enjoyed reading this paper and would be happy to recommend its acceptance in its current form. The paper presents a well-structured and engaging analysis, offering valuable insights into the broader social and political context of multilingualism in Germany. This contextual framing is both clear and concise, supported by concrete and illustrative examples that enrich the reader’s understanding.

The text is generally well-written, with a clear line of argumentation and no unnecessary digressions. At the same time, it provides all the necessary explanations to make the content accessible and coherent. I particularly want to highlight the strength of the argumentation and the logical structure of the paper. The introduction effectively sets up the research context, and the problem is well-framed. The research questions and hypotheses are plausible and thoughtfully formulated.

The empirical part of the study is equally convincing. The data collection and evaluation are carefully conducted, and the presentation of results is transparent and informative.

As a minor suggestion for further improvement, the authors might consider slightly expanding the discussion section. In particular, it could be valuable to more explicitly situate the findings within the broader field of education in multilingual settings. A brief comparison with other multilingual contexts globally—whether in Europe or beyond—might help to highlight the specificities and insights of the German case even more clearly. This could further enhance the contribution of the paper and open up fruitful avenues for comparative perspectives.

That said, I leave this entirely up to the authors. Overall, this is a strong and thought-provoking contribution that I believe will be of interest to both researchers and practitioners in the field.

 

Dear Reviewer, thank you so much for your kind and positive response. We have expanded on the discussion significantly, drawing on further international studies. We hope that the results are better situated now!