Austrian Physics Teachers’ Views on Language and Inclusive Content Learning in Multilingual Classrooms

Abstract

The Austrian education system faces the ongoing challenge of addressing linguistic diversity in classrooms where many middle school students speak a first language other than German. Yet, teaching practices often prioritize subject content over inclusion through language-sensitive approaches, limiting equitable access to education. In response, the revised Austrian middle school curriculum emphasizes “language learning and reading” as a cross-cutting theme, promoting language-sensitive teaching across all subjects, including physics. This study explores how Austrian middle school physics teachers (N = 131) perceive and implement language-sensitive practices in response to the new curriculum. Using a questionnaire, it investigates their attitudes towards (1) the revised curriculum, (2) reading, and (3) the role of language in physics lessons. Findings show that while teachers are highly motivated to implement the curriculum, they often lack the methodological knowledge necessary to effectively support learners with lower German language proficiency. Physics instruction poses specific challenges due to its reliance on subject-specific terminology and academic discourse, further disadvantaging students with lower German language skills. This research highlights the urgent need for targeted professional development to support inclusive, language-sensitive teaching, ensuring all students—regardless of linguistic background—can access and succeed in physics education.

1. Introduction

Austria, predominantly a German-speaking country, uses German as the language of instruction in most public schools. However, approximately one in four students has a first language (L1) other than German (Statistik Austria, 2024). This situation is particularly pronounced in middle schools, one of the two secondary school types available in Austria for fifth- to eighth-grade students (ages 10 to 14), selected based on students’ grades in elementary school1. In middle schools, the proportion of students learning German as a second or third language (L2 German) is notably higher (34.6%) than in grammar schools (19.4%), which require high grades for admission. In urban settings, some middle school classes may comprise 50% to 100% of children with L2 German (Statistik Austria, 2024).

1.1. Educational Reforms to Include Implicit Language Education in Austrian Science Classes

Although language should not be the primary basis for grading outside of language-focused lessons, academic language proficiency is critical for academic success (Boeckmann, 2022), especially in science classes (Stahl et al., 2024). Despite the linguistic diversity in classrooms, the Austrian education system largely operates under a “monolingual habitus” (Gogolin, 1997; Stubler, 2018), limiting inclusion and equitable access to education for multilingual students. Recent curriculum reforms aim to address these disparities by embedding language-inclusive practices into all subject areas. Language inclusivity aligns with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (United Nations, 1948), emphasizing non-discrimination based on language and affirming the universal right to education. The revised curricula underscore language learning as a fundamental component across all subjects, stressing the role of content class teachers in supporting language acquisition (Rechtsinformationssystem des Bundes [RIS], 2023).

In this context, the physics curriculum was adapted to integrate more language-sensitive and inclusive teaching approaches (Rechtsinformationssystem des Bundes [RIS], 2023). Cappello et al. (2025, chapter 1) state that “in order to make the subject matter accessible to all and to ensure that the classroom is fully inclusive, teachers need to relate explicitly to language,” supporting Austria’s changes to promote greater inclusion for all students. These changes aim to provide all students, regardless of their L1, an equal opportunity to engage with content and facilitate academic success. However, it remains unclear to what extent physics teachers in Austria have embraced these adjustments and their attitudes towards language-sensitive instruction within their discipline. This study examines the perceptions and implementation of language-sensitive and inclusive teaching among Austrian physics teachers, identifying potential discrepancies between curriculum policies and classroom practices.

1.2. Literature Review: Language-Sensitive Teaching in Austria and Beyond

1.2.1. Language Challenges in Science Education

In Austria’s multilingual classrooms, linguistic challenges often act as barriers to content access for L2 learners. Science subjects like physics present unique challenges due to the complexity of language used in textbooks and instruction, stemming from extensive subject-specific terminology and complex academic sentence structures (Fornol, 2020; Meyer & Prediger, 2012).

This complexity is highlighted by Green (2019), who found that non-fiction texts, such as those in science subjects, are structurally more complex than literary texts and language textbooks. The increased complexity arises from various factors at different levels. At the word level, non-fiction texts feature longer words that are often difficult to infer from context (Gardner, 2004; McNamara et al., 2012). At the sentence level, these texts contain longer sentences with more complex structures, including passive constructions (Biber & Gray, 2010). Furthermore, non-fiction texts exhibit high information density at the text level (Best et al., 2008). An earlier study (Beerenwinkel & Gräsel, 2005) has shown that German-speaking students struggle with text comprehension, particularly in science subjects. This highlights the challenges posed by the increased complexity of non-fiction texts compared to literary texts, underscoring the need for effective strategies to support students in navigating these texts.

Migration phases have pressured European teachers and education systems to adapt to the multilingual reality of today’s classrooms (Göğebakan-Yıldız, 2017; Tereshchenko & Archer, 2014), leading to a greater language awareness approach in content area learning. In Austria, this shift is evident in the 2023 revised curriculum for middle schools, emphasizing “language learning and reading” as key elements of content learning in all subjects. Better-developed linguistic skills facilitate students’ ability to follow lessons, extract information from texts, acquire knowledge independently, and share it with others (Rechtsinformationssystem des Bundes [RIS], 2023, pp. 14, 15).

Although “learning to use the language of science is fundamental to learning science” (Wellington & Osborne, 2001, p. 6), we need better linguistically informed strategies by teachers in order to better facilitate students understanding of the language being used, as argued, for example, by Wilton (2021).

1.2.2. Teachers’ Role in Language-Sensitive Instruction

Theoretical frameworks, such as Vygotsky’s sociocultural theory, emphasize social interaction and scaffolding as essential for cognitive development (Vygotsky, 1978). In physics education, this implies that teachers must provide linguistic scaffolds alongside conceptual supports to help students navigate the specialized language of science. The gap between everyday language and scientific discourse creates barriers to comprehension, necessitating instructional approaches addressing these differences (Wulff, 2024).

Johnstone and Selepeng (2001) found that students learning science as L2 learners experience at least a 20% reduction in reasoning and comprehension capabilities when compared to L1 learners. Thus, scaffolding language is as critical as scaffolding content, particularly for L2 learners and students from linguistically diverse backgrounds (Gibbons, 2002). However, language-sensitive teaching methods benefit both L2 and L1 learners, promoting educational equity and supporting all students rather than targeting language learners exclusively (Wildemann & Bien-Miller, 2022).

Austria, recognizing the importance of language-sensitive teaching methods and the previously mentioned high number of L2 learners, has implemented curricular changes for content lessons (Rechtsinformationssystem des Bundes [RIS], 2023). However, these changes serve merely as guidelines for teachers, leaving the responsibility for their implementation ultimately in the hands of the teachers themselves. As a result, teachers play a crucial role in integrating language-sensitive teaching methods into subject-specific instruction.

Unfortunately, Hurd (1994) found out that in the absence of supportive tools during substantial curriculum reforms, teachers may experience a sense of overload and as a result, they are likely to fall back on traditional or outdated pedagogical practices, since innovative approaches might offer them insufficient certainty in their teaching. Such a development would ultimately undermine the curriculum reform and the carefully articulated objectives it seeks to achieve, which in this case would lead to no inclusion through language-sensitive teaching methods in content classes.

1.2.3. Barriers to Implementing Language-Sensitive Instruction

Despite recognizing the benefits of language-sensitive instruction, teachers often hesitate to incorporate such strategies in content-based lessons. Many fear these approaches might detract from subject instruction time (Fisher & Ivey, 2005). This reluctance poses a significant challenge since reading strategies learned from literary texts rarely transfer automatically to informational texts in subjects like physics (Rosebrock, 2012). Teachers’ hesitation might also reflect a deeper issue: many teachers misunderstand language-sensitive teaching, incorrectly assuming it entails formal grammar instruction within physics rather than strategic integration of language support into content learning (Leisen, 2022; Tajmel & Hägi-Mead, 2017). This misunderstanding undermines efforts to make science instruction more inclusive and equitable for linguistically diverse students.

1.2.4. Teacher Training Needs for Language-Sensitive Instruction

The TALIS (Teaching and Learning International Survey) 2018 findings (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development [OECD], 2021) highlight teachers’ need for greater knowledge regarding methods to support L2 learners. This matches the conclusions of Leisen (2022) and Tajmel and Hägi-Mead (2017), who found that some teachers lack a clear understanding of language-sensitive teaching and its relevance within subject-specific instruction, indicating a need for targeted professional development. Teacher training is essential to support teachers in promoting educational inclusion and providing equal learning opportunities for all students, regardless of linguistic background.

2. Aims and Research Questions

In the pursuit of enhancing the educational landscape within Austria to cater to a more linguistically diverse student body, the present study aims to examine the perspectives and instructional approaches of Austrian middle school physics teachers in response to the recently revised curriculum. The study aims at investigating teachers’ attitudes towards the incorporation of reading and language in physics education and to reveal how these positions are manifested within their pedagogical methods.

The following research questions guide the inquiry, rooted in the desire to bridge the gap between educational policy intentions and actual classroom practices:

What are the attitudes of middle school physics teachers towards the new curriculum, reading, and language in physics education, and how are these attitudes reflected in their teaching practices?

More specifically, we focused on the following areas:

(RQ 1) Curriculum Familiarity and Professional Development: How familiar are teachers with the general and subject-specific sections of the new curriculum? To what extent are they willing to participate in professional development to enhance their understanding and application of these pedagogical reforms? Given the absence of existing research addressing this question, the study adopts an exploratory approach, and a hypothesis has therefore not been established.

(RQ 2) Lesson Planning Foundation: What serves as the foundation for teachers’ lesson planning? According to the findings of Vojíř and Rusek (2022), it is hypothesized that the textbook constitutes the primary basis for teachers’ lesson planning.

(RQ 3) Awareness of Language in Physics: How aware are physics teachers of academic and subject-specific language in physics education? To the best of the authors’ knowledge, there are no existing studies that investigate Austrian teachers’ awareness and knowledge in this area. Nevertheless, Ness (2007) showed that, internationally, content teachers tend to prioritize content delivery over supporting students’ academic and subject-specific language development. This finding leads to the hypothesis that physics teachers likewise focus more on content delivery than on fostering students’ language development, resulting in limited awareness of the language demands in physics education.

(RQ 4) Implementation of Reading Methods and Time Allocation: In what ways do physics teachers apply various reading methods and strategies in their lessons, and how much time is allocated to these practices in their physics classroom? How are physics teachers’ attitudes towards and experiences with language related to the amount of reading time and the use of reading strategies in their lessons? Drawing from existing research (Feser & Höttecke, 2021; Wyatt et al., 2021) the hypothesis is that teachers with more positive attitudes and experiences regarding language integration will report more reading time and a more frequent use of reading strategies in physics lessons.

(RQ 5) Correlation Between a Finished Teaching Degree in Physics or in a Language and the Importance of Reading: Does it make a difference for teachers’ given importance of reading in physics class, whether the teachers have a teaching degree in physics and (a) in a language subject or (b) another subject? Based on the literature (Feser & Höttecke, 2021; Wyatt et al., 2021), the hypothesis is that physics teachers place less emphasis on reading and focus more strongly on content compared to those who are also trained in a language subject.

The responses to these questions help to assess whether recent educational reforms are being implemented as intended and to identify areas for improvement. Ultimately, it is to be hoped that the findings will inform future policy adaptations and teacher training programs, fostering pedagogical strategies that better meet the needs of a diverse student population in Austrian middle schools.

3. Materials and Methods

3.1. Study Design and Data Collection

To gather data on the opinions, attitudes and practices of physics teachers towards language-sensitive teaching methods, an online questionnaire was administered to physics teachers actively teaching in middle schools across Austria during the 2024/25 academic year. The data collection for this study was conducted using the online survey tool “LimeSurvey”, which facilitated the efficient gathering of responses from physics teachers across Austria. The questionnaire was introduced under the title “PhyVerBEr—understanding, describing and explaining physics” (Physik verstehen, beschreiben und erklären). The data collection period spanned October and November of 2024, allowing ample time for participants to engage with the survey.

Participants were contacted via email, forwarded by their principals2, and granting them direct access to the questionnaire through the link provided. This method ensured both broad reach and convenience for the respondents, enabling them to complete the survey at their own pace. The use of an online platform also allowed for the seamless collection and management of data, facilitating subsequent analysis.

Participants were assured of their privacy through the anonymity provided by the survey tool. Informed consent was obtained from all participants, who were made aware that their responses would be used for research purposes. The study adhered to ethical guidelines, ensuring that all data collected was treated with confidentiality and used solely for the intended academic purposes. These measures were implemented to uphold the integrity of the research process and to ensure that participants felt safe enough to answer honestly, even if their opinion deviated from their employer’s perspective.

3.2. Questionnaire

The study utilized a self-developed questionnaire, integrating selected questions from the PISA (Programme for International Student Assessment) Questionnaire3 (Suchań et al., 2019) for language teachers, which were adapted to suit the context of science education. This adaptation involved modifying terms such as “language class” to “physics or subject specific class” and “language teacher” to “physics teacher” and also entailed providing explanations for technical terms such as “reading strategies” to ensure clarity and accuracy in the responses. The questionnaire comprised 25 items, predominantly utilizing Likert scales, Yes/No answers, and numerical responses, in order to capture the percentage of time invested in a specific method during lessons. The questionnaire was developed through a three-step piloting process. The piloting process began with a think-aloud phase conducted with one in-service physics teacher in order to ensure that the questions, particularly those concerning language and language teaching methods, were sufficiently clear. After this phase, the questionnaire was revised and subsequently tested with a group of 11 doctoral students in the field of didactical sciences. A deliberate decision was made not to involve additional in-service teachers at this stage so as not to reduce the available sample for the actual study. In the final stage of revision, the questionnaire was tested again with a group of 15 doctoral students specializing in second language teaching.

3.2.1. Language and Reading in Physics Classes

The first and second sub-sections in the questionnaire were adapted from the PISA Questionnaire for language teachers so as to match the context of physics class. To gain insights into the perceived significance of language-related competencies within the context of physics teaching, the first sub-section asked participants to assess the importance of fostering various competencies in physics instruction on a four-point scale from “not important” to “very important,” with an additional option of “I have no opinion”:

• Reading comprehension skills
• Writing skills
• Listening comprehension skills
• Verbal communication skills

To provide insights into the extent to which physics teachers integrate reading comprehension strategies into their teaching practice, participants were asked to indicate how often they implement specific strategies on a five-point scale ranging from “never or almost never” to “in every or almost every lesson” (Section 2). The following aspects were evaluated:

• Teaching and reinforcing reading strategies (e.g., activating prior knowledge, clarifying unfamiliar words) when reading texts.
• Teaching and intentionally selecting reading techniques (e.g., skimming, scanning, critical reading, in-depth reading) based on reading purposes.
• Activating prior knowledge to enhance reading comprehension of a text.
• Clarifying unfamiliar words or technical terms before or during text reading.
• Identifying key concepts or main ideas.
• Dividing a text into sections and generating appropriate headings for them.
• Summarizing the content read, either orally or in writing.
• Assessing comprehension through tasks such as reading comprehension exercises.

The third sub-section in the questionnaire aimed to assess participants’ attitudes, beliefs and experiences towards the role of academic and subject-specific language in physics class. Respondents were asked to indicate their level of agreement with a series of statements on a five-point scale ranging from “strongly disagree” to “strongly agree,” with an additional option of “I have no opinion.” The statements addressed the following topics:

• The necessity of academic language for understanding subject content.
• The necessity of subject-specific language for understanding subject content.
• The responsibility of physics teachers to ensure that language does not pose a barrier to comprehension when students struggle with texts.
• Previous positive experiences in integrating academic and subject-specific language in physics instruction.
• Concerns that dedicating time to fostering academic language in physics instruction may reduce the time available for subject content.
• The belief that language skills sufficient for everyday situations are also sufficient for teaching subject-specific content.
• The perspective that students who struggle with text comprehension need to put more effort into German language classes.

To quantify the extent to which reading activities are integrated into physics instruction, participants were asked to indicate the percentage of time per lesson devoted to the activity by providing a suitable numerical value.

3.2.2. The 2023 Curriculum and Textbooks in Physics Classes

The first sub-section in this part of the questionnaire asked participants to rank the importance of various factors that influence their lesson planning for physics (a compulsory subject). This entailed arranging the following items in order of importance, with the most important factor ranked first and the least important ranked last: textbook, curriculum, colleagues, cross-disciplinary priorities/projects, student interests, and personal interests. Subsequently, participants were asked to justify their ranking of the item textbook via an open-ended question. This allowed respondents to elaborate on the rationale behind their decision regarding the importance of the textbook in the context of their physics lesson planning.

To determine the intensity of engagement with the new curriculum, participants were asked whether they had read the 2023 curriculum. If they had done so, they were prompted to identify which of the eight sections of the curriculum they had reviewed by selecting the relevant passages, and were also given the option of indicating that they had read the entire curriculum.

The final sub-section asked participants to select the statement that best reflected their stance on attending courses of professional development related to the 2023 curriculum. They were provided with four options to choose from:

• I have already attended professional development.
• I would like to attend professional development.
• I have already scheduled professional development in my calendar.
• I do not plan to attend professional development.

3.2.3. Demographic Information

The demographic information provided covered several key aspects of respondents’ professional and linguistic background: gender, years of service as a teacher, and years of experience specifically teaching physics, grade levels they are currently teaching, urban or rural regions. The questionnaire also explored participants’ academic qualifications, including whether they had completed a teaching degree4 in physics or in any language. Finally, the participants were asked about their first language. In order to ensure data security and anonymity no further details were requested concerning participant background or workplace.

3.2.4. Closing Questions

Concluding the questionnaire, participants were given the opportunity to provide feedback through an open-ended question. Additionally, they were invited to participate in a voluntary lottery for a chance to win a book on language and reading in the physics classroom. The provision of an email address for the lottery was entirely optional; participants were required to provide their work email addresses, and these were subsequently deleted immediately after the raffle drawing.

3.3. Sample

The present study drew on a sample of 131 physics teachers at middle schools in Austria (57% female5). To be considered eligible, participants had to be teaching at least one lesson of physics per week at a middle school in Austria during the 2024/25 school year. Participants’ years of service as a physics teacher ranged from the first year to 42 years of service (M = 9.45, SD = 10.89). Merely 50% of the respondents had completed a teaching degree in physics. 21% stated that they had completed a language degree, 95% reported that German was their first language6. 70% of the participants stated that they taught in the 6th grade, and were thus required to apply the new curriculum (Rechtsinformationssystem des Bundes [RIS], 2023). In total, 35% indicated to be teaching in an urban school.

3.4. Data Analysis

All statistical analyses were performed using the software IBM SPSS Statistics 28.0.1. Descriptive statistics, including means and frequency distributions, were calculated in order to summarize the demographic characteristics of the participants and the responses to individual questionnaire items. To describe categorical variables, frequencies and percentages were used, while means were computed for continuous variables. In addition, inferential analyses such as t-tests and Spearman rank correlations were conducted to examine relationships between teachers’ attitudes, experiences, and instructional practices. It is important to note that the Pearson correlation coefficient could not be calculated due to the non-normal distribution of the data. To ensure that confidentiality and participant anonymity were maintained, all analyses were conducted in accordance with ethical guidelines and restrictions.

4. Results

4.1. Curriculum Familiarity and Professional Development (RQ 1)

Results concerning the new curriculum in Austria revealed that 88% of participants claimed to have read it. Of these, 41% reported having read the entire curriculum, and 87% have read the section specifically related to physics. There appears to be significant interest in professional development opportunities, with 50% of teachers expressing an interest in attending relevant courses in the future, 22% had already attended such courses, and 12% who have registered to attend training programs related to the new curriculum. Only 16% indicated that they had not yet planned to attend any such events. Out of the 16 participants who stated that they had not yet read the new curriculum, 13 expressed their willingness to learn more about related professional development opportunities, and out of the total 131 participants, only three showed no willingness to learn more.

4.2. Lesson Planning Foundation (RQ 2)

Teachers regarded the curriculum (with 69% ranking this first or second) and the textbook (with 51% ranking this first or second) as the most influential factors in planning their lessons. In comparison, the item personal interests (ranked fifth or sixth by 47%) and the item colleagues (ranked fifth or sixth by 71.7%) were considered less important influences. The teacher questionnaire revealed that 63 respondents rely on textbooks as a safety net, in order to ensure that their teaching remains in alignment with the curriculum. Some (N = 32) emphasized that textbooks provide essential information and a structured yearly outline. Five participants explicitly mentioned their lack of a structured outline and of disciplinary accuracy, attributing this to not having completed a degree in physics. Additionally, four teachers highlighted the role of textbooks in improving students’ reading and language skills. Conversely, 29 teachers reported not using textbooks. This was either due to personal preferences or to school budget constraints.

4.3. Awareness of Language in Physics (RQ 3)

A large majority of physics teachers (88%) agreed or strongly agreed that it was their responsibility to help students understand texts so that language no longer posed a barrier to learning. Additionally, 77% reported having had positive experiences when considering academic and subject-specific language in their teaching. However, 55% expressed concerns that dedicating time to language development might impinge on the time available for subject-related content in physics lessons. This concern is also reflected in the views of more than a quarter of teachers (28%), who believed that if students did not understand the texts in physics class, they needed to focus more on German lessons. In total, 66% of teachers disagreed or strongly disagreed with the idea that language sufficient for daily communication is also adequate for academic learning in school.

4.4. Implementation of Reading Methods and Time Allocation (RQ 4)

The majority of teachers (74%) rated the language competence Reading as highly important. In contrast, other competencies, such as Communicative Skills (63%), Listening (45%) and Writing (30%) were considered less important. When asked about the average amount of time spent on reading during their physics lessons, the mean percentage stated was 25% (SD = 15.3; range 3–80%), suggesting that approximately a quarter of each lesson is dedicated to reading practice.

When asked about the integration of specific reading support and reading strategy development exercises, teacher responses varied, as illustrated in Figure 1. Regarding the use of a targeted selection of reading techniques depending on the lesson purpose, 68% of teachers reported doing so in less than half of their lessons or not at all. In contrast, when asked about reading strategies such as activating prior knowledge, 36% indicated that they used these strategies in more than half or all of their lessons, while 40% reported using them in less than half of their lessons or not at all. In order to improve comprehension, in more than half or all of their lessons, more than half of the teachers (53%) attempted to activate prior knowledge before reading a text to improve comprehension in more than half or all of their lessons. Exactly half (50%) reported that they clarified unknown words before reading in order to enhance understanding. When it comes to identifying key terms and statements, 18% of teachers did this in less than half or none of their lessons, 26% in approximately half of their lessons, 29% in more than half, and 27% in nearly all or all lessons. These results show that the extent to which reading in the classroom is supported by didactical language support methods greatly depends on the individual teacher. In total, 72% of teachers reported that they rarely or never separated texts into sections or tried to find sub-headings, suggesting that strategies focusing on the word level of academic language are more commonly incorporated than those concerning the text level.

To answer the research question, whether physics teachers’ attitudes and experiences with language relates to the amount of reading time and the use of reading strategies in their lessons, a series of analyses were conducted. First, a Spearman rank correlation examined the relationship between teachers’ attitudes towards the importance of student’s language skills in physics lessons (computed as the mean of four items) and their reported positive experiences with academic and subject-specific language in physics class. Teachers’ attitudes were positively correlated with these experiences, r = 0.21, p = 0.020, showing that more positive attitudes come along with higher rates of reported positive experiences. However, a Spearman rank correlation between positive experiences and the reported proportion of time spent on reading activities in physics lessons revealed no significant association (r = 0.07, p = 0.453). Next, a Spearman rank correlation was conducted between teachers’ attitudes and the reported proportion of time spent on reading activities in physics lessons, revealing a significant positive relationship (r = 0.40, p < 0.001), indicating that more positive attitudes were associated with greater reading time. Finally, several Spearman rank correlations examined the association between attitudes and the frequency of specific reading-related practices. Significant positive correlations were found for teaching reading strategies (r = 0.25, p = 0.003), teaching specific reading techniques (r = 0.20, p = 0.021), summarizing texts (r = 0.18, p = 0.036), and clarifying unknown words (r = 0.18, p = 0.042), with additional practices also showing positive associations, suggesting that teachers with more favorable attitudes toward language integration into physics lessons tend to implement a wider range of reading-supportive practices.

4.5. Correlation Between a Finished Teaching Degree in Physics or a Language and the Importance of Reading (RQ5)

The contingency coefficient analysis revealed no significant association between teachers’ completion of a degree in physics or a language-related subject and their perspective on the importance of reading skills for understanding physics (C = 0.194 and 0.211, p = 0.163 and 0.106).

5. Discussion

The results of this study provide several key insights into the role of reading and language in Austrian physics lessons. The fact that nearly three-quarters of teachers regard reading skills as highly important in physics classes, and that reading accounts for an average of 25% of class time, reflects teachers’ acknowledgment of the new curriculum’s emphasis on “language learning and reading in all subjects” (Rechtsinformationssystem des Bundes [RIS], 2023, p. 14). This demonstrates that teachers see the value of incorporating language skills into their physics instruction and thus complies with the goals of the new curriculum.

Revisiting the first research question concerning teachers’ engagement with the curriculum, the results revealed a notably positive attitude towards the new curriculum, as suggested by a strong willingness to enhance knowledge through professional development. The high percentage (87%) of teachers who have read at least the section of the curriculum related to physics suggests that teachers are proactive in fulfilling their responsibilities. This underlines the value teachers place on specific seminars and professional development tailored to the new curriculum, which can enable them to better integrate these changes into their lessons. Such initiatives are critical for fostering educational equity, particularly in linguistically diverse classrooms.

The second research question, which explored the foundation of teachers’ lesson planning, revealed an interesting trend: the curriculum was rated as the most important factor, followed by the textbook. According to Vojíř and Rusek (2022), the relationship between the curriculum and classroom practices is highly dependent on the textbook content. The fact that the teachers of our sample ranked the curriculum’s importance highly, even though other studies have tended to reveal a higher focus on textbooks (Vojíř & Rusek, 2022), is possibly due to an unintentional response bias as a result of the ranking scheme and format employed in the questionnaire. Using an open-ended format might have led respondents to place relatively less weight on the primacy of the curriculum in lesson planning. Still, out of 131 participants, 63 (almost 50%) stated that the textbook is an important foundation for their lesson planning. This finding is consistent with studies such as Vojíř and Rusek (2022), which highlight the significant role of textbooks in teaching. However, the hypothesis that textbooks constitute the primary foundation for lesson planning is not supported, as the results indicate that the curriculum serves as the main foundation. Since about 50% of the participants reported not having completed a teaching degree in physics, it is very likely that they rely heavily on the structure and guidance provided by the textbook. With this in mind, as a next step, the tasks in physics textbooks should be examined more closely in order to better support teachers who—according to our study—lack specific methodological and didactical training in physics education.

Addressing the third research question, which examined teachers’ awareness of academic and subject-specific language in physics, the results showed that 77% of the responding teachers reported positive experiences when considering language in their teaching. This matches their high ratings on the importance of reading and communicative skills in physics, suggesting that most teachers recognize the significance of language in facilitating successful learning outcomes. Nevertheless, despite these positive experiences, 55% expressed concerns that dedicating time to language development might reduce the time available for subject-related content. This reflects a misunderstanding of the didactic principle of language-sensitive subject teaching, as outlined in the national curriculum (Rechtsinformationssystem des Bundes [RIS], 2023). A further contradiction arose from the 88% of teachers who agree that it is their responsibility to help students overcome language barriers in learning, yet 28% believed that for students struggling with text comprehension, it would be more beneficial to focus on improving student skills in German, rather than focusing on language in physics class. This view risks excluding students who are developing their academic language skills, particularly in Austria’s increasingly multilingual classrooms, where such support is essential to ensuring equal access to content. Additionally, 66% of teachers disagreed or strongly disagreed with the notion that everyday language is sufficient for academic learning. This means that more than a third of the teachers (34%) do not seem to fully understand the complexity of academic language compared to everyday language. This is quite worrying, because if teachers assume competences in everyday language to be sufficient for comprehending academic language, they probably do not provide the scaffolding needed for students with lower academic language proficiency, potentially leading to higher probability of student misunderstanding, overload, and diminished motivation (Leisen, 2022). Such gaps in teacher understanding can disproportionately affect students from multilingual and non-dominant language backgrounds, reinforcing existing educational inequalities. The study indicates that while many teachers recognize the importance of language in physics, further professional development is needed to enhance their understanding of language-sensitive teaching strategies that do not compromise subject content. This shows that the explicit attention to language required of teachers, as emphasized by Cappello et al. (2025), has not yet been sufficiently achieved and remains an area in need of support. This is particularly relevant for promoting a more inclusive and a more equitable physics education in Austria’s diverse classrooms. Contrary to the expectation that physics teachers would primarily focus on content teaching and show limited awareness of language demands, the majority acknowledged the importance of academic language and communicative skills for learning physics, as reflected by 77% of teachers reporting positive experiences with integrating language into their teaching and 88% agreeing that it is their responsibility to support students in overcoming language barriers. The results suggest that the hypothesis was only partly correct. However, persistent misconceptions—such as viewing language development as competing with subject teaching or equating everyday with academic language—indicate that awareness is still incomplete and inconsistent.

The fourth research question explored the reading methods implemented by teachers. The fact that reading accounts for an average of 25% of class time suggests that students spend about 12.5 min per lesson engaged with reading or being read to. However, the wide variation among teachers in the use of reading strategies suggests that many do not use diverse reading techniques, such as global reading, skimming, scanning, or intensive reading (Rosebrock & Nix, 2020). The fact that only 68% of teachers reported adapting reading mode to the purpose at hand, and this in less than half of their lessons, suggests a considerable lack of awareness, and indicates that valuable lesson time is being spent on reading that could in fact be improved through targeted reading activities. Moreover, while half (50%) of the teachers report clarifying unknown words before reading, which can enhance understanding, the overall need for professional development in reading strategies for physics teachers remains high. Addressing this need is essential not only for improving comprehension but also for providing equitable support to all learners, especially those who face language-related barriers.

The research question concerning teachers’ attitudes towards and experiences with language related to the amount of reading time and the use of reading strategies in their lessons indicated the support of the hypothesis that teachers with more positive attitudes regarding language integration report more reading time and a more frequent use of reading strategies in physics lessons, which was based on previous findings (Feser & Höttecke, 2021; Wyatt et al., 2021). However, while positive experiences were correlated to positive attitudes, there was no association of positive experiences to the amount of time spent on reading tasks. It must be stated as a limitation of the study that the indicator of experience with language was based on only one item. To have real conclusive evidence in this matter, further research is needed. Nevertheless, the indication that positive attitudes towards language lead to increased reading and the application of specific reading strategies in content classes highlights the need to strengthen the role of general language learning and language-sensitive approaches in physics teacher education and professional development Although there are barriers, research reveals promising avenues for progress. Science teachers who participated in language-sensitive training and incorporated associated strategies developed greater linguistic awareness and felt more capable of presenting content in accessible ways (Oyoo, 2012). This suggests that targeted professional development can help overcome the challenges of implementing language-sensitive physics instruction despite existing constraints. Through appropriate training programs that address both conceptual understanding and practical implementation strategies, teachers can develop the competencies needed to effectively integrate language support into physics instruction, improving educational outcomes and advancing the inclusive aim of providing equitable access to subject knowledge for all students.

The demographic information indicated that 21% of the teachers had completed a language-focused teaching degree and were thus likely to have knowledge of reading strategies, whereas the remaining 79% may not have received such training during their teacher preparation. Interestingly, there was no connection between having a language degree and the importance placed by the individual upon reading in physics, suggesting that such training may not directly influence a teacher’s perception of the role of reading in their subject. This finding contradicts the hypothesis that teachers trained in a language subject place more emphasis on reading than those trained in physics, contrary to what the literature (Feser & Höttecke, 2021; Wyatt et al., 2021) had suggested. Owing to the low participation of L2 German speaking teachers (N = 6), meaningful statistical analyses on this subgroup were not possible. It is important to note that out of 131 teachers, only 6 have personal experience with learning physics or any subject in an L2 themselves, further underscoring the need for professional development in this area. The overwhelming majority of participants (N = 125) indicated German as their L1. This finding highlights a lack of personal connection to the linguistic challenges faced by L2 learners, which may limit teacher empathy and responsiveness toward students who require additional language support. Promoting reflective practices and targeted training in inclusive, language-sensitive methods is thus essential to fostering a learning environment where all students—regardless of linguistic background—can thrive.

6. Conclusions

In conclusion, the results of this study indicate that Austrian physics teachers are highly motivated to learn more about the new curriculum and how to effectively implement it in their lessons to foster a more linguistically inclusive and equitable learning environment in physics education. The study also provides valuable insights into the variations in teacher perspectives on the importance of reading in physics classes. However, it reveals that the completion of a physics or language teaching degree appears to have no influence on these perspectives. While there is an overall awareness of the role of language in subject learning, teachers’ understanding of how to support language development, while maintaining focus on subject-specific content, remains somewhat limited. Teachers’ general willingness to improve and their basic recognition of students’ needs suggests that targeted professional development—focused on the new curriculum, reading strategies, and language awareness in subject learning—has the potential to significantly enhance the quality and effectiveness of reading instruction in physics classes. This is especially important in light of Austria’s increasingly multilingual classrooms, where equitable access to content depends on teachers’ ability to support diverse learners through inclusive, language-sensitive practices. Such initiatives would likely benefit both students and teachers, thus improving the learning experience and outcomes in the subject.

The finding that teachers with positive attitudes toward language devote more time to reading and employ specific reading methods is highly relevant. Incorporating this insight into professional development programs could foster more frequent and enhanced reading opportunities for students in Austrian physics classes.

Ultimately, physics teachers can benefit from increased awareness that embedding language-sensitive teaching into instruction may support not only improved academic performance but also the broader goal of promoting educational equity for learners from diverse linguistic backgrounds.