Student teachers and their identity construction and awareness of multilingualism : re-visiting three studies

This is a self-archived version of an original article. This version may differ from the original in pagination and typographic details. Author(s): Title: Year: Version: Copyright: Rights: Rights url: Please cite the original version: CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ Student teachers and their identity construction and awareness of multilingualism : revisiting three studies © 2019 SEDLL. Published version Kalaja, Paula Kalaja, P. (2019). Student teachers and their identity construction and awareness of multilingualism : re-visiting three studies. Lenguaje y textos, 49, 67-84. https://doi.org/10.4995/lyt.2019.11470 2019 | 67 TO CITE THIS ARTICLE: KALAJA, P. (2019). Student teachers and their identity construction and awareness of multilingualism: re-visiting three studies. Lenguaje y textos, 49, 67-84. https://doi.org/10.4995/lyt.2019.11470 Sección Monográfica | Student teachers and their identity construction and awareness of multilingualism: re-visiting three […] Student teachers and their identity construction and awareness of multilingualism: re-visiting three studies Paula Kalaja | University of Jyväskylä (Finland) [email protected] This article re-visits three studies that originally focused on beliefs about second language (L2) learning and teaching held by student teachers. The studies have been conducted in the same educational context (that is, at a Finnish university). The participants in the studies are majors or minors in English, Swedish, German, etc., and they range from first-year students to fifth-year students about to graduate as qualified L2 teachers. Data have been collected by a variety of means over the past few years (questionnaires, sentence-completion tasks, drawings), and partly longitudinally. The pools of data (verbal and visual) will be re-analysed from the perspective of identity construction and awareness of aspects of multilingualism and findings critically re-evaluated. Key words: identity, multilingualism, student teachers, longitudinal, visual narratives. La construcción de la identidad y la toma de conciencia sobre el multilingüismo de los docentes en formación: revisión de tres estudios Este artículo revisa tres estudios que originalmente se centraron en las creencias que tienen los futuros docentes sobre el aprendizaje y la enseñanza de una segunda lengua (L2). Los estudios se han realizado en el mismo contexto educativo (es decir, en una universidad finlandesa). Los participantes en los estudios son estudiantes de programas de especialización, o de optatividad, en inglés, sueco, alemán, etc., y van desde estudiantes de primero hasta estudiantes de quinto año, a punto de graduarse como profesores de L2 cualificados. Los datos se han recopilado en los últimos años, utilizando diversos instrumentos (cuestionarios, tareas para completar frases, dibujos) y, en parte, de manera longitudinal. Los datos (verbales y visuales) se volverán a analizar desde la perspectiva de la construcción de la identidad y de la toma de conciencia en relación con aspectos del multilingüismo, y los resultados se reevaluarán de manera crítica. Palabras clave: identidad, multilingüismo, docentes en formación inicial, longitudinal, narrativas, visuales.. Kalaja, P.68 | ©2019 SEDLL. Lenguaje y Textos, 49, 67-84 Introduction This article re-visits three closely related studies conducted (mostly) with students of English, studying on the same five-year MA programme at a Finnish university and eventually graduating as qualified teachers, and critically reconsiders their findings from a new perspective, i.e., that of identity construction and becoming multilingual. To start with, for the purposes of this article, two key terms need elaborating: identities and multilingualism. Firstly, in this context, identity work is done by the participants in the three studies, i.e., what sense they make of themselves as second-language (L2) students and future teachers. Importantly, their identities are closely related to the beliefs they hold about aspects of L2 learning and teaching (which the studies to be re-examined were mainly about). Recently, a definition of L2 teacher identity was proposed by Barkhuizen (2017), based on a review of some 40 chapters on the topic as part of a book that he had edited. The definition can easily be extended to apply to L2 learners, as follows: … identities are cognitive, social, emotional, ideological and historical – they are both inside the teacher/learner and outside in the social, material and technological world. L2 teacher/learner identities are being and doing, feeling and imagining, and storying. They are struggle and harmony: they are contested and resisted, by self and others, and they are also accepted, acknowledged and valued, by self and others. They are core and peripheral, personal and professional, they are dynamic, multiple, and hybrid, and they are foregrounded and backgrounded. And teacher/learner identities change, short-term, and over time – discursively in social interaction with teacher educators, learners, teachers, administrators and the wider community, and in material interaction with spaces, places and objects in classrooms, institutions and online (adapted from Barkhuizen, 2017, p.4). This definition is indeed a very comprehensive one, and it is clear that no single study could possibly address all of its aspects. To define the other key term1, we can start by comparing multilinguals with monolinguals. Traditionally, monolinguals were thought to be speakers of a first language (L1) or native speakers, and they were assumed, firstly, to have acquired the L1 from birth, and secondly, to have full competence in the language (Ortega, 2014). In contrast, multilinguals were not only speakers of an L1 but also users of one or more additional languages (labelled as L2, L3, etc.), having learnt these at a later stage in their lives, and they were not expected to attain full competence in any of these. In addition, as non-native speakers, they were considered to be ‘less than’ native or L1 speakers, and as learners to be deficit: their competence in any additional language would always be lacking in some respects. It was typical of multilinguals to resort to code-switching and -mixing, neither of which was, however, viewed in very positive terms, and so needed to be avoided. It is only gradually being acknowledged that it is, in fact, multilinguals that 1 Another set of terms has been advocated, e.g., by the Council of Europe (2001, 2007), including plurilingualism, pluriculturalism and plurilingual competence. Sección Monográfica | Student teachers and their identity construction and awareness of multilingualism: re-visiting three […] | 69 ©2019 SEDLL. Lenguaje y Textos, 49, 67-84 form the majority of people in the world, not monolinguals. Thus, some of the traditional assumptions have been challenged (e.g., Ortega, 2014), including the monolingual bias – with its two assumptions discussed above. Besides, multilinguals are viewed to be ‘rather more than less’ compared with monolinguals or native speakers. In fact, it is argued that they should not be compared with these at all, but with other multilinguals to ensure fairer comparisons. Multilinguals are now viewed to be individuals that do translanguaging (Otheguy, Garcia, & Reid, 2015). They have a repertoire of linguistic (and other semiotic) resources, and so they can draw on their knowledge in any language they happen to know, depending on the situation. Their aim is in fact to attain multicompetence, originally used by Cook (1992), or knowledge in more than one language but to different degrees, and to learn to appreciate this constantly evolving and unique competence of theirs. In addition, becoming or being multilingual can be looked at from two perspectives (Otheguy et al., 2015). From the perspective of outsiders, the languages of a multilingual are viewed as separate and fixed entities and associated with nation states. In contrast, from the perspective of insiders, the languages of a multilingual are assumed to form one single entity in his or her mind, aspects of which he or she can draw on selectively from one situation to another. Finally, it is claimed that there are two approaches to multilingualism (e.g., Kramsch, 2009). The objective approach focuses on figuring out the mechanisms inside a multilingual’s mind and tracing developments in his or her knowledge of any language (and possible stages in the process) in terms of mastery of a language as a system (e.g., grammar and lexicon), or in terms of an ability to communicate or interact with others in the language. The subjective approach, in contrast, attempts to find out how a multilingual himor herself feels about becoming or being multilingual, or what the different languages and their use mean to him or her personally. The three studies to be re-examined approach identities (as well as beliefs) as discursively and/or multimodally constructed on specific occasions and multilingualism as subjectively experienced, or as lived, and both partly longitudinally.2 In the following, Studies 1–3 are first contextualised, then summarised, and finally the findings are discussed from the new perspective of identities and multilingualism. Contextualising the three studies The teaching of L2s in Finland is guided by a number of documents: European, national and local. In the past decade, the national core curriculums for Basic Education or Grades 1–9 (Finnish National Board of Education, 2003, 2014) and for upper secondary schools or Grades 10–12 (Finnish National Board of Education, 2004, 2015) have been revised twice. Interestingly, the three main aims have been reversed in their order (of importance), and their emphasis and scope revised (Table 1). 2 When summarising the findings the terminology is that cited in official guidelines/documents of the time or as used by the participants. So terms, such as first language (L1), second language (L2), foreign language, and mother tongue, are used instead of additional languages, for example. Kalaja, P.70 | ©2019 SEDLL. Lenguaje y Textos, 49, 67-84 Now the first aim in teaching English (and other foreign languages) is to increase learners’ language awareness in general, and their appreciation of multilingualism and multiculturalism, in particular. The second aim is to provide learners with practice in learning-to-learn skills, including learning strategies. The third aim is to develop their proficiency in English in three abilities, i.e., in the ability to interact, interpret, and/ or produce texts in different modes. Also, for the first time, it is acknowledged that the status of English is different from that of other foreign languages in the country: English is considered a lingua franca or a global language. As a result, compared with learners of other foreign languages, learners of English are expected to reach higher levels in any ability on the standard CEFR scale of A1–C2 (Council of Europe, 2001). In addition, teaching content through the medium of English or Content-andLanguage-Integrated-Learning (CLIL) is encouraged, as is looking for information in English, e.g., on the Internet. These revisions have been important issues to address with student teachers when they have been attending courses (with us) that deal with the teaching and learning of English (see also Kalaja, Alanen, & Dufva, 2018). At the time of Studies 1 and 2, the previous core curriculums were still effective. When Study 3 was carried out, the current national core curriculums were becoming effective in the Finnish educational system. Study 1: Comparing English with Finnish longitudinally Study 1 was carried out as part of the research project “From Novice to Expert”, with Riikka Alanen and Hannele Dufva as members of the research team. It is a discursive study with a longitudinal research design (e.g., Kalaja, 2016a) and traces developments in the beliefs held by university students regarding English, a language they were studying, and Finnish, their L1. While comparing the two languages, they came to construct their identities, too: from moment to moment and over time. We asked a group of English majors and minors on an MA programme at our university, irrespective of their line of specialization, to fill in a questionnaire, among other things. The questionnaire contained, Table 1. Finnish national core curriculums compared. National Core Curriculums (Grades 1–12) 2003/2004 (earlier ones) National Core Curriculums (Grades 1–12) 2014/2015 (current ones) • Language proficiency: four skills (Reading Comprehension, Listening Comprehension, Writing, and Speaking); status of English: a foreign language among others; summative assessment (outcomes) • Cultural skills (L1 vs. L2 culture), respect for Other • Learning strategies • Multilingualism and multiculturalism (and awareness of languages in general) • Learning-to-learn skills (including learning strategies) • Language proficiency: three abilities (ability to interact, interpret and produce oral, written and multimodal texts); status of English: lingua franca; formative or dynamic assessment (process, feedback) Sección Monográfica | Student teachers and their identity construction and awareness of multilingualism: re-visiting three […] | 71 ©2019 SEDLL. Lenguaje y Textos, 49, 67-84 for example, a section with half a dozen sentence completion tasks aimed at comparing English with Finnish, e.g., “In my opinion, English is/sounds …”, “If you ask me, compared with Finnish, English is …”. The students completed the tasks twice – in the first and final year of their studies (four to five years apart), the first time with pencil and paper (n = 118) while attending a course on “Learning to learn foreign languages”, and the second time online (n = 37) with an additional more openended question “What does English mean to you these days?”. The sentence completions varied in length from one or two words or sentences to half a page of text. We read and re-read the pool of written data looking for patterns in content and/or form and identified a total of four interpretative repertoires (e.g., Edley, 2009), or recurring ways of describing the two languages. Within the repertoires the students seemed to adopt different positions or identities, when comparing the two languages from one moment to another and from one round of data collection to another (Table 2). Consider Examples 1–5 and 6–9 (all examples are translations from Finnish). In these samples the students draw on different ends of the repertoires (see Table 2) and without explicit comparisons of the two languages: Examples 1–5 • Finnish is beautiful, familiar and safe. • Finnish is lovely, home language, mother tongue, part of me, important. • Finnish is the language of emotions and thinking. A language that is suitable for these purposes. • Finnish is under a threat. An important aspect of my identity. • Finnish is a difficult language for foreigners. Examples 6–9 • English is a useful language, a world language of the West. Fun, logical enough. • English sounds nice, quite systematic. It is easy to learn. • English is an interesting language but difficult to learn. An important language (e.g., when travelling). • English is an important means of global communication. A window or even a door to many cultures and communities. It is very important in working life now and in the near future. Table 2. The interpretative repertoires identified in comparing English with Finnish (FL = foreign language) (adapted from Kalaja, 2016a, p.112). Repertoires Dilemmas Identities 1) Affection repertoire Close vs. distant language User of Finnish as L1/mother tongue; user of English as FL/L2 2) Aesthetics repertoire Beautiful vs. ugly language User of Finnish as L1/mother tongue; user of English as FL/L2 3) Vitality repertoire Global vs. local language User of English as lingua franca/world language vs. user of Finnish as L1 (in Finland) 4) Challenge repertoire Easy vs. difficult language to acquire or learn Learner of English as FL (including Finns); acquirer of Finnish as L1 and learner of Finnish as FL Kalaja, P.72 | ©2019 SEDLL. Lenguaje y Textos, 49, 67-84 The students discursively constructed the languages as being either emotionally close to or distant from them (Affection Repertoire), beautiful or ugly (Aesthetics Repertoire), global or local (Vitality Repertoire), and/or easy or difficult to learn (Challenge Repertoire). Of the repertoires, Repertoire 4 was the most dilemmatic, i.e., the students had mixed opinions or beliefs about the two languages, and Repertoire 3 the least dilemmatic, i.e., the students almost unanimously agreed that English was a widely-spread or global language, and Finnish, in contrast, a small or minority language. The students continued to draw on the four repertoires over the period of four to five years, and the dilemmas, or opposite views, seemed to remain for the most part unresolved. This kind of opinions or beliefs and traditional terminology (such as mother tongue, foreign language, English as a lingua franca, etc.) are discussed critically (by language-policy makers) to advance plurilingual education and positive acceptance of linguistic and cultural diversity in Europe (Council of Europe, 2007, pp.16–30). In addition, we managed to trace some further developments regarding the students’ identities over time, based on responses to the open-ended question of the second round of data collection. Firstly, English is being realized to have gained the status of an L2. Thus, the students’ identities tended to shift from learners of a foreign language to users of English as a lingua franca or a global language, as illustrated by Example 10: Example 10 • It [English] is a language that opens the whole world. Part of my everyday life. Useful both in spare time and at work. The students may have started their studies on the MA programme out of love or interest in aspects of English-speaking cultures, but with time they realize that knowing English can be of instrumental value, too (see also Example 13 below), making it possible for them to communicate in international contexts with both native and non-native speakers of the language; to pursue hobbies and spare time activities; to travel or live abroad; to find employment; to pursue a career; or to do well in their job, as language specialists or as teachers. Secondly, the students start to talk about themselves as bior multilingual, albeit still with quite a traditional understanding of the term, as illustrated by Example 11 by a male student and Example 12 by a female student (both had studied at least three languages at school): Example 11 • I’m lucky to be almost bilingual. Example 12 • Even though I feel like I am multilingual, Finnish is still clearly my only mother tongue and I use it to express emotions. My English could only gain that kind of status if I lived in an English-speaking country for years. In my opinion, my knowledge of English does not have to be comparable to my competence in my mother tongue; my knowledge of English is after all pretty good, with its own weaknesses and strengths. Thirdly, English is becoming an aspect of the students’ professional identity. Consider Example 13 from a student Sección Monográfica | Student teachers and their identity construction and awareness of multilingualism: re-visiting three […] | 73 ©2019 SEDLL. Lenguaje y Textos, 49, 67-84 studying on one line of specialization (i.e., qualifying as an English teacher) and Example 14 from a student on the other line of specialization (i.e., being a specialist in English and the English-speaking cultures): Example 13 • [English is] a tool. It is a tool quite literally, as I will graduate as a teacher of English, and English is what I will be teaching, teaching about, and using as the medium of instruction. It is also a tool for communication. I often realize that I am thinking in English, and in everyday conversations I often end up using an English word when the Finnish equivalent doesn’t come to mind or isn’t quite “to the point” in that situation. Example 14 • It’s a working language that I hope to be able to use as a language specialist. I’m trying to keep up or improve my skills even after graduation, as I don’t want to forget what I’ve already learnt. In summary, Study 1 with its longitudinal research design provides evidence that the identity of English majors and minors varies not only from moment to moment but also over time, depending on the line of argumentation in completing the different tasks as part of the research project, and with the gradual realization of the changing status of English in Finland (and elsewhere). Study 2: Imagining a class of English or other L2s to be given soon after graduation Study 2 (e.g., Kalaja, Alanen, & Dufva, 2013; Kalaja, 2016b) is a follow-up study to Study 1. Some of the students took part in both studies, while studying with us. Study 1 focused on the past experiences of future teachers, Study 2, in contrast, on the years to come in their lives. To this end, we made use of drawings, or visual narratives (for a definition, see, e.g., Squire, 2012, pp.2–4). We asked a group of student teachers (n = 58), majoring not only in English but also in other foreign languages, including Swedish, German, French and Russian, and being in the final stages of their MA studies at our university, to imagine an 3instance of teaching a foreign language in the notso-distant future. We instructed them as follows: “Draw a picture of ‘My Language X class a year after graduation”’. In addition, on the reverse side of the task sheet, we asked the participants to give a brief written account of what their class would be like: “Explain what is going on in your class”. The task was carried out as the final in-class assignment on the very last session of their pedagogical studies. We subjected the drawings and their commentaries to theory-guided content analysis (Tuomi, & Sarajärvi, 2009, pp.99–124). Study 2 drew on sociocultural theory (e.g., Lantolf, & Thorne, 2006), thus, in our analysis of visual (and written) data we focused on the environments, artefacts, and interaction in the class, and coded the drawings accordingly. 3 At the time of Study 2 the notion of envisioning had not yet been introduced to the field, see Study 3. Kalaja, P.74 | ©2019 SEDLL. Lenguaje y Textos, 49, 67-84 The environments in which foreign language teaching would take place ranged from traditional classrooms (furnished with desks and a board), modern classrooms (with carpets, sofas, armchairs, plants, posters, etc.) and virtual classrooms (via Skype) to out-of-classroom contexts, such as the school kitchen and the school yard. The teacher was depicted either standing in front of the classroom, in the middle of the classroom, or engaged in joint activity with the pupils; offering thus different possibilities for interaction in the classroom. Consider Figures 1–3. However, for the most part, the teaching of foreign languages was depicted by the student teachers as taking place in a traditional classroom, furnished with desks and a board of one type or another, and some modern technology. Interestingly, books, of any kind, would not play as important a role in class as before. The student teachers would rather use authentic materials, based on the needs and/or interests of their students. Furthermore, the future teachers, working mostly on their own, would emphasize the practising of oral skills, using a language for authentic purposes and addressing cultural issues. Importantly, the teacher would take on the identity of a guide, ensuring interaction among his or her students, irrespective of the classroom arrangements. In other words, it was believed that the teaching of English and other foreign languages would be social in nature once the students entered the teaching profession. Overall, we managed to identify two competing discourses in this study (Table 3), supported also by previous Figure 1. The teacher standing in front of a traditional classroom, desks in rows (originally in full colours). Sección Monográfica | Student teachers and their identity construction and awareness of multilingualism: re-visiting three […] | 81 ©2019 SEDLL. Lenguaje y Textos, 49, 67-84 Overall, we can, firstly, conclude that as learners of English the students’ identities tend to develop once they become aware of the changing status of the language in Finland (and globally): a shift from learners of English as a foreign language to users of the language as a lingua franca or a global language, as is evident from Study 1. Secondly, as future teachers they seem to prefer to take on quite a different identity from the teachers of their school years: with a shift from transmitters of information to guides, ensuring interaction in class and providing their students opportunities for learning (reflected in classroom arrangements). Accordingly, they tend to assign their students quite different identities, too: with a shift from passive recipients of information to active participants with agency or seizers of learning opportunities; and from learners of English to users of the language. These are, in turn, reflected in the principles and practices they claim they would apply in their teaching once they enter the profession as qualified teachers of English (and other foreign languages), as is evident from Studies 2 and 3. Interestingly, Studies 2 and 3 provide evidence for another shift in aims in teaching English by student teachers in their future classes: instead of focusing on teaching the language (i.e., its formal aspects such as grammar and vocabulary) they would like to focus on communication and teaching content (or even CLIL, i.e., teaching other school subjects) through English as the medium of instruction. Interestingly, faced with the challenge of envisioning giving just a class (let alone a full course) the decisions by student teachers seem to become more complex the more advanced they are in their studies on the MA programme, including pedagogical studies. This is evident from Study 3: for Ada, as a future teacher, the decision involved simply choosing a specific teaching approach to apply in her class (i.e., Total Physical Response, with some misunderstandings), for the others (from Nea to Sue) the decisions or choices were much more complex and concerning many more issues that just the teaching approach. In other words, the studies with us do seem to make a difference – in student teachers’ professional thinking. Conclusions can also be made about multilingualism. Firstly, Study 1 provides evidence that student teachers (of the late 2000s) still had a tough time considering themselves multilingual, based on quite a traditional understanding of the term. This is because they seem to assume that they should have acquired the two (or more) languages early on (i.e., as children) and have a full command of each language. In other words, they (still) suffer from the monolingual bias (see Introduction). Study 3 with its four cases illustrates the overall variation in stances towards multilingualism in English classes given by student teachers in the future: Ada advocates sticking to “English only” in her class (monolingualism); Mike advocates the use of English and Finnish, the L1, if needed (bilingualism), to ensure his students would learn something culture-wise, if not language-wise; Nea would like to expose her students not only to English but also to a number of other foreign languages in her classroom (multilingualism) with posters and project reports in French, Spanish, etc. hung on the classroom walls. However, she is not explicit about the use of any other languages (besides English) for Kalaja, P.82 | ©2019 SEDLL. Lenguaje y Textos, 49, 67-84 communication or teaching content (CLIL) in the class of her dreams. At any rate, the four case studies illustrate that students could be exposed to more than one language or that more than one language could be used for communication in the classroom. On the other hand, when entering the profession, student teachers will be faced with a new challenge: these days there are schools (especially in the Capital area) where even over half of the students speak other languages as their L1, and so the use of Finnish (or Swedish5) in class or in textbooks (including grammar sections and vocabulary lists) can be problematic. Both have been standard practice until recently. Secondly, Studies 2 and 3 provide some evidence for student teachers being aware of language and culture going handin-hand, or multiculturalism. This is reflected in some principles and practices they envision using in their future classes: using authentic materials (including newspapers, books, movies, music, social media, and games), inviting visitors, having students visit places (such as museums) or people, co-teaching, e.g., with a Home Economics teacher to learn say about French cuisine, taking a class to a school kitchen, e.g., to make cookies of American style. Some of these would involve stretching the walls of a regular classroom – physically or virtually. Of course, it is true that the time a teacher can devote to discussing aspects of culture in a single class (even of their dreams) is limited; a full course could be a different matter! To conclude, on a more critical note, it seems that as teacher educators we would need further discussions with our student teachers to challenge their current (partly naive) understanding of the two key issues addressed in this article to raise their awareness of more recent developments in the fields, including the possibilities of translanguaging pedagogy (e.g., Canagarajah, 2013; Garcia, & Wei, 2013) to re-consider the use and/or role of more than one language in their classes, teaching materials and assessment practices. This is becoming even more relevant in the Finnish educational system, with the ever increasing number of learners speaking other languages than Finnish (or Swedish) as their L1, and these languages are estimated to be close to 140 in number (in the Capital area in 2018)! In other6 words, English classes (among others) are getting more and more diverse linguistically (and culturally) in their student population, but it remains to be seen how the future teachers’ might cope with this new challenge. References BARKHUIZEN, G. (2017). Language teacher identity research: An introduction. In G. Barkhuizen (Ed.), Reflections on language teacher identity research (pp. 1–11). New York: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315643465 BORG, S., BIRELLO, M., CIVERA, I., and ZANATTA, T. (2014). The impact of teacher education on pre-service primary English language teachers. ELT Research Report 14.03. London: British Council. 5 Finnish and Swedish are the two national languages in Finland, with a few others viewed as minority languages. 6 This is based on an article “Helsingissä on jo alueita, joilla jo yli puolet pikkulapsista on vieraskielisiä – Hilja Alava, 2, oppii sujuvasti somalia”, published in a national newspaper, Helsingin Sanomat, April 14, 2019 (pp. A6–A8). Sección Monográfica | Student teachers and their identity construction and awareness of multilingualism: re-visiting three […] | 83 ©2019 SEDLL. Lenguaje y Textos, 49, 67-84 CANAGARAJAH, S. (2013). Translingual practice: Global Englishes and cosmopolitan relations. London: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203120293 CLARKE, (2008). Language teacher identities: Co-constructing discourse and community. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. https://doi.org/10.21832/9781847690838 COOK, V. (1992). Evidence for a multicompetence. Language Learning 42, 557–591. https://doi. org/10.1111/j.1467-1770.1992.tb01044.x COUNCIL OF EUROPE (2001). Common European framework of reference for languages: Learning, teaching, assessment. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Retrieved February 1, 2019, https://rm.coe.int/ CoERMPublicCommonSearchServices/DisplayDCTMContent?documentId=0900001680459f97 COUNCIL OF EUROPE (2007). From linguistic diversity to plurilingual education: Guide for the development of language education policies in Europe. Strasbourg. Retrieved February 1, 2019, from https://rm.coe.int/16802fc1c4 DUFF, P. A. (2007). Case study research in Applied Linguistics. New York: Lawrence Erlbaum. DÖRNYEI, Z., and KUBANYIOVA, M. (2014). Motivating learners, motivating teachers: Building visions in the classroom. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. EDLEY, N. (2009). Analysing masculinity: Interpretative repertoires, ideological dilemmas and subject positions. In M. Wetherell, S. Taylor, & S. Yates (Eds.), Discourse as data: A guide for analysis (pp. 189–228). London: Sage. FINNISH NATIONAL BOARD OF EDUCATION (2003). Lukion opetussuunnitelman perusteet 2003. [National core curriculum for upper secondary schools 2003]. Helsinki. Retrieved February 1, 2019, from https://www.oph.fi/ download/47345_lukion_opetussuunnitelman_perusteet_2003.pdf FINNISH NATIONAL BOARD OF EDUCATION (2004). Perusopetuksen opetussuunnitelman perusteet 2004. [National core curriculum for basic education 2004]. Helsinki. Retrieved February 1, 2019, from https://www.oph.fi/ download/139848_pops_web.pdf FINNISH NATIONAL BOARD OF EDUCATION (2014). Perusopetuksen opetussuunnitelman perusteet 2014. [National core curriculum for basic education 2014]. Helsinki. Retrieved February 1, 2019, from http://www.oph.fi/ download/163777_perusopetuksen_opetussuunnitelman_perusteet_2014.pdf FINNISH NATIONAL BOARD OF EDUCATION (2015). Lukion opetussuunnitelman perusteet 2015. [National core curriculum for upper secondary schools 2015]. Helsinki. Retrieved February 1, 2019, from http://www.oph.fi/ download/172124_lukion_opetussuunnitelman_perusteet_2015.pdf GARCIA, O., and WEI, L. (2013). Translanguaging. Language, bilingualism and education. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137385765_4 KALAJA, P. (2016a). Student teachers’ beliefs about L2 and L2 discursively constructed: A longitudinal study of interpretative repertoires. In P. Kalaja, A. M. F. Barcelos, M. Aro, & M. Ruohotie-Lyhty (Eds.), Beliefs, agency and identity in foreign language learning and teaching (pp. 97–123). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137425959_6 KALAJA, P. (2016b). ‘Dreaming is believing’: The teaching of foreign languages as envisioned by student teachers. In P. Kalaja, A. M. F. Barcelos, M. Aro, & M. Ruohotie-Lyhty (Eds.), Beliefs, agency and identity in foreign language learning and teaching (pp. 124–146). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137425959_7 KALAJA, P., and MÄNTYLÄ, K. (2018). ’The English class of my dreams’: Envisioning teaching a foreign language. In S. Mercer, & A. Kostoulas (Eds.), Language teacher psychology (pp. 34–70). Bristol: Multilingual Matters. https://doi.org/10.21832/9781783099467-007 KALAJA, P., ALANEN, R., and DUFVA, H. (2013). Experimenting with visual narratives. In G. Barkhuizen (Ed.), Narratives in applied linguistics (pp. 105–131). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Kalaja, P.84 | ©2019 SEDLL. Lenguaje y Textos, 49, 67-84 KALAJA, P., ALANEN, R., and DUFVA, H. (2018). ELT in Finland. In J. I. Liontas, & M. DelliCarpini (Eds.), TESOL Encyclopedia of English language teaching. Hoboken: Wiley-Blackwell. Retrieved February 1, 2019, from https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118784235.eelt0930 KRAMSCH, C. (2009). The multilingual subject. What foreign language learners say about their experience and why it matters. Oxford. Oxford University Press. LANTOLF, J. P., and THORNE, S. L. (2006). Sociocultural theory and the genesis of second language development. Oxford: Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263106060037 MÄNTYLÄ, K., and KALAJA, P. (2019). ’The class of my dreams’ as envisioned by student teachers of English: What is there to teach about the language? In P. Kalaja, & S. Melo-Pfeifer (Eds.), Visualising multilingual lives: More than words (pp. 254–274). Bristol: Multilingual Matters. https://doi.org/10.21832/9781788922616-018 ORTEGA, L. (2014). Ways forward in bi/multilingual turn in SLA. In S. May (Ed.), The multilingual turn: implications for SLA, TESOL and bilingual education (pp. 32–53). New York: Routledge. OTHEGUY, R., GARCÍA, O., and REID, W. (2015). Clarifying translanguaging and deconstructing named languages: A perspective from linguistics. Applied Linguistics Review 6 (3), 281–307. https://doi.org/10.1515/ applirev-2015-0014 SQUIRE, C. (2012). What is narrative? NCRM Working Paper. Retrieved February 1, 2019, from http://eprints.ncrm. ac.uk/3065/1/What_is_Narrative_by_Corinne_Squire_working_paper.pdf TUOMI, J., and SARAJÄRVI, A. (2009). Laadullinen tutkimus ja sisällöllinen analyysi [Qualitative RESEARCH AND CONTENT ANALYSIS] (5th revised edition). Helsinki: Tammi.