Submitted Successfully!
To reward your contribution, here is a gift for you: A free trial for our video production service.
Thank you for your contribution! You can also upload a video entry or images related to this topic.
Version Summary Created by Modification Content Size Created at Operation
1 -- 1894 2022-07-14 16:27:54 |
2 format -1 word(s) 1893 2022-07-15 07:18:56 |

Video Upload Options

Do you have a full video?


Are you sure to Delete?
If you have any further questions, please contact Encyclopedia Editorial Office.
Tishakov, T.;  Tsagari, D. Language Beliefs of English Teachers in Norway. Encyclopedia. Available online: (accessed on 14 April 2024).
Tishakov T,  Tsagari D. Language Beliefs of English Teachers in Norway. Encyclopedia. Available at: Accessed April 14, 2024.
Tishakov, Theresé, Dina Tsagari. "Language Beliefs of English Teachers in Norway" Encyclopedia, (accessed April 14, 2024).
Tishakov, T., & Tsagari, D. (2022, July 14). Language Beliefs of English Teachers in Norway. In Encyclopedia.
Tishakov, Theresé and Dina Tsagari. "Language Beliefs of English Teachers in Norway." Encyclopedia. Web. 14 July, 2022.
Language Beliefs of English Teachers in Norway

Language teachers struggle to shift from monolingual ideologies and pedagogical practices, as advocated for in the promotion of multilingualism and inclusive pedagogy. Additionally, the role of English as a multilingua franca pushes English teachers to rethink their beliefs about the language and its use. Even when positive about multilingualism, teachers are often uncertain of how to address the complexities of multilingual ideals due to varying contextual factors and a lack of practical knowledge and skills. As the makeup of learners diversifies, schools and educational authorities must mindfully avoid assumptions of a shared linguistic and cultural background among learners and their families. They must not overlook or downplay the richness of the semiotic and cultural resources all learners bring with them, especially those with multilingual backgrounds.

language beliefs multilingualism teacher beliefs language teacher cognition English as a lingua franca

1. Introduction

To capitalize on the richness of the multilingual and multicultural communities that are expanding in many regions of the world and to promote inclusiveness, many societies position multilingualism as a goal. In particular, schoolchildren are tasked with gaining multilingual competence through the acquisition of several languages. Still, researchers often debate the cognitive, social, and economic benefits of multilingualism, including building equity and promoting social justice (Berthele 2021; Beisbart 2021; Bialystok 2016; Jessner 1999, 2008; Cenoz 2003). Research and policy have encouraged and promoted the local adaptation of inclusive multilingual pedagogy as beneficial for individuals and society (European Commission 2017, 2018a; Cenoz and Gorter 2022; Rokita-Jaśkow and Wolanin 2021; Chumak-Horbatsch 2019; Sifakis and Bayyurt 2018). Yet, teachers still struggle to enact multilingual ideals in schools due to varying contextual factors, the need for increased knowledge and skills, and a lack of teaching and assessment tools that position multilingualism as a resource (Alisaari et al. 2019; Rodríguez-Izquierdo et al. 2020; Bayyurt et al. 2019; Erling and Moore 2021). The multilingual turn (May 2013) described in Western applied linguistics discourse questions monolingual views of language, pushing against long-standing monolingual and monoglossic ideologies in society and education. Fluid and dynamic views on language and communication have emerged as a result (Berthele 2021; García and Wei 2014), and there are calls for 21st-century skills and education experts who can adapt to the challenges of an evolving and complex future (Bransford et al. 2005). Furthermore, scholars have discussed new perspectives on the English language due to the expansive use of English as a multilingua franca (ELF; Jenkins 2015). ELF is an inherently multilingual means of communication involving people from different linguacultural backgrounds, each with unique multilingual language repertoires (Cogo et al. 2022; Seidlhofer 2018; Mauranen 2018; Jenkins 2017). Still, the teaching of English continues to be dominated by the ideals of the past, monolingual ideologies, and colonial perspectives of nation-states (García et al. 2021; García 2019). Learning objectives, teaching materials, and assessment protocols also typically position the “native speaker” as the measuring stick of English proficiency and success (Douglas Fir Group 2016; Sifakis 2017).

2. Multilingualism

Multilingualism is defined as “the acquisition and use of two or more languages”(Aronin and Singleton 2008, p. 2). Studied in many fields, including linguistics, socio- and psycholinguistics, and education, multilingualism can be addressed from two perspectives: that of the individual, or one’s ability to use languages, and that of society, or how languages are used within and across societal groups. Defining language, explaining how language is housed in the mind, and what boundaries separate languages (if any) are centrally debated matters in this field (see Berthele 2021 for an overview). Scholars have put forth many terms to describe the varying conceptualizations of multilingualism and multilingual communication, including plurilingualism (Council of Europe 2001), metrolingualism (Otsuji and Pennycook 2009), languaging (Jørgensen 2008), heteroglossia (Bailey 2007), and translanguaging (García and Wei 2014). Atomistic stances conceptualize languages as discrete, separate entities and multilingualism as additive (e.g., L1 + L2 + L3). In turn, holistic views conceptualize individuals’ complete linguistic repertoire as a qualitatively unique whole. They describe language as a repertoire of codes and resources that influence one another, intersect, and gain meaning through negotiated social practices (García 2009). This includes complex dynamic systems theorists, who see language as a process rather than a state (De Bot et al. 2015; Herdina and Jessner 2002), and languaging and translanguaging proponents. Languaging considers the contextualized social nature of language use as an activity, rather than as a system or a product (Pennycook 2010), while translanguaging posits that language consists of dynamic resources that comprise an integrated semiotic system creatively used by individuals in their identity development (García and Otheguy 2020; Cenoz and Gorter 2020; Leung and Valdes 2019; Canagarajah 2011).
Translanguaging has relevant conceptual, theoretical, pedagogical, and practical merits, which are actively discussed by researchers and practitioners. The translingual paradigm considers “the deployment of a speaker’s full linguistic repertoire without regard for watchful adherence to the socially and politically defined boundaries of named, national and state languages” (Otheguy et al. 2015, p. 81) and pushes back against previously accepted language usage norms (Poza 2017). With transformative roots, this paradigm redefines language from a perspective that promotes changes to sociopolitical structures that limit and exclude multilinguals and multilingual practices (García and Otheguy 2020; García and Wei 2014). Further, pedagogical translanguaging is a theoretical and practical application of translanguaging in educational settings. It is the use of two or more languages for pedagogical purposes with the goal of promoting multilingualism as a resource (Cenoz and Gorter 2020, 2022).

3. English as a Lingua Franca

Positioned under the umbrella of multilingualism, current scholarship on ELF is concerned with the widespread use of English as the “global default lingua franca” (Mauranen 2018, p. 7). Globally, ELF is used extensively in multilingual contexts, more often by non-native multilingual speakers than by native monolingual speakers. Unlike other lingua francas, English is used by individuals of all educational and socio-economic statuses to communicate in every possible sphere of livelihood in all corners of the globe (ibid.). Such breadth and depth of English use and the immense global interest in learning English uniquely positions the language. Moreover, ELF researchers question limiting the ownership of English to a few inner-circle countries and the long-standing focus on standardized English as the goal in teaching (Seidlhofer 2018; Holliday 2015). Rather, all users of English are suggested to have equal rights and opportunities to use and claim ownership of the language, regardless of their origin or background (Widdowson 1994, 2003). With such evolving views on the English language and the multilingual nature of its use, researchers and English language educators seek practical solutions for teaching and learning English in the globalized, interconnected world (Rose et al. 2021; Cogo et al. 2022; Bayyurt and Dewey 2020; Callies et al. 2022). One proposal is ELF-aware teacher education and pedagogy, which aims to challenge “teachers’ deep-seated convictions about language, communication and teaching” (Bayyurt and Sifakis 2015, p. 55). This is done by raising awareness and critically considering issues addressed by ELF research, including awareness of language and language use, instructional practice, and learning. From an ecological perspective, ELF-aware teaching practices and products (e.g., curricula, teaching materials, assessment) mindfully consider the whole learning environment, including contextual factors specific to the situation and various teaching constraints (Sifakis 2017).
Nevertheless, as teachers encounter the ideological notions of multilingualism and ELF and are encouraged to implement them in their teaching and assessment, many struggle to alter established practices and norms. They must synthesize evolving discourses found in policies and guidelines, such as changes in the Common European Framework of Reference (CEFR) first published in 2001 and revised in 2020 (Council of Europe 2001, 2020). For example, the revised CEFR emphasizes that the “idealized native speaker” was not the point of reference for the development of the new proficiency levels, while acknowledging that the 2001 levels had a native-speaker focus. Researchers and teacher educators have proposed that increased knowledge of multilingualism and multilingual pedagogy can lead to sustainable change if adapted to local teaching contexts (Hult 2014; Hornberger and Johnson 2007). However, not all agree on the specifics of what knowledge and skills are needed and how to promote multiple languages in meaningful and pedagogically beneficial ways (Leung and Valdes 2019; De Angelis 2011). Teachers also remain uncertain about how to address the complexities of this ideological shift due to varying contextual factors and constraints, as well as a lack of practical knowledge and skills (Bayyurt et al. 2019; Alisaari et al. 2019; Sarandi 2020; Dewey and Pineda 2020; Choi and Liu 2020; Yuvayapan 2019; Lopriore 2015).

4. Language Teacher Cognition

The theoretical frame used very often in language teacher education is language teacher cognition, or “what language teachers know, think, and do” (Borg 2003, p. 81). Language teacher cognition is theorized as emergent, situated, and woven into the complex contexts in which teachers are found and participate dynamically (Kubanyiova and Feryok 2015; Burns et al. 2015; Li 2020). This takes a situated and ecological perspective of language teacher cognition, with a focus on what teachers do, why they do this, and the implications this has for learning from a bottom-up view. The goal is to identify “salient dimensions of language teachers’ inner lives” (Kubanyiova and Feryok 2015, p. 436). Formed early and resistant to change, teacher beliefs are often explored as one facet of language teacher cognition, characterized frequently as tacit, evaluative, and affective. Teachers’ beliefs are intertwined with their classroom experiences as learners and as practitioners (Burns et al. 2015; Borg 2006; Pajares 1992), and likewise, their beliefs deeply affect and influence their teaching practices (Borg 2009; Burns et al. 2015). The relationship is reciprocal in that teacher beliefs are influenced by teachers’ classroom experiences (past and present, as learners, student teachers, and as teachers), while their beliefs also influence their classroom practices. However, a straightforward relationship between teachers’ beliefs and actual classroom practices has not been found due to the complexity of the concept, how it is researched, and the multitude of factors that influence teaching practices (Pajares 1992). Further, research has described an interplay between belief sub-systems, one in which early-formed, stable core beliefs, often gained via experience, influentially compete with newer peripheral beliefs in decision-making in the classroom (Phipps and Borg 2009; Pajares 1992). For example, many teachers experienced British English as the preferred learning target for English education during their schooling, teacher education, and teaching practices at their schools, which may strengthen a core belief and choice to teach standard British English. Moreover, many teachers develop peripheral beliefs that are contradictory, such as knowledge and understanding of multilingualism as a positive phenomenon and the pervasive use of English in multilingual communication.

5. Previous Research in Norway

In Norwegian schools, an inclusive learning environment that recognizes diversity and multilingualism as a resource is required by law and stated in the National Curriculum (Utdanningsdirektoratet 1998, 2020a). Moreover, the Curriculum in English (Utdanningsdirektoratet 2020b) asserts that learners should be able to communicate with people locally and globally in English, as a lingua franca, irrespective of linguistic or cultural background. The curriculum thus grants ideological and implementational spaces (Hornberger 2002) for multilingual, ELF-aware perspectives. Research from Norway has found that English teachers generally have positive attitudes toward multilingualism and multilingual learners (Krulatz and Dahl 2016; Burner and Carlsen 2019; Calafato 2020; Haukås 2016; Angelovska et al. 2020). Yet, they require raised linguistic awareness and knowledge of multilingualism and multilingual pedagogy (Šurkalović 2014; Krulatz and Dahl 2016; Burner and Carlsen 2019; Flognfeldt et al. 2020; Iversen 2017), since monolingual ideologies are prevalent in Norwegian English teachers’ beliefs and practices (Flognfeldt et al. 2020; Flognfeldt 2018; Angelovska et al. 2020). Elite forms of multilingualism (Ortega 2019) are often promoted as well, mainly Norwegian–English bilingualism, while minoritized languages are not systematically included to promote multilingualism as a resource (Beiler 2020, 2021; Burner and Carlsen 2017; Iversen 2017; Christison et al. 2021; Haukås 2016). Rather, Norwegian is used regularly in English classes to ensure inclusion through sameness and avoid exclusion in using unknown migrant languages (Beiler 2021; Brevik and Rindal 2020; Flognfeldt 2018; Flognfeldt et al. 2020; Iversen 2017; Haukås 2016).


  1. Berthele, Raphael. 2021. The Extraordinary Ordinary: Re-engineering Multilingualism as a Natural Category. Language Learning 71: 80–120.
  2. Beisbart, Claus. 2021. Complexity in Multilingualism (Research). Language Learning 71: 39–79.
  3. Bialystok, Ellen. 2016. Bilingual Education for Young Children: Review of the Effects and Consequences. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism 21: 666–79.
  4. Jessner, Ulrike. 1999. Metalinguistic Awareness in Multilinguals: Cognitive Aspects of Third Language Learning. Language Awareness 8: 201–9.
  5. Jessner, Ulrike. 2008. A DST Model of Multilingualism and the Role of Metalinguistic Awareness. The Modern Language Journal 92: 270–83.
  6. Cenoz, Jasone. 2003. The Additive Effect of Bilingualism on Third Language Acquisition: A Review. International Journal of Bilingualism 7: 71–87.
  7. European Commission. 2017. Rethinking Language Education in Schools. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union.
  8. European Commission. 2018a. Teaching Careers in Europe: Access, Progression and Support. Eurydice Report. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union.
  9. Cenoz, Jasone, and Durk Gorter. 2022. Pedagogical Translanguaging. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  10. Rokita-Jaśkow, Joanna, and Agata Wolanin, eds. 2021. Facing Diversity in Child Foreign Language Education. Second Language Learning and Teaching. Cham: Springer.
  11. Chumak-Horbatsch, Roma. 2019. Using Linguistically Appropriate Practice: A Guide for Teaching in Multilingual Classrooms. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
  12. Sifakis, Nicos C., and Yasemin Bayyurt. 2018. ELF-aware Teaching, Learning and Teacher Development. In The Routledge Handbook of English as a Lingua Franca. Edited by Jennifer Jenkins, Will Baker and Martin Dewey. New York: Routledge, pp. 456–67.
  13. Alisaari, Jenni, Leena Maria Heikkola, Nancy Commins, and Emmanuel O. Acquah. 2019. Monolingual Ideologies Confronting Multilingual Realities. Finnish Teachers’ Beliefs about Linguistic Diversity. Teaching & Teacher Education 80: 48–58.
  14. Rodríguez-Izquierdo, Rosa M., Inmaculada González Falcón, and Cristina Goenechea Permisán. 2020. Teacher Beliefs and Approaches to Linguistic Diversity. Spanish as a Second Language in the Inclusion of Immigrant Students. Teaching & Teacher Education 90: 103035.
  15. Bayyurt, Yasemin, Yavuz Kurt, Elifcan Öztekin, Luis Guerra, Lili Cavalheiro, and Ricardo Pereira. 2019. English Language Teachers’ Awareness of English as a Lingua Franca in Multilingual and Multicultural Contexts. Eurasian Journal of Applied Linguistics 5: 185–202.
  16. Erling, Elizabeth J., and Emilee Moore. 2021. Introduction–Socially Just Plurilingual Education in Europe: Shifting Subjectivities and Practices through Research and Action. International Journal of Multilingualism 18: 523–33.
  17. May, Stephen. 2013. The Multilingual Turn: Implications for SLA, TESOL, and Bilingual Education. London: Taylor & Francis Group.
  18. García, Ofelia, and Li Wei. 2014. Translanguaging: Language, Bilingualism and Education. London: Palgrave Macmillan UK, Palgrave Pivot.
  19. Bransford, John, Sharon Derry, David Berliner, and Karen Hammerness. 2005. Theories of Learning and Their Roles in Teaching. In Preparing Teachers for a Changing World. Edited by Linda Darling-Hammond and John Bransford. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, pp. 40–87.
  20. Jenkins, Jennifer. 2015. Repositioning English and Multilingualism in English as a Lingua Franca. Englishes in Practice 2: 49–85.
  21. Cogo, Alessia, Fan Fang, Stefania Kordia, Nicos Sifakis, and Sávio Siqueira. 2022. Developing ELF Research for Critical Language Education. AILA Review 34: 187–211.
  22. Seidlhofer, Barbara. 2018. Standard English and Dynamics of ELF Variation. In The Routledge Handbook of English as a Lingua Franca. Edited by Jennifer Jenkins, Will Baker and Martin Dewey. London: Routledge, pp. 456–67.
  23. Mauranen, Anna. 2018. Conceptualising ELF. In The Routledge Handbook of English as a Lingua Franca. Edited by Jennifer Jenkins, Will Baker and Martin Dewey. New York: Routledge, pp. 7–24.
  24. Jenkins, Jennifer. 2017. Not English but English-within-Multilingualism. In New Directions for Research in Foreign Language Education. Edited by Simon Coffey and Ursula Wingate. New York: Routledge, pp. 65–78.
  25. García, Ofelia, Nelson Flores, Kate Seltzer, Li Wei, Ricardo Otheguy, and Jonathan Rosa. 2021. Rejecting Abyssal Thinking in the Language and Education of Racialized Bilinguals: A Manifesto. Critical Inquiry in Language Studies 18: 203–28.
  26. García, Ofelia. 2019. Decolonizing Foreign, Second, Heritage and First Languages. In Decolonizing Foreign Language Education. Edited by Donaldo Macedo. New York: Routledge, pp. 152–66.
  27. Douglas Fir Group. 2016. A Transdisciplinary Framework for SLA in a Multilingual World. The Modern Language Journal 100: 19–47.
  28. Sifakis, Nicos C. 2017. ELF Awareness in English Language Teaching: Principles and Processes. Applied Linguistics 40: 288–306.
  29. Aronin, Larissa, and David Singleton. 2008. Multilingualism as a New Linguistic Dispensation. International Journal of Multilingualism 5: 1–16.
  30. Council of Europe. 2001. Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: Learning, Teaching, Assessment. Cambridge: Press Syndicate of the University of Cambridge.
  31. Otsuji, Emi, and Alastair Pennycook. 2009. Metrolingualism: Fixity, Fluidity and Language in Flux. International Journal of Multilingualism 7: 240–54.
  32. Jørgensen, J. Normann. 2008. Polylingual Languaging Around and Among Children and Adolescents. International Journal of Multilingualism 5: 161–76.
  33. Bailey, Benjamin. 2007. Heteroglossia and Boundaries. In Bilingualism: A Social Approach. Edited by Monica Heller. London: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 257–74.
  34. García, Ofelia. 2009. Bilingual Education in the 21st Century: A Global Perspective. Malden and Oxford: Wiley/Blackwell.
  35. De Bot, Kees, Carol Jaensch, and María del Pilar García Mayo. 2015. What is Special about L3 Processing? Bilingualism 18: 130–44.
  36. Herdina, Philip, and Ulrike Jessner. 2002. A Dynamic Model of Multilingualism: Perspectives of Change in Psycholinguistics. Bristol: Channel View Publications.
  37. Pennycook, Alastair. 2010. Language as a Local Practice. New York: Routledge.
  38. García, Ofelia, and Ricardo Otheguy. 2020. Plurilingualism and Translanguaging: Commonalities and Divergences. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism 23: 17–35.
  39. Cenoz, Jasone, and Durk Gorter. 2020. Pedagogical Translanguaging: An Introduction. System 92: 102269.
  40. Leung, Constant, and Guadalupe Valdes. 2019. Translanguaging and the Transdisciplinary Framework for Language Teaching and Learning in a Multilingual World. Modern Language Journal 103: 348–70.
  41. Canagarajah, Suresh. 2011. Translanguaging in the Classroom: Emerging Issues for Research and Pedagogy. Applied Linguistics Review 2: 1–28.
  42. Otheguy, Ricardo, Ofelia García, and Wallis Reid. 2015. Clarifying Translanguaging and Deconstructing Named Languages: A Perspective from Linguistics. Applied Linguistics Review 6: 281.
  43. Poza, Luis. 2017. Translanguaging: Definitions, Implications, and Further Needs in Burgeoning Inquiry. Berkeley Review of Education 6: 101–28.
  44. Holliday, Adrian. 2015. Native-Speakerism: Taking the Concept Forward and Achieving Cultural Belief. In (En)Countering Native-Speakerism. Edited by Anne Swan, Pamela Aboshiha and Adrian Holliday. London: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 11–25.
  45. Widdowson, Henry G. 1994. The Ownership of English. TESOL Quarterly 28: 377–89.
  46. Widdowson, Henry G. 2003. Defining Issues in English Language Teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  47. Rose, Heath, Jim McKinley, and Nicola Galloway. 2021. Global Englishes and Language Teaching: A Review of Pedagogical Research. Language Teaching 54: 157–89.
  48. Bayyurt, Yasemin, and Martin Dewey. 2020. Locating ELF in ELT. ELT Journal 74: 369–76.
  49. Callies, Marcus, Stefanie Hehner, Philipp Meer, and Michael Westphal, eds. 2022. Glocalising Teaching English as an International Language. London: Routledge.
  50. Bayyurt, Yasemin, and Nicos C. Sifakis. 2015. Developing an ELF-aware Pedagogy: Insights from a Self-Education Programme. In New Frontiers in Teaching and Learning English. Edited by Paola Vettorel. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing, pp. 55–76.
  51. Council of Europe. 2020. Common European Framework of Reference for Languages; Learning, Teaching, Assessment—Companion Volume. Strasbourg: Council of Europe Publishing.
  52. Hult, Francis M. 2014. How Does Policy Influence Language in Education? In Language in Education: Social Implications. Edited by Rita Elaine Silver and Soe Marlar Lwin. London: Continuum, pp. 159–75.
  53. Hornberger, Nancy H., and David Cassels Johnson. 2007. Slicing the Onion Ethnographically: Layers and Spaces in Multilingual Language Education Policy and Practice. TESOL Quarterly 41: 509–32.
  54. De Angelis, Gessica. 2011. Teachers’ Beliefs about the Role of Prior Language Knowledge in Learning and How These Influence Teaching Practices. International Journal of Multilingualism 8: 216–34.
  55. Sarandi, Hedayat. 2020. ELF in the Context of Iran: Examining Iranian In-Service Teachers’ Attitudes. İran Bağlamında İngilizce Ortak İletişim Dili (ELF): Görev yapan İngilizce Öğretmenlerin Tutumlarının İncelemesi 14: 69–86.
  56. Dewey, Martin, and Inmaculada Pineda. 2020. ELF and Teacher Education: Attitudes and Beliefs. ELT Journal 74: 428–41.
  57. Choi, Koun, and Yongcan Liu. 2020. Challenges and Strategies for ELF-aware Teacher Development. ELT Journal 74: 442–52.
  58. Yuvayapan, Fatma. 2019. Translanguaging in EFL Classrooms: Teachers’ Perceptions and Practices. İngilizce derslerinde dil alaşımı: Öğretmenlerin tutumları ve uygulamaları 15: 678–94.
  59. Lopriore, Lucilla. 2015. ELF and Early Language Learning: Multiliteracies, Language Policies and Teacher Tducation. In Current Perspectives on Pedagogy for English as a Lingua Rranca. Edited by Yasemin Bayyurt and Sumru Akcan. Berlin, Munchen and Boston: De Gruyter, pp. 69–86.
  60. Borg, Simon. 2003. Teacher Cognition in Language Teaching: A Review of Research on What Language Teachers Think, Know, Believe, and Do. Language Teaching 36: 81–109.
  61. Kubanyiova, Magdalena, and Anne Feryok. 2015. Language Teacher Cognition in Applied Linguistics Research: Revisiting the Territory, Redrawing the Boundaries, Reclaiming the Relevance. The Modern Language Journal 99: 435–49.
  62. Burns, Anne, Donald Freeman, and Emily Edwards. 2015. Theorizing and Studying the Language-Teaching Mind: Mapping Research on Language Teacher Cognition. The Modern Language Journal 99: 585–601.
  63. Li, Li. 2020. Language Teacher Cognition. London: Palgrave Macmillan.
  64. Borg, Simon. 2006. Teacher Cognition and Language Eeducation: Research and Practice. London: Continuum.
  65. Pajares, M. Frank. 1992. Teachers’ Beliefs and Educational Research: Cleaning Up a Messy Construct. Review of Educational Research 62: 307–32.
  66. Borg, Simon. 2009. Language Teacher Cognition. In The Cambridge Guide to Second Language Teacher Education. Edited by Anne Burns and Jack C. Richards. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 163–71.
  67. Phipps, Simon, and Simon Borg. 2009. Exploring Tensions between Teachers’ Grammar Teaching Beliefs and Practices. System 37: 380–90.
  68. Utdanningsdirektoratet. 1998. Act Relating to Primary and Secondary Education and Training (Education Act). Oslo: Utdanningsdirektoratet.
  69. Utdanningsdirektoratet. 2020a. National Curriculum. Oslo: Utdanningsdirektoratet.
  70. Utdanningsdirektoratet. 2020b. Curriculum in English. Oslo: Utdanningsdirektoratet.
  71. Hornberger, Nancy H. 2002. Multilingual Language Policies and the Continua of Biliteracy: An Ecological Approach. Language Policy 1: 27–51.
  72. Krulatz, Anna, and Anne Dahl. 2016. Baseline Assessment of Norwegian EFL Teacher Preparedness to Work with Multilingual Students. Journal of Linguistics and Language Teaching 7: 199–218.
  73. Burner, Tony, and Christian Carlsen. 2019. Teacher Qualifications, Perceptions and Practices Concerning Multilingualism at a School for Newly Arrived Students in Norway. International Journal of Multilingualism 19: 35–49.
  74. Calafato, Raees. 2020. Language Teacher Multilingualism in Norway and Russia: Identity and Beliefs. European Journal of Education 55: 602–17.
  75. Haukås, Åsta. 2016. Teachers’ Beliefs about Multilingualism and a Multilingual Pedagogical Approach. International Journal of Multilingualism 13: 1–18.
  76. Angelovska, Tanja, Anna Krulatz, and Dragana Surkalovic. 2020. Predicting EFL Teacher Candidates’ Preparedness to Work with Multilingual Learners: Snapshots from Three European Universities. European Journal of Applied Linguistics and TEFL 9: 183–208.
  77. Šurkalović, Dragana. 2014. Forbereder Grunnskolelærerutdanningen Engelsklærere for Undervisning i Engelsk som Tredjespråk i Norge? Acta didactica Norge 8: 1–17.
  78. Flognfeldt, Mona Evelyn, Dina Tsagari, Dragana Šurkalović, and Theresé Tishakov. 2020. The Practice of Assessing Norwegian and English Language Proficiency in Multilingual Elementary School Classrooms in Norway. Language Assessment Quarterly 17: 519–40.
  79. Iversen, Jonas. 2017. The Role of Minority Students’ L1 When Learning English. Nordic Journal of Modern Language Methodology 5: 35–47.
  80. Flognfeldt, Mona Evelyn. 2018. Teaching and Learning English in Multilingual Early Primary Classrooms. In Den viktige begynneropplæringen. Edited by Kirsten Palm and Eva Michaelsen. Oslo: Universitetsforlaget, pp. 229–48.
  81. Ortega, Lourdes. 2019. SLA and the Study of Equitable Multilingualism. The Modern Language Journal 103: 23–38.
  82. Beiler, Ingrid Rodrick. 2020. Negotiating Multilingual Resources in English Writing Instruction for Recent Immigrants to Norway. TESOL Quarterly: A Journal for Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages and of Standard English as a Second Dialect 54: 5–29.
  83. Beiler, Ingrid Rodrick. 2021. Marked and Unmarked Translanguaging in Accelerated, Mainstream, and Sheltered English Classrooms. Multilingua 40: 107–38.
  84. Burner, Tony, and Christian Carlsen. 2017. English Isntruction in Introductory Classes in Norway. In Kvalietet og kreativitet i klasserommet. Edited by Kåre Kverndokken, Norunn Askeland and Henriette Hogga Siljan. Bergen: Fagbokforlaget, pp. 193–208.
  85. Christison, MaryAnn, Anna Krulatz, and Yeşim Sevinc. 2021. Supporting Teachers of Multilingual Young Learners: Multilingual Approach to Diversity in Education (MADE). In Facing Diversity in Child Foreign Language Education. Second Language Learning and Teaching. Edited by Joanna Rokita-Jaśkow and Agata Wolanin. Cham: Springer, pp. 271–89.
  86. Brevik, Lisbeth M., and Ulrikke Rindal. 2020. Language Use in the Classroom: Balancing Target Language Exposure with the Need for Other Languages. TESOL Quarterly 54: 925–53.
Contributors MDPI registered users' name will be linked to their SciProfiles pages. To register with us, please refer to : ,
View Times: 380
Revisions: 2 times (View History)
Update Date: 15 Jul 2022