This is the accepted version of the journal article: Birello, Marilisa; Llompart-Esbert, Júlia; Moore de Luca, Emilee. «Being plurilin- gual versus becoming a linguistically sensitive teacher : tensions in the discourse of initial teacher education students». International Journal of Multilingualism, Vol. 18 Núm. 4 (2021), p. 586-600. 15 pàg. DOI 10.1080/14790718.2021.1900195 This version is available at https://ddd.uab.cat/record/275229 under the terms of the license Marilisa Birello Department of Language and Literature Teaching, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, Bellaterra, Spain Faculty of Education Sciences, UAB Office G5-131 Plaça del Coneixement 08193 Bellaterra (Cerdanyola del Vallès), Spain marilisa.birello@uab.cat Júlia Llompart Esbert Department of Language and Literature Teaching, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, Bellaterra, Spain Faculty of Education Sciences, UAB Office G5-125 Plaça del Coneixement 08193 Bellaterra (Cerdanyola del Vallès), Spain julia.llompart@gmail.com Emilee Moore Department of Language and Literature Teaching, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, Bellaterra, Spain Faculty of Education Sciences, UAB Office G5-125 Plaça del Coneixement 08193 Bellaterra (Cerdanyola del Vallès), Spain emilee.moore@uab.cat Being plurilingual versus becoming a linguistically sensitive teacher: Tensions in the discourse of initial teacher education students (special issue) Abstract The beliefs of pre-service teachers in initial teacher education (ITE) in Catalonia about plurilingualism and teaching in diverse classrooms are analysed and tensions in their discourse are observed. Following the analysis of discourse in interaction (e.g. Heller, 2005), we analyse data from an individual reflection task and subsequent focus group discussion in which pre-service teachers discuss their ideas about linguistically sensitive teaching. Our findings suggest that pre- service teachers have very positive ideas regarding being plurilingual speakers. However, when positioning themselves as teachers, the feelings they express about linguistic diversity in schools become negative. These ideas are linked to ideological constructions that circulate, for example, in European institutional discourses about multi/plurilingualism and in neoliberal conceptions of languages and learning. We suggest that more spaces for discussion and reflection are needed in ITE in order to promote linguistically sensitive teaching among future practitioners. Keywords: pre-service teachers; initial teacher education; plurilingualism; beliefs; ideologies; linguistically sensitive teaching Introduction Initial teacher education (ITE) programs across Europe have been transformed in recent decades in order to include new perspectives on language teaching and the management of linguistic diversity in schools. Despite initiatives at different levels, research shows that changing monolingual-oriented policies and practices in schools and universities is not an easy endeavour (Menken & Garcia, 2010). According to Bergroth et al. (in press- a), linguistic and cultural diversity has been included as a component in several ITE programs across Europe, but there remain certain curricular spaces which could be reinforced. European recommendations and strategies place teachers at the heart of linguistically inclusive education (Bergroth et al., in press-b). Teachers are key to challenging monolingual mindsets and ideologies and to implementing mainstream multi/plurilingual pedagogies. Their training is of upmost importance. Despite the changes observed in the teaching programs of ITE institutions, two main challenges have been observed: on the one hand, multi/plurilingual pedagogies are not fully integrated in teacher education practices (Bergroth et al., in press-a); and, on the other hand, pre-service teachers still feel under-trained for the linguistic diversity of schools (Llompart & Moore, 2020). Regarding the latter, certain tensions can be observed between pre-service teachers’ interactional constructions of what it means to ‘being a plurilingual speaker’ and ‘being a teacher for plurilingualism’. In this article, following the terminology used in the European-funded LISTiac project (see Methodology), we refer to this ‘being a teacher for plurilingualism’ as linguistically sensive teaching (LST). Related terms are multi/plurilingual education or translanguaging pedagogies (see Moore & Llompart, 2019; Vallejo & Dooly, 2020). Our contribution focuses on the ideological tensions observed in pre-service teachers’ discourse. We consider these tensions key to understanding future teaching practices. We endeavor to answer the following questions: (1) What are the pre-service teachers’ beliefs regarding linguistic repertoires and plurilingualism? (2) What are their beliefs about how to manage their teaching practice in multilingual environments and with plurilingual students? (3) What ideologies about language and language learning underlie these expressed beliefs? In order to respond to these questions, we analyse the discourse of pre-service teachers on linguistic diversity as they participate in a discussion activity as part of their ITE. We first discuss how we approach notions such as ideologies and beliefs. Then, we briefly introduce the methodology for data collection and analysis inspired by the study of discourse in interaction (Heller, 2005). Our findings suggest that pre-service teachers have very positive ideas regarding being plurilingual speakers. However, when positioning themselves as teachers, the feelings expressed about linguistic diversity become negative. We argue that these ideas are linked to ideological constructions that circulate, for example, in European institutional discourses about multi/plurilingualism and in neoliberal conceptions of languages and language learning. We suggest that more spaces for discussion and reflection are needed in ITE in order to promote linguistically sensitive teaching. Theoretical framework Work on ideologies of language (also referred to as language or linguistic ideology) as emerging in discourse in interaction (e.g. Heller, 2005) offers ‘a promising bridge between linguistic and social theory’ (Woolard, 1998, p. 27). Silverstein (1979), who was concerned with the cultural ideas embedded in linguistic form and use, offered an early definition of linguistic ideology as ‘any sets of beliefs about language articulated by the users as a rationalization or justification of perceived language structure and use’ (p. 193). This understanding of language ideology connected phenomena such as beliefs and linguistic social conduct (Silverstein, 1997; Schieffelin, Woolard & Kroskrity, 1998). From a more sociocultural starting point, emphasising the moral and political implications of ideologies, Irvine (1989) defined language ideology as ‘the cultural system of ideas about social and linguistic relationships, together with their loading of moral and political interests’ (p. 255). The latter definition, according to Woolard (2020), aligns better with current understandings of the term: linguistic ideologies underlie beliefs both about language and language practices, and about how they ought to be. Ideologies of language may be explicit or implicit, and ‘occur not only as mental constructs in verbalisations, but also in embodied practices and dispositions and in material phenomena such as visual representations (Woolard, 2020, p. 2). Young (2014) focused on in-service teachers’ ideologies about plurilingualism and concluded that ‘we cannot move towards plurilingual, inclusive education without fully understanding the obstacles which are preventing its implementation. Therefore, it is important to listen to the voices of teachers and necessary to investigate and question teachers’ language ideologies’ (p. 168). In taking this challenge forward, we are inspired by Kroskrity’s (2000, 2010) research on professional language ideologies. These are the common-sense understandings about language that contribute to shaping professional discourses (2000, p. 330) and perform ‘important roles not only in the displays of professional competence but also insofar as they contribute to and otherwise create the very institutions in which various professions typically perform’ (2010, p. 206). In the context of ITE, we may ask: what ideologies of language and language learning underlie conceptualisations of being a competent teacher? What are the implications of these beliefs about teaching for schools? Research in the field of language teaching on teacher cognition is also important for understanding the beliefs of pre-service teachers about languages, teaching and learning. In an early definition of the term, Borg (2003) referred to what teachers think, know and believe. This definition has recently been broadened to include aspects related to the personal, professional, social, cultural and historical contexts that help to understand teachers’ mind and emotions (Borg, 2019). Teacher cognition is influenced by previous schooling, contextual factors, pre-sevice and in-service professional development and classroom teaching practice. Cognition, context and experience interact in a dynamic way (Borg, 2006) in which the interrelationships among beliefs can reveal tensions (Phipps & Borg, 2009) and reflect the complexity of teacher thinking (Pajares, 1992). Research carried out over the past decade shows that, in general, teachers have positive beliefs about multilingual education (De Angelis, 2011; Griva & Chostelidou, 2012; Otwinowska, 2014) and think it should be promoted. However, a contrast can be observed between their teaching practices, their concerns and their understandings of language learning. Teachers declare ideas such as: knowing languages affords more possibilities for communication with people from other cultures (Arocena Egaña et al., 2015) or that students’ home language(s) should be promoted (De Angelis, 2011). But when translating into classroom practice, teachers claim: instruction must be carried out only in the target language (Cummins, 2014); translation between L1 and L2 is not appropriate and languages should be separated (Arocena Egaña et al., 2015); feelings of guilt if learners use their languages in the classroom (Littlewood & Yu, 2011); correcting students’ language switching (Arocena Egaña et al. 2015); using students’ home language can delay or impair the learning of the institutional language (De Angelis, 2011) (see also Meier, 2018 for an overview of similar prevailing ideas). Otwinowska (2014) points out that in-service teachers are more aware of linguistic diversity than pre-service teachers, and plurilingual teachers show greater awareness than those with less language learning experiences. Our focus on pre-service teachers in promoting reflection on and changes in beliefs about being linguistically sensitive teachers aims to contribute to inclusive education for an increasingly diverse student body. We therefore explore the discourse in interaction of pre-service teachers as part of their ITE. Methodology The data analysed in this study were collected with the framework of a European action-research project, LISTiac (Linguistically Sensitive Teaching in all classrooms), while also being supported by a university teaching innovation grant from our institution. LISTiac aims at impacting on initial teacher education programs around Europe regarding the inclusion of linguistically diverse students in schools. It will do so by developing and experimenting a reflection toolkit that will create opportunities for evaluating teacher educators’ and pre- and in-service teachers’ existing beliefs in order to promote linguistically sensitive teaching and positive views on the multilingual resources of pupils (http://listiac.org/). The data for this study were collected in one of the 12 institutions –a total of nine universities and three ministries of education– participating in LISTiac. In order to strengthen the possibilities for collaborative action research among teacher educators in our institution not officially involved as researchers in the LISTiac project, an additional university teaching innovation project was granted to the authors by our Faculty. This internal project provides an institutional framework for recognising our teacher educator peers as co-researchers. In collaboration, the teacher educator (Birello) of two groups of ITE students – around seventy students in total, between twenty and twenty-two years of age– and a second teacher educator and LISTiac researcher (Llompart) carried out data collection in a subject on school language policy and plurilingual education. Following an action research methodology (see Bergroth et al., in press-b), the researchers/teacher educators and the students worked together reflecting on current educational practices, training on linguistically sensitive teaching and their preparedness to carry out this approach in the near future. The pre-service teachers were all born in Catalonia, except for two: one was born in Morocco and had arrived in Catalonia at the age of four and the other was born in Ucrania and had also arrived at an early age. Although having different biographies (Llompart & Birello, 2020), they had all been socialised into similar discourses about languages during their schooling and at the university. In order to promote discussion, a LISTiac reflection tool based on a SWOT analysis (Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, Threats) was used. Pre-service teachers were asked to carry out an individual SWOT analysis on linguistically sensitive teaching. Once they had finished the individual analysis, they were divided into groups of 5 or 6 and were asked to prepare a collective SWOT document on the same theme. Participants had previously given informed consent following the protocol approved by the university ethics board in line with the European General Data Protection Regulation (Ref: CEEAH4008, 19/07/2019). All the discussions –ten small group discussions and two whole class discussions– were video or audio recorded for transcription and analysis. The transcription conventions, based on a simplified version of Jeffersonian conventions (Jefferson, 2004), are included in the Appendix. Translations into English are included below the lines in Catalan/Spanish. The analysis applied in this article draws on the study of discourse in interaction (Heller, 2005). It focuses on the pre-service teachers’ discourse in interaction as they construct their collective SWOTs in groups and is organised thematically in terms of emerging beliefs and ideologies, rather than following the logic of the SWOT sequence. We focus not only on explicit comments about languages and language teaching and learning, but also make connections with implicit ideologies that contribute to shaping discourse in interaction. Analysis Our data reveals that pre-service teachers position themselves similarly as plurilingual speakers and in terms of how they see themselves as future teachers in linguistically diverse classrooms. The analysis is divided into three sub-sections covering the main themes. Pre-service teachers as plurilingual world citizens This section of the analysis focuses on two main ideas emerging in the group interactions: 1) being plurilingual and plurilingual competence are assets necessary for being an open-minded, flexible and tolerant citizen today, as language is also a gateway to accessing pluricultural competence; 2) the economic and linguistic context presents opportunities for language learning. We link these ideas with implicit ideologies, including discourses on plurilingualism promoted by European institutions and the neoliberal logic sustaining some forms of plurilingualism as ‘elite’. The first two excerpts studied are from different discussion groups when they were discussing their strengths –S on the SWOT analysis– as future linguistically sensitive teachers. Excerpt 1 Participants: PER (Pere), MAR (Maria), CAR (Carlos), JOA (Joan), OLG (Olga) 01 PER jo com a fortalesa he posat que coneixem tres llengües (.) que i have put as a strength that we know three languages (.) that 02 sembla mentida però te’n vas a fora i dius parlo tres llengües i (.) it seems hard to believe but you go abroad and you say i speak three languages and (.) 03 joder fa molt damn it means a lot 04 CAR no tots not all of us 05 JOA ((laughs)) 06 PER bueno però més o menys well but more or less 07 JOA mínimament et pots: minimally you can: 08 PER mínimament: clar minimally: of course 09 OLG vale ok 10 PER i això et fa més competent lingüísticament no/ saber [català fa que and that makes you linguistically more competent right/ knowing [catalan helps you 11 entenguis una mica de francès i italià: conèixer anglès pues tsk. understand a little bit of french and italian: knowing english well 12 t’obre les portes i: it opens the doors and: 13 OLG [sí: yes: 14 (4) 15 MAR és que jo el que he dit que saber tants idiomes que t’ajuda a what i have said is that knowing so many languages that it helps you 16 conèixer els altres és per això perquè xx hem interioritzat una know the others it’s because of that because xx we have interiorised a 17 sèrie d’estructures de: sintàctiques o el que vulguis que et fa més series of: syntactic structures or whatever you want that it makes it 18 fàcil easier for you 19 PER clar sure 20 MAR seguir aprenent-ne de nous to keep learning new ones There is a feeling of pride amongst the pre-service teachers related to knowing three languages. For them, this repertoire is an asset when presenting themselves outside (literally ‘fora’, meaning outside in Catalan) their own context. Although they do not specify what ‘outside’ is for them, it is clear that it is a context where speaking three languages might either be uncommon or useful. PER positions himself as a plurilingual speaker, a citizen with a valuable asset or cultural capital in Bourdieu’s terms. Although the three languages PER talks about have not been named, we can infer from our insider knowledge that they are Catalan, Spanish and English. In line 4, CAR presents a common insecurity regarding language knowledge, that ‘knowing a language’ means mastering it, doubting what PER has said. In the following lines, PER justifies his idea and co-constructs with JOA his idea of ‘knowing language’: it means being able to communicate even if not very fluently. After this co-construction and OLG’s acceptance of it, PER continues by adding to the idea of plurilingualism as an asset. Knowing these three languages enables linguistic transfer among Romance languages –from Catalan to French, for instance– and ‘door opening’ thanks to English. After a long pause, in lines 15 to 18 MAR aligns with PER and develops his idea by explaining how this transfer happens. In the following excerpt, the pre-service teachers present their ideas on the connection between language and culture, expanding the previously expressed positive view on plurilingualism and defining their understanding of the term further. Excerpt 2 Participants: TER (Teresa), LAI (Laia), JOR (Jordi), FER (Ferran), LAU (Laura), EST (Esther) 01 TER he dit com a fortalesa interna que diversitat cultural com a: algo i have said as an internal strength that cultural diversity as a: something 02 positiu que ens enriqueix positive that enriches us 03 LAI però abans ho has dit millor no/ ens enriqueix la diversitat but you have said it better before right/ diversity enriches us 04 JOR que entenem la diversitat lingüística com a com a coneixença de that we understand linguistic diversity as as knowledge of 05 la cultura humana human culture 06 TER que ens enriqueix that enriches us 07 LAI vale sí ok yes 08 FER jo no sé però he posat que dominem els idiomes que es parlen a i don’t know but i have added that we master the languages that are spoken in 09 catalunya i que això és una fortalesa catalonia and that this is a strength 10 JOR quins quins es parlen/ which ones which ones are spoken/ 11 TER es parlen molts eh/ many languages are spoken eh/ 12 JOR jo crec que no dominem tants i think that we do not master so many 13 FER dominen el català no/ i és la llengua vehicular de l’escola we master catalan right/ and it is the vehicular language of the school TER introduces another strong idea that has been transmitted regarding multi/plurilingualism: diversity –whether linguistic or cultural– enriches us, thus it is necessarily positive. LAI, in line 3, encourages TER to explain the idea better and JOR gives his version: linguistic diversity allows awareness of human culture. At the begining of this excerpt, the pre-service teachers point to the fact that plurilingualism is not only a personal asset but also a key to being enriched by other cultures (TER, in line 6). In the second part of the excerpt –starting in line 8–, FER considers that mastering the languages ‘spoken in Catalonia’ is a strength. This is discussed by JOR and TER who claim, on the one hand, that in Catalonia many languages are spoken and, on the other hand, that they do not master many of them. In order to defend his position, FER clarifies what he meant by ‘the languages spoken in Catalonia’: the main curricular languages of schools (Catalan, Spanish and English). He replies that they master Catalan and that it is the vehicular language. So, in a way, what for some of the pre- service teachers is important is that they master the institutional languages, which reveals certain ideologies about what kind of plurilingualism they are referring to. The following excerpt, where a group of students are discussing opportunities –O on the SWOT analysis–, reinforces this positioning. Excerpt 3 Participants: JOR (Jordi), FER (Ferran), EST (Esther) 01 JOR jo crec que la oportunitat és la necessitat de trobar feina i think that the opportunity is the need to find a job 02 EST de trobar recursos per trobar recursos (.) és una oportunitat to find resources to find resources (.) it is an opportunity 03 JOR perquè per trobar feina s'ha d’esforçar pues amb els nouvinguts que because to find a job an effort has to be made so with the newcomers that 04 vénen aquí s'han d'esforçar a tenir un nivell de català o castellà o come here they have to make an effort to have a certain level of catalan or spanish or 05 hasta nosaltres a tenir un nivell d’anglès even ourselves to have a certain level of english 06 FER hasta nosaltres ((laughs)) even ourselves 07 JOR fins i tot fins i tot nosaltres even even ourselves 08 FER és una oportunitat amenaça perquè clar si no fas això no tindràs it is an opportunity threat because well if you don’t do that you will not have 09 feina a job 10 JOR clar és una oportunitat per aprendre l'idioma d'una manera bastant right it is an opportunity to learn the languages in quite 11 forçadeta diguéssim let’s say a forced way There is certainly a strong view of a valuable form of plurilingualism being, in the Catalan context, speaking Catalan, Spanish and English. The economic/job market situation means that newcomers have to (obligatory) make an effort to reach a certain level of Catalan or Spanish (lines 3-4) and that the pre-service teachers need to have competence in English. After FER laughs at his peer’s use of a Spanish word (‘hasta’) instead of the correct one in Catalan (‘fins i tot’), and the consequent correction by JOR, FER changes the framing of this imposition from an opportunity to a threat, since, according to JOR, it would push people to learn a language. The pre-service teachers’ comments show that the ideological construction of the benefits of being plurilingual is well installed in their generation, in line with the spread of hegemonic discourses that celebrate multi/plurilingualism (Martin-Rojo, 2019). It seems clear that language policy efforts –especially those of European institutions– have been fruitful and young people –at least those participating in this research– align with the idea that being plurilingual is essential in order to be a succesful European and world citizen. When the pre-service teachers position themselves as speakers, an elite plurilingualism is at stake, following a neoliberal logic ‘where language serves as an access code to local, national or global perceived elite (ways of life)’ (Barakos & Selleck, 2019, p. 4). For the pre-service teachers the value is in speaking Catalan (the local and vehicular language of schooling), Spanish (the State language) and English (the international language), thus adopting a European 2+1 perspective –and also an anglo-centric one in terms of the +1. The ideological construction of English as the international language as well as valued linguistic capital is determined by the school system and also by many university programs (Martin Rojo, 2019). Thus, access to cultures through language is limited to certain languages and certain cultures. Imagining multilingual classrooms: from proud plurilingual citizens to jumping out the window During the activity of creating the collective SWOT, the ITE students also position themselves as future teachers. In this case, plurilingualism is presented more negatively. This set of data reveals the pre-service teachers’ implicit monolingual ideologies in terms of taken-for-granted school language policies and practices. In the following excerpts the students are discussing their weaknesses –W on the SWOT analysis. Excerpt 4 Participants: FER (Ferran), LAI (Laia), JOR (Jordi) 01 FER vale va debilitats vinga va a veure ok weaknesses let’s go let’s see 02 LAI aquí he posat el contrari del que he posat abans he posat poc domini here i have added the opposite of what i had said before i have added little proficiency 03 d'idiomes estrangers of foreign languages 04 JOR jo també (.) limitació d’idiomes me too (.) language limitation 05 FER jo he posat que vull dir que no parlem i no entenem tots els idiomes i have added that i mean that we do not speak and we don’t understand all the languages 06 que ens podem trobar a l’aula that we can find in a classroom 07 LAI molt bé very well One of the main weaknesses the students declare to have when they position themselves as teachers is what they call ‘a language limitation’ (line 4). In line 5, FER clarifies that they do not speak or understand all the languages that can be found in classrooms. The strength previously declared by many of them in reference to their status as plurilinguals loses its value when the participants transport themselves to a linguistically diverse classroom. This reinforces the dual vision of what plurilingualism is for them; as we have discussed already, there is an elite plurilingualism which they associated with when positioning themselves as speakers and world citizens, but there is another type of plurilingualism –that of some students in the schools the pre-service teachers imagine themselves working in– that is not shared by them. In the second case, plurilingualism represents a limitation for them as teachers. The following excerpt develops this second ideological position further. Excerpt 5 Participants: JOA (Joan), MAR (Maria) 01 JOA jo he ficat això situacions de conflicte o estada amb infants que no i have added situations of conflict or staying with children that do no 02 parlin anglès com a mínim (.) o sigui que no tinguem un: una llengua speak at least english (.) that is that we don’t have a: a common 03 comuna (.) doncs això per a mi seria una debilitat perquè és com has language (.) well that for me it would be a weakness because it is like 04 dit tu abans (.) no podríem arribar a entendre’ns (.) per signes what you said before (.) we could not understand each other (.) signing [...] 05 MAR a mi aquesta barrera em suposa a part de la resolució de conflictes to me this barrier means besides conflict resolution 06 com hem parlat abans i tot això like we have talked about before and all that 07 JOA no ja ja no right right 08 MAR o sigui és xx el fet de nosaltres ser mestres és voler vulguis o no i mean it is xx the fact that we are teachers implies that we want whether you want to or not 09 fer arribar unes idees uns coneixements als infants (.) és a dir que to transmit some ideas some knowledge to the children (.) that is to say that 10 si no compartiu un mateix idioma per molt que algú em faci if you don’t share the same language even if someone 11 d’intèrpret no hi haurà la mateixa manera de fer arribar les coses interprets for me there will not be the same way to transmit things 12 JOA ja right 13 MAR no t’arribarà el mateix a tu que coneixes la meva llengua que a tu you who knows my language will not get the same as you 14 que igual no la coneixes (.) és molt diferent aleshores com a mestra who might not know it (.) it is very diferent then as a teacher 15 això pues em frustra molt well that frustrates me a lot In lines 1 to 4, JOA considers that not having a common language –not even English– is a weakness since there is no possibility of reaching understanding. Once more, English is categorised as the lingua franca that could allow communication in globalised scenarios, if no other languages are shared. Right after JOA, MAR continues this negative construction by declaring not having a common language as a barrier (line 5) preventing conflict resolution. Then, in line with what has been dicussed, MAR presents her beliefs about what a teacher is: it is about transmitting ideas and knowledge to children (lines 8 and 9). From this perspective of the teacher as a knowledge transmitter, the languages unkwown by them are certainly a barrier and the reason why there is no mutual understanding. Their ideas on what a teacher should do and the barrier of not having a common language create feelings of frustration (line 15). Therefore, there is a shift in the pre-service teachers’ language ideologies: from a positive vision as plurilingual speakers of valued languages to a negative vision as teachers who have to deal with other kinds of plurilingualism. Therefore, although the discourse of multi/plurilingualism has been well appropriated in the beliefs systems of these pre-service teachers, a very big gap –and arguably a tension– can be seen when they imagine themselves in a linguistically diverse classroom, which brings about strong negative feelings such as frustration, fear, worry or insecurity. In the following excerpt, this feeling of desperation towards facing diverse classrooms is even stronger. The participants in this group were closing their discussion on linguistically sensitive teaching in their future practice. Excerpt 6 Participants: PAT (Patricia), OLG (Olga), MIR (Miriam) 01 PAT doncs això (.) que no estem formades per acollir la gent (1) que ens well that (.) that we are not trained to receive people (1) that we 02 agradaria eh: ((looking at the camera)) ens agradaria molt però no estem would like to be eh: ((looking at the camera)) we would like it a lot but we are not 03 formades trained 04 ((laughther)) 05 OLG però tampoc és el mateix rebre un alumne but also it is not the same to receive one student 06 MIR clar que rebre’n: right than receiving: 07 OLG que rebre’n deu: o: than receiving ten: or: 08 PAT clar és que tu imagina’t right imagine 09 OLG clar right 10 PAT ets tutora de vint-i-cinc persones que n’hi ha tres que no parlen el that you are a teacher of twenty five people and there are three who do not speak the 11 mateix idioma que tu què fas/ (.) et tires per la finestra/ same language as you what do you do/ (.) do you throw yourself out the window/ At the beginning of the excerpt, PAT states very clearly that they are not trained to receive people –meaning newcomers from other parts of the globe–, which is a complaint about the ITE they are receiving. Interestingly, after a pause, PAT turns to the camera –which represents their university teacher educators/reseachers– and says that they are not trained to be linguistically sensitive teachers although they would really like to be. While there is collective laughter in line 4, which could indicate an alignment with PAT’s previous statement, OLG tries to mitigate the complaint –together with MIR– by saying that the issue is not receiving one newcomer but receiving lots of them. PAT continues by agreeing (line 8) and by offering a portayal of herself as a teacher in a multilingual classroom with three students with whom she does not share a language (lines 10 and 11). She presents a strong feeling of insecurity and desperation –‘do you throw yourself out the window’– when having to face a situation like the one she describes. Despite initiatives at European and local level to avoid perpetuating monolingual mindsets and approaches to education, we can see that these ideas have not been translated into the pre-service teachers’ projections. When imagining themselves as future teachers in multilingual classrooms, the pre-service teachers’ previous celebration of plurilingualism as speakers –in line with neoliberal hegemonic discourses (Martin-Rojo, 2019)– is transformed into problematisation, frustration and fear. This result concurs with previous results (De Angelis, 2011; Griva & Chostelidou, 2012; Otwinowska, 2014) on the contrast between teachers’ positive beliefs –for example, the connection between language and culture (Arocena Egaña et al., 2015)– and the worries that appear regarding their teaching practice. When the students imagine themselves as teachers in diverse classrooms, monolingual ideologies appear –since their possibilities of communication depend on the same language being shared– and the idea of plurilingualism is reconsidered (De Angelis, 2011). ITE reformulation towards linguistically sensitive teaching In the data collected during the SWOT analysis activity, there are many instances when pre-service teachers try to give a justification about why they are not prepared to be linguistically sensitive teachers. Most of the time they refer to a lack of practical resources being given to them during their ITE that would help them to manage linguistically diverse students. What is clear in the data is the connection they make with practice as a key factor for successful learning; thus they consider that, in order to learn how to deal with linguistic diversity, they need to have some practice at it, since theory is not enough in this regard. Excerpt 7 Participants: OLG (Olga), PAU (Paula) 01 OLG yo pondría que también una debilidad es que si acabas en un: cole i would also add a weakness that is if you end up in a: school 02 eh: de: privado de sabadell no sé qué (.) no hay ningún tipo que eh: eh: a private one in sabadell i don’t know what (.) there isn’t any that 03 todos hablan catalán entonces perfecto porque tú estás ahí equis all of them speak catalan then perfect because you are there a number 04 años pero llegas a otro centro (.) que es todo lo contrario súper of years but you arrive in another school (.) where it is the contrary very 05 heterogéneo pues ahí pues puede ser que tengas un problema como heterogenous well there well maybe you might have a problem as a 06 profe teacher 07 PAU no: igual que si por ejemplo te vas a un cole de alta complejidad no: like if you for example go to a high complexity school 08 (.) o sea yo por ejemplo personalmente en la carrera a mi no me han (.) i mean i for example personally during the training i have not been 09 dado xx no tengo xx o sea las tendría que trabajar (.) pues eso assigned xx i don’t xx i mean i would have to work on them (.) well that 10 también es una debilidad como profe is also a weakness as teacher In OLG’s discourse we can observe the strong connection she makes with teaching practice as a fund of knowledge (González, Moll & Amanti, 2005) for being a competent teacher. The experience of teaching in a private and linguistically homogenous school is good, but it does not afford the tools and competences needed to be a teacher in a school with a diverse student body. This lack of experience will be a problem (lines 5 and 6) or a weakness (line 10) for her as a teacher. Teachers’ beliefs are strongly connected to previous learning experiences, contextual factors, professional courses and classrooms practice (Borg, 2006). In the meta-reflection that these pre- service teachers are engaged in teaching practice is what is key to having resources to teach in multilingual classrooms (Otwinowska, 2014). Discussion and conclusions We have explored pre-service teachers’ discourse in interaction (Heller, 2005) in order to analyse their beliefs and ideologies regarding plurilingualism, as well as their fears and ongoing needs for managing multilingual classrooms. Despite the efforts made in different official recommendations and teacher education curricula, pre-service teachers are not fully ready to manage inclusive, linguistically diverse classrooms. On the one hand, their discourse shows traces of a neoliberal ideological logic projecting an elite kind of plurilingualism and open-mindedness about languages as positive, which are transported to the classroom as useless tools. In this sense, there is the risk of promoting what Beck (2004) called ‘banal cosmopolitanism’, a recognition of the diversity in classrooms without fully transforming this diversity into a real asset for teaching and learning. The pre-service teachers’ discourse reproduces the traditional role of the teacher by understanding their role as transmitters of knowledge through a language shared with students. The plurilingual competence they claim to have is not useful for their future teaching practice. On the other hand, their complaint about the lack of practical resources and experience in multilingual settings is key to understanding their needs. We consider that a turn is still needed in ITE –at least in our context– regarding linguistically sensitive teaching, which should open more spaces for discussion and reflection about neoliberal and monolingual ideologies which are circulating –including the common-sensical notion of English as a lingua franca, unequal access to which restricts equitable educational as well as job market opportunities (Park & Wee, 2015, p. 4). Moreover, to respond to pre-service teachers’ expressed needs, deeper connections between more theoretical and more practical training should be made in order to help them transform the resources they have into practical teaching tools for multilingual classrooms. Furthermore, ITE should help pre-service teachers value their developing plurilingualisms –including their partial and creative compentece in languages besides those valued in school curricula– as a first step towards making them more sensitive towards others’ repertoires. Acknowledgements This work has been supported by the European project Linguistically Sensitive Teaching in all classrooms (LISTiac, ERASMUS+ Key Action 3, ref: 606695-EPP-1-2018-2-FI- EPPKA3-PI-POLICY, http://listiac.org/) and the project Design, implementation and evaluation of a didactic proposal to work on prejudices and biases about linguistic diversity in schools based on the ‘educational cycle’ and ‘thought workshops’ model (Teaching Innovation Support grant, Faculty of Education, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona). References Arocena Egaña, E., Cenoz, J., & Gorter, D. (2015). Teachers’ beliefs in multilingual education in the Basque Country and in Friesland. Journal of Immersion and Content-Based Language Education, 3(2), 169-193. https://doi.org/10.1075/jicb.3.2.01aro Barakos, E., & Selleck, C. (2019). Elite multilingualism: Discourses, practices, and debates. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 40(5), 361- 374. https://doi.org/10.1080/01434632.2018.1543691 Beck, U. (2004). Cosmopolitical realism: On the distinction between cosmopolitanism in philosophy and the social sciences. Global Networks, 4(2), 131-156. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-0374.2004.00084.x Bergroth, M., Llompart, J., Pepiot, N., van Der Wrop, K., & Sierens, S. (in press-a). Opening spaces for inclusive multilingual pedagogies in/through initial teacher education: A multi-sited case study of policies and curricula across Europe. Bergroth, M., Llompart, J., Pepiot, N., van Der Wrop, K., Sierens, S. (in press-b). Whose action research is it? Promoting linguistically sensitive teacher education in Europe. Educational Action Research. Borg, S. (2003). Teacher cognition in language teaching: A review of research on what teachers think, know, believe, and do. Language Teaching, 36(2), 81-109. Borg, S. (2006). Teacher cognition and language education: Research and practice. Continuum. Borg, S. (2019). Language teacher cognition: Perspectives and debates. In X. Gao (Ed.), Second handbook of English language teaching. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-58542-0_59-1 Cummins, J. (2014). Rethinking pedagogical assumptions in Canadian French immersion programs. Journal of Immersion and Content-Based Language Education, 2(1), 3-22. https://doi.org/10.1075/jicb.2.1.01cum De Angelis, G. (2011). Teachers’ beliefs about the role of prior language knowledge in learning and how these influence teaching practices. International Journal of Multilingualism, 8(3), 216-234. https://doi.org/10.1080/14790718.2011.560669 González, N., Moll, L. C, & Amanti, C. (2005). Funds of knowledge: Theorizing practices in households, communities, and classrooms. L. Erlbaum Associates. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781410613462 Griva, E., & Chostelidou, D. (2012). Monolingual competence development in the Greek education system: FL teachers’ beliefs and attitudes. International Journal of Multilingualism, 9(3), 257-271. https://doi.org/10.1080/14790718.2011.626857 Heller, M. (2005). Discourse and interaction. In D. Schiffrin, D. Tannen & H.E. Hamilton (Eds.), The handbook of discourse analysis (pp. 250-264). Blackwell Publishers Ltd. https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470753460.ch14 Irvine, J. T. (1989). When talk isn’t cheap: Language and political economy. American Ethnologist, 16, 248-267. https://doi.org/10.1525/ae.1989.16.2.02a00040 Jefferson, G. (2004). Glossary of transcript symbols with an introduction. In G. H. Lerner (Ed.), Conversation analysis: Studies from the first generation (pp. 13- 23). John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.125.02jef Kroskrity, P. (2000). Language ideologies in the expression and representation of Arizona Tewa identity. In P. Kroskrity (Ed.), Regimes of language: Ideologies, polities, and identities (pp. 329-359). School of American Research Press. Kroskrity, P. (2010). Language ideologies: Evolving perspectives. In J. Jaspers, J.-O. Östman & J. Verschueren (Eds.), Handbook of Pragmatics Highlights 7. Society and Language Use (pp. 192-211). John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/hoph.7.13kro Littlewood, W., & Yu, B.-H. (2011). First language and target language in the foreign language classroom. Language Teaching, 44, 64-77. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0261444809990310 Llompart, J., & Birello, M. (2020). Migrant and non-migrant origin pre-service teachers’ beliefs about multilingualism and teaching in multilingual classrooms: convergences and divergences. Sustainable Multilingualism, 44, 112-123. https://doi.org/10.2478/sm-2020-0015 Llompart, J. & Moore, E. (2020). La reflexión para la didáctica lingüísticamente inclusiva. Textos de Didácitca de la Lengua y la Literatura, 88, 55-60. Martin Rojo, L. (2019). The ‘self-made speaker’: The neoliberal governance of speakers. In L. Martin Rojo & A. Del Percio (Eds.), Language and neoliberal governmentality (pp. 162-189). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429286711-8 Meier, G. S. (2018). Multilingual socialisation in education: Introducing the M-SOC approach. Language Education and Multilingualism: The Langscape Journal, 1(1), 103-125. Menken K., & García O. (Eds.). (2010) Negotiating language policies in schools: Educators as policymakers. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203855874 Moore, E. & Llompart, J. (2019). De la didàctica de les llengües a la didàctica del plurilingüisme. CLIL Journal of Innovation and Research in Plurilingual and Pluricultural Education, 2(2), 57-65. https://doi.org/10.5565/rev/clil.27 Otwinowska, A. (2014). Does multilingualism influence plurilingual awareness of Polish teachers of English? International Journal of Multilingualism, 11(1), 97- 119. https://doi.org/10.1080/14790718.2013.820730 Pajares, F. (1992). Teachers’ beliefs and educational research: Clearing up a messy construct. Review of Educational Research, 62(2), 307-332. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543062003307 Park, J. S., & Wee, L. (2012). Markets of English: Linguistic capital and language policy in a globalized world. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203120323 Phipps, S., & Borg, S. (2009). Exploring tensions between teachers’ grammar teaching beliefs and practice. System, 37, 380-390. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2009.03.002 Schieffelin, B. B., Woolard, K. A., & Kroskrity, P. V. (Ed.). (1998). Language ideologies: Practice and theory. Oxford University Press. Silverstein, M. (1979). Language structure and linguistic ideology. In P. Clyne, W. F. Hanks & C. L. Hofbauer (Eds.). The elements: A parasession on linguistic units and levels (pp. 193-247). Chicago Linguistic Society. Vallejo C. & Dooly, M. (2020). Plurilingualism and translanguaging: Emergent approaches and shared concerns. Introduction to the special issue. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 23 (1), 1-16. https://doi.org/10.1080/13670050.2019.1600469 Woolard, K. A. (1998). Language ideology as a field of inquiry. In B. B. Schieffelin, K. A. Woolard & P. V. Kroskrity (Eds.). Language ideologies: Practice and theory (pp. 1-47). Oxford University Press. Woolard, K. A. (2020). Linguistic ideologies. In J. M. Stanlaw (Ed.), The international encyclopedia of linguistic anthropology. JohnWiley & Sons, Inc. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118786093.iela0217 Young, A. (2014). Unpacking teachers’ language ideologies: attitudes, beliefs, and practiced language policies in schools in Alsace, France. Language Awareness, 23, 157-171. https://doi.org/10.1080/09658416.2013.863902 Appendix Transcription conventions Participant pseudonym ABC Brief pause (.) Long pause (1.2) Overlapping [ Prolonged vowel or consonant : :: Rising intonation / Comments ((laughing)) Incomprehensible xx Transcription in English english