Teachers and Teaching

theory and practice

ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ctat20

Teaching English to multilingual immigrant

students: understanding teachers’ beliefs and
practices

Orly Haim & Michal Tannenbaum

To cite this article: Orly Haim & Michal Tannenbaum (2022) Teaching English to multilingual
immigrant students: understanding teachers’ beliefs and practices, Teachers and Teaching, 28:4,
420-439, DOI: 10.1080/13540602.2022.2062737

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/13540602.2022.2062737

Published online: 12 Apr 2022.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 206

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=ctat20
TEACHERS AND TEACHING
2022, VOL. 28, NO. 4, 420–439
https://doi.org/10.1080/13540602.2022.2062737

Teaching English to multilingual immigrant students:

understanding teachers’ beliefs and practices
a b
Orly Haim and Michal Tannenbaum
a
Beit Berl College, Tel-Aviv Univeristy, Israel; bTel Aviv University, Israel

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

Teachers’ beliefs, conceptualised as heuristics encompassing per­ Received 9 July 2020
ceptions and ideologies regarding aspects of their profession, Accepted 24 March 2022
strongly influence their practices. Grounded in this perspective, KEYWORDS
this study investigated teachers’ beliefs and perceived practices in Teachers’ beliefs; EFL;
the context of teaching English as foreign language (EFL) to immi­ immigrants; multilingualism;
grant students in Israeli schools. Utilising a mixed-methods instruction
approach, data were collected from 153 teachers via questionnaires
and semi-structured interviews. Two major sets of beliefs emerged
in the data, aligning conceptually with two of Ruíz’s orientations to
language planning and multilingual societies: multilingualism as
a resource, and multilingualism as a right, reflected in supporting
special accommodations for immigrant students. These beliefs
were found to be significantly related to teachers’ reported prac­
tices. Certain factors, especially teachers’ personal biography as
immigrants and the particular school contexts, have been identified
as predictors of teachers’ beliefs about teaching immigrant stu­
dents in the EFL classroom. Results further indicate insufficient
professional knowledge about the unique conditions and chal­
lenges confronted by immigrant students while acquiring an addi­
tional language. Recommendations are made regarding
professional development programmes for teachers within the
framework of ‘language as resource’.

Introduction
Teachers’ beliefs considerably influence their professional practices. Studies on teachers’
cognition reveal that teachers’ knowledge, beliefs, and dispositions strongly affect their
communication patterns with their students, classroom decisions, and instruction meth­
ods (Borg, 2003, 2009). Research highlights the powerful role of the sociocultural
ecological contexts in which they operate (i.e., teach and interact with students, collea­
gues and the larger community) on dimensions of teachers’ beliefs and practices
(Johnson, 2009; Tudor, 2003; Yazan, 2018). Yet, most studies on teachers’ beliefs about
teaching English to multilingual students have been carried out in contexts where English
is the dominant language. As much as these findings and insights are important and
informative, they are limited in terms of their applicability to contexts in which immi­
grant students learn English as a foreign language, in addition to their need to acquire the

CONTACT Orly Haim haimorly1@gmail.com Beit Berl College, Tel-Aviv Univeristy, Beit Berl 4490500, Israel
© 2022 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
 TEACHERS AND TEACHING 421

local dominant language. Indeed, beliefs of English teachers regarding the teaching of
immigrant students in non-English speaking countries, where it is taught as a foreign
language, have hardly been studied. Given the powerful impact of teachers’ beliefs on
their instruction and the growing number of multilingual immigrant students around the
world, it is highly important to investigate teachers’ beliefs about teaching immigrant
students in such educational contexts (Gay, 2010; Pettit, 2011). Insights into teachers’
cognition and instructional practices with multilingual immigrant students may be
helpful for designing teacher education programmes, which in turn may promote
successful adjustment and inclusion of these students in their new countries.
This study investigates the relationships between the beliefs of teachers of English as
a foreign language (EFL) about teaching immigrant students and their perceived prac­
tices when engaged with these students. The setting of this study involves Israeli schools,
where immigrant students are expected to acquire two new languages simultaneously:
Hebrew (L2), the dominant hegemonic language, and English (L3), an international
language taught as a compulsory school subject throughout schooling.

Literature review
Teachers’ beliefs
Studies in the area of teachers’ cognition have referred to teachers’ beliefs using various
terms—conceptions (Freeman, 2002), orientations (Zúñiga, 2016), or personal practical
knowledge (Golombek, 1998). In the most general sense, the construct of ‘teachers’ beliefs’
refers to teachers’ theories or propositions about aspects of their profession—the subject
matter, teaching ability, the teacher’s role, the nature of learning, and pedagogical issues
(Borg, 2003; Kubanyiova & Feryok, 2015). According to Richards (1998), ‘teachers’ belief
systems are founded on the goals, values, and beliefs they hold in relation to the content
and process of teaching, and their understanding of the systems in which they work and
their roles within it’ (p. 51). Shavelson and Stern (1981) suggest that teachers rely on their
beliefs to guide them in their instruction when factual information (i.e., knowledge) is
unavailable (see also, Woods, 1996, for a distinction between beliefs, knowledge, and
assumptions). In this study, we conceptualise the construct of ‘teachers’ beliefs’ as
heuristics encompassing a number of interrelated dimensions: teachers’ espoused the­
ories, ideologies, and practical aspects of professional knowledge.
Although it is widely acknowledged that beliefs interact with practices, influence
teachers’ pedagogical decisions, and are typically resistant to change (Borg, 2003;
Freeman, 2002), teachers’ practices do not always reflect their stated beliefs and pedago­
gical principles. Teachers’ beliefs are multi-layered and, may sometimes be contradictory
(Borg, 2009; Hornberger & Johnson, 2007; Martínez et al., 2015). For instance, De
Angelis (2011) investigated secondary school teachers’ beliefs about the role of prior
language knowledge of immigrant students’ as a factor enhancing language learning and
promoting multilingualism. Analysis showed that although most teachers (around 80%)
believed that knowledge of immigrant students’ home language (L1) may be useful in the
process of second language learning, they did not encourage its use in the classroom.
Moreover, some teachers simultaneously held monolingual views, perceiving the stu­
dents’ L1 in the classroom as associated with delays in learning the L2. Heyder and
422 O. HAIM AND M. TANNENBAUM

Schädlich (2014) also examined beliefs on multilingualism among secondary foreign

language teachers in Germany and found that most teachers expressed positive views
concerning the potential benefits of a contrastive approach between German and the
other target language they had taught. Nevertheless, similar to De Angelis’ findings, most
teachers demonstrated uncertainty as to how to incorporate other languages into their
classes, except for languages familiar to them. Similar conclusions were reached in
a study examining the relationships between Israeli EFL teachers’ beliefs about the use
of the learners’ language repertoire during instruction and their actual practices (Haim,
et al., 2019). The findings indicated strong relationships between teachers’ beliefs and
practices but also discrepancies between some of the teachers’ reports (obtained via
interviews) of exclusive use of English in their lessons and their observed instruction.
Furthermore, teachers’ beliefs and practices are known to interact with background
variables (e.g., language learning experience, teaching experience, biographical aspects)
as well as contextual factors, particularly the institutional ecological contexts within
which they operate (Kramsch, 2008; Opfer & Pedder, 2011; Otwinowska, 2014). In this
connection, it has been argued that teachers’ beliefs, as well as their professional activities
can be better understood when their biographical background, including their plurilin­
gual repertoires and identities, are acknowledged (Elbaz-Luwisch, 2004; Ellis, 2016; Shin,
2012; Taylor & Snoddon, 2013)

Multilingualism and teaching immigrants

Multilingual societies and their education systems often confront dilemmas regarding
their approach towards minority or heritage languages. Along with the need for impart­
ing the host society’s dominant language questions arise as to whether or not and to what
extent should minority languages be maintained and fostered in the school context. In
practice, many educational policies reflect an assimilatory approach through intensive
exposure to L2 while ignoring the linguistic repertoire and culture of immigrant students,
frequently leading to complete loss of competence in their L1.
In his influential article ‘Orientations in Language Planning’, Ruíz (1984) delineated
the strengths and weaknesses of three approaches to multilingualism: language-as-right,
language-as-problem, and language-as-resource. This model refers to language policy and
language planning that directly affect the schools’ policy and teachers’ professional
practices. The model elucidates ‘different underlying beliefs about language that ground
efforts to influence linguistic behaviour through language policy making and subsequent
implementation planning’ (Taylor, 2002, p. 315).
The language-as-right orientation emphasises issues of group membership and col­
lective identity as well as cultural heritage. Language maintenance is perceived as
a natural right and thus purportedly to be encouraged. Ruíz contends that discriminating
against individuals because of a specific language use constitutes a violation of their civil
rights, liberty, and pursuit of happiness (May, 2005). The language-as-problem arguments
suggest that, for the society as a whole, investing in minority groups and their heritage or
languages is not cost-effective, an approach emphasising language acquisition and
opposes language maintenance and contrasts them as if they were mutually exclusive.
Encouraging language maintenance is often interpreted as leading to segregation and to
a divided society rather than to assimilation and unity promoted by melting pot
 TEACHERS AND TEACHING 423

ideologies.1 The language-as-resource orientation generally aligns with extensive research

evidence pointing out the benefits of bi/multilingualism, including improved cognitive
flexibility, school performance, creativity, cultural enrichment, metalinguistic awareness,
economic advantages, identity affirmation, and psychological resilience (Tannenbaum,
2010; Bialystok, 2018; Cummins, 2013, 2017; Piccardo, 2013). Minority languages may
thus be viewed as a resource since their maintenance usually leads to additive bi/multi­
lingualism and its inherent rewards.
Naturally, orientations towards bi/multilingualism have a profound impact on the
policy and implementation of educational programmes for immigrant students at school
as well as on teachers’ beliefs (Haim et al., 2019; Zúñiga, 2016). Specifically, they influence
the methods of instruction, the choice of the medium of instruction, assessment issues,
the role and status of students’ L1 in the curricu lum, and foreign language teaching
methods. It merits note that in non-English speaking countries, and simultaneously with
their L2 acquisition, immigrant children are usually required to learn one or two foreign
languages, like their native-born peers. Thus, social and educational approaches towards
immigrants and multilingualism are intricately linked to the ways immigrant students are
taught these languages (i.e., second, third or fourth), and to the status assigned to their L1
at school.

Foreign language teaching and the use of L1 (or other known languages)
The status of students’ L1 in the teaching of other languages (second, foreign, heritage) in
the field of language education has generally been controversial. Both in theoretical
models and language programmes and curricula, monolingual approaches are still
quite common, reflecting perceptions of language acquisition and the representation of
languages in the bi/multilingual mind (De Angelis, 2007; Cook, 1999; Krashen, 1985).
The ‘monolingual approach’ has dominated language teaching mainly on the grounds
that the students’ L1 may interfere with the acquisition of the target language (L2) and
exclusive exposure to L2 (e.g., through immersion) has thus been held to enhance
proficiency. The approach towards the role of the learners’ L1 in language curricula
has recently shifted towards a bi/multilingual stance. For example, Swain et al. (2011)
have delineated ways of incorporating the languages that students already know into
classes that teach English as a second language (ESL). They show how reliance on L1
enables teachers and students to build on prior knowledge, translate difficult lexical items
and grammatical concepts, and draw comparisons between languages, a view that is also
supported in studies focusing on young learners (Johnstone, 2000). Promoting the use of
multiple languages in language teaching, fits current trends in sociolinguistic research
endorsing a view of all the languages the individual knows as part of a unitary holistic
system rather than as distinct and separate. These approaches conceptualise the lan­
guages known to the individual as anchored in broader social and emotional contexts,
and examine their mutual relationships in the mind, in practice, and, therefore, also in
teaching (Cenoz & Gorter, 2011; Cummins, 2017; García & Wei, 2014).
Research conducted in North America and Europe focusing on immigrants’ languages
in schools provide examples of reliance on L1 in teaching new languages. Some do so by
explicitly teaching L1; others use L1 for scaffolding, including it in adapted learning
materials, incorporating translanguaging and access to bi/multilingual environments
424 O. HAIM AND M. TANNENBAUM

(e.g., Short et al., 2012). Some programmes also involve parents and communities
(Cummins et al., 2012; Hammond, 2009). These approaches enable students to under­
stand and clarify content, and develop learning and reading strategies that can be used to
understand texts and content in the new language. The incorporation of L1 in the
teaching and learning processes affords students opportunities to demonstrate their
understanding of both L1 and the new language, thereby strengthening their cultural
and linguistic identity (Cummins et al., 2015; García & Menken, 2015). The position of
L1 in the education system and in foreign language learning contexts also touches on
assessment issues. A growing body of research points to the positive effects of allowing
students to rely on their full language repertoire (i.e., all of the language they know at
different levels) in assessment contexts, including alternative assessment, accommoda­
tions, and other channels allowing them to express their knowledge beyond language
barriers (e.g., Shohamy, 2011).
In sum, although research suggests that acknowledging students’ entire language
repertoire during the process of L2 acquisition is beneficial in many contexts, the
question of whether or not and the extent to which the learners’ language repertoire
should be incorporated in foreign language learning contexts, remains controversial. This
has to do both with the differences between ESL and EFL contexts, as well as with the
fundamental differences between learning and acquisition processes (see, e.g., Krashen,
1985). Apart from linguistic and pedagogical arguments, this issue is inextricably related
to Ruíz’s model. Proponents of the ‘language as problem’ orientation may be inclined to
reduce the presence of students’ L1, whereas those viewing ‘language as a resource’ are
more likely to realise the inherent benefits of integrating the learners’ language repertoire
in teaching, assessment, daily interactions, and more.

Teaching English as a foreign language (EFL)

The term EFL generally refers to the teaching of English in contexts where the commu­
nity and school language is not English (Gunderson, 2009). Most educational initiatives
that highlight the embedded advantages of relying on learners’ full language repertoire,
have been examined in English-speaking contexts, where English is the dominant lan­
guage. Nevertheless, investigating that question in the context of English as a foreign
language is equally important given the large number of immigrants in non-English
speaking countries. Specifically, it is not at all clear how education systems and teachers
of additional languages, particularly EFL teachers, address the students’ prior linguistic
knowledge. Further questions arise regarding immigrant students (not in ESL contexts),
who are then required to learn two powerful languages simultaneously: the hegemonic
language of the host society, usually used as the medium of instruction in schools, and
English as a foreign international language. Research concerning teachers’ knowledge
and understanding of these unique learning conditions is urgently needed.
As noted, the number of studies examining these questions in foreign language
acquisition contexts is relatively scant. Recent studies within the European context that
investigated teachers’ beliefs about multilingual pedagogy in English instruction have
yielded inconsistent results with respect to teachers’ views on multilingualism and multi­
lingual pedagogy. For instance, Haukås (2016) found that Norwegian English teachers
acknowledged the positive impact of multilingualism on their own language learning, but
 TEACHERS AND TEACHING 425

did not recognise its potential benefits in the classroom. Despite reporting the frequent
use of reliance on their learners’ L1 when teaching English, they rarely employed
language transfer strategies in their instruction. Otwinowska (2014, 2017) investigated
Polish pre- and in-service English teachers’ multilingual awareness and practices, show­
ing that teachers were reluctant to incorporate other languages when teaching English,
though teaching experience and multilingual knowledge were found to be positively
related to teachers’ multilingual awareness. In a more recent study, Sundqvist et al. (2018)
found that that while 98% of Swedish teachers reported positive views on the use of other
languages in English instruction, 16–22% viewed multilingualism as problematic in
either the school environment or English instruction. Furthermore, although approxi­
mately half of the teachers reported discussing frequently teaching methods vis-à-vis the
needs of multilingual learners, only 15% had actually received professional training to
work with such students.

The Israeli context

The present study focuses on English teachers in Israel who teach immigrant students.
Throughout its history, Israel has absorbed Jewish immigrants from many places around
the world with various language backgrounds. The more recent immigration waves are
those of the 1990s, which include about one million immigrants from the Former Soviet
Union (FSU), approximately 80,000 from Ethiopia and, more recently, several thousands
from France, Argentina, and other countries.2 Although the Israeli education system
faces a constant need to cater for immigrants’ needs (Ministry of Aliyah and Immigrant
Absorption, 2014), its predominant language policy is essentially assimilatory and basi­
cally excludes minority languages, thus endorsing the perspective of ‘language as
problem.’
English is taught in Israel from third grade (oftentimes starts before) throughout
schooling, enjoying a special status as a global international language (Or & Shohamy,
2017). A recent report (Haim et al., 2019) reveals perceptions widespread among EFL
professionals (some are empirically based and others ideologically) calling for an ‘English
only’ approach in language teaching, partly resting on colonial attitudes towards English
(De Costa & Norton, 2017; Phillipson, 2013). The English Curriculum is currently being
aligned with the descriptors of the CEFR (Ministry of Education, 2018); at the end of high
school, students are expected to reach the approximate equivalent of the CEFR B2
descriptors for language proficiency level (Council of Europe, 2018). Matriculation
exams are compulsory at the end of high-school, and they encompass reading, writing,
speaking and listening skills. In higher education, students are required to demonstrate
a high level of English proficiency.
The approach currently prevalent in the Israeli education of immigrants emphasises
the acquisition of Hebrew while assigning a rather minor role to the immigrants’ L1
(especially the less prestigious languages). Despite the centrality of English, Israel’s
Ministry of Education does not provide academic support in EFL to immigrants
(Tannenbaum & Shohamy, 2018).
426 O. HAIM AND M. TANNENBAUM

Research questions
Given the unique challenges confronting immigrant students in the Israeli context—
acquiring Hebrew as a second language, and English as an additional language—the
following questions were stipulated

● What are the beliefs and perceived practices of EFL teachers teaching immigrant
students?
● What are the relationships between the beliefs of EFL teachers about the language
learning needs of immigrant students’ and their reported classroom practices?
● What background and school factors are related to EFL teachers’ beliefs and
reported practices?

Methodology
We applied a mixed method design combining data collection via an online question­
naire and an in-depth semi-structured interview (Creswell & Clark, 2017).

Participants
The population that we aimed to explore was that of EFL teachers in Israel, who work, or
have worked with immigrant students. In order to do so, we have distributed the
questionnaire online through a website for EFL teachers in Israel, via the English
inspectors in the Ministry of Education, as well as using snowball sampling technique,
targeting EFL teachers who teach immigrant students (estimated return rate was approxi­
mately 35%). The sample included 153 EFL teachers currently teaching in primary (27%),
junior-high (34%) and high schools (37%) in Israel (all public schools), of whom 91%
were women. Their teaching experience ranged from 1 to 40 years (25% 1–5; 40% 6–20;
35% 21–40). Sixty-eight percent of the participants were immigrants (about half of them
from English-speaking countries, mainly the US, 11% from the FSU, and 1 or 2 from
Brazil, the Netherlands, Belgium, France, Austria, and Norway). Of those, 32% had
arrived in Israel before the age of eighteen. All teachers were proficient in Hebrew.
Out of the teachers who filled out the questionnaires and expressed willingness to be
interviewed, we randomly selected thirty teachers—15 in primary schools and 15 in
secondary schools.

Instruments
1. An online questionnaire, developed for this study, was used to obtain data about
teachers’ beliefs and perceived practices regarding the teaching and assessment of
immigrant students, as well as background information and contextual factors known
from previous studies, in other countries and contexts, to be associated with teachers’
beliefs and practices (e.g., De Angelis, 2011; Cummins, 2017; Golombek, 1998; Haukås,
2016). Based also on a pilot study, which included interviews with EFL teachers who
teach immigrants, teacher trainers and experts in multilingual education, the final
version of the questionnaire included the following sections3:
 TEACHERS AND TEACHING 427

(a) Personal and professional background.

(b) The school context (e.g., percentage of immigrants, support for immigrants).

(c) Teachers’ beliefs: 14 statements in Likert scale format ranging from 1 (totally disagree) to
5 (totally agree) on teachers’ views concerning language teaching and learning in the context
of immigration (e.g., Immigrants should learn English in special classes; Immigrants who
learn English as a foreign language rely on their mother tongue knowledge).

(d) Teachers’ perceived practices: Teachers were asked about their use of strategies and
methods when teaching and assessing immigrants. They could mark, from a list of 9
practices provided (e.g., use of translations, special materials for immigrants, parental
involvement) all practices valid for them, as well as adding other practices they apply.

(e) General questions about their experience with immigrant students (e.g., difficulties,
communication problems).

(f) Vignettes: Teachers were asked to write vignettes describing critical incidents (Farrell,
2007) when teaching or assessing immigrants. These could relate to interactions with
students, parents, or colleagues, in the classroom or at school.

2. Semi-structured interviews which included questions on teachers’ beliefs about language

acquisition by immigrant students, methods and materials used in teaching immigrants,
and the context and policy of their schools regarding the absorption of immigrants. Each
interview, lasting 30–45 minutes, was recorded and then transcribed verbatim.

Data analysis
Quantitative data were analysed using SPSS (version 25), allowing the identification of
central factors and addressing the research questions. Theorising that the underlying
factors representing teachers’ beliefs are interrelated to some extent (Borg, 2009; Field,
2013), a factor analysis with direct oblimin oblique rotation was performed to examine
the factor structure of the teachers’ beliefs measure in the questionnaire. Four factors
with eigenvalues greater than 1 emerged, explaining 56.6% of the item variance. Factor 1
was made up of six items reflecting teachers’ beliefs about language learning by immi­
grant students, implying together an additive view of multilingualism within the EFL
classroom. Factor 2 included three items, which reflect a subtractive view of multi­
lingualism, suggesting low expectations and viewing their multilingual background as
interfering with their English learning. Factor 3 included only one item and was therefore
excluded from further analysis. Factor 4 consisted of four items referring to special
instructional principles for facilitating immigrants’ learning and assessment of an addi­
tional language.
Relying on this factor analysis, we calculated the internal consistency of each factor.
Since Factor 2 had insufficient reliability (α = .43) and Factor 3 included only one item,
they were excluded from the subsequent analyses, and only Factors 1 and 4 remained.
Each of them was constructed as a summary score, averaging all the items included in it.
The first set of beliefs was interpreted to be conceptually compatible with Ruíz’s (1984)
‘language as resource’ orientation, therefore termed here Multilingualism as resource
(α = .80). The second factor, which included statements suggesting that immigrants
should be afforded opportunities to succeed academically in English classes through
428 O. HAIM AND M. TANNENBAUM

specialised instruction and accommodations, was interpreted to be compatible with

Ruíz’s ‘language as right’ orientation, termed here Accommodating immigrant stu­
dents (α = .70).
Teachers’ reported practices were grouped into five variables based on their content by
summing the number of events indicated for each one of the practices, as follows: (1)
reliance on learners’ L1 in the classroom (translation, cross-linguistic transfer, use of L1);
(2) specialised assessment and accommodations (testing accommodations, special assess­
ment procedures); (3) special materials for immigrants (adapted or simplified instruc­
tional materials); (4) parental involvement; and (5) cultural adjustment.
The data obtained from the transcribed interviews, vignettes, and open-ended ques­
tions were analysed qualitatively, utilising an inductively derived content analysis,
according to the research questions, in several stages (Corbin & Strauss, 2008; Marshall
& Rossman, 2012): organising the data set, creating central categories (etic and emic),
identifying recurring patterns, examining relationships between categories, and looking
for explanations. This analysis was carried out independently by the two authors to
ensure reliability of at least 85%.
The quantitative analysis was followed by the qualitative one, in order to triangulate
data sources and to gain a better understanding of the various aspects of teachers’ beliefs
and practices explored in this study (Teddlie & Tashakkori, 2006).
Research Question #1. Analysis of data examining the first research question
which focuses on teachers’ beliefs and practices included a number of stages. First,
we calculated means and standard deviations of the two summary scores of teachers’
beliefs. Analysis shows that teachers were generally positive about promoting multi­
lingualism among immigrant students in the classroom, both in terms of viewing it
as resource (M = 3.67, SD = .77), and in terms of providing accommodations
(M = 3.25, SD = .85). Paired sample t-tests indicated that the difference between
these scores was insignificant.
We then explored the incorporation of special strategies or instructional and assess­
ment methods. Figure 1 presents the reported practices according to frequency.
As shown in Figure 1, teachers reported various ways of using immigrants’ L1. Yet,
they make little use of special assessment procedures and learning materials. Some
examples, illustrating uses of these practices emerged in the qualitative data. For example,
on recourse to students’ L1, some teachers reported comparing and contrasting features
of English with immigrants’ L1. Some of the teachers also reported using adapted cultural
materials acknowledging students’ culture, as illustrated below:

I taught a new immigrant from France last year . . . Pointing out to the class that words of
higher register in English are originally French really empowered her. (high-school teacher,
originally from the US)

We also compared words in Russian and English. Students tell me many times that they know
the words because in Russian they are very similar. (high-school teacher, originally from the
FSU)

I once taught them a translated text by Pushkin. (high-school teacher, originally from the
FSU)
 TEACHERS AND TEACHING 429

70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0

Figure 1 :Reported practices that are used with immigrant students

A third of the sample reported frequent difficulties in teaching immigrants and about two
thirds reported frequent difficulties in communicating with immigrant students due to
linguistic and cultural differences. Independent sample t-tests, comparing the beliefs of
teachers experiencing frequent difficulties in teaching English to immigrants and those
who did not, yielded a significant difference between the two groups with regard to
Accommodating immigrant students (see Table 1). That is, teachers believing immigrant
children should be afforded with special accommodations, etc., are those who experience
more difficulties in teaching them. Similar results emerged regarding teachers’ percep­
tions of communication difficulties with immigrant students. Teachers experiencing
more frequent communication difficulties scored higher on the accommodation belief,
compared with those experiencing less frequent communication difficulties (see Table 1).
These results resonated in the interviews. For instance:

I can’t explain a word to them if I don’t know their language. Also, their handwriting can be
challenging, very challenging. (junior high-school teacher, Israeli born)

Table 1. Means (and standard deviations) of teaching and communication

problems
Multilingualism Accommodating
Teaching as resource immigrant students
Frequently (N=47) 3.84 (.83) 3.80 (.75)
Not so frequently (N=106) 3.59 (.73) 3.41 (.91)
t151 1.87 2.56*
Communication
Frequently (N=60) 3.62 (.81) 3.78 (.75)
Not so frequently (N=93) 3.69 (.74) 3.37 (.91)
t151 .56 -2.82**
*p<.05; **p<.001.
430 O. HAIM AND M. TANNENBAUM

Most of the standard material is not culturally appropriate [for immigrants] especially if they
start their studies in high school. They are missing a tremendous amount of general knowledge
that the Israeli student is expected to know based on personal experience, television, local
cultural experience etc. (high-school teacher, originally from the US)

These data appear to be closely linked with the findings obtained via the questionnaires
showing that, despite the relatively high number of immigrants in Israeli schools, 90%
of the participating teachers reported they had not received any special training to work
with immigrants. Almost 50% of the teachers thought that immigrant and native
students should be taught EFL in the same way, implying lack of awareness and/or
knowledge concerning the specific needs and learning conditions of immigrant
students.
Some teachers’ recounts aptly demonstrate the lack of professional training and
guidance:
I have probably taught immigrants throughout my entire career, but I guess I wasn’t always
aware that I had immigrant students in my classes. (primary school teacher, Israeli born)

The data also revealed that some teachers were conscious of the learning needs of their
students and catered for them intuitively, as shown in the excerpt below:
A long time ago, when I was just beginning, there was a Russian girl in my class and at some
point during the lesson she started to cry. I took her outside and asked her what was wrong.
With great difficulty and in fumbling Hebrew she said that she couldn’t understand anything.
Luckily, I had a Russian-speaking girl in the class, and I asked her to help. The two girls bonded
and became great friends. After years, I met that immigrant girl—she’d apparently become
a principal. (high-school teacher, originally from South Africa)

The following excerpt portrays how a teacher intuitively addresses the communication
gap with a student:
When there’s a language barrier with immigrant students, I often use body language. I show
them compassion and show them that I care for them. I let them make progress at their own
pace and encourage them to learn English. (primary school teacher, originally from
England)

Research Question #2. We explored the predictive relationships between teachers’ beliefs
and their reported practices, addressed in the second research question, by conducting
a series of regression analyses.4 Results show that the Multilingualism as a resource belief
contributed significantly to predicting teachers’ practices related to reliance on the
learners L1 in the classroom (β = .30, p < .001), use of special materials (β = .17,
p < .05) and the use of cultural adjustments (β = .17, p < .05). Conversely, the
Accommodating immigrant students’ belief showed no significant contribution to the
prediction of any of the reported practices.
Research Question #3. Finally, to answer our third research question, we asked
participants about their personal background and about the school context. Contrary
to our expectations, the teachers’ professional experience emerged as a non-significant
variable, contributing neither to beliefs nor to practices. Nevertheless, being an immi­
grant did affect beliefs and practices; 77% of the immigrant teachers perceive their own
immigration experience and their multilingual knowledge as influencing their teaching
practices. ANOVA (with Bonferroni post-hoc) revealed that immigrant teachers (from
 TEACHERS AND TEACHING 431

both English speaking and non-English speaking countries) ranked significantly higher
the Multilingualism as resource belief than non-immigrants (F2 = 5.13, p < .01); multi­
lingual teachers from non-English speaking countries showed a significantly higher level
of agreement with this belief than those immigrating from English-speaking countries
and non-immigrant teachers (p < .05). Moreover, immigrant teachers tended to rely
more on students’ L1 knowledge in their instructional practices (F1 = 4.08, p < .05),
compared with non-immigrants.
Indications of understanding and bonding with the immigrant students as a result of
shared immigration experiences surfaced in the immigrant teachers’ accounts, as demon­
strated in the quote below:

I enjoy being able to help improve the students’ English and Hebrew simultaneously. I feel as if
immigrant students and I are bonded by our experience of improving our Hebrew together and
feeling frustrated by Israeli cultural norms that differ so much from our own. (high school
teacher, originally from the US)

Data from the interviews suggest that some of the teachers believed that their own
experience as immigrants afforded them not only the ability to understand the acute
academic and psychological needs of immigrant students but also granted them insights
about broader language acquisition issues:

I think that, due to my immigration experience, I can understand the problems of immigrant
students better. Moreover, since I started learning Hebrew as an additional language when
I was 35 years old, I can help my students cope with problems in learning ESL. (junior high
school teacher, originally from the US)

I understand the difficulty of navigating in a language that is not my native tongue. (high
school teacher, originally from Argentina)

In the interviews as well, teachers from non-English speaking countries perceived their
multilingual background as an instructional resource, providing them with better under­
standing of their students’ multilingual language learning processes. For example, one of
the junior-high school teachers (originally from France) states: ‘I understand the confu­
sion when you learn more than one new language—sometimes you retrieve words from the
wrong language, such as French instead of Hebrew, etc.’
As for school-related features, ANOVAs showed that primary school teachers
reported using more specialised practices than secondary school teachers to meet the
needs of immigrant students, particularly translation into students’ L1 (F1 = 5.09, p < .05),
and involving the parents in the English curriculum (F1 = 10.79, p < .001). In addition,
teachers teaching at schools with a large proportion of immigrants (over 30 students)
reported using significantly more specialised assessment procedures for immigrants (F2
= 3.13, p < .05).
Approximately 62% of the participants reported that their schools were not providing
extensive support to immigrants (e.g., academic and social support). When schools did
offer support, ‘social support’ proved to be a significant variable, strongly related to the
teachers’ belief of Accommodating immigrant students, which was rated higher (t122
= 2.49, p < .05) by teachers working at schools offering social support to immigrants
(M = 3.87, SD = .88 vs. M = 3.41, SD = .91).
432 O. HAIM AND M. TANNENBAUM

Table 2. The effect of school support variables on teachers’ practices; summary

of ANOAVAs
Type of support Practices F1
Social support Special materials 7.84**
Parental involvement Reliance on learners’ L1 3.44*
in the curriculum Specialized assessment 7.05*
Special materials 5.55**
Ulpan (intensive Reliance on learners’ L1 4.25*
Hebrew program)
*p<.05, **p< .005.

Moreover, social support was also found to be significantly related to the teachers’
incorporation of special learning materials for immigrant students. Another school-
related variable that was found to be linked to teachers’ practices was parental involve­
ment in the school curriculum. Teachers working in schools where parents of immigrant
students are involved in the curriculum reported they not only relied on learners’ L1 in
the classroom but also used assessment procedures and language learning materials
designed especially for immigrants significantly more than schools reporting lack of
parental involvement in the curriculum. Finally, teachers at schools that offer immigrants
‘specialized classes’ (in Hebrew and other subjects), tended to show significantly greater
‘reliance on the learners’ L1 in the classroom’ than schools that did not. Table 2 sums up
the school-related contextualised variables related to teachers’ practices.
The influence of the teaching environment on teachers’ practices is also evident in the
qualitative data, showing that teachers’ experiences in the classroom interact with their
perceived practices and decision-making. For example, teachers reported using specia­
lised methods and strategies (e.g., incorporating the learners’ L1, using group work) in
accordance with various classroom situations, as shown below:
I had a Russian student whose Hebrew was poor and was struggling to acquire English. I asked
another teacher in my staff to help me . . . to translate some of the instructions. (high-school
teacher, originally from the US)

Discussion
This study investigated the relations between EFL teachers’ beliefs about teaching
immigrant students and their reported practices as well as related factors. The integration
of the quantitative and qualitative analyses helped capture the teachers’ views and
strengthens the overall data interpretation. The current study provides unique data
about the multifaceted nature of language teachers’ beliefs and the links between these
beliefs and their instructional practices in the context of teaching EFL to multilingual
immigrant students. Furthermore, the study contributes significant evidence in the area
of language teacher cognition concerning the centrality of the teachers’ background and
contextual factors associated with their beliefs and practices.The findings of this study
point to the influence of teachers’ beliefs or ‘subjective theories’ on their interpretations
of classroom experiences and practices, supporting previous research carried out mainly
in ESL contexts (e.g., Borg, 2009; Kubanyiova & Feryok, 2015). Two major sets of beliefs
emerged in our data, aligning conceptually with two of Ruíz’s (1984) orientations to
 TEACHERS AND TEACHING 433

language planning in multilingual societies: Viewing multilingualism as a resource, and

accommodating immigrant students, which we interpreted to align with ‘language as
right’ orientation. Yet, the quantitative analyses did not yield a cohesive reliable factor
reflecting Ruíz’s (1984) ‘language as problem’ orientation. We interpreted this orienta­
tion as associated with data obtained from items in the questionnaire focusing on
teachers’ perceived difficulties in teaching and/or communicating with immigrants.
Analysis of these responses vis-à-vis beliefs and practices shows that facing such diffi­
culties is intertwined with the special accommodations belief; hence, implying that the
EFL teachers participating in our study tend to regard EFL instruction to immigrant
students not only as involving the right for accommodations or individualised instruc­
tion but also as entailing certain problematic dimensions. In other words, perceiving the
experience of teaching immigrants as difficult, or having communication difficulties with
them—ascribed to language or cultural gaps—may potentially lead to an accommoda­
tion/right orientation. Alternatively, it may well be that holding such an orientation in
the first place informs one to interpret classroom interactions and practices involving
immigrants as more problematic compared to teaching other student populations.
Moreover, one of the study’s main contributions is that it extends data emerging from
ESL contexts, pointing to the profound ramifications of teachers’ beliefs and perceptions
of immigrant and minority students on their instructional practices (e.g., García &
Menken, 2015; Gay, 2010; Pettit, 2011). Thus, we found a relationship between the
‘Multilingualism as resource’ perspective and the teachers’ tendency to draw on their
students’ L1 and implement cultural adjustments to accommodate immigrants’ needs in
the classroom. Teachers perceiving difficulties in the teaching of immigrants tended to
embrace a more specialised approach for teaching immigrants. Conversely, teachers
endorsing an inclusive resource-oriented approach tended to perceive fewer difficulties
in their interactions with immigrants.
In light of these findings it is plausible to assume that the EFL teachers’ sets of beliefs
about teaching immigrants are related to ways they perceive the educational setting and
their students’ group membership, which might in turn affect the specific practices
employed by them. These data highlight the multifaceted and conflictual nature of
teachers’ beliefs (Zúñiga, 2016; Borg, 2003). Indeed, our quantitative and qualitative
findings suggest that teachers’ beliefs involve underlying assumptions about additional
language learning by multilingual immigrants, cultural issues, and teaching experiences
which may sometimes be associated with apparent contradictions; thus, teachers’ beliefs
and assumptions both guide and are created by their instructional practices and classroom
interaction within a particular sociolinguistic and sociocultural context. This insight is also
related to studies pointing to language teachers experiencing ideological tensions in their
professional work when trying to meet their students’ needs, mainly due to contradictions
between their own beliefs and values and those represented by the formal educational
policy (Zúñiga, 2016; Hornberger & Johnson, 2007; Martínez et al., 2015).
Concerning the background factors, the findings indicated that teachers’ personal
biography as immigrants influences both their beliefs and practices highlights the power­
ful role of the migration experience on teachers’ lives in general (Elbaz-Luwisch, 2004)
but, particularly relevant to this study, on their professional lives. Whether they immi­
grated after having worked as teachers in their home countries or trained to be teachers
in Israel, immigration is a dramatic process with long-term effects on one’s identity and
434 O. HAIM AND M. TANNENBAUM

sense of self as well as on attitudes towards other immigrants and languages (Elbaz-
Luwisch, 2004; Shin, 2012). And yet, the belief of Multilingualism as resource was found
to be particularly prominent among multilingual immigrant teachers from non-English-
speaking countries, who also reported having gained insights about language learning
from their multiple language learning experiences. This important finding supports the
notion that teachers’ plurilingual learning experiences constitute an important aspect of
their mental lives, influencing their practices and interpretations of classroom experi­
ences (Ellis, 2016).
In contrast to studies indicating that teaching experience is related to teachers’ multi­
lingual awareness and beliefs (Borg, 2003; Otwinowska, 2014), our findings suggest it is
not related to their beliefs about teaching immigrants or to their perceived practices. The
teachers’ personal history as immigrants and their own language learning experience
apparently played a more powerful role in influencing their beliefs and reported practices
than the length of their professional experience. This finding corroborates the centrality
of ‘plurilingual competence’ (Piccardo, 2013) and of language learning experiences as
central both to the teachers’ identity and the shaping of their classroom decisions and
practices (Ellis, 2016; Yazan, 2018).
Regarding the impact of the school context, the findings suggest that social support
significantly contributes to teachers’ practices (e.g., implementing accommodations) and
is also associated with their beliefs about teaching them. Resonating in these findings are
ecological perspectives that view teaching as a complex multifaceted process and con­
ceptualise the school as a contextual framework strongly influencing teachers’ perceptual
role and professional practices (Kramsch, 2008; Opfer & Pedder, 2011). The professional
identity of teachers is presumed to be shaped by a combination of biographical and
contextual factors, situated within interdependent and reciprocally influential nested
structures (Johnson, 2009). Thus, understanding the pedagogy of language teachers
requires a multidimensional perspective focusing ‘on the subjective reality which various
aspects of the teaching-learning process assume for participants, and on the dynamic
interaction between methodology and context’ (Tudor, 2003, p. 1).
Indeed, an important contribution of this study is that it highlights the need for
considering the centrality of the interconnections between the teachers’ personal back­
ground within their specific work context and the local and global sociolinguistic,
sociocultural, and socio-political contexts beyond the school in order to understand
teachers’ beliefs and practices regarding multilingual immigrant students. While this
study focuses on the teachers’ subjective perceptions and views them as closely inter­
dependent with socio-political external factors and psychological internal ones, future
research could add more objective measures such as observations to expand this
perspective.
Despite the large number of immigrant students in Israeli schools, our data portray
a worrying lack of appropriate teacher preparation to teach multilingual students or any
explicit language teaching policy developed for this population. Although a large percen­
tage of our participants perceived their interactions with immigrant students as challen­
ging and difficult, most of them did not recognise the vital need for special strategies
when teaching them English as an additional language. Ecologically, these findings could
be attributed to both the local and global contexts of EFL instruction in Israel, where the
potential benefits of applying a multilingual pedagogical approach are not overtly
 TEACHERS AND TEACHING 435

advocated. In light with research showing the beneficial effects of teacher training to work
with immigrants on their school adjustment and achievements (Author 1, 2018), it is
imperative to develop programmes that train teachers to work effectively with immi­
grants. Such programmes should not only address topics related to external circles but
also the contribution of inner circles (personal biographical aspects) to the teaching-
learning processes. Moreover, EFL teachers should be made aware of their own beliefs
and dispositions and understand how various beliefs about multilingualism and ethnic
diversity may be related to actual practices in the classroom.
We further propose that teacher education programmes focus on the exploration of how
their beliefs and practices are related to background factors, particularly language-learning
biographies, and contextual institutional factors, as a resource for professional learning and
pedagogy. This could be achieved, for example, through in-action research, narratives and
reflective practices. Immigrant students may otherwise be left behind, not only in various
curricular subjects based on the dominant language but also in English as a foreign language.
It is thus vital to foster a ‘multilingualism as resource’ perspective and to strengthen teachers’
understanding of the potential contribution of having additional languages.

Conclusions
This study focused on a specific context—immigrant students who learn English as an
additional language while (or subsequent to) acquiring Hebrew as a second language.
These are unique teaching and learning conditions, which can be viewed as partially
contributing to the internal gaps that the participating teachers of this study experience,
both between belief systems and between beliefs and practices. At the micro-level,
personal biographies as well as contextual factors also impact these beliefs and practices.
At the macro level, there are neither clear guidelines for the inclusion of learners’ L1
during EFL classes, nor explicit teachers’ training (both pre- and in-service) concerning
the benefits of multilingualism or regarding relevant pedagogies to apply with this
students’ population. All of these interconnected levels should be considered when
examining teachers’ beliefs and practices in future studies, especially in other EFL
contexts worldwide, to better understand the issues at stake.
To conclude, we see this study as an important contribution to educational and
theoretical models that encourage extending the educational system’s language capacity
and allowing reliance on the students’ full language repertoires. In line with a view of
multilingualism as a resource, schools, teachers, and language teachers in particular,
should find further ways of cultivating home languages and allowing immigrant students
to rely on what they know, thus potentially contributing to their English knowledge and
achievements as well as to their self-efficacy and their emotional well-being.

Notes
1. At present, less direct and perhaps more manipulative ways of achieving similar outcomes
are pursued in many countries, in the form of language tests in schools or as a requirement
of citizenship (McNamara, 2005; Shohamy, 2011).
436 O. HAIM AND M. TANNENBAUM

2. At present, about 9% of Israeli children (under the age of 18) are immigrant children or
children who were born in Israel to parents who had immigrated since 1990, of whom 54.4%
come from the FSU, 14.8% are from Ethiopian origin, 10.4% immigrated from the US and
7.3% from France.
3. A full version of the questionnaire can be made available by the authors.
4. Since the practices reliance on learners’ L1 in the classroom, specialised assessment and
accommodations, and special materials for immigrants were based on count data, a Poisson
regression analysis was performed. The practices involving parents and cultural adjustments
were inserted as dichotomous variables, hence a binary logistic regressions were performed
in those cases.0

Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

ORCID
Orly Haim http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4235-5400
Michal Tannenbaum http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9033-9475

Findings
The findings are presented according to the research questions, combining the quantitative and
qualitative data. The inclusion of the qualitative data, which followed the quantitative results,
enabled an in-depth data analysis and interpretation.

References
Bialystok, E. (2018). Bilingual education for young children: Review of the effects and
consequences. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 21(6), 666–679.
https://doi.org/10.1080/13670050.2016.1203859
Borg, S. (2003). Teacher cognition in language teaching: A review of research on what language
teachers think, know, believe, and do. Language Teaching, 36(2), 81–109. https://doi.org/10.
1017/S0261444803001903
Borg, S. (2009). Language teacher cognition. In A. Burns & J. C. Richards (Eds.), The Cambridge
guide to second language teacher education (pp. 163–171). Cambridge University Press.
Cenoz, J., & Gorter, D. (2011). A holistic approach to multilingual education: Introduction.
Modern Language Journal, 95(3), 339–343. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.2011.01204.x
Cook, V. (1999). Going beyond the native speaker in language teaching. TESOL Quarterly, 33(2),
185–209. https://doi.org/10.2307/3587717
Corbin, J., & Strauss, A. (2008). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for
developing grounded theory (3rd ed.). Sage Publications.
Council of Europe. (2018). CEFR companion volume. https://rm.coe.int/cefr-companion-volume-
with-new-descriptors-2018/1680787989
Creswell, J. W., & Clark, V. L. P. (2017). Designing and conducting mixed methods research (3rd
ed.). Sage publications.
Cummins, J. (2013). Current research on language transfer implications for language teaching
policy. In P. Siemond, I. Gogolin, M. E. Schulz, & J. Davydova (Eds.), Multilingualism and
language diversity in urban areas: Acquisition, identities, space, education (pp. 289–304). John
Benjamins.
 TEACHERS AND TEACHING 437

Cummins, J. (2017). Teaching for transfer in multilingual school contexts. In O. García,

A. M. Y. Lin, & S. May (Eds.), Bilingual and multilingual education (pp. 103–115). Springer.
Cummins, J., Hu, S., Markus, P., & Montero, M. K. (2015). Identity texts and academic achieve­
ment: Connecting the dots in multilingual school contexts. TESOL Quarterly, 49(3), 555–581.
https://doi.org/10.1002/tesq.241
Cummins, J., Mirza, R., & Stille, S. (2012). English language learners in Canadian schools:
Emerging directions for school-based policies. TESL Canada Journal, 29(6), 25–48. https://
doi.org/10.18806/tesl.v29i0.1121
De Angelis, G. (2007). Third or additional language acquisition. Multilingual Matters.
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
De Costa, P. I. D., & Norton, B. (2017). Introduction: Identity, transdisciplinarity, and the good
language teacher. Modern Language Journal, 101(S1), 3–14. https://doi.org/10.1111/modl.12368
Elbaz-Luwisch, F. (2004). Stories of self and place. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in
Education: QSE, 17(3), 387–414. https://doi.org/10.1080/0951839042000204634
Ellis, E. M. (2016). “I may be a native speaker but I’m not monolingual”: Reimagining all teachers’
linguistic identities in TESOL. TESOL Quarterly, 50(3), 597–630. https://doi.org/10.1002/tesq.314
Farrell, T. S. C. (2007). Reflective language teaching: From research to practice. Continuum Press.
Field, A. (2013). Discovering statistics using SPSS (4th ed.). SAGE.
Freeman, D. (2002). The hidden side of the work: Teacher knowledge and learning to teach.
A perspective from North American educational research on teacher education in English
language teaching. Language Teaching, 35(1), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1017/
S0261444801001720
García, O., & Menken, K. (2015). Cultivating an ecology of multilingualism at school. In
B. Spolsky, O. Inbar-Lourie, & M. Tannenbaum (Eds.), Challenges for language education and
policy (pp. 95–109). Routledge.
García, O., & Wei, L. (2014). Translanguaging: Language, bilingualism and education. Palgrave
Macmillan.
Gay, G. (2010). Acting on beliefs in teacher education for cultural diversity. Journal of Teacher
Education, 61(1–2), 143–152. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487109347320
Golombek, P. R. (1998). A study of language teachers’ personal practical knowledge. TESOL
Quarterly, 32(3), 447–464. https://doi.org/10.2307/3588117
Gunderson, L. (2009). ESL (ELL) literacy instruction: A guidebook to theory and practice (2nd ed.).
Routledge.
Haim, O., Tannenbaum, M., & Shohamy, E. (2019). The use of learners’ language repertoire in
English instruction. In M. Tannenbaum, & E. Shohamy (Eds.), Research driving policy:
Empirical basis for multilingual educational policy. Report for the Israeli Ministry of Education
(pp. 47–77). Tel Aviv: Tel-Aviv University.
Hammond, J. (2009). High challenge, high support programs with english as a second language
learners: A teacher-researcher collaboration. In J. Miller, A. Kostogriz, & M. Gerson (Eds.),
Culturally and linguistically diverse classrooms: New dilemmas for teachers (pp. 56–74).
Multilingual Matters.
Haukås, Å. (2016). Teachers’ beliefs about multilingualism and a multilingual pedagogical
approach. International Journal of Multilingualism, 13(1), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1080/
14790718.2015.1041960
Heyder, K., & Schädlich, B. (2014). Mehrsprachigkeit und Mehrkulturalität–eine Umfrage unter
Fremdsprachenlehrkräften in Niedersachsen. Zeitschrift für Interkulturellen
Fremdsprachenunterricht, 19(1), 183–201.
Hornberger, N., & Johnson, D. (2007). Slicing the onion ethnographically: Layers and spaces in
multilingual language education policy and practice. TESOL Quarterly, 41(3), 509–532. https://
doi.org/10.1002/j.1545-7249.2007.tb00083.x
Johnson, K. E. (2009). Second language teacher education: A sociocultural perspective. Routledge.
438 O. HAIM AND M. TANNENBAUM

Johnstone, R. (2000). Context sensitive assessment of modern of modern languages in primary

(elementary) and early secondary education: Scotland and the European experience. Language
Testing, 17(2), 123–143. https://doi.org/10.1177/026553220001700202
Kramsch, C. (2008). Ecological perspectives on foreign language education. Language Teaching, 41
(3), 389–408. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444808005065
Krashen, S. (1985). The input hypothesis: Issues and implications. Longman.
Kubanyiova, M., & Feryok, A. (2015). Language teacher cognition in applied linguistics research:
Revisiting the territory, redrawing the boundaries, reclaiming the relevance. Modern Language
Journal, 99(3), 435–449. https://doi.org/10.1111/modl.12239
Marshall, C., & Rossman, G. (2012). Designing qualitative research (2nd ed.). Sage.
Martínez, R., Hikida, M., & Durán, L. (2015). Unpacking ideologies of linguistic purism: How dual
language teachers make sense of everyday translanguaging. International Multilingual Research
Journal, 9(1), 26–42. https://doi.org/10.1080/19313152.2014.977712
May, S. (2005). Language rights: Moving the debate forward. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 9(3),
319–347. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1360-6441.2005.00295.x
McNamara, T. (2005). 21st century shibboleth: Language tests, identity and intergroup conflict.
Language Policy, 4(4), 351–370. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10993-005-2886-0
Ministry of Aliyah and Immigrant Absorption (2014) Immigration to Israel–Immigration data for
the year 2014. http://www.moia.gov.il/Hebrew/InformationAndAdvertising/Statistics/Pages/
default.aspx
Ministry of Education (2018). Revised English curriculum. pedagogical secretariat: English inspec­
torate. http://cms.education.gov.il/EducationCMS/Units/Mazkirut_Pedagogit/English/
Curriculum/
Opfer, V. D., & Pedder, D. (2011). Conceptualizing teacher professional learning. Review of
Educational Research, 81(3), 376–407. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654311413609
Or, I. G., & Shohamy, E. (2017). English education policy in Israel. In G. R. Kirkpatrick (Ed.),
English language education policy in the Middle East and North Africa (pp. 63–75). Springer.
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
Otwinowska, A. (2017). English teachers’ language awareness: Away with the monolingual bias?
Language Awareness, 26(4), 304–324. https://doi.org/10.1080/09658416.2017.1409752
Pettit, S. K. (2011). Teachers’ beliefs about English language learners in the mainstream classroom:
A review of the literature. International Multilingual Research Journal, 5(2), 123–147. https://
doi.org/10.1080/19313152.2011.594357
Phillipson, R. (2013). Linguistic imperialism continued. Routledge.
Piccardo, E. (2013). Plurilingualism and curriculum design: Towards a synergic vision. TESOL
Quarterly, 47(3), 600–614. https://doi.org/10.1002/tesq.110
Richards, J. C. (1998). Beyond training. Cambridge University Press.
Ruíz, R. (1984). Orientations in language planning. NABE Journal, 8(2), 15–34. https://doi.org/10.
1080/08855072.1984.10668464
Shavelson, R. J., & Stern, P. (1981). Research on teachers’ pedagogical thoughts, judgments,
decisions and behaviour. Review of Educational Research, 51(4), 455–498. https://doi.org/10.
3102/00346543051004455
Shin, S. K. (2012). “It cannot be done alone”: The socialization of novice English teachers in South
Korea. TESOL Quarterly, 46(3), 542–567. https://doi.org/10.1002/tesq.41
Shohamy, E. (2011). Assessing multilingual competencies: Adopting construct valid assessment
policies. Modern Language Journal, 95(3), 418–429. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.2011.
01210.x
Short, D. J., Fidelman, C. G., & Louguit, M. (2012). Developing academic language in English
language learners through sheltered instruction. TESOL Quarterly, 46(2), 334–361. https://doi.
org/10.1002/tesq.20
 TEACHERS AND TEACHING 439

Sundqvist, P., Gyllstad, H., Källkvist, M., & Sandlund, E. 2018. Teacher beliefs and practices:
Multilingualism in english classrooms. Paper presented at exploring language education.
Retrieved, Nov 11, 2019. fromhttps://portal.research.lu.se/portal/en/publications/teacher-
beliefs-and-practices(724165df-b5d6-4f13-abba-84e2fc13cd57).html
Swain, M., Kirkpatrick, A., & Cummins, J. (2011). How to have a guilt-free life using cantonese in
the english class: A handbook for the english language teacher in Hong Kong. In Hong Kong:
Research Centre into language acquisition and education in multilingual societies. Hong Kong
Institute of Education.
Tannenbaum, M. (2010). Multiculturalism in Israel: A linguistic perspective. In O. Nachtomy & A.
Sagi (Eds.), The multilcultural change in Israel (pp. 306–326). Boston: Academic Studies Press.
Tannenbaum, M., & Shohamy, E. (2018). Research driving policy: Empirical basis for multilingual
education policy. Report submitted to the Ministry of Education: Tel Aviv: Tel-Aviv Univerisity
(Hebrew).
Taylor, S. G. (2002). Multilingual societies and planned linguistic change: New language-in-
education programs in Estonia and South Africa. Comparative Education Review, 46(3),
313–338. https://doi.org/10.1086/341160
Taylor, S. K., & Snoddon, K. (2013). Plurilingualism in TESOL: Promising controversies. TESOL
Quarterly, 47(3), 439–445. https://doi.org/10.1002/tesq.127
Teddlie, C., & Tashakkori, A. (2006). A general typology of research designs featuring mixed
methods. Research in the Schools, 13(1), 12–28.
Tudor, I. (2003). Learning to live with complexity: Towards an ecological perspective on language
teaching. System, 31(1), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0346-251X(02)00070-2
Woods, D. (1996). Teacher cognition in language teaching: Beliefs, decision-making and classroom
practice. Cambridge University Press.
Yazan, B. (2018). A conceptual framework to understand language teacher identities. Journal of
Second Language Teacher Education, 1(1), 21–48.
Zúñiga, C. E. (2016). Between language as problem and resource: Examining teachers’ language
orientations in dual-language programs. Bilingual Research Journal, 39(3–4), 339–353.