Staff self-assessment of ECEC practices in meeting language diversity in Finland

This is a self-archived version of an original article. This version may differ from the original in pagination and typographic details. Author(s): Title: Year: Version: Copyright: Rights: Rights url: Please cite the original version: CC BY-NC 4.0 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ Staff self-assessment of ECEC practices in meeting language diversity in Finland © 2024 Mari Bergroth, Raisa Harju-Autti, and Jenni Alisaari. Published version Bergroth, Mari; Harju-Autti, Raisa; Alisaari, Jenni Bergroth, M., Harju-Autti, R., & Alisaari, J. (2024). Staff self-assessment of ECEC practices in meeting language diversity in Finland. Journal of Early Childhood Education Research, 13(1), 42- 67. https://doi.org/10.58955/jecer.130031 2024 Journal of Early Childhood Education Research Volume 13, Issue 1, 2024, 42–67 https://doi.org/10.58955/jecer.130031 © 2024 Mari Bergroth, Raisa Harju-Autti, and Jenni Alisaari. Peer-review under responsibility of the editorial board of the journal. Publication of the article in accordance with the Creative Commons Non- Commercial license. ISSN 2323-7414; ISSN-L 2323-7414 online. Early Childhood Education Association Finland. Staff self-assessment of ECEC practices in meeting language diversity in Finland Mari Bergrotha, Raisa Harju-Auttib & Jenni Alisaaric a University of Helsinki, corresponding author, e-mail: [email protected], https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4280-5558 b University of Jyväskylä, https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2217-8630 c Stockholm University and University of Turku, https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4096-1888 ABSTRACT: The study examines language aware practices in early childhood education and care (ECEC) in Finland. In Finland, the number of citizens with languages other than the national languages is estimated to increase, and population growth is dependent on migration. Children enrolled in ECEC have increasingly diverse language backgrounds. This calls for adjusting pedagogical practices to the needs of multilingual children only starting to familiarise themselves with the language of instruction. The data analysed were part of a national survey. A total of 882 respondents working in ECEC answered the survey. For this study, we concentrated on two open questions: “What kinds of practices do you have to support the language learning of children with an immigration background?” (N = 538) and “What kinds of needs to develop practices have you identified regarding language learning of children with an immigrant background or organising linguistic support?” (N = 509). Qualitative content analysis was used as an analytical approach. Our findings were condensed to a model consisting of six steps of language aware ECEC. The first three steps were well implemented according to the data. However, more attention is still needed to fully support language aware teachers, teams and systems. Keywords: language diversity, early childhood education and care, teacher competence, teaching practice 43 Bergroth, Harju-Autti & Alisaari. Journal of Early Childhood Education Research 13(1) 2024, 42–67. https://journal.fi/jecer Introduction Changes in linguistic demographics in the Nordic societies necessitate an ongoing selfassessment of teacher competences and skills in meeting language diversity. The number of speakers of the national languages of the Nordic countries is relatively low. It is important to actively support the use of them in societies and, to some extent, even safeguard them. This is a task that needs to be done without closing the door to diversity of languages. Nordic policy documents show a great variation in how they describe multilingual childhoods (Kulbrandstad et al., 2018). However, child language development and learning of language(s) are core elements in Nordic early childhood education and care (ECEC). Multilingualism in the Nordic educational policies is conceptualised as a resource and an enrichment for all children regardless of their language backgrounds (Alstad & Sopanen, 2021; Bergroth & Hansell, 2020; Björk-Willén, 2022; Schwartz et al., 2022). The Finnish national core curriculum for early childhood education and care 2022 (Finnish National Agency for Education [EDUFI], 2022) states the regulations regarding municipalities’ obligation to provide ECEC in the child’s mother tongue if this language is Finnish, Swedish or Sámi. The core curriculum also recognises five different groups of bi- and multilingual children. These are 1) bilingual children who speak both Finnish and Swedish, 2) Sámi children, 3) Roma children, 4) sign language speakers and 5) plurilingual children. In this article our focus is on these plurilingual children (henceforth multilingual children) who are in the curriculum described: “Some of the children only start familiarising themselves with the Finnish culture and Finnish/Swedish as they begin ECEC. [---] Whenever possible, children are provided with opportunities for also using and learning their own mother tongue(s).” (EDUFI, 2022, p. 50). This group of multilingual children is growing, as the current growth in the overall population is based on immigration (MDI, 2022), and the share of children under school age with a foreign background is 12,1 % (Statistics of Finland, 2023). To date, there is only scarce research on multilingual children in mainstream ECEC in Finland, as well as on the pedagogical staff working with them, so the aim of the study is to contribute to this field of research (see Bergroth & Alisaari, 2023; Bergroth & Hansell, 2020; Hansell & Bergroth, 2020; Palojärvi, 2021). The article critically examines the ECEC staff assessment of their current ECEC practices (henceforth current practices, CP) and ECEC practices still in need of improvement (henceforth developmental needs, DN) regarding supporting diversity of languages in ECEC. 44 Bergroth, Harju-Autti & Alisaari. Journal of Early Childhood Education Research 13(1) 2024, 42–67. https://journal.fi/jecer Competences within ECEC to support language diversity According to OECD (2020), ECEC staff are generally confident about their ability to promote children’s socio-emotional development but less so about working in contexts with children from diverse backgrounds (see also, Owal Group Oy, 2022). The OECD report calls for staff professional development and working conditions and leadership development, especially in ECEC centres with more diverse populations of children. A high-quality ECEC thus consists of educated staff who have pedagogical knowledge, but the teachers should be better equipped for working in linguistically and culturally diverse child groups. In Finland, new requirements to significantly raise the share of educated ECEC teachers have been addressed as a means to support high-quality ECEC. The Finnish ECEC teacher education (180 ECTS) includes multidisciplinary studies for teacher qualifications of a minimum 60 ECTS. As language development and learning are core tasks of ECEC, it is natural that they are included as one of these obligatory multidisciplinary studies for ECEC teachers. Learning objectives for this course may vary between universities, but a typical 5 ECTS course may include a wide variation of topics such as (first) language development, linguistic vulnerabilities, language awareness, multilingual language learning or early (foreign) language learning. Even topics of literacy and multiliteracy can be included in the course. Lately, societal discourses on the need to support reading nationally (EDUFI, 2021) and introducing early language teaching as a means to battle the declining interest in foreign language learning (Skinnari & Sjöberg, 2018) have placed more pressure on this obligatory study course within ECEC teacher education. In their analysis of policy documents, Harju-Luukkainen and Kangas (2021) concluded that ECEC teachers are generally asked to be “more of everything,” a conclusion describing even the expectations of the language awareness of the ECEC teachers. Supporting ECEC teachers to become aware of languages surrounding the children, acknowledging the role languages play for a child’s identity and learning and taking an active stance in creating (multilingual) language learning opportunities for all children are relevant for both pre-service and in-service teacher education (Bergroth, Llompart, Pepiot, Sierens, et al., 2021; Lucas & Villegas, 2013; Meier, 2018). In the Finnish core curriculum (EDUFI, 2022), this is addressed with the concept language awareness, which describes how the operational culture is to be organised and how the personnel as a professional learning community is expected to examine their beliefs and attitudes regarding the role of languages. Language awareness can be considered as specific attention to the co-existence of language(s) in daily activities, and it requires that ECEC personnel plan for language aware pedagogical activities that support the development of children’s language skills and that are based on the needs and interests of the children. This concept, within its pedagogical framework, should not be mixed with linguistic 45 Bergroth, Harju-Autti & Alisaari. Journal of Early Childhood Education Research 13(1) 2024, 42–67. https://journal.fi/jecer awareness, which is an interconnected concept within a linguistic theory framework. This concept is also used in the Finnish curriculum, in relation to language acquisition, but it is not in focus for this study. For a detailed overview on how the concept language awareness is used in the Finnish national curriculum, see Bergroth and Hansell (2020), Harju-Luukkainen et al., (2020), or Sopanen (2019). The article examines the selfassessment of language aware practices at the ECEC centres, which connects to all aspects of the ECEC operational culture. Prior research has shown that mainstreaming multilingual pedagogies as part of a more general teacher competence on all levels is a challenging task (Bergroth, Llompart, Pepiot, van der Worp, et al., 2021; Bergroth et al., 2022) and that supporting multilingual learning has remained fragmented in initial teacher education, although it is experienced as a highly required professional need among teachers (European Commission, 2017; OECD, 2020). Prior research has also indicated that ECEC educators are underprepared to support language learners optimally (Tobin, 2020), and their pedagogical reasoning involving multilingualism often tends to stem from personal experiences or from teachers’ general opinions of multilingualism rather than from research-based activities (Bergroth & Hansell, 2020; Hansell & Bergroth, 2020; Kultti & Pramling, 2020). Preparing ECEC teachers to meet language diversity is a multifaceted task, and it entails all three aspects of ECEC: education, instruction and care (EDUFI, 2022). For example, children still familiarising themselves with the language of instruction may have lower language skills in the instructional language, and to diminish this initial gap requires highquality instruction including stimulating teacher-child interactions and a safe learning environment (Bleakley & Chin, 2008; Cobb-Clark et al., 2021; Scheele, 2010; Willard et al., 2019). A systematic focus on teacher interactional strategies is needed within ECEC teacher education. For example, open questions in book reading situations are an important opportunity for child-adult interaction, and the complexity of the questions ought to be systematically followed up to secure language development (Södergård, 2007). However, as research has shown (Kalland et al., 2022; Karlsen et al., 2018), teachers easily fall back on simple questions, requiring only short verbal or non-verbal answers of the children. The focus on language-stimulating interaction is a requirement for language aware ECEC teaching. It is also essential to make ECEC teachers aware of the opportunities for children to use their own languages since it may have a positive influence on the identity and learning of the children (Cummins, 2001, 2021; Hu, 2022; Relyea & Amendum, 2019), on long-term academic outcomes (Ganuza & Hedman, 2018; UNESCO, 2016; Yeung et al., 2000) and on children’s socio-emotional well-being (Chung et al., 2019). It also supports learning the language of the surrounding society (Ramiréz, 1992; Thomas & Collier, 1997). Additionally, bilingualism is positively related to various cognitive outcomes (for an 46 Bergroth, Harju-Autti & Alisaari. Journal of Early Childhood Education Research 13(1) 2024, 42–67. https://journal.fi/jecer overview, see Adesope et al., 2010; Otwinowska et al., 2023). This means the ECEC teachers need to support the instructional language and provide opportunities to utilise and develop children’s own languages. Regardless of the research evidence on the positive effects of a supportive approach to mother tongues, children’s languages often remain invisible in learning environments (Bergroth & Alisaari, 2023; Honko & Mustonen, 2020; Tyrer et al., 2022), or only certain languages are given attention (Puskás & Björk-Willén, 2017). One of the reasons may be teachers’ lack of confidence in their own multilingual language skills (Bergroth & Hansell, 2020; Romøren et al., 2023), a misconception that children must master one language before learning other languages (Harju & Åkerblom, 2020) or that bilingualism would require complete fluency in both languages (Cichocka, 2022). This requires ECEC teachers to be able to critically examine their beliefs on language learning, and it also requires an ability to develop learning environments that showcase diversity of languages despite their own experienced language skills. ECEC teachers need to understand how the use of multiple languages can bridge the worlds of home and ECEC (Tkachenko et al., 2021) and promote child participation and agency (Duarte, 2018). However, parallel use of different languages requires intentional planning and implementation (Cenoz, 2018, Hansen et al., 2023). Without adequate pedagogical planning, multilingual children may avoid the use of the language of instruction and rely on other children’s linguistic competences (Puskás & Björk-Willén, 2017). Thus, educators need to provide scaffolding for children during everyday activities and provide opportunities for children to participate in guided play situations (see also Arvola et al., 2020). ECEC teachers need to be able to identify and provide balanced opportunities for the use of both instructional language(s) and the mother tongues of the children. In sum, developing multilingual pedagogies requires knowledge and planning. In addition, as suggested by Cichocka (2022), understanding the role of language in education by ECEC teachers must be reinforced in general. All the adults need to take responsibility for the children’s language development in all their languages in cooperation with the guardians (see also Alisaari & Heikkola, 2020; Bergroth & Alisaari, 2023). Hansen and colleagues (2023) call for increased resources, awareness and competence dedicated to multilingual children’s language development through enriched and stimulating language-learning environments in ECEC. We argue that untangling the current ECEC practices and practice-related needs involved in diversity of languages may help to systematically develop ECEC teacher education within the limited timeframe available. 47 Bergroth, Harju-Autti & Alisaari. Journal of Early Childhood Education Research 13(1) 2024, 42–67. https://journal.fi/jecer The study The data were collected in autumn 2021 using an online survey that included both Likert scale (1–5) items and open-ended questions. The Finnish Ministry of Culture and Education sent a cover letter along with a link to the survey to all local education offices in Finland, as the survey data analysed in this study were collected as part of a national survey on the state of Finnish/Swedish as a second language teaching (Owal Group Oy, 2022). In addition, the survey was advertised through social media. Information about the study, its purpose and the protection of the data were included in the cover letter and on the first page of the online survey. Participants were informed that filling out the survey implied their consent. A total of 882 respondents working in ECEC answered the survey. Background information about the respondents has been previously reported by Owal Group Oy (2022, p. 14). They concluded that, of the respondents, 96 % worked in Finnish-medium ECEC and 4 % in Swedish-medium ECEC. Data were obtained from 94 municipalities around Finland with 17 % of the respondents located in the capital area. The share of ECEC teachers was 53 % and child caregivers 23 %. Eight per cent of all the respondents reported that they did not work in groups with multilingual children, and 24 % of all the respondents said that they specifically worked with second language teaching. The age ratio of the respondents was relatively balanced. In this study, we analysed two open survey questions. These were the only open questions in the survey: “What kinds of practices do you have to support the language learning of children with an immigrant background?” (N = 548) and “What kinds of needs to develop practices have you identified regarding language learning of children with an immigrant background or organising linguistic support?” (N = 509). The first question relates to current practices (CP) and the second to developmental needs (DN). The qualitative content analysis was abductive (Saldaña, 2016). In the first phase, data on CP were analysed qualitatively by identifying related codes. The codes were a collection of keywords identified first through word frequencies provided by the qualitative analysis software used (atlas.ti 23) and completed through a close reading of each response. This first phase thus consisted of two rounds of coding, first based on word searches followed up by a reading of each response to see that all contents had been coded. A response was always coded in all suitable categories as a whole answer. This means that the categories are not mutually exclusive. A response typically had either only one code or up to eight codes. The individual codes were grouped into subcategories. Due to the vast number of individual codes, in the result section, we operate on the level of these subcategories. What kinds of codes are included in the subcategories are explained in Table 1 under the heading Explanation. The first phase was conducted by the first author. 48 Bergroth, Harju-Autti & Alisaari. Journal of Early Childhood Education Research 13(1) 2024, 42–67. https://journal.fi/jecer In the second phase, all authors discussed the subcategories together before the second and third authors coded data on DN individually. Each case where the original text in the Explanation was not sufficient to decide upon the right subcategory was discussed jointly, and if necessary, the text in Explanation was altered. In most problematic cases, it was unclear how much we should interpret the motivation behind short answers. For example, we originally intended to separate codes for grouping in two subcategories depending on if grouping was mentioned as means to support social relationships and learning from peers or if grouping was mentioned as a more administrative approach, such as the question of child-adult ratio. However, as the answers typically consisted of simple small groups, it was not possible to identify the underlying motivation of why respondents stated this practice as a need, and they were coded to one subcategory. In the third and final phase, the first author entered data on DN to the software programme and simultaneously checked the coding. At this stage, small discrepancies between authors were noted, such as the third coding of pictures in an educational environment in cases where pictures were used as part of the environment. This case is similar to the grouping above, and as most respondents only gave the one-word answer “pictures,” it was not possible to interpret when pictures were or were not part of the educational environment, so we opted to code all these cases in a separate subcategory. These discrepancies were discussed, and an agreement was reached. The discrepancies were rather minor, and they would not have altered the size of the individual subcategories. Finally, the first author checked the coding in CP according to the changes made in the original coding during phase 2. The subcategories were further organised according to the approach that was taken regarding the practices. A relational approach includes subcategories that relate to building good relationships and supporting socio-emotional well-being (Aspelin, 2018), and a structural approach relates to administrative and economical arrangements and involves topics for professional development and shared principles for a professional community. The final category, teaching approach, includes subcategories related to pedagogical activities while working with the children. 49 Bergroth, Harju-Autti & Alisaari. Journal of Early Childhood Education Research 13(1) 2024, 42–67. https://journal.fi/jecer TABLE 1 Categories and subcategories explained CATEGORIES SUBCATEGORIES EXPLANATION Relational approach Grouping Comments about group size, the ways to promote language socialisation though supporting friendships with peers Cooperation with guardians Home-ECEC cooperation and expectations related to the roles Play as relations Socialisation through play Relational approach to care Comments about supporting the child’s feelings of security Structural approach L1 teaching Dedicated mother tongue teaching L2 teaching Dedicated teaching of instructional language Assessment Explicit mentions of assessment or mapping of language skills and use Educational environment Physical and psychological learning environments as spaces and places (excluding pictures) Operational culture Joint pedagogical practices and matters that affect possibilities to implement them Professional networks Cooperation in multidisciplinary teams within the ECEC or municipality Teaching approach (Published) resources Comments about materials and other resources Body language, signs and gestures Use of body language as support for interaction Digital tools Use of digital tools Pictures Use of pictures as support for interaction Teacher language use Multilingual language use by teachers, use of plain language, naming objects, emphasis, etc. Didactical orientations Mentions of learning areas related to language development, e.g. maths, movement, literature, music Play as teaching Comments about using play as a way of teaching languages 56 Bergroth, Harju-Autti & Alisaari. Journal of Early Childhood Education Research 13(1) 2024, 42–67. https://journal.fi/jecer Teaching approach The frequent mention of pictures as non-verbal aids (72 % of all CP respondents) made the category teaching approach by far the largest category in CP although these responses were often one-word mentions of the practice. The DN related to pictures were often connected to the shared pedagogical principles of the team, as stated by respondent 682: [---] the values of the work community to support the use of pictures, that everyone uses... acceptance of language awareness in the work community. (DN, respondent 682) While most respondents relied on using pictures, only one-fifth (22 %) reported paying attention to the teacher’s verbal language use as a CP. The codes included using plain language, clear speech and systematic naming of objects. Interestingly, only in a few practices, the holistic development of the child’s language was placed in the centrum of attention. Language comprehension skills with linguistic modelling and verbalising activities were mentioned in accordance with the core curriculum (EDUFI, 2022, p. 41), but the child’s speech production skills in various situations, also required by the curriculum, were not as easily recognisable in our data. Respondent 812’s answer is an exception describing language learning objectives and promoting child language use in concrete learning situations within and outside the ECEC centre. Using the local environment in education. For example, a walk in the woods with a small group and, based on the children's observations, naming things and phenomena and talking freely, but with the language learning objectives in mind (e.g., place names, colours, emotions). Use of photographs. Looking at pictures of preschool activities and talking about what happened, naming things, practising phrases, etc. Photo support for field trips, with pictures of key things from the trips and excursions. [---] (CP, respondent 812) Respondents’ own language skills in the instructional language were not reflected upon in the responses, but DNs regarding one’s own multilingual skills were reflected on by some respondents: [---] In this survey, I noticed that we haven't used the children's mother tongue concretely to support learning, e.g. with the help of keywords. We take an interest in the children's mother tongue and ask about words, learn expressions, but this could certainly be increased. (DN, respondent 721) There were, in general, only a few responses stating concrete DNs for the teaching approach, but 8 % of the respondents requested new materials or making the existing materials available at their own ECEC centre. For example, respondent 420 concludes that, while there is a multitude of available digital materials, to put them to use would 57 Bergroth, Harju-Autti & Alisaari. Journal of Early Childhood Education Research 13(1) 2024, 42–67. https://journal.fi/jecer require support from a more specialised language and culture teacher. Respondents commented that there is not enough time to create their own materials, and thus, the need for ready-made materials remains persistent. The CPs include mentions of many different types of materials. Quite often, the name of the resource was stated as a CP, and the usage was not explained. Various published resources aligned with CP coding in different didactical orientations. Didactical orientations were mentioned by 35 % of the respondents. Of these respondents, 67 % mentioned literature (or a popular book application) and 64 % mentioned music and songs. Regarding songs, for example, materials created in the project Kielinuppu (Kunnas & Goncalves, 2022) to support Finnish language learning are popular among the respondents. In sum, the teaching-related practices focused quite heavily on providing non-linguistic support to aid the understanding of the instructional language. Pictures, music and listening to (multilingual) stories were often mentioned. However, expectations and pedagogical practices to support active language production by the children was less visible in the data, pinpointing an important area to be included both in initial and inservice teacher training. Critically examining language aware ECEC by merging CPs and DNs In this section, we merge the three categories of practices, both the current and those assessed as still in need of development, to a model that encompasses the full scale of practices related to a language aware ECEC operational culture. This merging of current practices and those in need of development are now treated as two sides of a coin, and thus, they both inform us how the language aware ECEC practices are created. By turning our attention to the practices from a performance viewpoint – that is, from practices requiring the smallest effort to practices requiring the largest or most holistic effort – we were able to identify seven steps on the road to language aware ECEC. We conceptualise the steps as complementary to each other, not mutually exclusive, and in optimal cases, all the steps are present to support the language learning of all children. The practices analysed indicate that the respondents have at least an elementary understanding of the need to support the language development of all children (step 1 insight). For providing optimal premises for language learning, respondents focus their attention on a positive approach to children’s general well-being (step 2 security) and describe being mentally present, having time, noticing even the small language use attempts of the child and giving plenty of positive feedback, such as non-verbally with smiles. These supportive practices to make children feel secure are closely connected to 58 Bergroth, Harju-Autti & Alisaari. Journal of Early Childhood Education Research 13(1) 2024, 42–67. https://journal.fi/jecer the following step (step 3 non-verbal aid). Some elements of these first three steps are mentioned by most respondents. In step 4 external support, a slight polarisation in responses can be identified, and we view this as an important topic for future studies. Our data responses coded to professional networks often mentioned availability of ECEC special education teachers either as a CP or as a DN. A call for language and culture experts, mentors and teachers are also frequent in the data, both as a CP and as a DN. Even in these responses, a certain polarisation can be seen. In some answers, language teaching is seen as a task for external specialists, while others ask for external support to make sense of existing materials and to support the professional learning community at their own ECEC centre. Our findings resonate with earlier research (Gitschthaler et al., 2021) where additional support staff has been found to be perceived as among the most important resources (see also Siarova, 2022). Step 5 language aware teacher refers to individual teachers already working with a pedagogical approach to language learning in all situations, including even the most basic care situations of ECEC everyday practices. However, if the staff member experiences working alone with language aware teaching practices, the full potential of language awareness is not likely to be reached. Our findings indicate that language aware staff members function best in language aware teams (step 6). The intersection of steps 5 and 6 was clearly visible in our data. Many respondents felt that a general language awareness and the related pedagogical practices needed to be improved and thus called for in-service training. The requests for in-service training did not usually include any specific topic, but the training should start from the very basics so that all staff members would become more language aware (step 5). For this purpose, any training on the topic was found fruitful. The requests included both concrete models and materials but an equally more abstract discussion on beliefs, attitudes and joint pedagogical principles in the team, which indicates that the ideas of a professional learning community presented in the core curriculum are strongly present in the data and would support step 6 in our model. Even previous research has highlighted the importance of joint reflection of in-service training (Bergroth & Hansell, 2020, Buschmann & Sachse, 2018; Kirsch & Aleksić, 2018). The final step, step 7 language aware system, refers to the implementation of a so-called competent system (Sharmahd et al., 2017). In our data, joint principles were called for, not only in their own ECEC centre but also more broadly in the city or municipality. This included, for example, providing in-service training to all daycare centres whether or not they currently had multilingual children enrolled; having clear language learning plans, strategies and support measures; and providing materials and necessary human resources. This also included sharing experiences and good practices among the different ECEC centres in the city. 59 Bergroth, Harju-Autti & Alisaari. Journal of Early Childhood Education Research 13(1) 2024, 42–67. https://journal.fi/jecer In our visualisation of the model, we narrow it down to six steps (Figure 1). Based on our findings, there was an understanding among respondents about how to help children to feel emotionally safe and how to lower the pressure on understanding verbal communication (steps 1–3). However, our findings also implied that actively supporting learning to use verbal language(s) was not yet a self-evident skill in all ECEC centres. This was seen as a rather strong reliance on external professional support (presented previously as a separate step 4). Although we agree that multidisciplinary professional networks are invaluable, we argue that they may be too prominent in the current data, at the expense of language aware teachers, which we in Figure 1 place as step 4. FIGURE 1 Findings visualised as six steps of language aware ECEC To achieve this model, we argue that more research on cooperation with multidisciplinary professional networks is needed, regarding both practices and expectations on the roles in supporting languages in ECEC. A natural step after the more relational and non-verbal support approach should be a language aware teacher, who actively plans the activities with language learning in mind. Each staff member needs to have at least basic understanding and competence to support this professional role, and the task should not be outsourced to other professional experts. The readjustment of the fourth step is in line 60 Bergroth, Harju-Autti & Alisaari. Journal of Early Childhood Education Research 13(1) 2024, 42–67. https://journal.fi/jecer with the updated version of the core curriculum, stating that “The familiarisation with and learning of Finnish/Swedish related to the child’s linguistic development should not be compared to support provided in ECEC” (EDUFI, 2022, p. 50), which means that language teaching of the instructional language is not primarily a task of ECEC special education teachers but that of all staff. We suggest that external support should be conceptualised as a part of the language aware system, presented as step 6 in Figure 1. This means that the basic ECEC practices need to be language aware and support the language learning of all children. This requires working in teams jointly with language aware systems, which includes not only their own ECEC group but also wider systematic support, inclusive of external support. Discussion In this study, we examined current practices (CP) and developmental needs (DN) identified by 882 ECEC personnel to support the language learning of multilingual children with the aim to better understand practices related to language aware ECEC. These practices and needs are highly existent in both contemporary Finnish and Nordic society due to the demographic changes that have already happened and those predicted to happen in the future (MDI, 2022). Changes in the legislation governing ECEC, with stronger requirements on the share of qualified ECEC teachers, consistent lack of available qualified ECEC personnel and heightened focus on quality ECEC through improvements in professional learning communities and leadership, have created tensions that need to be scrutinised through the lens of teacher practices and needs. We analysed practices and needs with qualitative content analysis (Saldaña, 2016). Three categories were created: relational approach, structural approach and teaching approach. Although the need to better support (critical multilingual) language awareness as a general teacher competence has been acknowledged before (Alisaari et al., 2019, 2021; Finnish Education Evaluation Centre, 2023; Harju-Autti & Mäkinen, 2022; Heikkola et al., 2022; Pyykkö, 2017), it has remained an unsolved issue on how to best achieve this, especially within initial teacher education. The conception of learning and teaching in Finnish ECEC is based on a broad general pedagogical competence similar to other Nordic countries (see Einarsdottir, 2013). The importance of gaining access to knowledge, growth, well-being and identity through the language dimension in ECEC is essential for all children as individuals and as members of the language diverse society. However, at this moment, there is no teacher education specifically oriented towards languages in ECEC, which may explain the discrepancies between educational discourses on teacher competences and experience of language aware practices, as reported in this study. 61 Bergroth, Harju-Autti & Alisaari. Journal of Early Childhood Education Research 13(1) 2024, 42–67. https://journal.fi/jecer The need to concretise the steps required to provide language aware ECEC is visible in the data studied, as the respondents called for mandatory professional training but could not detail what the training should entail. The findings in our study imply that ECEC staff is well-equipped to help children to feel emotionally safe and to aid children to understand verbal communication with non-linguistic support (Aspelin, 2018; OECD, 2020). Although feeling secure and being able to feel included in communication are highly important first steps for language learning for any child, it alone is not enough. Children need meaningful opportunities to use languages. Supporting ECEC personnel to systematically notice opportunities for language use and to plan, document and evaluate practices related to those opportunities, specifically regarding multilingual children with migrant backgrounds, is a topic that needs to be systematically included in all teacher training (Bergroth & Alisaari, 2023; Bleakley & Chin, 2008; Cobb-Clark et al., 2021; Hansen et al., 2023; Scheele, 2010; Willard et al., 2019). Support from external experts regarding goal-oriented teaching of L2 (instructional language) was mentioned both as a CP and DN (for similar findings, see Gitschthaler et al., 2021; Siarova, 2022), and similarly, mother tongue teachers were needed to support mother tongue (L1) (Rosén & Straszer, 2020). However, the ECEC core curriculum was updated in 2022 after our data collection. The updated version states explicitly that familiarisation with language of instruction is not an intensified or special support measure in ECEC (EDUFI, 2022), making it clear that every member in the pedagogical staff need the competence to support L2 (see also, Pyykkö, 2017, Vaarala et al., 2021). This calls for both more research and ECEC personnel reflections on the operational culture regarding the connection between special education teaching and support for language learning in ECEC (see also Helakorpi et al., 2023). This is also a topic to be discussed within initial teacher education. A language aware operational culture needs to be based on the educated professional personnel working in the child groups (Bergroth & Hansell, 2020). Our findings indicate that language aware leadership needs to be given more attention as it is still, to our knowledge, a topic largely uncharted by research. Regarding teacher education, steps 5 and 6 in the six steps model (Figure 1) could be where the in-service training efforts are placed. Rather than training individual language aware teachers (step 4), as is to be done within initial teacher education, these steps would focus on creating a step towards language awareness on team and system levels. The importance and need for joint pedagogical reflections within the ECEC (Bergroth & Hansell, 2020; Buschmann & Sachse, 2018; Kirsch & Aleksić, 2018) were visible in the responses. To conclude, the road towards language aware ECEC consists of multiple steps. Although our study is limited by the fact that no actual practices were analysed, the results of this study indicate that the first important steps are already taken in the Finnish ECEC. 62 Bergroth, Harju-Autti & Alisaari. Journal of Early Childhood Education Research 13(1) 2024, 42–67. https://journal.fi/jecer However, more attention and systematic development of language aware ECEC teachers regarding practices related to L2 language use and providing the children with opportunities to use and learn L1 are needed in teacher education. Furthermore, developing high-quality ECEC requires a holistic language aware approach throughout the system, from the municipality-level decision making to pedagogical leadership, as well as the teams and individuals working within ECEC. Future comparative studies on various steps in the suggested language aware ECEC model in the wider Nordic context would be beneficial as a means to support the shared Nordic ideology on an informal, play-based and child-centred approach to teaching and learning. References Act on Early Childhood Education and Care. (540/2018). https://www.finlex.fi/fi/laki/ajantasa/2018/20180540 Adesope, O.O., Lavin, T., Thompson, T., & Ungerleider, C. (2010). A systematic review and metaanalysis of the cognitive correlates of bilingualism. Review of Educational Research, 80(2), 207–245. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654310368803 Alisaari, J., & Heikkola, L. M. (2020). Kielellisesti vastuullista pedagogiikkaa ja oppilaan tukemista: Suomalaisten opettajien käsityksiä kielen merkityksestä opetuksessa. Kasvatus, 51(4), 395–408. Alisaari, J., Heikkola, L.M., Commins, N., & Acquah E.O. (2019) Monolingual ideologies confronting multilingual realities. Finnish teachers’ beliefs about linguistic diversity- Teaching and Teacher Education, 80, 48-58. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2019.01.003. Alisaari, J., Hurme, T.-R., Heikkola, L. M., & Routarinne, S. (2021). Finnish teachers’ beliefs about students' home language use. Critical Multilingualism Studies, 9(1), 46–76. Alstad, G., & Sopanen, P. (2021). Language orientations in early childhood education policy in Finland and Norway. Nordic Journal of Studies in Education, 7(1), 30–43. https://doi.org/10.1080/20020317.2020.1862951 Aspelin, J. (2018). Lärares relationskompetens: vad är det? - hur kan den utvecklas? Liber. Arvola, O., Pankakoski, K., Reunamo, J., & Kyttälä, M. (2020). Culturally and linguistically diverse children’s participation and social roles in the Finnish early childhood education – is play the common key? Early Child Development and Care, 191(15), 2351–2363. https://doi.org/10.1080/03004430.2020.1716744 Bergroth, M., & Alisaari, J. (2023). Barnets eget modersmål i pedagogernas beskrivningar av goda praktiker för att utveckla språk i finländsk småbarnspedagogik. Nordand – Nordens språk som andraspråk 18(1). https://doi.org/10.18261/nordand.18.1.4 Bergroth, M., & Hansell, K. (2020). Language-aware operational culture: Developing in-service training for early childhood education and care. Apples – Journal of Applied Language Studies, 14(1), 85–102. https://doi.org/10.17011/apples/urn.202006043978 Bergroth, M., Llompart, J., Pepiot, N., Sierens, S., Dražnik, T. & van der Worp, K. (2021). Whose action research is it? Promoting linguistically sensitive teacher education in Europe. 63 Bergroth, Harju-Autti & Alisaari. Journal of Early Childhood Education Research 13(1) 2024, 42–67. https://journal.fi/jecer Educational Action Research, 31(2), 265–284. https://doi.org/10.1080/09650792.2021.1925570 Bergroth, M., Llompart, J., Pepiot, N., van der Worp, K., Dražnik, T., & Sierens, S. (2021). Identifying space for mainstreaming multilingual pedagogies in European initial teacher education policies. European Educational Research Journal, 21(5), 801–821. https://doi.org/10.1177/14749041211012500 Bleakley, H., & Chin, A. (2008). What holds back the second generation? The intergenerational transmission of language human capital among immigrants. The Journal of Human Resources, 43(2), 267–298. https://doi.org/10.3368/jhr.43.2.267 Buschmann, A., & Sachse, S. (2018). Heidelberg interaction training for language promotion in early childhood settings (HIT). European Journal of Education, 53(1), 66–78. https://doi.org/10.1111/ejed.12263 Björk-Willén, P. (2022). Språkutvecklande förskola. En kunskapsöversikt om språkutvecklande arbete i förskola (Ifous rapportserie 2022:1). Ifous. https://www.ifous.se/app/uploads/2022/01/202201-ifous-fokuserar-sprakutve- cklande-arbete-i-forskolan-f.pdf Chung, S., Zhou, Q., Anicama, C., Rivera, C., & Uchikoshi, Y. (2019). Language proficiency, parenting styles, and socioemotional adjustment of young dual language learners. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 50(7), 896–914. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022022119867394 Cichocka, J. (2022). Early childhood educators as language teachers: Preschool teachers’ understanding of language learning and language use. Journal of Early Childhood Literacy. https://doi.org/10.1177/14687984221098353 Cobb-Clark, D., Harmon, C., & Staneva, A. (2021). The bilingual gap in children's language, emotional, and pro-social development. IZA Journal of Labor Economics, 10(1). https://doi.org/10.2478/izajole-2021-0001 Cummins, J. (2001). Negotiating identities: Education for empowerment in a diverse society (2nd ed.). California Association for Bilingual Education. Cummins, J. (2021). Rethinking the education of multilingual learners: A critical analysis of theoretical claims. Multilingual Matters. Duarte, J. (2018). Translanguaging in the context of mainstream multilingual education International Journal of Multilingualism, 17(2), 232–247 https://doi.org/10.1080/14790718.2018.1512607 Einarsdottir, J. (2013). Early childhood teacher education in the Nordic countries. European Early Childhood Education Research Journal, 21(3), 307–310. https://doi.org/10.1080/1350293X.2013.814321 European Commission (2017). Preparing teachers for diversity: The role of initial teacher education. Final report to DG education, youth, sport and culture of the European Commission. Publications Office of the European Union. https://doi.org/10.2766/637002. Finnish Education Evaluation Centre (2023, May). Prevention of increasing inequalities requires ensuring the language proficiency and basic skills of the population with an immigrant background. Finnish Education Evaluation Centre. https://karvi.fi/en/2023/05/10/prevention-of-increasing-inequalities-requires- 64 Bergroth, Harju-Autti & Alisaari. Journal of Early Childhood Education Research 13(1) 2024, 42–67. https://journal.fi/jecer ensuring-the-language-proficiency-and-basic-skills-of-the-population-with-an- immigrant-background/ Finnish National Agency for Education (EDUFI). (2021). Kansallinen lukutaitostrategia 2030. Suomi maailman lukutaitoisin maa. Finnish National Agency for Education. https://www.oph.fi/sites/default/files/documents/kansallinen_lukutaitostrategia_2030 _0.pdf Finnish National Agency for Education (EDUFI). (2022). National core curriculum for early childhood education and care 2022 (Regulation OPH-700-2022). Finnish National Agency for Education. https://www.oph.fi/sites/default/files/documents/National%20core%20curriculum% 20for%20ECEC%202022.pdf Ganuza, N., & Hedman, C. (2018). Modersmålsundervisning, läsförståelse och betyg: – modersmålsundervisningens roll för elevers skolresultat. Nordand, 13(1), 4–22. Gitschthaler, M. Kast, J., Corazza, R., & Schwab, S. (2021). Inclusion of multilingual students— teachers’ perceptions on language support models. International Journal of Inclusive Education. https://doi.org/10.1080/13603116.2021.2011439 Hansell, K. & Bergroth, M. (2020). Spra kmedvetenhet inom sma barnspedagogik – pedagogernas reflektioner o ver begreppet. In H. Hirsto, M. Enell-Nilsson, H. Kauppinen-Ra isa nen & N. Keng (Eds.), Workplace Communication III (VAKKI Publications N:o 12)(pp. 239–252). VAKKI-Association for Communication Research. https://vakki.net/index.php/2020/12/31/workplace-communication-iii/ Hansen, J., Eliassen, E., Hexeberg Romøren, A. S., Kleppe, R., Gram Garmann, N., & Bjørnestad, E. (2023). Acquisition of the majority language in Norwegian ECEC: Relating languagelearning environment in ECEC to expressive vocabulary. Nordisk barnehageforskning, 20(1). https://doi.org/10.23865/nbf.v20.293 Harju, A., & Åkerblom, A. (2020). Opening up new spaces for languaging practice in early childhood education for migrant children. International Journal of Early Years Education, 28(2), 151–161. https://doi.org/10.1080/09669760.2020.1765087 Harju-Autti, R., & Mäkinen, M. (2022). Toward sustainable and linguistically responsive support measures for recently arrived language learners. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development. Ahead-of-print. https://doi.org/10.1080/01434632.2022.2092626 Harju-Luukkainen, H., Gyekye, M., Thurin, N., Kekki N., & Tyrer, M. (2020). Developing languageaware pedagogy in early childhood education and care. LangPeda tool. https://www.utu.fi/sites/default/files/media/LangPeda_tool_Interactive.pdf Harju-Luukkainen, H., & Kangas, J. (2021). The role of early childhood teachers in Finnish policy documents: Training teachers for the future? In W. Boyd & S. Garvis (Eds.), International perspectives on early childhood teacher education in the 21st century (pp. 65–80). Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-16-5739-9_5 Heikkola, L. M., Alisaari, J., Vigren, H., & Commins, N. (2022). Linguistically responsive teaching: A requirement for Finnish primary school teachers. Linguistics and Education, 69, 1–11. [101038]. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.linged.2022.101038 Helakorpi, J., Holm, G., & Liu, X. (2023). Education of pupils with migrant backgrounds: A systemic failure in the Finnish system?. In M. Thrupp, M., P. Seppänen, J. Kauko & S. Kosunen (Eds.), Finland’s famous education system, (pp. 319–333). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-19-8241-5_20 65 Bergroth, Harju-Autti & Alisaari. Journal of Early Childhood Education Research 13(1) 2024, 42–67. https://journal.fi/jecer Honko, M., & Mustonen, S. (2020). Varhaista monikielisyytta tukemassa. Kielitietoiset toimintatavat varhaiskasvatuksessa. Kasvatus, 51(4), 439–454. Hu, A. (2022). Building a plurilingual identity. In A. Stavans & U. Jessner (Eds.), The Cambridge Handbook of Childhood Multilingualism (pp. 491–514). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108669771.027 Kalland, M., Linnavalli, T., & von Koskull, M. (2022). SAGA-supporting social-emotional development in early childhood education: The development of a mentalizing-based intervention. Education Sciences,12(6), 409. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci12060409 Karlsen, J., Røe-Indregård, H., Wold, A. H., Lykkenborg, M., & Hagtvet, B. (2018). Initiativ og responsmønstre i boklesingsdialoger mellom barnehagelærer og barn med minoritetsspråklig bakgrunn. NOA - Norsk Som andrespråk, 34(1–2), 66–92. https://ojs.novus.no/index.php/NOA/article/view/1559 Kirsch, C., Duarte, J., & Palviainen, Å. (2020). Language policy, professional development and sustainability of multilingual approaches. In C. Kirsch & J. Duarte (Eds.), Multilingual approaches for teaching and learning: From acknowledging to capitalising on multilingualism in European mainstream education (pp. 186–203). Routledge Research in Language Education. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429059674-14 Kirsch, C., & Aleksić, G. (2018). The effect of professional development on multilingual education in early childhood in Luxembourg. Review of European Studies, 10(4). https://doi.org/10.5539/res.v10n4p148 Kulbrandstad, L. A., Layne, H., Paavola, H., Hellman, A., & Ragnarsdóttir, H. (2018). Immigrant students in Nordic educational policy documents. In H. Ragnarsdóttir & L. A. Kulbrandstad (Eds.), Learning spaces for inclusion and social justice: Success stories from four Nordic countries (pp. 32–68). Cambridge Scholars Publishing. Kultti, A., & Pramling, N. (2020). Traditions of argumentation in teachers’ responses to multilingualism in early childhood education. International Journal of Early Childhood, 52, 267–280. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13158-021-00280-0 Kultti, A. (2021). Barns välbefinnade och lärande: fokus på flerspråkighet och samverkan i förskolan (Slutrapport). Västra Götalandsregionen. https://gup.ub.gu.se/file/208569 Kunnas, K., & Goncalves, S. (2022). Kielinuppu – laulaminen lapsen kielellisen kehityksen tukena. In I. Ruokonen (Ed.), Ilmaisun ilo. Käsikirja 0–8-vuotiaiden taito- ja taidekasvatukseen (pp. 279–290). Ps-kustannus. Lucas, T., & Villegas, A.M. (2013). Preparing linguistically responsive teachers: Laying the foundation in preservice teacher education. Theory Into Practice, 52(2), 98–109. https://doi.org/10.1080/00405841.2013.770327 MDI. (2022). MDI:n väestöennuste. https://www.mdi.fi/wp-content/uploads/2022/09/MDInvaestoennuste-2022_300922.pdf Milotay, N. (2016). From research to policy. The case of early childhood and care. In M. Vandenbroeck, M. Urban & J. T Peeters (Eds.), Pathways to professionalism in early childhood education and care (pp. 104–113). Routledge. Meier, G. (2018). Multilingual socialisation in education: Introducing the M-SOC approach. Language Education and Multilingualism: The Langscape Journal, 1, 103–125. https://edoc.huberlin.de/bitstream/handle/18452/19775/LEM- 2018_Meier.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y