Insights into multilingualism in school settings: Unveiling teachers’ language attitudes and beliefs

4.1 Frame analysis as a corrective tool for (self-)reflection

The framework concept traces its origins back to Goffman (Goffman 1980). Goffman defines frames as “organizing principles for events – at least for social ones – and for our personal involvement in them“ (Goffman 1980: 19). Goffman attributes certain reactions and interpretations to primary frames, which are termed “primary“ because they cannot be traced back to other interpretations. Primary frames constitute perspectives embedded in a culture, forming a major component of a social group’s culture (Goffman 1980: 37). Primary frames serve as the starting point for further transformations of meaning or the aforementioned modulations. Modulation represents an essential form of transforming an action, where it serves as a template for something else in all its details. Modulations are, therefore, a fundamental expression of the adaptability of actions (cf. Goffman 1980: 98). In this sense, frames are established definitions of a situation based on additional ‘pre-existing’ frames. Framing processes are interactive in nature and are to be understood as collective processes. These constructs can be examined from the perspective of staging. Here, frame analysis aligns with Goffman’s understanding of interaction as a theatrical performance. Goffman divides this theatrical performance into a front stage and a back stage (Goffman 2008). In reference to frame analysis, this allows for a two-dimensional approach. On the one hand, perspectives (frames) can be observed, and on the other hand, the processes of frame formation (framing) and their causes can be analyzed. Analyzing the (conscious and unconscious) reference systems of actors provides deeper insights into the contents of their actions.

For modulation, Goffman identifies five fundamental forms (make-believe, competition, ceremony, special arrangement, presenting out of context [Goffman 1980: 60]), with the possibility of hybrid forms. As the term “make-believe“ suggests, modulations can be understood as games that take place under specific conditions. Modulations are based on conventions within primary frames (Goffman 1980: 55). Thus, modulations allow, on the one hand, the prediction of how actions or games will unfold, and on the other hand, they can alter these actions and game sequences. This perspective helps to understand that certain frames and the game sequences within them, such as instructional activities within the instructional frame, which is itself framed or influenced by other frames, follow specific conventions or rules externally. However, internally, they may exhibit varying degrees of deviations from these conventions.

To comprehend actions in interactions, it is essential not only to analyze and consider frames and framing but also to delve into processes that Goffman refers to as “breaking frame“, “unhooking“, or “frame break“. Moreover, it is precisely the frame breaks that appear to be essential for the necessity of frame analysis.

The limit of freedom within a frame is predetermined or established in advance, usually known to the participants. Certain deviations from this normative boundary are tolerated. Frame breaks are primarily actions that discredit a scene and occur “in connection with script-like performances“ (Goffman 1980: 379). Examples of such performances may include instructional processes that, on the one hand, follow known rules for the participants and, on the other hand, unfold according to a certain scenario with a specific distribution of roles.

Circumstances that can lead to breaking out of the frame are fundamentally diverse. These may include physical constraints, such as the need to follow certain behavioral rules in the classroom. It can also involve playing a role or having to play a role but feeling deeply unfamiliar with that role. Additionally, sudden interventions, such as using languages other than German in the classroom, can potentially break the situational frame, requiring repair by the higher authority (teacher). According to Goffman, it is expected that framing abilities change over time.

Goffman pays particular attention to the hazards of experiences. In this sense, experiences can be considered as convictions that someone brings with them. In such cases, a slight shift in focus is often enough to break the frame (Goffman 1980: 471). In cases of doubt, framings are checked. Additionally, the exercise of power (e. g., by the teacher) can jeopardize the frame by upsetting its balance. “The ability to significantly alter this balance when one wishes is exercising power“ (Goffman 1980: 480). Despite threats or breaches to frames, “ideas (attitudes) and beliefs can be maintained despite contrary ‘evidence’“ (Goffman 1980: 481). This can directly relate to the key incidents presented later, where the teacher uses power to maintain the frame. This occurs, for example, when the teacher identifies the use of languages other than German in the classroom as a (potential) threat and reacts accordingly to their ideas and/or beliefs. Similarly, this can happen when a generally positive attitude towards multilingualism is verbalised.

4.2 We all play theater?

The frame analysis cannot be fully understood without incorporating Erving Goffman’s concept of the theater play and the associated understanding of the game, which extends beyond Goffman in this context. Goffman regards every place as a social institution if it has clear perceptual barriers as boundaries and is regularly used for specific activities. He divides such places into frontstage and backstage, which can be considered as stages. On the backstage, the performance of a role is prepared, which is later presented on the frontstage. These stages form a kind of frame that is controlled to prevent the audience from looking behind the scenes (Goffman 2008: 217). It can be assumed that based on what does not fit into the presentation or the frame, the original or primary frame can be plausibly reconstructed. Such hypotheses are useful in two ways. Firstly, as mentioned, they can provide insights into the primary frame, and secondly, by showing what does not fit into the frame, they reveal its boundaries and suggest possible origins since frames emerge in social interactions and can become patterns that are invoked.

The specific cultural values of an institution determine how various questions are thought about. Simultaneously, they serve as a framework for the apparent beliefs that, regardless of whether beliefs stand behind the appearance or not, must be preserved (Goffman 2008: 220). Self-conception is an essential component of this presentation. When an event occurs that is not compatible with the generated impression, effects manifest simultaneously on three different levels of social reality. These levels encompass individual personality, interaction, and social structure. A disruption, therefore, leads to the discrediting of a person’s self-representation or its perception as discredited by the person themselves. This questions the legitimacy of these disruptions, with significant consequences for action and the played role (Goffman 2008: 221–222). An often overlooked fact is that representatives of other societies and cultures do not operate within the framework of the same action orders and have different frames of reference with their own rules (Goffman 2008: 223–229).

4.3 Does theater frame the school?

If one applies Goffman’s framework analysis model and his theater model to the educational context, the school is viewed as a theater, and the classroom as a stage. Different, interconnected scenes or frames (not only) in the educational context form, with each actor playing their assigned role. Schematically, these scenes can be represented as follows (see Fig. 1):

Fig. 1

Primary frames of the educational landscape

This figure is not exhaustive but should be helpful for initial orientation. For the present study, the three lower frames (Individual/biographical framework, Teaching framework, and Interaction framework) are particularly relevant. It’s important to note that individual frames should not be seen as hierarchically superior or subordinate to one another but rather as mutually influencing. Additionally, individual frames are complex in themselves, such as the individual-biographical frame of the teacher, which includes attitudes and beliefs that are essential for determining these and other frames (Teaching framework as well as Interaction framework). To identify the three mentioned frames, explicit framing markers can be noted, interaction patterns, face maintenance, and “silent cues“ can be tracked. Framing can also provide insights into teaching scripts. Explicit framing markers can be observed, interaction patterns, face maintenance, and „silent cues“ can be monitored. Framings also provide insights into teaching scripts (Bräuer 2011).

Certainly, the concept of frames is not without its challenges, yet it proves useful in making something elusive, like the instructional process with all its interactions, tangible. However, once this attempt is made, it becomes evident that the tool is imperfect. But isn’t every instrument attempting to grasp something nearly intangible, like language in its intentional context unfolding on Goffman’s backstage, necessarily fraught with imperfections?

The framework concept developed by Goffman (1980) is considered and applied as an analytical tool for a systematic examination of classroom communication in recent research. Bräuer emphasizes that classroom frame analysis is an observational tool that systematically contextualizes problems and misunderstandings, which are partly intuitively understandable (cf. Bräuer 2011: 29). Clearly, frame boundaries can be indicated through signals or markers.

The classroom encompasses the interaction between teachers and students. The teacher represents the power institution with the guiding function, even within a co-constructive frame. The face-to-face interactions take place on the front stage. The frame is conventionally determined, meaning it is based on a shared knowledge foundation that is shared or assumed to be shared by a majority (teachers, parents, school administration) or a powerful minority (school administration). This common ground includes attitudes and beliefs that shape the course of the instructional frame.

In face-to-face interactions, including in the classroom, the aim is to create a specific self-image. There are basically two strategies: maintaining one’s own face or striving to change it. This, in turn, means that the face of other individuals is co-determined or influenced. The teacher, as a person in a position of power, shapes the face of everyone in the classroom through attributions: someone may be perceived as smart, loud, passive, behaving inappropriately, or as speaking good or poor German. The focus is on maintaining one’s face. The design, unfolding, and verification of the intended impression take place backstage, which is not accessible to the audience. The goal is to align the performer’s self-conception with the impression created in the audience.

This dynamic also extends to languages, for example, when English is admitted as a prestigious language^[7]. In this case, the school framework is already influenced, as discriminating distinctions are made in the instructional framework if certain languages or dialects are allowed and others are not. This discrimination is undoubtedly influenced by educational policies, meaning it is ideologically shaped. In this niche, one can always fall back on the argument (or excuse) that all children should learn or speak German. If the teacher is legitimized in this, the framework becomes less flexible, less fluid, at least regarding the language-ideological aspect. This can lead to conflicts. If not, it affects the identity of the students, who may either hide and suppress their other language or, conversely, want to identify more strongly with it, even if, in the end, they do not master the language as well as German.

The frame defines under what conditions the actions of the participants take place in the classroom. These conditions are delimited by normative expectations for teaching. The participants can be considered as superordinate and subordinate interactants, as they interact within frames (and could play overlapping or alternating roles).

5.1 Key incidents

Key incidents illustrate particular situations or factors perceived as disruptions to the instructional framework by aspiring teachers. These key incidents allow for a better understanding of the causes of linguicism^[9] despite the verbalized positive attitudes of teachers (students) towards multilingualism (cf. Mast & Sachse, 2021; Dirim, 2017; Kroon & Sturm, 2002). It should be noted that the students (teachers), according to their own statements, generally had a positive attitude towards languages other than German.

Key Incident 1 ^[10]: Student as teacher 1 (female); 5th semester (TC = Student as teacher; S1 = primary school student (female) 1; S2 = primary school student (male) 2):

S2: Are you shay? You are shay!

S1: No, you are shay!

(both laugh)

TC: Stop it! What do you mean by “shay“? Is it English? “Shy“ in English?

S2: No, that’s Arabic, it means “tea“ in Arabic.

TC: Okay. But we speak German here.

Evidently, the teacher perceives this interaction between the two children as disruptive, expecting a different interaction pattern in the interaction and instructional frames according to her attitudes. An indicator of a frame threat is the laughter of the two children, which is interpreted as a deviation, hence the teacher’s reaction. Only after that does the teacher check the frame maintenance by asking a Wh-question to the children. Then, direct exercise of power follows, accompanied by reframing. This reframing involves, in line with her beliefs hidden from the children, a new rule (“But we speak German here.“), the effectiveness of which may remain unclear to the children. On the one hand, there was no such regulation before this key incident, and on the other hand, it remains unclear whether languages other than German were generally prohibited or if it specifically targeted certain languages. For instance, would English have been legitimate in that context? The frame was restored in that specific moment, but it is no longer the same. Whether this reframing is beneficial or detrimental to the instruction may only become evident over time. After the lesson, the student (teacher) admitted to not being aware that such prohibitions could be a manifestation of linguicism, potentially discriminatory and hurtful to the children. She did not express her beliefs regarding languages other than German. This reframing contradicts – at least in its form – the educational policy and the educational climate of this particular elementary school. This is indicative that the teacher followed an individual pattern frame (cf. Bräuer 2011: 18) that she brought with her. A more detailed biographical study of the teacher would provide further clues about the primary frame she refers to in such situations.

In the eyes of the teacher, the unauthorized use of languages other than German signifies a departure from the instructional framework or, essentially, a threat to it. The customary communication scenario, exclusively conducted in German, which shapes the instructional framework or is intended to do so according to the teacher’s conception, is thereby transformed into something novel. This results in a reframing that is unfamiliar to the teacher, prompting concerns about reputational damage, as an apparent spontaneous lack of access to this framework becomes evident due to the unfamiliar language. Nevertheless, the teacher spontaneously attributes a frame breach or threat to the situation. Instead of devising new techniques or arguments that could complement their role and be applied in similar situations later on, the teacher – in Goffman’s terminology – perceives a threat to their role on the stage of instructional events.

Even though the established rules prohibit the use of other languages from the outset, children can playfully employ their first languages. This constitutes a game within a game and thus is not necessarily a reframing of the classroom proceedings – not a circumvention – and not a threat to the instructional framework. This play at the boundary between ‘allowed’ and ‘not allowed’ requires a high level of frame competence, perspective-taking, sensitivity, and critical reflection on the part of the teacher regarding the framework. A game within a game inherently entails risks and escalations, which need not be apparent to the children but may be to the teacher. Through the use of their first languages, children appear to significantly alter the scope of action within a predefined and perceived as inflexible social situation. These changes can elicit an exponential number of reactions. Not all of them are situationally or frame-appropriate and may disrupt the existing framework. The potential value of these reactions may initially remain concealed and later impact the participants in some way under certain conditions.

Key Incident 2: Student as teacher 2 (female); 7th semester (LK = Student as teacher 2; SW = primary school student (male), L1 Georgian, freely speaks English, German beginner):

LK: Welche Farbe hat das? (auf ein Bild zeigend) ^[11]

SW: That´s gelb.

LK: Das ist gelb.

SW: Das ist gelb.

LK: Weißt du die Farbe?

SW: What?

LK: Do you know this color?

SW: Yes, I do. That´s yellow.

Here, the teacher herself supplements the frame by implicitly allowing side actions in English and then actively participating in a new framing through her own contributions. However, the teacher does not need this frame addition or new framing, as it is evident that the child understands her in German. Once again, the authority of the teacher is at play, exercising her power. Moreover, it is the English language, whose prestige is very high in Germany and its use aligns with the teacher’s beliefs. The teacher later admired the boy’s English skills, stating that he is much better in English than she is, even though she is studying English as a subject. In this case, English is not perceived as disruptive in German class and therefore does not clash with the teacher’s attitudes towards the lesson.

A similar case is presented in the following key incident.

Key Incident 3: Student 2; 7th semester (LK = Student (teacher) 2; SW = primary school student, male):

LK: Wie viele (Stempel) hast du? ^[12]

SW: I have seven.

LK: Sag bitte auf Deutsch, nicht auf Englisch.

SW: Ich habe sieben Stempel.

In this case, a side action that occurs in English is quickly corrected and not perceived as a threat to the frame. Indications for this are, firstly, the word “bitte“ (please). It involves a request, unlike key incident 1. Secondly, it is a situational request to say something in German rather than English. Here, no language ban is imposed by the teacher. It is not a re-framing. This brief departure from the student’s interaction frame is tolerated by the teacher. In Goffman’s terminology, she can continue to play her role undisturbed and save face. And once again, it involves a prestigious language.

Key Incident 4: Students (teachers) in a debriefing, 5th-6th semester, (ST 1, 2, 3 = Student (teachers) 1, 2, 3).

Background of the key incident: In the concluding circle time of the teaching day with a total of nine children, two boys and two girls were Arabic speakers. The two students said something to each other in Arabic and laughed, looking at the student teachers sitting in front of them. One of the students (teachers) admonished them, stating that it was impolite to speak in a language that others do not understand. She then asked the children what they had said and if it was something about the student teachers. The children denied saying anything about the teachers. One of the students (teachers) expressed doubt, stating that she did not believe the boys and that they should now honestly admit what they had said. The conversation continued for a while until two other Arabic-speaking girls confirmed that the Arabic statements were not directed against the teachers but were jokes from the daily lives of the two boys. Subsequently, the following conversation^[13] took place among the student teachers during the debriefing:

ST 1: I didn’t understand what they said... and then they laughed.

ST 2: I always have this stupid feeling that they’re talking about me in their language.

ST 3: Yes, me too...

This is moving in the same direction as in key incident 1, especially concerning the beliefs of the teacher. The difference is, firstly, that now three teachers are present who feel the same way. Secondly, the interaction of the children is immediately identified as a frame breach, where it seems not primarily or not at all about the children’s laughter. It’s also the language that is not a prestigious language in this case. It’s also the eye contact that leads to misinterpretations. The teachers not only attempt several frame extensions through increasingly numerous supplements, but they also actively leverage their position of power by exerting almost psychological pressure. In relevant research, similar cases are discussed in terms of teachers’ fear of losing control in the classroom context (Heinemann & Dirim, 2016; Kirschhock & Drobny, 2020). So, it’s about facework.

Without apparent reason, the teacher violates self-imposed rules in the classroom. This behavior, along with the fear of losing face, suggests corresponding beliefs, such as the assumption that negative remarks are being made about her (Dirim and Heinemann, 2018). These beliefs may have been shaped during the teacher’s schooling. It is presumed that her act based on the model, for instance, of a teacher from her own school days, framing a similar situation through this model. To avoid such situations, integrated communication or clarification of the rules beforehand could be beneficial.

The behavior of an actor, especially when the instructional frame is considered a stage, is influenced by their expectations of other actors and their decisions. The teacher, as the main actor, makes conscious decisions that they attribute to other actors, such as the students. At this juncture, the question arises whether students and teachers always act consciously or respond to specific actions and underlying intentions. The assumption of rational action should apply to both teachers and students. Consequently, the actions or reactions of a teacher to frame threats, according to Goffman’s definition, should be rational and not emotional, free from the influence of their own ideas and beliefs on the stage. For the “backstage“ with teachers, self-reflections and a frame analytical approach are intended to provide a foundation for reflection.

The organization of communication in this context is considered as directive communication. In addition to the rules governing communication organization, individual spaces for personal development are to be opened up during role-playing. At times, the person who usually occupies the role may not want to identify with it. This applies equally to both parties: students as well as teachers. On the other hand, for example, teachers do not want to completely abandon their original role, even if they make changes to the framework or role (such as being advisory instead of instructional, or collaborative instead of exerting authority). This reluctance is partly justified by the fact that the primary frame prescribes certain roles. In part, it is also because changes in the game are not identified as such by the teacher, even if they are provoked by the teacher.

The concept of the instructional process as a “game within a game“ can be considered an expression of an organizational principle within the instructional framework or can also be employed to explain the fears of teachers.

The short dialogue in the debriefing provides the true reason for the identified frame breach, which wasn’t actually one. Especially not because the use of languages other than German was not explicitly prohibited in any of the classroom rules. There is no evidence that statements in Arabic were directed against the teachers or that they had nothing to do with the lesson. Is another pre-existing pattern frame being disrupted here? Probably several. The frame is exemplary in the sense that it is likely to be consistently recalled and projected onto similar situations. An indication of frame overlaps, which must be individual and linked to one’s learning biography, is again provided by the dialogue in the debriefing. It suggests another primary frame where stereotypes and prejudices about certain foreign languages have been subsumed into beliefs. These stereotypes and prejudices are likely associated with specific risks, rooted in individual experiences (including educational contexts). An indication of this is the assertion that it is impolite to speak in a language that not everyone understands. This implies a potential danger associated with language, which is restrictive and discriminatory. At the same time, it implicitly frames that German, allegedly understood by everyone present (though not the case in the group), is safe and its use is polite (Heinemann & Dirim, 2016; Dirim, 2016). The abrupt rejection of side actions in the classroom and interaction frames, as well as the re-framing by the teachers, again indicates that the students are not taken seriously as interaction partners. There are no a priori negotiated common frames.