Exploring Pre-Service Teachers’ Attitudes, Beliefs, and Concerns Toward Teaching Culturally and Linguistically Diverse Students in Alberta
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Inclusive education, which emphasizes equitable educational opportunities for all students, requires meaningful support for culturally and linguistically diverse (CLD) learners in mainstream classrooms (Alberta Education, 2013; Specht & Thompson, 2022). Teachers’ attitudes, beliefs, and concerns significantly shape their instructional decisions and expectations, thus impacting students’ academic and social experiences (Carley Rizzuto, 2017; Klehm, 2014). Despite policy commitments to inclusion, educators continue to report feeling unprepared to support CLD students, highlighting a gap between inclusive education policy and everyday classroom realities (Alberta Teachers’ Association, 2021; Hansen-Thomas et al., 2016). Given the increasing cultural and linguistic diversity in Alberta schools (Kindleman, 2020; Statistics Canada, 2021a), it is critical to understand how pre-service teachers perceive their preparedness and identify factors that influence their attitudes, beliefs, and concerns toward teaching CLD students. Although international research has provided general insights into teacher perceptions of inclusive education (Senyshyn & Martinelli, 2021; Taylor et al., 2016), there remains limited Canadian-specific research examining pre-service teachers’ perspectives regarding CLD students’ education. The purpose of this exploratory study was to investigate the attitudes (comfort and openness), beliefs (integration and support), and concerns (equity and wellbeing) of 79 pre-service teachers enrolled in the Bachelor of Education program at the University of Alberta. I also explored how prior experiences along with specific demographic factors, such as pre-service teachers' own identities, personal interactions, formal coursework, teaching experiences, and training routes, may influence these perspectives. Data were collected through an online survey adapted from validated inclusive education instruments. Stacked bar plots were employed to visually examine trends and patterns in participants’ responses, and non-parametric statistical tests were used to analyze the ordinal survey data. Among demographic and experiential factors, meaningful personal interactions with CLD individuals emerged as a statistically significant predictor of higher comfort levels and more inclusive attitudes toward teaching CLD students. Regarding Attitudes, participants expressed greater openness to teaching CLD students but lower comfort levels in areas such as feedback, discipline, mental health, and family engagement. In terms of Beliefs, participants supported the integration of CLD students into mainstream classrooms and the importance of providing appropriate school-based supports. With respect to Concerns, participants showed greater concerns around systemic issues, such as grading fairness, representation, and access, than about CLD students’ social-emotional wellbeing, including peer relationships and mental health. Results indicated that while pre-service teachers generally hold inclusive perspectives, they feel less confident translating these perspectives into effective teaching practice, particularly when navigating complex interpersonal or culturally responsive teaching situations. The significance of personal interaction as a predictor highlights the value of real-world experiences in shaping teacher candidates’ comfort level and responsiveness toward CLD students. Findings from this study can be leveraged to support university instructors, teacher education programs, pre-service teachers, and community organizations. Specifically, these findings emphasize training on practical skills, cultural responsiveness, and meaningful engagement with CLD communities. Overall, this study contributes to the growing body of Canadian research by offering context-specific insights into the perspectives of pre-service teachers at the University of Alberta regarding their preparedness to support CLD student populations.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,008 | 0,003 |
| Communication savante | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,003 | 0,001 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».