Plurilingual Perspectives in Basic Level Teacher Education in Nepal: Educators’ Memos from the Past

Plurilingual Perspectives in Basic Level Teacher Education in Nepal: Educators’ Memos from the Past

Khem Raj Joshi

Tribhuvan University, Nepal

DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.47772/IJRISS.2024.807207

Received: 06 July 2024; Accepted: 11 July 2024; Published: 17 August 2024

ABSTRACT

This study aimed to explore the basic level early grade teachers’ experiences in teacher education and pedagogical practices in terms of language. The second attempt was to evaluate alignments and contentions among three entangled nexuses: language policy, teacher education and pedagogical practices in multilingual contexts. The study targeted at the teachers’ experiences and language policy in education. A phenomenological study was done to analyze the documents of the 13 participants through the interviews and the focused group discussions. policy documents related to language policy in education formulated by the governments and schools were duly analyzed to assess the degree of alignment and contention between policy and practice. The teachers reflected the lack of an academic degree on how to teach language and deal with language issue in other subjects. Many students and teachers, in early grades, did not understand each other’s languages. The findings expose that there is a huge gap in teacher education, pedagogical practices in multilingual early grades, and language policies. First, teacher education, language policy in education and pedagogical practice do not align with each other. Second, the teachers have been practicing unplanned multilingual pedagogical approaches in the multilingual classes. Third, schools have introduced an English as a Medium of Instruction (EMI) policy but teachers have not been educated, trained, prepared and oriented for this. Fourth, the teachers naturally were practicing multilingual pedagogy. Fifth, the teachers have experienced challenges in implementing EMI policy in early grades. Sixth, they are in need of and desire for multilingual teacher support education and training for effective pedagogical practices to bridge diverse home monolinguals and a few multilingual early graders to other additional languages. This is a due pedagogical approach in which children turn and scaffold multilingualism to immerse themselves into English and Nepali, the prominent medium of instruction in the education system of Nepal till the date.

Key Words: Multilingualism, basic level teacher education, pedagogy, plurilinguals, language policy

BACKGROUND OF THE STUDY

Nepal is a country of natural “plurilinguals” (Ziegler, 2013) as well as fluctuating multilinguals. Many Nepalese people can speak more than two languages. They are mostly plurilingual speakers no matter if they do not have equal attainment as it is difficult to “master two or more languages identically well” (Rezepova, Stepanenko, & Guseynov, 2018, p. 112), and many speakers can use communicative skills and language repertoire shaped by natural and institutional multilingual development as multilingual speakers due to their socio-cultural interactional territory from a long past in her civilization and state’s educational, political, policy and ideology nexus of language practices. The 2011 census reports that 123 living languages (Government of Nepal, NPCCBS, 2012) are used in communication practices, with status ranging from endangered groups to language of public administration with official recognition in the constitution. For example, Nepali with Devnagari script is the language of public administration, but even other local majority languages can be made official by making a law. The province shall be given the authority to establish provincial language policy. All the mother tongues spoken in Nepal are national languages. Nepal has declared itself a multilingual nation (Government of Nepal, 2015). These languages do not have equal developmental status. It is because, there are insufficient linguistic properties that are supposed to be in modern academic languages in terms of their writing scripts, vocabulary, and grammatical systems.

Language in education is a complex and ever-evolving issue in the world. Language in education is a right (UNESCO, 2003) or a means of negotiating one’s identity (Waller, Wethers & De Costa, 2017). Language in education is a cross-cutting issue, including access to knowledge or education through mutual semiotic negotiation in the teaching- learning space. In terms of language competency, performance and interdisciplinary content knowledge; they are the tool for cognitive investment and constant re-softwaring phenomena. Languages are not only useful tools for teaching and learning, but they can also be the barriers. Education is one of the most basic needs and right of people or citizens and the prior duty of the state in the contemporary world. However, there are limitations and parameters due to the state’s developmental and economic efficacy.

Multilingualism and Multilingual Education

Multilingualism has been defined differently in different contexts; however, it has a seminal aspect that multilingualism is a linguistic situation where several languages are in existence and communicative use. “Multilingualism can also be regarded as the co-existence of several languages within a society” (Lyons, 1981). If several languages are in co-existence in society that is responsible to develops multilingualism. There are different forms of multilingualism like the ability to use several languages separately and ability to use several languages in combination as a hybrid form. “Multilingualism, i.e. the command of several languages, enables children to communicate with family members belonging to various nationalities and cultures,” (Stavans & Hoffman, 2015). Multilingualism from the speakers’ perspective is the ability to have command over several languages. “It refers to speaking more than one language competently,” (Okal, 2014, p. 223). In other words, if any person speaks more than one language competently, it shapes multilingualism. This definition of multilingualism seems traditional because a speaker may have ability or competence over several languages but not equal.

Multilingualism in education has some differences from other areas of language use. In education, it has two approaches viz. natural and tutorial of language learning and use. Therefore, “a multilingual classroom is one in which there are students who know and use two or more languages in their home or community. It is also one where students are expected to learn two or more languages,” (British Council, 2019, p. 11).

Multilingualism is first in the community and needs to be reflected later in school. Including other purposes of multilingualism in education, the most essential purpose is multilingual pedagogy for effective teaching learning. If social multilingualism is reflected in the class, the children can experience homely environment which amplifies teaching learning efficiency. It is the situation of language repertoire which is used by learners as needed in communication or languaging. “Languages are so deeply intertwined and fused into each other that the level of fluidity renders it difficult to determine any boundaries that may indicate that there are different languages involved,” (Makoni & Pennycook, 2007, p. 447). This is more developed and practical concept of multilingualism. In depth, languages cannot be compartmentalized as they share common grounds. So, in multilingualism, languages are intertwined and fused. They are like different colors of water which deserve same chemical quality with different physical appearances. When these languages are used in multilingual contexts, first they are visible with different identity but later they make a new combined color as multilingualism.

Multilingual education is the entire process which enables learners to learn integrated into interdisciplinary contents by investing multiple semiotic repertoires. For teachers, it supports to create the teaching-learning space including learners’ cognitive investment, investing multimodals, multiliteracies, multi-identities, diverse cognitive assets and social justice approaching language ideology as the pedagogical practices for learners. This is practiced in collaboration with abiding state’s educational policy, language policy, language policy in education codified in the prevailing constitution, supplementary laws, international protocols and commitments (Taylor, 2010) as the party with its ratification for obtaining educational goals set by the world community. Government of Nepal has committed to the targets and goals made by international agencies like UNESCO, UNICEF and programs like Millennium Development Goal (MDG) 2000-2015, Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) 2016-2030, (Government of Nepal National Planning Commission, 2017).

Nepal, like many other countries of the world, is a traditionally natural plurilingual and multilingual country nation as recognized by the constitution. Natural plurilingualism fosters multilingualism in the true multilingual sense. There are two processes: monolingual to plurilingual and multilingual, and plurilingual to multilingual. They are learned and acquired with two modes: as through formal educational processes and non-formal as through other sociocultural processes (Njoroge, Mwangi, Ndungu & Orwenjo, 2014; Waller, Wethers & De Costa, 2017) in general in Nepal.

Multilingual education subsumes multicultures, multi-identities, multi-ideologies, diverse contents and multiple voices of the society in its curriculum which indicates inclusiveness in education. There is potential to not only expand the multicultural education curriculum to include a focus on language identities and ideologies but also to build in opportunities for teachers to examine their beliefs and practices in relation to linguistic diversity (Lew & Siffrin, 2019, p. 376). Multilingual education lifts up not only linguistic plurality but also the socio-cultural superdiversity.

In Nepal, any speakers of any national languages are with their choice, intention and nationality with confidence. It is their fundamental right to use language not the gifting/merciful so-called facilities as it is in United States of America and other European countries where humanitarian laws are in prevail with good practices. Most of the researches have been carried out on the population they have blurred nationality and inferior confidentiality toward their basic human rights. They are living as second grade culturally, politically, economically, socially, psychologically, legally and linguistically categorized citizens as they have been protected by their domestic and international humanitarian laws. But in Nepal, except some particular situation, almost all Nepalese entertain to these rights. Nepalese ethnic and indigenous language communities are being marginalized more because of the poor institutional development in education and educational policy.

The Motivation for the Study

Nepal, as a constitutional state, is a multilingual nation. Since Nepal is a naturally and institutionally plurilingual country, regardless of the parametric variation in the sociolinguistic situation in the different demographic distributional territories; people in some social contexts speak more than two languages as plurilingual speakers.  As bilingual or plurilingual learners, students at school study Nepali, Sanskrit, English and some other indigenous languages like Nepal Bhasha, Tharu, Rai, Kham Magar, etc.

Even if Nepal is known as a multilingual nation, the formal policies and practices have still not introduced multilingualism in teacher education and preparation. However, the government of Nepal has recently introduced an education policy. It has formulated a policy of multilingual education (MoEST, 2019); although its understanding and practices are still monolingual or plurilingual. Since the teachers are not educated through the multilingual approach, how multilingual classes are practiced is the main gap between teacher education and teachers’ pedagogical practices. How multilingual students with different home languages are taught, facilitated, and progressed in their early grades for their learning investment, learning engagement, “cognitive and linguistic transfer” (Ploger & Putjata, 2019, p. 217) and knowledge or learning experience through scaffolding is to be understood.

Teachers and students in schools practice intensive multilingualism in the early grades which needs to be recognized by the state and school in terms of the language policies. By policy, several languages are taught at universities and schools with a monolingual bias. The construct regarding multilingual education which has been made by several institutions and practitioners is the act of teaching and learning multiple languages in formal educational classrooms (UNESCO, 2006; Lotherington, 2004), rather than multilingualism as a hybrid use of several languages in the same class as multilingual education. It seems like a more traditional and prescriptive conceptualization which does not explore how languages interact in the community. But the plurilingual approach could not reflect the natural occurrence of multilingualism, which could be a more effective approach in multilingual early grades. In the natural community, speakers of different languages living in harmony respect and share each other’s linguistic and language repertoires in their real lives outside of the classroom or school. As part of the multilingual education process, the children practice and invest their multilingual or home language repertoire as naturally as possible in their real class to scaffold their new language repertoire through multilingual pedagogical practices. Teachers and students in school classrooms use two or more languages, even in monolingually biased educational institutions.

The first state’s language policy in different language subjects is monolingual, as it usually happens in the plurilingual approach. The second is the explicit use of multiple languages for mutual instruction among students and teachers, referred to as “multilingualism,” as the classroom implicit language policy. They use two or more languages, blending the syntax, vocabulary, and to some extent, suprasegmental features as hybrids, and blending forms of languages as multilingualism. The teachers teaching multilingual or heterogeneous home languages to early-grade students seem to need multilingual teacher education (Ploger & Putjata, 2019). It may not be equally important all over the country but could be applied with language mappings. It is a step forward for multilingual education for more naturally multilingual beginner child in Nepal. The panorama of multilingualism in education has not sufficiently been visible and is a matter of interest in its policies and practices regarding multilingual teacher education and pedagogy in school education in Nepal. Such teachers may not have been researched or have been less researched on the language issue to explore their lived experience of using languages in the classroom particularly when they are teaching at the basic level in early grades where plurilingual and multilingual students are enrolled.

Research Questions

This study was guided by the following research questions:

• How were teachers teaching in multilingual and plurilingual classes in the Basic Level early grades (pre-school and up to grade 3)?
• What pedagogical approaches had those teachers been practicing in terms of language as the medium of instruction or classroom communication in a multilingual context?
• How did language policy in education, teacher education practices, and classroom pedagogical implementation practices concur with each other and among themselves?

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

The current study adopted a qualitative research approach. In particular, it was a phenomenological study done to explore the ideologies and the engaged practices of the teachers regarding multilingual practices. As the population, the early grade basic level teachers who had been teaching in the multilingual classes were selected. There were purposively selected 13 early grade basic level school teachers. The sample size was made flexible on the basis of research needs. More than this, the documents related to the schools, university and library, government offices, law book publication committee and concerning were the other study sites to maintain the triangulation in the research. In order to get a good handful of the data, series of the semi- structured interviewed were done among the participants employing open-ended guiding questions as the main tools. The semi-structured open- ended questions had two objectives- first, to shape the interviews with participants from perspective of time, resource and content body of information, and second, to elicit in-depth information. The questions were of narrative, structural, evaluative, leading, probes questions (Smith, Flowers, & Larkin, 2009). In addition to that, two focused group discussions were conducted at two schools. First group had four participants. The second group had three participants. For some additional and missing information, they were called for the individual/one to one interview.

Analysis and Interpretation

The data collected from the participants was transcribed and later translated for the purpose of the multiple audiences. The analysis has been made in terms of different themes as they have been mentioned in the subsequent sections. Further, for more detail, the data has been analyzed developing different relevant sub-themes. The detail has been presented in the following sections.

Teacher Education/Preparation Context and Experiences

The thematic diagram presented below reflects five dimensions of teacher education/preparation contexts. The first reflection is on how the basic level early grade teachers, who were teaching at schools in natural multilingual classes, were educated and prepared teachers in terms of language use by their tutors. The second reflects on what and how teaching learning materials were used in the classrooms in terms of language support. The third is on what and how learning strategies the then teachers employed in terms of language and content learning when they were students in the past in their school and tertiary education.

Teacher Educators’ Language Use Practices

Learning can happen at any time in any circumstance and from any individuals. It is redundant that almost all teaching theories and strategies based on learning theories and strategies. School teachers’ tutors are the role models for them because they are supposed to have learned various styles, behaviors, practical strategies and academic cultural practices in teaching from their tutors. Teacher learning is the process of learning professional input including knowledge and skills which are applied through the activity of teaching (Freeman, 2011).

Language is an essential issue for teacher education. The teacher educator should be attentive on the issue of learner teachers’ language diversity which is important aspect of teacher learning or education. This study focused on how the teachers were educated by their tutors and what pedagogical approaches they practiced in terms of multilingual use in their teaching profession. In the course, teachers-in- preparation engage in language lessons as learners (input stage), then they analyze and evaluate the lessons as professionals (processing stage), and finally they develop their own lesson plans (output stage) (Kamhi-Stein, 2011, p. 95). The respondent teachers shared their lived experiences as the responses of guiding question- how they were educated with reference to the language use for classroom communication and medium of instruction.

From the data, it has been found that eleven participants had Nepali as their first language or mother tongue. Other two had Chaudhary (Tharu) as mother tongue. Except some, like Teacher 4, who said, “Malai Nepali matrai  aaunchha aru khi aaundaina (I know only Nepali not any others)”; others were gradually being multilingual.       Teacher 5 stated that “Tharu aba aphno matri bhasha bhayo, Nepali bhayo, ali ali Hindi pani aaunchha, tyo madheshi local (Avadhi language) haina, ali ali English pani (Tharu is my own mother tongue, I know Nepali, little bit Hindi, that local Madheshi (Awadhi Local) and little bit English)”. More or less with different level of competence or ‘not equal attainment’, they were able to communicate in three plus languages though their level of multilingual communication was different. Some of them who were grown up in natural multilingual or plurilingual community were good at their languaging but others were little behind.

In this regard, Teacher 12 shared said that “Maile duiwata bhanauki? 3 wata bhannus na Chaudahry language pani  janya chhu yahanko. Nepali Nepali bhai halyo, kamchalau yo English pani kahile kanhi (I say either two? Or let’s say three, I know Chaudhary language of here, Nepali is Nepali, itself a basic language for functional purpose… and, English sometimes)”. It took long time to them for the     multilingual turn.

As much as possible, their tutors at school and colleges used to teach mostly in monolingual approach by their choice but when they realized that their students did not understand their lesson, they used to translate English lessons into Nepali. Similarly, Teacher 10 stated that “Nepali bhashama nai padaunu hunthyo. English padaunda English Nepali misayerai garnu hunthyo (They used to teach in Nepali language. They used to mix up Nepali and English while teaching English)”. In the same line, Teacher 6 said, “School level college level maa sir harule eutai bhasha Nepali bhasha paryog garnu bho annya bhasha paryog garnu bhayena (At school and college level, the teachers did not use other languages but used only one language that was Nepali.). According to the Teacher 7, “Sir harule Nepali bhaye pachhi Nepali nai paryog garnu bhayo English bhaye pachhi Neplai English sathsathai paryog garnu bhayo (The teachers used only Nepali in Nepali class but in English class; they used Nepali and English simultaneously.)”. For the Teacher 12, “Ma vidhyalaya pahadmai padhya hun sir. Padheko hunale tyaha khasai dobhashe vidhyarthiharu hundainathe khasai, sabai rastriya bhasha Nepali bhasha bolne bha hunale hamlai padhaune guruharule pani tyahi dhangale nai unharule nepali bhashama jod garnu hunthyo (I studied my school level in the Hilly Region sir. There were generally not bilingual students because of the Hilly Region. Since almost we used to speak Nepali as the National language, our gurus (teachers) used to focus and give priority to Nepali language)”. This indicates that they rarely used other languages in the classes except English and Nepali. If the teachers were familiar with other ethnic languages, they occasionally used these languages. By the respondents’ sharing, we can say that their tutors used to teach their students with monolingual mindset but as pedagogical needs, they used bilingual pedagogical approach with their due practical pedagogical consciences not by the policy backing up. They reflected that bilingual pedagogical practice was more effective and efficient than the monolingual one that is why they used it. The bilingual strategies which their tutors practiced might be the practical sources of inspiration for bilingual or multilingual pedagogical practices which the respondent teachers were practicing then. Other subjects including Nepali language were taught in monolingual approach using Nepali, and the English subject was taught in bilingual approach using English and Nepali.

They shared that the teaching learning situation then was different from the time when they reported. Some of the teachers who had been teaching for long times shared that only limited number of people had access to education before some 40 years. There were various reasons like poor economic condition of the state, large classes, limited number schools or educational institutions, poor level of awareness toward the education, scattered population and ethnic aspects of the people, etc.

Teacher 8 shared her experience by saying that “Paddhakheri ra padhunda kheriko pharak chha sir. Tyeti bela yo Nepali bhasha padhinthyo tetibela, Tharu samajka ketiharu padhdainthe tetibela, ketaharu pani kamai padhthe. Nepalimai padhi hunthyo (The situation of studying and teaching is different. At that time, we studied Nepali Language, Tharu community girls did not use to study. Only few Tharu students used to study (even the boys). Teaching was in Nepali.)”. He further said, “Maile padhda kheri ta Chaudhary thiyenan. Sabai Nepali bhasha mai padhinthyo ahile aayera bhasha padhaunu parchha. Sabai bhashikaka bachchaharu aaka hunchhan ahile (There was no Chaudhary when I used to study. All were taught in Nepali Language. Now, all languages need to be taught. Children from all languages come to school at present).

It suggests that in the past, when the teachers were students, the issue of language was not so complex because almost all students were from Nepali language speaking community; so, they did not have problems of language in education. But at the time of reporting, about 95% children had been enrolled to school belonging to plurilingual, multilingual and ethnic monolingual backgrounds. On the other hand, the issue of language in education or medium of instruction which need to be addressed has emerged from policy to practice level and from political to pedagogical dimensions with the expansion of educational opportunities. They reported various in-service pedagogical trainings like Montessori, teacher professional training with monolingual approaches in terms of language subjects and other content subjects. However, they had not received the multilingual pedagogical approaching training and teachers’ education. Some of them reported ethnic language training with monolingual biased approach. This training was beneficial for monolingual ethnic community but not in plurilingual or multilingual community. One of the participants reported that she had taken multilingual teacher training for fifteen days and she found difference after the training. It was not clear what the model of that multilingual teacher training was. In this regard, Teacher 8 said, “Bahubhashik bhanne talim lechhu… (I have taken say… multilingual training…)”. She further added, “Talim liyi sake pachhi, pahila pahila ma paryog garthen bhasha ta sir. Class ma jun kisimka vidhyarthi chhan tyo bhasha paryog gari rahanthe maile ta ajha talim liyera aayepachhi ajha malai sajilo bho ke sir (Previously, I used to use different languages in accordance with students’ languages. After the training, it is easier to me sir.)”. It shows that the teachers strived hard to teach their students in different languages though they had the competency in different languages. However, language use then too was very cross cutting issue as it is at present in the age of educational expansion and socio-political upliftment and awareness.

The Practices of Teaching/Learning Materials

Since language is born, developed, is in existence and decayed in the society; language contexts for both teachers and students are in the contemporary society and language use contexts that, at formal educational institutions like schools and colleges where formal/tutorial teaching learning takes place, can partially supplied by teaching learning materials. Various cultural and ethnic means, materials and meanings reference to languages are important means and resources of language teaching and learning. The well saying ‘A single picture speaks thousands of words’ signifies the teaching learning materials. During the research data collection this issue of how and what teaching learning materials teacher tutors used was not included as the separate question but the teachers shared within other questions, off the record discussion and focus group discussion that they totally had to depend on teachers, rarely available bilingual dictionary, teachers dictated bilingual vocabulary and other simple materials. They did not have such teaching-learning materials which could support bilingual or multilingual learners. Since their methods were traditional to some extent Grammar Translation (GT) method in case of English language, the students were suggested rote learning rather than materially equipped learning as present time teachers and students can entertain. Teacher 10 shared her teacher teaching and her learning strategies while she was student, “Basha sambadhi padunda kheri ta sabbhanda ta chitrabata jun kunaile pani, hamro palama ta rot ni thiyo sir. Yeti phath padera aau yestari padha bhanni ani class maa ayera sodhe pachhi yeti path yad chha chhaina bhanera sodhni yad chha bhane sir le sodhepachhi buje nabuje pani sir le bhanda bhane bhayo (Teaching related to language, anyone by the figures/pictures; in our time we had rote learning sir. Sir instructed us to rote lesson and asked to say it in the class. If we had rote, we could have said when teacher asked, it did not matter whether we understood or not)”.

Still, many teachers feel secure in translation and bilingual approach in English language teaching in early grades. They find this approach is effective without other alternative pedagogical approaches they have still been exposed. This is safer and more beneficial approach for students in early grades who are taught English as a subject with bilingual or multilingual approach as something is better than nothing. The teachers, who have minimum academic qualification and non-English specialization academic subjects, poor modern teaching learning multilingual material access and competence to coop multilingual classes; can experience tranquility in early grade pedagogy.

Learning Strategies Applied by Teachers

Learning strategies, in terms of language learning, refer to the set of techniques, tricks, plans, processes, steps, stages and activities that a language learner employs while learning familiar or strange language like English as foreign language. “Learning or language learning strategies refer to “techniques, tactics, potentially conscious plans, consciously operations, learning skills, cognitive abilities, language processing strategies, problem solving procedures” (Wenden & Rubin,1987). In other words, language learning strategies or learner strategies refer to the entire composition of learners’ learning planning, processes and activities. There are diversities of learners’ learning strategies shaped by different variables. Learners’ learning progress might depend on the learning strategies employed by learners. Use of cognitive and metacognitive strategies for learning languages by L2 learners is the part of effective learning (Oxford, 2016, p. 125). Here our concern of analysis and interpretation is how and what learning strategies the teachers, who are teaching in early grades at present, have been practicing while they were learning English and other languages when they were students. Since language learning can be influenced by various factors, teachers’ teaching and learners’ learning strategies are also important factors. In one sense, by teacher, teaching is also an act of sharing of learning strategies. Teaching is to some extent, a ‘strategy training’ which offers opportunities for and ‘lead to greater sensitivity to the learning process’ (Nunan, 2016, p. 133). How teachers’ tutors shared their second or foreign language learning strategies influences how teachers are imparting language learning strategies to the students at present. There is no doubt learning strategies are reformed and influenced with the changes of time, context and contemporary language teaching learning trends.

CONCLUSION

While the participant teachers were students under the process of their academic attainment with which they were in teaching profession at the time; Nepali language was in domination as the medium of instruction and classroom communication. The teachers used Nepali language in high portion in English class too. They did not use teaching/learning materials except the textbooks. Their teaching methods were like GT method. One important thing in the past was that there were few ethnic language community children. Their focuses were on reading and writing. Their learning was of reproduction rather than creation. They used to rote the lesson without understanding much of the contents. They focused on rote reading and writing. Both the teachers and students were oriented towards how to pass the exam in at any cost for English subjects rather than learning language. This makes us conclude that the multilingual issues are un avoidable in any classes. They automatically come in the instruction without any invitations.

REFERENCES

1. British (2019). Using multilingual approaches: Moving from theory to practice. A resource book of strategies, activities and projects for the classroom.
2. Freeman, D. (2009). The scope of second language teacher education. In Burns, A. & Richards, J. C. (Eds.), Cambridge guide to second language teacher education (pp. 11-19). Cambridge University Press.
3. Government of Nepal (2012). National population and housing census: National report. Central Bureau of Statistics.
4. Government of Nepal. (2015). The constitution of Nepal. Nepal Law Book Publication Committee.
5. Khamhi-Stein, L. D. (2009) Teacher preparation and nonnative English-speaking educators. In Burns, A. & Richards, J. C. (Eds) The Cambridge guide to second language teacher education (pp. 91-101). Cambridge University Press.
6. Lew, S. & Siffrinn, N. E. (2019). Exploring language ideologies and preparing preservice teachers for multilingual and multicultural Literacy Research: Theory, Method, and Practice, 68, 375-395. Doi:10.1177/2381336919870281.
7. Lotherington, H. (2004). Bilingual education. In Davies, A., & Elders, C. (Eds.). The handbook of applied linguistics ( 695-718). Blackwell Publishing.
8. Lyons, J. (1981). Language and linguistics: An introduction. Cambridge University Press.
9. Makoni, & Pennycook, A. (2007). Disinvesting and reconstituting languages. In M. M. LTD. Bilingual education and bilingualism (pp. 1-41). MPG Books Ltd. Retrieved from: https://edisciplinas.usp.br/pluginfile.php/5769808/mod_resource/content/1/MAKO NI%20and%20PENNYCOOK%20Disinventig.pdf.
10. (2019). National education policy. Government of Nepal. Ministry of Education, Science and Technology.
11. National Planning Commission. (2017). Nepal’s sustainable development goals status and roadmap: 2016-2030. Government of Nepal. Retrieved from: npc.gov.np.
12. Njoroge, C., Mwangi, P. W., Ndungu, R. W. & Orwenjo, D. O. (2014). Multilingualism and education: The critical nexus. Multilingual Education: A Springer Open Journal. Retrieved from: http://www.multilingual-education.com/content/4/1/10: May 2 2020.
13. Nunan, D. (2016). Learner strategy training in the classroom: An action research In Richards, J. C. & Renandya, W. A. (Eds.), Methodology in language teaching: An anthology of current practice (pp. 133-143). Cambridge University Press.
14. Okal, O. (2014). Benefits of multilingualism in education. Universal Journal of Educational Research 2(3), 223-229, 2014. Doi: 10.13189/ujer.2014.020304.
15. Oxford, L. (2016). Language learning strategies in a Nutshell: Update and ESL suggestions. In Richards, J. C. & Renandya, W. A.  (Eds.), Methodology in language teaching: An anthology of current practice (pp. 124-132). Cambridge University Press.
16. Ploger, S. & Putjata, G. (2019). Embracing multilingualism in school through multilingual  education: Insights into the interplay of policies and In Seals, C. A. & Olsen-Reeder, V. I. (Eds.). Embracing multilingualism across educational contexts (pp. 215-244). Victoria University Press.
17. Rezepova, N., Torosyan, L., Stepanenko, K. & Guseynov (2018). Modern educational domain: Bilingualism and multilingualism in teaching foreign languages. Rural Environment Education P Doi:10.22616/REEP.2018.013
18. Smith, A., Flowers, P., & Larkin, M. (2009). Interpretative phenomenological analysis theory, method and research. Sage Publications.
19. Stavans, A. & Hoffman, C. (2015). Multilingualism. Cambridge University Press.
20. Taylor, S. K. (2010). Beyond bilingual education: Multilingual language education in Gist Education and Learning Research Journal, IV (1), 138-154.
21. (2003). Education in a multilingual world. UNESCO.
22. (2006). Education in a multilingual world. UNESCO.
23. Waller, L., Wethers, K. & De Costa, P. I. (2017). A critical praxis: Narrowing the gap between identity, theory, and practice. TESOL Journal, 8 (1). Doi: 1002/tesj.256.
24. Wenden, A. & J. Rubin, J. (1987). Learner strategies in language earning. Prentice Hall.
25. Ziegler, G. (2013). Multilingualism and the language education landscape: Challenges for teacher training in Europe. Multilingual Education a Springer Open Journal, 3 (1), 2-23. Retrieved from: http://www.multilingual-education.com/content/3/1/1.

APPENDIX:

Interview Guideline for the Teachers Related to Teachers’ Educational Background and Multilingual Experiences of Learning in Teacher Education

• Please give your brief introduction and academic qualification
• What is your major subject?
• What is your first/mother language?
• How many languages can you speak? Good/better/ basic?
• How long have you been teaching for?
• How were you taught in terms of classroom language? Can you please share your experience in learning language at school and college?
• What were the languages that your teachers used in the class rooms?
• What experience do you have regarding language teaching and teaching using particular language?
• Have you taken any special teacher education or training for teaching language?
• What concept do you have about multilingualism?
• What is your opinion or ideas on multilingual education?
• How do you present your lesson in the class from language perspective?
• Teaching English or other languages, how do you use as a medium of instruction?
• You should be taught/educated multilingually then only you can handle multilingual What is your opinion on it?
• What types of teacher education or training do you expect to make you a good multilingual teacher?