Many researchers have explored teachers’ beliefs in literacy and found that teachers’ literacy beliefs affect their instructional practices in foreign language (FL) or second language (SL) classrooms. Researchers have demonstrated that teachers’ literacy beliefs and instructional practices are generally consistent. There have been many studies regarding teachers’ literacy beliefs and classroom instruction in the context of FL/SL and more recent studies on teachers’ literacy beliefs presenting an increasing interest in heritage language (HL) such as Spanish and Chinese. However, less is known about Korean language teachers’ literacy beliefs and practices in the mixed classroom of heritage and non-‐heritage learners.
This present study had two main purposes. First, it examined and described the literacy beliefs and instructional practices of a novice Korean language instructor, who struggled primarily with heritage learners in his teaching career. The second purpose was to seek an in-‐depth view of a novice teacher’s literacy beliefs and practices toward two different student subgroups of heritage and non-‐heritage learners in the same classroom. In addition, this study investigated incongruences between literacy beliefs and practices toward heritage and non-‐heritage learners. In order to examine a novice Korean instructor’s literacy beliefs and practices toward Korean heritage learners and non-‐heritage learners, this research employed a qualitative case study and collected data through a combination of a survey, semi-‐structured interviews, and videotaped classroom observations. The Literacy Orientation Survey (LOS) and Taxonomy Of Techniques were adopted for a survey and classroom observation, respectively.
The results of the current study indicated that the novice teacher of Korean has general literacy beliefs compatible with a constructivist orientation, which is a whole-‐ language approach and one that promotes transformative learning. For most of the instructor’s literacy instruction in the classroom, his literacy beliefs appeared to be congruent with his practices toward KHLLs. The novice teacher promoted differentiated literacy instruction by giving separate, more challenging, or instruction more connected to everyday life in an effort to meet each individual learner’s needs in literacy. Acknowledging heritage learners as mediators and community builders who could potentially promote literacy skills, the participant presented a broader understanding of literacy and multiliteracies, such as cultural and digital literacy, beyond traditional skill-‐ focused reading and writing. However, his overall literacy beliefs were incongruent with his instructional practices toward KFLLs because of frequent accommodations for less proficient learners through more traditional or eclectic activities. This incongruence and distinctive literacy instruction toward two different learner subgroups were explained by several factors: university policy on teaching and learning, his educational background and teaching experiences, and the low proficiency of the Korean language learners.
This study of a novice teacher’s literacy beliefs toward different learner groups suggests that the embracing of comprehensive and constructivist approaches to literacy instruction and curriculum is only possible when pre-‐ and in-‐service teachers are aware of their own premises or propositions about literacy beliefs and instructions. The findings generated by this study can serve as a good starting point to guide FL/HL teachers to professional growth and expand the field of HL literacy studies in the future.