s2fieldsofstudy: Education Linguistics

text:
Teaching Comparative Literature in English(es): Decolonizing Pedagogy in the Multilingual Classroom

This article reflects on the challenges that arise when the comparative literature classroom, especially in the Netherlands, is increasingly multilingual and simultaneously increasingly monolingual in its focus on English as a primary language. In view of moving comparative literary studies beyond its Eurocentric framework, what opportunities lie in teaching translated texts in “English(es)” in such a multilingual setting? What are the effects of such an interplay of mono- and multilingualism in view of a commitment to decolonizing the literary curriculum and pedagogical practice? What attention to language and linguistic difference might be available given the diverse linguistic and cultural literacies of students? Less interested in questions of translating texts, the article pursues how teaching literary texts in translation can foster listening to linguistic difference and encourage relational attunement when degrees of literacy and illiteracy are shared at varying levels of competence across students and teachers.

can train the imagination "into a will for peaceful social justice." 1 Teaching in comparative literature-more so than, for example, in programs of English, French, or Hispanic literature-raises a crucial question in that regard, namely how to foster attention to linguistic detail and the challenges of (un)translatability, when students read a significant number of texts in English translation and when for the majority of these students English is a second language. This is at least the case in Dutch universities, where I teach. Often, my students express that they experience reading in translation as reading at a remove or as making it impossible for them to address questions of linguistic or poetic composition. Although my own research engages with (postcolonial) literatures written in French, German, and English (with excursions into writings in Spanish and Dutch), my teaching in comparative literature at Utrecht University indeed draws mostly on texts in English, many of which are translated into English, including from other languages than the five I can read. In this short contribution, I want to reflect on both the challenges and potential gains that arise from what I experience, on the one hand, as an increasingly monolingual classroom in its focus on English as the primary language (in terms of the texts we read and as language of instruction), and yet simultaneously, on the other hand, as an increasingly multilingual space that includes many languages of which I as a teacher have no reading knowledge. In what follows I want to think about the effects such an interplay of monolingualism and multilingualism might have in view of a commitment to decolonizing the literary curriculum and pedagogical practice.
In part, the seemingly paradoxical situation of an increasingly monolingual yet also increasingly multilingual classroom has to do with the geopolitical location of the literature programs in which I teach. In recent years, Dutch universities, and especially Utrecht University, have pushed for an internationalization of study programs, which means that more bachelor's and master's programs are offered in English. Until 2015, courses in most of these programs were taught in both Dutch and English, and applying to a study program required that students have a command of both languages on an academic level. Since then, most master's programs at Utrecht University have adopted English as their primary language of instruction, and in the case of comparative literature, since 2017, also the bachelor's program offers an all-English taught track, next to a bilingual track taught in Dutch and English. 2 This transition has led to an increase in international students, from other European countries as well as from a wide range of non-European countries. In the academic year 2019-20, about 50 percent of incoming bachelor's students and 30 percent of incoming master's students in our literature programs are from outside the Netherlands. For my specific teaching context, this has meant going from a largely Dutch-speaking student body with English as a 1 Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak, Readings (London and Calcutta: Seagull Books, 2014), 6.
2 To be precise, the master's program "Literature Today" at Utrecht University offers three tracks: English and comparative literature (taught in English), Dutch literature (taught in Dutch and English), and modern European literature (taught in French, German, Spanish and English). The second and third tracks have challenges of their own in view of the bilingualism they demand. My reflections here are based on my teaching in the English and comparative literature track of this master's program as well as my teaching in the English-taught track of the bachelor's program, and I am especially interested in the increasing multilingualism in these classrooms, where English is the lingua franca, but neither is it the only language spoken, nor a first language to most students, nor the only language from which literatures are considered. second language (usually also their only operative second language) to a multilingual classroom with an increasing diversity of languages other than English or Dutch. Although we work with literary texts almost exclusively in English translation (even if encouraging students to read the original) and our lingua franca is "English(es)," 3 students bring a much larger linguistic variety into the classroom than they did a few years ago. Just thinking of the literature classes I taught in the academic year 2018-19, students were native speakers of Arabic, Bangla, Bulgarian, Cantonese, Croatian, Dutch, different variants of English, French, German, Hindi, Iban, Igbo, Japanese, Malay, Mandarin, Romanian, Papiamento, Portuguese, different variants of Spanish, and Turkish. In 2019-20, the situation is approximately the same in terms of variety, although each year is different in terms of which languages are in the mix. This year, my students have native competence in Arabic, Catalan, Danish, Dutch, Farsi, French, Frisian, German, Greek, Hindi, Iban, isiZulu, Italian, Luxemburgish, Malay, Mandarin, Romanian, Russian, different variants of Portuguese, Polish, Spanish, Turkish, and in a few cases (New Zealand, South African, British, and US-American) English. As someone interested in the materiality of language and the performativity of reading, as stated previously, but also concerned with unlearning the colonial politics of language inherent to the field of comparative literature, I find these changes in the classroom exciting. Compared with a few years ago, it means that students have a larger sensibility for language and linguistic differences than students who operate, as if naturally, in their native language with "global English" as their only other language. Furthermore, the use of English as a shared tongue occurs in an academic setting, where English (unlike, say, in UK or US universities) is not the national language and hence to a degree a "foreign" yet shared tongue. Because one of my pedagogical goals is fostering a critical sensibility for textual opacity and the materiality of language, as well as for the challenges this generates for our processes of reading, this is a welcome change. 4 The question that has preoccupied me as a result of this change is how such an increased sensibility to living "in languages" 5 might assist also in teaching reading as a mode of critical engagement that neither leaves a text untouched as impenetrably other (and thus capitulates before beginning to read) nor appropriates it as transparent 3 The agrammatical term English(es) has in mind Emily Apter's use of the plural "Frenches" in "Theorizing Francophonie," Comparative Literature Studies 42.4 (2005): 297-311, where Apter tries to unwork the dominance of hexagon French as the "real blueprint" of the language and to loosen the isomorphic equation of nation/language. "Frenches"-or Francophonie as a concept-is "designating no single people or nation, but a linguistic multiple of extra-hexagonality irreducible to the sum of regional and ethnic idioms that comprise it" (Apter, 300). As a vehicle and remnant of colonial expansion, English is in a similar position to French-a language no longer designating a single people or nation-and it is lived as an increasing mix of "Englishes" in my courses. On the diversification of language, see also Barbara Cassin, who notes that "la multiplicité n'est pas seulement entre les langues, mais en chaque langue" ("Présentation," in Vocabulaire Européen des Philosophies. Dictionnaire des Intraduisibles, ed. Barbara Cassin (Paris: Editions du Seuil, 2004), xx). 4 I am thinking here especially of Edouard Glissant's notion of opacity. In Poetics of Relation (Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press, 1990), Glissant writes, in distinction to the "requirement for transparency" (190) in Western thought, that "the opaque is not the obscure" (191) and that the right to opacity is "not enclosure within an impenetrable autarchy … but would be the real foundation of Relation" (190). It is this negotiation of relational differences, in the multilingual classroom as well as in the varying accessibilities of a text it enables, that I have in mind when using the term. 5 Cassin, "Présentation," xvii. sameness (that is, overreads or underreads textual difference and opacity). These are surely two extremes of a spectrum of reading approaches, but they are indications of the attitudes to reading in translation that are often at play in my classroom. The former resonates in statements from students such as "I wouldn't know what to say about this text because I cannot read it in the original and know little about the cultural or historical context from which it emerged," which I hear frequently when teaching texts in English translation. What students express here, it seems to me, is a hesitation to engage with what is on the page because they might not fully understand, feel unable to get to the original "true" text, or do not feel at home with its diction or setting. The text then remains largely untouched as unknowable, and where (self-)recognition and identification are felt to be impossible, withdrawal, often expressed as a form of respect, is the response. The assumption of transparency, which insufficiently respects textual difference and opacity, on the other hand, plays out when students ignore the fact that the text speaks to a situation or raises questions that might not be fully translatable to their own experience, such as when they feel they can fully identify with the issues raised, thereby often reducing or overlooking the concrete stakes of this text, how it might be speaking to poetic, historical, cultural, or philosophical concerns that are different from the reader's experiences. As Spivak suggests, the negotiation of difference and sameness manifested in these responses to texts might also speak by implication to their negotiation in other than textual realms. A literary education, she notes, might help to work readers away from an appropriation of otherness into sameness and toward a more generous "relating to the other" 6 as Other, potentially opaque, but not therefore unreadable. A literary education in this sense would mean training students to pay close attention to linguistic and aesthetic detail, to grapple with textual opacity and alterity, with the meaningmaking that texts initiate and demand, and to affirm this grappling also as an experience of the limits of one's own interpretations and the need to stretch one's imagination. 7 Such an attention can give rise to what Spivak calls the ethical: an attitude toward the Other that interrupts epistemological "capture" and can contribute in small ways to "rearrange desire" 8 and train the imagination toward, as we read previously, "a will for peaceful social justice." 9 The wager is that by teaching literary reading, as a training in negotiating the limits and potentials of our understanding of (textual) otherness, we wrestle with our negotiation of (cultural) difference and (un)translatability. I subscribe to this hope that the medium of language and the poeticity of the literary can contribute to rewiring our perceptions of otherness and the ethical in Spivak's sense.
From this perspective, I want to consider now how to teach reading as such a close attention to literary texts, in order to facilitate the (infinitely slow and incalculable) rearranging of desire. I am convinced that such an attention harbors the ethical potential to learn to respectfully approach otherness, which Spivak and others have argued for, and that such relearned attention is an important element of decolonizing pedagogies. Given the specific situation of teaching comparative literature in the Netherlands, I ask myself how to foster such an experience of reading/alterity under the condition that we are teaching texts mostly in English translation. Thus, what I am concerned with here are the challenges and opportunities that arise from working with translated texts, especially in a multilingual classroom. I am less interested here in questions of translating texts. Whereas the methodological debates in comparative literature in the past decades have often been critical of world literature's affirmation of translation and have perceived English (and working with translated texts) as a threat to linguistic proficiency and to the comparative literary methods of attending closely to texts, I would like to ask instead what opportunities, in view of moving comparative literary studies beyond its Eurocentric framework, might lie in teaching translated texts in "English(es)" in a multilingual classroom. 10 What attention to language and linguistic difference might be available in a multilingual classroom that we could tap into in order to learn "how to read" in a context in which texts cannot be assigned in their original versions?
Although I certainly do not wish to weaken a demand for sophisticated linguistic and cultural literacy, an affirmation of teaching translated texts under those conditions might, first of all, have the productive effect of expanding and diversifying the curriculum beyond the European canon that has dominated comparative literature for far too long. The narrow set of European languages shared by scholars in the discipline is no longer tenable in view of the global plethora of literary languages and the endeavors to move the discipline beyond its Eurocentric and colonial framework. But rather than only thinking about what we read, I want to think about decolonizing pedagogies in the literary classroom in view also of how we read. It seems to me important to stress that part of a move toward decolonizing pedagogies in literary studies lies in enabling an attitude toward reading texts that refuses being stuck in the positions of either "I cannot know this foreign text" or "this text speaks for and about me." As well as expanding the canon, a move to decolonizing pedagogies might require relearning relations to/of otherness; and striving for patient, generous encounters with texts, based on study and curiosity (etymologically derived from Latin curiosus (careful, diligent, inquiring eagerly) and related to cura (care)), might be one way to practice a potential understanding and listening to the opacities that defer and destabilize meaning. In calling such a practice "decolonizing," I am thinking concretely of Rolando Vázquez Melken's notion of a decolonial aesthetics of listening. He notes that "decolonial critique aims to foster spaces where the listening of what has been relegated to oblivion becomes possible… . Decolonial critique and the humbling of modernity work in the epistemic field to open spaces for the listening of the voices from the outside of modernity." 11 Although Vázquez phrases listening as a critical mode that strives to attend to epistemic fields outside modernity, I am expanding Vázquez's use of listening here to a more broadly conceived attention to otherness and textual opacity. But in resonance with the deconstructive concern of Spivak, Attridge, and others for an ethics of reading, Vázquez also highlights the ethical that inheres in such a mode of listening. "The task of listening," he writes, "presents itself also as an ethical orientation, towards knowledge as relationality.
To listen means to bridge the colonial difference, the rift that separates the visible and the invisible, 'the real' and 'the absent.' It poses the challenge to listen to those who have been disavowed and silenced." 12 The openness to listen for what seems at odds with our expectations or cultural repertoire is what resonates for me here when thinking of teaching literature in the multilingual classroom.
One could argue that this type of readerly attitude-of reading as listening to the text, listening for what has (not) been said-can be practiced without further ado in a monolingual classroom. The close attention to linguistic materiality and textual ambiguities might even be easier to achieve with students who have a native command of the language in which they are reading. Advanced literacy (including cultural literacy) is usually considered a prerequisite for solid close readings that can sense a text's richness or depths; also in comparative literature, near-native mastery of the languages whose literatures one engages has been a methodological touchstone and one of the key issues in world literature/new comparativism debates. Again, it is by no means my intention to propose that scholars of comparative literature should abandon the methodological demand of sophisticated linguistic and cultural literacy. But for teaching the reading of literature in the classroom, the multilingual situation described previously-in which a variety of languages and cultural literacies are present and English(es) is the lingua franca-might also offer the chance to explore new possibilities of and for reading. The difference that my multilingual comparative literature classes of recent years might offer vis-à-vis either the monolingual study of literature in, for example, programs of English, French, or Hispanic literature or the formerly bilingual classroom (Dutch native, English as second language) is the combination of linguistic proficiency and nonproficiency in an environment in which this can become shared experience. What I mean is that a variety of languages is present in the classrooms I am speaking of here (including hegemonic languages, minority languages, and languages from the South), and potentially, literatures from these languages (in translation) can be discussed in a comparative literature course. Students share degrees of bilingualism or multilingualism, as well as sophisticated, though varying levels of English; they also share the realization that others are proficient in languages they are not and that they are proficient in languages others are not. In my experience, this mix of competence and noncompetence, of (cultural) literacy and nonliteracy, can foster a pedagogical space of difference and relationality, in which attendance to the poetic density of texts becomes possible in new ways, even if (or perhaps because) texts come in English translation. This mix of multilingual (non) competence invites listening to textual composition and opacity in ways that might disrupt the linguistic and literary expertise in, say, English, French, or Hispanic literature, to stay with the aforementioned examples. The multilingual comparative literature classroom harbors degrees of linguistic competence and illiteracy experienced on everyone's part, and as such lends itself to being activated as a collaborative space of learning; as a space in which difference is experienced as enriching and the opacity of texts can be perceived (and partly unlocked, partly observed) in collaborative reading. In my experience, a crucial element of such a pedagogical practice is that the teacher also partakes in it-as both a facilitator of collaborative learning and a part of it, willing to acknowledge their own mix of literacy/expertise and illiteracy/noncompetence. 13 Concretely, this means that I am (also) teaching literatures from languages I do not read, and I invite the active collaboration from students. Although I take Spivak's stress on unlearning one's privilege to heart, I thus depart from her dictum to teach literature only from languages one can also read and take inspiration here rather from bell hooks' Teaching Community: A Pedagogy of Hope, affirming that the noted interplay of competence/noncompetence does not exclude me as a teacher. 14 The different linguistic and cultural attunements and competences in my classrooms can then help make, as hooks notes in view of antiracist pedagogies, "the classroom a place … of liberating mutuality where teacher and student together work in partnership" 15 in which to practice attention to textual, poetic material together. Surely, the multilingual classroom also exceeds the European linguistic spectrum that still dominates comparative literature as a field and can heighten the willingness to reach and read for literary imagination and linguistic texture beyond the small set of European languages. Expanding the 13 Pedagogies that strive to question the colonial legacies inherent in globalized academia (or strive to "decolonize" the university) also need to critically reflect (and act) upon the structural inclusions/exclusions and the "governing fictions" (Fanon) that still continue within academic institutions. The notion of a master who transmits knowledge and controls its reception seems to be one of those persistent governing fictions in academic practice. If one strives to facilitate an experience of alterity/otherness for students, taking the teacher out of that experience would seem to defeat the very endeavor. Although pedagogies that try to question the conventional relation of master/disciple might come up against institutional demands of evaluation and assessment, what I reflect on here as a collaborative exercise is not incompatible with institutionally required assessment and grading. Even if such attempts might always be in a (hopefully critical, productive) tension with institutional (and students') expectations, giving attention in the classroom to collaborative close examination of texts and to explorations of shared knowledge and its limits does not foreclose gradable assessment and evaluation. Rather, I would venture, it trains a particular kind of attention to text in a social situation, in which one's capacity or incapacity to understand plays a crucial role. 14 For Spivak's stress on unlearning one's privilege, see Sara Danius, Stefan Jonsson, and Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak, "An Interview with Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak," boundary 2 20.2 (1993): 24-50. Next to bell hooks' pedagogical reflections in comparative literature canon beyond that narrow linguistic tradition must bear institutional fruit (in hiring policies, possibilities for language acquisition, and so on); it is (or will be) a crucial step to decolonize the curriculum, one that will also have to negotiate between reading in translation and literacies in more non-European languages. But the current situation of the "international" classroom, in which English(es) are the lingual franca and texts must be made available in English, has offered me food for thought on how to assist the experience of reading as grappling with alterity, on how to train a critical sensibility for the material aesthetics of texts under conditions of translation. 16 In the past few years, it has raised the question of how to teach these practices to students who do not share one another's linguistic repertoires, but meet on the common denominator of English(es), and whose literacies I do not want to limit to mine. By way of closing, I would like to share now an example of my efforts at mobilizing students' linguistic and cultural inventories to help enable such close, collaborative reading experiences.
For a course in the research master's Comparative Literary Studies, I assigned the short stories "Mutterzunge" (mother tongue) and "Grossvaterzunge" (grandfather tongue) by Turkish-born Emine Sevgi Özdamar, who writes in German. I made the texts available in the original version and English translation. Two students in the class (one from Austria, one from Argentina) read them in German, the rest of the class (including a student from Turkey) read them in English. The stories are the opening pieces of Özdamar's collection Mutterzunge (1990) (Mother Tongue [1994]): the linguistically extremely rich texts play with various dialects and linguistic nuances (moving from high German with unmarked poetic evocations of Hölderlin to mimicked broken German associated with first-generation immigrants); their narrator reflects on the assumptions around a mother tongue, on Turkish language politics, on Germany's Nazi past, on German unification in the 1990s, as well as German migration politics since the 1960s. I assigned them because their varied pitches of German perform "mother tongue" as something acquirable and versatile, thus challenging ideas of unified national language and cultural nativism.
Much of the linguistic play is lost in the English translation, but the two interconnected stories also tell a very sensuous love story between a Turkish girl living in Berlin and her Palestinian teacher of Arabic, a narrative that students could access and enjoy. The girl takes Arabic lessons to (as she says) write to her grandfather, who would have written Turkish in Arabic script, before Atatürk's language reforms Latinized Turkish writing in 1928. Although she and her teacher communicate in German (and the story performs the various nuances of German mentioned previously), the text also 16 Reading as grappling with alterity is not predicated on reading in translation or in a multilingual setting. Far from it. The experience of alterity inheres in the specific attention that literature tout court demands due to its specific mode of veridiction and poeticity, as well as the ambiguities inherent to language (cf. Attridge, The Singularity of Literature), which also makes it impossible to tell once and for all whether a certain instance is a moment of alterity or simply not yet sufficiently unpacked. Learning to navigate that tension without retreating to "anything goes" is, it seems to me, the task of learning "how to read." What I have experienced, however, is that the shared space of competence and noncompetence, which the multilingual classroom opens up, can help create an environment in which students experience and negotiate their own competences and noncompetences (and this mix as a condition shared with others) and are willing to stay with that negotiation for a little longer. unearths the close linguistic kinship between Arabic and Turkish. Long passages in "Grossvaterzunge" are German translations of Turkish songs, presented in tandem with Koranic verses, all rendered in German, but marked in the narrative as deriving from Turkish or Arabic. In the course, we discussed how both of Özdamar's stories dwell on the linguistic triangle of Arabic, Turkish, and German; a tangle, in which the narrator finds herself and from which she fabricates a (for lack of a better word) translingual sense of self, despite the fact that social ascriptions of Turkish-German existence push her onto either side of the presumed binary. 17 Most students could see this on the narrative level, but not so immediately on the linguistic, as, for example, the pun in the title Mutterzunge (a twist of the idiomatic Muttersprache, meaning mother tongue, but literally "mother language," foregrounding corporeal experience in language as well as intimacy and malleability) had to be retrieved through German. The translation only gives the English idiomatic mother tongue, a correct translation, which, however, domesticates the strangeness of the German original and obfuscates the pun's point. As a speaker of German, and together with the two students who had read the stories in German, we could facilitate this difference between German and English for the classroom, so that students not versed in German could retrace it and experience the importance of translation and the peculiarity of each language. The pun is double, however, because the foreignized German Mutterzunge derives from a literal translation of the Turkish ana dil, meaning mother tongue, and-like English, but unlike German-literally connoting the mother's tongue (dil). Having published on Özdamar before, in our discussions, I could also point out to the class the layering of German and Turkish at this very instance. But it was only with the help of the Turkish-speaking student that we were also able see how "Grossvaterzunge" draws on and transforms the wording of popular Turkish songs, which to me had remained unreadable as songs and which I had understood to be creative translations of the Koranic verses they are coupled with. Although they are instances of the narrator's effort at learning Arabic, it was with the student's cultural knowledge and ear for Turkish that we could unlock how Özdamar not only inscribes her protagonist into an idiosyncratic, new German, but how this German also runs on a Turkish cultural subtext, offering-in the evocation and twisting of popular songs-a humorous commentary on Koranic verses and Turkish politics.
Should I teach Özdamar in the future, the possibility of producing all of this in the classroom in an interplay of (student/teacher's) competences and (teacher/student's) noncompetences hinges to a degree on the presence of speakers of Turkish and German. More generally speaking, attention to textual materiality and aesthetics in this vein then depends to a certain degree on the composition of each classroom and it requires careful (curious) attunement each time anew to the specific mix of literacies and illiteracies in the room. 18 The pedagogical point, however, is that greater attention to poetic detail and the experience of reading was possible in collaboration across the languages present in 18 Other examples could be given. In 2018-19, in a course in the master's program, we were reading Spivak's "Translating into English," a text about translation and Farhad Mazhar, the renowned poet from that specific classroom (Turkish, German, English, only two of which I as teacher am proficient in). It happened in the interplay between my guidance and expertise and students' cultural and linguistic repertoires so that we could attend to what happens between German and English and to the Turkish intricacies in the text. The students who were more closely involved in this session (the speakers of German and Turkish) experienced such a flipped classroom as both challenging and inspiring, unexpectedly being the ones who know (in parts even more than the teacher). And the students without knowledge of German or Turkish were made aware that linguistic nuance and poetic playfulness are present and important in these texts and that students contributed to their unlocking, even if they themselves did not "master" all the languages at play. Within the debates on the futures of comparative literature, this might be one way in the very practice of teaching to confront the lasting Eurocentrism of the discipline's language politics and the colonial legacies of Western academic methodology and pedagogy more broadly: affirming a collective multilingualism in the classroom, operable through a spectrum of English(es) and an encouragement of linguistic difference and relational attunement to them shared at varying levels of competence across students and teachers. Such teaching practices might make the classroom a space for more decolonial pedagogies, dedicated to listening to otherness across colonial and linguistic divides and to redirecting our reading attitudes toward less appropriative modes of knowing, toward noncolonial negotiations of difference.
Bangladesh. Spivak makes important points on the task of the translator, on the politics of language in the concrete case of Bangla, as well as the larger point of languages being palimpsestic and historically as well as asymmetrically entangled, about the materiality and sound-scapes of a language that are next to impossible to translate, and about poetry as a mode of commenting on, yet undercutting nationalist (and in this case secular) narratives of a national collective. I assigned the text for these points. However, Spivak also at times closely engages with wording in Sanskrit and Bangla to make her points. I do not know either of these, as Spivak presumably expects to be the case for most of her readers. At one point, she transliterates a "famous pair of Sanskrit tags …: a. shushkum kashthum tishthattugrey b. neerasa taruvara poorata bhaati" (in An Aesthetic Education in the Era of Globalization, 256-74, esp. 265), a phrase attributed to a former schoolteacher of hers. She notes that both mean "there's a dry branch in the way" and invites the reader to see if they can "sense the complete dissonance in the two sets of sounds" (265). I could point students to the different assonances in both and explain Spivak's point that "sound and sense play together to show that translation is not merely transfer of sense" (265). However, it took the contribution of a student who had joined the program from Dhaka and his cultural literacy in Bangla and linguistic literacy in Sanskrit to make available to us the phrases' different sociopolitical associations and the richness of cultural context, in which one or the other would resonate. Indeed, as Spivak also notes in passing, "Sanskrit is not just a moment in Benveniste" (265), but it took the student's cultural literacy to flesh out how the two phrases function differently, despite "meaning" the same thing. The exact same lesson was not reproducible in the same course this year because we lacked the knowledge of Sanskrit and Bangla, while the other points (and new points) could be discussed.


What is the philosophy of education needed in the XXI century?1

Tatiana Krawczyńska-Zaucha, What is the philosophy of education needed in the XXI century? Culture – Society – Education no. 2(18) 2020, Poznań 2020, pp. 467–478, Adam Mickiewicz University Press. ISSN 2300-0422. DOI 10.14746/kse.2020.18.17.2. The last decades have witnessed constant changes and reforms in education in many countries. The paradox of these changes is that they require further changes and transformations and further reforms. Education systems do not correlate with the needs of humanity in the 21st century, nor with the emerging new world view. This article aims to examine education from the global perspective of the world of digitization in which we live and to find an answer to the question what is the purpose of education in the 21st century. From the analyses of different pedagogical trends and philosophical assumptions underlying them, a conclusion will be drawn about the need for a philosophy open to new challenges in today’s educational reality in order to achieve this goal. This article will address key issues of the VUCA world concerning education such as digitization, educate to the unknown, the phenomenon of global teenagers and the development of robotics.

The last decades have witnessed constant changes and reforms in education in many countries. The paradox of these changes is that they require further changes and transformations and further reforms. Education systems do not correlate with the needs of humanity in the 21st century, nor with the emerging new world view. This article aims to examine education from the global perspective of the world of digitization in which we live and to find an answer to the question what is the purpose of education in the 21st century. From the analyses of different pedagogical trends and philosophical assumptions underlying them, a conclusion will be drawn about the need for a philosophy open to new challenges in today's educational reality in order to achieve this goal. This article will address key issues of the VUCA world concerning education such as digitization, educate to the unknown, the phenomenon of global teenagers and the development of robotics.
KEYWORDS philosophy of education, educate to unknown, digitization, global teenagers, VUCA world form, has been highly institutionalised, and the content is subject to direct political and economic interests. While the quality is a part of the form of education, it is left on the margin of bureaucratic activities. One may be so bold to state, that history made a full, sad circle -despite the fact, that education is universally available, it does not fulfil its basic role of enlightening and stimulating minds, and it fades into oblivious obscurity, and distortion, for the sake of coerced, while short lasting memorisation. Even Rawls, who postulated a "fair equality of opportunity" (Rawls, 1971: 72) for children of social classes and circles, could not foresee, that the access to education is not necessarily equal to motivation for acquiring knowledge. Therefore, what was omitted, or missed out?
In order not to get lost in the maze of meanings and approaches towards pedagogy and education, one should return to the source. Paidagogos (gr.) is someone responsible for leading children, managing their development and education, and taking care of them (Śliwerski, 2019: 15). Philosopher, Radim Palouš, indicates with even more strength, that the essence of pedagogy is that which can be found in the suffix of (gr.), derived from agein -to lead, or age -lead upwards (Palouš, 1991: 16-17). Therefore, pedagogy can be defined as "all conditions, processes and actions that support the development of an individual to achieve their full capabilities" (Kwieciński, Śliwerski, 2019: 7).
Education however, is derived from Latin e-duco, where e is an affix meaning a movement outwards, while duco means to lead. The majority of translations is focused on the second component, highlighting that the meaning of education is to lead, to educate, to school. However, in order to understand the essence of education, one must consider the entire word with the e affix, emphasising on the movement from the inside to the outside. Then, education appears as extracting from the inside of the students, their personal resources, talents and strengths, allowing them to use them in the world (Krawczyńska-Zaucha, 2020: 68).
Coming from such, currently inapparent perspective, all pedagogical and educational actions should, of nature, focus on leading "upwards" and extracting that which is within the student, allowing him to live a life filled with opportunities, use own potential, strengths and talents. The aforementioned can be accomplished through favourable company of the pedagogue within the process of learning self and experiencing the world, who shares knowledge with the student and sparks cognitive and scientific curiosity.
While pedagogy is focused on the individual and on building a creative pedagogue -student relation, education is a systematic and organised action encompassing all levels of education (cf. Kwieciński, Śliwerski, 2019: 7). However, in the world of today, one cannot limit to the institutions that are strictly responsible for education. Educational roles are assumed by the media, mass events, the world of advertisement and marketing, or idols popular among youth, creators of peculiar subculture. An important, if not the most important, role is played by the Internet network wrapped around the world. Not only due to social networks and algorithms, which can actually impact the choices of people, and are difficult to handle probabilistically (Fry, 2019). Current generations are in fact the first, who have full access to the entire mankind knowledge, developed through millenia. Never before had anyone had such an opportunity. In the past, knowledge and achievements were local, and would spread through months, or even years. Now, all we have to do is perform appropriate research in the Internet and Newton's Philosophiae naturalis principia mathematica or Darwin's On the Origin of Species in original versions may appear on the screen in just a few seconds.
Therefore, the role of education 1 , its aim, is to prepare the student for living in the world with a creative approach, open towards his abilities and potential. However, it is easy to see, that current education is focused on replicative transfer of knowledge of conventional areas of sciences, without considering the interests of the student, his talents and strengths. Ken Robinson grasped the essence of current education, in a vivid description of a student production line, who, without their consent is injecting them with an appropriate portion of knowledge, in order to receive another portion of identical, however, frustrated employees, prepared to fulfil the tasks given by superiors, during working hours and even beyond that (Robinson, 2012). Simultaneously, the 2019 Report on non-public schooling in Poland, indicates, that the number of all non-pubic educational institutions in Poland had grown since 2014 until 2018 by 17,15%, while the number of students attending within the same period increased by 29,73% (Our Kids Report, 2019: 8). The data indicates a dynamic development of non-public education and its expansion in the general educational system in Poland. The public sector displays a reverse tendency. The 2014-2018 period results in a decreasing tendency both regarding the number of public schools during all education periods, as well as, regarding the number of students that attend these institutions. Additionally, it translates to the decrease of the general participation of public education in the country (Our Kids Report, 2019: 8). There are many causes to that, however, one must quote one of the report's conclusions: It seems that the non-public sector provides an oasis for many families, where children can find a secure environment, support (also professional in the form of speech and language therapists, psychologists), where the child is recognised not only for grades and academic successes, but where the comprehensive development of children is cared for, and the stress is replaced with happiness and valuation (Our Kids Report, 2019: 38).
Non-public education properly responds to the educational needs of the 21 st century human. It proposes a different philosophy in the approach towards teaching and towards the student. It takes care of "comprehensive development", learns to look at self and own achievements in a positive way, proposes cooperation and an attitude in favour of individual support in developing talents and interests. Additionally, all of the above is is placed within a different world overview. Hence the fact, that the 21 st world is constituted by constant change, without the sluggish bureaucratic machine, non-public and social schools are much more able to adjust to the changing needs of students, and expectations of their parents, as well as, tailor the educational offer for them.
Public education is far behind in applying flexible solutions. It is set in a world, the stability of which is sanctioned by hierarchy, established structure and assigned function, being an image of the industrial era of the 18 th and the 19 th century. Industrial revolution allowed to go from the work of human hands dependent on the weather and the will of God, to large scale manufacturing. Additionally, it changed the thinking of people about themselves, proving, that it is more clever and more effective to accomplish things with the intellect rather than human hands. The application of steam engines in various industry branches relocated entire groups of farmers from fields to suburban factories, where their miserable image provoked the educated and rich to improve their life. The primary principle was the wider access to education, and the key argument -increased efficiency of workers possessing basic skills of reading, writing and calculus. In such hierarchic world, a model of authoritarian education emerged, based on passing on knowledge, that was to be repeated, until it was memorised, just like instructions. The teacher is the one with the knowledge, and the student -lower in the hierarchy, is to listen to the pedagogue and learn. In such model, the aims of teaching are beyond the student, it is not important what his interests and abilities are, what is important is the model of teaching, the knowledge "package", which must be learned, in order to become useful to the society. A given model should be identical for all students from an appropriate social class, such education is easiest to maintain on all levels (cf. Kosiorek, 2010: 146). Therefore, students are not expected to be creative, innovative, or display critical thinking, the key is to learn the given information, step by step, to master the entire knowledge in accordance with the appropriate model. Meeting the requirements placed before the student yields a diploma -a formal acknowledgement regarding the achieved level of education. One must highlight, that the package is treated as the "torch for education", for which students are supposed to be thankful. The degree of hierarchy determines the intensiveness of gratitude and the direction of influence: the student is influenced by the teacher, the teacher is influenced by the principal, the principal is influenced by the curator, etc. The order had been established and the attempt to change or readjust is treated like anarchy. The hierarchic world view with the established order and ascribed positions results from the adopted philosophy of man. The empirical and behavioural approach assumes, that learning the generalised laws that determine the educational processes, will allow, on the basis of a sufficient number of empirical data, to design and apply a peculiar conveyor belt of education, producing more and more "educated students". Behaviourism will provide the appropriate stimuli directing behaviour so that one can achieve, previously programmed results. The defence wall of this world order is the belief, that it should be retained unconditionally, and those who oppose it must be excluded (cf. Hejnicka-Bezwińska, 1995).
A crack in the wall of the authoritarian approach in pedagogy was surely brought by the beginning of the 20 th century. An unspoken nightmare that men put onto men, upset the marble monument of the usefulness of good education and even education at all. On the one hand the world view that emerged after the wars, and even, alas, using its "scientific achievements", announced the technological era. On the other hand, the philosophy of man of the 20 th century would highlight the drama and lack of reason for human existence despite the possibilities spread before by the developing world. The quick progress appearing in physical sciences, and biological ones, possibilities and result that had not been seen previously, which this world made possible, changed the hierarchical world view into a world of unlimited possibilities achieved due to science and involvement in the consequent strive for assumed aims.
The tragedy of two wars affected the appearance of the pedagogical trends: existential pedagogy trends, which place emphasis on the peculiarity and particularity of human existence, highlighting its mutability; and the trend of anti-authoritarian pedagogies, presented as opposition against authoritarian education, which could lead to Holocaust and the personalistic trend in pedagogy, highlighting the value and freedom of each human being.
Existential pedagogy in various instances, turns attention to human individualism. However, as highlighted by Heidegger, the crowd buries the individual in an anonymous mass, enforcing conventional models of behaviour (Heidegger, 1931: 167), while the man always feels alienated from this world (Camus, 1971: 93), it is possible to become self due to reflection (Jaspers, 1932: 253) and creative action (Marcel, 1962: 186). The novum of the philosophy of man in existential pedagogy, in comparison to authoritative pedagogy, consists of placing human freedom in the center, as it constitutes a feature distinctive from the remaining beings, and even, allowing the freedom of an individual and the ability to decide about self. Such outlook definitely goes beyond the fundamental approach of authoritarian pedagogy and allows for the establishment of further educational approaches: anti--authoritative and personalistic pedagogy. They complement the existential theory of man as a holistic approach postulate, without bias and reductionism. According to personalistic pedagogy, education should allow for the development of the entire person, as "education is an assortment of processes, allowing the human being to find themselves in their humanity" (Schaller, 1977: 248). This finding oneself in own humanity is accomplished firstly due to own nature, however, afterwards it is necessary to open oneself towards culture: adopting features and skills allowing for the personalisation of individuals, directing them on a path of autonomous and consistent choices. This is the main aim of the described pedagogy.
A similar approach is characteristic of the trend of anti-authoritarian pedagogies also brought about by the feeling of despair over the humanity actions during World War 2. Initially, its creator Adorno, postulated that pedagogy should be anti-authoritarian in this sense, so that it would educated new society for live without the need to apply violence, so that the Auschwitz nightmare would not repeat. He called for teachers to create a pedagogy of tolerance and love (Adorno, 1978), which would favour the creation of a society based on equality, justice and well-being (Śliwerski, 2019: 536). Adorno highlighted the necessity of systemic changes in education allowing for such pedagogical approach. "An important postulate for anti-authoritarian pedagogues has become the unveiling of all institutional barriers, blocking the individual […] from the ability to build identity" (Śliwerski, 2019: 537). Anti-authoritarian pedagogy is focused on a free development of the child's personality (Śliwerski, 2019: 538), without understatements, taboos or issuing precise instructions and expecting unconditional obedience. The teacher builds own authority on the relation created mutually with the child, where the child determines the paths of interests, following own passions. A pedagogue led by care and filled with knowledge, follows the child. There is no need to apply coercive measures or physical violence, because the student must not coerce himself to study something, that does not interest him. The student-teacher relation is built on mutual trust, building partnership and dialogue. The children do not feel fear of not being able to fulfil tasks, as the responsibility for acquiring knowledge and learning is placed upon them. This favours building the attitude based on the feeling of agency and responsibility for own life and own choices, simultaneously strengthening internal motivation. It seems that anti-authoritarian pedagogy is referring to humanism, it is applied interchangeably with the name humanistic pedagogy 2 , and it is also based on personalism and libertarianism. It is difficult to clearly determine the borders of the aforementioned educational trends, as they intertwine with each other. Still, without ascribing each of them directly to one particular philosophy, one may be tempted to characterise it for them altogether. Such philosophy of man is based on the Aristotelian postulat, that humans have natural inclinations for good, and happiness may be found inside, if the individual is skilled (Aristotle, 1997: 1094 b 27 n). The child possesses a potential, which is to be extracted and developed by teaching, particularly in the natural environment (Rousseau). It should be conducted in respecting the students liberty, supporting his creativity and cooperating with others (Dewey). The child's personal freedom is limited by the freedom of another man (Locke), and the openness towards the world and passion of learning it may transform into the ability of an adult to practice science (Schulz, Gopnik, 2004: 27).
The examples of schools, programmes, or even state education systems, that accomplish humanistic pedagogy with coherence and objectively measurable success, are numerous. An example may be the Summerhill school created by Neill in 1924 in England, as it became a model for democratic schools worldwide, and its publications made an enormous impact on the discourse in permissive education worldwide 3 . It radically discarded any enforcement of a personality on the child in an attempt to "shape" the child's character. He thought that both parents and teachers do not educate children, but manipulate them to achieve own goals or train them in own image (Neill, 1975: 20-22). He postulated treating children like partners and encouraged to build harmonic relationships between the world of children and the world of adults. Such attitude demands a radical rebuilding of the philosophy of man. Adopting the assumptions that the child is free and good by nature, that there is nothing to be corrected, but there is space to allow the child for harmonic development in a safe environment filled with acceptance. Neill introduces the concept of self-regulation, meaning that the child is open towards own organism and needs, and can independently regulate satisfying them, while the role of the adult is to make it possible. The aim of education is man, fully free, filled with harmony, coherent, and aware of who he is, what he can accomplish, and who he wants to become as an adult (Neill, 1969: 40). It is worth highlighting, which often becomes an accusation against humanistic pedagogy: freedom does not mean lawlessness and treading over the principles and other people. Freedom is one of the greatest human values and as it is, it contains i.a. equality, internal and external ability to be self and self-realisation of own natural talents, but also respecting the autonomy and sovereignty of others (Śliwerski, 2019: 541). Here it is difficult not to hear Rawls' postulates on retaining liberty and striving for strengthening own good, which simultaneously maintains the system of striving for the common good (Rawls, 1994: 214), or the freedom philosophy by Steiner, based on which, a pedagogy was created, according to which schools in Europe and the entire world are managed (Steiner, 1984).
The most well known state educational system, that was drastically rebuilt in but over a dozen of years, is Finland. The country placed exceptional emphasis on appropriate, theoretical and practical, preparation of teachers for their professions. Without digging into the details that can be found in a broad array of literature, it is worth mentioning that creating a new system of state education, it was built on a peculiar philosophy of man, along with all visible values, clear to all: partnership, respect, collaboration, freedom, mutual responsibility. The system of education does not present students and teachers with theoretical requirements, but consequently and coherently implements these values in real life. The Finnish say: "We may prepare the child for exams or life. We choose the latter". In result, by sparking passion, creativity and the feeling of agency among students, they achieve both aims at the same time: the children pass tests with the highest results worldwide, and are happy people who take the best out of life (PISA, 2000(PISA, , 2003(PISA, , 2006.
The aforementioned pedagogical trends may be observed currently in various instances, sometimes pure, sometimes mixed. They evolved proportionally to the time of distancing from the war tragedies, in order to orient around highlighting the freedom of man, allowing the individual for a comprehensive development of own personality, talents and interests, and the entire transfer of knowledge to be individualised as much as possible, despite it being presented to groups. Actions and attitudes, that in some educational options based on a particular approach to a human in a given world image seem impossible, were accomplished fully in others. The adopted reality overview along with the approach towards the human based on particular beliefs and directed with a selected set of values determines actions.
Here, it is necessary to broaden the perspective and an overview, what world image emerges from the current reality. In the 1990s, Classmate.com, the first social network was created. Twenty five years later, only three largest social portals focus more than 5 billion active users from the entire globe (Kallas, 2019). Algo-rithms used in the Internet collect enormous amounts of personal data about the user. Personalised ads, displaying contents tailored to user interests or suggested content that is "liked by users such as You" are but few examples, how one may influence the behaviour and decisions of more than a half of humanity (Fry, 2018: 61-66). Network access allowed for an emergence of a new category of youth, the so-called global teenager (de Mooij, 2013: 13). It is a generation of teenagers that, despite of living in various parts of the world, e.g. Tokyo, New York, Paris, Singapore or Warsaw, are much more similar to each other than to their parents, or other generations among which they were raised, and have lived (de Mooij, 2013: 13-14). Global teenagers dress according to the same trend, listen to the same music, watch the same YouTube movies, eat junk food just as their peers from the other side of the globe, they declare similar, global values (de Mooij, 2013: 14). The man of today lives in a global era of internet and is involved in its governing algorithms. The network affects not only the behaviour of people, but also changes the identity of the 21 st century man. But that is not all.
Despite the fact that 25 October 2017 was surely one of the days of another great revolution in the history of mankind, few people in Poland know what had happened then. On that day, Sophia received official Saudi-Arabian citizenship, leaving a mark in history, as the first robot that had received citizenship (Hatmaker, 2017). Humanity, fed with films about robot revolts, is afraid to include humanoids in own societies. However, the robots themselves are not a challenge the humanity must tackle, but the robotization of labour (Harari, 2018: 101-105). Automated production or services will be able to employ but a permille of persons they employ now. What will the common man do at this time? What must he learn and what knowledge must he posses? These are the question standing before 21 st century education, reaching down to the philosophy of the world and the philosophy of man 4 .
Evidence for the fact that young people need entirely new skills, which the school does not shape properly, come not only from the observation of everyday life and the opinions presented in the media. The World Bank study shows that the so-called soft-skills are the most deficit assortment of skills pursued by employers (World Bank Report, 2011: 13). Student and, afterwards, a university student, absorbs only theoretical knowledge, without learning practical skills, and they are taught them only in workplaces. Similar with the entire assortment of social skills: communication, critical thinking, problem solving, project work, team cooperation, etc.
It seems, that in the light of the above examples, the question regarding what education the mankind needs in the 21 st century, seems to be but a rhetorical one, as the answer appears clear. The main trend in education should be selected on the basis of the surrounding world image, but also within the awareness of how this world image will emerge in the close future. The world of today does not correspond with the authoritarian pedagogy that, despite being criticised by decades, is still holding well within the educational systems of many countries. Education in the spirit of obedience, the sole correct answer to the given questions, and primarily, replicating knowledge and world view "packets" in the heads of subsequent groups of students are not, and cannot be an answer to the digital world of network in the 21 st century. Therefore it is important to answer the question on the current aim of education. If it is preparing to living in a world, which is a world of a global network and ever persistent algorithms, suggesting decisions to individuals, in a world of perpetual and indeterminate changes, in a world who presents humanity with challenges, that have never been seen before, in a world where, the irony, children and youth are in some aspects more agile and efficient in navigating the world, the answer must be sought after within the trends of pedagogies based on liberty and focus on achieving full humanity by each student. Only education based on a philosophy that postulates, that man is good by nature, has no deficiencies, only possibilities and potential, access to which must be provided, based on own talents and passions, opening the path to perpetual development, to finally lead to the fullness of humanity, will prepare young people to live in the digital world of the 21 st century, where all boundaries are blurred out, however, new criteria emerge. Such education for the digital age man will be a promise of a complete life, a life where man applies own skills, talents and potential, engaging in that which is authentic and important to him (Seligman, Csikszentmihalyi, 2000: 11). Philosophy of man being the foundation of the 21 st century education, must create new, but flexible boundaries, realising that skills and passions of a students, previously out of its boundaries, may prove crucial in the future. This philosophy must indicate values, not only teaching about them, but giving an example in everyday life. Currently, young generations question values not for their own sake but because they remain values in theory. The youth needs a moral spine chosen out of freedom, instead of forced by the strength of tradition and coercion: "It was always like this so you must be like that". The digital era beginning man is prone to getting lost in own identity, because education offers him solutions and the knowledge of a previous generation, and education is set to teach that which was, and not that which is. Educational systems are usually passing the knowledge of the previous generation. Until now, the practice had sufficed. However, the world of the 21 st century is rushing too fast. Those responsible for education must be aware that currently, education teach towards the world that is not yet in existence. We are educating towards the unknown (Furr, Dyer, 2014). The global COVID-19 pandemic experience places well within this image. In just a few weeks, the world found itself in a new reality, to which the humanity had no chances to prepare. For two decades, in business, management and education, there are debates about the VUCA world (acronym for volatility, uncertainty, complexity, ambiguity) (Krawczyńska-Zaucha, 2019: 223-224), listing various examples for the constitutive elements. However, only the international quarantine and increasing challenges before the educators, children and parents, truly convinced humanity, that the changes in the world of today appear unexpectedly and on an enormous scale. This unprecedented event revealed our flaws, erroneous premises and inadequate aims of education. It also provided a question about a philosophy which is at its foundation, regarding the adequacy of adopted premises on the surrounding reality.
The world of the 21 st century poses many changes both before philosophy and education. It is incredibly important for philosophy in the VUCA reality to be open, and not simply look back, looking pointers in past solutions for issues previously unknown, but to boldly create future, to be a wave that would denote new directions of the development of sciences and thinking trends. One that will boldly face the unknown. That lied at the base of its beginnings, the love for wisdom is nothing else but life filled with curiosity and passion, exactly what the 21 st century man needs to experience.


Mathematics Teaching Self-Efficacy and Outcome Expectancy of Pre-Service and In-Service Primary Education Teachers

Background: Given the importance of studies the mathematics teaching self-efficacy and outcome expectancy of pre-service teachers, novice teachers (up to 10 years of experience) and experienced teachers (more than 10 years of experience), it is important to research the behaviour of the three groups proposed. Objectives: Compare the mathematics teaching self-efficacy and outcome expectancy of pre-service and in-service Primary Education teachers. Design: The Mathematics Teaching Efficacy Belief Instrument (MTEBI) is used to carry out the study. The MTEBI comprises two subscales: Personal Mathematics Teaching Efficacy (or teaching self-efficacy) (PMTE) and Mathematics Teaching Outcome Expectancy (MTOE). Setting and Participants: The first group of participants consists of 419 pre-service teachers enrolled at the bachelor’s degree in Primary Education, the second group of participants consists of 69 novice teachers and the last group consists of 176 experienced teachers. Data collection and analysis: Students of all the years of the bachelor’s degree were invited to answer the MTEBI. Therefore, the participation was optional and completely anonymous. Directors of Primary Education schools in the city were sent the link of the survey during the second trimester of 2018-19 academic year. They shared the link so that novice and experienced teachers were able to answer it confidentially. Results: The comparison reveals that experienced teachers have the highest scores in PMTE subscale. The pre-service teachers, on the contrary, give the lowest scores in this subscale. In the MTOE subscale, the lowest values are obtained in the case of novice teachers. Additionally, the statistical analysis shows that there are significant differences between the three groups in both the PMTE and MTOE subscales. Conclusions: The findings of the current study provides information that would be useful for teacher educators to design or modify courses in order to enforce the mathematics teaching efficacy beliefs of pre-service and in-service Primary Education teachers.

INTRODUCTION
Bandura developed the self-efficacy theory (Bandura, 1977;1982;1986), which is based on the principal assumption that psychological procedures serve as means of creating and strengthening expectations of personal efficacy. Within this analysis, efficacy expectations are distinguished from response-outcome expectancies. An outcome expectancy is defined as a person's estimate that a given behavior will lead to certain outcomes. An efficacy expectation is the conviction that one can successfully execute the behavior required to produce the outcomes.
According to Bandura (1977Bandura ( , 1997, people fear and tend to avoid threatening situations they believe exceed their coping skills, whereas they get involved in activities and behave assuredly when they judge themselves capable of handling situations that would otherwise be intimidating. Efficacy expectations determine how much effort people will expend and how long they will persist in facing obstacles and aversive experiences. The stronger the perceived self-efficacy, the more active the efforts. The current work is focused on studying mathematics teaching efficacy beliefs, which can be defined as teachers' beliefs in their abilities to organize and execute courses of action necessary to bring about desired results (Takunyaci & Takunyaci, 2014). Teachers' efficacy belief is a psychometric factor that influences the teaching and learning experience (Hoy & Woolfolk, 1990). This belief represents teachers' considerations about their competence in managing student learning (Pajares, 1996). Korthagen (2004) considers that teachers' efficacy belief is the most important parameter in teacher education literature.
Based on the self-efficacy theory, some studies of teachers' efficacy beliefs consider two separate dimensions (Hassan & Hassan, 2012). The first dimension, personal teaching efficacy, represents a teacher's belief in their skills and abilities to be an effective teacher. The second dimension, teaching outcome expectancy, is a teacher's belief that effective teaching can bring about student learning regardless of external factors such as home environment, family background, and parental influences (Swars et al., 2007).
There exists a large number of research works about teacher's efficacy belief of pre-service teachers and in-service teachers (e.g., Mulholland et al., 2004;Bursal, 2010;Chang, 2015). Some of these works highlight the importance of teacher's efficacy beliefs towards mathematics to obtain positive results with their students (e.g., Sivri & Balci, 2015;García et al., 2015). According to Mulholland et al. (2004), students learn more from teachers with high self-efficacy than from those whose self-efficacy is low.
However, very few studies addressed the change of efficacy beliefs along time. Furthermore, there is not any work, as far as we are concerned, tackling a comparison between pre-service and in-service teacher mathematics teaching efficacy beliefs. This research aims at comparing the mathematics teaching self-efficacy and the outcome expectancy of pre-service and in-service Primary Education teachers. Concretely, the goal of this work is to study if they have similar mathematics teaching self-efficacy and outcome expectancy feelings, and if teaching experience help to enforce those beliefs.

Related work
Literature research shows that teacher's efficacy belief is an important construct in teaching. Hadley and Dorward (2011) mentioned how low-level self-efficacy beliefs for teaching mathematics can cause mathematics anxiety, which, at the same time, can influence negatively on students' achievement. Newton et al. (2012) examined the relationship between mathematics content knowledge and teacher efficacy during an elementary mathematics methods course. They found a positive moderate relationship between content knowledge and teaching self-efficacy. However, they did not find any relationship between content knowledge and outcome expectancy.
Other studies investigated teaching efficacy beliefs of Primary Education pre-service teachers. Utley et al. (2005) investigated the relationship between science and mathematics teaching efficacy of pre-service teachers. Additionally, they investigated if the teacher efficacy beliefs about mathematics and science teaching change during participation in methods courses and student teaching. Their results show that both the personal teaching efficacy and the outcome expectancy beliefs increase during the science and mathematics courses. However, they decrease slightly after the student teaching period. Swars et al. (2007) presented a longitudinal study of elementary pre-service teachers' mathematics beliefs and content knowledge in which they concluded that teacher preparation programs could have an impact on the beliefs of pre-service teachers about teachers' efficacy beliefs and learning.
Bursal (2010) investigated teaching self-efficacy beliefs of pre-service elementary teachers' in elementary mathematics and science (PMTE and PSTE). The outcome expectancy was not studied, since according to Bursal, it is usually viewed to be inconsistent among pre-service teachers. The author indicated that participants' selfefficacy beliefs in teaching mathematics and science were associated. Giles et al. (2016) studied elementary pre-service teachers' self-efficacy beliefs related to teaching mathematics. They announced that pre-service teachers had positive levels of efficacy regarding their mathematics teaching abilities as well as positive levels of outcome expectancy for their students in mathematics.
Other works study the influence of teaching experience on teacher's efficacy belief. Liu et al. (2007) investigated Taiwan elementary teachers' views of teaching efficacy and outcome expectations. They show that the teaching experience of elementary science teachers have a significant impact on personal science teaching efficacy and science teaching outcome expectations. Holzberger et al. (2013) explored if teachers' self-efficacy beliefs affect their instructional quality or if positive experiences in the classroom positively influence the development of teachers' self-efficacy. Their findings show that teachers with higher self-efficacy did not necessarily provide higher quality instruction, when measured with a 1-year time lag. On the other hand, they show that the self-efficacy of teachers not only changes over the course of a school year but also increases in response to experiences of success in the classroom. Takunyaci and Takunyaci (2014) determined that preschool teachers 'efficacy beliefs on teaching mathematics depends on their years of experience. Specifically, their results evidenced that the preschool teachers who have 13 and more years of teaching experience presented significant higher values of teachers' efficacy beliefs than the teachers that have less years of teaching experience.
Researchers emphasize the importance of studying teacher's efficacy beliefs of inservice teachers, since they are associated with teachers' professional behavior as well as with their pupils' performance and motivation (Tschannen et al., 1998;Charalambous et al., 2008). Additionally, researchers highlight that efficacy beliefs of pre-service teachers are the source of positive attitudes and a significant predictor of academic performance (Pajares, 1992;Bandura, 1997;Zimmerman, 2000;Kaya & Bozdag, 2016).

Purpose of the study
This research aims at comparing the mathematics teaching self-efficacy and outcome expectancy of pre-service and in-service Primary Education teachers. Concretely, two different groups of in-service teachers are considered: novice teachers (up to 10 years of experience) and experienced teachers (more than 10 years of experience). We defined these two groups of in-service teachers after exploring the results considering different ranges of time. The number of years that made the difference was 10, as found in previous studies (e.g., Chang, 2015).
It should be remarked that this is not a longitudinal study. Ideally, it would be very interesting to work with the same participants, beginning when they are pre-service teachers, continuing with their first 10 years of teaching experience and finishing when they have more than 10 years of teaching experience. However, several factors make that kind of study very difficult to consider. Firstly, it would take more than 10 years just to collect the data. People, society and school change remarkably in 10-12 years. Secondly, it would be very difficult to track so many subjects. Thirdly, that study would imply to answer the same test 10 or 12 times. For all these reasons, this research is based on cross-sectional data.
Specifically, the current research was designed to answer the following questions: (1) Do the three studied groups present significant differences in their mathematics teaching self-efficacy beliefs?
(2) Do the three studied groups present significant differences in their mathematics teaching outcome expectancy feelings?
(3) Does the teaching experience help to enforce those beliefs?

METHODOLOGY
In order to find the answers to the questions formulated above, the current work compares obtained scores in the MTEBI items considering the three groups: pre-service, novice and experienced Primary Education teachers. Additionally, this research studies if there are significant differences between the mathematics teaching self-efficacy and outcome expectancy of the three studied groups.

Participants
The participants comprised a purposeful sample (Patton, 2002). Concretely, the sample in this study consisted of three independent groups. The first group of participants consists of pre-service teachers enrolled at the Bachelor Degree in Primary Education at the Rovira i Virgili University in the 2016-17 academic year. Students of all the years of the Bachelor Degree were invited to answer the MTEBI. Therefore, the participation was optional and completely anonymous. At the end, 419 pre-service teachers assisted at the session when the test was applied (76% of the enrolled students that academic year). The Degree in Primary Education consists of a four-year Bachelor Degree program including three mandatory courses of teaching and learning mathematics and two periods of student teaching.
Besides, the MTEBI survey was adapted for in-service teachers, as explained in short, and created in google forms. Directors of Primary Education schools in the city were sent the link of the survey during the second trimester of 2018-19 academic year. They shared the link so that novice and experienced teachers were able to answer it confidentially. As a result, 69 novice teachers and 176 experienced teachers sent their answers. Recall that the number of novice teachers is notably inferior to the number of experienced teachers. This is due to the teaching experience of Primary Education teachers in the current country, which is, in average, 14 years. Therefore, it was expected to obtain a higher percentage of experienced teachers when considering a purposeful sample.

Instrument
The Mathematics Teaching Efficacy Belief Instrument (MTEBI) for pre-service teachers was used in this research (Enochs, Smith and Huinker, 2000). It resulted from the modification of the Science Teaching Efficacy Belief Instrument STEBI-B (Enochs & Riggs, 1990) to reflect future mathematics teaching beliefs. Indeed, the MTEBI for pre-service teachers has been widely used to measure mathematics teaching self-efficacy and teaching outcome expectancy (e.g., Giles et al., 2016;Moody & DuCloux, 2015;Newton et al., 2012;Swars et al., 2007). The original MTEBI consisted of 21 items in a five-point Likert scale measuring one (strongly disagree) to five (strongly agree). As in (Liu et al., 2007), the third Likert scale item, uncertain, was deleted in the current work to encourage all participants to indicate a level of certainty.
It should be highlighted that the MTEBI was adapted for novice and experienced teachers using the present tense instead of the future. In fact, the MTEBI for in-service teachers was also used in (Liu et al., 2007) and (Takunyaci & Takunyaci, 2014).

Q2
I will continually find better ways to teach mathematics.

Q3
Even if I try very hard, I will not teach mathematics as well as I will most subjects.

Q4
When the mathematics grades of students improve, it is often due to their teacher having found a more effective teaching approach.

Q5
I know how to teach mathematics concepts effectively.

Q6
I will not be very effective in monitoring mathematics activities.

Q7
If students are underachieving in mathematics, it is most likely due to ineffective mathematics teaching.

Q8
I will generally teach mathematics ineffectively.

Q9
The inadequacy of a student's mathematics background can be overcome by good teaching.

Q10
When a low-achieving child progresses in mathematics, it is usually due to extra attention given by the teacher.

Q11
I understand mathematics concepts well enough to be effective in teaching elementary mathematics.

Q12
The teacher is generally responsible for the achievement of students in mathematics.

Q13
Students' achievement in mathematics is directly related to their teacher's effectiveness in mathematics teaching.

Q14
If parents comment that their child is showing more interest in mathematics at school, it is probably due to the performance of the child's teacher.

Q15
I will find it difficult to use manipulatives to explain to students why mathematics works.

Q16
I will typically be able to answer students' questions.
Q17 I wonder if I will have the necessary skills to teach mathematics.

Q18
Given a choice, I will not invite the principal to evaluate my mathematics teaching.

Q19
When a student has difficulty understanding a mathematics concept, I will usually be at a loss as to how to help the student understand it better.

Q20
When teaching mathematics, I will usually welcome student questions.

Q21
I do not know what to do to turn students on to mathematics.

Reliability
In order to determine the reliability of the instrument for the current context, the Cronbach's alpha was computed for both PMTE and MTOE subscales. Table 2 shows the obtained values considering each studied group. According to George and Mallery (2003), the values of Cronbach's alpha are good (>0.8) or acceptable (>0.7) in all the cases.

Validity
To study the validity of the instrument for the current context, the Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) and the Bartlett's Test of Sphericity (BTS) are used. Results are summarized in Table 3.  Table 3 allow to conclude that the Exploratory Factor Analysis (Kaiser, 1974;Bartlett, 1950) can be applied in the three studied groups (KMO > 0.60 and p < 0.001). Table 4 shows the individual item-total correlations. Results presented in Table 4 allow to affirm that item-total correlations are adequate, since all items have a factor loading above 0.30 (Büyüköztürk, 2013). Hence, the Exploratory Factor Analysis confirms that two subscales are defined (PMTE and MTOE).

RESULTS AND ANALISES
This section provides an in-depth analysis of the obtained results in order to answer the research questions formulated above. The PMTE and MTOE subscales are studied separately.

PMTE subscale
In this section, the average scores given for the participants to the questions corresponding to the PMTE subscale are studied ( ). Figure 1 shows the average scores obtained in the 13 items of the teaching self-efficacy (PMTE).

Figure 1
Average score obtained in each PMTE item. Figure 1 shows that the three groups express in general a high level of mathematics teaching self-efficacy. Notice that there are only few questions scored with less than 3 points. Table 5 summarizes these results. maximum Q20 (When teaching mathematics, I will usually welcome student questions) Table 5 shows that only 4 items are scored, in average, below 3 in the case of preservice teachers. This group gives the minimum score to Q17. The novice teachers score only 2 items, in average, below 3. The experienced teachers score all the items above 3. Both groups of in-service teachers give the minimum score to Q5. The three groups of participants give the maximum score value to Q20. Additionally, a differential analysis of items is performed to see if the three groups answer specific questions differently. According to the conditions of the data, the ANOVA test and the Tukey's HSD (honestly significant difference) are applied. Table 6 summarizes the obtained results when comparing consecutive groups. Q15 (I will find it difficult to use manipulatives to explain to students why mathematics works) Q16 (I will typically be able to answer students' questions) Q17 (I wonder if I will have the necessary skills to teach mathematics) Q18 (Given a choice, I will not invite the principal to evaluate my mathematics teaching) Q20 (When teaching mathematics, I will usually welcome student questions)* Q21 (I do not know what to do to turn students on to mathematics)* Table 6 shows that there are 6 questions for which there exists a significant difference between pre-service and novice teachers. Comparing the two groups of in-service teachers, there are only 2 questions for which there exists a significant difference between their scores. Although it is not included in the table, the difference between pre-service and experienced teachers was statistically significant in 9 of the 13 questions.

Comparing the three groups
The goal of this section is to study if there are statistically significant differences among the three group of participants in the PMTE subscale. To carry out the study, the total score of the PMTE subscale items obtained by each participant is computed (the total score is averaged by the number of items scored by the participant). In order to study the distribution of the scores, Figure 2 shows the average scores of the teaching selfefficacy corresponding to the pre-service, novice and experienced teachers. Specifically, the boxplot allows to identify the quartiles, the median (represented by horizontal lines in thinner regions) and the mean (denoted with points).

Figure 2
Individual pre-service, novice and experienced teachers average scores given to PMTE subscale Notice in Figure 2 that the range of values of the pre-service teachers is clearly wider than the ones of the other two groups. Specifically, the minimum value of the pre-teachers is the smallest one (2). In the case of novice teachers, the number of small values (below 2.5) has been reduced (the minimum is 2.31). In the case of experienced teachers, there are not so many small values: there are two outliers (2.46 and 2.69) and the minimum value is 2.77.
The specific values of the mean , median and standard deviation (σ) of scores given by pre-service, novice and experienced teachers in the case of the PMTE subscale are shown in Table 7. In order to analyze the significance of the difference in the groups, the hypotheses of normality (Shapiro-Wilk test) and homoscedasticity (Fligner-Killeen test) of the three groups of participants are verified. According to the conditions of the data, the Kruskal-Wallis test is applied. It can be concluded that there are significant differences between medians of the groups in teaching self-efficacy (p < 0.01).
Secondly, the Tukey's range test is applied to determine the significant differences observed between consecutive groups. Obtained p-values allow to affirm that the difference between the obtained medians is statistically significant between pre-service and novice teachers (p<0.01) and between novice and experienced teachers (p<0.01).

MTOE subscale
As in the PMTE subscale, the average scores that the participants of each group give to each individual MTOE item are studied. Figure 3 shows the average scores obtained in the eight items of the MTOE.

Figure 3
Average score obtained in each MTOE item Figure 3 shows that the three studied groups surpass the value 3 in only two items: Q4 and Q9. Notice that the average scores of experienced teachers exceed pre-service teachers in just four questions. Besides, it is noteworthy to remark that in all the items novice teachers give lower scores (in average) than pre-service teachers. Table 8 shows the obtained results.

>3
Q4 (When the mathematics grades of students improve, it is often due to their teacher having found a more effective teaching approach) Q9 (The inadequacy of a student's mathematics background can be overcome by good teaching) minimum Q1 (When a student does better than usual in mathematics, it is often because the teacher exerted a little extra effort) As in the PMTE subscale case, the ANOVA test and the Tukey's HSD (honestly significant difference) are applied to see if the three groups answer specific questions differently. Obtained p-values allow to conclude that there is only significant difference between the mean obtained in Q12 (The teacher is generally responsible for the achievement of students in mathematics) by considering consecutive groups. That is, between pre-service and novice teachers and between novice and experienced teachers (p<0.05).

Comparing the three groups
The goal of this section is to study if there are statistically significant differences among the three group of participants in the MTOE subscale. Figure 4 shows the distribution of the individual outcome expectancy values of pre-service, novice and experienced teachers.

Figure 4
Individual pre-service, novice and experienced teachers average scores given to MTOE subscale. Figure 4 shows that the distribution of individual MTOE values are similar in the three groups of participants. Recall that the range of values is slightly wider in the case of experienced teachers (minimum=1.88, maximum=4). However, a very similar distribution is obtained in the case of pre-service teachers. The novice teachers present clearly the smallest values. Notice that the maximum value in this case is 3.63 and there is an outlier with a value of 1.50. Table 9 shows the mean, median and standard deviation of scores obtained by participants in the case of the outcome expectancy. Additionally, a statistical analysis is carried out to study if there are significant differences among groups. First, compliance with the conditions of hypothesis of normality (Shapiro-Wilk) and homoscedasticity (Bartlett) are verified. Then, results obtained with the ANOVA test (F=3.53, p = 0.03) confirm that there are significant differences among the groups.
Second, the Tukey's HSD (honestly significant difference) test is applied. According to the results, there is a significant difference between pre-service and novice teachers (p = 0.04) and between novice and experienced teachers (p = 0.02).

DISCUSSION AND IMPLICATIONS
In order to answer the first research question, the mean scores of each question of the PMTE subscale were studied for each of the three groups of participants (pre-service, novice teachers and experienced teachers). Our findings indicate that in the PMTE questions experienced teachers give higher scores than novice teachers and the latter give higher scores than pre-service teachers. Only in question Q15 (I will use manipulatives to explain to students why mathematical solutions work), novice teachers give a higher average than experienced teachers. We believe that this occurs because some experienced teachers did not learn how to use manipulatives during their training. Manipulatives are currently more studied and used in mathematics education.
Besides, a statistically analysis of items was performed to see if the three groups answer specific questions differently. It is noteworthy to remark that there are 6 questions to which pre-service and novice teachers give statistically significant different scores. In the case of novice and experienced teachers that occurs only in 2 questions. There are 5 questions whose scores do not present significant differences between consecutive groups of participants. Therefore, the difference is more significant between pre-service and novice teachers than between the latter and experienced teachers.
Furthermore, a statistical analysis of the PMTE values given by each group was carried out. Results show that there are statistically significant differences among the three groups of participants regarding the PMTE subscale. Specifically, experienced teachers obtain a significantly higher median than novice teachers and the latter have significantly higher median than pre-service teachers.
Analogously, a similar approach was used to compare the mathematics teaching outcome expectancy of the three studied groups (second research question). First of all, the mean scores of each MTOE subscale question and for each group of participants (pre-service, novice and experienced teachers) were studied. Obtained results show that experienced teachers give higher scores than novice teachers. That is, the results show that the teaching experience helps to promote the MTOE. However, it is important to note that novice teachers have lower scores than the pre-service teachers in all items. Thus, MTOE values decline in the first few years of school teaching. These results are consistent with those presented in Utley et al. (2005) and in Swars et al. (2007). Utley et al. (2005) pointed out that as the pre-service teachers progress in their college coursework, the student's optimism and enthusiasm tend to increase and then become blemished when confronted with the reality of the classroom. Swars et al. (2007) claim that teachers in training have an unrealistic optimism that is modified with the teaching of students. MTOE values decrease during the first years of teaching at school because, although pre-service teachers attended student practice at Primary school, they have not already faced the reality of being a teacher.
A possible idea to foster the MTOE of novice teachers would be to assist at school as apprentice teachers the first year (or even more than one year). The key point is that they would be accompanied by a teacher to gain confidence and to acquire skills that every teacher should have. Our proposal is in accord with the finding presented in Holzberger et al. (2013), where they evidenced that the self-efficacy of teachers increases in response to experiences of success in the classroom.
Moreover, the scores obtained in each item of the MTOE subscale were compared considering pairs of consecutive groups in order to see if their answers are statistically different. Results evidence that there is only significant difference between the mean obtained in one item. The other 7 items of the MTOE subscale do not present significant differences between consecutive groups of participants. This finding reinforces the fact that MTOE does not vary as much as the PMTE along time.
Additionally, a statistical analysis of MTOE values obtained by each group was carried out. Results show that there are statistically significant differences between the groups of teachers considered in this study. Concretely, experienced teachers get significantly higher values than novice teachers. In the case of pre-service and novice teachers, the MTOE is also significantly different, but the MTOE values are lower for novice teachers.
The significant difference that has been shown between the different groups, both in the case of PMTE and MTOE subscales, reinforces the robustness of the initial choice of the groups of in-service teachers: novice teachers (up to 10 years of experience) and experienced teachers (more than 10 years of experience).
Obtained results allow to affirm that the teaching experience enforces the mathematics teaching efficacy beliefs (third research question). Particularly, it has been shown that the teaching experience strengthens the personal mathematics teaching efficacy (PMTE), coinciding with the results of previous studies (e.g., Takunyaci & Takunyaci, 2014). In the case of mathematics teaching outcome expectancy (MTOE), our findings evidence that the teaching experience also enforces those beliefs, but only in the case of in-service teachers.

CONCLUSIONS
This research compares the mathematics teaching self-efficacy and outcome expectancy of three groups of participants: pre-service, novice and experienced teachers. For this purpose, the Mathematics Teaching Efficacy Belief Instrument (MTEBI), which measures the mathematics teaching self-efficacy (PMTE), and the mathematics teaching outcome expectancy (MTOE), was used.
In the PMTE subscale, obtained values of novice teachers are significantly higher than those of pre-service teachers and experienced teachers have significantly higher PMTE values than novice teachers. Furthermore, this study shows that 6 of the 13 items present significant different mean values when comparing pre-service and novice teachers. In the case of novice and experienced teachers, that occurs with only 2 items of the PMTE subscale. Therefore, the difference is more significant between pre-service and novice teachers than between the two groups of in-service teachers.
In the case of MTOE subscale, results manifest that experienced teachers give values significantly higher than those of novice teachers and pre-service teachers give significantly higher values than novice teachers. The later result is attributed to the optimistic scores that pre-service teachers give to the MTOE subscale items, which in many cases may be due to lack of experience in a real school classroom. Additionally, results evidence that the average scores of only 1 item of the MTOE subscale is significantly different between consecutive groups of participants.
As a conclusion, this research shows that teaching experience strengthens mathematics teaching efficacy beliefs. Specifically, the smallest values of PMTE subscale are given by pre-service teachers while the highest ones are given by experienced teachers. In the case of MTOE, novice teachers present the smallest values, while the other groups present similar MTOE beliefs. It can be concluded that in the case of in-service teachers, the MTOE beliefs are enforced with mathematics teaching experience.
The findings of this study could be useful for pre-service and in-service teacher educators. Concretely, obtained results suggest that specific formation about managing a classroom would help to reduce the negative MTOE beliefs teachers will possibly have during their first in-service teaching years. In addition, longer teaching study periods would help pre-teachers to know better the reality of a classroom. These two ideas could give a more realistic perception of being a teacher in a school. In the case of novice teachers, the figure of apprentice, as mentioned above, could improve their MTOE beliefs.
A future line of research would be to put in practice a pilot project consisting of guiding novice teachers in their first year of school teaching. Their MTOE could be measured at the beginning and at the end of the academic school year. Furthermore, the relation between the PMTE and the mathematics academic achievements could be analyzed.

AUTHORS' CONTRIBUTIONS STATEMENTS
J. S and C.J actively participated in the developed the theory, the methodology, discussion of the results, reviewed and approved the final version of the work.

DATA AVAILABILITY STATEMENT
The data that supports the results of this study will be made available by the corresponding author J.S., upon reasonable request.