DEVELOPMENT AND VALIDATION OF THE LANGUAGE BARRIER SCALE FOR PRIMARY SCHOOL STUDENTS

This study aims to develop a scale that examines the communication difficulties that migrant and refugee students face in the primary school period, the initial stages of their involvement in the educational process. As a result of a questionnaire administered to 271 primary school teachers via the simple random sampling method, the reliability of the measurement method was found to be .96. As a result of explanatory factor analysis, it was seen that 39 items constituted a four-factor structure (Deprivation, Labeling, Exclusion, and Acceptance). Data were then compiled by administering the scale to 112 teachers again for confirmatory factor analysis. According to the findings, the goodness of fit values were at good levels and the factor structure was validated. “Language-related difficulties” and “language barrier” were found to be two different phenomena. In order to understand the language barrier as a phenomenon that gives continuity to language-related difficulties, it is necessary to develop a perspective that puts students’ school experiences at the center and evaluates them within the context of their own unique conditions. In this context, a perspective that questions the performance-based climate of schools is also needed.


INTRODUCTION
observed that culturally disadvantaged segments of society are never exposed to their disadvantages quite as much as when they are somehow relegated precisely because of their disadvantages.Here, Bourdieu and Passeron (2014) constructed the concept of "disadvantage" as a situation that is established or strengthened through relationships at school, beyond being situations that students carry to school themselves.In other words, they understood "deprivation" as a phenomenon that develops into a barrier as a result of relationships at school.Thus, a dynamic process emerges rather than a structural one.As a result, the following question arises: Under what conditions do language differences, which have been identified as the biggest problems experienced by immigrant children in almost all relevant studies, become barriers for those students?Taking these points into account, this study was undertaken to develop a scale that will allow us to evaluate the "language barrier" phenomenon, which refers to the language-related difficulties experienced by primary school students at school, not only as functional difficulties but also as situations of "relegation," as will be discussed in detail below.In this study, any form of relationship with the potential to reduce the contact of students who do not have the language capital required by the school was evaluated as building a language barrier.Practices of relegation, which serve as obstacles for the communication of disadvantaged students, were considered as conditions supporting language barriers.
Considering the research conducted to date on immigrant and refugee students, it can be said that the key obstacles to students' access to school and their ability to "hold on to" educational processes are The conceptualization of "cumulative disadvantages" can provide a perspective for understanding the multicomponent nature of the language barrier.The developers of this concept, Mohanty et al. (2009), depicted the language barrier in the form of a vicious cycle.They argued that cumulative disadvantages bring social and educational neglect for the students, contributing to their weaknesses in a vicious cycle, and those students are "stigmatized as weak and inadequate, justifying further exclusion" (p.281-287).In the research of Kaysılı et al. (2019), this situation was described as creating "reasonable ground for exclusion " (p.116).In a study by Cross (2009), language-based disadvantages were seen to have a fertile character.According to him, students without strong linguistic capital and those coming from disadvantaged backgrounds in terms of socioeconomic level form an intersectional set.Social exclusion and neglect make the language deprivation of these students more permanent at school and even worsen the barrier in some cases.Thus, a situation arises where language-related difficulties are both a cause and a consequence of exclusion.In other words, the reproduction of students' social disadvantage through distinction is experienced (Kaysılı et al., 2019).
The passive state of this cumulative cycle of disadvantages is seen when schools fail to recognize the difficulties that students experience and provide the necessary support.Block et al. (2014) described additional disadvantages and absenteeism for refugee students, who are less likely to realize their potential if schools do not make special effort on their behalf.It is known that immigrant students face more restrictions in terms of access to quality education (OECD, 2015b).According to First (1988), placing these students in low-achievement groups and labeling them accordingly are acts of "retention" (p.208), as it is well known that students learn better if they are encouraged or receive additional support.Therefore, in order to develop a sound understanding of the reasons for the low achievement of immigrant students in school compared to the average achievement in the host country, it is necessary to take into account the fact that these students generally receive education in schools of the host country in which disadvantaged groups of students are commonly found (OECD, 2015b).In research conducted by Hilt (2017) regarding immigrant students living in Norway, it was found that students who spoke a different language were admitted to schools with special symbolic meaning, not being included in mainstream education and student groups.The lower a student is in the school hierarchy, the more barriers he or she faces.Thus, schools exclude students who do not meet their expectations linguistically, culturally, and academically.This situation also makes it difficult for students to position themselves at higher academic levels (Hilt, 2017).This attitude toward immigrant students can be read as an intervention that strengthens their possibility of failure.Garcia and Markos (2015) suggested that the evaluation of data on bilingual students in the United States should not only be performed on the basis of comparisons; there is also a need for analyses that take into account the complexity of their situations instead of considering preconceived results.According to some studies, the language-related difficulties experienced by students are key factors in exclusion processes at school (Paget et al., 2018).Students are under the influence of a domino effect created by the school's exclusion practices (Hilt, 2017).Marginalization within the host country's educational system (Johns, 2001), separation from other students within the school, prejudice and discrimination (IOM, 2019), exposure to hatred and prejudice or violence, the reluctance of the school administration to cooperate with parents or encourage their participation (First, 1988;Özer et al., 2017), and fixation on certain statuses (Hilt, 2017) are among the mechanisms of schools' exclusion practices.This progression, wherein the development of language-related difficulties is understood as constructing a barrier for students, can also be followed through the course of changes in students' achievement.Walt (2015) stated that these students are faced with a phenomenon of recurrent failure in the new conditions that they face; although they may have been successful in their home countries, they suffer from a loss of motivation after being placed in low-achieving schools and classes in the country to which they have migrated (p.360).According to Grubb (1974), the ongoing negative attitudes in such classrooms do not allow students to internalize the lessons, even though they have knowledge and skills, and ultimately prevent them from enjoying the results of their efforts.The multiple exclusions that immigrant students are exposed to in their host countries thus pave the way for them to lose the high academic levels and expectations they had in their home countries (Hilt, 2017).It is possible that the state of loss that they experience in the early years of their education will leave a lasting mark on their future educational lives (Paget et al., 2018).
Restrictions on access and exclusion practices make the language barrier a factor in the "school dropout" phenomenon, as well.Walt (2015) described this phenomenon as being accompanied by repetitive failures due to language barriers (p.360).In the study conducted by Ergün and Demir (2017), who interviewed students who had dropped out of school for various reasons, it was seen that all of those students experienced language-related difficulties in school and were simultaneously exposed to forms of exclusion.Therefore, in that study, the experiences of the students were described as "school pushout" phenomenon.Arias (2015) argued that the way in which educators look at immigrant children and their families as problems rather than focusing on the shortcomings faced by different segments of society transforms the educational system into a mechanism that erects additional barriers (pp.285-291).The criticisms presented by Ricento (2015) support that viewpoint.He criticized any form of analysis that ignores the needs of students and the extent to which those needs are met in the educational system.Similarly, he criticized any approaches that tend to blame minority students, whether directly or indirectly (pp. 467-468).It is a common finding of not only Arias (2015) and Ricento (2015) but also of many other studies that teachers and administrators regard students who have language-related difficulties in school as problems (Baltacı et al., 2019;Coşkun & Emin, 2016;Istanbul Bilgi University Child Studies Unit, 2015;Ergün & Demir, 2017;First, 1988;Grubb, 1974;Gözübüyük Tamer, 2017;Hilt, 2017;Kaysılı et al., 2019;McBrien, 2015;Mohanty et al., 2009;Özer et al., 2017;Paget et al., 2018;Sakız, 2016;Tosun et al., 2018;Taylor & Sidhu, 2012;Uzun & Bütün, 2016).Sakız (2016) found that the underlying reason for the exclusion practices that impact refugee students with language-related difficulties in school is concern about deterioration of the established order in the school.Yaylacı et al. (2017) concluded that schools hosting refugee students act with the idea that they are doing those students a favor rather than the idea that education is a right of those students, and this view lays the groundwork for the exclusion of the students.Grubb's (1974) expression of the "frustrating and humiliating language barrier" (p.89) is better understood when all these components are considered together.In light of the relevant studies and considering schools as a "sociological and psychological context" in which learning takes place (Pysarchyk & Yamshynska, 2015, p.75), it can be said that students face unique situations due to language-related difficulties complicated by skill deprivation.
Based on this review of the literature, the following problem areas are seen: When students do not have the language capital demanded by their schools, they are faced with a loss of status or relegation in school.Thus, these students' language-related situations of "deprivation" are reproduced in school, combined with experiences of "labeling" and "exclusion," and evolve into a reaction of "acceptance" that drives them out of education.Considering these problem areas, this study aims to develop a scale to measure the structural mechanisms that transform language-related difficulties into language barriers for primary school students.

METHOD
This section presents the design of the research, participants, data collection method, and data analysis.

Research Method
This study utilizes quantitative methods with the aim of developing a scale to measure the various language barrier problems that migrant and refugee children face after being forced to leave their home countries for various reasons, continue their elementary education in Turkey, and receive that education in a language other than their mother tongue.

Target Population of the Study Group
The target population of this study, conducted in Turkey, consisted of primary school teachers in Mardin and Diyarbakır.According to statistics published by the Ministry of National Education (Turkish acronym: MEB) for the educational year of 2019-2020, a total of 4.246 teachers worked at the primary school level in Mardin and 8.345 teachers in Diyarbakır (MEB National Education Statistics Report 2019-2020).According to these data, the target population of the study thus comprised 12.591 observation units.Considering the methodological recommendations of Bartlett et al. (2001), it was decided to distribute approximately 500 questionnaires to randomly selected teachers after obtaining the necessary permissions, considering that a sample size of 292 individuals (with 95% confidence level) would be sufficient for the target population of 12.591.However, because of the closure of schools due to the COVID-19 pandemic, some of the questionnaires were delivered by hand, some had to be delivered to teachers via online platforms, and about 300 questionnaires were completed.As a result of the examination of these obtained questionnaires, incomplete questionnaires were removed from the analysis and a total number of 271 units was reached for explanatory factor analysis (EFA).
After EFA, confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was applied to test the validity of the obtained factor structure.For CFA, the opinions of 112 people were collected with an online form.These test results are presented in the next section of this study.Data regarding the demographic information of the participants are given in the Table 1.

Development Process
A questionnaire form was used as a data collection tool in this scale development study.Demographic information about the participants was collected in the first part of the questionnaire and the second part included statements from the Language Barrier Scale.Demographic information was provided as descriptive data, expressions for the Language Barrier Scale were evaluated with a five-point Likert-type scale as follows: 1=never; 2=rarely; 3=sometimes; 4=frequently; 5=always.
While determining the expressions related to the concept of language barriers, books, theses, and articles addressing similar subjects in the literature were first examined and efforts were made to produce a conceptual framework addressing how being educated in a different language creates difficulties for primary school students.In the first stage, a pool of 80 items was created.The opinions of two expert pedagogues and two academics from the Department of Primary School Education were obtained and a draft of 45 items was established.That draft form was forwarded to approximately 20 teachers; they were asked to examine it in terms of language, expression, and understandability and provide their opinions and criticisms, if any.As a result of their feedback, some expressions were revised and the form was finalized and sent to about 50 teachers for a pilot study.Reliability testing was conducted with Cronbach's alpha test for the questionnaires that were returned, and it was decided to continue administering that questionnaire based on an examination of the total correlations related to the items.

Analysis of Data
For the analysis of data, a mixed-methods model of scale development and validation analysis were applied.This method supports exploratory instrument design and embraces validation phases.It consists of five steps (Creswell et al., 2011): 1-Qualitatively investigating the scale construct, which is also a qualitative validation process for collecting evidence of content validity; 2-Converting qualitative findings to scale items, which is an integration strategy in mixed-methods research; 3-Conducting mixing validation to review the items' content-based validity; 4-Administering the test items and collecting responses; 5-Conducting quantitative validation to analyze properties of the items and examine the evidence of construct validity.
SPSS 23 and LISREL 8.5 were used for data analysis.The level of significance for statistical tests was accepted as .05.

Reliability and Validity Tests
Cronbach's alpha test was applied to evaluate the reliability of the measurement method for the questionnaires obtained from a total of 271 primary school teachers.As a result of the analysis, the reliability of the measurement method was found to be high at a level of .961.For the item-total correlations examined for validity, the coefficients took values between .346 and .690.Cristobal et al. (2007) stated that a value of .3 or higher would be sufficient for item-total correlations.Accordingly, it can be said that reliability and validity were ensured in this study.

Explanatory Factor Analysis
EFA was conducted for the construct validity of the items selected for the Language Barrier Scale.The Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) sampling adequacy test and Bartlett's sphericity test were applied to test the adequacy of the sample size and whether the data fulfilled the sphericity condition, respectively, before moving on to EFA.The KMO and Bartlett test results are given in Table 2.As seen in Table 2, the KMO test statistic was found to be .932.Kaiser (1974) stated that a value of .6 or above is sufficient for confirming the sample size.As a result of Bartlett's test, which is used to examine the possibility of high correlations (or sphericity) between at least some of the variables in a correlation matrix, it was found that the assumption of sphericity was achieved with 95% reliability (p≤.05).
Based on the models and rotations tried in the examination of the factor structure, it was decided to use principal component analysis and the varimax rotation method, providing the optimum solution for the existing data.It was seen that there were four factors with eigenvalues greater than "1" and the scree plot of the eigenvalues is given in Figure 1.Total explained variance and eigenvalues are given in Table 3.It was seen that 63.35% of the variance was explained for the four-factor structure.According to Table 3, one factor explains 37.18%, two factors explain 53.86%, and three factors explain 58.79% of all variance.
Factor loads were also calculated for the four-factor structure.The factor scores of each variable were then examined and it was decided to exclude six items that did not meet the criterion of the factor score being above .3(Jöreskog, 1969).The factor structure with factor loads is given in Table 4.According to Table 4, the items are distributed among the four factors of Labeling, Deprivation, Acceptance, and Exclusion.When the findings were examined, it was seen that these four factors could explain 63.3% of the total variance.This rate is sufficient for EFA (Jöreskog, 1969).When the factor loadings were examined, it was seen that they ranged between .444 and .868.Consequently, this factor structure provided the necessary conditions for factor loadings.
According to the findings of related research, students who have language-related difficulties in school lack the opportunities that their peers have in both in-class and out-of-class practices such as reading/writing/listening, comprehending, expressing oneself, communicating, following lessons, actively participating in class, participating in classroom activities, being understood correctly, completing exams on time, and enjoying access to resources (Aydın & Kaya, 2017;Baltacı et al., 2019;Emin, 2019;Ergün, 2014;Gözübüyük Tamer, 2017;Gülüm & Akçalı, 2017;Kaysılı et al., 2019;Mohanty et al., 2009;Tosun et al., 2018).Considering those points while developing this scale, the concept of "deprivation" was preferred to express the dimension related to the performance difficulties experienced by students who do not have the language skills required by the school in comparison to their peers who know the required language.
The dimension of Acceptance was included in the scale to reflect situations such as lack of selfconfidence, low motivation, withdrawal from communication, absenteeism, and dropping out of school, which are described in the literature regarding students with language barriers.For this dimension, the idea that the aforementioned feelings and behavioral patterns are not independent of the experiences of the students in school was determinant.Suárez-Orozco and Suárez-Orozco ( 2001) argued that students who are exposed to discrimination in school will continue to experience continuing effects of segregation in areas such as self-perception, social relations, motivation, and success.Arias (2015), on the other hand, drew attention to the link among lack of self-esteem, alienation, and disadvantages due to language deficiencies (p.287).Hilt (2017) determined that students who experience challenges regarding language are marginalized for this reason and thus have difficulties in positioning themselves at higher academic levels, which supports the general hypothesis.Studies have also pointed out the importance of considering situations such as loss of motivation, failure, unwillingness to attend school, absenteeism, and dropping out of school in relation to experiences in school for students without language capital (Block et al., 2014;Coşkun & Emin, 2016;Istanbul Bilgi University Child Studies Unit, 2015;Emin, 2019;Ereş, 2015;Özer et al., 2017;Taştan & Çelik, 2017;Tomozawa & Majima, 2015;Uzun & Bütün, 2016;Walt, 2015).Ergün and Demir (2017) preferred the concept of "school push-out" while considering the same ideas in their study to describe the conditions that cause students to drop out of school.Furthermore, students who do not have sufficient language backgrounds as required by the school face challenges triggering behaviors such as hesitating to develop communication (Cross, 2009;Gözübüyük Tamer, 2017;Kaysılı et al., 2019;Uzun & Bütün, 2016) or abstaining from school activities (Emin, 2019;Tosun et al., 2018).These challenges are not only caused by the lack of language skills; they can be read as states of feeling or behavior that develop with the effect of the labeling and exclusion experiences to which these students are exposed for the same reason.According to this analytical framework, it was thought that the word "acceptance" would be most appropriate to describe the situations that these students experience.

Confirmatory Factor Analysis
To test the validity of the factor structure that was formed after EFA, CFA was applied and the results are given in Figure 2 and Table 5. .90≤ AGFI ≤ 1.00, good fit.While evaluating the standardized factor loads, the criterion of values being equal to or higher than .30was taken into consideration.When the factor loads and goodness of fit values given in the figures were examined, it was observed that the full fit and goodness of fit of the factor loads reflected good fit values.
In order to test the reliability of the scale in its current form, Cronbach's alpha test was applied.When the results were examined, it was seen that the reliability values calculated for the new factors were all over 90%.The results of Cronbach's alpha test are given in Table 6.As seen in Table 6, the reliability of the whole scale is 95.5%.For all dimensions of the scale, reliabilities are also above 90%.These results show that the reliability levels of the scale and its dimensions are high.
For the item-total correlations, the t-test results for differences between each item's means of the upper 27% and lower 27% group statistics are given in Table 7.The corrected item-total correlations of the scale were between .346 and .690considering the differences of t-values (df=111) calculated for the upper 27% and lower 27% group statistics.The total points specified for items ranged from 5.236 (p<.05) to 13.946 (p<.05).
After determining the factor structure, the total score for the scale, consisting of 39 items, was obtained and quartiles were calculated in order to determine the intensity of the language barrier problems experienced by students.Because the data did not conform to normal distribution, the quartile scores were calculated by taking medians from central tendency measures, as given in Table 8.The median of the sample consisting of 112 people was calculated as 118 and the arithmetic mean as 115.27.For the 39-item scale, the lowest score could be obtained as 39 and the highest as 195.
Considering the dimensions, the score for Labeling can be 8 at lowest and 40 at highest, while for Withdrawal it can 9 at lowest and 45 at highest.The score for Acceptance can be calculated as 14 at lowest and 70 at highest, while for Exclusion it can be calculated as 8 at lowest and 45 at highest.In this case, 25% of the Language Barrier Scale total scores of the participants were distributed within a range of 100 points, with 50% being below 118 and 75% below 131.62 points.The number of participants in each group was calculated for the relevant quartiles as given in Table 9.According to Table 9, 31 participants with a total score of 100 or below had low levels, 27 participants with scores between 102 and 118 points had moderate levels, 28 people with scores between 118 and 132.62 points had high levels, and 26 people with scores above 132.62 had very high levels of perception of language barriers.It should be kept in mind that these scores may vary according to the samples applied in future studies by the researchers.

DISCUSSION and CONCLUSION
In this study, which was undertaken to develop a scale to describe how difficulties due to limited language capital present different challenges for students, both the functional deprivation of the students and the in-school processes that perpetuate that deprivation were taken into consideration.As a result of EFA conducted for the 45-item scale administered to 271 primary school teachers, the KMO test statistic was found to be .932,and the sphericity assumption was met with 95% reliability according to Bartlett's test (p ≤ .05).Based on the model and rotations that were applied in the examination of the factor structure, it was observed that there were four factors with eigenvalues greater than 1 by using principal component analysis and the varimax rotation method.These four factors could explain 63% of the total variance.When the factor scores were examined, it was seen that they ranged between .444 and .868.Accordingly, the obtained factor structure provided the necessary conditions in terms of factor scores.It was concluded that the considered statistics revealed sufficient values for EFA and CFA analysis was then undertaken.
As a result of the CFA analysis, the RMSEA (0.092), χ 2 /s.d.(1.942), CFI (.99), and GFI (.96) values were found to meet the criteria for goodness of fit.According to these criteria, it was decided that the validity of the factor structure created as a result of EFA was confirmed.Taking into account the quartile scores obtained from the participants, scores were divided into four groups as participants with low perceptions of language barriers, moderate perceptions of language barriers, high perceptions of language barriers, and very high perceptions of language barriers.When the numbers of teachers in each of these groups were examined, it was seen that 48.2% of the participants (54 out of 112) thought that children whose first languages are not Turkish are exposed to high and very high levels of problems due to language barriers.
In the process of scale development, the Cronbach alpha reliability coefficient (.955) obtained for the overall scale showed that the reliability was high.The reliability coefficients obtained for the four dimensions of the scale varied between .914 and .934.Thus, it was concluded that each dimension had acceptable reliability.
Although language-related difficulties in school as an accompanying problem of migration have entered the agendas of educational circles in recent years, studies that evaluate migrant and refugee students only in the context of their past lives and traumas or that compare their academic achievements to those of other students reproduce incomplete narratives.In this sense, even studies on "inclusive education" threaten to reinforce the same deficient view indirectly.Studies that illustrate the transformation of difficulties into insurmountable barriers in school for students who do not have the language backgrounds required by their schools, rather than simply focusing on the "shortcomings" of the students, are still greatly lacking.Although studies on migrant and refugee students, bilingual or multilingual education, and inclusive education offer solutions to these problems, there is still a need for studies that assess what conditions students face in school in order to obtain a better understanding of the nature of language barriers.
Bourdieu and Passeron's relevant analyses can be considered while discussing the findings of this study.Bourdieu and Passeron subjected the problems faced by disadvantaged groups in school processes to a multilayered analysis.According to that analysis, students who differ in terms of the initial tendencies and preliminary information that they have obtained from their environments are only formally equal in school.Students who do not inherit the cultural capital that the school demands are eliminated from educational processes.The elimination mechanism becomes stronger and more visible moving towards lower social classes.Groups from the lower classes, who tend to expect and demand the most from the educational system, are the first to suffer in any case.For example, success in education, which is a necessity of remaining in school, is tightly linked to the ability to use the local language.Linguistic capital, which provides returns in an educational sense, and its unequal distribution among social classes is one of the most hidden factors shaping the relationship between social origin and success in school (Bourdieu & Passeron, 2014, pp.16-121;Bourdieu & Passeron, 2015, p.155).Language-related "deprivation," in the above analysis, indicates differentiation among students speaking the same language based on their competence in delivering the styles and expressions expected by their teachers.
Among disadvantaged groups such as that considered in the present study, the same state of deprivation is obvious, not hidden, as it is also relevant to basic understanding and expression competencies.
Blindness to the inherent social inequalities in progressive processes, specific censorship of the field (Bourdieu, 1995, p.97), doxa, accepted as fact by everyone (Bourdieu, 1995, p. 136), and immanent regularities (Bourdieu, 1995, p.176) impart continuity to the screening system and provide the basis for ongoing difficulties.Schools make students feel that they "do not belong" through the tendency of adaptation to the expected models, thus making the situation appear similar from the outside, as well (Bourdieu & Passeron, 2014, pp.31-32).The established order creates a perception of inequalities as "natural inequality" (Bourdieu & Passeron, 2014, p. 109).In the eyes of teachers who interpret formal equality as real equality, students are classified as "talented" or "incompetent" instead of "having cultural capital" or "lacking cultural capital."Teachers complaining about the inadequacies of their students and their low levels of performance may fail to ask themselves why this is the case and avoid drawing pedagogical conclusions from the situation (Bourdieu & Passeron, 2014, p.110).If there is a problem, the fault is immediately assigned to the inadequate student, with no blame attributed to the teacher (Bourdieu & Passeron, 2015, pp.148-151).While the educational system in its current form fails to meet the "unexpected" and "inappropriate" expectations of students who are not equipped to meet the expectations of the school, it also reveals that the institution demands a student body that will increase "efficiency" and meet the demands from the outset (Bourdieu & Passeron, 2015, p.136).The social value and hence the economic and symbolic returns of different language codes (Bourdieu & Passeron, 2015, p. 115) gain importance at this point.Language is no longer just a communication tool; it is part of the elimination system.Even measurement and evaluation processes are components that help to reinforce the difficulties originating from deprivation.Teachers' tendencies to give better grades to students who meet their expectations is a relatively hidden element of discrimination mechanisms (Bourdieu & Passeron, 2015, p.160;Aktay, 2010, p.482).
A school that does not take given social situations into account and attributes educational failure only to a lack of skills doubles the influence of social determinations.Children from the lower classes, as "appointed perpetual and consenting victims of substantive definitions," start to see "what they do" as a simple result of "what they actually are" over time, as everything pushes them to judge themselves by reference to "charismatic ideology" for their successes or failures (Bourdieu & Passeron, 2014, pp.115-116).In this state of "acceptance," the beliefs of these students regarding their social destinies strengthen the possibility of failure by not following logical conclusions.Thus, the future expectations of students www.iojpe.org

International Online Journal of Primary Education 2022, volume 11, issue 1
who do not have the ability to consciously evaluate the situations that they experience are shaped (Bourdieu & Passeron, 2014, p.17), and the educational process essentially dies.As one moves to the social classes most distant from the school's language of instruction, the rate of educational mortality increases (Bourdieu & Passeron, 2015, p.110).Formal equations serve not to prevent this "death" but to legitimize it (Bourdieu & Passeron, 2014, p.51).
Maxwell's demon metaphor, which Bourdieu uses to reveal discrimination mechanisms, summarizes the same process.Accordingly, this demon, which suspends the effect of the second law of thermodynamics, separates particles whose temperatures or mobilities are unequal and throws the fastest into a container with increasing temperature while separating the slowest into a container with decreasing temperature, thus preserving the difference that would have disappeared otherwise.The school system, which works like Maxwell's demon, serves to maintain the differences among students equipped with unequal amounts of cultural capital; it is programmed to distinguish those who have inherited cultural capital from those who lack it through a series of sorting procedures (Bourdieu, 1995).
On what grounds is it possible for a lack of skills to evolve into a barrier considering the dimensions of labeling, exclusion, and acceptance?When the findings of the present study are evaluated in light of Bourdieu and Passeron's analyses cited above, a three-layered "expectation" emerges that allows that transformation to take place.The first layer corresponds to the school's focus on the ability of students to meet the expectations of the school while raising its standards rather than focusing on their needs.In this performative climate, the lack of linguistic capital is considered an anomaly in the sense of not responding to expectations, turning the situation into a loss of status for the student.The second layer corresponds to the stereotypical views of students' immigration and trauma stories compounding their language-related difficulties.Views of students as victims of past traumatic experiences do not recognize the possibility of new futures (Correa-Velez et al., 2010).The third layer entails the first two layers gaining the functionality to legitimize additional disadvantages faced by students in school, namely "labeling" and "exclusion."Students who are faced with deficiencies that arise due to expectations of deficiency thus experience deprivation that is "paid for" rather than "remedied deprivation."Therefore, small-scale difficulties that could otherwise be overcome will mutate, turning into multi-layered barriers for students.The school's interpretation of these situations as "destiny" and the students' ideas of problems being "the natural result of what they are" make the barrier all the more powerful.In a vicious cycle, the social groups that have more expectations of the school due to their situations will pay for "not meeting expectations."

School and its expectations (stereotype)
This study has demonstrated that the nature of language barriers that gives continuity to language-related difficulties cannot be understood with a perspective that ignores the context in which these barriers develop or the situations that students encounter in school, as well as the possible view of these students as "deficient."Analyses that center trauma and migration stories or cultural differences of immigrant and refugee students as natural reasons for possible failure do not yield meaningful results.The language-related difficulties experienced by immigrant and refugee students turn into barriers under circumstances in which these students' migration and trauma stories and cultural capital differences are interpreted as justifications for their failure rather than being evaluated as data that determine the services and support that the school must provide.These barriers cannot be overcome without considering the question of what would change in students' achievement if the requirements of the school were more attuned to the language skills, cultures, and competencies of the students (Hilt, 2017, p. 599).Furthermore, in order to overcome these barriers, it is very important to note that students learn better when they are encouraged and receive additional support (First, 1988).In light of these points, an increase in the number of studies centered on students and evaluating them within their own contexts and conditions, as well as questioning schools' stereotypical demands, will hopefully allow for more solutions for overcoming language-related difficulties before they reach the level of barriers for students.

Limitations
The biggest limitation encountered in the process of this research was the COVID-19 outbreak.There were difficulties in delivering the questionnaires to teachers due to the closure of schools.Furthermore, administering the questionnaires in schools in the regions in which immigrant children live was another challenge.Achieving a sufficient sample size was a time-consuming problem.It took a long time to obtain the necessary permissions due to the pandemic.As face-to-face meetings were not feasible during the pandemic, the collection of the distributed questionnaires again took longer than was planned.Due to the self-criticism required by some of the questions, the difficulty in finding teachers who volunteered to participate should be noted as an additional limitation, as well.

Suggestions
This scale can be administered to teachers with different education levels.Longitudinal studies based on observations and in-depth interviews can be conducted to determine the nature of language barriers and further scales can also be developed by taking into consideration the data collected in the course of such field work.Studies questioning the relationship between stereotypical expectations of schools and the emergence of language barriers in those situations are necessary to clarify the nature of these barriers, as well.

Figure 1 .
Figure 1.Eigenvalue scree plot for EFA It is clearly seen that the graph becomes flatter after the fourth eigenvalue.According to this graph, it can be said that the four-factor structure is valid.

Table 1 .
Demographic information of the participants

Table 1 (
Continued).Demographic information of the participantsAs seen in Table1, 70.1% of the participants were teachers working in Mardin and 29.9% worked Diyarbakır.While 53.7% of the participants were male, 46.3% were female.Almost 60% of the teachers were under the age of 35.

Table 2 .
KMO and Bartlett test results

Table 3 .
Total explained variance and eigenvalues

Table 6 .
Results of Cronbach's alpha test for the determined factors

Table 7 .
Item-total correlation t-test results for differences between each item's means of upper 27% and lower 27% group

Table 7 (
Continued).Item-total correlation t-test results for differences between each item's means of upper 27% and lower 27% group

Table 9 .
Number of participants per group determined for perception of language barriers