Paradoxes of access to equity: multilingual primary school classroom practices

Abstract

This paper draws on an intervention study focussing on translanguaging pedagogies. The study was carried out in 2020–2022 in collaboration with principals and teachers at one school located in a socioeconomic disadvantaged area in Sweden. Drawing on teachers’ logbooks, the aim was to investigate in what ways the theoretical concept of translanguaging is understood and transformed into teaching and learning within multilingual classroom practices with students aged 6–12. The analysed data reveal that opportunities for communication and interaction are designed through the organisation of language groups, the approaches of comparing and translating, and using multimodal and digital reinforcements. Teachers expressed stances around providing opportunities for students to interact and communicate various subject content through all their languages. A shift in pedagogical thinking was made visible regarding how the teachers chose to describe and categorise students’ multilingual and cultural experiences. Identified paradoxes concern students’ experiences of using all their languages for learning, possibilities for integrating several languages in classroom practices, and the status of various languages in society. Possible collaborations between schools and students’ homes were highlighted.

Keywords:

• Equal and fair education
• multilingual primary school classroom practices
• socioeconomic inequalities
• teaching and learning

Introduction

This article investigates in what ways the theoretical concept of translanguaging pedagogies is understood and transformed into teaching and learning within the classroom practices of one multilingual primary school located in a socioeconomically disadvantaged area in Sweden. As we know, many children have access to several languages and cultures through their family backgrounds, experiences of travelling and/or migration, and use of the internet and social media. Students therefore have various linguistic and communicative resources that can be drawn upon and further developed within education (Thomas and Collier 1997; García 2009).

To understand teaching content and develop knowledge, multilingual students are depending on classroom practices where they can communicate and interact through all their languages. In this article the concept of multilingual is used to address all the various linguistic resources that students bring to school.

Previous research has demonstrated that multilingual instructional strategies can lead to higher levels of academic performance, build critical language awareness, engage students actively with literacy in both school and home, and affirm students’ identities (e.g. Lucas and Katz 1994; Cummins et al. 2005; Cummins and Persad 2014; García and Kleyn 2016). The empirical and analytical interest of this paper builds on these previous insights in seeking to understand translanguaging in classroom practices. This interest intertwines with the concurrent and complex phenomena of Swedish education: such as socioeconomic inequalities, knowledge segregation, and increased standardisation and marketisation of education (e.g. Wahlström and Sundberg 2018; Lin et al. 2022).

In Sweden, large cities and many mid-sized cities are characterised by high numbers of multilingual residents and by residential segregation (Johansson and Hammarén 2011; Aldén et al. 2015; SOU 2020). This has led to socioeconomic conditions within urban suburbs that are significantly poorer compared to other parts of the city. Hence, an over-­representation of students from families with lower socioeconomic status is found in schools within these areas, which has a negative impact on students’ educational achievement (Bunar 2011; NAE 2018; Schmidt 2022). Moreover, because of the marketisation of the Swedish school system, students have become increasingly segregated among schools based on their socioeconomic backgrounds.

Almost a third of the students in compulsory school speak a language other than the majority language of Swedish (NAE 2022). While these students do not constitute a homogenous group, their general academic results are below those achieved by students with Swedish backgrounds. Further, students in schools located in disadvantaged socioeconomic areas are more likely to encounter pedagogical circumstances that have a negative impact on their educational achievement (Bunar 2011; Schmidt 2022). According to the Swedish Education Act (SFS 2010), all schools, regardless of their circumstances or challenges, have the same ‘compensatory assignment’, i.e. the classroom teaching and learning should be equal, regardless of the students’ backgrounds. Thus, the fact that too many multilingual students in so-called ‘low-performing’¹ schools do not have access to the education to which they are entitled is both serious and alarming. For these students, access to high-quality teaching and equal education through classroom practices is a necessity.

Research on multilingual classroom practices is underpinned by the concept of social justice, i.e. students’ equal opportunities for learning and developing strong multilingual and multicultural identities (e.g. Cummins 2001; García 2009). However, this raises a crucial paradox, which is how to provide students access to the dominant culture without reinforcing its dominance while supporting their own cultural identities without perpetuating an already marginalised position in society. Translanguaging pedagogies aim to counterbalance this paradox by linking languages and cultural identities as productive resources (García and Li 2009).

In this article, we draw on a Swedish educational example, contextualised by the above outlined challenges, with the purpose of illustrating possible approaches to enhancing equity within multilingual primary school classroom practices, highlighting the role translanguaging pedagogies play in this. Next, the aim and research questions, along with the perspectives on multilingual classroom practices and translanguaging pedagogies, will be presented. Thereafter, the research context and the methodology used will be outlined, followed by a presentation and discussion of the findings.

Aim and research questions

A larger practice-centred research project, including three interventions, took place in a Swedish multilingual urban primary school between 2020 and 2022. The focus was to develop translanguaging pedagogies within classrooms. This paper draws on reflections from teachers’ online logbooks from the larger project and aims to investigate in what ways the theoretical concept of translanguaging pedagogies is understood and transformed into teaching and learning within multilingual classroom practices with students aged 6–12. The following research questions are posed:

• What translanguaging communication and interaction are put into practice by the teachers?

• What resources among the students are drawn upon by the teachers and in what ways?

Drawing on the findings in answering the above questions, we will discuss and problematise the various approaches, including the possibilities and challenges of ensuring a fair and equal education and the paradoxes of access.

Multilingual classroom practices – conditions and ambitions

Previous research on multilingual classroom practices targets heterogeneous and rather complex conditions, such as various levels of language knowledge and various experiences of using language for communication, in and out of school. According to Hakuta et al. (2000) and Thomas and Collier (1997), it might take five years or more for a multilingual student to achieve the same level of language acquisition as a first language user of the same age. This highlights the importance of giving all students the opportunity to understand teaching content gradually, using increasingly complex content language (e.g. Schleppegrell 2004; Cummins and Early 2011). Multilingual students can benefit from classroom practices that enable them to communicate and interact using all their languages. According to Alexander (2008), students’ ability to communicate, interact and consequently develop knowledge is influenced by the organization of the classroom, which includes whole-class teaching, pair and group work, and individual work. Additionally, the ways in which students are encouraged to speak, listen to each other, discuss, negotiate, and solve problems are crucial for their knowledge development (see also Schmidt and Skoog 2017). Previous research also sheds light on the phenomenon that students’ abilities in one language are transferred to another language and vice versa (e.g. Thomas and Collier 1997; Cummins 2001). This requires rich opportunities for multilingual students to use all their languages while processing, learning, and developing knowledge, including the majority language of the society.

Furthermore, identities and identity development are integral to language use in everyday life and interaction. It has long been emphasised that children bring a multiplicity of experiences and identities related to diverse backgrounds into classroom practices (e.g. Heath 1983; Stein 2008; Li 2011; Laursen 2015; Schmidt 2020). These identities are continuously negotiated through language and literacy. In addition, García and Li (2014) note that communication is inherently multimodal. From a social semiotics perspective (Kress 2010) this suggests that various modes, such as gestures, images, and sounds coexist alongside linguistic resources to negotiate meaning. Therefore, multimodal communication can be particularly beneficial for multilingual students as it offers multiple entry points to represent themselves (Yi et al. 2019; Molin 2020) and engage with issues of social justice (García and Li 2014; Price-Dennis and Carrion 2017), without relying solely on oral or written language. These experiences are also closely linked to the social and cultural life worlds of students (Janks 2010; Torpsten 2018; Schmidt 2020). Given that power relations characterise any society and its institutions, students who differ from the majority norms may be more likely to encounter deficits in discourses within classroom practices (e.g. Stein 2008; Janks 2010; Comber 2016).

Research from Cummins and colleagues shows that multilingual students are disfavoured in school contexts characterised by monolingualism, while opportunities for them to use all their language resources lead to school success (Cummins 2000, 2001; Cummins and Early 2011). Opportunities for students to use all their languages when learning is accordingly viewed as enhancing the transfer of language abilities, such as vocabulary, to the next language, and vice versa (e.g. Thomas and Collier 1997; Cummins 2001). Building on this research, García (2009) developed what she refers to as Dynamic Bilingualism, which contextualises multilingual students’ language knowledge as interwoven on all levels and through all modalities (see also García and Kleifgen 2020).

Translanguaging classroom pedagogies

García (2009) stresses the significance of surpassing traditional notions of language and literacy, especially the tendency to separate students’ language resources from one another (see also García and Li 2009). While García (2009) theoretically underscores how multilingual speakers’ language knowledge is interwoven at all levels, this does not imply disregarding the existing and named languages in the surrounding society. On the contrary, drawing on students’ various linguistic resources encompasses both the pluralistic and heterogeneous experiences of languages, as well as the majority language and the various named first languages that students bring into classroom practices. This also implies that the categories of first and second language do not hold the same meaning for all students. In this paper, we use the term ‘first language’ to refer to the language of a student’s family, which is typically the first language the student learned as a toddler.

Canagarajah (2011) defines translanguaging as ‘the ability of multilingual speakers to shuttle between languages, treating the diverse languages that form their repertoire as an integrated system’ (p. 401). He argues that this ability should be seen as part of the multicompetence of multilingual speakers. Therefore, as emphasized by García and Kleifgen (2020), multilingual students should have opportunities in which all their languages, including all possible forms of expressions or modalities, are interwoven instead of separated. The use of multiple languages and literacies, refers to processes in which students are allowed and encouraged to employ all their resources to communicate, understand, and learn. This, in turn, relates to the sociocultural perspective of what it means to be literate today, which recognizes that reading and writing are situated in specific contexts with specific purposes and that text goes beyond print and paper. One example of how this may be operationalized within classroom practices is proposed by Luke and Freebody (1997) in their Four Resources Model. They describe that, to become literate, students must be involved in practices that integrate coding, functional use, meaning making and critical analysis of texts.

García (2009) stresses social justice and social practice as fundamental concepts for understanding translanguanging pedagogies. All languages of multilingual students should have the same value and be seen as resources for learning and knowledge development (social justice), and all languages should be drawn upon and used in classrooms (social practice) (García 2009; García and Li 2014). García (2009), and more recently García et al. (2017), have identified three teaching dimensions for multilingual classrooms that are linked to translanguaging pedagogies: the teacher’s stance, design, and shifts. Teachers must adopt a critical stance towards multilingualism, considering it as valuable resource, and multilingual students as resourceful. García and Kleyn (2016) suggest that this stance must be accompanied by the strong belief that translanguaging as a pedagogical practice fosters strong identities among multilingual students. Moreover, the design of classroom communication and interaction should be tailored to the chosen teaching content, incorporating appropriate multilingual material to support students’ learning. Setting up the classroom as a multilingual space can also be beneficial, for example, by grouping students according to their first language to enable them to assist each other and deepen their learning. Finally, shifts in teaching design may be necessary when individual students or groups of students are invited to use their full linguistic repertoire. In response to these changes, teachers must be prepared to make relevant shifts in their teaching methods, alternative or varied multilingual and multimodal resources or incorporate more opportunities for interaction among students. In essence, a teacher’s shift represents a change in their pedagogical thinking.

The paradox of access to social justice and equity

The integration of social justice in translanguaging pedagogies within classroom practices (García 2009) is also a fundamental goal on par with the idea of equity within educational systems and classrooms (Wahlström 2022). For a teacher to integrate their stance, design, and shifts with the aim of ensuring social justice and social equity implies for a certain epistemology (García and Kleifgen 2020). It is in the practices of the daily classroom that this takes place, but as mentioned earlier, this also means balancing the paradox of access, which refers to opportunities for students to gain access to the dominant culture and language while at the same time retaining their own community’s culture and language. Hilary Janks (2010) describes this paradox of access:

If we provide students with access to dominant forms, this contributes to maintaining the dominance of these forms. If, on the other hand, we deny students access, we perpetuate

their marginalization in a society that continues to recognize the value and importance of these forms. (p. 24)

The above quotation sheds light on the power relations regarding language, literacy, and citizenship, and the paradox of access regarding providing opportunities for students to represent themselves as unique individuals with powerful resources while at the same time having access to the dominant forms of civic and subject literacy within society.

Research context

The research discussed in this paper is a component of a broader practice-centred research project conducted between 2020 and 2022 in a multilingual and highly diverse urban school setting in Sweden. The project involved two principals, all teachers, and their students (n = 300) between the ages of 6 and 12, as well as two representatives from local authorities and two researchers. The project is part of the Swedish governmental initiative ‘Development, Learning and Research’,² aiming to develop models for long-term collaboration in research-practice relationships.

The student body at the school is highly diverse, with representation from over 30 different languages. Most students speak another language than Swedish at home, and the school regularly admits newly arrived students throughout the school year. The school has been identified as ‘low-performing’ according to statistics from the NAE (2022) and has been the target of various support initiatives from both the NAE and local authorities. This project, presented in this paper, builds on a coordinated effort focusing on translanguaging pedagogies that took place from 2017 to 2019. Thus, when the research project started, a significant number of the participant teachers were already familiar with translanguaging as a concept and of its possible translations into classroom practices.

Methodology

The research project was conducted using an iterative approach with three interventions (Van den Akker et al. 2006; Carlgren 2011), each spanning a period of 4–6 weeks, as illustrated in Figure 1, and characterized by three different, iteratively defined foci as presented in Table 1. The primary objective of these interventions was to encourage participating teachers to experiment with new classroom practices that aligned with translanguaging pedagogies (García 2009; García and Kleifgen 2020) to improve student learning outcomes. To achieve this, the researchers introduced each intervention by providing new input related to translanguaging.

Figure 1. Figure visualizing when in time the three interventions took place.

Table 1. Overview of the empirical data.

Intervention 1–3	Empirical data from the larger research project	Empirical data, analysed in this article (online logbooks)
Intervention 1, October 2020. Enhancing student representation, identity, and self-esteem, learning and knowledge development, drawing on translanguaging pedagogies.	2 focus group interviews with students (5 + 5) 2 focus group interviews with teachers (5 + 5) 1 focus group interview with lead teachers (4) 4 classroom observations Online logbooks	23 teachers’ written descriptions and reflections, guided by the following logbook guidelines: Describe the teaching activities that took place over time, including their pedagogical purpose, and the changes you hope to achieve in relation to the intervention’s goals. Reflect on your teaching practices and identify what was new to you and what knowledge you have gained from the experience.
Intervention 2, March-April 2021. Enhancing student representation, identity, and self-esteem, learning and knowledge development, drawing on translanguaging pedagogies and the Four Resources Model (Luke and Freebody 1997).	Online logbooks	20 teachers’ written descriptions and reflections, guided by the following logbook guidelines: The same guidelines as in intervention 1.
Intervention 3, October–November 2021 Translanguaging as a pedagogical practice, incorporating students’ life worlds, and experiences.	2 focus group interviews with students (5 + 5) 2 focus group interviews with teachers (5 + 5) 1 focus group interview with lead teachers (4) 4 classroom observations Online logbooks	20 teachers’ written descriptions and reflections, guided by the following logbook guidelines: Describe the teaching activity that took place over time, including its pedagogical purpose, and the changes you hope to achieve in relation to the intervention’s goal. Reflect on the teaching materials that you used. Identify any opportunities and/or challenges that you encountered while implementing your translanguaging pedagogy?

The interventions were carefully planned, and reviewed in close collaboration between the researchers, principals, and four lead teachers. Subsequently, the teachers participated in collegial meeting to plan and design classroom activities aligned with the intervention goals. The same meetings were also used as opportunities for reflection on the teaching activities that were performed.

The data generated throughout the larger research project comprises transcriptions of audio recorded focus group interviews with teachers, lead teachers and students, as well as video recordings from classroom observations and teacher logbooks from intervention 1–3, as shown in Table 1. This article focuses on investigating the ways in which the epistemological perspectives of translanguaging pedagogies impacted the designed classroom practices. To achieve this, data was generated from online logbooks (n = 3) completed by the teachers. The logbooks consisted of questionnaires that required the teachers to describe and reflect on their own teaching and their students’ learning. Each intervention had a specific focus, as outlined in Table 1. The logbooks were framed in the same way, requiring teachers to explain their planned, designed and performed teaching and learning activities, motivate pedagogical choices, and reflect on opportunities and challenges with the designed pedagogies. This ensured that the logbooks provided a rich array of detailed examples of what translanguaging pedagogies may look like within classroom practices for different subjects and age groups. Intervention 1 involved 23 teachers, while interventions 2 and 3 involved 20 teachers each.

Analysis

The empirical data collected from the online logbooks, summarised in Table 1, form the basis of the analytical process used in this study, which was informed by thematic analysis (Braun and Clarke 2019). The data draw on teachers’ descriptions and reflections, integrating stance, design, and possible shifts over time. Self-reflexivity has been a prerequisite for us as researchers when interpreting and analysing the teachers’ expressed thoughts and reflections regarding their described pedagogies. In line with ethnographic approaches of self-reflexivity (e.g. Hammersley and Atkinson 1989; Davies and and others 2008), we have taken into careful consideration the many possible perspectives of being a teacher within this specific school. Also, we acknowledge our own pre-understanding and chosen methodology, including the different roles of being a teacher and a researcher, and the power structures involved.

The analysis process involved three steps. In the first step, patterns were identified regarding the approaches of translanguaging pedagogies. This entailed the researchers reading through all online logbooks for a general understanding and taking notes of patterns and reflections that emerged across the course of reading. In the second step, sequences or initial codes were selected to identify how translanguaging communication and interaction were put into practice and how students’ resources were drawn upon, and from what stances. In the third step, selected instances were carefully analysed while also investigating the possible connections to expressed stances and potential shifts. Four themes were ultimately identified regarding the design of translanguaging pedagogies, and these were interpreted and assessed to find the most reliable descriptions possible. The identified themes are processing subject content in language groups, comparing and translating subject content, multimodal and digital reinforcement, and connections to students’ social worlds.

Ethical considerations

The study adhered to the Swedish Research Council (2017) ethical guidelines and rules for social science research, including requirements for confidentiality, consent, information, and autonomy. Participation was voluntary and could be withdrawn at any time by an individual teacher or student. All participants were informed about the research objectives and aims and invited to sign a consent form indicating their willingness to participate in the study and to be recorded in the classroom. Since all students were minors, their parents were also informed about the research project and asked to sign the consent forms. Pseudonyms were used for all participants.

Result

This section presents the results of how the designed translanguaging pedagogies were put into practice, in terms of the classroom communication and interaction and what student resources were drawn upon, and how.

Processing subject content in language groups

The results show that the teachers encouraged their students to draw on their first languages and interact with one another in language groups to process, for example, homework or subjects’ content. Classroom activities were designed to create possibilities for communication and interaction through the students’ various languages. One example is when a teacher read the story ‘Peter and his four goats’ aloud in Swedish with 6-year-old students (intervention 3). After this, the students, supported by five pictures, retold the story in their first languages and in Swedish. Another example is when the students were encouraged to use their first languages, as well as Swedish and English, to share experiences about their spare time activities and important traditions (intervention 1). Regarding cultural traditions, one teacher stated: ‘Students from each group presented to the whole class and taught us important concepts connected to the traditions, in their various first languages’.

The analysed data reveals that the teachers view language groups as a way to motivate students to interact and communicate around various subject content. Several teachers brought interaction and communication forward. We interpret this as a pedagogical stance since students can encompass all their language repertoire while developing awareness and pride around their identity. Many teachers argued that language groups provide safe spaces where students can more easily dare to express their thoughts and ideas in relation to subject content.

Comparing and translating subject content

The students were often invited to draw on various subject content and compare and/or translate between languages, both orally and in writing. The latter was made visible in the subject of Civics in grade 6, where a teacher reported that the students were encouraged to compare factual online information in different languages (intervention 1, logbook of one teacher):

The students read/listened to information from two different web pages in two different languages. Thereafter, they answered a few reflective and analytical questions regarding the differences and similarities between the two web pages.

Another example is taken from the teacher in grade 5 Civics where the students learned about the global goals³ (intervention 2). The teacher reported that the students worked collaboratively in language groups and translated the goals into written form in various languages. Also, an example from grade 1 Swedish is when the students worked with the letter ‘L’ and its language sound (intervention 3). The teacher of that class tells that all students contributed with their previous knowledge regarding words beginning with or containing this sound, drawing on all their languages. In some cases, this meant that this universal sound related to alphabet signs in other languages than Swedish. All this information was gathered and illustrated in a word wall.

Regarding the stances of comparing and translating subjects, several of the teachers stated that this creates opportunities for students to actively draw on all their languages when learning. The approaches of translating are more common in the early grades, while the approaches of comparing languages are more common in the later grades. Most of the teachers do not see providing students with opportunities to use all their languages as problematic. Instead, many of them arrange situations where students can talk, listen, and read and/or write in multilingual ways.

Multimodal and digital reinforcement

Multimodal expressions and reinforcements were according to the teachers omnipresent in most activities, but in some cases, students were specifically encouraged to use a vast array of modes in their learning, such as when they had opportunities to relate subjects’ content to play, dance, and drama. In grade 1, the teacher reported that the students played ‘Simon says’ in different first languages while practising using position words (intervention 1). On this occasion, a student with the first language of Urdu, the only one with this specific first language, spoke for the first time in the classroom using this language. Another example is when the grade 2 students drew on the tale of ‘Billy Goats Gruff’ (intervention 2). The teacher reported that first, they listened to the story in various versions and modes, and then they created their own puppets, dramatising the story in their first languages and in Swedish. In the analysed data, the dramatising approaches were most often found in the lower grades.

Digital tools were also commonly used as reinforcement to work with and process subject content, such as in grade 5 when students, according to their teacher in the geography class, created PowerPoints to describe the position of different countries, while expressing the concept of latitude in Swedish and in their first languages (intervention 1). Another example is when a teacher of grade 5 Social Science designed an activity on the UN Children’s Rights Convention (UNCRC) and compared the conditions of girls around the world (intervention 3). Part of the activity was to watch a video from the internet about two girls in Bangladesh and their everyday lives and compare the experience to their own lives. Digital tools were also commonly used for shared reading in the whole class, for instance when enlarging picture books or other texts.

The expressed stances of why multimodal and digital reinforcement were essential concern the aspects of increased representation, motivation, and access to content, such as when using digital applications for translations. According to some teachers, this can contribute to identity-making and enhance the sense of global citizenship.

Connections to students’ social worlds

Several teachers stated that they drew upon their students’ various experiences when designing classroom teaching and learning. Similar to the example of comparing their everyday life experiences with those of the Bangladeshi girls, the students were often urged to learn about countries or contexts familiar to them and their families. Often, this involved collaboration with the students’ parents. In grade 1, for example, students got homework about autumn and were asked to find out more about what this season might look like in different countries by talking to their parents or relatives (intervention 1). Another example is when grade 5 Technology students learned about various buildings and their construction (intervention 2). First, the students studied buildings from around the world, reading factual texts in Swedish and their first languages and summarising this information. Next, they wrote about one chosen building, with a focus on stability and sustainability, also in different languages, and discussed this topic with their parents as homework. This raised classroom discussions of how war, financial circumstances, and/or the lack of knowledge impact the survival of famous buildings in different countries. After this, the students chose a well-known building from a country to which they had a connection, constructed a model of the actual building using various materials, and presented this to the rest of the class using digital pictures, drawing on all their languages.

Yet another example of drawing on students’ previous experiences was in grade 6 Social Science, where one teacher reported that the students compared the Swedish Constitution with those of other countries with which the students were connected (intervention 2). The activity involved writing short texts based on a few questions provided by the teacher, in Swedish and then in their first languages, and in the next lesson, they read their texts out loud in language groups. Similarly, another teacher reported that the students in grade 5 Geography were encouraged to work in pairs and compare Norway to another country they have a close relation to (intervention 1). The students were asked to describe and compare climate, natural resources, and population, using several geographical concepts, and to present their work individually to a peer. Those who wished to also present to the whole class in a language of their choice.

Another example of drawing upon students’ experiences and social worlds outside school was when yet another teacher reported that the students were asked to talk about their spare time in grade 6 P.E. (intervention 2). This activity involved peer conversations and classroom dialogue about what there is to do in the local community. The students also interviewed their parents about what they did in their spare time when they were growing up. Moreover, in an integrated subject approach in grade 2, students learned about their community (intervention 2). The teacher reported that they started off with a walk in their neighbouring area, showing each other places and functions that were important to them in their daily lives, such as the local supermarket and favourite playground. The teacher described that the children, drawing on various languages, contributed with knowledge about their own community. Back in the classroom, the teacher and students collectively made a mind map based on the students’ observations. The expressed, and recurring, stance of why the teachers draw upon students’ various experiences and social worlds is that they believe this is important for their students’ identity-making and learning.

The integration of stance and design – and the possible shifts

The results provide evidence that the described translanguaging pedagogies, along with the various communicative and interactive classroom activities, were consistently linked to the teachers’ expressed stances on translanguaging and their perception of their students as competent and resourceful individuals. Generally, most teachers shared a belief in the necessity of translanguaging pedagogies in a multilingual school. For some teachers, this stance was connected to their own experiences of migration and/or being a multilingual teacher. Moreover, many teachers have worked with a strong commitment in the school for many years.

Current and/or potential shifts – and expressed concerns

The study reveals current and/or potential shifts in the teachers’ pedagogical thinking and their views on promoting social justice in multilingual classroom practices. The study also highlights concerns expressed by the teachers. Over time, a shift is made visible regarding students’ opportunities to use all their languages via language groups. Compared with the first and second intervention, language groups were used more frequently in the third intervention, and for the first time in a few classrooms. Choosing to give their students opportunities to use all their languages indicates a shift in the teachers pedagogical thinking towards an understanding of the term ‘first language’ as being equal, with the many possible dimensions and meanings of various students. Moreover, a shift emerged regarding what counts as a student’s first and/or strongest language, and/or what a student feels to be his or her home country. At the same time, several teachers raised concerns regarding the role a single language may or may not play in the classroom. Questions were raised regarding how to handle classroom situations where several students speak common first languages, such as Arabic and Somali, while only one student speaks a more unusual language, such as Urdu or Bengali.

Regarding classroom approaches of comparing, like for example comparing different countries or upbringings, while drawing on multicultural and multilingual experiences, a shift emerged. This shift concerned teachers’ perceptions of students’ cultural and multilingual backgrounds, and how they describe and categorise these experiences. A consequence is that many teachers, instead of using the term ‘home countries’, chose to say, ‘a country that a certain student knows much about’. In addition, a shift emerged regarding the teachers’ views of students’ homes as resources for learning. Throughout the three interventions, an increased collaboration with the students’ homes and families was evident. Expressed reasons, some in intervention 2 and several in intervention 3, were that this demonstrates to both students and parents that a student’s full linguistic and cultural repertoire is important for identity-making and learning. However, challenges were revealed regarding the various levels of language knowledge among students, some students’ negative experiences of using their first language, and how to create well-balanced and meaningful homework for the collaboration with students’ families. Further, concerns were raised regarding the complexity of expectations from parents, depending on, for example, their various educational backgrounds.

Throughout the three interventions, an increased emphasis on collaborative classroom work, in terms of students’ opportunities to communicate and interact, was noticed. This meant that collaborative peer work with opportunities for the students to interact with one another via all languages, and with the support of combining various resources, such as audial and/or visual resources with oral and/or written language, increased. Regarding multimodal and digital reinforcement, a shift emerged regarding how different modes can add to one another and contribute to more perspectives and ways of expressing knowledge. Also, insights were revealed about how access to the internet provides opportunities for students to compare their own circumstances with those of other peers across the globe. However, while most of the teachers emphasised the necessity of digital tools, there were also insights around the challenges these present. For example, the question was raised of how to set efficient boundaries and use source criticism when students search for online information. Some teachers also described the risk of overestimating what online information can be found in different languages and that students sometimes engage in endless searching. The latter also implies a lack of online dictionaries in a few languages. Also, the translation resources for more unusual languages were stated as insufficient, thus requiring flexible and alternative strategies.

Discussion

In the past decade, the Swedish government has introduced various measures to enhance the integration of research and practice, including promoting collaboration between universities and schools. The research project described in this paper is part of such an initiative and aims to improve the quality of teaching and learning in the classroom. We acknowledge that the presented results cannot be generalized to all multilingual primary school classrooms; however, they provide examples of potential translations and implementations of translanguaging pedagogies. We see the results as a narrative over time that integrates stance, design, and shifts, and we believe it can make a valuable contribution to bridging the gap between theory and practice, especially in relation to translanguaging pedagogies. Therefore, the purpose of this discussion is to contribute to the pedagogical work in multilingual primary school classrooms.

In summary, the results highlight the significance of social multilingual interaction among peers, which aims to reveal and make students’ diverse language and cultural resources meaningful for learning. Our analysis of the results indicates that the stances characterizing the epistemological framework of translanguaging pedagogies, as described by García (2009) and García and Li (2014) have influenced classroom practices by creating more opportunities for students to interact with each other in all languages, supported by auditory and visual modalities combined with oral and written language. The identified pedagogical approaches offer possibilities for communication and interaction through multiple languages, translating, and comparing, using digital and multimodal reinforcement, and integrating students’ experiences and social worlds with subject content. Even though Swedish is the dominant language in the observed classroom practices, it is intertwined with students’ first languages and various multimodal expressions, including digital technologies. Finally, we want to emphasize that the concepts of stance, design, and shifts are not distinct phenomena in the reported classroom practices but rather they are interconnected. Each stance affects the design of pedagogical activities, which, in turn, influences the stance, and possible shifts in the classroom.

Safe spaces for deeper understanding and strong identities

The teachers emphasized the stances of recognizing and drawing upon their students’ various resources and social worlds to create spaces for deeper understanding and learning and to develop strong identities. This approach is exemplified by the young student who used Urdu for the first time in the classroom, demonstrating the need to create ‘safe spaces’ in multilingual classrooms where students feel comfortable sharing and take pride in their language resources, regardless of their first language’s rarity or commonality. Comparing and translating are one example of this approach, as argued by García and Li (2014), who suggest that it enhances students’ conceptual awareness and provides opportunities for deeper understanding and comprehension of new content, which enables higher cognitive expectations (Cummins et al. 2005).

As García (2009) argues, all the ways in which multilingual speakers use, create, and interpret different signs or modalities to communicate with their surrounding social world and shape their identities are crucial. In addition, constructing models of famous buildings in the world, and by that integrating subject content with opportunities for students to draw on all their resources regarding language and culture, seems to be a promising approach while developing subject-specific concepts and subject knowledge. Furthermore, using digital multimodal resources allows students to access subject content or integrated subject content in their first language.

Challenges and paradoxes of access

The paradoxes of access to equity, i.e. access to learning and knowledge development, and in the long run, access for all students to upper secondary school, emerge in relation to several aspects of the presented results. Identified paradoxes concern the various levels of language knowledge among students, students’ various experiences of using all their languages for learning, possibilities for integrating several languages in the classroom practices, and finally, the status of various languages in society. Also, paradoxes are identified regarding the role and understanding of students’ cultural and multilingual backgrounds and identities in relation to various designed classroom activities, including the possible collaboration between the school and students’ homes.

Allowing students to use all their languages is in line with the epistemological framework of translanguaging pedagogies (e.g. García 2009; García and Li 2014). However, this approach demands careful consideration regarding those students who are the only ones in the classroom speaking a specific language. Since students’ language use is carried out in different ways in their everyday lives, on various levels and to various extents, all this has an impact on how a certain student feels about and perceives what is ‘my language’ or ‘my languages’. In some students’ homes, for example, several languages are spoken, while others mainly speak Swedish. All this is made visible in the teachers’ expressed stances and shifts, adding to the complexity of using several languages in multilingual primary school classroom practices. Regarding the use of digital reinforcement, complexity also emerges, since not all digital resources and/or educational videos are available in all languages. As an illustration, some students do not have the opportunity of watching movies in homogenous language groups, i.e. in their shared first language. Furthermore, digital, and multimodal resources, such as dictionaries, are vital resources for many students, especially new arrivals.

Discussing students’ and their parents’ spare time while growing up are approaches that may enhance self-esteem and foster the development of robust multilingual and cultural student identities. However, while the analysed data shed light on the importance of recognising students’ social worlds and experiences as resources, there are few examples of how these experiences become visible through the choices of text and literature in the classroom practices, which could influence multilingual students’ self-esteem and identity-making. Also, a crucial aspect of identity-making is not to take students’ diverse backgrounds ‘for granted’ or view them in only one way. The latter emerged as one shift which took place among several of the teachers. This shift in pedagogical thinking concerns how to, in nuanced and just ways, address and describe students’ multilingual and multicultural experiences. When one of the teachers asked the students to compare Norway with ‘a country you have a close relation to’, it opened many ways of acting and being for a multilingual student.

Concluding words

The identified challenges and paradoxes of access, shed light on the democratic goal of education, and social justice within classrooms (García 2009). In conclusion, we believe that there are important pedagogical issues that still need to be addressed regarding translanguaging pedagogies. One of these questions pertains to how translanguaging pedagogies can be implemented in multilingual classrooms where many different languages are spoken by the students. The same concern also applies to classrooms with only one or a few multilingual students, or classrooms where large groups of students share the same first language while only one student speaks a different language. The complexity of teaching in diverse and multilingual primary school classrooms requires careful pedagogical consideration of the chosen teaching and learning content, as well as the various ways of learning from this content and why. It is through these practices that democratic values can be integrated with subject-specific knowledge, resulting in both civic and subject-specific literacy that can be communicated in interaction in Swedish as well as in students’ various languages. We believe that these issues require further research, and we hope that our contribution can be useful in this field.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Notes

1 The term ‘low-performing’ is used in statistics from the Swedish National Agency of Education (NAE 2022) in relation to schools having a significant number of students not reaching the knowledge requirements in several subjects which are equal to the grade level of approved [C], and hence not many students reaching the highest grade level [A] in grade 9, and therefore access to national programs at upper secondary school. Students who have not completed/approved grades from compulsory school can still gain access to national programs through attending a specific program aimed at completing the required grades. Before grade 9, the lower ranges of national standardised tests in grades 3 and 6 indicate the same problem of no equity, and consequently, acquire the label of a ‘low-performing’ school.

2 https://www.ulfavtal.se/

3 https://www.globalgoals.org/. The global goals aim to build a greener, fairer, and better world, for instance through ending poverty and hunger and ensuring inclusive and equitable quality education for all.