Challenges to Relational Commitments of Preschool Staff in Supporting Children in Contexts with a High Proportion of Early Second Language Learners in Sweden

ABSTRACT

Research Findings: Few studies address the contextual conditions for preschool staff in supporting children in preschool, especially in classrooms with high proportions of early second language learners (L2-learners). The aim of the study was to describe preschool staff’s support of children’s engagement in units with high proportions of L2-learners. In an exploratory mixed-methods approach, eleven interviews (11 units and 27 staff) were conducted, analyzed through content analysis. For the observations, 121 preschool staff (31 units) were added, and 594 children were observed (42 classrooms), analyzed through T-tests to investigate staff’s contextual differences in units with high proportions (>80%) of L2-learners (L2-groups) and child groups with high proportions (>80%) of L1-learners. Content analysis revealed a main theme of a commitment to establish relationships with the children while managing cultural values and norms. In interacting with children individually, the staff wanted to be close to the children and acknowledging them. In these aspects, no differences were found between staff between groups. Differences occurred in interaction with children in groups. Staff in L2-groups struggled with routines, mediating values and encouraging children learning from each other. Policy/practice: Staff in L2-groups need further encouragement from the organization to manage the needs of children in L2-groups without straining their commitments.

Introduction

The preschool staff’s ability to interact and support children in preschool has a significant influence on children’s life-long learning (Cadima et al., 2016; Doyle, 1979; Goble & Pianta, 2017). Successful education, child development and support are influenced by the staff’s abilities to instruct and care for the children (Fuhs et al., 2013). Relationships during early childhood have been known for a long time to be an important aspect of children’s learning and development (Hartup, 1989; Peisner-Feinberg et al., 2001). However, few studies have been conducted on how the children affect the staff in the preschool context (Nurmi et al., 2018; Nurmi, 2012; Yoder & Williford, 2019). Specifically, knowledge is scarce on how child groups with high proportions of early second language learners (L2-learners) will affect the staff’s conditions to support the preschool children. The present study explores preschool staff support of children’s engagement in preschool units (equivalent to classrooms) with high proportions of L2-learners (L2-groups).

The assumption that preschool children also affect their staff has existed in educational and psychological research for some time. Researchers have discussed how children and their characteristics influence their context and how they evoke staff’s various responses (Nurmi et al., 2018; Nurmi, 2012; Yoder & Williford, 2019). The bioecological model of development emphasizes that children affect their social context (Bronfenbrenner & Ceci, 1994; Bronfenbrenner & Morris, 2006; Bronfenbrenner, 1979). The social context can be defined as the subjective experience of individuals regarding people, activities, and places where reciprocal person-environment interaction occurs (Batorowicz et al., 2016; Noreau & Boschen, 2010). Children and their characteristics affect preschool staff and the staff’s contextual conditions in the preschool environment. Contextual conditions are work conditions specific or more prominent to a certain named context. For the current study, this is mostly focused on the contexts of L1- and L2-groups.

The Swedish Preschool Context

The Swedish early children education system is regulated by the Swedish Education Act (2020). Preschool in Sweden is part of the welfare state and includes children aged 1–5 years and considered the first part of lifelong learning within the educational system. The curriculum for preschool is based on holistic and inclusive principles. Children who have special needs or are L2-learners should be supported in a way to have their needs met. L2-learners should be supported in their language development both in their mother-tongue and in Swedish. Play is considered a foundation for development, learning and well-being (Swedish National Agency for Education, 2018). However, academic learning and teaching have been increasingly more emphasized (Pramling Samuelsson et al., 2015). Outside activities and free play (centers) is relatively more common in the Swedish preschool context in comparison to other contexts like in continental Europe and the United States. Free play refers to relatively high child choice in activities and include free play activities both inside the unit and outdoors (Coelho et al., 2021; Goble et al., 2016).

Over 85% of all children between 1–5 years old in Sweden are enrolled in preschool and over 95% of all children aged 4–5 years. The Swedish preschool has received more L2-learners during the last decade. In the school year of 2009–2010, 18% of all preschool children in Sweden were L2-learners, and in 2020–2021 25% were L2-learners (Swedish National Agency for Education, 2021). In the Swedish preschool context and in this study, L2-learners are children who does not have Swedish as a first language, i.e., speaking another language than Swedish in their home. These children are entitled to first language education (Swedish National Agency of Education, 2022). The physical environment of preschools is mainly for children to provide stimulating learning environments and foster interaction between peers and preschool staff.

In Sweden, child group sizes are in general 16.1 for children in the ages 4–5 years and 12.6 for younger children. In daily practice, it is the staff who are responsible for acting in such a way that all children’s support needs are met, and they must be responsive to their interests, engagement, care, and other prerequisites essential for children’s development and learning, for cooperating with parents and other professionals when needed, and for building trusting, good and supportive relationships with the children (Swedish National Agency for Education, 2018). The preschool staff who work primarily, directly, and regularly with children in preschools in Sweden are preschool teachers and child-minders. Preschool teachers (about 40% of the staff) have a bachelor’s degree in pedagogy and are mainly responsible for the education of the preschool children. However, in socioeconomical disadvantaged areas (which overlaps with areas where immigrants and L2-learners are more common) a lower proportion of qualified preschool teachers has been found in comparison to preschools in more favored areas and in rural areas (Andersson & Sandberg, 2017; Persson, 2012). The preschool teacher students have courses that includes cultures and language acquisition for second language learners. However, in an interview study, preschool staff have described it as lacking and not preparing the student for when they become graduated preschool teachers who works in L2-groups (Finnman et al., submitted). Child-minders (assistants) have no formal requirements for specific education and varies from no education to upper secondary school and academic degrees. They focus more on the care of the children.

Staff-Child Relationships in Preschool

The quality of staff-child relationships varies in different contexts and between individuals. Some relationships will be close, while others are characterized as more conflictual or distant (Howes & Hamilton, 1992; Pianta et al., 1995; Zatto & Hoglund, 2019). Staff-child closeness evolves through positive interactions with open communication and warm feelings. Staff-child conflict is described as having negative interactions and consequences (Mashburn & Pianta, 2006). Negative teacher-child relationships and dependency as well as high levels of conflict will usually lead to less motivation in the profession (Hakanen et al., 2006), less teacher efficacy (Dicke et al., 2015; Evers et al., 2002; Schwarzer & Hallum, 2008; Skaalvik & Skaalvik, 2010), more emotional exhaustion (Whitaker et al., 2015) and lower occupational commitment (Buettner et al., 2016; Skaalvik & Skaalvik, 2016). The contextual conditions that determine staff’s ability to form positive teacher-child relationships are therefore of importance for the staff’s work conditions in supporting children.

Research shows that L2-learners display lower engagement (Finnman et al., 2021) and more behavior difficulties (D’souza et al., 2017). This is worrisome because internalizing and externalizing difficulties can strain the staff’s interaction with the children (Finnman et al., 2021). Children who display behavior difficulties also show more dependency in their relationship with their staff (Baker et al., 2008; Pianta et al., 1995; Zatto & Hoglund, 2019), have less teacher-perceived closeness (Zatto & Hoglund, 2019) and more negative relationships with their staff (Mejia & Hoglund, 2016; Rudasill & Rimm-Kaufman, 2009; Sette et al., 2013). Children with lower language complexity than their peers, tend to have higher levels of conflict in their relationships with teachers and other preschool staff (Rudasill et al., 2006). Thus, L2-learners’ engagement, behavior, and language skills can affect the teacher-child relationship in negative ways if there are no balancing organizational structures in place, which in turn may lead to higher levels of relational stress and lower occupational commitment as well as reduced motivation in the profession and less teaching efficacy.

Theoretical Framework

The bioecological model is usually applied to children’s development and well-being (Bronfenbrenner & Ceci, 1994; Bronfenbrenner & Morris, 2006; Bronfenbrenner, 1979). However, it can also be applied to employees within a profession, as the model provides a holistic understanding of how contextual conditions in different system levels are interrelated in a workplace and affect staff well-being of a profession (Bone, 2015). This will give a holistic view of the staff’s support of children in L2-groups. The bioecological model emphasizes that well-being is affected by an individual’s ecological context of proximal processes (e.g., influential relationships and interactions) (Bronfenbrenner & Morris, 2006). Workplaces have their own contextual factors that frame the workplace’s proximal processes (Bone, 2015). The work context is highly influential on an individual’s well-being and has been described as a necessary feature of life where individuals spend a lot of their time (Lovell & Lee, 2011).

Different preschools and units have different work contexts for the staff, which frames their proximal processes. Proximal processes that are more frequent are more influential on well-being than spontaneous events (Bronfenbrenner & Morris, 2006). Proximal processes take place in the microsystem. The microsystem is characterized as a configuration of activities, roles, and social connections that the growing individual encounters within a specific setting distinguished by particular and tangible qualities. For the purpose of the current study, the proximal process and the microsystem will be considered, because they involve how the staff directly interacts with the children and is highly influential in the staff’s well-being. This study also considers the exosystem since it provides the organizational conditions for the work with the children, e.g., the proportion of L2-learners, child-staff ratio, training of the staff, etc., as well as the preschool curriculum (Bone, 2015). Further, Kwon et al. (2021, 2022) argue for a model that takes a holistic view of well-being for staff who works in education. This model includes three interconnected parts: physical (physical health-related), psychological (e.g., depression, stress, and burnout) and professional well-being (e.g., organizational commitment and relationship with children). The understanding of how these parts relate to each other is not clear yet. However, in a recent study job demands and resources affected physical and psychological well-being which in turn have been found to mediate professional well-being (Kwon et al., 2022).

Aim and Rationale

Swedish preschools have received proportionally more L2-learners during the last decade comparing to earlier decades. Having larger proportions of L2-learners in preschool units and their child groups increases the pressure on the staff’s ability to support these children. For staff who work in preschools in L2-groups, the working conditions may be very different than in preschools where few children are L2-learners. Although previous research to some degree has focused on how to achieve sustainable work conditions in preschool organizations, few studies have examined how contextual conditions in preschool affect the staff’s ability to support L2-learners and children in L2-groups, and thus to fully comply with the requirements of the national curriculum. How preschool staff support children in contexts with L2-groups will be explored in this study, in a mixed methods approach.

The aim was to describe preschool staff’s support of children’s engagement in preschool units with high proportions of early second language learners. The following research questions were used in the current study: (1) What do preschool staff consider important in supporting children’s engagement in preschool units with high proportions of early second language learners? (2) How are aspects that preschool staff consider important in supporting children’s engagement linked to what could be observed in child groups with high proportions of early second language learners?

Methods

Study Design, Setting and Participants

Because of limited previous research in the area, an exploratory sequential mixed methods design was chosen (Polit & Beck, 2004), with semi-structured interviews with the staff and behavioral quantitative observations of the staff and the children. The study setting included public preschools from both urban and rural areas, located in four counties in Sweden (in the middle and south of Sweden). The interview sample included staff from units where most (80%) children were L2-learners (L2-groups, n = 7 from 4 preschools) and units where most (80%) children were L1-learners (L1-groups, n = 4 from 4 preschools). The participants in the interviews included the same 10 preschool teachers, 13 child-minders and 4 substitute staff (employed as child-minders). All were women, with preschool work experience of less than one year to more than 40 years. Seven of the participants had immigrated to Sweden, and the rest were native to Sweden.

The observation sample included the same staff that were interviewed as well as the children from their units (L1-groups = 57 children; L2-groups = 91 children). Observational data and participants were added from two previous projects (Early detection – early intervention (TUTI; Dnr: 2011/491–279) and Participation and engagement in preschool international (PEPI; Dnr: 2013–00163; 2016–05555, and 2018–6995)) to increase the observational sample to make it fit for the quantitative analyses. Otherwise, 27 staff would not be fit for the T-tests. The additional sample had the same inclusion criteria as described earlier, L1-groups (14 preschools, 24 preschool units, 340 children and 103 staff), or L2-groups (6 preschools, 7 units, 106 children and 45 staff). The children were divided into units based often based on age (like 4-year-olds) or within an age span (like 1–3-year-olds, or even 1–5-year-olds). The children were between 1–5 years old. Specific data on children’s first language were not collected.

Ethical Considerations

The study was approved by the Ethics Committee in Uppsala, Sweden (Dnr 2017/339). The head of the preschools of the county and the participating staff were informed about the study, and both the HPC and the preschool staff gave their written consent to participate. The children were recruited through passive consent from their parents. Both the parents and the children had the option to refuse to participate. The added observations from TUTI (Dnr: 2012/199–31) and PEPI (Dnr: 2014/479–31) were also approved by the Ethics Committee in Linköping, Sweden and the same considerations as described above were applied. Gathering data about children’s first language or ethnic background can be more difficult, especially in a study with passive consent from the parents. Therefore, the current study aimed to capture the general picture of staff’s support of children’s engagement in L2-groups. In this aim, specific linguistic data about the L2-learners are not necessary as it is the general picture that is in focus. However, in future studies, a more fine-grained approach can be conducted.

Data Collection

Initially, the head of the preschools of the county was contacted and asked to recruit volunteering preschool units that met the inclusion criteria. Eleven preschool units (in eight preschools), their staff and the children (through their parents) volunteered to participate. The preschool staff were contacted by the first author to make appointments for the interviews and observations. The first author conducted the interviews, and a semi-structured interview guide was used. To give a sense of familiarity in a possibly stressful situation, each interview was carried out in the preschool unit where the staff were stationed (Creswell & Poth, 2018). The interviews lasted between 38 and 208 minutes (averaging 67 minutes). The observations were conducted on the same day between 9:00 am and 15:00 pm or until the observations were fulfilled in accordance with the observation protocol (Bilbrey et al., 2014; Farran & Anthony, 2014). All observers involved (n = 3) from all projects had university degrees and had received training in the observations protocol used by the same research team that developed the protocols (at Peabody College at Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tennessee, USA). Data was collected fall seasons of 2014 (TUTI) and 2015 (PEPI) and the spring season of 2018 (the current project). The observations according to this protocol are conducted the same way regardless of research aim or questions of the particular study. The observer collects all variables according to the same criteria. Therefore, all observations in the current study, regardless of project origin, have used the same guidelines and collection methods.

Materials and Measures

Interviews

In the semi-structured interviews, a guide was used with follow-up questions when it was appropriate. The interview guide contained questions like “How do you understand and assess the needs for supporting children’s engagement?,” “What types of strategies are used to support children in the daily activities in your preschool unit?” and “What are the strategies used when the child is an L2-learner?.” The interview guide included further questions, but they were not relevant to the current study because they mainly concerned the staff’s interaction with the organization and the preschool children’s parents and therefore used in a different study (Finnman et al., submitted).

Observations

For the observations, Teacher Observation in Preschool (TOP; Bilbrey et al., 2014) and Child Observation in Preschool (COP; Farran & Anthony, 2014) were used. The observation tool has been adapted for the Nordic preschool context which was used in the current study (Coelho et al., 2021; Luttropp & Granlund, 2010). As Table 1 shows, the structural observations used in the current measure the dimensions of the child (behavior count categories except for one category which was based on rating), and aspects of the teacher (only behavior count categories).

Table 1. COP and TOP dimensions used in the study.

Dimension	Descriptions
Schedule	Organization of the preschool settings for more than 75% of the child group
Proximity	A child or staff within five feet of the child/staff
Verbal	When the child/staff is listening or talking
To whom	To whom the child or the staff are talking or listening to.
Interaction state^a	Different complexity of the interaction (e.g., self, parallel, associative, cooperative)
Level of involvement^a	5-point scale, from (1) Low to (5) High
Preschool staff task^b	The task/activity with which the teacher is engaged in (e.g., personal/care, administrative, instructing)

Adapted from Farran and Son-Yarbrough (2001). Title I funded preschools as a developmental context for children’s play and verbal behaviors. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 16, 245–262. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0885–2006(01)00100–4; See manual for extended definitions and examples, available from D.C. Farran, Vanderbilt University.

^aOnly for COP.

^bOnly for TOP.

For the present study, the dimensions in COP were used in the analyses; verbal, schedule, proximity, interaction state, and level of engagement (for more detailed information on the included codes, see Appendix 1). For TOP, verbal, schedule, proximity and staff task (for more detailed information on the included codes, see Appendix 1). A variable from the staff task dimension used was “staff instruction,” which will also be defined here to avoid confusion (the others are more self-explanatory but also defined in the Appendix 1). Instruction is broadly defined in preschool. It involves any learning activity during which the teacher is interacting with a child or children. It can involve activities that are typically considered academic (e.g., math, science or language), as well as art, music, puzzles etc. The coding’s are used to create frequency counts of specified behaviors and activity characteristics for both the staff and the children. In previous studies, COP and TOP have evidenced high inter-rater reliability (Fuhs et al., 2013; Luttropp & Granlund, 2010).

Before observations were performed, each teacher/child-minder/substitute/child was noted (e.g., hair color, clothes) to target each child/staff during the observation day. Staff and children are continuously observed in the same order in each observational round. To be able to follow and observe each child and teacher in the same order, the notes of each child/staff in the predefined list were used. Each child/staff was observed for 3 seconds, a so-called snapshot. The teacher was observed one at a time with TOP, followed by observing each child one at a time with COP. The observer search in the classroom for the next child/staff on the list, observes for three seconds and then performs the coding. One sweep was performed when the teachers and the entire child group has been observed and coded once, which usually takes about 15 min, and the observer starts again with the first teacher. The goal is to observe each child/staff in at least 20 snapshots (the aim was 30) across a preschool day. If the child group were split and the observer could not observe all children and staff, the observer would follow the largest group and only observe them for the time the groups were separated.

The inter-rater agreement reliability and estimates of the observations were conducted in two units with two observers. Each child/teacher was observed and coded under the exact same 3-second period. The exact agreement and Cohen’s _K were calculated for the activities, and for the behavior scales Intraclass Correlation Coefficient (ICC) was performed. For COP, the average of the exact agreement of was 80.3%, ranging between 60.8% (for involvement) to 92.6% (for schedule). For Cohen’s _K the range was between .55 (for Involvement), and .90 (for schedule). For TOP, the exact agreement was 84.9% and ranging between 72.6% (for teacher task) and 93.6% (for schedule), and Cohen’s _K ranged between .11 (for tone) and .92 (for schedule). The intraclass correlation (ICC) was also computed to estimate inter-rater reliability. The ICC was 0.33 for the level of involvement, .39 for tone, and .39 for the level of instruction, which is lower compared to observations conducted in Portugal and the U.S. (Coelho et al., 2021).

Data Analysis

The data analyses were analyzed in three phases, drawing inspiration from a mixed-methods exploratory sequential approach (Creswell, 2007). The findings from the interviews were used to select which variables from the observations were analyzed.

Phase 1: Content Analysis of the Interviews

Phase 1 is linked to the first research question, i.e., “What do preschool staff consider important in supporting children’s engagement in child groups with high proportions of early second language learners?.” During this phase, the descriptions of the experiences of the preschool staff were explored. The 11 interviews were transcribed verbatim. The content analysis was conducted in various steps, influenced by Graneheim and Lundman (2004). The transcribed material was first read thoroughly several times by the first and second authors to gain familiarity with the content. The next step was to identify meaning units. These meaning units were further condensed and coded according to the aim. Then the codes were grouped according to similarities into subcategories and categories. The subcategories and categories formed the construction of the two subthemes (Establishing relationship with the children and Managing cultural values and norms). An example from the analysis is shown in Table 2. The construction of the two subthemes constructed in turn a main theme that the staff identified: A commitment to establish relationships with the children while managing cultural values and norms.

Table 2. Example from the analysis.

Meaning unit	Code	Subcategory	Category	Subtheme
Many children have more need to be close, to sit in the lap, because they [L2-learners] are here for many hours. They arrive at 7.00 in the morning and leave at 5.00 in the afternoon	Children want to be close	Being close	Interacting with the individual child	To establish a relationship with the child

The analytical process of the interviews was conducted by the first and second author (JF and MS), while the fourth and last author (JW and LA) checked the process for credibility. Furthermore, two of the interviews were used to evaluate the trustworthiness. The participants were given the themes and subthemes to provide feedback but requested no further corrections. The analysis finished with the construction of a main theme including the two sub-themes.

Phase 2: Selection of Variables in the Observational Instrument of COP and TOP from the Content of the Interviews

When the process of analyzing the interviews was complete, the researchers used the findings from the interview material, focusing on subcategories, categories and subthemes and its contents to select related variables from the COP and the TOP. For example, a comparable variable to the subcategories By [staff] being close [to a child] was the variable from the observation protocol Staff proximity to child. Proximity to children, Verbal behaviors (Talking and Listening to children), Staff task (Instructions) and Schedule (Free play and Transitions) were selected for the preschool staff’s behaviors. For children’s behavior, Child Engagement, Proximity to other children, Verbal behaviors (Talking and Listening to other children) and Interaction state (Parallel, Associative and Cooperative) were selected for further analysis.

Phase 3: Analyzes of the Selected Variables from COP and TOP, Comparing Results from the Different Groups (L1- and L2-Groups)

Phase 3 is linked to the second research question: “How are aspects that preschool staff consider important in supporting children’s engagement linked to what could be observed in child groups with high proportions of early second language learners?.” During this phase, the descriptions of the staff’s experiences of what they thought was important in supporting children’s engagement were explored in the observations. The variables of interest for COP and TOP were computed as the sum of individual behavior across the observations and then aggregated to the unit level. Furthermore, the target behavior among the teachers and the children was computed as the proportions of sweeps in which the target behavior occurred. For verbal behaviors, combinations of categories were computed by using conditional probability looping syntax. The method allows the statistical software to search through a combined variable. For example, by examining the percentages of time teachers listened or talked to a child or a group of children, a syntax was created to simultaneously search two groups of variables, e.g., Verbal (e.g., Listening or Talking) and To Whom (e.g., a child or a group of children). In this study talking to a child or several children was combined into “Child(ren).”

Because child engagement is automatically coded as 1 (low) in transitions between activities or mealtime and because different amounts of time are spent in a small group, whole group activities and so on in the different preschool units, child engagement in this study was only analyzed in free play activities. This was partly to measure staff and child behavior on relatively equal terms. Also, the Swedish preschool context is characterized by frequent free play activities (Coelho et al., 2021; Goble et al., 2016) is therefore possibly a good indication of how children and staff spend a lot of their time in preschool. Child Engagement was therefore combined with the schedule category of Free play. To create an average of engagement during Free play, a conditional variable was created. This variable drew from a combination of counts and rating scales. To create the Level of Engagement (rating, 1 = Low engagement to 5 = High engagement) by Schedule (count), looping syntax indicated that all schedule sweeps should be searched for a specific code representing the type of schedule (Free play). To calculate the level of engagement during free play activities, the looping syntax would identify sweeps coded as a whole group and then create a sum of the engagement ratings during all the whole group sweeps. An average of the engagement during free play was then created by dividing the sum of all free play engagement ratings by the number of free play sweeps.

The observations were analyzed in IBM SPSS 24.0. In SPSS, several independent T-tests were conducted to investigate differences in spent time for the staff and the children between the different groups (L1- and L2-groups) in proportions and means for the selected variables.

Results

The findings from the interviews demonstrate how the preschool staff described a commitment to establish relationships with the children while managing cultural values and norms. The commitment was understood as a promise to be loyal to the preschool curriculum as well as to the children. The main theme, subthemes, categories, and subcategories are presented in Table 3. For the results, the interview findings will be presented under each category or subcategory followed by the related variable(s) (if any) in the observational data and its results.

Table 3. Preschool staff’s commitment to establishing relationships with the children while managing cultural values and norms.

Establishing a relationship with the child	Managing values and norms in the curriculum
Interacting with the individual child	In social skills
By being close	In language skills
By listening	Mother tongue
By acknowledging interests and engagement	The new language
Interacting with the children in groups	Use of translators
By encouraging the children to learn from each other	In relational conflicts
By establishing routines
By dealing with tasks

Establishing Relationships with the Children

A commitment to establish a relationship with the child was highly emphasized in the staff supporting children’s engagement in preschool. This was exercised by supporting and being responsive to each child. The relationships had to be based on the needs of each child. The commitment was affected by challenges in being close and listening to the children, as well as acknowledging interests and engaging the individual child. The staff faced challenges in interacting with the whole child group, establishing routines and engaging the children to learn from each other.

Interacting with the Individual Child

To support the individual child, being close to the child was described as important, especially in L2-groups and with L2-learners. By being close, the staff were responsive to and acknowledged the child’s needs and supported language skills and activities.

Many children have more need to be close, to sit in the lap because they [L2-learners] are here for many hours. They arrive at 7.00 in the morning and leave at 5.00 in the afternoon. – “Jonna,” preschool teacher in an L2-group

(5)

Being close was viewed in the observations by the variable of Staff proximity to children. The staff in the L1- and L2-groups did not differ in time spent in proximity to the children, and staff spent in total about 66% of the day in proximity to at least one child (See Table 4).

Table 4. T-test. Staff verbal behavior, proximity to children & instruction (proportions of the day).

	Mean (sd)
	Both groups	L1-groups	L2-groups	T	p	df
Staff proximity to
Child(ren)	0.662 (0.195)	0.648 (0.208)	0.695 (0.161)	−1.492	0.139	106.964
Staff talking to
Child(ren)	0.378 (0.208)	0.364 (0.213)	0.411 (0.196)	−1.300	0.197	90.860
Staff listening to
Child(ren)	0.049 (0.073)	0.046 (0.074)	0.057 (0.071)	−0.767	0.445	87.498
Staff instruction	0.146 (0.150)	0.127 (0.143)	0.180 (0.150)	−1.974	0.052	79.979

Bold p-values are statistically significant.

The staff emphasized communication with the child. It was especially important to establish a relationship By listening to the individual child. They tried to be responsive to the child’s needs and learning and to detect any discomforts. This was considered to be essential for all children but was particularly emphasized for L2-learners. A preschool teacher clarified the importance of communicating with the child and being responsive:

You have a way of talking [to the children]. You are making sure that the child has understood. First and foremost, you ask a counter question, “What did I say just now?” You use that to find out if the child has understood what to do. Otherwise, there will naturally be chaos and they will not understand anything, and then … then you have a mess. – “Anna,” preschool teacher in an L2-group(6)

By listening was viewed in the observations by the variables Staff listening to children and Staff talking to children. Time spent in both listening and talking to the children did not differ between groups. The staff spent about 38% of the time talking to children and 5% listening to them in total in both groups (see Table 4).

The staff further emphasized the importance of establishing a relationship By acknowledging interests and engagement of the child. They described finding interests to engage the child, which was especially important to support language skills and special needs in children. Conversely, these children were described as sometimes lacking social and language skills to express their interests. The staff described two strategies to engage an uninterested child. Either they redirected the child to another activity, or they tried to motivate the child to stay in the activity to develop interest. Children who were frequently engaged in activities were described as feeling safer. One preschool teacher reflected on children with low engagement and how to deal with this issue:

If you see that a child has a hard time concentrating or engaging herself and is very impulsive and messy … then the child needs a special way of dealing with the assignment. You must ask: “Why is it that this child acts in a particular way in a particular situation?” It may be that this child does not understand the other children. It may be that the child does not know how to express herself. It may be a lot of things. It is, however, an indication that something is up, and we have to find out what. – “Anna,” preschool teacher in an L2-group(6)

Acknowledging interests and engagement was viewed in the observations by the variable Staff instruction. The differences in staff instruction between L1- and L2-groups were on the border of significance. However, the staff in L2-groups spent 40% more of their time than their colleagues in L1-groups instructing the children (see Table 4).

Interacting with the Children in Groups

The staff said that they also established a relationship and interacted with the children in the group as a whole By encouraging children to learn from each other. The children could support other children develop language skills and more advanced skills in activities:

Children can introduce other children to more intensive play. Role play, dressing up … I see them using a stroller… and the other children join to watch … and get invited [in the role play] for coffee and so. There are rules and stuff … that they have to explain to each other. - “Erika,” preschool teacher in a L2-group(3)

L2-learners were described to learn language skills more easily in a mixed group with both L2- and L1-learners. The staff’s descriptions of children learning language from each other within the different child groups (L1- and L2-groups) were viewed in the observations by children’s verbal behavior [children] Talking to children and Listening to children. The analysis of children’s verbal behaviors in L1- and L2-groups showed significant differences (see Table 5). Children in L1-groups talked to other children about 35% more frequently than children in L2-groups and listened to other children about 42% more frequently.

Table 5. T-test. Child verbal behavior, child proximity to other children, type of child interaction state, mean child engagement, transitions, and free play (proportions of the day).

	Mean (sd)
	Both groups	L1-groups	L2-groups	T	p	df
Talking to
Child(ren)	0.119 (0.130)	0.130 (0.130)	0.096 (0.126)	3.033	.003	402.127
Listening to
Child(ren)	0.067 (0.093)	0.074 (0.091)	0.052 (0.095)	2.691	.007	377.690
Proximity to
Child(ren)	0.767 (0.169)	0.772 (0.162)	0.757 (0.181)	0.963	.336	353.315
Interaction
Parallel	0.245 (0.159)	0.269 (0.164)	0.225 (0.143)	441.131	.001	441.131
Associative	0.106 (0.127)	0.106 (0.116)	0.106 (0.148)	0.005	.996	318.807
Cooperative	0.029 (0.072)	0.034 (0.080)	0.019 (0.053)	7.412	<.0001	542.002
Child engagement in free play (mean; 1–5)	2.530 (0.696)	2.630 (0.655)	2.307 (0.733)	4.982	<.0001	302.035
Transitions between activities	0.123 (0.113)	0.106 (0.091)	0.155 (0.144)	−4.234	<.0001	275.309
Free play	0.545 (0.226)	0.595 (0.193)	0.444 (0.252)	7.412	<.0001	313.676

Bold p-values are statistically significant..

Further indications of children’s learning from each other were described as when they were in proximity to each other but also when they were interacting with each other. There were no differences between L1- and L2-groups in [children] being in proximity to at least another child. Children in both groups were in proximity to at least one other child for about 77% of the day. Children interacting with each other in Parallel, Associative and Cooperative, were also viewed as children learning from each other. No significant difference in Associative interaction between the groups was found. Children in both groups spent about 11% of their preschool day in Associative interaction. Children in L1-groups spent 20% more time in Parallel interaction and were 80% more often engaged in Cooperative interaction with other children than their peers in L2-groups. Child engagement in free play was also viewed in the observations, to get a sense of the overall engagement between groups. Children in L1-groups displayed higher engagement than children in L2-groups (see Table 5).

By establishing routines, the staff described that it was easier to form relationships with the child group as well as support their learning. Routines could include how to wash hands, a transition between activities, and integrating a new child into the group. Routines created dynamics to form meaningful activities for all the children.

You must at least have a plan. If you do not have that it becomes far too niche. Because then you do not see all the children, you just see some children, but some you do not see. Then it will not be fair. But now you have more general planning and can still go deeper into some things. And then it becomes fairer for the children. – “Joanna,” preschool teacher in a L2-group(2)

Routines and group dynamics were described to be harder to establish and maintain for staff with more L2-learners, partly due to language differences. The staff tried to divide the child group to have more control and oversight. The staff’s description of supporting children By establishing routines was viewed in the observations by the proportion of time children spent in Transitions between activities and the Free play setting. The analysis showed that children in L2-groups spent about 46% more time in transitions than children in L1-groups and about 25% less time in free play (see Table 5).

Managing Values and Norms in the Curriculum

Managing the variety of values and norms was a further challenge to the staff’s commitment to establishing and maintaining relationships with the children. Values and norms that the staff mediates to the children were found in the curriculum. However, the staff also had to manage the values and norms that were related to the children’s backgrounds. Values stemmed from the children’s homes and the culture of their families. Norms regarded language and social skills. The staff communicated the values of the preschool curriculum while managing challenges regarding children’s specific needs and their social and language skills.

A multicultural setting was described as both an asset and a challenge. The curriculum provides a framework of values, which the staff found important to implement in everyday activities. There were challenges in communicating values and norms, especially with more L2-learners in the child group. In these groups, the staff described that they had to reflect more on how they expressed themselves. L2-learners were also considered assets in obtaining cultural exchanges in the child group. Staff with a variety of language and cultural backgrounds were considered useful. They could mediate language and cultural differences between the children and other staff.

Dealing with Variations in Social and Language Skills

Having several L2-learners in the child group could mean large variations in language skills, which presents further challenges for the staff to reach certain goals regulated in the curriculum. However, the staff emphasized stimulating L2-learners’ mother tongue. For the children to feel safe and able to communicate their needs, the staff themselves tried to learn a few words from the child’s mother tongue. These words were usually related to primary needs, such as water, food, and toilet-related terms:

We try to learn a few words that children say here. To support them. For example, there are children who say a word in their native tongue for water, rather than “water.” Then we know that words mean “water.” Then we know when they are thirsty. - “Julia,” preschool teacher in a L2-group(5)

L2-learners were described to be more anxious and commonly needed more care than L1-learners. Staff who spoke the child’s mother tongue was described as an asset to make these children feel safe. This can be viewed in the observations by the variable Personal and caring behaviors. The staff’s personal and caring behavior differed significantly and substantially between L1- and L2-groups. In L2-groups, the staff spent more than twice as much time on personal and caring behaviors (see Table 6).

Table 6. T-test. Staff personal and caring behavior, and approving/disapproving of child behavior.

	Mean (sd)
	Both groups	L1-groups	L2-groups	T	p	df
Personal & caring	0.099 (0.137)	0.070 (0.104)	0.165 (0.177)	−3.339	0.001	57.459
Behavioral disapproving	0.053 (0.084)	0.057 (0.090)	0.044 (0.066)	0.940	0.349	112.041
Behavioral approving	0.072 (0.093)	0.079 (0.097)	0.058 (0.081)	1.305	0.195	98.927

Bold p-values are statistically significant.

The staff tried to be as clear as possible in their communication and used more basic language, especially when communicating with L2-learners. They tried to use fewer words in their communication:

I worked at a preschool that was very multicultural before I got here. We had 15 children with 13 different languages. I noticed that you had to use very few words and be very concrete because they did not know the [Swedish] language. – “Sara,” preschool teacher in a L1-group

The verbal behaviors of staff in L1- and L2-groups have already been presented by the descriptions of Establishing relationship with the child and its subsequent categories (see Table 4).

The staff also resorted to non-verbal communication, working with movements, body language and incorporating music. Pictures, symbols, books, and signs were used to convey what the current assignment was, as well as give words meaning. Translators were rarely used for children. It was described to be used just for newly arrived children.

Dealing with Relational Conflicts

Relational conflicts and skepticism toward the staff were mainly described to stem from the child’s home. For example, the staff experienced that some L2-learners had been instructed by their parents not to play with children of parents with another religious background. Traditions connected to holidays and celebrations were sometimes a source of relational conflicts, where children were hesitant to participate. These children were also hesitant regarding food:

They [the children] can eat meat at home, but not here [in preschool]. They [the parents] are afraid that we will give them pork. They are a little bit afraid. But at home, they can eat [meat]. – “Fatima,” childcare worker in an L2-group(3)

These situations stemming from the child’s home were described to sometimes generate relational conflicts with the staff in the preschool context. The staff’s descriptions of relational conflicts with L2-learners were viewed against observations of the staff’s behavioral disapproval. No significant differences were found in behavioral disapproval between groups. Staff spent about 5% of the day disapproving of children’s behavior in total for both groups. In contrast, behavioral approving was also analyzed, but no differences between groups were found (see Table 6).

Discussion

The present study describes how preschool staff support children in preschool units with high proportions of L2-learners (L2-groups). The preschool staff described their experiences which were understood as a commitment to establish relationships with the children while managing cultural values and norms. The commitment was a promise to be loyal to both the curriculum and the children. However, there were influential contextual differences between staff in L2-groups compared to staff in L1-groups. These contextual differences became evident in the observations, i.e., how the staff interacted with the child groups and how the children in L2-groups interacted with each other. The staff in L2-groups described challenges in creating routines and engaging children to learn from each other. These staff had to spend much time in transitions between activities and giving care. Children in L2-groups were observed to be less engaged and less verbal and to interact less with each other. Thus, the staff in L2-groups were struggling to follow the guidelines in the curriculum and support the children’s engagement as they were dealing with more complex and somewhat different contextual conditions than staff in L1-groups did.

Even though all preschool staff in Sweden adhere to the same curriculum and largely have overall the same organizational structure in all preschools, the present study indicates complex and challenging contextual differences between staff in L1- and L2-groups. These contextual differences can be understood through the bioecological systems model (Bone, 2015; Bronfenbrenner & Ceci, 1994; Bronfenbrenner & Morris, 2006; Bronfenbrenner, 1979). The curriculum and organizational structure are indirect interactions and influences (and therefore in the exosystem) that frame the social interactions and relationships (proximal processes in the microsystem) between staff and children in preschool.

The main differences between staff in L1- and L2-groups emerge in the interaction with the different child groups and their needs and behavior (proximal processes in the microsystem). Staff in L2-groups spent the time of their workday with the children somewhat differently compared to staff in L1-groups. Staff in L2-groups were more active in both pedagogic activities as well as caring measures for the children in their group. As the staff explained, these children tended to need further attention to establish a relationship between them and the staff. Specifically, children in L2-groups seemed to lack the initiative to be in activities which seemed to be less of an issue in L1-groups. These further challenges can be viewed as further job demands for staff in L2-groups. More specifically, qualitative, and quantitative demands. Qualitative demands include complex tasks and tasks not aligned with the staff’s formal education (Curbow et al., 2000), which the staff in L2-groups specifically pointed out in the interviews. Quantitative demands refer to work overload and time pressure (Kusma et al., 2012), which staff also described, but was also indicated in the observations as the staff were more active overall with children in L2-groups. Because of the differences in job demands through the microsystem and its proximal processes (which are most influential on well-being) between staff in L1- and L2-groups, there are potential for differences between the staff’s well-being between the contexts (Bone, 2015; Bronfenbrenner & Ceci, 1994; Bronfenbrenner & Morris, 2006; Bronfenbrenner, 1979).

The differences in contexts between staff in L1- and L2-groups were affecting the staff’s commitment to the curriculum and the children. The challenges in L2-groups were associated with the interactions with the child group and its characteristics. These in turn, seemed to stem from that the staff tried to manage different values and norms in relation to educational activities and, in particular, to manage children’s language and social skills. Children in L2-groups were not as verbal or interacted with each other in the same amount as their peers in L1-groups. These differences in contextual conditions for the staff in L2-groups caused the staff to have to deal with a less fluid group dynamic, with less time in learning activities going on between children themselves. Language skills are described as a barrier to the staff’s and the L2-learners’ relationship (Rudasill et al., 2006). The current study gave a more nuanced picture of this understanding. The children in L2-groups not only had difficulties in communication with the staff but with each other as well. Challenges relate to the characteristics of the group of children and its dynamics. The context for the staff in the L2-groups made it hard to fully meet the commitment toward the child group and to achieve the objectives of the curriculum. The staff described difficulties in establishing routines in the L2-groups, they spent more time in transitions between activities, and the observations revealed that children in L2-groups spent less time in free play than children in L1-groups.

The curriculum states that all children’s needs should be met and inequalities between children should be accounted for (Swedish National Agency for Education, 2018). The current study suggests that the staff is trying to do just that but may not feel that they have the resources to fully reach their occupational goals that are stated in the curriculum. Children in L2-groups showed less engagement during free play even though the staff spent more time giving pedagogic instructions to the children in L2-groups. Previous research has shown that L2-learners are less engaged in activities in preschool (Finnman et al., 2021). Also, L2-learners more often display internalizing and externalizing difficulties (D’souza et al., 2017; Finnman et al., 2021). Staff may worry that this might influence children’s learning in the educational activities set out in the curriculum and therefore may spend more time instructing children in L2-groups.

The current context for staff in L2-groups is especially worrisome because Swedish preschools have received substantially more L2-learners during the last decade (Swedish National Agency for Education, 2021). L2-groups are being increasingly more common and therefore a more common context for both staff and children. This also means preschools and preschool units can have vastly different job demands but still receive similar resources. Struggling to fulfil their promise to meet the objectives in the curriculum and having difficulties in establishing relationships with the children are demanding problems. Furthermore, the staff in L2-groups spent more time caring for L2-learners, who could be anxious and needed more attention. Previous research has shown that dependency is related to less close teacher-child relationships (Zatto & Hoglund, 2019). This may affect the staff’s perceptions of the relationships with children and their interactions with them in learning activities. Previous research has shown that negative relationships can lead to less motivation in the profession (Hakanen et al., 2006) and less teacher efficacy (Dicke et al., 2015; Evers et al., 2002; Schwarzer & Hallum, 2008; Skaalvik & Skaalvik, 2010) as well as suffer more emotional exhaustion (Whitaker et al., 2015) and perceive lower organizational commitment (Buettner et al., 2016; Skaalvik & Skaalvik, 2016). Thus, job demands among preschool staff must be regarded given the tension between contextual conditions, staff commitment and curriculum requirements. Ultimately, it is the preschool organization’s responsibility to make greater use of the competence, experience, and commitment of preschool staff, thereby contributing to both a higher quality of education intended for the children, as well as a better work environment for the preschool staff, regardless of the contextual conditions.

The current study indicates that the staff’s well-being is at stake. The staff in L2-groups worry about supporting the children’s engagement, the relationship with the children as well as reaching their occupational goals in the curriculum (which was supported by the observations). There are all related to professional well-being (Kwon et al., 2021, 2022). According to the model, it is job demands and resources that affect psychological and physical well-being, which in turn affects professional well-being. So, for the context of the current study, the staff’s work with the children, are indicated that staff in L2-groups experienced more qualitative and quantitative demands. These will then negatively affect their psychological (and physical) well-being which in turn negatively affects their professional well-being. If their professional well-being suffers, there are risks for higher turnover which will further strain the staff who does not quit, making the issues further worse for both staff and children (Kwon et al., 2021, 2022).

Practical Implications

The current study revealed some of the differences between the contexts regarding different kinds of child groups (L1- and L2-groups). This can give further awareness to policy- and decision-makers that staff in L2-groups are working in a different context that is more complex and challenging than the contexts of L1-groups. The preschool curriculum does not give any recommendations on how to deal with challenges to achieve the curriculum objectives, but only guidelines on how to support children’s learning and development, and on social values and norms. There are the same intentions set for both L1- and L2-groups, but the described challenges in L2-groups are different. During the current circumstances, preschool staff in L2-groups struggle with their commitment to the children and at the same time achieve the guidelines in the curriculum. Farewell et al. (2022) noted that preschool staff who have more difficult demands in their preschool also tend to have fewer resources and suggests that bolstering resources may translate to higher job satisfaction and organizational commitment. The preschool staff in L2-groups need encouraging structures from their management and organization related to their work conditions.

Strengths and Limitations of the Study

The study’s mixed methods design, based on an explorative approach, gave the opportunity to further explore the staff’s experiences (Creswell & Clark, 2018) of the staff in L1- and L2-groups in a quantitative fashion. Differences in interactions and relationships between L1- and L2-groups were explored between preschool units. To achieve trustworthiness for the interviews (Elo et al., 2014) several steps were taken during the research process. The participants were recruited from four counties and different preschool contexts, which ensured transferability to other equal contexts. Semi-structured interviews were chosen to focus on the aim of the study. The interviews were executed both in groups and individually, giving both workgroup discussions as well as individual perspectives from the participants. The interviews demonstrated saturation. During the analytic process, no relevant data were excluded. The data were analyzed through a strict systematic approach according to (Graneheim & Lundman, 2004). Themes, subthemes, categories, and subcategories relevant to logic, clarity and appropriateness were discussed among the researchers. Citations from the participants demonstrate the study’s credibility. The observations gave further information about how staff and children spent time in the preschool context. Statistical analyses were used to investigate differences between L1- and L2-groups. However, for future studies, regression analysis, structural equation modeling etc., could be used to better explain how certain staff and child behaviors affect teacher-child relationships, staff’s behavior and job demands, as well as the children’s engagement and needs.

Conclusion

The present study indicates that the staff described a commitment to the curriculum which they enact in relationships with the children themselves to support them in their development and learning. However, staff faced challenges and tension in this commitment in the context of L2-groups. The staff found the curriculum important but there were challenges in managing values and norms, in particular the children’s social and language skills. The many challenges in L2-groups are especially concerning as they add up, which challenges not only the commitment to the children themselves but to the curriculum as well. L2-groups in the current context may challenge the staff’s professional well-being, motivation, teacher efficacy and organizational commitment long-term. This is especially worrisome since the number of L2-learners has increased in Sweden during the last decade and they have support needs more often than L1-learners. Staff in L2-groups need further encouragement from management and the preschool organization to keep up with the needs of children in L2-groups.

Disclosure statement

The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.

Data availability statement

The raw data supporting the conclusions of this article will be made available by request, without undue reservation.

Additional information

Funding

This work was supported by the FORTE under Grant [2016-2020].

Appendix 1.

COP/TOP definitions used in the present study

Table

Dimensions	Coding options	Definitions
COP/TOPSchedule	Centers (i.e., free play)	Relatively large freedom what to do and where for indoor and outdoor activities
	Transition	In the case of gradual transitions (such as center time to another part of the day), 75% or more of the class must be transitioning for this to be coded as such. Transitions may also begin when an activity has clearly ended (i.e., story time) and the next activity has not yet begun.
COP/TOPVerbal	No	Teacher/child-minder, or child is neither speaking nor listening to someone else.
	Yes	Teacher/child-minder, or child is talking.
	Listening	Teacher/child-minder, or child is listening to another person.
COP/TOPTo Whom	Child	Talking or listening to one child
	Small group	Talking or listening to a group of children (more than one)
	Adult	Talking or listening to a teacher or an assistant
COP/TOPProximity^1	Child	Teacher/child-minder, or the child is near a single child.
	Small group	Teacher/child-minder, or the child is near a group of children (more than one)
	Teacher/Staff	Teacher/child-minder, or the child is near a teacher.
COPInteraction state	Parallel	Child is working by him/herself but with materials like those of other children are using; children do not interact with each other about the task.
	Associative	Child is interacting in the context of an activity or task that does not have predetermined rules.
	Cooperative	Child is interacting with other children characterized by group identity, rules and organization.
TOPType of Task	Personal/care	The teacher/child-minder performs personal care tasks for children. For instance, the teacher/assistant is supervising children or helping to tie shoes, brush teeth, fix clothes or wash hands.
	Instruction	Instruction is broadly defined in preschool. It involves any learning activity during which the teacher is interacting with a child or children. It can involve activities that are typically considered academic (eg., math, science or language), as well as art, music, puzzles etc.
	Behavior approving	Teacher/child-minder is approving behavior by verbal comments, tone of voice, facial expression and/or physical contact with the child.
	Behavior disapproving	Teacher/child-minder is disapproving behavior by verbal comments, tone of voice, facial expression and/or physical contact with the child.
COP Level of involvement (engagement)	Level of involvement, 5-point rating scale	Level of overall involvement captures how focused and engaged the child is in whatever activity he or she is doing. Level 1 is coded for low engagement (e.g., the child is off-task, not paying attention or the eyes are focused on something other than the activity). Level 2 is coded for low to medium engagement (e.g.,) Level 3 is coded for medium engagement (e.g., relatively on task with breath pauses, maintaining eye-contact with staff). Level 4 is coded for medium high engagement (e.g.,). 5 is coded for high engagement (intense focus, persistence, and pursuit of activity, difficult to distract, not bothered by noise or disturbances).

¹Within a one-meter (three feet) distance for indoors, and three meters (nine feet) for outdoors.