Linearity, delay, and lost language learning opportunities. Newly arrived adolescent students’ experiences with school segregation in Norway

ABSTRACT

This study investigates school segregation for newly arrived adolescent students (aged 16–22) in Norway. Based on an interview study in two Norwegian adult education establishments and drawing on a sociocultural framework, the article highlights the students’ experiences with and perceptions of school segregation. More specifically, it analyzes which notions of second language learning come to the fore when the students reflect upon their school situation. The main finding is that the students are critical of the segregated system because it makes it hard to get to know Norwegian-speaking peers and thus, to learn Norwegian. They resist the linear model of language learning intrinsic to school segregation and feel that their language learning and their integration are being delayed as a result of the segregated system. As such, they perceive second language learning as dependent on social participation in second language communities, in line with sociocultural approaches.

KEYWORDS:

• School segregation
• newly arrived adolescent students
• second language learning
• sociocultural L2-theory
• students with limited previous formal schooling

Introduction

To get to know Norwegians – if you were in the same school or class, you would be able to get to know them. But without school it’s hard […] If we were in the same school, you could, you know, talk about life in general and stuff. Then it would be natural to talk and get to know each other. But now, we don’t have that opportunity. (Hamid, 17)

The above excerpt is taken from a group interview with three newly arrived¹ students from Syria, who participated in a study exploring adolescent migrant students’ (aged 16–22) perceptions of immigrant integration, and of school as an arena for integration. Hamid is describing what he, and most of the other students in the study, perceive as a major barrier to integration both in school and society at large; the segregated Norwegian school system for so-called NALS – Newly arrived students with limited schooling (Brännström, 2021). NALS over 16 years of age, who do not have a diploma from primary education or the equivalent from their countries of origin or transit, are entitled to condensed primary and secondary education for adults in accordance with the Norwegian Education Act (§ 4A-1) (Kjelaas, 2022). In many municipalities, this implies that the students are enrolled in physically segregated adult education establishments for one to four years, depending on their previous school background, before transitioning to mainstream upper secondary schools. This is the case for all the twelve students participating in this study. They are NALS and attend two different schools; six of them attend a regular adult education establishment with students from 16 to 60 years of age, and the other six attend an adult education establishment with a specific department for adolescents, a so-called youth group with students from 16 to 22.² In both school contexts, the student body is exclusively made up of newly arrived migrant students. Many of the participants in this study describe this situation as the most significant hindrance to integration, expressing the same view as Hamid: “without school it’s hard”.

Based on the findings from the interviews, this article analyses how school segregation is experienced and perceived by adolescent NALS in Norwegian adult education establishments. More specifically, it explores which notions of second language learning come to the fore when the students reflect upon their school situation. In order to examine this, I draw on sociocultural theories which highlight the connection between second language learning and social participation and interaction in target language communities (Lantolf & Pavlenko, 2000; Norton, 2013), and which foreground the students’ lived experiences of language learning (Hedman & Magnusson, 2020). To analyze the students’ experiences and perceptions of school segregation and second language learning, the concept of linearity is used. Linearity refers to an approach to second language teaching where basic linguistic skills (typically grammar and vocabulary) are taught first, after which the learner is expected to apply those skills in general communication and instruction in mainstream classes/schools (Kjelaas & Fagerheim, 2021).

In Norway, as in many other European countries, there has been a substantial growth in the numbers of newly arrived adolescent migrants (Lynnebakke et al., 2020; Koehler & Schneider, 2019). Since 2000 the number of migrant students between the age of 16–24 has doubled (Bakken & Hyggen, 2018), and this group of students is one of the fastest growing in the Norwegian education system. As mentioned above, these students either attend adult education (such as those who feature in this study), or upper secondary school. In adult education, the number of immigrant students increased from 54 to 97 percent from 2011 to 2016 (The Norwegian Directorate for Education and Training, 2017, p. 29) and in 2021 12 percent of the total number were 16–24 years old (Statistics Norway, 2021). In upper secondary schools, the number of students with an immigrant background increased from 16197 students in 2005 to 44042 in 2021 (Statistics Norway, 2022). Given the substantial number of adolescent students with an immigrant background both in the Norwegian and European education systems (Bakken & Hyggen, 2018; Kemper et al., 2020; Kjelaas, 2022; Koehler & Schneider, 2019), and the rise in number of newly arrived migrant students due to the war in Ukraine (The Norwegian Directorate for Integration and Diversity, 2022), this article provides crucial insights for policy and practice within the fields of both integration and education. Adolescence is a formative period characterized by questions of identity and belonging, educational choices, and transitions into the labor market: “Hence, pathways of integration are especially telling and important within this period” (Kalter et al., 2018, p. 281). Moreover, adolescent NALS constitute a particularly vulnerable group in the Norwegian and European education systems (Koehler & Schneider, 2019), which makes it critical to listen to their voices and take their educational experiences into account.

School segregation in policy and research

‘Segregation’ is often perceived as a negatively charged term as it is associated with ideologies and policies such as apartheid in South Africa and racial segregation in the US (Scully, 2016). Furthermore, in the field of immigration integration, segregation is often regarded as the least favorable incorporation strategy, as it is linked to ghettoization, marginalization, and alienation from the host society (Berry, 1997; Gullikstad et al., 2021). However, in the context of education for newly arrived students and second language (hereafter L2) teaching and learning, segregation is a commonly used term which refers to any educational model where “the L2 learner is educated separately from the majority or a politically powerful minority, who speak the target language as their mother tongue” (Ellis, 1994, p. 222). This segregation is linguistically motivated, in contrast to segregation based on racial/ethnic and/or socioeconomic factors.³ In our specific case, the segregation is also pedagogically motivated. Due to their status as NALS, the students are, as mentioned above, regarded as in need of adapted subject instruction at the primary and/or secondary level and of an introduction to school and (Norwegian) school culture. (Hilt, 2016)

Generally speaking, school segregation might be either physical, implying that different groups of students are physically separated in either different schools or in different buildings/areas within the same school, or curricular, which means that different groups of students receive instruction based on different curricula, or it can be based on tracking, a sorting of students in different educational tracks (typically vocational and academic tracks) (Koehler & Schneider, 2019, p. 4; Scully, 2016, p. 596). Furthermore, school segregation might be temporary or permanent. The two adult education establishments in the present study represent both physical and curricular segregation – i.e., what some researchers describe as hyper-segregation (Faltis & Arias, 2007). Additionally, the students attend segregated adult education establishments for up to four years, and some even return for a year after starting in mainstream upper secondary schools.⁴

School segregation is controversial in the Norwegian educational context, as in many other countries (Brännström, 2021; Garver & Hopkins, 2020; Hilt, 2020; Kemper et al., 2020; Koehler & Schneider, 2019; Scully, 2016). School is considered fundamental to immigrant integration (Hilt, 2020). It is the first social and cultural institution immigrant children and youth participate in in the host country, and it aims at providing both formal qualification through language and subject learning as well as informal learning of socio-culturally relevant knowledge, norms, and skills through participation and interaction with members of the host population. Additionally, school is perceived as important for overcoming social and emotional problems related to migrant and refugee experiences (Koehler & Schneider, 2019; Pastoor, 2014). From a societal perspective, school is regarded as critical for integration, since it promotes social inclusion, economic growth, and innovation (Koehler & Schneider, 2019, p. 1). One reason that segregation is regarded as particularly controversial in the Norwegian context, is that education is viewed as a foundational part of the Nordic social-democratic welfare model, as an instrument for social justice and security, and as integral to social cohesion and social community/nation building (Lundahl, 2016, p. 4). The education system is thus founded on the principle of ‘the unitary school’ implying that students are included in the same school regardless of ethnic, cultural, and socio-economic backgrounds (Lundahl, 2016).

There is an extensive body of research from the last 10–15 years, highlighting school segregation for newly arrived students and its consequences for L2 learning, school success, and/or integration, particularly in Europe and North America (Aarsæther, 2021; Aho, 2020; Allen, 2006; Faltis & Arias, 2007; Folke, 2016; Garver, 2020; Garver & Hopkins, 2020; Jaffe-Walter & Miranda, 2020; Kemper et al., 2020; Koehler & Schneider, 2019; Mathisen, 2020; Nilsson & Axelsson, 2013; Scully, 2016; Wedin, 2021). Many of these studies show that segregation is detrimental to language learning, integration, and educational attainment. An extensive comparative study of educational policy, national reports, and research on school success in relation to migrant youth in Europe, demonstrates that “[s]chool segregation of whatever kind tends to have a significant negative effect” (Koehler & Schneider, 2019, p. 5). The authors conclude that even if it might be advantageous to learn the basics of the host language before being incorporated into the mainstream classroom, “immersion is better than separation” (p. 14). These findings are in line with Allen’s (2006) and Scully’s (2016) research on so-called newcomer schools in French-speaking Canada and the US respectively. They both find that despite the assumption that newcomer schools provide the students with a safe learning environment to acquire the target language and knowledge about the host culture, these schools function as a hindrance to the students’ linguistic, social, and academic integration (Allen, 2006, p. 261). In a similar vein, Faltis and Arias (2007) warn against long-term segregation (i.e., of more than a year) because this might lead to “linguistic isolation, physical and social isolation, negative labelling and low-quality language and content instruction” (p. 23).

Other research nuances the findings that solely point to the negative ramifications of school segregation. In a special issue of Leadership and Policy in Schools on “Segregation and Integration in the Education of English Learners: Leadership and Policy Dilemmas”, the editors conclude that there is empirical evidence for challenging the notion that segregation is invariably detrimental and integration always beneficial for English learners (Garver & Hopkins, 2020, p. 3). The special issue presents research that shows that segregated schools often offer a safe space for newly arrived students as these schools are specifically designed to meet their academic, linguistic, and emotional needs (Jaffe-Walter & Miranda, 2020, p. 111), something which is also beneficial for integration in the long run. Furthermore, segregated schools are found to foster good relationships between students and teachers (Jaffe-Walter & Miranda, 2020, p. 116) and to affirm and maintain the newly arrived students’ multilingual and multicultural identities (Garver & Hopkins, 2020, p. 5). This is especially true of so-called dual language program schools in North America, where students are taught in both their first language and in English (Garver, 2020), a strategy which is considered to offer important advantages (cf. Jaffe-Walter & Miranda, 2020).

Nevertheless, the research mentioned above emphasizes that many precautions need to be taken when newly arrived students are placed in segregated schools, classes, or groups (Garver & Hopkins, 2020). For instance, it is paramount that school leaders and teachers are conscious of how segregated schools are often linked to other forms of segregation (such as ethnic and socio-economic segregation) (Jaffe-Walter & Miranda, 2020, p. 104), and that the students are offered opportunities to build connections with students who speak the host language (Garver, 2020, p. 137). The latter is emphasized in many studies (Aarsæther, 2021; Aho, 2020; Nilsson Folke, 2018; Norton, 2013; Winlund, 2021). Despite an increased research interest in the education of newly arrived students generally, and in school segregation in particular, relatively few studies highlight the students’ own perspectives on the educational structures and conditions facing them as newcomers⁵ (Jaffe-Walter & Miranda, 2020; Scully, 2016). According to Scully (2016), “we know little about the experiences of the students who attend newcomer schools” (p. 592). Moreover, Jaffe-Walter and Miranda (2020) call researchers to “more closely examine the structural conditions that immigrant students experience in new schools and communities” (p. 117). The specific group of NALS has received little academic attention (Brännström, 2021, p. 15), and there are very few studies focusing on them in the Norwegian context⁶, despite the evidently contradictory policy and practice that school segregation represents in an education system aimed at promoting inclusion and social equality above all (Aarsæther, 2021, p. 2). Thus, the present study provides an important supplement to the existing body of research. By investigating the students’ own perceptions, the aim is to gain more insight into the ways in which “the contradictory policies, practices, and discourses […] are lived and grappled with on the ground” (Lems, 2020, p. 3). In other words, this study will provide insights into how the segregated system is experienced by students with regard to L2 learning.

Social participation and investment in language learning

In order to capture the connection between the individual students’ lived experiences and the overarching educational context, a sociocultural approach is particularly productive (Kjelaas & van Ommeren, 2021, 2022; Norton, 2013). The point of departure in sociocultural theory is that all human behavior, actions, relations, and processes are foundationally social and cultural, that is to say, inextricably linked to and dependent on sociocultural surroundings and on social participation and interaction (Lantolf & Pavlenko, 2000). In the field of L2 research, this sociocultural understanding is tied to the so-called social turn (Block, 2007; Molde & Wunderlich, 2021). The social turn refers to a shift in focus – from the individual student’s motivation and skills to the sociocultural and educational context and conditions for participation and learning. The foundational assumption is that a student’s language learning investment and outcome are dependent on her opportunities to participate in L2 speaking communities and to interact in the L2 (Norton, 2013). Hence, language is perceived not as something the student learns in order to participate with others, but as something she learns through participation. In other words, the social shift implies a shift in focus in the field of L2 teaching and learning; from acquisition to participation – from understanding language learning as first and foremost an individual, cognitive process to considering it a social practice (Norton, 2013, pp. 146–147).

Understanding participation as fundamental to language learning is grounded both on an assumption of what learning is, as well as of what language is. A conceptualization of language as a social practice entails a perception of language as comprising much more than formal, linguistic aspects such as vocabulary, grammar, and pronunciation (Gee, 2015). Rather than perceiving it as a set of abstract “rules and facts to be acquired” (Lantolf & Pavlenko, 2000, p. 155), it is assumed to be a complex meaning-making practice, comprising both the above-mentioned linguistic dimensions, but also pragma-linguistic dimensions – the “ability to understand or convey communicative intent appropriately in a given context”, and socio-pragmatic dimensions – “knowledge of what is socially or culturally appropriate in a particular speech community” (Gilmore, 2011, pp. 787–788). In other words, it concerns learning the rules of use, saying “the ‘right’ thing at the ‘right’ time and in the ‘right’ place” (Gee, 2015, pp. 107–108) and becoming communicatively competent. As such, language learning requires situated learning, that is, immersion in relevant communicative practices and “learning inside the procedures, rather than overtly about them” (Gee, 2015, p. 185).

The opportunities for participation and interaction with L2 speakers affect and are affected by the learners’ investment in L2 learning. The construct of investment can be defined as “language learning commitment” and is based on what identity positions the learner is ascribed in school and society, and which resources she imagines she will gain in return. Norton (2016) expresses it this way:

learners invest in the target language if they anticipate acquiring a wider range of symbolic and material resources that will increase the value of their cultural capital and social power. This in turn provides for a wider range of identity positions from which the learner can speak or listen, read or write (p. 476).

The foundational notion of L2 learning as dependent on the learners’ opportunities for participation in L2 speaking communities and on their investment in L2 learning, offers a viable theoretical framework for this study. It conceptualizes language and language learning in ways that illuminate the students’ experiences and perceptions, and it connects the individual student’s lived experiences to the wider educational and political context, in this specific case, the segregated school system for NALS in Norway.

Methodology

This study was undertaken as part of a larger 3-year project on education and integration, called Language, Integration, Media funded by The Norwegian Research Council from 2017 to 2020. The present study is a sub-project exploring how students and teachers perceive school as an arena for integration, in terms of integration as a social process, as a topic of instruction in different school subjects, and as it relates to language learning. Sixteen group interviews were conducted in four different schools (two adult education establishments and two upper secondary schools). Of these sixteen, eight were student interviews and eight were teacher interviews. In this article, we focus solely on the student interviews (the teacher interviews are analyzed in Ringrose, Kristensen & Kjelaas, 2023) and only on the five interviews with newly arrived students, as we specifically want to highlight their experiences and perceptions.

The students were recruited by the schools/teachers and were placed in groups of three based on shared first languages, and previous friendships/relationships. Participation was voluntary and the students were informed about the study and what participation implied in advance and at the beginning of the interviews, both by their teachers and the researcher/interpreter. The project was approved by the Norwegian Centre for Research and Data (clearance number 56814). Altogether twelve newly arrived students were interviewed; six from Syria and six from Eritrea. In the analysis, we use excerpts from the following students (who are given pseudonyms to ensure anonymity) to illustrate salient themes in the material: Hamid (17), Zahra (18), Samira (17), and Abdul (18) from Syria, and Mikhel (21), Tekle (20), and Jacoub (20) from Eritrea. All these students were recently arrived; they had been living in Norway for between one and four years at the time of the interview. Thus, the interviews were interpreter mediated. Even though most of the students had basic conversational skills in Norwegian, the interpreter was crucial in enabling all the students to express themselves in more elaborate ways.

The data collection method was semi-structured group interviews. Our focus was on the students’ own experiences and perceptions, and we wanted to build on their own experiences, views, concerns, thoughts, and ideas, rather than our own a priori assumptions. Semi-structured interviews are beneficial in this regard because they are both focused and flexible, allowing the researcher to follow up what the participants address and to highlight themes she could not have predicted in advance (Perming et al., 2022, p. 4). Following Wilkinson (1998), group interviews are particularly advantageous as the interaction between participants gives them the possibility to discuss in their own language and enables them to follow their own agendas (p. 334). This is in line with the social turn in L2 research, as it foregrounds the learners’ own perspectives, provides them with “the voice that would not otherwise have been heard” (Molde & Wunderlich, 2021, p. 177, my translation), and aims to contribute to “a more productive relationship between theory and practice, and between ideas about language learning and the lived experience of learners and teachers themselves” (Norton, 2016, p. 475).

Moreover, group interviews are useful since they provide a range of responses, ideally also including opposing views and opinions. Morgan (2012) describes sharing and comparing as a core component and key strength of group interviews (p. 164). When participants engage in a topic, they typically share their experiences and perceptions, while also comparing their own contributions to those of the other participants. This provides insight into similarities and differences, allowing for a wider and deeper understanding of the research topic. Despite this, there is a risk that group dynamics and asymmetries could lead to participants providing similar contributions or coming to a consensus. The research participants might feel too insecure to share their “true” opinions, and relational and interactional aspects might lead to agreement, rather than differing views (e.g., Kvistad, 2021). This is a crucial consideration when conducting group interviews with adolescents in general and NALS in particular. Many NALS are not/less familiar with dyadic/multi-party conversations with adults in a formal setting and might feel uncomfortable voicing their opinions in front of a researcher (Kjelaas, 2016).

In this study, different and conflicting experiences and views on integration and school segregation were elicited. These views were encouraged and acknowledged by the interviewer both at the outset and throughout the interview. Nevertheless, there was a broad agreement among the participants regarding the detrimental effects of school segregation. This was however not something the interviewer asked about directly. Rather, it was a theme the students themselves brought up when reflecting upon what they understood integration to be, whether and how they experienced school as an arena for integration, who they perceived as being responsible for integration, and how language learning was related to integration. This consensus may well have been the result of the group dynamics, which can be construed as a limitation of this study.

The interviews were transcribed and thereby coded and categorized in accordance with principles from thematic analysis. Thematic analysis is an analytic procedure where the researcher identifies and analyses relevant and salient themes in the data (Braun & Clark, 2006, p. 79). According to Braun and Clark (2006), “[a] theme captures something important about the data in relation to the research question and represents some level of patterned response or meaning within the data set” (p. 82). In the analysis, the author and two other researchers (working on the main project Language, Integration, Media, see Ringrose, Kristensen & Kjelaas, forthcoming) collaborated in order to strengthen the study’s validity. The thematic analytic procedure outlined by Nowell and colleagues (2017, p. 4) was followed: First, the author listened to the interviews and read the interview transcripts closely to familiarize herself with the data. Then, the first unstructured impressions and thoughts were shared and discussed with the other researchers, and the initial codes were produced. In the next phase, the many codes were sorted and collated into themes. This was an abductive process based both on the data and on theory, cf. Newell et al. (2017) who state that “A theme may be initially generated inductively from the raw data or generated deductively from theory and prior research” (p. 8).

As already described, one of the most salient themes that was generated, was school segregation. Most of the students described school segregation as problematic in some way or another, whereas a few described it as their preferred educational model since it constituted a safe space (in line with e.g., Jaffe-Walter & Miranda, 2020). A recurring theme in the material is why several of the students found school segregation to be a barrier to L2 learning. In analyzing their reflections, we found two themes to be particularly salient: (1) Linearity and lost opportunities to learn Norwegian and (2) Delay in progress. These themes are analyzed in the following, drawing on the notions of language learning as social participation and investment in language learning. Both direct quotes (numbered) and synthesized excerpts from the interviews are used to illustrate the students’ experiences and perceptions.

Analysis

Linearity and lost opportunities to learn Norwegian

The school segregation highlighted in this study is linguistically and pedagogically motivated. More specifically it is rooted in a linear perception of L2 learning. The underlying assumption is that the newly arrived students must obtain basic Norwegian skills before they can participate and interact with Norwegian-speaking peers and partake in mainstream education. However, most of the students in this study challenge this view and experience the linear model as counterproductive. For instance, Samira holds the assumption that integration, understood as social participation and relationship-building with Norwegian-speaking peers, comes first and is a prerequisite for L2 learning:

Integration is good because then you learn the language (Q1).

Zahra also considers the linear model to be ineffective. She describes the adult education establishment as a multilingual environment, where hardly anyone uses Norwegian outside class. In her experience, this makes it hard to remember what she learns in her Norwegian class, and she would therefore prefer going to a mainstream school:

If I could go to a Norwegian upper secondary school or high school, and I learnt something new in my Norwegian class, I would not forget the moment I leave the class because everything spoken will be in Norwegian (Q2).

Instead of the linear model, Zahra calls for a circular model, in line with the assumption that language must be learned through participation rather than being a prerequisite for participation (Lantolf & Pavlenko, 2000). Zahra thinks it would be beneficial to be immersed in the language (cf. Gee, 2015; Koehler & Schneider, 2019) – to be in a school environment where “everything spoken will be in Norwegian”.

Even in segregated schools like the ones in this study, Norwegian could be – and to a certain extent is – a lingua franca, i.e., the commonly spoken language among individuals from different linguistic backgrounds (Block, 2007). However, these schools are often characterized by a high number of students sharing the same ethnolinguistic background. The Syrian and Eritrean students participating in this study, are an illustrating example of this since both constituted large groups in their respective schools. Mikhel describes this clustering of students with the same first language as the main reason for him wanting to attend a mainstream school:

I would prefer to go to a mainstream school with both Norwegians and immigrants, in order to speak or practice the language, because here we are just foreigners, and we use our own languages, or our mother tongue to talk with each other, because we are a big group using the same language (Q3).

Although Norwegian to a certain extent functions as a lingua franca among the newly arrived students, to practice Norwegian in a decontextualized context where no one is a nativespeaker, has advanced skills, or frequently participates in Norwegian-speaking communities, is demanding. Jacoub says this makes it hard to know what skills he needs to acquire:

It’s hard to know what one should work with, how it is that I have to change, it’s hard because they have their ways [as in places/arenas] and we have ours (Q4).

Moreover, learning language in a decontextualised mode is regarded as insufficient for gaining communicative competence (Gee, 2015). Several of the students’ descriptions of their experiences in the segregated school reinforce this sociocultural understanding of language learning. For instance, Tekle is concerned about learning social “rules”. He worries about making communicative mistakes, as he puts it, and thereby unintentionally offending people. This is one of the main reasons that he thinks that it is crucial to meet and get to know “Norwegians”:

Because we can make mistakes that we are not aware of … for instance, the rules and stuff. So, without thinking or without knowing it was wrong we could make mistakes. If we know how, it would be easier for both parts (Q5).

Some of the students describe the kinds of rules they are concerned about and point out forms of greeting as a source of confusion and uncertainty. They find it hard to decipher how, when and who to greet in Norwegian-speaking communities, and do not understand the responses – or lack thereof – they get when greeting people. In other words, they find it hard to understand the pragmalinguistic and sociopragmatic conventions with regard to greeting in Norwegian-speaking communities. Mikhel says:

For instance, with regards to greeting […] to greet a Norwegian is a little challenging, because I don’t know how he will react […] there are many things like that (Q6).

Tekle follows up Mikhel’s point and describes how he was used to greeting by shaking hands, bumping shoulders, hugging, and kissing in his home country. Moreover, he was used to greeting everyone he met, both people he knew and strangers, in his hometown. He describes how he used the same forms of greetings when he first arrived in Norway, and that he still wants to. He has however experienced that this is not common nor regarded appropriate in the Norwegian town where he lives since most people will not greet him back. He interprets this as an issue of miscommunication – of him not following the appropriate communicative conventions – and says that this is upsetting and makes him feel insecure:

We immigrants, when we meet a Norwegian peer and we greet him and he doesn’t greet us back, we get upset. We don’t want to repeat the same behavior, but we get insecure. In my opinion, Norwegian youth should greet us back when we greet them, that is expected, but if they don’t, we get reticent and very insecure (Q7).

Mikhel, Tekle, and Jacoub point to the importance of learning appropriate pragmalingustic and sociopragmatic conventions, to how challenging it is to learn such conventions without having the opportunity to learn “inside the procedures, rather than overtly about them” (Gee, 2015, p. 185), and to how detrimental it might be to not understand or to break the norms. Tekle’s feelings of insecurity and reticence is an illustration of the latter. He does not understand the Norwegian-speaking “non-greeters’” intentions and gets upset. In this specific communicative context, he does not have “the ability to understand or convey communicative intent appropriately” (Gilmore, 2011, pp. 787–788). As such, Tekle and Jacoub point to a foundational assumption in sociocultural L2 theory: That the social costs of not understanding or even “breaking” socio-pragmatic rules are far worse than not understanding or breaking “pure” linguistic rules. Gumperz (1982) says “miscommunication of this type [..] is regarded as a social faux pas and leads to misjudgements of the speaker’s intent; it is not likely to be identified as a mere linguistic error” (p. 132).

The social consequences of “breaking” communicative conventions are most harmful to the newcomers who are the ones in need of learning the target language, and who typically have a subordinate position vis-à-vis the residents of the host country. Norton (2013) emphasizes that second language learning is characterized by “unequal relations of power between the language learners and target language speakers” (Norton, 2013, p. 6). This inherent asymmetry is often a barrier to participation and interaction with target language users in the first place. When newcomers experience that they are misunderstood and rejected by target language users in interaction, they might become even more reluctant and invest even less. This is what Tekle expresses when he describes how greeting Norwegians makes him feel insecure and reticent (Q7): The experience of being misunderstood leads to withdrawal and less investment.

Less investment might also be the consequence of the situation where big groups “use the same language”, which Tekle describes in quote 3. This not only make it harder to learn Norwegian it might also make it feel less important to invest in. Norwegian is not the dominant language in the communities which the students belong either in our outside school: Many of them report that they do not have any Norwegian-speaking friends or acquaintances at all and relate this to the segregated school. For instance, Zahra says:

Where do you find, I mean, where are the arenas to meet? Because you first have to meet to get to know each other. But that is hard (Q12).

As a result, the students might feel that there is no immediate socially precarious reason to invest in learning Norwegian. It is not perceived as providing any social resources here and now (Norton, 2013). Abdul gives an example that illustrates this point. He describes a fellow student from Afghanistan who has acquired oral, conversational skills in Pashto but very limited skills in Norwegian during his two years in the adult education establishment. This boy, who did not know Pashto beforehand, is part of a Pashto-speaking Afghan community both in and outside school, so this was a socially and relationally important language for him to invest in. It was this language that increased his cultural capital and social power here and now (Norton, 2013, p. 8).

Delay in progress

Several of the students share the perceptions described above and are certain that attending a segregated school with no Norwegian-speaking peers makes the second language learning process go slower with regard to both linguistic and pragma-linguistic aspects (Gilmore, 2011). Jacoub says:

We haven’t started yet, so it’s hard to know what it is we should do, how I should change (Q8).

Tekle agrees with Jacoub and has “evidence” that it is better to attend a school with Norwegian-speaking students. He went to a mainstream school the previous school year and describes how he got to know “Norwegians” there, and that his Norwegian skills progressed well in that school environment. However, after he started attending the adult education establishment his experience is that language learning went slower:

I got to know Norwegians last year, but now, when I came here and attend his school, it goes slower with the language and with getting to know them [“Norwegians”] (Q9).

In other words, the students experience that they are being hindered from progressing in their educational, social, cultural, and linguistic development – in fact some feel that they “haven’t started yet”, as Jacoub expresses it.

The students’ feelings of being slowed down, seem to be worsened by a sense of already being delayed in their educational and/or professional careers. Many of the newly arrived students have been working in their home or transit countries and aspire to start working and earning money soon after arriving in Norway. Other students aspire to further academic education and compare themselves to their peers in their home countries who have already progressed to higher education (Nilsson Folke, 2018). For both groups, three to four years of mandatory primary and secondary schooling in adult education and another three to four years in upper secondary school already feels like a very long time (Kjelaas & van Ommeren, 2021). The sense of not really progressing, cf. “we haven’t really started” and “it goes slower”, reinforces this.

Additionally, many of the newly arrived students are already the same age as or older than the students in regular upper secondary school (who normally are between 16 and 19) and are looking at another one to three years before transitioning to mainstream school. This means that they will be relatively old – and some of them significantly older than their majority language classmates – when they start their upper secondary education. Abdul expresses concerns about this:

One thing that’s hard for me is that we are here in secondary education for four years. After that we can attend upper secondary school. Then it’s much harder … , like I’m twenty years old now. At my age, they [the students in mainstream upper secondary school] have finished school. I will start in upper secondary with children, people younger than me … That’s going to be hard (Q10).

Taken together, most of the students’ descriptions of school segregation reflect a feeling of being put on hold and kept temporarily on the outside. They do not yet have access to the Norwegian-speaking communities in which they want to and imagine they will eventually belong. They experience themselves as what Folke ( 2017), in her study on newly arrived adolescents in Sweden, describes as temporarily out of line (n.p., my italics). Most of the students seem to perceive this outsider position as being imbricated in what they see as their linguistic and educational “shortcomings” in relation to mainstream students. For the time being, they are not part of a Norwegian-speaking community, but once they learn Norwegian and/or get to attend a mainstream upper-secondary school, they will. Samira says:

It takes a long time, but we live here and will eventually get to know each other. It just takes time (Q11).

Abdul’s concerns (Q10) contrast with this optimistic perception. His reiteration of “it’s going to be hard” to be in a class with much younger students, can be interpreted as a concern about remaining more permanently “out of line”. He seems to be frightened that he will not easily become a participant in a Norwegian-speaking peer community even after getting into the mainstream school, as it is already too late for him.

Discussion

The students in the present study find the segregated school system problematic as it makes it hard to get to know Norwegian-speaking peers and thus, to learn Norwegian. As such, the overarching finding aligns with findings from other research on school segregation: Such an educational model might have – or in this case might be experienced as having – detrimental consequences for the students’ linguistic and social integration (Allen, 2006; Faltis & Arias, 2007; Koehler & Schneider, 2019; Scully, 2016). More specifically, my analysis shows which notions of second language learning come to the fore when the students reflect upon their school situation. As described above, the students conceptualize second language learning as social participation, in line with sociocultural theory. They are not only concerned with acquiring linguistic skills, but also with social “rules”, i.e., pragmalinguistic and sociopragmatic aspects of language, and they think access to Norwegian-speaking communities is foundational in this regard. Moreover, some of the students describe their investment in L2 interaction and learning as dependent on how important mastering Norwegian is for their current sense of social belonging, and on the extent to which they feel recognized by Norwegian language users. The consequence of this notion of second language learning as social participation in L2- communities, is a sense of being delayed and held back from arenas and communities where they can truly start learning. These findings are in line with other socioculturally informed research on L2-learning, which shows how L2-learners regard participation and interaction with L2-speakers as crucial for investment and learning. For instance, Norton’s (2013) research on immigrant women in Canada shows that “they would like to meet more Canadians socially and to have more opportunity to practice English outside the classroom” (p. 172), and both Nilsson Folke (2017) and Aho (2020), in their studies on newly arrived adolescents in Sweden, find that students “miss the opportunity to communicate with students with a Swedish background” (Aho, 2020, p. 10, our translation). Both in this research and in the present study, L2 learning becomes a Catch 22 for the students:

On the one hand, immigrant language learners need access to social networks of target language speakers in order to practice and improve the target language; on the other hand, they have difficulty gaining access to these networks because common language is an a priori condition for entry into them (Norton, 2013, p. 85).

Access to social networks of L2-speakers is hard for adolescent language learners, including students who are already enrolled in mainstream schools and classes in Norway (e.g., Hilt, 2020; Ringrose, Kristensen & Kjelaas, forthcoming; Pastoor, 2014). According to several studies, this is one of the main challenges newly arrived students face in school (Aarsæther, 2021; Nilsson Folke, 2017). And even when gaining access to L2 communities, the relation between L2-learners and L2-users is often highly asymmetrical, thus, not providing rich opportunities for L2 learning (cf. Norton, 2013). Besides, the ways in which mainstream upper secondary schools in Norway and the rest of Scandinavia cater for newly arrived students are often found to be inadequate (Kjelaas & van Ommeren, 2022; Wigg & Ehrlin, 2021; Wedin, 2021). For instance, they have been criticized for being deficit-oriented and not acknowledging the students’ previous experiences and knowledge (Aho, 2020; Brännström, 2021; Kjelaas & van Ommeren, 2022; Wedin, 2021), for “lack of cooperation and communication among the actors involved” (Nilsson Folke, 2017, p. 13), for poor scaffolding (Nilsson & Bunar, 2016, p. 410), for utilizing teaching resources that are not targeted for the student group (Rambøll, 2015, p. 45), and for poor assessment routines (Aho, 2018, p. 98; Kjelaas et al., 2020). Consequently, attending mainstream upper secondary school does not necessarily solve the problems of linearity, delay, and lost language learning opportunities for newly arrived students. Rather, in practice, it might reinforce a sense of lost learning and isolation, because the students are formally included, but socially and pedagogically excluded. Thus, segregation might be more beneficial for L2-learning in practice as it offers more targeted support, better-skilled teachers, coordination of resources, and greater opportunities to utilize the students’ first languages (Garver, 2020, p. 125; Nilsson Folke, 2017, p. 17).

Nevertheless, it can be argued that hyper-segregation – as the adult education establishments represents – is problematic and paradoxical in principle. To structurally separate students in different schools for up to four years, can be argued as constituting a form of formal restriction of students’ access to target language communities and arenas. This is paradoxical with regards to L2-learning, as described in the above analysis, but it is also paradoxical with regards to immigrant integration more generally. Like L2-learning, the most commonplace conceptualization of integration is that it is a two-way process engaging both the newcomers and the residents and institutions of the host society (Spencer & Charsley, 2021, p. 1). This implies that “[t]he receiving society also has to learn new ways of interacting and adapt its institutions to their [the immigrants] needs” (Heckmann, 2006, p. 18). The segregated school system contradicts this notion of integration, and implicitly frames it as a one-way process in which only the newcomers must “learn new ways” and adapt. Within this system, it is the NALS who are required to change; they must acquire the necessary skills and knowledge (the Norwegian language, subject knowledge, “Norwegian” school culture, the appropriate “Norwegian” student role, etc.) before being granted access to mainstream schools. The mainstream system however does not need to adapt but can stay the same. Kemper et al. (2020) hold that “By excluding newly arrived students from the mainstream education and using preparatory classes to (re)-socialize them in order to be able to participate, mainstream schools are exempted from questioning themselves” (pp. 3-4). Given the experiences and perceptions of the students in this study, and the sociocultural conceptualization of second language learning and immigrant integration they interpellate, it may well be high time to start questioning the status quo and recognize the need for greater adaptation so that all students – including newly arrived students with limited previous schooling – can be included in mainstream education. Then it will be more natural “to talk and get to know each other”, as Hamid says in the introductory quote, and to learn Norwegian and acquire a sense of progress, participation, and belonging.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Additional information

Funding

This work was supported by The Norwegian Research Council.

Notes

1 Despite the wide use of this term in both academic and political contexts, there is no unitary definition of what counts as ‘newly’ and ‘recently’, either nationally or internationally (Nilsson & Axelsson, 2013, p. 138).

2 Specific youth groups are more common in the bigger municipalities/cities, than in smaller, rural municipalities.

3 However, these three factors often coincide in the context of education for newly arrived students (Garver & Hopkins, 2020).

4 Over the last two–three years many counties and municipalities in Norway have established so-called combination classes where the newly arrived students get their primary and secondary instruction in mainstream upper secondary schools. However, also such combination classes are segregated with regards to curriculum, and many are physically segregated, i.e., located in different buildings/areas within the school (Kjelaas & van Ommeren, 2021). Therefore, the findings from this study are relevant also in the context of combination classes.

5 Nilsson and Axelsson’s (2013) study is an important exception, but their study concerns younger students in so-called introductory classes in mainstream schools. However, Aho (2020), Folke (2018), Scully (2016), and Allen (2006), all referred to in the above literature review, have conducted interviews with newly arrived adolescent students in Sweden, Sweden, USA, and Canada, respectively.

6 Schmid (2021) investigates immigrant students in multi-ethnic upper secondary schools with low admission requirements in Norway, but both the student group and educational context in her study differ from that of this study. Hilt (2016, 2020) has investigated introduction classes in upper secondary school in Norway, but these are not ‘hyper-segregated’ as the adult education establishments. This is also the case for Aarsæther’s (2021) study on newly arrived students in elementary schools.