Multilingualism as an Aim and a Vehicle in Developing Disciplinary Literacy at Upper Secondary School Language Introduction Programme

Abstract

The main purpose of this study was to explore how two teachers in mathematics and social science, respectively, talked about (research question 1) and worked with language and content developing pedagogy in their disciplines to strengthen newly arrived migrant students' (NAMS) disciplinary learning (research question 2). The setting was a classroom within a Language Introduction Programme (LIP) in Swedish Upper Secondary School, that had a teaching policy of language and content developing pedagogy including the active use of the NAMS’ linguistic repertoires as means to enhance disciplinary learning. The main purpose of this transitory programme is to teach the students enough Swedish to be transferred to and be able to follow mainstream education within national programmes or, prepare them for the labour market. However, as the Swedish curriculum advances teaching based on the individual capabilities and resources students bring with them into the classroom, NAMS can also be taught in different subject disciplines to gain grades and qualify for further studies.

To answer our research questions, we (1) recorded and analysed a semi-structured conversation between the teachers on their views about multilingualism in general and about teaching NAMS in particular. As we were also interested in how the teachers enacted their views on multilingualism and the teaching of NAMS in practice, we (2) observed and audio-recorded four lessons in each teacher’s classroom. With Ruiz’ (1984) three orientations to languages and language use in society (language-as-problem, language-as-resource and language-as-right) as a theoretical and analytic lens, we analysed and interpreted the themes that emerged both in the conversation between the teachers and the classroom observations using Yin's (2011) cycle for qualitative analysis as a method.  

The thematic analysis of the conversational data revealed two central themes discussed by the teachers. On one hand, the teachers discussed the different ways students’ language repertoires, mainly their first languages (most often referred to as their mother tongue in the Swedish context) could lend support for the development of disciplinary literacy, i.e., the ways knowledge is acquired and articulated within a specific school subject. Utterances within this theme were all supportive of the use of the NAMS’ linguistic repertoires and were interpreted to belong to Ruiz’ category language-as-resource. The teachers also noted that they themselves had different possibilities to actively use different languages in their teaching: whereas on of the teachers was bilingual in Swedish and Arabic (a language shared with many NAMS), the other was dominant in Swedish, but could occasionally use English as a Lingua Franca. Both teachers talked highly of multimodal, multilingual resources made available for the students, including digital multilingual learning resources and Study Guidance in Mother Tongue, a support offered for students by multilingual study guides. On other hand, both teachers also voiced a language-as-problem view when pointing out the NAMS’ insufficient language abilities in Swedish, the language of education. This implies an instrumental view on the use of the NAMS’ linguistic resources as support for learning; they function as vehicles for learning the language of education, rather than as important on their own right.

The analysis of the classroom data (fieldnotes and audio recordings) revealed that the NAMS’ linguistic resources were utilized as support for the development of disciplinary literacy in the observed classrooms. In both classrooms, central vocabulary was written in Swedish on the white board, and the NAMS were asked to translate the terms into “their” languages. However, whereas this was done during the class in the mathematics classroom, where the teacher was also able to give individual support to the NAMS in Arabic, the translation in the social science class was left for the NAMS to perform on their own. The digital, multilingual resources spoken highly of by the teachers were offered for use mainly outside the classroom. The digital resources were, however, implicitly present at all times, and we did see NAMS consulting digital translation services during classes.

In summary, a language and content developing pedagogy was indeed applied in the education of the NAMS in the here studied context. However, alongside appreciation of multilingualism and the NAMS’ linguistic repertoires as an important support for content learning, the teachers also voiced a problem-oriented view on the NAMS’ insufficient command of Swedish. This was also to a degree reflected in the classroom practices observed. The use of the NAMS’ linguistic repertoires was encouraged but not as important in themselves. They were rather treated as vehicles in the process of transferring the students towards a good enough command of Swedish – the main purpose of LIP. The teachers, thus, adhered to and worked towards fulfilling the main purpose of the programme. However, against the backdrop of research on inclusive education emphasising the importance of a focus on developing not only the language learnt but strengthening the NAMS’ multilingual identities and identities as knowledge creators (Cummins, 2021; García & Li Wei, 2014), we identify a need to intensify central efforts to ensure that all teachers in different school disciplines are offered further education in and adequate support in teaching NAMS.