Cover not available
Article published In:
Journal of Immersion and Content-Based Language Education
Vol. 11:2 (2023) ► pp.255–282

Swedish immersion in Finland and Swedish as a second-language subject in Sweden

Teacher perspectives from two primary schools

ORCID logo | Stockholm University
ORCID logo | Stockholm University
Based on fieldwork and interviews, we explore five teachers’ views about their teaching of Swedish as a second language in an early immersion school in Finland (Larch) and a linguistically heterogeneous primary school in Sweden (Chestnut). Drawing from ecological perspectives, we aim to contribute new knowledge on how second language teachers express their goals, teacher experiences and expertise depending on language and education policy as discursive-material reality. We discuss how societal, discursive and material differences were entangled with the teachers’ discourses, for example, the fact that Swedish immersion at Larch enjoyed a higher social status than Swedish as a second language at Chestnut. Concomitantly, the teachers adhered to pedagogical principles and the value of students’ linguistic and cultural repertoires in similar ways. We specifically discuss teacher autonomy as entwined with prevailing discursive-material realities, including distinct language education policies.
Keywords: immersion, language policy, material ecology in education, multilingualism, second language pedagogy, Swedish as a second language
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
    • 1.1Language educational policies in Finland
    • 1.2Language education policies in Sweden
  • 2.Theoretical points of departure
    • 2.1Language teaching approaches for learners of additional languages
    • 2.2The multilayeredness of language (education) policy
    • 2.3The study of the classroom as an unbounded system
  • 3.Methodology
  • 4.Findings
    • 4.1Main objectives and rationale for teaching Swedish as a second language at Larch
    • 4.2Main objectives and rationale for teaching Swedish as a second language at Chestnut
    • 4.3Summary of expressed objectives and rationale
    • 4.4Multilingual language practices at Larch
    • 4.5Multilingual language practices at Chestnut
    • 4.6Summary of multilingual language practices
  • 5.Concluding discussion
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
Available under the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) 4.0 license.

For any use beyond this license, please contact the publisher at [email protected].

Published online: 12 September 2023
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/jicb.21032.hed
References (45)
References
Baker, C., & Wright, W. E. (2021). Foundations of bilingual education and bilingualism. Multilingual Matters. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Björklund, S., Mård-Miettinen, K., & Savijärvi, M. (2014). Swedish immersion in the early years in Finland. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 17 (2), 197–214. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Boyd, S., & Palviainen, Å. (2015). Building walls or bridges? A language ideological debate about bilingual schools in Finland. In M. Halonen, P. Ihalainen & T. Saarinen (Eds.), Language policies in Finland and Sweden: Interdisciplinary and multi-sited comparisons (pp. 57–89). Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
Canagarajah, S., & De Costa, P. I. (2016). Introduction: Scales analysis, and its uses and prospects in educational linguistics, Linguistics & Education, 34 1, 1–10. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Canagarajah, S. (2021). Materializing narratives: The story behind the story. System, 102 (102610), 1–10. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Canale, M., & Swain, M. (1980). Theoretical bases of communicative approaches to second language teaching and testing. Applied Linguistics, 1 (1), 1–47. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Copland, F., & Creese, A. (2015). Linguistic ethnography: collecting, analyzing and presenting data. Sage. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cummins, J. (2017). Teaching minoritized students: Are additive approaches legitimate? Harvard Education Review, 87 (3), 404–425. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cummins, J., & Swain, M. (2014). Bilingualism in education. Aspects of theory, research and practice. Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
De Fina, A. (2019). The interview as an interactional event. In P. Patrick, M. Schmid & K. Zwaan, (Eds.), Language analysis for the determination of origin (pp. 21–40). Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Finnish National Agency for Education. (2016). National core curriculum for basic education 2014. (Publications 2016:5). Finnish National Agency for EducationGoogle Scholar
Ganuza, N., & Hedman, C. (2015). Struggles for legitimacy in mother tongue instruction in Sweden. Language and Education, 29 (2), 125–139. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gibbons, P. (2006). Bridging discourses in the ESL classroom. Continuum.Google Scholar
Harju-Luukkainen, H., & Stolt, S. (2016). Språkbadet är vägen till funktionell tvåspråkighet i Finland. [Immersion is the road to functional bilingualism]. Kognition & Pædagogik, 16 (99), 68–77.Google Scholar
Hedman, C., & Magnusson, U. (2021a). Researching the complexities of the school subject Swedish as a second language: A linguistic ethnographic project in four schools. Languages, 6 (4), article id 205. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2021b). Introductory classes for newcomer primary school students in Sweden. Pedagogical principles and emotional understanding. Multicultural Education Review, 13(1), 85–105. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2023). Adjusting to linguistic diversity in a primary school through relational agency and expertise: A mother-tongue teacher team’s perspective. Multilingua – Journal of Cross-Cultural and Interlanguage Communication, 42 (1), 139–164. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Heller, M., Pietikäinen, S., & Pujolar, J. (2018). Critical sociolinguistic research methods: Studying language issues that matter. RoutledgeGoogle Scholar
Hudson, B. (2002). Holding complexity and searching for meaning – teaching as reflective practice. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 34 (1), 43–57. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hult, F. M., & S. Pietikäinen. (2014). Shaping discourses of multilingualism through a language ideological debate: The case of Swedish in Finland. Journal of Language and Politics, 13 (1), 1–20. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mitchell, J. (1984). Typicality and the case study. In R. Ellen (Ed.), Ethnographic research: A guide to general conduct (pp. 237–241). Academic Press.Google Scholar
Mård-Miettinen, K., Arnott, S., & Vignola, M. (2022). Early immersion in minority language contexts: Canada and Finland. In M. Schwartz (Ed.), Handbook of early language education (pp. 347–371). Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mård-Miettinen, K., & Björklund, S. (2019). “In one sentence there can easily be three languages”. A glimpse into the use of languages among immersion students. In A. Huhta, G. Erickson & N. Figueras (Eds.), Developments in language education. A memorial volume in honour of Sauli Takala (pp. 239–249). EALTA & University of Jyväskylä.Google Scholar
Parkvall, M. (2019). Det nya Sverige: språken. Den nya mångfalden. [The new Sweden: languages. The new pluralism.] Riksbankens jubileumsfond.Google Scholar
Pakarinen, S. (2020). Språkbadselevskap i Finland och på Irland: En studie om språkpolicy och två- och flerspråkighet i skollandskap och hos elever i tidigt fullständigt svenskt och iriskt språkbad. [Language immersion in Finland and Ireland]. [Doctoral dissertation, University of Jyväskylä].
Prasad, G., & Lory, M.-P. (2020). Linguistic and cultural collaboration in schools: Reconciling majority and minoritized language users. TESOL Quarterly, 54 (4), 797–822. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Salo, O. P. (2012). Finland’s official bilingualism – a bed of roses or of Procrustes? In J. Blom-maert, S. Leppanen, P. Pahta, & T. Raisanen (Eds.), Dangerous multilingualism. Northern perspectives on order, purity and normality (pp. 25–40). Palgrave Macmillan. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schleppegrell, M. (2016). Systemic Functional Grammar in the K–12 classroom. In E. Hinkel (Ed.), Handbook of research in second language teaching and learning (pp. 384–396). Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sellgren, M. (2011). Den dubbla uppgiften. [The twofold task]. [Lic. dissertation, Stockholm University]. Stockholm.
Sjöberg, S., Mård-Miettinen, K., Peltoniemi, A., & Skinnari, K. (2018). Språkbad i Finlands kommuner 2017: Utredning om språkbad i de inhemska språken i småbarnspedagogik, förskoleundervisning och grundläggande utbildning. [Language immersion in Finnish municipalities 2017]. University of Jyväskylä. [URL]
Spolsky, B. (2021). Rethinking language policy. Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
Spolsky, B., Inbar-Lourie, O., & Tannenbaum, M. (2014). Challenges for language education and policy. Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sundman, M. (2013). Tvåspråkiga skolor? En analys av fördelar och risker med införandet av skolor med svenska och finska som undervisningsspråk. [An analysis of advantages and risks in Swedish/Finnish medium schools]. Magma studie, 4 1, 1–90. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Swedish Language Act (2009). Språklag (2009:600). Ministry of Culture.Google Scholar
Swedish National Agency for Education (2011). Läroplan för grundskolan, förskoleklassen och fritidshemmet 2011, Reviderad 2019 [Curriculum for the compulsory school, preschool class and the recreation centre 2011, Revised 2019]. Skolverket.Google Scholar
Swain, M., & Lapkin, S. (2005). The evolving sociopolitical context of immersion education in Canada: some implications for program development. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 15 (2), 169–186. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Swedish Research Council (2017). Good research practice. Vetenskapsrådet.Google Scholar
Tavakoli, P., & Jones, R. (2018). An overview of approaches to second language acquisition and instructional practices. Welsh Government report number 12/2018.Google Scholar
Tedick, D. J., & Lyster, R. (2020). Scaffolding language development in immersion and dual language classrooms. Routledge.Google Scholar
Thamarana, S., & Andhra Pradesh, V. (2015). A critical overview of communicative language teaching. IJELLH – International Journal of English Language, Literature and Humanities, III(V), 90–100.Google Scholar
Uddling, J. (2019). Textsamtalets möjligheter och begränsningar i språkligt heterogena klass-rum. [Affordances and constraints of text talks in linguistically heterogeneous classrooms]. [Doctoral dissertation, Stockholm University].
van Lier, L. (2004). The ecology and semiotics of language learning. A sociocultural perspective. Kluwer Academic. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2008). Ecological-semiotic perspectives on educational linguistics. In B. Spolsky & F. Hult (Eds.), The handbook of educational linguistics (pp. 596–605). Blackwell. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2010). The ecology of language learning: Practice to theory, theory to practice. Procedia – Social and Behavioural Sciences, 3 1, 2–6. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2011). Language learning: an ecological-semiotic approach. In E. Hinkel (Ed.), Handbook of research in second language teaching and learning (pp. 383–394). Routledge.Google Scholar
Cited by (1)

Cited by one other publication

Roman, Gorka
2024. Ethnolinguistic Inclusion of Migrant Students in Europe. In Transformative Intercultural Global Education [Advances in Educational Marketing, Administration, and Leadership, ], ► pp. 317 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 4 july 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.