Cover not available
Article published In:
Journal of Immersion and Content-Based Language Education
Vol. 5:2 (2017) ► pp.214–237

English first

Policy and practice in a Swedish EMI primary class

| Stockholm University
This case study explores the questions of how national and local education policies address languages of instruction for a Swedish compulsory school offering English-medium instruction (hereafter EMI) as well as how these policies are interpreted and implemented in practice. Critical discourse analysis provides a framework for examining the relationship between stated and enacted policies at the various institutional levels. Methods from linguistic ethnography yielded rich data including classroom observations, interviews, and artifact collection over a period of three school years in grades four through six. Findings from the study reveal discourses of language hierarchies, a native speaker ideal privileging English and practices that reflect varying degrees of language separation. While Swedish is occasionally used to support English-medium content learning, there is little space for students’ mother tongues in the mainstream classroom. The findings from this study have implications for how stakeholders may put language-in-education policies into practice in EMI programs.
Keywords: English-medium instruction, content and language integrated learning, bilingual education, English in Sweden, primary school, practiced language policies, language hierarchies, native speaker ideal, language separation
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Background
    • 2.1Languages in Sweden: Status and language hierarchies
    • 2.2Languages of instruction in Swedish schools
  • 3.Theoretical framework
  • 4.Methodology
    • 4.1Critical discourse analysis (CDA)
    • 4.2Linguistic ethnography
    • 4.3Contexts and participants
    • 4.4Data collection
  • 5.Findings
    • 5.1Policies
      • 5.1.1National policies
      • 5.1.2Local policies
    • 5.2Practices
      • 5.2.1Swedish as primary LOI
      • 5.2.2English as primary LOI
      • 5.2.3Other languages in the classroom
  • 6.Discussion
    • 6.1Language hierarchies in national and local language-in-education policies
    • 6.2Language policies in classroom practices
  • 7.Implications for policy and practice in EMI
  • Acknowledgements
  • References
Published online: 6 November 2017
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/jicb.5.2.03tot
References (61)
References
Amir, A. (2013). Doing language policy: A micro-interactional study of policy practices in English as a foreign language classes. (Doctoral dissertation). Linköping University, Linköping, Sweden. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Baker, C. (2011). Foundations of bilingual education and bilingualism (5th ed.). Bristol: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
Berg, E. C., Hult, F. M., & King, K. A. (2001). Shaping the climate for language shift? English in Sweden’s elite domains. World Englishes, 201, 305–319. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Blackledge, A. (2008). Critical discourse analysis. In L. Wei & M. G. Moyer (Eds.), The Blackwell guide to research methods in bilingualism and multilingualism (pp. 296–310). Malden, MA: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Blommaert, J. (2005). Discourse. A critical introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bonacina, F., & Gafaranga, J. (2011). “Medium of instruction” vs. “medium of classroom interaction”: Language choice in a French complementary school classroom in Scotland. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 141, 319–334. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cabau-Lampa, B. (2007). Mother tongue plus two European languages in Sweden: Unrealistic educational goal? Language Policy, 61, 333–358. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Canagarajah, S. (2006). Ethnographic methods in language policy. In T. Ricento (Ed.), An introduction to language policy: Theories and methods. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Cenoz, J. (2015). Content-based instruction and content and language integrated learning: The same or different? Language, Culture & Curriculum, 28(1), 8–24. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cook, V. (2001). Using the first language in the classroom. The Canadian Modern Language Review/La Revue canadienne des langues vivantes, 57(3), 402–423. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Copland, F., & Creese, A. (2015) Linguistic ethnography: Collecting, analysing and presenting data. Los Angeles, CA: Sage. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Council of Europe. (2001). Common European framework of reference for languages: Learning, teaching, assessment. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Creese, A., & Blackledge, A. (2010). Translanguaging in the bilingual classroom: A pedagogy for learning and teaching? The Modern Language Journal, 941, 103–115. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2011). Separate and flexible bilingualism in complementary schools: Multiple language practices in interrelationship. Journal of Pragmatics, 431, 1196–1208. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Creese, A., Blackledge, A., & Takhi, J. K. (2014). The ideal ‘native speaker’ teacher: Negotiating authenticity and legitimacy in the language classroom. Modern Language Journal, 98(4), 937–951. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cromdal, J. (2000). Code-switching for all practical purposes: Bilingual organization of children’s play. (Doctoral dissertation). Linköping University, Linköping, Sweden.Google Scholar
Cummins, J. (2005). A proposal for action: Strategies for recognizing heritage language competence as a learning resource within the mainstream classroom. The Modern Language Journal, 89(4), 585–592.Google Scholar
(2008). Introduction to volume 5: Bilingual education. In J. Cummins & N. H. Hornberger (Eds.), Encyclopedia of language and education. Vol. 5, Bilingual education (2nd ed., pp. xii–xxiii). Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
Dalton-Puffer, C. (2007). Discourse in content and language integrated (CLIL) classrooms. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2011). Content-and-language integrated learning: From practice to principles? Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 311, 182–204. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fairclough, N. (1989). Language and power. London: Longman.Google 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
(2017). Ideology vs. practice: Is there a space for ‘pedagogical translanguaging’ in mother tongue instruction? In B. Paulsrud, J. Rosén, B. Straszer, & Å. Wedin (Eds.), Translanguaging and education: New perspectives from the field (pp. 208–225). Bristol: Multilingual Matters. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
García, O. (2007). Multilingual language awareness and teacher education. In J. Cenoz & N. H. Hornberger (Eds.), Encyclopedia of language and education. Vol.6, Knowledge about language (2nd ed., pp. 2130–2145). Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
(2009). Bilingual education in the 21st Century: A global perspective. Malden, MA: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Heller, M. (1996). Legitimate language in a multilingual school. Linguistics and Education, 81, 139–157. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(1999). Linguistic minorities and modernity: A sociolinguistic ethnography. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Hornberger, N. H., & Hult, F. M. (2008). Ecological language education policy. In B. Spolsky & F. M. Hult (Eds.), The handbook of educational linguistics (pp. 280–296). Malden, MA: Blackwell. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hornberger, N. H., & Johnson, D. C. (2011). The ethnography of language policy. In T. L. McCarty (Ed.), Ethnography and language policy (pp. 273–289). New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
Hult, F. M. (2005). A case of prestige and status planning: Swedish and English in Sweden. Current Issues in Language Planning, 6(1), 73–79. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2010). Analysis of language policy discourses across the scales of space and time. International Journal of the Sociology of Language, 2021, 7–24.Google Scholar
(2012). English as a transcultural language in Swedish policy and practice. TESOL Quarterly, 46(2), 230–257. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hyltenstam, K. (2004). Engelskan, skolans språkundervisning och svensk språkpolitik [English, language instruction in schools and Swedish language politics]. In O. Josephson & B. Lindgren (Eds.), Engelskan i Sverige [English in Sweden] (pp. 36–110). Stockholm: Norstedts Ordbok/ePan.Google Scholar
Höglin, R. (2002). Engelska språket som hot och tillgång i Norden [The English language as threat and resource in the Nordic countries]. København: Nordiska ministerrådet.Google Scholar
Jalali-Moghadam, N., & Hedman, C. (2016). Special education teachers’ narratives on literacy support for bilingual students with dyslexia in Swedish compulsory schools. Nordic Journal of Literacy Research, 21, 1–18. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Josephson, O. (2004). Engelskan i 2000-talets Sverige [English in 21st century Sweden]. In O. Josephson & B. Lindgren (Eds.), Engelskan i Sverige [English in Sweden] (pp. 7–24). Stockholm: Norstedts Ordbok/ePan.Google Scholar
Kulturdepartementet [Ministry of Culture]. (2009). Språklag, SFS 2009:600 [Swedish Language Act, SFS 2009:600]. Stockholm: Kulturdepartementet.Google Scholar
Lasagabaster, D. (2013). The use of the L1 in CLIL classes: The teachers’ perspective. Latin American Journal of Content and Language Integrated Learning, 6(2), 1–21. Retrieved from [URL] DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lim Falk, M. (2008). Svenska i engelskspråkig skolmiljö. Ämnesrelaterat språkbruk i två gymnasieklasser [Swedish in an English-speaking school environment: Content related language use in two high school classes]. (Doctoral dissertation). Stockholm University, Stockholm, Sweden.Google Scholar
(2015). English and Swedish in CLIL student texts. In C. Dalton-Puffer & T. Nikula (Eds.), Language Learning Journal, Special issue: CLIL, 43(3), 304–318.Google Scholar
Lin, A. M. Y. (1996). Bilingualism or linguistic segregation? Symbolic domination, resistance, and codeswitching in Hong Kong schools. Linguistics and Education, 81, 49–84. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2015). Conceptualising the potential role of L1 in CLIL. Language, Culture and Curriculum, 28(1), 74–89. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Milani, T. (2007). Debating Swedish. Language politics and ideology in contemporary Sweden. (Doctoral dissertation). Stockholm University, Stockholm, Sweden.Google Scholar
Nikula, T. (2015). Hands-on tasks in CLIL science classrooms as sites for subject-specific language use and learning. System, 541, 14–27. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Phillipson, R. (1992). Linguistic imperialism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
(2006). Language policy and linguistic imperialism. In T. Ricento (Ed.), An introduction to language policy: Theories and methods (pp. 346–361). Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Ricento, T. K., & Hornberger, N. H. (1996). Unpeeling the onion: Language planning and policy and the ELT professional. TESOL Quarterly, 30(3), 401–427. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rosén, J., & Bagga-Gupta, S. (2015). Prata svenska, vi är i Sverige! [Talk Swedish, we are in Sweden!]: A study of practiced language policy in adult language learning. Linguistics and Education, 311, 59–73. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Salö, L. (2016). Languages and linguistic exchanges in Swedish academia. (Doctoral dissertation). Stockholm University, Stockholm, Sweden.Google Scholar
Skolverket [The Swedish National Agency for Education]. (2010). Undervisning på engelska. Utvärdering av en försöksverksamhet i grundskolan. Rapport nr. 351 [Instruction in English. Evaluation of a trial implementation in compulsory school]. Retrieved from [URL]Google Scholar
. (2015). Elever och skolenheter i grundskolan läsåret 2014/15 [Students and school units in compulsory school during the school year 2014/15]. Retrieved from [URL]Google Scholar
Spolsky, B. (2004). Language policy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Sundqvist, P. (2009). Extramural English matters: Out-of-school English and its impact on Swedish ninth-graders’ oral proficiency and vocabulary. (Doctoral dissertation). Karlstad University, Karlstad, Sweden.Google Scholar
Sylvén, L. S. (2013). CLIL in Sweden – why does it not work? A metaperspective on CLIL across contexts in Europe. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 16(3), 301–320. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Talmy, S. (2011). The interview as collaborative achievement: Interaction, identity, and ideology in a speech event. Applied Linguistics 32(1), 25–42. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Throop, R. (2007). Teachers as language policy planners: Incorporating language policy planning into teacher education and classroom practice. Working Papers in Educational Linguistics, 22(2), 45–65.Google Scholar
Utbildningsdepartementet [Ministry of Education and Research]. (2010). Skollagen, SFS 2010:800 [The Swedish Education Act, SFS 2010:800]. Stockholm: Utbildningsdepartementet.Google Scholar
. (2011). Skolförordning 2011:185 [The Ordinance for Compulsory School, SFS 2011:185]. Stockholm: Utbildningsdepartementet.Google Scholar
Vetenskapsrådet [Swedish Research Council]. (2011). Good research practice. Retrieved from [URL]Google Scholar
Washburn, L. (1997). English immersion in Sweden. A case study of Röllingby High School 1987–1989. (Doctoral dissertation). Stockholm University, Stockholm, Sweden.Google Scholar
Yoxsimer Paulsrud, B. (2016). English-medium instruction in Sweden. Perspectives and practices in two upper secondary schools. Journal of Immersion and Content-Based Language Education, 4(1), 108–128. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (2)

Cited by two other publications

Källkvist, Marie, Henrik Gyllstad, Erica Sandlund & Pia Sundqvist
2022. Towards an In-Depth Understanding of English-Swedish Translanguaging Pedagogy in Multilingual EFL Classrooms. HumaNetten :48 ► pp. 138 ff. DOI logo
Göpferich, Susanne, Ina Alexandra Machura & Janine T. Murphy
2019. Supporting English Medium Instruction at German Institutions of Higher Education. In English in the German-Speaking World, ► pp. 114 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 14 september 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.