This presentation reports a study which compares two different multilingual learning environments for newly arrived students studying Swedish on Swedish for immigrants (SFI) courses at an adult education institution in Sweden. In terms of instructors, one learning environment comprises a “native” Swedish-speaking language teacher team with the addition of four bilingual language assistants (BLAs). The other is the pedagogical responsibility of a second teacher team featuring both “non-native” and “native” Swedish-speaking language teachers. The overall aim of the study is to generate knowledge about what kind of instructional strategies most successfully supports newly arrived students’ own additional language learning processes in linguistically diverse classes taught by ethnically diverse teachers. As a practice-based research venture, the study also aims to engage the instructors in investigating their own classroom practices in cooperation with university researchers as a strategic way of stimulating teacher competence and developing SFI learning environments.

Research into “native” English language teachers (NSs) in relation to “non-native” English language teachers (NNSs; see Moussu & Llurda, 2008) has forwarded the claim that since most NNSs have learned the target language as adults, they are better able to teach other adults this language than those who have learned it as their primary language from birth (e.g. Phillipson, 1992). Canagarajah (1999) has hypothesized that because of their contrasting areas of cultural knowledge, NSs are better adapted to teaching English as a foreign language whereas NNSs will be better teachers of students in English as a second language settings. The limited research on the contribution and value of bilingual teaching or language assistants highlights their unique ability to use their native languages and cultural understanding to support pupil learning as well as to strengthen pupil identities (Baker, 2014; Cable, 2004; Macaro, et al. 2014). How do these claims relate to investigation of the pedagogical support in linguistically and culturally diverse classrooms where languages other than English are being studied as additional languages (Littlewood & Yu, 2011)?

The use of a learner’s mother tongue during additional language acquisition is widely heralded as a crucially important learning asset (Cummins, 2017; García & Li Wei, 2014). Research has profiled the chronic contradictions between European national bilingual educational policy advocating the pedagogical use of newly arrived students’ linguistic capacities and prevailing monolingual pedagogies (see Duek, 2017; Jalali-Moghadam & Hedman, 2016 for the Swedish context). Accordingly, greater research attention needs to be given to language learning situations where there is strong pedagogical commitment to use and valorize the students’ mother tongues and a concurrent overriding educational goal to teach and learn the majority language, in this case, Swedish. This study is expected to generate knowledge about the use of students’ mother tongues as a pedagogical asset in a context where learning an additional language is the main educational goal.

Accordingly, the study seeks to answer the following research questions:

• What are the features and visible or reported effects of the teachers’ pedagogical practices on the students’ language performance and their opportunities to participate in instructional activity?

• What knowledge can be generated about the pedagogical advantages and disadvantages for student language learning of the NSs’, NNSs’ and BLAs’ classroom practices and their teamwork?

• How can the students’ mother tongues be used optimally as a learning asset for developing Swedish as an additional language in an SFI environment in congruency with the need for students to cope with target language interaction?

• How can the teachers be mobilized to research their own classroom practices in order to develop their teacher competence and increase the quality of the pedagogical support for newly arrived students in these settings?

The methodology of this study is designed to stimulate practice-based research. The project builds on the vision of an SFI teacher team whose concern over the low number of students who manage to reach minimum requirement levels to pass the first study course spurred them to recruit a number of bilingual language assistants (BLAs) to expand their pedagogical range. This research can therefore only be carried out in close cooperation with the practitioners (teachers and BLAs) in the instructional environments where they perform pedagogically and allow research access to. The two main methods of generating data within the project have been direct classroom observation and series of focus group interviews with students, BLAs and teachers spread across the project period at initial, middle and final stages. Direct observations is seen as essential to gain an inside understanding of the context within which teachers, BLAs and students interact as well as to capture a more comprehensive view of the focal setting than might be gleaned from the selective perceptions of the participants through interviews (Patton, 2002). First-hand field work is a vital way of generating and identifying relevant interview questions for participants and key research questions which can guide the development of the study to achieve an emergent research strategy. Series of focus group interviews create opportunity for participants to engage in cooperative meaning making which regularly transcends individual sense-making. They are also chosen as a way of tracking changes in participant experiences and perceptions which may cast light on significant development dimensions within the scope of the study. In parallel with these research dimensions, teacher recognition of pedagogical challenges (of, for example, how to develop successful cooperation with BLAs) and their aspirations have underlined the need for action-oriented, practice-based, research initiative. Teachers are committed to taking charge of their own development by investigating their own practices and constructing their own understanding of classroom teaching and learning. This will involve video recording by teachers of their interaction with BLAs and students in pedagogical encounters as well as with BLAs in supervisory situations. Such recordings make possible stimulated recall opportunities with teachers and BLAs. This learning procedure involves identifying significant teaching sequences or situations which can be watched closely as a basis for reflecting critically on a participant’s own actions, their consequences and the possible advantages of alternative action. It provides a solid basis for nuanced analysis and credible claims.

The results reveal that the distinction of Swedish language instructor with or without a Swedish background is not in itself a reliable predictor of optimal conditions for learning Swedish as an additional language. The comparative mapping of the two SFI learning environments reveal a distribution of teacher capacities and vulnerabilities across both instructional settings which configure the quality of pedagogical support for newly arrived students. Teacher capacities profiled in literature as assets were at times seen to entail pedagogical disadvantages while some teacher “disadvantages” created unexpected learning opportunities. For example, the fact that BLAs are still newcomers themselves and unqualified as teachers (regarded as generally disadvantageous) meant that they were not intimidating and served as crucial links between teachers and students. Results counsel cooperative learning between SFI teachers and highlight the pedagogical advantage of combining teacher capacities in co-teaching performance for meeting the diverse needs of newly arrived individuals and groups. A second result is the pedagogical priority, attested to by teachers and classroom observation, of targeting the students’ existential needs. A secure learning environment, group fellowship and meeting each individual’s need to feel valuable are seen as preconditions for student motivation and willingness to take communicative risks. A further result is the critical importance of a pedagogy that balances support and challenge. Use of students’ mother tongues is evidently an illuminative learning tool but unprincipled use can easily restrict student opportunities to cope with communication on the basis of current capacity and potential. A fourth finding is the need to educate for integration. Investment in enabling students to make the most of opportunities for target language interaction outside the classroom and in engaging with everyday life-related texts and tasks are vital for sustainable additional language and integration learning.

Baker, S. (2014). The role of the bilingual teaching assistant: alterantive visions for bilingual support in the primary years. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 17(3), 255-271. Cable, C. (2004). ‘I’m going to bring my sense of identity to this’: the role and contribution of bilingual teaching assistants. Westminster Studies in Education, 27(2), 207-222. Canagarajah, A. S. (1999). Interrogating the ’native speaker fallacy’: Non-linguistic roots, non-pedagogical results. In G. Braine, (Ed.), Nonnative educators in English language teaching (pp.77-92). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Cummins, J. (2017). Flerspråkiga elever: Effektiv undervisning i en utmanande tid. [Mulilingual pupils: Effective teaching in a challenging era]. Stockholm: Natur & Kultur. Duek, S. (2017). Med andra ord: Samspel och villkor för litteracitet bland nyanlända barn. Doktorsavhandling. Karlstad University Studies. 2017:4. García, O., & Wei, L. (2014). Translanguaging: Language, bilingualism and education. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. 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, 2, 1-18. Littlewood, W., & Yu, B. (2011). First language and target language in the foreign language classroom. Language Teaching, 44(1), 64-77. Macaro, E., Nakatani, Y., Hayashi, Y., & Khabbazbashi, N. (2014). Exploring the value of bilingual language assistants with Japanese English as a foreign language learners. The language learning journal, 42(1), 41-54. Moussu, L., & Llurda, E. (2008). Non-Native English-speaking English language teachers: History and research. Language Teaching, 41(3), 315-348. Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative Research & Evaluation Methods (3rd Ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications. Phillipson, R. (1992). Linguistic imperialism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.