This contribution draws on an ongoing research project, carried out in collaboration with teachers and students (aged 6-12) during 2020-22. The overall purpose with the research project is to identify and develop knowledge about teaching processes, which enhances the quality and the equality of classroom practices. The urban setting of the actual school is diverse as to its residents linguistic and cultural backgrounds, and characterizes of high socioeconomic index. In this way, the interest of this paper intertwines with concurrent and complex phenomena of the Swedish society, addressing segregation, but also the increased standardisation and marketisation of the educational system (SOU 2020:46; Wahlström & Sundberg, 2018). 

 In this paper, we theoretically draw on the Four Resources Literacy Model (Luke & Freebody, 1997) and on perspectives of translangauaging (García & Wei, 2014), to be combined with theories on multiliteracies (García & Klefgen, 2019; New London Group, 1996). Drawing on preliminary data from the ongoing study, the aim is to investigate in what ways these epistemological perspectives impact on the designed classroom practices. The aim will be addressed by answering the following research questions: 

• What characterizes the classroom communication and interaction? 
• What kinds of communicative and interactive multiliteracies are the designed pedagogies characterized of?
• What resources among the students are drawn upon and in what ways? 

Drawing on the plurality of texts and media in current societies, Luke and Freebody (1997) argued that effective literacy learning needs to integrate and balance the practices of coding, functional use, meaning making and critical analysis of texts. Serafini (2012), expanding Luke and Freebody’s literacy theory, emphasizes the need to “include visual images and design elements, in addition to written language” (p. 152). Regarding cultural and linguistic diversity in  present societies, García (2009) has introduced the concept of dynamic multilingualism, meaning that all multilingual persons’ language knowledges are intertwined with one another on various levels and with all modalities (see also García & Klefgen, 2019). Using multiple languages andmodalities in this way, refers to processes in which students are allowed and encouraged to make use of all their recourses to communicate and learn, including all their languages (García, 2009). The meaning of multiliteracies in turn, shed light of a wide range of linguistic, cultural, communicative, and technological tools, including the many modalities this includes, and with the overall goal of increased access to cultural and linguistic diversity (Schmidt & Häggström, 2018). This definition of multiliteracies highlights a multimodal perspective on literacy where different modes and types of texts are combined in communication. As Kress and Van Leeuwen have shown (2001), all communication is multimodal and includes several interacting semiotic systems, involving a wide range of opportunities for meaning making (The New London Group, 1996). Epistemologically, the above theories  put emphasis on children as autonomous agents, who can act, take own initiatives and cause changes, in line with the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNICEF, 2009). As we know, children bring a multiplicity of literacy experiences and identities related to diverse backgrounds into classroom practices (e.g. Heath, 1983; Schmidt, 2018; Stein, 2008). These identities are continuously being negotiated through language and literacy, at the same time as those children get access to certain ways of representing themselves through literacy, including various modalities, in their classrooms (Ibid.). To sum up,  this elucidates the importance of deficit discourses to be avoided and to strive for social justice within classroom practices (García, 2009). 

The ongoing study involves all teachers and their students, aged 6-12, at one school. The study is conducted in collaboration with the principal, the researchers and representatives from the Centre for School Development of the actual region. The start of the project included focus group interviews with students in grade 3 and 6 (2 interviews with in total 12 students) and with some of the teachers (3 interviews with int total 15 teachers). In cycle 1, and cycle 2 (which is still ongoing) all teachers try to develop their teaching in line with the above outlined theoretical perspectives (García & Klefgen, 2019; Luke & Freebody, 1997; New London Group, 1996). Both cycle 1 and 2 have been proceeded of dialogic lectures/conversations with all teachers, including their own meetings for planning and reflection. The whole project is framed by recurring meetings with all participants. In each cycle, the teachers are describing the designed teaching and its outcomes together with their own pedagogical reflections in online log books. Also, video observations of classroom practices have been carried out in cycle 1 and will be carried out in cycle 2. The empirical data from cycle 1-2 will be analysed the coming spring. Drawing on the transcribed interviews and the online log books, a content analysis (Hsieh & Shannon, 2005) will be carried out. The video observations from classroom practices will be analysed in relation to teaching factors of organisation, communication and interaction (Alexander, 2008). In this way, the analysis aims to investigate in what ways the in what ways the epistemological perspectives of the Four Resources Model (Luke & Freebody, 1997) and TL together with multilieracies (García & Wei, 2014; García & Klefgen, 2019; New London Group, 1996) have an impact on the the classroom practices in cycle 1 and 2.

The paper will present preliminary results from cycle 1 and 2 of the research project. Our ambition is to present a number of empirical classroom pedagogies and to reflect on these in the light of on the previous presented theories (García & Wei, 2014; García & Klefgen, 2019; New London Group, 1996). By doing this we hope to theoretically discuss in what ways these classroom pedagogies draw on students’ diverse resources. Hopefully this will renew the discussion about intercultural classroom pedagogy in diverse societies: what we strive for, what we do not strive for, and why.

Alexander, R. (2008). Essays on pedagogy. Routledge. Garcia, O. (2009). Bilingual education in the 21st century: A global perspective. Malden: Blackwell Publ. García, O. & Klefgen, J. O. (2019. Translanguaging and literacy. Reading Research Quartely, 55 (44), 553-571. Garcia, O. & Wei, L. (2014). Translanguaging, language, bilingualism and education. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. Heath, B. S. (1983). Ways with words. Language, life and work in communities and classrooms.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Hsieh, Hsiu-Fang. & Shannon, Sara E. (2005). Three approaches to Qualitative Content Analysis. Qualitative Health Research, 15 (9), 1277-1288. Kress, G. & van Leeuwen, T. (2001) Multimodal Discourse. The modes and Media of Contemporary Communication. London: Edward Arnold. Luke, A. & Freebody, P. (1997). The social practices of reading. In S. Muspratt, A. Luke and P. Freebody, eds: Constructing critical literacies: Teaching and learning textual practices, p. 195-225. Cresskill: Hampton Press New London Group (1996). A pedagogy of multiliteracies. Designing social futures.Harward Educational Review 66 (1), 60-92. Schmidt, C. (2018). Ethnographic Research on Children’s Literacy Practices: Children’s Literacy Experiences and Possibilities for Representation. Ethnography and Education. DOI: 10.1080/17457823.2018.1512004. Schmidt, C. & Häggström, M. (2019). Literacy and Multimodality in Swedish Teacher Education: Understanding and Bringing Together Theory and Practice. Utbildning & Lärande, 13 (19, 7-23. Serafini, F. (2012) Expanding the four resources model: reading visual and multi-modal texts. Pedagogies: An International Journal, 7 (2), 150-164. Stein, P. (2008). Multimodal Pedagogies in Diverse Classrooms. Representations,Rights and Resources. London and New York: Routledge. SOU 2020:46. https://www.regeringen.se/rattsliga-dokument/statens-offentliga-utredningar/2020/08/sou-202046/ UNICEF (2009): FN:s konvention om barnets rättigheter. Stockholm: UNICEF Sverige.United Nations General Assembly. (1948). Universal Declaration of Human Rights (A/RES/217(III ). Wahlström, N., & Sundberg, D. (Eds.). (2018). Transnational curriculum standards and classroom practices: The new meaning of teaching. Routledge.