Opening up new spaces for languaging practice in early childhood education for migrant children

(1)

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=ciey20 ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ciey20

Opening up new spaces for languaging practice in

early childhood education for migrant children

Anne Harju & Annika Åkerblom

To cite this article: Anne Harju & Annika Åkerblom (2020) Opening up new spaces for languaging practice in early childhood education for migrant children, International Journal of Early Years Education, 28:2, 151-161, DOI: 10.1080/09669760.2020.1765087

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/09669760.2020.1765087

Published online: 13 May 2020.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 294

View related articles

(2)

Opening up new spaces for languaging practice in early

childhood education for migrant children

Anne Harjuaand Annika Åkerblomb

a

Faculty of Education and Society, Malmö University Malmö, Sweden;bFaculty of Education, Communication and Learning, University of Gothenburg Göteborg, Sweden

ABSTRACT

This paper explores language practice in early childhood education for children new to the majority language, discussing how language practice can be transformed through actions such as reflexive dialogues with educators. In a Swedish action-research project, educators and researchers collaborated in reflexive dialogues to develop language practice in a preschool with large linguistic diversity. Various activities forming the basis of the dialogues were implemented, including photography by children enabling them to share their experiences. The results indicate that the educators positioned themselves between two common approaches to language practice for migrant children, i.e. multilingualism and monolingualism, a positioning evident in their language practice. Although striving for a multilingual approach, the educators’ daily activity structure and talk about the children recalled monolingual norms, assuming that people with access to several languages must master one before learning another. Through implementing actions including children’s perspectives and introducing ‘translanguaging’, language practice developed towards multilingualism, focusing increasingly on language as a process for expression and meaning-making rather than a tool for mastering the majority language. This approach turned educators away from deficit assumptions, instead emphasising children’s skills and agency.

ARTICLE HISTORY

Received 18 November 2019 Accepted 15 April 2020

KEYWORDS

Early childhood education; migrant children; translanguaging; practice architectures; transformation

Introduction

This paper addresses how early childhood education (ECE) practice for migrant children, based on unspoken traditions and norms of language and children’s needs, can be chal-lenged and transformed. How the children are seen and how the notion of language is con-ceptualised are crucial for how educational practice is organised, because it is based on these often implicit norms. The view of language greatly aﬀects how teaching and learning are structured and how multiple languages are to be mastered. In Sweden, ECE– or pre-school as it is generally called– has undergone considerable expansion over the last 30

This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/), which permits non-commercial re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited, and is not altered, transformed, or built upon in any way.

CONTACT Anne Harju anne.harju@mau.se Faculty of Education and Society, Malmö University, 205 06 Malmö, Sweden

2020, VOL. 28, NO. 2, 151–161

(3)

years. Preschool is available to all children residing in Sweden from the age of one year, and most children under age ﬁve now attend it (Pramling Samuelsson and Johansson

2009; Skolverket 2017). Since the 1970s, preschool has played an important role in Swedish integration policy (Lunneblad2013,2017), and an intercultural and multilingual approach is emphasised in the curriculum (Skolverket 2018). However, even though Swedish preschool is central to the integration process, migrant children oftenﬁnd them-selves confronting an educational system that tends to problematise their language and culture. This is connected to monolingual as well as monocultural norms in which edu-cational challenges are often perceived as problems stemming from diﬀerences in the culture, ethnicity, and language of the migrant children (León-Rosales 2010; Wernesjö

2012; Lunneblad2013; Nilsson and Bunar2016; Åkerblom2019). How educational prac-tices are actually formed and organised is therefore interesting to consider regarding migrating children. The view of preschool education as a promoter of intercultural values, coexisting with implicit monolingual and monocultural norms and values, puts educators in a complex position. This circumstance, and the fact that Sweden has experi-enced an increase in newly arrived children entering all levels of the school system in recent years, leaves preschool and preschool educators with the challenge of offering pur-poseful pedagogical practices that can help migrant children attain educational objectives. Consequently, there is a demand for new perspectives on the study of ECE’s contribution to the social integration of migrant children. The ECE institution, as thefirst stage of the educational system, plays a central role in such integration, and this paper explores the challenges of pedagogical language practice to improve our understanding of how this practice can be transformed. We do this by exploring one case of language practice in one preschool setting formed around a group of migrant children. The following questions are asked here: How can the challenges of educating migrant children be understood based on an analysis of practice? How can pedagogical language practices be transformed through reflexive dialogues with educators?

The paper is organised as follows. First, the research approach and background on which this paper is based are introduced. This is followed by a discussion of language and language use that introduces the ‘translanguaging’ concept and approach (García and Wei2014). The third section addresses the challenges identiﬁed in the studied case

regarding language practice in relation to migrant children’s education, and the fourth section analyses the transformation of the language practice through collaboration between educators and researchers. Finally, the transformation of language practice is dis-cussed in relation to the introduction of new perspectives.

Research approach and background

The results presented here emanate from a three-year (2017–2019) action research project aiming to explore conditions for teaching and learning by identifying the challenges facing preschool education in a world of migration, and to develop ways of organising such edu-cation. The research was conducted by the authors in a preschool section with consider-able linguistic and cultural diversity. The section, situated in a culturally heterogeneous neighbourhood in a medium-sized city in southern Sweden, accepts children three to ﬁve years old who do not speak Swedish. It has a long history, having been established in the 1990s as part of a process of supporting and promoting the integration of

(4)

refugee children arriving in Sweden, who would move on to regular preschool groups after one year. The separation of children to provide extra support has been a major aim of the section from the outset, but the approach diﬀers from that of current ordinary preschool education, in which the direct integration of immigrant children is more common.

When the project began, the preschool section was expressing a need to review its organisation, in terms of both internal and external structure, and transform its pedago-gical practice. The section agreed to work in a participatory way to explore the strengths and challenges of their daily pedagogical work. The research implementation followed the typical action research cycle, which comprises planning, action, observation, and reflection (McNiff2002). The identified strengths and challenges, leading to action, were viewed

from diﬀerent perspectives, and group discussions were conducted involving researchers and participants of diﬀerent types (e.g. educators, leaders, parents, and children).

The empirical material analysed here was retrieved from reflexive group dialogues involving the researchers and four educators working at the preschool section. The parti-cipating educators have worked 6–15 years at the section, and they all applied for positions there because of its focus on the integration of newly arrived children and families. Three of the educators had experience of migration, arriving in Sweden as refugees during different periods and from different countries. The aim of the reflexive dialogues was to reflect on the daily practice at the section and on the words used to describe it. The dia-logues occurred once a month for two years, and during this time, based on action research characteristics (Kidd and Kral2005; Braye and Mcdonnell2013), the researchers and edu-cators together explored challenges and possible actions in this dialogic space in which all were free to express their points of view. The focus was on facilitating knowledge and change through shared exploration and analysis, rather than the researchers being the ones telling the educators what to do.

The notion of practice was central to the dialogues, being comprehended through the discourse of the practice (‘sayings’), the activities that are part of the practice (‘doings’), and how people relate to one another and to the objects that are part of the practice (‘relat-ings’) (Kemmis et al.2014; Kemmis and Edwards-Groves2018). Since a practice is delim-ited as the answer to the question‘What are you doing?’ (Salamon et al.2016), the goal of the reflexive dialogues was first to explore the strengths and challenges of the educators’ work in relation to this question, and then to identify the practices to be changed. One challenge stood out, namely, the pedagogical efforts needed to reinforce the children’s language development. The analytical focus here has therefore been to identify the peda-gogical language practice at the section, and the needed changes in practice reinforced by the reflexive dialogues. This means that we have analysed the intersubjective spaces of the pedagogical language practice in relation to the cultural–discursive (i.e. language and meaning), material–economic (i.e. activities and resources), and socio–political (i.e. ways of relating to one another) arrangements that constitute them (Kemmis et al.

2014; Kemmis and Edwards-Groves2018).

Theoretical conceptions of language

Language means different things in different contexts, and how language is understood greatly influences how teaching and learning are structured, including ideas about how multiple languages are to be mastered. The language philosopher Wittgenstein (1968)

(5)

distinguished two very diﬀerent ways of understanding the function of language: as a structural conception and an expressive conception, or language seen as structure and as expression.

The theory of practice architectures is based on an expressive view of language (Kemmis and Edwards-Groves2018) that saying and doing are interconnected in practice, because it is in practice that language arises. The structural view of language is more directed towards an individual view of language in which the main function of language is naming and describing. Every word contains a meaning that is the object for which the word stands, and learning to understand entails establishing the correct relationships between objects and words. The common sense understanding of language is largely in line with the structural conception, which also inﬂuences how languages are taught.

On the other hand, when seen as expressive, language is understood as activity, and language meaning is seen as constituted in use rather than existing beforehand. Language as expression is viewed as dynamic and open (Åkerblom2011), and the notion of ‘langua-ging’ is often used to emphasise the activity of using language. Languaging includes the processes of making sense, communicating, and shaping experience through language (Lewis, Jones, and Baker 2012). In that conception, language is learnt while engaging and living in the world; it arises in practice and is both subjective (understanding) and intersubjective (communication).

One’s conception of language also inﬂuences one’s view of multilingualism and of how multiple languages are mastered. Jørgensen (2008) discerned diﬀerent language norms

concerning multiple languages among those who are multilingual. When he studied lin-guistic practices among young urban language users with several languages at their dispo-sal, he observed that they would combine sets of linguistic features (i.e. languages) in their linguistic production, something he called‘polylingual languaging’. The polylingual norm is the idea that‘language users employ whatever linguistic features are at their disposal to achieve their communicative aims as best they can, regardless of how well they know the involved languages; this entails that the language users may know, and use, the fact that some of the features are perceived by some speakers as not belonging together’ (Jørgensen

2008, 163). Jørgensen contrasted this idea to the‘monolingual norm’, the underlying idea of which is that a person with access to more than one language must master one of them before starting to learn another. The polylingual perspective on language is in line with the ‘translanguaging’ approach (García and Wei 2014), in which speakers use various language assets to communicate. Translanguaging refers to a pedagogical practice that aims to maximise learning in multilingual settings (Wei2018). Besides moving between different linguistic structures and systems, translanguaging also involves different modal-ities such as speaking, writing, and aesthetic expression (Wei2018). The notion also refers to the use of language as a unitary meaning-making system, in which a language user can select linguistic features from his or her own language repertoire (García and Wei2014). According to Wei (2018), translanguaging can also be seen as a theory of language prac-tice. The conception of language is then not an object, but rather a process. Children who are new to a language do not‘acquire’ it; rather, they adapt their bodies and brains to all the languaging activities that surround them (Wei2018). Vogel and García (2017) present translanguaging as a theoretical lens that offers new views of multilingualism that have attracted interest in education, but also disagreement. The debates are between scholars

(6)

who have embraced the translanguaging approach and those who do not agree with its premises (Vogel and García2017).

Challenges related to the practice of language development

During the reflexive dialogues, two main challenges regarding language development were identified. One challenge was that the educators perceived their practice as positioned between the norms of monolingualism, in which their role is primarily to promote the Swedish language, and those of multilingualism, in which their role would instead be to promote linguistic diversity as an asset for them and the children. The challenges of being in this position were often discussed in the dialogues based, among other things, on the educators’ own backgrounds. Three of them are bilingual and their views of language were based on their own experiences of bilingualism and having been new to the majority language. This was mirrored in their view of pedagogical practice regarding children’s language development. On one occasion, for example, when reflecting on the work of the section, one of them, whose experience included working in other preschools, mentioned the difference between the section, where all the children share the same experience of being new to the majority language, and other sections where children who do not speak Swedish are in the minority:

They ask [us], why gather all the children who don’t know Swedish in one place? … They believe that the use [of Swedish] is the most important– but how? When children who don’t know Swedish come to a group with Swedish children they regress – [they think] I can’t say anything, I can’t play with them … they are afraid to express themselves. Too much responsibility is put on the children to learn from one another… but when all are the same, at the same level, they start to build foundations together under the same con-ditions. (Mouna)

Here the educator defends the principle of the section of only admitting children new to the majority language. This diﬀers from the general approach in Sweden, which is based on the direct integration of children who are new to the country and to the majority language. One argument for direct integration is that the children who do not speak Swedish will learn it from their friends at the preschool. The approach of the quoted edu-cator, and of the other educators at the section, was contrary to the norm that mixing languages would be problematic (Wei2018) and that the majority language is learnt pri-marily by imitating native speakers (ideas closely connected to a monolingual norm).

However, they all agreed that they were expected to organise the language development practice based on monolingual assumptions. This could explain why, although multilin-gualism and multiculturalism were considered assets both at the preschool and in the municipality in general, support for intercultural education that would foster multilingu-alism was weak in the pedagogical practice. Although the educators strove to use a multi-lingual approach in their activities, their language practices were still based mainly on the assumed superior role of the majority language (Swedish), with the mother tongue seen merely as providing support for learning Swedish. In the dialogues, it became clear that this was due to preschool traditions in general. The idea of intensive teaching of Swedish is closely connected to a particular discourse in preschool institutions, as in the rest of society, of languages and how they function. This discourse tends to see the

(7)

Swedish language as the norm and other languages as exceptions (Lunneblad2013,2017; Kultti, Pramling, and Samuelsson2017; Cekaite2018).

Another identified challenge was the discourse around the migrant children as ‘lacking the language’ and being seen from a deficit perspective regarding their language develop-ment. At the beginning of the research project, the structuring of the daily activities and the talk about the children in the section were generally more in line with the monolingual norm. This was underlined by the idea that people with access to more than one language must master one of them before starting to learn another. This norm was identified by the researchers and reflected on with the educators in relation to an idea evident in the section, that because the children do not understand Swedish, they should be provided with clearly structured days:

So, this section, because it is really structured here… and the basis for doing that is to provide security, so that they know exactly what will happen during the day– because they don’t know the language, you cannot explain to them. So we have pictures that help, so that they see what a day looks like. There can be a lot [of activities] – sometimes cleaning, tidying up… we will do a new activity – but it is also to indicate the start of something new. And with photos or pictures we help them to know how the day will be structured. (Vina)

Here the educator describes how pictures and signs are used to help the children know what will happen during the day, to compensate for the children’s difficulties following the spoken instructions and explanations in Swedish. Vina also notes the importance of having clear indications of the beginning and end of activities. This is aligned with a struc-tural conception of language, in which learning to understand coincides with the establish-ment of the correct relationships between objects and words (Wittgenstein1968). The structural conception was reflected in the organisation of the section’s activities. They were strongly framed and mostly directed and initiated by the educators, for example, with the children organised in small groups in different rooms, led by one educator in each room. The section also had a special needs teacher who came once a week for inten-sive Swedish training with a small group of children in a separate room. The training focused on word acquisition, suggesting that a structural perspective on language underlay how the activity was conducted.

The structuring of the days and the visit by a special needs teacher can be characterised as compensatory pedagogy (Sleeter2007), a strategy to manage social and cultural diver-sity by providing extra resources or special treatment for groups or categories of children conceptualised as lacking something or having special needs. Newly arrived children are often spoken of as having deﬁcits, usually linked to their ability to manage the majority language and culture (Tobin 2013; Nilsson and Bunar 2016; Åkerblom and Harju

2019). The deﬁcit view can also be related to the practice of caring, which is deeply

embedded in many ECE practices (Salamon et al.2016) and commonly expressed regard-ing newly arrived children. In the preschool section, the practice of carregard-ing was strongly connected to making the children feel safe. This practice emanated from the original aim of the section, namely, to receive refugee children, around whom there is a discourse of trauma, i.e. the children are assumed to have traumatic experiences from havingﬂed their home country. In the dialogues, this was often combined with a view of the children as having needs and lacking security:

(8)

Those children have a… many of them have really great needs. And they are traumatised and receive a really good introduction. We have a special needs teacher attached to the section, which is needed considering the children who are there… and that is unique, one might say, that there are specially trained staﬀ who work a lot and intensively on language, who are used to dealing with children who don’t know Swedish at all. (Alexandra)

The idea of compensatory pedagogy is made explicit here. The sayings about the children were in this case based on assumptions that the children have great needs and the section has the right professional competence to address these needs. However, in the reﬂective dialogues between the researchers and educators, it became clear that the educators them-selves found their work too strongly framed by compensatory pedagogy, and they reﬂected on the fact that the children’s agency was limited.

To conclude, analysing the language practice formed around the children through the lens of practice architecture (Kemmis et al. 2014; Kemmis and Edwards-Groves 2018) shows that the sayings about the children display a deficit perspective, affecting the doings based on strong structure and Swedish word training. The relationships between the children and educators were characterised by teacher-governed activities and allowed the children little agency. Following the challenges identified and expressed by the educators and researchers, plans to restructure and develop the daily activities in the preschool section were formulated and new activities related to language and literacy were introduced.

Opening up new spaces for languaging practice

To help the educators conceptualise and verbalise their implicit notions and their pro-fessional approach to languaging practice, the concept of‘translanguaging’ was introduced into the reflective dialogues. Translanguaging can be framed as both a practical theory of language and an approach to multilingual learning (Wei2018). This way of conceptualiz-ing language was much more in line with what the educators experienced among the chil-dren and with how the chilchil-dren actually used various linguistic assets to express themselves, which is more in line with a polylingual language norm (Jørgensen 2008). Since the theory of translanguaging foregrounds language use (languaging) and the different ways users employ language to communicate, it has consequences for the practice of teaching languages. This pedagogic approach is aligned with the approach to ECE in the Reggio Emilia preschools in Italy (Rinaldi1998). In Reggio Emilia preschools, the concept of‘the hundred languages of children’ relates to the idea that children explore the world and express their understanding in multiple ways, which is facilitated by providing oppor-tunities to represent their experiences in various ways (Alamillo, Yun, and Bennett2017). Plans were made, through the collaboration between researchers and educators, to restructure and develop the daily activities according to a translanguaging approach. Besides offering a different way to conceptualise language, the translanguaging approach has consequences for how the children and their language competences are viewed. To get closer to the children’s own perspective and provide latitude for them to express them-selves, an activity inspired by the Reggio Emilia approach (Alamillo, Yun, and Bennett

2017) was carried out. In it, the children were given disposable cameras and asked to visu-ally document their everyday life and experience in the section. The 16 children in the section were each oﬀered a camera that allowed 12 pictures to be taken. They were told

(9)

that they could photograph anything from the everyday practice of preschool and were shown how to use the camera. When the pictures were developed, the children were asked about the pictures and what they had wanted them to show. One researcher initiated the project and conducted the dialogues with the children, but later in the process the edu-cators started to use the methodology in their daily work. The children’s pictures became tools with which the educators could discern aspects not otherwise evident, for example, the children’s communicative and literacy competences. When the ﬁrst dialogues between children and researcher were analysed, it became evident that the children were very aware of what they were doing and why, challenging the understanding of the children as lacking something and needing compensatory pedagogy. This could be illustrated by a dialogue between the researcher and Amina, a child ofﬁve, who at the time had spent just a few months in Sweden.

One of Amina’s pictures showed part of the ﬂoor of a preschool room and was initially thought to be a mistake. When asked about the picture, she answered that it was‘her place’ (the photo showed her permanent place during the circle time in the preschool). It was clear that this photo was important to her, as was the place where Amina positioned herself as a child who belonged. As the dialogue unfolded in the room, Amina showed where the spot was and told the researcher about the places of all the other children. She also read the names of the children from the name tags on the ﬂoor, showing that she had mastered the reading of Latin letters, which the educators had so far been unaware of.

When the pictures taken by Amina and the other children were discussed and reﬂected on with the educators, the photo activity became an important turning point that even-tually led the educators to reframe how they spoke about the children. Besides this aspect of the activity, many of the children showed that they were very competent in com-municating and depicting what was important to them. The educators’ conception of the children was challenged when they, and the researchers, realised that the children were more competent than they were thought to be. This challenged the discourse of the chil-dren as in need of something assumed to be lacking, as the chilchil-dren were revealed as com-petent agents and comcom-petent users of multiple languages.

Based on the insights that reframed the educators’ sayings about the children, and inspired by the Reggio Emilia approach, languaging activities focusing on both verbal and aesthetic expression were introduced by the educators. For example, the children were to make their own books based on their pictures and stories and to express them-selves in aesthetic forms, such as music and dancing. Besides those activities, they were also invited to take part in multilingual language games, organised by one researcher to enhance metalinguistic awareness of the constituents of language and to contrast diﬀerent ways of expressing the same content in diﬀerent languages. All these activities would give the children latitude to express themselves and communicate in diverse ways. The work on metalinguistic awareness and children’s expression was also connected to literacy development (Heath1983) using signs and letters, and based on the children’s

own insights into their literacy competence.

When the sayings about the children and the doings, in the form of new arrangements, changed, this meant that the socio–political arrangements, i.e. how the social relationships were constructed, also changed. Whereas the relationships between the children and edu-cators were formerly characterised by teacher-governed activities, the children’s agency

(10)

now increased, as did their ability to take active part in the activities of the preschool section. When the children’s voices were heard, it became obvious that their linguistic competences as well as their abilities to be agents of their own activities diﬀered from what was previously assumed. This created new understanding among both the research-ers and educators, leading to a new aim of maximising learning and development in the multilingual setting, that is, to make it into a translanguaging practice. New meanings of the language practice became possible and the practice was now framed as‘we support translanguaging’ instead of ‘we support the children’s language development’.

Discussion

This paper explored challenges regarding pedagogical language practice related to the education of migrant children in one research setting. One main question was how new perspectives on language practices can be developed, and we illustrated how this can be done by the inclusion of children’s perspectives. The results indicate that one challenge related to language practice is that educators working with children new to the majority languageﬁnd themselves between competing norms. The educators exam-ined here, for example, found themselves acting as mediators of the dominant language and culture, whereas in an increasingly globalised world, they are expected to promote values such as multiculturalism and tolerance, including multilingualism. Both these dis-courses are evident in the Swedish preschool curriculum and practice, as well as in other parts of the western world (Tobin 2013; Allemann-Ghioda 2015; Eisenchlas, Schalley, and Guillemin 2015; Mavroudi and Holt 2015; Kultti, Pramling, and Samuelsson

2017; Åkerblom and Harju2019). It can be diﬃcult for educators to know where to

pos-ition themselves in relation to both these discourses. In the studied setting, at the begin-ning of the research process it was clear that, although a multilingual approach was highlighted, the language practice was based more on controlled pedagogy aiming to compensate for the children’s lack of Swedish language competence. However, during the course of the research, the educators developed an approach more in line with trans-languaging, introduced by the researchers.

When viewed from the perspective of practice architecture (Kemmis et al. 2014; Kemmis and Edwards-Groves2018), analysis of the arrangement of the transformed prac-tice shows that the sayings about the children changed from a dominant deficit discourse into one treating children as competent possessors of multiple linguistic and other com-petencies, such as body language and aesthetic expression. In addition, framing the ped-agogical content with sayings about the practice as‘language development’ changed, the content instead being framed as ‘languaging’ and ‘translanguaging’ focusing more on languaging as a process of expression and meaning-making rather than as a tool for naming. This new conceptualisation of the function of language led to changes in the material–economic space that altered the activities and aims (i.e. doings) of the practice. The transformation of the practice arrangements was enabled by the action research process, but two activities in particular reinforced the possibility of transformation and enabled change: one, the children taking and talking about their photos revealed the chil-dren’s perspectives when they were afforded means to express them; two, the reflexive dia-logues gave the educators a new way of understanding and theorising about the language function in a linguistically diverse group of children. The theoretical concept of

(11)

translanguaging became a tool for perceiving what was going on in a new way. Those changes led to diﬀerent doings as well as diﬀerent relatings. One educator noted after the change that ‘now it is the children’s preschool’, meaning that the relatings had changed so that the children’s agency and opportunities to participate in the practice had increased.

Disclosure statement

No potential conﬂict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Funding

This work was supported by The Swedish Institute for Educational Research.

References

Åkerblom, Annika. 2011. “Children Making Sense of Physical Phenomena.” PhD. diss. Lund University.

Åkerblom, Annika, and Anne Harju.2019.“The Becoming of a Swedish Preschool Child? Migrant Children and Everyday Nationalism.” Children’s Geographies, doi:10.1080/14733285.2019. 1566517.

Alamillo, Laura, Cathy Yun, and Lisa H Bennett. 2017. “Translanguaging in a Reggio-Inspired Spanish Dual-Language Immersion Programme.” Early Child Development and Care 187 (3-4): 469–486.

Allemann-Ghioda, Cristina.2015.“Dealing with Diversity in Education: A Critical View on Goals and Outcomes.” In Governing Through Diversity: Migration Societies in Post-Multicultural Times, edited by Tatiana Matejskova, and Marco Antonich, 125–144. London: Palgrave MacMillan.

Braye, Suzy, and Liz Mcdonnell. 2013. “Balancing Powers: University Researchers Thinking Critically About Participatory Research with Young Fathers.” Qualitative Research 13 (3): 265–284.

Cekaite, Asta. 2018. “Microgenesis of Language Creativity: Innovation, Conformity and Incongruence in Children’s Language Play.” Language Sciences (65): 26–36.

Eisenchlas, Susana A., Andrea C. Schalley, and Diana Guillemin. 2015. “Multilingualism and Literacy: Attitudes and Policies.” International Journal of Multilingualism 12 (2): 151–161. García, Ofelia, and Li Wei. 2014. Translanguaging: Language, Bilingualism, and Education.

New York: Palgrave MacMillan.

Heath, Shirley B.1983. Ways with Words: Language, Life, and Work in Community and Classrooms. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Jørgensen, Norman. 2008. “Polylingual Languaging Around and among Children and Adolescents.” International Journal of Multilingualism 5 (3): 161–176.

Kemmis, Stephen, and Christine Edwards-Groves. 2018. Understanding Education. Singapore: Springer.

Kemmis, Stephen, Jane Wilkinson, Christine Edwards-Groves, Ian Hardy, Peter Grootenboer, and Laurette Bristol.2014. Changing Practices, Changing Education. London: Springer.

Kidd, Sean A., and Michael J. Kral.2005.“Practicing Participatory Action Research.” Journal of Counseling Psychology 52 (2): 187–195.

Kultti, Anne, Niklas Pramling, and Ingrid Pramling Samuelsson. 2017. “Young Children’s Participation in a New Language Context: A Synthesising Analysis for a Holistic Perspective.” In Interactions in Early Childhood Education, edited by Alexandra C. Gunn, and Claudia A. Hruska, 55–68. Singapore: Springer.

(12)

León-Rosales, René.2010.“Vid Framtidens Hitersta Gräns: Om Maskulina Elevpositioner i En Multietnisk Skola” [At the Near Frontier of Future: About Masculine Student Positions in Multiethnic School], PhD diss., Stockholm University.

Lewis, Gwyn, Bryn Jones, and Colin Baker. 2012. “Translanguaging: Developing its Conceptualisation and Contextualisation.” Educational Research and Evaluation 18 (7): 655–670.

Lunneblad, Johannes. 2013. Den mångkulturella förskolan: Motsägelser och möjligheter [The Multicultural Preschool: Contradictions and Opportunities]. Lund: Studentlitteratur.

Lunneblad, Johannes.2017.“Integration of Refugee Children and Their Families in the Swedish Preschool: Strategies, Objectives and Standards.” European Early Childhood Education Research Journal 25 (3): 359–369.

Mavroudi, Elizabeth, and Louise Holt. 2015. “(Re)Constructing Nationalisms in Schools in the Context of Diverse Globalized Societies.” In Governing Through Diversity: Migration Societies in Post-Multiculturalist Times, edited by Tatiana Matesjkova, and Marco Antonsich, 181–200. London: Palgrave MacMillan.

McNiﬀ, Jean.2002. Action Research: Principles and Practice. New York: Routledge.

Nilsson, Jenny, and Nihad Bunar.2016. “Educational Responses to Newly Arrived Students in Sweden: Understanding the Structure and Inﬂuence of Post-Migration Ecology.” Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research 60 (4): 399–416.

Pramling Samuelsson, Ingrid, and Eva Johansson.2009.“Why Do Children Involve Teachers in Their Play and Learning?” European Early Childhood Education Research Journal 17 (1): 77–94. Rinaldi, Carla.1998.“Projected Curriculum Constructed Through Documentation—Progettazione: An Interview with Lella Gandini.” In The Hundred Languages of Children: The Reggio Emilia Approach—Advanced Reﬂections, edited by Carolyn Edwards, Lella Gandini, and George Forman, 2nd ed., 5–26. Greenwich, CT: Ablex Publishing Corporation.

Salamon, Andi, Jennifer Sumsion, Frances Press, and Linda Harrison.2016.“Implicit Theories and Naïve Beliefs: Using the Theory of Practice Architectures to Deconstruct the Practices of Early Childhood Educators.” Journal of Early Childhood Research 14 (4): 431–443.

Skolverket. 2017. Skolverkets Lägesbedömning 2017 [The National Agency for Education Assessement]. Skolverkets Rapport, 455. Stockholm: Skolverket.

Skolverket.2018. Läroplan för Förskolan: Lpfö18 [Curriculum for Preschool: Lpfö 18]. Stockholm: Skolverket.

Sleeter, Christine E.2007. Making Choices for Multicultural Education: Five Approaches to Race, Class, and Gender. New York: Wiley.

Tobin, Joseph J.2013. Children Crossing Borders: Immigrant Parent and Teacher Perspectives on Preschool for Children of Immigrants. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.

Vogel, Sara, and Ofelia García. 2017. “Translanguaging.” In Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Education, edited by George W. Noblit, and Luis C. Moll, 2–21. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Wei, Li.2018.“Translanguaging as a Practical Theory of Language.” Applied Linguistics 39 (1): 9–30. Wernesjö, Ulrika. 2012. “Unaccompanied Asylum-Seeking Children: Whose Perspective?”

Childhood (copenhagen, Denmark) 19 (4): 495–507.