In between the fields of research of special educational needs and multilingual education – Swedish heritage language teachers’ perspectives on special educational needs in multilingual students

Abstract

For most multilingual students, knowledge and language development takes place without major difficulties. However, if this development deviates from what is expected, the difficulties need to be investigated, and support measures implemented. Complex causes interact when multilingual students need special educational support. The research fields of multilingual education and of special needs education must be taken into consideration. Unfortunately, because of the gap between these two fields, many multilingual students in need of special educational support fall between the cracks. For these students, heritage language teachers (hereafter HLTs) constitute an important link between Swedish school culture and home culture and they bear responsibility in defining the special educational support measures for these students. Therefore, through the narratives of HLTs, this study aims to gain a deeper understanding of their perception of multilingual students in need of special educational support. The present study is based on qualitative methods for collecting and analysing data. After a purposeful selection, 13 individual in-depth interviews were conducted. Thereafter, the transcriptions of the interviews were analysed thematically. The results indicate that the HLTs characterise multilingual students whose behaviour or language development deviates from the norm regarding the need of special educational support. The HLTs define linguistic deviations, the underlying causes, and the support measures needed similarly. However, behavioural deviation and the underlying causes are perceived differently, depending on the individual HLTs’ personal experiences, backgrounds and levels of education. To meet the multilingual students’ SEN in a more scientifically based approach and a more holistic way, the study discusses the need for structural changes facilitating interdisciplinary collaboration between HTL and SEN teachers, a more uniform educational path for HLTs as well as better information to special needs teachers about the roles and tasks of HLTs. In conclusion, the gap between the research fields of multilingual students’ learning and special needs education should be tightened.

Keywords

Atypical behavioural development atypical linguistic development heritage language teacher (HLT)multilingual education multilingual support special educational needs (SEN)

Introduction

For most multilingual students, knowledge and language development takes place without major difficulties. However, if the development deviates from what is expected, the difficulties need to be investigated, and support measures implemented. Complex causes interact when multilingual students need special support. In particular, the discovery of underlying causes of school difficulties concerning multilingual students seems difficult. When identifying and diagnosing multilingual students’ special educational needs (hereafter SEN), complex networks of influencing factors interact (Choo and Smith, 2020): external and contextual factors, such as complex linguistic environments, limited access to competent second language (hereafter L2) speakers or inadequate L2 exposure (Marinova-Todd et al., 2016; Salameh, 2020) as well as biological, emotional, psychosocial factors or linguistic, neuropsychiatric or intellectual disabilities (Salameh, 2003). Two different research fields, namely multilingual education and special needs education must be taken into consideration. Unfortunately, because of a gap between these two fields, many multilingual students with SEN fall between the cracks (Cioè-Peña, 2017; Howard et al., 2021). Most often they receive either multilingual support or SEN support. Internationally as well as in Sweden, only a few students are supported in their multilingual development according to their special educational needs (e.g. Lopes-Murphy, 2020; Martínez-Álvarez, 2019; Salameh, 2003; Wedin and Wessman, 2017).

Since heritage language teachers (hereafter HLTs) constitute an important link between Swedish school culture and home culture (Rosén et al., 2020; Vuorenpää and Zetterhom, 2020) and bear responsibility in discovering and defining the multilingual students’ possible school difficulties, this study contributes with important knowledge about their characterisation of multilingual students with SEN.

Aim and research questions

Through the narratives of HLTs this study aims to gain a deeper understanding of the perception of multilingual students with SEN.

The research questions are

How do HLTs characterise SEN in multilingual students?

Which underlying reasons and explanations hinder, according to HLTs, the academic development of multilingual students?

The term multilingual students refers in this study to students who have another first language (hereafter L1) than Swedish. The term mainstream teachers refer to class teachers and subject teachers who, unlike the HLTs, work at and are employed by the individual schools. The HLTs, on the other hand, are employed at a special linguistic unit within the municipality.

The Swedish school context

To understand the Swedish compulsory school context, where the study is set, a brief overview of multilingual support and SEN support in Swedish compulsory school will be described in the following sections. Thereafter previous research on who is considered in need of special educational support is presented. The chapter ends with a presentation over research on multilingual students in need of special educational support and the intersectional gap.

Multilingual support in Swedish compulsory school

Over 200 different languages are spoken in Sweden daily and this heterogeneity is reflected in Swedish classrooms (Ganuza and Sayehli, 2020). During the school year 2022/2023, 28.3% of all Swedish students were considered as multilinguals (Swedish National Agency for Education (SNAE), 2023a). To support multilingual students’ simultaneous language and subject knowledge, several measures are implemented in Swedish compulsory schools, including language-promoted teaching in all subjects, Swedish as an L2, mother tongue instruction and multilingual study guidance in the student’s L1 (SNAE, 2022). Since this study focuses on the narratives of the HLTs, who meet their students during mother tongue instruction and multilingual study guidance, these two support measures are briefly described below:

Mother tongue instruction is a non-mandatory subject and is graded according to the subject’s syllabus (SNAE, 2019). Internationally, mother tongue instruction can be compared to mother tongue tuition (e.g. Reath Warren, 2013) or heritage language instruction (e.g. Martínez, 2003). In Sweden, students who use another language than Swedish daily or students with a minority background (Sami, Finnish, Romany Chib and Yiddish) are entitled to attend mother tongue instruction once a week (SOU, 2019). Multilingual study guidance, on the other hand, is not a subject per se, but a short-term, state-financed support, helping multilingual students to reach the learning objectives of subjects according to the different subjects’ curricula within the frame of the mainstream classroom (SNAE, 2015). The amount, the form and the duration of this support should be adopted to the individual student’s needs (Sheikhi, 2019). 2.8% of all students received multilingual study guidance during the school year 2022/23 (SNAE, 2023a). Internationally, multilingual study guidance tutors are called bilingual teaching assistants (e.g. Bourne, 2001), bilingual classroom assistants (e.g. Martin-Jones and Saxena 2003), multilingual teaching assistants (e.g. Fritzsche and Kakos, 2021) or multilingual classroom assistants (e.g. Dávila and Bunar 2020).

SEN-support in Swedish compulsory school

If a Swedish student, despite an adequate learning environment and instructions, is at risk of not attaining the goals and learning objectives of a subject, additional educational support needs to be applied. In the Swedish School Act (SFS, 2010), two different support measures are described: extra anpassningar (hereafter additional adaptations) and särskilt stöd (hereafter special support). Additional adaptations are of a less intrusive nature, should be offered within the classroom and can be implemented without formal decisions by teachers and other school staff within the framework of regular teaching (SNAE, 2014). Special support, on the other hand, is of a more intrusive nature and replaces or supplements regular teaching. Special support measures must be documented by the teachers and determined by the head teacher (SFS, 2010). During the school year of 2022/23 12.4% of all Swedish primary school students received some form of special support (SNAE, 2021, 2023a, 2023b). Thus, if students are at risk of not reaching the knowledge requirements they must be immediately provided with additional adaptations. If this support measure shows to be insufficient, special support needs to be implemented.

Who is considered in need of special educational support?

In order to support students adequately, teachers need to identify their students’ needs. According to Isaksson (2009: 23), it is not possible to clearly define which students need special support. He describes the need of special support as ‘a collective term for students who are considered to have some kind of difficulty in school and schoolwork’. The risk of not reaching the learning goals is a recurring factor when deciding on special educational support. He stresses, however, that the causes of the difficulties often vary. reasons for special education support might be general learning disabilities, perceptual impairments, slow cognitive development, slow language development, adjustment difficulties, sensory disabilities, speech and language difficulties, psychological or health-related issues, emotional and behavioural difficulties or physical impairments as well as conceptual factors (Ingestad, 2006; Isaksson, 2009). Chan et al. (2023) state that students whose behaviour and learning are strongly influenced by their body conditions and surrounding environment need special education. Tideman (2005) stresses how different disabilities can be looked at depending on the perspective. According to Nilholm (2007) research on special education is usually divided in two different predominant perspectives, a more traditional, individualistic perspective with roots in medicine and psychology and, on the other hand, an alternative perspective with emphasis on the importance of social factors for school problems. Medical and rehabilitation models and practitioners compare the individual with the norm. The individuals who are not able to achieve what is considered normal for a certain age are considered as disabled. The individual’s physical and biological shortcomings and the individual’s difficulties in coping with normal life define his or her needs for special educational. On the other hand, social models disabilities are societal constructs. The social and physical environment as well as attitudes are considered creating barriers and social discrimination. Lani and Hegarty (2004) point out that the definition of special educational needs as a concept covers many kinds of difficulties in learning and varies strongly depending on who defines the term. Thus, students’ difficulties can be defined differently depending on the perspective (Bladini, 2004; Nilholm, 2007) or the teachers’ professional background (Skrtic, 1995).

Multilingual students in need of special educational support and the intersectional gap

According to the law, multilingual students have the right to both multilingual and special educational support (Kangas, 2018a). However, many multilingual students with SEN fall between the cracks and receive either multilingual support or SEN support (Cioè-Peña, 2017; Howard et al., 2021; Lopes-Murphy, 2020; Martínez-Álvarez, 2019). Far too few are supported in their multilingual development according to their SEN. Morgan et al. (2015) investigated in a longitudinal study whether American minority children are underrepresented in special education. The language-minority children in their study were less likely to be identified as having learning disabilities, speech or language impairments, intellectual disabilities, health impairments or emotional disturbances. Therefore, Lopes-Murphy (2020) points out the importance of teachers being well versed and well educated in the areas of multilingual students’ learning and special needs education. However, many mainstream teachers, SEN teachers and speech therapists lack deeper insight into multilingual language and knowledge development. When these professionals decide about special educational support measures they have to rely on their own professional experience (Clark, 2018). When mainstream teachers, SEN teachers and HLTs work alongside one another without direct collaboration, the holistic support and diagnosis of multilingual students in need of special support becomes difficult (Kangas, 2018b; Roux Sparreskog, 2023, 2024). An ensuing lack of collaboration can thus lead to overrepresentation of multilingual students, especially from families with low socioeconomic status, in special education teaching contexts (Barrio, 2017; Counts et al., 2018). This overrepresentation is mainly attributed to unsatisfactory interdisciplinary collaboration, lacking multilingual teaching programmes and lacking competent multilingual staff (Becker and Deris, 2019; Cioè-Peña, 2017). Difficulties of second language development are misconceived as specific language impairment (Sanchez et al., 2010). Even underdiagnosis or misdiagnosis of multilingual students with disabilities occurs (Del Corral Winder et al., 2019). Multilingual students with for example, dyslexia are not diagnosed correctly, instead their dyslexic difficulties are falsely blamed on second language development. According to Sanchez et al. (2010) misidentification of multilingual students’ special educational needs may be causes among others due to the professional’s lack of knowledge of second language development and disabilities or lacking collaborative structures. Crow (2019) confirms that multilingual students’ SEN are often under- or overidentified. Instead of investigating linguistic impairments, L2 acquisition difficulties are believed to cause the multilingual students’ problems (Degani et al., 2019; Moghadam and Hedman, 2016). To rule out these difficulties, L1 factors as well as aspects attributed to learning a L2 need to be taken into account (Farnsworth, 2018). Otherwise, multilingual students risk misdiagnosis and thus incorrect or late interventions (Salameh, 2003). When identifying the special support needs in multilingual students, complex networks of causes and factors need to be investigated (Choo et al., 2020). Both multilingual and special educational aspects, two different fields of research, need to be taken into account. The variation in language and knowledge development can be linked to many different factors, for instance external, contextual factors, such as complex linguistic environments, a very limited access to competent L2 speakers or insufficient L2 exposure (Marinova-Todd et al., 2016; Salameh, 2003, 2020). Individual factors also affect reading and writing development (Myrberg, 2007). The reading and writing development can also be delayed due to biological, emotional or psychosocial barriers as well as neuropsychiatric or intellectual disability (Salameh, 2003). Furthermore, students’ socioemotional and linguistic development is significantly influenced by factors such as socioeconomic status, nonverbal cognitive skills and early collaborative skills (Rose et al., 2018). The student’s motivation is also considered to be crucial for successful L2 development (Ushioda, 2009). War trauma affects cognitive and socio-emotional skills and can thus hinder students’ development (Qouta et al., 2021). Meticulous investigations done by SEN teachers or speech therapists need to take place to be able to implement adequate support measures for multilingual language and knowledge development. To be able to effectively differentiate between issues in second language development and learning disabilities, second language learning processes need to be understood, such as being aware of the stages and typical patterns of learning a second language, including common challenges (Klingner and Eppolito, 2014). SEN teachers and speech therapists need to identify characteristics of learning disabilities, such as persistent difficulties in reading, writing or math that are not typical for second language learners. And the instruction quality needs to be evaluated. Assess the effectiveness of teaching methods and materials used in the classroom to ensure they meet the needs of second language learners, which can help distinguish between language acquisition issues and learning disabilities.

However, mainstream teachers, SEN teachers and speech therapist are not expected to know all their students’ first languages (Svensson, 2016). And therefore, collaboration with HLT is necessary.

Methodology

The present study is based on qualitative methods for collecting and analysing data. For sampling, an electronic, closed-formed, and user-friendly questionnaire (Perry, 2011: 132) was distributed to all the HLTs working in one medium-sized Swedish municipality (Appendix 1). After a purposeful selection, 13 individual, thematical, in-depth interviews were conducted. The aim was to obtain, what Perry (2011: 59) calls a ‘maximum variation’ through ‘purposeful sampling’, in-depth information. The participants taught in 14 different languages. They had between 2 and 11 years of work experience as HLTs and their educational background varied to a great extent. Some had completed several university degrees in teaching and learning, whereas others had only just finished college. By gathering information from ‘a cross section of cases representing a wide spectrum’ (Perry, 2011: 59) and by choosing one HLT from each linguistic group, the highest possible representativeness was obtained (Appendix 2). A qualitative approach enables the exploration of experiences perceived by the interviewees (Obondo et al., 2016). An interview guide (Appendix 3) and open interviews were used in order to let the participants develop their story about their work life at their own pace (Atkinson and Ramanathan, 1995; Perry, 2011). Since the study forms part of a broader research project on multilingual support, the interview guide had been constructed to cover several areas of a teacher’s working life identified as important in previous studies (e.g. Avery, 2015; Ganuza and Hedman, 2018; Wedin and Wessman, 2017), and included the following areas: background, education, work conditions, collaboration and professional attitudes. As well as this, multilingualism, students’ wellbeing, literacy development and students in need of special education formed the centre of the interviews created to answer the research questions of the present study. To ensure ethical standards, all the participants were informed of the aim of the study, the voluntariness of participation and the de-identification of their own names, schools and pupils mentioned during the interviews (Swedish Research Council, 2011). The interviews were conducted in Swedish or English and took place during the spring 2020. They were all audio recorded. Directly after every interview, the recordings were labelled with the date and the participant’s alias, saved in a safe archive, and deleted from the recording device. The analysis of the collected data was inspired by other qualitative analysis models (e.g. Kvale and Brinkmann, 2014) and consisted of four different stages, namely (1) organisation, (2) perusal, (3) classification and (4) synthesis, and proceeded by moving in analytical circles between them. Firstly, the data was managed by labelling the recordings with aliases, saving the recordings in a safe archive and deleting the recordings from the recording device. To achieve a sense of the data set as a whole, the interviews were listened to several times in their entirety. Thereafter a meticulous, thematical summary was made for each interview, and all the passages concerning SEN were transcribed. By means of inductive analysis a reduction of the responses and a first-grade interpretation took place. All the responses concerning SEN classified and coded, and preliminary patterns were identified (Appendix 4). Lastly, patterns and codes were compared to and discussed by dint of previous research. Through representation and visualisation a second-grade interpretation of the data was conducted. Since the analysis of the data did not indicate a necessity to reveal either the individual’s ethnicity, sex or age, those facts are not described (Swedish Ethical Review Authority, 2021).

Results

HLTs characterise multilingual students whose linguistic or behavioural development deviates from typical cognitive development to be considered as students in need of special educational support. All the HLTs define atypical linguistic development, its underlying causes, and the support measures needed similarly. Atypical behavioural development, its underlying causes, and the support measures needed, on the other hand, are perceived differently, depending on the individual HLT’s personal experiences, backgrounds and levels of education.

In the following section, the results are presented in two thematical sections. The first section is concerned with the characterisation of atypical linguistic development and the second section with atypical behavioural development. The citations in this result section are translated from Swedish to English by the author. In order to ensure the HLTs’ anonymity, no details about their home country are disclosed. These are instead replaced with [country]. Their names are replaced by an alias.

Atypical linguistic development

Distinguishing between language disabilities and issues in L2 acquisition

The interviewed HLTs identify themselves as language teachers, relying on the curriculum of the subject mother tongue instruction. The curriculum describes, according to the HLTs, what expectations they can and should have of the typical linguistic development in the subject. They therefore all agree on atypical linguistic development depending on either language disabilities or issues in L2 acquisition and they describe thoroughly how they distinguish between them. All the HLTs agree that language disabilities, such as dyslexia or specific language impairment, need to occur in the L1 and L2 in order for them to be linguistic impairments and not just an issue in L2 acquisition. Several of the HLTs talk about the importance of participating in investigations of multilingual students’ atypical linguistic development. When a multilingual student’s L2 development is delayed, sometimes teachers and SEN teachers seek cooperation with HLTs. ‘If they [mainstream teachers] discover that the student has difficulties, they ask me to rule out language difficulties’ (Samson). Through such collaboration, linguistic impairments are investigated, ruled out or established. In order to distinguish between language disabilities and issues in L2 acquisition, the HLTs compare text-genre convention: ‘A text in Polish is written in a different way than in Swedish. If the student only translates the words from Polish into Swedish, the Swedish text will be difficult to understand’ (Ana). Or subject-related and school cultural differences can constitute the basis of atypical language development:

There is a great difference between how school works here and there [home country]. For example, there you can say that they read facts and answer questions. Here it is more about analysing and reflecting. Many students get stuck on the reasoning and questioning part. It’s hard for them to get good grades. They are not used to answering what they think, their own opinions. (Samira)

L1 interferences are taken into consideration. The HLTs then compare the errors in Swedish with linguistic structures in the L1 or describe the student’s linguistic development in the L1.

I was once approached by a class teacher about a student with strong Finnish. She had attended Finnish kindergarten. She didn’t know Swedish, so I explained how it works in Finnish. I understand the child, that in the Finnish brain some grammatical things are not important. (Pirjo)

In the quote above the HLT explains the atypical L2 development and L2 errors with the influence of typical L1 structures and L1 transfer errors.

In other cases, the atypical linguistic development can be derived from psychosocial factors, in that the quality and quantity of linguistic exposure, the student’s environment and familiar situation are also described as playing an important role in L2 development. According to the HLTs, it takes time to learn a L2. Linguistic aspects such as insufficient L2 exposure or limited access to competent L2 speakers are mentioned as playing a crucial role in how fast the linguistic development proceeds.

Time is important when it comes to language. Then I always see the whole student and not just compare with the siblings. I know the student and his family well and see them regularly over several years. Once they [mainstream teachers] asked me about a student who didn’t want to talk and then I knew that he lives very isolated in the countryside and that no-one in the family has contact with Swedish-speaking people. (Rami)

The HLTs meet their students regularly and recurring under several years during mother tongue instruction, can interpret the family’s socioeconomical status or living situation as influencing factors on the student’s language development, and thus the HLTs know the students’ familiar background and social situation well and claim therefore to be able to take those factors into consideration when determining the underlying causes of atypical linguistic development. They claim to have a different insight into and understanding of how the family lives in relation to the majority Swedish-speaking society than the mainstream teacher.

According to the HLTs, some linguistic difficulties can also be traced to the attitude towards L2 and the status of L1. Some students do not want to learn Swedish because they do not aim to live or stay in Sweden ‘It’s the parents who chose to move, not the child’ (Pinky), while others refuse to develop their L1 because they want to become ‘fully Swedish’ (Caridad) or because they are so used to not being allowed to use their L1 due to ‘the state’s suppression of the language’ in the home country (Havin).

However, not all HLTs have been involved in linguistic investigations. In addition, teachers and special education teachers do not always give feedback to the HLTs after completion of the investigation. ‘I know she has a diagnosis, but when I asked which one, they just said she has a learning disability’ (Flutura). Due to the HLTs working conditions and structural prerequisites the communication between mainstream teachers, SEN teachers and HLTs does not always work. HLTs often meet many different students during or as one HLT explains ‘I have 60 different mother tongue students from 60 different schools, so how can I find the time to collaborate with all their teachers?’ (Pirjo). When feedback from and collaboration with mainstream teachers and the special educators is lacking, the HLTs are referred to their own background and experience when working with multilingual students in need of special educational support.

In conclusion, when it comes to atypical linguistic development, the HLTs describe in detail various underlying causes. They distinguish between language disabilities and issues in L2 acquisition by considering individual factors, text-genre or subject related conventions, cultural school differences, L1 interferences, psychosocial and familiar factors, attitudes towards L2 or L1, linguistic status as well as the amount and quality of L2 exposure. The interviewed HLTs describe how issues in L2 acquisition, linguistic disabilities are presented as easier to define, detect than behavioural problems.

Atypical behavioural development

Several of the HLTs express that they lack deeper SEN knowledge, and the identification of special needs other than linguistics seems therefore difficult. In some cases, SEN teachers provide information about students’ diagnoses or needs. Whenever the cooperation with the special education teachers fails, the HLTs need to rely on their own experiences.

Additionally, atypical behavioural development is described by the HLTs as situation- and position-bound. Students who are perceived to have special support needs in a Swedish mainstream classroom do not always appear as deviant in the mother tongue classroom. ‘It is easier to detect behaviour problems as a study guidance tutor in the Swedish classroom than as a mother tongue teacher in the mother tongue classroom’ (Shukri). Descriptions of atypical behavioural development are thus diffuse and difficult to define. When the HLTs work as multilingual study guidance tutors and meet the student in their regular Swedish class, age-related and knowledge-related deviations become clearer. As mother tongue teachers, however, they usually work separated from the regular Swedish classrooms in mother tongue instruction classes. Finding functional pedagogical methods for the work in these linguistically, culturally, age- and knowledge-wise heterogeneous student groups is described as an important part of their regular language teacher duties. Adjustments at group level as well as individual adaptations are made on a daily basis.

Sometimes the HLTs are involved in investigations to distinguish between impairments and other underlying causes of behavioural deviations. When it comes to behavioural deviations, the HLTs describe mainly social, psychological and socio-emotional underlying causes. Only a few HLTs mention disabilities, and only in passing.

The HLTs describe how students who are unwell as a result of migration or mobility are frequently in need of special support. Moving can mean, according to the HLTs, a big adjustment for both children and adults. ‘Newly arrived students often have difficulties, but difficulties other than diagnoses or impairments’ (Ana). Some families had to flee from war. Post-traumatic stress and anxiety are described as commonly occurring in refugee students. Several of these families still live in constant worry and stress because they lack a residence permit, housing or income. ‘We meet many children without residence permits, without housing and without security’ (Samira). In addition, most students worry about remaining family members and friends in their home country. Learning is significantly hindered by worries, stress or trauma.

Attitudinal issues and affective factors such as the student’s motivation and identity are further mentioned by the HLTs, as decisive factors for successful learning. ‘Linguistic emotional factors affect children’s behaviour and mood’ (Pinky). Some students do not want to learn Swedish because they do not aim to live in Sweden. In these cases, aversions towards Sweden and the Swedish language can be developed. Additionally, the reason why the family has moved to Sweden can affect the student’s motivation to learn Swedish. Some families invest in staying in Sweden and others know right from the start that their stay is limited in time. These students need to be supported on an emotional level. In working with students who feel bad due to migration or mobility, the HLTs’ own emigrational experiences are very useful.

Cultural differences are also mentioned as underlying causes of obstacles in learning. One of the HLTs talks about high school students as ‘children who have children’ (Shukri). These students feel different from the rest of their classmates and isolate themselves from the class community. In other cases, the students do not feel included in the mainstream classroom:

They [the students] did not know the language and were very prejudiced against teachers. They thought that all schools are like [nationality] schools. “They think we are second-class people. They think our language and culture are nothing. They want us to become Christians. Swedish schools want the same thing as [nationality] schools.” It was a big prejudice. [. . .]. And then we fixed it, together with subject teachers, class teachers, . . . and we have worked together with head teachers. And then we fixed it, and the students made friends at school, [. . .]. They had no Swedish friends before. They were so prejudiced. (Havin)

In other cases, the mainstream teachers do not fully understand the multilingual students’ behaviour and thus the HLTs describe how they function as a link between home and school culture. ‘I am like a bridge where teachers and students and their parents have to meet’ (A San). If the teacher knows the HLTs and has confidence in them, they can usually meet the student together in a way that leads to quick inclusion into the mainstream classroom.

The individual HLTs’ educational background differs markedly from one another’s. Some have different university education degrees as well as several years of practical didactical experience, while others only have studied at upper secondary school level and mainly need to rely on their practical work experience. The students’ special support needs are therefore perceived, described and met differently depending on the HLT’s individual knowledge, experience and educational background. Maria, who is a trained music teacher, often uses ‘music and instruments when words are not enough’. Pinky, on the other hand, who has a background in psychology, ‘always looks for the reasons when a child’s behaviour deviates from what is normally expected’. Based on the HLTs’ disparate work conditions, professional experiences and educational backgrounds, behavioural deviances are interpreted very differently.

In conclusion, according to the HLTs, atypical behavioural development is described as situation- and position-bound. Atypical behavioural development is easier detected in mainstream classrooms than in mother tongue classrooms. In mother tongue classrooms individual adaptations are frequent. Children in mobility, according to the HLTs, often demonstrate SEN when compared to other students. Therefore, in the mother tongue classroom the norm is described as heterogeneous. When describing multilingual students in SEN social, psychosocial, socio-emotional, affective, contextual or cultural factors are mentioned as underlaying causes. Medical or individual factors, such as neuropsychiatric factors are only mentioned in passing.

Discussion and concluding remarks

Through the narratives of HLTs this study aims to gain a deeper understanding of the perception of multilingual students with SEN. Mainly two factors are discussed by the HLT characterising multilingual students in need of special educational support, namely linguistic and behavioural deviation from the norm. This section is concerned with the discussion of the findings by comparing them with precious research presented earlier in this article.

According to previous research, the deviation from the norm is discussed as the reason for SEN in multilingual students (Ingestad, 2006). In accordance with previous research (Choo et al., 2020) the underlying reasons and explanations hindering the academic development of multilingual students are described as very complex interacting networks. When it comes to identifying linguistic barriers, the HLTs consider, in accordance with previous research (Myrberg, 2007; Rose et al., 2018; Salameh, 2003; Ushioda, 2009), many different individual underlying causes, such as psychological and social explanations, biological barriers and linguistic disabilities, as well as discussing psychosocial and motivational factors. Consistent with Marinova-Todd et al.’s (2016) and Salameh’s (2003, 2020) studies, external factors, such as the cultural context, socio-economic status, complex linguistic environments and parental backgrounds, are addressed. In line with previous findings (Qouta et al., 2021), migration experiences, war trauma and previous schooling experiences are mentioned. In contrast to previous studies (Degani et al., 2019; Farnsworth, 2018; Moghadam & Hedman, 2016; Salameh, 2003), the HLTs interviewed are well informed about possible underlying reasons and explanations hindering multilingual students’ linguistic development. And the findings therefore suggest that the HLTs are observant of their students’ SEN when it comes to linguistic developmental barriers. The HLTs state that they know when to contact a SEN teacher in order to support their students’ linguistic SEN and describe how to analyse linguistic deviations meticulously and from different perspectives. This awareness paves the way for a holistic support for multilingual students.

When it comes to identifying the underlying reasons of behavioural problems, however, the individual HLTs define atypical development, according to previous research (Lani and Hegarty, 2004), very differently, depending on their individual perspectives and professional backgrounds (Bladini, 2004; Nilholm, 2007; Skrtic, 1995). The HLTs’ descriptions of the deviant, the underlying causes and how certain phenomena are interpreted, depends strongly on their personal experiences, backgrounds and levels of education, and thus, because of this, the findings suggests that even the support measures might vary to a great extent. Most of the HLTs focus on conceptual factors (see Ingestad, 2006; Isaksson, 2009) such as migration experiences, psychological, motivational and social factors. They rarely discuss individual, biological or medical explanations (cf. Clarry et al., 2023). Not one HLT mentions neuropsychiatric disorders, such as ADD, ADHD or the autism spectra. This begs the question of whether the HTLs are insufficiently aware of neuropsychiatric disorders and diagnoses to be able to detect them or if they seldom meet students with neuropsychiatric disorders in their mother tongue classes. One interpretation could be that multilingual students with behavioural difficulties caused by biological or medical reasons are either not supported holistically or in the long run, drop out of mother tongue instruction due to HLTs’ lacking understanding of SEN. Another interpretation could be that behavioural difficulties are strongly dependent on the context. In mother tongue classes the HLTs are used to meeting heterogeneous classes. In mainstream classes, on the other hand, deviant behaviour becomes more obvious due to mainstream teachers’ expectations and experiences. In addition, multilingual study guidance per se is considered a special support measure. Therefore, it is even expected that HLTs, in their role as multilingual study guidance tutors, meet multilingual students in need of special support measures.

Taken together, the findings suggest that collaboration between HLTs, mainstream teachers and SEN teachers becomes crucial when detecting multilingual students’ SEN and finding adequate support measures, especially for multilingual students with behavioural difficulties.

If HLTs receive support from SEN teachers, the probability of these multilingual students getting adequate SEN support increases significantly. However, when HLTs lack a degree in teaching and learning and do not experience collaboration with SEN teachers, their students are at risk of receiving insufficient support. To meet the multilingual students’ SEN in a more scientifically based approach and a more holistic way, the study therefore suggests structural support, such as joint digital platforms, facilitating interdisciplinary collaboration between HLTs and SEN teachers, and a more uniform educational path for HLTs including knowledge of special needs education. In conclusion, the gap between the research fields of multilingual students’ learning and SEN needs to be tightened through better teachers’ education or structural support for interdisciplinary collaboration between different teachers.

Footnotes

Appendices

Acknowledgements

Special thanks are given to the 12 tutors, for sharing their valuable time and their interesting experiences and thoughts.

Declaration of conflicting interests

The author declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author received no financial support for the research, authorship and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iD

Christa Roux Sparreskog

Author biography

Christa Roux Sparreskog is a lecturer in Swedish, Swedish as a second language and Special needs educational at the school of Education, Culture and Communication at Mälardalen University, Sweden. Much of her research examines multilingual literacy development. She works also on pedagogical collaboration for multilingual support.

References

Atkinson

Ramanathan

(1995) Cultures of writing: An ethnographic comparison of L1 and L2 university writing/language programs. TESOL Quarterly 29(3): 539–568.

Avery

(2015) Teaching in the “edgelands” of the school day: The organization of mother tongue studies in a highly diverse Swedish primary school. Power and Education 7(2): 239–254.

Barrio

(2017) Special education policy change: Addressing the disproportionality of English language learners in special education programs in rural communities. Rural Special Education Quarterly 36(2): 64–72.

Becker

Deris

(2019) Identification of Hispanic English language learners in special education. Education Research International 2019(1).

Bladini

(2004) Handledning som verktyg och rum för reflektion: en studie av specialpedagogers handledningssamtal, Doctoral dissertation. Karlstad University, Sweden.

Bourne

(2001) Doing ‘what comes naturally’: How the discourses and routines of teachers’ practice constrain opportunities for bilingual support in UK primary schools. Language Education 15(4): 250–268.

Chan

RY-Y

Wong

CMV

Yum

(2023) Predicting behaviour change in students with special education needs using multimodal learning analytics. IEEE Access 11: 1.

Choo

Smith

(2020) Bilingual children who stutter: Convergence, gaps and directions for research. Journal of Fluency Disorders 63: 105741.

Cioè-Peña

(2017) The intersectional gap: How bilingual students in the United States are excluded from inclusion. International Journal of Inclusive Education 21(9): 906–919.

10.

Clark

ASS

(2018) The intersection of race and language in special education: A study of the referral process of emergent bilingual students to the special education program, Doctoral dissertation. University of Southern California, USA.

11.

Clarry

Wood

Long

(2023) Systematic review of the evidence to support expert practice in the education and care of children and young people with special educational needs and disability in the UK. Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs 23(3): 175–198.

12.

Counts

Randall

Ryan

, et al (2018) School resource officers in public schools: A national review. Education and Treatment of Children 41(4): 405–430.

13.

Crow

(2019) Differentiating between second language acquisition and disability: Reducing the number of inappropriate special education referrals among English language learners, Doctoral dissertation, ProQuest Dissertations Publishing. Alliant International University.

14.

Dávila

Bunar

(2020) Translanguaging through an advocacy lens: The roles of multilingual classroom assistants in Sweden. European Journal of Applied Linguistics 8(1): 107–126.

15.

Degani

Kreiser

Novogrodsky

(2019) The joint effects of bilingualism, DLD and item frequency on children’s lexical-retrieval performance. International Journal of Language & Communication Disorders 54(3): 485–498.

16.

Del Corral Winder

Cook

Poulakis

(2019) Quédate Quieto Niño: Bilingualism and ADHD presentation. Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology 34(7): 1248–1248.

17.

Farnsworth

(2018) Differentiating second language acquisition from specific learning disability: An observational tool assessing dual language learners’ pragmatic competence. Young Exceptional Children 21(2): 92–110.

18.

Fritzsche

Kakos

(2021) Multilingual teaching assistants in the UK. In: Handbuch Inklusion International. Opladen: Budrich, pp.453–469.

19.

Ganuza

Hedman

(2018) Modersmålsundervisning, läsförståelse och betyg: –modersmålsundervisningens roll för elevers skolresultat. Nordand 13(1): 4–22.

20.

Ganuza

Sayehli

(2020) Forskning om flerspråkighet. Stockholm: Skolverket [Swedish National Agency for Education].

21.

Howard

Katsos

Gibson

(2021) Practitioners’ perspectives and experiences of supporting bilingual pupils on the autism spectrum in two linguistically different educational settings. British Educational Research Journal 47(2): 427–449.

22.

Ingestad

(2006) Dokumenterat utanförskap- om skolbarn som inte når målen. Lund: Lund University.

23.

Isaksson

(2009) Spänningen mellan normalitet och avvikelse: om skolans insatser för elever i behov av särskilt stöd, Doctoral dissertation. Umeå universitet, Sweden.

24.

Kangas

SEN

(2018a) Breaking one law to uphold another: How schools provide services to English learners with disabilities. TESOL Quarterly 52(4): 877–910.

25.

Kangas

SEN

(2018b) Why working apart doesn’t work at all: Special education and English learner teacher collaborations. Intervention in School and Clinic 54(1): 31–39.

26.

Klingner

Eppolito

(2014) English Language Learners: Differentiating Between Language Acquisition and Learning Disabilities. Arlington: Council Exceptional Children (CEC).

27.

Kvale

Brinkmann

(2014) Den kvalitativa forskningsintervjun. Lund: Studentlitteratur.

28.

Lani

Hegarty

(2004) ICT and Special Educational Needs. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill Education. ProQuest Ebook Central.

29.

Lopes-Murphy

(2020) Contention between english as a second language and special education services for emergent bilinguals with disabilities. Latin American Journal of Content & Language Integrated Learning 13(1): 43–56.

30.

Marinova-Todd

Colozzo

Mirenda

, et al (2016) Professional practices and opinions about services available to bilingual children with developmental disabilities: An international study. Journal of Communication Disorders 63: 47–62.

31.

Martínez

(2003) Classroom based dialect awareness in heritage language instruction: A critical applied linguistic approach. Heritage Language Journal 1(1): 44–57.

32.

Martínez-Álvarez

(2019) Dis/ability labels and emergent bilingual children: Current research and new possibilities to grow as bilingual and biliterate learners. Race Ethnicity and Education 22(2): 174–193.

33.

Martin-Jones

Saxena

(2003) Bilingual resources and ‘funds of knowledge’ for teaching and learning in multi-ethnic classrooms in Britain. In: Creese

Martin

(eds) Multilingual Classroom Ecologies. Bristol: Multilingual Matters, pp.107–122.

34.

Moghadam

Hedman

(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.

35.

Morgan

Farkas

Hillemeier

, et al (2015) Minorities are disproportionately underrepresented in special education: Longitudinal evidence across five disability conditions. Educational Researcher 44(5): 278–292.

36.

Myrberg

(2007) Läs-och skrivsvårigheter. In: Ewald

Garme

(eds) Att läsa och skriva. Forskning och beprövad erfarenhet. Stockholm: Liber Distribution, pp.73–99.

37.

Nilholm

(2007) Vad och vems är kunskapsobjektet? – reflektioner över hur den specialpedagogiska praktiken kan och bör studeras. In: Nilholm

Björck-Åkesson

(eds), Reflektioner kring specialpedagogik: sex professorer om forskningsområdet och forskningsfronterna. Stockholm: Vetenskapsrådet.

38.

Obondo

Lahdenperä

Sandevärn

(2016) Educating the old and newcomers: Perspectives of teachers on teaching in multicultural schools in Sweden. Multicultural Education Review 8(3): 176–194.

39.

Perry

Jr. (2011) Research in Applied Linguistics: Becoming a Discerning Consumer. New York, NY: Taylor & Francis.

40.

Qouta

Vänskä

Diab

, et al (2021) War trauma and infant motor, cognitive, and socioemotional development: Maternal mental health and dyadic interaction as explanatory processes. Infant Behavior & Development 63: 101532.

41.

Reath Warren

(2013) Mother tongue tuition in Sweden: Curriculum analysis and classroom experience. International Electronic Journal of Elementary Education 6(1): 95–116.

42.

Rose

Weinert

Ebert

(2018) The roles of receptive and productive language in children’s socioemotional development. Social Development 27(4): 777–792.

43.

Rosén

Straszer

Wedin

(2020) Användning av språkliga resurser i studiehandledning på modersmålet. Pedagogisk forskning i Sverige 25(2–3): 26–48.

44.

Roux Sparreskog

(2023) Pedagogical collaboration for multilingual support in Swedish compulsory schools: From a Mother Tongue Teachers’ perspective. Educare 2: 1–31.

45.

Roux Sparreskog

(2024) Pedagogical collaboration for multilingual support in Swedish compulsory schools: Multilingual study guidance tutors’ perspectives. Language and Education 38: 781–799.

46.

Salameh

(2003) Language impairment in Swedish bilingual children-epidemiological and linguistic studies, Doctoral dissertation. Lund University, Lund.

47.

Salameh

(2020) Del 3: När andraspråket dröjer. Stockholm: Skolverket [Swedish National Agency for Education].

48.

Sanchez

Parker

Akbayin

, et al (ed.). Regional Educational Laboratory Northeast & Islands (ed.) (2010) Processes and challenges in identifying learning disabilities among students who are English language learners in Three New York State districts. Issues & Answers. REL 2010-No. 085. In Regional Educational Laboratory Northeast & Islands.

49.

SFS 2010:800. Language Act. Swedish Code of Statutes. Ministry of Culture.

50.

Sheikhi

(2019) Samarbete för framgångsrik studiehandledning på modersmål. Stockholm: Skolverket [Swedish National Agency for Education].

51.

Skrtic

(1995) Deconstructing/reconstructing public education: Social reconstruction in the postmodern era. In: Skrtic

(ed.) Disability and Democracy: Reconstructing (Special) Education in Postmodernity. New York, NY: Teachers College Press, pp.233–273.

52.

SOU (2019) SOU 2019:18. För flerspråkighet, kunskapsutveckling och inkludering — modersmålsundervisning och studiehandledning på modersmål. Betänkande av utredningen om modersmål och studiehandledning på modersmål i grundskolan och motsvarande skolformer. Stockholm: Utbildningsdepartementet.

53.

Svensson

(2016) Ord i alla ämnen – flerspråkiga elever och skolans språk. In: Bergh Nestlog

Fristedt

(eds) Språk i alla ämnen för alla elever – Forskning och beprövad erfarenhet. Stockholm: Skolverket [Swedish National Agency for Education].

54.

Swedish Ethical Review Authority (2021) Ansvar för forskning. Stockholm: Swedish Ethical Review Authority.

55.

Swedish National Agency for Education (2014) Arbete med extra anpassningar, särskilt stöd och åtgärdsprogram. Stockholm: Fritzes.

56.

Swedish National Agency for Education (2015) Studiehandledning på modersmålet – att stödja kunskapsutvecklingen hos flerspråkiga elever. Stockholm: Swedish Ethical Review Authority.

57.

Swedish National Agency for Education (2019) Läroplan och kursplaner för grundskolan: Modersmål. Stockholm: Skolverket [Swedish National Agency for Education].

58.

Swedish National Agency for Education (2021) Elever per årskurs och huvudman redovisade efter svensk och utländsk bakgrund samt kön, läsåret 2020/21. Sweden: Swedish Ethical Review Authority.

59.

Swedish National Agency for Education (2022) Elever och skolenheter i grundskolan. Stockholm: Skolverket.

60.

Swedish National Agency for Education (2023a) Särskilt stöd i grundskolan Läsåret 2022/23. Stockholm: Skolverket.

61.

Swedish National Agency for Education (2023b) Skolutveckling. Sweden: Skolverket.

62.

Swedish Research Council (2011) God forskningssed. Stockholm: Vetenskapsrådet.

63.

Tideman

(2005) A relational perspective on disability. In: Gustavsson

Sandvin

Traustadóttir

, et al (eds). Resistance, Reflection and Change: Nordic disability research. Lund: Studentlitteratur.

64.

Ushioda

(2009) A person-in-context relational view of emergent motivation, self and identity. Motivation, language identity and the L2 self. In: Dörnyei

Ushioda

(eds), Motivation, Language Identities and the L2 Self. Bristol: Multilingual Matters, pp.215–228.

65.

Vuorenpää

Zetterhom

(2020) Modersmålslärare-så mycket mer än språklärare. In: Straszer

Wedin

(eds) Modersmål, minoriteter och mångfald: i förskola och skola. Lund: Studentlitteratur.

66.

Wedin

Wessman

(2017) Multilingualism as policy and practices in elementary school: Powerful tools for inclusion of newly arrived pupils. International Electronic Journal of Elementary Education 9(4): 873–890.