According to Statistics Norway (2022), immigrants and Norwegians born to immigrant parents currently represent 18.9% of the Norwegian population. This contributes to a culturally and linguistically diverse society, where educators are challenged to adapt their teaching approaches to accommodate the needs of students who use two or more languages in everyday communication on a regular basis, and are thereby considered multilingual (cf. Franceschini 2009, pp. 33–34). This aentrticley investigates the implementation of multilingual practices to address the needs of multilingual students in mainstream Norwegian primary school classrooms. More specifically, it discusses how two primary school teachers have implemented multilingual practices and presents their reported experiences and needs throughout the implementation process.

The rights of multilingual students are stated in governmental documents such as the Education Act (Norwegian Directorate for Education and Training 1998) and, more recently, in the revised national curricula for both English and Norwegian (Norwegian Directorate for Education and Training 2019a,^[1] 2019b). More specifically, the Education Act states the following in Sections 2–8:

Pupils attending the primary and lower secondary school who have a mother tongue other than Norwegian or Sami have the right to adapted education in Norwegian until they are sufficiently proficient in Norwegian to follow the normal instruction of the school. If necessary, such pupils are also entitled to mother tongue instruction, bilingual subject teaching, or both. The mother tongue instruction may be provided at a school other than that normally attended by the pupil. When mother tongue instruction and bilingual subject teaching cannot be provided by suitable teaching staff, the municipality shall, as far as possible, provide for other instruction adapted to the pupils’ abilities.

In other words, students have the right to benefit from differentiated instruction in Norwegian until they are sufficiently proficient to follow ordinary education in Norwegian (Hilt 2016, pp. 13–14). Furthermore, mother tongue instruction and bilingual subject teaching would be provided “if necessary”, but the Education Act does not clarify what this condition entails (Hilt 2016, pp. 13–14). However, the more general phrase “other instruction adapted to pupils’ abilities” implicitly suggests the possibility of using a wider variety of linguistic resources, including mother tongues and home languages besides the target language of the classroom or school. In this aentrticley, a home language is understood as any language employed in the family domain, for various activities and purposes, and may thus include the concept mother tongue, which refers to the language(s) children learn from their parents. The concept majority language is employed to refer to languages that have an official status in a certain geographical area, for example, Norwegian in Norway.

In practice, this mandate for equal educational rights has been implemented in various ways, for example, by creating introductory schools, which aim to prepare students for mainstream schools (see Burner and Carlsen 2019) or introductory classes within mainstream schools (see Beiler 2019). In other cases, under the særskilt norsk opplæring ‘differentiated instruction in Norwegian’ initiative (henceforth SNO), individual teachers are employed to assist newly arriving students, either during lessons in class, or in pull-out sessions occurring in parallel with regular lessons. While these are important measures aimed at the educational well-being of minority-background students, they may be limited in their scope, since they do not address the complex educational needs of all multilingual students, some of whom may in fact be fluent and literate in Norwegian, irrespective of their home languages.

2. Theoretical Background

Multilingual students can benefit from the opportunity to freely draw on their linguistic repertoires to activate prior knowledge, express their identity, and meet their communicative needs in an academic setting (cf. García and Wei 2014, p. 22). First, multilingual students build their multilingual competence and literacy skills on previously acquired languages, as literacy abilities are transferable across languages, especially those sharing the same script (cf. Cenoz 2003). It may be argued that even where languages in a linguistic repertoire use different scripts, there is a certain degree of interaction and overlap between them in the brain, which is referred to as common underlying proficiency (Cummins 2000). Second, multilingual students construct their linguistic identities by reflecting on and using their entire range of linguistic repertoires (Cummins et al. 2005; García and Wei 2014; Beiler 2019). Third, multilinguals who have three or more languages often have an increased level of metalinguistic awareness (Cenoz 2003), which means that they can focus explicitly on linguistic forms. This ability, coupled with the comparison of linguistic forms across several languages, constitutes a learning strategy, which may contribute to further language acquisition (cf. Burner and Carlsen 2019). The use of this strategy is actually one of the competence aims in the new Norwegian National Curriculum for English (Norwegian Directorate for Education and Training 2019a), which implicitly supports the use of multiple languages for developing metalinguistic awareness. A discussion of different linguistic forms in the classroom might contribute to co-learning (Wei 2014), meaning that teachers allow themselves to be educated by their students, thus facilitating the negotiation of power relations in the classroom. García and Flores (2012, p. 238) advocated for the use of multilingual pedagogies, defined as organized and sustainable teaching practices based on translanguaging, which is here understood as a communicative practice whereby multilinguals employ a wide variety of linguistic resources without aiming to keep them separate (cf. García and Wei 2014, pp. 22–23). In this paperntry, the use of the term translanguaging is separated from the conceptualization of García and Otheguy (2014), who view the concept language as a political construct, and thus claim that a linguistic repertoire is a mass of linguistic features, which cannot be grouped into distinct languages. More specifically, it is argued here that translanguaging may be successfully applied in contexts of multiple language use, while still supporting the idea that the linguistic repertoires of multilingual students consist of different languages (cf. MacSwan 2017). The possibility of identifying different languages thus co-exists with the reality of using multiple languages in the same act of communication without keeping them separate. At the same time, recognizing distinctions between languages as systems does not question the existence of a common underlying proficiency (Cummins 2000) in the linguistic repertoires of multilingual learners. Hence, translanguaging is here understood similarly to pedagogical translanguaging, which scholars have recently employed to refer to multilingual practices in the classroom (see Cenoz and Gorter 2020; Cenoz et al. 2021; Prilutskaya 2021). In certain ways, translanguaging is very useful as an umbrella term, covering a wide variety of multilingual phenomena, including code-switching and borrowing. Code-switching is referred to as the alternation between two or more languages in one sentence or between sentences (cf. Poplack 1980; Myers-Scotton 1993) and is often governed by linguistic patterns, such as the equivalence constraint (Poplack 1980), which stipulates that switching between languages typically occurs without violating the syntactic rules of either of them. In some cases, translanguaging is especially convenient as a higher-order term where it would be challenging to argue for the exact classification of a specific instance of multiple language use. For example, in the Norwegian sentence Det var nais ‘That was nice’, the English adjective nice has been adapted to the Norwegian spelling conventions, but it is debatable whether this should be classified as an instance of code-switching or borrowing. Such language use is typical in the everyday communication of multilinguals (cf. García and Wei 2014). In the classroom, this would translate into the use of two or more languages within one lesson, or even within one learning activity (Cenoz and Gorter 2011, p. 357). As MacSwan (2017) points out, studies of multiple language use, including multilingual pedagogies, would benefit from incorporating conclusions from research on code-switching, which indicates that multiple language use is governed by norms and should, therefore, not be equated with lacking linguistic proficiency (MacSwan 2017, p. 169). More specifically, there are two main theoretical frameworks under the code-switching paradigm that may be useful for developing a multilingual pedagogy. First, code-switching has been classified as parallel and complementary (Sebba 2012), where parallelism refers to the use of different languages for the same content, while complementarity refers to the use of different languages for different content. Parallelism is, in fact, the translanguaging model for identity texts, where students present the same content in two texts—one in their home language, and the other in the target language (Cummins et al. 2005). By using two different languages for the same content, students are allowed to activate their previous knowledge, reflect on their identities as multilingual learners, and invest their identities in language learning (cf. Cummins et al. 2005; Krulatz et al. 2018). Second, code-switching has six communicative functions: referential, directive, expressive, phatic, metalinguistic, and poetic (Appel and Muysken 2005, pp. 118–19). Appel and Muysken (2005, pp. 118–19) explain the six functions as follows: (1) the referential function implies the use of another language if speakers do not remember a word in the language they were initially using, thus bridging a communication gap; (2) the directive function refers to the ability to both exclude and include conversation partners by alternating between languages; (3) the expressive function concerns the use of multiple linguistic resources to construct and present the identity of the speakers; (4) the phatic function has to do with using a certain linguistic resource for an enhanced effect, for example, providing the punch line of a joke in a different language for a more humorous effect; (5) the metalinguistic function implies the use of multilingual practices to attract admiration and is mainly employed by persons whose professional skills involve multilingual competence; (6) the poetic function refers to drawing on multilingual resources to create a rhetorical effect in literary texts. These functions may be applied within multilingual pedagogies to inform multilingual activities and prompt discussions about language use. To be more specific, many of these functions may be combined in various multilingual activities to incorporate the use of both home languages and majority languages alongside English.

3. Implementing Multilingual Pedagogies

Implementations of multilingual pedagogies in education reflect the softening of boundaries between languages in communication (Cenoz and Gorter 2013), meaning that multiple languages may successfully be used in one given setting or domain, without attempting to keep them separate. This is set in opposition to one domain-one language patterns of language use, which are often found in multilingual societies (cf. Fishman 1972, p. 144). Although the one domain-one language pattern may work well in some settings, applying it in the educational domain in Norway would situate Norwegian as the sole or main educational language, thus placing home languages outside of the educational sphere. This would, in turn, clearly contradict the principle of social justice, as referred to in García and Flores (2012, p. 242), whereby educators promote an inclusive and respectful attitude towards all languages and their speakers. The new national curricula for Norwegian and English advocate for the implementation of multilingual pedagogies. First, the national curriculum presents multilingual competence as a valuable resource both at school and in society in general, irrespective of the languages involved, and encourages teachers and school leaders to adopt the same view (Norwegian Directorate for Education and Training 2019a,^[1] 2019b). Second, both curricula support this fundamental value with concrete competence aims, which require the implementation of multilingual teaching approaches. For example, after Year 4, or by the age of 10 to 11 years, students should have the ability to compare words and expressions in Norwegian to other languages. In English, they should discover and play with words that are the same or similar in English and other languages familiar to them. This in an important change from the previous curriculum, which limited the comparisons to English and the students’ native languages. The new Norwegian curriculum also includes another relevant aim, which refers to the students’ ability to explore and discuss linguistic variety and diversity in their social environments. In other words, teachers are expected to foster and guide active classroom work with a variety of languages in Norwegian and English lessons alike, or even in a cross-curricular manner, while also encouraging discussions about linguistic diversity, which can contribute to an increased level of metalinguistic awareness. Multilingual pedagogies have both a stance and a design component (cf. García et al. 2017). This means that to embark on developing such pedagogies, teachers must first take a positive stance towards the use of multiple languages by allowing students to use them in both communicative and learning situations at school. Nevertheless, this positive stance on its own is not sufficient, so it must be complemented by the design element, whereby teachers purposefully plan and implement multilingual approaches at all stages of learning processes, based on the students’ needs and linguistic practices. Such a multilingual teaching approach might include, for example, the use of language portraits, where the students showcase their linguistic repertoires in drawings. More specifically, they use different colors to represent their different languages on a body-like figure, and thereafter explain their representations (Busch 2012). This activity may contribute to the development of learners’ metalinguistic awareness, as they consciously reflect on when and how they use their different languages. A useful aspect of this process might be the potential to uncover patterns of domain-based distributions of languages in students’ experiences. Teachers may also ask students to make comparisons between different languages to raise their metalinguistic awareness (cf. García and Flores 2012; also see Section 1.1 and Section 1.3). This may include discussions of the pragmatic functions of multilingual practices, as language choices in a text may serve to guide readers (see Section 3.1.3). Further, multilingual materials produced by students may be used to create schoolscapes, which Gorter (2017) defines as the linguistic landscapes of educational spaces such as schools. In other words, schoolscapes represent the totality of signs made publicly visible in a school and thus have the potential to make the students’ language repertoires visible in the classroom and other educational spaces (cf. Gorter 2017). This validates the importance of all represented languages and empowers their speakers by indicating that their identities are accepted and valued in a particular educational space.

4. Multilingual Practices in Norwegian Schools

As multilingual practices have recently started to be employed in Norwegian classrooms (see Beiler 2019; Krulatz and Iversen 2019), scholars have identified several challenging aspects. To begin, Iversen (2017) pointed out that in certain classrooms, some students used their minority languages as learning strategies (see Burner and Carlsen 2019) to enhance their learning process. This is undoubtedly beneficial, but the problematic aspect is that their teachers seemed to take on a rather passive role, as they merely encouraged multilingual practices if the students used them, but did not intentionally foster them. In general, teachers may shy away from implementing new teaching methods if they feel that they do not have the necessary training for such endeavors (cf. Šurkalović 2014), or they might be reluctant to challenge the status of the majority language in the classroom, even if they have the skills to do so (cf. Iversen 2017). Burner and Carlsen (2019) presented similar findings in their study. Although, the teachers in their study had appropriate qualifications and reported positive attitudes towards multilingual practices, they did not employ home languages systematically in instruction. More specifically, the teachers sporadically asked the students for words in their home languages, especially in Norwegian lessons, but were reluctant to establish a consistent practice due to their perceived lack of time (Burner and Carlsen 2019, p. 11). In fact, the teachers admitted to intentionally prioritizing Norwegian, even in English lessons, to prepare the students for mainstream schools (Burner and Carlsen 2019, pp. 8–10). In terms of visibility, the researchers indicated that home languages did not seem to be part of the schoolscape, as only English and Norwegian were represented on the classroom walls, on two separate posters (Burner and Carlsen 2019, p. 11). Finally, the teachers expressed concern about the fact that students may use their shared home languages to form sub-groups, which would compete with school structures (Burner and Carlsen 2019, pp. 11–12). In another important study, Beiler (2019) unveiled how multilingual learners make use of their multilingual repertoires for draft writing in two introductory English classes. In thise study, the teachers explicitly encouraged the students to use their home languages and other languages they had acquired before their arrival in Norway. The students typically translated and alternated between languages to support their drafts and thereafter wrote the final piece in English. Interestingly, they seldom used their home languages, and seemed to prefer other languages. There seemed to be a strong contrast between their rich language portraits, and the extent to which they used their represented languages in draft writing. One student explained that she rendered her literacy skills in her home language as insufficient for school texts, even if she used it in informal conversations on social media (Beiler 2019, p. 21). According to Beiler (2019), teachers should legitimize students’ out-of-school literacy practices as useful resources for the development of in-school literacy. Furthermore, Beiler (2019) also suggested that translanguaging should be used as a rhetorical mechanism in finalized texts, which corresponds to Appel and Muysken’s poetic function of code-switching (Appel and Muysken 2005, p. 119). Krulatz et al. (2018) showed that minority languages may remain invisible even when teachers actively engage with multilingual approaches in language teaching. The researchers conducted a project within the Kompetanse for Mangfold ‘Competence for Diversity’ initiative, which consisted of a one-year collaboration with two rural schools from Mid-Norway. The project focused on the use of identity texts (cf. Cummins et al. 2005) to increase metalinguistic awareness and respect for cultural diversity among students and teachers. Although this aim was achieved, the researchers reported that the identity texts produced by students only showed the use of English and Norwegian, with no visible presence of minority languages (Krulatz et al. 2018, p. 566), which reproduced domain-based patterns of language distribution in the educational domain, where Norwegian and English are typically taught, used and, thus, recognized as the only languages of the school.