Conference Agenda
Overview and details of the sessions of this conference. Please select a date or location to show only sessions at that day or location. Please select a single session for detailed view (with abstracts and downloads if available).
Please note that all times are shown in the time zone of the conference. The current conference time is: 19th Aug 2026, 21:30:53 EET
|
Daily Overview |
| Session | ||
31 SES 06 A: Multilingual Students
Paper Session | ||
    | ||
31. LEd – Network on Language and Education
Paper The Role of School Language Policies in Shaping Multilingual Students’ Identity and Sense of Belonging University of Cambridge, United Kingdom Presenting Author:A global rise in migration and transnational mobility has led to increasing linguistic diversity in schools worldwide (OECD, n.d.). In the European Union, recent figures indicate that one in four children are either foreign-born themselves or have foreign-born parents (European Parliament, 2023) and in England 21.4% of students in state-funded schools are currently recorded as speaking English as an additional language(Department for Education, 2025). Such a shifting demographic represents opportunities for schools but also challenges in how to best support these multilingual students to learn the language of instruction and encourage a sense of belonging and social cohesion. While supranational organisations often advocate for the promotion of multilingualism in schools to ensure students’ home languages are also recognised and valued (e.g. OECD, 2019; European Commission, 2019), in practice, decisions about whether and how to do this are often devolved to individual schools or indeed, teachers. In a recent study which analysed school-level policies from a representative sample of 998 secondary schools in England, Forbes and Morea (2024) noted particular tensions between the desire for schools to promote an environment where cultural and linguistic diversity are valued and the desire to create a sense of ‘equality’ through promoting English as a unifying language. This was evident in statements such as the following from the ‘Equal Opportunities’ policy of a school: “The Trust views linguistic diversity positively. The Trust values the natural language of students and staff alike, although the first language to be used within the school is English” (my emphasis). As such, it is not surprising that there is a wide range of teachers’ attitudes and practices towards languages in schools in England, ranging from ‘free use of languages’ to ‘use of English only’ and to ‘restricted use of home languages’ (Liu & Evans, 2016). Comparable tensions between official multilingual discourses and monolingual school practices have also been documented in European contexts, for example, Goossens (2022, p. 309) notes that even in a self- declared ‘multilingual’ Dutch- medium school in Brussels, there were tensions as teachers attempted to negotiate a balance between ‘their pedagogical goals and concerns about monolingualism in the wider society’, which led to the correction or even sanctioning of the use of languages other than Dutch. Such policies and practices can communicate powerful ideological messages about which languages and speakers are valued within the school space, thereby shaping students’ sense of recognition, legitimacy and belonging. For students who speak the dominant language of schooling as an additional language, these messages shape not only opportunities for participation but also processes of identity negotiation (e.g. Norton & Toohey, 2011; Russell et al., 2024). Identity is a complex construct which can be broadly defined as ‘how a person understands his or her relationship to the world, how that relationship is structured across time and space, and how the person understands possibilities for the future’ (Norton, 2013, p.45). For the purpose of this study, I draw specifically on the ‘3Es’ theoretical framework which conceptualises identity as dynamically shaped by a learner’s experiences, evaluations and emotions (Fisher et al., 2024). As a framework which foregrounds the role of languages in identity negotiation and which was developed within educational contexts, it is highly pertinent and appropriate for the exploration of the following research question: How do school-level language policies and, crucially, their enactment by teachers, influence multilingual students’ identity negotiation and sense of belonging within secondary school contexts? Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources Used This presentation will focus on a subset of data from a wider interpretivist qualitative multiple case study conducted across three heterogeneous secondary schools in England: two state-funded schools (pseudonyms Amber Lane and Bronze Hill) and one independent boarding school (pseudonym Red Street). Data were collected from each school in the form of written policy documents, lesson observations focusing on the use of language for teaching, learning and classroom interaction (a total of 45 lessons from subjects across the curriculum), interviews with teachers (a total of 15 teachers spanning a range of roles and subject specialisms) and interviews with students (a total of 39 students from different linguistic backgrounds). For the purpose of this presentation, I will draw primarily on the interview data with the 23 students (age 11-16) who spoke English as an additional language, with reference to other data where relevant to provide additional context. The focus of the student interviews was informed by the 3Es framework and sought to explore (a) their experiences in relation to languages in the school, this includes English (as the medium of instruction) and use of their home languages as resources for learning and participation both in and out of the classroom, (b) their evaluations, that is, their beliefs about these languages, themselves as users of these languages in the school context and their perceptions of the beliefs of others such as peers and teachers, and (c) their emotions in relation to languages, such as feelings of pride or shame. Thematic analysis was conducted iteratively, informed by the theoretical framework outlined above, allowing for both deductive coding aligned with the 3Es and inductive identification of emergent themes. Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or Findings Preliminary analysis reveals that it was not necessarily the formal school language policies (where they existed) that shaped students’ identity and sense of belonging; rather, it was the way in which such policies were perceived and practiced by teachers. Yet, there was substantial variation within schools. For example, in Amber Lane School, some students reported positive experiences where they were explicitly encouraged to draw on their home language in class as a tool to support learning which made them feel like their multilingualism was recognised and valued, yet one student reported a sense of “fear about foreign languages – not French, but like, Urdu and stuff” which made him feel hesitant to use or acknowledge his home language. Such views are likely shaped by implicit ideologies around languages and, indeed, the perception of a ‘hierarchy’ of languages which positioned ‘taught’ (often European) languages over other languages. Overall, the findings reveal that the ways in which languages are perceived and positioned in schools through both formal policies and their enactment in everyday practices can either reproduce linguistic hierarchies that hinder multilingual students’ sense of identity and belonging, or contribute to the creation of more equitable and inclusive educational spaces. By foregrounding students’ perspectives, this study contributes to research at the intersection of language and education and to wider European and international debates on the role of languages in fostering a sense of belonging and social cohesion in increasingly linguistically diverse schools. The presentation will conclude by outlining practical, identity-informed strategies for schools to develop positive language policies and practices that support social cohesion and a sense of belonging for all learners. References Department for Education. (2025). Schools, pupils and their characteristics: January 2025. https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/schools-pupils-and-their-characteristics-january-2025 European Commission, EACEA, & Eurydice. (2019). Integrating students from migrant backgrounds into schools in Europe: National policies and measures (Eurydice Report). Publications Office of the European Union. European Parliament. (2023). One in four children in the EU is foreign-born or has foreign-born parents. European Parliamentary Research Service. https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/BRIE/2023/754601/EPRS_BRI(2023)754601_EN.pdf Fisher, L., Evans, M., Forbes, K., Gayton, A., Liu, Y., & Rutgers, D. (2024). Language experiences, evaluations and emotions (3Es): Analysis of structural models of multilingual identity for language learners in schools in England. International Journal of Multilingualism, 21(1), 418–438. https://doi.org/10.1080/14790718.2022.2060235 Forbes, K., & Morea, N. (2024). Mapping school-level language policies across multilingual secondary schools in England: An ecology of English, modern languages and community languages policies. British Educational Research Journal, 50(3), 1189–1207. https://doi.org/10.1002/berj.3959 Goossens, S. (2022). Embracing multilingualism, experiencing old tensions: Promoting and problematising language at a self-declared multilingual school. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 43(4), 309–322. https://doi.org/10.1080/01434632.2019.1633335 Liu, Y., & Evans, M. (2016). Multilingualism as legitimate shared repertoires in school communities of practice: Students’ and teachers’ discursive constructions of languages in two schools in England. Cambridge Journal of Education, 46(4), 553–568. https://doi.org/10.1080/0305764X.2015.1091441 Norton, B. (2013). Identity and language learning: Extending the conversation. Multilingual Matters. Norton, B., & Toohey, K. (2011). Identity, language learning, and social change. Language Teaching, 44(4), 412–446. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444811000309 OECD. (2019). The road to integration: Education and migration (OECD Reviews of Migrant Education). OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/d8ceec5d-en OECD. (n.d.). Students from migrant backgrounds. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. https://www.oecd.org/en/topics/sub-issues/students-from-migrant-backgrounds.html Russell, S.G, Fabo, C., Jones, V., & Colic, A. (2024). Language policies and ideologies for socialization and identity-building in U.S. schools: The case of newcomer and refugee students in Arizona and New York. Social Sciences, 13, Article 601. https://doi.org/10.3390/socsci13110601 31. LEd – Network on Language and Education
Paper “Miss, I Am Scared”: Growing Up Multilingual in a Monolingual School Context 1: KU Leuven, Belgium; 2: University of Antwerp, Belgium Presenting Author:Due to ongoing migration, an increasing share of pupils in urban schools across Europe (and worldwide) are multilingual, speaking at least one additional language at home alongside the majority language. However, many schools and teacher teams continue to struggle with this multilingual reality and more often than not implement a monolingual approach in their school (Clycq, 2017). In Flanders (Belgium), where this study is situated, schooling continues to be shaped by a persistent monolingual ideology that positions the majority language as the primary gateway to academic success and social legitimacy (Pulinx et al., 2017). From this dominant perspective, multilingual children’s home languages (also known as ‘heritage languages’, henceforth HL) are often treated as a deficit and an obstacle to ‘success’, with them considered irrelevant, problematic, or, at best, private. However, HLs are much more than a learning tool, or in the monolingual approach, an obstacle, and are deeply tied to children’s sense of self, and their perception of their social positioning in school and society at large (Yagmur & van de Vijver, 2022). In this presentation, we study the role of the school context and its language policy in pupils’ experiences. While research on multilingualism in education has often focused on “hard outcomes” such as achievement gaps (see e.g. Agirdag and Vanlaar (2016)), far less attention has been paid to a crucial mediating layer: multilingual children’s emotional experiences with languages. These emotions matter because they influence language use, and language proficiency and can shape participation, interaction, learning opportunities, and peer relations (Sevinç & Backus, 2017). This paper thus examines how young multilingual pupils in Flanders experience their multilingualism within a monolingual school context. To unpack these phenomena and processes we build on insights from Identity theory (Burke & Stets, 2009) and Identity Process Theory (Breakwell, 2015). Individual’s emotional experiences (and corresponding behavior) is contingent on social settings and how individuals interpret that setting (Stets, 2016)). Within Identity Theory, emotion is conceptualised as a signal of identity verification or identity non-verification: positive emotions arise when children perceive congruence between their identity standard (e.g., “I am a competent speaker”) and the feedback they receive in interaction; negative emotions arise when that congruence is disrupted and cannot be easily repaired. This framework foregrounds the role of environmental feedback, especially in school, as a continuous identity-regulating mechanism. The problem, then, is not merely that multilingual children sometimes feel anxious or insecure, but that majority-dominant schooling can systematically produce identity-threatening conditions in which children’s emotional experiences are shaped. By positioning emotional experiences as socially produced through school-based feedback loops, this paper reframes multilingual children’s emotional experiences as a critical site where language ideology becomes lived reality. Understanding these dynamics is essential for developing school environments that do not merely foster majority language acquisition and academic achievement, but also safeguard multilingual children’s feeling of belonging, self-esteem and self-efficacy (Vignoles, 2011). Our overarching research question is: How do school language policies and practices shape multilingual pupils’ emotional experiences with Dutch and their heritage language (HL), through processes of identity verification and identity threat? Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources Used This paper draws on qualitative data from the Multilingualism in Antwerp project, which investigated multilingual children’s lived experiences with language across home and school contexts. The dataset consists of ten focus groups with multilingual children in the 5th and 6th year of primary education (aged 10–12, N = 50) from five schools in Antwerp, Belgium. All participants reported speaking at least one language other than Dutch at home. The focus groups were organised as single-sex groups. Participants attended schools that varied substantially in their language policy. Specifically, the five participating schools ranged from contexts in which HL was minimally tolerated to contexts in which it was more widely accepted. This variation enabled attention to how children’s emotional experiences may be shaped by differences in school-level language norms and practices. We collected data via three focus group discussions with each group of children. In the first focus group discussion children talked about which languages they spoke with whom and where. In the second focus group discussion, they talked about how they navigate family and school interactions and the role of language therein, and in the third one we centered on the relationship between emotions and languages. For the purpose of this analysis, we focus on the data gathered in the second and third focus group. To elicit reflections on the topics discussed, the sessions incorporated child-friendly instruments such as vignettes and statementsTo probe emotional experiences, children were invited to select emoticons representing emotions associated with Dutch and their heritage language, and subsequently explain the meanings and situations behind these choices. Through the emotion sheets children reported positive and negative emotions related to the languages they speak. These sheets were used to analyze how many and which type of emotions were experienced. The focus group discussions were transcribed and then coded and analyzed in the software program NVIVO. In our analysis we followed the classic phases of the thematic analysis approach (Braun and Clarke 2006). First, we familiarized ourselves with the data (transcription, reading of the data, taking memos of initial ideas). Next, initial open codes were generated, which then served as the basis to construct the themes. These themes were reviewed in a second phase to check whether or not there was an overlap between themes and whether they fitted the raw data and open codes. Lastly, we tried to distinguish relationships between themes, where possible and relevant. Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or Findings Children perceived their schools as the ‘Dutch’ domain: they used Dutch at school, with teachers and peers, within and outside of class. Children stated that they ‘had to’ talk Dutch at school and that heritage languages were not allowed, not even on the playground. However, children also hesitantly admitted using their heritage language at school. They hesitated probably because schools sanction this through giving notes, vocal warnings and/or sending children to the principal. Children, in general, understood and subscribed to the idea of speaking Dutch at school and agreed with the reasons provided by the school why it was important to speak Dutch. However, a lot of children also had second thoughts about the strictness with which the school excluded their heritage language. Findings further show that multilingual children associate both Dutch and the HL with a broad range of emotional experiences. Overall, children selected more positive than negative emotions, despite the larger number of negative options on the emoticon board. Children also reported a wider emotional repertoire for Dutch than for the HL. Across languages, positive emotions (e.g., happiness, pride, relief) were primarily triggered when children perceived themselves as fluent speakers in interaction, enabling social connection and confident participation. Negative emotions (e.g., anxiety, insecurity, disappointment) were typically triggered by perceived non-fluency, fear of making mistakes, and self-evaluations of “not being good enough.” A language-specific pattern was that children expressed fear of forgetting the HL, linked to concerns about losing communication with family members. Finally, when children experienced their language choice as restricted, they reported anger and unhappiness, particularly in school-based interactions. Interpreted through Identity Theory, these patterns suggest that emotional experiences reflect processes of identity verification or threat, especially in relation to belonging, self-esteem, and self-efficacy. And that children reported these patterns, regardless of the school they attended. References Agirdag, O., & Vanlaar, G. (2016). Does more exposure to the language of instruction lead to higher academic achievement? A cross-national examination. International Journal of Bilingualism, 22(1), 123–137. https://doi.org/10.1177/1367006916658711 Breakwell, G. M. (2015). Coping with threatened identities. Psychology Press. Burke, P. J., & Stets, J. E. (2009). Identity theory. Oxford University Press. Clycq, N. (2017). ‘We value your food but not your language’: Education systems and nation-building processes in Flanders. European Educational Research Journal, 16(4), 407–424. https://doi.org/10.1177/1474904116668885 Pulinx, R., Van Avermaet, P., & Agirdag, O. (2017). Silencing linguistic diversity: the extent, the determinants and consequences of the monolingual beliefs of Flemish teachers. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 20(5), 542–556. https://doi.org/10.1080/13670050.2015.1102860 Sevinç, Y., & Backus, A. (2017). Anxiety, language use and linguistic competence in an immigrant context: a vicious circle? International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1080/13670050.2017.1306021 Stets, J. E. (2016). Examining Emotions in Identity Theory. Social Psychology Quarterly, 68(1), 39–56. https://doi.org/10.1177/019027250506800104 Vignoles, V. L. (2011). Identity Motives. In S. J. Schwartz, K. Luyckx, & V. L. Vignoles (Eds.), Handbook of Identity Theory and Research (pp. 403–432). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4419-7988-9_18 Yagmur, K., & van de Vijver, F. J. R. (2022). Multidisciplinary Perspectives on Acculturation in Turkish Immigrants. Identity, Language and Education Across Generations. Springer. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-94796-5 31. LEd – Network on Language and Education
Paper Examining Practice Architectures in Minority Medium Schooling to Imagine a Multilingual Future University of Helsinki, Finland Presenting Author:Imagine an officially bilingual country to promote integration though the lesser spoken majority language, such as Swedish in Finland. To be more precise, imagine if a mere seven percent of those migrating to Finland opted to enrol their children in Swedish medium schools (SMS), and this alone would help to counterweight the century-long demographic decline in the share of Swedish speakers in Finland, as argued by Christina Gestrin, the Secretary General at The Swedish Assembly of Finland (cited in the Swedish medium newspaper, Hufvudstadsbladet 11.4.2025). From the minority language vitality point of view, it surely sounds like an aim to pursue. This was also listed as an aim in the latest governmental programme (Finnish Government, 2023).
Language political rhetorics aside, the choice of integration language is subjective and remains with the migrants themselves (Act on the Promotion of Immigrant Integration 14.4.2023/681). Currently, integration through the Finnish language and enrolment in Finnish medium schools (FMS) is promoted and the authorities may either forget or ignore to mention the bilingual nature of the country (Forsgård, 2025). At times, it can also be considered as unethical to promote a position as minority within minority (Kosová & Sundbäck 2021). According to a status report (EDUFI, 2025), a total of 684 pupils, i.e. two per cent of all pupils in SMS, studied the L2 syllabus on the mainland SMS during 2022–2023. Racism is a problem even in the SMS (Loukola et al., 2025) although Swedish speakers are not unfamiliarwith harassment in the society themselves (Vento, 2025).
Instead of the tricky questions of who is to integrate in which language and why, this study focuses on the current state of SMS and teacher education and their roles in this imagined future of more multilingual SMS. It aims to tackle questions of how SMS cope with to acknowledge and to support plurilingual practices (Bergroth et al. 2021) beyond the national official languages Swedish and Finnish, and embrace both the own mother tongues of the pupils (L1), Swedish as the language of schooling (L2), Finnish as the societal majority language (L3) and English as a world language (L4), and perhaps even additional languages (L5) in line with the ambitious language education policy of Finland.
The data analysed in this study stems from a multi-site and multitopic collaborative action research project called Diversity and Collaboration (MångSam). MångSam aims to develop university – school collaborations in a relatively new Swedish medium teacher education programme at the officially bilingual university of Helsinki, in specific regarding programmatic profile areas of diversity, multilingualism and social justice (Bergroth & Londén, 2024; Cornér et al., 2024). The action research framework is connected on the theory of practice architectures (Henning Loeb et al., 2019; Mahon et al., 2016). This theory suggests that we in our everyday activities and practices are simultaneously engaged on three dimensions of social reality, namely the semantic space (language), physical space-time (activity in material world) and social space (power and solidarity). To unpack the practice architectures, i.e. the pre-conditions that make practice possible and hold it in place, this study seeks to identify relevant societal language and education related discourses and connects them to the side of the practices, i.e. socially established cooperative human activity involving utterances and forms of understanding (sayings), modes of action (doings), and ways in which people relate to one another and the world (relatings). Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources Used The research question guiding analysis was as follows: What kind of positions to L1–L5 can be identified in group discussions with either pupils or with teachers (sayings, relatings and doings) and how can these positions be understood in relation to wider societal discourses on language, identity and education? The primary data analysed consist of six group conversations with either teachers (N=8) or pupils (N=14), in addition to the societal language (education) policy documents. In this study, observations at schools, i.e. actual doings, are not included. Two group conversations with eight teachers working either as class teachers or having other roles in schools, organised by the researching teacher educator together with a student teacher assistant. Two SMS voluntarily enrolled in the study and participated in the initial conversation based on an inspirational image intended to elicit respondents' general thoughts about L2 in their school to identify areas of pedagogical development. In this study we have included themes related to multilingualism. Following languages, in addition to Swedish/L2, were mentioned in the image: school language, subject-specific language, pupil’s own mother tongue, Finnish and English. Four group discussions with 14 multilingual pupils enrolled in L2-syllabus in three SMS, conducted by a student teacher supervised by the researching teacher educator. Written consent was received from the guardians, and the educational authorities in the cities involved gave a formal data collection permission. The pupils were reached through their L2-teacher, and the voluntary participation was rewarded with a cinema ticket. All in all, nine L1’s were mentioned, namely, Albanian, Amharic, French, Norwegian, Russian, Somali, Spanish, Ukrainian and Vietnamese. As inspirational images the pupils were encouraged to colour language portraits (Soares et al., 2020) and identify everyday spaces with focus on what languages are used there and why. The data was analysed with theory driven qualitative methods to identify and engage with relevant discourses on a societal, school and individual level. As the macro-level societal discourses frame the sayings, doings and relatings, they are brought forth by examining participant positions regarding languages, for example, by critically examining the modalities expressed through the means of language (Kiesling, 2022). However, as the societal discourses are filtered through the lived experiences of the participants, we acknowledged the linguistic trajectories as mediated by space and time, in specific in the analysis of the pupil group conversations. Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or Findings The results showed that the daily doings of the pupils included four or more languages. It would be dismissive to simply claim that the practices at schools were monolingual, even if the doings, sayings and relatings by teachers and pupils promoted the role of Swedish (L2) in school context. For example, the opportunities to learn and use own mother tongues (L1) in school were uncommon, and the pupils related the imaginary use of L1 in school as a potential hinder for their learning. Pupils also explained why they did not attend in school subject pupil's own mother tongue. One reason for this was that the pupils related L1 with emotions, but not necessarily with academic success. The teachers, instead, related this to lacking skills in Finnish (L3) as L1 teaching was provided only within FMS. Pupils related to Finnish (L3) as a slightly boring, but a necessary language. However, they sought to improve their skills, especially outside of the school context. Interestingly, pupils seemed to have easier to relate to other languages (L5) taught in school than to L3. They also described various multilingual practices by their L5 teachers. English (L4), like Finnish, was not mainly related to as an object of learning, but rather as a self-evident language expected to be part of one’s existing language repertoire. Thus, both pupils and teachers often described English as a support language in communication. To conclude, to enhance the potential of SMS as a more multilingual space in the future, it is necessary to continue to untangle the intertwined the pre-conditions holding current (linguistic) practices in place, i.e. examining the practice architectures. To achieve goals stated in language political rhetorics requires developing educational practices and our study suggests that this untangling cannot be done without including, and listening to, multilingual pupil voices. References Bergroth, M., Llompart, J., Pepiot, N., van der Worp, K., Dražnik, T., & Sierens, S. (2021). Identifying space for mainstreaming multilingual pedagogies in European initial teacher education policies. European Educational Research Journal, 21(5), 801-821. Bergroth, M., & Londen, M. (2024). Preparing early childhood teachers for multilingual pedagogies beyond bilingualism. In Martínez-León, N., Andúgar, A. & Cortina-Pérez B. (Eds.) Multilingual pedagogies for early years. Theoretical insights and innovative approaches. Peter Lang. Cornér, S., Slotte, A., Londen, M., & Holm, G. (2024). The education of pre-service teachers as future boundary spanners for social justice. In Zenkov, K., Polly, D., & Rudder, L. (Eds.) Boundary-Spanning in School-University Partnerships. 249–268. Information age publishing. Forsgård, N.E. (2025). Integration på svenska – en lägesrapport 2025. Tankesmedjan Magma. Henning Loeb, I., Langelotz, L. Rönnerman K. (2019). Att utveckla utbildningspraktiker – Analys, förståelse och förändring genom teorin om praktikarkitekturer. Studentlitteratur. Kiesling, S. (2022). Stance and Stancetaking. Annual Review Linguistics. 8:409–426. Kosová, M. & Sundbäck, L. (2021). Forskning om svensk integration. En kartläggning och röster från fältet. Migrationsinstitutet. Loukola, S., Matikainen-Soreau, M., Holm, G., & Hummelstedt, I. (2025). Racial humour in Finnish schools: reinforcing and resisting racism, and the difficulty of intervening. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 1–16. Mahon, K., Francisco, S., & Kemmis, S. (2016). Exploring Education and Professional Practice: Through the Lens of Practice Architectures, Springer Singapore Pte. Limited. Soares, C. T., Duarte, J., & Günther-van der Meij, M. (2020). ‘Red is the colour of the heart’: making young children’s multilingualism visible through language portraits. Language and Education, 35(1), 22–41. Vento, I, (2025). Språkbarometern 2024. Justitieministeriets publikationer, Utredningar och anvisningar 2025:8. Justitieministeriet. 31. LEd – Network on Language and Education
Paper Multilingual Children’s Language Agency in Family and Preschool Settings in Iceland University of Iceland, Iceland Presenting Author:The population of Iceland has in recent years become increasingly diverse in terms of languages and backgrounds as a result of migration to the country. Schools at all levels in Iceland experience the diversification of the population. Thus in 2023, around 16.8% of all preschool children (Statistics Iceland, 2025a) had heritage languages (HLs) other than Icelandic (Statistics Iceland, 2025b). In the Icelandic education system, preschools and compulsory schools are operated by municipalities and based on municipal educational policies, although schools should also adhere to the general education policies and national curriculum guides (Ministry of Education, Science and Culture, n.d.). Children preschool on average at the age of 1–2 years old depending on availability, and most children attend preschools. The aim of this research project is to explore multilingual children’s language agency in family and preschool settings in Iceland. The project is directed by the following research question:
The project builds on the theoretical framework of family language policy, which, according to King et al. (2008) focuses on on how languages are learned, managed and negotiated within families. According to Spolsky (2009), family language policy is related to general socio-cultural conditions, social status and socio-cultural traits of the group affiliation as well as the the socio-cultural, ethnic and linguistic profile of the family itself. These different factors present various challenges as well as opportunities to families. Curdt Christiansen (2013), has noted that FLP also recognizes the influence of economic, political and social structures and processes in society. Furthermore, educational contexts affect FLPs. Many multilingual families take an active role in choosing which languages to use and teach their children in the home, thus implementing and negotiating family language policy (King, Fogle, & Logan-Terry, 2008). Wilson (2020) notes that in such families, decisions about which languages to speak in the family may be highly political and that they can influence the children’s relationships with each parent’s extended family. According to Lanza (2007), children should be viewed as active social agents who contribute to adult society, while at the same time producing their own culture. Research has shown that children actively create their own knowledge and have the ability to express themselves about their views on language learning and language policy (Palviainen & Curdt-Christiansen, 2022). Furthermore, children can make decisions and choose between languages in the case of different languages in their environment (Almér, 2017). The theoretical framework also includes writings on children’s bi- and multilingualism and multilingual educational practices (Cummins, 2021), Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources Used The project is a qualitative case study (Braun & Clarke, 2013) with ten parents in six families. The participating families live in two municipalities in Iceland, where their children’s attend preschools, one in each municipality. The participants in the preschools were preschool teachers who were heads of two departments, and principals in each of the two preschools. Data collection took place from 2023 to 2025. Data was collected in semi-structured interviews with the parents, preschool teachers and principals, notes and recordings from the parents about their children’s language use at home, as well as observations and dialogues with the children in their preschool settings. Semi-structured interviews were chosen to elicit the views of the participants as clearly and accurately as possible (Kvale, 2007). The interview guide developed for interviews with parents included questions related to their background, family language policies, languages used at home and cooperation with their children’s preschools. The interviews were transcribed verbatim and analyzed through thematic analysis (Creswell, 2009). First, the authors familiarized themselves with the data through reading the interviews. Secondly, the interviews were coded using the complete coding approach with researcher-derived codes applied to the data (Braun & Clarke, 2013). The initial codes were re-evaluated, refined, and thematically similar codes grouped into categories to develop the final themes. Excerpts from the interviews conducted in Icelandic were translated into English by the authors. The research was carried out in accordance with the Data Protection Authority, the Act no. 90/2018 on Data Protection and the Processing of Personal Data, and the Code of Research Ethics for Public Higher Education Institutions (2020). The study employed reflexive thematic analysis as outlined by Braun and Clarke (2006, 2021), a qualitative analytic method used to identify and interpret meaningful patterns or themes across the data. Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or Findings The findings indicate that the children are active agents in developing language policies and practices in their families with the support of their parents. They contribute to the development of language policies with their input, ideas, choices, and language preferences as Lanza (2007) and Palviainen and Curdt-Christiansen (2022) have discussed. The parents all value their children’s language repertoire and use diverse tools to support their children’s multilingualism. In the preschool settings they appear to have fewer opportunities and lack agency in developing their multilingualism. The preschool settings differ, and the two preschools have different approaches towards children’s multilingualism as well as practices. Most of the preschool teachers in the study are all interested in supporting the children’s multilingualism, while many of them lack knowledge, support and training to implement multilingual practices. Findings also indicate that although the preschools are interested in promoting multilingualism, the preschool context is mainly monolingual. References Cummins, J. (2021). Rethinking the education of multilingual learners: A critical analysis of theoretical concepts. Multilingual Matters. Curdt-Christiansen, X. L. (2013). Family language policy: sociopolitical reality versus linguistic continuity. Language policy, 12, 1-6. DOI 10.1007/s10993-012-9269-0 King, K. A., Fogle, L. & Logan-Terry, A. (2008). Family language policy. Language and Linguistics Compass, 2(5), 907-922. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1749-818X.2008.00076.x Lanza, E. (2007). Multilingualism and the family. In L. Wei & P. Auer (Eds.), The handbook of multilingualism and multilingual communication (pp. 45–67). Mouton de Gruyter. Palviainen, Å. & Curdt-Christiansen, X. L. (2022). Language education policies and early childhood education. In M. Schwartz (Ed.), Handbook of early language education (pp. 166–192). Springer International Handbooks of Education. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-91662-6_7 Spolsky, B. (2009). Language management. Cambridge University Press. Statistics Iceland. (2025a). Children in pre-primary institutions having another mother tongue than Icelandic. https://px.hagstofa.is/pxen/pxweb/en/Samfelag/Samfelag__skolamal__1_leikskolastig__0_lsNemendur/SKO01103.px/table/tableViewLayout2/ Wilson, S. (2020). Family language policy: Children’s perspectives. Palgrave. | ||