Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research

ISSN: 0031-3831 (Print) 1470-1170 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/csje20

Teachers’ Perspectives on Promoting Reading

and Writing for Pupils with Various Linguistic
Backgrounds in Grade 1 of Primary School

Gunilla Sandberg & Martina Norling

To cite this article: Gunilla Sandberg & Martina Norling (2018): Teachers’ Perspectives
on Promoting Reading and Writing for Pupils with Various Linguistic Backgrounds
in Grade 1 of Primary School, Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, DOI:
10.1080/00313831.2018.1554600

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/00313831.2018.1554600

© 2018 The Author(s). Published by Informa

UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis
Group

Published online: 11 Dec 2018.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 1046

View related articles

View Crossmark data

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

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=csje20
SCANDINAVIAN JOURNAL OF EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH
https://doi.org/10.1080/00313831.2018.1554600

Teachers’ Perspectives on Promoting Reading and Writing for

Pupils with Various Linguistic Backgrounds in Grade 1 of Primary
School
Gunilla Sandberg and Martina Norling
School of Education, Culture and Communication, Mälardalen University, Västerås, Sweden

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

The aim of this study is to gain a deeper understanding of teachers’ Received 26 October 2017
perspectives on promoting reading and writing for pupils with various Accepted 8 November 2018
linguistic backgrounds in grade 1. Focus group interviews were conducted
KEYWORDS
with 17 teachers who work in preschool classes and in grade 1. The Grade 1; reading and writing;
teachers’ perspectives on reading and writing can be characterised as teachers’ perspectives;
balanced, in the sense that the teachers describe how they work with both various linguistic
the technical and the learning-oriented dimension. The number of different backgrounds
languages spoken in their classes is regarded in a positive manner, but it
also leads to major challenges, such as not having enough time for all of
the pupils and not having sufficient knowledge of multilingualism.

Introduction
The aim of this study is to gain a deeper understanding of teachers’ perspectives on how to promote read-
ing and writing for pupils with various linguistic backgrounds in grade 1 of primary school. The teachers
included in the study, like most teachers in Swedish schools, have an increasingly heterogeneous com-
position of pupils in their classrooms. How children’s different abilities, experiences and needs are
dealt with at school contributes to a large degree to the development of the children’s written language.
The increased diversity in Swedish classrooms can be linked to a variety of factors on different social and
political levels. One of them is a movement towards more inclusive schools for all children, based on the
perspective of inclusiveness stated in international agreements such as the Salamanca Convention
(UNESCO, 2006). Another factor, especially addressed in this study, is that an increasing number of
pupils do not have Swedish as their first or only language. This can be illustrated by the fact that around
27% of pupils in compulsory schooling are entitled to mother tongue tuition, according to statistics from
the Swedish National Agency for Education (2017). The teachers in this study are working in schools
where many different languages are spoken among the pupils. The curriculum for compulsory school,
preschool classes and leisure-time centres, Lgr11 (Swedish National Agency for Education, 2016) con-
tains syllabuses and skills requirements both in Swedish and in Swedish as a second language. The skills
requirements in Swedish and Swedish as a second language for grade 1 have the same wording:
the pupil can read sentences in simple, familiar texts that are relevant to the pupil by using sounding strategy
and reading whole words to some extent. By commenting and retelling a part of the content that is important to
the pupil in a simple way, the pupil demonstrates the beginnings of reading comprehension. (Swedish National
Agency for Education 2016, p. 252 and p. 264)

CONTACT Gunilla Sandberg gunilla.sandberg@mdh.se School of Education, Culture and Communication, Mälardalen
University, Box 883, Västerås SE-72123, Sweden
© 2018 The Author(s). Published by Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives License (http://
creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/), which permits non-commercial re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the
original work is properly cited, and is not altered, transformed, or built upon in any way.
2 G. SANDBERG AND M. NORLING

There are extensive research results on how language, reading and writing develop during the early
school years and what factors seem to promote or hinder this learning process. Whether research is
based on a general level or targeted at specific groups, such as pupils in need of additional support or
pupils learning their second language, the school’s early reading and writing instruction is one of the
factors given particular importance (Alatalo, 2011; Damber, 2010; Snow & Juel, 2005; Snow, Griffin,
& Burns, 2005; Taube, Fredriksson, & Olofsson, 2015). Despite extensive research, there have not
been many studies based on teachers’ perspectives on promoting reading and writing development
of all pupils in classrooms characterised by diversity, not at least in terms of childreńs various lin-
guistic backgrounds linguistic backgrounds. The research questions are:
. What approaches to teaching reading and writing among pupils with various linguistic back-
grounds can be identified in the interviews with teachers?
. How do the teachers in the study describe their didactic work on encouraging all pupils to learn to
read and write Swedish or learn Swedish as a second language?

Theorising Reading and Writing

The path to mastering the written language is not the same for all children. Some children learn to
read and write in a relatively unnoticed way by taking part in various reading and writing practice
sessions, while for other children the path is a winding one, with many pauses and obstacles. The
following section describes some areas that according to research have considerable significance
for the development of written language.
According to Vygotsky (1934/1986), there are major differences between the spoken language and
the written language with regard to both structure and function. Spoken and written language are
tightly interwoven, but written language is a constructed symbol language to depict speech. When
using written language, there are no significant props such as sound, gestures, mime, prosody or
moreover a recipient who is immediately present, “the development of writing does not repeat
the development of oral speech” (p. 181). A recurring method of defining reading is through
what is called “The Simple View of Reading” (Gough & Tunmer, 1986), that is that reading is
regarded as the product of two interacting processes, decoding and language comprehension
(DxL = R). Decoding refers to the process that converts the alphabetic code, graphemes, to pho-
nemes. It is regarded as a condition for the development of reading to higher levels that this decoding
becomes automatic and it is a critical factor in relation to problems in reading and writing. If decod-
ing is perceived as hard work, then both interest in the text and understanding of the text will suffer.
According to Ehri (2005) four faces can be identified in the development of decoding: pre-alphabetic,
partial alphabetic, full alphabetic, and consolidated alphabetic. Simplified this means identifying
words with help from visual clues in the first face, understanding and learning how the graphemes
correspond to the phonemes in the second and third, and then in the fourth face using the technique
automatically. Language comprehension in the model described above is linked to how one processes
and interprets the message contained in the text being read and consequently is a complex process
that involves understanding and thinking on different levels (Kamhi & Catts, 2014). As concluded by
Lipka and Siegel (2012), a variety of cognitive processes (working memory and phonological, syn-
tactic, and morphological awareness) are important for reading comprehension, and the skills
underlying reading comprehension are similar for monolingual and multilingual pupils. Learning
to read and write requires that one has oral mastery of the language that one is going to read and
write (Chang & Sylva, 2015; Hyltenstam, 2010). A key factor here, particularly with regard to
language comprehension, is vocabulary. Expanding and semantically organising their vocabulary
is of vital importance for children who are developing their second language.
There are some factors that research points to as particularly important in the acquisition of read-
ing and writing. One of these concerns language awareness that is, being able to notice the difference
between the content and the forms of language (Kamhi & Catts, 2014). Language awareness entails a
 SCANDINAVIAN JOURNAL OF EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH 3

metacognitive dimension and there are numerous indications that multilingual children develop this
ability better than monolingual children because of their access to different languages (Chang &
Sylva, 2015; Salameh, 2012; Snow et al., 2005). With regard to pupils that risk experiencing difficul-
ties in reading and writing in particular, the phonological awareness is considered vitally important,
as it concerns understanding that in the spoken language sounds, phonemes, are represented by
letters, graphemes, and being able to apply this principle (Kamhi & Catts, 2014; Taube et al.,
2015). To summarise, both the decoding (D) and the language comprehension (L) dimensions are
of great importance in developing skilled reading and writing.
One model often referred to when emphasising that reading and writing are both an individual
skill and at the same time a social activity, is the one developed by Luke and Freebody (1999). This
model describes four different resources that must be developed to become an efficient reader: 1) The
reader as code breaker, 2) The reader as text participant, 3) The reader as text user, and 4) The reader
as text analyst. The model can be used to draw attention to the balanced and integrated learning
environments that many researchers agree are necessary to encourage different children’s reading
and writing (Hedman, 2009; Hyltenstam, 2010; Kamhi & Catts, 2014; Snow & Juel, 2005).

Teaching Reading and Writing

Research into children’s development in reading and writing has in various ways pointed to the
importance of stimulating learning environments and teaching in preschools and schools (Alatalo,
2011; Damber, 2010; Fast, 2007; Norling, 2015). What is then regarded as successful in the teacher’s
work on promoting reading and writing for all pupils during the first year of formal schooling?
According to Vygotsky (1934/86), learning develops in a mutual interaction between individuals’
biological circumstances and external influences, such as teaching. The research carried out in recent
decades has crystallised into some didactic areas that are pointed out as particularly important in
promoting development in reading and writing (Kamhi & Catts, 2014; Snow et al., 2005; Snow &
Juel, 2005).
One concept that is important in teaching is what Vygotsky (1934/1986) calls the “zone of the
proximal development” (p. 188). The zone of proximal development (ZPD) is linked to maturity
in that it requires a certain degree of maturity for the teaching to be possible, but social and cultural
factors play an important role in, for instance, language development processes. To summarise and
simplify, this means that each child, in addition to an independent competence within one field also
has a potential for development and learning, a field in the making that may require pedagogical sup-
port from individuals with more competence. The development area looks different for each child,
even if they are at the same level with regard to independent competence. In order to create a learn-
ing environment based on ZPD, knowledge of where the students are in their learning process, but
also what kind of and how much didactical support they benefit from in their learning is required
(Hagtvet, Frost, & Refsahl, 2016).
A key area that has been emphasised is the value of meeting and processing texts in different ways.
As pointed out by Damber (2016), monolingual and especially multilingual children are dependent
on meeting written language at an early stage to be able to build up their vocabulary and become
familiar with grammatical constructions of the written language. There are also studies showing
that teaching that encourages literature and creative activities around the texts has positive conse-
quences, especially for multilingual children (e.g., Cummins, 2012). In the didactic work on creating
the conditions for children to become readers, the meeting with literature and being able to experi-
ence and process the genre is very important (Damber, 2010; Hedman, 2012).
As mentioned earlier, phonological awareness is one of the basic conditions for being able to grasp
written language (Kamhi & Catts, 2014; Snow & Juel, 2005). By offering children structured language
games before and early on during the first formal reading and writing lessons, one draws attention to
and trains awareness of the forms of the language, something that has been proved to prevent read-
ing and writing difficulties (Lundberg, Frost, & Petersen, 1988). Hedman (2012) emphasises the
4 G. SANDBERG AND M. NORLING

necessity of a child who is going to learn to read and write in a second language being made aware of
the linguistic aspects of the respective languages, for instance, the different languages’ orthography,
that is the agreement between the sounds and the way they are written down.
With regard to formal teaching of reading and writing, research shows that it is important to have
a balance between activities that aim to develop both the technical and creation of meaning sides of
reading and writing (Snow & Juel, 2005; Taube et al., 2015). For children in the risk zone for obstacles
of a dyslexia nature, structured teaching about the link between phonemes and graphemes is very
necessary. On the other hand, there are other groups of pupils who are more dependent on the teach-
ing focusing not only on technical skills. Cummins (2012) argues that multilingual pupils are depen-
dent on the teaching encouraging and helping the pupils to become interested in using their different
languages in the reading and writing activities offered.
Except for the importance of addressing both the technical and the meaning-making dimensions
of reading and writing, the choice of teaching method does not appear to be of great significance
(Snow & Juel, 2005; Taube et al., 2015). In some of the few studies reporting the teachers’ perspective
on their work with reading and writing in grade 1, the teachers appear to represent a clearly inte-
grated stance. They describe work aimed at developing the pupils’ reading and writing both in
terms of individual technical skills and as a social and meaningful activity (e.g., Alatalo, 2011; Sand-
berg, Hellblom-Thibblin, & Garpelin, 2015). Teachers in classrooms characterised by linguistic
diversity need to embrace the differences and make use of the strengths of pupils developing several
languages at the same time (Ortiz & Fránquiz, 2016).
A further factor that is important for teaching pupils to read and write is the teacher’s understanding
and theoretical knowledge. Earlier research shows that qualified knowledge of the development of read-
ing and writing is required and also of how obstacles can arise and be prevented to ensure that all pupils
receive adequate support. In addition to in-depth theoretical competence, there are other dimensions of
the teachers’ professionalism that are important in the didactic context, for instance, empathy and
respect for the individual child, a deliberative approach and a procedure that extends beyond a method
or learning system (Alatalo, 2011; Dixon & Wu, 2014; Tjernberg & Heimdahl Mattsson, 2014).
Teachers in classrooms characterised by linguistic diversity need to embrace the differences, and
make use of the strengths of pupils developing several languages at the same time (Damber, 2016;
Ortiz & Fránquiz, 2016; Salameh, 2012). The quotation below summarises some important factors
for promoting the development of reading and writing a second (or third) language. The authors
represent a broadly composed committee of experts, appointed by the United States’ National
Research Council, which at the end of the 1990s produced a report on what is beneficial for instruc-
tion in reading for multilingual pupils. The report is based on conditions in the United States, but
similar conclusions have been reached in Swedish studies.
When the school culture values the linguistic and culture backgrounds of English-language learners, encourages
the enhancement of native- language skills and communicates high expectations for academic achievement in
English, this augurs well for students (Snow et al., 2005, p. 147)

This aligns with Damber (2010), who shows that an inclusive approach and high expectations of the
pupils appear to have a positive influence on multilingual pupils reading comprehension and interest
in reading. According to Cummins (2012) multilingual pupils given the opportunity to process lin-
guistic concepts in their first and second languages parallel with one another, for instance by writing
texts in their different languages, develop “biliteracy”. This kind of didactic approach gives the pupils
the opportunity to use their different languages and support the multilingual pupils to develop their
second language. With regard to teaching reading and writing to multilingual pupils, research
suggest that multilingual pupils should learn to read and write in the language they are most profi-
cient, and then in the next stage transferring these skills to a new language (Chang & Sylva, 2015;
Hyltenstam, 2010; Snow et al., 2005).
Something that has been discussed in connection with multilingualism is that it can be difficult to
discern whether obstacles in learning to read and write are linked to acquiring a new language or
 SCANDINAVIAN JOURNAL OF EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH 5

whether they concern specific difficulties in decoding or understanding text. As shown in a study by
Hedman (2009), it is common both to over- and under-diagnose dyslexia, for instance, among pupils
who are multilingual. Multilingualism is not in itself a risk factor for developing reading and writing
difficulties. On the contrary, research shows that multilingualism in many cases benefits language
awareness, which is so important for learning to read and write (Hagtvet et al., 2016; Lipka & Siegel,
2012). On the other hand, the increasing requirements for more in-depth reading comprehension in
recent years at school means that these pupils are experiencing problems. For a child that has grown up
in a different culture from the Swedish one and with another mother tongue, the school language may
appear alien and become an obstacle to learning and development (Damber, 2010; Salameh, 2012).

Method
This small scale study is part of a research project about teachers’ perspective on promoting literacy
for pupils with various linguistic backgrounds in preschool, preschool-class and primary school. This
article focuses on how primary school teachers talk about and describe their work with promoting
reading and writing in first grade class-rooms where an increasing amount of pupils do not have
Swedish as their first language. Data were collected using focus group interviews (Wibeck, 2000).
It seemed appropriate when the aim was to examine the teachers’ didactical beliefs and their descrip-
tions of their practical work. Through the group dynamic and the interaction in this kind of inter-
views underlying approaches and ideas can be revealed.

Participants
The participants in the focus group interviews were 17 teachers of preschool classes and primary
school teachers for grade 1–3. They represent three schools in different socioeconomic and geo-
graphical areas in a Swedish municipality. Two of the schools are located in multicultural areas
where the pupils speak many different languages. In one of the schools 14 different languages are
represented among the pupils, and in the other about 10. A large percentage of the pupils in the
third school have Swedish as their first or only language, but there are also pupils with four other
mother tongues. The choice of three different schools was partly strategic to reflect differences,
but also a kind of convenience sample, because these schools were willing to participate in the project
with a group of teachers.
The results presented in this article is primarily based on what is expressed by the primary school
teachers regarding teaching reading and writing in grade 1. Primary school teachers usually teach in
grade 1 to 3, which means they follow the pupils for three years. Participating primary school tea-
chers in this study were working in grade 1 when the interviews took place. Due to few participants in
the project working as teachers in preschool class they were included in groups with the primary
school teachers.
The teachers were asked to take part in the larger research project. They were contacted by tele-
phone or personal contact and were informed of the aim of the study and about the ethical guidelines
for the research (www.codex.vr.se), which have been carefully observed in the study. This means,
among other things, that individuals, schools or municipalities will not be possible to identify
when the result is reported.

Data Collection
The three focus groups each included 4–8 participants and were composed of teachers in preschool
classes (n = 5) and grades 1–3 (n = 12). The interviews were structured by a manual providing two
overarching themes: how language-, reading- and writing-development are defined and understood
by the teachers, and teachers’ perspectives on how instructions and learning environments can create
conditions for language skills development for pupils with Swedish as a first language as well as for
6 G. SANDBERG AND M. NORLING

pupils with another language as their mother tongue. The themes included several questions con-
cerning didactical considerations and examples of the practical teaching.
Each interview lasted around 90 min and a moderator, that is, one of the authors, led the discussion.
The role of the moderator was to facilitate the discussion and to ensure that all of the fields in the manual
were covered. Another task for the moderator, emphasised by Chioncel, Van Der Veen, Wildemeersch,
and Jarvis (2003) was to include all of the participants in the conversation. During the interviews, another
one of the researchers participated passively as an audience member and took notes.

Data Analysis
The interviews were recorded in full on an MP3 player. The recordings were then transferred to files
on a computer and then anonymised. After this, a latent content analysis was made (Elo & Kyngäs,
2008; Graneheim & Lundman, 2004), where meaningful units responded to the focus of the research
question, were marked and systematically entered into an analysis matrix under the headings mean-
ingful units, condensed units and categories (Figure 1).
Later, the statements were translated into the written language with great caution and precision to
avoid damaging their meaning and content (Graneheim & Lundman, 2004). In this phase, the results
were presented to the participants about six months after the interviews were conducted. The tea-
chers were given an opportunity to discuss the findings in their focus groups (without a moderator
this time) and to comment on them. According to Chioncel et al. (2003), the feedback from the par-
ticipants is important because this kind of research is about “listen[ing] to people and learning from
them” (p. 504). Although opportunities to do so were given, there were no comments on the results,
but the participants mentioned that they appreciated both the focus groups and the response.
Based on the categories that appeared from the content analysis, it was possible to further analyse
overall themes with the support of theoretical starting points. Finally, the analyses of the focus group
interviews were compiled into the text presented under the results.

Results
The results of the study are structured according to the two research questions, that is, what has
emerged in the interviews regarding the teachers’ approach to teaching reading and writing in a

Figure 1. Example of content analysis.

 SCANDINAVIAN JOURNAL OF EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH 7

class-rooms characterised by linguistic diversity and how they describe their didactic work on
encouraging all pupils to learn to read and write Swedish and Swedish as second language.

Teachers’ Approach
Something that was mentioned by teachers in grade 1 is the importance of all pupils developing
Swedish or Swedish as a second language. This language permeates all subjects and forms the
basis for continued learning and success at school, “one cannot manage without language, read
and write, this is the basis of everything” is a quotation that represents the views of the participating
teachers. According to the teachers, entry to grade 1 of compulsory school entails a large and impor-
tant step with regard to the development of reading and writing skills: “the step from preschool class
to compulsory school is a very big one. Suddenly there are lots of goals to be attained, demands are
made”. The teachers refer to the curriculum’s requirements regarding Swedish or Swedish as a
second language, which state for instance that pupils shall be able to read at the end of grade
1. The basic condition for attaining this is the Swedish language, according to the teachers.
With regard to multilingual pupils, the teachers say that it is a major challenge that the pupils
have such different abilities, experiences and needs. It could be a question of earlier experiences,
such as schooling or traumatic events during flight from a previous home country but also linguistic
differences, such as the differences between language sounds or writing in different languages. The
teachers mainly talk about the instruction they are responsible for during the interviews, that is,
instruction in Swedish and Swedish as a second language (SVA). Mother tongue teaching and
study guidance in mother tongue are provided for pupils with another first language than Swedish
at all schools included in the study.
The statements made in the interviews reveal an uncertainty over how to relate to the pupils using
their different languages in the classroom, which is expressed as follows by one of the teachers taking
part.
We have encouraged them to talk and I do not know if this is right or wrong. I am bilingual so I have encour-
aged them to speak in both languages.

In the quotation, the teacher says that he/she encourages multilingual pupils to talk in their own
language during the school day, for instance, that the pupils can count in the language in the class-
room but that there is at the same time an implication of uncertainty in this approach. The teacher
bases his/her attitude on own experiences as multilingual, but appears to lack anchor to theory with
regard to this approach to multilingual language use and development.
Something that is emphasised here is that the multilingual pupils must be given room in oral exer-
cises and discussions and that the didactic value of the lessons creating structure for this. The tea-
chers say that multilingual pupils need more time and opportunity to be heard in discussions.
The multilingual pupils, there must be room for them in discussions, it must be structured so that everyone has
a chance to talk and is given time to talk. Yes, there are many aspects to bear in mind. I think it is difficult. The
more you talk about it, the more complicated it becomes.

The quotation also shows the perception that multilingualism in the classroom can offer a complex
didactic challenge. The teacher’s quotation illustrates that the teachers endeavour to apply special
strategies aimed at multilingual pupils. At the same time, they feel it is a problem that these are
not adequate and that the teachers lack competence to develop the pupils’ different languages.
Well, I think, when I listen to you, I mean, that we also have the problem of being sufficient to deal with every-
thing, I have such a guilty conscience. Partly because I do not really have time when I have 23 pupils and this
includes the new arrivals, and partly because I have little knowledge of how I can best help build up their
language // … //how shall I show the concepts? How shall I build up a vocabulary based on association?

It also becomes evident from the teachers’ descriptions that multilingualism in some contexts
become synonymous with newly arrived pupils.
8 G. SANDBERG AND M. NORLING

Based on the three focus group interviews, it becomes clear that a common stance among the
teachers is that they regard reading and writing as both an individual skill and a social activity,
and that this approach clearly emerges in their descriptions of the practical didactic work in the
classroom.

Teachers’ Descriptions of the Didactic Work

An important foundation in the early reading and writing instruction is to survey where the pupils lie
in their reading and writing processes to be able to adapt the teaching as far as possible to the differ-
ent pupils. The focus group interviews mention several different qualitative and quantitative ways of
surveying and making visible the pupils’ learning and development. One example of a quantitative
survey is the screenings, often through standard tests, that are carried out in many schools. As
implied in the term screening, it is a question of gaining an overall picture of all pupils, being
able to identify at an early stage those who are assessed to be at risk of facing difficulties but also
as a basis for continued instruction.
However, this is one way of looking at things, she is a very good reader so you don’t need to put in more effort
there, but here we have someone who hasn’t come so far in their development. Then I have some sort of picture
of how I should continue with my teaching.

Examples given of qualitative methods of keep track of the pupils’ learning is to regularly listen to
each child reading and give feedback and allow the pupils to gather texts and other works they
feel they have succeeded with prior to future planning work. The teachers talk about a formative
approach, to make the pupils aware of the purpose of the instruction and the direction in which
they are heading. With regard to the survey of the multilingual pupils’ linguistic development,
they highlight the importance of being able to have a dialogue with the parents, particularly in
the cases where obstacles arise in the reading and writing process. By gaining knowledge of how
far the pupils have come in their development and of their mastery of their mother tongue, a teacher
can gain an idea of what to expect of the pupils’ level in Swedish.
The teachers in grade 1 say that they use several different methods and ways of working when
teaching pupils to read and write.
Yes, but I think that one can, one mixes it a bit. One can see that one thing does not rule out another, one can
learn in several different ways. One child may learn by sounding out letters and words and putting the sounds
together, while another child does not hear this and one has to use syllables instead.

Characteristic of all of the statements is that they say they work both with the form of the language,
such as the link between phonemes and graphemes, for instance through traditional alphabet work,
and with the function of the language, by meeting and processing different types of text in many
different ways. It is also revealed in the interviews that several of the teachers use the method “Writ-
ing to read”, which put simply means that the pupils work in pairs and write their own texts on the
computer. However, there are several teachers who say that they do not follow the method strictly,
for instance, not using a pen the first year of school or some exercises that are supposed to be done in
a particular order. They say that they want to be more flexible and responsive to the pupils’ devel-
opment and interests. The teachers in the study use writing in different forms and this becomes an
important part of the reading and writing activities.
The teachers also emphasise the importance of together studying different types of text, by dis-
cussing the text and developing strategies for reading comprehension. In this context, reading
aloud plays a special role, particularly for the lower school years, not just to develop reading com-
prehension, but also to provide reading experiences.
I still read to entertain, I want to have a good book to read to the children, but we also work around the texts and
I do not believe the children even realise it, they just listen and answer questions and so on, and I think this kind
of measure works well, gives a lot.
 SCANDINAVIAN JOURNAL OF EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH 9

As we see from the discussions in the focus groups, in grade 1 considerable scope is given to forms of
expression such as art, text and discussion to encourage the pupils’ learning and development. The
teachers emphasise the importance of the pupils being exposed to different types of text, such as fairy
tales, stories, narrations and facts, “now we are working with fairy tales, so we work with this genre
on the whole”. This also means that the pupils are given rich and varied opportunities to practise and
train themselves in conversing, reading and writing within different genres. The teachers also talk
about working thematically, that is, the teaching of various subjects is based on a common theme.
Thematic working methods are also used to base the work on the pupils’ interests and to make it
easier for and motivate the pupil to process and understand texts. The teachers also say that they
process texts in other subjects than Swedish.
Mathematics, well I work on reading there. I read headings and look at the text in the Maths book and we leaf
through the chapter, “what looks interesting?” so there are a lot of strategies. You work with reading strategies
in the Maths book, the social studies book, the science book, everywhere.

The focus group interviews give a picture of teachers’ instruction in reading and writing in grade
1. Much of what is described applies to all pupils in the class, regardless of whether they learn Swed-
ish as their first, second or third language. During the interviews, the teachers discuss which activities
they regard as particularly beneficial in encouraging multilingual pupils to learn to read and write.
The teachers say that the instruction requires a didactic planning that is based on the group to be
taught. If there are pupils who are multilingual and/or new arrivals to Sweden, special consideration
must be given to this.
Are there a lot of multilingual pupils? I have to think like this to know how to teach those who do not have so
much time in the Swedish as a second language teaching.

It is also a case of thinking through the composition of the groups and how to put together pairs
of pupils, for instance in the work on ASL (writing to read on the computer). In some cases,
pupils with the same language are put together to give one another support, or to act as
interpreter if one of the pupils has better knowledge of Swedish than the other. In some classes
organised language help is offered in the pupils’ mother tongue for those pupils who are newly
arrived in Sweden and this is considered good for a lot of pupils. At the same time, as one of
the teachers said, it can be an obstacle in developing Swedish language skills when one always
has things translated for one.
The teachers say that the instruction should be pleasurable and emphasise that they try to take
into account the multilingual pupils’ interests in the classes and to create a context they can under-
stand. The teachers feel that it is particularly important for this pupil group that the instruction is
based on existing skills.
So it is very individual, and there is a large spread when it comes to previous knowledge, but one quite simply
has to start at the place they are at. And when you start school this means learning, being able to understand
spoken Swedish, being able to express oneself in a day-to-day context. And then building onto this the alphabet
and learning to read and write and expanding one’s vocabulary.

Digital tools are described in the interviews as particularly useful when teaching multilingual pupils.
I like being able to offer lots of different methods, so we work with digital tools, and I think this is great. For
instance, for our multilingual pupils who do not have the sounds, we have a different keyboard, so you can hear
the sounds and press the keys and get feedback directly.

Classroom tablets and digital blackboards are used regularly and the teachers say that this is a good
complement to explain and clarify linguistic concepts. Showing pictures can help develop the pupils’
understanding and create meaning, as they may not have any prior experience of this concept. The
picture on the tablet can then put the concept in a context that enables multilingual pupils to under-
stand what it means. In addition to pictures, the teachers say that signs can be a good support for
pupils learning to understand, read and write Swedish.
10 G. SANDBERG AND M. NORLING

In the interviews, the teachers describe factors that lie outside the actual didactic work in the class-
room that also has considerable significance for the pupils’ opportunities to learn to read and write.
This includes collaboration between class teachers and other professional categories such as special
teachers, speech therapists, psychologists and with regard to multilingual pupils, collaboration with
teachers of Swedish as a second language and mother tongue teachers.

Discussion
The aim of this study is to deepen the understanding of teachers’ perspectives on promoting reading
and writing development for pupils with various linguistic backgrounds in grade 1.
The instruction in reading and writing described by the teachers in the interviews is in Swedish
and/or Swedish as a second language. Compared with earlier school forms such as preschools and
preschool classes, the entry into compulsory school entails a division into different subjects, such
as Swedish, Swedish as a second language and mother tongue teaching. For the teachers in the inter-
views who teach pupils in grade 1, the instruction is regulated by syllabuses, knowledge requirements
and timetables (The Swedish National Agency for Education, 2016). Targeted instruction in Swed-
ish/Swedish as a second language is extremely important for pupils with another mother tongue to be
able to become multilingual (Hedman, 2012; Hyltenstam, 2010), but it should be regarded as one
component of a larger pattern. In this way, what is revealed in this study is the part of the pattern
that concerns Swedish and Swedish as a second language, it does not provide an overall picture of the
conditions created for the individual multilingual pupils’ development of language, reading and writ-
ing. Therefore, for instance, many pupils in grade 1 take part with a different first language than
Swedish in the reading and writing instruction in Swedish, parallel with what they are learning in
the classes in Swedish as a second language.
There are major differences between spoken language and written language to the extent that they
belong to different communication systems (Hagtvet et al., 2016), but at the same time they can be
understood as two different sides of the same coin. The development of spoken language forms the
basis for developing written language, according to Vygotsky (1934/1986), and activities that stimu-
late spoken language development in this way form a basis for the development of written language.
The teachers in grade 1 describe the work on oral communication and giving the pupils opportu-
nities to take part in planned and structured discussions on a text. The teachers regard taking
part in and being given room to talk in a structured discussion as particularly beneficial for the multi-
lingual pupils, a stance that is supported by the research in this field (Damber, 2010).
According to the teachers, it is very important, perhaps even essential, that all pupils develop the
ability to read and write to be able to take part in society and as a base for continued learning. Tea-
chers’ attitude is characterised by what is usually known as a balanced or integrated stance (Snow &
Juel, 2005; Taube et al., 2015), that is, they draw attention to, evaluate and work with both technical
and learning-oriented processes of reading and writing. Getting the pupils to understand how the
alphabet system is built-up, so that they can “break the code” (Luke & Freebody, 1999) is an impor-
tant part of the work in grade 1. This is also something that emerges during the interviews, where the
teachers talk about the letter of the week and how the link between phoneme and grapheme can be
established with the aid of talking keyboards or using signs as a support. For those pupils who risk
facing problems in decoding, this early and structured work has proved to be of essential significance
(Kamhi & Catts, 2014; Snow & Juel, 2005; Taube et al., 2015).
However, in teachers’ descriptions it is the work that can be connected to phase 2 and 3 in Luke
and Freebody’s (1999) model that is given the most room, that is, activities aimed at stimulating the
creation of text and understanding of different sorts of text. There are many examples in the inter-
views of how the teachers work with and support pupils early writing, individually and in pairs. With
regard to the perception and understanding of texts, reading aloud is important in grade 1, as many
pupils still do not read fluently themselves. To provide the right conditions for the pupils to become
text users, they describe a structured form of work on different types of reading strategy and
 SCANDINAVIAN JOURNAL OF EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH 11

discussions of the texts. For pupils who do not have Swedish as their first language, these discussions
are regarded as particularly important, as they provide scope for explaining concepts and words in
the stories. These discussions can also be regarded as a first step towards the fourth and final phase
which concerns being able to analyse texts.
Similar to an earlier study of how teachers in grade 1 work to encourage pupils written language
developments (Sandberg et al., 2015), the teachers in this study talk about a pluralistic approach to
different methods and ways of working. According to the teachers, the learning process is different
for different pupils and therefore there needs to be a variation in the methods and ways of working.
Something that the teachers emphasise is that the instruction must be based on where the individual
pupils are in their own learning process, and this applies in particular to pupils who do not have
Swedish as their first language. To survey the pupils’ reading and writing processes and to plan indi-
vidualised instruction the teachers use different types of tool as described above, both quantitative
and qualitative. With regard to pupils with another mother tongue then Swedish, they talk about
the value of collaboration with the parents to be able to assess the pupils’ development in his or
her different languages. When it comes to the problems identified by, for instance, Hedman
(2009) with regard to pupils with another first language running the risk of not receiving adequate
support for their problems in reading and writing or alternatively no support at all, methods that
detect the problems in reading and writing at an early stage are extremely important. In addition
to collaboration with parents, the research (for instance, Elbro, Daugaard, & Gellert, 2012; Hedman,
2009) emphasises that mother tongue teachers should take part in surveying the development of
reading and writing and helping to identify causes to obstacles arising in this field. There was no
mention in the interviews of collaboration with mother tongue teachers with regard to surveying
the pupils’ development in reading and writing. This is perhaps not so strange given that the teachers
interviewed have classes in grade 1. It is common that the schools wait to survey and investigate poss-
ible difficulties in reading until grade 1 is complete (Sandberg et al., 2015). Having a good insight into
where the pupils are in their learning process is a necessary condition for all instruction, according to
Vygotsky (1034/86), and this is something the teachers say they try to achieve. Although the different
forms of survey described do not actually say so much about the pupils’ actual development zone (see
Hagtvet et al., 2016), they nevertheless lay a good foundation for individualising the instruction.
Another dimension of individualised instruction concerns considering and taking into account
the pupils’ different interests and cultural experiences. The teachers talk, for instance, about building
on the pupils’ understand and working thematically to capture their interest. The fact that the pupils’
different linguistic and cultural experiences are not always taken into account when they start school
is illustrated, for instance, in a study by Fast (2007) concerning seven pupils social capital and what
significance this has in the context of preschool and school. According to Cummins (2012), instruc-
tion that is based on the pupils’ interests and identity creates good conditions for multilingual pupils
to learn and develop. Cummins gives examples of how pupils can work with texts in their different
languages, identity texts, something he says leads to increased motivation and inclusion. The study
does not describe any structured activities of this nature. The few examples given of something simi-
lar are that in the classroom they discuss what different things are called in the pupils’ mother ton-
gues. The writing and reading practices described from the classrooms are entirely focussed on
Swedish, that the pupils shall be given the chance to meet the knowledge requirements for grade
1 in Swedish and Swedish as a second language. There is a risk that pupils not given the opportunity
for parallel use of several languages will abandon the language that is not spoken by their friends and
teachers and thus they will not develop their multilingualism (Hyltenstam, 2010; Kultti, 2014; Snow
et al., 2005).
Although it appears as though multilingualism in the classroom is regarded as a positive thing by
the teachers in the study, it also becomes clear that it is considered a major challenge to meet all of
the different conditions, experiences and needs of the pupils. And not least the pupils’ different lin-
guistic backgrounds. Views on and knowledge of multilingualism are important for the conditions
created for multilingual pupils to develop their written language (Damber, 2009; Dixon & Wu, 2014;
12 G. SANDBERG AND M. NORLING

Ortiz & Fránquiz, 2016). The focus group interviews indicate that there is some uncertainty among
the teachers as to how to relate to the pupils’ multilingualism in a classroom situation. It is also clear
that several of them feel they lack the competence in this field needed to observe and support the
learning and development of multilingual pupils.
It may appear to be challenging for a teacher to take into account all of a multilingual child’s
languages in his or her instruction, but as Kultti (2014) says, it is not necessary to be able to
speak all of the languages. The important thing is the approach of being curious and confirming
the child’s linguistic identity and being open to parallel text practices. The conclusions that can
be drawn from this study are that the teachers’ attitudes towards linguistic diversity in classrooms
can be described as mostly positive. In the group interviews, different teaching strategies emerge
to promote the learning of all students. At the same time, uncertainty among teachers is shown
in relation to pupils with a mother tongue other than Swedish and what would best support their
reading and writing development. Although the teachers are positive about the pupils’ different
languages, there is no indication that the different languages spoken by the students are an active
part of the reading and writing instruction.
The contribution of this small scale study is the perspectives of teachers with collective experience
from working with pupils with diverse linguistic backgrounds. The study is conducted in a qualitat-
ive tradition based on focus groups interviews including 17 teachers, of whom 12 are working in
grade 1. Thus, the result cannot be generalised to be valid for teachers in general. Still, there are
some important findings that can be discussed among practitioners, teacher educators and research-
ers concerning how teachers in grade 1 talk about and describe their experiences and didactic work
to promote optimal conditions for all pupils to learn and develop reading and writing among chil-
dren with different linguistic backgrounds.

Disclosure Statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

ORCID
Gunilla Sandberg http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8931-7463

References
Alatalo, T. (2011). Skicklig läs- och skrivundervisning i åk 1-3. Om lärares möjligheter och hinder [Proficient reading
and writing instruction in grades 1–3: Teachers’ opportunities and obstacles]. Gothenburg Studies in Educational
Sciences 311. Göteborg: Acta Universitatis Gothoburgensis.
Chang, L. L. S., & Sylva, K. (2015). Exploring emergent literacy development in a second language: A selective literature
review and conceptual framework for research. Journal of Early Childhood Literacy, 15(1), 3–36. doi:10.1177/
1468798414522824
Chioncel, N. E., Van Der Veen R. G. W., Wildemeersch, D., & Jarvis, P. (2003). Validity and Reliability of focus groups
as a research methods in adult education. International Journal of Lifelong Education, 22(5), 495–517. doi:10.1080/
0260137032000102850
Cummins, J. (2012). The intersection of cognitive and sociocultural factors in the development of reading comprehen-
sion among immigrant students. Reading and Writing, 25, 1973–1990. doi:10.1007/s11145-010-9290-7
Damber, U. (2010). Using inclusion, high demands and high expectations to resist the deficit syndrome: A study of
eight grade three classes, high achieving in reading. Literacy, 43(1), 43–49. doi:10.1111/j.1741-4369.2009.00503.x
Damber, U. (2016). Flerspråkiga barns läsundervisning [Teaching literacy to multilingual children]. In I. T. Alatalo
(Ed.), Läsundervisningens grunder [Teaching reading] (pp. 215–232). Stockholm: Gleerups.
Dixon, L. Q., & Wu, S. (2014). Home language and literacy practices among immigrant second-language learners.
Language Teaching, 47(4), 414–449. doi:10.1017/S0261444814000160
Ehri, L. C. (2005). Development of sight word reading: Phases and findings. In M. J. Snowling & C. Hulme (Eds.), The
science of reading: A handbook (pp. 135–154). Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.
 SCANDINAVIAN JOURNAL OF EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH 13

Elbro, C., Daugaard, H. T., & Gellert, A. C. (2012). Dyslexia in second language? A dynamic test of reading acquisition
may provide a fair answer. Annals of Dyslexia, 62(3), 172–185. doi:10.1007/s11881-012-0071-7
Elo, S., & Kyngäs, H. (2008). The qualitative content analysis process. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 62(1), 107–115.
doi:10.1111/j.1365-2648.2007.04569.x
Fast, C. (2007). Sju barn lär sig läsa och skriva. Familjeliv och populärkultur i möte med förskola och skola [Seven
children learning to read and write. Family life and popular culture meet preschool and school]. Uppsala Studies
in Education, 115. Uppsala: Acta Universitatis Upsaliensis.
Gough, P. B., & Tunmer, W. E. (1986). Decoding, reading, and reading disability. Remedial and Special Education, 7, 6–10.
Graneheim, U. H., & Lundman, B. (2004). Qualitative content analysis in nursing research: Concepts, procedures and
measures to achieve trustworthiness. Nurse Education Today, 24, 105–112.
Hagtvet, B., Frost, J., & Refsahl, V. (2016). Intensiv läsinlärning [Intensive reading instruction]. Lund: Studentlitteratur.
Hedman, C. (2009). Dyslexi på två språk. En multipel fallstudie av spansk-svensktalande ungdomar med läs- och
skrivsvårigheter [Dyslexia in two languages. A muliple case study of Spanish-Swedish speaking adolescents with reading
and writing difficulties]. (Centre for Research on Bilingualism, Doctoral Dissertation). Stockholm: Stockholm University.
Hedman, C. (2012). Läsutveckling hos flerspråkiga elever [Reading Development of Multilingual Students]. In I. E.-K.
Salameh (Red.), Flerspråkighet I skolan – språklig utveckling och undervisning [Multilingualism In School -
Linguistic Development and Teaching] (pp. 78–97). Stockholm: Natur & Kultur.
Hyltenstam, K. (2010). Läs- och skrivsvårigheter hos tvåspråkiga [Reading and writing difficulties in bilingual stu-
dents]. In I. B. Ericson (Red.), Utredning av läs- och skrivsvårigheter [Assessment of reading and writing difficul-
ties] (pp. 305–334). Lund: Studentlitteratur.
Kamhi, A. G., & Catts, H. W. (2014). Language and reading: Convergences and divergences. In A. G. Kamhi & H. W.
Catts (Eds.), Language and reading Disabilities (pp. 1–23). Boston: Pearson.
Kultti, A. (2014). Flerspråkiga barns villkor i förskolan – lärande av och på ett andra språk [Multilingual children’s
conditions in preschool - learning from and in a second language]. Stockholm: Liber.
Lipka, O., & Siegel, L. S. (2012). The development of reading comprehension skills in children learning English as a
second language. Reading and Writing, 25, 1873–1898. doi:10.1007/s11145-011-9309-8
Luke, A., & Freebody, P. (1999). Further notes on the four resources model. Retrieved from http://www.readingonline.
org/research/lukefreebody.html
Lundberg, I., Frost, J., & Petersen, O.-P. (1988). Effects of an extensive program for stimulating phonological awareness
in preschool children. Reading Research Quarterly, 23(3), 263–283.
Norling, M. (2015). Förskolan – en arena för social språkmiljö [Preschool – a social language environment and an arena
for emergent literacy processes]. (Doktorsavhandling 173). Västerås: Mälardalens högskola.
Ortiz, A. A., & Fránquiz, M. E. (2016). Co-editors’ introduction: Nuanced understandings of emergent bilinguals and
dual language program implementation. Bilingual Research Journal, 39(2), 87–90. doi:10.1080/15235882.2016.
1177778
Salameh, E.-K. (2012). Flerspråkig språkutveckling [Multilingual language development]. In I. E.-K. Salameh (Red.),
Flerspråkighet I skolan – språklig utveckling och undervisning [Multilingualism in school – linguistic development
and teaching] (pp. 27–55). Stockholm: Natur & Kultur.
Sandberg, G., Hellblom-Thibblin, T., & Garpelin, A. (2015). Teacher’s perspective on how to promote children’s learn-
ing in reading and writing. European Journal of Special Needs Education, 30(4), 505–517. doi:10.1080/08856257.
2015.1046738
Snow, C. E., Griffin, P., & Burns, M. S. (Eds.). (2005). Knowledge to support the teaching of reading. Preparing teachers
for a changing world. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Snow, C. E., & Juel, C. (2005). Teaching children to read: What do we know about how to do it? In M. J. Snowling & C.
Hulme (Eds.), The science of reading: A handbook (pp. 521–537). Malden, MA: Blackwell publishing.
Taube, K., Fredriksson, U., & Olofsson, O. (2015). Kunskapsöversikt om läs- och skrivundervisning för yngre elever
[Research overview about teaching and learning for younger students]. Vetenskapsrådets rapporter. Stockholm:
Vetenskapsrådet.
The Swedish National Agency for Education 2011. Lgr11. (2016). Läroplan för grundskolan, förskoleklassen och fritid-
shemmet [Curriculum for compulsory school, preschool-class and leisure-time center]. Stockholm: The Swedish
National Agency for Education.
The Swedish National Agency for Education. (2017). PM Nyanlända - aktuell statistik November 2015 [PM New arrivals
- current statistics November 2015]. Retrieved from https://www.skolverket.se/publikationer?id=3574. 2017-06-18
Tjernberg, C., & Heimdahl Mattsson, E. (2014). Inclusion in practice: A matter of school culture. European Journal of
Special Needs Education, 29(2), 247–256. doi:10.1080/08856257.2014.891336
UNESCO. (2006). The Salamanca Statement. Retrieved from www.unesco.org. 2016-01-15.
Vygotsky, L. (1934/1986). Thought and language. (A. Kozulin, Trans. and Ed.). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
(Original work published 1934).
Wibeck, V. (2000). Fokusgrupper, Om fokuserade gruppintervjuer som undersökningsmetod [Focus groups, about
focused group interviews as research method]. Lund: Studentlitteratur.