Swedish society, like many others, is linguistically diverse. The Swedish Language Act (SFS 2009:600) stipulates that all residents should have the opportunity to learn, develop, and use Swedish, while individuals with another mother tongue should also be able to develop and use that language. The Language Act thus aims to protect both the Swedish language and linguistic diversity in Sweden, as well as the individuals’ access to language. In the field of education, values and attitudes related to pluralism and diversity are embedded in the opportunities provided for pupils to develop both the majority language and additional languages (Cummins, 2017, 2000). The Swedish Education Act (SFS 2010:800) states that schools must take pupils’ differing educational needs and work to compensate for variations in their prerequisites (§4). Nevertheless, national reports and PISA results (OECD, 2022, p. 30) show that Swedish schools are failing in this compensatory responsibility, which is reflected in the achievement gap between pupils with and without a migration background.

During the academic year 2023/2024, 27% of pupils in Swedish compulsory schools¹ had a migration background, meaning they were either born abroad or born in Sweden with two foreign-born parents (Swedish National Agency for Education, 2024). This demographic reality means that all teachers must be prepared to teach pupils with diverse linguistic backgrounds. According to Paulsrud and Lundberg (2021), teacher education programs demonstrate shortcomings in terms of preparing student teachers to work with groups of pupils characterized by linguistic heterogeneity and supporting the pupils’ varied linguistic needs. Despite the implementation of major government-funded initiatives to strengthen in-service teachers’ expertise in terms of receiving and working with recently arrived and multilingual pupils, these initiatives have not encompassed teacher education (e.g., Hermansson et al., 2022; Nilsson, 2023). García (2017) argues that prevailing language norms should be questioned and that preservice teachers need to develop critical multilingual awareness (CMLA) to be better prepared for working in contemporary schools. Accordingly, student teachers should develop new attitudes and profoundly change monolingual and assimilatory practices. Simply acknowledging multilingualism is not enough; instead, a fundamental rethinking of how language(s) are conceptualised in education is required (García, 2017).

According to the Higher Education Ordinance (SFS 1993:100, Annex 2), student teachers in Sweden must develop and demonstrate an advanced ability to create the conditions necessary for all pupils’ learning and development. They are also expected to draw on pupils’ prior knowledge and experiences in their teaching. This article focuses on teacher education and teacher educators in primary school teacher programmes (grundlärarprogram) from preschool class to the 6^th grade in Sweden. These university-level programmes are 4 years in length. The aim is to examine how teacher educators express CMLA, including its pedagogical, political, and personal dimensions, in relation to their teaching in various subject disciplines at three universities. The following research questions guide the study:

Research on linguistic diversity in teacher education has a history of at least four decades (Grant & Gibson, 2011) with an interest in how it can prepare future teachers for culturally and linguistically diverse contexts (Darling-Hammond, 2017). Although linguistic diversity is not a new phenomenon in many contexts, geographically and historically, education has played an important role in implementing monolingual ideologies at the expense of linguistic minorities. This has also been the case in Sweden, despite its reputation for inclusive and equitable education. Research on linguistic diversity and teacher education therefore needs to attend to local historical, social, and cultural contexts. For this reason, we begin by situating our paper in the Nordic context.

Research on aspects of language in teacher education in a Nordic context has mainly focused on student teachers, teacher educators, and newly qualified teachers. A recently edited volume (Reath Warren et al., 2025) brings together studies examining how teacher education in Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway, and Sweden prepares future teachers for linguistically diverse classrooms. The volume underscores the need for self-reflection in teacher education on aspects of linguistic diversity, to better prepare student teachers for work with heterogeneous pupil and student groups.²

In an earlier study, Paulsrud and Lundberg (2021) examined multilingualism in primary school teacher education at six universities in Sweden. They found that multilingualism was addressed only as a question for pupils using languages other than Swedish at home. They concluded that no standardised national guidelines exist for including multilingualism in primary school teacher education in Sweden and that “it is key that more explicit spaces in teacher education are created for multilingualism” (2021, p. 55). These findings are consistent with earlier research by Carlson and Rabo (2008) and Carlsson (2009), who researched general course content (Utbildningsvetenskaplig kärna) in teacher education. They found that when multilingual perspectives and second language (L2) learning were addressed, it was often through a deficit lens and positioned in relation to “the others”. Similarly, Paulsrud and Zilliacus (2018) reported that although both teacher educators and student teachers expressed inclusive and multilingual orientations, these perspectives were not implemented in practice. In the Norwegian context, Iversen (2020) showed that student teachers wished to use both their own and pupils’ multilingualism as a resource in education. At the policy level in higher education, Hermansson et al. (2022) investigated course syllabi for teacher education programs and found that content about multilingualism and linguistic diversity was marginal, except for the subjects Swedish and English. Similarly, a content analysis of syllabi for the courses in Swedish, English, and mathematics in primary teacher education (grades 4-6) in Sweden showed that didactic perspectives on multilingualism were addressed primarily within the Swedish courses (Bylund & Warnby, 2024).

In a South African context, Makalela (2017) showed that translanguaging practices enabled student teachers to draw on their multilingual repertoires and cross ethnolinguistic boundaries in their teaching. In contrast, research from teacher education for primary school teachers in Iraqi Kurdistan showed that, despite the linguistic diversity of the context, language was addressed in ways that made this diversity invisible and made students less inclined to recognize their future pupils’ linguistic knowledge in languages other than the dominant English and Kurdish (Salman Haji et al., 2024). Smeins et al. (2022) reported from their study designed to make student teachers implement plurilingualism in their future teaching practices in primary school. By using digital tools and digital games, students developed knowledge about linguistic diversity and a higher level of linguistic awareness.

Critical perspectives on the role of power in relation to language and ethnicity in education have been developed by several scholars working in a North American context dominated by English and Spanish (e.g., Athanases et al., 2018; Rodriguez-Mojica et al., 2019; Haddix, 2008; Yang & Montgomery, 2013; Cinaglia & Costa, 2022). Both Haddix and Rodriguez-Mojica et al. highlight aspects of power regarding language and ethnicity within education. Haddix et al. argue for the importance of adopting a critical perspective to support student teachers in questioning their own linguistic and cultural backgrounds. Rodriguez-Mojica et al. demonstrate the challenges that may arise when prevailing ideologies within academic contexts are questioned. Yang and Montgomery (2013) show that it is possible to bridge the gaps between the attitudes of teacher educators and student teachers to advance multiculturalism in teacher education. Tian (2020) investigated how teacher educators in a TESOL program at a U.S. university integrated translanguaging, as well as how student teachers understood and incorporated translanguaging in their teaching practices. The student teachers developed a translingual orientation and employed a range of instructional strategies. The study showed that translanguaging can be incorporated into teacher education but that doing so requires attention to three interrelated dimensions: teaching about translanguaging, modelling translanguaging, and practicing translanguaging (Tian, 2020, p. 233). In a later study, Tian and Zhang-Wu (2022) investigated student teachers’ understanding of translanguaging among five participants. They examined how – and to what extent – the participants integrated translanguaging into their teaching. The study showed that, through being exposed to translanguaging as both theory and pedagogy, the student teachers developed a translingual approach that included a dynamic perspective on language and an understanding of pupils’ linguistic repertoires as valuable resources. The student teachers also experimented with a translanguaging pedagogy to support multilingual pupils’ needs in the subject content at hand.

Critical reflection and a crosslinguistic approach are called for in studies conducted in the Canadian context. Shank Lauwo et al. (2022) investigated a justice-oriented plurilingual approach in teacher education involving two preservice teachers. Their findings showed that the Chinese Canadian preservice teacher developed a perspective in which she viewed her own plurilingualism as a resource, whereas the White, English-dominant preservice teacher confronted her English-speaker privilege. Shank Lauwo et al. argue that their study points to a need for deeper critical reflection on racial and linguistic inequalities. They also call for more systematic critical engagement with questions of equity in relation to plurilingualism throughout teacher education programs. In a study from Quebec, Woll (2020) also examined the perceived benefits of a crosslinguistic approach to language teaching. This approach included promoting interaction that made use of all of the learner’s languages. Crosslinguistic interaction was encouraged in this approach, in contrast to the monolingual policy of the Quebec Education Program. In another study reported by Wernicke (2021), the focus was on challenging previous assimilation policies to decolonize Indigenous peoples and counteract their marginalization as well as that of the French-speaking population. The study showed how the student teachers developed CMLA by changing their attitudes.

Li et al. (2021) relate issues of social justice in connection with linguistic diversity in teacher education to questions of transnationality, increasing mobility, and internationalization. Furthermore, García and Kleyn (2013) argue that student teachers need to meet and interact with recently arrived pupils and their families to develop the skills required to value and support the multiple identities and other resources that emerge from transnational experiences. They advocate forms of teacher education that build on what they refer to as a pedagogy for multilingualism. Such a pedagogy enables student teachers to develop their understanding of multilingual pupils and their families, as well as their knowledge about language, multilingualism, and language learning. Like Rodriguez-Mojica et al. (2019) and Haddix (2008), they highlight the importance of a critical approach in which student teachers reflect and question their own stereotypes and generalizations about language and ethnicity. In a special issue edited by Van Gorp and De Costa (2023), CMLA is examined and discussed in six empirical studies with a specific focus on teacher education. These studies demonstrate the importance of teachers’ agency and identity work when engaging in CMLA (Van Gorp & De Costa, 2023). Similarly, in the present study, we draw on García’s (2017) concept of CMLA to investigate how teacher educators articulate multilingualism in their teaching at three Swedish universities.

The study builds upon a critical understanding of multilingualism (García, 2009; May, 2014; Van Avermaet et al., 2018) as well as on scholarship concerning education and school development (Edwards-Groves et al., 2018; Kemmis et al., 2014). To analyse how teacher educators conceptualise linguistic diversity across subject disciplines, we use the concept of critical multilingual awareness (CMLA) (García, 2017). The field of language awareness has a long tradition, having been developed in the 1980s by Hawkins (1984), who envisioned “a more literate, more multilingual and more tolerant and inclusive society” (cited in Hélot et al., 2018, p. 2). A prevalent definition of language awareness describes it as a “person’s sensitivity to and conscious awareness of language and its role in human life” (Donmall, 1985, quoted in James, 1999, p. 95). However, this understanding has been criticized because it treats language, along with language norms and hierarchies, as natural rather than as socially constructed and changeable (Clark et al., 1990). Clark et al. (1990) suggest that schools should aspire to create critical language awareness rather than integrating students into dominant norms of languaging, to emancipate students, and to challenge and transform those norms. The notion of critical language awareness was further developed by Fairclough (1992), who suggested that its purpose was to empower and emancipate language users and challenge power relations.

While the objective of language awareness is to increase students’ cognitive awareness of language and the function of language, critical language awareness includes social and political awareness and activism for change (e.g., Alim, 2010). García (2017) emphasises the importance of shifting focus from awareness of language per se to awareness of language use and language users, as well as to the ideologies that shape their possibilities for action. This includes awareness of the social, political, and economic conditions for linguistic diversity (García, 2017). Thus, CMLA is not merely about acknowledging linguistic diversity; rather, it requires a rethinking of dominant assumptions about language(s) in education (García, 2017). García and Kleyn (2013) identify three key components that are essential in a curriculum for multilingual teacher education: i) an understanding of bilingual pupils and their families, especially pupils from minority language backgrounds; (ii) knowledge of language and bilingualism/multilingualism; and (iii) awareness of how to deliver a pedagogy for multilingualism (pp. 1-2).

According to García (2017), student teachers should be confronted with issues concerning language oppression, intolerance, and social injustices to develop a critical understanding of language. However, teachers also need to be aware of the rich multilingualism in their classroom. Accordingly, García orients towards speakers (students) as language users rather than the language itself. A translanguaging pedagogy involves teachers reflecting on language ideologies and the intersection(s) between language, power, and race. Drawing on previous scholarship on both language awareness and critical language awareness, García introduces the concept of CMLA. She suggests that all teachers need to develop “1) an awareness of plurilingualism and appreciation of linguistic tolerance, and its merits for democratic citizenship and 2) an awareness of the histories of colonial and imperialistic oppression that has produced the plurilingualism in society” (p. 268). Thus, a CMLA framework includes:

In this study, aspects 1-3 are used to answer research question one, and aspects 4-6, with some extensions, are used in the analysis for research question two. According to Seltzer (2022), teachers’ development should include three interrelated elements: personal stance, political stance, and pedagogical stance. Personal stance concerns individual teachers’ and student teachers’ reflections on their own language experiences and how these influence their views on pupils’ language use. Political stance concerns reflections on how language and teaching are embedded in structures of power and the teacher’s role in challenging linguistic hierarchies that marginalize students’ language use. Finally, pedagogical stance involves teachers’ reconceptualization of what language is and the purpose of acknowledging and using pupils’ complete linguistic repertoire in education. Seltzer (2023) addresses the complexity and possible distress associated with teachers engaging in CMLA from a decolonial and anti-racist perspective within educational institutions (p. 579). Such a stance could move beyond awareness towards “activism and advocacy for and with minoritized language users” (Prassad & Bettney, 2023, p. 618; Seltzer, 2023). Accordingly, student teachers should be aware of and challenge the privilege of dominant language speakers and develop an identity as multilingual listeners. From a decolonial perspective, Windle et al. (2023) argue that, in many contexts, students have extensive knowledge and experience of multilingualism, which teachers may lack, and educators should therefore listen more carefully to students and communities. They introduce the notion of reciprocal multilingual awareness as a process situated within a specific time, place, and ideology (Windle et al., 2023; Cummins, 2023). Thus, CMLA needs to be situated in language and ideologies in the local context.

This study is part of a larger investigation into multilingualism and linguistic diversity in teacher education programs at three Swedish universities, here referred to as A, B, and C. The study focuses on the teacher education programmes for preschool to year 3 and for years 4-6 (corresponding to primary schooling for pupils aged 6-13). The study adopted an action research design, and the participating teacher educators were interviewed as part of the process. The sample participants were recruited through voluntary participation: teacher educators at the three universities were invited to participate, and 21 agreed to do so. The teacher educators were compensated with time for participating in the project.

In line with our interest in researching the complexities and nuances in teacher educators’ views on multilingualism and subject‑specific language demands, the interviews followed the principles of qualitative research interviews (e.g., Holstein & Gubrium, 2012; Kvale & Brinkman, 2014). Teacher educators from a range of subjects including science, social sciences, Swedish as a second language, educational work, English, art, and Swedish were interviewed. All teacher educators were informed about the nature of the study and provided written consent, and all data were handled in accordance with the GDPR and the data protection policies and regulations at the three respective universities.

The interview guide was informed by the CMLA framework and included prompts designed to elicit teacher educators’ awareness of linguistic hierarchies, language as a social construct, and their pedagogical stances toward multilingualism. It covered four main topics: (a) teacher educators’ general views and understanding of what language, linguistic diversity, and multilingualism may be; (b) subject-specific issues regarding language in the teaching; (c) aspects related to linguistic diversity in the teaching; and (d) student teachers’ knowledge of pupils’ languages. Each theme contained a set of sub-questions that allowed for more in-depth exploration. The interview guide allowed for a semi-structured design, giving a general overview of the interviewees’ experiences related to language, linguistic diversity, and multilingualism in teaching in teacher education programs, as well as allowing each interviewee to express their thoughts. Each author was responsible for a group of participants and conducted all the interviews with them. The interviews varied in length between 21 and 56 minutes (see Table 1). Table 1.

Interviewed teacher educators

The material used here comes from audio-recorded semi-structured individual interviews with 21 teacher educators. All interviews were conducted in Swedish. We analysed the material using qualitative directed content analysis (Hsieh & Shannon, 2005; Mayring, 2022) in which the approach of CMLA (García, 2017) guided the coding categories and structure. This involved abductive coding containing both deductive elements based on relevant concepts and an inductive process based on recurring patterns that emerged in the material. The following schematic description of the steps of the analytical process (Mayring, 2022, pp. 82, 90) provides an overview of the process, although in practice it was not as linear as the description suggests.

First, the interviews were transcribed verbatim in Swedish. Then, passages that related to the interviewees’ understanding of linguistic diversity and multilingualism were identified, both in general and in relation to their respective subjects. Segments unrelated to linguistic diversity or multilingualism were excluded from further analysis. Second, the transcripts were coded using a coding scheme derived from the CMLA framework (García, 2017). The transcribed interviews were read repeatedly, and at each such reading, relevant excerpts were systematically linked to the following analytical categories associated with language, its teaching, and its learning in the framework:

The iterative reading involved alternating between close and distance readings, enabling opportunities to both validate the analysis and discover patterns in and variations between aspects related to linguistic diversity and multilingualism.

Thereafter, anchor examples were identified, i.e., excerpts that illustrated the nature of the concepts. The identification of anchor examples sometimes required returning to earlier coding stages to refine definitions and category boundaries. This meant that definitions and guidelines for coding were gradually clarified during the analytical process. Interview excerpts presented in this article were translated into English by the authors for publication purposes. To preserve meaning and nuance, translations were discussed among the research team, and particular attention was paid to maintaining the original intent and context of the participants’ statements.

Initially, the four researchers analysed part of the interviews individually, before comparing and discussing the analysis together. This cycle was repeated several times. Following the initial analysis, we concluded that García’s original framework did not fully capture all aspects of linguistic diversity and multilingualism that we identified in the data. We therefore expanded component 4, plurilingualism as merits for democratic citizenship, to include agency, voice, and multilingualism as resources. We also refined component 6, awareness that languages are socially created, to include awareness of language and multilingualism. In addition, we added a new seventh component: awareness of language as embodied and as a way of being human. The expansion of the framework was necessary to conduct a more nuanced analysis and to account more fully for the characteristics of the material.

These understandings of knowledge were then used to answer the research questions: themes 1-3 to answer RQ1 and themes 4-7 to answer RQ 2.

The objective of this article is to examine how teacher educators at three universities express CMLA in relation to their teaching in various subject disciplines. As highlighted by several scholars (Alim, 2010; García, 2017), CMLA encompasses awareness of social, political, and economic conditions that shape linguistic diversity, as well as a commitment to challenging inequitable language ideologies. Consequently, CMLA is not just about acknowledging linguistic diversity but also involves rethinking perceptions about language(s) in education (García, 2017). As Sweden is a multilingual country, all teachers can expect to encounter pupils with diverse linguistic backgrounds and should be able to support their learning of diverse subjects.

By analysing interviews with teacher educators, we have explored their awareness of critical multilingual aspects of their teaching in their respective subject disciplines. First, it is important to acknowledge that the participating teacher educators in the project may have been more positively disposed towards linguistic diversity. Second, they were explicitly asked about their views on this topic and, therefore, may have been more likely to highlight the role of language when addressing their subjects and courses.

A general awareness of disciplinary language and the interdependence between subject knowledge and language became clear as all the teacher educators highlighted specific linguistic issues in relation to their respective subjects. These results diverge from previous studies (Hermansson et al., 2022), which indicated that linguistic diversity was addressed primarily within language subjects or the Swedish subject (Bylund & Warnby, 2024). In the current study, a few of the interview teacher educators stressed the plurality of language in the form of both linguistic variation and multimodality. Unlike findings in Carlson and Rabo (2008), Carlsson (2009), and Paulsrud and Lundberg (2021), these teacher educators did not simply treat multilingualism as an issue only for students who speak languages other than Swedish at home, but as important knowledge for all student teachers. However, a positive attitude towards multilingualism and inclusive education might not bring any change to the actual teaching or practical training in teacher education (see also Paulsrud & Zilliacus, 2018; Iversen, 2020). Although the questions focused on multilingualism, the importance of skills in academic Swedish among their students was particularly highlighted. Accordingly, the majority language, Swedish, specifically written academic Swedish, is mainly emphasised as something the students must master, and thus as something rather fixed and unchangeable. This view stands in contrast to the view on language as “socially created and thus socially changeable” (García 2017, p. 269), which is one of the components of CMLA.

Critical aspects of language awareness were largely implicit with relatively few teacher educators demonstrating explicit political or ideological engagement with language as has been highlighted as necessary for teacher education by, among others, Cinaglia and De Costa (2022), García and Kleyn (2013), Haddix (2008), Li et al. (2021), Rodriguez-Mojica et al. (2019), and Yang and Montgomery (2013). Many framed multilingualism as a resource, but also as a challenge, while political and social awareness of language was less apparent. A few teacher educators positioned the students as more experienced and knowledgeable regarding multilingualism than themselves, and some, according to our analysis, advocated for a reciprocal CMLA in which the student teachers’ linguistic experience enables them to act as co-constructors of knowledge.

A few teacher educators suggested that language and communication are essential to being human and thus related to identity and fundamental values in education and society. Still, the value of multilingualism to inclusion and effective education was only highlighted by some of the language teachers, as was found by Hermansson et al. (2022). In a similar vein, it is striking that explicit awareness about colonial and imperialistic oppression appeared only at one university and only in relation to national minority languages. Unlike other contexts, where a decolonial perspective is more emphasized in education and society (e.g., Shank Lauwo et al., 2022; Van Gorp et al., 2023 & Windle et al., 2023), there is a general lack of expressions of awareness of the colonial history and coloniality in Sweden.

The lived experience of being an L2 speaker and being multilingual in Sweden is becoming important for the development of awareness, both among individual teacher educators and among student teachers. This is something that can be made explicit in teaching practices to raise awareness among all future primary school teachers. CMLA is not just learning about language(s) and linguistic diversity, but also challenging the prevailing monolingual norm. This requires that linguistic diversity is acknowledged as a value both for the individual and for a democratic and just society. The Swedish Education Act (chapter 14§) states that education should teach and establish respect for human rights and the fundamental democratic values that constitute the Swedish society. We strongly believe that linguistic diversity is integral to these objectives.

The findings in this study underscore the relevance of CMLA as a transformative framework in teacher education that enables a shift from merely acknowledging linguistic diversity to actively engaging with its pedagogical, political, and personal dimensions. Importantly, the study reveals that multilingualism is not confined to language subjects; rather, many teacher educators perceive it as integral to the core of their disciplines, including science, mathematics, social sciences, and art. This challenges traditional compartmentalized views and opens possibilities for cross-disciplinary language pedagogies.

Despite this recognition, the study also highlights tensions. While multilingualism is often described as a resource, the dominant focus remains on proficiency in academic Swedish, potentially reinforcing monolingual norms. This suggests a need for reconceptualizing language proficiency in teacher education — not as mastery of a fixed standard, but as dynamic, multimodal, and socially situated.

These findings indicate a need to integrate CMLA across all subject areas. This can involve securing institutional support and time for teacher educators, developing modules that address language ideologies and translanguaging beyond language-focused courses, and positioning student teachers as co‑constructors of knowledge who build on their multilingual repertoires.

This study contributes to the theoretical development of CMLA by extending García’s framework to include an additional dimension that treats language as embodied and as a way of being human. It shows how disciplinary language practices intersect with multilingual awareness and points to the need for subject-specific CMLA pedagogies. The study also underscores the significance of teacher educators’ own linguistic identities and experiences in shaping their pedagogical stance.

In considering the results of this study, future research should explore longitudinal development of CMLA across different stages of teacher education as well as compare universities and national contexts to examine how institutional conditions shape multilingual pedagogies.

The technical support of the Swedish national research infrastructure Språkbanken CLARIN, funded jointly by the Swedish Research Council (2025-2028, contract 2023-00161-16) and the 10 participating partner institutions, is gratefully acknowledged.