Student ambivalence toward second language education in three Swedish upper secondary schools

Teachers’ acts of legitimation in second language education in Swedish upper secondary schools

“…Hedman and Magnusson (2018) found, however, the empirical underpinnings of both discourses to be scarce, in particular with regard to educational practices and the perspectives of its stakeholders. Two follow-up studies, based in the same three linguistically and culturally diverse upper secondary schools as in the current paper, focused on the perspectives of 15 students in their last grade, regarding their motives for choosing and staying in SSL, given that these students decide for themselves which subject to study, and their experiences after doing so (Hedman and Magnusson 2020). The findings were reflective of the above-mentioned discourses, with regard to an ambivalence towards SSL among students in relation to their choice of SSL, connotations of pejorative societal discourses on immigration and L2 use, as well as SSL as stigmatizing.…”

“…Discursive student constructions were analyzed through the lens of discourses on SSL as referred to above (Hedman and Magnusson 2018) in terms of reproducing or contesting such discourses, and in relation to the goals of SSL and the teachers' role as SSL teachers. Also, as in Hedman and Magnusson (2020), the analyses thus draw on a language ideological frame (Hult 2012) and the recognition of linguistic hierarchies, which may be reflected in status differences between languages in a societal context, and between first and second language speakers.…”

“…Her critique was directed mainly to the students' previous schooling in compulsory school. However, as students in upper secondary school choose between SSL and SWE, all teachers informed the students explicitly that they were allowed to change from SSL to SWE if they wanted to, which also happened, in both directions, according to the teachers, although not during our fieldwork (Hedman and Magnusson 2020).…”

“…On the other hand, its legitimacy is contested, as it is considered stigmatizing (Hedman and Magnusson 2018). Thus, one study also investigated how upper secondary students in SSL perceive the subject, why they choose it, and why they continue to study it (Hedman and Magnusson 2020).…”

“…As we have argued elsewhere, such debates have been poorly informed by empirical data and it has not always been clear from research what type of educational provision is being discussed, and what the local conditions are (cf. Hedman and Magnusson 2020). Yet another problem has been that the legitimacy of SSL has been discussed through the lens of language educational provisions in other national contexts that are not easily comparable.…”