Promoting Reading and Writing Development Among Multilingual Students in Need of Special Educational Support: Collaboration Between Heritage Language Teachers and Special Educational Needs Teachers

Abstract

In the Swedish compulsory school system, multilingual students’ reading and writing development is supported, among other measures and practices, by heritage language (HL) teachers. To effectively support multilingual students, whether they require special educational assistance or not, collaboration between heritage language teachers and special education needs (SEN) teachers is essential. Thus, a key consideration is how HL and SEN teachers work together to promote reading and writing skills in multilingual children. We present two sub-studies: Study 1, a questionnaire answered by 33 HL teachers, and Study 2, consisting of in-depth interviews with a different group of 13 HL teachers. Both sub-studies aim to increase our understanding of HL teachers’ experiences of collaborative practices with SEN teachers for promoting reading and writing development among multilingual students with or without the need of special educational support. The findings reveal that HL teachers, though well qualified and committed, are often excluded from collaborative planning with SEN teachers. This study highlights the systemic barriers and opportunities for improving literacy support through interprofessional collaboration.

1. Introduction

Sweden has a robust system to support multilingual students in compulsory schools, reflecting the country’s linguistic diversity, with over 200 different languages spoken daily (Ganuza & Sayehli, 2020). During the school year 2024/25, 15.3% of all Swedish students had a parent who was born outside of Sweden and 11.5% of all students were born abroad (SNAE, 2025b), amplifying the need for cross-disciplinary literacy strategies. Among these students, 33,300 students were newly immigrated. In order to promote reading and writing development among multilingual students, Swedish compulsory schools utilize the following: language-promoting teaching in all subjects, Swedish as a second language as a subject, mother tongue instruction, and multilingual study guidance in the student’s first language (SNAE, 2018). In this paper, the term multilingual student refers to students using another first language (L1) than Swedish.

The current study focuses on the experiences of heritage language (HL) teachers, who interact with their students during mother tongue instruction and multilingual study guidance. Mother tongue instruction, sometimes referred to as mother tongue tuition (e.g., Reath Warren, 2013) or heritage language instruction (e.g., Martínez, 2003) is an optional, graded subject for students who use a language other than Swedish at home, or who come from a minority background (Sámi, Finnish, Meänkieli, Romany Chib, and Yiddish). These students are entitled weekly instruction in their first language (SOU, 2019).

During the school year 2024/25, 28.5% of all Swedish students were entitled to mother tongue instruction, and 55% of these chose to attend such instruction (SNAE, 2025b). Multilingual study guidance in the students’ L1, on the other hand, is an additional, temporary, and state-funded support measure designed to help multilingual students meet learning objectives in all subjects. The structure, content, and duration of this support are tailored to align with each student’s specific educational needs and are delivered within the context of a mainstream classroom setting (Sheikhi, 2019; SNAE, 2015). Out of all students in Swedish compulsory schools, a total of 7% received multilingual study guidance during the school year 2024/25 (SNAE, 2025a).

Given that many mother tongue teachers also work as multilingual study guidance tutors (sometimes also referred to as multilingual classroom assistants, e.g., Dávila & Bunar, 2020), this article utilizes the term HL teacher to describe both (e.g., Sparreskog, 2025). In Sweden, most HL teachers are employed by centralized language units within municipalities and not by individual schools.

In terms of special educational needs (SEN), Swedish schools employ SEN teachers (sometimes also referred to as special educational needs coordinators, e.g., Göransson et al., 2015) to provide support (mainly to classroom teachers) and develop structures that will provide adequate learning environments and support for all students within the mainstream school system (e.g., Wermke & Beck, 2025). However, the research suggests that the specific roles of SEN teachers and other occupational groups in Sweden responsible for educational work related to children in need of special support varies a great deal (e.g., Göransson et al., 2017). While the majority of special educational support is implemented within the structures implemented in schools and there is ample collaboration between SEN teachers and mainstream teachers, the specific links between SEN teachers and HL teachers are less straightforward. For one thing, HL teachers usually only meet with their students once a week, whereas mainstream teachers meet with them daily. In addition, given that HL teachers are employed by centralized language units rather than by individual schools, the structures that allow for natural and easy continuous collaboration between the two professions (HL teachers and SEN teachers) are lacking (e.g., Hedman & Magnusson, 2023; Roux Sparreskog, 2018; Sparreskog, 2025). In order to adequately support multilingual students, with or without the need for special educational support, a functional collaborative approach between HL teachers and SEN teachers is required (e.g., Sparreskog, 2025). An important question is, therefore, how HL teachers and SEN teachers can collaborate to promote reading and writing development in multilingual children.

2. Pedagogical Collaboration Supporting Multilingual Reading and Writing Development

Pedagogical collaboration (also referred to as team teaching, e.g., Baeten & Simons, 2014; co-teaching, cooperative teaching, collaborative teaching, e.g., Bauler & Kang, 2020; or teacher collaboration, e.g., Yoon, 2023) is crucial for supporting multilingual students’ language and knowledge development, as well as their general academic success (e.g., Cummins, 2001; García, 2009; Leana & Pil, 2006). Previous studies have suggested that teachers who collaborate experience a shared responsibility for their students’ well-being, learning, and development, which in turn increases the chances of academic success for students who face difficulties in school (e.g., Bolam et al., 2005; Goddard et al., 2007). Humphrey et al. (2006) investigated how teachers from different countries reason about supporting multilingual students’ language and knowledge development. These teachers (who all work in linguistically and culturally diverse classrooms) highlighted the challenges of teaching students with varied linguistic and cultural backgrounds simultaneously in the same classroom, and emphasized the importance of shared pedagogical discussions and the need to build collaborative networks with other professionals. Yoon (2023) recognized the uneven power balance between language teachers and subject teachers, and highlighted the need for functional collaboration between the two for supporting multilingual students’ learning. Collaboration between language and subject teachers was also described by Molle and Huang (2021). According to them, didactic collaboration is seen as a process involving professionals from different disciplines who share the goal of integrating various perspectives and methods from their respective fields to support multilingual students’ language and knowledge development in a holistic and innovative way. Bronstein (2003) highlighted four crucial factors for successful interdisciplinary collaboration, namely the understanding of professional roles, structural characteristics, personal characteristics, and the history of collaboration.

Multilinguals who master their L1 well tend to demonstrate greater mental flexibility (García, 2009). They often possess more advanced linguistic awareness and flexibility, and can develop a higher level of metalinguistic awareness compared to monolingual children. Furthermore, the research suggests that multilingual children find it easier to learn additional languages (Chang & Sylva, 2015). Socioeconomic advantages have also been found, in that individuals with strong multilingual skills are often considered more attractive in the job market. Rosén (2013) further emphasizes that multilingualism is associated with higher cultural awareness and competence. These positive effects of multilingualism justify the allocation of economic resources to promote and strengthen both individual and societal multilingualism (Hyltenstam & Milani, 2012), as is, indeed, the case in Sweden.

Swedish policy documents strongly affirm the right to multilingual language development. In accordance with The Swedish Language Act (2009), individuals residing in Sweden who speak multiple languages are legally entitled to cultivate both their first and second language (L2) proficiencies. However, teaching in a society characterized by linguistic and cultural heterogeneity entails both opportunities and challenges (Cummins, 2017), and teachers’ encounters with linguistic and cultural diversity have often been described as challenging (Lahdenperä, 2000). Today’s teachers encounter a highly diverse student population, comprising multilingual learners with a wide range of linguistic backgrounds and educational needs. In culturally and linguistically diverse schools, staff may be forced to prioritize certain support measures over others (Krulatz & Iversen, 2020). Lindberg (2009) also emphasizes that this complex diversity requires a different kind of linguistic preparedness from all teachers—not just language teachers.

The research emphasizes that all students’ linguistic repertoires and backgrounds should be included in classroom practices (Krulatz & Iversen, 2020). Teachers need to consider the diverse languages, cultures, and experiences of all their students (Cummins, 2000a). When teachers connect to students’ prior knowledge and educational experiences, students are more likely to perceive the education as relevant and meaningful. Schools should therefore make use of students’ cultural, social, and linguistic diversity. Cummins describes linguistic and cultural inclusion as key factors for successful learning. This can be achieved by providing students with rich opportunities to use and develop all their linguistic resources in school (Axelsson & Magnusson, 2012). Allowing students to use their full linguistic repertoire has a positive impact on their identity development, and thereby on their potential for academic success (Axelsson & Magnusson, 2012). Identity, language, and knowledge development are seen as central factors for academic achievement among all students. A school’s positive attitude toward multilingualism, language- and knowledge-promoting teaching methods, consideration of students’ prior knowledge and experiences, parental involvement, high expectations of students, and a multilingual approach within the school are all crucial for academic success (Axelsson & Magnusson, 2012). Teachers’ recognition of multilingualism is considered key for fostering student motivation and engagement (Cummins, 2017). This is supported by Otterup (2019), who emphasizes that a school’s attitude toward and treatment of multilingual students is vital for academic success. Obondo et al. (2016) also highlight the importance of teachers’ didactic competence and pedagogical intentions for successful teaching in linguistically and culturally diverse classrooms.

The most recent Progress in International Reading Literacy Study (PIRLS; SNAE, 2021), which measures and compares reading comprehension among fourth-grade students, confirms that Swedish students’ performance has declined since the 2016 PIRLS cycle. This decrease in reading comprehension is particularly evident among students from low socioeconomic backgrounds and those with a migration background. Identifying the root causes of the academic challenges for these students, however, can be particularly difficult. Additionally, identifying and evaluating the special educational needs (SEN) of multilingual learners involves accounting for a complex interplay of factors (Choo & Smith, 2020), including environmental and contextual aspects, such as limited exposure to proficient L2 speakers, linguistically demanding settings, and inadequate opportunities for L2 development (Marinova-Todd et al., 2016), as well as a range of individual factors, including psychosocial, neuropsychiatric, and cognitive aspects (Salameh, 2003). Effectively addressing these needs requires a synthesis of perspectives from both multilingual and special education fields. Yet, the persistent lack of integration between these domains often results in insufficient support for multilingual students with SEN (Cioè-Peña, 2017; Howard et al., 2021). Typically, they receive support either for their multilingual development or for their special needs, but rarely for both. Support that effectively combines multilingual education with special needs provision is available to only a limited subset of students (e.g., Lopes-Murphy, 2020; Wedin & Wessman, 2017).

HL teachers play a crucial role when it comes to identifying and interpreting potential learning difficulties among multilingual students (Vuorenpää & Zetterholm, 2020). Consequently, the collaboration between HL teachers and SEN teachers is necessary to define the SEN of multilingual students adequately. According to previous research, pedagogical collaboration is a common practice, particularly in North American (Baeten & Simons, 2014) and Asian classrooms (Stewart & Perry, 2005), where language teachers often collaborate with other subject teachers. In European contexts, however, pedagogical collaboration is described less frequently (Creese, 2006; Lasagabaster, 2018). The research on the collaboration between HL teachers and SEN teachers from HL teachers’ perspectives in a Scandinavian context is even scarcer (e.g., Roux Sparreskog, 2025; Sparreskog, 2025).

3. Promoting CALP Among Multilingual Students

Reading and writing skills are vital for learning and developing subject knowledge (Axelsson & Magnusson, 2012). As Swedish society and the Swedish school system require high competency in literacy, reading and writing proficiency plays a central role in becoming a successful democratic citizen (Hyltenstam & Lindberg, 2013). However, there are several ways in which these types of competencies can be conceptualized. Cummins (2008, p. 71), for example, differentiates between basic interpersonal communication skills (BICS) and cognitive academic language proficiency (CALP). BICS develop during a child’s early years and through everyday social interactions, and are defined as a child’s basic language skills. CALP, or the “oral and written academic registers” (Cummins, 2000b, p. 67), on the other hand, are acquired thorough schooling. Consequently, schools and teachers play a crucial role in students’ reading and writing development (Lindberg, 2009).

The acquisition of CALP is time-consuming, and all students need to develop skills such as analytic reasoning to develop academic language competences (Cummins, 2008). However, multilingual students face challenges that L1 learners do not (Axelsson & Magnusson, 2012). For instance, many multilingual students need to acquire L2 BICS and CALP simultaneously when entering school.

Many different factors affect the variability in L2 acquisition (Lindberg & Sandwall, 2012), including the age of acquisition, level of L2 exposure (regarding both the quantity and the quality), socioeconomic status, and the similarity between the L1 and the L2 (e.g., Abrahamsson et al., 2018; Andersson et al., 2019; Hoff, 2003; Jarvis & Pavlenko, 2007; Ringbom, 2007). In addition, migration often involves a wide range of experiences (particularly in terms of educational factors), and immigrants can often experience acculturation stress related to the challenges of balancing navigating a new country and culture and everything that entails, whilst maintaining their culture of origin (e.g., Aichberger et al., 2015). These factors result in a large variability in the students that HL teachers may encounter.

Chang and Sylva (2015) distinguish between the psychological, cognitive, and external variables, including the social context and the quality and sociolect of the spoken L1 in a student’s environment. A student’s mastery of their L1 also contributes to their development of literacy in their L2 (Chang & Sylva, 2015). The more proficient a student is in L1 reading and writing (regardless of the differences between the L1 and L2), the easier their acquisition of reading and writing competences in L2 will be. Relatedly, students with an immigrant background have a higher risk of receiving lower school results, dropping out of school, or working in low-paid jobs after school (Lokhande & Reichle, 2019; PISA, 2022). Mastering literacy in one’s L1 can benefit academic success (Chang & Sylva, 2015), which, in turn, can contribute to a successful subsequent work life.

It is therefore evident that HL teachers serve as vital linguistic and cultural mediators, bridging students’ L1s and L2s as well as connecting their home and school cultural contexts (Rosén et al., 2019; Vuorenpää & Zetterholm, 2020).

4. Teaching Basic Reading and Writing to Students at Pre-Reading Stages

Low literacy levels pose problems both for an individual and for society (Lindberg & Sandwall, 2012). Furthermore, Lindberg and Sandwall stress that lower employability and low salary can be linked to limited reading and writing skills. Consequentially, Swedish policy documents stress the importance of promoting these competences (SNAE, 2022). Teaching reading and writing skills to L2 learners presents its own set of challenges, especially for students who have not acquired L1 reading and writing skills. It naturally becomes even more challenging to teach reading and writing skills to L2 learners with extensive support needs (Frates et al., 2022). This issue becomes further complicated by the fact that a relatively low percentage of the personnel working with these students are trained for this specific task (e.g., Mueller et al., 2006).

On top of this, the research on teaching reading and writing is complicated, and there is a knowledge gap when it comes to this specific group of students. Generally, the studies investigating reading and writing acquisition in pre- or emergent-reading children have typically focused on L1 acquisition (e.g., Brett et al., 1996; Elley, 1989; Penno et al., 2002). In contrast, the studies investigating L2 acquisition have typically investigated highly literate learners with established reading and writing skills in their L1 (e.g., Vidal, 2003, 2011). Consequently, L2 learners with low or no L1 literacy are an understudied and neglected group (Bigelow & Tarone, 2004; LaScotte, 2020). This knowledge gap in how to teach L2 reading and writing to pre-readers makes it even more difficult to develop concrete guidelines for how teachers can support multilingual students’ reading and writing development.

5. The Current Study

The aim of the current study is thus to investigate how HL teachers experience collaborative practices with SEN teachers in the task of promoting and supporting reading and writing development among multilingual students. To this end, this paper reports two different studies with data from two separate samples. Both studies each form part of larger research projects. However, for this current article, only the answers concerning collaboration with SEN teachers and students in SEN are analysed. Study 1 reports data from an electronic questionnaire with 33 HL teachers from one middle-sized municipality in Sweden. The questionnaire consisted of open-ended questions on the HL teachers’ experiences of working with students in need of special education, and their pedagogical collaborations with SEN teachers for the purpose of supporting multilingual students in need of special educational support. Study 2 reports a qualitative study consisting of in-depth interviews with a separate group of 13 HL teachers from another middle-sized municipality in Sweden on their experiences of promoting reading and writing development in students with and without special educational needs. In combination, the two studies aim to highlight the aspects that are relevant for teaching heterogenous groups of multilingual students as a heritage language teacher, and their experiences promoting and supporting these students’ reading and writing development and their collaboration with SEN teachers in order to do so.

6. Study 1: Questionnaire Study

6.1. Materials and Methods Study 1

6.1.1. Participants Study 1

An electronic questionnaire (see Appendix A) was distributed to all the HL teachers from one Swedish municipality during one of their monthly staff meetings. Of the 40 HL teachers present, 33 chose to answer the questionnaire. The participants had between 1 and 11+ years of work experience. Some worked solely as mother tongue teachers while the majority worked both as mother tongue teachers and as study guidance tutors. Their educational backgrounds varied, but all had a university degree from Sweden and/or their home country. Some of the participants had a degree in teaching and learning, while others had a degree in other subjects. For more details on the demographic information about the participants, see

Table A1. Demographic background of participants in Study 1.

Participant	Education	Work Experience
HL1	Degree in teaching and learning from Sweden	11 or more years
HL2	Other university degree from another country	0–2 years
HL3	Degree in teaching and learning from another country	11 or more years
HL4	Degree in teaching and learning from Sweden	3–5 years
HL5	Degree in teaching and learning from Sweden	11 or more years
HL6	Other university degree from another country	6–10 years
HL7	Other university degree from another country	6–10 years
HL8	Degree in teaching and learning from Sweden	0–2 years
HL9	Degree in teaching and learning from another country	11 or more years
HL10	Degree in teaching and learning from Sweden	11 or more years
HL11	Degree in teaching and learning from another country	6–10 years
HL12	Degree in teaching and learning from Sweden	3–5 years
HL13	Degree in teaching and learning from another country	11 or more years
HL14	Other university degree from another country	11 or more years
HL15	Degree in teaching and learning from Sweden	11 or more years
HL16	Other university degree from another country	11 or more years
HL17	Degree in teaching and learning from another country	0–2 years
HL18	Degree in teaching and learning from another country	0–2 years
HL19	Other university degree from another country	11 or more years
HL20	Other university degree from another country	11 or more years
HL21	Other university degree from another country	11 or more years
HL22	Other university degree from another country	0–2 years
HL23	Other university degree from another country	11 or more years
HL24	Degree in teaching and learning from another country	6–10 years
HL25	Degree in teaching and learning from another country	11 or more years
HL26	Degree in teaching and learning from Sweden	11 or more years
HL27	Degree in teaching and learning from Sweden	6–10 years
HL28	Other university degree from Sweden	11 or more years
HL29	Degree in teaching and learning from another country	11 or more years
HL30	Other university degree from another country	6–10 years
HL31	Degree in teaching and learning from Sweden	0–2 years
HL32	Degree in teaching and learning from Sweden	11 or more years
HL33	Degree in teaching and learning from Sweden	11 or more years

(see Appendix B). In terms of their teaching languages, 29 different languages were represented in total in the sample (see Appendix C).

6.1.2. Materials and Procedure Study 1

As this study is part of a larger ongoing project, the electronic questionnaire was constructed to cover several areas of HL teachers’ working life identified as important in previous studies (e.g., Avery, 2015; Ganuza & Hedman, 2018; Wedin & Wessman, 2017). For this particular paper, special attention was given to the question about HL teachers’ experiences of collaboration with SEN teachers. As such, this allowed for an exploratory investigation of the current collaborative practices between HL teachers and SEN teachers for the purpose of supporting multilingual students in need of special educational support, from HL teachers’ perspectives.

To ensure that ethical standards were met, all the participants were informed of the aim of the study and the voluntary nature of participation before answering the questionnaire (Swedish Research Council, 2024). The questionnaire was fully anonymous, and no personal data (such as the participants’ names, ethnicities, sex, or age) were collected.

6.1.3. Analysis Study 1

The analysis of the collected data was inspired by Braun and Clarke (2006) and consisted of the following six steps:

Step 1: Familiarizing ourselves with the data by going through the data several times in their entirety.

Step 2: Generating initial codes: All the responses concerning collaboration with SEN teachers were classified and coded.

Step 3: Searching for themes: Preliminary patterns were identified, and a first-grade interpretation took place.

Step 4: Reviewing themes: The patterns, codes, and themes were compared and discussed.

Step 5: Defining and naming themes: The representation and visualization of the themes, by employing previous research and a second-grade interpretation of the data, were conducted.

Step 6 Producing a report.

An overview of the themes from Study 1 is presented in

Table 1. Overview of themes from Study 1.

Theme	Description	Supporting Statements (Translated from Swedish)
No collaboration	Of the 33 who answered the questionnaire, 17 reported that they had never collaborated with SEN teachers.	“I never even have met a SEN teacher” (HL teacher 13).
Collaboration when assessing students’ learning difficulties	The SEN teacher contributes his/her SEN knowledge and the HL teacher his/her L1 knowledge. They jointly discuss the students’ needs.	“We exchange information about the student to detect the reasons behind his/her language deficiencies or other problems” (HL teacher 15). “We meet and discuss the student’s difficulties and how we can help him/her” (HL teacher 18).
Collaboration when receiving guidance when teaching students in need of special education	When HL teachers feel that their knowledge is not enough to support students, they seek help and support from SEN teachers. SEN teachers provide materials, strategies, and guidance.	“in order to offer all my students adequate support” (HL teacher 19). “The SEN teacher provides me with teaching materials” (HL teacher 32). “The SEN teacher introduces me to digital aids and learning strategies” (HL teacher 9).

.

6.2. Results Study 1

Of the 33 HL teachers who responded, only nine reported regularly collaborating with SEN teachers. Seven reported only collaborating when needed, and 17 reported that they never collaborated with SEN teachers.

6.2.1. No Collaboration

Of the 17 HL teachers who reported having no experience collaborating with SEN teachers, one claimed to “never even have met a SEN teacher” (HL teacher 13). Thus, just over half of the participants had not collaborated with SEN teachers at all. This is despite the fact that most of them teach students with SEN. For example, HL teachers 29 and 31 claimed not to have collaborated with SEN teachers, even though they teach students on the Autism spectrum, with ADHD, or other learning difficulties in their mother tongue classrooms. Instead, these HL teachers seek collaboration with the students’ parents in order to adapt their teaching methods to the students’ needs.

6.2.2. Collaboration

The 16 HL teachers who do collaborate with SEN teachers stated that their collaboration mainly focuses on two different areas, namely (a) assessing students’ learning difficulties and (b) receiving guidance when teaching students in need of special education.

• Assessing students’ learning difficulties

When assessing students’ learning difficulties, the collaboration may be initiated by the HL teacher: “I seek collaboration when I discover language difficulties in students” (HL teacher 33), or “I contact the SEN teacher when I need to compare my observations about a student with the student’s behaviour during other lessons.” (HL teacher 24). The HL teachers describe how they, together with the SEN teacher, assess students’ learning difficulties. Within this collaborative process, HL teachers frequently draw on their expertise in the students’ L1—for instance, by analysing their L2 errors through the lens of the L1 structures or interpreting behavioural differences in light of the cultural norms associated with the students’ linguistic backgrounds. Meanwhile, the SEN teachers are described as contributing their SEN knowledge, such as detecting typical dyslectic mistakes or behaviours typically associated with neuropsychiatric disorders. Both the HL teachers and SEN teachers are described as equally contributing to these assessments. This is also reflected by the initiator of the collaboration, who can be either the SEN teacher or the HL teacher: “The SEN teacher calls to ask me if I have noticed learning difficulties in a student” (HL teacher 4), or “When I have questions and I want to know if my observations are correct, I email the SEN-teacher” (HL teacher 24).

Thus, most often, both the need to collaborate and the collaboration itself are described as mutually important: “We exchange information about the student to detect the reasons behind his/her language deficiencies or other problems.” (HL teacher 15), or “We meet and discuss the student’s difficulties and how we can help him/her.” (HL teacher 18). In those cases, the SEN teachers are described as contributing their knowledge about learning difficulties whilst the HL teachers share information about a student’s cultural and linguistic background. In some cases, they may even “plan the lessons together” (HL teacher 30). Thus, the collaboration is not only limited to assessing students’ learning difficulties, but also includes discussions about teaching methods and lesson content.

• Receiving guidance when teaching students in need of special education

The HL teachers also contact SEN teachers when they need guidance on teaching students in need of special education: “I contact SEN teachers when I teach a subject or an area, I do not have knowledge of. So, he/she can help me.” (HL teacher 21). Many study guidance tutors assist their students with a broad range of subjects. As they cannot be expected to have a degree in all those subjects, the basic teaching of unfamiliar subjects poses pedagogical challenges. Moreover, when they teach students with SEN in those subjects, they feel helpless, and rely strongly on the SEN teacher’s guidance. For example, despite having many years of work experience, HL teacher 21 does not have a degree in teaching and learning specifically, and thus does not have a theoretical knowledge of the teaching methods typically used in those subjects. This may be one of the reasons he/she seeks help and support from the SEN teacher. Similarly, HL teacher 19 expresses a need for methodological and pedagogical support, and reports initiating collaboration with SEN teachers “in order to offer ALL my students adequate support”. The SEN teachers provide even experienced HL teachers with degrees in teaching and learning with “teaching materials” (HL teacher 32) or introduce them to the implementation of “digital aids and learning strategies” (HL teacher 9). Thus, collaboration with SEN teachers is sought by HL teachers regardless of their level of work experience or whether or not their university degree is in teaching and learning or in another subject.

In sum, half the HL teachers report never collaborating with SEN teachers, despite teaching students who could benefit from such collaboration. The half that report collaborating with SEN teachers primarily state two reasons for their initiation of said collaboration: assessing students’ learning difficulties and receiving guidance when teaching students in need of special education.

6.3. Discussion Study 1

In accordance with previous research (Chang & Sylva, 2015; Lindberg & Sandwall, 2012), the HL teachers in Study 1 confirm collaborating with SEN teachers to assess multilingual students’ learning difficulties, considering both the linguistic and special educational aspects. Additionally, when supporting multilingual students in need of special education, collaboration with SEN teachers is described as necessary in order to adapt their teaching methods and materials to their multilingual students’ special educational needs. Thus, the collaboration between SEN teachers and HL teachers seems to be a prerequisite for providing holistic support for, and assessing the learning difficulties of, multilingual students with SEN.

However, Study 1 also shows, again in line with previous research (e.g., Hedman & Magnusson, 2023; Roux Sparreskog, 2018; Sparreskog, 2025), that many HL teachers, despite teaching students with SEN, do not always collaborate with SEN teachers. This is especially true for HL teachers with little work experience and/or no degree in teaching and learning. Consequently, many multilingual students may not receive adequate SEN support. Furthermore, the HL teachers who do not collaborate with SEN teachers may be excluded from what Wermke and Beck (2025) describe as the structures promoting adequate learning environments created by SEN teachers.

Study 1 reveals considerable variation in the educational qualifications of HL teachers. While some possess comprehensive academic qualifications in teaching and learning, complemented by extensive professional experience, others have only limited classroom exposure and lack formal pedagogical training altogether. The latter, in particular, would benefit from regular pedagogical collaboration in order to compensate for their lacking education in teaching and learning specifically. Effectively teaching multilingual students with special educational needs demands advanced pedagogical and methodological expertise, supported by a strong foundation in teacher education.

Moreover, the absence of collaboration between SEN teachers and heritage language teachers may hinder the ability of SEN professionals to adequately consider the cultural and linguistic backgrounds of multilingual students when evaluating and addressing their special educational needs. A comprehensive assessment and support strategy for multilingual learners with SEN must incorporate a wide range of contextual and individual dimensions. Given that more than half of the HL teachers in Study 1 stated that they have never collaborated with SEN teachers, many multilingual students in need of SEN support may be at risk of missing out on holistic multilingual SEN support.

7. Study 2: In-Depth Interviews

7.1. Materials and Methods Study 2

7.1.1. Participants Study 2

The participants consisted of 13 different HL teachers, teaching in a total of 15 different languages. For details on the range of the different languages represented, see Appendix D.

The HL teachers are employed by a special language unit within a medium-sized Swedish municipality. Collectively, they possess between two and eleven years of professional experience and exhibit a wide range of educational qualifications. While some hold multiple university degrees in teaching and learning, others lack formal higher education altogether. For more details on the demographic information about the participants, see

Table A4. Demographic background of participants in Study 2.

Heritage Language Teacher	Education	Working Years as HLT in Sweden
HLT 1	University degree in National Economics from home country.	5
HLT 2	General Swedish college degree.	2–5
HLT 3	University degree in Ethnology from home country. University degree in Multilingual Study Guidance from Sweden.	7
HLT 4	University degree in International Relations and in science from home country. University degree in English from Sweden. About to start Swedish teacher training at a Swedish university.	5
HLT 5	Some Swedish university credits in Mother Tongue Instruction and Multilingual Study Guidance. Some other university credits relevant for working with children affected by mobility on	10
HLT 6	University degree in English from home country.	5
HLT 7	University degree in Music and Teaching and Learning from home country. University degrees in Mother Tongue Instruction and Language Teaching from Sweden.	3
HLT 8	University degree in Teaching and Learning and Psychology from home country. Studies in Teaching and Learning at a Swedish university are ongoing.	5
HLT 9	University degree in Teaching and Learning in Mathematics from home country. Studies in Teaching and Learning in Sweden ongoing.	4
HLT 10	University degree in Teaching and Learning from home country.	11
HLT 11	University degree in Teaching and Learning from home country.	5
HLT 12	Swedish college degree in Childcare. Some university credits in Multilingual Study Guidance from Sweden.	6–10
HLT 13	University degree in Teaching and Learning and Finnish Literature from home. University degree in Ethnology Sweden.	17

(see Appendix E).

7.1.2. Materials and Procedure Study 2

During one of the monthly staff meetings at a specific language unit in a medium-sized Swedish municipality, an electronic sampling questionnaire was distributed to the 86 HL teachers present (see Appendix F). The selection questionnaire was fully anonymous. In total, 84 of the attendees answered the questionnaire. Of the 80 HL teachers who had experienced pedagogical collaboration with mainstream teachers and/or SEN teachers, 30 expressed their willingness to be interviewed. Note that this is a different sample than the participants in Study 1 reported above.

A thematical interview guide with possible questions was designed (see Appendix G) and tested in a pilot interview. Given that the interview guide was part of a broader research project, it encompassed multiple dimensions of heritage language teachers’ professional experiences, as outlined in prior studies (e.g., Avery, 2015; Ganuza & Hedman, 2018; Wedin & Wessman, 2017), and comprised the following areas: background, education, working conditions, collaboration, literacy development, students’ well-being, multilingualism, students in need of special education, and professional attitudes. However, only the answers about collaboration with SEN teachers and students in need of special education are reported in this article.

To reflect the broad cultural and linguistic diversity characteristic of HL teachers and to ensure maximum variation (Perry, 2011), one participant from each language group among the 30 volunteers was selected. This purposive sampling strategy aimed to capture a wide spectrum of perspectives by including a cross-section of cases, thereby enhancing representativeness. In line with Agar and Hobbs (1982) and Hammersley (2006), who emphasize the value of first-hand information, qualitative data were gathered through 13 individual, open-ended interviews, conducted during the spring of 2020.

To uphold ethical research standards, all the participants were informed about the study’s purpose and the voluntary nature of their involvement prior to completing the questionnaire and again before participating in the interviews (Swedish Research Council, 2017). No personal data (such as the participants’ names, ethnicities, sex, or age) were collected. To protect the interviewed HL teachers’ integrity, their names were replaced by HLT X, and the names of the schools mentioned in the interviews were replaced by school X.

To balance the power inequality between the interviewer and the participants, the HL teachers chose the date, the time, the location, and the language of the interview (see Kvale & Brinkman, 2014). One interview was conducted in English, one in both English and Swedish, and the rest in Swedish. The interviews were audio-recorded and lasted between 29 min and 62 min. Most were conducted face-to-face and some, due to COVID-19 restrictions, via video call. Thereafter, the recordings of the interviews were labelled with the date and the participant’s alias, saved in a secure, password-protected archive, and deleted from the recording device. All the quotations in the results sections are transcriptions from the interviews. The quotations from the Swedish interviews were translated into English by the authors.

7.1.3. Analysis Study 2

As in Study 1, the analysis of the collected data in Study 2 was inspired by Braun and Clarke (2006), and consisted of the same six steps as described in the Analysis section of Study 1. An overview of the themes in Study 2 is presented in

Table 2. Overview of themes in Study 2.

Theme	Description	Supporting Statement
Promoting CALP	Mother tongue class: Promoting L1 and L2 CALP. The mastery of the different languages influences each other. Strong L1 -> faster learning of and stronger L2. Curriculum: Reading, writing, talking. Linguistic and age-wise variation in mother tongue classes: Individualized teaching methods.	“I contribute in both L1 and Swedish. […] It is very important that my students learn both languages. […] During mother tongue lessons, they do so by reading, writing, talking and meeting others. They discuss and adapt the language, increase vocabulary by talking about different things. […] During mother tongue lessons, we try to learn to write and read correctly. […] We work with books. With younger students I work on reading and reading comprehension or on the writing of a simple book.”(HLT3) “I try to divide students into different groups. that is, those who are beginners and then those who know a lot of L1. We teach the entire spectrum. Students who know nothing and then those who have recently moved from L1 Country. […] We also teach preschool students [and up to] students who are in 9th grade.” (HLT 13)
	Study guidance: Promote L2 CALP in other subjects through the use of L1. If L2 language and L2 school culture differ from L1 and L1 country -> introduce students to L2 school culture.	“You cannot just expose students to Swedish only and give them lots and lots of Swedish words and Swedish exercises. You must go through their mother tongue.” (HLT8) “Because the criteria and requirements for reaching a grade are different here than in L1-Country.” (HLT1) “There is a big difference between schools there and here.” (HLT1)
Teaching basic reading and writing to students at pre-reading stages	Learning how to read and write, even among older students. Reasons why older students do not read and write yet must be investigated. Possible reasons: Students who have not attended school before, due to migration or different school traditions; Students who did not learn to read and write in their L1 due to oppression; The families’ SES and parents’ previous educational background influence the students’ learning pace.	HLT 12: “We started with basic reading and writing.” Interviewer: “You mean with preschool students?” HLT 12: “No, not only. There are also older students who cannot read and write. For example, they have not gone to school in their home country. So, they are older than their Swedish classmates. One student I’m working with right now is in fifth grade. But they can be even older.” “He has never gone to school in his L1. He spent years in refugee camps, where he went to Religion schools in another language than his L1. A language with another alphabet than his L1 and Swedish.” (HLT 12) “We couldn’t learn to read and write in L1 in our home countries. We had to learn to read and write in the home country’s official language.” (HLT5) “In L1 Country you are not forced to go to school.” (HLT 12) “I regularly talk to the parents. […] Some of them don’t have an education themselves. For instance, one mother was illiterate when she came to Sweden. So, it’s not easy for her to deal with [her daughter’s school] problems or tell the teacher what the problem is. She just says, I’m really worried about my daughter.” (HLT6)
Assessing and supporting students with SEN	Assessing HL teachers are experts on their students’ L1 and home culture. Comparing L1 and L2.	“A SEN teacher contacted me about a student. They suspected dyslexia and wanted me to confirm or exclude it, considering the student’s L1 proficiency.” (HLT 9) “I contribute to linguistic assessments by answering questions about the students L1. I compare their L2 development to their L1 development.” (HLT3)
	Supporting HL teachers are dependent on the SEN teachers’ collaboration and information to support multilingual students with SEN. Not all HL teachers are informed by the SEN teachers or some HL teachers only partially.	HLT 6: “I taught a student once who had difficulties, learning difficulties. […] when I heard from the SEN teacher that she [the student] should either go to a school for pupils with intellectual disabilities or they should adapt their teaching methods to the student’s needs. I contacted the SEN teacher and asked if I could get some advice on how I should work with the student.” Interviewer: “Did you get any good tips?” HLT 6: “Yes, we shouldn’t read and write too much. But, when I asked what the student had, they only said difficulties. They did not want to specify what kind of difficulties.”

.

7.2. Results Study 2

Three main themes emerged from the thematical data analysis of the 13 in-depth interviews, namely promoting CALP, teaching basic reading and writing to students at pre-reading stages, and assessing and supporting students with SEN. The quotations were translated from Swedish into standard English by the authors. To maintain anonymity in the following results section, the HL teachers’ L1, home countries, and nationalities are replaced by L1, L1 Country, and Nationality.

7.3. Promoting CALP

The HL teachers describe promoting CALP differently depending on whether they work as mother tongue teachers or as study guidance tutors. Therefore, the following section is divided in two subsections, namely Section 7.3.1—Promoting CALP in the role of mother tongue teachers and Section 7.3.2—Promoting CALP in the Role of Study Guidance Tutors.

7.3.1. Promoting CALP in the Role of Mother Tongue Teacher

In their role as mother tongue teachers, all the HL teachers report supporting their students in their L1 and L2 CALP.

Interviewer: How do you, as a mother tongue teacher and multilingual study guidance tutor contribute to the student’s reading and writing development?

HLT 3: I contribute in both L1 and Swedish. […] It is very important that my students learn both languages. […] During mother tongue lessons, they do so by reading, writing, talking and meeting others. They discuss and adapt the language, increase vocabulary by talking about different things. […] During mother tongue lessons, we try to learn to write and read correctly. […] We work with books. With younger students I work on reading and reading comprehension or on the writing of a simple book.

HLT3 describes the typical mother tongue subject content. In the curriculum for mother tongue instruction, both oral and written communication and reading and writing development are described as the central learning outcomes. Several HL teachers report trying to expose their students to as much written and spoken L1 as possible during mother tongue lessons: “We create as much room as possible for practicing the L1, because some of them don’t get the chance to talk much L1 elsewhere” (HLT 9). Language exposure is seen as important, since contact with L1 speakers may be limited for most students. In addition, the quality of the language the students meet can vary. According to the HL teachers, the students need adult language role models and as much language exposure as possible to develop their language skills. Additionally, the HL teachers mention exposure to the L1 culture: “I expose them to the Nationality language and the Nationality culture. […] They must be exposed to reading and writing in their mother tongue” (HLT 4). Culture is described as an important part of language learning. According to the HL teachers, language is not learned in a vacuum, but within a context.

The HL teachers describe how they individualize their teaching methods and materials due to the heterogeneity of the mother tongue classes in terms of age, previous L1 knowledge, linguistic variation, and dialects.

I try to divide students into different groups. that is, those who are beginners and then those who know a lot of L1. We teach the entire spectrum. Students who know nothing and then those who have recently moved from L1 Country. […] We also teach preschool students [to] students who are in 9th grade.

(HLT 13)

HLT 8 describes the linguistic variation and dialects in their mother tongue classes:

In L1 Country we have 23 official languages. And I teach students from all the different continents. […] I teach English, which is a huge language. My students come from the USA, Australia, India, Nigeria, Great Britan and some other countries. Many different countries and cultures. But I am used to differences from my home country.

Meanwhile, teaching CALP in the L1 is sometimes a complicated endeavour due to the lack of written materials in some languages, and several HL teachers describe having to create their own teaching materials: “We teachers have created a selection of nice books and fairy tales. […] There are no official textbooks. But some teachers have travelled to L1 Country and written textbooks” (HLT12).

Thus, the HL teachers actively work to promote L1 and L2 CALP using various strategies, including diverse teachings methods, the creation of their own materials, and contact with parents.

7.3.2. Promoting CALP in Their Role as Study Guidance Tutors

In their role as tutors, the HL teachers promote L2 CALP in subjects other than mother tongue instruction, such as mathematics, geography, and chemistry. The HL teachers describe how they try to expose their students to and promote CALP in both their L1 and L2. They describe how they promote L2 CALP using L1. As HLT 8 expresses it: “You cannot just expose students to only Swedish and give them lots and lots of Swedish words and Swedish exercises. You must go through their mother tongue.” HLT 8 describes the importance of the L1 and how the L1 is used to understand concepts and notions. Only exposing students to the L2, in this case Swedish, does not help the student. He/she needs to truly understand the concepts in his/her L1. In line with this, HLT 12 states: “I think that the mother tongue plays a role. So, if you master your mother tongue, well then it’s easier to learn Swedish too.”

However, L2 CALP is not only a question of learning the new language. The students must be introduced to the L2’s reading and writing practices, as well as the Swedish system in general.

“When the students are newly arrived in Sweden, it is not enough to just translate words. Because they don’t understand much of the system. […] you cannot just translate the words […]. You must first translate the concepts and explain the context. […].”

(HLT3)

Reading and writing practices differ in different languages as well as in different subjects. “The students must learn to write different kinds of texts. In other words, it is not enough to translate what the student has written in L1 into Swedish. […]. It can’t be read. Because it’s so different [in L1], you must be aware of that. I must think differently in Swedish than in L1. If the student for instance knows how to write letter-to-the-editor in L1, the student must adapt it to the Swedish way of writing this kind of letters. […] It’s not just a matter of linguistics, but you [as a tutor] and help the student to think.” (HLT 3)

According to the HL teachers, CALP development is not only a matter of being able to read and write or translate words, but also a question of adapting to the L2’s reading and writing traditions and school cultures.

In particular, analytic reasoning, which is a central ability required to reach the higher learning goals of many subjects, is described as a challenge for some multilingual students, as illustrated by HL teacher 10, who states that “Many students are unable to reason analytically. […] because they simply haven’t practiced reasoning and analysing in the same way as Swedish students.”

As illustrated in the quote above, some students are not used to analysing texts or reasoning about them as demanded by the Swedish curriculum. Due to differences in school cultures, these students struggle with reaching the learning objectives, which require critical reasoning. In these cases, the HL teachers describe how they help their students to understand the Swedish school context, the subjects’ learning objectives, and the subject teachers’ expectations. The HLTs describe how they try to ease students’ and their parents’ transition into the culture of the Swedish school system:

“It’s not just with students that I work with. I explain to the parents too. During the parent-teacher-talk, for example. […] Because the criteria and requirements for reaching a grade are different here than in L1-Country.”

(HLT1)

As illustrated in the quote, school culture is seen as an important part of CALP promotion, not only for the students themselves but for the students’ whole families. To support a student’s transition into Swedish school culture, the above-cited HL teacher feels the need to involve the student’s parents.

In sum, the HL teachers promote L2 CALP by promoting L1 CALP. They claim that a strong L1 enables the learning of the L2. Additionally, they stress the importance of an awareness of school cultures. They support their students and their families by pointing out differences between their home country’s school system and the Swedish school system.

7.4. Teaching Basic Reading and Writing to Multilingual Students at Pre-Reading Stages

Additionally, the HL teachers stated that they promote reading and writing development among multilingual students at pre-reading stages (i.e., before they have acquired reading and writing skills). When HLT 12 was asked how she teaches writing and reading to pre-reading students, she answered as follows:

HLT 12: We started with basic reading and writing.

Interviewer: You mean with preschool students?

HLT 12: No, not only. There are also older students who cannot read and write. For example, they have not gone to school in their home country. So, they are older than their Swedish classmates. One student I’m working with right now is in fifth grade. But they can be even older.

The above-cited HL teacher described how teaching basic reading and writing to students at pre-reading stages forms part of their work. Several HL teachers reported working with students at pre-reading stages. When asked how they tackled this complicated task, HLT 12 said

You can’t work with their literacy development according to their biological age. Some need to work with materials for younger students. […] We often start with the alphabet. […] When they can write letters, we work with easy Swedish books.

As shown in the quote above, the HL teachers described how they adapt their teaching methods and materials to suit their students’ levels. Additionally, the HL teachers stressed the need to investigate the reasons for why their students cannot read and write. For example, in some countries, school is not mandatory. “In L1 Country you are not forced to go to school” (HLT 12). Due to a state-imposed suppression of their linguistic and cultural identity, some students have only had access to education in languages other than their L1. “We couldn’t learn to read and write in L1 in our home countries. We had to learn to read and write in the home country’s official language (HLT5)”. Or, as HLT 2 expressed it as follows:

“He has never gone to school in his L1. He spent years in refugee camps, where he went to Religion schools in another language than his L1. A language with another alphabet [than his L1 and Swedish]”.

As illustrated above, some of the children, due to war and migration, have not been able to attend school regularly, or only in languages other than their L1, and/or in schools with different reading and writing traditions. In contrast, teaching reading and writing in Swedish is perceived as being easier when a student has already mastered their L1. This is illustrated in the following statement by HLT1:

“She has basic knowledge of the subject in her mother tongue and reasons in a very adult way. […] We only had to work on spelling in Swedish, then writing short Swedish words of 3–4 letters.”

However, the HL teachers do not only consider the students’ own reading and writing proficiency, but also the parents’ educational backgrounds. HLT 6’s statement illustrates this:

I regularly talk to the parents. […] Some of them don’t have an education themselves. For instance, one mother was illiterate when she came to Sweden. So, it’s not easy for her to deal with [her daughter’s school] problems or tell the teacher what the problem is. She just says, I’m really worried about my daughter.

The parents’ socioeconomic backgrounds are thus described as an important factor in the students’ previous and subsequent writing and reading development. Parents with university degrees, regardless of their L2 Swedish proficiency, are often described as a contributing factor to their child’s successful reading and writing development in the L2, Swedish.

In sum, the HL teachers focus on teaching basic reading and writing to students across a large age range, and mentioned the importance of the students’ and their parents’ background, and education for the students’ culture and language development.

7.5. Assessing and Supporting Students with SEN

Several HL teachers stated that they are involved in assessing students with SEN, focusing specifically on language. Given their expertise in students’ linguistic and cultural backgrounds, HL teachers are often consulted by SEN professionals when a learner’s L2 development diverges from the expected norms. “A SEN teacher contacted me about a student. They suspected dyslexia and wanted me to confirm or exclude it, considering the student’s L1 proficiency” (HLT 9). In these situations, HL teachers systematically investigate the error patterns in L2 production, juxtaposing them with the syntactic and grammatical structures of the L1 and the learner’s proficiency in the L1. This comparative analysis informs the identification and assessment of a student’s linguistic shortcomings. Or, as HLT 3 expressed it as follows: “I contribute to linguistic assessments by answering questions about the students L1. I compare their L2 development to their L1 development.” With the HL teacher’s expertise of the student’s L1 and home culture, SEN teachers can include L1 in their assessments.

When linguistic impairments or literacy challenges are detected, the HL teachers often collaborate with SEN teachers to support their students’ language development as well as their CALP development. Most often, the SEN teacher and the HL teacher discuss the student’s development, as HLT12 explained: “The SEN teacher informs me how she works with the student”. This enabled HLT12 to adapt their teaching methods and materials according to the student’s special needs. The SEN teachers also developed teaching methods together with HLT12 or provided teaching materials to them to promote the student’s optimal L1 CALP development. “She informed me about [the lesson plan] and provided me with the teaching materials she had used. She worked with letters. So, I took the letters and pictures and went on working with them with the student.”

However, several HL teachers expressed that not all SEN teachers informed them about their students’ SEN, as illustrated by the following quote:

HLT 6: I taught a student once who had difficulties, learning difficulties. […] when I heard from the SEN teacher that [the student] should either go to a school for pupils with intellectual disabilities or they should adapt their teaching methods to the student’s needs, I contacted the SEN teacher and asked if I could get some advice on how I should work with the student.

Interviewer: Did you get any good tips?

HLT 6: Yes, we shouldn’t read and write much. But, when I asked what the student had, they only said difficulties. They did not want to specify what kind of difficulties.

Thus, HLT6 described the SEN teacher’s unwillingness to inform him/her about the actual reason behind the student’s learning difficulties. This may have stemmed from a fear of revealing too much about the student’s background and challenges. The consequence, however, was that the HL teacher felt left out. The HL teacher reported not being able to support the student adequately when their background information was not transferred. Some HL teachers even testified that SEN teachers excluded them completely from their pedagogical discussions. Numerous HL teachers reported a lack of adequate knowledge regarding their students’ special educational needs. Therefore, when SEN teachers excluded them, they felt unable to support their multilingual students with SEN efficiently.

In summary, HL teachers assist SEN teachers in assessing language development, comparing students’ L1 and L2 development. HL teachers also work to support students with SEN. They typically accomplish this by collaborating with SEN teachers to adapt teaching methods and materials to the students’ specific needs. However, some HL teachers wish for more open and reciprocal information from SEN teachers, and question the current level of collaboration with SEN teachers.

7.6. Discussion Study 2

In line with previous research (Axelsson & Magnusson, 2012; Hyltenstam & Lindberg, 2013), the HL teachers in Study 2 stress the importance of developing reading and writing skills in both L1 and L2. To achieve this, they work actively to promote L1 and L2 BICS and CALP simultaneously using various strategies, including diverse teachings methods and contact with parents. Further, they agree with (again, in line with previous research, e.g., Chang & Sylva, 2015) the impact that L1 mastery has on contributing to the development of BICS and CALP in the L2. In addition, the HL teachers in Study 2 describe themselves as important linguistic and cultural links between the students’ L1 and L2 and the students’ home culture and school culture, further confirming previous research (e.g., Vuorenpää & Zetterholm, 2020).

As shown in Study 2, many HL teachers regularly teach reading and writing to multilingual students at pre-reading stages. This task is, according to previous research, described as pedagogically and methodologically challenging (Frates et al., 2022), and becomes even more complex due to the varying educational background of HL teachers (Mueller et al., 2006), a finding which is corroborated by Study 2. The results from Study 2 therefore suggest that HL teachers are likely to meet methodological challenges, especially those without a university degree. Only a few of the interviewed HL teachers report possessing sufficient knowledge on teaching students how to read and write, and most are therefore dependent on successful collaboration with SEN teachers when taking on this delicate endeavour.

The results from Study 2 further suggest that the HL teachers are aware of the complexity behind why some multilingual students cannot read and write. The HL teachers meticulously describe the various underlying causes of why even older students find themselves at pre-reading stages. They distinguish between the prerequisites of previous schooling; differences in school cultures; the consequences of migration; linguistic and cultural oppression; and family background, such as the parents’ levels of education and socioeconomic status. The HL teachers’ awareness of their students’ linguistic and cultural backgrounds permits them to analyse their students’ prerequisites for learning thoroughly. Thus, the results imply that when HL teachers’ linguistic and cultural knowledge is considered by the class and subject teachers or the SEN teacher, a multilingual student’s chances of holistic support might increase significantly.

The HL teachers in Study 2 assist SEN teachers in assessing language development, comparing students’ L1 and L2 development. In accordance with previous research (Chang & Sylva 2015; Lindberg & Sandwall, 2012), they acknowledge that a range of interrelated factors can contribute when L2 acquisition fails to progress as anticipated.

However, the interviewed HL teachers describe a limited depth of knowledge regarding SEN, resulting in a reliance on collaboration with SEN professionals for the adaptation of pedagogical methods and instructional content to suit learners’ particular needs or students at pre-reading stages. When SEN support is not provided, the findings indicate that HL teachers’ ability to create suitable learning conditions, offering the necessary support to students with special needs, is compromised (cf., Wermke & Beck, 2025). Hence, the HL teachers in Study 2, in line with previous research (e.g., Hedman & Magnusson, 2023; Roux Sparreskog, 2018; Sparreskog, 2025) question the current level of collaboration with SEN teachers and wish for more frequent collaboration.

8. General Discussion

While co-teaching between general and special educators is well-researched, little is known about how HL teachers participate in literacy support for SEN students, especially within the Scandinavian context. The results from the present study show that many HL teachers do not collaborate with SEN teachers, despite teaching students who could benefit from such collaboration. When HL teachers do collaborate with SEN teachers, it is usually to assess students’ learning difficulties or to receive guidance when teaching students in need of special education.

The results further highlight that HL teachers promote L2 CALP in their students by promoting L1 CALP. Additionally, they describe teaching basic reading and writing to students across a large age range, and mention the importance of the students’ and their parents’ education and background for the students’ subsequent language development. Finally, the interviewed HL teachers report assisting SEN teachers with assessing language development by comparing students’ L1 and L2 development.

As illustrated in Figure 1, the bidirectional interaction between students’ L1 and L2 is a recurring theme in all three key findings. The HL teachers highlight that the cultural and linguistic practices of a child’s home country play a significant role in their L2 CALP development, with inevitable (if smaller, hence the dashed arrow) feedback from the L2 CALP to L1 CALP. Likewise, the relationship between L1 and L2 proficiency plays a significant role in the teaching of basic reading and writing to students who have not yet acquired reading and writing skills. For example, teaching L2 Swedish is seen as easier if the child already has some level of L1 reading and writing, compared to children who, often due to a lack of education in their home country, have not acquired any L1 reading and writing skills. Likewise, children who are raised in Sweden and have already started acquiring Swedish reading and writing skills, and who subsequently start receiving instruction in their orthographically different L1, are perceived as being helped by the fact that they already possess knowledge of reading and writing (even if it is in an orthographically and typologically different language).

Finally, the interactive relationship between the L1 and L2 is again highlighted in the third central theme of supporting and assessing students with SEN, where the HL teachers describe assisting SEN teachers with assessing the L1 proficiency in order to understand their L2 development, and vice versa, collaborating with SEN teachers and their support of a child’s L2 development in order to further promote their L1 development.

The understanding of the relationship between the L1 and L2, then, becomes paramount when working with multilingual students, whether it is to support students’ L2 acquisition (as in the case of multilingual study guidance tutors), or to support their L1 development (as HL teachers do in heritage language classes, i.e., during mother tongue instruction). HL teachers, thus, possess unique insights into how the two languages are connected, which is knowledge that is needed in order to use each of the languages as a tool to promote development in the other language. In terms of professional collaboration in schools, HL teachers become essential assets when working with multilingual students in need of special educational support. In other words, a functional collaborative practice between HL teachers and SEN teachers is crucial for promoting reading and writing development among multilingual students in need of special educational support or students at pre-reading stages. However, formal collaborations seldom take place due to a lack of structural support, or what Bronstein (2003) calls structural characteristics. Most of the described collaboration is teacher-initiated, i.e., informal collaborations, and therefore strongly dependent on personal characteristics, such as the potential collaborators’ willingness to collaborate or their understanding of the importance of such a collaboration. When collaboration does not take place, multilingual students with SEN are at risk of not receiving adequate support, either in relation to their multilingual development or their SEN. Further, teaching students at pre-reading stages is a challenging endeavour, particularly to students who are not yet accustomed to the Swedish school system. It demands high pedagogical and methodological skills or continuous collaboration with competent specialists on literacy development, such as SEN teachers.

The institutional marginalization of HL teachers mirrors broader issues in multilingual education, where linguistic diversity is often viewed as a deficit rather than a resource (e.g., Groff et al., 2023). This view is further reinforced by the use of terms such as “native speakers”, which researchers have argued is a definition that implies a deficit view of L2 users as “deficient versions of natives” (Bonfiglio, 2010; Cook, 2016; Dewaele, 2018). The results from this study also extend the existing research on teacher collaboration beyond the general–special education dichotomy. Finally, the results may have implications in terms of the students who may be excluded due to the lack of collaboration between HL teachers and SEN teachers, which may potentially compromise their literacy goals in both their L1 and L2, as well as impact their language maintenance.

The data collection was limited to two mid-sized municipalities in Sweden and describes a Scandinavian perspective. Moreover, one of the studies relied exclusively on qualitative methods and thus the generalizability of the results is limited. Rather than aiming for generalizability, however, this study seeks to achieve the transferability and triangulation of previous studies (Roux Sparreskog, 2025; Sparreskog, 2025). Another limitation of this current study is that only the HL teachers’ perspectives are discussed. However, collaboration is a two-way street and, thus, future studies will need to investigate the perspectives of SEN teachers. Examining the collaborative practices between HL teachers and SEN teachers in additional countries’ school systems will also further expand our understanding in this area. In order to triangulate the data and provide stronger evidence, observations of collaborative practices or studies on measuring students’ outcomes due to collaboration could also be conducted. Moreover, longitudinal studies investigating students’ perspective on the subject or quantitative studies on the outcomes of collaboration (or lack thereof) would shed further light on the outcomes of collaboration between HL teachers and SEN teachers for promoting reading and writing development among multilingual students in need of special educational support.