Keywords

Introduction

A driving instructor trainer has following considerations from the field of training professional drivers and sums it up in this way:

People in the industry have been spilling the tea for some time now about how challenging and tiring it is to work with multilingual driving candidates. It is difficult for them to reflect, share their thoughts and explain actions. We are fortunate to have students [driving instructor candidates] of immigrant background in our own classrooms. Otherwise, we might have forgotten about it a little bit, and then we’d have a little worse driving instructors in the labor market.

Could this discourse be explained by the lack of multicultural tools for driving instructor trainers and driving instructors who train professional drivers with an immigrant background? According to this driving instructor trainer, however, positive experiences in their encounters with the multicultural environment are undoubtedly useful and highly appreciated.

Professional drivers of heavy vehicles, such as buses and trucks, are expected to have much more than just high-quality driving skills. They ought to have knowledge and understanding of modern vehicle dynamics, risk management, necessary social etiquettes, local geography, relevant laws and regulations, personal and public safety measures. Aptitude for customer service, an ability to communicate well with others as well as plan a route for comfort, efficiency and safety are also among the essential requirements imposed on professional drivers (Norwegian Road Traffic Department’s Manual V858, 2005).

Over the last few decades, the age of globalization and increased human mobility have brought new challenges and demands to the role of not only drivers, but also driving instructors and their trainers. A growing number of those who receive driving education and training in Norway, includes recent immigrants of diverse cultural backgrounds who do not have Norwegian as a first language. Due to the low levels of language proficiency, they may require additional support and resources to help them better understand and apply traffic rules and regulations in their new country and adapt to the local driving environment (Krogstad, 2007).

However, there are no official training programs, teaching materials or courses designed specifically for immigrant professional drivers that would focus on cultural differences, language barriers and variations in traffic laws, road conditions, learning or communication styles. The driving instructor’s role has thus become much more complex and demanding than simply teaching people to change attitudes and understand the requirements for becoming a professional driver. In order to deal with the unique challenges faced by immigrant driving candidates, driving instructors need intercultural competence. This kind of competence rests upon the educational content they receive through driving instructor training programs.

In this study we set out to investigate how immigrant pre-service professional drivers are integrated into the education and training in driving schools. The perspective lies both with institutions that educate driving instructors and those who work as driving instructors in driving schools and train pre-service professional drivers. As understandings of interculturality and multilingual matters in relation to teachers’ and trainers’ competences continue to develop (Byram, 2021), we wish to discuss and emphasize the importance of their adaptation to a specific cultural context, namely, education of immigrant professional drivers. There is a range of questions arising from the apparent contradictions between learning of respect for otherness, tolerance and ambiguity on one side, and appropriation of a strict and seemingly monocultural view of behavior in traffic on the other. However, our study centers on those questions (outlined below) that we believe will generate a discussion which has a bearing on the prospective driving instructor education in Norway:

  1. 1.

    What experiences do driving instructor trainers and driving instructors have in training students and candidates of immigrant backgrounds?

  2. 2.

    How are cultural and linguistic diversity emphasized and dealt with in theoretical education and practical training?

Driving Instructor Education and Professional Driver Education in Norway

In this chapter we will outline a description of driving instructor education and professional driver education in Norway. Both driving instructor trainers and driving instructors have a main task to educate on how to safely operate a vehicle in traffic. This includes teaching driving instructors and prospective drivers about traffic rules and regulations, cooperation in traffic and reasonable attitude towards traffic safety and driving behavior.

Driving instructor education typically involves learning about traffic laws, regulations, and best practices for controlling and directing vehicle and pedestrian traffic. It is a two-year full-time study program at a university level that offers a combination of theoretical (3 days a week) and practical (2 days a week) training, in form of both classroom instruction and supervised behind-the-wheel sessions. The program covers the following courses and themes: Road Safety and Risk Assessment, Traffic Rules and Legislation, Driver Training, Communication and Customer Service, Vehicles and Technology, Pedagogy and Teaching Techniques, Psychology and Behavior and Practical Training and Exercises. Once they are certified, driving instructors become eligible for training candidates for ordinary (category B) driving licenses.

After 2 years of basic training, a fully qualified driving instructor, can apply for an additional 6 month-study program which is required in order to become a driving instructor of heavy vehicles and train professional drivers. Professional Driver Skills includes 280 h of training. The curriculum that is relevant for both professional drivers and driving instructors of heavy vehicles, covers the following topics and themes: Basic Driving Skills, Transportation of Passengers and Goods, Laws and Regulations, Economic and Environmentally Friendly Driving, Customer Service and Communication, Health, Safety and Ergonomics, and Crisis Management and First Aid.

Professional driver education in driving schools in Norway is a type of training program that provides individuals with the skills and knowledge needed to obtain a commercial driver’s license. The program typically includes both theoretical and practical components and covers topics such as driving regulations, vehicle maintenance, and safe driving practices. The professional driver is the professional road user and practitioner. For this reason, greater demands are placed on professional drivers than other road users. They follow the same training model for driver-oriented education, but drivers of vehicles over 3500 kg must have a vocational education in addition to a driving license. The education of professional drivers has a duration of 10 weeks in addition to education for a driving license for heavy vehicles. Both theoretical and practical tests are conducted in Norwegian. The curriculum in driving schools for both ordinary driving license and professional drivers, provides guidelines for the candidates, who are, through active participation, expected to develop an ability to reflect, take the perspective of others and practice cooperation in traffic. The curriculum is based on the Goals for Driver Education matrix (see Table 11.1 GDE-matrix) consisting of five stages (Norwegian Road Traffic Department’s Manual V858, 2005). It serves as a comprehensive guide for driver education programs, outlining the key components that are included in the curriculum. To achieve those goals, the candidate must become familiar with the content of the matrix through theory, communication and practice, all related to the awareness of risk-increasing factors and self-evaluation.

Table 11.1 GDE-matrix (simplified version)
Full size table

The GDE-matrix shows that, in order to improve road safety, drivers need to possess not only knowledge and skills relating to the actual driving task or the physical and mechanical skills of driving (Level 1) and negotiating through traffic (Level 2) but, more significantly, the skills to self-evaluate personal risks associated with individual journeys (Level 3) and the personal values and goals that influence their behavior in traffic (Level 4). The matrix points out the influence social environment can have on the driver (Level 5). The overall aim of the matrix is to understand how attitudes, beliefs and behaviors influence both competence and performance of a driving style.

Theoretical Framework

The theoretical framework of the study is multifaceted. It is based on vocational pedagogy and didactic strategies with special emphasis on the connection between theory and practice. Furthermore, it focuses on students` learning processes in connection to their ability to reflect on learning outcomes and driving instructors’ mentoring in both classrooms and practical driving sessions. Due to the multicultural perspective, we employ theories on second language acquisition and learning as well as theories on intercultural competence and culturally responsive teaching.

While there is a significant body of research about how second languages are learned and taught (Lightbown & Spada, 2006), how aspects of culture are integrated into second and foreign language acquisition and learning (Arabski & Wojtaszek, 2011), as well as about intercultural communication in education and its transformative potentials (Byram, 2021; Gay, 2010; Nieto, 2018), there is significantly less that explores the intersections among language, culture and professional drivers’ education and training, both internationally and in Norway.

Interrelated Elements in Vocational Didactics: Reflection, Self-Regulation and the Eighth Variable

Vocational Teacher Education (VTE) and Vocational Education and Training (VET) are well known for a dual system that combines theoretical and practical studies in one course. The main purpose of (VTE) and (VET) is to prepare individuals both socially and professionally to acquire an occupation and to cope in the lifelong learning process (Sylte, 2019). There are several differing approaches to mentoring students both in classrooms and practical situations and contexts. Traditionally, a didactic relational model has been used in Norway since 1978, building upon six interrelated elements that can help teachers plan and conduct lessons and mentoring sessions (Hiim & Hippe, 2019). Of all the approaches we have encountered, the one created by Mathisen and Høigaard (2021) seems both thoroughly grounded in the existing relational model and extended by a couple of new factors that we find relevant for the context of professional drivers in a multicultural perspective. The key variables covered in the model comprise: content, goals, methods and strategies, frameworks, assessment, relations and teacher/student roles, personal styles and the eighth variable (see Fig. 11.1). According to Mathisen and Høigaard (2021), the 8th variable is an unfixed category that can be adapted to purpose and aim of teaching and learning. In regard to our study, we find it reasonable to contextualize this eighth variable to learners’ diverse linguistic and cultural background.

Fig. 11.1
A schematic of a revised didactic model with 8 components. Goals, content, relations and roles, personal styles, evaluation, the eight variable, framework, and methods and strategies are the components.

Revised didactic model

Full size image

What underpins most pedagogical practices in the field of adult education and training is also a widely applied model of experiential learning (Kolb, 1984). The basis for this model is learners’ own experience and practice of new skills, which is then reviewed, analyzed, and evaluated systematically in three additional stages: reflective observation, abstract conceptualization, and active experimentation. The trainer’s role as facilitator is important during each phase of the cycle. All the stages combine theory and practice as well as they include the following questions to be answered by the practitioners: What was my concrete experience? How did it go? What could I have done better or differently? How can I improve? The experiential approach is learner-centered and allows the individual participants to manage and share responsibility for learning with their trainer.

Reflection refers to the act of thinking deeply about something, often with the intention of gaining new insights or understanding. This can involve self-reflection, where an individual thinks about their own thoughts, feelings, and experiences, or it can involve reflecting on external events or ideas. Reflection is a key part of personal growth and development. By reflecting on their progress and considering their causal attributions, learners can discover how they improved in relation to their goals and expectations and use the actual experience to improve performance in future tasks (Schön, 1983).

Self-insight and self-regulation refer to one’s own understanding and perception of own learning styles, thoughts, feelings, behaviors, and personality. It includes being aware of one’s own strengths and weaknesses, understanding how one’s actions affect others, and having the ability to put oneself in someone else’s place. Self-evaluation can be a tool to raise awareness of one’s own work performance and identify areas that need improvement. It can also help boost motivation and self-esteem and help a person plan their career path (Jossberger et al., 2020; Mathisen & Høigaard, 2021).

Ability to reflect on own practices along with an ability to self-regulate learning, personal styles, roles and goals, to communicate in a language of instruction and summarize the experienced content into concise statements and generalizations are among the most necessary prerequisites for learning through Kolb’s (1984) practice – theory – new practice approach.

VTE and VET strive to foster independent and self-directed learners. Hence, self-insight, reflection on and self-regulation of cognitive and affective processes during practical task performance in learning for the professions, are crucial for helping students effectively learn and master independence (Jossberger et al., 2020).

Second Language Pedagogy

The ability to use a language is not limited to the knowledge of vocabulary and grammatical rules, but it also requires the ability to use language appropriately in particular situations and settings. The sociocultural theory of second language acquisition (SLA) focuses on second language learners’ identity and on language acquisition understood as becoming a member of a given language community. Many users of second languages are oftentimes disadvantaged in monolingual educational contexts because they face the double task of learning a new language and new subject content simultaneously (Alver, 2015; Gibbons, 2006).

Several factors influence the speed and trajectory of a second language development, including supportive communities, socioeconomic status or high teacher expectations, and there is considerable variation among individuals in the way this process occurs. However, a primary external influence is undoubtedly language instruction – both explicit instruction in all text-level skills (from words and sentences to textual and discursive practices) and implicit instruction associated with providing facilitative language- and literacy-rich environments (Ellis, 2002; Lightbown & Spada, 2006; Snow, 2012). According to the sociocultural theory of SLA, learning about language is most meaningful when it occurs in the context of actual language use (Gibbons, 2006). Moreover, oral language proficiency is closely connected to the development of both reading and writing skills in second languages (Monsen & Randen, 2022; Snow, 2012). However, culturally and linguistically diverse students may often struggle to fully convey their intellectual abilities or genuinely understand teachers and learning tasks due to the absence of shared communicative frames of reference, procedural protocols, rules of etiquette and discourse systems (Gay, 2010).

Language, Culture and Intercultural Communication

There is no single definition of “culture”, but according to a common constructionist view it is more a process than a static entity – something that “we do” rather than something “we have or belong to”. It is understood as a dynamic, rule-governing system that defines the forms, functions and content of communication. Different cultures entail different communication practices and behaviors (Gay, 2010). Our focus is first and foremost on (a) culture as challenge (dealing with interpersonal relationships, cooperation and communication styles), (b) culture as a citizenship (consisting of various practices that may function as a basis for discrimination, such as ways of speaking a language) and (c) culture as a national asset encompassing rituals, folklore or belief systems (Piller, 2017). Culture is, regardless of the content which includes some people and excludes others, embedded in context, created, socially constructed and, equally important, dialectical and learned (Nieto, 2018).

Similarly, language itself is not a static and constant system, but a social and functional process, continually altered and influenced by individuals (Halliday, 1973). It is deeply implicated with culture and an important part of it (Nieto, 2018). According to Sapir-Whorf hypothesis (Sapir, 1968), language is not a mechanical instrumental tool for transmitting information, but a way of defining experience, thinking and knowing; it is a guide to both social reality and culture, expressing and describing, but equally important recreating our worldviews, beliefs and values. Intellectual growth and reflection are contingent on the mastery of language as a social means of thought. Language is always at the very heart of teaching, and understanding connections between language, education and culture is thus critical to improving all kinds of interactions, as “who we are in intercultural communication is to a large extent a function of our linguistic proficiency” (Piller, 2017, p. 73).

Multiculturalism, as a celebration of cultural diversity, has a strong foothold in education (Teräs, 2019). Culturally responsive teaching (Gay, 2010) and intercultural communicative competence (Byram, 2021) are some of the rich theoretical insights into and eloquent contributions to the subject of culturally sensitive pedagogies. They provide knowledge about ways to improve learning and achievement of linguistically and culturally diverse students through empowering teachers’ competences on how to embrace diversity, value the cultural heritages of minority groups, question own positions and stimulate inquiry, critique and analysis. These approaches are emancipatory, transformative and promote the idea that “students are obliged to be productive members of and render service to their respective ethnic communities as well as to the national society” (Gay, 2010, p 36). Yet, intercultural communication in education has often been criticized for a) its lack of explicit language teaching, b) poor attempts to systematically develop teachers’ skills for incorporating cultural diversity into instruction and c) for failing to counteract monolingual and monocultural mindsets, resulting, in turn, in cultural stereotypes and banal nationalism (Gay, 2010; Gibbons, 2006; Piller, 2017). A growing body of research, nevertheless, along with constructed theories that generate teaching implications, continue to provide evidence on the benefits of engagements in culturally sensitive pedagogies that encourage students to find their own voices, new ways of knowing and to become more active participants in shaping their own learning (Gay, 2010; Nieto, 2018; Shor, 1992).

None of the previously mentioned concepts of multicultural education is expected to consist of an extra, additive content, but rather of structural changes in content and process (Nieto, 2018). Hence, both “methods and strategies”, “personal styles”, “the 8th variable”, “relations and roles” “self-regulation” and “reflective practices” represented in various didactic models, can be associated with teachers’ and learners’ active engagement in intercultural communication in which both language and culture play a vital, fundamental role.

Method

The study seeks knowledge about how driving instructor trainers and driving instructors in driving schools include multicultural perspectives in their teaching and training of prospective driving instructors and professional drivers. This study is based on qualitative interview data of both groups of informants.

Qualitative Interviews

Qualitative interviews are characterized as professional conversations that seek information and knowledge about the informants’ experiences related to a phenomenon or a thematic area. Research centered on meanings and understandings of phenomena as experienced by participants, demands a qualitative approach (Creswell, 2007). The informants that were selected in this study were divided into two groups: driving instructor trainers (T) in the two-year basic education of driving instructors and driving instructors (DI) in driving schools. Interviews were conducted as professional conversations where we sought information about their experiences with education of multilingual and multicultural students and pre-service professional drivers, respectively. The interviews were carried out digitally and individually, according to a semi-structured interview guide. The questions in the interview guides for the two groups of informants corresponded thematically. The questions were related to (a) both linguistic and cultural aspects of the trainers’ experiences with multilingual and multicultural students and pre-service professional drivers, (b) trainers’ pedagogical adaptations in classrooms and practical training, and (c) their general experiences with learning and training. In other words, it is information about what driving instructors and driving instructor trainers say they do in their training. We do not get to know what they actually do or do not do.

In total, eight interviews were conducted: three of them with driving instructor trainers from a university (T) and five with driving instructors (DI) from three different driving schools. All the informants are certified driving instructors in the age range from 27–60 years. All are men and two of the driving instructors (DI) are immigrants and bilingual. The driving instructors work as trainers of heavy vehicles, such as heavy-duty trucks and buses. All of the driving instructor trainers (T) have previously worked as driving instructors in driving schools. It is worth to notice that neither (T) nor (DI) have formal competence in multicultural education or second language studies, but they all have experience in working with multilingual students and pre-service drivers.

Ethical Considerations

Fully informed consent forms containing the purpose of the study, were obtained from all the participants. Driving instructors and driving instructor trainers agreeing to participate in interviews, had the right not to take part or to withdraw from research at any time. They were also informed about the instruments involved (only audio- and no video-recordings) while anonymity and confidentiality were ensured. The study has been registered with the Norwegian Agency for Shared Services in Education and Research (Sikt) under a project number 489618. The recordings were stored safely, on the researchers’ individual computers. These were deleted at the end of the project.

The driving instructor trainers who were interviewed in the study and who make up a part of the data base, are our colleagues. This can have certain implications due to our close relationships as colleagues in the workplace. But in this case, two of the researchers, who are philologists, represent a different subject area than the informants, so that the likelihood of a bias in the research process is smaller even though qualitative research can never be value free. However, there is no reason to reject the validity of the data, according to Hammersley and Atkinson (1996, p. 151). The collected data expresses experiences and experienced practices of both informant groups who teach multilingual and multicultural students and candidates in an overall inclusive perspective. The data base reveals knowledge about a phenomenon and as such is considered to be both valid and reliable.

Finally, we acknowledge that diversity and interculturality, at times, are quite sensitive to talk about (Itkonen, 2020). It brings about personal passion and conviction, but also unease and concerns about stereotypical divisions of the world into more or less developed cultures, regions or other societal groups.

Results

The study seeks knowledge about how driving instructor trainers (T) and driving instructors (DI) include multicultural perspectives in their teaching of prospective driving instructors and professional drivers. The study is based on qualitative interview data of both groups of informants. Both theory-driven (deductive) and data-driven (inductive) stages of analysis are used to generate themes from the response codes. Themes and sub-themes are related to culture, instructional approach and language skills.

Culture

Learning Culture

The increasing diversification of not only the field of professional drivers, but also the driving instructor education, has created a new discourse among trainers about the general “other” learning culture which has shaped and influenced their students, pre-service driving instructors of immigrant background. It is understood as a banking model of education (Freire, 2001) where knowledge is simply transferred to the learners who, thus, have no sufficient autonomy, critical curiosity, or creative engagement in self-regulated, reflective practices:

Some of my non-native students are rather fluent in Norwegian, but still struggle with the learning culture. When I say that I don’t have the answer and that they need to discuss or analyze a case, I’m being too vague for them. They can even get a little annoyed with me because I’m unable to give them very clear commands or answers along the way (T1).

Another trainer uses the term “a challenging pedagogical culture” where learners expect to get the correct answers from their teachers, and points out that: “The students themselves know what they’re struggling with and what they have to improve […], reflection and self-insight, but they do make an apparent progress during the course of their studies, […] which, I must say, generally is a good thing” (T2). It is during the practical behind-the wheel-training with their own candidates that students of immigrant background reveal certain weaknesses in inciting reflection as a pedagogical tool: “It is in practical situations they experience that a pedagogical culture is quite different. [..] to make others reflect on their choices is challenging [as] you have to penetrate deeper into the language than just being able to read and write” (T2).

The lack of immigrant students’ ability to reflect or self-regulate learning is accompanied by other consequences of the banking educational system they attended in the past. They are perceived as silent and withdrawn, but also exceptionally respectful of the lecturers, as “they don’t’ ask any questions” and can even get “kind of disturbed when the other students start protesting or giving their own opinions in the classroom” (T1).

When discussing “the other” learning culture, trainers emphasize that it is important that students are involved in practical training, as “that is where they face the real challenges” and have to deal with the prospective heavy vehicle drivers who are difficult to reach due to their inability to reflect. The experiential learning is mentioned as the primary source of knowledge about immigrants’ – both students’ and professional drivers’ – performance and learning styles in connection to the reflective practices, that all trainers find to be insufficiently addressed in the curriculum, and less covered theoretically in their lectures: “We talk about it in a very general way in the classroom. We do what we can, but we don’t have a special program for it. […] They [students] experience most things in practice. […] I wish [multicultural issues and reflection were] more clarified in the curriculum” (T3). Reflection is a common way of acquiring knowledge, but the immigrant students and candidates seem to be struggling with this learning approach. “They expect to get the right answers. [They do not think] their reflections and thoughts are worth anything. It is the same for our non-native students, but to a much lesser degree” (T2).

Driving instructors have similar experiences with the candidates’ learning culture from their home country. One of the informants talks about how the candidates react to reflective questions from the instructors: “Why do you ask me? You’re the teacher, they say. They’re not used to it” (DI2). Reflection is emphasized as essential for the students’ self-awareness, which, in turn, should make them safe drivers for passengers and goods, and prevent risk to themselves and others in traffic. Challenges with self-awareness also mean “seeing their own mistakes, making them admit that they have made mistakes. And then they lose their honor” (DI5), says one of the informants, who is an immigrant from Asia himself. However, most candidates see the purpose of this kind of training, are motivated to get a job and become independent professional drivers. One of the informants points out that for some candidates, the driving profession entails “avoiding the feeling of not being integrated” (DI2) as one is mostly alone at work.

Traffic Culture

All informants are incontestably concerned with teaching students and candidates about how to behave properly in practical driving situations in traffic. The traffic rules in Norway comprise certain attitudes, ethical codes, cooperation with and respect for others. The informants experience it as a challenge, but they also emphasize the importance of helping students develop competence in current driving rules and intercultural communication in order to become successful driving instructors for professional drivers, prevent accidents and improve traffic safety. Hence adjustments and adaptations are absolutely necessary. Those candidates who understand that the driving culture in Norway is different from the one they are used to, adapt much faster and more effectively. They also realize that there is a purpose to the driving culture they will now learn. Then “language is no longer a problem” (T3). This is related to the candidates’ period of residence in the country and “the degree of how much you have involved yourself and been employed”(T2).

At the same time, in order to be included, attitudes and behavior patterns are emphasized in learning processes, especially in practical situations. This seems to be just as important as language skills, because “it doesn’t help if you are proficient in language, if you don’t have the right attitude,” says the same informant. He goes on to say that if professional or any other kind of drivers stand out “by being thugs” in traffic, they will be stigmatized, and it will have consequences for the inclusion. This will also threaten the traffic safety and cause material damage to vehicles. At the same time the informant finds it interesting to challenge these candidates and make them question the culture that they are accustomed to from the countries of their origin. The informants emphasize the importance of making prospective driving instructors aware of the new driving culture and teaching pre-service professional drivers about the right attitudes that will apply to the traffic culture and constitute a fundamental prerequisite for inclusion.

An important aspect of driver training can be summarized with the concept of consequence understanding. The informants place particular emphasis on the fact that prospective professional drivers must keep agreements, act ethically and show respect towards passengers, employers and customers, pay attention to and follow traffic rules. If a professional driver does not consider the consequences of his or her own behavior and attitudes, it could have, among other things, economic implications. One of the informants says: “If a driver wants a good reputation, then they are obliged to do a good job” (DI4).

Instructional Approach

Both driving instructor trainers (T) and driving instructors (DI) teach multilingual and multicultural groups of students and candidates. In line with the curriculum for training (cf. Chap. 1), students and candidates must develop knowledge, skills and attitudes, related to specific learning outcome descriptions. They must, among other things, participate in learning processes in interaction with others, develop the ability to conduct self-assessment, reflect on own learning and think critically. We wanted to gain insight into the informants’ general experiences with multicultural students and candidates in training situations with an emphasis on both challenges and opportunities, subject matter and pedagogical content knowledge. We have perspective on each of the two training contexts.

Cooperative Work in Classrooms

How trainers facilitate learning in classroom situations, is largely influenced by their competence in the multicultural field. Working with a rather complex group of students and candidates with different mother tongues and religious practices, different attitudes to gender and different understandings of the new traffic culture, seems to make trainers inclusive and tolerant in training. One of the informants says the following: “I have to be very careful when I train others, so that I do not harass or give feedback based on their gender, skin color or religion” (T2). The same informant emphasizes that he is lacking insight into different religions and cultures, and that “there are big differences”. In this context, it refers to the curricula which are very general and say nothing about different religions and attitudes that are important for driving and learning cultures. The informant concludes the following: “I will be tolerant of your attitudes and respect what you stand for, but at the same time I have to be determined and let you know what exactly it is you need to know for the job you will be doing” (T2).

The curriculum for driving instructor education (cf. Chap. 1) combines teaching of theory, 3 days per week, and guided practical training at a driving school for 2 days. During this two-year program, students are expected to develop competence within four key subject areas: traffic specialist knowledge, traffic pedagogy and didactics, personal and social competence, and change and development skills. But the multicultural dimension is insufficiently covered in the curriculum, despite the fact that there is an increasing number of students with Norwegian as a second language who receive training in order to become driving instructors. It is precisely this fact that “makes it very important and applicable that we have to deal with it”, and the same informant goes on to say that “had we not had them as students, we might have forgotten that a little bit and we would have had slightly worse driving instructors in the labor market” (T1). He refers here to both the arrangement of the training and to “the intention of the curriculum that is difficult to reach”. Therefore, this informant believes that this pushes forward changes in the curriculum.

The differentiation in training is highlighted as an important pedagogical practice. The rationale the informants give for this, is that the multicultural students have insufficient knowledge on traffic culture in Norway and weaker language skills. One of the informants believes that “these students seek additional information, they demand more from you as a lecturer”, and emphasizes that “this is a very good situation, because then I can respond to the need” (T1). The same informant calls attention to various ways in which he differentiates teaching to meet the students’ needs, such as (a) simplifying the language he uses in teaching, (b) preparing material before the actual teaching (flipped classroom) or (c) stimulating students to make audio recordings of the lectures for repetition and further processing. But the same informant says that “I’m afraid it doesn’t happen to a very large extent” (T1), while another teacher educator says that “we [try to facilitate] as best as we can, but there is no special program” (T2). The educational program provides training for a practical profession, but it is the theory that can be challenging for the students. The informants promote and support inclusion of immigrant students and claim that “they are not discriminated against” (T3), but the main prerequisite is that they show an open interest and contribute actively to the learning processes.

Learning activities are largely based on inquiry, problematization of subject matter and student-active methods, such as reflections, discussions and group work. According to the informants, to what extent the multicultural students participate in such learning processes, depends on how long they have been living in the country and whether they have parts of their schooling from Norway. Reflection and self-insight are seen as the greatest challenges for students who have no “depth in the language” (T2), as one of the informants says. “Self-insight and reflection are very challenging for many. […] it is difficult to work with the non-native students” (T3), says another informant because they are not used to this way of learning. The informants point out that the students’ learning culture is to a large extent influenced by their previous schooling practices, as illustrated in the following example:

Many come from cultures where they have gone to schools with a lot of teacher talk. It is difficult for them to create reflection. […] We probably notice that some of those who struggle with language are more instructive than reflective in their teaching. But I think it’s because the language becomes a little simplified, and you don’t have the opportunity to use the whole language repertoire (T2).

Facilitation in Practical Training

Both driving culture and learning culture are different from what the learners are used to. All informants confirm that the population of candidates in driving schools consists of approximately 60–80% of learners of different language and cultural backgrounds. In driving schools, driving instructors train prospective drivers in both theoretical driving topics and practical driving skills. What they have in common is that they train professional drivers of heavy vehicles, such as buses and trucks, and they have all worked as professional drivers themselves before.

One of the requirements is that candidates must have technical knowledge of the vehicle and learn how to handle a vehicle in a technically proper manner. This requires familiarizing oneself with the technical instructions when reading. The instructors’ main impression is that many of the candidates lack this insight and prefer that the teachers show and tell how the technical part works. This could be partly explained by deficiencies in language skills, but also by the fact that many of the multilingual candidates come from different cultures and have different experiences in understanding the technical characteristics of a vehicle, that in turn are important for how the vehicle should be handled in traffic.

The instructors see challenges in training candidates of immigrant background to become good professional drivers. Even though they have several years’ experience in working with this group of candidates, they have no formal competence in second language or intercultural pedagogy. In order to solve certain difficulties and make up for deficiencies in competence, they seek cooperation and advice from colleagues. One of the instructors explains: “Sometimes I ask other teachers to join me in a practical training session and watch me supervise a candidate, and then we sit and talk about it afterwards” (DI1). Another informant finds it entertaining to work with immigrants who have weak language skills and are not acquainted with the Norwegian driving culture. It inspires instructors to be creative and find other solutions than simplified linguistic explanations, such as using drawings, pictures, videos, or demonstrations. As another instructor confirms: “Too many words, it’s no use”(DI4). In theoretical teaching, the emphasis is placed on learner-active methods so that all candidates are included: conversations and pair or group work. One of the driving instructors says he has good experience with arranging groups where “one who is linguistically strong and one who is weak work together” (DI3). This is how they learn from each other and become integrated into the training.

Combining communication and reflection with candidates in practical training, seems problematic. “If a candidate is unable to talk while driving, I don’t interfere,” says one of the informants (DI5). The didactic strategy is to do one thing at a time, which involves repeated stops and breaks during practical training in order to get the student to reflect and justify their actions and choices. Driving instructors also use video demonstrations to stimulate self-awareness and reflection. They see the importance of this teaching technique because many of the candidates have challenges with using reflection as a learning strategy.

Language Skills for Education and Working Life

Driving instructor education and driving schools require students and candidates to relate to language and texts, either through reading of theory, regulations and laws, or communication in writing and oral language use with fellow students/candidates, teachers and prospective job-related work tasks in general. Language skills are important for education and working life, for mastering work tasks and being included in the society. This is emphasized in the training, while the teachers experience that many students and candidates of various cultural backgrounds, face linguistic challenges.

Competence goals in the curriculum for driving instructor education consist of various student-active learning methods, such as group discussions, reflections and cooperative learning. Driving instructor trainers notice that it entails a linguistic challenge for many, as “they see it as a hindrance and that it affects their feeling of pride” (T1). Language-impaired students often become passive and participate little in such learning sequences. During training, it is common that trainers attempt to simplify their language, speak slowly, and repeat the most important information in the subject matter. It is especially the abstract concepts that are challenging, but also common words that take on a special meaning in the field. The informants point out that the students must have “a conceptual framework at the bottom of their competence”, and that this is even more important for professional drivers “in order to be able to handle a profession […] They are not supposed to merely drive around in a car, but they will practice a profession and that, indeed, requires certain language skills” (T2).

We asked the trainers which skills they found to be most challenging for their students and candidates; writing, reading or oral language use. Regarding writing, the informants pointed out that it could be challenging for all students, regardless of culture and language background, but that the writing “generally goes smoothly”, because the writing process itself entails “that they can think twice before writing and can correct any potential deficiencies” (T2). Furthermore, several informants point out that students might receive help with their writing work from “spouse, cohabitant or friends outside our academic classroom who help them write” (T1). Therefore, it is difficult to assess students’ writing skills, the trainers say. Reading with understanding can be challenging, depending on what kind of texts the students read, but the informants claim that “there really isn’t much difference from the ethnic Norwegian students” (T2).

When it comes to oral competence and communication skills, it seems to be an essential skill for driving instructor education, as they train driving instructors for prospective professional drivers. Driving instructors communicate the traffic subject and traffic conditions, both through theory teaching in school contexts and in practical driving training. As one of the informants brings out; “as a teacher, you have to convey something, and in our subject, it is mostly done orally” (T1). Another driving instructor trainer argues that it is difficult to have conversations about, for example, speed adjustments, attitudes and practical driving skills if language competence is weak.

The trainers believe that “a minimum of language competence” is a prerequisite for inclusion and point out that this also indicates an understanding of the attitudes and values that they believe are important for a prospective driving instructor and for the driving culture. At the same time, they emphasize that it is positive to have driving instructors “who speak another language” (T3) on the basis that many of their future students come from a different culture.

Driving instructors (DI) seem to place great emphasis on language skills. They are closer to the practical part of training candidates for a future profession. As a professional driver, you must not only understand and communicate traffic information, but also communicate with other clients and managers, with passengers on buses, and with recipients of goods. “Professional driving is a service profession”, claims one of the driving instructors (DI1). Several informants emphasize that the candidates do master the practical driving and manage the theoretical part of the training, but they have challenges with communication – “When it comes to communication, they struggle” (DI5). To be a professional bus driver, for example, they have to cope with passengers and their everyday life. Driving instructors have received complaints saying that fully trained professional drivers are not good enough in Norwegian and refer to episodes where passengers ask if the bus goes there or there, and they are not even able to answer. […] Improving their Norwegian language skills makes the drivers more competent, […] their training goes easier, and they do a better job afterwards” (DI4).

During the training, driving instructors expect the candidates to speak and actively use Norwegian language. They refer to the plan and curriculum for training where it is stated that “it [the training] is to be conducted in Norwegian” (DI1). The teachers usually carry out a language competence test already at the beginning of the training. As a result, candidates with poor language skills may be rejected and thus become unable to complete their training. “In the classroom, we speak Norwegian [...], we don’t speak foreign languages with each other. When you speak Norwegian, you show respect for others”, says one of the informants, pointing out that the group of candidates represents several foreign languages and that many may become insecure or feel excluded if communication takes place in languages that they are not familiar with. In addition, it can promote language learning: “If everyone speaks Norwegian, we all learn Norwegian” (DI4), says one of the informants. The same teacher refers to a company that had a poster on its door that read: “At work we speak Norwegian” and believes that a similar one should be presented at his own driving school.

The informants say they work with the language skills, and especially key concepts. These concepts are closely related to cultural traffic conditions. One of the instructors refers to concepts such as attitudes, interaction, ethics and moral. What meaning should such concepts be given? One of the informants says that “we do discuss such concepts in the classroom. We must all build an equal understanding […] that is in line with the driving culture and legislation in the country” (DI3). Several of the driving instructors point out that such central concepts “are lost in other cultures that they [the candidates] come from” (DI2). In other words, there is a connection between language comprehension and cultural understanding, which is essential in the training of drivers in general and particularly professional drivers.

Discussion and Conclusion

Drivers in Norway, both ordinary and professional ones, represent a linguistically and culturally diverse group of individuals stemming from other learning and traffic cultures. When it comes to Norwegian traffic conditions, these are characterized by unambiguous regulations and laws that may diverge from other countries’ traffic regulations and traffic culture in both theory and practice. The aim of our study is to explore how a multicultural perspective is implemented in the training of traffic conditions in Norway for prospective driving instructors and professional drivers of an immigrant background. For professional drivers, following the country’s adopted laws and regulations is a necessity with regard to, among other things, road safety. A key question is whether the training allows for intercultural approaches or whether it reveals a monocultural character (Gay, 2010). This question is conditioned by both traffic and multicultural competence of teacher educators and teachers in the traffic field, who in this study belong to two educational contexts; driving instructor education at a university level and driving schools for professional drivers.

The study is based on two research questions, one of which seeks knowledge about driving instructor trainers’ and driving instructors’ experiences with training immigrant students and candidates: What experiences do driving instructor trainers and driving instructors have in training students and candidates with immigrant backgrounds? Both informant groups emphasize that curricula provide little support for their training as it does not take into account the challenges faced by multicultural and multilingual learners. This may indicate that driving instructor trainers and driving instructors do not need to adapt the training either professionally or pedagogically and take a multicultural perspective.

Moreover, all our informants say that they do not have the multicultural expertise. This may be interpreted as if training does not take into account the learning cultures and cultural backgrounds that immigrant learners carry with them. Despite this, the informants in our study show that they are aware of both challenges and opportunities in their training. First and foremost, working with immigrants provides informants with knowledge and understanding of different cultural expressions. It is particularly related to the awareness of various learning traditions in other cultures and the fact that they are being challenged on their own attitudes when encountering different ways of being (Byram, 2021).

Based on new insights from our informants, we conclude that there are certain didactical adaptations in their trainings that take into account the immigrants’ previous learning culture, which in turn can be anchored in the eighth variable (Mathisen & Høigaard, 2021). In the interviews, the informants state that they employ alternative methods in order to increase the learning outcomes, both in practical driving training and in theoretical classroom instruction. However, it seems that this is being enacted in slightly different ways. Driving instructor trainers are mainly recognizing the challenges and differences they observe, such as immigrants’ previous learning culture, but without mentioning concrete didactic strategies for a further development of students’ cognitive skills and learning styles (Gay, 2010; Piller, 2017). Driving instructors, on the other hand, can seek advice from colleagues when encountering and dealing with certain pedagogical constraints. They seem to work more purposefully with immigrants’ challenges, especially related to the practical driving training, by for instance explaining concepts such as attitudes and ethical considerations in traffic (Gibbons, 2006). This can be explained by the fact that driving instructors are much closer to the field of practice and consequently learn from hands-on experiences. Nevertheless, it must be argued that an adapted didactic approach in training is sporadic and random, and to an extent it does occur, it seems to vary from one to another informant in the study (Nieto, 2018; Piller, 2017). The informants say, thus, little about whether the special adaptations have an effect on immigrants’ learning outcomes. In a broader perspective, this could have implications for immigrants’ driving skills as professional drivers and requires further research.

The second research question on which the study is based, is how cultural diversity and language skills are emphasized in the training of future driving instructors and professional drivers: How are cultural and linguistic diversity emphasized and dealt with in theoretical education and practical training? A significant challenge in connection to achieving goals for the curriculum’s intention, are barriers regarding language and culture. Both driving instructor trainers and driving instructors are mostly concerned with the development of oral language proficiency. According to the informants, multicultural students and candidates do not seem to significantly differ from monocultural learners in regard to reading and writing skills. On the other hand, both driving instructor trainers and driving instructors are persistent in their claims about learners´ deficit in language skills. This might be explained by the informants´ possible lack of awareness of and explicit knowledge in second language pedagogy (Gibbons, 2006).

Culturally and linguistically responsive teaching seems to be a muddy terrain in the field of traffic education for professional drivers and pedagogical training of their driving instructors. Attitudes about cultural and linguistic varieties other than the mainstream language and national traffic culture, oscillate between tolerant acceptance and outright exclusion. Questions about other cultural practices in both traffic and everyday lives of immigrant students’ and candidates’ past experiences, are sporadically brought up for the purpose of discussions and comparisons, but mostly in order to maintain and strengthen the position of the dominant culture. This is being done with a purpose of preserving the unique and solid Norwegian traffic culture as well as other social regulations, customs and norms.

Many of those who grew up abroad, with different schooling practices, struggle to understand the meaning and usefulness of the teaching and learning methods used in Norwegian schools, such as reflective observation and self-assessment (Lindboe et al., 2015). This does not necessarily mean that teachers should change learning strategies, but that they may have to spend more time explaining and deepening the background of what they are doing, or why, for instance, reflection and self-assessment are among the most essential pedagogical tools in training. It is through cooperation, connectedness, stronger language skills and community that trainers’ and instructors’ intercultural competence can build bridges of meaningfulness and success between pedagogical abstractions (e.g. reflective observations or self-regulations) and lived sociocultural realities. In order to enhance learning and understanding of culturally diverse student groups, teachers are expected to create new ways and reinvent a new common culture based on engagement, interaction and service to the common good (Piller, 2017; Teräs, 2019). Driving instructors and driving instructor trainers in our study do confirm that they collaborate on common linguistic and cultural challenges, and are involved in finding adequate solutions, even though they vary between the teachers.

On the other hand, both groups of informants seem to be insufficiently engaged in developing their competence and expertise in multicultural issues, especially in explicit language instruction. This could, however, strengthen not only the receptive, but equally important productive language skills related to reflective practices and active participation in learning and working life of professional drivers. The teacher education does not seem to explicitly highlight the importance of development of intercultural competence, that is, the interrelated relationship between explicit language instruction and recreation of a learning culture as a main prerequisite for inclusion of immigrant professional drivers into the working life and society in general. According to all informants in the study, the overall aim of education and training seems to be that professional drivers must adapt to the governing traffic regulations and culture in the country in order to be included. The pervasive attitude is that it is neither acceptable nor justifiable “to drive as we are” (T1) and let the personal style and cultural background dominate the practicing of profession. Driving instructor educators explain this by the fact that the syllabus for driving instructors’ educational program is without a multilingual and multicultural perspective, which is the core competence driving instructors need for training their candidates, that is, prospective professional drivers. Therefore, according to the trainers, the driving instructor education is now actively working on implementing these themes into the new curriculum, in an attempt to further develop the intercultural competence of pre-service driving instructors and broaden their understanding of diversity in the field of traffic education. The overarching goal is to contribute to a greater commitment to advanced and successful inclusion of immigrant professional drivers into a new traffic culture.