4. Conclusions and potential solutions
In this chapter, we provide a summary and analysis of the key findings of this study. We present the study’s conclusions concerning the main differences and similarities in the Nordic systems for language training and discuss how this affects quality. We also determine factors for best practices based on findings and, finally, provide suggestions for how successful language training services could be organised.
4.1 Summary of findings
This comparative study of language training services in Finland, Denmark, Norway, and Sweden has aimed to describe and analyse how selected language training services are organised and delivered. We have also explored how key stakeholders perceive that these services need to be delivered in order to help immigrants overcome barriers to participation, thus facilitating success for participants in terms of language proficiency, labour market integration, and active social participation. The study has shown that while there are differences in how the Nordic countries organise and deliver formal language training services, the systems are largely similar: municipalities play a key role in their organisation, there are standardised curricula, examinations, and goals, and training is publicly funded. This is not surprising. All the Nordics prioritise language training at policy-level. There is broad agreement across the political spectrum that being able to communicate in the national language is key to labour market and social integration. As such, language training services are an integral part of the adult education system. The key factors that characterise language training in the Nordic countries are summarised in Table 13.
While there are differences between sub-groups of immigrants when it comes to eligibility for formal training, the barriers to participation that immigrants otherwise face are largely similar. Needs and prerequisites differ mainly based on individual circumstances, but also, to some extent, immigrant sub-groups. Nevertheless, the study has identified few differences in how the quality and benefits of language training are perceived within different immigrant sub-groups.
DK | FI | NO | SE | |
Municipalities are responsible for formal language training services | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | |
Private providers play an important role in delivering formal training | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | |
Private providers are primarily procured through competitive bidding | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | |
Compensation models and procurement systems affect quality in a positive way | (✓) | ✓ | ✓ | (✓) |
All immigrants are eligible to participate | ✓ | ✓ | ||
Training must be completed within a set time frame | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | |
Teaching qualifications are legally required to deliver training | ✓ | ✓ | ||
Funding is based on participants completing courses | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | |
Labour market integration is a long-term goal | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ |
Participants are required to meet an individual goal on CEFR scale to complete training | ✓ | ✓ | ||
Training is considered to be high-quality | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | |
Non-formal services effectively fill the gaps in formal services | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | (✓) |
There is close collaboration with the labour market | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ |
Table 13. Characterisations of formal language training services in the Nordic countries
Formal language training is delivered according to participants’ prerequisites and needs
The systems for formal training in all the Nordic countries recognise that immigrants have different educational prerequisites and cognitive abilities. Formal language training services are adapted accordingly, differentiating learning through so-called tracks where learning takes place at difference speeds based on ability. Countries differ in terms of which level of proficiency is expected at the completion of formal training. In Norway and Denmark participants have different goals depending on track. In Finland and Sweden, all immigrants are expected to achieve the same level of proficiency, if at different speeds. Our findings suggest, however, that some of these proficiency goals may be unrealistic to achieve for those immigrants who have lower educational backgrounds. Particularly Finland’s goal of a B1 proficiency for all participants within a set time frame has not generated the desired results, with most participants achieving A2 at the end of training. Here, we consider Norway’s proficiency goals that are developed based on individual circumstances, to be a more useful way to encourage realistic results.
Another aspect of delivering formal language training according to the needs of immigrants, is the combination of language training and vocational training. Such combinations are available varying extents in the Nordics. Our findings show that all countries are increasingly prioritising complementary tools that will increase immigrants’ connections to the labour market, such as orientation courses, internships, and combined training. Denmark considers the combination of VET with formal language training to be especially useful for low-skilled immigrants – often refugees and their family members – thus targeting these initiatives at that immigrant sub-groups. In Norway, eligibility for language training combined with VET through the public employment system,
Norwegian Labour and Welfare Organisation (NAV)
Regulatory and organisational factors affect the quality of formal training
The study has identified several regulatory factors that affect how the quality and benefits of language training are perceived among stakeholders. Our findings suggest that one key regulatory difference that affects the quality of language training, is teacher skills and qualifications. Teaching skills have been highlighted as by far the most important factor for quality by all stakeholders included in this study: if the teaching is substandard, it will not be high-quality, regardless of how motivated the participants are. In formal training, teaching competencies are ensured by regulated qualification requirements for teachers. All countries but Sweden emphasise teaching qualifications as a precondition to teaching, either regulating them by law or as a criterion in the procurement process. Sweden differs from the other countries in that teachers without qualifications are permitted to deliver training, which also regularly happens. This is one aspect that could explain why the overall quality of formal language training in Sweden is, by all accounts, very uneven compared to Denmark, Finland, and Norway. While teaching skills affect all participants, our findings show that they are particularly important for immigrants with low educational backgrounds, most often refugees and their families, who are more likely to need substantial support in their learning.
Another regulatory factor that could explain differences in quality can be found in the average public spending per participant and quality. Sweden’s expenditure is substantially lower than the other countries’, particularly Norway’s.
Please note that average spending per participant is not available for Finland.
Eligibility and accessibility affect participation
The main difference we have identified between the Nordic countries when it comes to the organisation of formal language training services, is eligibility to participate free of charge. In Denmark and Sweden, all immigrants are eligible to participate, whereas Finland and Norway limit participation for (some) labour migrants. Previous experience from Denmark shows that labour migrants are much less likely to participate in training when they are required to pay for it themselves. This study’s results also suggest that providing high quality language training could increase the likelihood of labour migrants remaining in the country and becoming active participants in society. Nevertheless, our results do not show that limiting eligibility has any effect on the quality of delivery. Factors such as teaching skills, effective didactical methods, and safe and engaging learning environments are important, regardless of who may participate in training.
When a proportion of immigrants are not eligible to participate in formal language training services, the non-formal language training system, which serves an important complementary role, is even more important. Our findings show that Norway has initiatives to promote accessibility for immigrant sub-groups who are not otherwise eligible to participate in formal language training services. These include initiatives that enable certified providers to apply for funding to offer language training to these sub-groups of immigrants. While Finland offers training to employed immigrants through the liberal education system, services are not necessarily free of cost for the participants, making them less accessible. In all countries where immigrants have a limited time in which to participate in formal language training, it would be useful to promote similar initiatives for those who have yet to achieve adequate proficiency.
It is also important not to confuse eligibility and accessibility. Being eligible to participate in a service, does not mean that it is accessible. While both Sweden and Denmark offer training to all immigrants regardless of sub-group, findings from Denmark show that participants commonly drop out of training when they gain employment, which is likely to affect their overall language development and proficiency. While the study has found that time constraints, which affect labour migrants and employed immigrants to a larger extent than other sub-groups, are the main barrier to accessing language training, financial constraints, or issues such as travel distance may also play a role. As such, training that can help overcome these barriers seems to be particularly beneficial. Based on our findings, we consider services that offer formal or non-formal language training during, for example, evenings and weekends, or offer childcare in conjunction with training so that parents on maternity leave are able to participate, to be particularly helpful. But also, digital services, which are playing an increasingly important role in language learning. Both in terms of making it easier to practice the language in gamified ways through smartphone apps and using technology to connect with language buddies between other commitments.
Non-formal services complement formal language training services for all immigrant sub-groups
Non-formal language training services play an important role in the broader language training systems in the Nordic countries. But no matter how high quality and useful these services can be in helping immigrants to practice the Nordic language and facilitate their social integration, non-formal services cannot replace formal language training services. Even if a formal language training system is not considered to have sufficient quality, as our findings indicate is the case in Sweden, the fragmented non-formal system cannot be expected to fill all the gaps.
Non-formal language training can, and does, however, fill the gaps in formal training in other ways, particularly when it comes to overcoming some of the study’s identified barriers to language learning, such as a lack of social network and opportunities to practice. The study has found that these barriers affect all immigrant sub-groups, if in different ways. While refugees and their family members are more prone to social isolation, high-skilled labour migrants instead find that they are unable to move beyond using English in social settings. Non-formal language training services provide arenas for participants to practice speaking and get to know native speakers in social settings, facilitating both their understanding of society and their participation in it. We have found particularly salient examples of when non-formal services have complemented formal services in useful ways, such as in Denmark, where a language school has placed a language café that promotes social interaction and language practice in the same building.
Altogether, our findings show that the training delivered to immigrants in the Nordic countries is appreciated and facilitates the desired results of language proficiency, labour market integration and social integration for immigrants across sub-groups and countries. Formal language training systems are perceived to vary in quality, with Sweden standing out as the most criticised. Non-formal language training services are fragmented in all countries but provide an important complement to formal language training services in meeting barriers related to eligibility and accessibility.
4.2 Determining best practices
Based on learnings from this study we have determined seven criteria which constitute best practices in language training services for adult immigrants. The criteria concern the funding, regulation, and organisation of language training, as well as eligibility and accessibility for immigrants. The list is not exhaustive but serves to summarise the issues that have been highlighted as particularly important by the key stakeholders who have contributed to this study, namely participants, providers, and employers.
A language training service is particularly successful when…
1. … it is widely available to immigrants regardless of their reason for being in a Nordic country.
2. … it is meaningful, based on didactic methods, and provided by competent teachers or volunteers.
3. … funding is available and organised in a way that incentivises quality.
4. … it provides ample opportunity to practice the language in real-life settings.
5. … it is accessible even when participants have limited time.
6. … it provides supportive and fun learning environments where participants feel comfortable challenging themselves.
7. … it involves employers and is relevant to the needs and requirements of the labour market.
Given the variation in services across the Nordics, all criteria do not necessarily apply to every service. Some of the criteria for best practices are systemic, such as who is eligible for (formal) training and how training is funded. Other criteria relate to how training is organised in practice – e.g., through in-person or physical meetings – and how it helps immigrants overcome barriers to participation. Yet other criteria relate to the content of training and the training environments.
The case studies of specific services conducted for the purpose of this study each fulfil some of the criteria for best practices, as summarised in Table 14. Here we illustrate which aspects of best practices that we have identified in the studied services. A longer summary of each studied language training service can be found in Annex A.
Table 14. Best practices criteria identified and applied to case studies
Name of service | Type of training | Widely available | Funding structure | Teaching competency | Language practice | Accessible | Supportive and fun | Labour market involvement |
Vestegnens Sprogcenter (DK) | Formal | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | |||
Sprogland (DK) | Non-formal | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | |
Gimara (FI) | Non-formal | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | |||
YLE Language training (FI) | Non-formal | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ||
Folkeuniversitetet (NO) | Non-formal | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ||
MiR (NO) | Non-formal | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | |||
Lingio (SE) | Non-formal | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ |
Härryda vuxenutbildning med integrerad språkträning (SE) | Formal | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ |
Language training services are widely available to immigrants, regardless of their reason for being in a Nordic country
Learning the language of their new country is key for integration into a new society for all immigrants, regardless of background, education, or immigrant status. This study has shown that eligibility and access are pivotal to ensuring that as many immigrants as possible learn a Nordic language. Being eligible to participate in free formal language training also increases the likelihood for participation. As evidence from Denmark shows, self-payment for labour migrants affects participation in formal language training services in a negative manner. Accordingly, it seems probable that labour migrants in Finland and Norway who are not eligible for free formal language training have limited participation in other types of (paid) language training, affecting their long-term possibilities of integration.
Language training is meaningful, based on didactic methods, and provided by competent teachers or volunteers
That teachers are competent and – where relevant – qualified is one of the most important factors to delivering high quality training. Qualified teachers are more likely to be able to use efficient didactic methods that facilitate learning. These methods include authentic learning, where learning is related to participants’ real-life experiences and how they would use the language in practice, making training more meaningful. Qualified teachers are also more likely to be skilled at facilitating a learning atmosphere that is supportive, comfortable, and fun. Teachers with experience and competence often have a deep knowledge of the target group for language training services – a group which differs from others within the education system in that learners are adults whose main occupation is seldom language learning, thus requiring a different approach to other types of education.
Funding is available and organised in a way that incentivises quality
Two funding-related aspects are important to ensuring quality in training. First, adequate funding needs to be available. Both formal and non-formal language training services rely on public funding, whereas non-formal services also depend on donations, volunteers and self-payment depending on the type of service. For non-formal language training services, funding with a long-term perspective and flexibility in terms of how it is used would improve providers ability to plan and deliver more consistent and high-quality training. One indication of how the amount of funding may affect quality is when comparing Norway and Sweden. In Norway, average public spending per participant in formal training is more than twice as high as in Sweden. At the same time, the Norwegian formal language training system is considered high quality to a higher extent than the Swedish system.
Second, funding must be organised in a way that incentivises quality. This means that a cost-efficient language training service may not necessarily be the one that delivers the service at the lowest cost, but rather that achieves its goals in terms of delivering high-quality language training. As such, procurement systems should emphasise quality and funding should be allocated in a way that ensures that participants receive the language training that they are entitled to.
Language training provides ample opportunity to practice the Nordic language in real-life settings
Language training is beneficial when it makes it possible for participants to practice the Nordic language in real life settings. This type of learning helps immigrants to overcome the substantial barriers of not having the opportunities to practice and use the language as well as enhancing their often-limited social networks in a Nordic country. It is particularly beneficial when formal and non-formal language training services provide opportunities for participants to meet native speakers and practice the language in informal settings. Such services can either have the main purpose of connecting native speakers to immigrants for conversations that involve learning about society, customs, and culture. They can also be a complementary component with a strong connection to formal language training services. This can both include formal language training services partnering with local civil society organisations and recruiting volunteers allows students to have real conversations and engage with Nordic-speakers in supportive environments, and the increased use of digital tools and apps to strengthen language learning.
Language training is accessible even when participants have limited time
While eligibility is pivotal to ensuring broad participation in language training, it is not enough to ensure participation. Training must also be accessible. This means that training must be adjusted to meet the main challenges and barriers that adult immigrants experience when it comes to participating. Namely, lack of time due to family and work responsibilities and – albeit to a lesser extent – financial constraints, trauma, and long travel times.
In practice, accessibility can be increased through both adjustments in the delivery of training that takes place in person, or through the use of increasingly popular online learning platforms and digital language training services. For training that takes place in a physical location, accessibility means taking place at a time when most participants are available. It also means being low-cost in terms of how much participants must pay to participate (if at all). Online learning platforms and digital language training services offer an accessibility that enables participants to participate in training flexibly according to their own schedules. While this requires participants that are motivated, and – at least for some services – have a basic command of the language in question, the gamified approach also encourages constant practice which is beneficial to language learning.
Language training is provided in supportive and fun environments where participants feel comfortable challenging themselves
Learning is facilitated when training is fun and relevant for participants. The same applies to language training. Both the way the training is delivered, and the learning environment affect motivation to participate. Training that is delivered in an engaging way and has a clear connection to the participants’ daily lives and needs, is also more likely to be considered meaningful. In addition, learning environments where participants support each other and feel comfortable challenging themselves and making mistakes facilitate learning. For many social non-formal language training services, training can be delivered in relaxed settings, often in combination with activities such as cooking, hiking, sports, or cultural activities. Providing safe and comfortable physical spaces where participants are welcome for support and conversations also facilitate learning and social integration.
Language training involves employers and is relevant to the needs and requirements of the labour market
Language training that has a connection to the labour market or involves employers contributes to the two main goals of language training, namely improved language proficiency and employment. From an employer perspective, language training combined with VET can contribute to meeting local labour demands. From a participant perspective, combined training can enable them to gain marketable skills and achieve employment at a faster pace than what might otherwise have been possible. Language training combined with VET could also enhance learning for low-skilled immigrants by increasing the relevance of their language learning through contextualising it. For labour migrants or other sub-groups who have found work, there is also a value in facilitating continued language development for employees according to their needs. Either through non-formal traditional language courses, apps that enable occupation-specific training, or collaboration with social language training services. As well as providing competence development which facilitates employees’ success in the workplace, it contributes to social integration, which is important for the long-term retention of labour migrant employees.
4.3 Suggestions for how to organise language training
Based on the comparative study’s findings and conclusions, this section presents our suggestions for measures that could potentially improve the quality and benefits of language training in the Nordic countries. We shortly discuss which changes or initiatives would be required at policy-level to facilitate such improvements. Table 15 illustrates the suggestions, as well as the extent to which we perceive them to be important to consider in each country, based on the characteristics of the current national language training system.
DK | FI | NO | SE | |
Ensure inclusivity in formal training for all immigrants |  |  |  |  |
Structure the synergies between formal language training and non-formal digital services |  |  |  |  |
Increase the awareness and prestige of working with language training |  |  |  |  |
Increase structured collaboration between formal and non-formal language training services |  |  |  |  |
Continue to strengthen the role of labour market and employers in ensuring the relevance of training |  |  |  |  |
Table 15. Suggestions for how to organise language training according to relevance for the Nordic countries (brighter colours equals more relevance)
Ensure inclusivity in formal training for all immigrants
Currently, language training is offered free of charge to all labour migrants only in Denmark and Sweden whereas in Finland and Norway, labour migrants are not eligible for free formal language training. However, in the long-term, there is a socio-economic advantage for immigrants to be able to speak the national language and become active participants in society. For Finland and Norway, we therefore suggest looking over the costs it would entail to allow all immigrants to be eligible for formal language training services. We also suggest that initiatives such as Norway’s subsidy for Norwegian education, which provides access to high quality language training for immigrants who are not eligible for formal language training and encourages innovative methods and collaboration between formal and non-formal providers, be implemented in more countries. This initiative could be especially useful in Finland and Denmark, where eligibility for language training is limited to a certain period of time.
Structure the synergies between formal language training and non-formal digital services
Being eligible to participate in formal language training does not necessarily mean that all immigrants have equal access. With time as their main constraint, services that can overcome that obstacle are particularly beneficial. Technological developments mean that almost all adults own a smartphone, which gives them access to a wealth of non-formal language training services. We thus suggest that formal language training services in all the Nordics be encouraged to further integrate existing non-formal language training services into formal training, by e.g. including this as a quality criteria in procurement processes. To increase knowledge and awareness of available tools, national-level stakeholders could consider compiling databases of tools that are considered to be beneficial and complementary to language training. This would both serve as a source of information and a method of quality assurance for teachers, enabling them to make informed decisions concerning which tools to include depending on their specific learning groups. Inspiration could be taken from the so-called competence packages (Kompetansepakker) which were developed by Norway’s Directorate of Higher Education and Skills to aid teachers in implementing the new curriculum in 2021.
Increase the awareness and prestige of working with language training
Formal language training for adult immigrants is a niche area, and awareness of what the job entails is limited outside “language training circles”. A shortage of qualified teachers could be one of the explanations as to the uneven quality of Sweden’s formal language training system, but there are also recruitment challenges in Finland and Denmark. We thus suggest that initiatives are taken to increase both the awareness of the profession its attractivity. One way to increase awareness is through advertisement campaigns which could be aimed both at the general public and targeted specifically at student teachers. As well as awareness, an occupation’s attractiveness is related to perceived working conditions. While we assume that working conditions are monitored by employers, it would be useful to map language teachers’ perceptions of their situations at a national level to understand their key challenges, thereby identifying which changes and improvements could be feasible to implement on a wider scale.
Increase structured collaboration between formal and non-formal language services
Structured collaboration between formal and non-formal language training services is a cost-efficient way to overcome one of the main obstacles for participants, namely their lack of opportunities to practice speaking and their lack of a social network in a Nordic country. By bringing volunteers into formal language training settings, immigrants are provided with direct access to practice the language, facilitating their social integration. Placing a service run by civil society actors such as a study centre, language café or meeting place for language buddies in a formal language training centre, also emphasises the important connection between formal and non-formal language training services. Such collaboration could be encouraged through updated curricula or including criteria for collaboration in procurement processes. Other ways to encourage collaboration could be through providing public funding to initiatives that explore and test innovative ways to collaborate.
Continue to strengthen the role of labour market and employers in ensuring the relevance of training
Given that one of the main goals of language training is for participants to find work, the connection between the labour market and language training services could be strengthened even further. First, the quality of formal training must align with the demands of the labour market. This could involve furthering the use of training plans and tools for immigrants to learn the terminology associated with the occupations that they wish to enter by funding the expansion of existing courses or the development of new ones. Second, it could also involve placing a larger responsibility on employers to bear the costs of language training for labour migrants that they have employed to fill a competence gap. Currently, employers are not obligated to provide or fund language training for their employees, even in countries where labour migrants have limited access to formal language training services. Third, it could involve scaling up the use of language training combined with VET, which has proven to be a successful way of making training more meaningful for participants and facilitating results both in terms of proficiency and employment goals. Making these initiatives available to all unemployed immigrants could potentially improve their results.