Executive summary

This report presents the results of a comparative study of language training for adult immigrants in the Nordic countries. The study was commissioned by the Nordic Council of Ministers and the Norwegian Ministry of Labour and Social Inclusion and has been conducted by Oxford Research throughout 2022. The purpose of the study has been to compare and analyse similarities and differences across Nordic countries and immigrant sub-groups when it comes to eligibility to participate in language training services, motivation and goals, as well as barriers to participation. We have also analysed how three main stakeholder groups perceive the barriers, quality, and benefits of training: participants in language training, providers of language training, and employers.

The study differentiates between two overall types of language training. Formal language training, which is characterised by being a part of the integration process for many immigrants, as well as being regulated, funded, and delivered through the public sector. Non-formal language training, on the other hand, which encompasses a wide range of services provided by commercial or civil-society actors, either as non-formal traditional language courses or as activities focused on social integration. We have conducted the study using a combination of methodologies: desk research and document studies, interviews, focus groups, surveys, and analysis of publicly available quantitative data.

Systems for language training are similar across the Nordic countries

Overall, the study has found that the Nordic countries are largely similar when it comes to both the formal and non-formal language training services that are offered to adult immigrants. The ability to communicate in the national language is widely recognised as being a prerequisite for immigrants to integrate. Our main findings show that:

Formal language training services are provided and funded in similar ways across all Nordic countries, where integration policies determine how they are organised, the contents of training, and the qualifications required to deliver training.
The main goal of both formal and non-formal language training services is integration, both labour market and social. To facilitate this, formal training services are increasingly being combined with other types of training, such as VET, as well as both primary and secondary education.
One of the main differences between formal language training services in the Nordic countries is eligibility to participate free of charge. In Denmark and Sweden, all immigrants are eligible to participate. In Finland, formal training is only available to unemployed immigrants, whereas in Norway, it is available to refugees and their family members, family members of Nordic citizens and labour migrants and their family members from outside the EU/EEA.
Non-formal language training services provide a myriad of offers in all countries. The study has not identified any differences between countries in terms of how non-formal services are organised, funded, and provided. For these services, the main differences are between the different types of services offered.
Results of language training relating to proficiency are only measured in relation to formal language training services, whereas non-formal services rarely monitor results. While pass rates are high among exam participants, they do not account for factors such as drop-out rates, which may affect the general results.

Stakeholders have similar perceptions of what constitutes the main barriers, qualities, and benefits of language training

The study has found few differences in how participants and providers perceive the quality and benefits of training. While conditions vary between immigrant sub-groups in terms of eligibility for formal language training, their perceived goals, obstacles, and quality factors are largely similar across both countries and immigrant sub-groups. The main differences are instead related to the extent to which a certain goal or obstacle is particularly important. Overall, in terms of stakeholders’ perceived goals, barriers, quality, and benefits, we have found that:

The primary reason for participation in language training relates to labour market integration, both in terms of gaining employment and functioning in the workplace. All stakeholders highlight how language skills are necessary to function in the workplace, as well as to integrate socially.
The main barrier to participating in language training is lack of time, particularly among labour migrants. Barriers to learning, on the other hand, are primarily a lack of social network and opportunities to practice, as well as educational pre-requisites which affect immigrants’ abilities to learn and gain proficiency in a new language. An unevenness in the quality of delivered services, which is particularly prevalent in Sweden, also affects learning.
The factors that are considered important to ensuring high-quality language training concern the regulation, organisation, and delivery of language training services. These quality factors relate to compensation models and procurement systems, teacher qualifications, didactic methods, composition of learning groups, and that training is considered meaningful and relevant.
There are considerable synergies between formal and non-formal language training services, where the latter fulfil an important function in complementing the former. Non-formal services fill the gaps left by formal services due to lack of eligibility or low quality. They can also be effective in that they help immigrants overcome barriers by being offered at suitable times and creating social connections.
Ensuring that formal language training services collaborate with the labour market is highly beneficial. Collaboration allows participants to become familiar with the labour market and potentially develop relevant vocational skills, but also develop the more profession-specific set of language skills which is often requested by employers.

Based on the characteristics for each Nordic country, Table 1 provides an illustration of the characteristics of the language training systems in the Nordic countries.

	DK	FI	NO	SE
Municipalities are responsible for providing training	✓		✓	✓
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 in formal training	✓			✓
Training must be completed within 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 and equal across providers	✓	✓	✓
Non-formal services effectively fill the gaps in formal services	✓	✓	✓	(✓)
There is close collaboration with the labour market	✓	✓	✓	✓

Table 1. Characteristics of language training in the Nordic countries

Best practices in language training

We have identified seven different areas that constitute best practices when it comes to language training services for adult immigrants. This list is not necessarily exhaustive but serves to highlight 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…

… it is widely available to immigrants regardless of their reason for being in a Nordic country
… it is meaningful, based on didactic methods, and provided by competent teachers or volunteers
… funding is available and organised in a way that incentivises quality
… it provides ample opportunity to practice the language in real-life settings
… it is accessible even when participants have limited time
… it provides supportive and fun environments where participants feel comfortable challenging themselves
… it involves employers and is relevant to the labour market

Suggestions for how to organise language training

Based on the study’s findings, we provide five overall suggestions to how language training could be organised to ensure quality and benefits for immigrants, the labour market, and society as a whole. The suggestions differ in relevance between countries, depending on how the system is organised, eligibility, and perceived quality.

Ensure inclusivity in formal training for all immigrants.

Currently, language training is offered free of charge to all immigrants in Denmark and Sweden whereas in Finland and Norway, many labour migrants are not eligible to participate free of charge. 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. We therefore suggest reviewing the costs it would entail to allow all immigrants to be eligible for formal language training services, or other ways, such as subsidies, that could enable more immigrants to partake in language training.
Particularly relevant for: Finland and Norway, Denmark to a lesser extent

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 relevant. 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 be encouraged to further integrate existing non-formal language training services into formal training. One way to do this could be by including collaboration as 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.
Particularly relevant for: All countries

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 for 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 both increase awareness of the profession and to increase its attractivity.
Particularly relevant for: Sweden and Denmark, Finland to a lesser extent

Increase structured collaboration between formal and non-formal language training 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 lack of opportunities to practice speaking and lack of a social network in a Nordic country. By bringing volunteers into formal language training settings, immigrants are provided with a direct opportunity to practice the language, facilitating their social integration. Other ways to encourage collaboration could be through providing public funding to initiatives that explore and test innovative ways to collaborate.
Particularly relevant for: All countries

Continue to strengthen the role of the labour market and employers in ensuring the relevance of training

Given that one of the main goals for language training is that participants find work, the connection between the labour market and language training services could be strengthened even further. This could involve 1) furthering the use of training plans and tools for immigrants to learn the terminology associated with particular occupations, 2) 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, 3) scaling up the use of language training collaborating with VET, which has proven to be a successful way of making training more meaningful for participants, facilitating results for both proficiency and employment.
Particularly relevant for: Finland and Denmark, Norway and Sweden to a lesser extent.