Lýsing
The teaching and learning of Nordic languages as second languages is one of the responses to the increasing diversity in schools (Emilsson Peskova et al., 2024; Helakorpi et al., 2023; Thomsen, 2025). In Iceland, the provisions for second language teaching in schools and in higher/adult education are little regulated by the state, and the measurements of immigrant students´ achievement are continuously strikingly negative (OECD, 2023, 2024). Requirements for adult immigrants to learn Icelandic as a second language are minimal. In comparison, the Danish curriculum contains more explicit regulation for teaching of Danish as a second language; however, as a subject, its position remains ambiguous and somewhat diffuse, and there is a high degree of variation between educational levels.Denmark and Iceland, although historically strongly connected, have had different experiences with second language instruction, concerning, for example, the duration and ideological perspectives, which have resulted in different approaches to establishing Danish and Icelandic as subjects in the educational system and as subjects of study for teacher education and preparation. As a response to the societal and educational needs, Icelandic and Danish as second languages slowly develop within curricula as subjects in their own right.
The aim of this paper is to outline a possible scheme for both countries to strengthen the position of second languages as subjects across school levels. The goal is to analyze and compare policy documents in both countries to investigate if and how the subjects are currently constructed as subjects as school subjects across the educational systems. The research question is How is Danish/Icelandic as a second language (not) constructed as a subject in both countries’ curricula across educational levels?
Understanding the shaping of school subjects as a communicative process (Ongstad, 2006), we argue that the subjects Danish/Icelandic as a second language are being constructed and interpreted in curricular documents through five curriculum levels: ideological, formal, interpretative, enacted, and perceived level (Goodlad, 1979). We employ document analysis (Bowen, 2009) to systematically review and evaluate key documents, identifying the features that help or limit the construction of Danish/Icelandic as subjects. The document analysis uses elements of thematic and content analysis. We compare laws, policies, curricula, and the course registry of teacher education in both countries. To operationalize our comparative analysis, we offer an analytical model that visualizes how the construction of the subjects aligns and differs across the two countries.
We argue that by professionalizing the second language teaching and separating it from L1 teaching (Danish, Icelandic subjects as first languages), implementing suitable teacher education, developing curricula for Danish/Icelandic as a second language, providing appropriate teaching materials, and allotting teaching hours will contribute to a systematic approach to second language teaching. This paper is an important contribution to the shaping of second language subjects in Denmark and Iceland, yet it is also highly relevant within the Nordic context, as the intersection of languages, school attainment, and migration remains one of the largest challenges of the educational systems in all Nordic countries.
| Tímabil | 5 mar. 2026 |
|---|---|
| Viðburðartitill | NERA 2026 |
| Tegund atburðar | Ráðstefna |
| Staðsetning | Aarhus, DanmörkSýna á korti |
| Viðurkenning | Alþjóðlegt |