Milli mála - 2023, Qupperneq 117

MILLI MÁLA
Milli mála 15/2/2023 117
tants based in these regions, who forwarded the survey to immigrants
to collect data in these areas. The assistants hired to help with the
data collection were in the extended network of the researchers
involved in the research project and well-connected with the immi-
grant communities in certain regions. They were hired to distribute
the survey and recruit more participants in regions where participa-
tion of immigrants was low. Participants received written informa-
tion on the purpose of the study, confidentiality, and anonymity of
the data collected. Names were not collected. Due to Iceland’s small
population, additional measures were taken to protect immigrants’
identities. Instead of collecting information on countries of origin, we
collected information on larger regions of origin.
4.2. Data Analysis
We examined the factors (independent variables) age, gender, origin,
education, region of residence in Iceland, duration of stay in Iceland,
regular use of Icelandic, number of memberships in clubs, organiza-
tions, and associations, social contacts, language of response, number
of Icelandic classes taken, and income. The dependent variables were
1) satisfaction with Icelandic language classes (SILC) and 2) profi-
ciency in Icelandic as indicated by a composite score (PICS). SILC was
measured by one question in the survey: “If you have taken Icelandic
courses, how satisfied were you overall with them?” This question
was answered by participants on a Likert scale from 1 to 5, where 1
meant “very dissatisfied” and 5 meant “very satisfied.” We compared
those who were dissatisfied with those who were satisfied, thus,
grouping those who were very dissatisfied and rather dissatisfied in
one group, and those who were rather satisfied and very satisfied in
the other group. This grouping excluded all those who chose “neither/
nor” as an answer. PICS was defined by a question asking about pro-
ficiency in Icelandic on a Likert scale from 0: don’t speak Icelandic, 1:
rather poor, 2: neither poor nor good, 3: rather good, 4: fluent. People
indicating their proficiency was “rather good” or “fluent” fell into the
class “high-PICS,” whereas all others fell into the class “low-PICS”,
except for those who answered the questionnaire in Icelandic. They
were also counted to be high-PICS.
LARA W. HOFFMANN, YVONNE HÖLLER, MARKUS MECKL