Content uploaded by Lorenzo Rocca
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Lorenzo Rocca on Jul 03, 2022
Content may be subject to copyright.
This reference guide is meant for language educators, curriculum designers and
language policy makers in their endeavour to design, implement, evaluate and
improve curricula tailored toward the specic needs of non- and low-literate adult
migrants. This group of migrants faces the complex and demanding task of learning
a language while either learning to read and write for the rst time or developing
their literacy skills. They rarely receive adequate instruction in terms of hours of
tuition and targeted teaching approaches, whereas they are very often requested
to take a compulsory written test.
The reference guide contains: a denition of target users and learners; the rationale
related to the development of the descriptors; principles for teaching literacy and
second languages; scales and tables of descriptors; aspects of curriculum design at
the macro, meso and micro levels and recommendations on assessment procedures
and tools within the learning environment.
The guide also contains descriptors that build on the Common European Framework
of Reference for Languages (CEFR) and the CEFR Companion volume up to the A1
level for adult migrants, with special attention given to literacy learners.
The Council of Europe is the continent’s leading
human rights organisation. It comprises 46 member
states, including all members of the European Union.
All Council of Europe member states have signed
up to the European Convention on Human Rights,
a treaty designed to protect human rights, democracy
and the rule of law. The European Court of Human Rights
oversees the implementation of the Convention in
the member states.
ENG
PREMS 008922
http://book.coe.int
978-92-871-9189-2
€56/US$112
EDUCATION FOR DEMOCRACY
LITERACY AND SECOND LANGUAGE LEARNING FOR THE LINGUISTIC INTEGRATION OF ADULT MIGRANTS (LASLLIAM)
www.coe.int/lang-cefr
Reference guide
LITERACY AND SECOND
LANGUAGE LEARNING
FOR THE LINGUISTIC
INTEGRATION
OF ADULT MIGRANTS
LITERACY AND SECOND
LANGUAGE LEARNING
FOR THE LINGUISTIC
INTEGRATION
OF ADULT MIGRANTS
Authoring group
Fernanda Minuz
Jeanne Kurvers
Karen Schramm
Lorenzo Rocca
Rola Naeb
Co-ordinator
Fernanda Minuz
Other contributors
Alexis Feldmeier García
Taina Tammelin-Laine
Council of Europe
The opinions expressed in this work are
the responsibility of the author(s) and
do not necessarily reect the ocial
policy of the Council of Europe.
The reproduction of extracts (up to
500words) is authorised, except for
commercial purposes, as long as
theintegrity of the text is preserved, the
excerpt is not used out of context, does
not provide incomplete information or
does not otherwise mislead the reader
as to the nature, scope or content of
the text. Thesource text must always be
acknowledged as follows: “© Council of
Europe, 2022”. All other requests concerning
the reproduction/translation of all or part
of the document should be addressed
to the Directorate of Communications,
Council of Europe (F-67075 Strasbourg
Cedex or publishing@coe.int).
All other correspondence concerning this
document should be addressed to the
Education Department
Council of Europe
Agora Building
1, Quai Jacoutot
67075 Strasbourg Cedex
France
education@coe.int
Cover design: Documents and Publications
Production Department (SPDP),
Council of Europe
Layout: Jouve, Paris
Cover photo: Shutterstock
Council of Europe Publishing
F-67075 Strasbourg Cedex
http://book.coe.int
ISBN 978-92-871- 9189-2
© Council of Europe, June 2022
Printed at the Council of Europe.
Page 3
CONTENTS
PREFACE WITH ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 7
FOREWORD 11
INTRODUCTION 13
LASLLIAM WITHIN THE COUNCIL OF EUROPE POLICIES 13
LASLLIAM GENERAL PURPOSE 14
CHAPTER 1 THE LASLLIAM REFERENCE GUIDE:AIMS,USERS AND LEARNERS 17
1.1. LASLLIAM LINKS TO THE CEFR AND THE CEFR COMPANION VOLUME 17
1.2. THE USERS 18
1.3. AN ENCOMPASSING VIEW OF LITERACY 19
1.4. THE LEARNERS 20
1.4.1. LEARNERS’ LITERACY BACKGROUND 20
1.4.2. ORAL COMPETENCE AND PLURILINGUALISM 21
1.4.3. LEARNERS’ PROFILES 21
CHAPTER 2 THE LASLLIAM REFERENCE GUIDE: SOURCES AND RATIONALE 23
2.1. RESEARCH ON NONLITERATE AND LOWLITERATE ADULT LEARNERS 23
2.1.1. METALINGUISTIC AWARENESS 24
2.1.2. PROCESSING OF LINGUISTIC INFORMATION 24
2.1.3. SITUATED COGNITION 24
2.1.4. ORACY AND LITERACY 25
2.1.5. IMPLICATIONS FOR LASLLIAM 25
2.2. DEVELOPMENT OF THE SCALES 25
2.2.1. TECHNICAL LITERACY: LEARNING THE WRITTEN CODE 25
2.2.2. COMMUNICATIVE LANGUAGE ACTIVITIES IN READING AND WRITING 27
2.2.3. COMMUNICATIVE LANGUAGE ACTIVITIES IN LISTENING AND SPEAKING 28
2.2.4. LANGUAGE USE STRATEGIES 29
2.2.5. DIGITAL SKILLS 30
CHAPTER 3 TEACHING LITERACY IN A SECOND LANGUAGE 31
3.1. AN ACTIONORIENTED APPROACH TO LITERACY IN A SECOND LANGUAGE AND BACKWARD PLANNING 31
3.2. ORIENTATION ON THE CODE: BUILDING TECHNICAL LITERACY SKILLS 33
3.2.1. A FOCUS ON SYLLABLES 33
3.2.2. A FOCUS ON SOUNDS AND LETTERS 34
3.2.3. A FOCUS ON SIGHT WORDS 34
3.2.4. A FOCUS ON MORPHEMES 34
3.2.5. IMPORTANT GENERAL PRINCIPLES 35
3.3. ORIENTATION ON THE LEARNER: FOSTERING LITERACY AS A SOCIAL PRACTICE 35
3.3.1. PARTICIPATING IN LITERACY EVENTS 36
Page 4 3 Literacy and second language learning for the linguistic integration of adult migrants
3.3.2. EXPERIENCING AUTHORSHIP 36
3.3.3. USING LITERACY FOR LEARNING AND EMANCIPATION 37
3.4. LEARNING STRATEGIES AND AUTONOMY 37
3.5. CONTRASTIVE AND PLURILINGUAL LEARNING 39
3.6. THE POWERFUL EXPERIENCE OF SUCCESS 40
3.7. BALANCING THE VARIOUS PRINCIPLES IN LITERACY AND SECOND LANGUAGE LEARNING 40
CHAPTER 4 LASLLIAM SCALES AND TABLES 41
4.1. TECHNICAL LITERACY 42
4.1.1. LANGUAGE AND PRINT AWARENESS 43
4.1.2. READING 44
4.1.3. WRITI NG 45
4.2. COMMUNICATIVE LANGUAGE ACTIVITIES AND LANGUAGE USE STRATEGIES 45
4.2.1. RECEPTION ACTIVITIES 45
4.2.2. RECEPTION STRATEGIES 57
4.2.3. PRODUCTION ACTIVITIES 59
4.2.4. PRODUCTION STRATEGIES 65
4.2.5. INTERACTION ACTIVITIES 67
4.2.6. INTERACTION STRATEGIES 79
4.3. DIGITAL SKILLS 82
4.3.1. TECHNICAL SKILLS 82
4.3.2. COMMUNICATION AND COLLABORATION 83
4.3.3. CONTENT CREATION AND MANAGEMENT 84
4.3.4. SAFET Y 85
CHAPTER 5 USING LASLLIAM FOR CURRICULUM DESIGN 87
5.1. LASLLIAM AS A REFERENCE GUIDE ON THE SUPRA LEVEL OF CURRICULUM DESIGN 87
5.2. USING LASLLIAM FOR CURRICULUM DESIGN AT THE MACRO LEVEL 87
5.3. USING LASLLIAM FOR CURRICULUM DESIGN AT THE MESO LEVEL 89
5.4. USING LASLLIAM AT THE MICRO LEVEL 91
CHAPTER 6 ASSESSMENT WITHIN THELEARNINGENVIRONMENT 95
6.1. APPROACHES TO BE ADOPTED 95
6.1.1. CONTINUUM CRITERIONREFERENCING 95
6.1.2. LEARNING ORIENTED ASSESSMENT 96
6.1.3. PROFILING APPROACH 96
6.1.4. PREVENTING MISUSE 97
6.2. THE DIFFERENT PURPOSES OF ASSESSMENT USING LASLLIAM 98
6.2.1. ASSESSMENT WITHIN THE “WELCOME PHASE” 98
6.2.2. ACHIEVEMENT ASSESSMENT DURING THE COURSE 99
6.2.3. ACHIEVEMENT ASSESSMENT AT THE END OF THE COURSE 102
6.2.4. PROFILING THE ACHIEVED LEARNING GOALS 103
6.3. LASLLIAM AS A RESOURCE TO CONNECT LEARNINGENVIRONMENTS ACROSS EUROPE 104
6.4. LASLLIAM AS A RESOURCE TO DEVELOP ASSESSMENT TOOLS 105
Contents Page 5
CHAPTER 7 LASLLIAM RESEARCH PLAN 107
7.1. THE DEVELOPMENT PHASE AND THE CONSULTATION PHASE 107
7.2. THE VALIDATION PHASE 107
7.2.1. QUALITATIVE VALIDATION 108
7.2.2. QUANTITATIVE VALIDATION 113
7.3. OUTLOOK ON THE PILOTING PHASE 118
REFERENCES 119
GLOSSARY 131
APPENDIX 1 RESOURCES FOR TEACHING LITERACY AND SECOND LANGUAGE
SELECTEDLANGUAGES 133
APPENDIX 2 EXAMPLE OF A LASLLIAM SCENARIO 137
APPENDIX 3 LASLLIAM CHECKLIST FOR SELFASSESSMENT 141
Page 6 3 Literacy and second language learning for the linguistic integration of adult migrants
TABLES AND FIGURES
FIGURES
FIGURE 1 LASLLIAM AND CEFR COMPANION VOLUME LEVELS 18
FIGURE 2 UNEVEN PROFILES ACCORDING TO LASLLIAM LEVELS AND COMMUNICATIVE LANGUAGE ACTIVITIES 22
FIGURE 3 BACKWARD PLANNING OF TASKS AND EXERCISES TO PREPARE LEARNERS FOR THE LITERACY EVENT
OFMAKING A NOTE IN A PLANNER 32
FIGURE 4 THE LASLLIAM DESCRIPTIVE SCHEME 42
FIGURE 5 COUNCIL OF EUROPE TERMINOLOGY FOR CURRICULA AT DIFFERENT LEVELS 87
FIGURE 6 CONNECTIONS BETWEEN LASLLIAM RESOURCES WITHIN A SCENARIO 93
FIGURE 7 LASLLIAM CARTESIAN PLANE 97
FIGURE 8 OVERALL LEARNING GOALS ACHIEVED 103
FIGURE 9 LEARNING GOALS ACHIEVED BY DOMAINS OF LANGUAGE USE 104
FIGURE 10 LASLLIAM MAIN PHASES 107
FIGURE 11 LASLLIAM MILESTONES: FROM DESIGN TO LAUNCH 108
TABLES
TABLE 1 LASLLIAM SCALES AND DESCRIPTORS 41
TABLE 2 LASLLIAM DESCRIPTORS AND CEFR COMPANION VOLUME DESCRIPTORS 41
TABLE 3 LASLLIAM DESCRIPTORS, FORMS OF ASSESSMENT AND ASSESSMENT TOOLS 105
TABLE 4 AN OVERVIEW OF QUALITATIVE WORKSHOPS 109
TABLE 5 LASLLIAM DESCRIPTORS INCLUDED IN THE QUALITATIVE WORKSHOPS 109
TABLE 6 SUMMARY OF FEEDBACK FROM QUALITATIVE WORKSHOPS 110
TABLE 7 SUMMARY OF REVISED/DELETED DESCRIPTORS DURING QUALITATIVE VALIDATION 112
TABLE 8 LASLLIAM QUANTITATIVE VALIDATION TASKS FIRST STEP 113
TABLE 9 LASLLIAM DESCRIPTORS INCLUDED IN THE QUANTITATIVE VALIDATION FIRST STEP 114
TABLE 10 LASLLIAM DESCRIPTORS WITHIN THE SURVEY VERSIONS 115
TABLE 11 LASLLIAM QUANTITATIVE VALIDATION TASKS SECOND STEP 116
TABLE 12 DESIGN OF LASLLIAM QUANTITATIVE VALIDATION TASKS 116
TABLE 13 NUMBER OF DESCRIPTORS IN THE FINAL VERSION OF LASLLIAM 118
Page 7
PREFACE WITH ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This literacy and second language acquisition for the linguistic integration of adult migrants (LASLLIAM) reference
guide, funded and supported by the Education Policy Division at the Council of Europe, is the outcome of four
years of work. Its development was characterised by a continuous process of production, feedback collection
and revision.
As part of this process, the authoring group collected valuable feedback from two rounds of consultation with
experts from the Council of Europe. It also greatly proted from taking into account advice and suggestions
from colleagues, researchers, teachers, language testers, academic institutions and associations.
Once the structure, themes and topics of the reference guide were drafted, a qualitative validation followed by
a quantitative validation on descriptors and scaling took place, involving in total 831 participants, 31 languages
and 28 countries. Statistical analysis, conducted by CITO, contributed to the validation of the scales/descriptors
in their English version.
In the next step, the scales/descriptors were translated into six languages in order to enable piloting in various
European contexts and specic languages with the aim to document the practical use of LASLLIAM. Thanks to
the commitment of experienced institutions and practitioners, dierent kinds of teaching materials have been
produced.
The ongoing process of disseminating the reference guide encourages others to use these materials in their
learning environments and to collect feedback and evidence from teachers and volunteers, as well as from
learners. They also serve as examples to invite other stakeholders to produce additional tools.
The Council of Europe wishes to thank the following people and institutions for their various contributions to
the LASLLIAM project. Without their commitment and support, this reference guide would not have become
the important tool that it is now.
The LASLLIAM co-authors
Fernanda Minuz (co-ordinator), Johns Hopkins University – SAIS Europe Italy
Jeanne Kurvers, Tilburg University, The Netherlands
Karen Schramm, University of Vienna, Austria
Lorenzo Rocca, Società Dante Alighieri, Italy
Rola Naeb, Northumbria University Newcastle, United Kingdom
The two experts who contributed to the rst phase of the LASLLIAM development (2018-19)
Alexis Feldmeier García, Westfälische Wilhelms-Universität Münster, Germany
Taina Tammelin-Laine, University of Jyväskylä, Finland
The other experts who signed, as proponents, of the rst proposal to the Council of Europe for a European
Framework of Reference for Literacy and Language Teaching to Adult Migrants, in addition to the co-authors
and the persons mentioned above (2017)
Alessandro Borri, CPIA Montagna, Castel di Casio, Italy
Ari Huhta, University of Jyväskylä, Finland
Ina Ferbezar, Univerza Ljubljani, Slovenia
José Pascoal, University of Macau, Portugal
Kaatje Dalderop, Kaatje Dalderop Onderwijsadvies, The Netherlands
Marta Garcia, Universitad de Salamanca, Spain
Martha Young-Scholten, University of Newcastle, United Kingdom
Massimiliano Spotti, Tilburg University, The Netherlands
Page 8 3 Literacy and second language learning for the linguistic integration of adult migrants
Rebecca Musa, University of Newcastle, United Kingdom
Willemijn Stockmann, ROC Tilburg, The Netherlands
The Council of Europe experts who considerably contributed to revising the whole work, giving advice and
suggestions in the two rounds of feedback provided within the consultation phase (October 2019; June 2020)
Bart Deygers, University of Gent, Belgium
Cecilie Hamnes-Carlsen, Western Norway University of Applied Sciences, Norway
David Little, Trinity College, Dublin, Republic of Ireland
Jean-Claude Beacco, Université de la Sorbonne nouvelle, Paris III, France
Kaatje Dalderop, Kaatje Dalderop Onderwijsadvies, The Netherlands
The co-ordinators of the workshops within the qualitative validation phase (October-December 2020)
Alessandro Borri, CPIA “Montagna”, Castel di Casio, Italy
Angelika Hrubesch, Die Wiener Volkshochschulen, Austria
Anna Mouti, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki and Christina Maligkoudi, Democritus University of Thrace, Greece
Belma Haznedar, Boğaziçi University, Turkey
Santi Guerrero Calle, Fribourg University, Switzerland
Cecilie Hamnes-Carlsen, Western Norway University of Applied Sciences, Norway
Despoina Syrri, Symβiosis-School of Political Studies, Greece
Domenico Buscaglia, CPIA Savona, Italy
Gareth Cooper, Eu-Speak, United Kingdom
Gianvito Ricci, Associazione Quasar, Italy
Kaatje Dalderop, Stichting Melkweg plus, The Netherlands
Kathelijne Jordens and Helga Gehre, Federatie Centra voor Basiseducatie, Belgium
Lorena Belotti, KCE - Kultura Centro Esperantista, Switzerland
Maria Elena Rotilio, CPIA Cesena-Forlì, Italy
Mariia Kozulina and Daria Chernova, St Petersburg University, Russia
Martha Young-Scholten, University of Newcastle, United Kingdom
Sabrina Machetti, Università per Stranieri di Siena, Italy
Sandra Monaco, CEDIS Roma, Italy
Simona Corazza, CPIA Macerata, Italy
Stefano Zollo, CPIA Pordenone, Italy
The colleague who contributed to the data analysis related to the qualitative validation phase (January 2021)
Martina Kienberger, Universidad de Granada, Spain
The co-ordinators of the workshops within the quantitative validation phase (October-December 2021)
Anna Mouti, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki and Christina Maligkoudi, Democritus University of Thrace, Greece
Claudia Belloni, Belfast Unemployed Resource Centre, Northern Ireland and Republic of Ireland
Ina Ferbezar, Univerza Ljubljani, Slovenia
John Sutter, Judith Kirsh and Karen Dudley, Learning Unlimited, London, United Kingdom
Preface with acknowledgements Page 9
Jose Pascoal, University of Macau, Portugal
Katrine Flytkjær Holm, Sprogcenter Midt, Horsen, Denmark
Live Grinden, Nygård skole, Norway
Lorena Belotti, KCE – Kultura Centro Esperantista, Switzerland
Marilisa Birello, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, Spain,
Melissa Hauber, George Mason University, USA
Nicola Brooks, Action Foundation, United Kingdom
Radoslava Zagorova, Caritas Soa, Bulgaria
All the colleagues who participated in the quantitative validation online survey (April 2021) and the
aforementioned workshops
They came from Albania, Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece,
Italy, Ireland, Japan, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Montenegro, Nepal, the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Romania,
Russia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey and the United Kingdom.
The colleagues from CITO for the contribution given to the data analysis related to the quantitative validation
phase (May-November 2021)
Sanneke Schouwstra and Remco Feskens, CITO, The Netherlands
The colleagues who translated the descriptors’ scales (December 2021)
Dutch: De Nederlandse Taalunie
French: Stella-Anne Achieng, Dana Nica and Sakina El Kattabi, Sciences Du Langage – Centre de Recherche sur
les Médiations, CREM – Ecole doctorale Humanités-Nouvelles, Fernand Braudel Université de Lorraine
German: Martina Franz dos Santos, Philipps-Universität Marburg
Greek: Anna Mouti, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki and Christina Maligkoudi, Democritus University of Thrace
Italian: Simona Sasso, CPIA Pescara
Spanish: Marcin Sosinski and Adolfo Sanchez Cuadrado, University of Granada and Maria del Carmen Fonseca
Mora, University of Huelva
Turkish: Belma Haznedar, Boğaziçi University
The colleagues and the institutions involved in the piloting phase (February-May 2022)
Piloting from ALTE-LAMI special interest group
Anna Mouti, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Greece
Beate Zeidler, TELC, Germany
Carmen Peresich, ÖSD – Österreichisches Sprachdiplom Deutsch, Austria
Giorgio Silfer and Lorena Belotti, KCE – Kultura Centro Esperantista, Switzerland
Ina Ferbezar, Univerza Ljubljani, Slovenia
Joe Sheils, ALTE individual Expert Member, Republic of Ireland
José Pascoal, University of Macau, Portugal
Katerina Vodickova, Charles University, Czech Republic
Mohammad Al Qara, Worldwide Bildungswerk, Germany
Sabrina Machetti and Paola Masillo, Università per Stranieri di Siena, Italy
Stefanie Dengler, Goethe Institut, Germany
Page 10 3 Literacy and second language learning for the linguistic integration of adult migrants
Piloting in France
Sarah Abid, Centre de Recherche sur les Mediations (CREM) - Centre de recherche sur les mediations, Ecole
doctorale Humanites Nouvelles - Frenand Braudel de L’Universite de Lorraine
Guy Achard-Bayle, Aectation UFR Sciences humaines et sociales, Metz, Université de Lorraine
Claudia Farini, Centre de Recherche sur les Médiations (CREM) - Centre de recherche sur les médiations, Ecole
doctorale Humanités Nouvelles - Frenand Braudel de L’Université de Lorraine
Aurora Fragonara, ATER ForeLLIS Université de Poitiers, membre associé et docteure CREM Université de Lorraine
Piloting in Germany
Alexis Feldmeier García, Westfälische Wilhelms Universität Münster
Piloting in Greece
Anna Mouti, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki
Christina Maligkoudi, Democritus University of Thrace
Piloting in Italy
Alessandro Borri, CPIA Montagna
Elena Scaramaelli, Cooperativa Ruha
Elisabetta Aloisi, Cooperativa Ruha
Florinda D'Amico, FOCUS Casa dei Diritti
Piloting in the Netherlands
Merel Borgesius, Kaatje Dalderop and Willemijn Stockmann, Foundation Melkweg plus, Centre of expertise for
adult literacy teaching
Piloting in the United Kingdom
Mark Hutchinson and Joanne Norton, Newcastle College
Piloting in Spain
Marcin Sosinski, University of Granada
Adolfo Sanchez Cuadrado, University of Granada
Maria del Carmen Fonseca Mora, University of Huelva
Piloting in Turkey
Belma Haznedar, Boğaziçi University
The colleagues involved in the proofreading of the English version (scales/descriptors: June-July 2021; whole
work:February-March 2022)
Julia Gallagher
Janine de Smet
The Council of Europe LIAM project, www.coe.int/en/web/lang-migrants
The international LESLLA Corporation for Literacy Education and Second Language
Learning for Adults, www.leslla.org
The ALTE Association, www.alte.org
Page 11
FOREWORD
1. Council of Europe –Committee of Ministers 1968.
2. Rocca et al. 2020
The Council of Europe has been actively promoting linguistic diversity since its foundation. A particular emphasis
on migrant language teaching and learning was introduced by the Committee of Ministers as early as 1968,
1
and
further strengthened by the establishment of the Linguistic Integration of Adult Migrants (LIAM) project in 2006.
Language skills foster, among other things, social inclusion, access to education and employment. Within this
context, non-literate or low-literate migrants have specic educational needs. They have to learn a second
language while also learning to read and write for the rst time or developing their basic literacy competences.
Sometimes this may be in an alphabet or a writing system dierent from the one in which they may initially
have learned the rudiments.
When it comes to language or knowledge of a society’s courses, such needs are rarely taken into consideration,
and this group of migrants is rarely provided with a sucient number of hours of instruction to reach the
language level required.2
That is why in 2018 the Council of Europe invited a group of experts to develop a European reference guide on
literacy and second language learning for the linguistic integration of adult migrants (LASLLIAM), built on the
Common European Framework of Reference for Languages (CEFR) and the Companion volume.
This reference guide aims at supporting language educators, curriculum designers and language policy makers
in their endeavour to design, implement, evaluate and improve curricula.
We trust it will increase the chances of non-literate or low-literate migrants nding a place in our European
societies and contribute to their development, as well as their personal fullment.
Villano Qiriazi
Head of the Education Department,
Council of Europe
June 2022
Page 13
INTRODUCTION
3. Council of Europe – LIAM 2020b.
4. Council of Europe 1954.
5. Council of Europe – Committee of Ministers 2014.
6. Council of Europe – Committee of Ministers 1968.
7. Council of Europe 2020b.
8. Council of Europe – LIAM 2020k.
9. Council of Europe – LIAM 2020l.
10. UNESCO Institute for Statistics 2015.
11. Council of Europe 2015.
LASLLIAM WITHIN THE COUNCIL OF EUROPE POLICIES
The Council of Europe’s mission is to promote human rights, democracy and the rule of law which underpin its
policy together with an enduring concern for social inclusion, social cohesion and respect for diversity. In this
spirit, the Council of Europe’s actions in the area of language policy have aimed at mutual understanding and
supporting communication through dialogue. In order to achieve these goals, the key function of language
policies has been highlighted by two guiding principles: respecting linguistic diversity and giving value to
individuals’ language repertoires.3
The consideration of such aspects has led not only to the recommendations adopted by the Committee of
Ministers and Parliamentary Assembly, but above all to the provision of reference resources for member states.
Guides, materials and tools are all based on the acknowledgement of linguistic plurality and cultural diversity,
concentrating on the development of and conditions for implementing plurilingual and intercultural education.
This education is oriented to enlarge individuals’ linguistic repertoires according to their needs, expectations
and interests, aiming to sustain both the belonging of a person to their multilingual surrounding environment,
and the linguistic tolerance of the whole society, thus preventing specic repertoires from becoming a sign of
marginality.
Within this frame, learning languages is considered a value in itself; and appropriate teaching is a means to
strengthen and ensure language rights and that equal access to high-quality education4 is ensured not only to
the autochthonous population, but also to migrants. Therefore, the Council of Europe has urged member states
to provide adequate language programmes.
The Committee of Ministers notes the importance of basing integration policies on the Council of Europe’s
fundamental values and, in particular, allowing migrants to develop their potential and participate actively in
the life of the host country. The provision of language courses for migrants together with appropriate evaluation
processes form part of this because, as the Assembly stresses, knowledge of a receiving society’s language(s)
facilitates successful integration. However, it is important that the language courses on oer should take account
of each migrant’s specic resources and needs and enable them to acquire, in particular, language skills relevant
to their work.5
From this perspective, the Council of Europe was a pioneer in addressing migration issues with Resolution
(68) 18 on the teaching of languages to migrant workers.6 Since then, and to a growing extent in the recent
past, the management of migration ows and challenges, including linguistic challenges connected to the
integration of newcomers into European countries, has been debated in an increasing number of member
states. In consequence, the Council of Europe provided a structured commitment, on a larger scale and with a
long-term time horizon, with the launch in 2006 of the Linguistic Integration of Adult Migrants (LIAM) project.
LIAM aims to support policy makers and professionals in terms of both practical resources and an ethical frame
based on Council of Europe shared values. Accordingly, LIAM has increasingly focused on vulnerable groups of
adult migrants,7 addressing, for instance, the linguistic support of asylum seekers and refugees with the Toolkit.8
In addition, LIAM has highlighted the need for tailor-made courses specically targeted to migrants who are
facing the complex and demanding task of learning a language while either learning to read and write for the
rst time (non-literates) or developing their literacy competences (low-literates).9
Literacy, as the capacity to deal with the written code of a language, is a fundamental right:10 access to literacy
is strictly linked to “the right to protection against social exclusion” (European Social Charter, Part II, Article 30),11
since the ability to use the written language enables someone to better perform everyday tasks and participate
Page 14 3 Literacy and second language learning for the linguistic integration of adult migrants
fully in the highly literate societies of Europe. UNESCO12 has estimated that on a global level 750 million adults
cannot read or write, which is a huge heterogeneous group. LIAM addresses those adult migrants living in Council
of Europe member states, by pointing out two needs:
fto expand the horizon of the learning process, from (exclusively) second language to literacy and second
language, which means two strands intertwined within a parallel single process; and
fto extend the concept of proles, from (only) linguistic proles13 to literacy and linguistic proles.
In fact, various types of learners can be distinguished when taking into account backgrounds related to
non- and low-literate adult migrants. Each type is characterised by a combination of features because
individuals vary within a prole, according to their educational biographies: from those who are technically
non-literate – probably the most vulnerable people, as dened by the Parliamentary Assembly
14
– to the
so-called functionally non-literate, according to the UNESCO denition;
15
from non-literates with minimal
ability to act in a second language, to low-literate adults with some ability to deal with speaking and listening
in their second language. European societies need to take notice of these dierent proles of social agents, and
also the resources allocated for learning and teaching. An important shift has to be taken into account: from
the generic, literate language user to the non-literate and low-literate migrant user to whom the authoring
group of this work gives centrality.
In 2016, a group of experts proposed to the Council of Europe that they address the issues implied in this shift
by developing a European reference guide for second language (as target language) and literacy learning of
non-literate and low-literate adult migrants. In 2018, the Council of Europe accepted that this proposal was
consistent with its policies and adopted it as a project. According to the target learners (see 1.4), the acronym
LASLLIAM was chosen as a title: it stands for literacy and second language learning for the linguistic integration
of adult migrants, in order to immediately convey both its full embedding within LIAM and its focus on literacy
within second language learning environments.
Despite this focus on second language, this reference guide highlights the value of establishing literacy courses in
migrants’ rst languages, as pointed out by language policy researchers concerned with linguistic human rights.16 It
is coherent with the UNESCO recommendations to provide literacy instruction to adults in their mother tongues.
17
Even if the recommendations do not mention migrants, they have inspired scholars and activists promoting the
use of rst languages, alongside target languages in adult migrants’ education, taking into account also how
the improvement of literacy in mother tongues can support the learning of a second language.18 “Contrastive”
literacy, that is, using comparisons with rst languages and mediation into rst languages, has been taken into
account in Chapter 3,19 and the use of rst languages in literacy classes as an important predictor of success is
considered in Chapter 2.
LASLLIAM GENERAL PURPOSE
Within the Council of Europe policies, LASLLIAM’s general purpose is to present a reference guide for stakeholders
involved in educational provisions for the particular learners described above. It aims to support language
educators, curriculum designers and language policy makers in their endeavour to design, implement and
evaluate curricula, syllabi and teaching materials tailored towards the specic needs of the target learners.
In this way, LASLLIAM contributes to one of the major aims of LIAM, namely “to provide practical support for the
eective implementation of policy and to encourage good practice and high quality in the provision of language
courses”.
20
The relevance of LASLLIAM also becomes clear from the results of the 2020 Council ofEurope–Association
of Language Testers in Europe (ALTE) survey on language and knowledge of society (KoS) policies for migrants21:
less than one third of member states provide courses addressing literacy issues. Moreover, the survey highlights
the severe consequences of this insucient educational provision for non- and low-literate adults. This vulnerable
12. UNESCO Institute for Statistics 2015.
13. Council of Europe – LIAM 2020a; Council of Europe – LIAM 2020m.
14. Council of Europe 2014.
15. UNESCO 2017a.
16. ELINET 2016; Rinta 2005.
17. Benson 2004.
18. Minuz and Kurvers 2021.
19. Feldmeier 2005, 2009a.
20. www.coe.int/en/web/lang-migrants/home.
21. Rocca et al. 2020.
Introduction Page 15
group of migrants rarely receives adequate instruction in terms of both hours of tuition and targeted teaching
approaches, while very often they are required to pass a compulsory written test.
In strong opposition to such unfair and unjust imposition of language and KoS requirements,
22
it is important to
stress that this reference guide is not designed as a tool for developing high-stake exams (see 6.1.4). The abuse
of a curricular instrument like LASLLIAM for the purpose of testing as a means of control of legal immigration
to non- and low-literate persons would ignore the fact that these persons were being wrongfully denied their
human right to education.23
LASLLIAM intends to deal with these critical issues, as it represents an answer given by the Council of Europe to
the need for tools for inclusive and tailored learning. Its aims also align with Goal 4 of the UN 2030 Agenda for
Sustainable Development
24
to preserve the human right to education by promoting lifelong learning opportunities
for all, including – or rather, starting with – the most vulnerable people.
LASLLIAM is therefore a European instrument to trace and foster the development of non-literate and low-literate
migrants, as well as to design and improve learning environments oered to literacy and second language
learners. The present work aims to sustain the alignment between curriculum, teaching and assessment, thereby
supporting its recognition across Europe. On this basis, stakeholders are invited to use LASLLIAM to reduce the
possible fragmentation of a learning process that might occur across various countries, according to the mobility
of migrants (see 6.3).
The reference guide presents:
fa denition of target users and target learners (see Chapter 1);
fa rationale related to the development of the descriptors (see Chapter 2);
fprinciples for teaching literacy and second language (see Chapter 3);
fdescriptors’ scales and tables (see Chapter 4);
faspects of curriculum design at the macro, meso and micro levels (see Chapter 5);
f
recommendations on assessment procedures and for the development of assessment tools within the
learning environment (see Chapter 6).
22. Rocca et al. 2020.
23. United Nations General Assembly 1948.
24. United Nations General Assembly 2015.
Page 17
Chapter 1
25. Council of Europe 2001.
26. Council of Europe 2020a.
27. With the terms “non-literate” and “low-literate” adults, LASLLIAM refers to adults who cannot read and write in any language or are not
able to use literacy in many simple everyday tasks, as explained in 1.2 and 1.4. This target group is sometimes referred to as “LESLLA
learners”, from the English acronym for the international association Literacy Education and Second Language Learning for Adults.
28. Beacco et al. 2014a, 2014b; Krumm 2007; Kuhn 2015; Van Avermaet and Rocca 2013; Vedovelli 2002; for an overview, see Minuz and
Kurvers 2021.
29. www.coe.int/en/web/language-policy/adult-migrants.
THE LASLLIAM REFERENCE
GUIDE:AIMS,USERS AND LEARNERS
This chapter starts with an explanation about why a European literacy and second language reference guide
is needed to build on the CEFR Companion volume. It points out consistencies and dierences between the
LASLLIAM reference guide and the CEFR Companion volume, and denes the aims and users for whom LASLLIAM is
intended. It lays out the visions of literacy and literacy learning to which LASLLIAM refers and outlines prototypical
characteristics of literacy and second language learners.
1.1. LASLLIAM LINKS TO THE CEFR AND THE CEFR COMPANION VOLUME
The LASLLIAM descriptors build on the CEFR25 and the CEFR Companion volume26 below and up to the A1 level
for adult migrants, with special attention to literacy learners (non- and low-literate adults, very often called
LESLLA learners).27
The CEFR was launched in 2001 with the aim of facilitating co-operation between European countries in the
eld of foreign language instruction, supporting mutual recognition of language qualications and assisting
curriculum developers, course designers, teachers and test designers. The CEFR was intended to introduce
a common metalanguage for language teaching across Europe and provided common reference levels for
language prociency with illustrative descriptor scales for six levels (from A1 to C2). It served the overall aims of
the Council of Europe to achieve greater unity among member states, by converting the rich heritage of diverse
languages and cultures from being a barrier into being a source of “mutual enrichment and understanding”
(Council of Europe 2001: 2). In 2018, the CEFR was complemented by the preliminary CEFR Companion volume,
which introduced the Pre-A1 level, new descriptor scales for online interaction, mediation, plurilingual and
pluricultural competence, sign language, phonology and extended some of the other scales. A nal version
was published in 2020.
Soon after the implementation of the CEFR, it became clear that it had been designed particularly for foreign
language learning and needed adaptation for use in second language teaching to adult migrants. Scholars and
practitioners pointed out that more consideration should be given, in the illustrative scales, to domains of great
importance in the lives of adult immigrants, such as the administrative and the occupational domains. In the
latter domain, communication needs for low-qualied jobs, which are the main employment opportunity for
many non- and low-literate migrants, are particularly neglected. Attention should also be paid to implicit social
assumptions that underlie some descriptors, in particular those that take for granted the understanding of social
behaviours and situations that are culturally connoted as European, or levels of social equality in communication,
while communication between migrants and natives all too often is asymmetrical. The specic diculties and
training needs of learners who speak languages which are typologically distant from European languages should
be carefully considered.
28
Finally, the needs of non- and low-literate learners should be addressed, as highlighted
in ocial texts, guidelines and background documents and studies issued by the Council of Europe.29
Although the CEFR Companion volume has proved to be a exible tool in many respects, a specic reference
guide for literacy and second language teaching is needed. Literacy is presupposed at the rst levels both by
the CEFR and the CEFR Companion volume. For example, a Pre-A1 learner can “give basic personal information
in writing (e.g. name, address, nationality), perhaps with the use of a dictionary” (Council of Europe 2020a: 66),
a task which adult literacy learners can undertake after lengthy training, from the rst discovery of the written
language to the ability to deal with a simple text.
Page 18 3 Literacy and second language learning for the linguistic integration of adult migrants
In many countries, it was considered necessary to complement the framework with descriptors below A1 for
migrants with no or hardly any previous schooling, as well as for migrants with poor formal education and very
basic literacy skills. In several European countries, this resulted in national and local second language literacy
frameworks for adult learners. These frameworks oer descriptors scaled from three to four levels below and up
to A1. In most countries (the Netherlands, Germany, Austria, Norway, Finland),
30
the frameworks focus on written
language both technically (code-learning) and functionally (using written language in everyday practice); the
Italian framework
31
also covers oral second language acquisition up to A1, while the French framework
32
considers
only functional reading and writing. Despite their dierent formats and focuses, all these tools accompany learners
from their rst exploration of the written language to acquisition of the technical skills needed to decipher the
written code and increase the ability to use the acquired skills in social and personal literacy tasks. In this context,
the idea of a European reference guide has emerged (see Introduction).
1.2. THE USERS
LASLLIAM refers explicitly to the CEFR Companion volume and provides guidance on how to tackle the
educational needs of migrants as literacy and second language learners, which the CEFR Companion volume
does not explicitly address. Like the CEFR Companion volume, it provides illustrative descriptor scales for
reception, production and interaction for oral and written second language learning, in relation to both
communicative language activities and language use strategies.33 The LASLLIAM reference guide organises
the descriptors into four-level scales (see Chapter 4) ranging from the rst contact with the (oral and written)
target language up to level A1 of the CEFR Companion volume. As Figure 1 shows, there is a partial overlap
between LASLLIAM level 3 and CEFR Companion volume level Pre-A1 and between LASLLIAM level 4 and
CEFR Companion volume level A1.
Figure 1 – LASLLIAM and CEFR Companion volume levels
LASLLIAM 2
LASLLIAM 1
LASLLIAM
CEFR and CEFR
Companion
volume
LASLLIAM 3
LASLLIAM 4
Pre-A1
A1
Unlike the CEFR Companion volume, the LASLLIAM reference guide also provides illustrative descriptor scales for
the acquisition of written code (technical literacy). Moreover, the descriptors do not dene levels of competence
that could be independent of educational pathways, but they help in setting learning/teaching objectives in
second language courses for literacy learners. Migrants often face situations that go far beyond their current
communicative language competences, for example at the workplace or in public oces. As teaching objectives,
the descriptors emphasise the guidance, facilitation and support that literacy and second language courses
can oer in the initial phases of the learning process. They illustrate the competences needed to participate
actively in the society where learners have resettled (see 3.3, 6.1). Since digital competence is needed these
days to engage in society and is also an important part of literacy, LASLLIAM also provides scales describing
progression in digital skills (see 2.2.5, 4.3).
30. Beacco et al. 2005; Bundesamt für Migration und Flüchtlinge 2015, 2018; Cito 2008; Feldmeier 2009b; Finnish National Agency 2017;
Finnish National Board 2012; Fritz et al. 2006; Markov et al. 2015; Stockmann 2004.
31. Borri et al. 2014a, 2014b.
32. Beacco et al. 2005.
33. Note that LASLLIAM does not provide scales for mediation. This decision is based on the fact that mediation as outlined in the CEFR
Companion volume has hardly been researched in the specic eld of literacy and second language learning. However, LASLLIAM
clearly endorses plurilingual approaches and points out the importance of mediation (see 3.5).
The LASLLIAM reference guide:aims,users and learners Page 19
The LASLLIAM reference guide is meant for designers of teaching materials (see Chapter 3), curricula (see Chapter
5) and assessment tools (see Chapter 6), as well as teachers in the service of literacy and second language learners
(see Chapter 3). It helps users by dening and scaling potential teaching objectives targeted to support migrants’
communication in the social tasks that they want or need to perform, and to build the competence needed to
accomplish these tasks.
LASLLIAM is neither a curriculum nor a syllabus, but a reference guide from which to draw in relation to the specic
learners, educational aims, teaching objectives and concrete conditions, such as the duration of the educational
programmes. Similar to the CEFR Companion volume descriptors, the LASLLIAM descriptors are illustrative,
non-mandatory examples that provide illustrations of competence in the dierent areas. The descriptors present
an abstraction from the concrete language-specic curricular models that have been developed by literacy and
second language experts for some European languages.
LASLLIAM adopts the action-oriented approach of the CEFR Companion volume, which views language
learners and users primarily as social agents who accomplish tasks (not exclusively language-related) in
specic situations. It views competences as “the sum of knowledge, skills and characteristics that allow a
person to perform actions” (Council of Europe 2001: 9) activating multiple (e.g. cognitive, learning, personal
and social) resources and strategies to do so.34 According to this view, language learning and teaching
should enable learners to act in real-life situations. The consistency of LASLLIAM with the CEFR Companion
volume is reected in dening the descriptors as can-do statements that, in a supporting educational
context, allow the detection of progress in tasks related to personal, public, occupational and educational
domains. LASLLIAM also adopts the CEFR Companion volume’s key notions of communicative language
competence and tasks. Finally, this reference guide reects the CEFR Companion volume in providing a
basis for a common understanding of teaching objectives and assessment criteria across Europe, enhancing
transparency of courses and syllabi, and stimulating international co-operation in the eld of literacy and
second language teaching and learning (see Introduction). Thus, LASLLIAM contributes to socially inclusive
high-quality education of migrants.
1.3. AN ENCOMPASSING VIEW OF LITERACY
The words “literacy” and “literacy acquisition” encompass dierent concepts that have changed and broadened
several times in the ongoing academic discussion and which may have dierent connotations in dierent
languages. In LASLLIAM, the notion of literacy refers to the ability of individuals, as social agents, to identify,
understand, interpret and produce written texts (which can be handwritten, printed, digital and multimodal)
in accordance with social contexts.35 LASLLIAM addresses the individual cognitive processes and linguistic
dimensions of learning, alongside the communicative needs and activities, roles, functions and values attributed
to the written language by the communities in which individuals learn to read and write. It focuses on the rst
steps of literacy acquisition in a second language in the full awareness that it is a process that goes well beyond
the levels portrayed in this reference guide and can be lifelong and lifewide learning, that is, throughout life and
concerning multiple and diverse domains.36
This encompassing perspective draws on contributions that dierent disciplines (sociology, economics,
anthropology, linguistics, psychology, neurosciences, pedagogy and philosophy) have made to the conceptualisation
of literacy, and in particular on two main research perspectives, sometimes presented as opposing approaches,
which have shaped the teaching of literacy to adults.
The rst perspective focuses on individual cognitive skills implied in learning to decode a notational system (e.g.
the alphabetic script of a European language) as access to written texts, that might dier in register, text type
and modality, and on the cognitive changes that literacy prompts at individual and societal levels.37
The second approach focuses on literacy as situated social practices, which may dier in language, purpose
and usage, depending on the dierent social and cultural contexts, rather than on individual cognitive skills.
According to this approach, learning to read and write means to become a critical, aware participant in literate
social events. From this viewpoint, attention needs to be paid to the socially unbalanced power relations in
society and particularly to the institutions which dene the dominant, “legitimate” literacy practices, as well as
34. Council of Europe 2001.
35. The denition is modelled on UNESCO 2017b.
36. Desjardins 2003.
37. Ravid and Tolchinsky 2002; for an overview, see 2.1.
Page 20 3 Literacy and second language learning for the linguistic integration of adult migrants
to the various forms of literacy, which include the multiple modes of human communication and multimodal
communication of information technologies.38
A notion of literacy and literacy acquisition that draws on both perspectives underlies the descriptors
of LASLLIAM. Alongside an increasing mastery of spoken language, LASLLIAM considers literacy as the
ability to use an increasing variety of written texts when participating in social and cultural life. It therefore
conceptualises literacy as a component of communicative language competence, as promoted by the CEFR
Companion volume, and learning to read and write as an enrichment of the resources on which learners can
rely in their agency.
Digital competence and digital literacy currently form an integral part of literacy practices, life skills and social
inclusion, as highlighted by Council of Europe policies and its Digital Citizenship Education programme.39
Therefore, this reference guide includes communicative activities based on information and communication
technologies in the dierent scales as an integral part of communication.
Handling multimodal texts requires the ability to interpret signs, symbols, pictures and sounds, and to use
information and communication technologies. Although LASLLIAM focuses on the ability to deal with written
language in any kind of text, this ability is implied by the LASLLIAM descriptors. A visual and multimodal
education is recommended to support the acquisition of written language, and it should go beyond the ability
to decode non-verbal messages to include the relations between dierent modes of communication and how
these relations themselves produce meanings.40
1.4. THE LEARNERS
LASLLIAM has been developed to support non- and low-literate second language and/or second-script learners
(learners who are literate in a writing system dierent from that of the target language). These learners form
a highly diverse group, in terms of countries of origin, cultures, rst languages and other known languages,
levels of education, biographies, life conditions, jobs, hopes, immigration paths, as well as gender, age, physical
impairments, psycho-physical conditions (e.g. trauma) and other individual characteristics that research shows
can inuence language and literacy learning.
These manifold factors generate a vast array of educational needs that are analysed and addressed (see 5.3).
LASLLIAM takes into account the heterogeneity of potential learners in the notion of learners’ proles (see 1.4.3;
3.3.1; 6.2) and of their needs by providing examples of language uses in the dierent domains (see Chapter 4).
Although all the above-mentioned aspects are relevant in tailoring teaching, in designing curricula and literacy
and second language courses, the literacy background and the oral and plurilingual resources of learners are
of utmost relevance.
1.4.1. Learners’ literacy background
Adult literacy learners enter their second language classes with varying degrees of school experience and
literacy skills in their rst language or in the language of education of their home country. Some have not had
the opportunity to go to school or acquire literacy in other ways for reasons of lack of educational opportunities,
war, poverty or social and gender inequality. Those who come from rural areas of countries with high rates
of illiteracy may have had hardly any exposure to written language and thus greater diculties in grasping
some of the social uses of written texts in the new country. Again, others have had some years of elementary
schooling, but hardly any possibilities of using literacy in their everyday contexts and have (partially) lost their
literacy skills. Some learners may recognise a number of written sight words (learned by heart and recognised
globally), but cannot read new words; some can read, but not write; some have low literacy skills; some may
rely on non-linguistic signs to draw meanings from multimodal texts. They may be familiar with dierent types
of social literacy events in their rst and/or second language(s). Independent from their literacy and second
language levels, they have varying levels of digital skills. As the terms “literacy” and “illiteracy” thus do not form
a dichotomic opposition within the communicative practices of communities (see 1.3), they represent the poles
of a wide continuum of individual skills and knowledge.
38. Barton 1994; Cope and Kalantzis 2000; Freire 1970/2018; Gee 1990; Street 1981. For overviews, see Minuz and Kurvers 2021; Neokleous
et al. 2020; Olson and Torrance 2009; Reder and Davila 2005; UNESCO 2005, 2017.
39. Council of Europe 2020c.
40. Altherr Flores 2017; Kern and Schultz 2005.
The LASLLIAM reference guide:aims,users and learners Page 21
Some learners enter their classes with basic literacy skills in a language that uses another alphabetic script (e.g.
Arabic) than the country of residence (i.e. Cyrillic, Greek or Latin) or a language that uses another writing system
(e.g. a logographic script). The LASLLIAM literacy descriptors also provide learning goals that are relevant for
these second-script learners, who might advance their literacy in the new language in a faster way, because
they have already developed specic skills, reading abilities and strategies that can be transferred from their
rst language to the second one (see 2.1).
1.4.2. Oral competence and plurilingualism
The LASLLIAM scales describe the progression in literacy and second language activities from a learner’s rst
contacts with the written language and the written and oral language of the country of residence. However,
depending on the age of entrance and the length of stay in the country of residence and other life circumstances,
some adults have already built degrees of oral competence in the target language that correspond to level
A1 of the CEFR Companion volume and beyond. Some might have acquired oral language only in the natural
environment through interactions in the target language while others have attended language courses for a
short period.
Many adult literacy and second language learners are plurilingual because they come from multilingual countries
and have been using their rst language(s) at home and a lingua franca (or other languages) in the public domain,
or because they have acquired languages on their migration journey. Furthermore, their plurilingual repertoires
may include elements of the majority language and/or a regional language of the new country of residence,
or languages of other migrant groups with which they are in contact in everyday settings, like the workplace.
Supporting and giving value to plurilingualism is a main principle of the Council of Europe,41 and recognising
the plurilingual repertoires of learners is a main assumption of the CEFR Companion volume.
In literacy and second language teaching, the learners’ previous experience with languages in general, with
the target language in particular, as well as with written language and specic scripts, needs to be considered.
Research has highlighted the relevance of literacy in the rst language for second language learning, as
well as the benets that come from developing it while learning the second language (see 2.1). Therefore,
although focusing on second language literacy educational provision only, LASLLIAM recognises and values
the plurilingual repertoires of learners and their ability to strategically activate their resources in the literacy
and oral language learning process. It endorses plurilingual approaches in second language and literacy
learning (see 3.5).
1.4.3. Learners’ proles
In describing the progression in communicative language activities and technical literacy, LASLLIAM assumes
the concept of individual language proles as endorsed by the CEFR Companion volume, which implies
that the scales describe learning goals independently of each other (see Chapter 4). To serve literacy and
second language learners in the best way, their individual prociency proles need to be taken into careful
consideration. For example, a refugee from Afghanistan who has recently arrived in Italy might have low
levels of oral competence in the target language and no or hardly any literacy skills in any language. The
refugee might be able to communicate orally in limited, familiar situations by relying on a number of words
and memorised expressions in the target language and a basic competence in English which they can resort
to when the situation allows for it. Their language-educational needs dier from those of migrants who have
lived in the resident country for a longer time and have already developed (various) oral language proles at
higher levels and limited repertoire of written sight words in the target language, although they might have
never learned to read and write in any language.
It is therefore essential when designing a curriculum for literacy and second language learners – from the macro
level of national curricula to the micro level of lesson planning – to acknowledge the heterogeneity of learner
proles and to provide them with appropriate learning environments (see Chapter 5). Dening learners’ proles
contributes to the tailoring of education in more than one way. It helps to set appropriate learning goals and to
utilise learners’ capabilities, not by focusing on what they lack, but by building instruction on the knowledge and
skills they already possess and by emphasising the plurality of language and literacy experiences. To this end,
an accurate needs analysis is necessary, which should aim at dening the language proles (including literacy
and language repertoires) as well as current and envisaged oral and literate usages of the second language.
41. Beacco et al. 2014a, 2014b; Beacco et al. 2016; Gogolin 2002.
Page 22 3 Literacy and second language learning for the linguistic integration of adult migrants
As Chapter 4 describes, LASLLIAM denes progressions based on four dierent levels, oering starting points
for individual learners’ language proles (see 6.1.3). Figure 2 shows wavy lines representing some of the many
language proles that LASLLIAM can help to draw.
Figure 2 – Uneven proles according to LASLLIAM levels and Communicative Language Activities
3
2
Uneven proles of three LASLLIAM learners
1
Oral
Reception
Written
Reception
Oral
Reception
Written
Reception
Oral
Reception
Written
Reception
The gure highlights that a learner might be at level 1 in a certain scale and level 2 or 3 in another. However, this
does not imply that there are no interrelations between the scales at all. The Technical Literacy scales and the
scales of the written language activities (reading, writing and interacting) are intertwined, although not necessarily
on a 1:1 basis. Some learners can acquire some technical skills (e.g. to write familiar and orthographically simple
words) without being able to use the skills to accomplish simple tasks in real life autonomously, either because
real-life tasks usually do not map to a single level and can only partly be accomplished, or simply because the
learner has not been supported to see the connection between the technical skill and the (unfamiliar) social
practice. For learners who are beginners in both literacy and second language, the development of listening
skills and vocabulary, for example, is relevant for technical literacy and vice versa. For this group of learners, the
descriptors in the Technical Literacy scale and in the Listening scale are dependent on each other, although
again not on a 1:1 basis (see 2.1). Uneven proles are particularly characteristic of migrants who have low
literacy, have acquired the language spontaneously mostly in occupational settings and have lived for years in
the country where they have resettled. They can have oral competences up to CEFR levels A2 and beyond, and
written competences corresponding to LASLLIAM levels 1 or 2.
In conclusion, although all adult migrants entering a literacy and second language learning environment bring
limited formal learning experiences with them and have to learn the alphabetic script of the language, they
dier considerably in literacy skills, oral skills in their target language and in their linguistic repertoires.
Page 23
Chapter 2
42. For existing literacy frameworks, see 1.1; for proceedings of the LESLLA conferences, see www.leslla.org.
43. Tarone 2010; van de Craats et al. 2006; Warren and Young 2012.
44. Abadzi 2012; Carlsen 2017; Condelli and Spruck-Wrigley 2006; Gonzalves 2017; Kurvers and Stockmann 2009; Kurvers et al. 2015;
Warren and Young 2012.
45. See also Gardner et al. 1996; Koda 2008. Because literacy is nearly always acquired in a school context, it is dicult to disentangle the
impact of literacy as such from the more general impact of school-based learning.
THE LASLLIAM REFERENCE
GUIDE: SOURCES AND RATIONALE
This chapter presents an overview of the main available cognitive and linguistic studies on non-literate adults
beginning to read and learn a second language. These studies have guided the development of the dierent scales
on Technical Literacy, Oral and Written Communicative Language Activities, Language Use Strategies and Digital
Skills. It points out the impact of non-literacy on language awareness and information processing, summarises
the stages of beginning literacy and explains the main principles behind the progression lines in the scales.
Several sources have guided the development of the LASLLIAM reference guide:
fthe dierent and changing conceptualisations of (non-)literacy and literacy teaching;
fresearch on second language and literacy acquisition of non-literate adult second language learners and
on what distinguishes this group most from educated and literate second language learners;
fexisting frameworks, in particular the CEFR Companion volume which LASLLIAM follows in aim, approach
and structure, and existing and validated adult second language literacy frameworks in several European
countries (see 1.1);
fthe long-term experience of the authoring group in this eld;
f
the proceedings of the yearly LESLLA conferences on research, policies and practices in the eld of second
language literacy learning between 2006 and 2019.42
2.1. RESEARCH ON NONLITERATE AND LOWLITERATE ADULT LEARNERS
Non- and low-literate adults face the challenging task of learning a new language while at the same time learning
to read and write for the rst time or developing their basic literacy competences. This group has been largely
neglected in mainstream research on second language acquisition, as it has been preoccupied with mainly
the higher-educated second language learner.43 Like all other adults, non-literate learners enter their second
language classes with a wealth of life experiences and life skills, knowledge of the world, uent communication
skills in one or more languages and with well-developed skills to process meaningful information. In other words,
in most domains of life and communication those who are non-literate share the skills that literate language
learners employ, and clearly dier from young pre-school children. But research on non-literate second language
learners that has been conducted during the last decades also clearly shows that some (cognitive) literacy-based
skills that are usually presupposed in second language teaching for literate learners cannot be expected from
them. In this section, we focus on those aspects, to clarify the need for a specic reference guide for this group
both for learning the written code and for learning to use oral and written second language in communicative
activities and daily tasks. Literate language learners are dealing with verbal and visual information in a highly
“schoolish” and decontextualised/abstract way. Teachers should realise that their own implicit knowledge and
use of language is not natural, as they sometimes might think, but highly inuenced by literacy.
Nearly all studies addressing the progress of non-literate learners in second language literacy consistently
report, across dierent languages and educational systems, slow paces in learning, problems with focusing on
linguistic features in learning the target language, and diculties in achieving uency, at least if measured with
the commonly used literacy-based exercises and standard tests.44 There is convincing evidence for the impact
of previous literacy on learning a second language. Warren and Young (2012: 3) conclude from their synthesis
of 21 studies in this eld: “Overall, low L1 literacy was linked to lower L2 prociency.”45
The next sections explain how this impact is manifested and how it can be addressed in a reference guide for
true beginners in literacy and second language learning.
Page 24 3 Literacy and second language learning for the linguistic integration of adult migrants
2.1.1. Metalinguistic awareness
Non-literate individuals do know that meaning is represented in varying ways in dierent languages and that
a poem or a song is a dierent text type than a news item on the radio. They are, however, not aware of the
linguistic make-up of a language: they do not know that spoken words consist of dierent sounds (phonemic
awareness), they often do not know where one word ends and the next word begins in a spoken utterance
(word awareness), and they are not always aware of morphological and grammatical markers in words and
sentences (morphological and grammatical awareness). Awareness of syllables and rhyme is less inuenced by
reading ability.46 Note that these ndings are not restricted to an unknown language, but also apply to a rst
language: although non-literate adults can easily use all these linguistic features in oral communication, they
often cannot isolate single sounds from a spoken word or count the number of words in a spoken sentence. They
do recognise written language as distinct from pictures, but they do not know how writing represents language.
This metalinguistic knowledge mainly comes with literacy. Learning to read and write implies becoming aware
of linguistic features that are represented in the writing system.47
Although non-literate people can and often do have oral abilities in more than one language, not being literate
also impacts the acquisition of oral skills in a second language: those who are non-literate, for example, have
diculties with repeating a recast or spoken utterance simply because they are focusing on the content more
than on the precise wording. They might also miss subtle deictic references to persons, time and place in
connected discourse.48
2.1.2. Processing of (linguistic) information
People who are non-literate not only dier from their literate peers in the metalinguistic knowledge acquired by
learning to read and write, but also in the unconscious processing of language. Non-literate adults, for example,
process semantic information similarly, but they dier in processing phonological information. They can easily
understand and repeat well-known words, but they nd it more dicult than readers to correctly repeat or
memorise unknown (pseudo-)words or to quickly mention words with similar initial sounds.49 The short-term
working memory, a crucial tool for vocabulary acquisition and language processing, is less developed in those
who are non-literate than in readers.50 The reason is that knowledge of orthography introduces in the brain a
new strategy to process information. A reader has two options available for processing language: the semantic
route if a word is already in their lexicon, or a purely sound-based phonological route. Non-literate people do
not have the latter option to the same extent as those who are literate.
While non-literate adults do recognise photos and pictures like all learners do, it is more dicult for them to
process, memorise and copy less concrete visual information like line-drawings or abstract gures.51
2.1.3. Situated cognition
As mentioned above, non-literate adults do not dier much from literate adults in dealing with familiar
context-bound language and information, but they deal with information that is related to literacy and
schooling in other ways. When non-literate adults, for example, are asked to answer text-related questions,
they often use their own knowledge instead of the given information in the text. When they are asked to
perform simple, but abstract cognitive tasks like classifying or sorting objects, they often base their judgments
and reasoning on their own experiences and world knowledge. If, for example, they are asked to take the
odd one out of a display of hammer, saw, nail and pincers, they would keep the nail in, because that is what
you use the hammer and pincers for.52 This reveals the importance of situated cognition in the processing of
information by non-literate second language learners. Situated cognition highlights the importance of lived
experiences (embodied) and interaction with the concrete and daily context (embedded) in the development
of cognitive representations.53
46. Castro-Caldas and Reis 2003; Homer 2009; Kurvers and Uri 2006; Kurvers et al. 2006, 2007, 2015; Morais et al. 1979; Rachmandra and
Karanth 2007; Reis et al. 1997, 2007; Scholes 1993.
47. Olson 1994.
48. Tarone and Bigelow 2005, 2009; Strube 2014; Whiteside 2008.
49. For an overview see Huettig 2015; Kurvers et al. 2015.
50. Da Silva et al. 2012; Kosmidis et al. 2011; Ostrosky‐Solís and Lozano 2006; Ostrosky‐Solís et al. 1998.
51. Ardila et al. 2010; Huettig et al. 2011; Kosmidis et al. 2004.
52. Counihan 2008; Kurvers 2002; Luria 1976; Scribner and Cole 1981.
53. Kirshner and Whitson 1997; Reder and Davila 2005; Robbins and Aydede 2009.
The LASLLIAM reference guide: sources and rationale Page 25
In summary, non-literate adults enter the classroom relying on well-developed semantic and pragmatic information-
processing skills in a familiar language about familiar topics, and gradually enter the eld of knowledge of
language features and of abstract information characteristic of school-based learning.
2.1.4. Oracy and literacy
Oral competence in a language is a key variable in literacy acquisition, for two dierent reasons. Learning an
alphabetical code critically depends on oral language because in an alphabetical writing system the units of
writing (letters or graphemes) represent the units of the spoken words (sounds or phonemes).
Decoding print gives access to the spoken representation of a word that gives rise to its meaning. Sounding out or
copying words without understanding their meaning clearly does not contribute to literacy development.
54
Research
has also clearly pointed out the role of language competence in the development of reading comprehension.
Next to decoding uency, oral language competence (in particular vocabulary and listening comprehension)
signicantly contributes to progress in second language literacy and reading comprehension.55
Oracy in any language enhances literacy acquisition and supports learners who cannot rely to the same degree
on written materials as in learning environments for fully (bi-)literate learners. On the other hand, as outlined
earlier, literacy enhances the acquisition of spoken language in educational settings because it adds cognitive
resources to process spoken language input. Thus, oracy and literacy acquisition strengthen each other.
The intimate relationship between oracy and literacy does not imply that literacy acquisition can only start after
having nished a spoken language course. However, it does mean that the language used in learning to read
and write, should be highly familiar to the students.
2.1.5. Implications for LASLLIAM
A rst implication of these ndings for LASLLIAM suggests starting literacy teaching in the rst language or a
language already well known to the learners. If this is not possible or preferred, grounding literacy and second
language learning in the familiar linguistic repertoires of learners and using a well-known language as an additional
language in the classroom to explain, clarify, mediate or exemplify has proven to be a very successful option.56
Above all, the aforementioned studies clearly point to the integrative approach already outlined in Chapter 1.
Learning a writing system while learning a new language, and learning to use the oral and written language
in relevant communicative activities in daily life all need to be addressed while planning syllabi and courses in
literacy and second language. Several classroom studies convincingly conrm these research ndings: more
progress in literacy and second language acquisition is found when teachers systematically pay attention to
the written code and use varied practices in doing so, when they use a language of the learner’s repertoire as
an additional language, and when they consistently build their teaching on the familiar everyday lives of their
students, gradually moving to more abstract school-based types of learning.57
2.2. DEVELOPMENT OF THE SCALES
As pointed out before, descriptors for communicative language activities for reception, production and interaction
in this reference guide are built on the CEFR Companion volume, but the Technical Literacy scales are a new
type. Therefore, the next section describes the guiding principles behind technical literacy that are implied in the
levels for communicative activities with written language as well. After that, the guiding principles behind the
communicative language activities, language use strategies and digital skills will be explained (see 2.2.2-2.2.5).
2.2.1. Technical literacy: learning the written code
Learning to read and write in the technical sense means learning how language is represented in the writing
system.58 Roughly speaking, three main writing systems can be found worldwide.
fIn the logographic (or morpho-syllabic) writing systems, one unit in writing represents one morpheme in
spoken language (e.g. basic Chinese characters).
54. Chall 1999; Gonzalves 2020; Verhoeven and Perfetti 2017.
55. Condelli 2004; Condelli and Spruck Wrigley 2006; Kurvers and Stockmann 2009; Perfetti et al. 2002.
56. Condelli and Spruck-Wrigley 2006; Kurvers and Stockmann 2009; Warren and Young 2012.
57. Bigelow 2006; Condelli and Spruck-Wrigley 2006; Kurvers et al. 2010; Ramírez-Esparza et al. 2012; Warren and Young 2012.
58. The term writing system refers to the basic principle of mapping spoken to written units; orthography refers to language-specic
mappings; and script refers to the visual appearance of the written symbols.
Page 26 3 Literacy and second language learning for the linguistic integration of adult migrants
fIn syllabic writing systems, one unit in writing represents one syllable in spoken language (e.g.Japanese
kana, or the Vai script from Liberia). Some scripts, like the alpha-syllabic Ge’ez script that is used for Amharic
or Tigrinya, combine basic syllable signs with additional signs for single phonemes.
f
In alphabetic writing systems, one written sign represents one sound (phoneme) in spoken language.
There are two dierent alphabetical scripts: (1) consonantal alphabetical scripts that represent only the
consonants and sometimes a few vowels (e.g. Hebrew, Arabic) and (2) full alphabetical scripts in which
consonants and vowels are written.
All European languages use a full alphabetic script (the Roman, Cyrillic or Greek alphabet). It is crucial in learning
the alphabetical code to become able to map sounds in speaking to letters in writing. Languages, however, dier
in the transparency of these mappings (e.g. the transparent Finnish or Italian versus the opaque English or Danish).
2.2.1.1. Stages in beginning reading and writing
Learning to read an alphabetical script is a process of gradual change as the readers develop their skills in
recognising written words. Nearly all models of beginning reading agree on three to four dierent stages
between the very start and reading and writing a simple and short text.
59
At each stage, a beginning reader uses
a dierent strategy to recognise or write a word. According to these stage models, beginning reading starts with
recognising and memorising sight words by looking at salient visual or contextual cues, followed by learning the
1:1 correspondence between the letters and the sounds they represent so that decoding words becomes possible.
At the next stage, this basic decoding is extended to more complex words, and to consolidation and uency
in the last stage. The rst stage can be characterised by mainly a holistic approach (direct word recognition) in
which words (or syllables) are perceived and reproduced as a whole. In the second and third stage, an analytic
approach prevails, in which reading is based on connecting letters with sounds and sounding out (indirect word
recognition). In the last stage, recognition of words is direct again, but unlike in the rst stage it is not based on
a holistic approach anymore, but on automatisation of the slow analytic word recognition.
Beginning writing mirrors beginning reading, moving from drawing of letter-like forms and copying words
through encoding based on salient sounds and slow phonemic sound-by-sound encoding to uent writing of
familiar words and short and simple sentences.60 Adult second language literacy learners need more time to
practise in order to pass these stages.61 In general, more transparent orthographies like Finnish or Italian are
learned faster than more opaque ones, like English or Danish.62
It should be noted, however, that much more has to be learned by adult rst-time readers/writers (like distinctive
features of letters, motor skills, semiotic cues and task requirements). Besides, most models are based on literacy
acquisition in an alphabetic rst language, not on learning to read and write in an unfamiliar second language
with often a quite dierent phonological make-up and inventory of phonemes, of which the inventory of
vowels is remarkably high in several European languages. Compare, for example, the number of vowel sounds
in English, Dutch or Norwegian (more than 15) with the ve to seven basic vowels in most Afro-Asiatic (often
Semitic) languages like Arabic, Berber, Somali, Amharic or Tigrinya, in which, the consonants are the basic carriers
of meaning as is characteristic for root languages.
Low-educated second-script learners (who already can read and write in another writing system or script)
know that writing represents language, have already developed metalinguistic and motor skills, and know
about dierent text types, school-based task requirements and reading strategies. Many of these skills can be
transferred to the new language. They mainly have to learn the new type of phoneme-to-grapheme mapping in
the European alphabetic script, the new symbols and of course the new language with a dierent inventory of
sounds. Research shows many second-script learners need fewer hours than non-literate learners to go through
the dierent stages.63
These stage models are featured in the existing adult second language literacy frameworks of several European
countries (see 1.1). The levels used in these frameworks have been modelled on the same criterial features
brought forward in the aforementioned stage models, also in use in the frameworks of several countries that
are piloted and validated.64 All frameworks start code-learning with some basic and personally relevant sight
59. Chall 1996; Ehri et al. 2001; Frith 1985; Juel 1991; Seymour et al. 2003; see also Share 1995.
60. Ketelaars 2011; Treiman 1993; Treiman and Bourassa 2000; Viise 1996.
61. Boon 2014; Chall 1999; Kurvers and Van der Zouw 1990; Nassaji 2007.
62. Ziegler and Goswami 2006.
63. Kurvers and Stockmann 2009.
64. Geers 2011; Ketelaars 2011; Kurvers and Stockmann 2009; Rocca et al. 2017; Stockmann 2004.
The LASLLIAM reference guide: sources and rationale Page 27
words, introduce the basic alphabetical principle of 1:1 correspondence and gradually extend to more complex
words, and to automatised reading and writing. Dierences in the frameworks are related to language-specic
features, like transparency of the orthography, or the role and salience of the syllable or morpheme in spelling.
Based on these resources, LASLLIAM distinguishes the following four levels of Technical Literacy.
Level 1: Discovering literacy, getting acquainted with written language
This level is about building experience with features of writing and functional uses of literacy in dierent contexts.
Reading at this level means recognising words memorised as a whole, based on salient visual features; in some
languages it also includes recognising and beginning to blend two syllables of frequent and practised words.
Writing means drawing or copying from an example, without understanding the basics of an alphabetical script.
Towards the end of this level, the learner can recognise relevant and practised sight words (such as own name
and address, days of the week and months of the year), can recognise most of the letters of the alphabet and
personally relevant symbols or signs like the logo of the school or metro. The learner can write their own name
and copy words from an example.
Level 2: Basic decoding and encoding
This level is about learning the alphabetical principle, about learning to relate graphemes to phonemes in short
words with a simple phonological structure, that is, a 1:1 correspondence between grapheme and phoneme. This
is partly language dependent, but for most European languages this means words composed of a consonant (c),
a vowel (v) and another consonant (i.e. c-v-c words like “car”, “hot” or “wet”). For other languages this means cv+cv
words: “casa” (Italian, Spanish and Portuguese) or “casâ” (Romanian). Such elementary reading is qualitatively
dierent from level 1 because the learner is starting to crack the code and to sound out words. Although this
turns out to be dicult and laborious for all learners, it is even more so for adults learning to read and write in
an unfamiliar language with a phonological structure quite dierent from the rst language. At the end of this
level, the learner can independently read short and phonologically simple words (by analysing and synthesising).
In some languages with a transparent orthography and simple morphology, the learner can also start reading
independently, but slowly, short phrases that are based on the same criteria. The learner can also write short
practised words with 1:1 correspondence between sound and letter and can write practised sight words.
Level 3: Extended decoding and encoding
Level 3 builds on level 2, but now decoding and encoding are extended to words with a more complex relation
between grapheme and phoneme and phonologically more complex words (such as consonant clusters, or
multisyllabic words). At the end of this stage, the learner can read level 2 words at a rather fast speed and can
read – independently, but slowly – practised words with more complex phonological structures (like consonant
clusters, highly frequent spelling patterns and longer words with regular spelling). The learner can independently
read short and simple sentences and short texts consisting of these types of words, and can write practised
words with more complex phonological structures like frequently used consonant clusters and more complex,
but highly frequent spelling patterns.
Level 4: Towards consolidation and uency
Level 4 is dened in terms of consolidation and reaching uency in reading words, phrases, sentences and
short texts about familiar and relevant topics at A1 level according to the CEFR Companion volume. At the end
of LASLLIAM level 4, the reader can independently read the level 3 words more uently, while still struggling
sometimes with less familiar and irregularly spelled or long words. The learner will now be able to focus more
on comprehending text information in combination with their previous knowledge. The learner can write the
same words as in level 3, but faster and more uently now.
The main criterial features of these levels, together with progression from more to fewer visual aids and familiarity,
from practised to new and from less to more autonomy were also used in building the communicative reading
and writing scales.
2.2.2. Communicative language activities in reading and writing
Like in the CEFR Companion volume, the aim of enabling learners to successfully pursue actions in real-life
situations is central to the concept of language learning in this reference guide. This implies teaching procedures
that are based on learners’ real-life communicative needs. Dierent from the CEFR Companion volume, however,
Page 28 3 Literacy and second language learning for the linguistic integration of adult migrants
is the fact that LASLLIAM learners are still acquiring their reading and writing abilities. Although real-life tasks
and materials will be used from the start and will be geared towards the learners’ needs, what they can do with
these tasks and materials will partly depend on what they can read and write independently: from memorised
immediately relevant sight words (like own name and address or the names of the days) to independent reading of
a simple text in a familiar language. Therefore, the cognitive activity involved and the linguistic and orthographic
complexity of the material are key concepts in distinguishing the levels. But the dierent levels in real-life tasks
are also distinguished by a gradual shift from more to less reliance on visual cues like photographs, pictures,
icons or emojis, on familiarity with the contents, on contextual and cultural context that might be helpful in
carrying out a task, and on (digital) translators.
With regard to the dierent communicative functions of reading and writing, the LASLLIAM scales pay special
attention to gradually enlarging the experience with dierent text types, dierent functions of literacy and
participation in real-life literacy events: from observing and guided participation in literacy events and getting
acquainted with some personally relevant text types, to extending experience with the epistemological function
of literacy and managing text types like lists and labels, to more experience with the communicative functions
of literacy in understanding and producing messages and short memos or notes, to enjoying and learning from
texts in managing simple/level-adapted short stories and informative texts. Note that it is relevant for all levels
that the topics the learners are expected to read or write about and the words they have to read (independently)
should be familiar.
2.2.3. Communicative language activities in listening and speaking
The four levels for oral communicative language activities are grounded on the consideration that adult migrants
are confronted with situations and tasks in which there is a broad gap between their acquired competence and
intended communicative objectives. In performing these tasks, they rely on a plurality of resources and strategies:
general competences, already acquired knowledge of the second language, communicative competence in the
rst or other languages from their repertoires, gestures and body language, mediators and (digital) translators as
well as other language use strategies. The LASLLIAM descriptors are graded along a progression that considers
communicative goals of the individual, complexity of tasks and situations (including interlocutors and settings)
alongside linguistic complexity.
As in the CEFR Companion volume, interaction is given a central place in the organisation of the communicative
language activities, stressing its fundamental relevance in language learning. In interaction, it is possible to
negotiate the complexity of the input; collaborative second language speakers can simplify it to facilitate
communication through dierent strategies such as slowed and well-articulated speech, simplied syntax, simple
and frequent words, non-verbal means, or the adaptation of the conversational structure.65 In interacting with
second language speakers, learners can make extensive use of the context to understand, be understood and
to compensate for insucient morphological and syntactical structures through pragmatic means. They can
also engage the interaction partner in securing comprehension and production.
In outlining a non-language-specic progression of the language competences which are involved at each
level and to allow for realising the speakers’ communicative goals, the authoring group referred to the results
of dierent studies in the eld of second language acquisition.66 These studies identied dierent stages in
acquiring linguistic principles and structures of the new language. The route starts from a phase in which
the learner identies and memorises so-called formulas, that is, chunks of the oral input which are salient
due to sound, pragmatic and semantic features and are useful in daily communication. Level 1 of LASLLIAM
is modelled on this phase. Subsequent acquisition stages mark the path from a pragmatic organisation of
the utterance, with mostly content words, memorised formulaic expressions and a poor morphological and
syntactic elaboration to further stages characterised by a richer morphology, and a more complex syntax
and lexicon.67
The main criterial features of stages described in the above-mentioned literature in terms of cognitive activity
involved and linguistic complexity are used to dene levels of oral competence, together with progression from
more to less guidance, from familiar to new, and from higher to lesser reliance on paralinguistic and contextual
cues (including gestures and other body languages, artefacts and visuals).
65. Hoshii and Schramm 2017; Orletti 2000; Tarone 1980.
66. Ellis 1999; Gass and Selinker 2008; Larsen-Freeman and Long 2014; see also Barkowski 2011; Boeckmann 2011; Candlin and Mercer
2001; Grassi et al. 2008; Hinkel 2005; Loewen 2020; Pallotti 1998; Py 2000; Véronique 2005.
67. Cutler 2012; Givón 1979; Klein and Perdue 1997.
The LASLLIAM reference guide: sources and rationale Page 29
As mentioned above, interaction is the main language activity in which migrants usually are involved.
The scale for Oral Reception models the progression from understanding single chunks (mostly fixed
expressions, phrases, words) in short and familiar stretches of speech, largely relying on contextual cues,
to understanding the main points of longer, more complex, less familiar speech, as described in the later
levels of the CEFR Companion volume. The scale for Oral Production models basic competences that are
to be developed to progress to a full-fledged sustained monologue, as described in the later levels of the
CEFR Companion volume.
2.2.4. Language use strategies
As in the CEFR Companion volume, the LASLLIAM reference guide includes scales for Language Use Strategies.
According to the CEFR (Council of Europe 2001: 57),
strategies are a means the language user exploits to mobilise and balance his or her resources, to activate skills and
procedures, in order to full the demands of communication in context and successfully complete the task in question
in the most comprehensive or most economical way feasible depending on his or her precise purpose.
The CEFR emphasises that these strategies should be conceptualised “as a way of making up for a language
decit or a miscommunication” (ibid.), as well as the application of metacognitive principles also used by
native speakers.
LASLLIAM describes reception, production, and interaction strategies. For each of these three language activities, it
provides descriptor scales for planning strategies, compensation strategies, and monitoring and repair strategies.
This approach diers slightly from the CEFR Companion volume which:
ffor reception only provides one combined scale on Identifying Cues and Inferring (Oral and Written);
ffor production provides scales on Planning, Compensating, and Monitoring and Repair geared towards
both oral and written; and
ffor interaction provides scales on Taking the Floor (Turntaking), Co-operating, and Asking for Clarication
– thus mainly focusing on spoken language.
By using the general metacognitive categories of planning, compensating, and monitoring and repair strategies
for all language activities in both their written and their oral form, LASLLIAM emphasises the importance of
teaching a wide range of language use strategies to empower learners. It is important to point out that we
consider the teaching of language learning strategies just as essential for learners with little experience in
formal learning. However, as researchers have not attempted to scale language learning strategies in general
yet, this reference guide lists examples of language learning strategies which are specic to non- and low-literate
learners in Chapter 3.
The scaling of language use strategies in the CEFR Companion volume has been discussed critically, and important
counter-arguments have been formulated.68 They focus on the weak theoretical foundation both for strategy
progression lines and in the assumed interactions between language use strategies, communicative competences
and individual factors. In the face of the tiny body of empirical research on the language use strategies of literacy
and second language learners, these arguments have to be taken even more seriously for the scaling of language
use strategies in the LASLLIAM reference guide. In order to encourage the teaching of these strategies and their
respective language activities in an integrated way, and in line with the CEFR Companion volume, the language
use strategies taught in literacy and second language classes have been conceptually scaled in terms of their
complexity. In addition, experienced literacy and second language teachers have validated them in terms of
how demanding they are. However, empirical validation in terms of actual strategy use by learners is clearly an
important requirement for future literacy and second language research.
Although empirical second language use strategy research with low-literate adult migrants is still in its very early
stages,69 LASLLIAM provides a rst tentative attempt at scaling (meta-) cognitive language use strategies. Note
that aective and socio-interactive strategies have neither been broken down into planning, compensation, and
monitoring and repair, nor have they been scaled because there is no reason to assume the varying degrees of
complexity of the strategy are not based on linguistic aspects.
68. Wisniewksi 2019.
69. Feldmeier 2011; Markov et al. 2015.
Page 30 3 Literacy and second language learning for the linguistic integration of adult migrants
2.2.5. Digital skills
Today, literacy is no longer about being able to read and write only. Digital competences are integral to literacy
and societal inclusion, as highlighted by the Council of Europe policies that have listed them among the key
competences for lifelong learning.70 The importance of digital skills and competences is also highlighted in the
European Digital Competence Framework for Citizens (DigComp)71 which has identied ve competence areas
as essential to functioning in society: (1) information and data literacy, (2) communication and collaboration, (3)
digital content creation, (4) safety and (5) problem solving. The DigComp initially had three levels, expanded later
to eight dierent levels. Looking closely at the dimensions included under each competence area (as detailed
in DigComp 2.0 2016: 8), the dimensions of the two competence areas of “information and data literacy” and
“problem solving” were deemed as too high or irrelevant to our target learners. For example, the rst dimension
under information and data literacy is “browsing, searching and ltering data, information and digital content”
and the rst dimension under problem solving is “solving technical problems”. Both dimensions require high
levels of literacy (ltering data/information is complex even for literate users) or digital skills (to identify and
solve technical problems). Therefore, these two competence areas were not included in LASLLIAM. However,
some of the skills under these areas were integrated into the Digital Skills scales (see Chapter 4). Therefore, the
three areas relevant to LASLLIAM are communication and collaboration, digital content creation and safety.
These areas were adopted and formed the basis of the three Digital Skills scales. Examining the descriptors in
the three areas closely, it is obvious that – even at the rst foundation level – the descriptors presuppose literacy
and familiarity with digital tools and platforms.
Unlike the CEFR and the CEFR Companion volume, LASLLIAM presents Digital Skills72 descriptors (see 4.3) as
independent from competences modelled in the scales on Technical Literacy, Communicative Language Activities
and Language Use Strategies. Similar to the Technical Literacy scales, the Digital Skills scales complement the
Communicative Language Activities and the Language Use Strategies scales as they focus on the technical (literacy
and digital) descriptors that are essential to functional literacy. The descriptors reect the fact that learners are
able to perform tasks (even those that require literacy) using mobile devices (mostly using the touch function)
with greater ease than those on non-mobile devices (mostly typing). Therefore, the focus is on descriptors related
to the skills needed to create and manage texts in a digital environment or to use digital tools. These skills are
divided into technical skills which are language independent and functional skills which are related to the target
language. Technical skills have therefore not been scaled, but functional skills as can-dos in the second language
have been scaled; they cover three competence areas (modied from the DigComp 2.0): Communication and
Collaboration, Content Creation and Management, and Safety.
70. European Commission 2020.
71. Carretero et al. 2017.
72. The term skill is used in LASLLIAM to refer to the ability to apply knowledge and use know-how to complete tasks and solve problems
that involve digital tools or are carried out in a digital environment, while competence is used to refer to the area of digital literacy
that these skills come under. In this sense, digital skills encompass knowledge and abilities.
Page 31
Chapter 3
73. For oral skills, see 2.1 on oracy and 5.4 on the scenario approach in teaching.
74. Guernier 2012.
TEACHING LITERACY IN A SECOND LANGUAGE
This chapter provides a brief overview of the important principles in teaching literacy to second language
learners.73 It starts by explaining what action orientation means in this particular context and how backward
planning can help to establish a balance between technical and functional aspects of literacy learning (see 3.1).
To this end, section 3.2 discusses orientation to the code and section 3.3 discusses orientation to the learner
as the two most important pillars for literacy and second language learning environments. The chapter then
outlines three powerful factors to enhance the eectiveness of an action-oriented approach: a focus on learning
strategies and autonomy (see 3.4), a contrastive and plurilingual orientation (see 3.5) and a commitment to
providing learners with plentiful experience of personally meaningful success (see 3.6).
3.1. AN ACTIONORIENTED APPROACH TO LITERACY IN A SECOND LANGUAGE
AND BACKWARD PLANNING
In line with the CEFR Companion volume, this reference guide takes an action-oriented approach. With respect
to literacy in a second language, this means that from the beginning of the learning process, the learners should
experience literacy events as a social practice that has both a clear purpose and an individual signicance. The
functional aspects of literacy should therefore be the transparent goals of the learning environment, whereas
the training of technical literacy skills serves a supportive role.
The LASLLIAM scales on reception, production and interaction, and the respective domain tables therefore outline
real-life goals that allow for the didactic planning of tasks, scenarios (see 5.4. Appendix 2) and mini-projects
(i.e. meaningful agency to accomplish collaboratively a product of personal signicance in the limited time
frame of a few lessons). The LASLLIAM scales on Technical Literacy, on the other hand, describe skills inherent in
performing these actions. Exercises that train relevant cognitive processes such as letter and word recognition,
graphomotor skills, phonological analysis and synthesis, etc. are indispensable components of an eective literacy
and second language learning environment (for examples of exercise types, see 3.2). However, because too many
literacy and second language programmes still give priority to learning the code over literacy practices,74 it is
important to emphasise that such exercises should always lead to more encompassing meaningful tasks in which
learners experience the usefulness of their technical skills for functional purposes (for examples of respective
activities, see 3.3). Using the LASLLIAM reference guide, we can provide literacy and second language learners
with a well-balanced combination of authentic tasks and supportive exercises that enable them to gain such
meaningful literacy experiences.
Page 32 3 Literacy and second language learning for the linguistic integration of adult migrants
Figure 3 – Backward planning of tasks and exercises to prepare learners for the literacy event of making a
note in a planner
Exercise 1
(vocabulary)
Constructing a list of own
chores and hobbies by
(a) indentifying pictures
on the basis of oral input,
(b) matching written
words and pictures, and
(c) selecting and writing
individual items.
Task 2
(written interaction)
Reading an authentic
calendar with (school
or community)
events, identifying
events of interest.
time
Task 1
(oral interaction)
Asking partner about
personal daily/weekly
routines, chores, and
hobbies and responding
(partner interview).
End task
(written production)
Writting down personal
activities and appointments
for next month, adding
potential ones from task2
in a dierent colour.
Backward planning is a powerful tool to create such well-balanced learning opportunities.
75
In backward planning,
authentic tasks are broken down by teachers into smaller tasks and exercises that help to build the subordinate
competences and technical skills necessary to perform an end task, a scenario or a mini-project in a real-life
situation. Figure 3 uses a descriptor from written production at level 3 to illustrate how a lexical exercise and two
authentic tasks are sequenced to prepare for the action goal of noting down authentic activities in a personal weekly
planner. The corresponding descriptor from the scale on Written Production/Specic scale Functional Writing reads:
3Can note down short, simple phrases as a memory aid (e.g. notes).
After learners have observed other people using agendas and have decided in a needs analysis with their teacher
(see 5.3; 5.4) that this is something that they would like to also be able to do, in a rst step of goal setting, the
end task needs to be agreed upon as a transparent goal for learners to reach at the end of a particular time span
(e.g. the end of the session or the week).
To be able to perform this end task, that is, to write down authentic activities and appointments in a personal
weekly planner, it is necessary to be able to write down chores and hobbies (exercise 1) like “work”, “Doctor
Stevens”, “hairdresser”, “go to garden”, “bring dish to class”, or “take Tarik to soccer”. The corresponding descriptor
from the scale for Technical Literacy/Writing is:
3Can write short words with a complex but frequent syllabic structure (e.g. “street”; “working”).
This competence relies on the fact that learners have come across these words in reading. Therefore, a second
learning goal from the scale on Technical Literacy/Reading seems suitable for this preparatory exercise as well:
3Can read words with frequent combinations of graphemes and frequent (bound) morphemes uently (e.g. str-;
-rk, plural s).
Furthermore, the end task requires a mental model of sequential dates. For this purpose, a conversation about
daily and weekly routines (task 1) can serve as a pre-writing activity to generate ideas for what to write down in
the personal planner. The corresponding LASLLIAM descriptor for task 1 is from the scale on Oral Production/
Sustained Monologue: Giving Information:
3Can give simple information about time and familiar persons (e.g. address, phone number) with short, simple
sentences.
75. See Ende et al. 2013: 112-13.
Teaching literacy in a second language Page 33
Finally, the end task involves the concept of linking dates and planned activities. For this reason, learners are
asked to identify events of interest in an authentic calendar with (school or community) events in Task2. The
corresponding descriptor from the scale for Written Reception/Reading for Orientation reads:
3Can nd information about places, times and prices on posters, yers and notices.
This second task will ensure learners’ understanding of tables that match dates and activities, and it is hoped
will also stimulate their interest in some of the special events from this authentic programme. In a nal step,
they can now write down their weekly chores and hobbies in a simple personal planner – and maybe add some
special events from the programme just studied.
The notion of backward planning thus relies on a skilled combination of both exercises and tasks. The next
sections will therefore look into both: principles generated by methods geared towards technical literacy as well
as principles generated by learner-centred methods geared towards literacy as a social practice.
3.2. ORIENTATION ON THE CODE: BUILDING TECHNICAL LITERACY SKILLS
This section highlights the most important principles of building technical literacy skills in an alphabetic script,
which means focusing on decoding written words (in reading) and encoding spoken words (in writing) as well as
on building uency. This requires attention to linguistic units such as sounds and letters, syllables, morphemes
and words. Of course, a mental focus on such linguistic units is only possible when learners have a stable oral
command of the words used in this process. This means that in an integrated approach, the oral skills always
need to be a little ahead of the written materials used for literacy learning (see 2.1.5).
The mainly used literacy teaching methods dier in their focus on which units to start with and how to proceed
to reach the goal of reading for meaning. The oldest synthetic methods started with the smallest linguistic units
like letters, phonemes and syllables, gradually building larger units like words and sentences; they have also been
called alphabet methods or syllabic methods. Analytic methods started with larger meaningful units like words
and sentences, gradually deconstructing them into smaller units. The later eclectic (or analytic-synthetic) methods
combined the two approaches in focusing on simultaneously analysing words and blending the sounds again.
The whole-word methods did not pay attention to smaller units at all, assuming that learners would discover
the principle by themselves.76 The following sections present a few examples of the dierent types of exercises
from these dierent methods.
3.2.1. A focus on syllables
The syllable is the most easily accessible linguistic unit. Exercise types focusing on the syllable as the central
audible language unit for beginning readers and writers involve clapping and “walking” words in syllables,
recognising specic syllables in words, reading systematic variations of syllables such as “fa-fe--fo-fu” or “sa-se-
si-so-su”, dividing words into syllables by lines or combining syllables to create words.77 Freire, who combined
the teaching of syllables with a political discussion of what he called generative words,78 inspired the use of
the syllabic method as a central tenet of many literacy and second language pedagogies across Europe. His
recommendation was to start the literacy process with a political discussion of key terms, for example, favela
(=slum). Freire suggested that after a group reection of their emancipatory meaning for the individual learner,
these key terms are used as generative words, that is, words that can be broken down into syllables (e.g. fa-ve-la)
to generate new syllables (“fa-fe--fo-fu”)and words from these (and other) syllables.
The syllabic method works particularly well as a starting phase for target languages which are mainly composed of
simple CV or VC syllables (e.g. Portuguese and Italian) and which use consonant clusters only to a limited degree.
For other European languages, like Czech, English, French, Dutch and German, however, the syllabic approach
works less well because these languages use many consonant clusters and/or because their orthographies rely
on stress patterns to a large extent. Exercise types characteristic of what is called the syllable-analytic method
(not to be confused with the syllabic method mentioned above) therefore focus on the stressed syllable of a
word as opposed to unstressed syllables. For example, the letter <e/E> in German words is a schwa sound in
76. See, for example, Chall 1999; Chartier 2004; Gray 1969; Liberman and Liberman 1990.
77. Asfaha 2009.
78. Freire 1970/2018.
Page 34 3 Literacy and second language learning for the linguistic integration of adult migrants
unstressed syllables, but an /e:/ or /ɛ/ in stressed syllables. Exercise types characteristic of this method therefore
focus on the analysis of stress patterns at the word level using bigger circles or dots for stressed syllables and
smaller ones for unstressed syllables.79
3.2.2. A focus on sounds and letters
Sound discrimination and sound identication exercises focus on individual phonemes of the target language
and are often among the rst types of formal exercises literacy teachers confront their students with to build
phonological awareness. At the beginning stages of literacy acquisition, learners gradually become able to
decide whether they hear a certain sound like “m” at the beginning of a word such as “milk”. After being able to
identify onsets, in a next step they usually acquire the ability to identify sounds in the nal position and in the
middle of a word.80
In terms of building a progression of phonemes and their corresponding graphemes in a specic target language,
several aspects need to be considered. Sonorants like [m] and [n] are generally considered to be more easily
identied than fricatives such as [f] or [s], which in turn are considered to be more readily recognised by beginning
learners than plosives such as [t] or [b]. In literacy and second language courses, the sound inventories of the
previously acquired languages of the learner are important to consider because unfamiliar sounds are particularly
hard to discriminate and to identify. For example, the similar sounding, but dierent phonemes of the target
language, such [e:]/[i:], [o:]/[u:] and [b]/[p] in several European languages, are not distinguished as phonemes
in Arabic, and special attention needs to be given to this potential challenge for Arabic speakers while other
language pairs require other elds of attention.
81
In terms of letter recognition, the progression needs to take into
consideration similar-looking letters (like <E>, <F> and <T> or <b>, <p> and <d>) and possible interference from
other languages at the grapheme level as well (e.g. Bosnian/Croatian/Serbian <š/Š> versus <sh/Sh> in English).
Particularly suited for the training of recognising sounds and letters (and their matching) are digital tools; they
oer the important advantages of immediate feedback for the learner and automatic level adaptation. For this
reason, digital exercises related to learning sounds and letters have been created for literacy in various second
languages (e.g. Diglin project 2012-20 with materials for Dutch, English, Finnish, German and Spanish).82
3.2.3. A focus on (sight) words
Whole-word (or look-and-say) methods, which were mainly used in English-speaking countries some years ago,
build reading instruction on the recognition and rote memorisation of whole words, without paying attention to
phonics and decoding skills. Although this might seem a fast method initially, in the long run it is not eective at
all because learners are dependent on the teacher (or someone else) for every new word they encounter. Analytic
approaches also start with whole meaningful words that are learned as sight words, but do focus on letters and their
corresponding sounds in these words in the next step. These words often are chosen according to their particular
signicance to the learner group, based on their frequency and personal relevance. Exercise types characteristic
of such an orientation are circling identical words, circling specic letters in sight words, or sequencing scrambled
letters of a sight word. Although “residence”, “February”, “language”, “son” and “bus” may all be relevant sight words
to learn, the latter two are more suited to starting the learning process of sound-letter mapping.
3.2.4. A focus on morphemes
The important role of morpheme knowledge in literacy acquisition has been less acknowledged in theories on
reading acquisition. However, in several orthographies, the regularity in the mapping is not only based on letter-
sound mappings, but also on morphology: identical morphemes are spelled in a similar way. Unlike syllables,
morpheme boundaries cannot be identied by listening, but only by lexical analysis of the components of a
word. The focus on morphemes is particularly helpful for gaining insights into highly frequent bound morphemes
such as conjugation endings (e.g. “ask-asks”), plurals (e.g. “book-books”), other suxes (e.g. “teach-teacher”), or
prexes (e.g. “like-unlike”). It also helps to break down long compound words into smaller, more manageable
units. Typical exercise types are word construction kits that centre around one morpheme and show how it can
79. See Pracht 2012.
80. See Rokitzki 2016.
81. See Heyn 2013; Roder 2009.
82. See Cucchiarini et al. 2015; Dawidowicz 2015; Digital Literacy Instructor, English version 2020; Digital Literacy Instructor, Finnish version
2020, Digital Literacy Instructor, French version 2020; Digital Literacy Instructor, German version 2020; Digital Literacy Instructor,
Spanish version 2020.
Teaching literacy in a second language Page 35
be combined with various morphemes to create other words. The focus on morpheme knowledge is particularly
important to secure word recognition and enhance uency once the basic alphabetical principle is acquired
and longer words come into play, as well as to support spelling development.
3.2.5. Important general principles
In most literacy and second language classes, these principles are not followed as pure methods or approaches,
but are combined to oer the learner diverse starting points for insights into the alphabetical principle. The
degree to which specic learning environments focus on these dierent linguistic units strongly depends on
the characteristics of the target language. Despite these dierences between languages and orthographies,
some general teaching principles that hold for all languages can be recommended.83
fProvide adequate learning environments: Learning to read an alphabetic script for the rst time requires
intensive and systematic instruction. Although some researchers claim that learning to read and write is
as natural as oral language acquisition is for a young child, there is massive evidence that systematic code
instruction is needed to provide the learner with the skills necessary to become an independent reader.
This is even truer for rst time adult readers in a second language because they can rely less on other
resources like a rich lexicon, much print exposure or cultural knowledge to ll gaps.
f
Build linguistic and orthographic awareness: Awareness of the dierent linguistic units like phonemes,
syllables and later morphemes, as well as awareness of the dierent distinctive features of letters, is crucial
to learning success.
fPay targeted attention to the mapping of orthography on phonology, the basis of word identication: In
European languages, this is the alphabetical principle of matching letters and sounds. For all orthographies,
straightforward teaching of the 1:1 mapping of letter to sound is crucial. Less transparent orthographies
also require attention to more complex matchings (one letter to several sounds or the other way around),
to more complex or irregular mappings and to the morphological and stress-pattern basis of spelling.
f
Stimulate uency in decoding: Fluency in decoding is crucial to reach automatised word recognition that opens
the way to text comprehension. Fluency can best be reached by a lot of practice in reading. In some literacy
classes, a rather limited number of reading texts is regularly combined with many questions to be answered.
For reaching uency, the opposite is more eective: much text to read instead of answering questions.
fStimulate reading comprehension from the very beginning: A word not understood is a word not read.
The three main principles behind reading comprehension are uency in decoding, vocabulary knowledge
and listening comprehension.
fCreate a plurilingual classroom: Even when students do not have the same rst language, use their rst
languages or a common language where possible to explain principles, to provide examples, to foster
linguistic awareness and to check for comprehension. Learners’ rst languages or another well-known
language can also be used eectively to build syllabic and phonemic awareness and to teach the basics
of letter-sound mapping (see also 3.5).
3.3. ORIENTATION ON THE LEARNER: FOSTERING LITERACY AS A SOCIAL PRACTICE
Learner orientation in a literacy and second language learning environment means centring all literacy activities
around the personal needs, goals, resources, competences and strategies of the learner (see also 5.3; 5.4; 6.1.2).
It means using personal contexts instead of decontextualised texts as well as adapting course goals to the
personal agendas of students. If learners are to invest in their literacy learning, their hopes for the future and their
envisioned identities, their imagined literate second language selves need to be addressed in class.84 Therefore,
teachers should decide with their learners’ help what kind of oral situations and literacy events are important
for them to cope with and self-condently shape their everyday lives (see 5.4).
According to their individual situation, their focus might be on family literacy, job-related skills, reading for
learning, etc. to diering degrees. Goal setting in literacy and second language learning environments can
be successfully achieved on the basis of visuals depicting possible relevant situations and literacy events, and
study groups with dierentiated learning materials can be formed accordingly.85 Finally, it is crucial for learner
83. See Adams 1999; Chall 1999; National Reading Panel 2000; Verhoeven and Perfetti 2017; see also 2.4 and the Technical Literacy scales
in Chapter 4.
84. See Dörnyei 2009; Norton 2013.
85. See Feldmeier 2009a.
Page 36 3 Literacy and second language learning for the linguistic integration of adult migrants
orientation that students bring printed materials and photos of words and texts to the classroom form their
everyday lives. Initiatives following such situated approaches to literacy learning are sometimes located in
learning environments regularly frequented by learners, such as mosques or community centres, instead of
concentrating learning on unknown institutions outside their neighbourhood.
The following sections highlight the importance of participating in literacy events (see 3.3.1), of experiencing
authorship (see 3.3.2), and using literacy as a means for learning and emancipation (see 3.3.3).
3.3.1. Participating in literacy events
In their learning environments, learners should experience literacy not only as the goal of learning, but also
as a useful way of communication with people who are not present. Therefore, authentic use of reading and
writing in mini-projects, whether in the classroom or in other domains of life, is essential for learners to build an
increasingly complex understanding of what can be done by reading and writing and what the text types are for
achieving these recurring purposes. Written text types like menus, T V programmes, lists, labels, messages, forms
or signs – to name only a few examples – need to be experienced by the newcomer in their social dimension,
that is, as a means to achieve a goal.86 Therefore, preparatory simulations in the classroom and real-life tasks
outside the classroom are an essential component of a successful learning environment.
At the beginning of the learning process, the learner’s participation in literacy events is that of an observing newcomer:
to watch and begin to understand the actions of other more experienced text users is crucial to becoming a more
central participant in literacy events at later stages of development. For example, without being able to read or
write a message, literacy and second language learners can, of course, experience using this text type with the help
of a mediator. This is true for other, more complex, text types as well, such as using bank accounts, travel itineraries
or letters of complaint. Therefore, simulations and scenario-based methods as well as mini-projects in real-life
situations are important elements in gradually introducing literacy and second language learners to a progression
of text types that has been carefully established with regards to a needs analysis (see 5.4).
3.3.2. Experiencing authorship
The importance of experiencing authorship is recognised as a guiding principle in many literacy and second
language learning environments across Europe. As an addition to using textbooks and decontextualised texts,
it is considered a particularly promising way to create opportunities for the learner to deeply experience the
connection between texts and reality.
According to the language experience approach, literacy learners write down, or dictate to a peer or the teacher,
their own experience. Then, the peers in the learning environment read this text in an edited form and discuss
its content. In this way, they can experience the power, and in many cases also the beauty, of the written word.
Photo-illustrated biographies, reports on job experiences, invented love stories, but also informational texts on
food, health, hobbies, politics, and other topics of interest written by learners in the same learning environment,
have the advantage of usually meeting the lexical and morpho-syntactical language level of the peer group. In
addition, they are of particular personal interest to the other learners who can deepen their understanding of the
text by questioning the author present as a member of the learning environment. The author of the text in focus,
on the other hand, not only experiences ownership of a text and pride in the ne end product with its illustrations,
but also the necessity in the process of writing to express themselves in a coherent and comprehensible way. The
printing of such texts in order to exchange them between classes or to publish them as newspapers, books or
documents as originally recommended by Freinet87 for children’s rst language literacy also holds great appeal
to second language literacy adult educators, in particular because computers have made print readily available.
For learners to experience second language literacy in personal communication, teacher–student diaries have
also been used across Scandinavia in particular.
At the beginning of literacy acquisition, learners can experience the authorship of writing words independently.
Using alphabet charts with illustrations of onsets, such as the picture of an apple with the combination of the
letter <a/A>, they analyse a word (chosen individually according to personal signicance) into sounds and try to
write it down. Note that many literacy and second language teachers use charts linking letters to initial sounds
in words in the relevant migrant languages (see in Appendix 1, for example, the link to Kompetanse Norge from
Norway or the materials of the KASA project in Germany). In the beginning stages, learners will only succeed in
86. See Waggershauser 2015.
87. Freinet 1994.
Teaching literacy in a second language Page 37
writing word skeletons consisting of a few consonants, but as they progress their writing becomes orthographically
more and more complex. The advantage is that motivation is particularly high with individually chosen words and
phrases. In this way, learners use writing as a tool to express their own ideas from the start of the learning process.
3.3.3. Using literacy for learning and emancipation
As outlined in Chapter 1, literacy programmes for second language learners contribute to the emancipation
of the individual and increase their opportunities for participation in the target language society. Therefore,
the contents of texts read and discussed in a literacy and second language learning environment should be
informative and highly relevant for adult learners, and they should, of course, avoid any infantilisation. This is a
self-evident fact that we mention only because the modelling of second language adult literacy on the basis of
rst language child literacy has sometimes led to non-reected transfer of lexical items (e.g. toys) and contents
(e.g. children’s games or non-informative reading materials). When fun stories and relevant topics such as health,
consumer rights, social and medical support, multicultural experiences, political issues, equal rights for women
and LGBT, etc. are addressed in adequately simple language and texts, such literacy programmes make an
essential contribution to the basic education and personal growth of learners.
Closely related to the issue of reading for learning and critical reection is the aspect of numeracy. Although
numeracy in the broad sense of mathematics is not explicitly addressed in the LASLLIAM scales, numeracy
such as dealing with numbers in texts is an important aspect of many literacy programmes. Also, the reading
of tables, signs, calendars, bills and many other text types clearly involves numeracy skills that cannot be taken
for granted in literacy and second language learning environments. Finally, the integrated use of digital media
skills, as outlined in section 1.3 of this reference guide, is important in empowering literacy and second language
programmes aiming rst and foremost at the personal growth of learners.
3.4. LEARNING STRATEGIES AND AUTONOMY
Strategies and autonomy are powerful factors in increasing eectiveness and sustainability of an action-
oriented, well-balanced literacy programme. Chapter 4 presents the scaled language use strategies of planning,
compensating, and monitoring and repair, which empower learners in communication. LASLLIAM considers the
teaching of language learning strategies equally essential for learners with little experience in formal learning.
These include (meta-)cognitive, aective and social strategies. Unlike the language use strategies, they have
not been scaled, but are listed here.
Cognitive strategies include, among others:
fstrategies for structuring reading materials at the letter to word level such as these:
ū can mark syllables with a line or circle to speed up reading (aloud);
ū can mark frequent letter combinations to speed up reading (aloud) (e.g. <sh>, <str>, <rk>);
ū can mark lexical morphemes with a line or circle to speed up reading aloud (e.g. “cook” in “cooking” or
“cooker”);
ū can mark functional morphemes with a line or circle to speed up reading aloud (e.g. conjugation and
tense endings, plural or case endings);
fstrategies for structuring writing materials at the letter to word level such as:
ū can use a letter chart to sound out and transliterate a word;
ū
can underline or circle the stressed syllable of a word to spell stressed, unstressed and reduction syllables
more easily (e.g. “gesehen” in German);
ū can come up with a visually characteristic symbol starting with the related letter (e.g. “snake”) to better
remember the form of a letter (e.g. <s/S>);
ū can use gestures or clapping of syllables while speaking a word to analyse it into syllables;
fmemory strategies88 such as:
ū can copy phrases and simple sentences to use them in memorising the oral form;
ū can produce and use a simple collection of words, phrases or simple sentences (e.g. on ash cards, in
an app) to memorise them;
88. See Böddeker 2018.
Page 38 3 Literacy and second language learning for the linguistic integration of adult migrants
ū can copy words to remember their spelling;
ū can use repetition to memorise spoken words;
ū can use audio recording to memorise spoken words;
ū can use rst language to translate and memorise words;
Metacognitive strategies for monitoring and regulating formal learning (study skills) include, among others:
f
can state personal general goals (e.g. helping own children with school work) for learning the second
language to participate in course planning;
f
can choose realistic learning goals (e.g. out of a given list of visual illustrations of situations) to individualise
learning process;
fcan choose learning materials to match own needs and learning style;
fcan organise learning materials (e.g. punch, date, number and sort materials) to use them eciently;
fcan document learning process in a tailored portfolio to track progress;
fcan use self-evaluation materials (e.g. a checklist like the one suggested in Appendix 3) to monitor and
reect on own learning process;
fcan identify the need to ask for help.
Aective strategies for motivation and volition include, among others:
fcan compare documents of own learning to track progress and motivate themselves;
f
can name what they (dis-)like about the learning environment in order to make it more eective for
themselves;
fcan use positive self-talk to motivate themselves;
fcan accept mistakes to reduce language learning anxiety and stress level.
Social strategies for interaction and participation include, among others:
f
can proactively join groups speaking the target language (e.g. a sports club, gardening volunteers) to
establish social contacts;
fcan take the initiative (e.g. invite neighbours) to establish social contacts;
fcan participate in a digital learning group supervised by a tutor to use the second language;
fcan nd other people to support the learning process (e.g. mentor, learning buddy, tandem partner).
Such language learning strategies are eective tools to empower newcomers to formal education and as such
they are important building blocks of learner autonomy.
89
While learning strategies represent the psychological
perspective on autonomy, three other perspectives on autonomy are relevant as well: the technical, social and
political-critical perspectives.90
What has been called the technical perspective on autonomy focuses on self-access materials for literacy
learning. From this perspective, it is particularly important to provide students with materials that they can use
independently of the classroom including feedback from teachers, for example: materials with answer keys,
reective tools for self-assessment, digital material with immediate feedback mechanisms, and also materials
that are self-produced and thus owned by the learners, as well as their own portfolio91 (see 6.2; Appendix 3).
Social autonomy involves peripheral participation in literacy events. It is important that literacy and second
language learners experience acceptance as newcomers into groups that they wish to become a member of.
Successful literacy instruction can thus not be conned to the space between the classroom walls, but must
provide access to groups that match the envisioned second language selves that learners are ready to invest
in. Scaolding the entry of and positioning in new social groups, as well as the formation of new social groups
among learners, are therefore important aspects of successful literacy programmes.
Finally, the political-critical perspective on autonomy emphasises the necessity to empower learners to confront
discriminatory acts such as racist or sexist comments. While textbooks usually only model polite and grateful
speech acts for a submissive positioning of migrants, literacy and second language learners also need language
models to ght o oensive acts, which are rather unfortunate aspects of reality as well.
89. For more details, see Feldmeier 2011; Markov et al. 2015.
90. See Khakpour and Schramm 2016; Oxford 2003.
91. For example, see Dammers et al. 2015.
Teaching literacy in a second language Page 39
3.5. CONTRASTIVE AND PLURILINGUAL LEARNING
An action-oriented approach to literacy and second language that balances orientation on the code and on
the learner will not only benet from a focus on learning strategies and autonomy, but will also be greatly
strengthened by contrastive and plurilingual learning.92 Contrastive and plurilingual orientation means lived
respect for and interest in the migrants’ rst languages as a principle that is continuously honoured in literacy
and second language learning environments.
Comparing languages at the phonetic, lexical, morpho-syntactic, textual and pragmatic level is of interest to the
teacher not only as background knowledge for anticipating linguistic challenges in the learning process, but
it should also become a subject of class discussion and an inspiration for students to increase their language
awareness and metalinguistic reection abilities. Taking a contrastive approach does not require the teacher
to be bilingual or speak the various rst languages of the students at a high level, but it does require him
or her to be interested in these languages, to provide room for rst language input from learners to use as
learning material and to be ready to follow up on these rst language impulses. The teacher is continually
learning from the students who take the expert role on their rst languages, and thus starts using phrases
such as greetings, instructions and praises in these languages and further encourages the use of translations
and transliterations to foster the learning process. For example, in Norway this has been carried out also
through the contribution of so-called language helpers, that is, learners of the same rst languages who are
no longer beginning learners.93
In contrastive and plurilingual learning environments, learners are welcome to code-switch, and they are
encouraged to mediate classroom interaction and learning materials in order to optimise learning conditions
for everyone in the learning environment. They are also encouraged to develop mediating competences
required so urgently in today’s communication, not only in the educational, but also in the personal, public
and occupational domain. Mediating competences in the literacy and second language learning environment
obviously depends on the oral and written competences in the languages (including dialects and registers)
involved. They develop from relaying routine phrases and simple instructions or concepts to relaying information,
data or task instructions. Because the target learners in the literacy classroom are beginning readers and writers,
mediation not only involves mediating oral communication, but in particular also mediating between written
and spoken language, as the following list illustrates.
fMediating from speech to speech in the learning environment mainly involves mediating the teacher’s
utterances in the target language such as instructions or explanations to fellow learners in another lan-
guage, and the other way around, namely mediating peers’ utterances such as questions and statements
to a language understood by the teacher (i.e. the target language or a lingua franca like English, French
or Spanish).
fMediating from speech to writing in the learning environment typically involves writing down in another
language for a fellow learner oral information that was given in the target language, for example the
translation or transliteration of a word as a memory aid in the rst language or the rst writing system of
the peer or making a note of a teacher explanation not understood by the fellow learner (e.g. “use this
phrase for adults, not for kids”).
f
Mediating from writing to writing in the learning environment can involve the collaborative production
of plurilingual learning materials (e.g. a key-word poster or vocabulary game) as well as summarising or
translating written information or instructions in learning materials in another language for a fellow learner.
fMediating from writing to speech in the learning environment involves helping peers orally with written
material in the target language (e.g. course programme, sign, notice, enrolment form, attendance list,
textbook material, learning game) in another language and helping the teacher orally with written ma-
terial in the language of a fellow student not comprehended by the teacher (e.g. certication, CV, story,
poem, note).
A systematic encouragement of classroom mediation will also build the foundation for developing mediation
skills in other domains which might be included as explicit learning goals in the literacy and second language
curriculum.
92. See Heyn 2013; Marschke 2022.
93. Vox – Nasjonalt fagorgan for kompetansepolitikk 2014.
Page 40 3 Literacy and second language learning for the linguistic integration of adult migrants
3.6. THE POWERFUL EXPERIENCE OF SUCCESS
Motivation is, of course, a particularly powerful factor in literacy and second language learning, just as in any
other language learning, and success orientation is therefore a key principle to consider in planning a learning
environment for beginning readers and writers. In order to build motivation and keep it at high levels, it is
important to oer tasks or exercises that are within the individual learner’s zone of proximal development, a
term Vygotski94 used to describe activities that a learner can accomplish successfully with the help of another
person or by using scaolds in the learning material.
A group of literacy and second language learners will usually be quite heterogeneous in many respects, and
students with various proles in terms of oral and literacy competences will learn together. This heterogeneity
requires a high degree of dierentiation from the teacher which she or he will have to base on individual needs
and individual assessment of progress. While learners should work individually or in small homogeneous groups
on dierent activities that are within their personal reach, the whole group will still be united in its focus on a
single topic and the co-construction of meaning. Within this group setting, pair work with a more advanced
partner providing guidance and mediation to a less advanced partner also allows for success on both sides.
It provides, on the one hand, the experience of being able to help and, on the other, that of being able to do
something with help and scaolding knowing that one was not able to do so alone.
Success orientation is particularly important to stress because progress in reading and writing of literacy and
second language learners might seem slow to a lay observer or to a language teacher with no literacy-teaching
experience, but the informed teacher has a more dierentiated concept of the pathways to literacy and second
language competences and the many steps involved in this process – as laid out in the LASLLIAM scales. This
allows the professional literacy and second language teacher not to focus on the learner’s presumed decits (see
6.1.1), but to build on their resources and to identify learning activities that are within reach, thus stimulating
further investment of the learner in pursuit of the second-language literate self they want to become. In success-
oriented literacy and second-language learning environments, both teachers and learners clearly perceive – and
celebrate – progress that might not be recognisable to the untrained eye.
3.7. BALANCING THE VARIOUS PRINCIPLES IN LITERACY AND SECOND
LANGUAGE LEARNING
This chapter has highlighted the need to balance orientation to the code in order to build technical literacy
skills and orientation to the learner in order to foster literacy as a social practice. It has recommended backward
planning as a powerful tool to systematically link exercises focusing on technical literacy (as well as components
of oral skills like vocabulary, grammar or pronunciation) with authentic tasks in order to successfully implement
an action-oriented approach. Three factors are highly inuential on the learning process: the development of
strategies and autonomy, the use of contrastive and plurilingual approaches and, most importantly, a pedagogical
commitment to success orientation.95
94. Vygotski 1975.
95. For more details on literacy and second language teaching methods, see Albert et al. 2012, 2015; Feick et al. 2013; Feldmeier 2010;
Lemke-Ghar et al. 2021; Minuz et al. 2016; Roll and Schramm 2010.
Page 41
Chapter 4
LASLLIAM SCALES AND TABLES
This chapter presents the four LASLLIAM levels (see 1.4.3) in terms of scaled progression from level 1 to level 4.
Such progression is dened according to descriptors related to four types of illustrative scales: Technical Literacy,
Communicative Language Activities, Language Use Strategies and Digital Skills. As Table 1 shows, taking into
account these 4 types, 52 scales and 425 descriptors are provided by LASLLIAM.
Table 1 – LASLLIAM scales and descriptors
No. of scales No. of descriptors
Technical Literacy 3 59
Communicative Language Activities 28 184
Language Use Strategies 18 119
Digital Skills 3 63
Total 52 Total 425
As Table 2 shows, included in the Communicative Language Activities scales (see 1.2) are 71 descriptors from
the CEFR Companion volume Pre-A1 and A1 levels, which are integrated into LASLLIAM levels 3 and 4 and
presented in blue font.
Table 2 – LASLLIAM descriptors and CEFR Companion volume descriptors
No. of descriptors CEFR Companion volume
Pre-A1 descriptors
CEFR Companion
volume A1 descriptors
Communicative Language Activities 184 26 45
LASLLIAM descriptors follow the ve criteria suggested by CEFR: positiveness, deniteness, clarity, brevity and
independence (Council of Europe 2001, Appendix A: 205-7). This means that the descriptors are presented in
terms of what a non- or low-literate adult migrant can do (positiveness) rather than what they cannot do in
performing concrete tasks (deniteness). In order to make the descriptors as transparent and comprehensive as
possible, a glossary explaining the technical terms completes the reference guide (clarity). Finally, the LASLLIAM
descriptors tend to be short (brevity) and represent stand-alone objectives, in the sense that they do not have
meaning only in relation to other descriptors (independence). This allows, for instance, for their use within
checklists for self-assessment (see Appendix 3), where it is possible to consider them as independent statements.
Users are invited to look at the LASLLIAM illustrative scales as a exible, dynamic and open system, with descriptors
to be selected according to the context and the learners’ needs, as they result from an accurate preliminary needs
analysis (see 1.4; 5) and emerge throughout the learning process. In referring to such a suggested selection,
users should also be aware that the assigned level of a few can-do statements, especially in the Technical Literacy
scale, could vary according to the orthographies, morphological complexity and other linguistic features of the
specic languages (see 4.1). In these cases, an adaptation of the progression to the target language is needed.
More generally, it is important to remember that “levels are a necessary simplication. The reason the CEFR
includes so many descriptor scales is to encourage users to develop dierentiated proles” (Council of Europe
2020a: 38). The same is valid for the present work (see in particular 1.4.3; 6.1.3), as most scales can be used
independently from each other; this is particularly the case in the oral and written scales, taking into account
the dual process referred to above.
LASLLIAM users will nd scales for Technical Literacy in 4.1, for Communicative Language Activities and Language
Use Strategies in 4.2 and for Digital Skills in 4.3. With particular regard to the Communicative Language Activities
Specic scales, LASLLIAM also provides tables related to concrete examples of language use in respect of the
four CEFR domains (personal, public, occupational and educational).
Page 42 3 Literacy and second language learning for the linguistic integration of adult migrants
The methodology used to validate the content of the LASLLIAM scales is described in Chapter 7. Figure 4 presents
an overview of the LASLLIAM descriptive scheme, representing possible learning and teaching goals related to
the simultaneous processes of acquiring literacy and a second language at the same time (see 1.2). Please be
aware that specic personal conditions, such as disability or trauma, and social conditions, such as isolation,
could aect the achievement of goals.
Figure 4 – The LASLLIAM descriptive scheme
LASLLIAM
CLA
Overall
CLA
Specics
with
examples
by domains
CLA
Overall
CLA
Specics
with
examples
by domains
CLA
Overall
CLA
Specics
with
examples
by domains
CLA
Overall
CLA
Specics
with
examples
by domains
CLA
Overall
CLA
Specics
with
examples
by domains
CLA
Overall
CLA
Specics
with
examples
by domains
Content Creation
and Management
Safety
Communication
and Collaboration
Language and
Print Awareness
Reading
Writing
Communicative Language Activities (CLA)
and Language Use Strategies (LUS) scales
Digital
Skills scales
Technical
Literacy scales
CLA – LUS
Reception
CLA – LUS
Production
CLA – LUS
Interaction
Oral Written Oral Written Oral Written
4.1. TECHNICAL LITERACY
Technical literacy is an important basis for using literacy competences in authentic communication; it is dened
as the ability to get access to the written code of a language. For alphabetical scripts this means learning to use
the systematic relationship between letters/graphemes in writing and sounds/phonemes in spoken language
in a gradually more uent way until word recognition is automatised. The scales on Technical Literacy therefore
provide a detailed model of how beginning readers and writers in a second language develop technical literacy
skills. Learning to decode written language starts with rote learning of a basic set of short and phonologically
simple sight words, which are used to move into a second step of learning the systematic correspondence
between grapheme (letter) and sound (phoneme). This learning process builds on short words with a simple
syllabic structure and regular spelling (i.e. a one-to-one correspondence between letter and sound), and
gradually extends to (longer) words with a more complex linguistic structure such as consonant clusters and
more complex or irregular grapheme–phoneme correspondences. The last step in this process is focused on
speed and becoming uent in decoding. For beginners in reading and writing it is also important to build
awareness of the intimate but dicult to grasp relationship between spoken and written language and to the
phonological make-up of the target language.
The development of technical literacy is represented in three scales:
1. Language and Print Awareness;
2. Reading;
3. Writing.
Key concepts in the scale of Reading and Writing are:
fthe cognitive activity involved: from rote learning to slow letter-by-letter decoding to direct word reco-
gnition through fast and uent decoding, or from copying to slow encoding to fast encoding in writing;
LASLLIAM scales and tables Page 43
flinguistic complexity: from very short words with a simple syllabic structure to phonologically and mor-
phologically more complex words, short and simple sentences, and later to linguistically very short and
simple texts;96
forthographic complexity: from one-to-one correspondence between grapheme and phoneme to more
complex relationships between graphemes and phonemes and irregularities in spelling;
ffamiliarity: from familiar and practised words and phrases to familiar words and phrases that are new in
the written form;
fspeed: from slow decoding to uent recognition of words and sentences.
The key concepts shape lines of progression that apply to all languages (see 2.2). However, research has highlighted
that some linguistic features that determine linguistic and orthographic complexity (e.g. regularity and transparency
of spelling, prevailing syllable structure, morphological complexity, word order) aect how literacy is acquired.
97
Albeit in a non-linear fashion, language specicity inuences how literacy is taught in the dierent educational
traditions. Consequently, some descriptors of the Technical Literacy scale are language specic. They may not
be applicable or may be placed at a level immediately above or below the level indicated here. For example,
the descriptor “Can read single practised words with a simple syllabic structure by synthesising syllables (e.g.
“ora”, “doctor”)” at level 2 in the LASLLIAM scale can be anticipated at level 1 if referred to practised disyllabic
words composed of CV (consonant-vowel) syllables in an Italian learning context (e.g. “no-me”). For courses in
languages with simpler morpho-syntax like Dutch, the descriptor “Can read short and simple sentences, if the
words are orthographically simple” may be already within reach at level 2 instead of at level 3.
Notice that not all abilities related to teaching handwriting, specically the use of writing tools and the
visual-motor skills, are scaled here, but they are of foremost importance in acquiring technical literacy. They
have to be dealt with while teaching to read and write and require regular and explicit instruction. They
include visual and graphomotor aspects, such as eective pen/pencil grasp and pressure, pen/pencil control
and uency, regular letter formation and automatisation of eye movement to follow the hand and direction
of the target script.
Written language does not represent meaning directly like other visual symbols such as pictures do, but via units
of spoken language. Therefore, it is important to stress that familiarity is key in this learning process. Thus, words
that are familiar to learners should be used in teaching them to read and write. It is also important to stress that
technical literacy is not a goal in itself, but a means in order to achieve functional literacy beyond the A1 level.
Therefore, in accordance with the action-oriented approach of the CEFR Companion volume, we have specied
the functional aspects of literacy in the scales of written reception, production and interaction. This is in line with
the fact that it is considered important that language education for this target group empowers learners to cope
with everyday challenges. The levels in the Communicative Language Activities scales for Written Reception,
Production and Interaction have taken into account the progress in these technical scales, for example at level
1 comprehending a short, written message will be restricted to recognition of already memorised and practised
words, and at level 4 it refers to independent reading of short sentences and simple texts. To fully understand
the learning demands involved in these challenges, however, detailed scales on technical literacy as provided
below can raise awareness of important progress at the levels below and up to A1.
4.1.1. Language and Print Awareness
Descriptor
4Knows that cohesive devices are important for understanding texts (e.g. “he”; “then”).
3
Can synthesise phonemes into a word with a complex syllabic structure (e.g. “d-r-i-n-k” into “drink”).
Can analyse words with a complex syllabic structure (e.g. “plant” into “p-l-a-n-t”).
Can synthesise spoken words into short and simple sentences.
Knows that the word order of the sentences in dierent languages can dier (e.g. place of the verb).
Can analyse short and simple spoken sentences into words (e.g. “This-is-my-house”).
96. Short and simple are overall, descriptive terms that should be specied for each language.
97. Verhoeven and Perfetti 2017.
Page 44 3 Literacy and second language learning for the linguistic integration of adult migrants
Descriptor
2
Knows that a phoneme corresponds to a grapheme.
Can analyse words with a simple syllabic structure into phonemes (e.g. “map” into “m-a-p”).
Can identify the order of phonemes (e.g. initial and nal) in words with a simple syllabic structure.
Can identify rhyming words in the target language (e.g. “book-cook, late-plate”).
Knows that some phonemes in the target language can dier from phonemes in the rst language (e.g. the
number of vowels; p-b for Arabic speakers).
Can synthesise phonemes into words with a simple syllabic structure (e.g. “c-a-t” into “cat”).
1
Can show the direction of the script in the language they are learning (e.g. from left to right and top to bottom for
Latin and Greek script).
Can distinguish linguistic signs (like written words) from non-linguistic signs (like icons or symbols).
Can identify some initial phonemes of a spoken word (e.g. the initial phoneme of their own name).
4.1.2. Reading
Descriptor
4
Can read uently words with a complex syllabic structure (e.g. “shirts”).
Can read short and simple phrases uently by using automated reading processes.
Can read, phrase by phrase, a short, simple text.
Can read frequent maths symbols (+, %, comma) in simple texts (like advertisements).
Can use punctuation marks as an aid to understand a text.
Can read simple two-clause sentences with an unknown word.
3
Can read short and simple sentences, if the words are orthographically simple.
Can recognise frequently used punctuation marks (e.g. full stop, question mark).
Can read words with frequent combinations of graphemes and frequent (bound) morphemes uently (e.g. str-;
-rk, plural s).
Can read short and simple texts, if the sentences are few and have a simple syntactic structure.
Can read frequent words uently by using automated reading processes.
Can read with some eort orthographically complex words (e.g. multisyllabic words, words with consonant
clusters, or words with irregular spelling).
2
Can read practised words and new short words with a simple or highly frequent syllabic structure by applying the
grapheme–phoneme correspondence (e.g. “son”, “sera”).
Can relate a grapheme to the corresponding phoneme in orthographically simple words (e.g. “hat”; “book”).
Can read practised words by recognising highly frequent combinations of graphemes.
Can read single practised words with a simple syllabic structure by synthesising syllables (e.g. “ora”, “doctor”).
Can recognise most graphemes in a word, including visually confusing graphemes (e.g. b and d or f and t in Latin,
φ and ϕ in Greek or Л and П in Cyrillic).
Can recognise graphemes in dierent frequently used fonts and printed formats (e.g. italic).
Can identify and read their own writing.
1
Can distinguish upper- and lower-case letters in practised words.
Can read numerals up to 10 in digits.
Can recognise numerals in personally relevant texts like an address.
Can recognise practised sight words (e.g. days of the week).
Can recognise some graphemes in practised words (e.g. initial letters in own name).
LASLLIAM scales and tables Page 45
4.1.3. Writing
Descriptor
4
Can write frequently used words, phrases and sentences uently.
Can write simple sentences sometimes using a common connector (e.g. “and”, “but”).
Can write the numerals up to 1000 in digits.
Can use some frequently used cohesive devices (e.g. “he”, “then”).
3
Can write short words with a complex but frequent syllabic structure (e.g. “street”; “working”).
Can write down familiar words and phrases said by others (e.g. an appointment by phone).
Can use upper case according to the conventions of the target language (e.g. names; nouns in German).
Can write short and simple sentences with frequent words and formulaic expressions.
2
Can use spaces to visually mark the dierent words.
Can write down simple syllabic-structured familiar words said by others (e.g. “pane”).
Can write words with a simple syllabic structure using the phoneme–grapheme correspondence (e.g. “book”).
Can write the letters in upper and lower case.
Can write short words with a highly frequent syllabic structure (e.g. “hot”, “wet”).
Can write the numerals up to 100 in digits.
1
Can distinguish the main features of letters (e.g. tail in p or dot in i) and use them in copying and writing.
Can write on a line.
Can write the numerals up to 10 in digits.
Can write in the direction of the script of the target language (e.g. from left to right and top to bottom for Latin
and Greek script).
Can write their own name and signature.
Can copy a few familiar words.
4.2. COMMUNICATIVE LANGUAGE ACTIVITIES AND LANGUAGE USE STRATEGIES
4.2.1. Reception Activities
4.2.1.1. Oral Reception
The scale for Oral Reception/overall listening
comprehension models functional aspects of dealing
with aural or audiovisual input at the very beginning
stages of learning a second language. As in the
CEFR Companion volume, the listening scales focus
on dierent kinds of one-way listening and exclude
listening in interaction.
For Oral Reception, LASLLIAM distinguishes one Overall
scale and four Specic scales for:
1. Understanding Conversation between Other
Speakers
2. Listening as a Member of a Live Audience
3. Listening to Announcements and Instructions
4. Listening to Audio Media and Recordings and
Watching TV and Video.
Learning to listen in a second language does not depend
on the ability to read and write in the second language,
f
Unless indicated otherwise, the names of the cate-
gories and order of the scales in this reference guide
are the same as in the CEFR Companion volume.
fPlease note that the descriptors in blue font are
the same as in the CEFR Companion volume levels
A1 and Pre-A1.
fThe descriptors in the Overall scales (apart from
the blue ones from the CEFR Companion volume)
are presented according to the formula “Can do X
(referring to the communicative activity) by reading/
writing/listening/speaking Y (referring to practice,
length and linguistic complexity)”. This formula
must always be taken into account as implicit in
all other descriptors of the Specic scales.
fFor concrete application of the descriptors see the
tables embedded in the Specic scales, with exa-
mples of language use in the four dierent domains.
f
Please note that such examples related to the four
domains might need adaptation according to the
context and the learners’ needs.
Page 46 3 Literacy and second language learning for the linguistic integration of adult migrants
or in any other language, as proven by the many non-literate adults who have learned to speak a new language.
The scales for listening comprehension do not parallel the literacy scale. Learners can progress in listening skills
and in reading skills at quite dierent paces.
However, the relation between learning to listen in a second language and learning to read and write is taken
into account in this reference guide. The scales in this section describe the steps from the rst aural contact with
the new language to the Pre-A1 and A1 levels of the CEFR Companion volume.
Enunciation and context can restrict or inuence listening comprehension at every level of the scales, thus they
should be considered a part of all descriptors in the scales for listening comprehension. With enunciation, the
speech must be very slow, carefully articulated, with long pauses, accompanied by gestures and other body
language; prosody and pronunciation must be close to the pronunciation in the geographical area where the
learner lives; and intonational patterns must be clearly expressed. Moreover, the speech must be produced in
everyday, familiar contexts; background noises and other disturbances must be limited.
The progression in listening comprehension is described using the following key concepts:
f
the cognitive activity involved: from understanding single chunks (mostly phrases, words, xed expressions
like social formula), which are memorised and recognised when they occur, to connecting phrases/words
in larger units of meaning (sentences and more extended stretches of speech);
flength and linguistic complexity: from short and simple speech formed by single phrases and words to
more complex speech composed of simple, sometimes connected sentences, and a wider range of phrases
and words;98
ffamiliarity: from familiar phrases and words to new phrases and words; from a known content of speech
to partially new contents;
f
reliance on context: from a strong reliance on contextual cues (including gestures, artefacts and visual
cues) in order to understand the aural or audiovisual input to less reliance on contextual clues, provided
that situations, themes and linguistic features of the speech are familiar.99
Overall Oral Reception
4Can recognise concrete information (e.g. places and times) on familiar topics encountered in everyday life,
provided it is delivered slowly and clearly.
3
Can recognise a familiar topic by understanding frequent words and expressions in a short, simple speech.
Can understand short, very simple questions and statements provided they are delivered slowly and clearly and
accompanied by visuals or manual gestures to support understanding and repeated if necessary.
Can recognise numbers, prices, dates and days of the week, provided they are delivered slowly and clearly in a
dened, familiar everyday context.
2Can pick out isolated pieces of information and frequent social formulas (e.g. greetings) by recognising familiar
words and expressions in a short, simple speech.
1Can recognise a personally relevant piece of information delivered mostly in a single word or expression in a
familiar context (e.g. “today”.)
Understanding Conversation between Other Speakers
As in the CEFR Companion volume, understanding conversation between other speakers concerns the situations
in which the learner hears a conversation in which they do not participate: when other speakers in a group talk
to each other without addressing the learner, and when the listener overhears other people nearby. In both
situations the learner cannot intervene to accommodate the conversation in terms of content and language,
for example by asking for an explanation.
98. Short and simple here means that speech is mostly composed of phrases and words which are salient and frequent (e.g. greetings) and
of sentences with a simple syntactic structure. The input to be processed could be a single utterance (e.g. “Enter please!”) or a section
of a longer discourse that the learner understands only partially (e.g. the greetings opening a conversation in which the learner does
not participate).
99. Regarding situations, “familiar” includes both experiential and cultural familiarity. Familiarity with the body language used by participants
in the communicative event, which may be related to their cultural and social background, age, gender and not understandable by
the learner, must also be considered.
LASLLIAM scales and tables Page 47
The term “understanding”, in the sense of grasping the meaning of what the participants in the conversation say,
can be used properly only at level 4. The levels below mark the progression towards this objective.
Key concepts operationalised in the scale include the following:
f
ease of listening: from short and simple speech expressed in familiar words to more complex speech
related to new contents;
f
contextualisation and predictability of the conversation: from recognising expressions and words in a
stretch of conversation clearly related to the context through gestures, other body language and actions
of the participants to getting an idea of a familiar topic.
Personal Public Occupational Educational
4Can understand
words/signs and short
sentences in a simple
conversation (e.g.
between a customer
and a salesperson
in a shop), provided
people communicate
very slowly and very
clearly.
e.g. the description
of the common areas
of an apartment
building and where
to park the bicycles
e.g. information
about a delay at a
bus stop
e.g. warnings and
instructions while
performing a job
task together
e.g. information
about courses or
teachers
Can understand some
expressions when
people are discussing
them, family,
school, hobbies
or surroundings,
provided the delivery
is slow and clear.
e.g. between
participants at a
friends’ gathering
e.g. people
commenting on food
in a cafeteria
e.g. about daily
job tasks (“Today
we start cleaning
from the rst
oor”)
e.g. a conversation
about hobbies in the
classroom
e.g. comments about
courses, teachers,
class schedule (“I like
my class; they are
nice people”)
3Can pick out familiar
pieces of information
in a short, simple
conversation
between others in an
everyday context.
e.g. someone’s
relation with the
speaker in an
introduction (“He
is an old friend of
mine”)
e.g. the opening
hours of a shop,
service asked for by a
customer at the desk
e.g. what is
needed to
perform a task
e.g. a conversation
about daily routines
in the classroom
Can get an idea of
the familiar topic
of a short, simple
conversation, if
the conversation
is clearly related to
people and objects
that are in the
surroundings (e.g.
participants are
pointing at them).
e.g. thanks for a
gift, well-wishing or
welcoming guests at
a friend’s gathering
e.g. the description
of an object given
by the salesperson
to a customer (“This
is the cheapest
phone card”); basic
information about a
service (“That is the
children’s hospital”)
e.g. a simple
problem in the
present work, like
a broken tool, or
someone asking
for help
e.g. a teacher is ill
2Can pick out isolated
pieces of information
and frequent
social formulas
by recognising
familiar words
and expressions
in conversation
between others.
e.g. nationality,
age, family
relation during an
introduction (“My
wife”)
e.g. where a
department in the
supermarket is
(“Vegetables are
there”)
e.g. the location of
a tool or a person
in a familiar
setting
e.g. hours and
days of personally
relevant courses
1Can recognise a
personally relevant
piece of information
delivered by others
mostly in a single
word or expression.
e.g. greetings and
very simple social
formulas
e.g. the name of a
document in a public
oce (“ID card”)
e.g. the name of a
familiar tool
e.g. the name of a
classroom object or a
person
Page 48 3 Literacy and second language learning for the linguistic integration of adult migrants
Listening as a Member of a Live Audience
As in the CEFR Companion volume, Listening as a Member of a Live Audience concerns listening to a speaker,
for example at an assembly, at a wedding, at a meeting, etc. Understanding the speaker as a member of a live
audience is easier than understanding a conversation spoken by others for two main reasons which are stressed
in the CEFR Companion volume: the speaker probably adopts a neutral register and projects their voice to
maximise the ability of the audience to follow.
Key concepts operationalised in the scale include the following:
f
ease of listening: from short and simple speech expressed in familiar words to more complex speech
related to new contents;
f
contextualisation and predictability: from picking out isolated pieces of information about persons, objects
and places that are present in the immediate environment and later to following a talk centred/focused
on real artefacts;
f
degree of accommodation to the audience by the speaker: increasing speed of delivery, decreasing
non-verbal reference to persons, objects and places by pointing, showing, performing examples of use;
f
familiarity of the situation and the subject matter: from very familiar situations and topics to less familiarity
with either the situation or the topic.
Personal Public Occupational Educational
4Can follow a simple
talk slowly and
carefully articulated
(e.g. someone
introducing a friend
in a meeting).
e.g.
congratulations,
well-wishing,
welcome
e.g. a short
opening talk
delivered at the
community centre
e.g. about job
tasks, objects and
people related to
the present work
e.g. a simple
introduction of the
(children’s) courses or a
simple story delivered
by the teacher
Can understand in
outline very simple
information being
explained in a
predictable situation
like a guided tour,
provided that speech
is very slow and clear
and that there are
long pauses from
time to time.
e.g. the
description of
their apartment
delivered by
friends
e.g. about a
personally
relevant public
service, such as a
family centre or a
job service (“The
centre is open
to families with
young children”)
e.g. about a
familiar job task at
the workplace
e.g. a simple
explanation delivered
by the teacher
3Can pick out pieces
of information about
persons, objects and
places to which the
speaker clearly refers
using body language
(e.g. “The information
desk is over there”).
e.g. someone’s
personal
information, like
name, nationality,
age, job, relations
in an introduction
e.g. opening days
and hours of a
familiar service,
the post oce
and a commercial
centre
e.g. about
simple tools and
machines (like
use, parts, main
cautions), or
about task sharing
e.g. the description
of an object or a
picture delivered by
the teacher and other
learners
2Can pick out isolated
pieces of information
and frequent
social formulas
by recognising
familiar words and
expressions in a
short, simple speech.
e.g. about a
vegetarian dish
e.g. that there is
an interpreter at
the service
e.g. about a
dangerous action
or object (“It is
hot”)
e.g. “The canteen is
closed today”
1Can recognise
as member of a
live audience a
personally relevant
piece of information
delivered mostly
in a single word or
expression.
e.g. “Welcome!” in
a short welcome
talk
e.g. the names of
a familiar shop or
service
e.g. the role of a
person like doctor,
nurse or team
leader
e.g. the names
of objects in the
classroom
LASLLIAM scales and tables Page 49
Listening to Announcements and Instructions
In the CEFR Companion volume, Listening to Announcements and Instructions is dened as extremely focused
listening in which the aim is to catch specic information. Announcements and instructions can be delivered
either face-to-face or via automatised messages. Also messages that do not require a reply, unlike messages in
an interaction, are included in this section.
Key concepts operationalised in the scale include the following:
f
ease of listening: from very short instructions, formed by one word or a single expression (e.g. an order),
accompanied by body language or visual cues, and later to more complex instructions (e.g. directions);
from very simple and predictable announcements, formed by a short sentence and conveying one piece
of information, to simple and familiar announcements, possibly formed by two or three connected
sentences;
fmedium: from face-to-face instructions and announcements and later to simple and familiar automatised
messages;
fdegree of clarity of automatised messages: slow, clear announcement with a low audio distortion;
f
degree of accommodation to the audience by the speaker: increasing speed of delivery; decreasing
non-verbal reference to persons, objects and places by pointing or miming actions.
Personal Public Occupational Educational
4Can understand
instructions
addressed carefully
and slowly to them
and follow short,
simple directions.
e.g. very simple
suggestions for
housekeeping or
simple cooking
recipe
e.g. in a hospital
(“The doctor is
coming, wait
here.”); medical
instructions (“Take
these pills twice a
day”)
e.g. orders,
warnings,
permissions and
prohibitions
related to the
present work tasks
e.g. the documents
needed to enrol
(children) in a
school or the rules
of an educational
game; invitation
to a students’
(parents’) meeting
Can understand when
someone tells them
slowly and clearly
where something is,
provided the object
is in the immediate
environment.
e.g. instructions
from neighbours
about where to
locate waste in the
apartment building
e.g. the location of
personally relevant
products in a
supermarket
e.g. the location of
objects in familiar
rooms, like the
storage room
e.g. where to buy
the course book
Can understand
gures, prices and
times given slowly
and clearly in an
announcement by
loudspeaker, e.g. at a
railway station or in a
shop.
Not applicable e.g. the arrival
of the train
announced
through a
loudspeaker in the
railway station, in
the metro (“Next
stop NN Square.
Left side exit”)
e.g. the opening
time of a canteen
in a big factory
e.g. the closing
time of the school
building
3Can pick out the main
points in a short,
simple message
delivered face-to-face
in a familiar situation.
e.g. about a
problem at home
(“The lift doesn’t
work”)
e.g. about the
menu in a cafeteria
(“Today we are
serving pasta”)
e.g. a change in
their working days
or in the shift
e.g. cancellation
of the courses
(“No courses
tomorrow”)
Can understand short,
simple instructions for
actions such as “Stop”,
“Close the door”, etc.,
provided they are
delivered slowly face-
to-face, accompanied
by pictures or manual
gestures and repeated
if necessary.
e.g. the request
to make a phone
call (“Call me at 5
please”)
e.g. about where
to go or what
documents to
exhibit in a public
service
e.g. a simple
manual procedure
e.g. instructions
for simple tasks
delivered by the
teacher as for a
matching between
words and pictures
Page 50 3 Literacy and second language learning for the linguistic integration of adult migrants
Personal Public Occupational Educational
2Can recognise familiar
words and phrases
in a short, simple
message delivered
face-to-face (e.g.
“closed” in “the
cafeteria is closed”).
e.g. in a message
delivered by a
friend about a
known event
(“I’ll come by
tomorrow”); the
request of fetching
a thing which is in
the surroundings
(“Some water,
please”)
e.g. in a shop
(“Open”, meaning
“We are open
now”); prohibition
of smoking
(“No smoking
here, please”) or
documents to
exhibit
e.g. the names of
places, objects,
tasks, people;
instruction about
a procedure
(“Look, like this”) or
warnings (“Don’t,
danger!”)
e.g. the names of
places, objects,
people; the request
of signing a form
1Can recognise a
personally relevant
piece of information
delivered mostly
in a single word
or expression and
accompanied by
picture and body
language.
e.g. a permission
(“Come in”)
e.g. their client
number in a
waiting room
e.g. the name of a
tool or a frequently
performed activity
e.g. the name
of writing tools
or frequently
practised activities
(“Write”)
Listening to Audio Media and Recordings, Watching TV and Video
In the CEFR Companion volume, Listening to Audio Media and Recordings involves broadcast media and recorded
material, including messages. Watching TV, Film and Video includes live and recorded video material plus, at
higher levels, lm. Learners who are developing their listening competence in a second language rely mostly
on context and visual cues to get an idea or understand recorded texts. Audiovisual texts, especially audiovisual
messages delivered through social media, are easier for them than audio media and recordings, which they can
tackle from level 3.
Key concepts operationalised in the scale include the following:
f
ease of listening: from short and simple speech expressed in familiar words to more complex speech
related to new contents;
fmedium/multimodality of the message: from audiovisual messages and later to short and simple audio
messages;
ftext types: from personal messages by known persons (e.g. greetings from a friend) to broadcasted mes-
sages (e.g. short and simple advertisements of familiar products);
f
repetition: from audiovisual messages which can be rewatched several times to frequently repeated broad-
casts (e.g. advertisements) to live broadcasts in streaming (e.g. TV and radio news).
Personal Public Occupational Educational
4Can pick out concrete
information (e.g. places
and times) from short
audio recordings on
familiar everyday topics,
provided they are
delivered very slowly and
clearly.
e.g. a message
on the answering
machine (“It’s
[name] speaking.
Your appointment
is conrmed”)
e.g. the time and
place of a familiar
event, like a
football match
e.g. automatised
instructions by a
machine
e.g. from
educational
materials, like
announcement
models
Can recognise familiar
words/signs and phrases
and identify the topics in
headline news summaries
and many of the products
in advertisements,
by exploiting visual
information and general
knowledge.
e.g. a short
dialogue on
everyday familiar
topics in a
ctional video
e.g. about a trac
accident in their
area
e.g. a simple
procedure from a
video tutorial
e.g. an
educational video
LASLLIAM scales and tables Page 51
Personal Public Occupational Educational
3Can understand a
short, simple personal
audiovisual message with
formulaic expressions.
e.g. place of an
appointment
(“See you in the
main square”)
e.g. the time of an
appointment
e.g. place and
time of a delivery
e.g. a short
audiovisual
message
delivered by
the teacher in a
distance learning
situation in a
learners’ group on
a social network
2Can recognise familiar
words and phrases in
short, simple video
recordings, provided
that they are delivered
very slowly and clearly,
possibly after relistening
(e.g. greetings in a
ctional video).
e.g. social
formulas in
ctional videos
e.g. the names of
familiar brands
and products
in audiovisual
advertisements
e.g. usual working
tools in a video
tutorial
e.g. in dialogues
from educational
audio and
audiovisual
materials
Can understand frequent
social formulas in a
short, simple personal
audiovisual message (e.g.
“Hi, I am ne. See you
soon”.)
e.g. from a friend
about their
well-being
Not applicable Not applicable e.g. in a learners’
group on a social
network
1Can recognise a
personally relevant piece
of information delivered
mostly in a single word
or expression in a short,
simple audiovisual
message.
e.g. greetings
from a friend
in a personal
audiovisual
message
Not applicable Not applicable e.g. in educational
materials
4.2.1.2. Written Reception
As in the CEFR Companion volume, the LASLLIAM reading
categories are a mixture between reading purpose and
reading particular text types with specic, functions. For
Written Reception, LASLLIAM distinguishes one Overall
scale and ve Specic scales for:
1. Reading Correspondence
2. Reading for Orientation
3. Reading for Information
4. Reading as a Leisure Activity
5. Reading Instructions.
In terms of reading purpose, LASLLIAM distinguishes
Reading for Orientation (search reading) to get a global
idea of a text (skimming) or to look for specic information
(scanning), Reading for Information, and also Reading
as a Leisure Activity, which can involve both ctional
narratives and informative texts about topics of interest,
and texts specically written for each level. Specically,
written texts for each level will be language specic: in
some morphology-rich languages it will be dicult for an
author of teaching materials to write sentences for level
2, while in other languages it might be easier to write a
short text with only phonologically simple, short words.
f
Unless indicated otherwise, the names of the cate-
gories and order of the scales in this reference guide
are the same as in the CEFR Companion volume.
fPlease note that the descriptors in blue font are
the same as in the CEFR Companion volume levels
A1 and Pre-A1.
f
The descriptors in the Overall scales (apart from the
blue ones from the CEFR Companion volume) are
presented according to the formula “Can do X (re-
ferring to the communicative activity) by reading/
writing/listening/speaking Y (referring to practice,
length and linguistic complexity)”. This formula
must always be taken into account as implicit in
all other descriptors of the Specic scales.
f
For concrete application of the descriptors see
the tables embedded in the Specic scales, with
examples of language use in the four dierent
domains.
f
Please note that such examples related to the four
domains might need adaptation according to the
context and the learners’ needs.
Page 52 3 Literacy and second language learning for the linguistic integration of adult migrants
In terms of specic text types, as in the CEFR Companion volume, we identify Reading Correspondence and
Reading Instructions, a specialised form of reading for information. Since careful study of a complex text is not
possible at the levels of this reference guide, the CEFR Companion volume term Reading for Information and
Argument was changed into Reading for Information.
Because the scales in this guide are aimed at beginning readers in the target language, the reading activity
required follows the progression line described in the Technical Literacy scale in these key concepts:
fcognitive activity involved: from rote learning of sight words to slow letter-by-letter decoding and later to
direct word recognition through fast and uent decoding;
flength and linguistic complexity: from words consisting of a small number of letters with a simple
phonological structure to phonologically and morphologically more complex words and short main
clauses;
forthographic complexity: from one-to-one correspondence between grapheme and phoneme to more
complex relationships between graphemes and phonemes and irregularities in spelling;
ffamiliarity: from familiar, practised words and phrases to words and phrases that are orally familiar, but
new in writing;
fspeed: from slow decoding to more uent reading of words and simple sentences.
Overall Reading Comprehension
4Can understand very short, simple texts a single phrase at a time, picking up familiar names, words and basic
phrases and rereading as required.
Can understand short, simple texts on everyday topics, by reading phrase by phrase, using visual clues and
knowledge of the topic.
3Can recognise familiar words/signs accompanied by pictures, such as a fast-food restaurant menu illustrated with
photos or a picture book using familiar vocabulary.
Can understand short, simple sentences on familiar topics (even if there is an unknown word) by reading word by
word and using visual clues.
2Can identify the topic of a short, simple personally relevant text by reading practised words and using visual clues.
Can nd numerical information (e.g. phone number, price, weight) by reading practised words , symbols or
abbreviations (e.g. €, £, kg, m).
1Can pick out a single piece of information in a text by reading sight words and using pictures.
Can distinguish numerical from alphabetical information by recognising some numbers and letters.
Can distinguish some relevant everyday logos and text types (e.g. bills, letters, signs) from each other by
recognising visual clues and sight words.
Reading Correspondence
As in the CEFR Companion volume, Reading Correspondence encompasses reading both personal and
formal correspondence, offline and online. The reading activity required follows the progression line of
the Technical Literacy Scale (i.e. cognitive activity involved, length, linguistic and orthographic complexity
of the message).
Key concepts operationalised in the scale include the following:
fease of reading: from recognising sight words to slow decoding and later to more uent decoding;
flength and linguistic complexity: from very short and phonologically simple words to linguistically more
complex words, simple sentences and short texts;
fconcreteness and simplicity of information: from very concrete and simple, familiar messages and later to
more complex messages;
fcontextual or visual cues: from more to fewer cues that can be helpful in reading and understanding.
LASLLIAM scales and tables Page 53
Personal Public Occupational Educational
4Can understand
short, simple
messages sent via
social media or e-mail
(e.g. proposing what
to do, when and
where to meet).
e.g. suggestion
of meeting with
a friend (“Would
you like to go to
the cinema at
the weekend?”);
felicitations and
expressions of
compassion/best
wishes (birthday,
marriage, death)
e.g. message about
appointment with
the doctor;
invitation to
opening of
community centre
or library
e.g. a (text) message
about a team
meeting or lunch
with a colleague;
felicitations and
expressions of
compassion/best
wishes (anniversary,
welcome); farewell
note from a
colleague
e.g. message about
an after-school
activity or school
trip; invitation
to graduation
ceremony; open
day at children’s
primary school
Can understand
short, simple
correspondence
about everyday
topics.
e.g. mail about
birth of a baby; text
message about
shopping
e.g. announcement
of activities at the
library or a fair at
the community
centre
e.g. announcement
of special oers in a
cafeteria
e.g. announcement
about new school
rules
3Can understand from
a letter, card or e-mail
the event to which
they are being invited
and the information
given about day, time
and location.
e.g. invitation to
birthday party,
wedding party
or funeral (“The
funeral is on April
21 at 11:00”)
e.g. invitation
to a medical
consultation or
administrative
service
e.g. invitation to a
team meeting or
company outing
e.g. invitation to a
joint presentation
or children’s school
activity
Can recognise times
and places in very
simple notes and
text messages from
friends or colleagues
(e.g. “Back at 4
o’clock” or “In the
meeting room”),
provided there are no
abbreviations.
e.g. simple notes
and text messages
from a friend (“See
you at 10” or “I am
on the way”)
e.g. simple notes
from administration
(“Please register
at the service
counter”)
e.g. simple notes
and text messages
from a colleague (“I
am in room 24” or
“lunch at 13.00?”)
e.g. simple notes
and text messages
from teachers and
peers (“Study p.20
for Tuesday” or
“Bring your book
next week”)
2Can identify the topic
of a short, simple
personally relevant
illustrated message
written in practised
words.
e.g. sender, date
and place in a social
invitation (“The
party is on May 10”)
e.g. sender, date
and place in an
administrative
message
e.g. from a job
message (working
hours, holidays)
e.g. from a
school message
(change of room,
upcoming holidays
of children’s
school); as a
possible classroom
simulation
1Can distinguish some
relevant everyday
correspondence
from other
correspondence.
e.g. personally
addressed bill,
advertisement
e.g. e-mail or letter
from local health
centre
e.g. e-mail or letter
from own company
e.g. e-mail or letter
from (children’s)
teacher or school
Reading for Orientation
As in the CEFR Companion volume, Reading for Orientation involves getting a global idea of the main content
of a text (skimming) and looking for specic information in dierent text types (scanning). The reading activity
required follows the progression line of the Technical Literacy scale.
Key concepts operationalised in the scale include the following:
fease of reading: from recognising single sight words to independent reading of short, simple messages;
ftext type: from one-word texts like signs and labels to dierent, highly frequent text types with pictures
and layout that support meaning-making;
fconcreteness and specicity of information: from pre-known information to new information (like dates,
times and prices).
Page 54 3 Literacy and second language learning for the linguistic integration of adult migrants
Personal Public Occupational Educational
4Can recognise familiar
names, words/signs and
very basic phrases on
simple notices in the
most common everyday
situations.
e.g. notice from
caretaker
e.g. notice on
changed opening
times; food labels
(allergies); oor
plan of hospital
e.g. notice from a
colleague about
the work shift
e.g. notice on
book sale in
school; notice in
textbook or online
exercise
Can nd and
understand simple,
important information
in advertisements,
programmes for special
events, leaets and
brochures (e.g. what is
proposed, costs, the date
and place of the event,
departure times).
e.g. shows or
news in TV guide;
entries in (online)
directories and
catalogues;
information on
calendars
e.g. medical
brochure of
a hospital;
information in a
town or city guide;
warnings (“Do not
leave rubbish on
the ground”)
e.g. new safety or
hygiene rules in
yers (“Disinfect
your hands
and avoid close
contact”)
e.g. activities in
programme for
a school party;
prociency levels
in brochure with
course oers;
warning signs
(“Keep the gate
closed”)
3Can understand simple
everyday signs such
as “Parking”, “Station”,
“Dining room”, “No
smoking”, etc.
e.g. on food or
medicine package
(due date; “ Take
with water”)
e.g. warning
or trac signs
(“Caution: wet
oor”; “One way”)
e.g. warning signs
or directions
(“High voltage”;
“Emergency exit”)
e.g. warning signs
or directions (“No
mobile phones”;
school oce”)
Can nd information
about places, times and
prices on posters, yers
and notices.
e.g. in
alphabetically
organised personal
directories; date
and time in TV
guide; place, time
and date of private
event
e.g. in sale
information; on
posters on open
days, programmes
or events at
library, cinema or
community centre
e.g. in work
schedule; main
items in job
vacancy (e.g.
working days)
e.g. lessons in
timetable; price
list of cafeteria;
notice on costs of
after-school child
care
2Can identify the topic of
short, simple illustrated
information written in
practised words.
e.g. names and
phone numbers
in a familiar
directory or list;
topic of illustrated
story; event, date
and location in a
programme
e.g. names and
prices on bills,
food, clothing;
names and dates
on schedules;
expiry date on
food; the platform
number of the
departure of
the train on the
display board at
the station
e.g. working hours
or holidays in work
schedule; date
and time of team
meeting
e.g. lessons, dates
and times in class
schedule
Can recognise simple
everyday signs in streets
or on products.
e.g. logo of TV
programme with
visual clues
e.g. public signs
(“Closed”; “No
entry”)
e.g. warning signs
(“Caution”, “No
food”)
e.g. warning signs
(“No smoking”)
1Can distinguish some
relevant everyday logos,
icons and text types
from each other.
e.g. frequently
used app icons or
emojis; package
of medicine;
felicitations card
e.g. “Fire exit”,
“Hospital”, ATM;
“bus stop”; menu;
store guide
e.g. “Exit”, “Poison”,
“No smoking”;
work schedule
e.g. basic
instructional
icons (such as for
read, write, listen,
speak); school
calendar
Reading for Information
As in the CEFR Companion volume, Reading for Information involves more careful reading of an informative text to
understand the meaning. The reading activity required follows the progression line of the Technical Literacy scale.
Key concepts operationalised in the scale include the following:
fease of reading: from recognising sight words to slow decoding and later to more uent decoding;
f
text types: from simple signs and messages to short and simple coherent texts in a broader range of types;
LASLLIAM scales and tables Page 55
f
topic: from everyday topics of personal interest to more general topics like community information or
news headlines;
fdepth of understanding: from picking out a single piece of information and getting an idea of the topic
to understanding the basic content.
Personal Public Occupational Educational
4Can get an idea of the
content of simpler
informational material
and short, simple
descriptions, especially
if there is visual support.
e.g. news item;
user guide;
information from
travel agency
e.g. brochure
about public
services;
information on
bulletin board;
church services;
driving school
e.g. work
regulations;
information about
changing shifts
e.g. information
about school
or courses in
brochure or on
school website;
(children’s) school
rules on bulletin
board
Can understand short
texts on subjects of
personal interest (e.g.
news ashes about
sports, music, travel, or
stories) composed in
very simple language
and supported by
illustrations and
pictures.
e.g. short article in
magazine or local
newspaper
e.g. short text
about a fair on
noticeboard of
community centre
e.g. job vacancy
advertisement
e.g. note about
end of year
celebrations at
(children’s) school;
in textbook or
online reading
exercises
3Can understand the
simplest informational
material such as a
fast-food restaurant
menu illustrated with
photos or an illustrated
story formulated in very
simple everyday words/
signs.
e.g. posting of
a friend about
an upcoming
wedding party
e.g. information
box of community
centre; service
menu of laundry,
car wash or food
delivery
e.g. catalogue with
merchandise (“Buy
one, get one for
free”)
e.g. information
about an
upcoming school
event
2Can identify the topic of
short, simple illustrated
information written in
practised words.
e.g. short
newspaper
headlines with
pictures (“Heavy
rain yesterday”)
e.g. information
leaet about
pavement work in
the street (“Week
12 in Main Street”)
e.g. information
on bulletin board
about break times
e.g. information
about clothes
during gym with
pictures; illustrated
textbook
1Can distinguish
numerical from
alphabetical
information.
e.g. days and
months on
calendar
e.g. opening hours
of supermarket;
prices on a price
list
e.g. working hours
on work schedule
e.g. days, hours
and room of
language course
Reading Instructions
Reading instructions is dened in the CEFR Companion volume as a specialised form of reading for information.
The reading activity required follows the progression line of the Technical Literacy scale.
Key concepts operationalised in the scale include the following:
fease of reading: from guessing from pictures and recognising sight words to slow decoding and later to
more uent decoding;
ftopic of instructions: from very simple practised orders to routine notices and simple directions;
fdegree of contextualisation and familiarity: from familiar procedures in concrete contexts to unfamiliar
procedures in general instructions;
flength: from single words with visual cues to short and simple, but more detailed, instructions in routine
phrases and sentences.
Page 56 3 Literacy and second language learning for the linguistic integration of adult migrants
Personal Public Occupational Educational
4Can follow short, simple
written directions (e.g. to
go from X to Y).
e.g. route
descriptions to a
picnic in the park
e.g. route
descriptions to
a museum or
amusement park
e.g. transport
instructions for
goods
e.g. directions to a
meeting point
Can carry out simple
instructions on the basis
of very short, simple
texts.
e.g. cooking on the
basis of a simple
form of recipe;
personalised
instructions on
medicine; simple
instructions
on household
appliances
e.g. instructions
on administrative
document
(“Provide your
social security
number”) or on an
appliance
e.g. safety
or hygiene
instructions;
personalised
instructions on
work machine;
instructions on
how to behave in
case of re
e.g. instructions
on screen or
copy-machine;
simple new
textbook or online
instructions;
guidelines on
swimming lessons
for children
3Can understand
very short, simple
instructions used in
familiar, everyday
contexts (e.g. “No
parking”, “No food or
drink”), especially if
there are illustrations.
e.g. safety
instructions on
cleaning products;
basic personalised
instructions on
medicine
e.g. safety and
politeness
instructions in
parks and public
spaces (“Swim in
safe area only”;
“No rubbish,
please”)
e.g. safety and
health instructions
(“Wear gloves”;
“Keep locked all
the time”)
e.g. familiar
textbook
(or online)
instructions
(“Answer the
questions”; “Fill
in the blanks”);
instructions about
child’s lunch box
Can understand
personally relevant
simple directions
presented in visual
format with frequent
words and practised
phrases.
e.g. route
directions to a
friend’s house
e.g. route
directions in
hospital or railway
station
e.g. route
directions to
cafeteria or
parking place
e.g. route
directions to
bookshop or oce
2Can understand simple
instructions when
presented in visual
format with practised
words.
e.g. instructions
with visual clues
(such as photo
recipe, washing
instructions)
e.g. instructions on
vending machines
(such as coee
machine)
e.g. simple safety
and health
instructions (such
as “Use mask ”)
e.g. basic
instructions in
educational
materials (“read
the text”, “listen to
the audio le”)
1Can pick out a single
piece of information in
an illustrated instruction
written with sight words.
e.g. on medicine
package “ages
2-11” (with a photo
of a toddler and a
child)
e.g. age
instructions on
baby-food (6-9
months); warnings
on bottles
e.g. name of a
known company
e.g. basic
instructions with
visual symbols
(such as read,
write, listen, speak)
Reading as a Leisure Activity
As in the CEFR Companion volume, Reading as a Leisure Activity involves both ction and non-ction. In these
scales it includes short and simple illustrated texts like picture stories, comics, narratives and informative texts
in magazines and newspapers. It also includes ctional and informative texts specically written or adapted
for the relevant literacy level. The reading activity required follows the progression line of the Technical
Literacy scale.
Key concepts operationalised in the scale include the following:
fease of reading: from guessing with the help of pictures and sight words to slow decoding and later more
uent decoding;
f
length and illustrations of the texts: from picture sequences with practised sight words to illustrated
coherent simple sentences;
ftext types: from very short and simple level-adapted descriptions and narratives to short and simple des-
criptions of people, places and events as well as pre-known narratives;
ftopics: from everyday topics and stories (e.g. family) to a broader range of concrete and everyday topics
(e.g. hobbies).
LASLLIAM scales and tables Page 57
Personal Public Occupational Educational
4Can understand short,
illustrated narratives
about everyday activities
described in simple
words.
e.g. short narrative
on life’s up and
downs (family,
friendship, health,
work)
Not applicable Not applicable e.g. short narrative
written or dictated
by classmates and
edited by teacher
Can understand in
outline short texts
in illustrated stories,
provided that the
images help them to
guess at a lot of the
content.
e.g. short article
about movie star
or local hero in
magazine, comic
Not applicable Not applicable e.g. short narrative
on children’s
school website
3Can understand short,
illustrated narratives on
contextualised topics
that are written in
orthographically simple
words.
e.g. short narrative
about an event
(sports, wedding,
concert)
Not applicable Not applicable e.g. short photo
story produced
by classmates or
children’s teacher
2Can understand simple
illustrated narratives
written in practised
words.
e.g. picture book
for children with a
few words
Not applicable Not applicable e.g. in storybook
written for this
level
1Can pick out a single
piece of information
in an illustrated text
written in sight words.
e.g. picture books
(on the basis of
main character
or main event),
cartoons
Not applicable Not applicable e.g. illustrated
stories with a
simple sequence
of pictures (on
the basis of main
character or main
event)
4.2.2. Reception Strategies
LASLLIAM Language Use Strategies use the three general metacognitive categories of planning, compensating,
and monitoring and repair (see 2.2.4). Metacognitive planning of reception is mainly about anticipating situations
and the language and text types typically occurring in those situations, as well as about predicting content in
order to use top-down processes for making inferences and elaborations. Compensation for literacy and second
language learners particularly focuses on overcoming lexical knowledge gaps, therefore lexical inferences are
the most characteristic aspect of receptive compensation strategies. Second language learners resort to visual
clues and the speaker’s body language to monitor and repair listening comprehension problems. As for reading
comprehension problems, learners of literacy and a second language gradually make progress in identifying
sources for non-understanding (e.g. unknown words or phrases, reference or coherence problems, pragmatic
non-understanding) and in naming or marking these problems for repair actions that will often involve another
person (i.e. the interlocutor, teacher, mediator or peer).
Key concepts for Oral and Written Reception strategies operationalised in the scales include the following:
fthe linguistic complexity of the product of strategy use (i.e. the problem that the strategy is to solve): from
challenges related to chunks and sight words, to challenges with new words and phrases and later also
with sentences and texts;
fthe linguistic complexity of helpful units focused on the process of strategy use: from using situational,
contextual, non-verbal and visual cues to more specic linguistic, typographic and co-textual cues;
fthe cognitive complexity and teachability of the process of the strategy: from strategies involving one or a
few steps (e.g. mark an unknown word) to those involving more steps (e.g. paraphrase a simple paragraph)
and from strategies composed of observable (actional) steps (e.g. use a dictionary) to those composed of
non-observable (mental) steps (e.g. infer from the context).
Notice that aective and socio-interactive strategies have not been scaled (see box below), but are nevertheless
of utmost importance for successful reception.
Page 58 3 Literacy and second language learning for the linguistic integration of adult migrants
Aective strategies
fCan use a means (e.g. positive self-talk and self-instructions, looking for what went well) to motivate
themselves to start or continue a task.
fCan use a means (e.g. laughing, deep breathing, pausing, music) to reduce anxiety.
Socio-interactive strategies
fCan involve (ask/invite/engage) someone else (interlocutor/peer/mediator/more advanced reader/
chat partner) to help with a task (repeat, slow down, negotiate meaning, get feedback, correct, etc.).
fCan involve non-present support tools (translating machine, help desk, online dictionary, demons-
tration video, model, etc.) to help with a task.
4.2.2.1. Oral Reception
Planning
4Can recall words and formulaic expressions to anticipate personally relevant information (e.g. destination
and departure track of a train at the railway station).
3Can recall frequent words and phrases to anticipate specic information in a familiar context (e.g. “Next stop
[name] square”).
2Can recall familiar words and phrases to recognise specic pieces of information or social formulas in a familiar
context (e.g. “Welcome to everyone” at the opening of a meeting).
1Can recall a single word or phrase to recognise a personally relevant piece of information (e.g. the client number
in a waiting room).
Compensating
4Can rely on the comprehension of the overall meaning of an utterance to guess the meaning of unknown words.
Can use speaker’s intonation, rhythm of speech, tone of voice to follow a simple speech in everyday situations
(e.g. someone thanking a group for a present).
3Can attend to known words and phrases to understand personally relevant information.
2Can use speaker’s intonation and tone of voice to infer the overall meaning of an utterance (e.g. a warning).
1Can use contextual clues to guess the meaning of a word or phrase (e.g. greetings when entering a room).
Can use intonation and tone of voice to guess the meaning of a single word or phrase (e.g. “Stop!”).
Monitoring and Repair
4Can distinguish units of meaning in familiar discourses (e.g. opening, key information and closing in an
announcement) to understand the main point.
3Can use visual clues (like icons or surrounding objects) and speaker’s familiar body language to check the global
meaning of a discourse (e.g. a video advertisement).
2Can use contextual clues and speaker’s familiar body language to check the comprehension of specic pieces of
information in face-to-face situations (e.g. simple instruction for action with gestures at the workplace).
1Can use contextual clues and speaker’s familiar body language to understand the meaning of an unknown word
or phrase in a face-to-face situation (e.g. the name of a product in a store).
4.2.2.2. Written Reception
Planning
4Can use typical features of a specic text type (e.g. typographic information) to predict the content of a text (e.g.
news article, advertisement).
Can ask themselves questions about the topic of a text to predict the content (e.g. “What do I know about trains?”).
Can look for familiar words to identify key information about a text.
LASLLIAM scales and tables Page 59
3Can use title/headline to predict the content.
2Can look for practised words and visual clues (e.g. logos) to get general information about a text (e.g. identify the
text type like a letter from school).
1Can use visual clues like photos to predict the topic.
Can use sight words to predict the topic.
Compensating
4Can reread the surrounding words in a text to understand an unknown word.
3Can use knowledge of familiar root words and/or frequent morphemes to read long words (e.g. “colourful”).
Can use a translation tool or learner dictionary to nd the meaning of an unknown word.
2Can use reading aloud to understand words.
Can use an oral translation tool (e.g. by taking a photograph of a word) to understand an unknown word (e.g.
orally translated by the software).
1Can use an accompanying picture or icon to deduce the meaning of an unknown word.
Monitoring and Repair
4Can summarise simple passages to understand the main meaning of a text.
Can mark an unclear sentence to ask for the meaning.
3Can mark an unclear phrase to ask for the meaning.
Can highlight words and phrases that they understand well to monitor the meaning.
2Can mark an unknown word to ask for the meaning.
1Can identify an unknown element in a picture (e.g. object in a picture story) to ask for the word.
4.2.3. Production Activities
4.2.3.1. Oral Production
The scales for Oral Production model functional aspects
of dealing with the oral dimension of languages at
the beginning stages of second language learning. As
in the CEFR Companion volume, the scales focus on
dierent kinds of one-way production and exclude oral
interaction. Oral production involves discourse functions
such as describing, informing, giving instruction and
narrating.
The CEFR Companion volume characterises large parts
of oral production as sustained monologues (Council
of Europe 2020: 70-72). Although such sustained
monologues can only be mastered at higher levels of
language development, this reference guide models
basic competences that need to be developed below
and up to the A1 level in order to progress to fully
edged sustained monologues at later stages.
For Oral Production LASLLIAM identies one Overall
scale and two Specic scales for:
1. Sustained Monologue: Describing Experience
2. Sustained Monologue: Giving Information.
fUnless indicated otherwise, the names of the cate-
gories and order of the scales in this reference guide
are the same as in the CEFR Companion volume.
fPlease note that the descriptors in blue font are
the same as in the CEFR Companion volume levels
A1 and Pre-A1.
f
The descriptors in the Overall scales (apart from the
blue ones from the CEFR Companion volume) are
presented according to the formula “Can do X (re-
ferring to the communicative activity) by reading/
writing/listening/speaking Y (referring to practice,
length and linguistic complexity)”. This formula
must always be taken into account as implicit in
all other descriptors of the Specic scales.
fFor concrete application of the descriptors see the
tables embedded in the Specic scales, with exam-
ples of language use in the four dierent domains.
f
Please note that such examples related to the four
domains might need adaptation according to the
context and the learners’ needs.
Page 60 3 Literacy and second language learning for the linguistic integration of adult migrants
Learning to speak a second language does not depend on the ability to read and write in a second language,
or in any other language, as proved by the many non-literate adults who have acquired speaking through an
informal learning process. Therefore, the scales for Oral Production do not parallel the literacy scales: for instance,
learners can progress in speaking skills and in writing skills at quite dierent paces.
However, the relation between learning to speak a second language and literacy learning must be taken into
account in this reference guide, because several studies (see Chapter 2) seem to reveal evidence that literacy
inuences the oral acquisition of a second language, although research on this is still scarce. The expected output
of LASLLIAM learners is characterised by the following distinctive features, in terms of aspects present in the
oral production at every level of the scales: the continuous reliance on gestures and other body language to
convey meaning; the constant presence of pauses in the learner’s turn; the recurrence of formulaic expressions,
often memorised, as a building block within the output; the capacity to deal only with familiar text types (i.e.
of experiential and cultural familiarity); and the possibility of producing a second language within an everyday
context.
In using the LASLLIAM descriptors for the spoken language dimension, including oral production, please be
aware that gestures and other body language often have implications that need careful consideration in relation
to gender, age, culture and social aspects.
Consistency and correspondence across scales are supported by reference to text types and functions in the
language activities descriptors, as well as to key progressions, for instance:
fthe cognitive activity involved in the step: from familiar content words and unanalysed chunks towards
frequent words and simple phrases on personally relevant topics;
flength and linguistic complexity: from turns mostly constituting a single word or phrase, to turns consis-
ting of familiar words or phrases; from short and simple sentences to simple sentences, sometimes using
a common connector.100
Overall Oral Production
4Can produce a turn in everyday contexts by using simple sentences and phrases, sometimes using a common
connector (e.g. “and”, “but”).
3Can produce a turn in a familiar context by using short, simple sentences and phrases with frequent words.
2Can produce a turn (e.g. giving a simple instruction) by using familiar words or phrases.
1Can produce a turn (e.g. giving some basic personal information) by using mostly a single word or phrase.
Sustained Monologue: Describing Experience
Sustained Monologue: Describing Experience involves narrative and description.
Key concepts operationalised in the scale include the following:
f
ease of speaking: from utterances, mostly constituting a single word or phrase, to the production of simple
sentences;
fcontent of speech: from giving some basic personal information to the description of simple aspects of
their everyday life.
100. As in the listening comprehension scales, short and simple here means that the speech is mostly composed of phrases and words
which are salient and of sentences with a simple syntactic structure.
LASLLIAM scales and tables Page 61
Personal Public Occupational Educational
4Can describe simple
aspects of their everyday
life in a series of simple
sentences, using simple
words/signs and basic
phrases, provided they
can prepare in advance.
e.g. a simple talk
on a personally
relevant topic
during a ceremony
e.g. a simple talk
during the rst
appointment with
a family doctor
e.g. their job tasks
in a meeting at the
workplace
e.g. something
about everyday
life in their own
country within a
communicative
scenario (“In
[country] there
are schools for
adults”); express
how they feel to
the class, using
emoticons already
presented by the
teacher
Can describe
themselves, what they
do and where they live.
e.g. a self-
introduction in a
social event
e.g. a self-
introduction in a
public event (“I
am [name and
surname]. I come
from [country]”)
e.g. self-
introduction to
their employer
e.g. during the
rst appointment
with children’s
teachers; the
neighbourhood
where they live, in
an activity related
to the knowledge
of the surrounding
area
3Can describe themselves
(e.g. name, age, family),
using simple words/
signs and formulaic
expressions, provided
they can prepare in
advance.
e.g. during a
wedding
e.g. in a
community event
e.g. to a colleague e.g. to the other
students (“I’m
[name], I’m from
[country]”)
2Can describe themselves
with familiar words
or mostly memorised
phrases, provided they
can prepare in advance
(e.g. “My name is
[name]”).
e.g. some
simple personal
information at a
party with friends
e.g. some
simple personal
information at a
party organised by
an association, if
invited to present
themselves
e.g. some
simple personal
information about
their job (“My job
is [job title]”)
e.g. some
simple personal
information to the
other students
1Can produce a turn
(e.g. giving some basic
personal information)
by using mostly a single
word or phrase.
e.g. some
basic personal
information
(“Big family”) if
invited to present
themselves at a
private event
e.g. their name at a
public oce
e.g. their name at
workplace
e.g. some
basic personal
information to
their classmate
Sustained Monologue: Giving Information
Sustained Monologue: Giving Information concerns explaining information to a recipient. Although the
recipient may well interrupt to ask for repetition and clarification, the information is clearly unidirectional;
it is not an exchange. The scale also includes a particular type of information aimed at giving instruction
or warning.
Key concepts operationalised in the scale include the following:
f
ease of speaking: from utterances, mostly constituting a single word or phrase, to the production of simple
sentences;
fcontent of speech: from basic information, instructions, warnings to information about familiar persons
and places.
Page 62 3 Literacy and second language learning for the linguistic integration of adult migrants
Personal Public Occupational Educational
4Can give
information about
time, familiar
persons and
places with simple
sentences (e.g. “The
meeting is in the
oce”).
e.g. in an
audiovisual
recording to a
friend (“Sorry, I can’t
come”); how to
reach the venue of
a party
e.g. the scheduling
of a community
event (“The lunch
is at 1”); to a
passenger at the
bus stop (“Take bus
[number]”)
e.g. the main points
of a programme
related to a job
meeting; to a
colleague (“Be
careful, the oor is
wet!”)
e.g. the planning
of a school trip
in a peer-to-peer
activity; a ashcard
within the learning
environment (“This
is the gym of the
school”)
3Can give simple
information
about time and
familiar persons
(e.g. address,
phone number)
with short, simple
sentences.
e.g. an audiovisual
recording to a
friend (“[name] is in
[city]”)
e.g. a visit
scheduled at a
medical centre
e.g. when a job
meeting starts
e.g. the timetable
of the course to a
new student (“The
lessons end at 6”)
Can give
instructions or
warnings with
short, simple
phrases, often
accompanied by
body language.
e.g. the address of a
familiar restaurant
e.g. the location of
the exit in a hospital
e.g. to a colleague
(“Don’t touch!”)
e.g. to a student
(“Wait a moment!”)
2Can give some
simple information
with familiar words
or phrases (e.g.
“Need food”).
e.g. food in a
shopping list
(“Bread and fruit”)
e.g. familiar
products in a
supermarket
e.g. familiar objects
used in their job
tasks
e.g. objects and
tools in learning
materials
Can give simple
instructions or
warnings with
familiar words,
accompanied by
body language.
e.g. to a relative
(“Wait here”)
e.g. to a passenger
(“Be careful!”)
e.g. a simple
procedure to a
colleague (“Do it”)
e.g. a simple
procedure to
another student
1Can produce a turn
(e.g. giving some
basic personal
information) by
using mostly a
single word or
phrase.
e.g. the name of
their neighbours
e.g. the name of
their doctor
e.g. their working
days at a factory
e.g. the name of
their teacher
Can give basic
instructions
or warnings
mostly with
body language,
accompanied by
a single word or
phrase.
e.g. to a friend e.g. to a bus driver
(“Wait!”)
e.g. to a colleague
(“Stop!”)
e.g. to their
classmate
(“Attention!”)
LASLLIAM scales and tables Page 63
4.2.3.2. Written Production
The CEFR Companion volume denes the categories
Creative Writing, and Written Reports and Essays. The
category Creative Writing is also used in this reference
guide, but the more formal category (Written Reports
and Essays) is called Functional Writing here because
these scales are aimed at beginning writers. For Written
Production LASLLIAM thus denes one Overall scale
and two Specic scales for:
1. Creative Writing
2. Functional Writing.
Creative Writing covers simple descriptions of personal
experiences, imaginative expressions or short narratives.
Functional Writing focuses on more formal, functional
uses of written language.
The writing activity required follows the progression
line described in the Technical Literacy scale:
f
the cognitive activity involved: from copying single
words to writing practised words and routine
phrases, and later to writing in a comprehensible
way orally familiar words and phrases that are
new in writing;101
f
length and linguistic complexity: from short words
with a simple phonological structure to phonologically and morphologically more complex words, and
short and simple sentences;102
forthographic complexity: from one-to-one correspondence between grapheme and phoneme to more
complex relationships between graphemes and phonemes and irregularities in spelling.
Overall Written Production
4Can give information about matters of personal relevance (e.g. likes and dislikes, family, pets) using simple words/
signs and basic expressions.
3Can give basic personal information (e.g. name, address, nationality), perhaps with the use of a dictionary.
Can note down short, simple phrases as a memory aid (e.g. notes).
2Can give simple personal information (e.g. address, age, phone number) by writing practised words.
Can make a note to themselves (e.g. word card for vocabulary learning) by writing practised words.
1Can give some basic personal information (e.g. own name, gender, nationality) by copying an example.
Can write a personally relevant word by copying.
Creative Writing
Creative Writing involves simple personal descriptions, narratives or imaginative expressions in a few simple
text types. Key concepts operationalised in the scale include the following:
fease of writing: from copying simple words to writing mainly practised and/or orthographically simple
words and routine phrases, and later to writing in comprehensible ways short and simple texts in orally
familiar vocabulary;
fcontent and text type: from simple one-word descriptions of persons or objects to simple descriptions of
an event, or a very simple narrative or poem.
101. The characterisation “in a comprehensible way” does not necessarily imply correct spelling. As long as phoneme–grapheme
correspondences are applied, non-orthographic spellings are accepted at all levels.
102. Short and simple sentences refers to mainly one-clause sentences of limited length.
f
Unless indicated otherwise, the names of the cate-
gories and order of the scales in this reference guide
are the same as in the CEFR Companion volume.
fPlease note that the descriptors in blue font are
the same as in the CEFR Companion volume levels
A1 and Pre-A1.
f
The descriptors in the Overall scales (apart from the
blue ones from the CEFR Companion volume) are
presented according to the formula “Can do X (re-
ferring to the communicative activity) by reading/
writing/listening/speaking Y (referring to practice,
length and linguistic complexity)”. This formula
must always be taken into account as implicit in
all other descriptors of the Specic scales.
fFor concrete application of the descriptors see the
tables embedded in the Specic scales, with exam-
ples of language use in the four dierent domains.
f
Please note that such examples related to the four
domains might need adaptation according to the
context and the learners’ needs.
Page 64 3 Literacy and second language learning for the linguistic integration of adult migrants
Personal Public Occupational Educational
4Can produce simple
phrases and sentences
about themselves and
imaginary people, where
they live and what they
do.
e.g. about a new
acquaintance in a
posting or e-mail
to a friend
e.g. in introducing
self in a community
bulletin
e.g. in introducing
self or colleague
in an e-mail to
colleagues
e.g. introducing
self or colleague
in a parent
committee; as a
classroom story-
writing task
Can describe in very
simple language what
aroom looks like.
e.g. a new
residence in an
e-mail to a friend
e.g. in a note about a
room for rent (“Cosy
room in the city
centre. 20square
metres, with large
window and built-in
wardrobe. newly
painted”)
e.g. in short note
to a new colleague
about workplace
e.g. in an e-mail
to other parents
about new school;
in a classroom
writing exercise or
simulation
Can produce a
descriptive or narrative
text consisting of a few
simple sentences.
e.g. description of
a personal event
in a message to a
friend
e.g. the description
of an object that
they want to sell
Not applicable e.g. a simple poem
or narrative about
home country
3Can write descriptive or
narrative short, simple
phrases.
e.g. comments/
memories in a
photo album
(“Here I am with
my aunt. We went
to the zoo”)
e.g. in “lost
and found” on
supermarket
bulletin board
e.g. in an app-
group or posting
on company
website (“I am
Nora from Syria. I
am 25 years old”)
e.g. a picture story
with captions to
photos about
a school visit
(“Our class in
the castle”); as a
writing exercise
2Can write some words
about themselves (e.g.
age, gender, my son)
or objects of personal
relevance.
e.g. in an app-
group or posting
with practised
words
e.g. in a very
simple contact
advertisement with
practised words
e.g. practised words
in an app-group
or posting on
company website
(“I am Nora”)
e.g. as a writing
exercise with
practised words
1Can copy some words
about themselves or
objects of personal
relevance.
e.g. as a caption
to a picture in
app or photo
album (“My son
and me”)
Not applicable e.g. as caption to a
picture in an app-
group or posting
e.g. as caption to a
picture on a school
bulletin board
related to an
educational visit (a
place of interest in
the city)
Functional Writing
Functional Writing covers the emerging use of writing for everyday purposes. It focuses on social and functional
practices such as using lists, labels, agendas, planners, simple messages or notes.
Key concepts operationalised in the scale include the following:
fease of writing: from copying simple words to writing mainly practised and/or orthographically simple
words and phrases, and later to writing in a comprehensible way short and simple texts in orally familiar
vocabulary;
fcontent and text types: from very simple personal information in lists and labels to familiar subjects of
interest and routine factual information in agendas or planners.
Personal Public Occupational Educational
4Can produce phrases
and simple sentences to
present a familiar topic.
e.g. in an e-mail
to the landlord
about the rent or
to a friend about a
meeting
e.g. in an e-mail
to cancel an
appointment with
the dentist
(“Sorry, I cannot
come to the
appointment
tomorrow. I am ill.”)
e.g. in an e-mail to
inform employer
about sick leave or
colleague about a
routine event
e.g. in an e-mail
to another parent
about the school
report (“How was
the report of your
son? Tarik’s was
ne”)
LASLLIAM scales and tables Page 65
Personal Public Occupational Educational
Can use simple words/
signs and phrases
to describe certain
everyday objects (e.g.
the colour of a car,
whether it is big or
small).
e.g. a new
purchase in a
posting or e-mail
to a friend
e.g. in a note to
sell an object on
the bulletin board
of the commercial
centre
e.g. in a very
simple form of
protocol
e.g. in an e-mail
about a present for
the teacher; as a
classroom writing
exercise
3Can note down short,
simple phrases as a
memory aid (e.g. notes).
e.g. notes on
a to-do list;
conversation
scaold for a talk
to the caretaker;
short note about a
child’s lesson
e.g. notes
from visit of
district nurse;
conversation
scaold for a visit
to oce, shop or
bank
e.g. conversation
scaold for a team
meeting; work
tasks or short note
as preparation for
a meeting
e.g. (child’s)
homework or
scaold to prepare
a presentation
(“Who I am,
whereI come from,
whatI do”)
2Can note down practised
words as a memory aid.
e.g. name, date
and time of visit
to a relative; in a
memo to children
or neighbour
e.g. name, date
and time of
appointment
with doctor or at
hospital (“Friday
May 11, 14.00:
dentist”)
e.g. for team
meeting,
anniversary party,
or lunch meeting
e.g. lesson, date
and time in
planner; name of
the teacher
1Can copy words to
label objects such as a
suitcase.
e.g. cooking
ingredients or
tools
e.g. name on letter
box, doorbell or
possessions
e.g. routine
packages
e.g. folders or
as a vocabulary
exercise; lunch box
or child’s clothes
(“Abel Zema”)
Can write a personally
relevant word by
copying it into an
agenda.
e.g. date and
time of sports
club; birthdays of
relatives; public
holidays (“June 17:
Aunt Nora”)
e.g. appointment
at the doctor’s or a
public oce
e.g. working days
and times
e.g. room number,
lesson time and
name of teacher
4.2.4. Production Strategies
LASLLIAM Language Use Strategies use the three general metacognitive categories of planning, compensating
and monitoring and repair (see 2.2.4). Metacognitive planning of production mainly concerns preparing resources
and aids for oral or written delivery; this can involve identifying oral or written text models to use, rehearsing
oral formulations or outlining written ideas. Compensation not only, but typically, focuses on overcoming lexical
gaps or unfamiliarity with the spelling of a word. Quite important in monitoring and repair of production are
noticing, and dealing with, audience’s signals of non-comprehension (e.g. clarication requests) in oral situations
and using tools (e.g. dictionaries) to master challenges in written production.
Key concepts for Oral and Written Production strategies operationalised in the scales include the following:
fthe linguistic complexity of the product of strategy use (i.e. the problem that the strategy is to solve): from
challenges related to expressing meaning through chunks or sight words and practised words, to challenges
to expressing more complex ideas in a planned situation;
fthe linguistic complexity of helpful units focused on the process of strategy use: from using non-verbal
and one-word signals and replacements to more complex reformulations and circumlocutions; from using
simple resources and models to using linguistic knowledge and more complex tools;
fthe cognitive complexity and teachability of the process of the strategy: from strategies involving one
or a few steps (e.g. repeating single words and phrases) to those involving more steps (e.g. modelling
own speech on someone else’s speech) and from strategies composed of observable (actional) steps
(e.g. using a written model) to those composed of non-observable (mental) steps (e.g. using morpheme
knowledge).
Notice that aective and socio-interactive strategies have not been scaled (see box below), but are nevertheless
of utmost importance for successful production, in particular for overcoming oral language anxiety.
Page 66 3 Literacy and second language learning for the linguistic integration of adult migrants
Aective strategies
fCan use a means (e.g. positive self-talk and self-instructions, looking for what went well) to motivate
themselves to start or continue a task.
fCan use a means (e.g. laughing, deep breathing, pausing, music) to reduce anxiety.
Socio-interactive strategies
fCan involve (ask/invite/engage) someone else (interlocutor/peer/mediator/more advanced reader/
chat partner) to help with a task (repeat, slow down, negotiate meaning, get feedback, correct, etc.).
fCan involve non-present support tools (translating machine, help desk, online dictionary, demons-
tration video, model, etc.) to help with a task.
4.2.4.1. Oral Production
Planning
4Can use written or mental notes at phrase or sentence level to prepare for a planned situation.
Can use private speech to rehearse what they plan to say.
Can use other people’s speech as an example to plan own speech (e.g. a self-introduction).
3Can use written or mental notes at word and phrase level to produce them in a planned situation.
Can rehearse frequent words, phrases and short, simple sentences to prepare for a planned conversation.
2Can repeat familiar words and phrases spoken by someone as models to prepare for a planned conversation.
1Can rehearse aloud words and phrases they want to say to prepare for a planned conversation.
Compensating
4Can make appropriate use of plurilingual communication (using L1 or L3) to maintain speech (e.g. in a short
talk).
Can use a simple circumlocution to compensate for lexical gaps (“helps the doctor” for “nurse”).
3Can use intonation, rhythm of speech, sentence stress or tone of voice to compensate for language gaps (e.g. “I
say this” instead of “This is what I said”).
Can use words from L1 or L3, an all-purpose word or a neologism to maintain communication.
2Can use intonation to compensate for language gaps (e.g. “Good?” for “Do you like this idea?”).
1Can use body language to compensate for language gaps.
Monitoring and Repair
4Can use some markers of self-correction (e.g. “Sorry”) to ease interlocutor’s comprehension.
Can reformulate an utterance that they think is wrong to overcome interlocutor’s comprehension problems.
Can use the translation of some phrases and simple sentences in L1 or L3 to ensure comprehension.
Can attend to feedback from interlocutor to monitor comprehensibility of own speech.
3Can attend to verbal and non-verbal signals from interlocutor to monitor their comprehension.
2Can use a single word or expression to indicate diculties in continuing communication (e.g. “Enough”).
Can use simple markers of self-correction (e.g. “No, no.”) and body language to ease interlocutor’s comprehension.
1Can use body language to signal diculties in continuing communication.
LASLLIAM scales and tables Page 67
4.2.4.2. Written Production
Planning
4Can use a visualisation to plan the structure of a text (e.g. pictures of storyline, simple owchart of points).
Can use an example of a text type to write a text (e.g. a recipe, a poem).
3Can use a visualisation to plan the content of a simple text (e.g. a simple mind map).
Can outline the structure to write a simple text (e.g. where – when – what?).
2Can copy a phrase (e.g. “I am from…”) to write similar information about themselves.
1Can copy a word (e.g. country name) to write about themselves (e.g. to add to a picture or photo story).
Compensating
4Can use morpheme knowledge to write words (e.g. “construction”, “professional”).
Can use words from their plurilingual repertoire to maintain writing in the second language.
3Can use a translation tool or learner dictionary to write a word.
Can use knowledge of frequent morphemes to write words (e.g. “car – cars”, “look – looking”).
2Can use written resources (e.g. product name on a box) to copy a word.
1Can use an example to copy practised words.
Monitoring and Repair
4Can use digital resources to check writing (e.g. using the spelling corrector in software).
Can read own text to make improvements.
3Can read aloud own writing to identify missing words.
Can use a resource (e.g. learner dictionary or word list) to check spelling.
2Can compare own writing with a model to check words (e.g. provided in a learning environment).
1Can compare own writing of a sight word with an example to check the word.
4.2.5. Interaction Activities
The CEFR Companion volume denes the concept
of interaction as involving “two or more parties
co-constructing discourse” (Council of Europe 2020: 70).
Dialogues and voice message exchanges are examples
from the eld of oracy; textual exchanges by mobile
phone, as well as form completion or textbook activities,
are examples from the eld of written language.
For beginning second language readers and writers,
both spoken and written interaction are central aspects
of coping with everyday life in a second language
and should therefore be core elements of learning
environments for this target group. Whereas online
interaction is a separate section in the CEFR Companion
volume, it has been included in the LASLLIAM Oral and
Written Interaction scales for simplicity from the start.
4.2.5.1. Oral Interaction
This reference guide underlines the importance of oral
interaction, which is fundamental for adult migrants
f
Unless indicated otherwise, the names of the cate-
gories and order of the scales in this reference guide
are the same as in the CEFR Companion volume.
f
Please note that the descriptors in blue font are the
same as in the CEFR Companion volume levels A1
and Pre-A1.
f
The descriptors in the Overall scales (apart from the
blue ones from the CEFR Companion volume) are
presented according to the formula “Can do X (re-
ferring to the communicative activity) by reading/
writing/listening/speaking Y (referring to practice,
length and linguistic complexity)”. This formula
must always be taken into account as implicit in
all other descriptors of the Specic scales.
fFor concrete application of the descriptors see the
tables embedded in the Specic scales, with exam-
ples of language use in the four dierent domains.
f
Please note that such examples related to the four
domains might need adaptation according to the
context and the learners’ needs.
Page 68 3 Literacy and second language learning for the linguistic integration of adult migrants
engaged in learning to read and write. Even though LASLLIAM provides scales for oral production, for this target group
the spoken dimension suggests more interaction than production, as the eight scales elaborated aim to highlight.
As in the CEFR Companion volume, in addition to the Overall scale, LASLLIAM provides seven Specic scales for
Oral Interaction, as follows:
1. Understanding an Interlocutor
2. Conversation
3. Informal Discussion
4. Goal-Oriented Co-Operation
5. Obtaining Goods and Services
6. Information Exchange
7. Interviewing and Being Interviewed.
Formal Discussion and Using Telecommunications are not included in LASLLIAM, as the CEFR Companion volume
provides descriptors for these two scales starting from A2 only.
All the scales focus on dierent kinds of interaction, involving discourse functions such as greeting, information
exchange, invitation or giving instruction and they constantly emphasise the role of non-verbal aspects and
mutual support in oral communication.
Oral interaction in a second language does not depend on the ability to read and write in a second language, or in any
other language, as proved by the many non-literate adults who have acquired oral prociency through an informal
learning process. Therefore, these scales do not parallel the literacy scale: for instance, learners can progress in oral
and written skills at quite dierent paces. However, the relation between learning to listen and speak in a second
language and learning literacy must be taken into account in this reference guide, because several studies seem to
reveal evidence that literacy inuences the oral acquisition of a second language, though research on this is still scarce.
Interaction at LASLLIAM levels is characterised by a series of aspects that underpin all the descriptors and consist
of three macro prerequisites that inuence every level of the scales:
1. the rst relates to the interaction itself;
2. the second relates to the interlocutor engaged in the communication exchange; thus, it concerns the input,
focusing on reception;
3. the third relates to the learner taking part in the interaction; thus, it refers to the expected output, focusing
on speaking.
In relation to the rst point, the constraints that impact the learner’s involvement in the communication at
every level are:
1.1. dealing only with familiar text types and topics (where familiar is intended from the dual perspective,
experiential and cultural);
1.2. interacting within an everyday context and in relation to immediate needs;
1.3. the setting allowing only for short and simple exchanges framed in routine situations.
Regarding the second, aspects of the input needed at every level are:
2.1. speech must be very slow, carefully articulated, with long pauses, accompanied by gestures and other
body language;
2.2. prosody and pronunciation must be close to those present in the geographical area where the exchange
takes place;
2.3. intonational patterns must be clearly expressed;
2.4. the interlocutor must support constantly, by repeating and rephrasing where needed, highlighting a strong
willingness to collaborate in the communication.
Regarding the third, the characteristics of the output present at every level are:
3.1. continuous reliance on gestures and other body language to convey the meaning;
3.2. constant presence of pauses in the turns;
3.3. recurrence of formulaic expressions, often memorised.
In using the LASLLIAM descriptors related to the spoken dimension of languages, please be aware that gestures
and other body language often have implications that need careful consideration in relation to gender, age,
culture and social aspects.
LASLLIAM scales and tables Page 69
Consistency across scales is supported by reference to text types and functions in the language activities
descriptors, as well as by key progressions, particularly related to cognitive activity and linguistic complexity.
Key concepts operationalised in the scale include the following for listening:
fcognitive activity involved: from chunking the speech into meaningful units (mostly words and phrases),
which are memorised and recognised when they occur, to connecting words and phrases in larger units
of meaning (sentences and more extended stretches of speech);
flinguistic complexity: from short and simple speech formed by a single word or phrase to more complex
speech composed of simple, sometimes connected sentences, and a wider range of expressions.
Key concepts operationalised in the scale include the following for speaking:
f
cognitive activity involved in the step: from familiar words and unanalysed chunks towards frequent words
and simple phrases on familiar topics;
f
linguistic complexity: from turns mostly composed of a single word or phrase, to turns almost always
consisting of memorised formulaic expressions; from simple and short sentences with frequent words to
simple sentences.103
Overall Oral Interaction
4Can interact in everyday contexts by using simple sentences and formulaic expressions.
Can interact in a simple way but communication is totally dependent on repetition at a slower rate of speech,
rephrasing and repair.
Can ask and answer simple questions, initiate and respond to simple statements in areas of immediate need or on
very familiar topics.
3Can ask and answer questions about themselves and daily routines, using short, formulaic expressions and
relying on gestures to reinforce the information.
Can interact in a familiar context by using short, simple sentences and phrases with frequent words.
2Can answer simple questions (e.g. for personally relevant information) by using familiar words, phrases or
memorised formulaic expressions.
1Can answer simple questions (e.g. for some basic personal information) by using mostly a single word or phrase.
Understanding an Interlocutor
As in the CEFR Companion volume, before presenting descriptors for the three macro functions “interpersonal”,
“transactional” and “evaluative” the Specic scales begin with Understanding an Interlocutor to underline the
deep connection between listening and speaking within the interaction. For this scale, LASLLIAM does not
provide a domain table because all the examples related to oral interaction within the other domain tables focus
on co-constructing discourse in practice, where the learner is also asked to produce turns.
Key concepts operationalised in the scale include the following:
fease of listening and speaking: as outlined in the sections on oral reception and production;
fcomplexity of information: from very short information, formed by one word or an expression to more
complex information;
fcontextualisation and predictability of the conversation: from recognising a personally relevant piece of
information and later to understanding everyday expressions.
4Can understand everyday expressions aimed at the satisfaction of simple needs of a concrete type, delivered
directly to them clearly and slowly, with repetition, by a sympathetic interlocutor.
3Can understand questions and instructions addressed carefully and slowly to them and follow short, simple directions.
Can understand simple personal information (e.g. name, age, place of residence, origin) when other people
introduce themselves, provided that they speak slowly and clearly directly to them, and can understand
questions on this theme addressed to them, though the questions may need to be repeated.
103. As for Oral Reception and Production scales, short and simple here mean that the speech is mostly composed of phrases and words
which are salient and of sentences with a simple syntactic structure.
Page 70 3 Literacy and second language learning for the linguistic integration of adult migrants
2Can pick out isolated pieces of information and frequent social formulas by recognising familiar words and
expressions in a short, simple speech.
1Can recognise a personally relevant piece of information delivered mostly in a single word or expression in a
familiar context.
Conversation
Conversation concerns interaction that aims to establish, maintain or reinforce personal relationships, especially
with friends, colleagues and other LASLLIAM learners. Therefore, the descriptors highlight the social function
of communicative exchanges.
Key concepts operationalised in the scale include the following:
fease of listening and speaking: as outlined in the sections on oral reception and production;
fcontent of speech: from basic greetings and later to wishes, gratitude, apologies or congratulations;
f
degree of engagement and role in the interaction: from reacting to opening and closing a simple
conversation.
Personal Public Occupational Educational
4Can open and close a
conversation with simple
sentences and formulaic
expressions (gratitude,
wishes, apologies and
congratulations).
e.g. to a friend
(“Thank you for
the owers”);
conrming the
appointment
for the renewal
of a residence
permit
e.g. with
someone in a
queue at a post
oce; to the
dentist (It is
better to nish
next time. “Fine
for me”)
e.g. during a break
with members of
their team meeting;
with a new colleague
(“Nice to meet you”);
addressing the need
for a break after a job
task
e.g. after a group
activity successfully
completed (“Well
done”); with the
teacher (“See
you tomorrow”);
postponing
an individual
information
technology lesson
Can take part in a simple
conversation of a basic
factual nature on a
predictable topic (e.g.
their home country,
family, school).
e.g. posting in
a chat an audio
message to a
friend (“What’s
the weather
like?”)
e.g. at the fair
of a community
centre
e.g. with their
employer
e.g. posting online
an audio message
to the classroom
chat; in an activity
on the colours of
the ags of the
learners’ countries
Can ask how people are
and react to news.
e.g. to a
neighbour
(“Are you well
today?”)
e.g. to people
met at a party
organised by an
association
e.g. to a customer e.g. to a fellow
student
3Can open and close a
conversation with short,
simple sentences and
formulaic expressions
(gratitude, wishes and
apologies).
e.g. during a
party (“Happy
new year”)
e.g. at an event
within the social
sphere (“All the
best”)
e.g. after nishing a
job task (“Sorry, I am
tired”); accepting a
task distribution (“I will
do it”)
e.g. in a peer-to-
peer activity
Can greet people, state
their name and take
leave in a simple way.
e.g. their
trainer at the
end of a gym
lesson
e.g. an employer
of the town/
district
e.g. introducing
themselves to a new
colleague
e.g. during a
parent–teacher
conference (“Good
morning, I’m the
father of [name]”)
2Can react in opening and
closing a conversation
with familiar words or
memorised formulaic
expressions (gratitude
and apologies).
e.g. to the
landlord (How
are you? “Good,
thanks”);
thanking a
friend
e.g. entering
a public oce
(“Good morning”)
e.g. for not being able
to do something (“I’m
sorry”)
e.g. coming late to
class; welcoming a
new student
1Can respond to simple
greetings with a single
word.
e.g. to the
postman
e.g. (Good
morning. “Good
morning”)
e.g. meeting someone
at the entrance of the
workplace (“Hi [name]”)
e.g. at the end of
the lesson (Bye.
“Bye”)
LASLLIAM scales and tables Page 71
Informal Discussion
Informal Discussion refers to interactions related to interpersonal and, often at the same time, evaluative use
of language. Therefore, the descriptors are embedded in informal contexts, primarily involving communication
between friends or other students within a learning environment.
Key concepts operationalised in the scale include the following:
fease of listening and speaking: as outlined in the sections on oral reception and production;
f
contents of speech: from expressing agreement and later to expressing also partial agreement and
disagreement;
fdegree of engagement and role in the interaction: from responding mainly through gestures and other
body language to exchanging likes and dislikes (e.g. related to foods and sports).
Personal Public Occupational Educational
4Can exchange likes and
dislikes for sports, foods,
etc., using a limited
repertoire of expressions,
when addressed clearly,
slowly and directly.
e.g. posting an
audio message in a
social chat (“I don’t
like vegetables”);
in relation to a
behaviour of a
friend
Not applicable Not applicable e.g. in a
brainstorming
activity based
on intercultural
exchanges (“Do
you like…?”)
3Can exchange
agreement, partial
agreement and
disagreement, often
accompanied by body
language.
e.g. with a friend
about going
out for a meal
(“Goodidea!”)
Not applicable Not applicable e.g. in a simple
role-play
2Can respond to simple
questions about likes
and dislikes related to
familiar persons and
things.
e.g. going
shopping
with a friend,
in relation to
bought products
(“Notgood”)
Not applicable Not applicable e.g. participating
in a peer activity
Can respond by
expressing agreement
with familiar words or
phrases accompanied by
body language (e.g. “It’s
OK”).
e.g. in relation to
a daily plan of the
children
Not applicable Not applicable e.g. accepting
their part in a role-
play (“It’s ne”)
1Can respond to basic
questions about likes
and dislikes with Yes/No
answers.
e.g. to a friend
(You like it? “Yes”)
Not applicable Not applicable e.g. in a small
group activity
related to basic
foods
Can respond by
expressing agreement
mostly with body
language, accompanied
by a single word or phrase.
e.g. to a neighbour Not applicable Not applicable e.g. to a fellow
student (“OK”)
Goal-Oriented Co-Operation
Goal-Oriented Co-Operation focuses on task-based activities where learner and interlocutor are required to
collaborate in order to achieve a shared aim. Therefore, the descriptors refer both to formal and informal contexts.
Key concepts operationalised in the scale include the following:
fease of listening and speaking: as outlined in the sections on oral reception and production;
fcomplexity of the instruction: from acting on basic instructions mostly with body language to acting on
more complex instructions (e.g. involving times, locations and numbers);
fdegree of engagement and role in the interaction: from responding to a proposal and later on asking and
giving permission.
Page 72 3 Literacy and second language learning for the linguistic integration of adult migrants
Personal Public Occupational Educational
4Can ask for and give
permission with simple
sentences.
e.g. during a video
call with a friend
e.g. in a public
oce (“Good
morning, can I
come in, please?”)
e.g. with a
customer
e.g. referring to
an activity (“Can I
stop now?”)
Can act on basic
instructions that
involve times, locations,
numbers, etc.
e.g. involved in the
homework of their
children
e.g. giving
directions within
a building (“Go to
the hall there, then
turn left”)
e.g. sharing place
and time of a work
commitment
e.g. co-operating
in carrying out
a task like a
language game
Can understand
questions and
instructions addressed
carefully and slowly to
them and follow short,
simple directions.
e.g. answering a
friend
e.g. helping a
passer-by (“Where
is the hospital?”)
e.g. about
changing a shift
e.g. engaged in a
simple scenario-
based activity
3Can ask for and give
permission with short,
simple sentences (“Can
I?”).
e.g. to a neighbour
(“Please, come in”)
e.g. at the
immigration desk
e.g. for a break to a
colleague during a
shared job task
e.g. going to the
toilet during the
lesson
Can interact in a familiar
context by using short,
simple sentences and
phrases with frequent
words.
e.g. dictating a
message into
an answering
machine (“I call
later”)
e.g. following
directions on the
street (“Straight on
and turn right”)
e.g. describing
a problem in a
team meeting (“It
doesn’t work”)
e.g. in group
work within
the learning
environment
2Can act on simple
instructions with familiar
words, accompanied by
body language (e.g. “On
left”).
e.g. where to nd
the light switch
for the apartment
building staircase
e.g. in simple
procedures to
validate a ticket
in the bus (“Place
here”)
e.g. naming the
object involved
in a problem for a
job task (“Broken
door”)
e.g. highlighting
a missing
comprehension
(“Don’t
understand”)
1Can give permission with
Yes/No answers.
e.g. to a friend
(Can I? “Yes”)
e.g. in a queue at
the ticket oce
e.g. to a colleague e.g. in a simple
role-play with the
teacher
Can act on basic
instructions mostly
with body language,
accompanied by a single
word or phrase (e.g.
“Help”).
e.g. with a
neighbour
e.g. in order to
get o the bus
(“Sorry”)
e.g. asking for help
in a job situation
e.g. indicating
they have
understood an
exercise (“OK”)
Can respond to a
proposal with Yes/No
answers.
e.g. refusing a
drink (“No”)
e.g. accepting an
appointment
e.g. accepting
lunch with a
colleague (“Yes”)
e.g. accepting a
task distribution
in a peer activity
(“Fine”)
Obtaining Goods and Services
Obtaining Goods and Services mainly concerns encounters related to concrete needs to be satised. Therefore, it
represents a particular form of Goal-Oriented Co-Operation in which the goal is managing to obtain something,
such as food or drink, particularly within the public domain.
LASLLIAM scales and tables Page 73
Key concepts operationalised in the scale include the following:
fease of listening and speaking: as outlined in the sections on oral reception and production;
ffamiliarity of the situation: from familiar contexts to less familiar situations related to goods and services;
fcomplexity of the interaction: from acting on a need mostly with body language and later to handling
numbers, cost and quantities.
Personal Public Occupational Educational
4Can ask people for things
and give people things.
e.g. to the
caretaker of
the apartment
building; to a
neighbour (“Do
you have two
eggs, please?”)
e.g. asking for
a mediator as
support for an
asylum request or
information about
products (e.g. food
ingredients)
e.g. requesting
the accident
prevention kit
e.g. requesting the
class timetable
of the children’s
school (“Can I
have the class
timetable?”)
Can handle numbers,
quantities, cost and time.
e.g. managing the
bill at the end of a
meal in a group
e.g. at the
supermarket
checkout
e.g. asking about
working days
in the calendar
(“Is Saturday a
working day?”)
e.g. role-play on
shopping
3Can ask people for things
and give things with
short, simple phrases,
often accompanied by
body language (e.g. “Give
me [name of an object]”).
e.g. a small loan
to a friend to
recharge their
mobile
e.g. the ticket
machine at the
station
e.g. to another
employee (“Pass
me [name of a
tool]”)
e.g. a book for
their children or a
second language
manual at the
school library
Can make simple
purchases and/or order
food or drink when
pointing or other gesture
can support the verbal
reference.
e.g. buying
something with a
friend
e.g. at a bar (“I
would like a
coee”); or to the
clerk of a shoe
shop (“The black
shoes, thank you”)
e.g. ordering
something during
a company outing
e.g. at the school
cafeteria (“I would
like a coee”)
2Can act on a need or
request with familiar
words or phrases
accompanied by body
language.
e.g. to a neighbour
(“I need bread”)
e.g. in a shelter
such as refugees’
facilities (“I’m
cold”)
e.g. to nd the
toilet in the
factory
e.g. for
educational
materials by
describing objects
(“The pencil,
please”)
1Can act on a need or
request mostly with body
language, accompanied
by a single word or
phrase (e.g. “ Take”).
e.g. at a friend’s
house (“Toilet”)
e.g. to their doctor
(“I bad”)
e.g. passing a
working tool
e.g. to their
classmate (“Pen”)
Information Exchange
Information Exchange refers to the communicative need to ll a gap in terms of compensating for missing
information. Therefore, the descriptors relate to missing factual data and concrete aspects that the persons
involved in the interaction aim to know.
Key concepts operationalised in the scale include the following:
fease of listening and speaking: as outlined in the sections on oral reception and production;
f
content of the exchange: from some basic personal information and later to information about other
people they know;
fdegree of engagement and role in the interaction: from answering to asking and answering.
Page 74 3 Literacy and second language learning for the linguistic integration of adult migrants
Personal Public Occupational Educational
4Can ask and answer
questions about
themselves and other
people, where they live,
people they know, things
they have.
e.g. with the new
neighbours
e.g. in the refugee
camp (“Do
you know the
mediator?”)
e.g. with a
customer
e.g. within a
learner’s social
forum
Can indicate time by
lexicalised phrases like
“next week”, “last Friday”,
“in November”, “3 o’clock”.
e.g. dictating
simple
information in a
phone call with a
friend
e.g. the arrival
time of a train
e.g. about the end
of the working day
(“I nish at 5”)
e.g. taking
information about
the children’s
school summer
holiday
Can express numbers,
quantities and cost in a
limited way.
e.g. taking
decisions about
a shopping list
(“We need six
tomatoes”)
e.g. the cost of a
bus ticket
e.g. the price
per kilo of the
vegetables they
sell in the market
e.g. counting the
number of letters
and syllables in
words given by
the teacher
Can name the colour of
clothes or other familiar
objects and can ask the
colour of such objects.
e.g. talking about
their new clothes
e.g. to a shop
assistant in a
clothing store
(“Can I see the red
shirt?”)
e.g. related to their
job equipment
e.g. describing
a ashcard with
pictures
3Can ask very simple
questions for
information, such as
“What is this?” and
understand one- or two-
word/sign answers.
e.g. about
the cooking
ingredients of a
just-eaten dish
e.g. about
the price of a
transport pass
e.g. about their
job (“I do many
things”)
e.g. in a virtual
exchange during a
distance learning
activity
Can ask and tell what day,
time of day and date it is.
e.g. at the pool,
taking information
about the
planning of the
swimming course
e.g. in an
administrative
oce
e.g. related to the
planning of the
working week
e.g. in the oce of
the driving school
(“The next lesson
is on Tuesday”)
Can ask for and give a
date of birth.
e.g. during a
ceremony within
the familiar sphere
(“My birthday is
[date]”)
e.g. in their local
registry oce
Not applicable e.g. of their
children for their
school inscription
Can ask for and give a
phone number.
e.g. to a new
friend
e.g. to call an
ambulance
e.g. to a customer
(“Call me on
[number]”)
e.g. the school
contacts
Can tell people their age
and ask people about
their age.
e.g. during a
ceremony within
the familiar sphere
e.g. to the dentist
referring to their
child (“[name] is
10”)
Not applicable e.g. to their
classmate
2Can answer simple
questions (e.g. for
personally relevant
information) by using
familiar words, phrases
or memorised formulaic
expressions.
e.g. giving the
name of family
members to the
landlord
e.g. when ordering
goods (What is
your telephone
number?
“340279402”)
e.g. about their
job (“Good salary”)
e.g. informing
their teacher
about the time
(“It’s 7”)
1Can answer questions
about some basic
personal information with
a single word or phrase.
e.g. at a party of
friends and family
e.g. to the police
(“I Moroccan”)
e.g. about their
job (“I worker”)
e.g. to the teacher
(“I Marta”)
LASLLIAM scales and tables Page 75
Interviewing and Being Interviewed
Interviewing and Being Interviewed deals with specic situations especially related to public, occupational
and educational domains, such as a doctor’s appointment, a dialogue with an ocial, a job interview or a
communication within the learning environment, which aims to present a student. Therefore, it represents a
particular form of information exchange focused on personal details.
Key concepts operationalised in the scale include the following:
fease of listening and speaking: as outlined in the sections on oral reception and production;
fcontent of the interview: from some basic personal information and later to information about personal
details (e.g. related to the location of pain during a visit to the doctor);
fdegree of engagement and role in the interaction: from being interviewed to interviewing to asking and
answering.
Personal Public Occupational Educational
4Can reply in an interview
to simple direct
questions, put very
slowly and clearly in
direct, non-idiomatic
language, about personal
details.
Not applicable e.g. with the
commission in
relation to their
request for asylum
e.g. in a simple
job interview,
answering
simple direct
questions on
skills, availability
for some job
conditions (Can
you work in a
dierent town?),
provided they
can prepare in
advance
e.g. helping a new
classmate who
speaks one of their
native languages
to introduce
themselves to the
class
Can state in simple
language the nature of
a problem to a health
professional and answer
simple questions such as
“Does that hurt?” even
though they have to rely
on gestures and body
language to reinforce the
message.
Not applicable e.g. on the
location of pain,
main symptoms
and duration
within a medical
consultation (“I
feel sick in the
morning”)
e.g. a headache
to the company
doctor
e.g. engaging in a
simple role-play
3Can ask and answer
questions about personal
information, feelings and
health with short, simple
phrases and formulaic
expressions (e.g. “I’m
[name], I’m from Syria”).
Not applicable e.g. on the pain,
within a medical
interview (“I have
fever”)
e.g. to their
employer (“I’m
[name], I’m from
[country]”)
e.g. being
interviewed
during an
ice-breaking
activity provided
in the rst
meetings within
the learning
environment
(e.g. Hello! How
are you? “I am
well, thanks, and
you?”)
2Can give some simple
information with familiar
words or phrases.
Not applicable e.g. in the
immigration
oce, with the
support of the
mediator
e.g. to their
employer (Where
do you come
from? “From
Syria”.)
e.g. in a peer-to-
peer activity
1Can answer questions
about basic personal
information with a single
word or phrase (e.g. “I
Syria”).
Not applicable e.g. body parts in a
medical interview
(“Back”)
e.g. to their
employer (Do you
live close to here?
“Yes”)
e.g. to a teacher
to present
themselves
Page 76 3 Literacy and second language learning for the linguistic integration of adult migrants
4.2.5.2. Written Oine and Online Interaction
The CEFR Companion volume species two scales
for Written Interaction: Correspondence, and Notes,
Messages and Forms. Separately from these, the CEFR
Companion volume also has two scales for online
interaction: Online Conversation and Discussion, and
Goal-Oriented Online Transactions and Collaboration.
Because written interaction these days is more often
online than oine, this reference guide integrates both
of them, providing (in addition to the Overall scale) two
Specic scales for:
1. (Oine and Online) Correspondence
2. (Oine and Online) Notes, Messages, Forms and
Transactions).
As in the CEFR Companion volume, Correspondence
focuses on exchanges in written or multimodal
form, often of an interpersonal nature. The scale for
Notes, Messages, Forms and Transactions is more
focused on functional, often goal-oriented, transfer
of information.
The activities required for Written Interaction follow
the progression line described in the Technical Literacy
scale and for some online interactions, also in the Digital
Skills scale:
fthe cognitive activity involved: from reading memorised sight words and copying single words to reading
and writing practised words and routine phrases and later to reading and writing (in a comprehensible
way) orally familiar words and phrases;104
f
length and linguistic complexity: from short words with a simple phonological structure to phonologically
and morphologically more complex words, and short and simple sentences;105
forthographic complexity: from one-to-one correspondence between grapheme and phoneme to more
complex relationships between graphemes and phonemes and irregularities in spelling.
Overall Written Interaction
4Can ask for or pass on personal details.
Can write and respond to messages by using simple sentences and formulaic expressions.
3Can convey basic information (e.g. name, address, family) in short phrases on a form or in a note, with the use of a
dictionary.
Can write and respond to short, simple messages by using frequent words and formulaic expressions.
2Can write some simple messages with practised words and memorised formulaic expressions.
Can ll in some personal data in a short, simple form by using practised words.
1Can write a personally relevant word by copying.
Can sign a form.
104. The characterisation “in a comprehensible way” does not necessarily imply correct spelling, even less so in informal online interactions.
105. Short and simple sentences refers to mainly one-clause sentences of limited length.
f
Unless indicated otherwise, the names of the
categories and order of the scales in this reference
guide are the same as in the CEFR Companion
volume.
fPlease note that the descriptors in blue font are
the same as in the CEFR Companion volume levels
A1 and Pre-A1.
f
The descriptors in the Overall scales (apart from the
blue ones from the CEFR Companion volume) are
presented according to the formula “Can do X (re-
ferring to the communicative activity) by reading/
writing/listening/speaking Y (referring to practice,
length and linguistic complexity)”. This formula
must always be taken into account as implicit in
all other descriptors of the Specic scales.
f
For concrete application of the descriptors see
the tables embedded in the Specic scales, with
examples of language use in the four dierent
domains.
f
Please note that such examples related to the four
domains might need adaptation according to the
context and the learners’ needs.
LASLLIAM scales and tables Page 77
(Oine and Online) Correspondence
The scale for (Oine and Online) Correspondence mainly includes descriptors for informal correspondence,
conversations and discussion, but as in the CEFR Companion volume some descriptors for more formal
correspondence are also included. The focus in the scales at all levels is on simple social exchanges in consecutive
interactions with one person, less so on interactions with several interlocutors at the same time.
Key concepts operationalised in the scale include the following:
fease of reading and writing: as outlined in the sections on written reception and production;
ftype of message: from emojis and single-word greetings or answers to simple, personal messages, propo-
sals or expressions of feelings;
ftype of language: from single-word conventions to formulaic expressions and short, simple sentences of
politeness;
fthe ability to include symbols, images and other multimodal means: from a single emoji to a combination
of text and image.
Personal Public Occupational Educational
4Can compose a short,
very simple message (e.g.
a text message) to friends
to give them a piece of
information or to ask
them a question.
e.g. message for a
neighbour about
help in the garden
Not applicable e.g. a simple note
for a colleague
about absence or
a piece of work
e.g. a simple
note for a fellow
student about a
needed book
Can use formulaic
expressions and
combinations of simple
words/signs to post short
positive and negative
reactions to simple
online postings and their
embedded links and
media, and can respond
to further comments with
standard expressions of
thanks and apology.
e.g. making contact
with remote friends
and/or family
e.g. making
a statement
in a public
discussion on
social media
e.g. a reaction
to news on the
website of a
company
e.g. in a Q&A
section of a school
learning platform
Can ask for or report
personal details in areas
of immediate need in an
everyday context.
e.g. a short message
for a friend to ask for
help with moving
out
e.g. a short
text message
to the doctor
to conrm an
appointment
e.g. a short text
message for a
colleague to oer
help
e.g. a short e-mail
to a teacher with
an apology for
being late; a
message to the
child’s teacher
about bullying in
the playground
3Can post simple online
greetings, using basic
formulaic expressions
and emoticons.
e.g. on a social
network site
e.g. on a social
network site
e.g. in an
employee network
group
e.g. as a language
classroom
simulation
Can write and respond
to simple messages of
personal relevance with
short, simple phrases and
formulaic expressions.
e.g. a note for a
neighbour about a
package delivered;
a reaction to a
message from a
friend about their
illness (“Sorry for
you”)
e.g. a lost/
found message
in hallway of
own building;
for selling an
object online
e.g. a message to
a fellow worker
about a phone
call (e.g. “Gina
called. Please, call
back”); a proposal
to a colleague to
switch shift
e.g. a message
to the child’s
teacher (‘“My child
is ill’”); a reaction
to a message
about parent
volunteering;
congratulations
2Can write some simple
messages with practised
words and memorised
formulaic expressions.
e.g. text message
or card for a friend
(“Good luck!”); caption
when sharing a photo
(“my son”)
Not applicable e.g. a note for a
colleague (“Call
number…”);
(“Okay, see you
there”)
e.g. a message to
the teacher of a
child (“My child
is ill”)
Page 78 3 Literacy and second language learning for the linguistic integration of adult migrants
Personal Public Occupational Educational
Can exchange
greetings in a short
communication.
e.g. in a message to a
friend with an emoji
(“Hi! ”); (“Bye, safe
travel”)
Not applicable e.g. in a message
to a colleague
(“Happy
Birthday!”)
e.g. “How are you?”
to a fellow student
who is absent
1Can copy some words
about themselves or
objects of personal
relevance.
e.g. in a message to
a friend (“Yes, I am
Mela”)
Not applicable e.g. “My number
is…”
e.g. in an app-
group of the class
(“From Syria”);
“Welcome” to a
new student
(Oine and Online) Notes, Messages, Forms and Transactions
As in the CEFR Companion volume, the scale for Notes, Messages, Forms and Transactions includes a range of
transactional reading and writing, like lling in forms or purchase transactions, and leaving messages or writing
short notes.
Key concepts operationalised in the scale therefore include the following:
fease of reading and writing: as outlined in the sections on written reception and production;
f
type of message or transaction: from very simple forms to simple messages about dates or times and
purchasing goods, and later to short and simple messages and notes;
f
type of language: from single-word choices, entries, notes and messages to formulaic expressions and
short, simple sentences adequate in tone;
fcomplexity of the transaction: from simple conventions of predictable and pre-coded forms (name, “yes”
or “no”) to more open and multimodal transactions;
fthe ability to include symbols, images and other multimodal means: from a single emoji to a combination
of text and image.
Personal Public Occupational Educational
4Can leave a simple
message regarding for
instance where they
have gone, or what
time they will be back
(e.g. “Shopping: back at
5p.m.”).
e.g. an e-mail to a
friend
e.g. a note left for
local community
members (like
food left for others
in the club house)
e.g. in a transfer
form for a
colleague who
takes over
the service
(“MrsSmith needs
her medicine at 4”)
e.g. an e-mail to
the child’s school
about a visit to the
dentist; note for
a fellow student
about a joint
assignment
Can complete a
very simple online
purchase or application,
providing basic personal
information (such as
name, e-mail address or
telephone number).
Not applicable e.g. ordering
goods by
completing a
simple order form
with familiar words
and illustrations
e.g. completing
a simple
interdepartmental
form with familiar
words and
illustrations
e.g. enrolling on
a course online
as a language
classroom
simulation
Can write or react to a
proposal, intention or
obligation with simple
sentences and formulaic
expressions.
e.g. invitation to a
funeral
e.g. to cancel an
appointment
with the local
administration
e.g. invitation to a
colleague to travel
together/answer
to an invitation to
a meeting
e.g. in a portfolio
related to own
learning/answer to
an invitation from
the child’s teacher
3Can ll in very simple
registration forms
with basic personal
details: name, address,
nationality, marital status.
e.g. registration
form for a sports
club
e.g. name and
address on the
metre readings
for a utility bill or
on a lost object
declaration form
e.g. a work shift
transfer form in
frequent words
and formulaic
expressions
e.g. a registration
form for a child’s
school outing; an
application form
for a language test
LASLLIAM scales and tables Page 79
Personal Public Occupational Educational
Can make selections (e.g.
choosing a product, size,
colour) in a simple online
purchase or application
form, provided there is
visual support.
Not applicable e.g. ordering
goods by
completing a
simple tick-box
order form with
familiar words and
illustrations
e.g. completing
a simple
interdepartmental
tick-box form with
familiar words and
illustrations
e.g. in the form
received from
the secretariat
to indicate the
choice of time
for the language
course based on
their availability
Can write and respond
to simple messages with
short, simple phrases and
formulaic expressions.
e.g. proposal to
cook for a friend
e.g. invitation
to community
members (“Who
can help with
cleaning?”)
e.g. proposal to
share car to go to
work
e.g. conrmation
of appointment
with child’s
teacher; question
for a fellow
student about
homework
2Can write some simple
messages with practised
words and memorised
formulaic expressions.
e.g. response to an
invitation (“Yes, I
can help”)
e.g. response to
public health
nurse (“Sorry, I am
ill”); appointment
with a local
government oce
(“Monday is ne”)
e.g. invitation to
a fellow worker
(“Lunch at 1?”);
appointment with
manager (“Thanks,
I come”)
e.g. response to
simple online
exercise prompts
(like pictures
or words);
appointment with
the child’s teacher
(“Tuesday is ne”)
Can ll in some
information in a short,
simple form with
practised words.
e.g. name, address
and account
number in utility
bill
e.g. name, date
and time of
volunteering in
online form of the
local community
e.g. name, date
and time on a
worksheet
e.g. name, date of
birth and address
on enrolment
form; date and
single-word
answers on a very
simple work sheet
1Can copy some words to
respond to a message.
e.g. “Okay, Samira” e.g. putting name
and time on a list
for work for the
local community
e.g. in signing up
with their name
for an activity at
the workplace
e.g. putting name
on an activity list
4.2.6. Interaction Strategies
LASLLIAM Language Use Strategies use the three general metacognitive categories of planning, compensating,
and monitoring and repair (see 2.2.4). Metacognitive planning of interaction involves aspects such as: prediction
of situations and the text types typically occurring in those situations; anticipation of content as well as preparing
conversation scaolds or rehearsing for oral interaction; and collecting or producing text scaolds for written
interaction. Interactional compensation strategies can involve using non-verbal means or accessible aids and
resources as well as interactional sequences (e.g. lexical oers, recasts). Monitoring and repair of interaction
centres on basic comprehension of the most crucial aspects and typically involves a high number of conrmation
checks and the indication of (non-)understanding by mirroring and asking for clarication or repetition.
Key concepts for Oral and Written Interaction strategies operationalised in the scales include the following:
f
the linguistic complexity of the product of strategy use (i.e. the problem that the strategy is to solve):
from challenges related to the reception and production of chunks or sight words and practised words, to
challenges with the reception and production of new words and phrases and later also sentences and texts;
fthe linguistic complexity of helpful units focused on the process of strategy use: from using situational,
contextual, non-verbal and visual cues to more specic linguistic, typographic and co-textual cues, to
understanding as well as using simple resources and models, to using linguistic knowledge and more
complex tools in writing;
fthe cognitive complexity and teachability of the process of the strategy: from strategies involving one or
a few steps (e.g. copying a model of a completed form) to those involving more steps (e.g. using a digital
Page 80 3 Literacy and second language learning for the linguistic integration of adult migrants
dictionary), and from strategies composed of observable (actional) steps (e.g. using a resource) to those
composed of non-observable (mental) steps (e.g. using typical features of a form).
Notice that aective and socio-interactive strategies have not been scaled (see box below), but are nevertheless
of utmost importance for successful interaction, in particular in oral interaction to involve the interlocutor and
share responsibility for successful communication.
Aective strategies
fCan use a means (e.g. positive self-talk and self-instructions, looking for what went well) to motivate
themselves to start or continue a task.
fCan use a means (e.g. laughing, deep breathing, pausing, music) to reduce anxiety.
Socio-interactive strategies
fCan involve (ask/invite/engage) someone else (interlocutor/peer/mediator/more advanced reader/
chat partner) to help with a task (repeat, slow down, negotiate meaning, get feedback, correct, etc.).
fCan involve non-present support tools (translating machine, help desk, online dictionary, demons-
tration video, model, etc.) to help with a task.
4.2.6.1. Oral Interaction
Planning
4Can use written or mental notes at the phrase or utterance level to prepare for a planned situation.
Can recall frequent words, formulaic expressions and familiar sentences to anticipate relevant points.
Can ask interlocutor at the beginning of a conversation to speak clearly and slowly to maximise understanding.
Can use the knowledge of some interaction types (e.g. a simple medical interview) to prepare for a planned
situation (e.g. a medical visit).
3Can rehearse frequent words and phrases to engage in a conversation.
Can use the knowledge of specic interactions to anticipate some contents (e.g. a person introducing someone).
2Can recall familiar words and phrases to anticipate specic pieces of information or social formulas
(e.g.greetings).
Can rehearse aloud familiar words and phrases to prepare for routine interaction.
1Can recall a familiar word or phrase to prepare for routine interaction.
Compensating
4Can ask for help with a word, an expression or a structure to overcome problems in speaking.
Can ask for a denition or a translation in L1 or L3 of a key word to understand the overall meaning of an
utterance.
Can use formulaic expressions to indicate attention (e.g. comments like “I see”).
3Can use words from L1 or L3, all-purpose word or a neologism to maintain communication.
2Can use body language to engage in a conversation.
Can ask for help about a word or an expression to overcome lexical problems by repeating the word and using
body language.
Can imitate words or phrases to maintain rapport.
1Can elicit words by pointing to objects to overcome lexical gaps.
Can use single word or non-verbal signal to get someone to speak more slowly, more clearly or louder.
LASLLIAM scales and tables Page 81
Monitoring and Repair
4Can repeat words or give a translation in L1 or L3 to ensure own comprehension.
Can ask for repetition with frequent sentences (e.g. “Could you repeat, please?”) to overcome problems in
comprehension.
Can use simple sentences (e.g. “Do you understand?”) or give a translation to ensure interlocutor’s comprehension.
3Can request feedback on own language use to check appropriateness (e.g. “Right?”).
2Can ask for repetition with words or phrases (e.g. “Please repeat”) to overcome problems in comprehension.
Can use formulaic expressions to ensure interlocutor’s comprehension (e.g. “Understood?”).
Can repeat familiar words and use body language (e.g. miming or pointing to an object) to check own
comprehension.
1Can use body language to indicate (in-)comprehension.
4.2.6.2. Written Interaction
Planning
4Can orally verbalise their message to plan the writing of words and sentences.
Can use layout of a form to predict the content (e.g. bank transfer).
Can look for familiar words to identify key information about a message or note.
3Can use title/headline to predict the content of a form.
2Can look for practised words to predict the topic of a message or note.
Can copy information (e.g. their address from a letter) to ll in personal information on a form.
1Can use an example to copy simple personal information into a form (e.g. name).
Compensating
4Can reread the surrounding words in a text to understand an unknown word.
3Can use a translation tool or simple learner dictionary to write a word.
2Can use a simple picture dictionary to understand unknown words in a message or note.
Can use visual comparison (e.g. a photo of the street name on a sign) to recognise a word.
Can use resources (e.g. passport, medical card, photo of address) to copy a word into a form.
1Can use visual symbols to infer meaning (e.g. drawings in a note, emojis in a message).
Can use an accompanying picture or icon to deduce the meaning of a word/sign.
Can use an example to copy a practised word into a form or message.
Monitoring and Repair
4Can write short, simple phrases to express (non-)understanding of a message or note.
Can use digital resources to check writing (e.g. suggested corrections in a message).
3Can read own writing to identify missing words in a message or note.
Can use the dictation function of software to check the spelling of a word.
2Can mark unknown words on a form to ask for the meaning.
1Can compare own writing with a model to check words (e.g. own name or sight word) in a message or note.
Page 82 3 Literacy and second language learning for the linguistic integration of adult migrants
4.3. DIGITAL SKILLS
The CEFR Companion volume does not include specic descriptors for digital literacy although it clearly takes
into consideration that functioning in modern societies requires digital skills when referring to digital tools and
online interaction.
In order to emphasise the importance of digital literacy as an integral part of literacy and the key to further
education, LASLLIAM species descriptors of digital competency. Based on the DigCom106 competence areas
(see 2.2.5) and taking into consideration the LASLLIAM target learners (see 1.4), the following four digital
competences are deemed essential:
1. Technical Skills
2. Communication and Collaboration
3. Content Creation and Management
4. Safety.
The Digital Skills descriptors are meant to provide examples (not an exhaustive list) of the kinds of skills needed
by the target group to be able to participate in a digital society. The main aim is to ne-tune the rst steps into
realistic and manageable tasks that are essential to functioning on a daily basis in a digital society. Although
some descriptors typically require a certain level of literacy in order to be carried out, advances in technology
make it possible to carry out such tasks even with limited literacy. For example, “Can browse the internet to locate
personally relevant information” can be carried out using voice commands (no literacy) or written commands
(literacy), so the learner can ask for information without necessarily having to type. Other descriptors can be
carried out using visual (icons) or oral cues while some need written input and therefore require a certain level
of literacy.
4.3.1. Technical Skills
As indicated in 2.2.5, Technical Skills are of utmost importance to carrying out tasks in a digital environment but
they are mostly language independent and focus on the technical aspect of carrying out a task, for example,
pressing a button to turn a device on or o. These skills are the essential skills that underpin the use of other
skills. Therefore, they are not scaled as they do not necessarily need to be learned in a linear order, as once you
learn the skill, there is no higher level (for example, once you know how to turn the device on or o, there is no
higher level). Furthermore, using a mouse is not linked to knowing how to update apps on a mobile device. The
list is not an exhaustive list of skills. It will vary based on the devices and systems that learners will need to use
on a daily basis to carry out essential tasks. The skills can be carried out with (at the start) or without (later on)
guidance. See the box below for a number of these technical skills.
Technical Skills
fCan switch devices on and o.
fCan use a touchscreen with one nger or more (select icons, zoom in/out, scroll, open/close familiar
apps/programmes).
fCan use a mouse to open and close windows/apps with/without guidance.
fCan operate a mouse (move cursor, open/close windows/apps, navigate between windows).
fCan log in to a device with guidance (e.g. copying from a model or a teacher dictating the letters)
or using Face ID.
fCan use a keyboard to carry out tasks using one nger (type letters, use caps lock, scroll using page
up/down buttons, move cursor with arrow buttons) or more (type certain punctuation marks or
symbols, or use shift to type capital letters).
fCan mute mobile device.
fCan recognise if an app needs updating.
fCan download and delete apps/les/programmes.
fCan save les.
106. Carretero et al. 2017.
LASLLIAM scales and tables Page 83
fCan identify when the device needs charging.
fCan connect loudspeakers/headset to device.
fCan upload les.
fCan update apps. Can navigate around the screen using tab function.
fCan operate the mouse to select text elements.
fCan use double-click.
fCan manage les (retrieve, copy name, organise in folders).
fCan operate basic regulation buttons (e.g. volume, brightness).
In relation to the scaled LASLLIAM Digital Skills, four levels are dened in accordance with all the other scales
in this reference guide. Similar to the Technical Literacy scales, it is important to stress that Digital Skills are not
an end in itself, but a means to achieve functional literacy so they are meant to complement and support the
Communicative Language Activities and Language Use Strategies scales. As is the case with all the LASLLIAM
scales, the descriptors in each scale are not co-dependent, so a learner might be at level 1 in a certain scale and
level 2 or 3 in another. This does not apply to digital skills descriptors only, but also to the relationship between
digital skills descriptors and other LASLLIAM descriptors. This means for instance that a learner who is at level 3
in Spoken Production could be at level 4 in Communication and Collaboration skills.
Key concepts operationalised in the scales include the following:
fcomplexity of the operation involved: from using the basic functions of a device/software to modifying
settings and managing accounts;
fdegree of contextualisation: from relevant everyday uses (e.g. ATM or phone call) to more infrequent and
abstract contexts (e.g. online forms, text managing or safety control);
fdegree of literacy needed: from no literacy skills required at all, to reading or writing whole sentences or
short texts;
fdevices used to carry out the task: from mobile devices (smartphones, tablets) to desktop PCs;
fdegree of autonomy: from working with guidance or support to working without guidance.
4.3.2. Communication and Collaboration
4Can produce audiovisual les (e.g. short video message).
Can share multimedia content (e.g. photo album, slides).
Can manage a contact list (e.g. add contacts to favourites).
Can participate in groups on text-based messaging platforms/apps (e.g. learner group).
Can use simple digital platforms or apps (e.g. taxi booking, bus app).
Can use simple, personally relevant software (e.g. online word processor).
Can manage a social media account (e.g. download an app).
Can set up an e-mail account with guidance.
3Can share multimedia content (e.g. photo album, slides) with guidance.
Can enter new contact to contact list.
Can participate in groups on text-based messaging platforms/apps with guidance (e.g. a learner group).
Can carry out simple practised everyday tasks on a digital platform (e.g. using ATM to withdraw money, buying
tickets from a machine by recognising and entering basic information).
Can use the basic settings to manage a social media account with guidance (e.g. leave a group).
Can use an e-mail account.
2Can use audiovisual les by playing, pausing and stopping.
Can forward information to others (photos, audio/video recordings, texts).
Page 84 3 Literacy and second language learning for the linguistic integration of adult migrants
Can use contact list to call someone.
Can communicate using audiovisual programmes asynchronically with guidance (e.g. voicemail message).
Can use visual clues to interact (emojis, photos, GIFS).
1Can identify and operate the icons for play, pause and stop.
Can take photos.
Can use mobile device to communicate orally (e.g. phone call).
Can communicate using audiovisual programmes with guidance (e.g. video call).
Can use visual clues (e.g. icons) to carry out simple practised everyday tasks (buying metro tickets from a
machine).
Can identify the icons of basic functions on a digital device (e.g. symbol of an app or a browser).
Can identify icons of familiar social media accounts (e.g. Instagram).
Can understand visual clues to interact (emojis, photos, GIFS).
4.3.3. Content Creation and Management
4Can use text recognition tools (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Can use speech recognition tools in a familiar language (e.g. Siri, Cortana).
Can set up basic online accounts to access essential services (e.g. make a doctor’s appointment online, request a
repair) with guidance.
Can organise a written text using digital tools (e.g. start a new paragraph or page; add headings).
Can use literacy learning platforms and tools (e.g. vocabulary app).
Can search for video tutorials to carry out basic tasks (e.g. cooking from a recipe).
Can use very common search engines.
3Can type basic written content into a digital device (e.g. by copying from print).
Can use basic online services (e.g. make a doctor’s appointment online, request a repair) with guidance.
Can use digital picture-based dictionaries in a familiar language.
Can nd basic information of personal relevance using search engines with guidance.
2Can create some basic written content (e.g. a text message with practised words).
Can use numeric information to carry out simple practised everyday tasks (e.g. enter credit to add to travel tickets
on a booking machine/app).
Can operate a keyboard to type punctuation marks and symbols that only require one button press (e.g. dot, #, +).
Can record multimedia messages (audio or video) on a mobile device.
Can use digital translation tools.
Can retrieve personally relevant websites (using a browser) with guidance or oral commands.
Can operate most common search engines using oral commands.
1Can type words by copying from print (e.g. name, address from paper to an online form).
Can identify icons of personally relevant websites or apps (e.g. own bank).
Can record multimedia messages (audio or video) on a mobile device with guidance.
Can identify personally relevant translation tools.
Can identify very common browser symbols and open browser.
Can identify the icons of familiar search engines.
LASLLIAM scales and tables Page 85
4.3.4. Safety
4Can understand that not all the information on the internet is reliable.
Can use basic privacy settings on devices to protect information with guidance (e.g. sharing location while using
an app).
Can change password.
Can connect to free Wi-Fi which requires registration.
3Can use basic safety settings on devices to protect information with guidance (e.g. the “block” function).
Can change password with guidance.
Can connect to free Wi-Fi which does not require registration.
2Can keep password safe (e.g. not share it).
Can connect to free Wi-Fi which does not require registration with guidance.
1Can notice when something is wrong (e.g. hearing a beep, seeing an error message).
Can use password on devices with guidance (Face ID, pattern).
Can identify Wi-Fi symbol.
Page 87
Chapter 5
107. Beacco et al. 2016: 18.
USING LASLLIAM FOR CURRICULUM DESIGN
5.1. LASLLIAM AS A REFERENCE GUIDE ON THE SUPRA LEVEL OF CURRICULUM DESIGN
The Council of Europe distinguishes curricula at ve dierent levels: the supra level of international curricular
design, the macro level of national, state and regional curricula, the meso level of institutional curricula, the micro
level of class curricula and the nano level of individual experience of courses and personal development (see
Figure 5). LASLLIAM clearly is an international document intended for curriculum design at the supra level, and
as such it serves as a reference tool across Europe for the development of curricula at the other levels. In line with
the CEFR Companion volume, it should not be misinterpreted as a prescriptive document, but understood as a
guide that provides points of orientation for the various stakeholders in curriculum design including materials
developers as well as teachers who plan courses and lessons. It is our hope that LASLLIAM will stimulate debates
at the supra level about policy recommendations and mutual recognition of segments of the literacy and second
language learning process that have taken place in dierent countries (see 6.3).
Figure 5 – Council of Europe terminology for curricula at dierent levels107
The curriculum on dierent levels of the education system
INTERNATIONAL COMPARATIV (SUPRA)
e.g. international reference instruments, such as the Common European Framework of Reference for
Languages, international evaluation studies like the PISA survey or the European Indicator of Language
Competence, analyses carried out by international experts (Language Education Policy Proles), study
visits to other countries
NATIONAL/EDUCATION SYSTEM, state, region (MACRO)
e.g. study plan, syllabus, strategic specic aims, common core, training standards
SCHOOL, institution (MESO)
e.g. adjustment of the school curriculum or study plan to match the specic prole of a school,
developments in partnership with businesses
CLASS, group, teaching sequence, teacher (MICRO)
e.g. course, textbook used, resources
INDIVIDUAL (NANO)
e.g. individual experience of learning, lifelong (autonomous) personal development
This chapter briey describes how the LASLLIAM reference guide can serve curriculum development at the
macro, meso and micro level – and thus, it is hoped, contribute to individual learning experienced as personally
signicant at the nano level. Like the CEFR Companion volume (Council of Europe 2020: 43), LASLLIAM can be
used to develop curricula from scratch or be referred to for inspiration in adapting an existing one.
5.2. USING LASLLIAM FOR CURRICULUM DESIGN AT THE MACRO LEVEL
Curricula at the supra and macro levels are also called intended curricula; they are reected in political documents
and thus allow for public debate of the various stakeholders (e.g. migrants, employers, educational authorities,
teachers, host communities, policy makers, NGOs). In the various European countries, language curricula for
adult migrants at the macro level dier to a great extent in their degree of specied detail, and this seems to be
particularly true for the rather new curricula for literacy and second language learning. Most characteristic for
this level of curriculum design is the denition of general aims (e.g. participation in the community and society
or social cohesion) and specic objectives (e.g. language competences and strategies), but many curricula at
the macro level also provide a description of types of courses including hours per course level with entry and
exit proles (maybe even outlines of syllabi), contents and standards of teachers’ professional development for
Page 88 3 Literacy and second language learning for the linguistic integration of adult migrants
programmes funded or subsidised at this level. Such curricula at the macro level may also dene the scope of
courses in terms of methods, teacher roles, admitted materials, aids and resources for funding/subsidies and
for ocially recognised certication. The extent to which the levels are involved in decision making and who
is responsible for a specic decision varies according to the national and/or regional contexts, as Beacco et al.
(2016: 15) point out.
Three examples illustrate this.
f
In Germany, the legal basis for the integration course system and its administrative handling by the Federal
Oce for Migration and Refugees are the context for the specic development of national literacy and
second language curricula that started in 2007108 and has systematically been monitored at the national
level since then.109 This oce denes the types of literacy and second language courses and their learning
goals, possible transitions between these and other types of language courses, the minimum and maximum
numbers of learners per class, teaching methods, the range of teaching materials that can be used, the
standards of teacher qualication, the contents of programmes for professional development of teachers,
as well as other aspects.110 Four dierent course levels of 300 lessons each (600 lessons leading up to A1,
and 600 lessons leading up to A2) are oered for literacy and second language learners who each receive
funding for up to 1200 lessons. A specic curriculum for second-script learners was introduced in 2018.111
fIn Italy, language and KoS (Knowledge of Society) courses for migrants are provided free of charge by the
state adult education centres (CPIA-Centri Provinciali per l’Istruzione degli Adulti), under the direction of
the Ministry of Education (MIUR) which determines general aims, course duration, and the entry and exit
levels. Currently, courses are particularly focused on the CEFR levels required by the immigration law for
residency (A2) and citizenship (B1), with a prevalence of courses from A1 (entry level) to A2.112 While literacy
and second language courses have been provided since the late 1980s, targeted courses for non-literate and
low-literate migrants were formally established in 2016, when the syllabus for low-literates (Pre-A1, 2016)
and non-literates (Alfa, 2018)113 were published by the consortium CLIQ (Certicazione Lingua Italiana di
Qualità)114 and formally approved by the MIUR. According to these syllabi, courses without any charge of
up to 300 hours (Alfa, non-literates), plus up to an additional 150 hours (Pre-A1, low-literates) are in place
all over the country, also ensuring the presence of professional linguistic and cultural mediators and access
to complementary services to sustain a regular attendance (babysitting, transport).115
fIn the Netherlands, the legal basis for integration courses was until 2020 the 2013 Integration Act which
required language level A2 (later B1) and passing the KoS test for residence, with the possibility to apply
for exemption after failing the language tests four times. Curriculum design, teaching approaches and
materials, and organisation of courses are left to the educational eld. Because several evaluations revealed
this policy had seriously failed,116 the Dutch Parliament adopted a new Integration Act in July 2020 that
aims at a strong relationship between education, participation and work, tight support of the local autho-
rities and tailoring to the individual migrant.117 The law oers three trajectories for dierent groups. For all
trajectories, local authorities are required to draw up a personal Integration and Participation Plan based
on previous education and experiences, and the individual circumstances and qualities of the migrant. The
self-reliance trajectory (Z-route) is intended for unschooled and low-educated migrants or anyone who
cannot be expected to reach level B1 or A2. This trajectory oers a combination of simultaneous language
learning (800 hours) and participating in society (e.g. in volunteer work; 800 hours) and does not require
the achievement of a specied language level at the end. Teachers have to be qualied and certied.
In general, curricula at the macro level will usually play a decisive role in public funding of literacy and second
language classes in public adult education institutions or commercial schools. Even NGOs such as migrants’
organisations oering free programmes run by volunteers or project-funded sta might model their courses to
108. See Bundesamt für Migration und Flüchtlinge 2007.
109. For example, Rother 2010.
110. See Bundesamt für Migration und Flüchtlinge 2015.
111. See Bundesamt für Migration und Flüchtlinge 2018.
112. Ministero dell’Istruzione, dell’Università e della Ricerca 2012.
113. CLIQ 2020.
114. CLIQ is composed of the four institutions ocially recognised by the state for the certication of the Italian language: Università per
Stranieri di Perugia, Università per Stranieri di Siena, Università Roma Tre, Società Dante Alighieri.
115. Ministero degli Interni, Dipartimento per le libertà civili e l’immigrazione 2018.
116. Ministerie van Sociale Zaken en Werkgelegenheid 2018.
117. See De Rijksoverheid 2020.
Using LASLLIAM for curriculum design Page 89
some extent on these curricular models. Also, commercial publishing companies will produce textbooks and
other resources for literacy and second language learning on the basis of these curricula.
LASLLIAM can full important functions in curriculum design for literacy and second language learning at the
macro level in terms of planning course systems, dening learning outcomes, recommending teaching principles
and evaluating the curriculum, as outlined below.
In the planning stage of curriculum design at the macro level, LASLLIAM can serve as a solid basis for needs
analyses and the consideration of various educational pathways. It is important to emphasise here that LASLLIAM
does not establish norms for all literacy learners to achieve, but instead oers a reference tool for choosing
relevant objectives from a state-of-the-art description of potential objectives.
The general LASLLIAM descriptors and their domain-specic examples can inspire needs analyses and frameworks
on relevant communicative settings at the macro level. This is particularly useful in dening separate courses
for learners with various literacy levels (e.g. literacy beginners versus second-script learners)118 or with various
interests concerning the domains (e.g. family literacy versus vocational literacy). Also, the entrance and exit
proles will be of great interest to plan transitions and optimisation of individual educational pathways. Two
examples illustrate this point.
1. The question of how to deal with learners’ heterogeneity in terms of oral and written skills is a particular
challenge in literacy and second language curriculum design. Learners with comparable literacy skills may
range in their oral abilities from hardly any experience to uency – and the other way around. Many literacy
and second language curricula at the macro level prioritise literacy skills over oral skills for the design of
course systems.
2. As literacy encompasses a wide continuum of competences, transitions from specic literacy and second
language programmes into general language education programmes such as general (i.e. non-literacy
specic) integration classes, vocational courses, or – especially for adolescent migrants – formal education
systems are a crucial aspect to consider.
In the denition of level-specic objectives for the various courses, LASLLIAM can help to construct various
syllabi using the relevant explicit progression lines characteristic of this guide to gradually build up the chosen
competences. Sometimes this is done at the macro level, but more often at the meso level (see 5.3).
In the formulation of teaching principles and in the development of teaching materials and resources, LASLLIAM
recommendations on an action-oriented approach to literacy and second language programmes can serve as a
point of orientation and critical discussion in national debates about which didactic traditions to maintain and
which didactic transformations to initiate. For example, criteria on the national, state or regional admission of
materials and resources can be based on a selection of criteria outlined in Chapter 3.
Finally, in the evaluation and constant improvement of a national, state or regional curriculum, the LASLLIAM
descriptors can be useful in monitoring the success of individual courses, course providers, or larger components
of the course system.
5.3. USING LASLLIAM FOR CURRICULUM DESIGN AT THE MESO LEVEL
Curriculum design at the meso level can involve decisions about the educational programmes that the school/
educational organisation intends to provide according to its nature and mission (public institution for adult
education, private course provider, vocational centre, NGO or volunteer association) and the social environment
in which it operates. For example, a public centre for adult education might oer literacy and second language
courses per se or as a preparatory step prior to entering curricular programmes for the completion of compulsory
schooling. It could co-operate with local enterprises for language-for-work courses, or focus on courses aimed
at obtaining the legal certicates for a residence permit. It could collaborate with NGOs for the social inclusion
of vulnerable adults, like unemployed women or refugees, or with local libraries for family literacy programmes.
Depending on their autonomy in decision making and exibility, schools/educational organisations also make
decisions about aspects like the number of courses, oered levels, number and size of classes (or learning groups
in non-formal teaching), number of tuition hours, allocated teaching equipment (e.g. digital devices), rules for
students’ attendance or allocation of professional resources. All these factors establish a frame for curriculum
design.
118. See Guerrero Calle 2020.
Page 90 3 Literacy and second language learning for the linguistic integration of adult migrants
The literacy and second language course programme (also referred to as a syllabus) should be based on a preliminary
needs analysis. As pointed out in the literature,119 a needs analysis should be carried out both in dening macro
level curricula and in planning courses. Since learners’ needs evolve, it is also used as a monitoring tool during
the course (see 5.4). The involvement of teachers, learners, mediators and, if needed, relevant stakeholders in
syllabus development is recommended for language courses for migrants. The preliminary needs analysis should
focus on learners’ individual needs (subjective needs) as well as on the social and language-communicative
requirements of the contexts in which they will use the acquired competences (social needs).
An individual needs analysis usually collects information in three areas.
1. Firstly, it aims at understanding who the learners are by collecting relevant background information on
aspects like age, gender, occupation, formal and informal education, time of arrival in the new country of
residence, reasons for migration, migration project, hopes, experiences and attitudes.
2. The second area regards the learners’ reasons for learning the target language, expectations about the
course, actual and envisaged uses of the language (e.g. tasks that they want to perform): in essence, what
and why learners want to attend a course.
3. The third outcome of the individual needs analysis is a language prole of the learners, which includes their
plurilingual repertoires (see 1.4.3; 5.4), their oral competence in the target language, and their literacy and
second language proles (see 1.4.1; 6.2.1).
Syllabus designers can conduct the learners’ needs analysis before planning the course, as a preliminary collection
of information, for example, through oral interviews or focus groups (in a common language) with representatives
of the envisaged target groups. Otherwise, the non- and low-literate learners’ needs can be detected during the
welcome procedure through oral interviews and at the start of the course (see 5.4). The placement test is the usual
tool to determine the literacy prole and the learner’s language prociency in the target language (see 6.2.1).
A language-communicative analysis of the real-world situations and tasks that learners will have to cope with
helps to set learning goals tailored to their social needs. The analysis focuses on aspects like languages and
dialects that are used, prevalent types of discourse, texts, vocabulary (including terminology), prevalent speech
acts and expressions, degree of formality, and others. Several techniques can be used. For example, to dene a
literacy and second language curriculum for job training, an ethnographic study of the (often multilingual) job
environment could help to prioritise the course contents, such as which written and oral text types to present
and the development of mediation skills and language use strategies. The participation in the analysis of relevant
players from the workplace (including migrant workers) is crucial in dening the expected outcomes of the
course (in terms of levels of prociency and/or general knowledge), the location (at the workplace or school),
methodology and teaching materials.
Guidelines for a participatory needs analysis and examples of best practices are made available by Language
for Work, an international network supported by the Council of Europe.120 A course for newly arrived immigrant
women that combines literacy and second language teaching and guidance in accessing, for example, childcare
and women’s health services should be planned involving the women themselves and social services workers.
Generally speaking, many literacy and second language courses include contents related to knowledge of the
society where migrants have resettled, their rights (e.g. social rights and access to social services) and duties (e.g.
respect for national laws on gender parity). Networks and/or partnerships between schools, local institutions,
migrant organisations, local companies, and other private or public players active in migrants’ inclusion policies
are eective tools to monitor and meet the migrants’ educational needs.
Curriculum designers can select the relevant LASLLIAM descriptors from the Overall and Specic scales and from
the domain tables for language activities, to negotiate and determine with teachers, learners and (sometimes)
other stakeholders (e.g. employers, sta from job services or vocational centres) the following:
flevels of prociency to be expected in a given time;
fsituations the group needs to be able to cope with;
fspecic learning objectives;
fmethodology (e.g. teaching through scenarios);
flearning materials (e.g. authentic materials to complement the course book); and
fassessment procedures (see 6.2.1).
119. North et al. 2019.
120. Council of Europe 2015-2022.
Using LASLLIAM for curriculum design Page 91
As suggested by the Council of Europe, designers of curricula and syllabi for adult migrants are likely to take
account of the action-oriented view of language competence described in the CEFR. Thus, it makes sense to
specify course objectives in terms of given actions or communication tasks that participants are likely to face, and
the language competences that they will need in order to deal with these tasks (Council of Europe – LIAM 2020h).
These considerations are also valid for using LASLLIAM, which adopts the CEFR Companion volume’s action-
oriented approach. A syllabus for a literacy and second language course would dene a list of selected tasks
which represent what a learner should be able to do at the end of the course, a list of language contents (e.g.
lexical items) and technical literacy skills, which together represent how the learner should perform the tasks
(see 6.2.2). While curriculum designers can refer to LASLLIAM in dening the technical literacy skills, they have to
rely on language-specic inventories to specify aspects, such as expressions for language functions, grammatical
structures or text types. For a number of languages, tools based on the CEFR are available,121 which are already
adapted to literacy and second language courses.122
At the meso level, the schools/educational institutions might be responsible for the teachers’ professional
development, including the provision of in-service training. The Council of Europe recommends paying special
attention to teachers’ ability to handle cultural aspects of language teaching, to relate the language syllabus to
the migrants’ everyday needs, to assess learning progress and to deal with dierent levels of literacy.123
The LASLLIAM descriptors can be used as materials in teachers’ in-service training, especially regarding how to
link literacy and second language teaching to real life and how to deal with diering levels of literacy within
a learner group. For example, in workshops or during an action research project, facilitators could focus on a
number of relevant descriptors and invite teachers to discuss, match, complement and innovate their own
practices in the light of these descriptors, as well as adapt them to their own teaching contexts. Checklists for
teachers’ self-assessment can be built, based on the LASLLIAM descriptors. For example, teachers and curriculum
designers can choose a set of descriptors as core learning objectives, which then serves as a self-monitoring
tool for teachers. LASLLIAM also oers useful background information about literacy, the acquisition of literacy
and second language, and overviews of teaching approaches and assessment procedures in the eld of literacy
and second language teaching.
5.4. USING LASLLIAM AT THE MICRO LEVEL
In their daily teaching practice, teachers carry the responsibility for implementing the curricula determined at
national and/or regional level and the decision taken by the schools/educational institutions. Even when teachers
are not responsible for course planning, they have to adapt the guidelines, general objectives, principles dened
by the curricula and syllabi to the specic and concrete needs of individual learners. They also have to negotiate
with them a set of common needs and aims at classroom level. In implementing the syllabus, teachers adapt it
to the learners’ needs and to their pace of learning.
The time needed to achieve learning goals varies individually as it is inuenced by a multitude of variables:
levels of technical literacy, prior schooling and hours of instruction received in the home country and/or other
countries, digital skills, familiarity with assessment practices and techniques, typological distance between mother
tongue and target language, dierent scripts, frequency and quality of the contacts with the target language,
domains of use of the target language, familiar literacy events in the rst and second language, uneven proles
in the target language, trauma experiences (especially in the case of asylum seekers and refugees) and physical
impairments (e.g. eyesight impairment), plurilingual repertoires, internal factors (age, motivation, cognitive
style, attitudes, etc.), external factors (family context, behaviour, cultural distance, migration project, etc.) and
logistical aspects that inuence regular course attendance (distance, costs of public transport, working and/or
family commitments, etc.).
To get acquainted with the course attendees’ needs and tailor the course accordingly, the teacher can carry out a
needs analysis at the start of the course, especially if the information is not collected during the welcome phase,
is not available or is incomplete. During the course, the needs analysis serves as a continuous monitoring tool
to keep the teaching in tune with the learners’ evolving needs.
121. Council of Europe 2020f.
122. For example, for Italian, Borri et al. 2014a.
123. Council of Europe – LIAM 2020d.
Page 92 3 Literacy and second language learning for the linguistic integration of adult migrants
The Language support for adult refugees – A Council of Europe Toolkit suggests three tools that proved to be
eective in carrying out needs analyses with non-literate and low-literate learners.
124
For the linguistic repertoires,
the “Plurilingual portrait: a reective task for refugees” (Tool 38125) has proved eective by enhancing migrants’
awareness and self-esteem.
126
For the language prole, the image-based questionnaire “Finding out what
refugees can already do in the target language and what they need to be able to do” (Tool 25) and the outline
of the interview “Refugees’ linguistic proles” (Tool 27) are available. The results of the literacy and language
assessments complete the learner’s language prole (see 6.2.1).
According to the degree of autonomy and decision-making levels attributed to the teacher by the local school
systems, the teacher is responsible for choices regarding approaches, teaching activities and materials, and in
general for mid-term work plans and lesson plans. For these aspects, the teacher can also nd support in this
reference guide (see Chapter 3). In particular, LASLLIAM oers support in planning action-oriented literacy and
second language learning environments in which the notion of a scenario has a prominent role. Scenarios are
a tool for action-oriented planning, that is, planning which envisages real-life situations in which learners could
nd themselves outside the learning environment. Thus, the use of scenarios is particularly recommended as it
is consistent with the action-oriented approach (see 3.1; 3.3.1).
The LIAM website provides the theoretical background and explanation of what scenarios are and why they
are particularly appropriate in language teaching of adult migrants. Scenarios comprise “a series of verbal and
non-verbal actions involving both general knowledge (e.g. where to buy a bus ticket) and competences (such
as lling out the form) that are designed to lead to successfully carrying out the activities in question” (Council
of Europe – LIAM 2020
e).
127
Adopting a scenario approach provides learners with a meaningful and realistic
frame for language uses in an instructional and therefore guided setting. A scenario brings together “a set of
real word variables, including a domain, context, tasks, language activities and texts” (ibid.). While engaging in
tasks in a scenario, learners activate and develop their strategic, pragmatic and linguistic competence, including
discourse competence.
At the micro level, a scenario is a framework for language activities carried out in the educational environment.
It also fosters the creation of social bonds within the group through the exchange of information and narratives.
Learners’ backgrounds, previous knowledge and experience – in the rst or in any other language – are brought
to the fore as leverage for literacy and second language learning and teaching. Consistently, teachers support
learners in working together to solve problems that they meet in everyday situations, and by providing teaching
materials that include objects and texts occurring in those situations. The use of technologies is recommended
for the improvement of digital literacy (see 2.2.5). Along these pathways, reective activities could be carried out,
guided by teachers. These reective activities would relate to the target language, which prompts metalinguistic
awareness of grammatical, sociocultural and pragmatic (including awareness of the varieties of text types)
features.128 Teachers can also activate and sustain learners’ reection on their learning, including their self-
assessment (see Appendix 3).
In highly diverse groups, as are most classes in literacy and second language instruction, scenarios are a powerful
tool to dierentiate teaching and learning pathways according to the individual learner’s competence within a
common and co-operative setting. Through scenarios, intercultural awareness is fostered since representations,
schemes and frames related to specic situations (e.g. about how to interact in institutional settings or at the
workplace) can emerge. At later stages, beyond LASLLIAM levels, they may be noticed, discussed and negotiated
should they arise in such situations.
In developing a scenario, the shift from abstract to concrete, from general to specic is required. Starting with
the LASLLIAM Overall scales, teachers rst select the Specic scales related to the learners’ needs. Next, they
contextualise the descriptors of the Specic scales by taking into account the LASLLIAM examples of the domain
tables as an input model or choosing them as an expected output. Figure 6 represents a funnel in using LASLLIAM
resources for the elaboration of a scenario.
124. Council of Europe – LIAM 2020k.
125. Based on Krumm and Jenkins 2001.
126. Council of Europe – LIAM 2020f.
127. See also Beacco et al. 2005; British Council – EAQUALS 2015.
128. Beacco et al. 2016.
Using LASLLIAM for curriculum design Page 93
Figure 6 – Connections between LASLLIAM resources within a scenario
Overall scales
(key operators)
Specic scales
(operationalisation)
Domains tables
(contextualisation)
scenario
Section 6.2.2.1 discusses the uses of a scenario as an assessment tool. An example of a scenario as a classroom
activity, based on the model suggested by the Language support for adult refugees – A Council of Europe Toolkit129
is provided in Appendix 2.
129. Council of Europe – LIAM 2020 e.
Page 95
Chapter 6
130. Hughes 2003; Vertecchi 1995.
131. Krumm 2007.
132. Bachman 1990; Messick 1989.
ASSESSMENT WITHIN
THELEARNINGENVIRONMENT
As referred to earlier (see 1.2), LASLLIAM is intended for teachers, curriculum and materials designers to support
their commitment in tailoring literacy and second language courses for migrants. To support this purpose, this
reference guide addresses assessment as a key component of the learning process.130
The term assessment is used
in the sense of the assessment of the proficiency of the language user … All assessment is a form of evaluation, but
in a language programme a number of things are evaluated other than learner proficiency. These may include the
eectiveness of particular methods or materials, the kind and quality of discourse actually produced in the programme,
learner/teacher satisfaction, teaching eectiveness, etc. (Council of Europe 2001: 177)
Therefore, as in Chapter 9 of the CEFR, this chapter is also concerned with assessment, and not with evaluation.
Although, the CEFR Companion volume states that “the scales of illustrative descriptors … are not assessment
scales” (Council of Europe 2020: 41), they can represent a useful source for the development of assessment tools
to the extent that these tools aim at pedagogical work. In fact, the shifting of the target group from the generic
CEFR literate social agent to the low-literate and non-literate adult migrant involved in a formative path implies
that LASLLIAM descriptors for communicative language activities are learning goals that can usually only be
achieved in a learning environment (be it educational or vocational). This learning environment represents the
conditio sine qua non for any assessment procedures, which should always be referenced to the curriculum and
be coherent with the syllabus.
Taking this into account, this chapter is structured to oer reections and practical examples in relation to:
fthe approaches to be adopted taking into account the target learners (see 1.4);
fthe dierent purposes and forms of assessment, possibly by using the present work;
fthe assessment tools that can be developed, underscoring the importance of considering them as part of
the learning materials, thus negating any function aimed to meet prociency standards decontextualised
from the learning environment.
6.1. APPROACHES TO BE ADOPTED
This section focuses on three suggested approaches in using LASLLIAM to develop assessment tools: continuum
criterion-referencing, learning oriented assessment (LOA) and proling approach.
131
On the basis of these
approaches, considerations related to the prevention of potential misuses of this reference guide will be formulated.
6.1.1. Continuum criterion-referencing
As the CEFR Companion volume reminds us,
the methodological message of the CEFR is that language learning should be directed towards enabling learners
to act in real-life situations, expressing themselves and accomplishing tasks of different natures. Thus, the criterion
suggested for assessment is communicative ability in real life, in relation to a continuum of ability. This is the
original and fundamental meaning of “criterion” in the expression “criterion-referenced assessment”. (Council of
Europe 2020: 27)
The same continuum criterion-referencing approach is assumed by LASLLIAM. It implies that any form of
assessment should allow for the collection of useful information about the range of the learner’s abilities required
to deal with the external reality. Such an approach sustains the concept of validity,
132
to the extent that the
aforementioned information (as a result of assessment procedures) provides evidence which corresponds with
Page 96 3 Literacy and second language learning for the linguistic integration of adult migrants
the construct of language competence declared in designing the assessment tools.133 Hence, the descriptors
presented in Chapter 4 foster the “alignment between curriculum, teaching and assessment, and above all
between the ‘language classroom world’ and the real world” (Council of Europe 2020: 27). Such an alignment
should imply a positive overlapping between pedagogical tasks, reecting more teaching goals (see 5.4) and
real-life tasks, which in turn reect more learning goals (see 3.3).
Moreover, the adoption of the continuum criterion-referencing approach leads to a move away from what the
CEFR denes as the mastery criterion-referencing approach to “one in which a single ‘minimum competence
standard’ … is set to divide learners into ‘masters’ and ‘non-masters’” (Council of Europe 2001: 184). Therefore, the
LASLLIAM scales are not intended to x any cut-o point. This means that any binary exit pass/fail, which would
establish whether or not a learner was able to achieve a level, for instance, is strongly discouraged.
6.1.2. Learning oriented assessment
LOA means an assessment centred on the learner and aimed at making the course goals (in terms of expected
competences to be achieved) coincide with the user’s goals (in terms of satisfying linguistic-communicative
needs related to everyday life).134
In LOA the perspective is based on learning: the assessment, whether summative or formative, aims to emphasise
the key role of the learner within each phase of the assessment process, rather than elements of measurement.
135
For the CEFR, “formative assessment is an ongoing process of gathering information on the extent of learning, on
strengths and weaknesses, which the teacher can feed back into their course planning and the actual feedback
they give learners” (Council of Europe 2001: 186). As an ongoing process, formative assessment is realised in
the form of continuous assessment through the elicitation of a range of various outputs (from communicative
scenarios, peer activities, group work, etc.) described in Chapters 3 and 5.
Summative assessment typically takes place at the end of a course or a programme of instruction,136 assuming
more the assessment of learning, which takes stock of what has been achieved within a period, rather than
assessment for learning, which underlies the formative approach. In this way, LOA attempts to solve the
dichotomy of formative versus summative, or to represent their evolution,137 by following as a main strand the
constant involvement of the learner in both forms of assessment. This means not only explaining, for example,
the assessment criteria for the purpose of transparency or providing appropriate feedback, but above all raising
awareness about the learning process, including the development of self-evaluation skills.138
In line with this perspective, the adoption of a LOA approach is suggested by highlighting the importance of
taking into account the various forms of assessment present in the Council of Europe member states. In fact,
such forms can be related to activities within the lesson (as a typical example of formative assessment), as well
as to the mid-term or end-of-course exam (as a typical example of summative assessment, sometimes also
xed-point assessment, when assessment is linked to a particular moment in the course).139
6.1.3. Proling approach
A fair use of LASLLIAM within the assessment process should always lead to positive outcomes in order to
sustain learners’ motivation (see 3.6); in other words, the present work promotes the achievement of learning
goals according to a hypothetical transversal line across dierent levels, without linking the expected outcomes
to only one level.
Taking into account such a transversal line as vertical, it means that a learner might for instance be at level 2
in relation to writing and level 3 in regard to reading, listening and speaking. The emphasis should be placed
on what the learner has managed to achieve, not on their deciencies: according to this example, as a result
of attending the course, the learner reached level 2 in writing, instead of failing to obtain level 3 because of a
presumed gap with regard to writing.
133. Weir, 2004.
134. Purpura 2014; Turner and Purpura 2016.
135. Carless 2007.
136. ALTE 1998.
137. Zeng et al. 2018.
138. Sadler 1989.
139. Council of Europe 2001: 185.
Assessment within thelearningenvironment Page 97
Considering again the same transversal line, but horizontal this time, it is important to point out that a learner
can improve in lateral ways as well: “lateral progress [as] progress is not merely a question of moving up a
vertical scale” (Council of Europe 2001: 17). This can be the case for instance for a learner who has reached more
categories described by LASLLIAM Specic scales, even at the same level.
As already highlighted (see 1.4.3), this reference guide supports the concept of proles. In the eld of assessment
it implies sustaining the “recognition of partial competences” (Council of Europe 2001: 175). Consequently,
assessment tools related to LASLLIAM allow teachers to draw a “jagged prole” (ALTE Authoring Group 2016: 21)
of the learner, giving evidence of what is achieved, independently of the level (where provided) of the attended
course. In fact, the recommended proling (see 6.2) can go across levels, on the one hand aspiring to represent
the person’s uneven spectrum of competence, and on the other sustaining the assessment of such competence,
even if partial in the sense that it “may concern language activities, … a particular domain and specic tasks”
(Council of Europe 2001: 135).
Furthermore, as the CEFR Companion volume recommends plurilingual proling (Council of Europe 2020: 35,
Figure 8140), courses based on LASLLIAM should increase the awareness in learners (as well as in teachers and,
in a broader view, within society as such), of the linguistic capital of migrants, giving value to their plurilingual
repertoire (see 1.4.2; 5.4).
Figure 7 shows the co-ordinates useful to assess and trace the innite learners’ proles on a virtual Cartesian
plane; similar to that described in the CEFR, the result is a three-dimensional “notional cube” (Council of Europe
2001: 16):
fthe red vertical line (ordinate axis) is represented by the levels, four in LASLLIAM;
f
the blue horizontal line (abscissa axis) is made up of the set of descriptive categories referring to the
LASLLIAM 52 scales and 425 descriptors (see Chapter 4);
f
the green third line is given by the four domains related to the LASLLIAM tables, with examples of language
use embedded within the Specic scales (see 4.2): this line makes the double-entry grid turn in the cube.
Figure 7 – LASLLIAM Cartesian plane
Levels
Categories
Domains
6.1.4. Preventing misuse
If the three suggested approaches are followed this should prevent any potential misuse of LASLLIAM in relation
to assessment. Moreover, specic choices about terminology should also have the same result. For these reasons,
the word “standard” has been avoided. It does not appear in any descriptors in order to underline the fact that
the expected learning goals must not be seen as benchmarks to be achieved in designing high-stakes and
large-scale standardised tests.
According to ALTE-LAMI, “literacy is a necessary prerequisite for any kind of written test Policy makers
need to provide training courses that support the acquisition of literacy skills, instead of providing writing
or reading tests” (ALTE Authoring Group 2016: 23). The Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe
140. Inspired by a model developed within the Canadian LINCDIRE Project: www.lincdireproject.org/.
Page 98 3 Literacy and second language learning for the linguistic integration of adult migrants
states that the CEFR “was never established as a mechanism for establishing whether or not a certain
language level was indicative of a level of integration. It is only a measure of linguistic ability” (Council of Europe,
Report - Recommendation 2034 (2013)). This is even truer for LASLLIAM, which presents levels traceable only in
relation to the learning process and scales describing progressions in a formative path, without any unrealistic
aspiration to measure a supposed level of integration. Unfortunately, the Council of Europe – ALTE Report141
revealed quite the opposite: of the 41 countries responding to the survey, only seven member states (17%) do
not have language requirements for either entry permit, residence permit or citizenship.
Even if policy makers are not the primary target user group for this work, dissemination of the reference guide
might inspire a growing debate on literacy issues among teachers and curricula developers. It is hoped this may
increase, in a bottom-up process, an awareness of educational institutions at the supranational and national
levels (see 5.1; 5.2). Thus, the aim of the authoring group is to make sure that LASLLIAM does not easily lend itself
to unfair misuse as evidenced by the ALTE Report that seems to indicate the replacement of “Say Shibboleth”142
by “Write something”. In fact, as researchers largely demonstrate, language requirements often represent
insurmountable barriers,143 generating a negative impact of tests and test results’ use, especially on those who
have not had access to any writing system yet.144
6.2. THE DIFFERENT PURPOSES OF ASSESSMENT USING LASLLIAM
This section addresses the assessments envisioned by LASLLIAM, as based on the described approaches. It proposes
dierent purposes of assessment and gives examples of tools, including self-assessment tools. In presenting
such purposes and tools, it follows three steps related to the natural development and typical succession that
characterises the provision of training:
1. rst, the assessment within the “welcome phase”, at the beginning of the learning process;
2. then, the achievement assessment provided during the course, including scenario-based assessment;
3. nally, the achievement assessment at the end of the course.
6.2.1. Assessment within the “welcome phase”
“Welcome phase” means the reception and orientation of adult migrants who have only recently become involved
in the learning environment; it represents the beginning of the process, the initial step in the formative path. In
this phase, the priority is to establish human relations based on empathy, to get to know the person, to help their
needs to emerge, as well as to identify the learner’s prole. The aim is to allow as much as possible for the tailoring
of the course to the learners’ needs, both in the sense of appropriateness and adequacy, where appropriateness
refers to the correspondence between contents addressed and needs of the person, while adequacy relates to
inclusion in the group that is more in line with their prole. In other words, the aim is to form a proper group,
in the sense of “compatible” not only and not always in terms of level, but also considering aspects such as the
linguistic repertoires, intercultural attitudes and previous life experiences of participants (see 3.3).
From the assessment perspective, it is relevant in this phase to collect information in relation to the literacy and
second language prole of the learner. This happens through the placement test,145 proposed by LASLLIAM to
be structured into three components. The essential starting point is the establishment of human relationships
through dialogue. It means that the initial part of the placement test should be embedded in the oral dimension
of languages, in the form of an interview between the learner and teacher who is called on to support constantly,
with an attitude characterised by a strong willingness to collaborate.
Collecting data through an oral interview is also recommended to avoid the learner having to engage with written
text, with the potential negative impact this may cause, particularly for those who are non-literate, feelings of
frustration and humiliation. It is important to underline that the dialogue should be carried out not only in the
target language, but also in any one language available in the plurilingual repertoire of both interlocutors.
In fact, it is fundamental to nd a language of communication,146 involving a mediator when needed. Ideally,
141. Rocca et al. 2020.
142. English Standard Version Bible 2001, Judges 12:6.
143. Carlsen 2017; Khan 2019; McNamara 2005.
144. Carlsen 2017; Pochon-Berger and Lenz 2014; Shoahmy 1993; Van Oers 2014.
145. ALTE 1998.
146. Beacco 2005.
Assessment within thelearningenvironment Page 99
professional mediators will support the welcome phase, but realistically another learner with the same mother
tongue as the interviewee might serve as the mediator.
The use of such a language of communication, thus of a language spoken uently by the learner, allows for a needs
analysis (see Chapter 5). The use of the target language, however, can give information on their second language
prole, making the interview the rst component of the placement test, with regard to the oral dimension. The
interlocutor is invited to consider the LASLLIAM scales in order to collect clues useful to assign the interviewee
to an entry level. Taking particularly into account the Specic scale, Interviewing and Being Interviewed, the
teacher is invited to consider the progression represented by the descriptors below.
4Can reply in an interview to simple direct questions, put very slowly and clearly in direct non-idiomatic speech
about personal details.
3Can ask and answer questions about personal information, feelings and health with short, simple phrases and
formulaic expressions (e.g. “I’m [name], I’m from Syria”).
2Can give some simple information with familiar words or phrases.
1Can answer questions about some basic personal information with a single word or phrase (e.g. “I Syria”).
As an example of concrete use of LASLLIAM in the context of placement assessment, the teacher is asked to
match one of the descriptors above with the learner’s ability, as demonstrated during the interview in the target
language.
The second component of the placement test that LASLLIAM suggests is related to the literacy prole. After the
dialogue, the learner should be asked to give evidence of their technical literacy skills in whatever language.
Aspects to consider, for example, are behaviour while handwriting, pressure on the paper or handling the pen.147
Although an initial observation is inherent in the literacy prole and important in whatever language, the central
aim of the “welcome phase” is to determine the learner’s prole in the target language. Therefore, the third
component of the placement test should be related to reading and writing in the second language. An example
of a practical tool for this purpose is oered by the Council of Europe LIAM Toolkit (Tool 26).148 The reference
guide can be applied to instruments like this, by adopting matching procedures in considering Written Reception,
Production and Interaction scales. Note that within these listed scales, Technical Literacy is not present: this is
because LASLLIAM does not consider technical literacy as a goal in itself. On the contrary, it establishes the set
of skills needed to meet the objectives of the learning process, as represented by communicative language
activities (see 4.1; 6.2.2). As in the CEFR and in the CEFR Companion volume, all the LASLLIAM descriptors are
both learning goals and (potential) learning outcomes. This means that a specic descriptor – for instance
related to writing – can refer to an objective to be achieved, as well as to a competence already present. Thus,
the can-dos eventually revealed in the placement test become a consolidated starting point which the learner
can draw on during the course.
As a nal result of the assessment procedures within the welcome phase, sucient elements should have been
collected to form a description of the person at the beginning of the learning process in relation to their literacy
and second language prole. Specically, the outcome will quite often be an uneven prole, for example with
the oral dimension being higher (with more can-dos in the second language already acquired) than in reading
and writing, or production activities lower than interaction activities (see 1.4.3).
6.2.2. Achievement assessment during the course
According to the CEFR, “achievement assessment is the assessment of the achievement of specic objectives. It
therefore relates to the week’s/term’s work, the course book, the syllabus” (Council of Europe 2001: 183). There
is often the possibility, however, of making inferences related to the user’s capacity to act as a social agent to
the extent that the assessment is encapsulated in real-world tasks.
For LASLLIAM, achievement assessment is related to what has been done within the learning environment.
Nevertheless, the added value of an appropriate needs analysis implies that the course contents tend to reect
events occurring in daily life and the tasks provided tend to replicate learners’ daily routines. In other words, the
more course contents correspond to what is present outside the course, the more achievement assessment enables
147. Tarone et al. 2009.
148. Council of Europe – LIAM 2020i.
Page 100 3 Literacy and second language learning for the linguistic integration of adult migrants
teachers to predict users’ ability to deal with real communicative language activities. From this perspective, as
the CEFR argues, “the distinction between achievement (oriented to the content of the course) and prociency
(oriented to the continuum of real world ability) should ideally be small” (Council of Europe 2001: 184).
Typical forms of achievement assessment during the course are the diagnostic procedures
149
and the
intermediate tests. Diagnostic procedures, highly embedded within a formative approach, are used to discover
learners’ strength and weaknesses in order to make decisions on the training. They involve, for example,
observing listening behaviour or looking at frequent mistakes in technical reading or speaking that hinder
comprehensibility.
Intermediate tests are generally administered at the end of a didactic unit seen as a building block.150 They aim
to monitor the progress of learning, in order to feel the pulse of the group, checking whether the input oered
has been understood and integrated, leading to the expected output. These tests can also have a summative
function, especially in the case of mid-term exams.
In placement assessment, the teacher should look at LASLLIAM descriptors vertically (by considering the
progression from level 1 to level 4), but in achievement assessment LASLLIAM recommends viewing them
horizontally, at least when courses are formally related to only one level.
Taking as an example a level 2 course, imagine a reading task – as a component of an intermediate test – in which
the input is an instruction. In this case, the teacher can use the Written Reception scales. More precisely, within
the Specic scale – Reading Instructions, the following level 2 descriptor is helpful in this case.
2Can understand simple instructions when presented in visual format with practised words.
As an example of a concrete use of LASLLIAM for achievement assessment during the course, the teacher checks
whether the above-mentioned learning goal was achieved, as the result of a reading comprehension activity.
Referring to the key distinction made by the CEFR between descriptors of Communicative Language Activities
(focused on the “what”) and descriptors of Communicative Language Competences (focused on the “how”),
the example above shows that the development of assessment tools by using LASLLIAM is mainly related to
the “what”. This does not mean that inferences on the “how” cannot be provided. In fact, it is also important
for the teacher to check whether the learner has achieved those technical skills functional to managing
communicative language activities, as well as vocabulary or phonology for instance (see 5.3). In line with this,
undertaking specic exercises preparatory to the execution of tasks may be needed in order to assess literacy
or digital skills (see 2.2.5).
Within the LASLLIAM Overall scales, the descriptors are often presented according to the formula “Can-do
X (referring to the communicative activity) by listening, reading, speaking, writing Y (referring to practice,
length and linguistic complexity)” (see 4.2). This implies that exercises based on the Technical Literacy scales
are related to the “how”, as the object of investigation is the second part of the formula (the “by”). On the
contrary, when the focus is on the “what”, as in real-world tasks, the reference is to the rst part of the formula
(the “Can-do”).
Imagine as an example a learner who is asked to copy familiar words. In this case, the teacher is invited to
use the Technical Literacy scale Writing at level 1, to check whether the person is able to write by hand in
copying such words. Then, it is highly recommended to apply this technical skill in subsequent tasks, where
communicative language activities can be described by LASLLIAM Overall and Specic scales. In this way,
the individual’s just-trained capacity is put immediately into practice, according to the following sequence
already suggested in 3.1.
Exercise 1 Recognising words and abbreviations for days of the week (e.g. by circling)
Task 1 Finding dates in an authentic personal planner
Therefore, exercise 1 is focused on the “how/by”: it is geared towards the “what/can-do” related to Task 1.151
149. ALTE 1998.
150. Young-Scholten and Naeb 2020.
151. There is often a similar coherent sequence within a teaching unit; it happens when exercises aimed at reinforcing a just-presented
grammatical structure come before tasks where the learner is called to use the same structure.
Assessment within thelearningenvironment Page 101
6.2.2.1. Scenario-based assessment
As outlined in Chapter 5, scenarios focus on situations related to the daily lives of participants, where the aim
is their successful engagement in activities provided to satisfy a subjective need. In the context of a continuum
criterion-referencing approach, scenario-based assessment
152
is a highly representative example of LOA (see 6.1.2).
In fact, the teacher is asked to make inferences in relation to each task in the set; thus, task-based assessment153
is embedded in the scenario-based assessment, because the execution of the rst task is preparatory for the
second task (and so on), according to the sequence provided. The more a scenario is represented by a sequencing
of “good” tasks, the more the inference made by the teacher is likely to reect LOA in measuring the eective
capacity of the learner to meet the subjective need.
According to ALTE-LAMI, a “good task is adequate, appropriate and authentic” (ALTE Authoring Group 2016: 34).
f“Adequate” refers to the calibration of the task in relation to the level for which it was conceived.
f“Appropriate” refers to the capacity of the task to be responsive to the users’ needs.
f“Authentic” implies that the task performed within the learning environment is perceived by participants
to be useful and motivating, due to its capacity to reect real-life situations.154
Imagine a scenario where the need is about having something to eat in a bar. The learner is asked:
fto understand a menu;
fto understand some information given by the waiter; and
fto place an order.
According to the example, LASLLIAM Specic scales involved are:
fReading for Information, within the Written Reception scales;
fListening to Announcements and Instructions, within the Oral Reception scales;
fObtaining Goods and Services, within the Oral Interaction scales.
As the communicative situation takes place in a bar, it is par t of the public domain. The example refers to level 3 in
all the scales here, but note that individual proles might, of course, vary. The teacher can use all the descriptors
listed below, where in each box the rst one comes from a Specic scale and the second in italics comes from
the corresponding LASLLIAM public domain table entry.
Specic scale – Reading for Information
3Can understand the simplest informational material such as a fast-food restaurant menu illustrated with photos
or an illustrated story formulated in very simple everyday words/signs; e.g. information box of community centre;
service menu of laundry, car wash or food delivery.
Specic scale – Listening to Announcements and Instructions
3Can pick out the main points in a short, simple message delivered face-to-face in a familiar situation; e.g. about
the menu in a cafeteria (“Today we serve pasta”).
Specic scale – Obtaining Food and Services
3Can make simple purchases and/or order food or drink when pointing or making another gesture which can
support the verbal reference; e.g. at bar or in a restaurant.
152. Carroll 2018; Zhang et al. 2019.
153. Ellis 2003; van Gorp and Deygers 2013.
154. Of course, a growing authenticity would be guaranteed by communicative language activities planned by teachers and curricula
developers with the aim of embedding the learning environment in daily life contexts. As Chapters 4 and 5 remind us, setting up
activities which take learners out into the community for additional practice in the real world is strongly recommended by LASLLIAM.
This is possible through a scenario (see Appendix 2) and examples are oered by the Council of Europe LIAM Toolkit (Tools 56 and
57), see Council of Europe 2021d.
Page 102 3 Literacy and second language learning for the linguistic integration of adult migrants
As an example of the use of LASLLIAM in the context of scenario-based assessment, the teacher can check
whether the learner reached the above learning goals, both in terms of individual task completion and meeting
the real-life need, as the overall result of the whole scenario.
6.2.3. Achievement assessment at the end of the course
End-of-course assessment is strictly related to the syllabus and fully integrated into the learning path. It is a
part of continuous assessment. In the context of lifelong learning, it also means that level 4 (and even more so
levels 1, 2 and 3) constitutes a step forward in an ongoing process, that is, a continuation towards the prociency
proles described in the CEFR and the CEFR Companion volume.
6.2.3.1. Portfolio
In line with this view, a highly recommended outcome at the end of the course is a portfolio. Teachers are
supported by LASLLIAM to guide their students in the compilation of a portfolio of reached learning goals
(most probably not related to only one level), which can also be supportive of reective learning driven by
goal setting and self-assessment (see 6.2.4). Stimulating reection as a natural part of any learning process,
especially for persons with little familiarity with learning environments, is extremely important in supporting
key aspects of lifelong learning such as self-esteem and autonomy (see 3.3; 3.4). Moreover, in relation to adult
migrants specically, “their prociency can easily be underestimated by ocials and prospective employers,
and a well-organised portfolio can bear eective testimony to language learning eort and achievement”
(Council of Europe 2020: 5).155
Over the past 20 years, the Council of Europe has developed a wide range of tools aimed at promoting learner
awareness: from the CEFR self-assessment grid that helps “learners to appreciate their strengths, recognise
their weaknesses and orient their learning more eectively” (Council of Europe 2001: 192)156 to the European
Language Portfolio (ELP)157 and Tool 39158 of the Council of Europe LIAM Toolkit, in which parts of the ELP have
been adapted having in mind adult refugees as target learners.159
In particular, the ELP Language Dossier “is designed to include not only any ocially awarded recognition
obtained … but also a record of more informal experiences involving contacts with languages and other cultures”
(Council of Europe 2001: 174). It provides evidence of language learning progress, highlighting intercultural
experiences and enabling the person to document and present dierent aspects of the Language Biography160
in their second language (as emerged during the course), as well as the language passport161 (starting from the
welcome phase), including their plurilingual repertoire.
6.2.3.2. End-of-course exam
Although LASLLIAM strongly recommends a portfolio, some educational systems in dierent European contexts
require other procedures, like an end-of-course exam, typically referred to as a summative approach. The positive
impact of such tests, for instance, might be related to the need to demonstrate having successfully completed
a course as proof of the eorts made within a learning environment. As the Council of Europe-ALTE report
noted, such proof can be very important in some member states, especially where the present system provides
a commission that is asked to take decisions on whether to give to an asylum seeker international protection or
the legal status of refugee. In fact, the commission’s decision, and more generally its attitude, can also depend
on documentation proving the positive assessment achieved as a result of an attended course.
Bearing in mind that “valid assessment requires the sampling of a range of relevant types of discourse” (Council
of Europe 2001: 178), imagine developing the exam at the end of a level 1 course; more specically: imagine
being engaged in the construction of the written interaction component.162 If this is the case, the teacher
can rst consider all the LASLLIAM Written Interaction scales (Overall and Specics) as potential content to
choose from.
155. Little 2012.
156. Council of Europe 2020d.
157. Council of Europe 2020 e.
158. Council of Europe 2020j.
159. Council of Europe – LIAM 2020g.
160. Council of Europe 2021a.
161. Council of Europe 2021b.
162. ALTE 2011.
Assessment within thelearningenvironment Page 103
Overall scale – Written Interaction
1Can write a personally relevant word by copying.
Can sign a form.
Specic scale – Correspondence
1Can copy some words about themselves or objects of personal relevance.
Specic scale – Notes, Messages, Forms and Transactions
1Can copy some words to respond to a message.
Then, the teacher needs to lter the descriptors to choose the ones to be assessed. In other words, the teacher has
to select the descriptors reasonably assumed as learning goals based on language activities related to contents,
tasks and scenarios already addressed during the course. Finally, as an example of a concrete use of LASLLIAM
in the context of an end-of-course exam, the teacher can check whether the learner has achieved the selected
goals. Therefore, the representative elements acquired should allow the description of the person’s achievement
after having attended a course. In order to collect evidence of the learners’ improvements, a comparison between
the prole traced at entry (see 6.2.1) and that referred to on exit can be useful. In fact, relating the information
collected at these two points in time would represent good practice, not only to underline the progression of
each participant, but also to increase awareness that the learning curve varies (see Chapter 5).
Particularly in the case of end-of-course assessment, it is highly recommended to avoid using LASLLIAM with
a mastery criterion-referencing approach. As already highlighted (see 6.1.1), a fair assessment based on this
reference guide should always underline outcomes in a positive way. It means, for example, that if a learner in
relation to level 4 has not achieved the correspondent goals in written reception, it does not imply they failed the
exam; on the contrary, according to the adopted proling approach (see 6.1.3) the learner should be described
by the goals in reading at their level.
6.2.4. Proling the achieved learning goals
Either through the recommended compilation of a portfolio, or in the end-of-course exam, the achievement
assessment related to the attended segment (see 6.3) of the learning process should allow for the completion
of a person’s individual prole (see 1.4.3). Thus, the nal outcome suggested by LASLLIAM, and in terms of the
documentation provided, can be represented, for example, by the gure below.
Figure 9 in the CEFR Companion volume “shows prociency in one language in relation to the CEFR ‘overall’
descriptor scales” (Council of Europe 2020: 40). Similarly, Figure 8 below consists of a linear diagram (reecting
the vertical dimension of Figure 7) showing what can be achieved during a course: as an example, level 2
has been reached in relation to Written Interaction and Oral Production. At the same time, the learner is well
represented at level 3 in Written Reception and Oral Interaction; and level 4 has been already achieved in
Oral Reception.
Figure 8 – Overall learning goals achieved
Language Activities Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4
Oral Reception
Written Reception
Oral Interaction
Written Interaction
Oral Production
Written Production
Page 104 3 Literacy and second language learning for the linguistic integration of adult migrants
Graphics, such as Figure 6 in the CEFR Companion volume (Council of Europe 2020: 38), can also be used in
LASLLIAM-based assessment in order to draw a jagged prole where the learning goals achieved are evidenced
by descriptors of dierent categories (according to the horizontal dimension of Figure 7).
Figure 9 below is another way to trace an uneven prole, by highlighting communicative language activities
according to the four domains (the third dimension of Figure 7, as intertwined with the vertical one). The sample
diagram shows that within the educational domain the learner has achieved learning goals related to level 4
in Listening and Oral Interaction, to level 3 in Reading, Oral Production and Written Interaction and to level 2
inWritten Production. Contextually, lower levels are generally achieved in the other three domains, with the oral
dimension always being higher than the written one. It can be typical of a person who uses the target language
mainly within the learning environment; with only strictly necessary use in the public domain; and lower use
in the personal domain. This is because in the familiar sphere, with parents and friends, the individual speaks
in the mother tongue. The lowest use is in relation to the occupational domain (where they only work with
colleagues who are fellow citizens).
Figure 9 – Learning goals achieved by domains of language use
More complex representations may combine Figures 8 and 9, providing a multidimensional model of proling,
where specic categories embedded into domains of language use would be considered.
The teacher, and in a broader view the curriculum developer, can of course represent the learners’ prole in more
direct and maybe more practical ways, for example in the form of a checklist or grid.163 In particular, the use of
checklists is highly recommended by LASLLIAM as an instrument aimed at implementing the portfolio. In fact,
“checklists of ‘I can’ descriptors are an obligatory requirement in all ELPs. They expand the general descriptors
of the self-assessment grid into a detailed inventory of communicative activities that can be used for regular
goal-setting and reective moments related to self-assessment”.164 (Appendix 3 constitutes an example mainly
in the perspective of the ELP Language Biography).
6.3. LASLLIAM AS A RESOURCE TO CONNECT LEARNINGENVIRONMENTS
ACROSS EUROPE
Using LASLLIAM for the development of such proled documentation can have added value in relation to the
mobility of migrants across Europe. In fact, in establishing potential learning goals for non- and low-literate
adults at the European level, this reference guide can sustain mutual recognition of segments within the ongoing
learning process for dierent providers (e.g. volunteers in a camp, teachers in an integration course system) and
at dierent places (e.g. cities or even countries), or at dierent phases (e.g. rst or second shelter for refugees).
The need to put the pieces together in order to sustain the learner’s commitment and progression is fundamental
when learning has started in a Council of Europe member state, is continuing in another and will be completed
163. Stockmann 2006.
164. Council of Europe 2001.
Assessment within thelearningenvironment Page 105
in yet a third one. In other words, a literacy and second language portfolio composed of LASLLIAM descriptors
can oer a concrete answer to the reciprocal needs of migrants and teachers to make visible and traceable, in
a coherent way, the achievement of learning goals. This achievement is the result of isolated moments within a
whole process that takes place transnationally, in a range of formal and non-formal contexts, state schools and
public institutions, private associations and NGOs.
As an example, let us consider the recurrent situation of persons like Hanad, a Somali non-literate man rescued
in Lampedusa, who after the rst shelter in Italy asks for asylum in order to reunite with his brother in Sweden.
In this case, while he is waiting for the ocial status of refugee, he is engaged in a literacy and second language
course in Italian as he is in Rome. While attending, he manages to acquire international protection, and
consequently immediately leaves Italy to seek the second shelter in Stockholm. Here, the education system
oers him to continue his learning process, again a literacy and second language course, but now in a dierent
target language, that is, Swedish instead of Italian. Due to the proling of LASLLIAM learning goals assessed
in Rome, Hanad and his new teacher in Stockholm will benet from having the opportunity to demonstrate
Hanad’s improvement in language use strategies or technical literacy, independently of the target language.
This involves mutual recognition: the segment of the process that he started in Italy can be valued during the
welcome phase in Sweden, giving him a better reception and orientation, according to a guide that provides
a vertical curriculum, without overriding his individual needs or the contextual characteristics of the regional
learning environment.
Another example is Chaa, a low literate woman from Morocco who arrives in Spain for a family reunion and,
after two years decides to move to Germany with her husband for work. In this case, the rst segment could
take place in Madrid, and the second segment in Munich. Hopefully, this would be a holistic learning process
with transitions being made as smoothly as possible by teachers across Europe, in order to overcome the risk
of fragmentation generated by the migrants’ mobility.
The cases of Hanad and Chaa highlight that some abilities can be transferred from one language to another:
phonemic awareness, letter writing and decoding skills only have to be learned once, while reading comprehension
and listening comprehension are, of course, language dependent. This vision should not be misinterpreted as
one of the top-down rules for pedagogical decisions in literacy across Europe. Instead, smooth transitions require
transparency within the learning process in its various phases and portfolios that the learner – as the owner of
this documentation – can bring to the next learning environment. The added value of LASLLIAM is its potential
use as a practical tool able to reduce this risk of fragmentation of the learning process, helping to build the
bridge linking the drop-out in one learning environment with the drop-in in another.
6.4. LASLLIAM AS A RESOURCE TO DEVELOP ASSESSMENT TOOLS
As shown in this chapter, on the basis of specied approaches (see 6.1), LASLLIAM can oer a practical resource
for the development of dierent assessment tools (see 6.2). Table 3 summarises the proposed use of the
reference guide within a framework aimed at improving connections between learning and assessment. The
rst column lists the LASLLIAM descriptors primarily for consideration of the corresponding purposes and forms
of assessment. In the second column such forms are listed, and the third column indicates the assessment tools
that teachers can utilise.
Table 3 – LASLLIAM descriptors, forms of assessment and assessment tools
LASLLIAM descriptors Forms of assessment Assessment tools
Interviewing and Being Interviewed placement assessment placement test: second language
prole (oral)
Overall scales (written) placement assessment placement test: literacy and second
language prole (written)
Overall scales, Specic scales achievement assessment diagnostic procedures, intermediate
tests
Overall scales, Specic scales,
Domain tables
scenario-based assessment communicative scenario
Overall scales, Specic scales achievement assessment (including
self-assessment)
portfolio, checklist, grid
Overall scales, Specic scales achievement assessment end-of-course exam
Page 107
Chapter 7
165. Jean-Claude Beacco, Kaatje Dalderop, Bart Deygers, CecileHamnes Carlsen and David Little.
166. North and Piccardo 2016.
LASLLIAM RESEARCH PLAN
The aim of this chapter is to detail the research plan that underpinned the development and validation of
the LASLLIAM reference guide. LASLLIAM is the outcome of four years of continuous development, feedback
and revision (see Figure 10). In the next sections, steps taken to develop the reference guide and to validate
the descriptors are described. The aim of the dierent steps is to identify the appropriateness of LASLLIAM’s
purposes.
The LASLLIAM development phase was followed by several rounds of consultation with experts on the whole
reference guide, which was preceded by a multi-steps validation phase related to the descriptors and scales.
Finally, a piloting phase will lead to the launch and dissemination.
Figure 10 – LASLLIAM main phases
Development (2018-20)
Validation (2020-21)
Piloting (2022)
Launch and dissemination (2022)
7.1. THE DEVELOPMENT PHASE AND THE CONSULTATION PHASE
The LASLLIAM project started in May 2018 (see Introduction) with the design-based research aimed at the
development of the reference guide with a set of draft descriptors for Technical Literacy, Communicative Language
Activities, Language Use Strategies and Digital Skills.
A rst draft of the Technical Literacy descriptors was used in a workshop at the 2019 LESLLA conference to get
feedback on the levels assigned. A full detailed consultation on the reference guide as a whole (thus, including
the descriptors) with experts165 in the elds assigned by the Council of Europe took place in October 2019. The
development and revision process continued, and in June 2020 a second round of detailed consultation with
the external Council of Europe experts resulted in revision and improvement of the chapters and the scales,
and the addition of some practical applications within the learning environment. A complete set of descriptors/
scales were ready by September 2020 when the validation stage started.
7.2. THE VALIDATION PHASE
As the CEFR states, “validation is an ongoing and, theoretically never-ending, process” (Council of Europe 2001:
22). The LASLLIAM reference guide descriptors are the results of a continuous process detailed in Figure 11
below. The methodology largely follows the one used to develop the CEFR and the CEFR Companion volume
descriptors
166
with a mixed-method approach to corroborate the ndings. The participants in the validation
phase were mainly teachers, tutors and volunteers with at least two years’ experience working with LASLLIAM
target learners and familiarity with the CEFR and CEFR Companion volume. In addition, curriculum and syllabus
Page 108 3 Literacy and second language learning for the linguistic integration of adult migrants
designers, assessment experts, language testers and policy makers took part in the process. LASLLIAM validation
included a sequential qualitative-quantitative design with two phases: a qualitative phase with workshops and
a quantitative phase in two steps.
The information in the following sections and in the detailed report (see the LASLLIAM website) provides details
about the qualitative and quantitative phases. The report focuses on the outcomes in terms of data analysis,
considerations and decisions taken in the light of the evidence obtained. The following sections aim to provide
an overview of the process, the methodologies, the participants, the tasks and the data collected during each
step of the validation phase.
Figure 11 – LASLLIAM milestones: from design to launch
Design and
development
Face-to-face meetings
Online interaction
(2018-2019)
First consultation
on the descriptors
FTF workshop at the
LESLLA conference
(August 2919)
Second analysis and revision
ofthe whole LASLLIAM
(2019-20)
Fourth analysis and revision
ofthe descriptors
(January-February2021)
Fifth analysis and revision of the
descriptors
(December 2021)
Third analysis and revision
of the whole LASLLIAM
(September 2020)
Finalisation of the
English version
(January 2022)
Analysis and
revision of the tools
(June 2022)
Translation and adaptation
of the validated descriptors
(February 2022)
Launch of LASLLIAM
(June2022)
Piloting of the descriptors
in seven languages
(March-May 2022)
Consultation on the tools
developed in seven languages
by using the descriptors
(May 2022)
Second consultation
ofthe whole LASLLIAM
First Council of Europe
experts feedback
(October 2019)
Third consultation ofthe
whole LASLLIAM
Second Council of Europe
Experts feedback
(June 2020)
Qualitative validation and fourth consultation
of the descriptors Webinar to train workshop organisers.
Workshops in collaborating institutions
(October-December 2020)
Qualitative validation – second step
(October-November 2021)
Qualitative validation – first step
(April 2021)
First analysis revision
of the descriptors
(September 2019)
7.2.1. Qualitative validation
The focus of the qualitative validation was to collect feedback on all the LASLLIAM descriptors from experienced
literacy and second language teachers and volunteers in dierent countries. Workshop organisers were recruited
through the Council of Europe network and the personal and professional networks of the authoring group. Two
training webinars for workshop organisers took place in November, and 19 workshops took place over October
and December 2020 in 10 dierent countries and in 11 languages, as Table 4 details, involving 410 participants
in 91 working groups. Workshop organisers were given the choice of delivering the workshops online or face to
face. They were asked to recruit 20-25 participants who would work in groups to rate the descriptors. Participants
in the workshops needed to have at least two years’ experience working with LESLLA
167
learners and be procient
enough in English to judge the English descriptors. The participants were introduced to LASLLIAM before working
on the tasks and had access to the glossary at all times.
167. Literacy Education and Second Language Learning for Adults (LESLLA); see LESSLA 2020.
LASLLIAM research plan Page 109
Table 4 – An overview of qualitative workshops
No. of workshops 19
Format 17 online/ 2 face-to-face
Organisers’ prole University, public schools, associations
Participants’ prole State and private teachers, volunteers (involved in formal and non-formal education
addressing migrants, including refugees)
No. of countries 10: Austria, Belgium, Greece (2), Italy (7), the Netherlands, Norway, Russia, Switzerland (3),
Turkey, UK
No. of languages 11: Albanian, Dutch, English, Esperanto, French, German, Greek, Italian, Norwegian,
Russian, Turkish
No. of participants 410
No. of working groups 91
7.2.1.1. Method – qualitative validation
The workshop included ve dierent tasks and participants were asked to judge the descriptors on the same
criteria as those used to validate the CEFR Companion volume new descriptors as follows:
1. clarity (all descriptors);
2. pedagogical usefulness (all descriptors);
3. assign to levels (Technical Literacy scales);
4. relevance to real life (Specic scales and Digital Skills scales);
5. assign to categories (Specic scales).
The authoring group decided to use 90% of positive responses as a cut-o point to accept, delete or revise
descriptors in relation to each of the above ve criteria.
For each of the tasks and next to every descriptor, the working groups had the opportunity to use the “comments”
column to leave a suggestion for rewording, to express supposed inadequacy or to add any comments about each
descriptor. These informative and high-quality comments resulted in the fourth consultation round as outlined
in Figure 11 above. The reasons for a negative response in the comments column were carefully considered, as
well as the general comments made about every other descriptor.
Idiosyncratic comments that were based on a misunderstanding of an English word, or that were relevant for
a single language only or a specic educational tradition in one country were addressed in the introductory
texts to the scales.
The 568 descriptors were included in the qualitative workshop (see Table 5), and participants were asked to
rate them for dierent criteria as explained earlier. The numbers below include 90 descriptors from the CEFR
Companion volume level Pre-A1 and A1. In fact, as discussed earlier in section 1.2, and Chapter 4, LASLLIAM levels
3 and 4 and CEFR Companion volume Pre-A1 and A1 levels partially overlap. Within the qualitative validation
design these descriptors appear in Task 2, Task 3 and Task 4. They are highlighted using a dierent colour font
(blue) in the given sheets during the workshops. Participants were asked not to judge the descriptors from the
CEFR or the CEFR Companion volume, as they are already validated.
Table 5 – LASLLIAM descriptors included in the qualitative workshops
Scale No. of descriptors
Technical Literacy
scales
(total 95)
Language and Print Awareness 33
Reading 33
Writing 29
Overall scales
(total 47)
Oral Reception 7 (4 CEFR Companion volume descriptors)
Written Reception 9 (2 CEFR Companion volume descriptors)
Oral Production 6 (2 CEFR Companion volume descriptors)
Written Production 8 (3 CEFR Companion volume descriptors)
Oral Interaction 7 (3 CEFR Companion volume descriptors)
Written Interaction 10 (2 CEFR Companion volume descriptors)
Page 110 3 Literacy and second language learning for the linguistic integration of adult migrants
Scale No. of descriptors
Specic scales
(total 182)
Oral Reception 36 (15 CEFR Companion volume descriptors)
Written Reception 34 (17 CEFR Companion volume descriptors)
Oral Production 16 (5 CEFR Companion volume descriptors)
Written Production 16 (3 CEFR Companion volume descriptors)
Oral Interaction 54 (22 CEFR Companion volume descriptors)
Written Interaction 26 (10 CEFR Companion volume descriptors)
Language Use
Strategies scales
(total 168)
Oral Reception Strategies 29
Written Reception Strategies 26
Oral Production Strategies 23
Written Production Strategies 20
Oral Interaction Strategies 32
Written Interaction Strategies 38 (2 CEFR Companion volume descriptors)
Digital Skills scales
(total 76)
Communication and Collaboration 32
Content Creation and Management 28
Safety 16
Total No. ofdescriptors 568 (90 from CEFR Companion volume)
During the workshop, each group discussed and lled out the pre-coded questions with the group’s responses.
These responses were collected by the organisers and shared with the authoring group.
At the end of each workshop, the organiser asked participants if they were willing to participate in further steps,
particularly in the piloting phase, and in the nal report provided information about the willingness of the
participants to be involved. In this way, the qualitative validation has the added value of sustaining the creation
of a European network, preparing the ground for further LASLLIAM steps, according to the research plan. The
responses from all the workshops were merged into one le for each task/set of scales.
7.2.1.2. Analyses and main results
The analysis of the qualitative workshops included:
1. quantitative analysis including frequencies and percentage of responses on the dierent criteria for each
descriptor and also for the whole scale;
2. qualitative analysis of the further comments from the subgroups;
3. qualitative analysis of the reports from the workshops’ organisers.
As Table 6 shows, a total of 478 descriptors (thus the 568 without considering the 90 taken from CEFR Companion
volume and already validated) were judged by participants.
Of these, 367 descriptors scored over 90% on clarity, and 381 scored over 90% on pedagogical usefulness.
In addition, 186 descriptors were judged in relation to relevance to real life. Out of the 186, 162 descriptors
scored over 90%.
This means that 77% of descriptors received over 90% on clarity, 80% received over 90% on pedagogical usefulness
and 87% of descriptors received over 90% on relevance to real life.
Table 6 – Summary of feedback from qualitative workshops
Scale No. of
descriptors
No. of descriptors scoring over
90% positive responses
Technical Literacy
scales
(total 95)
Language and
Print Awareness
33 Clarity 22
Pedagogical usefulness 19
Reading 33 Clarity 18
Pedagogical usefulness 29
Writing 29 Clarity 10
Pedagogical usefulness 20
LASLLIAM research plan Page 111
Scale No. of
descriptors
No. of descriptors scoring over
90% positive responses
Overall scales
(total 31)
Oral Reception 3 Clarity 0
Pedagogical usefulness 3
Written Reception 7 Clarity 6
Pedagogical usefulness 7
Oral Production 4 Clarity 3
Pedagogical usefulness 4
Written Production 5 Clarity 2
Pedagogical usefulness 4
Oral Interaction 4 Clarity 4
Pedagogical usefulness 4
Written Interaction 8 Clarity 8
Pedagogical usefulness 8
Specic scales
(total 110)
Oral Reception 21
Clarity 20
Pedagogical usefulness 21
Relevance to real life 21
Written Reception 17
Clarity 12
Pedagogical usefulness 17
Relevance to real Life 17
Oral Production 11
Clarity 11
Pedagogical usefulness 11
Relevance to real Life 11
Written Production 13
Clarity 12
Pedagogical usefulness 5
Relevance to real life 7
Oral Interaction 32
Clarity 31
Pedagogical usefulness 28
Relevance to real life 31
Written Interaction 16
Clarity 16
Pedagogical usefulness 16
Relevance to real life 16
Language Use
Strategies scales
(total 166)
Oral Reception
Strategies 29 Clarity 10
Pedagogical usefulness 25
Written Reception
Strategies 26 Clarity 20
Pedagogical usefulness 14
Oral Production
Strategies 23 Clarity 20
Pedagogical usefulness 19
Written Production
Strategies 20 Clarity 17
Pedagogical usefulness 18
Oral Interaction
Strategies 32 Clarity 28
Pedagogical usefulness 27
Written Interaction
Strategies 36 Clarity 34
Pedagogical usefulness 27
Digital Skills scales
(total 76)
Communication
and Collaboration 32
Clarity 27
Pedagogical usefulness 25
Relevance to real life 30
Content Creation
and Management 28
Clarity 24
Pedagogical usefulness 17
Relevance to real life 20
Safety 16
Clarity 12
Pedagogical usefulness 13
Relevance to real life 15
Total No. of
descriptors
(total 478)
478
Clarity 367
Pedagogical usefulness 381
Relevance to real life 176
Page 112 3 Literacy and second language learning for the linguistic integration of adult migrants
For revising and deleting descriptors, several criteria were applied, as a briy described below.
Descriptors were revised or deleted when they:
fcould refer to two or more dierent communicative language activities;
fwere judged as too advanced by the majority of respondents (even if, for example, they were judged
as clear);
fwere inconsistent with descriptors in other scales.
Descriptors were revised by:
fchanging words considered too vague or too technical;
fchanging terms to uniform terminology across all LASLLIAM scales;
fsimplifying some sentences; and
fadding examples.
Based on the application of such criteria and of the established cut-o point, descriptors were deleted, others
merged or revised, taking into account also the comments of the respondents. Table 7 presents a summary of
the total number of descriptors revised or deleted in each scale.
Table 7 – Summary of revised/deleted descriptors during qualitative validation
No. of
descriptors
No.
revised
No.
deleted
Total No. of
descriptors in
revised scales
Technical
Literacy scales
Print and Language Awareness 33 17 11 22
Reading 33 23 2 31
Writing 29 20 4 25
Overall scales
Spoken Reception 7 3 0 7
Written Reception 9 6 0 9
Spoken Production 6 4 0 6
Written Production 8 3 0 8
Spoken Interaction 7 4 0 7
Written Interaction 10 3 0 10
Specic scales
Spoken Reception 36 20 0 36
Written Reception 34 5 0 34
Spoken Production 16 8 0 16
Written Production 16 4 1 15
Spoken Interaction 54 23 0 54
Written Interaction 26 0 0 26
Language Use
Strategies
scales
Spoken Reception 29 12 12 17
Written Reception 26 9 3 23
Spoken Production 23 15 1 23
Written Production 20 13 2 18
Spoken Interaction 32 22 2 32
Written Interaction 38 11 10 28
Digital Skills
scales
Communication and
Collaboration
32 13 0 32
Content Creation and
Management
28 15 4 24
Safety 16 3 2 14
Total 568 256 54 517
LASLLIAM research plan Page 113
As an overall outcome of the workshops, a total of 54 descriptors were deleted, 3 descriptors added and
256descriptors were revised.
Contextually, the glossary was revised with new entries added, as well as previous entries deleted.
Therefore, at the end of the qualitative phase, LASLLIAM had 517 descriptors, including 90 from the CEFR
Companion volume. A full report is provided on the LASLLIAM website with tables for all the scales and a summary
of the revisions to the descriptors and the glossary.
7.2.2. Quantitative validation
After the qualitative validation, the revised descriptors were used in a quantitative validation study that was
conducted with experienced teachers in two steps between April and December 2021. The aims of the quantitative
validation were:
f
to corroborate the results on clarity from the qualitative validation of the descriptors that were considered
clear, pedagogically useful and relevant for real life;168
fto check the results on clarity of those descriptors that were revised based on the qualitative validation
analysis;
f
to validate the scaling progression of the descriptors of the Technical Literacy scales and the Communicative
Language Activities scales.
7.2.2.1. Method – quantitative validation: rst step
The rst step of the quantitative validation was conducted with an online survey. The participants were recruited
through the literacy and second language networks in the dierent countries, the connections already established
in the qualitative validation, the international LESLLA network, LIAM and ALTE networks and other relevant
Council of Europe networks. They were expected to have experience with literacy and language teaching of
LESLLA learners, to be familiar with the CEFR and procient enough in English to judge descriptors in English.
Participants were invited to ll out an online survey.
The survey included questions to collect background information about the participants’ proles, particularly
age, gender, language(s) taught, years of experience with LESLLA learners and familiarity with CEFR levels
and language assessment. Participants were introduced to LASLLIAM and the concept of progression lines/
criteria at the start of the survey. Then, they were given ve tasks with descriptors to be judged, as detailed
in Table 8.
Table 8 – LASLLIAM quantitative validation tasks (rst step)
No. of task Type of scale and requests to participants
Task 1 Technical Literacy scales: clarity and assignment to LASLLIAM levels
Task 2 Overall scales: clarity and assignment to LASLLIAM levels
Task 3 Specic scales: clarity and assignment to LASLLIAM levels
Task 4 Language Use Strategies scales: clarity and rating the degree of demandingness
Task 5 Digital Skills scales: clarity
To keep the time needed to answer all questions within a reasonable limit, 18 different versions of the
validation survey were developed, as presented in the quantitative validation design described in tables
9 and 10. These versions were entered into SurveyMonkey and (using common descriptors, see below)
linked to one dataset.
In order to avoid misunderstandings and to keep the respondents familiar with the specic (literacy and language-
related) progression lines and terms, a glossary with key terms present in the descriptors (such as phoneme,
sight word, synthesise, simple sentence, turn, etc.) was provided as additional material to give respondents the
opportunity to look up these terms.
168. Pedagogical usefulness and relevance for real life were no longer included for judgment, because all descriptors were judged as useful
and relevant by at least 90% of the respondents in the qualitative study.
Page 114 3 Literacy and second language learning for the linguistic integration of adult migrants
Table 9 presents the numbers of descriptors used in the rst step of the quantitative validation. Starting from
the 517 descriptors as an outcome of the qualitative validation (see Table 7), the following were inserted into
the quantitative validation: all the new descriptors developed by the authoring group, together with those
CEFR Companion volume descriptors where needed to work as anchors (see 7.2.2), as well as where needed to
complete the progression in Overall or Specic scales at LASLLIAM level 3 or 4. This means that in the qualitative
phase 90 CEFR Companion volume descriptors for Pre-A1 and A1 level were included, but in the quantitative
phase only the above points were considered.
The same random ID number for descriptors used in the qualitative validation has been maintained in order to
compare the data from the two phases of validation. The descriptors are randomised in a stratied way to ensure
their balanced distribution across scales/levels.
Table 9 – LASLLIAM descriptors included in the quantitative validation (rst step)
Scale No. of descriptors
Technical Literacy
scales
(total 78)
Language and Print Awareness 22
Reading 31
Writing 25
Overall scales
(total 37)
Oral Reception 4
Written Reception 8
Oral Production 5
Written Production 6
Oral Interaction 5
Written Interaction 9
Specic scales
(total 131)
Oral Reception 22
Written Reception 24
Oral Production 13
Written Production 13
Oral Interaction 40
Written Interaction 19
Language Use
Strategies scales
(total 139)
Oral Reception Strategies 17
Written Reception Strategies 21
Oral Production Strategies 23
Written Production Strategies 18
Oral Interaction Strategies 32
Written Interaction Strategies 28
Digital Skills
scales
(total 70)
Communication and Collaboration 32
Content Creation and Management 24
Safety 14
Total No. of
descriptors 455
Table 10 reports the number of descriptors present in the 18 survey versions. The number of descriptors ranged
between 65 and 70, with an average of 66.94, in line with the numbers used in the CEFR Companion volume
validation.
LASLLIAM research plan Page 115
Table 10 – LASLLIAM descriptors within the survey versions
Survey
versions
Number of descriptors per task
Task 1 Task 2 Task 3 Task 4 Task 5 Total
118 24 13 4 6 65
215 24 13 8 6 66
317 24 13 5 6 65
415 28 12 9 3 67
516 28 12 6 3 65
616 28 16 6 3 69
717 25 13 7 5 67
815 25 13 7 6 66
916 25 13 9 3 66
10 16 26 13 6 5 66
11 15 26 13 7 4 65
12 15 26 13 6 6 66
13 16 25 16 10 2 69
14 14 25 16 13 2 70
15 16 25 16 9 2 68
16 16 29 12 9 2 68
17 16 29 12 9 2 68
18 16 29 11 10 3 69
The versions were constructed in such a way that:
fall the 455 descriptors were covered;
fin Task 1 a sample of the three categories of the Technical Literacy scales was always provided;
fin Task 2 and in Task 3, at least one full scale was always given;
fin Task 4 one full scale was always given;
fwithin Task 2, Task 3 and Task 4 a coherent connection was provided, as follows:
ū
the sample in Task 3 taken from the Specic scales with domains’ examples corresponded to the related
full Overall scale given in Task 2;
ū the sample in Task 4 taken from the Language Use Strategy scales was related to the scales rated in
Task2 and Task 3 (e.g. if Oral Reception was judged in Task 2 as the full Overall scale, in Task 3 descriptors
from the Specic scales also related to Oral Reception were provided, and in Task 4 descriptors from the
Oral strategies). This gave respondents the complete picture, allowing them to base their judgments on
consistency across descriptors present in dierent types of scales.
In the rst three tasks, for each descriptor (in addition to judging its “clarity”) participants were asked to assign
a LASLLIAM level. To be able to enter the data into one dataset:
fcommon descriptors were used in every version at the start of these tasks;
f
a part of these common descriptors were “anchors”: already calibrated descriptors from the CEFR Companion
volume and the Technical Literacy scales.
In summary, 18 dierent versions of the survey have been created with overlapping descriptors taken from
the dierent LASLLIAM scales. Such overlapping was provided by the common descriptors used at the start of
Task 1, Task 2 and (partially) Task 3 (including the “anchors”), and additional alternating repetitions among the
dierent given samples for the remaining part of descriptors within the related tasks.
Page 116 3 Literacy and second language learning for the linguistic integration of adult migrants
7.2.2.2. Method – quantitative validation: second step
In order to collect more data to validate the level of diculty of the descriptors, and to guarantee a representative
sample of respondents from contexts and languages among the Council of Europe member states, a second
step of quantitative validation was conducted in an additional number of countries.
Because the outcome of the rst step reports a very high agreement on clarity for more than 90% of the descriptors,
the authoring group decided to only ask for assignment to levels or degree of demandingness in the second
round. Participants in the second step were expected to have the same prole as the ones involved in the rst
step. They were introduced to LASLLIAM and the concept of progression lines/criteria at the start of the survey.
Then, they were given four tasks with descriptors to be judged, as detailed in Table 11.
Table 11 – LASLLIAM quantitative validation tasks (second step)
Task Type of scale and requests to participants
Task 1 Technical Literacy scales: assignment to LASLLIAM levels
Task 2 Communicative Language Activities scales (written): assignment to LASLLIAM levels
Task 3 Communicative Language Activities scales (oral): assignment to LASLLIAM levels
Task 4 Language Use Strategies scales: rating the degree of demandingness
The same random ID number for descriptors used in the qualitative validation, as well as in the rst step of the
quantitative validation, was maintained in order to be able to combine the data from the dierent phases. Also
in this step, the descriptors were randomised in a stratied way to ensure their balanced distribution across
scales/levels. Table 12 presents the design of this second step.
Table 12 – Design of LASLLIAM quantitative validation tasks
Task 1 Technical Literacy Assigning to level Each respondent 3 scales 69 descriptors
Task 2 Communicative Language Activities
Written (Overall + Specic)
Assigning to level Each respondent 12 scales 65 descriptors
Task 3 Communicative Language Activities
Oral (Overall + Specic)
Assigning to level Each respondent 15 scales 80 descriptors
Task 4 Language Use Strategies High/low
demanding
2 groups (A and B)
A – Written Language
Use Strategies
B – Oral Language
Use Strategies
9 scales
(for each
group)
68 descriptors
72 descriptors
Total 282/286
The quantitative validation in its second step was designed in such a way that:
fall the categories and all the descriptors are covered;
fin all the tasks, the full scale is always given (including domains’ examples, where provided);
fin the Overall and Specic scales, the descriptors that were already validated in the rst step of the quanti-
tative validation were no longer included: this means more than 200 answers were already collected; clarity
conrmed by at least 80% agreement; mode and mean conrming the intended level.
There were a few exceptions to this: some already validated descriptors were needed to complete the progression
within the Overall scales, in order to give to participants a frame with the complete elements (at least one
descriptor for each level).
In addition, the entire frame is also needed to better introduce the Specic scales.
f
as for the qualitative validation, the descriptors taken from the CEFR Companion volume were already
validated and for this reason they were not validated again.
fwith regard to the Language Use Strategies scales, taking into account the high number of descriptors,
respondents were divided into two groups (A and B), on the basis of the written and spoken dimension of
the language (thus, in line with the division made between Task 2 and Task 3): group A was asked to work
on the written dimension, group B to work on the oral dimension.
LASLLIAM research plan Page 117
7.2.2.3. Analyses and main results
The data from the rst and second steps were carefully corrected, entered into one dataset and statistically
analysed by senior research scientists at Cito (the Netherlands).
169
The analysis of the quantitative validation
took into account:
fcollation of raw ratings to percentages (for all the tasks);
fdescriptive statistics including mode, mean and standard deviation to summarise the responses (for all
the tasks);
fcomparative analyses of the assigned levels with the intended levels (for Task 1, Task 2 and Task 3) and of
the level of demandingness (Task 4), that is, the percentage of respondents that rated the intended level
and the spread of respondents that assigned descriptors to other levels.
In the quantitative study, the descriptors were rated by 421 teachers. Nearly all teachers (97%) were substantially
or very familiar with the CEFR scales. A vast majority of the teachers (78%) had at least three years’ experience
with teaching LASLLIAM learners, the majority (60%) more than ve years. The respondents came from
21dierent countries. Most languages taught were Italian, English, Dutch, German, Norwegian, French,
Slovenian, Bulgarian, Danish, Portuguese and Spanish. Small(er) numbers mentioned Catalan, Greek, Finnish,
Turkish, Swedish, Czech and Romanian, while also Albanian, Basque, Lithuanian and Luxembourgish were
mentioned incidentally.
The descriptors were judged on clarity only in the rst step of the quantitative validation, to conrm the ndings
of the qualitative workshops and check the clarity of the descriptors that were revised after the qualitative
workshops. The levels of the descriptors were rated in both steps of the quantitative validation. Each descriptor
was rated on a level by at least 200 respondents.
The descriptors were judged as clear by on average 94% of the respondents. Nearly all descriptors (97%) were
judged as clear by more than 90% of the respondents, 13 descriptors were considered clear by 70-80% of the
respondents and only two descriptors by less than 70% (60-70%).
To deal with the outcomes of the quantitative validation, the following criteria for keeping, deleting or replacing
a descriptor, and (incidentally) to revise a descriptor were used.
fA descriptor that was considered clear by less than 70% of the respondents was deleted from the scales.
fDescriptors were kept if mode (the most mentioned) and mean of the level was the same as the intended
level (with incidental application of a tolerance for the mean of 10%).
fA descriptor was moved to another level according to two conditions: if at least 75% of the respondents
agreed on one specic level (other than the intended one) and if the moving did not aect the consistency
of the scale, otherwise the descriptor was deleted.
fDescriptors that did not meet the criteria of mode and mean and were also not rated at another level by
more than 75% of the respondents were deleted.
fIn some cases, a similar descriptor from a related scale (e.g. production and interaction) that did meet the
criteria replaced the original one. This criterion was applied when the deletion of the original one would
have created a gap in a Specic scale.
fThe descriptors that were taken from the CEFR Companion volume were already validated and therefore
not validated again. In total 71 descriptors from the CEFR Companion volume are integrated into the
LASLLIAM scales for Communicative Language Activities (see Table 2). They were kept unchanged and
they were completed in the Specic scales by tables of domain examples (see Chapter 4).
fIncidentally, a descriptor was slightly revised to correct an error or to keep consistency in the wording (e.g.
message instead of text, deleting a duplication or adding a missing word).
In total 85 LASLLIAM descriptors were deleted from the scales, 24 were replaced and with 32 descriptors the
text was slightly revised to correct a mistake or was adapted to a new collocation. More details can be found in
the validation report on the website. Table 13 presents an overview of the number of descriptors in each of the
scales of the nal version of LASLLIAM.
169. CITO 2022.
Page 118 3 Literacy and second language learning for the linguistic integration of adult migrants
Table 13 – Number of descriptors in the nal version of LASLLIAM
Scale No. of descriptors
Technical Literacy scales
(total 59)
Language and Print Awareness 15
Reading 24
Writing 20
Overall scales*
(total 41)
Oral Reception 6
Written Reception 9
Oral Production 4
Written Production 7
Oral Interaction 7
Written Interaction 8
Specic scales*
(total 143)
Oral Reception 24
Written Reception 29
Oral Production 12
Written Production 12
Oral Interaction 49
Written Interaction 17
Language Use Strategies
scales
(total 119)
Oral Reception Strategies 14
Written Reception Strategies 19
Oral Production Strategies 21
Written Production Strategies 18
Oral Interaction Strategies 26
Written Interaction Strategies 21
Digital Skills scales
(total 63)
Communication and Collaboration 27
Content Creation and Management 24
Safety 12
Total No. ofdescriptors 425
*Including descriptors from the CEFR Companion volume.
All in all, after careful revisions in several rounds of consultations with experts, qualitative validation workshops
with 91 groups from 10 dierent countries and quantitative validation by more than 400 teachers in about 20
dierent countries, the 568 descriptors at the beginning of the validation process resulted in the 425 descriptors
(see Table 13), with 354 new descriptors validated by experienced teachers teaching about 24 languages,
integrated by 71 descriptors already validated from the CEFR Companion volume.
7.3. OUTLOOK ON THE PILOTING PHASE
Based on the validation of descriptors and scales, the piloting phase aims to document the exploratory practical
use of LASLLIAM in various contexts and languages. Translations of the LASLLIAM scales from English into six other
European languages (Dutch, German, Greek, Italian, Spanish, Turkish) serve teams of experienced practitioners
as a foundation to produce teaching tools such as sample pages of diagnostic materials, tasks and mini-projects,
communicative scenarios, strategy instruction and language counselling, training in the use of digital devices,
and portfolios in the target languages of their respective country. A qualitative content analysis of focus groups’
data documents the perspectives of these practitioners on the usefulness of the LASLLIAM reference guide.
Additionally, ALTE-LAMI teams170 have developed various samples of assessment tools in English, in line with
the principles outlined in Chapter 6, to illustrate LASLLIAM’s potential in this respect (for example, examples of
needs analysis test, placement test and end-of-course exam).
170. ALTE 2022.
Page 119
REFERENCES
Abadzi H. (2012), “Can adults become uent readers in newly learned scripts?”, Education Research International
Vol. 2012, pp. 1-8, available at https://doi.org/10.1155/2012/710785, accessed 5February 2022.
Adams M. (1999), Beginning to read: thinking and learning about print, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA and London.
Albert R. et al. (2012), Alphamar Methodenhandbuch [Alphamar Handbook of Teaching Methods], Langenscheidt.
Albert R. et al. (2015), Alphabetisierung in der Fremdsprache Deutsch: Lehrmethoden auf dem Prüfstand [Literacy
in German as a Foreign Language: Teaching Methods on the Test Bench], Tectum.
ALTE Authoring Group (1998), Multilingual glossary of language testing terms, Studies in Language Testing, Vol.6,
UCLES/Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
ALTE Authoring Group (2011), Manual for language test development and examining, Council of Europe, available
at https://rm.coe.int/manual-for-language-test-development-and-examining-for-use-with-the-ce/1680667a2b,
accessed 5 February 2022.
ALTE Authoring Group (2016), Language tests for access, integration and citizenship: an outline for policy makers,
LAMI Position paper, available at www.alte.org/resources/Documents/LAMI%20Booklet%20EN.pdf, accessed
5February 2022.
ALTE (2022), Language Assessment for Migration and Integration, available at www.alte.org/LAMI-SIG, accessed
5 February 2022.
Altherr Flores J. A. (2017), “Social semiotics and multimodal assessment of L2 adult emergent readers from
refugee background”, in Sosiński M. (ed.), Alfabetización y aprendizaje de idiomas por adutos: Investigación, política
educative y práctica docente [Literacy education and second language learning by adults: research, policy and
practice], pp. 9-31, Editorial Universidad de Granada, Granada.
Ardila A. et al. (2010), “Illiteracy: the neuropsychology of cognition without reading”, Archives of Clinical
Neuropsychology Vol. 25, No. 8, pp. 689-712.
Asfaha Y. (2009), Literacy acquisition in multilingual Eritrea: a comparative study of reading across languages and
scripts, Aksant Academic Publishers.
Bachman L. (1990), Fundamental considerations in language testing, Oxford University Press.
Barkowski H. (2011), “Processability – words & rules – Konnektionismus: Drei Modellierungen der Sprachverarbeitung
und ihre Bedeutung für das Lernen und Lehren von Fremdsprachen [Processability – words & rules – Connectionism:
Three ways of modelling language processing and their signicance for learning and teaching foreign languages]”,
in Clalüna M and Etterich B. (eds), Spracherwerb DaF / DaZ Forschen – Lehren – Lernen. Akten der Dritten
Gesamtschweizerischen Tagung für Deutschlehrerinnen und Deutschlehrer 11 und 12 Juni 2010, Universität
Bern (pp. 17-32), AkDaF – Ledads, St. Gallen.
Barton D. (1994), Literacy: an introduction to the ecology of written language, Wiley-Blackwell, Hoboken NJ.
Beacco J.-C. (2005), Languages and language repertoires: plurilingualism as a way for life in Europe. Reference study,
Council of Europe, Strasbourg, available at https://rm.coe.int/languages-and-language-repertoires-plurilingualism-
as-a-way-of-life-in/16802fc1ba, accessed 11 February 2022.
Beacco J.-C., Little D. and Hedges C. (2014a), Linguistic integration of adult migrants: guide to policy development
and implementation, Council of Europe, Strasbourg, available at https://rm.coe.int/16802fc1cd, accessed
11February 2022.
Beacco J.-C., Little D. and Hedges C. (2014b), The linguistic integration of adult migrants: From one country
to another, from one language to another, Council of Europe, Strasbourg, available at https://rm.coe.int/
CoERMPublicCommonSearchServices/DisplayDCTMContent?documentId=09000016802fd54a, accessed
11February 2022.
Beacco J.-C. et al. (2005), Niveau A1.1 pour le français: Référentiel et certication (DILF) pour les premiers acquis en
français [Level A1.1 for French: Framework and certication (DILF) for initial learning of French], Didier, Paris.
Page 120 3 Literacy and second language learning for the linguistic integration of adult migrants
Beacco J.-C. et al. (2016), Guide for the development and implementation of curricula for plurilingual and intercultural
education, Council of Europe, Strasbourg, available at www.coe.int/en/web/language-policy/guide-for-the-
development-and-implementation-of-curricula-for-plurilingual-and-intercultural-education, accessed 11February
2022.
Benson C. (2004), The importance of mother tongue-based schooling for educational quality, UNESCO, available at
https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000146632, accessed 11February 2022.
Bigelow M. (2006), “Social and cultural capital at school: the case of a Somali teenage girl”, in van de Craats I.,
Kurvers J. and Young-Scholten M. (eds), Low-educated second language and literacy acquisition. Proceedings of
the 2nd symposium, Richmond (pp. 7-22), Virginia Adult Learning Resource Center.
Böddeker J. (2018), Der Einsatz von Vokabellernstrategien in Alphabetisierungskursen [The use of vocabulary
learning strategies in literacy classes], Tectum.
Boeckmann K.-B. (2011), “Spracherwerbstheorie und Sprachunterrichtspraxis [Language acquisition theory
and classrom practice]”, in Clalüna M. and Etterich B. (eds), Spracherwerb DaF / DaZ Forschen – Lehren – Lernen.
Akten der Dritten Gesamtschweizerischen Tagung für Deutschlehrerinnen und Deutschlehrer 11 und 12 Juni
2010, Universität Bern (pp. 33-44), AkDaF – Ledads, St Gallen Language acquisition in GSL/GFL: Researching-
Teaching - Learning. Proceedings of the Third All-Swiss Conference for Teachers of German, 11 and 12 June 2010,
University of Bern].
Boon D. (2014), “Adult literacy education in a multilingual context: teaching, learning and using written language
in East Timor”, doctoral dissertation, Tilburg University.
Borri A. et al. (2014a), Italiano L2 in contesti migratori. Sillabo e descrittori dall’alfabetizzazione all’A1[Italian language
as L2 in migration: syllabus and descriptors from rst literacy acquisition to A1 level], Loescher, Torino.
Borri A. et al. (2014b), Italian language for adult migrants: syllabus and descriptors for illiterate, semi-literate and
literate users, from illiteracy to A1 level, Introduction/Italien L2 en contextes migratoires: syllabus et descripteurs
de l’alphabétisation jusqu’au niveau A1, available at www.coe.int/en/web/lang-migrants/literacy, accessed
11February 2022.
British Council – EAQUALS (2015), Core inventory for general English (2nd edn), British Council, London, available
at www.teachingenglish.org.uk/sites/teacheng/les/pub-british-council-eaquals-core-inventoryv2.pdf, accessed
11February 2022.
Bundesamt für Migration und Flüchtlinge (2007), Vorläuges Konzept für einen bundesweiten Integrationskurs
mit Alphabetisierung [Preliminary concept for a national integration course including literacy], Bundesamt für
Migration und Flüchtlinge, Nürnberg.
Bundesamt für Migration und Flüchtlinge (2015), Konzept für einen bundesweiten Integrationskurs mit Alphabetisierung,
Überarbeitete Neuauage, Mai 2015 [Concept for a national integration course including literacy], Bundesamt
für Migration und Flüchtlinge, Nürnberg, available at www.bamf.de/SharedDocs/Anlagen/DE/Integration/
Integrationskurse/Kurstraeger/KonzepteLeitfaeden/konz-f-bundesw-ik-mit-alphabet.pdf?__blob=publicationFile,
accessed 11February 2022.
Bundesamt für Migration und Flüchtlinge (2018), Konzept für einen bundesweiten Integrationskurs für
Zweitschriftlernende (Zweitschriftlernerkurs) [Concept for a national integration course for second-script learners],
Bundesamt für Migration und Flüchtlinge, Nürnberg, available at www.bamf.de/SharedDocs/Anlagen/DE/
Integration/Integrationskurse/Kurstraeger/KonzepteLeitfaeden/konzept-zweitschriftlernende.html?nn=284228,
accessed 11February 2022.
Candlin C. and Mercer, N. (eds.), (2001), English language teaching in its social context: a reader, Routledge, London
and New York.
Carless D., Joughin G. and Liu N. F. (2007), How assessment supports learning: learning-oriented assessment in
action, Hong Kong University Press.
Carlsen C. H. (2017), “Giving LESLLA learners a fair chance in testing”, in Sosiński M. (ed.), Alfabetización y aprendizaje
de idiomas por adultos: investigación, política educativa y práctica docente [Literacy education and second language
learning by adults: research, policy and practice]. Proceedings of the 12th LESLLA symposium (pp. 135-48), EUG.
Carretero S. Vuorikari R. and Punie Y. (2017), DigComp 2.1: the digital competence framework for citizens with eight
prociency levels and examples of use, Publications Oce of the European Union, available at https://publications.
jrc.ec.europa.eu/repository/handle/JRC106281, accessed 11February 2022.
References Page 121
Carroll B. (2018), “A learning-oriented assessment perspective on scenario-based assessment”, Columbia University
Working Papers in Applied Linguistics and TESOL Vol. 17, No. 2, pp. 28-35.
Castro-Caldas A. and Reis A. (2003), “The knowledge of orthography is a revolution in the brain”, Reading and
Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal Vol. 16, No. 1, pp. 81-97.
Chall J. (1986, 1996), Stages of reading development, McGraw-Hill.
Chall J. (1999), “Models of reading” in Wagner D. A., Venezky R. L. and Street B. (eds), Literacy: an international
handbook (pp. 163-166), Garland Publishing.
Chartier A. (2004), “Teaching reading: a historical approach”, in Nunes T. and Bryant P. (eds), The handbook of
children’s literacy (pp. 511-538), Springer.
Cito (2008), Raamwerk Alfabetisering NT2, Cito B.V. Arnhem.
Cito (2022), We are Cito, available at www.cito.com/, accessed 11February 2022.
CLIQ (2020), Sillabi, available at www.associazionecliq.it/sillabi/, accessed 11February 2022.
Condelli L. (2004), Eective instruction for adult ESL literacy students: ndings from the What Works study, University
of Nottingham, available at www.voced.edu.au/content/ngv%3A12915, accessed 11February 2022.
Condelli L. and Spruck Wrigley H. (2006), “Instruction, language and literacy: What Works study for adult ESL
literacy students” in van de Craats I., Kurvers J. and Young-Scholten M. (eds), Low-educated adult second language
and literacy acquisition. Proceedings of the inaugural symposium (pp. 111-33), LOT.
Cope B. and Kalantzis M. (eds) (2000), Multiliteracies: literacy learning and the design of social futures, Routledge,
London and New York.
Council of Europe (n.d.), Generic checklists for the use in ELPs designed for learners aged 15+, Strasbourg, available
at https://rm.coe.int/16804932bf, accessed 11February 2022.
Council of Europe (1954), European Cultural Convention, available at www.coe.int/en/web/culture-and-heritage/
european-cultural-convention, accessed 11February 2022
Council of Europe (2001), Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: learning, teaching, assessment,
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Council of Europe (2014), Integration tests: helping or hindering integration?, available at www.assembly.coe.int/
CommitteeDocs/2013/amdoc11_2013TA.pdf, accessed 11February 2022.
Council of Europe (2015), European Social Charter. Collected texts (7th edn), available at https://rm.coe.int/
CoERMPublicCommonSearchServices/DisplayDCTMContent?documentId=090000168048b059, accessed
19February 2022.
Council of Europe (2015-2022), Language for work: tools for professional development, available at https://
languageforwork.ecml.at, accessed 19February 2022.
Council of Europe (2020a), Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: learning, teaching, assessment:
companion volume, Council of Europe Publishing, Strasbourg, available at www.coe.int/lang-cefr, accessed
19February 2022.
Council of Europe (2020b), Vulnerable groups, available at www.coe.int/en/web/europarisks/vulnerable-groups,
accessed 19February 2022.
Council of Europe (2020c), Digital Citizenship Education, available at www.coe.int/en/web/digital-citizenship-
education/home, accessed 19February 2022.
Council of Europe (2020d), European Language Portfolio: self-assessment grids (CEFR), available at www.coe.int/
en/web/portfolio/self-assessment-grid, accessed 19February 2022.
Council of Europe (2020 e), European Language Portfolio, available at www.coe.int/en/web/portfolio, accessed
19February 2022.
Council of Europe (2020f), Reference level descriptions (language by language), available at www.coe.int/en/web/
common-european-framework-reference-languages/reference-level-descriptions, accessed 19February 2022.
Council of Europe (2021a), The language biography, available at www.coe.int/en/web/portfolio/the-language-
biography, accessed 21February 2022.
Page 122 3 Literacy and second language learning for the linguistic integration of adult migrants
Council of Europe (2021b), The language passport, available at www.coe.int/en/web/portfolio/the-language-
passport, accessed 21February 2022.
Council of Europe (2021c), 25 – Finding out what refugees can already do in the target language and what they need
to be able to do, available at https://rm.coe.int/tool-25-nding-out-what-refugees-can-already-do-in-the-target-
languag/16807171aa, accessed 21February 2022.
Council of Europe (2021d), Mapping journeys and interacting with the host community, available at www.coe.int/
en/web/language-support-for-adult-refugees/mapping-journeys-and-interacting-with-the-host-community,
accessed 21February 2022.
Council of Europe – Committee of Ministers (1968), Resolution (68) 18 on the teaching of languages to migrant
workers, available at https://rm.coe.int/native/09000016804d7d70, accessed 19February 2022.
Council of Europe – Committee of Ministers (2014), Integration tests: helping or hindering integration, Reply to
recommendation: Recommendation 2034, Doc. 13604, 23 September 2014, available at www.assembly.coe.int/
nw/xml/XRef/Xref-XML2HTML-en.asp?leid=21151&lang=en, accessed 19February 2022.
Council of Europe – LIAM (2020a), Linguistic proles and proling, available at www.coe.int/it/web/lang-migrants/
prole-language-/-proling, accessed 21February 2022.
Council of Europe – LIAM (2020b), Language repertoire, available at www.coe.int/it/web/lang-migrants/repertoire-
language-, accessed 21February 2022.
Council of Europe – LIAM (2020c), Linguistic integration of adult migrants (LIAM), available at www.coe.int/en/
web/lang-migrants/home, accessed 21February 2022.
Council of Europe – LIAM (2020d), Teacher training, available at www.coe.int/it/web/lang-migrants/teacher-
training, accessed 21February 2022.
Council of Europe – LIAM (2020 e), Scenarios in language teaching and learning for adult migrants, available at
www.coe.int/en/web/lang-migrants/scenarios-in-language-teaching-and-learning-for-adult-migrants, accessed
21February 2022.
Council of Europe – LIAM (2020f), Piloting, available at www.coe.int/en/web/language-support-for-adult-refugees/
piloting, accessed 21February 2022.
Council of Europe – LIAM (2020g), Mapping journeys and interacting with the host community, available at www.coe.
int/en/web/language-support-for-adult-refugees/mapping-journeys-and-interacting-with-the-host-community,
accessed 21February 2022.
Council of Europe – LIAM (2020h), Curriculum / course programme / course design / course objectives, available at
www.coe.int/it/web/lang-migrants/curriculum, accessed 21February 2022.
Council of Europe – LIAM (2020i), 26 – First steps in the host country language, available at https://rm.coe.int/tool-
26-rst-steps-in-the-host-country-language-language-support-for-/16807171ab, accessed 21February 2022.
Council of Europe – LIAM (2020j), 39 – Helping refugees to think about their learning, available at https://rm.coe.int/
tool-39-helping-refugees-to-think-about-their-learning-language-suppor/16807171bd, accessed 21February 2022.
Council of Europe – LIAM (2020k), Language support for adult refugees– A Council of Europe Toolkit, available at
www.coe.int/en/web/language-support-for-adult-refugees/list-of-all-tools, accessed 21February 2022.
Council of Europe – LIAM (2020l), Literacy, available at www.coe.int/it/web/lang-migrants/literacy, accessed
21February 2022.
Council of Europe – LIAM (2020m), Literacy proles: challenges in the migrant language education, available at
www.coe.int/en/web/lang-migrants/literacy-proles, accessed 21February 2022.
Counihan M. (2008), “Looking for logic in all the wrong places: an investigation of language, literacy and logic
in reasoning”, doctoral dissertation, University of Amsterdam.
Craats I. (van de), Kurvers J. and Young-Scholten M. (2006), “Research on low-educated second language and
literacy acquisition”, in van de Craats I., Kurvers J. and Young-Scholten M. (eds), Low-educated second language
and literacy acquisition. Proceedings of the inaugural symposium, Tilburg University, August 2005 (pp. 7-23), LOT.
Cucchiarini C. et al. (2015), “The digital literacy instructor: developing automatic speech recognition and selecting
learning materials for opaque and transparent orthographies”, in van de Craats I., Kurvers J. and van Hout R.
(eds), Adult literacy, second language and cognition (pp. 251-78), Centre for Language Studies (CLS), Nijmegen.
Cutler A. (2012), Native listening: language experience and the recognition of spoken words, MIT Press, Cambridge MA.
References Page 123
Da Silva C. et al. (2012), “Literacy: exploring working memory systems”, Journal of Clinical and Experimental
Neuropsychology Vol. 34, No. 4, pp. 369-77.
Dammers E., Feldmeier A. and Kuhnen C. (2015), “Selbstbestimmung und Selbststeuerung im Unterricht Deutsch
als Zweitsprache am Beispiel der arbeitsplatzbezogenen Alphabetisierung [Self-determination and self-regulation
in GSL classes: the example of workplace literacy]”, in Ferraresi G. and Liebner S. (eds), Sprachbrückenbauen. 40.
Jahrestagung des Fachverbands Deutsch als Fremd- und Zweitsprache an der Universität Bamberg 2013 (pp. 171-96),
Universitätsverlag, Göttingen.
Dawidowicz M. (2015), “Leseförderung auf Wortebene mit Hilfe des DigLin-Lernprogramms in der Zweitsprache.
Erprobung in Alphabetisierungskursen für Migrantinnen und Migranten [Fostering second language reading
skills at the word level using the Diglin software. Experiences from literacy classes for migrants]”, Deutsch als
Zweitsprache 1, pp. 37-49.
De Rijksoverheid (2020), Nieuwe Wet inburgering, available at www.rijksoverheid.nl/actueel/nieuws/2020/07/02/
nieuwe-wet-inburgering-aangenomen, accessed 21February 2022.
Desjardins R. (2003), “Determinants of literacy prociency: a lifelong-lifewide learning perspective”, International
Journal of Educational Research Vol. 39, No. 3, pp. 205-45, https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/
pii/S0883035504000266, accessed 2 June 2022.
Digital Literacy Instructor, English version (2020), available at http://diglin.eu/, accessed 21February 2022.
Digital Literacy Instructor, Finnish version (2020), available at https://test.fcsprint2.nl/menu/5, accessed 21February
2022.
Digital Literacy Instructor, French version (2020), available at https://test.fcsprint2.nl/menu/7, accessed 21February
2022.
Digital Literacy Instructor, German version (2020), available at https://test.fcsprint2.nl/menu/70#98, accessed
21February 2022.
Digital Literacy Instructor, Spanish version (2020), available at https://test.fcsprint2.nl/menu/24, accessed
21February 2022.
Dörnyei Z. (2009), “The L2 motivational self-system”, in Dörnyei Z. and Ushioda E. (eds), Motivation, language
identity and the L2 self (pp. 9-42), Multilingual Matters, Bristol.
Ehri L. C. et al. (2001), “Systematic phonics instruction helps students learn to read: evidence from the national
reading panel’s meta-analysis”, Review of Educational Research Vol. 71, pp. 393-447.
ELINET – European Literacy Policy Network (2016), European declaration to the right of literacy, ELINET.
Ellis R. (ed.) (1999), Learning a second language through interaction, John Benjamins, Amsterdam and Philadelphia.
Ellis R. (2003), Task-based language learning and teaching, Oxford University Press.
Ende K. et al. (2013), Curriculare Vorgaben und Unterrichtsplanung, Klett-Langenscheidt.
English Standard Version Bible (2001), ESV Online, availble at www.biblegateway.com/versions/English-Standard-
Version-ESV-Bible/#booklist, accessed 19February 2022.
European Commission (2020), Council recommendation on key competences for lifelong learning, available at
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32018H0604(01)&rid=7, accessed 2 June 2022.
Feick D., Pietzuch A. and Schramm K. (eds) (2013), Alphabetisierung für Erwachsene [Literacy classes for adults],
Klett-Langenscheidt.
Feldmeier A. (2005), “Die kontrastive Alphabetisierung als Alternativkonzept zur zweisprachigen Alphabetisierung
und zur Alphabetisierung in der Zweitsprache Deutsch am Beispiel der Sprachen Kurdisch und Türkisch [Contrastive
literacy concepts as an alternative to bilingual and GSL literacy programmes: The examples of Kurdish and
Turkish]”, Deutsch als Zweitsprache Vol. 2, pp. 42-50.
Feldmeier A. (2009a), “Oene Unterrichtsmethoden in der muttersprachlichen und zweitsprachlichen
Alphabetisierung [Opening teaching methods in L1 and L2 literacy classrooms]”, in Bothe J. (ed.), Wie kommen
Analphabeten zu Wort? Analysen und Perspektiven (pp. 175-95), Waxmann.
Feldmeier A. (2009b), Konzept für einen bundesweiten Integrationskurs mit Alphabetisierung [Concept for a national
integration course including literacy], Bundesamt für Migration und Flüchtlinge, Nürnberg.
Feldmeier A. (2010), Von A bis Z. Praxishandbuch Alphabetisierung. Deutsch als Zweitsprache für Erwachsene [From
A to Z. Practioners’ handbook on literacy. German as a second language for adults], Klett.
Page 124 3 Literacy and second language learning for the linguistic integration of adult migrants
Feldmeier A. (2011), “Alphabetisierung von Erwachsenen nicht deutscher Muttersprache. Leseprozesse und
Anwendung von Strategien beim Erlesen isoliert dargestellter Wörter unter besonderer Berücksichtigung der
farblichen und typographischen Markierung von Buchstabengruppen [Literacy learning of adults with other
rst languages. Reading processes and strategy use in reading isolated words with coloured or typographically
marked groups of letters]”, doctoral dissertation, Universität Bielefeld, available at https://pub.uni-bielefeld.de/
record/2301752, accessed 21February 2022.
Finnish National Board of Education (2012), National core curriculum for literacy training for adult migrants, Finnish
National Board of Education, Helsinki.
Finnish National Agency (2017), National core curriculum for basic education for adults 2017, Finnish National
Agency for Education, Helsinki, available at www.oph./en/statistics-and-publications/publications/national-
cocoursere-curriculum-basic-education-adults-2017, accessed 21February 2022.
Freinet C. (1994), Oeuvres pédagogiques (vols 1 and 2), Éditions du Seuil.
Freire P. (1970/2018), Pedagogy of the oppressed, Bloomsbury Academic, New York.
Frith U. (1985), “Beneath the surface of developmental dyslexia”, in Patterson K. E., Marshall J. C. and Coltheart M. (eds),
Surface dyslexia: neuropsychological and cognitive studies of phonological reading (pp. 310-30), Lawrence Erlbaum.
Fritz T. et al. (2006), Rahmencurriculum. Deutsch als Zweitsprache and Alphabetisierung [Curricular framework
on teaching German as a second language and literacy], Universität Wien, Institut für Weiterbildung, Verband
Wiener Volksbildung, AlfaZentrum für MigrantInnen der Volkshochschule Ottakring, Wien.
Gardner S., Polyzoi E. and Rampaul Y. (1996), “Individual variables, literacy history, and ESL progress among Kurdish
and Bosnian immigrants”, TESL Canada Journal/Revue TESL du Canada Vol. 14, No. 1, pp. 1-20.
Gass S. M. and Selinker L. (2008), Second language acquisition: an introductory course (3rd edn), Routledge, London
and New York.
Gee J. P. (1990), Social linguistics and literacies: ideology in discourses, Routledge, London and New York.
Geers S. (2011), “Leersucces voorspellen bij alfacursisten? Onderzoek naar de validiteit en betrouwbaarheid van
een observatie-instrument”[Predicting learning succes of literacy students. A study on validity and reliability of
an observation instrument], master’s thesis, Tilburg University.
Givón T. (1979), On understanding grammar, Academic Press, Cambridge MA.
Gogolin I. (2002), Linguistic diversity and new minorities in Europe. Guide for the development of language education
policies in Europe: from linguistic diversity to plurilingual education, Language Policy Unit, Council of Europe,
Strasbourg, available at https://rm.coe.int/linguistic-diversity-and-new-minorities-in-europe/16802fc1c0, accessed
21February 2022.
Gonzalves L. (2017), “When standardized tests fail: assessing ESL literacy learners in California”, in Sosiński M.
(ed.), Alfabetización y aprendizaje de idiomas por adultos: investigación, política educativa y práctica docente
(pp.123-34), EUG.
Gonzalves L. (2020), “Emergent literacy development in adult L2 learners: from theory to practice”, in Neokleous
G., Krulatz A. and Farrelly R. (eds), Handbook of research on cultivating literac y in diverse and multilingual classrooms,
Georgios IGI Global, Hershey PA.
Gorp K. (van) and Deygers B. (2013), “Task‐based language assessment”, in Kunnan A. (ed.), The companion to
language assessment: approaches and development (pp. 578-93), Wiley-Blackwell.
Grassi R., Costa R. B. and Ghezzi C. (eds) (2008), Dagli studi sulle sequenze di acquisizione alla classe di italiano L2:
Atti del convegno-seminario Bergamo, 19-21 giugno 2006 [From the studies on acquisition sequences to the Italian
L2 classroom. Proceedings of the conference-seminar Bergamo, 19-21 June 2006], Guerra Edizioni, Perugia.
Gray W. S. (1969), The teaching of reading and writing: an international survey (2nd edn), Scott, Foresman and Co./
UNESCO.
Guernier M.-C. (2012), Apprendre à lire à des adultes en langue maternelle et langue étrangère [Teaching adults
to read in their mother tongue and in a foreign language], Synergies Brésil,10, 47-57, https://gerint.fr/Base/
Bresil10/guernier.pdf, accessed 2 June 2022.
Guerrero Calle S. (2020), “Zweitschriftlernende in der deutschsprachigen Schweiz. In 300 Kurslektionen Alpha
und A1? [Second-script learners in German-speaking Switzerland. Reaching A1 and literacy in 300 lessons?]”,
doctoral dissertation, University of Freiburg.
References Page 125
Heyn A. (2013), Sprachen lernen mit Methode. Der Rückgri auf die Muttersprache im Sprachunterricht [Learning
languages with method: The use of L1 in language teaching], Tectum.
Hinkel E. (ed.) (2005), “Handbook of research in second language teaching and learning”, Routledge, London
and New York.
Homer B. (2009), “Literacy and metalinguistic development”, in Olson D. and Torrance N. (eds), The Cambridge
handbook of literacy, pp. 487-500, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Hoshii M. and Schramm K. (2017), “Von den Kommunikationsstrategien zum produktions- und verständnissichernden
Handeln [Moving from communication strategies to production- and comprehension-securing action]”, Deutsch
als Fremdsprache Vol. 54, No. 4, pp. 195-201, into https://dafdigital.de/ce/von-den-kommunikationsstrategien-
zum-produktions-und-verstaendnissichernden-handeln/detail.html, accessed 2 June 2022.
Huettig F. (2015), “Literacy inuences cognitive abilities far beyond the mastery of written language”, in van de
Craats I., Kurvers J. and van Hout R. (eds), Adult literacy, second language and cognition (pp. 115-28), Centre for
Language Studies, Nijmegen.
Huettig F., Singh N. and Mishra R. (2011), “Language -mediated visual orienting behavior in low and high literates”,
Frontiers in Psychology Vol. 2, No. 285, pp. 1-14, available at www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2011.00285/
full, accessed 21February 2022.
Hughes A. (2003), Testing for language teachers, Cambridge University Press.
Juel C. (1991), “Beginning reading”, in Pearson D. (ed.), Handbook of reading research (pp. 759-84), Longman.
Kern R. and Schultz J. M. (2005), “Beyond orality: investigating literacy and the literary in second and foreign
language instruction”, The Modern Language Journal Vol. 89, No. 3, pp. 381-92.
Ketelaars E. (2011), “Een onderzoek naar de ontwikkeling van schrijfvaardigheid van volwassen analfabeten”,[A
study on the development of writing skills of adult non-literates] master’s thesis, Tilburg University.
Khakpour N. and Schramm K. (2016), “Autonomie im Unterricht mit Seiteneinsteiger_innen: Theoretische
Perspektiven und Praxisbeispiele [Autonomy for teaching lateral entrants: Theoretical perspectives and practical
examples]”, in Benholz C., Frank M. and Niederhaus C. (eds), Neuzugewanderte Schülerinnen und Schüler – eine
Gruppe mit besonderen Potentialen: Beiträge aus Forschung und Schulpraxis, pp. 321-37, Waxmann.
Khan K. (2019), Linguistic trials and negotiations in the UK, Bloomsbury Publishing.
Kirshner D. and Whitson J. (eds) (1997), Situated cognition: social, semiotic and psychological perspectives, pp.281-
300), Lawrence Erlbaum.
Klein W. and Perdue C. (1997), “The basic variety (or: Couldn’t natural languages be much simpler?)”, Second
Language Research Vol. 13, No. 4, pp. 301-47, https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1191/026765897666879396,
accessed 2 June 2022.
Koda K. (2008), “Impacts of prior literacy experience on second-language learning to read”, in Koda K. and Zehler
A. M. (eds), Learning to read across languages, pp. 68-96, Routledge, London and New York.
Kosmidis M. H., Zari M. and Politimou N. (2011), “Literacy versus formal schooling: inuence on working memory ”,
Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology Vol. 26, No. 7, pp. 575-82, https://academic.oup.com/acn/article/26/7/575/4868,
accessed 2 June 2022.
Kosmidis M. et al. (2004), “Semantic and phonological processing in illiteracy”, Journal of the International
Neuropsychological Society Vol. 10, No. 6, pp. 818-27.
Krumm H.-J. (2007), “Proles instead of levels: the CEFR and its (ab)uses in the context of migration”, The Modern
Language Journal Vol. 91, No. 4, pp. 667-69, https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1540-4781.2007.00627_6.x,
accessed 2 June 2022.
Krumm H.-J. and Jenkins E. M. (eds) (2001), Kinder und ihre Sprachen – lebendige Mehrsprachigkeit [Children and
their languages – plurilingualism alive], Eviva, Wien.
Kuhn C. (2015), Hast du keinen Mülleimer? – Der GER im Spannungsfeld von Arbeitsalltag und Sprachenpolitik [Don’t you
have a trash bin? – The CEFR between everyday working life and language policy], IQ Fachstelle Berufsbezogenes
Deutsch, available at www.deutsch-am-arbeitsplatz.de/fachdiskussion/standard-titel/sprachstandsfeststellung/
ger-im-spannungsfeld.html?L=0, accessed 21February 2022.
Kurvers J. (2002), Met ongeletterde ogen. Kennis van taal en schrift van analfabeten [With non-literate eyes.
Knowledge of language and script of non-literates], Aksant Academic Publishers.
Page 126 3 Literacy and second language learning for the linguistic integration of adult migrants
Kurvers J. and Stockmann W. (2009), Wat werkt in Alfabetisering NT2. Leerlast en succesfactoren [What works in
Dutch L2 literacy. Study load and succes factors], Tilburg University.
Kurvers J. and Uri H. (2006), “Metalexical awareness: development, methodology or written language? A cross-
linguistic comparison”, Journal of Psycholinguistic Research Vol. 35, No. 4, pp. 353-67.
Kurvers J. and van der Zouw K. (1990), In de ban van het schrift. Over analfabetisme en alfabetisering in een tweede
taal [Under the spell of writing. About non-literacy and literacy acquisition in a second language], wets and
Zeitlinger, Amsterdam.
Kurvers J., Stockmann W. and van de Craats I. (2010), “Predictors of success in adult L2 literacy acquisition”, in Wall
T. and Leong M. (eds), Low-educated second language and literacy acquisition. Proceedings of the 5th symposium
Ban 2009 (pp. 64-79), Bow Valley College.
Kurvers J., van de Craats I. and van Hout R. (2015), “Footprints for the future: cognition, literacy and second
language acquisition by adults”, in van de Craats I., Kurvers J. and van Hout R. (eds), Adult literacy, second language
and cognition, pp. 7-32, Centre for Language Studies, Nijmegen.
Kurvers J., van Hout R. and Vallen T. (2006), “Discovering features of language: metalinguistic awareness of adult
illiterates”, in van de Craats I., Kurvers J. and Young-Scholten M. (eds), Low-educated second language and literacy
acquisition. Proceedings of the inaugural symposium Tilburg 2005, pp. 69-88, LOT.
Kurvers J., van Hout R. and Vallen T. (2007), “Literacy and word boundaries”, in Faux N. and Major H. (eds), Low
educated second language and literacy acquisition: research, policy and practice. Proceedings of the second annual
forum, pp. 44-64, The Literacy Institute, Richmond, VA.
Larsen-Freeman D. and Long M. H. (2014), An Introduction to second language acquisition research, Routledge,
London and New York.
Lemke-Ghar C. et al. (2021), Erste Schrift und zweite Sprache. Migrant_innen ohne oder mit geringer formaler Bildung
in Alphabetisierungskursen [First writing system and second language. Migrants with no or little formal schooling
in literacy classes], IMIS, Osnabrück, available at https://nbn-resolving.org/urn:nbn:de:gbv:700-202106255174,
accessed 21February 2022.
LESLLA – Literacy Education and Second Language Learning for Adults (2020), www.leslla.org.
Liberman I. and Liberman A. (1990), “Whole language vs. code emphasis: Underlying assumptions and their
implications for reading instruction”, Annals of Dyslexia Vol. 40, No. 1, pp. 51-76.
Little D. (2012), The linguistic integration of adult migrants and the European Language Portfolio: an introduction,
Council of Europe, Strasbourg, available at https://rm.coe.int/16802fc1cb, accessed 21February 2022.
Loewen S. (2020), Introduction to instructed second language acquisition, Taylor and Francis Group, New York and
London.
Luria A. (1976), Cognitive development: its cultural and social foundations, Harvard University Press, Cambridge,
MA and London.
McNamara T. (2005), “21st century shibboleth: language tests, identity and intergroup conict”, Language Policy
Vol. 4, No. 4, pp. 1-20.
Markov S. et al. (2015), Lernberatung für Teilnehmende in DaZ-Alphabetisierungskursen. Handreichung für Lernberatende
und Lehrkräfte [Language counseling for L2 literacy learners. Materials for counselors and teachers], Waxmann,
Münster and New York.
Marschke B. (2022), Handbuch der kontrastiven Alphabetisierung [Handbook of contrastive literacy], Erich Schmidt.
Messick S. (1989), “Validity”, in Linn R. L. (ed.), Educational measurement, pp. 13-104, Macmillan.
Ministerie van Sociale Zaken en Werkgelgenheid (2018), Evaluatie van de Wet inburgering 2013, available at
www.rijksoverheid.nl/documenten/rapporten/2018/06/27/evaluatie-van-de-wet-inburgering-2013, accessed
21February 2022.
Ministero degli Interni – Dipartimento per le libertà civili e l’immigrazione (2018), Linee guida per la progettazione
dei Piani regionali per la formazione civico linguistica dei cittadini di Paesi terzi 2018-2021 nanziati a valere sul FAMI
[Guidelines for the planning of regional plans for civic and linguistic instruction of third-country nationals 2018-21
nanced by AMIF], available at www.interno.gov.it/sites/default/les/01._linee_guida_a_piani_regionali_2018-2021_
rev.25.05.2018.pdf, accessed 21February 2022.
References Page 127
Ministero dell’Istruzione, dell’Università e della Ricerca (2012), Linee guida per la progettazione dei percorsi di
alfabetizzazione e di apprendimento della lingua italiana. Indicazioni per l’articolazione dei livelli A1 e A2 del Quadro
Comune Europeo di Riferimento per le lingue in competenze, conoscenze e abilità [Guidelines for the planning of
Italian language and literacy learning paths. Indications for the articulation of levels A1 and A2 of the Common
European Framework of Reference for Languages into competences, knowledge and skills], available at www.
indire.it/lucabas/lkmw_le/Ida///LineeGuida_Alfabetizzazione_MIUR.pdf, accessed 21February 2022.
Minuz F. and Kurvers J. (2021), “LASLLIAM: a European reference guide for LESLLA learners”, in D’Agostino M. and
Mocciaro E. (eds), People, languages and literacy in new migration: research, practice and policy. Literacy Education
and Second Language Learning for Adults (LESLLA).Selected papers from the 14th Annual Symposium, Palermo, Italy,
October 4th-6th 2018, pp.1-18, UniPa Press, Palermo.
Minuz F., Borri A. and Rocca L. (2016), Progettare percorsi di L2 per adulti stranieri [Designing L2 courses for foreign
adults], Loescher, Torino.
Morais J. et al. (1979), “Does awareness of speech as a sequence of phones arise spontaneously?”, Cognition
Vol.7, pp. 323-31.
Nassaji H. (2007), “The development of spelling and orthographic knowledge in English as an L2: a longitudinal
case study”, The Canadian Journal of Applied Linguistics Vol. 10, No. 1, pp. 77-98.
National Reading Panel (2000), Teaching children to read: an evidence-based assessment of the scientific research
literature on reading and its implications for reading instruction (NIH Publication No. 00-4769), US Government
Printing Office.
Neokleous G., Krulatz A. and Farrelly R. (eds) (2020), Handbook of research on cultivating literacy in diverse and
multilingual classrooms, IGI Global, Hershey PA.
North B. and Piccardo E. (2016), Developing illustrative descriptors of aspects of mediation for the Common European
Framework of Reference (CEFR), Council of Europe, Strasbourg, available at https://rm.coe.int/common-european-
framework-of-reference-for-languages-learning-teaching/16807331, accessed 21February 2022.
North B. et al. (2019), Language course planning, Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Norton B. (2013), Identity and language learning: extending the conversation, Multilingual Matters, Bristol.
Oers R. (van) (2014), Deserving citizenship: citizenship tests in Germany, the Netherlands and the United Kingdom,
M. Nijho Publishers, Leiden.
Olson D. R. (1994), The world on paper: the conceptual and cognitive implications of writing and reading, Cambridge
University Press, Cambridge and New York.
Olson D. R. and Torrance N. (2009), The Cambridge handbook of literacy, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Orletti F. (2000), La conversazione disuguale. Potere e interazione [The unequal conversation. Power and interaction],
Carocci, Roma.
Ostrosky‐Solís F. and Lozano A. (2006), “Digit span: eect of education and culture”, International Journal of
Psychology Vol. 41, No. 5, pp. 333-41.
Ostrosky-Solís F., Ardila A. and Rosselli M. (1998), “Neuropsychological test performance in illiterate subjects”,
Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology Vol. 13, No. 7, pp. 645-60.
Oxford R. L. (2003), “Toward a more systematic model of L2 learner autonomy”, in Palfreyman D. and
Smith R. C. (eds), Learner autonomy across cultures, Palgrave Macmillan, London, https://link.springer.com/
book/10.1057/9780230504684#toc, accessed 2 June 2022.
Pallotti G. (1998), La seconda lingua [The second language] , Bompiani, Milano.
Perfetti C., Van Dyke J. and Hart L. (2002), “The psycholinguistics of basic literacy”, Annual Review of Applied
Linguistics Vol. 21, No. 1, pp. 127-49.
Pochon-Berger E. and Lenz P. (2014), Language requirements and language testing for immigration and integration
purposes – A synthesis of academic literature, University of Fribourg, Institute of Multilingualism.
Pracht H. (2012), Schemabasierte Basisbildung im Deutschen: Ein Praxisbuch für Lehrkräfte [Schema-based basic
education in German: Practical ideas for teachers], Waxmann.
Purpura J. (2014), Learning-oriented assessment in language classrooms: Using assessment to gauge and promote
language learning, Taylor and Francis, New York and London.
Page 128 3 Literacy and second language learning for the linguistic integration of adult migrants
Py B. (2000), “Didactique des langues étrangères et recherche sur l’acquisition. Les conditions d’un dialogue”
[Foreign language didactics and acquisitional research - The conditions for a dialogue], Etudes de Linguistique
Appliquée No. 120, pp. 395-404.
Rachmandra V. and Karanth P. (2007), “The role of literacy in the conceptualization of words: data from Kannada-
speaking children and non-literate adults”, Reading and Writing No. 20, pp. 173-99.
Ramírez-Esparza N. et al. (2012), “Socio-interactive practices and personality in adult learners of English with
little formal education”, Language Learning Vol. 62, No. 2, pp. 541-70.
Ravid D. and Tolchinsky L. (2002), “Developing linguistic literacy: a comprehensive model, Journal of Child
Language Vol. 29, No. 2, pp. 417-47.
Reder S. and Davila E. (2005), “Context and literacy practices”, Annual Review of Applied Linguistics No. 25, pp. 170-87.
Reis A. and Castro-Caldas A. (1997), “Illiteracy: a cause for biased cognitive development”, Journal of the International
Neuropsychological Society Vol. 3, No. 5, pp. 444-50.
Reis A. et al. (2007), “Semantic interference on a phonological task in illiterate subjects”, Scandinavian Journal of
Psychology Vol. 48, No. 1, pp. 69-74.
Rinta L.-M. (2005), Literacy for special target groups: migrants. Paper commissioned for the EFA Global Monitoring
Report 2006, Literacy for Life, UNESCO.
Robbins P. and Aydede M. (2009), The Cambridge handbook of situated cognition, Cambridge University Press.
Rocca L., Deygers B. and Hamnes Carlsen C. (2020), Linguistic integration of adult migrants: requirements and
learning opportunities. Report on the 2018 Council of Europe and ALTE survey on language and knowledge
of society policies for migrants, Council of Europe, Strasbourg, available at www.coe.int/en/web/education/-/-
linguistic-integration-of-adult-migrants-requirements-and-learning-opportunities-council-of-europe-and-alte-report,
accessed 21February 2022.
Rocca L., Minuz F. and Borri A. (2017), “Syllabus and descriptors for illiterate, semi-literate and literate users. From
illiteracy to A1 level”, in Sosiński M. (ed.), Alfabetización y aprendizaje de idiomas por adutos: Investigación, política
educative y práctica docente [Literacy, education and second language learning by adults: research, policy and
practice], pp. 207-18, Editorial Universidad de Granada, Granada.
Roder A. (2009), Ausspracheunterricht in der Alphabetisierung [Teaching pronunciation in literacy classes], Tectum.
Rokitzki C. (2016), Alphabetisierung von erwachsenen Migranten nach Montessori. Ein methodischer Ansatz für die
Fremd- und Zweitsprache Deutsch [Teaching literacy to adult migrants: the Montessori method in German as a
foreign and second language], Tectum.
Roll H. and Schramm K. (eds) (2010), “Alphabetisierung in der Zweitsprache Deutsch” [Literacy in German as a
Second Language], Osnabrücker Beiträge zur Sprachtheorie, 77, Gilles and Francke.
Rother N. (2010), Das Integrationspanel: Ergebnisse einer Befragung von Teilnehmenden zu Beginn ihres
Alphabetisierungskurses [The Integration Panel: results of a survey of participants at the start of their literacy
course], Bundesamt für Migration und Flüchtlinge, Forschungszentrum Migration, Integration und Asyl, available
at https://nbn-resolving.org/urn:nbn:de:0168-ssoar-259111, accessed 21February 2022.
Sadler R. (1989), “Formative assessment and the design of instructional systems”, Instructional Science Vol. 18,
pp. 119-44.
Scholes R. (ed.) (1993), Literacy and language analysis, Lawrence Erlbaum.
Scribner S. and Cole M. (1981), The psychology of literacy, Harvard University Press.
Seymour P. H. K., Aro M. and Erskine J. M. (2003), “Foundation literacy acquisition in European orthographies”,
British Journal of Psychology Vol. 94, No. 2, 143-74.
Share D. (1995), “Phonological recoding and self-teaching: sine qua non of reading acquisition”, Cognition Vol.
55, No. 2, pp. 151-218.
Shohamy E. (1993), The power of tests: the impact of language tests, NFLC.
Stockmann W. (2004), “De toegepaste kunst van geletterdheid” [The applied art of literacy], master’s thesis,
Tilburg University, Tilburg.
Stockmann W. (2006), “Portfolio methodology for literacy learners: the Dutch case”, in van de Craats I., Kurvers J.
and Young-Scholten M. (eds), Low-educated second language and literacy acquisition. Proceedings of the inaugural
symposium, Tilburg University, August 2005, pp. 152-163, LOT.
References Page 129
Street B. V. (1981), Literacy in theory and practice, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Strube S. (2014), “Grappling with the oral skills: the learning and teaching of the low-literate adult second language
learner”, doctoral dissertation, Radboud University.
Tarone E. (1980), “Communication strategies, foreigner talk and repair in interlanguage”, Language Learning
No.30, pp. 417-31.
Tarone E. (2010), “Second language acquisition by low-literate learners: an understudied population”, Language
Teaching No. 43, pp. 75-83.
Tarone E. and Bigelow M. (2005), “Impact of literacy on oral language processing. Implications for second language
acquisition”. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics Vol. 25, pp. 77-97.
Tarone E., Bigelow M. and Hansen K. (2009), Literacy and second language oracy, Oxford University Press.
Treiman R. (1993), Beginning to spell: a study of rst-grade children, Oxford University Press.
Treiman R. and Bourassa D. (2000), “The development of spelling skill”, Topics in Language Disorders Vol. 20, No.3,
pp. 1-18.
Turner C. E. and Purpura J. E. (2016), “Learning-oriented assessment in second and foreign language classrooms”,
in Tsagari D. and Baneerjee J. (eds),Handbook of second language assessment, pp. 255-72, De Gruyter, Boston, MA.
UNESCO (2005), Education for all: Literacy for life, EFA Global Monitoring Report 2006, UNESCO, available at https://
unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000141639, accessed 21February 2022.
UNESCO (2017a), Functional literacy and numeracy: denitions and options for measurement for the SDG Target 4.6,
available at http://gaml.uis.unesco.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2018/08/gaml4-functional-literacy-numeracy.
pdf, accessed 21February 2022.
UNESCO (2017b), Reading the past, writing the future: fty years of promoting literacy, UNESCO, Paris, available at
https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000247563, accessed 21February 2022.
UNESCO Institute for Statistics (2015), Adult and youth literacy, UIS fact sheet, No. 32, available at http://uis.unesco.
org/sites/default/les/documents/fs32-adult-and-youth-literacy-2015-en_0.pdf, accessed 21February 2022.
United Nations General Assembly (1948), Universal Declaration of Human Rights, United Nations, available at
www.un.org/en/about-us/universal-declaration-of-human-rights, accessed 21February 2022.
United Nations General Assembly (2015), Resolution adopted by the General Assembly on 25 September 2015, available
at www.un.org/en/development/desa/population/migration/generalassembly/docs/globalcompact/A_RES_70_1_E.
pdf, accessed 21February 2022.
Van Avermaet P. and Rocca L. (2013), “Language testing and access”, in Galaczi E. D. and Weir C. J. (eds), Exploring
language frameworks. Proceedings of the ALTE Kraków conference, July 2011, pp. 11-44, Cambridge University
Press, Cambridge.
Vedovelli M. (2002), Guida all’italiano per stranieri: la prospettiva del Quadro comune europeo per le lingue [A guide
to Italian for foreigners: The perspective of the Common European Framework for Languages], Carocci, Rome.
Verhoeven L. and Perfetti C. (eds) (2017), Learning to read across languages and writing systems, Cambridge
University Press.
Véronique D. (2005), “Les interrelations entre la recherche sur l’acquisition du français langue étrangère et la
didactique du français langue étrangère: quelques pistes de travail” [The interrelations between research on the
acquisition of French as a foreign language and the didactics of French as a foreign language. Some avenues of
work], Acquisition et Interaction en Langue Étrangère No. 23, pp. 9-41.
Vertecchi B. (1995), Didactic decision and evaluation, La Nuova Italia.
Viise N. M. (1996), “A study of the spelling development of adult literacy learners compared with that of classroom
children”, Journal of Literacy Research Vol. 28, No. 4, pp. 561-87.
Vox – Nasjonalt fagorgan for kompetansepolitikk (2014), Opplæring av språkhjelpere, Vox, available at www.
kompetansenorge.no/contentassets/abc176d39fef4bb7908b4e8dba18f63c/opplaering_av_sprakhjelpere.pdf,
accessed 21February 2022.
Vygotski L. S. (1975), Thought and language, MIT Press.
Page 130 3 Literacy and second language learning for the linguistic integration of adult migrants
Waggershauser E. (2015), Schreiben als soziale Praxis: eine ethnographische Untersuchung erwachsener
russischsprachiger Zweitschriftlernender [Literacy as social practice: an ethngraphic study of Russian adult
second-script learners], Stauenburg.
Warren M. and Young S. (2012), From metalinguistic awareness to social context: the role of L1 literacy in adult SLA.
A research synthesis, Georgetown University, Washington, DC.
WeirC. (2004), Language testing and validation – An evidence-based approach, Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge.
Whiteside A. (2008), “Who is ‘you’? ESL literacy, written text and troubles with deixis in imagined spaces”, in
Young-Scholten M. (ed.), Low-educated second language and literacy acquisition. Proceedings of the third annual
forum, pp. 99-107, Roundtuit Publishing.
Wisniewski K. (2019), “Zur Skalierung von Strategien im Gemeinsamen europäischen Referenzrahmen. Eine
kritische Auseinandersetzung [Scaling strategies for the CEFR. A critical analysis]”, Deutsch als Fremdsprache Vol.
56, No. 3, pp. 142-51.
Young-Scholten M. and Naeb R. (2020), “Acquisition and assessment of morphosyntax”, in Kreft Peyton J. and
Young-Scholten M. (eds), Teaching adult immigrants with limited formal education, pp. 79-103, Multilingual
Matters, Bristol.
Zeng W. et al. (2018), “Towards a learning-oriented assessment to improve students’ learning: a critical review of
literature”, Educational Assessment, Evaluation and Accountability Vol. 30, No. 3, pp. 211-50.
Zhang M. et al. (2019), “Scenario-based assessments in writing: an experimental study”, Educational Assessment
Vol. 24, No. 2, pp. 73-90, www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/10627197.2018.1557515, accessed 2 June 2022.
Ziegler J. C. and Goswami U. (2006), “Becoming literate in dierent languages: similar problems, dierent solutions”,
Developmental Science Vol. 9, No. 5, pp. 429-36, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-7687.2006.00509.x.
Page 131
GLOSSARY
Alphabetical script: a script in which the letters (graphemes) represent sounds (phonemes) in spoken language.
Analyse: splitting up a spoken or written word into the successive sounds/phonemes or letters/graphemes.
Body language: gestures and movements by which a person communicates non-verbally (e.g. waving the hand
to greet someone).
Clause: a linguistic unit which contains a verb and a subject and is part of a sentence (e.g. “Mary took the bus”
and “after she had nished her homework” are both clauses in the sentence “Mary took the bus after she had
nished her homework.”).
Cohesive devices: function words that are used to relate dierent parts of a sentence or a text. Cohesion and
coherence can be realised by using reference words like “his” or “they”, or connectors like “and”, “but” or “because”.
Complex syllabic structure: a syllabic structure in which consonant clusters are used, or in which bound
morphemes add to the basic content.
Connectors: lexical devices linking clauses and/or sentences (e.g. “and”, “but” or “because”). Connectors are a
subgroup of cohesive devices.
Consonant cluster: a group of consonants without vowels between them ([str] in “street” or [rk] in “dark”).
Contextual clues (see also visual clues and non-verbal clues): non-verbal signals like gestures, pictures or
artefacts that add to interpreting utterances or texts.
Decoding: the process (in beginning reading) of analysing a written word letter by letter, replacing letters by
sounds and synthesising the sounds to pronounce the word and get access to the meaning.
Discourse: a functional unit of coherent utterances; the term is used in this reference guide as the equivalent
of text in spoken language.
Distinguish: dierentiate mainly by knowing what something is or is about, not necessarily by independent
reading. For example, someone can distinguish their own address (e.g. “this is for me”) by recognising some
letters and the dierence from other addresses.
Encoding: the process (in beginning writing) of replacing the successive sounds of a spoken word by graphemes.
Fluent/uency: smooth reading or pronouncing written words without letter-by-letter decoding; in speaking
it refers to smoothly pronouncing larger units without hesitating or long pauses.
Font: used for dierent forms and designs of letters, such as capital, italic, bold, but also Times Roman or Calibri.
Formulaic expression: several words acting as a unit to express a particular intention or social routine; therefore,
often used and learned as a chunk.
Frequent morpheme: a meaningful unit of language, that is very often used in forming words, like the plural
or third-person s (the chairs, he walks), the past tense -ed (she looked), or dis- or -er in dislike, or farmer.
Grapheme: the unit in writing that represents a phoneme in an alphabetic script. A grapheme can consist of
one letter from the alphabet, like <m> or <a>, but also of two letters like the <oo> in too that represents the
phoneme [u:] or a letter with a diacritic, like the <é> in French or the <ä> in German.
Language awareness: conscious knowledge of features of language, distinguished from the implicit knowledge
that is used in understanding and speaking a familiar language.
Letter-by-letter decoding: pronouncing the successive graphemes of a word in order to get the pronunciation
and meaning of the word (c-a-t: cat).
(Linguistic/non-linguistic) sign: entity with a conventional (arbitrary) meaning (e.g. word, gesture, pictogram
or logo).
Morpheme: the smallest meaningful unit of a language.
Multisyllabic words: words that consist of two or more syllables.
Non-verbal signal(s): perceptual signals that could be visual, like gestures or pictures.
Page 132 3 Literacy and second language learning for the linguistic integration of adult migrants
Phoneme: the minimal sound unit in a word that distinguishes it from another word with another meaning; /p/
is a phoneme in English, because pan means something else than can or fan.
Phoneme–grapheme correspondence: the way in which graphemes in writing represent phonemes in spoken
language. This correspondence can be one-to-one, but also more complex: one grapheme can represent two
or more phonemes (the letter c can represent /k/ and /s/), and one phoneme can be represented by dierent
graphemes (e.g. the sound [u:] in you, too, who).
Phrase: a group of words smaller than a clause or sentence (e.g. “my sister Nora”; “in the blue sky”).
Practised (words): words that have been used in classroom exercises.
Rhyming words: words ending with similar sounding syllables (e.g. cat-hat; bike-like).
Scaold: supportive element in teaching and communication. Conversation scaolds are written formulations
prepared in advance for actual use in oral interaction.
Script: the specic appearance of a written language. Where writing system refers to the basic principle that
units of the language are represented in writing (alphabetic, syllabic, logographic), script refers to the visual
shapes. The Roman, Cyrillic and Greek alphabet are all alphabetic writing systems, but with dierent scripts.
Script awareness: knowledge of the properties of the written language.
Sentence: a syntactic unit consisting of one or more clauses (e.g. “Mary took the bus after she had nished her
homework.”).
Sight words: words that are learned by heart and recognised globally without decoding. These include both
simple key words that are used to learn to decode afterwards and personally relevant words like name and
address, days of the week or months of the year (e.g. “Teheran”, “teacher”).
Simple sentence: a main clause, usually short, with mostly a subject and a predicate, without any embedding
(e.g. “The boy eats an apple.” “The girl goes to school.”).
Simple speech: a well-articulated stretch of speech with frequent words and phrases as well as, possibly, simple
sentences (e.g. “I have to go now. I will be back tomorrow morning.”).
Simple syllabic structure: a syllable that consists of a vowel with maximally one consonant before and/or after
the vowel (CV, VC or CVC like be, at, moon).
Social formula: xed expression for use in a social ritual (e.g. “How are you today?”).
Speech: both a medium of language and a way of communicating through spoken language.
Synthesise: blending the successive sounds/phonemes of a word into the whole word.
Technical literacy: the process of learning to decode written words to spoken words (in reading) or to encode
spoken words to written words (in writing).
Tex t: most often used for a functional unit of coherent sentences; it also refers to functional units composed of
only a few words (e.g. signs) or phrases (e.g. instructions). In this reference guide, the term text mainly refers to
written language.
Text type: abstract category for classifying concrete texts according to their function and prototypical elements
(e.g. weather report, lm advertisement, restaurant bill).
Transparent (orthography): explicit, mostly, one-to-one relationship between spelling and pronunciation.
Turn: the unit of speech in an interaction during which a speaker holds the oor until another person speaks; a
turn can be composed of one or more utterances and may overlap with the subsequent turn.
Typical (entries, features): representative of a particular type or aspect.
Utterance: a unit of oral language production to realise the speaker’s intention.
Visual clue: a piece of pictorial or graphic information that supports verbal information (e.g. a picture in a story).
Word recognition: words can be recognised directly or indirectly. Direct recognition refers to global recognition
of visual features (like the rst letter or the length) without decoding, or to automatised decoding; indirect
recognition refers to decoding letter by letter, blending the sounds and pronouncing the word.
Page 133
Appendix 1
RESOURCES FOR TEACHING LITERACY AND
SECOND LANGUAGE SELECTED LANGUAGES
1. DUTCH
Reading and writing
Blom J. (2021), TaalCompleet. Leer lezen en schrijven, Kleurrijker.
Borgesius M., Dalderop K. and Stockman W. (2017), Melkweg, Leermateriaal lezen voor drie alfabetiseringsniveaus,
Stichting Melkweg Plus.
Dalderop K. (2019), Verhalenvertellers. Verhalen van jonge mensen uit alle windstreken, Boom.
Dalderop K. etal. (2018), Ster in lezen. Leesteksten met oefeningen voor de ISK (Alfa A, B en C), Boom, Amsterdam.
Dalderop K. etal. (2019), Ster in schrijven. Functionele schrijftaken met oefeningen voor de ISK (Alfa A, B en C), Boom.
Deutekom J. and van de Craats I. (2018), DigLin+, een digitale alfabetiserings- en taalverwervingsmethode voor
anderstalige jongeren en volwassenen, Boom.
Gathier M. (2012), Schrijfvaardig, deel 1, 2 en 3, Coutinho.
Gathier M. and De Kruyf D. (2003) Verder lezen (tekstboek en oefenboeken), Coutinho.
Gathier M. and De Kruyf D. (2017), Beter lezen (tekstboek en oefenboeken), Coutinho.
Geerts M. (2010), Alfatas. Alfataken op School, Centrum voor Taal en Onderwijs, K.U. Leuven.
Godfroy B. (2016, herdruk), Van letters naar klanken. Materiaal voor anders-alfabeten, NCB.
Koot N. (2020), Goedgeletterd. Leerboek Alfabetisering, Coutinho.
Kurvers J. etal. (2019), Water bij de melk. Verhalen voor mensen die Nederlands leren lezen, Boom.
Kurvers J. etal. (2020), Beren op de Weg. Verhalen voor mensen die Nederlands leren lezen, Boom.
Tholen B. (eindredactie) (herdruk 2017) 7/43 and 7/43 extra. Methode voor technisch lezen en schrijven, NCB.
Nuwenhoud A. (2021), Basisboek Alfa NT2, Coutinho.
Van Baal M. et al. (2018-2021), Stichting Het Begint met Taal and VU-NT. SpreekTaal 1, 2 en 3, Van Dale.
Van den Brandt M. (2009), Alfaschrift. Een cursus schriftbeheersing voor analfabete anderstaligen, Boom.
Wablieft (2020), Beeldboeken in eenvoudig Nederlands, Wablieft.
Vocabulary and oral Dutch
Borgesius M. etal. (2007), Picto (A)NT2, Harcourt Test Publishers.
Das A. (2016), Een dag met Fatima Tas. Coutinho.
Gathier M. and De Kruyf D. (2005), Leerwoordenboek Nederlands, Coutinho.
ITTA (2020), AlfaTaal, materiaal voor het oefenen van gespreksvaardigheid met alfaleerlingen in de ISK, ITTA/UvA.
Kreulen J., and en Tholen B. (2017, herdruk), Een zekere woordenschat, NCB Verhalen.
Plattèl M. et al. (2020), TaalCompleet. Praat je Mee? Spreekmethode voor ANT2 en NT2, Kleurrijker.
Van Utrecht M., Van den Brink A. and Segers I. (2021), Spreek een woordje mee! Mondelinge woordenschat en
spreekvaardigheid voor alfacursisten, NCB.
Page 134 3 Literacy and second language learning for the linguistic integration of adult migrants
Online information and materials
NedBox, www.nedbox.be/
Melkweg, https://melkwegplus.nl Diglin, www.nt2.nl/nl/diglin
Informatie basiseducatie alfabetisering Nederlands als tweede taal Vlaanderen, www.kwalicatiesencurriculum.
be/basiseducatie-alfabetisering-nederlands-tweede-taal
Beroepsvereniging docenten Nederlands als tweede taal, www.bvnt2.org
2. ENGLISH
Babenko E. (2010), ESOL activities pre-entry practical language activities for living in the UK and Ireland,Cambridge
University Press.
Harrison L. (2008), ESOL activities entry 1 practical language activities for living in the UK and Ireland, Cambridge
University Press.
Online information and materials
ESOL Materials Ireland: a website where ESOL teachers share materials and experience, www.esolmaterialsireland.
com/esolmaterials/index1.php
ESOL Nexus: a British Council website to support teachers and learners, https://esol.britishcouncil.org/
ESOL Materials Scotland, www.sqa.org.uk/sqa/45678.html
A collection of ESOL resources by the National Association for Teaching English and Community Languages to
Adults, www.natecla.org.uk/content/469/Resources
The Digital Literacy Instructor, https://en.diglin.eu/
English my way, www.englishmyway.co.uk/topics
3. FRENCH
On these websites, many resources for literacy and French as a second language can be found: www.lepointdue.
net/penseigner/alphabetisation-ches-pedagogiques.htm#ai
4. FINNISH
These websites provide teaching materials for learners of literacy and Finnish as a second language:
https://turunkristillinenopisto./wp-content/uploads/2019/09/arjen_aakkoset.pdf
www.hel./static/opev/virasto/naapuri+hississa_koko+materiaali.pdf
www.lukimat./lukeminen/materiaalit/ekapeli
Project Osallisena Verkossa has gathered all kinds of second language Finnish learning/teaching materials on
its website. It includes materials for literacy learners, but they are not specialised or only restricted to them:
www.osallisenaverkossa.com/
5. GERMAN
On its website, the Federal Oce for Migration and Refugees (BAMF) lists materials for funded literacy and
second language classes:
www.bamf.de/SharedDocs/Anlagen/DE/Integration/Integrationskurse/Lehrkraefte/liste-zugelassener-lehrwerke.
pdf?__blob=publicationFile (p. 6f.).
For a plurilingual approach, the KASA project has published contrastive materials for Arabic, Farsi and Turkish:
Alizadeh S. et al. (2019), Mit Persisch Deutsch lernen, Ein deutsch-persisches Alphabetisierungslehrwerk, GIZ gGmbH.
Resources for teaching literacy and second language (selected languages) Page 135
Bektaş T., Marschke B. and Matta M. (2019), Mit Türkisch Deutsch lernen, Ein deutsch-türkisches
Alphabetisierungslehrwerk, GIZ gGmbH.
Matta M., Bektaş T. and Marschke B. (2019), Mit Arabisch Deutsch lernen, Ein deutsch-arabisches
Alphabetisierungslehrwerk, GIZ gGmbH.
For coaching literacy and second language learners, you can nd materials in various languages here:
Downloads – Materialien zur Alphalernberatung, www.uni-muenster.de/Germanistik/alphalernberatung/
downloads/beratungsmaterialien_im_sozialraum.html
Markov S., Scheithauer C. and Schramm K. (2015), Lernberatung für Teilnehmende in DaZ-Alphabetisierungskursen.
Handreichung für Lernberatende und Lehrkräfte, Waxmann.
6. ITALIAN
Aloisi E., Fiamenghi N. and Scaramelli E. (2016), Andiamo! Corso di italiano multilivello per immigrati adulti,
Loescher.
Aloisi E. and Perna A. (2019), Ataya. Manuale multilivello per adulti con bassa e nulla scolarità pregressa, Sestante.
Bertelli G. and Raspollini K. (2019), Piacere, La Linea.
Borio M. and Rickler, P. (2011), Piano piano, Guerini.
Borri A. (2019), A piccoli passi. Alfabetizzazione e competenze di base, Loescher, Torino.
Borri A. and Minuz F. (2013), Detto e scritto. Corso di prima alfabetizzazione, Loescher, Torino.
Borri A. et al. (2016-2019), Pari e dispari. Italiano L2 per adulti in classi ad abilità dierenziate, Loescher, Torino.
Galli T. (2018), Pre-Alfa. Imparare a imparare, Nina.
ItaStra – Gruppo di lavoro (2017), Ponti di parole (2nd edn), Palermo University Press.
Turati N. (2017), Leggi e scrivi, CPIA Vicenza Editore.
Online interactive materials
Borri A. et al. (on behalf of Provincia di Bologna) (2010), I come Italiano, https://ida.loescher.it/i-come-italiano-.n5489
Casi P., www.italianoperme.it/
Ataya App, www.cooperativaruah.it/il-nostro-lavoro/cultura/ataya-app-manuale/
Fare parole app, https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=it.ervet.fareparole1&hl=it&gl=US
Classroom activities and teaching materials are available for free on:
https://italianoperstranieri.loescher.it/italiano-l2-e-alfabetizzazione
7. NORWEGIAN
Skills Norway (Kompetanse Norge) has developed materials and provided links to digital tools for literacy training,
see www.kompetansenorge.no/Grunnleggende-ferdigheter/Lesing-og-skriving/#Lremidler_3
8. SPANISH
Bedmar Moreno M. (2002), Proyecto Integra, educación social de inmigrantes. Alfabetización, Grupo Editorial
Universitario.
Castillo P. et al. (1996), Manual de lengua y cultura: lecto-escritura, Cáritas Española.
Colón M. et al. (1999), Contrastes: método de alfabetización en español como lengua extranjera, Ministerio de
Educación y Cultura, Centro de Publicaciones.
Cruz Roja Española (2001), Cuadernos de alfabetización, Cruz Roja Española.
Fernández E. et al. (2008), En contacto con… (2nd edn), ASTI.
Page 136 3 Literacy and second language learning for the linguistic integration of adult migrants
Jiménez Pérez T. (1992), Alfabetizar. Plan de Formación Integral Ciudadana de Melilla, Ministerio de Educación y
Ciencia.
Martínez J. (2002), Portal español para inmigrantes, Ed. Prensa Universitaria.
Vilar M. et al. (2018), Oralpha. Método de alfabetización y comunicación oral en castellano y catalán signicativo,
Comissió de formació ACOF.
Page 137
Appendix 2
EXAMPLE OF A LASLLIAM SCENARIO
Theme-based scenarios focus on communicative situations that learners are facing in real life (see 5.4). Each
scenario provides a set of real-world situations, with activities presented in a strategic order to satisfy a specic
and concrete need, for example to collect a parcel at the post oce (see example below).
Such an example follows the model, in both layout and terminology, provided by LIAM in the project “Language
support to adult refugees – A Council of Europe Toolkit” (Council of Europe – LIAM 2020
e). It proved to be eective
with non- and low-literate migrants and, in particular, in heterogeneous learning groups. Accordingly, teachers
should choose the LASLLIAM descriptors that are more appropriate to the diverse learner proles in the group,
with the aim of involving all participants in the activities, according to their competences.
Two considerations are to be kept in mind in designing a scenario. Firstly, the situations for which the scenario
trains should result from an initial needs analysis and be negotiated with learners (see 5.4). Secondly, backward
planning is the recommended tool for devising and sequencing the scenario activities (exercises and tasks) in
literacy and second language courses (see 3.1).
LIAM MODEL FOR SCENARIOS ADOPTED BY LASLLIAM
Aims
These specify the language learning goals.
Communicative situations
A list of the situations and the types of communication involved.
Materials
Examples of materials needed for the language activities to be carried out in the teaching setting.
Language activities
“Language activities” refer to the activities carried out in the educational setting to reach the scenario aims.
They can be used:
f
separately in one or more sessions, and in any order, also reassembling and combining dierent scenarios; or
fas a sequence following the suggested order.
Layout of a LASLLIAM scenario
Title – Using postal services: collecting parcels, letters, other correspondence
Aims
fIntroduce vocabulary and expressions relating to postal services.
fInform learners about postal services.
fEnable learners to use postal services.
Communicative situations
fRecognise correspondence issued by a public service.
fFollow simple instruction.
fInteract in a public service.
Page 138 3 Literacy and second language learning for the linguistic integration of adult migrants
Materials
fPictures of objects, places and internal signs related to postal services.
fSamples of correspondence (e.g. notice from the post oce; information from a bank delivered by post;
letter from the school; printed advertisement).
fLeaet informing of the postal services; website page.
fCollection notice by the postal service.
f
Video or audio recording of interaction in the public domain to obtain goods and services (service encounter).
Language activities
Activity 1
Use the pictures to initiate an oral interaction to create a common background of information and language
contents. Personal and cultural experiences are elicited (according to the learners’ proles) as advantageous for
the learning process.
f
Elicit some basic information and vocabulary about postal services through matching exercises (e.g.
picture of parcel/letter/money – word/phrase/sentence) and simple graded questions (e.g. “Do you go to
the post oce?”).
fShare something that is personally relevant about the postal service (e.g. “I get parcels from my family”).
Activity 2
Use the pictures to explain relevant signs within a post oce (e.g. “Parcels”; “Information”; “Registered
correspondence”; “Bank service”). Learners can:
f
write or copy (according to each learner’s prole) the key words and expressions on cards; read or recognise
(according to each learner’s prole) the same signs in other photos;
fcheck their understanding by matching words with pictures and signs;
fgive each other, orally, simple explanations about the services oered (e.g. “Send parcels here”);
fmediate explanations in dierent languages, giving value to the plurilingual repertoires of participants.
Activity 3
Use the samples of correspondences to:
fidentify senders by logos, colours and format, names, key words (according to each learner’s prole).
Activity 4
Watch a video/listen to an audio recording.
–Good morning. There is a package for me [handing out the collection notice].
–Good morning. Wait a moment, please.
…
–Take your parcel from there, please.
–Thank you, goodbye.
fCheck comprehension of the situation.
fCheck comprehension of the dialogue (according to each learner’s prole).
fAct out a short dialogue following the model provided by the video/audio recording (according to each
learner’s prole).
Activity 5
f
Read the collection notice. Find out key information about the sending organisation (logo, name), what it is
about, where, when (according to each learner’s prole, from recognising words, to reading the message).
fRead the leaet/web page (possible with a co-learner) to nd out what documents you need to collect a
parcel. Alternatively, learners and/or teacher give this information orally.
Example of a LASLLIAM scenario Page 139
Activity 6
fOutline with the group the scenario, ordering pictures and words/phrases/sentences.
Here are some examples:
1. (Read the) collection notice (from the postal service).
2. (Get information about needed) documents.
3. (Check) address and opening time (of the post oce).
4. Go to the post oce.
5. (Find the right) oce/shelter.
6. (Speak with the) clerk.
7. Collect (the parcel).
Activity 7
f
Learners, in groups, perform the scenario. They can vary it (e.g. asking for information within the post oce.
“Where is the parcel shelter?”).
Activity 8
f
The last activity focuses on reective learning and aims at enhancing learners’ self-assessment ability.
According to the LASLLIAM target learners this kind of activity needs strong support and guidance from
teachers who may use self-assessment tools, like Tool 25 from the Toolkit,171 or a self-assessment grid
such as the one proposed in Appendix 3.
Tool 25 is divided into two parts: the rst focuses on the achieved goals in language learning, the second
helps to negotiate the next objectives.
The self-assessment grid should contain the relevant descriptors. For example, the following descriptors
from the Specic scale Goal-Oriented Co-operation (from the Oral Interaction scale) are relevant for the
present scenario and for learners with dierent proles.
3Can interact in a familiar context by using short, simple sentences and phrases with frequent words.
2Can act on simple instructions with familiar words, accompanied by body language (e.g. “On left”).
For Written Interaction, the following descriptors can be selected from the Specic scale Reading for
Orientation for levels 1 and 3.
3Can nd information about places, times and prices on posters, yers and notices.
1Can distinguish some relevant everyday logos, icons and text types from each other.
171. Council of Europe 2021c.
Page 141
Appendix 3
172. Council of Europe 2021c.
LASLLIAM CHECKLIST FOR SELFASSESSMENT
Appendix 3 presents an example of a checklist for self-assessment (see 6.2.4) related to written production,
which includes statements relevant to the communicative needs of non-literate and low-literate adult migrants
at LASLLIAM levels 1, 2, 3 and 4.
As in the DIALANG scales (CEFR, Appendix C), all statements start with “I can” and are the result of a partial
adaptation of the corresponding LASLLIAM descriptors. Such adaptation is the result of a dual action: on the
one hand, the need to simplify the descriptors, since the target users are the learners themselves, and not the
teachers; on the other hand, the need to select more concrete descriptors which are linked to completing
real-life tasks (see 3.3), or activities within a scenario (see 5.4; Appendix 2). From this perspective, the language
used in the descriptors in the LASLLIAM domain tables can be very helpful. In fact, they relate directly to the
contextualised communication that has taken place in the learning environment, avoiding abstractness and
making the immediate link to authentic situations focused more on what the person can do rather than how
(see 6.2.2).
The LASLLIAM working group applied this dual action in the example described below. The greater number of
statements the checklists contain, the more eectively they can be used to support reection on learning goals.
However, it is impossible to completely cover the range of potential communications. Thus, a few blank spaces
are given at the end of each checklist in order to allow teachers and learners to negotiate additional lines, where
needed. “However the checklists are presented, the teacher should not expect her learners to assess themselves
without assistance. Rather, she should help them” (Little 2012: 5). This is of course even more true in relation to
the target learners of the reference guide (see 1.1), especially those at level 1 or level 2. Therefore, the teacher
is asked to present and share the meaning of each descriptor, with particular attention to the symbols used to
label the columns where the learner has to put their tick.
According to the migrant’s prole in the reference guide and the recommended LOA (see 6.1.2), the checklist
asks the learner to specify the degree of help needed to achieve each statement and whether the achievement
is conrmed by appropriate feedback given by the teacher.
In order to allow for this outcome, two symbols are provided, which have already been validated by
non-literate and low-literate participants within the piloting of Tool 25 of the Council of Europe Toolkit.172
The learner is invited to use the smiley faces to express the following:
I can do this in the target language with a lot of help.
I can do this in the target language with some help.
I can do this in the target language without any help.
In accordance with the continuum criterion-referencing approach (see 6.1.1), a fair assessment based on LASLLIAM
should always underline outcomes in a positive way, especially a tool developed for self-assessment. For this
reason, only smiley faces are provided. Even when “a lot of help” is needed to achieve a can-do, the aim is to
sustain motivation by highlighting the powerful experience of success (see 3.6).
By marking the relevant column, the learner indicates that their teacher has conrmed the related can-do.
My teacher conrms that I can do this.
This last column highlights again that the use of LASLLIAM in general and of the checklist in particular is possible
only within a learning environment, thus with the presence of a teacher constantly supporting the learner. Such
support can include for example:
foral explanation of the statements presented within the checklist;
fthe addition of pictures in the lines, or icons or symbols to better explain the meaning of the can-dos for
self-assessment;
fthe constant provision of proper feedback.
Page 142 3 Literacy and second language learning for the linguistic integration of adult migrants
Teachers can consider Appendix 3 as an example of Written Production to be used and replicated. By following
the proposed format, more checklists related to other communicative language activities can be developed,
using the LASLLIAM descriptors as starting points from which to develop concrete, factual statements.
LASLLIAM
LEVEL WRITTEN PRODUCTION
4 I can write something simple about my new neighbour in a
post for a friend of mine.
4 I can describe in very simple language what my room looks
like.
4 I can write a short description about my children’s school in
an e-mail to other parents.
4 I can note down my daily assignments in the working
planner.
4
4
3 I can note down very simple memory aids like the
conversation scaold for a visit to my bank.
3 I can write a short and simple comment in my photo album.
3 I can write a short and very simple description in Lost and
Found on a supermarket bulletin board.
3 I can write names of places like the bus stop in a public
transport map.
3
3
2 I can give basic personal information (like address, age,
phone number) in posting on a company website.
2 I can write down a shopping list with a few words.
2 I can note down memory aids like name, date and time of
appointment with my doctor.
2
2
1 I can give some personal information as a caption to a picture
by copying an example.
1 I can copy some words to label objects like cooking
ingredients.
1 I can copy simple information into my agenda like the lesson
time and the name of my teacher.
1
1
Sales agents for publications of the Council of Europe
Agents de vente des publications du Conseil de l’Europe
BELGIUM/BELGIQUE
La Librairie Européenne -
The European Bookshop
Rue de l’Orme, 1
BE-1040 BRUXELLES
Tel.: + 32 (0)2 231 04 35
Fax: + 32 (0)2 735 08 60
E-mail: info@libeurop.eu
http://www.libeurop.be
Jean De Lannoy/DL Services
c/o Michot Warehouses
Bergense steenweg 77
Chaussée de Mons
BE-1600 SINT PIETERS LEEUW
Fax: + 32 (0)2 706 52 27
E-mail: jean.de.lannoy@dl-servi.com
http://www.jean-de-lannoy.be
CANADA
Renouf Publishing Co. Ltd.
22-1010 Polytek Street
CDN-OTTAWA, ONT K1J 9J1
Tel.: + 1 613 745 2665
Fax: + 1 613 745 7660
Toll-Free Tel.: (866) 767-6766
E-mail: order.dept@renoufbooks.com
http://www.renoufbooks.com
CROATIA/CROATIE
Robert’s Plus d.o.o.
Marasoviçeva 67
HR-21000 SPLIT
Tel.: + 385 21 315 800, 801, 802, 803
Fax: + 385 21 315 804
E-mail: robertsplus@robertsplus.hr
CZECH REPUBLIC/
RÉPUBLIQUE TCHÈQUE
Suweco CZ, s.r.o.
Klecakova 347
CZ-180 21 PRAHA 9
Tel.: + 420 2 424 59 204
Fax: + 420 2 848 21 646
E-mail: import@suweco.cz
http://www.suweco.cz
DENMARK/DANEMARK
GAD
Vimmelskaftet 32
DK-1161 KØBENHAVN K
Tel.: + 45 77 66 60 00
Fax: + 45 77 66 60 01
E-mail: reception@gad.dk
http://www.gad.dk
FINLAND/FINLANDE
Akateeminen Kirjakauppa
PO Box 128
Keskuskatu 1
FI-00100 HELSINKI
Tel.: + 358 (0)9 121 4430
Fax: + 358 (0)9 121 4242
E-mail: akatilaus@akateeminen.com
http://www.akateeminen.com
FRANCE
Please contact directly /
Merci de contacter directement
Council of Europe Publishing
Éditions du Conseil de l’Europe
F-67075 STRASBOURG Cedex
Tel.: + 33 (0)3 88 41 25 81
Fax: + 33 (0)3 88 41 39 10
E-mail: publishing@coe.int
http://book.coe.int
Librairie Kléber
1, rue des Francs-Bourgeois
F-67000 STRASBOURG
Tel.: + 33 (0)3 88 15 78 88
Fax: + 33 (0)3 88 15 78 80
E-mail: librairie-kleber@coe.int
http://www.librairie-kleber.com
NORWAY/NORVÈGE
Akademika
Postboks 84 Blindern
NO-0314 OSLO
Tel.: + 47 2 218 8100
Fax: + 47 2 218 8103
E-mail: support@akademika.no
http://www.akademika.no
POLAND/POLOGNE
Ars Polona JSC
25 Obroncow Street
PL-03-933 WARSZAWA
Tel.: + 48 (0)22 509 86 00
Fax: + 48 (0)22 509 86 10
E-mail: arspolona@arspolona.com.pl
http://www.arspolona.com.pl
PORTUGAL
Marka Lda
Rua dos Correeiros 61-3
PT-1100-162 LISBOA
Tel: 351 21 3224040
Fax: 351 21 3224044
E mail: apoio.clientes@marka.pt
www.marka.pt
RUSSIAN FEDERATION/
FÉDÉRATION DE RUSSIE
Ves Mir
17b, Butlerova ul. - Ofce 338
RU-117342 MOSCOW
Tel.: + 7 495 739 0971
Fax: + 7 495 739 0971
E-mail: orders@vesmirbooks.ru
http://www.vesmirbooks.ru
SWITZERLAND/SUISSE
Planetis Sàrl
16, chemin des Pins
CH-1273 ARZIER
Tel.: + 41 22 366 51 77
Fax: + 41 22 366 51 78
E-mail: info@planetis.ch
TAIWAN
Tycoon Information Inc.
5th Floor, No. 500, Chang-Chun Road
Taipei, Taiwan
Tel.: 886-2-8712 8886
Fax: 886-2-8712 4747, 8712 4777
E-mail: info@tycoon-info.com.tw
orders@tycoon-info.com.tw
UNITED KINGDOM/ROYAUME-UNI
The Stationery Ofce Ltd
PO Box 29
GB-NORWICH NR3 1GN
Tel.: + 44 (0)870 600 5522
Fax: + 44 (0)870 600 5533
E-mail: book.enquiries@tso.co.uk
http://www.tsoshop.co.uk
UNITED STATES and CANADA/
ÉTATS-UNIS et CANADA
Manhattan Publishing Co
670 White Plains Road
USA-10583 SCARSDALE, NY
Tel: + 1 914 472 4650
Fax: + 1 914 472 4316
E-mail: coe@manhattanpublishing.com
http://www.manhattanpublishing.com
Council of Europe Publishing/Éditions du Conseil de l’Europe
F-67075 STRASBOURG Cedex
Tel.: + 33 (0)3 88 41 25 81 – Fax: + 33 (0)3 88 41 39 10 – E-mail: publishing@coe.int – Website: http://book.coe.int
This reference guide is meant for language educators, curriculum designers and
language policy makers in their endeavour to design, implement, evaluate and
improve curricula tailored toward the specic needs of non- and low-literate adult
migrants. This group of migrants faces the complex and demanding task of learning
a language while either learning to read and write for the rst time or developing
their literacy skills. They rarely receive adequate instruction in terms of hours of
tuition and targeted teaching approaches, whereas they are very often requested
to take a compulsory written test.
The reference guide contains: a denition of target users and learners; the rationale
related to the development of the descriptors; principles for teaching literacy and
second languages; scales and tables of descriptors; aspects of curriculum design at
the macro, meso and micro levels and recommendations on assessment procedures
and tools within the learning environment.
The guide also contains descriptors that build on the Common European Framework
of Reference for Languages (CEFR) and the CEFR Companion volume up to the A1
level for adult migrants, with special attention given to literacy learners.
The Council of Europe is the continent’s leading
human rights organisation. It comprises 46 member
states, including all members of the European Union.
All Council of Europe member states have signed
up to the European Convention on Human Rights,
a treaty designed to protect human rights, democracy
and the rule of law. The European Court of Human Rights
oversees the implementation of the Convention in
the member states.
ENG
PREMS 008922
http://book.coe.int
978-92-871-9189-2
€56/US$112
EDUCATION FOR DEMOCRACY
LITERACY AND SECOND LANGUAGE LEARNING FOR THE LINGUISTIC INTEGRATION OF ADULT MIGRANTS (LASLLIAM)
www.coe.int/lang-cefr
Reference guide
LITERACY AND SECOND
LANGUAGE LEARNING
FOR THE LINGUISTIC
INTEGRATION
OF ADULT MIGRANTS
