The reference guide contains: a definition of target users and learners; the rationale
related to the development of the descriptors; principles for teaching literacy andsecond 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.

EDUCATION FOR DEMOCRACY

www.coe.int/lang-cefr
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.

http://book.coe.int
978-92-871-9189-2€56/US$112

PREMS 008922

The guide also contains descriptors that build on the Common European Frameworkof Reference for Languages (CEFR) and the CEFR Companion volume up to the A1level for adult migrants, with special attention given to literacy learners.

LITERACY AND SECOND LANGUAGE LEARNING FOR THE LINGUISTIC INTEGRATION OF ADULT MIGRANTS (LASLLIAM)

This reference guide is meant for language educators, curriculum designers andlanguage policy makers in their endeavour to design, implement, evaluate andimprove curricula tailored toward the specific needs of non- and low-literate adultmigrants. This group of migrants faces the complex and demanding task of learninga language while either learning to read and write for the first time or developing
their literacy skills. They rarely receive adequate instruction in terms of hours oftuition and targeted teaching approaches, whereas they are very often requested
to take a compulsory written test.

LITERACY AND SECONDLANGUAGE LEARNINGFOR THE LINGUISTICINTEGRATIONOF ADULT MIGRANTS

ENG

Reference guideLITERACY AND SECONDLANGUAGE LEARNINGFOR THE LINGUISTICINTEGRATIONOF ADULT MIGRANTS
Authoring groupFernanda 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) anddo not necessarily reflect the official
policy of the Council of Europe.
The reproduction of extracts (up to
500 words) is authorised, except forcommercial purposes, as long as
the integrity of the text is preserved, theexcerpt is not used out of context, does
not provide incomplete information ordoes not otherwise mislead the reader
as to the nature, scope or content of
the text. The source text must always be
acknowledged as follows: “© Council ofEurope, 2022”. All other requests concerning
the reproduction/translation of all or partof the document should be addressedto the Directorate of Communications,Council of Europe (F-67075 Strasbourg
Cedex or publishing@coe.int).
All other correspondence concerning thisdocument should be addressed to the
Education Department
Council of Europe
Agora Building
1, Quai Jacoutot
67075 Strasbourg Cedex
Franceeducation@coe.int
Cover design: Documents and Publications
Production Department (SPDP),
Council of Europe
Layout: Jouve, ParisCover 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.

CONTENTS
PREFACE WITH ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

7

FOREWORD

11

INTRODUCTION

13LASLLIAM WITHIN THE COUNCIL OF EUROPE POLICIES13LASLLIAM GENERAL PURPOSE

14

CHAPTER 1 – THE LASLLIAM REFERENCE GUIDE: AIMS, USERS AND LEARNERS

171.1. LASLLIAM LINKS TO THE CEFR AND THE CEFR COMPANION VOLUME

171.2. 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 NON-LITERATE AND LOW-LITERATE 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 SKILLS30

CHAPTER 3 – TEACHING LITERACY IN A SECOND LANGUAGE

31

3.1. AN ACTION-ORIENTED 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
3.3.1. PARTICIPATING IN LITERACY EVENTS

35
36

Page 3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. WRITING

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. SAFETY

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 LEVEL91

CHAPTER 6 – ASSESSMENT WITHIN THE LEARNING ENVIRONMENT

95

6.1. APPROACHES TO BE ADOPTED

95

6.1.1. CONTINUUM CRITERION-REFERENCING

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 LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS ACROSS EUROPE

104

6.4. LASLLIAM AS A RESOURCE TO DEVELOP ASSESSMENT TOOLS

105

Page 4 3 Literacy and second language learning for the linguistic integration of adult migrants

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

GLOSSARY131

APPENDIX 1 – RESOURCES FOR TEACHING LITERACY AND SECOND LANGUAGE(SELECTED LANGUAGES)133

APPENDIX 2 – EXAMPLE OF A LASLLIAM SCENARIO

137

APPENDIX 3 – LASLLIAM CHECKLIST FOR SELF-ASSESSMENT

141

Contents Page 5

TABLES AND FIGURESFIGURESFIGURE 1 – LASLLIAM AND CEFR COMPANION VOLUME LEVELS

18

FIGURE 2 – UNEVEN PROFILES ACCORDING TO LASLLIAM LEVELS AND COMMUNICATIVE LANGUAGE ACTIVITIES22FIGURE 3 – BACKWARD PLANNING OF TASKS AND EXERCISES TO PREPARE LEARNERS FOR THE LITERACY EVENT
OF MAKING 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 PHASES107

FIGURE 11 – LASLLIAM MILESTONES: FROM DESIGN TO LAUNCH108

TABLESTABLE 1 – LASLLIAM SCALES AND DESCRIPTORS41

TABLE 2 – LASLLIAM DESCRIPTORS AND CEFR COMPANION VOLUME DESCRIPTORS41

TABLE 3 – LASLLIAM DESCRIPTORS, FORMS OF ASSESSMENT AND ASSESSMENT TOOLS105

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 TASKS116

TABLE 13 – NUMBER OF DESCRIPTORS IN THE FINAL VERSION OF LASLLIAM

118

Page 6 3 Literacy and second language learning for the linguistic integration of adult migrants

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 withexperts from the Council of Europe. It also greatly profited 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 bya 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 specific languages with the aim to document the practical use of LASLLIAM. Thanks tothe commitment of experienced institutions and practitioners, different kinds of teaching materials have been
produced.
The ongoing process of disseminating the reference guide encourages others to use these materials in theirlearning environments and to collect feedback and evidence from teachers and volunteers, as well as fromlearners. 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 first 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 first 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 7

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 andsuggestions 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

Page 8 3 Literacy and second language learning for the linguistic integration of adult migrants

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 Sofia, Bulgaria
All the colleagues who participated in the quantitative validation online survey (April 2021) and theaforementioned 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 surles 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 RepublicMohammad Al Qara, Worldwide Bildungswerk, Germany
Sabrina Machetti and Paola Masillo, Università per Stranieri di Siena, Italy
Stefanie Dengler, Goethe Institut, Germany

Preface with acknowledgements Page 9

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, Affectation 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 10 3 Literacy and second language learning for the linguistic integration of adult migrants

FOREWORD
The Council of Europe has been actively promoting linguistic diversity since its foundation. A particular emphasison migrant language teaching and learning was introduced by the Committee of Ministers as early as 1968,1 andfurther 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 thiscontext, non-literate or low-literate migrants have specific educational needs. They have to learn a second
language while also learning to read and write for the first time or developing their basic literacy competences.
Sometimes this may be in an alphabet or a writing system different from the one in which they may initiallyhave 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 sufficient number of hours of instruction to reach thelanguage 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 finding a place in our European
societies and contribute to their development, as well as their personal fulfilment.
Villano Qiriazi
Head of the Education Department,
Council of Europe
June 2022

1.
2.

Council of Europe – Committee of Ministers 1968.
Rocca et al. 2020

Page 11

INTRODUCTIONLASLLIAM WITHIN THE COUNCIL OF EUROPE POLICIESThe 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 thisspirit, the Council of Europe’s actions in the area of language policy have aimed at mutual understanding andsupporting 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 toindividuals’ 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 specific repertoires from becoming a sign ofmarginality.
Within this frame, learning languages is considered a value in itself; and appropriate teaching is a means tostrengthen and ensure language rights and that equal access to high-quality education4 is ensured not only tothe 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 inthe 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 offer should take accountof each migrant’s specific resources and needs and enable them to acquire, in particular, language skills relevantto 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 flows and challenges, including linguistic challenges connected to theintegration 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 along-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 ofadult 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 specifically targeted to migrants who arefacing the complex and demanding task of learning a language while either learning to read and write for the
first 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

3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.

Council of Europe – LIAM 2020b.
Council of Europe 1954.
Council of Europe – Committee of Ministers 2014.
Council of Europe – Committee of Ministers 1968.
Council of Europe 2020b.
Council of Europe – LIAM 2020k.
Council of Europe – LIAM 2020l.
UNESCO Institute for Statistics 2015.
Council of Europe 2015.

Page 13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 Councilof Europe member states, by pointing out two needs:
f to 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; andf to extend the concept of profiles, from (only) linguistic profiles13 to literacy and linguistic profiles.
In fact, various types of learners can be distinguished when taking into account backgrounds related tonon- and low-literate adult migrants. Each type is characterised by a combination of features because
individuals vary within a profile, according to their educational biographies: from those who are technically
non-literate – probably the most vulnerable people, as defined by the Parliamentary Assembly14 – to theso-called functionally non-literate, according to the UNESCO definition;15 from non-literates with minimalability 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 different profiles of social agents, andalso the resources allocated for learning and teaching. An important shift has to be taken into account: fromthe generic, literate language user to the non-literate and low-literate migrant user to whom the authoringgroup 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 integrationof 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 inmigrants’ first 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 theuse of first 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 first languages and mediation into first languages, has been taken into
account in Chapter 3,19 and the use of first 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 andevaluate curricula, syllabi and teaching materials tailored towards the specific needs of the target learners.
In this way, LASLLIAM contributes to one of the major aims of LIAM, namely “to provide practical support for theeffective 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 of Europe–Associationof 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 insufficient educational provision for non- and low-literate adults. This vulnerable

12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.

UNESCO Institute for Statistics 2015.
Council of Europe – LIAM 2020a; Council of Europe – LIAM 2020m.
Council of Europe 2014.
UNESCO 2017a.
ELINET 2016; Rinta 2005.
Benson 2004.
Minuz and Kurvers 2021.
Feldmeier 2005, 2009a.
www.coe.int/en/web/lang-migrants/home.
Rocca et al. 2020.

Page 14 3 Literacy and second language learning for the linguistic integration of adult migrants

group of migrants rarely receives adequate instruction in terms of both hours of tuition and targeted teachingapproaches, 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 tostress that this reference guide is not designed as a tool for developing high-stake exams (see 6.1.4). The abuseof 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 tothe need for tools for inclusive and tailored learning. Its aims also align with Goal 4 of the UN 2030 Agenda for
Sustainable Development24 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-literatemigrants, as well as to design and improve learning environments offered 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 thepossible fragmentation of a learning process that might occur across various countries, according to the mobilityof migrants (see 6.3).
The reference guide presents:f a definition of target users and target learners (see Chapter 1);
f a rationale related to the development of the descriptors (see Chapter 2);
f principles for teaching literacy and second language (see Chapter 3);
f descriptors’ scales and tables (see Chapter 4);
f aspects 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 thelearning environment (see Chapter 6).

22. Rocca et al. 2020.
23. United Nations General Assembly 1948.
24. United Nations General Assembly 2015.

Introduction Page 15

Chapter 1
THE LASLLIAM REFERENCEGUIDE: AIMS, USERS AND LEARNERSThis chapter starts with an explanation about why a European literacy and second language reference guideis needed to build on the CEFR Companion volume. It points out consistencies and differences between the
LASLLIAM reference guide and the CEFR Companion volume, and defines the aims and users for whom LASLLIAM isintended. It lays out the visions of literacy and literacy learning to which LASLLIAM refers and outlines prototypicalcharacteristics 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 thefield of foreign language instruction, supporting mutual recognition of language qualifications 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 forlanguage proficiency 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 andpluricultural competence, sign language, phonology and extended some of the other scales. A final 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 andpractitioners 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 thelatter domain, communication needs for low-qualified jobs, which are the main employment opportunity formany 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 specific difficulties andtraining 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 official texts, guidelines and background documents and studies issued by the Council of Europe.29
Although the CEFR Companion volume has proved to be a flexible tool in many respects, a specific reference
guide for literacy and second language teaching is needed. Literacy is presupposed at the first levels both by
the CEFR and the CEFR Companion volume. For example, a Pre-A1 learner can “give basic personal informationin 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 first discovery of the written
language to the ability to deal with a simple text.

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 notable 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 andKurvers 2021.
29. www.coe.int/en/web/language-policy/adult-migrants.

Page 17

In many countries, it was considered necessary to complement the framework with descriptors below A1 formigrants 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 offer 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); theItalian framework31 also covers oral second language acquisition up to A1, while the French framework32 considers
only functional reading and writing. Despite their different formats and focuses, all these tools accompany learners
from their first 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 USERSLASLLIAM refers explicitly to the CEFR Companion volume and provides guidance on how to tackle theeducational 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 forreception, production and interaction for oral and written second language learning, in relation to bothcommunicative language activities and language use strategies.33 The LASLLIAM reference guide organises
the descriptors into four-level scales (see Chapter 4) ranging from the first 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 4

A1

LASLLIAM 3

Pre-A1LASLLIAM 2
LASLLIAM 1

LASLLIAM

CEFR and CEFR
Companion
volumeUnlike the CEFR Companion volume, the LASLLIAM reference guide also provides illustrative descriptor scales forthe acquisition of written code (technical literacy). Moreover, the descriptors do not define levels of competencethat could be independent of educational pathways, but they help in setting learning/teaching objectives insecond 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 offices. As teaching objectives,the descriptors emphasise the guidance, facilitation and support that literacy and second language courses
can offer 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 thesedays 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 specific field of literacy and second language learning. However, LASLLIAM
clearly endorses plurilingual approaches and points out the importance of mediation (see 3.5).

Page 18 3 Literacy and second language learning for the linguistic integration of adult migrants

The LASLLIAM reference guide is meant for designers of teaching materials (see Chapter 3), curricula (see Chapter5) 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 defining 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 toaccomplish these tasks.
LASLLIAM is neither a curriculum nor a syllabus, but a reference guide from which to draw in relation to the specificlearners, 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 different areas. The descriptors present
an abstraction from the concrete language-specific curricular models that have been developed by literacy andsecond 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
specific situations. It views competences as “the sum of knowledge, skills and characteristics that allow aperson to perform actions” (Council of Europe 2001: 9) activating multiple (e.g. cognitive, learning, personaland social) resources and strategies to do so.34 According to this view, language learning and teachingshould enable learners to act in real-life situations. The consistency of LASLLIAM with the CEFR Companion
volume is reflected in defining 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 reflects the CEFR Companion volume in providing abasis 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 field of literacy andsecond 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 different concepts that have changed and broadened
several times in the ongoing academic discussion and which may have different connotations in different
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 firststeps 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 andconcerning multiple and diverse domains.36
This encompassing perspective draws on contributions that different disciplines (sociology, economics,
anthropology, linguistics, psychology, neurosciences, pedagogy and philosophy) have made to the conceptualisationof literacy, and in particular on two main research perspectives, sometimes presented as opposing approaches,
which have shaped the teaching of literacy to adults.
The first 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 differ in register, text typeand 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 differ in language, purpose
and usage, depending on the different 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 literatesocial events. From this viewpoint, attention needs to be paid to the socially unbalanced power relations insociety and particularly to the institutions which define the dominant, “legitimate” literacy practices, as well as

34.
35.
36.
37.

Council of Europe 2001.
The definition is modelled on UNESCO 2017b.
Desjardins 2003.
Ravid and Tolchinsky 2002; for an overview, see 2.1.

The LASLLIAM reference guide: aims, users and learners Page 19

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 descriptorsof LASLLIAM. Alongside an increasing mastery of spoken language, LASLLIAM considers literacy as theability 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 canrely 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 different 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 different modes of communication and how
these relations themselves produce meanings.40

1.4. THE LEARNERSLASLLIAM has been developed to support non- and low-literate second language and/or second-script learners(learners who are literate in a writing system different from that of the target language). These learners forma highly diverse group, in terms of countries of origin, cultures, first languages and other known languages,
levels of education, biographies, life conditions, jobs, hopes, immigration paths, as well as gender, age, physicalimpairments, psycho-physical conditions (e.g. trauma) and other individual characteristics that research shows
can influence 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’ profiles (see 1.4.3;
3.3.1; 6.2) and of their needs by providing examples of language uses in the different 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 areof utmost relevance.

1.4.1. Learners’ literacy background
Adult literacy learners enter their second language classes with varying degrees of school experience andliteracy skills in their first 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 difficulties in graspingsome 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 theirliteracy 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 different typesof social literacy events in their first 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 forma dichotomic opposition within the communicative practices of communities (see 1.3), they represent the polesof 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.

Page 20 3 Literacy and second language learning for the linguistic integration of adult migrants

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 forthese second-script learners, who might advance their literacy in the new language in a faster way, because
they have already developed specific skills, reading abilities and strategies that can be transferred from theirfirst 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 firstcontacts 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 naturalenvironment through interactions in the target language while others have attended language courses for ashort period.
Many adult literacy and second language learners are plurilingual because they come from multilingual countries
and have been using their first 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, withthe target language in particular, as well as with written language and specific scripts, needs to be considered.
Research has highlighted the relevance of literacy in the first language for second language learning, as
well as the benefits 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’ profiles
In describing the progression in communicative language activities and technical literacy, LASLLIAM assumes
the concept of individual language profiles 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 andsecond language learners in the best way, their individual proficiency profiles need to be taken into carefulconsideration. For example, a refugee from Afghanistan who has recently arrived in Italy might have lowlevels 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 differ from those of migrants who have
lived in the resident country for a longer time and have already developed (various) oral language profiles athigher levels and limited repertoire of written sight words in the target language, although they might havenever learned to read and write in any language.
It is therefore essential when designing a curriculum for literacy and second language learners – from the macrolevel of national curricula to the micro level of lesson planning – to acknowledge the heterogeneity of learnerprofiles and to provide them with appropriate learning environments (see Chapter 5). Defining learners’ profiles
contributes to the tailoring of education in more than one way. It helps to set appropriate learning goals and toutilise learners’ capabilities, not by focusing on what they lack, but by building instruction on the knowledge andskills 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 defining the language profiles (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.

The LASLLIAM reference guide: aims, users and learners Page 21

As Chapter 4 describes, LASLLIAM defines progressions based on four different levels, offering starting points
for individual learners’ language profiles (see 6.1.3). Figure 2 shows wavy lines representing some of the many
language profiles that LASLLIAM can help to draw.
Figure 2 – Uneven profiles according to LASLLIAM levels and Communicative Language Activities
Oral
Reception

WrittenReception

Oral
Reception

WrittenReception

Oral
Reception

WrittenReception

3
2

1

Uneven profiles of three LASLLIAM learners
The figure highlights that a learner might be at level 1 in a certain scale and level 2 or 3 in another. However, thisdoes not imply that there are no interrelations between the scales at all. The Technical Literacy scales and thescales 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 thelearner 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, thedescriptors in the Technical Literacy scale and in the Listening scale are dependent on each other, althoughagain not on a 1:1 basis (see 2.1). Uneven profiles 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, andwritten 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, theydiffer considerably in literacy skills, oral skills in their target language and in their linguistic repertoires.

Page 22 3 Literacy and second language learning for the linguistic integration of adult migrants

Chapter 2
THE LASLLIAM REFERENCEGUIDE: 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 different 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:
f the different and changing conceptualisations of (non-)literacy and literacy teaching;f research on second language and literacy acquisition of non-literate adult second language learners andon what distinguishes this group most from educated and literate second language learners;
f existing frameworks, in particular the CEFR Companion volume which LASLLIAM follows in aim, approachand structure, and existing and validated adult second language literacy frameworks in several European
countries (see 1.1);
f the long-term experience of the authoring group in this field;
f the proceedings of the yearly LESLLA conferences on research, policies and practices in the field of second
language literacy learning between 2006 and 2019.42

2.1. RESEARCH ON NON-LITERATE AND LOW-LITERATE 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 first 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, fluent 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 differ 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-basedskills that are usually presupposed in second language teaching for literate learners cannot be expected fromthem. In this section, we focus on those aspects, to clarify the need for a specific reference guide for this groupboth 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 anduse of language is not natural, as they sometimes might think, but highly influenced by literacy.
Nearly all studies addressing the progress of non-literate learners in second language literacy consistently
report, across different languages and educational systems, slow paces in learning, problems with focusing on
linguistic features in learning the target language, and difficulties in achieving fluency, at least if measured withthe 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 synthesisof 21 studies in this field: “Overall, low L1 literacy was linked to lower L2 proficiency.”45
The next sections explain how this impact is manifested and how it can be addressed in a reference guide fortrue beginners in literacy and second language learning.

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 difficult to disentangle theimpact of literacy as such from the more general impact of school-based learning.

Page 23

2.1.1. Metalinguistic awarenessNon-literate individuals do know that meaning is represented in varying ways in different languages and thata poem or a song is a different text type than a news item on the radio. They are, however, not aware of thelinguistic make-up of a language: they do not know that spoken words consist of different 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 andsentences (morphological and grammatical awareness). Awareness of syllables and rhyme is less influenced byreading ability.46 Note that these findings are not restricted to an unknown language, but also apply to a first
language: although non-literate adults can easily use all these linguistic features in oral communication, theyoften 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 awareof 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 literatealso impacts the acquisition of oral skills in a second language: those who are non-literate, for example, havedifficulties with repeating a recast or spoken utterance simply because they are focusing on the content morethan on the precise wording. They might also miss subtle deictic references to persons, time and place inconnected discourse.48

2.1.2. Processing of (linguistic) information
People who are non-literate not only differ from their literate peers in the metalinguistic knowledge acquired bylearning to read and write, but also in the unconscious processing of language. Non-literate adults, for example,
process semantic information similarly, but they differ in processing phonological information. They can easily
understand and repeat well-known words, but they find it more difficult than readers to correctly repeat or
memorise unknown (pseudo-)words or to quickly mention words with similar initial sounds.49 The short-termworking 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 semanticroute 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 difficult for them toprocess, memorise and copy less concrete visual information like line-drawings or abstract figures.51

2.1.3. Situated cognition
As mentioned above, non-literate adults do not differ much from literate adults in dealing with familiar
context-bound language and information, but they deal with information that is related to literacy andschooling 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 toperform 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 theodd 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 developmentof 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.

Page 24 3 Literacy and second language learning for the linguistic integration of adult migrants

In summary, non-literate adults enter the classroom relying on well-developed semantic and pragmatic informationprocessing skills in a familiar language about familiar topics, and gradually enter the field of knowledge oflanguage 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 different reasons. Learning analphabetical code critically depends on oral language because in an alphabetical writing system the units ofwriting (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 fluency, oral language competence (in particular vocabulary and listening comprehension)
significantly 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 finished 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 first implication of these findings for LASLLIAM suggests starting literacy teaching in the first language or alanguage 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 inliteracy and second language. Several classroom studies convincingly confirm these research findings: moreprogress 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 theirstudents, gradually moving to more abstract school-based types of learning.57

2.2. DEVELOPMENT OF THE SCALESAs pointed out before, descriptors for communicative language activities for reception, production and interactionin 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 thelevels for communicative activities with written language as well. After that, the guiding principles behind thecommunicative 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.
f In the logographic (or morpho-syllabic) writing systems, one unit in writing represents one morpheme inspoken language (e.g. basic Chinese characters).

54.
55.
56.
57.
58.

Chall 1999; Gonzalves 2020; Verhoeven and Perfetti 2017.
Condelli 2004; Condelli and Spruck Wrigley 2006; Kurvers and Stockmann 2009; Perfetti et al. 2002.
Condelli and Spruck-Wrigley 2006; Kurvers and Stockmann 2009; Warren and Young 2012.
Bigelow 2006; Condelli and Spruck-Wrigley 2006; Kurvers et al. 2010; Ramírez-Esparza et al. 2012; Warren and Young 2012.
The term writing system refers to the basic principle of mapping spoken to written units; orthography refers to language-specificmappings; and script refers to the visual appearance of the written symbols.

The LASLLIAM reference guide: sources and rationale

Page 25

f In syllabic writing systems, one unit in writing represents one syllable in spoken language (e.g. Japanesekana, or the Vai script from Liberia). Some scripts, like the alpha-syllabic Ge’ez script that is used for Amharicor 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 different 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, differ
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 inrecognising written words. Nearly all models of beginning reading agree on three to four different stages
between the very start and reading and writing a simple and short text.59 At each stage, a beginning reader uses
a different strategy to recognise or write a word. According to these stage models, beginning reading starts withrecognising 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 fluency
in the last stage. The first 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 first stage it is not based ona 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 fluent writing offamiliar words and short and simple sentences.60 Adult second language literacy learners need more time topractise in order to pass these stages.61 In general, more transparent orthographies like Finnish or Italian arelearned faster than more opaque ones, like English or Danish.62
It should be noted, however, that much more has to be learned by adult first-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 first language, not on learning to read and write in an unfamiliar second languagewith often a quite different phonological make-up and inventory of phonemes, of which the inventory ofvowels 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 five 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 carriersof 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 different text types, school-based task requirements and reading strategies. Many of these skills can betransferred 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 different inventory ofsounds. Research shows many second-script learners need fewer hours than non-literate learners to go throughthe different 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 thatare piloted and validated.64 All frameworks start code-learning with some basic and personally relevant sight

59.
60.
61.
62.
63.
64.

Chall 1996; Ehri et al. 2001; Frith 1985; Juel 1991; Seymour et al. 2003; see also Share 1995.
Ketelaars 2011; Treiman 1993; Treiman and Bourassa 2000; Viise 1996.
Boon 2014; Chall 1999; Kurvers and Van der Zouw 1990; Nassaji 2007.
Ziegler and Goswami 2006.
Kurvers and Stockmann 2009.
Geers 2011; Ketelaars 2011; Kurvers and Stockmann 2009; Rocca et al. 2017; Stockmann 2004.

Page 26 3 Literacy and second language learning for the linguistic integration of adult migrants

words, introduce the basic alphabetical principle of 1:1 correspondence and gradually extend to more complex
words, and to automatised reading and writing. Differences in the frameworks are related to language-specificfeatures, 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 different contexts.
Reading at this level means recognising words memorised as a whole, based on salient visual features; in somelanguages 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 nameand address, days of the week and months of the year), can recognise most of the letters of the alphabet andpersonally relevant symbols or signs like the logo of the school or metro. The learner can write their own nameand copy words from an example.

Level 2: Basic decoding and encodingThis level is about learning the alphabetical principle, about learning to relate graphemes to phonemes in shortwords with a simple phonological structure, that is, a 1:1 correspondence between grapheme and phoneme. Thisis 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
different from level 1 because the learner is starting to crack the code and to sound out words. Although thisturns out to be difficult 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 different from the first language. At the end of thislevel, 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 shortpractised 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 canread – 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 fluency
Level 4 is defined in terms of consolidation and reaching fluency in reading words, phrases, sentences andshort texts about familiar and relevant topics at A1 level according to the CEFR Companion volume. At the endof LASLLIAM level 4, the reader can independently read the level 3 words more fluently, while still struggling
sometimes with less familiar and irregularly spelled or long words. The learner will now be able to focus moreon comprehending text information in combination with their previous knowledge. The learner can write thesame words as in level 3, but faster and more fluently 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-lifesituations is central to the concept of language learning in this reference guide. This implies teaching proceduresthat are based on learners’ real-life communicative needs. Different from the CEFR Companion volume, however,

The LASLLIAM reference guide: sources and rationale

Page 27

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 withthese 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 ofa 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 different 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 incarrying out a task, and on (digital) translators.
With regard to the different communicative functions of reading and writing, the LASLLIAM scales pay special
attention to gradually enlarging the experience with different text types, different functions of literacy andparticipation 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 functionof literacy and managing text types like lists and labels, to more experience with the communicative functionsof literacy in understanding and producing messages and short memos or notes, to enjoying and learning fromtexts 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 andintended 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 thefirst or other languages from their repertoires, gestures and body language, mediators and (digital) translators aswell 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 tonegotiate the complexity of the input; collaborative second language speakers can simplify it to facilitatecommunication through different strategies such as slowed and well-articulated speech, simplified syntax, simple
and frequent words, non-verbal means, or the adaptation of the conversational structure.65 In interacting withsecond language speakers, learners can make extensive use of the context to understand, be understood andto compensate for insufficient morphological and syntactical structures through pragmatic means. They canalso engage the interaction partner in securing comprehension and production.
In outlining a non-language-specific progression of the language competences which are involved at eachlevel and to allow for realising the speakers’ communicative goals, the authoring group referred to the resultsof different studies in the field of second language acquisition.66 These studies identified different stages inacquiring linguistic principles and structures of the new language. The route starts from a phase in which
the learner identifies 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 andsyntactic 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 define 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.

Page 28 3 Literacy and second language learning for the linguistic integration of adult migrants

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 laterlevels 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 andprocedures, in order to fulfil the demands of communication in context and successfully complete the task in questionin 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
deficit or a miscommunication” (ibid.), as well as the application of metacognitive principles also used bynative 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 differs slightly from the CEFR Companion volume which:f for reception only provides one combined scale on Identifying Cues and Inferring (Oral and Written);f for production provides scales on Planning, Compensating, and Monitoring and Repair geared towards
both oral and written; andf for interaction provides scales on Taking the Floor (Turntaking), Co-operating, and Asking for Clarification– 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 ofteaching 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 informal learning. However, as researchers have not attempted to scale language learning strategies in generalyet, this reference guide lists examples of language learning strategies which are specific to non- and low-literatelearners 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 theirrespective 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 theircomplexity. 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 earlystages,69 LASLLIAM provides a first tentative attempt at scaling (meta-) cognitive language use strategies. Notethat affective and socio-interactive strategies have neither been broken down into planning, compensation, andmonitoring and repair, nor have they been scaled because there is no reason to assume the varying degrees ofcomplexity of the strategy are not based on linguistic aspects.

68. Wisniewksi 2019.
69. Feldmeier 2011; Markov et al. 2015.

The LASLLIAM reference guide: sources and rationale

Page 29

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 theEuropean Digital Competence Framework for Citizens (DigComp)71 which has identified five 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 laterto eight different 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 first dimension
under information and data literacy is “browsing, searching and filtering data, information and digital content”
and the first dimension under problem solving is “solving technical problems”. Both dimensions require highlevels of literacy (filtering data/information is complex even for literate users) or digital skills (to identify andsolve 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, thethree 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 first 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 theCommunicative 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 reflect the fact that learners areable 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 (modified 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 30 3 Literacy and second language learning for the linguistic integration of adult migrants

Chapter 3
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 learneras the two most important pillars for literacy and second language learning environments. The chapter thenoutlines three powerful factors to enhance the effectiveness 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 toproviding learners with plentiful experience of personally meaningful success (see 3.6).

3.1. AN ACTION-ORIENTED 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 significance. 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 significance in the limited timeframe 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 effective 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 isimportant to emphasise that such exercises should always lead to more encompassing meaningful tasks in whichlearners 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 suchmeaningful literacy experiences.

73. For oral skills, see 2.1 on oracy and 5.4 on the scenario approach in teaching.
74. Guernier 2012.

Page 31

Figure 3 – Backward planning of tasks and exercises to prepare learners for the literacy event of making anote in a planner

Exercise 1(vocabulary)

Task 1(oral interaction)

Task 2(written interaction)

End task(written production)

Constructing a list of own
chores and hobbies by(a) indentifying pictureson the basis of oral input,(b) matching written
words and pictures, and(c) selecting and writing
individual items.

Asking partner about
personal daily/weekly
routines, chores, andhobbies and responding(partner interview).

Reading an authentic
calendar with (schoolor community)
events, identifying
events of interest.

Writting down personal
activities and appointments
for next month, adding
potential ones from task 2
in a different colour.

time

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-lifesituation. 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/Specific scale Functional Writing reads:
3

Can 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 first step of goal setting, theend 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:3

Can 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:3

Can read words with frequent combinations of graphemes and frequent (bound) morphemes fluently (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:
3

Can 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.

Page 32 3 Literacy and second language learning for the linguistic integration of adult migrants

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 Task 2. The
corresponding descriptor from the scale for Written Reception/Reading for Orientation reads:
3

Can find information about places, times and prices on posters, flyers 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 final step,
they can now write down their weekly chores and hobbies in a simple personal planner – and maybe add somespecial 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 wellas principles generated by learner-centred methods geared towards literacy as a social practice.

3.2. ORIENTATION ON THE CODE: BUILDING TECHNICAL LITERACY SKILLSThis 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 fluency. 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 differ 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 beencalled 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 different types of exercises
from these different 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 specific syllables in words, reading systematic variations of syllables such as “fa-fe-fi-fo-fu” or “sa-sesi-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 reflection 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-fi-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 ofsimple 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 approachworks less well because these languages use many consonant clusters and/or because their orthographies relyon 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 aword 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.

Teaching literacy in a second language Page 33

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 andsmaller ones for unstressed syllables.79

3.2.2. A focus on sounds and letters
Sound discrimination and sound identification exercises focus on individual phonemes of the target language
and are often among the first 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 todecide whether they hear a certain sound like “m” at the beginning of a word such as “milk”. After being able toidentify onsets, in a next step they usually acquire the ability to identify sounds in the final position and in the
middle of a word.80
In terms of building a progression of phonemes and their corresponding graphemes in a specific target language,
several aspects need to be considered. Sonorants like [m] and [n] are generally considered to be more easily
identified than fricatives such as [f ] or [s], which in turn are considered to be more readily recognised by beginninglearners than plosives such as [t] or [b]. In literacy and second language courses, the sound inventories of thepreviously 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 different phonemes of the target
language, such [e:]/[i:], [o:]/[u:] and [b]/[p] in several European languages, are not distinguished as phonemesin Arabic, and special attention needs to be given to this potential challenge for Arabic speakers while otherlanguage pairs require other fields 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 fromother 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
offer the important advantages of immediate feedback for the learner and automatic level adaptation. For thisreason, 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 tophonics and decoding skills. Although this might seem a fast method initially, in the long run it is not effective atall 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 theircorresponding sounds in these words in the next step. These words often are chosen according to their particularsignificance to the learner group, based on their frequency and personal relevance. Exercise types characteristicof such an orientation are circling identical words, circling specific 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 onreading acquisition. However, in several orthographies, the regularity in the mapping is not only based on lettersound mappings, but also on morphology: identical morphemes are spelled in a similar way. Unlike syllables,
morpheme boundaries cannot be identified by listening, but only by lexical analysis of the components of aword. 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 suffixes (e.g. “teach-teacher”), or
prefixes (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.
80.
81.
82.

See Pracht 2012.
See Rokitzki 2016.
See Heyn 2013; Roder 2009.
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.

Page 34 3 Literacy and second language learning for the linguistic integration of adult migrants

be combined with various morphemes to create other words. The focus on morpheme knowledge is particularly
important to secure word recognition and enhance fluency 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 offer the learner diverse starting points for insights into the alphabetical principle. The
degree to which specific learning environments focus on these different linguistic units strongly depends onthe characteristics of the target language. Despite these differences between languages and orthographies,some general teaching principles that hold for all languages can be recommended.83
f Provide adequate learning environments: Learning to read an alphabetic script for the first 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 first time adult readers in a second language because they can rely less on otherresources like a rich lexicon, much print exposure or cultural knowledge to fill gaps.
f Build linguistic and orthographic awareness: Awareness of the different linguistic units like phonemes,
syllables and later morphemes, as well as awareness of the different distinctive features of letters, is crucial
to learning success.
f Pay targeted attention to the mapping of orthography on phonology, the basis of word identification: 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 fluency 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 fluency, the opposite is more effective: much text to read instead of answering questions.
f Stimulate reading comprehension from the very beginning: A word not understood is a word not read.
The three main principles behind reading comprehension are fluency in decoding, vocabulary knowledge
and listening comprehension.
f Create a plurilingual classroom: Even when students do not have the same first language, use their first
languages or a common language where possible to explain principles, to provide examples, to foster
linguistic awareness and to check for comprehension. Learners’ first languages or another well-known
language can also be used effectively 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 thepersonal agendas of students. If learners are to invest in their literacy learning, their hopes for the future and theirenvisioned 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-confidently shape their everyday lives (see 5.4).
According to their individual situation, their focus might be on family literacy, job-related skills, reading forlearning, etc. to differing degrees. Goal setting in literacy and second language learning environments canbe successfully achieved on the basis of visuals depicting possible relevant situations and literacy events, andstudy groups with differentiated 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.

Teaching literacy in a second language Page 35

orientation that students bring printed materials and photos of words and texts to the classroom form theireveryday lives. Initiatives following such situated approaches to literacy learning are sometimes located inlearning environments regularly frequented by learners, such as mosques or community centres, instead ofconcentrating 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 andwriting 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 forachieving these recurring purposes. Written text types like menus, TV 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 helpof 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-lifesituations are important elements in gradually introducing literacy and second language learners to a progressionof 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 theconnection 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 thetext 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 fine 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 first 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 havealso 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 theletter <a/A>, they analyse a word (chosen individually according to personal significance) into sounds and try towrite 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.

Page 36 3 Literacy and second language learning for the linguistic integration of adult migrants

writing word skeletons consisting of a few consonants, but as they progress their writing becomes orthographicallymore and more complex. The advantage is that motivation is particularly high with individually chosen words andphrases. 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 emancipationof 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 aself-evident fact that we mention only because the modelling of second language adult literacy on the basis offirst language child literacy has sometimes led to non-reflected 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 womenand LGBT, etc. are addressed in adequately simple language and texts, such literacy programmes make anessential contribution to the basic education and personal growth of learners.
Closely related to the issue of reading for learning and critical reflection is the aspect of numeracy. Althoughnumeracy 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 readingof 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 first and foremost at the personal growth of learners.

3.4. LEARNING STRATEGIES AND AUTONOMY
Strategies and autonomy are powerful factors in increasing effectiveness and sustainability of an actionoriented, 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 theteaching of language learning strategies equally essential for learners with little experience in formal learning.
These include (meta-)cognitive, affective and social strategies. Unlike the language use strategies, they havenot been scaled, but are listed here.
Cognitive strategies include, among others:
f strategies 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 andtense endings, plural or case endings);
f strategies 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;
f memory 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 flash cards, inan app) to memorise them;

88. See Böddeker 2018.

Teaching literacy in a second language Page 37

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 first 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 individualiselearning process;f can choose learning materials to match own needs and learning style;f can organise learning materials (e.g. punch, date, number and sort materials) to use them efficiently;
f can document learning process in a tailored portfolio to track progress;
f can use self-evaluation materials (e.g. a checklist like the one suggested in Appendix 3) to monitor andreflect on own learning process;f can identify the need to ask for help.
Affective strategies for motivation and volition include, among others:
f can 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 effective forthemselves;
f can use positive self-talk to motivate themselves;
f can 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) toestablish social contacts;
f can take the initiative (e.g. invite neighbours) to establish social contacts;
f can participate in a digital learning group supervised by a tutor to use the second language;
f can find other people to support the learning process (e.g. mentor, learning buddy, tandem partner).
Such language learning strategies are effective tools to empower newcomers to formal education and as suchthey are important building blocks of learner autonomy.89 While learning strategies represent the psychologicalperspective on autonomy, three other perspectives on autonomy are relevant as well: the technical, social andpolitical-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,
reflective 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 confined 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. Scaffolding 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 gratefulspeech acts for a submissive positioning of migrants, literacy and second language learners also need language
models to fight off offensive 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.

Page 38 3 Literacy and second language learning for the linguistic integration of adult migrants

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 benefit 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’ first 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 theteacher 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 reflection abilities. Taking a contrastive approach does not require the teacher
to be bilingual or speak the various first 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 first language input from learners to use aslearning material and to be ready to follow up on these first language impulses. The teacher is continuallylearning from the students who take the expert role on their first 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 first languages who are
no longer beginning learners.93
In contrastive and plurilingual learning environments, learners are welcome to code-switch, and they areencouraged 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.
f Mediating from speech to speech in the learning environment mainly involves mediating the teacher’sutterances in the target language such as instructions or explanations to fellow learners in another language, 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, Frenchor Spanish).
f Mediating from speech to writing in the learning environment typically involves writing down in anotherlanguage for a fellow learner oral information that was given in the target language, for example thetranslation or transliteration of a word as a memory aid in the first language or the first writing system of
the peer or making a note of a teacher explanation not understood by the fellow learner (e.g. “use thisphrase for adults, not for kids”).
f Mediating from writing to writing in the learning environment can involve the collaborative productionof plurilingual learning materials (e.g. a key-word poster or vocabulary game) as well as summarising ortranslating written information or instructions in learning materials in another language for a fellow learner.
f Mediating from writing to speech in the learning environment involves helping peers orally with writtenmaterial 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 material in the language of a fellow student not comprehended by the teacher (e.g. certification, 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.

Teaching literacy in a second language Page 39

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 isimportant to offer tasks or exercises that are within the individual learner’s zone of proximal development, aterm Vygotski94 used to describe activities that a learner can accomplish successfully with the help of anotherperson or by using scaffolds in the learning material.
A group of literacy and second language learners will usually be quite heterogeneous in many respects, andstudents with various profiles in terms of oral and literacy competences will learn together. This heterogeneity
requires a high degree of differentiation 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 different activities that are within their personal reach, the whole group will still be united in its focus on asingle 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 dosomething with help and scaffolding 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 andsecond language learners might seem slow to a lay observer or to a language teacher with no literacy-teachingexperience, but the informed teacher has a more differentiated 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 deficits (see6.1.1), 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 successoriented literacy and second-language learning environments, both teachers and learners clearly perceive – andcelebrate – progress that might not be recognisable to the untrained eye.

3.7. BALANCING THE VARIOUS PRINCIPLES IN LITERACY AND SECONDLANGUAGE 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 componentsof oral skills like vocabulary, grammar or pronunciation) with authentic tasks in order to successfully implement
an action-oriented approach. Three factors are highly influential on the learning process: the development ofstrategies and autonomy, the use of contrastive and plurilingual approaches and, most importantly, a pedagogicalcommitment 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-Ghafir et al. 2021; Minuz et al. 2016; Roll and Schramm 2010.

Page 40 3 Literacy and second language learning for the linguistic integration of adult migrants

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 defined 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

359Communicative 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 fromthe CEFR Companion volume Pre-A1 and A1 levels, which are integrated into LASLLIAM levels 3 and 4 andpresented in blue font.
Table 2 – LASLLIAM descriptors and CEFR Companion volume descriptors

Communicative Language Activities

No. of descriptors

CEFR Companion volume
Pre-A1 descriptors

CEFR Companion
volume A1 descriptors

184

26

45

LASLLIAM descriptors follow the five criteria suggested by CEFR: positiveness, definiteness, clarity, brevity andindependence (Council of Europe 2001, Appendix A: 205-7). This means that the descriptors are presented interms of what a non- or low-literate adult migrant can do (positiveness) rather than what they cannot do inperforming concrete tasks (definiteness). 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 havemeaning only in relation to other descriptors (independence). This allows, for instance, for their use withinchecklists 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 flexible, 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 thespecific 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 simplification. The reason the CEFR
includes so many descriptor scales is to encourage users to develop differentiated profiles” (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 accountthe dual process referred to above.
LASLLIAM users will find 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
Specific scales, LASLLIAM also provides tables related to concrete examples of language use in respect of thefour CEFR domains (personal, public, occupational and educational).

Page 41

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 tothe simultaneous processes of acquiring literacy and a second language at the same time (see 1.2). Please beaware that specific personal conditions, such as disability or trauma, and social conditions, such as isolation,
could affect the achievement of goals.
Figure 4 – The LASLLIAM descriptive scheme
LASLLIAM

Technical
Literacy scales

Communicative Language Activities (CLA)and Language Use Strategies (LUS) scales

Language andPrint Awareness

CLA – LUS
Reception

CLA – LUS
Production

DigitalSkills scales

CLA – LUS
Interaction

Communication
and Collaboration

Reading

Oral

Written

Oral

Written

Oral

WrittenContent Creationand Management

Writing

CLA
Overall

CLA
Overall

CLA
Overall

CLA
Overall

CLA
Overall

CLA
Overall

Safety

CLA
Specifics
with
examplesby domains

CLA
Specifics
with
examplesby domains

CLA
Specifics
with
examplesby domains

CLA
Specifics
with
examplesby domains

CLA
Specifics
with
examplesby domains

CLA
Specifics
with
examplesby domains

4.1. TECHNICAL LITERACYTechnical literacy is an important basis for using literacy competences in authentic communication; it is definedas 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 fluent 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 phonologicallysimple 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), andgradually extends to (longer) words with a more complex linguistic structure such as consonant clusters andmore complex or irregular grapheme–phoneme correspondences. The last step in this process is focused on
speed and becoming fluent in decoding. For beginners in reading and writing it is also important to build
awareness of the intimate but difficult to grasp relationship between spoken and written language and to thephonological 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:f the cognitive activity involved: from rote learning to slow letter-by-letter decoding to direct word recognition through fast and fluent decoding, or from copying to slow encoding to fast encoding in writing;

Page 42 3 Literacy and second language learning for the linguistic integration of adult migrants

f linguistic complexity: from very short words with a simple syllabic structure to phonologically and morphologically more complex words, short and simple sentences, and later to linguistically very short andsimple texts;96
f orthographic complexity: from one-to-one correspondence between grapheme and phoneme to more
complex relationships between graphemes and phonemes and irregularities in spelling;f familiarity: from familiar and practised words and phrases to familiar words and phrases that are new inthe written form;f speed: from slow decoding to fluent 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 transparencyof spelling, prevailing syllable structure, morphological complexity, word order) affect how literacy is acquired.97
Albeit in a non-linear fashion, language specificity influences how literacy is taught in the different educational
traditions. Consequently, some descriptors of the Technical Literacy scale are language specific. 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 inlanguages with simpler morpho-syntax like Dutch, the descriptor “Can read short and simple sentences, if thewords 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, specifically the use of writing tools and thevisual-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 effective pen/pencil grasp and pressure, pen/pencil control
and fluency, regular letter formation and automatisation of eye movement to follow the hand and directionof the target script.
Written language does not represent meaning directly like other visual symbols such as pictures do, but via unitsof 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 thattechnical 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 specified
the functional aspects of literacy in the scales of written reception, production and interaction. This is in line withthe fact that it is considered important that language education for this target group empowers learners to copewith 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 understandthe 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 AwarenessDescriptor
4

Knows that cohesive devices are important for understanding texts (e.g. “he”; “then”).
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”).

3

Can synthesise spoken words into short and simple sentences.
Knows that the word order of the sentences in different languages can differ (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 specified for each language.
97. Verhoeven and Perfetti 2017.

LASLLIAM scales and tables Page 43

Descriptor
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 final) in words with a simple syllabic structure.

2

Can identify rhyming words in the target language (e.g. “book-cook, late-plate”).
Knows that some phonemes in the target language can differ from phonemes in the first language (e.g. thenumber of vowels; p-b for Arabic speakers).
Can synthesise phonemes into words with a simple syllabic structure (e.g. “c-a-t” into “cat”).
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).

1

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
Can read fluently words with a complex syllabic structure (e.g. “shirts”).
Can read short and simple phrases fluently by using automated reading processes.

4

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.
Can read short and simple sentences, if the words are orthographically simple.
Can recognise frequently used punctuation marks (e.g. full stop, question mark).

3

Can read words with frequent combinations of graphemes and frequent (bound) morphemes fluently (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 fluently by using automated reading processes.
Can read with some effort orthographically complex words (e.g. multisyllabic words, words with consonant
clusters, or words with irregular spelling).
Can read practised words and new short words with a simple or highly frequent syllabic structure by applying thegrapheme–phoneme correspondence (e.g. “son”, “sera”).
Can relate a grapheme to the corresponding phoneme in orthographically simple words (e.g. “hat”; “book”).

2

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 different frequently used fonts and printed formats (e.g. italic).
Can identify and read their own writing.
Can distinguish upper- and lower-case letters in practised words.

1

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).

Page 44 3 Literacy and second language learning for the linguistic integration of adult migrants

4.1.3. Writing
Descriptor
Can write frequently used words, phrases and sentences fluently.

4

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”).
Can write short words with a complex but frequent syllabic structure (e.g. “street”; “working”).

3

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.
Can use spaces to visually mark the different words.
Can write down simple syllabic-structured familiar words said by others (e.g. “pane”).

2

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.
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.

1

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 beginningstages of learning a second language. As in the
CEFR Companion volume, the listening scales focus
on different kinds of one-way listening and exclude
listening in interaction.
For Oral Reception, LASLLIAM distinguishes one Overall
scale and four Specific 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 andWatching TV and Video.
Learning to listen in a second language does not dependon the ability to read and write in the second language,f Unless indicated otherwise, the names of the categories and order of the scales in this reference guideare 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 fromthe 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 Specific scales.
f For concrete application of the descriptors see thetables embedded in the Specific scales, with examples of language use in the four different domains.
f Please note that such examples related to the fourdomains might need adaptation according to thecontext and the learners’ needs.

LASLLIAM scales and tables Page 45

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 different 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 first aural contact with
the new language to the Pre-A1 and A1 levels of the CEFR Companion volume.
Enunciation and context can restrict or influence listening comprehension at every level of the scales, thus theyshould be considered a part of all descriptors in the scales for listening comprehension. With enunciation, thespeech must be very slow, carefully articulated, with long pauses, accompanied by gestures and other bodylanguage; prosody and pronunciation must be close to the pronunciation in the geographical area where thelearner lives; and intonational patterns must be clearly expressed. Moreover, the speech must be produced ineveryday, 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, fixed 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);f length and linguistic complexity: from short and simple speech formed by single phrases and words tomore complex speech composed of simple, sometimes connected sentences, and a wider range of phrases
and words;98
f familiarity: 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 visualcues) 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
4

Can recognise concrete information (e.g. places and times) on familiar topics encountered in everyday life,
provided it is delivered slowly and clearly.
Can recognise a familiar topic by understanding frequent words and expressions in a short, simple speech.

3

Can understand short, very simple questions and statements provided they are delivered slowly and clearly andaccompanied 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 adefined, familiar everyday context.

2

Can pick out isolated pieces of information and frequent social formulas (e.g. greetings) by recognising familiar
words and expressions in a short, simple speech.

1

Can 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 talkto each other without addressing the learner, and when the listener overhears other people nearby. In bothsituations 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) andof sentences with a simple syntactic structure. The input to be processed could be a single utterance (e.g. “Enter please!”) or a sectionof 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 participantsin 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.

Page 46 3 Literacy and second language learning for the linguistic integration of adult migrants

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 astretch of conversation clearly related to the context through gestures, other body language and actionsof the participants to getting an idea of a familiar topic.
Personal
4

Can understandwords/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 veryclearly.

e.g. the descriptionof the common areasof an apartmentbuilding and whereto park the bicycles

Publice.g. information
about a delay at abus stop

Occupational

Educational

e.g. warnings andinstructions while
performing a job
task together

e.g. information
about courses orteachers

Can understand some e.g. between
expressions whenparticipants at apeople are discussing friends’ gathering
them, family,
school, hobbies
or surroundings,
provided the delivery
is slow and clear.

e.g. people
e.g. about dailycommenting on food job tasks (“Todayin a cafeteria
we start cleaningfrom the firstfloor”)

e.g. a conversation
about hobbies in theclassroom

Can 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 (“Heis an old friend ofmine”)

e.g. the opening
hours of a shop,
service asked for by acustomer at the deske.g. what isneeded to
perform a taske.g. a conversation
about daily routines
in the classroom

Can get an idea ofthe familiar topic
of a short, simple
conversation, if
the conversation
is clearly related topeople and objects
that are in thesurroundings (e.g.
participants arepointing at them).

e.g. thanks for agift, well-wishing or
welcoming guests ata friend’s gathering

e.g. the descriptionof an object givenby the salesperson
to a customer (“Thisis the cheapest
phone card”); basic
information about aservice (“That is thechildren’s hospital”)

e.g. a simple
problem in thepresent work, likea broken tool, or
someone asking
for help

e.g. a teacher is ill

2

Can pick out isolated
pieces of informationand frequentsocial formulasby recognisingfamiliar words
and expressions
in conversation
between others.

e.g. nationality,
age, family
relation during an
introduction (“Mywife”)

e.g. where adepartment in the
supermarket is(“Vegetables are
there”)

e.g. the location ofa tool or a person
in a familiar
settinge.g. hours anddays of personally
relevant courses

1

Can recognise apersonally relevant
piece of informationdelivered by others
mostly in a single
word or expression.

e.g. greetings andvery simple social
formulase.g. the name of adocument in a public
office (“ID card”)

e.g. the name of afamiliar toole.g. the name of aclassroom object or aperson3

e.g. comments about
courses, teachers,class schedule (“I likemy class; they arenice people”)

LASLLIAM scales and tables Page 47

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 stressedin the CEFR Companion volume: the speaker probably adopts a neutral register and projects their voice tomaximise 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/focusedon 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

PublicOccupational

Educational

Can follow a simple
talk slowly andcarefully articulated(e.g. someone
introducing a friend
in a meeting).

e.g.
congratulations,well-wishing,welcomee.g. a short
opening talkdelivered at thecommunity centre

e.g. about job
tasks, objects andpeople related tothe present work

e.g. a simple
introduction of the(children’s) courses or asimple story deliveredby the teacher

Can understand inoutline very simple
information being
explained in a
predictable situation
like a guided tour,
provided that speech
is very slow and clear
and that there arelong pauses fromtime to time.

e.g. thedescription of
their apartment
delivered byfriends

e.g. about apersonally
relevant public
service, such as afamily centre or ajob service (“Thecentre is open
to families withyoung children”)

e.g. about afamiliar job task at
the workplacee.g. a simple
explanation deliveredby the teacher

3

Can pick out pieces
of information about
persons, objects andplaces 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, relationsin an introduction

e.g. opening days
and hours of afamiliar service,
the post office
and a commercial
centree.g. about
simple tools andmachines (likeuse, parts, main
cautions), or
about task sharinge.g. the descriptionof an object or a
picture delivered by
the teacher and otherlearners2

Can pick out isolated
pieces of informationand frequentsocial formulasby recognisingfamiliar words andexpressions in ashort, simple speech.

e.g. about avegetarian dishe.g. that there isan interpreter at
the service

e.g. about adangerous action
or object (“It ishot”)

e.g. “The canteen isclosed today”

1

Can recognise
as member of alive audience a
personally relevant
piece of informationdelivered mostly
in a single word or
expression.

e.g. “Welcome!” ina short welcome
talke.g. the names ofa familiar shop orservicee.g. the role of aperson like doctor,
nurse or teamleadere.g. the namesof objects in theclassroom

4

Page 48 3 Literacy and second language learning for the linguistic integration of adult migrants

Listening to Announcements and Instructions
In the CEFR Companion volume, Listening to Announcements and Instructions is defined as extremely focused
listening in which the aim is to catch specific 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 pieceof information, to simple and familiar announcements, possibly formed by two or three connected
sentences;f medium: from face-to-face instructions and announcements and later to simple and familiar automatised
messages;f degree 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.

43

Personal

PublicOccupational

Educational

Can understandinstructions
addressed carefully
and slowly to themand follow short,
simple directions.

e.g. very simple
suggestions forhousekeeping or
simple cooking
recipee.g. in a hospital(“The doctor iscoming, wait
here.”); medical
instructions (“Takethese pills twice aday”)

e.g. orders,warnings,
permissions andprohibitions
related to thepresent work taskse.g. the documents
needed to enrol(children) in aschool or the rulesof an educational
game; invitation
to a students’(parents’) meeting

Can understand whensomeone tells themslowly and clearly
where something is,provided the object
is in the immediate
environment.

e.g. instructions
from neighbours
about where tolocate waste in theapartment building

e.g. the location of
personally relevant
products in asupermarket

e.g. the location of
objects in familiar
rooms, like thestorage room

e.g. where to buy
the course bookCan understandfigures, prices andtimes given slowly
and clearly in anannouncement by
loudspeaker, e.g. at a
railway station or in a
shop.

Not applicablee.g. the arrivalof the train
announced
through aloudspeaker in therailway station, inthe metro (“Nextstop NN Square.
Left side exit”)

e.g. the opening
time of a canteen
in a big factorye.g. the closing
time of the schoolbuilding

Can pick out the main
points in a short,
simple message
delivered face-to-facein a familiar situation.

e.g. about aproblem at home(“The lift doesn’twork”)

e.g. about themenu in a cafeteria(“Today we areserving pasta”)

e.g. a change intheir working days
or in the shift

e.g. cancellationof the courses(“No courses
tomorrow”)

Can understand short,
simple instructions foractions such as “Stop”,“Close the door”, etc.,
provided they aredelivered slowly faceto-face, accompaniedby 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
servicee.g. a simple
manual proceduree.g. instructions
for simple tasks
delivered by theteacher as for amatching between
words and pictures

LASLLIAM scales and tables Page 49

Personal

PublicOccupational

Educational2

Can recognise familiar
words and phrases
in a short, simple
message delivered
face-to-face (e.g.
“closed” in “thecafeteria is closed”).

e.g. in a message
delivered by afriend about aknown event(“I’ll come bytomorrow”); therequest of fetchinga thing which is in
the surroundings(“Some water,
please”)

e.g. in a shop(“Open”, meaning“We are opennow”); prohibitionof smoking(“No smoking
here, please”) or
documents to
exhibite.g. the names ofplaces, objects,
tasks, people;
instruction abouta procedure(“Look, like this”) or
warnings (“Don’t,
danger!”)e.g. the names ofplaces, objects,
people; the requestof signing a form

1

Can recognise apersonally relevant
piece of informationdelivered mostly
in a single word
or expression andaccompanied by
picture and bodylanguage.

e.g. a permission(“Come in”)

e.g. their client
number in a
waiting room

e.g. the name of atool or a frequently
performed activity

e.g. the nameof 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 recordedmaterial, including messages. Watching TV, Film and Video includes live and recorded video material plus, at
higher levels, film. 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 audiovisualmessages delivered through social media, are easier for them than audio media and recordings, which they cantackle 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;
f medium/multimodality of the message: from audiovisual messages and later to short and simple audio
messages;f text types: from personal messages by known persons (e.g. greetings from a friend) to broadcasted messages (e.g. short and simple advertisements of familiar products);
f repetition: from audiovisual messages which can be rewatched several times to frequently repeated broadcasts (e.g. advertisements) to live broadcasts in streaming (e.g. TV and radio news).

4

Personal

PublicOccupational

Educational

Can pick out concrete
information (e.g. places
and times) from shortaudio recordings onfamiliar everyday topics,
provided they aredelivered very slowly andclearly.

e.g. a message
on the answeringmachine (“It’s[name] speaking.
Your appointment
is confirmed”)

e.g. the time andplace of a familiar
event, like afootball matche.g. automatised
instructions by amachinee.g. fromeducational
materials, likeannouncement
modelsCan recognise familiar
words/signs and phrases
and identify the topics inheadline news summaries
and many of the products
in advertisements,
by exploiting visual
information and generalknowledge.

e.g. a shortdialogue on
everyday familiar
topics in a
fictional video

e.g. about a traffic
accident in theirarea

e.g. a simple
procedure from a
video tutorial

e.g. aneducational video

Page 50 3 Literacy and second language learning for the linguistic integration of adult migrants

Personal

PublicOccupational

Educational3

Can understand ashort, simple personal
audiovisual message withformulaic expressions.

e.g. place of an
appointment(“See you in themain square”)

e.g. the time of an
appointmente.g. place andtime of a delivery

e.g. a shortaudiovisualmessagedelivered by
the teacher in a
distance learning
situation in alearners’ group ona social network2

Can recognise familiar
words and phrases inshort, simple video
recordings, provided
that they are delivered
very slowly and clearly,
possibly after relistening(e.g. greetings in a
fictional video).

e.g. social
formulas in
fictional videos

e.g. the names offamiliar brands
and products
in audiovisual
advertisements

e.g. usual working
tools in a video
tutoriale.g. in dialogues
from educational
audio andaudiovisualmaterials

Can understand frequentsocial formulas in ashort, simple personal
audiovisual message (e.g.
“Hi, I am fine. See yousoon”.)

e.g. from a friend
about theirwell-being

Not applicableNot applicablee.g. in a learners’
group on a social
network

Can recognise apersonally relevant pieceof information delivered
mostly in a single word
or expression in a short,
simple audiovisualmessage.

e.g. greetingsfrom a friend
in a personal
audiovisualmessage

Not applicableNot applicablee.g. in educational
materials

1

4.2.1.2. Written Reception
As in the CEFR Companion volume, the LASLLIAM reading
categories are a mixture between reading purpose andreading particular text types with specific, functions. For
Written Reception, LASLLIAM distinguishes one Overall
scale and five Specific 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 specific information(scanning), Reading for Information, and also Reading
as a Leisure Activity, which can involve both fictional
narratives and informative texts about topics of interest,
and texts specifically written for each level. Specifically,
written texts for each level will be language specific: insome morphology-rich languages it will be difficult for an
author of teaching materials to write sentences for level2, while in other languages it might be easier to write ashort text with only phonologically simple, short words.

f Unless indicated otherwise, the names of the categories and order of the scales in this reference guideare 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 theblue ones from the CEFR Companion volume) arepresented 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 Specific scales.
f For concrete application of the descriptors see
the tables embedded in the Specific scales, with
examples of language use in the four different
domains.
f Please note that such examples related to the fourdomains might need adaptation according to thecontext and the learners’ needs.

LASLLIAM scales and tables Page 51

In terms of specific text types, as in the CEFR Companion volume, we identify Reading Correspondence andReading Instructions, a specialised form of reading for information. Since careful study of a complex text is notpossible at the levels of this reference guide, the CEFR Companion volume term Reading for Information andArgument 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:
f cognitive activity involved: from rote learning of sight words to slow letter-by-letter decoding and later todirect word recognition through fast and fluent decoding;f length 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 mainclauses;f orthographic complexity: from one-to-one correspondence between grapheme and phoneme to more
complex relationships between graphemes and phonemes and irregularities in spelling;f familiarity: from familiar, practised words and phrases to words and phrases that are orally familiar, but
new in writing;f speed: from slow decoding to more fluent reading of words and simple sentences.

Overall Reading Comprehension
4

Can 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 andknowledge of the topic.

3

Can recognise familiar words/signs accompanied by pictures, such as a fast-food restaurant menu illustrated withphotos 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 byword and using visual clues.

2

Can identify the topic of a short, simple personally relevant text by reading practised words and using visual clues.
Can find numerical information (e.g. phone number, price, weight) by reading practised words , symbols or
abbreviations (e.g. €, £, kg, m).

1

Can 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 byrecognising visual clues and sight words.

Reading Correspondence
As in the CEFR Companion volume, Reading Correspondence encompasses reading both personal andformal 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 complexityof the message).
Key concepts operationalised in the scale include the following:f ease of reading: from recognising sight words to slow decoding and later to more fluent decoding;f length and linguistic complexity: from very short and phonologically simple words to linguistically more
complex words, simple sentences and short texts;
f concreteness and simplicity of information: from very concrete and simple, familiar messages and later tomore complex messages;
f contextual or visual cues: from more to fewer cues that can be helpful in reading and understanding.

Page 52 3 Literacy and second language learning for the linguistic integration of adult migrants

Personal

PublicOccupational

Educational

Can understandshort, simple
messages sent via
social media or e-mail(e.g. proposing what
to do, when andwhere to meet).

e.g. suggestionof meeting witha friend (“Would
you like to go to
the cinema at
the weekend?”);felicitations andexpressions ofcompassion/best
wishes (birthday,
marriage, death)e.g. message about
appointment withthe doctor;
invitation to
opening ofcommunity centre
or librarye.g. a (text) message
about a teammeeting or lunchwith a colleague;
felicitations andexpressions ofcompassion/best
wishes (anniversary,
welcome); farewell
note from acolleaguee.g. message about
an after-school
activity or school
trip; invitation
to graduation
ceremony; open
day at children’s
primary school

Can understandshort, simple
correspondence
about everyday
topics.

e.g. mail aboutbirth of a baby; text
message about
shopping

e.g. announcementof activities at thelibrary or a fair at
the community
centree.g. announcementof special offers in acafeteria

e.g. announcement
about new schoolrules

Can understand froma letter, card or e-mailthe event to which
they are being invitedand the information
given about day, timeand location.

e.g. invitation tobirthday party,
wedding partyor funeral (“Thefuneral is on April
21 at 11:00”)

e.g. invitation
to a medical
consultation oradministrative
servicee.g. invitation to ateam meeting orcompany outing

e.g. invitation to a
joint presentationor children’s school
activity

Can recognise times
and places in very
simple notes andtext messages fromfriends or colleagues(e.g. “Back at 4
o’clock” or “In themeeting room”),
provided there are no
abbreviations.

e.g. simple notes
and text messages
from a friend (“Seeyou at 10” or “I amon the way”)

e.g. simple notesfrom administration(“Please registerat the service
counter”)

e.g. simple notes
and text messages
from a colleague (“Iam in room 24” or“lunch at 13.00?”)

e.g. simple notes
and text messages
from teachers andpeers (“Study p.20
for Tuesday” or“Bring your booknext week”)

2

Can identify the topic
of a short, simple
personally relevant
illustrated message
written in practised
words.

e.g. sender, dateand place in a social
invitation (“Theparty is on May 10”)e.g. sender, dateand place in an
administrative
messagee.g. from a job
message (working
hours, holidays)

e.g. from aschool message(change of room,
upcoming holidaysof children’s
school); as apossible classroom
simulation

1

Can distinguish somerelevant everyday
correspondence
from othercorrespondence.

e.g. personallyaddressed bill,advertisement

e.g. e-mail or letterfrom local healthcentree.g. e-mail or letterfrom own company

e.g. e-mail or letterfrom (children’s)
teacher or school

4

3

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 specific information in different 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:f ease of reading: from recognising single sight words to independent reading of short, simple messages;
f text type: from one-word texts like signs and labels to different, highly frequent text types with picturesand layout that support meaning-making;f concreteness and specificity of information: from pre-known information to new information (like dates,
times and prices).

LASLLIAM scales and tables Page 53

Personal
4

3

2

1

PublicOccupational

Educational

Can recognise familiarnames, words/signs andvery basic phrases on
simple notices in themost common everyday
situations.

e.g. notice fromcaretaker

e.g. notice onchanged opening
times; food labels(allergies); floor
plan of hospitale.g. notice from acolleague about
the work shift

e.g. notice onbook sale inschool; notice intextbook or online
exercise

Can find andunderstand simple,
important informationin advertisements,
programmes for special
events, leaflets andbrochures (e.g. what is
proposed, costs, the dateand place of the event,departure times).

e.g. shows ornews in TV guide;
entries in (online)
directories andcatalogues;
information on
calendarse.g. medical
brochure ofa hospital;
information in a
town or city guide;warnings (“Do notleave rubbish on
the ground”)

e.g. new safety or
hygiene rules inflyers (“Disinfectyour hands
and avoid close
contact”)

e.g. activities inprogramme fora school party;
proficiency levels
in brochure withcourse offers;
warning signs(“Keep the gateclosed”)

Can understand simple
everyday signs suchas “Parking”, “Station”,“Dining room”, “No
smoking”, etc.

e.g. on food or
medicine package(due date; “Takewith water”)

e.g. warningor traffic signs(“Caution: wetfloor”; “One way”)

e.g. warning signs
or directions(“High voltage”;“Emergency exit”)

e.g. warning signs
or directions (“Nomobile phones”;
school office”)

Can find information
about places, times andprices on posters, flyers
and notices.

e.g. inalphabeticallyorganised personal
directories; date
and time in TV
guide; place, timeand date of private
event

e.g. in sale
information; onposters on open
days, programmesor events at
library, cinema or
community centre

e.g. in work
schedule; main
items in job
vacancy (e.g.
working days)

e.g. lessons intimetable; pricelist of cafeteria;
notice on costs ofafter-school childcare

Can identify the topic ofshort, simple illustrated
information written inpractised words.

e.g. names andphone numbers
in a familiar
directory or list;
topic of illustrated
story; event, dateand location in a
programme

e.g. names andprices on bills,
food, clothing;names and dates
on schedules;
expiry date on
food; the platform
number of thedeparture of
the train on thedisplay board at
the station

e.g. working hours
or holidays in work
schedule; date
and time of teammeetinge.g. lessons, dates
and times in classschedule

Can recognise simple
everyday signs in streetsor on products.

e.g. logo of TV
programme withvisual clues

e.g. public signs(“Closed”; “Noentry”)

e.g. warning signs(“Caution”, “Nofood”)

e.g. warning signs(“No smoking”)

Can distinguish somerelevant everyday logos,
icons and text types
from each other.

e.g. frequently
used app icons or
emojis; packageof medicine;felicitations carde.g. “Fire exit”,“Hospital”, ATM;“bus stop”; menu;
store guidee.g. “Exit”, “Poison”,“No smoking”;
work schedulee.g. basic
instructional
icons (such as for
read, write, listen,
speak); school
calendarReading for Information
As in the CEFR Companion volume, Reading for Information involves more careful reading of an informative text tounderstand the meaning. The reading activity required follows the progression line of the Technical Literacy scale.
Key concepts operationalised in the scale include the following:f ease of reading: from recognising sight words to slow decoding and later to more fluent decoding;f text types: from simple signs and messages to short and simple coherent texts in a broader range of types;

Page 54 3 Literacy and second language learning for the linguistic integration of adult migrants

f topic: from everyday topics of personal interest to more general topics like community information ornews headlines;
f depth of understanding: from picking out a single piece of information and getting an idea of the topic
to understanding the basic content.
Personal

PublicOccupational

Educational

Can get an idea of thecontent of simpler
informational materialand short, simple
descriptions, especially
if there is visual support.

e.g. news item;
user guide;
information fromtravel agency

e.g. brochure
about public
services;
information onbulletin board;
church services;
driving schoole.g. work
regulations;information aboutchanging shifts

e.g. information
about schoolor courses inbrochure or onschool website;(children’s) school
rules on bulletinboard

Can understand shorttexts on subjects ofpersonal interest (e.g.
news flashes about
sports, music, travel, or
stories) composed invery simple language
and supported byillustrations andpictures.

e.g. short article inmagazine or local
newspapere.g. short text
about a fair on
noticeboard ofcommunity centre

e.g. job vacancy
advertisement

e.g. note about
end of year
celebrations at(children’s) school;in textbook or
online reading
exercises

3

Can understand thesimplest informational
material such as afast-food restaurant
menu illustrated withphotos or an illustrated
story formulated in very
simple everyday words/
signs.

e.g. posting ofa friend about
an upcoming
wedding party

e.g. information
box of community
centre; service
menu of laundry,
car wash or fooddeliverye.g. catalogue withmerchandise (“Buyone, get one forfree”)

e.g. information
about anupcoming school
event

2

Can identify the topic ofshort, simple illustrated
information written inpractised words.

e.g. shortnewspaper
headlines withpictures (“Heavyrain yesterday”)

e.g. information
leaflet aboutpavement work inthe street (“Week
12 in Main Street”)

e.g. information
on bulletin board
about break times

e.g. information
about clothes
during gym withpictures; illustrated
textbook1

Can distinguishnumerical fromalphabeticalinformation.

e.g. days andmonths on
calendare.g. opening hours
of supermarket;
prices on a priceliste.g. working hours
on work schedulee.g. days, hours
and room of
language course

4

Reading Instructions
Reading instructions is defined 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:f ease of reading: from guessing from pictures and recognising sight words to slow decoding and later tomore fluent decoding;f topic of instructions: from very simple practised orders to routine notices and simple directions;f degree of contextualisation and familiarity: from familiar procedures in concrete contexts to unfamiliar
procedures in general instructions;f length: from single words with visual cues to short and simple, but more detailed, instructions in routine
phrases and sentences.

LASLLIAM scales and tables Page 55

Personal

PublicCan follow short, simple
written directions (e.g. togo from X to Y).

e.g. routedescriptions to a
picnic in the parke.g. routedescriptions to
a museum or
amusement parke.g. transport
instructions for
goods

e.g. directions to ameeting point

Can carry out simple
instructions on the basisof very short, simple
texts.

e.g. cooking on thebasis of a simple
form of recipe;
personalised
instructions on
medicine; simple
instructions
on household
appliances

e.g. instructions
on administrative
document(“Provide yoursocial security
number”) or on an
appliance

e.g. safetyor hygiene
instructions;personalised
instructions onwork machine;
instructions on
how to behave incase of firee.g. instructions
on screen or
copy-machine;
simple new
textbook or online
instructions;guidelines onswimming lessons
for children

Can understandvery short, simple
instructions used infamiliar, everyday
contexts (e.g. “Noparking”, “No food or
drink”), especially ifthere are illustrations.

e.g. safety
instructions on
cleaning products;
basic personalised
instructions on
medicinee.g. safety andpoliteness
instructions inparks and public
spaces (“Swim insafe area only”;“No rubbish,
please”)

e.g. safety andhealth instructions(“Wear gloves”;“Keep locked all
the time”)

e.g. familiar
textbook(or online)
instructions(“Answer thequestions”; “Fillin the blanks”);
instructions aboutchild’s lunch box

Can understandpersonally relevant
simple directions
presented in visual
format with frequentwords and practised
phrases.

e.g. route
directions to afriend’s housee.g. route
directions in
hospital or railway
statione.g. route
directions tocafeteria orparking placee.g. route
directions tobookshop or office2

Can understand simple
instructions whenpresented 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 coffee
machine)e.g. simple safety
and healthinstructions (suchas “Use mask”)

e.g. basic
instructions in
educational
materials (“readthe text”, “listen to
the audio file”)

1

Can pick out a single
piece of information in
an illustrated instruction
written with sight words.

e.g. on medicine
package “ages2-11” (with a photoof a toddler and achild)

e.g. age
instructions on
baby-food (6-9months); warnings
on bottles

e.g. name of aknown company

e.g. basic
instructions withvisual symbols(such as read,
write, listen, speak)4

3

Occupational

Educational

Reading as a Leisure Activity
As in the CEFR Companion volume, Reading as a Leisure Activity involves both fiction and non-fiction. In thesescales it includes short and simple illustrated texts like picture stories, comics, narratives and informative texts
in magazines and newspapers. It also includes fictional and informative texts specifically 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:f ease of reading: from guessing with the help of pictures and sight words to slow decoding and later more
fluent decoding;f length and illustrations of the texts: from picture sequences with practised sight words to illustrated
coherent simple sentences;
f text types: from very short and simple level-adapted descriptions and narratives to short and simple descriptions of people, places and events as well as pre-known narratives;f topics: from everyday topics and stories (e.g. family) to a broader range of concrete and everyday topics(e.g. hobbies).

Page 56 3 Literacy and second language learning for the linguistic integration of adult migrants

Personal
4

PublicOccupational

Educational

Can understand short,illustrated narratives
about everyday activities
described in simple
words.

e.g. short narrativeon life’s up anddowns (family,
friendship, health,work)

Not applicableNot applicablee.g. short narrative
written or dictatedby classmates andedited by teacher

Can understand inoutline short texts
in illustrated stories,
provided that theimages help them toguess at a lot of thecontent.

e.g. short article
about movie staror local hero inmagazine, comic

Not applicableNot applicablee.g. short narrativeon children’s
school website

3

Can understand short,illustrated narratives oncontextualised topics
that are written inorthographically simple
words.

e.g. short narrative
about an event(sports, wedding,concert)Not applicableNot applicablee.g. short photostory produced
by classmates orchildren’s teacher2

Can understand simple
illustrated narratives
written in practised
words.

e.g. picture bookfor children with afew words

Not applicableNot applicablee.g. in storybook
written for this
level

1

Can pick out a single
piece of informationin an illustrated text
written in sight words.

e.g. picture books(on the basis of
main characteror main event),
cartoons

Not applicableNot applicablee.g. illustrated
stories with asimple sequenceof pictures (onthe 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 inorder 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 visualclues 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 anotherperson (i.e. the interlocutor, teacher, mediator or peer).
Key concepts for Oral and Written Reception 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): fromchallenges related to chunks and sight words, to challenges with new words and phrases and later alsowith sentences and texts;
f the linguistic complexity of helpful units focused on the process of strategy use: from using situational,
contextual, non-verbal and visual cues to more specific linguistic, typographic and co-textual cues;
f the 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 affective and socio-interactive strategies have not been scaled (see box below), but are neverthelessof utmost importance for successful reception.

LASLLIAM scales and tables Page 57

Affective strategies
f Can use a means (e.g. positive self-talk and self-instructions, looking for what went well) to motivatethemselves to start or continue a task.
f Can use a means (e.g. laughing, deep breathing, pausing, music) to reduce anxiety.
Socio-interactive strategies
f Can 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.).
f Can involve non-present support tools (translating machine, help desk, online dictionary, demonstration video, model, etc.) to help with a task.

4.2.2.1. Oral Reception
Planning
4

Can recall words and formulaic expressions to anticipate personally relevant information (e.g. destinationand departure track of a train at the railway station).

3

Can recall frequent words and phrases to anticipate specific information in a familiar context (e.g. “Next stop
[name] square”).

2

Can recall familiar words and phrases to recognise specific pieces of information or social formulas in a familiar
context (e.g. “Welcome to everyone” at the opening of a meeting).

1

Can recall a single word or phrase to recognise a personally relevant piece of information (e.g. the client number
in a waiting room).

Compensating
4

Can 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).

3

Can attend to known words and phrases to understand personally relevant information.

2

Can use speaker’s intonation and tone of voice to infer the overall meaning of an utterance (e.g. a warning).

1

Can 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
4

Can distinguish units of meaning in familiar discourses (e.g. opening, key information and closing in anannouncement) to understand the main point.

3

Can 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).

2

Can use contextual clues and speaker’s familiar body language to check the comprehension of specific pieces of
information in face-to-face situations (e.g. simple instruction for action with gestures at the workplace).

1

Can use contextual clues and speaker’s familiar body language to understand the meaning of an unknown wordor phrase in a face-to-face situation (e.g. the name of a product in a store).

4.2.2.2. Written Reception
Planning
4

Can use typical features of a specific 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.

Page 58 3 Literacy and second language learning for the linguistic integration of adult migrants

3

Can use title/headline to predict the content.

2

Can 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).

1

Can use visual clues like photos to predict the topic.
Can use sight words to predict the topic.

Compensating
4

Can reread the surrounding words in a text to understand an unknown word.

3

Can 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 find the meaning of an unknown word.

2

Can 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).

1

Can use an accompanying picture or icon to deduce the meaning of an unknown word.

Monitoring and Repair
4

Can summarise simple passages to understand the main meaning of a text.
Can mark an unclear sentence to ask for the meaning.

3

Can mark an unclear phrase to ask for the meaning.
Can highlight words and phrases that they understand well to monitor the meaning.

2

Can mark an unknown word to ask for the meaning.

1

Can 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 atthe beginning stages of second language learning. As
in the CEFR Companion volume, the scales focus on
different kinds of one-way production and exclude oralinteraction. Oral production involves discourse functions
such as describing, informing, giving instruction andnarrating.
The CEFR Companion volume characterises large partsof oral production as sustained monologues (Councilof Europe 2020: 70-72). Although such sustainedmonologues 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
fledged sustained monologues at later stages.
For Oral Production LASLLIAM identifies one Overall
scale and two Specific scales for:1. Sustained Monologue: Describing Experience
2. Sustained Monologue: Giving Information.

f Unless indicated otherwise, the names of the categories and order of the scales in this reference guideare 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 theblue ones from the CEFR Companion volume) arepresented 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 Specific scales.
f For concrete application of the descriptors see thetables embedded in the Specific scales, with exam­
ples of language use in the four different domains.
f Please note that such examples related to the fourdomains might need adaptation according to thecontext and the learners’ needs.

LASLLIAM scales and tables Page 59

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 different 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
influences the oral acquisition of a second language, although research on this is still scarce. The expected outputof LASLLIAM learners is characterised by the following distinctive features, in terms of aspects present in theoral production at every level of the scales: the continuous reliance on gestures and other body language toconvey 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 beaware 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 thelanguage activities descriptors, as well as to key progressions, for instance:f the cognitive activity involved in the step: from familiar content words and unanalysed chunks towards
frequent words and simple phrases on personally relevant topics;
f length and linguistic complexity: from turns mostly constituting a single word or phrase, to turns consisting of familiar words or phrases; from short and simple sentences to simple sentences, sometimes using
a common connector.100

Overall Oral Production
4

Can produce a turn in everyday contexts by using simple sentences and phrases, sometimes using a common
connector (e.g. “and”, “but”).

3

Can produce a turn in a familiar context by using short, simple sentences and phrases with frequent words.

2

Can produce a turn (e.g. giving a simple instruction) by using familiar words or phrases.

1

Can 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;f content 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.

Page 60 3 Literacy and second language learning for the linguistic integration of adult migrants

Personal

PublicOccupational

Educational

Can 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 talkon a personally
relevant topic
during a ceremony

e.g. a simple talkduring the first
appointment witha family doctor

e.g. their job tasks
in a meeting at theworkplacee.g. something
about everyday
life in their own
country within acommunicative
scenario (“In[country] there
are schools for
adults”); express
how they feel tothe class, using
emoticons alreadypresented by theteacherCan describe
themselves, what they
do and where they live.

e.g. a selfintroduction in asocial event

e.g. a selfintroduction in a
public event (“Iam [name andsurname]. I comefrom [country]”)e.g. selfintroduction totheir employer

e.g. during thefirst appointment
with children’steachers; theneighbourhood
where they live, inan activity related
to the knowledgeof the surroundingarea

3

Can describe themselves(e.g. name, age, family),using simple words/
signs and formulaic
expressions, provided
they can prepare inadvance.

e.g. during aweddinge.g. in acommunity event

e.g. to a colleague

e.g. to the otherstudents (“I’m[name], I’m from[country]”)2

Can describe themselveswith 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 aparty with friends

e.g. some
simple personal
information at aparty organised byan 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 theother students

1

Can produce a turn(e.g. giving some basic
personal information)by using mostly a single
word or phrase.

e.g. somebasic personal
information(“Big family”) if
invited to present
themselves at a
private event

e.g. their name at a
public officee.g. their name atworkplacee.g. somebasic personal
information totheir classmate

4

Sustained Monologue: Giving Information
Sustained Monologue: Giving Information concerns explaining information to a recipient. Although therecipient 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;f content of speech: from basic information, instructions, warnings to information about familiar persons
and places.

LASLLIAM scales and tables Page 61

4

3

2

1

Personal

PublicOccupational

Educational

Can give
information abouttime, familiar
persons andplaces with simple
sentences (e.g. “Themeeting is in theoffice”).

e.g. in an
audiovisual
recording to afriend (“Sorry, I can’tcome”); how toreach the venue ofa partye.g. the schedulingof a community
event (“The lunchis at 1”); to apassenger at thebus stop (“Take bus[number]”)e.g. the main pointsof a programme
related to a job
meeting; to acolleague (“Becareful, the floor iswet!”)

e.g. the planningof a school trip
in a peer-to-peer
activity; a flashcard
within the learning
environment (“Thisis the gym of theschool”)

Can give simple
information
about time andfamiliar persons(e.g. address,
phone number)with short, simple
sentences.

e.g. an audiovisual
recording to afriend (“[name] is in[city]”)

e.g. a visit
scheduled at a
medical centre

e.g. when a job
meeting starts

e.g. the timetableof the course to a
new student (“Thelessons end at 6”)

Can give
instructions or
warnings withshort, simple
phrases, often
accompanied bybody language.

e.g. the address of afamiliar restaurant

e.g. the location of
the exit in a hospitale.g. to a colleague(“Don’t touch!”)e.g. to a student(“Wait a moment!”)

Can 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 asupermarket

e.g. familiar objects
used in their job
tasks

e.g. objects andtools in learningmaterials

Can give simple
instructions or
warnings withfamiliar words,
accompanied bybody language.

e.g. to a relative(“Wait here”)

e.g. to a passenger(“Be careful!”)e.g. a simple
procedure to acolleague (“Do it”)

e.g. a simple
procedure toanother student

Can produce a turn(e.g. giving somebasic personal
information) byusing mostly asingle word orphrase.

e.g. the name of
their neighbours

e.g. the name of
their doctor

e.g. their working
days at a factorye.g. the name of
their teacher

Can give basic
instructions
or warnings
mostly withbody language,accompanied bya single word orphrase.

e.g. to a friend

e.g. to a bus driver(“Wait!”)e.g. to a colleague(“Stop!”)e.g. to theirclassmate(“Attention!”)

Page 62 3 Literacy and second language learning for the linguistic integration of adult migrants

4.2.3.2. Written Production
The CEFR Companion volume defines 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 defines one Overall scale
and two Specific 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.

f Unless indicated otherwise, the names of the categories and order of the scales in this reference guideare 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 theblue ones from the CEFR Companion volume) arepresented 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 Specific scales.
f For concrete application of the descriptors see thetables embedded in the Specific scales, with exam­
ples of language use in the four different domains.
f Please note that such examples related to the fourdomains might need adaptation according to thecontext and the learners’ needs.

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, andshort and simple sentences;102
f orthographic 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
4

Can give information about matters of personal relevance (e.g. likes and dislikes, family, pets) using simple words/
signs and basic expressions.

3

Can 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).

2

Can 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.

1

Can 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:f ease 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 orallyfamiliar vocabulary;f content and text type: from simple one-word descriptions of persons or objects to simple descriptions ofan 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.

LASLLIAM scales and tables Page 63

Personal

PublicOccupational

Educational

Can produce simple
phrases and sentences
about themselves andimaginary people, where
they live and what theydo.

e.g. about a newacquaintance in a
posting or e-mailto a friend

e.g. in introducing
self in a community
bulletine.g. in introducing
self or colleague
in an e-mail tocolleagues

e.g. introducing
self or colleague
in a parent
committee; as aclassroom storywriting task

Can describe in very
simple language what
a room looks like.

e.g. a newresidence in an
e-mail to a friend

e.g. in a note about aroom for rent (“Cosyroom in the city
centre. 20 square
metres, with large
window and built-in
wardrobe. newly
painted”)

e.g. in short note
to a new colleague
about workplacee.g. in an e-mailto 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 ofa personal eventin a message to afriende.g. the descriptionof an object thatthey want to sell

Not applicablee.g. a simple poem
or narrative abouthome country3

Can write descriptive or
narrative short, simple
phrases.

e.g. comments/
memories in aphoto album(“Here I am with
my aunt. We went
to the zoo”)

e.g. in “lostand found” onsupermarket
bulletin board

e.g. in an appgroup or posting
on company
website (“I am
Nora from Syria. I
am 25 years old”)

e.g. a picture story
with captions tophotos abouta school visit(“Our class inthe castle”); as awriting exercise

2

Can write some words
about themselves (e.g.
age, gender, my son)or objects of personal
relevance.

e.g. in an appgroup or postingwith practised
words

e.g. in a very
simple contact
advertisement withpractised words

e.g. practised words
in an app-groupor posting on
company website(“I am Nora”)

e.g. as a writing
exercise withpractised words

1

Can copy some words
about themselves orobjects of personal
relevance.

e.g. as a caption
to a picture in
app or photo
album (“My son
and me”)

Not applicablee.g. as caption to a
picture in an appgroup or postinge.g. as caption to a
picture on a schoolbulletin board
related to an
educational visit (aplace of interest in
the city)4

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:f ease 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;f content and text types: from very simple personal information in lists and labels to familiar subjects ofinterest and routine factual information in agendas or planners.

4

Can produce phrases
and simple sentences topresent a familiar topic.

Personal

PublicOccupational

Educational

e.g. in an e-mailto the landlord
about the rent or
to a friend about ameetinge.g. in an e-mailto cancel anappointment withthe dentist(“Sorry, I cannot
come to theappointment
tomorrow. I am ill.”)e.g. in an e-mail to
inform employer
about sick leave orcolleague about aroutine event

e.g. in an e-mailto another parent
about the school
report (“How was
the report of yourson? Tarik’s wasfine”)

Page 64 3 Literacy and second language learning for the linguistic integration of adult migrants

Personal

PublicOccupational

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 newpurchase in a
posting or e-mailto a friend

e.g. in a note tosell an object on
the bulletin boardof the commercial
centree.g. in a very
simple form of
protocole.g. in an e-mailabout a present for
the teacher; as aclassroom writing
exercise3

Can note down short,
simple phrases as amemory aid (e.g. notes).

e.g. notes on
a to-do list;
conversation
scaffold for a talkto the caretaker;
short note about achild’s lesson

e.g. notesfrom visit of
district nurse;
conversation
scaffold for a visit
to office, shop orbanke.g. conversation
scaffold for a teammeeting; worktasks or short noteas preparation fora meetinge.g. (child’s)
homework or
scaffold to preparea presentation(“Who I am,
where I come from,what I do”)

2

Can note down practised
words as a memory aid.

e.g. name, date
and time of visit
to a relative; in amemo 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 teammeeting,anniversary party,
or lunch meetinge.g. lesson, date
and time inplanner; name of
the teacher

1

Can copy words tolabel objects such as asuitcase.

e.g. cooking
ingredients or
tools

e.g. name on letterbox, doorbell or
possessions

e.g. routine
packagese.g. folders or
as a vocabulary
exercise; lunch box
or child’s clothes(“Abel Zema”)

Can write a personally
relevant word bycopying it into an
agenda.

e.g. date andtime of sports
club; birthdays of
relatives; public
holidays (“June 17:
Aunt Nora”)

e.g. appointment
at the doctor’s or apublic officee.g. working days
and times

e.g. room number,lesson time andname 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. clarification 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:f the linguistic complexity of the product of strategy use (i.e. the problem that the strategy is to solve): fromchallenges related to expressing meaning through chunks or sight words and practised words, to challenges
to expressing more complex ideas in a planned situation;f the 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;
f the 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 morphemeknowledge).
Notice that affective and socio-interactive strategies have not been scaled (see box below), but are neverthelessof utmost importance for successful production, in particular for overcoming oral language anxiety.

LASLLIAM scales and tables Page 65

Affective strategies
f Can use a means (e.g. positive self-talk and self-instructions, looking for what went well) to motivatethemselves to start or continue a task.
f Can use a means (e.g. laughing, deep breathing, pausing, music) to reduce anxiety.
Socio-interactive strategies
f Can 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.).
f Can involve non-present support tools (translating machine, help desk, online dictionary, demonstration video, model, etc.) to help with a task.

4.2.4.1. Oral Production
Planning
4

Can 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).

3

Can 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.

2

Can repeat familiar words and phrases spoken by someone as models to prepare for a planned conversation.

1

Can rehearse aloud words and phrases they want to say to prepare for a planned conversation.

Compensating
4

Can make appropriate use of plurilingual communication (using L1 or L3) to maintain speech (e.g. in a shorttalk).
Can use a simple circumlocution to compensate for lexical gaps (“helps the doctor” for “nurse”).

3

Can 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.

2

Can use intonation to compensate for language gaps (e.g. “Good?” for “Do you like this idea?”).

1

Can use body language to compensate for language gaps.

Monitoring and Repair
4

Can 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.

3

Can attend to verbal and non-verbal signals from interlocutor to monitor their comprehension.

2

Can use a single word or expression to indicate difficulties 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.

1

Can use body language to signal difficulties in continuing communication.

Page 66 3 Literacy and second language learning for the linguistic integration of adult migrants

4.2.4.2. Written Production
Planning
4

Can use a visualisation to plan the structure of a text (e.g. pictures of storyline, simple flowchart of points).
Can use an example of a text type to write a text (e.g. a recipe, a poem).

3

Can 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?).

2

Can copy a phrase (e.g. “I am from…”) to write similar information about themselves.

1

Can copy a word (e.g. country name) to write about themselves (e.g. to add to a picture or photo story).

Compensating
4

Can use morpheme knowledge to write words (e.g. “construction”, “professional”).
Can use words from their plurilingual repertoire to maintain writing in the second language.

3

Can 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”).

2

Can use written resources (e.g. product name on a box) to copy a word.

1

Can use an example to copy practised words.

Monitoring and Repair
4

Can use digital resources to check writing (e.g. using the spelling corrector in software).
Can read own text to make improvements.

3

Can read aloud own writing to identify missing words.
Can use a resource (e.g. learner dictionary or word list) to check spelling.

2

Can compare own writing with a model to check words (e.g. provided in a learning environment).

1

Can compare own writing of a sight word with an example to check the word.

4.2.5. Interaction Activities
The CEFR Companion volume defines 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 field of oracy; textual exchanges by mobile
phone, as well as form completion or textbook activities,
are examples from the field of written language.
For beginning second language readers and writers,
both spoken and written interaction are central aspectsof 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 andWritten Interaction scales for simplicity from the start.

4.2.5.1. Oral Interaction
This reference guide underlines the importance of oralinteraction, which is fundamental for adult migrants

f Unless indicated otherwise, the names of the categories and order of the scales in this reference guideare the same as in the CEFR Companion volume.
f Please note that the descriptors in blue font are thesame as in the CEFR Companion volume levels A1and Pre-A1.
f The descriptors in the Overall scales (apart from theblue ones from the CEFR Companion volume) arepresented 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 Specific scales.
f For concrete application of the descriptors see thetables embedded in the Specific scales, with exam­
ples of language use in the four different domains.
f Please note that such examples related to the fourdomains might need adaptation according to thecontext and the learners’ needs.

LASLLIAM scales and tables Page 67

engaged in learning to read and write. Even though LASLLIAM provides scales for oral production, for this target groupthe 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 Specific 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 different kinds of interaction, involving discourse functions such as greeting, informationexchange, invitation or giving instruction and they constantly emphasise the role of non-verbal aspects andmutual 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 proficiency 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 different 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 toreveal evidence that literacy influences 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 consistof three macro prerequisites that influence every level of the scales:
1. the first 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 first 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 otherbody language;
2.2. prosody and pronunciation must be close to those present in the geographical area where the exchangetakes 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 gesturesand other body language often have implications that need careful consideration in relation to gender, age,
culture and social aspects.

Page 68 3 Literacy and second language learning for the linguistic integration of adult migrants

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:f cognitive 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 unitsof meaning (sentences and more extended stretches of speech);f linguistic 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 tosimple sentences.103

Overall Oral Interaction
4

Can 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 onvery familiar topics.

3

Can ask and answer questions about themselves and daily routines, using short, formulaic expressions andrelying on gestures to reinforce the information.
Can interact in a familiar context by using short, simple sentences and phrases with frequent words.

2

Can answer simple questions (e.g. for personally relevant information) by using familiar words, phrases ormemorised formulaic expressions.

1

Can 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 Specific scales begin with Understanding an Interlocutor to underline thedeep connection between listening and speaking within the interaction. For this scale, LASLLIAM does notprovide 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:f ease of listening and speaking: as outlined in the sections on oral reception and production;
f complexity of information: from very short information, formed by one word or an expression to more
complex information;
f contextualisation and predictability of the conversation: from recognising a personally relevant piece of
information and later to understanding everyday expressions.
4

Can 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.

3

Can 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 understandquestions 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.

LASLLIAM scales and tables Page 69

2

Can pick out isolated pieces of information and frequent social formulas by recognising familiar words andexpressions in a short, simple speech.

1

Can 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, especiallywith friends, colleagues and other LASLLIAM learners. Therefore, the descriptors highlight the social functionof communicative exchanges.
Key concepts operationalised in the scale include the following:f ease of listening and speaking: as outlined in the sections on oral reception and production;
f content 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

PublicOccupational

Educational

Can open and close aconversation with simple
sentences and formulaic
expressions (gratitude,
wishes, apologies andcongratulations).

e.g. to a friend(“Thank you forthe flowers”);
confirming theappointment
for the renewalof a residence
permite.g. withsomeone in aqueue at a post
office; to thedentist (It isbetter to finish
next time. “Finefor me”)

e.g. during a breakwith members of
their team meeting;with a new colleague(“Nice to meet you”);
addressing the needfor a break after a job
taske.g. after a group
activity successfullycompleted (“Welldone”); with theteacher (“Seeyou tomorrow”);
postponing
an individual
information
technology lesson

Can take part in a simple
conversation of a basic
factual nature on apredictable topic (e.g.
their home country,
family, school).

e.g. posting ina chat an audio
message to afriend (“What’s
the weather
like?”)

e.g. at the fairof a community
centree.g. with theiremployere.g. posting online
an audio message
to the classroom
chat; in an activity
on the colours of
the flags of thelearners’ countries

Can ask how people are
and react to news.

e.g. to aneighbour(“Are you well
today?”)

e.g. to people
met at a party
organised by anassociation

e.g. to a customer

e.g. to a fellow
student

Can open and close aconversation with short,
simple sentences andformulaic expressions(gratitude, wishes andapologies).

e.g. during aparty (“Happy
new year”)

e.g. at an event
within the social
sphere (“All thebest”)

e.g. after finishing a
job task (“Sorry, I am
tired”); accepting atask distribution (“I will
do it”)

e.g. in a peer-topeer activity

Can greet people, state
their name and takeleave in a simple way.

e.g. theirtrainer at theend of a gym
lessone.g. an employerof the town/
districte.g. introducing
themselves to a newcolleaguee.g. during aparent–teacher
conference (“Goodmorning, I’m thefather of [name]”)2

Can react in opening andclosing a conversation
with familiar words ormemorised formulaic
expressions (gratitude
and apologies).

e.g. to thelandlord (Howare you? “Good,
thanks”);
thanking afriende.g. enteringa public office(“Good morning”)

e.g. for not being able
to do something (“I’msorry”)

e.g. coming late toclass; welcoming a
new student

1

Can respond to simple
greetings with a single
word.

e.g. to thepostmane.g. (Goodmorning. “Goodmorning”)

e.g. meeting someone
at the entrance of theworkplace (“Hi [name]”)e.g. at the end of
the lesson (Bye.
“Bye”)

4

3

Page 70 3 Literacy and second language learning for the linguistic integration of adult migrants

Informal Discussion
Informal Discussion refers to interactions related to interpersonal and, often at the same time, evaluative useof 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:f ease 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 anddisagreement;
f degree of engagement and role in the interaction: from responding mainly through gestures and otherbody language to exchanging likes and dislikes (e.g. related to foods and sports).
Personal

PublicOccupational

Educational4

Can exchange likes anddislikes for sports, foods,
etc., using a limited
repertoire of expressions,when addressed clearly,
slowly and directly.

e.g. posting an
audio message in asocial chat (“I don’t
like vegetables”);
in relation to a
behaviour of afriendNot applicableNot applicablee.g. in abrainstorming
activity basedon intercultural
exchanges (“Doyou like…?”)3

Can exchange
agreement, partial
agreement anddisagreement, often
accompanied by bodylanguage.

e.g. with a friend
about goingout for a meal(“Good idea!”)

Not applicableNot applicablee.g. in a simple
role-play2

Can respond to simple
questions about likes
and dislikes related tofamiliar persons andthings.

e.g. going
shoppingwith a friend,in relation tobought products(“Not good”)

Not applicableNot applicablee.g. participating
in a peer activity

Can respond by
expressing agreementwith familiar words orphrases accompanied bybody language (e.g. “It’sOK”).

e.g. in relation toa daily plan of thechildrenNot applicableNot applicablee.g. accepting
their part in a roleplay (“It’s fine”)

Can respond to basic
questions about likes
and dislikes with Yes/No
answers.

e.g. to a friend(You like it? “Yes”)

Not applicableNot applicablee.g. in a small
group activity
related to basic
foods

Can respond by
expressing agreement
mostly with bodylanguage, accompanied
by a single word or phrase.

e.g. to a neighbour

Not applicableNot applicablee.g. to a fellow
student (“OK”)

1

Goal-Oriented Co-Operation
Goal-Oriented Co-Operation focuses on task-based activities where learner and interlocutor are required tocollaborate 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:f ease of listening and speaking: as outlined in the sections on oral reception and production;
f complexity 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);
f degree of engagement and role in the interaction: from responding to a proposal and later on asking andgiving permission.

LASLLIAM scales and tables Page 71

4

3

2

1

Personal

PublicCan ask for and give
permission with simple
sentences.

e.g. during a video
call with a friend

e.g. in a public
office (“Goodmorning, can I
come in, please?”)e.g. with acustomere.g. referring toan activity (“Can I
stop now?”)

Can act on basic
instructions thatinvolve times, locations,
numbers, etc.

e.g. involved in the
homework of theirchildrene.g. giving
directions within
a building (“Go tothe hall there, thenturn left”)

e.g. sharing place
and time of a workcommitmente.g. co-operatingin carrying out
a task like alanguage gameCan understandquestions andinstructions addressedcarefully and slowly tothem and follow short,
simple directions.

e.g. answering afriende.g. helping apasser-by (“Whereis the hospital?”)e.g. aboutchanging a shift

e.g. engaged in a
simple scenariobased activity

Can ask for and give
permission with short,
simple sentences (“CanI?”).

e.g. to a neighbour

e.g. at theimmigration deske.g. for a break to acolleague during ashared job taske.g. going to thetoilet during thelessonCan interact in a familiar
context by using short,
simple sentences andphrases with frequentwords.

e.g. dictating amessage into
an answeringmachine (“I calllater”)

e.g. following
directions on thestreet (“Straight on
and turn right”)

e.g. describing
a problem in ateam meeting (“Itdoesn’t work”)

e.g. in group
work within
the learning
environment

Can act on simple
instructions with familiar
words, accompanied bybody language (e.g. “Onleft”).

e.g. where to findthe light switch
for the apartmentbuilding staircase

e.g. in simple
procedures tovalidate a ticketin the bus (“Placehere”)

e.g. naming theobject involvedin a problem for a
job task (“Broken
door”)

e.g. highlighting
a missingcomprehension(“Don’tunderstand”)

Can give permission with
Yes/No answers.

e.g. to a friend(Can I? “Yes”)

e.g. in a queue atthe ticket officee.g. to a colleague

e.g. in a simple
role-play with theteacher

Can act on basic
instructions mostly
with body language,accompanied by a single
word or phrase (e.g.
“Help”).

e.g. with aneighboure.g. in order to
get off the bus(“Sorry”)

e.g. asking for help
in a job situation

e.g. indicating
they haveunderstood an
exercise (“OK”)

Can respond to a
proposal with Yes/No
answers.

e.g. refusing adrink (“No”)

e.g. accepting an
appointmente.g. accepting
lunch with acolleague (“Yes”)

e.g. accepting atask distribution
in a peer activity(“Fine”)(“Please, come in”)

Occupational

Educational

Obtaining Goods and Services
Obtaining Goods and Services mainly concerns encounters related to concrete needs to be satisfied. 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.

Page 72 3 Literacy and second language learning for the linguistic integration of adult migrantsKey concepts operationalised in the scale include the following:f ease of listening and speaking: as outlined in the sections on oral reception and production;
f familiarity of the situation: from familiar contexts to less familiar situations related to goods and services;
f complexity of the interaction: from acting on a need mostly with body language and later to handlingnumbers, cost and quantities.
Personal
4

3

2

1

PublicOccupational

Educational

Can ask people for thingsand give people things.

e.g. to thecaretaker of
the apartmentbuilding; to aneighbour (“Doyou have two
eggs, please?”)e.g. asking fora mediator as
support for an
asylum request or
information about
products (e.g. foodingredients)

e.g. requesting
the accident
prevention kit

e.g. requesting theclass timetableof the children’s
school (“Can I
have the classtimetable?”)Can handle numbers,
quantities, cost and time.

e.g. managing thebill at the end of ameal in a groupe.g. at thesupermarket
checkout

e.g. asking about
working daysin the calendar(“Is Saturday aworking day?”)e.g. role-play on
shopping

Can ask people for thingsand give things withshort, simple phrases,
often accompanied bybody language (e.g. “Giveme [name of an object]”).

e.g. a small loan
to a friend torecharge theirmobilee.g. the ticket
machine at thestatione.g. to another
employee (“Passme [name of atool]”)

e.g. a book fortheir children or asecond language
manual at theschool library

Can make simple
purchases and/or orderfood or drink whenpointing or other gesture
can support the verbal
reference.

e.g. buying
something with afriende.g. at a bar (“Iwould like a
coffee”); or to theclerk of a shoe
shop (“The black
shoes, thank you”)

e.g. orderingsomething during
a company outing

e.g. at the schoolcafeteria (“I would
like a coffee”)

Can act on a need orrequest with familiar
words or phrases
accompanied by bodylanguage.

e.g. to a neighbour(“I need bread”)

e.g. in a shelter
such as refugees’
facilities (“I’mcold”)

e.g. to find thetoilet in thefactorye.g. foreducational
materials by
describing objects(“The pencil,
please”)

Can act on a need orrequest mostly with bodylanguage, accompanied
by a single word orphrase (e.g. “Take”).

e.g. at a friend’s
house (“Toilet”)

e.g. to their doctor(“I bad”)

e.g. passing aworking toole.g. to theirclassmate (“Pen”)

Information Exchange
Information Exchange refers to the communicative need to fill 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:f ease 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 otherpeople they know;
f degree of engagement and role in the interaction: from answering to asking and answering.

LASLLIAM scales and tables Page 73

Personal

PublicCan ask and answer
questions about
themselves and otherpeople, where they live,
people they know, things
they have.

e.g. with the newneighbours

e.g. in the refugee
camp (“Doyou know themediator?”)e.g. with acustomere.g. within alearner’s social
forum

Can indicate time bylexicalised phrases like“next week”, “last Friday”,“in November”, “3 o’clock”.

e.g. dictating
simpleinformation in aphone call with afriende.g. the arrival
time of a train

e.g. about the endof the working day(“I finish at 5”)e.g. taking
information about
the children’s
school summer
holiday

Can express numbers,
quantities and cost in alimited way.

e.g. taking
decisions abouta shopping list(“We need six
tomatoes”)

e.g. the cost of abus ticket

e.g. the priceper kilo of thevegetables theysell in the market

e.g. counting thenumber of lettersand syllables inwords given by
the teacher

Can name the colour ofclothes or other familiar
objects and can ask thecolour of such objects.

e.g. talking about
their new clothes

e.g. to a shop
assistant in aclothing store(“Can I see the red
shirt?”)

e.g. related to theirjob equipment

e.g. describing
a flashcard withpictures

Can ask very simple
questions for
information, such as“What is this?” andunderstand one- or twoword/sign answers.

e.g. about
the cooking
ingredients of ajust-eaten dishe.g. about
the price of atransport passe.g. about theirjob (“I do manythings”)

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 theplanning of theswimming course

e.g. in an
administrative
officee.g. related to theplanning of theworking week

e.g. in the office ofthe driving school(“The next lesson
is on Tuesday”)

Can ask for and give adate of birth.

e.g. during a
ceremony within
the familiar sphere(“My birthday is[date]”)

e.g. in their local
registry office

Not applicablee.g. of theirchildren for theirschool inscription

Can ask for and give aphone number.

e.g. to a newfriende.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 spheree.g. to the dentist
referring to theirchild (“[name] is
10”)

Not applicablee.g. to theirclassmate2

Can answer simple
questions (e.g. forpersonally relevant
information) by using
familiar words, phrases
or memorised formulaic
expressions.

e.g. giving thename of family
members to thelandlord

e.g. when ordering
goods (What isyour telephone
number?
“340279402”)

e.g. about theirjob (“Good salary”)

e.g. informing
their teacher
about the time(“It’s 7”)

1

Can answer questions
about some basic
personal information witha single word or phrase.

e.g. at a party offriends and familye.g. to the police(“I Moroccan”)

e.g. about theirjob (“I worker”)

e.g. to the teacher(“I Marta”)

4

3

Occupational

Page 74 3 Literacy and second language learning for the linguistic integration of adult migrants

Educational

Interviewing and Being Interviewed
Interviewing and Being Interviewed deals with specific situations especially related to public, occupationaland educational domains, such as a doctor’s appointment, a dialogue with an official, a job interview or acommunication within the learning environment, which aims to present a student. Therefore, it represents aparticular form of information exchange focused on personal details.
Key concepts operationalised in the scale include the following:f ease of listening and speaking: as outlined in the sections on oral reception and production;
f content 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);f degree of engagement and role in the interaction: from being interviewed to interviewing to asking andanswering.
Personal
4

PublicOccupational

Educational

Can reply in an interview
to simple directquestions, put very
slowly and clearly indirect, non-idiomatic
language, about personal
details.

Not applicablee.g. with thecommission in
relation to theirrequest for asylum

e.g. in a simple
job interview,
answering
simple directquestions on
skills, availability
for some job
conditions (Canyou work in adifferent town?),
provided they
can prepare inadvancee.g. helping a newclassmate who
speaks one of theirnative languages
to introduce
themselves to theclass

Can state in simple
language the nature ofa problem to a healthprofessional and answer
simple questions such as“Does that hurt?” eventhough they have to relyon gestures and bodylanguage to reinforce themessage.

Not applicablee.g. on thelocation of pain,
main symptoms
and duration
within a medical
consultation (“Ifeel sick in themorning”)

e.g. a headache
to the company
doctore.g. engaging in a
simple role-play3

Can ask and answer
questions about personal
information, feelings andhealth with short, simple
phrases and formulaic
expressions (e.g. “I’m[name], I’m from Syria”).

Not applicablee.g. on the pain,
within a medical
interview (“I havefever”)

e.g. to theiremployer (“I’m[name], I’m from[country]”)e.g. being
interviewed
during an
ice-breaking
activity provided
in the firstmeetings within
the learning
environment(e.g. Hello! How
are you? “I amwell, thanks, andyou?”)

2

Can give some simple
information with familiar
words or phrases.

Not applicablee.g. in theimmigration
office, with thesupport of themediatore.g. to theiremployer (Where
do you comefrom? “From
Syria”.)

e.g. in a peer-topeer activity

1

Can answer questions
about basic personal
information with a single
word or phrase (e.g. “I
Syria”).

Not applicablee.g. body parts in a
medical interview(“Back”)

e.g. to theiremployer (Do youlive close to here?
“Yes”)

e.g. to a teacher
to present
themselves

LASLLIAM scales and tables Page 75

4.2.5.2. Written Offline and Online Interaction
The CEFR Companion volume specifies 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 offline, this reference guide integrates bothof them, providing (in addition to the Overall scale) two
Specific scales for:
1. (Offline and Online) Correspondence
2. (Offline and Online) Notes, Messages, Forms andTransactions).
As in the CEFR Companion volume, Correspondence
focuses on exchanges in written or multimodal
form, often of an interpersonal nature. The scale forNotes, Messages, Forms and Transactions is more
focused on functional, often goal-oriented, transfer
of information.

f Unless indicated otherwise, the names of thecategories 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 theblue ones from the CEFR Companion volume) arepresented 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 Specific scales.
f For concrete application of the descriptors see
the tables embedded in the Specific scales, with
examples of language use in the four different
domains.
f Please note that such examples related to the fourdomains might need adaptation according to thecontext and the learners’ needs.

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:f the 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 comprehensibleway) orally familiar words and phrases;104f length and linguistic complexity: from short words with a simple phonological structure to phonologicallyand morphologically more complex words, and short and simple sentences;105
f orthographic 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
4

Can ask for or pass on personal details.
Can write and respond to messages by using simple sentences and formulaic expressions.

3

Can convey basic information (e.g. name, address, family) in short phrases on a form or in a note, with the use of adictionary.
Can write and respond to short, simple messages by using frequent words and formulaic expressions.

2

Can write some simple messages with practised words and memorised formulaic expressions.
Can fill in some personal data in a short, simple form by using practised words.

1

Can 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.

Page 76 3 Literacy and second language learning for the linguistic integration of adult migrants(Offline and Online) Correspondence
The scale for (Offline 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:f ease of reading and writing: as outlined in the sections on written reception and production;f type of message: from emojis and single-word greetings or answers to simple, personal messages, proposals or expressions of feelings;
f type of language: from single-word conventions to formulaic expressions and short, simple sentences ofpoliteness;f the ability to include symbols, images and other multimodal means: from a single emoji to a combinationof text and image.

4

3

2

Personal

PublicOccupational

Educational

Can 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 aneighbour about
help in the garden

Not applicablee.g. a simple notefor a colleague
about absence ora piece of work

e.g. a simple
note for a fellow
student about aneeded bookCan use formulaic
expressions andcombinations of simple
words/signs to post shortpositive and negative
reactions to simple
online postings and theirembedded links andmedia, and can respondto further comments withstandard expressions of
thanks and apology.

e.g. making contact
with remote friends
and/or familye.g. making
a statement
in a public
discussion onsocial media

e.g. a reaction
to news on thewebsite of acompanye.g. in a Q&A
section of a school
learning platform

Can ask for or reportpersonal details in areasof immediate need in an
everyday context.

e.g. a short message
for a friend to ask forhelp with moving
oute.g. a shorttext message
to the doctor
to confirm an
appointmente.g. a short text
message for acolleague to offer
help

e.g. a short e-mailto a teacher with
an apology forbeing late; amessage to thechild’s teacher
about bullying in
the playgroundCan 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 respondto simple messages of
personal relevance withshort, simple phrases andformulaic expressions.

e.g. a note for aneighbour about apackage delivered;a reaction to amessage from afriend about theirillness (“Sorry foryou”)

e.g. a lost/
found message
in hallway ofown building;for selling an
object online

e.g. a message toa fellow worker
about a phone
call (e.g. “Ginacalled. Please, callback”); a proposal
to a colleague toswitch shift

e.g. a message
to the child’steacher (‘“My childis ill’”); a reaction
to a message
about parent
volunteering;
congratulations

Can 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 applicablee.g. a note for acolleague (“Callnumber…”);(“Okay, see you
there”)

e.g. a message tothe teacher of achild (“My childis ill”)

LASLLIAM scales and tables Page 77

1

Personal

PublicOccupational

Educational

Can exchange
greetings in a shortcommunication.

e.g. in a message to afriend with an emoji(“Hi! ”); (“Bye, safe
travel”)

Not applicablee.g. in a message
to a colleague(“Happy
Birthday!”)e.g. “How are you?”to a fellow student
who is absent

Can copy some words
about themselves orobjects of personal
relevance.

e.g. in a message toa friend (“Yes, I am
Mela”)

Not applicablee.g. “My number
is…”

e.g. in an appgroup of the class(“From Syria”);“Welcome” to a
new student(Offline and Online) Notes, Messages, Forms and Transactions
As in the CEFR Companion volume, the scale for Notes, Messages, Forms and Transactions includes a range oftransactional reading and writing, like filling in forms or purchase transactions, and leaving messages or writing
short notes.
Key concepts operationalised in the scale therefore include the following:f ease 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 andpurchasing 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 andshort, simple sentences adequate in tone;
f complexity of the transaction: from simple conventions of predictable and pre-coded forms (name, “yes”
or “no”) to more open and multimodal transactions;f the ability to include symbols, images and other multimodal means: from a single emoji to a combinationof text and image.

4

3

Personal

PublicOccupational

Educational

Can leave a simple
message regarding for
instance where they
have gone, or whattime they will be back(e.g. “Shopping: back at
5 p.m.”).

e.g. an e-mail to afriende.g. a note left for
local community
members (likefood left for othersin the club house)e.g. in a transfer
form for acolleague whotakes overthe service(“Mrs Smith needs
her medicine at 4”)e.g. an e-mail tothe child’s school
about a visit to thedentist; note fora fellow student
about a joint
assignment

Can complete avery simple online
purchase or application,
providing basic personal
information (such as
name, e-mail address or
telephone number).

Not applicablee.g. ordering
goods bycompleting asimple order form
with familiar words
and illustrations

e.g. completinga simpleinterdepartmental
form with familiar
words andillustrations

e.g. enrolling ona 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 afunerale.g. to cancel anappointment
with the local
administration

e.g. invitation to acolleague to travel
together/answer
to an invitation toa meetinge.g. in a portfolio
related to own
learning/answer toan invitation fromthe child’s teacher

Can fill 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 andaddress on themetre readings
for a utility bill or
on a lost object
declaration form

e.g. a work shifttransfer form infrequent words
and formulaic
expressions

e.g. a registration
form for a child’s
school outing; anapplication form
for a language test

Page 78 3 Literacy and second language learning for the linguistic integration of adult migrants

Personal

2

1

PublicOccupational

Educational

Can make selections (e.g.
choosing a product, size,
colour) in a simple online
purchase or application
form, provided there isvisual support.

Not applicablee.g. ordering
goods bycompleting asimple tick-box
order form withfamiliar words andillustrations

e.g. completinga simpleinterdepartmental
tick-box form withfamiliar words andillustrations

e.g. in the form
received fromthe secretariat
to indicate thechoice of time
for the language
course based on
their availability

Can write and respondto simple messages withshort, simple phrases andformulaic expressions.

e.g. proposal tocook for a friend

e.g. invitation
to community
members (“Whocan help withcleaning?”)e.g. proposal toshare car to go toworke.g. confirmationof appointment
with child’steacher; question
for a fellow
student about
homework

Can 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 healthnurse (“Sorry, I amill”); appointment
with a local
government office(“Monday is fine”)

e.g. invitation toa fellow worker(“Lunch at 1?”);
appointment withmanager (“Thanks,
I come”)

e.g. response tosimple online
exercise prompts(like pictures
or words);
appointment withthe child’s teacher(“Tuesday is fine”)

Can fill in some
information in a short,
simple form withpractised words.

e.g. name, address
and accountnumber in utility
bille.g. name, date
and time ofvolunteering in
online form of thelocal community

e.g. name, date
and time on aworksheete.g. name, date ofbirth and addresson enrolment
form; date andsingle-word
answers on a very
simple work sheet

Can copy some words to
respond to a message.

e.g. “Okay, Samira”

e.g. putting nameand time on a list
for work for the
local community

e.g. in signing up
with their namefor an activity at
the workplacee.g. putting nameon 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: predictionof situations and the text types typically occurring in those situations; anticipation of content as well as preparing
conversation scaffolds or rehearsing for oral interaction; and collecting or producing text scaffolds for written
interaction. Interactional compensation strategies can involve using non-verbal means or accessible aids andresources as well as interactional sequences (e.g. lexical offers, recasts). Monitoring and repair of interaction
centres on basic comprehension of the most crucial aspects and typically involves a high number of confirmation
checks and the indication of (non-)understanding by mirroring and asking for clarification 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, tochallenges with the reception and production of new words and phrases and later also sentences and texts;
f the linguistic complexity of helpful units focused on the process of strategy use: from using situational,
contextual, non-verbal and visual cues to more specific linguistic, typographic and co-textual cues, tounderstanding as well as using simple resources and models, to using linguistic knowledge and more
complex tools in writing;f the cognitive complexity and teachability of the process of the strategy: from strategies involving one ora few steps (e.g. copying a model of a completed form) to those involving more steps (e.g. using a digital

LASLLIAM scales and tables Page 79

dictionary), and from strategies composed of observable (actional) steps (e.g. using a resource) to thosecomposed of non-observable (mental) steps (e.g. using typical features of a form).
Notice that affective and socio-interactive strategies have not been scaled (see box below), but are neverthelessof utmost importance for successful interaction, in particular in oral interaction to involve the interlocutor andshare responsibility for successful communication.
Affective strategies
f Can use a means (e.g. positive self-talk and self-instructions, looking for what went well) to motivatethemselves to start or continue a task.
f Can use a means (e.g. laughing, deep breathing, pausing, music) to reduce anxiety.
Socio-interactive strategies
f Can 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.).
f Can involve non-present support tools (translating machine, help desk, online dictionary, demonstration video, model, etc.) to help with a task.

4.2.6.1. Oral Interaction
Planning
4

Can 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).

3

Can rehearse frequent words and phrases to engage in a conversation.
Can use the knowledge of specific interactions to anticipate some contents (e.g. a person introducing someone).

2

Can recall familiar words and phrases to anticipate specific pieces of information or social formulas(e.g. greetings).
Can rehearse aloud familiar words and phrases to prepare for routine interaction.

1

Can recall a familiar word or phrase to prepare for routine interaction.

Compensating
4

Can ask for help with a word, an expression or a structure to overcome problems in speaking.
Can ask for a definition or a translation in L1 or L3 of a key word to understand the overall meaning of anutterance.
Can use formulaic expressions to indicate attention (e.g. comments like “I see”).

3

Can use words from L1 or L3, all-purpose word or a neologism to maintain communication.

2

Can 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.

1

Can 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.

Page 80 3 Literacy and second language learning for the linguistic integration of adult migrants

Monitoring and Repair
4

Can 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 incomprehension.
Can use simple sentences (e.g. “Do you understand?”) or give a translation to ensure interlocutor’s comprehension.

3

Can request feedback on own language use to check appropriateness (e.g. “Right?”).

2

Can 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.

1

Can use body language to indicate (in-)comprehension.

4.2.6.2. Written Interaction
Planning
4

Can 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.

3

Can use title/headline to predict the content of a form.

2

Can look for practised words to predict the topic of a message or note.
Can copy information (e.g. their address from a letter) to fill in personal information on a form.

1

Can use an example to copy simple personal information into a form (e.g. name).

Compensating
4

Can reread the surrounding words in a text to understand an unknown word.

3

Can use a translation tool or simple learner dictionary to write a word.

2

Can 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.

1

Can 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
4

Can 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).

3

Can 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.

2

Can mark unknown words on a form to ask for the meaning.

1

Can compare own writing with a model to check words (e.g. own name or sight word) in a message or note.

LASLLIAM scales and tables Page 81

4.3. DIGITAL SKILLSThe CEFR Companion volume does not include specific descriptors for digital literacy although it clearly takes
into consideration that functioning in modern societies requires digital skills when referring to digital tools andonline interaction.
In order to emphasise the importance of digital literacy as an integral part of literacy and the key to further
education, LASLLIAM specifies 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 digitalcompetences 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 neededby the target group to be able to participate in a digital society. The main aim is to fine-tune the first steps into
realistic and manageable tasks that are essential to functioning on a daily basis in a digital society. Althoughsome 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 levelof 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 off. These skills are the essential skills that underpin the use of otherskills. Therefore, they are not scaled as they do not necessarily need to be learned in a linear order, as once youlearn the skill, there is no higher level (for example, once you know how to turn the device on or off, there is nohigher 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
f Can switch devices on and off.
f Can use a touchscreen with one finger or more (select icons, zoom in/out, scroll, open/close familiar
apps/programmes).
f Can use a mouse to open and close windows/apps with/without guidance.
f Can operate a mouse (move cursor, open/close windows/apps, navigate between windows).
f Can log in to a device with guidance (e.g. copying from a model or a teacher dictating the letters)
or using Face ID.
f Can use a keyboard to carry out tasks using one finger (type letters, use caps lock, scroll using page
up/down buttons, move cursor with arrow buttons) or more (type certain punctuation marks orsymbols, or use shift to type capital letters).
f Can mute mobile device.
f Can recognise if an app needs updating.
f Can download and delete apps/files/programmes.
f Can save files.

106. Carretero et al. 2017.

Page 82 3 Literacy and second language learning for the linguistic integration of adult migrants

f Can identify when the device needs charging.
f Can connect loudspeakers/headset to device.
f Can upload files.
f Can update apps. Can navigate around the screen using tab function.
f Can operate the mouse to select text elements.
f Can use double-click.
f Can manage files (retrieve, copy name, organise in folders).
f Can operate basic regulation buttons (e.g. volume, brightness).
In relation to the scaled LASLLIAM Digital Skills, four levels are defined 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 notan end in itself, but a means to achieve functional literacy so they are meant to complement and support theCommunicative 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 andlevel 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:
f complexity of the operation involved: from using the basic functions of a device/software to modifying
settings and managing accounts;
f degree of contextualisation: from relevant everyday uses (e.g. ATM or phone call) to more infrequent andabstract contexts (e.g. online forms, text managing or safety control);f degree of literacy needed: from no literacy skills required at all, to reading or writing whole sentences or
short texts;
f devices used to carry out the task: from mobile devices (smartphones, tablets) to desktop PCs;f degree of autonomy: from working with guidance or support to working without guidance.

4.3.2. Communication and Collaboration
4

Can produce audiovisual files (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.

3

Can 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.

2

Can use audiovisual files by playing, pausing and stopping.
Can forward information to others (photos, audio/video recordings, texts).

LASLLIAM scales and tables Page 83

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).

1

Can 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 amachine).
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
4

Can 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.

3

Can 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 find basic information of personal relevance using search engines with guidance.

2

Can 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.

1

Can 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.

Page 84 3 Literacy and second language learning for the linguistic integration of adult migrants

4.3.4. Safety
4

Can 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.

3

Can 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.

2

Can keep password safe (e.g. not share it).
Can connect to free Wi-Fi which does not require registration with guidance.

1

Can 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.

LASLLIAM scales and tables Page 85

Chapter 5
USING LASLLIAM FOR CURRICULUM DESIGN
5.1. LASLLIAM AS A REFERENCE GUIDE ON THE SUPRA LEVEL OF CURRICULUM DESIGNThe Council of Europe distinguishes curricula at five different levels: the supra level of international curricular
design, the macro level of national, state and regional curricula, the meso level of institutional curricula, the microlevel of class curricula and the nano level of individual experience of courses and personal development (seeFigure 5). LASLLIAM clearly is an international document intended for curriculum design at the supra level, andas 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 debatesat the supra level about policy recommendations and mutual recognition of segments of the literacy and second
language learning process that have taken place in different countries (see 6.3).
Figure 5 – Council of Europe terminology for curricula at different levels107
The curriculum on different 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 Profiles), study
visits to other countries
NATIONAL/EDUCATION SYSTEM, state, region (MACRO)
e.g. study plan, syllabus, strategic specific aims, common core, training standards
SCHOOL, institution (MESO)
e.g. adjustment of the school curriculum or study plan to match the specific profile 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 briefly describes how the LASLLIAM reference guide can serve curriculum development at themacro, meso and micro level – and thus, it is hoped, contribute to individual learning experienced as personallysignificant at the nano level. Like the CEFR Companion volume (Council of Europe 2020: 43), LASLLIAM can beused 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 reflected 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 differ to a great extent in their degree of specified detail, and this seems to beparticularly true for the rather new curricula for literacy and second language learning. Most characteristic forthis level of curriculum design is the definition of general aims (e.g. participation in the community and society
or social cohesion) and specific 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 andexit profiles (maybe even outlines of syllabi), contents and standards of teachers’ professional development for107. Beacco et al. 2016: 18.
Page 87

programmes funded or subsidised at this level. Such curricula at the macro level may also define the scope ofcourses in terms of methods, teacher roles, admitted materials, aids and resources for funding/subsidies andfor officially recognised certification. The extent to which the levels are involved in decision making and who
is responsible for a specific 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
Office for Migration and Refugees are the context for the specific development of national literacy andsecond language curricula that started in 2007108 and has systematically been monitored at the national
level since then.109 This office defines 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, thestandards of teacher qualification, the contents of programmes for professional development of teachers,
as well as other aspects.110 Four different course levels of 300 lessons each (600 lessons leading up to A1,
and 600 lessons leading up to A2) are offered for literacy and second language learners who each receive
funding for up to 1 200 lessons. A specific curriculum for second-script learners was introduced in 2018.111
f In Italy, language and KoS (Knowledge of Society) courses for migrants are provided free of charge by thestate 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 forresidency (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 andlow-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 (Certificazione Lingua Italiana diQualità)114 and formally approved by the MIUR. According to these syllabi, courses without any charge ofup 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 accessto complementary services to sustain a regular attendance (babysitting, transport).115
f In 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 andmaterials, and organisation of courses are left to the educational field. Because several evaluations revealed
this policy had seriously failed,116 the Dutch Parliament adopted a new Integration Act in July 2020 thataims at a strong relationship between education, participation and work, tight support of the local authorities and tailoring to the individual migrant.117 The law offers three trajectories for different groups. For all
trajectories, local authorities are required to draw up a personal Integration and Participation Plan basedon 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 offers 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 specified language level at the end. Teachers have to be qualified and certified.
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 offering free programmes run by volunteers or project-funded staff might model their courses to108. 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 officially recognised by the state for the certification 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.

Page 88 3 Literacy and second language learning for the linguistic integration of adult migrantssome extent on these curricular models. Also, commercial publishing companies will produce textbooks andother resources for literacy and second language learning on the basis of these curricula.
LASLLIAM can fulfil important functions in curriculum design for literacy and second language learning at themacro level in terms of planning course systems, defining 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 offers a reference tool for choosing
relevant objectives from a state-of-the-art description of potential objectives.
The general LASLLIAM descriptors and their domain-specific examples can inspire needs analyses and frameworks
on relevant communicative settings at the macro level. This is particularly useful in defining 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
profiles 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 particularchallenge in literacy and second language curriculum design. Learners with comparable literacy skills may
range in their oral abilities from hardly any experience to fluency – and the other way around. Many literacy
and second language curricula at the macro level prioritise literacy skills over oral skills for the design ofcourse systems.
2. As literacy encompasses a wide continuum of competences, transitions from specific literacy and second
language programmes into general language education programmes such as general (i.e. non-literacy
specific) integration classes, vocational courses, or – especially for adolescent migrants – formal education
systems are a crucial aspect to consider.
In the definition of level-specific 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 chosencompetences. 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 apoint of orientation and critical discussion in national debates about which didactic traditions to maintain andwhich didactic transformations to initiate. For example, criteria on the national, state or regional admission ofmaterials 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 componentsof 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 adulteducation, 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 offer 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 certificates for a residence permit. It could collaborate with NGOs for the social inclusionof vulnerable adults, like unemployed women or refugees, or with local libraries for family literacy programmes.
Depending on their autonomy in decision making and flexibility, schools/educational organisations also makedecisions about aspects like the number of courses, offered 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 forstudents’ attendance or allocation of professional resources. All these factors establish a frame for curriculum
design.

118. See Guerrero Calle 2020.

Using LASLLIAM for curriculum design Page 89

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 defining macrolevel 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 insyllabus 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-communicativerequirements 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 ofresidence, reasons for migration, migration project, hopes, experiences and attitudes.
2. The second area regards the learners’ reasons for learning the target language, expectations about thecourse, 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 profile of the learners, which includes theirplurilingual repertoires (see 1.4.3; 5.4), their oral competence in the target language, and their literacy andsecond language profiles (see 1.4.1; 6.2.1).
Syllabus designers can conduct the learners’ needs analysis before planning the course, as a preliminary collectionof information, for example, through oral interviews or focus groups (in a common language) with representativesof the envisaged target groups. Otherwise, the non- and low-literate learners’ needs can be detected during thewelcome 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 profile and the learner’s language proficiency 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 withhelps to set learning goals tailored to their social needs. The analysis focuses on aspects like languages anddialects that are used, prevalent types of discourse, texts, vocabulary (including terminology), prevalent speechacts and expressions, degree of formality, and others. Several techniques can be used. For example, to define aliteracy 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 defining the expected outcomes of thecourse (in terms of levels of proficiency 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 thesociety 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 effective tools to monitor and meet the migrants’ educational needs.
Curriculum designers can select the relevant LASLLIAM descriptors from the Overall and Specific scales and fromthe domain tables for language activities, to negotiate and determine with teachers, learners and (sometimes)
other stakeholders (e.g. employers, staff from job services or vocational centres) the following:f levels of proficiency to be expected in a given time;
f situations the group needs to be able to cope with;f specific learning objectives;
f methodology (e.g. teaching through scenarios);f learning materials (e.g. authentic materials to complement the course book); andf assessment procedures (see 6.2.1).

119. North et al. 2019.
120. Council of Europe 2015-2022.

Page 90 3 Literacy and second language learning for the linguistic integration of adult migrants

As suggested by the Council of Europe, designers of curricula and syllabi for adult migrants are likely to takeaccount 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, andthe 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 actionoriented approach. A syllabus for a literacy and second language course would define 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 defining the technical literacy skills, they have torely on language-specific inventories to specify aspects, such as expressions for language functions, grammaticalstructures or text types. For a number of languages, tools based on the CEFR are available,121 which are alreadyadapted 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 tothe migrants’ everyday needs, to assess learning progress and to deal with different levels of literacy.123
The LASLLIAM descriptors can be used as materials in teachers’ in-service training, especially regarding how tolink literacy and second language teaching to real life and how to deal with differing levels of literacy withina learner group. For example, in workshops or during an action research project, facilitators could focus on anumber 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 forteachers’ 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 offers useful background information about literacy, the acquisition of literacy
and second language, and overviews of teaching approaches and assessment procedures in the field 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 atnational 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 definedby the curricula and syllabi to the specific and concrete needs of individual learners. They also have to negotiatewith 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 influenced by a multitude of variables:levels of technical literacy, prior schooling and hours of instruction received in the home country and/or othercountries, digital skills, familiarity with assessment practices and techniques, typological distance between mothertongue and target language, different scripts, frequency and quality of the contacts with the target language,
domains of use of the target language, familiar literacy events in the first and second language, uneven profiles
in the target language, trauma experiences (especially in the case of asylum seekers and refugees) and physicalimpairments (e.g. eyesight impairment), plurilingual repertoires, internal factors (age, motivation, cognitive
style, attitudes, etc.), external factors (family context, behaviour, cultural distance, migration project, etc.) andlogistical aspects that influence 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 aneeds 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.

Using LASLLIAM for curriculum design Page 91

The Language support for adult refugees – A Council of Europe Toolkit suggests three tools that proved to beeffective in carrying out needs analyses with non-literate and low-literate learners.124 For the linguistic repertoires,the “Plurilingual portrait: a reflective task for refugees” (Tool 38125) has proved effective by enhancing migrants’awareness and self-esteem.126 For the language profile, 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 outlineof the interview “Refugees’ linguistic profiles” (Tool 27) are available. The results of the literacy and language
assessments complete the learner’s language profile (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 ingeneral for mid-term work plans and lesson plans. For these aspects, the teacher can also find support in thisreference guide (see Chapter 3). In particular, LASLLIAM offers support in planning action-oriented literacy andsecond language learning environments in which the notion of a scenario has a prominent role. Scenarios area tool for action-oriented planning, that is, planning which envisages real-life situations in which learners could
find 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 andnon-verbal actions involving both general knowledge (e.g. where to buy a bus ticket) and competences (suchas filling out the form) that are designed to lead to successfully carrying out the activities in question” (Councilof Europe – LIAM 2020e).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 ofreal word variables, including a domain, context, tasks, language activities and texts” (ibid.). While engaging intasks 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 first 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 teachingmaterials 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, reflective activities could be carried out,
guided by teachers. These reflective 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’ reflection on their learning, including their selfassessment (see Appendix 3).
In highly diverse groups, as are most classes in literacy and second language instruction, scenarios are a powerfultool to differentiate teaching and learning pathways according to the individual learner’s competence within acommon and co-operative setting. Through scenarios, intercultural awareness is fostered since representations,
schemes and frames related to specific situations (e.g. about how to interact in institutional settings or at theworkplace) can emerge. At later stages, beyond LASLLIAM levels, they may be noticed, discussed and negotiatedshould they arise in such situations.
In developing a scenario, the shift from abstract to concrete, from general to specific is required. Starting with
the LASLLIAM Overall scales, teachers first select the Specific scales related to the learners’ needs. Next, they
contextualise the descriptors of the Specific 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.

Page 92 3 Literacy and second language learning for the linguistic integration of adult migrants

Figure 6 – Connections between LASLLIAM resources within a scenario

Overall scales(key operators)
Specific 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.

Using LASLLIAM for curriculum design Page 93

Chapter 6
ASSESSMENT WITHIN
THE LEARNING ENVIRONMENTAs 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, thisreference guide addresses assessment as a key component of the learning process.130
The term assessment is usedin 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 theeffectiveness of particular methods or materials, the kind and quality of discourse actually produced in the programme,learner/teacher satisfaction, teaching effectiveness, 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 beachieved in a learning environment (be it educational or vocational). This learning environment represents theconditio sine qua non for any assessment procedures, which should always be referenced to the curriculum andbe coherent with the syllabus.
Taking this into account, this chapter is structured to offer reflections and practical examples in relation to:f the approaches to be adopted taking into account the target learners (see 1.4);
f the different purposes and forms of assessment, possibly by using the present work;
f the assessment tools that can be developed, underscoring the importance of considering them as part ofthe learning materials, thus negating any function aimed to meet proficiency standards decontextualised
from the learning environment.

6.1. APPROACHES TO BE ADOPTEDThis section focuses on three suggested approaches in using LASLLIAM to develop assessment tools: continuum
criterion-referencing, learning oriented assessment (LOA) and profiling approach.131 On the basis of theseapproaches, 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 theoriginal and fundamental meaning of “criterion” in the expression “criterion-referenced assessment”. (Council ofEurope 2020: 27)

The same continuum criterion-referencing approach is assumed by LASLLIAM. It implies that any form ofassessment 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

130. Hughes 2003; Vertecchi 1995.
131. Krumm 2007.
132. Bachman 1990; Messick 1989.

Page 95

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, reflecting more teaching goals (see 5.4) andreal-life tasks, which in turn reflect more learning goals (see 3.3).
Moreover, the adoption of the continuum criterion-referencing approach leads to a move away from what the
CEFR defines 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 fix any cut-off 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 expectedcompetences to be achieved) coincide with the user’s goals (in terms of satisfying linguistic-communicativeneeds 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 thanassessment for learning, which underlies the formative approach. In this way, LOA attempts to solve thedichotomy of formative versus summative, or to represent their evolution,137 by following as a main strand theconstant 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 raisingawareness 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 oftaking 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 wellas to the mid-term or end-of-course exam (as a typical example of summative assessment, sometimes also
fixed-point assessment, when assessment is linked to a particular moment in the course).139

6.1.3. Profiling approach
A fair use of LASLLIAM within the assessment process should always lead to positive outcomes in order tosustain learners’ motivation (see 3.6); in other words, the present work promotes the achievement of learning
goals according to a hypothetical transversal line across different levels, without linking the expected outcomesto 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 placedon what the learner has managed to achieve, not on their deficiencies: according to this example, as a resultof attending the course, the learner reached level 2 in writing, instead of failing to obtain level 3 because of apresumed 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.

Page 96 3 Literacy and second language learning for the linguistic integration of adult migrants

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 morecategories described by LASLLIAM Specific scales, even at the same level.
As already highlighted (see 1.4.3), this reference guide supports the concept of profiles. In the field 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 profile” (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 profiling (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 specific tasks”(Council of Europe 2001: 135).
Furthermore, as the CEFR Companion volume recommends plurilingual profiling (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 infinite learners’ profiles on a virtual Cartesianplane; similar to that described in the CEFR, the result is a three-dimensional “notional cube” (Council of Europe
2001: 16):f the 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 Specific scales (see 4.2): this line makes the double-entry grid turn in the cube.
Figure 7 – LASLLIAM Cartesian plane

LevelsCategories
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, specific 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 thatthe expected learning goals must not be seen as benchmarks to be achieved in designing high-stakes andlarge-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/.

Assessment within the learning environment Page 97

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 guidemight 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 whohave 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
different 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 thatcharacterises the provision of training:
1. first, 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. finally, 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 involvedin 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 theirneeds to emerge, as well as to identify the learner’s profile. The aim is to allow as much as possible for the tailoringof the course to the learners’ needs, both in the sense of appropriateness and adequacy, where appropriatenessrefers to the correspondence between contents addressed and needs of the person, while adequacy relates toinclusion in the group that is more in line with their profile. 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 andsecond language profile 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 dimensionof 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 offrustration and humiliation. It is important to underline that the dialogue should be carried out not only in thetarget language, but also in any one language available in the plurilingual repertoire of both interlocutors.
In fact, it is fundamental to find 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.

Page 98 3 Literacy and second language learning for the linguistic integration of adult migrants

professional mediators will support the welcome phase, but realistically another learner with the same mothertongue as the interviewee might serve as the mediator.
The use of such a language of communication, thus of a language spoken fluently 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
profile, making the interview the first component of the placement test, with regard to the oral dimension. Theinterlocutor 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 Specific scale, Interviewing and Being Interviewed, theteacher is invited to consider the progression represented by the descriptors below.
4

Can reply in an interview to simple direct questions, put very slowly and clearly in direct non-idiomatic speech
about personal details.

3

Can ask and answer questions about personal information, feelings and health with short, simple phrases andformulaic expressions (e.g. “I’m [name], I’m from Syria”).

2

Can give some simple information with familiar words or phrases.

1

Can 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 tomatch 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 profile. 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 profile and important in whatever language, the central
aim of the “welcome phase” is to determine the learner’s profile 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 offered 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 isbecause LASLLIAM does not consider technical literacy as a goal in itself. On the contrary, it establishes the setof 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 areboth learning goals and (potential) learning outcomes. This means that a specific 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 learnercan draw on during the course.
As a final result of the assessment procedures within the welcome phase, sufficient elements should have beencollected to form a description of the person at the beginning of the learning process in relation to their literacy
and second language profile. Specifically, the outcome will quite often be an uneven profile, for example withthe 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 specific objectives. It
therefore relates to the week’s/term’s work, the course book, the syllabus” (Council of Europe 2001: 183). Thereis 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 reflect
events occurring in daily life and the tasks provided tend to replicate learners’ daily routines. In other words, themore 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.

Assessment within the learning environment Page 99

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 proficiency(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 procedures149 and theintermediate tests. Diagnostic procedures, highly embedded within a formative approach, are used to discoverlearners’ 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 offered
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 themhorizontally, 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 Specific scale – Reading Instructions, the following level 2 descriptor is helpful in this case.
2

Can 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 specific 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 thecontrary, when the focus is on the “what”, as in real-world tasks, the reference is to the first 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 touse the Technical Literacy scale Writing at level 1, to check whether the person is able to write by hand incopying 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 Specific scales. In this way,
the individual’s just-trained capacity is put immediately into practice, according to the following sequencealready 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.

Page 100 3 Literacy and second language learning for the linguistic integration of adult migrants

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 assessment152 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 first task is preparatory for thesecond task (and so on), according to the sequence provided. The more a scenario is represented by a sequencingof “good” tasks, the more the inference made by the teacher is likely to reflect LOA in measuring the effective
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 reflect real-life situations.154
Imagine a scenario where the need is about having something to eat in a bar. The learner is asked:
f to understand a menu;
f to understand some information given by the waiter; andf to place an order.
According to the example, LASLLIAM Specific scales involved are:f Reading for Information, within the Written Reception scales;
f Listening to Announcements and Instructions, within the Oral Reception scales;f Obtaining Goods and Services, within the Oral Interaction scales.
As the communicative situation takes place in a bar, it is part of the public domain. The example refers to level 3 inall the scales here, but note that individual profiles might, of course, vary. The teacher can use all the descriptors
listed below, where in each box the first one comes from a Specific scale and the second in italics comes fromthe corresponding LASLLIAM public domain table entry.

Specific scale – Reading for Information
3

Can 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.

Specific scale – Listening to Announcements and Instructions
3

Can 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”).

Specific scale – Obtaining Food and Services
3

Can make simple purchases and/or order food or drink when pointing or making another gesture which cansupport 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 offered by the Council of Europe LIAM Toolkit (Tools 56 and57), see Council of Europe 2021d.

Assessment within the learning environment Page 101

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 apart 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 proficiency
profiles 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 aresupported 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 reflective learning driven bygoal setting and self-assessment (see 6.2.4). Stimulating reflection 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 adultmigrants specifically, “their proficiency can easily be underestimated by officials and prospective employers,
and a well-organised portfolio can bear effective testimony to language learning effort 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 learnerawareness: from the CEFR self-assessment grid that helps “learners to appreciate their strengths, recognise
their weaknesses and orient their learning more effectively” (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 havebeen adapted having in mind adult refugees as target learners.159
In particular, the ELP Language Dossier “is designed to include not only any officially 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 interculturalexperiences and enabling the person to document and present different aspects of the Language Biography160
in their second language (as emerged during the course), as well as the language passport161 (starting from thewelcome phase), including their plurilingual repertoire.

6.2.3.2. End-of-course exam
Although LASLLIAM strongly recommends a portfolio, some educational systems in different 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 efforts 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 dependon 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” (Councilof Europe 2001: 178), imagine developing the exam at the end of a level 1 course; more specifically: imagine
being engaged in the construction of the written interaction component.162 If this is the case, the teacher
can first consider all the LASLLIAM Written Interaction scales (Overall and Specifics) as potential content tochoose 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.

Page 102 3 Literacy and second language learning for the linguistic integration of adult migrants

Overall scale – Written Interaction
1

Can write a personally relevant word by copying.
Can sign a form.

Specific scale – Correspondence
1

Can copy some words about themselves or objects of personal relevance.

Specific scale – Notes, Messages, Forms and Transactions
1

Can copy some words to respond to a message.

Then, the teacher needs to filter 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 profile traced at entry (see 6.2.1) and that referred to on exit can be useful. In fact, relating the informationcollected at these two points in time would represent good practice, not only to underline the progression ofeach 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 witha mastery criterion-referencing approach. As already highlighted (see 6.1.1), a fair assessment based on thisreference 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 theexam; on the contrary, according to the adopted profiling approach (see 6.1.3) the learner should be describedby the goals in reading at their level.

6.2.4. Profiling 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 completionof a person’s individual profile (see 1.4.3). Thus, the final outcome suggested by LASLLIAM, and in terms of the
documentation provided, can be represented, for example, by the figure below.
Figure 9 in the CEFR Companion volume “shows proficiency 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 (reflecting
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 inOral 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

Assessment within the learning environment Page 103

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 profile where the learning goals achieved are evidenced
by descriptors of different categories (according to the horizontal dimension of Figure 7).
Figure 9 below is another way to trace an uneven profile, 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
in Written 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 speaksin the mother tongue. The lowest use is in relation to the occupational domain (where they only work withcolleagues 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 profiling,where specific 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’ profile in more
direct and maybe more practical ways, for example in the form of a checklist or grid.163 In particular, the use ofchecklists 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 descriptorsof the self-assessment grid into a detailed inventory of communicative activities that can be used for regulargoal-setting and reflective moments related to self-assessment”.164 (Appendix 3 constitutes an example mainlyin the perspective of the ELP Language Biography).

6.3. LASLLIAM AS A RESOURCE TO CONNECT LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS
ACROSS EUROPE
Using LASLLIAM for the development of such profiled documentation can have added value in relation to themobility 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 ongoinglearning process for different providers (e.g. volunteers in a camp, teachers in an integration course system) andat different places (e.g. cities or even countries), or at different phases (e.g. first 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.

Page 104 3 Literacy and second language learning for the linguistic integration of adult migrants

in yet a third one. In other words, a literacy and second language portfolio composed of LASLLIAM descriptors
can offer a concrete answer to the reciprocal needs of migrants and teachers to make visible and traceable, ina coherent way, the achievement of learning goals. This achievement is the result of isolated moments within awhole process that takes place transnationally, in a range of formal and non-formal contexts, state schools andpublic institutions, private associations and NGOs.
As an example, let us consider the recurrent situation of persons like Hanad, a Somali non-literate man rescuedin Lampedusa, who after the first shelter in Italy asks for asylum in order to reunite with his brother in Sweden.
In this case, while he is waiting for the official 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, andconsequently immediately leaves Italy to seek the second shelter in Stockholm. Here, the education system
offers him to continue his learning process, again a literacy and second language course, but now in a different
target language, that is, Swedish instead of Italian. Due to the profiling of LASLLIAM learning goals assessedin Rome, Hanad and his new teacher in Stockholm will benefit 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 thewelcome 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 Chafia, 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 first segment could
take place in Madrid, and the second segment in Munich. Hopefully, this would be a holistic learning processwith transitions being made as smoothly as possible by teachers across Europe, in order to overcome the riskof fragmentation generated by the migrants’ mobility.
The cases of Hanad and Chafia 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 requiretransparency within the learning process in its various phases and portfolios that the learner – as the owner ofthis 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 thebridge linking the drop-out in one learning environment with the drop-in in another.

6.4. LASLLIAM AS A RESOURCE TO DEVELOP ASSESSMENT TOOLSAs shown in this chapter, on the basis of specified approaches (see 6.1), LASLLIAM can offer a practical resource
for the development of different assessment tools (see 6.2). Table 3 summarises the proposed use of thereference guide within a framework aimed at improving connections between learning and assessment. The
first 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 toolsthat 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
profile (oral)

Overall scales (written)

placement assessment

placement test: literacy and second
language profile (written)

Overall scales, Specific scalesachievement assessment

diagnostic procedures, intermediate
tests

Overall scales, Specific scales,
Domain tablesscenario-based assessment

communicative scenario

Overall scales, Specific scalesachievement assessment (including
self-assessment)

portfolio, checklist, grid

Overall scales, Specific scalesachievement assessment

end-of-course exam

Assessment within the learning environment Page 105

Chapter 7
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 different 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 wholereference 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 thedevelopment of the reference guide with a set of draft descriptors for Technical Literacy, Communicative Language
Activities, Language Use Strategies and Digital Skills.
A first 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 fields 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 withthe 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 PHASEAs 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
descriptors166 with a mixed-method approach to corroborate the findings. 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

165. Jean-Claude Beacco, Kaatje Dalderop, Bart Deygers, Cecile Hamnes Carlsen and David Little.
166. North and Piccardo 2016.

Page 107

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 anda 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 eachstep of the validation phase.
Figure 11 – LASLLIAM milestones: from design to launchFirst consultationon the descriptors

Design anddevelopment
Face-to-face meetings
Online interaction(2018-2019)

FTF workshop at the
LESLLA conference(August 2919)

Second consultationof the whole LASLLIAM
First Council of Europe
experts feedback(October 2019)

Third analysis and revisionof the whole LASLLIAM(September 2020)

Analysis andrevision of the tools(June 2022)

Third consultation of thewhole LASLLIAM
Second Council of Europe
Experts feedback(June 2020)

Second analysis and revisionof the whole LASLLIAM(2019-20)

Qualitative validation and fourth consultationof the descriptors Webinar to train workshop organisers.
Workshops in collaborating institutions(October-December 2020)

Qualitative validation – first step
(April 2021)

Finalisation of the
English version(January 2022)

First analysis revisionof the descriptors(September 2019)

Qualitative validation – second step
(October-November 2021)

Translation and adaptationof the validated descriptors(February 2022)

Fourth analysis and revisionof the descriptors(January-February 2021)

Fifth analysis and revision of thedescriptors(December 2021)

Piloting of the descriptors
in seven languages(March-May 2022)

Consultation on the tools
developed in seven languages
by using the descriptors(May 2022)

Launch of LASLLIAM(June 2022)

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 different countries. Workshop organisers were recruited
through the Council of Europe network and the personal and professional networks of the authoring group. Twotraining webinars for workshop organisers took place in November, and 19 workshops took place over Octoberand December 2020 in 10 different countries and in 11 languages, as Table 4 details, involving 410 participantsin 91 working groups. Workshop organisers were given the choice of delivering the workshops online or face toface. They were asked to recruit 20-25 participants who would work in groups to rate the descriptors. Participantsin the workshops needed to have at least two years’ experience working with LESLLA167 learners and be proficientenough 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.

Page 108 3 Literacy and second language learning for the linguistic integration of adult migrants

Table 4 – An overview of qualitative workshops
No. of workshops
Format19
17 online/ 2 face-to-face

Organisers’ profile

University, public schools, associations

Participants’ profile

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 five different 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 (Specific scales and Digital Skills scales);5. assign to categories (Specific scales).
The authoring group decided to use 90% of positive responses as a cut-off point to accept, delete or revise
descriptors in relation to each of the above five 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 outlinedin 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 fora single language only or a specific 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 torate them for different 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 different 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
Technical Literacy
scales(total 95)

Overall scales(total 47)

No. of descriptors

Language and Print Awareness

33

Reading

33

Writing29

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)

LASLLIAM research plan Page 109

ScaleSpecific scales(total 182)

Language UseStrategies scales(total 168)

Digital Skills scales(total 76)

No. of descriptors

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)

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)

Communication and Collaboration

32

Content Creation and Management28

Safety16

Total No. of descriptors

568 (90 from CEFR Companion volume)

During the workshop, each group discussed and filled 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 final report provided information about the willingness of theparticipants to be involved. In this way, the qualitative validation has the added value of sustaining the creationof 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 file 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 different 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
No. ofdescriptors

Scale

Technical Literacy
scales(total 95)

No. of descriptors scoring over
90% positive responses

Language andPrint Awareness

33

Clarity
Pedagogical usefulness

22
19

Reading

33

Clarity
Pedagogical usefulness

18
29

Writing29

Clarity
Pedagogical usefulness

10
20

Page 110 3 Literacy and second language learning for the linguistic integration of adult migrants

No. ofdescriptors

Scale

Overall scales(total 31)

Oral Reception

3

Clarity
Pedagogical usefulness

0
3

Written Reception

7

Clarity
Pedagogical usefulness

6
7

Oral Production

4

Clarity
Pedagogical usefulness

3
4

Written Production

5

Clarity
Pedagogical usefulness2
4

Oral Interaction

4

Clarity
Pedagogical usefulness

44

Written Interaction

8

Clarity
Pedagogical usefulness88

Oral Reception

21

Clarity
Pedagogical usefulness
Relevance to real life

20
21
21

Written Reception

17

Clarity
Pedagogical usefulness
Relevance to real Life

12
17
17

Oral Production

11

Clarity
Pedagogical usefulness
Relevance to real Life

11
11
11

Written Production

13

Clarity
Pedagogical usefulness
Relevance to real life

12
57Oral Interaction

32

Clarity
Pedagogical usefulness
Relevance to real life

31
28
31

Written Interaction

16

Clarity
Pedagogical usefulness
Relevance to real life

16
16
16

Oral Reception
Strategies

29

Clarity
Pedagogical usefulness

1025

Written Reception
Strategies

26

Clarity
Pedagogical usefulness

20
14

Oral Production
Strategies

23

Clarity
Pedagogical usefulness

20
19

Written Production
Strategies

20

Clarity
Pedagogical usefulness

17
18

Oral Interaction
Strategies

32

Clarity
Pedagogical usefulness

28
27

Written Interaction
Strategies

36

Clarity
Pedagogical usefulness

34
27

Communication
and Collaboration

32

Clarity
Pedagogical usefulness
Relevance to real life

27
25
30

Content Creationand Management

28

Clarity
Pedagogical usefulness
Relevance to real life

24
17
20

Safety16

Clarity
Pedagogical usefulness
Relevance to real life

12
13
15

478

Clarity
Pedagogical usefulness
Relevance to real life

367
381
176

Specific scales(total 110)

Language UseStrategies scales(total 166)

Digital Skills scales(total 76)

Total No. of
descriptors(total 478)

No. of descriptors scoring over
90% positive responses

LASLLIAM research plan Page 111

For revising and deleting descriptors, several criteria were applied, as a brifly described below.
Descriptors were revised or deleted when they:f could refer to two or more different communicative language activities;
f were judged as too advanced by the majority of respondents (even if, for example, they were judged
as clear);f were inconsistent with descriptors in other scales.
Descriptors were revised by:f changing words considered too vague or too technical;
f changing terms to uniform terminology across all LASLLIAM scales;
f simplifying some sentences; andf adding examples.
Based on the application of such criteria and of the established cut-off 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. ofdescriptors

No.
revisedNo.
deletedTotal No. of
descriptors inrevised scales

33

17

11

22

33

23

2

31

Writing

29

20

4

25

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

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

Spoken Reception

29

12

12

17

Written Reception

26

9

3

23

23

15

1

23

20

13

2

18

Spoken Interaction

32

22

2

32

Written Interaction

38

11

10

28

Communication and
Collaboration

32

13

0

32

Content Creation andManagement

28

15

4

24

Safety

16

3

2

14

568

256

54

517

Print and Language AwarenessTechnical
Reading
Literacy scales

Overall scales

Specific scales

Language Use Spoken Production
Strategies
Written Production
scalesDigital Skills
scales

Total

Page 112 3 Literacy and second language learning for the linguistic integration of adult migrants

As an overall outcome of the workshops, a total of 54 descriptors were deleted, 3 descriptors added and
256 descriptors 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 summaryof 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
f to 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: first step
The first step of the quantitative validation was conducted with an online survey. The participants were recruited
through the literacy and second language networks in the different countries, the connections already establishedin the qualitative validation, the international LESLLA network, LIAM and ALTE networks and other relevantCouncil of Europe networks. They were expected to have experience with literacy and language teaching of
LESLLA learners, to be familiar with the CEFR and proficient enough in English to judge descriptors in English.
Participants were invited to fill out an online survey.
The survey included questions to collect background information about the participants’ profiles, particularlyage, 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 five tasks with descriptors to be judged, as detailedin Table 8.
Table 8 – LASLLIAM quantitative validation tasks (first step)
No. of task

Type of scale and requests to participants

Task 1

Technical Literacy scales: clarity and assignment to LASLLIAM levels

Task 2Overall scales: clarity and assignment to LASLLIAM levels

Task 3Specific 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 thevalidation 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 specific (literacy and languagerelated) 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 theopportunity 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 usefuland relevant by at least 90% of the respondents in the qualitative study.

LASLLIAM research plan Page 113

Table 9 presents the numbers of descriptors used in the first step of the quantitative validation. Starting fromthe 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 tocomplete the progression in Overall or Specific 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 tocompare the data from the two phases of validation. The descriptors are randomised in a stratified way to ensure
their balanced distribution across scales/levels.
Table 9 – LASLLIAM descriptors included in the quantitative validation (first step)Technical Literacy
scales(total 78)

Overall scales(total 37)

Specific scales(total 131)

Language UseStrategies scales(total 139)

Digital Skills
scales(total 70)

Scale

No. of descriptors

Language and Print Awareness

22

Reading

31

Writing25

Oral Reception

4

Written Reception

8

Oral Production

5

Written Production

6

Oral Interaction

5

Written Interaction

9

Oral Reception

22

Written Reception

24

Oral Production

13

Written Production

13

Oral Interaction

40

Written Interaction

19

Oral Reception Strategies

17

Written Reception Strategies

21

Oral Production Strategies

23

Written Production Strategies

18

Oral Interaction Strategies

32

Written Interaction Strategies

28

Communication and Collaboration

32

Content Creation and Management24

Safety14

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.

Page 114 3 Literacy and second language learning for the linguistic integration of adult migrants

Table 10 – LASLLIAM descriptors within the survey versions
Surveyversions

Number of descriptors per task
Task 1

Task 2

Task 3

Task 4

Task 5

Total

1

18

24

13

4

6

65

2

15

24

13

8

6

66

3

17

24

13

5

6

65

4

15

28

12

9

3

67

5

16

28

12

6

3

65

6

16

28

16

6

3

69

7

17

25

13

7

5

67

8

15

25

13

7

6

66

9

16

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:f all the 455 descriptors were covered;f in Task 1 a sample of the three categories of the Technical Literacy scales was always provided;
f in Task 2 and in Task 3, at least one full scale was always given;f in Task 4 one full scale was always given;
f within Task 2, Task 3 and Task 4 a coherent connection was provided, as follows:ū the sample in Task 3 taken from the Specific 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
Task 2 and Task 3 (e.g. if Oral Reception was judged in Task 2 as the full Overall scale, in Task 3 descriptors
from the Specific scales also related to Oral Reception were provided, and in Task 4 descriptors from theOral strategies). This gave respondents the complete picture, allowing them to base their judgments on
consistency across descriptors present in different types of scales.
In the first 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:f common 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 different versions of the survey have been created with overlapping descriptors taken fromthe different 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 thedifferent given samples for the remaining part of descriptors within the related tasks.

LASLLIAM research plan Page 115

7.2.2.2. Method – quantitative validation: second step
In order to collect more data to validate the level of difficulty 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 first 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 profile as the ones involved in the firststep. 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 first step of thequantitative validation, was maintained in order to be able to combine the data from the different phases. Alsoin this step, the descriptors were randomised in a stratified way to ensure their balanced distribution acrossscales/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 scales69 descriptors

Task 2

Communicative Language Activities Assigning to level Each respondent
Written (Overall + Specific)

12 scales

65 descriptors

Task 3

Communicative Language Activities Assigning to level Each respondent
Oral (Overall + Specific)

15 scales

80 descriptors

Task 4

Language Use Strategies

9 scales(for each
A – Written Language group)
Use Strategies

68 descriptors

High/lowdemanding

2 groups (A and B)

72 descriptors

B – Oral Language
Use Strategies
Total 282/286

The quantitative validation in its second step was designed in such a way that:f all the categories and all the descriptors are covered;f in all the tasks, the full scale is always given (including domains’ examples, where provided);f in the Overall and Specific scales, the descriptors that were already validated in the first step of the quantitative validation were no longer included: this means more than 200 answers were already collected; clarity
confirmed by at least 80% agreement; mode and mean confirming 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 Specific scales.
f as for the qualitative validation, the descriptors taken from the CEFR Companion volume were alreadyvalidated and for this reason they were not validated again.
f with 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 workon the written dimension, group B to work on the oral dimension.

Page 116 3 Literacy and second language learning for the linguistic integration of adult migrants

7.2.2.3. Analyses and main results
The data from the first and second steps were carefully corrected, entered into one dataset and statisticallyanalysed by senior research scientists at Cito (the Netherlands).169 The analysis of the quantitative validation
took into account:f collation of raw ratings to percentages (for all the tasks);
f descriptive statistics including mode, mean and standard deviation to summarise the responses (for all
the tasks);
f comparative 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 substantiallyor 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 five years. The respondents came from
21 different 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 werementioned incidentally.
The descriptors were judged on clarity only in the first step of the quantitative validation, to confirm the findingsof 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.
f A descriptor that was considered clear by less than 70% of the respondents was deleted from the scales.
f Descriptors 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%).
f A descriptor was moved to another level according to two conditions: if at least 75% of the respondents
agreed on one specific level (other than the intended one) and if the moving did not affect the consistencyof the scale, otherwise the descriptor was deleted.
f Descriptors that did not meet the criteria of mode and mean and were also not rated at another level bymore than 75% of the respondents were deleted.
f In some cases, a similar descriptor from a related scale (e.g. production and interaction) that did meet thecriteria replaced the original one. This criterion was applied when the deletion of the original one would
have created a gap in a Specific scale.
f The 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 andthey were completed in the Specific scales by tables of domain examples (see Chapter 4).
f Incidentally, 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 thescales of the final version of LASLLIAM.

169. CITO 2022.

LASLLIAM research plan Page 117

Table 13 – Number of descriptors in the final version of LASLLIAM
ScaleTechnical Literacy scales(total 59)
Overall scales*(total 41)

Specific scales*(total 143)

Language Use Strategies
scales(total 119)

Digital Skills scales(total 63)

No. of descriptors

Language and Print Awareness

15

Reading

24

Writing

20

Oral Reception

6

Written Reception

9

Oral Production

4

Written Production

7

Oral Interaction

7

Written Interaction

8

Oral Reception

24

Written Reception

29

Oral Production

12

Written Production

12

Oral Interaction

49

Written Interaction

17

Oral Reception Strategies

14

Written Reception Strategies

19

Oral Production Strategies

21

Written Production Strategies

18

Oral Interaction Strategies

26

Written Interaction Strategies

21

Communication and Collaboration

27

Content Creation and Management24

Safety12

Total No. of descriptors

425*Including descriptors from the CEFR Companion volume.

All in all, after careful revisions in several rounds of consultations with experts, qualitative validation workshopswith 91 groups from 10 different countries and quantitative validation by more than 400 teachers in about 20
different 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 practicaluse 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 withthe principles outlined in Chapter 6, to illustrate LASLLIAM’s potential in this respect (for example, examples ofneeds analysis test, placement test and end-of-course exam).

170. ALTE 2022.

Page 118 3 Literacy and second language learning for the linguistic integration of adult migrants

REFERENCES
Abadzi H. (2012), “Can adults become fluent readers in newly learned scripts?”, Education Research International
Vol. 2012, pp. 1-8, available at https://doi.org/10.1155/2012/710785, accessed 5 February 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
5 February 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 fromrefugee 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 andpractice], 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 andscripts, 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 significance 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 – Ledafids, 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-plurilingualismas-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
11 February 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
11 February 2022.
Beacco J.-C. et al. (2005), Niveau A1.1 pour le français: Référentiel et certification (DILF) pour les premiers acquis enfrançais [Level A1.1 for French: Framework and certification (DILF) for initial learning of French], Didier, Paris.

Page 119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-thedevelopment-and-implementation-of-curricula-for-plurilingual-and-intercultural-education, accessed 11 February
2022.
Benson C. (2004), The importance of mother tongue-based schooling for educational quality, UNESCO, available athttps://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000146632, accessed 11 February 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 ofthe 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 – Ledafids, 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 first literacy acquisition to A1 level], Loescher, Torino.
Borri A. et al. (2014b), Italian language for adult migrants: syllabus and descriptors for illiterate, semi-literate andliterate 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
11 February 2022.
British Council – EAQUALS (2015), Core inventory for general English (2nd edn), British Council, London, availableat www.teachingenglish.org.uk/sites/teacheng/files/pub-british-council-eaquals-core-inventoryv2.pdf, accessed
11 February 2022.
Bundesamt für Migration und Flüchtlinge (2007), Vorläufiges 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 Neuauflage, 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 11 February 2022.
Bundesamt für Migration und Flüchtlinge (2018), Konzept für einen bundesweiten Integrationskurs fürZweitschriftlernende (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 11 February 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 inaction, 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 eightproficiency levels and examples of use, Publications Office of the European Union, available at https://publications.
jrc.ec.europa.eu/repository/handle/JRC106281, accessed 11 February 2022.

Page 120 3 Literacy and second language learning for the linguistic integration of adult migrants

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 andWriting: 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 ofchildren’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 11 February 2022.
CLIQ (2020), Sillabi, available at www.associazionecliq.it/sillabi/, accessed 11 February 2022.
Condelli L. (2004), Effective instruction for adult ESL literacy students: findings from the What Works study, Universityof Nottingham, available at www.voced.edu.au/content/ngv%3A12915, accessed 11 February 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 11 February 2022.
Council of Europe (1954), European Cultural Convention, available at www.coe.int/en/web/culture-and-heritage/
european-cultural-convention, accessed 11 February 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 11 February 2022.
Council of Europe (2015), European Social Charter. Collected texts (7th edn), available at https://rm.coe.int/
CoERMPublicCommonSearchServices/DisplayDCTMContent?documentId=090000168048b059, accessed
19 February 2022.
Council of Europe (2015-2022), Language for work: tools for professional development, available at https://languageforwork.ecml.at, accessed 19 February 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
19 February 2022.
Council of Europe (2020b), Vulnerable groups, available at www.coe.int/en/web/europarisks/vulnerable-groups,
accessed 19 February 2022.
Council of Europe (2020c), Digital Citizenship Education, available at www.coe.int/en/web/digital-citizenshipeducation/home, accessed 19 February 2022.
Council of Europe (2020d), European Language Portfolio: self-assessment grids (CEFR), available at www.coe.int/
en/web/portfolio/self-assessment-grid, accessed 19 February 2022.
Council of Europe (2020 e), European Language Portfolio, available at www.coe.int/en/web/portfolio, accessed
19 February 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 19 February 2022.
Council of Europe (2021a), The language biography, available at www.coe.int/en/web/portfolio/the-languagebiography, accessed 21 February 2022.

References Page 121

Council of Europe (2021b), The language passport, available at www.coe.int/en/web/portfolio/the-languagepassport, accessed 21 February 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-finding-out-what-refugees-can-already-do-in-the-targetlanguag/16807171aa, accessed 21 February 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 21 February 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 19 February 2022.
Council of Europe – Committee of Ministers (2014), Integration tests: helping or hindering integration, Reply torecommendation: Recommendation 2034, Doc. 13604, 23 September 2014, available at www.assembly.coe.int/
nw/xml/XRef/Xref-XML2HTML-en.asp?fileid=21151&lang=en, accessed 19 February 2022.
Council of Europe – LIAM (2020a), Linguistic profiles and prof﻿iling, available at www.coe.int/it/web/lang-migrants/
profile-language-/-profiling, accessed 21 February 2022.
Council of Europe – LIAM (2020b), Language repertoire, available at www.coe.int/it/web/lang-migrants/repertoirelanguage-, accessed 21 February 2022.
Council of Europe – LIAM (2020c), Linguistic integration of adult migrants (LIAM), available at www.coe.int/en/
web/lang-migrants/home, accessed 21 February 2022.
Council of Europe – LIAM (2020d), Teacher training, available at www.coe.int/it/web/lang-migrants/teachertraining, accessed 21 February 2022.
Council of Europe – LIAM (2020 e), Scenarios in language teaching and learning for adult migrants, available atwww.coe.int/en/web/lang-migrants/scenarios-in-language-teaching-and-learning-for-adult-migrants, accessed
21 February 2022.
Council of Europe – LIAM (2020f), Piloting, available at www.coe.int/en/web/language-support-for-adult-refugees/
piloting, accessed 21 February 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 21 February 2022.
Council of Europe – LIAM (2020h), Curriculum / course programme / course design / course objectives, available atwww.coe.int/it/web/lang-migrants/curriculum, accessed 21 February 2022.
Council of Europe – LIAM (2020i), 26 – First steps in the host country language, available at https://rm.coe.int/tool26-first-steps-in-the-host-country-language-language-support-for-/16807171ab, accessed 21 February 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 21 February 2022.
Council of Europe – LIAM (2020k), Language support for adult refugees – A Council of Europe Toolkit, available atwww.coe.int/en/web/language-support-for-adult-refugees/list-of-all-tools, accessed 21 February 2022.
Council of Europe – LIAM (2020l), Literacy, available at www.coe.int/it/web/lang-migrants/literacy, accessed
21 February 2022.
Council of Europe – LIAM (2020m), Literacy profiles: challenges in the migrant language education, available atwww.coe.int/en/web/lang-migrants/literacy-profiles, accessed 21 February 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 andliteracy 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.

Page 122 3 Literacy and second language learning for the linguistic integration of adult migrants

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-regulationin 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 21 February 2022.
Desjardins R. (2003), “Determinants of literacy proficiency: 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 21 February 2022.
Digital Literacy Instructor, Finnish version (2020), available at https://test.fcsprint2.nl/menu/5, accessed 21 February
2022.
Digital Literacy Instructor, French version (2020), available at https://test.fcsprint2.nl/menu/7, accessed 21 February
2022.
Digital Literacy Instructor, German version (2020), available at https://test.fcsprint2.nl/menu/70#98, accessed
21 February 2022.
Digital Literacy Instructor, Spanish version (2020), available at https://test.fcsprint2.nl/menu/24, accessed
21 February 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-StandardVersion-ESV-Bible/#booklist, accessed 19 February 2022.
European Commission (2020), Council recommendation on key competences for lifelong learning, available athttps://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 andTurkish]”, Deutsch als Zweitsprache Vol. 2, pp. 42-50.
Feldmeier A. (2009a), “Offene 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 [FromA to Z. Practioners’ handbook on literacy. German as a second language for adults], Klett.

References Page 123

Feldmeier A. (2011), “Alphabetisierung von Erwachsenen nicht deutscher Muttersprache. Leseprozesse undAnwendung von Strategien beim Erlesen isoliert dargestellter Wörter unter besonderer Berücksichtigung derfarblichen und typographischen Markierung von Buchstabengruppen [Literacy learning of adults with otherfirst languages. Reading processes and strategy use in reading isolated words with coloured or typographicallymarked groups of letters]”, doctoral dissertation, Universität Bielefeld, available at https://pub.uni-bielefeld.de/record/2301752, accessed 21 February 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.fi/en/statistics-and-publications/publications/nationalcocoursere-curriculum-basic-education-adults-2017, accessed 21 February 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 frameworkon 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 ofan 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
21 February 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 NeokleousG., Krulatz A. and Farrelly R. (eds), Handbook of research on cultivating literacy 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 tolanguage 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://gerflint.fr/Base/
Bresil10/guernier.pdf, accessed 2 June 2022.
Guerrero Calle S. (2020), “Zweitschriftlernende in der deutschsprachigen Schweiz. In 300 Kurslektionen Alphaund A1? [Second-script learners in German-speaking Switzerland. Reaching A1 and literacy in 300 lessons?]”,doctoral dissertation, University of Freiburg.

Page 124 3 Literacy and second language learning for the linguistic integration of adult migrants

Heyn A. (2013), Sprachen lernen mit Methode. Der Rückgriff 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-kommunikationsstrategienzum-produktions-und-verstaendnissichernden-handeln/detail.html, accessed 2 June 2022.
Huettig F. (2015), “Literacy influences 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 21 February 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”,[Astudy 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 practicalexamples]”, 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. 281300), 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., Zafiri M. and Politimou N. (2011), “Literacy versus formal schooling: influence 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), “Profiles 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 andtheir 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 21 February 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.

References Page 125

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 crosslinguistic 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 andZeitlinger, 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
Banff 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 adultilliterates”, 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-Ghafir 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 schoolingin literacy classes], IMIS, Osnabrück, available at https://nbn-resolving.org/urn:nbn:de:gbv:700-202106255174,
accessed 21 February 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 theirimplications 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 21 February 2022.
Loewen S. (2020), Introduction to instructed second language acquisition, Taylor and Francis Group, New York andLondon.
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 conflict”, Language Policy
Vol. 4, No. 4, pp. 1-20.
Markov S. et al. (2015), Lernberatung für Teilnehmende in DaZ-Alphabetisierungskursen. Handreichung für Lernberatendeund 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 atwww.rijksoverheid.nl/documenten/rapporten/2018/06/27/evaluatie-van-de-wet-inburgering-2013, accessed
21 February 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 finanziati a valere sul FAMI
[Guidelines for the planning of regional plans for civic and linguistic instruction of third-country nationals 2018-21
financed by AMIF], available at www.interno.gov.it/sites/default/files/01._linee_guida_a_piani_regionali_2018-2021_
rev.25.05.2018.pdf, accessed 21 February 2022.

Page 126 3 Literacy and second language learning for the linguistic integration of adult migrants

Ministero dell’Istruzione, dell’Università e della Ricerca (2012), Linee guida per la progettazione dei percorsi dialfabetizzazione 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_file/Ida///LineeGuida_Alfabetizzazione_MIUR.pdf, accessed 21 February 2022.
Minuz F. and Kurvers J. (2021), “LASLLIAM: a European reference guide for LESLLA learners”, in D’Agostino M. andMocciaro E. (eds), People, languages and literacy in new migration: research, practice and policy. Literacy Educationand 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 longitudinalcase 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 andmultilingual 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-europeanframework-of-reference-for-languages-learning-teaching/168073ff31, accessed 21 February 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. Nijhoff 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: effect 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. andSmith 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.

References Page 127

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 Kannadaspeaking 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 withlittle 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 andlearning opportunities. Report on the 2018 Council of Europe and ALTE survey on language and knowledgeof 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 21 February 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 andpractice], 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 aforeign 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 21 February 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 inauguralsymposium, Tilburg University, August 2005, pp. 152-163, LOT.

Page 128 3 Literacy and second language learning for the linguistic integration of adult migrants

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 first-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 21 February 2022.
UNESCO (2017a), Functional literacy and numeracy: definitions 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 21 February 2022.
UNESCO (2017b), Reading the past, writing the future: fifty years of promoting literacy, UNESCO, Paris, available athttps://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000247563, accessed 21 February 2022.
UNESCO Institute for Statistics (2015), Adult and youth literacy, UIS fact sheet, No. 32, available at http://uis.unesco.
org/sites/default/files/documents/fs32-adult-and-youth-literacy-2015-en_0.pdf, accessed 21 February 2022.
United Nations General Assembly (1948), Universal Declaration of Human Rights, United Nations, available atwww.un.org/en/about-us/universal-declaration-of-human-rights, accessed 21 February 2022.
United Nations General Assembly (2015), Resolution adopted by the General Assembly on 25 September 2015, availableat www.un.org/en/development/desa/population/migration/generalassembly/docs/globalcompact/A_RES_70_1_E.
pdf, accessed 21 February 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 guideto 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 ladidactique du français langue étrangère: quelques pistes de travail” [The interrelations between research on theacquisition of French as a foreign language and the didactics of French as a foreign language. Some avenues ofwork], 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 21 February 2022.
Vygotski L. S. (1975), Thought and language, MIT Press.

References Page 129

Waggershauser E. (2015), Schreiben als soziale Praxis: eine ethnographische Untersuchung erwachsenerrussischsprachiger Zweitschriftlernender [Literacy as social practice: an ethngraphic study of Russian adultsecond-script learners], Stauffenburg.
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.
Weir C. (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”, inYoung-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. andYoung-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 ofliterature”, 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 different languages: similar problems, different solutions”,
Developmental Science Vol. 9, No. 5, pp. 429-36, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-7687.2006.00509.x.

Page 130 3 Literacy and second language learning for the linguistic integration of adult migrants

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 handto 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 finished her homework” are both clauses in the sentence “Mary took the bus after she hadfinished her homework.”).
Cohesive devices: function words that are used to relate different parts of a sentence or a text. Cohesion andcoherence 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 boundmorphemes add to the basic content.
Connectors: lexical devices linking clauses and/or sentences (e.g. “and”, “but” or “because”). Connectors are asubgroup 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 orartefacts that add to interpreting utterances or texts.
Decoding: the process (in beginning reading) of analysing a written word letter by letter, replacing letters bysounds 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 equivalentof text in spoken language.
Distinguish: differentiate 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 someletters and the difference from other addresses.
Encoding: the process (in beginning writing) of replacing the successive sounds of a spoken word by graphemes.
Fluent/fluency: 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 different 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 pluralor 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 thephoneme [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 pronunciationand 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 131

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 different
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).
Scaffold: supportive element in teaching and communication. Conversation scaffolds are written formulations
prepared in advance for actual use in oral interaction.
Script: the specific 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 visualshapes. The Roman, Cyrillic and Greek alphabet are all alphabetic writing systems, but with different 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 finished herhomework.”).
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 andaddress, 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: fixed 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).
Text: most often used for a functional unit of coherent sentences; it also refers to functional units composed ofonly 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, film 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 floor until another person speaks; aturn 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 recognitionof visual features (like the first 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 132 3 Literacy and second language learning for the linguistic integration of adult migrants

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. et al. (2018), Ster in lezen. Leesteksten met oefeningen voor de ISK (Alfa A, B en C), Boom, Amsterdam.
Dalderop K. et al. (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. et al. (2019), Water bij de melk. Verhalen voor mensen die Nederlands leren lezen, Boom.
Kurvers J. et al. (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. et al. (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 133

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.kwalificatiesencurriculum.
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 toAdults, 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.lepointdufle.
net/penseigner/alphabetisation-fiches-pedagogiques.htm#ai

4. FINNISH
These websites provide teaching materials for learners of literacy and Finnish as a second language:https://turunkristillinenopisto.fi/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/arjen_aakkoset.pdf
www.hel.fi/static/opev/virasto/naapuri+hississa_koko+materiaali.pdf
www.lukimat.fi/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 Office for Migration and Refugees (BAMF) lists materials for funded literacy andsecond 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.

Page 134 3 Literacy and second language learning for the linguistic integration of adult migrants

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 find 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 differenziate, 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.

Resources for teaching literacy and second language (selected languages) Page 135

Jiménez Pérez T. (1992), Alfabetizar. Plan de Formación Integral Ciudadana de Melilla, Ministerio de Educación yCiencia.
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 significativo,
Comissió de formació ACOF.

Page 136 3 Literacy and second language learning for the linguistic integration of adult migrants

Appendix 2
EXAMPLE OF A LASLLIAM SCENARIO
Theme-based scenarios focus on communicative situations that learners are facing in real life (see 5.4). Eachscenario provides a set of real-world situations, with activities presented in a strategic order to satisfy a specificand concrete need, for example to collect a parcel at the post office (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 effectivewith 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 profiles 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) inliteracy 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 different scenarios; orf as a sequence following the suggested order.

Layout of a LASLLIAM scenario
Title – Using postal services: collecting parcels, letters, other correspondence

Aims
f Introduce vocabulary and expressions relating to postal services.
f Inform learners about postal services.
f Enable learners to use postal services.

Communicative situations
f Recognise correspondence issued by a public service.
f Follow simple instruction.
f Interact in a public service.

Page 137

Materials
f Pictures of objects, places and internal signs related to postal services.
f Samples of correspondence (e.g. notice from the post office; information from a bank delivered by post;
letter from the school; printed advertisement).
f Leaflet informing of the postal services; website page.
f Collection 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’ profiles) as advantageous forthe 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 office?”).
f Share 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 office (e.g. “Parcels”; “Information”; “Registeredcorrespondence”; “Bank service”). Learners can:f write or copy (according to each learner’s profile) the key words and expressions on cards; read or recognise(according to each learner’s profile) the same signs in other photos;
f check their understanding by matching words with pictures and signs;
f give each other, orally, simple explanations about the services offered (e.g. “Send parcels here”);
f mediate explanations in different languages, giving value to the plurilingual repertoires of participants.

Activity 3
Use the samples of correspondences to:f identify senders by logos, colours and format, names, key words (according to each learner’s profile).

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.
f Check comprehension of the situation.
f Check comprehension of the dialogue (according to each learner’s profile).
f Act out a short dialogue following the model provided by the video/audio recording (according to eachlearner’s profile).

Activity 5
f Read the collection notice. Find out key information about the sending organisation (logo, name), what it isabout, where, when (according to each learner’s profile, from recognising words, to reading the message).
f Read the leaflet/web page (possible with a co-learner) to find out what documents you need to collect aparcel. Alternatively, learners and/or teacher give this information orally.

Page 138 3 Literacy and second language learning for the linguistic integration of adult migrants

Activity 6
f Outline 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 office).
4. Go to the post office.
5. (Find the right) office/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 office.
“Where is the parcel shelter?”).

Activity 8
f The last activity focuses on reflective learning and aims at enhancing learners’ self-assessment ability.
According to the LASLLIAM target learners this kind of activity needs strong support and guidance fromteachers who may use self-assessment tools, like Tool 25 from the Toolkit,171 or a self-assessment gridsuch as the one proposed in Appendix 3.
Tool 25 is divided into two parts: the first 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 Specific scale Goal-Oriented Co-operation (from the Oral Interaction scale) are relevant for thepresent scenario and for learners with different profiles.
3

Can interact in a familiar context by using short, simple sentences and phrases with frequent words.

2

Can 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 Specific scale Reading for
Orientation for levels 1 and 3.
3

Can find information about places, times and prices on posters, flyers and notices.

1

Can distinguish some relevant everyday logos, icons and text types from each other.

171. Council of Europe 2021c.

Example of a LASLLIAM scenario Page 139

Appendix 3
LASLLIAM CHECKLIST FOR SELF-ASSESSMENT
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 theteachers; 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 thecontextualised communication that has taken place in the learning environment, avoiding abstractness andmaking 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 ofstatements the checklists contain, the more effectively they can be used to support reflection 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 tolabel the columns where the learner has to put their tick.
According to the migrant’s profile 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 confirmed 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 thisreason, only smiley faces are provided. Even when “a lot of help” is needed to achieve a can-do, the aim is tosustain motivation by highlighting the powerful experience of success (see 3.6).
By marking the relevant column, the learner indicates that their teacher has confirmed the related can-do.
My teacher confirms 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. Suchsupport can include for example:
f oral explanation of the statements presented within the checklist;
f the addition of pictures in the lines, or icons or symbols to better explain the meaning of the can-dos for
self-assessment;
f the constant provision of proper feedback.

172. Council of Europe 2021c.

Page 141

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
LEVELWRITTEN PRODUCTION

4

I can write something simple about my new neighbour in apost 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 inan e-mail to other parents.

4

I can note down my daily assignments in the working
planner.

443

I can note down very simple memory aids like theconversation scaffold 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 andFound 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
1Page 142 3 Literacy and second language learning for the linguistic integration of adult migrants

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

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

RUSSIAN FEDERATION/FÉDÉRATION DE RUSSIE
Ves Mir
17b, Butlerova ul. - Office 338
RU-117342 MOSCOW
Tel.: + 7 495 739 0971
Fax: + 7 495 739 0971
E-mail: orders@vesmirbooks.ru
http://www.vesmirbooks.ru

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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-UNIThe Stationery Office 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

The reference guide contains: a definition of target users and learners; the rationale
related to the development of the descriptors; principles for teaching literacy andsecond 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.

EDUCATION FOR DEMOCRACY

www.coe.int/lang-cefr
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.

http://book.coe.int
978-92-871-9189-2€56/US$112

PREMS 008922

The guide also contains descriptors that build on the Common European Frameworkof Reference for Languages (CEFR) and the CEFR Companion volume up to the A1level for adult migrants, with special attention given to literacy learners.

LITERACY AND SECOND LANGUAGE LEARNING FOR THE LINGUISTIC INTEGRATION OF ADULT MIGRANTS (LASLLIAM)

This reference guide is meant for language educators, curriculum designers andlanguage policy makers in their endeavour to design, implement, evaluate andimprove curricula tailored toward the specific needs of non- and low-literate adultmigrants. This group of migrants faces the complex and demanding task of learninga language while either learning to read and write for the first time or developing
their literacy skills. They rarely receive adequate instruction in terms of hours oftuition and targeted teaching approaches, whereas they are very often requested
to take a compulsory written test.

LITERACY AND SECONDLANGUAGE LEARNINGFOR THE LINGUISTICINTEGRATIONOF ADULT MIGRANTS

ENG

Reference guide