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

LITERACY AND SECOND

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

The reference guide contains: a definition of target users and learners; the rationale
related to the development of the descriptors; principles for teaching literacy and
second languages; scales and tables of descriptors; aspects of curriculum design at
the macro, meso and micro levels and recommendations on assessment procedures
and tools within the learning environment.

The guide also contains descriptors that build on the Common European Framework
of Reference for Languages (CEFR) and the CEFR Companion volume up to the A1
level for adult migrants, with special attention given to literacy learners.

PREMS 008922
EDUCATION FOR DEMOCRACY

www.coe.int/lang-cefr
ENG
The Council of Europe is the continent’s leading
human rights organisation. It comprises 46 member
Reference guide
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
LITERACY AND SECOND
LANGUAGE LEARNING
FOR THE LINGUISTIC
INTEGRATION
OF ADULT MIGRANTS

Authoring group
Fernanda Minuz
Jeanne Kurvers
Karen Schramm
Lorenzo Rocca
Rola Naeb

Co-ordinator
Fernanda Minuz

Other contributors
Alexis Feldmeier García
Taina Tammelin-Laine

Council of Europe
 The opinions expressed in this work are
the responsibility of the author(s) and
do not necessarily reflect the official
policy of the Council of Europe.
The reproduction of extracts (up to
500 words) is authorised, except for
commercial purposes, as long as
the integrity of the text is preserved, the
excerpt is not used out of context, does
not provide incomplete information or
does not otherwise mislead the reader
as to the nature, scope or content of
the text. The source text must always be
acknowledged as follows: “© Council of
Europe, 2022”. All other requests concerning
the reproduction/translation of all or part
of the document should be addressed
to the Directorate of Communications,
Council of Europe (F-67075 Strasbourg
Cedex or [email protected]).
All other correspondence concerning this
document should be addressed to the
Education Department
Council of Europe
Agora Building
1, Quai Jacoutot
67075 Strasbourg Cedex
France
[email protected]
Cover design: Documents and Publications
Production Department (SPDP),
Council of Europe
Layout: Jouve, Paris
Cover photo: Shutterstock

Council of Europe Publishing

F-67075 Strasbourg Cedex
http://book.coe.int

ISBN 978-92-871- 9189-2

© Council of Europe, June 2022
Printed at the Council of Europe.
 CONTENTS
PREFACE WITH ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 7
FOREWORD 11
INTRODUCTION 13
LASLLIAM WITHIN THE COUNCIL OF EUROPE POLICIES 13
LASLLIAM GENERAL PURPOSE 14
CHAPTER 1 – THE LASLLIAM REFERENCE GUIDE: AIMS, USERS AND LEARNERS 17
1.1. LASLLIAM LINKS TO THE CEFR AND THE CEFR COMPANION VOLUME 17
1.2. THE USERS 18
1.3. AN ENCOMPASSING VIEW OF LITERACY 19
1.4. THE LEARNERS 20
1.4.1. LEARNERS’ LITERACY BACKGROUND 20

1.4.2. ORAL COMPETENCE AND PLURILINGUALISM 21

1.4.3. LEARNERS’ PROFILES 21

CHAPTER 2 – THE LASLLIAM REFERENCE GUIDE: SOURCES AND RATIONALE 23

2.1. RESEARCH ON 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 SKILLS 30

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 35

3.3.1. PARTICIPATING IN LITERACY EVENTS 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 LEVEL 91
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
GLOSSARY 131
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 FIGURES
FIGURES
FIGURE 1 – LASLLIAM AND CEFR COMPANION VOLUME LEVELS 18
FIGURE 2 – UNEVEN PROFILES ACCORDING TO LASLLIAM LEVELS AND COMMUNICATIVE LANGUAGE ACTIVITIES 22
FIGURE 3 – BACKWARD PLANNING OF TASKS AND EXERCISES TO PREPARE LEARNERS FOR THE LITERACY EVENT
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 PHASES 107
FIGURE 11 – LASLLIAM MILESTONES: FROM DESIGN TO LAUNCH 108

TABLES
TABLE 1 – LASLLIAM SCALES AND DESCRIPTORS 41
TABLE 2 – LASLLIAM DESCRIPTORS AND CEFR COMPANION VOLUME DESCRIPTORS 41
TABLE 3 – LASLLIAM DESCRIPTORS, FORMS OF ASSESSMENT AND ASSESSMENT TOOLS 105
TABLE 4 – AN OVERVIEW OF QUALITATIVE WORKSHOPS 109
TABLE 5 – LASLLIAM DESCRIPTORS INCLUDED IN THE QUALITATIVE WORKSHOPS 109
TABLE 6 – SUMMARY OF FEEDBACK FROM QUALITATIVE WORKSHOPS 110
TABLE 7 – SUMMARY OF REVISED/DELETED DESCRIPTORS DURING QUALITATIVE VALIDATION 112
TABLE 8 – LASLLIAM QUANTITATIVE VALIDATION TASKS (FIRST STEP) 113
TABLE 9 – LASLLIAM DESCRIPTORS INCLUDED IN THE QUANTITATIVE VALIDATION (FIRST STEP) 114
TABLE 10 – LASLLIAM DESCRIPTORS WITHIN THE SURVEY VERSIONS 115
TABLE 11 – LASLLIAM QUANTITATIVE VALIDATION TASKS (SECOND STEP) 116
TABLE 12 – DESIGN OF LASLLIAM QUANTITATIVE VALIDATION TASKS 116
TABLE 13 – NUMBER OF DESCRIPTORS IN THE FINAL VERSION OF LASLLIAM 118

Page 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 with
experts 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 by
a quantitative validation on descriptors and scaling took place, involving in total 831 participants, 31 languages
and 28 countries. Statistical analysis, conducted by CITO, contributed to the validation of the scales/descriptors
in their English version.
In the next step, the scales/descriptors were translated into six languages in order to enable piloting in various
European contexts and specific languages with the aim to document the practical use of LASLLIAM. Thanks to
the 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 their
learning environments and to collect feedback and evidence from teachers and volunteers, as well as from
learners. They also serve as examples to invite other stakeholders to produce additional tools.
The Council of Europe wishes to thank the following people and institutions for their various contributions to
the LASLLIAM project. Without their commitment and support, this reference guide would not have become
the important tool that it is now.

The LASLLIAM co-authors

Fernanda Minuz (co-ordinator), Johns Hopkins University – SAIS Europe Italy
Jeanne Kurvers, Tilburg University, The Netherlands
Karen Schramm, University of Vienna, Austria
Lorenzo Rocca, Società Dante Alighieri, Italy
Rola Naeb, Northumbria University Newcastle, United Kingdom

The two experts who contributed to the 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 and
suggestions in the two rounds of feedback provided within the consultation phase (October 2019; June 2020)
Bart Deygers, University of Gent, Belgium
Cecilie Hamnes-Carlsen, Western Norway University of Applied Sciences, Norway
David Little, Trinity College, Dublin, Republic of Ireland
Jean-Claude Beacco, Université de la Sorbonne nouvelle, Paris III, France
Kaatje Dalderop, Kaatje Dalderop Onderwijsadvies, The Netherlands

The co-ordinators of the workshops within the qualitative validation phase (October-December 2020)
Alessandro Borri, CPIA “Montagna”, Castel di Casio, Italy
Angelika Hrubesch, Die Wiener Volkshochschulen, Austria
Anna Mouti, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki and Christina Maligkoudi, Democritus University of Thrace, Greece
Belma Haznedar, Boğaziçi University, Turkey
Santi Guerrero Calle, Fribourg University, Switzerland
Cecilie Hamnes-Carlsen, Western Norway University of Applied Sciences, Norway
Despoina Syrri, Symβiosis-School of Political Studies, Greece
Domenico Buscaglia, CPIA Savona, Italy
Gareth Cooper, Eu-Speak, United Kingdom
Gianvito Ricci, Associazione Quasar, Italy
Kaatje Dalderop, Stichting Melkweg plus, The Netherlands
Kathelijne Jordens and Helga Gehre, Federatie Centra voor Basiseducatie, Belgium
Lorena Belotti, KCE - Kultura Centro Esperantista, Switzerland
Maria Elena Rotilio, CPIA Cesena-Forlì, Italy
Mariia Kozulina and Daria Chernova, St Petersburg University, Russia
Martha Young-Scholten, University of Newcastle, United Kingdom
Sabrina Machetti, Università per Stranieri di Siena, Italy
Sandra Monaco, CEDIS Roma, Italy
Simona Corazza, CPIA Macerata, Italy
Stefano Zollo, CPIA Pordenone, Italy

The colleague who contributed to the data analysis related to the qualitative validation phase (January 2021)
Martina Kienberger, Universidad de Granada, Spain

The co-ordinators of the workshops within the quantitative validation phase (October-December 2021)
Anna Mouti, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki and Christina Maligkoudi, Democritus University of Thrace, Greece
Claudia Belloni, Belfast Unemployed Resource Centre, Northern Ireland and Republic of Ireland
Ina Ferbezar, Univerza Ljubljani, Slovenia
John Sutter, Judith Kirsh and Karen Dudley, Learning Unlimited, London, United Kingdom

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 the
aforementioned workshops
They came from Albania, Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece,
Italy, Ireland, Japan, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Montenegro, Nepal, the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Romania,
Russia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey and the United Kingdom.

The colleagues from CITO for the contribution given to the data analysis related to the quantitative validation
phase (May-November 2021)
Sanneke Schouwstra and Remco Feskens, CITO, The Netherlands

The colleagues who translated the descriptors’ scales (December 2021)

Dutch: De Nederlandse Taalunie
French: Stella-Anne Achieng, Dana Nica and Sakina El Kattabi, Sciences Du Langage – Centre de Recherche sur
les Médiations, CREM – Ecole doctorale Humanités-Nouvelles, Fernand Braudel Université de Lorraine
German: Martina Franz dos Santos, Philipps-Universität Marburg
Greek: Anna Mouti, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki and Christina Maligkoudi, Democritus University of Thrace
Italian: Simona Sasso, CPIA Pescara
Spanish: Marcin Sosinski and Adolfo Sanchez Cuadrado, University of Granada and Maria del Carmen Fonseca
Mora, University of Huelva
Turkish: Belma Haznedar, Boğaziçi University

The colleagues and the institutions involved in the piloting phase (February-May 2022)
Piloting from ALTE-LAMI special interest group
Anna Mouti, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Greece
Beate Zeidler, TELC, Germany
Carmen Peresich, ÖSD – Österreichisches Sprachdiplom Deutsch, Austria
Giorgio Silfer and Lorena Belotti, KCE – Kultura Centro Esperantista, Switzerland
Ina Ferbezar, Univerza Ljubljani, Slovenia
Joe Sheils, ALTE individual Expert Member, Republic of Ireland
José Pascoal, University of Macau, Portugal
Katerina Vodickova, Charles University, Czech Republic
Mohammad Al Qara, Worldwide Bildungswerk, Germany
Sabrina Machetti and Paola Masillo, Università per Stranieri di Siena, Italy
Stefanie Dengler, Goethe Institut, Germany

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 emphasis
on migrant language teaching and learning was introduced by the Committee of Ministers as early as 1968,1 and
further strengthened by the establishment of the Linguistic Integration of Adult Migrants (LIAM) project in 2006.
Language skills foster, among other things, social inclusion, access to education and employment. Within this
context, non-literate or low-literate migrants have 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 initially
have learned the rudiments.
When it comes to language or knowledge of a society’s courses, such needs are rarely taken into consideration,
and this group of migrants is rarely provided with a sufficient number of hours of instruction to reach the
language level required.2
That is why in 2018 the Council of Europe invited a group of experts to develop a European reference guide on
literacy and second language learning for the linguistic integration of adult migrants (LASLLIAM), built on the
Common European Framework of Reference for Languages (CEFR) and the Companion volume.
This reference guide aims at supporting language educators, curriculum designers and language policy makers
in their endeavour to design, implement, evaluate and improve curricula.
We trust it will increase the chances of non-literate or low-literate migrants 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. Council of Europe – Committee of Ministers 1968.

2. Rocca et al. 2020

Page 11
 INTRODUCTION

LASLLIAM WITHIN THE COUNCIL OF EUROPE POLICIES

The Council of Europe’s mission is to promote human rights, democracy and the rule of law which underpin its
policy together with an enduring concern for social inclusion, social cohesion and respect for diversity. In this
spirit, the Council of Europe’s actions in the area of language policy have aimed at mutual understanding and
supporting communication through dialogue. In order to achieve these goals, the key function of language
policies has been highlighted by two guiding principles: respecting linguistic diversity and giving value to
individuals’ language repertoires.3
The consideration of such aspects has led not only to the recommendations adopted by the Committee of
Ministers and Parliamentary Assembly, but above all to the provision of reference resources for member states.
Guides, materials and tools are all based on the acknowledgement of linguistic plurality and cultural diversity,
concentrating on the development of and conditions for implementing plurilingual and intercultural education.
This education is oriented to enlarge individuals’ linguistic repertoires according to their needs, expectations
and interests, aiming to sustain both the belonging of a person to their multilingual surrounding environment,
and the linguistic tolerance of the whole society, thus preventing specific repertoires from becoming a sign of
marginality.
Within this frame, learning languages is considered a value in itself; and appropriate teaching is a means to
strengthen and ensure language rights and that equal access to high-quality education4 is ensured not only to
the autochthonous population, but also to migrants. Therefore, the Council of Europe has urged member states
to provide adequate language programmes.
The Committee of Ministers notes the importance of basing integration policies on the Council of Europe’s
fundamental values and, in particular, allowing migrants to develop their potential and participate actively in
the life of the host country. The provision of language courses for migrants together with appropriate evaluation
processes form part of this because, as the Assembly stresses, knowledge of a receiving society’s language(s)
facilitates successful integration. However, it is important that the language courses on offer should take account
of each migrant’s specific resources and needs and enable them to acquire, in particular, language skills relevant
to their work.5
From this perspective, the Council of Europe was a pioneer in addressing migration issues with Resolution
(68) 18 on the teaching of languages to migrant workers.6 Since then, and to a growing extent in the recent
past, the management of migration flows and challenges, including linguistic challenges connected to the
integration of newcomers into European countries, has been debated in an increasing number of member
states. In consequence, the Council of Europe provided a structured commitment, on a larger scale and with a
long-term time horizon, with the launch in 2006 of the Linguistic Integration of Adult Migrants (LIAM) project.
LIAM aims to support policy makers and professionals in terms of both practical resources and an ethical frame
based on Council of Europe shared values. Accordingly, LIAM has increasingly focused on vulnerable groups of
adult migrants,7 addressing, for instance, the linguistic support of asylum seekers and refugees with the Toolkit.8
In addition, LIAM has highlighted the need for tailor-made courses specifically targeted to migrants who are
facing 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. Council of Europe – LIAM 2020b.

4. Council of Europe 1954.
5. Council of Europe – Committee of Ministers 2014.
6. Council of Europe – Committee of Ministers 1968.
7. Council of Europe 2020b.
8. Council of Europe – LIAM 2020k.
9. Council of Europe – LIAM 2020l.
10. UNESCO Institute for Statistics 2015.
11. Council of Europe 2015.

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 Council
of 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; and
f 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 to
non- 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 the
so-called functionally non-literate, according to the UNESCO definition;15 from non-literates with minimal
ability to act in a second language, to low-literate adults with some ability to deal with speaking and listening
in their second language. European societies need to take notice of these different profiles of social agents, and
also the resources allocated for learning and teaching. An important shift has to be taken into account: from
the generic, literate language user to the non-literate and low-literate migrant user to whom the authoring
group of this work gives centrality.
In 2016, a group of experts proposed to the Council of Europe that they address the issues implied in this shift
by developing a European reference guide for second language (as target language) and literacy learning of
non-literate and low-literate adult migrants. In 2018, the Council of Europe accepted that this proposal was
consistent with its policies and adopted it as a project. According to the target learners (see 1.4), the acronym
LASLLIAM was chosen as a title: it stands for literacy and second language learning for the linguistic integration
of adult migrants, in order to immediately convey both its full embedding within LIAM and its focus on literacy
within second language learning environments.
Despite this focus on second language, this reference guide highlights the value of establishing literacy courses in
migrants’ 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 the
use 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 and
evaluate 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 the
effective 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–Association
of Language Testers in Europe (ALTE) survey on language and knowledge of society (KoS) policies for migrants21:
less than one third of member states provide courses addressing literacy issues. Moreover, the survey highlights
the severe consequences of this insufficient educational provision for non- and low-literate adults. This vulnerable

12. UNESCO Institute for Statistics 2015.

13. Council of Europe – LIAM 2020a; Council of Europe – LIAM 2020m.
14. Council of Europe 2014.
15. UNESCO 2017a.
16. ELINET 2016; Rinta 2005.
17. Benson 2004.
18. Minuz and Kurvers 2021.
19. Feldmeier 2005, 2009a.
20. www.coe.int/en/web/lang-migrants/home.
21. Rocca et al. 2020.

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 teaching
approaches, while very often they are required to pass a compulsory written test.
In strong opposition to such unfair and unjust imposition of language and KoS requirements,22 it is important to
stress that this reference guide is not designed as a tool for developing high-stake exams (see 6.1.4). The abuse
of a curricular instrument like LASLLIAM for the purpose of testing as a means of control of legal immigration
to non- and low-literate persons would ignore the fact that these persons were being wrongfully denied their
human right to education.23
LASLLIAM intends to deal with these critical issues, as it represents an answer given by the Council of Europe to
the need for tools for inclusive and tailored learning. Its aims also align with Goal 4 of the UN 2030 Agenda for
Sustainable 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-literate
migrants, 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 the
possible fragmentation of a learning process that might occur across various countries, according to the mobility
of migrants (see 6.3).
The reference guide presents:
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 the
learning 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 REFERENCE
GUIDE: AIMS, USERS AND LEARNERS

This chapter starts with an explanation about why a European literacy and second language reference guide
is needed to build on the CEFR Companion volume. It points out consistencies and differences between the
LASLLIAM reference guide and the CEFR Companion volume, and defines the aims and users for whom LASLLIAM is
intended. It lays out the visions of literacy and literacy learning to which LASLLIAM refers and outlines prototypical
characteristics of literacy and second language learners.

1.1. LASLLIAM LINKS TO THE CEFR AND THE CEFR COMPANION VOLUME
The LASLLIAM descriptors build on the CEFR25 and the CEFR Companion volume26 below and up to the A1 level
for adult migrants, with special attention to literacy learners (non- and low-literate adults, very often called
LESLLA learners).27
The CEFR was launched in 2001 with the aim of facilitating co-operation between European countries in the
field 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 for
language 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 and
pluricultural 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 and
practitioners pointed out that more consideration should be given, in the illustrative scales, to domains of great
importance in the lives of adult immigrants, such as the administrative and the occupational domains. In the
latter domain, communication needs for low-qualified jobs, which are the main employment opportunity for
many non- and low-literate migrants, are particularly neglected. Attention should also be paid to implicit social
assumptions that underlie some descriptors, in particular those that take for granted the understanding of social
behaviours and situations that are culturally connoted as European, or levels of social equality in communication,
while communication between migrants and natives all too often is asymmetrical. The specific difficulties and
training needs of learners who speak languages which are typologically distant from European languages should
be carefully considered.28 Finally, the needs of non- and low-literate learners should be addressed, as highlighted
in 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 information
in writing (e.g. name, address, nationality), perhaps with the use of a dictionary” (Council of Europe 2020a: 66),
a task which adult literacy learners can undertake after lengthy training, from the 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 not
able to use literacy in many simple everyday tasks, as explained in 1.2 and 1.4. This target group is sometimes referred to as “LESLLA
learners”, from the English acronym for the international association Literacy Education and Second Language Learning for Adults.
28. Beacco et al. 2014a, 2014b; Krumm 2007; Kuhn 2015; Van Avermaet and Rocca 2013; Vedovelli 2002; for an overview, see Minuz and
Kurvers 2021.
29. www.coe.int/en/web/language-policy/adult-migrants.

Page 17
In many countries, it was considered necessary to complement the framework with descriptors below A1 for
migrants with no or hardly any previous schooling, as well as for migrants with poor formal education and very
basic literacy skills. In several European countries, this resulted in national and local second language literacy
frameworks for adult learners. These frameworks 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); the
Italian 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 USERS

LASLLIAM refers explicitly to the CEFR Companion volume and provides guidance on how to tackle the
educational needs of migrants as literacy and second language learners, which the CEFR Companion volume
does not explicitly address. Like the CEFR Companion volume, it provides illustrative descriptor scales for
reception, production and interaction for oral and written second language learning, in relation to both
communicative language activities and language use strategies.33 The LASLLIAM reference guide organises
the descriptors into four-level scales (see Chapter 4) ranging from the 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-A1

LASLLIAM 2

LASLLIAM 1

CEFR and CEFR

LASLLIAM Companion
volume

Unlike the CEFR Companion volume, the LASLLIAM reference guide also provides illustrative descriptor scales for
the acquisition of written code (technical literacy). Moreover, the descriptors do not define levels of competence
that could be independent of educational pathways, but they help in setting learning/teaching objectives in
second language courses for literacy learners. Migrants often face situations that go far beyond their current
communicative language competences, for example at the workplace or in public 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 these
days to engage in society and is also an important part of literacy, LASLLIAM also provides scales describing
progression in digital skills (see 2.2.5, 4.3).

30. Beacco et al. 2005; Bundesamt für Migration und Flüchtlinge 2015, 2018; Cito 2008; Feldmeier 2009b; Finnish National Agency 2017;
Finnish National Board 2012; Fritz et al. 2006; Markov et al. 2015; Stockmann 2004.
31. Borri et al. 2014a, 2014b.
32. Beacco et al. 2005.
33. Note that LASLLIAM does not provide scales for mediation. This decision is based on the fact that mediation as outlined in the CEFR
Companion volume has hardly been researched in the 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 Chapter
5) and assessment tools (see Chapter 6), as well as teachers in the service of literacy and second language learners
(see Chapter 3). It helps users by 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 to
accomplish these tasks.
LASLLIAM is neither a curriculum nor a syllabus, but a reference guide from which to draw in relation to the specific
learners, educational aims, teaching objectives and concrete conditions, such as the duration of the educational
programmes. Similar to the CEFR Companion volume descriptors, the LASLLIAM descriptors are illustrative,
non-mandatory examples that provide illustrations of competence in the different areas. The descriptors present
an abstraction from the concrete language-specific curricular models that have been developed by literacy and
second language experts for some European languages.
LASLLIAM adopts the action-oriented approach of the CEFR Companion volume, which views language
learners and users primarily as social agents who accomplish tasks (not exclusively language-related) in
specific situations. It views competences as “the sum of knowledge, skills and characteristics that allow a
person to perform actions” (Council of Europe 2001: 9) activating multiple (e.g. cognitive, learning, personal
and social) resources and strategies to do so.34 According to this view, language learning and teaching
should enable learners to act in real-life situations. The consistency of LASLLIAM with the CEFR Companion
volume is 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 a
basis for a common understanding of teaching objectives and assessment criteria across Europe, enhancing
transparency of courses and syllabi, and stimulating international co-operation in the field of literacy and
second language teaching and learning (see Introduction). Thus, LASLLIAM contributes to socially inclusive
high-quality education of migrants.

1.3. AN ENCOMPASSING VIEW OF LITERACY

The words “literacy” and “literacy acquisition” encompass 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 first
steps of literacy acquisition in a second language in the full awareness that it is a process that goes well beyond
the levels portrayed in this reference guide and can be lifelong and lifewide learning, that is, throughout life and
concerning multiple and diverse domains.36
This encompassing perspective draws on contributions that different disciplines (sociology, economics,
anthropology, linguistics, psychology, neurosciences, pedagogy and philosophy) have made to the conceptualisation
of literacy, and in particular on two main research perspectives, sometimes presented as opposing approaches,
which have shaped the teaching of literacy to adults.
The 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 type
and modality, and on the cognitive changes that literacy prompts at individual and societal levels.37
The second approach focuses on literacy as situated social practices, which may 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 literate
social events. From this viewpoint, attention needs to be paid to the socially unbalanced power relations in
society and particularly to the institutions which define the dominant, “legitimate” literacy practices, as well as

34. Council of Europe 2001.

35. The definition is modelled on UNESCO 2017b.
36. Desjardins 2003.
37. 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 descriptors
of LASLLIAM. Alongside an increasing mastery of spoken language, LASLLIAM considers literacy as the
ability to use an increasing variety of written texts when participating in social and cultural life. It therefore
conceptualises literacy as a component of communicative language competence, as promoted by the CEFR
Companion volume, and learning to read and write as an enrichment of the resources on which learners can
rely in their agency.
Digital competence and digital literacy currently form an integral part of literacy practices, life skills and social
inclusion, as highlighted by Council of Europe policies and its Digital Citizenship Education programme.39
Therefore, this reference guide includes communicative activities based on information and communication
technologies in the 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 LEARNERS

LASLLIAM has been developed to support non- and low-literate second language and/or second-script learners
(learners who are literate in a writing system different from that of the target language). These learners form
a 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, physical
impairments, 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 are
of utmost relevance.

1.4.1. Learners’ literacy background

Adult literacy learners enter their second language classes with varying degrees of school experience and
literacy skills in their 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 grasping
some of the social uses of written texts in the new country. Again, others have had some years of elementary
schooling, but hardly any possibilities of using literacy in their everyday contexts and have (partially) lost their
literacy skills. Some learners may recognise a number of written sight words (learned by heart and recognised
globally), but cannot read new words; some can read, but not write; some have low literacy skills; some may
rely on non-linguistic signs to draw meanings from multimodal texts. They may be familiar with different types
of 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 form
a dichotomic opposition within the communicative practices of communities (see 1.3), they represent the poles
of a wide continuum of individual skills and knowledge.

38. Barton 1994; Cope and Kalantzis 2000; Freire 1970/2018; Gee 1990; Street 1981. For overviews, see Minuz and Kurvers 2021; Neokleous
et al. 2020; Olson and Torrance 2009; Reder and Davila 2005; UNESCO 2005, 2017.
39. Council of Europe 2020c.
40. Altherr Flores 2017; Kern and Schultz 2005.

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 for
these 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 their
first 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 first
contacts with the written language and the written and oral language of the country of residence. However,
depending on the age of entrance and the length of stay in the country of residence and other life circumstances,
some adults have already built degrees of oral competence in the target language that correspond to level
A1 of the CEFR Companion volume and beyond. Some might have acquired oral language only in the natural
environment through interactions in the target language while others have attended language courses for a
short period.
Many adult literacy and second language learners are plurilingual because they come from multilingual countries
and have been using their 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, with
the 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 and
second language learners in the best way, their individual proficiency profiles need to be taken into careful
consideration. For example, a refugee from Afghanistan who has recently arrived in Italy might have low
levels of oral competence in the target language and no or hardly any literacy skills in any language. The
refugee might be able to communicate orally in limited, familiar situations by relying on a number of words
and memorised expressions in the target language and a basic competence in English which they can resort
to when the situation allows for it. Their language-educational needs differ from those of migrants who have
lived in the resident country for a longer time and have already developed (various) oral language profiles at
higher levels and limited repertoire of written sight words in the target language, although they might have
never learned to read and write in any language.
It is therefore essential when designing a curriculum for literacy and second language learners – from the macro
level of national curricula to the micro level of lesson planning – to acknowledge the heterogeneity of learner
profiles 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 to
utilise learners’ capabilities, not by focusing on what they lack, but by building instruction on the knowledge and
skills they already possess and by emphasising the plurality of language and literacy experiences. To this end,
an accurate needs analysis is necessary, which should aim at 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 Written Oral Written Oral Written

Reception Reception Reception Reception Reception Reception

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, this
does not imply that there are no interrelations between the scales at all. The Technical Literacy scales and the
scales of the written language activities (reading, writing and interacting) are intertwined, although not necessarily
on a 1:1 basis. Some learners can acquire some technical skills (e.g. to write familiar and orthographically simple
words) without being able to use the skills to accomplish simple tasks in real life autonomously, either because
real-life tasks usually do not map to a single level and can only partly be accomplished, or simply because the
learner has not been supported to see the connection between the technical skill and the (unfamiliar) social
practice. For learners who are beginners in both literacy and second language, the development of listening
skills and vocabulary, for example, is relevant for technical literacy and vice versa. For this group of learners, the
descriptors in the Technical Literacy scale and in the Listening scale are dependent on each other, although
again not on a 1:1 basis (see 2.1). Uneven 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, and
written competences corresponding to LASLLIAM levels 1 or 2.
In conclusion, although all adult migrants entering a literacy and second language learning environment bring
limited formal learning experiences with them and have to learn the alphabetic script of the language, they
differ 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 REFERENCE
GUIDE: SOURCES AND RATIONALE

This chapter presents an overview of the main available cognitive and linguistic studies on non-literate adults
beginning to read and learn a second language. These studies have guided the development of the 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 and
on 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, approach
and 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-based
skills that are usually presupposed in second language teaching for literate learners cannot be expected from
them. In this section, we focus on those aspects, to clarify the need for a specific reference guide for this group
both for learning the written code and for learning to use oral and written second language in communicative
activities and daily tasks. Literate language learners are dealing with verbal and visual information in a highly
“schoolish” and decontextualised/abstract way. Teachers should realise that their own implicit knowledge and
use of language is not natural, as they sometimes might think, but highly 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 with
the commonly used literacy-based exercises and standard tests.44 There is convincing evidence for the impact
of previous literacy on learning a second language. Warren and Young (2012: 3) conclude from their synthesis
of 21 studies in this 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 for
true 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 the
impact of literacy as such from the more general impact of school-based learning.

Page 23
2.1.1. Metalinguistic awareness
Non-literate individuals do know that meaning is represented in varying ways in different languages and that
a poem or a song is a different text type than a news item on the radio. They are, however, not aware of the
linguistic make-up of a language: they do not know that spoken words consist of 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 and
sentences (morphological and grammatical awareness). Awareness of syllables and rhyme is less influenced by
reading 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, they
often cannot isolate single sounds from a spoken word or count the number of words in a spoken sentence. They
do recognise written language as distinct from pictures, but they do not know how writing represents language.
This metalinguistic knowledge mainly comes with literacy. Learning to read and write implies becoming aware
of linguistic features that are represented in the writing system.47
Although non-literate people can and often do have oral abilities in more than one language, not being literate
also impacts the acquisition of oral skills in a second language: those who are non-literate, for example, have
difficulties with repeating a recast or spoken utterance simply because they are focusing on the content more
than on the precise wording. They might also miss subtle deictic references to persons, time and place in
connected discourse.48

2.1.2. Processing of (linguistic) information

People who are non-literate not only differ from their literate peers in the metalinguistic knowledge acquired by
learning to read and write, but also in the unconscious processing of language. Non-literate adults, for example,
process semantic information similarly, but they 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-term
working memory, a crucial tool for vocabulary acquisition and language processing, is less developed in those
who are non-literate than in readers.50 The reason is that knowledge of orthography introduces in the brain a
new strategy to process information. A reader has two options available for processing language: the semantic
route if a word is already in their lexicon, or a purely sound-based phonological route. Non-literate people do
not have the latter option to the same extent as those who are literate.
While non-literate adults do recognise photos and pictures like all learners do, it is more difficult for them to
process, 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 and
schooling in other ways. When non-literate adults, for example, are asked to answer text-related questions,
they often use their own knowledge instead of the given information in the text. When they are asked to
perform simple, but abstract cognitive tasks like classifying or sorting objects, they often base their judgments
and reasoning on their own experiences and world knowledge. If, for example, they are asked to take the
odd one out of a display of hammer, saw, nail and pincers, they would keep the nail in, because that is what
you use the hammer and pincers for.52 This reveals the importance of situated cognition in the processing of
information by non-literate second language learners. Situated cognition highlights the importance of lived
experiences (embodied) and interaction with the concrete and daily context (embedded) in the development
of cognitive representations.53

46. Castro-Caldas and Reis 2003; Homer 2009; Kurvers and Uri 2006; Kurvers et al. 2006, 2007, 2015; Morais et al. 1979; Rachmandra and
Karanth 2007; Reis et al. 1997, 2007; Scholes 1993.
47. Olson 1994.
48. Tarone and Bigelow 2005, 2009; Strube 2014; Whiteside 2008.
49. For an overview see Huettig 2015; Kurvers et al. 2015.
50. Da Silva et al. 2012; Kosmidis et al. 2011; Ostrosky‐Solís and Lozano 2006; Ostrosky‐Solís et al. 1998.
51. Ardila et al. 2010; Huettig et al. 2011; Kosmidis et al. 2004.
52. Counihan 2008; Kurvers 2002; Luria 1976; Scribner and Cole 1981.
53. Kirshner and Whitson 1997; Reder and Davila 2005; Robbins and Aydede 2009.

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 information-
processing skills in a familiar language about familiar topics, and gradually enter the field of knowledge of
language features and of abstract information characteristic of school-based learning.

2.1.4. Oracy and literacy

Oral competence in a language is a key variable in literacy acquisition, for two different reasons. Learning an
alphabetical code critically depends on oral language because in an alphabetical writing system the units of
writing (letters or graphemes) represent the units of the spoken words (sounds or phonemes).
Decoding print gives access to the spoken representation of a word that gives rise to its meaning. Sounding out or
copying words without understanding their meaning clearly does not contribute to literacy development.54 Research
has also clearly pointed out the role of language competence in the development of reading comprehension.
Next to decoding 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 a
language already well known to the learners. If this is not possible or preferred, grounding literacy and second
language learning in the familiar linguistic repertoires of learners and using a well-known language as an additional
language in the classroom to explain, clarify, mediate or exemplify has proven to be a very successful option.56
Above all, the aforementioned studies clearly point to the integrative approach already outlined in Chapter 1.
Learning a writing system while learning a new language, and learning to use the oral and written language
in relevant communicative activities in daily life all need to be addressed while planning syllabi and courses in
literacy and second language. Several classroom studies convincingly confirm these research findings: more
progress in literacy and second language acquisition is found when teachers systematically pay attention to
the written code and use varied practices in doing so, when they use a language of the learner’s repertoire as
an additional language, and when they consistently build their teaching on the familiar everyday lives of their
students, gradually moving to more abstract school-based types of learning.57

2.2. DEVELOPMENT OF THE SCALES

As pointed out before, descriptors for communicative language activities for reception, production and interaction
in this reference guide are built on the CEFR Companion volume, but the Technical Literacy scales are a new
type. Therefore, the next section describes the guiding principles behind technical literacy that are implied in the
levels for communicative activities with written language as well. After that, the guiding principles behind the
communicative language activities, language use strategies and digital skills will be explained (see 2.2.2-2.2.5).

2.2.1. Technical literacy: learning the written code

Learning to read and write in the technical sense means learning how language is represented in the writing
system.58 Roughly speaking, three main writing systems can be found worldwide.
f In the logographic (or morpho-syllabic) writing systems, one unit in writing represents one morpheme in
spoken language (e.g. basic Chinese characters).

54. Chall 1999; Gonzalves 2020; Verhoeven and Perfetti 2017.

55. Condelli 2004; Condelli and Spruck Wrigley 2006; Kurvers and Stockmann 2009; Perfetti et al. 2002.
56. Condelli and Spruck-Wrigley 2006; Kurvers and Stockmann 2009; Warren and Young 2012.
57. Bigelow 2006; Condelli and Spruck-Wrigley 2006; Kurvers et al. 2010; Ramírez-Esparza et al. 2012; Warren and Young 2012.
58. The term writing system refers to the basic principle of mapping spoken to written units; orthography refers to language-specific
mappings; 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. Japanese
kana, or the Vai script from Liberia). Some scripts, like the alpha-syllabic Ge’ez script that is used for Amharic
or Tigrinya, combine basic syllable signs with additional signs for single phonemes.
f In alphabetic writing systems, one written sign represents one sound (phoneme) in spoken language.
There are two 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 in
recognising 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 with
recognising and memorising sight words by looking at salient visual or contextual cues, followed by learning the
1:1 correspondence between the letters and the sounds they represent so that decoding words becomes possible.
At the next stage, this basic decoding is extended to more complex words, and to consolidation and 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 on
a holistic approach anymore, but on automatisation of the slow analytic word recognition.
Beginning writing mirrors beginning reading, moving from drawing of letter-like forms and copying words
through encoding based on salient sounds and slow phonemic sound-by-sound encoding to fluent writing of
familiar words and short and simple sentences.60 Adult second language literacy learners need more time to
practise in order to pass these stages.61 In general, more transparent orthographies like Finnish or Italian are
learned faster than more opaque ones, like English or Danish.62
It should be noted, however, that much more has to be learned by adult 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 language
with often a quite different phonological make-up and inventory of phonemes, of which the inventory of
vowels is remarkably high in several European languages. Compare, for example, the number of vowel sounds
in English, Dutch or Norwegian (more than 15) with the 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 carriers
of meaning as is characteristic for root languages.
Low-educated second-script learners (who already can read and write in another writing system or script)
know that writing represents language, have already developed metalinguistic and motor skills, and know
about different text types, school-based task requirements and reading strategies. Many of these skills can be
transferred to the new language. They mainly have to learn the new type of phoneme-to-grapheme mapping in
the European alphabetic script, the new symbols and of course the new language with a different inventory of
sounds. Research shows many second-script learners need fewer hours than non-literate learners to go through
the 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 that
are piloted and validated.64 All frameworks start code-learning with some basic and personally relevant sight

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

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-specific
features, like transparency of the orthography, or the role and salience of the syllable or morpheme in spelling.
Based on these resources, LASLLIAM distinguishes the following four levels of Technical Literacy.

Level 1: Discovering literacy, getting acquainted with written language

This level is about building experience with features of writing and functional uses of literacy in different contexts.
Reading at this level means recognising words memorised as a whole, based on salient visual features; in some
languages it also includes recognising and beginning to blend two syllables of frequent and practised words.
Writing means drawing or copying from an example, without understanding the basics of an alphabetical script.
Towards the end of this level, the learner can recognise relevant and practised sight words (such as own name
and address, days of the week and months of the year), can recognise most of the letters of the alphabet and
personally relevant symbols or signs like the logo of the school or metro. The learner can write their own name
and copy words from an example.

Level 2: Basic decoding and encoding

This level is about learning the alphabetical principle, about learning to relate graphemes to phonemes in short
words with a simple phonological structure, that is, a 1:1 correspondence between grapheme and phoneme. This
is partly language dependent, but for most European languages this means words composed of a consonant (c),
a vowel (v) and another consonant (i.e. c-v-c words like “car”, “hot” or “wet”). For other languages this means cv+cv
words: “casa” (Italian, Spanish and Portuguese) or “casâ” (Romanian). Such elementary reading is qualitatively
different from level 1 because the learner is starting to crack the code and to sound out words. Although this
turns 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 this
level, the learner can independently read short and phonologically simple words (by analysing and synthesising).
In some languages with a transparent orthography and simple morphology, the learner can also start reading
independently, but slowly, short phrases that are based on the same criteria. The learner can also write short
practised words with 1:1 correspondence between sound and letter and can write practised sight words.

Level 3: Extended decoding and encoding

Level 3 builds on level 2, but now decoding and encoding are extended to words with a more complex relation
between grapheme and phoneme and phonologically more complex words (such as consonant clusters, or
multisyllabic words). At the end of this stage, the learner can read level 2 words at a rather fast speed and can
read – independently, but slowly – practised words with more complex phonological structures (like consonant
clusters, highly frequent spelling patterns and longer words with regular spelling). The learner can independently
read short and simple sentences and short texts consisting of these types of words, and can write practised
words with more complex phonological structures like frequently used consonant clusters and more complex,
but highly frequent spelling patterns.

Level 4: Towards consolidation and fluency

Level 4 is defined in terms of consolidation and reaching fluency in reading words, phrases, sentences and
short texts about familiar and relevant topics at A1 level according to the CEFR Companion volume. At the end
of LASLLIAM level 4, the reader can independently read the level 3 words more fluently, while still struggling
sometimes with less familiar and irregularly spelled or long words. The learner will now be able to focus more
on comprehending text information in combination with their previous knowledge. The learner can write the
same words as in level 3, but faster and more 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-life
situations is central to the concept of language learning in this reference guide. This implies teaching procedures
that are based on learners’ real-life communicative needs. 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 with
these tasks and materials will partly depend on what they can read and write independently: from memorised
immediately relevant sight words (like own name and address or the names of the days) to independent reading of
a simple text in a familiar language. Therefore, the cognitive activity involved and the linguistic and orthographic
complexity of the material are key concepts in distinguishing the levels. But the 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 in
carrying 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 and
participation in real-life literacy events: from observing and guided participation in literacy events and getting
acquainted with some personally relevant text types, to extending experience with the epistemological function
of literacy and managing text types like lists and labels, to more experience with the communicative functions
of literacy in understanding and producing messages and short memos or notes, to enjoying and learning from
texts in managing simple/level-adapted short stories and informative texts. Note that it is relevant for all levels
that the topics the learners are expected to read or write about and the words they have to read (independently)
should be familiar.

2.2.3. Communicative language activities in listening and speaking

The four levels for oral communicative language activities are grounded on the consideration that adult migrants
are confronted with situations and tasks in which there is a broad gap between their acquired competence and
intended communicative objectives. In performing these tasks, they rely on a plurality of resources and strategies:
general competences, already acquired knowledge of the second language, communicative competence in the
first or other languages from their repertoires, gestures and body language, mediators and (digital) translators as
well as other language use strategies. The LASLLIAM descriptors are graded along a progression that considers
communicative goals of the individual, complexity of tasks and situations (including interlocutors and settings)
alongside linguistic complexity.
As in the CEFR Companion volume, interaction is given a central place in the organisation of the communicative
language activities, stressing its fundamental relevance in language learning. In interaction, it is possible to
negotiate the complexity of the input; collaborative second language speakers can simplify it to facilitate
communication through 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 with
second language speakers, learners can make extensive use of the context to understand, be understood and
to compensate for insufficient morphological and syntactical structures through pragmatic means. They can
also engage the interaction partner in securing comprehension and production.
In outlining a non-language-specific progression of the language competences which are involved at each
level and to allow for realising the speakers’ communicative goals, the authoring group referred to the results
of different studies in the field of second language acquisition.66 These studies identified different stages in
acquiring 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 and
syntactic elaboration to further stages characterised by a richer morphology, and a more complex syntax
and lexicon.67
The main criterial features of stages described in the above-mentioned literature in terms of cognitive activity
involved and linguistic complexity are used to 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 later
levels of the CEFR Companion volume. The scale for Oral Production models basic competences that are
to be developed to progress to a full-fledged sustained monologue, as described in the later levels of the
CEFR Companion volume.

2.2.4. Language use strategies

As in the CEFR Companion volume, the LASLLIAM reference guide includes scales for Language Use Strategies.
According to the CEFR (Council of Europe 2001: 57),
strategies are a means the language user exploits to mobilise and balance his or her resources, to activate skills and
procedures, in order to fulfil the demands of communication in context and successfully complete the task in question
in the most comprehensive or most economical way feasible depending on his or her precise purpose.
The CEFR emphasises that these strategies should be conceptualised “as a way of making up for a language
deficit or a miscommunication” (ibid.), as well as the application of metacognitive principles also used by
native speakers.
LASLLIAM describes reception, production, and interaction strategies. For each of these three language activities, it
provides descriptor scales for planning strategies, compensation strategies, and monitoring and repair strategies.
This approach 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; and
f 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 of
teaching a wide range of language use strategies to empower learners. It is important to point out that we
consider the teaching of language learning strategies just as essential for learners with little experience in
formal learning. However, as researchers have not attempted to scale language learning strategies in general
yet, this reference guide lists examples of language learning strategies which are specific to non- and low-literate
learners in Chapter 3.
The scaling of language use strategies in the CEFR Companion volume has been discussed critically, and important
counter-arguments have been formulated.68 They focus on the weak theoretical foundation both for strategy
progression lines and in the assumed interactions between language use strategies, communicative competences
and individual factors. In the face of the tiny body of empirical research on the language use strategies of literacy
and second language learners, these arguments have to be taken even more seriously for the scaling of language
use strategies in the LASLLIAM reference guide. In order to encourage the teaching of these strategies and their
respective language activities in an integrated way, and in line with the CEFR Companion volume, the language
use strategies taught in literacy and second language classes have been conceptually scaled in terms of their
complexity. In addition, experienced literacy and second language teachers have validated them in terms of
how demanding they are. However, empirical validation in terms of actual strategy use by learners is clearly an
important requirement for future literacy and second language research.
Although empirical second language use strategy research with low-literate adult migrants is still in its very early
stages,69 LASLLIAM provides a first tentative attempt at scaling (meta-) cognitive language use strategies. Note
that affective and socio-interactive strategies have neither been broken down into planning, compensation, and
monitoring and repair, nor have they been scaled because there is no reason to assume the varying degrees of
complexity of the strategy are not based on linguistic aspects.

68. Wisniewksi 2019.

69. Feldmeier 2011; Markov et al. 2015.

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 the
European 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 later
to 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 high
levels of literacy (filtering data/information is complex even for literate users) or digital skills (to identify and
solve technical problems). Therefore, these two competence areas were not included in LASLLIAM. However,
some of the skills under these areas were integrated into the Digital Skills scales (see Chapter 4). Therefore, the
three areas relevant to LASLLIAM are communication and collaboration, digital content creation and safety.
These areas were adopted and formed the basis of the three Digital Skills scales. Examining the descriptors in
the three areas closely, it is obvious that – even at the 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 the
Communicative Language Activities and the Language Use Strategies scales as they focus on the technical (literacy
and digital) descriptors that are essential to functional literacy. The descriptors reflect the fact that learners are
able to perform tasks (even those that require literacy) using mobile devices (mostly using the touch function)
with greater ease than those on non-mobile devices (mostly typing). Therefore, the focus is on descriptors related
to the skills needed to create and manage texts in a digital environment or to use digital tools. These skills are
divided into technical skills which are language independent and functional skills which are related to the target
language. Technical skills have therefore not been scaled, but functional skills as can-dos in the second language
have been scaled; they cover three competence areas (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 learner
as the two most important pillars for literacy and second language learning environments. The chapter then
outlines 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 to
providing 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 time
frame of a few lessons). The LASLLIAM scales on Technical Literacy, on the other hand, describe skills inherent in
performing these actions. Exercises that train relevant cognitive processes such as letter and word recognition,
graphomotor skills, phonological analysis and synthesis, etc. are indispensable components of an 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 is
important to emphasise that such exercises should always lead to more encompassing meaningful tasks in which
learners experience the usefulness of their technical skills for functional purposes (for examples of respective
activities, see 3.3). Using the LASLLIAM reference guide, we can provide literacy and second language learners
with a well-balanced combination of authentic tasks and supportive exercises that enable them to gain such
meaningful literacy experiences.

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 a
note in a planner

Exercise 1 Task 1 Task 2 End task

(vocabulary) (oral interaction) (written interaction) (written production)
Constructing a list of own
chores and hobbies by Asking partner about Reading an authentic Writting down personal
(a) indentifying pictures personal daily/weekly calendar with (school activities and appointments
on the basis of oral input, routines, chores, and or community)
(b) matching written for next month, adding
hobbies and responding events, identifying
words and pictures, and potential ones from task 2
(partner interview). events of interest.
(c) selecting and writing in a different colour.
individual items.

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-life
situation. Figure 3 uses a descriptor from written production at level 3 to illustrate how a lexical exercise and two
authentic tasks are sequenced to prepare for the action goal of noting down authentic activities in a personal weekly
planner. The corresponding descriptor from the scale on Written Production/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, the
end task needs to be agreed upon as a transparent goal for learners to reach at the end of a particular time span
(e.g. the end of the session or the week).
To be able to perform this end task, that is, to write down authentic activities and appointments in a personal
weekly planner, it is necessary to be able to write down chores and hobbies (exercise 1) like “work”, “Doctor
Stevens”, “hairdresser”, “go to garden”, “bring dish to class”, or “take Tarik to soccer”. The corresponding descriptor
from the scale for Technical Literacy/Writing is:

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:

Can read words with frequent combinations of graphemes and frequent (bound) morphemes fluently (e.g. str-;
3 -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:

Can give simple information about time and familiar persons (e.g. address, phone number) with short, simple
3 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 some
special events from the programme just studied.
The notion of backward planning thus relies on a skilled combination of both exercises and tasks. The next
sections will therefore look into both: principles generated by methods geared towards technical literacy as well
as principles generated by learner-centred methods geared towards literacy as a social practice.

3.2. ORIENTATION ON THE CODE: BUILDING TECHNICAL LITERACY SKILLS

This section highlights the most important principles of building technical literacy skills in an alphabetic script,
which means focusing on decoding written words (in reading) and encoding spoken words (in writing) as well as
on building 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 been
called alphabet methods or syllabic methods. Analytic methods started with larger meaningful units like words
and sentences, gradually deconstructing them into smaller units. The later eclectic (or analytic-synthetic) methods
combined the two approaches in focusing on simultaneously analysing words and blending the sounds again.
The whole-word methods did not pay attention to smaller units at all, assuming that learners would discover
the principle by themselves.76 The following sections present a few examples of the 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-se-
si-so-su”, dividing words into syllables by lines or combining syllables to create words.77 Freire, who combined
the teaching of syllables with a political discussion of what he called generative words,78 inspired the use of
the syllabic method as a central tenet of many literacy and second language pedagogies across Europe. His
recommendation was to start the literacy process with a political discussion of key terms, for example, favela
(= slum). Freire suggested that after a group 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 of
simple CV or VC syllables (e.g. Portuguese and Italian) and which use consonant clusters only to a limited degree.
For other European languages, like Czech, English, French, Dutch and German, however, the syllabic approach
works less well because these languages use many consonant clusters and/or because their orthographies rely
on stress patterns to a large extent. Exercise types characteristic of what is called the syllable-analytic method
(not to be confused with the syllabic method mentioned above) therefore focus on the stressed syllable of a
word as opposed to unstressed syllables. For example, the letter <e/E> in German words is a schwa sound in

76. See, for example, Chall 1999; Chartier 2004; Gray 1969; Liberman and Liberman 1990.
77. Asfaha 2009.
78. Freire 1970/2018.

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 and
smaller 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 to
decide whether they hear a certain sound like “m” at the beginning of a word such as “milk”. After being able to
identify onsets, in a next step they usually acquire the ability to identify sounds in the 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 beginning
learners than plosives such as [t] or [b]. In literacy and second language courses, the sound inventories of the
previously acquired languages of the learner are important to consider because unfamiliar sounds are particularly
hard to discriminate and to identify. For example, the similar sounding, but different phonemes of the target
language, such [e:]/[i:], [o:]/[u:] and [b]/[p] in several European languages, are not distinguished as phonemes
in Arabic, and special attention needs to be given to this potential challenge for Arabic speakers while other
language pairs require other 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 from
other languages at the grapheme level as well (e.g. Bosnian/Croatian/Serbian <š/Š> versus <sh/Sh> in English).
Particularly suited for the training of recognising sounds and letters (and their matching) are digital tools; they
offer the important advantages of immediate feedback for the learner and automatic level adaptation. For this
reason, digital exercises related to learning sounds and letters have been created for literacy in various second
languages (e.g. Diglin project 2012-20 with materials for Dutch, English, Finnish, German and Spanish).82

3.2.3. A focus on (sight) words

Whole-word (or look-and-say) methods, which were mainly used in English-speaking countries some years ago,
build reading instruction on the recognition and rote memorisation of whole words, without paying attention to
phonics and decoding skills. Although this might seem a fast method initially, in the long run it is not effective at
all because learners are dependent on the teacher (or someone else) for every new word they encounter. Analytic
approaches also start with whole meaningful words that are learned as sight words, but do focus on letters and their
corresponding sounds in these words in the next step. These words often are chosen according to their particular
significance to the learner group, based on their frequency and personal relevance. Exercise types characteristic
of 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 on
reading acquisition. However, in several orthographies, the regularity in the mapping is not only based on letter-
sound mappings, but also on morphology: identical morphemes are spelled in a similar way. Unlike syllables,
morpheme boundaries cannot be identified by listening, but only by lexical analysis of the components of a
word. The focus on morphemes is particularly helpful for gaining insights into highly frequent bound morphemes
such as conjugation endings (e.g. “ask-asks”), plurals (e.g. “book-books”), other 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. See Pracht 2012.

80. See Rokitzki 2016.
81. See Heyn 2013; Roder 2009.
82. See Cucchiarini et al. 2015; Dawidowicz 2015; Digital Literacy Instructor, English version 2020; Digital Literacy Instructor, Finnish version
2020, Digital Literacy Instructor, French version 2020; Digital Literacy Instructor, German version 2020; Digital Literacy Instructor,
Spanish version 2020.

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 on
the 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 other
resources 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 the
personal agendas of students. If learners are to invest in their literacy learning, their hopes for the future and their
envisioned identities, their imagined literate second language selves need to be addressed in class.84 Therefore,
teachers should decide with their learners’ help what kind of oral situations and literacy events are important
for them to cope with and self-confidently shape their everyday lives (see 5.4).
According to their individual situation, their focus might be on family literacy, job-related skills, reading for
learning, etc. to differing degrees. Goal setting in literacy and second language learning environments can
be successfully achieved on the basis of visuals depicting possible relevant situations and literacy events, and
study groups with 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 their
everyday lives. Initiatives following such situated approaches to literacy learning are sometimes located in
learning environments regularly frequented by learners, such as mosques or community centres, instead of
concentrating learning on unknown institutions outside their neighbourhood.
The following sections highlight the importance of participating in literacy events (see 3.3.1), of experiencing
authorship (see 3.3.2), and using literacy as a means for learning and emancipation (see 3.3.3).

3.3.1. Participating in literacy events

In their learning environments, learners should experience literacy not only as the goal of learning, but also
as a useful way of communication with people who are not present. Therefore, authentic use of reading and
writing in mini-projects, whether in the classroom or in other domains of life, is essential for learners to build an
increasingly complex understanding of what can be done by reading and writing and what the text types are for
achieving these recurring purposes. Written text types like menus, 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 help
of a mediator. This is true for other, more complex, text types as well, such as using bank accounts, travel itineraries
or letters of complaint. Therefore, simulations and scenario-based methods as well as mini-projects in real-life
situations are important elements in gradually introducing literacy and second language learners to a progression
of text types that has been carefully established with regards to a needs analysis (see 5.4).

3.3.2. Experiencing authorship

The importance of experiencing authorship is recognised as a guiding principle in many literacy and second
language learning environments across Europe. As an addition to using textbooks and decontextualised texts,
it is considered a particularly promising way to create opportunities for the learner to deeply experience the
connection between texts and reality.
According to the language experience approach, literacy learners write down, or dictate to a peer or the teacher,
their own experience. Then, the peers in the learning environment read this text in an edited form and discuss
its content. In this way, they can experience the power, and in many cases also the beauty, of the written word.
Photo-illustrated biographies, reports on job experiences, invented love stories, but also informational texts on
food, health, hobbies, politics, and other topics of interest written by learners in the same learning environment,
have the advantage of usually meeting the lexical and morpho-syntactical language level of the peer group. In
addition, they are of particular personal interest to the other learners who can deepen their understanding of the
text by questioning the author present as a member of the learning environment. The author of the text in focus,
on the other hand, not only experiences ownership of a text and pride in the 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 have
also been used across Scandinavia in particular.
At the beginning of literacy acquisition, learners can experience the authorship of writing words independently.
Using alphabet charts with illustrations of onsets, such as the picture of an apple with the combination of the
letter <a/A>, they analyse a word (chosen individually according to personal significance) into sounds and try to
write it down. Note that many literacy and second language teachers use charts linking letters to initial sounds
in words in the relevant migrant languages (see in Appendix 1, for example, the link to Kompetanse Norge from
Norway or the materials of the KASA project in Germany). In the beginning stages, learners will only succeed in

86. See Waggershauser 2015.

87. Freinet 1994.

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 orthographically
more and more complex. The advantage is that motivation is particularly high with individually chosen words and
phrases. In this way, learners use writing as a tool to express their own ideas from the start of the learning process.

3.3.3. Using literacy for learning and emancipation

As outlined in Chapter 1, literacy programmes for second language learners contribute to the emancipation
of the individual and increase their opportunities for participation in the target language society. Therefore,
the contents of texts read and discussed in a literacy and second language learning environment should be
informative and highly relevant for adult learners, and they should, of course, avoid any infantilisation. This is a
self-evident fact that we mention only because the modelling of second language adult literacy on the basis of
first 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 women
and LGBT, etc. are addressed in adequately simple language and texts, such literacy programmes make an
essential contribution to the basic education and personal growth of learners.
Closely related to the issue of reading for learning and critical reflection is the aspect of numeracy. Although
numeracy in the broad sense of mathematics is not explicitly addressed in the LASLLIAM scales, numeracy
such as dealing with numbers in texts is an important aspect of many literacy programmes. Also, the reading
of tables, signs, calendars, bills and many other text types clearly involves numeracy skills that cannot be taken
for granted in literacy and second language learning environments. Finally, the integrated use of digital media
skills, as outlined in section 1.3 of this reference guide, is important in empowering literacy and second language
programmes aiming 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 action-
oriented, well-balanced literacy programme. Chapter 4 presents the scaled language use strategies of planning,
compensating, and monitoring and repair, which empower learners in communication. LASLLIAM considers the
teaching of language learning strategies equally essential for learners with little experience in formal learning.
These include (meta-)cognitive, affective and social strategies. Unlike the language use strategies, they have
not 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 and
tense 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, in
an 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 individualise
learning 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 and
reflect 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 for
themselves;
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) to
establish 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 such
they are important building blocks of learner autonomy.89 While learning strategies represent the psychological
perspective on autonomy, three other perspectives on autonomy are relevant as well: the technical, social and
political-critical perspectives.90
What has been called the technical perspective on autonomy focuses on self-access materials for literacy
learning. From this perspective, it is particularly important to provide students with materials that they can use
independently of the classroom including feedback from teachers, for example: materials with answer keys,
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 grateful
speech 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 the
teacher not only as background knowledge for anticipating linguistic challenges in the learning process, but
it should also become a subject of class discussion and an inspiration for students to increase their language
awareness and metalinguistic 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 as
learning material and to be ready to follow up on these first language impulses. The teacher is continually
learning 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 are
encouraged to mediate classroom interaction and learning materials in order to optimise learning conditions
for everyone in the learning environment. They are also encouraged to develop mediating competences
required so urgently in today’s communication, not only in the educational, but also in the personal, public
and occupational domain. Mediating competences in the literacy and second language learning environment
obviously depends on the oral and written competences in the languages (including dialects and registers)
involved. They develop from relaying routine phrases and simple instructions or concepts to relaying information,
data or task instructions. Because the target learners in the literacy classroom are beginning readers and writers,
mediation not only involves mediating oral communication, but in particular also mediating between written
and spoken language, as the following list illustrates.
f Mediating from speech to speech in the learning environment mainly involves mediating the teacher’s
utterances in the target language such as instructions or explanations to fellow learners in another lan-
guage, and the other way around, namely mediating peers’ utterances such as questions and statements
to a language understood by the teacher (i.e. the target language or a lingua franca like English, French
or Spanish).
f Mediating from speech to writing in the learning environment typically involves writing down in another
language for a fellow learner oral information that was given in the target language, for example the
translation or transliteration of a word as a memory aid in the 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 this
phrase for adults, not for kids”).
f Mediating from writing to writing in the learning environment can involve the collaborative production
of plurilingual learning materials (e.g. a key-word poster or vocabulary game) as well as summarising or
translating written information or instructions in learning materials in another language for a fellow learner.
f Mediating from writing to speech in the learning environment involves helping peers orally with written
material in the target language (e.g. course programme, sign, notice, enrolment form, attendance list,
textbook material, learning game) in another language and helping the teacher orally with written ma-
terial in the language of a fellow student not comprehended by the teacher (e.g. 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 is
important to offer tasks or exercises that are within the individual learner’s zone of proximal development, a
term Vygotski94 used to describe activities that a learner can accomplish successfully with the help of another
person or by using scaffolds in the learning material.
A group of literacy and second language learners will usually be quite heterogeneous in many respects, and
students 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 a
single topic and the co-construction of meaning. Within this group setting, pair work with a more advanced
partner providing guidance and mediation to a less advanced partner also allows for success on both sides.
It provides, on the one hand, the experience of being able to help and, on the other, that of being able to do
something with help and 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 and
second language learners might seem slow to a lay observer or to a language teacher with no literacy-teaching
experience, but the informed teacher has a more 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 (see
6.1.1), but to build on their resources and to identify learning activities that are within reach, thus stimulating
further investment of the learner in pursuit of the second-language literate self they want to become. In success-
oriented literacy and second-language learning environments, both teachers and learners clearly perceive – and
celebrate – progress that might not be recognisable to the untrained eye.

3.7. BALANCING THE VARIOUS PRINCIPLES IN LITERACY AND SECOND

LANGUAGE LEARNING
This chapter has highlighted the need to balance orientation to the code in order to build technical literacy
skills and orientation to the learner in order to foster literacy as a social practice. It has recommended backward
planning as a powerful tool to systematically link exercises focusing on technical literacy (as well as components
of oral skills like vocabulary, grammar or pronunciation) with authentic tasks in order to successfully implement
an action-oriented approach. Three factors are highly influential on the learning process: the development of
strategies and autonomy, the use of contrastive and plurilingual approaches and, most importantly, a pedagogical
commitment to success orientation.95

94. Vygotski 1975.

95. For more details on literacy and second language teaching methods, see Albert et al. 2012, 2015; Feick et al. 2013; Feldmeier 2010;
Lemke-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 3 59
Communicative Language Activities 28 184
Language Use Strategies 18 119
Digital Skills 3 63
Total 52 Total 425

As Table 2 shows, included in the Communicative Language Activities scales (see 1.2) are 71 descriptors from
the CEFR Companion volume Pre-A1 and A1 levels, which are integrated into LASLLIAM levels 3 and 4 and
presented in blue font.

Table 2 – LASLLIAM descriptors and CEFR Companion volume descriptors

No. of descriptors CEFR Companion volume CEFR Companion

Pre-A1 descriptors volume A1 descriptors

Communicative Language Activities 184 26 45

LASLLIAM descriptors follow the five criteria suggested by CEFR: positiveness, definiteness, clarity, brevity and
independence (Council of Europe 2001, Appendix A: 205-7). This means that the descriptors are presented in
terms of what a non- or low-literate adult migrant can do (positiveness) rather than what they cannot do in
performing concrete tasks (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 have
meaning only in relation to other descriptors (independence). This allows, for instance, for their use within
checklists for self-assessment (see Appendix 3), where it is possible to consider them as independent statements.
Users are invited to look at the LASLLIAM illustrative scales as a 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 the
specific 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 account
the 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 the
four 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 to
the simultaneous processes of acquiring literacy and a second language at the same time (see 1.2). Please be
aware 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 Communicative Language Activities (CLA) Digital

Literacy scales and Language Use Strategies (LUS) scales Skills scales

Language and CLA – LUS CLA – LUS CLA – LUS Communication

Print Awareness Reception Production Interaction and Collaboration

Content Creation
Reading Oral Written Oral Written Oral Written
and Management

CLA CLA CLA CLA CLA CLA

Writing Safety
Overall Overall Overall Overall Overall Overall

CLA CLA CLA CLA CLA CLA

Specifics Specifics Specifics Specifics Specifics Specifics
with with with with with with
examples examples examples examples examples examples
by domains by domains by domains by domains by domains by domains

4.1. TECHNICAL LITERACY

Technical literacy is an important basis for using literacy competences in authentic communication; it is defined
as the ability to get access to the written code of a language. For alphabetical scripts this means learning to use
the systematic relationship between letters/graphemes in writing and sounds/phonemes in spoken language
in a gradually more 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 phonologically
simple sight words, which are used to move into a second step of learning the systematic correspondence
between grapheme (letter) and sound (phoneme). This learning process builds on short words with a simple
syllabic structure and regular spelling (i.e. a one-to-one correspondence between letter and sound), and
gradually extends to (longer) words with a more complex linguistic structure such as consonant clusters and
more complex or irregular grapheme–phoneme correspondences. The last step in this process is focused on
speed and becoming 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 the
phonological make-up of the target language.
The development of technical literacy is represented in three scales:
1. Language and Print Awareness;
2. Reading;
3. Writing.
Key concepts in the scale of Reading and Writing are:
f the cognitive activity involved: from rote learning to slow letter-by-letter decoding to direct word reco-
gnition 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 mor-
phologically more complex words, short and simple sentences, and later to linguistically very short and
simple 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 in
the 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 transparency
of 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 in
languages with simpler morpho-syntax like Dutch, the descriptor “Can read short and simple sentences, if the
words are orthographically simple” may be already within reach at level 2 instead of at level 3.
Notice that not all abilities related to teaching handwriting, specifically the use of writing tools and the
visual-motor skills, are scaled here, but they are of foremost importance in acquiring technical literacy. They
have to be dealt with while teaching to read and write and require regular and explicit instruction. They
include visual and graphomotor aspects, such as effective pen/pencil grasp and pressure, pen/pencil control
and fluency, regular letter formation and automatisation of eye movement to follow the hand and direction
of the target script.
Written language does not represent meaning directly like other visual symbols such as pictures do, but via units
of spoken language. Therefore, it is important to stress that familiarity is key in this learning process. Thus, words
that are familiar to learners should be used in teaching them to read and write. It is also important to stress that
technical literacy is not a goal in itself, but a means in order to achieve functional literacy beyond the A1 level.
Therefore, in accordance with the action-oriented approach of the CEFR Companion volume, we have specified
the functional aspects of literacy in the scales of written reception, production and interaction. This is in line with
the fact that it is considered important that language education for this target group empowers learners to cope
with everyday challenges. The levels in the Communicative Language Activities scales for Written Reception,
Production and Interaction have taken into account the progress in these technical scales, for example at level
1 comprehending a short, written message will be restricted to recognition of already memorised and practised
words, and at level 4 it refers to independent reading of short sentences and simple texts. To fully understand
the learning demands involved in these challenges, however, detailed scales on technical literacy as provided
below can raise awareness of important progress at the levels below and up to A1.

4.1.1. Language and Print Awareness

Descriptor
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. the
number of vowels; p-b for Arabic speakers).

Can synthesise phonemes into words with a simple syllabic structure (e.g. “c-a-t” into “cat”).

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).
Can read words with frequent combinations of graphemes and frequent (bound) morphemes fluently (e.g. str-;
3 -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 the
grapheme–phoneme correspondence (e.g. “son”, “sera”).
Can relate a grapheme to the corresponding phoneme in orthographically simple words (e.g. “hat”; “book”).
Can read practised words by recognising highly frequent combinations of graphemes.
2
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.
Can read numerals up to 10 in digits.
1
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.
Can write the numerals up to 10 in digits.
1
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
f Unless indicated otherwise, the names of the cate-
4.2.1.1. Oral Reception gories and order of the scales in this reference guide
are the same as in the CEFR Companion volume.
The scale for Oral Reception/overall listening
comprehension models functional aspects of dealing f Please note that the descriptors in blue font are
with aural or audiovisual input at the very beginning the same as in the CEFR Companion volume levels
stages of learning a second language. As in the A1 and Pre-A1.
CEFR Companion volume, the listening scales focus f The descriptors in the Overall scales (apart from
on different kinds of one-way listening and exclude the blue ones from the CEFR Companion volume)
listening in interaction. are presented according to the formula “Can do X
(referring to the communicative activity) by reading/
For Oral Reception, LASLLIAM distinguishes one Overall writing/listening/speaking Y (referring to practice,
scale and four Specific scales for: length and linguistic complexity)”. This formula
1. Understanding Conversation between Other must always be taken into account as implicit in
Speakers all other descriptors of the Specific scales.
2. Listening as a Member of a Live Audience f For concrete application of the descriptors see the
3. Listening to Announcements and Instructions tables embedded in the Specific scales, with exa-
mples of language use in the four different domains.
4. Listening to Audio Media and Recordings and
Watching TV and Video. f Please note that such examples related to the four
domains might need adaptation according to the
Learning to listen in a second language does not depend context and the learners’ needs.
on the ability to read and write in the second language,

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 they
should be considered a part of all descriptors in the scales for listening comprehension. With enunciation, the
speech must be very slow, carefully articulated, with long pauses, accompanied by gestures and other body
language; prosody and pronunciation must be close to the pronunciation in the geographical area where the
learner lives; and intonational patterns must be clearly expressed. Moreover, the speech must be produced in
everyday, familiar contexts; background noises and other disturbances must be limited.
The progression in listening comprehension is described using the following key concepts:
f the cognitive activity involved: from understanding single chunks (mostly phrases, words, 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 to
more 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 visual
cues) in order to understand the aural or audiovisual input to less reliance on contextual clues, provided
that situations, themes and linguistic features of the speech are familiar.99

Overall Oral Reception

Can recognise concrete information (e.g. places and times) on familiar topics encountered in everyday life,
4 provided it is delivered slowly and clearly.

Can recognise a familiar topic by understanding frequent words and expressions in a short, simple speech.

Can understand short, very simple questions and statements provided they are delivered slowly and clearly and
3 accompanied by visuals or manual gestures to support understanding and repeated if necessary.

Can recognise numbers, prices, dates and days of the week, provided they are delivered slowly and clearly in a
defined, familiar everyday context.

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

Can recognise a personally relevant piece of information delivered mostly in a single word or expression in a
1 familiar context (e.g. “today”.)

Understanding Conversation between Other Speakers

As in the CEFR Companion volume, understanding conversation between other speakers concerns the situations
in which the learner hears a conversation in which they do not participate: when other speakers in a group talk
to each other without addressing the learner, and when the listener overhears other people nearby. In both
situations the learner cannot intervene to accommodate the conversation in terms of content and language,
for example by asking for an explanation.

98. Short and simple here means that speech is mostly composed of phrases and words which are salient and frequent (e.g. greetings) and
of sentences with a simple syntactic structure. The input to be processed could be a single utterance (e.g. “Enter please!”) or a section
of a longer discourse that the learner understands only partially (e.g. the greetings opening a conversation in which the learner does
not participate).
99. Regarding situations, “familiar” includes both experiential and cultural familiarity. Familiarity with the body language used by participants
in the communicative event, which may be related to their cultural and social background, age, gender and not understandable by
the learner, must also be considered.

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 a
stretch of conversation clearly related to the context through gestures, other body language and actions
of the participants to getting an idea of a familiar topic.

Personal Public Occupational Educational

4 Can understand e.g. the description e.g. information e.g. warnings and e.g. information
words/signs and short of the common areas about a delay at a instructions while about courses or
sentences in a simple of an apartment bus stop performing a job teachers
conversation (e.g. building and where task together
between a customer to park the bicycles
and a salesperson
in a shop), provided
people communicate
very slowly and very
clearly.

Can understand some e.g. between e.g. people e.g. about daily e.g. a conversation
expressions when participants at a commenting on food job tasks (“Today about hobbies in the
people are discussing friends’ gathering in a cafeteria we start cleaning classroom
them, family, from the first
school, hobbies floor”) e.g. comments about
or surroundings, courses, teachers,
provided the delivery class schedule (“I like
is slow and clear. my class; they are
nice people”)

3 Can pick out familiar e.g. someone’s e.g. the opening e.g. what is e.g. a conversation
pieces of information relation with the hours of a shop, needed to about daily routines
in a short, simple speaker in an service asked for by a perform a task in the classroom
conversation introduction (“He customer at the desk
between others in an is an old friend of
everyday context. mine”)

Can get an idea of e.g. thanks for a e.g. the description e.g. a simple e.g. a teacher is ill
the familiar topic gift, well-wishing or of an object given problem in the
of a short, simple welcoming guests at by the salesperson present work, like
conversation, if a friend’s gathering to a customer (“This a broken tool, or
the conversation is the cheapest someone asking
is clearly related to phone card”); basic for help
people and objects information about a
that are in the service (“That is the
surroundings (e.g. children’s hospital”)
participants are
pointing at them).

2 Can pick out isolated e.g. nationality, e.g. where a e.g. the location of e.g. hours and
pieces of information age, family department in the a tool or a person days of personally
and frequent relation during an supermarket is in a familiar relevant courses
social formulas introduction (“My (“Vegetables are setting
by recognising wife”) there”)
familiar words
and expressions
in conversation
between others.

1 Can recognise a e.g. greetings and e.g. the name of a e.g. the name of a e.g. the name of a
personally relevant very simple social document in a public familiar tool classroom object or a
piece of information formulas office (“ID card”) person
delivered by others
mostly in a single
word or expression.

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 stressed
in the CEFR Companion volume: the speaker probably adopts a neutral register and projects their voice to
maximise the ability of the audience to follow.
Key concepts operationalised in the scale include the following:
f ease of listening: from short and simple speech expressed in familiar words to more complex speech
related to new contents;
f contextualisation and predictability: from picking out isolated pieces of information about persons, objects
and places that are present in the immediate environment and later to following a talk centred/focused
on real artefacts;
f degree of accommodation to the audience by the speaker: increasing speed of delivery, decreasing
non-verbal reference to persons, objects and places by pointing, showing, performing examples of use;
f familiarity of the situation and the subject matter: from very familiar situations and topics to less familiarity
with either the situation or the topic.

Personal Public Occupational Educational

4 Can follow a simple e.g. e.g. a short e.g. about job e.g. a simple
talk slowly and congratulations, opening talk tasks, objects and introduction of the
carefully articulated well-wishing, delivered at the people related to (children’s) courses or a
(e.g. someone welcome community centre the present work simple story delivered
introducing a friend by the teacher
in a meeting).

Can understand in e.g. the e.g. about a e.g. about a e.g. a simple
outline very simple description of personally familiar job task at explanation delivered
information being their apartment relevant public the workplace by the teacher
explained in a delivered by service, such as a
predictable situation friends family centre or a
like a guided tour, job service (“The
provided that speech centre is open
is very slow and clear to families with
and that there are young children”)
long pauses from
time to time.

3 Can pick out pieces e.g. someone’s e.g. opening days e.g. about e.g. the description
of information about personal and hours of a simple tools and of an object or a
persons, objects and information, like familiar service, machines (like picture delivered by
places to which the name, nationality, the post office use, parts, main the teacher and other
speaker clearly refers age, job, relations and a commercial cautions), or learners
using body language in an introduction centre about task sharing
(e.g. “The information
desk is over there”).

2 Can pick out isolated e.g. about a e.g. that there is e.g. about a e.g. “The canteen is
pieces of information vegetarian dish an interpreter at dangerous action closed today”
and frequent the service or object (“It is
social formulas hot”)
by recognising
familiar words and
expressions in a
short, simple speech.

1 Can recognise e.g. “Welcome!” in e.g. the names of e.g. the role of a e.g. the names
as member of a a short welcome a familiar shop or person like doctor, of objects in the
live audience a talk service nurse or team classroom
personally relevant leader
piece of information
delivered mostly
in a single word or
expression.

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 piece
of 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.

Personal Public Occupational Educational

4 Can understand e.g. very simple e.g. in a hospital e.g. orders, e.g. the documents
instructions suggestions for (“The doctor is warnings, needed to enrol
addressed carefully housekeeping or coming, wait permissions and (children) in a
and slowly to them simple cooking here.”); medical prohibitions school or the rules
and follow short, recipe instructions (“Take related to the of an educational
simple directions. these pills twice a present work tasks game; invitation
day”) to a students’
(parents’) meeting

Can understand when e.g. instructions e.g. the location of e.g. the location of e.g. where to buy
someone tells them from neighbours personally relevant objects in familiar the course book
slowly and clearly about where to products in a rooms, like the
where something is, locate waste in the supermarket storage room
provided the object apartment building
is in the immediate
environment.

Can understand Not applicable e.g. the arrival e.g. the opening e.g. the closing
figures, prices and of the train time of a canteen time of the school
times given slowly announced in a big factory building
and clearly in an through a
announcement by loudspeaker in the
loudspeaker, e.g. at a railway station, in
railway station or in a the metro (“Next
shop. stop NN Square.
Left side exit”)

3 Can pick out the main e.g. about a e.g. about the e.g. a change in e.g. cancellation
points in a short, problem at home menu in a cafeteria their working days of the courses
simple message (“The lift doesn’t (“Today we are or in the shift (“No courses
delivered face-to-face work”) serving pasta”) tomorrow”)
in a familiar situation.

Can understand short, e.g. the request e.g. about where e.g. a simple e.g. instructions
simple instructions for to make a phone to go or what manual procedure for simple tasks
actions such as “Stop”, call (“Call me at 5 documents to delivered by the
“Close the door”, etc., please”) exhibit in a public teacher as for a
provided they are service matching between
delivered slowly face- words and pictures
to-face, accompanied
by pictures or manual
gestures and repeated
if necessary.

LASLLIAM scales and tables Page 49

 Personal Public Occupational Educational

2 Can recognise familiar e.g. in a message e.g. in a shop e.g. the names of e.g. the names of
words and phrases delivered by a (“Open”, meaning places, objects, places, objects,
in a short, simple friend about a “We are open tasks, people; people; the request
message delivered known event now”); prohibition instruction about of signing a form
face-to-face (e.g. (“I’ll come by of smoking a procedure
“closed” in “the tomorrow”); the (“No smoking (“Look, like this”) or
cafeteria is closed”). request of fetching here, please”) or warnings (“Don’t,
a thing which is in documents to danger!”)
the surroundings exhibit
(“Some water,
please”)

1 Can recognise a e.g. a permission e.g. their client e.g. the name of a e.g. the name
personally relevant (“Come in”) number in a tool or a frequently of writing tools
piece of information waiting room performed activity or frequently
delivered mostly practised activities
in a single word (“Write”)
or expression and
accompanied by
picture and body
language.

Listening to Audio Media and Recordings, Watching TV and Video

In the CEFR Companion volume, Listening to Audio Media and Recordings involves broadcast media and recorded
material, including messages. Watching TV, Film and Video includes live and recorded video material plus, at
higher levels, 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 audiovisual
messages delivered through social media, are easier for them than audio media and recordings, which they can
tackle from level 3.
Key concepts operationalised in the scale include the following:
f ease of listening: from short and simple speech expressed in familiar words to more complex speech
related to new contents;
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 mes-
sages (e.g. short and simple advertisements of familiar products);
f repetition: from audiovisual messages which can be rewatched several times to frequently repeated broad-
casts (e.g. advertisements) to live broadcasts in streaming (e.g. TV and radio news).

Personal Public Occupational Educational

4 Can pick out concrete e.g. a message e.g. the time and e.g. automatised e.g. from
information (e.g. places on the answering place of a familiar instructions by a educational
and times) from short machine (“It’s event, like a machine materials, like
audio recordings on [name] speaking. football match announcement
familiar everyday topics, Your appointment models
provided they are is confirmed”)
delivered very slowly and
clearly.

Can recognise familiar e.g. a short e.g. about a traffic e.g. a simple e.g. an
words/signs and phrases dialogue on accident in their procedure from a educational video
and identify the topics in everyday familiar area video tutorial
headline news summaries topics in a
and many of the products fictional video
in advertisements,
by exploiting visual
information and general
knowledge.

Page 50 3 Literacy and second language learning for the linguistic integration of adult migrants
 Personal Public Occupational Educational
3 Can understand a e.g. place of an e.g. the time of an e.g. place and e.g. a short
short, simple personal appointment appointment time of a delivery audiovisual
audiovisual message with (“See you in the message
formulaic expressions. main square”) delivered by
the teacher in a
distance learning
situation in a
learners’ group on
a social network

2 Can recognise familiar e.g. social e.g. the names of e.g. usual working e.g. in dialogues
words and phrases in formulas in familiar brands tools in a video from educational
short, simple video fictional videos and products tutorial audio and
recordings, provided in audiovisual audiovisual
that they are delivered advertisements materials
very slowly and clearly,
possibly after relistening
(e.g. greetings in a
fictional video).

Can understand frequent e.g. from a friend Not applicable Not applicable e.g. in a learners’
social formulas in a about their group on a social
short, simple personal well-being network
audiovisual message (e.g.
“Hi, I am fine. See you
soon”.)

1 Can recognise a e.g. greetings Not applicable Not applicable e.g. in educational
personally relevant piece from a friend materials
of information delivered in a personal
mostly in a single word audiovisual
or expression in a short, message
simple audiovisual
message.

4.2.1.2. Written Reception

As in the CEFR Companion volume, the LASLLIAM reading
categories are a mixture between reading purpose and f Unless indicated otherwise, the names of the cate-
reading particular text types with specific, functions. For gories and order of the scales in this reference guide
Written Reception, LASLLIAM distinguishes one Overall are the same as in the CEFR Companion volume.
scale and five Specific scales for: f Please note that the descriptors in blue font are
1. Reading Correspondence the same as in the CEFR Companion volume levels
A1 and Pre-A1.
2. Reading for Orientation
f The descriptors in the Overall scales (apart from the
3. Reading for Information blue ones from the CEFR Companion volume) are
4. Reading as a Leisure Activity presented according to the formula “Can do X (re-
5. Reading Instructions. ferring to the communicative activity) by reading/
writing/listening/speaking Y (referring to practice,
In terms of reading purpose, LASLLIAM distinguishes length and linguistic complexity)”. This formula
Reading for Orientation (search reading) to get a global must always be taken into account as implicit in
idea of a text (skimming) or to look for specific information all other descriptors of the Specific scales.
(scanning), Reading for Information, and also Reading
as a Leisure Activity, which can involve both fictional f For concrete application of the descriptors see
narratives and informative texts about topics of interest, the tables embedded in the Specific scales, with
and texts specifically written for each level. Specifically, examples of language use in the four different
written texts for each level will be language specific: in domains.
some morphology-rich languages it will be difficult for an f Please note that such examples related to the four
author of teaching materials to write sentences for level domains might need adaptation according to the
2, while in other languages it might be easier to write a context and the learners’ needs.
short text with only phonologically simple, short words.

LASLLIAM scales and tables Page 51

In terms of specific text types, as in the CEFR Companion volume, we identify Reading Correspondence and
Reading Instructions, a specialised form of reading for information. Since careful study of a complex text is not
possible at the levels of this reference guide, the CEFR Companion volume term Reading for Information and
Argument was changed into Reading for Information.
Because the scales in this guide are aimed at beginning readers in the target language, the reading activity
required follows the progression line described in the Technical Literacy scale in these key concepts:
f cognitive activity involved: from rote learning of sight words to slow letter-by-letter decoding and later to
direct 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 main
clauses;
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 and
knowledge of the topic.

3 Can recognise familiar words/signs accompanied by pictures, such as a fast-food restaurant menu illustrated with
photos or a picture book using familiar vocabulary.

Can understand short, simple sentences on familiar topics (even if there is an unknown word) by reading word by
word and using visual clues.

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 by
recognising visual clues and sight words.

Reading Correspondence
As in the CEFR Companion volume, Reading Correspondence encompasses reading both personal and
formal correspondence, offline and online. The reading activity required follows the progression line of
the Technical Literacy Scale (i.e. cognitive activity involved, length, linguistic and orthographic complexity
of the message).
Key concepts operationalised in the scale include the following:
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 to
more 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 Public Occupational Educational
4 Can understand e.g. suggestion e.g. message about e.g. a (text) message e.g. message about
short, simple of meeting with appointment with about a team an after-school
messages sent via a friend (“Would the doctor; meeting or lunch activity or school
social media or e-mail you like to go to invitation to with a colleague; trip; invitation
(e.g. proposing what the cinema at opening of felicitations and to graduation
to do, when and the weekend?”); community centre expressions of ceremony; open
where to meet). felicitations and or library compassion/best day at children’s
expressions of wishes (anniversary, primary school
compassion/best welcome); farewell
wishes (birthday, note from a
marriage, death) colleague

Can understand e.g. mail about e.g. announcement e.g. announcement e.g. announcement
short, simple birth of a baby; text of activities at the of special offers in a about new school
correspondence message about library or a fair at cafeteria rules
about everyday shopping the community
topics. centre

3 Can understand from e.g. invitation to e.g. invitation e.g. invitation to a e.g. invitation to a
a letter, card or e-mail birthday party, to a medical team meeting or joint presentation
the event to which wedding party consultation or company outing or children’s school
they are being invited or funeral (“The administrative activity
and the information funeral is on April service
given about day, time 21 at 11:00”)
and location.

Can recognise times e.g. simple notes e.g. simple notes e.g. simple notes e.g. simple notes
and places in very and text messages from administration and text messages and text messages
simple notes and from a friend (“See (“Please register from a colleague (“I from teachers and
text messages from you at 10” or “I am at the service am in room 24” or peers (“Study p.20
friends or colleagues on the way”) counter”) “lunch at 13.00?”) for Tuesday” or
(e.g. “Back at 4 “Bring your book
o’clock” or “In the next week”)
meeting room”),
provided there are no
abbreviations.

2 Can identify the topic e.g. sender, date e.g. sender, date e.g. from a job e.g. from a
of a short, simple and place in a social and place in an message (working school message
personally relevant invitation (“The administrative hours, holidays) (change of room,
illustrated message party is on May 10”) message upcoming holidays
written in practised of children’s
words. school); as a
possible classroom
simulation

1 Can distinguish some e.g. personally e.g. e-mail or letter e.g. e-mail or letter e.g. e-mail or letter
relevant everyday addressed bill, from local health from own company from (children’s)
correspondence advertisement centre teacher or school
from other
correspondence.

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 pictures
and 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 Public Occupational Educational
4 Can recognise familiar e.g. notice from e.g. notice on e.g. notice from a e.g. notice on
names, words/signs and caretaker changed opening colleague about book sale in
very basic phrases on times; food labels the work shift school; notice in
simple notices in the (allergies); floor textbook or online
most common everyday plan of hospital exercise
situations.

Can find and e.g. shows or e.g. medical e.g. new safety or e.g. activities in
understand simple, news in TV guide; brochure of hygiene rules in programme for
important information entries in (online) a hospital; flyers (“Disinfect a school party;
in advertisements, directories and information in a your hands proficiency levels
programmes for special catalogues; town or city guide; and avoid close in brochure with
events, leaflets and information on warnings (“Do not contact”) course offers;
brochures (e.g. what is calendars leave rubbish on warning signs
proposed, costs, the date the ground”) (“Keep the gate
and place of the event, closed”)
departure times).

3 Can understand simple e.g. on food or e.g. warning e.g. warning signs e.g. warning signs
everyday signs such medicine package or traffic signs or directions or directions (“No
as “Parking”, “Station”, (due date; “Take (“Caution: wet (“High voltage”; mobile phones”;
“Dining room”, “No with water”) floor”; “One way”) “Emergency exit”) school office”)
smoking”, etc.

Can find information e.g. in e.g. in sale e.g. in work e.g. lessons in
about places, times and alphabetically information; on schedule; main timetable; price
prices on posters, flyers organised personal posters on open items in job list of cafeteria;
and notices. directories; date days, programmes vacancy (e.g. notice on costs of
and time in TV or events at working days) after-school child
guide; place, time library, cinema or care
and date of private community centre
event

2 Can identify the topic of e.g. names and e.g. names and e.g. working hours e.g. lessons, dates
short, simple illustrated phone numbers prices on bills, or holidays in work and times in class
information written in in a familiar food, clothing; schedule; date schedule
practised words. directory or list; names and dates and time of team
topic of illustrated on schedules; meeting
story; event, date expiry date on
and location in a food; the platform
programme number of the
departure of
the train on the
display board at
the station

Can recognise simple e.g. logo of TV e.g. public signs e.g. warning signs e.g. warning signs
everyday signs in streets programme with (“Closed”; “No (“Caution”, “No (“No smoking”)
or on products. visual clues entry”) food”)

1 Can distinguish some e.g. frequently e.g. “Fire exit”, e.g. “Exit”, “Poison”, e.g. basic
relevant everyday logos, used app icons or “Hospital”, ATM; “No smoking”; instructional
icons and text types emojis; package “bus stop”; menu; work schedule icons (such as for
from each other. of medicine; store guide read, write, listen,
felicitations card speak); school
calendar

Reading for Information

As in the CEFR Companion volume, Reading for Information involves more careful reading of an informative text to
understand the meaning. The reading activity required follows the progression line of the Technical Literacy scale.
Key concepts operationalised in the scale include the following:
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 or
news 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 Public Occupational Educational

4 Can get an idea of the e.g. news item; e.g. brochure e.g. work e.g. information
content of simpler user guide; about public regulations; about school
informational material information from services; information about or courses in
and short, simple travel agency information on changing shifts brochure or on
descriptions, especially bulletin board; school website;
if there is visual support. church services; (children’s) school
driving school rules on bulletin
board

Can understand short e.g. short article in e.g. short text e.g. job vacancy e.g. note about
texts on subjects of magazine or local about a fair on advertisement end of year
personal interest (e.g. newspaper noticeboard of celebrations at
news flashes about community centre (children’s) school;
sports, music, travel, or in textbook or
stories) composed in online reading
very simple language exercises
and supported by
illustrations and
pictures.

3 Can understand the e.g. posting of e.g. information e.g. catalogue with e.g. information
simplest informational a friend about box of community merchandise (“Buy about an
material such as a an upcoming centre; service one, get one for upcoming school
fast-food restaurant wedding party menu of laundry, free”) event
menu illustrated with car wash or food
photos or an illustrated delivery
story formulated in very
simple everyday words/
signs.

2 Can identify the topic of e.g. short e.g. information e.g. information e.g. information
short, simple illustrated newspaper leaflet about on bulletin board about clothes
information written in headlines with pavement work in about break times during gym with
practised words. pictures (“Heavy the street (“Week pictures; illustrated
rain yesterday”) 12 in Main Street”) textbook

1 Can distinguish e.g. days and e.g. opening hours e.g. working hours e.g. days, hours
numerical from months on of supermarket; on work schedule and room of
alphabetical calendar prices on a price language course
information. list

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 to
more 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 Public Occupational Educational
4 Can follow short, simple e.g. route e.g. route e.g. transport e.g. directions to a
written directions (e.g. to descriptions to a descriptions to instructions for meeting point
go from X to Y). picnic in the park a museum or goods
amusement park

Can carry out simple e.g. cooking on the e.g. instructions e.g. safety e.g. instructions
instructions on the basis basis of a simple on administrative or hygiene on screen or
of very short, simple form of recipe; document instructions; copy-machine;
texts. personalised (“Provide your personalised simple new
instructions on social security instructions on textbook or online
medicine; simple number”) or on an work machine; instructions;
instructions appliance instructions on guidelines on
on household how to behave in swimming lessons
appliances case of fire for children

3 Can understand e.g. safety e.g. safety and e.g. safety and e.g. familiar
very short, simple instructions on politeness health instructions textbook
instructions used in cleaning products; instructions in (“Wear gloves”; (or online)
familiar, everyday basic personalised parks and public “Keep locked all instructions
contexts (e.g. “No instructions on spaces (“Swim in the time”) (“Answer the
parking”, “No food or medicine safe area only”; questions”; “Fill
drink”), especially if “No rubbish, in the blanks”);
there are illustrations. please”) instructions about
child’s lunch box

Can understand e.g. route e.g. route e.g. route e.g. route
personally relevant directions to a directions in directions to directions to
simple directions friend’s house hospital or railway cafeteria or bookshop or office
presented in visual station parking place
format with frequent
words and practised
phrases.

2 Can understand simple e.g. instructions e.g. instructions on e.g. simple safety e.g. basic
instructions when with visual clues vending machines and health instructions in
presented in visual (such as photo (such as coffee instructions (such educational
format with practised recipe, washing machine) as “Use mask”) materials (“read
words. instructions) the text”, “listen to
the audio file”)

1 Can pick out a single e.g. on medicine e.g. age e.g. name of a e.g. basic
piece of information in package “ages instructions on known company instructions with
an illustrated instruction 2-11” (with a photo baby-food (6-9 visual symbols
written with sight words. of a toddler and a months); warnings (such as read,
child) on bottles write, listen, speak)

Reading as a Leisure Activity

As in the CEFR Companion volume, Reading as a Leisure Activity involves both fiction and non-fiction. In these
scales it includes short and simple illustrated texts like picture stories, comics, narratives and informative texts
in magazines and newspapers. It also includes 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 des-
criptions 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 Public Occupational Educational
4 Can understand short, e.g. short narrative Not applicable Not applicable e.g. short narrative
illustrated narratives on life’s up and written or dictated
about everyday activities downs (family, by classmates and
described in simple friendship, health, edited by teacher
words. work)

Can understand in e.g. short article Not applicable Not applicable e.g. short narrative
outline short texts about movie star on children’s
in illustrated stories, or local hero in school website
provided that the magazine, comic
images help them to
guess at a lot of the
content.

3 Can understand short, e.g. short narrative Not applicable Not applicable e.g. short photo
illustrated narratives on about an event story produced
contextualised topics (sports, wedding, by classmates or
that are written in concert) children’s teacher
orthographically simple
words.

2 Can understand simple e.g. picture book Not applicable Not applicable e.g. in storybook
illustrated narratives for children with a written for this
written in practised few words level
words.

1 Can pick out a single e.g. picture books Not applicable Not applicable e.g. illustrated
piece of information (on the basis of stories with a
in an illustrated text main character simple sequence
written in sight words. or main event), of pictures (on
cartoons the basis of main
character or main
event)

4.2.2. Reception Strategies

LASLLIAM Language Use Strategies use the three general metacognitive categories of planning, compensating,
and monitoring and repair (see 2.2.4). Metacognitive planning of reception is mainly about anticipating situations
and the language and text types typically occurring in those situations, as well as about predicting content in
order to use top-down processes for making inferences and elaborations. Compensation for literacy and second
language learners particularly focuses on overcoming lexical knowledge gaps, therefore lexical inferences are
the most characteristic aspect of receptive compensation strategies. Second language learners resort to visual
clues and the speaker’s body language to monitor and repair listening comprehension problems. As for reading
comprehension problems, learners of literacy and a second language gradually make progress in identifying
sources for non-understanding (e.g. unknown words or phrases, reference or coherence problems, pragmatic
non-understanding) and in naming or marking these problems for repair actions that will often involve another
person (i.e. the interlocutor, teacher, mediator or peer).
Key concepts for Oral and Written Reception strategies operationalised in the scales include the following:
f the linguistic complexity of the product of strategy use (i.e. the problem that the strategy is to solve): from
challenges related to chunks and sight words, to challenges with new words and phrases and later also
with sentences and texts;
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 nevertheless
of 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 motivate
themselves 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, demons-
tration 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. destination
and 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 an
announcement) 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 word
or phrase in a face-to-face situation (e.g. the name of a product in a store).

4.2.2.2. Written Reception

Planning
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 f Unless indicated otherwise, the names of the cate-
of dealing with the oral dimension of languages at gories and order of the scales in this reference guide
the beginning stages of second language learning. As are the same as in the CEFR Companion volume.
in the CEFR Companion volume, the scales focus on f Please note that the descriptors in blue font are
different kinds of one-way production and exclude oral the same as in the CEFR Companion volume levels
interaction. Oral production involves discourse functions A1 and Pre-A1.
such as describing, informing, giving instruction and f The descriptors in the Overall scales (apart from the
narrating. blue ones from the CEFR Companion volume) are
The CEFR Companion volume characterises large parts presented according to the formula “Can do X (re-
of oral production as sustained monologues (Council ferring to the communicative activity) by reading/
of Europe 2020: 70-72). Although such sustained writing/listening/speaking Y (referring to practice,
monologues can only be mastered at higher levels of length and linguistic complexity)”. This formula
language development, this reference guide models must always be taken into account as implicit in
basic competences that need to be developed below all other descriptors of the Specific scales.
and up to the A1 level in order to progress to fully f For concrete application of the descriptors see the
fledged sustained monologues at later stages. tables embedded in the Specific scales, with exam­
ples of language use in the four different domains.
For Oral Production LASLLIAM identifies one Overall
scale and two Specific scales for: f Please note that such examples related to the four
domains might need adaptation according to the
1. Sustained Monologue: Describing Experience
context and the learners’ needs.
2. Sustained Monologue: Giving Information.

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 output
of LASLLIAM learners is characterised by the following distinctive features, in terms of aspects present in the
oral production at every level of the scales: the continuous reliance on gestures and other body language to
convey meaning; the constant presence of pauses in the learner’s turn; the recurrence of formulaic expressions,
often memorised, as a building block within the output; the capacity to deal only with familiar text types (i.e.
of experiential and cultural familiarity); and the possibility of producing a second language within an everyday
context.

In using the LASLLIAM descriptors for the spoken language dimension, including oral production, please be
aware that gestures and other body language often have implications that need careful consideration in relation
to gender, age, culture and social aspects.

Consistency and correspondence across scales are supported by reference to text types and functions in the
language activities descriptors, as well as to key progressions, for instance:
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 consis-
ting 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 Public Occupational Educational
4 Can describe simple e.g. a simple talk e.g. a simple talk e.g. their job tasks e.g. something
aspects of their everyday on a personally during the first in a meeting at the about everyday
life in a series of simple relevant topic appointment with workplace life in their own
sentences, using simple during a ceremony a family doctor country within a
words/signs and basic communicative
phrases, provided they scenario (“In
can prepare in advance. [country] there
are schools for
adults”); express
how they feel to
the class, using
emoticons already
presented by the
teacher

Can describe e.g. a self- e.g. a self- e.g. self- e.g. during the
themselves, what they introduction in a introduction in a introduction to first appointment
do and where they live. social event public event (“I their employer with children’s
am [name and teachers; the
surname]. I come neighbourhood
from [country]”) where they live, in
an activity related
to the knowledge
of the surrounding
area

3 Can describe themselves e.g. during a e.g. in a e.g. to a colleague e.g. to the other
(e.g. name, age, family), wedding community event students (“I’m
using simple words/ [name], I’m from
signs and formulaic [country]”)
expressions, provided
they can prepare in
advance.

2 Can describe themselves e.g. some e.g. some e.g. some e.g. some
with familiar words simple personal simple personal simple personal simple personal
or mostly memorised information at a information at a information about information to the
phrases, provided they party with friends party organised by their job (“My job other students
can prepare in advance an association, if is [job title]”)
(e.g. “My name is invited to present
[name]”). themselves

1 Can produce a turn e.g. some e.g. their name at a e.g. their name at e.g. some
(e.g. giving some basic basic personal public office workplace basic personal
personal information) information information to
by using mostly a single (“Big family”) if their classmate
word or phrase. invited to present
themselves at a
private event

Sustained Monologue: Giving Information

Sustained Monologue: Giving Information concerns explaining information to a recipient. Although the
recipient may well interrupt to ask for repetition and clarification, the information is clearly unidirectional;
it is not an exchange. The scale also includes a particular type of information aimed at giving instruction
or warning.
Key concepts operationalised in the scale include the following:
f ease of speaking: from utterances, mostly constituting a single word or phrase, to the production of simple
sentences;
f content of speech: from basic information, instructions, warnings to information about familiar persons
and places.

LASLLIAM scales and tables Page 61

 Personal Public Occupational Educational
4 Can give e.g. in an e.g. the scheduling e.g. the main points e.g. the planning
information about audiovisual of a community of a programme of a school trip
time, familiar recording to a event (“The lunch related to a job in a peer-to-peer
persons and friend (“Sorry, I can’t is at 1”); to a meeting; to a activity; a flashcard
places with simple come”); how to passenger at the colleague (“Be within the learning
sentences (e.g. “The reach the venue of bus stop (“Take bus careful, the floor is environment (“This
meeting is in the a party [number]”) wet!”) is the gym of the
office”). school”)

3 Can give simple e.g. an audiovisual e.g. a visit e.g. when a job e.g. the timetable
information recording to a scheduled at a meeting starts of the course to a
about time and friend (“[name] is in medical centre new student (“The
familiar persons [city]”) lessons end at 6”)
(e.g. address,
phone number)
with short, simple
sentences.

Can give e.g. the address of a e.g. the location of e.g. to a colleague e.g. to a student
instructions or familiar restaurant the exit in a hospital (“Don’t touch!”) (“Wait a moment!”)
warnings with
short, simple
phrases, often
accompanied by
body language.

2 Can give some e.g. food in a e.g. familiar e.g. familiar objects e.g. objects and
simple information shopping list products in a used in their job tools in learning
with familiar words (“Bread and fruit”) supermarket tasks materials
or phrases (e.g.
“Need food”).

Can give simple e.g. to a relative e.g. to a passenger e.g. a simple e.g. a simple
instructions or (“Wait here”) (“Be careful!”) procedure to a procedure to
warnings with colleague (“Do it”) another student
familiar words,
accompanied by
body language.

1 Can produce a turn e.g. the name of e.g. the name of e.g. their working e.g. the name of
(e.g. giving some their neighbours their doctor days at a factory their teacher
basic personal
information) by
using mostly a
single word or
phrase.

Can give basic e.g. to a friend e.g. to a bus driver e.g. to a colleague e.g. to their
instructions (“Wait!”) (“Stop!”) classmate
or warnings (“Attention!”)
mostly with
body language,
accompanied by
a single word or
phrase.

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 f Unless indicated otherwise, the names of the cate-
category Creative Writing is also used in this reference gories and order of the scales in this reference guide
guide, but the more formal category (Written Reports are the same as in the CEFR Companion volume.
and Essays) is called Functional Writing here because f Please note that the descriptors in blue font are
these scales are aimed at beginning writers. For Written the same as in the CEFR Companion volume levels
Production LASLLIAM thus defines one Overall scale A1 and Pre-A1.
and two Specific scales for: f The descriptors in the Overall scales (apart from the
1. Creative Writing blue ones from the CEFR Companion volume) are
2. Functional Writing. presented according to the formula “Can do X (re-
ferring to the communicative activity) by reading/
Creative Writing covers simple descriptions of personal
writing/listening/speaking Y (referring to practice,
experiences, imaginative expressions or short narratives.
length and linguistic complexity)”. This formula
Functional Writing focuses on more formal, functional
must always be taken into account as implicit in
uses of written language.
all other descriptors of the Specific scales.
The writing activity required follows the progression f For concrete application of the descriptors see the
line described in the Technical Literacy scale: tables embedded in the Specific scales, with exam­
f the cognitive activity involved: from copying single ples of language use in the four different domains.
words to writing practised words and routine f Please note that such examples related to the four
phrases, and later to writing in a comprehensible domains might need adaptation according to the
way orally familiar words and phrases that are context and the learners’ needs.
new in writing;101
f length and linguistic complexity: from short words
with a simple phonological structure to phonologically and morphologically more complex words, and
short and simple sentences;102
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 orally
familiar vocabulary;
f content and text type: from simple one-word descriptions of persons or objects to simple descriptions of
an event, or a very simple narrative or poem.

101. The characterisation “in a comprehensible way” does not necessarily imply correct spelling. As long as phoneme–grapheme
correspondences are applied, non-orthographic spellings are accepted at all levels.
102. Short and simple sentences refers to mainly one-clause sentences of limited length.

LASLLIAM scales and tables Page 63

 Personal Public Occupational Educational
4 Can produce simple e.g. about a new e.g. in introducing e.g. in introducing e.g. introducing
phrases and sentences acquaintance in a self in a community self or colleague self or colleague
about themselves and posting or e-mail bulletin in an e-mail to in a parent
imaginary people, where to a friend colleagues committee; as a
they live and what they classroom story-
do. writing task

Can describe in very e.g. a new e.g. in a note about a e.g. in short note e.g. in an e-mail
simple language what residence in an room for rent (“Cosy to a new colleague to other parents
a room looks like. e-mail to a friend room in the city about workplace about new school;
centre. 20 square in a classroom
metres, with large writing exercise or
window and built-in simulation
wardrobe. newly
painted”)

Can produce a e.g. description of e.g. the description Not applicable e.g. a simple poem
descriptive or narrative a personal event of an object that or narrative about
text consisting of a few in a message to a they want to sell home country
simple sentences. friend

3 Can write descriptive or e.g. comments/ e.g. in “lost e.g. in an app- e.g. a picture story
narrative short, simple memories in a and found” on group or posting with captions to
phrases. photo album supermarket on company photos about
(“Here I am with bulletin board website (“I am a school visit
my aunt. We went Nora from Syria. I (“Our class in
to the zoo”) am 25 years old”) the castle”); as a
writing exercise

2 Can write some words e.g. in an app- e.g. in a very e.g. practised words e.g. as a writing
about themselves (e.g. group or posting simple contact in an app-group exercise with
age, gender, my son) with practised advertisement with or posting on practised words
or objects of personal words practised words company website
relevance. (“I am Nora”)

1 Can copy some words e.g. as a caption Not applicable e.g. as caption to a e.g. as caption to a
about themselves or to a picture in picture in an app- picture on a school
objects of personal app or photo group or posting bulletin board
relevance. album (“My son related to an
and me”) educational visit (a
place of interest in
the city)

Functional Writing
Functional Writing covers the emerging use of writing for everyday purposes. It focuses on social and functional
practices such as using lists, labels, agendas, planners, simple messages or notes.
Key concepts operationalised in the scale include the following:
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 of
interest and routine factual information in agendas or planners.

Personal Public Occupational Educational

4 Can produce phrases e.g. in an e-mail e.g. in an e-mail e.g. in an e-mail to e.g. in an e-mail
and simple sentences to to the landlord to cancel an inform employer to another parent
present a familiar topic. about the rent or appointment with about sick leave or about the school
to a friend about a the dentist colleague about a report (“How was
meeting (“Sorry, I cannot routine event the report of your
come to the son? Tarik’s was
appointment fine”)
tomorrow. I am ill.”)

Page 64 3 Literacy and second language learning for the linguistic integration of adult migrants
 Personal Public Occupational Educational
Can use simple words/ e.g. a new e.g. in a note to e.g. in a very e.g. in an e-mail
signs and phrases purchase in a sell an object on simple form of about a present for
to describe certain posting or e-mail the bulletin board protocol the teacher; as a
everyday objects (e.g. to a friend of the commercial classroom writing
the colour of a car, centre exercise
whether it is big or
small).

3 Can note down short, e.g. notes on e.g. notes e.g. conversation e.g. (child’s)
simple phrases as a a to-do list; from visit of scaffold for a team homework or
memory aid (e.g. notes). conversation district nurse; meeting; work scaffold to prepare
scaffold for a talk conversation tasks or short note a presentation
to the caretaker; scaffold for a visit as preparation for (“Who I am,
short note about a to office, shop or a meeting where I come from,
child’s lesson bank what I do”)

2 Can note down practised e.g. name, date e.g. name, date e.g. for team e.g. lesson, date
words as a memory aid. and time of visit and time of meeting, and time in
to a relative; in a appointment anniversary party, planner; name of
memo to children with doctor or at or lunch meeting the teacher
or neighbour hospital (“Friday
May 11, 14.00:
dentist”)

1 Can copy words to e.g. cooking e.g. name on letter e.g. routine e.g. folders or
label objects such as a ingredients or box, doorbell or packages as a vocabulary
suitcase. tools possessions exercise; lunch box
or child’s clothes
(“Abel Zema”)

Can write a personally e.g. date and e.g. appointment e.g. working days e.g. room number,
relevant word by time of sports at the doctor’s or a and times lesson time and
copying it into an club; birthdays of public office name of teacher
agenda. relatives; public
holidays (“June 17:
Aunt Nora”)

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): from
challenges related to expressing meaning through chunks or sight words and practised words, to challenges
to expressing more complex ideas in a planned situation;
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 morpheme
knowledge).
Notice that affective and socio-interactive strategies have not been scaled (see box below), but are nevertheless
of utmost importance for successful production, in particular for overcoming oral language anxiety.

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 motivate
themselves 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, demons-
tration 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 short
talk).

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

f Unless indicated otherwise, the names of the cate-
The CEFR Companion volume defines the concept gories and order of the scales in this reference guide
of interaction as involving “two or more parties are the same as in the CEFR Companion volume.
co-constructing discourse” (Council of Europe 2020: 70).
f Please note that the descriptors in blue font are the
Dialogues and voice message exchanges are examples
same as in the CEFR Companion volume levels A1
from the field of oracy; textual exchanges by mobile
and Pre-A1.
phone, as well as form completion or textbook activities,
are examples from the field of written language. f The descriptors in the Overall scales (apart from the
blue ones from the CEFR Companion volume) are
For beginning second language readers and writers, presented according to the formula “Can do X (re-
both spoken and written interaction are central aspects ferring to the communicative activity) by reading/
of coping with everyday life in a second language writing/listening/speaking Y (referring to practice,
and should therefore be core elements of learning length and linguistic complexity)”. This formula
environments for this target group. Whereas online must always be taken into account as implicit in
interaction is a separate section in the CEFR Companion all other descriptors of the Specific scales.
volume, it has been included in the LASLLIAM Oral and
f For concrete application of the descriptors see the
Written Interaction scales for simplicity from the start.
tables embedded in the Specific scales, with exam­
ples of language use in the four different domains.
4.2.5.1. Oral Interaction
f Please note that such examples related to the four
This reference guide underlines the importance of oral domains might need adaptation according to the
interaction, which is fundamental for adult migrants context 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 group
the spoken dimension suggests more interaction than production, as the eight scales elaborated aim to highlight.
As in the CEFR Companion volume, in addition to the Overall scale, LASLLIAM provides seven 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, information
exchange, invitation or giving instruction and they constantly emphasise the role of non-verbal aspects and
mutual support in oral communication.
Oral interaction in a second language does not depend on the ability to read and write in a second language, or in any
other language, as proved by the many non-literate adults who have acquired oral 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 to
reveal 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 consist
of 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 other
body language;
2.2. prosody and pronunciation must be close to those present in the geographical area where the exchange
takes place;
2.3. intonational patterns must be clearly expressed;
2.4. the interlocutor must support constantly, by repeating and rephrasing where needed, highlighting a strong
willingness to collaborate in the communication.
Regarding the third, the characteristics of the output present at every level are:
3.1. continuous reliance on gestures and other body language to convey the meaning;
3.2. constant presence of pauses in the turns;
3.3. recurrence of formulaic expressions, often memorised.
In using the LASLLIAM descriptors related to the spoken dimension of languages, please be aware that gestures
and other body language often have implications that need careful consideration in relation to gender, age,
culture and social aspects.

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 units
of 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 to
simple 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 on
very familiar topics.
3 Can ask and answer questions about themselves and daily routines, using short, formulaic expressions and
relying on gestures to reinforce the information.
Can interact in a familiar context by using short, simple sentences and phrases with frequent words.
2 Can answer simple questions (e.g. for personally relevant information) by using familiar words, phrases or
memorised 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 the
deep connection between listening and speaking within the interaction. For this scale, LASLLIAM does not
provide a domain table because all the examples related to oral interaction within the other domain tables focus
on co-constructing discourse in practice, where the learner is also asked to produce turns.
Key concepts operationalised in the scale include the following:
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 understand
questions on this theme addressed to them, though the questions may need to be repeated.

103. As for Oral Reception and Production scales, short and simple here mean that the speech is mostly composed of phrases and words
which are salient and of sentences with a simple syntactic structure.

LASLLIAM scales and tables Page 69

 2 Can pick out isolated pieces of information and frequent social formulas 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.

Conversation
Conversation concerns interaction that aims to establish, maintain or reinforce personal relationships, especially
with friends, colleagues and other LASLLIAM learners. Therefore, the descriptors highlight the social function
of communicative exchanges.
Key concepts operationalised in the scale include the following:
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 Public Occupational Educational

4 Can open and close a e.g. to a friend e.g. with e.g. during a break e.g. after a group
conversation with simple (“Thank you for someone in a with members of activity successfully
sentences and formulaic the flowers”); queue at a post their team meeting; completed (“Well
expressions (gratitude, confirming the office; to the with a new colleague done”); with the
wishes, apologies and appointment dentist (It is (“Nice to meet you”); teacher (“See
congratulations). for the renewal better to finish addressing the need you tomorrow”);
of a residence next time. “Fine for a break after a job postponing
permit for me”) task an individual
information
technology lesson

Can take part in a simple e.g. posting in e.g. at the fair e.g. with their e.g. posting online
conversation of a basic a chat an audio of a community employer an audio message
factual nature on a message to a centre to the classroom
predictable topic (e.g. friend (“What’s chat; in an activity
their home country, the weather on the colours of
family, school). like?”) the flags of the
learners’ countries

Can ask how people are e.g. to a e.g. to people e.g. to a customer e.g. to a fellow
and react to news. neighbour met at a party student
(“Are you well organised by an
today?”) association

3 Can open and close a e.g. during a e.g. at an event e.g. after finishing a e.g. in a peer-to-
conversation with short, party (“Happy within the social job task (“Sorry, I am peer activity
simple sentences and new year”) sphere (“All the tired”); accepting a
formulaic expressions best”) task distribution (“I will
(gratitude, wishes and do it”)
apologies).

Can greet people, state e.g. their e.g. an employer e.g. introducing e.g. during a
their name and take trainer at the of the town/ themselves to a new parent–teacher
leave in a simple way. end of a gym district colleague conference (“Good
lesson morning, I’m the
father of [name]”)

2 Can react in opening and e.g. to the e.g. entering e.g. for not being able e.g. coming late to
closing a conversation landlord (How a public office to do something (“I’m class; welcoming a
with familiar words or are you? “Good, (“Good morning”) sorry”) new student
memorised formulaic thanks”);
expressions (gratitude thanking a
and apologies). friend

1 Can respond to simple e.g. to the e.g. (Good e.g. meeting someone e.g. at the end of
greetings with a single postman morning. “Good at the entrance of the the lesson (Bye.
word. morning”) workplace (“Hi [name]”) “Bye”)

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 use
of language. Therefore, the descriptors are embedded in informal contexts, primarily involving communication
between friends or other students within a learning environment.
Key concepts operationalised in the scale include the following:
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 and
disagreement;
f degree of engagement and role in the interaction: from responding mainly through gestures and other
body language to exchanging likes and dislikes (e.g. related to foods and sports).

Personal Public Occupational Educational

4 Can exchange likes and e.g. posting an Not applicable Not applicable e.g. in a
dislikes for sports, foods, audio message in a brainstorming
etc., using a limited social chat (“I don’t activity based
repertoire of expressions, like vegetables”); on intercultural
when addressed clearly, in relation to a exchanges (“Do
slowly and directly. behaviour of a you like…?”)
friend

3 Can exchange e.g. with a friend Not applicable Not applicable e.g. in a simple
agreement, partial about going role-play
agreement and out for a meal
disagreement, often (“Good idea!”)
accompanied by body
language.

2 Can respond to simple e.g. going Not applicable Not applicable e.g. participating
questions about likes shopping in a peer activity
and dislikes related to with a friend,
familiar persons and in relation to
things. bought products
(“Not good”)

Can respond by e.g. in relation to Not applicable Not applicable e.g. accepting
expressing agreement a daily plan of the their part in a role-
with familiar words or children play (“It’s fine”)
phrases accompanied by
body language (e.g. “It’s
OK”).

1 Can respond to basic e.g. to a friend Not applicable Not applicable e.g. in a small
questions about likes (You like it? “Yes”) group activity
and dislikes with Yes/No related to basic
answers. foods

Can respond by e.g. to a neighbour Not applicable Not applicable e.g. to a fellow
expressing agreement student (“OK”)
mostly with body
language, accompanied
by a single word or phrase.

Goal-Oriented Co-Operation
Goal-Oriented Co-Operation focuses on task-based activities where learner and interlocutor are required to
collaborate in order to achieve a shared aim. Therefore, the descriptors refer both to formal and informal contexts.
Key concepts operationalised in the scale include the following:
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 and
giving permission.

LASLLIAM scales and tables Page 71

 Personal Public Occupational Educational
4 Can ask for and give e.g. during a video e.g. in a public e.g. with a e.g. referring to
permission with simple call with a friend office (“Good customer an activity (“Can I
sentences. morning, can I stop now?”)
come in, please?”)

Can act on basic e.g. involved in the e.g. giving e.g. sharing place e.g. co-operating
instructions that homework of their directions within and time of a work in carrying out
involve times, locations, children a building (“Go to commitment a task like a
numbers, etc. the hall there, then language game
turn left”)

Can understand e.g. answering a e.g. helping a e.g. about e.g. engaged in a
questions and friend passer-by (“Where changing a shift simple scenario-
instructions addressed is the hospital?”) based activity
carefully and slowly to
them and follow short,
simple directions.

3 Can ask for and give e.g. to a neighbour e.g. at the e.g. for a break to a e.g. going to the
permission with short, immigration desk colleague during a toilet during the
simple sentences (“Can (“Please, come in”) shared job task lesson
I?”).

Can interact in a familiar e.g. dictating a e.g. following e.g. describing e.g. in group
context by using short, message into directions on the a problem in a work within
simple sentences and an answering street (“Straight on team meeting (“It the learning
phrases with frequent machine (“I call and turn right”) doesn’t work”) environment
words. later”)

2 Can act on simple e.g. where to find e.g. in simple e.g. naming the e.g. highlighting
instructions with familiar the light switch procedures to object involved a missing
words, accompanied by for the apartment validate a ticket in a problem for a comprehension
body language (e.g. “On building staircase in the bus (“Place job task (“Broken (“Don’t
left”). here”) door”) understand”)

1 Can give permission with e.g. to a friend e.g. in a queue at e.g. to a colleague e.g. in a simple
Yes/No answers. (Can I? “Yes”) the ticket office role-play with the
teacher

Can act on basic e.g. with a e.g. in order to e.g. asking for help e.g. indicating
instructions mostly neighbour get off the bus in a job situation they have
with body language, (“Sorry”) understood an
accompanied by a single exercise (“OK”)
word or phrase (e.g.
“Help”).

Can respond to a e.g. refusing a e.g. accepting an e.g. accepting e.g. accepting a
proposal with Yes/No drink (“No”) appointment lunch with a task distribution
answers. colleague (“Yes”) in a peer activity
(“Fine”)

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 handling
numbers, cost and quantities.

Personal Public Occupational Educational

4 Can ask people for things e.g. to the e.g. asking for e.g. requesting e.g. requesting the
and give people things. caretaker of a mediator as the accident class timetable
the apartment support for an prevention kit of the children’s
building; to a asylum request or school (“Can I
neighbour (“Do information about have the class
you have two products (e.g. food timetable?”)
eggs, please?”) ingredients)

Can handle numbers, e.g. managing the e.g. at the e.g. asking about e.g. role-play on
quantities, cost and time. bill at the end of a supermarket working days shopping
meal in a group checkout in the calendar
(“Is Saturday a
working day?”)

3 Can ask people for things e.g. a small loan e.g. the ticket e.g. to another e.g. a book for
and give things with to a friend to machine at the employee (“Pass their children or a
short, simple phrases, recharge their station me [name of a second language
often accompanied by mobile tool]”) manual at the
body language (e.g. “Give school library
me [name of an object]”).

Can make simple e.g. buying e.g. at a bar (“I e.g. ordering e.g. at the school
purchases and/or order something with a would like a something during cafeteria (“I would
food or drink when friend coffee”); or to the a company outing like a coffee”)
pointing or other gesture clerk of a shoe
can support the verbal shop (“The black
reference. shoes, thank you”)

2 Can act on a need or e.g. to a neighbour e.g. in a shelter e.g. to find the e.g. for
request with familiar (“I need bread”) such as refugees’ toilet in the educational
words or phrases facilities (“I’m factory materials by
accompanied by body cold”) describing objects
language. (“The pencil,
please”)

1 Can act on a need or e.g. at a friend’s e.g. to their doctor e.g. passing a e.g. to their
request mostly with body house (“Toilet”) (“I bad”) working tool classmate (“Pen”)
language, accompanied
by a single word or
phrase (e.g. “Take”).

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 other
people they know;
f degree of engagement and role in the interaction: from answering to asking and answering.

LASLLIAM scales and tables Page 73

 Personal Public Occupational Educational
4 Can ask and answer e.g. with the new e.g. in the refugee e.g. with a e.g. within a
questions about neighbours camp (“Do customer learner’s social
themselves and other you know the forum
people, where they live, mediator?”)
people they know, things
they have.

Can indicate time by e.g. dictating e.g. the arrival e.g. about the end e.g. taking
lexicalised phrases like simple time of a train of the working day information about
“next week”, “last Friday”, information in a (“I finish at 5”) the children’s
“in November”, “3 o’clock”. phone call with a school summer
friend holiday

Can express numbers, e.g. taking e.g. the cost of a e.g. the price e.g. counting the
quantities and cost in a decisions about bus ticket per kilo of the number of letters
limited way. a shopping list vegetables they and syllables in
(“We need six sell in the market words given by
tomatoes”) the teacher

Can name the colour of e.g. talking about e.g. to a shop e.g. related to their e.g. describing
clothes or other familiar their new clothes assistant in a job equipment a flashcard with
objects and can ask the clothing store pictures
colour of such objects. (“Can I see the red
shirt?”)

3 Can ask very simple e.g. about e.g. about e.g. about their e.g. in a virtual
questions for the cooking the price of a job (“I do many exchange during a
information, such as ingredients of a transport pass things”) distance learning
“What is this?” and just-eaten dish activity
understand one- or two-
word/sign answers.

Can ask and tell what day, e.g. at the pool, e.g. in an e.g. related to the e.g. in the office of
time of day and date it is. taking information administrative planning of the the driving school
about the office working week (“The next lesson
planning of the is on Tuesday”)
swimming course

Can ask for and give a e.g. during a e.g. in their local Not applicable e.g. of their
date of birth. ceremony within registry office children for their
the familiar sphere school inscription
(“My birthday is
[date]”)

Can ask for and give a e.g. to a new e.g. to call an e.g. to a customer e.g. the school
phone number. friend ambulance (“Call me on contacts
[number]”)

Can tell people their age e.g. during a e.g. to the dentist Not applicable e.g. to their
and ask people about ceremony within referring to their classmate
their age. the familiar sphere child (“[name] is
10”)

2 Can answer simple e.g. giving the e.g. when ordering e.g. about their e.g. informing
questions (e.g. for name of family goods (What is job (“Good salary”) their teacher
personally relevant members to the your telephone about the time
information) by using landlord number? (“It’s 7”)
familiar words, phrases “340279402”)
or memorised formulaic
expressions.

1 Can answer questions e.g. at a party of e.g. to the police e.g. about their e.g. to the teacher
about some basic friends and family (“I Moroccan”) job (“I worker”) (“I Marta”)
personal information with
a single word or phrase.

Page 74 3 Literacy and second language learning for the linguistic integration of adult migrants
 Interviewing and Being Interviewed
Interviewing and Being Interviewed deals with specific situations especially related to public, occupational
and educational domains, such as a doctor’s appointment, a dialogue with an official, a job interview or a
communication within the learning environment, which aims to present a student. Therefore, it represents a
particular form of information exchange focused on personal details.
Key concepts operationalised in the scale include the following:
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 and
answering.

Personal Public Occupational Educational

4 Can reply in an interview Not applicable e.g. with the e.g. in a simple e.g. helping a new
to simple direct commission in job interview, classmate who
questions, put very relation to their answering speaks one of their
slowly and clearly in request for asylum simple direct native languages
direct, non-idiomatic questions on to introduce
language, about personal skills, availability themselves to the
details. for some job class
conditions (Can
you work in a
different town?),
provided they
can prepare in
advance

Can state in simple Not applicable e.g. on the e.g. a headache e.g. engaging in a
language the nature of location of pain, to the company simple role-play
a problem to a health main symptoms doctor
professional and answer and duration
simple questions such as within a medical
“Does that hurt?” even consultation (“I
though they have to rely feel sick in the
on gestures and body morning”)
language to reinforce the
message.

3 Can ask and answer Not applicable e.g. on the pain, e.g. to their e.g. being
questions about personal within a medical employer (“I’m interviewed
information, feelings and interview (“I have [name], I’m from during an
health with short, simple fever”) [country]”) ice-breaking
phrases and formulaic activity provided
expressions (e.g. “I’m in the first
[name], I’m from Syria”). meetings within
the learning
environment
(e.g. Hello! How
are you? “I am
well, thanks, and
you?”)

2 Can give some simple Not applicable e.g. in the e.g. to their e.g. in a peer-to-
information with familiar immigration employer (Where peer activity
words or phrases. office, with the do you come
support of the from? “From
mediator Syria”.)

1 Can answer questions Not applicable e.g. body parts in a e.g. to their e.g. to a teacher
about basic personal medical interview employer (Do you to present
information with a single (“Back”) live close to here? themselves
word or phrase (e.g. “I “Yes”)
Syria”).

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, f Unless indicated otherwise, the names of the
Messages and Forms. Separately from these, the CEFR categories and order of the scales in this reference
Companion volume also has two scales for online guide are the same as in the CEFR Companion
interaction: Online Conversation and Discussion, and volume.
Goal-Oriented Online Transactions and Collaboration. f Please note that the descriptors in blue font are
the same as in the CEFR Companion volume levels
Because written interaction these days is more often A1 and Pre-A1.
online than offline, this reference guide integrates both
f The descriptors in the Overall scales (apart from the
of them, providing (in addition to the Overall scale) two
blue ones from the CEFR Companion volume) are
Specific scales for:
presented according to the formula “Can do X (re-
1. (Offline and Online) Correspondence ferring to the communicative activity) by reading/
2. (Offline and Online) Notes, Messages, Forms and writing/listening/speaking Y (referring to practice,
Transactions). length and linguistic complexity)”. This formula
must always be taken into account as implicit in
As in the CEFR Companion volume, Correspondence
all other descriptors of the Specific scales.
focuses on exchanges in written or multimodal
form, often of an interpersonal nature. The scale for f For concrete application of the descriptors see
Notes, Messages, Forms and Transactions is more the tables embedded in the Specific scales, with
focused on functional, often goal-oriented, transfer examples of language use in the four different
of information. domains.
f Please note that such examples related to the four
The activities required for Written Interaction follow domains might need adaptation according to the
the progression line described in the Technical Literacy context and the learners’ needs.
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 comprehensible
way) orally familiar words and phrases;104
f length and linguistic complexity: from short words with a simple phonological structure to phonologically
and morphologically more complex words, and short and simple sentences;105
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 a
dictionary.

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, propo-
sals or expressions of feelings;
f type of language: from single-word conventions to formulaic expressions and short, simple sentences of
politeness;
f the ability to include symbols, images and other multimodal means: from a single emoji to a combination
of text and image.

Personal Public Occupational Educational

4 Can compose a short, e.g. message for a Not applicable e.g. a simple note e.g. a simple
very simple message (e.g. neighbour about for a colleague note for a fellow
a text message) to friends help in the garden about absence or student about a
to give them a piece of a piece of work needed book
information or to ask
them a question.
Can use formulaic e.g. making contact e.g. making e.g. a reaction e.g. in a Q&A
expressions and with remote friends a statement to news on the section of a school
combinations of simple and/or family in a public website of a learning platform
words/signs to post short discussion on company
positive and negative social media
reactions to simple
online postings and their
embedded links and
media, and can respond
to further comments with
standard expressions of
thanks and apology.
Can ask for or report e.g. a short message e.g. a short e.g. a short text e.g. a short e-mail
personal details in areas for a friend to ask for text message message for a to a teacher with
of immediate need in an help with moving to the doctor colleague to offer an apology for
everyday context. out to confirm an help being late; a
appointment message to the
child’s teacher
about bullying in
the playground

3 Can post simple online e.g. on a social e.g. on a social e.g. in an e.g. as a language
greetings, using basic network site network site employee network classroom
formulaic expressions group simulation
and emoticons.

Can write and respond e.g. a note for a e.g. a lost/ e.g. a message to e.g. a message
to simple messages of neighbour about a found message a fellow worker to the child’s
personal relevance with package delivered; in hallway of about a phone teacher (‘“My child
short, simple phrases and a reaction to a own building; call (e.g. “Gina is ill’”); a reaction
formulaic expressions. message from a for selling an called. Please, call to a message
friend about their object online back”); a proposal about parent
illness (“Sorry for to a colleague to volunteering;
you”) switch shift congratulations

2 Can write some simple e.g. text message Not applicable e.g. a note for a e.g. a message to
messages with practised or card for a friend colleague (“Call the teacher of a
words and memorised (“Good luck!”); caption number…”); child (“My child
formulaic expressions. when sharing a photo (“Okay, see you is ill”)
(“my son”) there”)

LASLLIAM scales and tables Page 77

 Personal Public Occupational Educational

Can exchange e.g. in a message to a Not applicable e.g. in a message e.g. “How are you?”
greetings in a short friend with an emoji to a colleague to a fellow student
communication. (“Hi! ”); (“Bye, safe (“Happy who is absent
travel”) Birthday!”)

1 Can copy some words e.g. in a message to Not applicable e.g. “My number e.g. in an app-
about themselves or a friend (“Yes, I am is…” group of the class
objects of personal Mela”) (“From Syria”);
relevance. “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 of
transactional 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 and
purchasing goods, and later to short and simple messages and notes;
f type of language: from single-word choices, entries, notes and messages to formulaic expressions and
short, simple sentences adequate in tone;
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 combination
of text and image.

Personal Public Occupational Educational

4 Can leave a simple e.g. an e-mail to a e.g. a note left for e.g. in a transfer e.g. an e-mail to
message regarding for friend local community form for a the child’s school
instance where they members (like colleague who about a visit to the
have gone, or what food left for others takes over dentist; note for
time they will be back in the club house) the service a fellow student
(e.g. “Shopping: back at (“Mrs Smith needs about a joint
5 p.m.”). her medicine at 4”) assignment

Can complete a Not applicable e.g. ordering e.g. completing e.g. enrolling on
very simple online goods by a simple a course online
purchase or application, completing a interdepartmental as a language
providing basic personal simple order form form with familiar classroom
information (such as with familiar words words and simulation
name, e-mail address or and illustrations illustrations
telephone number).

Can write or react to a e.g. invitation to a e.g. to cancel an e.g. invitation to a e.g. in a portfolio
proposal, intention or funeral appointment colleague to travel related to own
obligation with simple with the local together/answer learning/answer to
sentences and formulaic administration to an invitation to an invitation from
expressions. a meeting the child’s teacher

3 Can fill in very simple e.g. registration e.g. name and e.g. a work shift e.g. a registration
registration forms form for a sports address on the transfer form in form for a child’s
with basic personal club metre readings frequent words school outing; an
details: name, address, for a utility bill or and formulaic application form
nationality, marital status. on a lost object expressions for a language test
declaration form

Page 78 3 Literacy and second language learning for the linguistic integration of adult migrants
 Personal Public Occupational Educational

Can make selections (e.g. Not applicable e.g. ordering e.g. completing e.g. in the form
choosing a product, size, goods by a simple received from
colour) in a simple online completing a interdepartmental the secretariat
purchase or application simple tick-box tick-box form with to indicate the
form, provided there is order form with familiar words and choice of time
visual support. familiar words and illustrations for the language
illustrations course based on
their availability

Can write and respond e.g. proposal to e.g. invitation e.g. proposal to e.g. confirmation
to simple messages with cook for a friend to community share car to go to of appointment
short, simple phrases and members (“Who work with child’s
formulaic expressions. can help with teacher; question
cleaning?”) for a fellow
student about
homework

2 Can write some simple e.g. response to an e.g. response to e.g. invitation to e.g. response to
messages with practised invitation (“Yes, I public health a fellow worker simple online
words and memorised can help”) nurse (“Sorry, I am (“Lunch at 1?”); exercise prompts
formulaic expressions. ill”); appointment appointment with (like pictures
with a local manager (“Thanks, or words);
government office I come”) appointment with
(“Monday is fine”) the child’s teacher
(“Tuesday is fine”)

Can fill in some e.g. name, address e.g. name, date e.g. name, date e.g. name, date of
information in a short, and account and time of and time on a birth and address
simple form with number in utility volunteering in worksheet on enrolment
practised words. bill online form of the form; date and
local community single-word
answers on a very
simple work sheet

1 Can copy some words to e.g. “Okay, Samira” e.g. putting name e.g. in signing up e.g. putting name
respond to a message. and time on a list with their name on an activity list
for work for the for an activity at
local community the workplace

4.2.6. Interaction Strategies

LASLLIAM Language Use Strategies use the three general metacognitive categories of planning, compensating,
and monitoring and repair (see 2.2.4). Metacognitive planning of interaction involves aspects such as: prediction
of situations and the text types typically occurring in those situations; anticipation of content as well as preparing
conversation 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 and
resources 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, to
challenges 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, to
understanding 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 or
a 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 those
composed 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 nevertheless
of utmost importance for successful interaction, in particular in oral interaction to involve the interlocutor and
share 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 motivate
themselves 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, demons-
tration 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 an
utterance.

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 in
comprehension.

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 SKILLS
The 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 and
online interaction.
In order to emphasise the importance of digital literacy as an integral part of literacy and the key to further
education, LASLLIAM 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 digital
competences are deemed essential:
1. Technical Skills
2. Communication and Collaboration
3. Content Creation and Management
4. Safety.
The Digital Skills descriptors are meant to provide examples (not an exhaustive list) of the kinds of skills needed
by the target group to be able to participate in a digital society. The main aim is to fine-tune the first steps into
realistic and manageable tasks that are essential to functioning on a daily basis in a digital society. Although
some descriptors typically require a certain level of literacy in order to be carried out, advances in technology
make it possible to carry out such tasks even with limited literacy. For example, “Can browse the internet to locate
personally relevant information” can be carried out using voice commands (no literacy) or written commands
(literacy), so the learner can ask for information without necessarily having to type. Other descriptors can be
carried out using visual (icons) or oral cues while some need written input and therefore require a certain level
of literacy.

4.3.1. Technical Skills

As indicated in 2.2.5, Technical Skills are of utmost importance to carrying out tasks in a digital environment but
they are mostly language independent and focus on the technical aspect of carrying out a task, for example,
pressing a button to turn a device on or off. These skills are the essential skills that underpin the use of other
skills. Therefore, they are not scaled as they do not necessarily need to be learned in a linear order, as once you
learn the skill, there is no higher level (for example, once you know how to turn the device on or off, there is no
higher level). Furthermore, using a mouse is not linked to knowing how to update apps on a mobile device. The
list is not an exhaustive list of skills. It will vary based on the devices and systems that learners will need to use
on a daily basis to carry out essential tasks. The skills can be carried out with (at the start) or without (later on)
guidance. See the box below for a number of these technical skills.

Technical Skills
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 or
symbols, 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 not
an end in itself, but a means to achieve functional literacy so they are meant to complement and support the
Communicative Language Activities and Language Use Strategies scales. As is the case with all the LASLLIAM
scales, the descriptors in each scale are not co-dependent, so a learner might be at level 1 in a certain scale and
level 2 or 3 in another. This does not apply to digital skills descriptors only, but also to the relationship between
digital skills descriptors and other LASLLIAM descriptors. This means for instance that a learner who is at level 3
in Spoken Production could be at level 4 in Communication and Collaboration skills.
Key concepts operationalised in the scales include the following:
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 and
abstract 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 a
machine).

Can identify the icons of basic functions on a digital device (e.g. symbol of an app or a browser).

Can identify icons of familiar social media accounts (e.g. Instagram).

Can understand visual clues to interact (emojis, photos, GIFS).

4.3.3. Content Creation and Management

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 DESIGN

The 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 micro
level of class curricula and the nano level of individual experience of courses and personal development (see
Figure 5). LASLLIAM clearly is an international document intended for curriculum design at the supra level, and
as such it serves as a reference tool across Europe for the development of curricula at the other levels. In line with
the CEFR Companion volume, it should not be misinterpreted as a prescriptive document, but understood as a
guide that provides points of orientation for the various stakeholders in curriculum design including materials
developers as well as teachers who plan courses and lessons. It is our hope that LASLLIAM will stimulate debates
at the supra level about policy recommendations and mutual recognition of segments of the literacy and second
language learning process that have taken place in 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 the
macro, meso and micro level – and thus, it is hoped, contribute to individual learning experienced as personally
significant at the nano level. Like the CEFR Companion volume (Council of Europe 2020: 43), LASLLIAM can be
used to develop curricula from scratch or be referred to for inspiration in adapting an existing one.

5.2. USING LASLLIAM FOR CURRICULUM DESIGN AT THE MACRO LEVEL

Curricula at the supra and macro levels are also called intended curricula; they are 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 be
particularly true for the rather new curricula for literacy and second language learning. Most characteristic for
this 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 and
exit profiles (maybe even outlines of syllabi), contents and standards of teachers’ professional development for

107. 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 of
courses in terms of methods, teacher roles, admitted materials, aids and resources for funding/subsidies and
for 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 and
second 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, the
standards 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 the
state adult education centres (CPIA-Centri Provinciali per l’Istruzione degli Adulti), under the direction of
the Ministry of Education (MIUR) which determines general aims, course duration, and the entry and exit
levels. Currently, courses are particularly focused on the CEFR levels required by the immigration law for
residency (A2) and citizenship (B1), with a prevalence of courses from A1 (entry level) to A2.112 While literacy
and second language courses have been provided since the late 1980s, targeted courses for non-literate and
low-literate migrants were formally established in 2016, when the syllabus for low-literates (Pre-A1, 2016)
and non-literates (Alfa, 2018)113 were published by the consortium CLIQ (Certificazione Lingua Italiana di
Qualità)114 and formally approved by the MIUR. According to these syllabi, courses without any charge of
up to 300 hours (Alfa, non-literates), plus up to an additional 150 hours (Pre-A1, low-literates) are in place
all over the country, also ensuring the presence of professional linguistic and cultural mediators and access
to complementary services to sustain a regular attendance (babysitting, transport).115
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 and
materials, 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 that
aims at a strong relationship between education, participation and work, tight support of the local autho-
rities and tailoring to the individual migrant.117 The law offers three trajectories for different groups. For all
trajectories, local authorities are required to draw up a personal Integration and Participation Plan based
on previous education and experiences, and the individual circumstances and qualities of the migrant. The
self-reliance trajectory (Z-route) is intended for unschooled and low-educated migrants or anyone who
cannot be expected to reach level B1 or A2. This trajectory 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 to

108. See Bundesamt für Migration und Flüchtlinge 2007.

109. For example, Rother 2010.
110. See Bundesamt für Migration und Flüchtlinge 2015.
111. See Bundesamt für Migration und Flüchtlinge 2018.
112. Ministero dell’Istruzione, dell’Università e della Ricerca 2012.
113. CLIQ 2020.
114. CLIQ is composed of the four institutions 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 and
other 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 the
macro 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 particular
challenge in literacy and second language curriculum design. Learners with comparable literacy skills may
range in their oral abilities from hardly any experience to 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 of
course 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 chosen
competences. Sometimes this is done at the macro level, but more often at the meso level (see 5.3).
In the formulation of teaching principles and in the development of teaching materials and resources, LASLLIAM
recommendations on an action-oriented approach to literacy and second language programmes can serve as a
point of orientation and critical discussion in national debates about which didactic traditions to maintain and
which didactic transformations to initiate. For example, criteria on the national, state or regional admission of
materials and resources can be based on a selection of criteria outlined in Chapter 3.
Finally, in the evaluation and constant improvement of a national, state or regional curriculum, the LASLLIAM
descriptors can be useful in monitoring the success of individual courses, course providers, or larger components
of the course system.

5.3. USING LASLLIAM FOR CURRICULUM DESIGN AT THE MESO LEVEL

Curriculum design at the meso level can involve decisions about the educational programmes that the school/
educational organisation intends to provide according to its nature and mission (public institution for adult
education, private course provider, vocational centre, NGO or volunteer association) and the social environment
in which it operates. For example, a public centre for adult education might 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 inclusion
of vulnerable adults, like unemployed women or refugees, or with local libraries for family literacy programmes.
Depending on their autonomy in decision making and flexibility, schools/educational organisations also make
decisions 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 for
students’ 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 macro
level curricula and in planning courses. Since learners’ needs evolve, it is also used as a monitoring tool during
the course (see 5.4). The involvement of teachers, learners, mediators and, if needed, relevant stakeholders in
syllabus development is recommended for language courses for migrants. The preliminary needs analysis should
focus on learners’ individual needs (subjective needs) as well as on the social and language-communicative
requirements of the contexts in which they will use the acquired competences (social needs).
An individual needs analysis usually collects information in three areas.
1. Firstly, it aims at understanding who the learners are by collecting relevant background information on
aspects like age, gender, occupation, formal and informal education, time of arrival in the new country of
residence, reasons for migration, migration project, hopes, experiences and attitudes.
2. The second area regards the learners’ reasons for learning the target language, expectations about the
course, actual and envisaged uses of the language (e.g. tasks that they want to perform): in essence, what
and why learners want to attend a course.
3. The third outcome of the individual needs analysis is a language profile of the learners, which includes their
plurilingual repertoires (see 1.4.3; 5.4), their oral competence in the target language, and their literacy and
second language profiles (see 1.4.1; 6.2.1).
Syllabus designers can conduct the learners’ needs analysis before planning the course, as a preliminary collection
of information, for example, through oral interviews or focus groups (in a common language) with representatives
of the envisaged target groups. Otherwise, the non- and low-literate learners’ needs can be detected during the
welcome procedure through oral interviews and at the start of the course (see 5.4). The placement test is the usual
tool to determine the literacy 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 with
helps to set learning goals tailored to their social needs. The analysis focuses on aspects like languages and
dialects that are used, prevalent types of discourse, texts, vocabulary (including terminology), prevalent speech
acts and expressions, degree of formality, and others. Several techniques can be used. For example, to define a
literacy and second language curriculum for job training, an ethnographic study of the (often multilingual) job
environment could help to prioritise the course contents, such as which written and oral text types to present
and the development of mediation skills and language use strategies. The participation in the analysis of relevant
players from the workplace (including migrant workers) is crucial in defining the expected outcomes of the
course (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 the
society where migrants have resettled, their rights (e.g. social rights and access to social services) and duties (e.g.
respect for national laws on gender parity). Networks and/or partnerships between schools, local institutions,
migrant organisations, local companies, and other private or public players active in migrants’ inclusion policies
are 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 from
the 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); and
f 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 take
account of the action-oriented view of language competence described in the CEFR. Thus, it makes sense to
specify course objectives in terms of given actions or communication tasks that participants are likely to face, and
the language competences that they will need in order to deal with these tasks (Council of Europe – LIAM 2020h).
These considerations are also valid for using LASLLIAM, which adopts the CEFR Companion volume’s action-
oriented approach. A syllabus for a literacy and second language course would 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 to
rely on language-specific inventories to specify aspects, such as expressions for language functions, grammatical
structures or text types. For a number of languages, tools based on the CEFR are available,121 which are already
adapted to literacy and second language courses.122
At the meso level, the schools/educational institutions might be responsible for the teachers’ professional
development, including the provision of in-service training. The Council of Europe recommends paying special
attention to teachers’ ability to handle cultural aspects of language teaching, to relate the language syllabus to
the migrants’ everyday needs, to assess learning progress and to deal with different levels of literacy.123
The LASLLIAM descriptors can be used as materials in teachers’ in-service training, especially regarding how to
link literacy and second language teaching to real life and how to deal with differing levels of literacy within
a learner group. For example, in workshops or during an action research project, facilitators could focus on a
number of relevant descriptors and invite teachers to discuss, match, complement and innovate their own
practices in the light of these descriptors, as well as adapt them to their own teaching contexts. Checklists for
teachers’ self-assessment can be built, based on the LASLLIAM descriptors. For example, teachers and curriculum
designers can choose a set of descriptors as core learning objectives, which then serves as a self-monitoring
tool for teachers. LASLLIAM also 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 at
national and/or regional level and the decision taken by the schools/educational institutions. Even when teachers
are not responsible for course planning, they have to adapt the guidelines, general objectives, principles defined
by the curricula and syllabi to the specific and concrete needs of individual learners. They also have to negotiate
with them a set of common needs and aims at classroom level. In implementing the syllabus, teachers adapt it
to the learners’ needs and to their pace of learning.
The time needed to achieve learning goals varies individually as it is influenced by a multitude of variables:
levels of technical literacy, prior schooling and hours of instruction received in the home country and/or other
countries, digital skills, familiarity with assessment practices and techniques, typological distance between mother
tongue and target language, 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 physical
impairments (e.g. eyesight impairment), plurilingual repertoires, internal factors (age, motivation, cognitive
style, attitudes, etc.), external factors (family context, behaviour, cultural distance, migration project, etc.) and
logistical aspects that 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 a
needs analysis at the start of the course, especially if the information is not collected during the welcome phase,
is not available or is incomplete. During the course, the needs analysis serves as a continuous monitoring tool
to keep the teaching in tune with the learners’ evolving needs.

121. Council of Europe 2020f.

122. For example, for Italian, Borri et al. 2014a.
123. Council of Europe – LIAM 2020d.

Using LASLLIAM for curriculum design Page 91

The Language support for adult refugees – A Council of Europe Toolkit suggests three tools that proved to be
effective 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 outline
of 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 in
general for mid-term work plans and lesson plans. For these aspects, the teacher can also find support in this
reference guide (see Chapter 3). In particular, LASLLIAM offers support in planning action-oriented literacy and
second language learning environments in which the notion of a scenario has a prominent role. Scenarios are
a tool for action-oriented planning, that is, planning which envisages real-life situations in which learners could
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 and
non-verbal actions involving both general knowledge (e.g. where to buy a bus ticket) and competences (such
as filling out the form) that are designed to lead to successfully carrying out the activities in question” (Council
of 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 of
real word variables, including a domain, context, tasks, language activities and texts” (ibid.). While engaging in
tasks in a scenario, learners activate and develop their strategic, pragmatic and linguistic competence, including
discourse competence.
At the micro level, a scenario is a framework for language activities carried out in the educational environment.
It also fosters the creation of social bonds within the group through the exchange of information and narratives.
Learners’ backgrounds, previous knowledge and experience – in the 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 teaching
materials that include objects and texts occurring in those situations. The use of technologies is recommended
for the improvement of digital literacy (see 2.2.5). Along these pathways, 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 self-
assessment (see Appendix 3).
In highly diverse groups, as are most classes in literacy and second language instruction, scenarios are a powerful
tool to differentiate teaching and learning pathways according to the individual learner’s competence within a
common and co-operative setting. Through scenarios, intercultural awareness is fostered since representations,
schemes and frames related to specific situations (e.g. about how to interact in institutional settings or at the
workplace) can emerge. At later stages, beyond LASLLIAM levels, they may be noticed, discussed and negotiated
should they arise in such situations.
In developing a scenario, the shift from abstract to concrete, from general to 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 ENVIRONMENT

As referred to earlier (see 1.2), LASLLIAM is intended for teachers, curriculum and materials designers to support
their commitment in tailoring literacy and second language courses for migrants. To support this purpose, this
reference guide addresses assessment as a key component of the learning process.130
The term assessment is used
in the sense of the assessment of the proficiency of the language user … All assessment is a form of evaluation, but
in a language programme a number of things are evaluated other than learner proficiency. These may include the
effectiveness 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 be
achieved in a learning environment (be it educational or vocational). This learning environment represents the
conditio sine qua non for any assessment procedures, which should always be referenced to the curriculum and
be coherent with the syllabus.
Taking this into account, this chapter is structured to 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 of
the learning materials, thus negating any function aimed to meet proficiency standards decontextualised
from the learning environment.

6.1. APPROACHES TO BE ADOPTED

This section focuses on three suggested approaches in using LASLLIAM to develop assessment tools: continuum
criterion-referencing, learning oriented assessment (LOA) and profiling approach.131 On the basis of these
approaches, considerations related to the prevention of potential misuses of this reference guide will be formulated.

6.1.1. Continuum criterion-referencing

As the CEFR Companion volume reminds us,
the methodological message of the CEFR is that language learning should be directed towards enabling learners
to act in real-life situations, expressing themselves and accomplishing tasks of different natures. Thus, the criterion
suggested for assessment is communicative ability in real life, in relation to a continuum of ability. This is the
original and fundamental meaning of “criterion” in the expression “criterion-referenced assessment”. (Council of
Europe 2020: 27)
The same continuum criterion-referencing approach is assumed by LASLLIAM. It implies that any form of
assessment should allow for the collection of useful information about the range of the learner’s abilities required
to deal with the external reality. Such an approach sustains the concept of validity,132 to the extent that the
aforementioned information (as a result of assessment procedures) provides evidence which corresponds with

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) and
real-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 expected
competences to be achieved) coincide with the user’s goals (in terms of satisfying linguistic-communicative
needs related to everyday life).134
In LOA the perspective is based on learning: the assessment, whether summative or formative, aims to emphasise
the key role of the learner within each phase of the assessment process, rather than elements of measurement.135
For the CEFR, “formative assessment is an ongoing process of gathering information on the extent of learning, on
strengths and weaknesses, which the teacher can feed back into their course planning and the actual feedback
they give learners” (Council of Europe 2001: 186). As an ongoing process, formative assessment is realised in
the form of continuous assessment through the elicitation of a range of various outputs (from communicative
scenarios, peer activities, group work, etc.) described in Chapters 3 and 5.
Summative assessment typically takes place at the end of a course or a programme of instruction,136 assuming
more the assessment of learning, which takes stock of what has been achieved within a period, rather than
assessment for learning, which underlies the formative approach. In this way, LOA attempts to solve the
dichotomy of formative versus summative, or to represent their evolution,137 by following as a main strand the
constant involvement of the learner in both forms of assessment. This means not only explaining, for example,
the assessment criteria for the purpose of transparency or providing appropriate feedback, but above all raising
awareness about the learning process, including the development of self-evaluation skills.138
In line with this perspective, the adoption of a LOA approach is suggested by highlighting the importance of
taking into account the various forms of assessment present in the Council of Europe member states. In fact,
such forms can be related to activities within the lesson (as a typical example of formative assessment), as well
as to the mid-term or end-of-course exam (as a typical example of summative assessment, sometimes also
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 to
sustain learners’ motivation (see 3.6); in other words, the present work promotes the achievement of learning
goals according to a hypothetical transversal line across different levels, without linking the expected outcomes
to only one level.
Taking into account such a transversal line as vertical, it means that a learner might for instance be at level 2
in relation to writing and level 3 in regard to reading, listening and speaking. The emphasis should be placed
on what the learner has managed to achieve, not on their deficiencies: according to this example, as a result
of attending the course, the learner reached level 2 in writing, instead of failing to obtain level 3 because of a
presumed gap with regard to writing.

133. Weir, 2004.

134. Purpura 2014; Turner and Purpura 2016.
135. Carless 2007.
136. ALTE 1998.
137. Zeng et al. 2018.
138. Sadler 1989.
139. Council of Europe 2001: 185.

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 more
categories 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 Cartesian
plane; 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

Levels
Categories
Domains

6.1.4. Preventing misuse

If the three suggested approaches are followed this should prevent any potential misuse of LASLLIAM in relation
to assessment. Moreover, 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 that
the expected learning goals must not be seen as benchmarks to be achieved in designing high-stakes and
large-scale standardised tests.
According to ALTE-LAMI, “literacy is a necessary prerequisite for any kind of written test Policy makers
need to provide training courses that support the acquisition of literacy skills, instead of providing writing
or reading tests” (ALTE Authoring Group 2016: 23). The Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe

140. Inspired by a model developed within the Canadian LINCDIRE Project: www.lincdireproject.org/.

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 guide
might inspire a growing debate on literacy issues among teachers and curricula developers. It is hoped this may
increase, in a bottom-up process, an awareness of educational institutions at the supranational and national
levels (see 5.1; 5.2). Thus, the aim of the authoring group is to make sure that LASLLIAM does not easily lend itself
to unfair misuse as evidenced by the ALTE Report that seems to indicate the replacement of “Say Shibboleth”142
by “Write something”. In fact, as researchers largely demonstrate, language requirements often represent
insurmountable barriers,143 generating a negative impact of tests and test results’ use, especially on those who
have not had access to any writing system yet.144

6.2. THE DIFFERENT PURPOSES OF ASSESSMENT USING LASLLIAM

This section addresses the assessments envisioned by LASLLIAM, as based on the described approaches. It proposes
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 that
characterises 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 involved
in the learning environment; it represents the beginning of the process, the initial step in the formative path. In
this phase, the priority is to establish human relations based on empathy, to get to know the person, to help their
needs to emerge, as well as to identify the learner’s profile. The aim is to allow as much as possible for the tailoring
of the course to the learners’ needs, both in the sense of appropriateness and adequacy, where appropriateness
refers to the correspondence between contents addressed and needs of the person, while adequacy relates to
inclusion in the group that is more in line with their 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 and
second 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 dimension
of languages, in the form of an interview between the learner and teacher who is called on to support constantly,
with an attitude characterised by a strong willingness to collaborate.
Collecting data through an oral interview is also recommended to avoid the learner having to engage with written
text, with the potential negative impact this may cause, particularly for those who are non-literate, feelings of
frustration and humiliation. It is important to underline that the dialogue should be carried out not only in the
target language, but also in any one language available in the plurilingual repertoire of both interlocutors.
In fact, it is fundamental to 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 mother
tongue 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. The
interlocutor is invited to consider the LASLLIAM scales in order to collect clues useful to assign the interviewee
to an entry level. Taking particularly into account the Specific scale, Interviewing and Being Interviewed, the
teacher 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 and
formulaic 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 to
match one of the descriptors above with the learner’s ability, as demonstrated during the interview in the target
language.
The second component of the placement test that LASLLIAM suggests is related to the literacy 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 is
because LASLLIAM does not consider technical literacy as a goal in itself. On the contrary, it establishes the set
of skills needed to meet the objectives of the learning process, as represented by communicative language
activities (see 4.1; 6.2.2). As in the CEFR and in the CEFR Companion volume, all the LASLLIAM descriptors are
both learning goals and (potential) learning outcomes. This means that a 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 learner
can draw on during the course.
As a final result of the assessment procedures within the welcome phase, sufficient elements should have been
collected to form a description of the person at the beginning of the learning process in relation to their literacy
and second language profile. Specifically, the outcome will quite often be an uneven profile, for example with
the oral dimension being higher (with more can-dos in the second language already acquired) than in reading
and writing, or production activities lower than interaction activities (see 1.4.3).

6.2.2. Achievement assessment during the course

According to the CEFR, “achievement assessment is the assessment of the achievement of specific objectives. It
therefore relates to the week’s/term’s work, the course book, the syllabus” (Council of Europe 2001: 183). There
is often the possibility, however, of making inferences related to the user’s capacity to act as a social agent to
the extent that the assessment is encapsulated in real-world tasks.
For LASLLIAM, achievement assessment is related to what has been done within the learning environment.
Nevertheless, the added value of an appropriate needs analysis implies that the course contents tend to reflect
events occurring in daily life and the tasks provided tend to replicate learners’ daily routines. In other words, the
more course contents correspond to what is present outside the course, the more achievement assessment enables

147. Tarone et al. 2009.

148. Council of Europe – LIAM 2020i.

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 the
intermediate tests. Diagnostic procedures, highly embedded within a formative approach, are used to discover
learners’ strength and weaknesses in order to make decisions on the training. They involve, for example,
observing listening behaviour or looking at frequent mistakes in technical reading or speaking that hinder
comprehensibility.
Intermediate tests are generally administered at the end of a didactic unit seen as a building block.150 They aim
to monitor the progress of learning, in order to feel the pulse of the group, checking whether the input 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 them
horizontally, at least when courses are formally related to only one level.
Taking as an example a level 2 course, imagine a reading task – as a component of an intermediate test – in which
the input is an instruction. In this case, the teacher can use the Written Reception scales. More precisely, within
the 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 the
contrary, 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 to
use the Technical Literacy scale Writing at level 1, to check whether the person is able to write by hand in
copying such words. Then, it is highly recommended to apply this technical skill in subsequent tasks, where
communicative language activities can be described by LASLLIAM Overall and Specific scales. In this way,
the individual’s just-trained capacity is put immediately into practice, according to the following sequence
already suggested in 3.1.

Exercise 1 Recognising words and abbreviations for days of the week (e.g. by circling)

Task 1 Finding dates in an authentic personal planner

Therefore, exercise 1 is focused on the “how/by”: it is geared towards the “what/can-do” related to Task 1.151

149. ALTE 1998.

150. Young-Scholten and Naeb 2020.
151. There is often a similar coherent sequence within a teaching unit; it happens when exercises aimed at reinforcing a just-presented
grammatical structure come before tasks where the learner is called to use the same structure.

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 the
second task (and so on), according to the sequence provided. The more a scenario is represented by a sequencing
of “good” tasks, the more the inference made by the teacher is likely to 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; and
f 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 in
all 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 from
the 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 can
support the verbal reference; e.g. at bar or in a restaurant.

152. Carroll 2018; Zhang et al. 2019.

153. Ellis 2003; van Gorp and Deygers 2013.
154. Of course, a growing authenticity would be guaranteed by communicative language activities planned by teachers and curricula
developers with the aim of embedding the learning environment in daily life contexts. As Chapters 4 and 5 remind us, setting up
activities which take learners out into the community for additional practice in the real world is strongly recommended by LASLLIAM.
This is possible through a scenario (see Appendix 2) and examples are offered by the Council of Europe LIAM Toolkit (Tools 56 and
57), 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 a
part of continuous assessment. In the context of lifelong learning, it also means that level 4 (and even more so
levels 1, 2 and 3) constitutes a step forward in an ongoing process, that is, a continuation towards the 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 are
supported by LASLLIAM to guide their students in the compilation of a portfolio of reached learning goals
(most probably not related to only one level), which can also be supportive of reflective learning driven by
goal 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 adult
migrants 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 learner
awareness: 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 have
been adapted having in mind adult refugees as target learners.159
In particular, the ELP Language Dossier “is designed to include not only any 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 intercultural
experiences 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 the
welcome phase), including their plurilingual repertoire.

6.2.3.2. End-of-course exam

Although LASLLIAM strongly recommends a portfolio, some educational systems in 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 depend
on documentation proving the positive assessment achieved as a result of an attended course.
Bearing in mind that “valid assessment requires the sampling of a range of relevant types of discourse” (Council
of Europe 2001: 178), imagine developing the exam at the end of a level 1 course; more 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 to
choose from.

155. Little 2012.

156. Council of Europe 2020d.
157. Council of Europe 2020 e.
158. Council of Europe 2020j.
159. Council of Europe – LIAM 2020g.
160. Council of Europe 2021a.
161. Council of Europe 2021b.
162. ALTE 2011.

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 information
collected at these two points in time would represent good practice, not only to underline the progression of
each participant, but also to increase awareness that the learning curve varies (see Chapter 5).
Particularly in the case of end-of-course assessment, it is highly recommended to avoid using LASLLIAM with
a mastery criterion-referencing approach. As already highlighted (see 6.1.1), a fair assessment based on this
reference guide should always underline outcomes in a positive way. It means, for example, that if a learner in
relation to level 4 has not achieved the correspondent goals in written reception, it does not imply they failed the
exam; on the contrary, according to the adopted profiling approach (see 6.1.3) the learner should be described
by 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 completion
of 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 in
Oral Reception.

Figure 8 – Overall learning goals achieved

Language Activities Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4

Oral Reception

Written Reception

Oral Interaction

Written Interaction

Oral Production

Written Production

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 speaks
in the mother tongue. The lowest use is in relation to the occupational domain (where they only work with
colleagues who are fellow citizens).

Figure 9 – Learning goals achieved by domains of language use

More complex representations may combine Figures 8 and 9, providing a multidimensional model of 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 of
checklists is highly recommended by LASLLIAM as an instrument aimed at implementing the portfolio. In fact,
“checklists of ‘I can’ descriptors are an obligatory requirement in all ELPs. They expand the general descriptors
of the self-assessment grid into a detailed inventory of communicative activities that can be used for regular
goal-setting and reflective moments related to self-assessment”.164 (Appendix 3 constitutes an example mainly
in the perspective of the ELP Language Biography).

6.3. LASLLIAM AS A RESOURCE TO CONNECT LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS

ACROSS EUROPE
Using LASLLIAM for the development of such profiled documentation can have added value in relation to the
mobility of migrants across Europe. In fact, in establishing potential learning goals for non- and low-literate
adults at the European level, this reference guide can sustain mutual recognition of segments within the ongoing
learning process for different providers (e.g. volunteers in a camp, teachers in an integration course system) and
at 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, in
a coherent way, the achievement of learning goals. This achievement is the result of isolated moments within a
whole process that takes place transnationally, in a range of formal and non-formal contexts, state schools and
public institutions, private associations and NGOs.
As an example, let us consider the recurrent situation of persons like Hanad, a Somali non-literate man rescued
in Lampedusa, who after the 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, and
consequently 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 assessed
in 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 the
welcome phase in Sweden, giving him a better reception and orientation, according to a guide that provides
a vertical curriculum, without overriding his individual needs or the contextual characteristics of the regional
learning environment.
Another example is 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 process
with transitions being made as smoothly as possible by teachers across Europe, in order to overcome the risk
of fragmentation generated by the migrants’ mobility.
The cases of Hanad and 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 require
transparency within the learning process in its various phases and portfolios that the learner – as the owner of
this documentation – can bring to the next learning environment. The added value of LASLLIAM is its potential
use as a practical tool able to reduce this risk of fragmentation of the learning process, helping to build the
bridge linking the drop-out in one learning environment with the drop-in in another.

6.4. LASLLIAM AS A RESOURCE TO DEVELOP ASSESSMENT TOOLS

As shown in this chapter, on the basis of 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 the
reference 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 tools
that teachers can utilise.

Table 3 – LASLLIAM descriptors, forms of assessment and assessment tools

LASLLIAM descriptors Forms of assessment Assessment tools
Interviewing and Being Interviewed placement assessment placement test: second language
profile (oral)

Overall scales (written) placement assessment placement test: literacy and second
language profile (written)

Overall scales, Specific scales achievement assessment diagnostic procedures, intermediate

tests

Overall scales, Specific scales, scenario-based assessment communicative scenario

Domain tables

Overall scales, Specific scales achievement assessment (including portfolio, checklist, grid
self-assessment)

Overall scales, Specific scales achievement 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 whole
reference guide, which was preceded by a multi-steps validation phase related to the descriptors and scales.
Finally, a piloting phase will lead to the launch and dissemination.

Figure 10 – LASLLIAM main phases

Development (2018-20)

Validation (2020-21)

Piloting (2022)

Launch and dissemination (2022)

7.1. THE DEVELOPMENT PHASE AND THE CONSULTATION PHASE

The LASLLIAM project started in May 2018 (see Introduction) with the design-based research aimed at the
development of the reference guide with a set of draft descriptors for Technical Literacy, Communicative Language
Activities, Language Use Strategies and Digital Skills.
A 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 with
the external Council of Europe experts resulted in revision and improvement of the chapters and the scales,
and the addition of some practical applications within the learning environment. A complete set of descriptors/
scales were ready by September 2020 when the validation stage started.

7.2. THE VALIDATION PHASE

As the CEFR states, “validation is an ongoing and, theoretically never-ending, process” (Council of Europe 2001:
22). The LASLLIAM reference guide descriptors are the results of a continuous process detailed in Figure 11
below. The methodology largely follows the one used to develop the CEFR and the CEFR Companion volume
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 and
a quantitative phase in two steps.
The information in the following sections and in the detailed report (see the LASLLIAM website) provides details
about the qualitative and quantitative phases. The report focuses on the outcomes in terms of data analysis,
considerations and decisions taken in the light of the evidence obtained. The following sections aim to provide
an overview of the process, the methodologies, the participants, the tasks and the data collected during each
step of the validation phase.

Figure 11 – LASLLIAM milestones: from design to launch

Design and First consultation

development on the descriptors First analysis revision
Face-to-face meetings FTF workshop at the of the descriptors
Online interaction LESLLA conference (September 2019)
(2018-2019) (August 2919)

Second consultation Third consultation of the

of the whole LASLLIAM Second analysis and revision
whole LASLLIAM
First Council of Europe of the whole LASLLIAM
Second Council of Europe
experts feedback (2019-20)
Experts feedback
(October 2019) (June 2020)

Qualitative validation and fourth consultation

Third analysis and revision of the descriptors Webinar to train workshop organisers. Fourth analysis and revision
of the whole LASLLIAM Workshops in collaborating institutions of the descriptors
(September 2020) (October-December 2020) (January-February 2021)

Fifth analysis and revision of the

Qualitative validation – first step Qualitative validation – second step
descriptors
(April 2021) (October-November 2021)
(December 2021)

Consultation on the tools

Finalisation of the Translation and adaptation Piloting of the descriptors
developed in seven languages
English version of the validated descriptors in seven languages
by using the descriptors
(January 2022) (February 2022) (March-May 2022)
(May 2022)

Analysis and
Launch of LASLLIAM
revision of the tools
(June 2022)
(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. Two
training webinars for workshop organisers took place in November, and 19 workshops took place over October
and December 2020 in 10 different countries and in 11 languages, as Table 4 details, involving 410 participants
in 91 working groups. Workshop organisers were given the choice of delivering the workshops online or face to
face. They were asked to recruit 20-25 participants who would work in groups to rate the descriptors. Participants
in the workshops needed to have at least two years’ experience working with LESLLA167 learners and be proficient
enough in English to judge the English descriptors. The participants were introduced to LASLLIAM before working
on the tasks and had access to the glossary at all times.

167. Literacy Education and Second Language Learning for Adults (LESLLA); see LESSLA 2020.

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 19
Format 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 outlined
in Figure 11 above. The reasons for a negative response in the comments column were carefully considered, as
well as the general comments made about every other descriptor.
Idiosyncratic comments that were based on a misunderstanding of an English word, or that were relevant for
a single language only or a 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 to
rate 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 No. of descriptors
Technical Literacy Language and Print Awareness 33
scales Reading 33
(total 95) Writing 29
Oral Reception 7 (4 CEFR Companion volume descriptors)
Written Reception 9 (2 CEFR Companion volume descriptors)
Overall scales Oral Production 6 (2 CEFR Companion volume descriptors)
(total 47) 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

 Scale No. of descriptors
Oral Reception 36 (15 CEFR Companion volume descriptors)
Written Reception 34 (17 CEFR Companion volume descriptors)
Specific scales Oral Production 16 (5 CEFR Companion volume descriptors)
(total 182) 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
Language Use Oral Production Strategies 23
Strategies scales
Written Production Strategies 20
(total 168)
Oral Interaction Strategies 32
Written Interaction Strategies 38 (2 CEFR Companion volume descriptors)
Communication and Collaboration 32
Digital Skills scales
Content Creation and Management 28
(total 76)
Safety 16
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 the
participants to be involved. In this way, the qualitative validation has the added value of sustaining the creation
of a European network, preparing the ground for further LASLLIAM steps, according to the research plan. The
responses from all the workshops were merged into one 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. of No. of descriptors scoring over
Scale
descriptors 90% positive responses
Language and 33 Clarity 22
Print Awareness Pedagogical usefulness 19
Technical Literacy
Reading 33 Clarity 18
scales
Pedagogical usefulness 29
(total 95)
Writing 29 Clarity 10
Pedagogical usefulness 20

Page 110 3 Literacy and second language learning for the linguistic integration of adult migrants
 No. of No. of descriptors scoring over
Scale
descriptors 90% positive responses
Clarity 0
Oral Reception 3
Pedagogical usefulness 3
Clarity 6
Written Reception 7
Pedagogical usefulness 7
Clarity 3
Oral Production 4
Overall scales Pedagogical usefulness 4
(total 31) Clarity 2
Written Production 5
Pedagogical usefulness 4
Clarity 4
Oral Interaction 4
Pedagogical usefulness 4
Clarity 8
Written Interaction 8
Pedagogical usefulness 8
Clarity 20
Oral Reception 21 Pedagogical usefulness 21
Relevance to real life 21
Clarity 12
Written Reception 17 Pedagogical usefulness 17
Relevance to real Life 17
Clarity 11
Oral Production 11 Pedagogical usefulness 11
Specific scales Relevance to real Life 11
(total 110) Clarity 12
Written Production 13 Pedagogical usefulness 5
Relevance to real life 7
Clarity 31
Oral Interaction 32 Pedagogical usefulness 28
Relevance to real life 31
Clarity 16
Written Interaction 16 Pedagogical usefulness 16
Relevance to real life 16
Oral Reception Clarity 10
29
Strategies Pedagogical usefulness 25
Written Reception Clarity 20
26
Strategies Pedagogical usefulness 14
Oral Production Clarity 20
Language Use Strategies
23
Pedagogical usefulness 19
Strategies scales
Written Production Clarity 17
(total 166) 20
Strategies Pedagogical usefulness 18
Oral Interaction Clarity 28
32
Strategies Pedagogical usefulness 27
Written Interaction Clarity 34
36
Strategies Pedagogical usefulness 27
Clarity 27
Communication
32 Pedagogical usefulness 25
and Collaboration
Relevance to real life 30

Digital Skills scales Clarity 24

Content Creation
28 Pedagogical usefulness 17
(total 76) and Management
Relevance to real life 20
Clarity 12
Safety 16 Pedagogical usefulness 13
Relevance to real life 15
Total No. of Clarity 367
descriptors 478 Pedagogical usefulness 381
(total 478) Relevance to real life 176

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; and
f 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

Total No. of
No. of No. No.
descriptors in
descriptors revised deleted
revised scales
Print and Language Awareness 33 17 11 22
Technical
Reading 33 23 2 31
Literacy scales
Writing 29 20 4 25
Spoken Reception 7 3 0 7
Written Reception 9 6 0 9
Spoken Production 6 4 0 6
Overall scales
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
Specific scales
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
Language Use Spoken Production 23 15 1 23
Strategies
Written Production 20 13 2 18
scales
Spoken Interaction 32 22 2 32
Written Interaction 38 11 10 28
Communication and 32 13 0 32
Digital Skills Collaboration
scales Content Creation and 28 15 4 24
Management
Safety 16 3 2 14
Total 568 256 54 517

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 summary
of the revisions to the descriptors and the glossary.

7.2.2. Quantitative validation

After the qualitative validation, the revised descriptors were used in a quantitative validation study that was
conducted with experienced teachers in two steps between April and December 2021. The aims of the quantitative
validation were:
f to corroborate the results on clarity from the qualitative validation of the descriptors that were considered
clear, pedagogically useful and relevant for real life;168
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 established
in the qualitative validation, the international LESLLA network, LIAM and ALTE networks and other relevant
Council of Europe networks. They were expected to have experience with literacy and language teaching of
LESLLA learners, to be familiar with the CEFR and 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, particularly
age, gender, language(s) taught, years of experience with LESLLA learners and familiarity with CEFR levels
and language assessment. Participants were introduced to LASLLIAM and the concept of progression lines/
criteria at the start of the survey. Then, they were given five tasks with descriptors to be judged, as detailed
in 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 2 Overall scales: clarity and assignment to LASLLIAM levels

Task 3 Specific scales: clarity and assignment to LASLLIAM levels

Task 4 Language Use Strategies scales: clarity and rating the degree of demandingness

Task 5 Digital Skills scales: clarity

To keep the time needed to answer all questions within a reasonable limit, 18 different versions of the
validation survey were developed, as presented in the quantitative validation design described in tables
9 and 10. These versions were entered into SurveyMonkey and (using common descriptors, see below)
linked to one dataset.
In order to avoid misunderstandings and to keep the respondents familiar with the specific (literacy and language-
related) progression lines and terms, a glossary with key terms present in the descriptors (such as phoneme,
sight word, synthesise, simple sentence, turn, etc.) was provided as additional material to give respondents the
opportunity to look up these terms.

168. Pedagogical usefulness and relevance for real life were no longer included for judgment, because all descriptors were judged as useful
and relevant by at least 90% of the respondents in the qualitative study.

LASLLIAM research plan Page 113

Table 9 presents the numbers of descriptors used in the first step of the quantitative validation. Starting from
the 517 descriptors as an outcome of the qualitative validation (see Table 7), the following were inserted into
the quantitative validation: all the new descriptors developed by the authoring group, together with those
CEFR Companion volume descriptors where needed to work as anchors (see 7.2.2), as well as where needed to
complete the progression in Overall or 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 to
compare 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)

Scale No. of descriptors

Language and Print Awareness 22

Technical Literacy
scales Reading 31
(total 78)
Writing 25

Oral Reception 4

Written Reception 8

Overall scales Oral Production 5

(total 37) Written Production 6

Oral Interaction 5

Written Interaction 9

Oral Reception 22

Written Reception 24

Specific scales Oral Production 13

(total 131) Written Production 13

Oral Interaction 40

Written Interaction 19

Oral Reception Strategies 17

Written Reception Strategies 21

Language Use Oral Production Strategies 23
Strategies scales
(total 139) Written Production Strategies 18

Oral Interaction Strategies 32

Written Interaction Strategies 28

Communication and Collaboration 32

Digital Skills
scales Content Creation and Management 24
(total 70)
Safety 14

Total No. of
455
descriptors

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
Survey Number of descriptors per task
versions
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 the
Oral 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 from
the 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 the
different 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 first
step. They were introduced to LASLLIAM and the concept of progression lines/criteria at the start of the survey.
Then, they were given four tasks with descriptors to be judged, as detailed in Table 11.

Table 11 – LASLLIAM quantitative validation tasks (second step)

Task Type of scale and requests to participants
Task 1 Technical Literacy scales: assignment to LASLLIAM levels

Task 2 Communicative Language Activities scales (written): assignment to LASLLIAM levels

Task 3 Communicative Language Activities scales (oral): assignment to LASLLIAM levels

Task 4 Language Use Strategies scales: rating the degree of demandingness

The same random ID number for descriptors used in the qualitative validation, as well as in the first step of the
quantitative validation, was maintained in order to be able to combine the data from the different phases. Also
in this step, the descriptors were randomised in a stratified way to ensure their balanced distribution across
scales/levels. Table 12 presents the design of this second step.

Table 12 – Design of LASLLIAM quantitative validation tasks

Task 1 Technical Literacy Assigning to level Each respondent 3 scales 69 descriptors
Task 2 Communicative Language Activities Assigning to level Each respondent 12 scales 65 descriptors
Written (Overall + Specific)
Task 3 Communicative Language Activities Assigning to level Each respondent 15 scales 80 descriptors
Oral (Overall + Specific)
Task 4 Language Use Strategies High/low 2 groups (A and B) 9 scales 68 descriptors
demanding (for each
A – Written Language group) 72 descriptors
Use Strategies
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 quanti-
tative 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 already
validated 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 work
on 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 statistically
analysed 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 substantially
or very familiar with the CEFR scales. A vast majority of the teachers (78%) had at least three years’ experience
with teaching LASLLIAM learners, the majority (60%) more than 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 were
mentioned incidentally.
The descriptors were judged on clarity only in the first step of the quantitative validation, to confirm the findings
of the qualitative workshops and check the clarity of the descriptors that were revised after the qualitative
workshops. The levels of the descriptors were rated in both steps of the quantitative validation. Each descriptor
was rated on a level by at least 200 respondents.
The descriptors were judged as clear by on average 94% of the respondents. Nearly all descriptors (97%) were
judged as clear by more than 90% of the respondents, 13 descriptors were considered clear by 70-80% of the
respondents and only two descriptors by less than 70% (60-70%).
To deal with the outcomes of the quantitative validation, the following criteria for keeping, deleting or replacing
a descriptor, and (incidentally) to revise a descriptor were used.
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 consistency
of 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 by
more 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 the
criteria 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 and
they 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 the
scales 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
Scale No. of descriptors
Technical Literacy scales Language and Print Awareness 15
(total 59) Reading 24
Writing 20
Overall scales* Oral Reception 6
(total 41) Written Reception 9
Oral Production 4
Written Production 7
Oral Interaction 7
Written Interaction 8
Specific scales* Oral Reception 24
(total 143) Written Reception 29
Oral Production 12
Written Production 12
Oral Interaction 49
Written Interaction 17
Language Use Strategies Oral Reception Strategies 14
scales Written Reception Strategies 19
(total 119)
Oral Production Strategies 21
Written Production Strategies 18
Oral Interaction Strategies 26
Written Interaction Strategies 21
Digital Skills scales Communication and Collaboration 27
(total 63) Content Creation and Management 24
Safety 12
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 workshops
with 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 practical
use of LASLLIAM in various contexts and languages. Translations of the LASLLIAM scales from English into six other
European languages (Dutch, German, Greek, Italian, Spanish, Turkish) serve teams of experienced practitioners
as a foundation to produce teaching tools such as sample pages of diagnostic materials, tasks and mini-projects,
communicative scenarios, strategy instruction and language counselling, training in the use of digital devices,
and portfolios in the target languages of their respective country. A qualitative content analysis of focus groups’
data documents the perspectives of these practitioners on the usefulness of the LASLLIAM reference guide.
Additionally, ALTE-LAMI teams170 have developed various samples of assessment tools in English, in line with
the principles outlined in Chapter 6, to illustrate LASLLIAM’s potential in this respect (for example, examples of
needs analysis test, placement test and end-of-course exam).

170. ALTE 2022.

Page 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 from
refugee background”, in Sosiński M. (ed.), Alfabetización y aprendizaje de idiomas por adutos: Investigación, política
educative y práctica docente [Literacy education and second language learning by adults: research, policy and
practice], pp. 9-31, Editorial Universidad de Granada, Granada.
Ardila A. et al. (2010), “Illiteracy: the neuropsychology of cognition without reading”, Archives of Clinical
Neuropsychology Vol. 25, No. 8, pp. 689-712.
Asfaha Y. (2009), Literacy acquisition in multilingual Eritrea: a comparative study of reading across languages and
scripts, Aksant Academic Publishers.
Bachman L. (1990), Fundamental considerations in language testing, Oxford University Press.
Barkowski H. (2011), “Processability – words & rules – Konnektionismus: Drei Modellierungen der Sprachverarbeitung
und ihre Bedeutung für das Lernen und Lehren von Fremdsprachen [Processability – words & rules – Connectionism:
Three ways of modelling language processing and their 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-plurilingualism-
as-a-way-of-life-in/16802fc1ba, accessed 11 February 2022.
Beacco J.-C., Little D. and Hedges C. (2014a), Linguistic integration of adult migrants: guide to policy development
and implementation, Council of Europe, Strasbourg, available at https://rm.coe.int/16802fc1cd, accessed
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 en
français [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-the-
development-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 at
https://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 of
the 2nd symposium, Richmond (pp. 7-22), Virginia Adult Learning Resource Center.
Böddeker J. (2018), Der Einsatz von Vokabellernstrategien in Alphabetisierungskursen [The use of vocabulary
learning strategies in literacy classes], Tectum.
Boeckmann K.-B. (2011), “Spracherwerbstheorie und Sprachunterrichtspraxis [Language acquisition theory
and classrom practice]”, in Clalüna M. and Etterich B. (eds), Spracherwerb DaF / DaZ Forschen – Lehren – Lernen.
Akten der Dritten Gesamtschweizerischen Tagung für Deutschlehrerinnen und Deutschlehrer 11 und 12 Juni
2010, Universität Bern (pp. 33-44), AkDaF – 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 and
literate users, from illiteracy to A1 level, Introduction/Italien L2 en contextes migratoires: syllabus et descripteurs
de l’alphabétisation jusqu’au niveau A1, available at www.coe.int/en/web/lang-migrants/literacy, accessed
11 February 2022.
British Council – EAQUALS (2015), Core inventory for general English (2nd edn), British Council, London, available
at 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 für
Zweitschriftlernende (Zweitschriftlernerkurs) [Concept for a national integration course for second-script learners],
Bundesamt für Migration und Flüchtlinge, Nürnberg, available at www.bamf.de/SharedDocs/Anlagen/DE/
Integration/Integrationskurse/Kurstraeger/KonzepteLeitfaeden/konzept-zweitschriftlernende.html?nn=284228,
accessed 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 in
action, Hong Kong University Press.
Carlsen C. H. (2017), “Giving LESLLA learners a fair chance in testing”, in Sosiński M. (ed.), Alfabetización y aprendizaje
de idiomas por adultos: investigación, política educativa y práctica docente [Literacy education and second language
learning by adults: research, policy and practice]. Proceedings of the 12th LESLLA symposium (pp. 135-48), EUG.
Carretero S. Vuorikari R. and Punie Y. (2017), DigComp 2.1: the digital competence framework for citizens with eight
proficiency 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 and
Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal Vol. 16, No. 1, pp. 81-97.
Chall J. (1986, 1996), Stages of reading development, McGraw-Hill.
Chall J. (1999), “Models of reading” in Wagner D. A., Venezky R. L. and Street B. (eds), Literacy: an international
handbook (pp. 163-166), Garland Publishing.
Chartier A. (2004), “Teaching reading: a historical approach”, in Nunes T. and Bryant P. (eds), The handbook of
children’s literacy (pp. 511-538), Springer.
Cito (2008), Raamwerk Alfabetisering NT2, Cito B.V. Arnhem.
Cito (2022), We are Cito, available at www.cito.com/, accessed 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, University
of 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-citizenship-
education/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-language-
biography, accessed 21 February 2022.

References Page 121

Council of Europe (2021b), The language passport, available at www.coe.int/en/web/portfolio/the-language-
passport, 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-target-
languag/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 to
recommendation: 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/repertoire-
language-, 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/teacher-
training, accessed 21 February 2022.
Council of Europe – LIAM (2020 e), Scenarios in language teaching and learning for adult migrants, available at
www.coe.int/en/web/lang-migrants/scenarios-in-language-teaching-and-learning-for-adult-migrants, accessed
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 at
www.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/tool-
26-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 at
www.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 at
www.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 and
literacy acquisition”, in van de Craats I., Kurvers J. and Young-Scholten M. (eds), Low-educated second language
and literacy acquisition. Proceedings of the inaugural symposium, Tilburg University, August 2005 (pp. 7-23), LOT.
Cucchiarini C. et al. (2015), “The digital literacy instructor: developing automatic speech recognition and selecting
learning materials for opaque and transparent orthographies”, in van de Craats I., Kurvers J. and van Hout R.
(eds), Adult literacy, second language and cognition (pp. 251-78), Centre for Language Studies (CLS), Nijmegen.
Cutler A. (2012), Native listening: language experience and the recognition of spoken words, MIT Press, Cambridge MA.

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-regulation
in GSL classes: the example of workplace literacy]”, in Ferraresi G. and Liebner S. (eds), Sprachbrückenbauen. 40.
Jahrestagung des Fachverbands Deutsch als Fremd- und Zweitsprache an der Universität Bamberg 2013 (pp. 171-96),
Universitätsverlag, Göttingen.
Dawidowicz M. (2015), “Leseförderung auf Wortebene mit Hilfe des DigLin-Lernprogramms in der Zweitsprache.
Erprobung in Alphabetisierungskursen für Migrantinnen und Migranten [Fostering second language reading
skills at the word level using the Diglin software. Experiences from literacy classes for migrants]”, Deutsch als
Zweitsprache 1, pp. 37-49.
De Rijksoverheid (2020), Nieuwe Wet inburgering, available at www.rijksoverheid.nl/actueel/nieuws/2020/07/02/
nieuwe-wet-inburgering-aangenomen, accessed 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-Standard-
Version-ESV-Bible/#booklist, accessed 19 February 2022.
European Commission (2020), Council recommendation on key competences for lifelong learning, available at
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32018H0604(01)&rid=7, accessed 2 June 2022.
Feick D., Pietzuch A. and Schramm K. (eds) (2013), Alphabetisierung für Erwachsene [Literacy classes for adults],
Klett-Langenscheidt.
Feldmeier A. (2005), “Die kontrastive Alphabetisierung als Alternativkonzept zur zweisprachigen Alphabetisierung
und zur Alphabetisierung in der Zweitsprache Deutsch am Beispiel der Sprachen Kurdisch und Türkisch [Contrastive
literacy concepts as an alternative to bilingual and GSL literacy programmes: The examples of Kurdish and
Turkish]”, Deutsch als Zweitsprache Vol. 2, pp. 42-50.
Feldmeier A. (2009a), “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 [From
A 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 und
Anwendung von Strategien beim Erlesen isoliert dargestellter Wörter unter besonderer Berücksichtigung der
farblichen und typographischen Markierung von Buchstabengruppen [Literacy learning of adults with other
first languages. Reading processes and strategy use in reading isolated words with coloured or typographically
marked groups of letters]”, doctoral dissertation, Universität Bielefeld, available at https://pub.uni-bielefeld.de/
record/2301752, accessed 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/national-
cocoursere-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 framework
on teaching German as a second language and literacy], Universität Wien, Institut für Weiterbildung, Verband
Wiener Volksbildung, AlfaZentrum für MigrantInnen der Volkshochschule Ottakring, Wien.
Gardner S., Polyzoi E. and Rampaul Y. (1996), “Individual variables, literacy history, and ESL progress among Kurdish
and Bosnian immigrants”, TESL Canada Journal/Revue TESL du Canada Vol. 14, No. 1, pp. 1-20.
Gass S. M. and Selinker L. (2008), Second language acquisition: an introductory course (3rd edn), Routledge, London
and New York.
Gee J. P. (1990), Social linguistics and literacies: ideology in discourses, Routledge, London and New York.
Geers S. (2011), “Leersucces voorspellen bij alfacursisten? Onderzoek naar de validiteit en betrouwbaarheid van
een observatie-instrument”[Predicting learning succes of literacy students. A study on validity and reliability of
an observation instrument], master’s thesis, Tilburg University.
Givón T. (1979), On understanding grammar, Academic Press, Cambridge MA.
Gogolin I. (2002), Linguistic diversity and new minorities in Europe. Guide for the development of language education
policies in Europe: from linguistic diversity to plurilingual education, Language Policy Unit, Council of Europe,
Strasbourg, available at https://rm.coe.int/linguistic-diversity-and-new-minorities-in-europe/16802fc1c0, accessed
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 Neokleous
G., 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 to
language assessment: approaches and development (pp. 578-93), Wiley-Blackwell.
Grassi R., Costa R. B. and Ghezzi C. (eds) (2008), Dagli studi sulle sequenze di acquisizione alla classe di italiano L2:
Atti del convegno-seminario Bergamo, 19-21 giugno 2006 [From the studies on acquisition sequences to the Italian
L2 classroom. Proceedings of the conference-seminar Bergamo, 19-21 June 2006], Guerra Edizioni, Perugia.
Gray W. S. (1969), The teaching of reading and writing: an international survey (2nd edn), Scott, Foresman and Co./
UNESCO.
Guernier M.-C. (2012), Apprendre à lire à des adultes en langue maternelle et langue étrangère [Teaching adults
to read in their mother tongue and in a foreign language], Synergies Brésil, 10, 47-57, https://gerflint.fr/Base/
Bresil10/guernier.pdf, accessed 2 June 2022.
Guerrero Calle S. (2020), “Zweitschriftlernende in der deutschsprachigen Schweiz. In 300 Kurslektionen Alpha
und A1? [Second-script learners in German-speaking Switzerland. Reaching A1 and literacy in 300 lessons?]”,
doctoral dissertation, University of Freiburg.

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-kommunikationsstrategien-
zum-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”,[A
study on the development of writing skills of adult non-literates] master’s thesis, Tilburg University.
Khakpour N. and Schramm K. (2016), “Autonomie im Unterricht mit Seiteneinsteiger_innen: Theoretische
Perspektiven und Praxisbeispiele [Autonomy for teaching lateral entrants: Theoretical perspectives and practical
examples]”, in Benholz C., Frank M. and Niederhaus C. (eds), Neuzugewanderte Schülerinnen und Schüler – eine
Gruppe mit besonderen Potentialen: Beiträge aus Forschung und Schulpraxis, pp. 321-37, Waxmann.
Khan K. (2019), Linguistic trials and negotiations in the UK, Bloomsbury Publishing.
Kirshner D. and Whitson J. (eds) (1997), Situated cognition: social, semiotic and psychological perspectives, pp. 281-
300), Lawrence Erlbaum.
Klein W. and Perdue C. (1997), “The basic variety (or: Couldn’t natural languages be much simpler?)”, Second
Language Research Vol. 13, No. 4, pp. 301-47, https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1191/026765897666879396,
accessed 2 June 2022.
Koda K. (2008), “Impacts of prior literacy experience on second-language learning to read”, in Koda K. and Zehler
A. M. (eds), Learning to read across languages, pp. 68-96, Routledge, London and New York.
Kosmidis M. H., 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 and
their languages – plurilingualism alive], Eviva, Wien.
Kuhn C. (2015), Hast du keinen Mülleimer? – Der GER im Spannungsfeld von Arbeitsalltag und Sprachenpolitik [Don’t you
have a trash bin? – The CEFR between everyday working life and language policy], IQ Fachstelle Berufsbezogenes
Deutsch, available at www.deutsch-am-arbeitsplatz.de/fachdiskussion/standard-titel/sprachstandsfeststellung/
ger-im-spannungsfeld.html?L=0, accessed 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 cross-
linguistic comparison”, Journal of Psycholinguistic Research Vol. 35, No. 4, pp. 353-67.
Kurvers J. and van der Zouw K. (1990), In de ban van het schrift. Over analfabetisme en alfabetisering in een tweede
taal [Under the spell of writing. About non-literacy and literacy acquisition in a second language], wets and
Zeitlinger, Amsterdam.
Kurvers J., Stockmann W. and van de Craats I. (2010), “Predictors of success in adult L2 literacy acquisition”, in Wall
T. and Leong M. (eds), Low-educated second language and literacy acquisition. Proceedings of the 5th symposium
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 adult
illiterates”, in van de Craats I., Kurvers J. and Young-Scholten M. (eds), Low-educated second language and literacy
acquisition. Proceedings of the inaugural symposium Tilburg 2005, pp. 69-88, LOT.
Kurvers J., van Hout R. and Vallen T. (2007), “Literacy and word boundaries”, in Faux N. and Major H. (eds), Low
educated second language and literacy acquisition: research, policy and practice. Proceedings of the second annual
forum, pp. 44-64, The Literacy Institute, Richmond, VA.
Larsen-Freeman D. and Long M. H. (2014), An Introduction to second language acquisition research, Routledge,
London and New York.
Lemke-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 schooling
in 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 their
implications for reading instruction”, Annals of Dyslexia Vol. 40, No. 1, pp. 51-76.
Little D. (2012), The linguistic integration of adult migrants and the European Language Portfolio: an introduction,
Council of Europe, Strasbourg, available at https://rm.coe.int/16802fc1cb, accessed 21 February 2022.
Loewen S. (2020), Introduction to instructed second language acquisition, Taylor and Francis Group, New York and
London.
Luria A. (1976), Cognitive development: its cultural and social foundations, Harvard University Press, Cambridge,
MA and London.
McNamara T. (2005), “21st century shibboleth: language tests, identity and intergroup conflict”, Language Policy
Vol. 4, No. 4, pp. 1-20.
Markov S. et al. (2015), Lernberatung für Teilnehmende in DaZ-Alphabetisierungskursen. Handreichung für Lernberatende
und Lehrkräfte [Language counseling for L2 literacy learners. Materials for counselors and teachers], Waxmann,
Münster and New York.
Marschke B. (2022), Handbuch der kontrastiven Alphabetisierung [Handbook of contrastive literacy], Erich Schmidt.
Messick S. (1989), “Validity”, in Linn R. L. (ed.), Educational measurement, pp. 13-104, Macmillan.
Ministerie van Sociale Zaken en Werkgelgenheid (2018), Evaluatie van de Wet inburgering 2013, available at
www.rijksoverheid.nl/documenten/rapporten/2018/06/27/evaluatie-van-de-wet-inburgering-2013, accessed
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 di
alfabetizzazione e di apprendimento della lingua italiana. Indicazioni per l’articolazione dei livelli A1 e A2 del Quadro
Comune Europeo di Riferimento per le lingue in competenze, conoscenze e abilità [Guidelines for the planning of
Italian language and literacy learning paths. Indications for the articulation of levels A1 and A2 of the Common
European Framework of Reference for Languages into competences, knowledge and skills], available at www.
indire.it/lucabas/lkmw_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. and
Mocciaro E. (eds), People, languages and literacy in new migration: research, practice and policy. Literacy Education
and Second Language Learning for Adults (LESLLA). Selected papers from the 14th Annual Symposium, Palermo, Italy,
October 4th-6th 2018, pp. 1-18, UniPa Press, Palermo.
Minuz F., Borri A. and Rocca L. (2016), Progettare percorsi di L2 per adulti stranieri [Designing L2 courses for foreign
adults], Loescher, Torino.
Morais J. et al. (1979), “Does awareness of speech as a sequence of phones arise spontaneously?”, Cognition
Vol. 7, pp. 323-31.
Nassaji H. (2007), “The development of spelling and orthographic knowledge in English as an L2: a longitudinal
case study”, The Canadian Journal of Applied Linguistics Vol. 10, No. 1, pp. 77-98.
National Reading Panel (2000), Teaching children to read: an evidence-based assessment of the scientific research
literature on reading and its implications for reading instruction (NIH Publication No. 00-4769), US Government
Printing Office.
Neokleous G., Krulatz A. and Farrelly R. (eds) (2020), Handbook of research on cultivating literacy in diverse and
multilingual classrooms, IGI Global, Hershey PA.
North B. and Piccardo E. (2016), Developing illustrative descriptors of aspects of mediation for the Common European
Framework of Reference (CEFR), Council of Europe, Strasbourg, available at https://rm.coe.int/common-european-
framework-of-reference-for-languages-learning-teaching/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. and
Smith R. C. (eds), Learner autonomy across cultures, Palgrave Macmillan, London, https://link.springer.com/
book/10.1057/9780230504684#toc, accessed 2 June 2022.
Pallotti G. (1998), La seconda lingua [The second language] , Bompiani, Milano.
Perfetti C., Van Dyke J. and Hart L. (2002), “The psycholinguistics of basic literacy”, Annual Review of Applied
Linguistics Vol. 21, No. 1, pp. 127-49.
Pochon-Berger E. and Lenz P. (2014), Language requirements and language testing for immigration and integration
purposes – A synthesis of academic literature, University of Fribourg, Institute of Multilingualism.
Pracht H. (2012), Schemabasierte Basisbildung im Deutschen: Ein Praxisbuch für Lehrkräfte [Schema-based basic
education in German: Practical ideas for teachers], Waxmann.
Purpura J. (2014), Learning-oriented assessment in language classrooms: Using assessment to gauge and promote
language learning, Taylor and Francis, New York and London.

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 Kannada-
speaking children and non-literate adults”, Reading and Writing No. 20, pp. 173-99.
Ramírez-Esparza N. et al. (2012), “Socio-interactive practices and personality in adult learners of English with
little formal education”, Language Learning Vol. 62, No. 2, pp. 541-70.
Ravid D. and Tolchinsky L. (2002), “Developing linguistic literacy: a comprehensive model, Journal of Child
Language Vol. 29, No. 2, pp. 417-47.
Reder S. and Davila E. (2005), “Context and literacy practices”, Annual Review of Applied Linguistics No. 25, pp. 170-87.
Reis A. and Castro-Caldas A. (1997), “Illiteracy: a cause for biased cognitive development”, Journal of the International
Neuropsychological Society Vol. 3, No. 5, pp. 444-50.
Reis A. et al. (2007), “Semantic interference on a phonological task in illiterate subjects”, Scandinavian Journal of
Psychology Vol. 48, No. 1, pp. 69-74.
Rinta L.-M. (2005), Literacy for special target groups: migrants. Paper commissioned for the EFA Global Monitoring
Report 2006, Literacy for Life, UNESCO.
Robbins P. and Aydede M. (2009), The Cambridge handbook of situated cognition, Cambridge University Press.
Rocca L., Deygers B. and Hamnes Carlsen C. (2020), Linguistic integration of adult migrants: requirements and
learning opportunities. Report on the 2018 Council of Europe and ALTE survey on language and knowledge
of society policies for migrants, Council of Europe, Strasbourg, available at www.coe.int/en/web/education/-/-
linguistic-integration-of-adult-migrants-requirements-and-learning-opportunities-council-of-europe-and-alte-report,
accessed 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 and
practice], pp. 207-18, Editorial Universidad de Granada, Granada.
Roder A. (2009), Ausspracheunterricht in der Alphabetisierung [Teaching pronunciation in literacy classes], Tectum.
Rokitzki C. (2016), Alphabetisierung von erwachsenen Migranten nach Montessori. Ein methodischer Ansatz für die
Fremd- und Zweitsprache Deutsch [Teaching literacy to adult migrants: the Montessori method in German as a
foreign and second language], Tectum.
Roll H. and Schramm K. (eds) (2010), “Alphabetisierung in der Zweitsprache Deutsch” [Literacy in German as a
Second Language], Osnabrücker Beiträge zur Sprachtheorie, 77, Gilles and Francke.
Rother N. (2010), Das Integrationspanel: Ergebnisse einer Befragung von Teilnehmenden zu Beginn ihres
Alphabetisierungskurses [The Integration Panel: results of a survey of participants at the start of their literacy
course], Bundesamt für Migration und Flüchtlinge, Forschungszentrum Migration, Integration und Asyl, available
at https://nbn-resolving.org/urn:nbn:de:0168-ssoar-259111, accessed 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 inaugural
symposium, 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 at
https://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 at
www.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, available
at 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 guide
to Italian for foreigners: The perspective of the Common European Framework for Languages], Carocci, Rome.
Verhoeven L. and Perfetti C. (eds) (2017), Learning to read across languages and writing systems, Cambridge
University Press.
Véronique D. (2005), “Les interrelations entre la recherche sur l’acquisition du français langue étrangère et la
didactique du français langue étrangère: quelques pistes de travail” [The interrelations between research on the
acquisition of French as a foreign language and the didactics of French as a foreign language. Some avenues of
work], Acquisition et Interaction en Langue Étrangère No. 23, pp. 9-41.
Vertecchi B. (1995), Didactic decision and evaluation, La Nuova Italia.
Viise N. M. (1996), “A study of the spelling development of adult literacy learners compared with that of classroom
children”, Journal of Literacy Research Vol. 28, No. 4, pp. 561-87.
Vox – Nasjonalt fagorgan for kompetansepolitikk (2014), Opplæring av språkhjelpere, Vox, available at www.
kompetansenorge.no/contentassets/abc176d39fef4bb7908b4e8dba18f63c/opplaering_av_sprakhjelpere.pdf,
accessed 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 erwachsener
russischsprachiger Zweitschriftlernender [Literacy as social practice: an ethngraphic study of Russian adult
second-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”, in
Young-Scholten M. (ed.), Low-educated second language and literacy acquisition. Proceedings of the third annual
forum, pp. 99-107, Roundtuit Publishing.
Wisniewski K. (2019), “Zur Skalierung von Strategien im Gemeinsamen europäischen Referenzrahmen. Eine
kritische Auseinandersetzung [Scaling strategies for the CEFR. A critical analysis]”, Deutsch als Fremdsprache Vol.
56, No. 3, pp. 142-51.
Young-Scholten M. and Naeb R. (2020), “Acquisition and assessment of morphosyntax”, in Kreft Peyton J. and
Young-Scholten M. (eds), Teaching adult immigrants with limited formal education, pp. 79-103, Multilingual
Matters, Bristol.
Zeng W. et al. (2018), “Towards a learning-oriented assessment to improve students’ learning: a critical review of
literature”, Educational Assessment, Evaluation and Accountability Vol. 30, No. 3, pp. 211-50.
Zhang M. et al. (2019), “Scenario-based assessments in writing: an experimental study”, Educational Assessment
Vol. 24, No. 2, pp. 73-90, www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/10627197.2018.1557515, accessed 2 June 2022.
Ziegler J. C. and Goswami U. (2006), “Becoming literate in 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 hand
to greet someone).
Clause: a linguistic unit which contains a verb and a subject and is part of a sentence (e.g. “Mary took the bus”
and “after she had finished her homework” are both clauses in the sentence “Mary took the bus after she had
finished her homework.”).
Cohesive devices: function words that are used to relate different parts of a sentence or a text. Cohesion and
coherence can be realised by using reference words like “his” or “they”, or connectors like “and”, “but” or “because”.
Complex syllabic structure: a syllabic structure in which consonant clusters are used, or in which bound
morphemes add to the basic content.
Connectors: lexical devices linking clauses and/or sentences (e.g. “and”, “but” or “because”). Connectors are a
subgroup of cohesive devices.
Consonant cluster: a group of consonants without vowels between them ([str] in “street” or [rk] in “dark”).
Contextual clues (see also visual clues and non-verbal clues): non-verbal signals like gestures, pictures or
artefacts that add to interpreting utterances or texts.
Decoding: the process (in beginning reading) of analysing a written word letter by letter, replacing letters by
sounds and synthesising the sounds to pronounce the word and get access to the meaning.
Discourse: a functional unit of coherent utterances; the term is used in this reference guide as the equivalent
of text in spoken language.
Distinguish: 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 some
letters 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 plural
or third-person s (the chairs, he walks), the past tense -ed (she looked), or dis- or -er in dislike, or farmer.
Grapheme: the unit in writing that represents a phoneme in an alphabetic script. A grapheme can consist of
one letter from the alphabet, like <m> or <a>, but also of two letters like the <oo> in too that represents the
phoneme [u:] or a letter with a diacritic, like the <é> in French or the <ä> in German.
Language awareness: conscious knowledge of features of language, distinguished from the implicit knowledge
that is used in understanding and speaking a familiar language.
Letter-by-letter decoding: pronouncing the successive graphemes of a word in order to get the pronunciation
and meaning of the word (c-a-t: cat).
(Linguistic/non-linguistic) sign: entity with a conventional (arbitrary) meaning (e.g. word, gesture, pictogram
or logo).
Morpheme: the smallest meaningful unit of a language.
Multisyllabic words: words that consist of two or more syllables.
Non-verbal signal(s): perceptual signals that could be visual, like gestures or pictures.

Page 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 visual
shapes. 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 her
homework.”).
Sight words: words that are learned by heart and recognised globally without decoding. These include both
simple key words that are used to learn to decode afterwards and personally relevant words like name and
address, days of the week or months of the year (e.g. “Teheran”, “teacher”).
Simple sentence: a main clause, usually short, with mostly a subject and a predicate, without any embedding
(e.g. “The boy eats an apple.” “The girl goes to school.”).
Simple speech: a well-articulated stretch of speech with frequent words and phrases as well as, possibly, simple
sentences (e.g. “I have to go now. I will be back tomorrow morning.”).
Simple syllabic structure: a syllable that consists of a vowel with maximally one consonant before and/or after
the vowel (CV, VC or CVC like be, at, moon).
Social formula: 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 of
only a few words (e.g. signs) or phrases (e.g. instructions). In this reference guide, the term text mainly refers to
written language.
Text type: abstract category for classifying concrete texts according to their function and prototypical elements
(e.g. weather report, 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; a
turn can be composed of one or more utterances and may overlap with the subsequent turn.
Typical (entries, features): representative of a particular type or aspect.
Utterance: a unit of oral language production to realise the speaker’s intention.
Visual clue: a piece of pictorial or graphic information that supports verbal information (e.g. a picture in a story).
Word recognition: words can be recognised directly or indirectly. Direct recognition refers to global recognition
of visual features (like the 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 to
Adults, www.natecla.org.uk/content/469/Resources
The Digital Literacy Instructor, https://en.diglin.eu/
English my way, www.englishmyway.co.uk/topics

3. FRENCH
On these websites, many resources for literacy and French as a second language can be found: www.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 and
second language classes:
www.bamf.de/SharedDocs/Anlagen/DE/Integration/Integrationskurse/Lehrkraefte/liste-zugelassener-lehrwerke.
pdf?__blob=publicationFile (p. 6f.).
For a plurilingual approach, the KASA project has published contrastive materials for Arabic, Farsi and Turkish:
Alizadeh S. et al. (2019), Mit Persisch Deutsch lernen, Ein deutsch-persisches Alphabetisierungslehrwerk, GIZ gGmbH.

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 y
Ciencia.
Martínez J. (2002), Portal español para inmigrantes, Ed. Prensa Universitaria.
Vilar M. et al. (2018), Oralpha. Método de alfabetización y comunicación oral en castellano y catalán 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). Each
scenario provides a set of real-world situations, with activities presented in a strategic order to satisfy a specific
and 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 effective
with non- and low-literate migrants and, in particular, in heterogeneous learning groups. Accordingly, teachers
should choose the LASLLIAM descriptors that are more appropriate to the diverse learner 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) in
literacy and second language courses (see 3.1).

LIAM MODEL FOR SCENARIOS ADOPTED BY LASLLIAM

Aims
These specify the language learning goals.

Communicative situations
A list of the situations and the types of communication involved.

Materials
Examples of materials needed for the language activities to be carried out in the teaching setting.

Language activities
“Language activities” refer to the activities carried out in the educational setting to reach the scenario aims.
They can be used:
f separately in one or more sessions, and in any order, also reassembling and combining different scenarios; or
f 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 for
the learning process.
f Elicit some basic information and vocabulary about postal services through matching exercises (e.g.
picture of parcel/letter/money – word/phrase/sentence) and simple graded questions (e.g. “Do you go to
the post 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”; “Registered
correspondence”; “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 each
learner’s profile).

Activity 5
f Read the collection notice. Find out key information about the sending organisation (logo, name), what it is
about, where, when (according to each learner’s 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 a
parcel. 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 from
teachers who may use self-assessment tools, like Tool 25 from the Toolkit,171 or a self-assessment grid
such as the one proposed in Appendix 3.
Tool 25 is divided into two parts: the 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 the
present 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 the
teachers; on the other hand, the need to select more concrete descriptors which are linked to completing
real-life tasks (see 3.3), or activities within a scenario (see 5.4; Appendix 2). From this perspective, the language
used in the descriptors in the LASLLIAM domain tables can be very helpful. In fact, they relate directly to the
contextualised communication that has taken place in the learning environment, avoiding abstractness and
making the immediate link to authentic situations focused more on what the person can do rather than how
(see 6.2.2).
The LASLLIAM working group applied this dual action in the example described below. The greater number of
statements the checklists contain, the more 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 to
label 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 this
reason, only smiley faces are provided. Even when “a lot of help” is needed to achieve a can-do, the aim is to
sustain motivation by highlighting the powerful experience of success (see 3.6).
By marking the relevant column, the learner indicates that their teacher has 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. Such
support 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
WRITTEN PRODUCTION
LEVEL
4 I can write something simple about my new neighbour in a
post for a friend of mine.

4 I can describe in very simple language what my room looks

like.
4 I can write a short description about my children’s school in
an e-mail to other parents.

4 I can note down my daily assignments in the working

planner.
4

3 I can note down very simple memory aids like the

conversation 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 and

Found on a supermarket bulletin board.

3 I can write names of places like the bus stop in a public

transport map.

2 I can give basic personal information (like address, age,

phone number) in posting on a company website.

2 I can write down a shopping list with a few words.

2 I can note down memory aids like name, date and time of
appointment with my doctor.

2
2

1 I can give some personal information as a caption to a picture

by copying an example.

1 I can copy some words to label objects like cooking

ingredients.
1 I can copy simple information into my agenda like the lesson
time and the name of my teacher.

1
1

Page 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 FINLAND/FINLANDE RUSSIAN FEDERATION/

La Librairie Européenne - Akateeminen Kirjakauppa FÉDÉRATION DE RUSSIE
The European Bookshop PO Box 128 Ves Mir
Rue de l’Orme, 1 Keskuskatu 1 17b, Butlerova ul. - Office 338
BE-1040 BRUXELLES FI-00100 HELSINKI RU-117342 MOSCOW
Tel.: + 32 (0)2 231 04 35 Tel.: + 358 (0)9 121 4430 Tel.: + 7 495 739 0971
Fax: + 32 (0)2 735 08 60 Fax: + 358 (0)9 121 4242 Fax: + 7 495 739 0971
E-mail: [email protected] E-mail: [email protected] E-mail: [email protected]
http://www.libeurop.be http://www.akateeminen.com http://www.vesmirbooks.ru

Jean De Lannoy/DL Services

FRANCE SWITZERLAND/SUISSE
c/o Michot Warehouses
Please contact directly / Planetis Sàrl
Bergense steenweg 77
Merci de contacter directement 16, chemin des Pins
Chaussée de Mons
Council of Europe Publishing CH-1273 ARZIER
BE-1600 SINT PIETERS LEEUW
Éditions du Conseil de l’Europe Tel.: + 41 22 366 51 77
Fax: + 32 (0)2 706 52 27
F-67075 STRASBOURG Cedex Fax: + 41 22 366 51 78
E-mail: [email protected]
Tel.: + 33 (0)3 88 41 25 81 E-mail: [email protected]
http://www.jean-de-lannoy.be
Fax: + 33 (0)3 88 41 39 10
E-mail: [email protected]
TAIWAN
CANADA http://book.coe.int
Tycoon Information Inc.
Renouf Publishing Co. Ltd. 5th Floor, No. 500, Chang-Chun Road
22-1010 Polytek Street Librairie Kléber Taipei, Taiwan
CDN-OTTAWA, ONT K1J 9J1 1, rue des Francs-Bourgeois Tel.: 886-2-8712 8886
Tel.: + 1 613 745 2665 F-67000 STRASBOURG Fax: 886-2-8712 4747, 8712 4777
Fax: + 1 613 745 7660 Tel.: + 33 (0)3 88 15 78 88 E-mail: [email protected]
Toll-Free Tel.: (866) 767-6766 Fax: + 33 (0)3 88 15 78 80 [email protected]
E-mail: [email protected] E-mail: [email protected]
http://www.renoufbooks.com http://www.librairie-kleber.com
UNITED KINGDOM/ROYAUME-UNI
The Stationery Office Ltd
CROATIA/CROATIE NORWAY/NORVÈGE PO Box 29
Robert’s Plus d.o.o. Akademika GB-NORWICH NR3 1GN
Marasoviçeva 67 Postboks 84 Blindern Tel.: + 44 (0)870 600 5522
HR-21000 SPLIT NO-0314 OSLO Fax: + 44 (0)870 600 5533
Tel.: + 385 21 315 800, 801, 802, 803 Tel.: + 47 2 218 8100 E-mail: [email protected]
Fax: + 385 21 315 804 Fax: + 47 2 218 8103 http://www.tsoshop.co.uk
E-mail: [email protected] E-mail: [email protected]
http://www.akademika.no
UNITED STATES and CANADA/
CZECH REPUBLIC/ ÉTATS-UNIS et CANADA
RÉPUBLIQUE TCHÈQUE POLAND/POLOGNE Manhattan Publishing Co
Suweco CZ, s.r.o. Ars Polona JSC 670 White Plains Road
Klecakova 347 25 Obroncow Street USA-10583 SCARSDALE, NY
CZ-180 21 PRAHA 9 PL-03-933 WARSZAWA Tel: + 1 914 472 4650
Tel.: + 420 2 424 59 204 Tel.: + 48 (0)22 509 86 00 Fax: + 1 914 472 4316
Fax: + 420 2 848 21 646 Fax: + 48 (0)22 509 86 10 E-mail: [email protected]
E-mail: [email protected] E-mail: [email protected] http://www.manhattanpublishing.com
http://www.suweco.cz http://www.arspolona.com.pl

DENMARK/DANEMARK PORTUGAL
GAD Marka Lda
Vimmelskaftet 32 Rua dos Correeiros 61-3
DK-1161 KØBENHAVN K PT-1100-162 LISBOA
Tel.: + 45 77 66 60 00 Tel: 351 21 3224040
Fax: + 45 77 66 60 01 Fax: 351 21 3224044
E-mail: [email protected] E mail: [email protected]
http://www.gad.dk www.marka.pt

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: [email protected] – Website: http://book.coe.int
 LITERACY AND SECOND LANGUAGE LEARNING FOR THE LINGUISTIC INTEGRATION OF ADULT MIGRANTS (LASLLIAM)
LITERACY AND SECOND
LANGUAGE LEARNING
FOR THE LINGUISTIC
This reference guide is meant for language educators, curriculum designers and INTEGRATION
OF ADULT MIGRANTS
language policy makers in their endeavour to design, implement, evaluate and
improve curricula tailored toward the specific needs of non- and low-literate adult
migrants. This group of migrants faces the complex and demanding task of learning
a language while either learning to read and write for the first time or developing
their literacy skills. They rarely receive adequate instruction in terms of hours of
tuition and targeted teaching approaches, whereas they are very often requested
to take a compulsory written test.

The reference guide contains: a definition of target users and learners; the rationale
related to the development of the descriptors; principles for teaching literacy and
second languages; scales and tables of descriptors; aspects of curriculum design at
the macro, meso and micro levels and recommendations on assessment procedures
and tools within the learning environment.

The guide also contains descriptors that build on the Common European Framework
of Reference for Languages (CEFR) and the CEFR Companion volume up to the A1
level for adult migrants, with special attention given to literacy learners.

PREMS 008922
EDUCATION FOR DEMOCRACY

www.coe.int/lang-cefr
ENG
The Council of Europe is the continent’s leading
human rights organisation. It comprises 46 member
Reference guide
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