This document discusses challenges in teaching Italian as a second language to migrant learners, including illiterate learners. It presents results of a survey of Italian language teachers on their experiences. Major problems identified include designing differentiated instruction for diverse literacy levels, identifying learner profiles, finding appropriate materials, and managing classroom activities and time. Recommendations include developing assessment and curriculum for pre-A1 levels, providing more teaching hours, and increased teacher training to better meet the needs of illiterate and low-educated learners.

1. University for Foreigners of Siena
Carla Bagna
Luisa Salvati
Meeting the challenges
of teaching migrant learners

2. The CEFR for the migrant learners of
L2 Italian
 Teaching L2 Italian to adult migrants
 Common European Framework of Reference for
Languages
 A1 – Breakthrough
 A2 – Waystage
 B1 – Threshold
 B2 – Vantage
 C1 – Effective Operational Proficiency
 C2 - Mastery

3. Ministerial Decree 04/06/2010
 Section 2 - Provisions on the knowledge of
the Italian language
 For the issue of the EC long-term residence
permit, foreigners must have a level of knowledge
of the Italian language that allows them to
understand sentences and frequently used
expressions in current areas, corresponding to
level A2 of the Common European Framework of
Reference for Languages

4. Integration Agreement 10/03/2012
 A contract between the migrant resident and
the Italian State
 Section 1- Commitments of foreigners
 Foreigners agree to: a) learn spoken Italian at
least up to level A2 of the Common European
Framework of Reference for Languages ​​enacted
by the Council of Europe [ ... ].

5. Risks and Consequences
 Level A2 as insurance to live in Italy, not as a
step in a learning process towards autonomy
in everyday communicative contexts
 Language courses too focused on A2
 Excluding a segment of the population:
 illiterate migrants
 low-educated migrants

6. Level of education of migrants in
Italy
40.5
9.7
49.8
School-leaving
certificate
Degree
Junior high school-
leaving certificate
The National Institute of Statistics, 2014

7. Profile of migrant learners of L2
Italian
Primary school-leaving
certificate
13.650 13,2 %
Junior high school-leaving
certificate
30.009 29,1 %
First two years of high school 6.635 6,4 %
Vocational diploma 6.675 6,5 %
School-leaving certificate 17.811 17,3%
Degree 9.684 9,4 %
No certificate 18.678 18,1 %
Total 103.142 100 %
Ministry of Education, 2011/12

8.  Ministerial Decree 04/06/2010
 Writing
 Reading
 Listening
 Integration Agreement 10/03/2012
 Oral Interaction

9. Literacy
 The United Nations Educational, Scientific and
Cultural Organization (UNESCO) defines literacy
as the "ability to identify, understand, interpret,
create, communicate and compute, using
printed and written materials associated with
varying contexts. Literacy involves a continuum
of learning in enabling individuals to achieve
their goals, to develop their knowledge and
potential, and to participate fully in their
community and wider society” (2004)

10. Literacy vs. Illiteracy
 “[…] literacy and illiteracy are not absolute
data which can be measured on a single
person, but they are relative phenomena that
vary in time, in space and in a society
configuration”.
(Minuz, 2005)

11. Illiteracy typologies
 Pre-literate: L1 has not a writing system
 Totally illiterate in L1 and L2: L1 has a
writing system, but learners did not study it
 Weakly literate in L1: learners were least
literate in L1 (up to 3 years)

12. Illiteracy typologies
 Literate in alphabetic writing: learners were
literate in L1 but they do not know alphabetic
writing
 Literate in not Latin alphabet: learners were
literate in L1 but they do not know Latin alphabet
 Weakly literate in L2: regardless of L1

13. The survey: informants
 36 teachers of L2 Italian
 Public Education Centres for Adults (33)
 Organizations for migrants (NGOs, associations,
ect.) (7)
 Universities (1)

14. The survey: aims
 To know their perception and experience
with illiterate and low-educated learners
 To understand the issues related to that
teaching context
 To derive strategies and good practices in
order to meet those learners’ communicative
needs and to adapt to their special
educational profile

15. The survey: results (1)
35
1
0 10 20 30 40
yes
no
Demand for courses < level
A1
4
15
5
0 5 10 15 20
low
medium
high
Extent of the demand
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
< A1 A1 A2 B1 B2 C1 C2 other
33
34
35
22
17
14 14
7
L2 Italian courses offered

16. The survey: results (2)
Pre-literate
15% Totally
illiterate in
L1 and L2
19%
Weakly
literate in L1
23%
Literate in
not
alphabetic
writing
10%
Literate in
not Latin
alphabet
19%
Weakly
literate in L2
14%
Illiteracy Typologies
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
A1 classes with
differentiated
didactic paths
Classes for
illiterate and low-
educated
learners
Other
15
17
4
Didactic Management

17. The survey: results (3)
 When do you face major problems in teaching illiterate
and low-educated learners?
#1. Designing diversified didactic paths according to
different illiteracy typologies
 There is not a syllabus of reference for L2 Italian to illiterate
learners
 Levels < A1 are not acknowledged
 It is difficult to carry out diversified didactic paths in the same
classroom according to different illiterate learners profiles
 More homogeneous groups of learners
 Flexible didactic paths
 Focused learning units respecting learning time of
illiterate students

18. The survey: results (4)
 When do you face major problems in teaching
illiterate and low-educated learners?
#2. Identifying different illiteracy typologies
 Not shared information by institutions
 Administering specific tests
 Expanding the welcoming phase of learners
 Improving teachers training

19. The survey: results (5)
 When do you face major problems in teaching
illiterate and low-educated learners?
#3. Retrieval of ad hoc didactic materials
 It is difficult to find adequate books
 It is often necessary to create ad hoc tools or to adapt
what is already shared on the web (no time enough to
do it)
 Schools should guarantee didactic materials
 Teachers should share resources they create
and tools they develop

20. The survey: results (6)
 When do you face major problems in teaching
illiterate and low-educated learners?
#4. Time management in respect to the short-
(learning unit) and long-term (didactic planning)
goals
 Different learners profiles in the same classroom do
not allow to meet their communicative needs
 Learning time of illiterate students is very expanded,
which does not allow to fully reach the initial goals
 Students do not attend courses continuously, which
often slows down didactic planning
 Need for more teaching hours

21. The survey: results (7)
 When do you face major problems in teaching
illiterate and low-educated learners?
#5. Carrying out didactic activities in classroom
 It is difficult to carry out diversified didactic activities
for not homogenous groups in the same classroom
 It is difficult to promote interaction among illiterate
learners and to keep their motivation constantly high
 Classes by proficiency levels (<A1)
 Peer tutoring
 Teaching based on ludic activities

22. The survey: results (8)
 When do you face major problems in teaching
illiterate and low-educated learners?
#6. Welcoming (registration, collecting personal
and sociolinguistic data)
 The registration form usually used for foreign students is not
sufficient for illiterate learners because it is necessary to collect
more data in order to identify their illiteracy profile
 Providing for a simplified registration form (personal
data), translating it into immigrant languages
 Providing for a welcoming form (home country, L1, years
of education, etc.) with short writing/reading tasks
 Expanding the welcoming phase involving teachers and
linguistic mediators to facilitate interaction with students

23. The survey: results (9)
 When do you face major problems in teaching
illiterate and low-educated learners?
#7. Identifying proficiency levels (placement and
achievement tests)
 Levels < A1 are not acknowledged
 Teaching training
 Carrying out and using reliable and valid tests
able to verify levels <A1 as well

24. Conclusion
 The presence of illiterate migrant learners of
L2 Italian prompts to:
 A framework with descriptors for illiterate learners
profiles (totally illiterate, weakly illiterate, etc.)
 Test to assess levels< A1 homogenous classes
 A syllabus of reference adequate didactic
materials and activities
 More teaching hours needed to reach level A2
starting from levels <A1 (now about 40 hours)
 Teachers training and research about learning
time and sequences of illiterate students

25. Grazie!
Thank you!
Gracias!
Carla Bagna, bagna@unistrasi.it
Luisa Salvati, salvati@unistrasi.it
Università per Stranieri di Siena
www.unistrasi.it