Language Training for Adult Migrants

7. Start by assessing learners’ level of education, skills and capacity to learn and design courses accordingly

WHAT and WHY?

Adult migrants have very diverse educational backgrounds and literacy levels, and their needs in language training vary accordingly. In addition, each migrant has distinct personal circumstances, objectives and career prospects. This heterogeneity translates into diverse needs with respect to language training, practice, and learning paths.

There is a need for recognition that, while migrants who are literate in their own or another language can be seen as having skills to transfer to literacy in the new language, migrants with no literacy in their mother tongue require tutors with specific skills, knowledge, and competences and are better served in separate provision. As highlighted in Lesson 5, there is no ‘one‑size‑fits-all’ language trajectory, since reaching the same level of language proficiency is neither necessary nor feasible for people with different language repertoires, educational backgrounds, and career prospects (Beacco et al., 2014; Isphording, 2013; Chiswick and Miller, 2014).

While resource constraints may lead to learners of different skill-sets being taught together, the pace of progress will tend to differ along those skill levels. The course drop-out rate may be higher for those and the end of the skills scale (Cooke and Simpson, 2008). Ability grouping, meaning the placement of students in homogenised courses according to their ability or achievement level, enables adult learners to progress at an ideal pace and permits teachers to apply the most effective teaching methods for a given group of learners. To ensure that each migrant is referred to the language programme that best corresponds to their level of education and individual needs, countries need first to assess migrants’ language competencies and proficiency needs and draw up an individualised learning plan, including together with the migrant.

WHO?

An initial assessment of host-country language proficiency and likelihood to quickly learn the language should be routinely undertaken for all new arrivals who are expected to remain in the country, independent of their immigration and employment status and origin. The use of separate tracks is particularly important for the illiterate, the low educated, the tertiary educated, and for speakers not familiar with the Latin alphabet. There is also an argument for organisation of monolingual speakers into groups based on broad language families (Arabic, Indo-Iranian, Romance, Slavic, etc.). Illiterate adults need to focus on oral basic language skills before learning how to study, read, and write. Low-educated learners, who are far away from the labour market, such as inactive mothers and the elderly, may gain a greater motivation to study when the course is focused on their specific real-world language needs. More generally, low-educated learners benefit from combined basic language learning and adult education, which represents a long-term investment with long-term payoffs, including for the children of learners. At the other end of the scale, highly skilled migrants require a faster-paced, more challenging learning atmosphere to attain the advanced linguistic resources required for skilled employment.

HOW?

Tools to assess learners’ language level and needs can take various formats. All too often, for individuals without prior knowledge of the host-country language, prior education is used as a proxy for likely learning progress while other factors – including motivation – are often left aside in the assessment. To evaluate existing language skills, standardised language tests are the most prevalent form. However, other formats (such as survey questionnaires, samples of spoken and written production, and observations of language usage in migrants’ professional activities) may be better suited to obtain an idea of the use learners will make of the language and to determine what types of content should be taught on a priority basis. Ideally, certified language experts meet with prospective learners on a one‑on-one basis to find out about learning objectives and motivation, skills in other languages, education level, professional background, and language needs in migrants’ daily life. Finland’s largest contracted assessment provider, Testipiste, recognising that multiple cognitive factors are related to capacity for language acquisition (and that very few migrants will have any past exposure to Finnish), also evaluates structural perception and mathematics. Interviews of this kind can be complementary to a prior test and might, depending on migrants’ level of proficiency, may be conducted in their native language.1 This may require some upfront investment, but it shows migrants that educators understand and want to address their needs and interests, which, in turn, increases migrants’ motivation to participate and succeed in training (see Lesson 2).

Once prospective learners’ language abilities and objectives are assessed, countries can consider the following methods for course placement:

• Individual language learning plan

• Standard course grouping by level for prescribed number of hours

• Separate learning tracks based on educational background and literacy

Ideally, an individual language learning ‘trajectory’ –or tailor-made learning plan – should be developed in co‑operation with each migrant. Based on learners’ schedules and experiences, language experts identify the most appropriate learning option in the area and estimate the adequate number of hours of instruction and learning speed, given the structure of the course and the migrant’s educational background and language repertoire. Reference and benchmarking tools like the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages (CEFR) and the Canadian Language Benchmarks/Niveaux de compétence linguistique canadiens help with this task. This first step allows learners to set realistic expectations and prevents ‘course blocking’ – which occurs when low-educated adult learners cannot progress onto a higher level, despite regular course attendance and high levels of motivation. Australia’s Adult Migrant English Programme (AMEP), for example, uses individual pathway guidance at the start and end of each programme to maximise learners’ outcomes. New learners receive an Individual Pathway Guide (IPG) that documents their learning goals and explains their rights and responsibilities as learners. The IPG also facilitates the monitoring of learners’ outcomes during the programme. Once migrants have concluded the programme, they are interviewed about further learning needs and provided with a clearly delineated pathway to further language training, job search support, and education or vocational training opportunities.

Box 7.1. Language assessment in Canada

In Canada, web portals and service‑providers refer interested language learners to a local Language Assessment Centre, which provides services at no cost for newcomers to Canada. After a language assessment based on the Canadian Language Benchmarks/Niveaux de compétence linguistique canadiens (CLB/NCLC), trained assessors assign learners benchmarks reflecting their current level of proficiency in four competency areas (reading, writing, listening, and speaking). Assessors then help learners to identify their individual language needs, set goals, and chose the right course option. The Centre for Canadian Language Benchmarks (www.language.ca), a national organisation offering expertise in support of the national standards for describing, measuring, and recognising adult immigrants’ second-language English and French proficiency, provides tools for language assessors.

Even with ability grouping, it is not possible to link a certain level of proficiency precisely to a certain number of hours of instruction. The efficiency of language training depends on the quality of training, the educational background of learners, and their opportunities to speak the host-country language outside of the classroom (Ramboll, 2007a). Across the OECD, language programmes diverge significantly in terms of the number of hours of instruction provided and the level of proficiency targeted, ranging from around 100 to 2 700 hours and from CEFR level A1 (i.e. basic everyday expressions) to level B1/B2 (i.e. interaction in most everyday situations). A few countries go beyond these levels. The most common level of support targets A2/B1. However, even within each level of the CEFR, migrants will have different skills and learning speeds. The number of hours provided to reach the target level may be insufficient for slow learners. At the same time, the target level may be too low for the labour market integration of high-skilled immigrants. Several OECD countries have therefore reformed language and integration courses, developing specific pathways and more flexible programmes for different types of learners and allowing migrants to repeat or skip levels as necessary. Such reforms do not automatically come at a higher cost, as there is often some overlap between different language offers and also because better targeting allows for faster individual progress. Finland, for example, efficiently reallocated existing resources to ensure a more differentiated, better targeted provision (Sarvimäki and Hämäläinen, 2012). Following an evaluation of its integration course system in 2007, Germany further extended its offering, introducing publicly funded specialised schemes with catch-up and intensive courses, and additional specific pathways for young adults, parents, and women. As a result of this evaluation, Germany also added the possibility to attend 300 additional lesson-hours if participants were not able to reach CEFR level B1. Another assessment of the scheme found significant improvements in terms of language skills, employment, and other integration outcomes linked to more differentiated training (Schuller et al., 2011). A modular system, as currently operates in Sweden and Denmark, which organises learning in consecutive modules with increasingly advanced learning goals, is another example of how countries can manage to provide high-quality, personalised language courses to a broad and diverse group of learners (see Box 7.2). This approach also allows for provision of additional modules for those migrants who seek to continue beyond the integration targets to reach their personal or professional objectives

Box 7.2. The Danish experience with modular language courses

Denmark provides language training to immigrants on a pre‑paid deposit system. Courses are separated in three tracks, based on learners’ educational background: Danish 1 for the illiterate and users of non-Latin alphabets, Danish 2 for the low-educated, and Danish 3 for multilingual speakers with higher education (minimum 12 years). Learners in Danish 1 (approx. 15% of learners in 2019) can use these hours to attain CEFR level A1 (mostly oral) and A2 (written) to pursue low-skilled work and achieve greater participation in social life. Danish 2 (approx. 43%) aims for level B1‑B2 (oral/reading) and B1 (written), which qualifies learners for skilled work, further secondary or vocational education, and naturalisation requirements. Danish 3 (approx. 42%) leads to the ‘Danish Language Proficiency Test’ (level C1) that is necessary to access higher education in Denmark. Each track is sub-divided into six modules with tests at the end of each and a final exam at the end of the programme. Successful learners have the option to progress from Danish 1 to Danish 2 or 3. At the completion of each level, the deposit can be forwarded to cover costs for a new module.

Across the OECD, most state‑sponsored language programmes have a separate ‘literacy’ track, involving ‘pre‑courses’ in literacy and/or additional hours of instruction. Germany, for example, has two separate tracks, one for migrants who are literate in non-Latin writing systems and another for those with no literacy in any writing system. Still, concerns have been raised that there are insufficient options for transitioning these migrants to regular language courses after the alphabetisation course is completed (Wienberg, 2019). Tracking by education level is slightly less common, although pre‑courses or additional hours are sometimes also extended to low-educated learners. Tracks for the tertiary educated are more ad hoc (e.g. for international students or workers in certain professions) and mostly available at an advanced level upon completion of a generic language course. Tracking by language repertoire is even more ad hoc and usually organised for one or two of the most common immigrant languages, while courses organised for broad language families are rare. Overall, even where such tracking exists, the availability of specialised tracking is often uneven across the country and concentrated in urban and immigrant-dense areas. Particularly in countries where migrants are spread over wide geographies, this may present a continued challenge. However, countries should consider how to use tracking more systematically to improve outcomes.

Table 7.1. Availability of Differentiated Learning Tracks in OECD countries, 2020 or latest available year

	Yes/No	If yes: Type of differentiation available
Australia	Yes	Migrants in the Adult Migrant English Program can choose pre‑employment streams or social streams.
Austria	Yes	Literacy courses available, language courses are modular based on education level
Belgium	Yes	Literacy courses available
Canada	Yes	Settlement Program offers services at literacy, basic, and intermediate levels, as well as some employment-related language training
Chile	/	/
Colombia	/	/
Czech Republic	No	/
Denmark	Yes	Danish 1, 2, and 3 tracks target different levels of language learners (see Box 7.2)
Estonia	No	/
Finland	Yes	Four tracks, including one for literacy and one fast-track for integration of migrants assessed to have high learning capacity
France	Yes	Literacy courses are available, 3 pathways based on assessed French language ability (50, 100, or 200 hours)
Germany	Yes	Literacy courses are available. Intensive classes for highly educated learners are also possible.
Greece	No	/
Hungary	No	/
Iceland	/	/
Ireland	Yes	ESOL Literacy offering
Israel	/	/
Italy	No	/
Japan	No	/
Korea	No	/
Latvia	/	/
Lithuania	No	/
Luxembourg	Yes	Basic skills for beginners in French or German
Mexico	No	/
Netherlands	Yes	/
New Zealand	Yes	From Intensive Literacy and Numeracy to ESOL Level 3 for highly educated learners
Norway	Yes	/
Poland	No	/
Portugal	Yes	Literacy courses available through Adult Education and Training. Elementary course (target A2) has 6 modules, but 5 additional ‘independent learner’ modules are offered to reach B1
Slovak Republic	/	/
Slovenia	Yes	Slovene for Literacy (programme for adult migrants) is in development
Spain	Yes	Literacy courses available
Sweden	Yes	Three tracks based on educational background, each containing course levels A-D
Switzerland	Yes	All cantons have obligation to assess the individual migrant and offer modular courses, literacy courses available
Turkey	Yes	TÖMER (Turkish Learning Centres) provide language education for individuals seeking higher education.
United Kingdom	No	/
United States	No	Not systematically provided, although may be available

Note: n.a. = information not available; See Table 1.1.

Source: OECD questionnaire on language training for adult migrants 2017.

Note

← 1.  During a six‑month study in Helsinki, Testipiste observed that only 20 students moved to the slow track from the regular track after beginning a course. Both Testipiste and Finnish public employment service offices have also made use of databases to share information with educational institutions and teachers. Teachers are able to access information about placement tests, as well as labour market programmes and educational courses undertaken. They have been educated to interpret test results to modify their teaching to support specific needs.