This
volumeofcasecasestudieswillinterest
allthose
those
who
aim
todevelop
developlanguageThis
This
volumevolumeofofcasestudiesstudieswill
willinterest
interest
allallthose
who
who
aim
aim
totodevelop
language
languageeducation
in
order
to
promoteandsupportEurope’srichlinguisticandculturaleducation
education
inin
order
order
toto
promotepromoteandandsupportsupportEurope’sEurope’srich
richlinguistic
linguisticandandculturalculturaldi-di-diversity,
thus
fosteringa cultureofdemocracyandsocialjusticea timeinwhichversity,versity,thus
thus
fostering
fosteringa culturea culture
ofof
democracy
democracyandandsocialsocialjusticejustice
inin
a in
time
a time
inin
which
which
these
valuesareincreasingly
under
threat.
Thissituation
calls
a new
visionthese
these
valuesvaluesareareincreasingly
increasingly
under
under
threat.
threat.
This
This
situation
situation
calls
calls
forforafor
new
a new
visionvisionofofoflanguageeducation
in
which
the
developmentof
mediationandplurilingual/plurilanguage
languageeducation
education
inin
which
which
the
the
development
development
ofof
mediation
mediationandandplurilingual/pluriplurilingual/pluriculturalcompetencearecrucial.
culturalculturalcompetencecompetence
arearecrucial.
crucial.

The series Theof caseseriesstudiesof casepublishedstudies publishedin this volume
in thishavevolumebeenhaveselected
beenfrom
selectedover 30
from over 30that were carried
that were
outcarriedin the academicout in the year
academic
2018-19
yearas2018-19
a follow-up
as a tofollow-up
the conference
to the conference“CEFR Companion“CEFR Companion
Volume: Language
Volume: Language
Education Education
for Dynamic
forandDynamic
Inclusive
andSocieInclusive Societies – Promoting
ties – Promoting
PlurilingualPlurilingualand Pluriculturaland Pluricultural
Education,Education,” which was” whichheld inwas
Strasheld in Strasbourg in May
bourg
2018
in Mayto introduce
2018 to introduce
the CEFR Companion
the CEFR Companion
volume, publishedvolume, published
online in online inprovisionalprovisional
form in English
form andin English
Frenchandin February
French in2018.
February 2018.

EDUCATION FOR DEMOCRACYEDUCATION FOR DEMOCRACY

www.coe.int/lang-cefr
www.coe.int/lang-cefr

The
CEFR
Companion
The
The
CEFR
CEFR
Companion
Companion
volumeinpracticepracticevolumevolumeininpractice

The
CouncilofEuropeisthecontinent’s
leading
The
The
Council
Council
ofof
EuropeEurope
is is
the
the
continent’s
continent’s
leading
leadinghumanrightsorganisation.
It comprises
46
memberhuman
humanrightsrightsorganisation.
organisation.
It It
comprises
comprises4646
membermemberstates,includingallmembersoftheEuropean
Union.
states,states,includingincludingallallmembers
members
ofof
the
the
European
European
Union.
Union.
All
CouncilofEuropememberstateshave
signedAllAllCouncil
Council
ofof
EuropeEuropemembermemberstatesstateshave
have
signedsignedup
totheEuropeanConventionon
Human
Rights,
upup
to
to
the
the
European
EuropeanConvention
Convention
onon
Human
Human
Rights,Rights,atreatydesigned
toprotecthumanrights,democracya treatya treaty
designeddesigned
toto
protect
protecthuman
humanrights,rights,democracy
democracy
and
the
rule
of
law.
The
European
Court
of
Human
Rights
and
and
the
the
rule
rule
ofof
law.
law.
The
The
European
European
Court
Court
ofof
Human
Human
RightsRightsoversees
theimplementationoftheConvention
oversees
overseesthetheimplementation
implementation
ofof
the
the
Convention
Convention
inininthememberstates.
thethemembermemberstates.
states.

The Council
TheofCouncil
Europe ofis theEuropecontinent’s
is the continent’s
leading leading
human rights
humanorganisation.
rights organisation.
It comprises
It comprises
46 member
46 memberstates, including
states, including
all members
all membersof the Europeanof the European
Union. Union.
All CouncilAllofCouncil
Europe ofmemberEuropestates
memberhavestates
signedhave signed
up to the European
up to the European
Convention
Convention
on Humanon
Rights,Human Rights,
a treaty designed
a treaty todesigned
protectto
humanprotectrights,human
democracy
rights, democracy
and the rule
andofthelaw.rule
law. The European
TheofEuropean
Court of Human
Court ofRightsHuman Rights
oversees theoversees
implementation
the implementationof the Conventionof the Convention
ininthe member
thestates.
member states.

http://book.coe.int
http://book.coe.int
http://book.coe.int
978-92-871-8846-5
978-92-871-8846-5
978-92-871-8846-5€49/US$98€49/US$98€49/US$98

http://book.coe.int
http://book.coe.int
978-92-871-8846-5
978-92-871-8846-5€49/US$98€49/US$98

PREMS 080322

BIL
BIL
BIL

The studies
The
reportstudieson report
classroomon classroom
practice andpractice
awareness-raisingand awareness-raising
activities from
activities
all from allover Europe
overin Europe
secondaryin secondary
education,education,higher education,higher education,
heritage language
heritage educalanguage education, pre-service
tion, pre-service
teacher educationteacher education
and adult andeducation.
adult education.
The authors
The
outlineauthors
theiroutline theirexperienceexperiencein the languagein the classroom
language classroom
and with stakeholders
and with stakeholders
in relationin
torelation
media- to mediation, appreciation
tion, appreciationof literature,of literature,
plurilingualism,
plurilingualism,
online interaction
online interaction
and phonology.
and phonology.
The variousThe
chapters
variousexplore
chapters
theexplore
relevance
the andrelevance
usability
andofusability
the newofdescriptors
the new descriptors
forfor
the implementation
the implementationof an action-orientedof an action-oriented
approach approachto language
to education,
language education,
prepresenting thesenting
challenges
the challenges
and opportunities
and opportunities
they encountered
they encounteredin the process,in theandprocess,
the and thereactions ofreactions
their studentsof theirand
students
colleagues.
and colleagues.

PREMS 080322

www.coe.int/lang-cefr
www.coe.int/lang-cefr
www.coe.int/lang-cefr

PREMS 080322
PREMS 080322
PREMS 080322

The
seriesofcasestudiespublishedinthisvolumehave
been
selected
from
over
The
The
seriesseries
ofof
case
case
studiesstudiespublishedpublished
inin
this
this
volumevolume
have
have
been
been
selected
selected
from
from
over
over
303030that
werecarriedout
intheacademicyear
2018-19asafollow-up
totheconference
that
that
were
were
carriedcarried
out
out
inin
the
the
academicacademic
year
year
2018-192018-19asas
a follow-up
a follow-up
toto
the
the
conference
conference“CEFR
Companion
Volume:Language
EducationforDynamic
andInclusive
Socie“CEFR“CEFRCompanion
Companion
Volume:Volume:Language
Language
Education
Education
forforDynamic
Dynamic
andand
Inclusive
Inclusive
SocieSocieties–
Promoting
PlurilingualandPluricultural
Education,
”
which
was
held
in
Strasties
ties– Promoting– Promoting
Plurilingual
Plurilingualandand
Pluricultural
Pluricultural
Education,
Education,” which” which
was
was
held
held
inin
StrasStrasbourg
in
May
2018
to
introducethe
CEFR
Companion
volume,publishedonline
bourg
bourg
inin
May
May
2018
2018
toto
introduce
introduce
the
the
CEFR
CEFR
Companion
Companion
volume,volume,publishedpublishedonlineonlineinin inprovisionalform
inEnglishandFrenchinFebruary
2018.
provisional
provisional
form
form
inin
EnglishEnglishandandFrenchFrenchinin
February
February
2018.
2018.

These caseThesestudiescasereportstudieson report
experienceon experiencein a wide invarietya wideof variety
contexts
of withcontexts
the with theconcepts andconcepts
descriptors
and descriptorsof the Commonof theEuropean
CommonFramework
European Frameworkof Reference
offor
Reference
Lan- for Languages: Learning,guages:teaching,
Learning,assessment
teaching, assessment- Companion- Companion
volume (CEFR
volumeCompanion(CEFR Companion
vovolume), whichlume),
broadens
which thebroadensvision ofthethevision
CEFRof2001,
the CEFR
enriching
2001, theenriching
CEFR model
the CEFRin themodel in theareas of plurilingualism
areas of plurilingualism
and mediation.
and mediation.

BIL

BIL

ENRICHING 21ST CENTURY LANGUAGE EDUCATION

The
studiesreportonclassroompracticeandawareness-raising
activities
from
The
The
studiesstudiesreportreportononclassroomclassroompracticepracticeandandawareness-raisingawareness-raising
activities
activities
from
from
allallalloverEuropeinsecondaryeducation,highereducation,
heritage
languageeducaover
over
EuropeEuropeinin
secondarysecondaryeducation,
education,higherhighereducation,
education,
heritage
heritage
language
languageeducaeducation,
pre-service
teacher
educationandadulteducation.
Theauthors
outline
their
tion,
tion,
pre-service
pre-service
teacherteacher
education
education
and
and
adult
adult
education.
education.
The
The
authors
authors
outlineoutlinetheir
theirexperienceinthelanguageclassroom
andwithstakeholders
inrelationtomediaexperience
experience
inin
the
the
language
languageclassroomclassroom
and
and
with
with
stakeholders
stakeholders
inin
relation
relation
toto
mediamediation,
appreciationofliterature,
plurilingualism,
onlineinteraction
andphonology.
tion,
tion,
appreciation
appreciation
ofof
literature,
literature,
plurilingualism,
plurilingualism,
onlineonlineinteraction
interaction
andandphonology.
phonology.
Thevariouschapters
exploretherelevance
andusability
of
the
new
descriptors
TheThe
variousvariouschapters
chapters
exploreexplorethethe
relevance
relevance
andandusability
usability
ofof
the
the
new
new
descriptors
descriptors
forforfor
theimplementationofanaction-oriented
approachtolanguageeducation,
prethetheimplementation
implementation
ofofananaction-oriented
action-oriented
approachapproach
totolanguage
languageeducation,
education,
prepresenting
thechallenges
andopportunities
they
encounteredintheprocess,andthesentingsentingthethechallenges
challenges
andandopportunities
opportunities
they
they
encounteredencountered
inin
the
the
process,
process,
and
and
the
the
reactionsof
theirstudents
andcolleagues.
reactionsreactions
ofof
their
their
students
students
andandcolleagues.
colleagues.

ENRICHING 21ST CENTURY LANGUAGE EDUCATIONENRICHING 21STST CENTURY LANGUAGE EDUCATIONENRICHING 21 CENTURY LANGUAGE EDUCATIONENRICHING 21ST CENTURY LANGUAGE EDUCATION

These
case
studiesreportonexperience
experience
awide
wide
varietyofcontexts
contexts
with
the
These
These
case
case
studiesstudiesreportreportononexperience
ininainawide
varietyvarietyofofcontexts
with
with
the
the
concepts
anddescriptorsoftheCommonEuropean
FrameworkofReferencefor
Lanconcepts
concepts
andanddescriptors
descriptors
ofof
the
the
CommonCommonEuropean
European
Framework
Framework
ofof
Reference
Reference
forforLanLanguages:
Learning,
teaching,
assessment- Companion
volume(CEFR
Companion
voguages:
guages:Learning,
Learning,
teaching,
teaching,
assessment
assessment- Companion- Companion
volumevolume(CEFR(CEFR
Companion
Companion
vovolume),whichbroadensthevision
of
the
CEFR
2001,
enriching
the
CEFR
model
in
the
lume),lume),
which
which
broadens
broadensthethevisionvision
ofof
the
the
CEFR
CEFR
2001,
2001,
enrichingenriching
the
the
CEFR
CEFR
model
model
inin
the
the
areas
of
plurilingualism
andmediation.
areas
areas
ofof
plurilingualism
plurilingualism
andandmediation.
mediation.

EDUCATIONFOR
DEMOCRACYEDUCATIONEDUCATION
FOR FORDEMOCRACY
DEMOCRACYENRICHINGENRICHINGENRICHINGSTSTST21
CENTURY2121
CENTURYCENTURYLANGUAGELANGUAGELANGUAGEEDUCATIONEDUCATIONEDUCATION

This volume
Thisofvolume
case studies
of casewill
studies
interest
willallinterest
those who
all those
aim towhodevelop
aim tolanguage
develop language
education educationin order toinpromoteorder toandpromotesupportandEurope’s
supportrich
Europe’s
linguisticrichandlinguistic
culturalanddi-cultural diversity, thus
versity,fosteringthusafostering
culture ofa culture
democracyof democracy
and social andjusticesocialin ajusticetime ininwhicha time in whichthese values
these
arevalues
increasingly
are increasingly
under threat.
under
Thisthreat.
situation
This calls
situation
for a calls
new forvisiona newof vision of
language education
language educationin which thein whichdevelopment
the developmentof mediationof mediationand plurilingual/pluriand plurilingual/pluricultural competence
cultural competence
are crucial.are crucial.

ENRICHING
21st-CENTURYLANGUAGEEDUCATION
The CEFR Companion volume in practice

Edited by
Brian North, Enrica Piccardo, Tim Goodier, Daniela Fasoglio,
Rosanna Margonis-Pasinetti and Bernd Rüschoff

Council of Europe

The series of case studies published in this volume have been selected from over 30 that were carried out inthe academic year 2018-19 as a follow-up to the conference “CEFR Companion Volume: Language Education
for Dynamic and Inclusive Societies – Promoting Plurilingual and Pluricultural Education,” which was held in
Strasbourg in May 2018 to introduce the CEFR Companion volume, published online in provisional form in English
and French in February 2018.

The opinions expressed in this work
are the responsibility of the authorsand do not necessarily reflect the official
policy of the Council of Europe.
The reproduction of extracts (up to
500 words) is authorised, except forcommercial purposes, as long as theintegrity of the text is preserved,
the excerpt is not used out of context,
does not provide incomplete informationor 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: “© Councilof Europe, 2022”. All other requests
concerning the reproduction/translationof all or part of the document, should
be addressed to the Directorate ofCommunications, Council of Europe(F-67075 Strasbourg Cedex
or publishing@coe.int).
All other correspondence concerning thisdocument should be addressed to the
Education Department
Council of Europe
Agora Building
1, Quai Jacoutot
67075 Strasbourg Cedex
Franceeducation@coe.int
Cover design:
Documents and Publications
Production Department (SPDP),
Council of Europe
Layout: Jouve, Paris
Council of Europe Publishing
F-67075 Strasbourg Cedex
http://book.coe.int
ISBN 978-92-871-8846-5© Council of Europe, April 2022
Printed at the Council of Europe

CONTENTS
TRIBUTE TO TIM GOODIER

17

FOREWORD

19

CONTRIBUTORS

21

CHAPTER 1. ENRICHING THE SCOPE OF LANGUAGE EDUCATION: THE CEFR – COMPANION VOLUME 27
1.1. INTRODUCTION

27

1.2. A SIGNIFICANT STEP IN LANGUAGE EDUCATION

27

1.3. INNOVATIVE CONCEPTS IN THE CEFR

29

1.4. INNOVATIVE FEATURES OF THE CEFR COMPANION VOLUME

29

1.4.1. THE USER/LEARNER AS A SOCIAL AGENT

30

1.4.2. THE ACTION-ORIENTED APPROACH

31

1.4.3. MEDIATION

32

1.4.4. PLURILINGUALISM

34

1.4.5. ONLINE, DIGITAL INTERACTION AND TRANSACTION

36

1.4.6. PHONOLOGICAL COMPETENCE

37

1.4.7. CONCEPTUAL MODEL

38

1.5. THE CASE STUDIES IN THIS VOLUME

40

PART I. CLASSROOM PRACTICE

49

INTRODUCTION TO PART I

51

MEDIATION: CHAPTERS 2 TO 4

52

PLURILINGUALISM: CHAPTERS 5 AND 6

53

LITERATURE: CHAPTERS 7 AND 8

54

ONLINE INTERACTION: CHAPTERS 9 TO 11

54

CHAPTER 2. THE ROLE OF CONTEXTUAL FACTORS IN THE IMPLEMENTATION OF MEDIATIONDESCRIPTORS WITH HIGHER EDUCATION LANGUAGE LEARNERS

57

2.1. INTRODUCTION

58

2.2. PROJECT DESCRIPTION

59

2.2.1. TASKS

60

2.2.1.1. UNIVERSITY OF JAÉN

60

2.2.1.2. UNIVERSITY OF MANCHESTER

61

2.2.1.3. DUBLIN CITY UNIVERSITY

62

2.2.1.4. UNIVERSITY COLLEGE LONDON

63

2.2.2. STUDENT FEEDBACK

64

2.2.2.1. UNIVERSITY OF JAÉN

64

2.2.2.2. UNIVERSITY OF MANCHESTER

64

2.2.2.3. DUBLIN CITY UNIVERSITY

64

2.2.2.4. UNIVERSITY COLLEGE LONDON

65

2.3. DISCUSSION

65

2.4. CONCLUSION

66

Page 3

CHAPTER 3. CEFR MEDIATION STRATEGIES: TOWARDS A SOCIO-EMOTIONALLY ENHANCEDPLURILINGUAL LANGUAGE EDUCATION

69

3.1. INTRODUCTION

70

3.2. PROJECT DESCRIPTION

71

3.2.1. HOW THE MEDIATION DESCRIPTORS OF THE CEFR COMPANION VOLUME WERE EXPLOITED: A MULTI-CASE STUDY

73

3.2.2. INSTRUMENTS USED TO COLLECT DATA

73

3.2.3. PROCEDURE AND WORKING PHASES FOR ALL CASE STUDIES

73

3.2.4. BUILDING A COMMUNITY OF PRACTICE: DETAILS OF TEACHER TRAINING, MATERIALS DEVELOPMENT
AND PEER SUPPORT

74

3.2.5. DATA ANALYSIS

74

3.2.6. CROSS-CASE RESULTS

74

3.2.6.1. AUTONOMOUS LEARNING

74

3.2.6.2. COLLABORATIVE LEARNING

74

3.2.6.3. LEARNING OUTCOMES

80

3.2.6.4. DESCRIPTORS FOR MEDIATION AND PLURILINGUALISM

80

3.2.6.5. SOCIO-EMOTIONAL ATTITUDES

80

3.3. DISCUSSION

80

3.3.1. OVERALL PERCEIVED IMPACT OF THE CASE STUDY ON TEACHING AND LEARNING

80

3.3.2 EVALUATION AND REFLECTION ON THE ROLE AND FUNCTION OF THE DESCRIPTORS USED IN THIS CASE STUDY

80

3.3.3. LESSONS LEARNED

81

3.4. CONCLUSIONS

81

3.4.1. EXPECTED RELEVANCE AND USABILITY OF THE DESCRIPTORS

81

3.4.2. SUSTAINABILITY AND EXTENSION TO WIDER CONTEXT

82

CHAPITRE 4. « MULTIMÉDIA » : LA MÉDIATION MULTILINGUE DANS LE CADRE D’UN PROJET DE
STAGE EN ENTREPRISE

85

4.1. INTRODUCTION

86

4.2. DESCRIPTION DU PROJET

87

4.2.1. PHASE 1 – LANCEMENT DU PROJET

89

4.2.2. PHASE 2 – PRÉPARONS NOS BAGAGES !

89

4.2.3. LES RESSOURCES

90

4.2.4. LES FICHES DE TRAVAIL

90

4.2.5. PHASE 3 – ON DÉCOLLE !

91

4.2.6. PHASE 4 – ON ATTERRIT !

91

4.2.6.1. AUTOÉVALUATION DE L’EXPÉRIENCE LINGUISTIQUE ET DE MÉDIATION (VOIR ANNEXE 4.3)

92

4.2.6.2. FEEDBACK DU TUTEUR D’ENTREPRISE

92

4.2.6.3. FEEDBACK DES ÉLÈVES SUR L’EXPÉRIENCE DANS SON ENSEMBLE

92

4.3. DISCUSSION

93

4.4. CONCLUSION

93

CHAPTER 5. “IN VENLO GIBT ES VIEL NIEDERLÄNDISCH, ABER AUCH ENGLISCH UND DEUTSCH” –A WORKSHOP ON RECEPTIVE PLURILINGUALISM IN THE NEIGHBOUR LANGUAGE
95
5.1. INTRODUCTION

96

5.1.1. NEIGHBOUR-LANGUAGE LEARNING IN THE DUTCH-GERMAN BORDER REGION

98

5.1.2. COMMUNICATION STRATEGIES IN DUTCH-GERMAN SCHOOL EXCHANGES

99

Page 4 3 Enriching 21st-century language education

5.2. PROJECT DESCRIPTION

100

5.2.1. THE PARTICIPANTS

100

5.2.2. THE WORKSHOP: PROGRAMME AND CONTENT

100

5.2.3. DEVELOPMENT OF PLURILINGUAL DECODING STRATEGIES

101

5.2.4. APPLICATION OF PLURILINGUAL DECODING STRATEGIES IN THE LINGUISTIC LANDSCAPING TASK

102

5.2.5. APPLYING DECODING STRATEGIES TO UNKNOWN TEXTS IN DUTCH

103

5.3. DISCUSSION

105

5.4. CONCLUSION

106

CHAPTER 6. IMPLEMENTING PLURILINGUAL ORAL EXAMS AND PLURILINGUAL LESSONS IN
AUSTRIAN UPPER SECONDARY VOCATIONAL COLLEGES

109

6.1. INTRODUCTION

110

6.2. PROJECT DESCRIPTION

111

6.3. DISCUSSION

114

6.4. CONCLUSION

114

CHAPTER 7. THE SIXTH SENSE FOR LITERATURE: A NEW PLURICULTURAL APPROACH TO LITERARYTEXTS AS MEDIATION AND REACTION TO LITERATURE ACCORDING TO THE NEW DESCRIPTORS OF
THE CEFR COMPANION VOLUME
117
7.1. INTRODUCTION

118

7.1.1. THE DESCRIPTORS FROM THE CEFR COMPANION VOLUME

119

7.1.2. SPECIFIC OBJECTIVES

119

7.1.3. EDUCATIONAL CONTEXT

119

7.1.3.1. EDUCATIONAL CONTEXT: IN-SERVICE TEACHER PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT

119

7.1.3.2. EDUCATIONAL CONTEXT AND TARGET LEARNER GROUP: STUDENTS AND THEIR NEEDS

119

7.2. PROJECT DESCRIPTION

120

7.2.1. INTERNAL WORKSHOP FOR TEACHERS

120

7.2.1.1. WORKSHOP ON THE CONNECTION BETWEEN COGNITIVE NEUROSCIENCES AND READING LITERATURE

120

7.2.1.2. WORKSHOP ON CREATIVE WRITING: THE SEVEN LAMPS OF WRITING

120

7.2.1.3. WORKSHOP ON VISUALISATION

121

7.2.2. LEARNING UNIT FOR THE STUDENT GROUPS

121

7.2.2.1. LANGUAGE PROFICIENCY LEVEL AND GRIDS

121

7.2.2.2. METHODOLOGY AND STEPS

121

7.2.2.3. WORKSHOPS IN 5M (13TH GRADE)

122

Steps A and B: Expressing a personal response to creative texts

122

Step C: Creative writing

123

Step D: Reading as a leisure activity and Analysis of creative texts (including literature)

123

Step E: Criticism of creative texts (including literature)

123

Step F: Evaluation

125

7.2.2.4. WORKSHOP IN 4M (12TH GRADE)

125

7.2.2.5. EVALUATION

125

7.2.3. EVALUATION OF THE WHOLE PROJECT

126

7.3. DISCUSSION

127

7.4. CONCLUSION

127

Enriching the scope of language education Page 5

CHAPTER 8. PROMOTING AND ASSESSING THE APPRECIATION OF LITERATURE
AT SECONDARY SCHOOL

129

8.1. INTRODUCTION

130

8.1.1. AIM OF THE PROJECT

130

8.1.2. INSTITUTIONAL CONTEXT

130

8.1.2.1. INCLUSION OBJECTIVE

131

8.1.2.2. LANGUAGE ENHANCEMENT OBJECTIVE

131

8.1.2.3. SCIENCE ENHANCEMENT OBJECTIVE

131

8.1.3. LANGUAGE LEARNING AIMS131

FIRST AND SECOND YEAR132

THIRD AND FOURTH YEAR132

FIFTH YEAR

132

8.1.4. DETAILS OF THE LEARNER GROUPS INVOLVED

132

Group 1: first year 2018/19, second year 2019/20

133Group 2: third year 2018/19, fourth year 2019/20

133Group 3: fourth year 2018/19, fifth year 2019/20

133Group 4: fifth year 2018/19

133

Group 5: fifth year 2018/19

133

8.2. PROJECT DESCRIPTION

134

8.2.1. IMPLEMENTATION

134

8.2.2. METHODOLOGY

134

8.2.3. BUILDING A COMMUNITY OF PRACTICE

134

8.2.4. PRACTICAL MEASURES FOR TEACHING AND LEARNING

135

8.2.4.1. TOOLS

135

8.2.4.2. DATA COLLECTED

135

8.3. DISCUSSION

136

8.3.1. OVERALL PERCEIVED IMPACT

136

8.3.2. EVALUATION, REFLECTION AND LESSONS LEARNED

136

8.4. CONCLUSION

137

CHAPTER 9. FOCUS ON ONLINE INTERACTION: A PILOT PROJECT IN ITALY

143

9.1. INTRODUCTION

144

9.2. PROJECT DESCRIPTION

145

9.2.1. PARTICIPANTS AND SET-UP

145

9.2.2. TASKS

146

9.2.3. OUTCOMES

147

9.2.4. ACTIVITIES AND MATERIALS

148

9.3. DISCUSSION

151

9.4. CONCLUSION

153

CHAPTER 10. APPLICATION OF CEFR COMPANION VOLUME DESCRIPTORS IN CLIL SETTINGS

155

10.1. INTRODUCTION

156

10.2. PROJECT DESCRIPTION

157

10.2.1. TASKS

157

Page 6 3 Enriching 21st-century language education

10.2.2. ONLINE INTERACTION

159

10.2.2.1. ONLINE CONVERSATION AND DISCUSSION

159

Task 1. Topic: Population dynamics

159

Task 2. Topic: Population policies

159

Task 3. Topic: Population policies

160

Task 4. Topic: Economic development. Energy

160

10.2.2.2. GOAL-ORIENTED ONLINE TRANSACTIONS AND COLLABORATION

162

Task 5. Topic: Climate change and Global warming

162

Task 6. Topic: Economic Development. Tourism

162

10.2.3. EXAMPLES OF CLIL MEDIATION TASKS ACROSS LEVELS

162

10.2.3.1. MEDIATING A TEXT

162

Task 7. Topic: Volcanoes

163

Task 8. Topic: Marine processes. Coastal erosion

163

Task 9. Topic: Climate change

163

10.2.3.2. MEDIATING CONCEPTS

163

Task 10. Topic: Environmental risks of economic development. Fracking.

164

10.2.4. EXAMPLES OF PLURILINGUAL CLIL TASKS

164

Task 11. Topic: Tectonic plates

164

Task 12. Topic: Rivers. Case study: 2005 European flooding

165

10.3. DISCUSSION

165

10.4. CONCLUSION

167

CHAPTER 11. STUDENT ENGAGEMENT: ONLINE INTERACTION AND LANGUAGE LEARNING

169

11.1. INTRODUCTION

170

11.2. PROJECT DESCRIPTION

171

11.2.1. PHASE 1: VR AND LANGUAGE LEARNING

171

11.2.1.1. VR – GOOGLE CARDBOARD

171

11.2.1.2. VR – SIMULATION PROOF OF CONCEPT

172

11.2.1.3. CREATING A VR-ENRICHED ENGLISH COURSE

172

11.2.2. PHASE 2: EFFECT OF ONLINE RESOURCES AND INTERACTION ON LEARNING AND MOTIVATION

173

11.2.3. PHASE 3: ONLINE INTERACTION DESCRIPTORS IN THE CEFR COMPANION VOLUME

173

11.3. DISCUSSION

174

11.4. CONCLUSION

175

PART II. AWARENESS RAISING AND TEACHER EDUCATION177

INTRODUCTION TO PART II

179

CHAPTER 12. IMPLEMENTATION OF THE CEFR COMPANION VOLUME IN THE UNICERT®
AND NULTE NETWORKS

185

12.1. INTRODUCTION

186

12.2. PROJECT DESCRIPTION

187

12.2.1. ORGANISATION AND STRUCTURE OF THE PROJECT

187

12.2.2. PROJECT ACTIVITIES AND EVENTS

187

12.2.3. ASSESSMENT OF EVENTS AND PROJECT OUTPUTS

188

12.2.4. PARTICIPANTS’ FEEDBACK ON THE CEFR COMPANION VOLUME

188

Enriching the scope of language education Page 7

12.2.5. CASE STUDIES CONCERNING INDIVIDUAL TARGET GROUPS

189

ZESS (CENTRE FOR LANGUAGES AND TRANSFERABLE SKILLS) AT GEORG-AUGUST-UNIVERSITÄT GÖTTINGEN

189

UNICERT® (GERMANY)189

NULTE IN GENERAL

189

CLES (FRANCE)189

CERTACLES® (SPAIN)

190

CLAP (PORTUGAL)190

VILNIUS UNIVERSITY (LITHUANIA)

190

12.3. DISCUSSION

195

12.3.1. THE ACTION-ORIENTED APPROACH AND THE CONCEPT OF THE LEARNER AS A SOCIAL AGENT

195

12.3.2. THE INTEGRATION OF PLURILINGUALISM ACTIVITIES IN UNIVERSITY LANGUAGE TEACHING

199

12.3.3. THE ROLE OF INTERCULTURAL AND PLURICULTURAL TASKS IN LANGUAGE TEACHING AND TESTING

199

12.3.4. THE NOTION OF MEDIATION

199

12.3.5. THE WORK WITH THE NEW LIST OF DESCRIPTORS

200

12.4. CONCLUSION

200

CHAPTER 13. AN ACTION TOOLKIT FOR LANGUAGE TEACHER TRAINING ON MEDIATION

203

13.1. INTRODUCTION

204

13.2. PROJECT DESCRIPTION

205

13.2.1. CONCEPTUALISING MEDIATION

205

ACTIVITY A

206

ACTIVITY B

206

13.2.2. EXPOSURE TO, AND ANALYSIS OF MEDIATION ACTIVITIES (INCLUDING MEDIATION STRATEGIES)

207

ACTIVITY C

208

ACTIVITY D

208

13.2.3. GUIDE TO DESIGN MEDIATION ACTIVITIES209

ACTIVITY E

209

13.2.4. ACTIVITIES FOR REFLECTING ON HOW TO ASSESS MEDIATION

209

ACTIVITY F

209

ACTIVITY G

210

ACTIVITY H

210

ACTIVITY I

212

13.3. DISCUSSION

213

13.3.1. IMPACT OF TRAINING SESSIONS

213

13.3.2. CONCLUSIONS DRAWN FROM THE TRAINING SESSIONS

213

13.4. CONCLUSION

213

CHAPTER 14. REPRESENTATIONS OF MEDIATION IN FOREIGN LANGUAGE EDUCATION: AN
EXPLORATORY CASE STUDY WITH DIFFERENT STAKEHOLDERS IN HAMBURG

215

14.1. INTRODUCTION

216

14.2. PROJECT DESCRIPTION

218

14.3. DISCUSSION

219

14.4. CONCLUSION

222

Page 8 3 Enriching 21st-century language education

CHAPITRE 15. DISCOURS D’ENSEIGNANTS AU SUJET D’ACTIVITÉS QUI RELÈVENT DE
LA MÉDIATION DANS LE VOLUME COMPLÉMENTAIRE DU CECR – UNE ÉTUDE EMPIRIQUE

225

15.1. INTRODUCTION

226

15.1.1. LA LANGUE D’HÉRITAGE ET SON ENSEIGNEMENT

226

15.1.2. CONTEXTE

227

15.2. DESCRIPTION DU PROJET

227

15.3. DISCUSSION

233

15.3.1. PHASE 1 – PLANIFICATION DES TÂCHES DE MÉDIATION

233

15.3.2. PHASE 2 – MISE EN PRATIQUE DES TÂCHES DE MÉDIATION

234

15.3.3. PHASE 3 – ÉVALUATION

234

15.4. CONCLUSION

235

CHAPTER 16. ESSENTIAL NEEDS FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF UNIVERSITY STUDENTS’
ACADEMIC MEDIATION SKILLS

239

16.1. INTRODUCTION

241

16.2. PROJECT DESCRIPTION

241

16.2.1. THE SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE

242

16.2.1.1. COUNCIL OF EUROPE PUBLICATIONS

242

16.2.1.2. CEFR DESCRIPTOR SCALES USED

243

16.2.1.3. FOUR MODES OF COMMUNICATION (RECEPTION, PRODUCTION, INTERACTION, MEDIATION)

244

16.2.1.4. MEDIATION CORE CONCEPTS AND THE NEED FOR A GLOSSARY

245

16.2.1.5. INTRODUCING MEDIATION INTO THE SYLLABUS

246

16.2.2. COURSE BOOK ANALYSIS

247

16.2.3. INTERVIEW RESULTS

248

16.2.4. TOWARDS A TYPOLOGY OF TASKS

248

16.3. DISCUSSION

251

16.4. CONCLUSION

252

CHAPITRE 17. L’EXPLOITATION DES COMPÉTENCES PLURILINGUES DANS LE CADREDES FORMATIONS LINGUISTIQUES DISPENSÉES AUX ADULTES PLURILINGUES :ÉTUDE DE CAS SUR L’UTILISATION DES NOUVEAUX DESCRIPTEURS DU VOLUMECOMPLÉMENTAIRE DU CECR POUR UNE TRANSITION VERS DES PRATIQUESD’ENSEIGNEMENT VALORISANT LE PLURILINGUISME

255

17.1. INTRODUCTION

256

17.2. DESCRIPTION DU PROJET

256

17.2.1. LIENS AVEC LE RÉFÉRENTIEL

256

17.2.2. RECUEIL DES DONNÉES

257

17.2.2.1. QUESTIONNAIRE À DESTINATION DES ENSEIGNANTS

257

17.2.2.2. OBSERVATIONS DE CLASSES

258

17.2.2.3. QUESTIONNAIRE À DESTINATION DES APPRENANTS

259

17.3. DISCUSSION

260

17.3.1. IMPORTANCE DU PLURILINGUISME DANS LE CADRE DES COURS DE LANGUE

260

17.3.2. IMPORTANCE DE L’ACQUISITION DE COMPÉTENCES DE GESTION DU PLURILINGUISME POUR LES ENSEIGNANTS

261

17.3.3. FONCTION DES DESCRIPTEURS DANS LE DÉVELOPPEMENT DES PRATIQUES

261

17.4. CONCLUSION

262

Enriching the scope of language education Page 9CHAPITRE 18. LA TÂCHE COMME MOTEUR DE PROMOTION DU PLURILINGUISME

265

18.1. INTRODUCTION

266

18.2. DESCRIPTION DU PROJET

266

18.2.1. RÔLES DE LA TÂCHE

267

18.2.2. RÔLES DES ÉTUDIANTS

267

18.2.3. DÉROULEMENT DU COURS

268

18.2.4. EXEMPLE DE TÂCHE CONSTRUITE PAR UN GROUPE D’ÉTUDIANTS

268

18.3. DISCUSSION

269

18.3.1. RÉSULTATS DE L’ÉTUDE DE CAS

269

18.3.1.1. SAVOIRS

270

18.3.1.2. SAVOIR-ÊTRE – ATTITUDES

270

18.3.1.3. SAVOIR-FAIRE

270

18.3.2. VOLUME COMPLÉMENTAIRE DU CECR

270

18.3.2.1. ORIENTATION POUR LA CONSTRUCTION DE TÂCHES

271

18.3.2.2. MODÈLE POUR LA CONSTRUCTION DE GRILLES D’ÉVALUATION

271

18.3.3. AUTOÉVALUATION

272

18.3.4. LA TÂCHE COMME PROJET DE FORMATION ÉDUCATIVE

272

18.4. CONCLUSION

272

18.5. EXTRAITS DE VERBALISATIONS DES ÉTUDIANTS DU COURS DE DIDACTIQUE

273

CHAPTER 19. LEARNING BY DOING: PUTTING THE CEFR DESCRIPTORS FOR ONLINEINTERACTION AND MEDIATION INTO PRACTICE BY TEACHER TRAINEES

277

19.1. INTRODUCTION

278

19.2. PROJECT DESCRIPTION

279

19.2.1. PREPARATION

279

19.2.2. MODULE CREATION

279

19.2.3. HOW THE DESCRIPTORS FOR MEDIATION WERE EXPLOITED

279

19.2.4. EXAMPLES OF TASKS PRODUCED

280

19.2.5. FOLLOW-UP ACTIVITIES

281

19.2.6. COMMUNITY OF PRACTICE

281

19.2.7. REFLECTION AND EVALUATION

281

19.3. DISCUSSION

282

19.3.1. UTILISATION OF FEEDBACK

282

19.3.2. PERCEIVED IMPACT ON TEACHING AND LEARNING

282

19.3.2.1. THE APPROACH BOOSTED PARTICIPANTS CREATIVITY AND WAS HIGHLY MOTIVATING

283

19.3.2.2. THE TASK WAS CHALLENGING YET INTERESTING

283

19.3.2.3. THERE WERE BOTH ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES OBSERVED

283

19.3.2.4. SOME EXAMPLES OF REFLECTION AND SELF-EVALUATION WITH REFERENCE TO EPOSTL

283

19.4. CONCLUSIONS

284

CHAPTER 20. EXPLORING TEACHERS’ BELIEFS AND PRACTICES ABOUT PHONOLOGYINSTRUCTION, WITH REFERENCE TO THE CEFR DESCRIPTORS

287

20.1. INTRODUCTION

288

20.2. PROJECT DESCRIPTION

289

Page 10 3 Enriching 21st-century language education

20.2.1. RESEARCH BACKGROUND

289

20.2.2. THE PROJECT’S THREE STRANDS

290

20.2.3. INPUT AND GUIDANCE FROM TRAINERS

290

20.2.3.1. INDIVIDUAL SOUNDS

291

20.2.3.2. WORD AND SENTENCE STRESS

291

20.2.3.3. INTONATION

291

20.2.3.4. CONNECTED SPEECH

291

20.2.4. ONGOING REFLECTION

291

20.3. DISCUSSION

291

20.3.1. IMPACT OF THE STUDY

291

20.3.2. CHANGE IN TEACHERS’ KNOWLEDGE AND AWARENESS

291

20.3.3. CHANGE IN TEACHERS’ PRACTICE

292

20.4. CONCLUSION

292

PART III. CRITICAL REFLECTIONS AND FUTURE PERSPECTIVES

295

CHAPTER 21. THE CEFR 2020 – REACHING OUT BEYOND LANGUAGE EDUCATION

297

THE CEFR PROJECT 2014-20 – REVISIONS, ADDITIONS, REPOSITIONING

297

KEY CONCEPT: MEDIATION

297

MEDIATION FUNCTION OF SCHOOL EDUCATION AND MEDIATION AS A MODE OF LANGUAGE USE

297

CEFR 2020: A NEW CONCEPT FOR (LANGUAGE) EDUCATION?

298

CHAPTER 22. CRITICAL REFLECTION ON THE CASE STUDIES301

PLURILINGUALISM

301

AGENCY302

MEDIATION302

CONCLUSION302

CHAPTER 23. THE CEFR COMPANION VOLUME AND THIS VOLUME OF CASE STUDIES: BUILDINGBLOCKS TO SHAPE ACTION-ORIENTED LANGUAGE TEACHING305
LEARNERS AS SOCIAL AGENTS AND AGENCY305

THE PLURILINGUAL STANCE

305

RETHINKING THE NATIVE SPEAKER MODEL

306

ONLINE INTERACTION AND TRANSACTIONS

306

MEDIATION

306

LANGUAGE EDUCATION AT THE ACTION-ORIENTED MEDIATIONAL TURN? SHOW, DON’T TELL!

307

PART IV. APPENDICES

309

APPENDIX 3.1. SELECTED CEFR/CV MEDIATION AND PLURILINGUAL/PLURICULTURAL SCALES AND
DESCRIPTORS

311

APPENDIX 3.2. EXAMPLE OF SELF-EVALUATION SCALE FOR STUDENTS TO EVALUATE THEIR PROGRESSIN BUILDING UP MEDIATION SKILLS

323

APPENDIX 3.3. SOCIO-EMOTIONAL SCALE USED IN THE PROJECT325

ANNEXE 4.1. FICHE DE TRAVAIL 1 : AÉROPORT – VOCABULAIRE GÉNÉRAL

327

ANNEXE 4.2. FICHE DE TRAVAIL 2 : AÉROPORT – ACTES DE PAROLE

331

ANNEXE 4.3. AUTOÉVALUATION : QUESTIONNAIRE ET RÉSULTATS

335

Enriching the scope of language education Page 11

APPENDIX 7.1. LEARNING UNIT – SELF-ASSESSMENT GRID: COMPREHENSION – INTERPRETATION –MEDIATION OF LITERARY TEXTS – B2

339

APPENDIX 7.2. LEARNING UNIT – TEACHER ASSESSMENT GRID: COMPREHENSION – INTERPRETATION –MEDIATION OF LITERARY TEXTS – B2

341

APPENDIX 8.1. CHECKLIST USED FOR TEACHER AND SELF-ASSESSMENT

343

APPENDIX 8.2. CHECKLIST USED FOR TEACHER AND SELF-ASSESSMENT

345

APPENDIX 8.3. RESULTS FROM TEACHER AND SELF-ASSESSMENTS USING APPENDICES 8.1 AND 8.2

347

APPENDIX 8.4. RESULTS FROM STUDENT SURVEY (GROUP 1)

353

APPENDIX 8.5. RESULTS FROM STUDENT SURVEY (GROUPS 2 & 3)

355

ANNEXE 15.1. INSTRUMENTO DE APOIO À PLANIFICAÇÃO DE SEQUÊNCIA DIDÁTICA

357

ANNEXE 15.2. GUIÃO PARA A DESCRIÇÃO DE UMA ATIVIDADE DE MEDIAÇÃO

359

ANNEXE 17.1. QUESTIONNAIRE À DESTINATION DES ENSEIGNANTS

361

ANNEXE 17.2. GRILLE D’OBSERVATION UTILISÉE POUR LES VISITES DE CLASSES

363

ANNEXE 17.3. QUESTIONNAIRE À DESTINATION DES APPRENANTS

367

ANNEXE 18.1. FICHE DE TRAVAIL 1

371

ANNEXE 18.2. FICHE DE TRAVAIL 2 - TRANSCRIPTIONS DES PRÉSENTATIONS

373

ANNEXE 18.3. FICHE DE TRAVAIL 3 - DICTIONNAIRE PLURILINGUE

375

ANNEXE 18.4. QUESTIONNAIRE

377

APPENDIX 20.1. PHONOLOGY BELIEFS: INITIAL QUESTIONNAIRE

379

APPENDIX 20.2. QUESTIONNAIRES: COLLATED RESULTS

381

APPENDIX 20.3. RESOURCES USED FOR INPUT AND GUIDANCE

385

Page 12 3 Enriching 21st-century language education

LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURESLIST OF FIGURESFIGURE 1.1: CONCEPTUAL MODEL OF THE PROJECT TO DEVELOP CEFR DESCRIPTORS FOR MEDIATION(NORTH AND PICCARDO 2016)

39

FIGURE 5.1: COLLECTION OF PLURILINGUAL DECODING STRATEGIES DEVELOPED OVER THE COURSEOF THE WORKSHOP

101

FIGURE 5.2: POSTER DOCUMENTING RESULTS OF GROUP WORK (ANALYSIS OF LINGUISTIC LANDSCAPE VENLO) 102
FIGURE 5.3: SAMPLE OF A DECODING EXERCISE (PRE-TEST-VERSION, PARTICIPANT “LOES”)

104

FIGURE 5.4: SAMPLE OF A DECODING EXERCISE (POST-TEST-VERSION, PARTICIPANT “LOES”)

105

FIGURE 7.1: WORKSHEET 1

122

FIGURE 7.2: ADJECTIVES AND NOUNS TO DESCRIBE FEELINGS

122

FIGURE 7.3: WORKSHEET 2

124

FIGURE 9.1: CEFR LEVELS OF THE PROJECTS146

FIGURE 9.2: NUMBER OF TASKS DEVELOPED DURING THE PROJECTS148

FIGURE 9.3: GOOGLE SLIDES AS AN EXAMPLE OF THE PROJECT ACTIVITY

148

FIGURE 9.4: “FAKE WHATSAPP CHATS” AS AN EXAMPLE OF THE PROJECT ACTIVITY

149

FIGURE 9.5: ONLINE GEOGRAPHICAL DISCUSSIONS THROUGH WEBGIS

150

FIGURE 9.6: USEFULNESS OF THE CEFR SCALES AS LEARNING AIMS

152

FIGURE 9.7: USEFULNESS OF THE CEFR SCALES FOR STUDENTS’ SELF-ASSESSMENT

153

FIGURE 10.1: ONE OF THE DIGITAL POSTERS CREATED BY STUDENTS FOR THE ONLINE DEBATE160

FIGURE 10.2: THE DEBATE ON VIALOGUES160

FIGURE 10.3: THE DISCUSSION ON KIALO161

FIGURE 10.4: MIND MAP CREATED BY GOOGLE (HTTPS://COGGLE.IT)

165

FIGURE 11.1: THE TIMELINE FOR PHASE 1

171

FIGURE 12.1: DRAFT OF A CASE-STUDY ACTIVITY FOR STUDENTS OF LIFE SCIENCES ON THE POLLUTION
PROBLEM OF LAKE SALOTĖ, LITHUANIA191

FIGURE 12.2: DRAFT OF TASK-BASED C1 EXAM IN ENGLISH FOR IT STUDENTS ON THE LEAKAGE OF SENSITIVEDATA FROM A PLASTIC SURGERY CLINIC IN LITHUANIA193

FIGURE 12.3: ASPECTS OF THE LEARNER AS SOCIAL AGENT

196

FIGURE 12.4: THE LEARNER AT THE CENTRE OF THE TASK-BASED ACTIVITY IN CLASS196

FIGURE 12.5: THE LEARNER AND HIS/HER CHARACTERISTICS AT THE CENTRE OF THE TASK-BASED ACTIVITY
IN CLASS

197

FIGURE 12.6: THE CYCLE OF TASKS197

FIGURE 12.7: THE LEARNER AT THE CENTRE OF A CYCLE OF TASK-BASED ACTIVITIES198

FIGURE 12.8: COURSE DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTIVE ALIGNMENT198

FIGURE 13.1: GEOMETRICAL SHAPES ILLUSTRATING THE FOUR COMMUNICATIVE LANGUAGE ACTIVITIES207

FIGURE 13.2: SAMPLE OF ANALYTIC MARKING SHEET INCLUDING DESCRIPTORS FOR ASSESSINGA MEDIATION TASK (RELAYING SPECIFIC INFORMATION IN WRITING)

211

FIGURE 13.3: PREPARATION CARD

212

FIGURE 13.4: ACTIVITY TEMPLATE

212

Enriching the scope of language education Page 13

FIGURE 16.1: UNIVERSITY TEACHERS’ AWARENESS OF CEFR PUBLICATIONS AND THE SCOPE OF THEIR USE
IN TEACHING AND RESEARCH

242

FIGURE 16.2: THE MOST COMMON PURPOSES OF USING THE CEFR DESCRIPTOR SCALES IN LANGUAGEEDUCATION: THE CEFR AS AN ORIENTATION TOOL

244

FIGURE 16.3: DIFFICULTIES IN UNDERSTANDING SOME CORE CONCEPTS AND IN FINDING EQUIVALENTRUSSIAN TERMS FOR THE NAMES OF THE GROUPS OF CEFR SCALES FOR MEDIATION

245

FIGURE 16.4: HE CYCLE(S) DURING WHICH MEDIATION MIGHT BE INTRODUCED IN THE LANGUAGE
CLASSROOM – AGGREGATE RESULT

246

FIGURE 16.5: HE CYCLE(S) DURING WHICH MEDIATION MIGHT BE TAUGHT AND ASSESSED IN THE LANGUAGE
CLASSROOM – RESULT BY INSTITUTION

247

FIGURE 16.6: THE RATIO OF TASKS ORIENTED TO LINGUISTIC COMPETENCE AND TO OTHER CEFRCOMPETENCES IN LANGUAGE COURSES

248

LIST OF TABLES
FACILITATING PLURICULTURAL SPACE (COMPANION VOLUME 2018: 123, AND 2020: 114-15)

59

FACILITATING COMMUNICATION IN DELICATE SITUATIONS AND DISAGREEMENTS (CEFR COMPANIONVOLUME 2018: 125, AND 2020: 116-17)

60

TABLE 3.1: DETAILS OF THE LEARNER GROUPS INVOLVED AND INSTITUTIONAL CONTEXT72

TABLE 3.2: THE MELLES RELATED TO SELECTED CEFR COMPANION VOLUME MEDIATION AND PLURILINGUAL/
PLURICULTURAL SCALES

75

TABLEAU 4.1: TABLEAU RÉCAPITULATIF DES OBJECTIFS DU PROJET88

TABLE 5.1: WORKSHOP PROGRAMME101

TABLE 5.2: RESULTS FROM DECODING TASKS

104

TABLE 7.1: SELF-ASSESSMENT RESULTS, CLASS 4M

126

TABLE 7.2: SELF-ASSESSMENT RESULTS, CLASS 5M

126

TABLE 8.1: ENGLISH LANGUAGE AND CULTURE AIMS131

TABLE 8.2: ENGLISH LANGUAGE AND CULTURE – AIMS133

TABLE 8.3: ASSESSMENT RESULTS IN A DECISION TABLE

135

TABLE 9.1: ITALY PILOT PROJECT145

TABLE 9.2: OBSERVATION GRID AND RELEVANT DESCRIPTORS150

TABLE 10.1: TASK PHASES

158

TABLE 11.1: PHASE 1 – RESULTS VR SIMULATION (AT THE DOCTOR’S)

172

TABLE 11.2: PHASE 2 RESULTS

173

TABLE 11.3: COMMENTS ON THE A2 SOCIAL MEDIA LESSON

174

TABLE 12.1: MEDIATING A TEXT191

TABLE 12.2: MEDIATING CONCEPTS

192

TABLE 12.3: DRAFT OF STRUCTURE FOR THE ENGLISH FOR ACADEMIC PURPOSES AND RESEARCH COURSEFOR STUDENTS OF POLITICAL SCIENCE AND INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS194

TABLE 13.1: MEDIATION TASKS FOR ASSESSMENT

210

TABLE 13.2: EXAMINATION CRITERIA

210

TABLE 14.1: MEDIATION ACTIVITIES218

TABLE 14.2: MEDIATION STRATEGIES218

TABLE 14.3: TEACHERS’ PERCEPTIONS OF MEDIATION ACTIVITIES

219

Page 14 3 Enriching 21st-century language education

TABLE 14.4: TEACHERS’ PERCEPTIONS OF MEDIATION STRATEGIES220

TABLEAU 15.1: SYNTHÈSE DES ACTIVITÉS DE MÉDIATION PLANIFIÉES PAR LES ENSEIGNANTS EPE
AU LUXEMBOURG

229

TABLEAU 15.2 : SYNTHÈSE DES ACTIVITÉS DE MÉDIATION PLANIFIÉES PAR LES ENSEIGNANTS EPE EN SUISSE

230

TABLE 16.1: QUESTIONNAIRE FOCUS AND TYPES OF QUESTION

243

TABLE 16.2: TYPES OF TASKS FOR DEVELOPING AND EVALUATING POSTGRADUATES’ MEDIATION COMPETENCE

250

TABLEAU 17.1: INFORMATIONS CLÉS DANS LE RECUEIL DE DONNÉES

257

Enriching the scope of language education Page 15

TRIBUTE TO TIM GOODIERT

im Goodier, co-author of the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: learning, teaching,assessment – Companion volume and a core member of the team that updated and extended the CEFR
descriptors, passed away unexpectedly on 31 March 2020, shortly before his 48th birthday. He was soyoung, so full of life, so creative and inspiring that it is hard to believe that he has gone. We will always remember him as a true friend and the most intelligent, positive and reliable team mate imaginable. We genuinely
looked forward to seeing him every time. Running into him on the tram on the way to meetings in Strasbourg
gave a joyful start to the day. He was an amazing person, so intelligent, kind, reflective and funny. He was a
joy to work with: incredibly competent, thoughtful and modest. Time seemed to be lighter with him. His smile
helped us all. It was always a creative, friendly and enriching process working with Tim. He put so much ofhimself into everything he did, while at the same time being a most co-operative contributor to projects hebecame involved in. Being with him was always a pleasure, and he became a friend rather than just a colleague
to all members in our team, to an extent that does not often happen in such contexts.

Tim worked briefly in the City of London and then taught English in Spain for several years before joining
Eurocentres and, at the age of 39, becoming Head of Academic Development there. He was part of the small
team that revised the 2001 CEFR descriptors in 2013-15 and in addition he organised the collation of descriptors
for young learners. In the project to extend the descriptors to new areas in 2014-17, he was, with Enrica Piccardo,
particularly engaged in the development of online interaction and phonology. Tim was extremely professionaland reliable, always found time for people and for jobs that needed doing, and was generous with his ideas.
Apart from competence and integrity, he combined a light touch with an ability to see the broader picture andan eye for detail – a rare combination.
Tim’s creativity and talents were not limited to applied linguistics. He was a musician and songwriter as wellas painter. Although he worked long hours and very hard, he could leave work to one side. Perhaps it was his
broader interests that made him so special. He was always elegant, thoughtful, generous, funny – and above allmodest. We miss him terribly.
The editors

Page 17

FOREWORD

I

t is now over 70 years since the foundation of the Council of Europe in 1949, over 70 years of working tirelessly to defend human rights, democracy and the rule of law. That recent anniversary provides an opportunity to reflect on the way that language education contributes to our overall education programme andhow the education programme contributes to the Council of Europe’s raisons d’être, particularly in view of thechallenges that are likely to face us in the coming years.

It is useful to recall the reasons why the Council of Europe is committed to languages, to promoting and supporting Europe’s rich linguistic and cultural diversity, and to highlight how this commitment fosters and strengthensa culture of democracy. This matters particularly now because we are living through a period in history whenpopulism and extremism are threatening our core values. We see this ongoing battle being waged in the press
and in social media on a daily basis. The link between language education and democracy is very obvious: it isthrough the choices we make when it comes to the kind of education our systems provide that we make clear
our vision for society. In our increasingly diverse societies, there can be no education without languages, because
languages lie at the very heart of learning.
John Trim,1 who led the Council of Europe’s trailblazing work in the field of languages from 1971 to 1997, andwhose legacy includes key instruments in support of language learning and teaching such as the Common
European Framework of Reference for Languages (CEFR), the European Language Portfolio and the European Day of
Languages, succinctly captured the link between democracy and education in an article written in 2002. He said
that the goal of the Council of Europe is to “promote the personal development of the individual, with growing
self-awareness, self-confidence and independence of thought and action combined with social responsibility
as an active agent in a participatory, pluralist democratic society”.
So if we really are genuinely committed to democracy – to living together as equals in culturally and linguisticallydiverse societies, societies where the human rights of each and every one of us, irrespective of race, colour,
gender or social status, are respected, where each individual has a voice and the possibility to be engaged inthat society – then we need to activate the democratic mission of education in general and language educationin particular. For the Council of Europe, language education must be inclusive, plurilingual and intercultural. It
must foster democracy. This means that language education must be accessible to all learners throughout theirlives, not only in formal schooling, it must recognise and value each learner’s individual linguistic and cultural
identity, and it must draw on these identities as a rich resource for learning, enabling each learner to develop a
fluid and integrated linguistic and cultural repertoire, appropriate to that learner’s individual needs and context. It
is a repertoire open to all languages: home languages, sign languages, the language of schooling, neighbouring
languages, second and foreign languages.
Sadly, this view may be contested. There is growing evidence that the notion of plurilingual and intercultural
education is currently being challenged. And challenged on many different levels. A first challenge arises in
education systems, where it is becoming increasingly difficult for learners to access two foreign languages. When
choices are limited in this way, a hierarchy of languages inevitably emerges – and young people are mistakenly
led to believe that they do not need any language other than English. A second challenge comes from the riseof populism in many European countries and a growing perception that the use of any language other than
the national language is a threat to national identity. This leads to hostility towards migrants. It runs counter toeverything that research tells us about first or home languages.
Now, more than ever, there is a constant need to make the ideas, principles and potential implications offrameworks and policy documents tangible in practical terms. This was the case with the CEFR 20 years ago and
it is again the case with the 2020 Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: learning, teaching,assessment – Companion volume (henceforth CEFR Companion volume), which updates and extends both the
CEFR descriptive model and the set of descriptors. The CEFR Companion volume now includes descriptors

1.

John Trim, a former professor of linguistics at the University of Cambridge, led the Council of Europe’s Modern Language Project for
decades as project director; with Daniel Coste (France), Brian North (Switzerland) and Joe Sheils (Council of Europe Secretariat), hedeveloped the CEFR.

Page 19

– with which the contributors to this volume have been experimenting – for such crucial areas as mediationand plurilingual/pluricultural competence. By making space for these descriptors, the CEFR Companion volume
provides the conceptual and practical resources to help teachers and learners embrace a dynamic, collaborativeand inclusive educational process, able to value and build upon each learner’s different strengths. In the CEFR
Companion volume, descriptors specifically for sign language competence have also been included for the firsttime, in addition to making all the CEFR descriptors inclusive from the point of view of signed as well as spoken
modality, and neutral as regards gender.
This volume of case studies, which brings together experiences and practice from all over Europe, is thus a valuable
cornerstone in the contribution of the Council of Europe to language education, the cherishing of cultural andlinguistic diversity, and inclusive education for all. The Council of Europe has over time conceived and shaped
itself as one of the most active institutions working to establish a European area of language education, which is
now considered at EU level as a fundamental dimension of the European Education Area. Under the European
Cultural Convention, the Council of Europe has been promoting linguistic diversity and language learning in
the field of education since 1954, while also working to secure and strengthen language rights, deepen mutual
understanding, consolidate a culture of democracy and contribute to social cohesion.
The Council of Europe is fully committed to supporting language education and education for democracy, toprotecting linguistic and cultural diversity, created both historically and as a result of recent migration, and toensuring the rights of minorities under the rule of law. Language professionals are uniquely placed to foster anattitude of openness, curiosity and respect for plurality. We very much hope that the emphasis on mediationand plurality in the CEFR Companion volume and in the contributions to this volume of case studies will help
teachers to broaden the scope of language education, contributing to the further development of a pan-European democratic culture.
Snežana Samardžić-Marković,
Director General of Democracy, Council of Europe

Page 20 3 Enriching 21st-century language education

CONTRIBUTORS

E

mma Abbate is a teacher of Latin, History, Art, Geography and CLIL (content and language integrated
learning) in Cambridge International IGCSE® at the Alessandro Manzoni High School (Caserta), a trainer
and author of digital content, and a freelance researcher. She co-operates with the University of Napoli
Orientale in CLIL Master’s degree courses as a teacher trainer and expert.
Sophie Adler studied psychology and linguistics in four European languages before teaching German to aninternational and plurilingual adolescent and adult audience. She has been teaching at Bell Switzerland since2016 in the adult department and since 2019 also works as a bilingual speech therapist.
Mónica Bastos holds a PhD in Education (Didactics and Curricular Development). A researcher at CIDTFF (ResearchCentre for Didactics and Technology in the Education of Trainers) at the University of Aveiro, Portugal; she is also
vice-co-ordinator of the Camões, I.P. Unity for Teaching Portuguese in Luxembourg. Her research interests focus
on plurilingual and intercultural education, languages teaching and learning, and language teacher education.
Natalia V. Bazina PhD (Pedagogical Sciences) is associate professor of the German Language Department at
MGIMO (Moscow State Institute of International Relations). In 2015 she defended a PhD thesis on “Sociocultural
aspects of building up audio-visual competence while learning German as a second foreign language”. She isan author of scholarly publications and course books.
Fausto Benedetti is a full-time senior researcher at INDIRE (National Institute for Documentation, Innovationand Educational Research), Italy. He is the co-ordinator and manager of the INDIRE Unit in Rome, Manager ofUniversità Telematica degli Studi IUL, and an adjunct professor in Humanities and Organizational Learning at IUL.
Maria-Teresa Berceruelo is an experienced English teacher of adults and CLIL teachers. At the Escuela Oficial
de Idiomas de Granada, she teaches face-to-face, blended and distance courses. She also trains pre-/in-service
teachers on curriculum development, methodology, assessment and new technologies. She is actively involvedin CEFR implementation in second/foreign language education.
Letizia Cinganotto is a full-time researcher at INDIRE (National Institute for Documentation, Innovation and
Educational Research), Italy. She has extensive experience in continuous professional development for teachers.
She is a member of different working groups and scientific committees on CLIL and languages, at both national
and international levels.
Cristina Corcoll López is a lecturer and researcher at the Faculty of Psychology, Education and Sports Sciences
Blanquerna (Universitat Ramon Llull). Her current research focuses on the implementation of the plurilingual
approach in the classroom and the teaching of additional languages to young learners.
Esther Cores-Bilbao PhD is an associate professor at the UNIR (International University of La Rioja), a memberof the ReALL (Research in Affective Language Learning) research group at the University of Huelva and headof the Do Mundo Lume Official Language School (Escuela Oficial de Idiomas) in Ayamonte, Spain. Her researchareas include European identity and cultural literacy, interculturality and foreign language learning for adults.
Joaquín M. Cruz Trapero holds a PhD in Applied Linguistics from the universities of Jaén and Córdoba (Spain). He
is tenured at the University of Jaén, where he works for the Centre for Advanced Studies in Modern Languages.
He is a specialist in the development and validation of scales for language proficiency tests.
Bessie Dendrinos is Emerita Professor and Director of the Research Centre for Language (RCeL) of the Departmentof English, and Head of the scientific committee of the Centre of Excellence for Multilingualism and Language
Policy, at the University of Athens (NKUA). She is also president of the European Civil Society Platform for
Multilingualism and of the examination board of the KPG exams.
Achraf Dorboz studied Language and Cultural Didactics and is a specialist in French as a foreign language.
She started her career in 2000 at the French Ministry of Foreign Affairs in the section for co-operative venturesto promote French abroad. In 2010, she joined the international Bell Group and is currently General Manager,
Switzerland.
Natalia Emmanouil of the Hellenic American University, Athens, is a teacher and translator of English andSpanish. Since she believes in lifelong learning, she is attending a PhD programme researching humour asPage 21

an intercultural aspect of language learning. She has already published several articles on humour and iscontinuing her research in this area.
Mutlu Işil Ergun is a teacher and teacher trainer at Bilkent University English Language Preparatory Program,working on DELTA modular courses and the in-house English Language Teaching Course. She is also a DELTA
module 2 external assessor. Her research interests include reflective practice in teacher development programmes,
discourse analysis and language analysis.
Antonella Fanara is a French teacher at the Giovanni Falcone High School in Bergamo (Italy). She has beenworking for many years as a teacher educator for FLE (Français langue étrangère) for several Italian teacher
organisations and training providers, as internship supervisor and as a trainer on courses for future FLE teachersat the University of Bergamo.
Daniela Fasoglio is responsible for foreign language curricular reforms in Dutch education, and for several CEFR
dissemination and implementation activities. Her expertise includes curriculum analysis, design and evaluation,
as well as development and implementation processes. She is engaged in the integration of such issues as culture,
mediation and plurilingualism in language education.
Analí Fernández-Corbacho is an assistant lecturer at the English Studies Department, University of Huelva. She
is a member of the research group ReALL (Research in Affective Language Learning). She collaborates in national
and international projects related to literacy, reading and music in the foreign language (FL) class. Her researchinterests and publications focus on reading skills and innovative approaches in the FL class.
Johann Fischer is director of ZESS (Centre for Languages and Transferable Skills) at Georg-August-Universität
Göttingen and Head of the Scientific Committee of UNIcert®, former Secretary General and President of CercleS,
co-ordinator of various European projects with the European Commission and the European Centre for Modern
Languages. His research focuses on task-based teaching and assessment and staff development.
M. Carmen Fonseca-Mora PhD is full professor of Applied Linguistics in the Department of English Philology
at the University of Huelva, Spain, where she also leads the Research Centre on Contemporary Thinking andInnovation for Social Development. Her main research interests and international projects are related to affect,
music, reading and innovation in second language learning.
Agnieszka Gadomska PhD is an assistant professor at SWPS University of Social Sciences and Humanities in
Warsaw, Poland, an academic teacher, researcher and co-ordinator of Practical English courses and an IT in TEFL
specialisation. She is Head of Postgraduate Diploma Studies in TEFL and co-author of the nationwide E-Academyof the Future Project (2010-13).
Roberto Gómez Fernández holds a PhD in Education and Linguistics from Spain and Luxembourg. He works
as Pedagogical Assistant for the Ministry of Education in Luxembourg at the Department for the Schooling of
Foreign Children. His research interests focus on multilingualism, plurilingual education, language use andidentity development in schools.
Maria de Lurdes Gonçalves holds a PhD in Education (Language Didactics). A researcher at CIDTFF (Universityof Aveiro, Portugal), she is the co-ordinator of the Camões, I.P. Unity for Teaching Portuguese in Switzerland. Her
research interests include language teacher education, professional development, plurilingual and intercultural
education, and heritage language education.
Maria González Davies PhD is Professor in Foreign Languages and Education at the Ramon Llull University(Barcelona, Spain), where she is vice dean for Academic and International Affairs. She is the author of books
such as Multiple voices in the translation classroom (2004). She has recently co-edited the Routledge handbook oftranslation and education (2020).
Jan Hardie has an academic background in Social Anthropology and Linguistics, and 20 years’ experienceteaching English to university students in Switzerland and Italy. She has participated in various research projects
involving the implementation of CLIL in a university setting. The CEFR case studies project was an interesting
new area to explore.
Christian Helmchen holds a PhD in foreign language education, specialising in multilingualism, the second
language acquisition of migrant students and psychological factors influencing it, as well as teacher professionalisation. He currently works as a consultant for education projects in development aid, most recently in
Afghanistan and Kosovo.
Natalja Jegorova holds an MA in Pedagogics, has more than 40 years’ experience in teaching mathematics, andhas participated as an expert in several Council of Europe conferences. She encourages her students with scientificPage 22 3 Enriching 21st-century language education

literature in different languages, and for several years they have participated successfully in the International
Mathematical Olympiad “Math im Advent” (University of Berlin).
Sabine Jentges PhD is an associate professor for German language and Language Didactics at Radboud
University, Nijmegen, the Netherlands. She has published extensively on inter- and pluricultural learning. Her
recent work in the Interreg Project “Nachbarsprache/buurcultuur” focuses on receptive multilingualism and theuse of linguistic and cultural landscaping to initiate plurilingual and pluricultural learning in school exchanges.
Nicole Johnson was a primary school teacher in England for four years and a language teacher in International
House language schools in Lithuania and Milan for 10 years. She has worked at SUPSI (University of Applied
Sciences and Arts of Italian Switzerland) since 2008, teaching English to students who will enter a wide variety
of professions.
Eva Knopp PhD is an assistant professor in German Linguistics at Radboud University, Nijmegen, the Netherlands.
Her current research combines psycho- and sociolinguistic perspectives on bi- and multilingual development ineducational contexts. As researcher in the Interreg Project “Nachbarsprache/buurcultuur” she investigates theapplication of plurilingual approaches to language learning and teaching in school contexts.
Gisella Langé specialises in curriculum development, intercultural education, language learning solutions andweb-based teacher training. In addition to acting as Foreign Languages Inspector with the Italian Ministry of
Education, she has extensive experience of working as an expert on European Commission and Council of Europe
assignments and has been instrumental in realising international innovative projects.
Susana Lorenzo-Zamorano PhD has worked in various HE institutions and since 2002 has been Language
Co-ordinator at the University of Manchester. Her interests include methodology and curricular development,with special attention to mediation and interculturality, problem-based learning, Spanish for specific purposes
and the role of literature and technology in foreign language teaching.
Stefano A. Losa has a PhD in Sociology from the University of Geneva and is Professor at the Department of
Education and Learning, University of Applied Sciences and Arts of Southern Switzerland (SUPSI). His fields ofinterest are plurilingualism and language interactions in schools and institutions.
Francisco Herrero Machancoses PhD is assistant lecturer at the Pre-departmental Unit of Medicine, Jaume I
University (UJI). Previously, he was associate professor from 2004 to 2017 in the UJI psychology degree, and Headof the Methodological Advisory Service for the Andalusian Health Service of Huelva. His research work has beendeveloped along methodological/statistical lines.
Rosanna Margonis-Pasinetti is an associate professor and the former Head of the Foreign Languages Teacher
Training Department at the Lausanne University of Teacher Education, after working for many years as a language
teacher and a foreign language teacher trainer. Her scientific interests concern task-based language learningand teaching, plurilingualism, interculturalism and language policies.
Hélène Martinez PhD is a Professor of Didactics of Romance Languages (focus French and Spanish) at the Universityof Giessen in Germany (Justus-Liebig-Universität Giessen). Her research is centred around plurilingualism, foreign
language acquisition (learner autonomy, self-learning competence, language-learning advice), educational
standards, competence orientation, task construction and foreign language teacher education/teacher training.
Waldemar Martyniuk is Professor and Executive Director at the Institute of Polish Language and Culture for
Foreigners of the Jagiellonian University in Krakow, Poland. He holds a PhD in Applied Linguistics and is a teacher
trainer and author of several textbooks, curricula and testing materials for Polish as a foreign language.
Sílvia Melo-Pfeifer is Associate Professor at the University of Hamburg. Among her research interests are multilingual interaction, pluralistic approaches to teaching and learning of foreign languages and heritage language
education. She currently co-ordinates the Erasmus + Project LoCALL (Local Linguistic Landscapes for global
language education in the school context).
Hande Işil Mengu PhD is Head of Professional Development at the Bilkent University English Language Preparatory
Program. She has given courses on the Malta Association of Teachers of English as a Foreign Language (MATEFL)
programme and tutored on DELTA modules as well as in-house training courses. She has co-edited two books,
published in the areas of teacher development, EAP practices and classroom assessment.
Olga Mironova PhD is Head of Department of Modern Languages at the Institute of Professional Development,
Nizhny Novgorod, Russia. She has been working in higher and post-higher education for over 25 years. Her
research area covers the aspects of culture and language acquisition, assessment and mediation and theirimpact on the national context.

Contributors Page 23

Jane Mitchell-Smith is a PhD student currently researching student and teacher language awareness in plurilingual educational contexts at Universitat Ramon Llull, Barcelona. As Language Co-ordinator in an international
school, her main interests lie in the implementation of plurilingual policies and practice and the role of student
and teacher agency.
Marga Navarrete is a language co-ordinator at University College London, UK, where she teaches Spanish,translation and localisation. Her research interests include Audiovisual Translation (AVT) in the context of foreign
language learning and the CEFR/CV, distance education and teacher training. She has taken part in many AVT
research projects, including the ClipFlair project.
Brian North PhD is a researcher and consultant to the Council of Europe. After developing the levels and descriptors
for the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages (CEFR), he co-authored the CEFR and prototype
European Language Portfolio. Recently he co-ordinated the development of the CEFR Companion volume.
Elena Nuvoloni is a German-language teacher at Giovanni Falcone High School in Bergamo (Italy). As a memberof the management staff, she leads the Innovation Department and promotes in-service training. She graduatedin Languages and Literatures at the University of Verona, in the city where she was born in 1961.
Inma Pedregosa is an honorary fellow at the University of Roehampton in London. Her research interests areaccessibility and mediation in its wider scope. She is currently a doctoral candidate researching the mediationof sports events for the blind and the partially sighted.
Enrica Piccardo PhD is Professor of Language Education at the Ontario Institute for Studies in Education (OISE),
University of Toronto. A co-author of the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages – Companion
volume, she has co-ordinated international research projects in Canada and Europe. Her research spans language
teaching approaches and curricula, plurilingualism, creativity and complexity in language education.
Lucía Pintado Gutiérrez (BA, MPhil, European PhD) works as a lecturer at Dublin City University. Her teachingbackground is foreign language teaching and her research interest is based in language education and translation,
where she has published journal articles, book chapters and edited works.
Joaquim Prazeres holds a postgraduate degree in Intercultural Education. He has worked as a primary teacher in
Portugal and as a Portuguese language teacher in France, Spain and Luxembourg. Currently, he is the co-ordinatorof the Camões, I.P. Unity for Teaching Portuguese in Luxembourg, Belgium and the Netherlands.
Nadia Prioni graduated in Modern Languages and Literatures at IULM, Milan. She is the European projects referee at the Liceo Statale Giorgio Spezia and teaches English language and culture. She piloted the CEFR scales
regarding literary appreciation. She also piloted the Protocollo di valutazione INTERCULTURA, conducted by
Mattia Baiutti PhD, Udine University.
Lucía Quintana Hernández PhD is Associate Professor of Hispanic Linguistics and Applied Linguistics in the
Department of Philology at the University of Huelva, Spain. Her main research interests and projects are related tosyntax, semantics, linguistic variation, second language acquisition and innovation in second language learning.
Angélique Quintus is completing a master’s degree in Intercultural Learning and Communication at the Universityof Luxembourg. Currently, she is project leader at the Ministry of Education in Luxembourg at the Department
for the Schooling of Foreign Children and a teacher trainer in the field of plurilingual and intercultural education.
Bernd Rüschoff PhD is senior professor in the Applied Linguistics & EFL section of the Department of Anglophone
Studies at the University of Duisburg-Essen. He has been involved in numerous Council of Europe projects andis a former President of AILA – the International Association for Applied Linguistics.
Victoria V. Safonova PhD (Pedagogical Sciences) is a professor in the Department of Linguistics, Translation andIntercultural Communication, Lomonosov MSU (Moscow State University), Russia. She is an applied linguist, asyllabus and coursebook writer and a leading researcher in the field of teaching and co-learning languages in
the context of the dialogue of cultures and civilisations.
Adolfo Sánchez Cuadrado holds a PhD in Applied Linguistics. He is a lecturer in Linguistics at the Universityof Granada (Spain) and has also taught in the USA (University of Delaware) and the UK (University College
London). His research interests lie within the fields of linguistic mediation, cross-linguistic cognitive grammar
and language teacher training.
Paul Sars PhD is Professor of German Language and Culture and Netherlands-Germany-Studies at Radboud
University, Nijmegen, the Netherlands. Next to his research on identity construction in the poetry of Paul Celan,
he has been involved in a number of projects related to inter- and pluricultural learning and is principal investigator of the binational Interreg Project “Nachbarsprache/buurcultuur”.

Page 24 3 Enriching 21st-century language education

Gigi Saurer (BA Hons, DTEFLA) has been in the field of English language teaching for over 30 years, has stayed
abreast of developments and is a keen user of technology. Proficient in five languages, she is working on national
projects at the Co-ordination of the Migros Club Schools in Switzerland.
Elif Şen PhD is a teacher and teacher trainer at Bilkent University English Language Preparatory Program, working
on DELTA modular courses and the in-house English Language Teaching Course. She is also a DELTA module 2
external assessor. Her research interests include teacher training and development, discourse analysis andreading processes and strategies.
Belinda Steinhuber MA is Head of the Language Education Department within CEBS, an institution affiliatedto the Vocational Education and Training section of the Austrian Federal Ministry of Education. She is a teacher
trainer, participates in curriculum design and assessment projects and teaches English and French at an upper
secondary vocational college.
Darius Vanhonnaeker is a specialist in teaching French as a foreign language (FLE) and French for specificpurposes (FOS) as well as teacher development. He has worked since 2011 as teacher and director of studies in
the private sector in Geneva. Darius holds a Master 2 in French and Romance Languages and Literature (ULB).
Nicole Wolder is head of the testing centre at the Centre for Languages and Transferable Skills of Göttingen
University. She is a member of the Scientific Committee of UNIcert® and member of NULTE. Her research interests
are in applied linguistics, the role of assessment in academic contexts and teacher assessment literacy.
Silvia Zanetti is an Italian teacher of the German language at a high school in Bergamo, where she works on
educational innovation applied to the field of literature teaching. After a specialisation course in Heidelberg(Germany), where she stayed for two years, she gained experience as a translator in the technical field of computer science and German literature.

Contributors Page 25

Chapter 1
ENRICHING THE SCOPE OF LANGUAGEEDUCATION: THE CEFR – COMPANION VOLUME
Enrica Piccardo, OISE, (Ontario Institute for Studies in Education) University of Toronto, Canada, andBrian North, formerly Eurocentres Foundation, Switzerland.

1.1. INTRODUCTION
The Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: learning, teaching, assessment – Companion volume(henceforth, CEFR Companion volume: Council of Europe 2020) is the product of a six-year project, 2014-20.
It explains and elaborates the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages and its vision in anaccessible manner, updates the scales of descriptors from the CEFR’s previous edition (Council of Europe 2001),
replacing the previous phonological control scale with a new analytical one, and provides descriptors for areas
not treated in 2001. It also accompanies each of the approximately 80 CEFR descriptor scales with a rationale
explaining the construct concerned. The theoretical and conceptual basis informing the new CEFR descriptors(for aspects of mediation, online interaction and plurilingual and pluricultural competence) is presented in detailin North and Piccardo (2016) together with the development and validation process. The same information forthe phonology scale is given in Piccardo (2016).
It is important to underline that the CEFR Companion volume is not meant to accompany the CEFR 2001 edition
but rather to replace it. In the CEFR Companion volume, Chapter 2 (“Key aspects of the CEFR for teaching andlearning”) elucidates the conceptual model of the CEFR 2001 with all its main themes, presenting these in a moreuser-friendly manner, with links and references back to the 2001 text.2 The CEFR Companion volume contains allof the CEFR descriptors: the 2001 scales – now updated and completed with more descriptors for the A-levels andC-levels and for the fully replaced phonological control scale – plus a range of new scales for different aspectsof mediating a text, mediating concepts (in collaborative learning), mediating communication, mediating
strategies, online interaction, plurilingual and pluricultural competence, and signing competences. Note that all
CEFR descriptors are relevant to sign languages; in addition, those in Chapter 6 of the CEFR Companion volume
relate to competence in the actual process of signing.
The fundamental point reinforced with the CEFR Companion volume is that the CEFR project has never been an
assessment project or a harmonisation scheme. The CEFR vision concerns learning and teaching. An intergovernmental Language Policy Forum was called in 2007 to take stock of progress made with the implementationof the CEFR (Council of Europe 2007). At this event, the 47 member states of the Council of Europe, while they
fully agreed with the need for and usefulness of well-defined common reference levels as a means to assist
communication and networking, they attached far more importance to the CEFR pedagogic vision as a vehicle
to further improve the effectiveness of language education, that is to say curriculum design and classroom
teaching (Goullier 2007).
It was in order to continue this mission that the Education Department of the Council of Europe decided in May
2013 to take this further step in the CEFR project, which from the beginning has been stated to be open-ended(Council of Europe 2001: iv, 7-8, 18). The aim was to highlight some important messages of the CEFR that tended
to be overlooked, and to further develop a number of concepts introduced or implied in the CEFR that had
meanwhile been further developed in research on language education.

1.2. A SIGNIFICANT STEP IN LANGUAGE EDUCATION
Before the publication of the CEFR in 2001, it would not be an exaggeration to say that the common approachto language education was still largely based upon a linear Cartesian vision – that the pieces make up the whole.
This approach was epitomised by the dissection of language use into Lado’s (1961) model of the four skills(listening, speaking, reading, writing) and three elements (grammar, vocabulary, pronunciation), all embedded

2.

For this reason, links to the 2001 edition will remain on the Council of Europe website at www.coe.int/en/web/common-european-­framework-reference-languages.

Page 27

in (static) cultural knowledge. The learner in this model was seen as a speaker/listener engaging in producing
and receiving a code. Code produced should be as accurate as possible, which is to say as similar as possible
to the standardised code spoken by a certain type of idealised “native speaker”. Progress was seen in terms of
becoming increasingly like such a “native speaker” in the way the code was interpreted and produced. Evaluation
tended to be through counting mistakes.
The focus on accuracy, with syllabuses based on supposed grammatical progression and vocabulary lists tolearn by heart, though much criticised theoretically, was partly mitigated by the addition of fluency as a successcriterion to balance accuracy (see Brumfit 1984). In the 1980s, the communicative approach initially tried tomove away from grammatical syllabuses to ones based on the analysis of real-life needs, the notions that needed
to be expressed and the various functions necessary to “do things” (Austin 1962) in the language (e.g. van Ek
1975; Wilkins 1976). At the same time, the division of language use into four skills, revolutionary in 1961, washeavily criticised by proponents of the communicative approach as being abstract and artificial – as simply notreflecting the reality of language use (e.g. Alderson and Urquhart 1984; Breen and Candlin 1980; Brumfit 1984;
Stern 1983) – as well as misrepresenting the differences between spoken and written language by neglecting
the interactive, iterative processes involved in both (Halliday 1989).
The CEFR therefore introduced a holistic, integrationist, social model of language learning and use in its“descriptive scheme” (Council of Europe 2001: chapters 2, 4, 5) and the new concept of plurilingualism (ibid:
sections 1.3, 6.3, 8.1, 8.2.2). This perspective aligned with recent views of the language repertoire (Blommaert
2008; Busch 2017), a complex paradigm (Larsen-Freeman 2011, 2017, Larsen-Freeman and Cameron 2008;
Larsen-Freeman and Todeva 2021) and a related ecological approach (van Lier 2004, 2007, 2010), as opposedto the traditional, linear perspective which had held sway in the structural linguistics of the 1960s, exemplified
by Lado’s (1961) model.
The CEFR proposed four modes of communication: reception and production (which, divided by spoken/written,
make up the four skills), plus interaction and mediation. As the CEFR pointed out, these four modes are notisolated from each other either:Communication is an integral part of tasks where participants engage in interaction, production, reception or mediation, or a combination of two or more of these, for example: interacting with a public service official and completing aform; reading a report and discussing it with colleagues in order to arrive at a decision on a course of action; following
written instructions while assembling something, and if an observer/helper is present, asking for help or describing/commenting on the process; preparing (in written form) and delivering a public lecture, interpreting informally for avisitor, etc. (Council of Europe 2001: 157, emphasis added)

Interaction is not just the sum of reception and production – it is the process of weaving together discourse
through a negotiation of meaning. Mediation usually involves reception, interaction and production, and it
adds a shift of perspective – to the construction of new meaning, often with or for others – as opposed to theself-expression of production.
Unfortunately, however, much of this CEFR vision went unnoticed. The third mode, interaction, tended to beinterpreted just as a fifth skill. In addition, a widespread misconception developed that the CEFR took a monolingual approach, as for example in the following: “As is commonly known, the framework [CEFR] distinguishes fiveproficiencies (speaking, listening, reading, writing, and interaction) and describes six levels of these proficiencies
with regard to one language” (Backus et al. 2013: 191). Nevertheless, with the increasing inclusion of interaction
in both course material and examinations – the latter a direct impact of the CEFR – the focus began to switchfrom language just as code to the social use of language, with the learner seen as a participant, rather than justa producer or receiver of messages.
The CEFR Companion volume underlines the CEFR shift to a complex vision of the situated and integrated
nature of language learning and language use, with a focus on the agency of the user/learner as a social agent.
This view takes into account both the social and individual nature of language use, as well as the external andthe internal context. The social agent mobilises all their competences, general (i.e. personal, non-linguistic)
as well as (pluri)linguistic, plus appropriate strategies, in the fulfilment of a task, and improves those competences and strategies in that process. This vision calls on us to move away from seeing language as a code
to be taught, with subtraction of marks for mistakes, towards seeing language as action in the articulationof thought and (co)construction of meaning through “languaging”, as is explained further when discussing
mediation below. This holistic, action-based approach (Bourguignon 2010; Piccardo and North 2019; vanLier 2007) to language and language education also moves beyond the transactional function of language
to the creative function – which actually appears in child language acquisition well before the informative,
transactional function (Halliday 1975).

Page 28 3 Enriching 21st-century language education

The perspective described above is incompatible with traditional views that different languages should be kept
hermetically sealed from one another, that discrete elements that are “taught” are learned, and that languages
are content subjects in which one conveys knowledge to students. As Piccardo (2012) pointed out, the concept ofsocial agent, with its links to sociocultural theory, ecological approaches and complexity theories, gave mediation,in the sense in which it is generally understood in education, a key role in the CEFR model.
To summarise this discussion:
Language education needs to move beyond the 1950s/60s paradigm of a linear, grammatically based syllabus inwhich learners (hopefully) acquire the ability to understand and produce a code, towards an approach capable ofembedding both the individual and the societal dimensions in a broader educational frame. Different phases ofpedagogic intervention contribute in an iterative, spiral pattern to awareness raising, enhancement of proficiency,
and eventually autonomy. In such a new classroom landscape, where language learning follows dynamic, iterative,
contextually and socially driven paths, mediation takes a crucial role with its capacity to enable and support the user/
learner as a social agent in their development processes. Mediation was therefore the main focus of the developmentof the CEFR Companion volume. (Piccardo et al. 2019: 20)

1.3. INNOVATIVE CONCEPTS IN THE CEFR
As suggested in the last section, many of the concepts introduced in the CEFR 2001 were very innovative at thetime and were new to the vast majority of the field. The most significant innovative concepts that appeared in
the CEFR 2001 are listed below:
1. Definition of learner needs from a user standpoint
2. A “can do” proficiency approach, rather than deficiency approach, to defining learners’ abilities and corres­
ponding reference levels
3. Backward design (Richards 2013; North et al. 2018): defining needs with “can do” descriptors and working
backwards from them to define course objectives, activities and content
4. Transparency and coherence: the constructive alignment of planning, enactment in teaching and assessment, with the help of descriptors
5. Self-assessment and learner autonomy, for example through the European Language Portfolio associatedwith the CEFR
6. Moving from four skills to four modes of communication through the addition of interaction and mediation
to the traditional reception and production
7. The user/learner as a social agent
8. The concept of mediation
9. The action-oriented approach
10. Plurilingualism.
Some of these concepts, especially those like interaction that were already foregrounded in the communicative
approach, made their way into the field more easily. Others, lower in the list above, did not make it through soquickly because there was a need for more time to allow theorisation and practical bottom-up developments totake place. It would be no exaggeration to say that when people, during the 2000s, talked of CEFR implementation,
they were thinking primarily of the first five points on the list above – all related to the CEFR descriptors, whichwere the most visible and tangible part of the CEFR. At the 2007 intergovernmental Language Policy Forummentioned previously, for example, Trim lamented in relation to plurilingualism that:
Most users of the CEFR have applied it only to a single language, but its descriptive apparatus for communicative action
and competences together with the “Can Do” descriptors of levels of competence, are a good basis for a plurilingual
approach to language across the curriculum, which awaits development. (Trim 2007: 51)

1.4. INNOVATIVE FEATURES OF THE CEFR COMPANION VOLUME
Those concepts that were not adopted so quickly have now been further developed, both in theory and on
the ground, over the past 20 years or so. Therefore it proved to be possible to elaborate them further in the
CEFR Companion volume. In this section, we outline the major characteristics of concepts towards the end of
the list in the previous section, plus the characteristics of online, digital interaction and transaction, which, as
experience in the piloting phase suggests, are the concepts that people consider most innovative in the CEFR
Companion volume.

Enriching the scope of language education Page 29

1.4.1. The user/learner as a social agent
Languages are not only an instrument to receive and exchange information, as argued above. They are also aunique tool to interpret the world and to build both individual and collective knowledge through interaction
and dialogue. Language use and language learning are, therefore, both cognitive and social activities. Users/
learners are “act[ing} in the social world and exert[ing] agency in the learning process” (Council of Europe
2020: 26) and “co-constructing meaning in interaction” (ibid: 21). Users/learners therefore need to take into
consideration the interactional and communicative realities, purposes and contexts of real-world language use.
Language users are independent and responsible participants in society: “social agents” who use languages tocommunicate in the real world, to create and mediate meaning, often in collaboration. They pursue different
goals, in several contexts, exerting their agency in the particular social context concerned, which imposesconditions and constraints.
The term “social agent” aims to capture the dual nature of what it means to function in a language. There are
two facets to the concept, two intertwined contexts: the individual (internal context) which acts within thesocial (external context). The individual exerts their agency, their will and power to act. It is not surprisingthat in the French version of the CEFR the expression acteur social is used and not that of social agent. In
French the concept of agency is strongly associated with “action” (hence perspective actionnelle; approche
actionelle) and it refers to the verb “to act”, l’agir or capacité à agir (Richer 2014). Regarding the social context,
what one “can mean” in any situation is in fact, to a considerable extent, determined by the range of options
characteristic of that particular type of social context, and also at the same time by the interactive andcollaborative nature of what the individual does with others in that social context in order to (co-)constructmeaning. Context-dependence was emphasised by the linguist Halliday with his concept of the “meaning
potential” which, as he himself said, was “not unlike Dell Hymes’ notion of ‘communicative competence’ exceptthat Hymes [1972/1986] defines this in terms of ‘competence’ in the Chomskian sense of what the speakerknows, whereas we are talking of a potential” (Halliday 1973: 54). Certain conventions, expectation andrules of use exist in any situation, shared with the other participants, and these may restrict what someone
can say. The idea of what a person could mean in a particular situation type (but might not actually get achance to mean, for various reasons) is in fact what is intended with “can do” descriptors. It is no coincidence
that in the same period that Bourdieu and Halliday were developing these ideas during the 1970s, Sinclair
and Coulthard (1975) and other scholars were investigating the way that power relationships in structured
contexts, particularly classrooms, assigned people, in this case learners, to a subordinate role in which they
were prevented from taking the initiative, expressing themselves or developing ideas in collaboration witheach other.
These different strands of research, plus the development in continental Europe of the concept of competence as primarily a question of mobilising and combining resources in action (Piccardo and North
2019; Richer 2014, 2017), flowed into the concept of the social agent as it is presented in the CEFR and
CEFR Companion volume. Depending on the context of the situation, the learner as social agent judges,
based on their sociocultural knowledge of the world, which language(s), variety/ies and/or register(s) touse, which sociocultural norms to respect, what strategies to adopt, etc. In making such choices, the social
agent mobilises and combines all of their repertoire, all of their general competences and communicative
language competences in order to tackle the task at hand. In so doing, they act in a strategic, agentive
manner. The learner/social agent thus mobilises all their resources (cognitive, emotional, linguistic andcultural) and develops strategies, including the exploitation of accessible objects, tools, people and otherfunds of knowledge, in iterative cycles in order to plan, to produce results and to monitor their action.
The experience of monitoring their action further develops those competences and strategies (Council ofEurope 2001: 9; 2020: 32).
As suggested in the previous paragraph, agency involves more than mere choice, and this is very importantwhen we consider classrooms – and the action-oriented approach. Bandura’s (1989, 2001) socio-cognitive theoryof agency underlines four main characteristics of agency.
Intentionality: having at least a partial plan of the action necessary to achieve the goal, which will be completed
later, adjusting it in the light of new information and experience.
Forethought: considering consequences of certain actions, anticipating outcomes, selecting actions based on
experience of successfully using them.
Self-regulatory processes that link thought to action in relation to the concrete goals being aimed at (i.e. constantreflection and re-evaluation of strategies and proposed actions as one goes along).

Page 30 3 Enriching 21st-century language education

Self-reflection on the soundness of the ideas and concepts proposed and the actions undertaken, judged against
the success of the outcomes. Such agentive experience leads to a motivating belief that one can be successful,which Bandura calls “self-efficacy”.
Language education should therefore create learning contexts that encourage learners to grow in their role associal and collaborative agents, as autonomous and responsible language users/learners. Essentially, this meansthat the language curriculum should include tasks and/or projects that allow learners the space to take theinitiative, collaborate together, plan and produce something. Learners as social agents can then take responsibility for their learning process, further developing their language repertoire as powerful lifelong learners. The
concept of the social agent is thus central to the action-oriented approach, mediation, online interaction andcollaboration and plurilingual language education, each of which we consider next in this section.

1.4.2. The action-oriented approach
The action-oriented approach (AoA) has sometimes been interpreted in terms of the use of Can Do descriptors
for curriculum design. This is certainly an important aspect of it, as we will see below, but the AoA is rooted in aconstructivist paradigm and takes task-based learning to a higher level where the class and the outside world are
integrated in genuine, situated communicative practices. The approach is also known as action-based teaching(van Lier 2007), especially in North America, and is very similar to the more developed version of the task-based
language teaching (TBLT) proposed by van den Branden and his colleagues (2006, 2009). Although “[T]he precise
form that tasks in the classroom may take, and the dominance that they should have in the programme, is forusers of the CEFR to decide” (Council of Europe 2020: 32), the approach is usually associated with scenarios forgroup task/projects.
The AoA is informed by CEFR descriptors since, as Bandura reminds us, “Action is motivated and directed bycognised (i.e., known and understood) goals rather than drawn by remote aims” (Bandura 1989: 1179), anddescriptors can offer the focus and signposting necessary for this. The teaching and learning process is driven
by action in this way at two levels, that of the curriculum/syllabus/course planning and that of the classroom
enactment. In the planning process, this involves planning backwards from learners’ real-life communicativeneeds, ensuring alignment between planning, teaching and assessment, and using descriptors as signposts
to communicate to users/learners in advance about the concrete “cognised” goals in relation to specific tasks
embedded in the scenario.
Action orientation involves task/projects, usually in the form of scenarios that allow initiative, so learners canpurposefully and strategically exert their agency, scenarios in which the learners have a defined mission to
produce a proposal, artefact or other product under defined conditions and constraints (Bourguignon 2010)
and which require co-construction of meaning through mediation in interaction. The way the CEFR Companion
volume puts this is as follows:
Above all, the action-oriented approach implies purposeful, collaborative tasks in the classroom, the primary focusof which is not language. If the primary focus of a task is not language, then there must be some other product oroutcome (such as planning an outing, making a poster, creating a blog, designing a festival or choosing a candidate).
Descriptors can be used to help design such tasks and also to observe and, if desired, to (self-)assess the language useof learners during the task. (Council of Europe 2020: 30)

Action-oriented scenarios are usually developed through steps which involve the communicative activities ofreception, production, interaction and the mediation of concepts and/or communication, inspired by CEFR
descriptors. The final phase of the scenario is the collaborative production of an artefact or performance.
Learners decide how to accomplish the task/project; teachers provide language input, resources and support
to class, group or individuals as required. There is a focus on autonomy and authenticity of materials, topics
and practices. Learners may well be encouraged to use sources in various languages and work in a plurilingual
way – though this is not necessarily the case. Self-assessment and/or peer assessment of results with selected
descriptors is quite common.
The way in which the AoA goes beyond the communicative language teaching (CLT) as well as the related,
weaker, more linguistic versions of TBLT (Nunan 1989, 2004; Skehan 1998; Willis 1996; Willis and Willis 2007)
could perhaps be summarised as follows.
f Syllabus based on defined situational needs (as in the original version of CLT) that form the starting point
for a backward design of the syllabus.
f Rejection of a linear syllabus based upon grammatical progression, as in many programmes in which teachers follow a textbook, which may have a “communicative veneer” but in practice still retains the traditional
focus on grammar rather than on meaningful language use (Waters 2011).

Enriching the scope of language education Page 31

f Needs-appropriate (possibly adapted) CEFR descriptors used to inform end objectives for the course andto help structure the syllabus, think up scenarios, design tasks, communicate aims to learners, assess outcomes and involve learners in that assessment process (North 2014; North et al. 2018).
f Organisation of learning through realistic, unifying scenarios, which form a module spanning several
lessons in a project approach that – through a series of steps/subtasks (some teacher-led, some groupwork) – leads up to a final collaborative task (Bourguignon 2010; Piccardo 2014; Piccardo and North 2019).
f Centrality of learner agency, individually and collectively, in the sense described in the previous subsection:
learners make decisions about their task/project and monitor how things are going.
f Collaborative culminating tasks that involve a small group developing a concrete product of some kindthat is clearly defined in their “mission”, which includes conditions and constraints (Bourguignon 2010).
f Scenarios and culminating tasks (as opposed to enabling subtasks earlier within the scenario module) thatare not language-oriented, not nice activities to practise particular language: the language follows thenecessities of the task, the task does not follow the language as a fluency activity, as is the case in CLT and“weaker” variants of TBLT (Piccardo and North 2019).
f Authentic materials and processes that are not “dumbed down” but are scaffolded for learners according
to their need for support.
f Acceptance by learners and teachers of the complexity and phases of chaos (in the sense of complexity
theories) involved in genuine learning and creativity (Piccardo 2017).
The action-based approach thus takes into account “the cognitive, emotional and volitional resources and thefull range of abilities specific to and applied by the individual as a social agent” (Council of Europe 2001: 9). If aplurilingual approach is adopted, it will also be necessary to specify “language policy” – when to “plurilanguage”(Lüdi 2015, 2016; Piccardo 2017, 2018), when to use one language or another – in relation to the different steps
or phases of the task/project.

1.4.3. Mediation
Mediation is one of the four modes in which the CEFR model organises communication. Learners seen as social
agents engage in receptive, productive, interactive or mediation activities or, more frequently, in a combinationof two or more of them. While interaction stresses the social use of language, mediation encompasses and goesbeyond interaction by focusing on meaning-making and/or facilitating communication across linguistic andcultural barriers, which both rely on collaborative processes. The CEFR Companion volume introduces its modelof mediation as follows:
In mediation, the user/learner acts as a social agent who creates bridges and helps to construct or convey meaning,sometimes within the same language, sometimes across modalities (e.g. from spoken to signed or vice versa, incross-modal communication) and sometimes from one language to another (cross-linguistic mediation). The focus
is on the role of language in processes like creating the space and conditions for communicating and/or learning,collaborating to construct new meaning, encouraging others to construct or understand new meaning, and passing
on new information in an appropriate form. The context can be social, pedagogic, cultural, linguistic or professional.
(Council of Europe 2020: 90)

Mediation activities are then presented in three macro-categories: mediating a text, mediating concepts andmediating communication, for each of which a number of scales of descriptors are provided. Mediation happens
across languages or varieties (cross-linguistic mediation) or within the same language or variety. The descriptors
for mediating a text talk of moving from Language A to Language B, with it being made clear that “these: may
be different languages, varieties or modalities of the same language, different registers of the same variety, or
any combination of the above. However, they may also be identical” (Council of Europe 2020: 92) and that “there
may be a Language C and even conceivably a Language D in the communicative situation concerned” (ibid.).
As the report on the conceptualisation, development and validation of the new scales of descriptors for the
CEFR Companion volume (North and Piccardo 2016) explains, the approach taken in 2020 is broader than that
adopted in 2001, which was confined to mediating a text and one aspect of mediating communication (acting
as an intermediary between people who, for one reason or another are unable to understand each other. The
CEFR Companion volume relates this broader concept of mediation to the social agent and the action-oriented
approach, discussed above, as follows:
Although the CEFR 2001 does not develop the concept of mediation to its full potential, it emphasises the two key
notions of co-construction of meaning in interaction and constant movement between the individual and social levelin language learning, mainly through its vision of the user/learner as a social agent. In addition, an emphasis on the
mediator as an intermediary between interlocutors underlines the social vision of the CEFR. In this way, although it

Page 32 3 Enriching 21st-century language education

is not stated explicitly in the 2001 text, the CEFR descriptive scheme de facto gives mediation a key position in theaction-oriented approach, similar to the role that a number of scholars now give it when they discuss the language
learning process. (Council of Europe 2020: 30)

Language itself emerges from complex webs of actions, which all require some form of mediation. Mediationas understood in socio-constructivist approaches and the sociocultural theory (Lantolf and Poehner 2014) isat the centre of understanding, thinking, meaning-making and collaborating – all crucial to acting as a social
agent. As suggested in the citation above, mediation emphasises the interdependence of the individual and thecollective, the cognitive and the social. Following Vygotsky, it is increasingly recognised that learning occurs ina social context: “The true development of thinking is not from the individual to the social, but from the social
to the individual” (Vygotsky 1986: 36). In learning, the individual reconstructs the mediated social interactions
experienced. In this way, we exploit the environment surrounding us by acting as “agents-operating-with-mediational-means” (Wertsch 1998: 24). The development of higher mental functions is mediated by psychologicaland cultural tools, especially language. Language is thus simultaneously a working tool to make sense of oursurroundings, a vehicle for acquiring new knowledge through the construction of meaning, an object of learningin the language classroom, and a support for the process of reflection. It is thus helpful to think of language as
an activity, as something that we do together, as “languaging” (Piccardo 2021).
Languaging has been described as “a dynamic, never-ending process of using language to make meaning” (Swain
2006: 96). The term “languaging” has been used in philosophy (Maturana 1988, 2000), linguistics (Halliday 1985;
Jørgensen 2010; Mignolo 1996, Raimondi 2014), cognitive sciences (Cowley and Gahrn-Andersen 2018; Cuffari
et al. 2015) and language education (Swain 2006; Swain and Lapkin 2013). Languaging is very relevant to all
three of the macro-categories of mediation activities:
f in mediating concepts, social agents are languaging as they think things through together;f in mediating a text they are languaging to find formulations that enable understanding of the text itself
for themselves, and for or with others; andf in mediating communication they are languaging in the process of self–other regulation.
Mediating concepts in the CEFR Companion volume has two pairs of descriptor scales, one pair for collaborating
in a small group (Barnes and Todd 1977) and the other pair for mediating while leading a group (Feuerstein
and Rand 1974; Feuerstein et al. 1991). The first of each pair concerns the interpersonal or relational aspect:“Facilitating collaboration interaction with peers” (as a group member) and “Managing interaction” (leading thegroup). The second of each pair involves constructing new meaning and concepts (languaging): by “Collaborating
to construct meaning” (as a group member) and by “Encouraging conceptual talk”, that is, leading the groupin what Alexander (2008) calls “dialogic talk”. Webb (2009) reports that there is a direct connection between
teachers encouraging conceptual/dialogic talk and learners in small groups co-constructing meaning. This effect
was also seen during piloting the mediation descriptors, as one teacher saying: “We saw how the participants
moved from needing to clarify and confirm mutual understanding to interacting more effortlessly by building
upon each other’s ideas and presenting one’s own ideas to invoke discussion.”
Mediating a text is the most familiar of the three macro-categories, being included since the 2000s in curriculaand examinations in Germany (Kolb 2016; Reimann and Rössler 2013) and Greece (Dendrinos 2006; Stathopoulou2015). Here, text is taken to include video and graphic data as well as spoken, written and signed texts. There
are four categories, each with a scale for oral and written mediation, covering “Relaying specific information”,“Explaining data”, “Processing text” and “Translating a written text”. The set of scales is completed with Notetaking (a 2001 scale) and two scales for reacting to creative text (including literature): “Expressing a personal
response to creative texts” and “Analysis and criticism of creative texts”. The last two scales reflect the fact that,with literature, one is firstly mediating for oneself and then, in an educational context, often mediating the text
for others, either from a personal, informal point of view – more at lower secondary – or from a more academic
point of view – more associated with upper secondary.
Mediating communication includes a scale for “Acting as an intermediary in informal situations”, familiar fromthe CEFR 2001, with a cultural element added to the purely linguistic role of interpreting, plus two otherscales with an explicit focus on the cultural/intercultural dimension that calls for developing critical-culturalawareness (Byram 1997, 2008) and symbolic competence (Kramsch 2002). First there is “Facilitating pluricultural space”, which concerns the creation of shared “third space” (Kramsch 1993) that provides security andhelps enable openness and mutual understanding, and “Facilitating communication in delicate situations
and disputes”, which involves helping to resolve critical situations by showing understanding of different
perspectives and helping to discover common ground. The three scales in this group are very relevant to
the kind of action-oriented approach to intercultural communicative competence adopted by, for example,

Enriching the scope of language education Page 33

Auger and Louis (2009), and to the development of the pluricultural competence behind them; as such they
are very relevant to our increasingly diverse classrooms.
Mediation is a strategic process which requires agency at every stage, develops linguistic and cultural awareness,and highlights the developmental nature of linguistic repertoires. Mediation plays a crucial role in successful
plurilingual/pluricultural encounters and in online, distance communication, to which we now turn.

1.4.4. Plurilingualism
Plurilingualism and pluriculturalism stress the dynamic use of multiple languages/varieties and cultural knowledge, awareness and/or experience in social situations. Plurilingualism/pluriculturalism is not at all a newphenomenon; it has been a feature of very many societies since ancient and probably prehistoric times. It has
been present throughout history in Africa, South America and Polynesia (Canagarajah 2009) as well as in South
Asia (Rabbi and Canagarajah 2021). It was a planned characteristic of many ancient empires (e.g. Babylonian,Hittite, Assyrian, Persian) and more recently was common in the Austro-Hungarian empire (Dacrema 2012) andcentral Europe more generally (Schröder 2018).
Plurilingualism and pluriculturalism aim to capture the holistic and dynamic nature of the individual language
user/learner’s linguistic and cultural repertoire as it develops through life: “Plurilingual and pluriculturalcompetence … is not the superposition or juxtaposition of distinct competences, … but rather the existenceof a complex or even composite competence on which the user may draw”(Council of Europe 2001: 168).
“Plurilinguals have a single, inter-related repertoire that they combine with their general competences andvarious strategies in order to accomplish tasks” (Council of Europe 2020: 30). This plurilingual repertoire
reflects the user/learner’s ongoing lived experience (Busch 2017), their biography of intercultural encounter(Byram et al. 2009).
Thus plurilingualism is “an uneven and changing competence” (Council of Europe 2001: 133, emphasis added),
in which the user/learner’s resources in one language or variety may be only partial and very different in nature
to those in another. “The plurilingualism sought is not that of an exceptional polyglot but rather that of ordinary
individuals with a varied linguistic capital in which partial competences have their place. What is expected is not
maximum proficiency but a range of language skills and receptiveness to cultural diversity” (Coste 2014: 22). In
this action-oriented perspective, users/learners seen as social agents draw upon all sorts of resources in their
linguistic and cultural repertoires and further develop these resources in their trajectories. Plurilingualism andpluriculturalism focus on interconnectedness of different languages and cultures rather than on their differences
and stress the importance of evolving profiles that value even the most partial competences in and awarenessof languages and cultures. The theoretical and pedagogic implications of plurilingualism are well summarised
as follows:
Plurilingual competence is defined as the ability to use a plural repertoire of linguistic and cultural resources to meet
communication needs or interact with people from other backgrounds and contexts, and enrich that repertoire while
doing so. The repertoire consists of resources which individual learners have acquired in all the languages they knowor have learned, and which also relate to the cultures associated with those languages … The plurilingual perspective
centres on learners and the development of their individual plurilingual repertoire, and not each specific language
to be learnt. (Beacco et al. 2016: 20)

The distinction between plurilingualism and multilingualism and between multiculturalism and pluriculturalism
was introduced to language education in the CEFR (Council of Europe 1996, 2001, 2020) and an accompanying
study (Coste et al. [1997]/2009). The term “plurilingualism” itself had appeared in earlier publications (e.g. Costeand Hébrard 1991; Di Mauro 1977) but its conceptualisation has since developed from the distinction made in
relation to multilingualism in the CEFR project in 1996/7. This distinction aims to facilitate understanding of twovery different views of linguistic and cultural diversity.
Multilingualism and multiculturalism consider languages and cultures as separate and somehow static entities
that co-exist in societies or individuals. The prefix “multi” suggests the addition of a series of different elements,
as with a multiplication table or with a multitude of people. Multiculturalism often manifests itself as different
communities living in adjacent areas of cities who may not have much contact with, or interest in, each other.
The prefix “pluri”, on the other hand, emphasises plurality, suggesting a network of dynamic interrelationships
between the linguistic and cultural elements that build individuals’ trajectories and the tapestries of increasingly
diverse communities (Piccardo 2018, 2019). Plurilingualism brings to the fore a more holistic way to consider
how languages – and cultures – constantly interreact at the cognitive, emotional and social levels. In relation toclassrooms, a multilingual classroom suggests a classroom in which children have different mother tongues –perhaps being given heritage language classes after school – whereas a plurilingual classroom is one in which

Page 34 3 Enriching 21st-century language education

the linguistic diversity present is embraced and exploited in order to leverage communication, subject learning,plurilingual/pluricultural awareness and the learning of new languages.
Not all applied linguists have adopted this useful distinction. However, in order to emulate the flexible, creative,
holistic characteristic of an individual’s plurilingual repertoire, those who have not adopted the term tend tomodulate “multilingualism” with adjectives to achieve a similar effect, in for example: a “dynamic model ofmultilingualism” (Herdina and Jessner 2002), a “holistic approach to multilingualism” (Cenoz 2013; Cenoz and
Gorter 2011), an “inclusive multilingualism” (Backus et al. 2013), an “active multilingualism” (Cummins 2017) oran “integrated multilingual model” (MacSwan 2017).
Since the introduction of the term “plurilingualism” in the CEFR, a number of scholars have also invented otherterms to capture creative translingual practices. Piccardo and North relate these terms to the description of thecharacteristics of plurilingualism used to introduce the term in the CEFR in 2001 and in 2020.
Plurilingual competence involves the ability to call flexibly upon an interrelated, uneven, plurilinguistic repertoirein order to:a. switch from one language or dialect (or variety) to another [related to: code switching, code alternation,
flexible bilingualism; translanguaging];b. express oneself in one language (or dialect, or variety) and understand a person speaking another [related
to lingua receptiva; intercomprehension];c. call upon the knowledge of a number of languages (or dialects, or varieties) to make sense of a text [related to translanguaging as a pedagogic scaffolding technique in a language or CLIL/content and language
integrated learning class];
d. intercomprehension [related to lingua receptiva];
e. recognise words from a common international store in a new guise [also related to intercomprehension;
lingua receptiva];
f. mediate between individuals with no common language (or dialect, or variety), even with only a slightknowledge oneself [= cross-linguistic mediation];g. bring the whole of one’s linguistic equipment into play, experimenting with alternative forms of expression
in different languages or dialects, exploiting paralinguistics (mime, gesture, facial expression, etc.) andradically simplifying their use of language [related to translanguaging; code crossing; code mixing; codemeshing; polylingualism; metrolingualism].
(Council of Europe 2001: 4-6; 2020: 30; Piccardo and North 2020: 284)
The new CEFR descriptors for plurilingual and pluricultural competence come in three descriptor scales, whichwere developed principally in relation to the points listed above: “Building on pluricultural repertoire”, “Plurilingual
comprehension” and “Building on plurilingual repertoire”. To these could also be added the scale placed under
mediating communication: “Facilitating pluricultural space”. Indeed, as suggested in the previous subsection,
mediation is at the core of all the descriptors of plurilingual and pluricultural competence. Embracing a mediational perspective allows us to move from language as an entity to language as a process: languaging (Piccardo2021). Plurilingualism manifests itself in the dynamic, creative process of languaging across the boundaries oflanguage varieties.
In terms of mediation and languaging, in the scale “Building on plurilingual repertoire”, for example, the learner/
social agent mobilises their repertoire in different languages:
f for a purpose, to explain a problem or ask for clarification (A2);f to facilitate comprehension with or between third parties (B2), acting as a linguistic and cultural mediator;
f to create the conditions for others to use different languages (B2), that is role-modelling openness tolinguistic plurality;
f to facilitate communication by using all their agency in a multilingual context, in which they alternate
between languages and also employ different forms of linguistic/textual mediation (C1).
Both mediation and plurilingualism are also very present in online, digital interaction, as we shall see in thesubsection that follows.
The concept of plurilingualism has become increasingly popular over the last decade, particularly since theso-called multi-/plurilingual turn in English-medium literature (Conteh and Meier 2014; May 2014; Piccardo andPuozzo 2015; Taylor and Snoddon 2013). There is an increasing amount of experimentation with plurilingual
methodologies (e.g. Bernaus et al. 2011; Candelier et al. 2013; Choi and Ollerhead 2018; Lau and van Viegen

Enriching the scope of language education Page 35

2020; Prasad 2015; Prasad and Lory 2019; Spinelli 2019). A new Routledge handbook of plurilingual language
education (Piccardo et al. 2021) gives a detailed account of the theoretical inputs and the way the concept has
further developed, as well as an overview of current practices.

1.4.5. Online, digital interaction and transaction
Technology-mediated digital spaces have become “normalised” in our societies (Bax 2003, 2011), radically transforming the way we produce, share and communicate remotely and indeed whole industries, such as music,
gaming, news and movies (Luke 2005). As a recent Council of Europe recommendation to member states reminds
us: “the digital environment provides an unprecedented means for people to express themselves, to assemble
and participate, and opens new opportunities to improve access and inclusion” (Council of Europe 2019). Today’s
learners are digital natives who have adopted technology as a sixth sense, for whom technology-mediatedcommunication and online transactions have become so normal that they serve as the principal means throughwhich they interact with the world (Hershatter and Epstein 2010). These new digital environments create spaces
for the richness and creativity of plurilingual competence (Melo-Pfeifer 2015). One could even go so far as tosay that online communication is inevitably plurilingual and pluricultural, with alternation between languages,
code meshing and the integration of icons and symbols, and audiovisual codes and conventions (Séror 2021). It
is also directly action-oriented and a natural field for the development and use of mediation as a social practice.
“Online interaction” is a useful umbrella term which complements the literature on digital literacies. It integrates different interactional and transactional modalities, media and images, as well paralinguistic features ofcommunication. The result is dynamic, media-rich flexible and creative communication, frequently embedding
live-links and asynchronous texts, images, audio and video clips that make the communication interactive overtime (Ivkovic and Lotherington 2009; Lotherington and Jenson 2011; Pegrum 2010).
Online interaction:f involves multiple remote social actors who can flexibly remix media and texts to support their message;
f is fluid, often following a non-linear progression, with embedded media and hyperlinks to illustrate and/or emphasise, to support reader autonomy and to add perceived credibility (Pegrum 2010);
f involves both interpersonal and human–machine interaction as well as multimodality;
f is sometimes collaborative, sometimes discursive and sometimes ludic;
f requires explicit clarity of the message;
f can be synchronous, asynchronous, spoken and written, and is often a blend of these, implying the needto point out instances of synchronous and asynchronous interaction.
Further development is constantly transforming views of language use and therefore expectations of language
learning (Leppänen and Peuronen 2012). These technological innovations (e.g. social media, YouTube, wikis,
blogs) facilitate the ability to easily generate and share a rich variety of multimodal and multilingual user
content, which brings new pedagogical possibilities, expanding the scope of genres and cultural artefacts,
opportunities for creativity and for exploring complex identities (see, for example, Ollivier 2018). In addition,
eTwinning projects provide platforms for action-oriented communication and collaborative project work
across frontiers (see, for example, Cinganotto and Langé 2020). Digital technologies not only serve as sourcesof content but can also be used to create action-oriented learning spaces that instil genuine and purposefulauthentic language use, collaboration and interaction (Rüschoff 2018). Technology-mediated interaction
provides affordances for: agency; authenticity; output orientation; action orientation; competence orientation;
self-directed (collaborative) knowledge construction; flexibility in participatory classroom practice and interaction; and flexibility in time and space.
The exploitation of digital tools and the integration of digital interaction thus aligns well with the metho­
dological message of the CEFR that language learning should be directed towards enabling learners to act inreal-life situations. The CEFR descriptive scheme and the action-oriented approach put the co-construction of
meaning (through interaction) at the centre of the learning and teaching process. Communicative language
competence also remains central to online interaction, as does text literacy (Pegrum 2010), with language andtext underpinning multimodal digital literacies and socio-emotional literacies (Eshet-Alkalai 2004).
However, the online medium breaks the conventional boundaries between spoken and written, between
verbal and non-verbal. Technologically mediated interaction brings great advantages in terms of flexibility andmultimodality, but at the same time it brings drawbacks. For example, misunderstandings can be expected tobe more frequent and less easy to spot and correct than is the case in face-to-face communication. There is aneed for repetition, for redundancy, for ensuring that a message is more explicit than might need to be thePage 36 3 Enriching 21st-century language education

case face-to-face. The use of tone, stress and prosody to modulate meaning and any paralinguistic signals of
emotional reactions or irony are each more difficult to catch. Choice of registers is more fluid – but still possible
to get wrong. These are all aspects easier to handle at a higher level of language proficiency, but user/learners
at all levels of proficiency need to mediate communication with redundancy and to develop strategies to avoid(and, if necessary, repair) misunderstandings.
The CEFR Companion volume does not try to provide a framework for digital literacies, but focuses instead on thecommunicative language activity involved, applying the principles of the action-oriented approach to provide
descriptors for different levels of interactive competences in online environments. As the CEFR Companion
volume puts it, the descriptors
concern the multimodal activity typical of web use, including just checking or exchanging responses, spoken interaction
and longer production in live link-ups, using chat (written spoken language), longer blogging or written contributions
to discussion, and embedding other media. (Council of Europe 2020: 25)

In developing the descriptors, the focus was put on the goal of the communication rather than on the modality(written or oral, distinguishing between open-ended socially driven interaction: “Conversation and discussion”),
on the one hand, and interest-driven interaction (“Goal-oriented transactions and collaboration”) on the otherhand. Core elements of the construct that informed the descriptors are:f the need for more redundancy in messages;
f the need to check that the message has been correctly understood;
f the ability to reformulate in order to help comprehension, deal with misunderstanding;f the ability to handle emotional reactions and to demonstrate intercultural sensitivity;
f the capacity to participate in sustained interaction with one or more interlocutors;
f the capacity to react to other people’s posts and embedded media, and to compose posts and contributions for others to respond to;f the ability to include symbols, images, and other codes to broaden or refine the content or scope of amessage;f the understanding of implications of synchronous (real time) and asynchronous interaction.
Some of the elements used to distinguish between levels are: the ability to handle synchronous and collaborative
group discourse; the ability to modulate register, to embed the affective, emotional and ironic dimension andto deal with linguistic and cultural misunderstandings, and the degree of autonomy shown.
The descriptors reflect a broader aim of the CEFR Companion volume to enrich the tools and interactional
spaces available to educators for an integrationist, situated approach to learning. They are intended to help
educators to formulate aims and outcomes in learning, teaching and assessment, without being constrainedby “the standardised testing culture that functions as watchdog over flat literacy practices” (Lotherington
and Jenson 2011).

1.4.6. Phonological competence
Phonology is an aspect of language teaching that still tends not to be taught explicitly, with many teachers
lacking confidence as they fear they may not be perceived as providing the “correct” model, and because they
may have received little or no specific training. Despite a considerable increase in research into phonology,
the marginalization of pronunciation teaching, which Derwing and Munro pointed out in their 2005 article as having
potentially serious consequences, continues in spite of the increased interest in pronunciation among educators. In
a very recent publication (2015) the same authors relate of a wide series of studies that revealed that “teachers arehesitant about systematically teaching pronunciation” (p. 78), that they feel a “need for access to more professional
development” (p. 80) and that “[t]he curricula in the various programs in which the teachers worked did not focus on
pronunciation” (ibid.) with vague and unhelpful indications if any. (Piccardo 2016: 11)

The CEFR 2001 went some way towards starting to address this problem in that the main CEFR text provided
a detailed description of aspects of phonology. In her analysis prior to developing the new CEFR phonology
descriptors, Piccardo summarised this as follows: “Phonological competence takes an important role in thedescriptive scheme of the CEFR even though this does not translate into an extended and accurate series ofscales and descriptors” (Piccardo 2016: 7) and “The construct of the CEFR in relation to phonology is thoroughand sufficiently broad to allow a revision and extension of the scales/descriptors in order to capture the newdevelopments and reflection in second/foreign language education” (ibid: 8).

Enriching the scope of language education Page 37

However, the 2001 CEFR phonology scale did not successfully operationalise this construct and was in fact theleast successful of the CEFR 2001 descriptor scales (North 2000: 248-50), which prompted teacher/researchersinterested in phonology to criticise and attempt to supplement it (e.g. Cauvin 2012; Frost and O’Donnell 2018;
Galaczi et al. 2011; Harding 2013; Horner 2010, 2013, 2014; Isaacs and Trofimovich 2012). Unfortunately, mostof their proposed solutions continue to make distinctions between levels or assessment grades merely by alternating adverbials, despite the fact that such an approach has long been criticised as too vague (e.g. Alderson
1991; Champney 1941; North 2000, 2014).
The main problem with the CEFR 2001 phonology scale was that it was a single scale which conflated constructs
and gave the impression that progression in proficiency meant becoming more and more like a native speaker.
In particular, it suggested that this transformation occurred between B1 and B2 with the B2 descriptor saying:Has acquired a clear, natural, pronunciation and intonation. At and above B2, accent was not mentioned at all,even though “most L2 speakers at even advanced levels can have detectable accents (Moyer 2013); thinking
otherwise is unrealistic” (Isaacs et al. 2018: 197). Also, the expression “natural” pronunciation and intonation inthis descriptor strongly suggests that of a native speaker, whereas the usefulness of an “idealised native speaker”
as the goal of language learning has also long been criticised (e.g. Byram and Zarate 1996; Kramsch 1997) and
was in fact not adopted in the CEFR.
In relation to phonology, as Muñoz and Singleton (2011) emphasise, a lot depends on whether the learner wants
to sound like a “native-speaker”. And in addition, “almost pretending to be a different person in each language, inthe pursuit of the chimeric native speaker model … leads to high levels of frustration and feelings of inadequacy
and consequent avoidance of the language – even in regions that are officially bilingual (see, for example, Puozzo
Capron 2014)” (Piccardo 2019: 192). Such a mindset of multiple monolingualism, which has been criticised in the
Canadian context by Cummins (2008) as “the two solitudes”, is antithetical to a plurilingual perspective. Research
has shown that intelligibility is far more important to communication than accent (Derwing and Munro 2015)
and consequently, pronunciation research has moved towards examining what linguistic factors most affectit. Here we should mention that in the literature on phonology, a distinction is made between “intelligibility”(i.e. actual understanding of an utterance by a listener) and “comprehensibility” (i.e. a listener’s perceived difficultyin understanding an utterance). It was decided not to apply this meaningful but subtle academic distinction in
the CEFR descriptors, in order not to overload teachers already dealing with the challenging switch away fromthe “native-speaker” norm.
The new CEFR Phonology scale – the conceptualisation, development and validation of which is describedin Piccardo (2016) – therefore refines and expands the construct of the 2001 scale, taking intelligibility as its
lead factor and overcoming the issues of the “native-speaker” model. It is an analytic scale, consisting of threesubscales. The first subscale is overall phonological control, intended for those who wish a simple update of the2001 holistic scale. In addition, there are two more detailed subscales, for Sound articulation and Prosody (stressand intonation). Descriptors for Sound recognition were also validated, but not included in the final scale; they
can be found in the “Supplementary descriptors” in Appendix 8 to the CEFR Companion volume. The reason for
creating an analytic scale was that, although everything is interconnected, the main elements involved (sounds
and prosody) need to be made visible so that both teachers and learners might become aware of their equal
contribution to intelligibility.
The new scale thus broadens the scope of phonological competence in comparison to the 2001 scale and removes
native-speakerism from it, with the overall aim of providing more explicit support to teachers. Phonologicalcompetence can be an obstacle, since communication is filtered through it. People who have a very high levelof proficiency can still be penalised by their level of phonological competence, particularly a noticeable accent,even though the majority of users/learners retain an accent even at Level C2 and above. Thus, the new scale helps
towards social justice by unveiling this issue, reducing unrealistic expectations and encouraging teachers to focus
on teaching the elements of phonological competence so that their learners will be clearly intelligible – at all levels.

1.4.7. Conceptual model
The project that produced the descriptors for mediation and related areas for the CEFR Companion volume(North and Piccardo 2016) developed a conceptual model, which is shown in Figure 1.1. As can be seen in the
figure, mediation is considered in terms of being both cognitive and relational – the latter being concerned withthe management of social relationships – with the cognitive aspect being embedded in the relational one. This
cognitive/relational distinction is taken from Coste and Cavalli (2015), but also reflects Halliday’s (1973, 1978)
distinction between the ideational (cognitive) and interpersonal (relational). However, whereas Coste andCavalli seem to situate these two aspects as independent and contrasting, Halliday stresses the point that thesenever occur in isolation, but are always woven together in context by his third, textual, metafunction. The entire

Page 38 3 Enriching 21st-century language education

mediational process is also seen as embedded in the emotional dimension, since in an enactivist perspective, theperson (mind), action (body) and situation (environment) are brought together in a “situating/situated dialectic”(Masciotra et al. 2007: 4). Around the core are shown some of the activities in which mediation is involved andmanifests itself, such as in mediating across languages (plurilingual/pluricultural), mediating across media andmulti-modalities (online) and mediating across internal and external worlds (literature).
Figure 1.1: Conceptual model of the project to develop CEFR descriptors for mediation (North and Piccardo
2016)
emotional

Plurilingual and pluricultural

emotional

emotional

acrosslanguages
andcultures

Relational

Cognitive

Onlineacrossmedia

acrossworldsLiteratureemotional

However, one must remember that categories are not absolutes; they are conventions that we apply in order tomake better sense of the world. An obsession with neat and tidy either/or distinctions was characteristic of thelinear, Cartesian approach, exemplified in our field by the four skills concept, which is gradually giving way toa more complex vision. This vision recognises that, in any instance of situated language use, many categories
are involved and are inextricably linked; it would be impossible to isolate them. Nevertheless, categories may
prove helpful when it comes to making sense of complex phenomena, and in this perspective they are usefulhere. Naturally, during the development process an attempt was made to formulate descriptors that could berecognised as describing one particular category rather than another, and indeed one of the three validation
activities evaluated the ability of some 490 pairs of respondents to distinguish between intended categories(see North and Piccardo 2016).
Nevertheless, the distinctions between concepts and categories are not watertight: they all merge into each other.
Since mediation often involves a switch of language, variety and/or register, it is reductive to think of mediation
without considering plurilingualism, especially in relation to mediating text and mediating communication.
Mediating concepts can more easily be perceived as occurring in just one language/variety, but also here, in an
action-oriented approach, learners as social agents engaged in a problem-solving, collaborative task in small
groups will mobilise not just some but all of the resources at their disposal, non-linguistic as well as linguistic,
plurilinguistic not monolinguistic. Even when operating in a mode of one-language-at-a-time (in the target
language), other known languages are active in the brain too; there is no switch to turn them off. Considering
an issue – and researching material – in different languages enriches problem solving and encourages creativity.
Nowadays, researching input will almost certainly be done online, and the means of collating and synthesisingmaterial, as well as discussing the process of presenting it, evolves increasingly online.
In discussing plurilingualism above, the point was made that mediation is informed by the plurilingual/pluricultural dimension. Plurilingualism is obviously directly relevant to cross-linguistic mediation, as well as in thetypes of “languaging” discussed in section 1.4.3 above. But one can also see the influence of the pluriculturaldimension in, for example, descriptors like the following.
Can collaborate with people from other backgrounds, showing interest and empathy by asking and answering simple questions, formulating and responding to suggestions, asking whether people agree and proposing alternative
approaches. (B1 “Overall mediation”)
Can encourage a shared communication culture by expressing understanding and appreciation of different ideas,
feelings and viewpoints, and inviting participants to contribute and react to each other’s ideas. (B2 “Facilitating
pluricultural space”)

Enriching the scope of language education Page 39

Can act effectively as a mediator, helping to maintain positive interaction by interpreting different perspectives, managing
ambiguity, anticipating misunderstandings and intervening diplomatically in order to redirect the conversation. Can
build on different contributions to a discussion, stimulating reasoning with a series of questions. (C1 “Overall mediation”)

In a similar way, in the descriptors for online interaction, there is social, cultural, linguistic and emotional mediation involved, as for example in the two descriptors shown below.
Can anticipate and deal effectively with possible misunderstandings (including cultural ones), communication issues
and emotional reactions occurring in an online discussion. (C2 “Online conversation and discussion”)
Can deal with misunderstandings and unexpected problems that arise in online collaborative or transactional exchanges by
responding politely and appropriately in order to help resolve the issue. (B2 “Goal-oriented online transaction and collaboration”)

For this reason, some of the case studies that used the CEFR Companion volume descriptors to inform theirpractice chose to work with several of the categories, as we see in the next section.

1.5. THE CASE STUDIES IN THIS VOLUME
The 19 chapters that follow in this volume report on a series of case studies investigating the points outlined in
section 1.4 with the aid of the new descriptors provided in the CEFR Companion volume for aspects of mediation (in 12 chapters), including appreciation of creative text and literature (in two chapters), plurilingualism(in three chapters), online interaction (in three chapters) and phonology (one chapter). The various chapters
explore the relevance and usability of the new descriptors from Level A2 to Level C1 for the implementation ofan action-oriented approach to mediation and plurilingualism, recounting lessons learned in the process, andthe reactions of students and colleagues.
Some of the chapters involve a series of studies carried out by a network of teacher/researchers; others reflect
the work of single teachers with their classes. The case studies have been selected from a larger number submitted after open call made at the conference in Strasbourg in May 2018 that launched the CEFR Companion
volume, which had been online in a provisional version in English and French since February 2018. The studies
included concern secondary education (eight chapters), higher education (three chapters), heritage language
education (one chapter), pre-service teacher education (four chapters) and adult education (three chapters),
with the involvement of language professionals in the following countries: Austria, Germany, Greece, Ireland,
Italy, Lithuania, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Poland, Russia, Spain, Switzerland, Turkey, UK.
The book is mainly divided into two parts, Part I (chapters 2 to 11) concerning classroom practice and Part II(chapters 12 to 20) concerning awareness raising and teacher education, followed by reflections and a look aheadin Part III. Each of parts I and II begins with a graphic overview of themes and context of the various chapters,
followed by summaries of each chapter.
Many of the chapters in Part I were written by practising teachers, who describe what they did with their classes
and the effects they achieved. Some of the points reported by teachers about the positive effects of the approachwere the following. Firstly and fundamentally the lessons were said to be more dynamic and more interesting, withthe learners being more motivated and enthusiastic – when working individually or in groups. Learners are also
reported to have worked more independently – in some cases also sometimes at home. In general, the learners
became more flexible and spontaneous, acquired the ability to make use of all of their linguistic resources and key
21st-century competences and transversal skills. Several teachers report that the learners were surprised about
their own abilities, seeming to be well capable of self-assessment, and became more self-confident overall. Having
precise learning objectives towards which to direct their action (the “cognised goals” discussed in section 1.4.2
above) helped students to exert their agency and focus their energies on the language needed to carry out thetask. Perhaps not surprisingly therefore, positive results are also reported of involvement in tasks, developmentof mediation skills and achievement of learning outcomes. Many teachers also report more collaboration andexchange of ideas and practices between teachers, including the teachers of different languages.
Naturally, challenges are also sometimes reported, particularly the need for teacher training and ready-to-use
example tasks; the current shortage of suitable materials did increase workload. Two other major challenges
are mentioned: the lack of time for teachers to prepare lessons together, which complicated co-ordination and,in some cases, initial “teething problems” in clarifying goals and giving clear instructions to students at the startof lessons, when these involved a new classroom approach.
Raised student awareness is a shared theme in Part I, as the following comments testify.
The descriptors, shared and discussed with learners in the pre-task phase, gave them the opportunity to reflect on
the task with a clear focus on what they were asked to do. This considerably triggered their learning awareness raisingand contributed to the success of the activities.

Page 40 3 Enriching 21st-century language education

Both teachers and students became conscious of their plurilingual and intercultural communicative competence.
They began connecting to their previous linguistic and cultural knowledge; they became aware of the relevance of
expanding this knowledge to become fully competent teachers and/or learners, and they began to mediate in conflicts
using the developed strategies.
What is encouraging is the fact that very often sceptics who then actually experience plurilingual teaching with aninspired colleague change their opinion and become very positive about it.
(Literature) students have been able to express their emotions better, acquiring vocabulary to express emotions andmemorising the text, while anchoring it to their personal experience.

In the same way that awareness raising is not absent from Part I, it should be pointed out that many of thechapters in Part II also report on the practical development and trialling of classroom tasks, inspired by the CEFR
Companion volume descriptors. The descriptors are often reported to have given practical support to teachers
and trainees that helped them to develop scenarios for class activities or assessment, to construct tasks, define
assessment grids and guide self-assessment of both students and student teachers. In relation to pre-service
teacher education, student teachers are reported to have found using the descriptors for the design of tasks
and materials interesting and motivating, with the trainer reporting that it boosted motivation and creativity.
In addition, the descriptors are reported to help operationalise the concept of plurilingualism and promote itin schools, being compatible with the more detailed descriptors from the FREPA/CARAP project (Candelier et
al. 2013) but easier to apply, and so more practical.
Some of the chapters in Part II report, as mentioned, on the development of exemplar tasks that translated
the multi-faceted character of mediation into classroom practice. Others report on attitudinal surveys about
how teachers and other stakeholders conceive of and react to mediation, plurilingualism and phonology,
while others again recount awareness-raising and dissemination activities through national and international
networks and the creation of communities of practice. Several report on the fact that mediation is a driver for aparadigm change in language education. The descriptors are reported to have helped to implement a changeof perspective on practices and aims, to have helped start self- and peer reflection on current teaching andtesting practices.
Again some challenges are noted. The most important is that managing change takes time. One cannot expect
to change practices overnight. Other particular points raised were that “mediating a text” and “mediating
communication” can be expected to be implemented more easily than “mediating concepts”. This is because of
their greater familiarity from the CEFR 2001 – and also because they fit better with current practice, since they
involve only individual tasks and paired role-plays. The wider concept of mediation is not always immediately
grasped and the importance of collaborative tasks in small groups not always appreciated. Other challenges
mentioned are the matching of specific descriptors for mediation with a particular task, since this requires skills
in materials design that not all teachers have, and secondly that the nuances of different descriptors are notalways immediately evident.
The contributors to Part II, predominantly teacher educators, highlight the fact that considerable support toteachers is needed to achieve meaningful change with the descriptors. Comments concern three main areas:
curriculum, teacher education and classroom materials. With regard to curriculum, the concepts and descriptors operationalising them, need to be incorporated into curricula, materials and observation/assessment
grids – especially in order to change student attitudes about using languages other than the target language
in class. Regarding teacher education, there is a need for online self-training guides and self-study toolkits forteachers and learners, with examples of good practice for curriculum design, classroom tasks and assessment.
In relation to materials more generally, good quality true-to-life learning materials (tasks, lesson plans, etc.) areneeded, designed with reference to the CEFR mediation descriptors and ready to use or to adapt for particularlevels – especially for mediation of concepts and mediation of communication. Collaborative problem-solving
mediation tasks are needed in course books, because then they will appear and be explained in the teachers’
books.
The final section of the book, Part III, brings things to a close with three short contributions: two sets of reflections on the case studies from experienced scholars, and a vision of the significance of the work for the futureof language education.
We hope that you, the reader, will enjoy the variety of the work reported, and that you will keep abreast of future
developments, in this project and other projects in the language field from the Council of Europe, by consulting
the following websites:
The CEFR site			www.coe.int/lang-cefr
The Education Department sitewww.coe.int/en/web/education

Enriching the scope of language education Page 41

REFERENCES
Alderson J. C. A. (1991), “Bands and scores”, in Alderson J. C. A. and North B. (eds), Language testing in the 1990s,
Macmillan/Modern English Publications, British Council, London, pp. 71-86.
Alderson J. C. A. and Urquhart S. (1984), Reading in a foreign language, Longman, Harlow, Essex.
Alexander R. (2008), “Culture, dialogue and learning: notes on an emerging pedagogy”, in Mercer N. and
Hodgkinson S. (eds), Exploring talk in schools, Sage, London, pp. 99-114.
Auger N. and Louis V. (2009), “Approche par les tâches, perspective actionnelle du FLE: quelles tâches possibles?”[A task-based approach, an action-oriented perspective on French as a foreign language. What tasks are possible?],in Rosen E. (ed.), La perspective actionnelle et l’approche par les tâches en classe de langue [“The action-oriented
perspective and the task-based approach in the language classroom”], Le Français dans le Monde, Recherches etApplications, numéro spécial [French in the world], Special Issue 45, pp. 102-10.
Austin J. L. (1962), How to do things with words, Clarendon Press, Oxford.
Backus A., Gorter D., Knapp K., Schjerve-Rindler R., Swanenberg J., ten Thije J. D. and Vetter E. (2013), “Inclusive
multilingualism: concept, modes and implications”, European Journal of Applied Linguistics No. 1(2), pp. 179-215.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/eujal-2013-0010.
Bandura A. (1989), “Human agency in social cognitive theory”, American Psychologist No. 44, pp. 1175-84.
Bandura A. (2001), “Social cognitive theory: an agentic perspective”, Annual Review of Psychology No. 52, pp. 1-26.
Barnes D. and Todd F. (1977), Communication and learning in small groups, Routledge & Kegan Paul, London.
Bax S. (2003), “CALL – past, present and future”, System No. 31(1), pp. 13-28.
Bax S. (2011), “Normalisation revisited: the effective use of technology in language education”, International
Journal of Computer. Assisted. Language. Learning and Teaching No. 1, pp. 1-15.
Beacco J.-C., Byram M., Cavalli M., Coste D., Egli Cuenat M., Goullier F. and Panthier J. (2016), Guide for thedevelopment and implementation of curricula for plurilingual and intercultural education, Council of Europe
Publishing, Strasbourg, available at https://book.coe.int/en/language-policy/7107-guide-for-the-developmentand-­implementation-of-curricula-for-plurilingual-and-intercultural-education.html, accessed 27 August 2021.
Bernaus M., Furlong A., Jonckheere S. and Kervran M. (2011), Plurilingualism and pluriculturalism in content-basedteaching: A training kit, European Centre for Modern Languages, Graz, available at www.ecml.at/Portals/1/­
documents/ECML-resources/2011_11_26_Conbat_fuer_web.pdf?ver=2018-03-20-160408-117, accessed 21 August
2021.
Blommaert J. (2008), “Language, asylum, and the national order”, Urban Language and Literacies No. 50,
pp. 2-21.
Bourguignon C. (2010), Pour enseigner les langues avec les CERCL: clés et conseils [Teaching languages with the
CEFR: Keys points and tips], Delagrave, Paris.
Breen M. P. and Candlin C. N. (1980), “The essentials of a communicative curriculum in language teaching”, Applied
Linguistics No. 1(2), pp. 89-112.
Brumfit C. (1984), Communicative methodology in language teaching: The roles of fluency and accuracy, Cambridge
University Press, Cambridge.
Busch B. (2017), “Expanding the notion of the linguistic repertoire: on the concept of Spracherleben – The lived
experience of language”, Applied Linguistics No. 38(3), pp. 340-58.
Byram M. (1997), Teaching and assessing intercultural communicative competence, Multilingual Matters, Clevedon,
Somerset, UK.
Byram M. (2008), From foreign language education to education for intercultural citizenship, Multilingual Matters,
Bristol.
Byram M. and Zarate G. (1996), “Defining and assessing intercultural competence: some principles and proposals
for the European context”, Language Teaching, No. 29(4), pp. 239-43.
Byram M., Barrett M., Ipgrave J., Jackson R. and Méndez García C. (2009), Context, concepts and theories of the“Autobiography of Intercultural Encounters”, Council of Europe Publishing, Strasbourg, available at www.coe.int/t/
dg4/autobiography/Source/AIE_en/AIE_context_concepts_and_theories_en.pdf, accessed 22 August 2021.

Page 42 3 Enriching 21st-century language education

Canagarajah S. (2009), “The plurilingual tradition and the English language in South Asia”, AILA Review No. 22,
pp. 5-22.
Candelier M., de Pietro J-F., Facciol R., Lorincz I., Pascual X. and Schröder-Sura A. (2013), CARAP–FREPA: a frameworkof reference for pluralistic approaches to languages and cultures, European Centre for Modern Languages, Graz,
available at http://carap.ecml.at/, accessed 22 August 2021.
Cauvin E. (2012), “Le CECRL et l’évaluation de la compétence phonologique: point de vue à partir d’un corpus
sur l’anglais: Evaluer avec le CECRL”, Les langues modernes No. 106(1), pp. 33-40.
Cenoz J. (2013), “Defining multilingualism”, Annual Review of Applied Linguistics No. 33, pp. 3-18.
Cenoz J. and Gorter D. (2011), “A holistic approach to multilingual education: introduction”, Modern Language
Journal No. 95, pp. 339-43, DOI: 10.1111/j.1540-4781.2011.01204.x.
Champney H. (1941), “The measurement of parent behavior”, Child Development No. 12(2), pp. 131-66.
Choi J. and Ollerhead S. (eds) (2018), Plurilingualism in teaching and learning, Routledge, New York.
Cinganotto L. and Langé G. (eds) (2020), L’interazione online nel Companion Volume del Quadro europeo di riferimento per le lingue. Un progetto pilota italiano, INDIRE, Roma.
Conteh J. and Meier G. (eds) (2014), The multilingual turn in languages education: opportunities and challenges,
Multilingual Matters, Bristol.
Coste D. (2014), “Plurilingualism and the challenges of education”, in Grommes P. and Wu H. (eds), Plurilingual
education: policies – practices – language development, John Benjamins, Amsterdam, pp. 15-32.
Coste D. and Cavalli M. (2015), Education, mobility, otherness: the mediation functions of schools, Council of Europe
Publishing, Strasbourg, available at www.coe.int/en/web/common-european-framework-reference-­languages/
documents, accessed 22 August 2021.
Coste D. and Hébrard J. (eds) (1991), “Vers le plurilinguisme? École et politique linguistique” [Towards plurilingualism? School and language policy], Le français dans le monde: recherches et applications, thematic issue,
Hachette, Paris.
Coste D., Moore D. and Zarate G. ([1997]/2009), Compétence plurilingue et pluriculturelle: Vers un cadre européen
commun de référence pour l’enseignement et l’apprentissage des langues vivantes, Council of Europe, Strasbourg.
Reprinted in English (2009) as Plurilingual and pluricultural competence. Studies towards a common European
framework of reference for language learning and teaching, Council of Europe Publishing, Strasbourg, available
at https://rm.coe.int/168069d29b, accessed 22 August 2021.
Council of Europe (1996), Modern languages: learning, teaching, assessment. A common European framework ofreference. Draft 2 of a Framework proposal, Council of Europe, Modern Languages, Council for Cultural Co-operation,
Education committee. CC-LANG (95) 5 rev. IV, Strasbourg.
Council of Europe (2001), Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: learning, teaching, assessment,
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, available at www.coe.int/lang-cefr, accessed 22 August 2021.
Council of Europe (2007), The Common European Framework of Reference for Languages (CEFR) and the development of language policies: challenges and responsibilities. Intergovernmental Language Policy Forum, Strasbourg,
6-8 February 2007, Report, Council of Europe, Strasbourg, available at www.coe.int/en/web/common-­europeanframework-reference-languages/documents, accessed 22 August 2021.
Council of Europe (2019), Recommendation CM/Rec(2019)10 of the Committee of Ministers to member States
on developing and promoting digital citizenship education, available at https://search.coe.int/cm/Pages/
result_details.aspx?ObjectId=090000168098de08, accessed 19 Aug 2021.
Council of Europe (2020), Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: learning, teaching, assessment – Companion volume, Council of Europe Publishing, Strasbourg, available at https://rm.coe.int/common-­european-framework-of-reference-for-languages-learning-teaching/16809ea0d4, accessed 22 August 2021.
Cowley S. J. and Gahrn-Andersen R. (2018), “Simplexity, languages and human languaging”, Language Sciences
No. 71, pp. 4-7, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.langsci.2018.04.008.
Cuffari E. C., Di Paolo E. and De Jaegher H (2015), “From participatory sense-making to language: there and backagain”, Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences No. 14(4), pp. 1089-1125.
Cummins J. (2008), “Teaching for transfer: challenging the two solitudes assumption in bilingual education”,
Encyclopedia of language and education No 5, pp. 65-75.

Enriching the scope of language education Page 43

Cummins J. (2017), “Teaching minoritized students: are additive approaches legitimate?” Harvard Educational
Review No. 87(3), pp. 404-25.
Dacrema N. (2012), “Il ‘caso Austria’”, in Putzu I. and Mazzon G. (eds), Lingue, letterature nazioni: centri e periferie
tra Europa e Mediterraneo, Franco Angeli, Milan, pp. 294-346.
Dendrinos B. (2006), “Mediation in communication, language teaching and testing”, Journal of Applied Linguistics
No. 22, pp. 9-35, Thessaloniki Association of Applied Linguistics.
Derwing T. M. and Munro M. J. (2005), “Second language accent and pronunciation teaching: a research-based
approach”, TESOL Quarterly No. 39(3), pp. 379-98.
Derwing T. M. and Munro M. J. (2015), Pronunciation fundamentals. Evidence-based perspectives for L2 Teaching
and Research, John Benjamins, Amsterdam/Philadelphia.
Di Mauro T. (1977), “Il plurilinguismo nella società e nella scuola italiana” [Plurilingualism in the Italian culture
and school], in Simone R and Ruggiero G. (eds), Aspetti sociolinguistici dell’Italia contemporanea [Sociolinguistic
aspects of contemporary Italy], Atti dell’VIII Congresso Internazionale di Studi (Bressanone, 31 maggio-2 giugno
1974), Pubblicazioni della SLI No. 10(1), pp. 87-101, Bulzoni Editore, Rome.
Eshet-Alkalai Y. (2004), “Digital literacy: a conceptual framework for survival skills in the digital era”, Journal of
Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia No. 13(1), pp. 93-106, Association for the Advancement of Computing
in Education (AACE), Waynesville NC.
Feuerstein R., Klein P. S. and Tannenbaum A. J. (eds) (1991), Mediated learning experience (MLE): theoretical,
psychosocial and learning implications, Freund Publishing House Ltd, Tel Aviv.
Feuerstein R. and Rand Y. (1974), “Mediated learning experience: an outline of proximal etiology for differential
development of cognitive functions”, Journal of International Council of Psychology No. 9(10), pp. 7-37.
Frost D. and O’ Donnell J. (2018), “Evaluating the essentials, the place of prosody in oral production”, in Volin J.
and Skarnitzl R. (eds), Methodology of testing and teaching, Cambridge Scholars Publishing, Newcastle-uponTyne, pp. 228-59.
Galaczi E., Post B., Li A. and Graham C. (2011), “Measuring L2 English phonological proficiency: implications forlanguage assessment”, in Angouri J. et al. (eds), The impact of Applied Linguistics. Proceedings of the 44th Annual
Meeting of the British Association for Applied Linguistics, Warwick, British Association for Applied Linguistics,
pp. 67-72.
Goullier F. (2007), “Impact of the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages and the Councilof Europe’s work on the new European educational area“, in Council of Europe, The common European framework of reference for languages (CEFR) and the development of language policies: challenges and responsibilities.
Intergovernmental Language Policy Forum, Strasbourg, 6-8 February 2007, Report, Council of Europe Publishing,
Strasbourg, pp. 29-37, available at www.coe.int/en/web/common-european-framework-reference-languages/
documents, accessed 22 August 2021.
Halliday M. A. K. (1973), Explorations in the functions of language, Edward Arnold, London.
Halliday M. A. K. (1975), Learning how to mean: explorations in the development of language, Edward Arnold, London.
Halliday M. A. K. (1978), Language as social semiotic: the social interpretation of language and meaning, Edward
Arnold, London.
Halliday M. A. K. (1985), “Systemic background”, in Benson J. D. and Greaves W. S. (eds), Systemic perspectives on
discourse. Vol. 1: Selected theoretical papers from the Ninth International Systemic Workshop, Ablex Publishing,
Norwood NJ, pp. 1-15.
Halliday M. A. K. (1989), Spoken and written language, Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Harding L. (2013), “Pronunciation assessment”, in Chapelle C. A. (ed.), The encyclopedia of applied linguistics,
Blackwell, Oxford, pp. 4708-13.
Herdina P. and Jessner U. (2002), A dynamic model of multilingualism: changing the psycholinguistic perspective,
Multilingual Matters, Clevedon, Somerset, UK.
Hershatter A. and Epstein M. (2010), “Millennials and the world of work: an organization and management
perspective”, Journal of Business Psychology No. 25, pp. 211-23.
Horner D. (2010), Le CECRL et l’évaluation de l’oral: Anglais, Belin, Paris.

Page 44 3 Enriching 21st-century language education

Horner D. (2013), “Towards a new phonological control grid”, in Galaczi E. D. and Weir C. J. (eds), Exploring language
frameworks. Proceedings of the ALTE Kraków Conference, Studies in Language Testing: Vol. 36, UCLES/Cambridge
University Press, Cambridge, pp. 187-204.
Horner D. (2014), “And what about testing pronunciation? A critical look at the CEFR pronunciation grid and a
proposal for improvement”, in Rupp L. M. and van den Doel R. (eds), Pronunciation matters, University of Utrecht.
Hymes D. H. (1972/1986), “Models of the interaction of language and social life”, in Gumperz J. J. and Hymes D. H.
(eds), Directions in sociolinguistics: The ethnography of communication, Holt, Rinehart and Winston, New York,
pp. 35-71. Reprinted 1986 in Gumperz J. J. and Hymes D. H. (eds), Directions in sociolinguistics, Basil Blackwell,
Oxford, pp. 52-65.
Isaacs T. and Trofimovich P. (2012), “Deconstructing comprehensibility: identifying the linguistic influences onlistener L2 comprehensibility ratings”, Studies in Second Language Acquisition No. 34(3), pp. 475-505.
Isaacs T., Trofimovich P. and Foote J. A. (2018), “Developing a user-oriented second language comprehensibility
scale for English-medium universities”, Language Testing No. 35(2), pp. 193-216.
Ivkovic D. and Lotherington H. (2009), “Multilingualism in cyberspace: conceptualising the virtual linguistic
landscape”, International Journal of Multilingualism No. 6(1), pp. 17-36.
Jørgensen J. N. (2010), Languaging: nine years of poly-lingual development of young Turkish-Danish grade school
students, Copenhagen Studies in Bilingualism: the Køge Series, No. K15-16, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen.
Kolb E. (2016), Sprachmittlung: Studien zur Modellierung einer komplexen Kompetenz [Linguistic mediation: Studies
to model a complex competence], Münchener Arbeiten zur Fremdsprachen-Forschung, Waxmann, Münster.
Kramsch C. (1993), Context and culture in language teaching, Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Kramsch C. (1997), “The privilege of the nonnative speaker”, PMLA-Publications of the Modern Language Association,
No. 112, pp. 359-69.
Kramsch C. (ed.) (2002), Language acquisition and language socialization: ecological perspectives, Continuum,
New York.
Lado R. (1961), Language testing, Longman, London.
Lantolf J. P. and Poehner M. (2014), Sociocultural theory and the pedagogical imperative in L2 education: Vygotskian
praxis and the research/practice divide, Routledge, New York.
Larsen-Freeman D. (2011), “A complexity theory approach to second language development/acquisition”, inAtkinson D. (ed.) Alternative approaches to second language acquisition, Routledge, New York, pp. 48-72.
Larsen-Freeman D. (2017), “Complexity theory: The lessons continue”, in Ortega L. and Han Z. H. (eds), Complexity
theory and language development: In celebration of Diane Larsen-Freeman, John Benjamins, Amsterdam andPhiladelphia, pp. 11-50.
Larsen-Freeman D. and Cameron L. (2008), Complex systems and applied linguistics, Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Larsen-Freeman D. and Todeva E. (2021), “A sociocognitive theory for plurilingualism: Complex dynamic systems
theory”, in Piccardo E., Lawrence G. and Germain-Rutherford A. (eds), Routledge handbook of plurilingual language
education, Routledge, London and New York, pp. 209-24.
Lau S. M. C. and van Viegen S. (eds) (2020), Plurilingual pedagogies: Critical and creative endeavors for equitablelanguage (in) education, Springer International Publishing, New York.
Leppänen, S., and Peuronen, S. (2012), “Multilingualism on the internet”, in Martin-Jones M., Blackledge A. andCreese A. (eds), The Routledge handbook of multilingualism, Routledge, London, pp. 384-402.
Lotherington H. and Jenson J. (2011), “Teaching multimodal and digital literacy in L2 settings: New literacies,
new basics, new pedagogies”, Annual Review of Applied Linguistics No. 31, pp. 226-46.
Luke C. (2005), “Cyber-schooling and technological change: Multiliteracies for new times”, in Cope B. and Kalantzis
M. (eds), Multiliteracies: Lit learning, Routledge, London and New York, pp. 77-98.
Lüdi G. (2015), “Monolingualism and multilingualism in the construction and dissemination of scientific know­
ledge”, in Jessner-Schmid U. and Kramsch C. (eds), The multilingual challenge: Cross-disciplinary perspectives,
Mouton de Gruyter, Berlin, pp. 213-238.

Enriching the scope of language education Page 45

Lüdi G. (2016), “Language regime in the Swiss armed forces between institutional multilingualism: the dominanceof German, English and situated plurilanguaging”, in Lüdi G., Höchle Meier K. and Yanaprasart Y. (eds), Managing
plurilingual and intercultural practices in the workplace, John Benjamins, Amsterdam.
MacSwan J. (2017), “A multilingual perspective on translanguaging”, American Educational Research Journal
No. 54(1), pp. 167-201.
Masciotra D., Roth W-M. and Morel D. (2007), Enaction: towards a Zen mind in learning and teaching, Sense
Publishers, Rotterdam.
Maturana H. R. (1988), “Reality: the search for objectivity or the quest for a compelling argument”, Irish Journalof Psychology No. 9, pp. 25-82.
Maturana H. R. (2000), “The nature of the laws of nature”, Systems Research and Behavioral Science No. 17, pp. 459-68.
May S. (2014), The multilingual turn: applications for SLA, TESOL and bilingual education, Routledge, New York.
Melo-Pfeifer S. (2015), “Blogs and the development of plurilingual and intercultural competence: report of aco-actional approach in Portuguese foreign language classroom”, Computer Assisted Language Learning No. 28(3),220-40.
Mignolo W. D. (1996), “Linguistic maps, literary geographies, and cultural landscapes: languages, languaging,and (trans)nationalism”, Modern Language Quarterly No. 57, pp. 181-96.
Moyer A. (2013), Foreign accent: the phenomenon of non-native speech, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Muñoz C. and Singleton D. (2011), “A critical review of age-related research on L2 ultimate attainment”, Language
Teaching No. 44(1), pp. 1-35.
North B. (2000), The development of a common framework scale of language proficiency, Peter Lang, New York.
North B. (2014), The CEFR in practice, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
North B. and Piccardo E. (2016), Developing illustrative descriptors of aspects of mediation for the common European
framework of reference (CEFR), Council of Europe Publishing, Strasbourg, available at https://rm.coe.int/common-­european-framework-of-reference-for-languages-learning-teaching/168073ff31, accessed 22 August 2021.
North B., Angelova M., Jarosz E. and Rossner R. (2018), Language course planning, Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Nunan D. (1989), Designing tasks for the communicative classroom, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Nunan D. (2004), Task-based language teaching, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Ollivier C. (2018), Towards a socio-interactional approach to foster autonomy in language learners and users, European
Centre for Modern Languages, Graz.
Pegrum M. (2010), “‘I link, therefore I am’: network literacy as a core digital literacy”, E-Learning and Digital MediaNo. 7(4), pp. 346-54.
Piccardo E. (2012), “Médiation et apprentissage des langues: Pourquoi est-il temps de réfléchir à cette notion?”[Mediation and learning languages: Why is it time to reflect on this notion?], ELA : Études de Linguistique Appliquée[Studies in Applied Linguistics], No. 167, pp. 285-97.
Piccardo E. (2014), From communicative to action-oriented: a research pathway, available at https://transformingfsl.­ca/
en/components/from-communicative-to-action-oriented-a-research-pathway/, accessed 22 August 2021 (French
version: Du communicatif à l’actionnel: un cheminement de recherche, CSC, Ottawa, at https://transformingfsl.ca/fr/
components/du-communicatif-a-lactionnel-un-cheminement-de-recherche/) within the website of the project
From Communicative to Action-Oriented: Illuminating the Approaches, funded by the Government of Ontario
and the Government of Canada/Canadian Heritage.
Piccardo E. (2016), Phonological scale revision process. Report, Council of Europe, Strasbourg, available at https://rm.coe.int/phonological-scale-revision-process-report-cefr/168073fff9, accessed 22 August 2021.
Piccardo E. (2017), “Plurilingualism as a catalyst for creativity in superdiverse societies: a systemic analysis”,
Frontiers in Psychology No. 8, DOI: doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.02169.
Piccardo E. (2018), “Plurilingualism: vision, conceptualization, and practices”, in Trifonas P. and Aravossitas T. (eds),
Handbook of research and practice in heritage language education, Springer International, New York, pp. 1-19.

Page 46 3 Enriching 21st-century language education

Piccardo E. (2019), “‘We are all (potential) plurilinguals’: plurilingualism as an overarching, holistic concept”, Cahiersde l’ILOB/OLBI Working Papers No 10, pp. 183-204, available at https://uottawa.scholarsportal.info/ottawa/index.
php/ILOB-OLBI/article/view/3825/3781, accessed 22 August 2021.
Piccardo E. (2021), “The mediated nature of plurilingualism”, in Piccardo E. et al. (eds), The Routledge handbookof plurilingual language education, Routledge, London and New York.
Piccardo E., Germain-Rutherford A. and Lawrence G (eds) (2021), The Routledge handbook of plurilingual language
education, Routledge, London and New York.
Piccardo E. and North B. (2019), The action-oriented approach: a dynamic vision of language education,
Multilingual Matters, Bristol.
Piccardo E. and North B. (2020), “Plurilingualism: a developing notion. Creating and validating descriptors for the
CEFR to describe plurilingual and pluricultural competence”, in Lau S. M. C. and Van Viegen S. (eds), Plurilingual
pedagogies: critical and creative endeavors for equitable language (in) education, Springer International Publishing,
New York, pp. 279-301.
Piccardo E., North B. and Goodier T. (2019), “Broadening the scope of language education: mediation, plurilingualism, and collaborative learning: the CEFR Companion volume”, Je-LKS (Journal of e-Learning and Knowledge
Society) No. 15(1), pp. 18-36.
Piccardo E. and Puozzo I. (2015), “From second language pedagogy to the pedagogy of ‘plurilingualism’: a possible
paradigm shift?/De la didactique des langues à la didactique du plurilinguisme: un changement de paradigme
possible?”, The Canadian Modern Language Review/La Revue Canadienne des langues vivantes No 71(4).
Prasad G. (2015), “Beyond the mirror towards a plurilingual prism: exploring the creation of plurilingual ‘identity
texts’ in English and French classrooms in Toronto and Montpellier”, Intercultural Education No. 26(6), pp. 497-514,
DOI: 10.1080/14675986.2015.1109775.
Prasad G. and Lory M. P. (2019), “Linguistic and cultural collaboration in schools: reconciling majority and minoritized language users”, TESOL Quarterly. DOI: 10.1002/tesq.560.
Puozzo Capron I. (2014), Le sentiment d’efficacité personnelle d’élèves dans un contexte plurilingue. Le cas du français
au secondaire en Vallée d’Aoste [The feeling of self-efficacy of students in a plurilingual context. The case of the
Aosta Valley], Peter Lang, Berne.
Rabbi S. and Canagarajah S. (2021), “Cosmopolitanism and plurilingual traditions: learning from South Asian andSouthern African practices of intercultural communication”, in Piccardo E., Germain-Rutherford A. and Lawrence
G. (eds), Routledge handbook of plurilingual language education, Routledge, London and New York, pp. 82-95.
Raimondi V. (2014), “Social interaction, languaging and the operational conditions for the emergence of observing”, Frontiers in Psychology, DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00899.
Reimann D. and Rössler A. (eds) (2013), Sprachmittlung im Fremdsprachenunterricht [Linguistic mediation inforeign language teaching], Narr Francke Attempto, Tübingen.
Richards J. C. (2013), “Curriculum approaches in language teaching: forward, central and backwards design”,
RELC Journal No. 44(1), pp. 5-33.
Richer J-J. (2014), “Conditions d’une mise en œuvre de la perspective actionnelle en didactique des langues[Conditions for an implementation of the action-oriented approach in language didactics]”, Recherche et pratiques
pédagogiques en langues de spécialité, No. 33(1), 33-49, available at: http://apliut.revues.org/4162, accessed
12 January 2021.
Richer J-J. (2017), “Quand le monde du travail peut venir en renfort de la didactique des langues” [When theworld of work can come to reinforce language pedagogy], Revue TDFLE La pensée CECR [TDFLE Review: The CEFR
Concept], No. 70, pp. 1-34, available at http://revue-tdfle.fr/articles/revue-70/36-quand-le-monde-du-travailpeut-venir-en-renfort-de-la-didactique-des-langues, accessed 22 August 2021.
Rüschoff B. (2018), “Authentic language use”, in Liontas J. I. (ed.), The TESOL encyclopedia of English language
teaching, Wiley-Blackwell, Hoboken NJ, pp. 1-7.
Schröder K. (2018), “Eight hundred years of modern language learning and teaching in the Germanspeaking countries of central Europe: a social history”, Language Learning Journal No. 46(1), pp. 28-39, DOI:
10.1080/09571736.2017.1382054.

Enriching the scope of language education Page 47

Séror J. (2021), “Plurilingualism in digital spaces”, in Piccardo E. et al. (eds), The Routledge handbook of plurilingual
language education, Routledge, London and New York, pp. 449-64.
Sinclair J. McH. and Coulthard M. (1975), An introduction to discourse analysis, Longman, Harlow, Essex.
Skehan P. (1998), A cognitive approach to language learning, Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Spinelli B. (2019), “Bridging teaching, learning and assessment processes through a reflective method: Implications
for plurilingual learning environments”, Cahiers de l’ILOB/OLBI Working Papers No. 10, pp. 249-72.
Stathopoulou M. (2015), Cross-language mediation in foreign language teaching and testing, Multilingual Matters,
Bristol.
Stern H. H. (1983), Fundamental concepts of language teaching, Oxford University Press, New York.
Swain M. (2006), “Languaging, agency and collaboration in advanced language proficiency”, in Byrnes H. (ed.),Advanced language learning: the contribution of Halliday and Vygotsky, Continuum, London and New York, pp. 95-108.
Swain M. and Lapkin S. (2013), “A Vygotskian sociocultural perspective on immersion education: the L1/L2 debate”,
Journal of Immersion and Content-Based Language Education No. 1(1), pp. 101-29.
Taylor S. and Snoddon K. (eds) (2013), “Plurilingualism in TESOL”, TESOL Quarterly No. 47(3).
Trim J. L. M. (2007), “The CEFR in relation to the policy aim of the Council of Europe”, in Council of Europe, The
Common European framework of reference for languages (CEFR) and the development of language policies: challenges
and responsibilities, Intergovernmental Language Policy Forum, Strasbourg, 6-8 February 2007, Report, Councilof Europe, Strasbourg, pp. 48-9, available at www.coe.int/en/web/common-european-­framework-referencelanguages/documents, accessed 22 August 2021.
van den Branden K. (ed.) (2006), Task-based language education: from theory to practice, Cambridge University
Press, Cambridge.
van den Branden K., Bygate M. and Norris J. M. (eds) (2009), Task-based language teaching: a reader, John
Benjamins, Amsterdam.
van Ek J. A. (1975), The threshold level in a European unit/credit system for modern language learning by adults,
Council of Europe, Strasbourg.
van Lier L. (2004), The ecology and semiotics of language learning, Kluwer Academic, Dordrecht.
van Lier L. (2007), “Action-based teaching, autonomy and identity”, Innovation in Language Teaching and Learning
No. 1(1), pp. 1-19.
van Lier L. (2010), “The ecology of language learning: practice to theory, theory to practice”, Procedia – Social
and Behavioral Sciences No. 3, pp. 2-6.
Vygotsky L. S. (1986), Thought and language, A. Kozulin, trans. and ed., MIT Press, Cambridge MA.
Waters A. (2011), “Advances in materials design”, in Long M. H. and Doughty C. J. (eds), The handbook of language
teaching, Wiley-Blackwell, Malden MA and Oxford, pp. 311-26.
Webb N. (2009), “The teacher’s role in promoting collaborative dialogue in the classroom”, British Journal of
Educational Psychology No. 78(1), pp. 1-28.
Wertsch J. V. (1998), Mind as action, Oxford University Press, New York.
Wilkins D. A. (1976), Notional syllabuses, Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Willis J. (1996), A framework for task-based learning, Longman, Harlow, Essex.
Willis D. and Willis J. (2007), Doing task-based teaching, Oxford University Press, Oxford.

Page 48 3 Enriching 21st-century language education

Part I
CLASSROOM PRACTICE

INTRODUCTION TO PART I
Educational
strandCEFR
level

Foreignlanguages

Facilitating pluricultural space

Higher education

B1-B2

EnglishFacilitating communication in delicate
situations and disagreements(5 contexts)

B2-C1

SpanishA2-C2

EnglishArea and scales
Mediation
Chapter 2Mediation
Plurilingualism

Chapter 3

Mediating a text

Higher education

Mediating concepts(5 contexts)

Mediating communication

Adult education

Plurilingual comprehension(2 contexts)

SpanishBuilding on pluricultural repertoire
Building on plurilingual repertoire
Mediation
Chapter 4Mediating a text
Mediating communication

Chapter 5

Plurilingualism
Plurilingual comprehension

Secondaryeducation
Lower
secondary

A2/B1

EnglishB1/B2

FrenchSpanishA1/B1

GermanDutch

Mediation
Plurilingualism
Chapter 6

Mediating a text
Mediating communicationUppersecondary,vocational

B2
B1

English +French,Italian or
SpanishBuilding on plurilingual repertoire
Reaction to creative texts (including literature)
Reading as a leisure activity
Expressing a personal response to
creative texts (including literature)
Chapter 7

Analysis and criticism of creative
texts (including literature)Upper
secondary

B2

GermanEducational
strandCEFR
Level

Foreignlanguages

Uppersecondaryfrom A2
to B2/C1

EnglishCreative writing
Area and scales
Reaction to creative texts (including literature)
Chapter 8

Expressing a personal response to
creative texts (including literature)
Analysis and criticism of creative
texts (including literature)

Page 51

Area and scales

Educational
strandCEFR
level

Foreignlanguages

Secondaryeducation

A1-B2

EnglishSecondaryeducation

B1/B2

EnglishAdult education

A2/B1

EnglishOnline interaction
Mediation
Online conversation and discussion
Chapter 9

Goal-oriented online transactions and collaboration
Facilitating collaborative interaction with peers
Collaborating to construct meaning
Mediating a text
Online interaction
Mediation

Chapter 10

Plurilingualism
Facilitating collaborative interaction
Collaborating to construct meaning
Encouraging conceptual talkOnline interaction
Mediation

Chapter 11

Online conversation and discussion
Goal-oriented online collaboration
Facilitating collaboration with peersPart II contains 10 chapters on the use of the descriptors from the CEFR Companion volume in relation toclassroom teaching. The majority of the 10 contributions concern the secondary school context. The exceptions
are chapters 2 and 3 (higher education) and Chapter 11 (adult education), which each summarise case studies
in different contexts. Altogether, of the 20 case studies referred to in these 10 chapters, seven case studies are
situated in secondary education, 10 in higher education and three in the adult sector.
Often the descriptors inspired the development of tasks, and in other cases tasks and activities already plannedsuggested the relevance of certain descriptors. The first three studies (chapters 2 to 4) concern mainly mediation,with the second of these (Fonseca-Mora and González Davies) being in fact a summary of seven case studies
in different locations. Chapters 5 and 6 then focus on plurilingualism, while chapters 7 and 8 experiment with
the new descriptors for reacting to creative text (including literature). The final three chapters in this section,
chapters 9 to 11, then concern online interaction, as well as aspects of mediation.
What these contributions have in common is their demonstration that the incorporation of descriptors for the
relevant level(s) from a small selection of the CEFR Companion volume descriptor scales for mediation and relatedareas (online interaction, reactions to creative text and literature, plurilingual and pluricultural competence)
can have a very positive effect on task design, student engagement and therefore both personal and language
development.

MEDIATION: CHAPTERS 2 TO 4
In Chapter 2 (Sánchez et al.) a group of Spanish scholars working at universities in Spain, England and Ireland set
out to explore ways in which applying the mediation construct presented in the CEFR Companion volume could
broaden the scope of language education. The project team focused mainly on two descriptor scales – Facilitating
pluricultural space and Facilitating communication in delicate situations and disagreements – and they designed
action-oriented tasks that shared a template of three phases: preparation, mediation and reflection. The tasks
were aimed at levels B1-B2 or B2-C1, depending on the context. The tasks and student feedback about them
are reported separately for the five contexts. The authors identified a number of open questions concerning

Page 52 3 Enriching 21st-century language educationassessment (e.g. Are mediating skills and strategies to be assessed separately or in an integrated fashion, withreceptive, productive or interactive skills?) and they hope that their project is illustrative and inspirational for otherpractitioners wishing to work on implementation of the new CEFR Companion volume mediation descriptors.
In Chapter 3, in reporting on the experimentation carried out in seven different contexts in Spain, Greece andSwitzerland, Fonseca-Mora and González Davies suggest that it has been the publication of the CEFR Companion
volume that has prompted an overt openness to fostering mediation in (language) education and that a
mediation paradigm shift is connected to the urgent need for an educational focus on processes that develop
pluricultural and plurilingual competences. The main aim of their project was to document the potential shift inbeliefs, perceptions and performance related to mediation skills through experimentation with action-oriented,
problem-solving tasks that enhance plurilingual language education through social and emotional interaction.
The classroom tasks varied from mediating to relay specific textual information, to plan a day out, to mediating
to design a care plan in a social work context. Data collected included teacher diaries and student narratives,
recordings, focus groups and an online survey. Shared findings suggested an increase in autonomy, mediationand collaboration as students learned to discuss and clarify together, identifying and summarising useful information, formulating an action plan and explaining complex ideas. Plurilingual competence became graduallyevident as students gradually became aware of their plurilingual identities. It was noticeable that some of thequieter students took a more leading role and performed above the standard previously observed.
Chapter 4 (Fanara) describes the exploitation of descriptors from the CEFR Companion volume for Mediatinga text and Mediating communication for Italian upper secondary school students in relation to project work
connected with a work experience internship at a regional airport. The project involved 14 hours of preparation, the 36-hour internship week and a 4-hour debriefing and evaluation session. The mediation training was
felt to be very useful when giving assistance to passengers in a range of situations. The use of digital tools toacquire the appropriate lexicon and phraseology, creation of glossaries and simulation of real-life exchanges
were considered to have played a crucial role in assuring the success of the project. Students all used two to
three foreign languages (English, French and Spanish), gaining spontaneity in the use of languages themselves
and in switching between them. As a result, both students and teachers want more opportunities at school todevelop their plurilingual and pluricultural competence and they recognise the merits of including mediation
activities in the curriculum.

PLURILINGUALISM: CHAPTERS 5 AND 6
In Chapter 5, Jentges et al. also describe a project week for secondary school students, this time focused
predominantly on plurilingual comprehension and the exploitation of similarities between related languages, in this case German and Dutch. The project introduced 14-year-old German secondary students tostrategies for receptive plurilingualism and methods of cultural and linguistic landscaping, which allowed
them to apply the strategies that they had developed in the classroom to an unknown urban environment
on a one-day excursion to the nearby Dutch city of Venlo. Evaluation of the effectiveness of the one-weekworkshop involved analysis of poster presentations, observations and a pre- and post-test that elicited theirplurilingual comprehension skills in a decoding task. The authors suggest that the descriptor scales for plurilingual competence in the CEFR Companion volume can be successfully integrated in innovative, authentic
and age-appropriate educational formats for young adults, but that plurilingual/cultural competence may
well be affected by individual factors such as metalinguistic awareness, past experience with other languages
and cultures, or tolerance of ambiguity.
Steinhuber continues the theme of plurilingualism in Chapter 6, which describes the introduction of plurilingual
lessons and a certificate of plurilingualism as an optional module of the national school-leaving examination forAustrian upper secondary vocational colleges. The certificate is based on a 15-minute oral examination, pitchedat B2 for the first foreign language and B1 for the second, which involves both Mediating a text and Mediating
communication, across languages. The initiative took place parallel to the development of the descriptors
published in the CEFR Companion volume, with which it shares many synergies. A website to support teachers
contains examples of classroom tasks that are therefore clearly linked to the descriptors for mediation and for
plurilingual and pluricultural competence in the CEFR Companion volume. Descriptors on alternating between
languages on the assessment grid for the oral examination inspired several on the CEFR scale for Building on
plurilingual repertoire. Steinhuber describes the development of the project as a whole, including teacher training
and teacher feedback on their introduction of plurilingual lessons. Positive experiences reported by teachers
as well as challenges are mentioned. So far, the introduction of the lessons has been more successful in termsof numbers than the actual examination itself, but what is encouraging is the fact that sceptics who actuallyexperience plurilingual teaching very often change their opinion and become very positive about it.

Classroom practice Page 53

LITERATURE: CHAPTERS 7 AND 8
Chapter 7 (Nuvoloni and Zanetti) is the first of two contributions from Italian upper secondary schools on the
exploitation of the CEFR Companion volume descriptors for reactions to creative text (including literature) torevitalise the teaching of literature, in this case German literature. The approach, leading students from their first
personal impressions to the reconstruction of the (sixth) sense of literature, focuses on the personal and emotional
response of the student to literature and on creative writing, with literature becoming the object of mediation:from the sign to the meaning and from the content to reflection on the form. The same steps were followed indifferent classes: reading a text, identifying the main topic and giving a first personal reaction; brainstorming anddiscussion; writing a short personal text with a similar topic, referring to one’s own experience; analysing in pairs
the most relevant elements of the text and discussing results with the class; producing in groups a worksheetwith the results of the analysis, plus researching further information; presenting a critical presentation of thetext; and self- and teacher evaluation. For the latter, Level B2 descriptors from the four relevant scales from the
CEFR Companion volume – Reading as a leisure activity; Expressing a personal response to creative texts (including
literature); Analysis and criticism of creative texts (including literature); and Creative writing – were used to create
a self-assessment and a teacher assessment grid.
In Chapter 8, Prioni continues with a similar theme and context, appreciation and analysis of literature andfilm, focusing on two descriptor scales: Expressing a personal response to creative texts (including literature) andAnalysis and criticism of creative texts (including literature). A number of classes were involved in the project, withproficiency levels ranging from around A2 to B2/C1. The overall aim was to demonstrate the practicability andefficacy of the descriptors in relation to enacting the official syllabus, in order to provide an example “template”
that might spark interest in the CEFR Companion volume descriptors for literature and disseminate their use
among fellow teachers. A three-phase approach was used: teacher-centred input, analysis and discussion; projectwork in small groups to develop critical thinking; and evaluation in the form of an interview, presentation andwritten quiz. As in the previous chapter, descriptors were used to create tools for self- and teacher assessment.
Students were given more space than normally in terms of choosing books to read and topics to present. This
generated a more motivated approach to literature, as learners expressed their appreciation and opinions
freely and were assessed on their ability to do so. Outcomes evolved in quite a natural way with a few students
who had started as rather sceptical readers discovering they actually enjoyed literature, leading to much better
results being achieved.

ONLINE INTERACTION: CHAPTERS 9 TO 11
The remaining three chapters in this part, chapters 9-11, all concern online environments and the use of descriptors from the two new scales for online interaction (Online conversation and discussion; and Goal-oriented onlinetransactions and collaboration), often in combination with the descriptors for mediating concepts (Facilitating
collaborative interaction with peers and Collaborating to construct meaning) and those for mediating a text. Chapter
9 gives an overview of a national project in Italy, involving the EU eTwinning platform and piloting of the new
descriptors for online interaction, Chapter 10 recounts in more detail the experience of one of the participatingteacher/researchers in that project in a CLIL (content and language integrated learning) setting, in this case
Geography, while Chapter 11 explores the possibilities of virtual reality (VR) to supplement the classroom in an
adult education context in Switzerland.
In Chapter 9, Langé et al. briefly describe a project carried out in selected primary, middle and upper secondary
schools in nine regions of Italy, in which teachers were asked to plan and trial activities in their classes involving
online CLIL-oriented tasks, with a focus on English – though other languages were involved as well. The majorityof the projects were carried out within eTwinning projects, taking advantage of a large range of web tools, digital
media and social networking for social communication, intercultural exchanges and language learning. Examplesof resources exploited in different projects included Google Slides, web tools for “fake WhatsApp chat”, WebGIS
and the TwinSpace email and forum. As a contribution to the process of piloting the new CEFR descriptors, theaim was to create a community of practice of some 20 teachers who would explore the possibilities offered by
the descriptors for online interaction for levels A1 to B2. Teachers observed and monitored their students’ online
interactions through logs, diaries, video recording, note-taking etc., and many of them created tailor-maderubrics or grids to observe and/or assess the students’ online interaction through the social media and network
concerned. Feedback showed a positive impact of the interweaving between formal and informal learning on thelearning and teaching process, with students finding it engaging and fun to “really interact” online with their peers.
Chapter 10 (Abbate) provides detail about one of these projects, in the context of bilingual classes following theCambridge IGCSE (International General Certificate of Secondary Education) Geography syllabus. This project

Page 54 3 Enriching 21st-century language education

aimed at building transversal skills through action-oriented, problem-solving tasks that involved activities
described in several categories of CEFR Companion volume descriptors (online interaction, mediation andplurilingual competence). All the tasks were organised in three phases: (a) preparation: small groups deciding
how to approach the task; (b) swap: each student explaining something, reacting to others’ explanations andopinions; (c) debate: structured online discussion. They often involved mediating a text, as learners reported on(authentic) source materials and almost always involved mediating concepts, as learners facilitated collaborativeinteraction and managed interaction in order to collaborate to construct meaning and to encourage conceptual talkas they followed up and discussed each other’s ideas. Shared and discussed with learners in the pre-task phase,the descriptors served not only to plan teaching and learning but also as awareness-raising and self-assessment
instruments. Code switching with the language of schooling was used in a principled way, and in some of thetasks a fully plurilingual approach was adopted, in which all the languages present in the classroom (including
those of the eTwinning project partners and exchange students) were used as a source of mutual understanding.
Saurer, in Chapter 11, discusses the use of the descriptors for online interaction and mediation in the context ofa project structured in three phases: (a) experimenting with VR using Google Cardboard and the learners’ own
mobile phones to deliver VR simulations, (b) providing supplementary online activities related to a coursebook,and (c) the design of classroom tasks developed from the descriptors for online. In the VR sessions, students
interacted in English with avatars of virtual doctors and pharmacists. The online materials, which were presented
in a learning management system and complemented by WhatsApp chat groups, doubled the amount of time
per week that the students devoted to their language learning. The classroom tasks were trialled in a pilot ofmodest size. They concerned online postings related to the descriptors for Online conversation and discussion andplanning an event through Goal-oriented online collaboration. The CEFR Companion volume is stated to provide
encouragement to reconsider the pedagogic approach and methods used. The VR experiments showed thatthe immersive experience increased the learners’ engagement, naturally stimulated mediation and enhanced
learning. Following a successful application for research funding, the VR experimentation of the project was
substantially expanded and further developed during 2019-20, but this is not reported on here.

Classroom practice Page 55

Chapter 2
THE ROLE OF CONTEXTUAL FACTORS IN THE
IMPLEMENTATION OF MEDIATION DESCRIPTORSWITH HIGHER EDUCATION LANGUAGE LEARNERS
Adolfo Sánchez Cuadrado, University of Granada, Spain;
Joaquín Cruz Trapero, University of Jaén, Spain;
Susana Lorenzo-Zamorano, University of Manchester, United Kingdom;
Marga Navarrete, University College London, United Kingdom; andLucía Pintado Gutiérrez, Dublin City University, Ireland

ABSTRACTThis paper describes a project which involved a community of practice of five higher-education foreign language
teachers at four different universities in three countries. The project had two main goals. Firstly, to broaden teaching practices in order to meet students’ needs and to help students become effective social agents. Secondly, toexplore new ways of applying the innovative conceptualisation of mediation that the CEFR Companion volume
offers to language learning. The project followed these steps:
1. After agreeing on the mediation descriptors to be used (from the scales Facilitating pluricultural space andFacilitating communication in delicate situations and disagreements), practitioners developed a mediation
task in each educational setting.
2. The mediation tasks were implemented in class and evaluated by students by means of an online
questionnaire.
3. The tasks were compared for similarities and differences in order to explore the impact that contextual
factors might have had in the implementation of the two main mediation descriptor scales selected forthe project, as well as others considered relevant to the tasks – such as Processing text or Facilitating collaborative interaction with peers.
4. Students’ and teachers’ perceptions of the mediation tasks were investigated for pedagogical effectiveness.
This case study report outlines the mediation tasks created and discusses the main findings of the project.
Firstly, the new mediation descriptors proved to be extremely useful to develop action-oriented tasks aimed at
improving students’ mediation skills and social agency when acting as intermediaries. Moreover, the students’
feedback showed very positive results in terms of the achievement of learning outcomes, students’ involvementin the tasks and the development of mediation skills. As reported by the participants in questionnaires, theirawareness of what mediation is, and what it implies, increased – thanks to the task. The tasks also helped thestudents enhance their ability in appreciating others’ ideas by showing empathy to eventually establish consensus.
Finally, all of the tasks created in the project were found to have a common design. This fact led to the conclusionthat this design may be used as a template or task shell for future practitioners wishing to develop similar tasks.

RÉSUMÉ
La présente contribution décrit un projet qui a impliqué une communauté de pratique de cinq professeurs delangues étrangères de l’enseignement supérieur dans quatre universités différentes de trois pays. Le projet adeux objectifs principaux. Premièrement, élargir les pratiques d’enseignement afin de répondre aux besoins desétudiants et d’aider ces derniers à devenir des acteurs sociaux efficaces. Deuxièmement, explorer de nouvellesmanières d’appliquer la conceptualisation novatrice de la médiation que le Volume complémentaire du CECR
propose à l’enseignement des langues. Le projet a suivi les étapes suivantes : i) après s’être mis d’accord sur lesdescripteurs de médiation à utiliser (tirés des échelles Établir un espace pluriculturel et Faciliter la communication
dans des situations délicates et des désaccords), les enseignants ont développé une tâche de médiation danschaque cadre éducatif ; ii) les tâches de médiation ont été mises en œuvre en classe et évaluées par les étudiants au moyen d’un questionnaire en ligne ; iii) les tâches ont été comparées afin de trouver les similarités etles divergences dans le but d’explorer l’impact que les facteurs contextuels pourraient avoir eu dans la mise enœuvre des échelles de descripteurs sélectionnées pour le projet (ainsi que d’autres prises en considération en
raison de leur pertinence pour les tâches), comme Traiter un texte ou Faciliter la coopération dans les interactions

Page 57

avec des pairs ; iv) les perceptions des élèves et des enseignants sur les tâches de médiation ont été examinées
pour en vérifier l’efficacité pédagogique.
Ce rapport d’étude de cas présente les tâches de médiation créées et les principales conclusions du projet. D’abord,les nouveaux descripteurs de médiation se sont révélés extrêmement utiles pour développer des tâches selon
une perspective actionnelle qui visaient à améliorer les compétences en médiation des étudiants et à renforcer
leur rôle d’acteurs sociaux agissant en tant qu’intermédiaires. De plus, les réactions des étudiants ont amenédes conclusions très positives en ce qui concerne les résultats d’apprentissage, d’implication des étudiants dansles tâches et de développement des compétences en médiation. Comme on peut le voir grâce au questionnaire
rempli par les participants, leur conscience de ce qu’est la médiation et de ce qu’elle implique a augmenté grâceà la tâche. Les tâches ont aussi aidé les étudiants à améliorer leur capacité d’apprécier les idées des autres enmontrant de l’empathie avant d’arriver à un consensus. Enfin, une conception pédagogique commune a été
trouvée dans toutes les tâches créées au cours du projet, ce qui permet de conclure que cette conception peutêtre utilisée comme modèle ou patron pour les enseignants qui souhaitent développer des tâches similaires.

2.1. INTRODUCTION
This project explores the implementation of the new mediation descriptors set out in the updated CEFR
Companion volume and its preliminary version (Council of Europe 2018, 2020) in the creation of mediation tasks
for foreign language learning in higher-education settings. The project was designed by five foreign language
teachers who attended the Companion Volume Launching Conference in Strasbourg in May 2018, where they
took part in one of the discussion groups focusing on the possible implications of the CEFR Companion volume
for foreign language teaching and learning.
All five teachers shared the same general educational setting (i.e. foreign language learning – Spanish or English –at a higher education institution) and they all agreed about the potential of the new mediation descriptors forthe development of their students’ language proficiency and social agency. However, they were concerned about
the implications that contextual factors – such as the students’ expectations about mediation, the institutions’already-established curriculum and/or teaching practices or teachers’ own pedagogical beliefs and practices –might have when developing mediation tasks in their settings.
As a result, the case study outlined in this paper was designed following the aims and methodology explained
below.
STAGE 1. All practitioners agreed upon a common set of mediation descriptors relevant to their students (seethe section Project description below). These were to be used at each institution to develop one mediation
task. At the time of the case study, the practitioners’ educational settings were the University of Jaén (Spain),the University of Manchester (UK), Dublin City University (Ireland) and University College London (UCL) (UK).
(Two of the teachers were then at UCL, but shortly afterwards one started teaching at the University of Granada,
Spain.) Therefore, four tasks were developed, all of which had a similar target population, although designed by
the teachers concerned to take into account the specific academic profiles and needs of their students.
STAGE 2. Each task was trialled in its setting and student feedback was collected through an online questionnaire.
Some tasks also involved carrying out informal classroom observations during implementation.
STAGE 3. After the trialling, the four tasks were compared for similarities and differences in terms of instructional
design, planning, layout and observable outcomes.
STAGE 4. Based on students’ feedback and after comparing the tasks, conclusions were drawn as to how beneficial
the tasks were for the students’ linguistic and communicative development and to what extent the educational
context had had an impact on the design of the tasks.
What follows is a short description of the four educational settings involved in the project.
In the case of the University of Jaén, the mediation task was piloted in two different groups (14 students intotal). Both involved Spanish students of EFL (English as a Foreign Language) who had been previously screened
through entry tests to be placed in groups with approximately the same level of competence (Group 1 = 8 B2
students and Group 2 = 6 C1 students).
At the University of Manchester, the task was aimed at 77 post A-Level students in their first year at university.
Students had previously studied Spanish at school, generally for four to five years, and had, de facto, a low
to standard B1 level. These students were mostly doing either a Single Honours degree or different combinations of Joint Honours (two subjects in their degree, e.g. French and Spanish, Film Studies and Spanish).

Page 58 3 Enriching 21st-century language education

The session was included in one of the core components of the course, Integrated Skills. This course runs
for two terms and has three weekly contact hours.
At Dublin City University, the 11 students involved in the study were pursuing a Bachelor degree, one of them taking
Applied Language and Translation Studies. These students devoted a full semester (2 hours a week for 12 weeks)
to work on advanced oral skills (B2) in a final-year module called Intercultural Language Skills, which is conductedin the target language. All the students (whose L1 was English for the most part) had studied Spanish as a foreign
language for three to seven years in formal educational settings (university, or university and secondary school).
Finally, at University College London, participants were in the second year of their university degree with a B2
average level of proficiency in Spanish. The majority of these students were doing a Spanish and Latin American
Studies degree, but some of them were studying for other degrees offered by the University. The session was
included in one of the core components of the course: Spanish Grammar and Communicative Skills. This course
runs for two terms, with one 2-hour session a week, giving a total of 40 sessions. Five classes participated in theexperiment, with about 10 students per class.

2.2. PROJECT DESCRIPTIONAs mentioned in the introduction, this project was based on the belief that the more comprehensive approach
to mediation proposed by the CEFR Companion volume offers a great opportunity for higher-education practitioners to implement it by developing tasks that work on Mediating texts, Mediating concepts and Mediating
communication, all of which are of paramount importance in today’s society. The five practitioners involved
agreed that, although the first two types of mediation might be present in the tasks designed for this project,
only two descriptor scales of mediation descriptors were to be used as a springboard for the development of
the tasks, as shown below.
Facilitating pluricultural space (Companion volume 2018: 123, and 2020: 114-15)
Can act as mediator in intercultural encounters, contributing to a shared communication culture
by managing ambiguity, offering advice and support, and heading off misunderstandings.
C1

Can anticipate how people might misunderstand what has been said or written and help tomaintain positive interaction by commenting on and interpreting different cultural perspectives
on the issue concerned.
Can exploit knowledge of sociocultural conventions in order to establish a consensus on how toproceed in a particular situation unfamiliar to everyone involved.
Can, in intercultural encounters, demonstrate appreciation of perspectives other than his/her own
normal worldview, and express him/herself in a way appropriate to the context.
Can clarify misunderstandings and misinterpretations during intercultural encounters, suggesting
how things were actually meant in order to clear the air and move the discussion forward.

B2

Can encourage a shared communication culture by expressing understanding and appreciation ofdifferent ideas, feelings and viewpoints, and inviting participants to contribute and react to eachother’s ideas.
Can work collaboratively with people who have different cultural orientations, discussing similarities
and differences in views and perspectives.
Can, when collaborating with people from other cultures, adapt the way he/she works in order tocreate shared procedures.
Can support communication across cultures by initiating conversation, showing interest andempathy by asking and answering simple questions, and expressing agreement and understanding.
Can act in a supportive manner in intercultural encounters, recognising the feelings and different
world views of other members of the group.

B1

Can support an intercultural exchange using a limited repertoire to introduce people from different
cultural backgrounds and to ask and answer questions, showing awareness that some questions
may be perceived differently in the cultures concerned.
Can help to develop a shared communication culture, by exchanging information in a simple way
about values and attitudes to language and culture.

Classroom practice Page 59

Facilitating communication in delicate situations and disagreements (CEFR Companion volume 2018: 125,and 2020: 116-17)
Can demonstrate sensitivity to different viewpoints, using repetition and paraphrase to demonstratedetailed understanding of each party’s requirements for an agreement.
C1

Can formulate a diplomatic request to each side in a disagreement to determine what is central totheir position, and what they may be willing to give up under certain circumstances.
Can use persuasive language to suggest that parties in disagreement shift towards a new position.
Can elicit possible solutions from parties in disagreement in order to help them to reach consensus,
formulating open-ended, neutral questions to minimise embarrassment or offence.
Can help the parties in a disagreement better understand each other by restating and reframing
their positions more clearly and by prioritising needs and goals.

B2

Can formulate a clear and accurate summary of what has been agreed and what is expected fromeach of the parties.
Can, by asking questions, identify areas of common ground and invite each side to highlightpossible solutions.
Can outline the main points in a disagreement with reasonable precision and explain the positionsof the parties involved.
Can summarise the statements made by the two sides, highlighting areas of agreement andobstacles to agreement.

B1

Can ask parties in a disagreement to explain their point of view, and can respond briefly to their
explanations, provided the topic is familiar to him/her and the parties speak clearly.
Can demonstrate his/her understanding of the key issues in a disagreement on a topic familiar to
him/her and make simple requests for confirmation and/or clarification.

This choice was based on the thought that the concept of educating speakers to become social agents is still agrey area in the teaching of foreign languages. Affective factors, the use of real-world scenarios and the elucidation of different strategies key to the mediation process were some of the common features in the proposed
tasks. Although all the tasks involved mediating only in the target language, cross-linguistic mediation variantsof the same activities were also possible. Besides, the tasks sometimes made use of students’ L1 with either ofthe following goals:
to help set the communicative context;
to help students reflect on the conversational gambits and communicative strategies needed to act as mediators.

Finally, a few other descriptor scales from the CEFR Companion volume were also taken into consideration whendeveloping the tasks, as they proved relevant to the contextual factors of the communicative situations. Theseother scales, exemplified in the task description below, included Processing text in speech, Facilitating collaborativeinteraction with peers, Encouraging conceptual talk and Collaborating to construct meaning.

2.2.1. Tasks
Below is a description of the tasks and their methodological phases.

2.2.1.1. University of Jaén
The chosen descriptors were implemented in two different ways: firstly, they were used as the departure point
to envisage and design a meaningful task, and secondly, they were used to check prior knowledge of the participants on their understanding of mediation. The descriptors (B2 and C1 descriptors from the chosen scales shown
above) were useful to target the range of skills that could be expected from the participants. Consequently, they
helped to create a task that matched the level of the participants. In our opinion, due to their can-do nature,
the descriptors also lend themselves well to assessment purposes. Nonetheless, no assessment was consideredin this particular task.
We designed a 90-minute task for the two previously mentioned groups (at levels B2 and C1 respectively). Bothgroups were divided into three subgroups. The task was mainly co-operative (given the nature of mediation
descriptors), although it also included individual and student-to-class dynamics.

Page 60 3 Enriching 21st-century language education

Phase 1 (Preparation). A warm-up phase containing several activities was introduced before the task itself.
Firstly, students were asked to discuss different questions about mediation, from simple (e.g. “Do you know what
mediation is?”) to more complex (e.g. “Do you think there may be different types of mediation?”).
After this, the class was divided into the three subgroups, which were asked to sort a set of mediation descriptors
from all levels (A1-C2) into the correct sequence, as found in the original CEFR Companion volume scales. Afterthe initial discussion in groups, the class came together and students were presented with some agreement anddisagreement markers in English which were of potential relevance to the jumbled sentences task, which can also
be useful for further task designs and for assessment purposes. Students then completed online some easy exercises
on such markers on their own with their laptops and smartphones. At this stage, some interesting reflections arose,
as for example the way modality is used to express tentativeness and speculation, which are the most frequent
expressions of agreement and disagreement, or how explicitly verbal empathy depends on a mastery of the
vocabulary related to the topic discussed. However, not much emphasis was put on either vocabulary or grammar.
Phase 2 (Mediation). At this stage we carried out the task itself. Due to the nature of the descriptors used todesign the task, we came to the conclusion that it would be a good idea to base the task on a controversial
topic on which participants might bring in different opinions. Thus, we decided to create a task based on theunconstitutional independence referendum promoted by some separatist parties in October 2018 in Catalonia,
a region of Spain. By the time at which the task was carried out, the aftermath of the referendum was stillpresent in Spanish media and in Spanish society in general. The topic was likely to elicit very different and quite
emotional responses.
At this phase, each class was again divided into three subgroups. Students watched some videos about theunconstitutional referendums presenting different types of opinions and read some short newspaper articles,
also showing different opinions. Then they were presented with a description of the situation:
Due to the current problems between the Spanish Central Government and the Regional Government of Catalonia,
there are differences of opinion within your company on whether you should move the location of your headquarters
to somewhere else.
After you are given a flashcard describing your position in this conflict, make a list of reasons to support your argumentwith the rest of the partners from your group. Please note that you may need to support a point of view you don’t
really agree with but for which it is necessary to find arguments. Then, join a group-to-group discussion in order toreach a general agreement.
Remember that 1) during the task you must reach a final decision within the allotted time and that 2) there will be nochairperson leading the meeting.

Then, roles were distributed for each of the three groups: Group 1 would be the representatives of the Accounts
Department (in favour of a change of location); Group 2 would be the representatives of the Human Resources
Department (against moving the company); and Group 3 would be the representatives of the Export Departmentof the company (without a fixed position). Each role was outlined with some facts to support the proposed
position, and they were accompanied by the following paragraph:
You must reach consensus with the rest of the departments in your company. You know that the problem is complex,
and therefore its solution will be complex too. Notice that you will have to reach an agreement within the allotted
time. In order to do this, you should give arguments supporting your point of view, propose solutions to problems
likely to arise during the debate and participate actively in the discussion.

After the roles were distributed, the students were allowed some time to prepare their arguments and theunguided debate began. The roles were distributed randomly and participants did not have the opportunity tobrainstorm the priorities of other stakeholders.
Phase 3 (Reflection). As a follow-up, students were asked to write a one-page report on the task, which they wereallowed to finish at home. This report contained the following points: a description of the problem presented
and its origin; the arguments for and against that each group had posed; critical discussion of the most delicate
points of the debate; a description of how these delicate questions were overcome, and the final agreement
and conclusions drawn. In addition, students were asked to complete an online survey to check their opinion
on the task.

2.2.1.2. University of Manchester
The learning task was part of a unit entitled “The role of indigenous communities in global conservation: theTz’utujil people”. This unit was based on an action-oriented and interdisciplinary approach directed towards
enabling learners to act in a real-life scenario, focusing on key environmental and cultural issues affecting thecommunity of San Pedro La Laguna in Guatemala, which has forbidden the use of plastic bags.

Classroom practice Page 61

The final task consisted of a mediation situation where students with previously assigned roles had to present
their own case and try to understand each other’s positions to ideally come to an agreement. It was therefore
a collaborative task undertaken in a content and language integrated learning (CLIL) context. The goal of thetask was to familiarise students with the mediation process and contribute to the United Nations Sustainable
Development Goals (SDGs) for increasing social and environmental well-being on earth, which is also one of
the core goals of the University of Manchester.
The design process was determined by a needs analysis based on (a) the two sets of descriptors chosen forthe project; (b) the institutional/UN goal of promoting social responsibility; and (c) certain linguistic forms andfunctions useful to facilitate those needs. It should be noted, however, that linguistic accuracy was not to be thepriority. Regarding the community of practice involved in the task, two other tutors helped implement the unit.
For this purpose, a briefing session was organised in which these tutors had the opportunity to ask questions
and made suggestions to improve the set of tasks provided.
Phase 1 (Preparation). Before the first session, students were asked to read a starter article on the decision, writtenby the mayor of the Mayan town San Pedro La Laguna (Guatemala). The article introduced a ban on plastics in
response to the plastic waste threatening the survival of Lake Atitlán and the surrounding communities. Apartfrom the importance of this ban from an environmental point of view, this measure also involved going back to
the use of traditional materials, such as handmade napkins and plantain leaves instead of plastic bags, which
also expanded employment opportunities for Indigenous women.
In order to increase awareness of the importance of the cultural side of this debate, students were also required towatch a brief video on the existing mechanisms to protect the rights of Indigenous peoples. In addition, to facilitate
understanding of the concept and process of mediation, both students and participant tutors were provided withthe link to the same practical mediation case, based on a late payment dispute, that the UCL team had includedin the first part of their case study (see section 2.2.1.4 below for a brief summary of the content of the video).
In the first session, students first spent some time discussing the article and the video. This was then followed bya series of activities to familiarise them with the process of mediation and to practise active listening in relation
to the issues at stake, as well as other mediation strategies such as empathising and positive response. During
the last five minutes students had to agree on their roles for the mediating task for the next session.
Phase 2 (Mediation). Students were given some time to discuss their strategy and points of view in groups
according to their roles. The roles were the following: (a) representatives of the tourism industry; (b) a collectiveof Indigenous women; (c) the Guatemala Chamber of Commerce; (d) representatives of the plastic industry; (e)mediators. This tuning-in discussion was followed by the final mediation task.
Phase 3 (Reflection). After the mediation task, students were asked to evaluate the task via a Google questionnaire and to informally discuss their views on their experience in the next session.

2.2.1.3. Dublin City University
The intended outcome of the task was that foreign language learners would learn how to facilitate a pluricultural
space and how to promote accessibility to information, through activities mostly based on audio description.
Learners did not engage with their own communication needs or ideas, but rather with those of the party forwhom they were mediating: the blind or visually impaired community.
The objectives of the task were that learners would:
become aware of the potential difficulties in conveying a message for the blind and visually impaired and realise thechallenges of acting as a mediator;
recognise the benefit of working as a team with other communities, and of co-constructed meanings (looking forsolutions, agreeing on a final product, facing and defusing any delicate situations and tensions that may arise in thecommunication process, etc.);
use the resources available during the session (language, visual tools, critical analysis, communication strategies,
negotiating skills) and agree on adequate solutions in order to solve a delicate situation in a communication context
that involves inequality.

Phase 1 (Preparation). Learners worked in pairs: one described a picture in their L1 and the other person had
to draw it. They then compared the pictures (the original and that produced by student B). They examined what
mistakes (if any) they could spot, including sense of space, missing details and proportions. Right afterwards,
learners switched roles, but this second time the description was done in L2. They then compared their pictures
and analysed whether the issues in the communication in L1 and L2 had been similar (or not) and why thismight have been the case. This led to a discussion of the challenges of transmitting and receiving information

Page 62 3 Enriching 21st-century language education

in L1 and L2, in relation to the relevance of such concepts as awareness raising, empathy, relevance of details,
relevance of sensitivity and the role of a good explanation. Learners used intralinguistic, cross-linguistic andsemiotic mediation, which involved not only social and cultural competences but also plurilingual competence.
Phase 2 (Mediation). Firstly students worked with a film trailer, with student A acting as a blind person (listening
only to the audio from the trailer) while student B watched the trailer fully. They then compared whether they
had both understood the same from the trailer and what information student A might have missed. Student
B needed to provide a basic audio description for student A according to his/her needs. Secondly the learners
reflected on the concept of mediation according to the CEFR Companion volume and discussed whether theyagreed with it or not. Thirdly, students analysed three different examples of audio descriptions in English (The
Lion King; Frozen; Shame) and then analysed and debated in groups which element each person had focusedon according to the nature of the film, the audience, etc. Finally, learners audio-described in their L2. They
worked collaboratively in groups of three where students A and B had English as their L1 while student C (whoacted as the blind person) had Spanish as L1. After listening to the trailer, student C explained what they had
understood. Students A and B took into account not only the communication gaps that they needed to addressin order to improve communication for student C, but also the challenges (vocabulary, short phrasing, etc.) thismight present in their foreign language. They then produced an audio description that would hopefully caterfor those needs expressed by student C. Finally, students A and B renegotiated a modified audio description if
needed after student C gave feedback.
Phase 3 (Reflection). Learners discussed what types of difficulty they had come across in the audio descriptiontasks; how familiar people are with accessibility issues; and the relevance of mediation. Learners also wrote anindividual reflection (150 words) on which of the learning objectives had been most relevant, and why. The
seven objectives of the tasks were: (1) to facilitate communication to minority communities and become awareof accessibility possibilities; (2) to raise awareness about the difficulty of acting as a mediator; (3) to work withexpressions to argue, agree, discuss and solve conflicts when trying to reach a solution; (4) to promote the role oflanguage as a key instrument that allows the right to education and entertainment among minority communities;(5) to promote social inclusion, mutual understanding and professional development; (6) to engage in real-lifetasks; (7) to work on creativity, problem solving and mediating communication. Finally, students were asked tocomplete an online questionnaire on the mediation tasks carried out.

2.2.1.4. University College London
Finally, at UCL the mediation task had the following phases.
Phase 1 (Preparation). This consisted of a series of pre-tasks aimed at preparing students for the main task thatwould take place in the second phase. After a brief elicitation task on the topic area, a video about a practicalcase of mediation was watched and discussed in class. It was a real situation based on a disagreement between a
construction company and a client concerning the terms of a contract. The context was the scene of the meeting
between the conflicting parties, with two mediators helping them to reach an agreement. This was followed byan activity where students worked on expressions typically used in mediating roles to facilitate communicationin group work (participation monitor, facilitator, timekeeper, rapporteur, leader, etc.). All tasks focused on developing a better understanding of the concept of mediation, and more specifically, conflict resolution. Working
on relevant expressions when adopting these roles was also an objective of the session.
Phase 2 (Mediation). Students were presented with a controversial scenario: a letter from the university dean
informing students that all courses in the Spanish degrees were to be taught in Spanish from the following
year. Students worked in small groups adopting different roles while debating this issue. Some students acted
as university representatives, trying to convince the rest about the usefulness of the measure. Other students
acted as students against this decision. A final group of students acted as mediators without a fixed opinion,
who helped the other students reach a consensus.
Phase 3 (Reflection). This phase involved a written exercise where students reflected on their learning strategies,
and discussed their roles as well as how they felt about them. They also had the opportunity to comment on
new expressions learned. The final online questionnaire also encouraged reflection about what they had done
during the session.
Although the main mediation scale tackled was Facilitating communication in delicate situations and disagreements,
the preparation stage was also based on the descriptor scale Processing text in speech (for the video activity), since
students had to put together all relevant information from the practical case they had observed. Additionally,
descriptors from two more scales were used in this preparatory phase, as students also had to Collaborate toconstruct meaning, when they had to work out what expressions were used either by the conflicting parties orClassroom practice Page 63

the mediators. Encourage conceptual talk occurred when they had to come up with new expressions typicallyused by all mediation participants, as students had to elicit information from each other in order to complete
this preparatory task for the final role-play. In the mediation stage, the main scale used was to Facilitate communication in delicate situations and disagreements since students had to debate the new, and rather controversial,university policy.

2.2.2. Student feedback
As mentioned in each university setting, after the three phases and their corresponding activities were implemented, student feedback was collected by means of an online questionnaire in English (see the link provided
in the References section). This questionnaire was the same for the four settings. Here follows a summary of thestudents’ feedback in each setting.

2.2.2.1. University of Jaén
At Jaén most of the students were already familiar with the concept of mediation. We identified this familiarity
as a consequence of their generally high level of linguistic competence. Up to 78% of the students said thatthey had found the tasks extremely or very useful to gain awareness of the importance of mediation skills.
This apparent contradiction (i.e. initial familiarity v. finding tasks useful to gain awareness) is explained by thefact that, although the students were already familiar with the concept of mediation, they were not aware of
the fact that different types of mediation can be distinguished. Among the students, 92% reported having
enjoyed the tasks and 21% claimed that group work helped them advance faster through the mediation
process. Only one participant did not like the tasks proposed, due to lack of prior experience of complex
debates, and found the tasks stressful. It would be interesting, for future research, to look into the reasons
why certain participants disliked mediation tasks. As regards the integration of skills in the mediation tasks,
the mean values of the answers obtained showed that the students found the tasks useful chiefly when the
output involved oral production (mean score of 5 out of 6), while written production was perceived as moredifficult to integrate (mean score of 3.7 out of 6). This raises the question of whether all skills contribute to
the same extent during mediation.

2.2.2.2. University of Manchester
In Manchester, the number of questionnaires received was 42 out of 77, which means that the response rate was
54.5%. Most of the respondents said that they had a certain idea of what mediation was before they completed
the task. When asked about the usefulness of the tasks, the respondents said that the tasks had been especially
useful to practise and improve speaking and listening skills, turn-taking and facilitating communication indisagreements. As expected, the tasks were considered less useful to practise writing, reading, translation skills
and grammar structures. However, most students pointed out that, in terms of language learning, the research(involving reading and watching videos) and the actual debate were the most useful parts, and a good numberof them stated that they could not pinpoint any activity that had not helped them improve their language skills.
It is quite significant that 88.1% enjoyed working collaboratively; the comments highlighted the lack of conflictcreated by the mediation process and the opportunity “to speak uninterrupted” and “listen to other people’s
point of view”. The idea of “integration with peers” was also mentioned. Finally, on a scale of 6, the average
response to whether they had enjoyed the tasks in general was 4.8, and 4.1 when asked whether they would
like to do more on mediation skills.

2.2.2.3. Dublin City University
In Dublin, the questionnaires showed firstly that learners were not familiar with the concept of mediation (81.8%
claimed little or no familiarity) and secondly that the tasks were well received by all participants. All learners hadenjoyed both the task (63.6% very much; 36.4% extremely) and working collaboratively – particularly as it helped
to trigger critical thinking among learners, through exchanging and understanding of different opinions andperspectives. Learners regarded it as an innovative task, and would like to do more activities where they work
explicitly on mediation (45.5% very much; 36.4% extremely). The responses also showed that it was an extremely
useful task in which learners gained empathy and awareness of the relevance of mediation skills, turn-taking,translation skills and negotiating meaning, while they also found the task to be important (fairly to extremely)
in facilitating communication in disagreements. Finally, the questionnaire elicited important information on
how the mediation task and the students’ skill sets related: most participants rated the task as very to extremely
relevant to developing listening, speaking and writing skills; fairly to very important to language learning in
general, learning new expressions and practising grammar; with reading skills found to be somewhat to extremely

Page 64 3 Enriching 21st-century language education

important. Most students revealed that there was nothing in the task they did not enjoy. However, one of theparticipants found it a little confusing switching between Spanish and English in different parts of the task.

2.2.2.4. University College London
Finally, at UCL, the questionnaire was filled in by 30 participants. The results demonstrated an unexpectedlack of previous awareness of mediation, which students claimed to have gained by the end of the session. On
the contrary, there were no surprises in the scores given to each skill or feature as they seemed to match thelearning objectives of the tasks completed. For instance, the students were aware of the benefits for speaking
and turn-taking (because many tasks encouraged these skills). In addition, Facilitating communication in delicate
situations and being in somebody else’s shoes, as empathy, were considered key attributes for the developmentof mediation skills. It was reassuring that 92% of the students appreciated working collaboratively, which is an
essential working dynamic for these activities. Their reasons given can be summarised in what one student
reported: “It was very nice. It shows a lot about the personalities of people inside the class, as it highlights who’s
willing to reach an agreement.” Finally, it was encouraging to find out that they enjoyed their tasks and would
be happy to do more of this type of activity in the future. Therefore, participants not only understood the valueof the session and its benefits for language learning, but also for vital social purposes.

2.3. DISCUSSION
In each of the four academic settings where the mediation tasks were developed and implemented, the overall
perception by both students and practitioners was very positive. The opportunity of applying the new CEFR
Companion volume descriptors as part of an inter-institutional project was also highly beneficial for the five practitioners involved, as they were able to compare their teaching practices, co-construct methodological knowledge
and develop their own skills. Besides, they were able to come up with a set of mediation tasks that will prove usefulin their future classes. Last but not least, the descriptors proved useful for the alignment between different courses.
On the students’ part, the questionnaire elicited a very positive response to the tasks. Here follows a summaryof the perceived impact, the use of the new mediation descriptors and the lessons learned in each of the educational settings.
At the University of Jaén, participants perceived the tasks positively. Results showed that mediation tasks are,by nature, particularly useful in generating interaction and building collaborative dynamics. Moreover, thetasks proposed at the University of Jaén succeeded in expanding prior knowledge on mediation since the tasks
helped students to differentiate various types of mediation. As mentioned in the description of the project, in
the University of Jaén we used the descriptors from two scales: Facilitating pluricultural space and Facilitating
communication in delicate situations and disagreements. We used them as a warm-up activity to familiarise
students with the concept of mediation. Students found mediation tasks engaging while, from the perspectiveof the teachers, we started to explore the level of integration of the different skills in mediation tasks and thepossibilities of assessing mediation.
At the University of Manchester, the mediation activity was one of the highlights of the academic year for
students, as confirmed by end-of-project and end-of-semester questionnaires. The project made students feel
responsible for what happened in the final session and therefore they generally took a very active role in preparing
for it. Attendance was particularly high in the sessions devoted to the mediating task and virtually all students– including those more reluctant to speak in open class activities – tried to participate in the discussion. Tutors
appreciated the fact that this set of activities greatly enhanced their role as facilitators and agreed that the twoelements that contributed to the success of the project were (a) the interdisciplinary nature of the starter article,
based on a real-case scenario, and (b) the fact that students were given more time than usual to prepare for the
final task. However, we felt that the coverage of the topics was not equally balanced and that the learning aim
in relation to the knowledge and awareness of Indigenous peoples could have been better addressed. Finally,
from the point of view of pragmatics, it was very interesting to notice the overall positive effect of minimallytraining students to actively listen to their peers, empathise with them and show respect even if in disagreement,using certain language forms to do so. It might well be that the high degree of participation in the discussion
previously noted was a direct result of the more structured and inclusive format that the mediation process
gives to simulations and role-plays, which can be claimed to be more in accordance with Anglo-Saxon culture.
In the case of Dublin City University, the task had a very positive overall impact on learners. They were extremelyinterested in the content of the task, new to most of them. The dynamic and collaborative nature of the activities
in each phase was highly attractive to learners as they got familiar not only with mediation but also with a new
set of skills needed for audio description, which was closely related to a real-world activity with disadvantaged

Classroom practice Page 65

communities. The main descriptor scales involved in this mediation task were Goal-oriented co-operation,
Processing text in speech, Facilitating collaboration with peers, Facilitating pluricultural space and Sociolinguistic
appropriateness and cultural repertoire, all at B2 level. The sociolinguistic and cultural focus of the task was tomake students aware of the needs of the blind as well as to train them in some practices to facilitate the access to
information by this community of language users. As to the lessons learned at this setting, in the task developed
it had been hoped to include the B2 descriptors from the scales Facilitating pluricultural space and Facilitating
communication in delicate situations, but in fact it proved challenging to relate Facilitating pluricultural space tothe scenario based on Facilitating communication in delicate situations. The nature of the particular task and also
the fact that students worked with multimodal material might have made it difficult to use specific descriptors.
In this respect, the lack of a specific scale that would describe Processing an audiovisual text in speech was felt.
An adaptation of the Sociolinguistic appropriateness and cultural repertoire scale to the blind (instead of the deaf
community and hard of hearing) would also be of particular interest as it raises awareness of caring for aspects
relevant to communication with the blind and the adaptation of register, and switches between registers.
Finally, at University College London, based on the participants’ feedback and the observation by the teacher/researcher in class, one can conclude that the set of activities were successful in two broad senses. Firstly, students became more familiar with the concept of mediation while working collaboratively on useful social andlinguistic skills. Secondly, they were pleased with their experience, they were aware of the skills that could beenhanced with this practice and they reported high levels of enjoyment while having learned something new.
Mediation proved an innovative medium for language learning, and students truly valued it. It was determinedthat this social and linguistic activity has a powerful potential and therefore that these materials could be used
as a reference template, or task shell, for other language teachers, as long as relevant amendments are madeto cater for each particular context.

2.4. CONCLUSION
The main goal attained by this project, as perceived by the five practitioners involved, was that it helped finetune the new mediation descriptors proposed by the CEFR Companion volume, in order to adapt them to four
different educational settings. Also, this was achieved by means of the co-operation of the five teachers, whodeveloped a small community of practice whose findings may be of use to other practitioners facing the same
pedagogical situation. Moreover, the project highlighted how important contextual factors may be when
implementing the new mediation descriptors, which links this project to the current overarching principles of
localising teaching practices and combining different teaching strategies, as proposed in the post-method era(Kumaravadivelu 1994). Mediation proved extremely beneficial to achieving these goals.
The mediation tasks developed initially operationalised the same mediation descriptors agreed upon by all
five practitioners but, in turn, differed to a certain extent in some of their components and learning outcomes.
However, it was found that all the tasks coincidentally shared a similar methodological structure of three phases:
1. A preparation phase, aimed at helping students reflect on the concept of mediation and providing themwith the linguistic scaffolding to carry out the mediation task/s.
2. The mediation phase per se, when students deployed their strategies and language resources to act as
mediators.
3. A reflection phase, in which students were asked to analyse their production and the whole learning situation in an attempt to help them become aware of the learning outcomes.
This structure is in line with that of the “learning scenarios” proposed by Piccardo and North (2019) for creating
mediation tasks. As mentioned above, some of the tasks developed for the project can be considered as “taskshells” to be reused as templates in other mediation activities.
The tasks also left some open questions about the way in which different skills may be integrated in mediation.
This relates to the question of the assessment of mediation, one of the major concerns that teachers and testdevelopers currently face when implementing the new conceptualisation of mediation to language teaching andassessment. Are mediating skills and strategies to be assessed separately or in an integrated fashion, together withreceptive, productive or interactive skills? To what extent can mediation be used as a mode of communication
to test the other three modes? Is task achievement the only criterion to be used when assessing a mediation
task? All these challenging questions remain to be answered.
To sum up, we strongly hope that this project is illustrative and inspirational for other practitioners wishing towork on the implementation of the new CEFR Companion volume mediation descriptors. It is intended as an
example of good teaching practice and as a co-operative endeavour accomplished by a group of practitioners.

Page 66 3 Enriching 21st-century language education

REFERENCES
The feedback questionnaire filled in by the students is available at https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1jXgOF-­
yUnGwaczFN3gaAuUq9-bzWso77wDU-6tUfkwg/edit, accessed 27 August 2021.
Council of Europe (2018), “Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: learning, teaching, assessment. Companion volume with new descriptors”, preliminary version, Council of Europe, Strasbourg. available athttps://rm.coe.int/cefr-companion-volume-with-new-descriptors-2018/1680787989, accessed 23 August 2021.
Council of Europe (2020), Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: learning, teaching, assessment – Companion volume, Council of Europe, Strasbourg, available at https://rm.coe.int/common-­europeanframework-of-reference-for-languages-learning-teaching/16809ea0d4, accessed 22 August 2021.
Kumaravadivelu B. (1994), “The postmethod condition: emerging strategies for second/foreign language teaching”,
TESOL Quarterly No. 28(1), pp. 27-48.
Piccardo E. and North B. (2019), The action-oriented approach. A dynamic vision of language education, Multilingual
Matters, Bristol.

Classroom practice Page 67

Chapter 3
CEFR MEDIATION STRATEGIES: TOWARDSA SOCIO-EMOTIONALLY ENHANCEDPLURILINGUAL LANGUAGE EDUCATIONMaria Carmen Fonseca-Mora, University of Huelva, Spain, andMaria González Davies, University Ramon Llull, Barcelona, Spain
Case Study leaders: Maria Carmen Fonseca-Mora, Maria González Davies, Maria-Teresa Berceruelo,
Natalia Emmanouil, Esther Cores-Bilbao, Lucía Quintana Hernández, Cristina Corcoll López, Jane MitchellSmith, Analí Fernández-Corbacho, Francisco H. Machancoses, Jan Hardie, Nicky Johnson, Stefano Losa

ABSTRACTThe decision to carry out this project was taken as a follow-up to the CEFR Companion Volume Launching
Conference, which took place at the Council of Europe on 16-18 May 2018, to report on our previous experi­ence in the validation and piloting of mediation descriptors during the development project (North andPiccardo 2017). The project reported in this contribution was based on the belief that making teachers andstudents aware of the relevant role of mediation, and training them in mediation strategies, could help todevelop their interpersonal and collaborative competences so that they could become active members ofa more inclusive society. We argue that this educational approach needs to be explored because innovative
approaches are often rejected due to insufficient knowledge of exactly how to put them into practice anddue to fear of change.
Our central objective was to document the potential shift in beliefs, perceptions and performance related tomediation skills by using problem-solving tasks that enhanced plurilingual language education through socialand emotional interaction. Using case-study methodology, an explanatory, multiple case design was chosen to
explain how a methodological language learning approach based on mediation could affect learners’ socio-emotional profile. In case-study research, strategic case sampling is paramount to optimising the applicability andrelevance of findings to diverse settings (Curtis et al. 2000).
The cases included provide the opportunity to examine mediation in different language learning contexts.
Participants were all adults studying English or Spanish as a foreign language in three European countries:
Spain, Greece and Switzerland. The case studies also reflect languages taught both through content subjects
and in foreign language classes. Cases were sampled to obtain variation on three criteria: (1) type of language
learning; (2) type of educational setting (university or language schools); (3) students’ language proficiency.
Seven cases were selected for study. The different learning contexts belonged to higher education and included
instruction in English as a Foreign Language, translation, language didactics, the development of plurilingualcompetence and social work. The language levels ranged between A2 and C2. Mediation descriptors from the
CEFR Companion volume (Council of Europe 2018, 2020) were selected to create peer assessment instruments
and checklists for students and for teachers to evaluate progress in building up problem-solving skills related
to mediated language learning experiences (MeLLEs).
In addition to other instruments such as focus groups, questionnaires, a teacher’s diary, students’ narratives andrecordings of sessions, a socio-emotional rating scale (Fonseca-Mora and González Davies n.d.) was administeredand students’ perceptions about the mediated language learning experience were gathered. All cases werecarried out in collaborative and situated pedagogical contexts. Data analysis involved an in-depth analysis ofeach case, followed by a cross-case analysis to highlight the key results in common. The explicit relationshipestablished between learner autonomy, collaborative learning and socio-emotional attitudes by means ofreflective action proved to be a key aspect for positive advancement regarding the aims of the project in all thestudies. For reasons of space, we present only the main parts of the case studies designed to work on the selected
descriptors as well as the main key concepts. We report the results and conclusions they have in common, as
well as the most noticeable differences.

Page 69

RÉSUMÉ
La décision de mener ce projet a été prise pour donner suite à la Conférence de lancement du Volume complémentaire du CECR des 16 et 17 mai 2018 qui a eu lieu au Conseil de l’Europe dans le but de faire un compte
rendu de nos expériences préalables lors de la validation et du pilotage des descripteurs de médiation dansla phase de développement du projet (North et Piccardo, 2017). Le projet qui fait l’objet de ce rapport partde la conviction que si professeurs et élèves étaient conscients de l’importance du rôle de la médiation etqu’ils suivaient une formation en stratégies de médiation, cela pourrait les aider à développer leurs compétences interpersonnelles et collaboratives pour devenir des membres actifs d’une société plus inclusive.
Nous soutenons que cette approche devrait être explorée pour éviter qu’elle ne soit rejetée, comme le sontsouvent les approches novatrices, faute de notoriété, de connaissances quant à son application ou par peurdu changement. Notre objectif central était de documenter le potentiel de changement en termes d’idées,de perceptions et d’exécution par rapport aux habiletés de médiation à travers des tâches de résolution deproblèmes qui favorisent l’enseignement plurilingue des langues par l’interaction sociale et émotionnelle.
En nous servant de la méthodologie d’une étude de cas, une conception de cas multiples explicatifs a été
choisie pour rendre compte de la façon dont une approche méthodologique d’apprentissage des langues
basée sur la médiation pourrait affecter le profil socio-émotionnel des apprenants. Dans une étude de cas,un échantillonnage stratégique est fondamental pour optimiser l’applicabilité et la pertinence des résultats
dans des contextes multiples (Curtis et al., 2000). Les cas étudiés permettent d’examiner la médiation dansdes contextes linguistiques différents. Les participants étaient tous des adultes apprenant l’anglais et l’espagnol comme langue étrangère dans trois pays européens : l’Espagne, la Grèce et la Suisse. Les cas reflètent
aussi bien les langues enseignées à travers les disciplines que celles enseignées dans les classes de langueétrangère. L’échantillonnage des cas repose sur trois critères : i) la typologie d’enseignement des langues,ii) le type de contexte éducationnel (université ou école de langues), et iii) le niveau de compétence langagière des élèves. Pour mener l’étude, sept cas ont été sélectionnés. Les différents contextes éducationnels
faisaient partie de l’enseignement supérieur et comprenaient langue étrangère, traduction, didactique dela langue, développement d’habiletés plurilingues et travail social. Le niveau de langue allait de A2 jusqu’à
C2. Les descripteurs de médiation du Volume complémentaire du CECR (Conseil de l’Europe, 2018) ont été
sélectionnés pour créer des outils d’évaluation par les pairs et des listes de contrôle pour les élèves et pourles professeurs avec l’objectif d’évaluer les progrès dans l’habileté de résolution de problèmes liés aux expériences d’apprentissage de langue médiée (acronyme anglais : MeLLEs).
Enfin, parmi d’autres instruments tels que des groupes de discussion, des questionnaires, des journaux
d’enseignants, des récits d’élèves et des enregistrements de séances, une échelle socio-émotionnelle a été
utilisée, et les perceptions des élèves par rapport à la langue médiée ont été ainsi recueillies. Tous les cas
ont été réalisés dans un contexte pédagogique collaboratif et situé. L’analyse des données a impliqué une
analyse approfondie de chaque cas, suivie d’une analyse croisée pour souligner les résultats communs lesplus importants. La relation explicite établie entre l’autonomie de l’apprenant, l’apprentissage collaboratif
et les attitudes socio-émotionnelles à travers l’action réflexive s’est révélée être un aspect fondamental
pour l’avancement des objectifs du projet dans toutes les études de cas. Pour des raisons d’espace, nous
présenterons seulement les parties principales des études de cas conçues pour travailler sur les descripteurs choisis, les concepts clés. Nous présenterons les résultats et les conclusions communes ainsi que lesdivergences les plus notables.

3.1. INTRODUCTION
In recent years, media reports have reflected an increase in mobility and, consequently, a higher numberof citizens who reject those who are different, people who are unwilling to consider alternative ideas orperspectives. It is in this context that the notions of mediation (with a long history in social sciences theories), multilingualism and plurilingualism (Piccardo 2017) have become crucial. These prejudices and related
inequalities have always been present (although not always acknowledged by the students, and even lessby the teachers) at educational institutions, whatever their level. It has only been the publication of the CEFR
Companion volume (2018, 2020) that has prompted an overt openness to fostering mediation in education.
This concept of mediation based on Vygotsky’s work (1978) and already implicit in the CEFR published in 2001,
has been further developed in the CEFR Companion volume (2018, 2020). We were invited by the Language
Policy Unit as experts and researchers concerned with language teaching and learning to the Companion
Volume Launching Conference (16-18 May 2018, Council of Europe, Strasbourg) with the commitment
to submit a short-term research proposal. One of the central topics in this event was the presentation ofPage 70 3 Enriching 21st-century language education

mediation as a paradigm shift in the foreign language classroom, at both the societal and individual levels(Piccardo 2018). This mediation paradigm shift was connected to the urgent need for an educational focus
on processes that develop pluricultural and plurilingual competences. An initiative of this kind can promotecollaborative dialogue to enhance the acceptance of otherness and avoid inequalities between social groups(Coste and Cavalli 2015).
Research questions
1. Does the explicit use of CEFR mediation strategies in problem-solving tasks related to plurilingual language
education enhance social and emotional interaction?
2. Can a shift in teachers’ and students’ beliefs, perceptions and performance related to mediation skills be
detected through mediated language learning experiences (MeLLEs)?
3. To what extent do MeLLEs lead to a shift in teachers’ and students’ beliefs, perceptions and communicative
performance?
Our central objective was to document the potential shift in beliefs, perceptions and performance related tomediation skills by using problem-solving tasks that enhance plurilingual language education through socialand emotional interaction. In order to find some answers, this research report includes several cases thatanalyse findings on how MeLLEs influence language acquisition and learning, and 111 students participatedin the case studies (see Tables 3.1 and 3.2). Clearly, the contexts and the target language are different, but
the facilitators/mediators acted in a similar fashion and a collaborative and situated pedagogical outlook
was also shared. We reflected on the illustrative descriptors for mediation added recently in the Common
European Framework for Languages – Companion volume (2018, 2020) in the belief that these descriptors might
help to identify important affective factors involved in language learning, in order to see how being awareof them could enable a “learner’s inner resources to become more useful” (Stevick 1999: 55) in the language
classroom. A deeper knowledge of this educational practice may allow us to notice its flaws and to work on
finding ways of improving it.

3.2. PROJECT DESCRIPTIONMediation involves the use of language in creating the space and conditions for communication and/or learning,in constructing and co-constructing new meaning, and/or in facilitating understanding by simplifying, elaborating,illustrating or otherwise adapting the original. (North and Piccardo 2017: 87)

In the language area, this is a concept well understood by translators and interpreters, and other service
professions. Lawyers or social workers, for instance, may also make frequent use of mediation for conflict
resolution. Language is the symbolic tool needed for human communication as higher mental functions
are mediated by it (Vygotsky 1978). As explained by Piccardo at the CEFR Companion Volume Launching
Conference (2018), mediation implies a dynamic process of meaning-making through “languaging” (Swain
2006) and “plurilanguaging” (Lüdi 2015; Piccardo 2017, 2018) while creating a shared safe “third space” (Kramschand Thorne 2002).
From our personal perspective, an approach implied by the above concepts still needs to be implemented
pedagogically, and its effects need to be further studied. According to Coste and Cavalli (2015: 63),Mediation uses all available means, and this is its attraction for language learning and the development of a range of
discourse competences. Varied as they may be, the focus and processes of all mediation are based on work of review,
adjustment, approximation and “variation on a theme” which mobilises, and tests language resources and also contributes to the production of new ones through interaction.

So, the design of action-oriented learning experiences that may foster learners’ and teachers’ awareness andpredisposition towards the benefits of mediation are still required. At the same time, many other questions arise.
For instance, how do these MeLLEs affect students’ motivation, students’ socio-emotional development, students’foreign language competence and students’ willingness to co-operate with others? Can a shift in teachers’ beliefs
related to language education be detected when they have used mediated learning experiences where social andemotional mediation strategies are enhanced? What do teachers already know about these MeLLEs? Emotions
have a filter effect (Mora 2013) and therefore this kind of approach needs to be explored, because innovative
approaches are often rejected due to insufficient knowledge of exactly how to put them into practice and due
to fear of change (Fonseca-Mora 2020).

Classroom practice Page 71

Page 72 3 Enriching 21st-century language education

Jan Hardie, Nicky Johnson, Stefano Losa, Competence centre for languages
and studies on plurilingualism (CLIP) at the Department of Formationand Learning (DFA), University of Applied Sciences and Arts of Southern
Switzerland (SUPSI)

Case study 7. Mediation practices in designing a care plan: a collaborative task

Dr Analí Fernández-Corbacho, Facultad de Humanidades, University of Huelva;
Dr Francisco H. Machancoses, Research Group ReALL, University of Huelva

Case study 6. Promoting mediation and plurilingual competences in future
foreign language teachers through the design of lesson plans

Facultat de Psicologia, Ciències de l’Educació i de l’Esport Blanquerna(Universitat Ramon Llull) and St. Peter’s School, Barcelona

Dr Maria González Davies, Dr Cristina Corcoll López and Jane Mitchell-SmithMediating to design
a care plan

Designing mediationand pluricultural
lesson plans

Mediating to relay
specific textual
information toplan a day out

Case study 5. A plurilingual scenario role-play

Dr Lucía Quintana Hernández, Facultad de Humanidades, University of Huelva

Understanding
Spanish cultural andlinguistic diversity

Case study 4. Developing mediation: task-based project for understanding
Spanish cultural and linguistic diversity

Social Work (English)

University
degreeUniversity
degreeUniversity
MA

Teacher Training in
Secondary Education,
Vocational and
Adult Training andSchools of Modern
Languages (English)
English Teaching
Methodology

University
degreeLanguage
School for
Adults

University
degreeLanguage
School for
Adults

Educational
context

Didactics of Spanish
as a Foreign Language

English as a Foreign
LanguageTranslation:
English–Greek

English as a Foreign
Language

Describing one’s
plurilingual/pluricultural profile
Translating
between cultures

Languagelearning subject

Mediatedlanguage learning
experience (MeLLE)

Case study 3. Mediating audiovisual images and messages: a media-based
collaborative approach for adult learners of foreign languages
Mediating audiovisual
Esther Cores-Bilbao, Do Mundo Lume, Escuela Oficial de Idiomas de Ayamonte, and images and messages
Dr Mª Carmen Fonseca-Mora, Facultad de Humanidades, Universidad de Huelva

Natalia Emmanouil, Hellenic American University (Greece)

Case study 2. The translator as mediator between cultures using CEFR
mediation strategies

Maria-Teresa Berceruelo, Escuela Oficial de Idiomas de Granada

Case study 1. Problem-solving tasks: social emotions and mediation skills

Title, context and project leaders

Table 3.1: Details of the learner groups involved and institutional context

B1 to B2

B2+ to C1

C1 to C2

C1 to C2

A2+

C2

A2

Students’language
proficiency

20

23

16

10

19

8

15

Participants3.2.1. How the mediation descriptors of the CEFR Companion volume were exploited:a multi-case study
Using case-study methodology, an explanatory, multiple case design (Gustafsson 2017) was chosen to
explain how a methodological language learning approach based on mediation could affect learners’socio-emotional profile. Implementing MeLLEs in real classrooms shows the relevance of experiential
knowledge to the interpretation of data at a comprehensive, theoretical level. In case-study research, strategic case sampling is paramount to optimising the applicability and relevance of findings to contrasting
settings. The cases included provide the opportunity to examine mediation in different language learning
contexts. Participants were all adults studying English, and Spanish as a foreign language, in three European
countries: Spain, Greece and Switzerland. The case studies also reflect languages taught in content subjects
and foreign language classes.
Cases were sampled to obtain variation on three criteria:
1. type of language learning subject
2. type of educational setting (university or language school)
3. students’ language proficiency.
Seven cases were selected for study (see Table 3.1). Table 3.2 includes a description of the different MeLLEs
designed for each case. The list of descriptors used in the various case studies can be found in Appendix 3.1.

3.2.2. Instruments used to collect data
The following instruments were used in order to collect data:f CEFR Companion volume mediation descriptors: in questionnaires, teacher and peer checklists(Appendix 3.2)
f Student profile evaluation tool with a socio-emotional scale used pre- and post-task (Appendix 3.3)
f Online survey (dichotomous, multiple-choice, Likert scale and open-ended questions) about various aspectsof the project as a learning experiencef Teacher’s diary on the learning experiencef Students’ narratives
f Recordings of sessions in some case studies
f Focus groups.

3.2.3. Procedure and working phases for all case studies
Firstly, MeLLEs appropriate to the different language teaching contexts were designed. The tasks included
activities related to the categories mediating concepts, mediating communication and mediating texts.
Next, mediation descriptors were selected (and sometimes adapted to facilitate their understanding by thestudents) and used to create self-evaluation instruments for students and for teachers, to evaluate their progress in building up mediation skills related to the problem-solving tasks to ensure internal coherence. These
self-assessment checklists of descriptors used as pre-task were intended to lead to raising students’ awarenessand to help define their mediation profile. Used again post-task, they should show if experience of the tasks
has promoted mediation skills. The socio-emotional scale of McBrien et al. (2018) was also adapted to evaluate
students’ profiles (see Appendix 3.3).
Data collection included video recordings of the learning process and a teacher’s diary on the learning experience. Permissions for the video recordings were procured via a consent sheet. In the case of large groups, all thestudents participated in the mediated language learning experience, but the research focuses on small groups(in collaborative work). That is, for video recordings and direct observation, a selected number of students werechosen.
Then, the results gathered from the instruments were triangulated; that is, the validity of the project was
guaranteed by the combination of both a quantitative and a qualitative method approach to data collection,evidenced through the application of different research instruments.

Classroom practice Page 73

Next, a report was drawn up for each case and a cross-case analysis undertaken in order to help to develop
experientially informed knowledge on the role of mediation in language learning that may be applied to similar
settings and contexts.
Finally, mediated language learning tasks that worked well with the descriptors were disseminated to otherteachers in cascade training.

3.2.4. Building a community of practice:details of teacher training, materials development and peer support
In all case studies, a collaborative and situated learning context (González Davies and Enríquez Raído 2017) wasestablished as a condition agreed upon by all the participants before the development of the projects. Table 3.2
describes the MeLLEs, all of which except one (for unexpected institutional reasons) were designed as didactic
sequences, that is, a chain of coherently related pedagogic activities with the same global aims and a concrete
final product (González Davies 2004: 231). Thus, both the learning process and the final product acquired abalanced centrality and visibility, conforming to socio-constructivist premises.

3.2.5. Data analysis
Detailed case descriptions were constructed for each case to describe its context and organisation. Data analysis
was conducted for each case. For space reasons, these case analyses are summarised in our report, followed
by a cross-case analysis. The cases were treated as separate studies and analysed independently, followed by athematic analysis to yield the shared key concepts and actions as well as the variances.

3.2.6. Cross-case results
The cross-case analysis revealed similarities across the language cases, content subjects and instrumental
language learning subjects. Cases were sampled accordingly. Our results describe key aspects of a language
education that may ensure the collaborative and situated learning of values, attitudes, skills, knowledge andcritical thinking needed in a mediated plurilingual and pluricultural society. Here we present a summary of themain shared key concepts and results regarding the aspects mentioned above. These are considered as “shared”
when recurrent in four or more of the seven cases.

3.2.6.1. Autonomous learning
The evidence presented suggested that, in the contexts described, problem-solving tasks resulted in thelearners becoming more socially and emotionally capable and autonomous as mediators, widening the rangeof socio-emotional attitudes and mediation skills that they could, and in fact did, use when they were involvedin oral communication activities, in line with the objectives of the curriculum and the descriptors of the CEFR
Companion volume.

3.2.6.2. Collaborative learning
Collaborative and situated learning were clearly crucial for success as they allowed for an (inter)active use ofprevious knowledge and for the creation of a ludic motivational atmosphere. There was a significant increase
in mediation and collaboration as the activities developed, as observed in the video recordings and checklists.
In general, most of the students valued teamwork as an enjoyable experience. Some of them expressed clear
ideas of what they thought made teamwork successful. This implies that they managed to collaborate to construct meaning with others in order to understand new concepts and information, that is, they were acting as
mediators. On the other hand, a few students showed concern about difficulties that were not easily solved.
They also expressed their need to learn how to deal with certain situations experienced in teamwork, such as
dealing with conflicting opinions.

Page 74 3 Enriching 21st-century language education

Classroom practice Page 75

GreeceCasestudy 2Granada(Spain)Casestudy 1

Cases

C1
to
C2

A2

Level

Final product: (collaboratively)translated text.

Class project: The members of eachof two groups (A and B) co-operated
to produce a translated text which
would convey the author’s intentions to another, culturally different
audience.

Final product: a collaborative blogthat described their plurilingual/pluricultural profile and incorporated all the products that thelearners themselves created when
preparing, carrying out and reflecting on the problem-solving tasks.

Class project: “What is my plurilingual/pluricultural profile?”

Main aims and final productone 3-hoursession9 consecutive weeks

TimingRelevant descriptor scales
in the CEFR Companion volume

It took both groups the whole session because PLURILINGUAL AND PLURICULTURAL COMPETENCE
they negotiated the ideas they had, especially Plurilingual comprehension
when they encountered cultural differences.
Building on plurilingual repertoire

MEDIATION
After the presentation of the concept ofMediation and Mediation Strategies to only Overall mediation
one of the two groups (Group B), all partici- Mediating a text
pants were given information about the text Processing text in writing
to be translated, which is an actual response
Translating a written text in writing
to a letter sent by the USA authorities to theowner of an area where there was debris of Mediating concepts
Collaborating to construct meaningdams after recent rain.

PLURILINGUAL AND PLURICULTURAL COMPETENCE
Building on pluricultural repertoire

MEDIATIONMediating a text
Relaying specific information in speech
Relaying specific information in writing
Processing text in speech
Translating a written text in speechNote-taking
Individual and collaborative
Mediating concepts
Spoken production, spoken interaction and Collaborating in a groupmediation
Facilitating collaborative interaction with peers
Cognitive, interpersonal and/or textual Leading group work
mediation.
Managing interaction
Encouraging conceptual talkMediating communication
Facilitating communication in delicate situations anddisagreements

Class dynamics

Table 3.2: The MeLLEs related to selected CEFR Companion volume mediation and plurilingual/pluricultural scales

Page 76 3 Enriching 21st-century language education

Level

Main aims and final product

TimingClass dynamics

Relevant descriptor scales
in the CEFR Companion volume

Huelva(Spain)Casestudy 4

C1
toC2

Class project: Training future teachers of Spanish L2 to create their own
materials to adjust to the needs oftheir students.

MEDIATION
The project explored Spanish cultural and Mediating a text
linguistic diversity. The students selected
Relaying specific information in speecha video (e.g. short movie, video/song,
Expressinga personal response to creative texts (includcommercial) and a written text in order toing
literature)
prepare the material for didactic use witheight 1.5-houradolescent students. They looked for infor- Mediating concepts
Final product: A task-based prosessions
mation about cultural diversity. They applied Facilitating collaborative interaction with peers
ject for exploring Spanish cultheir knowledge to the language learning
Encouraging conceptual talktural diversity, which obligatorily
process and to the design of activities toincludes activities that pay attendevelop communication activities and Mediating communication
tion to mediation and intercultural
Facilitating communication in delicate situations andcompetences.
competence.
disagreements

Building on pluricultural repertoire

MEDIATIONMediating a text
Class project: “Plurilingual songs for
Relaying specific information in speechlanguage learners”, which aims tomobilise mediation strategies andRelaying specific information in writing
In this project, the students conduct anfoster the development of interProcessing text in speech
analysis of popular music videos in threecultural awareness and plurilingual
different languages, examining the visual Translating a written text in speechcompetence in language learners.
8-9 hours:
elements, the lyrics of the song and the figu- Note-taking
Casethree 2-hour rative meaning of its textual elements. They Mediating concepts
study 3
Final product: A blog entry rec- classroom also reflect on the importance of decipher- Collaborating in a group
Ayamonte, A2+ ommending songs which carry sessions, plus ing cultural codes to fully comprehend the Facilitating collaborative interaction with peers
positive intercultural messages or two to three messages which are implicitly conveyed in
Huelvasongs which can help to develop hours of inde- popular music videos. Finally, they consider Leading group work
(Spain)the linguistic competence of for- pendent work the music media consumption choices of Managing interaction
eign language learners. The blog
youngsters nowadays and the impact that Encouraging conceptual talkentry nominating the best songs
the exposure to certain topics might haveMediating communication
for learning foreign languages areon young people’s development.
Facilitating communication in delicate situations andrequired to identify the elements
disagreements
which make those songs stand out
for such a purpose.
PLURILINGUAL AND PLURICULTURAL COMPETENCE

Cases

Classroom practice Page 77

Barcelona(Spain)Casestudy 5

Cases

C1
to
C2

Level

Final product: A written individual
plurilingual identity reflection anda team summary and peer assessment of the final Day Planner.

Class project: Sequenced classroom-based plurilingual activities
that were conducted collaboratively
and were problem-based.

Main aims and final product

Class dynamics

PLURILINGUAL AND PLURICULTURAL COMPETENCE
Building on pluricultural repertoire
Plurilingual comprehension

Mediation strategies
Linking to previous knowledge

Relevant descriptor scales
in the CEFR Companion volume

PLURILINGUAL AND PLURICULTURAL COMPETENCE
Plurilingual comprehension
Building on plurilingual repertoire

MEDIATIONMediating a text
Processing text in speech
Processing text in writing
Relaying specific information in speech
The students first reflected on their own Relaying specific information in writing
plurilingual identity with a specific activExplaining data in speech
ity. They then experienced the challenges
involved in an authentic situation of trav- Explaining data in writing
elling in a group where they had to plan Translating a written text in speech
Three 3-hour a day out in Paris, taking as a guide two Mediating concepts
sessions, that texts written in languages that do not form
Collaborating to construct meaning
part of the usual curriculum in schools in
is, 9 hours
our context. The CEFR/CV Companion vol- Managing interactionume (2018) descriptors for Mediation and Mediating communication
Plurilingualism were taken as a reference Facilitating pluricultural space
to guide the students, thus operating in aMediation strategies
reflective action context.
Linking to previous knowledge
Breaking down complicated information

TimingPage 78 3 Enriching 21st-century language education

Level

B2+
to
C1

Cases

Case
study 6
Huelva(Spain)Final product: Students designed
lesson plans that promote thedevelopment of mediation andplurilingual competence in theforeign language class.

Class project: In this task, students
learn about the importance ofteaching a foreign language byfollowing an action-oriented, taskbased approach.

Main aims and final product

Class dynamics

Relevant descriptor scales
in the CEFR Companion volume

MEDIATIONMediating a text
Processing text in speech
Processing text in writing
Relaying specific information in speech
Relaying specific information in writing
Explaining data in speech
Explaining data in writing
Translating a written text in speech
Translating a written text in writing
Students were guided through a reflecNote-taking
tion process about the elements of effective lesson plans. Drawing from the CEFR Expressing a personal response to creative texts
descriptors for mediation and plurilingual Analysis and criticism of creative texts
Sevencompetences, they became prepared to Mediating concepts
90-minute design their own lesson plans. Mediation
sessions, that skills and their effect on helping learners to Collaborating in a groupis 10.5 hours become more than language users – rather Facilitating collaborative interaction with peers
to become social agents who co-construct Collaborating to construct meaning
meaning with others – were also discussed. Leading group work
Managing interaction
Encouraging conceptual talkMediating communication
Facilitating pluricultural space
Acting as intermediary in informal situations (withfriends and colleagues)
Facilitating communication in delicate situations anddisagreements
Mediation strategies
Linking to previous knowledge
Adapting language

TimingClassroom practice Page 79

B1
to
B2

Case
study 7

Switzerland

Level

Cases

Final product: To create an action
plan to use with the adolescent client to get her to communicate hertrue feelings and to help improve
her situation at school and home,culminating in a presentation to therest of the class.

Class project: Social work students
were given a short case history thatthey had to research in groups, withthe final task of formulating andpresenting a care plan.

Main aims and final product

Class dynamics
Breaking down complicated information
Amplifying a dense text
Streamlining a text
PLURILINGUAL AND PLURICULTURAL COMPETENCE
Plurilingual comprehension
Building on plurilingual repertoire

Relevant descriptor scales
in the CEFR Companion volume

Students imagined that they were doing an MEDIATION
internship in the UK, and as part of a teamthey had to formulate a care plan for an Mediating a text
adolescent client with an eating disorder Processing text in speech(anorexia) and social problems at school. She
5 sessions,is falling behind with her schoolwork. The Processing text in writing
so approx.
teacher provided weblinks to resources to PLURILINGUAL AND PLURICULTURAL COMPETENCE
total 5 hours
get them started. Students had to divide up
the various research tasks, do them in pairs, Plurilingual comprehension
and then decided together as a group the Building on plurilingual repertoire
goals, and how they were going to pursue
them and present them.

Timing3.2.6.3. Learning outcomes
See Table 3.1 and Table 3.2. All the mediating tasks and projects were well designed and as a result thestudents clearly expressed their appreciation of experiential learning in “hands-on” tasks. The fact thatproblem-solving tasks revolved around real-life situations with authentic materials was highly valued by
the students, too. Also, teacher flexibility to adapt the tasks to different situations, if needed, and to accept
spontaneous opportunities for discussion, was acknowledged and appreciated. Students learned to discussand clarify texts in pairs and small groups, identify information of practical use, give reasons in support
or against a point of view, ask for clarification, formulate an action plan, summarise in writing the maincontent of complex texts, summarise and make a presentation, and explain complex ideas with a range ofcohesive devices and reasonable precision.

3.2.6.4. Descriptors for mediation and plurilingualism
Empowering students through tasks in which they used all their plurilingual resources helped them understandthe need for mediation skills, especially and interestingly those students who were reticent at first. Related
to this, students also considered working with students from other nationalities and with different linguistic
repertoires as an enriching experience that helped them improve their language skills through reflective action
and discussions. The students’ plurilingual competence became gradually self-evident as the tasks developed
and as unexpected thoughts and actions surfaced, so that students gradually became aware of their plurilingual
identities. Students had seemed to have difficulties at the beginning, which shows their unawareness of theirplurilingual identities before undertaking the tasks.

3.2.6.5. Socio-emotional attitudes
In all cases, a mediated communication and learning space was built, that is, a community where the students felt
accepted and supported, so they were not afraid to express their opinions. Initial difficulties and resistance were
followed by discovery and surprise. Furthermore, they highlighted an awareness of the importance of working
with others and of the effort it takes to come to an agreement. But they also felt proud of the difficulties they
overcame, among which breaking down stereotypes was a recurring theme. Furthermore, it was interesting tosee how, in a collaborative environment, the students worked together and how some of the quieter ones took
a more leading role and performed above the standard that their teachers had previously observed. It can besaid that learners were more conscious of the way their inner resources became more useful (Stevick 1999: 55)
in the language classroom.
In all cases, the authors concur that time is needed for this change in perceptions to take place meaningfully.
In some cases, time constraints to carry out the projects curtailed the results, although converging tendencies
clearly surfaced and were corroborated by the cross-case analysis.

3.3. DISCUSSION
3.3.1. Overall perceived impact of the case study on teaching and learning
The overall perceived impact of the case studies on the respective teaching and learning contexts has beenpresented above. All the studies selected mediation and plurilingual/pluricultural descriptors related to relevant
CEFR levels (see Table 3.2). Mediation descriptors were employed on self-assessment checklists adapted tothe different proficiency levels and – in the case of A2 students – translated into the student’s mother tongue.
These checklists were used both before and after the teaching intervention, and in class discussions about themeaning and relevance of the descriptors used in the MeLLEs, particularly in the way they helped students raise
their awareness of their possibilities when acting as mediators. Some of the present co-authors also worked oncommunicative and sociolinguistic competences.

3.3.2 Evaluation and reflection on the role and function of the descriptors used in thiscase study
As to the evaluation and reflection on the role and function of the descriptors used in these case studies, themediation descriptors selected were considered appropriate for almost all tasks. However, several co-authors
mentioned that the complex formulation of some descriptors makes them difficult to understand and/or toapply in research. Some also expressed a concern that the language levels assigned seem to be rather low. For
example, they remarked that, in terms of linguistic competence needed, some of the descriptors classified asPage 80 3 Enriching 21st-century language education

B1 seemed to more closely require a B2 language level. However, we should also acknowledge that the level
calibration came from statistical analysis of teacher judgments and self-assessments on a large scale.
All the teachers participating in this study stated their need for more training in action-oriented and mediatedlanguage learning design and, above all, for already designed and handy MeLLEs which they could just implement in their classrooms.

3.3.3. Lessons learned
A few aspects related to troubleshooting can be observed in the data gathered for the case studies. In particular,
we note the following (recurring in four or more of the seven case studies):
1. The mediation descriptors and the rationale behind them need to be presented explicitly to the students.
The main reasons stated by the co-authors relate to the change in mindset that they entail. The change
concerns firstly perceptions and beliefs related to language learning and related methodological perspectives, and secondly as affecting the students’ socio-emotional development. Here the concept of language
as mediation and the plurilingual paradigm contradict established communicative and monolingual
approaches to language learning to which students are accustomed.
2. Related to the previous consideration, time is a recurring key issue. Both the teachers and the students
need time to accommodate and assimilate the new paradigm. Once this has been accomplished, though,it seems to be well accepted and most students and teachers state that they will explore its possibilities
further and apply them in the future.
3. In this sense, flexibility is also required from both teachers and students. Unexpected reflections and suggestions on the part of the students should be accepted and included in the sessions rather than adhering
to a strict and closed syllabus.
4. It follows that the MeLLE tasks should be embedded in the syllabus ecologically instead of becoming aseparate action. Once the mediation strategies have been worked on, the best results – according to thecase studies carried out over longer periods of time – seem to occur when similar tasks are performed
regularly as part of the mainstream syllabus and not as a separate one-block topic only. It is relevant forthe students to understand that mediation should become a natural part of their whole learning process.
5. Collaborative learning has favoured interaction and reflection, as essential aspects of mediation. Only three
students out of all the seven case studies disagreed with a teamwork approach and preferred individualor – at the most – pair work. This finding is coherent with other studies on collaborative learning andlearning styles, so we conclude that this may be a reaction that one should expect, one which complies
with students’ usual responses to this mode of working.
6. Finally, all authors concur that specific teacher training and examples of ready-to-use MeLLEs are needed
to carry out this approach successfully.

3.4. CONCLUSIONS
3.4.1. Expected relevance and usability of the descriptors
Although the heterogeneous nature and size of the sample may partly limit the scope and generalisability of
the results of the case studies, the global results show a representation of how learners can benefit from using
mediated spoken and interactive plurilingual tasks of the specified type. The applicability of the results of thismultiple case study in other educational contexts remains to be tested. Nevertheless, the results are valid andgeneralisable within the contexts described.
By the end of the programmed sessions, the students had warmed up to working collaboratively and wereacquainted with the concept of mediation and its basic tenets. They expressed their favourable attitude towards
MeLLEs and their willingness to continue using in the future the descriptors that they had been introduced to.
In conclusion, we can say that the projects of every group involved in this learning experience show that themain goals were achieved, and the initial research questions answered:
Does the explicit use of CEFR mediation strategies in problem-solving tasks related to plurilingual language education
enhance social and emotional interaction?
Can a shift in teachers’ and students’ beliefs, perceptions and performance related to mediation skills be detected
through mediated language learning experiences?
To what extent do MeLLEs lead to a shift in teachers’ and students’ beliefs, perceptions and communicative performance?

Classroom practice Page 81

The explicit use of CEFR mediation strategies in MeLLE enhanced social and emotional interaction facilitated ashift in teachers’ and students’ perceptions and stimulated performances related to mediation skills that weredetected through MeLLE with the instruments used to collect data. Both teachers and students became consciousof their plurilingual and intercultural communicative competence. They began connecting to their previous
linguistic and cultural knowledge, they became aware of the relevance of expanding this knowledge to become
fully competent teachers and/or learners, and they began to mediate in conflicts using the developed strategies.
The tasks worked well and were enjoyed by students. Discussions were lively and many questions were raised by
students about exploring their plurilingual identities and their mediating skills, about how to apply the experienceand findings in their future classes, and on sociological and psychological issues raised spontaneously in thesessions. Reflecting on and experimenting with the descriptors contributed to making the students aware thatthey had not only grasped a possibly vague meaning of the descriptors, but that they had fully understood theconcepts underlying them. Sometimes this happened while they were working with these descriptors, while
doing MeLLE tasks, and sometimes afterwards.
As to syllabus design, the tasks and descriptors could be integrated ecologically into the customary syllabus
cycle (planning, teaching and assessing) in order to identify and develop the students’ plurilingual competence.
In later sessions, the students were using the specific terminology acquired during task implementation as wellas engaging in conceptual reflection.

3.4.2. Sustainability and extension to wider context
Mediated language learning tasks that worked well with the descriptors are being disseminated to other teachers in cascade training, seminars and conferences. For instance, some of the co-authors have published theirstudies in print (Cores-Bilbao et al. 2019) or online (see www.eoidegranada.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/
resultados-del-proyecto-de-clase_berceruelo.pdf ).
Also, the results of this research were presented at the University of Huelva (Spain) on 28 November 2019 at the“Mediation strategies in second language classrooms” conference. There, the co-authors Maria-Teresa Berceruelo
Pino, Esther Cores-Bilbao, Carmen Fonseca-Mora, Lucía Quintana Hernández, Maria González Davies, Jane
Mitchell-Smith and Analí Fernández-Corbacho explained the case studies and their MeLLEs to an audience of
secondary education teachers, teachers at official schools of languages, university teachers and students in theirinitial training as teachers of foreign languages.
The tentative results of this experimentation suggest the need to conduct a broader longitudinal study over an
extended period to empirically ascertain the effects of these types of pedagogic intervention on adult learnersof foreign languages.

REFERENCES
Cores-Bilbao E., Fernández-Corbacho A., Machancoses F. H. and Fonseca-Mora M. C., (2009), “A music-mediatedlanguage learning experience: students’ awareness of their socio-emotional skills”, Frontiers in Psychology No 10,
pp. 2238.
Coste D. and Cavalli M. (2015), Education, mobility, otherness: the mediation functions of school, Council of Europe
Publishing, Strasbourg.
Council of Europe (2018), “Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: learning, teaching, assessment. Companion volume with new descriptors”, Council of Europe, Strasbourg, available at https://rm.coe.int/
cefr-­companion-volume-with-new-descriptors-2018/1680787989, accessed 23 August 2021.
Council of Europe (2020), Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: learning, teaching, assessment– Companion volume, Council of Europe, Strasbourg, available at https://rm.coe.int/common-european-­frameworkof-reference-for-languages-learning-teaching/16809ea0d4, accessed 23 August 2021.
Curtis S., Gesler W., Smith G. and Washburn S. (2000), “Approaches to sampling and case selection in qualitative
research: examples in the geography of health”, Social Science & Medicine No. 50(7-8), pp. 1001-14.
Fonseca-Mora M. C. (2020), “Emotion in language learning and pedagogy”, in Schiewer G. L., Altarriba J. and Ng
Bee Chin (eds), Language and emotion: an international handbook, DeGruyter Mouton, New York.
Fonseca-Mora C. and González Davies M. (n.d.), SEE scale (final version) – Spanish [unpublished PDF manuscript],
available at https://drive.google.com/file/d/1SIxrbk7idUTeBOnAgBdJdx1QwSBQB8A-/view, accessed 30 August
2021.

Page 82 3 Enriching 21st-century language education

González Davies M. (2004), Multiple voices in the translation classroom, John Benjamins, Amsterdam and New York.
González Davies M. and Enríquez Raído V. (eds) (2017), Situated learning in translator and interpreter training:bridging research and good practice, Routledge, London and New York.
Gustafsson J. (2017), “Single case studies vs. multiple case studies: a comparative study”, Literature review, retrieved
from: www.divaportal.org/smash/get/diva2:1064378/FULLTEXT01.pdf, accessed 29 August 2021.
Kramsch C. and Thorne S. L. (2002), “Foreign language learning as global communicative practice”, in Block D.
and Cameron D. (eds), Globalization and language teaching, Routledge, London and New York, pp. 93-100.
Lüdi G. (2015), “Monolingualism and multilingualism in the construction and dissemination of scientific know­
ledge”, in Jessner-Schmid J. and Kramsch C. (eds), The multilingual challenge. Cross-disciplinary perspectives,
De Gruyter Mouton, Berlin, pp. 213-38.
McBrien A., Wild M. and Bachorowski J. (2018), “Social–Emotional Expertise (SEE) scale: development and initial
validation”, Assessment, December 2020 No. 27(8), pp. 1718-30, retrieved from https://journals.sagepub.com/
doi/10.1177/1073191118794866 [epub 2018].
Mora F. (2013), Neuroeducación. Solo se puede aprender aquello que se ama, Alianza Editorial, Madrid.
North B. and Piccardo E. (2017), “Mediation and exploiting one’s plurilingual repertoire: exploring classroom
potential with proposed new CEFR descriptors”, Learning and assessment: making the connections: Proceedings of
the 6th International ALTE Conference. Learning and Assessment: Making the Connections. Bologna, Italy, 3-5 May
2017, pp. 87-95.
Piccardo E. (2017), “Plurilingualism as a catalyst for creativity in superdiverse societies: a systemic analysis”,
Frontiers in Psychology No. 8, pp. 21-69.
Piccardo E. (2018), “Plurilingualism: vision, conceptualization, and practices”, in Trifonas O. P. and Aravossitas T.
(eds), Handbook of research and practice in heritage language education, Springer, Cham, Switzerland, pp. 207-25.
Stevick E. (1999), “Affect in learning and memory”, in Arnold J. (ed.), Affect in language learning, Cambridge
University Press, Cambridge.
Swain M. (2006), “Languaging, agency and collaboration in second language learning”, in Byrnes H. (ed.), Advanced
language learning: the contribution of Halliday and Vygotsky, Continuum, London and New York, pp. 95-108.
Vygotsky L. S. (1978), Mind in society: the development of higher mental processes, ed. and trans. Cole M.,
John-Steiner V., Scribner S. and Souberman E., Harvard University Press, Cambridge MA (original work published
1930-1935).

APPENDICES
Available at the end of the online pdf version:
Appendix 3.1 – Selected CEFR/CV mediation and plurilingual/pluricultural scales and descriptors
Appendix 3.2 – Example of self-evaluation scale for students to evaluate their progress in building up mediation
skillsAppendix 3.3 – Socio-emotional scale used in the projectClassroom practice Page 83

Chapitre 4« MULTIMÉDIA » : LA MÉDIATIONMULTILINGUE DANS LE CADRE
D’UN PROJET DE STAGE EN ENTREPRISE
Antonella Fanara, lycée Giovanni Falcone, Bergame, Italie

RÉSUMÉ
Le projet réalisé visait à combiner la formation d’une classe en stage professionnel auprès de l’aéroport international Le Caravage de Bergame – Orio al Serio avec l’expérimentation de quelques-uns des descripteurs deséchelles Médiation de texte et Médiation de la communication du Volume complémentaire du CECR (Conseil del’Europe, 2018)3. L’objectif était de faire l’essai d’un mode d’enseignement centré sur les compétences formelles
et informelles, à travers des tâches proches de la vie réelle et une approche actionnelle mettant en pratique lacompétence plurilingue des élèves en quatre langues (allemand, anglais, français et espagnol, en plus de l’italien).
Le projet a été structuré en quatre phases : le lancement du projet, la préparation linguistique et professionnelle, l’expérimentation directe en milieu de travail et l’évaluation des résultats du point de vue linguistique,communicatif et professionnel.
Pour ce faire, la stratégie didactique choisie a été celle du travail sur projet (project work), centrée sur le travail
coopératif de groupes à géométrie variable (en grands groupes, en quatuors, en trios, en duos).
Pour mesurer l’impact du projet, nous avons utilisé plusieurs types et outils d’évaluation : l’évaluation formative,de la part des enseignants de l’équipe, pour les documents produits et la simulation des situations de communication ; l’autoévaluation, de la part des élèves, pour l’expérience de médiation et la capacité à communiquer
en plusieurs langues étrangères ; l’observation et le feedback du tuteur d’entreprise et des tuteurs scolaires pourl’expérience de stage ; et un feedback final de la part des élèves sur le projet dans son ensemble.
Le rapport d’évaluation du tuteur d’entreprise a mis en valeur la complète réalisation des compétences et desprestations professionnelles demandées aux élèves, aussi bien dans l’organisation et l’autonomie de travail quedans les relations et la communication avec les passagers. Les observations des professeurs de langues et l’auto­évaluation des élèves ont montré que ceux-ci ont tous sensiblement amélioré leurs compétences linguistiques,en gagnant en spontanéité dans l’usage des langues et dans le passage d’une langue à l’autre. Le travail demédiation s’est donc avéré très utile et efficace pour faire face aux différentes situations professionnelles d’assistance aux passagers. En effet, les élèves ont tous pratiqué deux ou trois langues étrangères, avec une bonnemaîtrise en anglais, en français et en espagnol. Le travail de traduction effectué pour la constitution de glossaires
spécifiques et le fait d’avoir utilisé des outils numériques (DeepL, ThingLink, Quizlet) en plus des activités desimulation des situations de communication ont joué un rôle fondamental pour la bonne réussite du projet.
Résultat final : enseignants et élèves souhaitent avoir plus d’occasions à l’école de développer leur compétence
plurilingue et pluriculturelle et reconnaissent le bien-fondé de l’insertion systématique des activités de médiation dans le curriculum.

ABSTRACTThe project aimed to combine internship training, at Caravaggio Airport in Orio al Serio (Bergamo), with the experimental use of some descriptors for Mediating a text and Mediating communication from the CEFR Companion volume
with new descriptors (Council of Europe 2018).4 The goal was to bring together the teaching of both formal and3.

4.

Voir aussi la mise à jour du CECR comprenant les nouveaux descripteurs du Volume complémentaire : Conseil de l’Europe, Cadre
européen commun de référence pour les langues : apprendre, enseigner, évaluer. Volume complémentaire, Conseil de l’Europe, Strasbourg,
2020, disponible à l’adresse : https://www.coe.int/fr/web/common-european-framework-reference-languages.
Voir aussi la mise à jour du CECR comprenant les nouveaux descripteurs du Volume complémentaire : Conseil de l’Europe, Cadre
européen commun de référence pour les langues : apprendre, enseigner, évaluer. Volume complémentaire, Conseil de l’Europe, Strasbourg,
2021, disponible à l’adresse : https://www.coe.int/fr/web/common-european-framework-reference-languages.

Page 85

informal competences, through real-life tasks and an action-oriented approach focused on putting the plurilingualcompetences of students into practice in four languages (English, French, German and Spanish, in addition to Italian).
The work on mediation had four phases: launching the project, linguistic and professional preparation, direct
experimentation in the workplace, evaluation of linguistic, communicative and professional results.
To do this, the pedagogical strategy chosen was project work, centred on the co-operative work of groups ofdifferent sizes (full class, groups of three or four, and pairs).
To measure the impact of the project, several evaluation types and tools were used: formative evaluation, by thelanguage teachers involved in the project, of the documents produced and the simulation of the communicative situations; self-assessment by the students of the mediation experience and the ability to communicate inmultiple foreign languages; overall observation and feedback from the company tutor and school tutors; andfinal feedback from the students on the experience as a whole.
The evaluation report of the company tutor highlighted the complete fulfilment of expectations in terms ofskills and professional services by the students, both in the organisation and autonomy in performing tasks andin handling relations and communication with passengers. Student self-assessment showed that all of themsignificantly improved their language skills, gaining spontaneity in the use of languages and in switching fromone language to another. The mediation training was very useful and effective in dealing with different situations
involving giving assistance to passengers: the students all used two to three foreign languages in this process,with a good command of English, French and Spanish. The translation work for the creation of specific glossaries,
the use of digital tools (DeepL, ThingLink, Qizlet) to acquire the appropriate lexicon and phraseology, plus theactivities simulating real-life exchanges played a crucial role in assuring the success of the project.
As a result of the project, students and teachers want more opportunities at school to develop their plurilingualand pluricultural competence and recognise the merits of including mediation activities in the curriculum.

4.1. INTRODUCTION
L’établissement scolaire où le projet a été réalisé est un lycée italien à orientation linguistique, le lycée linguistique
Giovanni Falcone de Bergame. On y étudie huit langues étrangères : allemand, anglais, arabe, chinois, espagnol,français, japonais et russe. Le curriculum a donc une forte vocation plurilingue et pluriculturelle, reposant nonseulement sur l’étude des langues étrangères et des différentes cultures, mais aussi sur la réalisation de plusieurs
projets de portée internationale.
L’établissement compte 1 600 élèves environ, âgés de 14 à 18 ans, et 130 enseignants. Le cursus dure cinq ans etles élèves sont regroupés en groupes-classes définis. À la fin de leurs études, les élèves atteignent une compétence linguistique de niveau B2 dans au moins une des trois langues étrangères prévues dans le curriculum et
un bon niveau de culture générale leur permettant d’accéder aux études supérieures aussi bien dans le domaine
des sciences humaines que dans le domaine scientifique.
Les besoins éducatifs auxquels l’établissement veut répondre peuvent être résumés en trois grands axes d’action :a) développer les compétences clés et de citoyenneté active recommandées par l’UE et le ministère de l’Édu­
cation nationale ;b) assurer, en particulier, le développement de la compétence plurilingue et pluriculturelle par l’étude etl’expérience concrète ;c) favoriser le développement de capacités réflexives et de stratégies transversales aux différentes disciplines
en vue d’une attitude plus coopérative, créative et autonome même en milieu de travail.
Le projet « Multimédia » s’est inséré de plain-pied dans ces trois axes éducatifs, car il propose de combiner laformation en entreprise, via un stage à l’aéroport international de la ville, avec l’application en contexte professionnel des compétences plurilingues et pluriculturelles des élèves, en particulier en expérimentant quelques
descripteurs des échelles Médiation de texte et Médiation de la communication du Volume complémentaire du
CECR (Conseil de l’Europe, 2018)5.
Le groupe choisi pour cette expérience a été une classe de 1re (quatrième année du lycée italien), composéede 24 élèves étudiant trois langues étrangères : anglais, français, allemand (5 élèves) ou espagnol (19 élèves). Il
s’agissait d’une classe particulièrement intéressante pour son plurilinguisme (quatre langues étrangères étudiées)et avec un bon niveau de préparation général. Les compétences linguistiques des élèves se situaient au niveau

5.

Ibid.

Page 86 3 Enriching 21st-century language education

B1/B2 en anglais, en français et en espagnol, et au niveau A2/B1 en allemand, langue qui peut présenter plus
de difficultés pour les élèves italiens.
Comme dans toutes les classes, il y avait des élèves particulièrement motivés pour l’étude des langues étrangèreset avec un très bon niveau linguistique, et d’autres qui l’étaient moins. Cependant, ils ont tous été très intéresséspar cette expérience de formation en entreprise, car elle leur permettait d’appliquer leurs compétences dans
un contexte concret.

4.2. DESCRIPTION DU PROJET
Le projet a demandé 54 heures de travail au total et il s’est déroulé du mois de décembre 2018 jusqu’en mars 2019.
Il a été articulé en quatre phases principales :1. lancement et élaboration du projet avec l’entreprise, le conseil de classe et les élèves ; cours en ligne surla sécurité au travail (4 heures) ;2. préparation aux différentes tâches, à l’école et à la maison (10 heures d’activités de médiation) ;3. expérimentation sur place lors du stage à l’aéroport (36 heures) ;4. validation et évaluation du projet (4 heures à l’école et à la maison).
Le choix d’ancrer des activités de médiation sur un projet de formation en entreprise a été déterminé par deuxraisons principales : d’une part, le fait que, dans notre école, les prestations professionnelles les plus réussies et
les plus demandées par les entreprises sont celles de médiation (médiation de texte) ; de l’autre, le fait que lestage en entreprise nous permettait de réaliser un travail ciblé sur un scénario d’apprentissage authentique, surdes tâches linguistiques de la vie réelle. En bref, nous avions la chance d’exploiter les descripteurs de médiation
à travers une approche actionnelle, avec une forte motivation de la part des élèves et même une validation
externe des résultats formels et informels.
Le projet pédagogique a été construit autour de la performance finale demandée aux élèves : assister les passagers au départ de l’aéroport en utilisant leur répertoire plurilingue.
À l’intérieur du conseil de classe6, nous avons formé une équipe composée de quatre enseignants de langues(pour l’allemand, l’anglais, l’espagnol, et moi-même en tant qu’enseignante de français et responsable de tout
le projet) et de l’enseignant d’italien, tuteur scolaire comme moi pour la formation en entreprise. D’abord, nous
avons travaillé tous ensemble pour recenser les compétences linguistiques nécessaires et le vocabulaire spécialisé. Nous avons ensuite sélectionné les descripteurs de médiation à expérimenter et à utiliser. Enfin, nous
avons établi les phases de travail et la méthodologie, de même que les ressources à fournir aux élèves dansleur travail de préparation. La collaboration des enseignants a été organisée selon un principe d’efficacité et derépartition des tâches, en fonction du temps et de la disponibilité de chacun. Pendant la phase de préparation,les enseignants d’allemand et d’espagnol ont surtout supervisé le travail sur les glossaires et quelques simulations ; l’enseignant d’anglais et celle de français (moi) ont encadré et suivi tous les travaux de groupe. Pendantla phase de stage en entreprise, puis celle de l’évaluation, c’est l’enseignant d’italien et moi-même, en qualité detuteurs scolaires pour la formation en entreprise, qui avons dirigé et assuré les activités prévues, en particulier
le suivi des élèves pendant les jours de stage et l’évaluation globale.
Dès le début, nous avons privilégié le travail autonome et coopératif des élèves, si bien que les enseignants
ont surtout joué le rôle de facilitateurs et de superviseurs. Notre but était de rendre les élèves acteurs de leurapprentissage, c’est pourquoi les sessions de préparation ont été organisées en ateliers collaboratifs, avec àl’appui plusieurs outils numériques (plateforme de classe et sa messagerie, applications diverses pour le travailde traduction et de mémorisation du vocabulaire spécifique, sites internet des compagnies aériennes, supports
visuels divers, logiciels de traitement de texte) et deux fiches de travail créées par moi. La description de ce travail
sera détaillée dans les paragraphes qui suivent.
Dans l’équipe du projet, il y avait aussi le tuteur d’entreprise, qui a assuré une première formation des élèves surles objectifs, les contenus et les règles du stage, en plus de l’encadrement et de l’évaluation des performancesdes élèves pendant le stage à l’aéroport.
Voici maintenant (tableau 4.1) un tableau récapitulatif de tous les objectifs du projet : les objectifs spécifiques et à
visée professionnelle et les compétences de médiation choisies pour y arriver. Dans les annexes 4.1 et 4.2, utiliséeslors des activités de préparation, nous avons indiqué de manière ponctuelle les descripteurs de médiation utilisés.

6.

Organisme scolaire responsable du suivi des élèves et des questions pédagogiques intéressant la vie de la classe, composé d’ensei­
gnants, de délégués d’élèves et de parents d’élèves.

Classroom practice Page 87

Tableau 4.1: Tableau récapitulatif des objectifs du projet
Objectifs professionnels et éducatifs
SavoirConnaître le lexique spécifique aéroportuaire.
Connaître le règlement interne et les règles de sécurité
aéroportuaires.
Posséder les notions de base pour l’assistance au passager au départ.
Savoir-faire
Savoir utiliser son répertoire plurilingue (italien, anglais,français, allemand ou espagnol) pour communiquer àdifférents voyageurs des informations, des explications,des instructions spécialisées et d’éventuels problèmes
concernant les opérations de départ en aéroport.
En particulier, les habiletés suivantes :f fournir des informations (services de l’aéroport,
vols, assistance, sécurité…) ;f donner des explications (panneaux d’affichage,carte d’embarquement, panneaux divers,étiquettes pour bagages, fonctionnementd’appareils) ;f inviter à contrôler l’étiquetage de ses bagages ;f inviter à utiliser tous les comptoirs d’enregistre­
ment pour éviter les queues inutiles ;f gérer avec les employés des comptoirs d’enregistrement l’afflux et la fluidité des queues en
ouverture/fermeture du comptoir ;f inviter à utiliser le service du dépose-bagages
automatique, le cas échéant ;f donner des instructions au dépose-bagages automatique pour l’enregistrement ;f combiner et alterner les langues si nécessaire.

Objectifs de médiation à l’oral
Médiation de texte
Transmettre des informations spécifiquesf Peut transmettre (en anglais, français, allemandou espagnol) des informations précises présentes
dans des supports visuels, des panneaux, desdocuments (écrits en italien ou en anglais) en
situation de voyage. Domaine public/profes­sionnel
de l’aéroport. Niveau B1.
f Peut transmettre (en anglais, français, allemandou espagnol) une série d’instructions courtes
et simples (écrites en italien ou en anglais) en
situation de voyage. Domaine public/professionnel
de l’aéroport. Niveau B1.
Expliquer des données
f Peut interpréter et décrire (en anglais, français,allemand ou espagnol) des informations détailléesde visuels (écrits en italien ou en anglais) en
situation de voyage, même si des lacunes lexicales peuvent donner lieu à des hésitations età des formulations imprécises. Domaine public/
professionnel de l’aéroport. Niveau B1+.
Médiation de la communication
Faciliter la communication dans des situations délicatesf Peut se rendre compte d’un désaccord entre interlocuteurs ou de difficultés dans une interaction
et adapter des expressions simples, mémorisées,pour rechercher un compromis ou un accord.
Niveau A2.
Compétence pluriculturelle et plurilingue

Exploiter un répertoire pluriculturel et plurilingue
f Peut, en général, tenir compte des conventions
concernant la posture, le contact visuel, la distance
Savoir-êtreà respecter entre les personnes, liées aux échanges
En ce qui concerne les compétences relationnelles etsociaux quotidiens. Niveau B1.
personnelles, l’élève doit :f Peut, en général, se conformer aux codes culturels
f améliorer sa capacité à être ouvert et à l’écouteles plus couramment utilisés. Niveau B1.
des autres ;f Peut faire appel à son répertoire plurilingue pourf savoir collaborer/coopérer en groupe, avec ses
communiquer des informations spécialisées, extuteurs scolaires et d’entreprise ;pliquer un problème ou donner des clarifications
dans son domaine d’intérêt7 (assistance aux voyaf être responsable et autonome ;geurs à l’aéroport). Niveau B1.
f s’adapter avec souplesse à la situation ;f être conscient des différences culturelles ;f savoir gérer de petits conflits éventuels ;f être entreprenant.

7.

Ce descripteur a été adapté.

Page 88 3 Enriching 21st-century language education

Objectifs professionnels et éducatifs

Objectifs de médiation à l’oral

Savoir apprendre
Sélectionner sources et données spécifiques en vue
des objectifs de travail.
Créer des glossaires multilingues.
Utiliser plusieurs applications pour la traduction et lamémorisation de mots.
Adapter ses connaissances et ses compétences au
contexte aéroportuaire.
Anticiper le moment où l’utilisation de plusieurs langues est utile et appropriée.
Réfléchir sur l’expérience d’apprentissage : points forts
et points faibles.
En ce qui concerne les descripteurs de médiation, nous les avons sélectionnés en fonction des situations decommunication principales auxquelles les élèves auraient à faire face, compte tenu de leur niveau linguistiquedans les différentes langues.
Comme on peut le constater, la plupart des descripteurs correspondent au niveau B1, car nous avons visé, pourplus de commodité, une base de compétences commune à toutes les langues étrangères étudiées par les élèves,mais il va de soi qu’ils avaient des niveaux différents dans chaque langue et que leur niveau allait de A2+ à B2+
selon la langue et la compétence concernées. Il faut dire, également, que nous avons fait travailler les élèves sur lescompétences orales, pour lesquelles il est souvent plus difficile d’atteindre des niveaux élevés en milieu scolaire.
Cependant, là où nous avons choisi des descripteurs de niveau inférieur, notamment A2 en médiation de lacommunication, la sélection a été établie en fonction des situations de communication réelles que les élèves
auraient à affronter et non pas en raison de leur niveau de compétence. En effet, les différends ne pouvaient
porter que sur de petits conflits lors des queues aux comptoirs d’enregistrement et d’embarquement. De plus,
en ce qui concerne la compétence plurilingue, nous avons choisi et adapté le descripteur B1 plutôt que B2parce que les situations de véritable communication plurilingue, où il faut combiner et alterner les langues enmême temps, auraient été plutôt rares pendant le stage. Les élèves étaient censés utiliser plusieurs langues maiss’adresser principalement à des groupes de voyageurs parlant la même langue.
Passons maintenant à la description détaillée des activités et du matériel élaboré pour les phases où les activitésde médiation ont été au centre du travail pédagogique.

4.2.1. Phase 1 – Lancement du projet
Cette phase a débuté par une rencontre avec le tuteur responsable de BGY International Services Srl, l’entreprise commanditaire, qui a présenté le projet de stage (objectifs, cahier des charges, règlement, modalitésde déroulement). Nous avons ensuite négocié avec les élèves le projet pédagogique élaboré par l’équipe desenseignants, surtout en ce qui concernait le déroulement des activités de préparation : les heures d’atelier lematin et l’après-midi, les modalités et, en partie, les contenus du travail. L’activité la plus intéressante de cettephase a été le remue-méninges collectif sur les besoins linguistiques et communicatifs.
Les élèves voulaient surtout acquérir le vocabulaire spécialisé et la phraséologie spécifique pour les échanges
avec les passagers. Le problème était aussi de les leur faire acquérir en quatre langues et d’une manière concrète
et utile. Ce qui nous a frappés, c’est qu’ils semblaient sous-estimer un peu le travail sur les habilités communicatives plurilingues, sur lequel portait le propre de leur stage. Pour eux, le gros du travail était de maîtriser lelexique de spécialité.

4.2.2. Phase 2 – Préparons nos bagages !
Nous avons donc commencé par les activités d’atelier collaboratif plurilingue en groupes et en collectif, auxquelles
nous avons consacré dix heures environ : deux heures en horaire curriculaire, huit heures dans l’après-midi enséances de deux heures chacune, pour cinq séances au total.
Les objectifs de cette phase étaient les suivants :1. réaliser d’abord des glossaires plurilingues sur le lexique de l’aéroport (sur les lieux, les documents de voyage,les panneaux, les écrans, les personnes, les actions, etc.) et sur les fonctions communicatives principales

Classroom practice Page 89

(donner des informations, expliquer/transmettre des données spécifiques sur les vols, sur l’enregistrement
en libre-service, contrôler l’étiquetage des bagages, diriger les passagers aux comptoirs d’enregistrement,
résoudre de petits problèmes à l’embarquement, etc.) ;2. s’entraîner par des simulations ou des jeux de rôle sur les habiletés communicatives demandées ;3. faire réfléchir les élèves sur l’activité de traduction et la communication en interaction avec les passagers
de différentes cultures ;4. faire réfléchir les élèves sur la compétence plurilingue : l’alternance codique (alternance entre plusieurs
codes dans un même énoncé), les techniques et les difficultés.
Pour cette phase, nous avons travaillé en classe, mais surtout au laboratoire multimédia pour profiter au mieuxde la plateforme de classe et travailler d’une manière coopérative. En effet, nous avions mis à la disposition desélèves des ressources numériques et des documents sur lesquels travailler en commun.

4.2.3. Les ressources
Pour soutenir le travail sur les glossaires et l’appuyer sur une activité plus ample de traduction et de réflexion
sur la médiation en général, nous avons créé une fiche « ressources » pour le travail en ligne avec une sitographie ciblée : dictionnaires, traducteurs, sites de compagnies aériennes. Notre choix a été d’exposer les élèves
au travail avec des traducteurs automatiques assez fiables, non seulement pour leur faciliter la tâche, mais
surtout pour les rendre plus sensibles à la nécessité de ne pas s’arrêter au premier mot trouvé : en traduction,
on procède par étapes afin de peaufiner la recherche et de choisir la traduction la plus précise possible euégard au contexte d’usage. Voilà pourquoi nous leur avons proposé de travailler d’abord avec des traducteurs
automatiques offrant la possibilité de choisir plusieurs synonymes, et ensuite de confronter ces derniers avec
le lexique spécifique contenu dans les sites des compagnies aériennes. Cela leur a permis de découvrir, parexemple, qu’un mot traduit correctement en contexte neutre ne correspondait pas à celui réellement utilisé
en contexte aéroportuaire. De plus, la consultation des sites des compagnies aériennes a contribué à développer leurs compétences de lecture de documents en langue de spécialité et les a rendus plus sensibles aux
nuances lexicales et culturelles, comme on va voir dans la présentation des glossaires.
Dans la fiche des ressources, nous avons également proposé des logiciels pour la fixation du vocabulaire, à utiliser à la maison et aussi à exploiter en classe (ThingLink, Quizlet, Anki). Il s’agit de logiciels de flashcards (cartes
mémoire) beaucoup plus efficaces que les méthodes d’étude traditionnelles car ils sont plus motivants pour lesélèves. Le travail de mémorisation demande un engagement personnel fort et plusieurs modalités et supports.
Or, tous les logiciels que nous avons proposés permettent d’associer audios, images et vidéos comme supports
et offrent un parcours de travail balisé et personnalisé en fonction des besoins de l’utilisateur.

4.2.4. Les fiches de travail
Lors des séances d’atelier, après avoir expliqué les objectifs et les tâches à accomplir, nous avons partagé laclasse en petits groupes qui ont travaillé de manière collaborative sur les deux fiches de travail que nous avions
préparées et publiées sur la plateforme de classe (Google Classroom).
Fiche de travail 1 (voir annexe 4.1)
La première et la deuxième séance ont été surtout consacrées à la réalisation de glossaires multilingues de base
sur l’aéroport. À cela, nous avons ajouté des exercices à faire en classe et à la maison pour favoriser l’acquisition
du lexique de spécialité.
Pour le travail sur les glossaires de ces deux séances, assez considérable, les élèves se sont partagé librement lesparties à compléter en écriture collaborative de chaque glossaire. Il était obligatoire pour tous de travailler entandem sur une langue de leur choix, puis de se confronter avec les autres membres de leur groupe pour unevue d’ensemble de leur partie du glossaire.
Ils avaient l’obligation, aussi, une fois le mot à traduire trouvé à l’aide d’un dictionnaire ou d’un traducteur
automatique (de préférence DeepL), de vérifier leur choix sur les sites de quelques compagnies aériennes, pourvalider le mot en question d’une manière plus certaine en contexte professionnel.
Dans un premier temps, donc, on a fait se concentrer les élèves sur la traduction multilingue. Cela pour deux raisonsprincipales : d’une part, pour les aider à acquérir et à enrichir leur vocabulaire de base et de spécialité ; d’autre part,pour les exposer aux difficultés de la traduction et les sensibiliser à la communication et à l’activité de médiation.
En effet, bien qu’il s’agisse d’élèves de niveau B1/B2, ils n’avaient pas une grande expérience de traduction etavaient tendance à se contenter du premier mot trouvé par le traducteur automatique ou dans le dictionnaire.

Page 90 3 Enriching 21st-century language education

Outre le travail de traduction, surtout pendant les deux premières séances, nous avons proposé des exercices
avec des flashcards pour la mémorisation du lexique, utile pour les jeux de rôle venant ensuite. Dans un premier
temps, nous avons préparé des images parlantes avec ThingLink, puis ce sont les élèves qui ont dû taguer desimages. Ainsi ont-ils appris à se familiariser avec cet outil numérique et à expérimenter d’autres manières d’apprendre le lexique. En effet, pour les stimuler et les inciter à effectuer un travail individuel de mémorisation, nous
leur avons présenté d’autres logiciels de flashcards vraiment utiles et motivants, comme je l’ai évoqué plus haut.
Tout ce travail a contribué, donc, à développer également leurs compétences numériques.
Fiche de travail 2 (voir annexe 4.2)
La préparation au stage moyennant des activités de médiation s’est élargie dans les séances suivantes, où lesélèves ont continué à constituer des glossaires plurilingues, mais où ils ont aussi effectué des jeux de rôle plurilingues, en particulier dans la quatrième et la cinquième séance.
Le travail de traduction que nous avons proposé lors de ces séances a concerné, en effet, les actes de parole etle vocabulaire à utiliser lors des échanges avec les passagers.
Cette fois-là, nous leur avons proposé non seulement des phrases mais aussi de petits textes à traduire concernant des situations spécifiques, telles que les démarches à suivre pour l’étiquetage et le contrôle des bagages,les consignes pour l’enregistrement et la dépose des bagages en libre-service, la gestion des queues aux
comptoirs… En effet, les élèves n’avaient pas d’expérience personnelle de ces situations et il était nécessairede nous assurer qu’ils maîtrisaient ces notions, la traduction étant aussi l’occasion d’une vérification ultérieurede la compréhension des tâches du stage.
Les consignes pour la traduction étaient grosso modo les mêmes que dans les autres séances. Ce que nous avonsvarié, c’était la modalité du travail en groupes : quatuors, trios, duos et travail individuel. Cela a permis aux élèvesde changer de camarades et de rôles. La seule grande difficulté a été, par moments, la distribution des langues
dans les groupes : comme il n’y avait que cinq élèves étudiant l’allemand, nous leur avons parfois assigné tout
le travail de traduction en allemand.
À partir de la troisième séance, nous avons proposé des activités visant à transmettre des informations et desinstructions, donner des explications, décrire, etc. ; bref, les exercices et leurs contenus sont devenus plus communicatifs et plurilingues. En binômes ou à trois, les élèves devaient jouer les différentes situations, d’abord entre
eux, puis devant la classe. Nous avons même expérimenté une sorte d’interprétation consécutive multilingue
en proposant aux élèves de donner des instructions à partir d’un tutoriel en anglais de la compagnie Finnair.
C’est dans les deux dernières séances, donc, que le travail de préparation a porté le plus sur l’exploitation desdescripteurs du répertoire plurilingue.
De tout ce travail, ce que les élèves ont le plus apprécié était de travailler avec plusieurs langues en même temps,de pouvoir jongler d’une langue à l’autre, car ils n’avaient pas l’habitude de le faire en classe.

4.2.5. Phase 3 – On décolle !
Nous ne ferons pas ici une description détaillée de cette phase, puisque cette étude de cas repose, pour l’essentiel, sur les compétences et les descripteurs de médiation.
Dans cette phase, qui s’est déroulée en six jours, les élèves ont fait leur stage à l’aéroport sous la direction de leurtuteur d’entreprise. Le premier jour, ils ont été encadrés par le personnel s’occupant du stage : ils ont révisé leurcahier des charges, les règles à suivre ; ils ont formé les équipes pour les différents postes de travail, ils ont établi
avec le tuteur leur roulement de travail ; et, enfin, ils ont visité les parties du terminal où ils auraient à travailler.
Pendant cette phase, les élèves n’ont pas suivi de cours à l’école, mais ils ont gardé contact avec leurs tuteurs
scolaires (le professeur d’italien et moi) et ils ont rédigé leur journal de stage.

4.2.6. Phase 4 – On atterrit !
Une fois rentrés à l’école, après un moment d’évaluation informelle avec les élèves, nous avons procédé à l’évaluation du projet d’une manière systématique.
L’évaluation formativeL’équipe du projet s’est réunie pour s’échanger les observations effectuées lors de la phase de préparation etmême après, en classe, pendant les cours. Le choix de l’équipe avait été celui de soutenir les élèves pendant leurpréparation et d’effectuer une évaluation informelle des documents produits et des simulations orales.

Classroom practice Page 91

En général, pour ce qui est du travail sur les glossaires et la compétence de traduction, les enseignants ont
enregistré une bonne performance de la part de tous les élèves et le travail de correction n’a concerné que peu
de mots ou de phrases. Là où l’on a dû intervenir le plus, c’était sur les travaux en allemand, langue visiblement
plus difficile pour les italophones.
Une chose nous a surpris. Les élèves étaient auparavant habitués, pour la plupart, à n’utiliser que des dictionnaires
bilingues et Google Traduction et n’avaient pas spécialement acquis l’aptitude à confronter la traduction d’un
mot ou d’une phrase à l’aide de synonymes en contexte d’usage, à plus forte raison en contexte de langue despécialité. Grâce à ce travail, néanmoins, nous avons observé qu’ils ont appris, petit à petit, à toujours vérifier
leurs premiers résultats en consultant plusieurs sources. De plus, en travaillant en tandem et en petits groupes,ils ont appris à médier avec les autres l’interprétation et les nuances de la signification d’un mot, et ils ont expérimenté la médiation du sens et de la communication. Même au niveau du travail collaboratif et coopératif, ils
ont fait des progrès. Au début, ils croyaient pouvoir travailler individuellement après s’être subdivisé la tâchedans le groupe, mais ils ont compris au fur et à mesure que l’enjeu de la tâche de médiation – à savoir, apprendre
à construire du sens et à faciliter l’accès au sens – implique de l’ouverture d’esprit et ne peut pas se faire sansl’appui et la collaboration des autres.
Quant à l’évaluation des performances orales pendant les jeux de rôle, nous avons remarqué que les élèves avaientplus de difficultés que prévu : beaucoup d’hésitations, de blocages, de postures rigides lors des échanges. Par
conséquent, nous avons dû y consacrer plus de temps (même pendant les heures de cours de langue du matin)pour faire en sorte qu’ils acquièrent une meilleure maîtrise des compétences linguistiques et de la spontanéité
dans l’usage des langues et dans le passage d’une langue à l’autre.

4.2.6.1. Autoévaluation de l’expérience linguistique et de médiation (voir annexe 4.3)
À cause du peu de temps à notre disposition, au lieu de procéder à une évaluation formelle en classe des compétences linguistiques et de médiation, nous avons proposé aux élèves une activité d’autoévaluation par unquestionnaire concernant le travail de traduction sur les glossaires et la médiation plurilingue.
Le retour des élèves a été très positif. Ils ont considéré la préparation en médiation très utile et efficace pourfaire face aux différentes situations professionnelles d’assistance aux passagers. En effet, ils ont tous pratiqué
au moins deux langues étrangères, parfois en même temps, avec une bonne maîtrise en anglais, en françaiset en espagnol. Ils ont jugé cruciaux, pour la bonne réussite du projet, le travail de traduction effectué pourla constitution de glossaires spécifiques et le fait d’avoir utilisé des outils numériques en plus des activités desimulation des situations de communication.
Enfin, ils souhaitent avoir plus d’occasions à l’école de développer leur compétence plurilingue et pluriculturelle
et reconnaissent le bien-fondé de l’insertion systématique des activités de médiation dans le curriculum.

4.2.6.2. Feedback du tuteur d’entreprise
Le rapport d’évaluation du tuteur d’entreprise a mis en valeur la complète réalisation des compétences et desprestations professionnelles demandées aux élèves, aussi bien dans l’organisation et l’autonomie de travail quedans les relations et la communication avec les passagers. Son évaluation se situe entre « très bien » et « bien »pour tous les élèves.

4.2.6.3. Feedback des élèves sur l’expérience dans son ensemble
Sur la plateforme ASL8 du lycée, les élèves ont eux aussi fait leur évaluation globale du stage, puis ont rédigé unrapport en version papier, qui a été évalué par les tuteurs scolaires.
Leur jugement sur cette expérience a été positif, surtout en ce qui concerne l’exploitation de leurs compétences
plurilingues. Ils ont mis en relief le fait qu’ils ont pu abondamment et concrètement pratiquer les langues
étudiées, ce qui n’est pas toujours possible en milieu scolaire. Ils ont également bien apprécié le travail depréparation car, ensuite, ils se sont sentis à la hauteur de la situation, capables d’accomplir les tâches assignées sans s’affoler.

8.

Alternanza Scuola-Lavoro. Ce sigle indique l’activité de stage en milieu professionnel.

Page 92 3 Enriching 21st-century language education

4.3. DISCUSSION
Nous avons voulu prendre en considération l’impact que ce projet allait avoir sur les professeurs impliqués etsur les élèves.
Côté enseignants de langues, nous avons constaté qu’il y a eu une plus grande collaboration et intégration
grâce au travail en équipe sur ce projet. Dans l’école italienne, il est plutôt rare que les enseignants collaborent d’une manière interdisciplinaire, surtout les enseignants de langues étrangères. Chacun a tendanceà se cantonner dans sa propre discipline et à perdre de vue un but commun à l’enseignement des langues :l’éducation linguistique et l’éducation plurilingue. Ce projet nous a permis de faire une réflexion générale
sur le chemin que nous devons parcourir pour développer chez les élèves une compétence communicative
véritable, centrée sur la mise en place de compétences linguistiques et culturelles transversales à toutes leslangues, même l’italien. En travaillant en équipe, nous avons vu que cela est possible, il faut toujours y croire
et multiplier les occasions de le faire. Nous n’avons pas vraiment pratiqué une didactique intégrée des langues, pas encore. Cependant, nous avons été sensibilisés à la poursuite de ce type de didactique grâce à cetteexpérience concrète quoique limitée. Pour cela, l’expérimentation de quelques descripteurs de médiation etle concept partagé de médiation en lui-même ont été le ciment de notre collaboration. Rien n’est facile, maisrien n’est impossible quand on s’y met avec, en soutien, une approche pertinente et reposant sur des outils
didactiques efficaces.
Certes, appliquer les descripteurs de médiation n’est pas automatique, il faut savoir bien les sélectionner et lessituer dans leur propre contexte d’enseignement. Parfois, nous n’étions pas certains de les avoir bien compris ;souvent, nous avons eu l’envie de les combiner, hésitant entre un descripteur de niveau B2 et un de niveau B1 ;quelquefois, nous avons été obligés d’en adapter quelques-uns en changeant un peu leur formulation. Du reste,
nous ne sommes qu’au début de leur expérimentation à l’école, et ce n’est qu’en les utilisant que nous pourrons
faire des progrès et améliorer leur emploi.
Côté élèves, ce sont eux qui nous ont donné un grand enseignement. Si l’on considère leurs feedbacks, ils
demandent de plus en plus de pratiquer la médiation et le plurilinguisme pendant les cours de langue. Pendantles cours, en effet, ils étudient les langues d’une façon compartimentée, alors qu’à travers ce projet, ils ont réalisé
qu’ils ont bel et bien une compétence plurilingue à développer, encore partielle certes, mais ils l’ont, ils l’ont
prouvé concrètement alors qu’ils n’en avaient pas vraiment conscience jusque-là.
Leur succès, leurs performances positives nous indiquent que c’est dans cette voie qu’il faut continuer.

4.4. CONCLUSION
Notre lycée a une forte orientation linguistique, comme je l’ai expliqué dans l’introduction. Il se prête bien,
par conséquent, à l’expérimentation sur une plus large échelle des descripteurs de la médiation, ceux-ci étant
étroitement liés aux compétences de sortie de nos élèves.
À la lumière de cette première expérimentation, nous avons l’intention d’en effectuer d’autres, avec l’objectifd’insérer les activités de médiation d’une façon systématique à court terme dans les pratiques de classe, et àlong terme dans le cursus scolaire.
Les descripteurs de médiation les plus appropriés pour notre lycée sont ceux de la rubrique Médiation de textes,
aussi bien à l’oral qu’à l’écrit : transmettre des informations, expliquer des données, traduire, traiter un texte,réagir à l’égard d’un texte créatif.
Dans un premier temps, l’expérimentation pourrait être réalisée, sur base volontaire, par les enseignants de langues et d’italien travaillant dans les mêmes classes, à partir d’une ou deux langues étrangères. Il faudra veiller à
ce que les activités de médiation rentrent dans les cours d’une ou plusieurs disciplines linguistiques et, pourquoi
pas, non linguistiques (enseignement EMILE9).
Pour conclure, notre perspective est de développer l’apprentissage intégré des langues et des cultures par desactivités multilingues, basées sur la médiation, pour aboutir à un dispositif didactique et pédagogique innovant
et visant la compétence plurilingue.

9.

Enseignement d’une matière intégré à une langue étrangère.

Classroom practice Page 93

RÉFÉRENCES
Primaire
Conseil de l’Europe, Cadre européen commun de référence pour les langues : apprendre, enseigner, évaluer, Didier,
Paris, 2001. Voir : www.coe.int/fr/web/common-european-framework-reference-languages.
Conseil de l’Europe, Cadre européen commun de référence pour les langues : apprendre, enseigner, évaluer. Volume
complémentaire avec de nouveaux descripteurs, Conseil de l’Europe, Strasbourg, 2018. Disponible à l’adresse :https://rm.coe.int/cecr-volume-complementaire-avec-de-nouveaux-descripteurs/16807875d5.
North B. et Piccardo E., Cadre européen commun de référence pour les langues : apprendre, enseigner, évaluer.
Élaborer des descripteurs pour illustrer les aspects de la médiation pour le CECR, Conseil de l’Europe, Strasbourg,
2016. Disponible à l’adresse : https://rm.coe.int/cadre-europeen-commun-de-reference-pour-les-langues-­
apprendre-enseigne/168073ff32.
Secondaire
Beacco J.-C. , Byram M., Cavalli M., Coste D., Egli Cuenat M., Goullier F. et Panthier J., Guide pour le développement
et la mise en œuvre de curriculums pour une éducation plurilingue et interculturelle, Conseil de l’Europe, Strasbourg,
2016.
Candelier M., de Pietro J.-F., Facciol R., Lorincz I., Pascual X. et Schröder-Sura A ., Le CARAP, un cadre de référence
pour les approches plurielles des langues et des cultures. Compétences et ressources, Centre européen pour les langues
vivantes/Conseil de l’Europe, Strasbourg, 2012. Disponible à l’adresse : www.ecml.at/Portals/1/documents/
ECML-resources/CARAP-FR.pdf?ver=2018-03-20-120658-740, consulté le 10 janvier 2020.
Coste D. et Cavalli M., Éducation, mobilité, altérité. Les fonctions de médiation de l’école, Conseil de l’Europe,
Strasbourg, 2015.

ANNEXES
Disponibles à la fin de la version PDF en ligne
Annexe 4.1 – Fiche de travail 1 : Aéroport – Vocabulaire général
Annexe 4.2 – Fiche de travail 2 : Aéroport – Actes de parole
Annexe 4.3 – Autoévaluation : questionnaire et résultats

Page 94 3 Enriching 21st-century language education

Chapter 5“IN VENLO GIBT ES VIEL NIEDERLÄNDISCH,
ABER AUCH ENGLISCH UND DEUTSCH”10 –A WORKSHOP ON RECEPTIVE PLURILINGUALISM
IN THE NEIGHBOUR LANGUAGE
Sabine Jentges, Eva M. Knopp, and Paul Sars, Radboud Universiteit Nijmegen, the Netherlands

ABSTRACT
Dutch and German are typologically closely related neighbour languages that allow their native speakers tounderstand the respective neighbour language, making successful interaction on the basis of receptive plurilingualism (intercomprehension) possible. The new CEFR Companion volume (Council of Europe 2018, 2020)
identifies and promotes this communication strategy as part of plurilingual competence. But how can thesestrategies be effectively developed in young language learners?
This case study is based on a group of 14-year-olds from a German secondary school in the German-Dutch borderregion, who had not had any teaching in Dutch as a foreign language and followed a five-day extracurricular workshop programme. In this training programme the students got to know and learned to use strategies for receptive
plurilingualism in order to prepare for and reflect on a one-day excursion to the nearby Dutch city of Venlo.
To this end, teaching materials were developed that make use of and demonstrate the cultural and typologicalcloseness between the students’ school language – German – and the target language – Dutch. Materials were
designed and compiled in such a way that students also learned how to make use of their other languages wheninterpreting a new language. In a second step, the students got to know methods for cultural and linguistic landscaping, which allowed them to apply the strategies that they had developed in the classroom to the unknown urban
environment – the Dutch city Venlo, which they visited on the third workshop day. They reflected on their excursion
on day four and presented the results of their group work to a school-wide audience on the last workshop day.
The effectiveness of the training programme is discussed by means of analyses (1) of the end-products of theworkshop (poster presentations) and of observations of the students over the course of the training programmeand (2) of the results of a pre- and post-test that elicited their plurilingual comprehension skills in Dutch (decodingtask) at the beginning of the training programme and – in a slightly altered version – towards the end.
Results indicated that students were able to apply their newly acquired skills in their group work and, to someextent, also in the decoding task. The analysis of the decoding task, however, also revealed strong differences
between individuals in successfully applying the newly acquired skills. While this might partly be an effectof reduced motivation during the post-test, the authors also interpret this as an indication that plurilingual
decoding skills and, thus, plurilingual cultural competence are also affected by other individual factors such as
metalinguistic awareness, past experience with other languages and cultures, or ambiguity tolerance.
The study shows that the descriptor scales for plurilingual competence included in the CEFR Companion volume
are applicable and can be successfully integrated in innovative, authentic and age-appropriate educational
formats for young adults. The authors suggest that a more detailed description of awareness-raising (metalinguistic) strategies might further support the development of teaching methods and materials that support thedevelopment of plurilingual competence in young learners.

RÉSUMÉ
Le néerlandais et l’allemand sont des langues voisines et typologiquement proches. Les locuteurs natifs dechacune de ces langues sont capables de comprendre des locuteurs de l’autre langue, ce qui rend possible
la communication basée sur le bilinguisme réceptif. Le nouveau Volume complémentaire du CECR (Conseil
de l’Europe, 2018 et 2020) identifie et promeut cette stratégie de communication comme faisant partie d’une

10. Quote from a final presentation by a group of students on the linguistic landscape of Venlo.

Page 95

compétence plurilingue. La question qui s’impose alors est de savoir comment un apprenant peut développer
ces stratégies d’une manière efficace et adéquate.
Cette étude de cas est basée sur un groupe d’élèves de 14 ans fréquentant une école secondaire en Allemagne
dans la région frontalière. Ces élèves n’ont jamais suivi de cours de néerlandais comme langue étrangère. Dansle cadre de notre étude, ils ont suivi un programme extracurriculaire de cinq jours pendant lequel ils ont été
familiarisés avec le principe du multilinguisme réceptif. Les élèves ont également préparé une excursion d’unjour vers la ville néerlandaise de Venlo. La réflexion constituait une partie intégrale du programme.
À ces fins, dans un premier temps, des matériaux pédagogiques ont été développés, incorporant la ressemblance
culturelle et typologique entre la langue scolaire des élèves (l’allemand) et la langue cible (le néerlandais). Cesmatériaux avaient également comme objectif de montrer aux élèves comment ils peuvent faire usage des langues qu’ils connaissent lors du déchiffrement d’une nouvelle langue.
Dans un deuxième temps, les élèves ont été exposés à des méthodes de « cultural and linguistic landscaping »,leur permettant d’appliquer les stratégies évoquées à l’environnement urbain inconnu, c’est-à-dire, dans ce
cas, la ville néerlandaise de Venlo. Cette ville était la destination de l’excursion qui a eu lieu le troisième jour duprogramme. Le lendemain, ils ont réfléchi sur leur visite. Pour finir, le dernier jour du programme, ils ont présenté
leur projet à un public regroupant des élèves de toute l’école.
Nous discuterons l’effet de ce programme d’entraînement en analysant (1) les produits finaux et les observations
faites par les chercheurs et les enseignants durant le programme et (2) les résultats du prétest et du post-test
qui ont recueilli les données sur les capacités de compréhension plurilingue en néerlandais.
Les résultats indiquent que les élèves ont été capables d’appliquer les stratégies récemment acquises dans leurstravaux de groupe et aussi, dans une certaine mesure, dans la tâche de décodage. Pourtant, l’analyse des résultats
de cette tâche de décodage a montré d’importantes différences entre les élèves quant à leur réussite dans l’application des compétences récemment acquises. Même si ces résultats peuvent partiellement être dus à une baissede motivation pendant le post-test, nous les considérons aussi comme un indice que les compétences de décodage plurilingue – et donc leurs compétences culturelles plurilingues – sont affectées par des facteurs individuels.
Notre étude montre que les échelles de compétence plurilingue présentées dans le Volume complémentaire sontvalides et peuvent être intégrées sans problème dans des formats éducatifs innovateurs contenant du matériel
authentique et tenant compte de l’âge et des centres d’intérêt des jeunes adultes. Nous suggérons qu’unedescription plus détaillée des stratégies évoquant la conscience (métalinguistique) pourrait soutenir encore
davantage le développement de la compétence plurilingue chez les jeunes apprenant une langue étrangère.

5.1. INTRODUCTION
A number of studies have shown that receptive plurilingualism is a successful means of communication when
native speakers of the two closely related neighbour languages Dutch and German enter into conversation(Beerkens 2010; Gooskens et al. 2017; Ház 2005; van Mulken and Hendriks 2015). These studies have predominantly
investigated adult native speakers in university and professional settings, but similar communicative patterns
have been observed in the interactions of the Dutch and German school-age teenagers that participate in school
exchanges between Dutch and German secondary schools organised by the Interreg project Nachbarsprache &buurcultuur. The following examples taken from transcripts of group activities within the project illustrate this:11
Example 1
S1D: [...] Maar wat betekent, bedoelt Schrifttyp?
But what is the word for “Schrifttyp”?
S1NL: Oh in het Nederlands is dat gewoon hetzelfde.
Oh, in Dutch, it is actually the same.
[…]
S2D: […] Was heißt Symbole?
What is the name for “Symbole”?
S1D: Symbole ist … glaube ich symbole. Oder? Symbole?
“Symbole” is … I think … “symbole”. Or not? Symbole?

11. Participant IDs indicate the native language (D standing for German and NL standing for Dutch). The original utterance is followed bya rough translation into English.

Page 96 3 Enriching 21st-century language education

S1NL: Is gewoon symbool.
Is simply “symbool”.
[Transcript 2013.07.23_23_23_01]

The Dutch and German students involved in the interactions above had been learning the respective neighbour language for about two to three years and had reached an average level of A2/A2+. In the group activity
documented in the transcripts above the students were arranged in binational groups and were working
together on a task. No instructions had been given to them concerning the language to be used while completing the task and, thus, groups had to decide for themselves how to deal with this. Example 2 illustrates
such a decision-making process:
Example 2
S5D: Uhm in welke taal doen wij het project? Uhm. Nederlands of Duits?
Uhm in which language are we doing the project? Uhm. Dutch or German?
S8NL: Uh kunnen wij niet dat wij Nederlands doen en jij Duits?
Uhm, can we not do it that we do it in Dutch and you in German?
SXNL:12 Dat doen wij ook.
That’s how we do it, too.
S5D: Oké.
Okay.
S7NL: Dat kan ook. Dat is eigen moedertaal. Dat is altijd goed.
That should also work. That is each their own mother tongue. That is always good.
[Transcript: 2014.07.30_22.12_01]

It is noteworthy that all seven Dutch-German groups of students in the above-mentioned project decided touse their respective L1s when communicating with each other. None of them made use of English as a lingua
franca or used another shared heritage language and none of them settled on either only Dutch or only German,
which would have meant some group members using their L1 and the rest using the L2 they are learning at
school. (For more details of this project, see Jentges et al. 2021.)
The above illustrated communication strategy makes use of the high levels of mutual intelligibility between
the typologically closely related languages Dutch and German and represents “a mode of interaction in which
speakers with different linguistic backgrounds use their respective preferred language while understanding thelanguage of their interlocutor” (Blees and ten Thije 2017: 333). In the literature, several terms have been used todenote this strategy (see ten Thije 2018). The most common term found in recent applied linguistics publications
is “receptive multilingualism” (Rehbein et al. 2012; ten Thije 2018). In Romance and German language contexts,
however, the concept has also been known as intercompréhension (French) or Interkomprehension (German) (seeDoyé 2005; Hufeisen and Marx 2014; Meißner 2008; ten Thije 2018). In line with other Council of Europe publications, for instance Krumm (2004), we use the term “receptive plurilingualism” in this article. Within this frame ofreference, using the term “plurilingualism” instead of “multilingualism” stresses the underlying assumption thatthe linguistic competence on which individuals draw when making use of the above-described communicative
strategy consists of a “dynamic and developing linguistic repertoire” (Council of Europe 2018: 28; 2020: 30) in
which the linguistic knowledge that the individual has developed is not stable and neatly separated between
their different languages. It should be mentioned here, however, that by using this term we do not want toindicate with this that the above cited scholars, who use the term “receptive multiligualism”, take an opposing
perspective on the nature of linguistic competence.
Accordingly, the linguistic and communicative strategies that an individual employs when calling upon their“inter-related, uneven, plurilinguistic repertoire” (Council of Europe 2018: 28; 2020: 30) are considered as
aspects of an individual’s plurilingual and pluricultural competence. The CEFR Companion volume provides
new descriptor scales for plurilingual and pluricultural competence (2018: 157-62; 2020: 123-8). The scalethat most appropriately captures receptive plurilingualism is the scale for pluricultural comprehension: “thepractical functional ability to exploit plurilingualism for comprehension” (2018: 160; 2020: 126). It combines
both written and oral receptive abilities and starts from an A1-Level, at which learners are expected to “recognise internationalisms and words common to different languages (e.g. Haus/hus/house)” (ibid., emphasis
in original) in order to decode short oral announcements and exchanges and written signs and messages in

12. Unidentifiable student from a different group, passing by.

Classroom practice Page 97

the target language. The increase of ability in plurilingual comprehension is partly operationalised through anincrease in complexity of the message or text to be comprehended (e.g. from simple social exchange or shortwritten sign at A1 to the comprehension of entire magazine articles at B2). Modality, however, also plays a rolein the stratification of levels in the sense that from B1 onwards the descriptors focus on the comprehension of
written communication instead of oral. Increase in plurilingual comprehension is also partly operationalisedby means of the linguistic phenomenon that is employed to support it. While at Level A1 the focus is on theuse of cross-linguistic similarities at a word level (i.e. internationalisms and cognates), language users are
expected to make use of cross-linguistic similarities of grammatical structures and functional expressions by
B1 and cross-linguistic similarities of text pragmatics at B2.
In the descriptor scales for plurilingual competence it is recognised that this skill is sensitive to the specificlanguages involved in the sense that speakers with a specific plurilingual repertoire develop a plurilingualcompetence for specific target languages. This takes into account that typological similarities and differencesplay a role in the development of plurilingual communicative competences, such as receptive plurilingualism.
This is supported by empirical findings, as studies have shown that communication involving receptive plurilingualism is not always effective in all language constellations and is dependent on a number of contextual
variables (Blees and ten Thije 2017; Gooskens et al. 2017; Ribbert and ten Thije 2007). However, this mode has
been found to be a very efficient means of communication when native speakers of Dutch and German haveto exchange information (Beerkens 2010; van Mulken and Hendriks 2015). That is, under the precondition thateveryone involved in the communicative interaction has a basic receptive knowledge of the respective otherlanguage and that they are aware of this option of communication (Beerkens 2010; Blees and ten Thije 2017;
Ribbert and ten Thije 2007; van Mulken and Hendriks 2015).
But how can learners from Germany and the Netherlands, and in particular young learners with no priorknowledge of the respective neighbour language, be prepared to make use of these communication strategies when interacting with their peers, for example in cross-border school exchanges? And to what extent
are their developing skills captured by the new descriptor scales for plurilingual comprehension? This casestudy investigates these questions. In the remainder of this introduction we provide relevant backgroundinformation on the Dutch-German cross-border context, the project Nachbarsprache & buurcultuur and thecommunication patterns found for students participating in Dutch-German school exchanges organised
within the project. This will be followed by a detailed description of the set-up and findings of our case study.
Here we will also allude to the way the contents and findings of our case study relate to the CEFR descriptorsof plurilingual comprehension, as they are proposed in the CEFR Companion volume. Before coming to a
final conclusion, we discuss our findings and reflect on the transferability and potentials of our project forneighbour language contexts.

5.1.1. Neighbour-language learning in the Dutch-German border region
Learning a neighbour language, by definition, involves dealing with proximity. With respect to the Dutch-German
context, this proximity is detectable not only geographically, but also linguistically, culturally, historically andeconomically (Jentges and Sars 2018; 2019). The multi-facetedness of proximities and connections is particularly
apparent in the Dutch-German border regions, where dialects are spoken across national borders and a historyof alternating national and territorial belonging is shared (Jentges and Sars 2017, 2020), Sars and Jentges 2018).
In addition, steadily increasing European integration has resulted in the fact that the political and economic
borders in the Dutch-German border regions are less and less detectable. However, in spite of the growing focus
on urban centres, the loss of regional dialects and the rising importance of English as a second language on
both sides of the border, cultural and linguistic borders have remained.
This is the context in which the Interreg project Nachbarsprache & buurcultuur was set up, funded (2017-20)
through Interreg Project Va and jointly carried out by the Departement moderne talen en culturen – Duitse taal
en cultuur & Nederlande-Duitsland Studies of Radboud University in Nijmegen and the departments Deutsch
als Fremd-/Zweitsprache and Niederlandistik, together with the Institut für niederrheinische Kulturgeschichte(INKUR) in the Universität Duisburg-Essen. For further details, see Sars et al. (2018), Boonen et al. (2018) and the
project website: www.ru.nl/nachbarsprache/. The goal of the project is to facilitate, support and monitor school
exchanges between Dutch and German secondary schools located in the border area in order to make themmore sustainable in terms of their longevity and intercultural depth, so that school exchange is not experienced
as a brief, one-off cross-border visit but rather as a long-term intercultural learning experience based on learning
about each other by learning from each other.

Page 98 3 Enriching 21st-century language education

5.1.2. Communication strategies in Dutch-German school exchanges
As mentioned above, proximity in the Dutch-German context refers not only to geographical closeness but
also to the typological closeness of the two neighbour languages. Dutch and German are, just like English andFrisian, West Germanic languages (Boonen and Harmes 2013; Hufeisen and Marx 2014) and are typologicallyvery closely related. This applies particularly to the dialects spoken in the border region, such as the lower
German Nedersaksisch/Niedersächsisch and the lower Franconian Limburgish (Bakker 2017). This typologicalcloseness allows speakers to employ communication strategies that involve receptive plurilingualism (tenThije et al. 2016).
Nevertheless, we have observed in our project that the Dutch and German students participating in our school
exchanges find it extremely difficult to interact with each other, particularly when they have only just started tolearn the respective neighbour language. An analysis (Hartmann 2019) of observational data on communicative
patterns and strategies employed by students in exchange situations within our project showed that students
struggle and require support when attempting to communicate in binational group activities. By themselves, they
are not aware of all the possible means of communication available to them and assume that communication is
only possible in the target foreign language. Despite the fact that all of them have prior knowledge of English as
their first foreign language, they hardly ever resort to English as a lingua franca. In addition to this, they do notmake use of the similarities of German and Dutch and are, for instance, positively surprised when they discover thatthey do not need to translate certain terms into the target language (cf. the internationalisms in example 1 above).
Also the analyses of the group communications of the slightly more advanced learners (seen in examples 1 and2 above) indicate that students participating in school exchanges implicitly assume that it is expected of themto use the target language, as becomes apparent in example 3 below:
Example 3
S12D: In welke taal wil jij presenteren? Duits of Nederlands?
In which language do you want to present? German or Dutch?
S14NL: Ja Duits denk ik dan, want hij staat nou ook in het Duits. Hier.
Yes, I think German, since it [the instruction] also is in German. Here.
S13D: Wir müssen es eigentlich auf Niederländisch präsentieren, ne?
We actually have to present it in Dutch, don’t we?
S12D: Eigentlich schon, ne. Wir machen einfach alles auf Deutsch. Wahrscheinlich.
Actually yes. We will just do everything in German. Probably.
[…]
S12D: Ik wil het niet in het Nederlands presenteren, maar mijn leraar wordt het niet goed vinden als ik in het Duitspraat.
I don’t want to present in Dutch, but my teacher will not be happy if I speak in German.
S14NL: Nee ik denk het niet nee.
No, I don’t think so.
S12D: Hm.
[…]
S13D: Ja, weiß ich nicht. Ich habe Angst das Herr Dx dann böse auf mich ist.
Yes, I don’t know. I am scared that Mr D. will be angry with me then.
[Transcript 2013.07.23_23.23_01]

It can be concluded from this that (particularly beginner) learners of Dutch and German are not aware of thecloseness of the two languages and the facilitating potential that this brings to plurilingual comprehension (cf.
Hartman 2019). When learners have acquired basic levels, we find that they begin to make use of their plurilingual
repertoire by exploiting the similarities between the two languages. They appear to do this, particularly at wordlevel, through the recognition of cognates and internationalisms, which indicates that the descriptors for plurilingual comprehension at the A1 Level are appropriate. However, when interacting with their respective peersin authentic cross-border encounters they assume that they are required to communicate only in the respective
neighbour language, their L2, and there are strong indications that this is related to their monolingually oriented
language-classroom experience. As a consequence, they seldom make use of their full plurilingual repertoireand rarely use communication strategies involving receptive plurilingualism. When they do so, however, they
are positively surprised and experience this as a great possibility to avoid previous communication problems.

Classroom practice Page 99

5.2. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
In view of these findings, we developed a workshop that introduces German and Dutch students with no or
little prior knowledge of their respective neighbour language to strategies involving receptive plurilingualism
in order to develop their plurilingual comprehension competence when being confronted with that languagein authentic everyday cross-border experiences. In the spring of 2019, we piloted a first version of this workshop
at a German secondary school in the Euregio Rhein-Waal.
Our pilot workshop was called “Nederlands rezeptief door linguistic landscaping” (Comprehending Dutch
through linguistic landscaping) and took place over five consecutive days as an extracurricular project inthe 7th grade of one of our partner schools in the project Nachbarsprache & buurcultuur. The Gymnasium
Rheinkamp-Europaschule Moers is a German secondary school (“Gymnasium”) in the city of Moers, about
half an hour’s drive from the Dutch border, on the western edge of the metropolitan area Rhein-Ruhr. The
school has a strong language profile, offering a CLIL track with geography lessons in English as the languageof instruction from 5th or 7th grade onwards, as well as classic foreign language (FL) instruction in French,
Latin, Italian and Dutch. All children have to take English as a first FL, followed by French as a second FL in
grade 7. All further languages are electives.

5.2.1. The participants
A group of 16 students aged 13 and 14 participated in the workshop, 10 female and six male. For medical reasons
one student could not take part in the data collection both times. While this student was included in the description of the participants (N=16), their case was excluded from the pre-post-test results (N=15). Ten students had
experienced CLIL classes in geography for two years and nine months, the others for nine months. While all but
one participant had been born and raised in Germany, a great number of them came from linguistically diverse
backgrounds. When asked about their first language (L1), 12 participants named one, while three had grown
up bilingual and one trilingual. It is noteworthy that out of the 16 documented participants only four students
considered German to be one of their L1s, while six students named Turkish as their only L1. Afghan, Bosnian,
Croatian, Iranian, Italian, Kurdish, Polish, Russian and Spanish were also named as L1s.
An even more diverse picture emerged when students were asked about their further languages. We used theterm “further languages” (German: weitere Sprachen) in the questionnaire in order to entice the students to include
all the languages they had learned after their first language(s), not only the foreign language they had learned
through structured instruction in school. Five participants indicated that they knew two further languages, sixthat they had three further languages and four that they had four. Finally, one participant even indicated five
further languages. Besides German, most of these further languages were part of the classic modern foreign
language canon taught in German secondary schools (i.e. English, French, Latin), though Arabic, Italian, Dutch,
Turkish and Slovenian each featured once.
It can be concluded from this overview that participants in this pilot workshop had very diverse linguistic backgrounds and brought to the table a wide range of prior linguistic experiences, from a multilingual upbringing
as well as further language learning.

5.2.2. The workshop: programme and content
The project took place as part of a “project week” (Projektwoche) during which all 7th grade students could
pursue project work on an extracurricular topic of their choice with a final school-wide project presentationon the final day. The main aims of the project-workshop were to introduce the participants to the neighbour
language Dutch and give them a first authentic taste of it by means of an excursion to the nearby Dutch cityof Venlo, while simultaneously developing their communicative strategies involving receptive plurilingualism
and raising their (meta-)linguistic awareness through the method of linguistic landscaping, another approachthat has shown to be an effective tool for awareness raising in multilingual education (Gorter and Cenoz 2017).
Table 5.1 provides only a schematic presentation of the contents of the workshop, but a complete record of thetasks and materials used in the workshop is available online via the project website (Nachbarsprache & buur­
cultuur n.d.). We monitored the effectiveness of our workshop by (1) analysing the materials that documented
the results of the project and (2) by administering a questionnaire survey and a decoding task at the beginningof and towards the end of the workshop. (For a more detailed analysis of the results, including those from further
monitoring instruments, see Jentges et al. 2021.)

Page 100 3 Enriching 21st-century language education

Table 5.1: Workshop programme
introduction to the workshop
pre-test (questionnaire A and decoding tasks A)
Day 1 playful immersive introduction to Dutch
reflection on plurilingual decoding strategies
further discovery and application of decoding strategies in oral and written Dutch (group work)
introduction to methods of linguistic landscaping
Day 2 use of language in advertising and commercial signs
focus on decoding strategies related to the use of “script” and “naming”
Day 3 excursion to Venlo with task to collect urban language and signs with a focus on script/namingreflection on decoding strategies related to script/naming
analysis of own photos collected during the trip
Day 4 post-test (questionnaire B and decoding tasks B)
preparation of final poster presentations
final plenary reflection and feedback on the workshop
Day 5 final public, school-wide poster presentation of project results

5.2.3. Development of plurilingual decoding strategies
At the centre of the first workshop day was the introduction to plurilingual decoding strategies. After having
received a first taste of Dutch through playful immersion, participants were asked to reflect on the strategies
they had applied when making sense of the examples of oral and written Dutch they had been exposed to in theprevious session. These strategies were collected and differentiated into language-universal and language-specificstrategies. Students were then asked to record over the course of the following three days any further decoding
strategies that they came across and made use of. To facilitate this, further tasks were given to the students whichwere designed in such a way that they elicited further language-specific and language-universal decoding strategies
that involved plurilingual comprehension. These were added to the list and further reflected upon by the students.
Figure 5.1: Collection of plurilingual decoding strategies developed over the course of the workshop

Classroom practice Page 101

Figure 5.1 shows the final poster that summarises the decoding strategies the students collected over the course of
the week. It shows that the students learned a number or language-universal decoding strategies that are related
to features of plurilingual competence mentioned in the descriptor scale for plurilingual comprehension in the
CEFR Companion volume. “Ähnlichkeit zum Deutschen und zum Englischen” (i.e. similarity to German and English),“Dialekt” and “andere Fremdsprachen” (i.e. other foreign languages) indicate that students are aware of the ability
to “call upon the knowledge of a number of languages (or dialects, or varieties) to make sense of a text” (Councilof Europe 2018: 28; 2020: 30). The keyword “Wortpartner” (i.e. word partner) alludes to their ability to “recognize
words from a common international store in a new guise” (ibid.), such as the ability to recognise internationalisms
and cognate words (i.e. Level A1 on the scale for plurilingual comprehension, Council of Europe 2018: 160; 2020:
126-7). And finally, the keywords “Bilder, Gestik, Kontext, Inhalt” (i.e. images, gestures, context, content) indicatethat they have been made aware of the possibilities to “exploit paralinguistics” (ibid.) when decoding Dutch.
The poster also indicates that students have reflected specifically on more language-specific and language-pair-specificplurilingual comprehension strategies that involve contrastive analysis of Dutch and German. They have, for instance,
been made aware of the fact that taking a Dutch word apart into smaller components by identifying “Vor- undNachsilben” (i.e. pre- and suffixes) will help them to identify the similarity between Dutch and German or English. In
addition to this, they have been made aware that “Wortstellung im Satz” (i.e. word order), which they have discovered
to be similar in Dutch and German, can help them to decode a Dutch text. This indicates that they are aware of thefact that they “can use [their] knowledge of contrasting grammatical structures … of languages in [their] plurilingual
repertoire in order to support comprehension” (Council of Europe 2018: 160; 2020: 126). Their use of word orderindicates that they have, at least, become aware of the ability to employ their contrastive grammatical awareness inplurilingual comprehension, a competence that is considered to be on Level B1 on the new descriptor scale.

5.2.4. Application of plurilingual decoding strategies in the linguistic landscaping task
The highlight of the workshop was the excursion to Venlo on Day 3. This was intended as an opportunity forstudents to immediately apply their newly developed skills of decoding Dutch and, through this, to orient themselves in the linguistically and culturally unknown landscape. In small groups, the students had the task to takephotographs of noteworthy linguistic signs that were related to one of the two focus topics of their linguistic
landscaping session on Day 2 (i.e. 1. the use of script or 2. the use of naming). On Day 3, they analysed theirphotographs on the basis of a number of factors that were related to the use of language in the public domain
and, by doing so, applied plurilingual decoding strategies. The results of this activity were presented by eachgroup in a final poster presentation that was shown at a school-wide project presentation on the final project day.
Figure 5.2: Poster documenting results of group work (analysis of linguistic landscape Venlo)

Page 102 3 Enriching 21st-century language education

Figure 5.2 documents the fact that workshop participants can apply plurilingual decoding strategies whenanalysing the photographs they collected as part of their linguistic landscaping task. They make use of theirknowledge of other languages when decoding the shop-name Intertoys speelgoed (English Intertoys toys),which they decompose into its Latin, English and Dutch components. Just as they recognise use of the French
word bijoux (English jewels) as a suitable name for a jewellery shop. They also decode the name of the publiccampaign venLOVErtelt (English Venlo tells). In terms of language-pair-specific decoding strategies, the poster
also indicates that they can make use of their contrastive knowledge of Dutch and German. This is indicatedby the fact that they recognise the Dutch word gesmolten as the equivalent of the German word geschmolzen(English melted). The results from this example analysis indicate that the participants in our workshop had
mastered the ability to “recognize internationalisms and words common to different languages … to deducethe meaning of simple signs and notices [and] identify the probable message of a short, simple, written text”(Council of Europe 2018: 160; 2020: 127), which is considered as competence level A1 of the CEFR plurilingual
comprehension scale in the CEFR Companion volume (ibid.).

5.2.5. Applying decoding strategies to unknown texts in Dutch
The pre- and post-test that monitored the participants’ development over the course of the workshop
consisted of two components, the first being a questionnaire eliciting participants’ background and theirattitudes towards the Dutch language, as well as their attitudes towards language learning and multilingual
situations in general. (For a detailed analysis of the results from the attitude questionnaire, see Jentges
et al. 2021.) The second component was a decoding exercise, which was designed to indicate how far theparticipants’ decoding skills in the neighbour language had developed over the first three-and-a-half daysof the workshop.
In the pre-test version, participants were asked to decode a short informative text in Dutch about thecity of Venlo consisting of 154 words and 17 clauses. In the post-test version, participants were given atask of similar complexity decoding a short informative text in Dutch about the Dutch region of Limburg
consisting of 170 words and 20 clauses. Both texts were shortened and linguistically simplified versions of
Dutch Wikipedia entries and of similar levels of lexical and syntactic complexity. Using this instrument, we
attempted to find out whether the participants were able to apply their newly acquired decoding skills inorder to “deduce the message of a text by exploiting what he/she has understood from text on the same
theme written in different languages” (Council of Europe 2018: 160; 2020: 126) to a higher degree after
having taken part in our workshop. Figure 5.3 represents an example of a completed exercise sheet of the
pre-test version.
Analysis of the decoding exercises took place at the word and clause level. First, all words were identified forwhich a decoding attempt had been made. These attempts were then coded either as (a) correct word-decoding; (b) incorrect but plausible word-decoding (plausible meaning that a plurilingual decoding strategy
was employed, even though it was not the correct one); and (c) incorrect and implausible word-decoding.
Similarly, all clauses (i.e. propositions) were identified for which an attempt at decoding had been made.
These attempts were then classified as (a) correctly decoded proposition; (b) correctly decoded proposition
with details; and (c) partly correctly decoded proposition.
Table 5.2 provides the results from this analysis, reported as group means and respective standard deviations.
These indicate large degrees of inter-individual variance particularly concerning the results of the post-test
and more particularly the results from the word-decodings. Group-level results from this analysis allowed
only the use of non-parametrical statistical tests, and hence should be treated with caution. In terms ofword-decoding, means indicate that the overall number of decoding attempts increased between pre- andpost-test, just as the number of words that were decoded correctly. Due to high degrees of variance, this
could not be verified statistically. The number of implausible word-decodings, on the other hand, appears
to decrease from pre- to post-condition. However, also in this case, this could not be statistically verified.
The only statistically significant difference between pre- and post-conditions is the number of wrong but
plausible word-decodings, which increased between the pre- and the post-condition (Wilcoxon signed
ranks, Z = −2.032, p = 0.042).

Classroom practice Page 103

Figure 5.3: Sample of a decoding exercise (pre-test-version, participant “Loes”)

Note: In order to keep all data anonymous, students were allowed to use a Dutch codename instead of their own name for all instances ofdata collection. “Loes” is such a codename.

Table 5.2: Results from decoding tasks
Pre-test (means, SDs)

Post-test (means, SDs)

Overall number of decoding attempts

31.20 (9.13)

34.47 (22.14)

Correct word-decodings

23.87 (8.17)

26.07 (19.75)

Plausible word-decodings

2.47 (2.36)

4.53 (2.92)

Implausible word-decodings

4.80 (4.33)

3.87 (3.18)

Overall number of decoding attempts

4.93 (1.87)

6.60 (2.82)

Basic correct proposition-decodings

1.2 (1.01)

1.53 (1.10)

Detailed correct proposition-decodings

1.2 (0.77)

1.53 (1.73)

Partly correct proposition-decodings

2.0 (0.93)

1.60 (1.64)

Analysis at word level

Analysis at clause/proposition level

SD: standard deviation.

A similarly mixed picture emerges when considering the analysis of decodings of propositions. It was found thatthe overall number of decoding attempts increased significantly from pre- to post-test (Z = −2.101, p = 0.036).
With respect to the number of basic correctly decoded propositions, the number of detailed correctly decoded
propositions and the number of partly correctly decoded propositions, no significant differences could be attested.
In order to better understand the results from the decoding exercise, we looked at the individual participants
and discovered an interesting variance pattern. We found that five students had developed their decoding skills
exceptionally well over the workshop. This sub-group of students produced between 11 and 47 more correct
word-decodings in the post-test when compared to the pre-test. We found another group of five students that
did not show any large increases in the number of correctly decoded words – their pre/post differences ranging

Page 104 3 Enriching 21st-century language education

between −5 and +6 correctly decoded words. And finally, we found a group of five students who underperformedin the post-test when compared to the pre-test. They produced between 14 and 19 fewer correctly decodedwords in the post-test.
We found a similar, if less pronounced, pattern when looking at the decoding of propositions. Here, three
exceptionally successful participants each produced five more correct proposition-decodings in the post-test
when compared to the pre-test. On the other side of the spectrum, three participants decoded considerably
fewer propositions correctly in the post-test, namely between three and five fewer correct propositions. We
could attest that the participants that had shown an exceptional increase or decrease in correctly decoded
propositions were also the ones who had displayed an exceptional increase or decrease in correctly decodedwords. This uneven development pattern appeared to be related to the overall number of decoding attempts, as
the successful students had also attempted significantly more word-decodings in the post-test when comparedto the pre-test, while the number of attempted word-decodings of the underperforming group had decreased
from pre- to post-test. This relationship was not as clear-cut for the group of students whose performance on
correct word-decoding had shown little development.
Figure 5.4 represents the completed version of the post-test decoding exercise by the same participant as
illustrated in Figure 5.3. It illustrates a case of exceptional increase of decoding skills between pre- and post-test.
This participant made 41 more word-decoding attempts, as well as five more proposition-decoding attempts
in the post-test when compared to the pre-test. At a word level the participant produced 47 more correct
word-decodings and, at the proposition level, four more correct detailed proposition-decodings and two morecorrect proposition-decodings.
Figure 5.4: Sample of a decoding exercise (post-test-version, participant “Loes”)

5.3. DISCUSSION
In this section we discuss our findings in terms of the overall success of the workshop, its effectiveness and its
impact on participants’ plurilingual competence and, finally, the implications our case study has for the teachingof plurilingual competence.
Our analysis of posters produced by the participants over the course of the workshop indicates that our workshop
did support and guide participants’ development of plurilingual competence. It facilitated students’ development
in and reflection on a number of component skills of plurilingual competence, particularly those related toClassroom practice Page 105

plurilingual comprehension. The level and types of tasks and activities were, thus, suitable for the learner group.
This also concerned the choice of language (i.e. Dutch), the choice of topic (i.e. linguistic landscaping) and theinclusion of authentic experiences (i.e. the excursion to Venlo). Particularly the findings that groups made whenanalysing the photographs from their linguistic landscaping trip indicate that participants were able to apply theplurilingual decoding strategies they had been introduced to at the beginning of the workshop to the analysis
of signs and other examples of language use in public space.
When applying the new descriptors for plurilingual comprehension from the CEFR Companion volume (Councilof Europe 2018: 160; 2020: 126-7), we found indications that their plurilingual comprehension skills had developed to an A1 level through application of the new descriptors for that competence from the CEFR. We did,
however, also find that the exercises and tasks that focused on awareness raising for structural similarities anddifferences between the two languages afforded high levels of (meta-)linguistic awareness. While this did notpose a problem for some participants, other participants found this form-focused approach to language fairly
difficult and needed support when working on the tasks. This indicates to us that the contrasting of grammaticalstructures and the contrasting of genre conventions and textual patterns are, indeed, higher-level skills and are,thus, rightly considered as more advanced on the descriptor scale for plurilingual comprehension.
The results from our pre- and post-test are more complex to interpret. They indicate that some students wereable to apply the newly acquired decoding strategies when decoding short informative texts in Dutch, thus suggesting that they had even reached a B1 level of plurilingual comprehension when applying the new descriptors.
However, this was not the case for others. A number of reasons might help to explain this. First of all, the test
conditions were not optimal during our data collection of the post-test, as participants had to sit very close toeach other and this was found to be rather distracting for some of them. This might explain why some students
did not even attempt to make as many decodings in the post-test as in the pre-test.
A second reason for the mixed results might be the type of texts we used for the decoding exercise and theirlevel of complexity. When compared to the level of complexity of the linguistic landscaping tasks, which mostly
focused on word-level analysis and interpretation, the texts used for the decoding exercise were considerably more
complex, both in terms of linguistic form (e.g. text length, choice of words and syntactic structures) and in termsof content (i.e. choice of topic and contextual background knowledge). When taking the new CEFR descriptors
into account, our test required skills of a slightly higher level (B1) than many of the exercises and activities that
we had used over the course of the workshop. That some of our participants dealt with the decoding exercisevery well is to us an indication that some participants profited more from the workshop than others. This could
be related to the fact that the more successful participants had more sophisticated metalinguistic skills thantheir peers or that they had had more prior experience with multilingual situations than others. Particularly thelatter factor has been found to affect the use of communication strategies in receptive plurilingualism (Ribbert
and ten Thije 2007). Our findings, thus, also support the idea that plurilingual comprehension is, indeed, basedon an “uneven” plurilingual repertoire (Council of Europe 2018: 28; 2020: 30).
In more general terms, we conclude from this that awareness-raising tasks, such as the ones employed in
our workshop, can also support the development of plurilingual competence and strategies of receptive
plurilingualism in teenage learners. This finding was supported by the positive feedback that participants
and accompanying teaching personnel gave us during and at the end of the workshop. In order to further
support these findings, we intend to refine and extend the workshop. We plan to refine our test instrument
by including exercises on lower levels of plurilingual comprehension, such as the decoding of signs and shortpublic notices. In addition to this, a comparable version for Dutch learners of German has been developedand is published on the project website (https://www.ru.nl/nachbarsprache/schulen/unterrichtsmaterial)
under the heading “Projekt”.

5.4. CONCLUSION
The present study, which involved a small group of participants from just one German secondary school, isintended as a pilot study. As such, our conclusions are preliminary and based on non-generalisable findings.
They should be verified in future studies involving a larger and more diverse group of participants, more diverse
both with respect to the type of school and learners and with respect to the cross-language perspective, that is,
by involving Dutch students learning receptive skills to decode German as the target language. This will allow
us to corroborate whether compact and intensive workshop interventions, such as the one described, are an
appropriate means to develop receptive plurilingual skills in the neighbour language for Dutch and Germanschool-age language learners. That would provide evidence whether receptive plurilingualism can also be aneffective communication strategy for younger age groups with less linguistic and professional experience than

Page 106 3 Enriching 21st-century language education

professionals and university students, for whom the effectiveness of these strategies has already been proven(Ribbert and ten Thije 2007; van Mulken and Hendriks 2015) and it would indicate how far the factors of age
and level of education, which have been found to affect the use of plurilingual strategies in older participants(van der Ploeg et al. 2016), also affect this considerably younger target group.
A further question, which could not be answered in this study, is the question whether the participants cantransfer the plurilingual comprehension skills that they have acquired over the course of the workshop to other,less typologically close, unknown or lesser-known languages. We are currently in the process of analysing datafrom the present study that will help to answer this question (cf. Jentges et al. 2021). In addition to this, we would
like to point out that most activities in our workshop were based on written material, since we expected thismode to be more accessible to the participants by allowing them to reflect on the examples from Dutch without
time pressure. However, authentic interactions using receptive plurilingualism can also take place orally. Thismode should, hence, receive more attention in follow-up studies.
Despite these partly predictable limitations, this study clearly indicates that inter-individual differences are astrong factor in the development and use of plurilingual repertoires. Subsequent research should, therefore, notonly increase in scale, but should also pay more attention to individual differences such as motivation, personality
traits and prior knowledge and experiences. They should monitor the learners in a more qualitative manner inorder to extrapolate which factors contribute to successful development. This could be done through more
introspective instruments like learning diaries, interviews or think-aloud protocols. Our pilot study shows that the
explicit teaching of plurilingual decoding strategies, without doubt, contributes to raising students’ awareness of
their plurilingual repertoires and the potential this has when attempting to comprehend unknown languages.
On the other hand, our study also indicates that these strategies might not work for every language user to thesame extent. For this reason, we suggest that a more detailed description of awareness-raising (metalinguistic)
strategies is needed to further support the development of teaching methods and materials that support thedevelopment of plurilingual competence in young learners.

REFERENCES
Bakker F. (2017), Waar scheiden de dialecten in Noord-Limburg? LOT, Utrecht.
Beerkens R. (2010), Receptive multilingualism as a language mode in the Dutch-German border area, Waxman,
Münster.
Blees G. J. and ten Thije J. (2017), “Receptive multilingualism and awareness”, in Cenoz J., Gorter D. and May S.
(eds), Language awareness and multilingualism (3rd edition), Springer, Cham, pp. 333-46.
Boonen U. K. and Harmes I. (2013), Niederländische Sprachwissenschaft. Eine Einführung, Narr, Tübingen.
Boonen U. K., Jentges S. and Sars P. (2018), “Grenzenlos Lernen in der Euregio Rhein-Waal – Das deutsch-­niederländische Schulaustauschprojekt Nachbarsprache & buurcultuur”, Nachbarsprache Niederländisch No. 33,
pp. 97-107.
Council of Europe (2018), “Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: learning, teaching, assessment. Companion volume with new descriptors”, Council of Europe, Strasbourg, available at https://rm.coe.int/
cefr-companion-volume-with-new-descriptors-2018/1680787989, accessed 23 August 2021.
Council of Europe (2020), Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: learning, teaching, assessment – Companion volume, Council of Europe, Strasbourg, available at https://rm.coe.int/common-european-­framework-of-reference-for-languages-learning-teaching/16809ea0d4, accessed 22 August 2021.
Doyé P. (2005), Intercompréhension. Guide pour l’élaboration des politiques educatives en Europe – De la diversité
linguistique à l‘éducation plurilingue. Etude de reference, Conseil d’Europe, Strasbourg.
Gooskens C., van Heuven V. J., Golubović J., Schüppert A., Swarte F. and Voigt S. (2017), “Mutual intelligibility
between closely related languages in Europe”, International Journal of Multilingualism No. 15(2), pp. 1-25.
Gorter D. and Cenoz J. (2017), “Linguistic landscape and multilingualism”, in Cenoz J., Gorter D. and May S. (eds),
Language awareness and multilingualism (3rd edition), Springer, Cham, pp. 233-47.
Hartman C. (2019), “Kommunikationsprobleme bei deutsch-niederländischen Schulbegegnungen”, Radboud
Universität and Westfälische Wilhelms-Universität, Nijmegen and Münster (Master’s thesis).
Ház E. (2005), Deutsche und Niederländer. Untersuchungen zur Möglichkeit einer unmittelbaren Verständigung,Dr. Kovač, Hamburg.

Classroom practice Page 107

Hufeisen B. and Marx N. (eds) (2014), EuroComGerm – Die sieben Siebe: Germanische Sprachen lesen lernen, Shaker,
Aachen.
Jentges S. and Sars P. (2017), “Deutsch als Fremdsprache in den Niederlanden und in den deutsch-niederländischen
Grenzregionen: Position, Herausforderungen und Perspektiven”, in Muttersprache No. 1, pp. 92-103.
Jentges S. and Sars P. (2018), “Ich sehe was, was du nicht siehst … Urbanes Raumerleben und Linguistic landscaping in und für deutsch-niederländische/n Schulaustauschprojekte/n”, in Badstüber-Kizik C. and Janíková V.
(eds), Linguistic Landscape und Fremdsprachendidaktik, Peter Lang, Frankfurt, pp. 21-54.
Jentges S. and Sars P. (2019), “Nabijheid benutten in het leerproes – het project nachbarsprache & buurcultuur”,
in Levende Talen Magazine No. 106(4), pp. 12-16.
Jentges S. and Sars P. (2020), “DACH-Erkundungen im deutsch-niederländischen Nachbarsprachenunterricht”,
Materialien Deutsch als Fremdsprache No. 103, pp. 127-44. Sonderband: Das DACH-Prinzip.
Jentges S., Knopp E., Laurentzen C. and van Mulken M. (2021), “Deutsch oder Niederländisch? Deutsch undNiederländisch! Zur kommunikativen Effizienz von rezeptiver Mehrsprachigkeit in deutsch-niederländischen
Schulaustauschbegegnungen” in Jentges S. (ed.), Gemeinsam mit und voneinander lernen: Nachbarsprachenlernen und
Schulaustausch. Dokumentation der wissenschaftlichen Einsichten und Erfahrungen aus dem deutsch-­niederländischen
Schulaustauschprojekt “Nachbarsprache & buurcultuur“, Schneider, Hohengehren, Baltmannsweiler.
Krumm H. J. (2004), “Language policies and plurilingualism“, in Hufeisen B. and Neuner G., The plurilingualism
project: tertiary language learning – German after English, Council of Europe, Strasbourg, pp. 35-50.
Meißner F. J. (2008), “Teaching and learning intercomprehension: a way to plurilingualism and learner autonomy”,
in de Florio-Hansen I. (ed.), Towards multilingualism and cultural diversity: perspectives from Germany, Peter Lang,
Frankfurt, pp. 37-58.
Nachbarsprache & buurcultuur (n.d.), project homepage and teaching materials, Radboud Universiteit, Nijmegen,available at www.ru.nl/nachbarsprache/, accessed 31 August 2021.
Rehbein J., ten Thije J. and Verschik A. (2012), “Lingua receptiva (LaRa) – remarks on the quintessence of receptive
multilingualism”, International Journal of Bilingualism No. 16(3), pp. 248-64.
Ribbert A. and ten Thije J. (2007), “Receptive multilingualism in Dutch-German intercultural team cooperation”,
in ten Thije J. and Zeevaert L. (eds), Receptive multilingualism. Linguistic analyses, language policies and didactic
concepts, John Benjamins, Amsterdam, pp. 73-101.
Sars P., Boonen U. K. and Jentges S. (2018), “Samen elkaars taal en cultuur leren kennen. Het project Nachbarsprache& buurcultuur”, in Levende Talen Magazine No. 2, pp. 16-20.
Sars P. and Jentges S. (2018), “Eigentlich ist unser Studium wie eine Reise nach Deutschland – nur viel öfter!“
Konzeption und Evaluation von Curriculaentwicklung und Abschlussqualifikationen in einem niederländischen
Germanistikstudium“, Info DaF No. 45(6) (Themenheft: Neue Konzepte für den Deutschunterricht und die
Germanistik), pp. 729-50.
ten Thije J. (2018), “Receptive multilingualism”, in Singleton D. and Aronin L. (eds), Twelve lectures on multilingualism,
Multilingual Matters, Bristol, pp. 327-62.
ten Thije J., Gooskens C., Daems F., Cornips L. and Smits M. (2016), Luistertaal: Positionpaper inzake de Skills Agenda
van de Europese Commissie, available at http://taalunieversum.org/inhoud/luistertaal, accessed 31 August 2021.
Van der Ploeg M., Swarte F. and Gooskens C. (2016), “The effect of age and level of education on intelligibility”,
Tijdschrift voor Skandinavistiek No. 35(1), pp. 56-70.
Van Mulken M. and Hendriks B. (2015), “Your language or mine? Or English as a lingua franca? Comparing
effectiveness in English as a lingua franca and L1–L2 interactions: implications for corporate language policies”,
Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development No. 36(4), pp. 404-22 [epub 17 July 2014].

Page 108 3 Enriching 21st-century language education

Chapter 6
IMPLEMENTING PLURILINGUAL ORAL EXAMSAND PLURILINGUAL LESSONS IN AUSTRIANUPPER SECONDARY VOCATIONAL COLLEGESBelinda Steinhuber, CEBS (Centre for Vocational Languages), Austria

ABSTRACT
Changes in the curriculum and in the official school-leaving examination at Austrian upper secondary vocational
colleges made it possible to promote plurilingualism more actively. The Center für berufsbezogene Sprachen(CEBS), an institution affiliated to the Vocational Education and Training section of the Austrian Federal Ministryof Education, Science and Research, started a project which had two aims:
1. to implement a plurilingual oral exam at several types of upper secondary vocational college in Austria inorder to give learners the opportunity to show their oral plurilingual competences in an official school-leaving examination and thus to raise awareness in schools of the importance of these competences;
2. to promote plurilingual approaches in language teaching through the implementation of lessons or atleast classroom activities which focus on plurilingual and pluricultural competences at those colleges.
First of all, we developed a framework document called “Designing and implementing plurilingual oral exams” anddelivered a series of teacher training and development workshops to enable teachers to create exam tasks andadminister the plurilingual exam. The next step was the production of materials, which are now available online
and which teachers can use for their lessons designed to promote plurilingualism, with a special focus on tasks
that are clearly linked to the new descriptors for mediation and for plurilingual and pluricultural competence in the
CEFR Companion volume (Council of Europe 2018, 2020). In addition, we designed and delivered another series
of workshops to enable teachers to set up lesson plans and create their own materials for plurilingual lessons.
It is extremely difficult to measure the impact of these initiatives. For a start, we sent a questionnaire to teachers
who had attended in-service teacher training workshops focusing on plurilingual exams or plurilingual lessons inorder to find out about their experiences and their views. We did this in June 2019, as this was the end of the firstschool year where plurilingual lessons were officially introduced. We found that among the 51 teachers that filled
out the questionnaire, 26 had actually delivered plurilingual lessons at school and 24 stated that students at theirschool had taken a plurilingual exam. Overall, reactions were positive, and teachers found that the lessons were more
dynamic and lively. Some also stated that the learners really acquired the ability to make use of all their linguistic
resources and became more flexible and spontaneous. Initial worries of the learners often gave way to a feeling of
surprise about their own abilities. Not that many, though, found the courage to actually take the plurilingual exam.
The challenges that teachers mentioned were often due to organisational factors, as team-teaching requires thetime to do some planning together. Furthermore, materials are still rare, which increases the workload. Overall,reactions were encouraging but it also became clear that continuing support is needed, which is in line withwhat we have planned.

RÉSUMÉ
Les modifications apportées aux programmes et aux examens de fin d’études secondaires dans les lycées
professionnels du deuxième cycle de l’enseignement secondaire autrichien ont permis de promouvoir plus
activement le plurilinguisme. Le Center für berufsbezogene Sprachen (CEBS), une institution affiliée à la sectionenseignement et formation professionnels (EFP) du ministère fédéral autrichien de l’Éducation, de la Science etde la Recherche, a lancé un projet ayant deux objectifs :1. mettre en place un examen oral plurilingue dans plusieurs types de lycées professionnels du deuxième
cycle du secondaire en Autriche afin de donner aux apprenants la possibilité de montrer leurs compétences
plurilingues orales lors d’un examen de fin d’études officiel et de sensibiliser ainsi les écoles à l’importancede ces compétences ;2. promouvoir des approches plurilingues de l’enseignement des langues par la mise en œuvre d’activitésen classe axées sur les compétences plurilingues et pluriculturelles dans ces lycées.

Page 109

Tout d’abord, nous avons élaboré un document-cadre intitulé « Conception et mise en œuvre d’examens orauxplurilingues » et organisé une série d’ateliers de formation continue afin de permettre aux enseignants de créer
des tâches d’examen et d’effectuer l’examen plurilingue. L’étape suivante a été la production de matériel, qui
est maintenant disponible en ligne et que les enseignants peuvent utiliser pour leurs cours plurilingues, en
mettant un accent particulier sur les tâches qui sont clairement liées aux nouveaux descripteurs de la médiation et des compétences plurilingues et pluriculturelles dans le Volume complémentaire du CECR (Conseil
de l’Europe, 2018 et 2020). En outre, nous avons conçu et animé une autre série d’ateliers pour permettre
aux enseignants de mettre en place des plans de leçons et de créer leur propre matériel pédagogique pourdes cours plurilingues.
Il est extrêmement difficile de mesurer l’impact de ces initiatives. Pour commencer, nous avons envoyé un questionnaire aux enseignants qui avaient participé à des ateliers de formation continue axés sur des examens ou descours plurilingues afin de connaître leurs expériences et leurs points de vue. Nous l’avons fait en juin 2019, carc’était la fin de la première année scolaire où les cours plurilingues étaient officiellement introduits. Nous avons
constaté que parmi les 51 enseignants qui ont rempli le questionnaire, 26 ont effectivement donné des cours
plurilingues à l’école et 24 ont déclaré que des élèves de leur école avaient passé un examen plurilingue. Dans
l’ensemble, les réactions ont été positives et les enseignants ont constaté que les leçons étaient plus dynamiques.
Certains ont également déclaré que les apprenants avaient réellement acquis la capacité d’utiliser toutes leurs
ressources linguistiques et étaient devenus plus flexibles et spontanés. Les inquiétudes initiales des apprenants
ont souvent fait place à un sentiment de surprise quant à leurs propres capacités. Peu d’entre eux, cependant,
ont trouvé le courage de passer l’examen plurilingue.
Les défis mentionnés par les enseignants étaient souvent liés à des facteurs organisationnels, car l’enseignementen équipe nécessite du temps pour planifier ensemble. De plus, les matériaux sont encore rares, ce qui augmente
la charge de travail. Dans l’ensemble, les réactions ont été encourageantes, mais il est également devenu évident
qu’un soutien continu serait nécessaire, ce qui est conforme à ce que nous avons prévu.

6.1. INTRODUCTION
In several types of Austrian upper secondary vocational college, students learn English and also a second
language, usually French, Italian, Spanish or, less often, Russian. Students attend these colleges for five years
from about 15 years old when they start, to 19 when they leave. They study a variety of subjects, ranging fromlanguages to history, science, economy, nutrition and tourism, among others.
As long as 20 years ago, the need to enable those learners to use English and the second language (and sometimes also the official language, German) and at the same time to master a variety of professional situations
was identified by the Center für berufsbezogene Sprachen (CEBS), an institution affiliated to the Vocational
Education and Training section of the Austrian Federal Ministry of Education, Science and Research. First steps
towards plurilingual approaches in teaching were made at one type of upper secondary vocational college.
With the publication of the CEFR (Council of Europe 2001), plurilingual competences received more attention.
With a reform of the Austrian Upper Secondary Level Oral Matriculation and Diploma Examination, the official
school-leaving examination at Austrian upper secondary vocational colleges, being imminent, CEBS saw theopportunity in 2012 to implement a plurilingual exam at all types of vocational college where two foreign
languages are taught. The common approach was to teach and evaluate competences in different languages
separately, and very often neither plurilingual nor pluricultural competences were consciously developed. It was
clear, though, that in their further professional and personal lives, graduates would need these competences tobe successful. It would have been better to start by implementing the new curriculum that included plurilingual
lessons, but the exam reform came first and was an opportunity not to be missed.
From the beginning, the aim of the project was twofold:
1. to implement a plurilingual oral exam at several types of upper secondary vocational college in Austria, inorder to give learners the opportunity to show their oral plurilingual competences in an official school-leaving examination and thus to raise awareness in schools of the importance of these competences;
2. to promote plurilingual approaches in language teaching through the implementation of lessons, or atleast classroom activities, that focus on plurilingual and pluricultural competences at upper secondary
vocational colleges in Austria.
The main goals of the project were as follows:
f to ensure that learners do not only develop their competence in individual languages, but also theirplurilingual competence;

Page 110 3 Enriching 21st-century language education

f to ensure that teachers know about plurilingual approaches in language teaching and the principles
behind such approaches, to ensure that teachers are able to prepare their learners for communication inplurilingual situations;f to provide materials for use in plurilingual lessons that are related to the CEFR Companion volume (Councilof Europe 2018, 2020);
f to enable teachers to design plurilingual lesson plans, as well as their own activities and tasks;
f to ensure that learners can make the choice to show their plurilingual and intercultural competences in ahigh-stakes school-leaving exam, thus allowing them to expand their individual portfolio;
f to increase acceptance of the plurilingual exam among teachers and stakeholders;
f to create a model that is feasible in the present school context, but has the scope to be broadened andthus to include languages that are not yet addressed in the current form of the exam or not yet part ofschool curricula;f to ensure that the exam tasks produced at schools reflect basic common principles and are related to the
CEFR Companion volume;
f to ensure that assessment criteria are available to teachers that allow them to evaluate plurilingualcompetences;
f to ensure that teachers are familiar with and can make appropriate use of an assessment grid that is designed to assess plurilingual competences and is based on the CEFR Companion volume;
f to ensure that teachers are able to act effectively as interlocutors in a plurilingual exam where they havea clearly defined role in a plurilingual situation;f to enable teachers who have taken part in teacher development workshops to share their knowledge andskills with others;
f to contribute to cross-curriculum teaching of subjects which, until now, have been taught separately.

6.2. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
In order first to implement the plurilingual oral exam, it was necessary to provide a detailed description andalso sufficient support for teachers. As it is the teachers at the schools who produce their own exam tasks fororal exams, members of the CEBS team started work on a framework document containing test specifications,exam guidelines, sample tasks and an assessment grid in the school year 2013/14. This document was basedon a framework document already produced by CEBS for the individual languages and on Austrian educational
standards for English and the second foreign language, the common ground of all these documents being the CEFR
2001. Of course, these exam guidelines also had to be in line with legal requirements for Austrian school-leaving
exams, which state that oral exams have to include both spoken production and spoken interaction. To this we
added mediating spoken and written information as a further essential element.
A particularly important source of information for our exam design was the Council of Europe publication
Assessment in plurilingual and intercultural education by P. Lenz and R. Berthele. What we wanted to assess was“the ability to accomplish well-defined tasks that are actually relevant at the workplace” (Lenz and Berthele 2010:20), so our exam design was informed by our knowledge about the practical job requirements our graduates
would be faced with. We did not want to limit the exam to job-related situations, so we also included tasks thatare relevant in private life and decided to use tasks that would be as closely related to real-world situations as
possible. We found that our ideas for exam tasks coincided with what Lenz and Berthele describe as “polyglot
dialogue”, which “involves the use of two or more different languages/varieties in oral interpersonal exchange
in production – and consequently or reversely the use of two or more different languages/varieties in reception
as well” (Lenz and Berthele 2010: 21).
In our model, the candidate uses both languages actively – the stronger one, which is English, and the weaker
one, which is the second foreign language taught. By contrast, the two examiners, who also function as interlocutors, each just use one language, thus creating the need for mediation. As the CEFR 2001 did not contain
descriptor scales for plurilingual and pluricultural competences, we developed new descriptors, using the onesin the CEFR 2001 as a model. For the test specifications, we had to take into account that the level which learners
had to reach in the two languages according to the curriculum was different – B2 for English and B1 for thesecond foreign language. It was therefore necessary to draw upon the existing scales for B2 as well as for B1. In
particular, the 2001 scales for Spoken production and Spoken interaction, Processing text and Co-operating proved
to be helpful, as the exam tasks include spoken production, spoken interaction and also mediating spoken andwritten information.

Classroom practice Page 111

What we did was to combine and adapt existing descriptors or to elaborate new descriptors for areas that were
not covered in the CEFR 2001 edition. For the new descriptors in particular, we also relied upon the work on“Educational standards for English” (bm:ukk 2011) and “Educational standards for second foreign languages”(bm:ukk 2013) that we had previously been involved in developing, as these standards already contained
descriptors for some aspects of plurilingual and pluricultural competence.
As far as the assessment grid was concerned, it was extremely important to ensure that assessment was basedon how the candidate mastered a situation in both languages, as opposed to assessing whether a candidate
attained level B2 in English and B1 in the other language. Here, we used CEFR 2001 scales describing communicative language competences in addition to the scales mentioned above to elaborate new descriptors.
Where possible, we made sure that the grid resembled the ones that we had produced for assessment of theindividual languages.
All of this was complemented by two sample exam tasks and a glossary, which contained explanations of key
terms. We then presented the first drafts of the document to various groups of practising teachers for feedback
in order to involve them in the process from the beginning and to promote acceptance. We also had the opportunity to present our work to Brian North, and some of the descriptors that we had developed were used in thedevelopment of those published in the CEFR Companion volume.
To achieve at least some standardisation of assessment, we produced videos of mock exams in the school year
2014/15, which were needed for in-service teacher training and development workshops, a further measure
we took in order to implement the exam. The first of those national teacher development workshops with afocus on plurilingual oral exams took place in April 2015. The workshops provided further opportunities to get
feedback and evaluate the usefulness of the framework. In those workshops, we outlined the theoretical basis,
developed and discussed exam tasks, and gave the teachers the opportunity to assess performances available
on video in order to enable them to create their own exam tasks and to administer the plurilingual exam. The
German version of the “Framework for plurilingual oral exams” (CEBS 2015) was published in October 2015, andthe next teacher development workshop at a national level took place in February 2016.
In July 2016 an English version of the framework was published, as we found that there was also interest in theexam in other countries. In November 2016 a teacher development workshop took place in the Tyrol. In theschool year 2016/17 our team developed the design for in-service teacher training, focusing on the developmentof learners’ plurilingual competences, along with materials. In January 2017 we offered another national teacher
development workshop, with a focus on plurilingual exams, which also included some teaching activities. Finally,in March 2017, the first national teacher development workshop with a focus on teaching was held. The aimof this workshop (and the ones that followed) was to familiarise teachers with the methodology behind thedevelopment of plurilingual competences, to allow them to experience plurilingual activities and to enable
them to set up lesson plans and create their own materials for plurilingual lessons. We knew that with the introduction of the new curriculum many learners would have plurilingual lessons in their final year, so we tried tooffer activities that were suitable for this target group. At the same time, it was clear to us that it did not makesense to only suggest activities aiming at the development of plurilingual competences at such a late stage. We
therefore also included activities which were suitable for learners at lower levels of language competence andfor which it was not necessary for both teachers to be in the classroom.
Our approach was based on the understanding that “in language processing, all the languages an individual
possesses and his or her knowledge about these languages interact; the associated knowledge resources
constantly influence each other” (Polzin-Haumann n.d., translated from German) and the idea that “promoting plurilingual competence has a positive influence on the cognitive development of learners” (Wiebels
2017, translated from German). The description of plurilingual competence given in the CEFR Companion
volume largely guided the choice of abilities we wanted to focus on. We therefore concentrated on activities that would help learners see parallels and differences between languages (in vocabulary and certain
structures), increase language awareness, encourage them to make use of all their linguistic resources tofind out the meaning of new expressions and require them to find out information and transfer it between
languages, mostly with a strong focus on speaking. Increasing flexibility and promoting switching between
languages were further important objectives. We also made sure that the activities we suggested not onlyused a variety of methods such as jigsaw, carousel and placemat, but also enhanced autonomous learning,
because we believe that it is important for learners to be able to “control those aspects of learning that are
particularly salient to the learner” (Benson 2013: 118).
In the school year 2017/18, further teacher development workshops with a focus on plurilingual oral exams wererun in various parts of Austria. In April 2018 another national teacher development workshop with a focus onteaching took place, which also included information on the exam, as there was still demand for this.

Page 112 3 Enriching 21st-century language education

The idea behind all the workshops was not just to train the teachers who actually attended them, but also toenable them to share their knowledge with other teachers at a local level. We encouraged schools to send teamsof teachers – the English teacher together with colleagues teaching the second foreign languages – in order tofacilitate team-teaching and also implementation at schools.
The school year 2018/19 was the first one where some schools actually had regular plurilingual lessons. Students
in their final year were supposed to have either one or two lessons a week with the teacher for English and theteacher for the second foreign language working together. From August 2018 onwards we made materials for
plurilingual lessons as well as a short theoretical introduction available on the CEBS website. Further in-service
teacher development workshops with a focus on plurilingual lessons were offered in various parts of Austria. At
the end of the school year, we collected some feedback on plurilingual oral exams and on plurilingual lessons
from teachers. Our objective was to get a clearer idea of how our project was perceived after this first yearof plurilingual lessons. In the future, feedback from learners will also be collected, and we will also seize theopportunity to talk to teachers directly at in-service training workshops.
In the feedback, 51 teachers filled out the questionnaire that we produced using Microsoft Forms. The majorityof them agreed that learners should have the opportunity to show their plurilingual competence as part of theUpper Secondary Level Oral Matriculation and Diploma Examination; the average was 3.41, with answer options
ranging from 1 (do not agree) to 4 (fully agree).
The result was similar for the question whether this offer provided additional motivation for learners who areinterested in languages (average 3.37) and whether learners needed encouragement to be confident enoughto take the plurilingual exam (average 3.39, same answer options as before for both questions).
Out of the 51 teachers, 26 actually taught plurilingual lessons in the school year 2018/19, organised in various
ways as this was the introductory period. Some of them had one plurilingual lesson a week, others two, andothers just had a plurilingual lesson every two weeks. English was combined with French, Italian or Spanish.
Positive experiences mentioned by those teachers were the following:f the lessons were more dynamic and more interesting;f the learners were motivated and enthusiastic;f the learners worked more independently;
f the learners realised that they were better in one of the languages than the second teacher who did notteach this language, and this had a positive effect;f the learners acquired the ability to make use of all of their linguistic resources;
f the learners became more flexible and spontaneous and were surprised at their own abilities;
f after a while switching between the two languages became normal, although learners had thought itwould be too difficult at first;
f overall, the learners became more self-confident;
f the necessity for team-teaching led to more collaboration, and the exchange of ideas and practices wasseen as fruitful.
Of the challenges that teachers faced, the following were mentioned:
f making the necessity of such a type of lesson clear to the learners at the beginning;f co-ordination between the teachers, especially finding the time to prepare lessons together;f the additional workload;
f evaluation of learners’ performance in class;f the different levels in the two target languages;
f finding suitable materials;
f taking away the learners’ fear of the second foreign language, where the level was not as high as in English;
f taking weaker learners on board;f working with large groups of learners.
Only 24 teachers stated that there were candidates at their school who actually took the plurilingual exam. Veryoften just one, two or three candidates were confident enough to do so, and the maximum number was 10. The
results were either as teachers had expected, or even better than expected. Of the 24 teachers, 20 functioned
as examiners. Sixteen said they had really enjoyed the exam, 15 said it had been very lively, seven stated it had

Classroom practice Page 113

been easier than they had thought, seven said it had required a lot of preparation and two said it had been a
big challenge (several answers were possible).
Of course, the results have to be interpreted with caution, as there were a lot of variables. There is the influenceof teacher motivation, of teachers’ attitude to plurilingual approaches, of the methodological concept that was
promoted in the materials and workshops, of the teachers’ interpretation of learner behaviour. The results arenevertheless useful, as the project is by no means finished and the findings will help us to plan further measuresthat will support teachers and promote acceptance among teachers and learners.

6.3. DISCUSSION
The overall aims of our project have been partly reached up to the present. The number of plurilingual exams
is increasing, and so is the number of teachers who are open to plurilingual approaches. There is still some
scepticism, though, among both teachers and learners. On the one hand, learners appreciate the opportunity
to take a plurilingual exam, but on the other hand they are often not self-confident enough to actually choose
this option. This might partly be due to the fact that the teachers, too, are worried that their learners have not
yet acquired the necessary competences and are very careful about encouraging learners to choose this typeof oral exam. As always, practical aspects play an important role, too. What is encouraging is the fact that very
often sceptics who then experience plurilingual teaching with an inspired colleague change their opinion andbecome very positive about it.
Nevertheless, there is still a long way to go to make everybody concerned see the positive effects of plurilingual approaches. Very often teachers as well as learners feel that they are losing time they would need for theindividual languages when they have plurilingual lessons. We have not yet managed to convince teachers andlearners that language learning in general can benefit from carefully integrating plurilingual approaches. What
has been achieved is to increase awareness and start the process.
It has become very obvious that success depends on ongoing support. There is strong demand for training, forexamples of exam tasks and for teaching materials in order to make teachers feel more secure and to lighten
their workload. Furthermore, in order to promote acceptance of such new approaches, it is absolutely essential
to involve teachers as soon as possible. By giving them the opportunity to take part in the development process,their ideas, concerns and criticism can be taken into account and they feel that they are taken seriously. This
provides valuable insight and leads to more readiness on their part to reflect on and integrate new ideas.
In our project, descriptors were used in various ways. First of all, we needed descriptors as part of the test
specifications for the plurilingual exam. Those descriptors express the objectives of the exam, explaining what
we want to assess. They are therefore also the basis for exam tasks. Descriptors were also needed to produce
an assessment grid. All of them are closely related to the ones in the CEFR Companion volume, but they havebeen tailored to suit our specific purpose. It is therefore not advisable to simply transfer one model to anothercontext without adapting it.
The descriptors that are now available in the CEFR Companion volume have inspired the teaching and learning
activities that we make available to teachers. For a start, we have used them as they are, working out which ofthem are most helpful for our educational purposes and concentrating in particular on mediation in plurilingual
situations. We have found them to be very inspiring and useful, but we have also come to the conclusion that in
the long run we will probably need to make certain adaptations to suit our educational context.

6.4. CONCLUSIONAs stated before, this project is by no means finished. We will continue to provide support for teachers andlearners by offering teacher development workshops and also materials that can be used in plurilingual lessons.
A national in-service teacher development workshop with a focus on teaching took place at the beginning ofMarch 2020, and another one will be offered in October 2020, when teachers who have already delivered plurilingual lessons will have the opportunity to exchange experiences and ideas. We are sure that the outcome ofthis type of workshop can be a wealth of suggestions and practical ideas. Publication of materials on the CEBS
website will of course continue. As there has been interest from outside Austria, information and materials will
also be made available on the website in English.
We are planning to evaluate the impact of the plurilingual oral exam, including both teachers’ and learners’
views. It will also be necessary to review and possibly adapt our framework for the plurilingual oral exam in thelight of our findings and the CEFR Companion volume.

Page 114 3 Enriching 21st-century language education

In the school year 2020/21 an evaluation of the impact of and reaction to plurilingual lessons is on the agenda.
Furthermore, we will explore how descriptors for pluricultural competences can find their way into teaching
more prominently. Mediation is also a field that we need to study in more depth, as we see its usefulness in a
vocational context very clearly.
Another aspect that we have to pay attention to is the question of how the languages that learners bring along(heritage languages) can be integrated to a much bigger extent. In the lessons, this can more easily be achieved
than in the exam. In the long run, though, it would be desirable to be able to offer an exam that gives learners
the opportunity to show the full range of their plurilingual – and also pluricultural – competence.
So far we have found the descriptors highly useful, be it the ones we developed for the exam or the ones in the
CEFR Companion volume which have inspired teaching and learning activities. Of course not all of the ones
now available in the CEFR Companion volume are equally suitable, and we are still in the process of exploring
which of them are most relevant in our context and which of them we need to adapt.
We have presented our plurilingual exam at several events and we believe that it could be adopted by othercountries, though not without examining closely whether it suits the context and by including the teachers
and ideally also the learners in this process. Our work might serve as a model that could then be adapted andmodified as seems necessary.

REFERENCES
Benson P. (2013), Teaching and researching autonomy, 2nd edition, Routledge, London and New York.
Bm:ukk (ed.) (2011), “Broschüre Bildungsstandards Englisch 13. Schulstufe BHS” [Brochure educational standards
for English year 13, upper secondary vocational colleges], bm:ukk, Wien.
Bm:ukk (ed.) (2013), “Broschüre Bildungsstandards Zweite lebende Fremdsprachen 13. Schulstufe BHS” [Brochureeducational standards for second foreign languages year 13, upper secondary vocational colleges], bm:ukk, Wien.
Council of Europe (2001), Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: learning, teaching, assessment,
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, available at www.coe.int/en/web/common-european-framework-­reference-languages, accessed 1 September 2021.
Council of Europe (2018), “Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: learning, teaching, assessment. Companion volume with new descriptors”, Council of Europe, Strasbourg, available at https://rm.coe.int/
cefr-companion-volume-with-new-descriptors-2018/1680787989, accessed 23 August 2021.
Council of Europe (2020), Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: learning, teaching, assessment – Companion volume, Council of Europe, Strasbourg, available at https://rm.coe.int/common-european-­framework-of-reference-for-languages-learning-teaching/16809ea0d4, accessed 22 August 2021.
Lenz P. and Berthele R. (2010), Assessment in plurilingual and intercultural education, Satellite Study No. 2, Councilof Europe, Strasbourg.
Piribauer G., Atzlesberger U., Greinix I., Ladstätter T., Mittendorfer F., Renner H. and Steinhuber B. (2015), “Wegweiser
Die kompetenzorientierte mündliche Reife- und Diplomprüfung Lebende Fremdsprachen – Prüfungsgebiet
Mehrsprachigkeit“ [Designing and implementing plurilingual oral exams. Framework], CEBS, Wien/Vienna.
Piribauer G. Atzlesberger U., Greinix I., Ladstätter T., Mittendorfer F., Renner H. and Steinhuber B. (2016), “Designingand implementing plurilingual oral exams. Framework”, (trans. Köstlbauer N., Mittendorfer F. et al., CEBS/VISION,
Wien/Vienna, available at www.cebs.at/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/Austrian_framework_plurilingual_oral_examsDruckausgabequalit-1.pdf, accessed 1 September 2021.
Polzin-Haumann C. (n.d.), “Mehrsprachigkeit und Interkomprehension” [Plurilingualism and intercomprehension],
available at www.uni-saarland.de/lehrstuhl/polzin-haumann/sprachen-vernetzen/mehrsprachigkeit-und-interkomprehension.html, accessed 1 September 2021.
Wiebels K. (2017), “Vorteile der Mehrsprachigkeit. Wie beeinflusst das Erlernen neuer Sprachen das Gehirn?”[Advantages of plurilingualism. How does learning new languages influence the brain?], Goethe Institut, Auckland,available at www.goethe.de/ins/nz/de/kul/sup/lla/wwo/21115924.html, accessed 1 September 2021.

Classroom practice Page 115

Chapter 7
THE SIXTH SENSE FOR LITERATURE: A NEW
PLURICULTURAL APPROACH TO LITERARY TEXTSAS MEDIATION AND REACTION TO LITERATURE
ACCORDING TO THE NEW DESCRIPTORSOF THE CEFR COMPANION VOLUMEElena Nuvoloni and Silvia Zanetti, Liceo Linguistico di Stato – Giovanni Falcone, Bergamo, Italy

ABSTRACTThis literary project, concerning the teaching of the German language at Level B2 level and approaching theculture of German-speaking countries through literary texts, aimed to offer high school students (grade 12 and13) tools to express themselves in a foreign language. In the project we combined the critical historical studyof literature with an emotive and creative approach. This was the continuation of a small experiment from theprevious year, after Enrica Piccardo presented the publication of the CEFR Companion volume (Council of Europe
2018, 2020) in our school on 5 March 2018.
Considering the new scales of the CEFR Companion volume, we planned a project that presented textual
elaboration in a new light, based on the descriptors (1) Reading as a leisure activity, (2) Expressing a personal
response to creative texts (including literature), (3) Analysis and criticism of creative texts (including literature) and(4) Creative writing.
Our work focused on the personal and emotional response of the student to literature in a hermeneutic and empathetic approach (hermeneutics being the science of textual interpretation) and on creativity. Literature became, inthis way, the object of mediation: from the sign to the meaning and from the content to reflection on the form. We
led students from their first personal impressions to the reconstruction of the (sixth) sense of literature, making thework in class a common social activity, but also a personal and intimate experience of self-knowledge.
The following activities were proposed to the students: reception (listening to the text before reading it in orderto stimulate visualisation), reading and expressing a personal response to creative texts (expressing impressions,sensations and emotions), spoken interaction (collaborative brainstorming and discussion in pair work, group
work and in the entire class), analysing and interpreting (producing a descriptive worksheet in groups), written
production (composition).
In the course of the year, we have been able to analyse how, with this new approach to literary text, students
have been able to express their emotions better, acquiring vocabulary to express emotions and memorising
the text, while anchoring it to their personal experience. Another important result was the chance to improvetheir ability to interpret situations also in real life, improve social competence through collaborative work anddevelop an empathetic vision of life. Afterwards students were more able to write personal texts in a creative way.
In an evaluation phase at the end of the project we used descriptors from the scales of the CEFR Companion volume
Level B2 to create a student self-assessment grid and a teacher assessment grid in order to evaluate students’ andteachers’ perceptions of the level of competence acquired through the tasks. Both the self-assessments and teacher
assessments positioned about 60% of the students in both classes in the intermediate level of the B2 grid, whereas
10% (in one class) and 20% (in the other class) were in the advanced level. The other students were in the basic level.
At the same time, we organised seminars and workshops to introduce our colleagues to this new method,
involving them in activities similar to those proposed to the students, making them reflect and write about theemotions generated by a literary text and discussing the critical points and strengths of our project. In this way
we are confident that we can establish further co-operation between the different language disciplines and thedifferent languages taught in the institute, in a interdisciplinary approach.

RÉSUMÉ
Le projet littéraire suivant, concernant l’enseignement de la langue allemande au niveau B2 et l’approche de laculture des pays germanophones à travers les textes littéraires, visait à offrir aux élèves du lycée (classes dePage 117première et de terminale) des outils pour s’exprimer en langue étrangère. Dans ce projet, nous avons combinél’étude historique et critique de la littérature avec une approche émotionnelle et créative. C’était la suite d’une
expérience de l’année précédente, après qu’Enrica Piccardo a présenté la publication du Volume complémentairedu CECR (Conseil de l’Europe, 2018) dans notre école le 5 mars 2018.
À partir des nouvelles échelles d’évaluation du Volume complémentaire, nous avons planifié un projet qui présentaitl’élaboration textuelle sous un jour nouveau, basé sur les échelles des descripteurs Lire comme activité de loisir(1), Exprimer une réaction personnelle à l’égard de textes créatifs (incluant la littérature) (2), Analyser et critiquer destextes créatifs (incluant la littérature) (3) et Écriture créative (4).
Notre travail est axé sur la réponse personnelle et émotionnelle de l’élève à la littérature, par une approche
herméneutique et empathique, et sur la créativité. La littérature devient ainsi l’objet d’une médiation : du signe
au sens et du contenu à la réflexion sur la forme. Nous conduisons les élèves de leurs premières impressions
personnelles au développement d’un (sixième) sens pour la littérature, en faisant du travail en classe une activité
sociale partagée, mais aussi une expérience personnelle et intime de la connaissance de soi.
Nous avons proposé aux élèves les activités suivantes : réception (écouter un texte avant de le lire afin de stimuler
la visualisation), lecture et expression d’une réponse personnelle à des textes créatifs (exprimer ses impressions,ses sensations et ses émotions), interaction orale (remue-méninges collaboratif et discussion en binômes, engroupes et en classe entière), analyse et interprétation (production d’une fiche descriptive en groupe) et production écrite (composition).
Au fil de l’année, nous avons pu relever comment, grâce à cette nouvelle approche du texte littéraire, les élèves
ont pu mieux exprimer leurs émotions, en acquérant un vocabulaire émotionnel et en mémorisant le texte,
en l’ancrant dans leur expérience personnelle. Un autre résultat important a été la possibilité d’augmenter lacapacité d’interpréter des situations même dans la vie réelle, d’améliorer la compétence sociale par le travailcollaboratif et de développer une vision empathique de la vie. Par la suite, les élèves ont pu écrire des textes
personnels de manière créative.
Lors de la phase d’évaluation en fin de projet, nous avons utilisé les descripteurs tirés des échelles du Volume
complémentaire au niveau B2 mentionnées plus haut pour créer une grille d’autoévaluation pour les élèves et
une grille d’évaluation pour les enseignants, afin d’évaluer les perceptions aussi bien des apprenants que desenseignants du niveau d’acquisition de la compétence atteint à travers les tâches. Les autoévaluations et lesévaluations des enseignants ont placé environ 60 % des élèves des deux classes dans le niveau intermédiairede la grille B2, alors qu’entre 10 % (dans une classe) et 20 % (dans l’autre classe) ont atteint le niveau avancé. Le
reste correspondait au niveau de base de la grille.
En même temps que le projet se déroulait dans les classes, nous avons organisé des séminaires et des ateliers
pour initier nos collègues à cette nouvelle méthode, en les impliquant dans des activités semblables à celles
proposées aux élèves, en les faisant réfléchir et écrire sur les émotions générées par un texte littéraire et en
discutant avec eux des points faibles et forts de notre projet. Ainsi, nous comptons bien créer une coopération
entre les différentes disciplines linguistiques et les différentes langues enseignées dans notre établissement,
selon une approche pluridisciplinaire.

7.1. INTRODUCTION
The aim of this case study is to communicate the results of a curriculum project that we worked on with classesof students in our school, the Liceo Linguistico Giovanni Falcone in Bergamo, and presented to teachers during
workshops and in-service training. The project aimed to develop and assess competences related to the new
descriptors from the CEFR Companion volume (Council of Europe 2018, 2020) for literary work and creative writing.
Until the publication of the National Guidelines of the 2010 school reform, the curriculum for foreign language
teaching in Italy in the upper secondary school was traditionally divided into a two-year period in which learners
were expected to study all the grammar rules of a language and a three-year period (years 11, 12 and 13), in
which the study of literary text was exclusively aimed at the study of literary history. Instead of this traditional
approach, in our project we aimed, above all, to encourage a personal and emotional response to literary text,
which could lead learners to analyse and interpret text with a hermeneutic and creative approach. Students
should appreciate literary texts in their primary function, that is, to amuse, to move and to communicate passion
for life. In this way we tried to awaken interest and passion for poetry and prose by arousing emotions in thestudents and making them relate the learning content to their own experience. This approach, we felt, would
also align well with the new requirement, from 2019, to produce a piece of creative written production in the
Italian state school-leaving examination.

Page 118 3 Enriching 21st-century language education

7.1.1. The descriptors from the CEFR Companion volume
In Italian high schools, students do not really appreciate reading texts in a foreign language, and most of them
do not find that literary work can improve their practical competence in languages. The publication of the CEFR
Companion volume, which was presented in our school by Enrica Piccardo on 5 March 2018, gave us the ideaof choosing the descriptors relating to mediation of a (creative) text, reading for pleasure, and creative writing,in order to develop a project about literature.
The general aim was to design a curriculum project, with which we wanted to test, in two classes, the competence related to those descriptors. Reading in a foreign language can be a tedious task if a student does nothave appropriate critical tools and does not develop the right strategies to be able to understand the generalmeaning and intention of the text, but still more if he/she does not find any pleasure in reading it. It can beeven more annoying if the text does not communicate values and emotions directly. At the same time, intuition,
imagination, empathy and sensitiveness were the key words which led us to design the frame for the teachingunits, which aimed to implement creativity and self-awareness.
That is the reason why we decided to choose the following four descriptor scales as the lead tasks for the whole project:
1. Reading as a leisure activity
2. Expressing a personal response to creative texts (including literature)
3. Analysis and criticism of creative texts (including literature)
4. Creative writing.
We also used appropriate descriptors from these four scales to produce an evaluation grid, in which the highest
level for each category was the descriptor for Level B2.

7.1.2. Specific objectives
In our project we aimed to develop specific literary competence, which allowed students to become aware of
their reaction to texts and of the way a text can be experienced. In other words, we intended to build a deep
theoretical knowledge through action and experience. As we explain later, we chose the four above-mentioned
descriptor scales – which gave us the chance to combine different competences related to reading with othercompetences, particularly the ability to feel and express emotions, to visualise a scene, and to interpret andto write creative texts – with the general aim of strengthening students’ sense of identity. From a pedagogicalpoint of view, we tried to implement a co-constructive, collaborative approach, in order to engage students inteamwork and discussions and so reinforce their pluricultural understanding.
It should be noted that the communication in the class was almost completely in the target language, in orderto improve the ability to understand and use it in an extensive way. As we explain later, however, we practised
a mediation work from German into Italian in Class 4M during an activity with a teacher of art and graphics.

7.1.3. Educational context
7.1.3.1. Educational context: in-service teacher professional development
We involved in our project all the teachers of the school, specifically teachers of humanities and of languages,
proposing to them a series of in-service training meetings focused on creative writing and discussion activities.
Three of these meetings were held on the hermeneutical method for an emotional and empathetic approach
to literary text.

7.1.3.2. Educational context and target learner group: students and their needs
During the school year 2018-19, we carried out the workshop in two upper secondary classes: 5M and 4M. These
classes were in the 13th and the 12th years respectively, with students from 16 to 18 years old. Class 5M had
27 students and was preparing for the state school-leaving examination: they had to demonstrate that they
were able to read difficult texts and relate them to the cultural context. Class 4M had also 27 students and will
have had the examination at the end of the school year, 2019-20. Our idea was that the role of literary work inforeign language learning at this age is not only to learn the historical development of literature and culture; italso has ethical and aesthetic aims, which must not be underestimated:
f to develop imagination and creativity;
f to feel empathy for other people;

Classroom practice Page 119

f to relate the content of a creative text to one’s own experience;f to perceive the direct and the metaphorical meaning of linguistic expressions and develop analogicalthinking;
f to increase vocabulary and connect words to concepts;
f to recognise ethical and aesthetic values of literary texts and, in general, to develop a sense for values.

7.2. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
7.2.1. Internal workshop for teachers
At the first meeting with the group of teachers, we started the workshop with a collection of ideas on the new
descriptors for Reading as a leisure activity, and invited our colleagues to reflect together on the factors involvedin the writing process. We asked questions like:Why does a writer write?
Why does a student read?
How can the duty of reading be combined with the pleasure of reading?

We explained to the teachers the general aim of our work with the student group: to activate their imaginative
faculty, empathy and hermeneutic capacity – leading to creative writing. Afterwards, we presented our pilot
project based on a text by a contemporary German author, Hans-Josef Ortheil. Elena Nuvoloni then tried it out
in one of our classes, in order to pilot the new learning path, including the aspect of evaluation. Teachers werethen offered a short activity on a literary piece of a few lines and were asked to invent a literary character withmany of their own personal characteristics, focusing on their inner life. This activity was meant to make themreflect freely about themselves and their emotions.

7.2.1.1. Workshop on the connection between cognitive neurosciences and reading
literature
The second phase of our teacher development programme was the organisation of a theoretical seminar about
the effect of literature on the brain, in order to explain the process involved from the aesthetics of reception tocognitive functioning. This seminar was made possible thanks to the valuable contribution of Giuseppe Longo,
Professor of Italian Language and Literature at the University of Verona and previously Visiting Research Scholar
at Harvard University within the Mind, Brain and Education Program, where he collaborated with professors Kurt
Fischer, Howard Gardner and David Rose.
Professor Longo’s seminar showed how the cognitive neurosciences demonstrate that reading literature
contributes to emotional education, develops an empathetic vision of life, encourages social competence andimproves the ability to interpret situations in real life, as well as to communicate with others on an emotional
level. This event was stimulating in that it helped to clarify how we can plan our teaching units dealing withemotions and imagination, connected with a cognitive and critical method of reading a text. Reading literature
activates a process of “absorption” in the reader, who identifies themself and empathises with the characters as
an “immersed experiencer” (Longo 2011: 95-6).

7.2.1.2. Workshop on creative writing: the seven lamps of writing
We then organised a theoretical-practical introduction to writing as a learning and personal development experience, held by a professional writer, Adriana Lorenzi, who demonstrated to the teachers the importance of writing
as a tool for change and how it is possible to let students feel the pleasure of writing. Some students enjoy writingat school, but many of them suffer from their alleged inability. In professional contexts, writing is initially viewed
with suspicion or even resistance as a discipline that requires commitment and effort, personal exposure andcreativity. Whoever manages to overcome this first phase discovers the potential of this mode of expression, its
playful-creative, aesthetic, heuristically revealing, introspective, communicative and memorialising implications.
The focus of this meeting was therefore to show teachers, through practical examples of writing, how words
can be the basis for building stories and how writing stories can promote a more conscious interaction withothers and intensify the sense of self, as well as repair something unresolved in one’s personal history (Lorenzi2016). From this point of view, despite the resistance to writing that can sometimes be encountered – especiallyat school linked to the problem of evaluation and judgment by the teacher – writing represents an importantresearch tool. Starting from a blank sheet of paper, with simple exercises, the teachers who took part in the

Page 120 3 Enriching 21st-century language education

workshop were able to write down key words and use them in order to themselves narrate in a more authentic
way. Through this process of telling their personal story, teachers became more self-aware and better able totransfer this deep experience to the students.
At the end of the seminar the teachers reflected on and discussed together the place of writing practice in daily
pedagogical practice, in the light of the new Italian state school-leaving examination introduced in 2019 that
requires a test of creative written production.

7.2.1.3. Workshop on visualisation
During two sessions held by an art teacher of our school, we wanted to show the teachers visualisation techniques through drawing, in order to propose to students another method of memorisation in addition to thosethat girls and boys already know and use. In the depths of our mind, seeing and understanding are linked. The
brain does not simply process the information that comes from the eyes but creates mental images. By readinga text in a foreign language, mental images arise, which, complying with the process of studying words, can be
drawn upon to strengthen an effective mnestic processing (a kind of visual mnemonic) in the long-term memory.
Each session had a first introductory theoretical part that was followed by a practice lesson where the teachers
involved experimented with the use of this visualisation method, through visual associations and acronyms.
We put this method into practice with the students in the classroom, adding it in the learning unit as a visualisation phase in the process of the elaboration and interpretation of a text.

7.2.2. Learning unit for the student groups
7.2.2.1. Language proficiency level and grids
We took the Level B2 as the target result in reading and writing and decided to produce two grids (a self-assessment grid and a grid for the teachers), with the definition of advanced, intermediate, basic and beginner levels.
We used the following scales from the CEFR Companion volume as the model for our grids:
1. Reading as a leisure activity (Council of Europe 2018: 65; 2020: 58-9).
2. Mediating a text: Expressing a personal response to creative texts (including literature) (Council of Europe
2018: 116, 206-7; 2020: 106-7, 221-2); see also Appendix 9 (2018) / Appendix 8 (2020) – Supplementary
descriptors.
3. Mediating a text: Analysis and criticism of creative texts (including literature) (Council of Europe 2018: 117,
208; 2020: 107-8, 223-4); see also Appendix 9 (2018) / Appendix 8 (2020) – Supplementary descriptors.
4. Creative writing (Council of Europe 2018: 76; 2020: 67).

7.2.2.2. Methodology and steps
In our project we developed a learning unit based on defined steps, which integrate different complementary
activities, starting from reading a literary text. After choosing the descriptors from the CEFR Companion volume, we designed the sections of the learning unit in order to develop the four target competences (Reading,Expressing a personal response to creative texts, Analysis and criticism, Creative writing) through synergic activities:
f Reading a text and identifying the main topic – Questions about one’s first personal reaction;f Brainstorming with the class and discussion about the main topic;
f Writing a short personal text with a similar topic, referring to one’s own experience (Example: Goethe,
Erlkönig; Text: “What was I afraid of as a child?”);f Analysing in pairs the most relevant elements of the text and discussing results of the pair work with thewhole class, collecting ideas on the blackboard;f Producing in groups a descriptive worksheet with the results of the analysis, researching further informationin textbooks and on the internet – presenting a critical presentation of the content of the text to the class;f Self-evaluation and evaluation of the teacher of the whole process.
Each step was to be applied in a flexible way, and different steps could overlap. The texts we chose had different
key topics, but we used the same methodology to work with all of them. We went from the comprehension of
texts to text production, beginning with reflecting on signs and going on to fathom the internal meaning, interpreting the relationship between content and form, a process which enables students to develop an imaginativeand creative attitude. We tried to transform the traditional lesson into a social activity where everyone interacts
with others as a social agent and can contribute to the hermeneutic process.

Classroom practice Page 1217.2.2.3. Workshops in 5M (13th grade)
Steps A and B: Expressing a personal response to creative texts
For steps A and B, see Appendix 7.2: Teacher Assessment Grid – Descriptor B.
In class 5M we started from a verse of the ballad Loreley by Heinrich Heine as the motto of our project: “Was soll es
bedeuten, dass ich so traurig bin? [What should it mean that I am so sad?]”This metacognitive question expresses exactly
what we wanted to research together with students in our workshop. We began with Step A: the teacher read aloudthe text “Zwei Denkmäler [Two monuments]” by Anna Seghers, and the students listened without reading it in order
to first feel the rhythm and melody. Then they thought about questions we wrote on the blackboard (see Learning
worksheet 1, shown in Figure 7.1), regarding their personal response to the first listening: what the effect of thelistening was, what impressions were aroused by the text, what mental images and associations it evoked, and so on.
Figure 7.1: Worksheet 1
Learning worksheet (1) Fragestellung
1. Spontane Reaktion – Erste Eindrücke
Wie wirkt der Text beim ersten Hören/Lesen?
Welche Eindrücke erweckt in dir der Text?
Wo liegen auffällige Textmerkmale vor?
Wie ist der Text aufgebaut?
Welche Wörter, Wortfelder, formale Strukturen fallen dir auf? Welche Assoziationen rufen sie hervor?
To enable students to answer the questions, we provided them with a list of adjectives and some nouns in thesemantic field of impression, sensations and feelings (see Figure 7.2).
Figure 7.2: Adjectives and nouns to describe feelings

POSITIVE GEFÜHLE

angeregt

aufgeregt

beeindruckt

belustigt

berührtergriffen

enthusiastischerfüllt

erleichtert

erleuchtet

ermuntert

erstauntfasziniert

frei

friedlichfrohglücklichheiterhoffnungsvoll

inspiriertinteressiert

motiviertoptimistischüberrascht

vergnügt

vertrauensvollwohlängstlichärgerlichangespannt

beängstigt

bedrücktbekümmert

besorgt

beleidigt

betroffen

beunruhigt

bitterblockiert

deprimiert

distanziert

durcheinander

einsamempörtekelerfüllt

enttäuscht

erregterschrocken

frustriert

gelangweilt

gleichgültig

hasserfüllt

hilflos

irritiert

kalt

neidischpessimistischratlosschockiert

schwermütig

sorgenvoll

traurigüberwältigt

unbehaglich

unglücklichverblüfft

verlegenverunsichert

verwirrt

verzweifelt

NEGATIVE GEFÜHLE erschlagen

Page 122 3 Enriching 21st-century language education

NEUTRALE GEFÜHLESUBSTANTIVE

ambivalentmelancholischneugierigüberzeugt

nachdenklich

zweifelnd

Ärger

Angst

Eifersucht

Furcht

Liebe

Ekel

FreudeMelancholie

Neid

Scham

Sehnsucht

TraurigkeitÜberraschung

Wut

Wordlist developed by Silvia Zanetti from https://improwiki.com/de/wiki/improtheater/gefuehlsliste.

Students were then invited to read the text, to identify its main topic, to visualise the scenes and the objects,
and to describe them.

Step C: Creative writing
For Step C, see Appendix 7.2: Teacher Assessment Grid – Descriptor D.
The students wrote a personal composition in the German language with the title “Ich werde es nie vergessen[I will never forget]” and some students read their text in the classroom, but we did not comment on them so
as to let students experience pleasure in listening, without judging the works. Most of the compositions spoke
about childhood, nice memories, gardens, parents, friends or relatives, but there was also the description of sad
moments, when students had to confront sadness, fear, the death of people dear to them, or bad experienceswith friends or adults.

Step D: Reading as a leisure activity and Analysis of creative texts (including
literature)
For Step D: Reading as a leisure activity, see Appendix 7.1: Self-Assessment Grid and Appendix 7.2: Teacher
Assessment Grid – Descriptor A; for Analysis of creative texts (including literature), see Appendix 7.2:
Teacher Assessment Grid – Descriptor C.
Working in pairs, students looked for particular, figurative and metaphorical elements in the text and tried togive them a personal interpretation of their relevance in the ecology of the whole text. They underlined therepetition of some words and the different chronological moments in the text: the time of the exile; the Firstand Second World Wars and the time when the lyrical “I” wrote the text and remembered her childhood. At theend of the session, we compared the first impressions and the attitude of the students at the beginning withthe final personal statements.
We proposed a second text, “Das stumme Kind [The dumb child]” from H. J. Ortheil, Die Erfindung des Lebens[The invention of life], to assess the analytical and hermeneutic competence that students had acquired
through the work up till now. We let them analyse and interpret the new text in different social activities:
independently, in pairs or in small groups, always speaking in German, using the worksheet shown in Figure
7.3. They read the passage a second time at home and then again at school in pairs and underlined thecharacteristics they wanted to discuss in the class. At the end they wrote keywords on a sheet to propose
an interpretation.

Step E: Criticism of creative texts (including literature)
For Step E, see Appendix 7.2: Teacher-Assessment Grid – Descriptor C.
f Pair work: Text analyses (Questions) – Text interpretation.
f Group work: At the end of this activity students had to look for information in the textbook and on theinternet about the author, the text and the historical context. They had to fill in a worksheet (see Learning
worksheet 2 in Figure 7.3) and compare the two texts they had analysed, then underline analogies anddifferences.
f Discussion.

Classroom practice Page 123

Figure 7.3: Worksheet 2
Learning worksheet 2
Klasse___Jahrgang ______ Tabelle zur Analyse eines Textes

Text
Titel:
Gattung:
Entstehungsdatum:
Veröffentlichungsdatum:
Quellen / Vorbilder / Stoff:
INHALT
Themen und Motive – Leitmotive:
Inhaltliche Gliederung des Textes:
Hauptfigur und Charaktere:
Ort und Zeit:
Handlung (Schwerpunkt / Wendepunkt):
FORM
Texttypologie:
Struktur:
Sprachregister:
Stil (Rhetorische Figuren, narrative Technik):
Poetologische Haltung (ironisch, tragisch, fantastisch, märchenhaft, ...):
AUTOR
Biografie (Herkunft, Studien, Beruf, Anekdoten):
Werke:
Poetik (Weltanschauung; Menschenbild; Kunstauffassung):
Stil:
Literarische Tendenz / Bewegung /Einflüsse:Wirkung:
KONTEXT
Historischer und soziokultureller Hintergrund:Philosophische Grundlagen:TEXTKRITIK
Zusammenhänge / Werte / Botschaft / Beziehung zum Kontext, zur Bewegung usw.:
Inhaltliche und formale Zusammenhänge:Mitteilung von Werten: Absicht und Wirkung des Textes:
Deutung des Textes in Rahmen seiner Entstehungsepoche und des literarischen Kontexts:
Allgemeine Botschaft:Beziehung des Textes zu anderen Texten desselben Autors oder anderer Autoren:

Page 124 3 Enriching 21st-century language education

Step F: Evaluation
The evaluation process focused at first on self-assessment. Through a grid filled in by the students we had theperception of their learning from their point of view. The teacher also evaluated the learning process and the final
competences of every student with the help of a grid based on the descriptors from the four above-mentioned
descriptor scales in the CEFR Companion volume. The four descriptors at the level “advanced” of the teacher
assessment grid are the descriptors from the CEFR Companion volume at Level B2. The self-assessment andteacher assessment grids are provided as Appendices 7.1 and 7.2 respectively.

7.2.2.4. Workshop in 4M (12th grade)
In Class 4M the project was implemented throughout the whole school year. At first, students learned linguistic
exponents (expressions) to express feelings and opinions. They then used literary concepts to understand, analyseand practise criticism, and only at the final phase to contextualise texts. Students wrote personal texts about
the topics of the text they had read, and they presented oral reviews and comments to the class. During thelearning sessions we proposed questions about personal response and provided a worksheet for the analysis of
the particular elements of texts. At the end we realised that students appreciated classical literature in a way we
did not expect: they tried to approach it with a personal attitude (see Teacher Assessment Grid – Descriptor A).
They became able to recognise in the literary work figures of speech, symbols and other figural elements andto look for their function and meaning. In that way they achieved a methodology, that, far from being rigid andannoying, helped to interiorise reading strategies and practices, which can help to understand and appreciatetexts in a foreign language.
Our first aim was to bring young people closer to the world of fiction, which can develop intuition and let themfind parallels between their own life and imagination. Furthermore, they practised a critical approach to different
ways of living and thinking. We thought that the problem was not really to change the contents of the analysis,
even if modern literature needs to be given more importance in the curriculum as an important aspect of thescenery of modern life alongside classical texts, but to find a way to read creative texts with students using amethod which can be effective for them and which can also teach them to write on their own.
Literary work always applies to the sphere of emotions. But we also proposed an activity with our colleague
Denise Eusebi, who teaches art and graphics, and she helped the students to understand the difference between
iconographic and iconological dimensions of analysis. This workshop was done at the end of the first part of theyear. The colleague explained the task in the first language (Italian), but during the activities, students spoke
German in the groups and then presented the results at the beginning in this language and afterwards in thefirst language, in order to allow the colleague to understand them.
Particularly interesting was a short report that the students wrote at the end of the year, relating to the question“How do I feel when I have to write personal texts?” Students explained that it depended on the topic: some ofthem liked to think about topics like time, fear, religion, nature, feelings, which they normally do not reflect on.
We related topics to the texts of classical writers:
A. Gryphius; Abend [Evening]: time. “My life is as …”
G. E. Lessing, Nathan der Weise [Nathan the wise]: religion. “What did I believe in, when I was a child? What is myattitude to religion now?”J. W. von Goethe, Erlkönig [The elf king]: fear. “What was I afraid of when I was a child?”
Goethe / Plenzdorf: Die Leiden des jungen Werthers / Die neuen Leiden des jungen W. [The suffering of young
Werther / The new suffering of young Werther]: “strange feelings, as if … Describe a situation and your internal
attitude and feeling while experiencing it”.
Some of the students did not like to write about their relationship to “religion”, because they declared it was
too personal, but in general they enjoyed writing about themselves a lot. But what is even more interesting isthat they were very involved in the work and very impressed by the topics: they said that they were not used totalking about similar topics in everyday life and to studying literature in that way.

7.2.2.5. Evaluation
Throughout the entire process, students learned to read texts, reflecting not only on contents or the historicalcontext, but also on their own perception of the texts, influenced by the relationship between literary form andcontent.

Classroom practice Page 125

At the end of the whole project, self-assessment-grids (see Appendix 7.1: Learning Unit – Self-Assessment Grid)
were distributed to students, which gave good feedback about their perception of the competence they had
gained. Tables 7.1 and 7.2 summarise the results for the two classes.
Table 7.1: Self-assessment results, Class 4M
4M

Advanced

Intermediate

Basic

Beginner

I read …

44%

56%

0%

I can express …

32%

56%

12%

I can analyse and interpret …

12%

68%

20%

I can write …

20%

68%

12%

Average

27%

62%

11%

Advanced

Intermediate

Basic

Beginner

I read …

12%

52%

28%

8%

I can express …

8%

68%

16%

8%

I can analyse and interpret …

8%

68%

16%

8%

I can write …

/

60%

36%

4%

Average

7%

62%

24%

7%

Table 7.2: Self-assessment results, Class 5M
5M

The students evaluated their work as positive. They said that they were better able to understand and memorise the content of the text through this method than through the traditional one, where the performance isevaluated only in terms of knowledge and explanation, not in terms of reading for pleasure or creative writing.
They also appreciated the collaborative work with their peers, exploring the texts by themselves, rather thanreceiving long explanations, as in the traditional lesson. It was important for them to work on their impressions
and emotions, which was done in order to re-evaluate the proper function of a literary text, that is, to awaken
feelings and emotions and to reflect on life. This learning unit was the basis for a project which lasted all year in
the class: every text we read in that class was elaborated in the same way as we described for class 5M. The idea
was to present texts in their context, but to focus the attention on the students and their competence in action.
Every text offered the chance for the students to write about their own experience.
In the comparison between the two classes, 4M and 5M, we observed that the younger group had the better
result and a higher self-confidence level in the self-assessment. That could be explained by the fact that
5M was too concerned about preparing for the state school-leaving examination, also in other subjects, tofeel comfortable about the high level in German that was required by the project. Since no written German
test was to be done at the examination in that year, the students of 5M did not apply the same effort as
4M, who were very ambitious and still did not know if in the following year a written German test would be
required. In a second phase, we evaluated their work through the teacher assessment grid (see Appendix 7.2:
Learning Unit – Teacher Assessment Grid). The average level in 4M was 22% advanced (5% lower than the
self-assessment) and 67% intermediate (5% higher) whereas in 5M it was 11% advanced (4% higher) and
70% intermediate (8% higher). The fact that both teacher and students rated the students of 5M lower thanthe class a year below on the same B2 descriptors may also be due to the fact that the students of 4M havea very good level of achievement in all subjects and can generally express themselves in a better structured
way, also in the mother tongue, being very hard-working and motivated. All of these factors helped students
to develop very good learning strategies and good language competence. Therefore, we expect that thisclass will have much better results at the end of the current year and almost all students will be rated at theadvanced level.

7.2.3. Evaluation of the whole project
A principle of learning acquisition is that one cannot really understand anything without having experience of
it: Leonardo wrote “Wisdom is the daughter of experience”. In order to let students understand literary texts, wetherefore tried to focus on the internal experience of students reading texts and connecting the text with external

Page 126 3 Enriching 21st-century language education

methods of analysis. Analysing texts always has a distancing effect that can produce the same consequence asa journey to unknown lands: a distancing and formative effect at the same time.
The best results we could perceive in the whole work with the classes were the development of:f motivation in reading as a leisure activity;
f “naïve” spontaneous, emotional experience with literary texts;
f collaborative work as a social activity, which also becomes a personal experience of self-learning;f possible interpretations of the internal meaning of texts, which increase the hermeneutic competence;f empathy and identification with the characters in text.
Students could also practise:f insertion of themes and topics in context;
f creative writing individually as homework.

7.3. DISCUSSION
At the end of the whole project we organised a final meeting with the teachers and we reviewed the results ofthe previous seminars and workshops. We also discussed the various topics of the course.
f The use of literary texts / images as tools for emotional education, which aims to develop the imaginative
faculty, empathy, and hermeneutic capacity as sources of inspiration for creative writing.
f The results of the pilot project carried out in classes to experiment with the new method, divided into
different phases, up to the drafting of a specific evaluation procedure.
f The analysis of the practical exercises done by the teachers.
f The contents of the seminar about the relationship between neuroscience and the reading of a literary text in the process of “absorption” of the reader, who identifies themselves with and empathiseswith the characters: reading literature allows us to develop empathetic competence and to live many
more lives.
f The contents of the seminar on creative writing as a tool for changing experience and for developing instudents the “pleasure of writing” without constraints.
During the plenary discussion some doubts emerged on issues such as the legitimacy of an approach thatstarts from emotions and not from critical analysis, the need to find a compromise between the emotional
aspect evoked by the text and the objectivity of the text itself, and also the teaching of critical analysis.
Among the different views emerged an observation on the importance of exotopia (dissonance) that cancreate empathy as well.
Finally, we discussed the further potential of this project for the whole institute, and the intention to create
working groups to bring about educational innovation, involving teachers of different languages, including
teachers of Italian.

7.4. CONCLUSION
Applying the descriptors from the CEFR Companion volume, we realised that learning a foreign language
cannot be disconnected from self-knowledge and literary competence. This goal can be reached only in
co-operation with the teacher of Italian as a mother tongue. That is why we wanted to promote a discussion
with other foreign languages, but also with the Italian teachers, in order to increase and foster interdisciplinary
work and research in the whole school and promote it in the curriculum. We think that a language can bebetter understood and acquired through phonological and rhythmical items; from the very beginning poetry
and short, simple literary texts could be a great help to learn the right intonation already at an early phase of
the learning process. Therefore, we intend to extend the project to the first classes (German: Level Pre-A1 andA1; English: Level A2 to B1 at grade 9 and 10), where we will use songs, rhymes and tongue-twisters in orderto improve phonology and intonation, and to also apply the descriptors related to that. Reading as a leisureactivity can be trained already at this early stage by systematically using simple texts for example konkrete
Poesie [concrete poetry], limericks or haiku.
The project will be further developed, always trying to focus on the student and their relationship with reading
and writing as a principle of growth and education for freedom. Our adventure will go on, and the sixth sense
for language and literature will be a sixth sense for life.

Classroom practice Page 127

REFERENCES
Council of Europe (2018), “Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: learning, teaching, assessment. Companion volume with new descriptors”, Council of Europe, Strasbourg, available at https://rm.coe.int/
cefr-companion-volume-with-new-descriptors-2018/1680787989, accessed 23 August 2021.
Council of Europe (2020), Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: learning, teaching, assessment – Companion volume, Council of Europe, Strasbourg, available at https://rm.coe.int/common-european-­framework-of-reference-for-languages-learning-teaching/16809ea0d4, accessed 22 August 2021.
Euba N., Warner C., Dobstadt M. and Riedner R. (2017), Literatur Lesen Lernen. Lesewerkstatt Deutsch 2, Klett, Stuttgart.
Giusti S. (2015), Didattica della letteratura 2.0, Carocci, Roma.
Longo G. (2011), Cognizione ed emozione. Processi di interpretazione del testo letterario dalle neuroscienze cognitive
all’educazione emotiva, Pensa MultiMedia Editore, Lecce.
Lorenzi A. (2016), Le sette lampade della scrittura, Erickson, Trento.
Piccardo E. and North B. (2019), The action-oriented approach. A dynamic vision of language education,
Multilingual Matters, Bristol.
Texts used
Heine H. (1841), Loreley, available at https://www.oxfordlieder.co.uk/song/3394, accessed 1 September 2021.
Ortheil H.-J. (2011), Die Erfindung des Lebens – Das stumme Kind, available at www.buecher.de/shop/berlin/die-­erfindung-des-lebens/ortheil-hannsjosef/products_products/detail/prod_id/32549730/, accessed 1 September
2021.
Plenzdorf U. (2017), “Die neuen Leiden des jungen W.”, in Euba N. et al. (2017), Literatur Lesen Lernen. Lesewerkstatt
Deutsch 2, Klett, Stuttgart.
Seghers A. (1996), Zwei Denkmäler available at www.einladung-zur-literaturwissenschaft.de/index.­php?option=com_
content&view=article&id=198%3A57-zwei-denkmaeler&catid=40%3Akapitel-5&Itemid=55, accessed 1 September
2021.

APPENDICES
Available at the end of the online pdf version:
Appendix 7.1 – Learning unit – Self-assessment grid: Comprehension–interpretation – Mediation of literary texts – B2
Appendix 7.2 – Learning unit – Teacher assessment grid: Comprehension–interpretation – Mediation of literary texts – B2Page 128 3 Enriching 21st-century language education

Chapter 8
PROMOTING AND ASSESSING THE APPRECIATION
OF LITERATURE AT SECONDARY SCHOOL
Nadia Prioni, Liceo Statale Giorgio Spezia, Domodossola, Italy
O brawling love,
O loving hate,
O anything of nothing first create! (Shakespeare, Romeo and Juliet, Act 1, Scene 1)

ABSTRACTThe case study research here presented is based on the previous participation in the piloting of the CEFR
Companion volume (Council of Europe 2018a, 2020) descriptor scales Expressing a personal response to creative
texts (including literature) and Analysis and criticism of creative texts (including literature).
The case study concerned learners between 14 and 18 years of age, attending different courses of English
Language and Culture in an Italian secondary school, the Liceo Statale “Giorgio Spezia”, Domodossola, Verbania(www.liceospezia.it/).
It involved an in-depth and detailed examination of different groups of students’ performances in the field ofliterature appreciation. It was carried out over a period of 12 months. Literature and film are part of the Italiansecondary school syllabus recommended by the Italian Ministry of Education, so it was possible to integrate
activities and research into the regular set of curriculum activities.
The class observation was conducted over the whole 2018/19 school year and the beginning of the first termof the 2019/20 school year. It took place during the regular teaching and evaluation process of five groups oflearners, using assessment grids, which were devised for this purpose by slightly adapting the CEFR Companion
volume scales for literature appreciation and analysis (see Appendices 8.1 and 8.2). Sustained monologue anddialogue were the performances evaluated during the monitoring process.
Data collection was also accompanied by two self-assessment surveys, carried out to get evaluations from thethree classes, Group 1 and Groups 2 and 3. In the classes, three main different levels were identified: 1. BasicUser (in some cases overlapping with Independent User), 2. Independent User, which sometimes extended toProficient User, and finally 3. Proficient User.
The data collected, outlined in the following pages, reveal that there is a close correlation between the CEFR
level of language competence and the performance in this cultural field. In addition, the self-assessment survey
results show coherent self-evaluation and awareness on the part of the learners (see Appendices 8.3 and 8.4). Twoother interesting facts emerged from the case study: students who were more independent normally achieved
better results with sustained monologue; and less independent ones did better with dialogue.

RÉSUMÉ
L’étude de cas présentée ici se base sur la précédente participation à la mise à l’essai des échelles des descripteurs
Exprimer une réaction personnelle à l’égard des textes créatifs (incluant la littérature) et Analyser et critiquer des textes
créatifs (incluant la littérature) du Volume complémentaire du CECR (Conseil de l’Europe, 2018).
L’étude de cas concerne de jeunes apprenants âgés de 14 à 18 ans suivant différents cours de langue et culture
anglaise dans une école secondaire italienne, le lycée d’État Giorgio Spezia, à Domodossola, dans la province
du Verbano-Cusio-Ossola..
Il s’est agi d’un examen approfondi et détaillé des performances de différents groupes d’élèves dans le domainede l’appréciation et de l’analyse de la littérature. La littérature et le cinéma font partie du programme des écoles
secondaires italiennes recommandé par le ministère de l’Éducation, de l’Université et de la Recherche (MIUR,
Ministero dell’istruzione, dell’università e della ricerca). Les recherches ont été menées pendant les activitésd’enseignement courantes, sur une période de 12 mois.

Page 129

L’observation attentive a été conduite pendant les deux quadrimestres de l’année scolaire 2018-2019 et au débutde l’année scolaire 2019-202013. Elle s’est déroulée au cours des activités d’enseignement et d’évaluation régulièresde cinq groupes différents d’élèves en utilisant des grilles d’évaluation qui ont été conçues en élaborant légèrement
les tableaux du Volume complémentaire concernant l’appréciation et l’analyse de la littérature (voir annexes 8.1
et 8.2). Monologue suivi et dialogue ont été les performances analysées pendant le processus d’observation.
La procédure de collecte de données était également accompagnée de deux enquêtes d’autoévaluation, réa­lisées pour obtenir des informations respectivement de la part du groupe 1 et des groupes 2 et 3. Trois niveaux
ont été identifiés : 1. utilisateur de base (pouvant parfois se superposer à utilisateur indépendant), 2. utilisateur
indépendant, parfois étendu à utilisateur expérimenté, et enfin 3. utilisateur expérimenté.
Les données collectées, détaillées dans les pages qui suivent, révèlent qu’il existe un parallèle entre le niveau
de compétence linguistique du CECR (2001) et les performances dans le domaine culturel. De plus, les résultats
du sondage d’autoévaluation montrent une évaluation cohérente et une prise de conscience de la part desapprenants (voir annexes 8.3 et 8.4). L’étude a également révélé d’autres faits intéressants : les apprenantsindépendants obtiennent normalement de meilleurs résultats en conduisant un monologue suivi ; les moinsindépendants se classent mieux avec le dialogue.

8.1. INTRODUCTION
8.1.1. Aim of the project
The aim of the project was to experiment with the following scales of descriptors in the CEFR Companion volume:
Expressing a personal response to creative texts (including literature) (Council of Europe 2018a: 116; 2018b: 121;
2020: 106-7) and Analysis and criticism of creative texts (including literature) (Council of Europe 2018a: 117; 2018b:
122; 2020: 107-8).
The research for the case study was integrated into the regular day-to-day secondary school practice. The
implementation of the scales was used tof motivate the creation of learning activities;
f reflect on the assessment and self-assessment process; andf promote teacher development.
The idea was to demonstrate the practicability and efficacy of the descriptors in a very ordinary, even traditional context. The result of the whole process can provide an example “template” to spark interest in the CEFR
Companion volume descriptors of literature and disseminate their use by fellow teachers.

8.1.2. Institutional context
The Liceo Statale Giorgio Spezia state secondary school was created in 1972 in the Italian province of Verbania,
in the town of Domodossola. The town is the capital of the Ossola area, located in a triangular portion of Italianland projecting into Switzerland, between the cantons of Wallis/Valais, where both German and French are
spoken, and the Italian-speaking canton of Ticino.
In the school there are 720 students, divided into 34 classes according to the following specialisations:
Science (Liceo scientifico);
Languages: English, French and German (Liceo Linguistico) with ESABAC section;
Classical languages: Latin and Greek (Liceo Classico);
Humanities, economic and social sciences (Liceo delle Scienze Umane Economico-Sociale)

The Liceo Linguistico includes the ESABAC (Esame di Stato–Baccalauréat) section, where learners can graduate withan Italian–French certificate (see www.miur.gov.it/esabac and www.education.gouv.fr/cid52349/l-esabac.html).
The main general need of the students is widening their cultural horizons while promoting an attitude ofmutual respect, solidarity and open-mindedness. They also need to gradually learn how to take responsibility
for themselves and behave autonomously as young adults. In terms of their education, they need to achieve
the ability to communicate, acquire and interpret information from different sources. Almost all of our students

13. Pour être précis : 2018-2019 : du 22 septembre 2018 au 7 juin 2019 ; 2019-2020 : du 7 septembre 2019 au 4 novembre 2019.

Page 130 3 Enriching 21st-century language education

apply to university after their diploma liceale, so their needs also include gaining the necessary knowledge andcompetences to deal with this commitment.
In addition to the objectives set out in the ministerial guidance for secondary schools, the school pursues otheraims and three objectives of its own, partly implemented through the school’s numerous projects that coverdifferent areas.

8.1.2.1. Inclusion objective
This objective is implemented in various projects, some of them involving the co-operation and peer mentoringof other students to ensure greater cohesion of the school structure. For instance, the Progetto accoglienza isaddressed to first-year students and carried out by students in their fourth year; Studio Insieme is run by third-,
fourth- and fifth-year students and intended for the first and second years.

8.1.2.2. Language enhancement objective
There are many projects focusing on languages, such as those related to bringing students up to the level ofgeneral language certificates like the Cambridge English B1 Preliminary and B2 First, the DELF (Diplôme d’études
en langue française) and the Zertifikat Deutsch. Further activities are organised with the aim of creating anintercultural and pluricultural space:f internships are organised every year in France, the UK and this year Austria, too;f partnerships and school exchanges with Swiss and German secondary schools (Bad Wimpfen, Brig and Sion);f welcoming and inclusion of international exchange students;
f monitoring and support for Italian students coming back from their exchange and international programmes;
f CLIL lessons.

8.1.2.3. Science enhancement objective
The project leading to a certificate in computer technology competence (ECDL) is offered each year, as well asuniversity entrance preparation courses, the Mathematics Olympics and the Neuroscience Olympics, just toquote the main ones.
The school also organises philosophy conferences, computer science courses for adults, linguistic certificates
and the international computer driving licence (ICDL); the school library is open to all citizens and there is a bookexchange. Many of the projects mentioned in these various fields benefit the community outside the school
and are an enrichment for the whole area.

8.1.3. Language learning aims
The teaching of English language and culture at Italian Liceo secondary schools aims at bringing the learners
to reach the CEFR B2 level, while also gradually approaching the culture of the English-speaking world throughliterature and films. The students’ language proficiency is measured against Placement Tests and officially Certified
Cambridge English Assessment examinations. These aims are compliant with those of this specific case study
mentioned above and are used to assess learner performance.
Table 8.1 outlines the different aims according to the overall aims for the school years and the target groups
involved in the research for this study.
Table 8.1: English language and culture aims
Case study descriptors

Year

Targetgroup
numberminimum
generallanguage aim

Expressing a personal response
to literature (including film)

Analysis andcriticism of literature(including film)

1st and
2nd Year1

CEFR: A1+

Producing a 3-minute speech–

3rd and
4th Year

2 (3)CEFR: B1+

Producing an 8/10-minutespeech/dialogue



5th Year3, 4, 5

CEFR: B2

Producing an 8/10-minutespeech/dialogue

Classroom practice Page 131

First and second year
The minimum general aim for the first two years is to obtain the elementary level of the CEFR A1+ while getting
to know some cultural aspects of the English-speaking world. Specifically within this case study, the students’objectives were the reading and listening comprehension of graded readers and the subsequent preparationof a 3-minute presentation delivered to their classmates. They were asked to give a brief summary of the text,
explaining what the story is about, and also to tell the class their personal reaction to it.

Third and fourth year
The minimum general aim of the second two-year period is achieving an intermediate level (B1+). The students’
aim is also to approach in a gradual way various aspects related to the culture of the English-speaking world,with particular reference to the literary, artistic and scientific fields – depending on the options chosen by
the students at the beginning of their five-year syllabus. Students should be able to understand and contextualise literary texts from different historical periods, and analyse and compare literary texts and artistic
productions, including films. They should also manage communication technologies to further their work
on different study topics.
In particular, for the case study, the third-year students’ aims also included working in the IT laboratory tocomplete a Futurelearn MOOC (massive open online course) called Exploring English: Shakespeare. The British
Council sponsored this online course. This platform was chosen as a substitute for the one used in the first draftof this case study, which included an online co-operation with the French secondary school of Saint-Germainen-Laye. This time the online co-operation and discussion was carried on with the international community
created within the MOOC.
At the beginning of the term, the students were in the fourth year and their aim was to produce an 8- to 10-minutetalk delivered to their classmates about the graded reader they had chosen. They had to briefly summarise it,
analyse the main elements in the story and give their personal appreciation of it.

Fifth year
The minimum general aim in the fifth year is to reach Level B2 at least in some of the skills required. In particular,
fifth-year students should aim at acquiring:f the ability to summarise texts, both in written and oral form;
f the ability to understand, analyse, compare and interpret texts and cultural products of different types
and genres (in written and oral form, listening to excerpts, films, images, diagrams) on both concrete andabstract topics;
f the ability to interact and produce coherent and comprehensible written and oral interventions about
the subjects being studied and to explain one’s point of view on a topic by providing examples;f the ability to use new technologies to do research and explore topics of different natures.
The specific aim of the fifth-year students in the project was to produce a 10- to 12-minute speech delivered
to their classmates about their reader of choice. Some of them chose to read the original version. They had
to summarise and analyse the main elements in the story, giving their personal appreciation of it, too.

8.1.4. Details of the learner groups involved
Information about the target group involved is summarised in Table 8.2. The learners are all at secondary
school level. English language and culture are part of their syllabus, even though they specialise in different
subjects. A total of 115 (117) learners were engaged in the case study research on the CEFR Companion
volume descriptors:
f Expressing a personal response to creative texts (including literature)f Analysis and criticism of creative texts (including literature).
Their age was between 14 and 18, and their language level ranged from A1+ to C1 in some cases.

Page 132 3 Enriching 21st-century language education

Table 8.2: English language and culture – aims
Targetgroup
numberSpecialisation

Numberof learners
involved

Age

CEFR
languagelevelGroup 1

Liceo delle scienze umane economico-sociale

21

14/15

A1+ to A2+Group 2

Liceo scientifico Informatica Multimediale Avanzata (IMA)

21

15/17

B1 to B1+
B2

Group 3

Liceo scientifico Informatica Multimediale Avanzata (IMA)

24-26

17/18

B1 to B2
C1Group 4

Liceo scientifico Informatica Multimediale Avanzata (IMA)

26

17/18

B1 to B2
C1Group 5

Liceo scientifico

23

17/18

B1 to B2
C1Group 1: first year 2018/19, second year 2019/20“Liceo delle scienze umane economico-sociale”
The class consisted of 21 students (18 girls and three boys) aged 14-15, four of them with special needs. Everyone
had already been studying English at Middle School, reaching different levels of achievement, ranging from
CEFR A1+ to A2+.
The students appeared to be generally engaged and interested in the activities proposed; the assignments were
mostly performed successfully, even though many had problems in meeting deadlines.

Group 2: third year 2018/19, fourth year 2019/20
This class in the Liceo scientifico Informatica Multimediale Avanzata (IMA) was composed of 21 students (three girls
and 18 boys) aged 15-17. Most students were normally precise and punctual in carrying out their schoolwork
and achieved good overall results. Their CEFR level was mostly B1-B1+, although a few reached B2.

Group 3: fourth year 2018/19, fifth year 2019/20
This Liceo scientifico Informatica Multimediale Avanzata (IMA) class initially comprised 24 students in the 2018/19
school year (three girls and 21 boys), but was later a group of 26 (four girls and 22 boys) after two of them cameback at the beginning of the first term from their international programme abroad, the boy in the Netherlands
and the girl in India. They were all 17 or 18 years old.
A large number of the students co-operated quite positively, though some still lacked commitment and others
showed fragility in applying what they had learned. Their overall CEFR level was between B1 and B2 (five of thempassed the Cambridge English B2 First Certificate) and a few were C1.

Group 4: fifth year 2018/19
Group 4 was a Liceo scientifico Informatica Multimediale Avanzata (IMA) class composed of 26 students (sevengirls and 19 boys) aged 17/18. They have all since obtained their high school diplomas.
All the students were quite accurate and conscientious in carrying out their schoolwork and achieved good
– sometimes excellent – results. Their overall CEFR level was between B1+ and B2, and a few achieved C1(Cambridge English Advanced Certificate). Three of them were on an international study programme (two ofthem in the US and one in Uruguay).

Group 5: fifth year 2018/19
This Liceo scientifico class was composed of 23 students (11 girls and 12 boys) aged 17 and 18, all of whom havesince obtained their high school diplomas.

Classroom practice Page 133

The class was generally interested and took an active part in the schoolwork, even though they did not always
reach the same achievements. Three of them struggled to reach B1, most of the others were between B1+ andB2, while a few others exceeded B2 (and five of them acquired a Cambridge English B2 First Certification).

8.2. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
8.2.1. Implementation
The case study research was scaffolded by the previous experimentation with the CEFR Companion volume
descriptors during the validation and then piloting phases of the project to develop them. The research involved
an in-depth and detailed examination of different groups of students’ achievements in the field of literatureappreciation. The observation was conducted over the two terms of the school year 2018/19 and at the beginning of the school year 2019/20. It took place during the regular evaluation activity by using assessment grids,
which were devised for this purpose by slightly elaborating the descriptor scales (see Appendices 8.1 and 8.2).
Three main different levels of achievement were identified:
f Basic User (in some cases overlapping with Independent User);f Independent User, which sometimes extended to Proficient User with a few descriptors; andf Proficient User.
In order to ensure triangulation of findings, teacher observations were also accompanied by two self-assessment
surveys, carried out to get evaluations respectively from Group 1 and Groups 2 and 3. This was done in order toacquire information about students’ performances from another point of view, an alternative to just the teacher’s
assessment.

8.2.2. Methodology
The main pedagogical strategies used to implement the syllabus and the related case study employed various
procedures to expose the students to creative texts, including:f Input: A lecture accompanied by presentation slides and multimedia (including DVDs and participation intheatre performances); reading comprehension and guided analysis of various literary excerpts; watchingfilms and participation in plays. All these activities were interspersed with other activities and followed bydiscussion of issues related to the topic and/or texts analysed;
f Project work: Investigation and research employing co-operative learning, conducted in pairs and small groups:
this was organised in order to get students to think for themselves and gradually develop critical thinking;f Evaluation: Formative and summative assessment in the form of an interview, brief sustained monologue/
presentation addressed to classmates, and a written quiz using the online platform QuestBase (www.
questbase.com/).
In particular, the method of collecting data relevant to the case study during speaking tests on literatureand film implied the use of assessment grids with defined criteria, which were devised for quick note-taking
by the teacher. Oral testing in the form of a 15-minute interview usually included the analysis of a literary
excerpt, the discussion of a wider relevant issue and a question oriented to the gathering of information about
personal appreciation. The second oral assessment task was in the form of a personal 8- to 15-minute presentationdelivered to classmates about the graded reader chosen by the student. In this way, the assessment covered
both oral interaction and oral production, following the CEFR model.

8.2.3. Building a community of practiceThe specific teacher training related to the case study included continuous participation in the piloting process of thescales since 2014, co-operation in the Intercultural Evaluation Protocol research project14 and finally regular attendance at various national and international in-service teacher development initiatives. The materials developed wereassessment grids – devised for quick evaluation by ticking the relevant descriptors – Google Form surveys and quiz
tests, created using a web-based platform and informed by the descriptor scales. Other materials used were students’
textbooks, other books and graded readers along with their multimedia material and online expansion, and finally
all the content, both in printable and video format, included in the Futurelearn MOOC Exploring English: Shakespeare.

14. See www.edizioniets.com/scheda.asp?n=9788846755896.

Page 134 3 Enriching 21st-century language education

8.2.4. Practical measures for teaching and learning
8.2.4.1. Tools
The assessment grids given in Appendices 8.1 and 8.2 were a useful tool, which was employed in all evaluation
processes and enabled collection of the data summarised in this section.
The quizzes were created using QuestBase and the QuestBase secure browser.
Finally, another useful tool was Google Forms, a survey administration application employed to gather the
students’ feedback. Those results are provided in Appendices 8.3 and 8.4.
The bibliography, the series of DVDs and the sitography (websites) listed at the end of this document constitutevaluable resources that can be shared with colleagues working in similar contexts.

8.2.4.2. Data collected
The data collected revealed a close correlation between the CEFR level of language competence and the learners’
performances in expressing their appreciation of creative texts and their analysis and criticism of the literarysamples they were exposed to. The data were collected by means of the checklists in Appendices 8.1 and 8.2,
which were printed for each learner for quick-tick marking by the teacher during their assessed performance.
The student performance evaluated was (at different times) either a brief sustained monologue about a graded
reader of their choice or a question-and-answer dialogue about the literature syllabus. The overall grade given
was the result of the average of the performance on the two tasks. Comparing the teacher’s assessment overall
grade with the students’ self-assessment, a significant difference can be noted: the majority of the students
expressed a slightly stricter judgment about themselves than the teacher.
The data collected are summarised in the five sets of tables, one set for each of the five groups, given in
Appendix 8.3. For each set, the first table states the learner group, their age and their overall CEFR level. The
percentages in the second table report the results of the teacher’s assessment, and finally the detailed tables
allow comparison between each single student’s self-assessment and the teacher’s assessment. However, only
the first three groups carried out the self-assessment survey that allows this comparison to be made.
The data for 52 students from the three groups who completed the self-assessment as well as teacher assessment(Groups 1-3) is summarised in Table 8.3 below. This type of table is technically called a bivariate decision table,
but is often referred to simply as a decision table (Council of Europe 2009: 112-13; North 2014: 212). It was usedby Mats Oscarson to compare self-assessments to teacher assessments in experimentation with self-assessment
for the Council of Europe in the 1970s (Oscarson 1984).
The shaded cells forming a diagonal line show a perfect match between the assessments. To create an overallteacher grade for the two higher groups (Groups 2 and 3) for this table, the results from the two assessments
have been averaged. Undecided grades (e.g. B2/C1) have been rounded down. The cluster of students fromGroups 2 and 3 can be seen in the top left, where 19 of the 32 students rated themselves B2, as their teacher
did. Two students rated themselves C1 to the teacher’s B2, but eight who were assessed as B2 by the teacher
rated themselves B1. The cluster of lower-level students from Group 1 can be seen bottom right, with 11 of the
20 students rating themselves A2, the same as their teacher. Four have been assessed by the teacher as B1, but
rated themselves A2 – as did a further two students who were assessed by the teacher as A1. Finally, 31 of the
52 students for whom we have data from both teacher and self-assessment are in complete agreement – 60%.
The overall correlation between the two grades, including all three groups, is 0.86 if plus levels are included and0.76 if only CEFR main levels are reported, as in the table.
Table 8.3: Assessment results in a decision table
Teacher assessment

Self-assessment

C1

B2

B1

A2

8

1

2

1

4

11

C1

2

B2

19

B1
A2
A1

1

A1

2

1

Classroom practice Page 135

The self-assessment survey was also based on the descriptors, and its results (in Appendices 8.4 and 8.5) showquite coherent self-evaluation and learning awareness on the part of the students. The surveys were an optional
activity for learners, and two different ones were created, adapting the questions to the learners’ ages, CEFR
level and prerequisites in the knowledge of literature. The questions were created by simplifying the concepts
in the descriptors, in order to make them user-friendly for students. The survey in Appendix 8.4, administered toGroup 1, focused on the appreciation of literature, while the second one shown in Appendix 8.5, administered
to Groups 2 and 3 – whose syllabus included the study of literature – was focused on the analysis and criticism of
creative texts. A total of 21 students from Group 1 replied to the survey reported in Appendix 8.4 (a 95% responserate). The response rate from Group 2 was 100%, but only 46% from Group 3, giving a total of 29 students who
replied to the survey reported in Appendix 8.5.
The results in the student survey were calculated by assigning points to multiple-choice answers. In the firstsurvey (Appendix 8.4), almost 85% said they were good, very good or excellent at expressing their reactions toa book or film and then reporting their ideas and feelings (24% excellent), and over 75% stated that they weregood, very good or excellent at saying if they liked a work or not and why (again, almost 24% excellent). By
contrast, with more detailed questions, students showed a realistic reticence. Although a very high proportion
were confident at saying which aspects of a work especially interested them (almost 86% good or very good),
very few claimed to be excellent at it. Similarly, when asked how well they could describe a character’s feelings
and the reasons for them, the most frequent responses were “quite well” and “I’m okay” (over 71% together),with very few claiming to be able to do it very well.
In the second survey, reported in Appendix 8.5, completed by 15- to 18-year olds belonging to Groups 2 and3, the responses are in general more cautious. About 50% of the learners declared themselves quite confident
in describing the personality of characters, their feelings and opinions and their personal identification withthem in creative works. The percentage went down when interpretation and analysis were inquired about: only
37% said they were very good at describing their interpretation of a work, and just 7.1% believed they could
analyse plot, characters and themes very well. However, only 3.6% considered themselves poor at reporting theemotions they experienced while appreciating a work of art.

8.3. DISCUSSION
8.3.1. Overall perceived impact
The overall perceived impact of the case study is definitely positive. The result is rewarding because it has brought
forward a new attitude to teaching and learning. The importance given to the appreciation of literature rather
than merely the study of factual knowledge has enhanced personal expression and critical thinking on the partof the learners. The assessment phase, conducted in the form of an interview, was informed by the descriptor
scales: therefore, using the descriptors helped the reflection on teaching methodology. Working with thedescriptors also promoted the implementation of a project which included a great deal of active co-operationand observation on the part of the students, who gained independence and self-esteem by working together.
The findings brought some very interesting facts to the surface. For example, the survey administered to older
students highlighted their difficulty in considering their inner feelings and analysing them deeply; on the other
hand, it showed their awareness of this very weakness. This is an illuminating result, considering the fact that the
respondents were adolescents. For instance, while generally describing their personal interpretation and reactions,
37.9% of the learners believed they were very good at it, but when asked to go deeply into analysis of the emotions
they had experienced, only 24% thought they were very good. When discussing the survey results in class, theseissues were pointed out, which helped learners develop recognition and appreciation of the work done. A senseof meaning and motivation, in both students and teacher, was an unexpected added value that the case study
brought with it. The learners were also satisfied to see the display of their strengths as shown in the pie charts andgained a new interest in literature as a means to go deeper into gaining knowledge of themselves.

8.3.2. Evaluation, reflection and lessons learned
Implementation of the descriptors brought us to the conclusion that working with them will help teachers
produce different syllabi in the future, setting the learners and themselves a series of goals to be achieved thatare more oriented to the development of fundamental life skills such as critical thinking.
For all the groups participating in the case study, the plus side was giving more space to students’ choices: theychose their book and the topic they would develop in their presentations. They were also invited to complete

Page 136 3 Enriching 21st-century language education

the survey as an optional activity. Participation by more curious groups was almost complete (Group 1: 95%,
Group 2: 100%) This generated a more motivated approach to literature, as learners were invited to express
their appreciation and assessed on their ability to do so. This outcome evolved in quite a natural way, as being
able to choose and express opinions freely were demonstrated to be key elements in the learning process. As aconsequence, much better results were achieved. Interesting facts emerged from the case study: independentand more creative students normally obtained better results with sustained monologue; less independent
ones did better with the interview. A few students discovered they actually enjoyed literature, which came as acomplete surprise to them, because they had started working at the project as rather sceptical readers.
The comparison between the results assessed by the teacher (duly recorded in the school register after theirconversion into marks) and the self-evaluation survey showed to both learners and teacher the coherence andrelevance of the descriptors when applied to the learning process. Knowing the students involved, it is possible
for me to say that their self-assessment was quite honest, fair and related to their actual levels.

8.4. CONCLUSION
Did the descriptors match expectations of their relevance and usability, sustainability and extension?
We found that the use of the two descriptor scales Expressing a personal response to creative texts (including
literature) and Analysis and criticism of creative texts (including literature) in a state secondary school proved
their sustainability in a real context, with average learners working within the pace of the regular syllabus. The
descriptors were adapted with ease to authentic and concrete class situations in a period of regular teaching
and learning time. Moreover, the scales motivated the teacher to update their teaching methodology andpromote more student-centred lessons. Possible further development in the institutional context in question
could be to investigate a way to align the Italian school marking system to the CEFR levels and scales in order
to use them regularly.
The complete CEFR Companion volume will probably take time to be systematically implemented in European
educational institutions, but it will certainly become, like the original CEFR (Council of Europe 2001), a reference
source for all teachers and a way to approach common standards throughout the different European education
systems.
A key role for its extension to a wider context is to be found in the contribution of publishing houses: textbook
authors and developers should be encouraged to create materials on the basis of the CEFR Companion volume
can-do descriptor scales.

REFERENCES
Baiutti M. (2019), Protocollo di valutazione intercultura: Comprendere, problematizzare e valutare la mobilità studentesca internazionale, Edizioni ETS, Pisa.
Cattaneo A., De Flaviis D., Muzzarelli M., Knipe S. and Vallaro C. (2017), Literature and language, Mondadori, Milano.
Council of Europe (2001), Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: learning, teaching, assessment,
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, available at www.coe.int/en/web/common-european-framework-­reference-languages, accessed 1 September 2021.
Council of Europe (2009), Relating language examinations to the Common European framework of reference for
languages: learning, teaching, assessment (CEFR), Council of Europe, Strasbourg, available at www.coe.int/en/web/common-european-framework-reference-languages/relating-examinations-to-the-cefr, accessed 1 September
2021.
Council of Europe (2018a), “Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: learning, teaching,assessment. Companion volume with new descriptors”, Council of Europe, Strasbourg, available at https://rm.coe.
int/cefr-companion-volume-with-new-descriptors-2018/1680787989, accessed 23 August 2021.
Council of Europe (2018b), Cadre Européen Commun de Référence pour les langues: apprendre, enseigner, évaluer:
Volume complémentaire avec de nouveaux descripteurs, Conseil de l’Europe, Strasbourg, available at https://rm.coe.
int/cecr-volume-complementaire-avec-de-nouveaux-descripteurs/16807875d5, accessed 1 September 2021.
Council of Europe (2020), Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: learning, teaching, assessment – Companion volume, Council of Europe, Strasbourg, available at https://rm.coe.int/common-european-­framework-of-reference-for-languages-learning-teaching/16809ea0d4, accessed 22 August 2021.

Classroom practice Page 137

North B. (2014), The CEFR in practice, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Oscarson M. (1984), Self-assessment of foreign language skills: a survey of research and development work, Councilof Europe, Strasbourg.
Shakespeare W. (2018), Romeo and Juliet, the script and play edited, Palketto Stage, Busto Arsizio.
Shaw G. B. (2017), Pygmalion, the script and play edited, ADGE Theatre Europe, München/Munich.
Spiazzi M., Tavella M. and Layton M. (2015), Compact performer – culture and literature, Zanichelli, Bologna.
Various authors and titles, Black Cat CIDEB Graded Readers, Sanremo.
Various authors and titles, Liberty Publishing Graded Readers, Milano.
DVDs
Becoming Jane (2007), by Julian Jarrold.
Cast Away (2000), by Robert Zemeckis.
Gulliver’s Travels (2010), by Rob Letterman.
Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein (1994), by Kenneth Branagh.
Mrs Dalloway (1997), by Marleen Gorris.
Oliver Twist (2005), by Roman Polanski.
Pride and Prejudice (2005), by Joe Wright.
The Importance of Being Earnest (2002), by Oliver Parker.
Sitography
ADGE Theatre Company, available at www.adg-europe.com/#, accessed 5 September 2021.
BBC Anderson H. (2014), How Shakespeare influences the way we speak now, available at www.bbc.com/culture/
story/20140527-say-what-shakespeares-words, accessed 5 September 2021.
BBC (2016) Being Hamlet, video available at www.bbc.co.uk/events/ehw2mb/acts/acg6gw, accessed 5 September 2021.
BBC Bragg M., A Midsummer Night’s Dream, podcast available at www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m00046rp, accessed
5 September 2021.
BBC Duffy C. A. (1999), Anne Hathaway, available at www.bbc.co.uk/education/guides/zfndmp3/revision/1,
accessed 5 September 2021.
BBC Frankenstein learner guides, available at www.bbc.co.uk/education/topics/z3vjmnb, accessed 5 September
2021.
BBC Macbeth, the historic figure, available at www.bbc.co.uk/history/historic_figures/macbeth.shtml, accessed
5 September 2021.
BBC Much Ado about Nothing study guide, available at www.bbc.com/bitesize/guides/zcpfvcw/revision/4, accessed
5 September 2021.
BBC Pop goes Shakespeare ... The bard in modern music, available at https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/articles/­
4nwSNRbP6DhyV79KgT94LTp/pop-goes-shakespeare-the-bard-in-modern-music, accessed 5 September 2021.
BBC Romeo and Juliet learner guides, available at www.bbc.co.uk/schools/gcsebitesize/english_literature/­
dramaromeojuliet/, accessed 5 September 2021.
BBC Shakespeare’s daughter, available at https://www.teachingenglish.org.uk/article/shakespeares-daughter?­
utm_source=SHX6_week1_6&utm_medium=web&utm_campaign=SHX6_Mar19, accessed 5 September 2021.
BBC Shakespeare’s language, study guide available at www.bbc.com/bitesize/guides/z2jnb9q/revision/4, accessed
5 September 2021.
BBC The Tempest learner guides, available at www.bbc.co.uk/bitesize/topics/z37mn39, accessed 5 September 2021.
BBC (2018), “(To) be or not to be” Andrew Scott, as Hamlet, performs the opening lines of Shakespeare’s famous
soliloquy, available at www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p061vxqj, accessed 5 September 2021.
Black Cat Readers, available at www.blackcat-cideb.com, accessed 5 September 2021.

Page 138 3 Enriching 21st-century language education

The blessing and curse at Shakespeare’s grave, video available at https://youtu.be/Kn4pywCEHLQ, accessed
5 September 2021.
Borman T. (2016), Shakespeare’s Macbeth and King James’s witch hunts, BBC, available at www.historyextra.com/
period/stuart/shakespeares-macbeth-and-king-jamess-witch-hunts/, accessed 5 September 2021.
British Council (2016), Dear Mister Shakespeare – Othello, available at https://youtu.be/d55GytFubzE, accessed
5 September 2021.
British Council (The Tragedy of) Hamlet, lesson plan available at www.teachingenglish.org.uk/article/tragedy-­
hamlet, accessed 5 September 2021.
British Council Hamlet, video available at https://learnenglishteens.britishcouncil.org/uk-now/literature-uk/
shakespeare-hamlet, accessed 5 September 2021.
British Council Hamlet, video available at https://learnenglishkids.britishcouncil.org/short-stories/hamlet,
accessed 5 September 2021.
British Council Romeo and Juliet Retold, video available at www.youtube.com/watch?v=gqqkn7gRNkE&feature=share,accessed 5 September 2021.
British Council Shakespeare plays study guides, available at http://learnenglishteens.britishcouncil.org/uk-now/
literature-uk, accessed 5 September 2021.
British Council Shakespeare study guides, available at https://learnenglishkids.britishcouncil.org/search/apachesolr_
search/Shakespeare, accessed 5 September 2021.
British Council Shakespeare: teaching resources, available at www.teachingenglish.org.uk/search/site/Shakespeare,
accessed 5 September 2021.
British Council White G. (2014), We shouldn’t teach Shakespeare to learners of English: false, available at www.­britishcouncil.org/voices-magazine/we-shouldnt-teach-shakespeare-to-english-learners-false, accessed
5 September 2021.
British Council Who was Shakespeare? Video available at http://learnenglishkids.britishcouncil.org/short-stories/
william-shakespeare, accessed 5 September 2021.
Chicago Shakespeare Theatre, Create your own ruff, available at www.talklikeshakespeare.org/create_your_own_ruff,
accessed 5 September 2021.
Cutler A. (2010), “Orson Welles’s Macbeth (1948)”, Slant, available at www.slantmagazine.com/film/orson-wellessmacbeth-, accessed 5 September 2021.
Dickson A. (2015), “Best Shakespeare films: a Russian Lear, an Indian Othello … and a Danish Hamlet”, available atwww.theguardian.com/stage/2015/oct/20/best-shakespeare-films-lear-othello-hamlet, accessed 5 September
2021.
Doleschal M. (2017), To be or not to be in 23 languages, article and video available at www.shakespeare.org.uk/
explore-shakespeare/blogs/be-or-not-be-23-languages/, accessed 5 September 2021.
Donald S. N. (Mac) (2015), Retellings of Romeo and Juliet, ranked, available at www.washingtonpost.com/news/
morning-mix/wp/2015/03/20/retellings-of-romeo-and-juliet-ranked/, accessed 5 September 2021.
Donkor M. (2017) Character analysis: Lady Macbeth, British Library, available at www.bl.uk/shakespeare/articles/character-analysis-lady-macbeth, accessed 5 September 2021.
Exploring English: Shakespeare: Massive Open Online Course (MOOC), available at www.futurelearn.com/courses/
explore-english-shakespeare, accessed 5 September 2021.
(The) first woman to appear in a Shakespeare play did so in 1660 – 44 years after Shakespeare’s death, available at
http://theatreunbound.com/?p=466, accessed 5 September 2021.
Freeman D. T. and Taylor G., Why Shakespeare loved iambic pentameter, available at https://ed.ted.com/lessons/
why-shakespeare-loved-iambic-pentameter-david-t-freeman-and-gregory-taylor, accessed 5 September 2021.
Freeman D. T. and Taylor G. (2016) The first black Shakespearean actor stars in Nottingham, available at www.bbc.
co.uk/programmes/articles/49pYWYZTltPLVcHYd4h0CbS/the-first-black-shakespearean-actor-stars-in-­nottingham,accessed 5 September 2021.
Gudenrath A., Insults by Shakespeare, available at https://ed.ted.com/lessons/insults-by-shakespeare, accessed
5 September 2021.

Classroom practice Page 139

(The) Guardian (2016), Adrian Lester as Hamlet: ‘To be or not to be’, video available at www.theguardian.com/stage/
video/2016/feb/01/adrian-lester-hamlet-to-be-or-not-to-be-shakespeare-solos-video, accessed 5 September 2021.
Hamlet quotes, available at www.nosweatshakespeare.com/quotes/hamlet-to-be-or-not-to-be/, accessed
5 September 2021.
Johnson B., Duncan and Macbeth, Historic UK, available at www.historic-uk.com/HistoryUK/HistoryofScotland/
Duncan-MacBeth/, accessed 5 September 2021.
Jonathan (2011), Massive list of phrases that Shakespeare created that we still use today, Anglotopia, available atwww.anglotopia.net/anglophilia/massive-list-of-phrases-that-shakespeare-created-that-we-still-use-today/,accessed 5 September 2021.
Kean D. (2018), “Robbie Margot is rethinking Shakespeare’s women. It’s about time”, The Guardian, available atwww.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/mar/27/margot-robbie-shakespeare-women-characters-tv-series,
accessed 5 September 2021.
King James VI and I’s demonology (1597), available at www.bl.uk/collection-items/king-james-vi-and-is-­demonology-1597, accessed 5 September 2021.
Knox J. (1558), The first blast of the trumpet against the monstruous regiment of women, available at www.bl.uk/
collection-items/the-first-blast-of-the-trumpet-against-the-monstrous-regimen-of-women-1558, accessed
5 September 2021.
Kurzel J. (2015), Macbeth, available at www.imdb.com/title/tt2884018/?ref_=fn_tt_tt_1, accessed 5 September 2021.
Liberty Readers, available at www.myliberty.it/, accessed 5 September 2021.
Mabillard A. (2013), Shakespeare’s influence on other artists, available at www.shakespeare-online.com/biography/
shakespearewriter.html, accessed 5 September 2021.
Macbeth – Biography (2014), available at www.biography.com/royalty/macbeth, accessed 5 September 2021.
Macbeth – ShakespeaRetold version, available at www.imdb.com/title/tt0453514/?ref_=ttep_ep2, accessed
5 September 2021.
Monico (Lo) M. Shakespeare in other worlds, available at https://teachingshakespeareblog.folger.edu/2012/02/27/
shakespeare-in-other-worlds/, accessed 5 September 2021.
Oxford University Press (2015), Women onstage and offstage in Elizabethan England, available at https://blog.oup.
com/2015/11/elizabethan-england-shakespeare-women-infographic/, accessed 5 September 2021.
Palchetto Stage Theatre Company (2017), Hamlet trailer, available at www.palchetto.it/stagione-teatrale/hamlet-­the-musical, accessed 5 September 2021.
Palchetto Stage Theatre Company (2018), Romeo and Juliet, available at www.palchetto.it/stagione-teatrale/romeo-and-juliet/, accessed 5 September 2021.
Polanski R. (1971), Macbeth, available at www.imdb.com/title/tt0067372/?ref_=fn_tt_tt_2, accessed 6 September 2021.
The phrase finder – phrases, sayings, proverbs and idioms: phrases from Shakespeare, available at www.phrases.org.
uk/meanings/phrases-sayings-shakespeare.html, accessed 5 September 2021.
QuestBase, Test creation web app platform, available at www.questbase.com/, accessed 5 September 2021.
Robinson Crusoe study guide, available at https://americanliterature.com/author/daniel-defoe/book/robinson-­
crusoe/summary, accessed 5 September 2021.
Romeo and Juliet get married, Film Review, available at www.imdb.com/title/tt0429743/, accessed 5 September
2021.
Royal Shakespeare Theatre virtual tour, available at www.rsc.org.uk/your-visit/theatre-tours/virtual-tour-rst,
accessed 5 September 2021.
Schaper (2009), How now, wench? Talking like Shakespeare, available at www.npr.org/2009/04/23/103414533/
how-now-wench-talking-like-shakespeare, accessed 5 September 2021.
“Scotland’s most infamous witch trials”, The Scotsman (2012), available at www.scotsman.com/heritage-and-retro/
heritage/scotlands-most-infamous-witch-trials-2463896, accessed 5 September 2021.
Shakespearean insults generator! available at www.literarygenius.info/a2-shakespeare-insult-generator.htm,
accessed 5 September 2021.

Page 140 3 Enriching 21st-century language education

Shakespeare Birthday Trust, teaching material, available at www.shakespeare.org.uk/, accessed 5 September 2021.
Shakespeare contemporaries: an overview, study guide, available at https://nosweatshakespeare.com/resources/
era/contemporaries/, accessed 5 September 2021.
Shakespeare’s plays: Location map, available at https://nosweatshakespeare.com/plays/settings/, accessed
5 September 2021.
Shakespeare’s sources for Hamlet, available at www.shakespeare-online.com/sources/hamletsources.html,
accessed 5 September 2021.
Shakespeare’s Stratford, available at www.rsc.org.uk/your-visit/shakespeares-stratford, accessed 5 September 2021.
Showalter E. (2016), Ophelia, gender and madness, available at www.bl.uk/shakespeare/articles/ophelia-­genderand-madness, accessed 5 September 2021.
Spark notes, Hamlet study guide, available at www.sparknotes.com/nofear/shakespeare/hamlet/page_138/,
accessed 5 September 2021.
Spark notes, Hamlet – Revenge tragedy, study guide, available at www.sparknotes.com/shakespeare/hamlet/
context/literary/revenge-tragedy/, accessed 5 September 2021.
Spark notes, Julius Caesar study guide, available at www.sparknotes.com/nofear/shakespeare/juliuscaesar/
page_104/, accessed 5 September 2021.
Spark notes, The Merchant of Venice study guide, available at www.sparknotes.com/nofear/shakespeare/merchant/
page_90/, accessed 5 September 2021.
Stick figure Hamlet, available at www.stickfigurehamlet.com/act2/scene1/page01.html, accessed 5 September 2021.
Tennant D., “To be or not to be” speech from Hamlet (2018), available at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=
1u8OlUS7BhU, accessed 5 September 2021.
Vernon J. (2004), Shakespeare’s coined words now common currency, available at www.nationalgeographic.com/
culture/2004/04/shakespeares-coined-words-now-common-currency/, accessed 5 September 2021.
Vicky (2013), Elizabethan ruffs, blog available at https://historicalbritain.org/2013/07/22/elizabethan-ruffs/,
accessed 5 September 2021.
Welles O. (1948), Macbeth, available at www.imdb.com/title/tt0040558/?ref_=nm_flmg_act_115, accessed
5 September 2021.
Wikihow (2020), How to create a made up word, available at www.wikihow.com/Create-a-Made-Up-Word, accessed
5 September 2021.
Wikipedia, The tragical history of Romeus and Juliet, available at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Tragical_
History_of_Romeus_and_Juliet, accessed 5 September 2021.
Wikipedia, About William Painter, available at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Painter_(author), accessed
5 September 2021.
Wikipedia, About Luigi da Porto, available at https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luigi_da_Porto [in Italian], accessed
5 September 2021.
Words Shakespeare invented, available at http://shakespeare-online.com/biography/wordsinvented.html, accessed
5 September 2021.
The 420 words that Shakespeare invented, blog available at www.litcharts.com/blog/shakespeare/words-shakespeare-invented/, accessed 5 September 2021.

APPENDICES
Available at the end of the online pdf version:
Appendix 8.1 – Checklist used for teacher and self-assessment
Appendix 8.2 – Checklist used for teacher and self-assessment
Appendix 8.3 – Results from teacher and self-assessments using Appendices 8.1 and 8.2
Appendix 8.4 – Results from student survey (Group 1)
Appendix 8.5 – Results from student survey (Groups 2 and 3)

Classroom practice Page 141

Chapter 9
FOCUS ON ONLINEINTERACTION: A PILOT PROJECT IN ITALY
Gisella Langé, MIUR (Ministry of Education, University and Research),
Letizia Cinganotto and Fausto Benedetti, INDIRE (National Institute forDocumentation, Innovation and Educational Research), Italy

ABSTRACTThis paper describes a pilot project carried out with a sample of primary, lower secondary and upper secondary
schools in Italy, focusing on the Online Interaction and Collaborating in a Group descriptors provided by the
CEFR Companion volume (Council of Europe 2018, 2020). Considering the importance of the digital and multimedia dimension in supporting and enhancing the teaching and learning process in 21st-century schools, theItalian Ministry of Education, University and Research (MIUR), in co-operation with the National Institute forDocumentation, Innovation and Educational Research (INDIRE), developed a research project aimed at triallingand observing online interaction among students, either within the same class and/or from different classes
and/or different countries, using English as the means of communication and interaction.
The pilot project was carried out in nine Italian regions where 20 English language teachers (plus some CLIL
subject teachers) were asked to plan and trial activities in their classes involving online CLIL-oriented tasks,
preferably within online international projects such as eTwinning, the European programme which is proving to
be a very effective medium for task-based and project-based learning. The aim was to enhance the international
dimension of the curriculum and foster new ways and new channels of communication.
Following the project co-ordinators’ guidelines, offered by both the concept papers and the online meetings,
the teachers planned and implemented very creative and innovative tasks facilitating online interactions inEnglish among students. Teachers were also asked to observe and document their students’ interaction, using
their favourite tools: note-taking, filming, taking pictures, etc. This informative documentation has been collected
and will be disseminated to other teachers and school leaders all over Italy.
At the end of the pilot project, the teachers were asked to complete a questionnaire answered by Yes/Noor answers on a Likert scale, adapted from a template provided by the Council of Europe. A report in Italian(Benedetti et al. 2020) summarises the results of this survey. Some of the teachers’ comments are also reported
and discussed in this chapter.
The opportunity to experience interactive and student-centred methods in authentic environments also enabledteachers to gain insight into their own efficacy in using new tools for discussion and interaction. The choice offocusing on the descriptor scales for Online Interaction and Collaborating in a Group of the CEFR Companion
volume was considered positively by the teachers because they were offered the opportunity not only to reflect
on their students’ learning and communication strategies, but also to strengthen their own teaching and collaborative techniques, thus improving the teaching/learning process.
The outcomes of the pilot project will be disseminated (in a printed volume, on the INDIRE platform, face-toface and/or via distance seminars) as an example of how crucial the digital dimension can be in the language
learning and teaching agenda.

RÉSUMÉ
Cet article décrit un projet pilote mené avec un échantillon d’écoles primaires et secondaires en Italie, axé sur leséchelles de descripteurs Interaction en ligne et Coopérer dans un groupe fournis par le Volume complémentaire
avec de nouveaux descripteurs du CECR (Conseil de l’Europe, 2018 et 2020). Étant donné l’importance de ladimension numérique et multimédia pour soutenir et améliorer le processus d’enseignement et d’apprentissage
dans les écoles du XXIe siècle, le ministère italien de l’Éducation, de l’Université et de la Recherche (MIUR), en
coopération avec l’Institut national de documentation, d’innovation et de recherche en éducation (INDIRE), a
mis en place un projet de recherche visant à tester et à observer les interactions en ligne entre étudiants dePage 143

la même classe et/ou de différentes classes, de pays différents ou non, en utilisant l’anglais comme moyen decommunication et d’interaction.
Le projet pilote a été mené dans neuf régions italiennes. On a demandé à 20 enseignants d’anglais (et à quelquesenseignants de disciplines non linguistiques – DNL) de programmer et de tester des activités en classe comportantdes tâches en ligne liées à l’enseignement CLIL/EMILE, de préférence dans le cadre de projets internationaux enligne tels que eTwinning, le programme européen, qui s’avère être un moyen très efficace pour un apprentissage
basé sur des tâches ou sur des projets. L’objectif était de renforcer la dimension internationale du programmed’études et de favoriser de nouvelles voies et de nouveaux canaux de communication.
Conformément aux directives des coordinateurs de projet proposées dans les documents de conception et lesréunions en ligne, les enseignants ont planifié et mis en œuvre des tâches très créatives et innovantes facilitantles interactions en ligne entre les étudiants en anglais. Les enseignants ont également été invités à observer età documenter les interactions de leurs élèves à l’aide de leurs outils favoris : prise de notes, tournage de film,
photos, etc. Cette documentation exceptionnelle a été collectée et sera diffusée auprès d’autres enseignants etchefs d’établissement dans toute l’Italie.
À la fin du projet pilote, il a été demandé aux enseignants de remplir un questionnaire comportant des questions
fermées et ouvertes basé sur une échelle de Likert, inspiré d’un modèle fourni par le Conseil de l’Europe. Un
rapport (Benedetti et al. 2020) résume les résultats de cette enquête. Certains commentaires des enseignantssont rapportés et commentés dans cet article. La possibilité d’expérimenter des méthodes interactives et centrées
sur l’élève dans des environnements authentiques a également permis aux enseignants de mieux comprendre
leur propre efficacité en utilisant de nouveaux outils de discussion et d’interaction. Le choix de se concentrer surles descripteurs d’Interaction en ligne et de Coopérer dans un groupe du Volume complémentaire a été considéré
de manière positive par les enseignants, car ils se sont vu offrir la possibilité non seulement de réfléchir aux
stratégies d’apprentissage et de communication de leurs élèves, mais aussi de renforcer leurs propres techniquesd’enseignement et de collaboration, améliorant ainsi le processus d’enseignement et d’apprentissage.
Les résultats du projet pilote seront diffusés à titre d’exemple (un volume imprimé, la plateforme de l’INDIRE,des séminaires face à face et/ou à distance) de l’importance cruciale de la dimension numérique dans l’agenda
de l’apprentissage et de l’enseignement des langues.

9.1. INTRODUCTION
Considering the importance of the CEFR (Council of Europe 2001) revision process and the provisional edition of the
CEFR Companion volume published in September 2017, the Italian Ministry of Education (MIUR – DG for Schooling)
and the National Institute for Documentation, Innovation and Educational Research (INDIRE) decided in January
2018 to co-operate on a pilot project involving Italian schools. The aim of the project was to pilot some of the new
descriptors of the CEFR Companion volume. The project was designed to focus in particular on online interaction
in a content and language integrated learning (CLIL) environment (Langé and Cinganotto 2014 , Langé et al. 2020).
Subsequently, descriptors from the scales for mediating concepts were also chosen by the teachers, specificallythose for collaborating in a group, that is, Facilitating collaborative discussion and Collaborating to construct meaning.
The background to the pilot project is the linguistic and sociolinguistic scenario related to what is called “Netspeak”(Crystal 2011) or CMC (Computer-Mediated Communication) (Baron 1984), namely the language commonly usedby teenagers for interaction and informal exchanges with their peers through social networks, WhatsApp chats
and similar. The focus is particularly on the English language, even if a wide range of features of CMC is common
to other languages as well. The language of the net can be defined as a hybrid between spoken language andwritten language, oriented to the mimesis of the spoken language through the use of emoticons and otherparticular graphic signs to transfer the emotional dimension to the textual one.
It is interesting to note that eTwinning represents one of the most suitable learning environments for fostering
online interaction and collaboration among students from different schools and even different countries. In Italy
more and more schools are joining the programme because it allows them to experiment with project-basedlearning and to enhance an authentic use of the foreign language for meaningful interaction. CLIL pathways
can be implemented in a very easy way in an eTwinning project, as foreign languages are used to communicate
and co-construct subject content or cross-curricular issues through co-operative and digital tasks.
On the basis of these considerations, the project promoted by MIUR, in collaboration with INDIRE, took inspirationfrom the CEFR Companion volume, with particular reference to the “action-oriented approach” (Piccardo andNorth 2019), considering the learner as a social agent and the language as a socio-pragmatic and intercultural
tool for communication.

Page 144 3 Enriching 21st-century language education

The initiative aimed at exploring the potential of digital tools, media and channels for online interaction,communication and language learning (Cinganotto 2019). In particular, the project was aimed at trialling
the CEFR Companion volume descriptors related to online interaction with teachers and classes of Italianprimary, lower secondary and upper secondary schools. Twenty Italian schools took part in the project,involving 16 upper secondary school teachers, three lower secondary school teachers and one primaryschool teacher; in some cases English language teachers collaborated with a CLIL subject teacher. Teachers
were invited to propose online tasks in English to their students, to be carried out by interacting with either
Italian or other European students on digital media such as blogs, forums or social networks. Where possible,
this included collaboration through European exchange projects, such as eTwinning or Erasmus+. Students
were observed and assessed according to the criteria and descriptors established by the CEFR Companion
volume.

9.2. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
9.2.1. Participants and set-up
The first step was to ask head teachers of lower and upper secondary schools to ascertain whether teachers intheir schools were willing to be part of this project. The aim was to create a community of practice of 20 teachers
who would explore the possibilities offered by the descriptors chosen from the areas relating to online interaction
for Levels A1 to B2 (Council of Europe 2018: 96-9, 2020: 84-7).
The following short profile summarises the characteristics of the pilot teachers:
f Primary and/or lower secondary and/or upper secondary school teachers;f English language teachers or CLIL subject teachers with at least B2/C1 level of competence in English or
French, as appropriate;f Ability to use learning technologies, social networks and other web tools during the lesson;f Experience of working on eTwinning or other online exchange projects, entailing online interaction among
students (through blog, social networks and dedicated spaces, such as TwinSpace).
The selection process was completed by the end of January 2018: 20 English language teachers (10 of themcollaborating with CLIL subject teachers) from primary (one), lower (three) secondary and upper (16) secondary
schools in different regions (Basilicata, Campania, Friuli, Lazio, Lombardia, Marche, Puglia, Umbria and Sardegna)
started project activities in February 2018 following the outline in Table 9.1.
Table 9.1: Italy pilot projectCountry

Italy

TimingFebruary 2018 to May 2018
Kick-off webinars:
14 February 2018
20 February 2018

Scientificco-ordinators

Gisella Langé (MIUR)
Letizia Cinganotto and Fausto Benedetti (INDIRE)

Institutions

MIUR DG for Schooling and INDIRE leading a group of 20 teachers from different school levels(primary/lower secondary/upper secondary)

Areas inCompanion
volumeOnline Interaction (2018 edition: 96-9; 2020 edn: 84-7)
Collaborating in a Group (2018 edition: 119; 2020 edn: 108-11)

Descriptor
scales inCompanion
volumeOnline conversation and discussion (2018 edition: 97; 2020 edn: 84-6)
Goal-oriented online transactions and collaboration (2018 edition: 99; 2020 edn: 86-7)
Facilitating collaborative interaction with peers (2018 edition: 119; 2020 edn: 109-11)
Collaborating to construct meaning (2018 edition: 119; 2020 edn: 109-11)

Level(s)Students’ age

A1-B2
9-18 years old

Classroom practice Page 145

The teachers experimented at different CEFR levels, as shown in Figure 9.1 below.
Figure 9.1: CEFR levels of the projects

As the project involved teachers from different regions, the organisers opted for concept papers and distancework, with online meetings and training being held in the INDIRE videoconference room. After two kick-off
webinars, where teachers were able to tune in to the project, three more webinars were held to train teachers
on the contents of the CEFR Companion volume. These webinars were designed to activate an action-researchmethodology in the classroom (one class with pupils aged 9, three classes with students aged 11-13, 16 classes
with students aged 14-18).
At the end of the project, a 50-question online survey, adapted from the template provided by the Councilof Europe, was delivered to the schools. The aim was to collect the teachers’ and students’ feedback on thedescriptors and the impact on the teaching/learning process. Some of the main results from the survey havebeen reported in this contribution, quoting directly in some cases the teachers’ comments posted as answers
to the open questions provided. The output of the project consisted ofa. the final report of the project, which collated the documentation of the different pilot projects led by theteachers and the main outcomes, and provided some guidelines, andb. a final seminar/conference for the dissemination of the outcomes.

9.2.2. Tasks
The tasks performed by the teachers included the following.
f Identifying one or more descriptors in the two Online Interaction scales of the CEFR Companion volume.
Some more descriptors from the two scales for Collaborating in a Group could also be chosen by theteacher, if they considered them relevant.
f Identifying, planning and implementing an online task. This might include a collaborative project withstudents from other schools or other countries, according to PBL (project-based learning) methodology,
eTwinning projects or other exchange programmes which could represent the ideal setting. The task was
supposed to be preferably a CLIL-oriented task.
f Taking part in the online meetings with the research team.
f Documenting the experience in progress (collecting online exchanges among the students, pictures, video
recording, etc.).
f Taking part in a final virtual focus group with the research team for the purpose of collecting informationon outcomes, reactions, feelings, perceptions.
f Completing the piloting report, sending all the materials to the research team and contributing to thefinal report of the project.
The choice of focusing on the scales for Online Interaction and Collaborating in a Group of the CEFR Companion
volume was considered positively by the teachers because they were offered the opportunity not only to reflect
on their students’ learning and communication strategies, but also to strengthen their own teaching and collaborative techniques, thus improving the teaching/learning process.

Page 146 3 Enriching 21st-century language education

The precise instructions that the teachers received were the following:
1. Read both the rationale and scales in the CEFR Companion volume carefully.
2. Select level and descriptors that appear to be potentially useful additions to learning aims.
3. Design a task that will involve the aspects described in a cluster of several descriptors (or several such activities).
4. Use the task (or tasks) with a class. During the activity, focus on a couple of students. Either during thetask or soon afterwards, consider the performance of those students you focused on, and judge whether
they acted as described in the descriptors. After the activity, consider the extent to which the descriptors
captured the learners’ performance.
5. Refine the task – and possibly the choice of descriptors.
6. If possible, arrange for a colleague to repeat the activity.
7. Decide which descriptors to propose as new additions to the aims of the curriculum.
8. Describe the experience, briefly, using the report template provided.
Approximately half of the teachers (56%) collaborated with a subject teacher in a CLIL approach, with 83%
reporting that this co-operation went “very well”. The documentation of each school project was collected foranalysis on how the online interaction descriptors were used and interpreted by teachers and students. The
materials produced by the schools show the wide range of digital media suggested by the teachers for online
interaction among their students or with students from other countries.

9.2.3. Outcomes
It is not possible to describe the 20 projects and related materials produced by the schools in detail. The comments from teachers quoted below give an idea of the wide variety of the projects. The majority of the initiatives
were carried out within eTwinning projects, taking advantage of a large range of web tools, digital media andsocial network, exploiting the potential of the network for social communication, intercultural exchanges andlanguage learning.
In January we joined an eTwinning project with some Italian and Spanish schools. The project “CLIL approaches in
European countries: a comparison” is aimed at comparing CLIL experiences in the participating schools and at possibly
visiting the countries involved in the project in the future, thanks to an exchange programme. … we wanted ourstudents to prepare activities to be exchanged with the Spanish partners and the descriptor “Goal-oriented online
communications and interaction” for level B1 was our choice.
Starting from the already developed IGCSE Geography modules, we have devised a project and an online task to be carriedout in groups in each of the three classes involved. In the first phase the existing virtual classes were used. In the second
phase, when all three classes had an online discussion in real-time, five different Padlets were set up by the students.
I organised an online event with a colleague on [an] eTwinning platform. In turn students asked/answered questions
about personal info, hobbies and sports, school organisation. Before the meeting, they used a blackboard to choose
the questions and to correct them if necessary, then they role-played in turn how to carry out an interview. I filled in
an observation grid according to the chosen CEFR scale.
To pilot the descriptors the teachers created a set of activities in collaboration with the Spanish partners of an eTwinning
project. The students were involved in online interaction: teachers monitored activities through direct observation,
video recording of the lessons, and comparison of results in the two schools.
My target group is a class of 15-year-olds (20 students) in their second year of an Italian High School (year 10). With
this group of students my colleagues (French teacher, PE teacher) and I have been working on an eTwinning projectwith a German class since the beginning of this school year (2017-2018). The name of the eTwinning project is Young
European Journalist United (https://twinspace.etwinning.net/46504/home).
The project was developed in a third class (A2+ level). The class was divided into groups of four and carried out theactivities that were proposed. The activities focused on simple transactions and writing down an online questionnaire.
I observed with particular care two of the students that I had previously chosen. Some samples online on how todevelop a questionnaire were analysed by students.

The teachers’ comments can be summarised in the following statements:
eTwinning provides an ideal setting for fostering online interaction among students.
International programmes (such as Cambridge IGCSE, which is becoming more and more popular in Italy) can takeadvantage of the use of the CEFR Companion volume in the classroom.
Technologies represent an added value that facilitates online interaction among students, thanks to the web tools
chosen for the project: Padlet, blog, forum, WhatsApp, Instant Messenger, TwinSpace.
The online activities were mostly organised among students from different European countries developing an international dimension.

Classroom practice Page 147

The online tasks suggested were mostly collaborative and co-operative and were carried out in groups.
The analysis of the teachers’ observations on the students’ online language behaviour can help them in the choice ofsuitable inputs.

9.2.4. Activities and materials
The development of the project followed different pathways and implemented a wide range of tasks, as theteachers were free to adapt their planning to their specific target class.
A large number of tasks were developed within the project: only three teachers opted for only one activity, while
the others chose more than one, as shown in Figure 9.2.
Figure 9.2: Number of tasks developed during the projects

A sample of these tasks is reported and commented on in this chapter. In each of these examples, two descriptors
are associated with each task, one usually being from the scale Online conversation and discussion, with the otherfrom the scale for Goal-oriented online transactions and collaboration.
One of the projects used Google Slides to facilitate co-operative learning. In small groups, students were asked
to produce collectively a PowerPoint presentation which was designed to gather different contributions, inparticular, contributions from Italian and Finnish students, connected thanks to an eTwinning project. Figure
9.3 is a screenshot of the Google Slides produced by a group of students on a CLIL topic in science: human andanimal cells. The different groups of students arranged to meet online to share their Google Slides with boththeir national and international peers.
Figure 9.3: Google Slides as an example of the project activity

Different functions of Google Slides were explored, such as synchronous editing and instant messaging. This tool
turned out to be a very powerful way to promote collaboration and online communication as well as interactionin the mother tongue and in the foreign language.

Page 148 3 Enriching 21st-century language education

This B2 task was associated with the following two descriptors:
f Can engage in online exchanges, linking his/her contributions to previous ones in the thread, understanding
cultural implications and reacting appropriately. (B2+: Online conversation and discussion)f Can collaborate online with a group that is working on a project, justifying proposals, seeking clarification andplaying a supportive role in order to accomplish shared tasks. (B2: Goal-oriented online transactions andcollaboration)
Another interesting example of the materials produced by the schools comes from a primary school. Here thechildren had to simulate WhatsApp chats through specific web tools for “fake WhatsApp chat”. As shown in Figure
9.4, they had a lot of fun role-playing important characters from British literature, such as Romeo and Juliet, andinteracting in this fake chat, trying to communicate in the way it happened in that century, but using a digital
device. Old and modern are overlapping in the children’s minds.
Figure 9.4: “Fake WhatsApp chats” as an example of the project activity

This A2 task was associated with the following two descriptors:
f Can engage in basic social communication online (e.g. writing a simple message on a virtual card for a
special occasion, sharing news and making/confirming arrangements to meet). (A2: Online conversationand discussion)f Can respond to simple instructions and ask simple questions in order to accomplish a shared task online with the help of a supportive interlocutor. (A2: Goal-oriented online transactions and collaboration)
A further task, suggested by a lower secondary school teacher, was related to an online discussion between
students from a school in Milan and students from a small town in Finland. Here students used a WebGIS tool
which allowed them to ask each other and then answer questions about their respective town and country,
as shown in Figure 9.5.

Classroom practice Page 149

Figure 9.5: Online geographical discussions through WebGIS

This B1 task was associated with the following two descriptors:
f Can post a comprehensible contribution in an online discussion on a familiar topic of interest, provided thathe/she can prepare the text beforehand and use online tools to fill gaps in language and check accuracy.
(B1: Online conversation and discussion)f Can interact online with a partner or small group working on a project, provided there are visual aids such asimages, statistics and graphs to clarify more complex concepts. Can respond to instructions and ask questions
or request clarifications in order to accomplish a shared task online. (B1: Goal-oriented online transactions
and collaboration)
One last example of a task to be mentioned here is related to a digital magazine or “e‑magazine”, created bysome students from a high school in Rome, in co-operation with students from a school in Spain and a schoolin Germany, within an eTwinning project. The teacher encouraged the students to interact with their Spanish
and German peers through the dedicated TwinSpace (TS) email and forum posts and through WhatsApp chats.
In order to experiment with the different descriptors, some of the teachers created tailor-made rubrics orobservation grids that could help them observe and assess the students’ online interaction through social media
or network. One example is the observation grid shown in Table 9.2. This was developed by the high school
teacher in Rome and was used to register the different kinds and numbers of online exchanges, with reference
to specific (adapted) descriptors.
Table 9.2: Observation grid and relevant descriptors
Descriptor
Can engage in online transactions that require an
extended exchange of information(B1+ adapted)
Can interact online following straightforward instructions(B1+ adapted)
Can interact online seeking clarifications(B1 merged and adapted)
Can interact online helping to accomplish a shared task
(B1 merged and adapted)

Page 150 3 Enriching 21st-century language education

TS email

TS forum posts

WhatsApp chats

The descriptors in the grid shown in Table 9.2 are adapted from the following two B1+ descriptors, both from
Goal-oriented online transactions and collaboration:f Can engage in online transactions that require an extended exchange of information, provided the interlocutor(s)avoid complex language and are willing to repeat and reformulate when necessary.
f Can interact online with a group that is working on a project, following straightforward instructions, seeking
clarification and helping to accomplish the shared tasks.

9.3. DISCUSSION
From the teachers’ comments it is easy to see how online interaction is closely connected to the European
projects which teachers and students are already familiar with, in particular eTwinning, which is becoming more
and more popular in Italy. In fact, the majority of the teachers took the opportunity of the pilot to observe theirstudents while they were involved in online interactions with their peers from other countries, and while they
carried out the different activities related to the project. It is clear that the use of the foreign language for online
communication becomes meaningful and purposeful, because it is aimed at performing certain well-definedtasks provided by the project.
It is interesting to notice that the project thus also motivated the students to work individually or in groups at
home: in this case homework was not considered boring or demanding by the students. Another interestingfinding was the positive impact in vocational schools: one teacher explained that vocational students may beoffered fewer opportunities to use a foreign language in meaningful contexts in comparison to students ingrammar or technical schools. Therefore, the project represented a good trigger for them to communicate andpractise the foreign language.
A very interesting aspect is the way that teachers planned to observe and monitor their students’ online
interactions through logs, diaries, video recording, note-taking, etc. The project helped teachers activate theirmeta-cognition and encouraged their observation skills in seeing how their students interacted and communicated, thus focusing on formative and monitoring skills. Some teachers gave details of how they went about
using the descriptors with their classes, as can be seen from their comments.
First, I selected the descriptors which corresponded to the actual language level of my students. Then, I examined thesituation at hand adapting the descriptors to facilitate the co-operation and mediation in online interactions.
I created a rubric with scaled descriptors: the science teacher and I observed students working in class and the messages
they wrote at home, in fact they worked both at school and at home (thanks to ICT tools and apps).
I piloted the descriptors by organising tasks of reality and sharing experience not only during eTwinning projects but
also in Job Shadowing activities and at the end of some CLIL modules. We chose this descriptor focusing on the online
interaction rather than on the group collaboration, since the task was meant as individual.
While planning some activities we took the scale descriptors into consideration and decided to focus on speaking
skills. Then, we chose strategies and useful tools to support our students in communicating in English. Vocational
students seldom have chance to speak English in real and motivating situations: getting to know another class, froma different school and a different place, by meeting online was engaging and the students were able to correct someof the recurrent mistakes they make during the lessons.

The following main results can be highlighted from the teachers’ comments:
f The teachers found it useful to adapt the descriptors to the specific context of the class.
f The students were happy to work also at home.
f The teachers generally created their own tailor-made observation grid and assessment rubric to analyse
the students’ online language behaviour.
f The project represented a good trigger for real use of language and communication for vocational students.
The teachers were also asked if they had been able to judge whether the students behaved as suggested in thedescriptors, comparing their outcomes with their linguistic level and the descriptors. In general, these responses
were very positive. Some of their answers are given below:
Kids interact online via TwinSpace emails, TwinSpace forum posts, WhatsApp group chats when I’m there with them atschool – in class (BYOD, smartphones) or in the lab (PC) – and from home. So I see them interact or I read the scripts of
their TwinSpace emails and WhatsApp chats. During these two kinds of observation I’ve used a little checklist (basedon the descriptors).
I directly involved three pairs of students and made one oral and one written interaction activity. I followed bothactivities monitoring the students’ performance, taking notes about the topics dealt with during the activities with
their partners and how they interacted with them.

Classroom practice Page 151

My colleagues filled in an observation grid while students had the chance to communicate, so we could realise thatthey had acted as suggested by the descriptors.

Teachers’ comments also show the positive impact of the project on the learning and teaching process. What isinteresting from these comments is the interweaving between formal and informal learning: the students foundit engaging and fun to “really interact” online with their peers, as some of them commented.
It seems like it is not a real lesson, but a real-life activity. This is particularly true when we talk about digitalcommunication.

In fact, our students, the so-called “screenagers”, are constantly exposed to a screen; therefore it seems so naturalfor them to use a digital device for communicating in English with friends. It does not even seem like being at
school!
The pilot project has been motivating both for the teacher and the students as it has been the first “real” interaction
for most of them.
This experience has definitely added a dimension of awareness both to our language learning and to our online
communication.
Classroom observation is fundamental as a method of understanding and evaluating the various processes. It provides
information about students’ interaction. It also reports classroom practices between teachers and students. I think thatthe feedback generated by classroom observation can be used by schools and teachers to reflect on the strengths andweaknesses of the instructional practices used in the classroom.
My students appreciated the fact that it was a less structured monitored activity, easier for them to relate to, as theuse of the social media is already part of their everyday lives.
Teaching: my impression of its impact on teaching is positive; teachers need to know and exploit descriptors because
they are really useful while setting aims, planning activities in order to let students develop their abilities and competences properly. Learning: useful to focus better on students in order to look for suitable activities and strategies tosupport them in their learning process.

Finally, among the different results of the project, the teachers specifically recognised how helpful it can be toadopt the descriptors of the CEFR Companion volume for their professional development in a lifelong perspective. In fact they realised that, referring to the CEFR Companion volume, a wider range of aspects related to thestudents’ use of the foreign language can be identified and highlighted. This can help improve lesson planningand assessing as teachers will have more elements to consider to make their teaching strategies and techniques
relevant and effective. To this extent, classroom observation has turned out to be crucial: by observing thestudents’ interactional and linguistic behaviour, teachers can reflect on the strengths and weaknesses of the
instructional practices used in the classroom and try to improve them.
At the end of the project, teachers were asked to evaluate the usefulness of the CEFR Companion volume interms of learning aims and self-assessment. The results are very positive, as shown in Figures 9.6 and 9.7.
Figure 9.6: Usefulness of the CEFR scales as learning aims
48 – Please give specific feedback on the scale(s) you piloted, with reference to: usefulness as learning aims
(Very much) 4 3 2 1 (Not at all).
20 respondents

Page 152 3 Enriching 21st-century language education

Figure 9.7: Usefulness of the CEFR scales for students’ self-assessment
49 – Please give specific feedback on the scale(s) you piloted, with reference to:usefulness for students’ self-assessment (Very much) 4 3 2 1 (Not at all).
20 respondents

9.4. CONCLUSION
This report describes the main outcomes of a pilot project on Online Interaction and Collaborating in a Group
carried out with 20 Italian schools in 2018. The schools involved in the pilot produced a multitude of materials,
all of which could not be included in this chapter. The aim here is to disseminate the teachers’ and students’ workand make other teachers both sensitive to the importance of online media for communication and interaction
and aware of how these can improve students’ language competence and their autonomy. The importancegiven by the Council of Europe to online interaction in the CEFR Companion volume shows the crucial valueof the digital and multimedia dimension in communication: this is an issue that teachers working in the digitalera cannot ignore.
The students’ and teachers’ observations on their forms of communication online can be considered a success initself: teachers are usually in a rush because of all the different commitments of the school year, so it is difficult
to find time for observation, note-taking, commenting and reflecting on their students’ online communication
strategies.
The students had a lot of fun and for once they were able to find at school what they usually find at home: connectivity, digital devices and social networks. When the outside world manages to come inside the classroom,
it means that students are really engaged and motivated to learn. The materials collected as documentationof the project show how creative, engaged and innovative teachers and students can be when appropriately
motivated and supported, as happened during this trial. The teachers found the experience meaningful anduseful as it provided the opportunity to go beyond the “traditional” oral interview or written essay in English:
it enabled them to activate key competences and transversal skills in order to help their students meet thechallenges of the 21st century.
The new descriptors of the CEFR Companion volume offered the possibility of experiencing interactive
and student-centred methods in authentic environments and enabled teachers also to gain insight into
their own efficacy in using new tools for discussion and interaction, thus improving the teaching/learning
process. From this perspective, we can consider the CEFR Companion volume an important tool for professional development, to be used in training activities/courses for school leaders, language teachers and
CLIL subject teachers.
The authors would like to conclude this contribution with thankful words of appreciation for the teachers,
students and school leaders who accepted with enthusiasm and extra work the demanding challenge of ouraction-research project.

Classroom practice Page 153

REFERENCES
Baron N. S. (1984), “Computer-mediated communication as a force in language change”, Visible language,
No. XVIII(2), pp. 118-41.
Benedetti F., Cinganotto L. and Langé G. (2020), L’interazione online nel Companion Volume del Quadro Comune
Europeo di Riferimento per le Lingue. Un progetto pilota italiano, INDIRE., Florence, available at:www.indire.it/
wp-content/uploads/2020/07/Volume-Companion-07.07.pdf.
Cinganotto L. (2019), “Online interaction in teaching and learning a foreign language: an Italian pilot projecton the Companion Volume to the CEFR”, Journal of e-Learning and Knowledge Society No. 15(1), pp. 135-51. DOI:
10.20368/1971-8829/1618, available at www.je-lks.org/ojs/index.php/Je-LKS_EN/article/view/1618, accessed
1 September 2021.
Council of Europe (2001), Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: learning, teaching, assessment,
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, available at www.coe.int/en/web/common-european-framework-­reference-languages, accessed 1 September 2021.
Council of Europe (2018), “Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: learning, teaching, assessment. Companion volume with new descriptors”, Council of Europe, Strasbourg, available at https://rm.coe.int/
cefr-companion-volume-with-new-descriptors-2018/1680787989, accessed 23 August 2021.
Council of Europe (2020), Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: learning, teaching, assessment – Companion volume. Council of Europe, Strasbourg, available at https://rm.coe.int/common-european-­framework-of-reference-for-languages-learning-teaching/16809ea0d4, accessed 22 August 2021.
Crystal D. (2011), Internet linguistics. A student guide, Routledge, London and New York.
Langé G. and Cinganotto L. (2014), E-CLIL per una didattica innovativa, I Quaderni della Ricerca No. 18, Loescher,
Turin.
Langé G., Cinganotto L. and Benedetti F. (2020), “Interazione online: una sperimentazione italiana”, Italiano L2,
No. 12(1), pp. 603-612, available at: https://riviste.unimi.it/index.php/promoitals/article/view/13948.
Piccardo E. and North B. (2019), The action-oriented approach, Multilingual Matters, Bristol.

Page 154 3 Enriching 21st-century language education

Chapter 10
APPLICATION OF CEFR COMPANIONVOLUME DESCRIPTORS IN CLIL SETTINGS
Emma Abbate, Liceo Statale Alessandro Manzoni, Caserta, Italy

ABSTRACT
Since its publication in 2001, the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages (CEFR) has beena significant resource in the field of language education and it is considered one of the most valued Councilof Europe policy instruments. Nevertheless, several demands for the CEFR illustrative descriptors to be revisedand enhanced were proposed to the Council of Europe. The 2014-17 Mediation Project (North and Piccardo2016) therefore aimed at completing the 2001 edition of the CEFR by filling the gaps left in the original version,
especially in areas for which no descriptor scales were provided. The project’s main outcome was an updated
edition of the CEFR, including an extended set of illustrative descriptors published in September 2018: the CEFR
Companion volume (Council of Europe 2018a, 2020).
Considering the importance of the CEFR revision process, the Italian Ministry of Education (MIUR, DG for
schooling) and INDIRE (the National Institute for Documentation, Innovation and Educational Research) haveco-operated on a pilot project connecting a few selected lower and upper secondary schools (including theone where I teach, the Manzoni High School in Caserta) in order to try out some of the new descriptors of the
CEFR, in particular with regard to online interaction in a CLIL (Content and Language Integrated Learning)
environment.
This paper reports my personal experience inspired by the pilot project – but independent from it – in fourbilingual classes, which were following the Cambridge IGCSE (International General Certificate of Secondary
Education) Geography syllabus. The paper concerns CLIL-oriented tasks that involved activities described inseveral categories of descriptors (online interaction, mediation and plurilingual competence) that aimed atbuilding transversal skills (e.g. collaboration and working towards mutual understanding) that are applicable
across subjects.

RÉSUMÉ
Depuis sa publication en 2001, le Cadre européen commun de référence pour les langues (CECR) est une ressource importante dans le domaine de l’éducation aux langues et il est considéré comme l’un des instruments
politiques les plus précieux du Conseil de l’Europe. Néanmoins, plusieurs demandes de révision et d’amélioration
des descripteurs indicatifs du CECR ont été proposées au Conseil de l’Europe : le projet de médiation 20142017 visait à compléter l’édition 2001 en comblant les lacunes de la version originale, en particulier dans desdomaines pour lesquels aucune échelle descriptive n’était fournie. Le principal résultat du projet est la publication en septembre 2018 d’un second ensemble élargi de descripteurs illustratifs : le Volume complémentairedu CECR. Compte tenu de l’importance du processus de révision du CECR, le ministère italien de l’Éducation(MIUR, Direction générale de l’éducation) et l’INDIRE (Institut national de documentation, d’innovation et derecherche en éducation) ont coopéré à un projet pilote reliant des écoles secondaires inférieures et supérieures(dont celle où j’enseigne, le lycée Manzoni à Caserte) afin de piloter certains des nouveaux descripteurs du
CECR, notamment pour l’Inter­action en ligne dans un environnement d’EMILE (Enseignement d’une Matière
Intégré à une Langue Étrangère).
Cet article rapporte mon expérience personnelle inspirée du projet pilote – mais indépendante de celui-ci – dansquatre classes bilingues suivant le programme de géographie de l’IGCSE (International General Certificate ofSecondary Education) de Cambridge. L’article concerne des tâches orientées EMILE qui impliquent des activités
décrites dans plusieurs échelles de descripteurs (dans Interaction en ligne, Médiation et Compétence plurilingue etPage 155

pluriculturelle) et visant à développer des compétences transversales (par exemple, la collaboration et l’assurance
d’une compréhension mutuelle) applicables dans plusieurs disciplines.

10.1. INTRODUCTION
The group of learners at the Manzoni High School in Caserta who were involved in the experimentation with
the CEFR Companion volume descriptors belonged to the two-year International Classical and Scientific HighSchool Cambridge IGCSE course. The average age of the students was 15-16 years, and they had a proficiency
in English (L2) equivalent to B1+/B2 of the CEFR. The presence in the class of some foreign students, whowere participating in an international exchange programme and spending one or two terms (a quarter ora semester) in our school, encouraged the use of the descriptors from the CEFR Companion volume withnew descriptors (Council of Europe 2018a) for pluricultural and plurilingual competence in order to plan theactivities outlined in this chapter.
The Cambridge IGCSE courses allow students to study non-language subjects in English and prepare for theexaminations of the IGCSE international certifications. The context of the experimentation with the CEFR
Companion volume’s descriptors was Geography, taught in English (the target language) through CLIL
methodology, with the support, if needed, of native English-speaking teachers for “Language Clinic” interventions on the use of particular syntactic forms or grammatical structures typical of the English language.
The experimentation was inspired by the pilot project organised by MIUR (the Italian Ministry of Education)and INDIRE (Italy’s main institute for educational research), a project aimed at piloting the new descriptors
for online interaction proposed in the draft CEFR Companion volume in a sample of institutes selected frompublic secondary schools of the first degree (middle schools) and second degree (high schools), as describedin Chapter 9 of this volume.
A community of practice of teachers from lower and upper secondary schools (in my case upper secondary)investigated the options offered by the descriptors, chosen from the areas Online Interaction and Collaboratingin Groups (Online conversation and discussion; Goal-oriented transactions and collaboration) at levels A1-A2. The
teachers had to meet the following criteria in order to be included in the pilot and establish an effective andcohesive community of practice:f teaching either English language or a subject in lower and/or upper secondary school;
f with at least a B2/C1 level of competence in English/French (for CLIL teachers);
f skilful in using learning technologies, social networks and other web tools during the lesson;
f used to working in an eTwinning environment or in other online exchange projects entailing online interaction among students (through blogs, social networks and dedicated spaces such as TwinSpace).
The project involved three online meetings with INDIRE expert Letizia Cinganotto from the research team andinspector Gisella Langé from the Ministry of Education, DG for schooling (MIUR).
Pilot teachers were requested:
f to identify one or more descriptors in the area Online Interaction and build on them to develop an online
task to carry out, with students from other schools or other countries, according to PBL (project-basedlearning) methodology;
f to document the experience (e.g. by means of observation grids, pictures, online interactions, video
documentation);f to fill in a final report grid;f to take part in a final virtual focus group with other project participants and the research team in order tocollect reactions, feelings and perceptions.
The online task chosen, planned and implemented by teachers was to be preferably a CLIL task, ideally set in
the context of an exchange programme project such as Erasmus+ or eTwinning. The final output of the project
was an article reporting the whole experience (Cinganotto 2019), as well as Chapter 9 in this volume.
The author of this chapter – besides following the guidelines established for the pilot project in her classroom
experimentation (see Chapter 9) – also independently piloted the can-do descriptors of the CEFR Companion
volume for the two areas Mediation and Plurilingual Competence, which had not been considered in the
INDIRE pilot project. These descriptors supported a project-based language teaching approach that stems
from the same pedagogical framework that CLIL is based on. Descriptors were integrated into learning

Page 156 3 Enriching 21st-century language education

aims for a teaching module (half-semester) and inspired the development and experimentation of the tasks
presented in this chapter.
The project work took place during the development of an Erasmus+ KA2 project (Strategic Partnerships for
Schools Only). The Italian classes participating in the project were in constant contact with the students of thepartner institutes through eTwinning, Skype and WhatsApp: this facilitated working with the descriptors foronline interaction during the regular online meetings scheduled in the project.
The sample population was composed of 86 first- and second-year high school students aged 14 to 16,
attending courses in a bilingual approach, distributed in four classes, no student having special needs. The
class background may be labelled as “average” and was characterised by a mix of learners: some students weretalented with high co-operative and cognitive skills, whereas others were interested but had certain difficulties(especially in L2 communication) or were not very hard-working. The participants were “digital natives” whoregularly used social networking tools (microblog, Facebook, Instagram, WhatsApp, Twitter, TiKTok, YouTube),
but none of them had used e-survey tools nor online debate platforms before. Most of them were having
their first experience with an Erasmus+/eTwinning project.

10.2. PROJECT DESCRIPTIONAt the beginning of the project, in conjunction with looking at the descriptors, students were introduced to
the rich concepts of Online Interaction, Mediation and Plurilingual Competence through practical examples oftasks. When necessary, extra descriptors were formulated and the language used was simplified or rephrased if
it appeared to be too difficult for the students concerned.
Learners were also given enough time to familiarise themselves with the web tools used in tasks, and no tool
was perceived as problematic. The tasks were mostly carried out in the classroom and each student used his/her own device, usually the smartphone – the Bring Your Own Device (BYOD) approach.
In this article I outline a selection of the tasks that I developed for the project by adopting one or more descriptors as learning objectives. The descriptor scales are stated to be intended as a continuum of settings and not
as categories with fixed boundaries (North and Piccardo 2016), so descriptors from different scales were mixed
in order to develop tasks and assess performance. The learning experience (tasks and assessment) presented in
the following paragraphs is aligned with the Geography course learning objectives (IGCSE syllabus).
The tasks were based on the learner-centred approach, as advocated in CLIL and in the CEFR Companion volume.
The descriptors were used not only to plan teaching and learning but also as self-assessment instruments forstudents. The tasks were designed with the learners’ L2 proficiency level (B1-B2+) in mind.
During the implementation phase of the project, the learning process was observed through an online survey15
and several Geography tests that monitored the acquisition of content and the students’ communicative skills
development in the target language (English).

10.2.1. Tasks
The phases of the tasks allowed different kinds of language use, interaction and mediation, as shown in Table 10.1,
which was created to explain the expected work steps to my students.
Most of the tasks presented in the following paragraphs were inspired by the CEFR Companion volume appendices that provide examples of mediation and online interaction for four domains (spheres of actions or areasof concern): personal, public, occupational and educational (Council of Europe 2018a: Appendix 6; Council ofEurope 2020, Appendix 5). All the tasks combined comprehension with interaction and production, and often
required students to take a position on a controversial theme. All the tasks were meaning-focused rather thanform-focused; they included collaboration with peers, promoted effective communication and required a strategic
decision-making process that provided students with the autonomy needed to activate all their communicativeand linguistic skills.
All the tasks, therefore, also implied the need for mediation. They often involved Mediating a text, as learners
reported on (authentic) source materials in the second – and sometimes third – phase. They usually involved
Mediating concepts, in the first two phases, during which learners were facilitating collaborative interaction(Council of Europe 2020a: 108), framing the task and Managing interaction (2020a: 112). Then in the second

15. See https://docs.google.com/forms/d/16bEKn2fHge6uIy8GOxrt0yJJD8Y-tH2yiUyBOIJYU-Y, accessed 7 September 2021.

Classroom practice Page 157

phase, learners were Collaborating to construct meaning (2020a: 109), and Encouraging conceptual talk (2020a:
112), as they followed up on and discussed each other’s ideas.
Table 10.1: Task phases
Phase

Activity

Communicative mode

Divided into teams, students collaborate to approach the task,
1. PREPARATION analyse an issue, give a solution to a problem, answer a controversial given question

INTERACTION

2. SWAP

Each student for each group, explains something to the othermembers of the team, who pose questions and make comments,
give support and express their views

PRODUCTION(PRESENTATION)

3. DEBATE

Structured online discussions based on a code of conduct format(netiquette)

INTERACTION(ONLINE)

The subject matter consisted of topics from the IGCSE Geography syllabus (population dynamics, climate change,
economic development, marine processes, volcanoes). These topics were used as a frame to provide thematic
uniformity throughout the learning process. The idea was to use, as far as possible, appropriate authentic texts
with no adaptation. The different materials given to students for the tasks (web articles, graphs, YouTube videos,e-debates) were selected within the same topic area in order to help learners in performing gradually morechallenging communicative activities using topic-relevant language. The tasks were always connected to acontext: an Erasmus or eTwinning project, a classroom debate contest, a submission posted on an online forum,
an article for the classroom blog, a campaign to plead a civil cause.
Selected CEFR-based can-do descriptors were integrated into the course syllabus. Aspects of the L2 that needed
to be taught were taken from the interaction itself (based on observation). This determined the linguistic syllabus
together with the specific vocabulary of the subject matter.
In the examples of tasks that are given in the next sections, the can-do CEFR descriptors that are cited were used
to define something concrete that students were expected to do. Each task was aimed at obtaining a concrete
outcome (e.g. a blog post, digital tourist brochure, e-poster) that fostered the student’s motivation and interest.
For example, Task 5 in the next section (write a post for the classroom blog on the carbon footprint challenge)
turned out to be really motivating for learners.
A needs analysis was conducted in a preliminary phase to adapt the descriptors to our learning context. In orderto clarify the level of the descriptors, students were given full details of the conditions and provisos indicatedin them, together with examples of the task achieved or the completed outcome. The choice of descriptors
should ideally be balanced to cover all the different aspects of multi-faceted CLIL evaluation: from grammaticalproficiency to content acquisition, from soft skills encompassed by mediation and plurilingual competence
scales to lexical knowledge.
In addition to being used for teacher planning and task design, the descriptors were also used for students’needs analysis and for meaningful self-assessment at the beginning of the course. This was intended to help
learners to plan their priorities and to have clearer learning goals, both on a daily basis and over a longer
term. As teacher I used the lesson objectives resulting from descriptors to get students acquainted with thetasks’ goals, and thus provided them with a practice-oriented focus when the lesson started, and a feeling ofaccomplishment when it ended.
Assessment processes required student involvement and some self-assessment. Can-do checklists with adapted
versions of descriptors from the CEFR Companion volume were given to students at the beginning of the task
in order to make them aware of lesson objectives. Every time they finished a lesson, they evaluated their own
learning by writing comments and ticking the descriptors indicating each actual can-do that they felt they had
achieved through the activity. The same descriptors selected were used to monitor learners’ activities during thetasks, and the results from the learners’ self-assessments were related to my own evaluations as the teacher. This
procedure stimulated students to realise what they had learned and to reflect on what more they would like tolearn. The descriptors were also used for mid-course assessment at regular intervals, as well as at the end of thecourse for summative assessment when learners sat for the final test, in order to make the learners capable ofvaluing what they have accomplished.

Page 158 3 Enriching 21st-century language education

In the following subsections, I give a very brief overview of the range of tasks used during the project, together
with the descriptors, usually at Level B2, that helped me to design the tasks.

10.2.2. Online interaction
First, we look at tasks primarily focused on online interaction (Online conversation and discussion, then Goaloriented online transactions and collaboration) since the eTwinning in the Erasmus+ KA2 strategic partnership
was the overall context of the project. In the following sections the focus switches to mediation, and finally toplurilingual CLIL tasks.

10.2.2.1. Online conversation and discussion
The four subject-specific tasks outlined below were primarily related to selected descriptors from the scale Online
conversation and discussion Level B2 (Council of Europe 2018a: 97) and the related examples of use in different
domains (2018a: 186):
f Can participate actively in an online discussion, stating and responding to opinions on topics of interest
at some length, provided contributors avoid unusual or complex language and allow time for responses.
f Can recognise misunderstandings and disagreements that arise in an online interaction and can deal withthem, provided that the interlocutor(s) are willing to co-operate.
The above descriptors were used to let students self-assess themselves and were integrated in a checklist withthe following B2 ones from the scale Mediating concepts – Managing interaction (2018a: 121, 213-14):
f Can explain the different roles of participants in the collaborative process, giving clear instructions forgroup work.
f Can explain ground rules in collaborative discussion in small groups that involves problem solving or theevaluation of alternative proposals.
f Can intervene when necessary to set a group back on task with new instructions or to encourage moreeven participation.
These three specific descriptors were used to frame the students’ roles in the group discussion conducted toplan and produce the final outputs in the consensus tasks. Thus, can-do descriptors were used both as theobjectives of the lessons and also as the assessment tools, thus connecting the CEFR coherently to instructional practice.
The tasks themselves were based around population dynamics and policies, and required specified end-products(a post and a digital poster) that were displayed to classmates, presented and made public on the class blog andon the e-learning platform (Edmodo, eTwinning) for peers to appreciate and evaluate. The speaking activities
were oriented to real-world language use and not only to content-specific language use. The instructions foreach of the tasks are given below.

Task 1. Topic: Population dynamics
Task description: In groups read the NBC news article on world population increase,16 then join Tricider17 to post
your opinion. Do you agree with the warning given by Dr Eric Tayag in the article? Explain your view as a groupand comment on each other’s posts. eTwinning students from other schools will join the chat room. After having
collected ideas, vote.

Task 2. Topic: Population policies
Task description: With your team you will be conducting a debate on TwinSpace with your eTwinning partners
on whether government policies have to control population growth or not (see Figure 10.1). To express youranti-natalist or pro-natalist opinion before the debate starts, create a digital poster and a slogan to show during
the TwinSpace meeting. For the e-poster use open web tools such as www.postermywall.com or http://edu.
glogster.com/.

16. www.nbcnews.com/id/45100073/ns/world_news/t/child-born-world-population-hits-billion/#.XZCv9iVS-T9.
17. Tricider (www.tricider.com) is an online tool to engage students in decision making: the teacher writes an idea and then students add
pros and cons, new ideas and instant feedback, before finally voting for the best opinion.

Classroom practice Page 159

Figure 10.1: One of the digital posters created by students for the online debate

Task 3. Topic: Population policies
Go on Vialogues (https://vialogues.com/vialogues/play/51208 and watch the video on China’s population
crisis shown in Figure 10.2). I have started a discussion on China’s “One child” policy. In your group, express
your opinion about the issue by writing in the comments box and take part in the poll, interacting withother teams.
Figure 10.2: The debate on Vialogues

Task 4. Topic: Economic development. Energy
Task description: Debate and take part in the discussion entitled “Do we need nuclear power for sustainableenergy production?” on the online debate platform Kialo (see Figure 10.3) at www.kialo.com/do-we-need-­nuclear-power-for-sustainable-energy-production-6182. Express your opinion and support it with effective
arguments.

Page 160 3 Enriching 21st-century language education

Figure 10.3: The discussion on Kialo

Classroom practice Page 161

10.2.2.2. Goal-oriented online transactions and collaboration
For the next two tasks, shown below, we used selected descriptors for B1+ for Goal-oriented online transactions and collaboration (2018a: 99), and again the related examples of use given for the different domains(2018a: 189):
f Can engage in online transactions that require an extended exchange of information, provided the interlocutor(s)avoid complex language and are willing to repeat and reformulate when necessary.
f Can interact online with a group that is working on a project, following straightforward instructions, seeking
clarification and helping to accomplish the shared tasks.

Task 5. Topic: Climate change and Global warming
Task description: What are you going to do to reduce your carbon footprint? Use information from the website
www.carbonfootprint.com/ and, as a group, write down some suggestions to create a challenge for yourself andpost it to the classroom geography blog together with a digital poster to promote the challenge. At the end of
the course, we will see how this went!

Task 6. Topic: Economic Development. Tourism
Task description: As a group, conduct research on the different districts and likely prices, then put together adigital brochure for an eco-tourist vacation in the Brazil rainforest (with an environmentally sound design) tohighlight the different eco-tourism principles on offer.

10.2.3. Examples of CLIL mediation tasks across levels
Mediation activities in the CEFR are a broadened concept that includes Mediating communication, Mediating atext and Mediating concepts. The CEFR Companion volume does not view mediation as a merely linguistic activity
and considers that it may be applied to a wide range of educational settings, such as CLIL. Mediation activities(and translation as mediating activity) require one to plan a shared, pluricultural space during the lessons thatguides learners’ creativity and reciprocal understanding. In our CLIL lessons we focused on cognitive mediation.
The students, before carrying out the tasks, received communication skills training with the L2 teacher at an earlystage of piloting. The tasks were based on a real-life communicative situation in which students collaborated
to solve a question.
For tasks in this area, the assessment criteria and marking scheme for analysing performance were as follows.
Communicative competence: This evaluates how linguistically comprehensible the learner’s output in the task
is and how correct and accurate the use of the topic-specific key words and the content-related grammaticalstructures is (0-5 points).
Pluricultural competence: This evaluates how well the information was adjusted to match with the target cultural
background in terms of language, style and register (formal or informal) (0-5 points).
Planning competence: Here the strategies used to mediate comprehension are evaluated, assessing how well
the student modifies and scaffolds the original source according to the communicative situation explained in thetask, by selecting the precise terms (specialised vocabulary) and shortening /eliminating redundant information(0-5 points). (Here the scales for mediating strategies, particularly Adapting language, Elaborating a dense text
and Streamlining a text, Council of Europe 2020: 118-21, can serve as reference points.)
Textual competence: Structure and style of the final output (0-5 points)
Total number of points: ____ / 20 = (pass Mark 60%)

10.2.3.1. Mediating a text
Mediating a text is the ability to relay / summarise / synthesise information from spoken or written sources(including informal translation). Sources, as suggested in the CEFR Companion volume, may include listening /reading texts, discussions / conversations, data, graphs, statistics, visuals, diagrams, pictures.
In these tasks, students were asked to understand a multimodal text in Italian (L1), extracting selected information
to produce a message in the target language.

Page 162 3 Enriching 21st-century language education

The following descriptors for B2 Level were used.
f Relaying specific information in writing (Council of Europe 2018a: 108, 193-194)
f Can relay in writing in English (L2) the relevant point(s) contained in propositionally complex but well-structured
texts written in Italian (L1) within his/her fields of professional, academic and personal interestf Processing text in writing (2018a: 112, 200-201)
f Can summarise in writing in English (L2) the main content of complex texts written in Italian (L1) on subjects
related to their fields of interest and specialisationf Explaining data in writing (e.g. in graphs, diagrams, charts etc.) (2018a: 110, 196)
f Can interpret and present reliably in writing in English (L2) detailed information from diagrams and visuallyorganised data in his/her fields of interest (with text in L1)
In the examples below, the input text is written in L1 (Italian) and the output text is requested in L2 (English).

Task 7. Topic: Volcanoes
Task description: Write in English the programme for a day’s outing with exchange students on the basisof Vesuvius’s official tourist information website (www.parconazionaledelvesuvio.it/), which is written onlyin Italian.

Task 8. Topic: Marine processes. Coastal erosion
Task description: Imagine that you work for the Italian Ministry for Environment, Land and Sea protection. Your
department has received a request from the environment organisation of another country for information
about coastal erosion. You have been asked to write a report (180-200 words) explaining how Italy is copingwith coastal erosion emergence. Use information from the Ministry website (www.mite.gov.it/) to write yourreport.
Explaining data in speech (graphs, diagrams etc.) (Council of Europe 2018a: 109, 190-2)
Descriptors for B2 Level:f Can interpret and describe reliably (in Language B) detailed information contained in complex diagrams, chartsand other visually organised information (with text in Language A) on topics in his/her fields of interest

Task 9. Topic: Climate change
Task Description: Analyse global temperature in graphs and bar charts from the NASA website (https://climate.
nasa.gov/vital-signs/global-temperature/) for a class presentation, reporting what is contributing most to climatechange and how much has the average global temperature increased in the past 120 years.

10.2.3.2. Mediating concepts
Mediating a concept requires students’ collaboration with peers in order to come to a common decision or solvea problem. Students are asked to interact and exchange information from their source by using a few points
from the text and from their own experience.
Tasks based on mediating concepts include:
f aiding the development of ideas;
f asking questions to stimulate reasoning;f inviting/giving contributions and reactions;f asking for/giving clarification;
f making and responding to suggestions.
For tasks related to this mediating activity the students, acting as group members, collaborated to construct meaning to solve a problem and to facilitate interaction with peers, increasing their resourcesof mediation. The tasks offered learners the opportunity for articulation, explanation and expansionof their own subject matter knowledge. Students were challenged to provide evidence for their views

Classroom practice Page 163

and they were encouraged to analyse particular issues and alternative perspectives on a core topic.
In tasks that require the mediation of a concept, the teacher usually encourages conceptual talk between
the group members: interaction is strengthened by the exchange of opinions and by organising one’s own
points of view to stimulate discussion.
Collaborating to construct meaning (Council of Europe 2018a: 119, 209)
Descriptors for B2+ Levelf Can highlight the main issue that needs to be resolved in a complex task and the important aspects that need
to be taken into accountf Can contribute to collaborative decision-making and problem-solving expressing and co-developing ideas,
explaining details and making suggestion for future actions
f Can help organise the discussion in a group by reporting what others have said, summarising, elaborating andweighing up different points of view

Task 10. Topic: Environmental risks of economic development. Fracking.
Fracking is being considered in many countries. With your classmates carry out research into Italy to see whether
fracking is taking place or might be taking place in the future. If so, discuss in group arguments in favour offracking (from an economic viewpoint) and against it (from the point of view of the natural environment), thencome to a conclusion as a team expressing your opinion on fracking.

10.2.4. Examples of plurilingual CLIL tasks
If we consider mediation in plurilingual instructional settings, as teachers we can adopt a cross-linguistic andcross-cultural approach, asking our students to accomplish content-related tasks which call for the use of mediationcompetences. Performing collaborative tasks in small groups of peers (three or four members) within bilingual
or multilingual classes is an essential practice of mediation, especially if the tasks ask for some reflection andfocus on similarities and differences between the languages spoken in the classroom. In the following examples
I describe CLIL-oriented plurilingual tasks that contrast with a “target language only” approach: the activities areplanned in order to let students use all their linguistic resources.
The cognitive advantage of a plurilingual approach is linked to the call for students’ creativity in understanding
interconnections between languages, and this understanding happens even if the competence in the L2, L3,
L4, etc. is only partial (Piccardo 2017).
In the CEFR Companion volume, three scales are proposed for plurilingual and pluricultural competence:
Plurilingual comprehension, Building on plurilingual repertoire and Building on pluricultural repertoire (Council ofEurope 2018a: 157-62). We also think that the scale Mediating communication – Facilitating a pluricultural space(2018a: 216) may be added to the above-mentioned scales. However, in the following examples of tasks, only
the plurilingual comprehension scale is relevant.
Plurilingual comprehension (2018a: 160): Descriptors for B1 Level:f Can extract information from documents written in different languages in his/her field
f Can recognise similarities and contrasts between the way concepts are expressed in different languages, in order
to distinguish between identical uses of the same word root and “false friends”

Task 11. Topic: Tectonic plates
Task description: Work in pairs. In the mind map (Figure 10.4), try to find out the name of the language fromwhich each term comes, and then give a definition in your own language. Check the definition of each term in
an English dictionary.

Page 164 3 Enriching 21st-century language education

Figure 10.4: Mind Map created by Google (https://coggle.it)

the word jökulhlaup comes fromthe word liquefaction comes fromthe word tsunamis comes fromthe word pyroclastic comes from

Task 12. Topic: Rivers. Case study: 2005 European flooding
Task description: You have studied the 2005 Danube flooding case study. The River Danube flows through several
countries, some of which were heavily hit by the flooding. There are different names for the Danube in different
countries. Check on the map how the Danube is named in the different countries.

10.3. DISCUSSIONThe Goal-oriented online transactions and collaboration and Online conversation and discussion descriptors areclosely linked to the descriptors of the mediation scales: in the planning of classroom activities, teachers could
consider both scales and mix them according to the students’ needs and the end objectives, as I increasingly
did. Improvements in one area, where the student is concerned, encompass other areas: the interconnections
are evident.
Having precise learning objectives towards which to direct their action certainly served to help students tofocus their energies on the language needed to carry out the task. Here I am referring to the content-related
language (micro language). In addition, each collaborative task included a preliminary study of the topics
covered in the IGCSE syllabus, so students – in order to make a useful contribution to the co-operative tasks
assigned – were keen on content. They had prior knowledge of the topic that allowed them to take part in theactivities in a profitable way, as protagonists in the learning process and not merely as passive beneficiaries
of it. Therefore, the acquisition of content – which in the CLIL approach is generally more relevant than theacquisition of the language – was positively achieved in all the planned tasks. The scheduled tasks reinforced
the content acquisition because the students had to prove what they were able to do practically with theirClassroom practice Page 165

knowledge of the topics, knowledge that became a concrete tool to reach a collaborative goal. The CEFR
can-do descriptors implemented a portfolio approach where learners’ competences were assessed according
to the levels, although not through the IGCSE official certification.
In carrying out the assigned collaborative tasks, students generally behaved as illustrated in the descriptors,
which definitely captured the learners’ performance. Success criteria were clearly communicated very earlyin the process in order to help students to locate themselves in terms of abilities and expectations. Thanks tothe self-assessment grid for the online activities (Council of Europe 2018a: 167; 2020: 179) the self-evaluation
practice, extensively used in the CLIL approach, became more focused.
In the end-of-term test results, I noticed an upgrading of the basic language skills: the target language wasused extensively during the project and this enhanced students’ language proficiency and in particular theircommunicative competence.
During the lessons, code switching was used as a scaffolding technique. The use of L1 was limited to:f further explanations of instructions given in the tasks;
f simplification of some grammatical forms;
f stimulation of shy and inactive students.
For the performance of the tasks in section 10.2.4 (above) that implemented a plurilingual approach (the plurilingual tasks), all the languages present in the classroom were used as a source of cultural mutual understanding,including those of the eTwinning project partners and also of exchange students.
The plurilingual comprehension tasks presented in this chapter exploited students’ receptive skills in one language(L1 but also classical languages such as Latin and ancient Greek, both included in our school’s curriculum) todeduce the meaning of words in another language. The ability to see links between languages was promoted inorder to enhance language awareness. The “pluri” scales were used flexibly as instruments to encourage linguistic
and cultural diversity and to facilitate communication and understanding in plurilingual classes. The descriptors
are intended to be adjusted to match with the particular needs of the learning scenario.
It should be pointed out that the Goal-oriented online transactions and collaboration and Online conversation anddiscussion scales, adopted in the pilot project, imply foundation skills such as problem solving (determining asuitable source of information in response to defined requirements, identifying deficiencies in information andresolving them through ongoing searches) that require, in turn, a specific linguistic repertoire.
It is therefore advisable to integrate these CEFR online descriptors with the eight proficiency levels and examples
of use proposed in the Digital Competence Framework for Citizens, DigComp 2.1 (Carretero et al. 2017). It is
not so much a question of using internet-specific vocabulary, but rather the ability to use speech acts to clarify
personal ideas in online communication. The point is that the necessary language to do so is different from theexpressions commonly used in face-to-face modality: I am referring to emoticons, abbreviations, tags, digitaland online sticky notes and keywords for searches on search engines such as Google. The learning scenarios
suggested in DigComp for each area and the patterns provided, are likely to encourage addition and extensionof the “online interaction” section of the CEFR Companion volume.
Accomplishing action-oriented tasks, the students developed both general competences (including intercultural)and communicative language skills. This happened because many tasks were focused on carrying out a project ora debate with peers from other partner schools, so mediation skills were stimulated during the whole procedure.
The opinion gap online activities inspired by the CEFR Companion volume (the debate on Kialo, for example)
were goal-oriented tasks focused on the outcome (winning the debate competition) that required the learners
to agree on a specific topic or allowed them to disagree, and this improved the students’ ability to mediate, todeal with communication problems and to find solutions collaboratively. Students’ attitudes to working on tasks,
to expressing their opinion on a subject-related topic in the English language and to interacting with peers fromdifferent cultural backgrounds, noticeably improved overall. They also developed a greater sensitivity to theirrole as language learners, as shown in the feedback questionnaire.
Online exchanges imply intercultural sensitivity: when students work on an eTwinning or Erasmus+ project withpeers from another country, they also have to deal with inevitable misunderstandings or an information gap
due to cultural differences. The link of the online interaction scales with the transversal skills (e.g. collaborationand intercultural comprehension, facilitating pluricultural space) is valuable and deserves attention in all school
programmes.
A CLIL student who engages in mediation seizes the precious opportunity to use his/her content knowledge
in a new dimension and for a purposeful aim: to collaborate and interact with peers in order to reduce

Page 166 3 Enriching 21st-century language education

distances and to gain a broader view of other cultures for an “Overall Language Proficiency”. The mediation
tasks proposed previously require students to work with written translations of subject-content texts
through the paradigm of mediation.
However, there are two aspects of work of this kind that are not straightforward. Firstly, the choice of texts to be
used was not simple; the criteria adopted for the selection were (a) proximity to the students’ interests and the
local community’s needs; and (b) appropriateness to the students’ L2 competence to avoid demotivation andfrustration. Choosing good source texts in this way, though, is not as easy as it sounds.
Secondly, choosing the set of descriptors is a long, complex and important stage that demands deep reflection
on what can concretely be accomplished at the targeted level and on what requires to be prioritised, not only
in relation to the given task, but also in relation to the subject-matter syllabus.
I think that descriptor checklists could be more relevant if applied to a portfolio-type assessment (which in any casetends to be preferred in CLIL), but less relevant if used for formal assessment contexts and standardised testing.
Such a continuous assessment approach allows a thorough depiction of the students’ competence and avoids theneed for complex statistical systems. Anyway, for assessment purposes in CLIL settings, content acquisition also
needs to be assessed, so the CEFR Companion volume descriptors should be implemented with that fact in mind.

10.4. CONCLUSION
In our experience in our school, the CEFR Companion volume potential is high and its impact on the developmentof original ideas in lesson planning and course design is significant: it provides a comprehensible working frame
developed from the theoretical to the practical. Working with the descriptors was successful: students appeared
to appreciate the tasks and reacted positively to the experience.
The descriptors, shared and discussed with learners in the pre-task phase, gave them the opportunity to reflect
on the task with a clear focus on what they were asked to do. This clear focus triggered their learning awarenessand contributed to the success of the activities. The descriptor scales for language activities can be helpful toteachers at a very practical level, especially to analyse students’ needs as a starting point for a teaching sequence.
The schematic tables, which group scales belonging to the same category (communicative language activities
or aspects of competence), made descriptors easy to use and consult for self-evaluation. The descriptors also
helped to minimise the predictable bias that any type of assessment entails and enabled teachers to convey
specific objectives and outcomes to students and to plan the lesson by classifying the needed learner results,
without being over-prescriptive.
The practical task of incorporating new descriptors into learning and teaching activities is not complex forpractitioners because the principles behind the levels and scales are clearly explained; however, each teacher
should be able to choose the scales that are relevant to their context and this concept of relevance could be
more difficult to apply.
In a nutshell, the CEFR Companion volume is teacher-friendly enough to be accessed, taken up and implemented
in classroom practice, and not exclusively in CLIL settings.
Once applied, a CEFR Companion volume-based approach in line with the curriculum is likely to strengthen itself
as teachers get increasingly acquainted with the levels and with the standard of performance related to them.
The mediation scales can also be effectively used for CLIL tasks related to the Reference Framework of Competencesfor Democratic Culture and Intercultural Dialogue (the CDC Framework in Council of Europe 2018b). The descriptors
in the CDC framework may be integrated with those for online interaction, mediation and plurilingualism/pluriculturalism in the CEFR Companion volume in order to promote SDG 4, one of the 17 Global Goals that make up
the United Nations 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. SDG 4 is the education goal, which aims to ensure
inclusive and equitable quality education and to promote lifelong learning opportunities for all. The implementation in educational settings of the CEFR Companion volume, along with the democratic citizenship frameworkand the Agenda 2030 Goals, is a crucial step towards a plurilingual and intercultural education in Europe.
However, in the selection of material for tasks, CEFR Companion volume descriptors do not clearly describe
the features of the source texts, and deciding what type of text would be best for the purpose illustrated in thedescriptors may initially be complex. Furthermore, one of the main obstacles in the process of CEFR Companion
volume implementation is that textbooks are not yet aligned with the new descriptors: teachers who plan to
use them could meet problems in finding tasks that are coherent with the descriptors. While waiting for the
major publishing houses to update their textbooks in this direction, I hope that this article can be a source ofinspiration for colleagues eager to experiment with new CEFR Companion volume descriptors in their classes.

Classroom practice Page 167

REFERENCES
Carretero S., Vuorikari R. and Punie Y. (2017), DigComp 2.1: The digital competence framework for citizens, with eightproficiency levels and examples of use, Publications Office of the EU, Luxembourg, EUR 28558 EN, DOI:10.2760/38842,
available at: http://europa.eu/!Yg77Dh, accessed 1 September 2021.
Cinganotto L. (2019), “Online interaction in teaching and learning a foreign language: an Italian pilot project on
the Companion Volume to the CEFR”, Journal of e-Learning and Knowledge Society No. 15(1), pp. 135-51. ISSN:
1826-6223, e-ISSN:1971-8829. DOI: 10.20368/1971-8829/1618, available at www.je-lks.org/ojs/index.php/
Je-LKS_EN/article/view/1618, accessed 1 September 2021.
Council of Europe (2018a), “Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: learning, teaching,assessment. Companion volume with new descriptors”, Council of Europe Educational Policy Division, Strasbourg,
available at https://rm.coe.int/cefr-companion-volume-with-new-descriptors-2018/1680787989, accessed
23 August 2021.
Council of Europe (2018b), Reference Framework of Competences for Democratic Culture. Volume 2: Descriptors,
available at www.coe.int/en/web/campaign-free-to-speak-safe-to-learn/reference-framework-of-competences-­for-democratic-culture, accessed 1 September 2021.
Council of Europe (2020), Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: learning, teaching, assessment – Companion volume, Council of Europe Publishing, Strasbourg, available at https://rm.coe.int/commoneuropean-­framework-of-reference-for-languages-learning-teaching/16809ea0d4, accessed 22 August 2021.
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 22 August 2021.
Piccardo E. (2017), “Plurilingualism as a catalyst for creativity in superdiverse societies: a systemic analysis”, Frontiersin Psychology No. 8, published online 22 December 2017, DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2017.02169.

Page 168 3 Enriching 21st-century language education

Chapter 11
STUDENT ENGAGEMENT: ONLINEINTERACTION AND LANGUAGE LEARNING
Gigi Saurer, Migros Club Schools, Switzerland

ABSTRACTThis case study took place following the launch of the online version of the CEFR Companion volume (Councilof Europe 2018, 2020). It entailed three phases: the first two involving the use of technology in a classroom
setting as well as for self-study or autonomous learning, the third and final phase consisting of the evaluationof activities stemming from new descriptors in class sessions. During all phases of the case study, activities andmaterials were used in an adult language-learning environment. The aim was to provide more meaningful
engagement and transferable skills for the learners, as well as to relate language activities to relevant CEFR
Companion volume descriptors.
Prior to the study, a webinar about the main changes, new descriptors and paradigm shift emerging from the
CEFR Companion volume was organised in 2018, in order to start raising awareness among language teachers
within the adult education context concerned. In this large organisation, there is a clear need to run several
professional development sessions, and further events centred on the CEFR Companion volume followed in2020. For the purpose of the study, teachers involved in trying out new activities were briefed on the changes
and on the descriptors that related to tasks used in class.
The focus of the study was mainly on the CEFR Companion volume descriptors for Online Interaction (Online
conversation and discussion in Council of Europe 2018: 97; 2020: 84-6) and Mediating Concepts in a Small Group(Facilitating collaboration with peers in Council of Europe 2018: 118-19; 2020: 109-11), mainly because technology
has advanced at such a rapid pace and transformed communication in the world. The world has also becomea multicultural setting: as cultures now mix more than they did in the past, so it is inevitable that some form of
mediation will occur, whether this be simply to Relay specific information across languages (ibid. 2018: 107-8;
2020: 93-5) or to facilitate exchange, as described in the CEFR Companion volume (Facilitating pluricultural space
in ibid. 2018: 122-3; 2020: 114-15). Technological advances have also changed learners’ habits and expectations.
For English, it is particularly the case that learners, being social agents in their learning, are now selecting orcomplementing the face-to-face learning phase with tech-tools available to them.
Due to time and resource constraints, the study was conducted on a relatively small scale. The first phase involved
the use of Virtual Reality (VR) to enhance learner engagement and provide a form of embodied learning naturally
leading to mediation and interaction in a class setting. The second phase, based on learner autonomy and its
effect on motivation, involved the learners being provided with free access to online activities related to coursebook materials used in their face-to-face class sessions. The third and final phase involved working with newactivities for online interaction (Council of Europe 2018: Appendix 6; 2020: Appendix 5).
The results of the first two phases of the study were both quantitative and qualitative, these having been measured
through observation and an online survey for Phase 1, and through analysing online gradebooks and telephoneinterviews for Phase 2. The data showed that both the immersive experience in VR and using online materials
can enhance learning and increase motivation. It was not possible to conduct sufficient trials in the final phaseof the study and the results are only qualitative, based on the teacher’s comments and feedback from threegroups of learners. These show that, despite some themes being only relevant to a younger age group, moremature learners found the topics and activities relevant, informative and engaging.

RÉSUMÉ
Cette étude de cas a eu lieu à la suite du lancement du Volume complémentaire du CECR (Conseil de l’Europe, 2018et 2020). Elle comportait trois phases : les deux premières concernaient l’utilisation de la technologie en classe ainsi
que l’autoformation ou l’apprentissage autonome, et la troisième et dernière phase consistait en l’évaluation desactivités provenant des nouveaux descripteurs en classe. Pendant toutes les phases de l’étude de cas, les activités
et le matériel ont été utilisés dans un environnement d’apprentissage linguistique pour adultes. L’objectif était

Page 169de fournir un niveau d’engagement plus élevé et des compétences transférables pour les apprenants, ainsi quede relier les activités de classe aux descripteurs pertinents du Volume complémentaire du CECR.
Avant l’étude, un webinaire sur les principaux changements, les nouveaux descripteurs et le changement deparadigme émergeant du Volume complémentaire a été organisé en 2018 afin de sensibiliser les enseignantsde langues travaillant dans l’institution d’enseignement aux adultes concernée. Au sein de cette grande organisation, il y avait un besoin évident d’organiser plusieurs sessions de développement professionnel, et d’autresévénements centrés sur le Volume complémentaire ont suivi en 2020. Aux fins de cette étude, les enseignants
participant aux activités pilotes ont été informés des changements et des descripteurs auxquels les activités
utilisées en classe se rapportaient.
L’étude portait principalement sur les descripteurs du Volume complémentaire pour l’interaction en ligne (dansConversation et discussion en ligne) et la médiation (dans Faciliter la coopération dans les interactions avec despairs), la raison principale étant que la technologie a progressé rapidement et a transformé la communication
dans le monde. Ce dernier est devenu un environnement multiculturel : comme les cultures se mélangent plus
qu’auparavant, il est inévitable qu’une certaine forme de médiation se produise, que ce soit simplement pourtransmettre des informations spécifiques entre les langues ou pour faciliter l’échange, comme le décrit le Volume
complémentaire (dans Établir un espace pluriculturel). Les progrès technologiques ont également modifié leshabitudes et les attentes des apprenants. Pour l’anglais, il est particulièrement vrai que les apprenants, en tantqu’acteurs sociaux dans leur apprentissage, choisissent ou complètent maintenant la phase d’apprentissage en
face-à-face avec les outils techniques à leur disposition.
En raison de contraintes de temps et de ressources, l’étude a été menée à une échelle relativement petite. La
première phase comportait l’utilisation de la réalité virtuelle pour augmenter l’engagement de l’apprenant
et fournir une forme d’apprentissage intégré menant naturellement à la médiation et à l’interaction dans uncontexte de classe. La deuxième phase, ciblée sur l’autonomie de l’apprenant et sur son effet sur la motivation,
consistait à offrir aux apprenants un accès gratuit à des activités en ligne liées aux supports de cours utilisés
dans leur classe en présentiel. La troisième et dernière phase a consisté à travailler avec des nouvelles activités d’interaction en ligne (voir Interaction en ligne : Conseil de l’Europe, 2018, annexe 6 ; Conseil de l’Europe,
2020, annexe 5).

11.1. INTRODUCTION
This case study was conducted in three phases with groups of learners, mostly participants in English courses
at a large institute of adult education in Switzerland. Migros Club School is a nationwide non-profit institute,founded in the 1950s, which has been involved in projects related to The Threshold Level and the CEFR. Club
School courses, subsidised by Migros supermarkets, aim to provide “Education for all” for 110 000 people
every year. The language courses are for adults, aged 20 to 60+, who have face-to-face sessions usually oncea week. The case study also included external potential course participants for the VR test groups in Phase 1.18
Learning languages requires time and motivation. One reason why learners may lose interest can be if the material
used in class does not seem relevant to individual needs, or the fact that activities in class do not mirror real-life
contexts where they would naturally feel the need to communicate. In our context where courses extend overa long period, it may take individual learners months or even years before their personal learning needs are
met. In this study, an attempt was made at creating real-world activities in class and, in Phase 2, at providing
scaffolding in the form of access to an abundance of materials available online which the learners could use as
they wished. In this second phase, learners were also encouraged to interact with each other via WhatsApp, forexample to ask one another for support.
The overall aims of this case study included:
f raising our teachers’ awareness of the enriched CEFR and its core values;
f promoting innovation, learner autonomy and the social dimension of teaching and learning;f enhancing learning through more meaningful authentic settings and exploring the relationship between
learner engagement and performance.

18. I would like to express my gratitude to all those who gave this case study their support: Migros Club School Heads of Languages,
teachers, test session participants and the following colleagues in particular: Mirjam Jaeger, Innovation Coach, Migros Group; Mary
Schnueriger, Teacher Trainer, Pearson Switzerland; Jeremy Blanchard, Migros Basel; Cindy Stieger, freelance.

Page 170 3 Enriching 21st-century language education

In order to measure the effect on learning and motivation in face-to-face group sessions of using more rele­vant or engaging activities and materials, based on some of the new descriptors for mediation and online
interaction in the CEFR Companion volume, activities were used with different groups of learners. The study
had three phases:
f Phase 1: VR and language learning – authentic setting, mediating concepts, interaction;f Phase 2: Online resources & interaction: Effect on learning and motivation – learner autonomy, learnerengagement and performance;f Phase 3: Online interaction descriptors in the CEFR Companion volume, online interaction, real-world
language and engagement.

11.2. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
11.2.1. Phase 1: VR and language learning
Figure 11.1: The timeline for Phase 1

Apr-Aug 2018
Virtualusing Google
Reality
CardboardOct 2018
Virtualproof of concept
Reality(VR simulation)

Mar 2019
Virtual creating VR
Reality course (FHGR &Innosuisse)

11.2.1.1. VR – Google Cardboard
A number of tech-tools have made their way into everyday life, and one of the emerging technologies that has
made its way into education is virtual reality (VR), which is now accessible to many people. Although researchis still ongoing, studies show the benefits of what has more recently become known as embodied cognition/
learning (Skulmowski and Rey 2018). In another article, Manuela Macedonia (2014) outlined the value of embodied
learning and advocated its use for foreign language acquisition.
The benefits of immersion are well established, and technology now allows immersive experiences to be integrated into the classroom. Having conducted a workshop using Google Cardboard (see https://arvr.google.
com/cardboard/) with language experts at the EAQUALS conference in Prague in April 2018 after reading theEnglish version of the CEFR Companion volume, it was clear to me that VR would form part of this study. In thesessions we conducted in Phase 1, a four-minute 360 VR video showing a city tour was integrated into a lesson
about holidays at A2 level. The session was designed with pre- and post-VR activities to check the effect of theimmersive experience on learner engagement and the mediation and interaction that ensued in the classroom.
Prior to the short immersion in VR, learners talked in pairs or groups about their preferences for holidays, including
city trips, to prime them for the immersion. A short “trip to Amsterdam” then followed in VR, with a real person
guiding the viewer through the city and talking about places to visit.
Using Google Cardboard and the learners’ own mobile phones for the VR section was a low-cost practical option,
but it presented some technical hitches associated with BYOD (bring your own device) such as test groupattendees not having their earphones or the correct app downloaded. However, the class echoed with animateddiscussions, particularly following the VR film sequence. Test group attendees felt the need to convey meaning
about the experience; it felt real and therefore facilitated the transfer to real-life situations.
During this task, the descriptor scales employed were for Level A2 from the section mediating concepts Facilitating
collaborative interaction with peers and Collaborating to construct meaning:f Can collaborate in simple, practical tasks, asking what others think, making suggestions and understanding
responses, provided he/she can ask for repetition or reformulation from time to timef Can make simple remarks and pose occasional questions to indicate that he/she is following
f Can make suggestions in a simple way in order to move the discussion forward
The post-VR task of planning their own trip to Amsterdam then flowed more naturally. The fact that students had
been given a map in Dutch added to the authentic setting and increased collaboration. Two test session groups
were conducted and a total of 14 people attended. The results were recorded as observations and in an open

Classroom practice Page 171

forum feedback activity, as well as on a short online survey. Learners felt compelled to share thoughts on theexperience, and felt animated because the experience felt like real travel where there is a need to communicate
in English. Consequently, they had less difficulty communicating in the activities that followed, which included
deciding what to do or where to stay in Amsterdam together.

11.2.1.2. VR – Simulation proof of concept
The study of the benefits of VR in language learning continued when an opportunity to work with Labster presented itself (see www.labster.com). This start-up company had been working with Google, Lenovo and ArizonaState University, where Labster had created VR laboratory simulations for their Bachelor’s degree courses. For
our study, together with my colleague Mirjam Jaeger, we were able to create a simulation (with avatars similar to
those in the gaming world) where the learner would dive into a different type of VR experience, which included
some interactive elements and some language tasks.
Given the laboratory environment, the simulation we created was that of a visit to the doctor’s, aimed at A2 level.
For our purposes of experimenting with CEFR Companion volume descriptors, the activity included interactingwith people in the virtual simulation, asking and answering questions related to being at the doctor’s. The
focus group sessions were with learners in five different Club Schools. For this simulated visit to the doctor’s inEnglish, these sessions took place in Bern, Lucerne, Geneva and Lausanne, and in order to investigate further,
the simulation was translated into German and evaluated with learners of German as a second language taking
integration classes in Zurich. This final session was of particular value: the students’ postures changed, their
voices became louder and their feedback was that they now felt confident they could communicate in thetarget language situation.
Indeed, diving into a world which felt real – despite it being a graphic representation – seemed to have theadditional benefit of lowering the learners’ affective filter. This was perhaps the most significant observation
made for that focus group: once in the virtual world, learners had to interact with a receptionist and a doctor,
and then had to collect medication from the pharmacy. Lenovo Daydream VR headsets and earphones createda better immersive experience and the learners felt the authenticity of the storyline and its relevance to real life.
In these VR test sessions, A2 CEFR Companion volume descriptors for Online conversation and discussion (Councilof Europe 2018: 97; 2020: 84-6), were focused on:
f Can introduce him/herself and manage simple exchanges online, asking and answering questions and exchanging ideas on predictable everyday topics, provided enough time is allowed to formulate responses, and that he/she interacts with one interlocutor at a time
The interaction in the simulation was provided via a virtual Pad (resembling a tablet) and a drone (with computerised audio input). Over 50 learners, aged 20-65, took part in the focus group testing, and the results arebriefly outlined in Table 11.1.
Table 11.1: Phase 1 – Results VR simulation (At the doctor’s)
VR-Proof of Concept focus group tests (validated)

Learner comments

Participants dive into a setting in VR (immersion)
Using VR involves all senses (embodied learning)

Super expérience, merci!

Using VR is motivating for participants (motivation)

Très intéressante, à refaire

Participants speak freely, without inhibitions (affective filter)

Ganz coole Sache, crazy folks!
Animiertes Lernen wirkt effektiv!

Participants are focused in VR (engagement, attention)
Participants learn better using VR (memory retention)

fühlte als ob ich beim Arzt war, wird
einfacher beim Besuch

Learning is enhanced through instant feedback (confidence building)

11.2.1.3. Creating a VR-enriched English course
The experiment started as a case study but, with the results indicating that the use of VR can be beneficial tolanguage learning, the study became a development project. At the time of writing, a VR English course is being
created, in collaboration with the University of Applied Sciences in Chur, Switzerland (see www.fhgr.ch/en/).
This project is being co-financed by the Swiss Innovation Agency, Innosuisse (see www.innosuisse.ch/inno/en/
home.html), following our successful application in March 2019.

Page 172 3 Enriching 21st-century language education

11.2.2. Phase 2: Effect of online resources and interaction on learning and motivation
In this phase of the study, which ran for three months from November 2018, the aim was to investigate the effectof making online resources available to learners to allow students more autonomy to learn what they felt theyneeded, where and when they wished. In total six English classes, three in the French-speaking area, three in
the German-speaking area of Switzerland, were provided with access codes to online resources complementing
their course book (Eales et al. 2016).
Class levels ranged from complete beginners (pre-A1) to B1 level; the teachers were instructed to show them
the learning management system (LMS) and to recommend that learners use it should they miss class. The aim
was to provide learners with scaffolding if they felt they had fallen behind, and to allow them to steer theirlearning to an extent, as they were given free rein. Learners also had a WhatsApp group, created by the learners
themselves for the most part, the aim being that learners could interact with one another and add a social aspect
to group sessions. The CEFR Companion volume descriptor scale this phase related to was Online conversationand discussion (Council of Europe 2018: 97; 2020: 84-6), which took place through WhatsApp chats at the various
levels. WhatsApp group chats provided a space where learners could practise using language learned and could
respond, for example to holiday pictures posted by a group member or a message relating to a topical issue thatthe group then commented on. The emphasis was on learner autonomy and the CEFR 2001(Council of Europe
2001) notion of the learner as a social agent as well as “relating learning aims to real world language use, thus
giving a framework to action-oriented learning” (Council of Europe 2018: 42; 2020: 42).
With Mary Schnueriger’s support, classes were created online, in an architecture that enabled access to all classes
and individual learners’ gradebooks throughout this phase. Results collected by the MyEnglishLab LMS (www.
pearson.com/english/myenglishlab.html) and via telephone interviews with staff and participants show that, ingroups where the teacher showed the LMS, learners felt encouraged to use the online materials. Another insightwas that, despite beginners not accessing online resources much (partly due to the overwhelming amount of
new language in class or because they did not see how to change the surface language on the LMS), learners
on average accessed the LMS regularly and spent over 2 hours a week on self-study. The additional number ofhours invested may seem negligible but represents a large investment in the context of extensive courses wherecontact hours per week amount to less than this average amount invested. This clearly shows the learners foundonline activities in MyLab both beneficial and motivating. Feedback by learners and teachers was that the classgelled well, thanks to the extra online activities boosting individual learners’ confidence and to the fact that
the WhatsApp chats created a community. The whole group’s motivation level had increased, as did their rateof progress (see Table 11.2).
Table 11.2: Phase 2 results
Results Mylab Pilot
MyLab
Used
Continued use
NOT used
NOT used – andnon-use continued

Main comments:
%
44%
71%
56%
38%

Can learn anywhere
Increased intrinsic motivation
More engagement in class
Faster progress
More learners continued

11.2.3. Phase 3: Online interaction descriptors in the CEFR Companion volume
Over the summer break in the academic year, a small-scale follow-up study (Phase 3) was then conducted. The
aim of this phase was to create activities related to Online conversation and discussion in the appendix to the
CEFR Companion volume: Examples of use in different domains for descriptors of online interaction and mediation
activities (Council of Europe 2018, Appendix 6: 185-7; 2020, Appendix 5: 191-5). Two teachers tried out a lesson
about posting on social media, related to the following A2+ descriptors:
f Can make short descriptive online postings about everyday matters, social activities and feelings, with simple
key details
f Can comment on other people’s online postings, provided that they are written in simple language, reacting toembedded media by expressing feelings of surprise, interest and indifference in a simple way

Classroom practice Page 173

The main activity was to write/post and respond to an online invitation to a party. The lesson consisted of reading,speaking and writing activities. The group had to speak about social media, respond to the invitation and write
their own post. Many learners had never used social media before but were able to use appropriate language
to respond to the post and create their own, on paper or on their own device.
One of the teachers also tried a lesson around Goal-oriented transactions and collaboration from Appendix 6 –Examples of use in different domains for descriptors of online interaction and mediation activities (Council ofEurope 2018: 189; 2020: 196), related to the B1 descriptors:
f Can interact online with a partner or small group working on a project, provided there are visual aids such asimages, statistics and graphs to clarify more complex concepts
f Can respond to instructions and ask questions or request clarifications in order to accomplish a shared task online
The task used for B1 involved planning an event using a shared online document; learners had to ask for clarification and interact online to organise the event. They were encouraged to use the WhatsApp group chat to ask
for clarifications and to complete the task. Both lessons were inspired by input provided by the instructional
designer, Sion Reilly, and the two teachers’ feedback was collected in the form of a short survey.
The most significant feedback was how engaging the lesson was perceived to be. Real-world language clearlystimulates interest, despite the fact that the age group addressed had not all encountered a similar situation(see comments in Table 11.3).
Table 11.3: Comments on the A2 social media lesson
Social media invitation lesson at A2 level – results and feedback
Comments:
Topic of invitations on social media was not relevant for
all participants (particularly those over 50) …
… not everyone had received, or responded to, an invitation via social media or in English.
Despite the context not being totally appropriate, thestudents were fully engaged and enjoyed the task.
… lesson seemed to have gone by very quickly.

11.3. DISCUSSION
The CEFR Companion volume gives a push to all those involved in language teaching and learning to reconsider
the approach and methods they have been using, and the paradigm shift that it emphasises will certainly havean impact on teaching and learning languages in general, not only for European languages. Though the CEFR
was created with reference to European languages, teachers and learners use the framework to refer to levels
for non-Western languages in the context being reported here and in many other institutions.
This case study represents an impulse for change within our own teaching and learning context. Descriptors
from the CEFR Companion volume were used to design activities. In the first two phases of the case study, ourVR experiments showed that the immersive experience enhanced learning and increased the learners’ engagement. Experiencing real-life situations through VR will naturally stimulate mediation, as for example stated in
the following descriptors:
f Can collaborate in simple, practical tasks, asking what others think, making suggestions and understanding
responses, provided he/she can ask for repetition or reformulation from time to time. (Facilitating collaborativeinteraction with peers: A2)
f Can make simple remarks and pose occasional questions to indicate that he/she is following. (Collaborating
to construct meaning: A2)

Page 174 3 Enriching 21st-century language education

f Can make suggestions in a simple way in order to move the discussion forward. (Collaborating to constructmeaning: A2)
f Can repeat the main point of a simple message on an everyday subject, using different words to help someone
else understand it. (Adapting language: A2)
As teachers we can now focus more on descriptors by incorporating technology: tools like WhatsApp or Google
Docs allow real online conversation or collaboration to take place between learners and can help us tailor-makeactivities to suit a group’s needs.
Our observations during the study showed that immersion helps both reduce inhibitions and create moreengagement. The fact that a new course enriched with VR sequences is in the making shows the huge impactof the first phase of the case study on teaching in our organisation.
Another change instigated by our case study is a proposal to introduce online materials as additional resources
for learners to use as they please. With the CEFR Companion volume stressing the CEFR 2001 vision that thelearner is a social agent, providing online materials for more autonomy will allow our learners to follow a moreindividual learning path, thus making learning more purposeful, enhancing the learning experience and thelearners’ sense of achievement, which again add to their motivation levels.
Although the final phase of the study has not led to conclusive results, it does show the need to think aboutchange and to evaluate materials used for teaching and learning. The world has become a connected placethrough technology – so real-world language tasks need to reflect this aspect and include the language of
online interaction. It would therefore be beneficial to continue creating and using activities related to the CEFR
Companion volume online interaction descriptors, in order to better equip learners for the real world we live in.

11.4. CONCLUSION
Creating and using activities relating to online interaction and mediation will almost inevitably continue as
the world continues to evolve. With learners expecting to be able to use technology for their learning, further
investigation into how this affects both the learning experience and motivation is necessary. This case study
has shown the need to evaluate curricula and their relevance to learners’ needs. It will form the basis for further
discussions and changes in our teaching context.
No matter which domain we find ourselves in, sharing experiences and communicating ideas will inevitably
involve the use of more than one language or connect more than one culture. The CEFR Companion volume
complements the CEFR with more up-to-date descriptors, representing the world as we know it today, where
mediation and online interaction form an integral part of daily life.
Using the new CEFR descriptors in the CEFR Companion volume in the learning and teaching context will therefore add relevance and authenticity to an educational setting, thereby promoting engagement and enhancing
the learning experience. In our own context, the benefits of using VR could be extended to the integration of
migrants, where learning to interact in the target language (mainly German or French) can make a difference totheir everyday life. Our ultimate goal as educators should be to prepare learners for real life: to help language
learners communicate freely beyond the classroom, it is essential to re-evaluate relevance and authenticity
periodically.
The CEFR Companion volume epitomises this need and encourages us to delve deeper and evaluate what we doin the language-learning context. This case study also illustrates the benefits of an iterative approach to course
planning and design. In a world that is constantly developing, it pays to make changes and be ahead of the curve.

REFERENCES
Council of Europe (2001), Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: Learning, teaching, assessment,
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, available at www.coe.int/en/web/common-european-framework-­reference-languages, accessed 1 September 2021.
Council of Europe (2018), “Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: learning, teaching, assessment. Companion volume with new descriptors”, Council of Europe, Strasbourg, available at https://rm.coe.int/
cefr-companion-volume-with-new-descriptors-2018/1680787989, accessed 23 August 2021.
Council of Europe (2020), Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: learning, teaching, assessment – Companion volume, Council of Europe, Strasbourg, available at https://rm.coe.int/common-european-­framework-of-reference-for-languages-learning-teaching/16809ea0d4, accessed 22 August 2021.

Classroom practice Page 175

Eales F., Wilson J. J., Clare A. and Oakes S. (2016), Speakout: starter, elementary and pre-intermediate levels,
2nd edition, Pearson, London.
Macedonia M. (2014), “Bringing back the body into the mind: gestures enhance word learning in foreign language”,
Frontiers in Psychology No. 5, DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2014.01467.
Skulmowski A. and Rey G. D. (2018), “Embodied learning: introducing a taxonomy based on bodily engagement and task integration”, Cognitive Research: Principles and Implications, No. 3, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/
s41235-018-0092-9.

Page 176 3 Enriching 21st-century language education

Part II
AWARENESS RAISING AND TEACHER EDUCATIONINTRODUCTION TO PART II

Area and scales

Educational
strandCEFR
level

Foreignlanguages

University
languagecentres

A1-C2

Different
languages

Mediation
Plurilingualism
Mediating a text
Chapter 12

Mediating concepts
Mediating communication
Building on plurilingual repertoire
Pre-A1 descriptors
Mediation

EnglishFrenchMediating a text
Chapter 13

Mediating concepts
Mediating communication

Adult
education

A1-C1

GermanItalian
SpanishMediation strategies

BasqueMediationMediating a text
Chapter 14

Mediating concepts

SecondaryMediating communication

Not
statedEnglishFrenchSpanishMediation strategies
Mediation
Overall mediation
Chapter 15

Facilitating pluricultural space
Acting as an intermediary

Heritage
languageeducation

A1-C1

Portuguese

BA, MA and PhD

B2- C2EnglishAdult
education

All

Different
languages

In-service
teacher
educationAll

FrenchandSpanishFacilitating communication in difficult
situations and disagreements
Mediation
Chapter 16

Mediating a text
Mediating concepts
Mediating communication
Plurilingualism

Chapter 17

Overall mediation
Plurilingual comprehension
Building on plurilingual repertoire
Plurilingualism

Chapter 18

Plurilingual comprehension
Building on plurilingual repertoire

Page 179

Area and scales
Online interaction
Chapter 19

Mediation
All scales in these two sections

Chapter 20

Phonology
Phonological control

Educational
strandCEFR
level

Foreignlanguages

Initialteacher
educationAll

EnglishIn-service
teacher
education

C1/C2

EnglishPart II (chapters 12 to 20) contains case studies on teacher education rather than classroom learning. Innovation inclassroom practice and full appreciation of concepts and paradigms both start with teacher training. Consequently,
the activities involved in the case studies include:
f attitudinal surveys – usually to see how teachers conceive of and react to mediation;f awareness-raising activities – particularly in relation to the different forms of mediation that users/learners
may need to engage in; andf dissemination activities.
Some contributions contain all of these activities, others focus on just one aspect. Most studies developed exemplar tasks in order to explain what the multi-faceted character of mediation might mean in classroom practice.
A wide variety of professional development contexts are represented in the different chapters: language education
for university students in Germany, Lithuania, Spain and England (Chapter 12); adult education in Spain (Chapter 13);
foreign language teaching at secondary level in Germany (Chapter 14); teaching a heritage language, Portuguese, in
Luxembourg and Switzerland (Chapter 15); and pre-service training for future language teachers in Russia, Germany,
Poland and Turkey (chapters 16, 18, 19 and 20). Finally, on a different note, Chapter 18 concerns awareness of andattitudes to plurilingualism in the environment of language training for employees of international organisationsin Geneva. The main focus of the majority of the studies is mediation, reflecting the extended representation of thiscrucial practice in the CEFR Companion volume. The two exceptions are Chapter 17 on plurilingualism and Chapter
20, which concerns the teaching of phonology on a course for future teachers of English. Again, this reflects theenlightened representation of plurilingual repertoires and practices in the CEFR Companion volume.
In Chapter 12, Fischer and Wolder report on a large-scale project of dissemination and training activities in national
and international networks of university language centres, particularly UNIcert (international certification andaccreditation of university language courses) and NULTE (Network of University Language Testers in Europe),with a focus on Germany, where 17 out of the 31 workshops took place. They report that the publication of
the CEFR Companion volume has led the members of many national associations to rethink their classroom
practice and assessment procedures and the place that modes of communication, in particular interaction andmediation, take in them. The main aim of the programme of events was thus to create a community of practice
to move forward the teaching of languages at university level by rethinking outcomes in line with real-worldcommunicative and mediational practices and by adopting an action-oriented, task-based approach.
In the workshops, participants developed sample tasks adapted to their individual contexts, purposes and target groups. The outcome of the programme is expected to be an open-access European database of exemplar
tasks. The chapter provides some examples of tasks and discusses the complexity of subject-specific university
language teaching and learning at Level C1, which requires the learner to apply complex transferable skills,
taking into account texts in different languages and styles, carrying out their own research and drawing upon
their individual subject knowledge. This situated complexity underlines the fact that CEFR descriptors need tobe adapted to individual teaching, learning and assessment contexts.
Chapter 13 (Pedregosa and Sánchez) concerns the more modest but similar aim of providing an action toolkit
of guidelines and sample tasks to introduce teachers of second languages to the concept of mediation. The
immediate context is adult education at four locations of the Escuelas Oficiales de Idiomas in Spain, but both thefindings and materials can be generalised to many contexts. Needs analysis suggested that the main concernsof the 200 participants were: the conceptualisation of mediation; experience of mediation and the question of
how to integrate it into the curriculum; how to design mediation tasks; and finally, to a lesser extent, how toassess mediation.

Page 180 3 Enriching 21st-century language education

The chapter describes nine teacher education activities that were developed, trialled and adjusted to cover theseareas. On the basis of the feedback questionnaires received, the authors conclude that the training sessions havebeen an invaluable tool to see how the perception of mediation is evolving and trickling down from the CEFR
Companion volume to practice in classrooms, but that much work remains to be done on providing access togood quality tasks and lesson plans that teachers can use or adapt for their classes. This is particularly the casein relation to mediation of concepts and of communication, since these aspects are new to the vast majority ofteachers, many of whom see mediation only in terms of interpretation and translation.
Melo-Pfeifer and Helmchen in Chapter 14 also use a questionnaire to analyse the experience of, and attitudes to,mediation of 15 language professionals representing different stakeholder groups (teacher educators, traineeteachers, in-service teachers, curriculum specialists and textbook authors) in the city of Hamburg, following this up
by semi-structured interviews. In Germany, the perception of mediation goes well beyond mere interpretation andtranslation. It is rather seen as a multi-faceted form of Sprachmittlung (the transfer of information from one language
to another) and is well established in teacher education programmes, the school syllabus, classroom practices, textbooks and examinations. This makes it an interesting context in which to analyse the potential for the adoption of
the changes in the conceptualisation and implementation of mediation provided in the CEFR Companion volume.
The results indicate that, while mediating a text and mediating communication are both well recognised bypractitioners (though the former mainly in the guise of Relaying specific information and Translating), the third
category in the CEFR Companion volume, mediating concepts, is noticeably absent. In addition, the authors
suggest that mediation (in this sense of Sprachmittlung) seems to be perceived as particularly appropriate in
the initial phases of language learning and for low-achievement groups, since it allows more plurilingual practices and support from the mother tongue. In general, respondents failed to see the relevance of mediation
at higher levels of proficiency.19 The authors conclude that some stakeholders can be expected to receive thebroader interpretation of mediation with more openness and flexibility than others and point to a series of six
complementary needs to ensure its adoption in Germany.
In their study in relation to teachers of Portuguese as a heritage language, Bastos et al. (Chapter 15) aimed
to identify pathways for teacher education in relation to the concept of and importance of mediation as alanguage activity in relation to familiarisation with the CEFR Companion volume descriptors for mediation andtheir operationalisation in the classroom. The study involved three teachers of Portuguese in Luxembourg andfour in Switzerland and focused on the three descriptor scales for mediating communication, since these werefelt to be most relevant in the heritage language context. The participants each designed and implemented a
mediation task and observed both their learners’ reactions to the concept of mediation (which seemed familiar
to them as plurilinguals) and their performance in the tasks.
The teachers’ responses suggested that they considered that the new descriptors supported them in promoting
mediation of communication in their classrooms in a more conscious and systematic fashion. However, they also
felt that there were difficulties in implementing effective practices to promote plurilingual and intercultural mediation and expressed the need for more guidance on the way descriptors work, especially when drawing attention
to and benefiting from plurilingual and pluricultural repertoires in the context of heritage language education.
In Chapter 16, Safonova et al. investigate the mediation skills needed by university students with a high levelof (English) proficiency. Again, the study started with a questionnaire, completed by some 70 teachers at three
Russian universities, followed by structured interviews and discussion. These tools were used to research attitudes
to and experience of mediation and the move from the traditional four skills to the four modes of communication,that is: reception, production, interaction, mediation. The study then went on to analyse the mediation needsof MA and PhD students and to evaluate mediation-related tasks in existing teaching materials.
The data suggested that the introduction of mediation in this context required:a. an English-Russian glossary of relevant terminology;
b. awareness-raising materials, including online self-training guides and self-study toolkits for teachers andlearners; andc. the production of context-appropriate tasks designed with reference to the CEFR representation of mediation and relevant descriptors, adapted for profiling achievement in language programmes for specificand/or academic purposes.

19. In this regard, readers might be interested to read the opposite conclusions of Pavlovskaya I. Y. and Lankina O. Y. (2019), “How new CEFR
mediation descriptors can help to assess the discussion skills of management students – Global and analytical scales”, CEFR Journal– Research and Practice No. 1, pp. 33-40, available at https://cefrjapan.net/journal, accessed 7 September 2021.

Awareness raising and teacher education Page 181

As a result of these findings, the focus in the project switched from the original intention to provide assessment
tools to the development of such awareness-raising and support tools (glossary and training materials), and atypology for the development of context-appropriate, action-oriented, problem-solving classroom mediation
tasks for teaching and assessment, with the production of the tasks themselves to come in a follow-up project.
In Chapter 17, Vanhonnaeker et al. study the attitudes to plurilingualism of teachers and learners in the context of(predominantly one-to-one) professional language training for employees at international institutions in Geneva.
The study is based on data from two questionnaires (for teachers and learners respectively) and observation
grids, with all three instruments based on the descriptor scales for mediation and plurilingual comprehension
while building on a plurilingual repertoire contained in the CEFR Companion volume. Although the vast majorityof teachers were positive about the use of other languages in class, though in a very limited way restricted totranslating certain expressions, more than half considered it non-essential and most of those thought it only
appropriate when teaching beginners – views that corresponded with results from the classroom observations.
The students almost all agreed that mobilising one’s plurilingual repertoire in the process of language learning
was very useful, but opinions differed dramatically on the active use of other languages in class, almost halfsaying this was useful, particularly to compare usage, while an almost equal number preferred a strict immersion
policy. Awareness-raising activities with the new descriptors played an important role in bridging these gaps
by providing concrete examples of appropriate plurilingual behaviour. As a result, plurilingual repertoires havebecome more appreciated, and descriptors for Overall mediation, Plurilingual comprehension and Building on
plurilingual repertoire have been introduced into curriculum aims.
Chapter 18 by Martinez also concerns attitudes to plurilingualism, this time in the content of the education of
second language teachers of French and Spanish at a German university. After being introduced to the conceptof plurilingualism, the future teachers constructed plurilingual tasks, focused mainly on the descriptors for“Plurilingual comprehension”, tried them out in French or Spanish classes and evaluated their impact on thestudents. In this way, participants broadened their perception and conceptualised the scope of a truly modern
reinterpretation of more traditional understandings of Mehrsprachigkeitsdidaktik. One of the tasks, for example,
invited second-year pupils to listen to people presenting themselves in five different languages, and to notein French the details they had understood, before comparing in groups and constructing a small “plurilingual
dictionary” of terms encountered. The aim of the tasks was to encourage language (learning) awareness: an ability
to identify similarities and difference between languages, learning to accept that it is normal not to understandevery word of a text, becoming aware of and drawing on a plurilingual repertoire and developing plurilingual
reception strategies that could be applied to the learning of any language.
The study underlines the added value of such a pedagogical project for trainee teachers, where the task
becomes a real driving force, in this case in promoting plurilingualism among both the teacher trainees andthe school students. Finally, the chapter discusses the competences acquired through such tasks and reports on
the discussions among the trainee teachers as regards the relevance of CEFR descriptors in general for courseorganisation and teaching, and of the new descriptors for plurilingual and pluricultural competence, in particular
for the development of plurilingualism.
Chapter 19, by Gadomska, also concerns the development and trialling of tasks in initial teacher education,
inspired by the CEFR Companion volume descriptors. This time, however, the focus is on the descriptors foronline interaction and mediation, and the trainees were future Polish teachers of English. In a training module of
30 lessons, after an introduction to the concept of mediation and the new descriptors for mediation and online
interaction, the trainees produced online 27 learning modules on different topics, before trying out each other’smaterials. In developing the modules, students needed to select the relevant scale and suitable descriptor(s) on
it, then find an appropriate text (either for reading or listening, or both) and finally to design appropriate tasks,
which often included mediating the concepts in the text.
For each task in their module they were asked to specify (a) the aim of the task, (b) the aspect(s) of mediation
focused on in it, (c) the CEFR level, and (d) the chosen descriptors. Thus, each student themselves had two tasks
as well as participating in preparatory and follow-up class activities: firstly to study the descriptors and design
their module, and then later to try out a colleague’s module, providing feedback. Results were evaluated throughdiarised self-assessment, peer evaluation of modules produced (both activities conducted online) and throughpeer teaching observation (in their presence). Findings showed that students considered that using the mediation
descriptors for the design of state-of-the-art materials was interesting and motivating – but also a challenge.
Mediation is not an easy concept to grasp in all its facets, and matching descriptors relevant to online practices
to a particular task is not always straightforward!
Finally, Chapter 20 by Şen and colleagues also concerns teacher education for teachers of English, this time in
Turkey in relation to five student teachers enrolled on an in-service training course for an international diploma.

Page 182 3 Enriching 21st-century language education

The focus of the study was phonology, and the authors took the opportunity of the new and more detailed scale
for Phonological control – defining sound articulation, including pronunciation of sounds, and prosodic features,
including intonation, rhythm and stress at both word and sentence level – in order to propose to their student
teachers a Professional Development Assignment in the form of action research on an aspect of phonology of
their choice.
The aim was to raise participants’ awareness of the target phonological control features through guided discovery, loop input, controlled and free practice and microteaching demonstration activities. Impact was assessed
through pre- and post-course questionnaires, by peer observation reports and by evaluation of the students’
written reports on their assignment. Significant changes were observed, in the self-assessment of knowledge andawareness of phonological control features, through the two questionnaires. Participants also reported feelingmore confident in actively teaching phonological features, but suggested that they would need more work onphonology in their ongoing professional development. The study confirmed the conclusions of researchers
regarding the importance of rethinking native-speaker orientation in language learning and the role of explicit
training in teaching phonological control features for practising teachers, which was at the core of the initiative
to develop the new, analytic CEFR scale for Phonological control.

Awareness raising and teacher education Page 183

Chapter 12
IMPLEMENTATION
OF THE CEFR COMPANION VOLUME
IN THE UNICERT® AND NULTE NETWORKS
Johann Fischer and Nicole Wolder, ZESS (Centre for Languages and Transferable Skills),
Georg August University, Göttingen, Germany

ABSTRACTIn this project we presented the different aspects of the CEFR Companion volume (Council of Europe 2018, 2020)
at university language centres in Europe, discussed its impact on language teaching, learning and assessment
and developed sample tasks for teaching and assessment.
We gave presentations at conferences, carried out roundtable sessions and organised workshops at institutional,
regional, national and European level (31 events in different parts of Europe, concentrating on Germany and
Lithuania). The main focus was on disseminating the content of the CEFR Companion volume, asking participants
to adapt it to their specific contexts of university language teaching, learning and assessment. Participants wereparticularly interested in developing models for teaching and assessing mediation, followed by inter-/pluriculturalcompetence and plurilingualism, at various target levels. At university language centres, CEFR level C1 plays animportant role in teaching English for Academic Purposes and English for Specific Purposes, and CEFR levels A1
to B1 for languages that students start learning at university, while level B2 is important both for English andfor other languages already learned at school.
The main aim of the project was to train practitioners to adapt the ideas of the CEFR Companion volume to theirlocal or national contexts and to rethink their approach to teaching and assessment. This included in certain
cases the revision of course syllabi and methodological practices.
We followed a qualitative approach, measuring the outcomes by looking at the quality of the teaching andassessment tasks developed (peer and expert review) and by using open-ended questionnaires on the impactof the workshops.
In their feedback, participants showed particular interest in:f putting a stronger focus on the learner/test-taker as a social agent in the future;
f implementing the notion of mediation in their teaching and assessment practices;f paying more attention to intercultural and pluricultural aspects and to plurilingual approaches.
Participants agreed that mediation does already play an important role at university language centres, mainly
by presenting academic research outcomes to different target groups using academic and scientific sources invarious languages, carrying out literature reviews or research, and using different language registers and styles,
but they also agreed that a more clustered approach to teaching mediation is needed, as presented in the CEFR
Companion volume.
Participants showed great interest in the new descriptors, particularly the pre-A1 and C level descriptors, andin the focus of the CEFR Companion volume on modes of communication, because this helps them in planningtheir teaching and assessment.
Finally, participants stressed the need for professional development activities to manage the change of perspective required and for more networking in order to increase teaching competence and assessment literacy.

RÉSUMÉ
Dans ce projet, nous avons présenté les différents aspects du Volume complémentaire du CECR (Conseil del’Europe, 2018 et 2020) dans des centres de langues universitaires en Europe, discuté de son importance pourl’enseignement, l’apprentissage et l’évaluation et développé des tâches modèles pour l’enseignement et l’évaluation.

Page 185

Nous sommes intervenus lors de colloques et avons organisé des tables rondes et des stages de formation aux
niveaux institutionnel, régional, national et européen (31 événements dans différentes régions de l’Europe, avec
un gros plan sur l’Allemagne et la Lituanie). Nous avons surtout diffusé le contenu du Volume complémentaire
et demandé aux participants de l’adapter à leurs contextes spécifiques d’enseignement, d’apprentissage et d’éva­
luation à l’université. Les participants étaient particulièrement motivés à l’idée de développer des modèles pourenseigner et évaluer la médiation, mais aussi la compétence inter/pluriculturelle ainsi que le plurilinguisme. Lesniveaux du CECR abordés par ce projet étaient en particulier le niveau C1 pour l’anglais (anglais académique etanglais pour objectifs spécifiques) ainsi que les niveaux A1 à B1 pour les langues que les étudiants commencent
à apprendre à l’université, le niveau B2 étant surtout important pour les langues apprises au préalable au niveau
scolaire (anglais inclus).
L’objectif principal du projet était de former les enseignants à adapter les idées du Volume complémentaire àleur contexte local ou national et à revoir leur approche de l’enseignement et de l’évaluation. Dans certains cas,cela comprenait la révision des cahiers des charges et des pratiques didactiques utilisés.
Nous avons adopté une approche qualitative et avons mesuré les résultats en analysant la qualité des tâches
d’enseignement et d’évaluation (analyses effectuées par des pairs experts) et en ayant recours à des questionnaires à questions ouvertes.
Dans leur retour d’information, les participants ont mentionné comme particulièrement importants pour leurtravail les aspects suivants :f la focalisation sur l’apprenant/le candidat comme acteur social présenté par le Volume complémentaire ;f l’importance d’intégrer la médiation dans leurs pratiques d’enseignement et d’évaluation ;f l’accent sur les aspects interculturels et pluriculturels ainsi que sur les approches plurilingues.
Les participants ont convenu que la médiation joue déjà un rôle important dans les centres universitaires
de langues, étant donné que, en cours de langue, on demande aux étudiants de présenter leurs résultats derecherche à des groupes cibles divers en s’appuyant sur des sources scientifiques dans différentes langues
et de rechercher et d’analyser des publications scientifiques, tout en utilisant différents styles et registres delangue ; les activités de médiation sont donc des tâches déjà largement répandues. D’autre part, les participantsapprécient la nouvelle catégorisation des différents types de médiation présentée dans le Volume complémentaire, qui les aidera dans leur conception du programme.
Les participants étaient également très intéressés par les nouveaux descripteurs, surtout pour les niveaux pré-A1
et C, ainsi que par la focalisation opérée dans le Volume complémentaire sur les modalités de communication,étant donné que ces aspects les aideront à planifier leurs cours ainsi que leurs examens.
Enfin, les participants ont exprimé leur besoin d’activités de formation continue pour qu’ils puissent réussir lechangement de perspective requis et pour un renforcement et un élargissement de leurs réseaux afin d’accroître
la compétence didactique dans l’enseignement et l’évaluation.

12.1. INTRODUCTION
This project focused on the implementation of the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages:
learning, teaching, assessment – Companion volume (Council of Europe 2020) – henceforth “the CEFR Companion
volume” – in language teaching, learning and assessment at university language centres, that is, in the context
of university language teaching for students who learn a language alongside their studies, either as an integral
part of their studies or as an optional programme, but who are not majoring in languages.
The project targeted university language teaching in different European regions with different conditions andapproaches. In some contexts action-oriented (e.g. Piccardo and North 2019) and task-based (e.g. Van den Branden
et al. 2009) approaches were already applied, but not in others. The challenge therefore was to first analyse
the situation and the needs at a specific institution or in a specific country, then provide ideas for changes anddevelop new tasks for teaching and assessment. In some cases, this included a revision of teaching and testing
practices, namely methodological approaches, and the revision of course syllabi.
In professional development workshops we revisited the learning objectives of individual modules, which
required an analysis of target situations of communication in university and professional contexts that thestudents would be likely to encounter in their future career. This made it obvious that a more action-oriented and task-based approach can help in adapting courses to the needs of individual learners because
it facilitates the simulation of realistic communication situations, depending on the individual academicor scientific discipline.

Page 186 3 Enriching 21st-century language education

The focus of the activity was to train practitioners and help them adapt the content of the CEFR Companion
volume to the context of their institution, to harmonise the interpretation of CEFR levels across Europe, to adapt
teaching more closely to the needs of mobility in a European context and to develop a network of multipliers.
Workshop participants showed particular interest in the following aspects of the CEFR Companion volume:plurilingualism, intercultural and pluricultural skills, and particularly mediation.

12.2. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
12.2.1. Organisation and structure of the project
The project “Implementation of the CEFR Companion volume in the UNIcert® and NULTE networks” was co-ordinated by Johann Fischer and Nicole Wolder from the Centre for Languages and Transferable Skills (ZESS)at Georg-August-Universität Göttingen. It was carried out by members of NULTE, the Network of University
Language Testers in Europe (http://cercles.org/nulte/), an offshoot of the focus group “Language testing andassessment” of the European Confederation of Language Centres in Higher Education CercleS (www.cercles.
org). The project thus brought together members of the following university language testing and certification
systems: ACERT (Poland – www.sermo.org.pl/stowarzyszenie/egzamin-acert/), CertAcles® (Spain – www.acles.
es/examenes-certacles), CLES (France – www.certification-cles.fr/), UNIcert® (Germany – www.unicert-online.
org/), UNIcert®LUCE (Czech Republic and Slovakia – http://unicertluce.sk/) and UNILANG (United Kingdom –www.unilang.ac.uk/).

12.2.2. Project activities and events
In total, the team carried out 31 events with more than 950 participants between June 2018 and November 2019.
These events took place in France (2), Germany (17), Ireland (1), Italy (1), Lithuania (2), Poland (4), Portugal (1)and Spain (3). Due to the background of the co-ordinators, several events took place at Göttingen University andother universities in the German UNIcert® network (which oversees certification and accreditation of university
language courses). The events addressed language teachers and examiners as well as directors of university
language centres.
The team gave five presentations on aspects of the CEFR Companion volume at national and international
conferences, organised one roundtable session at a conference, ran 20 professional development workshops
at institutional, regional, national and European level, and discussed specific aspects at five (regional, national
and European) network meetings. The main focus of these activities wasa. to disseminate the content of the CEFR Companion volume;b. to train language teachers and examiners in implementing these aspects; andc. to create a community of practice in order to improve the quality of language teaching and assessment
at universities.
Each event started with an introduction to the content of the CEFR Companion volume – the action-oriented
approach, the aspect of the learner as a social agent, the four modes of communication (reception, production, interaction, mediation), plurilingualism, intercultural and pluricultural competence and transferable
skills – as well as the overall paradigm shift of the approach presented in the CEFR Companion volume.
The participants were invited to reflect upon their own context and situation and to analyse the impact of
the CEFR Companion volume approach on their individual teaching and assessment practices. They werethen asked to share their individual context with their peers and identify areas of development for the
implementation of the CEFR Companion volume approach. Depending on the context, participants werealso invited to analyse the revised and extended descriptors of the CEFR levels and discuss their impact
on their work.
In the workshops carried out, participants developed sample tasks for teaching and learning and/or testing
and assessment, adapted to their individual contexts and target groups. In one case, this included a complete
revision of teaching practices at a university language centre and the revision of the course syllabi for all target
groups. Participants have been invited to finalise their teaching and assessment tasks and their new course
structures and submit them for peer assessment. These sample tasks and course structures will be collected
in a European database, which will be made publicly available. The idea of this database is both to provide
ideas and models of good practice to practitioners and stakeholders for future reference and use, and tostrengthen the existing networks and create a larger community of practice.

Awareness raising and teacher education Page 187

12.2.3. Assessment of events and project outputs
To assess the outcome of the events, a qualitative approach was applied. This assessment had three main foci:a. to assess the tasks and materials developed by the participants (using self-assessment and peer assessment
techniques as well as providing feedback by trainers in the concluding session of each activity);b. to collect feedback on the content of the CEFR Companion volume (verbally during the training programme);
andc. to assess the quality and the impact of the professional development workshops (using questionnaires
and group discussions at the end of the training).

12.2.4. Participants’ feedback on the CEFR Companion volume
Participants showed strong interest in the action-oriented approach of the CEFR Companion volume and werehighly motivated to apply it in their teaching and testing practices. The focus on the learner as a social agent
was considered particularly helpful – both by trainers and by participants – for reaching a paradigm shift inaddressing teaching and assessment; this concept requires the teacher (and teacher trainer) to develop tasks
that make learners apply their individual knowledge and skills to successfully work on a task or a problem. The
idea that learners exchange personal information with their co-learners and co-construct knowledge requires
teachers/trainers to rethink the roles of the learners both in teaching and in testing and to develop suitable
tasks that are meaningful and relevant to the learners/test-takers. In this context, participants realised that somedescriptors in the CEFR Companion volume, for example those on online interaction, are more relevant for theirwork at university language centres than others ( e.g. those related to the work on novels).
Participants addressed three aspects of the CEFR Companion volume with particular interest: plurilingualism,
intercultural and pluricultural skills, and mediation.
As far as plurilingualism is concerned, workshop participants developed ideas for plurilingual activities for teaching, which were then piloted in class. The outputs and outcomes of this piloting were presented at conferences
and workshops for discussion and the revised sample tasks will be added to the project database of examplesof good practice (expected to be available by end 2022. Interested readers can follow progress at www.ecml.
at/companionvolumetoolbox).
Although intercultural and pluricultural aspects have been addressed in university language teaching for a longtime, participants agreed that they often played a minor role in teaching and that they should be addressed withmore consistency. As the development of intercultural and pluricultural skills is very individual and depends
on numerous factors, participants also agreed that, although they should be an integral part of each teaching
programme, they should, however, not be a separate part of a university language exam.
The four modes of communication (reception, production, interaction and mediation) described in the CEFR
Companion volume were also discussed. The participants agreed that they offer a different perspective on language teaching and assessment, but will not replace the four skills: listening and reading comprehension, andspeaking and writing skills. These four skills are needed in different communication and interaction contexts
when dealing with the modes of communication. Furthermore, they are also an integral part of most exam
regulations and therefore shape the format of language tests. It became clear that from a methodological pointof view, the focus of language assessment needs to be shifted from a rather isolated analysis of individual skills
towards a more holistic approach with the assessment of language competence in specific situations, which
requires assessment of the different modes of communication. Our experience has also shown that a revision of
exams has a strong washback effect on teaching and learning at university language centres, because language
teachers want to prepare their students well for the final exam and therefore orient their teaching towards tasks
that the students will encounter in this context.
The main interest of participants was on the notion of mediation, as many of them were not familiar with thisconcept. They realised, however, that many classroom and assessment activities they already used were in fact
mediation activities. The detailed description of mediation as a mode of communication and of the different
types of mediation was considered useful in adopting a more systematic approach to developing their learners’
mediation skills.
Finally, the participants showed particular interest in the revised list of CEFR descriptors. In particular, they
appreciated the categorisation of the four modes of communication and the added descriptors (e.g. on written
interaction, taking into account new communication channels with the use of social media), particularly at
pre-A1 and at C-levels.

Page 188 3 Enriching 21st-century language education

12.2.5. Case studies concerning individual target groups
ZESS (Centre for Languages and Transferable Skills) at Georg-August-Universität Göttingen
Although action-oriented and task-based approaches to teaching languages were introduced at ZESS on alarge scale more than 10 years ago and the team adopted task-based approaches to testing in 2009, the CEFR
Companion volume has motivated the team to make classroom activities and tests even more authentic andmore meaningful to students. ZESS staff have therefore started to go beyond the existing framework to pilot
new tasks and activities. The publication of the CEFR Companion volume has launched an initiative to develop
more creative tasks for teaching and for testing. These new activities include the following:f Team members have developed and piloted new tasks in plurilingualism, using descriptors on “Building on pluricultural repertoire” at level B2 (CEFR Companion volume 2018: 158-9; 2020: 124-5), and in mediation, working
with C1 descriptors, e.g. on “Sociolinguistic appropriateness” (CEFR Companion volume 2018: 137-8; 2020: 136-7).
f End-of-course and UNIcert® exams are being more carefully checked to see whether they create opportunities for authentic situations for mediation, i.e. the concept of “learners as social agents who co-constructmeaning” has helped to analyse tasks more carefully for their suitability.
f Furthermore, a working group has been set up to investigate new approaches to testing. For example,
this group is questioning the necessity of testing the receptive skills (i.e. reading and speaking skills) separately and is developing ideas for integrative approaches to testing, which should be more in line withauthentic tasks.

UNIcert® (Germany)
The Scientific Committee of UNIcert® decided already in 2011 to adopt a task-based approach to language
testing (for task-based university language testing, see Fischer et al. 2011; Wigglesworth 2008). The aim was toimplement a change to language testing and – through backwash effect – to language teaching. Eight years later
this initiative has shown some impact on teaching and testing practices, but this approach is far from having
been implemented in all partner institutions. The content of the CEFR Companion volume and its focus on anaction-oriented approach to teaching has helped considerably to intensify the discussion and to persuade language teachers and testers, programme co-ordinators and directors of university language centres to implement
this approach and speed up the process of change.
In this context UNIcert® has launched a series of professional development activities to disseminate the content of the CEFR Companion volume and to strengthen the action-oriented and task-based approach that the
UNIcert® framework system aims at.
The Scientific Committee has also revised its regulations and integrated into this context the four modes ofcommunication to be addressed by the teaching and testing practices at individual member institutions.
As far as other NULTE partners are concerned, in general and specifically in France, Spain and Portugal, thecontent of the CEFR Companion volume and the discussion launched by its publication have led to the changes
described below.

NULTE in general
The NULTE partners have agreed to carry out more research on the validity and reliability of their tests. They are
working towards harmonising their assessment practices and will carry out comparative studies across the different
testing systems. Mediation activities and action-oriented speaking tasks have been identified as being of particularinterest. When working with language case studies in class, C1 descriptors – e.g. on Sustained monologue: describing experience (CEFR Companion volume 2018: 70; 2020: 62-3); Sustained monologue: giving information (CEFR
Companion volume 2018: 71; 2020: 63); Sustained monologue: putting a case, e.g. in a debate (CEFR Companion
volume 2018: 72; 2020: 64) – were used as reference for the revised rubrics when assessing student presentations.

CLES (France)
In the current revision of the CLES tests, particular focus has been put on the quality of the test tasks. With thenotion of the test-taker as a social agent in mind, the current prescribed roles that test-takers have to take havebeen questioned and test developers have been invited to create more open tasks which do not ask test-takers tointerpret a given role, but which will allow them to present their own personal ideas and solutions – in the context ofmediating texts (CEFR Companion volume 2018: 107-17; 2020: 92-108) and mediating concepts (CEFR Companion
volume 2018: 117-21; 2020: 108-13). This initiative will be accompanied by qualitative and quantitative studies.

Awareness raising and teacher education Page 189

CertAcles® (Spain)
As CertAcles® tests are independent of any teaching programme and test-takers can have very different backgrounds, these tests have to address a varied audience and therefore need to follow a single-item analysis approachand require thorough psychometric analysis. The discussion on the CEFR Companion volume approach has,
however, led the CertAcles® team to decide to contextualise C1 tasks in the future. This might have a negative
impact on the reliability of the test, but it will on the other hand increase its validity as the tests will be more
realistic and correspond to authentic situations of communication in real life. The implementation of this change
will be analysed in a quantitative research project.

CLAP (Portugal)
As the Portuguese association of university language centres, ReCLes, is still in the process of developing its
future testing system, the Certificação de Línguas para Ação Profissional (CLAP), the committee has been able tobenefit from the experience of their NULTE partner systems and the publication of the CEFR Companion volume.
The revised descriptors, the action-oriented approach and the notion of mediation have helped to adopt a new
approach to testing, which they can follow in the development of their new nationwide testing system. The idea
is to create task-based tests for individual target groups; these tests will, for example, be based on case studies
and include realistic mediation activities.
Outside the NULTE network, Vilnius University has actively participated in the initiative in their own project ofrethinking language teaching and testing for non-specialists.

Vilnius University (Lithuania)
Since the languages department (offering language courses for students of other disciplines than philology)
faces major challenges, the faculty and the department have decided to adopt a new approach to teaching andtesting. Although certain parts of the department had already been applying task-based activities at irregularintervals, teaching has until now concentrated very much on the use of textbooks and academic texts fromscientific publications of the corresponding faculty; the general approach to the whole course and the end-ofcourse tests still followed rather traditional models.
The whole team of some 40 language teachers therefore took part in a five-day professional development
workshop that aimed at remodelling language teaching and testing in the department. In three steps the participants were first introduced to the action-oriented and task-based approach of the CEFR Companion volume
and its content, then analysed typical situations of communication in the various academic fields and selected
the appropriate interaction and mediation activities, before finally developing ideas for projects to carry out
in class at CEFR level C1. One team, for example, developed a case-study activity for students of life sciences(e.g. biology, chemistry, microbiology, genetics and ecology) to analyse in groups the situation of pollution of
Salotė Lake in Lithuania and to develop in groups a possible solution. This task/project requires working withdescriptors on mediating texts and on mediating concepts, as shown in Figure 12.1.
This teaching activity requires students to:f read and analyse written texts (some from the press, some scientific papers) as well as audio and video
recordings on the situation of Lake Salotė and on water pollution in general;f summarise their individual findings;
f discuss them in groups;
f develop a solution to the problem in question;
f write a report or a scientific paper on the matter; andf present their findings and their solution during a simulated conference.
The work includes the analysis, the production of charts and graphs and their oral presentation to the audience.
In the simulated conference the students will finally need to reply to questions from the audience.
This means that the following mediation scales will be covered by this task/project:Mediating a text
f Relaying specific information – in speech and in writingf Explaining data (e.g. in graphs, diagrams, charts etc.) – in speech and in writing
f Processing text – in speech and in writing
Page 190 3 Enriching 21st-century language education

Mediating concepts
f Collaborating in a groupf Facilitating collaborative interaction with peers
f Collaborating to construct meaningf Leading group workf Managing interaction
f Encouraging conceptual talk(Council of Europe 2018: 106; see also 2018: 103-21; 2020: 90-112)
The mediation descriptors that the team of teachers were using were the following.
Figure 12.1: Draft of a case-study activity for students of life sciences on the pollution problem of Lake Salotė,Lithuania

Table 12.1: Mediating a text
Relaying specific information in speech
C1

Can explain (in English) the relevance of specific information found in a particular section of long,complex general and scientific texts (written in Lithuanian and English).
Relaying specific information in writing

C1

Can relay in writing (in English) which presentations at a conference (given in English and/or Lithuanian)were relevant, pointing out which would be worth detailed consideration.
Can relay in writing (in English) the relevant point(s) contained in propositionally complex but well-­structured texts (written in English and/or Lithuanian) within his/her fields of professional, academic
and personal interest.
Can relay in writing (in English) the relevant point(s) contained in articles (written in English and/or
Lithuanian) from scientific and/or professional journals and publications.
Can relay in a written report (in English) relevant decisions that were taken in a meeting (in English
and/or Lithuanian).
Can relay in writing (in English) the significant point(s) contained in formal correspondence (in English
and/or Lithuanian).
Awareness raising and teacher education Page 191

C1

C1

C1

C1

Explaining data in speech (e.g. in graphs, diagrams, charts) in speech
Can interpret and describe clearly and reliably (in English) the salient points and details contained incomplex diagrams and other visually organised information (with text in Lithuanian or English) oncomplex academic or professional topics.
Explaining data in speech (e.g. in graphs, diagrams, charts) in writing
Can interpret and present clearly and reliably in writing (in English) the salient, relevant points containedin complex diagrams and other visually organised data (with text in Lithuanian or English) on complex
academic or professional topics.
Processing text in speech
Can summarise in (English) long, demanding texts (in English and/or Lithuanian).
Can summarise (in English) discussion (in English and/or Lithuanian) on matters within his/her academicor professional competence, elaborating and weighing up different points of view and identifying themost significant points.
Can summarise clearly in well-structured speech (in English) the main points made in complex spoken
and written texts (in English and/or Lithuanian) in fields of specialisation other than his/her own, althoughhe/she may occasionally check particular technical concepts.
Can explain (in English) subtle distinctions in the presentation of facts and arguments (in English and/or Lithuanian).
Can exploit information and arguments from a complex spoken or written text (in English and/or Lithuanian)
to talk about a topic (in English), glossing with evaluative comments, adding his/her opinion, etc.
Can explain (in English) the attitude or opinion expressed in a spoken or written text (in Lithuanian
and/or English) on a specialised topic, supporting inferences he/she makes with reference to specificpassages in the original.
Processing text in writing
Can summarise in writing (in English) long, complex texts (written in English and/or Lithuanian), interpreting the content appropriately, provided that he/she can occasionally check the precise meaningof unusual, technical terms.
Can summarise in writing a long and complex scientific text (in English) for a specific audience, respecting
the style and register of the original.

(adapted from Council of Europe 2018: 107-12; 2020: 94-9)

Table 12.2: Mediating concepts

C1

C1

C1

C1

Collaborating in a group
Facilitating collaborative interaction with peers:
Can show sensitivity to different perspectives within a group, acknowledging contributions and formulating any reservations, disagreements or criticisms in such a way as to avoid or minimise any offence.
Can develop the interaction and tactfully help steer it towards a conclusion.
Collaborating to construct meaning:
Can frame a discussion to decide a course of action with a group, reporting on what others have said,summarising, elaborating and weighing up multiple points of view.
Can evaluate problems, challenges and proposals in a collaborative discussion in order to decide theway forward.
Can highlight inconsistencies in thinking, and challenge others’ ideas in the process of trying to reach aconsensus.
Leading group work
Managing interaction:
Can organise a varied and balanced sequence of plenary, group and individual work, ensuring smoothtransitions between the phases.
Can intervene diplomatically in order to redirect talk, prevent one person dominating or to confront
disruptive behaviour.
Encouraging conceptual talk:Can ask a series of open questions that build on different contributions in order to stimulate logicalreasoning (e.g. hypothesising, inferring, analysing, justifying and predicting).

(adapted from Council of Europe 2018: 119-21; 2020: 110-13)
Page 192 3 Enriching 21st-century language education

Furthermore, the descriptors for mediation strategies (Council of Europe 2018: 126-9; 2020: 117-22) like linking
to previous knowledge or breaking down complicated information seemed to be useful for the students, helping
them in completing the tasks. Teachers, however, agreed that these descriptors should not inform assessment
criteria. Instead they need to be considered in specific contexts of communication or task completion.
This exemplifies the complexity of subject-specific university language teaching and learning at CEFR level C1
as it requires the learner to apply complex transferable skills in order to process academic texts and concepts,
presenting them in a logical and coherent way to a specific target audience using the appropriate style andregister. In fact, learners have to take into account texts from different sources presented in different text types,
in different languages and styles, and draw their personal conclusions, carrying out their own research anddrawing upon their individual subject knowledge. It also shows that descriptors need to be adapted to individual
teaching, learning and assessment contexts.
In a second step, the teachers then developed a structure and sample tests for end-of-course exams (see Figure12.2) and finally developed the syllabus for their entire course (see Table 12.1).
Figure 12.2: Draft of task-based C1 exam in English for IT students on the leakage of sensitive data from aplastic surgery clinic in Lithuania

By the end of the workshop the participants had undergone a paradigm shift in their approach to teaching andtesting. They have now developed a syllabus that requires learners to work on both written general and academic
texts and audio/video recordings, analyse the content and draw their own conclusions, co-construct knowledge
and concepts in team work, collaborate in preparing written texts and oral presentations and then presenting
them together, as described in the chapter on mediation (Council of Europe 2018: 103-29; 2020: 90-122).
As testing receptive skills in isolated subtests does not reflect the principles of authenticity and validity that taskbased exams require, the team decided in favour of an integrated approach to assessment, where the receptive
skills will be necessary (and thus tested) by giving students a complex task or problem to work on. The focus of
the exam will, however, be on the productive skills, as these are essential to success in situations of communication. In this respect, the new test structure will follow a rather innovative approach to testing and assessment.
The model developed by the team was presented to and approved by the faculty and then presented to thevarious faculties where the students follow their degree programme.
In a subsequent two-day workshop, two months after the first workshop and shortly before the start of the
new academic year, the teachers reviewed their methodology and their course structure as well as their draftsof final exams.

Awareness raising and teacher education Page 193

This initiative has now entered its next stage, the implementation of the new approach. It will be monitored
carefully by the head of the department, the quality assurance department of the university and the external
trainer. It has also led to a research project aiming to identify criteria for success in implementing changes inuniversity language teaching and testing, which will continue for at least the whole academic year. The outcomes of this project will hopefully help trainers and directors of university language centres in their attempts
to implement changes in the future. Furthermore, the university will use the experience of this initiative in their
aim to stimulate more task-based approaches to teaching at university in general, that is, in all disciplines, toprepare students for the challenges of their future profession and in research.
Table 12.3: Draft of structure for the English for Academic Purposes and Research course for students of
Political Science and International Relations
W

Topic

1

Politics &language

2

Activities

Project / Learning
outcomeResearch article

Moodlelistening
and reading
self-study

Van Dijk T. (1997), “What is political discourse analysis?”, Belgian Journal of Linguistics No. 11(1), pp. 11-52
Essay / Book excerpt
Orwell G. (1946), “Politics and the English language”,
and Clark I. L. (2019), Concepts in composition: theory andpractice in the teaching of writing, 3rd edition, Routledge,
London, pp. 221-31

Research-based
project on
the topic:

Project simulation
Debate (Motions 1 & 2)
M1: This House believes that language strategies play asignificant role in gaining and exercising political power.

Election
campaigning:a country of my
choice + video
M2: THB that US President’s Trump tweeting has confootage withtributed to lowering standards for political culture andrecommendations
diplomacy.
Academic writing [drafting stage]
Introduction, BP2 & BP3
Linguistic features of populism and their effect on political representation
3
4

Democracy& representation

Research article
Book excerpt
Alonso S., Keane J. and Merkel W. (eds) (2011), The futureof representative democracy, Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge
Case study 1 + research proposal

grammar andvocabulary
self-study
case study(uploadingslides)Humanitarian assistance or political intervention: theCivil War in Yemen
Debate (Motions 3 & 4)
THB that representative democracy is facing a contemporary crisis.
Academic writing: BP4 & conclusion
5
6

Human
rights &freedoms

Research article
Book excerpt
Case study 2 + research proposal
Debate (Motions 5 & 6)
Academic writing: first draft & peer review

Page 194 3 Enriching 21st-century language education

vocabulary
self-study
case study(uploadingslides)

W

Topic

Project / Learning
outcome

Activities

7

Election
Research article
campaigning
8
Book excerpt

Moodlereading andvocabulary
self-study

Project simulation
Debate (Motions 7 & 8)
Academic writing: resubmission of final version
9
10

Elections &populism

Research article

overview

Book excerpt

preparation
for theconference

Case study 3 + research proposal
Debate (Motions 9 & 10)
Academic writing
11
12
13 (Research-based) Conference + peer review
1415
16 Final exam:
Speaking: case work & simulated scenario

Writing a research proposal to the National Academy of Science to apply for students’ research grant

12.3. DISCUSSION
The content of the CEFR Companion volume has been very well received by the participants in these vari­
ous training events, who consider it most valuable for their work. The ideas and concepts have helped tostart self- and peer reflection on teaching and testing practices, which will – hopefully – lead to changes
at large scale.
The main aspects of discussion throughout the project have been the following:
1. The action-oriented approach and the concept of the learner as a social agent
2. The integration of plurilingualism activities in university language teaching
3. The role of intercultural and pluricultural tasks in language teaching and testing
4. The notion of mediation
5. The work with the new list of descriptors
Each of these aspects is discussed below.

12.3.1. The action-oriented approach and the concept of the learner as a social agent
The concept of the learner as a social agent and the action-oriented approach have been the most important
aspects of the CEFR Companion volume that have helped to make participants reconsider their methodologicalapproach. Focusing on the learner as a social agent has led to a shift of paradigm for workshop participants, as
this concept strengthens the role of the learner and helps to develop relevant and meaningful tasks. By working
with the descriptors, the participants were reminded of realistic situations of communication; this then helped
them to devise scenarios to develop and simulate in class or in assessment contexts.
In our teaching, we need to take into account the personal context and situation of the individual learner as
presented in Figure 12.3.

Awareness raising and teacher education Page 195

Figure 12.3: Aspects of the learner as social agent

personal
knowledge& skills

personal
context

socialagent

personal
learningstylepersonal
interests &objectives

individual
languageskillsNote: The German versions of Figures 12.3, 12.4, 12.5 and 12.8 were first presented at the 7th Bremen Symposium on Language Learning
and Teaching at Universities, “Rethinking the language learner: paradigms – methods – disciplines”, on 1 March 2019, and are published in
the conference proceedings (Fischer 2021).

When preparing a task, we have to think of the specific context and situation in which the activity takes place,create a meaningful task that activates the learner’s knowledge and skills so that he or she can solve the problem or complete the task, and then present the results to a specific target audience (see e.g. C1 descriptors on
Processing text in speech – CEFR Companion volume 2018: 111-12; 2020: 98-101; on Collaborating to constructmeaning – CEFR Companion volume 2018: 118-19; 2020: 109-11; on Managing interaction and on Encouraging
conceptual talk – CEFR Companion volume 2018: 120-1; 2020: 112-23), suitable to the context in question. This
process is illustrated in Figure 12.4.
This contextualisation is of particular importance in language teaching for non-specialists at university, wherein the same classroom learners from a broad variety of different academic disciplines come together and workon very specific academic/scientific topics, which they have to present to a non-specialist audience.
Figure 12.4: The learner at the centre of the task-based activity in classcontext

presenting
to target
audience

situationsocialagent
solvingproblemtask

activatingknowledge

Page 196 3 Enriching 21st-century language education

In working on the task, the individual characteristics of the learner have an impact on the success of the task,
so teachers need to make sure that the tasks are relevant and meaningful to the learner and that he or she canactivate his or her personal skills and (professional and/or scientific) knowledge to carry out the task and present
the results to the target audience in question (see Figure 12.5).
Figure 12.5: The learner and his/her characteristics at the centre of the task-based activity in classcontext

presenting
to target
audience

personal
knowledge& skills
personal
context

solvingproblem

personal
interests &objectivessocialagent

personal
learning
stylesituationindividual
languageskillstask

activatingknowledge
Completing one task will lead to the subsequent stage in the activity and a follow-up task will come next (seeFigure 12.6).
Figure 12.6: The cycle of tasks
context

presenting totarget audience

context

presenting totarget audience presenting
to target
audience

context

solvingproblemsituation
situationsocialagent

solvingproblemsolvingproblemsituation

task
activatingknowledge

activatingknowledge

task

task

activatingknowledge

Awareness raising and teacher education Page 197

All tasks are integrated into one overall task that builds the framework of the entire course, or course section,or the exam. Thereby they constitute build-up tasks that break down the overall cumulative task into smallerparts and contribute to the completion of the overall task/project (see Figure 12.7).
Figure 12.7: The learner at the centre of a cycle of task-based activities

solving problem
activating knowledgepresenting to target
audiencesocialagent
context

task
situation

In this context, the different tasks and activities need to be linked in a logical order. This requires planning fordifferent scenarios of communication and referring to different descriptor scales, depending on the context.
The descriptor scales can thereby help to scaffold these cyclical processes. They can provide a clear reference
point for building proficiency in mediation activities in a cyclical way over time.
In our professional development activities, however, we learned how important it is to remind teachers to always
remember the overall objectives of the language course and not simply to follow a step-by-step approach, doing
one activity after another without always having a clear overall aim in mind.
In order to guarantee continuity between teaching and testing, the final exam needs to follow the same
approach, that is, an action-oriented/task-based approach, so that we follow the model of constructive alignment(Biggs 1996), as seen in Figure 12.8).
Figure 12.8: Course design and constructive alignment

educational
objective
feedback

exams

classestasks

The concept of the learner as a social agent and the visualisation of the impact of this concept on teaching,learning and testing, with the help of figures 12.3 to 12.8, helped participants to understand the paradigm shiftsuggested by the CEFR Companion volume and to stimulate a rethinking of teachers’ and examiners’ practices.

Page 198 3 Enriching 21st-century language education

These illustrations have been helpful tools in persuading the participating teachers and examiners to adopt anaction-oriented approach and think in terms of managing change.

12.3.2. The integration of plurilingualism activities in university language teaching
In the context of the action-oriented approach, the notion of plurilingualism in the CEFR Companion volume
led to discussions among the target group of the project activities outlined above. Participants developed
meaningful tasks simulating plurilingual encounters where interlocutors would need to communicate indifferent languages.
One example of a case-study activity, developed by Birgit Neuroth-Hartmann and Valentina Reggio at Göttingen
University, was received with particular interest by workshop participants. In this classroom activity, learners of
Italian had to analyse the problem of plastics pollution of a river in Piedmont, and learners of Spanish had toanalyse a similar situation in Central America; they then had to identify what contribution they, in their role asstudents, could make to improve the situation, present the results to the other group and discuss together what
activities they could feasibly carry out. This example motivated participants to develop other classroom activities
useful in their specific contexts. This activity focused on intercomprehension skills as students presented theirresearch findings in their target language and worked to achieve a consensus strictly using this language inthe bilingual setting. In this context, B-level descriptors on Building on pluricultural repertoire (CEFR Companion
volume 2018: 158-9; 2020: 124-5) and on Plurilingual comprehension (CEFR Companion volume 2018: 160; 2020:
126-7) were considered particularly useful.
It was made clear that in an assessment situation this setting could be used to test, for example, speaking skills,
but that plurilingual or intercomprehension skills would not be assessed and would not count towards the final
grade of the course. It was felt that plurilingual and intercomprehension skills were an asset and a means to an
end that should be encouraged, but that they themselves should not be assessed.

12.3.3. The role of intercultural and pluricultural tasks in language teaching and testing
Catherine Jaeger (Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin), the specialist within the Scientific Committee of UNIcert® onintercultural aspects in language teaching, was responsible for this part of the project and revisited existing tasks
and developed new ones, which were presented at workshops. Some working groups of the UNIcert® workshop
in November 2018 focused in particular on this aspect of the CEFR Companion volume.
Participants agreed that intercultural and pluricultural aspects are key elements of university language teaching
and that they should not play a minor role in the classroom. Teachers should instead integrate them systematically into their teaching and their curricula, since the action-oriented approach to teaching and learning offeredplenty of opportunities to do so. They also agreed that intercultural and pluricultural skills should not be tested
and graded, as the development of these skills is a very personal matter and depends on individual experienceand contact situations. They should therefore not be a (graded) element of an end-of-course assessment, butshould lead to reflection and be part of formative self-assessment.

12.3.4. The notion of mediation
The aspect of the CEFR Companion volume that caught most attention was the notion of mediation, which was
new to many participants. However, when the notion of mediation was explained, with examples, participantsrealised that they already used mediation activities in their teaching and in assessment, particularly if they had
followed an action-oriented approach. The project showed that the “key aspects of the CEFR for teaching andlearning” presented in the CEFR Companion volume (2018: 25-44; 2020: 27-45) help teachers to think of useful,realistic teaching and assessment scenarios, while the descriptor scales provide more concrete examples ofsituations of communication and social encounter and are a useful starting point for creating scenarios and forchecking the suitability of the tasks developed.
As a majority of university language centres have an international target group, the focus of mediation activities
in teaching and assessment needs to be on mediation within the context of the target language or on using
various languages as sources for useful content to be presented in the target language. The use of the local/
national language as an integral part of the task would otherwise discriminate against international students,
who would be disadvantaged.
The table presenting the different mediation activities and mediation strategies in the CEFR Companion volume(2018: 104; 2020: 90) caused animated discussion, and has subsequently initiated debates and further activities

Awareness raising and teacher education Page 199

on mediation. Participants were very interested in collecting examples of good practice and systematisingthem according to the different contexts and objectives presented in this table. This discussion on mediation
was continued at the UNIcert® workshop on 8 and 9 November 2019 at Bremen University, where mediation
was a key issue.
The professional development activities showed us that we need to make teachers rethink their approach tocourse planning, because mediation is more than passing on information. It requires the teacher to present
the scenario and describe the context of communication: the specific context, the role of the learners andthe target audience to whom the learners will present their results. At university, this includes mediating
information and concepts in various contexts, between different languages, registers and target audiences.
This includes, for example, presenting scientific concepts to students of other disciplines, and negotiating theinterpretation of a case when looking at it from the different perspectives that different academic disciplines
take on the issue.

12.3.5. The work with the new list of descriptors
As mentioned above, participants showed very strong interest in the revised set of CEFR descriptors. The newcategorisation of the descriptors and the addition of new ones was highly appreciated. Particular interest was
shown in the pre-A1 level descriptors and the C-level descriptors. Pre-A1 level descriptors have been welcomedin particular by language teachers teaching non-Indo-European languages, where the progression in the classroom is slower due to the complexity of the target language compared to the language of communication at
the university in question. CEFR levels C1 (and to some extent C2) play a particularly important role in university
language teaching as learners are prepared for challenging contact situations in their future profession and inresearch.
The updated set of descriptors motivated participants to revise their learning objectives and to revise theirassessment criteria and rubrics.
To summarise, the activities carried out within this project have helped to implement change in university language
teaching, learning and testing, and have led to a change of perspective on the practices and aims of our work.
Furthermore, they have led to the creation of a database of examples of good practice for classroom activities,
exam tasks and curriculum design. This again has helped to create a community of practice and contributed tothe strengthening of existing networks and creating new ones.
Managing change takes time. The professional development activities that have been started, therefore, needto continue; workshop participants can act as multipliers in their own institution and networks, which will
help to implement the ideas and concepts presented in the CEFR Companion volume. Its publication has led
to a paradigm shift in teaching, but has also made clear that we need a holistic perspective for our classroom:
according to the idea of constructive alignment, we need to consider teaching and assessment as an integral
entity. The experience from our professional development activities has shown that changes in assessments
may have a positive washback effect on teaching and may help to change teaching practices and implement
an action-oriented approach in teaching and learning.

12.4. CONCLUSIONThe CEFR Companion volume and the content discussed within it was unanimously welcomed by the participants
at our events. The ideas and concepts presented have been considered to be very valuable in their teaching
and testing.
The activities carried out by the team have had a substantial impact on language teaching and assessment
at university language centres across the network. They have helped to disseminate the content of the CEFR
Companion volume and to implement changes to language teaching, learning and testing at university level.
They have given a new impetus to existing professional development activities and launched new ones; they
have also contributed to a considerable increase in teacher training workshops, which will hopefully continue
in the future and contribute to the quality of our work.
It is obvious that not every participant will have implemented a new approach to their teaching and assessment
practices, or will have implemented changes only at a slower speed. But everybody has been reflecting on the
broader context of course design as well as on learning and teaching objectives, on new aspects presented in the
CEFR Companion volume, like the concept of mediation, on test development issues and assessment practices
and on the complexity of university language teaching and assessment in general.

Page 200 3 Enriching 21st-century language education

As workshop participants have been invited to present the ideas developed within their own institutions andnetworks and as both trainers and participants have openly shared their materials, the events have had amultiplying effect as workshop participants have become multipliers. This has helped to set up a communityof practice and has strengthened and consolidated existing networks and created new ones. It has intensified
international co-operation and networking.
The activities launched through this project will continue in the future, and numerous new activities havealready been planned. The feedback of participants collected so far, the outcomes and outputs of the workshops, meetings and roundtables, and the research activities started, will hopefully help to increase the qualityof language teaching and testing at university language centres in Europe and contribute to harmonising our
teaching and testing practices.
The context and conditions vary from one country to another, and from one institution to another. Dependingon the support and openness of decision makers, changes will be implemented at different speeds and withmore or less success. The publication of the CEFR Companion volume in other languages than English and French
will hopefully intensify the discussions and promote its content more strongly.

REFERENCES
ACERT website: www.sermo.org.pl/stowarzyszenie/egzamin-acert/, accessed 8 September 2021.
Biggs J. B. (1996), “Enhancing teaching through constructive alignment”, Higher Education No. 32, pp. 247-64.
CercleS website: www.cercles.org, accessed 8 September 2021.
CertAcles website: www.acles.es/examenes-certacles, accessed 8 September 2021.
CLES website: www.certification-cles.fr/, accessed 8 September 2021.
Council of Europe (2001), Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: learning, teaching, assessment,
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, available at www.coe.int/en/web/common-european-framework-­reference-languages, accessed 23 August 2021.
Council of Europe (2018), “Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: learning, teaching, assessment. Companion volume with new descriptors”, Council of Europe, Strasbourg, available at https://rm.coe.int/
cefr-companion-volume-with-new-descriptors-2018/1680787989, accessed 23 August 2021.
Council of Europe (2020), Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: learning, teaching, assessment– Companion volume, Council of Europe, Strasbourg, available at https://rm.coe.int/common-european-­frameworkof-reference-for-languages-learning-teaching/16809ea0d4, accessed 22 August 2021.
Fischer, J. (2021), “The language learner as a social agent – neuer Blick auf die Lernenden dank des Companion
Volumes zum GER”, in Brandt A., Buschmann-Göbels A. and Harsch, C. (eds), Rethinking the Language Learner:
Paradigmen – Methoden – Disziplinen. Erträge des 7. Bremer Symposions, AKS-Verlag, Bochum, pp. 246-59, availableat www.fremdsprachenzentrum-bremen.de/2096.0.html?&L=1 (under: Diskussionsrunden freitag), accessed
2 September 2021.
Fischer J., Chouissa C., Dugovičová S. and Virkkunen-Fullenwider A. (2011), Guidelines for task-based university
language testing, Council of Europe, Strasbourg.
NULTE website: http://cercles.org/nulte/, accessed 8 September 2021.
Piccardo E. and North B. (2019), The action-oriented approach. A dynamic vision of language education, Multilingual
Matters, Bristol.
UNIcert® website: www.unicert-online.org/, accessed 8 September 2021.
UNIcert®LUCE website: http://unicertluce.sk/, accessed 8 September 2021.
UNILANG website: www.unilang.ac.uk/, accessed 8 September 2021.
Van den Branden K., Bygate M. and Norris J. (eds) (2009), Task-based language teaching. A reader, John Benjamins,
Amsterdam and Philadelphia.
Wigglesworth G. (2008), “Task and performance-based assessment”, in Shohamy E. and Hornberger N. H. (eds),
Encyclopedia of language and education, 2nd edn, Springer, New York, Vol. 7: Language testing and assessment,
pp. 111-22.

Awareness raising and teacher education Page 201

Chapter 13
AN ACTION TOOLKIT FOR LANGUAGE
TEACHER TRAINING ON MEDIATION
Inma Pedregosa, University of Roehampton, United Kingdom, andAdolfo Sánchez Cuadrado, University of Granada, Spain

ABSTRACTThe mediation descriptors in the new CEFR Companion volume (Council of Europe 2020) can pose some serious
challenges for teachers accustomed to the concept of mediation as described in the CEFR 2001 (Council ofEurope 2001), namely textual mediation. This makes it necessary to develop teacher-training actions so that
language teachers are equipped with the knowledge and skills necessary to develop, implement and assess
the scope of mediation in the way the CEFR Companion volume has expanded it, that is, the mediation of texts,
concepts and communication.
The main goal of this case study was to develop a set of objectives, guidelines and prototypical tasks to be
used when delivering foreign language teacher training actions (seminars, workshops, etc.) on mediation. After
gathering data on teachers’ needs and perceptions via an online questionnaire in March and April 2018, the twoteacher trainers involved in this project developed the following elements as the springboard for the designand delivery of teacher training sessions carried out between September 2018 and February 2019 with modern
languages teachers working at the Government-funded language school system in Spain known as Escuelas
Oficiales de Idiomas (in short, EOIs):
f A list of subject-matter areas to be covered, such as the revised scope of mediation in the CEFR Companion
volume and teachers’ beliefs and perceptions of it.
f A set of pedagogical techniques, such as those involved in adapting mediation activities to the teachers’
specific settings.
f A set of activities to be used in teacher training workshops and seminars, such as awareness-raising tasks
to help conceptualise the scope of the new mediation descriptors, and hands-on tasks to help develop
actual mediation activities.
All the activities and tasks designed for the teacher training sessions were trialled and revised after each session,on the basis of both direct feedback from the teachers and the trainers’ findings during informal observations.
Together with a summary of these activities and techniques, this chapter discusses the impact and results of theteacher training sessions, based on the feedback provided by the teachers who attended them. It also draws
conclusions as to how to help teachers implement the new mediation descriptors in their particular teachingcontext and how to fine-tune our action toolkit for future teacher training sessions.

RÉSUMÉ
Les nouveaux descripteurs de médiation présents dans le Volume complémentaire du CECR (Conseil de l’Europe,2020) peuvent poser de sérieux problèmes aux enseignants habitués au concept de médiation décrit dans le
CECR de 2001, à savoir la médiation textuelle. Il faut donc développer des actions de formation des enseignantspour que les enseignants de langues aient les connaissances et les compétences nécessaires pour développer,
mettre en œuvre et évaluer le nouveau champ de la médiation défini dans le Volume complémentaire, c’est-àdire la médiation de textes, de concepts et de communication.
Le but principal de cette étude de cas était de développer un ensemble d’objectifs, de directives et de tâches
typiques à utiliser lors de la réalisation d’activités de formation d’enseignants de langues étrangères (séminaires, ateliers…) sur la médiation. Après avoir répondu aux besoins et aux perceptions des enseignants via
un questionnaire en ligne entre mars et avril 2018, les deux formateurs d’enseignants impliqués dans ce projet
ont développé les éléments suivants en tant que tremplin pour la conception et la réalisation de sessions deformation d’enseignants organisées entre septembre 2018 et février 2019 avec les professeurs de langues étrangères travaillant dans le système d’écoles de langues financé par le gouvernement espagnol connu sous le nomd’Escuelas Oficiales de Idiomas (EOI) :Page 203f une liste des domaines à couvrir, tels que la portée révisée de la médiation dans le Volume complémentaireet les convictions et perceptions des enseignants ;f un ensemble de techniques pédagogiques, telles que celles impliquées dans l’adaptation des activités demédiation à la situation spécifique des enseignants ;f un ensemble d’activités à mettre en œuvre lors d’ateliers de formation d’enseignants, de séminaires, etc.,
telles que des tâches de sensibilisation qui permettent de conceptualiser la portée des nouveaux descripteurs de médiation ainsi que des tâches pratiques pour développer des activités de médiation réelles.
Toutes les activités et les tâches conçues pour les sessions de formation des enseignants ont été testées etredéfinies après chaque session, à la suite du feedback direct des enseignants, et des observations informelles
effectuées par les formateurs ont été constamment intégrées.
Parallèlement à un résumé de ces activités et techniques, l’impact des sessions de formation pour enseignants
sera discuté sur la base des remarques fournies par les enseignants qui y ont assisté. Les résultats seront discutés et des conclusions seront tirées sur la manière d’aider les enseignants à mettre en œuvre les nouveauxdescripteurs de médiation dans leur contexte d’enseignement particulier et sur la mise au point de notre cadred’action pour les futures sessions de formation d’enseignants.

13.1. INTRODUCTION
This case study aims to explore modern language teachers’ needs when implementing the new sets of mediation
descriptors set out in the CEFR Companion volume (Council of Europe 2020).
This teacher training project on mediation is rooted in a specific educational setting, the Spanish Governmentfunded language schools or Escuelas Oficiales de Idiomas, EOIs, where mediation was introduced both at the
curricular and the assessment/accreditation level by the educational authorities in 2017 and 2018, following therequirements stipulated by two royal decrees. The lack of time for teachers to familiarise themselves with theconcept of mediation, the simultaneous publication of the online version of the CEFR Companion volume in 2018with its wider scope for mediation, together with the pressure to integrate this mode of communication intoclassroom practice and into achievement and accreditation exams, led to an urgent need for teacher training inSpain. The outcome is an action toolkit for teacher training sessions (courses, seminars, etc.) on mediation that
includes awareness-raising activities, task-analysis activities and hands-on implementation tasks.
This chapter describes the development and implementation of the teacher training sessions designed to try
to help these language teachers at four different locations.
The two teacher trainers involved in this project had a previous background in using pedagogical translation andinterpreting and had conducted several teacher training actions on mediation as understood in the CEFR 2001.
As soon as the CEFR Companion volume was made extensively available, in February 2018, it was decided thatthese teacher training actions needed to be updated to take into account the revised scope of mediation andthe new mediation descriptors. In order to achieve this, the following five-step course of action was designed:
1. Analysis of teachers’ needs, beliefs and perceptions around mediation.
2. Definition of objectives and content, and tasks to be developed for teacher training actions on mediation.
3. Development of a first set of tasks for teacher training on mediation, including awareness raising, familiarisation and hands-on activities.
4. Implementation of the first set of tasks in teacher training sessions.
5. Development of a final toolkit (set of guidelines, techniques and prototypical tasks) for face-to-face teacher
training in the new mediation descriptors and how to use them to design, implement and assess language
learning.
Steps 1 and 2 were carried out in March and April 2018 by means of an online questionnaire. After this, thetwo teacher trainers were involved in several training sessions with teachers at the Escuelas Oficiales deIdiomas (EOIs), Government-funded language schools for adults in Spain. The trainers had been approachedby Spanish education boards to advise them on how to integrate the new mediation descriptors in the EOIs’
curriculum and their official proficiency exams. Therefore, Step 3 crystallised into a set of initial tasks andactivities, which were implemented, tested and improved (Step 4) after each of the four training sessions with
EOI teachers in Tudela, Pamplona, Bilbao and Santander, between September 2018 and February 2019. These
teachers taught modern languages such as English, French, German and Italian, as well as two of the official
national languages, Spanish and Basque. Informed by the feedback received, a final toolkit was designed(Step 5) for future actions.

Page 204 3 Enriching 21st-century language education

13.2. PROJECT DESCRIPTIONAt the inception of this project – when analysing the teachers’ needs, beliefs and perceptions around mediation,
finalising the objectives and contents, and designing mediation tasks – the two teacher trainers involved werelecturing in Spanish at higher education institutions in the United Kingdom. An online questionnaire seemed
to be the quickest and most appropriate format to gather the beliefs, views and opinions of the modern
language teachers. The questionnaire was sent out to our professional contacts and relevant associations; it
was made available online for slightly less than two months (March-April 2018) and 133 teachers responded.
Although the majority of the teachers did not teach at EOIs, they all taught in a Higher or Adult Education
learning context, which was our target audience. The vast majority of respondents were teachers of Spanish
as a Foreign Language; this is understandable because this is our main professional circle.
In one section of the questionnaire, we asked teachers whether they were familiar with the concept of mediation in language learning, whether they used mediation activities in their lessons and, if so, to what extent.
After suggesting a definition of mediation (our own) we provided a list of activities and asked respondents todecide whether they were mediation activities or not. In possibly the most relevant section for us, we asked
respondents to state whether they thought mediation is an independent skill or a skill that is intertwined withthe other four skills, and whether it should be assessed, before finally asking them to identify their own training
needs in mediation.
From responses obtained by means of this needs analysis questionnaire, we concluded that the teachers weremainly concerned with four things:
1. Conceptualising mediation. This led us, the teacher trainers, to come up with a suitable definition of mediation in language learning and to explore what strategies are activated when mediating.
2. Exposure to, and analysis of mediation tasks. How to integrate mediation in their curricula (including how
to use ICTs and how to use L1 effectively). This led us to create sample activities for teachers to analyse anddiscuss. These activities were either tried and tested, or new.
3. How to design mediation tasks (in a genuine mediation context). This led us to devise a step-by-step guideand a template to help teachers design mediation activities.
4. To a much lesser extent, how to assess mediation. This led us to design different marking criteria, which
included descriptors for summative assessment.
What follows here is a description of some of the learning tasks and activities developed for the teacher training
sessions to meet these methodological needs.

13.2.1. Conceptualising mediation
From the outset, the two teacher trainers agreed that some conceptualising work was needed in order to establish what mediation is. One of the most frequent comments by the teachers we met at the training sessions
was that mediation activities have always been present in their classes and that this mode of communication
does not really depart from other traditional skill-based activities. This misconception, mainly due to the lack ofknowledge of the expanded scope of mediation in the CEFR Companion volume, was a potential methodologicalsetback, as teachers might feel they did not need to readjust their teaching practices to include mediation in
their classes and their exams.
Under the wide umbrella of mediation set forth in the CEFR Companion volume, there are, undoubtedly, somelanguage activities that resemble activities that have been extensively used in language classrooms since thedevelopment of the communicative approach and task-based methodologies. Some examples would include
reading a text or passage to extract and convey its main ideas; explaining orally the information included in agraph; acting in conflict-solving role-plays; or taking part in co-operative group work. These types of activity havebeen a constant over the past few decades, and they may appear to coincide with activities classed as mediationin the CEFR Companion volume. However, the communicative context of these activities is not always clearly
defined and it needs to be explicitly fine-tuned so that true mediation skills are realistically displayed. To get
this point across, we designed some awareness-raising activities on what mediation is, before asking teachers
to develop and assess mediation activities.
We used one of two activities at the beginning of the teacher training sessions, depending on the session.

Awareness raising and teacher education Page 205

ACTIVITY A
As teacher trainers, we strongly believe in experiential learning or learning by doing, so we decided that a usefulapproach to introduce teachers to the concept of mediation was to set up a real-life scenario where they could act
as mediators. This allowed us to move from hands-on practice to conceptualisation of the mediation construct.
In order to engage teachers in the activity, an educational setting was chosen. All teachers were presented withthe following scenario:
You have been invited to attend a meeting at your school, where a controversial measure is going to be
discussed. As a consequence of the publication of the CEFR Companion volume, the board of directors ofyour school has decided to introduce mediation activities (both intralinguistic and cross-linguistic) in classes,
so that teachers and students may use L1 or any other common language in the foreign language classes.
This is a dramatic departure from one of the cast-iron rules of the school until now, namely the ban on L1 usein the L2 classroom
Teachers were then divided into three groups. Each group was assigned a different role (A: School Board members;
B: Teachers against the use of L1; and C: Undecided teachers) and given a set of different instructions.
f Group A had to read a relevant paragraph from the CEFR Companion volume in English, and summarise
it, in Spanish, for inclusion in the school’s website.
f Group B were shown an adapted text by Zojer (2009: 31-52) on the dangers of introducing L1 in the L2classroom and had to contribute more reasons not to introduce L1.
f Group C were in charge of trying to narrow the gap between members of Group A and Group C at a meeting
which was expected to be heated. In order to prepare for this, they anticipated the problems that mightarise and produced a few sentences ready to be used if somebody explained a difficult concept, when
helping two people to reach an agreement and when helping to defuse a delicate situation.
After this preparation phase, teachers were redistributed in groups of three, each group containing a representative of each of the three roles. The new groups then debated for a few minutes about the decision made by
the school board, acting out their roles. Finally, the teachers were asked to reflect on the three different roles
they had been assigned and decide what type of mediation each role had involved, namely, mediating a text
(Processing/Translating a text) for Group A, mediating concepts (Collaborating to construct meaning) for Group B,
and mediating communication (Facilitating communication in delicate situations and disagreements) for Group C.
According to the teachers’ feedback, this activity proved very useful for them to conceptualise mediation as it
helped them move from the concrete to the abstract level. For us, the teacher trainers, this was an activity where
we found ourselves as conceptual mediators: we collaborated to construct meaning, we managed interaction
when needed and we encouraged conceptual talk.

ACTIVITY B
This activity was created with shorter sessions in mind (if adapted, it is also suitable for online training) and, aswith the previous task, it was designed to help teachers start conceptualising mediation by being exposed todifferent mediation activities by means of a scenario.
In small groups, teachers had to read the following communicative situations and discuss what they all had incommon.
a. One of your English-speaking friends wants to visit your hometown in Spain. He has read the town council’s
official website, in Spanish, but does not understand all the information provided about [...]. Write an email
to your friend providing him with the relevant information from the website.
b. You are about to watch a video in your science class. Jot down the most relevant information to pass it on
to a classmate who has not been able to attend class today.
c. Here is an infographic on the importance of group work for primary school pupils taken from a professional
journal for teachers. Write a summary of the information it provides, bearing in mind that the target readersof your summary will be primary school children.
d. In groups of three (A, B and C). A and B have opposed opinions on how to do a project for the history class.
C does not have a set opinion on how to go about it, but would like to start working on the project as soon
as possible. C takes part in the discussion to help A and B to reach a compromise.

Page 206 3 Enriching 21st-century language education

e. In groups of five, you are going to work on a task (e.g. put in the correct order the different paragraphsthat make up a text). The teacher will give the answers to one of the members of the group. The role ofthis member is to check whether the other members’ responses match the information provided by theteacher.
f. Your younger sister has to prepare a presentation on the water cycle for her science class in a foreign
language. You studied it many years ago. Help her prepare the presentation by writing a summary in theforeign language concerned of the main information in her Science book.
As mentioned above, the goal of this activity was to help teachers start conceptualising linguistic mediation by
detecting three main characteristics in these different situations, namely:f A focus on the communicative needs of others instead of (only) the language user’s own needs.
f The presence of a “communicative triangle”. If reception and production activities can be represented bya one-dimensional dot, and interaction by a two-ends line, mediation is best represented by a triangle(see Figure 13.1). In other words, in a mediation activity, three components are always necessary: e.g.
a) two interlocutors and a mediator-interpreter; b) a source text, a receiver and a mediator; c) a piece ofknowledge, someone attempting to access or co-construct this knowledge and a mediator facilitating
this process.
Figure 13.1: Geometrical shapes illustrating the four communicative language activities

Reception
Production

Interaction

Mediation

f An impediment or obstacle of sorts must be present which prevents partial or total communication,
mutual understanding or co-construction of knowledge taking place, in order to be overcome by the
mediator. This obstacle may be caused by various factors: a difficulty in accessing the linguistic code(either intra- or cross-linguistically); the complexity of the knowledge to be co-constructed; the lack ofinterpersonal skills needed for certain delicate situations and/or disagreement on an important subject,among others.

13.2.2. Exposure to, and analysis of mediation activities(including mediation strategies)
When designing the course, because of the lack of materials available, we decided that the teacher training
sessions should include some ready-to-use examples of mediation activities which they could use as they wereor as templates for their classes.
In a workshop format, teachers were exposed to a number of fully developed mediation tasks (typically between
10 and 15). Each task was introduced by a box indicating the task’s name, objective, CEFR 2001 level, contents,
classroom interactions, language(s) involved, communicative activities and mediation strategies used. Individuallyor in pairs, teachers had to decide:a. What kind of linguistic mediation occurs (intralinguistic or cross-linguistic)? Intentionally, this was notalways straightforward;b. Which type of mediation (written or oral) is involved in the task;c. Whether the task is suitable for the classroom only or also for summative assessment (e.g. end-of-yearexam).
Here are two of those activities (below).

Awareness raising and teacher education Page 207

ACTIVITY C
Name: Describing an infographic.
Learning outcome: To orally describe an infographic; take notes to summarise it.
Level: As per the difficulty of the infographic.
Contents: As per the infographic.
Classroom interaction: Pair work.
Language combination: Intra / Cross-linguistic mediation.
Communicative activities: Reading, Spoken production, Listening + Written / Oral mediation: Mediating a text
(Explaining data, Note-taking).
Mediation strategies: Streamlining a text, Selecting the relevant information.
Suitable for: Classroom practice / Assessment / Both classroom practice and assessment.
Student A: Explain to Student B, in Spanish, the information contained in the following infographics, which are
in English.
Student B: Your English is poor so Student A will tell you, in Spanish, what the infographics say. Take notes of theinformation your classmate gives you. After s/he has finished, summarise the information for him/her to checkthat you have understood it correctly.

ACTIVITY D
Name: Knowledge Bank.
Learning outcome: Students teach specific skills to their classmates.
Level: From B1.
Contents: Based on the skills chosen by the students.
Classroom interaction: Co-operative learning.
Language combination: Intra / Cross-linguistic mediation.
Communicative activities: Listening, Speaking and Interacting + Written / Oral mediation: Mediating a text
(Processing text), Mediating concepts (Encouraging conceptual talk).
Mediation strategies: Breaking down complicated information, Linking to previous knowledge, Helping toreformulate difficult information, Helping to detect lack of coherence.
Suitable for: Classroom practice / Assessment /Both Classroom practice and Assessment.
Phase 1 (Get ready): Choose something you do well that is outside the academic world and, as homework, getready to teach it in the foreign language to your classmates. You can watch online tutorials or read about it in
the foreign language. Here you have some examples of the things you can prepare:f How to sort your clothes in your wardrobe
f Yoga for beginners
f How to take good pictures at night or in dark places
f Replacing a bike chainf How to unclog the kitchen sinkf Making organic compost
f How to create a Doodle pollf Zumba basic moves
Phase 2 (Teach): Explain your ability to one of your classmates interested in it. Here you have some questions
you may use to help you explain your ability by linking it to what your classmate thinks or knows about it:f Why are you interested in learning to do this?
f Have you ever learned or been trained to do it?
f What do you think may be more difficult about this ability?

Page 208 3 Enriching 21st-century language education

Phase 3 (Help teaching): After you have finished explaining your ability, your classmate will teach it to the wholeclass. Help him/her during his/her explanation whenever s/he needs assistance.
Further to these and other typical tasks based on the scales in the CEFR Companion volume, we showed otheractivities such as interpreting (cross-linguistically) for celebrities, audio-describing (i.e. describing for the blind) a TVcommercial, subtitling a clip (both intra and cross-linguistically), etc. With these examples, we tried to impress on
the teachers that the scope for mediation should not be limited to the examples described in the CEFR Companion
volume Appendix (2018: Appendix 6; 2020: Appendix 5) as long as the communicative context, the obstacle
preventing communication, the needs of the mediation recipients and the role of the mediator are clearly set out.

13.2.3. Guide to design mediation activities
When we were analysing the initial needs of teachers, one of the most common comments was the need for some
sort of guidance for them to develop mediation activities. We thought it would be convenient and desirable forteachers to have a step-by-step guide which they could use when making their own activities, so we mirrored
the process we had used ourselves when creating our activities. In our training sessions, we used this guidejust before asking the teachers to team up and create mediation activities. As a pre-task activity, we created asorting activity, Activity E here.

ACTIVITY E
Here you have a list of steps you can follow when creating a mediation task. In groups, discuss what order you
would follow and number the steps 1-8). The first step has already been marked.
Choose whether the mediation task will be conducted intra or cross-linguistically. When relevant, determine the differences in register or variety involved.
Decide on the level of difficulty of the input (if any) based on whether you want to test both reception
and production or only production.
Design the actual task using authentic materials or materials that promote genuine interaction withstudents when receiving or producing them.
Identify the mediation skills and strategies needed to carry out the mediation task before trialling it withstudents.
Choose the type of mediation activities relevant for your students based on their future needs whenusing the language.

1

Pilot the task and check students’ output to identify unforeseen mediation strategies which can help
fine-tune the communicative situation of the task for future implementations.
Select the appropriate text genre and discourse environment (personal, public, occupational or educational) from Appendix 6 in the CEFR Companion volume.
If students need to select specific information as part of the mediation activity when mediating a text,
decide what specific information is relevant to the communicative situation by means of text-mapping
sessions with other colleagues.

13.2.4. Activities for reflecting on how to assess mediation
Given the recent regulations affecting EOIs, assessing mediation was a crucial issue for our trainees. Consequently,
we designed some teacher training activities around this aspect, which were in turn revised and improved after
each session at the EOIs.

ACTIVITY F
Before tackling how to assess actual samples of mediation tasks, we asked the course attendees to discuss theweight (if any) that was usually given to formative assessment in their courses and how this was actually carriedout (e.g. diagnostics tests, class activities, portfolios, self-assessment, peer assessment). After this, we asked theattendees to classify the mediation activities we had seen earlier in the session into two groups: those whichwere more suitable for formative assessment and those which were more suitable for summative assessment.
Afterwards, we asked the teachers to reflect on what types of mediation activities they would consider more
appropriate for formative assessment as opposed to summative or accreditation assessment and to record theirconclusions by filling in Table 13.1 (below).
Awareness raising and teacher education Page 209

Table 13.1: Mediation tasks for assessment
Mediation tasks for formative assessment

Mediation tasks for summative assessment

Quite frequently, the teachers concluded that all types of mediation tasks could be useful for formative assessment,
whereas a more restricted choice of tasks was usually displayed for summative assessment, for which teachers
cited the following issues as problematic:
f The difficulty of introducing cross-linguistic mediation if all the students do not share the same L1 orcommon language.
f Logistics issues for exams, such as not being able to set up oral mediation tasks involving more than two
interlocutors.
f The perceived difficulty in coming up with reliable criteria definitions to assess some mediation activities,
namely Facilitating pluricultural space or Collaborating to construct meaning.
With regard to the last point, a related issue concerned the question of weighting the different criteria used.
What percentage of the overall marks should be allocated to each criterion? This issue was the subject of thenext activity, shown here as Activity G.

ACTIVITY G
We asked the course attendees to fill in Table 13.2 with the percentages they thought would be ideal for thefollowing criteria, when designing an effective exam. The weightings ranged from assessing all three components (e.g. Task Fulfilment: 40%, Language Qualitative Aspects: 40%, Comprehension: 20%) when receptive andproductive skills (Speaking or Writing) are assessed in an integrated fashion, to no weighting at all assigned
to comprehension if it is assessed as part of another component of the exam (e.g. Task Fulfilment: 60% andLanguage Qualitative Aspects: 40%). This prompted the teachers to discuss the fairness and suitability of theirchosen percentages in order to agree on one most suitable for mediation activities. We must add here that the
majority of the teachers involved did not have a say in the design of the exams; however, a proportion of teachers
did in fact decide on the test construct, so very relevant discussions ensued.
Table 13.2: Examination criteria
If assessing skills
togetherIf assessing skills
separately

Input Reception
Reading or Listening
Language Qualitative Aspects of Output
Coherence and cohesion, accuracy, vocabulary range,spelling, pronunciation, etc. [Choice of aspects basedon the nature of the mediation activity]
Task Fulfilment
How effective the mediator is in mediating between thesource text and the receiver, the two interlocutors, thegroup members, etc.
[Choice of task fulfilment criteria based on the natureof the mediation activity]

ACTIVITY H
To test whether the commonly agreed weighting was correct, we designed different marking sheets by including
descriptors from the CEFR Companion volume from the scales updated from 2001 and from the new scales(see Figure 13.2). By doing so, we wanted to stress the fact that the new descriptors appearing in the CEFR
Companion volume add to the descriptors from 2001, complementing them and enriching the overall set,rather than replacing them.

Page 210 3 Enriching 21st-century language education

Figure 13.2: Sample of analytic marking sheet including descriptors for assessing a mediation task (Relaying
specific information in writing)Language: SPANISH CEFR Level: B1

Date: �������������������������������

Student: ABC123456

Intra. / Cross.
If cross-linguistic, language of reception: …………………………………….
Mediating a text / concepts / communication
TASK: To explain orally, in Spanish, to a fried learning the language, the content of an email about a given service
provided by your friend’s language school

0-2.9 3-4.9 5-5.9 6-5.9 8-10

MARKING CRITERIA
1. Task fulfilment and use of mediation strategies
Can paraphrase more simply the main points made in short, straightforward
spoken or written texts on familiar subjects (e.g. short magazine articles,interviews) to make the contents accessible for others. (CEFR/CV, p. 120).
Can transfer the relevant information. Can take into account the needs ofthe receiver. Can distance him/herself from the original text to adapt theperspective, tone, structure, etc. to the communicative situation.
2. Coherence and Cohesion
Can link a series of shorter, discrete simple elements into a connected,
linear sequence of points. (CEFR, p. 125)
3. Grammatical accuracy
Uses reasonably accurately a repertoire of frequently used ‘routines’
and patterns associated with more predictable situations. (CEFR, p. 114)
4. Vocabulary range
Has a sufficient vocabulary to express him/herself with some circumlocutions on most topics pertinent to his/her everyday life such as family,
hobbies and interests, work, travel, and current events. (CEFR, p. 112)
5. Phonological control
Pronunciation is clearly intelligible even if a foreign accent is sometimes
evident and occasional mispronunciations occur. (CEFR, p. 117)
6. Spoken fluency
Can keep going comprehensibly, even though pausing for grammaticaland lexical planning and repair is very evident, especially in longer
stretches of free production. (CEFR, p. 129)First Marker Comments:

First Marker Grade:

Second Marker Comments:

Second Marker Grade:
AGREED GRADE:

We then showed a selection of real samples of students’ work, which the teachers had to assess and selectthe best. They were asked to undertake this task twice: first selecting according to language quality, then,for the second round, according to success of the mediation and the use of mediation strategies. The results
were far from surprising: when teachers were asked to rate the samples exclusively in terms of language
quality, the vast majority of teachers chose the same sample(s) whereas when asked to rate the samples
in terms of the success of the mediation and use of strategies (that is, task fulfilment), different samples
were selected.

Awareness raising and teacher education Page 211

The final task of the teacher training sessions was to design a mediation activity based on all that had been
explored in the sessions. This way, teachers were able to implement all the methodological strategies and skills
they had gained, and they did this co-operatively because they were instructed to work in small groups.
We decided to focus on one level (B1) and one domain (Personal), but we explained that there were descriptors and examples for practically all levels and domains in the CEFR Companion volume.

ACTIVITY I
Two or three cards similar to Figure 13.3 were distributed among the various groups of teachers in preparation
for the activity, in which they would design their own mediation activity. Each group had to choose one card
and agree on a communicative context where mediation could occur.
Figure 13.3: Preparation card
MEDIATING A TEXT
Relaying specific information in speech
DESCRIPTORS: Can relay (in Language B) specific information given in straightforward informational texts(such as leaflets, brochure entries, notices and letters or emails) written in Language A.
EXAMPLES: Leaflets, brochures, guidebooks, websites, the details of a housing agreement.
(CEFR Companion volume, 2018: 191; 2020: 199)
To help them devise the activity in a clear manner, we also provided them with an empty template (see Figure13.4) for them to fill in. The template followed the pattern of the 10 to 15 activities used in the first part of the
training session.
Figure 13.4: Activity template
Name of the activity:
Date:
Authors:
Language(s):Level:
Domain:Mediating a text/concept/communication
Learning outcome(s):Contents:
Class interaction(s):Communicative activities:
Mediation strategies:
Descriptors for assessment:

Page 212 3 Enriching 21st-century language education

Description of the activity(including interactions)13.3. DISCUSSION
13.3.1. Impact of training sessions
During the teacher training sessions conducted as part of this case study, we had the opportunity to see andtalk to about 200 language teachers and assessors. Although we do not have exact figures, we were told by
the organising schools that we reached approximately 200 participants: about 25 in Tudela, 55 in Navarra, 80 in
two sessions in Bilbao and 40 in Santander. Because we were conscious of suffering course evaluation fatigue,
we relied on the schools hosting the sessions to hand out their official feedback forms while we paid heed tothe comments made by participants during our plenary sessions, workshops and even during more informal
times, such as coffee breaks. However, only two of the schools collected formal data, which they passed on tous. In the first teacher trainer session, 16 feedback forms were collected and in the second session, 36 feedback
forms were collected.
Overall satisfaction was high in both sessions (8.69/10 in the first one, and 7.97/10 in the second one).
Those teachers who volunteered to expand on the experience of the course made positive comments about
the content including: materials and activities (12 comments); the quality of the trainers and the course (10);the relevance of the training (4); the opportunity to discuss with other colleagues (1); and the inclusion ofassessment (1).
With regard to the negative aspects, the timing and space of the sessions were clearly the aspects that theteachers thought could be improved the most: some explicitly mentioned the intensity of the course (i.e.
too much content in such a short time) as a negative factor (7 comments); others mentioned too many hours
in one day (5 comments), time distribution (3), too few hours (2) and too many hours (1). Space was also
given a negative score (6). Time (e.g. dates, number of days, number of hours, etc.) and space (e.g. choice ofrooms) were ultimately decided by the organising schools so we had little responsibility for this. However,there were some negative comments about the content and delivery of the course which we took on board:
educational content not clearly specified or addressed (2 comments); mediation assessment not clear (2);mediation assessment marking criteria and marking sheets needed (1); lack of practical activities (1); toomuch theory (1).

13.3.2. Conclusions drawn from the training sessions
Based on our own perceptions during the training sessions, we also drew some conclusions which may contributeto the professional development of the (EOI) teachers involved when faced with the task of implementing the
new mediation construct in their educational setting. These include:
a. More intensive and closer co-operation between EOIs in Spain in order to come up with common learning
policies and assessment instruments for mediation;b. An ongoing teacher training plan for teachers to learn about skills and strategies to teach and assess mediation; andc. Careful monitoring of the impact that the implementation of mediation tasks has, both in classrooms andin accreditation exams, including statistical analysis of inter- and intra-rater reliability (the consistencyof results rated by different people, and by the same person on different occasions, respectively) whenassessing mediation by means of the marking criteria developed, and correlation analysis to determine towhat extent mediation tasks are assessing the same aspects as speaking or writing tasks.

13.4. CONCLUSION
The initial training sessions taken as the basis for this case study have been an invaluable tool for us to meetteachers and learn first-hand how mediation is trickling down from the CEFR Companion volume to practice inclassrooms. It is obvious that teaching a language is not something one learns once and then implements in
one’s practice: tools, strategies and methods learned in initial teacher training need to be revised and updated
continuously. This is more pressing when teachers are required to include in their practice, and to assess, anarguably new language activity: mediation in this case.
We have identified that there is still work to be carried out to dispel misconceptions about how to fit mediation
into language learning. For instance, there is some complacency among teachers who say they use mediationin their classes, because their concept of mediation may have coincided with that in the CEFR 2001, but they did
not seem to have grasped entirely the wider concept of mediation in the CEFR Companion volume.

Awareness raising and teacher education Page 213

As expected, a high number of teachers still equate mediation to translation and/or, even more worryingly, totheir own language instruction. Further work is needed in this area, firstly because teachers are worried (possibly
wrongly) that the use of cross-linguistic mediation impinges on L2, and secondly since teachers may lack theconfidence to engage in cross-linguistic mediation, sometimes because of the misconception that teachers
who do so must be bilingual.
Because the revised scope of mediation is so recent, teachers understandably require access to good quality
material (activities, lesson plans, etc.) that they can use or adapt for their classes, particularly activities related
to mediation of concepts and of communication, as these are the newest forms. Publishers, in particular, areadvised to include mediation tasks in their students’ course books (and thus in the teachers’ books).
It was obvious when we started to design the teacher training sessions that the design of a one-size-fits-all
training session was a pipe dream since each education setting is different; the content and design of mediation
tasks must be adapted to each situation. Therefore, our aim was to design and work with a bank of activities that
could be adapted depending on the length, timing and space available for the training session, the number ofparticipants, the educational setting and any particular requirements by the organising school.
Training in mediation is a work in progress and further research by and interaction between all agents (teachers,
teacher trainers, scholars, examining boards, authorities, authors, publishers, etc.) is needed to continue developing it. However, since teachers are usually the first point of contact between a student and the language theylearn, we believe our most pressing efforts should be particularly focused on how to provide and encourage
training that allows teachers to be truly confident and proficient in their work.

REFERENCES
Council of Europe (2001), Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: learning, teaching, assessment,
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, available at www.coe.int/en/web/common-european-­frameworkreference-languages, accessed 23 August 2021.
Council of Europe (2018), “Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: learning, teaching, assessment. Companion volume with new descriptors”, Council of Europe, Strasbourg, available at https://rm.coe.int/
cefr-companion-volume-with-new-descriptors-2018/1680787989, accessed 23 August 2021.
Council of Europe (2020), Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: learning, teaching, assessment – Companion volume, Council of Europe, Strasbourg, available at https://rm.coe.int/common-european-­framework-of-reference-for-languages-learning-teaching/16809ea0d4, accessed 22 August 2021.
Zojer H. (2009), “The methodological potential of translation in second language acquisition: re-evaluatingtranslation as a teaching tool”, in Witte A., Harden T. and Ramos A. (eds), Translation in second language learningand teaching, Peter Lang, Oxford, pp. 31-52.

Page 214 3 Enriching 21st-century language education

Chapter 14
REPRESENTATIONS OF MEDIATIONIN FOREIGN LANGUAGE EDUCATION:
AN EXPLORATORY CASE STUDY WITH
DIFFERENT STAKEHOLDERS IN HAMBURG
Sílvia Melo-Pfeifer and Christian Helmchen, University of Hamburg, Germany

ABSTRACTTo understand the transformative potential of the new descriptors in the field of mediation and to analyse
how mediation has come to be perceived as a paradigm shift in (foreign) language learning and teaching, an
exploratory case study was developed in Hamburg. Different stakeholders in the domains of language teaching
and teacher education in Hamburg were approached through an online questionnaire. Four target groups wereconsulted: teacher educators (two participants), trainee teachers and in-service teachers (nine participants);
authors of textbooks (two participants); and persons responsible for curriculum design and implementation(two participants). The aims of our case study were:f to grasp the commonalities and differences between various stakeholders’ representations of mediation,
especially its introduction in school settings;
f to understand the potential of mediation descriptors as heuristic tools to analyse and compare stakeholders’perspectives and beliefs about mediation.
Firstly, a questionnaire including open and closed questions was conceived, including the following elements:
f personal data on informants, including professional situation and years of experience;f personal definition of mediation (in the domains of language teaching and teacher education);f previous and current professional practices involving mediation;f their representations of the added value of the inclusion of mediation in textbooks and in classroom practices, in terms of foreign language learning and teaching.
In a second phase, following a content analysis approach, answers were categorised using the dimensions ofmediation (and their subcategories) described in the CEFR Companion volume (Council of Europe 2018, 2020).
Other aspects, such as perception of added value or difficulties in modelling mediation in classroom practicewere analysed through content analysis in a subsequent phase of the analytical work. The results point towards:
1. a crystallisation of two main activities of mediation (mediating communication and mediating a text) as
paradigmatic in foreign language education and a partial understanding of both;
2. difficulties in the apprehension of mediation activities and their reduction to strategies to simplify a text;
3. differing perceptions of the weight and value of mediation across and within stakeholders, with teachers
and authors of textbooks perceiving it more critically; and4. the role of (top-down) instructions and documents in the operationalisation of mediation in language
teaching and learning scenarios (at a school level).

RÉSUMÉ
Pour comprendre le potentiel d’innovation des nouveaux descripteurs de la médiation et la façon dont celle-ci
s’est établie comme signe d’un changement de paradigme dans l’enseignement et l’apprentissage de langues (étrangères), nous avons développé à Hambourg une étude de cas exploratoire. Nous avons interviewé
plusieurs acteurs engagés dans l’enseignement-apprentissage de langues par le biais d’un questionnaire
envoyé par e-mail. Nous avons consulté quatre groupes spécifiques : des formateurs d’enseignants (deuxparticipants), des enseignants (en stage et en service – neuf au total), des auteurs de manuels de langues

Page 215

(deux participants) ainsi que des acteurs responsables du design et de la mise en œuvre du curriculum delangues (deux participants). Les buts de cette étude étaient :f analyser les différences et les similitudes au niveau de la perception que les acteurs avaient de la médiation
quant à son intégration scolaire ;f comprendre le potentiel des descripteurs de la médiation comme outils heuristiques pour analyser etcomparer les perspectives et les croyances des acteurs quant à la médiation.
Dans un premier temps, nous avons développé un questionnaire comprenant des réponses ouvertes et fermées,
incluant des questions sur les éléments suivants :f données personnelles, telles que la situation professionnelle et les années d’expérience professionnelle ;f définition personnelle de la médiation (dans les domaines de l’enseignement-apprentissage des langues
et de la formation des enseignants) ;f pratiques professionnelles autour de la médiation ;f représentations sur la valeur ajoutée de l’inclusion de la médiation dans les manuels et dans les cours delangues, en termes d’enseignement et d’apprentissage de la langue étrangère.
Dans un second temps, à travers l’analyse du contenu, les réponses des acteurs ont été catégorisées selon lesdimensions (et sous-catégories) de la médiation, suivant le modèle proposé par le Volume complémentaire du
CECR (Conseil de l’Europe 2018, 2020). D’autres aspects, notamment la perception de la valeur ajoutée ou desdifficultés de mise en œuvre de la médiation dans des pratiques concrètes de salle de classe, ont été analyséspar le biais de l’analyse du contenu et des catégories émergeant des données. Nos résultats montrent :1. la cristallisation de deux activités principales de médiation (médiation de la communication et médiationd’un texte) comme paradigmatiques en classe de langue étrangère ;2. des difficultés à appréhender les activités de médiation et leur réduction à des stratégies pour simplifier
un texte ;3. des perceptions divergentes concernant le poids et la valeur de la médiation parmi les acteurs, les enseignants et les concepteurs de manuels énonçant des positions plus critiques ; et4. le rôle des instructions et des documents top-down dans la mise en œuvre de scénarios de médiation dansl’enseignement et l’apprentissage de langues (en contexte scolaire).

14.1. INTRODUCTION
In the present study, the authors support the view that, in foreign language teaching and learning, mediation has
a transformative potential, which relates to the fact that learners come to be perceived as much more than merelearners: the learner is perceived as a social agent, acknowledging the social, affective and cognitive dimensionsof learning a language in order to actively participate in plurilingual and intercultural communicative situations
where co-construction of meaning is indispensable. Thus:
Interaction is not just the sum of reception and production, but introduces a new factor: the co-construction of meaning. Mediation integrates and takes this further by underlining the constant link between the social and individual
dimensions in language use and learning. Although the CEFR does not develop the concept of mediation fully, itemphasises the two key notions of co-construction of meaning in interaction and constant movement between theindividual and social level in language learning, mainly through its vision of the user/learner as a social agent (Piccardo2012). (North and Piccardo 2017: 84)

Mediation has been given a lot of attention in language education and teacher training across Europe (Araújo
e Sá et al. 2014; Curcio et al. 2015; North and Piccardo 2016a; Piccardo and North 2019), but different countries
have had different agendas for its inclusion in teacher training programmes, in the language syllabus and inteaching materials. In their synthesis of the ways that mediation has been apprehended, North and Piccardo
concluded that “mediation has tended to be reduced to interpretation and translation” (North and Piccardo
2016a: 5; also Piccardo and North 2019). They further explain:
Many people appear to associate mediation in the CEFR solely as cross-linguistic mediation – usually conveying theinformation given in a text, and to reduce it to some form of (more or less professional) translation and interpretation.
Where mediation has been included in curricula and examinations, it tends to involve informal interpretation/translationor summary of a text – written or spoken – in one language into another language. (idem: 6-7)

This is precisely the case in Germany, where mediation (Sprachmittlung, literally “linguistic mediation”) is wellestablished in foreign language teacher education programmes, in the foreign language syllabus, in classroom
practices and certifications, and in textbooks (Melo-Pfeifer and Schröder-Sura 2018; Reimann and Rössler 2013).

Page 216 3 Enriching 21st-century language education

Furthermore, it is a timely topic in academic research (Curcio et al. 2015; Melo-Pfeifer and Schröder-Sura 2018;
Reimann and Rössler 2013). This makes Germany an interesting context in which to analyse the permeability forchanges in the conceptualisation and evaluation of mediation and the way it may or may not change practices
already established (Melo-Pfeifer and Schröder-Sura 2019).
In Germany, two competence models for learning and teaching foreign languages have been produced in thepast 15 years, mediation being fully taken into account in both those models (KMK 2004 and KMK 2012). In
the 2003/4 competence model (for the first phase of secondary education), mediation is the ability to transfer
the meaning of coherent utterances and texts from one language to another, either orally or through written
productions (KMK 2004). In the most recent competence model, from 2012 (for the second phase of secondary
education), mediation is one of the five functional communicative competences, alongside oral and written
production and reception. In the formulation of this document, mediation is the ability “to restore/reconstruct
the most important aspects from authentic oral and written texts in another language, both orally and in written productions, according to the recipient and the communicative situation, including less familiar themes”(KMK 2012: 18; our translation). We can detect some traits of the reduction identified by North and Piccardo
regarding the way mediation was apprehended in several educational contexts: it relates mainly to the transfer
of information from one language to another, written or orally.
On the other side, the CEFR Companion volume defines mediation as follows:
In mediation, the user/learner acts as a social agent who creates bridges and helps to construct or convey meaning,sometimes within the same language, sometimes from one language to another (cross-linguistic mediation). The focus
is on the role of language in processes like creating the space and conditions for communicating and/or learning,collaborating to construct new meaning, encouraging others to construct or understand new meaning, and passing
on new information in an appropriate form. The context can be social, pedagogic, cultural, linguistic or professional.
(Council of Europe 2018: 103; 2020: 90)

In this redefinition, mediation is seen “as being at the core of knowledge construction, the key to accessing
meaning and enabling access to meaning, both at the social, when mediating with or for other, and at theindividual, cognitive level” (Piccardo and North 2019: 231). In this perspective, the concept is understood in
consonance with sociocultural and socio-constructive theories.
This means that, at the time of launching the CEFR Companion volume, actors in educational settings in Germany
had already developed their ideas: i) of what mediation is (or could be); ii) of what it looks like in terms of classroom practices and teaching materials; and iii) about the relevance of mediation in foreign language learningand teaching. Since ideas have an impact on how innovation and new approaches are interpreted, accepted andintegrated (or at least accommodated) in the classroom, it is important to tackle how actors, in different fields ofaction, perceive mediation, are willing to integrate its new dimensions and will deal with its new descriptors intheir practices. Indeed, conceiving integration of “mediation” in linguistic education as a collective endeavour, it
is important to analyse the question of its social representations across different actors in order to understand,for example, commonalities but also mixed messages circulating in the same spaces. To the best of our knowledge, such a study has not been carried out. This explains why we have decided to choose different actors, withdifferent positions and responsibilities, as expert informants.
We interviewed 15 stakeholders (10 female, four male and one indicating a third gender):f two language teacher educators;
f nine language teachers (English, French and Spanish);f two authors of textbooks;
f two persons responsible for foreign language curriculum design and implementation.
The language teacher educators were between 37 and 70 years of age (m = 53.5) and reported work experienceof between 7 and 40 years (m = 23.5); the language teachers were between 24 and 49 years of age (m = 35.75;
one missing value) with work experience of between 0.5 and 16 years (m = 8.31; one missing value); the textbook
authors were between 40 and 65 years of age (one had 35 years of work experience; the other did not answer);
the curriculum experts were between 51 and 64 years of age and reported work experience of between 20 and
35 years (m = 27.5). Participants were from the German states of Hamburg, Lower Saxony, North Rhine-Westphalia
and Schleswig-Holstein, but all currently working in Hamburg. They were contacted via email and asked to fillout an attached questionnaire and send it back.
Finally, since social representations depend on the subject and the context in which the subject circulates,
being associated with professional practices and working cultures in specific domains, we decided to limit thecomparative study to actors dealing with modern foreign languages. We did not include, for example, heritage

Awareness raising and teacher education Page 217

or second languages, using the expression “second language learning” in the sense (common in Europe) of
language learning by immigrants in an acquisition-rich environment.
A main goal of the present case study was therefore to observe how far the understanding of mediation alreadyintegrates the ideas of students as social agents, who will need to co-construct meaning in intercultural andmultilingual situations, making mediation a fundamental skill.

14.2. PROJECT DESCRIPTIONThis study assumes an exploratory nature, aiming to diagnose the Hamburg stakeholders’ current understandingof the concept of mediation and their attitudes to it, and, if necessary, to come up with new questions to further
research the observed phenomena.
We collected a total of 15 written open interviews between February and April 2019, which we analysed throughcontent and discourse analysis. For content analysis (Maxwell and Chmiel 2014), tokens of the answers wereclassified according to their thematic unity and coherence around the categories that we took from the CEFR
Companion volume. Therefore, in subjects’ definitions of mediation, we followed the distinction between“mediation activities” (Table 14.1) and “mediation strategies” (Table 14.2), classifying participants’ utterances
according to the categories and subcategories shown in these two tables.
Table 14.1: Mediation activities
Categories

Mediating a text

Mediating concepts

Mediatingcommunication

Subcategories
Relaying specific information in speech/writing
Explaining data in speech/writing
Processing text in speech/writing
Translating
Note-taking
Expressing a personal response to creative texts (including literature)
Analysis and criticism of creative texts (including literature)
Facilitating collaborative interaction with peers
Collaborating in a group
Collaborating to construct meaning
Managing interaction
Leading group work
Encouraging conceptual talkFacilitating pluricultural space
Acting as an intermediary in informal situations
Facilitating communication in delicate situations and disagreements

Categories from the CEFR Companion volume (Council of Europe 2020).

In terms of mediation strategies (Table 14.2), it is necessary to note that the subcategories “Linking to previous
knowledge”, “Breaking down complicated information” and “Adapting language” relate to both categories,“Strategies to explain a new concept” and “Strategies to simplify a text” (Piccardo and North 2019: 233).
Table 14.2: Mediation strategies
Categories
Strategies to explain a new concept

Strategies to simplify a text

Subcategories
Linking to previous knowledge
Breaking down complicated information
Adapting language
Amplifying a dense text
Streamlining a text
Linking to previous knowledge
Breaking down complicated information
Adapting language

Categories from the CEFR Companion volume (Council of Europe 2020).

Page 218 3 Enriching 21st-century language education

Our choice of methodology was important in order to identify which dimensions were most salient in participants’
answers and those that were less well covered or even absent. Our content analysis thus had both a quantitative and a qualitative nature: a focus on what is said (quantitative: dimensions being categorised following thedimensions and sub-dimensions of mediation presented in the CEFR Companion volume) and how it is said(qualitative). With regard to the latter, a focus on the discursive dimension (e.g. word and formulation choices)
was very important in our context in order to identify aspects related to personal convictions, incertitude anddoubts, as well as perceptions of shared positions, namely discursive elements that clarify social representations.
In order to clarify stakeholders’ perceptions, we reproduce and discuss below informants’ discourses, basedon the saliency and representability of those excerpts relative to the relevance of mediation, wishes for future
development and challenges regarding implementation.

14.3. DISCUSSION
The quantitative and qualitative analysis of teachers’ answers, numerically more significant, provides theobservation of an unbalanced distribution of utterances across the three mediation activities, showing themain understanding of teachers’ perceptions as being attached to plurilingual and intercultural communication (Table 14.3).
Table 14.3: Teachers’ perceptions of mediation activities
Categories

Mediating a text

Mediatingconcepts
Mediatingcommunication

Subcategories

Occurrences

Relaying specific information in speech/writing

10

Explaining data in speech/writing

1

Processing text in speech/writing

5

Translating

12

Note-taking

0

Expressing a personal response to creative texts (including
literature)1

Analysis and criticism of creative texts (including literature)

0

-

Total

29

(1)

Facilitating pluricultural space

17

Acting as an intermediary in informal situations

8

Facilitating communication in delicate situations anddisagreements

429This table clearly shows that the category “mediating concepts” is absent from teachers’ answers. This may
be explained by the presence of a strong discourse around the other two dimensions, “mediating a text” and“mediating communication”, in educational foreign language policies and textbooks in Germany, and also by
the fact that “mediating concepts”, as a mediation activity, was until the launching of the CEFR Companion
volume almost unknown in language learning and teaching (or perhaps associated with other concepts, suchas “group work”). And indeed, if we look at the answers of the other stakeholders, the same tendencies may
be observed. While the questionnaire with those responsible for curriculum design shows one occurrence that
could be classified under “mediating concepts”, the same dimension was absent from the answers of teacher
educators and textbook authors.
Even if “mediating a text” is commonly acknowledged as a mediating activity, only two of its seven subcategories are salient: “relaying specific information in speech/writing” and “translating”, activities that are commonly
recognised in official documents and discourses about mediation in Germany. Activities such as “note-taking”
and “analysis and criticism of creative texts” obtain no mention, and “explaining data” and “expressing a personal
response to creative texts” get only one mention each. It is possible to hypothesise that, since these activities
do not mandatorily imply contact with and active use of two languages (that is, such activities can be intralinguistic in nature), they may challenge a perception of mediation as being connected to multilingual situations.
The association of mediation with literary texts also does not seem noticeable. The following definitions are
representative of the two main categories that respondents chose.

Awareness raising and teacher education Page 219

[Relaying specific information in speech/writing:] ... to select interesting information and possibly provide further
explanations, in case the addressee does not know or understand something (due to cultural differences)! (Teacher 3)[Translation:] Tasks usually require a written translation of text passages. I have always let the students solve thesetasks verbally. (Teacher 1)

Mediating communication is mainly perceived in terms of facilitating a plurilingual and pluricultural space
and is commonly linked to the role of the intermediary in informal plurilingual and intercultural situations (seebelow, Teacher 3). In such situations, different languages and linguistic repertoires come together (Teacher 8),
making it necessary or indispensable to adapt language production to the situation (Teacher educator 2), sinceinteraction may be subject to misunderstandings and conflicts between participants (Teacher 4):
Mediating between people with different linguistic and cultural backgrounds. (Teacher 3)
Person A speaks Spanish, for example, person B only speaks German and person C can speak both languages and act
as a language mediator. (Teacher 8)
Adaptation of an utterance according to content, social, cognitive or stylistic aspects. (Teacher educator 2)
In my opinion, mediation is primarily about the mediation of different interests within a conflict situation. In this sense,
a mediator, i.e. a neutral person, is supposed to lead the conversation and should ensure that all interlocutors are given
an understanding and the necessary respect. (Teacher 4)

Examples of communicative mediation used are rather stereotypical and simplified, following the standard
mediation activities present in textbooks (Teacher 8), even if some position themselves critically towards thestereotypical treatment of mediation in learning materials (Teacher 3):
Example: “You are in Spain with your parents to visit your Spanish host family”. (Teacher 8)
Without task formulations, but with “real” requirements. So, it is best to avoid situations like: “Your French friend, whodoes not understand German, has found the following article [why actually?] and wants to know ...”. This is complicatedand not authentic. (Teacher 3).

The main strategies of mediation referred to occur in the subcategories related to “simplify a text” (Table 14.4). If
we take a closer look at the stakeholders’ discourses, when referring to mediation strategies common to “explain
a new concept” and “simplify a text”, they are almost always referring to the explanation of strategies used tosimplify a text:
Information retrieval or delivery strategies are of central importance. (Teacher 2)... filtering, translating and paraphrasing essential content. (Teacher 4)

Table 14.4: Teachers’ perceptions of mediation strategies
Categories
Strategies to explain a new concept

Strategies to simplify a text

Subcategories

Occurrences

Linking to previous knowledge

0

Breaking down complicated information

1

Adapting language

0

Amplifying a dense text0

Streamlining a text

1

Linking to previous knowledge

2

Breaking down complicated information

3

Adapting language

5

Total
1

11

This tendency is again observed in the remaining stakeholders, where the focus on facilitating understandingof oral or written texts is favoured in comparison to the understanding of single concepts (the only example
provided of “explaining a new concept” was the German Strandkorb, by a teacher). A closer analysis of the answers
compiled in Tables 14.3 and 14.4 enables a filtering of the two main ideas: first, the stakeholders have a solid
perception of mediation as being connected to communication in a holistic way, seeing perhaps the explanation of particular concepts as important but not essential to the successful co-construction of intercultural andplurilingual interaction, at least in the school context. Second, subcategories “linking to previous knowledge”,“breaking down complicated information” and “adapting language” are predominantly connected to “strategies
to simplify a text” – thus not at a micro level (words and concepts) but rather at the macro and meso levels (text).
Another observation concerns the fact that “mediation activities” and “mediation strategies” are mostly perceived
in terms of an active and positive disposition to participate in plurilingual and intercultural encounters and seemto be perceived as capable of enhancing students’ savoir-être and savoir-faire skills.

Page 220 3 Enriching 21st-century language education

In the questions about the presence and relevance of mediation in the school context, teachers recognise its
mandatory presence and inescapability in curricular terms:
Due to the specification in the … technical requirements, … presence in the textbooks … and that in the end alllearners have to do mediation in the Abitur. (Teacher 5)
Since mediation … in the Abitur represents a central competence to be examined, it is … practised in different forms
from the beginning. (Teacher 9)

Teachers also acknowledge some problems with mediation tasks in assessment situations:However, in examination situations / class work / written tests, students are quick to translate everything, sometimes
even literally, as they are afraid to overlook “important” aspects. (Teacher 9)

In terms of further development of mediation, two teachers mention the need for developing more materials
and tasks to more clearly show the complexity of mediation, as they recognise the tendency for stereotypicaltreatment of learning activities, for example, in textbooks.
In terms of the weight of mediation in foreign language education, some stakeholders perceive it as possessing
an exaggerated status nowadays. This is visible in the following assertions by one textbook author:
At the moment, in my opinion, mediation is given too much importance that cannot be derived from its importancein post-school communication scenarios. … It would be enough for me if an exam in the S II [secondary school level]
would cover the examination of the mediation competence compulsorily and in the Abitur listening and visual comprehension (not listening comprehension!!!) would be obligatory part of the exam. Thus, mediation would be given
the place which it deserves in my eyes. … A problem that is inherent in a narrowed form of competence orientation,
however, becomes clear here: if mediation is too much at the forefront of foreign language teaching, valuable time
is lost to important other goals, such as Menschenbildung, the promotion of emotional learning, and education for
empathy necessary for social life/survival. (Author of textbooks 1)

Two teachers also refer to the exaggerated role of mediation in current foreign language programmes andregulatory documents, not fully acknowledging the student as a social agent. One teacher makes a plea for amore restricted understanding of mediation in the foreign language classroom (Teacher 1), while another admits
not understanding the relevance of teaching it at more advanced language levels (Teacher 5) and yet anotheracknowledges teaching it just because it is mandatory (Teacher 6):[Mediation] is often overrated. Meaningful transfer is completely sufficient. (Teacher 1)
At a higher level, meaningfulness is no longer always apparent to me personally. (Teacher 5)
Honestly, mediation plays a minor role and I train it because it is required in the centralised Abitur. (Teacher 6)

Despite these criticisms, teachers recognise that mediation plays a central role in modern language classrooms
and contributes to the diversification of teaching and learning situations, at least at an initial level: “In the lower
level, [mediation tasks] also serve to make the lessons varied” (Teacher 9). Furthermore, even if some teachers
complain that mediation tasks are sometimes perceived as boring (Teacher 3), they also positively appraise itsrole in students’ motivation, mainly recognising that students with learning difficulties tend to engage easily inmediation tasks (Teacher 9):
They often do not take them very seriously in the classroom context because sometimes they seem boring. (Teacher 3)
A weak group can be encouraged to an oral mediation; however, the increase in linguistic correctness must then be
demanded. (Teacher 9)

So, to synthesise these claims, it could be stated that mediation seems to be perceived as particularly appropriate in
two foreign language settings: initial phases of target language learning and low-achievement groups, both of them
being known for a more permeable use of other linguistic resources, namely the mother tongue. This conclusion
would imply that foreign language learning is still mainly accommodated by teachers as a “foreign language only”
scenario, where correctness prevails over the accomplishment of communicative aims and goals. Such establishedassumptions could be pointing towards a lack of comprehension of the student as a plurilingual social actor.
Curriculum designers and teacher educators also reflect on the weight of mediation in foreign language andteacher education and seem to consider it as being in its initial state of development, making a case for the needfor its better integration in teacher education programmes (Teacher educator 2) and for participation in diverse
formative activities (Curriculum designer 1):
In my perception, [mediation] plays too much a minor role in normal / mother tongue / foreign language teaching…. However, this rebalancing must first be better communicated to both teachers and learners and anchored in theirown practice. (Teacher educator 2)
Participation in European / international projects on some topic ... (together with a partner school). (Responsible forcurriculum design 1)

Awareness raising and teacher education Page 221

Curriculum designers are aware of the challenges that mediation still poses to some teachers:
It is not always on the horizon of (future) foreign language teachers. (Curriculum designer 1)
Equal promotion of written as well as oral mediation should be sought. (Curriculum designer 1)

In terms of specific aspects of the analysis, this study has shown that the stakeholders position themselvesdifferently towards mediation and some, mainly teachers, have mixed feelings towards it. We could synthesise
the results of this study and the different positions as follows:f teachers and textbook authors tend to express more criticism of mediation than curriculum designers andteacher educators do;f teachers tend to perceive a mismatch between the weight of mediation in the curriculum (also evaluation)and its usefulness in the foreign language classroom and in real-life situations;f teachers, even if not always in agreement with the weight and role of mediation in the process of teaching
and learning, are aware of the positive influence mediation has on students’ motivation and the renewalof classroom practices.
Despite not always personally agreeing with the weight and role of mediation in foreign language education,teachers tend to comply with its implementation because of educational prescriptions at a (perceived) higher
level (national language policies, curriculum and language programmes, textbooks).

14.4. CONCLUSIONMediation has an established history in Germany, having gradually entered curricula, programmes, textbooks,
assessment practices and teaching practices (not forgetting research). Grosso modo, it is generally understood as
the ability to reconstruct meaning from one language in another language, in written or oral situations, taking
into account (inter)cultural elements. Not surprisingly, our study reveals that actors tend to reproduce this same
assumption, taking it for granted.
Our study also shed some light on the tensions surrounding the introduction of mediation in the curriculum,
teaching programmes and materials as well as perceptions of the value and status of mediation in actual practices in Hamburg. Despite its already-established status in Germany, in general, and in Hamburg, in particular,
mediation did not garner a consensus among the stakeholders that we interviewed. Salient discrepancies wereobserved between people working at top-down and bottom-up levels. Whereas curriculum designers andteacher educators tended to perceive mediation positively as a renewal of language education goals, teachers
and textbook developers tended to express mixed feelings about the role and impact of mediation in daily
practices and in students’ abilities to use the foreign language. Interestingly, some teachers see the modellingof mediation in teaching and communicative activities as appropriate and wide-ranging, whereas others complain about the tendency to stereotype communicative routines and the lack of authenticity of some activities(including some in the Abitur-Kanon of assessment tasks in Germany).
Bearing these results in mind, it is plausible to assume that different stakeholders will receive the new descriptors
differently, some people with more openness and flexibility than others. As this study shows, some claim thatmediation should be modelled in a more restricted form (and not enlarged, as the CEFR Companion volume
suggests). Additionally, descriptors of different mediation activities can be expected to be valued differently: we
can expect descriptors of mediation activities “mediating a text” and “mediating communication” to be accepted
more easily than those related to “mediating concepts”; this mediation task, implying collaborative group work,
has not so far entered the conceptual imagination of the stakeholders, perhaps because it is perceived as notwholly belonging to foreign language learning and teaching. While teachers already have some professional
and theoretical knowledge about “mediating a text” and “mediating communication”, they seem to be lacking
knowledge about how “mediating concepts”, mainly in intralingual situations, could relate to mediation or
be useful in the foreign language classroom. Another explanation may be, as suggested above, that (foreign)language teachers see “mediating concepts” as embedded in “mediating text” and “mediating communication”
in plurilingual interaction.
Despite the challenges reported (which are not ubiquitous, as also observed) and the lack of representativenessof the data collected for this exploratory study, it should be noted that all actors accept interlingual mediationof texts and communication as having a role in teaching and learning a foreign language, contributing to morediverse pedagogical practice. All stakeholders have integrated mediation into their professional practices and,even if by means of a reduced understanding and some tensions regarding its value, mediation has a place intheir professional imagination. As a result, there is common ground and grass-roots familiarity that will serve tofurther establish mediation as a competence in Hamburg.

Page 222 3 Enriching 21st-century language education

These results point towards six complementary needs:
f to discuss the CEFR Companion volume in initial and continuing teacher education programmes, paying
special attention to its conceptual innovations (not only to the levels) and promoting public discussion
around its activities, strategies and descriptors;
f to shed light onto hitherto unrepresented dimensions of mediation, in curriculum, learning materials andteacher education;f to develop more research around unrepresented domains of mediation in stakeholders’ perceptions inorder to grasp their added value in foreign language learning and foster public understanding of mediation
as a complex and encompassing skill;f in particular, to exploit the descriptors for processing a text, for facilitating collaborative interaction withpeers and for collaborating to construct meaning, in order to develop and pilot an extension of the predominantly transactional mediation tasks currently in use, so as to incorporate such tasks that involve“mediating a text” within the broader context of collaborative project work in which, for example, learners
first process input texts and/or research a topic in a variety of languages in jigsaw style (= individuals/
pairs receiving different texts/consulting different sources), before reporting their findings to their groupmembers and then using this input in a more creative phase of “mediating concepts”, in which the groupplan and then collectively produce an artefact;
f to establish more channels for dialogue between actors working at top-down and bottom-up levels to
discuss the further establishment of mediation in teaching and learning settings, inviting teachers to takepart in policy implementation;f to foster inter- and transdisciplinary dialogue across actors dealing with different aspects of language education (mother tongue, second languages, heritage languages and foreign languages), as the new descriptors are indeed addressed at a wider audience of language educators, not all covered in the present study.
The study reported here is relevant to and replicable in other contexts, in Germany and more widely in Europe.
It would be interesting to compare countries with different levels of implementation of mediation to discoverwhether they face the same challenges identified in this exploratory case study, and which conceptions andrepresentations are circulating about mediation in those different countries. It is possible to hypothesise thatdifferent countries, with different degrees of familiarity with mediation at the educational level, may face different
kinds and manifestations of reluctance and/or enthusiasm towards the new descriptors. It could also be fruitful
to expand this exploratory study in terms of the subjects involved, in order to increase the representative qualityof the results. Perhaps even more importantly, more studies of teachers’ representations and classroom practices
with mediation (teaching and assessment) are needed.20

REFERENCES
Araújo e Sá M. H., de Carlo M. and Melo-Pfeifer S. (2014), “Acteurs et dynamiques de médiation dans une plateforme
de formation à l’intercompréhension”, Canadian Modern Language Review No. 70(2), pp. 133-57.
Council of Europe (2018), “Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: learning, teaching, assessment. Companion volume with new descriptors”, Council of Europe, Strasbourg, available at https://rm.coe.int/
cefr-companion-volume-with-new-descriptors-2018/1680787989, accessed 23 August 2021.
Council of Europe (2020), Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: learning, teaching, assessment – Companion volume, Council of Europe, Strasbourg, available at https://rm.coe.int/common-european-­framework-of-reference-for-languages-learning-teaching/16809ea0d4, accessed 22 August 2021.
Curcio M., Katelhön P. and Basic I. (eds) (2015), Sprachmittlung – Mediation – Mediazione linguistica, Frank & Timme, Berlin.
KMK [Kultusministerkonferenz] (2004), Bildungsstandards für die erste Fremdsprache (Englisch/Französisch) fürden mittleren Schulabschluss, Beschluss vom 04.12.2003 [Decision], Wolters Kluwer, München.
KMK [Kultusministerkonferenz] (2012), Bildungsstandards für die fortgeführte Fremdsprache (Englisch/Französisch)für die allgemeine Hochschulreife. Beschluss vom 18.10.2012 [Decision], available at www.kmk.org/fileadmin/
Dateien/veroeffentlichungen_beschluesse/2012/2012_10_18-Bildungsstandards-Fortgef-FS-Abi.pdf, accessed
11 September 2021.

20. We would like to thank Michel Candelier and Anna Schröder-Sura for their comments on a preliminary version of this chapter. We would
also like to thank Martin Eckeberg (Landesinstitut für Lehrerbildung und Schulentwicklung Hamburg) for supporting this research.

Awareness raising and teacher education Page 223

Maxwell J. and Chmiel M (2014), “Notes towards a theory of qualitative data analysis”, in Flick U. (ed.), The SAGE
handbook of qualitative data analysis, Sage, London.
Melo-Pfeifer S. and Schröder-Sura A. (2018), “Les tâches de médiation dans les manuels de Français Langue
Étrangère en Allemagne”, Recherches en didactique des langues et des cultures – Les Cahiers de l’ACEDLE No. 15(3),available at https://journals.openedition.org/rdlc/3589, accessed 11 September 2021.
Melo-Pfeifer S. and Schröder-Sura A. (2019), “Sprachmittlung. Zum didaktischen Nutzen der neuen Deskriptoren
im Bereich der Mediation”, Unterrichtspraxis No. 4, pp. 4-6.
North B. and Piccardo E. (2016a), Developing illustrative descriptors of aspects of mediation for the Common European
Framework of Reference (CEFR), available at https://rm.coe.int/developing-illustrative-descriptors-of-aspects-of-­mediation-for-the-co/1680713e2c, accessed 11 September 2021.
North B. and Piccardo E. (2016b), “Developing illustrative descriptors of aspects of mediation for the Common European
Framework of Reference (CEFR): a Council of Europe project”, Language Teaching No. 49(3), pp. 455-9, avai­lable atwww.cambridge.org/core/journals/language-teaching/article/developing-­illustrative-descriptors-of-aspects-ofmediation-for-the-common-european-framework-of-reference-cefr/C38092A1D98B09DDF1CF3B8CB853634B,
accessed 2 September 2021.
North B. and Piccardo E. (2017), “Mediation and the social and linguistic integration of migrants: updating the
CEFR descriptors”, in Beacco J.-C., Krumm H.-J., Little D. and Thalgott Ph. (eds), The linguistic integration of adultmigrants / L’intégration linguistique des migrants adultes. Some lessons from research / Les enseignements de larecherche, De Gruyter, Berlin.
Piccardo E. and North B. (2019), The action-oriented approach. A dynamic vision of language education, Multilingual
Matters: Bristol.
Reimann D. and Rössler A. (2013) (eds), Sprachmittlung im Fremdsprachenunterricht, Narr Verlag, Tübingen.

Page 224 3 Enriching 21st-century language education

Chapitre 15
DISCOURS D’ENSEIGNANTS21 AU SUJET
D’ACTIVITÉS QUI RELÈVENT DE LA MÉDIATIONDANS LE VOLUME COMPLÉMENTAIREDU CECR – UNE ÉTUDE EMPIRIQUE
Mónica Bastos et Maria de Lurdes Gonçalves, Institut Camões, I.P. / CIDTFF, université d’Aveiro, Portugal ;Joaquim Prazeres, Institut Camões, I.P., Portugal ;Angélique Quintus et Roberto Gómez Fernández, ministère de l’Éducation
nationale, de l’Enfance et de la Jeunesse (MENJE), Luxembourg

RÉSUMÉ
La présente étude se propose d’identifier des pistes pour la formation continue pour les enseignants de langues
en général, et en particulier les enseignants de langues d’héritage, i) par rapport au concept de médiation etsa pertinence en tant qu’activité langagière au même titre que les activités de compréhension, production
et interaction ; et ii) par rapport à la connaissance des descripteurs de la médiation du Volume complémentaireet leur mise en pratique en salle de classe.
Dans ce but, pendant l’année scolaire 2018-2019, un groupe de 17 enseignants de portugais comme langued’héritage (PLH), rattachés au réseau d’enseignement du portugais à l’étranger au Luxembourg et en Suisse, aplanifié, mis en œuvre et évalué soit une séquence didactique dédiée à la médiation, soit des activités de média­tion intégrées dans une séquence didactique, et cela à partir de l’analyse des descripteurs du volet Médiationde la communication du Volume complémentaire. À la suite de cette expérience et dans le cadre de deux focus
groups, les enseignants ont exprimé leur ressenti et discuté des avantages et contraintes liés à l’utilisation desdescripteurs du Volume complémentaire.
Les résultats obtenus montrent que, de manière générale, les enseignants considèrent les descripteurs du Volume
complémentaire comme un soutien dans la promotion, plus consciente et systématique, de la médiation dela communication en salle de classe, non seulement sur le plan du concept en soi, mais aussi par rapport à laplanification des activités offertes en salle de classe. Toutefois, l’étude souligne les difficultés relatives à la miseen œuvre de pratiques de médiation plurilingue et interculturelle effectives. Tout porte à croire qu’une formation
plus ciblée sur les plus-values de la médiation et ses descripteurs issus du Volume complémentaire aurait unimpact positif sur l’enseignement des langues d’héritage.

ABSTRACTThis case study aims to identify pathways for the training of language teachers in general, and heritage language
teachers in particular, and this mainly on two levels:
1. in relation to the concept of mediation and its importance as a language activity, recognised at the samelevel as comprehension, production and interaction in language education; and2. in relation to the knowledge of the CEFR Companion volume descriptors for mediation and their oper­
ationalisation in classroom contexts.
For this purpose, during the school year 2018/19 a group of 17 PLH (portugais comme langue d’héritage) teachers
working in the Portuguese teaching abroad network (in Luxembourg and Switzerland), planned, implemented
and evaluated either a didactic sequence dealing with mediation, or mediation activities integrated into a
didactic sequence, and framed their work in relation to the CEFR Companion volume descriptors for Mediating

21. Nous remercions les enseignants volontaires qui ont rendu possible cette étude : Angelina Martins ; António Figueiredo ; Brigite
Rodrigues ; Cláudio Arrais ; Eduardo Figueiredo ; Irene Lemos ; Maria Agostinha Gomes ; Maria Emília Ferreira ; Maria Emília Rodrigues ;Maria Virgínia Martins ; Paula Rodrigues ; Paulo Couto ; Rui Gonçalves ; Rute Venâncio ; Sónia Melo ; Sónia Morais ; Susana Mota. Nous
remercions aussi les consultants de l’étude : Ana Isabel Andrade et Maria Helena de Araújo e Sá (CIDTFF – université d’Aveiro, Portugal) ;Francesco Arcidiacono (HEP-BEJUNE, Suisse) ; et Michel Candelier (Le Mans Université, France).

Page 225

communication. After completing this work, the teachers joined in two focus groups to discuss their experiences
and reflect on their feelings about the work on mediation, as well as on the added value and/or limitations related
to use of the CEFR Companion volume descriptors.
The results show that, in general, these heritage language teachers considered that the CEFR Companion volume
descriptors supported them in promoting mediation of communication in their classrooms in a more consciousand systematic way, referring both to the concept and to classroom activities. However, they felt there weredifficulties in implementing effective practices to promote plurilingual and intercultural mediation. These teachers
felt they would benefit from stronger instruction on the way descriptors work, and specifically from enhanced
knowledge of mediation and its descriptors in the context of heritage language education.

15.1. INTRODUCTION
Les mouvements migratoires ont contribué de façon décisive au développement du multilinguisme et dumulticulturalisme, deux caractéristiques fondamentales de l’Europe. Atout individuel et collectif, la diversité
linguistique et culturelle est envisagée comme une richesse promouvant la compréhension et la cohésion sociale.
Dans cette optique, l’action pédagogique des enseignants de langues, en particulier de langues d’héritage (LH),s’avère cruciale. De nombreuses études l’attestent, ainsi que les recommandations du Conseil de l’Europe, de laCommission européenne et de l’Unesco relatives à l’enseignement des langues.
L’enseignement du portugais à l’étranger (EPE) est un espace d’enseignement et d’expérience de la langue/cultured’héritage visant principalement à aider des enfants et des jeunes issus de contextes migratoires à construire
une identité cohésive et plurielle. L’un des principaux objectifs de l’EPE est lié au développement de la capacitédes enfants et des jeunes de se sentir à l’aise et intégrés dans le pays d’accueil, dans le pays d’origine de leursfamilles et dans une société de plus en plus diversifiée et complexe.
Au vu des spécificités du contexte de cette étude, par exemple l’enseignement du portugais comme langued’héritage (PLH) en Suisse et au Luxembourg, nous commencerons par présenter les caractéristiques particulières de la LH et de son enseignement, pour lequel la médiation joue un rôle central. Ensuite, nous décrirons leprojet développé avec 17 enseignants de PLH, qui ont planifié et mis en place des activités de médiation dansleurs classes et qui ont échangé leurs impressions lors des focus groups organisés en Suisse et au Luxembourg.
À partir de l’analyse (i) des planifications et du matériel didactique conçu par les enseignants, ainsi que (ii) deleurs discours lors des focus groups, nous essayerons, dans un premier temps, de déterminer dans quelle mesure
les descripteurs du Volume complémentaire les aident à travailler la médiation de façon plus consciente etsystématique. Dans un second temps, nous réfléchirons aux difficultés rencontrées par les enseignants lors dela mise en œuvre des pratiques de médiation plurilingue et interculturelle.
Le but principal de cette étude est de définir des pistes pour la formation des enseignants de langues en général
et des LH en particulier, notamment en lien avec le concept de « médiation » proprement dit et son importanceen tant qu’activité langagière au même titre que la compréhension, la production et l’interaction.
Cette étude aspire à montrer dans quelle mesure la connaissance des descripteurs du Volume complémentairepeut contribuer aux actions pédagogiques des enseignants, notamment au niveau de la planification, de la miseen œuvre et de l’évaluation des activités de médiation en salle de classe.

15.1.1. La langue d’héritage et son enseignement
Un locuteur de LH grandit dans une famille qui, à la maison, parle une langue autre que la langue dominante dumilieu environnant et de l’école (Barbosa et Flores, 2011 ; Montrul, 2012). La LH forge son identité culturelle (Van
Deusen-Scholl, 2003). Par conséquent, les locuteurs de LH développent une forte relation affective avec cettelangue/culture (Carreira et Kagan, 2011 ; Melo-Pfeifer, 2015), dans un « processus de dialogue et de négociation
d’expériences sociales, culturelles et linguistiques entre parents et enfants »22 (Souza et Lira, 2017 : p. 51).
Néanmoins, la recherche démontre que, pour un développement continu et progressif de la LH, l’apport de lafamille n’est pas suffisant ; un apport linguistique plus large, incluant d’autres interlocuteurs ainsi que le soutiende la communauté, est également nécessaire (Nesteruk, 2010). De ce point de vue, l’enseignement de la LH
s’avère être un espace privilégié pour pousser les apprenants à approfondir leurs compétences linguistiques
et communicatives.

22. Notre traduction.

Page 226 3 Enriching 21st-century language education

Les élèves de LH ont souvent des niveaux de compétence très différents23, généralement en fonction de la qualité,de la quantité et de la continuité temporelle du contact avec la LH, mais aussi des occasions réelles d’utilisationde la langue et de la place (présence simultanée ou non) de la langue dominante de la communauté d’accueildans les interactions familiales (Barbosa et Flores, 2011).
Comme Melo-Pfeifer et Schmidt (2018), nous entendons le concept de LH dans une perspective plurilingue,basée sur une vision intégrée de toutes les langues et cultures du répertoire du locuteur, où l’enseignementd’une LH assure le développement des compétences linguistiques, communicatives et culturelles des locuteurs
dans leur LH et élargit leurs répertoires linguistiques et culturels.
Ainsi, la maîtrise de la LH constitue un atout et une ressource pour l’école, et un tremplin pour d’autres
apprentissages et expériences linguistiques et culturelles. Bien que les effets du transfert de compétences
entre la LH et les autres langues soient difficiles à démontrer avec des contrôles linguistiques (Berthele,
2018), les stratégies d’apprentissage développées dans les classes de LH peuvent être transférées à d’autres langues, notamment à celle(s) du pays d’accueil (Krompák, 2018). Ainsi, les approches pédagogiques
recommandées pour l’EPE, et qui régissent l’enseignement du PLH (Grosso et al., 2011), se caractérisentpar une grande ouverture et flexibilité, de manière à pouvoir s’adapter à une large diversité de contextes,
d’environnements et de publics.
Conscients qu’être un enseignant/apprenant de LH signifie se placer au sein de et entre au moins deux langues/
cultures, les enseignants adoptent implicitement dans leurs pratiques des approches plurielles (Candelier etal., 2012), où la médiation par et entre plusieurs langues et cultures est toujours présente, dans l’esprit d’uneéducation plurilingue et interculturelle (Beacco et al., 2016). Néanmoins, les pratiques de médiation s’avèrent
complexes et exigeantes en raison des intérêts, expériences et profils langagiers des élèves d’une part, et desspécificités des différents contextes d’apprentissage, très souvent caractérisés par une hyperdiversité des groupes/classes des élèves, d’autre part.

15.1.2. Contexte
Le projet a été conduit au Luxembourg et en Suisse dans des cours de PLH organisés par l’Institut Camões, I.P.,
accueillant des enfants et des adolescents scolarisés dans le système d’enseignement du pays d’accueil.
Au Luxembourg, le projet a été développé dans le cadre des activités de la communauté de pratique (CdP)
responsable des cours complémentaires de portugais, une offre d’enseignement de PLH récemment développée (MENJE et Institut Camões, I.P., 2020). Au cours de l’année scolaire 2018-2019, cette CdP a regroupé
13 enseignants, travaillant avec 206 apprenants de niveaux A1 et A2 (6 à 11 ans), inscrits aux cycles 2 à 4 del’enseignement fondamental24.
En Suisse, quatre enseignants ont participé au projet, avec 120 apprenants intégrés dans des classes hétérogènesde niveaux A2 et B1 (8 à 15 ans) et B2 et C1 (16 à 18 ans).

15.2. DESCRIPTION DU PROJET
La mise en place de ce projet a pour objectif de répondre aux besoins de formation exprimés par les enseignants
relatifs à la pratique de la médiation, notamment aux difficultés de mettre en œuvre des activités reliées au volet
Médiation de la communication, d’observer de façon ciblée les performances de leurs élèves dans ce domaine,et de comprendre les apports de la pratique de la médiation au développement de la compétence plurilingue
et interculturelle de leurs élèves.
Ayant en vue le développement de cette compétence chez les apprenants de PLH et les besoins de formations
préalablement formulés par les enseignants, cette étude envisage de travailler avec les échelles de descripteurs
du volet Médiation de la communication du Volume complémentaire suivants :1. Établir un espace pluriculturel ;2. Agir en tant qu’intermédiaire dans des situations informelles (avec des amis et des collègues) ;3. Faciliter la communication dans des situations délicates et des désaccords.

23. Polinsky et Kagan (2007) parlent d’un continuum model pour désigner ces variations des niveaux de compétence.
24. Au Luxembourg, l’enseignement fondamental est réparti en quatre cycles d’apprentissage, allant du cycle 1 pour les enfants de 3 à
5 ans (éducation précoce facultative, puis préscolaire) au cycle 4 pour les enfants de 10 à 11 ans.

Awareness raising and teacher education Page 227

Dans le cadre de cette étude, ces descripteurs sont considérés comme des dispositifs de soutien à la planification,
à la mise en œuvre et à l’évaluation des activités de médiation dans le contexte de la salle de classe.
Au début de l’année scolaire 2018-2019, les enseignants EPE ont été invités à planifier, à mettre en œuvre et àévaluer une séquence didactique dédiée à la médiation. Les enseignants volontaires ont reçu un extrait du Volume
complémentaire (Conseil de l’Europe, 2018, pp. 107-110 et 128-131) sur les descripteurs énoncés précédemment,
ainsi que deux documents pour orienter leur travail et récolter des données :f un tableau-résumé de présentation, pour soutenir la planification de la séquence didactique ;f un guide pour la description des activités de médiation, pour aider à planifier et à systématiser le travail.
Les matériaux utilisés en classe, ainsi que ces instruments dûment remplis, nous ont été remis par les enseignants.
Le travail de planification, préparation du matériel pédagogique et mise en pratique a été développé pendantle premier semestre du calendrier scolaire des deux pays.
À la fin de l’année scolaire, les enseignants ont participé à deux focus groups autour des plus-values et contrainteséventuelles de l’emploi des descripteurs du Volume complémentaire et ont parlé librement de leurs expériences.
Les discussions, enregistrées et transcrites, ont été soumises à une analyse de contenu, dont les trois grandes
catégories d’analyse découlent des phases de la mise en pratique des activités de médiation en salle de classe,
c’est-à-dire la planification, la mise en œuvre et l’évaluation.
Au Luxembourg, la participation des enseignants a été encadrée par la CdP des cours complémentaires25, cettedernière ayant été constituée l’année scolaire précédente. Tributaire des principes de l’éducation plurilingue etinterculturelle (Cavalli et al., 2009), de la didactique du plurilinguisme (Troncy, 2014) et des approches plurielles(Candelier et al., 2012), la médiation joue un rôle central dans la nouvelle offre de PLH en tant qu’activité langagière et domaine de compétence. C’est pourquoi, au cours de l’année scolaire 2017-2018, les enseignants dela CdP ont participé à une brève formation théorique autour du concept de médiation.
En Suisse, les enseignants n’ont pas eu l’occasion de participer à des actions de formation concernant la médiation, ni avant ni pendant la participation à cette étude. Après la présentation du projet, quatre enseignants ont
souhaité y participer. Deux enseignants travaillant en binôme ont adapté les activités à leur contexte (Suissealémanique et italienne) et deux enseignants ont travaillé individuellement.
Pendant les phases de planification et de préparation du matériel pédagogique, les chercheurs ont donné leuravis ainsi que des suggestions aux enseignants.
Les tableaux 15.1 et 15.2 montrent de façon détaillée les activités de médiation planifiées, en présentant les
descripteurs choisis et quelques détails sur les activités mises en œuvre : les langues de communication utilisées,la forme sociale privilégiée et les formes d’évaluation.
D’après les données recueillies, les séquences didactiques ainsi que les activités planifiées impliquaient le portugais européen et au moins une autre langue (surtout la langue de scolarisation de chaque contexte) ou une
autre variété de la langue portugaise. En conséquence, les enseignants ont créé des opportunités pour travailler
la médiation linguistique (inter et intralinguistique) avec les élèves.
Les tâches à effectuer en groupe impliquaient la négociation entre les apprenants, cette dernière exigeant une
argumentation basée sur les informations recueillies en classe et les compétences de médiation. Les enseignants
ont privilégié des situations d’apprentissage où les élèves jouaient un rôle central et ils intervenaient pour guider
ces derniers dans le développement de leurs compétences de médiation.
Après l’analyse documentaire, nous avons conduit deux focus groups pour prendre connaissance du ressenti
des enseignants par rapport à leurs expériences et aux éventuels avantages et/ou contraintes liés à l’utilisation des descripteurs du Volume complémentaire. Pour l’analyse de ces discours, nous avons suivi laméthodologie d’analyse de contenu, de nature catégorielle et semi-inductive (Maroy, 1997), en organisantl’analyse autour des trois catégories issues des phases de la mise en pratique des activités de médiation
mentionnées plus haut.

25. Les 13 enseignants qui constituent cette CdP étaient répartis dans trois groupes de travail, correspondant chacun à un des cycles (2,3 ou 4) de l’enseignement fondamental.

Page 228 3 Enriching 21st-century language education

Awareness raising and teacher education Page 229

A2

A1

A1

NiveauDescripteurs choisis

Activités de médiation

Titre : « Culture et diversité culturelle »Tâches : Écoute et exploitation du texte « Un tour de la Lusophonie » ;f Peut faciliter un échange interculturel en accueillant les gens identification des pays de langue officielle portugaise dans la carte duet en manifestant son intérêt avec des mots simples et des monde ; écoute et reproduction de la chanson Conquistador26 ; exploitation de vidéos sur les découvertes portugaises ; travail de recherche etexpressions non verbales, en invitant les autres à parler.
f Établir un espacequiz sur les pays de langue officielle portugaise ; construction d’une
A2carte mentale virtuelle ; échange réel, en salle de classe, avec une invitée
pluriculturel
f Peut contribuer à un échange interculturel, demander, avec d’origine angolaise (pour parler de l’Angola et de la culture angolaise)des mots simples, aux gens de s’expliquer et de clarifier ce Langue : Portugais (variétés européenne, brésilienne et africaine)
qu’ils ont dit, et exploiter son répertoire limité pour exprimer
Forme sociale : Travail en groupe
son accord, inviter, remercier, etc.
Évaluation : Observations de l’enseignant

A1

disponibles (en langue A), à condition qu’on l’aide à formuler. Forme sociale : Travail en groupe
f Faciliter la communication dans des situa- f Peut reconnaître si des interlocuteurs ne sont pas d’accord Évaluation : Observations de l’enseignant
tions délicates et desou si quelqu’un a un problème, et utiliser des mots et desdésaccords
expressions mémorisées pour montrer sa sympathie.

f Peut utiliser des mots simples et des expressions non verbales
pour montrer son intérêt pour une idée. Peut transmettre desf Établir un espace
Titre : « Les musiciens de Brême »informations simples et prévisibles.
pluriculturel
f Agir en tant qu’inter- f Peut faciliter un échange interculturel en accueillant les gens et en Tâches : Exploitation, en portugais, du titre et des images du conte Les
manifestant son intérêt avec des mots simples et des expressions Musiciens de Brême (Jacob et Wilhelm Grimm) ; visionnage du conte en
médiaire dans desallemand ; interprétation/exploitation du conte en portugais ; recons­non verbales, en invitant les autres à parler.
situations informelles
titution de l’histoire en portugais(avec des amis et des f Peut communiquer (en langue B) des données personnelles
collègues)
sur des gens et des informations très simples et prévisibles Langues : Portugais et allemandf Médiation générale

Titres des échelles

Médiation de la communication

Volume complémentaire

26. Chanson du groupe portugais Da Vinci, dont les paroles portent sur les découvertes portugaises du XVIe siècle.

Groupe ducycle 3

Groupe ducycle 2Luxembourg

Enseignants

Tableau 15.1: Synthèse des activités de médiation planifiées par les enseignants EPE au Luxembourg

Page 230 3 Enriching 21st-century language education

A2

NiveauDescripteurs choisis

Prof. 1

SuisseEnseignants

B1

A2

NiveauActivités de médiation

Descripteurs

A2
f Établir un espace f Peut contribuer à un échange interculturel, demander, avec despluriculturel
mots simples, aux gens de s’expliquer et de clarifier ce qu’ils ont
dit, et exploiter son répertoire limité pour exprimer son accord,f Faciliter la communiinviter, remercier, etc.
cation dans des situations délicates et des f Peut se rendre compte d’un désaccord entre interlocuteurs ou dedésaccords
difficultés dans une interaction et adapter des expressions simples,mémorisées, pour rechercher un compromis ou un accord.

Titres des échelles

Médiation de la communication

Volume complémentaire

Forme sociale : Travail en groupe

Langue : Portugais

Tâches : Recherche d’informations sur trois éléments du patrimoine
portugais (architecture, objets, mots) d’origine/influence arabe ;partage entre groupes ; discussion sur cette présence culturelle

Titre : « Patrimoine portugais : les origines arabes (les villes deChaves et Mértola) »Activités de médiationf Peut contribuer à un échange interculturel, demander, avec
des mots simples, aux gens de s’expliquer et de clarifier ce Titre : « Europe : pour bien préparer le voyage »f Établir un espacequ’ils ont dit, et exploiter son répertoire limité pour exprimer
pluriculturel
Tâches : Visionnage d’une vidéo sur la genèse de l’Union européenne ;son accord, inviter, remercier, etc.
planification d’un voyage imaginaire en Europe ; identification desf Agir en tant qu’interf Peut communiquer (en langue B) le sens général de ce qui est capitales européennes et association entre des pays européens etmédiaire dans desdit (en langue A) dans des situations quotidiennes, en suivant des aspects socioculturels ; analyse de textes en plusieurs langues
situations informelles
les conventions culturelles de base et en transmettant les parlées dans l’Union européenne, réflexion sur les rapports entre elles(avec des amis et desinformations essentielles, à condition que les interlocuteurs et identification, en portugais, des idées clés des textes
collègues)énoncent clairement, dans une langue standard, et qu’il/elle Langues : Portugais, français, luxembourgeois, allemand, anglais, espaf Faciliter la communipuisse demander de répéter et de clarifier.
gnol, italien, grec et polonais
cation dans des situaf Peut se rendre compte d’un désaccord entre interlocuteurs Forme sociale : Travail en groupe
tions délicates et desou de difficultés dans une interaction et adapter des expresdésaccords
sions simples, mémorisées, pour rechercher un compromis Évaluation : Observations de l’enseignant
ou un accord.

Titres des échelles

Médiation de la communication

Volume complémentaire

Tableau 15.2 – Synthèse des activités de médiation planifiées par les enseignants EPE en SuisseGroupe ducycle 4Luxembourg

Enseignants

Awareness raising and teacher education Page 231

B2

Prof. 4

B2

f Peut aider à la création d’une culture de communication par­tagée, en échangeant de façon simple des informations sur lesvaleurs et les comportements propres à une langue et une culture.
f Peut montrer sa compréhension des problèmes clés dans un différend sur un sujet qui lui est familier et adresser des demandes
simples pour obtenir confirmation et/ou clarification.

B1

Descripteurs

Évaluation : Observations de l’enseignant ; autoévaluation sur labase d’une échelle (jamais, quelquefois, presque toujours, toujours)de compétences de médiation activées/développées

Forme sociale : Travail en groupe

Langues : Allemand et portugais (variétés européenne etbrésilienne)

Tâches : Recherche sur les caractéristiques du carnaval en Suisse, au
Portugal et au Brésil (textes en allemand et en portugais européen
et brésilien) ; décider en groupe où célébrer le carnaval

Titre : « Errant entre les carnavals »Évaluation : Liste de mots d’origine arabe ; identification de traits
de la présence arabe dans l’architecture portugaise ; prédisposition pour élargir les connaissances avec d’autres informations
sur la présence de la culture arabe au Portugal et en Suisse et ses
influences sur le quotidien

Activités de médiation

A2

Titre : « Voyage de classe à l’usine de verre Glasi »27 (A2 et B1) /« Voyage de classe de Lugano à Melide »28 (A2 et B1) et « Voyage
f Faciliter la communif Peut se rendre compte d’un désaccord entre interlocuteurs ou de de classe au Portugal » (B2 et C1)
cation dans des situadifficultés dans une interaction et adapter des expressions simples, Tâche : Planification d’un voyage de classe en utilisant divers
tions délicates et desmémorisées, pour rechercher un compromis ou un accord.
moyens de transport : décider les horaires, les moyens de transport
désaccords– informations en allemand (voyage à Glasi) et en italien (classede Lugano)f Faciliter la communi- C1
cation dans des situa- f Peut médier (entre la langue A et la langue B), transmettre des infortions délicates et desmations détaillées, appeler l’attention des deux parties sur les indicesdésaccords
contextuels informatifs et socioculturels, et poser des questions declarification et de suivi ou si besoin est faire des déclarations.

f Établir un espace f Peut clarifier des malentendus et des erreurs d’interprétation lors
pluriculturel
de rencontres interculturelles, expliquer clairement les choses afinde détendre l’atmosphère et de permettre à la discussion d’avancer.
f Agir en tant qu’intermédiaire dans des f Peut encourager une culture de communication partagéeen exprimant sa compréhension et son appréciation des difsituations informelles
férentes idées, impressions et points de vue et inviter les par(avec des amis et desticipants à contribuer et à réagir aux idées des uns et des autres.
collègues)

Titres des échelles

Médiation de la communication

Volume complémentaire

27. L’usine de verre Glasi (Hergiswiler Glas AG) se situe en Hergiswil, en Suisse, et beaucoup de migrants portugais y travaillent, notamment les parents d’élèves de cette enseignante.
28. Melide est un petit village suisse se situant dans le canton du Tessin, où l’on peut visiter le parc Swissminiatur.

C1

B1

A2

C1

B2

B1

A2

NiveauProf. 3

Prof. 2

Prof. 1

SuisseEnseignants

Page 232 3 Enriching 21st-century language education

Activités de médiation

C1

f Peut se montrer persuasif pour suggérer aux parties en désaccord
de faire évoluer leur position.

f Peut demander avec tact à chaque partie en désaccord de déterminer ce qui est négociable dans leur position et ce qu’elles sontprêtes à abandonner dans certaines conditions.

C1
f Peut se montrer sensible à différents points de vue, répéter et para­phraser pour montrer sa compréhension détaillée des exigencesde chaque partie pour arriver à un accord.

f Peut résumer les déclarations faites par chacune des deux parties
et souligner les points d’accord et les obstacles.

f Peut présenter les principaux points de désaccord de façon relativement précise et expliquer les points de vue des parties concernées.

f Peut, en posant des questions, repérer les terrains d’entente etinviter chaque partie à mettre en avant les solutions possibles.

B2

Prof. 4

f Peut aider les parties en désaccord à mieux se comprendre en reformulant et recadrant leurs positions et en établissant des prioritésde besoins et d’objectifs.

B2
f Peut amener les parties en désaccord à des solutions possibles pourles aider à obtenir un consensus, formuler des questions ouvertes
et neutres afin de minimiser la gêne ou l’offense.

Forme sociale : Travail en groupe
B1
f Peut demander aux parties en désaccord d’expliquer leur point de Langues : Allemand, italien et portugais
vue et peut répondre brièvement à ces explications, à condition quele sujet lui soit familier et que les interlocuteurs parlent clairement. Évaluation : Observations de l’enseignant (capacités de compréhension, d’argumentation et de médiation des apprenants) ;f Peut montrer sa compréhension des problèmes clés dans un dif- réflexion écrite orientée sur le travail développé et réflexion orale
férend sur un sujet qui lui est familier et adresser des demandes sur la médiation (« Qu’est-ce que c’est ? »)simples pour obtenir confirmation et/ou clarification.

Descripteursf Peut résumer clairement et fidèlement ce qui a été convenu et cequi est attendu de chacune des parties.

Titres des échelles

Médiation de la communication

B1

A2

NiveauVolume complémentaireProf. 3

SuisseEnseignants15.3. DISCUSSION
15.3.1. Phase 1 – Planification des tâches de médiation
Les enseignants relèvent des aspects facilitateurs du travail de préparation des tâches de médiation à deuxniveaux : au niveau micro, concernant des aspects liés aux caractéristiques des deux contextes (Luxembourg/
Suisse) et au travail didactique qu’ils effectuent habituellement ; au niveau macro, concernant les orientations
politiques et éducatives environnant leurs pratiques professionnelles, ainsi que les opportunités d’engager
d’autres acteurs (parents, membres de la communauté) dans les activités qu’ils proposent à leurs élèves.
Au Luxembourg, le travail collaboratif, les ressources numériques, les TIC (qui rendent le travail de médiation ensalle de classe plus authentique) et le recours à d’autres langues/cultures constituent les aspects facilitateursles plus mentionnés, puisque les enseignants sont intégrés dans un contexte professionnel présentant ces
caractéristiques.
Les enseignants en Suisse mettent l’accent sur le travail de planification ; celui-ci est effectué, pour la premièrefois, dans le cadre de ce projet, de manière explicite. Au niveau des tâches planifiées, trois enseignants sur quatre
repèrent une prise de conscience des apprenants des compétences travaillées.
La stratégie de travail en groupe a été très valorisée dans les deux contextes, et cela dans une logique dedifférenciation pédagogique car, très souvent, les supports didactiques ont été adaptés aux contextes et auxélèves, en prévoyant :1. différentes tâches en fonction des groupes (plutôt en Suisse, où les groupes s’organisent par niveaux deperformance langagière) ;2. différentes consignes et adaptations des supports en fonction de l’année de scolarisation, ayant en vue lacollaboration entre des élèves d’années scolaires différentes (surtout au Luxembourg).
En ce qui concerne l’encadrement politique, social et éducatif de leur action pédagogique (niveau macro), lesenseignants mettent en évidence les orientations pédagogiques qui encadrent leur action pédagogique (curricula,directives de la coordination de l’EPE et du Conseil de l’Europe) ainsi que la collaboration avec d’autres acteurs,
surtout celle de l’établissement scolaire d’accueil avec les familles de leurs élèves.
Au sujet des curricula, les enseignants en Suisse envisagent la médiation comme une opportunité d’exploiterl’histoire des pays ainsi que différentes perspectives sur les événements, cela dans le but d’aider les élèves à mieux
comprendre les mœurs et le point de vue de l’autre et de promouvoir une éducation au dialogue interculturel età la paix. Ces activités devraient commencer aux niveaux A1 et A2, car les opinions et les préjugés se travaillent
plus facilement avec des jeunes apprenants.
Pour les enseignants au Luxembourg, les thématiques du curriculum des cours complémentaires se prêtent àl’inclusion de la médiation dans leurs planifications. Ce curriculum, résultant de l’articulation entre les programmes
spécifiques pour l’EPE du Camões, I.P. et le plan d’études de l’enseignement fondamental luxembourgeois(MENFP, 2011), permet de contribuer au développement de compétences dans d’autres branches scolaires,notamment la géographie et l’allemand, dans le cas spécifique des séquences didactiques développées dansle cadre de cette étude.
L’entièreté des enseignants considère que la proposition du Conseil de l’Europe d’utiliser des descripteurs pourla médiation souligne l’importance de celle-ci et la légitime. Cela est en accord avec les deux coordinations del’enseignement du portugais à l’étranger (CEPE), qui préconisent de travailler la médiation en classe.
Nous observons une tendance, surtout dans le contexte helvétique, qui consiste à considérer que les orientations
du Conseil de l’Europe valorisent autant la dimension culturelle de la médiation que sa dimension linguistique,alors que la dimension culturelle est souvent reléguée au second plan par rapport à la linguistique. En Suisse,
le projet proposé par la CEPE est considéré comme une opportunité d’examiner les descripteurs du Volume
complémentaire et de mieux comprendre comment les opérationnaliser dans leur pratique didactique.
Pour rappel, ces enseignants travaillent avec des élèves de PLH, et non avec des élèves de langue étrangère,auxquels les descripteurs, selon leur avis, semblent mieux s’adresser. La progression dans l’apprentissage des LH
suit une logique différente ; en s’appuyant davantage sur la maturité des élèves, celle-ci est liée à leurs niveauxde développement langagier et cognitif, notamment à leur capacité de mener un raisonnement plus ou moins
abstrait. En général, les élèves de LH ne présentent pas de problèmes de communication orale.

Awareness raising and teacher education Page 233

En dépit d’un sentiment de désorientation ressenti pendant la phase de démarrage du travail, les descripteurs
cibles29 semblent guider les enseignants à travers les phases de planification des séquences didactiques et depréparation des activités de médiation. D’après l’analyse des planifications, nous pouvons constater que lesdescripteurs des trois échelles sont présents et associés aux différentes étapes des tâches, ce qui contribue à
une description plus précise de ce qui est réalisé avec les élèves. Par conséquent, la planification devient plus
détaillée, ce qui peut aider l’enseignant à approfondir la planification et à mieux gérer la mise en pratique.

15.3.2. Phase 2 – Mise en pratique des tâches de médiation
En analysant les discours par rapport au travail de mise en pratique des tâches en salle de classe, les enseignants
ont mis en évidence quelques potentialités et contraintes. Une potentialité relevée est le rôle des principaux
acteurs, c’est-à-dire les enseignants eux-mêmes et leurs élèves.
Les enseignants au Luxembourg semblent particulièrement concernés par l’observation du processus d’apprentissage de leurs élèves, dont ils valorisent l’activation des connaissances préalables, la motivation, l’intérêt etl’engagement dans les activités. Par rapport à eux-mêmes, ils considèrent, comme points forts, les connaissances
préalables sur la médiation30, leur engagement dans l’éducation interculturelle et la promotion du portugais
comme langue pluricentrique.
Les descripteurs choisis pour cette étude ont joué un rôle d’orientation dans la phase de mise en pratique, carl’attention des enseignants était dirigée vers le développement d’une compétence spécifique : la médiation.
Cela a été davantage perceptible au sein du groupe travaillant en Suisse, car celui-ci a travaillé sur ces aspects
de la médiation de manière explicite pour la première fois, et l’accent a clairement été mis sur ce concept, soit
par rapport au développement professionnel des enseignants (réorientation des pratiques), soit par rapport audéveloppement de la compétence de médiation de leurs élèves.
Il est intéressant de noter que tous les enseignants considèrent qu’ils travaillaient déjà la médiation en sallede classe, toutefois de façon non ciblée, comme dans le cadre de ce projet. Les enseignants sont intervenus
explicitement pour médier lors des interactions et le processus de médiation a ensuite été discuté avec les élèves,en particulier en fin d’activité afin de favoriser une prise de conscience. Deux enseignants ayant commencé
par aborder le concept au début de l’unité didactique ont conclu qu’il était mieux de le faire en fin de séance.
Le manque de temps est l’une des contraintes soulignées par tous les enseignants. Ceux-ci auraient voulu
mieux étudier le Volume complémentaire pour mettre en œuvre la planification du travail avec la médiation.
Par conséquent, ils soulignent la difficulté d’opérationnaliser les descripteurs de la médiation et avouent quecette thématique n’a pas pu être vraiment abordée dès le début.
Au Luxembourg, les connaissances préalables (insuffisantes) des élèves sont envisagées comme une contrainte,
ce qui peut être lié aux doutes des enseignants par rapport à la capacité de médiation des élèves et, dans lecas de l’un des groupes de travail, à l’anticipation des difficultés de compréhension en allemand (la langue
d’alphabétisation au Grand-Duché). Cette question a été approfondie lors du focus group, et les enseignants ont
souligné l’importance de bien cerner les connaissances préalables des élèves pour proposer des thématiques
plus proches de leur entourage.
Au sujet des enseignants travaillant en Suisse, ce qui attire notre attention est leur méconnaissance de la médiation,
et par conséquent leur difficulté à l’opérationnaliser, ainsi que l’artificialité de la pratique de la médiation de lacommunication en salle de classe (il ne s’agit pas d’une situation réelle). Les enseignants reconnaissent avoir trop
expliqué les processus à défaut de laisser les élèves essayer leurs propres approches. Lorsque les enseignants
ont mis en pratique les activités dans d’autres classes, ils ont pu procéder différemment.

15.3.3. Phase 3 – Évaluation
En ce qui concerne l’évaluation des activités de médiation, l’analyse documentaire effectuée (voir tableaux 15.1
et 15.2) démontre que les enseignants ont opté pour l’évaluation formative, surtout par le biais de l’observation
directe ou, dans le cas de deux enseignants en Suisse qui ont travaillé ensemble, par le biais de réflexions guidées
qui ont été rédigées par les élèves. Il n’y a qu’une séquence didactique (Prof2, en Suisse) qui présente une échelle
d’autoévaluation construite spécifiquement pour cette tâche. Celle-ci est adaptée aux objectifs de l’activité

29. Établir un espace pluriculturel ; Agir en tant qu’intermédiaire dans des situations informelles (avec des amis et des collègues) et Faciliter lacommunication dans des situations délicates et des désaccords.
30. Déjà travaillée lors de l’année scolaire 2017-2018.

Page 234 3 Enriching 21st-century language education

et est susceptible d’aider l’élève et l’enseignant à savoir quelles compétences de médiation ont été activées
et développées. Dans les autres séquences didactiques, nous avons identifié un manque de spécification desinstruments utilisés pour soutenir soit l’observation des enseignants, soit la réflexion des élèves.
À travers la mise en œuvre et l’observation des activités de médiation proposées, les enseignants ont pris
conscience des attitudes, des savoirs et des savoir-faire des élèves en matière de médiation. Il nous semble que ces
compétences proviennent de leurs expériences de médiation quotidiennes (et inconscientes), car ils vivent dansdes contextes multilingues et multiculturels et jouent fréquemment le rôle de médiateurs dans leur quotidien.
Toutefois, les enseignants considèrent qu’il est très difficile d’évaluer la compétence de médiation en salle declasse, car cette dernière demande plutôt des situations artificielles – jeu de rôle, dramatisation, résolution detâches. Au Luxembourg, cela explique l’importance donnée à l’interaction entre les élèves et un intervenant
externe31. Les enseignants en Suisse pensent que le plus important est de faire réfléchir les élèves sur le processus
de la résolution des tâches, ce qui représente un réel défi pour les enseignants, car il faut centrer leur attention
sur l’interaction entre les élèves et les considérer comme de vrais acteurs sociaux.
Ces constats nous permettent d’établir des pistes concernant les besoins en formation des enseignants. En fait,
certains enseignants se sont montrés plutôt réticents (et pas du tout à l’aise) par rapport aux modalités et aux
instruments d’évaluation plus adaptés à la médiation. Cela reprend la question de considérer ou non la médiationen termes d’évaluation, alors que le Volume complémentaire met l’accent sur le processus d’apprentissage/
enseignement.
Lors des focus groups, les enseignants ont mis en avant le fait qu’observer les élèves pendant le développement
des activités a donné un sens différent à leur présence en classe : ils ont reconnu la valeur de cette stratégie pourprendre connaissance des compétences de leurs élèves. En Suisse, ces observations ont été fondamentales pourréorienter les pratiques de médiation des enseignants. Ils relèvent qu’il faut munir les apprenants d’outils pourqu’ils puissent développer davantage et tirer profit de cette compétence, qu’ils activent spontanément dansplusieurs contextes, et qui est toujours présente dans les interactions sociales.
Nous observons que le travail avec les descripteurs aide les enseignants à se focaliser sur le développement de lacompétence cible, ce qui exige la connaissance des descripteurs et l’appropriation de leurs contenus de manière
approfondie et consciente. Les connaissances professionnelles tacites qui sont à la base des pratiques didactiques
deviennent visibles, sont élargies et peuvent devenir la source de nouveaux apprentissages professionnels.
En somme, les enseignants au Luxembourg et en Suisse trouvent que le travail avec les descripteurs du Volume
complémentaire représente une opportunité pour le développement de l’enseignement de PLH.

15.4. CONCLUSION
Suite à cette analyse, nous constatons que les déséquilibres initiaux entre les connaissances des deux groupes
d’enseignants sur la médiation ont généré des implications différentes. Toutefois, il y a des implications transversales aux deux groupes : la prise de conscience de l’importance du travail de médiation (soit au niveau dela planification de tâches adéquates, soit par rapport à la façon d’observer et d’orienter les élèves pendant lesactivités) et la difficulté à évaluer le développement des compétences de médiation des élèves.
Ces enseignants, qui mettent en avant leur engagement pour une éducation plurilingue et interculturelle, ont
travaillé des contenus de médiation majoritairement par le biais de tâches qui plaçaient les élèves au sein desituations de négociation, en les incitant à se mettre d’accord pour accomplir la tâche. Lors des discussions, lesenseignants ont reconnu l’importance de sensibiliser les apprenants aux différences et aux similarités entre lescultures, en concluant que la médiation s’avère cruciale. Les classes de LH se présentent ainsi comme des espaces
privilégiés où les élèves peuvent développer et renforcer leurs compétences de médiation et contribuer ainsi à
un développement plus soutenu de leurs compétences plurilingues et interculturelles.
Cette étude a également attiré notre attention sur l’importance de la médiation pour les communautés migratoires et sur le fait que les enfants issus de la migration s’engagent, dans les situations du quotidien les plus
diverses, dans des pratiques de médiation, par exemple entre leurs parents et les institutions du pays d’accueil(école, hôpital, services sociaux, etc.). D’après les enseignants, il est important de montrer aux élèves, mêmeaux plus jeunes, le rôle central que joue la médiation dans toutes les interactions sociales et les objectifs de ces

31. Même si leurs discours ont été vagues par rapport à la façon dont ils ont observé l’interaction et les compétences de médiation desélèves pendant l’interaction.

Awareness raising and teacher education Page 235

activités, afin de les aider à prendre conscience de leurs points forts et faiblesses par rapport à ce domaine decompétence, en faisant appel à toutes les langues/cultures qui composent leur répertoire.
De manière générale, les enseignants ont fortement valorisé les facteurs internes au processus de planification,
de mise en pratique et d’évaluation de séquences didactiques/activités de médiation. Ainsi, ils reconnaissent
que ce travail dépend fortement de leur gestion des curricula, des méthodes de travail, des ressources/supports
didactiques qu’ils prévoient pour leurs cours, des conditions dans lesquelles ils travaillent et, évidemment, deleurs propres capacités et difficultés, ainsi que de celles de leurs élèves.
De plus, les enseignants semblent être parfaitement conscients que la médiation est une compétence valoriséedans les orientations institutionnelles, législatives et curriculaires, qui encadrent l’enseignement de PLH, ainsique par les institutions partenaires, en général, et les parents de leurs élèves, en particulier. En conséquence,les enseignants se montrent disposés à travailler la médiation et se sentent soutenus au niveau institutionnel
et législatif. Toutefois, ils ressentent des difficultés pour mener cette mission à bien.
Il faut donc planifier des activités qui permettent d’activer et de travailler cette compétence de manière plus
ciblée. Les descripteurs du Volume complémentaire semblent aider les enseignants à réaliser ce travail, mais
demandent que les enseignants i) comprennent ces descripteurs de manière approfondie et ii) soient capablesde les opérationnaliser pendant les phases de planification et de mise en pratique des activités de médiation.
Il importe donc d’investir dans la formation des enseignants.

RÉFÉRENCES
Barbosa P. et Flores C., « Clíticos no português de herança de emigrantes bilingues de segunda geração », dans
Textos seleccionados do XXVI Encontro Nacional da Associação Portuguesa de Linguística. APL, Lisbonne, 2011,
pp. 81-98. Disponible à l’adresse : http://hdl.handle.net/1822/14098, consulté le 2 janvier 2020.
Beacco J.-C. , Byram M., Cavalli M., Coste D., Egli Cuenat M., Goullier F. et Panthier J., Guide pour le développement
et la mise en œuvre de curriculums pour une éducation plurilingue et interculturelle, Conseil de l’Europe, Strasbourg,
2016.
Berthele R., « Assessing heritage languages and interdependence : why and how? », dans Berthele R. et Lambelet A.
(dir.), Heritage and school language literacy development in migrant children. Interdependence or dependence?,
Multilingual Matters, Bristol, 2017.
Candelier M., de Pietro J.-F., Facciol R., Lorincz I., Pascual X. et Schröder-Sura A., Le CARAP, un cadre de référence pourles approches plurielles des langues et des cultures. Compétences et ressources, Centre européen pour les langues
vivantes/Conseil de l’Europe, Strasbourg, 2012. Disponible à l’adresse : www.ecml.at/Portals/1/documents/
ECML-resources/CARAP-FR.pdf?ver=2018-03-20-120658-740, consulté le 2 janvier 2020.
Carreira M. et Kagan O., « The results of the national heritage language survey : implications for teaching, curriculum design, and professional development », Foreign language annals, no 44 (1), 2011, pp. 40-64.
Cavalli M., Coste, D., Crişan, A. et van de Ven, P.-H., L’Éducation plurilingue et interculturelle comme projet, Conseil
de l’Europe, Strasbourg, 2009.
Conseil de l’Europe, Cadre européen commun de référence pour les langues : apprendre, enseigner, évaluer. Volume
complémentaire avec de nouveaux descripteurs, Conseil de l’Europe, Strasbourg, 2018. Disponible à l’adresse :https://rm.coe.int/cecr-volume-complementaire-avec-de-nouveaux-descripteurs/16807875d5, consulté le2 janvier 2020.
Grosso M. J. , Soares A., de Sousa F. et Pascoal J., Cadre de référence pour l’enseignement portugais à l’étranger(QuaREPE), Ministério da Educação, Lisbonne, 2011.
Kromprák E., « Promoting multilingualism through heritage language courses : new perspectives on the transfer
effect », dans Berthele R. et Lambelet A. (dir.), Heritage and school language literacy development in migrant children.
Interdependence or dependence?, Multilingual Matters, Bristol, 2017, pp. 141-160.
Maroy C., « À análise qualitativa de entrevistas », dans Albarello L. et al., Práticas e métodos de investigação emciências sociais, Gradiva, Lisbonne, 1997.
Melo-Pfeifer S., « The role of family in heritage language use and learning : impact on heritage policies »,International journal of bilingual education and bilingualism, no 18 (1), 2015, pp. 26-44.

Page 236 3 Enriching 21st-century language education

Melo-Pfeifer S. et Schmidt A., « Portuguese and German repertoires perceived by Portuguese speaking childrenin Germany : a tale of two continua », Journal of multilingual education research, no 8, article 2, 2018. Disponible
à l’adresse : https://fordham.bepress.com/jmer/vol8/iss1/2, consulté le 2 janvier 2020.
MENJE et Institut Camões, I.P., Cadre de référence des cours complémentaires de langue portugaise aux cycles 2 à 4de l’enseignement fondamental, MENJE – SECAM / CEPE, Luxembourg, 2020.
Montrul S. (2012), « Is the heritage language like a second language? », Eurosla yearbook, no 12. Disponible àl’adresse : http://www.eurosla.org/Docs/Yearbook2012/Montrul.pdf, consulté le 8 août 2021.
MENFP, Plan d’études – École fondamentale. No spécial du Courrier de l’Éducation nationale, MENFP, Luxembourg,
2011. Disponible à l’adresse : https://men.public.lu/fr/publications/courriers-education-nationale/numeros-­
speciaux/plan-etudes-ecoles-fondamentale.html, consulté le 8 août 2021.
Nesteruk O., « Heritage language maintenance and loss among the children of Eastern European immigrants in
the USA », Journal of multilingual and multicultural development, no 31 (3), 2010, pp. 271-286.
Polinsky M. et Kagan O., « Heritage languages : in the “wild” and in the classroom », Language and linguistics
compass, no 1 (5), 2007, pp. 368-395.
Souza A. et Lira C. (dir.), O POLH (Português como Língua de Herança) na Europa, vol. 1, JNPAQUET Books Ltd.,
Londres, 2017.
Troncy C. (dir.), Didactique du plurilinguisme. Approches plurielles des langues et des cultures. Autour de Michel
Candelier, Presses universitaires de Rennes, Rennes, 2014.
Van Deusen-Scholl N., « Towards a definition of heritage language : sociopolitical and pedagogical considerations », Journal of language, identity and education, no 2 (3), 2003, pp. 211-230.

ANNEXES
Disponibles à la fin de la version PDF en ligne
Annexe 15.1 – Instrumento de apoio à planificação de sequência didática
Annexe 15.2 – Guião para a descrição de uma atividade de mediação

Awareness raising and teacher education Page 237

Chapter 16
ESSENTIAL NEEDS FOR THE
DEVELOPMENT OF UNIVERSITYSTUDENTS’ ACADEMIC MEDIATION SKILLS
Victoria Safonova, Lomonosov Moscow State University, Department
of Foreign Languages and Area Studies, Russian Federation;
Natalia Basina, Moscow University of International Relations, Departmentof the German Language, Russian Federation (MGIMO);
Olga Mironova, Nizhny Novgorod State Linguistics University, Department of Theory
and Practices of Foreign Languages and Linguodidactics, Russian Federation; andNatalja Jegorova, Riga Classical Gymnasium, Republic of Latvia

ABSTRACTIn the contemporary glocalised world, mediation skills are of vital importance for effective intercultural communication in any sphere of human activity. The mediation section in the CEFR Companion volume (Council ofEurope 2020) has established a new common basis for designing and producing teaching/learning materials
related to this mode of communication in Europe. However, teaching all types of CEFR mediation activities touniversity students is quite a challenge for European language education. The development of an effective
strategy for teaching and assessing mediation requires:
1. study of teachers’ attitudes to introducing mediation as a new objective in language education and their
preparedness for achieving it;
2. analysis of learners’ mediation needs; and3. evaluation of current learning materials for their relevance to mediation in the educational context
concerned.
For these reasons, this case study investigated Russian university teachers’ attitudes to the introduction of typesof mediation activities and strategies into the language classroom; identified MA and PhD students’ needs to act
as a mediator in international academic settings; and outlined some assessment tasks for evaluating students’
academic mediation skills. For these purposes, questionnaires, structured interviews and project discussions
were conducted at three Russian universities, Lomonosov MSU, MGIMO and Nizhny Novgorod State Pedagogical
University. Among the respondents were 70 university teachers,10 MA and 10 PhD students.
The data collected suggest that the introduction of mediation as an objective and an aspect of language education in Russia requires:
1. support for university teachers with a bilingual glossary of terms used in the CEFR presentation of mediation, to assist syllabus developers;
2. organising initial and in-service training of language teachers at each of the cycles of higher education(BA; Masters; PhD);
3. creating online self-training guides and self-study toolkits for teachers and learners;
4. designing true-to-life learning materials that are graded and specified for each cycle of higher education;
5. support for language practitioners with tasks designed with reference to the CEFR mediation descriptors,
adapted for profiling achievement in language programmes for specific and/or academic purposes.
As a result of this analysis, the focus in the project switched from the original intention (to provide assessment
tools) to the development of awareness-raising and support tools, with exemplar classroom materials to comein a follow-up project. The project participants confirmed that there should be a strong relationship between
instructors’ pedagogical and educational beliefs, the available course materials and training tools, appropriate
for each particular university language education context in Russia.
The English-Russian glossary of CEFR mediation terms compiled by project participants was given to MSU and
MGIMO teachers for constructive criticism. The evaluation of modern language course books revealed that the
only cross-linguistic activities concerned translation tasks, the format and content of which could be considerably

Page 239

improved with a view to adopting the CEFR action-oriented and pluricultural approach. New and innovative tasks
should be designed for developing learners’ abilities to mediate a text, mediate concepts and mediate communication.
The project team also sketched out a number of mediation pre-tasks and cultural mediation tasks in order toenhance MA students’ abilities to mediate communication in scholarly and research settings. The report ended
with some key considerations in a typology of tasks for developing and evaluating students’ mediation skills
during curriculum-embedded teacher assessment.
Overall, this case study has raised awareness of mediation teaching/learning activities in the field of higher
education and revealed the vital necessity of intensive co-operation in this domain.

RÉSUMÉ
Dans le monde contemporain globalisé, les compétences de médiation peuvent être considérées comme ayant
une importance primordiale pour une communication interculturelle efficace dans tous les domaines de l’activité
humaine. La section de médiation dans le Volume complémentaire du CECR (Conseil de l’Europe, 2020) a établi une
nouvelle base commune pour la conception et la production de ressources d’enseignement/d’apprentissage relatives
à ce mode de communication en Europe. Cependant, l’enseignement de tous les types d’activités de médiation
du CECR aux étudiants des universités représente un défi de taille pour l’éducation linguistique européenne. Le
développement d’une stratégie efficace d’enseignement et d’évaluation de la médiation exige i) une analyse desattitudes des professeurs à l’égard de l’introduction de la médiation en tant que nouvel objectif dans l’enseignement
des langues étrangères et de leur état de préparation pour l’atteindre, ii) une analyse des besoins des apprenants enmatière de médiation et iii) une évaluation des ressources d’apprentissage existantes, en fonction de leur pertinence
pour la médiation dans le contexte éducatif concerné. Pour ces raisons, l’étude de cas en question a examiné lesattitudes des professeurs des universités russes envers l’introduction de types et de stratégies de médiation dansla classe de langue ; elle a également identifié les besoins des étudiants de master et des doctorants pour être en
mesure de jouer le rôle de médiateurs dans des contextes universitaires internationaux ; elle a en outre esquissé
quelques tâches d’évaluation des compétences académiques de médiation des étudiants. C’est à ces fins que lesquestionnaires d’enquête, les entretiens structurés et les discussions de projet ont été menés dans trois universités
russes : l’université d’État Lomonossov et le MGIMO de Moscou, ainsi que l’université de Nijny Novgorod. Parmi lesrépondants figuraient 70 professeurs d’université, 10 étudiants de master et 10 doctorants.
Les données récoltées laissent entendre que l’introduction de la médiation en tant qu’objectif et aspect clé del’enseignement des langues en Russie nécessite :f de fournir aux professeurs d’université un glossaire bilingue des concepts employés dans le CECR pourprésenter la médiation, afin de venir en aide aux rédacteurs des programmes ;f d’organiser des formations initiales et continues des enseignants de langues pour chacun des cycles del’enseignement supérieur (bachelor, master, doctorat) ;f de créer des guides en ligne d’autoformation et des boîtes à outils d’autoapprentissage pour les enseignants et les apprenants ;f de concevoir des ressources d’apprentissage réalistes, calibrées et spécifiques pour chaque cycle de l’enseignement supérieur ;f de fournir aux professionnels de l’enseignement des langues des tâches conçues selon les descripteursde la médiation dans le CECR, adaptées à établir des profils de compétence dans les programmes d’enseignement des langues, à partir d’objectifs spécifiques et/ou académiques.
À l’issue de cette analyse, le projet a changé de focalisation, en passant de l’intention première de fournir desoutils d’évaluation à celle de développer des outils d’aide à la prise de conscience, avec en ligne de mire le développement futur de matériel pour la classe ayant fonction d’exemple. Les participants au projet ont souligné
l’importance d’établir une relation forte entre les croyances pédagogiques et éducatives des formateurs, lessupports de cours mis à disposition et les outils de formation, en adéquation avec chaque contexte particulierd’éducation langagière universitaire en Russie.
Le glossaire anglais-russe des termes du CECR relatifs à la médiation rédigé par les participants du projet a étéremis aux professeurs de l’université d’État de Moscou et du MGIMO pour une critique constructive. L’évaluation
des manuels d’enseignement a montré que l’unique composante interlinguistique y apparaissait sous forme detâches de traduction, dont le format et le contenu pouvaient être considérablement améliorés par l’adoption
de l’approche actionnelle et interculturelle du CECR. De nouvelles tâches innovatrices devraient par ailleursêtre conçues pour développer les capacités de l’apprenant en matière de médiation de texte, de médiation deconcepts et de médiation de communication.

Page 240 3 Enriching 21st-century language education

L’équipe du projet a également esquissé une série de prétâches de médiation et de tâches de médiation culturelle
afin de développer les capacités des étudiants de master à assurer la médiation de la communication dans descontextes scolaires et de recherche. Le rapport se termine par quelques considérations clés sur une typologie
d’activités permettant de développer et d’évaluer les compétences en matière de médiation des étudiants aucours d’une évaluation intégrée au programme.
Globalement, cette étude de cas a fait émerger une prise de conscience vis-à-vis d’activités d’enseignement/
apprentissage de la médiation dans le domaine de l’éducation supérieure et a mis au jour la nécessité absolued’établir une coopération intensive dans ce contexte.

16.1. INTRODUCTION
Though the idea of moving from Lado’s four-language-skills model – listening, reading, speaking and writing (Lado
1961) – to the four-modes-of-communication model – reception, production, interaction and mediation – hadalready been put forward and much emphasised in the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages:
learning, teaching, assessment, CEFR (Council of Europe 2001), and later in some related publications (e.g. Coste
and Cavalli 2015; Council of Europe 2020; North and Docherty 2016; North and Piccardo 2016), there is not muchevidence that it has been accepted and realised in practice in national language standards, curricula, syllabi or language methodologies and, consequently, in language course books related to higher education (HE), for example
in Russia, Serbia, the UK and other European countries. Similarly, the CEFR action-oriented approach to teaching
and assessing mediation as a mode of communication has not been much implemented in national language
educational landscapes, although intercultural and pluricultural communicative competence has been considered
as a must in national standards for HE in a number of European countries, for example in Russia, Latvia, Bulgaria and
Poland. In order to bring necessary changes into this language education landscape, it is important to uncover andunderstand the reasons for the failure to adopt the CEFR model in the contexts concerned before taking decisions on
developing and assessing university students’ mediation skills by exploiting the new CEFR descriptors for mediation.
The aims of the project – entitled “Essential needs for the development of university students’ academic mediation skills” – were to:f provide insights into the level of university teachers’ and postgraduates’ awareness of the benefits ofmoving from the four-skills model to the four modes of communication in language education from the
CEFR perspective;
f find out university teachers’ and postgraduates’ attitudes to adopting mediation as an objective of university
language education, and whether they have any conceptual/terminological difficulties in understanding
the CEFR Companion volume (Council of Europe 2020) in terms of methodological postulates that are to
be followed in Russian language education;
f compare MA and PhD students’ needs to mediate texts, concepts and communication in professional
intercultural communication;
f analyse whether and to what extent different types of mediation activities are included in the course books
that are usually used by university teachers in postgraduate HE;
f outline and discuss possible formats for tasks for developing and evaluating university students’ skills in
mediating communication.
The study was conducted mainly at Lomonosov (MSU) (Faculty of Foreign Languages and Area Studies),
Moscow State Institute of International Relations (MGIMO) (Department of the German Language) and Nizhny
Novgorod State Pedagogical University Kuzma Minin (Minin SPU) (Department of the Theory and Practices ofForeign Languages and Linguodidactics). On certain occasions members of the teaching staff at Riga ClassicalGymnasium were also involved in carrying out project tasks. The MA students participating in the case-study
project were studying for a Master’s Degree in linguistics and intercultural communication (MSU), sociology andpolitical science (MSU), international journalism (MGIMO) or in foreign language teaching (Minin SPU). The PhD
students were studying modern language education at MSU.

16.2. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The methodology to study the needs and preconditions for the development of materials for teaching and assessing academic mediation skills was based on the CEFR action-oriented approach and on the empirical study of:a. university teachers’ awareness of the necessity for moving from the four-skills model to the CEFR’s fourcommunication modes in modern language teaching and assessment, and their educational attitude tothis change in the language education landscape;Awareness raising and teacher education Page 241

b. their vision of mediation as one of the objectives and preconditions for modern language teaching to
Humanities students in local contexts;
c. their conceptual difficulties in understanding and interpreting CEFR terms related to mediation;d. their ideas about when in the HE cycle (BA, Masters, PhD) to introduce mediation and its different activities
into the university language curriculum;e. MA students’ and PhD students’ awareness of their own needs in being able to perform different mediation
activities and their abilities to use CEFR mediation descriptor scales for self-assessment purposes.
The study also involved an analysis of modern language course books used in university language departments
not concerned with translation studies, in order to evaluate their relevance for teaching mediation activities tolanguage students in the Russian university context. It aimed at collecting information on general characteristics
of language teaching and learning within the second cycle of HE (Masters) in terms of approaches, competences
to be developed and the nature and types of course book tasks – all from the perspective of the language teachingapproach reflected in the CEFR (Council of Europe 2001) and the CEFR Companion volume (Council of Europe 2020).
Besides this, the project team considered it important to discuss which of the mediation scales provided in the
CEFR Companion volume could be used without adaptation for teaching/learning and evaluation purposes andwhich of them would need some adaptation to any particular university educational context.

16.2.1. The survey questionnaire
To conduct the empirical study mentioned in points a. to e. above, a questionnaire was developed that consistedof mostly multiple-choice questions, with several open-ended questions added. The survey was conductedamong the following groups: 21 Lomonosov MSU English language teachers (nine of them provided English
courses to linguistics students and 12 others taught English for specific purposes), 12 MGIMO German language
teachers and 27 language teaching specialists from Minin SPU. In addition, 10 Lomonosov MSU MA students
specialising in the theory and practice of language teaching and 10 PhD students specialising in language
education were also chosen for a structured interview aiming to compare their academic needs to be able toact as mediators, including doing written translations in situations of professional intercultural communication.
Table 16.1 summarises the topics covered in the survey with the number of questions on each topic. The survey
questionnaire results are given in Figures 16.1 to 16.6.

16.2.1.1. Council of Europe publications
The data presented in Figure 16.1 show that, among the Council of Europe publications mentioned at the beginning of the questionnaire, it was the CEFR and CEFR CV that were not only known to the Russian respondents
but were also used by them either for teaching or research purposes.
Figure 16.1: University teachers’ awareness of CEFR publications and the scope of their use in teaching and research
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%

CEFR
CEFR.CVCEFR for DC.V.I
CEFR for DC.V.II
RFC for DC.V.III
Familiar
Not only familiar but use it in teaching
Not only familiar but use it in research Unfamiliar

CEFR: Common European framework of reference for languages (Council of Europe 2001)
CEFR.CV: CEFR Companion volume (Council of Europe 2020)
RFC for DC: Reference Framework of Competences for Democratic Culture (Council of Europe 2018)
V.I, V.II, V.III: Volumes I, II and III

Page 242 3 Enriching 21st-century language education

It is evident from Figure 16.1 that, so far, the CEFR CV materials are more used for research purposes than forteaching purposes in comparison to the use of the CEFR 2001. That fact is quite understandable, because the
CEFR CV only started officially functioning in the European educational field in 2018. Therefore, the respondents
had not yet had enough time to make any decisions on how the CEFR CV could be used in modern language
teaching and learning practices in university.
Table 16.1: Questionnaire focus and types of question
Questionnaire focus

Number ofquestions

Question type

1 Respondents’ awareness of, and use of:- the CEFR
- the Companion volume (CEFR.CV)- the Reference Framework of Competences for Democratic Culture,
Vol. 3: Guidance for implementation (RFC for DC, Vols I to III)(Councilof Europe 2018)

1

Multiple-choice

2 The respondents’ practical use of the CEFR scales in modern language
teaching

2Open-ended

3 The degree of acceptance by respondents of the CEFR proposal to movefrom the four-skills model for language teaching to the four modes ofcommunication (reception, production, interaction, mediation)

1

Multiple-choice

4 Core concepts in the CEFR CV presentation of mediation and terminological difficulties in introducing them into the Russian educational
context

2

Multiple-choice
and open-ended,
plus interview

5 Respondents’ acceptance of the idea of mediation (from the CEFR perspective) as a new objective for university modern language teaching,and preconditions for its teaching and assessment; their vision of whattype(s) of mediation activities are preferable in the first, second and third
cycles of HE (BA; Masters; PhD)

5Multiple-choice

6 The respondents’ views on whether it is necessary to adapt the two CEFR
translation scales for the needs of Russian university language education

2

Multiple-choice

7 Types of translation to be taught in language courses for students nottraining to be translators and interpreters (i.e. linguistics students in
non-translation departments; language education students; students of
Humanities at non-linguistic departments)

1

Open-ended

8 Types of university translation courses to be introduced in university curricula

1Open-ended

9 Respondents’ suggestions for teaching translation as a mediation activity
at university

1

Open-ended

10 Respondents’ suggestions for improvements in designing modern language
course books from the perspective of the CEFR presentation of mediation

1

Open-ended

11 Respondents’ experiences in teaching translation for academic purposes

1Open-ended

12 Respondents’ vision of task-based assessment of students’ skills in mediating communication in academic settings

2

Open-ended

16.2.1.2. CEFR descriptor scales used
The data presented in Figure 16.2, relating to Point 2 in Table 16.1, give us some insights into the educational
purposes for which the CEFR descriptor scales are used by the respondents in Russia. Firstly, these data indicate that the respondents use CEFR scales mostly for orientation in teaching and assessment, that is to say for

Awareness raising and teacher education Page 243goal-setting. Secondly, the CEFR scales related to identifying the level of pragmatic competences, as well associolinguistic competence, are used much less by the respondents than the scales related to oral and written
skills and linguistic competence. Thirdly, the new CEFR scales related to mediation and to pluricultural andplurilingual competences seem to have been ignored by the respondents up until now, since less than 10%
claimed to be working with the CEFR Companion volume at all.
According to the survey and interview data, none of the respondents had ever used the CEFR mediation scales
in their teaching practices because they had only recently learned about this mode of communication and they
badly needed efficient training in being a mediator themselves before starting to teach it. As for plurilingual andpluricultural competences (building on pluricultural repertoire), they felt that they would use it if a pluricultural
approach to language education was strongly recommended in Russian Federation educational documents. In
other words, the respondents gave their practical priority mostly to the scales related to oral and written receptive
skills. Here two questions arise: to what extent do the respondents support the CEFR four-modes-of-communication model for language teaching, learning and assessment? And are they personally inclined to introduce
mediation into university language education in Russia?
Figure 16.2: The most common purposes of using the CEFR descriptor scales in language education: the
CEFR as an orientation tool
12%
for assessing students' oral and written skills,
listening and reading comprehension skills
for measuring students' linguistic competences

18%
12%

76%

for measuring students' pragmatic competences
for measuring students' sociolinguistic competence
while writing the assessment part in a foreign language syllabus
while developing teaching materials

22%
31%

16.2.1.3. Four modes of communication (reception, production, interaction, mediation)
According to the respondents’ answers to the question on Point 3 of Table 16.1, their attitudes to the CEFR ideaof moving from Lado’s four-language-skills model (1961) to four modes of communication (Council of Europe
2001; Council of Europe 2020) are as follows:
f complete support (10%);f partial support with the respondents’ emphasis on particular educational preconditions for this change inthe philosophy and methodology of language education in Russia (85%);f need for some more time for careful re-reading of the CEFR and CEFR.CV in order to make their own decisions and answer this question (4%);
f complete rejection (1%).
The respondents who rejected the idea of moving from the four skills model to the four modes of communication
were mostly those who believed that their teaching of a foreign language was already good enough without
bringing into it any “European” innovations.
An interview was carried out with each of the respondents who partially supported the move to the CEFR fourmodes of communication, in order to discover why people who were in principle positive about the change had
reservations. Those respondents who partly supported this idea clearly stated that the practical implementationof any innovative idea or approach in language pedagogy could not be achieved without three prerequisites:
firstly, a considerable effort of university curriculum, syllabus and course book developers to produce innovative teaching materials; secondly, their collaboration with university teachers in piloting these materials in theuniversity classroom; and thirdly, an exchange and discussion of university practices in teaching mediation interms of educational merits and drawbacks. These interviews added some further preconditions that could andwould lead to positive outcomes in learning a foreign language. The respondents emphasised that language
teachers need additional training for teaching these four modes of communication in a foreign language, andPage 244 3 Enriching 21st-century language education

that each of these modes of communication should be described and specified in detail in teaching guides andother support materials for teaching them in HE.

16.2.1.4. Mediation core concepts and the need for a glossary
The concept of mediation from the CEFR perspective is not very familiar to many groups of language practitioners
in Russia. Moreover, respondents’ answers to the questions under Point 4 in Table 16.1 suggest that language
teachers may face considerable difficulties in finding appropriate Russian equivalents for English mediation
terms (See Figure 16.3), especially when writing language syllabi. (Nearly all sections in the Russian format of alanguage syllabus are to be written in Russian; only the samples of learning and assessment tasks are written
in the target language).
Figure 16.3: Difficulties in understanding some core concepts and in finding equivalent Russian terms forthe names of the groups of CEFR scales for mediation
10%30%

mediating a text

25%

mediating concepts
mediating communication
overall mediation
37%

The survey data and the interviews with respondents revealed the need of university teachers to have abilingual (e.g. English-Russian or English-Latvian) or trilingual (e.g. English-German-Russian) glossary of
mediation terms used in the CEFR. Without such an aid, it might be very problematic, as mentioned above, towrite the mediation section in a language course syllabus or a translation course syllabus. It appeared that itwas very difficult for 54% of the respondents even to find a Russian equivalent for the English term “a modeof communication”, even though the majority of the respondents did understand the meaning of the term inEnglish and could use it in professional communications without causing any misunderstandings when thecommunication was in English. After several rather long discussions, the project team members reached anagreement on what CEFR terms should certainly be included in this bilingual or trilingual mediation glossary.
They are:f competence(s) (including general competences and communicative language competences);f modes of communication (including reception, production, interaction and mediation);f mediation (intralinguistic mediation, cross-linguistic mediation);f languaging;f mediation activity;
f mediation strategy;
f mediating a text (including amplifying a dense text, streamlining a text);
f mediating a concept (linking to previous knowledge, adapting language, breaking down complicatedinformation, facilitating collaborative interaction with peers, collaborating to construct meaning);
f mediating communication;
f mediator as a social agent;
f plurilingual competence;f pluricultural competence;f cultural repertoire;f linguistic repertoire.
In addition, on the advice of university practitioners and PhD students, some more concepts were added to thelist of the terms mentioned above, among which were:

Awareness raising and teacher education Page 245

f bilingual linguistic competences;f bilingual pragmatic competences;f bilingual sociolinguistic competence;f pluricultural repertoire;f plurilingual repertoire;f translanguaging;f mediation exercise;f mediation task;
f language teaching conference participant as a mediator;
f teacher as a mediator;
f translator/interpreter as a mediator;
f language learner as a mediator in the international university classroom;f code switching.
The English-German-Russian glossary entries were given for constructive criticism to 15 university language
practitioners who had not earlier been included in the group of the survey respondents.

16.2.1.5. Introducing mediation into the syllabus
Although the majority of the respondents had no doubts about the real need to introduce mediation into
today’s university language education, nevertheless there appeared a clear division between two groups of
respondents. The first group (44% of the university teachers surveyed) believed that mediation as a teaching
and learning objective should be introduced into modern language syllabi and teaching/learning materials
only for Humanities students with an international perspective in their career path. The other group of
respondents (about 56% of the university teachers surveyed) thought that mediation should be introduced
into all language course syllabi no matter whether language learners plan or do not plan to take an internationally-oriented career path. Without exaggerating too much the importance of these findings, what should
not be ignored is the fact that the first viewpoint could provoke something like educational discrimination
if mediation were to be taught only to Humanities students. However, this point of view could hardly bechanged without in-service training of the teachers to be mediators and to become specialists in teaching
mediation in the language classroom.
Figure 16.4 illustrates respondents’ answers concerning the cycle(s) of HE in which mediation might be introducedin the language classroom, and Figure 16.5 demonstrates some differences of opinion between the respondents working in the three universities, namely Lomonosov MSU, MGIMO and Minin SPU (Nizhny Novgorod).
Although these choices were far from being similar at the different universities, nevertheless a certain common
tendency can still be seen: the second cycle of HE (Masters), from the respondents’ point of view, seems to be
the key cycle for starting to develop mediation skills in the university classroom. This is probably because thelevel of students’ language proficiency seems to be appropriate for acting as a cultural mediator and it is within
the second cycle of HE that students badly need mediation skills for their participation in intercultural projects(including research ones) and youth research forums.
Figure 16.4: HE cycle(s) during which mediation might be introduced in the language classroom – aggregate
result17.5%
40%

During the Third Cycle (only)
During the Second and Third Cycles
During First, Second and Third Cycles
42.5%

Page 246 3 Enriching 21st-century language education

Figure 16.5: HE cycle(s) during which mediation might be taught and assessed in the language classroom –result by institution
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Lomonosov MSU

First Cycle of HE

MGIMOMinin State
University (Nizhny
Novgorod)

Second Cycle of HE

Third Cycle of HE

16.2.2. Course book analysis
As mentioned earlier, the respondents emphasised the need for guides and other support materials for teaching
mediation as one of the preconditions for introducing mediation as a course objective. However, before starting
to develop any support materials for teaching and assessing mediation skills, it seemed sensible to first get aclear idea of the language course books used by the respondents, in terms of the approaches employed by thecourse book writers to develop CEFR competences, including plurilingual and pluricultural, and communicative
language activities with a special focus on mediation.
The results of the analysis of 70 course books (27 German and 43 English course books used by MA students)
can be summarised briefly by the following points:
f The course book writers do not include any tasks on mediating concepts or mediating communication. As
for mediating a text, no tasks on “Relaying specific information” or “Explaining data” are offered. Tasks on“Processing a text” are mostly intralinguistic and not cross-linguistic (not from Language A to Language B).
f Translation tasks are usually included in course books developed by Russian course book writers and arelacking in imported course books.
f Translation is mostly used for introducing foreign terminology and comparing it with Russian terminology.
It is not taught as a mediation activity in the majority of course books for teaching a language for specificpurposes. Very often, learners are given translation tasks (e.g. to translate a foreign article into Russian orto render a Russian article into a target language) without being taught translation strategies, translation
techniques and translation evaluation criteria.
f In terms of competences, Russian authors gave their priority, above all, to tasks aiming at developing linguistic competences whereas the proportion of tasks, for example, on developing learners’ sociolinguistic
and sociocultural competences was very limited (sociolinguistic competence 5%; sociocultural competence 7%; see Figure 16.6). It is evident from these data that there is a task imbalance in the course books
under consideration, which would benefit from the addition of innovative tasks which call for mediation.
This is because without developing the appropriate level of pragmatic, sociolinguistic and pluriculturalcompetences in collaborative tasks, students will not be able to follow an appropriate mediation strategy
and so perform successfully any mediation activity. Similarly, no tasks on developing learners’ plurilingualand pluricultural competences were offered in the course books analysed, and it would be beneficial to
add these too.
f The mediation skills in the descriptors for Levels C1 and C2 imply the need to design university course
books with a content and language integrated learning (CLIL) approach, problem-based teaching andlearning, and intercultural or pluricultural approaches, but the educational potential of these approaches

Awareness raising and teacher education Page 247

was far from being successfully exploited by course book writers. Even the communicative approach toteaching and learning a language for specific purposes is reflected in just 31% of the course books analysed, problem-based tasks are used in only 30% of the books, and language-and-culture learning tasks
appear in not more than 18%.
Figure 16.6: The ratio of tasks oriented to linguistic competence and to other CEFR competences in language
courses

5%7%Linguistic competences
28%

60%

Pragmatic competences
Sociolinguistic competenceSociocultural competence

16.2.3. Interview results
It was only possible to discuss students’ mediation needs in interviews with those MA and PhD students towhom the meaning of terms like Mediating a text, Mediating concepts and Mediating communication had been
explained and who had also been involved in real intercultural co-operation (MA students) or international
research activities (PhD students). These MA and PhD students stated in their interviews that their interculturalexperiences might have been much more effective if they had practised beforehand such mediation activities
as mediating communication, mediating concepts and translation for research purposes (as an activity of
mediating a text).
In other words, the lack of tasks on mediating communication and concepts in the course books used in theuniversity classroom, and the language practitioners’ unpreparedness for teaching the CEFR mediation activities
mentioned above, generated a lot of discussion among the project members. These concerned, first, ways ofoutlining tasks for developing learners’ skills in mediating communication. Only then did they move on to thediscussion of possible types of assessment tasks for evaluating MA students’ academic mediation skills, required
nowadays in educational and research environments.

16.2.4. Towards a typology of tasks
Lomonosov MSU teachers made suggestions to MGIMO and Minin Nizhny Novgorod State University for atypology of pre-mediating and mediation-oriented tasks that could be exploited as learning activities (Safonova
2017; 2018 a, b, c; 2019). The final version of the learning tasks under consideration included those listed below.32
1. Pre-mediating tasks:
a. sharing personal experiences of communication gaps/cultural shocks, and the ways of overcoming them;b. compiling a data bank related to communicative gaps between Russians and representatives of othercultures in intercultural settings;
c. observing and comparing the schemata of academic events in the Russian Federation and in other countries, verbal and non-verbal scenarios of academic communication between conference organisers, key
speakers and other participants in formal and informal settings;

32. Some tasks from Sections 1 and 2 were used in a newly published university course “Exploring the world of intercultural communication & co-operation” (Safonova and Silkowich, 2019), an outcome of the Russian and Belarusian university project on designinginternationally oriented learning materials for Russian and Belorusian university students.

Page 248 3 Enriching 21st-century language education

d. discussing differences in academic styles for writing research papers, making academic/research presentations, lecturing, etc.;
e. anticipating situations in which misunderstandings between Russians and representatives of other culturesin academic settings are likely to occur, leading to communication breakdowns.
2. Receptive mediation-oriented tasks:
a. reading, discussing and using in the classroom the CEFR scales related to mediating communication;b. watching academic podcasts to identify situations in which academic misunderstandings occur, explaining
the reasons for this and suggesting some mediation activities to improve communication;c. identifying intercultural academic situations that will involve mediation and the kind of mediation activity
needed;d. watching academic podcasts and/or analysing blogs containing reflections on communicative and conceptual
gaps in intercultural academic communications between representatives of different language-and-culturecommunities;
e. choosing unbiased and appropriate colours and symbols in the visuals accompanying academic speaking/writing in different cultural communities;
f. comparing an authentic text and its translations in terms of the readability, intelligibility, language accuracy
and communicative appropriateness of the translated text, in relation to the particular cultural/interculturalenvironment it is intended for.
3. Productive mediation-oriented tasks:
a. building up linguistic and sociolinguistic repertoire in a target language for mediation purposes andtraining to use this repertoire in mediation situations;b. using the CEFR mediation scales for teacher assessment and self-assessment purposes and giving reflections on one’s own mediation competence;c. commenting on the effectiveness of mediation techniques used by a Russian interlocutor in particularintercultural communication situations;d. giving learners practice in acting as a cultural mediator in given formal and informal academic communication situations;e. using different mediation techniques in varying the discourse structure, linguistic and sociolinguistic
repertoire, and conceptual content of a paper presentation/lecture/research report, etc., depending on
when and where this academic communication takes place;f. overcoming difficulties in translating into Russian academic texts in other languages related to a particulararea of knowledge and field of study and doing other translations for academic and research purposes.
4. Mediation-oriented project work and case studies (in one, two or three languages;
5. Design and production of cross-linguistic academic guides, conference posters, bilingual collection of papers
innovative in their content.
Although there was an extremely limited time for providing a complete classification of mediation tasks, somesuggestions for tasks to further develop and assess mediation are outlined in Table 16.2. These are organisedin five sections:
1. Pre-mediation cognitive tasks on observing, comparing and making generalisations about the patterns/
scenarios of general and academic behaviour in Russian and foreign academic and research settings;
2. Cross-linguistic mediation tasks for Russian students to be able to a) help foreign students overcome theiracademic difficulties in the classroom and b) produce academic/research products in accordance withinternational conference templates of writing papers and giving presentations;
3. Mediation role-plays in co-learned languages;
4. Mediation-oriented case studies (monolingual and bilingual);
5. Mediation-oriented CLIL projects and written translation projects.
Tasks such as these could be considered for curriculum-embedded assessment. They facilitate the evaluation of postgraduates’ mediation skills not only by assessing skills demonstrated in performing individual
mediation tasks, but also by assessing students’ performances when they participate in a project, discussion
or even debate.

Awareness raising and teacher education Page 249

Table 16.2: Types of tasks for developing and evaluating postgraduates’ mediation competenceCore types ofinternal assessment tasks

Cognitive
problemsolving on:

Bilingualacademictasks on:Mediationrole-plays inco-learned
languages:

Sub-types(within each core type)

Cycle of HE
Second cycle(Masters)

Third cycle(Doctoral)

collecting, systematising and interpreting information on
national/international academic code of conduct in L2 toreflect on it in L1 and vice versa;

communicating in L1 verbal academic information given
in L2 by using:- basic, graphic information;- modern infographics;interpreting bilingual graphic information and infographics
used in:- academic lectures/at seminars & workshops;- academic discussions/debates offline and online;

identifying communicative barriers to international academic communication between representatives of A &B cultures and suggesting means to overcome them ininternational academic settings;



finding appropriate ways of destroying stereotypes in:- cross-cultural settings;- pluricultural settings.



helping international students in their academic life
(e.g. filling in academic forms);



presenting oneself in intercultural formal and informal
academic settings;



writing a lecturer evaluation form including his/her abilities
to act as a mediator in the international classroom;-

providing a brief written overview of major writings andother sources available in L1 and L2 on a selected topic;

depends on
the student’s
language
proficiency
and researchcompetence

preparing a presentation of an academic paper for aninternational conference by using a template (a design
schema) recommended by the conference organisers (MAand PhD students);making a 5-minute poster presentation;

-making a 10-minute academic presentation on a research
topic that involves mediation skills needed in a particularinternational classroom;-delivering lectures in another language in academic settings that require a languaging mediation activity and/or code switching.

-acting as a mediator in co-operative role-play in which
participants work together towards the same goal asuniversity students in the international classroom, participants in an international workshop/youth forum onpolitics and social issues;

Page 250 3 Enriching 21st-century language education








-

Core types ofinternal assessment tasks

Mediationrole-plays inco-learned
languages:

Mediationoriented
CLIL projects
aimed at:Mediationorientedcase studies
aimed at:Cycle of HE

Sub-types(within each core type)

Second cycle(Masters)

Third cycle(Doctoral)

acting as a group of culture detectives in filling in gaps
in knowledge of the differences in styles of academic
behaviour in Russia and other countries;-

acting as an interpreter in scholarly settings (from Language
A into Language B and vice versa);

-acting as an interpreter in research settings (from Language
A into Language B and vice versa);-

acting as mediators in task-based role-plays related touniversity campus and international student life.



listing scholarly events in which Russian postgraduate students can participate in Russian-speaking andEnglish-speaking academic environments or other FL
environments;

identifying essential characteristics of scripts/scenarios/
schemata of scholarly events and possible communication
barriers faced by Russian MA and/or PhD students and/or
postdoctorals in international academic communication
settings;

identifying academic roles acted by participants at particular scholarly events and finding out what is considered to beappropriate or inappropriate when performing a particular
academic role (as a conference presenter, as a panellist,
as a key speaker, etc.) in different linguacultural settings;

highlighting academic macro-actions/skills which are
performed by a participant in accordance with his/heracademic role in an academic event;choosing and using appropriate verbal repertoire in English
for performing a particular academic role at a particular
academic event.



identifying communication breakdowns in scholarly
environments and suggesting some ways of bridging
communication gaps in bicultural/pluricultural international settings;

-

identifying communication breakdowns in research environments and suggesting some ways of bridging communication gaps in bicultural/pluricultural international settings;-

comparing the codes of research conduct and research
ethics in Russia and other countries and producing a guideon appropriate verbal and non-verbal behaviour in Russia
and in other countries in different continents.



16.3. DISCUSSION
The case study reported here involved language practitioners from three Russian universities, Lomonosov
MSU, MGIMO and Minin SPU, in a careful examination of the CEFR Companion volume sections Mediation
and Plurilingual and Pluricultural Competence. This was approached as intensive self-education in thefields of mediation activities and strategies as well as the action-oriented approach and plurilingual andpluricultural methodology. The project also gave these practitioners an educational stimulus to identify the
weakest links in teaching and assessing translation as a mediation activity, in addition to considering the
introduction of a wider range of mediation activities. It also gave the project participants an opportunity
to start thinking about when and where it is preferable to introduce mediation activities and strategies

Awareness raising and teacher education Page 251

within the three cycles of university education (BA, Masters, PhD). During this process, it was importantto take into consideration the profiles of degree-course developers, as well as tendencies in developing
internationally-oriented-­language education.
Initially, the study aimed at outlining the educational needs and preconditions when developing materials forassessing students’ academic mediation skills and making decisions on mediation task format and content.
However, analysis of the availability of mediation tasks in the university course books selected or recommended
for MA students highlighted some other problems:a. The need to update and re-structure university course books by offering problem-solving mediation tasks
designed to meet the mediation needs of students in the second cycle of HE (Masters);b. The needs of university teachers for guides and support materials for teaching mediation skills at different
levels of HE;
c. The needs of postgraduates for mediation self-study materials that will help them become able to act
as mediators in the international classroom, to become mediators when acting as teachers (Coste andCavalli 2015), and to act as pluricultural mediators when they participate in international academic events(Safonova 2018a; 2018b).
Without finding comprehensive, effective solutions to these problems, the practical use of any set of materials toassess mediation activities is doubtful. In other words, appropriate course materials have a key influence on language
teaching methodology and practices, and therefore are a key factor in introducing the teaching of mediation
as a mode of communication. The authors strongly believe that what is badly needed are mediation-oriented
learning materials incorporated into university language courses and self-study guides. However, the design ofmediation-oriented learning materials is a complicated and lengthy process that presupposes interdisciplinary
co-operation between specialists from such fields as cognitive and communicative linguistics, sociolinguistics,
cultural studies, psychology of intercultural communication, theory of intercultural communication, language
pedagogy, education and communication-based testing.
As university language education in Russia is regulated with the help of the Federal State Educational
standards (FSEs) for HE and since degree programmes and course syllabusi are based on those standards(Demchuk et al. 2015), it seems desirable to start with the introduction of mediation as an objective for language
education within the second (Masters) and third (PhD) cycles of HE. Communication competence in Russianand foreign languages is already identified as a key competence in the FSEs for HE (Demchuk et al. 2015),
and a foreign language is a compulsory subject in Russian universities. Including mediation in these national
standards would stimulate inter-university projects aiming at designing and piloting mediation-oriented
learning materials (including online self-study materials) for teaching modern languages for specific purposesin different educational contexts.

16.4. CONCLUSION
This case study raised university teachers’ awareness of the teaching of mediation and the development of students’ mediation skills in Russian university contexts. The university communities involved in the project agreed
on emphasising the CEFR proposal that it is necessary in language teaching pedagogy to broaden the conceptof mediation, which is sometimes limited to translation and interpretation. The project participants confirmedthat there should be a strong relationship between instructors’ pedagogical and educational beliefs and theavailable course materials and training tools, appropriate for each particular university language education
context in Russia.
This case study also led to the organisation of a group of multipliers helping to introduce the teaching of
mediation in the Russian Federation and in the CLIL courses developed in Latvian secondary schools. It alsoestablished a mini-community of academics, MA and PhD students who are motivated to design mediation-oriented teaching materials, and to pilot mediation assessment tasks in various university contexts
in Russia. The project participants from Lomonosov MSU, MGIMO and the Nizhny Novgorod Institute of
Education have agreed to continue their co-operation in the field under consideration at the national level.
This will include additional joint work on designing in-service teacher training programmes with a special
focus on the methodology and innovative practices of teaching mediation in different educational contexts
for international partnership and co-operation.

Page 252 3 Enriching 21st-century language education

REFERENCES
Coste D. and Cavalli M. (2015), Education, mobility, otherness: the mediation functions of schools, DGII – Directorate
General of Democracy, Language Policy Unit, Council of Europe, Strasbourg.
Council of Europe (2001), Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: learning, teaching, assessment,
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, available at www.coe.int/en/web/common-european-framework-­reference-languages, accessed 23 August 2021.
Council of Europe (2018), Reference Framework of Competences for Democratic Culture. Volumes 1-3. Guidance for
implementation. Council of Europe Publishing, Strasbourg, available at www.coe.int/en/web/campaign-free-tospeak-safe-to-learn/reference-framework-of-competences-for-democratic-culture, accessed 1 September 2021.
Council of Europe (2020), Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: learning, teaching, assessment –Companion volume, Council of Europe, Strasbourg, available at https://rm.coe.int/common-european-­frameworkof-reference-for-languages-learning-teaching/16809ea0d4, accessed 22 August 2021.
Demchuk A., Karavaeva Y., Kovtun Y. and Rodionova S. (2015), “Competencies, learning outcomes and forms ofassessment: the use of Tuning methodology in Russia”, Tuning Journal for Higher Education No. 3(1), pp. 149-85,
available at https://tuningjournal.org/article/view/97/1082, accessed 11 September 2021.
Lado R. (1961), Language testing. The construction and use of foreign language tests: a teacher’s book, Longman,
London.
North B. and Docherty C. (2016), “Validating a set of CEFR illustrative descriptors for mediation”, Research Notes[ISSN 1756-509X Cambridge English Language Assessment] No. 63 (March 2016), pp. 24-9, available at: www.
cambridgeenglish.org/images/301971-research-notes-63.pdf, accessed 11 September 2021.
North B. and Piccardo E. (2016), “Developing illustrative descriptors of aspects of mediation for the Common
European Framework of Reference (CEFR): a Council of Europe project”, Language Teaching No. 49(3) (July
2016), pp. 455-9, available at www.cambridge.org/core/journals/language-teaching/article/developing-­
illustrative-descriptors-of-aspects-of-mediation-for-the-common-european-framework-of-reference-cefr/
C38092A1D98B09DDF1CF3B8CB853634B, accessed 2 September 2021.
Safonova V. (2017), “Cultural studies as a didactic means of improving intercultural language education”, European
Journal of Language and Literature Studies (European Centre for Science Education and Research) No. 3(1),pp. 76-85, available at http://journals.euser.org/index.php/ejls/article/view/1924, accessed 11 September 2021.
Safonova V. (2018a), “Developing PhD students’ academic culture in EAP courses for international communication and co-operation”, European Journal of Interdisciplinary Studies [online] No. 4, pp. 103-14, available atwww.semanticscholar.org/paper/Developing-Russian-Phd-Students%E2%80%99-Academic-Culture-Safonova/
ae34d762925738bbac9d99cbdc8cc37e49bdbfeb, accessed 11 September 2021.
Safonova V. (2018b), “Educating the language learner as a cultural mediator in the English classroom”, inProceedings of the 11th Innovation in Language Learning International Conference, Filodiritto Publisher, Bologna,
Florence, pp. 305-8.
Safonova V. (2018c), “Linguacultural mediation as a pan-European strategy in developing language education”,
in Language, culture, translation, communication, Vol. 2, pp. 170-83 (in Russian), MSU Publishing House, Moscow.
Safonova V. (2019), “An FL Tertiary Education package as a tool of the dialogue of cultures in the globalized world”,
Vestnic MSU No. 1, pp. 38-50 (in Russian).
Safonova V. and Silkovich L. A. (2019), Exploring the world of intercultural communication & co-operation, ResearchCentre “Euroschool”, Moscow.

Awareness raising and teacher education Page 253

Chapitre 17
L’EXPLOITATION DES COMPÉTENCES
PLURILINGUES DANS LE CADRE DESFORMATIONS LINGUISTIQUES DISPENSÉESAUX ADULTES PLURILINGUES : ÉTUDE DE
CAS SUR L’UTILISATION DES NOUVEAUXDESCRIPTEURS DU VOLUME COMPLÉMENTAIREDU CECR POUR UNE TRANSITION VERS
DES PRATIQUES D’ENSEIGNEMENTVALORISANT LE PLURILINGUISME
Darius Vanhonnaeker, Sophie Adler et Achraf Dorboz (Bell Switzerland)

RÉSUMÉ
La présente étude de cas sonde le regard des enseignants et des apprenants sur la compétence plurilingue dansle cadre des formations en langues délivrées au public adulte de Bell Switzerland, pour ensuite comparer cetteperception aux pratiques de classe et articuler un programme de formation visant à accompagner les enseignants
dans l’appréhension de la médiation et du plurilinguisme au sein de leurs cours.
Cette étude s’appuie sur un travail de recueil de données mené à travers un questionnaire à destination desenseignants, un autre à destination des apprenants et une grille d’observation utilisée lors des visites de classes,
tous trois développés au regard des échelles relatives à la médiation, à la compréhension et à l’exploitation d’unrépertoire plurilingue présentes dans le Volume complémentaire du CECR (Conseil de l’Europe, 2018 et 2020).
Les résultats obtenus montrent que, si l’utilité de langues autres que la langue cible dans le cadre d’un cours est
généralement reconnue, la pratique de ces langues tierces reste en revanche sujette à davantage de résistance.
Il en ressort également que ce sont principalement les préconceptions liées à l’apprentissage linguistique, lesmodèles intériorisés qui y sont associés et les compétences en langues des apprenants adultes ou des enseignants qui définissent la place accordée à la médiation en classe.
La confrontation de ces résultats aux apports des études récentes sur le sujet mais également aux orientations
pédagogiques du groupe Bell a démontré l’importance de sensibiliser les enseignants à la pertinence, à la gestion et à l’impact du plurilinguisme au sein des cours de langue dispensés à un public adulte possédant une
expérience préalable de la pluralité linguistique et culturelle. Cette étude voit dans le Volume complémentaire un
ouvrage de référence pour y parvenir, considérant ses nouveaux descripteurs comme un solide point d’ancragepour l’adaptation d’outils d’encadrement pédagogique (comme les syllabus ou la grille d’observation de classe)prenant mieux en compte les compétences plurilingues ou pour l’élaboration de programmes de formation
destinés à accompagner les enseignants et visant à accorder au plurilinguisme une place à part entière dansles cours de langue pour adultes.

ABSTRACTThis case study explores teachers’ and learners’ views on plurilingual competence in Bell Switzerland’s language
training for adults, then compares this perception to classroom practices and articulates a training programme
to support teachers in understanding mediation and plurilingualism in their lessons.
This study is based on data collected through one questionnaire addressed to teachers and one to learners,
and an observation grid used during classroom visits. The three instruments were based on the scales relating
to mediation, plurilingual comprehension and building on a plurilingual repertoire contained in the CEFR
Companion volume (Council of Europe 2018, 2020).
The results show that, although the usefulness of languages other than the target language in a course is generally
recognised, the use of these languages in the foreign language classroom is still subject to greater resistance. The

Page 255

results also show that it is mainly preconceptions related to language learning, the internalised models associatedwith it and the language skills of adult learners or teachers that define the place given to mediation in the classroom.
The comparison of these results with the contributions of recent studies on the subject, but also with the Bell
Group’s pedagogical orientation, has demonstrated the importance of raising teachers’ awareness of the relevance,
management and impact of plurilingualism in language courses given to an adult audience with previous experience of linguistic and cultural plurality. This study sees the Companion volume as a reference work to achievethis, considering its new descriptors as a solid anchor for the adaptation of pedagogical guidance tools (suchas syllabi or classroom observation grids) that take better account of plurilingual skills, or for the developmentof training programmes to support teachers and give plurilingualism a full place in adult language courses.

17.1. INTRODUCTION
Dans une société où les enjeux plurilingues et pluriculturels vont croissant et tendent à définir le quotidien socioprofessionnel des individus, l’enseignement des langues confronte didacticiens et pédagogues à des apprenants
aux profils langagiers de plus en plus variés. Le contexte d’enseignement/apprentissage de l’école Bell Switzerland
basée à Genève et filiale du groupe Bell (Cambridge) en offre non seulement un parfait exemple mais constitueégalement un terrain d’étude propice pour aborder la question de la médiation dans les classes, en lien avec lescompétences plurilingues des enseignants et des participants. La publication du Volume complémentaire du
CECR (Conseil de l’Europe, 2018 et 2020) et de ses nouveaux descripteurs définissant les compétences plurilingues ne pouvait que nous inviter à approfondir cette problématique.
En effet, dans le cadre du mandat que remplit Bell auprès des organisations internationales établies à Genève, lesfonctionnaires qui participent à nos cours possèdent en commun le fait de présenter des profils linguistiques très
variés et d’être confrontés socioprofessionnellement à un environnement où la langue de travail est généralement
différente de leur langue maternelle. La majorité de ces apprenants évoluent donc dans un milieu où l’on attend
d’eux qu’ils soient capables de communiquer dans différentes langues ; raison pour laquelle la majorité d’entre
eux possèdent d’ores et déjà des compétences communicatives dans au moins deux langues (dont l’anglais, lefrançais ou l’espagnol), celle qu’ils apprennent dans le cadre des cours dispensés par Bell représentant en généralleur troisième langue au minimum33.
Par ailleurs, le fait que nous nous trouvions dans le cadre d’un enseignement dispensé à un public de professionnels adultes a également son importance. Dans un contexte tel que le nôtre, les cours se voient irrémédiablement
orientés vers les besoins parfois très spécifiques des apprenants, répondant à des objectifs professionnels définis
par le contexte linguistique des organisations. Par conséquent, il nous a paru important d’aborder la question de lapluralité linguistique en nous intéressant à la capacité des enseignants à s’y adapter pour y répondre et l’exploiter.
L’objectif premier de notre étude sera donc d’atteindre une meilleure compréhension de la perception qu’ont
enseignants et apprenants à l’égard de l’utilisation de langues tierces34 dans le cadre d’une formation linguistique
tout en observant et identifiant les pratiques et attitudes qu’ils développent vis-à-vis de la médiation dans laclasse de langue.
Les résultats de cette étape centrale permettront ensuite la définition d’activités de conscientisation, de réflexion
et de formation destinées au corps enseignant et visant à développer leurs connaissances et compétences dansla gestion du plurilinguisme en classe.

17.2. DESCRIPTION DU PROJET
17.2.1. Liens avec le référentiel
En complément du CECR de 2001 qui évoque à plusieurs reprises l’utilisation de langues tierces35, le Volume complémentaire, à travers ses nouvelles échelles de descripteurs, apporte un éclairage intéressant sur la gestion duplurilinguisme au sein des classes de langue. Les différentes échelles relatives à la médiation (2018 : pp. 106-135)

33. Les apprenants ayant participé à l’étude parlaient tous entre deux et sept langues.
34. Le terme « langue tierce » renvoie à toute langue autre que celle faisant l’objet du cours. La langue faisant l’objet du cours sera appelée« langue cible ».
35. Voir notamment le chapitre 6 du CECR de 2001, où la prise en compte de la L1 des apprenants est mise en avant dans l’acquisitionde compétences linguistiques, pragmatiques et sociolinguistiques, ou le chapitre 8 où l’on insiste sur l’importance de la compétence
plurilingue et pluriculturelle dans le développement des échelles des descripteurs.

Page 256 3 Enriching 21st-century language education

et celles de Compréhension plurilingue (2018 : p. 168) et Exploiter un répertoire plurilingue (2018 : p. 170) nous ont
ainsi servi de base dans l’élaboration des différents supports utilisés dans le cadre de notre étude : le questionnaireà destination des enseignants, la grille d’observation de classes et le questionnaire à destination des apprenants36.
L’analyse des réponses obtenues à nos questionnaires étayée par le résultat des observations de classe et corrélée
à l’utilisation de l’échelle Exploiter un répertoire plurilingue nous a permis de mettre en lumière certaines caractéristiques propres à l’enseignement linguistique à un public d’adultes préalablement plurilingues, travaillant
dans un contexte international et habitués à mobiliser les ressources du plurilinguisme dans leur quotidiensocioprofessionnel.
En nous appuyant sur ces résultats, nous avons alors mené un travail de réflexion mettant en perspective lesdescripteurs présents dans le Volume complémentaire avec les appréciations de nos apprenants et de nos
enseignants ainsi que les pratiques observées en classe pour proposer de nouvelles orientations pédagogiquesainsi que des formations pertinentes à l’intention de notre équipe enseignante.

17.2.2. Recueil des données
L’étape de recueil des données s’est articulée en trois études successives :f l’envoi d’un questionnaire aux enseignants (17.2.2.1) ;f une série de visites de classes effectuées au moyen d’une grille d’observation (17.2.2.2) ;f l’envoi d’un questionnaire aux apprenants (17.2.2.3).
Les informations relatives à ces différentes étapes sont reprises dans le tableau 17.1 ci-dessous et une sélection
des données recueillies les plus pertinentes est détaillée ci-après.
Tableau 17.1: Informations clés dans le recueil de données
Questionnaireenseignants

Observations declasses

Questionnaire
apprenants

Nombre de réponses

12

12

66

Groupes cibles

Enseignants de langues(allemand, anglais,
espagnol, français,portugais, russe)

Cours collectifs delangues (français, anglais,
allemand, espagnol, portugais), niveaux A1 à B2

Apprenants adultes de 25
à 68 ans évoluant dans
un contexte socioprofessionnel plurilingue

Chronologie

Septembrenovembre 2018

Février-mars 2019

Mai-juillet 2019

Objectifs

Interroger les ensei­
gnants sur leurs attitudes
et préconceptions liées
au plurilinguisme

Quantifier et qualifier
les interactions plurilingues entre ensei­
gnants et apprenants

Déterminer les attitudes
des apprenants à l’égard
du plurilinguisme dansleur apprentissage d’une
langue étrangère

FormeQuestions ouvertes
et à choix multiples(25 questions)Observations
standardisées(47 points)

Questions ouvertes et à
choix multiples(24 questions)17.2.2.1. Questionnaire à destination des enseignants37
La première étape du recueil de données a consisté à soumettre aux professeurs un questionnaire portant sur
l’utilisation et la gestion du plurilinguisme au sein de leurs classes. Le critère de la langue enseignée n’a pas été
retenu comme pertinent, les comportements à l’égard du plurilinguisme ou de la médiation ne dépendant pasde la langue enseignée.
Pour ce questionnaire invitant les enseignants à réfléchir au regard qu’ils portent sur le plurilinguisme et à la placeréservée à la médiation dans leur pratique professionnelle, nous avons privilégié les questions ouvertes pourleur donner l’opportunité de développer leurs réponses et avoir ainsi accès à leurs préconceptions sur ce sujet.

36. Les questionnaires ainsi que la grille d’observation utilisée lors des visites de classes sont consultables en annexe.
37. Voir annexe 17.1.

Awareness raising and teacher education Page 257

Le questionnaire était divisé en quatre sections :i) « Recours à une langue tierce » : quatre questions portaient sur l’utilisation des langues au sein de leursclasses et sur la nécessité éventuelle de ce recours ;ii) « Compétences en langues tierces » : neuf questions leur demandaient de réfléchir à leurs propres
compétences langagières ;iii) « Exploitation des langues tierces » : huit questions portaient sur leur adaptation au profil des apprenants ;iv) « Formation » : quatre questions leur permettaient de réfléchir à l’adéquation de leur formation initiale
dans la gestion des compétences plurilingues ainsi qu’à leurs besoins de formations futures au regard dela spécificité de notre contexte d’enseignement.
Résultats : À la question de la nécessité du recours à une langue tierce dans le cadre des cours, la majorité desenseignants ont répondu positivement ; plus de 90 % disent ainsi l’utiliser de manière occasionnelle ou assez
fréquente. Tous soulignent son utilité dans les opérations de traduction de mots isolés, monosémiques ou
spécialisés, d’explications ponctuelles, grammaticales ou de consignes, de comparaison interlangue ou encore
pour la mise en confiance et la valorisation des connaissances des apprenants. Dans le même temps, ils sontpourtant 54 % à considérer le recours à une langue tierce comme non indispensable et la plupart d’entre eux
ont par ailleurs souhaité préciser que ce recours se faisait de manière ponctuelle, le moins possible et avec les
niveaux débutants uniquement. Du point de vue de leurs connaissances linguistiques, plus de 70 % des enseignants interrogés déclarent posséder des compétences suffisantes pour traduire et donner des explications enentre deux et quatre langues autres que la langue cible (l’anglais ou le français étant utilisés en tant que langues
tierces par l’ensemble des enseignants) et utiliser une langue tierce seulement si celle-ci est partagée par tous.
Les réponses des enseignants révèlent une attitude sensiblement différente lorsque la langue tierce est sollicitéepar les apprenants. En effet, alors qu’apparaît chez plus de 80 % des enseignants la crainte de voir la langue tierce
entraver l’apprentissage de la langue cible, ces derniers ont tendance à se focaliser sur le caractère linguistique,au détriment de l’aspect médiateur permis par les langues tierces.
Une certaine ambiguïté ressort donc des questionnaires vis-à-vis du plurilinguisme, qui, pour les enseignants,
serait à éviter autant que possible alors même que son utilité se voit mise en avant pour les opérations de transfert et de renforcement des acquis.

17.2.2.2. Observations de classes38
Dans un second temps, nous avons procédé à une série de visites de classes (quatre cours de niveau A1, deuxde A2, quatre de B1 et deux de B2) qui nous ont permis, d’une part de confronter les réponses obtenues aux
questionnaires avec les pratiques de classe, et d’autre part de mesurer la place faite aux langues tierces dansla classe.
La grille d’analyse développée pour les observations in situ était divisée en deux parties, l’une concernant lesenseignants, l’autre les apprenants. Les observations concernant les enseignants portaient sur :i) le recours à un répertoire plurilingue (fréquence, systématicité, types d’activités et objectifs) ;ii) l’exploitation du plurilinguisme des apprenants ;iii) la gestion des interactions plurilingues.
Du point de vue des apprenants, nous avons cherché à déterminer :i) l’importance qu’ils attribuaient à l’utilisation d’une langue tierce dans le cadre de leur apprentissage ;ii) les situations dans lesquelles ils y avaient recours ;iii) les raisons qui les poussaient à y recourir.
La grille d’analyse a été complétée par la transcription des interventions ou interactions en langues tierces
durant les cours. La nature de ces occurrences a été analysée et les tendances principales associées au recours
à la médiation ainsi mises au jour.
Résultats : Pour les enseignants, les visites de classes ont permis de confirmer les données des questionnaires
relatives à leur connaissance du répertoire des apprenants ou de la fréquence d’utilisation de langues tierces.
Dans plus de 90 % des séances observées, nous avons relevé entre une et six occurrences d’utilisation de langues

38. Voir annexe 17.2.

Page 258 3 Enriching 21st-century language education

tierces ; ce recours étant plus important avec les classes de niveau débutant39. Du point de vue de l’attitude desenseignants à l’égard des langues tierces, deux stratégies ont été observées. La première s’exprimait par un refus
catégorique de tout recours à une langue autre que la langue cible. Ainsi, lorsque celle-ci était mobilisée par lesapprenants, les enseignants choisissaient de l’ignorer. La seconde stratégie consistait à recourir à une langue
tierce commune (dans notre contexte, l’anglais, le français ou l’espagnol)40 et conduisait l’enseignant à exploiter
les interventions en langues tierces des apprenants, mobilisant les ressources du plurilinguisme principalement
pour confirmer le sens (de mots, concepts ou énoncés) ou commencer un travail de comparaison. À noter quedans les deux cas, les comportements et commentaires des enseignants ont démontré la prégnance d’une
conception voyant dans le recours au plurilinguisme un frein possible à l’apprentissage de la langue cible. Cette
représentation semble d’autant plus solidement ancrée qu’il s’agit d’un schéma souvent également intégré parles apprenants41.
Du point de vue des apprenants, le fait que, dans 90 % des classes, les apprenants lancent le recours aux
langues tierces atteste de l’importance qu’elles revêtent très tôt dans le cadre de leur apprentissage linguistique.
Ainsi, lorsqu’ils y ont recours, c’est généralement pour compenser un manque (92 %) ou se rassurer de labonne compréhension (83 %). Dans trois quarts des classes observées, la médiation s’opérait entre enseignants et apprenants, dans 90 % des cours, ces interactions en langues tierces se déroulaient également ou
uniquement entre apprenants, et dans 60 % des cas, le recours à une langue tierce s’effectuait en dehors ducadrage de l’enseignant.

17.2.2.3. Questionnaire à destination des apprenants42
La troisième étape a consisté à envoyer un questionnaire (en français et en anglais) à 353 apprenants afin que
nous ayons accès à des données précises concernant leur point de vue sur l’usage des langues tierces dansle cadre de leur apprentissage d’une langue cible (français, anglais, allemand, espagnol, portugais et russe).
Le taux de réponse a été de 20 %43. Ce questionnaire les interrogeait sur :i) leur profil et leurs connaissances langagières (nécessité et utilité des langues tierces dans un cours delangue ; aisance à passer d’une langue à une autre) ;ii) leur opinion à l’égard de l’utilisation de différentes langues dans le cadre des cours ;iii) leur utilisation des langues durant les cours.
Les questions de la première partie comprenaient des entrées à choix multiples et des champs de saisie libre.
Celles de la deuxième demandaient aux apprenants d’exprimer leur degré d’accord ou de désaccord concernant différentes affirmations, et comportaient également des questions fermées. Dans la troisième partie, lesapprenants étaient invités à choisir une ou plusieurs réponses parmi celles qui leur étaient proposées. Cette
partie leur donnait à la fin la possibilité de s’exprimer plus personnellement sur l’utilisation de langues tierces
dans le cadre des cours de langue.
Résultats : Les réponses des apprenants concernant l’utilité des langues tierces, dans le cadre des cours delangue, révèlent une attitude générale positive. La quasi-totalité d’entre eux déclare la mobilisation desconnaissances en langues tierces utile pour comprendre et parler avec aisance la langue cible et dit avoir
recours à cette médiation avec facilité. En revanche, ils sont également nombreux (58 %) à répondre ne pas
avoir besoin de traductions ou d’explications en langue tierce, et une proportion plus grande encore dit êtrecapable et s’efforcer de s’exprimer uniquement en langue cible durant les cours (78 %). La question de l’utilisation des langues tierces divise donc les apprenants. Car si 46 % se déclarent en faveur (mettant en avant lanécessité d’une communication claire ou reconnaissant les ressources qu’offre la comparaison des langues),
une proportion similaire (42 %) se prononce contre (avançant le besoin d’immersion, de « penser dans lalangue cible », ou les difficultés liées à la justesse de la traduction et à d’autres interférences provoquées parune langue tierce).

39. Nous avons par exemple observé en moyenne trois fois plus d’occurrences d’utilisation d’une langue tierce dans les cours du niveau
A1 que dans ceux de niveau A2 ou encore deux fois plus en A2 qu’en B2.
40. De nature consensuelle, cette seconde approche conduit cependant à négliger l’opportunité que constituerait pour l’apprentissage
l’exploitation du bagage langagier et des compétences plurilingues élargis des apprenants. Elle semble également davantage
adaptée à certains contextes (scolarité obligatoire, environnement international avec langue de travail commune, ou autres groupes
linguistiquement homogènes).
41. Voir infra.
42. Voir annexe 3.
43. Sur les 73 questionnaires remplis, 66 ont pu être exploités qualitativement et statistiquement. Les questionnaires incomplets ont été
exclus de l’analyse.

Awareness raising and teacher education Page 259

Les réponses apportées par les apprenants sur l’attitude des enseignants vis-à-vis des langues tierces confirment
les observations de classes. Pour 80 % des apprenants, les enseignants n’ont que peu recours à une langue
autre que la langue cible, et cela se limite généralement ponctuellement à une phrase ou un mot. Ils sont 46 %
à penser que les enseignants acceptent les sollicitations en langues tierces de la part des apprenants (dontils connaissent le profil linguistique de la même façon que ces derniers connaissent le leur) et 18 % déclarent
que leur enseignant les refuse catégoriquement. Tout comme les enseignants, les apprenants considèrent
également que le recours à une langue tierce devrait diminuer à mesure que progresse le niveau du cours.
Le recoupement de ces données avec celles des observations de classe et du questionnaire enseignants fait
donc ressortir l’importance des notions de pertinence et de gestion du plurilinguisme ; deux dimensions liées àla médiation auxquelles s’attache tout particulièrement notre étude afin de donner à nos enseignants des outils
pour appréhender et gérer efficacement le plurilinguisme au sein des classes.

17.3. DISCUSSION
17.3.1. Importance du plurilinguisme dans le cadre des cours de langue
La question de la pertinence de la médiation et du plurilinguisme en classe de langue se trouve au cœur desréflexions pédagogiques actuellement menées au sein du groupe Bell. Silvana Richardson, Head of Teacher
Development à Bell, a ainsi entrepris un travail de sensibilisation des enseignants au rôle central que le monolingual bias a joué en linguistique appliquée et dans l’enseignement des langues, de même qu’aux changements
amorcés par le multi-/plurilingual turn (Conteh et Meier, 2014 ; García et Wei, 2014 ; May, 2014 ; Piccardo et Puozo,2015 ; Taylor et Snoddon, 2013).
Les cours pour adultes dans les organisations internationales proposés par Bell Switzerland ont donc constitué unterrain d’études faisant tout naturellement écho à nos préoccupations pédagogiques concernant la place de lamédiation et du plurilinguisme et ont permis de mettre en évidence la nécessité de sensibiliser nos enseignants
à l’enrichissement que représenterait l’exploitation d’un répertoire plurilingue.
Alors que nos enseignants voient encore majoritairement le recours au plurilinguisme comme un phénomène
périphérique, voire parasite, à l’apprentissage, il était important de résorber le flou qui continue à entourer l’idéede recours au plurilinguisme dans le cadre des cours de langue. Pour y parvenir, il était essentiel de familiariser
les enseignants avec les descripteurs du Volume complémentaire et avec les nombreuses recherches menéesdepuis une vingtaine d’années soulignant l’importance du bagage linguistique lors de l’apprentissage d’une
nouvelle langue (Lavault, 1985 ; Cenoz, 1997 ; Williams et Hammarberg, 1998 ; Moore, 2002 ; Cenoz, 2003 ;Trévisol-Okamura, 2006 ; Bono, 2007 ; Blumenfeld et al., 2017, entre autres), la nature fondamentalement plurilingue du système linguistique (De Bot et Jaensch, 2015), le fait que la L1 ne constitue pas toujours la source
privilégiée de transfert (Leung, 2005 ; Tavakol et Jabbari, 2016), ou encore que l’acquisition et le développement d’une conscience métalinguistique auront tendance à s’affiner avec le nombre de langues maîtrisées(Cook, 1992 ; Moore, 2002 ; Pavlenko, 2015 ; Tavakol et Jabbari, 2016). Nos enseignants ont ainsi pu saisir lacomplémentarité entre l’acquisition de compétences linguistiques et la capacité de médiation qui fonctionneégalement comme un vecteur de sens et dote la compétence plurilingue d’une réelle plus-value sociale etculturelle44. Il est indéniable que la réceptivité des enseignants face à la médiation constitue une condition
préalable, non seulement pour leur permettre eux-mêmes d’établir des passerelles entre les langues, mais également pour valoriser les connaissances des apprenants et instaurer, par cette bienveillance, une dynamiqued’apprentissage positive tenant compte du besoin d’« intellectualisation de l’acquis » (Lavault, 1985 : p. 15)
caractéristique du public adulte chez qui le besoin de recourir à la dimension métalinguistique s’exprime trèsvite. Les apprenants adultes parlant plusieurs langues et habitués à mobiliser les ressources du plurilinguismedans leur quotidien socioprofessionnel verront ainsi leurs connaissances préalables valorisées et l’apprentissage
de la nouvelle langue pourra s’inscrire dans une logique de cohérence avec leurs pratiques de communication
professionnelles, établissant ainsi un continuum susceptible d’influer positivement sur leur motivation (Coste,
Moore et Zarate, 1997 ; Cook, 2010).

44. Parmi les occurrences observées, nous pouvons citer celle où une étudiante hispanophone a demandé à son professeur deportugais si bola et pelota signifiaient la même chose, question qui introduira une séquence d’échange autour des expressions
idiomatiques utilisant les mots pelota, bola, pelotas, pelado et carreca. Nous pouvons également mentionner une parenthèseculturelle provoquée par le mot français « crochet », qu’un étudiant trouvait trop « tender », « cute » eu égard au « Capitaine
Crochet », ou une autre portant sur l’acception du mot français « vedette », qui a donné lieu à une séquence autour de la connotation en espagnol et italien.

Page 260 3 Enriching 21st-century language education

17.3.2. Importance de l’acquisition de compétencesde gestion du plurilinguisme pour les enseignants
Nous avons vu que l’attitude des apprenants à l’égard du plurilinguisme reposait principalement sur leurs expériences d’apprentissage, qui orientaient leurs attentes en termes d’enseignement. Face à cela, nos enseignants
ne doivent donc plus seulement se positionner en tant que spécialistes de leur langue d’enseignement, mais
adopter une approche plus englobante permettant d’inclure l’apprentissage de la langue cible dans un rapport
de continuité avec les connaissances linguistiques préalables des apprenants.
Dans la lignée des études les plus récentes sur l’acquisition des langues et des travaux émanant du Conseil
de l’Europe, et comme invitent à le faire les nouvelles échelles de descripteurs du Volume complémentaire,le groupe Bell a choisi de s’orienter vers une prise en compte de la diversité linguistique des apprenants
et des ressources offertes par le plurilinguisme, visant à faire de cette dimension une réelle composantedidactique45. Dans cette optique, si une langue tierce peut être privilégiée par l’enseignant pour garantir
une certaine efficacité communicative, ce dernier pourra également avoir recours à d’autres langues, indépendamment du degré de connaissance de ces langues par le groupe-classe, à des fins comparatives ou
explicatives, de manière à activer des compétences transversales (Moore, 2001 : p. 76 ; Beacco, 2000 : p. 74)
et à stimuler la conscience linguistique des apprenants dans une démarche métacognitive d’appropriation
et d’autonomisation. Une telle intégration de la compétence de médiation invaliderait de facto le soucid’équité invoqué par certains enseignants pour justifier la non-utilisation de langues tierces non partagées
par l’ensemble des apprenants.
Pour y parvenir, il est cependant essentiel que la prise en compte des compétences plurilingues au sein de laclasse se fasse de façon réfléchie46. Car si les interactions plurilingues sont à même de jouer un rôle importantdans les processus d’apprentissage, il serait erroné de postuler tout recours à une langue tierce comme d’emblée
et de manière absolue profitable. Présumer du potentiel heuristique des différentes langues (Dabène, 1996)
implique également de les considérer comme une ressource stratégique à mobiliser dans le but de favoriserl’acquisition de compétences dans la langue cible. Par conséquent, un mésusage procédant d’une utilisation
mécanique ou intempestive pourrait nuire au développement de compétences discursives dans la langue d’apprentissage (Lüdi, 1999 : pp. 36, 47), préoccupation mise en avant par de nombreux enseignants interrogés etqu’ils invoquent notamment pour justifier leur prudence à l’égard de l’utilisation de langues tierces. De ce pointde vue, il revient donc à l’enseignant d’apprécier le moment favorable pour faire intervenir ou exploiter une
occurrence en langue tierce, comme n’importe quelle autre stratégie à sa disposition et comme une ressource
pédagogique et didactique à part entière. Et afin d’y parvenir, l’enseignant doit non seulement avoir été formémais aussi disposer d’outils adaptés.

17.3.3. Fonction des descripteurs dans le développement des pratiques
Si la position institutionnelle de l’école Bell à l’égard de l’utilisation de langues tierces est claire, et la pertinencede la médiation en classe de langue reconnue et encouragée, notre étude de cas nous a montré qu’il était indispensable de fournir aux enseignants des outils pour gérer les compétences plurilingues au sein de la classe. Danscette perspective, les différentes mesures mises en place par Bell Switzerland à destination de ses enseignants
ont eu pour objectif de leur permettre d’aborder le plurilinguisme de manière sereine et de leur fournir les
ressources nécessaires pour en faire un véritable atout pour l’apprentissage.
Une mesure phare a été l’introduction, en septembre 2019, d’une nouvelle section dans les syllabus de cours,
consacrée à la compétence plurilingue et composée à partir d’une sélection de descripteurs issus des échelles
Médiation générale, Compréhension plurilingue et Exploiter un répertoire plurilingue du Volume complémentaire.
Ce changement nous a permis de poser le plurilinguisme en tant que composante à part entière des cours delangue et de présenter aux enseignants des éléments concrets détaillés dans le Volume complémentaire auxquels
ils pouvaient se référer. Parallèlement, la grille d’observation utilisée par les responsables pédagogiques lors desvisites de classes a été adaptée afin que soit mieux prise en compte la compétence de gestion et d’utilisation
du plurilinguisme en classe.

45. Différents projets qui incluent le plurilinguisme de manière curriculaire ont été menés en milieu scolaire (Herrenberger, 1999 ; Bétrix
Köhler et Panchout-Dubois, 2015 ; Wright, Boun et García, 2015).
46. Voir aussi les travaux autour du translanguaging (García et Wei, 2014 ; Wright, Boun et García, 2015 : pp. 223-240), qui se définit
précisément par l’intentionnalité de la mobilisation de langues tierces dans le renforcement de la compréhension et de l’activité desapprenants dans les différentes langues mobilisées (Ibid. : p. 224).

Awareness raising and teacher education Page 261

En complément à ces mesures, une démarche plus globale de formation du corps enseignant a été entreprise.
Au cours de l’année académique 2018-2019, différents ateliers ont été organisés pour sensibiliser l’équipe pédagogique au rôle et à l’importance du plurilinguisme et de la médiation en classe de langue. Les enseignants ont
pu par exemple réfléchir à la notion de « biographie langagière » ou encore à la place et au rôle que jouent lesdifférentes langues dans l’apprentissage linguistique.
Les prochaines formations porteront notamment sur l’exploitation de techniques de gestion du plurilinguisme
en classe de langue ou encore sur la création de matériel pédagogique intégrant la composante plurilingue47.
Des formations plus spécifiques seront ensuite organisées avec pour objectif, par exemple, l’acquisition par lesenseignants de connaissances en linguistique contrastive, indispensables pour pouvoir évaluer les demandes
des apprenants et y répondre de manière appropriée.

17.4. CONCLUSION
Les différentes démarches entreprises dans le cadre de notre étude ont confirmé à la fois la complexité et lapertinence de la question du plurilinguisme envisagé dans le cadre de l’enseignement/apprentissage d’une
nouvelle langue. Elles nous ont également permis de mettre en évidence un certain nombre de caractéristiques relatives à l’enseignement/apprentissage d’une langue lorsque celui-ci se faisait avec un public adulte
possédant une expérience pratique préalable importante de la pluralité linguistique et culturelle : le niveau ducours, l’attitude des enseignants à l’égard des langues tierces (Araújo e Sá, 1994 : pp. 253-254), mais égalementla nécessité de prendre en compte la capacité des apprenants plurilingues à voyager dès les premiers niveaux
à travers les échelles de compétences.
Les échelles présentes dans le Volume complémentaire ont joué un rôle important dans l’identification des pratiques plurilingues, la détermination de leurs rôles et de leur pertinence ainsi que dans la mise en place d’actions
de sensibilisation permettant aux enseignants de répondre aux défis posés par l’enseignement linguistique dans
un monde globalisé. Un enjeu important concerne notamment les représentations liées au plurilinguisme dansles cours de langue, encore trop souvent perçu comme une interférence dans l’acquisition de compétences équivalentes à celle d’un locuteur natif plutôt que comme une ressource au service de la médiation48. L’intégration
des descripteurs relatifs au plurilinguisme et à la médiation dans les syllabus de cours et la grille d’observationde classe, leur mobilisation et leur exploitation dans la mise en place de formations destinées aux enseignants
constituent par conséquent une étape essentielle pour aider les apprenants à développer leurs compétences
non seulement linguistiques, mais également sociales et culturelles.
Un changement de paradigme d’enseignement se profile donc. Un engagement des centres de formation autant
que des concepteurs de matériel est à cet égard nécessaire pour permettre aux enseignants une bonne gestion
et une exploitation pertinente de la dimension plurielle des langues. Les appréhensions et résistances que nous
avons pu rencontrer dans la gestion des compétences plurilingues pourront être vaincues grâce à cette redéfinition en profondeur qui s’esquisse dans les cours de langue, et qui, au final, permettra de mieux répondre àl’évolution d’une société où le plurilinguisme est de plus en plus souvent la norme.

RÉFÉRENCES
Araújo e Sá M.-H., « Les échanges pédagogiques sollicités par les apprenants dans des situations pédagogiques
guidées », dans Profils d’apprenants. Actes du 9e Colloque international « Acquisition d’une langue étrangère : perspective et recherches », Saint-Étienne, mai 1993, Publications de l’université de Saint-Étienne, Saint-Étienne, 1994.
Beacco J.-C., Les Dimensions culturelles des enseignements de langue, Hachette, Paris, 2000.
Beacco J.-C. et Byram M., De la diversité linguistique à l’éducation plurilingue. Guide pour l’élaboration des politiques
linguistiques éducatives en Europe, Conseil de l’Europe, Strasbourg, 2007.
Bétrix Köhler D. et Panchout-Dubois M., « Les langues… pour apprendre et enseigner le fonctionnement dufrançais. Ou comment engager des élèves dans des apprentissages relatifs à la langue première dans le cadred’une didactique du détour », Babylonia, no 2, 2015, pp. 30-33.

47. À ce sujet, parmi les manuels utilisés au sein de Bell Switzerland dans les différentes langues enseignées, seul Menschen (Hueber)consacre une place au plurilinguisme à travers des activités comparant plusieurs langues. Le manuel de la collection « Édito » (Didier)
destiné au niveau B2 propose également, depuis peu, des fiches complémentaires relatives à la médiation linguistique.
48. Et également une des six métafonctions principales du translanguaging dégagées par García (cité par García et Wei, 2014 : p. 225).

Page 262 3 Enriching 21st-century language education

Blumenfeld H. K., Quinzon. S. J. R., Alsol C. et Riera S. A., « Predictors of successful learning in multilingual older
adults acquiring a majority language », Frontiers in communication, 2 (23), 2017. Disponible à l’adresse : www.
frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fcomm. 2017.00023/full, consulté le 7 septembre 2019.
Bono M., « La comparaison L2-L3, un tremplin vers l’acquisition trilingue », Birkbeck studies in applied linguistics,
2007. Disponible à l’adresse : http://www.bisal.bbk.ac.uk/publications/volume2/pdf/article2pdf/, consulté le5 août 2018.
Cenoz J., « L’acquisition de la troisième langue : bilinguisme au pays basque », Acquisition et interaction en langueétrangère, no 10, 1997, pp. 159-175.
Cenoz J., « Facteurs déterminant l’acquisition d’une L3 : âge, développement cognitif et milieu », Acquisition etinteraction en langue étrangère, no 18, 2003, pp. 38-51.
Conseil de l’Europe, Cadre européen commun de référence pour les langues : apprendre, enseigner, évaluer, Didier,
Paris, 2001. Disponible à l’adresse : https://rm.coe.int/16802fc3a8, consulté le 22 juillet 2018.
Conseil de l’Europe, Cadre européen commun de référence pour les langues : apprendre, enseigner, évaluer. Volume
complémentaire avec de nouveaux descripteurs, Conseil de l’Europe, Strasbourg, 2018. Disponible à l’adresse :https://rm.coe.int/cecr-volume-complementaire-avec-de-nouveaux-descripteurs/16807875d5, consulté le22 juillet 2018.
Conseil de l’Europe, Cadre européen commun de référence pour les langues : apprendre, enseigner, évaluer. Volume
complémentaire, Conseil de l’Europe, Strasbourg, 2020, disponible à l’adresse : https://www.coe.int/fr/web/common-european-framework-reference-languages.
Conteh J. et Meier G. (dir.), The multilingual turn in language education : opportunities and challenges, Multilingual
Matters, Bristol, 2014.
Cook V., « Evidence for multi-competence », Language learning, no 4, 1992, pp. 557-591.
Cook G., Translation in language teaching, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2010.
Coste D., Moore D. et Zarate G., Compétence plurilingue et pluriculturelle. Vers un Cadre européen commun de référence pour l’enseignement et l’apprentissage des langues vivantes, Conseil de l’Europe, Strasbourg, 1997 (version
révisée 2009).
Dabène L., « Pour une contrastivité “revisitée” », ÉLA, no 104, 1996, pp. 393-400.
De Bot K. et Jaensch C., « What is special about L3 processing? », Bilingualism : language and cognition, no 18, 2015,
pp. 130-144. Disponible à l’adresse : www.cambridge.org/core/journals/bilingualism-language-and-cognition/issue/l3-acquisition-a-focus-on-cognitive-approaches/407A42A03A982E058D9CAFBFF345D8A5, consulté le7 septembre 2019.
García O. et Wei L., Translanguaging : language, bilingualism and education, Palgrave Macmillan, Basingstoke, 2014.
Herrenberger A., Vers une pédagogie inter-langues, Éditions CRDP d’Alsace, Strasbourg, 1999.
Lavault E., Fonctions de la traduction en didactique des langues. Apprendre une langue en apprenant à traduire,
Didier Érudition, Paris, 1985.
Leung Y. I., « Second vs. third language acquisition of tense and agreement in French by Vietnamese monolinguals and Cantonese-English bilinguals », dans Cohen J. et al., Proceedings of the 4th International Symposium
on Bilingualism, Cascadilla Press, Somerville, 2005, pp. 1344-1352. Disponible à l’adresse : www.cascadilla.com/
isb4.html, consulté le 1er juillet 2018.
Lüdi G., « Alternance des langues et acquisition d’une langue seconde », dans Castellotti V. et Moore D. (dir.),
Alternances des langues et construction de savoirs, ENS Éditions, Fontenay/Saint-Cloud, 1999.
May S. (dir.), The multilingual turn : implications for SLA, TESOL and bilingual education, Routledge, Taylor & Francis
Group, New York/Londres, 2014.
Moore D., « Une didactique de l’alternance pour mieux apprendre ? », ÉLA, no 121, 2001, pp. 71-78.
Moore D., « Code-switching and learning in the classroom », International journal of bilingual education andbilingualism, no 5, 2002, pp. 279-293.
Ortega L., « Ways forward for a bi/multilingual turn for SLA », dans May S. (dir.), The multilingual turn : implicationsfor SLA, TESOL and bilingual education, Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group, New York/Londres, 2014.

Awareness raising and teacher education Page 263

Pavlenko A., « Can a second language help you learn a third? The impact of a second language on third language learning », Psychology Today, 2015. Disponible à l’adresse : www.psychologytoday.com/intl/blog/life-­bilingual/201506/can-second-language-help-you-learn-third, consulté le 15 août 2019.
Piccardo E. et Puozzo I. (dir.), « From second language pedagogy to the pedagogy of “plurilingualism” : a possible
paradigm shift?/De la didactique des langues à la didactique du plurilinguisme : un changement de paradigme
possible ? », The Canadian modern language review/La revue canadienne des langues vivantes, no 71(4), 2015.
Tavakol M. et Jabbari A., « Syntactic transfer in the initial stages of adult third language and fourth language
acquisition », Indonesian journal of applied linguistics, no 2(5), 2016. Disponible à l’adresse : http://ejournal.upi.
edu/index.php/IJAL/article/view/1343, consulté le 1er juillet 2018.
Taylor S. et Snoddon K. (dir.), « Plurilingualism in TESOL : promising controversies », TESOL quarterly, no 47(3) –special forum, 2013, pp. 439-445.
Trévisol-Okamura P., « Influence translinguistique et alternance codique en français L3. Rôles des L1 et L2 dansla production orale d’apprenants japonais », Acquisition et interaction en langue étrangère, no 24, 2006, pp. 13-43.
Trévisol-Okamura P., « Pour une didactique du plurilinguisme : apport des recherches en acquisition d’une
troisième langue (L3) », Travaux de didactique du français langue étrangère, no 67-68, Presses universitaires de laMéditerranée, Montpellier, 2012, pp. 91-108.
Vygotsky L., Pensée et langage, La Dispute, Paris, 1997.
Williams S. et Hammarberg B., « Language switches in L3 production : implications for a polyglot speaking
model », Applied linguistics, no 19, 1998, pp. 295-333.
Wright W. E., Boun S. et García O. (dir.), The handbook of bilingual and multilingual education, Wiley-Blackwell,
Chichester, 2015.

ANNEXES
Disponibles à la fin de la version PDF en ligne
Annexe 17.1 – Questionnaire à destination des enseignants
Annexe 17.2 – Grille d’observation utilisée pour les visites de classes
Annexe 17.3 – Questionnaire à destination des apprenants

Page 264 3 Enriching 21st-century language education

Chapitre 18
LA TÂCHE COMME MOTEUR DE
PROMOTION DU PLURILINGUISME
Hélène Martinez, université de Gießen, Allemagne

RÉSUMÉ
L’article ci-dessous décrit une étude de cas réalisée dans le cadre d’un cours-séminaire de didactique à l’Institut
des langues romanes de l’université de Gießen, ce cours s’adressant à des étudiants de français et/ou d’espagnol en fin d’études de professorat. L’étude de cas se base sur la réalisation d’un projet pédagogique visant àsensibiliser les étudiants et futurs enseignants aux questions du plurilinguisme et à la promotion de ce dernierdans le cadre de cours de langue étrangère, et plus particulièrement dans le cadre de cours de français et/ou
d’espagnol. Le projet pédagogique consiste à faire construire des tâches plurilingues aux futurs enseignants, à
les leur faire expérimenter dans des classes de français ou d’espagnol et à faire évaluer leur impact auprès desélèves de collèges ou de lycées. La tâche joue un rôle central dans le développement des compétences plurilingues : elle est conçue comme un instrument à construire, un objet d’apprentissage, un sujet d’expérimentation
et un instrument de formation professionnelle.
La première partie de l’article procède à une description du projet, de ses fondements théoriques (rôle de latâche, rôles des étudiants) et du cadre dans lequel le projet pédagogique a été réalisé (déroulement du cours).
L’article présente ensuite un exemple de tâche plurilingue construite par un groupe d’étudiants. Cet exemple
introduit cinq différentes langues (l’espagnol, le portugais, l’italien, le turc et le polonais) et a pour objectif desensibiliser les élèves à la comparaison entre les langues et au déploiement de stratégies interlangues sur la basedu français et d’éventuelles autres langues connues des élèves. Elle fait endosser aux élèves le rôle de médiateurs dans une rencontre internationale. La tâche recouvre plusieurs descripteurs du Volume complémentairedu CECR ayant trait à l’échelle Compréhension plurilingue. La tâche a fait l’objet d’une expérimentation en classede français qui a été jugée très réussie par le groupe d’étudiants.
La dernière partie de l’article présente les résultats de l’étude de cas et repose sur l’analyse de l’expérience vécuepar les étudiants et futurs enseignants et sur la perception qu’ils en ont. Après une brève introduction méthodologique, les principaux acquis sont soigneusement présentés en termes de savoirs, savoir-faire et savoir-être
développés par les étudiants. Cette partie souligne l’intérêt d’un tel projet pédagogique, la tâche devenant unvéritable moteur de promotion du plurilinguisme auprès des étudiants et futurs enseignants, mais aussi auprèsdes élèves des classes cibles.
Enfin, les fonctions attribuées aux descripteurs des échelles de compétence plurilingue Compréhension plurilingue et Exploiter un répertoire plurilingue utilisés dans le cadre de ce cours sont explicitées. Les descripteurs ont
été utilisés comme orientation pour la construction de tâches, comme modèles pour la construction de grilles
d’évaluation et comme outils d’autoévaluation. Ils permettent une concrétisation et une opérationnalisation dela compétence plurilingue et jouent, au même titre que la tâche, un rôle de médiateur pédagogique.
L’article se clôt sur une réflexion concernant le rôle de la tâche dans la formation professionnelle. Le projet – etla réussite de l’expérimentation – génère chez les étudiants un véritable rapport au savoir, ce qui laisse espérer
que cette expérience aura des répercussions à long terme.
L’étude de cas repose sur un échantillon très restreint ; elle ne laisse cependant pas douter de la pertinence dela tâche et des descripteurs dans le développement du plurilinguisme.

ABSTRACTThis chapter describes a case study carried out in the context of a course/seminar on didactics at the Instituteof Romance Languages of the University of Giessen. This course is aimed at students of French and/or Spanish
at the end of their teacher training. The case study is based on the implementation of a pedagogical projectthat seeks to promote plurilingualism and make teacher trainees aware of issues connected with it in a foreign
language, more specifically French and/or Spanish, courses. The project consists of future teachers constructing
plurilingual tasks, experimenting in French or Spanish classes and evaluating their impact on secondary school

Page 265students. In this project, the task plays a central role in the development of plurilingual skills: it is conceived
as an instrument to be constructed, an object of learning, a subject for experimentation and an instrument ofprofessional training.
The first part of the chapter describes the project, its theoretical foundations (role of the task, roles of the students)
and the context in which the pedagogical project was carried out (course development) and then presents one
example of the plurilingual tasks constructed by a group of students. This example introduces five languages(Spanish, Portuguese, Italian, Turkish and Polish) and aims to raise pupils’ awareness of comparisons between
languages and the deployment of interlinguistic strategies on the basis of French and possibly other languages
known to the students. The task encourages pupils to take on the role of mediators in an international meetingand covers several descriptors from the CEFR Companion volume scale Plurilingual comprehension. It was also
the subject of an experiment in a French class and was rated very positively by the group of students.
The last part of the chapter presents the results of the case study and is based on analysis of the experience andperception of teacher trainees. After a brief methodological introduction, the main achievements are carefully
presented in terms of the growth of knowledge, skills and attitudes developed by the students. This section
underlines the added value of such a pedagogical project, where the task becomes a real driving force in promoting plurilingualism among teacher trainees as well as among pupils at school level.
Finally, the functions attributed to the descriptors of plurilingual competence for Plurilingual comprehension and
Exploiting a plurilingual repertoire in the context of this course are explained. The descriptors have been used as
guidelines for the construction of tasks, as models for the construction of evaluation grids and as self-evaluation
tools. They allow for the concretisation and operationalisation of plurilingual competence and play the role ofa pedagogical mediator in the same way as the task.
The chapter concludes with a reflection on the role of the task in professional training. The project – and thesuccess of the experiment – generated among the students a kind of psychological relationship with the process
and content of learning, giving reason to hope that the experiment will have long-term effects.
While the case study is based on a very small sample, it leaves little doubt as to the relevance of the task andthe descriptors in the development of plurilingualism.

18.1. INTRODUCTION
Avec l’introduction du CECR (Conseil de l’Europe, 2001) et son orientation sur les compétences, l’approche
actionnelle a suscité un intérêt particulier en didactique des langues, la tâche étant perçue comme le moyen degénérer chez l’apprenant un véritable apprentissage des langues. Le projet et l’étude de cas réalisés à l’universitéde Gießen reposent sur le concept de tâches et font de celles-ci un instrument de formation des enseignants.
Le projet décrit ci-dessous a eu lieu dans le cadre d’un cours-séminaire de didactique des langues romanes
intitulé « Compétences plurilingues en classe de français et d’espagnol – Focus sur la construction de tâches »49
proposé au semestre d’été 2019 à l’Institut des langues romanes de l’université de Gießen, qui a eu lieu sous ma
propre direction. Ce cours s’adressait à des étudiants de français et/ou d’espagnol en fin d’études de professorat(Lehramtsstudium). Une partie des 15 étudiants inscrits dans ce cours avaient participé à un cours préalable
au semestre d’hiver 2018-2019 et étaient donc déjà sensibilisés au concept de plurilinguisme. Pour une autre
partie du groupe, la thématique était nouvelle. Cela a engendré une restructuration de la programmation et dela progression du cours de didactique.

18.2. DESCRIPTION DU PROJET
Le cours-séminaire proposé repose sur la réalisation d’un projet pédagogique (ou plutôt didactique) susceptiblede promouvoir le plurilinguisme autant chez les étudiants et futurs enseignants de langues que chez les élèvesde collège/lycée. Les principaux paramètres du projet sont les suivants (Boutinet, 1993 : p. 239) :f situation-problème : développer, expérimenter et évaluer des tâches aptes à favoriser et développer leplurilinguisme des élèves. La tâche en question, et plus particulièrement la construction de tâches et laréflexion effectuée en groupe sur celles-ci, est conçue comme le déclencheur d’un processus de réflexion
voire d’adhésion au concept de compétence plurilingue et pluriculturelle. Le cours repose sur le concept
de research-based learning (pour un aperçu critique, voir Brew et Saunders, 2020) et part de l’hypothèse

49. « Mehrsprachigkeitskompetenz im Französisch- und Spanischunterricht – Fokus Aufgabenkonstruktion ».

Page 266 3 Enriching 21st-century language educationselon laquelle l’expérimentation de tâches en classe de langue permet aux étudiants et futurs enseignantsde développer une attitude réflexive et une posture investigatrice favorisant le « questionnement » de leurpropre pratique et de la promotion du plurilinguisme, et ce, également à longue échéance ;f acteurs engagés dans le projet : étudiants de français et/ou d’espagnol poursuivant des études de professorat et élèves/classes de français ou d’espagnol de lycées/collèges environnants ;f visées et buts explicités : sensibiliser les étudiants et futurs enseignants de langues au concept de plurilinguisme et leur donner les moyens de le promouvoir ;f motifs invoqués : le constat de départ est que le plurilinguisme reste pour les étudiants et futurs ensei­
gnants de langues un concept flou qu’il est difficile de promouvoir dans les cours de langue. Ces attitudes
corroborent les études actuelles montrant que la plupart des enseignants adhèrent par principe au
concept, mais qu’ils ont du mal à intégrer sa promotion dans le cours de langue, faute de connaissancede pratiques pédagogiques (Heyder et Schädlich, 2014). Le processus de création de tâches devrait donc
permettre aux étudiants et futurs enseignants de langues d’acquérir les moyens (savoirs, savoir-faire etsavoir-être) de promouvoir le plurilinguisme individuel dans le cadre de l’enseignement/apprentissage
d’une langue étrangère ;f stratégies en présence et moyens utilisés : la stratégie principale est la construction d’une tâche plurilingue
et son expérimentation en classe.
Le cours cherche donc à sensibiliser les apprenants et futurs enseignants aux questions du plurilinguisme et à
sa promotion au sein d’un cours de français et/ou d’espagnol. Il repose sur quatre axes :1. sensibilisation au concept de plurilinguisme (théorie) ;2. construction de tâches en groupes de trois ou quatre personnes (pratique) ;3. expérimentation des tâches dans des classes de français et d’espagnol (enseignement) ;4. évaluation personnelle et au sein du groupe de l’expérimentation du cours de didactique, le collectif jouant
un rôle majeur (recherche-action).

18.2.1. Rôles de la tâche
Le concept de tâche joue un rôle particulier (pour le caractère autonomisant de la tâche, voir Martinez, 2013).
La tâche est le pilier et pivot de toutes les activités réalisées dans le projet.
a) Elle est un objet (didactique) à construire. Le processus de construction débute par l’analyse de tâches plurilingues déjà existantes et la déduction des critères principaux et des spécificités des activités plurilingues.
Celles-ci servent de modèles et de point de départ pour la construction des tâches. Le travail d’analyse est
accompagné par la lecture et la discussion de textes scientifiques. La construction de tâches permet dedépasser le stade de la réception. Elle oblige les étudiants à penser les tâches comme un véritable outil depromotion du plurilinguisme. En groupe, les étudiants réfléchissent, discutent et décident des objectifs
à atteindre par l’intermédiaire des tâches. De plus, le processus de construction permet aux étudiants
d’exercer leur propre plurilinguisme, les étudiants utilisant les différentes langues impliquées dans lestâches comme allant de soi, de façon naturelle, alors qu’ils viennent seulement en début de semestre dese percevoir eux-mêmes comme potentiellement plurilingues.
b) Elle est un objet d’apprentissage et d’expérimentation : les tâches font ensuite l’objet d’une expérimentation
dans des classes de français et d’espagnol, les étudiants devenant ainsi enseignants de langues, mais ellessont avant tout conçues pour sensibiliser les élèves aux similitudes et différences entre les langues et aux
ressources qu’ils sont aptes à mobiliser devant l’inconnu.
c) Elle est un projet (project-oriented learning/action-oriented learning) dans la formation des enseignants(Martinez, 2017) : la création, l’expérimentation des tâches auprès des élèves dans les cours de français etd’espagnol langue étrangère et la réflexion sur l’impact des activités proposées sur la base de questionnaires
et de discussions de groupe avec les élèves sont conçues comme un moyen de formation professionnelle.
La tâche est tout à la fois l’objectif à atteindre et le moyen de promouvoir – à courte ou longue échéance – leplurilinguisme.

18.2.2. Rôles des étudiants
Pendant le cours, les étudiants endossent plusieurs rôles. Ils sont à la fois :f apprenants de langues : la construction de tâches plurilingues permet aux étudiants de prendre consciencede leur propre plurilinguisme et même de l’exercer. Pendant le cours et pendant l’élaboration des tâches plurilingues, les étudiants utilisent différentes langues sans vraiment réfléchir ou remettre cette capacité en question ;Awareness raising and teacher education Page 267

f enseignants de langues : ils adoptent le rôle de l’enseignant et tentent de promouvoir le plurilinguisme
par l’intermédiaire de tâches qu’ils ont eux-mêmes créées à cet effet ;f chercheurs : ils expérimentent les tâches développées en groupe et analysent leur impact sur les élèves etleur degré de promotion du plurilinguisme. Pour ce faire, ils développent des questionnaires et guident
des discussions de groupes qu’ils analysent.

18.2.3. Déroulement du cours
Le cours s’est déroulé selon le schéma décrit précédemment. Après une introduction sur le concept de plurilinguisme et l’analyse de tâches favorisant son développement, les étudiants ont créé en groupes de trois ou
quatre des tâches destinées à être expérimentées en classe. Une réflexion au sein des classes respectives asuivi l’expérimentation. Les expérimentations ont fait l’objet d’une présentation dans le cours à l’université, lesdifférents groupes présentant et échangeant leurs tâches ainsi que leurs expériences et les résultats obtenus.
Les tâches construites dans le cadre du cours sont le résultat de travaux d’étudiants – et non d’experts – et elles
doivent être perçues comme telles. La qualité des tâches en tant que « produits » est certes importante, mais c’est
surtout le processus de création, d’expérimentation et de réflexion qui compte. Étant responsable du cours, jesuis intervenue en tant que conseillère et j’ai laissé aux étudiants une grande marge de manœuvre, condition sinequa non pour apprendre à observer, identifier, repérer, analyser, réfléchir, mais aussi pour apprendre à apprendre.

18.2.4. Exemple de tâche construite par un groupe d’étudiants
Les étudiants et futurs enseignants de langue ont conçu une tâche plurilingue pour des élèves en deuxième
année de français dans un collège de Gießen. Ils ont mis en scène une rencontre internationale au cours delaquelle des adolescents de cinq nationalités et langues différentes (espagnol, portugais, italien, turc et polonais)
se présentent les uns les autres. Le scénario proposé aux élèves est le suivant :Tu participes à une rencontre internationale de jeunes. Dans un petit groupe, cinq personnes de différents pays se présentent
à toi dans leur langue maternelle. Note ce que tu comprends pour le raconter à un ami français plus tard.

Pour ce faire, les élèves ont dû réaliser un ensemble d’activités.
Dans une première étape, les élèves ont été confrontés aux cinq langues des différentes nationalités à l’oral,
et cela de façon individuelle, chacun disposant d’un iPad. Les élèves ont dû écouter les présentations des cinq
adolescents de différentes nationalités et noter en français ce qu’ils avaient compris (voir fiche de travail 1,
annexe 18.1). Ils ont ensuite retravaillé leurs propres prises de notes en comparant les langues sur la base destranscriptions des cinq présentations et en élaborant un dictionnaire plurilingue (voir la fiche de travail pour latranscription des présentations en annexe 18.2 et la fiche de travail sur le dictionnaire plurilingue en annexe 18.3).
Ces activités ont engendré un travail de sensibilisation linguistique et plus précisément un travail de réflexion
sur les similitudes et les différences entre les langues.
Cette première étape a servi de préparation à l’étape suivante, qui consistait à réaliser le scénario principal et àse pencher de façon plus approfondie sur la description d’une seule personne (et langue), et à endosser ainsi lerôle de médiateur restituant, pour le reste de la classe, dans la langue française et à l’oral, des aspects importantsd’une présentation orale authentique. Pour ce faire, les élèves étaient divisés en groupes de travail, chaquegroupe travaillant séparément sur une des cinq personnes selon la consigne : « Préparez un exposé sur un descinq jeunes et présentez-le devant la classe. »Le cours de français s’est terminé sur un travail de réflexion sur la tâche plurilingue et la perception que les élèves
en ont eu. Dans ce but, les étudiants ont développé un questionnaire (voir annexe 18.4), que les élèves ont remplide façon individuelle. Ces commentaires individuels ont été finalement complétés par une discussion de groupe.
Les fins des différentes activités renvoient aux objectifs des tâches plurilingues telles qu’elles sont conceptualisées en théorie.
Les apprenants :f sont sensibilisés à la comparaison entre les langues ;f connaissent les stratégies de l’apprentissage interlangue ;f utilisent ces stratégies pour la compréhension ;f sont capables de documenter le processus de décodage d’un texte ;f sont capables de réfléchir sur les processus d’élaboration du sens ou de comparaison entre les langues et
sur les résultats atteints (Behr, 2007 : p. 163).

Page 268 3 Enriching 21st-century language education

Ce qui correspond grosso modo aux objectifs d’apprentissage suivants :f les élèves sont capables d’identifier et de réfléchir sur les similitudes, les différences et les relations entre
les langues (language awareness) ;f dans l’exercice de médiation linguistique, ils apprennent à interagir avec les langues de manière créative ;f confrontés à plusieurs textes en langue étrangère, les élèves apprennent à accepter de ne pas comprendrechaque mot, également en français (tolérance à l’ambiguïté) ;f les apprenants sont capables de transposer les stratégies développées et acquises par le contact avec une
langue étrangère dans l’apprentissage du français (language learning awareness).
La tâche et ses différentes composantes couvrent les descripteurs suivants de l’échelle Compréhension plurilingue
du Volume complémentaire du CECR (Conseil de l’Europe, 2018 : p. 168). Il est intéressant de remarquer que
plusieurs niveaux de compétences ont été visés :B1

Peut utiliser ce qu’il/elle a compris dans une langue pour comprendre le thème et le message principal
d’un texte écrit dans une autre langue […].

B1

Peut se servir de traductions parallèles de textes (par ex. d’articles de magazines, histoires, extraits deromans) pour améliorer sa compréhension dans différentes langues.

B1

Peut percevoir des ressemblances et des différences dans les façons d’exprimer des concepts dans deslangues différentes afin de faire une distinction entre les usages identiques de la même racine d’un
mot et les « faux-amis ».

B1

Peut, pour s’aider à comprendre, utiliser ce qu’il/elle sait des divergences dans les structures grammaticales et les expressions fonctionnelles propres aux langues de son répertoire plurilingue.

A2

Peut comprendre des messages et des instructions écrits courts et clairement rédigés en recoupant ce
qu’il/elle a compris des versions dans différentes langues.

A1

Peut reconnaître des mots internationaux et des mots communs à différentes langues (par ex. Haus/
hus/house) […] pour déduire ce qu’on essaye de lui dire en face-à-face.

Les étudiants n’ont pas recouru aux descripteurs de la rubrique « La médiation » (Conseil de l’Europe, 2018 :p. 106), mais la sous-tâche visant la présentation d’une des personnes étrangères correspond au descripteur
suivant (Ibid., p. 130) :A1

Peut communiquer (en langue B) des données personnelles sur des gens et des informations très simples
et prévisibles (en langue A), à condition qu’on l’aide à formuler.

Cet exemple – et c’est ce qui émerge de tous les projets – montre que les étudiants ont construit une tâche
plurilingue et complexe qui leur a permis :a) de travailler eux-mêmes sur et avec des langues inconnues ;b) de s’initier à la promotion du plurilinguisme dans une classe de langue étrangère ;c) de s’initier à la recherche et d’évaluer l’impact de la tâche sur les élèves et le développement de leurcompétence plurilingue.
Les résultats de l’enquête révèlent que la plupart des élèves sont capables de mobiliser leur répertoire plurilingue et de développer des stratégies d’intercompréhension (transfert intralangue, interlangue, formation etvérification d’hypothèses, etc.) (Meißner, 2010), que ce potentiel peut être conscientisé auprès des élèves et qu’il
constitue un atout potentiel pour l’apprentissage (de la lecture) du français.

18.3. DISCUSSION
18.3.1. Résultats de l’étude de cas
L’hypothèse de départ est que la tâche et surtout le processus de construction et d’évaluation de tâches concrètes
peuvent déclencher chez les étudiants une prise de conscience et une (plus grande) adhésion au concept deplurilinguisme. Il s’agit d’une étude de cas pilote qui a été réalisée avec un petit groupe de 15 étudiants dansle cadre restreint d’un cours séminaire et qui devrait être renouvelée. Les premiers résultats sont d’ores et déjà
encourageants (voir plus loin à titre illustratif les extraits de verbalisations des étudiants). Les données, analysées
dans le cadre de cette étude, ont été recueillies sur la base d’observations participantes, d’un questionnaire,d’une discussion de groupe et des travaux de fin de semestre – ces instruments permettant de se concentrer

Awareness raising and teacher education Page 269

sur l’expérience vécue par les étudiants et leur perception de cette expérience. 12 étudiants ont rempli le questionnaire et participé à la discussion de groupe ; tous les 15 étudiants ont rendu les travaux de fin de semestre.
La présentation ci-dessous est le résultat d’une analyse du contenu.
La plupart des étudiants ont tiré avantage du cours et disent avoir progressé en matière d’acquis scientifiques, didactiques et même personnels. Les étudiants affirment avoir acquis et développé des savoirs, savoir-faire et savoir-être.

18.3.1.1. Savoirs
La lecture de textes scientifiques et l’analyse de tâches plurilingues ont permis aux étudiants de s’initier aux
questions du plurilinguisme et à sa promotion, et de prendre conscience des chances et des défis de celles-ci.
Le processus de construction et d’expérimentation d’une tâche plurilingue en classe est cependant au regarddes étudiants le paramètre décisif dans l’acquisition des connaissances, car celui-ci a permis aux étudiants de« vivre concrètement », c’est-à-dire de « faire concrètement l’expérience de » la promotion du plurilinguismeet de saisir les enjeux de telles tâches – aussi minimalistes soient-elles. L’expérimentation leur a permis d’appréhender la façon dont les élèves réagissent face aux diverses langues et abordent les tâches plurilingues. Lesétudiants affirment avoir profité du bon équilibre entre la théorie et la pratique ainsi que de la place accordéeà l’expérimentation, la discussion, l’échange en groupe et à la réflexion.

18.3.1.2. Savoir-être – Attitudes
Les attitudes des étudiants envers la notion de plurilinguisme semblent avoir évolué dans le sens où elles sontplus différenciées. Les étudiants déclarent être plus ouverts aux autres langues et ressentir la nécessité d’une plus
grande valorisation des langues. Une étudiante admet avoir dépassé son scepticisme par rapport au concept
de plurilinguisme.
La réussite des expériences faites au sein des classes de français et/ou d’espagnol est un facteur supplémentairedans l’évolution des attitudes. Les étudiants sont étonnés des résultats obtenus et de la résonance positive deleur expérimentation. Une étudiante se dit convaincue du fait que l’on peut intégrer d’autres langues dans lecours de français et consciente des bénéfices de cette intégration pour l’apprentissage du français même et dela promotion du plurilinguisme en général.
Les étudiants se disent plus ouverts aux formats de cours plurilingues et déclarent avoir saisi la signification
et le bien-fondé de la promotion du plurilinguisme. Les différents échanges au sein du cours-séminaire lorsde la construction des tâches et après leur expérimentation favorisent, au vu des étudiants, cette acquisitionde connaissance et le développement d’une attitude positive.

18.3.1.3. Savoir-faireLes étudiants ayant eu une attitude positive dès le départ sont d’autant plus réconfortés dans ce sentiment qu’ils
ont appris durant le cours-séminaire à développer (et s’en sentent tout à fait capables) des tâches plurilingues,étant donné qu’ils en connaissent les formats et caractéristiques spécifiques et les ont expérimentés.
La réalisation du projet a déclenché chez les étudiants une ouverture et une disposition voire une adhésion
au concept de plurilinguisme et à sa promotion, même si les étudiants réalisent qu’il leur faut continuer à fairece genre d’expériences. Ils ne se considèrent pas comme des experts dans le domaine du plurilinguisme, maissont conscients d’avoir acquis une certaine compétence malgré les limites formelles de cette expérimentation :une étudiante affirme par exemple savoir diagnostiquer les expériences de langues faites par les élèves et lesbesoins de ces derniers pour les intégrer dans un cours de langue.

18.3.2. Volume complémentaire du CECR
Le Volume complémentaire du CECR a été introduit dans la partie théorique du cours, les étudiants ne connaissant pas encore ce nouveau référentiel.
Les échelles de descripteurs du Volume complémentaire Compréhension plurilingue et Exploiter un répertoire plurilingue ont joué différents rôles dans le cadre du cours et du processus complexe de sensibilisation au plurilinguisme :f ils ont servi d’orientation pour la construction de tâches (choix des compétences à cibler) ;f ils ont servi de modèle pour l’évaluation des expérimentations auprès des élèves (principalement l’élaboration de questionnaires) ou la création de grilles d’évaluation des compétences plurilingues ;f ils ont été expérimentés en tant qu’instruments d’autoévaluation de sa compétence plurilingue et donc
instruments de sensibilisation et de prise de conscience.

Page 270 3 Enriching 21st-century language education

18.3.2.1. Orientation pour la construction de tâches
La fonction du Volume complémentaire n’est pas perçue de la même façon par tous les étudiants. Ceux-ci
semblent cependant unanimes sur un point : pour eux, les descripteurs reliés au plurilinguisme permettent deconcrétiser l’objectif de plurilinguisme, de le « matérialiser » en compétences ou ressources (voir les ressources
du CARAP, Candelier et al., 2012) et de faciliter ainsi sa promotion.
La plupart d’entre eux considèrent le Volume complémentaire comme un outil de base pour la constructiond’une unité didactique, les descripteurs servant de repères pour formuler les objectifs à atteindre et procéderainsi à la construction de tâches aptes à promouvoir le plurilinguisme.
Un étudiant définit le Volume complémentaire comme un guide précieux, « ein sehr wertvoller Ratgeber », qui
facilite la structuration des leçons dans la mesure où il permet de décomposer les compétences globales encompétences précises et aide à s’orienter par rapport aux niveaux de langue.
« D’une part, j’ai trouvé le Volume complémentaire très utile pour planifier les leçons […], il m’a permis de
structurer beaucoup plus facilement la tâche, parce que ces grandes compétences, qui sont très larges, ont été
décomposées en différents sous-domaines et même adaptées aux différents niveaux. Et j’ai trouvé cela très
utile de pouvoir l’utiliser comme orientation si on n’a jamais construit une telle tâche auparavant » (étudiant A,
discussion de groupe, traduction personnelle).
Les activités de la tâche décrite précédemment sont ainsi toutes reliées à des descripteurs et c’est à partir desdescripteurs qu’elles ont été élaborées.
Après la première phase orale, les élèves ont été amenés à approfondir leur compréhension des différentes
présentations sur la base de transcriptions des présentations orales, les textes étant tous construits de la mêmefaçon (nom, âge, profession, loisirs). Cette activité a poussé les élèves à comparer les différents textes pour améliorer la compréhension des différentes langues (voir annexe 18.2), ce qui correspond aux descripteurs suivants :A2

Peut comprendre des messages et des instructions écrits courts et clairement rédigés en recoupant ce
qu’il/elle a compris des versions dans différentes langues.

B1

Peut se servir de traductions parallèles de textes (par ex. d’articles de magazines, histoires, extraits deromans) pour améliorer sa compréhension dans différentes langues.

B1

Peut utiliser ce qu’il/elle a compris dans une langue pour comprendre le thème et le message principal
d’un texte écrit dans une autre langue […].

Lors de cette même phase, les élèves ont comparé les langues entre elles en élaborant, sur la base d’un tableau,
un dictionnaire plurilingue – incluant, outre les langues de la rencontre internationale, le français, l’anglais etl’allemand (voir annexe 18.3). Cette sous-activité correspond aux descripteurs des niveaux A1 et B1 cités ci-dessus.

18.3.2.2. Modèle pour la construction de grilles d’évaluation
Certains items des questionnaires et grilles d’évaluation conçus par les étudiants pour les élèves de français ou
d’espagnol reposent sur les descripteurs du Volume complémentaire, comme le montre le tableau 18.1.
Tableau 18.1 – Descripteurs et items issus de différents questionnaires et grilles d’évaluation
Descripteurs de l’échelle
Compréhension plurilingue

Items issus de différents
questionnaires et grilles d’évaluation

Peut reconnaître des mots internationaux etdes mots communs à différentes langues (parex. Haus/hus/house) pour […] identifier lecontenu probable du message donné dans untexte écrit court et simple ; […] déduire ce qu’on
essaye de lui dire en face-à-face. (A1)Französisch und/oder andere Sprachen haben mir bei derErschließung unbekannter Vokabeln geholfen.
Englisch (und/oder andere Sprachen) hat mir bei der Erschließung
unbekannter Vokabeln in Spanisch geholfen.
Ich kann Wörter erkennen, die in vielen Sprachen ähnlich heißen(z.B. respeitar, respectar, to respect, respektieren).

Peut, pour s’aider à comprendre, utiliser ce qu’il/ Die spanische Sprache half mir beim Bearbeiten der Aufgabenelle sait des divergences dans les structures beim :grammaticales et les expressions fonctionnelles
f Verstehen unbekannter Wörter,
propres aux langues de son répertoire plurif Verstehen grammatikalischer Regeln.
lingue. (B1)

Awareness raising and teacher education Page 271

18.3.3. Autoévaluation
La plupart des étudiants considèrent que les descripteurs du Volume complémentaire peuvent être utilisés commeoutils d’autoévaluation. Ils en ont eux-mêmes fait l’expérimentation et pensent que ces descripteurs pourraientmême être proposés – avec certaines modifications et adaptations – à des élèves pour qu’ils reconnaissent les
progrès qu’ils ont réalisés et comme gage de motivation.
Un seul étudiant avoue avoir eu des difficultés à autoévaluer sa propre compétence plurilingue et souligne lecaractère subjectif de l’autoévaluation : « Se juger capable ne signifie pas être véritablement capable. » Il ajouteque c’est à l’épreuve de la pratique que l’on peut véritablement mesurer ses capacités. Il précise s’être demandélors de la lecture de certains descripteurs s’il avait déjà vécu ou non les situations qu’ils évoquent. Cette remarquene remet pas en question la possibilité offerte par les descripteurs de s’autoévaluer, elle souligne au contrairel’amorce d’un véritable processus de réflexion sur ses propres activités et compétences plurilingues. D’autre part,des remarques semblables rassemblées lors d’un autre séminaire de didactique au semestre d’été 2020 laissent
supposer que certains descripteurs renvoient à des activités plurilingues qui ne sont pas habituelles pour lesétudiants, qui vivent dans un environnement plutôt monolingue (Gogolin, 1994). Les descripteurs contribuent
dès lors à une sensibilisation et à une meilleure appréhension de la conceptualisation de la compétence plurilingue proposée par le CECR et le Volume complémentaire (Coste et al., 1997/2009).
La progression des niveaux a fait l’objet d’une discussion controversée entre deux étudiants, le premier considérant les différences entre les niveaux comme trop marginales et remettant en cause la progression d’unniveau moindre à partir d’un niveau avancé, car la maîtrise du niveau C2 des descripteurs de l’échelle Exploiter
un répertoire plurilingue ne signifie pas à son avis automatiquement que toutes les compétences en dessous deC2 soient atteintes. À cette remarque répond un étudiant qui réfute l’argument du manque de différenciation
entre les niveaux, considérant que les échelles permettent une autoévaluation de différentes sous-compétences.
Il souligne que les différences sont bien discernables et qu’il y a au sein des niveaux inférieurs au C2 une plus
grande différenciation, une plus grande spécification des aspects partiels des compétences. Il ajoute que lamaîtrise du niveau C2 ou C1 n’engendre pas automatiquement la maîtrise de tout ce qui se trouve au niveau
B1, et qu’il se sent par exemple capable de réaliser des compétences du niveau C2 mais moins apte à en réaliser
certaines du niveau B1 ou seulement en partie.
Cette discussion sur les échelles de niveaux de compétences a permis aux étudiants de remettre en question
certains positionnements et les a invités à repenser de façon critique leurs jugements, acquis, etc. Elle est constitutive du processus de développement professionnel et d’une posture réflexive des étudiants.

18.3.4. La tâche comme projet de formation éducative
Le projet – et la réussite de l’expérimentation – engendre chez les étudiants une autre sorte de rapport au savoir.
La notion de « rapport au savoir » a été particulièrement développée dans les années 1970 dans le champ dela formation des adultes. Elle renvoie en grande partie à la relation formateur-formé et aux liens entre savoir
et pouvoir. La notion est utilisée pour évoquer « l’attitude de possédants que les enseignants et les enseignés
peuvent avoir vis-à-vis du savoir » (Giordan, 1977, cité par Hatchuel, 2007 : p. 25). Pour ce qui nous concerne, lanotion de rapport aux savoirs souligne la relation de sens et l’importance que les étudiants donnent au processus de développement de la tâche et au produit-tâche. Les étudiants se sentent responsables et considèrent
leur projet commun comme le leur, développant ainsi des stratégies individuelles de résolution de problèmes.
Ils développent des attitudes positives et un sentiment d’autoefficacité qui les motivent dans cette entreprise.
« Je trouve bien que nous ayons examiné à nouveau les descripteurs, que nous ayons réfléchi à ce que nous
pensons d’eux. Grâce au cours-séminaire, grâce à l’expérience que nous avons faite – au moins pendant une
heure de cours – j’ai été très agréablement, mais vraiment très agréablement surprise de la façon dont les élèves
ont accepté cette expérience, surprise de voir tout ce qu’ils ont compris, ils ont compris chaque mot – ce dont je
ne les pensais pas capables. […] Cela m’a également motivée. Et on peut estimer aussi les compétences, la façon
de les atteindre, de les évaluer, et c’est pourquoi j’ai trouvé bien que nous ayons réfléchi sur nous-mêmes, parceque c’est seulement lorsque nous aurons intériorisé tout cela que nous pourrons le transmettre aux apprenants »(étudiante 1, discussion de groupe, traduction personnelle).

18.4. CONCLUSION
La tâche s’est révélée être un objet de médiation pédagogique autant au niveau universitaire que scolaire, car elle a engendré un apprentissage au plurilinguisme dans les deux établissements éducatifs.

Page 272 3 Enriching 21st-century language education

Outre cette fonction de levier, elle a servi de pont entre l’université et l’école, les futurs enseignants de langues
devenant des multiplicateurs auprès des enseignants en poste.
En guise de conclusion, je me permets de citer Charpentier, Collin et Scheurer (1993 : p. 98 et suivantes) et detransposer leurs propos sur la formation professionnelle :D’un point de vue épistémologique, [la démarche de projet dans la formation professionnelle] souligne le fait que la connaissance se construit plus qu’elle ne se transmet. […] D’un point de vue psychologique, elle rappelle que la motivation à
apprendre est d’autant plus forte que l’activité d’apprentissage prend son sens pour l’apprenant, que celui-ci perçoit le savoir
à acquérir comme le produit d’un processus d’acquisition dont il est le sujet […]. D’un point de vue éducatif, en développant
l’autonomie et la responsabilité [de l’étudiant et du futur enseignant de langues], elle lui permet de se percevoir comme lesujet de ses actes et de son devenir [professionnel].

Quant à la pertinence des descripteurs de la compétence plurilingue (essentiellement les échelles Compréhension
plurilingue et Exploiter un répertoire plurilingue), celle-ci réside essentiellement dans la concrétisation et l’opérationnalisation du concept de plurilinguisme véhiculé par le Conseil de l’Europe. Malgré les publications
abondantes dans ce domaine, le concept reste au vu des praticiens trop complexe et donc difficilement
applicable. Force est de constater que le fossé se creuse entre une politique linguistique de promotion duplurilinguisme et une réelle promotion du plurilinguisme ainsi qu’une réelle inclusion scolaire. Les descripteurs du Volume complémentaire sont compatibles avec ceux du CARAP et en permettent une application
plus facile et donc plus praticable.
L’étude de cas rapportée ci-dessus montre qu’une sélection de descripteurs du Volume complémentaire peut
servir à sensibiliser les étudiants et les professeurs aux aspects innovants de l’apprentissage des langues et
les inciter à les intégrer dans leurs pratiques professionnelles. Une telle utilisation des descripteurs favorise laréflexion sur les approches pédagogiques et les stratégies plurilingues, et contribue ainsi à un apprentissage/
enseignement des langues efficace et pluriel.
Malgré la taille réduite de cette étude de cas, les nouvelles échelles de descripteurs et les niveaux proposés
semblent représenter une aide et une orientation. D’autres recherches seront nécessaires pour étudier leuracceptation. L’étude de cas décrite ci-dessus n’a fait que faire émerger les points sensibles.

18.5. EXTRAITS DE VERBALISATIONS DES ÉTUDIANTS DU COURS DE DIDACTIQUE
Sowohl die Lektüre wissenschaftlicher Texte als auch das Ansehen unterschiedlicher mehrsprachiger Aufgaben
waren sehr hilfreich, um zunächst eine Vorstellung von Chancen und Herausforderung in Bezug auf Mehrsprachigkeit
zu bekommen. Insbesondere die Konstruktion und Erprobung einer eigenen Aufgabe aber haben den Lernzuwachs
bedingt, da man selbst erlebt hat, wie man Mehrsprachigkeit im Fremdsprachenunterricht umsetzen kann. « La
lecture de textes scientifiques et l’analyse de différentes tâches plurilingues ont été très utiles pour sefaire une idée des opportunités et des défis du plurilinguisme. Mais c’est surtout la construction et l’expérimentation de sa propre tâche qui a permis d’apprendre et de progresser, car on a pu constater comment
le plurilinguisme peut être mis en œuvre dans l’enseignement des langues étrangères » (étudiante 1,
traduction personnelle).
Das eigene Konstruieren einer Aufgabe hat mir die Potenziale der Mehrsprachigkeit gezeigt. Theorie ist wichtig, Praxis
fundamental. « C’est le processus de construction de ma propre tâche qui m’a montré le potentiel du plurilinguisme. La théorie est importante, la pratique est fondamentale » (étudiant 2, traduction personnelle).
Meine Einstellung zu Mehrsprachigkeitskompetenz war schon vor Beginn des Seminars positiv und das ist auch sogeblieben. Es scheint mir jetzt allerdings leichter/erreichbarer/realisierbarer meine spätere SuS mehrsprachig zu fördern,weil ich nun eine genauere Vorstellung habe, welche Aufgabentypen und Methoden es gibt. « Mon attitude à l’égard
de la compétence plurilingue était positive avant même le début du cours et elle l’est restée. Cependant, il me
semble maintenant plus facile/atteignable/réalisable de promouvoir le plurilinguisme de mes futurs élèves, carj’ai désormais une idée plus précise des types de tâches et de méthodes disponibles » (étudiant 3, traduction
personnelle).
Ich fühle mich sicher, für eine Lerngruppe passende Aufgaben zur Mehrsprachigkeitsförderung zu erstellen. Hierfür
hat mir die Erprobung in der Schule geholfen. Auch das Analysieren von anderen Aufgaben hat mich in die Lage versetzt, die verschiedenen Ansätze für Mehrsprachigkeit zu verstehen, wodurch es mir leichter fällt, diese auch selbst
anzuwenden. « Je me sens parfaitement capable de construire de tâches adaptées à un groupe d’apprenants afin
de promouvoir leur compétence plurilingue. L’expérimentation directe à l’école m’a aidé à cet égard. L’analysed’autres tâches m’a également permis de comprendre les différentes approches du plurilinguisme et de lesappliquer plus facilement par moi-même » (étudiant 4, traduction personnelle).

Awareness raising and teacher education Page 273

Ich bin nun der Überzeugung, dass man auch fremde Sprachen in den Fremdsprachenunterricht integrieren kannund bin äußerst positiv überrascht vom Gelingen der durchgeführten Stunde. « Je suis maintenant convaincue quel’on peut intégrer différentes langues étrangères dans l’enseignement de langue et je suis très agréablement
surprise du succès de l’expérimentation » (étudiante 1, questionnaire, traduction personnelle).
Ich kann nicht sagen, dass ich nach diesem Seminar Experte im Bereich Mehrsprachigkeit bin. Ich habe mir jedoch
gewisse Kompetenzen angeeignet, wie z.B. die Sprachlernerfahrungen und Bedürfnisse der Schülerinnen und Schüler
zu erkennen und diese in den mehrsprachigen Unterricht einzubauen. « Je ne peux pas dire qu’après ce séminaire, jesois un expert en matière de plurilinguisme. Cependant, j’ai acquis certaines compétences, comme reconnaître
les profils et expériences d’apprentissage linguistique et les besoins des élèves pour les intégrer dans un cours
plurilingue » (étudiant 2, questionnaire, traduction personnelle).
Ja, der Companion ist in dieser Hinsicht auch ein sehr wertvoller Ratgeber und erleichtert die Strukturierung vonUnterrichtsstunden, da man dort die umfassenden Kompetenzen kleinschrittig aufgeteilt vorliegen hat und sich dabei
an den Sprachniveaus orientiert wird. « Oui, le Volume complémentaire est également un guide très précieux à
cet égard et permet de structurer plus facilement les heures de cours, car on y trouve les compétences globales
détaillées et structurées en sous-compétences et on peut s’orienter par rapport aux niveaux de langue »(étudiant 1, questionnaire, traduction personnelle).
In Bezug auf die eigene Evaluation oder Selbstevaluation fand ich das auch sehr hilfreich und ich denke, dassman das mit Schülern durchführen kann, natürlich nicht, indem man ihnen einfach den Companion hinlegt,
aber dass man, wie so oft im Unterricht, dass man irgendwie einen Bogen austeilt, wo man noch reflektiert, washabe ich gelernt in der Unterrichtseinheit. Das, glaube ich, kann man durchaus mit Schülern machen, dass man
abgewandelte Formulierungen vorlegt, dass sie erkennen, was sie für einen Lernfortschritt gemacht haben, weil
ich glaube, das könnte für die Motivation hilfreich sein. « En ce qui concerne ma propre évaluation ou auto­évaluation, j’ai également trouvé cela très utile et je pense qu’on peut faire une telle évaluation avec desélèves, bien sûr pas en leur soumettant tout simplement le Volume complémentaire mais, comme c’est si
souvent le cas en classe, en leur distribuant une fiche d’évaluation grâce à laquelle ils peuvent se demander
ce qu’ils ont appris en cours. Je pense que c’est quelque chose que l’on peut vraiment faire avec les élèves,qu’on peut leur soumettre des formulations modifiées, pour qu’ils puissent reconnaître les progrès qu’ils
ont faits, parce que je pense que cela pourrait être bon pour leur motivation » (étudiant A, discussion degroupe, traduction personnelle).
Ich fand die Unterschiede zwischen den einzelnen Stufen waren so marginal, dass ich dachte, wenn ich dashabe, habe ich automatisch das, z.B. wenn ich Niveau C2 habe, habe ich automatisch alle anderen (…). Für die
Schüler müsste man das umändern, vielleicht anders formulieren, weil es ebenso marginal ist, dass die Schüler
nicht sagen könnten, ja ich gehöre dazu, oder ich gehöre nicht dazu. « J’ai trouvé que les différences entre lesniveaux étaient si marginales que je pensais que si j’avais ceci, j’avais automatiquement cela, par exemple
que si j’avais le niveau C2, j’avais automatiquement tous les autres […]. On devrait modifier cela pour lesélèves, peut-être le formuler différemment, parce que c’est tellement marginal que les élèves ne pouvaientpas dire, oui, je me situe à ce niveau, ou non, je ne me situe pas à ce niveau » (étudiant C, discussion degroupe, traduction personnelle).
Wobei ich dir nicht zustimmen würde, dass die Kompetenzen so aufeinander aufbauen, ich denke, dass Unterschiedeerkennbar sind, bei C2 stand meistens nur eine Kompetenz und drunter war wesentlich mehr Differenzierung, wasgenau, welche Teilaspekte man kann, also ich finde nicht, also mir kam das nicht eintönig vor, sondern sehr breit
gefächert. Es war zwar eine Progression, aber ich habe das nicht ausschließlich gesehen, dass man sagt, quasi, wenn
ich C2 ankreuze, kann ich alles darunter. Ich habe das so gesehen, dass unterschiedliche Aspekte beleuchtet wurden.
Ich habe durchaus bei C1 angekreuzt und bei B1 sehr wenig, weil ich das Gefühl hatte, dass ich das mir zutraue undteilweise reflektiere, aber bei B1 waren Sachen, wo ich dachte, nee, das würde ich mir weniger zutrauen, vielleicht nur
einen Teil, deswegen kam mir das nicht so vor. Natürlich baut alles aufeinander auf, klar. « Je ne suis pas d’accord
avec toi quand tu dis que les compétences se ressemblent les unes les autres. Je pense que les différences sontreconnaissables : au niveau C2, il n’y a généralement qu’une seule compétence et, en dessous, il y a beaucoup
plus de différenciation, une plus grande spécification des aspects partiels des compétences, donc je ne pensepas. Pour moi, cela ne m’a pas semblé monotone, mais comme un large éventail de compétences. Il y a effectivement une progression, mais je ne l’ai pas comprise dans le sens exclusif, que par exemple si je coche C2 jepeux tout faire en dessous. De mon point de vue, différents aspects ont été mis en lumière. J’ai en effet cochéC1 et B1 très peu, parce que j’ai eu le sentiment d’en être capable et de pouvoir y réfléchir, mais au niveau B1,
il y avait des choses où je me suis dit, non, je m’en sens moins capable, peut-être seulement en partie, c’est
pour cela que j’ai compris comme ça. Bien sûr, tout se construit ensemble » (étudiant A, discussion de groupe,
traduction personnelle).

Page 274 3 Enriching 21st-century language educationRÉFÉRENCES
Behr U., Sprachenübergreifendes Lernen und Lehren in der Sekundarstufe I. Ergebnisse eines Kooperationsprojektesder drei Phasen der Lehrerbildung, Narr, Tübingen, 2007.
Boutinet J.-P., Anthropologie du projet, Presses universitaires de France, Paris, 1993.
Brew A. et Saunders C., « Making sense of research-based learning in teacher education », Teaching and teacher
education, no 87, 2020, pp. 1-11.
Candelier M., de Pietro J.-F., Facciol R., Lorincz I., Pascual X. et Schröder-Sura A., Le CARAP, un cadre de référence
pour les approches plurielles des langues et des cultures – Compétences et ressources, Centre européen pourles langues vivantes/Conseil de l’Europe, Strasbourg, 2012. Disponible à l’adresse : www.ecml.at/Portals/1/
documents/ECML-resources/CARAP-FR.pdf?ver=2018-03-20-120658-740, consulté le 14 février 2020.
Charpentier J., Collin B. et Scheurer É., De l’orientation au projet de l’élève, Hachette Éducation, Paris, 1993.
Conseil de l’Europe, Cadre européen commun de référence pour les langues : apprendre, enseigner, évaluer, Didier,
Paris, 2001. Disponible à l’adresse : https://rm.coe.int/16802fc3a8, consulté le 14 février 2020.
Conseil de l’Europe, Cadre européen commun de référence pour les langues : apprendre, enseigner, évaluer. Volume
complémentaire avec de nouveaux descripteurs, Conseil de l’Europe, Strasbourg, 2018. Disponible à l’adresse :https://rm.coe.int/cecr-volume-complementaire-avec-de-nouveaux-descripteurs/16807875d5, consulté le14 février 2020.
Coste D., Moore D. et Zarate G., Compétence plurilingue et pluriculturelle. Vers un Cadre européen commun de référence pour l’enseignement et l’apprentissage des langues vivantes, Conseil de l’Europe, Strasbourg, 1997 (version
révisée 2009).
Gogolin I., Der monolinguale Habitus in der multilingualen Schule, Waxmann, Münster, 1994.
Hatchuel F., Savoir, apprendre, transmettre. Une approche psychanalytique du rapport au savoir, 2de édition,
La Découverte/Poche, Paris, 2007.
Heyder K. et Schädlich B., « Mehrsprachigkeit und Mehrkulturalität – eine Umfrage unter Fremdsprachenlehrkräften
in Niedersachsen », Zeitschrift für Interkulturellen Fremdsprachenunterricht, no 19 (1), 2014, pp. 183-201. Disponible
à l’adresse : https://ojs.tujournals.ulb.tu-darmstadt.de/index.php/zif/article/view/23/20 (consulté le 15 août 2020).
Martinez H., « From standards to tasks and vice versa – Challenges in foreign language learning and teaching », Fremdsprachen Lehren und Lernen, no 42 (2), 2013, pp. 99-114.
Martinez H., « Kompetenzen und Kompetenzförderung in Kontext von Projektunterricht », dans Junkerjürgen R. (dir.),
Kooperatives Lehren und Lernen in den Fremdsprachenphilologien, Schneider Verlag Hohengehren, Baltmannsweiler,
2017, pp. 31-43.
Meißner F.-J., « Vers la mise en pratique de l’intercompréhension comme stratégie autonomisante en classe delangue », Synergies Europe, no 5, 2010, pp. 25-32.

ANNEXES
Disponibles à la fin de la version PDF en ligne
Annexe 18.1 – Fiche de travail 1
Annexe 18.2 – Fiche de travail 2 : transcriptions des présentations
Annexe 18.3 – Fiche de travail 3 : dictionnaire plurilingue
Annexe 18.4 – Questionnaire

Awareness raising and teacher education Page 275

Chapter 19
LEARNING BY DOING: PUTTINGTHE CEFR DESCRIPTORS FOR ONLINEINTERACTION AND MEDIATION
INTO PRACTICE BY TEACHER TRAINEES
Agnieszka Gadomska, SWPS University of Social Sciences and Humanities, Facultyof Arts and Social Sciences, Department of English, Warsaw, Poland

ABSTRACTThe paper presents a study whose aim was to exploit the descriptors for mediation and online interaction
provided in the CEFR Companion volume (Council of Europe 2020) in an EFL teacher training programme, so
as to familiarise student teachers with the descriptors themselves and with the learner competences they referto. It was operationalised mainly by exploiting the online interaction descriptors. However, learners simultaneously consulted the mediation scales in order to identify mediation activities that help to mobilise the skills
described in the online interaction descriptors. The study was conducted at SWPS University of Social Sciencesand Humanities in Warsaw, Poland, in the summer semester of the academic year 2018/19. The intention was
to investigate the potential of the new descriptors in the process of designing IT-based materials for Teaching
English as a Foreign Language (TEFL). It was equally important, however, to sensitise the student teachers to
the nature and importance of mediation skills in the process of (online) communication.
Therefore, in this study we provided the teacher trainees in the first place with the theory of mediation and the
new descriptors, and then gave them the autonomy to each design a piece of learning material (henceforth: amodule). This creative task was constantly supervised, as all the activities described took place during regularclasses at the university’s premises.
The main resource that was created as a result of the project was a Moodle-based online course with 27 modules,
each devoted to a different topic. All these modules were created by the student teachers, who then each tried
out a module created by one of their peers, but now acting as a learner. In this way, each student had two tasks:
to design his/her module, and then later to take a colleague’s module (providing the required feedback), plus
also participating in follow-up class activities (again as both teacher and student).
The project was of a qualitative nature, and the impact was measured by means of:f diarised self-assessment;f peer evaluation of modules produced (both activities conducted online); andf peer teaching observation (conducted by each student author in a classroom).
The project showed that the CEFR descriptors for mediation and online interaction are highly relevant to teacher
education. Students reported that using them for the design of materials was interesting and motivating. However,students also pointed out several challenges, in particular engaging with the concept of mediation itself andmatching specific descriptors for mediation with a particular task.

RÉSUMÉ
Le document présente une étude dont l’objectif était de mettre en œuvre les descripteurs de la médiation
et de l’interaction en ligne (comme définis par le Volume complémentaire du CECR) dans le programme deformation des enseignants d’EFL (anglais langue étrangère), afin de familiariser les étudiants-enseignants
avec les descripteurs eux-mêmes et avec les aptitudes/compétences correspondantes des apprenants. Lors duprojet, des descripteurs des échelles d’interaction en ligne ont été exploités, en interrogeant simultanément
des échelles de médiation pour identifier les activités de médiation qui aident à mobiliser les descripteursd’interaction en ligne. L’étude a été menée à l’université SWPS des sciences sociales et humaines à Varsovie,
en Pologne, au cours du semestre d’été de l’année universitaire 2018-2019. Son auteur était responsable de laPage 277

coordination des ateliers de validation qualitative et quantitative du Conseil de l’Europe (2015-2016), qui ont
impliqué les membres de la faculté des arts et des sciences sociales de l’université SWPS, soit 14 éminents experts
universitaires et professionnels spécialisés dans l’éducation aux langues. Dans la présente étude, l’intention del’auteur était d’aborder la question du potentiel des « nouveaux » descripteurs dans le processus de conception
de matériel informatique pour l’enseignement de l’anglais en tant que langue étrangère. Cependant, il était tout
aussi important de sensibiliser les étudiants à la nature et à l’importance des compétences de médiation dansle processus de communication (en ligne).
La ressource principale qui a été créée à la suite du projet était un cours basé sur Moodle avec 27 modules,
chacun consacré à un sujet différent. Le projet était de nature qualitative et l’impact a été mesuré au moyen del’autoévaluation, de l’évaluation des modules produits (ces deux activités ont été évaluées par les étudiants etmenées en ligne), et de l’observation de l’enseignement (menée par chaque étudiant-enseignant dans la classe).
Le projet a montré que les descripteurs du CECR pour la médiation et l’interaction en ligne sont très pertinents
pour l’éducation des enseignants. Les élèves ont indiqué que leur apport dans la création de ces matériaux est
vraiment moderne, intéressante et motivante. Cependant, les étudiants ont également souligné quelques défis,en particulier la prise en compte du concept de médiation lui-même et l’effort de mettre en correspondance
des descripteurs spécifiques avec des tâches particulières.

19.1. INTRODUCTION
This study was conducted at SWPS University of Social Sciences and Humanities in Warsaw, Poland, in the summer
semester of the academic year 2018/19. SWPS University is a leading tertiary education institution with sevenfaculties, over 300 tenured faculty members and over 17 000 students enrolled in 35 undergraduate, graduate
and doctoral programmes across five different campuses. The project was conducted in the Department ofEnglish, Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences, whose faculty includes highly qualified linguists, literature andculture scholars, translators and specialists in language teaching methodology. The study involved students
specialising in teaching English as a foreign language (TEFL), working towards the qualification necessary toteach in public and private schools. In the course of their training and internships, students complete their own
European Portfolio for Student Teachers of Languages or EPOSTL (Newby et al. 2007).
The aim of the current project was to make use of the CEFR Companion volume descriptors for online interaction
and mediation in the EFL teacher training programme, so as to familiarise student teachers with the descriptors
themselves and with the learner skills/competences described by them. The project focused on the two CEFR
Companion volume scales of descriptors for online interaction (Online conversation and discussion and Goaloriented online transactions and collaboration), while simultaneously investigating the mediation scales in order to
identify mediation activities that would help mobilise the activities described in the online interaction descriptors.
During the academic year 2018/19 (in February to May 2019) two groups of student teachers (total number: 27)
took part in the project. All of them attended the course Methods and Techniques of Teaching English as a Foreign
Language (3rd year BA studies, English Philology groups) and they had previously had a five-semester experience asusers of the Moodle platform. In the first semester of the same academic year, the trainees had practised designing
Moodle-based activities for TEFL (supervised by the current author). Therefore, they were experienced in designingonline materials, and had knowledge of the methodology of TEFL and computer-assisted language learning (CALL).
However, they had not performed any mediation-related tasks before the project reported here.
Their needs, among others, were the following (based on the course syllabus):
f to learn and master the techniques and procedures for teaching English as a foreign language, with anemphasis on material and syllabus design, and lesson planning;f to acquire analytical and critical thinking skills by planning activities and lessons, evaluating, choosing
and adapting materials;
f to develop the skills of academic and professional discussion, research, presentation and micro/peer-teaching;f to master and apply in practice the CEFR illustrative descriptors, focusing on the descriptors for mediationand online interaction;f to be able to work in a team, adopting various roles in the performance of joint projects or in mutual discussions;f to master plurilingual and pluricultural competence;f to master the organisational skills allowing to plan and carry out professional tasks and objectives;
f to be able to conduct a comparative evaluation of different teaching methods and language teachingmaterials.

Page 278 3 Enriching 21st-century language education

During the project, the students worked on designing their own Moodle-based modules in the classroom(“computer room”) teaching mode offered by Moodle. The modules were meant for learning English as a foreign
language in self-study mode. The aim of the modules was to build skills for the two CEFR Companion volume
scales mentioned above, Online conversation and discussion and Goal-oriented online transactions and collaboration.

19.2. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
19.2.1. Preparation
The student teachers were first introduced to the concept of mediation and to the related new CEFR descriptors
at the beginning of the semester. A number of face-to-face class sessions were then devoted to the principles,
approaches, steps, and techniques of teaching the four different skills: writing, speaking, reading and listening.
The class activities included a comparison of traditional and IT-supported methods and techniques.
Part of the training involved viewing Council of Europe documents and resources, including usage of the webinars
available online (conducted by Tim Goodier and Brian North). Students had constant access to these materials
in the Information Point on the platform.

19.2.2. Module creation
Of a total of 30 teaching sessions, 15 sessions (15 × 90 minutes) were devoted to computer lab-based activities.
Students were given the limited status of “Teachers” in the university computer room setting, for the class time
only. Outside the SWPS University building, they continued to have the status of “Students” only (in the same
course), which enabled changing role and trying out the modules produced by both themselves and their peers,anytime and anywhere.
During the project, student teachers were asked to compare the descriptor scales for online interaction in the CEFR
Companion volume with those for mediation, in order to identify those online interaction descriptors that facilitate
the mediation activities described in the descriptors on the mediation scales. Students were then requested to design
their own online materials, focusing on different categories of mediation – Mediating a text, Mediating concepts,
Mediating communication (Council of Europe 2018, 2020) – as part of the materials design training. The decision
to study the online and mediation scales together in this way was a conscious choice in order to investigate therelation of online interaction competences to mediation skills and strategies. In fact, it was assumed that highly
motivating IT-based activities would boost the development of mediation skills through the necessity of using them.
The student authors were given freedom as to the choice of topics for their module, the proficiency level forwhich the module was designed and thus the corresponding, relevant mediation descriptors. The levels selected
were mostly between B1 and C1. Students were encouraged to concentrate on areas of their own interest suchas lifestyle, travel, psychology and media, as well as British and American culture and literature.

19.2.3. How the descriptors for mediation were exploited
The student teachers’ selection of descriptors for the activities of their modules pertained to the following
descriptor scales:a. Mediating a text: Relaying specific information in writing and in speech; Processing text in speech andwriting; Translating a written text in writing and speech; Note-taking; Expressing a personal response to
creative text; Analysis of creative text.
b. Mediating concepts: Collaborating to construct meaning; Facilitating collaborative interaction with peers;
Managing interaction; Encouraging conceptual talk.
c. Mediating communication: Facilitating pluricultural space; Acting as intermediary in informal situations.
d. Mediation strategies: Linking to previous knowledge; Breaking down complicated information; Adapting
language; Elaborating a dense text; Streamlining a text.
In building modules, students had to select the scale and the descriptor(s) f﻿irst, then find the appropriate text
(either for reading or listening, or both) and finally design tasks, which often included mediating the concepts
in order to mediate the text, and therefore in effect mediating communication (in that order).
Students employed a variety of activities in each module. International students were eager to explore theirown culture and adapt it to the TEFL context. For example, one of the Chinese students prepared a module inwhich the learner had to mediate a short literary text from Chinese to English with the use of descriptors from

Awareness raising and teacher education Page 279

the following scales: Processing text, Translating a written text in writing, Expressing a personal response to creative
texts (including literature) and Collaborating to construct meaning. Looking at the final collection of modules, it
can be concluded that students based their activities on scales in all three mediation categories: Mediating atext, Mediating concepts and Mediating communication, as well as mediation strategies.

19.2.4. Examples of tasks produced
A Spanish student teacher, for example, prepared online materials for note-taking on a song while listening and thencomparing the song lyrics with a poem. The main task related to the scales Expressing a personal response to creative
texts and Analysis of creative text. Students were asked to write a paragraph comparing the song and poem and to
upload their text on the e-learning platform. The descriptors related to this particular activity were the following:f Expressing a personal response to creative texts (B2):a. Can give a clear presentation of his/her reactions to a work, developing his/her ideas and supporting themwith examples and arguments.
b. Can describe his/her emotional response to a work and elaborate on the way in which it has evoked this
response.
c. Can express in some detail his/her reactions to the form of expression, style and content of a work, explaining what s/he appreciated and why.
f Analysis of creative text (B2):d. Can compare two works, considering themes, characters and scenes, exploring similarities and contrasts
and explaining the relevance of the connections between them.
e. Can give a reasoned opinion about a work, showing awareness of the thematic, structural and formalfeatures and referring to the opinions and arguments of others.
f. Can evaluate the way the work encourages identification with characters, giving examples.
g. Can describe the way in which different works differ in their treatment of the same theme.
f Online conversation and discussion (B2):h. Can participate actively in an online discussion, stating and responding to opinions on topics of interest
at some length, provided contributors avoid unusual or complex language and allow time for responses.
i. Can engage in online exchanges between several participants, effectively linking his/her contributions toprevious ones in the thread, provided a moderator helps manage the discussion.
The descriptors listed above were used by the trainee teachers to help design the tasks, including the instructions for particular activities and sequences of activities; in particular, they helped identify factors affecting thedifficulty of tasks. Moreover, the students used them to interpret, evaluate and reflect on their own skills andthose of others. Students used them to monitor performance in the tasks, including self-assessment. Above all
they helped these teacher trainees understand better the CEFR, particularly its levels, and the potential of thedescriptors for mediation and online interaction in the TEFL context.
Moreover, to Facilitate pluricultural space, the teacher first encouraged and managed a conversation on the
online forum, in effect, mediating communication. It seemed that using descriptors for Mediating communication
across different cultures was particularly natural and spontaneous for foreign student teachers, who wanted tocommunicate their own culture to their peers, although these were not used formally in the activity.
Another student focused on the concept of “digital natives v. digital immigrants” (Prensky 2001). This time
the relevant descriptor scales were Facilitating collaborative interaction with peers; Analysis of creative text;
Note-taking; and Processing text in writing. The descriptors related to this particular module were the following:f Facilitating collaborative interaction with peers (B1):a. Can collaborate on a shared task, for example formulating and responding to suggestions, asking whether
people agree and proposing alternative approaches.
b. Can collaborate in simple, shared tasks and work towards a common goal in a group by asking and answering straightforward questions.
c. Can define the task in basic terms in a discussion and ask others to contribute their expertise and experience.
f Analysis of creative text (B2):d. Can give a reasoned opinion about a work, showing awareness of the thematic, structural and formalfeatures and referring to the opinions and arguments of others.
e. Can evaluate the way the work encourages identification with characters, giving examples.

Page 280 3 Enriching 21st-century language education

f Note-taking (B2):
f. Can understand a clearly structured lecture on a familiar subject, and can take notes on points which strike
him/her as important, even though s/he tends to concentrate on the words themselves and therefore tomiss some information.
g. Can make accurate notes in meetings and seminars on most matters likely to arise within his/her field ofinterest.
f Processing text in writing (B2):h. Can summarise in writing the main content of well-structured but propositionally complex spoken andwritten texts on subjects within his/her fields of professional, academic and personal interest.
i. Can explain in writing the viewpoint articulated in a complex text, supporting inferences s/he makes withreference to specific information in the original.
f Online conversation and discussion (B2):
j. Can participate actively in an online discussion, stating and responding to opinions on topics of interest
at some length, provided contributors avoid unusual or complex language and allow time for responses.
k. Can engage in online exchanges between several participants, effectively linking his/her contributions toprevious ones in the thread, provided a moderator helps manage the discussion.
Again, these descriptors were used by the teacher trainee concerned to help design the tasks (including the
instructions for particular tasks and the order of tasks), to monitor performance in the tasks and for (self-)
assessment of performance in the tasks.
In general, the CEFR Companion volume descriptors enabled the teacher educator to relate students’ fields andskills of interest to relevant CEFR scales, levels and descriptors and, in effect, to gain valuable insight into themethodology of TEFL, including the design and application of IT-based materials. On top of that, working withthe descriptors encouraged (self-)reflection on the students’ linguistic and didactic competences.

19.2.5. Follow-up activities
The follow-up activities included peer teaching. Student teachers were required to focus on showing how toteach mediation skills by adapting their online materials (retrieved from their previously designed modules) tothe classroom setting (equipped with the interactive whiteboard or IWB). The discussion involved analysis of
the use of different IWB tools for that purpose.

19.2.6. Community of practice
The project aimed at learning by doing; therefore, the role of the community of practice was very important.
The dynamics of the group work relied on constant peer feedback and teacher support. It must be stressed thatstudents had two roles in the project. In their first role, they used their C1 English proficiency with advanced IT
skills and knowledge of the methodology of TEFL to create the Moodle course modules. In their second role,
they took the modules created by their colleagues, providing peer feedback. Therefore, they had to switch
perspective, which often resulted in a certain duality of thinking.
The chosen mode (anytime/anywhere) enabled access to materials, work and information exchange both online
and offline, in a computer lab and from home, in a formal or informal setting.

19.2.7. Reflection and evaluation
For the purpose of collecting data and feedback, supportive resources were designed and implemented ineach module, in particular: diarised self-assessment and module/activity peer evaluation and a Questions andProblems forum (in the Information Point of the whole course). Diarised self-assessment was intentionally an
activity visible only to the teacher supervisor and the author of the module (teacher trainee). The responses
were hidden from the group members. The instruction was the following:
In a separate section describe the role of Mediation descriptors in the diarised self-assessment form. Add an activity
to your module: Assignment: Self-evaluation (Upload your comments there; use EPOSTL to formulate your ideas).

Peer evaluation took place on a forum, in order for other users to see and comment on the entries and discuss
their feedback. The forum also enabled the student author of each module to respond to any comments.

Awareness raising and teacher education Page 281

19.3. DISCUSSION
During the project, the student teachers (as module authors) were required to comment on the use in theirwork of the CEFR descriptors forf mediation (Council of Europe 2018: 104-29; 2020: 90-122);f online interaction (Council of Europe 2018: 96-9; 2020: 84-7);
f communicative language competences (Council of Europe 2018: 130-44; 2020: 129-42); andf pluricultural competences (Council of Europe 2018: 157; 2020: 124-5).
For each task in their module they were asked to specify
a. the aim of the task;b. the aspect(s) of mediation focused on in it;c. the CEFR level; andd. the chosen descriptors – differentiating between online and blended usage of the task.
Students were also asked to draw conclusions and make recommendations, including on aspects of evaluating
student performance.
The aim of this activity was to check students’ understanding of the CEFR descriptors for Mediation and Online
Interaction and to evaluate their skills at implementing them in the TEFL context. In effect, it enabled the summative assessment of students’ work (in terms of fulfilling course objectives), in addition to self-assessment andthe collection of valuable data and feedback.

19.3.1. Utilisation of feedback
To sum up, three formats were used to provide and register feedback:a. instructor < > student teacher/author (diarised self-assessment: visible to the instructor and the student
author);b. instructor/student/teacher <> student teacher (questions and problems forum: visible to all course
participants);
c. student teacher <> student participant (module/activity peer evaluation forum: visible to all course
participants).
The feedback gained could be used for both formative and summative assessment for the group of student
teachers concerned, and also for making adjustments to the course planning for the following academic
year 2019/20 and, in general, for the design of IT-focused courses offered for this teaching specialisation in
the department.
The feedback from student teachers suggests that the CEFR descriptors for mediation and online interaction arehighly relevant in the context of teacher education. Students report that using them for the design of learningmaterials is state-of-the-art, interesting and motivating. Moreover, it encourages an authentic, interdisciplinary
and intercultural perspective, in effect providing a natural context for learning a foreign language.
However, students also pointed out several challenges related to the mediation descriptors and to mediation
skills in general. To summarise, they found, in general, that engaging with the concept itself was not a simple
matter and that matching any specific descriptor on a given descriptor scale for mediation with a particular task
in the Moodle module was not always straightforward.
The collected data provide invaluable feedback that will definitely be used for the revision and planning of
the Teacher Education Programme for BA and MA English Studies, as well as postgraduate studies for teachers,
offered by SWPS University. The current author is continuing research on implementation of the descriptors formediation in the academic year 2019/20. The observations to date confirm the need to teach language teacher
trainees the concept of mediation and different techniques for designing and implementing IT-based resources
for teaching and learning. The focus of the current author is now more on the choice of techniques and modalities
for the assessment of mediation competences.

19.3.2. Perceived impact on teaching and learning
In this section, samples of student feedback are presented in relation to the pedagogical value of working
with the descriptors. The student teachers acknowledged that the approach boosted their creativity and wasPage 282 3 Enriching 21st-century language education

highly motivating, and that the tasks they were given were interesting, though challenging. They noted various
advantages and disadvantages of the approach and provided reflections and self-evaluation with reference
to the European Portfolio for Student Teachers of Languages (EPOSTL), a reflection tool for language teacher
education. These points are illustrated one by one below with quotations from the participants. All commentsfrom the participants are presented in their original wording and form.

19.3.2.1. The approach boosted participants creativity and was highly motivating
The descriptors for Mediation proved to be very useful in order to design new activities. Mediation descriptors boosted
my own creativity in designing activities and helped students communicate with each other. (Student 1)
Mediation descriptors boosted my own creativity in designing activities. In my own module, I came up with an activity
about comparing the lyrics of a modern song and a poem of the 19th century as a mediation activity. I would havenever thought about designing an activity like this without the context of mediation. Mediation not only helped
me as a student teacher to be more creative, but also it will make the activities more attractive for students. Since
one part of the activity consists of a modern song by a popular artist, it is likely that students are familiar with it.
The second part of the activity is comparing the already familiar song with a new concept: an unknown poem (tothe students) written many centuries ago. Without mediation, a young language student would not be interested inpoetry, but with the component of a new familiar aspect (modern song and artist), the student may be attracted tolearn more about the other half that he or she may not know. While students are doing the mediation activity, they
are also going to be improving their general language skills, because the activity includes such: writing, grammar
and vocabulary. (Student 4)

19.3.2.2. The task was challenging yet interestingThis task of creating a module was pretty easy as we were trained the previous semester. However, the challenge
was making them with the new descriptors. As a person who learned English in a traditional way (speaking, writing,grammar, reading), these new descriptors were confusing for me in the beginning. However, first it was challenging
to do; I think that this method is better because of a few things:
f while doing the exercises a student uses more than one of the skills;
f it is personally more interesting for me;
f in the traditional method it is more demanding to learn the language;
f [the] new method teaches a student old methods without mentioning them. (Student 2).

19.3.2.3. There were both advantages and disadvantages observed
The only disadvantage of this method is that these skills sound a bit more abstract than the traditional ones. However,with reading the CEFR, a teacher can learn how to evaluate his/her students’ performance. I am very interested in seeing
how the language tests are going to shape with these new skills. I would strongly recommend to use these new skills
instead of the old traditional way. (Student 2)
The descriptors for Mediation proved to be very useful in order to design new activities. Once we understood
what mediation meant and how to apply it to our modules, it was easier to come up with new ideas for activities.
(Student 3)
Our professor decided not to give any descriptor as obligatory, so we could choose whichever we found moreinteresting. This decision allowed us more freedom, but at the same time, it was lengthier because we had to read
all the descriptors of Mediation and choose among them. I consider that if student teachers are given a definite setof descriptors, they are going to be able to design activities faster and more effectively. (Student 4)

19.3.2.4. Some examples of reflection and self-evaluation with reference to EPOSTL
Altogether, 17 (out of 27) diarised self-evaluation forms were collected. Some students may not have uploaded
the required document because they lacked time or found it technically challenging. One of the students commented, in relation to EPOSTL descriptors:
I achieved the following skills:
Curriculum, No 3.
�	
I can understand the principles formulated in relevant European documents (e.g. the CEFR, European Language

Portfolio).
Methodology/Speaking-Spoken Interaction, No 4.
�	
I can evaluate and select a range of meaningful speaking and interactional activities to develop fluency (discussion,role-play, problem solving, etc.).
Resources, Nos 3 and 8.

Awareness raising and teacher education Page 283

�	
I can locate and select listening and reading materials appropriate for the needs of my learners from a variety ofsources, such as literature, mass media and the internet.
�	
I can select and use ICT materials and activities in the classroom which are appropriate for my learners.

Lesson Planning/Identification of Learning Objectives, No 2.
�	
I can plan specific learning objectives for individual lessons and/or for a period of teaching.

19.4. CONCLUSIONS
To conclude, the key findings from the case study are the following.
The task proved challenging since many claimed (in diarised self-assessment, peer evaluation) that the activities
seemed very difficult at first. The first reason might be connected with the notion of mediation. The idea seemedvery abstract and confusing to the participants, so it took much more time than anticipated to explain not only
the term, but also the three different categories of mediation activities and strategies, the various scales undereach category and the descriptors on the scales. Although the student teachers had been taught such skills assummarising, paraphrasing and translating as part of the curriculum (academic writing, translation, practicalgrammar classes), they were not familiar with these concepts as aspects of mediation. Moreover, they may haveconfused mediation with interaction. Therefore, mediation had to be explained using the examples and available
video materials provided (Goodier 2018; North 2018).
The second reason why the task was challenging is also connected with student understanding of the concept ofmediation, as in Polish the term “mediation” exclusively refers to the actions of a third party when two interlocutors
disagree (as in the scale Facilitating communication in delicate situations and disagreements). From the current
perspective, it seems that particularly the weaker students (weaker in terms of critical thinking and language
skills) should be assigned a few concrete descriptors to work on, rather than being presented with the whole
set of over 20 descriptor scales for mediation.
In contrast, the online interaction descriptors did not provide such a challenge. In fact, the idea of shifting the
focus to the use of CEFR descriptors for online interaction and mediation was conditioned by the advanced IT
skills of the users and their preferences as digital natives.
On the other hand, the approach boosted creativity and motivation. It also helped participants to understandhow descriptors reflect the complex nature of mediation and the corresponding strategies. Thus it also promoted
the action-oriented approach with “purposeful, collaborative tasks whose primary focus is not the language”(North 2018: at 20:54). This “learning by doing” and action-oriented experiment proved successful. Students were
motivated; they worked on individually chosen topics related to their own interests, and they used IT. Finally,
they became aware of the cultural diversity and the priorities for successful communication in the 21st century.
The project findings confirm that the CEFR Companion volume mediation descriptors are seen as highly relevantin the student teacher and teacher training context. Moreover, students believe that employing them for thedesign of TEFL materials is a proof of the “modern” and “not traditional” approach, which for them seems a great
advantage. The participants attributed great importance to CEFR descriptors in general and to the EPOSTL.
Therefore, they treated the task of mastering the new descriptors as necessary for their education.
However, teacher trainees also stressed the challenges in understanding the concept of mediation and thenuances of different descriptors. They agreed, however, that the “learning by doing approach” proved successful
in this respect.
The findings listed above were considered when the teacher education programme was revised for the following
academic year and the current author continued the project on a different course (IT in TEFL).

REFERENCES
Council of Europe (2018), “Common European Framework of Reference for Languages. Companion volume with
the new descriptors”, Council of Europe, Strasbourg, available at https://rm.coe.int/cefr-companion-­volumewith-new-descriptors-2018/1680787989, accessed 23 August 2021.
Council of Europe (2020), Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: learning, teaching, assessment – Companion volume, Council of Europe Publishing, Strasbourg, available at https://rm.coe.int/­commoneuropean-framework-of-reference-for-languages-learning-teaching/16809ea0d4, accessed 22 August 2021.

Page 284 3 Enriching 21st-century language education

Goodier T. (2018), Oxford webinar highlights: Activating mediation skills in the ELT classroom with Tim Goodier(20 November 2018), available at www.youtube.com/watch?v=wwd3nowdyS8&feature=youtu.be, accessed
13 September 2021.
Newby D., Allan R., Fenner A.-B., Jones B., Komorowska H. and Soghikyan K. (2007), European portfolio for student
teachers of languages: a reflection tool for language teacher education, European Centre for Modern Languages, Graz.
North B. (2018), Introducing the CEFR Companion with Brian North, available at www.youtube.com/watch?v=y­ OSCty2fM2Q, accessed 13 September 2021.
Prensky M. (2001), “Digital natives, digital immigrants: Part 1”, On the horizon, No. 9(5), pp. 1-6. DOI: https://doi.
org/10.1108/10748120110424816.

Awareness raising and teacher education Page 285

Chapter 20
EXPLORING TEACHERS’ BELIEFS
AND PRACTICES ABOUT PHONOLOGYINSTRUCTION, WITH REFERENCE
TO THE CEFR DESCRIPTORSElif Şen, Mutlu Işıl Ergun and Hande Işıl Mengü,
Bilkent University English Language Preparatory Program, Ankara, Turkey

ABSTRACTThis study explored ways in which the participants – that is, teachers enrolled on the Cambridge English face-toface DELTA (Diploma in Teaching English to Speakers of Other Languages) module 2 course – chose to highlightand teach the two features operationalised in the Phonological control scale in the CEFR Companion volume,
namely: (1) sound articulation, including pronunciation of sounds, and (2) prosodic features, including intonation,rhythm and stress (both word and sentence stress).
At the beginning of the Cambridge English DELTA module 2 course, as part of their action-research projects,
participants identified areas they would like to improve throughout the course. Since phonology is generally
a neglected area in most teachers’ regular practice, the participants in the study also chose to work on phonological control features as one of the areas. To this end, participants read several excerpts from key resources onphonology and carried out a research project (their Professional Development Assignment) which incorporated
one or more of the phonological control features. They also attended training sessions (on sounds, stress andintonation, connected speech), receiving input on the phonological control features specified above. In addition,
the teachers tried out activities and reflected on their experience. Although connected speech was not part ofthe descriptors, we felt the need to include it in the input as we believed that it was an indispensable part of thephonology strand. In these sessions, we aimed to raise participants’ awareness of the target phonological control
features through guided discovery, loop input, controlled and free practice and demo microteaching activities.
As a follow-up to the sessions, participants were assigned further practice tasks and post-reading material. They
were also provided with one-to-one guidance during tutorials as part of the course, and participants also observed
their peers teaching phonological features and reflected on their learning from this through the observation
forms they completed. The peer observations displayed the extent to which participants were able to put the
input into practice. Throughout this process, participants had updates with the course tutors on their progress
and wrote a final evaluation report at the end.
The impact of the study was measured through comparison of the data from the initial and final administration of a questionnaire, peer observation reports and the final evaluation reports (based on the Professional
Development Assignment).
The key results of the study included the design of a more solid phonology strand as part of the DELTA module 2
course, based on the descriptors of the CEFR phonological control features. Moreover, significant changes wereobserved in the self-assessment of participants’ knowledge and awareness of phonological control features.
Participants also pointed out that they felt they could teach phonological features better than they could at the
beginning of the study, as they felt more confident. In addition, participants suggested that they would needmore work on phonological control features as part of their ongoing professional development.

RÉSUMÉ
Cette recherche étudie les méthodes d’apprentissage et d’enseignement de la phonologie ainsi que les systèmesd’articulations utilisés par les enseignants inscrits au cours DELTA (Diploma in Teaching English to Speakers of
Other Languages) module 2 en anglais de Cambridge. Elle a pour but de mettre en évidence deux des fonctions
de la maîtrise phonologique du CECR opérationnalisées dans les échelles respectives du Volume complémentairedu CECR. Les caractéristiques concernées étaient i) l’articulation des sons, y compris la prononciation des sons,et ii) les traits prosodiques, y compris l’intonation, le rythme et l’accent (l’accent tonique et phrastique). Danscette perspective, au début des cours, les enseignants ont identifié les domaines qu’ils aimeraient améliorer tout

Page 287au long de la séance. Étant donné que la phonologie est généralement un domaine négligé dans la pratiquerégulière de la plupart des enseignants, les participants de ladite recherche ont également choisi de travailler
sur les caractéristiques de la maîtrise phonologique. À cette fin, les participants ont analysé plusieurs documentsde référence sur la phonologie et ont réalisé un projet de recherche (« Action de formation professionnelle ») en
intégrant leurs propres études sur le domaine. Ils ont également assisté à des séances de formation (sur les sons,l’accent et l’intonation, le discours connecté) et sur les caractéristiques de maîtrise phonologique mentionnées.
En premier lieu, les enseignants ont rempli les questionnaires d’une enquête initiale au tout début de la formation. Ensuite, ils ont essayé de mettre en place et d’évaluer les techniques et les méthodes qu’ils ont apprises.
Bien que le discours connecté (connected speech) ne fasse pas partie des descripteurs, nous avons ressenti lebesoin de l’inclure dans le projet, car nous avons remarqué qu’il s’agissait d’une partie indispensable du voletde la phonologie. Au cours de ces séances, nous avons cherché à sensibiliser les participants aux fonctions demaîtrise phonologique cibles par le biais de découvertes guidées, d’input itératif, de pratiques contrôlées et libres
ainsi que d’activités de micro-enseignement de démonstration. Dans le suivi des séances ont été assignées aux
participants d’autres tâches de pratique et matériels de lecture. Ils ont également débattu du processus d’enseignement en collaboration avec leurs collègues. En outre, les participants ont mené des observations de classesde leurs collègues et ils ont évalué leurs méthodes en remplissant des fiches d’évaluation. Les observations ont
montré à quel point les participants étaient en mesure de mettre en pratique les commentaires. Tout au longde ce processus, les enseignants ont rédigé un rapport d’évaluation final.
Les principaux résultats de l’étude relèvent les constatations ci-dessous :f la nécessité d’une formation à la phonologie plus tangible dans le cadre du cours DELTA module 2, fondée
sur les descripteurs des caractéristiques de maîtrise phonologique du CECR ;f une sensibilisation accrue à l’autoévaluation des enseignants vis-à-vis de leurs méthodes d’enseignement.
Il faut également souligner que les participants ont constaté qu’ils pouvaient mieux enseigner les caractéristiques
phonologiques qu’au début de l’étude, car ils se sentaient plus confiants. En outre, les participants ont également
laissé entendre qu’ils auraient besoin de plus de travail sur les caractéristiques de la maîtrise phonologique dansle cadre de leur formation professionnelle continue.

20.1. INTRODUCTION
This project was conducted in the English Language Preparatory Program at Bilkent University in Ankara, Turkey.
Bilkent University is an English-medium institution that requires B2 English proficiency as the entry level for
its undergraduate programmes. The Preparatory Program is, therefore, designed to provide learners with thelanguage knowledge and skills at B2 level which are required in order for them to be admitted into their selectedundergraduate courses. Bilkent University requires learners to take a two-stage proficiency examination, called
Proficiency of Academic English (PAE), at the beginning of the academic year, to determine whether they aresuitably skilled to move directly to their undergraduate courses, or whether completion of the Preparatory
Program is required. The Preparatory Program offers courses at five distinct levels: Elementary (A1-A2), PreIntermediate (A2+), Intermediate (B1), Upper-Intermediate (B1+) and Pre-Faculty (B2). Learners are assigned toa level according to their PAE exam results, and then proceed through the required courses. Learners have a totalof 25 hours of instruction per week over eight weeks for each of the courses listed above, and the instruction
is delivered by highly qualified teaching staff. Most of the learners are Turkish nationals aged between 17 and20. The class size is no more than 23 students per class with a minimum of two teachers sharing the teaching
responsibilities according to the course syllabus.
This project involved five teachers from the Preparatory Program, who were enrolled in the 2018/19 Cambridge
English face-to-face DELTA module 2 course (Cambridge Assessment 2021), which is delivered by the Bilkent Teacher
Training Unit, whose ultimate aim is to promote a better understanding and better teaching of the language
system and skills in the light of the institutional expectations specified in the Preparatory Program Curriculum.
The course is provided to teachers on a part-time basis, alongside their everyday teaching practice, to fully equipthem with the necessary skills and methodologies to teach the learners in the context specified above. It has long
been observed that phonology is probably the weakest and most challenging area for these teachers and forthe institution; hence phonology can be considered a neglected area in at least our everyday teaching practice.
Therefore, it can be assumed that there might be a tendency to avoid key features of phonology instruction listed
below despite their being clearly specified in the English Language Preparatory Program Curriculum.
f Phonology is taught both at receptive and productive levels.
f Phonology instruction should comprise both an explicit focus on pronunciation-focused activities (segregated) and the inclusion of pronunciation in the teaching of new vocabulary and grammar (integrated).

Page 288 3 Enriching 21st-century language education

f Learners should be introduced to the concept of the phonemic chart.
f Specific pronunciation practice should figure as a regular element of classroom work, particularly at thelower levels, and students should be encouraged to develop clear and intelligible speech delivery. (Bilkent
University 2019: 7-8).
This project created the opportunity to raise awareness of these expected features and to encourage practiceof them with reference to the CEFR descriptors in order to suit the institution’s instructional needs. The aimof the project was to find out to what extent and in what ways the teachers enrolled in the DELTA module 2
course highlight and teach two of the features forming subscales of the scale Phonological control, listed undercommunicative language competences (linguistic) in the CEFR Companion volume (Council of Europe 2018:134-6; 2020: 133-5). These features are:(1) articulation, including pronunciation of sounds;(2) prosody, including intonation, rhythm and stress (both word and sentence stress).
Because the context in which the study was carried out is primarily monolingual, with Turkish-speakers, accentedness was not included in the study, as it was felt that it would not have yielded any relevant results.

20.2. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
20.2.1. Research background
The overall Phonological control scale under communicative language competences in the CEFR Companion
volume emphasises intelligibility and sound articulation as two key aspects of phonological competence.
Intelligibility, “how much effort is required from the interlocutor to decode the speaker’s message” (Councilof Europe 2018: 135; 2020: 133) is highlighted as the key factor for discriminating between levels. Sound
articulation, on the other hand, focuses on familiarity and confidence with the range of sounds a speaker
can articulate and with a degree of precision and clarity in the target language. In both aspects, the common
features are control of individual sounds and control of prosodic features (stress, intonation and rhythm).
Learners are expected to be familiar with and confident in the target sounds, to be clear and precise and tohave the ability to use the prosodic features effectively to convey meaning in a precise manner in order tohighlight their particular message.
The relationship between instruction and improved phonological ability and intelligibility (Couper 2003; Derwing
et al. 1997, 1998) has been examined, and numerous studies provide evidence for the importance of explicit
pronunciation instruction. As Przedlacka suggests, “teachers need the knowledge of the systemic and phonetic
differences between the native and target languages, coupled with an auditory ability to distinguish sounds”(Przedlacka 2018: 40). Many teachers and even the “experienced [ones] would admit to a lack of knowledge
about the theory of pronunciation and they may therefore feel the need to improve their practical skills inpronunciation teaching” (Kelly 2003: 13).
Research has also shown that teachers who lack a sufficient range of pronunciation-oriented techniques
are disadvantaged in assisting students to achieve comprehensible pronunciation. Macdonald, for example,
states that, as well as a lack of a repertoire of classroom activities, insufficient knowledge of how to assess
student pronunciation contributes to teachers’ avoidance of teaching pronunciation (Macdonald 2002). In
other words, teachers who do not have sufficient knowledge and awareness of phonological features lackconfidence in employing pronunciation-oriented activities and in assessing their learners’ phonologicalcompetence.
There is also a connection between a wider knowledge base of pronunciation techniques and the teachers whotake courses on pronunciation pedagogy. The results of Murphy’s study (1997) show that an additional focus on
pronunciation pedagogy in training programmes would be likely to benefit the teachers on these programmes.
Therefore, it is of the utmost importance to raise teachers’ awareness of the key phonological features listed in
the CEFR descriptors and to give opportunities for them to practise these features, especially on their training
courses. As Baker emphasises,
if we hope to provide L2 learners with the skills needed to acquire comprehensible English, teachers need a solid
understanding of not only how to provide clear explanations of English pronunciation, but also how to provide effective
controlled and guided practice and how to give constructive feedback on learner pronunciation. (Baker 2014: 157)

With all this in mind, we structured our project as an explicit phonology strand integrated into the Cambridge
English DELTA course we deliver in our institution.

Awareness raising and teacher education Page 289

20.2.2. The project’s three strands
The project had three main strands: a questionnaire, input from trainers and individual reflection.
Before any input was provided, the questionnaire collected data on teachers’ awareness of the phonologicalcontrol features from the new CEFR descriptors and their knowledge of how to teach them. The results were to
be used as baseline data, allowing for comparison with results from the same questionnaire administered at theend of the training (Appendix 20.1, 20.2A and 20.2B).
Input and guidance from trainers was provided at four sessions on the two target features of phonologicalcontrol from the CEFR Companion volume, namely sound articulation, including pronunciation of sounds, andprosodic features, including intonation, rhythm and stress (both word and sentence stress). The emphasis on
intelligibility in the descriptors shaped the training approach by informing the prioritisation of phonologicalfeatures focused on during the input sessions. In addition, the emphasis on the control of sounds and thecontrol of prosodic features was reflected in the way in which session content was organised and how thesessions were sequenced. In the first session, control of sounds was the focus; then the input shifted toprosodic features (stress, intonation and connected speech) in the subsequent sessions. The guidance fromthe trainers was supported by additional suggestions for self-study, guidance for lesson design and peer
observations.
This training, based on phonological control features, aimed to help teachers gain a deeper understanding of
the features and guided them in their teaching practice. Materials used during the input sessions and the ones
suggested as self-study included both awareness-raising and practice activities and tasks (for samples, please
see Appendix 20.3). This kind of support was also suggested by Murphy:
in certificate and degree programmes, and in addition to opportunities to read and discuss articles and bookchapters … teachers also need opportunities to try things out for themselves through guided micro-teaching,tutoring of L2 learners, practice teaching opportunities, and other first-hand experiential learning-to-teach activities.
(Murphy 2018: 301)

Ongoing reflection was recorded by collecting data on teachers’ awareness of the target phonological control
features and their knowledge of how to teach them following the input sessions, teaching practice, private
reading and their reflection processes during the action-research project.
The main data collection instrument, the questionnaire, consisted of two sections (see Appendix 20.1). Whencreating the questionnaire, the descriptors in the CEFR Companion volume were used (Council of Europe 2018:
136; 2020: 134-5). Section 1 comprised self-assessment by the participating teachers of their own knowledge andawareness of phonological control features; Section 2 included items focusing on teachers’ perception of theirteaching ability and experience of these features. Participating teachers responded to the questionnaire both at
the beginning of the DELTA module 2 course and at the end. After the second completion of the questionnaire,
data was collected on the perceived changes in teachers’ awareness of the phonological control features andtheir knowledge of how to teach them (Appendix 20.2A and 20.2B).

20.2.3. Input and guidance from trainers
As outlined in the introduction, the project was integrated into our face-to-face DELTA module 2 course. Our
overall beliefs and approach to teacher education at Bilkent University English Language Preparatory Program
are based on the following premises (Bilkent University 2021):
f the importance of teachers’ existing beliefs;
f guidance in the form of appropriate scaffolding to help teachers construct their own meaning;f the significance of self-reflection.
The input provided to the participant teachers displayed characteristics of these three principles. Input sessions in
the phonology strand consisted of four interactive sessions. In these sessions, we aimed to raise the participatingteachers’ awareness of the target phonological control features through guided discovery, loop input, controlled
and freer practice and demonstration microteaching activities. In addition, teachers were provided with a list ofsuggested key resources they could read as preparation and consolidation for the input sessions. The teachers
also had access to several other resources through the Moodle LMS course on Phonology and Pronunciation,
specifically created for teacher training courses in the Preparatory Program (for samples of materials, activities
and screenshots, please refer to Appendix 20.3).

Page 290 3 Enriching 21st-century language education

20.2.3.1. Individual sounds
In this first session in the strand, participants shared thoughts on the teaching of pronunciation. Participants
familiarised themselves with the phonemic chart and looked at the mode and place of vowel and consonant
articulation. Then, they practised deciphering the phonemic script. Following that, problematic sounds for Turkish
learners were identified and suggestions how they might be dealt with in class were discussed. In the last stage,
participants re-familiarised themselves with, and practised using, a variety of drilling techniques.

20.2.3.2. Word and sentence stress
In the second session, participants focused on identifying word and sentence stress, including strong and weakforms, and looked at the basic rules for these. They had the opportunity to experience techniques/activities toteach word and sentence stress and a chance to practise using them.

20.2.3.3. Intonation
In the third session, participants worked on identifying patterns for rhythm and intonation and looked at therules concerning this. They also had the chance to experience techniques/activities to teach word and sentencestress and practise using them.

20.2.3.4. Connected speech
In this last session in the strand, participants were exposed to the main features of connected speech: assimilation, elision, liaison and juncture. They were given practice in identifying these features through analysis ofvarious teaching materials.
As a follow-up to the session input, participant teachers were provided with additional reading and tasks tocomplete in order to consolidate the work they had done during the sessions. In addition to published materials, several online resources were provided on the Moodle LMS (Appendix 20.3). Trainers provided one-to-one
guidance during tutorials to the teachers as part of the course.

20.2.4. Ongoing reflection
At the beginning of the course, as part of their action-research projects, participant teachers had identified areas
they would like to improve throughout the DELTA course. Because phonology is generally a neglected area inmost teachers’ regular practice, our participants chose to work on phonological control features as one of theiraction points. To this end, teachers completed reading and carried out research about phonological features,
attended input sessions, tried out activities and reflected on their experience. In addition, they observed theirpeers teaching phonological features and reflected on their learning from this. Throughout this process, teachers
had updates with their tutors on their progress and wrote a final evaluation report at the end.

20.3. DISCUSSION
20.3.1. Impact of the study
At the beginning of the study and throughout their ongoing reflection, participant teachers held a strong belief
in the importance of pronunciation teaching in English language classrooms. Hence this study not only allowed
them to further their knowledge and awareness of the target features but also increased their ability to teachthem in their classes in a more principled manner. Within the scope of the case study, the perceived impact of
the study can be divided into two main areas:f Change in teachers’ knowledge and awareness as reflected through the results of the questionnaire at the
beginning and the end of the study.
f Change in teachers’ practice as reflected in their personal evaluation reports and questionnaire responses.

20.3.2. Change in teachers’ knowledge and awarenessWith regard to change in teachers’ knowledge and awareness of the phonological control features, our comparison between the results of the initial and final implementation of the questionnaire (Appendix 20.2A and 20.2B)
showed significant changes in the self-assessment of teachers’ knowledge and awareness of the phonologicalcontrol features. In Section 1 of the final questionnaire, most of the participants indicated that they now felt

Awareness raising and teacher education Page 291

more aware of all the target phonological features, stress and intonation being the areas that teachers felt mostconfident in. This perception was also supported by the participants’ comments in their reflection reports:[T]hrough the training sessions and the reading I have done, I have become more confident in these areas. (Participant B)[A]ttending DELTA sessions and doing some self-study increased my knowledge of phonology considerably. (Participant E)

While at the beginning of the project most participants felt they knew nothing about the phonemic script orchart, at the end of the project teachers showed an increased awareness. This result can also be seen in theirreflection reports:
I did not have sufficient exposure to the Phonetic chart and/or script. This caused hesitation through uncertainty in
my teaching practice to teach aspects of phonology. Now, I am more confident. (Participant D)
I feel more comfortable with the phonemic alphabet. (Participant E)

20.3.3. Change in teachers’ practiceIn the same way, in Section 2 of the final questionnaire the teachers indicated that they now felt they could teachphonological features better than they could at the beginning of the study. The results showed that teachers
had become more confident and more in control when teaching the phonological control features because allparticipants moved their perceptions to “agree” with this description.
The biggest improvement was reported with individual sounds, with all participants feeling either able or strongly
able to teach these to their students. In their reflection report, one teacher reported thatplanning a mini sounds & drilling session, where I introduced the phonemic chart to my students and drilled threesounds, boosted my confidence further. (Participant E)

Participants felt that increased confidence in being able to teach the target phonological control features resulted
in a more effective focus on phonology in class because
improved confidence has allowed [me] to emphasise phonology much more in class, and the response from the learners
to [my] drilling is now more clear: they are more willing to respond, and have produced more accurate pronunciation.
(Participant A)

Participant teachers also reported on the benefit of observing their peers teaching the phonological control
features, because the observed lessongave me a lot of inspiration and a chance to see [how] practice could be done in a real classroom environment in a
vocabulary (spelling and parts of speech) integrated fashion. (Participant E)
I paid attention to certain phonology practices carried [out] by my peers … I have started implementing this practicein my own teaching routine. (Participant C)

Finally, the participants also suggested that they would need more work on phonological control features aspart of their ongoing professional development.
I still need more time to regard myself as capable of delivering phonology. Gaining more knowledge on phonologicalaspects of English will help me meet the needs of my students more effectively. (Participant D)

20.4. CONCLUSIONThe CEFR descriptors formed the main basis of the beliefs questionnaire and defined the boundaries and content
of the input sessions. Without the descriptors we would not have been able to formulate training objectives forour phonology strand in a comprehensive way.
The results of this case study confirmed many of the conclusions reached by researchers in different parts of
the world highlighting the significance of including explicit training in teaching phonological control features
for practising teachers (Bai and Yuan 2019; Baker 2014; Couper 2017; Murphy 2018), something which was
foundational to the initiative to develop a new, analytic CEFR scale for phonological control (Piccardo 2016).
In this study, these new CEFR descriptors constituted the framework for the questionnaire and input sessions.
Thus, they served as a theoretical framework. In future studies, we would like to incorporate research activities
in which participants would use these descriptors more actively in their research project. For instance, using thedescriptors as tools for observing student performance and self-reflection. Another further development could
be an experimental study in which the effects of this kind of phonology training on learners’ intelligibility arefurther investigated. This study could use the CEFR descriptors to compare the levels of intelligibility of students
in the classes of two teachers, one who has received phonology training and the other who has not.

Page 292 3 Enriching 21st-century language education

REFERENCES
Bai B. and Yuan R. (2019), “EFL teachers’ beliefs and practices about pronunciation teaching”, ELT Journal No. 73(2),pp. 134-43.
Baker A. (2014), “Exploring teachers’ knowledge of second language pronunciation techniques: teacher cognitions,observed classroom practices, and student perceptions”, TESOL Quarterly No. 48(1), pp. 136-63.
Baker A. and Murphy J. (2011), “Knowledge base of pronunciation teaching: staking out the territory”, TESLCanada Journal No. 28(2), pp. 29-50.
Bilkent University (2019), Preparatory Program Curriculum 2019/20, Bilkent University, Ankara.
Bilkent University (2021), School of English Language, “Teacher education: beliefs and approach”, available at
http://buselcider.bilkent.edu.tr/teacher_education.html#Beliefs_and_Approach, accessed 13 September 2021.
Cambridge Assessment (2021), Diploma in Teaching English to Speakers of Other Languages, details availableat www.cambridgeenglish.org/teaching-english/teaching-qualifications/delta/, accessed 13 September 2021.
Council of Europe (2018), “Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: learning, teaching, assessment. Companion volume with new descriptors”, Council of Europe, Strasbourg, available at https://rm.coe.int/
cefr-companion-volume-with-new-descriptors-2018/1680787989, accessed 23 August 2021.
Council of Europe (2020), Common European Framework of Reference for languages: learning, teaching, assessment – Companion volume, Council of Europe, Strasbourg, available at https://rm.coe.int/common-european-­framework-of-reference-for-languages-learning-teaching/16809ea0d4, accessed 22 August 2021.
Couper G. (2003), “The value of an explicit pronunciation syllabus in ESOL teaching”, Prospect No. 18(3), pp. 53-70.
Couper G. (2017), “Teacher cognition of pronunciation teaching: teachers’ concerns and issues”, TESOL Quarterly
No. 51(4), pp. 820-43.
Derwing T. M., Munro M. J. and Wiebe G. (1997), “Pronunciation instruction for fossilized learners: Can it help”?,
Applied Language Learning No. 8, pp. 217-35.
Derwing T. M., Munro M. J. and Wiebe G. (1998), “Evidence in favor of a broad framework for pronunciation
instruction”, Language Learning No. 48, pp. 393-410.
Kang O., Thomson R. I. and Murphy J. M. (eds) (2018), The Routledge handbook of contemporary English pronunciation, Routledge, New York.
Kelly G. (2000), How to teach pronunciation, Longman, London, available at https://andrianilina.files.wordpress.
com/2016/02/how-to-teach-pronunciation-kelly-gerald.pdf, accessed 13 September 2021.
Macdonald S. (2002), “Pronunciation views and practices of reluctant teachers”, Prospect No. 17(3), pp. 3-18.
Murphy J. (1997), “Phonology courses offered by MATESOL programs in US”, TESOL Quarterly No. 31, pp. 741-64.
Murphy J. M. (2018), “Teacher training in the teaching of pronunciation”, in Kang O., Thomson R. I. and Murphy
J. M. (eds), The Routledge handbook of contemporary English pronunciation, Routledge, New York.
Piccardo E. (2016), Phonological scale revision process. Report, Council of Europe, Strasbourg, available at https://rm.coe.int/phonological-scale-revision-process-report-cefr/168073fff9.
Przedlacka J. (2018), “An overview of phonetics for language teachers”, in Kang O., Thomson R. I. and Murphy J. M.
(eds), The Routledge handbook of contemporary English pronunciation, Routledge, New York.

APPENDICES
Available at the end of the online pdf version:
Appendix 20.1 – Phonology beliefs: Initial questionnaire
Appendix 20.2A – Initial questionnaire: Collated results
Appendix 20.2B – Final questionnaire: Collated results
Appendix 20.3 – Resources used for input and guidance

Awareness raising and teacher education Page 293

Part III
CRITICAL REFLECTIONSAND FUTURE PERSPECTIVES

Chapter 21
THE CEFR 2020 – REACHING OUTBEYOND LANGUAGE EDUCATION
Waldemar Martyniuk, Jagiellonian University, Kraków, Poland

THE CEFR PROJECT 2014-20 – REVISIONS, ADDITIONS, REPOSITIONING
In 2014, a group of experts was commissioned by the Council of Europe to review, complement and supplement
the original 2001 publication of the CEFR, responding to the feedback accumulated over the 20 years of its use.
The aims were both conceptual and technical: conceptual, as the experts were called to further develop the core
concepts of the CEFR, in particular mediation, in order to complete the CEFR descriptive scheme; technical, as the
project would review and update the CEFR descriptors, most significantly by completing the set with illustrative
scales of descriptors for mediation. This conceptualisation and research resulted in “reposition[ing] the basic
CEFR model within a more all-embracing view of social agents’ learning trajectory and personal development”(Coste and Cavalli 2015: 6).
Two texts provided the conceptual framework for the development of the CEFR Companion volume (Councilof Europe 2020). These were: Education, mobility, otherness: the mediation functions of schools (Coste and Cavalli2015) and Developing illustrative descriptors of aspects of mediation for the common European framework ofreference (North and Piccardo 2016). In particular, the conceptualisation of mediation and other key concepts
that informed the text of the CEFR Companion volume proceeded together with the research that produced
the complete set of CEFR 2020 descriptors. The provisional version of the CEFR Companion volume was officially presented in May 2018 at a conference in Strasbourg, France. During 2018-20 new descriptors were thendeveloped for sign language competences and the entire descriptor set was further refined to make it equallyapplicable to sign languages.
The CEFR Companion volume contributes significantly to a better understanding of the approach introducedwith the CEFR, representing an effort to develop further the until then much neglected concepts of plurilingualism and mediation – with the latter being seen as a key mode of language use and, in a broader meaning,a key function in education.

KEY CONCEPT: MEDIATIONIn the preliminary, consultative edition of the CEFR (Council of Europe 1998), mediation was presented as afourth mode of language use, in addition to reception, production and interaction. Mediation was, however, notexplored any further beyond offering text processing (summarising, paraphrasing), translation and interpretation
as examples of mediating activities. In the final 2001 version of the CEFR this fourth mode of language use “lost”
its initially indicated significance through the fact that no illustrative scales of descriptors for Mediation were
published – contrary to the other three modes of language use, which were exemplified by a rich collection of
53 reference scales.
Within the CEFR 2014-20 project, the team led by Brian North and Enrica Piccardo set out to fill in this gap by
developing and validating illustrative scales of descriptors for Mediation in the same way that the other scales
had been produced in the 1990s. By doing so, the overarching significance of mediating activities in describing
language learning and use reappeared and the concept of mediation had to be (re)defined in much greater
detail. At the same time, Daniel Coste and Marisa Cavalli adopted mediation as a key concept for their proposal
to “reposition the CEFR model” not only for the purpose of education in foreign languages but – more generally –to redefine the function of contemporary school education.

MEDIATION FUNCTION OF SCHOOL EDUCATION
AND MEDIATION AS A MODE OF LANGUAGE USE
In their proposal for conceptualising language education policy choices at the time of increased mobility, Coste
and Cavalli (2015) give mediation in its different forms a crucial role in dealing with otherness, which they consider
to be the major task in education. Their concept of educational mediation includes both cognitive – conceptual

Page 297

and text-related – activities, and relational – social-oriented – strategies and actions. In developing this concept
of educational mediation, they point to the CEFR as a reference, claiming that “although the CEFR was designed,and has been used, above all in relation to the learning of foreign languages, it presents a model that is justas valid for all other forms of language communication. This is why it can be incorporated as it stands into themodel with its broad social and educational scope” (Coste and Cavalli 2015: 10).
North and Piccardo, in turn, focused their attention on mediation as a mode of language use rather than as afunction of school. Like Coste and Cavalli, they state that their (re)interpretation of the CEFR concept of mediation“is more in line with educational literature within and beyond the language field [which] leads to a definitionof mediation competences that are potentially relevant to all types and contexts of language use” (North andPiccardo 2016: 8). Their proposal for a comprehensive supplementary set of descriptor scales illustrating mediating
activities and strategies “is a significant, and deliberate, departure from the targeting of the original illustrativedescriptors, which were specifically designed in relation to the foreign/second language classroom only” (North
and Piccardo 2016: 8), clearly indicating the universal educational value of language proficiency, reaching far
beyond the domain of foreign language learning, teaching and assessment.
In my view, the supplementary materials developed within the CEFR 2014-20 project offer an interesting new
educational concept covering much more than just the original CEFR domain of foreign languages. With theintroduction of mediation as the most important communicative and educational function, and the extensive exploration of mediation activities and strategies as the ultimate, integrative, most complete mode oflanguage use, the authors provide a better understanding of the concept of plurilingualism and plurilingualand intercultural education promoted by the Council of Europe. The conceptualisation and operationalisationof mediation has also made far more visible the move made by the CEFR beyond the reductive four-skills
model (listening, speaking, reading, writing) to an integrated approach to language use – in interaction andmediation.
As several case studies in this volume show, mediation understood and described in a much broader way than
the initial (2001) concept of text processing or translation facilitates the raising of awareness of the complexityof language use by a language user/learner who draws on all resources in his or her complex plurilingual
repertoire – all languages in his or her capacity – when processing texts, developing concepts and building
relationships with other people.

CEFR 2020: A NEW CONCEPT FOR (LANGUAGE) EDUCATION?
The main value and the most significant, indeed revolutionary, importance of this proposal is its further development and more evident exemplification of the plurilingual concept of education – encompassing foreign
languages, languages of schooling (language competences in subject areas and language(s) as a school subject),regional, minority, heritage and migrant languages – the areas of the Council of Europe Platform of resources andreferences for plurilingual and intercultural education (available at www.coe.int/en/web/language-policy/platform).
The further development of mediation, exemplified by the extended set of illustrative descriptors, bringing backliterature and opening up the future-oriented area of online communication, offers a comprehensible approachto contemporary education – an education based upon and driven by all language skills, all languages in therepertoires of the individual. As several case studies in this volume show, this new concept of mediation is noteasy to convey but it works in a really refreshing way, allowing one to abandon standard routines – like thefragmentation of language ability into separate listening, reading, speaking or writing skills – and brings backthe integrative, mediating nature of communication.
The case studies included in this volume offer fascinating reading and confirm to a considerable extent myown understanding that the 2020 CEFR Companion volume (Council of Europe 2020) is not just a revised andexpanded version of the 2001 publication – it offers on the contrary a new, enriching concept of education forthe 21st century.

REFERENCES
Coste D. and Cavalli M. (2015), Education, mobility, otherness: the mediation functions of schools, Council of Europe,
Strasbourg.
Council of Europe (1998), Modern languages: learning, teaching, assessment. A common European framework ofreference, Council for Cultural Co-operation, Education committee, CC-LANG (95) 5 rev. V, Council of Europe,
Strasbourg.

Page 298 3 Enriching 21st-century language education

Council of Europe (2001), Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: learning, teaching, assessment,
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, available at https://rm.coe.int/cefr-companion-­volume-with-newdescriptors-2018/1680787989, accessed 23 August 2021.
Council of Europe (2020), Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: learning, teaching, assessment – Companion volume, Council of Europe, Strasbourg, available at https://rm.coe.int/common-european-­framework-of-reference-for-languages-learning-teaching/16809ea0d4, accessed 22 August 2021.
North B. and Piccardo E. (2016), Developing illustrative descriptors of aspects of mediation for the CEFR, Language
Policy Programme, Council of Europe, Strasbourg, available at https://rm.coe.int/common-european-frameworkof-reference-for-­languages-learning-teaching/168073ff31, accessed 3 September 2021.

Critical reflections and future perspectives Page 299

Chapter 22
CRITICAL REFLECTION ON THE CASE STUDIES
Bessie Dendrinos, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, GreeceM

ost European countries, which struggled in the not-too-distant past to become monolingual nation
states, increasingly see multilingualism not merely as a natural condition of living today, but also as partof national and supranational political agendas, in response to the rapid increases in global mobility
and mass migration and the use of ICT and social media. As Joseph Lo Bianco (2014) puts it in the foreword to
one of the many publications of the last decade that discuss “the multilingual turn in education” (Conteh andMeier 2014), “multilingualism is entrenched in economic, educational and personal spheres of ordinary living”.
However, as is true with all change, Lo Bianco continues “there is resistance and hostility to combat” as we aretrying to “understand and normalise multilingualism” – an aim which is full of challenges, especially where
education is concerned, given that education is one of the most change-resistant ideological state apparatuses(Althusser 1970).

PLURILINGUALISM
Foreseeing the intensification of multilingualism and the increasingly plurilingual disposition of individuals in
European societies, the CEFR made the inspiring proposal in 2001 that the development of plurilingualism be a
key aim in language education in Europe. As explained in the introduction, the concept of plurilingualism wasdeveloped as an alternative to limited-in-scope bilingual education and to the idea of becoming a polyglot, thatis, mastering as many languages as possible. Of course, it is really demanding to fully comprehend the notion ofplurilingualism, as introduced by the CEFR and elaborated by the CEFR Companion volume.
It is a challenge to get the educational community to fully appreciate and take on board the fundamental ideas
behind the plurilingual perspective, as well as to adapt pedagogical practices in order to adopt it. Fully graspingand putting a new construct into practice requires significant conceptual change for language teaching professionals; we need to change our monolingual mindsets and our (pre)conceptions about language.
Furthermore, putting the notion of plurilingualism into pedagogical practice cannot just happen in a vacuum.
Any significant change in education is difficult to achieve because of the strength of existing views and traditions.
A plurilingual approach is thus best implemented in the context of a well-planned paradigm shift in language
education. This is needed because the teaching of second/foreign languages continues to be conceived asa series of separate, monolingual enterprises, due to our deep-seated monolingual habitus (Gogolin 1994).
Languages tend to be thought of as self-contained systems, each with their own autonomous descriptive linguistics. Moreover, second language acquisition is seen as a sequence of events on the learner’s path towards
the ultimate goal of acquiring native-like competence in employing the rules of a single language. A paradigm
shift to plurilingual education would have to embrace theories of “language as a social semiotic” and “meaning
potential” (Halliday 1978), and also “language as a resource”, advocating the use of learners’ existing linguistic
resources for learning and teaching (Ruiz 1984).
However, at the same time it is encouraging to note that – even if the idea of developing language learners’
plurilingual competence is incompatible with the paradigm currently forming the basis of mainstream teachingpractices – the idea of plurilingual education is on its way to putting down roots. It is beginning to enter the
language teaching scene and even starting to be appreciated in the language teaching community. This isdemonstrated in the chapters of this edited collection. I have in mind, for example, Chapter 13, which deals
with intralinguistic mediation activities for university students learning languages alongside their studies, andchapters 14 and 15, both concerned with training language teachers to include cross-linguistic mediation inteaching. In fact, several chapters in this collection show how their authors perceive the new constructs andprovide interesting ideas for pedagogical practices that could lead to the development of learners’ plurilingualcompetence, as in Chapter 10, and teachers’ awareness of what plurilingualism involves, as in Chapter 18.
It is also interesting to note in the contributions to this volume that the term “plurilingualism” appears to be
emerging to describe pedagogies, and even lessons and exams, rather than being restricted to the classic
distinction between plurilingualism and multilingualism.

Page 301

The CEFR distinguishes between multilingualism (the coexistence of different languages at the social or individuallevel) and plurilingualism (the dynamic and developing linguistic repertoire of an individual user/learner). …[T]hefundamental point is that plurilinguals have a single, inter-related repertoire that they combine with their generalcompetences and various strategies in order to accomplish tasks (Council of Europe 2020: 30)

In the classic use of the terms, for example, language classes and lessons are sometimes labelled “plurilingual”.
What this is presumably intended to mean is that in these lessons students are encouraged to develop theirplurilingual competence – with plurilingualism included as a pedagogical goal in the language curricula andspecified in contextually appropriate ways. The use of the expression “plurilingual pedagogies” – meaning
pedagogies that do not simply resist monolingual approaches to language in education (cf. Lau and Van Viegen2020) but that facilitate plurilingual agency – does in fact seem to be gaining ground.

AGENCY“Agency” itself means more than just being an autonomous learner – as one or two of the contributions imply.
In the CEFR Companion volume, the role of the mediator is defined as a “social agent who creates bridges andhelps to construct or convey meaning” (Council of Europe 2020: 90). Agency is in fact one of the most elusive
concepts in sociological theory – where the term originated (see Chapter 1, section 1.4.1). There is, however,some agreement that the “social agent” is someone who is capable of acting upon will, unlike the “social subject”
whose practices are constrained by structural conditions. The use of the term in the CEFR Companion volume,
however, is I believe related specifically to the mediator as a designer of meaning, consistent with the definitionof mediation as “everyday social practice involving meaning-making agents in acts that require negotiation of
meaning, which is relayed across the same or different languages” (Dendrinos 2006: 12).

MEDIATION
The construct of “mediation”, which is strongly highlighted in the CEFR Companion volume, is another conceptthat is challenging for language professionals to fully take in and use as a theoretical notion to guide teaching
and testing practices. An example is an instance in one of the chapters when the authors seem to disregard
the very significant difference between “mediated language learning experiences” (Feuerstein et al. 1991) and“mediation as pedagogic activity” (as intended in the CEFR Companion volume). Another example is when an
activity which is labelled “cross-linguistic mediation” only requires comparison and/or contrast of selected formal
properties of two languages, leading learners to linguistic awareness – rather than mediating meaning acrosslanguages. There are a few instances where the way an activity may contribute to the development of learners’ability to mediate across languages could be specified further.

CONCLUSION
Finally, the chapters dealing with descriptors of topics that language teaching professionals are more familiar
with – for example, language learning through online interaction – present some excellent practices in well-­organised projects, such as those which are discussed in chapters 9 and 11. To conclude, talking of “implementing”
CEFR descriptors, as some contributors do, may give a misleading impression, since the descriptors are, after
all, only illustrative. Mediation is still an unfamiliar concept and will therefore require time to inform pedagogic
practices. It is not always easy to “translate” a whole assortment of descriptors like those in the CEFR Companion
volume into language learning activities and tasks for students or teachers. More fundamentally, the rich arrayof descriptors provided are in a socially contextual vacuum: they need to be selected with care and adapted tocontext – or exploited to inspire the development of local, more contextually relevant descriptors. Linguistic
mediation research with learner data has shown that what learners actually do and which linguistic mediation
strategies they use depend on the particular context and task concerned (Stathopoulou 2013). This context­
ualisation is done particularly well in the interesting case study of Chapter 4, where descriptors are applied toa real-world task: a work-experience project week at an airport.

REFERENCES
Althusser L. (1970), Idéologie et appareils idéologiques d’État (Notes pour une recherche), La Pensée, Paris.
Conteh J. and Meier G. (eds) (2014), The multilingual turn in languages education: opportunities and challenges,
Multilingual Matters, Bristol.

Page 302 3 Enriching 21st-century language education

Council of Europe (2020), Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: learning, teaching, assessment – Companion volume, Council of Europe, Strasbourg, available at https://rm.coe.int/common-european-­framework-of-reference-for-languages-learning-teaching/16809ea0d4, accessed 22 August 2021.
Dendrinos B. (2006), “Mediation in communication, language teaching and testing”, Journal of Applied Linguistics
No. 22, Hellenic Association of Applied Linguistics, pp. 9-35.
Feuerstein R., Klein P. S. and Tannenbaum A. J. (eds) (1991), Mediated learning experience (MLE): theoretical,
psychosocial and learning implications, Freund Publishing House, Tel Aviv.
Gogolin I. (1994), Der monolinguale Habitus der multilingualen Schule, Waxmann, Münster.
Halliday M. A. K. (1978), Language as social semiotic: the social interpretation of language and meaning, Edward
Arnold, London.
Lau S. and Van Viegen S. (eds) (2020), Plurilingual pedagogies. Critical and creative endeavors for equitable languagein education, Springer, Dordrecht.
Lo Bianco J. (2014), “Foreword”, in Conteh J. and Meier G., The multilingual turn in language education : opportunities
and challenges, Multilingual Matters, Bristol.
Ruiz R. (1984), “Orientations in language planning”, NABE Journal No. 8(2), pp. 15-34.
Stathopoulou M. (2013), “Task-dependent interlinguistic performance as translanguaging practice: the use of
KPG data for an empirically based study”, PhD thesis, Department of English Language and Literature, National
and Kapodistrian University of Athens.

Critical reflections and future perspectives Page 303

Chapter 23
THE CEFR COMPANION VOLUME AND
THIS VOLUME OF CASE STUDIES:BUILDING BLOCKS TO SHAPE ACTIONORIENTED LANGUAGE TEACHING
Daniela Fasoglio, SLO (National Institute for Curriculum Development), the Netherlands, andBernd Rüschoff, University of Duisburg-Essen, Germany

Twenty years after the original publication of the CEFR, the CEFR Companion volume has responded to
the fundamental changes in social and interactional practices that have been taking place around us.
The CEFR Companion volume brings the CEFR model up to date also by taking account of developments
in language learning and teaching theories over the past 20 years. We can reasonably expect that the revisedand extended descriptive scheme will have a significant impact on innovation in theoretical reflection and on
informed policy and practice in language education. Its key aspects are the holistic representation of mediation
as a mode of social and professional interaction, the recognition of the plurilingual and pluricultural dispositionof human beings and the fundamentally plurilingual nature of language use in society. All this can be expected
to significantly advance the growing acceptance of an action-oriented perception of language education, pla­cing the learner as a social agent at the core of curriculum design and classroom practice.

LEARNERS AS SOCIAL AGENTS AND AGENCY
The CEFR Companion volume intends to stimulate an action-oriented turn in language education. It acknowledges the potential of learners at all levels to actively participate and interact in processes of expressing andco-constructing meaning in a target language. In this view, language users are considered to be “social agents”
who use languages to communicate and interact, as well as to create and mediate meaning, often in collaboration,in the real world. The categorisation of language activities into receptive, productive, interactive and mediation
activities facilitates the transfer of the action-oriented perspective into teaching and learning practice.
Language education will have to face the challenge of adjusting curricula from the perspective of a renewed
rationale, seeing languages not only as the means to obtain and exchange information, but also as the key tointerpreting the world. Interaction and dialogue are not just limited to information exchange, but also facilitate
the building of both individual and collective knowledge. In order to achieve that, language teachers need first of
all to offer learning contexts that encourage their students to grow in their role as autonomous and responsible
language users. Students can then take responsibility for their own learning process, and become powerful
lifelong learners. Secondly, language teachers are encouraged to integrate the four skills in their teachingactivities, but not only the four skills. Action orientation in language learning goes beyond seeing language as acode, beyond seeing the traditional four skills as separate objectives of learning; it focuses on the integration ofcommunicative language competences and strategies in collaborative tasks, seen as a crucial part of the learning
activities offered. Linguistic aspects such as grammar are addressed by integrated awareness-raising activities,
which encourage learners to build up their communicative competences on the basis of previous experiences
and their knowledge of all the languages they know, including their first languages.

THE PLURILINGUAL STANCEThe CEFR Companion volume has included new scales for plurilingual and pluricultural competence as a key tosuccessful interaction across languages and cultures. The Council of Europe values the promotion of plurilingualism in language education policies and has stressed the importance of plurilingual competence for social andpolitical inclusion, and for active, shared democratic citizenship. “Plurilingualism needs to be developed … as avalue that plays an essential role in raising awareness of and respect for linguistic diversity” (Council of Europe
2017: 17). The new CEFR descriptors related to plurilingual and pluricultural repertoires and competences are
based on the idea that plurilingual and pluricultural knowledge and experiences significantly contribute tobuilding up each individual’s communicative competence, as well as their cognitive and social resources.

Page 305

Plurilingualism is not exclusively reserved for those who know several languages. “We are all (potential) plurilinguals” (Piccardo 2019: 183). As some of the case studies show, the use of these new descriptors in the language
classroom stimulates more plurilingual approaches by inspiring teachers to experiment with translingual practices
and learning activities that foster language awareness and take into consideration the plurilingual disposition of
the learners. We very much hope that these first experiments will trigger ever-growing implementation in practice. Such experimentation can initiate a rethink of compartmentalised concepts in education. It can potentiallyresult in new approaches to organising language education in terms of closer co-ordination between teachersof different languages, including the language of schooling, as well as the fostering of language-sensitive
approaches in other subjects. Educational contexts as a whole need to recognise and emphasise the interrelationof languages as well as the value of intercomprehension between languages, partial competences, working withseveral languages and plurilanguaging during tasks.

RETHINKING THE NATIVE SPEAKER MODEL
Rethinking the native-speaker model is another key aspect of the CEFR Companion volume. But first we should
point out that CEFR Level C2 was never associated with so-called “native-speaker competence”. The change
discussed here mainly concerns the assumption that a single “standard language” spoken by mythically homogeneous “native speakers” can act as a reference point. But this basis no longer reflects the realities of language
use in our increasingly diverse and internationalised societies. The actual expression “native speaker” occurredin the original (2001) CEFR in only 13 of the descriptors, mainly at B2, in relation to the behaviour of a nativespeaker interlocutor.
The decision to drop the native speaker as a point of reference was the result of two recent developments. On
the one hand, there has been quite some research and discussion on the use of a language as a lingua franca
in international communication, as well as on the diversity in what traditionally is labelled as native-speakervarieties. On the other hand, we have witnessed a lot of educational research into materials and classroom
practices aiming at a judgment-free and flexible integration of language varieties in learning and teaching. This
concerns not just national and regional varieties of English, but also, for instance, varieties of German, Spanish
or French, or of any language of schooling.
In the CEFR Companion volume, these reflections have given rise to a number of changes in order to align with
one of the principles of the CEFR, namely the need not to see the “ideal native speaker” as the ultimate modelof proficiency. Firstly, the scale of phonological control, which implicitly took “native-speaker naturalness” as
the goal, has been completely replaced. Secondly, the term “native speaker” has been replaced by the term
“proficient user of the target language”. Finally, the expression “standard language” has been replace by “standard
language or a familiar variety”. These changes are intended to give impetus to the growing awareness of theneed to integrate aspects concerned with intelligibility and comprehensibility into language syllabi, rather than
exclusively focusing on a given native-speaker variety. Such initiatives do justice to linguistic varieties, as used byproficient native and non-native speakers in real-life interactional contexts. Hence, language curricula fosteringfamiliarity with accents and varieties promote non-judgmental attitudes towards diversity in target language use.

ONLINE INTERACTION AND TRANSACTIONSConsidering the impact of digital technology on communication worldwide and the importance of digital literacy in foreign language use, the new descriptors on the use of digital media and online interaction were long
overdue and are most welcome. It has become evident over the years that interacting in digital social spaces isdistinctly different and requires additional skills as well as those used when communicating in presence.
In particular, there is great potential in multimodal practices that really do need to receive attention in language-learning programmes. These practices include the use of several multimedia channels and the creativeuse of new, digitally enhanced options for modifying the visual and auditive representations of a message, often
in a plurilingual and pluricultural context and scope. The new descriptors of interpersonal, interactional andtransactional aspects of communicating in digital spaces offer a solid basis to address these aspects in language
education and have the potential to significantly impact language learning materials, tools and activities.

MEDIATION
The relevance and usefulness of taking mediation on board as a mode of communication in language learning
is reflected by many of the case studies contained in this volume. According to sociocultural theories inspired by
Vygotskyan ideas, mediation as a learning model is to be recognised both as an important holistic interactional

Page 306 3 Enriching 21st-century language educationpractice and as a “form of organized learning activity”, in which learners play an active role as “mediating agents”(Kozulin 2003: 22). Applied to language learning, this means that mediation goes much further than simple
transfers of information and concepts within the same language or from one language to another.
Mediation is a social practice, embedded in acts of negotiation of meaning, which actively and collaboratively
involves language learners as autonomous social agents. Furthermore, mediation brings a lot of the points
made so far together, as it is a dynamic process of meaning-making through “languaging” (Swain 2000, 2006)
and “plurilanguaging” (Lüdi 2016; Piccardo 2017, 2018), both individually and socially. Mediation is not simply akind of “fifth skill”, mainly concerned with translation and interpretation. Consequently, mediation in language
education needs to be developed as an interactive – receptive, collaborative and productive – practice thatbridges across languages and varieties, across cultures, across worlds and also across language skills and media.
As reported in the case studies in this volume, the descriptors for mediation in the CEFR Companion volume
have stimulated experiments with various innovative approaches to the implementation of mediation-oriented
activities, for instance in teaching literature, as well as initiatives aiming to raise teachers’ awareness of themultidimensional character of mediation. The way mediation is framed in the CEFR Companion volume has thepotential to impact the perception of mediation in language education, recasting it as a plurilingual, multimodaland multidimensional social activity which goes very much beyond cross-linguistic mediation alone. In addition,
pedagogical mediation strategies are central to learning processes, and these are very much plurilingual andpluricultural in nature. These concepts can have an impact on the aims and settings of language learning andintegrate – as documented by some of the case studies in this volume – multimodal practices, face-to-face andvirtual learning scenarios.

LANGUAGE EDUCATION AT THE ACTION-ORIENTEDMEDIATIONAL TURN? SHOW, DON’T TELL!
Language education has always been important, but probably never as important as it is now. Languages matter.
Languages are the means with which to interpret the world. Learning languages invites us to reflect on ourown identity and the identity of others. Multilingual knowledge emancipates and enables active participationin democratic society. Not only does language learning develop skills, it also facilitates the ability to develop
new skills. We really believe that the new descriptors of the CEFR Companion volume can help frame modern
language curricula from this vision.
We realise, however, that frameworks and intended goals are seldom a guarantee for successful implementationand enhanced learning achievements. They rarely have an impact on classroom practice unless we invest inteachers and facilitate programmes through which they can get familiar with the principles involved, discuss
their ideas on how to put them into practice effectively and try them out. Foreign language teachers must be
stimulated and given the chance to co-operate together and to develop an up-to-date, shared rationale onforeign language learning as the basis for school curricula and course planning.
In order to accomplish this, we need examples of learning activities and materials that make quality criteria
visible in implementing the basic principles of the CEFR Companion volume in teaching and learning practice:f examples of cross-linguistic approaches that show the inextricable link between language and culture,and stimulate learners to become aware of the crucial role of this link for the success of communication;f examples of language learning programmes in which the barriers between the four language skills are
removed, and action-oriented learning activities stimulate the integration of language skills as daily practicein enhancing communication and meaning-making;f learning activities in which the whole language repertoire of students is exploited, in which home languages
are valued as a strength and not labelled as a deficit;
f learning activities that invite students to reflect on the richness and the power of language and allow
them to experience it.
The descriptors of the CEFR Companion volume provide tools that can be used in the pre-task, enaction andpost-task phases of learning activities. They can help clarify learning goals, help focus observation and makelearning achievements visible for all the different facets of communication. They make it possible to give, discussand interpret feedback, and to plan further learning. They provide criteria for classroom observation duringgroup work at language tasks.
The authors of the case studies in this publication have made a good start and have shared their successful
activities and tools, and the lessons they learned in the process. Many more teachers will hopefully get the
chance to build upon these experiences, and in turn show other teacher colleagues what works.

Critical reflections and future perspectives Page 307

REFERENCES
Council of Europe (2017), Plurilingual education in Europe – 50 years of international co-operation, available atwww.ecml.at/Portals/1/documents/CoE-documents/plurinlingaleducation_en.pdf?ver=2017-02-07-160535-763,
accessed 14 September 2021.
Kozulin A. (2003), “Psychological tools and mediated learning”, in Kozulin A. et al. (eds), Vygotsky’s educational
theory in cultural context, Learning in Doing: Social, Cognitive and Computational Perspectives, Cambridge
University Press, Cambridge.
Lüdi G. (2016), “Language regime in the Swiss armed forces between institutional multilingualism, the dominanceof German, English and situated plurilanguaging”, in Lüdi G, Höchle Meier K. and Yanaprasart P. (eds), Managing
plurilingual and intercultural practices in the workplace, John Benjamins, Amsterdam, pp. 69-152.
Piccardo E. (2017), “Plurilingualism as a catalyst for creativity in superdiverse societies: a systemic analysis,” Frontiersin Psychology No 8, http://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.02169.
Piccardo E. (2018), “Plurilingualism: vision, conceptualization, and practices”, in Trifonas P. and Aravossitas T. (eds),
Springer international handbooks of education. Handbook of research and practice in heritage language education,
Springer International Publishing, New York, pp. 207-26.
Piccardo E. (2019), “‘We are all (potential) plurilinguals’: plurilingualism as an overarching, holistic concept”, Cahiersde l’ILOB/OLBI Working Papers No. 10, pp. 183-204, available at https://uottawa.scholarsportal.info/ottawa/index.
php/ILOB-OLBI/article/view/3825/3781, accessed 14 September 2021.
Swain M. (2000), “The output hypothesis and beyond: mediating acquisition through collaborative dialogue”, in
Lantolf J. P. (ed.), Sociocultural theory and second language learning, Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp. 97-114.
Swain M. (2006), “Languaging, agency and collaboration in advanced language proficiency,” in Byrnes H. (ed.),Advanced language learning: the contribution of Halliday and Vygotsky, Continuum, London-New York, pp. 95-108.

Page 308 3 Enriching 21st-century language education

Part IV
APPENDICES

Appendices are provided for the chapters shown below.
Part II: Classroom practices
Chapter 3. CEFR mediation strategies: towards a socio-emotionally enhanced plurilingual language education
Chapter 4. Multimédia : la médiation multilingue dans le cadre d’un projet de stage en entreprise
Chapter 7. The sixth sense for literature: a new pluricultural approach to literary texts as mediation and reaction
to literature according to the new descriptors of the CEFR Companion volume
Chapter 8. Promoting and assessing the appreciation of literature at secondary school
Part III: Awareness raising and teacher education
Chapter 15. Discours d’enseignants au sujet d’activités qui relèvent de la médiation dans le Volume complémentaire du CECR – une étude empirique
Chapter 17. L’Exploitation des compétences plurilingues dans le cadre des formations linguistiques dispensées
aux adultes plurilingues : étude de cas sur l’utilisation des nouveaux descripteurs du volume complémentairedu CECR pour une transition vers des pratiques d’enseignement valorisant le plurilinguisme
Chapter 18. La tâche comme moteur de promotion du plurilinguisme
Chapter 20. Exploring teachers’ beliefs and practices about phonology instruction, with reference to the CEFR
descriptors

Page 309

Page 311

Granada(Spain)Casestudy 1Casestudies

A2

Level“Can ask in English what somebody thinks of a certain idea in simple class discussions”.

“Can give very simple instructions in English to a co-operative group who help with formulation when necessary”.

“Can make suggestions in English in a simple way in order to move the discussion forward”.

“Can make simple remarks and pose occasional questions in English to indicate that he/she is following”.

Leading group work

“Can collaborate in simple, practical tasks, asking in English what others think and understanding their responses, provided he/she can ask for repetition or
reformulation from time to time”.

Collaborating in a groupMediating concepts“Can make simple notes at a presentation/demonstration in English where the subject matter is familiar and predictable, and the presenter allows for clarification and note-taking”.

Note-taking“Can provide a simple, rough, spoken translation into English of routine information on familiar everyday subjects that is written in simple sentences in Spanish(e.g. personal news, short narratives or instructions)”.

“Can convey orally in English the main point(s) contained in clearly structured, short, simple spoken and written texts in Spanish, supplementing his/her
limited repertoire with other means (e.g. gestures, drawings, words from other languages) in order to do so”.

Translating a written text in speech

Processing text in speech“Can relay orally in English the main point of short, clear, simple messages and instructions concerning school tasks or homework, provided they are expressedslowly and clearly in simple Spanish”.

Relaying specific information in speech and in writing

Mediating a text

MEDIATION

CEFR/CV mediation and plurilingual/pluricultural descriptors

Appendix to Chapter 3. CEFR mediation strategies: towards a socio-emotionally enhanced plurilingual language education

Appendix 3.1.
SELECTED CEFR/CV MEDIATION AND PLURILINGUAL/
PLURICULTURAL SCALES AND DESCRIPTORSPage 312 3 Enriching 21st-century language education

GreeceCasestudy 2Granada(Spain)Casestudy 1Casestudies

C1
C2

A2

Level

“Can highlight inconsistencies in thinking, and challenge others’ ideas in the process of trying to reach a consensus”.

Collaborating to construct meaning

Mediating concepts“Can translate into language B technical material outside my field of specialisation written in language A”.

Translating a written text in writing“Can explain in writing (in language B) the way facts and arguments are presented in a text (in language A), particularly when someone else’s position is being
reported, drawing attention to the writer’s use of understatement, veiled criticism, irony and sarcasm”.

Processing text in writing

Mediating texts“Can mediate effectively and naturally, taking on different roles according to the needs of the people and situations involved, identifying nuances and undercurrents and guiding a sensitive or delicate discussion. Can explain in clear, fluent, well-structured language the way facts and arguments are presented,
conveying evaluative aspects and most nuances precisely, and pointing out sociocultural implications (e.g. use of register, understatement, irony and sarcasm)”.

Overall mediation

MEDIATION“Can use a word from another language in his/her plurilingual repertoire to make himself/herself understood in a routine everyday situation, when he/shecannot think of an adequate expression in English”.

“Can use words and phrases from different languages in his/her plurilingual repertoire to conduct a simple, practical transaction or information exchange”.

“Can mobilise his/her limited repertoire in different languages in order to explain a problem or to ask for help or clarification”.

Building on pluricultural repertoire

PLURILINGUAL AND PLURICULTURAL COMPETENCE“Can repeat the main point of a simple message on an everyday subject, using different words in English to help someone else understand it”.

“Can recognise when speakers disagree or when difficulties occur in everyday peer-to-peer interaction in English and adapt memorised simple phrases toseek compromise and agreement”.

Mediating communication

CEFR/CV mediation and plurilingual/pluricultural descriptors

Appendices Page 313

Case
Study 3
Ayamonte,
Huelva(Spain)

A2+

C1
C2

Case
study 2

GreeceLevel

Casestudies“Can make simple notes at a presentation/demonstration in English where the subject matter is familiar and predictable, and the presenter allows for clarification and note-taking”.

Note-taking“Can provide a simple, rough, spoken translation into English of routine information on familiar everyday subjects that is written in simple sentences in Spanish(e.g. personal news, short narratives or instructions)”.

Translating a written text in speech“Can convey orally in English the main point(s) contained in clearly structured, short, simple spoken and written texts in Spanish, supplementing his/her
limited repertoire with other means (e.g. gestures, drawings, words from other languages) in order to do so”.

Processing text in speech“Can relay orally in English the main point of short, clear, simple messages and instructions concerning school tasks or homework, provided they are expressedslowly and clearly in simple Spanish”.

Relaying specific information in speech and in writing

Mediating a text

MEDIATION“Can support comprehension and discussion of a text spoken or written in one language by explaining, summarising, clarifying and expanding it in (an)otherlanguage(s) in his/her plurilingual repertoire”.

“Can explore similarities and differences between metaphors and other figures of speech in the languages in his/her plurilingual repertoire, either for rhetoricaleffect or for fun”.

Building on plurilingual repertoire“Can use his/her knowledge of contrasting grammatical structures and functional expressions of languages in his/her plurilingual repertoire in order tosupport comprehension”.

“Can recognise similarities and contrasts between the way concepts are expressed in different languages, in order to distinguish between identical uses ofthe same word root and ‘false friends’”.

“Can use parallel translations of texts to develop comprehension in different languages”.

“Can use what he/she understood in one language to understand the topic and main message of a text in another language”.

“Can use his/her knowledge of contracting genre conventions and textual pattern in languages in his/her plurilingual repertoire in order to support comprehension”.

Plurilingual comprehension

PLURILINGUAL AND PLURICULTURAL COMPETENCECEFR/CV mediation and plurilingual/pluricultural descriptors

Page 314 3 Enriching 21st-century language education

Huelva(Spain)

C1
C2

A2+

Case
Study 3
Ayamonte,
Huelva(Spain)Case
Study 4

Level

Case
studies“Can give a clear presentation of his/her reactions to a work, developing his/her ideas and supporting them with examples and arguments”.

“Can describe in detail his/her personal interpretation of a work, outlining his/her reactions to certain features and explaining their significance”.

Expressing a personal response to creative texts (including literature)“Can relay in Spanish which representations given in another language at a conference, which articles in a book (written in another language) are particularly
relevant for a specific purpose”.

“Can explain in Spanish the relevance of specific information found in a particular section of a long, complex text written in another language”.

Relaying specific information in speech

Mediating a text

MEDIATION“Can use a word from another language in his/her plurilingual repertoire to make himself/herself understood in a routine everyday situation, when he/shecannot think of an adequate expression in English”.

“Can use words and phrases from different languages in his/her plurilingual repertoire to conduct a simple, practical transaction or information exchange”.

“Can mobilise his/her limited repertoire in different languages in order to explain a problem or to ask for help or clarification”.

Building on pluricultural repertoire

PLURILINGUAL AND PLURICULTURAL COMPETENCE“Can repeat the main point of a simple message on an everyday subject, using different words in English to help someone else understand it”.

“Can recognise when speakers disagree or when difficulties occur in everyday peer-to-peer interaction in English and adapt memorised simple phrases toseek compromise and agreement”.

Mediating communication“Can ask in English what somebody thinks of a certain idea in simple class discussions”.

“Can give very simple instructions in English to a co-operative group who help with formulation when necessary”.

“Can make suggestions in English in a simple way in order to move the discussion forward”.

“Can make simple remarks and pose occasional questions in English to indicate that he/she is following”.

Leading group work

“Can collaborate in simple, practical tasks, asking in English what others think and understanding their responses, provided he/she can ask for repetition or
reformulation from time to time”.

Collaborating in a groupMediating concepts

CEFR/CV mediation and plurilingual/pluricultural descriptors

Appendices Page 315

Huelva(Spain)Case
Study 4Case
studies

C1
C2

Level

“Can describe and evaluate the viewpoints and practices of his/her own and other social groups, showing awareness of the implicit values on which judgments
and prejudices are frequently based”.

“Can interact in a multilingual context on abstract and specialised topics by alternating flexibly between languages in is/her plurilingual repertoire and if
necessary explaining the different contributions made”.

“Can initiate and control his/her actions and forms of expression according to context, showing awareness of cultural differences and making subtle adjustments in order to prevent and/or repair misunderstandings and cultural incidents”.

Building on pluricultural repertoire

PLURILINGUAL AND PLURICULTURAL COMPETENCE“Can clearly explain the connections between the goals of the session and the personal or professional interests and experience(s) of the participants”.

“Can introduce complex concepts (e.g. scientific notions) by providing extended definitions and explanations which draw upon assumed previous knowledge”.

Linking to previous knowledge

Mediation strategies“Can elicit possible solutions from parties in disagreement in order to help them to reach consensus, formulating open-ended, neutral questions to minimise
embarrassment or offence”.

“Can deal tactfully with a disruptive participant, framing any remarks diplomatically in relation to the situation and cultural perceptions”.

Facilitating communication in delicate situations and disagreements

Mediating communication“Can encourage members of a group to build upon one another’s information and ideas to come up with a concept or solution”.

“Can effectively lead the development of ideas in a discussion of complex abstract topics, guiding the direction of the talk by targeting questions and encouraging others to elaborate on their reasoning”.

Encouraging conceptual talk“Can act as rapporteur in a group discussion, noting ideas and decisions, discussing these with the group and later giving a summary of the group’s view(s)in a plenary”.

“Can, based on people’s reactions, adjust the way he/she formulates questions and/or intervenes in a group interaction”.

“Can show sensitivity to different perspectives within a group, acknowledging contributions and formulating any reservations, disagreements or criticisms insuch a way as to avoid or minimise any offence”.

Facilitating collaborative interaction with peers

Mediating concepts

CEFR/CV mediation and plurilingual/pluricultural descriptors

Page 316 3 Enriching 21st-century language education

Case
study 5Barcelona(Spain)Huelva(Spain)Case
Study 4Case
studies

C1
C2

C1-C2

Level

“Can highlight inconsistencies in thinking, and challenge others’ ideas in the process of trying to reach a consensus”.

“Can evaluate problems, challenges, and proposals in a collaborative discussion in order to decide the way forward”.

“Can frame a discussion to decide a course of action with a partner or group, reporting on what others have said, summarising, elaborating and weighing up
multiple points of view”.

“Can summarise, evaluate and link the various contributions in order to facilitate agreement for a solution or way forward”.

Collaborating to construct meaning

Mediating concepts“Can provide fluent spoken translation into (Language B) of complex written texts written in (Language A) on a wide range of general and specialised topics,
capturing most nuances”.

Translating a written text in speech“Can interpret and present clearly and reliably in writing (in Language B) the salient, relevant points contained in complex diagrams and other visually organised
data (with text in Language A) on complex academic or professional topics”.

“Can explain (in Language B) the relevance of specific information found in a particular section of a long, complex text (written in Language A).

“Can relay in writing (in Language B) the relevant point(s) contained in propositionally complex but well-structured texts (written Language A) within his/herfields of professional, academic and personal interest”.

Relaying specific information in speech and writing“Can explain (in Language B) the attitude or opinion expressed in a spoken or written text (in Language A) on a specialised topic, supporting inferences he/she makes with reference to specific passages in the original”.

“Can exploit information and arguments from a complex spoken or written text (in Language A) to talk about a topic (in Language B), glossing with evaluative
comments, adding his/her opinion, etc”.

“Can explain (in Language B) subtle distinctions in the presentation of facts and arguments (in Language A)”.

“Can summarise clearly in well-structured speech (in Language B) the main points made in complex spoken and written texts (in Language A) in fields ofspecialisation other than his/her own, although he/she may occasionally check particular technical concepts”.

MEDIATIONMediating a text
Processing text in speech and writing“Can use his/her knowledge of contrasting genre conventions and textual pattern in languages in his/her plurilingual repertoire in order to support comprehension”.

Plurilingual comprehension“Can recognise the extent to which it is appropriate to make flexible use of different languages in his/her plurilingual repertoire in a specific situation, in order
to increase the efficiency of communication”.

CEFR/CV mediation and plurilingual/pluricultural descriptors

Appendices Page 317

Level

C1
C2

Case
studiesCasestudy 5Barcelona(Spain)“Can explore similarities and differences between metaphors and other figures of speech in the languages in his/her plurilingual repertoire, either for rhetoricaleffect or for fun”.

“Can interact in a multilingual context on abstract and specialised topics by alternating flexibly between languages in his/her plurilingual repertoire and, if
necessary, explaining the different contributions made”.

Building on plurilingual repertoire“Can use his/her knowledge of contrasting genre conventions and textual pattern in languages in his/her plurilingual repertoire in order to support comprehension”.

Plurilingual comprehension

PLURILINGUAL AND PLURICULTURAL COMPETENCE“Can facilitate understanding of a complex issue by highlighting and categorising the main points, presenting them in a logically connected pattern andreinforcing the message by repeating the key aspects in different ways”.

Breaking down complicated information“Can spontaneously pose a series of questions to encourage people to think about their prior knowledge of an abstract issue and to help them establish
a link to what is going to be explained”.

Linking to previous knowledge

Mediation strategies“Can mediate effectively and naturally between members of his/her own and other communities, taking account of sociocultural and sociolinguistic differences”.

“Can anticipate how people might misunderstand what has been said or written and help to maintain positive interaction by commenting on and interpreting
different cultural perspectives on the issue concerned”.

“Can act as mediator in intercultural encounters, contributing to a shared communication culture by managing ambiguity offering advice and support, andheading off misunderstandings”.

Facilitating pluricultural space

Mediating communication“Can take on different roles according to the needs of the participants and requirements of the activity (resource person, mediator, supervisor, etc.) andprovide appropriate individualised support”.

“Can intervene diplomatically in order to redirect talk, to prevent one person dominating or to confront disruptive behaviour”.

Managing interaction

CEFR/CV mediation and plurilingual/pluricultural descriptors

Page 318 3 Enriching 21st-century language education

Huelva(Spain)Casestudy 6Casestudies

B2+
C1

Level

“Can make decisions about what to note down and what to omit as the lecture or seminar proceeds, even on unfamiliar matters”.

Note-taking“Can produce clearly organised translations that reflect normal language usage but that may be over-influenced by the order, paragraphing, punctuationand particular formulations of the original”.

Translating a written text in writing“Can provide spoken translation into Language B of complex texts written in another language containing information and arguments on subjects within his/her fields of professional, academic and personal interest”.

Translating a written text in speech“Can interpret and present clearly and reliably in writing (in Language B) the salient, relevant points contained in complex diagrams and other visually organised
data (with text in language A) on complex academic or professional topics”.

Explaining data in writing“Can interpret and describe clearly and reliably (in Language B) the salient points and details contained in complex diagrams and other visually organised
information (with text in Language A) on complex academic or professional topics”.

Explaining data in speech“Can relay in writing (in Language B) the relevant point(s) contained in propositionally complex but well-structured texts (written in language A) within his/her fields of professional, academic and personal interest”.

Relaying specific information in writing“Can explain (in Language B) the relevance of specific information found in a particular section of a long, complex text (written in Language A)”.

Relaying specific information in speech“Can summarise in writing (in Language B) the main content of well-structures but propositionally complex spoken and written texts (in Language A) on
subjects within his/her fields of professional academic and personal interest”.

Processing text in writing“Can summarise (in Language B) discussion in Language A) on matters within his/her academic or professional competence, elaborating and weighing up
different points of view and identifying the most significant points”.

Processing text in speech

Mediating a text

MEDIATION

CEFR/CV mediation and plurilingual/pluricultural descriptors

Appendices Page 319

Huelva(Spain)Casestudy 6Casestudies

B2+
C1

Level

“Can mediate (between Language A and Language B), conveying detailed information, drawing the attention of both sides to background information andsociocultural cues, and posing clarification and follow-up questions or statements as necessary”.

Acting as intermediary in informal situations (with friends and colleagues)“Can, in intercultural encounters, demonstrate appreciation of perspectives other than his/her own normal worldview, and express him/herself in a way
appropriate to the context”.

Facilitating pluricultural space

Mediating communication“Can encourage members of a group to describe and elaborate on their thinking. Can encourage members of a group to build upon one another’s informationand ideas to come up with a concept or solution”.

Encouraging conceptual talk“Can intervene supportively in order to focus people’s attention on aspects of the task by asking targeted questions and inviting suggestions”.

“Can monitor individual and group work non-intrusively, intervening to set a group back on task or to ensure even participation”.

“Can organise and manage collaborative group work efficiently”.

Managing interaction

Leading group work

“Can evaluate problems, challenges, and proposals in a collaborative discussion in order to decide the way forward”.

Collaborating to construct meaning“Can show sensitivity to different perspectives within a group, acknowledging contributions and formulating any reservations, disagreements or criticisms insuch a way as to avoid or minimise any offence”.

Facilitating collaborative interaction with peers

Collaborating in a groupMediating concepts“Can give a reasoned opinion about a work, showing awareness of the thematic, structural and formal features and referring to the opinions and argumentsof others”.

Analysis and criticism of creative texts“Can give a clear presentation of his/her reactions to a work, developing his/her ideas and supporting them with examples and arguments”.

Expressing a personal response to creative texts

CEFR/CV mediation and plurilingual/pluricultural descriptors

Page 320 3 Enriching 21st-century language education

Huelva(Spain)Casestudy 6Casestudies

B2+
C1

Level

“Can support comprehension and discussion of a text spoken or written in one language by explaining, summarising, clarifying and expanding it in (an)otherlanguage(s) in his/her plurilingual repertoire.”“Can explore similarities and differences between metaphors and other figures of speech in the languages in his/her plurilingual repertoire, either for rhetoricaleffect or for fun.”

Building on plurilingual repertoire“Can use his/her knowledge of contrasting grammatical structures and functional expressions of languages in his/her plurilingual repertoire in order tosupport comprehension”.

“Can use what he/she understood in one language to understand the topic and main message of a text in another language”

PLURILINGUAL AND PLURICULTURAL COMPETENCE
Plurilingual comprehension“Can edit a source text by deleting the parts that do not add new information that is relevant for a given audience in order to make the significant content
more accessible for them”.

Streamlining a text

“Can make the main points contained in a complex text more accessible to the target audience by adding redundancy, explaining and modifying style andregister”.

Amplifying a dense text

“Can make a complicated issue easier to understand by presenting the components of the argument separately”.

Breaking down complicated information“Can make a specific, complex piece of information in his/her field clearer and more explicit for others by paraphrasing it in simpler language”.

Adapting language“Can spontaneously pose a series of questions to encourage people to think about their prior knowledge of an abstract issue and to help them establish
a link to what is going to be explained”.

Mediation strategies
Linking to previous knowledge“Can help the parties in a disagreement better understand each other by restating and reframing their positions more clearly and by prioritising needs and goals”.

“Can elicit possible solutions from parties in disagreement in order to help them to reach consensus, formulating open-ended, neutral questions to minimise
embarrassment or offence”.

Facilitating communication in delicate situations and disagreements

CEFR/CV mediation and plurilingual/pluricultural descriptors

Appendices Page 321

B1
B2

Case
study 7

Switzerland

Level

Case
studies“Can make use of different languages in his/her plurilingual repertoire during collaborative interaction, in order to clarify the nature of a task, the main steps,
the decisions to be taken, the outcomes expected”.

“Can extract information from documents written in different languages in his/her field, e.g. to include in a presentation”.

Building on plurilingual repertoire

Plurilingual comprehension

PLURILINGUAL AND PLURICULTURAL COMPETENCE“Can summarise in writing (in Language B) the main content of complex spoken and written texts (in Language A) on subjects related to his/her fields ofinterest and specialisation”.

Processing text in speech and in writing

Mediating a text

MEDIATION

CEFR/CV mediation and plurilingual/pluricultural descriptors

Appendix 3.2.
EXAMPLE OF SELF-EVALUATION SCALE FORSTUDENTS TO EVALUATE THEIR PROGRESSIN BUILDING UP MEDIATION SKILLSAppendix to Chapter 3. CEFR mediation strategies: towards a socio-emotionally enhanced plurilingual language
education
Project “CEFR MEDIATION STRATEGIES:TOWARDS A SOCIO-EMOTIONALLY ENHANCED PLURILINGUAL LANGUAGE EDUCATION”
Co-ordinated by the University of Huelva and University Ramón Llull – Blanquerna (Spain)

Level: A2+

Por favor, marca una “x” en cada uno de los descriptores que mejor te definen.
En la siguiente escala, deseamos saber lo que eres capaz de hacer en inglés a partir de temáticas familiares
presentadas en español.
Descriptores

Por mí
mismo/aCon
ayuda

Todavía
noPuedo comunicar en inglés el mensaje de un discurso oral claro en español que
tenga que ver con temas cotidianos. (A2+01)
Puedo comunicar en inglés información específica y relevante de anuncios, etiquetas,
noticias y textos cortos escritos en español. (A2+02)
Puedo interpretar y describir en inglés imágenes, mapas, gráficos, etc. con el texto
en el español. (A2+03)
Puedo comunicar en inglés los aspectos principales de programas televisivos oradiofónicos en español. (A2+04)
Puedo comunicar en inglés la información esencial comprendida en tabas o figuras
en español. (A2+05)
Puedo resumir en inglés el/los punto/s principal/es en textos informativos simples
en español. (A2+06)
Puedo enumerar en inglés la información relevante contenida en textos cortos ysimples en español. (A2+07)
Puedo recordar en inglés palabras clave y frases o enunciados cortos de un texto
breve en español. (A2+08)
Puedo reproducir en inglés palabras clave y frases o enunciados cortos de un texto
breve en español. (A2+09)
Puedo realizar una traducción oral aproximada en inglés de textos cortos (porejemplo, folletos, noticias, instrucciones, cartas o correos electrónicos) escritos en
español. (A2+10)
Puedo tomar notas sencillas en inglés de una presentación en español. (A2+11)
Puedo colaborar en tareas compartidas en inglés, siempre que otros participantes
hablen despacio y que uno o más de ellas/os me ayuden a contribuir y expresarmis sugerencias. (A2+12)
Puedo comunicar en inglés el sentido completo de lo que se dice en español en situaciones del día a día, siguiendo las convenciones culturales básicas y transmitiendo
la información esencial, siempre que los hablantes utilicen un lenguaje estándar
claro y que pueda solicitar una repetición o aclaración. (A2+13)
Puedo repetir en inglés el punto principal de un mensaje sencillo sobre un temafamiliar en español, utilizando diferentes palabras para ayudar a que alguien lo
comprenda. (A2+14)
Puedo identificar y marcar (ej. Subrayar) las frases clave en un texto corto y familiar
en inglés. (A2+15)

Page 323

En la siguiente escala, deseamos saber lo que eres capaz de hacer en español a partir de temáticas familiares
presentadas en inglés.
Descriptores

Por mí
Con
mismo/a ayuda

Todavía
noPuedo comunicar en español el mensaje de un discurso oral claro en inglés que
tenga que ver con temas cotidianos. (A2+01)
Puedo comunicar en español información específica y relevante de anuncios,
etiquetas, noticias y textos cortos escritos en inglés. (A2+02)
Puedo interpretar y describir en español imágenes, mapas, gráficos, etc. con el
texto en el inglés. (A2+03)
Puedo comunicar en español los aspectos principales de programas televisivos
o radiofónicos en inglés. (A2+04)
Puedo comunicar en español la información esencial comprendida en tabas ofiguras en inglés. (A2+05)
Puedo resumir en español el/los punto/s principal/es en textos informativos
simples en inglés. (A2+06)
Puedo enumerar en español la información relevante en inglés contenida en
textos cortos y simples. (A2+07)
Puedo recordar en español palabras clave y frases o enunciados cortos de untexto breve en inglés. (A2+08)
Puedo reproducir en español palabras clave y frases o enunciados cortos de untexto breve en inglés. (A2+09)
Puedo realizar una traducción oral aproximada (en español) de textos cortos(por ejemplo, folletos, noticias, instrucciones, cartas o correos electrónicos)
escritos en inglés. (A2+10)
Puedo tomar notas sencillas en español de una presentación en inglés. (A2+11)
Puedo colaborar en tareas compartidas en español, siempre que otros participantes hablen despacio y que uno o más de ellas/os me ayuden a contribuir yexpresar mis sugerencias en inglés. (A2+12)
Puedo comunicar en español el sentido completo de lo que se dice en inglés
en situaciones del día a día, siguiendo las convenciones culturales básicas ytransmitiendo la información esencial, siempre que los hablantes utilicen un
lenguaje estándar claro y que pueda solicitar una repetición o aclaración. (A2+13)
Puedo repetir en español el punto principal de un mensaje sencillo en ingléssobre un tema familiar, utilizando diferentes palabras para ayudar a que alguien
lo comprenda. (A2+14)
Text adapted from Appendix 6 of the CEFR (2018), Examples of use in different domains for descriptors of online
interaction and mediation activities – Mediating a text, concepts and communication.

Page 324 3 Enriching 21st-century language education

Appendix 3.3.
SOCIO-EMOTIONAL SCALE USED IN THE PROJECTAppendix to Chapter 3. CEFR mediation strategies: towards a socio-emotionally enhanced plurilingual language
education
Project “CEFR MEDIATION STRATEGIES:TOWARDS A SOCIO-EMOTIONALLY ENHANCED PLURILINGUAL LANGUAGE EDUCATION”
Co-ordinated by the University of Huelva and University Ramón Llull – Blanquerna
Please answer each of the following items by circling the response that best describes what is typical of you.
Neutral Never

Always Do not know

1. I’m good at making eye contact.

1

2

3

4

5

6

2. I can talk easily with people of any level (kids, peers, professors, etc.).

1

2

3

4

5

6

3. I use people’s body language to help me know how to respondto them.

1

2

3

4

5

6

4. In social interactions, my facial expressions are perfectly timed.

1

2

3

4

5

6

5. I’m good at confronting people about sensitive situations without
making them feel awkward or disrespected.

1

2

3

4

5

6

6. I can express annoyance without putting people off.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7. I use just the right amount and kind of touch in my social
interactions.

1

2

3

4

5

6

8. In conversations, my hand gestures are helpful, not distracting.

1

2

3

4

5

6

9. I can easily draw on my various social skills as situations warrant.

1

2

3

4

5

6

10. I’m animated when I speak.

1

2

3

4

5

6

11. I’m good at reading facial expressions.

1

2

3

4

5

6

12. At social events like parties, people often introduce themselves
to me.

1

2

3

4

5

6

13. I know just the right things to say and do when someone I
know is upset.

1

2

3

4

5

6

14. I use the qualities of my voice to influence others.

1

2

3

4

5

6

15. I can make awkward social interactions feel more comfortable.

1

2

3

4

5

6

16. I produce the “right” sorts of smiles at just the right times.

1

2

3

4

5

6

17. If people observed me in a group, they would say I’m the mostsocially gifted.

1

2

3

4

5

6

18. I’m a natural at knowing how to co-ordinate my emotional
responses to others’ emotions.

1

2

3

4

5

6

19. I have a relaxed, open body posture when I talk with people.

1

2

3

4

5

6

20. Others would say I have an expressive face.

1

2

3

4

5

6

21. People are swayed or influenced by my emotional signals.

1

2

3

4

5

6

22. I use my voice to convey my emotions.

1

2

3

4

5

6

23. I nod my head the right amount to let others know that I’mlistening.

1

2

3

4

5

6

24. I know how to calm a heated conversation.

1

2

3

4

5

6

25. I’m good at using laughter to make other people feel good.

1

2

3

4

5

6

Adapted from McBrien, Wild and Bachorowski (2018), Socio-Emotional Expertise (SEE) Scale.

Page 325

Annexe 4.1.
FICHE DE TRAVAIL 1 :AÉROPORT – VOCABULAIRE GÉNÉRALVoici des extraits des exercices et des activités proposés
Séances 1, 2

TRAVAIL SUR LE GLOSSAIRE 1
Ici, on ne reporte pas les glossaires produits, beaucoup trop longs, mais seulement la consigne et la répartition en groupes de travail. Pour chaque grille proposée, nous avons donné une colonne déjà complétée
avec une langue souche (en général l’italien, mais aussi le français ou l’anglais ou bien l’allemand pour variervoire corser l’activité). Le travail de groupe terminé, nous avons ensuite corrigé et retenu en grand groupe
les meilleures traductions.
Consigne : en travaillant sur un seul mot ou une expression à la fois, recherchez l’équivalent dans la langue deréférence choisie, consultez chacun une source différente. Comparez les mots que vous trouvez, puis, seulement
après avoir consulté le site web de la compagnie aérienne dans la langue de référence, choisissez celui qui vousconvainc le plus. Bref, vérifiez toujours l’utilisation des mots et des expressions dans le contexte de spécialité.
Grille 1
Groupe 1 (rubrique LIEUX) – 2 élèves par langue (anglais, français, espagnol, allemand)
Groupe 2 (rubrique OBJET) – 2 élèves par langue (anglais, français, espagnol, allemand)
Groupe 3 (rubriques PERSONNES et ACTIONS) – 2 élèves par langue (anglais, français, espagnol, allemand)
Grille 2
Groupe 1 (rubrique CARTES D’EMBARQUEMENT) – 2 élèves par langue (italien, français, espagnol, allemand)
Groupe 2 (rubrique PANNEAU OBJETS INTERDITS 1 et 2) – 2 élèves par langue (italien, espagnol, allemand)
Groupe 3 (rubrique PERSONNES AVEC DES BESOINS PARTICULIERS) – 2 élèves par langue (anglais, français,espagnol, allemand)

Page 327

TRAVAIL SUR LA MÉMORISATION ET LA MÉDIATION
Ici, on ne reporte que quelques exercices à titre d’exemple, en particulier ceux qui concernent les activités
où l’on fait pratiquer les compétences de médiation.
Exercice 1 – Mémorisation du lexique (à la maison)
Entraîne-toi à mémoriser le lexique à l’aide des tags sur les images.
Clique sur le lien !
www.thinglink.com/card/1146404542212997121

Clique sur le lien !
www.thinglink.com/card/1146409067497914369

Clique sur le lien !
www.thinglink.com/card/1146407099111047169

Clique sur le lien !
www.thinglink.com/card/1146415236287299587

Exercice 2 – Imagine qu’un passager t’a demandé des informations sur son vol. Choisis trois destinations etdécris les données affichées en deux langues différentes (oralement).

Médiation de texte
Transmettre des informations spécifiques
Peut transmettre (en anglais, français ou espagnol) des
informations précises présentes dans des supports visuels,
des panneaux, des documents (écrits en allemand ou en
anglais) en situation de voyage. Domaine public/professionnel de l’aéroport. Niveau B1.

Page 328 3 Enriching 21st-century language education

Exercice 3 – Dans quelle partie de l’aéroport sommes-nous ? Dis-le en trois langues, puis décris ce que tu vois
dans l’image (même les panneaux !) en deux langues de ton choix.

Médiation de texte
Expliquer des données
Peut interpréter et décrire (en anglais, français,allemand ou espagnol) des informations détaillées de visuels (écrits en italien ou en anglais) en
situation de voyage, même si des lacunes lexicales
peuvent donner lieu à des hésitations et formulations imprécises. Domaine public/professionnel
de l’aéroport. Niveau B1+.

Exercice 4 – Jeux de rôle en binômesUn passager demande de l’aider à déchiffrer cette carte d’embarquement. À tour de rôle, donnez-lui des explications en utilisant au moins deux langues différentes de votre choix.

Médiation de texte
Expliquer des données
Peut interpréter et décrire (en anglais, français,allemand ou espagnol) des informations détaillées de visuels (écrits en italien ou en anglais)en situation de voyage, même si des lacunes
lexicales peuvent donner lieu à des hésitations
et formulations imprécises. Domaine public/
professionnel de l’aéroport. Niveau B1+.

Compétence pluriculturelle et plurilingue
Exploiter un répertoire pluriculturel et plurilingue
Peut faire appel à son répertoire plurilingue
pour communiquer des informations spécialisées, expliquer un problème ou donner desclarifications dans son domaine d’intérêt (assistance aux voyageurs à l’aéroport). Niveau B1.

Appendices Page 329

Exercice 5 – Mémorisation du lexique (à la maison).
Accès thinglink : identifiant : fanaraantonella@gmail.com, mot de passe : classe4c
À l’aide des glossaires créés en groupe, tague toi-même les images suivantes pour mieux les mémoriser.
Voici quelques exemples du travail des élèves
Liens vers les tags :www.thinglink.com/card/1146417588142604291 ;www.thinglink.com/card/1146420129744027651.

Liens vers les tags :www.thinglink.com/card/1146423924037255171 ;www.thinglink.com/card/1146439287751835651.

Page 330 3 Enriching 21st-century language education

Annexe 4.2.
FICHE DE TRAVAIL 2 :AÉROPORT – ACTES DE PAROLE
Voici des extraits des exercices et des activités proposés.
Séances 3, 4, 5

TRAVAIL SUR LE GLOSSAIRE 2
Ici, on ne reporte pas les glossaires produits, beaucoup trop longs, mais seulement la consigne et la répartition en groupes de travail. Pour chaque grille proposée, nous avons donné une colonne déjà complétée
avec une langue souche (en général l’italien, mais aussi le français ou l’anglais). Le travail de groupe
terminé, nous avons ensuite corrigé et retenu en grand groupe les meilleures traductions.
Les exercices qui suivent portent sur le lexique spécifique pour donner des informations et contrôler lesbagages, pour expliquer des consignes, pour aider les passagers au libre-service de dépose-bagages, pourrésoudre des problèmes de queue aux comptoirs et aux portes d’embarquement, etc.
Exercice 1 : en groupes de quatre, faites d’abord une traduction à vue, dans les différentes langues, du texte
italien. Puis, allez sur DeepL et copiez-collez le texte en italien pour en avoir la traduction automatique.
Attention ! Dans la traduction de DeepL, il se glisse toujours des erreurs. Si vous cliquez sur le mot qui vous
semble suspect, DeepL vous propose d’autres solutions. Choisissez la bonne !
Exercice 2 : en groupes de trois, faites d’abord une traduction à vue en français, en espagnol et en anglais
des phrases en italien (la partie en allemand est complétée par le groupe d’élèves qui étudient cettelangue). Puis, comme d’habitude, vérifiez votre traduction à l’aide d’un traducteur automatique ou d’undictionnaire en ligne.
Exercice 3 : en groupes de quatre, faites d’abord une traduction à vue, dans les différentes langues, des phrases
en italien. Puis, comme d’habitude, vérifiez votre traduction à l’aide d’un traducteur automatique ou d’undictionnaire en ligne.
Exercice 4 : formez des groupes de quatre. Lisez le texte en italien, puis copiez-collez tout le texte sur DeepL
pour en avoir la traduction automatique en anglais, en français, en espagnol ou en allemand. Attention ! Dans la
traduction de DeepL, il se glisse toujours des erreurs. Si vous cliquez sur le mot qui vous semble suspect, DeepL
vous propose d’autres solutions. Choisissez la bonne ! Voici un exemple en français… avec les mots douteux
déjà soulignés que vous devrez corriger.

Page 331

TRAVAIL SUR LES ACTES DE PAROLE
Médiation de texte
Transmettre des informations spécifiques
Peut transmettre (en anglais, français, allemand ou espagnol) une séried’instructions courtes et simples (écrites/dites en italien ou en anglais)en situation de voyage. Domaine public/professionnel de l’aéroport.
Niveau B1.
Compétence pluriculturelle et plurilingue

Exercice 1 – Jeux de rôle.
À deux ou trois, en utilisant au moins
deux langues à tour de rôle, simulez
la conversation avec un/des passager(s) pour contrôler son bagage
et le diriger au bon endroit pourl’enregistrement.

Exploiter un répertoire pluriculturel et plurilingue
Peut, en général, tenir compte des conventions concernant la posture,
le contact visuel, la distance à respecter entre les personnes, liées auxéchanges sociaux quotidiens. Niveau B1.
Peut en général se conformer aux codes culturels les plus couramment
utilisés. Niveau B1.
Peut faire appel à son répertoire plurilingue pour communiquer desinformations spécialisées, expliquer un problème ou donner des clarifications dans son domaine d’intérêt (assistance aux voyageurs à l’aéroport).
Niveau B1.

Médiation de texte
Transmettre des informations spécifiques
Peut transmettre (en anglais, français, allemand ou espagnol) une séried’instructions courtes et simples (écrites/dites en italien ou en anglais)en situation de voyage. Domaine public/professionnel de l’aéroport.
Niveau B1.
Compétence pluriculturelle et plurilingue
Exploiter un répertoire pluriculturel et plurilingue
Peut, en général, tenir compte des conventions concernant la posture,
le contact visuel, la distance à respecter entre les personnes, liées auxéchanges sociaux quotidiens. Niveau B1.
Peut en général se conformer aux codes culturels les plus couramment
utilisés. Niveau B1.
Peut faire appel à son répertoire plurilingue pour communiquer desinformations spécialisées, expliquer un problème ou donner des clarifications dans son domaine d’intérêt (assistance aux voyageurs à l’aéroport).
Niveau B1.
Médiation de la communication
Faciliter la communication dans des situations délicates
Peut se rendre compte d’un désaccord entre interlocuteurs ou de difficultés
dans une interaction et adapter des expressions simples, mémorisées,pour rechercher un compromis ou un accord. Niveau A2.

Page 332 3 Enriching 21st-century language education

Exercice 2 – Jeux de rôle.
À deux ou trois, en utilisant au moins
deux langues à tour de rôle, simulez
la conversation avec un/des passager(s) pour gérer au mieux la queueaux comptoirs. Prévoyez un momentde tension avec le passager (il ne veut
pas se déplacer, il est agacé par lafermeture du comptoir, il s’en prend
au préposé du comptoir, etc.)

Exercice 3 – En duo, regardez cette vidéo et expliquez à votre camarade en français et/ou en espagnol ou
allemand ce qu’il est dit de faire pour l’enregistrement et la dépose automatique des bagages. Procédez de lamanière suivante : en visionnage fractionné, avec ou sans l’audio, décrivez les images et donnez les instructions
dans les autres langues.
Lien vers la vidéo : www.youtube.com/watch?v=bsChgZ-39D8 (vidéo Finnair).
Médiation de texte
Expliquer des données
Peut interpréter et décrire (en français, allemand ou espagnol) des informations détailléesde visuels (écrits en anglais) en situation devoyage, même si des lacunes lexicales peuvent
donner lieu à des hésitations et formulations
imprécises. Domaine public/professionnel del’aéroport. Niveau B1+.

Exercice 4 – Jeux de rôleÀ deux, simulez la conversation avec un/des passager(s) pour l’aider à effectuer l’enregistrement et la dépose
des bagages en libre-service, en utilisant au moins deux langues à tour de rôle.
Médiation de texte
Transmettre des informations spécifiques
Peut transmettre (en anglais, français, allemand ou espagnol) une série d’instructions courtes et simples (écrites/
dites en italien ou en anglais). Domaine public/professionnel de l’aéroport. Niveau B1.
Compétence pluriculturelle et plurilingue
Exploiter un répertoire pluriculturel et plurilingue
Peut, en général, tenir compte des conventions concernant la posture, le contact visuel, la distance à respecter
entre les personnes, liées aux échanges sociaux quotidiens. Niveau B1.
Peut faire appel à son répertoire plurilingue pour communiquer des informations spécialisées, expliquer un problème ou donner des clarifications dans son domaine d’intérêt (assistance aux voyageurs à l’aéroport). Niveau B1.

Remue-méninges sur le travail fait (réflexion collective) : Comment jugez-vous le travail fait ? Pensez-vous quevous êtes prêts pour le stage ? Quelles sont les activités que vous considérez avoir été les plus utiles/les moins
utiles ? Ce travail de préparation a-t-il été difficile ? Avez-vous des suggestions pour les prochaines étapes ?

Appendices Page 333

Page 335

Annexe 4.3.
AUTOÉVALUATION :QUESTIONNAIRE ET RÉSULTATSPage 336 3 Enriching 21st-century language education

Appendices Page 337

Page 339

I can write

I cananalyseandinterpret

I canexpress

I can read

INTERMEDIATEADVANCED

descriptions of real or imaginary eventsand experiences, which concern situations that are similar to those I read inliterary texts. I can write a review of afilm, book or play in a fairly correct form.



descriptions of real or imaginary events and experiences. I can fluently expose my ideas and narrate
facts, according to the genre concerned. I can write
descriptions on a variety of subjects I’m interested
in and a review of a film, book or play.



INTERMEDIATEADVANCED

INTERMEDIATE

literary texts with a certain critical awareness and in a personal way, expressing
my own opinion.



the emotions evoked by literary texts
and communicate them in a simple andeffective way.

INTERMEDIATE

with pleasure a literary text supportedby the teacher.

creative texts and compare two or more literarytexts with reference to themes, characters, scenarios, linguistic and formal aspects, analysing
similarities and differences and making connections. I can express a personal opinion on the text I
read, showing awareness and ability to empathiseor take distance.

ADVANCED

my reactions to a literary text clearly and justify them. I can verbalise emotions and feelings
aroused by reading, referring them to specificpassages in the text.

ADVANCED

with pleasure and independently different types ofliterary texts, with a strong, narrative plot, in simple
language, taking my time and using a dictionary.






BASIC



creative texts and simple comments toliterary texts, films or plays, with someerrors.

BASIC

different types of literary texts in a simple
but correct way. I can understand thegeneral plot of literary texts and summarise them correctly.

BASIC

my appreciation of literary texts throughsimple words, with the help of myteacher.

BASIC

a literary text, understanding its generalmeaning, linking it to my own experience.







BEGINNER

simple texts on a range of familiar
subjects, but it’s difficult for me to tellimaginary events and experiences or
to write a review of a film, book or play.

BEGINNER

the general meaning of various literarytexts with great difficulty and, although
guided, I find it difficult to infer meanings and information from the context.
I can summarise them only very briefly.

BEGINNER

ideas, impressions and feelings after
reading a literary text with great
difficulty.

BEGINNERa literary text without pleasure andit’s difficult for me to understand its
global meaning.

Appendix to Chapter 7. The sixth sense for literature: a new pluricultural approach to literary texts as mediation and reaction to literature according to the new descriptors of
the CEFR Companion volume

Appendix 7.1.
LEARNING UNIT – SELF-ASSESSMENT GRID:COMPREHENSION – INTERPRETATION – MEDIATION OF LITERARY TEXTS – B2

Page 341

D. Creative
writing

C. Analysis andcriticism of
creative texts(including
literature)

B. Expressinga personal
response to
creative texts(including
literature)

A. Reading as aleisure activity



INTERMEDIATEADVANCED

Can write descriptions of real or
imaginary events and experiences
which concern situations that are
similar to those in literary texts.
Can write a review of a film, bookor play in a fairly correct form.

Can write clear, detailed descriptions of real or imaginary
events and experiences marking the relationship between
ideas in clear connected text, following established conventions of the genre concerned. Can write clear, detailed
descriptions on a variety of subjects related to his/herfield of interest. Can write a review of a film, book or play.



INTERMEDIATEADVANCEDCan analyse creative texts andcompare two or more literary texts
analysing similarities and differences and making connections.
Can express a personal opinion
on literary texts in a personal way.

Can compare two works, considering themes, characters and scenes, exploring similarities and contrasts andexplaining the relevance of the connections between
them. Can give a reasoned opinion about a work, showing
awareness of the thematic, structural and formal featuresand referring to the opinions and arguments of others. Can
evaluate the way the work encourages identification withcharacters, giving examples. Can describe the way in which
different works differ in their treatment of the same theme.



INTERMEDIATEADVANCEDCan grasp the emotional significance of literary texts, express
appreciation through simple
words, communicate thoughts
and feelings aroused by reading
the texts in a simple but effective
way, supported by the teacher.

Can give a clear presentation of his/her reactions to awork, developing his/her ideas and supporting them with
examples and arguments. Can describe his/her emotional
response to a work and elaborate on the way in which it
has evoked this response. Can express in some detail his/her reactions to the form of expression, style and content
of a work, explaining what he/she appreciated and why.



INTERMEDIATEADVANCEDCan read literary texts with pleasure
and recognise ethical and aestheticalaspects supported by the teacher.

Can read for pleasure with a large degree of independence,
adapting style and speed of reading to different texts, provided that he/she can take his/her time and use a dictionary.






BASIC



Can write creative texts and simple
comments on literary texts, films orplays, with some errors.

BASIC

Can analyse different types of literary texts in a simple but correct
way and understand the generalplot of literary texts, summarisingthem correctly.

BASIC

Can express ideas, impressions,
feelings and appreciation after
reading a literary text, but still
makes mistakes.

BASIC

Can read a literary test, understanding its general meaning, linking it
to his/her own experience.







BEGINNER

Can write simple texts on a range
of familiar subjects, but it’s difficult for him/her to tell imaginary
events and experiences or to writea review of a film, book or play.

BEGINNER

Can understand the generalmeaning of various literary texts
with great difficulty and, although
guided, he/she finds it difficult toinfer meanings and informationfrom the context. He/she can summarise texts only very briefly.

BEGINNER

Can express impressions, emotions
and feelings after reading a literarytext with difficulty, and his/her language lacks vocabulary to express
his/her feelings.

BEGINNER

Can find some pleasure in reading aliterary text and can understand its
global meaning with great difficulty.

Appendix to Chapter 7. The sixth sense for literature. A new pluricultural approach to literary texts as mediation and reaction to literature according to the new descriptors of
the CEFR Companion volume

Appendix 7.2.
LEARNING UNIT – TEACHER ASSESSMENT GRID:COMPREHENSION – INTERPRETATION–MEDIATION OF LITERARY TEXTS – B2

Appendix 8.1.
CHECKLIST USEDFOR TEACHER AND SELF-ASSESSMENT
Appendix to Chapter 8. Promoting and assessing the appreciation of literature at secondary school
CASE STUDY – QUICK-TICK ASSESSMENT GRID
Expressing a personal response to creative texts (including literature)

Proficient User

Date

Any further comments and observations

Student name

Can describe in detail his/her personal interpretation of a work, outlining his/her reactions
to certain features and explaining their significance.
C1

Can outline his/her interpretation of a character in a work: their psychological/emotional
state, the motives for their actions and the consequences of these actions.
Can give his/her personal interpretation of the development of a plot, the charactersand the themes in a story, novel, film or play.
Can give a clear presentation of his/her reactions to a work, developing his/her ideas
and supporting them with examples and arguments.

B2

Can describe his/her emotional response to a work and elaborate on the way in which
it has evoked this response.

Independent User

Can express in some detail his/her reactions to the form of expression, style and content
of a work, explaining what s/he appreciated and why.
Can explain why certain parts or aspects of a work especially interested him/her.
Can explain in some detail which character s/he most identified with and why.
Can relate events in a story, film or play to similar events s/he has experienced or heard
about.
B1

Can relate the emotions experienced by a character in a work to emotions s/he has
experienced.
Can describe the emotions s/he experienced at a certain point in a story, e.g. the point(s)in a story when s/he became anxious for a character, and explain why.
Can explain briefly the feelings and opinions that a work provoked in him/her.
Can describe the personality of a character.

Basic User

Can express his/her reactions to a work, reporting his/her feelings and ideas in simple
language.
Can describe a character’s feelings and explain the reasons for them.
A2

Can say in simple language which aspects of a work especially interested him/her.
Can say whether s/he liked a work or not and explain why in simple language.
Can select simple passages s/he particularly likes from work of literature to use as quotes.

A1

Can use simple words and phrases to say how a work made him/her feel.

Page 343

Appendix 8.2.
CHECKLIST USEDFOR TEACHER AND SELF-ASSESSMENT
Appendix to Chapter 8. Promoting and assessing the appreciation of literature at secondary school
CASE STUDY – QUICK-TICK ASSESSMENT GRID
Analysis and criticism of creative texts (including literature)
Date

Any further comments and observations

Student name

Can give a critical appraisal of work of different periods and genres (novels, poems andplays), appreciating subtle distinctions of style and implicit as well as explicit meaning.

Proficient User

C2

Can recognise the finer subtleties of nuanced language, rhetorical effect and stylistic
language use (e.g. metaphors, abnormal syntax, ambiguity), interpreting and “unpacking”
meanings and connotations.
Can critically evaluate the way in which structure, language and rhetorical devices are
exploited in a work for a particular purpose and give a reasoned argument on theirappropriateness and effectiveness.
Can give a critical appreciation of the deliberate breach of linguistic conventions in apiece of writing.
Can critically appraise a wide variety of texts including literary works of different periods
and genres.

C1

Can evaluate the extent to which a work meets the conventions of its genre.
Can describe and comment on ways in which the work engages the audience (e.g. bybuilding up and subverting expectations).

Independent User

Can compare two works, considering themes, characters and scenes, exploring similarities
and contrasts and explaining the relevance of the connections between them.
B2

Can give a reasoned opinion about a work, showing awareness of the thematic, structuraland formal features and referring to the opinions and arguments of others.
Can evaluate the way the work encourages identification with characters, giving examples.
Can describe the way in which different works differ in their treatment of the same theme.

B1

Can point out the most important episodes and events in a clearly structured narrative ineveryday language and explain the significance of events and the connection between
them.

Basic User

Can describe the key themes and characters in short narratives involving familiar situations
that are written in high-frequency everyday language.

A2

Can identify and briefly describe, in basic formulaic language, the key themes andcharacters in short, simple narratives involving familiar situations that are written in
high-frequency everyday language.

Page 345

Appendix 8.3.
RESULTS FROM TEACHER AND SELFASSESSMENTS USING APPENDICES 8.1 AND 8.2
Appendix to Chapter 8. Promoting and assessing the appreciation of literature at secondary school
TABLE A1: GROUP 1
Target group
numberSpecialisation

Number of learners
involved

Age

CEFR language
level

GROUP 1

Liceo delle scienze umane
economico-sociale

21

14/15

A1+ to A2+

TABLE A1.1: GROUP 1 – TEACHER’S ASSESSMENT
Level

Student percentage

Assessment modality: brief sustained monologue
BASIC USERS – A2

70%

BASIC/INDEPENDENT USERS – A2/B1

30%

TABLE A1.2: GROUP 1

Learner’s register number& name surname initials

Overall grade: teacher’s
assessment

Overall grade: student’s
self-assessment

With Appendix 1 grid

Answeredthe survey

Overall
grade

LEARNER # 1: AB

A2



A2

LEARNER # 2: SB

A2



A2

LEARNER # 3: CC

A2



A2

LEARNER # 4: GC

A2



A2

LEARNER # 5: GDA

B1



A2

LEARNER # 6: CF

B1



A2

LEARNER # 7: GG

B1



A2

LEARNER # 8: MG

A2



A2

LEARNER # 9: SI

B1



A2

LEARNER # 10: AL

A2



A2

LEARNER # 11: AL

A2



A2

LEARNER # 12: SL

A2



A1

LEARNER # 13: CM

A2



A2

LEARNER # 14: AM

A2



A1

LEARNER # 15: GM

B1



B1

LEARNER # 16: NM

A2



A2

LEARNER # 17: SP

A1



A2

LEARNER # 18: AP

B1



A2

LEARNER # 19: IP

A2



A2

LEARNER # 20: LAR

A2



A2

LEARNER # 21: AR

A2

-

-

Page 347

TABLE A2: GROUP 2
Target group
numberSpecialisation

Number oflearners involved

Age

GROUP 2

Liceo scientifico Informatica
Multimediale Avanzata (IMA)

21

15/17

CEFR language
level
B1 to B1+
B2

TABLE A2.1: GROUP 2 – TEACHER’S ASSESSMENT

Student percentage
Level

Assessment modality:
dialogue

Assessment modality:
brief sustained monologue

BASIC/INDEPENDENT USERS – A2/B1

5%

5%

INDEPENDENT USER – B1

50%

30%

INDEPENDENT/PROFICIENT USER – B2/C1

40%

60%

PROFICIENT USER – C1

5%

5%

TABLE A2.2: GROUP 2
Overall grade: teacher’s assessment
Learner’s register number& name surname initials

Overall grade: student’s
self-assessment

Assessment
modality:
dialogue with
Appendix 1 grid

Assessment modality:
brief sustainedmonologue with
Appendix 2 grid

Answeredthe survey

Overall
grade

LEARNER # 1: MB

B2/C1

B2



B2/C1

LEARNER # 2: AB

B2

B1



B2

LEARNER # 3: KB

B2/C1

B2



B2/C1

LEARNER # 4: LB

B2

B1



B2/C1

LEARNER # 5: FC

B2/C1

B2



B2

LEARNER # 6: NC

A2/B1

A2/B1



B2

LEARNER # 7: GC

B2/C1

B2



B2

LEARNER # 8: SDM

B2

B1



B2/C1

LEARNER # 9: FF

B2

B1



A2/B1

LEARNER # 10: RG

B2

B2



B2/C1

LEARNER # 11: AG

B2/C1

C1



B2

LEARNER # 12: BJ

C1

C1



B2/C1

LEARNER # 13: AL

B2/C1

B2



B2

LEARNER # 14: GL

B2

A2/B1



B2

LEARNER # 15: GRM

B2

B1



B2

LEARNER # 16: DM

B2/C1

B2



B2

LEARNER # 17: GP

B2/C1

B2



B2

LEARNER # 18: MR

B2

B2



B2

LEARNER # 19: MR

B2

B2



B2/C1

LEARNER # 20: RS

B2/C1

B2



B2/C1

LEARNER # 21: LZ

B2

B1



C1

Page 348 3 Enriching 21st-century language education

TABLE A3: GROUP 3
Target group
numberSpecialisation

Number oflearners involved

Age

CEFR language
level

GROUP 3

Liceo scientifico Informatica
Multimediale Avanzata (IMA)

24-26

17/18

B1 to B2 / C1

TABLE A3.1: GROUP 3

Student percentage
Level

Assessment modality:
dialogue

Assessment modality: briefsustained monologue

BASIC/INDEPENDENT USERS – B1

30%

35%

INDEPENDENT USER – B2

45%

35%

INDEPENDENT/PROFICIENT USER – B2/C1

20%

11%

PROFICIENT USER – C1

5%

19%

TABLE A3.2: GROUP 3
Learner’s register
number & namesurname initials

Overall grade: teacher’s assessmentwith Appendix 2 grid

Overall grade: student’s
self-assessment

Assessment
modality: dialogue

Assessment modality: briefsustained monologue

Answeredthe survey

Overall
grade

LEARNER # 1: AB

B2

B1-B2



B2

LEARNER # 2: CB

B2

B1

-

-

LEARNER # 3: EB

B2/C1

B2



B2/C1

LEARNER # 4: TB

B2

B1-B2

-

-

LEARNER # 5: SC

-

C1

-

-

LEARNER # 6: AC

B2

B2-C1

-

-

LEARNER # 7: MEC

A2/B1

B1

-

-

LEARNER # 8: DJC

A2/B1

B1

-

-

LEARNER # 9: DD

-

C1



B2/C1

LEARNER # 10: LG

B2

B2



B2

LEARNER # 11: RG

B2

B2

-

-

LEARNER # 12: FLR

B2/C1

C1



B2/C1

LEARNER # 13: MM

B2/C1

C1

-

-

LEARNER # 14: MP

A2/B1

B1

-

-

LEARNER # 15: DP

B2/C1

B2



B2/C1

LEARNER # 16: BP

B2

B2-C1

-

-

LEARNER # 17: OR

B2

B2-C1

-

-

LEARNER # 18: MR

A2/B1

B1

-

-

LEARNER # 19: CR

B2/C1

B2-C1



B2

LEARNER # 20: CR

B2

B2



B2

LEARNER # 21: LS

A2/B1

B2

-

-

LEARNER # 22: ZT

C1

C1



B2/C1

LEARNER # 23: FVA

B2

B1

-

-

LEARNER # 24: GV

A2/B1

B2



B2

LEARNER # 25: GV

A2/B1

B2



B2

LEARNER # 26: SZ

B2

B2-C1



B2/C1
Appendices Page 349

TABLE A4: GROUP 4
Target group
numberSpecialisation

Number oflearners involved

Age

GROUP 4

Liceo scientifico Informatica
Multimediale Avanzata (IMA)

26

17/18

CEFR language
level
B1 to B2
C1

TABLE A4.1: GROUP 4
Student percentage

Level

Assessment modality: dialogue

BASIC/INDEPENDENT USERS – B1

15%

INDEPENDENT USER – B2

40%

INDEPENDENT/PROFICIENT USER – B2/C1

38%

PROFICIENT USER – C1

7%

TABLE A4.2: GROUP 4
Learner’s register number& name surname initials

Overall grade: teacher’s assessmentwith Appendix 2 grid

Assessment modality: brief sustained monologue
LEARNER # 1: IB

C1+LEARNER # 2: PB

B2LEARNER # 3: FB

B1-B2

LEARNER # 4: CB

B1

LEARNER # 5: AB

B1-B2

LEARNER # 6: SB

B2

LEARNER # 7: KB

B2

LEARNER # 8: MB

C1+

LEARNER # 9: SC

B1

LEARNER # 10: VDP

B1-B2

LEARNER # 11: LF

B1LEARNER # 12: MG

B1-B2

LEARNER # 13: LL

B1-B2

LEARNER # 14: SB

B2

LEARNER # 15: AM

B1-B2

LEARNER # 16: ASP

B2

LEARNER # 17: AP

B1-B2

LEARNER # 18: AP

C1

LEARNER # 19: MR

B2

LEARNER # 20: RS

B2

LEARNER # 21: GS

B1-B2

LEARNER # 22: MFS

B2

LEARNER # 23: FS

B1-B2

LEARNER # 24: AS

B1

LEARNER # 25: ES

B1-B2

LEARNER # 26: DT

B2

Page 350 3 Enriching 21st-century language education

TABLE A5: GROUP 5
Target group number

Specialisation

Number of learners
involved

Age

CEFR language
level

GROUP 5

Liceo scientifico

23

17/18

B1 to B2
C1

TABLE A5.1: GROUP 5

Level

Student percentage
Assessment modality: dialogue

BASIC/INDEPENDENT USERS – B1

35%

INDEPENDENT USER – B2

30%

INDEPENDENT/PROFICIENT USER – B2/C1

20%

PROFICIENT USER – C1

15%

TABLE A5.2: GROUP 5
Learner’s register number & name surname initials
Assessment modality: brief sustained monologue

Overall grade: teacher’s assessmentwith Appendix 2 grid

LEARNER # 1 RA

B1LEARNER # 2 AA

B1LEARNER # 3 AGB

B2LEARNER # 4 NC

B2

LEARNER # 5 OC

B1-B2

LEARNER # 6 AAC

B2LEARNER # 7 VC

B1-B2

LEARNER # 8 GF

B2

LEARNER # 9 MF

B1-B2

LEARNER # 10 SG

B1

LEARNER # 11 EGC1LEARNER # 12 GI

B1-B2

LEARNER # 13 VL

B1

LEARNER # 14 AM

B1

LEARNER # 15 FMC1LEARNER # 16 LM

B1

LEARNER # 17 GM

B1-B2

LEARNER # 18 AM

C1LEARNER # 19 CM

B2

LEARNER # 20 LP

B1

LEARNER # 21 DS

B1

LEARNER # 22 AS

B1-B2

LEARNER # 23 MV

B1-B2

Appendices Page 351

Appendix 8.4.
RESULTS FROM STUDENT SURVEY (GROUP 1)
Appendix to Chapter 8. Promoting and assessing the appreciation of literature at secondary school
How good are you at expressing your reactions to a book orfilm and then reporting your feelings and ideas?

How good are you at saying which aspects of a work especiallyinterested you?

21 respondents

21 respondents

52.4%

14.3%
23.8%

Excellent
Very good
Good
Fair
Poor

47.6%

Excellent
Very good
Good
Fair
Poor
38.1%

9.5%
How well can you describe a character’s feelings and explain
the reasons for them?

How good are you at saying if you liked a work or not andwhy?

21 respondents

21 respondents

33.3%

Very well
Quite well
Well enoughI’m okI can’t do that

19%

38.1%

23.8%

14.3%
9.5%

28.6%

23.8%

Excellent
Very good
Good
Fair
Poor

How good are you at expressing your reactions to a book orfilm and then reporting your feelings and ideas?
21 respondents
33.3%
Yes, I canNo, I can’t
Maybe
61.9%

23.8%

How well can you describe a character’s feelings and explain
the reasons for them?
21 respondents
33.3%
33.3%
28.6%

Excellent
Very good
Good
Fair
Poor

Page 353

Appendix 8.5.
RESULTS FROM STUDENT SURVEY (GROUPS 2 & 3)
Appendix to Chapter 8. Promoting and assessing the appreciation of literature at secondary school
How well can you describe the personality of a character ina book or film?

How would you rate your ability to describe in detail your personal interpretation of a work, outlining your reactions to it?

21 respondents

21 respondents
31%

62.1%

Very well
Quite well
Well enoughI can’t do that

48.3%
10.3%

37.9%

Excellent
Very good
Good
Fair
Poor

How good are you at explaining briefly the feelings andopinions that a work provoked in you?

How good are you at outlining your interpretation if a characterin a work? (their psychological/emotional state, the motives
for their actions and the consequences of these actions)

21 respondents

21 respondents

51.7%

13.8%

34.5%

Excellent
Very good
Good
Fair
Poor

13.8%

55.2%

27.6%

Excellent
Very good
Good
Fair
Poor

How well can you give your personal interpretation of thedevelopment of a plot, the characters and the themes in astory, nouvel, film or play?

How well can you explain in some detail which character you
most identified with and why?

21 respondents

21 respondents

20.7%
17.2%

55.2%

Very well
Quite well
Well enoughI’m okI’m hopeless

27.6%
55.2%

17.2%

Very well
Quite well
Well enoughI can’t do thatHow good are you at explaining why certain parts of aspectsof a work especially interested you?

How would you rate your ability to describe and explain theemotions you experienced at a certain point in a story, (forexample the point/s in a story when you become anxious
for a character)?

21 respondents

21 respondents

37.9%
13.8%
10.3%
37.9%

Excellent
Very good
Good
Fair
Poor

44.8%

17.2%
10.3%
24.1%

Excellent
Very good
Good
Fair
Poor

Page 355

Annexe 15.1.
INSTRUMENTO DE APOIO À PLANIFICAÇÃO
DE SEQUÊNCIA DIDÁTICA
Annexe au chapitre 15. Discours d’enseignants au sujet d’activités qui relèvent de la médiation dans le Volume
complémentaire du CECR – une étude empirique
Quadro-síntese de apresentação
Título:Enquadramento / contextualização:Público a que se destina (nível/ciclo de ensino e nível de proficiência):
Línguas / variedades linguísticas envolvidas:
Duração prevista:
Objetivos pedagógico-didáticos:
Competência(s) em foco:
Conteúdos a trabalhar:
Planificação global das atividadesSessões(duração)Atividades

RecursosSessão ISessão IISessão IIISessão IV(Acrescentar se necessário)Planificação das sessões
Sessão(Sub-)Título
Objetivos…
…
…
Competência(s) em foco
Conteúdos
Descrição pormenorizada / passos didáticosObservações
(Acrescentar caixas conforme seja necessário)Page 357

Annexe 15.2.
GUIÃO PARA A DESCRIÇÃO DE UMAATIVIDADE DE MEDIAÇÃO
Annexe au chapitre 15. Discours d’enseignants au sujet d’activités qui relèvent de la médiation dans le Volume
complémentaire du CECR – une étude empirique
Designação da atividade :f Tarefa(s) antes da atividade
Atividadef Tarefa(s) referentes à atividade
f Tarefas(s) após a atividade
Duração
Nível de proficiência

 A1    A2    B1    B2    C1 (pode ser apenas um ou mais de um)

Tema Orientador
Tipo de mediação

Mediação da comunicação

(Conselho da Europa, 2018) Estabelecer um espaço pluricultural;
Agir como intermediário em situações informais;[selecionar a(s)categoria(s)-alvo]
Facilitar a comunicação em situações delicadas e em desacordos.
Descritores(transcrever os que
se aplicam, de acordo
com o previsto no
Volume Complementar
ao Quadro Europeu
Comum de Referência
– páginas fornecidas)
Instruções
(específicas relativamenteà atividade de mediação)Indícios de observação eresp-etivos instrumentos
de avaliação (formativa)

Possibilidade(s) dediferenciação pedagógica

Reflexão sobre odesenvolvimento da
atividade, a escolha dos
materiais/suportes
pedagógico-didáticos, etc.

Page 359

Annexe 17.1.
QUESTIONNAIRE À DESTINATIONDES ENSEIGNANTS
Annexe au chapitre 17. L’exploitation des compétences plurilingues dans le cadre des formations linguistiques
dispensées aux adultes plurilingues : étude de cas sur l’utilisation des nouveaux descripteurs du Volume complémentaire du CECR pour une transition vers des pratiques d’enseignement valorisant le plurilinguisme
L’utilisation de langues tierces* au sein de cours de langue
Questionnaire à destination des formateurs
Important : Ce questionnaire est anonyme. Vos réponses seront traitées de manière globale pour servir dans le cadred’une étude de cas sur l’enseignement des langues étrangères en contexte international.
Aucun détail concernant les apprenants ou les institutions/entreprises mentionnées dans vos réponses qui pourrait
les identifier spécifiquement ne sera repris.
Les questionnaires ne feront l’objet d’aucune divulgation et l’accès à ces derniers restera strictement limité aux
auteurs de l’étude.
*Le terme « langue tierce » renvoie à toute langue autre que la langue cible (celle faisant l’objet de cours).

Section 1 – Recours à une langue tierce
1) Considérez-vous l’utilisation d’une langue tierce comme nécessaire et/ou souhaitable dans le cadre d’uncours de langue ? Pourquoi ?
2) Pensez-vous qu’il soit possible de ne pas avoir recours à une langue tierce dans le cadre de vos cours ?
3) Quantitativement, comment qualifieriez-vous votre recours à une ou des langue(s) tierce(s) dans le cadrede vos cours ?
 Totalement absent
 Occasionnel
 Assez fréquent Important Très important Omniprésent
4) Dans quelle(s) situation(s) et pourquoi avez-vous généralement recours à des langues autres que la langue
cible durant vos cours ?
 Explications (lexicales, grammaticales, culturelles) Exercices (lexicaux, grammaticaux) – décrivez le type d’exercices
 Opérations de contrôle/d’évaluation
 Autre(s)Section 2 – Compétences en langue(s) tierce(s)5) Combien de langues parlez-vous et quel est votre degré de connaissance dans ces langues ?
6) Comment qualifieriez-vous vos capacités à traduire dans ces langues ?
7) Comment qualifieriez-vous vos capacités à donner des explications dans ces langues ?
8) Quel est votre degré de confiance à utiliser des langues autres que la langue cible dans le cadre de vos cours ?
 Pas du tout confiant(e) Confiant(e) Assez confiant(e) Très confiant(e)Page 361

Expliquez :9) Apprenez-vous actuellement une langue étrangère ? Si oui, laquelle ?
10) Quelle(s) langue(s) autre(s) que la langue cible utilisez-vous généralement dans le cadre de vos cours ?
11) Durant vos cours, pourquoi utilisez-vous une langue tierce plutôt qu’une autre ?
12) Vos connaissances en langues tierces vous sont-elles toutes pareillement utiles dans le cadre de vos cours ?
 Oui
 Non
Expliquez :13) Pensez-vous que la connaissance de langues tierces soit indispensable au rôle de l’enseignant en langue ?
Pourquoi ?
Section 3 – Exploitation des langues tierces
14) Votre utilisation des langues tierces est-elle différente lors de cours privés et collectifs ? Expliquez.
15) Votre utilisation de langues tierces diffère-t-elle en fonction du niveau des apprenants dans la langue
cible ? Expliquez.
16) Donnez-vous de l’importance aux connaissances en langues de vos apprenants ? Les interrogez-vous surleurs connaissances en langues ?
17) Vos apprenants vous demandent-ils parfois d’avoir recours à une langue tierce ? Si oui, quand et pourquoi ?
18) Comment percevez-vous ce type de sollicitations ? Comment y réagissez-vous ?
19) Quelle importance le recours à une langue tierce a-t-il pour vous dans l’acquisition par l’apprenant decompétences linguistiques ?
20) Quelle importance le recours à une langue tierce a-t-il pour vous dans l’acquisition par l’apprenant decompétences de communication ?
21) Que pensez-vous de la communication en langues tierces entre les apprenants ?
Section 4 – Formation
22) Comment considérez-vous votre formation initiale au regard de votre contexte d’enseignement ?
 Tout à fait adaptée Adaptée la plupart du temps
 Pas suffisamment adaptée
 Pas du tout adaptée23) Les formations continues que l’on vous propose répondent-elles à vos besoins, en particulier langagiers ?
 Jamais Rarement
 Parfois
 Le plus souvent Toujours
24) D’après vous, que vous manque-t-il en termes de formation pour répondre aux exigences de votre contexted’enseignement ?

25) Souhaitez-vous ajouter quelque chose ?

Page 362 3 Enriching 21st-century language education

Annexe 17.2.
GRILLE D’OBSERVATION UTILISÉEPOUR LES VISITES DE CLASSES
Annexe au chapitre 17. L’exploitation des compétences plurilingues dans le cadre des formations linguistiques
dispensées aux adultes plurilingues : étude de cas sur l’utilisation des nouveaux descripteurs du Volume complémentaire du CECR pour une transition vers des pratiques d’enseignement valorisant le plurilinguisme
Grille d’observation
Utilisation du répertoire plurilingue au sein des classes de langue (cours collectifs)
1. Informations générales
f Observation effectuée par : ��������������������������������������������������������
f Date de l’observation : ������������������������������������������������������������
f Classe observée :- Langue enseignée : �������������������������������������������������������������
- Intitulé du cours : ��������������������������������������������������������������
- Niveau du cours : ���������������������������������������������������������������
- Nombre d’apprenants : ����������������������������������������������������������
- Nombre de séances par semaine et durée : ������������������������������������������
- Horaire de la séance observée : de _______________________ à ________________________
2. Supports utilisésf Méthode : _____________________ � Jeux : _______________________
f Ouvrages divers : ______________________ � Matériel authentiquef Images 						� Tableau
f Audio				� Internet : _____________________
f Vidéo				 � Autre(s) : _______________
Oui

Non

Commentaires

f Les supports encouragent-ils le recours àdes langues tierces ?
f Les supports intègrent-ils des langues tierces ?
Remarques, précisions

3. Enseignants
Recours au répertoire plurilingue
f L’enseignant a recours à une langue tierce : jamais exceptionnellement
 occasionnellement
 souvent très fréquemment

Appendices Page 363

f Combien de fois l’enseignant a-t-il eu recours à une langue tierce lors de la séance observée,
indépendamment de la durée des occurrences ?_________________________ fois
Oui

Non

Commentaires

f Le recours à une langue tierce est-il immédiat ?
f Le recours à une langue tierce est-il ritualisé ?
f Lors de quel type d’activités l’enseignant a-t-il recours à une langue tierce ?
 Lors de la définition des tâches et de l’organisation des activités Lors de la régulation de l’apprentissage et de la gestion de la classe (maintien du rythme, etc.)
 Lors d’explications lexicales simples (termes univoques) Lors d’explications lexicales complexes
 Lors d’explications grammaticales/métalinguistiques Lors d’explications culturelles Lors d’exercices lexicaux
 Lors d’exercices grammaticaux
 Lors de l’institutionnalisation du savoir
 Lors d’opérations de contrôle
 Lors d’opérations d’évaluation
 Lors d’opérations de médiation
 Autre(s) : ��������������������������������������������������������������������
f Dans quel cadre l’enseignant a-t-il recours à une langue tierce ?
 La résolution d’ambiguïtés ou l’anticipation de difficultés Un travail comparatif
 L’introduction d’éléments nouveaux La confirmation de sens
 Les digressions durant le cours La communication hors classe ou hors cours
 Autre(s) : ��������������������������������������������������������������������
f Quelles langues tierces sont-elles utilisées par l’enseignant ?
 Anglais
 Italien Serbe		  Arabe Français Portugais
 Néerlandais Japonais
 Espagnol
 Russe Albanais		  Perse Allemand Chinois
 Polonais		  Autre(s) : ___________
f Quel est le degré de maîtrise de l’enseignant de ces langues tierces ?
- Langue 1. ________________ :  excellente bonne suffisante- Langue 2. ________________ :  excellente bonne suffisante- Langue 3. ________________ :  excellente bonne suffisante notionnelle
 notionnelle
 notionnelle

Prise en compte du répertoire plurilingue des apprenantsOui
f L’enseignant connaît-il le répertoire linguistique des apprenants ?
f L’enseignant tient-il compte des connaissances linguistiques des apprenants ?
f L’enseignant exploite-t-il le répertoire linguistique des apprenants ?

Page 364 3 Enriching 21st-century language education

Non

Commentaires

f Le répertoire linguistique des apprenantsinduit-il une différenciation de l’apprentissage ?
f Le répertoire linguistique des apprenantsinduit-il une généralisation de l’apprentissage ?
Remarques, précisions

4. Apprenants
Oui

Non

Commentaires

f Les apprenants initient-ils le recours à une
langue tierce ?
f Les apprenants sollicitent-ils le recours à une
langue tierce de la part de l’enseignant ?
f Quand elle est utilisée, la langue tierce estelle utilisée de manière exclusive ?
f Le recours à une langue tierce paraît-il
volontaire/conscient ?
f Le recours à une langue tierce donne-t-il lieu
à un échange bilingue (mixte) ?
f Dans le cas d’un énoncé mixte, les éléments
empruntés à la langue tierce ont-ils été
adaptés (terminaison du mot, prononciation…) pour s’intégrer plus facilement dansla langue cible ?
f Pour quelle(s) raison(s) les apprenants ont-ils recours à une langue tierce ?
 Pour compenser un manque Pour démontrer qu’ils ont compris
 Pour reformuler des notions complexes ou approfondir des notions abstraites
 Pour se rassurer sur la bonne compréhension
 Pour confronter les systèmes linguistiques (démarche réflexive) Pour s’assurer de l’efficacité de la communication
 Dans un objectif de médiation
 Autre(s) : ��������������������������������������������������������������������
f Pour quelle(s) fonction(s) communicative(s) les différentes langues sont-elles utilisées par lesapprenants ?
- Pour communiquer sur un sujet avec l’enseignant : en langue cible
 en langue maternelle  en langue tierce autre que la LM : _____- Pour communiquer sur un sujet avec les autres apprenants : en langue cible
 en langue maternelle  en langue tierce autre que la LM : _____- Pour communiquer sur la langue cible (métalangage) : en langue cible
 en langue maternelle  en langue tierce autre que la LM : _____- Pour parler à soi-même (commentaire, par ex. sur sa performance en langue cible) : en langue cible
 en langue maternelle  en langue tierce autre que la LM : _____

Appendices Page 365

Remarques, précisions

5. Gestion des interactions plurilingues
Oui

Non

Commentaires

f Les interactions plurilingues ont lieu entre
enseignant et apprenant(s).
f Les interactions plurilingues ont lieu entre
apprenant(s) et apprenant(s).
f Les interactions plurilingues se passent durant la leçon.
f L’utilisation d’une langue tierce s’effectue :- en grand groupe ;- en petit groupe ;- de manière individuelle.
f Les interactions plurilingues se passent
avant et/ou après la leçon.
f Durant la leçon, les interactions plurilingues
sont encadrées, contrôlées par l’enseignant.
f En dehors de la leçon, les interactions
plurilingues font l’objet de remarques del’enseignant.
f Quelle est la réaction de l’enseignant lors de la mobilisation du répertoire plurilingue par l’apprenant ?
 Il l’exploite Il l’ignore Il la sanctionne
 Autre(s) : ��������������������������������������������������������������������
f Dans quelle langue l’enseignant répond-il à une sollicitation en langue tierce ?
 Dans la langue cible
 Dans la langue de sollicitation
 Dans une autre langue
Remarques, précisions

Page 366 3 Enriching 21st-century language education

Annexe 17.3.
QUESTIONNAIRE À DESTINATIONDES APPRENANTS
Annexe au chapitre 17. L’exploitation des compétences plurilingues dans le cadre des formations linguistiques
dispensées aux adultes plurilingues : étude de cas sur l’utilisation des nouveaux descripteurs du Volume complémentaire du CECR pour une transition vers des pratiques d’enseignement valorisant le plurilinguisme
Le plurilinguisme en classe de langue
Réponses des participantsPartie 1 – Vous et vos connaissances linguistiques
1) Quel est votre âge ?
2) Quelle est votre langue maternelle unique ou dominante ?
3) Avez-vous, éventuellement, une deuxième langue maternelle ?
4) Quelles langues étrangères apprenez-vous en ce moment ? Merci d’indiquer votre niveau dans cette langue.
5) Parlez-vous d’autres langues ?
 Oui
 Non
6) Lesquelles ?
7) Pouvez-vous estimer votre niveau dans chacune de ces langues ?
Partie 2 – Vos cours de langue8) De façon générale, l’utilisation d’une langue tierce est utile dans le cadre d’un cours de langue.
 Tout à fait d’accord
 Plutôt d’accord
 Plutôt pas d’accord
 Absolument pas d’accord
9) Dans mon (mes) cours de langue, j’ai besoin de traductions et d’explications dans une langue tierce.
 Tout à fait d’accord
 Plutôt d’accord
 Plutôt pas d’accord
 Absolument pas d’accord
10) Pendant le cours, je suis capable de m’exprimer uniquement en langue cible.
 Tout à fait d’accord
 Plutôt d’accord
 Plutôt pas d’accord
 Absolument pas d’accord
11) Je mobilise activement mes connaissances d’autres langues pour comprendre la langue cible et pour la parler.
 Tout à fait d’accord
 Plutôt d’accord
 Plutôt pas d’accord
 Absolument pas d’accord

Page 367

12) Je m’efforce de ne pas mélanger de langues tierces avec la langue cible.
 Tout à fait d’accord
 Plutôt d’accord
 Plutôt pas d’accord
 Absolument pas d’accord
13) Il m’est facile de passer d’une langue à une autre pendant le cours.
 Tout à fait d’accord
 Plutôt d’accord
 Plutôt pas d’accord
 Absolument pas d’accord
14) Mon enseignant(e) parle plusieurs langues.
 Oui
 Non
 Je ne sais pas
15) Je sais quelles autres langues parle mon enseignant(e) en plus de la langue qu’il/elle nous enseigne.
 Oui
 Non
16) Mon enseignant(e) sait quelles autres langues moi et les élèves de mon groupe connaissons.
 Oui
 Non
 Je ne sais pas17) Mon enseignant(e) n’a quasiment jamais recours à une langue tierce dans le cadre de mes cours.
 Tout à fait d’accord
 Plutôt d’accord
 Plutôt pas d’accord
 Absolument pas d’accord18) Mon enseignant(e) utilise cette langue tierce uniquement pour dire un mot ou une phrase.
 Tout à fait d’accord
 Plutôt d’accord
 Plutôt pas d’accord
 Absolument pas d’accord
19) Mon enseignant(e) tolère qu’on lui parle dans une autre langue que la langue cible lors du cours.
 Tout à fait d’accord
 Plutôt d’accord
 Plutôt pas d’accord
 Absolument pas d’accord
Partie 3 – Votre utilisation des langues pendant le cours20) Quelle(s) langue(s) utilisez-vous généralement lors de votre cours ? Vous pouvez choisir plusieurs options.
 La langue cible (c’est-à-dire la langue que j’apprends dans ce cours)
 Ma langue maternelle
 Une autre langue21) Pendant les cours, vous utilisez la langue cible pour… (plusieurs réponses possibles) Communiquer avec l’enseignant(e) Communiquer avec les autres étudiants Communiquer au sujet de la langue cible (par exemple des explications de grammaire, le sens d’un mot)Page 368 3 Enriching 21st-century language education

 Vous parler à vous-même (par exemple lorsque vous faites une erreur ou que vous cherchez un mot) Autres situations. Merci de préciser.
22) Pendant les cours, vous utilisez votre langue maternelle pour… (plusieurs réponses possibles) Communiquer avec l’enseignant(e) Communiquer avec les autres étudiants Communiquer au sujet de la langue cible (par exemple des explications de grammaire, le sens d’un mot) Comparer votre langue maternelle à la langue cible
 Vous parler à vous-même (par exemple lorsque vous faites une erreur ou que vous cherchez un mot) Vous ne l’utilisez jamais.
 Autres situations. Merci de préciser.
23) Pendant les cours, vous utilisez une langue tierce pour… (plusieurs réponses possibles) Communiquer avec l’enseignant(e) Communiquer avec les autres étudiants Communiquer au sujet de la langue cible (par exemple des explications de grammaire, le sens d’un mot) Comparer votre langue maternelle à la langue cible
 Vous parler à vous-même (par exemple lorsque vous faites une erreur ou que vous cherchez un mot) Je n’utilise jamais de langue tierce pendant le cours.
 Autres situations. Merci de préciser.
24) Êtes-vous plutôt POUR ou CONTRE l’utilisation de langues tierces dans votre cours de langue ?
 Pour Contre
 Sans opinion

Appendices Page 369

Annexe 18.1.
FICHE DE TRAVAIL 1
Annexe au chapitre 18. La tâche comme moteur de promotion du plurilinguisme
Nom :______________

Une rencontre internationale
Tu participes à une rencontre internationale des jeunes. Dans un petit groupe, cinq personnes de pays différents seprésentent à toi dans leur langue maternelle. Note ce que tu comprends pour le raconter à un ami français plus tard.

nom :

nom :

________________

langue :langue : ________________________________________________

notes : ________
notes : ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
____
_
_
_
_
_
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ _______________________
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_____________________________________________________ ________________________
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
___________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________________ ________________________
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
___________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________ ___
_
_
_
_
_
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Aide : Essayez de découvrir…
a) … c’est qui ?
b) … qu’est-ce qu’il/elle fait ?
c) … qu’est-ce qui l’intéresse ?
Prenez des notes sur votre feuille.

Page 371

_________________________
ue : _______

nom :

nom :

________________

langue : ________________

lang_________
notes : _________________________________________
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
______________
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
notes : _________________________________________
_
____
____
__________
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
___
_________________________________________________________________
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
________________________________________________
_____
____
__________
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
___
_________________________________________________________________
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
________________________________________________
____
____
__________
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
___
_________________________________________________________________
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
________________________________________________
_
___
____
__________
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
___
_________________________________________________________________
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_______________________________________________________________
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
__
________________________________________ nom : ___________________________________
langue :_________________

notes : ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Page 372 3 Enriching 21st-century language education

Annexe 18.2.
FICHE DE TRAVAIL 2 TRANSCRIPTIONS DES PRÉSENTATIONS
Annexe au chapitre 18. La tâche comme moteur de promotion du plurilinguisme
Nom :______________

C’est quelle langue ? ____________________
Eu chamo-me Maria da Silva. Tenho trinta e sete anos. Sou brasileira e sou de São Paolo. Gosto muito da música
espanhola e interesse-me por aprender línguas estrangeiras. Sou professora de espanhol e de matemática.
C’est quelle langue ? ____________________
Merhaba, benim adım Onur. Ben yirmi beş yaşındayım. Ben türk’üm. Ben kuaförüm. Saç kesmeyi seviyorum. Ben
balinaları çok seviyorum.
C’est quelle langue ? ____________________
Nazywam się Julia Nowak i jestem z Polski. Mam trzydzieści lat. Jestem absolwentką żurnalistyki. Studiowałam
na uniwersytecie w Warszawie. Mam apartament w Krakowie. Jestem redaktorem gazety historycznej „Era
antyczna“.
C’est quelle langue ? ____________________
Ciao, mi chiamo Matteo Coppola, sono italiano e di Napoli. Ho trentaquattro anni. Sono interessato agli animali
e alla medicina. Lavoro come veterinario. Mi piace trattare grandi animali, per esempio cavalli.
C’est quelle langue ? ____________________
Buenos días, mi nombre es Carlos García López. Soy mexicano y vengo de Cancún. Tengo veintitrés años y trabajo como programador de juegos de video. En mi tiempo libre, me gusta mucho estudiar lenguas extranjeras,porque me ayudan a comunicar con gente de países diferentes.

Page 373

Annexe 18.3.
FICHE DE TRAVAIL 3 DICTIONNAIRE PLURILINGUE
Annexe au chapitre 18. La tâche comme moteur de promotion du plurilinguisme
Nom :______________Mon dictionnaire plurilingue

Notez des mots trouvés dans les présentations des jeunes. Remplissez chaque ligne du tableau au moins en quatre
langues.
DeutschEnglischFranzösisch

Spanisch

Portugiesisch

ItalienischTürkischPolnisch

die Zeitung

journal,gazettele journal,
la gazettela gacetao jornal

il giornale,la gazzetta

gazetegazetaarbeitenwork

travailler

trabajartrabalhar

lavorareişlemek

pracować

Page 375

Annexe 18.4.
QUESTIONNAIRE
Réflexion – Une rencontre internationale
Répondez aux questions suivantes pour vous-même :Trifft zu

Trifft teil-weise zu

Trifft nicht zu

Das Thema hat mich interessiert.
Die Aufgabenstellungen waren deutlich
und verständlich formuliert, sodass ich sie
gut bearbeiten konnte.
Die Stunde hat mich motiviert, weitere
Sprachen lernen zu wollen.
Französisch und/oder andere Sprachen
haben mir bei der Erschließung unbekannter
Vokabeln geholfen.
Hättest Du gedacht, dass Du Dir fremdsprachige Texte mithilfe anderer Sprachen erschließen kannst? Wennja, warum? Wenn nein, warum?

Wie bist Du vorgegangen, um die Texte in den unterschiedlichen Sprachen zu verstehen?

Was konntest du mithilfe Deines mehrsprachigen Wörterbuches beobachten?

Welche Sprachen konntest Du besser verstehen und warum?

Was konntest du aus dieser Stunde in Bezug auf das Lernen von Sprachen mitnehmen?

Was fiel dir leicht? Warum?

Was fiel dir schwer? Warum?

Weitere Anmerkungen:

Page 377

Appendix 20.1.
PHONOLOGY BELIEFS: INITIAL QUESTIONNAIRE
Appendix to Chapter 20. Exploring teachers’ beliefs and practices about phonology instruction, with reference
to the CEFR descriptors
This questionnaire is designed to create opportunities for you to reflect on your current beliefs about language
learning and teaching and on your current teaching practice. It mainly aims to find out to what extent and inwhat ways you highlight/teach phonological control features with reference to CEFR descriptors. Section 1 deals
with your own knowledge and awareness of phonological aspects of English language, whereas Section 2 isfocused on providing explanations of these and controlled and freer practice activities to students. Based on
this reflection, it also aims at providing you with a chance to think about areas to work on to help you improveas a teacher.
PARTICIPANT NUMBER: __________

Section 1: Self-assessment of your knowledge and awareness of phonological features
Please reflect on your knowledge and awareness of English phonological features in relation to teaching andtick the relevant box. Please feel free to make any comments in the space provided.
I feel I know/am aware of …

Almosteverything of
this feature

Mostof thisfeatureSomeof thisfeatureA littleof thisfeatureNothing of
this feature

Individual sounds
Word and sentence stress
Rhythm and intonation
Connected speech
Phonemic script/chart
Technological/online resources
Comments:

Section 2: Teaching the phonological features
Please reflect on your teaching of English phonological features and tick the relevant box. Please feel free tomake any comments in the space provided.
I feel I can …

Strongly
Disagree Not suredisagree

Agree

Strongly
agree

Individual sounds
a. provide clear explanations to students.
b. provide controlled and guided practice tostudents.
c. provide freer practice to students.
d. provide effective feedback to students (handle error correction easily).

Page 379

I feel I can …
Word and sentence stressa. provide clear explanations to students.
b. provide controlled and guided practice tostudents.
c. provide freer practice to students.
d. provide effective feedback to students (handle error correction easily).
Rhythm and intonationa. provide clear explanations to students.
b. provide controlled and guided practice tostudents.
c. provide freer practice to students.
d. provide effective feedback to students (handle error correction easily).
Connected speecha. provide clear explanations to students.
b. provide controlled and guided practice tostudents.
c. provide freer practice to students.
d. provide effective feedback to students (handle error correction easily).
Phonemic script/charta. use phonemic script/chart during explanations and/or practice activities.
b. use phonemic script/chart during feedback/error correction.
Technological/online resources
a. use technological/online resources during
explanations and/or practice activities.
b. use technological /online resources during
feedback/error correction.
Comments:

Page 380 3 Enriching 21st-century language education

Strongly
Disagree Not suredisagree

Agree

Strongly
agreeAppendix 20.2.
QUESTIONNAIRES: COLLATED RESULTS
APPENDIX 20.2A. INITIAL QUESTIONNAIRE: COLLATED RESULTS
Appendix to Chapter 20. Exploring teachers’ beliefs and practices about phonology instruction, with reference
to the CEFR descriptors

Section 1: Self-assessment of your knowledge and awareness of phonological features
Mostof thisfeatureSomeof thisfeatureA littleof thisfeatureNothing of
this feature

1. Individual sounds

X

XX

X

X

2. Word and sentence stress

X

XX

XX

3. Rhythm and intonation

X

XXX

I feel I know/am aware of …

Almosteverything of
this featureX

4. Connected speech

XX

X

XX

5. Phonemic script/chart

XX

XXX

6. Technological/online resources

XX

XXX

Section 2: Teaching the phonological features
DisagreeNot sure

Agree

Strongly
agree

a. provide clear explanations tostudents.

X

XX

X

X

b. provide controlled and guidedpractice to students.

X

XXX

X

c. provide freer practice to students.

X

X

XX

X

d. provide effective feedback tostudents (handle error correction
easily).

X

XX

XX

a. provide clear explanations tostudents.

X

XX

XX

b. provide controlled and guidedpractice to students.

Xc. provide freer practice to students.

X

X

XXX

d. provide effective feedback tostudents (handle error correction
easily).

XX

X

XX

X

XX

XX

I feel I can …

Strongly
disagree

Individual sounds

Word and sentence stress

XXXX

Rhythm and intonationa. provide clear explanations tostudents.

Page 381

I feel I can …

Strongly
disagreeDisagreeNot sureAgreeb. provide controlled and guidedpractice to students.

X

X

XXX

c. provide freer practice to students.

X

XX

XX

d. provide effective feedback tostudents (handle error correction
easily).

X

XXX

X

a. provide clear explanations tostudents.

X

XXX

X

b. provide controlled and guidedpractice to students.

X

XXX

X

c. provide freer practice to students.

X

XXXX

d. provide effective feedback tostudents (handle error correction
easily).

X

XXX

Strongly
agree

Connected speech

X

Phonemic script/charta. use phonemic script/chart during
explanations and/or practice activities.

XX

XX

X

b. use phonemic script/chart during
feedback/error correction.

XX

XX

X

a. use technological/online resources
during explanations and/or practiceactivities.

X

XX

X

X

b. use technological/online resources
during feedback/error correction.

X

XX

X

X

Technological/online resources

APPENDIX 20.2B. FINAL QUESTIONNAIRE: COLLATED RESULTS
Appendix to Chapter 20. Exploring teachers’ beliefs and practices about phonology instruction, with reference
to the CEFR descriptors

Section 1: Self-assessment of your knowledge and awareness of phonological features
I feel I know/am aware of …

almosteverything on
this feature

1. Individual sounds

Mostof thisfeatureSome ofthis feature

A little on
this feature

XXXXX

2. Word and sentence stressX

XXX

3. Rhythm and intonation

X

XXX

X

XXXX

X

4. Connected speech
5. Phonemic script/chart
6. Technological/online resources

Page 382 3 Enriching 21st-century language education

X

X

XXX

XX

XXX

X

Nothing
on thisfeatureSection 2: Teaching the phonological features
Agree

Strongly
agree

a. provide clear explanations tostudents.

XXX

XX

b. provide controlled and guided practice to students.

XXXX

X

c. provide freer practice to students.

XXXX

X

XXX

X

I feel I can …

Strongly
disagreeDisagreeNot sure

Individual sounds

d. provide effective feedback to students (handle error correction easily).

X

Word and sentence stressa. provide clear explanations tostudents.

XXXXX

b. provide controlled and guided practice to students.

XXXXX

c. provide freer practice to students.

X

XXXX

d. provide effective feedback to students (handle error correction easily).

X

XXXX

Rhythm and intonationa. provide clear explanations tostudents.

XXXXX

b. provide controlled and guided practice to students.

X

XXXX

c. provide freer practice to students.

X

XXXX

d. provide effective feedback to students (handle error correction easily).

XX

XX

Connected speecha. provide clear explanations tostudents.

XXXXX

b. provide controlled and guided practice to students.

X

XXXX

c. provide freer practice to students.

X

XXXX

d. provide effective feedback to students (handle error correction easily).

X

XXXX

Phonemic script/charta. use phonemic script/chart during
explanations and/or practice activities.

X

XX

XX

b. use phonemic script/chart during
feedback/error correction.

X

XX

XX

a. use technological/online resources
during explanations and/or practiceactivities.

XX

XXX

b. use technological/online resources
during feedback/error correction.

XX

XXX

Technological/online resources

Appendices Page 383

Appendix 20.3.
RESOURCES USED FOR INPUT AND GUIDANCE
Appendix to Chapter 20. Exploring teachers’ beliefs and practices about phonology instruction, with reference
to the CEFR descriptors

RESOURCES REFERRED TO
Collins B. and Mees I. M. (2003), Practical phonetics and phonology, Routledge, London.
Dale P. and Poms L. (2005), English pronunciation made simple, Longman, New York.
Dalton C. and Seidlhofer B. (1994), Pronunciation, Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Kelly G. (2000), How to teach pronunciation, Pearson Education, Harlow, Essex, available at: https://andrianilina.
files.wordpress.com/2016/02/how-to-teach-pronunciation-kelly-gerald.pdf.
Marks J. and Bowen T. (2012), The book of pronunciation, Delta Publishing, Peaslake, Guildford, Surrey.
Roach P. (2009), English phonetics and phonology, 4th edition, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Underhill A. (1994), Sound foundations, Heinemann, Oxford.

SAMPLE MATERIALS FROM INPUT SESSIONS
a. Consolidation quiz at the end of Phonology 1: Sounds and drilling session
QUIZ
DEFINITION

TERM

1. having contact between the tongue and the teeth, as for [ θ, ð ]Dental2. having the tongue tip against the alveolar ridge, as [ t, d, s, z, n, l, ɾ ]Alveolar

3. characterized by a high-frequency (hissing) noise made by bringing two articulators
close to each other, as [f, v, θ, ð, s, z, ʃ, ʒ, h]Fricative

4. involving the lower lip and upper teeth, as [ f, v ]Labiodental

5. a complex segment involving a plosive followed by a fricative in the same place ofarticulation, as [ ʧ, ʤ ]Affricate

6. involving passage of air through the nasal cavity, as [ m, n, ŋ ]Nasal

7. involving both lips, as [ b, m, p ]Bilabial

8. movement of an articulator toward a place without obstructing the air, as [ l , w, j ]Approximant

9. lacking vibrations of the vocal folds

Voiceless/unvoiced

10. a complete stoppage of air in the oral and nasal cavities, as [ p, t, k, b, d, g, Ɂ ]Plosiveb. Practice activity used in Phonology 1: Sounds and drilling session
GAME: FIND THE MINIMAL PAIR OF THE WORD I SAY
SCENE

TRACK

CHESS

DATE

GUESS

CHEAP

MUCH

RAID

RABBLECATTLEIT

DIP

Page 385

c. Awareness-raising activity from Phonology 2: Word and sentence stress sessiond. Practice activity from Phonology 2: Word and sentence stress session

e. Awareness-raising activity from Phonology 2: Word and sentence stress session

f. Practice activity from Phonology 3: Intonation session

Page 386 3 Enriching 21st-century language education

g. Awareness-raising activity 1 from Phonology 4: Connected Speech session

h. Awareness-raising activity 2 from Phonology 4: Connected Speech session

i. Awareness-raising activity 3 from Phonology 4: Connected Speech session

VIDEO LINKS USED DURING INPUT SESSIONS
Adrian Underhill pronunciation videos
www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLbEWGLATRxw_2hL5hY164nvHdTpwhEOXC
IPA + consonants: voicing and place
www.youtube.com/watch?v=-e66ByetpDY
Vowels (particularly in North American English)
www.youtube.com/watch?v=u7jQ8FELbIo

Appendices Page 387

SELF-STUDY MATERIALS PROVIDED ON MOODLE LMS (SCREENSHOTS)

Page 388 3 Enriching 21st-century language education

ACTIVITY SUGGESTIONS BY TUTORSStudents write a meaningful dialogue with the key words and ask another group to try and perform it correctly.
e.g. She exports a lot of exports.
Students are given a list of instructions to carry out.
e.g.
Draw a sheep on the board. (Spanish speakers often draw a ship.)Write the letter “P” above the sheep. (Arabic speakers often write “B”.)
Use the “P” as the start of the word “pleasant” and write the word (Japanese speakers often write “present”.)
Write “light” next to pleasant. (Japanese speakers often write “right”.)
Draw a mouse next to the word “light”. (Spanish and Japanese speakers often draw a mouth.)Draw a pear next to the mouse. (Arabic speakers often draw a bear.)Write the key words on the board. Mouth a word without saying it out loud and ask the students to tell you
which word you said.
Use the back chaining technique to drill.
e.g.
... told him... would’ve told him... I would’ve told him
Play phonemic bingo with the class.
Record another group of learners in conversation in English and ask your class to listen and evaluate their pronunciation according to the criteria you set, e.g. syllable stress/intonation/connected speech/phoneme sounds.
Play noughts and crosses with the problematic phonemes.
Ask students to listen to a short text, e.g. news broadcast, and write down the words they hear. Write theiranswers in BOLD (in capitals) on the board – play again until words are in a meaningful order with blanks forthe other words they missed. Ask them to reflect on why they heard these words and not others. Complete
the board-work with the other words in lower case. Replay text and ask students to read along at the same
pace, only focusing on the words in bold. Then repeat with all words, keeping the pace. Rub off some of thewords on the board and ask students to repeat the same task until they are listening and repeating without
any visual aids.
Dictate statements or questions to the students and ask them to write what they hear in their notebooks.
They compare answers, then write them on the board. Any issues related to pronunciation and spelling canthen be shared.
For a light Friday afternoon, you could ask students to play Battleships in pairs with problematic minimal pairs
on each axis.
Ask your students to model how they would say the expression if talking to their boss’s boss. Then how theywould say the expression if talking to their best friend.
Give students a list that the computer has recorded and translated incorrectly. Ask students to correct the
mistake and discuss why the computer made it.
e.g. Have you phone jaw parents this week?
These ship steak cars across the river.
Give the students two different colours of play dough and ask them to use one colour to make 3-5 balls(depending on the nature of your task) and the other colour to make one larger ball. Ask them to reflect what
they hear (in terms of stressed sounds) by placing the balls in an order on their desk. Read out your target
language, and repeat as necessary. You could introduce a 3rd colour if necessary.

Appendices Page 389

Give the students a table with three or four different columns. Head each column with a different word. Givethe students a range of words to categorise according to their pronunciation into the columns as appropriate.
Ask students to use the class text to search for the key pronunciation feature you are discussing, e.g. silent
letters, schwa, etc.
Use running dictation as a means to practise. Make it more challenging by using the phonemic script for the
text and ask students to translate it.
Repeat the key vocabulary in several different ways and ask the learners to identify “which sounds more
English”. Feed back as necessary.
(Prepared by Claire Fırat, 2012)

Page 390 3 Enriching 21st-century language education

Sales agents for publications of the Council of Europe
Agents de vente des publications du Conseil de l’Europe

BELGIUM/BELGIQUE
La Librairie Européenne The European Bookshop
Rue de l’Orme, 1
BE-1040 BRUXELLES
Tel.: + 32 (0)2 231 04 35
Fax: + 32 (0)2 735 08 60
E-mail: info@libeurop.eu
http://www.libeurop.be
Jean De Lannoy/DL Services
c/o Michot Warehouses
Bergense steenweg 77
Chaussée de Mons
BE-1600 SINT PIETERS LEEUW
Fax: + 32 (0)2 706 52 27
E-mail: jean.de.lannoy@dl-servi.com
http://www.jean-de-lannoy.be
CANADA
Renouf Publishing Co. Ltd.
22-1010 Polytek Street
CDN-OTTAWA, ONT K1J 9J1
Tel.: + 1 613 745 2665
Fax: + 1 613 745 7660
Toll-Free Tel.: (866) 767-6766
E-mail: order.dept@renoufbooks.com
http://www.renoufbooks.com

FINLAND/FINLANDE
Akateeminen Kirjakauppa
PO Box 128
Keskuskatu 1
FI-00100 HELSINKI
Tel.: + 358 (0)9 121 4430
Fax: + 358 (0)9 121 4242
E-mail: akatilaus@akateeminen.com
http://www.akateeminen.com
FRANCE
Please contact directly/
Merci de contacter directement
Council of Europe Publishing
Éditions du Conseil de l’Europe
F-67075 STRASBOURG Cedex
Tel.: + 33 (0)3 88 41 25 81
Fax: + 33 (0)3 88 41 39 10
E-mail: publishing@coe.int
http://book.coe.int
Librairie Kléber
1, rue des Francs-Bourgeois
F-67000 STRASBOURG
Tel.: + 33 (0)3 88 15 78 88
Fax: + 33 (0)3 88 15 78 80
E-mail: librairie-kleber@coe.int
http://www.librairie-kleber.com

RUSSIAN FEDERATION/FÉDÉRATION DE RUSSIE
Ves Mir
RU-117342 MOSCOW
Tel.: + 7 495 739 0971
Fax: + 7 495 739 0971
E-mail: orders@vesmirbooks.ru
http://www.vesmirbooks.ru
SWITZERLAND/SUISSE
Planetis Sàrl
16, chemin des Pins
CH-1273 ARZIER
Tel.: + 41 22 366 51 77
Fax: + 41 22 366 51 78
E-mail: info@planetis.ch
TAIWAN
Tycoon Information Inc.
5th Floor, No. 500, Chang-Chun Road
Taipei, Taiwan
Tel.: 886-2-8712 8886
Fax: 886-2-8712 4747, 8712 4777
E-mail: info@tycoon-info.com.tw
orders@tycoon-info.com.tw
UNITED KINGDOM/ROYAUME-UNICROATIA/CROATIE
Robert’s Plus d.o.o.
Marasoviçeva 67
HR-21000 SPLIT
Tel.: + 385 21 315 800, 801, 802, 803
Fax: + 385 21 315 804
E-mail: robertsplus@robertsplus.hr

NORWAY/NORVÈGE
Akademika
Postboks 84 Blindern
NO-0314 OSLO
Tel.: + 47 2 218 8100
Fax: + 47 2 218 8103
E-mail: support@akademika.no
http://www.akademika.no

CZECH REPUBLIC/RÉPUBLIQUE TCHÈQUE
Suweco CZ, s.r.o.
Klecakova 347
CZ-180 21 PRAHA 9
Tel.: + 420 2 424 59 204
Fax: + 420 2 848 21 646
E-mail: import@suweco.cz
http://www.suweco.cz

POLAND/POLOGNE
Ars Polona JSC
25 Obroncow Street
PL-03-933 WARSZAWA
Tel.: + 48 (0)22 509 86 00
Fax: + 48 (0)22 509 86 10
E-mail: arspolona@arspolona.com.pl
http://www.arspolona.com.pl

DENMARK/DANEMARK
GAD
Vimmelskaftet 32
DK-1161 KØBENHAVN K
Tel.: + 45 77 66 60 00
Fax: + 45 77 66 60 01
E-mail: reception@gad.dk
http://www.gad.dk

PORTUGAL
Marka Lda
Rua dos Correeiros 61-3
PT-1100-162 LISBOA
Tel: 351 21 3224040
Fax: 351 21 3224044
E-mail: apoio.clientes@marka.pt
www.marka.pt

PO Box 29
GB-NORWICH NR3 1GN
Tel.: + 44 (0)870 600 5522
Fax: + 44 (0)870 600 5533
E-mail: book.enquiries@tso.co.uk
http://www.tsoshop.co.uk
UNITED STATES and CANADA/ÉTATS-UNIS et CANADA
Manhattan Publishing Co
670 White Plains Road
USA-10583 SCARSDALE, NY
Tel: + 1 914 472 4650
Fax: + 1 914 472 4316
E-mail: coe@manhattanpublishing.com
http://www.manhattanpublishing.com

Council of Europe Publishing/Éditions du Conseil de l’Europe
F-67075 STRASBOURG Cedex
Tel.: + 33 (0)3 88 41 25 81 – Fax: + 33 (0)3 88 41 39 10 – E-mail: publishing@coe.int – Website: http://book.coe.int

Thisvolumeofcasecasestudieswillinterest
allthose
those
who
aim
todevelop
developlanguageThis
This
volumevolumeofofcasestudiesstudieswill
willinterest
interest
allallthose
who
who
aim
aim
totodevelop
language
languageeducation
in
order
to
promoteandsupportEurope’srichlinguisticandculturaleducation
education
inin
order
order
toto
promotepromoteandandsupportsupportEurope’sEurope’srich
richlinguistic
linguisticandandculturalculturaldi-di-diversity,
thus
fosteringa cultureofdemocracyandsocialjusticea timeinwhichversity,versity,thus
thus
fostering
fosteringa culturea culture
ofof
democracy
democracyandandsocialsocialjusticejustice
inin
a in
time
a time
inin
which
which
these
valuesareincreasingly
under
threat.
Thissituation
calls
a new
visionthese
these
valuesvaluesareareincreasingly
increasingly
under
under
threat.
threat.
This
This
situation
situation
calls
calls
forforafor
new
a new
visionvisionofofoflanguageeducation
in
which
the
developmentof
mediationandplurilingual/plurilanguage
languageeducation
education
inin
which
which
the
the
development
development
ofof
mediation
mediationandandplurilingual/pluriplurilingual/pluriculturalcompetencearecrucial.
culturalculturalcompetencecompetence
arearecrucial.
crucial.

The series Theof caseseriesstudiesof casepublishedstudies publishedin this volume
in thishavevolumebeenhaveselected
beenfrom
selectedover 30
from over 30that were carried
that were
outcarriedin the academicout in the year
academic
2018-19
yearas2018-19
a follow-up
as a tofollow-up
the conference
to the conference“CEFR Companion“CEFR Companion
Volume: Language
Volume: Language
Education Education
for Dynamic
forandDynamic
Inclusive
andSocieInclusive Societies – Promoting
ties – Promoting
PlurilingualPlurilingualand Pluriculturaland Pluricultural
Education,Education,” which was” whichheld inwas
Strasheld in Strasbourg in May
bourg
2018
in Mayto introduce
2018 to introduce
the CEFR Companion
the CEFR Companion
volume, publishedvolume, published
online in online inprovisionalprovisional
form in English
form andin English
Frenchandin February
French in2018.
February 2018.

EDUCATION FOR DEMOCRACYEDUCATION FOR DEMOCRACY

www.coe.int/lang-cefr
www.coe.int/lang-cefr

The
CEFR
Companion
The
The
CEFR
CEFR
Companion
Companion
volumeinpracticepracticevolumevolumeininpractice

The
CouncilofEuropeisthecontinent’s
leading
The
The
Council
Council
ofof
EuropeEurope
is is
the
the
continent’s
continent’s
leading
leadinghumanrightsorganisation.
It comprises
46
memberhuman
humanrightsrightsorganisation.
organisation.
It It
comprises
comprises4646
membermemberstates,includingallmembersoftheEuropean
Union.
states,states,includingincludingallallmembers
members
ofof
the
the
European
European
Union.
Union.
All
CouncilofEuropememberstateshave
signedAllAllCouncil
Council
ofof
EuropeEuropemembermemberstatesstateshave
have
signedsignedup
totheEuropeanConventionon
Human
Rights,
upup
to
to
the
the
European
EuropeanConvention
Convention
onon
Human
Human
Rights,Rights,atreatydesigned
toprotecthumanrights,democracya treatya treaty
designeddesigned
toto
protect
protecthuman
humanrights,rights,democracy
democracy
and
the
rule
of
law.
The
European
Court
of
Human
Rights
and
and
the
the
rule
rule
ofof
law.
law.
The
The
European
European
Court
Court
ofof
Human
Human
RightsRightsoversees
theimplementationoftheConvention
oversees
overseesthetheimplementation
implementation
ofof
the
the
Convention
Convention
inininthememberstates.
thethemembermemberstates.
states.

The Council
TheofCouncil
Europe ofis theEuropecontinent’s
is the continent’s
leading leading
human rights
humanorganisation.
rights organisation.
It comprises
It comprises
46 member
46 memberstates, including
states, including
all members
all membersof the Europeanof the European
Union. Union.
All CouncilAllofCouncil
Europe ofmemberEuropestates
memberhavestates
signedhave signed
up to the European
up to the European
Convention
Convention
on Humanon
Rights,Human Rights,
a treaty designed
a treaty todesigned
protectto
humanprotectrights,human
democracy
rights, democracy
and the rule
andofthelaw.rule
law. The European
TheofEuropean
Court of Human
Court ofRightsHuman Rights
oversees theoversees
implementation
the implementationof the Conventionof the Convention
ininthe member
thestates.
member states.

http://book.coe.int
http://book.coe.int
http://book.coe.int
978-92-871-8846-5
978-92-871-8846-5
978-92-871-8846-5€49/US$98€49/US$98€49/US$98

http://book.coe.int
http://book.coe.int
978-92-871-8846-5
978-92-871-8846-5€49/US$98€49/US$98

PREMS 080322

BIL
BIL
BIL

The studies
The
reportstudieson report
classroomon classroom
practice andpractice
awareness-raisingand awareness-raising
activities from
activities
all from allover Europe
overin Europe
secondaryin secondary
education,education,higher education,higher education,
heritage language
heritage educalanguage education, pre-service
tion, pre-service
teacher educationteacher education
and adult andeducation.
adult education.
The authors
The
outlineauthors
theiroutline theirexperienceexperiencein the languagein the classroom
language classroom
and with stakeholders
and with stakeholders
in relationin
torelation
media- to mediation, appreciation
tion, appreciationof literature,of literature,
plurilingualism,
plurilingualism,
online interaction
online interaction
and phonology.
and phonology.
The variousThe
chapters
variousexplore
chapters
theexplore
relevance
the andrelevance
usability
andofusability
the newofdescriptors
the new descriptors
forfor
the implementation
the implementationof an action-orientedof an action-oriented
approach approachto language
to education,
language education,
prepresenting thesenting
challenges
the challenges
and opportunities
and opportunities
they encountered
they encounteredin the process,in theandprocess,
the and thereactions ofreactions
their studentsof theirand
students
colleagues.
and colleagues.

PREMS 080322

www.coe.int/lang-cefr
www.coe.int/lang-cefr
www.coe.int/lang-cefr

PREMS 080322
PREMS 080322
PREMS 080322

The
seriesofcasestudiespublishedinthisvolumehave
been
selected
from
over
The
The
seriesseries
ofof
case
case
studiesstudiespublishedpublished
inin
this
this
volumevolume
have
have
been
been
selected
selected
from
from
over
over
303030that
werecarriedout
intheacademicyear
2018-19asafollow-up
totheconference
that
that
were
were
carriedcarried
out
out
inin
the
the
academicacademic
year
year
2018-192018-19asas
a follow-up
a follow-up
toto
the
the
conference
conference“CEFR
Companion
Volume:Language
EducationforDynamic
andInclusive
Socie“CEFR“CEFRCompanion
Companion
Volume:Volume:Language
Language
Education
Education
forforDynamic
Dynamic
andand
Inclusive
Inclusive
SocieSocieties–
Promoting
PlurilingualandPluricultural
Education,
”
which
was
held
in
Strasties
ties– Promoting– Promoting
Plurilingual
Plurilingualandand
Pluricultural
Pluricultural
Education,
Education,” which” which
was
was
held
held
inin
StrasStrasbourg
in
May
2018
to
introducethe
CEFR
Companion
volume,publishedonline
bourg
bourg
inin
May
May
2018
2018
toto
introduce
introduce
the
the
CEFR
CEFR
Companion
Companion
volume,volume,publishedpublishedonlineonlineinin inprovisionalform
inEnglishandFrenchinFebruary
2018.
provisional
provisional
form
form
inin
EnglishEnglishandandFrenchFrenchinin
February
February
2018.
2018.

These caseThesestudiescasereportstudieson report
experienceon experiencein a wide invarietya wideof variety
contexts
of withcontexts
the with theconcepts andconcepts
descriptors
and descriptorsof the Commonof theEuropean
CommonFramework
European Frameworkof Reference
offor
Reference
Lan- for Languages: Learning,guages:teaching,
Learning,assessment
teaching, assessment- Companion- Companion
volume (CEFR
volumeCompanion(CEFR Companion
vovolume), whichlume),
broadens
which thebroadensvision ofthethevision
CEFRof2001,
the CEFR
enriching
2001, theenriching
CEFR model
the CEFRin themodel in theareas of plurilingualism
areas of plurilingualism
and mediation.
and mediation.

BIL

BIL

ENRICHING 21ST CENTURY LANGUAGE EDUCATION

The
studiesreportonclassroompracticeandawareness-raising
activities
from
The
The
studiesstudiesreportreportononclassroomclassroompracticepracticeandandawareness-raisingawareness-raising
activities
activities
from
from
allallalloverEuropeinsecondaryeducation,highereducation,
heritage
languageeducaover
over
EuropeEuropeinin
secondarysecondaryeducation,
education,higherhighereducation,
education,
heritage
heritage
language
languageeducaeducation,
pre-service
teacher
educationandadulteducation.
Theauthors
outline
their
tion,
tion,
pre-service
pre-service
teacherteacher
education
education
and
and
adult
adult
education.
education.
The
The
authors
authors
outlineoutlinetheir
theirexperienceinthelanguageclassroom
andwithstakeholders
inrelationtomediaexperience
experience
inin
the
the
language
languageclassroomclassroom
and
and
with
with
stakeholders
stakeholders
inin
relation
relation
toto
mediamediation,
appreciationofliterature,
plurilingualism,
onlineinteraction
andphonology.
tion,
tion,
appreciation
appreciation
ofof
literature,
literature,
plurilingualism,
plurilingualism,
onlineonlineinteraction
interaction
andandphonology.
phonology.
Thevariouschapters
exploretherelevance
andusability
of
the
new
descriptors
TheThe
variousvariouschapters
chapters
exploreexplorethethe
relevance
relevance
andandusability
usability
ofof
the
the
new
new
descriptors
descriptors
forforfor
theimplementationofanaction-oriented
approachtolanguageeducation,
prethetheimplementation
implementation
ofofananaction-oriented
action-oriented
approachapproach
totolanguage
languageeducation,
education,
prepresenting
thechallenges
andopportunities
they
encounteredintheprocess,andthesentingsentingthethechallenges
challenges
andandopportunities
opportunities
they
they
encounteredencountered
inin
the
the
process,
process,
and
and
the
the
reactionsof
theirstudents
andcolleagues.
reactionsreactions
ofof
their
their
students
students
andandcolleagues.
colleagues.

ENRICHING 21ST CENTURY LANGUAGE EDUCATIONENRICHING 21STST CENTURY LANGUAGE EDUCATIONENRICHING 21 CENTURY LANGUAGE EDUCATIONENRICHING 21ST CENTURY LANGUAGE EDUCATION

These
case
studiesreportonexperience
experience
awide
wide
varietyofcontexts
contexts
with
the
These
These
case
case
studiesstudiesreportreportononexperience
ininainawide
varietyvarietyofofcontexts
with
with
the
the
concepts
anddescriptorsoftheCommonEuropean
FrameworkofReferencefor
Lanconcepts
concepts
andanddescriptors
descriptors
ofof
the
the
CommonCommonEuropean
European
Framework
Framework
ofof
Reference
Reference
forforLanLanguages:
Learning,
teaching,
assessment- Companion
volume(CEFR
Companion
voguages:
guages:Learning,
Learning,
teaching,
teaching,
assessment
assessment- Companion- Companion
volumevolume(CEFR(CEFR
Companion
Companion
vovolume),whichbroadensthevision
of
the
CEFR
2001,
enriching
the
CEFR
model
in
the
lume),lume),
which
which
broadens
broadensthethevisionvision
ofof
the
the
CEFR
CEFR
2001,
2001,
enrichingenriching
the
the
CEFR
CEFR
model
model
inin
the
the
areas
of
plurilingualism
andmediation.
areas
areas
ofof
plurilingualism
plurilingualism
andandmediation.
mediation.

EDUCATIONFOR
DEMOCRACYEDUCATIONEDUCATION
FOR FORDEMOCRACY
DEMOCRACYENRICHINGENRICHINGENRICHINGSTSTST21
CENTURY2121
CENTURYCENTURYLANGUAGELANGUAGELANGUAGEEDUCATIONEDUCATIONEDUCATION

This volume
Thisofvolume
case studies
of casewill
studies
interest
willallinterest
those who
all those
aim towhodevelop
aim tolanguage
develop language
education educationin order toinpromoteorder toandpromotesupportandEurope’s
supportrich
Europe’s
linguisticrichandlinguistic
culturalanddi-cultural diversity, thus
versity,fosteringthusafostering
culture ofa culture
democracyof democracy
and social andjusticesocialin ajusticetime ininwhicha time in whichthese values
these
arevalues
increasingly
are increasingly
under threat.
under
Thisthreat.
situation
This calls
situation
for a calls
new forvisiona newof vision of
language education
language educationin which thein whichdevelopment
the developmentof mediationof mediationand plurilingual/pluriand plurilingual/pluricultural competence
cultural competence
are crucial.are crucial.