In the context of this project, collaboration in teachers’ work is seen as an essential component for transforming educational practices, because it breaks teachers’ isolation and facilitates change. Collaboration involves professional interactions that are more or less interdependent, determined by common tasks or objectives (Dochy et al., 2015: p. 23), such as the desire to co-construct a school culture marked by pluralistic approaches to languages and cultures. Here we adopt a strong interpretation of the concept of collaboration as a fundamental means of transforming teaching knowledge and practices. This includes cooperation between teachers and/or with other actors within the educational community, and is reflected in actions of assistance, support, and capable of leading to a plurilingual and intercultural education.

Further information

As explained by Villavicencio, Jaffe-Walter & Klevan (2021), “The literature on teacher collaboration emphasizes that effective collaboration involves a ‘deprivatization’ of practice (Little, 1990) as teachers come together to reflect on and share information related to teaching and learning, engage in inquiry into students’ needs, and learn new pedagogical strategies (Cochran-Smith & Lytle, 1999; Datnow, 2011; Little, 2003; McLaughlin & Talbert, 2001)” (pp. 103-227). In this sense, collaboration is considered essential if teachers want to change established teaching methodologies and act to make plurilingual and intercultural education a reality in language and culture teaching/learning contexts.

As with the Framework of reference for pluralistic approaches to languages and cultures (FREPA) (see the entry Pluralistic approaches to languages and cultures in this glossary), we have adopted the following theoretical framework, drawing from various works in the field of educational sciences:

Competence refers to “the ability of a subject to mobilise, in an integrated way, internal resources (knowledge, skills and attitudes) and external resources to effectively address a set of complex tasks” (Beckers, 2002: p. 57).

Candelier et al. (2012) give an example of the link between a competence (adaptation) and the internal resources set out by FREPA (pp. 84-91). As for external resources, we might think of a dictionary, or a person with competence in a language whom we can ask for help.

Further information

As Le Boterf (1994: p. 16) points out: “While it is clear that a competence can only mobilise internal resources if the individual disposes of these resources, and that therefore working towards mastery of a competence presupposes working towards mastery of the internal resources that it mobilises, most authors insist that "competence does not reside in the resources (knowledge, abilities, etc.) to be mobilised, but in the actual mobilisation of these resources”.

It is worth noting that another Council of Europe reference framework uses the distinction between competences and resources, the Reference Framework of Competences for a Culture of Democracy (www.coe.int/en/web/reference-framework-of-competences-for-democratic-culture/rfcdc).

Linguistic insecurity corresponds to a feeling of uncertainty and depreciation that some speakers experience in relation to their own ways of expressing themselves, which are compared unfavourably to other forms of expression deemed more legitimate. Closely linked to representations, the notion is built on the parallel between the norm (correct usage according to the speaker) and self-evaluation (personal usage according to the speaker). It also plays an essential role in exchanges between languages, as Aude Bretegnier explains:

“Feelings of linguistic security and insecurity both appear to be linked precisely to the representations that speakers construct of boundaries, boundaries between languages, norms and groups, boundaries between what is within the norm and what is excluded from it, between the legitimate and the illegitimate, between the Same and the Other, between the inside and the outside” (2002: p. 12, our translation). Indeed, linguistic insecurity results from cross-linguistic relations arising from the comparison of one’s own way of speaking with legitimate language, or the status accorded to it, internalised by the speaker through comparison with the status of another language, or another way of speaking (Calvet, 1999, our translation).

Further information

More recently (Klinkenberg, 2020) explains that linguistic insecurity should be treated less as a state and more as a process to be considered from an experiential perspective. This author suggests expanding the concept of insecurity to all semiotic behaviours, not just language. Acknowledging that understanding languages requires considering their social backgrounds, the author also proposes re-evaluating the importance of existential and social variables that condition the notion of insecurity and play a role in the adjustment processes between the individual and the world.

In the field of language education, mediation has been described as a language activity in its own right by the CEFR (2001): “In both the receptive and productive modes, the written and/or oral activities of mediation make communication possible between persons who are unable, for whatever reason, to communicate with each other directly. Translation or interpretation, a paraphrase, summary or record, provides for a third party a (re)formulation of a source text to which this third party does not have direct access.” (p.&nbps;14)

For the Guide for the development and implementation of curricula for plurilingual and intercultural education (2016) “In modern language teaching, presented as an emblematic example, mediation may be defined as an interface between comprehension and production. The strong emphasis on both the plurilingual and the cultural dimension in foreign language mediation activities means that mediation is an important part of any curriculum for plurilingual and intercultural education.” (pp. 11-12)

Further information

The Companion Volume to the CEFR (2020) stresses that cross-linguistic mediation “involve[s] social and cultural competence as well as plurilingual competence” (p. 91). Given the variety of situations in which mediation is mobilised and the complexity of the ways in which it is carried out, the descriptor scales are presented here in three groups, which implies a broader definition:

“'Mediating a text' involves passing on to another person the content of a text to which they do not have access, often because of linguistic, cultural, semantic or technical barriers. […]

'Mediating concepts' refers to the process of facilitating access to knowledge and concepts for others, particularly if they may be unable to access this directly on their own. […]

'Mediating communication' aims to facilitate understanding and shape successful communication between users/learners who may have individual, sociocultural, sociolinguistic or intellectual differences in standpoint.” (p. 91)

According to the authors of the Framework of Reference for Pluralistic Approaches to Languages and Cultures (FREPA), pluralistic approaches are “didactic approaches which use teaching-learning activities involving several (i.e. more than one) varieties of languages or cultures” (FREPA website, Pluralistic approaches section>).

These approaches follow on from the concept of plurilingual and intercultural competence adopted by the Council of Europe and constitute a tool for the implementation of plurilingual and intercultural education (see these entries in this glossary).

In the history of language teaching, the four pluralistic approaches usually described (Awakening to languages, Integrated didactic approach, Intercomprehension between related languages, Intercultural education – ibid.) pre-existed the concept under which the authors of FREPA brought them together at the beginning of this century. Their grouping under a common umbrella has facilitated their dissemination and highlighted the synergies that can be established between them within a curriculum.

Further information

Pluralistic approaches can be seen as a proposal for structuring and giving concrete form to what is also known as the Didactics of plurilingualism. In principle, they encompass the same teaching-learning approaches (Candelier & De Pietro, forthcoming).

Each of the pluralistic approaches aims at specific goals that correspond to diverse and complementary educational needs (e.g. introducing linguistic and cultural diversity, assisting in the teaching of a given language, cf. FREPA website, Pluralistic approaches section). However, due to their common characteristic expressed by the very definition of pluralistic approaches, they often develop competences, knowledge, attitudes and skills (see the entry Competences and resources in this same glossary) of a similar nature among learners. This led to the groupings of these competences, knowledge, attitudes and skills into a single framework, FREPA.

FREPA aims to contribute to the dissemination of pluralistic approaches, whether in terms of curricula, teaching tools, teacher education or classroom implementation. Its website also offers teaching materials and information on its use.

For this concept, we will use the definition given in Recommendation CM/Rec (2022)1 of the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe to member states:

“'Plurilingual and intercultural education' is a holistic concept that has an impact on all areas of education policy and practice. Setting out to foster the development of integrated linguistic repertoires in which languages interrelate and interact, it takes explicit account of and seeks to bring into interaction with one another:

i. the languages and cultures that learners bring with them, including sign, minority and migrant languages and cultures;

ii. the language/s of schooling, which vary in genre and terminology according to the different subjects taught and differ in significant ways from the language of informal everyday communication;

iii. regional, minority and other languages and cultures that are part of the curriculum;

iv. foreign languages (modern and classical);

v. other languages and cultures that are not present in school and not part of the official curriculum. “(Council of Europe 2022, p. 13)

Further information

Among the many functions of plurilingual and intercultural education, the same text stresses that it is “essential to education for democratic culture”, “respects and values linguistic and cultural diversity” and “supports the inclusion of disadvantaged and marginalised learners on an equal footing with other learners”.

Pluralistic approaches to languages and cultures constitute a global tool for the implementation of plurilingual and intercultural education (Candelier, 2019).

According to the Guide for the development of language education policies in Europe (Beacco and Byram, 2007: p. 10), plurilingualism is “the potential and/or actual ability to use several languages to varying levels of proficiency and for different purposes”. A distinction is thus made between “plurilingualism as a speaker’s competence (being able to use more than one language) and multilingualism as the presence of languages in a given geographical area: there is a shift, therefore, from a perspective focusing on languages (a state may be referred to as monolingual or multilingual) to one that focuses on speakers”.

To this plurilingualism that concerns “languages” should be added the competence to use varieties within a given language, whether they be dialects, sociolects or registers – what Wandruszka (1971) calls “internal plurilingualism”. This second aspect of plurilingualism is all the more important for education, as school itself and its subjects rely on specific registers (Beacco et al., 2016: p. 83).

Plurilingualism is not limited to mastering languages or language varieties. It also includes the competence to “switch from one language to another according to the situation” (Coste, Moore and Zarate, 2009: p. 19), whether this involves “switching from one language to another in the same conversation” (cf. code-switching, ibid. ), linguistic mediation or the use of one language or variety to understand or produce in another language or variety (see certain descriptors of dimension 2 of the reference framework produced in this project), or to learn it (as in the didactics of intercomprehension).

As regards plurilingual and pluricultural competence, the definition given in the Guide for the development and implementation of curricula for plurilingual and intercultural education seems to be the most comprehensive: “Plurilingual and intercultural competence is the ability to use a plural repertoire of linguistic and cultural resources to meet communication needs or interact with other people, and enrich that repertoire while doing so. Plurilingual competence refers to the repertoire of resources which individual learners acquire in all the languages they know or have learned, and which also relate to the cultures associated with those languages (languages of schooling, regional/minority and migration languages, modern or classical languages)” (Beacco et al., 2016: p. 10). This definition is in line with those proposed by Coste, Moore & Zarate as early as 1997 (2009: p. 11), and then by the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages (Council of Europe, 2001: p. 168).

Professional development is here understood as the process and outcome of a willingness and ability to transform oneself as a teacher or teacher educator, through reflection, action and collaboration with other actors in the educational community, throughout one’s career. Professional development is reflected in the ability to take charge of one’s professional path by engaging in the transformation of practices, capable, for example, of contributing to plurilingual and intercultural education.

Further information

As Lefeuvre, Garcia and Namolovan write, “Professional development takes on various meanings in the scientific literature. Definitions vary depending on the theoretical perspective to which the author adheres: developmental perspective or professionalising perspective (Uwamariya & Mukamuera, 2005)”. Here we adopt a developmental perspective which considers the dynamic processes of practices and ways of thinking (in this case, practices and ways of thinking related to languages and cultures) to be determining factors in teacher education.

Lafortune and Deaudelin define the reflective practitioner as “the person who is capable, on the one hand, of describing and analysing their practice as well as examining its effectiveness and, on the other hand, of creating or adapting their own models of practice by drawing on existing models (intervention or support models) in order to make their practice more effective” (Lafortune and Deaudelin, 2001: p. 205, our translation).

Further information

In education research, the concept of reflexivity gained a central position from the 1980s onwards. The work of the American philosopher Schön (1983, 1993), among others, contributed to the ‘reflexive turn’ (Tardif, Borges and Malo, 2012) that has become prominent in teaching and education practices. In most definitions of the concept, reflection is regarded as a necessary phase of professional development aimed at transformation, through critical scrutiny and awareness of the underlying beliefs in one's own practices.

Regarding its implementation, researchers have distinguished different moments and modalities concerning the relationship between reflection and action: reflection for action, action resulting from reflection, reflection during action and after action.

In its various interpretations, the concept presents challenges in terms of definition and implementation (Beauchamp, 2012).

Some authors emphasise the impossibility of objectivity and exhaustiveness in a rational analysis, incapable of fully grasping the complexity of the meanings to be interpreted. They argue for “an experiential understanding of the meaning of the world (embodied, and present in sensitivity, imagination, affectivity)” (de Robillard, 2021: 294).