Plurilingualism and Multimodality: The Metanoia Within Reach
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Drawing on the evolution of our thinking around expedited learning and more egalitarian classroom spaces where learners are afforded greater agency and opportunities to tap into their full linguistic repertoires (Todeva & Morule, 2009; Todeva, 2016) and on insights from complex dynamic systems theory, this paper offers a framework for dynamically aligning research on multimodality and plurilingualism with inquiry-based classroom practice. We argue that despite the existence of important research shedding light on the processes underlying our meaning-making and communicative abilities, languages continue to be taught as bounded entities and many instructional and assessment practices still reflect monolingual ideologies and nativespeakerist mindsets. Adopting a plurilingual, multimodal mindset provides a way for teachers, students, and researchers to bring their practices in line with the increasingly complex manner in which people construct, share, and access knowledge. How to achieve this metanoia— this shift of mind towards linguistic and modal plurality—is the main thrust of this paper. We provide concrete examples of classroom plurilingual explorations and an emic narrative of one teacher’s journey. Finally, we call for transformed research practices grounded in retrodiction (Larsen-Freeman, 2009) and for more nimble multimodal knowledge dissemination to support this realignment. En s’inspirant de l’évolution de notre réflexion sur l’apprentissage accéléré et des espaces de salle de classe plus égalitaires où on accorde aux apprenants plus d’autonomie et d’occasions de se servir de tout leur répertoire linguistique (Todeva & Morule, 2009; Todeva, 2016) et sur les aperçus de la théorie des systèmes dynamiques complexes, cet article propose un cadre de travail dans le but d’aligner de façon dynamique la recherche sur la multimodalité et le plurilinguisme sur la pratique en salle de classe fondée sur l’enquête. Nous avançons que malgré l’existence de recherche importante mettant en lumière les processus qui soustendent nos capacités à faire sens et de communication, on continue à enseigner les langues comme des entités limitées et de nombreuses pratiques d’enseignement et d’évaluation reflètent encore des idéologies monolingues et des mentalités de locuteurs de langue maternelle. L’adoption d’une mentalité plurilingue et multimodale fournit aux enseignants, aux étudiants et aux chercheurs une façon d’aligner leurs pratiques sur la manière de plus en plus complexe dont les gens construisent, partagent et accèdent à la connaissance. Comment réussir cette métanoia – cette réorientation de l’esprit vers la pluralité linguistique et modale – constitue l’idée directrice de cet article. Nous fournissons des exemples concrets d’exploration plurilingue dans la salle de classe ainsi qu’un récit émique du parcours d’un enseignant. En conclusion, nous appelons à des pratiques de recherche transformées, enracinées dans la rétrodiction (Larsen-Freeman, 2009), à une dissémination multimodale plus souple pour soutenir ce réalignement.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.040 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".