Innovative Features of a Plurilingual Approach in Language Teaching: Implications from the LINCDIRE Project
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Language teaching methodologies over the past decade have been gradually moving towards more plurilingual approaches to language teaching (Conteh & Meier, 2014; May, 2014; Taylor & Snoddon, 2013; Lau & Van Viegen, 2020). The call for a multi/plurilingual turn in language education marks the move from language separation to integration of languages in the classroom. In turn, this has been accompanied by the emergence of innovative action-oriented and task-based approaches (Author, 2019; Author, in press; van den Branden, et al., 2009). These important developments may raise ambivalent responses, especially in contexts embracing more traditional approaches to language teaching. To address this ambivalence, this article aims to present the successes of a plurilingual action-oriented approach and outline its innovative features. We present data from multiphase, mixed methods research study (Creswell & Plano Clark, 2011) involving 140 participants (25 teachers; 115 students) from a range of culturally and linguistically diverse classrooms represented by nine languages. The results of the data analysis suggest a number of successful and challenging areas within the project. Defining the innovative features of the adopted methodology and examining ways they were implemented by teachers and embraced by students, we outline the most effective aspects of the research project. Building on a broad view of mediation that encompasses the Vygotskian concept (Lantolf et al., 2015) expanded through an embodied and enactive view of cognition (Love, 2014 ) and the cyclical intersubjective process that characterizes human agency (Author, in press; Raimondi, 2014), while taking into account a set of recently developed mediation descriptors (Council of Europe, 2020), we provided both a conceptual and practical frame for the innovative action-oriented tasks, connection of language and culture, and integration of online and in-class learning via the digital platform LITE (Language Integration Through E-portfolio). Finally, we discuss implications from the LINCDIRE project for teachers, administrators, and policy-makers.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.011 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.024 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.014 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.014 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".