1. Introduction
The notion of mediation has been the object of growing interest in second language education in recent years. The increasing awareness of the complex nature of the process of learning – and teaching – stretches our collective reflection towards less explored areas. In mediation, the immediate focus is on the role of language in processes like creating the space and conditions for communication and/or learning, constructing and co-constructing new meaning, and/or passing on information, whilst simplifying, elaborating, illustrating or otherwise adapting input in order to facilitate the process concerned. At a deeper level though, the notion of mediation embraces a broader spectrum of dimensions and connotations. Mediation has been defined as a ‘nomadic notion’ (Lenoir Reference Lenoir, Raisky and Caillot1996) insomuch as it is at the core of a variety of scientific disciplines and the term ‘mediation’ is used in different senses in different contexts.
In all contexts, mediation involves bridging and exchange between different elements and spaces. Multifaceted in its nature, the notion of mediation always implies a process. This process can be either social in nature or situate itself at the level of the individual. In the former case, it focuses on scaffolding (Wood, Bruner & Ross Reference Wood, Bruner and Ross1976), enhancing communication and reciprocal comprehension, or on bridging gaps and solving conflicts. In the latter, it focuses on the psycho-cognitive development of each individual. These two dimensions are nevertheless fully connected. Awareness of the interdependence of individual and collective, cognitive and social, intrapersonal and interpersonal has been crucial in our understanding of the nature of mediation. The socio-constructivist/sociocultural view of learning stresses and explains this interdependence (Lantolf Reference Lantolf2000). Mediation is at the core of knowledge (co-)construction. Indeed, language does not limit itself to transmitting knowledge or enabling communication: it becomes a major mediating tool as it serves both a social goal, when a group of learners constructively approach a task, and a private one, when individuals use the language to meditate their own thinking processes. Language itself is transformed into a process, it becomes languaging, ‘a dynamic, never-ending process of using language to make meaning’ (Swain Reference Swain and Byrnes2006: 96), and this process takes two forms: private speech and collaborative dialogue (Swain, Kinnear & Steinman Reference Swain, Kinnear and Steinman2015).
The CEFR (Council of Europe 2001) pioneered the introduction of mediation as a fourth mode of communication alongside reception, interaction and production. Although the CEFR does not fully develop the concept of mediation, it gives it a key role in its action-oriented approach and shows awareness of the diverse nature of mediation spanning the linguistic, cultural and social dimensions (Piccardo Reference Piccardo, Aden and Weissmann2012), emphasising the co-construction of meaning in interaction and the constant movement between the individual and the social level in language learning. The CEFR stresses the social, collaborative vision of language by seeing the user/learner as a social agent and an intermediary between different interlocutors.
The context to the current development of CEFR descriptors for mediation is an initiative of the Council of Europe to commission a text on the mediation function of schools (Coste & Cavalli Reference Coste and Cavalli2015) and an update of the CEFR's illustrative descriptors, including covering mediation. As no validated descriptors for mediation existed, documentary research for relevant literature as well as pedagogic and assessment tools was undertaken to define the constructs for categories of descriptors. Coste & Cavalli (Reference Coste and Cavalli2015) stress the dual nature of mediation by distinguishing between cognitive mediation (facilitating access to knowledge) and relational mediation (establishing and managing interpersonal relationships, usually in order to facilitate cognitive mediation). Although the two categories are interdependent, this distinction was pragmatically adopted as the basis for the mediation categories.
2. Descriptor scales
The categories for the mediation scales are provided in the following list.
MEDIATION ACTIVITIES
Relational Mediation (spoken)
• Establishing a positive atmosphere
• Creating pluricultural space
• Facilitating collaborative interaction with peers
• Managing interaction in plenary and in groups
• Resolving delicate situations and disputes
Cognitive Mediation
Constructing meaning (spoken)
• Collaborating to construct meaning
• Generating conceptual talk
Conveying received meaning (spoken)
• Relaying specific information
• Explaining data (e.g. in graphs, diagrams, charts)
• Processing
• Interpreting
• Spoken translation of written text (Sight translation)
Conveying received meaning (written)
• Relaying specific information
• Explaining data (e.g. in graphs, diagrams, charts)
• Processing
• Translating
MEDIATION STRATEGIES
• Linking to previous knowledge
• Amplifying text
• Streamlining text
• Breaking down complicated information
• Visually representing information
• Adjusting language
OTHER RELATED SCALES CREATED
• Online conversation and discussion
• Goal-oriented online transactions and collaboration
• Expressing a personal response to literature and art
• Analysis and criticism of literature and art
• Exploiting pluricultural repertoire
• Plurilingual comprehension
• Exploiting plurilingual repertoire
The ‘other related scales created’ concern aspects that might not be considered, strictly speaking, to be mediation, but in which mediation is clearly involved. On the one hand, the Council of Europe had received specific requests for scales on online interaction and on appreciation of literature, and on the other, during the work on mediation, it appeared clear that plurilingual and pluricultural competences (CEFR Section 6.1.3) were particularly relevant to mediation in a cross-linguistic context.
3. Validation
Three phases of validation were carried out between February and November 2015.
Phase 1: In these workshops, in which 137 institutes and 990 respondents took part, the task was to identify the intended category of the descriptors, to rate them for clarity, pedagogical usefulness and relation to real world language use, and to suggest improvements to the wording. A very high number of informants did suggest reformulations, often striking through or radically editing subordinate clauses, which reinforced previous studies showing that teachers prefer descriptors of up to 20 words (North Reference North2000: 345). The results enabled the team to weed out less successful descriptors, and revise others.
Phase 2: In this phase, in which 189 institutions from 45 countries and 1,294 persons took part, respondents judged the CEFR level of descriptors presented in a series of 23 overlapping questionnaires. For each descriptor, they answered the question: At what CEFR level do you think a person can do what is defined in the descriptor? Each participant entered their decisions on level first on paper and then, after being provided the opportunity for reflection and review, on their computer. The results enabled the working group to weed out or revise descriptors which were assigned to a wide spread of levels. A Rasch analysis was also carried out to ‘anchor’ the descriptors to the scale underlying the CEFR levels (North Reference North2000).
Phase 3: An online survey then took place in English and French. Distribution to the institutions that had taken part in Phase 2 was accompanied by an open call through international professional associations and organisations involved in language teaching and testing, which resulted in 3503 usable responses. The survey task replicated the way the original CEFR illustrative descriptor scale had been calibrated. The instruction was to think about how a person that respondents knew very well (themselves or someone else) and answer the following question: Could you, or the person concerned, do what is described in the descriptor? Respondents used the same 0–4 rating scale that had been used to calibrate the original CEFR illustrative descriptors.
4. Results
After the analysis had been completed, there were 395 validated, calibrated descriptors. One of the striking aspects of the project was the overall coherence between aspects of proficiency scaled in the new descriptors and those of the 2001 descriptors from the original research (North Reference North2000). This was a considerable achievement considering that the areas being described were very different, the type of informants was substantially different (mainly university teachers rather than secondary school teachers), informants were from 45 countries rather than just from Switzerland, and the process took place 20 years later. The project proved once again the importance of undertaking qualitative validation with groups of independent informants who are representative of the end users in the development of descriptors, as in the original research (North Reference North2000). The experience with the analysis also reiterates the fact that no magic solutions exist in standard setting, that complementary standard-setting methods should be used, and all the evidence taken into account in making a considered judgement (Council of Europe 2009).
5. Follow-ups
Two follow-up surveys were carried out in February 2016. In the first, for phonology, a set of descriptors that had been edited after feedback from consultants was presented in an online survey to respondents from Phase 3 who had expressed their interest. The survey repeated the Phase 3 methodology, with respondents using around 30 descriptors to assess the overall phonological control, the sound articulation and the use of prosodic features of user/learners shown on videos. The second follow-up survey calibrated further descriptors for Exploiting plurilingual repertoire and Exploiting pluricultural repertoire. This follow-up survey used the Phase 2 methodology.
The proposed wider set of CEFR illustrative descriptors, including those from the mediation project, will be presented to users in a consultative process before publication, following the precedent set with the CEFR itself. The process will start in June 2016 with a consultative meeting involving experts from related projects and the descriptors will be circulated in the autumn in a preliminary edition for wider consultation and piloting. The project report together with the technical reports on each of the three validation phases will be made available on the Council of Europe website.
