So I think we can get started
in our second this morning
and our second day of the conference.
We started an hour ago
in the plenary sessions, but
now we have the honor and pleasure
to have our third plenary speaker
Anna Marzà from Universitat Jaume I in Spain.
She holds a Ph.D.
in Audiovisual Translation and is presently lecturer, Associate
Professor in the Department of Pedagogy, Social Sciences
and Language and Literature Didactics of the Universitat Jaume I in Castelló,
where she teaches clear an integrated language
teaching both in graduate and postgraduate levels.
Her main research areas include the analysis of dubbese
and the use of AVT as a tool for language learning
and the teaching learning of languages in a multilingual context.
Her ongoing and most recent projects are work are focused
on the use of CLIL in arts education, the evaluation of
plurilingual competencies with the use of translation
within PLURITAV and the use of home languages
in class to promote multicultural and multilingual awareness.
She often collaborates with education
stakeholders, both in research projects and knowledge
transfer activities such as seminars, conferences and workshops.
I don't know if
I met her before at a previous conference,
I guess I did, but what I remember is last year meeting her in Parma.
Oh, I'll take that.
Thank you.
I was at a session she gave at a conference in Parma
and I really loved what she
had to give there and what she presented.
And also I've read some papers written by her
and she specializes in didactic audiovisual
translation, she's specialized in this area for a while now.
And I thought she had to be here.
And and she said yes from day one, as well.
So I'm very happy and honored and really looking forward
to listening to what she has to tell us today.
Well, thanks Noa.
A little bit more about me.
I was... I'd like to say I was born and raised a translator.
I worked both professionally and also academically in
Audiovisual Translation.
But it's been already ten years now that I moved on to education.
So in translation I was lucky enough to have Frede Chaume
as my academic father, and having TRAMA as my family.
So you can imagine that I'm absolutely
thrilled to be here because
my trajectory has been to,
in the end, combine audiovisual translation and education.
So it's an absolute honor to be here.
And I'm really thankful to Noa and the conference
and the TRADILEX group for inviting me.
So, let's begin because maybe these presentation
is going to be a little bit different from the rest
because it focuses on different things.
So this is, more or less, the outline.
I'm going to begin with the notion of plural lingual competence,
which is central to my presentation.
And I think should also be central to didactic
audiovisual translation. So I'm going to talk about that.
Then I'm going to focus a little bit more on the PluriTAV project,
which is a project that took place between 2017 and 2019.
And I'm going to explain the results,
the hypotheses we got from the project and also the objective.
And then I'll move on to highlight the areas that I think still need
a lot of attention from the point of view of didactic AVT
And the conclusions in which I would love you to participate because,
I mean, I'm going to throw a lot of ideas here,
so it would be very nice to have some feedback and even discussions.
So let's begin.
I want to begin with this image of intertwined and connected leaf
veins that contribute to forming that beautiful, complex and mutable tree.
Because these starts and we can explore with that
the notion of lingual competence, which, again, I think
is at the very core of the relation between
audiovisual translation and language learning.
So, what is plurilingual competence?
You can read it there.
I don't have to read it for you, but the highlighted area is that
the competence, the plural lingual competence is not seen as the juxtaposition
of different competencies and distinct competencies,
but one complex and composite competence.
In fact, Cook calls these multi-competence.
What these means in more layman's terms is that
languages are connected in our brains and learners
not only use these connections, but they can exploit them
to better learn languages and to do that
more efficiently and to be more competent users.
So this shift in the... I forgot to mention that this is the
description that the framework
of reference for the languages uses.
Okay? So, the framework adopted
these definition and these notion of pluri lingual competence.
So this shift in the conceptualization of what
pluri lingual individuals do with languages
and how they learn languages
and how we activate all the linguistic resources that we have,
it costs a small but very powerful, inclusion
in the common European framework, which is mediation.
But the definition
that you have here
already talks about complexity,
and it has indeed proven very complex
to bring that concept to a practical level.
I'm in 2001, this concept
was included in the common European framework of reference.
But in that framework then when you look at the levels,
they are linked to each language in isolation
and they don't give in that first framework
specific descriptors for PPC, which is the plurilingual
and pluri cultural competence or mediation.
So the Council of Europe realized that
researchers, practitioners, they needed to detangle that complex
net that the plurilingual,
pluricultural competencies and they needed to operationalize it
for planning, for assessment, for research.
So in 2010, well, the Council of Europe
commissioned a group of researchers and scholars,
to elaborate a framework which was the framework of reference
for plural approaches, the FREPA.
And they did define what these competencies, but maybe they did it too
well because we ended up with five... over 500 descriptors
for the complex competence, which is the plurilingual
competence, and they were non-graded descriptors.
Then, in 2018, we got the companion volume
that we all know where mediation is already
described with the scriptures and also the plurilingual
and pluricultural competence.
And then in 2020 we got the final version of that.
So you can see that this initial notion
had a long journey.
What are the implications of this, of this concept?
The importance of this concept and the importance
of what it was given in the common European framework
led to an important implication in education.
As you can see here
it says that the main aim of language education
is not only teaching students specific languages, of course,
that is also the objective, but to give the opportunity
to students to develop these multilingual
and plurilingual and pluricultural competence.
So, as Oriol has said
as language educators we cannot forget that
and we cannot ignore the reality
of how our students use and learn languages.
And we need to incorporate that to the didactic approach that we take.
We need to help students foster
their plurilingual competence, develop it, to be aware of it.
So from that,
now we are immersed in what has been called
the multilingual turn in language education.
And there have been several approaches
that have been proposed and tested
that do precisely that, that systematize the way
we can help students to better know and use their plurilingual competence,
their repertoire.
And here are just a few, but they are very relevant
and you will see all the references because
I have tried to cite here the pioneer so that you can see,
you can get an idea of the dimension and the depth of this field.
And they started what have then become whole avenues of research.
So we have the integrated language teaching and learning, which is not
CLIL, is not content in language,
but integrated between languages, teaching languages.
I'm not going to explain this
here, but all together and related different languages, okay?
Also into comprehension of éveil aux langues.
And the latest has been translanguaging,
which goes a little bit further because it even challenges
the notion of, as Ofelia Garcia says, named languages.
It focuses on the repertoire.
And from the field of education
translation has also been included in these approaches, for a long time,
and by very relevant names like De Fiettro, Camins, Maniac,
but it has only been treated tangentially.
From the field of translation, of course
we have two important approaches which are there, the didactic
audiovisual translation and translation in other learning contexts.
And I'm including
both of them here, because I want to reinforce this idea
that we are immersed in this paradigm of
multilingual approach to language education.
I'll get to that later on.
The TOLC, translation for the language context
does incorporate the multilingual approach through
what they call integrated plurilingual approach.
And within the didactic audiovisual translation
the project PluriTAV was the first attempt at
assessing the plurilingual pluricultural competence.
So it was an attempt to integrate these multilingual approach
into the didactic audiovisual translation.
So we, in PluriTAV
we focused on that, on the assessment of not linguistic competencies,
but the plurilingual and pluricultural competencies.
This is the rationale behind PluriTAV.
We wanted to start looking and I emphasize, start looking
because there was nothing done there, to start looking at a phenomenon
that had already been studied
from a different perspective, from the linguistic perspective.
The plurilingual and pluricultural competence is still, in a way
fragmented, almost uncharted territory.
So PluriTAV was conceived as an exploratory research
aimed at establishing some hypotheses that could move
and support future research, rather than finding breakthroughs.
And that is what we intended to do.
And I'm going to give you a few ideas here of what we found.
As everything we do, we do it in a team.
So I'm talking here about PluriTAV
but all these people are behind and not behind along me
Okay?
So all the work is collective and I want to credit my colleagues.
You can read them here, especially the PI Juanjo Martinez Sierra
and for all the hard work, and also especially Bea Cerezo
who's also here
we've been working on these statistic analysis of data which is hard
and also with Gloria Torralba and Rocio Baños
because we worked on the... I'll talk about that
we worked on the assessment tool for the plurilingual
and pluricultural competence.
So the objective of PluriTAV
was to explore the effect of didactic audiovisual translation
on the plurilingual and pluricultural competence.
We're not focusing here on specific linguistic abilities like vocabulary,
etc., but on plurilingual competencies
as described by the us
I will say later on, the framework of reference.
Okay? As far as methodology is concerned
it was clear that it was an exploratory research
because there was little to none quantitative research done so far.
And that is why we took that approach,
because we wanted to contribute to the field with that approach.
It was quasi experimental.
We had pre and post tests, control groups, experimental groups
with roughly the same language level from the same BA,
but we had a convenient sampling method and of course we did
not control other variables that could make it fully experimental.
The number of students was not enough.
So we have all of these problems that, you know, you already
have to endure.
And as a pedagogy, we used didactic or didactic sequences
as the source of intervention with the students, which I'll explain
because this is a pedagogical proposal from the field
of language education.
So these were our students.
They had a B1/B2 level and they were a Spanish and Catalan speakers.
So bilingual.
They were university students.
They were studying English in the
in the English BA.
We had... we started with a pilot
in a using dubbing sequence
and for the quasi experimental part, we had two control groups,
as you will see, with 36 students and an experimental
group with 122.
within the experimental group, we prepared
four different didactic sequences using four different audiovisual
translation modes, dubbing, subtitling
audio description and free commentary.
The two control groups were, one of them was equivalent,
we could say, to the audio description
and free commentary, and the other one was equivalent to dubbing. Why?
Because they were parallel groups in the same course
so we could compare.
Subtitling, the subtitling group
we did not manage to find the control group.
Things that happen, again.
It's a didactic sequence lasted for
roughly 6 to 8 hours, and that is also important.
I'm going to remind you later because it has some consequences.
So what is a didactic sequence?
It's a specific proposal of what has been called
didactic engineering, which sounds great, very professional
and it's a way to systematize
teacher planning and the linguistic work with students.
It was created by adults and newly in engineer, and they, didactic
sequences have a whole body of research and practice behind them.
They are now considered
successful educational practices for language learning.
And for those of you who maybe it's more well known, it shares many
similarities with task based learning, of course, different nuances.
But you can think about it are similar approaches.
The... sorry, the didactic sequences
focus on language use based on textual genres.
That is the main instrument
they use, textual genres, and from textual genres,
the students get to learn more micro linguistic aspects,
what's always related to the use
within a specific genre and contextualized.
This is how they are structured.
You have an initial situation in which you present
a problem to the students.
For example, imagine an audio description sequence
we could be watching a clip with no images and the sound
and no AD so that they could find where the problem is.
Then you start with that, or students start with an initial production,
which is producing a text that has some connections
to the main genre that you're working with
Again, in the case of audio description, it could be describing a photograph
or describing a video without any text in it.
Then the initial production.
Of course, the objective of that
is to see how much or how little your students know about that genre
and what specific linguistic abilities today already have or not.
And then from that, you plan a series of workshops
that focus on important, either linguistic, textual,
cultural, pragmatic aspects for that specific genre.
In audio description, you could focus on vocabulary precision
richness, also prosody, relevance,
whatever you feel is important for your students, their level, etc.
And then there's the final production where they,
of course, produce a text of that genre
in ETs chat with the group or even other recipients.
Because again, the focus of didactic sequences is on language use.
There is a joint review and the final production
can either be repeated, improved, or maybe even
you can ask for a different final production from the same genre.
So why did we use this structure in PluriTAV?
Because the work is done
at the textual level, much as translation is, as well.
The objective and the recipient of the message is highly present,
so it allows for more contextualized use of language.
Hm.. So it also gives
great importance to the analysis of the text itself,
the textual and contextual aspects and that allowed us to consider
the various audiovisual type modes as genres within this approach.
And also, we also use these because it has been applied
widely in language teaching from a multilingual perspective,
because it allows the transfer of common abilities
among languages and also it allows
to focus on similarities and differences between languages.
You can use audio descriptions in different languages if you want
and compare them.
So with this structure, the different didactic sequences
were created for PluriTAV,
each of them focusing on a specific audiovisual type mode.
So this is how we applied the didactic audiovisual translation.
But our objective was to assess how
it affected the plurilingual and pluricultural competence.
So these had to be assessed,
and that is one of the main
challenges in multilingual education.
How to assess the plurilingual and pluricultural competence, which
is highly complex, has been defined with more than 500 descriptors.
So what do we do?
In fact, the first issue that needs to be clarified
when you want to assess, when you design an assessment tool
for the plurilingual and pluricultural competencies
which are the components that constitute this competence?
And then, which ones do you want to assess?
Then, there is also the problem of
how do we assess this? Quantitatively, qualitatively.
Some authors argue that PPC would be better assessed
in a formative way, but then rather than summative,
but then in Greece, for example, we have official language tests
like a escuela oficial de idiomas, amongst those official language tests,
they use a battery of activities as well to assess the PPC and
the are sumatively and large scale.
So it can also be done.
Gorter & Cenoz found three trends in in the way
we can assess PPC, they are complimentary
I'm not going to really explain them.
You have the reference here, but I want to show this
because within PluriTAV, we focused on one of these trends.
So from this big picture, what did we do in PluriTAV?
How did we choose the components?
If you remember the dates, the year, we started in 2017,
the first companion volume was published in 2018,
so the only framework we had was the FREPA with those 500
descriptors, out of these myriads of descriptors
remember, this was an exploratory research.
There was nothing done.
So, how did we choose?
So what we could only do was start scratching the surface.
We ended up choosing six groups of descriptors
that we thought could be more affected by the use of translation.
But this had to be a subjective choice because there
was nothing done before.
We did take both knowledge
and skills so that we could compare how they behaved and that was good
choice, as you will see, because we did see differences
in terms of quantitative qualitative assessment
I already said that we chose
to do a quantitative assessment because we wanted to...
because there were more qualitative proposals.
So we wanted to see how a quantitative proposal would work
and the approach that we used
it was out of these three trends that I showed you before.
We used a translanguaging approach, why?
because some of the questions that we incorporate in the test
have... they are in other languages.
Sometimes language is not known by the students.
Also, another characteristic is that in some tasks students are asked
to provide the translation in whatever language they prefer.
So we allow them to translaguage within the test.
And the main aim of the test is to assess crosslingual skills
or knowledge as defined in the PREPA, rather
than the use of particular resources in a given language.
So the instrument we prepared was this test using
all of these that they just mentioned.
And also a rubric for the analysis of the answers.
If you want to read more about this, you have the reference because it's
quite interesting, but also long.
So what I'm going to do now is
this is, I'm going to show you how these FREPA
descriptors look like in this presentation
the following slides
I'm going to focus on these descriptors.
Why only these?
Because we analyzed more than these descriptors,
but we had to adapt each didactic sequence to the course.
It was used in so...
There were descriptors that were analyzed in
some of the didactic sequences and not in others.
But these descriptors here were common
in all of the groups, both control groups and experimental groups.
So this is what we really analyzed as a whole.
Okay, hmm...
Yes. So these are the comparable data we have.
What we analyzed statistically is variance.
So how better or worse each group performed in the post-test
with respect to the pretest, including changes
to the better, and also maintenance in positive levels. Okay?
So here, results.
Remember, these results are regarding plurilingual
and pluricultural competence, these six descriptors that you see
here, we're not talking about specific linguistic abilities.
So the first one is that there was an impact
of the intervention.
It was overall analyzing all descriptors all together
a positive effect, but it was very small.
That is something we need to say, also
in general, again, when we analyzed all the scripts together,
we saw that the experimental group and the control group
were equally effective.
They behaved very similarly in most descriptors, meaning
when the experimental group improved, statistically
improved in the post-test, the control group also improved.
So we can say here that
the intervention with audiovisual translation is at least as effective
as a didactic intervention without audiovisual translation,
which I know is not huge, but at least it's something.
Okay? Then we have more results.
We saw that we got better results in knowledge.
Remember that we analyzed both knowledge and skills.
Knowledge results were higher than skills.
I will also focus on that.
And finally, we found something which is very important,
which is that students
already showed a high initial plurilingual and pluricultural competence.
I will also reflect on both of what implications
it has.
So these were the general results.
Now I'm going to move on
to specific results in which we did find differences.
In spite of these general similarities between experimental and control groups,
we did find that in the area of contrastive prosodic awareness
so being aware that languages in terms of prosody work differently,
we did find that the interlingual revoicing
audiovisual type modes, the dubbing and free commentary,
those experimental group statistically outperformed the control groups.
So in that case we did find that audiovisual translation did
that visual translation can help students improve this
specific learning and pluricultural competence.
Okay? On the other hand,
and this is, sorry, this is a knowledge
in terms of how they classify the different descriptors.
This is a knowledge.
And here we are moving to our skill,
which is to be able to compare different discourse types.
In this case, the control group statistically outperformed
the experimental groups.
And then I'm going to explain why we think this happened.
Here only so that you can see the descriptors and how they behaved,
so that you can see these general these results in a more graphic way.
Here is about these...
these contrast prosodic awareness.
We see that regarding speed and emphases, the experimental group,
how these improve while statistically I'm talking here,
while the control group did not, not in intonation, they didn't
change the way they perceived intonation in different languages.
Here you can see how they behaved similarly in other descriptors.
When they improved, they both improved when they did not
they both did not improve.
And here finally, the results were in the comparison of these course
types, we see that the control group outperformed the experimental groups.
If we move away from statistics to have a more graphic view,
we also assigned grades to each question, out of ten.
So you can see here, like as it would be the result of an exam,
for example, here I'm not using subtitling because,
as you remember, Subtitling did not have a specific control group,
so I did not want to confuse you
with these comparisons, which are not really feasible.
So we have on the left hand side, let me check yet these work
here are the audio description for and free commentary groups.
And they're on their own...
Yeah, they're on control group. Now.
The first thing that we can see here we are analyzing skills, okay?
We separated skills from competencies.
We can see clearly here
that the initial competence is not too high in general,
but that there is also a difference between the groups.
The audio description is around five, the dubbing is around four,
but then the Free Commentary group has a 7.2
in the pretest.
You see?
So that is something we need to reflect about.
So I'm going to talk about that later.
Hm, another thing I want you to...
Yes, this gives us information about the difference
between the linguistic levels and the PPC levels.
Remember that all groups had the same language level,
but then we see that when we analyzed
plurilearning and pluricultural competence
they do not have the same level.
So maybe one of the results is that we cannot assume
plurilingual and pluricultural competence level of our students
by just looking at their linguistic level.
So if we want to further research about
still further studies about plurilingual and pluricultural competencies,
we're going to have to assess the level of our students to see
if it's homogeneous within the group, because it's not a given,
but it's one of the findings.
And then another thing I wanted you to have a look at
is that the, yes, the interventions in this case in skills
did not manage to improve the two skills that we are analyzing here.
In fact, we do see regression
in experimental groups.
So this is also an important results that I will discuss in a minute.
If we move on to knowledges, we have a better picture.
As I already said before,
it is clear here that we have a high initial competence
and also that in the post tests, the experimental groups outperformed
the control group and improved.
So that's why we have these statistical differences
in some of them. Ok?
Moving on to the part
that I think is more interesting, what did we learn from here?
So what would be these
small sports cards that we take from that vast mountain
that are the plurilingual and pluricultural competence?
I'm going to talk about four ideas here.
This small positive impact, the high initial competence
it has consequences, the use of short pedagogic
interventions, and also the variety in audiovisual types or modes
Sorry.
So the positive overall impact, we already know
by, thanks to most of the people who are in this group,
in this in this room, that audiovisual translation is proven
to promote language learning in terms of plurilingual and
pluricultural competence we can say that at least it does not hinder it.
It has a mild effect, it timidly promotes it.
But we need a lot more research to specify how and what.
But at least, we can safely research about that
because we know we are not going to do any harm
to our students in terms of plurilingual and pluricultural competence.
We know, we do know that interlingual revoicing improves
the contrasting prosodic awareness in students,
and that is one of the findings we have.
So all in all, we think that audiovisual translation
can be used in language learning from a multilingual perspective
while we continue researching.
And in general it has a similar impact in students
as other approaches, other didactic approaches.
About these high initial competence that we found,
as I already highlighted, it is important to define
which components belong to the PPC
and therefore which
framework we use as the basis for assessment.
With this research, we found that the FREPA probably was too complex.
It was non-graded
as there was no previous research
we couldn't know what the previous knowledge of students could be.
So in the end, it makes it very difficult
to select which components are the most appropriate
for each level.
When we analyzed, when we had these findings and then
the companion volume was published, we compare it
and we saw that some of the descriptors
we analyzed had similar equivalents in the companion volume.
And we saw that the ones we analyzed
were placed at a higher level.
So students were supposed
to acquire these competencies at a later stage,
but they already these competencies in these levels.
So probably we need to test
the adequacy of the companion volume of the descriptors in the companion
volume in terms of levels, because they seem to be a little off. Okay?
Our hypothesis is, remember that our students were
from a bilingual area? And they were functioning, high functioning
bilinguals in Spanish and Catalan.
Maybe these can affect the level of their pluricultural competence.
So this is also an important thing we need to take into account
when we plan research, in plurilingual and pluricultural competence.
We need to include the linguistic skills in all languages
of our participants as variables, because these can affect the results.
And of course, again, the students need to be tested before
applying our sequences on the pluriligual and pluricultural competence
in order to gauge their actual level of specific
descriptors and organize the groups accordingly.
More consequences.
Remember that the didactic sequences were 6 to 8 hours long.
These are short interventions, and we found that these could account
for the small impact, in terms of knowledge
it did have an impact, in terms of skills
it did not. So probably plurilingual and pluricultural competence
skills need longer interventions to change
and also, of course, bigger cohorts of students.
122 is not bad,
but to analyze something statistically it's not enough, again.
So that is something we need to to take into account.
And these, the idea of longer interventions
is linked to the next slide, which is variety.
This is also something which is an important finding from PluriTAV.
We saw that using audiovisual translation
either improves or promotes deeper lingual and pluricultural competence
similarly to non using audiovisual translation,
but using one single mode
on one group of students can hinder
the awareness of linguistic discourse of this course types.
So when we plan
using audiovisual translation with students,
we need to plan to use with them more than one audiovisual mode,
because that is a way in which they can see different discourse types.
And so, they, we can overcome this hindrance.
Okay, so that is an important hypothesis that we extract from these
research, that for the plurilingual and pluricultural competence,
a combination of individual types is better.
So what do we do from here? Where can we go?
We have the PluriTAV experience,
we have previous research on multilingual education
which has a longer and wider history.
We have audiovisual translation and language education.
So from, let me take the time
from these transdisciplinary perspective in mind,
I have tried to identify five areas that I think could be worth exploring
to try and complete, or at least expand
the map of audiovisual translation and language education.
And one is going beyond additional languages.
Paula just mentioned that in the previous
in the previous session.
When I say additional languages, they are also called foreign languages,
but they have different names, additional all foreign languages
one way and so far, most of the research has been focused on
English, but
also other languages, but usually as foreign languages.
So if we we are immersed in this multilingual approach
to language learning, one of the ways in which we can expand
is by looking at other languages different from the foreign language.
What do you mean by that one?
One of the things is that we can
assess the impact of didactic audiovisual
translation in all the languages of the students.
Usually we assess the impact of our interventions
on one language, English, for example.
But those students are Spanish speakers learning English.
Why don't we assess also Spanish?
Why am I saying this?
Because according to the dynamic model of multilingualism,
the modifications in one language
that one language undergoes in appearing all individual
also affect the other languages of that individual.
So analyzing how audiovisual translation impacts
not only the target language we could say, but also the source language
when these are different, could yield interesting results.
This is what's what
Cenoz and Gorter call a focus on multilingualism, on research.
So that is one possibility of going beyond additional language.
The second, gauging the possibilities of audiovisual translation,
didactic audiovisual translation for the first languages
yesterday is research about Arabic, talked about that
how you can use audiovisual translation
for formal Arabic,
but also for other first languages.
One of the important translator competencies
is the competence in the L1.
So why don't we transfer that also to the didactic
audiovisual translation?
So how can we use didactic audiovisual translation
to improve the first languages of students?
A special type of first languages are minority languages,
and I think we have a whole avenue of research here.
Of course, Fernández-Costales is not no longer here
I think he had to leave, but he's a pioneer in this area.
He, they have one article about this, also in the Valencian region
for example, we know that there have been courses
or workshops for schools using dubbing and they have been quite successful.
So they do demand these from the schools. Why?
Because oftentimes students, usually the ones who are not non speakers of these
minority languages, do not have the possibilities to use socially
these languages.
And therefore there are some registers
which are not typically taught in schools,
but they are not practiced elsewhere.
I'm thinking, for example, on the colloquial register, in this case.
So students of minority languages, one non speakers of these languages,
they do not have any practice on colloquial genres.
Dubbing could be perfect for that. For example,
Ok? Then, another special type of L1 are the home
or heritage languages.
The importance of maintaining
the home languages, by this I mean the languages of the students
one non contextual, the languages they bring from home
could be, in our context here could be Arabic, Chinese, etc.
the languages from immigrated families.
So the importance of maintaining the home languages
both for identity formation but also for a more efficient
learning of school languages, has been widely proven by research,
and Cummins is of course a leading exponent of that,
and audiovisual translation could also be an interesting vehicle for this.
For example, students with our home language could translate videos
from these languages acting as experts,
or maybe they could use specialized videos in specific
areas and could be dropped
into home languages to expand their vocabulary knowledge.
Because we know that usually home
languages are typically kept for interpersonal relations
and they also need... and more specialized language is lost.
So this could be another way we could use didactic audiovisual translation.
We could also move beyond specific linguistic skills
and have been already talking about these.
I think we need more research in plurilingual and pluricultural competence
and mediation related to didactic audiovisual translation.
Of course, Maria Gonzalez Davis's work in this area is seminal
PluriTAV has been an initial attempt, but it was an exploratory research.
Now we do have some hypotheses, some points of departure
for future research, but they need attention.
I have already covered some of this in the presentation.
It is clear that we need to combine these quantitative
and qualitative assessment, as Agnieszka
already talked about these yesterday, about using mixed methods,
because we do need information from both sides.
The quantitative approach is important, but it leaves out
the views of participants which are important, in this sense
Jacqueline Wilson's doctoral thesis, for example, uses a very interesting approach
to assessing the plurilingual and pluricultural competence
with qualitative tools, such as observations
from the teachers and the researchers.
And then, of course, as I already mentioned,
there is the need to assess to test the adequacy of frameworks
from the PluriTAV experience that FREPA is to one widely.
Let's check on the companion volume
but we do need to test the students
and see how it works, because we still don't don't know.
And as also Agnieszka said yesterday, I think we need to focus on
fewer things, more specific, more micro, because then
we can have a fuller picture of those specific areas.
And again, the cultural competence, as you see, is very complex.
So we need to detangle that more.
We need to move beyond single interventions.
This is what, these ideas linked to that hypothesis that the plurilingual
and pluricultural competence needs longer didactic interventions to be modified.
One way to do these following again didactic sequences
is what's called didactic itineraries.
You can plan as a teacher a whole itinerary using different didactic
sequences with different genres that are connected.
And this is important
to overcome that possible drawback in this course type recognition
and following one of the hypotheses extracted from PluriTAV,
we should use a variety of individual types on the same students.
TRADILEX already does this for
linguistic abilities, but we do need to do that
also for plurilingual and pluricultural competence.
We need to move on beyond tertiary education, as well.
Or adult teaching, okay?
So far, research has mainly focused on that level,
but primary and secondary education need to be tackled.
At these levels
follow a more structured curriculum.
So therefore research has to take this into account.
There are lots of implications of moving research to primary
and secondary education, but that has to be done.
And we have here exponents that already started with this approach
and we do need to move further into that and
it is justified by curricular dispositions, already.
And of course since the incorporation of mediation,
as I already said in the
in the common European framework, but just to give two examples, one
because we are in that context and the other one
because it's famous for the education approach.
So in Spain, in the most recent curriculum that we have,
they incorporated multimodal texts at all levels.
So audiovisual translation is directly connected to that.
And in Finland, for example, since 2016,
multiliteracy has been included as a transversal
competence, transversal competence in the national curriculum.
So I mean, we have no excuse.
We do need to do this.
And finally we I think we need to move on
also beyond the focus on the learner.
Everything I'm saying here, I'm not saying that we're doing it wrong.
What we're doing is perfect.
We need to expand, we need to do more because all of these views
are complementary and we need them to have this big picture.
So from the point of view of research in education, from the experience
we have in research education,
I think that the relation between practitioners
and researchers could be strengthened.
The analysis of teacher needs and preferences and difficulties and opinions.
This has already been explored, period.
Sorry. Oh yeah.
We're the PluriTAV Project and also other project regarding
didactic audiovisual translation have provided set units
or courses or sequences with sample activities. In TRADILEX
they incorporated also the important task of
teacher training, which is essential.
But I would also advocate for corporations
in all stages of the research process.
From the field of education
we work a lot with action research processes in which the teachers
act as researchers, from the very beginning.
In didactic audiovisual translation,
we are trying to transfer professional practices and processes
as Dr. Chaume said yesterday to the language class.
So these processes will necessarily undergo
a series of changes
in order to be appropriate for the new context,
which is the language class; and teachers
are the experts in that new context.
So their insights to decide what is more or less relevant
in class, how we can use these processes in class
I think is essential, and we should incorporate
that from the very beginning.
Again, this didactic engineering is a way we could organize,
we could conceptualize
teaching products that can be adapted for the final use.
It's like preparing a road map, but without a given itinerary,
without this predetermined itinerary, it's a way to give them the framework,
but then they can adapt it to their level, to their context.
And this is essential in multilingual education because
multilingual education is highly context sensitive.
You cannot teach equally
the same languages in one place
or another place because the use and the status of the languages
in that specific contexts, highly affects the language learning.
So necessarily what we provide to the teachers
needs to be open enough to be adapted
to its context.
The proposals need to be flexible enough.
So we should continue with teacher training
and research about the training,
incorporating qualitative methodologies
Also may be such as focus groups to incorporate that
at the beginning. All of these areas, as I said, are complementary.
We need all of them to have a full picture and probably many more.
How am I doing in terms of time?
Okay. Conclusions.
There are only three because I want you to speak.
So one of them is that we have only started
to open some of the windows of that relation
between audiovisual translation and language learning.
But we do have an uneven knowledge, even of these windows
that we've been starting to open. We know quite a lot
didactic audiovisual translation in additional languages for adults,
but we know very little about all the other areas I mentioned
and we know nothing about other areas that are also mentioned.
So we need to continue studying all the windows
we've already opened, but also we need to open new ones.
Again, I advocate for cooperation,
horizontal cooperation in research processes.
On one way, intersectional cooperation with incorporating practitioners,
and I'm talking about teachers, but also translators here and
incorporating these practitioners to the research groups.
And also, another horizontal cooperation would be transdisciplinary
cooperation. And we've already talked about this.
We do need to work together from education, from translation,
from applied linguistics, from statistics and many more.
Agnieszka already mentioned that, as well.
And again, I want to finish with this.
I want to finish by saying, again, that I think, please,
we need to embrace this multilingual approach.
I think the didactic audiovisual translation is within this
turn in multilingual education.
We need to embrace that approach
as an epistemological framework
for the didactic audiovisual translation.
And I hope with this presentation that I have provided enough reasons
why and also a glimpse on how using
this framework can help us move forward.
And that's it.
Thank you very much.
And let's turn...
Any questions? Oh, the mic is there.
I was looking for it, just a second ago.
Comments?
Online as well.
Conclusions.
Well, thank you for such an inspiring talk.
It's really inspiring on this topic, is fascinating
and I have a lot of questions
I try to go for it.
So because we, in the TRADILEX project we have been inspired
by you, by your work and the work of your group.
And we decided to explore more or less the multicultural competence.
But now listening to you
we have many, many questions, have many, many things to explore.
And when I was listening to you I heard that
you worked with a bilingual scenario, Catalan.
And I think that in Spain we have treasures to be protected and preserved.
We have Gallego Asturianu, Catalá, Valenciá, Euskera
and I think that perhaps we can explore
the impact in this context, in non bilingual context.
Just to explore that, maybe see how it affects because it may change.
And apart from that, what about going just
to the text, choosing information apart from perception,
apart from qualitative data, because for example, in Gallego,
they have a different perception of time.
They don't have perfect tenses.
What about that and how is this reflected
in the acquisition of plurilingual competence?
- Yeah, you're talking about micro, the micro level.
- Exactly.
- So, yeah, but that if you analyze that,
which is a specific linguistic characteristics in Gallego
in order to give it the multilingual or plurilingual approach,
you should also analyze how they use it in Spanish,
how the the transference of these abilities is made,
whether they are aware of these differences or not,
because the the awareness of linguistic
differences is one of the plurilingual
and pluricultural competence descriptors.
So, what I mean by that is what, again, when we plan the research,
even if we plan it at a micro linguistic level,
if we have this multilingual approach,
we have more questions to ask our students and we have more issues
that we need to look at.
In this case, it would be how would they
transfer abilities from one language to another
and whether they can or not compare these specific abilities,
because in the in the plurilingual
an pluricultural competence, you have these two
different connections between languages.
You have the more profound connections in which you transfer abilities
from one language to another.
And then the most superficial connections in which you compare
similarities and differences between languages.
Sometimes you do that automatically, but that is something that
can also be taught
for you to be more efficient when you learn new languages.
- Thank you very much.
- I think we have time for one more question so that we don't
regulate the coffee break, but you'll have her at the coffee break.
For questions, discussions or conclusions.
Anybody else?
Again, I'd love to watch this recorded.
Yeah, it's dangerous to have so many new ideas.
Yeah.
- And they always tell me that I need to stop thinking sometimes.
- But I will
because it's important to...
To open your windows and to really explore them
and be brave enough to go there, because it's necessary.
- It is, it is necessary.
But then we also need to, to focus because that's, that's also important.
Then we, okay, we have a picture, we have a few ideas, but then
let's focus on one and move on because otherwise it's too much.
Yeah. - Yeah.
Okay. Thank you very much.
Thank you. See, you at the coffee break. Thank you, Anna.