The description of the research

The analysis of the four mentioned coursebooks is based on a checklist that is basically equivalent to the list of the descriptors of resources that appear in the FREPA (Candelier et al.

2012: 24-37, 38-49, 50-59). The list is structured around three collections of resources, concerning knowledge, skills and attitudes and is organised at two levels, with the first one being arranged according to predicates (for example, knows that, knows how, knows examples) and the second one according to objects (language as a semiological system, language and society, verbal and non-verbal communication) or vice versa, in the case of the knowledge list (ibid. 2012: 63). The number of the descriptors and their organisation is specific

41 to each of the three lists of resources, which will be dealt with separately in the following paragraphs.

The list pertaining to the resource of knowledge is composed of two parts: the first group includes the descriptors related to language and communication and the second one is linked to culture. The authors' intention behind this decision was not to claim that language and culture are not intertwined. The real reason was “to make it easier to delimit the key concepts and make them more explicit” (ibid.: 62) and to facilitate the analysis and assessment of what is done in education. Unlike the lists of attitudes and skills, the first level of the knowledge list is organised around objects rather than predicates to ensure a variety of descriptors and to avoid “an artificial separation” of similar predicated (knows that, knows how, is familiar with examples) (ibid.: 63). Concerning cross-classification¹⁴, there are two categorisation systems.

The first axis is a categorisation concerning the level of linguistic analysis and cultural analysis.

The second ordering principle are “transversal” or relevant features, which can be used in all levels of analysis that are a result of the previously mentioned axis (ibid.: 64).

The type of knowledge mentioned in this first resource list is “explicit metalinguistic knowledge” (ibid.: 64), which is either declarative (relates to facts, data, phenomena) or procedural (relates to language, languages, communication) and is the result of observation, analysis and language learning or taking action in communicative situations (ibid.). The section on culture is, in relation to cross-classification, also discussed on two axes. The first one pertains to “culture as a system (models) of learnt and shared practices, typical of a particular community, which allow us to predict and interpret aspects of the behaviours of people from that community” and the second one to “culture as a combination of mental attitudes (ways of thinking, of feeling, etc.), of representations, which are acceptable in a community, i.e. not strictly individual” (ibid.: 66).

The set of the descriptors that pertain to the domain of attitudes is on the first level organised according to the predicates, which are then, further on, divided into subcategories of objects (ibid.: 69). The predicates refer to “ways of being” of subjects (ibid.) and are grouped according to those that are “directed towards the world (from oneself towards the world: for example, receptiveness to diversity)” or those that are “self-directed (from oneself towards oneself via

14 The term “cross classification” denotes various axes of classification not just those that divide descriptors into predicates or objects (Candelier et al. 2012: 61).

42 the world: confidence, feelings of identity etc.)” (ibid.: 70). Altogether there are 6 sections of predicates, among which each one includes a specific number of different sub-predicates. The first domain of predicates is composed of “attitudes to linguistic and cultural diversity” and the sub-predicates progress on an axis from less involved to more involved (ibid.: 71).

“Attention”, thus, “describes a sort of zero level of commitment towards diversity” […]

(Candelier et al. 2010: 83), “sensitivity to the existence of other languages […]” is, as well, a quite neutral attitude, but it already announces a more “affective approach” (Candelier et al.

2012: 71). “Curiosity about or interest in foreign languages or cultures […]” means a greater focus laid on language, culture and the person, but still does not denote an openness—“there can be ‘unhealthy curiosity’” (ibid.). Then we, finally, come to a “positive acceptance of linguistic or cultural diversity of others […]”, “openness to the diversity of the world's languages, people and cultures […]” and “respect or regard for ‘foreign’ or ‘different languages’ or cultures […]” (ibid.). The second domain of predicates comprises “attitudes which express readiness, desire, a will to act with regard to linguistic and cultural diversity”

and the sub-predicates progress on an axis from less committed to more committed or from

“psychological readiness” to “motivation with regard to linguistic or cultural diversity”

(Candelier et al. 2010: 84). The third section consists of sub-predicates which express a “way of being” in relation to language and to cultures and show progress on an axis from questioning to decentring (Candelier et al. 2012: 72). The first predicate describes »critical questioning attitude «, the second one the »will to construct “informed” knowledge or representations«, the third “the disposition or the will to suspend one’s judgment […]” and the last one a type of readiness “to start[…] a process of linguistic or cultural decentring or relativizing” (ibid.). The following predicate section focuses on attitudes that denote psycho-sociological processes “in a context of linguistic and cultural plurality” and progresses on an axis from “the will or disposition to adapt” to a “feeling of familiarity”, with its middle phase

“having self-confidence” (ibid.: 72). The last but one predicate category dedicates its attention to an “individual's relationship to language or culture” and the goal of “assuming one's own (linguistic or cultural) identity” (ibid.). The last group of predicates does not embrace attitudes towards diversity as is the case in the previous sections, but rather those that concern the ability to learn (ibid.: 73). It entails “sensitivity to experience”, “motivation to learn languages […]” and “attitudes aiming to construct pertinent and informed representations for learning”

43 (ibid.). All of the six predicates are also arranged according to two different “types of objects to which they can be particularly applied”: concrete or abstract (ibid.).

The same way the attitudes list is organised around the categories of predicates, the skills list is, as well, divided into predicate sections, which describe the type of skills that are referred to (can observe, can identify, can compare, can reproduce, to provide but a few examples), and the sub-categories of objects to which a skill can be applied (for example systems of writing, misunderstandings, unfamiliar features of language) (ibid.: 74). The order of the categories is not coincidental, as the top of the list is dominated by those related to metalinguistic observation and reflection and the bottom—apart from the descriptor »ability to learn«, whose objects refer to the learning domain—by categories connected to communication in action (ibid.: 77). Considering the second ordering principle, the categories progress from simple (metalinguistic) to complex (communication) (ibid.). If we comment on the arrangement of the objects, the sequence of those is also premeditated and follows the logic of grouping together either the general descriptors, or the descriptors dealing with language, another group are the descriptors taking into account culture, then there are less complex objects, followed by the more complex objects and the list concludes with two sections on language—what is signified, preceded by the category of the signifier (ibid.: 78).

At this point I would like to add that, given the large amount of the descriptors, consisting of categories of predicates and sub-categories of objects, my initial plan was to base our analysis on the main predicate sections. What I wanted to achieve with this selective choice was to carry out a holistic analysis without losing ourselves in the labyrinth of the predicate sub-sections. However, I had to change my strategy and include also the sub-categories of predicates, as I discovered that the meaning of the linguistic and cultural aspects used in the phrasing of predicate categories is in various cases ambiguous and could allow different and even contrasting interpretations depending on the reader, which is why the credibility of the analysis could be put in danger¹⁵. Beacco (2013: 6) even goes as far to say that the “verbal descriptors of [competences in general]” always prove to be ambiguous, despite the fact they

15 The authors of ROPP (Candelier et al. 2017) admit that the framework has been altered multiple times due to the readers' feedback to the authors exposing the problem of readability. Despite the appeals for

simplification, the creators of the FREPA believe it is not possible to provide a simplified version of the descriptors (Candelier et al. 2017:24). Given the large number of descriptors, the readers tend to perceive them as redundant and even unattainable (Beacco 2013: 6).

44 might appear precise. The second argument behind the limitation strategy is that I decided to test our hypothesis related to the level of depth of the resource attitudes by counting the number of the attitudes’ general predicate sections in each activity and by calculating the number of the attitudes’ “less committed” or “more committed” sub-descriptors. The object of the analysis in this study will, thus, be a collection of the representative units of all four coursebooks, that is, the instructions, the texts, and the visual and audio materials that make up the activities.