This chapter examines the ways that language-in-education policies respond to the multilingualism of student populations and outlines some key issue that have contributed to children’s first languages being relatively marginalised in language policy and implementation. It considers contexts in which multilingual educational programmes have been normalised in policy. It then examines some of the ideological positions about education that conflict with the aims of multilingual education. It examines how different understandings of the nature and purpose of education shape the wider context in which language-in-education policies are developed and implemented to identify some key constraints that operate in such contexts.

When students make the transition from a secondary school environment (high school) to a tertiary (university) one, they are almost inevitably presented with a number of challenges. With the increasing use of English Medium Instruction (EMI), sometimes in both phases of education, the scale of those challenges is likely to increase. We first provide a theoretical account of those challenges and then exemplify them from the perspective of two different linguistic and geographical contexts: Italy and Hong Kong. We conclude that currently there is insufficient research on the transition between phases of education with regard to EMI.

This chapter introduces new plurilingual approaches to foreign language instruction in Japan, in the context of the generalisation of English as a lingua franca, and against the background of a push for Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL). Grounded in a brief historical exploration, we use three examples of plurilingual CLIL-like ‘islands’ in elementary schools to explore the whys and hows of weaving content and language within a plurilingual mindset. We argue that these small-scale frames open up affordances to develop multimodal literacies within an interdisciplinary framework in contexts where full immersion is not often feasible nor institutionalised.

The purpose of this chapter is to elaborate on the theory, policy, and practice of English medium education (EME) – teaching academic subjects in English – in the multilingual contexts of fourteen former republics of the Soviet Union. We show that there is more space for multilingual education in secondary education, and limited use of EME and minority languages in higher education, depending on the country. Across contexts, empirical research demonstrates both opportunities and challenges of EME for institutional policy, social mobility, cultural exchange, multilingual pedagogy, and linguistic development.

The global ascent of English as a medium of instruction (EMI) has sparked concerns about the potential erosion of local languages, in a process of “Englishisation” (Kirkpatrick, 2011). In the UAE, EMI is a cornerstone of higher education; furthermore, English has emerged as the preferred lingua franca in a nation where 85 per cent of the population hails from 100+ countries. This chapter delves into the resulting tension between English and Arabic (the local and regional language) within EMI contexts, scrutinising its impact on UAE higher education, sociolinguistic formations, and language policy. It explores future trajectories for EMI and Arabic, proposing strategies to integrate the two in institutional culture.

This chapter describes policies for the use of languages in education in South Africa, particularly the use of English. From a multilingual perspective, we discuss the language policy in South Africa and its effect on the education system in South Africa. A variety of translanguaging strategies is discussed, including technological support like the Mobilex mobile phone application. We also discuss the possibilities for multilingual education by considering the degree to which the funds-of-knowledge concept could be used to determine and encourage the use of African languages among off-campus students, specifically when students studied remotely (in response to the Covid-19 pandemic).

Faced with rapid social changes, language education is witnessing a turmoil of ideas and great proliferation of terms. Securing quality education for everybody is a key question of social justice, as is protecting linguistic and cultural diversity against the hegemony of dominant languages. This chapter highlights the need for openness to linguistic and cultural diversity in communities, classes, and individual repertoires. Building on the distinction between multilingual and plurilingual education, it discusses the way in which different terms leverage reflection on different visions of the role of languages in education and their potential to promote openness, awareness, and creativity.

This chapter contributes to the emerging literature on translanguaging as a resource for second language (L2) teaching and learning. Situated in Japanese higher education, it focuses on the translanguaging practices of Japanese L2 students or emergent bilinguals, who are ‘actively in the process of acquiring knowledge of a second language and developing bilingual languaging skills for use’ (B. Turnbull, 2018a: 1043), by addressing how they deploy translanguaging in L2 written practices as an indicator of the interplay of their complex linguistic repertoire.

This chapter outlines relevant aspects of theory and practice in the field of second language research for multilingual approaches to (language) education. We argue that what has been gleaned from the general field of second language acquisition research should not be ignored in any discussion of multilingualism or multilingual education. We contend that second language research – theoretical, empirical and applied – should continue to be part of the language education toolkit available to teachers, course designers, administrators and researchers; indeed, anyone involved in multilingual education.

Imagine a world where youth enter K-12 classrooms where critical consciousness, curiosity, and deep joy in learning are cultivated; have access to engaging, abolitionist-oriented, relevant curriculum and assessment systems that support their development as critical and creative thinkers and doers; and who have opportunities to embrace their own and others’ social, emotional, and identity development in brave spaces for the purpose of collaboratively tackling our most pressing personal, community, and world challenges. Imagine what could happen if students had access to teachers who not only stay in teaching in order to support student growth and achievement, but who are fiercely committed to deep flourishing for all youth, especially those who have had to bear the emotional and physical burdens of historical and contemporary racism, violence, and oppressive systems in schooling that mirror larger society; who “go for broke,” (Baldwin, 1963) even early in their careers in order to do what is right/just for youth; and who are effective, well, and thriving themselves.

This part of the handbook addresses community school partnerships as a vehicle for bringing together a variety of agencies to support students and families. Since their inception, community schools have served to interrupt cycles of inequity experienced by the most vulnerable and underserved student populations. They are intentionally designed to provide all students access to equitable learning opportunities, regardless of their life circumstances or obstacles associated with living in marginalized communities. The significant role community schools play was articulated by the Community Schools Forward project which offers the following definition: “The Community Schools strategy transforms a school into a place where educators, local community members, families, and students work together to strengthen conditions for student learning and healthy development” (Community Schools Forward, 2023, para.1). With this definition in mind, authors framed their discussions around the ways in which SUPs engage with community schools to leverage both school and community resources and strengthen educational systems.

In these troubled times for our education system, we believe that school–university partnerships can provide shining examples to help alleviate these identified issues as well as meeting – and exceeding – policy discourse. This chapter provides embodied examples from four diverse school–university partnerships in Australia that showcase contextually sensitive resolutions to these identified problems. The cases demonstrate how school–university partnerships can enhance experiences for pre-service teachers, promote meaningful and relevant professional learning throughout a teacher’s career, deeply engage teachers and teacher educators in research and evidence-based practice, and encourage collaborative practices within and between institutions. Through these cases, connections between school-university partnerships and the recommendations from the QITE Report are explored in this chapter. School–university partnerships have far-reaching opportunities and implications for the teaching profession and can (and should) be an integral element of educational reform – not just for initial teacher education, but for the teaching profession as a whole.

The National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education (NCATE) call to “turn teacher education upside down” was a catalyst in teacher candidate preparation to center clinical experiences and increase collaboration between schools and universities (NCATE, 2010). We argue that clinical practice can do more than prepare quality teachers; it has the potential to transform the systems of education that comprise the School–University partnership. In answering the question, what is the function of teacher candidate supervision in creating and sustaining School–University partnerships, we offer a reconceptualization of supervision as praxis, taking a knowledge-of-practice (Cochran-Smith & Lytle, 1999) approach supervision. To actualize this approach, supervisors of candidates must develop inquiry as stance (Cochran-Smith & Lytle, 1999) and support the development of an inquiry stance within the candidates, mentors, and other supervisors. Teacher candidate supervision could generate a simultaneous renewal of P-12 schools and institutions of higher education in School–University partnerships if actualized as praxis.

Since the terrorist attacks of 9/11, scholars, practitioners, and policymakers alike have become increasingly interested in understanding the factors that drive various forms of violent extremism. This heightened focus is anchored in broader trends of extremism. For instance, while the number of terrorist attacks has declined by approximately 25 percent since its zenith in 2015, the number of fatalities due to terrorism has reached its highest point since 2017 (Institute for Economics and Peace, 2024). The psychological factors and processes that underpin extremism and radicalization are particularly central to understanding the drivers of violent extremism and have been researched intensively over the past decades. Many high-impact journals have encouraged submission of manuscripts focused on understanding political violence and extremism, as the need to understand this phenomenon remains a pressing social issue. However, a comprehensive handbook that makes this broad knowledge accessible to various audiences was missing. Therefore, our ambition with this handbook was to create the number one go-to resource for researchers, practitioners, policymakers, and students interested in understanding the psychology of violent extremism.

To discern trends in violent extremism research, we present a machine-learning analysis of over 34,000 articles published since the early 1900s. We identify two primary waves of research and, different to previous reviews, a clear diversification in studied groups, contexts, and topics. Less than 20% of articles employ methodologies that are conducive to drawing causal inferences. While more studies are using experimental and longitudinal methods, this increase is outpaced by the rise of methods that preclude the assessment of causality. Nuancing previous reviews, at the broader field level, violent extremism research is profoundly multidisciplinary, with political science, international relations, psychology, history, and law emerging as the “Big Five” contributors. At the study level, contributions from single disciplines remain the norm. While single-author contributions have rapidly declined in favor of team-based research, one-time contributing authors remain consistently high over time. To enhance future violent extremism research, we make five recommendations: (1) prioritizing methodologies that allow for causal inferences; (2) incorporating state-based violent extremism perspectives also in individual-level research; (3) increasing the utilization of big data by interdisciplinary teams; (4) increasing the focus on developmental research to understand early life influences; and (5) initiating more interdisciplinary work at the study level.