The project aims to address to needs. Firstly, a conversation with a course leader regarding an the need to address the use of machine translation – through activities whereby human cognition and coping mechanisms could be used for meaning making – rather than bypassing this process via machine. Secondly, to address the othering of (particularly East) Asian students in the university. The plurality of languages acting as a resource for exploring the mediation of worldviews, in addition to the development of the hegemonic (colonial) English. The relationship between culture and language being deeply rooted in how language reflects perspective (Ponorac, 2022) an opportunity to consider language as an aspect of social justice in the anglonormative university space (Odeneyi, 2022).
AI and machine translation enables generic product but lacks process: the cognitive linguistic synthesis of academic voices. In the context of HE, paraphrasing is the process which enables understanding ideas and discourse, and autonomous learning. Translanguaging optimizes the potential for communication through accessing different linguistic features of ‘autonomous languages’ (Garcia, 2009, p.140). This has benefits for both L1 and L2 speakers: a lack of worldview awareness in our first language results from ‘the fact that as we master our native tongue, it in turn masters us’ (Fantini, 1989, p. 2). ‘Linguistic determinism’ is the system through which we understand and mediate the world, being exposed to a second language may expand tis view and aid participation with other cultural groups (Ibid, pp.2-3). This mediation regards learners as social agents focus on meaning making and communicating beyond linguistic and cultural barriers; all mediation relying on collaborative processes (CE, 2022).
Teaching and assessment in HE has traditionally focused on the cogitative rather than the affective (Shepherd, 2007). The Language Development scheme of work began with an analysis of learning outcomes and unit briefs through the lens of ‘cognitive domains’ (Bloom et al., 1956; Anderson and Krathwohl, 2001; Krathwohl, 2002) – see example scheme of work. However, the seminar skills lessons had leaned more towards encouraging learners to participate in group ‘seminar’ interaction with a focus on affective domains, whilst employing systemic functional language (see below), emphasising the empathy and mutual inclusion that is required for dialogic learning to take place (Friere, 2005, p. 90).
My pedagogical background as a teacher in EFL draws on a communicative approach, which frames learning as both a communicative (Nunan, 1991) and social (Vygotsky, 1987) act, which in language teaching requires looking ‘under the hood’ to understand hidden cultural context (Poehner and Lantolf, 2024, p. 2). My approach in EAP also leans towards Matthiesen and Halliday’s (1997) ‘systemic functional linguistics.’ SFL has developed as a pedagogical tool for the analysis of ‘functional and structural systems in texts,’ (Tibbetts and Chapman, 2023, p. 79), ‘connecting features of language with the social actions with which they correlate’ (Ding and Bruce, 2017: 70 in
Tibbetts and Chapman, 2023, p. 79). By texts we mean both written and spoken output. I am interested in understanding the potential of identity and agency for both students and practitioners in EAP and therefore follow the work of Alex Ding which focuses both on the politics of EAP and how it can be informed through social theory and Bourdieu’s socio-analysis (University of Leeds, 2025). I had been introduced to Bourdieu’s (1991) ‘linguistic capital’ by PG Cert Fellow Jeff, highlighting how this resonates with the experience of “non-native” (L2) speakers of English at UAL, and how academic and societal ‘markets’ privilege English over other languages.
My intervention therefore attempts to bring the multilingualism of the Language Development classroom into focus through the backgrounds of students themselves, seeing this as a pedagogically resourceful and legitimate part of
classroom practice which promotes ‘greater linguistic, epistemic and culturally (more) open inclusion’ (Odeneyi, 2022, p. 5). The ‘rhetorical power’ of ‘reimagining’ conversations in the HE space goes beyond teaching and learning (Ibid, p. 7), and this study aims to support both classroom practice, institutional change. .
References
Anderson, L. W., and Krathwohl, D. R. (2001) A Taxonomy for Learning, Teaching and Assessing: A Revision of Bloom’s Taxonomy of Educational Objectives: Complete Edition. New York: Longman.
Bloom, B.S., Engelhart, M.D., Furst, E.J., Hill, W.H. and Krathwohl, D.R., (1956) ‘Taxonomy of educational objectives: The classification of educational goals.’ Handbook 1: Cognitive domain. pp. 1103-1133 New York: Longman.
Krathwohl, D.R. (2002) ‘A Revision of Bloom’s Taxonomy: An Overview’ Theory Into Practice, Vol. 41, No. 4, pp. 212-218 Available at: https://www.jstor.org/stable/1477405 (Accessed 11 February, 2025)
Matthiessen, C., & Halliday, M. (1997). Systemic functional grammar (1st ed.)
Nunan, D. (1991) ‘Communicative Tasks and the Language Curriculum.’ TESOL Quarterly. 25 (2): 279–295. Available at: doi:10.2307/3587464. JSTOR 3587464. (Accessed on 20 February 2025)
Poehner, M.E., and Lantolf, J.P. (2024) Sociocultural Theory and Second Language: Developmental Education
Elements in Language Teaching. Cambridge: CUP. DOI: 10.1017/9781009189422
Shepherd, K. (2007) ‘Higher education for sustainability: seeking affective learning outcomes,’ International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education Vol. 9 No. 1, pp. 87-98 DOI 10.1108/14676370810842201
University of Leeds (2025) Dr Alex Ding. Available at: https://ahc.leeds.ac.uk/languages/staff/714/dr-alex-ding (Accesses 1 November 2025)
Vygotsky, L. S. (1987) ‘Thinking and speech’. In R.W. Rieber & A.S. Carton (Eds.), The collected works of L.S. Vygotsky, Volume 1: Problems of general psychology (pp. 39–285). New York: Plenum Press. (Original work published 1934.)