This rationale attempts to position my intervention within the curriculum (see example SOW- figure 1). The project foregrounds the plurality of languages as a resource for exploring the mediation of worldviews and culture (Ponorac, 2022); considering language from an intersectional (Crenshaw, 1991) perspective, and as an aspect of social justice in the Anglonormative university space (Odeneyi, 2022). Bourdieu’s (1991) ‘linguistic capital’ resonates with the experience of “non-native” (L2) speakers of English at UAL, and how academic and societal ‘markets’ privilege English over other languages.
Figure 1. Example SOW (Language Development MA Fashion Design Management)
Teaching and assessment in HE has traditionally focused on the cognitive 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 leaned more towards encouraging learners to participate in group ‘seminar’ interaction with a focus on affective domains (Krathwohl, Bloom and Masia,1964), practising systemic functional language (Matthiesen and Halliday, 1997),‘connecting features of language with the social actions with which they correlate’ (Ding and Bruce, 2017, p. 70 in Tibbetts and Chapman, 2023, p. 79), whilst emphasising the empathy and mutual inclusion that is required for dialogic learning to take place (Friere, 2005, p. 90).
Translanguaging optimizes the potential for communication (Garcia, 2009, p.140), benefits both L1 and L2 speakers: a lack of worldview awareness where our mastery native tongue, ‘in turn masters us’ (Fantini, 1989, p. 2). Our mediation of the world, being exposed to other languages may expand this 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). Albaba (2025, p. 2) proposes the ‘concept of linguistic repertoire,’ which focuses not purely on students’ performance in English but views their existing language ‘as cognitive tools that can scaffold both content learning and language development.’
My intervention therefore attempts to bring the multilingualism in the classroom into focus through viewing 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, peer behaviours and even institutional change.
Figure 2. Translanguaging Fashion
The intervention involves the procedure of activating schemata – contextualizing key terms: fashion, communication, sustainability, narrative – through students saying and writing the words in their L1 alongside the English forms (see example figure 2 above). The qualitative research aims to evaluate, from a student perspective, how this procedure could affect inclusivity, motivation and attendance for this non-compulsory class. However, it is a procedure which I feel could equally be explored in other teaching contexts across the university, forming the next iteration of the action research cycle (see figure 3).
Figure 3. Action Research Cycle: Making Languages Visible at UAL
(495 words)
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.
CE- Council of Europe (2025) ‘Common European Framework of Reference for Languages (CEFR): Mediation. ‘Available at https://www.coe.int/en/web/common-european-framework-reference-languages/mediation (Accessed on 25/05/25)
Fantini, A.E. (1989) ‘Language and Worldview’ Journal of Bahá’í Studies Vol. 2-2: this paper was presented in Ottawa, October 7–10, 1988, at the Association’s Thirteenth Annual Conference, “Towards a Global Civilization.”
Friere, P. (2005) Pedagogy of the Opressed: 30th Anniversary Edition, (Originally published 1970): New York: Continuem
García, Ofelia (2009). ‘Education, multilingualism and translanguaging in the 21st century.’ In: Ajit Mohanty, Minati Panda, Robert Phillipson and Tove Skutnabb-Kangas (eds). Multilingual Education for Social Justice: Globalising the local. New Delhi: Orient Blackswan, pp. 128-145
Krathwohl, D.R., Bloom, B.S., & Masia, B.B. (1964). Taxonomy of educationalobjectives: The classification of educational goals. Handbook II: Affective domain. NewYork: David McKay Co.
(PDF) Three Domains of Learning: Cognitive, Affective and Psychomotor. Available from: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/330811334_Three_Domains_of_Learning_Cognitive_Affective_and_Psychomotor [accessed Nov 03 2025].
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)
Odenayi, V. (2022) ‘Reimagining Conversations’ Available at: https://www.arts.ac.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0032/359339/Reimagining-Conversations_FINAL.pdf (Accessed on 26.09.2025)
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 10.1108/1467637081084220