The project aims to address two issues: Firstly, machine translation – through the practice of human cognition for meaning making, rather than bypassing this process; secondly, the ‘othering’ of (particularly East) Asian students. The intervention views the plurality of languages as a resource for exploring the mediation of worldviews, the relationship between culture and language being deeply rooted in how language reflects perspective (Ponorac, 2022). This is an opportunity to consider language from an intersectional (Crenshaw, 1991) perspective, and as an aspect of social justice in the anglonormative university space (Odeneyi, 2022). See Holmes (2025) for expansion on detail.
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 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, p. 70 in
Tibbetts and Chapman, 2023, p. 79); texts being both written and spoken output.
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 (Krathwohl, Bloom and Masia,1964), whilst practising systemic functional language (see below), 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 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).
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, peer behaviours and institutional change.
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 examples below (this procedure acted as an introduction to the lessons which then focussed on seminar speaking and reading strategies amongst other skills. The qualitative research aims to evaluate, from a student perspective, how this procedure could affect inclusivity, motivation and attendance for this non-compulsory class.
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
University of Leeds (2025) Dr Alex Ding. Available at: https://ahc.leeds.ac.uk/languages/staff/714/dr-alex-ding (Accessed 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.)