Category: ARP

Rationale

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.)

ARP

Methods 2: Guerilla Research

Post author By Ian Holmes
Post date 2nd November 2025
No Comments on Methods 2: Guerilla Research

Having moved on from the swampy lowlands (Cook, 2009, p. 279), I now find myself in the research jungle, where I may encounter unexpected obstacles – but, thinking reflexively, perhaps opportunities for valuable insights, not only into the view of student participants in the study – but also the tensions that exist between the pedagogical approach and the institution itself – at least on a course level.

Indeed, I did feel somewhat feel ambushed when I received an email which effectively intrusted me to cease and desist with the intervention with one of my post grad marketing groups. The focus on ‘translanguaging’ – despite only being only a small part of the lesson – seemed to be puffing students off from attending. Any activity focused on multicultural community building should take place outside the class time. This in contrast to the generally positive and supportive feedback I had otherwise had from both students and course leaders – motivation through inclusivity which underpins the rationale for the intervention itself. However, this also presents an opportunity to understand the viewpoint of these students – and the demands of the department- at course level.

This unexpected direction from a course leader has however motivated to implement the qualitative data collection both pragmatically and strategically. In a previous workshop at LCC, critical friendship had highlighted that need to consider the language ability and comprehension of participants (as largely L2 users of English) of any questions in interviews or focus groups. The language appropriate for any survey would also need to be graded to the extent that all participants could access the necessary response – and be able to articulate this. For this reason, I have decided to advance a volley shot of surveys – this designed to reach the maximum range of participants – especially those who I may not see again in the Language Development classroom, and will be delivered via Moodle announcement to all the various course groups who had been included in the intervention. However, these survey questions would also serve as the basis of any semi structured interview or focus group – allowing participants time to read, understand (translate if necessary) the questions.

The synchronous data collection would potentially involve a much smaller number of participants and would also need to be organized as appropriate to the wishes of the student participants. Where this can form a meaningful learning experience as part of the lesson (this is an opportunity to apply the seminar skills that we have developed earlier in the scheme of work), and where participants are no longer willing, or able, to engage with this ‘teaching moment’ (O’Reilly, 2025), I will organize ad hoc outside the class time. This also attempts to respect the principles of ‘participatory action research’ (Lenette, 2024).

I hope that the outcome of this research can provide meaningful insights for both learners and teachers – including myself. Something I have been working on in my head (although see Holmes, 2025 for development) is articulating a rationale for the intervention and the study – so rather than attempt to justify the intervention here – I will begin a new post in order to do this.

References:

Cook, T. (2009) ‘The purpose of mess in action research: building
rigour though a messy turn,’ Educational Action Research, 17- (2)- 277-291, DOI:
10.1080/09650790902914241

Holmes, I. (2025) IP unit – reflective report Available at: https://pgcertianholmes2025.myblog.arts.ac.uk/2025/07/15/intervention-reflective-report_-fostering-inclusivity-in-the-international-multi-lingual-multi-cultural-university-space/ (Accessed 1 November, 2025)

Lenette, C. (2024) PAR: Participatory action research. August 2024 (Available at: https://moodle.arts.ac.uk/pluginfile.php/2190224/mod_folder/content/0/Lenette%20%282024%29%20PAR%20%28Video%29.mp4?forcedownload=1 (Accessed 25 October 2025).

O’Reilly J. (2025) Workshop 1: Action research project, 2025-26 PG Cert Academic Practice. London College of Communication, 26 September 2025

ARP

Research Methods 1: A view from the swamp

Post author By Ian Holmes
Post date 25th October 2025
No Comments on Research Methods 1: A view from the swamp

Which way should I go now?

Developing the research design requires my reflexivity for both avoid bias and contextualize the positionalities (Archer, 2007; Yip, 2024; Creswell, 2013) of both my self and the participants. As Schön (1983) posits, I need to reflect both in (ontologically) and on (reflexively and epistemologically) this process, my current view being from the ‘swampy lowlands’ (Schön, 1983 in Cook, 2009, p. 279). However, before I can move on to higher ground, this ‘messy’ moment needs to be accounted for; omitting this would not ‘offer a true and honest picture of the research process’ (Ibid).

Selecting the most appropriate method for data collection is the dilemma I now find myself in. Whilst, interviews or focus groups may provide richer more nuanced data for thematic analysis, I am cognizant of the limitations of scale and reach that this will present, given the small scale nature and time limitations of this study. Creating questionnaires would potentially provide a greater reach and the possibility for anonymity which may yield more enlightening insights, without the risk of participants feeling obliged to provide the answers that I as the teacher/ researcher want to hear. Once the questions are designed the production and delivery of a digital form would be relatively easy, plus the pragmatics of asynchronous data collection will enable participants to respond when they can. Organizing time for interviews will present logistical issues, both for myself and for the participants.

Interviews, which can be understood as an empirical situations, should only function as a data collection tool for that which exists within that empirical situation (Alvesron, 2012, p. 9). However, research in itself should be treated as a pedagogy – a teaching moment (O’Reilly, 2025) and therefore the classroom where the intervention itself takes place would seem the most logical and ethical space in which to conduct an interview or focus group- especially if the artefact (see examples) can be used to stimulate the conversation in response to the (semi structured) questions. In terms of the time this would also mean using the opportunity of class time – as a reflective language development activity for the students and the possibility of an inclusive participative research which gives agency to the students to affect change in the curriculum. That said, the appeal of digital form remains.

From the beginning I have been open with the students about the process – and the fact that we don’t really know what will happen or how we are going to it. I frame it not as my research but rather our research, and with the aim of creating a space for ‘participatory action research’ (Lenette, 2024), I want to share the decision making at different stages of the research design. In conversation with a Chinese student I presented my dilemma and she suggested that a focus group would likely yield deeper insights as I would be able to elicit more from participants and they would be able to engage with each other’s responses (this cross-cultural spoken interactivity is also a key teaching aim of my lesson design).

Through conversation with colleagues and tutors at the workshop this week, I learn that others have similar dilemmas, but that in order to overcome my dilemma I could in fact simply employ both methods – this will give opportunity to as many students who wish to participate to do so (either anonymously or in person) to the possibility of gaining a more macro, quantitative picture as well as a more nuanced thematic analysis, the two data sets could even be compared against each other.

Whilst we still don’t know what will happen or how exactly we will get there, having reflected on this moment, I feel that I am more confident to begin the ascent into the foothills.

References:

Alverson, M. (2012) ‘Views on interviews: A skeptical review,’ in Interpreting Interviews, 9- 42, Sage ps://dx.doi.org/10.4135/9781446268353

Cook, T. (2009) ‘The purpose of mess in action research: building
rigour though a messy turn,’ Educational Action Research, 17- (2)- 277-291, DOI:
10.1080/09650790902914241

Creswell, J. W. (2013) Qualitative inquiry and research design: choosing among five approaches. 3rd ed. London: Sage Publications Ltd.

O’Reilly J. (2025) Workshop 1: Action research project, 2025-26 PG Cert Academic Practice. London College of Communication, 26 September 2025

Schön, D. A. (1983) The Reflective Practitioner. New York: Basic Books.

Yip, S.Y. (2024) ‘Positionality and reflexivity: negotiating insider-outsider positions within and across cultures’ International Journal of Research & Method in Education Vol 47-Issue 3-pp.222-232