Recalibrating the Language Classroom for Deeper Learning: Nurturing Creative, Responsible Global Citizenship Through Pluriliteracies

Abstract

In Beyond CLIL: Pluriliteracies Teaching for Deeper Learning (Coyle & Meyer, 2021), the traditional role of language teaching and learning is brought into question. We propose an alternative paradigm that places the language teacher as a disciplinary specialist who contributes significantly to the development of learners' pluriliteracies repertoire. In this article, we suggest ways in which language teachers can reconceptualise their "subject" as one that is of central importance and value in our post-truth world. We posit that this requires not only an epistemic repositioning of the language classroom but, crucially, a profound and deliberate recalibration of the component parts of language-as-discipline. This involves connecting languages, cultures and literatures in ways that foster textual and epistemic fluency leading to deeper understanding and empathy. From this perspective, the "language-as-discipline classroom" has the potential to become an inclusive space for deeper learning whilst developing creative, responsible global citizenship.

Full text

Copyright © 2023 Author(s). This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative
Commons CC BY-NC 4.0 License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/).
Nordic Journal of Language Teaching and Learning, Vol. 11, No. 3, 2023. ISSN: 2703-8629.
https:// doi.org/10.46364/njltl.v11i3.1179
Recalibrating the Language Classroom for Deeper Learning:
Nurturing Creative, Responsible Global Citizenship Through Pluriliteracies.
Oliver Meyer*
University of Mainz
omeyer@uni-mainz.de
Do Coyle
University of Edinburgh
Abstract
In Beyond CLIL: Pluriliteracies Teaching for Deeper Learning (Coyle & Meyer, 2021), the
traditional role of language teaching and learning is brought into question. We propose an al-
ternative paradigm that places the language teacher as a disciplinary specialist who contributes
significantly to the development of learners’ pluriliteracies repertoire. In this article, we suggest
ways in which language teachers can reconceptualise their "subject" as one that is of central
importance and value in our post-truth world. We posit that this requires not only an epistemic
repositioning of the language classroom but, crucially, a profound and deliberate recalibration
of the component parts of language-as-discipline. This involves connecting languages, cultures
and literatures in ways that foster textual and epistemic fluency leading to deeper
understanding and empathy. From this perspective, the "language-as-discipline classroom"
has the potential to become an inclusive space for deeper learning whilst developing
creative, responsible global citizenship.
Keywords
(Pluri)literacies, Modern Languages as discipline, Deeper Learning, Global Citizenship Edu-
cation, Epistemology, Cultural Consciousness

234 MEYER & COYLE
1. Introduction
In response to global concerns and the expected future demands for our young people, there
have been radical shifts in current educational thinking. It is widely acknowledged that both
subject as well as language teaching and learning must adapt to meet the global demands of
society (OECD, 2019a). Education systems across the globe are inundated with reforms that
aim to achieve a more socially just and multiculturally sensitive experience throughout school-
ing and beyond. Such high-profile policy priorities include school improvement; raising the
level of achievement; closing the attainment gap; skills-based learning; agile leadership; digital
literacies, etc. If we consider language learning, recent research studies and publications have
significantly expanded the dialogue focussing on the roles of languages and learning, offering
important insights from 'alternative perspectives' on how language classroom practices may
provide a 'legitimised contribution' to the education of young people (Coyle & Meyer, 2021;
Kramsch, 2022; Lütge, Merse & Rauschert, 2022).
According to McIntosh & Mendoza-Denton (2020, p. 1), the COVID-19 pandemic re-
vealed numerous facets of “the linguistic and political emergency in which language finds itself
today”. For Kramsch (2022, p. 17) this emergency “manifests itself in the very knowledge we
impart as language teachers”. This is because the way language is conceptualised has shifted
considerably. She identifies five fundamental changes in our increasingly multilingual, multi-
cultural communities rooted in ‘social realities’: the widening gap between linguistic signs and
the other signs they represent - exacerbated by ‘cultures’ becoming increasingly fractured; the
commodification of language exponentially used for instrumental purposes such as mobiliza-
tion; the decentring of language as the primary symbolic system and the normalisation of social
media and multimodal communication in everyday life; and the interconnectedness between
language and socio-cultural realities i.e. words and the rapidly changing social trends typified
for example in woke language and jargon. Kramsch goes on to argue that in order to confront
this crisis, foreign language education has to re-imagine itself by rethinking its mission and its
practices:
(…) we have to be mindful that the post-corona challenge is not only to make foreign
language learners proficient or competent in using foreign ways of speaking and writing,
but rather to implicate them in the lives of others who don’t speak and don’t think like
them, who don’t see the world like them and yet on whom they depend and to whom
they are answerable. (Kramsch, 2022, p.31)

NORDIC JOURNAL OF LANGUAGE TEACHING AND LEARNING | VOL. 11 | NO. 3 | 2023 235
Clearly, such a call for compassion, tolerance and global responsibility far transcends existing
goals and paradigms in language education such as intercultural communicative competence or
plurilingualism which have informed and affected language policy across and beyond Europe
through papers and frameworks like the Common European Framework of Reference (2001).
Critical global citizenship education (GCE), with its emphasis on "social justice, multicultural-
ism, critical awareness of global power imbalances and its belief in the transformational power
of education" (Starkey, 2022, p. 72), may be the concept in current thinking that most closely
aligns with the principles and values outlined above. However, it is worth emphasising that the
term global citizenship education is highly contested and has been criticised as a
a lofty, idealistic goal, that risks being reduced to a meaningless metaphor, or being co-
opted by corporate interests that speak global English and for whom globalization really
means the Americanization of the planet. (Kramsch, 2022, p.24).
What is required, therefore is a careful analysis of the construct of global citizenship
education (GCE). In their critique of some interpretations of GCE, Simpson and Dervin (2019,
p. 676) advocate the necessity to focus ‘on unpacking and contesting concepts, relations and
positions rather than falling into the trap of assumptions and generalisations about how things
are or how they ought to be’. We suggest, therefore, that it is a collective responsibility to
investigate how the current paradigm of language education has to adjust in order to align with
implications embedded in ideas associated with global citizenship education. In this context,
we find Kramsch’s guiding questions especially helpful:
1. How can FL education educate the global citizen through a performative view of
language as a social semiotic and language use as a border crossing?
2. How can it teach single languages multilingually?
3. How can it develop students’ empathy and ability to put themselves in other peo-
ple’s shoes?
4. How can it practice decentering and reflexive practice?
5. How can it decolonize its relationship with digital technology?
(Kramsch, 2022)
In this article, we propose ways in which language teachers can reconceptualise their ‘subject’
in light of these five pertinent questions so that the language classroom becomes an inclusive
space for developing creative and responsible global citizenship in a post-truth world. As we

236 MEYER & COYLE
have argued before (Coyle & Meyer 2021) this shift towards deeper learning requires an epis-
temological re-positioning of the language classroom which places the language teacher as a
disciplinary specialist who contributes to developing learners’ personal growth through enrich-
ing their (pluri)literacies repertoire in significant ways. This re-positioning will then permit us
to recalibrate individual components of language-as-discipline, i.e., literatures, cultures, and
languages, which is key to outlining a new paradigm for the language classroom: language
learning as deeper learning for creative and responsible global citizenship.
2. Towards language-as-discipline
At first glance, the case for a shift towards disciplinary literacies in the language classroom
appears straight-forward: if lifelong learning skills are indeed essential for today’s young peo-
ple and deeper learning - inextricably linked with disciplinary literacies (National Research
Council, 2012, Guerriero, 2017) - involves ways of developing transferable knowledge skills
essential for lifelong learning, then the language classroom needs to explore ways of promoting
deeper learning by embracing disciplinary literacies.
Deeper learning has been defined as “the process through which an individual becomes
capable of taking what was learned in one situation and applying it to a new situation” (National
Research Council, 2012, p. 5). The reason why there is a such a strong focus on transferable
knowledge and problem-solving skills is that these are considered to be the key requisite of
lifelong learning which is widely viewed as the quintessential 21 century skill.
In previous publications we have made the case that deeper learning rests on three pillars
(Coyle & Meyer, 2021). The first pillar represents what we have coined the mechanics of deeper
learning. These include all the various elements of knowledge building and refining skills for
demonstrating understanding via the complex processes of internalisation and automatisation.
The second pillar focusses on the drivers of deeper learning - the affective characteristics which
foster commitment and achievement guided by teacher mentoring. The alignment of mechanics
and drivers of deeper learning make it possible to design learning progression or trajectories
for deeper learning (pillar three) through literacies development.
However, the question of what exactly constitutes disciplinary literacies in the context
of language learning is considerably less straightforward. For McConachie and Petrosky, dis-
ciplinary literacy “involves the use of reading, reasoning, investigating, speaking and writing
required to learn and form complex content knowledge appropriate to a particular discipline”
(McConachie and Petrosky, 2010, p. 16). Putra and Tang (2016, p. 269) argue that disciplinary

NORDIC JOURNAL OF LANGUAGE TEACHING AND LEARNING | VOL. 11 | NO. 3 | 2023 237
literacy encompasses “the ability to use specialised language and practices valued and used in
a given discipline to navigate and participate in the discipline”. In other words, subjects such
as chemistry, geography, history, physics, or mathematics have made significant strides in de-
fining and specifying the role of disciplinary literacies and deeper learning in their contexts (see
Coyle, Meyer & Staschen-Dielmann, 2023, for a comprehensive review), similar considerations
for language education are emerging (Taveau, 2023).
Goldman et al. (2016) identify five higher-order characteristics which, when combined
comprise disciplinary literacy. Their research provides a framework for outlining how distinct
disciplines acquire, analyse, evaluate, and communicate knowledge and understanding:
Figure 1: Core constructs of disciplinary literacies (based on Goldman et. al. 2016)
Each discipline is governed by epistemological frameworks which determine “what counts as
relevant phenomena to study, the methods to use, the amount and types of evidence required,
the causal relationships to consider, and the value and meaning of the research findings” (Bris-
ter, 2017). Thus, establishing what constitutes epistemology in the case of language-as-disci-
pline learning is an essential first step towards recalibrating classroom practices required to
open pathways for determining and achieving the defined goals embedded in that discipline. To
do that, we begin by examining how language study is conceptualized at the tertiary level to
see how this can inform language-as-discipline in secondary school contexts. This is essential

238 MEYER & COYLE
because there is evidence suggesting that the vision that informs initial teacher education pro-
grammes will have a significant and enduring effect on teachers' beliefs and the way they con-
ceptualise language learning and teaching in primary and secondary education (Griful-Freix-
enet, 2021, Mateus et al., 2021, Reynolds et al., 2021).
Foreign language study is typically considered to have four subfields. These subfields
are language, literature, linguistics and culture or cultural studies:
Figure 2: Foreign language studies
However, as Swaffar (1999) points out, the fact that most foreign language programs consist of
these four or similar subfields, does not automatically turn them into disciplines per se. Instead,
what is required is orienting the subfields toward a shared disciplinary vision. We question
whether such transdisciplinary visions have yet been developed and disseminated. This of
course affects language classrooms in schools because without an alignment of epistemological
positioning built on a shared vision, modern language teachers across different sectors are de-
stabilised. Whilst it is acknowledged that modern language learning and teaching is now distinct
from the Classical tradition, the characteristics of modern languages as an academic discipline
remain fluid and contentious impacting on the professional identity of language teachers across
monolingual and multilingual contexts:
(…) how is it different from other humanities and social sciences: literature, history,
sociology, to name but a few? For unless we can define a characteristic academic disci-
pline for Modern Languages, it will be subsumed by other disciplines. The scope for
this is only too apparent in the light of recent reductions in degree programmes and
redeployment of staff. Is French history anything more than history? Is Spanish linguis-
tics anything more than linguistics? (Pountain, 2019, p. 246)
In order to offer a significant contribution to those educational goals outlined previously, lan-
guage learning needs to develop a shared vision of language-as-discipline. First, this requires
an epistemic repositioning, second, a recalibration of its subdisciplines and third, a pedagogic
approach to transform classroom practices in alignment with the vision. This process will offer
Foreign language study
Literatures
Linguistics
Cultural Studies
Languages

NORDIC JOURNAL OF LANGUAGE TEACHING AND LEARNING | VOL. 11 | NO. 3 | 2023 239
language classrooms ways of becoming dynamic ecological spaces for global citizenship edu-
cation (Figure 3). We will now consider what such ecological spaces signify.
Figure 3: Language Learning as Deeper Learning for Creative and Responsible Global Citizenship
Starting with the fluid construct of global citizenship, we acknowledge that this is open to wide
debate. Rysen & Katzarska-Miller (2013) define global citizenship as “awareness, caring, and
embracing cultural diversity while promoting social justice and sustainability, coupled with a
sense of responsibility to act.” Indeed, we would emphasise the importance of nurturing that
sense of responsibility. According to UNESCO (2018), Global Citizenship Education as a
multi-dimensional construct (see figure 4) aims “to empower learners to engage and assume
active roles locally, nationally and globally, to face and resolve global challenges and ultimately
to become proactive contributors to a more just, peaceful, tolerant, inclusive secure and sus-
tainable world” (UNESCO, 2018, p. 6.).
Core conceptual dimensions of Global Citizenship Education
Cognitive
To acquire knowledge, understanding and critical thinking about global, re-
gional, national, and local issues and the intercomnected-ness and interde-
pendency of different countries and populations.
Socio-
emotional
To have a sense of belonging to a common humanity, sharing values and re-
sponsibilities, empathy, solidarity, and respect for differences and diversity.
Behav-
ioural
To act effectively, and responsibly at local, national, and global levels for a
more peaceful and sustainable world.
Table 1: Core Conceptual Dimensions of Global Citizenship Education (based on UNESCO, 2018)

240 MEYER & COYLE
And yet, on further examination, this implies the need to ‘critically analyse discourses about
the global and intercultural and their multiple uses in such models: What ideologies? By whom?
For what (real) purpose(s)? What contradictions? Whose voice is silenced in these models?’
(Simpson and Dervin, 2019, p. 676). We argue, moreover, that language education in its
current state is ill-equipped to support defining such goals without first embracing a much more
holistic approach to teaching and learning. This is why we now take as a ‘point de depart’ each
of the three subdisciplines underpinning language-as-discipline and propose ways of recali-
brating them to support language learning as deeper learning for responsible global citizenship.
While we are fully aware that each of these recalibrations represents a deliberate choice, we
argue that when such choices are made transparent, a more coherent vision of education
emerges alongside the role that language-as-discipline classrooms play to support that vision.
We suggest that one of the reasons why previous attempts at innovating language learning has
not led to sustainable change is that such a holistic recalibration has not been made
or nor been made apparent.
3. Recalibrating language
In A Language as Social Semiotic-Based Approach to Teaching and Learning in Higher Edu-
cation Coffin and Donohue make the case for the centrality of language within the teaching and
learning process which hinges on the “developing capacity of students and teachers to harness
the meaning-making resources of language efficiently and effectively in relation to purpose and
context and to expand their language and meaning-making repertoires as necessary.” (Coffin &
Donohue, 2014, p. 2)
Language as a social semiotic system connects language with the notion of semiotic
mediation in which language is seen as a tool that facilitates conceptual development. This
provides opportunities to expand learner’s potential “to make new meanings about the world
and so develop new ways of being, seeing, thinking, and acting” (Coffin & Donohue, 2014, p.
4). This expansion occurs during the process of semiotic mediation where teachers and learners
work together to reconfigure not only the learners’ conceptual knowledge structures but also
the teachers’ understanding of the learners.
Whilst their focus is on the linguistic semiotic system, Coffin & Donohue point out that
language is not the only semiotic resource, suggesting that academic knowledge “is shaped not
only in and through and with language but in and through and with other semiotic resources.”

NORDIC JOURNAL OF LANGUAGE TEACHING AND LEARNING | VOL. 11 | NO. 3 | 2023 241
(p. 6). This resonates with Kramsch’s arguments (2022) regarding the digitization of semiotic
resources. Moreover, they reject reductive views of language learning which focus on the cor-
rection of linguistic errors and views language as challenging and problematic. Positioning lan-
guage as social semiotic, therefore, is an epistemological choice which will heavily impact on
the view of language we adopt:
While it is true that these language features interfere with communication to some ex-
tent, the relationship between language and communication is much more profound than
these corrections imply. Meaning is being made at every level in all the assignments
that teachers respond to. In order to respond to language use from this broader perspec-
tive of language as a meaning-making resource, a model of language of much greater
complexity than one that focuses on formal error correction is called for.”
(p. 23)
In addition, adopting a functional approach to language offers novel ways of conceptualising
language learning progression seen as increasing learners’ meaning making potential. Such
potential becomes visible through
a) the ability to critically evaluate and extract information from increasingly complex
texts in all relevant digital and analogue modes.
b) the growing command of relevant plurimodal text types and genres along a continuum
which includes primary (colloquial) as well as secondary (formal) discourses.
From this perspective, progress manifests in the quality of language use at a number of levels
(discourse, sentence, lexico-grammatical) aligned with genre conventions of the subjects. It
further shows in the breadth of obligatory and optional genre moves and, crucially, in the depth
of understanding (conceptual, cultural, (inter-) textual etc.) expressed in those moves which we
have described in more detail elsewhere (Coyle & Meyer, 2021).
Clearly, embracing a global citizenship agenda requires a much broader underlying per-
spective of language than the one currently found in many classrooms. To successfully master
the intricacies of the cognitive, socio-emotional and behavioural dimensions of global citizen-
ship, learners need to be equipped with and master the use of relevant semiotic tools which
guide and expand their ability to understand and critically evaluate their meaning-making
across cultures, subjects and languages. This is far removed from current ways of measuring
‘successful’ language learning.

242 MEYER & COYLE
4. Recalibrating culture
There have been countless definitions of culture(s). However, “none of them are adequate, for
how can one define that which makes up almost the totality of human experience?” (Landis,
1972, p. 54). And yet, for centuries it has been assumed that a fundamental element of language
instruction is intrinsically related to the ‘culture’ of the target language country. This essentialist
premise, in our opinion, has numerous flaws to be addressed: the idea that culture is singular
and static, that concentrating on one major target language country is sufficient, and that a com-
munity of speakers of a language is indicative of one shared culture.
This raises the question as to the extent to which current approaches to teaching and
learning focus on identities and underpinning values culturally embedded that reflect the grow-
ing demands of multilingual and multicultural learners in increasingly diverse settings. When
pedagogic approaches are founded on the premise that individuals create meaning through their
own cultural tools and fundamentally can be supported in ways of reading the word and the
world to create critical understanding (Freire, 1970) this moves away from applying externally
verified cultural norms. Gay’s (2010) notion of culturally responsive teaching is predicated on
enhancing learners’ cultural understanding and developing inter-cultural awareness and criti-
cality. She recommends:
seeing cultural differences as assets; creating caring learning communities where cul-
turally different individuals and heritages are valued; using cultural knowledge of eth-
nically diverse cultures, families, and communities to guide curriculum development,
classroom climates, instructional strategies, and relationships with students; challeng-
ing racial and cultural stereotypes, prejudices, racism, and other forms of intolerance,
injustice, and oppression; being change agents for social justice and academic equity;
mediating power imbalances in classrooms based on race, culture, ethnicity, and class;
and accepting cultural responsiveness as endemic to educational effectiveness in all
areas of learning for students from all ethnic groups. (Gay, 2010, p. 31)
Gay’s positioning suggests the need for a far broader understanding of literacies than previous
language-based approaches. The work of the New London Group (Cazden et al., 1996) has had
a substantial impact on contemporary language learning theories. Considering the plethora of
communication channels and growing cultural and linguistic diversity in the contemporary
world, the New London Group emphasises the significance of multiliteracies, which enable
students to become agents capable of deconstructing and reconstructing meaning through tasks

NORDIC JOURNAL OF LANGUAGE TEACHING AND LEARNING | VOL. 11 | NO. 3 | 2023 243
that encourage fundamental active and critical participation. In a similar vein, the Douglas Fir
Group (2016) supports a trans-disciplinary approach to language learning and use that aims to
extend learners’ meaning-making resources and identities by encouraging:
(…) profound awareness not only of the cultural, historical and institutional meanings
that their language-mediated social actions have, but also . . . of the dynamic and evolv-
ing role their actions play in shaping their own and others’ worlds. (p. 25)
Both groups emphasise the need for teachers to go beyond promoting cultural awareness in
language education and instead promote what we refer to as cultural consciousness. In contrast
to cultural awareness, cultural consciousness, coined by Jackson (1975), prioritises learners’
active participation in utilising cultural resources appropriately. This viewpoint is rooted in the
critical literacies movement (Street, 1995; Luke, 2000; Janks, 2013; Panos, 2017), in which all
learners are provided with opportunities to reflect on and perceive themselves in relation to
various cultures and languages (Pratt and Foley, 2020). This resonates with Freire’s (1970)
view of literacy as the ability to construct and deconstruct knowledge through dialogue - thereby
providing a pathway for problem-solving.
The role of critical literacies has had a significant impact on the development of peda-
gogic principles (e.g., in EAL (English as an Additional Language) classrooms) in settings
where teachers are responsible for enabling migrant learners or those who are not proficient in
the language of schooling to learn in mainstream classrooms. According to Pratt and Foley,
critical literacies enable learners to comprehend how one’s culture and language shapes the
perception of oneself, of the world, and of our relationship with others (Pratt & Foley, 2020).
From this perspective, texts are recognised as cultural tools that must be analysed and inter-
preted with great care to uncover and challenge inherent power relations and social inequities.
Janks et al. (2014) additionally emphasise how texts shape identity. They illustrate the ways in
which language and discourse can be used to construct identities and create inequalities. In a
similar vein, Holland et al. (1998, p. 128) recommend the use of cultural resources or artefacts
that resonate with or challenge the students’ perspectives. They believe that this promotes the
creation of inclusive and self-aware “safe” environments that connect meaningfully across lan-
guages and cultures. Lea and Street (2006) conclude that when such pedagogic processes are
situated within an academic literacies framework, learners will collaboratively and jointly in-

244 MEYER & COYLE
vestigate the variety of “genres, modes, shifts, transformations, representations, meaning-mak-
ing processes, and identities involved in academic learning within and across academic con-
texts” (Lea & Street, 2006, p. 376).
Re-orienting the language classroom towards raising cultural consciousness in learners
will allow us to reconceptualise the role of text (used here as a collective noun) in language
classrooms and open critical pathways for deeper learning:
When text is the currency for critical understanding and cultural consciousness; when
text communicates ideas and concepts which are relevant, challenging and thought-pro-
voking; when text provides the space for mediated learning and meaning making; when
text evidences linguistic progression through learners’ increasingly nuanced construc-
tion and use of language forms and their interpretation – then, the language classroom
affords potential for deeper learning. (Coyle & Meyer, 2021, p. 151)
This is consistent with Goldman et al. (2016), who emphasise the necessity of providing learn-
ers with opportunities to engage in complex tasks and activities to reach an intertextual level of
understanding by developing their capacity to:
coordinate diverse - and sometimes contradictory - information and perspectives from
multiple texts, accounting for authors’ intent, evaluating evidence presented in the text,
and judging the relevance and usefulness of each text for the task at hand (p. 4; our
emphasis).
To return to our previous argument, developing cultural consciousness thus not only requires
re-conceptualising the roles of text but, equally importantly, challenges underlying models for
decoding text in the language classroom. Transitioning from a surface understanding of text
towards appreciating text as discourse that shapes cultural consciousness in learners necessi-
tates a shift from traditional approaches to comprehension to an intertext model of reading.
5. Recalibrating Literature
Traditionally, connecting literature with language learning evokes the study of the literary
canon, prioritising great works comprising novels, stories, plays, poetry and so on. Moreover,
the study of such art forms is often seen as the preserve of more advanced students. However,
as Carter (2007) notes, the gradual displacement of such a bounded interpretation of literary

NORDIC JOURNAL OF LANGUAGE TEACHING AND LEARNING | VOL. 11 | NO. 3 | 2023 245
texts has opened the door to recalibrating literature as providing authentic, accessible multile-
veled and multimodal text which requires learners not only to understand what a text means,
but how it comes to mean what it does (Short, 1996). By providing a window into examining
the human condition and what Kramsch (2022) refers to as ‘social realities’, literature seen as
comprising a wide range of text-types provides a multi-perspectival canvass for garnering cu-
riosity, creativity and ownership through resources which are relevant to learners, open to dia-
logue and critical debate. Such texts encourage learners – any age or stage - to understand the
value of challenge, uncertainty and criticality. Of course, readers can also be encouraged to
respond creatively to texts. Pratt and Foley refer to this as taking action and countertexting
emphasizing that action is multifaceted ranging “from a conversation to a question, from an
email to a protest rally, and from an essay to a debate” (2020, p. 123). Adopting these approa-
ches to teaching literature offers valuable opportunities for developing democratic action that
values individual creativity and responsibility as a means to engage learner agency, motivation
and understanding of a sense of self.
Drawing on these perspectives, literature promotes non-binary meaning-making oppor-
tunities and experiences for learners when content and form work together to develop deeper
understanding of what creative and responsible global citizenship entails. That is, in the lan-
guage-as-discipline classroom, literature provides a locus for study of wide-ranging fiction and
non-fiction multimodal texts where developing skills of analysis, interpretation, argumentation
and creativity are underpinned by values of equity and social justice.
It is perhaps Goldman et al.’s work (2016) that has provided a significant and less ab-
stract means of reinforcing language-as-discipline by offering a conceptual framework across
the three disciplines of mathematics, science and literature. They focus on reasoning and argu-
mentation which they consider fundamental to learning in any discipline. This realigns the study
of literature with other disciplines and creates opportunities for all learners to advance and de-
velop their literacies skills (in this case focussing on reading and reasoning) as their language
proficiency increases proportionally. They argue that whilst texts may be read, they are also
discussed, debated and enacted, deconstructed and reconstructed - thereby encompassing all the
traditional language skills and more.
We suggest that this realignment may be key to reconceptualising language learning as
a discipline. Learning to read and reason or argue, for example, using a wide range of non-
fictional and fictional texts in and across languages while moving from single text to a multi-
text model, transforms the language classroom into a disciplinary learning environment where

246 MEYER & COYLE
language skills are progressed in line with critical literacy skills to promote cultural conscious-
ness. Goldman et al. detail the analytical skills involved in interpreting text ranging from ex-
pressing points of view and multi-perspectival meaning-making to critically examining features
of figuration (irony, symbolism, argumentation) and problems of structure at both the macro or
genre level and the micro level (language choice, alliteration and so on). The skills this requires,
whilst including the ‘traditional’ language skills, go way beyond in terms of providing students
with a more relevant understanding of how to interpret text. These texts might be set in past-
times, contemporary society or futures, in personal, community or local issues, global crises or
imaginary spaces but will involve creative, critical interpretation and examination of students’
own beliefs and moral imperatives – all of which we argue imply transparently moving towards
a more visible or shared understanding of what being and becoming responsible global citizen-
ship might mean at very different levels for very different learners.
Furthermore, when the relationship between texts is brought into the frame, as learners
develop increasingly critical skills, intertextual meaning-making offers ways of moving beyond
a surface understanding of literary texts towards uncovering textual meaning at the discourse
level. In addition, putting fictional texts along non-fictional and increasingly digital texts such
as websites, podcasts, tweets, posts, short videos etc., from different and contested point of
views offers organic ways of teaching learners how to evaluate information online to promote
their critical digital literacies (SHEG, 2016; 2022).
And yet, we fully concur with Kramsch that learning languages for creative and respon-
sible global citizenship calls for more. What is needed is “a model of FL education that explains
how the learning of foreign signs can change learners’ perceptions of reality and understanding
of history,” a way of going beyond language “to engage multiple meaning-meaning making
systems and subjectivities within a critical pedagogy that strives for social justice and a linguis-
tic human rights agenda” (Kramsch, 2022, p. 27-28). Her notion of empathy is rooted in social
anthropology, encompassing more than a set of skills and challenging learners to take “an emo-
tionally and epistemologically decentring stance” which demands
the willingness to step out of one’s usual way of feeling, reasoning and talking about
things and enter “someone else’ problem” – and to understand what makes it a “prob-
lem” for that particular in the first place.” (p.33)

NORDIC JOURNAL OF LANGUAGE TEACHING AND LEARNING | VOL. 11 | NO. 3 | 2023 247
We believe that harnessing the potential power of intertextual reading for empathy might be the
most significant contribution that a recalibration of literature towards responsible global citi-
zenship could offer the language-as-discipline classroom. It is important to note, however, that
intertextual reading for empathy and respect, for example, needs to account for the fact that,
ultimately, each text is informed by different epistemological frameworks. Therefore, the po-
tential of intertextuality rests on the learners’ ability to successfully navigate, relate, argue,
bridge, or agree to disagree with the epistemological positions which inform or are represented
by those texts to avoid epistemological conflicts and misunderstandings (Brister, 2017). We
call this epistemic fluency. In the language-as-discipline classroom, the focus is on the inter-
section of different epistemological positions and how they shape meaning-making. This does
not imply or require mastery of each discipline. Rather, what is needed, is an awareness that
different epistemological positioning exists which impacts heavily on meaning and interpreta-
tion. This is different from epistemic knowledge as used by PISA (2018) which describes
(…) an understanding of the function that questions, observations, theories, hypotheses,
models and arguments play in science; a recognition of the variety of forms of scientific
enquiry; and understanding the role that peer review plays in establishing knowledge
that can be trusted (OECD, 2019b)
Focussing on epistemic fluency, empathy and respect, language-as-discipline classrooms offer
spaces for intellectual and personal growth where learners are taught how to navigate plu-
rimodal texts. Providing challenging and relevant topics in a wide variety of genres and epis-
temological positions offer learners authentic opportunities to practice decentring and respond-
ing creatively and responsibly. This way, language pedagogy could indeed develop “an episte-
mology of pluralism that provides access without having to erase or leave behind different sub-
jectivities” as envisioned by the New London Group (Cazden et. al, 1996, p. 72)
6. Putting the pieces together: Pluriliteracies Teaching for Deeper Learning Languages
Before we discuss the specific contribution of the language classroom to the pluriliteracies re-
pertoire of learners, we need to specify our understanding of the term. As a pedagogic approach,
Pluriliteracies Teaching for Deeper Learning (PTDL) embodies an ecological conceptualisation
of dynamic, complex, and sustainable literacies across disciplines, languages, values, cultures,
and our digitalized world. Consequently, the term pluriliteracies refers to:

248 MEYER & COYLE
1. An explicit focus on disciplinary literacies in all subjects of schooling: Since deeper
learning is a domain-specific process, education needs to find ways of promoting subject
literacies in all subjects of schooling by focussing on subject-specific ways of construct-
ing and communicating knowledge, so that learners can become pluriliterate in the sense
of acquiring subject literacies in several subjects of schooling.
2. Pluriliterate language use: In a global world, learners need to be able to successfully
and adequately communicate knowledge across cultures and languages. Therefore, an
equally important facet of the ‘pluri-’ in pluriliteracies embraces and extends to being
literate in several subjects and languages.
3. Textual fluency: Communication is increasingly plurimodal or hybrid in nature and
reliant on multiple analogue and digital channels of communication and semiotic sys-
tems. Being able to critically evaluate sources is key to global citizenship and will pre-
pare young learners for the world they will inhabit through understanding the need for
social justice and democratic cultural competence. Therefore, being pluriliterate also
entails the ability to critically navigate, evaluate and produce a wide variety of plu-
rimodal texts and text types.
(Coyle & Meyer, 2021, p. 41/42)
In a language-as-discipline classroom, learners will be taught to understand “what it means to
be researchers of language, image, gesture, spaces, and objects, exploring such issues as what
counts as language, whose language counts, and who decides, as well as exploring ways texts
can be revised, rewritten, or reconstructed to shift or reframe the message(s) conveyed.”
(Vasquez et. al., 2019, p. 307). This embraces textual fluency, cultural consciousness as well
as epistemic fluency.
We believe that a shift towards literacies will enable the language classroom to contrib-
ute significantly to the pluriliterate repertoire of learners: First, it can substantially increase
learners’ textual fluency in an additional language and thus empower them to critically navigate
a broad range of plurimodal texts and text types. Second, an explicit emphasis on cultural con-
sciousness provides educators with the opportunity to place contemporary issues such as pov-
erty and social justice at the top of the classroom agenda by embracing an openness around the
decolonisation of the curriculum, the dominance of western white politics, and global urgencies
around the planet, energy, and technology, all of which have been deemed too sensitive or po-
litically charged for classroom discussion. Third, learning to explain and argue such highly

NORDIC JOURNAL OF LANGUAGE TEACHING AND LEARNING | VOL. 11 | NO. 3 | 2023 249
complex, contentious, and culturally charged issues from multiple perspectives and sources will
open pathways for deeper understanding not only of the underlying concepts but also of how
language is used to shape those discourses and to affect the audience. Moreover, encouraging
students to explore imaginary worlds, engage in creative discourse and weave together semiotic
resources is fundamental to developing learner identity and sense of wellbeing and belonging
(Jewitt, 2008). Such an understanding is key for educating for emotional decentring and empa-
thy. This will reposition language teachers as powerful change agents and transform the lan-
guage classroom into a hub for responsible global citizenship:
Figure 4: Pluriliteracies Teaching for Deeper Learning (PTDL) in the foreign language classroom
7. Futures thinking: embracing a new paradigm of language learning and teaching
Having focussed thus far on making epistemological arguments for recalibrating and validating
language-as-discipline, such thinking cannot simply be ‘applied’ to language classrooms. A
starting point for considering how practices can support ecological growth – owned by teachers
and learners - suggests that working towards epistemic and textual fluency as building blocks
put deeper learning at their very core. Rethinking how to design tasks and activities has led to
the development of a new task model (deeper learning episodes). To assess the quality of
deeper learning episodes, we have introduced the construct of task fidelity, a set of evidence-
based criteria to evaluate the degree to which such tasks promote deeper learning through de-
sign principles. High task fidelity is fundamental because it provides learners with opportunities
to experience:

250 MEYER & COYLE
• Relevance (personal and practical)
• Practical knowledge-building and knowledge-using, the doing or application (inquiry,
problem-solving etc) according to subject-specific practices
• Development of subject-specific literacies discourses and practices (literacies)
• Languaging and demonstrating learning across subjects and languages
• Co-construction of transparent transfer pathways (abstraction, contextualisation, rela-
tional transfer and schema-building)
• Mentoring learning and personal growth (dynamic scaffolding, feedback and assess-
ment)
• Increasing awareness, engagement and progression across all activity domains
• Critical reflection, revision and self-improvement through deep practise
• Assessment for deeper learning cycles and praxis.
• Partnership working in a collaborative Learnscape
(Coyle & Meyer 2021, p. 131/132)
Practices informed by these principles demand a significant move beyond communicative and
linguistic goals. The focus shifts from learners ‘consuming’ pre-determined primarily monolin-
gual content to learners using their plurilingual repertoire to engage critically, creatively, and
responsibly with life issues affecting them on a local, national and global level.
So, what does this mean for a language-as-discipline curriculum? Borges and Pavi’s
(2011 in Borges, 2014) paper defining the semiotic-ecological syllabus provides a useful locus
for further discussion. They draw on van Lier’s (1996) work advocating that language curricu-
lum development must take account of moral as well as intellectual and practical principles
based on practitioner knowledge of language education. Whilst this may lead to variance in
actualising practices, it embodies an ecological approach to curriculum design that “places a
strong emphasis on contextualizing language into other semiotic systems”. Borges and Pavi go
on to usefully identify two axes that help conceptualise a semiotic-sociological curriculum: a
horizontal axis, which “forges links between different subjects, exploring cross-curricular
themes, and dealing with global linguistic problems and issues” and a vertical axis, which offers
“deep and rich language experiences throughout the child’s academic career, and building usa-
ble and lasting language skills” (Borges, 2014, p. 52). This resonates with the arguments put
forward throughout our paper. In fact, establishing language-as-discipline position the language

NORDIC JOURNAL OF LANGUAGE TEACHING AND LEARNING | VOL. 11 | NO. 3 | 2023 251
classroom in line with other curricular subjects providing rich opportunities for both discipli-
nary-focused and transdisciplinary work where two or more subjects look at the same issues
through their disciplinary lenses to encourage a deeper, multi-perspectival understanding.
These suggestions enable us to transcend bounded dichotomies inherent in earlier conceptuali-
sations of language learning and to move into a new paradigm of language-as-discipline em-
bodied in deeper learning for creative and responsible global citizenship. In such a paradigm,
content learning and language learning are inseparable components of meaning making.
Borges (2014) outlines the challenging stages demanded by thinking through new par-
adigms. By addressing and recalibrating the epistemological, disciplinary and practical dimen-
sions of language-as-discipline, we have attempted to move from addressing deeply philosoph-
ical questions about language learning, to justifying pedagogic approaches and finally to for-
mulating suggestions for designing classroom practices.
We know that positioning language-as-discipline is complex, contentious and as previ-
ously stated, open to wide interpretation. We welcome this. We have also chosen to emphasise
the creativity and the responsibility that embodies a global perspective and ‘the provision of
insights, ideas and information that enable students to look beyond the confines of local and
national boundaries in their thinking and aspirations’ (Pike, 2008, p. 469). It may be that the
successful transformation of the principles and processes presented in this paper, hinges on the
ontological opportunities it opens up for all leaners and teachers. Such affordances involve ways
of confronting, reflecting on and understanding better our own thinking, ideologies and identi-
ties/selves. It’s now for educators, academics and practitioners together to heed the urgent calls
for change. We hope this paper will encourage further dialogue.

252 MEYER & COYLE
References
Borges, E. F. d. V (2014). Paradigm Shift in Language Teaching and Language Teacher Edu-
cation. The ESPecialist, 35(1), 42-59.
Brister, E. (2017). Epistemological obstacles to interdisciplinary research. Integration and
Implementation Insights. https://i2insights.org/2017/10/31/epistemology-and-interdis-
ciplinarity/
Carter, R. (2007). Literature and language teaching 1986-2006: A review. International Jour-
nal of Applied Linguistics, 17(1), 3–13. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1473-
4192.2007.00130.x
Cazden, C., Cope, B., Fairclough, N., Gee, J. et al. (New London Group) (1996). A Pedagogy
of Multiliteracies: Designing Social Futures. Harvard Educational Review, 66(1), 60-
92.
Coffin, C., & Donohue, J. (2014). A language as social semiotic-based approach to teaching
and learning in higher education. John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
Council of Europe (2001). The Common European Framework of Reference Council of Eu-
rope. Council of Europe Publishing/Éditions du Conseil de l’Europe
Council of Europe (2022). The sixth sense for literature: a new pluricultural approach to liter-
ary texts as mediation and reaction to literature according to the new descriptors of the
CEFR companion volume. In E. Nuvoloni & S. Zanetti (Eds.), Enriching 21st-century
language education: the CEFR volume in practice. Council of Europe Publishing/Édi-
tions du Conseil de l’Europe. https://rm.coe.int/enriching-21st-century-language-edu-
cation-the-cefr-companion-volume-in/1680a68ed0
Coyle, D., Meyer, O., Staschen-Dielmann, S. (Eds.) (2023). A Deeper Learning Companion
for CLIL Putting Pluriliteracies into Practice. Cambridge University Press.
Coyle, D. & Meyer, O. (2021). Beyond CLIL. Pluriliteracies Teaching for Deeper Learning.
Cambridge University Press.
Douglas Fir Group (2016). A Transdisciplinary Framework for SLA in a Multilingual World.
The Modern Language Journal, 100, 19-47, https://doi.org/10.1111/modl.12301
Foley, Y. (2021). Why the learning and teaching of diverse critical literacies matter. EAL
Journal, 16, 58-62.
Freire, P. (1970). Pedagogy of the Oppressed. Seabury Press.
Gay, G. (2010). Culturally responsive teaching - Theory, Research and Practice (2nd
ed.). Teachers College Press.
Goldman, S.R., M., Britt, M.A., Brown, W., Cribb, G., George, M.A., Greenleaf, C., Lee, C.
D., Shanahan, C. & Project READI (2016). Disciplinary Literacies and Learning to
Read for Understanding: A Conceptual Framework for Disciplinary Literacy, Educa-
tional Psychologist, 51(2), 219-246. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2016.1168741
Griful-Freixenet, G., Struyven, K., Vantieghem, W. (2021). Exploring pre-service teachers’
beliefs and practices about two inclusive frameworks: Universal Design for Learning
and differentiated instruction. Teaching and Teacher Education, 107.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2021.103503
Guerriero, S. (Ed.) (2017). Pedagogical Knowledge and the Changing Nature of the Teaching
Profession, Educational Research and Innovation. OECD Publishing.
https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264270695-en.
Holland, D., Lachicotte, W., Skinner, D. and Cain, C. 1998. Identity and Agency in Cultural
Worlds, Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Jackson, J. (1975). Recent Ethnography of Indigenous Northern Lowland South America.
Annual Review of Anthropology, 4, 307–340.

NORDIC JOURNAL OF LANGUAGE TEACHING AND LEARNING | VOL. 11 | NO. 3 | 2023 253
Janks, H. (2014). The importance of critical literacy. In J. Z. Pandya & J. Avila (Eds.), Mov-
ing critical literacies forward – A new look at praxis across contexts. (pp. 32-44).
Routledge.
Jewitt, C. (2008). Multimodality and Literacy in School Classrooms. Review of Research in
Education, 32(1), 241–267. https://doi.org/10.3102/0091732X07310586
Kramsch, C. (2022). Re-imagining Foreign Language Education in a Post-COVID-19 World.
In Lütge, C. Merse, T. & Rauschert, P. (Eds.), Global Citizenship in Foreign Langu-
age Education. Routledge.
Landis, P.H. (1972). Sociology. Ginn and Company.
Lea, M. R., & Street, B. V. (2006). The ‘Academic Literacies’ Model: Theory and Applica-
tions. Theory Into Practice, 45(4), 368–377. https://doi.org/c935vb
Lee, C. D., Goldman, S. R., Levine, S., & Magliano, J. P. (2016). Epistemic cognition in liter-
ary reasoning. In J. Green, W. Sandoval, & I. Bråten (Eds.), Handbook of epistemic
cognition (pp. 165–183). Routledge.
Lütge, C., Merse, T., & Rauschert, P. (Eds.). (2022). Global Citizenship in Foreign Language
Education: Concepts, Practices, Connections (1st ed.). Routledge. https://doi.org/k9gf
Luke, A. (2000). Critical literacy in Australia: A matter of context and standpoint. Journal of
Adolescent and Adult Literacy, 43(5), 448-461.
Mateus, C.H., Gonzalez, A. M. G., Alzate, L.V.C., Lalle, C. de los Angeles (2021). Exploring
Pre-Service Teachers’ Beliefs about Language Teaching and Learning: A Narrative
Study. MEXTESOL Journal, 45(1). https://www.mextesol.net/journal/idex.php?page=
journal&id_article=23378
McConachie, S. M., Petrosky, A. R., & Resnick, L. B. (2009). Content Matters: A Discipli-
nary Literacy Approach to Improving Student Learning. Jossey-Bass.
McIntosh, J. & Mendoza- Denton, N. (Eds). (2020). Language in the Trump era: Scandals
and emergencies. Cambridge University Press.
National Research Council (U.S.), Pellegrino, J. W., Hilton, M. L., (Eds.). (2012). Education
for life and work: Developing transferable knowledge and skills in the 21st century.
The National Academies Press.
OECD (2019a). OECD future of education and skills 2030: OECD learning compass 2030, a
series of concept notes. http://www.oecd.org/education/2030-project/contact/OECD_
Learning_Compass_2030_Concept_Note_Series.pdf
OECD (2019b), PISA 2018 Assessment and Analytical Framework, PISA, OECD Publishing.
https://doi.org/10.1787/b25efab8-en
Panos, A. (2017). Towards translingual and transcultural practice: explorations in a white-ma-
jority, rural, Midwestern elementary classroom. Journal of Multilingual and Multicul-
tural Development, 38(5), 422-437. https://doi.org/10.1080/01434632.2016.1186679
Pike, G. (2008). Global education. In The SAGE Handbook of Education for Citizenship and
Democracy (pp. 468-481). SAGE Publications Ltd. https://doi.org/gf9q5s
Pountain, C.J. (2019). Modern Languages as an academic discipline: the linguistic compo-
nent. Language, Culture and Curriculum, 32(3), 244–260. https://doi.org/k9gg
Pratt, L., & Foley, Y. (2020). Using critical literacy to 'do' identity and gender. In Social Jus-
tice Re-Examined: Dilemmas and Solutions for the Classroom Teacher Trentham
Books.
Putra, G. B. S. & Tang, K.-S. (2016). Disciplinary literacy instructions on writing scientific
explanations. A case study from a chemistry classroom in an all-girls school. Chemis-
try Education Research and Practice, 17, 569–579.

254 MEYER & COYLE
Reynolds BL, Liu S, Ha XV, Zhang X and Ding C (2021). Pre-service Teachers Learning to
Teach English as a Foreign Language to Preschool Learners in Macau: A Longitudinal
Study. Frontiers in Psychology, 12. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.720660
Reysen, S. & Katzarska-Miller, I. (2013). A model of global citizenship: Antecendents and
Outcomes. International Journal of Psychology, 48(5), 858-870, http://dx.doi.org/10.
1080/00207594.2012.701749
Simpson, A. & Dervin, F. (2019). Global and intercultural competences for whom? By
whom? For what purpose?: an example from the Asia Society and the OECD, Com-
pare: A Journal of Comparative and International Education, 49(4), 672-677, https://
doi.org/10.1080/03057925.2019.1586194
Stanford History Education Group (SHEG)(2022).Teaching Civic Online Reasoning Across
the Curriculum. https://www.pageturnpro.com/AASA/104417-May-2022/sdefault.
html#page/24
Stanford History Education Group (SHEG). (2016). Evaluating Information: The Cornerstone
of Civic Online Reasoning. https://stacks.stan-
ford.edu/file/druid:fv751yt5934/SHEG%20Evaluating%20Information%20Online.pdf
Short, D. J. (1996). Integrating Language and Culture in the Social Studies. A Final Report to
the U.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Research and Improvement.
https://perma.cc/Z987-C2PC
Starkey, H. (2022). Challenges to Global Citizenship Education. In: Lütge, C. Merse, T. &
Rauschert, P. (Eds.), Global Citizenship in Foreign Language Education Concepts,
Practices, Connections. (pp. 62-78). Routledge.
Street, B. V. (1995). Social literacies: Critical approaches to literacy in development, ethnog-
raphy, and education. Longman.
Swaffar, J. (1999). The Case for Foreign Languages as a Discipline. ADFL Bulletin, 30(3),
Reprinted in: Profession 199: MLA, 1999, 155-167.
Taveau, F. (2023). Modern Languages: Exploring Pluriliteracies through a Deeper Learning
Episode in French Literature with Younger Beginner Learners. In D. Coyle, O. Meyer,
& S. Staschen-Dielmann (Eds.), A Deeper Learning Companion for CLIL: Putting
Pluriliteracies into Practice (pp. 184-214). Cambridge University Press.
https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009043755.013
UNESCO (2018). Global citizenship education and the rise of nationalist perspectives reflec-
tions and possible ways forward https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000265414
Van Lier, L. (1996). Interaction in the Language Curriculum: Awareness, Autonomy, and Au-
thenticity. Longman.
Vasquez, V.M., Janks, H., Comber, B. (2019). Critical Literacy as a Way of Being and Doing.
Language Arts, 96(5), 301–311.