Article
Samira Yaghouti*
Finland Futures Research Centre, Turku School of Economics, University of Turku, Finland
Abstract
European language education faces layered challenges spanning institutional, cultural, and narrative dimensions, yet these remain underexamined through anticipatory futures methods. This study applies Causal Layered Analysis (CLA) and Dator’s four alternative futures to explore how language teachers perceive current constraints and emerging possibilities in European language education. Based on qualitative data from fifteen educators across European contexts, the analysis identifies tensions across visible challenges, systems, worldviews, and metaphors, which inform the development of four future-oriented scenarios. The article contributes a structured, futures-informed approach to language education research that supports more inclusive pedagogy and long-term educational policy thinking.
Keywords
Futures Studies, Language Education, Causal Layered Analysis, Multilingualism, Scenarios
Introduction
Language education in Europe stands at a pivotal juncture, shaped by accelerating socio-political change, technological disruption, and evolving pedagogical paradigms. As the European Union continues to promote multilingualism and cultural diversity, language education functions as both a tool for integration and a mirror of deeper societal dynamics. Growing intra-European mobility, fueled by economic migration, digital transformation, and shifting geopolitical conditions, intensifies the need for equitable language policies that support linguistic inclusion and intercultural competence.
However, despite these strategic aims, language education across Europe faces persistent challenges. Structural disparities in resource allocation, inconsistent policy implementation, and the dominance of English as a lingua franca continue to marginalize regional, heritage, and migrant languages. The COVID-19 pandemic further disrupted educational systems, exposing digital inequities and forcing a rapid transition online. While this disruption also catalyzed pedagogical innovation, it underscored the need for flexible and inclusive frameworks capable of addressing immediate pressures and longer-term transformations. Such complexity calls for approaches that move beyond present conditions and actively engage with alternative futures.
To engage with this gap, the study situates its analysis within Futures Studies, an interdisciplinary field that offers tools to connect current challenges with their potential trajectories across alternative futures. It is concerned with exploring possible, probable, and preferable futures, rather than predicting a single outcome (Inayatullah, 2008). Central to this approach is the recognition that futures are shaped by social choices, values, and cultural contexts, making it useful for rethinking education in times of uncertainty and transformation.
Guided by this orientation, the study addresses two central research questions:
(1) What challenges and concerns do language teachers in Europe identify as significant now and toward the futures of language education?
(2) How do language teachers in Europe perceive the potential impact of emerging trends such as technological advancements, shifts in education policy, and sociocultural changes on their teaching practices and the future of language education?
To examine these questions, the study applies Causal Layered Analysis (CLA) (Inayatullah, 2008) in combination with Jim Dator’s alternative futures framework (Dator, 2009). CLA allows for a multidimensional exploration of educational issues across four layers: litany, systemic causes, worldview, and myths/metaphors. This enables a deeper investigation into how challenges in language education are shaped by institutional structures, ideological assumptions, and cultural narratives. Coupled with Dator’s framework, this methodological approach supports the development of scenarios that articulate competing visions for multilingual education in Europe.
Building on these aims, this article analyzes teachers’ responses through a layered lens to highlight immediate classroom challenges and the deeper systemic and cultural dynamics that shape them, particularly in multilingual and multicultural contexts. In doing so, it shows how educators’ reflections can inform more responsive approaches to language teaching and lays the groundwork for scenario building that explores alternative futures for European language education.
Background
Language education in Europe: importance, challenges, and policy ambitions
Multilingualism is a foundational ambition in European language education, expressed in the “mother tongue plus two” model and reinforced through the EU’s goals of intercultural dialogue, mobility, and social cohesion, as reflected in reports by the European Commission’s European Education and Culture Executive Agency and recent Council of Europe work on plurilingual and intercultural education (CEFR Expert Group, 2023; European Commission/EACEA/Eurydice, 2023). Yet, the gap between policy rhetoric and educational reality persists. Language education systems across Member States remain uneven in how they promote and protect linguistic diversity, particularly regarding regional, heritage, and migrant languages.
In 2023, 97.7% of lower-secondary pupils in the EU were learning English, while far fewer studied French (29.3%), German (20.9%), or Spanish (18.5%). Only 59.5% of lower-secondary pupils and nearly half of upper-secondary pupils studied two or more foreign languages (Eurostat, 2023). In comparison, 2015 figures already showed modest rates for French, German, and Spanish participation (European Commission/EACEA/Eurydice, 2017), indicating that limited diversification in language learning is a persistent trend rather than a recent development.
Alongside these disparities, at the policy level, EU discourse has increasingly presented language education not only as a cultural tool but also as a strategic investment in economic integration and competitiveness. Proficiency in multiple languages is positioned as an asset for cross-border collaboration and as a driver of labor market mobility (Dendrinos, 2018; European Commission/EACEA/Eurydice, 2017, 2023). Language instruction is therefore often embedded in workforce development agendas as much as in cultural education strategies. Beyond economic competitiveness, language education is also framed as a cultural resource, expected to preserve linguistic heritage and foster mutual understanding.
While these aims are reflected in the EU’s multilingualism discourse, implementation varies considerably across regions. For example, although Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL) and the European Language Portfolio (ELP) have been promoted as inclusive pedagogical innovations, their uptake has often been limited by structural inequalities, resource constraints, and insufficient teacher training (Little, 2005; Le Pichon-Vorstman et al., 2021).
The contradiction between aspirational policy frameworks and uneven implementation highlights the need to examine language education as a complex, layered sociopolitical system. This study takes up that challenge by applying CLA to uncover how these tensions are embedded within both institutional structures and deeper cultural narratives, setting the stage for more futures-oriented inquiry.
Persistent barriers and systemic gaps in language education
Despite long-standing commitments to multilingualism in European education policy, language education across Europe continues to face persistent and embedded challenges. These barriers are not merely the result of outdated practices or isolated failures, but stem from broader socio-political, economic, and institutional conditions that constrain meaningful change.
A recurring issue across the literature and in teacher accounts is the dominance of English as a lingua franca and Europe’s most widely taught foreign language. While English is often associated with economic opportunity and global participation, this instrumental orientation can overshadow lesser-taught, regional, heritage, and migrant languages (Dendrinos, 2018; Phillipson, 2008). This tension is also visible in Nordic contexts, where English is deeply integrated across education, work, and everyday life but raises questions about language attitudes, identity, and the position of national and other Nordic languages (Peterson & Fägersten, 2024). At classroom and curricular levels, students’ linguistic repertoires are not always mobilized as learning resources, despite calls for action-oriented plurilingual approaches that value home, minority, and additional languages (CEFR Expert Group, 2023; Le Pichon-Vorstman et al., 2021). Regional and minority languages are formally acknowledged in many European education systems, yet their provision depends on uneven national, regional, and local measures, including legislation, funding, teacher training, and teaching materials (European Commission/EACEA/Eurydice, 2019).
Resource disparities further entrench these inequities. Underfunded schools, especially in rural and economically disadvantaged regions, often lack access to modern digital infrastructure, updated learning materials, or culturally inclusive resources. These constraints make it difficult to implement pedagogical innovations such as CLIL or hybrid learning models, which are associated with improving language learning, intercultural competence, and educational quality (Martyniuk, 2016; Le Pichon-Vorstman et al., 2021; Dmitrenko & Akhmadullin, 2023). In parallel, rigid curricula and standardized testing regimes can leave teachers with limited flexibility to adapt instruction to local or individual learner needs, a tension that intersects with broader futures literacy concerns about using multiple images of the future to expand choices and foster adaptability in the present (Martyniuk, 2016; Miller, 2018; Pouru-Mikkola & Wilenius, 2021).
Efforts have been made to address these issues. Initiatives such as the ELP, digital inclusion strategies, and plurilingual education frameworks reflect a growing awareness of the structural imbalances in language education (Little, 2005; Council of Europe, 2020; Dmitrenko & Akhmadullin, 2023).
However, the cumulative evidence suggests that such reforms have only partially mitigated the deeper systemic and ideological tensions within the field. Most notably, research and policy discourse often remain focused on surface-level solutions, such as technical interventions or curricular updates, without fully examining the underlying worldviews, policy narratives, or power structures that shape language education systems. The prioritization of “practical” or “marketable” languages over identity-affirming linguistic diversity reflects a utilitarian framing within language policy discourse (Dendrinos, 2018; Le Pichon-Vorstman et al., 2021). This study addresses that gap by applying a layered analytical approach, CLA, to explore not only visible challenges but also the cultural and structural forces that sustain them, and to develop anticipatory strategies that challenge dominant narratives in education.
Applying futures methodologies in language education
Futures methodologies offer useful frameworks for navigating complexity and supporting transformative change in education. Scenario planning, strategic foresight, CLA, Futures Literacy, and transformative futures learning support long-term thinking, expand agency, and encourage critical engagement with possible futures (Inayatullah, 1998; Miller, 2018; Pouru-Mikkola & Wilenius, 2021). In educational contexts, these approaches help shift attention from prediction toward the exploration of alternative futures, inherited assumptions, and learners’ capacity to participate, belong, and act in uncertain conditions (Häggström & Schmidt, 2021; Menéndez-Alvarez-Hevia et al., 2022).
Despite this progress, the explicit application of futures methodologies within language education research remains limited. While pedagogical innovations such as CLIL and Computer-Assisted Language Learning (CALL) have gained attention, they are generally framed as pedagogical or policy reforms rather than as approaches for interrogating the deeper worldviews and cultural narratives that shape systemic inequities. This gap is consistent with broader reviews of futures studies in education, which show that the field remains under development and that existing applications are concentrated mainly in general education, higher education, teacher training, design, and related fields rather than language education specifically (Menéndez-Alvarez-Hevia et al., 2022). Calls for forward-looking approaches to support plurilingualism and equity therefore remain relevant in European language education policy and practice (Le Pichon-Vorstman et al., 2021).
CLA addresses this gap by offering a multi-layered framework to explore not only surface-level challenges but also the structural, ideological, and narrative dimensions that sustain them (Inayatullah, 1998). Through its four layers, CLA enables researchers to surface deeper patterns and challenge dominant assumptions. CLA has been applied in design education to help students engage with complex societal challenges and think more systematically about futures-oriented design problems (Scupelli, 2022). Its relevance to language education in this study lies in its ability to reveal how linguistic hegemony, policy inertia, and the marginalization of non-dominant languages are perpetuated by unexamined narratives and belief systems.
Building on earlier CLA scholarship, the edited volume CLA 3.0: Thirty Years of Transformative Research and practice presents thirty years of theoretical, methodological, and applied development in CLA, including applications across education, equity, sustainability, policy, and transformative research (Inayatullah et al., 2022). For this study, CLA provides analytical scaffolding for interpreting teacher narratives, connecting observable challenges with systemic tensions and metaphorical framings. The insights derived from it are then translated into future-oriented scenarios using Dator’s framework, offering a structured way to envision alternative educational trajectories.
Methodology
Participants, data gathering method, and ethics
This study involved fifteen language teachers from diverse European contexts enrolled in a professional development course on digital and intercultural literacies. To protect anonymity, specific countries are not identified, although participants represented varied linguistic and educational backgrounds. Participants were selected from an initial invitation to approximately thirty-five educators and had varying qualifications in linguistics, translation, and language pedagogy. Their teaching experience ranged from early career to over ten years; several were current or former doctoral researchers.
Figure 1 presents participants’ teaching experience, drawn from the questionnaire’s demographic section. As several demographic variables, including country of origin and academic background, could make participants identifiable within the small sample (n = 15), only teaching experience is shown. Responses are grouped into four categories: 0–1 year, 2–5 years, 6–10 years, and 10+ years. This approach protects participant anonymity while still offering demographic clarity.
Participants were introduced to the study through a brief presentation outlining core concepts from Futures Studies, including multiple possible futures and the layered structure of CLA. This introduction only clarified the concepts underlying the questionnaire. Participants were not taught CLA as a method, nor were they guided toward themes such as policy, technology, or pedagogy. The intention was to ensure conceptual clarity before independent survey completion, consistent with futures-literacy principles that foreground open, anticipatory reflection.
Fig. 1: Distribution of participants’ teaching experience by grouped category
Note. n = 15.
Following this introduction, participants completed a digital, open-ended questionnaire structured around CLA’s four layers. The prompts elicited reflections on persistent challenges, systemic drivers, shared assumptions, and deeper cultural or symbolic framings in language education. The online format allowed geographically dispersed respondents to participate asynchronously and in their preferred language, supporting accessibility and reflective depth.
Although data were collected through an individual, open-ended questionnaire rather than a facilitated foresight workshop, participants’ responses nonetheless revealed layered perspectives on current and future challenges in language education. Their metaphors, concerns, and value-laden narratives extended beyond immediate issues, surfacing deeper cultural framings and systemic critiques. The written responses reflected futures-oriented insight consistent with anticipatory inquiry. The questionnaire is available upon request.
The study followed the University of Turku’s research ethics guidelines and the Finnish National Board on Research Integrity (TENK) principles for responsible conduct of research. Informed consent was obtained digitally, and participants were informed of the study’s purpose, their right to withdraw at any time, and the confidential handling of their data. No sensitive personal information was collected. All responses were anonymized and stored securely in accordance with the European Union’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR).
Data analysis
Analysis followed CLA’s four layers: Litany, referring to surface challenges; Systemic Causes, referring to structural drivers; Worldview, referring to shared assumptions; and Myth/Metaphor, referring to deep symbolic framings. This analytical structure drew on insights from CLA 3.0, which emphasizes movement across layers and the role of metaphors in shaping futures thinking (Inayatullah et al., 2022).
Coding involved a two-step process. First, deductive first-pass coding mapped each response onto the relevant CLA layer or layers. Second, cross-layer axial coding traced overlaps across layers, examining how litany-level observations related to systemic drivers, worldviews, and metaphors. For example, the statement “In a class of over 30 students, it is almost impossible to give everyone time to practice” was coded at the Litany level, as it referred to large class sizes, and linked to Systemic Causes, including underfunding and staffing constraints. Similarly, “Students come to class already believing that only English matters” was coded at the Worldview level, while metaphors such as “teaching as juggling” and “dying languages” were categorized at the Myth/Metaphor layer. This reflects CLA 3.0’s emphasis on movement across layers and metaphors’ role in shaping systemic and worldview dynamics (Inayatullah et al., 2022).
This dual process of direct mapping and interpretive coding allowed individual responses to be situated within a layered understanding of language education, highlighting both observable challenges and the cultural and narrative framings that sustain them.
The layered dataset then informed structured scenario development. Dator’s (2009) four alternative futures, Continuation, Collapse, Discipline, and Transformation, were used to translate participants’ concerns into plausible long-term trajectories for language education. CLA and Dator’s framework were integrated sequentially but reflexively: CLA surfaced layered narratives and metaphors, while Dator’s framework provided a scaffold for translating these layered findings into alternative futures (Inayatullah et al., 2022). For instance, recurring concerns about declining motivation to learn minority or heritage languages informed the Collapse scenario, while metaphors such as “language as a gateway” shaped the Transformation scenario. Thus, the combination of a CLA-informed questionnaire and interpretive coding supported a futures-literate analysis connecting teacher responses to long-term possibilities for language education.
Results
This section presents the CLA-based results, as outlined in Table 1. The findings are organized into four layers, Litany, Systemic Causes, Worldview, and Myths/Metaphors, each offering a deeper view of the participants’ perspectives. While the methodology section described the analytical framework, this section illustrates how each layer manifested in the data, supported by direct quotations and thematic patterns.
Table 1: CLA layers, thematic clusters, and representative teacher quotes
| CLA Layer | Conceptual Focus | Thematic Clusters Identified in Data | Representative Teacher Quotes |
|---|---|---|---|
| Litany | Surface problems | Low motivation for non-English languages; over-reliance on translation apps/AI; resource shortages; large class sizes | “Students submit assignments translated word-for-word by an app.” “We use the same resources year after year, with no support to modernize.” “In a class of over 30 students, it’s almost impossible to ensure everyone gets to speak.” |
| Systemic Causes | Institutional and structural drivers | English/STEM prioritization; insufficient digital/AI training; resource inequities; rigid curricula; staffing shortages | “Languages like German or Portuguese are being squeezed out because they’re seen as less useful than English or math.” “We’re expected to use new tools like AI, but there’s no formal training.” “Our class sizes keep growing because there just aren’t enough teachers.” |
| Worldview | Shared assumptions and cultural beliefs | English as global default; language teaching undervalued; ambivalence toward technology; globalization and heritage loss | “Students think they only need English, so they don’t see the point in learning other languages.” “Language teaching isn’t taken seriously; it’s seen as secondary to STEM.” “Technology is helpful, but it can’t replace the connection between a teacher and a student.” |
| Myth/Metaphor | Symbolic narratives and identity-level framings | Language as gateway; technology as double-edged sword; teaching as juggling; dying languages; teachers as last line of defense | “When students learn a language, they’re learning to see the world through someone else’s eyes.” “It’s like juggling flaming torches while standing on a moving platform.” “It feels like a losing battle every year; fewer students are interested in heritage languages.” “It feels like we’re the last line of defense for our language.” “Teaching a language can feel like resisting cultural erasure.” |
Note. Quotes are from questionnaire responses, with minimal editing.
The litany layer: surface-level challenges in language education
The surface-level challenges identified by language teachers highlight persistent obstacles affecting daily classroom practice. A significant concern raised by participants is “low student motivation,” particularly toward learning languages other than English. Teachers reported that students often perceive English as the only “necessary” global language, diminishing their interest in lesser-taught languages such as Finnish, Portuguese, or German. One respondent explained, “Students come to class already believing that only English matters. It’s hard to spark curiosity for other languages when they think they won’t need them.” This lack of motivation hinders engagement and threatens efforts to foster multilingualism in educational systems.
Another recurring issue is the “over-reliance on digital tools,” including translation apps and AI-driven platforms. While these tools offer convenience, participants noted that they often lead to superficial engagement. One teacher remarked, “Students submit assignments translated word-for-word by an app. It’s faster for them, but they don’t engage with the language.” This reliance on automation reduces engagement with language structure, cultural nuance, and expression.
“Resource limitations” were also prominent in participants’ responses, especially in public schools and underfunded regions. Teachers reported relying on outdated textbooks and lacking access to immersive or culturally rich teaching materials. As one respondent commented, “We use the same resources year after year, with no support to modernize.” These constraints disproportionately affect educators of lesser-taught languages and restrict innovation in language pedagogy.
Finally, “large class sizes” appeared as a major barrier to effective teaching. Several teachers described classrooms with more than thirty students, making it difficult to ensure individual participation and meaningful feedback. One participant explained, “In a class of over 30 students, it’s almost impossible to ensure that everyone gets the chance to speak and practice.” This issue reflects broader structural limitations that compound the challenges faced by language teachers across the continent.
These visible challenges open onto deeper systemic, cultural, and ideological dynamics shaping European language education.
Systemic causes: structural and institutional factors in language education
The Systemic Causes layer examines institutional dynamics that perpetuate litany-level challenges. These factors include policy decisions, funding mechanisms, professional development gaps, and rigid curricula, all of which shape the conditions under which language teachers work.
Participants frequently pointed to “education policy priorities” that marginalize language learning, particularly in comparison to STEM subjects. Several respondents noted that languages are treated as “optional, not essential,” reflecting how funding and curriculum design often prioritize economic utility over linguistic and cultural competencies. One teacher explained, “Languages like German or Portuguese are being squeezed out because they’re seen as less useful than English or math.” This policy-driven marginalization reinforces student beliefs that “only English matters,” diminishing the status of lesser-taught languages in schools.
The integration of “digital tools and AI” was further connected to systemic failures in professional development. Teachers were expected to integrate emerging technologies without sufficient training or institutional support. As one participant shared, “We’re expected to use new tools like AI, but there’s no formal training, just trial and error.” These gaps disproportionately affect educators in underfunded regions, widening the digital divide and limiting innovation.
“Resource inequities” were also described as deeply embedded in institutional structures. Educators from public and rural schools consistently cited a lack of modern materials and culturally responsive content. “We don’t have access to the kind of interactive tools that would really make language learning engaging for students,” one teacher stated. These disparities reduce opportunities for immersion, particularly in less dominant languages, and perpetuate systemic gaps between privileged and marginalized learning environments.
Another recurring theme was the “rigidity of national curricula,” which limited teachers’ ability to respond creatively to student needs. Several participants expressed frustration over a lack of autonomy, even when pedagogical flexibility could enhance engagement. One teacher reflected, “Even when I know a different approach would work better, I have to follow the fixed curriculum.” This lack of adaptability was described as stifling innovation and responsiveness, particularly in diverse, multilingual classrooms.
Teachers also connected “large class sizes” to systemic underfunding and staffing shortages. One participant noted, “Our class sizes keep growing because there just aren’t enough teachers.” These limitations restrict interaction and individualized instruction, particularly where language learning requires frequent speaking and feedback.
Finally, some participants raised concerns about the growing reliance on “AI-based assessments,” which prioritize efficiency over interpretive or intercultural dimensions of language learning. One teacher remarked, “AI might tell me if a sentence is grammatically correct, but it can’t assess whether a student truly understands its cultural meaning.” This concern illustrates the broader institutional tendency to optimize assessment systems at the expense of deeper pedagogical values.
Taken together, the systemic causes of language education challenges in Europe include policy neglect, resource inequities, lack of training infrastructure, and inflexible curricula. These factors create structural conditions that constrain pedagogical autonomy, diminish linguistic diversity, and reinforce the surface-level issues identified in the litany layer.
Worldview layer: cultural and societal perspectives in language education
This layer explores the collective attitudes, societal assumptions, and ideological norms that underpin both institutional practices and everyday classroom realities. Based on participants’ reflections, five key worldview themes emerged. These themes reveal how language teaching is culturally valued, framed, and understood across European contexts.
English as an unquestioned default
Across participant responses, English emerged not merely as a widely taught language, but as a taken-for-granted global default. This worldview extends beyond pragmatic preference; it reflects a deeper cultural logic that equates English with modernity, opportunity, and economic legitimacy. As one teacher shared, “Students think they only need English, so they don’t see the point in learning other languages.” While earlier layers captured the institutional effects of this belief, here it surfaces as a societal narrative that positions other languages as culturally peripheral or unnecessary. This implicit language hierarchy is internalized by students, parents, and some educators.
Cultural valuation of teachers and language education
Participants also described how teachers, especially language educators, are positioned differently across national contexts. In some regions, teaching was seen as a respected, intellectually engaged profession. In others, language education was regarded as less essential or even marginal. One respondent observed, “Language teaching isn’t taken seriously in my country; it’s seen as secondary to STEM subjects.” This worldview reflects societal priorities: what is deemed worth funding, celebrating, or innovating. These value systems shape how educational systems allocate resources and how teachers experience their professional identities. As the questionnaire was open-ended and not designed to measure frequency or distribution, perceptions of professional valuation are discussed here as qualitative patterns rather than quantifiable trends.
Ambivalence toward technology in language education
Ambivalence toward educational technology emerged as a recurring theme across participant responses. While AI and digital platforms were acknowledged as useful, they were also described as lacking emotional depth or human presence. As one teacher remarked, “Technology is helpful, but it can’t replace the connection between a teacher and a student.” This perspective reflects a deeper tension: a cultural push toward efficiency and automation versus the belief that teaching is fundamentally relational and empathetic. This worldview questions what may be lost when technological solutions are overvalued.
Globalization and the loss of linguistic heritage
For educators working with minority or regional languages, globalization was framed as both a source of opportunity and a threat to cultural continuity. Several teachers described themselves as guardians of endangered linguistic identities. “It feels like we’re the last line of defense for our language,” one noted. This worldview positions language teaching as a form of cultural resistance; not just a skill but a moral and historical responsibility. The idea of language loss here is not administrative; it is existential.
Language learning as ethical and empathic practice
Many teachers articulated a vision of language education rooted in empathy and intercultural connection. One participant reflected, “Teaching a language isn’t just about grammar, it’s about helping students see the world from another perspective.” This belief frames language education as more than an instrumental practice; it becomes a vehicle for mutual understanding, civic responsibility, and ethical engagement with difference.
These worldviews shape how language education is imagined and enacted, influencing whether multilingualism is treated as a pragmatic asset, a cultural burden, or a transformative opportunity. As such, they form a crucial layer in understanding both current constraints and possibilities for more inclusive futures.
Myths/metaphors layer: foundational narratives in language education
This layer uncovers the deep symbolic framings and narrative patterns that shape how language education is understood at its most intuitive, emotional, and cultural levels. These metaphors do not simply illustrate personal frustrations; they express how teachers situate their work within larger stories of identity, change, and meaning. The following five metaphors emerged from participant responses, each representing a foundational story that informs how language teaching is experienced and enacted.
Language as a gateway to the world
One of the most prominent metaphors was that of language as a gateway, an opening to other cultures, identities, and ways of seeing. Teachers emphasized language learning’s transformative potential for communication and for broadening students’ worldviews. As one teacher reflected, “When students learn a language, they’re not just learning words; they’re learning to see the world through someone else’s eyes.” This metaphor elevates language teaching to an ethical and civic practice, yet many participants expressed frustration that institutional constraints, such as rigid curricula or lack of resources, prevent this gateway from being fully opened.
Technology as a double-edged sword
Participants described digital tools and AI as both empowering and problematic. While some praised the individualized learning opportunities these tools offer, others warned of their unintended consequences. One participant noted, “AI tools can help students practice on their own, giving them more exposure than I can provide in class.” Yet another cautioned, “Students think they can just use Google Translate and skip the hard parts of learning.” The double-edged sword metaphor captures this ambivalence, reflecting a deeper concern that technological progress may undermine the human-centered essence of language education.
Teaching as juggling
Many teachers likened their work to juggling, a metaphor that conveyed the complexity and constant balancing of demands placed on them. They described the emotional and logistical challenges of managing diverse student needs, emerging technologies, curricular mandates, and administrative expectations. One participant expressed this vividly: “It’s like juggling flaming torches while trying to stand on a moving platform.” This metaphor reflects the precarious and overstretched position many educators occupy, and the resilience they must maintain in increasingly demanding contexts.
The dying language
For those teaching minority or heritage languages, the metaphor of a “dying language” captured a profound sense of urgency and cultural responsibility. These teachers saw themselves as stewards of linguistic traditions under threat; not only from lack of institutional support, but from shifting societal values. One teacher remarked, “It feels like a losing battle. Every year, fewer students are interested in learning their heritage language.” This metaphor frames language teaching not as transmission of skill, but as preservation of identity and resistance to cultural erasure.
Language as a tool for empowerment or control
Language was also described as a force for both liberation and domination. Participants highlighted how it could open access to participation, identity formation, and intercultural dialogue, but also how curricula and assessment systems could reinforce power hierarchies. As one teacher explained, “In some contexts, teaching a language can feel like a form of resistance; preserving something that others would prefer to erase.” This metaphor reveals how language education is entangled with questions of justice, power, and who has the right to speak or be heard.
These metaphors function as deep narrative maps, expressing not just what teachers do, but what they believe language education stands for. They offer insight into the emotional and cultural weight teachers carry, and how their work is tied to imaginaries of transformation, survival, and resistance. In the context of CLA, these metaphors expose the symbolic core of the challenges described in earlier layers and suggest that any meaningful reform must engage not only with policies and practices but with the stories teachers live by.
Discussion
This section interprets the findings in relation to existing literature and then develops four future scenarios using Dator’s four alternative futures. The discussion focuses on how teachers’ accounts reveal tensions between multilingual policy ambitions, classroom realities, and deeper cultural narratives shaping European language education. It also considers how the metaphors identified through CLA can support narrative reframing and scenario development beyond linear or reform-oriented assumptions.
Interpretation of findings in relation to literature
Litany and systemic causes
Participants highlighted recurrent and widely acknowledged issues, including excessive administrative workload, limited professional development, under-resourced minority language education, and uneven digital access. They also described overcrowded classrooms and declining student motivation, particularly in languages other than English, as major obstacles. These concerns reflect the emotional and logistical burdens that teachers face in daily practice. This pattern mirrors findings from Le Pichon-Vorstman et al. (2021), Dendrinos (2018), and European Commission/EACEA/Eurydice (2023), which point to persistent tensions between multilingual policy ambitions, implementation conditions, and the needs of underrepresented linguistic groups.
Participant excerpts:
“We are forced to implement national curricula that do not reflect the realities of our students’ linguistic backgrounds.”
“I worry that minority languages are becoming decorative, not functional parts of the curriculum.”
Worldview and metaphors
At the worldview level, responses revealed ideological conflicts between economic rationalism and humanistic or pluralistic educational values. Teachers described language through metaphors grounded in lived experience: as a “gateway to the world,” highlighting its potential for cultural connection and global understanding; as a “double-edged sword,” capturing technology’s ambivalent role in teaching; and as a “dying language,” especially in relation to minority language loss. One participant likened their work to “juggling,” conveying the emotional weight of managing overlapping demands.
Participant excerpts:
“It is as if English is the only ‘real’ language that matters anymore in our school.”
“Learning languages should be about opening minds, not passing tests.”
Additionally, metaphors such as “language as a bridge” or “language as belonging,” frequently cited in the literature, can complement these lived perspectives and support narrative shifts toward inclusive and culturally sustaining approaches. At the same time, reliance on familiar or conventional metaphors may narrow imaginative space if they become taken-for-granted frames, limiting educators’ capacity to question dominant assumptions or spark renewed curiosity among learners.
The contrast between commodified and relational metaphors, such as language as a quantifiable skill versus language as empowerment, reveals a key tension in how multilingualism is conceptualized: either as a measurable competency or as a practice that fosters identity, dignity, and intercultural community. These metaphors directly inform how future educational models are imagined and enacted.
Reframing the narrative of language education futures
Beyond their diagnostic function, the metaphors surfaced in this study serve as tools for transformative narrative work. As CLA scholarship suggests, reframing dominant metaphors and the worldviews they sustain can help challenge institutional assumptions and open space for cultural and organizational change (Inayatullah et al., 2022). In this study, teacher-generated metaphors such as “language as a gateway,” “teaching as juggling,” “technology as a double-edged sword,” and “language as a dying language” articulate both systemic constraints and aspirational visions. When complemented by literature-based framings such as “language as belonging,” these metaphors can provide a foundation for reimagining language education, not merely as a description of the present but as a resource for shaping more inclusive and futures-oriented imaginaries.
To move toward a more pluralistic and inclusive future, dominant assumptions must shift. The idea of language as economic capital should give way to narratives emphasizing language as relational, identity-forming, and community-building. Reframing teacher agency from institutional compliance toward narrative leadership can reposition educators as active agents of cultural transformation. Within this context, metaphors become not only descriptors but strategic levers for change, tools that link deep narrative work to systemic reform.
Several teachers reflected on the growing presence of digital and AI-assisted tools in language learning, most often framing technology as a “double-edged sword” that simultaneously supports efficiency and risks superficial engagement. Participants noted, for example, that students increasingly submit work translated or generated by automated systems, raising concerns about the erosion of interpretive depth and relational learning.
Building on this ambivalence, one possible extension of the metaphorical framing is to conceptualize AI not as a replacement for pedagogical judgment, but as a compass rather than a captain. In this framing, AI can assist orientation, reduce mechanical workload, and support navigation, while meaning-making, cultural interpretation, and ethical judgment remain within the domain of teachers and learners. Framed in this way, AI becomes compatible with futures-oriented language education that seeks to preserve the “hard part” of learning, ambiguity, dialogue, and intercultural understanding, rather than displacing it.
Scenario development and framework
The four scenarios that follow extend the layered insights generated through CLA into long-term alternative futures using Dator’s (2009) framework. Whereas CLA illuminated surface challenges, systemic tensions, cultural assumptions, and deep metaphors shaping present-day language education, Dator’s framework enables these narratives to be projected into divergent trajectories. This integration is intentionally reflexive: insights from each CLA layer informed how each scenario could plausibly evolve, while metaphors such as “gateway,” “last line of defense,” and “double-edged sword” were used to distinguish the emotional and cultural logic of each future. The scenarios are not predictive claims, but generative tools intended to provoke anticipatory reflection and expand the range of possibilities considered in planning for more inclusive and resilient language education systems.
Continuation: gradual drift toward English-dominant efficiency
This scenario explores a trajectory in which language education systems in Europe continue along their current paths with only superficial reforms. While multilingualism remains embedded in EU discourse, practical implementation stalls, and structural challenges persist. Teachers in this future report disparities in resources, limited professional development, and the continued marginalization of lesser-taught languages. English remains unchallenged as the de facto lingua franca, displacing broader efforts toward linguistic equity.
Digital divides are sustained or worsen, as underfunded schools struggle to modernize. One participant excerpt from the study illustrates this inertia: “We use the same resources year after year, with no support to modernize.” Language education remains framed predominantly in economic and utilitarian terms, sidelining its intercultural and social dimensions. Under this scenario, multilingualism continues to be celebrated rhetorically but remains structurally unsupported.
Collapse: fragmented systems and the erosion of multilingual infrastructure
This scenario envisions a future in which sociopolitical instability and economic austerity undermine multilingual education systems. Policy attention shifts toward short-term national priorities, and public funding for language programs is drastically reduced. As a result, access to diverse language learning opportunities becomes increasingly concentrated in elite institutions, while public systems offer only minimal or symbolic support for linguistic diversity.
In this future, teachers of minority or regional languages face increasing marginalization and burnout, as their roles are deprioritized and culturally devalued. Some may find themselves working in isolation, without institutional recognition or professional resources. The systemic withdrawal of support accelerates the erosion of linguistic pluralism and leaves educators with limited agency. One participant excerpt from the data echoes this possibility: “It feels like we’re the last line of defense for our language.”
Language learning, once seen as a vehicle for inclusion and identity, is reframed as an expendable supplement to “core” subjects. Educational equity declines sharply as linguistic opportunity becomes tied to socioeconomic privilege and urban access. Under this trajectory, regional and migrant languages experience rapid attrition, and the public ethos of multilingualism collapses under political and economic strain.
Discipline: regulated multilingualism and value-driven preservation
This scenario constructs a future in which educational systems are reshaped by cultural protectionism and value-based restraint. Policymakers prioritize the preservation of national and selected regional languages, positioning them as pillars of cultural sustainability and cohesion. In this future, curricular diversity narrows, and pedagogical flexibility diminishes, particularly where multilingualism is viewed as a threat to traditional identity narratives.
Teachers find themselves increasingly expected to align with these priorities, even when such directives constrain inclusive practice. One educator in the study captured this tension: “It feels like language education is becoming a tool to defend ‘our’ culture, but there is less space for other voices.” Metaphors of “language teacher as gatekeeper” and “language as control” are evoked here, where language education functions more as a protective mechanism than a transformative one. While selected communities may benefit, the broader ecosystem becomes regulated, selective, and less open to linguistic plurality.
Transformation: adaptive, inclusive, and human-centered multilingual futures
This scenario envisions a future in which language education undergoes deep cultural and systemic transformation. Multilingualism is embraced not only as a skill but as a lived experience, embedded in daily educational practice. In this future, heritage, minority, and migrant languages are fully integrated into the curricula. Teachers are positioned as cultural stewards and narrative leaders, empowered to design inclusive and context-responsive pedagogies.
Participant excerpts reflect this shift toward purpose and agency. One teacher noted, “When students learn a language, they’re not just learning words; they’re learning to see the world through someone else’s eyes.” This vision embodies metaphors such as “language as gateway” and “language as belonging,” where language education serves as a catalyst for empathy, equity, and global citizenship. Structural support, decentralization, and futures-oriented teacher education allow the system to become more resilient and responsive to linguistic diversity.
Table 2: Comparative overview of the four scenarios
| Future Type | Core Logic | Role of Teachers | Role of Digital & AI Technologies | Position of Minority Languages | System Trajectory |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Continuation | Incremental drift; entrenched inequalities | Managing constraints; limited agency | Uneven adoption: digital divides persist | Marginalized but symbolically upheld | Slow movement; status quo |
| Collapse | Withdrawal of state support; fragmentation | Overburdened, isolated “last line of defense” | Tools fracture along market lines; access decreases | Rapid erosion; steep attrition | Systemic deterioration |
| Discipline | Cultural consolidation; regulated multilingualism | Gatekeepers of selected identities | Restricted or controlled use | Some protected; others excluded | Stable but narrow and inflexible |
| Transformation | Structural renewal; inclusive pluralism | Narrative leaders; cultural stewards | Critical, intentional augmentation | Fully integrated and valued | Adaptive, equitable renewal |
Note. Scenarios are based on the CLA analysis and Dator’s framework.
Synthesis of scenario insights
As a set, the four scenarios illuminate plausible futures for European language education. Rather than predicting outcomes, they map how present-day challenges could evolve under differing social and political conditions. Most importantly, the scenarios demonstrate that meaningful change requires engagement at all layers of CLA, from reframing narratives and metaphors to transforming institutional structures. By making these trajectories visible, they support educators, policymakers, and communities in imagining and preparing for more inclusive and futures-literate language education systems.
Toward a more futures-literate and culturally inclusive language education system
Drawing on the layered insights of CLA and the contrasts revealed across the scenarios, the following recommendations are articulated as interconnected points of intervention rather than ranked priorities. Each addresses a structural, professional, cultural, or narrative leverage point, recognizing that transformation emerges through their interaction rather than linear sequencing.
- Invest in equity: Direct resources toward underserved linguistic communities and institutions.
- Empower educators: Provide ongoing training and reduce workload pressures to strengthen professional autonomy.
- Reshape narratives: Promote inclusive metaphors that redefine language learning as a social and cultural act, not merely an economic transaction.
- Support decentralization: Foster community agency in language education planning, aligning policy frameworks with local realities.
- Build futures literacy: Integrate futures thinking and anticipatory capacity into language education governance, teacher training, and curriculum development.
- Foster metaphor awareness: Encourage reflective practices that surface and reframe dominant metaphors within language education communities to support cultural transformation.
Limitations and Future Research
This study’s findings reflect a geographically and demographically specific cohort of educators. Additionally, the asynchronous nature of data collection made it more difficult to surface deeper worldview and metaphor-level insights than would likely be possible in interactive foresight workshops. Future research should integrate cross-national perspectives, engage more diverse linguistic contexts, and apply participatory foresight tools, such as backcasting or scenario co-creation, to strengthen scenario robustness and stakeholder relevance.
Conclusion
This study examined how language teachers in Europe perceive present challenges and future possibilities in language education by applying CLA in combination with Dator’s four alternative futures. By analyzing teachers’ reflections across CLA layers, the study demonstrates that challenges in language education are not merely technical or policy-based, but are deeply embedded in cultural narratives, value hierarchies, and symbolic framings that shape how multilingualism is understood and enacted.
The scenario analysis shows that futures of language education diverge not primarily through surface-level reforms, but through shifts in deeper assumptions about language, identity, equity, and cultural continuity. Whether multilingualism is sustained, narrowed, or transformed depends on which narratives and metaphors are reinforced or challenged over time. In this sense, the scenarios function less as predictions than as interpretive lenses that make visible the long-term implications of present-day choices.
Conceptually, the study contributes to Futures Studies by demonstrating how CLA can bridge between lived educational experience and anticipatory scenario thinking. Rather than treating teacher perspectives as isolated data points, the layered approach reveals how everyday classroom concerns are connected to broader ideological and cultural dynamics, enabling more reflexive engagement with uncertainty and change.
Ultimately, adopting a futures-literate approach to language education requires more than adapting to emerging trends; it requires cultivating the capacity to question dominant assumptions about language, value, and progress. By integrating CLA with scenario thinking, this study highlights how educators, policymakers, and institutions can engage more deliberately with uncertainty and shape multilingual futures grounded in equity, belonging, and cultural imagination. In an era marked by social transformation, migration, and accelerating change, language education emerges as a critical site for anticipatory reflection, policy imagination, and intercultural resilience.
Acknowledgements
The author gratefully acknowledges the financial support provided by the University of Turku and Liikesivistysrahasto, which enabled the completion of this research.
References
CEFR Expert Group. (2023). A guide to action-oriented, plurilingual and intercultural education. Council of Europe Publishing. https://rm.coe.int/a-guide-to-action-oriented-plurilingual-and-intercultural-education-en/1680b52354
Council of Europe. (2020). Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: Learning, teaching, assessment – Companion volume. Council of Europe Publishing. https://rm.coe.int/common-european-framework-of-reference-for-languages-learning-teaching/16809ea0d4
Dator, J. (2009). Alternative futures at the Manoa School. Journal of Futures Studies, 14(2), 1–18.
Dendrinos, B. (2018). Multilingualism language policy in the EU today: A paradigm shift in language education. Training, Language and Culture, 2(3), 9–28. https://doi.org/10.29366/2018tlc.2.3.1
Dmitrenko, T. A., & Akhmadullin, A. A. (2023). Current trends in teaching a foreign language in the digital era. Training, Language and Culture, 7(4), 16–23. https://doi.org/10.22363/2521-442x-2023-7-4-16-23
European Commission/EACEA/Eurydice. (2017). Key data on teaching languages at school in Europe: 2017 edition. Publications Office of the European Union. https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2797/828497
European Commission/EACEA/Eurydice. (2019). The teaching of regional or minority languages in schools in Europe. Publications Office of the European Union. https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2797/472090
European Commission/EACEA/Eurydice. (2023). Key data on teaching languages at school in Europe: 2023 edition. Publications Office of the European Union. https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2797/529032
Eurostat. (2023). Foreign language learning statistics. Statistics Explained, European Commission. https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php?title=Foreign_language_learning_statistics
Häggström, M., & Schmidt, C. (2021). Futures literacy – To belong, participate and act!: An educational perspective. Futures, 132, Article 102813. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.futures.2021.102813
Inayatullah, S. (1998). Causal layered analysis: Poststructuralism as method. Futures, 30(8), 815–829. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0016-3287(98)00086-X
Inayatullah, S. (2008). Six pillars: Futures thinking for transforming. Foresight, 10(1), 4–21. https://doi.org/10.1108/14636680810855991
Inayatullah, S., Milojević, I., Sweeney, J., & Mercer, R. (Eds.). (2022). CLA 3.0: Thirty years of transformative research and practice. Tamkang University Press.
Le Pichon-Vorstman, E., Siarova, H., & Szőnyi, E. (2021). The future of language education in Europe: Case studies of innovative practices. European Journal of Language Policy, 13(1), 114–120. https://doi.org/10.3828/ejlp.2021.7c
Little, D. (2005). The Common European Framework and the European Language Portfolio: Involving learners and their judgements in the assessment process. Language Testing, 22(3), 321–336. https://doi.org/10.1191/0265532205lt311oa
Martyniuk, W. (2016). Language teaching and learning within EU Member States: In-depth analysis: Research for CULT Committee. European Parliament. https://doi.org/10.2861/0016
Menéndez-Alvarez-Hevia, D., Urbina-Ramírez, S., Forteza-Forteza, D., & Rodríguez-Martín, A. (2022). Contributions of futures studies to education: A systematic review. Comunicar, 30(73), 9–20. https://doi.org/10.3916/C73-2022-01
Miller, R. (Ed.). (2018). Transforming the future: Anticipation in the 21st century. UNESCO & Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781351048002
Peterson, E., & Beers Fägersten, K. (Eds.). (2024). English in the Nordic countries: Connections, tensions, and everyday realities (1st ed.). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003272687
Phillipson, R. (2008). The linguistic imperialism of neoliberal empire. Critical Inquiry in Language Studies, 5(1), 1–43. https://doi.org/10.1080/15427580701696886
Pouru-Mikkola, L., & Wilenius, M. (2021). Building individual futures capacity through transformative futures learning. Futures, 132, Article 102804. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.futures.2021.102804
Scupelli, P. (2022). Does when and how design students learn causal layered analysis matter? Journal of Futures Studies, 27(2), 28–41. https://doi.org/10.6531/JFS.202212_27(2).0004