Concepts of film literacies in (English) Language Education A critical discourse overview Ricardo Römhild This contribution aims to provide an overview of current concepts of film literacies in the (English) language classroom in Germany. Against the background of a working definition of film literacies, three central models are being discussed with regards to their general composition, highlighted aspects, and potential blind spots. These models are Blell and Lütge’s (2008) notion of Filmbildung; Blell, Grünewald, Kepser and Surkamp’s (2016b) comprehensive study of film in language education; and Viebrock’s (2016) concept of film literacy in English language teaching. In addition, this contribution also takes into account further contributions to the discourse on film-based language education, with a particular focus on multiliteracies-informed approaches and approaches to cultural learning with films. To conclude this overview, the article highlights central insights gained from the discussion and points to open desiderata in the field. 1. Introduction: aims and scope of this contribution Films have been a fixed component of English language classrooms in Germany for years, and there is a host of literature available to educators and researchers who wish to engage with this text form in the context of English language education (ELE) in Germany. This contribution may serve those interested in conceptualisations of film literacy as an overview of existing approaches. It also aims to identify desiderata and potential for further research that emerge from the latest developments in the field. To that end, this contribution features a brief discussion of terminology (section 2), which seeks to both disentangle the various terms used to denote what is here called film literacies, such as film competence and film comprehension, AAA - Arbeiten aus Anglistik und Amerikanistik Agenda: Advancing Anglophone Studies Band 49 · Heft 1 Gunter Narr Verlag Tübingen DOI 10.24053/ AAA-2024-0005 Ricardo Römhild 108 and to provide a baseline for the critical discussion of the film literacies concepts. The following section 3 introduces three concepts in detail: Blell and Lütge’s (2008) notion of Filmbildung; Blell, Grünewald, Kepser and Surkamp’s (2016b) comprehensive study of film in language education; and Viebrock’s (2016) concept of film literacy in English language teaching. It also touches upon multiliteracies-informed approaches and contributions on cultural learning with films. Section 4 concludes this overview, highlighting central insights gained from the discussion and pointing to further research potential in the field of film literacies in (English) language education. 2. Film literacies vs. film competence - a note on terminology The discourse on conceptualisation of film-related abilities in (English) language education features a variety of terms that are commonly used to refer to these abilities, such as film literacy, film competence, and film comprehension. However, there seems to be considerable confusion as to how exactly these terms differ from one another 1 . For instance, while Hallet (2016: 183-184) highlights the social, participatory, critical, and discursive value of the literacy concept in the context of film, it seems as though he uses the terms competence and literacy interchangeably. This might merely be an issue of how two highly complex notions are translated into German. 2 However, upon closer inspection, there seems to be an important distinction between the notion of literacy and competence which prohibits a straightforward equalisation. As Zydatiß (2008: 17) points out, while the notion of competence remains a rather fuzzy one in the Bildungsstandards, it is nonetheless simultaneously associated with concrete goals that learners can achieve: “learners can combine information derived from the text and from external sources; ” “learners can employ appropriate strategies for solving comprehension problems” (KMK 2014: 15; author’s translation). Given the idea that film as a medium keeps evolving - as do the societies, cultures, and contexts in which learners live -, the question arises as to whether it is possible to speak of conclusively achievable goals at all. The notion of completion is inherent to the (narrow) concept of competence but not to the concept of literacy, as expressed by the idea of learning by design (Kress 2003; Kalantzis et al. 2016: 220-223). 1 This section is based on a chapter in Römhild 2023. 2 In some instances, Hallet (e.g., 2016) and other authors use the term Filmverstehen (literally: film comprehension or understanding film), which serves to prove the point that translating literacy into German can be difficult - Hallet describes this choice of word as “awkward” himself (Hallet 2016: 177; ungelenk in the German original). Filmverstehen, however, is an unfortunate term, as it implies a rather strong focus on reception, in lieu of language production and active discourse participation. Concepts of film literacies in (English) Language Education 109 According to Kalantzis et al., “we live in a world of designs,” that is “patterns of meaning available to us in the form of our cultural and environmental heritage - the conventions of language, imagery, sound, gesture, touch and space” (2016: 221). In interacting and engaging with these “resources for meaning” (Kalantzis et al. 2016: 222), learners transform these available designs - and themselves -, “remaking the world by designing it afresh” (Kalantzis et al. 2016: 222). This may take the form of representing meaning to oneself (reading, listening, viewing something) or by communicating with other people. The authors highlight that “this is the reason why, when we design, we never simply replicate available designs. We always rework and revoice the world as found” (Kalantzis et al. 2016: 222). The products of this process are “tangible, communicated trace[s], such as an image, an object, an oral utterance or a written text” (Kalantzis et al. 2016: 223). These products, these re-designs, now join the entirety of available designs and enrich them, rendering the whole process a circle of meaning-making and transformation. There is no definite conclusion. In this light, films can be thought of as designs, which is corroborated by the notion of films existing within their ‘media milieu’ expressed by Weber (2019), that is, films are defined by a complex interplay, which includes processes of their production, distribution, and reception. Arguably, the notion of film literacy (as opposed to film competence) inherently connects learning with and about film to education which is not geared explicitly towards practising and perpetuating existing circumstances but is instead geared towards transforming them (Decke-Cornill 2016: 68). This is the first of several reasons for the use of the term film literacies in its plural form rather than film literacy: It is a means of disambiguation in light of the common synonymous use of competence and literacy. In recent years, a commonly found translation of German Kompetenz has been literacy (see, e.g., Hallet 2016; Viebrock 2016). A more comprehensive, broader notion of competence - as opposed to a narrow one - would approximate a notion of literacy as advocated within the multiliteracies framework. The term film literacies more obviously signifies conceptual proximity to multiliteracies pedagogy: A multiliteracies-informed notion of film literacies adds to the more reflexive elements of Filmbildung (Blell & Lütge 2008) the more pronounced idea of active social and discursive participation not only in but also through film (see Nash 2014: 387; Römhild 2022). Being ‘world-literate,’ as it were, is key to participation in times characterised by immediate communication and powerful global discourses and can thus be regarded as an essential cultural technique of the 21st century, which is also true for film-related discourses. Another reason arises from the fact that this notion of literacies goes far beyond the original meaning of literacy - to be able to read and write - and comprises understanding and producing texts on different levels, using different text formats, genres, and semiotic modes of meaning-making. Engaging with Ricardo Römhild 110 film is a highly complex process and it is not possible to pinpoint one single literacy required by students in this context. Rather, it is more appropriate to speak of a multitude of literacies involved in this process. To conclude, the term film literacies carries transformative, criticallyparticipative, social, cultural, multimodal, and communicative/ discursive elements (for a more elaborated derivation, see Römhild 2023). It is against this background that the next section provides an overview of current concepts of film literacies in the German ELE discourse and discusses them critically. 3. Current concepts of film literacies in Germany This section discusses the three most recent and comprehensive concepts of film literacies available in the current discourse in Germany: Blell and Lütge’s (2008) notion of Filmbildung; Blell, Grünewald, Kepser and Surkamp’s (2016b) comprehensive study of film in language education; and Viebrock’s (2016) concept of film literacy in English language teaching. These three notions lend themselves to detailed examination because they provide a general overview of the discourse and reflect the evolution of ideas surrounding film literacies in ELE (and beyond). Blell and Lütge’s article can be regarded as one of the earliest, wide-ranging suggestions for employing films in the English language classroom, whereas Blell et al. (2016b) and Viebrock (2016) have put forth the most recent comprehensive studies in this context. It is worth noting that, having been published in the same year, these two conceptualisations assume somewhat special roles in a discourse that normally does not feature ‘competing’ concepts. That said, there is notable difference between the two, both in terms of origins - Blell et al. (2016b) write from a perspective of all language subjects taught at German schools, whereas Viebrock (2016) gears her concept towards ELE specifically - and in terms of substantive focus. As such, the three designs provide points of reference for other contributions to the discourse, which have influenced the contouring of these concepts over the years. 3.1. Filmbildung in foreign language education - Blell and Lütge 2008 The concept of Filmbildung in foreign language education, put forth by Blell and Lütge (2008), represents one of the earlier contributions to the “development of an all-encompassing model of film education transcending conventional approaches towards films in the EFL classroom” (2008: 124; author’s translation). Based on the premise that a sole focus on analysis and understanding is insufficient when dealing with films in the language classroom, their understanding of Filmbildung is defined as film-related agency, Concepts of film literacies in (English) Language Education 111 which is characterised by active experience, critical and nuanced perception, (inter)cultural viewing and listening, autonomy, creativeness and interculturality. An underlying conviction of this concept is that the only way to overcome the “dualism of film object and viewer subject” (Blell & Lütge 2008: 126) is via an approach that integrates both Filmerleben and film analysis, thereby enabling the students to both actively experience and understand media and analogue worlds. Against the background of this understanding, the authors present a “multifunctional, actionand processoriented approach” (Blell & Lütge 2008: 127), which essentially consists of five subordinate educational goals associated with film. Importantly, the authors add, these areas can only really come into effect in praxis by interplay and mutual supplementation. Bell and Lütge’s concept can be understood as the joint product of then existing approaches to teaching and learning with film, as it includes the areas of experiencing film (“Filmerleben”), visual literacy (“Sehverstehen”), audio-visual literacy (“Hör- / Sehverstehen”), critical film analysis (“Filmanalyse/ -kritik”), and (inter-) cultural visual literacy/ intercultural learning (“(Inter-)Kulturelles Sehverstehen & Interkulturelles Lernen”) (Blell & Lütge 2008: 128). Fig. 1. Filmbildung in foreign language education (translation of Blell & Lütge 2008: 128; author’s translation). Ricardo Römhild 112 As indicated by Figure 1, the experience-oriented notion of Filmerleben constitutes the basis of an interdependent progression. Here, it is defined as “the ability to experience film intuitively and associatively, and to process film with an orientation towards communication” (Blell & Lütge 2008: 128; author’s translation). In considering this aspect, the authors respond accordingly to demands previously issued by Maurer (2006) as well as Decke- Cornill and Luca (2007). Blell and Lütge (2008: 130) warn against the suppression of fascination aspects when dealing with film, as had previously been the case in the formerly dominant media pedagogic discourses informed by Frankfurt school’s aesthetic theory. These discourses favour critically analytical approaches and a more distanced attitude towards film, thus marginalising film experience as “senseless identification and affirmation” (Rosebrock 2004: 113; author’s translation). Turning towards more subject-oriented notions, Blell and Lütge (2008: 130) open their concept of film education for an understanding of meaning-making as an interactive process, rather than a textually determined one, thus acknowledging the active role assumed by the recipients. The area of experiencing film, in their concept, comprises the students’ capability of emotional, non-verbal, and verbal reactions and personal opinions as well as the ability to transfer the film experience into creative and active media work, which includes all types of media (2008: 128). The second and third areas, visual literacy and audio-visual literacy, are deliberately listed as separate entities, although the authors emphasise that all literacy areas are closely connected to one another. Based on the works of Schwerdtfeger (1989, 2002), Blell and Lütge (2004), Surkamp (2004a), and Seidl (2007), Blell and Lütge (2008: 127) stress the importance of visual literacy development when it comes to the construction of identity and subjectivity from the perspective of perceptive and cognitive psychology. They explain that the active perception and differentiation of images necessitate much more complex meaning-making processes than corresponding everyday practices and therefore need to be developed systematically (2008: 127). In accordance with Thaler (2007), they claim that the same is true for the development of audio-visual literacy (Blell & Lütge 2008: 127). In this concept, visual literacy is defined as “the ability to (actively) perceive moving (and static) images, to comprehend them in a nuanced way, and to process them with an orientation towards communication” (Blell & Lütge 2008: 128; author’s translation). It comprises a focus on communication and meaning-making processes, basic film-related knowledge, and an “attitude of critical attention towards the manipulation of perception, thinking, and action” (Blell & Lütge 2008: 128; author’s translation). Similarly, audio-visual literacy is defined as “the ability to view, listen to, and understand image-guided contents in a foreign language as well as to process these contents with an orientation towards communication” (Blell & Lütge 2008: 128; author’s translation). This area includes the “development of perception, storage, and processing of Concepts of film literacies in (English) Language Education 113 simultaneous or successive audio/ video relationships” and the “development of receptive and productive autonomy in the foreign language” (Blell & Lütge 2008: 128; author’s translation). Blell and Lütge (2008: 128) also list the “development of narrative competence” under audio-visual literacy. However, the understanding suggested by Blell and Lütge seems to revolve primarily around the acquisition of declarative knowledge (historical knowledge and knowledge of typical plots; see 2008: 128) and thus needs to be expounded on, beyond the domain of knowledge, to include attitudinal and action-oriented components. Their fourth aspect of Filmbildung is critical film analysis, which they define as “the ability to analyse moving images semiotically and to understand them through interpretation” (Blell & Lütge 2008: 128; author’s translation). 3 This comprises the “ability to critically and aesthetically analyse and evaluate film contents,” as well as the “development of an awareness for manipulative effects of filmic forms of representation” (Blell & Lütge 2008: 128; author’s translation). The fact that the term “manipulation” is mentioned twice in the context of this concept seems noteworthy - especially in the context of trying to reconcile the two areas of experiencing film and analysing film critically. The construct does not offer a conclusive solution to this problem, but it also does not seem to be geared towards working with films that have traditionally been associated with manipulation, such as documentaries, for instance. Nonetheless, the question as to how to consistently integrate both experience-oriented and critically analytical approaches to film deserves more attention, as the discourse surrounding claims of reality and truth in documentary films merely amplifies the issue that already exists in the context of feature films. The final component of Blell and Lütge’s concept is (inter)cultural visual literacy and intercultural learning, the “ability to read films as (pop) cultural artefacts and to interpret them within the interplay of one’s own and foreign cultures of reference” (2008: 128; author’s translation). This includes the “ability to analyse filmic mediation of cultural and social circumstances of both one’s own and foreign visual cultures,” and the “development of cultural visual literacy in an area of tension between the visuality of image-producing and -receiving cultures and the fostering of understanding differences [Fremdverstehen; the author]” (Blell & Lütge 2008: 128; author’s translation). The evidently strong focus on intercultural competences in this model, and the differentiation between one’s own and foreign cultures in particular, proves to be highly problematic in an age characterised by processes of cultural hybridity and fluidity. Hence, 3 It is a curious thought that critical film analysis includes the ability to analyse films semiotically, but that visual literacy and audio-visual literacy are singled out as separate competence areas, which arguably address capabilities associated with semiotic modes of meaning-making. This primacy of audio and visual modes over others is a tendency that can be observed in various contributions to concepts of film literacies as well; see, for instance, Viebrock (2016). Ricardo Römhild 114 this focus has since been criticised and revoked by both authors (see, e.g., Blell & Doff 2014; Lütge 2013a, 2015). Together, these five components constitute a learning progression that aims at and is embedded in the overall objective of Filmbildung, which, in turn, is influenced by and oriented towards the principles of cultural studies (Blell & Lütge 2008: 127). Blell and Lütge highlight the merit of multiple points of intersection between cultural studies and film didactics for the development of film literacy concepts with a focus on cultural learning (2008: 133). They conceptualise film in a field of tension between intertextuality (Hallet 2002) and an extended notion of text (Bachmann-Medick 2007), visuality, the iconic turn and visual culture (Seidl 2007), as well as performativity (Huber 2004) and a “culture of performance” (Bachmann- Medick 2007: 104), all of which point toward a consistent consideration of cultural aspects when dealing with film in educational settings. Furthermore, the authors briefly discuss autonomous learning with film online, which hints at the then slowly evolving awareness of the significance of digitalisation processes for film studies and film didactics. However, while these deliberations might represent cautious steps toward an opening of film didactics for the ideas of multiliteracies pedagogy - in particular, the notions of multimodality and learning by design - these potentially fertile ideas seem to not have been pursued consistently in conceptions of film literacy until much later. To sum up, Blell and Lütge’s concept of Filmbildung comprises a number of dimensions: perceptive competences, aesthetic and critical competences, intercultural competences, and communicative competences. The authors build on product-oriented, semiotic, cultural, and linguistic aspects (in accordance with Zerweck 2007: 361) as well as experience-oriented components (in accordance with Decke-Cornill & Luca 2007; Maurer 2006). The result is a concept that integrates two ways of perceiving films - analytically and subject-oriented -, both of which carry distinct implications for the employment of films in the language classroom. Blell and Lütge stress that working with films must always be embedded affectively and cognitively (2008: 129). As such, one of the most noteworthy contributions of this concept is the focus on experiencing film - Filmerleben - and its consistent integration in what constitutes Filmbildung. Regarding the potential compatibility of this concept with the idea that films are multimodal designs, it seems peculiar that the authors opted for such a clear defection from the ideas of multiliteracies pedagogy and instead favoured mentioning the multiliteracies concept as another example of how cultural studies might be reconciled with film didactics (Blell & Lütge 2008: 133), without pursuing the integration of these notions. The final observation concerns the apparent balance between a focus on film reception and analysis, on the one hand, and film-related communication and production or action orientation on the other. While the bottom three competence areas (see Figure 1) integrate understanding and production, the upper two areas, Concepts of film literacies in (English) Language Education 115 critical film analysis in particular, focus primarily on interpretation and thus seem to prioritise receptive processes over productive ones, which is something worth discussing in light of alternative conceptualisations of the relationship between film analysis, student reception and communicative production. 3.2. Film in language education - Blell, Grünewald, Kepser and Surkamp 2016 In the endeavour to address the research gap regarding models of film didactics specifically geared toward usage across language subjects at schools, Blell, Grünewald, Kepser and Surkamp (2016b) put forth their notion of cross-linguistic and cross-cultural film education (see Figure 2 below). A more compact version of the publication’s introduction was published by Blell and Surkamp (2016), with the particular line of argumentation being rooted slightly more in ELE research. In both cases, the authors seek to offer a concept which does justice to both subject-specific and film-specific competences, taking into account media pedagogic demands. As such, their concept is meant to cultivate enjoyment, autonomy, and critical reflection whenever students actively engage with film, which they call “a cultural field of action” (kulturelles Handlungsfeld Film; Blell et al. 2016b: 18; see also Blell & Surkamp 2016: 13). This goal is combined with both a task-based approach to teaching and learning languages and an extended notion of competence (in the sense of going beyond the categorisation of film competence as a set of skills), rendering the entire concept extremely compatible with Hallet’s notion of complex-competence tasks (Blell & Surkamp 2016: 18). As with the concept introduced above (Blell & Lütge 2008), Blell et al. (2016b) build on existing ideas in film didactics to integrate the most potent approaches, referencing the works of Blell and Lütge (2008), Grünewald (2009, 2011, 2015), Leitzke- Ungerer (2009), Kepser (2010), Henseler, Möller and Surkamp (2011), Abraham (2012), and Lütge (2012). One of their central goals was to provide educators with means of engaging their students in learning processes with and about films, as a medium and as an object of investigation (Blell et al. 2016b: 19). Ricardo Römhild 116 Fig. 2. Film competence areas (translation of Blell, Grünewald, Kepler & Surkamp 2016b: 41; author’s translation). The concept’s centrepiece is formed by the competence area labelled “experiencing film, using film, understanding film” (Blell et al. 2016b: 20), which addresses the emotional, pragmatic, and cognitive dimensions of learning with and about film. There are three underlying key premises associated with this area. Firstly, the authors stress that aesthetic film analysis, that is, a focus on the text or the object, should never be regarded as an end in itself, but it should always be geared functionally towards the understanding and interpretation, usage and enjoyment of film, which includes the recognition of a film’s historical and cultural context (Blell et al. 2016b: 20). Blell and Surkamp explain, “a film text can only be made accessible beyond the scope of one’s own reception perspective and be interpreted as a means of cultural expression if its contextual references are taken into account” (2016: 13; author’s translation). Overly fastidious critics could argue that this idea is not convincingly displayed in the visual representation (Figure 2), as the illustration implies or at least leaves too much room for the possibility of separating analysis and contextualisation, despite a small area of overlap and the verbal description. Secondly, and closely connected to this first aspect, the concept takes into consideration the communicative aspects of learning with and about film. The authors highlight the fact that films work towards personality development by triggering follow-up communication in the lifeworld of learners (Blell et al. 2016b: 21). With these two claims comes a revocation of the primacy of receptive competences: Instead of being the sole motivation for working with films in the classroom, film reception becomes a necessary sub-process of a broader understanding of film literacies, which is thus not only Concepts of film literacies in (English) Language Education 117 conceptualised as an analytical category but also includes subject-orientated aspects (experiencing and enjoying film; film-related follow-up communication). What also becomes apparent is a strong affinity to the educational objective of discourse competence because an understanding of film literacies, which is actionand product-oriented - in other words, which involves the act of communication -, facilitates students’ active participation in film-related discourses (Blell et al. 2016b: 21; see also Blell & Surkamp 2016: 17). Thirdly, the strong connection between experiencing film (Filmerleben) and analysing film (Filmverstehen) is a key aspect of this concept. The former two premises have already hinted at this relationship, but it becomes even more evident in light of the fact that recipients do not simply extract information from texts (including films) but play an active role in the construction of meaning. This results in the necessity of including student-oriented, creative elements into the learning process, which may also take the form of film-related learning products, thus fostering an understanding of how films are being produced and distributed (Blell et al. 2016b: 22). Based on these deliberations, the following four competence fields are outlined, which constitute the area of “experiencing film, using film, understanding film” (Blell et al. 2016b: 20): film analysis, film design, film contextualisation, and film-related communication (Blell et al. 2016b: 22). The field of film-related communication is a unique feature of this concept as it encompasses and transgresses the other three fields. Defining descriptors for this field (see Blell et al. 2016b: 26-27), the authors include receptive, reflective, and productive aspects, following both an object-focused as well as a subject-focused understanding of film. In order to be able to fully enjoy films, students need to understand the text, which includes different modes of meaning-making. Blell et al. (2016b: 24) list listening and viewing, which includes reading (subtitles, for instance), as well as contextual knowledge, such as film history or literary knowledge. Being able to communicate about a film then also requires the ability to produce (written or oral) language, to talk about what has been seen or heard. This includes film-specific terminology in terms of aesthetics and narration. The authors also take into account plurilingual competences, as a number of films nowadays feature a variety of languages. Film analysis focuses on the identification, labelling, description, and interpretation of film-specific techniques and means of design (Blell et al. 2016b: 28). Importantly, the authors do not refer to the technical, in-depth analysis of films that seems to dominate many approaches of film analysis. Rather, their understanding of film analysis is informed by the connection between analysis and making one’s own reactions to a film explicable, allowing students to pose more complex questions about the film and to reflect on their own viewing habits. This area also entails knowledge of genre and film theory, which includes a so-called “fictionality competence” (Fiktionalitätskompetenz; Blell et al. 2016b: 30; see also Rössler 2010). This Ricardo Römhild 118 refers to the ability to assess a text’s level of fictionality, which helps students to strike a balance between emotional involvement in the fictional world and an awareness for the constructedness of this world. According to the authors, this includes knowledge on typical factuality signals or on “the manipulative effect of certain camera angles” (Blell et al. 2016b: 30). Descriptors for this area also consider aspects of analysing reactions to films, that is, an analysis of the (own) reception process (Blell et al. 2016b: 32). The inclusion of the third area, contextualising film, has wide-ranging implications for teaching and learning with film in the language classroom. As has been stated above and will also be revisited in section 3.4 below, this idea strongly ties cultural learning to film education. Blell et al. state, [behind] every film we receive lie technical, economic, political and social structures (Mikos 2008: 294), which have grown historically and culturally. But films are not only made under specific cultural and historical circumstances, the recipients are also embedded in very individual, social and cultural contexts, through the lenses of which they experience and understand films. (2016b: 32; author’s translation) The authors also mention a film’s intertextual relations as a possible source of contextualisation (Blell et al. 2016b: 33), which ties in with Weber’s idea of a film being part of a ‘media milieu,’ as discussed in section two of this contribution. Summing up the components of this field, Blell et al. (2016b: 35) offer the following list: ‣ reflecting film within media society ‣ identifying and discussing intertextual and inter-medial relations ‣ understanding and interpreting film as a means of cultural expression (cultural learning) ‣ using film for interand transcultural learning The last field described in the context of this concept is film design. Based on a discussion of existing models of media competences (Baacke 1997; Groeben 2004; Landeskonferenz MedienBildung 2010, 2015), Blell et al. (2016b: 36) include the active designing of films in their concept and point out that language is an integral part of all sub-processes (planning, production, post-production, presentation). However, they also note that one cannot favour one sign system over the other - in this case it would be written or oral language over other modes of communication. Instead, they opt for an integrated understanding of different modes, including images and sound design (Blell et al. 2016b: 36). Their understanding of ‘designing film,’ in the context of language education, though, is not to be regarded as preparation for a career in film. They explain that rather than placing Concepts of film literacies in (English) Language Education 119 the sole focus on product-orientation, this field represents both action and product orientation and, in addition, a “subject-oriented acquisition of the self and the world through individual, creative activities” (Blell et al. 2016b: 37). 3.3. Film literacy in English Language Education - Viebrock 2016 In Feature Films in English Language Teaching, Viebrock presents a concept (Figure 3) which defines film literacy as “the learners’ ability to critically and autonomously deal with feature films in the English language classroom, either in a receptive or in a productive mode” (2016: 17). Based on various approaches to teaching and learning with film, including the findings of Blell and Lütge (2008) as well as Lütge (2012), this notion conceptualises film literacy as being “characterised by a discrepancy between a more holistic approach (individual perception) and a cognitive approach (detailed analysis)” (Viebrock 2016: 17-18). There are two major competence areas - perceptive competences as well as aesthetic and critical competences - and another, albeit bracketed area, which takes the cultural dimension of film literacy into account. Regarding communicative or language-related aspects, the process of film literacy development is contextualised by a distinction of BICS - basic interpersonal communicative skills - needed beforehand, and CALP - cognitive academic language proficiency - , aspired to be the outcome of film-based lesson units, with Viebrock explaining that “communicative competences are a prerequisite and an objective of film literacy at the same time” (2016: 18). Fig. 3. Model of film literacy (Viebrock 2016: 17). Ricardo Römhild 120 One of the key assumptions underlying Viebrock’s concept is that “not only do learners have to be able to read and write in a classical sense, they also have to be able to decode, and possibly produce, all kinds of visual images and all kinds of combinations of different semiotic systems” (2016: 13). Thus, the theoretical foundation for her approach to learning with film is multiliteracies pedagogy (see, e.g., The New London Group 2000; Kalantzis et al. 2016), acknowledging the fact that “films are multimodal texts themselves” (Viebrock 2016: 13), although a strong focus on the audio-visual aspects of film becomes evident when she continues, “that usually combine visual images and sound in a particular way.” However, the (visualised) concept itself yields some inconsistencies with this theoretical foundation, as is discussed below. A central element of Viebrock’s film literacy notion is the distinction of relevant competence areas. Perceptive competences address the interaction between the film and individual meaning-making processes as well as a general understanding of the interplay of cinematographic aspects such as camera perspective, sound, and mis-en scène (Viebrock 2016: 18). These perceptive competences “lay the foundations for aesthetic and critical competences, which focus on film as a work of art and the specifics of the medium” (Viebrock 2016: 18). The author argues that it is necessary to recognize certain cinematographic features of a film and describe their effects with appropriate technical terminology in order to detect possible manipulative influences (Viebrock 2016: 18). This view is supported by other authors working in the field of film didactics (see for example Blell & Lütge 2008; Küchler 2009; Grimm 2009, 2015; Lütge 2012). Elaborating on perceptive competences, Viebrock argues for the reformulation of one of Blell and Lütge’s (2008) central goals, that is the development of students’ visual literacy. She observes that “it would probably be more appropriate to speak of multimodal literacies” (2016: 16) and defines these as consisting of “general knowledge as well as knowledge about the construction and organisation of film” (2016: 16). However, it remains unclear as to which other modes of meaning-making are considered to be relevant. Furthermore, multimodal competences seem to be classified exclusively as knowledge. This decision might be traced back to Thaler’s (2014) adaptation of Byram’s (1997) ICC model for film didactics, which resulted in the three domains of attitudes, knowledge, and skills, 4 and which also seems to form the basis for Viebrock’s concept (see Viebrock 2016: 17). This connection is only implied in the text but not explicitly confirmed. 5 However, forcing 4 This tripartition is a common feature of the concept of competence, which is another indicator for the proximity of the terms literacy and competence in this particular concept. 5 As such, it also remains unclear whether Viebrock’s film literacy concept adapts Thaler’s (2014) understanding of the attitudinal domain, which “covers the polarity between a holistic perception or the enjoyment of films and a more critical attitude expressed in aesthetic judgments [sic! ]” (Viebrock 2016: 17). Concepts of film literacies in (English) Language Education 121 the highly complex process of multimodal meaning-making into any one category - Viebrock opts for knowledge without conclusively explaining this decision - cannot do justice to this multi-facetted construct, especially with regard to films that also feature digital dimensions, such as accompanying websites, for example. Rather, speaking in terms of the attitudesknowledge-skills paradigm, one would assume that multimodal competences themselves comprise knowledge, a set of skills, and attitudinal elements and would defy exclusive categorisation into any of these domains. A potential solution to this problem can be found elsewhere in the visual representation, in the shape of an externalisation of integral aspects (not only of multimodal competences but of film literacy in general) to the domain of skills, which are predominantly defined in terms of Cummins’ (2008) distinction between BICS and CALP (Viebrock 2016: 18). Upon closer inspection, this choice proves problematic in at least two regards. Firstly, as discussed in section 2 of this contribution, a narrow definition of competences based on the domains of attitudes, knowledge, and skills, in particular, is not an adequate approach to modelling film literacy as a combination of highly complex literacies. Secondly, the division of communicative proficiency into BICS and CALP implies low proficiency if a student’s communication remains on a BICS level and high proficiency if a student reaches the CALP level. It might be tempting for educators, then, to project language proficiency onto other proficiency areas such as content or methodology as well. This assumption, however, is misleading. A student’s understanding of a given topic or discourse cannot be concluded from the level of their language proficiency (and vice versa). Moreover, “language,” Meyer, Coyle, Halbach, Schuck and Ting (2015: 50) write, “relates to the situation, context and purpose of use.” Communication can occur on different levels of a proficiency continuum between the poles of novice and expert. Switching registers, so to say, can be regarded as part of a larger communicative competence, which is not considered in the rigid concepts of BICS and CALP. Consider the example of eco-documentaries, where students are not only required to master relevant film-specific terminology but also context-specific ecological language, such as terminology associated with climate change. To ultimately assume active roles in the global discourse on, in this example, climate change, students need to be able to express their thoughts using both simple and casual explanations (novice level) as well as complex and detailed explanations (expert level), and everything in between. What is needed in the language classroom, therefore, are task progressions founded in an integrative understanding of language proficiency. Meyer et al. conclude that when the strands that make up subject-specific literacies are identified and subsequently worked into task progressions, this does not separate out language from content and cognition, but rather sees all of them as part of the same Ricardo Römhild 122 process which is knowledge building and meaning-making or simply effective learning (2015: 50-51). Apart from the discussion of multimodality and the conceptualisation of communicative competences in this notion of film literacy, the distinction between an “analytical dimension” (i.e., film analysis; Viebrock 2016: 14) and the holistic perception of films (i.e., Filmerleben) deserves attention as well. Here, the analytical dimension “comprises considerations on three different concepts: media criticism or social criticism, an aesthetic approach, and viewer response theory” (Viebrock 2016, 14-15). According to Viebrock, “media criticism […], by way of comparing novels and their filmic adaptations, aims at a critical attitude towards visual media in opposition to a more positive attitude towards a culture of reading” (2016: 15). Following this approach also encourages critical reflection on mechanisms of film, including “a profound acquisition of specific technical terminology for film analysis” (Viebrock 2016: 15). While the exact nature of those critical elements remains opaque, their consideration resonates with demands for the development of autonomous, critical film reception raised in the other concepts discussed previously (Blell & Lütge 2008; Blell et al. 2016b). The second influential concept, the aesthetic approach by Decke- Cornill and Luca (2007) contributes the goal of “analysing filmic devices and their functions without necessarily including social critique” (Viebrock 2016: 15). As has been mentioned in the context of Blell et al.’s (2016b) understanding, analysing filmic devices, seemingly for the sake of it, that is, detached from any socio-cultural context, is potentially problematic. The third concept cited by the author is viewer response theory, which is treated as “a film-specific analogy to reader response theory […] initially applied to film studies by Bredella (2004[a])” (Viebrock 2016: 15). This inclusion of viewer response theory (see, e.g., Bredella 2004b, 2004c; Bredella & Burwitz-Meltzer 2004; see also Delanoy 2004; Rosenblatt 1978, 1981) in Viebrock’s concept yields important implications for the significance of student-oriented aspects and the understanding of Filmerleben. According to Viebrock, Decke-Cornill and Luca’s (2007) distinction of a more holistic perception (Filmerleben), including the associated emotional aspects, as a separate category from analytical approaches renders true that Filmerleben would be rather improbable to achieve, as it would have to be interpreted as a “naturalistic full-length presentation of feature films comparable to cinema showings” (Viebrock 2016: 15). Therefore, it seems that the category of film analysis, as presented in Figure 3, is assumed to include subject-oriented aspects, since it is partially informed by Bredella’s notion of viewer response, which “with its focus on the viewer could comprise elements of a more holistic perception,” according to Viebrock (2016: 15). Viebrock conceptualises the process of film reception as “characterised by a discrepancy between a holistic approach (individual perception) and a Concepts of film literacies in (English) Language Education 123 cognitive approach (detailed analysis)” (2016: 17-18). With this understanding, this concept of film literacy contradicts Decke-Cornill and Luca’s (2007) call for the integration of objectand subject-oriented approaches, that is, analytical and holistic approaches, in that it opts for a rather clear distinction of the two. The film literacy notion examined here features one competence area not yet touched upon: the bracketed area of cultural studies in Viebrock’s concept. Critiquing the inclusion of intercultural competences in Blell & Lütge’s (2008) notion of film literacy, Viebrock disagrees with the choice of terminology of “‘one’s own’ and ‘foreign’ cultural phenomena” as well as “‘target culture’ as opposed to ‘one’s own culture’” (2016: 16). She argues that today’s societies are characterised by hybridity and fluidity. “As a consequence,” she continues, “I would do without the concept of intercultural learning” (2016: 17). However, the author later adds that [in] my understanding, the exploitation of feature films for cultural studies and/ or film studies is not necessarily part of a basic version of film literacy, but rather an additional dimension of a more elaborate concept, which is predominantly applicable to such films whose topics are not universal, but feature specific historical, political, or social events of a particular region. (Viebrock 2016: 18) This statement raises new questions about the role of cultural learning when dealing with film in general, and a whole host of sub-genres, such as eco-documentaries, in particular. Employing eco-documentaries for illustration once more, one would assume that climate change as a global issue allows for discussions of cultural hybridity and fluidity. For instance, Lütge argues that films can serve as global interfaces, “transgressing culture boundaries and conflicts and turning into a collective learning experience” (2013a: 145). Precisely this universal, global scope of topics, relevant for different societies and individuals, accounts for the great potential of films, and especially eco-documentaries, from a transcultural point of view. Yet, films like Before the Flood or A Life on Our Planet would presumably not fall into the film category deemed culturally relevant by Viebrock, as they do not deal with a specific region or one particular historical event. This, once more, points to the important question of the relationship between form and function or context in film analysis. If the cultural dimension of film were factored out, dealing with film in the language classroom becomes a rather lifeless endeavour, focusing only on the technical analysis of form without function and context. Other scholars therefore disagree with the idea that cultural studies need not be a necessary part of film literacy. Henseler, Möller and Surkamp, for instance, think of films as cultural artefacts in which Ricardo Römhild 124 culture - understood as the generated complex of ideas, forms of thinking, modes of sensibilities and values - materialises. Films can be regarded as means of cultural expression because they address matters of life via content and form. (Henseler, Möller & Surkamp 2011: 10; author’s translation) In this understanding, culture is always an integral part of film and, consequently, cultural learning should always be regarded as an integral part of film literacy. Hallet (2016: 180) specifies that films can only be adequately understood if one acknowledges their relation and corresponding reference to cultural discourses. In summary, this notion incorporates viewer response theory, distinguishes between a holistic perception of film and film analysis, and emphasises the importance of aesthetic and critical competences, although a definition of the latter remains rather vague. There are, however, elements of this concept which still need to be regarded critically. For a start, the concept revolves around the tripartition of attitudes, skills, and knowledge, which proves to be problematic, for example, with regards to the classification and definition of multimodality or multimodal competences as part of the knowledge domain. Furthermore, the distinction of BICS and CALP is worth reconsidering, in light of a discussion on complex literacies and the design of a learning progression geared towards the development of discourse competence at different levels of discourse (novice - expert). Connected to this aspect, the very definition of film literacy needs to be examined in terms of the relationship between film reception and language production. Finally, the role of cultural learning and contextualisation when dealing with film in the classroom needs further clarification, especially in light of alternative conceptualisations, such as the one suggested by Blell et al. (2016b). 3.4. Further contributions to film didactics in ELE Each of the three concepts introduced thus far incorporate and build upon other existing contributions to film didactics. Blell and Lütge (2008) fashioned their notion of Filmbildung as a comprehensive approach to film didactics on the basis of a number of already existing articles, such as Blell and Lütge 2004, Heinecke 2007, and Thaler 2007, to name but a few. Blell et al. (2016b) and Viebrock (2016) represent similar endeavours, but with the goal of outlining the discourse on film didactics as of the mid-2010s. What follows is an overview of other impactful contributions to teaching and learning with film in language education, so as to identify both the challenges and potentials associated with them for the contouring of film literacies. This overview is not exclusive, but it seeks to provide some background information on the motivations that led to the publication of the three concepts discussed above. While this overview is primarily organised Concepts of film literacies in (English) Language Education 125 chronologically, it also clusters contributions according to their significance for special areas of film didactics. As such, the first group of scholars represents rather general approaches that outline key aspects of film literacies (Surkamp 2004a; Leitzke-Ungerer 2009; Henseler, Möller & Surkamp 2011; Lütge 2012), while the second group is associated with a special understanding of the medium in the context of a multiliteracies approach to teaching film (Elsner & Viebrock 2013; Hallet 2016). The third set of contributions presented here examine the role of cultural learning with film (Surkamp, e.g., 2004b, 2008; Lütge 2013a; König 2016) 6 . Further contributions to general film didactics For the ELE context, Surkamp’s seminal article Teaching Films (2004a) can be regarded as one of the earliest calls for taking films seriously as literary texts in their own rights. While Surkamp offers important remarks on the necessity of film analysis and the text form’s similarities with other literary forms, the most crucial element is in the subtitle of this piece: Surkamp outlines actionand process-oriented forms of dealing with film in the classroom, thus connecting aesthetic and content analysis to methodological approaches (she applies the pre-/ while-/ post-techniques (2004a: 6-7)) and to meaningful communication. Leitzke-Ungerer (2009) bases her understanding of film literacy on both receptive and productive aspects, underlining the importance of integrating subject-oriented approaches (Filmerleben) and cognitive-analytical approaches (film analysis). In terms of reception, she argues that the element of fascination as well as emotions are key to the development of those competences comprised in the notion of film literacy (2009: 17). In terms of reception, this includes the ability to understand auditive, visual, and audio-visual modes of meaning-making. Leitzke-Ungerer also contemplates the significance of written or textual modes but does not come to a conclusive answer, only assigning a marginal role to the understanding of written text when dealing with films (2009: 14). However, she suggests that reading abilities can be fostered in the context of teaching films by involving additional texts (paratexts) into the learning process (2009: 14). Leitzke- Ungerer also mentions intercultural competence as a key component of film literacy, arguing that films are “authentic products of the target culture and make possible the encounter with another lifeworld and its people, with different lifestyles, norms and values” (2009: 15). The author goes one step further, though, and involves transcultural learning in the sense of Hallet (2002: 47), that is, as a means towards the development of an 6 Within the limits of this contribution, it is not possible to address a fourth group, which put forth suggestions directly geared towards documentary film didactics and which deserve being mentioned separately (Bredella 1994; Volkmann 2007; Grimm 2009, 2015; Küchler 2009; Surkamp & Ziehte 2010; Kammerer & Kepser 2014; Henseler, Möller & Surkamp 2021; Römhild 2023, fc.). Ricardo Römhild 126 ability to participate in transcultural, global discourses. Transcultural learning, however, seems to be limited to certain films and topic areas only: The example provided in the text is climate change with a reference to An Inconvenient Truth (the article referenced here is Küchler 2009) (Leitzke- Ungerer 2009: 15). Partly motivated by the observation that the focus on film analysis has led to too narrow an understanding of film literacy (see Abraham 2009: 64), Henseler, Möller and Surkamp (2011) offer in their book a general introduction to film didactics, which is geared towards the use of film in teaching practice but which also identifies the theoretical cornerstones of a broader, more comprehensive notion of film literacy. Based on the work of Blell and Lütge (2004: 404), the authors define film literacy as perception competence, film aesthetic and film critical competences, intercultural competence (as in Byram’s ICC (1997)), cultural competence 7 (i.e., an approach to film analysis informed by cultural studies), and the ability to act and communicate in the foreign language. This notion displays a strong focus on using the language to talk about film, which needs to be preceded by (critical) film reception. As to the understanding of the medium as part of the meaning-making process, film is considered to be an audio-visual text first and foremost. As such, many competence targets revolve around the (critical) reception of audio-visual input. Lütge’s (2012) approach to film literacy showcases the evolution of this concept, and it can be regarded as an advancement of the ideas developed in cooperation with Blell (Blell & Lütge 2008) and, as such, also as an earlier or intermediate stage of film literacy, as suggested by Blell et al. (2016b). Essentially, Lütge’s notion of film literacy is based on her earlier work with Blell (Blell & Lütge 2004: 404) and comprises the same competence areas introduced in the context of Henseler, Möller and Surkamp’s (2011) book above, that is, perception competence, film aesthetic and film critical competences, intercultural competence, and the ability to act and communicate in the foreign language. Distinguishing this approach from others at the time, Lütge (2012: 123-127) takes into consideration the role of the Internet in the context of a more comprehensive concept of film literacy. While her deliberations largely remain on a level of practical usage and accessibility of films, rather than initiating discussion on a theoretical level, this can nonetheless be regarded as a first move towards the acknowledgement of digitalisation and its impact on the medium film itself and on teaching and learning with film. 7 Note the absence of this competence area in Lütge’s (2012; see below) concept, who uses the same basis in her book. The added competence area of cultural learning, as presented here, is a distinguishing feature of Henseler, Möller and Surkamp’s concept. Concepts of film literacies in (English) Language Education 127 Multiliteracies-informed approaches to film didactics Throughout the presentation of the various film literacy concepts, multiliteracies pedagogy (The New London Group 1996; see also Kalantzis et al. 2016) has been mentioned several times as a potentially fruitful, theoretical framework for the use of films in the language classroom (and beyond). Elsner, Helff and Viebrock (2013: 8) define a multiliteracies approach to language education as aiming at “the development of functional, visual, multimodal, and digital literacies, transcultural competence, language awareness and critical-reflective thinking skills.” While some of the authors discussed thus far have hinted at the possible suitability of this construct for teaching film, 8 there are two contributions in particular that have developed this idea further. Starting with an examination of general objectives of language education in the 21 st century, Elsner and Viebrock (2013) arrive at the conclusion that the superordinate goal of discourse competence can only be achieved if language education considers the changing discourse practices to be characteristic of the 21st century. Among other things, the authors refer to the changing roles of web users from consumers to producers and to the increasingly multimodal nature of texts and meaning-making, in order to corroborate their argument. According to their theoretical deliberations, they suggest that “[a] multiliterate person has ideally developed functional, multimodal, visual and digital literacies, is able to critically reflect about and evaluate texts, and displays multilingual and transcultural awareness” (Elsner & Viebrock 2013: 28). They emphasise that these literacies are all closely intertwined. This approach to opening the film didactics discourse to the ideas of multiliteracies pedagogy is characterised by a strong focus on social implications carried by the literacies concept, which becomes apparent when considering the authors’ point of departure, discourse competence and the need to prepare students to participate in global discourses. The second contribution that explores the effectiveness of multiliteracies pedagogy for film didactics takes a slightly different trajectory. Hallet (2016) argues primarily from the perspective of the texts in question. According to him, film is a “virtually classic case of multimodality” (2016: 185; author’s translation). Based on this observation as well as his critical discussion on the notion of competence propagated in the German guide- 8 Especially Blell and Lütge (2008: 127) seem to come close to an understanding of literacy as is characteristic for multiliteracies pedagogy but dismiss it in this particular instance in favour of their notion of Filmbildung. Later in that same article, however, they return to multiliteracies, in the context of a cultural studies approach to teaching film (2008: 133). Likewise, the model proposed by Viebrock (2016) pays attention to multiliteracies pedagogy but does not quite follow through, as is argued in section 3.3. Ricardo Römhild 128 line documents, which, in his view, is characterised by too narrow a definition along the lines of film-related or rather audio-visual skills, Hallet conceptualises film reception as a multimodal and multiliteral act (2016: 186; see here especially Figure 1). The author also considers the different literacies that need to be developed by students, outlining his notion of film literacy as an integration of various literacies (2016: 190). As illustrated in Figure 4, these literacies include narrative literacy, sound literacy, visual and photographic literacy, dramatic literacy, musical literacy, communicative-discursive literacy, contextual literacy, film (discourse) knowledge and film anthropology, as well as cineastic literacy, the last of which seems to connect all other literacy areas together. While Elsner and Viebrock’s (2013) approach is inherently marked by a strong focus on the productive aspects associated with literacies development, Hallet’s (2016) notion seems to primarily concentrate on film reception. Although he does hint at the importance of communication and discourse participation (especially 2016: 190-191), it is particularly insightful, however, to look at the context of Hallet’s article to corroborate this claim. The text is part of Blell et al.’s (2016a) comprehensive concept of film literacy, which distinguishes between the competence fields “analysing film, designing film, contextualising film, and film-related communication” (Blell et al. 2016b: 22). Although one point of criticism in the previous discussion of Blell et al.’s concept aimed at the somewhat implied (albeit explicitly not desired) separation of these four competence fields, the decision to feature Hallet’s article next to only one other text (that is, Kammerer 2016, which addresses genre-related questions) in the area of “analysing film” rather confirms the suspicion that film literacy, in this context, is instead thought of in terms of film reception. Multiliteracies, in this instance, becomes a mode or means of analysis. With that in mind, Hallet’s film literacy model is too limited in scope to be considered a comprehensive model if compared to Blell et al. (2016), for instance, of which it may be regarded a component. Lütge (2012) argued in a similar vein, highlighting the importance of contextualisation and critical reflection. She noted that it is necessary to pay attention to how films represent cultural aspects, in order to avoid naïve, uncritical reception and, perhaps, the acceptance of stereotyping representations. To that end, she proposed three steps for intercultural learning with films: “culture-sensitive perception: visions and sounds of otherness,” “evaluating cultural images,” and “imag(in)ing alternatives” (Lütge 2012: 119). At the heart of this three-step approach is the aim to identify cinematic strategies of representation - in other words, perhaps, manipulation strategies -, which play or engage with culture-specific elements in one way or the other. As such, Lütge’s approach aims at a critical engagement with filmic representations of culture. Notably, both wording and content of this contribution suggest a strong reliance on a concept of culture akin to what forms the basis of Byram’s (1997; 2021) ICC model. Concepts of film literacies in (English) Language Education 129 Fig. 4. Film literacy as an integration of literacies in the act of reception (translation of Hallet 2016: 190; author’s translation). In conceivably stark contrast to her earlier publication, Lütge no longer employed intercultural jargon in her 2013(a) contribution on Global (Audio)Visions, but instead she bases her argumentation on Cates’ (2004: 241) definition of global education and Pennycook’s (2007) views on culture: Lütge (2013a: 143) speaks of a “world of wide-ranging and ongoing cultural ‘borrowing, bending and blending’ (Pennycook 2007: 36-37, 47),” as well as Baumann’s (2000) concept of “liquid modernity,” to describe a notion of culture which is much more hybrid, fluid, and dynamic than previously suggested. Films are being described as “global interfaces,” which bear great potential for cultural learning, “transgressing culture boundaries and conflicts and turning into a collective learning experience” (Lütge 2013a: 145). One of the examples used in her line of argumentation is the eco-documentary An Inconvenient Truth. Lütge (2013a: 146) notes, “[the] very format of a documentary film may trigger critical discussions with a view to its international reception, the constructedness of its morally appealing images and a general claim for its universal righteousness, one of the big conceptual challenges about teaching global issues.” Crucially, Lütge (2013a: 149) established a close connection between cultural studies, film literacy, and global education, suggesting a three-part methodology for engaging with films, particularly environmental films. These steps can be read as a development of those presented in her 2012 publication, Ricardo Römhild 130 with a more open, hybrid, and dynamic understanding of culture shining through: “watching out for representations of global issues,” “evaluating cultural images and global views,” and “developing a critical global (audiovisual) awareness” (Lütge 2013a: 149). Hinting at the research gap addressed in this study, she argues that [developing] “audio-visions” for globally challenging topics requires not so much a ‘recipe approach’ making use of pre-, while and post-viewing activities but a concept for fostering an awareness of the global scope of environmental and cultural sustainability, more broadly still to be developed in a conception of global education that takes into account critical and environmental literacies for the EFL classroom. (Lütge 2013a: 154) The tight link between cultural learning and film is also central to Blell and Surkamp’s (2016; see also Blell et al. 2016b) contribution to the design of a comprehensive model of film literacies in language education - particularly within the area of contextualising film. They point out that cultural and communicative action always need to be thought of as being in tandem when it comes to the design of task scenarios to assist learners in their development of cultural literacies (Blell & Surkamp 2016: 19). In this context, they refer to König’s (2016) definition of a broad, multi-dimensional concept of culture as the foundation for their argumentation. König (2016) differentiates between three interpretations of the concept of culture when it comes to learning with films (and beyond): textual, performative, and hybrid. The textual understanding of culture (see also Bachmann-Medick 2004) allows a sort of reading of culture and the identification as well as interpretation of cultural meaning construction in film (see also Lütge’s (2012, 2013a) notion of seeking, perceiving, and reflecting on representations of culture in films discussed above). A performative understanding of culture implies that critical-evaluative participation and active engagement with films lead to participation in the construction of cultural meanings (König 2016: 276; see also Hallet 2010). This highlights the significance of the learners and learner agency for cultural learning. A hybrid understanding of culture (based on, e.g., Bhabha & Rutherford 1990; Kramsch 1993; Bhabha 1994; Hallet 2002) entails the negotiation and, crucially, the toleration of difference and diversity. While both Blell and Surkamp’s (2016) and König’s (2016) argumentations represent steps towards the consistent consideration of cultures being hybrid and fluid, thereby overcoming outdated ICC-framings, there still seems to be the need for clarification with regards to the cultural dimension of teaching and learning with films. While both Surkamp and Lütge have clearly moved towards a hybrid understanding of cultures (see, e.g., Lütge 2013a/ b; Blell & Surkamp 2016), the intercultural heritage still seems to resonate in many publications on the relationship between cultural learning and film. For instance, elaborating on the potential of films Concepts of film literacies in (English) Language Education 131 for cultural learning, Alter (2016: 140) highlights the fact that films can be used to increase learner’s cultural knowledge (see also Zibelius 2016, who, in the same volume, expands on the use of films for the teaching of ICC). While Alter makes an important and generally accepted point here, it remains questionable if the acquisition of orientational knowledge suffices when it comes to teaching and learning for sustainability with eco-documentaries. However, as a closer look at the different approaches to film didactics discussed thus far reveals, not only is the underlying conceptualization of culture being contested in the current discourse on film literacy but so is the significance attributed to cultural learning in the context of films in the first place. Just considering the contributions by Blell and Lütge (2008), Blell et al. (2016b), Viebrock (2016), and Hallet (2016), cultural learning assumes a variety of different roles. Blell and Lütge (2008) include it as the pinnacle of film literacy, while Blell et al. (2016b) and Hallet (2016) see it as an integral part of contextualization. Viebrock (2016), on the other hand, brackets cultural studies in her design. 4. Outlook and desiderata In summary, this overview displays a rather clear focus on the processes of film reception and critical film analysis (see, e.g., Thaler 2014; Hallet 2016; Viebrock 2016), which has been refuted in some concepts, favouring a balance between reception and production as well as context-oriented analysis (Blell & Lütge 2008; Lütge 2012; Blell et al. 2016b). Closely connected to the primacy of the reception process and film analysis in some concepts is the suppression of affective elements and aspects of fascination, which are included in more recent publications but have been deemed to be unrealistic in other contributions, at least in part (Viebrock 2016). There are, however, contributions that favour the integration of subjectand objectoriented approaches, as called for by Decke-Cornill and Luca (2007) (Blell & Lütge 2008; Blell et al. 2016b). In addition, it is possible to observe a shift towards action and product orientation with a stronger focus on active communicative agency as primary objectives of film-based learning. The role and significance of cultural learning seem to be contested, though the majority of approaches include it as a crucial element of film contextualisation. Furthermore, a few publications open the discourse for multiliteracies-informed approaches, which bears highly promising implications for a contemporary conceptualisation of films in ELE. Based on these observations, it is possible to identify a number of desiderata and possible trajectories of future research in the field. For instance, there is a need for further contouring of cultural learning and cultural literacies in the context of film-based education, particularly in light of increasing interest in the role of (film-based) language education for Ricardo Römhild 132 citizenship education (see e.g., Nash 2014; Römhild 2022) and a general shift towards global citizenship education (e.g., Lütge, Merse & Rauschert 2022). In this context, the ideas of learner agency (as active change agents in an interconnected world) and product orientation in film-based language education are worth exploring in more detail in future research. This relates to the notion of multimodality and, closely connected to this, experiencing film as key aspects in film-based, student-centered language education, which also need to be conceptualized and investigated more. Finally, considering the idea of films as designs, which are defined by the complex processes of production, distribution, and reception, it is also worthwhile to pay attention to the changing forms of film distribution, e.g., via streaming platforms, which might have considerable influence on how learners engage with (horizontal, vertical) storytelling. 5. References Abraham, Ulf (2009). Filme im Deutschunterricht. Seelze: Kallmeyer. Abraham, Ulf ([2009] 2012). Filme im Deutschunterricht. Seelze: Kallmeyer. Alter, Grit (2016): “I am the captain of my soul” - Invictus in the EFL classroom. In: Britta Viebrock (Ed.). Feature Films in English Language Teaching. Tübingen: Narr. 129-142. Baacke, Dieter (1997). Medienpädagogik. Tübingen: De Gruyter. Bachmann-Medick, Doris (Ed.). ([1996] 2004). Kultur als Text. Die anthropologische Wende in der Literaturwissenschaft. Tübingen: A. Francke. Bachmann-Medick, Doris (Ed.). (2007). Cultural Turns. Neuorientierung in den Kulturwissenschaften. Hamburg: Rowohlt. Bauman, Zygmunt (2000). Liquid Modernity. Oxford: Polity Press. Bhabha, Homi K. (1994). The Location of Culture. New York: Routledge. Bhabha, Homi K. & Jonathan Rutherford (1990). The third space. Interview with Homi Bhabha. In: Jonathan Rutherford (Ed.). Identity. Community, Culture, Difference. London: Lawrence & Wishart. 207-221. Blell, Gabriele & Sabine Doff (2014). It takes more than two for this tango: Moving beyond the self/ other-binary in teaching about culture in the global EFL-classroom. Zeitschrift für Interkulturellen Fremdsprachenunterricht 19 (1): 77-96. Blell, Gabriele, Andreas Grünewald, Matthis Kepser & Carola Surkamp (Eds.). (2016a). Film in den Fächern der sprachlichen Bildung. Baltmannsweiler: Schneider Verlag. Blell, Gabriele, Andreas Grünewald, Matthis Kepser & Carola Surkamp (2016b). Film in den Fächern Deutsch, Englisch, Französisch, Spanisch. Ein Modell zur sprach- und kulturübergreifenden Filmbildung. In: Gabriele Blell, Andreas Grünewald, Matthis Kepser & Carola Surkamp (Eds.). Film in den Fächern der sprachlichen Bildung. Baltmannsweiler: Schneider Verlag. 11-62. Blell, Gabriele & Christiane Lütge (2004). Sehen, Hören, Verstehen und Handeln. Filme im Fremdsprachenunterricht. PRAXIS Fremdsprachenunterricht 6: 402- 405. Blell, Gabriele & Christiane Lütge (2008). Filmbildung im Fremdsprachenunterricht. Neue Lernziele, Begründungen und Methoden. Fremdsprachen Lehren Und Concepts of film literacies in (English) Language Education 133 Lernen (FLuL). Zur Theorie und Praxis des Sprachunterrichts an Hochschulen 37: 124-140. Blell, Gabriele & Carola Surkamp (2016). (Fremd-)Sprachenlernen mit Film: Theoretische Grundlagen und praxisorientierte Anwendungen für einen kompetenz- und aufgabenorientierten Fremdsprachenunterricht am Beispiel von Jim Jarmuschs Night on Earth. Fremdsprachen Lehren und Lernen 45 (1): 8-32. Bredella, Lothar (1994). Der amerikanische Dokumentarfilm: Zugang zur amerikanischen Wirklichkeit? In: Lothar Bredella & Günter H. Lenz (Eds.). Der amerikanische Dokumentarfilm. Herausforderungen für die Didaktik. Tübingen: Gunter Narr Verlag. 81-107. Bredella, Lothar (2004a). Bend it like Beckham: Überlegungen zu einer rezeptionsästhetischen Filmdidaktik. Der fremdsprachliche Unterricht Englisch 68: 28-32. Bredella, Lothar (2004b). Grundlagen für eine rezeptionsästhetische Literaturdidaktik. In: Lothar Bredella & Eva Burwitz-Melzer (Eds.). Rezeptionsästhetische Literaturdidaktik. Mit Beispielen aus dem Fremdsprachenunterricht Englisch. Tübingen: Gunter Narr Verlag. 25-80. Bredella, Lothar (2004c). Unterschiedliche Verstehensformen bei der Rezeption literarischer Texte. In: Lothar Bredella & Eva Burwitz-Melzer (Eds.). Rezeptionsästhetische Literaturdidaktik. Mit Beispielen aus dem Fremdsprachenunterricht Englisch. Tübingen: Gunter Narr Verlag. 81-138. Bredella, Lothar & Eva Burwitz-Melzer (Eds.). (2004). Rezeptionsästhetische Literaturdidaktik. Mit Beispielen aus dem Fremdsprachenunterricht Englisch. Tübingen: Gunter Narr Verlag. Byram, Michael (1997). Teaching and Assessing Intercultural Communicative Competence. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Byram, Michael (2021). Teaching and Assessing Intercultural Communicative Competence. Revisited. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Cates, Kip A. (2004). Global Education. In: Michael Byram (Ed.). Routledge Encyclopedia of Language Teaching and Learning. London & New York: Routledge. 241- 243. Cummins, Jim (2008). BICS and CALP: Empirical and theoretical status of the distinction. In: Nancy H. Hornberger (Ed.). Encyclopedia of Language and Education 2 nd edn. New York: Springer Science. 487-499. https: / / doi.org/ 10.1007/ 978-0-387-30424-3_36. Decke-Cornill, Helene (2016). Zum Verhältnis von Bildung und Film. In: Gabriele Blell, Andreas Grünewald, Matthis Kepser & Carola Surkamp (Eds.). Film in den Fächern der sprachlichen Bildung. Baltmannsweiler: Schneider Verlag. 63-75. Decke-Cornill, Helene & Renate Luca (2007). Filmanalyse und/ oder Filmerleben? Zum Dualismus von Filmobjekt und Zuschauersubjekt. In: Helene Decke-Cornill & Renate Luca (Eds.). Jugendliche im Film - Filme für Jugendliche: Medienpädagogische, bildungstheoretische und didaktische Perspektiven. München: kopaed. 11- 30. Delanoy, Werner (2004). Rezeptionsästhetik und Task-Based-Learning am Beispiel von Meera Syals Roman Anita and Me. In: Lothar Bredella, Werner Delanoy & Carola Surkamp (Eds.). Literaturdidaktik im Dialog. Tübingen: Gunter Narr Verlag. 147-180. Elsner, Daniela, Sissy Helff & Britta Viebrock (2013). Films, graphic novels & visuals. Developing multiliteracies in foreign language education: An interdisciplinary approach. In: Daniela Elsner, Sissy Helff & Britta Viebrock (Eds.). Films, Graphic Novels & Visuals: Developing Multiliteracies in Foreign Language Education - An Interdisciplinary Approach. Zürich: LIT Verlag. 7-13. Ricardo Römhild 134 Elsner, Daniela & Britta Viebrock (2013). Developing multiliteracies in the 21st century: Motives for new approaches of teaching and learning foreign languages. In: Daniela Elsner, Sissy Helff & Britta Viebrock (Eds.). Films, Graphic Novels & Visuals. Developing Multiliteracies in Foreign Language Education - An Interdisciplinary Approach. Zürich: LIT Verlag. 17-32. Grimm, Nancy (2009). The Corporation: Zum reflektiert-kritischen Einsatz von Dokumentarfilmen im Englischunterricht. In: Eva Leitzke-Ungerer (Ed.). Film im Fremdsprachenunterricht: Literarische Stoffe, interkulturelle Ziele, mediale Wirkung. Stuttgart: ibidem. 343-358. Grimm, Nancy (2015). Green, global, gore: An inconvenient truth in global education. In: Christiane Lütge (Ed.). Global Education. Perspectives for English Language Teaching. Zürich: LIT Verlag. 171-196. Groeben, Norbert (2004). Dimensionen der Medienkompetenz: Deskriptive und normative Aspekte. In: Norbert Groeben & Bettina Hurrelmann (Eds.). Medienkompetenz: Voraussetzungen, Dimensionen, Funktionen. Weinheim/ München: Juventa. 160-197. Grünewald, Andreas (2009). Sehen und Verstehen. Analyse referenzsemantischer Zeichen in Spielfilmen. In: Eva Leitzke-Ungerer (Ed.). Film im Fremdsprachenunterricht. Literarische Stoffe, interkulturelle Ziele, mediale Wirkung. Stuttgart: ibidem. 221-240. Grünewald, Andreas (2011). Películas en las aulas de E/ LE: Film im Spanischunterricht. Hispanorama 133: 10-13. Grünewald, Andreas (2015). Filme. In: Andreas Nieweler (Ed.). Fachdidaktik Französisch. Seelze: Kallmeyer. 226. Hallet, Wolfgang (2002). Fremdsprachenunterricht als Spiel der Texte und Kulturen. Intertextualität als Paradigma einer kulturwissenschaftlichen Didaktik. Trier: WVT. Hallet, Wolfgang (2010). Performative Kompetenz und Fremdsprachenunterricht. Scenario 1: 5-18. Hallet, Wolfgang (2016). Was heißt Film Literacy? Filmverstehen und fremdsprachige Diskursfähigkeit. In: Gabriele Blell, Andreas Grünewald, Matthis Kepser & Carola Surkamp (Eds.). Film in den Fächern der sprachlichen Bildung. Baltmannsweiler: Schneider Verlag. 177-193. Heinecke, Marit (2007). Filmbildung im Englischunterricht der Sekundarstufe I. Neue Lernziele, Methoden und curriculare Vorgaben. Ms. BA-Arbeit: Universität Hannover. Henseler, Roswitha, Stefan Möller & Carola Surkamp (Eds.). (2011). Filme im Englischunterricht. Grundlagen, Methoden, Genres. Seelze: Klett, Kallmeyer. Henseler, Roswitha, Stefan Möller & Carola Surkamp (2021). Real life as raw material for a myriad of stories. Erzählen im Dokumentarfilm: Filmanalytische Kompetenzen erwerben. Der Fremdsprachliche Unterricht Englisch 169 (Documentaries): 2-8. Huber, Hans Dieter (2004). Visuelle Performativität. In: Hans Dieter Huber, Bettina Lockemann & Michael Scheibel (Eds.). Visuelle Netze. Wissensräume in der Kunst. Ostfildern-Ruit: HatjeCantz Verlag. 31-38. Kalantzis, Mary, Bill Cope, Eveline Chan & Leanne Dalley-Trim (2016). Literacies Second Edition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Kammerer, Ingo (2016). Goldene Spielregeln: Filmbildung und Genreästhetik. In: Gabriele Blell, Andreas Grünewald, Matthis Kepser & Carola Surkamp (Eds.). Film in den Fächern der sprachlichen Bildung. Baltmannsweiler: Schneider Verlag. 195-210. Concepts of film literacies in (English) Language Education 135 Kammerer, Ingo & Matthis Kepser (2014). Dokumentarfilm im Deutschunterricht: Eine Einführung. In: Ingo Kammerer & Matthis Kepser (Eds.). Dokumentarfilm im Deutschunterricht. Baltmannsweiler: Schneider Verlag Hohengehren. 11-72. Kepser, Matthis (2010). Fächer der schulischen Filmbildung. Mit zahlreichen Vorschlägen für einen handlungs- und produktionsorientierten Unterricht. München: kopaed. [KMK] Sekretariat der ständigen Konferenz der Kultusminister der Länder der Bundesrepublik Deutschland (Ed.). (2014). Bildungsstandards für die fortgeführte Fremdsprache für die Allgemeine Hochschulreife: Beschluss der Kultusministerkonferenz vom 18.10.2012. Bonn. König, Lotta (2016). Kulturelles Handeln mit Film: Eine kulturwissenschaftliche Perspektive auf Filmbildung in den fremdsprachlichen Fächern am Beispiel der Kategorie ‚Gender’. In: Gabriele Blell, Andreas Grünewald, Matthis Kepser & Carola Surkamp (Eds.). Film in den Fächern der sprachlichen Bildung. Baltmannsweiler: Schneider Verlag. 153-174. Kramsch, Claire (1993). Context and Culture in Language Teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Kramsch, Claire (1995). The cultural component of language teaching. Language, Culture and Curriculum 8 (2): 83-92. https: / / doi.org/ 10.1080/ 079083195095 25192. Kress, Gunther (2003). Literacy in the New Media Age. New York: Routledge. Küchler, Uwe (2009). Screening the green, greening the screen: Umweltfilme im Unterricht. In: Eva Leitzke-Ungerer (Ed.). Film im Fremdsprachenunterricht. Literarische Stoffe, interkulturelle Ziele, mediale Wirkung. Stuttgart: ibidem. 359-378. Landeskonferenz MedienBildung (Ed.). (2010). Filmbildung. Kompetenzorientiertes Konzept für die Schule. [online] https: / / www.laenderkonferenz-medienbildung.de/ 091210_FIlmbildung_LKM.pdf [April 2022]. Landeskonferenz MedienBildung & Vision Kino (Ed.). (2015). Filmbildung. Kompetenzorientiertes Konzept für die Schule (Revidierte Fassung). [online] http: / / www. vision-kino.de/ WebObjects/ VisionKino.woa/ media/ 8 208 [May 2022]. Leitzke-Ungerer, Eva (Ed.). (2009). Film im Fremdsprachenunterricht: Literarische Stoffe, interkulturelle Ziele, mediale Wirkung. Stuttgart: ibidem. Lütge, Christiane (2012). Mit Filmen Englisch unterrichten. Berlin: Cornelsen. Lütge, Christiane (2013a). Global (audio)visions: Teaching cultural studies through film. In: Daniela Elsner, Sissy Helff & Viebrock Britta (Eds.). Films, Graphic Novels & Visuals: Developing Multiliteracies in Foreign Language Education - An Interdisciplinary Approach. Zürich: LIT Verlag. 141-154. Lütge, Christiane (2013b). Global Education in English Language Teaching. Münster: LIT-Verlag. Lütge, Christiane (2015). Introduction: Global Education and English Language Teaching. In: Christiane Lütge (Ed.). Global Education. Perspectives for English Language Teaching. Fremdsprachendidaktik in globaler Perspektive (Vol. 4). Zürich: LIT. 7-16. Lütge, Christiane, Thorsten Merse & Petra Rauschert (Eds.). (2022). Global Citizenship in Foreign Language Education: Concepts, Practices, Connections. Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge. https: / / doi.org/ 10.4324/ 9781003183839. Maurer, Björn (2006). Filmbildung in der Sekundarstufe I - ein Überblick. In: Werner Barg, Horst Niesyto & Jan Schmoling (Eds.). Jugend: Film: Kultur. Grundlagen und Praxishilfen für die Filmbildung. München: kopaed. 169-208. Meyer, Oliver, Do Coyle, Ana Halbach, Kevin Schuck & Teresa Ting (2015). A pluriliteracies approach to content and language integrated learning: Mapping learner progressions in knowledge construction and meaning-making. Language, Ricardo Römhild 136 Culture and Curriculum 28 (1): 41-57. https: / / doi.org/ 10.1080/ 07908318.20 14.1000924. Mikos, Lothar ([2003] 2008). Film- und Fernsehanalyse. Stuttgart: UTB. Nash, Kate (2014). What is interactivity for? The social dimension of web-documentary participation. Continuum 28 (3): 383-395. https: / / doi.org/ 10.1080/ 10 304312.2014.893995. Pennycook, Alastair (2007). Global Englishes and Transcultural Flows. London/ New York: Routledge. Posner, Roland (1991). Kultur als Zeichensystem. Zur semiotischen Explikation kulturwissenschaftlicher Grundbegriffe. In: Aleida Assmann & Harth Dietrich (Eds.). Kultur als Lebenswelt und Monument. Frankfurt a. M.: Fischer. 37-74. Römhild, Ricardo (2022). Agency, interactivity, participation: Creating hybrid learning spaces with interactive documentaries. In: Daniel Becker & Frauke Matz (Eds.). Video Games and English Language Education. Designing Hybrid Learning Spaces. In: Anglistik. International Journal of English Studies 33 (1): 223- 239. Römhild, Ricardo (2023). Global Citizenship, Ecomedia, and Language Education. London: Palgrave Macmillan. Römhild, Ricardo (fc). “Nigeria on screen: Teaching and learning with documentaries in the digital age.” In: Frauke Matz, Mark Stein & Klaus Stierstorfer (Eds.). Reading Nigeria. Learning with Nigerian Literature in the EFL Classroom. Stuttgart: Narr Verlag. Rössler, Andrea (2010). Es gibt Dinge, die gibt’s gar nicht: Zur Förderung der Fiktionalitätskompetenz im Fremdsprachenunterricht. In: Claus Altmayer, Grit Mehlhorn, Christiane Neveling, Norbert Schlüter & Karin Schramm (Eds.). Grenzen überschreiten. Sprachlich - fachlich - kulturell. Dokumentation zum 23. Kongress für Fremdsprachendidaktik der Deutschen Gesellschaft für Fremdsprachenforschung (DGFF). Baltmannsweiler: Schneider Verlag. 167-177. Rosebrock, Cornelia (2004). Rezeptionskompetenz in Bildschirm- und Bücherwelten. In: Gerhard Härle & Bernhard Rank (Eds.). Wege zum Lesen und zur Literatur. Baltmannsweiler: Schneider Verlag. 105-120. Rosenblatt, Louise M. (1978). The Reader, the Text, the Poem. Carbondale: South Illinois UP. Rosenblatt, Louise M. (1981). On aesthetic as the basis model of the reading process. In: Harry R. Garvin (Ed.). Theories of Reading, Looking and Listening. Lewisburg: Bucknell UP. 17-31. Schwerdtfeger, Inge C. (1989). Sehen und Verstehen - Arbeit mit Filmen im Unterricht Deutsch als Fremdsprache. Berlin, München: Langenscheidt. Schwerdtfeger, Inge C. (2002). Neue Medien im Fremdsprachenunterricht - Ja! Aber… In: Helene Decke-Cornill & Maike Reichart-Wallrabenstein (Eds.). Fremdsprachenunterricht in medialen Lernumgebungen. Frankfurt a. M.: Peter Lang. 15-28. Seidl, Monika (2007). Visual Culture: Bilder lesen lernen, Medienkompetenz erwerben. Der fremdsprachliche Unterricht Englisch 87: 2-7. Surkamp, Carola (2004a). Teaching Films: Von der Filmanalyse zu handlungs- und prozessorientierten Formen der filmischen Textarbeit. Der Fremdsprachliche Unterricht Englisch 38 (68): 2-9. Surkamp, Carola (2004b). Spielfilme im fremdsprachlichen Literaturunterricht. Beitrag zu einer kulturwissenschaftlichen Filmdidaktik. In: Lothar Bredella, Werner Delanoy & Carola Surkamp (Eds.). Literaturdidaktik im Dialog. Tübingen: Narr. 239-267. Concepts of film literacies in (English) Language Education 137 Surkamp, Carola (2008). A cultural approach to films in the foreign language classroom: Gender roles and questions of identity in The Hours. In: Jürgen Donnerstag & Laurenz Volkmann (Eds.). Media and American Studies in the EFL-Classroom. Heidelberg: Winter. 15-30. Surkamp, Carola (2009). Literaturverfilmungen im Unterricht: Die Perspektive der Fremdsprachendidaktik. In: Eva Leitzke-Ungerer (Ed.). Film im Fremdsprachenunterricht. Literarische Stoffe, interkulturelle Ziele, mediale Wirkung. Stuttgart: ibidem. 61-80. Surkamp, Carola (2010). Zur Bedeutung der Schulung filmästhetischer Kompetenzen aus der Sicht unterschiedlicher Fächer. In: Matthis Kepser (Ed.). Fächer der schulischen Filmbildung. Mit zahlreichen Vorschlägen für einen handlungs- und produktionsorientierten Unterricht. München: kopaed. 85-108. Surkamp, Carola, & Katja Ziethe (2010). Perspektivierte Bilder von Wirklichkeit in Bowling for Columbine. Welche Geschichten erzählen Dokumentarfilme und wie gehen wir damit im Unterricht um? In: Carola Hecke & Carola Surkamp (Eds.). Bilder im Fremdsprachenunterricht. Neue Ansätze, Kompetenzen und Methoden. Tübingen: Narr. 362-382. Thaler, Engelbert (2007). Schulung des Hör-Seh-Verstehens. PRAXIS Fremdsprachenunterricht 4: 12-17. Thaler, Engelbert (2014). Teaching English with Film. Paderborn: Schöningh. The New London Group (2000). A pedagogy of multiliteracies: Designing social futures. In: Bill Cope & Mary Kalantzis (Eds.). Multiliteracies. Literacy Learning and the Design of Social Futures. London: Routledge. 9-37. Viebrock, Britta (2016). Fostering film literacy in English language teaching. In: Britta Viebrock (Ed.). Feature Films in English Language Teaching. Tübingen: Narr. 13-30. Volkmann, Laurenz (2007). Our “favourite American”: Teaching Michael Moore. American Studies 52 (3): 372-379. Weber, Thomas (2019). Neue medienwissenschaftliche Perspektiven auf den dokumentarischen Film. In: Carsten Heinze & Arthur Schlegelmilch (Eds.). Der dokumentarische Film und die Wissenschaften. Film und Bewegtbild in Kultur und Gesellschaft. Wiesbaden: Springer VS. 77-93. https: / / doi.org/ 10.1007/ 978-3-658- 20832-5_4. Zerweck, Bruno (2007). Fernsehformate und deren kultureller Einfluss. Die Vermittlung von Fernsehkompetenz im Englischunterricht. In: Wolfgang Hallet & Ansgar Nünning (Eds.). Neue Ansätze und Konzepte der Literatur- und Kulturdidaktik. Trier: WVT-Verlag. 351-370. Zibelius, Marja (2016). Developing “intercultural communicative competence” with Ae Fond Kiss. In: Britta Viebrock (Ed.). Feature Films in English Language Teaching. Tübingen: Narr. 217-232. Zydatiß, Wolfgang (2008). SMS an KMK: Standards mit Substanz! Kulturelle Inhalte, Mediation zwischen Sprachsystem und Sprachhandeln, Kritikfähigkeit - auch im Fremdsprachenunterricht. In: Heinz H. Lüger & Andrea Rössler (Eds.). Wozu Bildungsstandards? Zwischen Input- und Outputorientierung in der Fremdsprachenvermittlung. Landau: Verlag Empirische Pädagogik. 13-34. Ricardo Römhild University of Münster