3.1 Introduction

In Chap. 2, we documented a range of international studies into the intercultural dimension in language education, with a particular focus on young learners of an additional language (L2). The review of the international literature highlights the reality that, on the one hand, the development of language learners’ intercultural capability has become a significant focus of attention in a range of contexts across the globe. On the other hand, studies reveal the complexities involved with both defining and operationalising the intercultural dimension. In this chapter, we revisit New Zealand as the site for our own study and expand on the brief introduction to the New Zealand context that we gave in Chap. 1, including the incorporation of the intercultural into the New Zealand Curriculum (NZC). We then review New Zealand-based studies into the intercultural dimension of L2 learning.

3.2 A History of Language Policy Development in New Zealand

Watts (1997) provided a useful and succinct summary of the historical language situation of New Zealand, going back to the early establishment of the country as a colony of Britain in the 1840s—a situation he described as being characterised by both complexity and diversity. As Watts considered events of the past few decades, his account drew attention to a 1987 curriculum review that heralded what may arguably be described as several “watershed” moments for New Zealand with regard to language learning and the language–culture interface, beginning in the early 1990s. The 1987 review had recommended that New Zealand needed to develop a national policy for languages. A policy was needed that would address the complex language needs of a diverse population, and, in particular, issues regarding:

  • English, as the dominant language in New Zealand by virtue of colonisation, and a de facto (although not de jure) “official” language;

  • te reo Māori, the language of tangata whenua, the indigenous “people of the land”;

  • Pasifika languages, the languages of our closest Pacific neighbours, and of many people from the islands who had made New Zealand their home;

  • and (last but not least) international languages, some of which had become embedded in the school system as a consequence of colonisation (e.g., French, German), and some which were becoming established as a consequence of New Zealand’s position in the world (e.g., Chinese, Japanese).

The proposal, Watts (1997) made clear, was for a policy that would cover both first language (L1) and additional language (L2) contexts. It would need to be a broad-based policy, covering several sectors of society. However, the policy, if enacted, would have important implications for the compulsory schooling sector.

In 1990, and as a consequence of the review, Phil Goff, then Minister of Education in a Labour-led administration, announced the government’s intention to develop and fund the policy (Goff, 1990). Goff recognised that L2 learning in New Zealand’s schools had thus far developed in quite an ad hoc way, and indicated that a languages policy could become the catalyst for recommendations around how to develop more effective L2 programmes, beginning with the primary school sector (Years 1 to 6). In particular, he indicated that programme developments were necessary so that New Zealand could position itself more strongly as a global player on the world’s stage.

Labour’s ambitious plan, as outlined in 1990, did not get very far. A general election later that year saw a shift to a National-led (Conservative) government. Nevertheless, another significant voice in the calls to develop a national languages policy was found in Don McKinnon, who was appointed to the roles of Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade in the new government. For example, in a speech entitled “English is not enough,” McKinnon (1992) is recorded as having declared, “[w]e really must learn to speak other languages” (p. 1). Building on the stance that Goff, as former Education Minister, had taken in 1990, McKinnon went on to argue:

The curricula in New Zealand schools and courses available in universities must equip young people with language and cultural skills. … New Zealand’s ability to earn a living – our very future in fact – depends on young New Zealanders acquiring international language skills. (p. 1)

Thus, it seemed that cross-party government rhetoric of the 1990s was intended to underscore imperatives for New Zealand’s younger generations to develop both linguistic and intercultural proficiency in order to help secure the country’s future prosperity. The policy advocacy of the 1990s led to the publication of a document intended to provide impetus for further discussion—Aoteareo: Speaking for Ourselves (Waite, 1992). This important document aimed to address the diverse societal linguistic needs that Watts (1997) had identified, but acknowledged the importance of international languages for an outward-looking nation. Although the policy plan was short-lived, being abandoned by the government in 1993 (East et al., 2007), the utilitarian discourse that school students should be encouraged to learn L2s in order to strengthen New Zealand’s ability to inter-relate internationally in an increasingly globalised world did influence how languages became promoted in a document published in 1993—The New Zealand Curriculum Framework or NZCF (Ministry of Education, 1993).

The NZCF represented the first attempt since the 1940s to present a government-authorised “foundation policy” and “coherent framework” for teaching, learning and assessment in the New Zealand compulsory schooling sector across all curriculum areas (Ministry of Education, 1993, p. 1). With regard to the direction of the NZCF in general, both the opening and the closing pages of the document underscored a global and outward-looking focus—New Zealand needed “a work-force … which has an international and multicultural perspective” (p. 1) in a context where “[m]ore trade is occurring with the non-English speaking world” (p. 28). Furthermore, with specific regard to L2 learning, the document stated not only that “[a]ll students benefit from learning another language from the earliest practicable age,” but also that students “will be able to choose from a range of Pacific, Asian and European languages, all of which are important to New Zealand’s regional and international interests” (p. 10). Thus, an agenda was set that appeared to recognise the importance of skills in both languages and cultures, alongside recognition that the languages of our closest neighbours must feature prominently in that mix.

It must be acknowledged that, at the practical level, a significant problem with regard to the NZCF was that L2 learning was subsumed within a broader curriculum area—Language and Languages—that included English as L1. This often led in practice to the marginalisation of L2 learning because schools and students could fulfil the expectations of the learning area through the study of English.

This is not to suggest that the study of an L2 did not have a recognised place in some New Zealand’s schools up to that time. As we acknowledged in Chap. 1, many secondary schools (Years 9 to 13, 13+ to 17 + years of age) had established programmes in L2 learning, taught by qualified specialist teachers, and languages were seen in a number of these schools (particularly the more academically oriented) as integral components of students’ learning. Furthermore, intermediate schools (Years 7 and 8, 11+ to 12+ years of age) were beginning to introduce programmes, often designed as small-scale “taster” options that would enable students in these two school years to begin learning a new language for a short period of time (perhaps a term or a couple of terms out of four school terms per year). This was in line with a curriculum intention to encourage schools to provide opportunities for all students from Years 7–10 to study an L2.

Subsequent to the release of the NZCF, and in a bid to support the development of L2 programmes that would encourage genuine communication for real-world purposes, guidelines for a range of L2s taught in schools were published and released over a number of years between 1995 and 2002. The most recent of these documents provided the most overt indication that a Communicative Language Teaching (CLT) approach predicated on a Presentation-Practice-Production (PPP) model was being advocated (see Chap. 1). For example, the following statement is found in both the French and German documents:

Communicative language teaching is teaching that encourages learners to engage in meaningful communication in the target language – communication that has a function over and above that of language learning itself. Any approach that encourages learners to communicate real information for authentic reasons is, therefore, a communicative approach. (Ministry of Education, 2002a, 2002b, p. 16)

The guidelines followed traditional L2 curriculum models that “divide the language into lexis, structures, notions or functions, which are then selected and sequenced for students to learn in a uniform and incremental way” (Klapper, 2003, p. 35). Thus, the primary focus of L2 programmes was on developing learners’ linguistic proficiency in communicative contexts (that is, communicative competence), with a strong emphasis on accuracy of language use.

The cultural dimension of L2 learning was addressed in the guidelines, and a clear interface was drawn between language (communication) and culture (context). In the French and German guidelines, for example, teachers were presented with the following information:

Language and culture are closely related. … Students should learn that speaking a different language involves much more than simply conveying the same message in different words. Communicating in another language means being sensitive not only to what is said (and what is left unsaid) but also to how something is said. Every language involves gestures as well as words and indirect messages as well as direct ones. As students come to appreciate this, they begin to understand the interaction between language and culture. (Ministry of Education, 2002a, 2002b) (p. 11)

Teachers were encouraged to take the cultural dimension into account as they planned their programmes and to include authentic materials that reflected and gave illustrations of the target culture, albeit modified linguistically if necessary to suit the target level of the learners. There was, however, little supporting guidance within the document regarding how exactly teachers might take account of these cultural considerations, and a default position became one that tended to focus on culture-as-artefact (Sehlaoui, 2001), separated from learning the TL.

3.3 New Zealand’s 2007 School Curriculum

East (2012b) noted that the beginning of the twenty-first century marked “a significant move forward in languages-in-education planning” (p. 31). Between 2001 and 2003, a Labour government elected in 1999 began the process of reviewing the NZCF to determine its continued fitness for purpose. This led, in 2007, to the publication of a revised national curriculum for New Zealand’s compulsory school system (Years 1–13)—the New Zealand Curriculum or NZC (Ministry of Education, 2007), with an expectation that its requirements would be enacted in all schools by the start of the academic year 2010.

As part of the process of planning for curriculum renewal, a recommendation had been made to make the learning of an L2 an entitlement (although not a compulsory requirement) for all students in Years 7–10, thus strengthening what had been suggested in the NZCF. Crucial influences on this recommendation were two international critiques of the original curriculum document, one from Australia (Australian Council of Educational Research, 2002) and the other from the UK (Le Métais, 2002), that called attention to the low priority given to L2 learning in the NZCF. Thus, for language teachers in particular, an exciting component of the revised curriculum was the introduction of a new learning area that had thus far not been present—Learning Languages. This new learning area created dedicated space for L2 teaching and learning, alongside an expectation that a language programme would be made available to students, at least in school Years 7–10.

The published expectation of programmes aligned to Learning Languages continued, and re-emphasised, the communicative agenda, that is, an agenda that the new learning area “puts students’ ability to communicate at the centre” (Ministry of Education, 2007, p. 24). Achievement outcomes were benchmarked against the “can-do” statements of the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages or CEFR (Council of Europe, 2001; Koefoed, 2012; Scott & East, 2012). These suggested that, by the end of schooling (Year 13), students should be able to operate in the target language (TL) at the intermediate level B1, with more proficient students approaching B2 level. These proficiency levels were no longer tied to specific topics, language, functions and structures. As a consequence, the language-specific curriculum documents that had informed teaching programmes since the release of the original NZCF in 1993 were officially withdrawn and were no longer to be used as the basis of programme planning. Teachers were therefore free to exploit any resources to fulfil curriculum requirements.

As for the place of culture in this newly introduced learning area, there was, as we noted in Chap. 1, a three-fold expectation. Students would not only (1) “learn about culture” (learning facts about the target culture), but also about (2) “the inter-relationship between culture and language” (exploring the language–culture interface). Students would also be expected to (3) “compare and contrast different beliefs and cultural practices, including their own” so that they “understand more about themselves and become more understanding of others” (Ministry of Education, 2007, p. 24)—that is, the development of an intercultural dimension. Specific achievement objectives became aligned to these foci (Ministry of Education, 2009a) and some basic examples of what these objectives might look like in practice were provided in a Learning Languages curriculum guide (Ministry of Education, 2016).

The intercultural agenda for New Zealand’s education system became further emphasised by the publication of three more generic (i.e., not L2 focused) documents. First, Bolstad et al. (2012), in a document designed to stimulate thinking about future developments to New Zealand’s education system, argued that New Zealand’s twenty-first-century citizens needed to be “educated for diversity—in both the people sense and the knowledge/ideas sense.” This, the report’s authors argued, was because “[t]he changing global environment requires people to engage – and be able to work – with people from cultural, religious and/or linguistic backgrounds or world views that are very different from their own” (our emphases). On this basis, Bolstad et al. concluded that education for diversity was “an essential aspect of twenty-first century citizenship” (p. 25).

A second report (Ministry of Education, 2014) encouraged the development of international capabilities as a cross-curricular endeavour, referring to these capabilities as “global competence,” “international-mindedness,” and “cross-cultural competence” (p. 4). This set of competencies was considered as socially and economically important for New Zealand, and would contribute to helping young New Zealanders to achieve success as intercultural citizens (p. 6). In a real sense, therefore, this report became a policy enactment of McKinnon’s (1992) earlier rhetoric. The document encouraged a comparative and reflective intercultural stance:

Being internationally capable includes not only the awareness of other cultures, but also the awareness of one’s own culture as being particular and specific. It involves the understanding that we all experience our lives through a number of cultural and personal ‘lenses’, and that comprehending and accepting others’ needs and behaviours rests as much on understanding ourselves as it does on understanding them. (Ministry of Education, 2014, p. 4)

The document acknowledged the special place of Learning Languages, and the learning of an L2 as “one of the most effective ways for students to develop cross-cultural communicative competence and an awareness of other cultures and worldviews” (p. 12). However, the recommendations were designed to operate across the curriculum, and were aligned to seven values and five key competencies that underpinned all learning areas of the curriculum (Ministry of Education, 2007, pp. 10, 12–13). As East (2012b) explained, the values emphasised “recognition and understanding of different ways of being and the development of openness towards ‘otherness’.” The key competencies emphasised “the learner’s central role in the process of learning and the active development of independence and autonomy, and co-operation with others mediated through social interaction” (p. 32). The report made a specific link:

International capabilities are how the New Zealand Curriculum (NZC) Key Competencies look when young people apply them in intercultural and international contexts. That is, international capabilities are the knowledge, skills, attitudes, dispositions, and values that make up the Key Competencies that enable people to live, work, and learn across national and cultural boundaries. (Ministry of Education, 2014, p. 1)

Third, and aligned to the publication of the 2014 report, Bolstad et al. (2013) presented a set of recommendations arising from an exploratory study to consider the feasibility of measuring New Zealand students’ international capabilities. At the school level, small-group workshops were undertaken with 13 secondary school staff and 21 senior secondary students (Years 12 and 13). Additional views were solicited from ten adults who had relevant expertise and perspectives on what the international capabilities might mean in post-school contexts. Workshops with teachers indicated that Learning Languages was seen as a useful catalyst for the development of the capabilities, alongside school-wide emphases on celebrating and recognising cultural and linguistic diversity, trips overseas and hosting international students. The students themselves recognised the value of “the highly multicultural social interactions and friendship groupings they experienced in their schools,” which “seemed considerable in terms of how internationally minded, or comfortable with diversity and difference, they believed themselves to be” (p. 36). The report argued that measuring New Zealand students’ international capabilities might enable better understanding of how the schooling system could help with increasing young New Zealanders’ knowledge and skills so that they could operate more effectively across cultures. The study focus was, however, restricted to senior secondary students. It took no account of what such capabilities might look like, or how they might be assessed, at more junior school levels.

3.4 Te reo Māori

At this juncture, it is important to acknowledge te reo Māori, which, as we stated at the start of this chapter, holds a distinctive place in New Zealand as the language of tangata whenua. At the time of colonisation, te reo Māori was the predominant language in New Zealand. However, colonisation precipitated a decline such that, by the early 1860s, Pākehā (European New Zealanders) became the majority, English became the dominant language, speaking te reo Māori was strongly opposed, and the language was progressively limited to Māori communities living separately from Pākehā.

By the mid-twentieth century, and after decades of suppression, it was acknowledged that te reo Māori was endangered. From the 1970s, many Māori people began to reaffirm their identity as Māori, and, from the 1980s, major initiatives pushed for a revival of the language. The Māori Language Act (1987) gave the language official status. The curriculum and policy debates of the late 1980s and early 1990s must be seen against these crucial developments.

Te reo Māori is thus protected in law as an official language of New Zealand (unlike the English language which, as we previously stated, has de facto rather than de jure status). One of the many consequences of this has been the establishment of primary and secondary Kura Kaupapa Māori (Māori language immersion schools). These schools operate on the basis of their own curriculum document (Te Karauna, 2008) which parallels (but is distinct from) the NZC.

In the English-medium schooling sector, governed by the NZC, te reo Māori is theoretically one of the languages that may be offered in schools as part of Learning Languages, and is one of a range of languages (including Pasifika languages) that, in that context, hold a “special place” (Ministry of Education, 2007, p. 24). In practice, in many English-medium schools, departments for languages operate independently from departments for te reo Māori, and the option for students to study te reo Māori may also be offered independently of the learning area.

Support for te reo Māori in English-medium contexts is made available through published curriculum guidelines (Ministry of Education, 2009b) that, in contrast to the withdrawal of guidelines for other languages, still remain in operation. The encouraged pedagogical approach is framed as communicative, and draws on arguments in this respect reminiscent of those presented, for example, in the former French and German documents (Ministry of Education, 2002a, 2002b).

Crucially, however, the teaching and learning of te reo Māori provides particularly rich opportunities to explore the language–culture interface due to strong interweaving of language and culture. The curriculum guidelines acknowledge that, for all languages, “[t]here is an inherent connection between language and culture” and that “language is embedded in culture and also expresses culture” (Ministry of Education, 2009b, p. 22). For Māori in particular, “[t]e reo Māori and tikanga Māori [Māori values and practices] are intertwined, and so learning te reo Māori gives students access to te ao Māori (the Māori world) and to Māori world views.” For students, learning the language will therefore “enrich and broaden their understandings of the uniqueness and complexity of te ao Māori” and “the central roles that language, culture, place, and heritage play in shaping identity and in giving direction and meaning to life,” alongside “the important role that indigenous languages and cultures play in New Zealand and throughout the world” (p. 13).

3.5 Supporting Enactment of the Learning Languages Learning Area

As we pointed out in Chap. 1, Learning Languages in the NZC comprises three components or “strands”:

  1. 1.

    The core communication strand;

  2. 2.

    The supporting language knowledge strand;

  3. 3.

    The supporting cultural knowledge strand.

Effective communication in the TL is therefore the overarching goal of L2 programmes in schools. Language knowledge (grammar focus) and cultural knowledge (culture focus) are seen as equal strands that support effective communication.

A range of support initiatives was put in place to support teachers as they began to understand and engage with the expectations of the revised school curriculum and the three-strand model. Crucial among these were two documents additional to the NZC (Ministry of Education, 2007). These were literature review documents, commissioned by New Zealand’s Ministry of Education, that were intended to provide teachers with a solid, theoretical, literature-informed basis for the different strands of the NZC—Ellis (2005) and Newton et al. (2010).

3.5.1 The Ellis (2005) Report

The so-called Ellis report proposed ten principles for second language acquisition (SLA) in the instructed context (pp. 33–42), emerging from a review of the international literature on instructed SLA. Essentially, it was proposed that effective instruction in the L2 classroom needed to ensure that:

  1. 1.

    there is a balance between fluency and accuracy, with a particular focus on fluency or communication, and the development of implicit grammatical knowledge for purposes of effective communication (Principles 1 to 4);

  2. 2.

    learners should be given opportunities to process language input, create language output, and interact in the TL (Principles 6 to 8);

  3. 3.

    learners’ individual differences should be respected (Principles 5 and 9);

  4. 4.

    and, finally, proficiency evidence, for assessment purposes, should be collected from both free and controlled production (Principal 10).

The ten principles were thus designed to support teachers as they aimed to ensure a communicative focus in their programmes in line with the NZC’s core communication strand, but also enabled teachers to address the supporting language knowledge strand.

Parallel to Ellis (2005) was an account of classroom-based research which had investigated L2 teachers’ beliefs and practices (Erlam & Sakui, 2006). A key aim of the research was to establish the extent to which teachers’ beliefs and practices aligned with the ten principles. Accounts were published about two teachers of French and two teachers of Japanese (representing at that time the two most popular international languages taught in New Zealand secondary schools). These teachers had not been informed prior to the studies what the ten principles were so that they could not adapt their classroom practices to the focus of the research. A positive finding was that teachers’ beliefs and practices were generally in line with the communicative expectations of the curriculum support documents that were then in force (Ministry of Education, 1998, 2002a). Furthermore, when the teachers had the opportunity to review the ten principles, enthusiasm about their potential impact was expressed. As one teacher of French noted:

Reading the principles of effective second language teaching made me really think about what I’m doing and where my approach comes from. … Reading the report made me want to investigate more and get involved in producing teaching resources that will make it easier for teachers to put these principles into action. I think current resources do that very poorly indeed. (p. 17)

Ellis (2005) and Erlam and Sakui (2006) provided two complementary documents (the first largely theoretical, and the second markedly practical) that, taken together, could inspire teachers’ reflections on their own beliefs and practices. All primary and secondary schools in New Zealand received one hard copy of both reports, and both were also accessible online. Furthermore, appendices in the Erlam and Sakui report provided observation and reflection questions for each of the ten principles, and teachers were encouraged to use the principles and the case studies to help them carry out investigations into their own teaching.

It is important to note that the focus of Ellis (2005) was on principles that would support only two of the published strands of the NZC—communication and language knowledge. Ellis made only passing reference to “culture learning”—conceptualised in an isolated and facts-based way as “the teaching of cultural/ceremonial topics” (p. 5). There was no dialogue about the place of cultural knowledge in SLA, and no discussion of the integration of language and culture and the role of critical reflection across cultures. A separate Ministry-funded initiative was established to consider the cultural dimension, and the cultural knowledge strand became the focus of an entirely independent report (Newton et al., 2010).

3.5.2 The Newton et al. (2010) Report

As we stated in Chap. 1, the Newton et al. (2010) report proposed six principles to support an exploration of the intercultural in the context of a communicative approach to language teaching (p. 63). These propose that intercultural exploration:

  1. 1.

    integrates language and culture from the beginning;

  2. 2.

    engages learners in genuine social interaction;

  3. 3.

    encourages and develops an exploratory and reflective approach to culture and culture-in-language;

  4. 4.

    fosters explicit comparisons and connections between languages and cultures;

  5. 5.

    acknowledges and responds appropriately to diverse learners and learning contexts;

  6. 6.

    emphasises intercultural communicative competence rather than native speaker competence.

The intention of the first principle (aligned to the second intercultural expectation of the NZC cultural knowledge strand, i.e., the inter-relationship between culture and language) was to highlight how culture is inextricably bound to language users’ everyday lives and interactions. This was designed to promote an initial integration between culture and language, and an expectation was promoted that teachers would help students to build conceptual bridges between language and culture right from the start of the language learning process. This was perceived as being relatively easily achieved by highlighting the rich cultural content embedded in seemingly simple samples of language, such as greetings. Learners were to be encouraged to notice and make connections between their own L1 and the TL. As East et al. (2017) explained:

This principle encourages teachers to lead discussion around how the culture informs the language and the language informs the culture, for example, how culture can be seen in language/grammar structures, vocabulary, conventions of use, and so on, and how language structures and use can be seen in the enactment and lived experience of culture. (p. 26)

Principle 2 reflected the NZC key competency of relating to others, a competency designed to enhance skill in “interacting effectively with a diverse range of people in a variety of contexts” (Ministry of Education, 2007, p. 12). Teachers were encouraged to utilise any interactions in the TL as opportunities to “notice and explore culture-in-language and to develop communicative awareness” (Newton et al., 2010, p. 67). Teachers were also encouraged to facilitate opportunities for explicit focus on cultural comparisons, which might largely take place in students’ L1. These instances were designed to raise learners’ awareness of their own ways of interacting with others as well as those of others in the class and TL speakers.

The third principle promoted learner exploration of both visible and invisible elements of culture. In this regard, Newton et al. (2010) acknowledged that factual information about different cultures has a place (in line with the first intercultural expectation of the cultural knowledge strand, i.e., learning about culture). More importantly, however, this information needed to be interrogated and critiqued by learners. The starting point for such interrogation would usually be learners’ exploration of their own culture and cultural identity, and “through this lens of self-awareness, examination of their attitudes towards the target language and culture” (p. 68). The purpose of such critical reflection would be to enable learners to step beyond stereotypical “us and them” conceptualisations, and to move towards “more empathetic and self-aware perceptions and attitudes” (p. 69).

Building on Principle 3, Principle 4 was designed to encourage and promote comparison across languages and cultures (as an outworking of the third intercultural expectation of the cultural knowledge strand, i.e., comparing and contrasting different beliefs and cultural practices, including learners’ own). This was not, however, framed as an exclusively L1-TL cross-cultural comparison. Rather, Newton et al. (2010) recognised the linguistic and cultural diversity that already existed in the New Zealand L2 classroom, and built on the recognition that diversity and difference must be “central to the classroom endeavour” (Alton-Lee, 2003, p. 6), with a view to creating “caring, inclusive, and cohesive learning communities” (p. 22) and quality teaching that “respects and affirms cultural identity” (p. 32). Newton et al. thus argued that “comparisons and connections can be multi-faceted, as learners explore and share each other’s cultures, while cooperatively exploring a new culture and learning a new language” (p. 69). This, they acknowledged, is a process designed to facilitate learners’ movement into “a third place” (see Chap. 2)—“an intercultural position between cultures,” and “a position from which the learner can negotiate differences and interact comfortably across cultures” (p. 70).

Following on from Principle 4, Principle 5 acknowledged and celebrated the linguistic and cultural diversity of many New Zealand classrooms—a diversity which can engender rich intercultural comparisons and contrasts beyond the TL. Principle 6 emphasised the reality that the goal of L2 programmes is no longer to achieve an L1 norm of competence, but to recognise that there will always be more to learn—not only about the target language, but also about the target culture, and language users’ interactions with that culture.

3.6 Supporting Teachers with Enacting the Strands

With regard to the ten Ellis (2005) principles, significant professional development took place, particularly in the initial five-year period following their publication. In 2005, the principles were shared with teachers via a series of “language seminars” or LangSems. These are one-day professional development opportunities organised on a biennial basis in different regions of the country by the New Zealand Association of Language Teachers (NZALT), a professional association of which many teachers of L2 in New Zealand are members. In each venue, Erlam presented a plenary address on the principles. Additional presentations and workshops followed.

Furthermore, a Ministry of Education funded one-year professional development initiative—the Teacher Professional Development Languages (TPDL) programme, piloted in 2005 and 2006, and running in subsequent years until 2018—placed particular emphasis on exploring the ten principles with teachers. There was an initial focus on supporting teachers at the intermediate school level (Years 7 and 8) who, as we noted in Chap. 1, were not subject specialists, and often had limited proficiency in the TL. One part of the programme enabled participants to upskill in the language they were teaching. In another part, participants were expected to undertake a teaching as inquiry project (see Chaps. 1 and 4) in which participants, drawing on aspects of the ten principles, planned and investigated a classroom intervention and reported on learning outcomes.

Thus, it seemed that the ten principles were being taken up seriously by both curriculum leaders and the Ministry of Education. At least theoretically, all L2 teachers in New Zealand would have been exposed to the principles in one way or another—whether through publications or professional development.

Promotion and dissemination of the six Newton et al. (2010) principles stand in stark contrast. Although the Ministry of Education supported the promotion of the Newton et al. report through workshops, classroom visits and national advisors as “cultural experts,” this was predominantly only picked up by specialist secondary teachers, and the principles were not subject to anything like the level of exposure that Ellis (2005) received. The Newton et al. report was not disseminated to all schools in hard copy; no parallel practice document was produced; NZALT did not take up the principles in targeted professional development; and although the TPDL programme provided some space for an exploration of the Newton et al. principles, this was limited in comparison with a major focus on Ellis (2005).

East (2012a) explained what might have happened. On the one hand, the fact that the Ellis (2005) report was released well ahead of the publication of the NZC and was widely disseminated meant that it quickly came to shape thinking and practice in schools. On the other hand, the Newton et al. (2010) report, due to be published at some time in 2009, was delayed, and was therefore only accessible to teachers well after the NZC had been launched (and, as we have noted, was not widely distributed). East concluded, “[t]he publication and widespread dissemination of Ellis has meant that in practice its recommendations have become quite embedded into many teachers’ thinking.” By contrast, the much later publication of Newton et al. meant that teachers did not have any extensive opportunities to engage with the six intercultural principles. These contrasting trajectories, East argued, “raise questions about how teachers were beginning to integrate Strand 3 [cultural knowledge] into their practices” (p. 61).

A disconcerting reality emerges. Two crucial support documents (Ellis, 2005; Newton et al., 2010) arguably should have been equally foundational in shaping teachers’ thinking and practices in the L2 classroom. The vastly different paths taken as these documents were produced and disseminated might leave us with the impression that Newton et al. is less significant, and less defining for practice, than Ellis. In turn, this might be taken to suggest that the intercultural dimension is seen as peripheral to the language learning endeavour, and may be treated as less necessary than learning the L2 per se. As we indicated in Chap. 1, a cultural focus is potentially reduced to “something to talk over if there are a few minutes free from the real business of language learning” (Byram, 1991, pp. 17–18, our emphasis).

As we also noted in the opening chapter, and explored in more detail in Chap. 2, prior studies beyond New Zealand have demonstrated teachers’ uncertainty about how to implement intercultural language teaching. The New Zealand situation, which is no exception to this challenging uncertainty, is arguably exacerbated by the relative obscurity of Newton et al. (2010) in comparison with Ellis (2005). Furthermore, and as we signalled in Chap. 1, at the time of the publication of the NZC in late 2007, L2 programmes were already quite well established in secondary schools, and taught by specialist teachers. Up to that time, these programmes had been influenced by specific and language-focused curriculum guidelines. The NZC requirement to provide L2 programmes in Years 7 and 8 gave additional impetus for schools at the intermediate level to introduce such programmes. This has led in practice to the phenomenal growth of L2 programmes in the intermediate sector (East, 2021). A challenge, however, was (and is) that these programmes were (and still are) often delivered by non-specialist staff who may themselves only have a minimal level of proficiency in the TL (Scott & Butler, 2007).

With regard to resourcing, examples of how the six Newton et al. (2010) principles may be realised in practice (although potentially useful) are largely limited to what might happen in the senior secondary school, Years 11–13 (Ministry of Education, 2016). One useful initiative to provide support materials for teachers and students in the intermediate Years 7 and 8 who are new to learning the TL was the Learning Languages Series (LLS). This series contains a progression of lessons accompanied by worksheets and video resources, and a range of languages is supported (Ministry of Education, n.d.). However, having been produced prior to the publication of the NZC, there is a strong language focus which favours the teacher’s role in classroom delivery. Also, the resources are now technologically quite outdated, utilising, for example, CDs and analogue videos; no online or digital resources are provided. Thus, teachers at the intermediate level are also faced with significant resourcing challenges.

The study presented in this book was one means of investigating and addressing the challenges. However, before moving on (in subsequent chapters) to present the study, in the remainder of this chapter we review a number of earlier studies that have taken place in the New Zealand context to investigate teachers’ and students’ intercultural development. Each study was influenced, in one way or another, by a consideration of the six Newton et al. (2010) principles. In what follows, we outline the findings of these studies, highlighting challenges with implementation of the principles.

3.7 Studies into the Intercultural in the New Zealand Context

Earlier in this chapter, we noted the importance for professional learning and development of New Zealand’s year-long TPDL programme, which ran from 2005 to 2018. With regard to the specific language learning aims of the programme, Erlam and Tolosa (2022) documented the findings of a valuable study. However, the cultural/intercultural dimension has been a strong focus of one earlier series of studies. Conway et al. (2010, 2012) presented findings from an official evaluation of the TPDL programme in 2008, as reported in Harvey et al. (2009). The researchers were interested in the development of both the language knowledge and cultural knowledge strands of Learning Languages, and a key focus of their evaluation was expressed in these words:

Given the development of teachers who may have limited TL proficiency, and the significant shift in the curriculum which necessitates a new intercultural teaching pedagogy, the question needs to be asked: How effective is the [TPDL] programme in building capability? (Conway et al., 2012, pp. 163–164)

Data were collected at three points throughout the year from participant surveys (n = 25) alongside observations and face-to-face interviews with a subset of teachers (n = 7). This subset was selected to ensure representation from a range of geographical areas, school types, teaching experience and language ability. Programme documents and milestone reports submitted to the funder (New Zealand’s Ministry of Education) by the professional development organiser were used as additional data sources.

Conway et al. (2010, 2012) found that a focus on the ten Ellis (2005) principles enabled the participating teachers to increase their understanding of how to enhance learners’ SLA, due to the programme’s “deep principled knowledge base” (2010, p. 449). Indeed, it was noted that teachers “constantly mentioned ‘the Ellis principles’ and how understanding these was helping them to know more about their learners” (2012, p. 172). By contrast, there was less apparent success in improving teachers’ understanding of cultural knowledge due to a contrasting lack of a sufficiently robust knowledge base. In the researchers’ view, “[w]hile observation data indicated the [TPDL] programme had a clear positive impact on the teachers’ provision for learners to develop language knowledge, the results were less positive for the development of learners’ cultural knowledge” such that “[b]y the end of the course, there was limited evidence of teachers encouraging learners to develop this knowledge strand” (2010, p. 453). In particular, “limitations were most noticeable in the areas of explicitly encouraging learners to view their world through the eyes of others and to cross cultural boundaries and interact appropriately in the target language” (2012, p. 173).

It is important to acknowledge that, at the time of Conway et al.’s data collection, Newton et al. (2010) had not been released. It was therefore, as the researchers put it, “not surprising that there was limited attention to culture in the observed lessons since teachers made no mention in the interviews of any sustained intention to provide opportunities to develop cultural knowledge” (Conway et al., 2010, p. 455). The researchers concluded that further data might be more illuminating, and noted (Conway et al., 2012) that, subsequent to the release of Newton et al. (2010), several steps were taken within the TPDL programme to address the imbalance towards the Ellis (2005) principles, including dissemination of the Newton et al. report to teacher participants.

Two further studies by Conway and Richards (2014, 2018) presented findings from an extension to their research, continuing a specific emphasis on the intercultural language teaching practices of New Zealand L2 teachers, but moving beyond TPDL participants. A teacher survey in 2013 (n = 65) collected data on teachers’ understandings and implementation of the Newton et al. (2010) principles, and elicited a snapshot of teachers’ reported beliefs, practices, skills and knowledge. A particular focus of the investigation was on reflection (i.e., Newton et al. Principles 3 and 4). Semi-structured interviews were subsequently conducted with a subset of 12 case-study teachers. These covered a range of languages, school locations and school types, catering for different groups of students between Years 7 and 13.

Survey results appeared to be quite positive. Twenty respondents (31%) indicated that they “often” or “always,” and 35 (54%) that they “sometimes,” asked their students to reflect. Of the remainder, ten respondents (15%) noted that they “rarely” or “never” did this. The majority were therefore reporting that, to different extents, they were encouraging intercultural reflection in the context of language learning (Principle 3). Furthermore, 56 teachers (86%) reported that they encouraged their students to reflect not only on their own culture and experiences, but also on the culture and experiences of the target population, leading to an element of comparison and contrast (Principle 4).

Nevertheless, the case-study interviews indicated that reflection appeared to these teachers to equate to comparison, and that over half of the 12 teachers reported reflection in terms of learners’ noticing of similarities and differences. That is, learners “may have noticed something contrary to their expectations when comparing. However, teachers did not report scaffolding their learners to reflect or provide examples of learner reflection” (Conway & Richards, 2018, p. 380). Interestingly, Conway and Richards (2018) reported that language proficiency, experience of the target culture and professional development (although important contributors to enhanced practice in some cases) did not always appear to be factors influencing practice.

Oranje (2016) investigated teachers’ understandings of the Newton et al. (2010) principles at the secondary school (Years 9–13) level, and added an experiential dimension in the form of an interculturally oriented classroom intervention. In Phase I (conducted in 2013), also reported in Oranje and Smith (2018), a survey was administered to ascertain secondary school language teachers’ beliefs regarding culture in the language classroom. Of 74 responses to a question designed to elicit how familiar teachers were with the specific concept of intercultural CLT (ICLT), it was found that 23 teachers (31%) reported familiarity with the concept and aimed to put its principles into practice. However, five (7%) did not practice ICLT even though they reported a level of familiarity with it, 15 (20%) had heard of it, but were unfamiliar with its main precepts, and 31 (42%) had not heard of ICLT. Thus, the majority were reporting no or minimal awareness or understanding of ICLT.

Phase 2 of Oranje’s (2016) study, aspects of which were also reported in Feryok and Oranje (2015), was an in-class intervention involving teachers and students in three secondary school language classes (2 × German, 1 × French). These classes participated in term-length (up to 10-week) student-centred activities which Oranje labelled as cultural portfolio projects (CPPs). The CPPs embodied principles of ICLT and were designed to demonstrate the Newton et al. (2010) principles in practice.

Although there was some week-to-week flexibility with how the projects unfolded, and teachers had autonomy over the number of lessons devoted to the CPP project and the level of the researcher’s involvement in class activities, four components were fixed for each project. Firstly, the class generated statements about their existing understanding about the target culture. The students each then chose one statement and explored its validity through a range of sources. The statement was then reformulated in relation to the students’ own culture and the validity was retested. Finally, the findings were presented to the class, so all students were exposed to the range of perspectives explored (Oranje, 2016).

The participant teachers held different perspectives on the balance to be maintained between L1 and TL as students undertook the projects, but recognised scope for TL use as students engaged with authentic resources. Furthermore, the fourth stage (findings) could be presented in the TL, with the presentation contributing to students’ formal assessment in the TL.

Qualitative data on the impact of the CPPs were gathered from observations, interviews and group discussions. It was found that the teachers in Phase 2 acknowledged the importance of culture, but their practices did not always align with this acknowledgement. There was, rather, “a pervading perception that the elevation of culture in the curriculum required only greater incorporation of culture into lessons” (p. 299, our emphasis), that is, there was both a perceptual and a practical divide between language and culture, rather than an understanding of inter-relatedness and an attempt to develop an intercultural positioning.

To some extent, Oranje (2016) blamed the NZC document for a language–culture divide. That is, “[t]he curriculum asserts the equivalence of language and culture and their joint role in communication,” but the support materials available to teachers “do little to guide teachers in the practice of the cultural dimension” (p. 299, our emphases). Essentially, Oranje’s study supported the conclusions reached by Conway and Richards (2014, 2018)—teacher understanding and implementation of the Newton et al. (2010) principles continued to be quite restricted. Oranje’s argument also underscores the impact of the different trajectories taken with regard to Ellis (2005) and Newton et al., as noted by East (2012a). As Oranje concluded, “[a]dvances are being made in the practice of ICLT elsewhere in the world.” She went on to argue, “New Zealand teachers must be better supported in the practice of ICLT; otherwise, they will be forever playing catch up” (p. 325). In summing up a key factor for success with regard to the intercultural based on her findings, Oranje (2021) argued that “insufficient emphasis on reflection on one’s own cultural viewpoint is a defining feature of teachers who do not practice intercultural teaching, even if they report cognitions that support the approach” (p. 143).

Two further largely observation-based and non-interventionist studies in New Zealand school L2 classrooms were reported by Kennedy (2016, 2020) and Ramírez (2018a, 2018b). In both cases, the six Newton et al. (2010) principles provided the theoretical framework through which the findings were analysed and interpreted.

Kennedy (2016) presented a small-scale qualitative case study of one teacher and three students in a Year 11 class where Mandarin was the TL. The teacher, an L1 speaker of Mandarin, had taught in New Zealand for 15 years. Since the teacher did not report any prior knowledge of an ICLT approach, the researcher was interested in noting any naturally occurring (i.e., unplanned) incidents of intercultural exploration over a four-month period during 2015. During the first five weeks, she observed one class per week to enable the students and teacher to get used to her presence, with formal data collection beginning after that point. In addition to observations, data were elicited through stimulated recall based on prompts from audio-recordings of the class, field notes, unstructured and semi-structured interviews and a final written reflection from the students.

Kennedy (2016) found that some intercultural incidents did emerge naturally. However, no explicit focus on the intercultural dimension was apparent, and opportunities for students to develop the skills and attitudes that contribute to intercultural capability in the language classroom were lacking. Kennedy speculated, however, that the cultural activities she observed in class could be transformed into more powerful incidents by the addition of regular comparative and reflective opportunities on the part of learners.

Two key conclusions drawn by Kennedy (2016) were that teacher awareness and understanding of ICLT need to be developed, and that intercultural reflection and comparison need to be regularly included in language classes. As a follow-up, and working with two Year 10 Mandarin classes, Kennedy (2020) described a five-week intercultural project which she designed to focus on school life as a component of a ten-week unit on school. The classes worked together with Years 10 and 11 English Language classes which were timetabled at the same time and contained a high number of Chinese international students. The project thus enabled comparison and contrast about school life through authentic interaction with TL speakers and facilitated the use of both Mandarin and English. Kennedy concluded, “provision of explicit time and focus for intercultural comparison and reflection in class did enable students to decentre and develop critical awareness of oneself and of others” (p. 440).

A larger-scale observational project was reported by Ramírez (2018b) who, in the course of 2015 and early 2016, collected data from 16 teachers of Chinese, Japanese, French and Spanish (four of each), who were working with students in Years 8 and 9. The study was carried out in two stages, each involving eight teachers. Ramírez recognised from previous studies that she would encounter wide variability in teachers’ knowledge and understanding of the intercultural dimension, including the Newton et al. (2010) principles. Her study was therefore designed to investigate current teachers’ conceptualisations and practices, using the principles as an interpretive lens. She also considered whether professional development and proficiency in the TL made a difference to teachers’ conceptualisations and practices. To achieve this, an online test was used to place participants into two groups: high proficiency (CEFR B2 to C2) and low proficiency (CEFR A1 to B1). In each of the two six-month stages, qualitative data were gathered from each of the teachers through a preliminary interview, two cycles of classroom observation followed by teacher reflections, and a concluding interview.

Ramírez’ (2018b) findings indicated that teachers demonstrated an initial level of awareness of the six Newton et al. (2010) principles, and showed what she described as “a potential for intercultural teaching” (p. 155). However, this potential was variable, and there was an inconsistent relationship between conceptualisations and practices. It was found that TL proficiency did not appear to play a consistent role in teachers’ ability to conceptualise or operationalise an intercultural dimension, although low proficiency did seem to be a factor in not aligning practices with the principles. Furthermore, there was no evidence to suggest that the TL was a determinant in more articulated or developed intercultural conceptualisations and practices—it did not seem to matter what language was being taught.

Ramírez (2018b) found some evidence of the efficacy of teacher professional development. However, this appeared to be particularly the case when that professional development was deliberately targeted at the intercultural dimension. In this regard, Ramírez commented that, despite changes that had occurred within the TPDL programme since Conway et al.’s original (2010, 2012) study, an exploration of the intercultural within this programme still appeared to have been insufficiently developed. As Ramírez noted, those participants in her study who had completed the TPDL programme “demonstrated a slightly higher level of awareness/knowledge of the theory behind the iCLT principles, but did not demonstrate more developed practices of iCLT” (p. 162, our emphases). This, in her view, was not surprising, given a continued stronger focus on the ten Ellis (2005) principles within that programme.

Ramírez came to the conclusion that the implementation of the Newton et al. (2010) principles in New Zealand L2 classrooms, as also identified by Oranje (2016), was “inadequate” (Ramírez, 2018b, p. 183), due to the persistence of “an iCLT theory–practice gap” (Ramírez, 2018a, p. 26).

3.8 Conclusion

In summary, the development of intercultural capability, both in and beyond the context of L2 learning, has been identified as a priority for New Zealand, at least since the early 1990s. In the context of a new learning area for L2 learning within a revised school curriculum and its focus on effective communication, cultural knowledge features in the NZC as a strand of knowledge that is equally as important as language knowledge.

The findings of recent New Zealand studies indicate that, despite apparent awareness of the need to incorporate an intercultural dimension into L2 classrooms, there is no widespread evidence of understanding what that dimension entails, and an intercultural dimension is frequently limited or absent in L2 classrooms, even among more experienced and specialist teachers. In other words, positive stances towards culture are in evidence, alongside some level of theoretical understanding, but there is limited application of theory to practice. It seems that New Zealand language teachers are generally insufficiently aware of, or unsure how to practise and interpret, both the Newton et al. (2010) principles and the expectations of the cultural knowledge strand of the curriculum. The study we report in the remainder of this book represents a further attempt to explore the intercultural in the L2 classroom.

Although published after our own study had been completed, Conway and Richards (2018, p. 380) raised several points regarding teacher support that align with the factors we took into account in the framing of our own study:

  • Professional development may be a useful catalyst in moving teachers’ practices forward, but such PD “needs to include robust discussion on what it means to be intercultural, what reflection means, and strategies needed to encourage learners to reflect and expand their perspectives.”

  • Furthermore, classroom-based experiential learning “could extend teacher understanding of how comparing and contrasting with ‘the other’ leads to reflection, and exposure to a more responsive pedagogy may help teachers to be more confident in working with learners’ unpredictable responses as they reflect on culture.”

  • Additionally, or simultaneously, there is “a need for research that involves researchers, teachers and learners working together.” Co-constructive studies “may reveal factors that can foster teachers’ ability to provide learner opportunities for reflection and more of the underlying complexities for teachers’ decisions on how they develop IC [intercultural competence] and their processes for fostering learner reflection on both language and culture.”

In the next chapters, we turn to our own study into the development of interculturality among young language learners in New Zealand.