5.1 Introduction

In Chap. 4, we provided a full introduction to the two-year project that is the focus of this book, including the theoretical frameworks underpinning the study, and an introduction to the participants. In this chapter, we turn our attention to the inquiriesFootnote 1 undertaken by the five teacher partners as they, for the first time, reframed their additional language (L2) programmes to incorporate an explicit intercultural stance with their 11–13 year-old beginner language learners.

The key focus of this chapter is on the students’ journeys towards intercultural capability. To contextualise the voice that this chapter gives to the student participants, we start by presenting vignettes of what the teachers actually did with their students. We outline the inquiry foci that each teacher planned, along with the intercultural outcomes they hoped to achieve. We then present accounts of aspects of the inquiries, based primarily on classroom observations that documented some of the interculturally focused language lessons. The first part of the chapter does not therefore attend directly to the student voice. However, it presents data on the lessons and the teachers’ actions, thereby outlining what the students experienced in the classroom and providing important background for the subsequent presentation of the students’ perspectives.

In the second part of the chapter, we give voice to the student participants, drawing on data gathered from summative focus groups towards the end of Phases II and III of the project. Here we explore the impact of the new learning opportunities on the students’ emergent intercultural growth, drawing primarily on the experiences and understandings the students themselves reported. The intercultural growth that the teachers perceived their students had made is also noted, along with some other, unanticipated, outcomes. We finish the chapter by reflecting on the learning reported by students, and parallel learning by the teachers, alongside issues and questions this has raised.

5.2 Contextual Background

As outlined in Chaps. 1 and 4, the participating teachers in our project taught Year 7 or 8 students (11+ to 12+ years of age) in the New Zealand primary/intermediate school context, and were reasonably typical of teachers in the primary/intermediate sectors. They had a range of language teaching experience (from two to ten years), although most had been class teachers for longer than that. All apart from Lillian (a first language [L1] speaker of Mandarin and essentially bilingual in Mandarin and English) had learnt the target language (TL) as L2 and reported their language proficiency to be at a beginner-intermediate level, that is, no higher than B1 on the Common European Framework (Council of Europe, 2001).

When the teachers were initially introduced to the literature on intercultural language teaching as part of a two-day familiarisation meeting (hui), two of the six principles proposed by Newton et al. (2010) became specific foci and had the most resonance for the teachers (see Chap. 7)—Principles 3 and 4:

  • encourage and develop an exploratory and reflective approach to culture and culture-in-language;

  • foster explicit comparisons and connections between languages and cultures (Newton et al., 2010, p. 63).

These two principles align strongly with the expected outcomes for beginner language students within the curriculum document (Ministry of Education, 2007), and are also reflected closely in published achievement objectives (Ministry of Education, 2009) and the goals outlined in the Learning Languages curriculum guide (Ministry of Education, 2016).

The Newton et al. (2010) Principles 3 and 4 became the primary (although not exclusive) foci as the teachers planned their lessons. In what follows, we present the teachers’ lessons narratively (Chase, 2011) as snapshots of their inquiries as they unfolded. For ease of reference, Table 5.1 presents an overview of participants’ language teaching experience, the languages they taught, the weekly time allocation and the focus of each teacher’s intercultural inquiry topics in Phases II and III.

Table 5.1 Participant background information
Full size table

Although some of the chosen cultural topics are associated more with traditional “culture as artefact” approaches (Crozet et al., 1999), they can also be explored interculturally (Newton et al., 2010). As reflected in the accounts of the nine inquiries that follow, the intercultural stance is what each teacher intended.

5.3 Lillian

5.3.1 Phase II Inquiry: Discovering Different Perspectives of School Sports

For her first inquiry, Lillian aimed to problematise surface-level interpretations and develop her Year 7 learners’ critical thinking. She particularly wanted her students to “become more empathetic and aware of contrasting perspectives” (Phase II hui) when exploring concepts. Images of children playing sports in China, which Lillian compiled from internet searches she conducted separately in Mandarin and English, formed the basis for her students’ own inquiry learning cycles within Lillian’s interculturally focused inquiry.

The students began the first observed lesson by sharing on a displayed Google document TL words and phrases that they were familiar with around the topic of sport. Working in pairs, they then orally shared five words and one sentence related to sports, focusing intently as they spoke in Mandarin to each other. They then watched two short video clips about a sports day at a junior high school in China, before reflecting on differences in two sets of images Lillian had downloaded from the internet. A search in English had produced a set of (arguably stereotypical) “unhappy” sports images, which predominantly portrayed a sense of compulsion, order and competitiveness. The video clips Lillian showed similarly depicted sport in China as a very regulated, almost militaristic, activity. In comparison, the images from a search in Chinese portrayed a more positive narrative. Lillian encouraged the class to critically explore, discuss and reflect on the similarities and differences. When Lillian’s students observed that the Chinese students seemed to have been forced into participating, she probed: “But, is that the whole picture? How do we know the reality is broader?”

Lillian took the discussion further in the next lesson, encouraging the students to consider the images from a range of perspectives. She prompted the class, “what do most people that are not from China usually see about school sport?” She then posed the particular inquiry question for this session, “what do most people from China want others to feel about school sports?” The students were very focused as they discussed and recorded different perspectives (in English). One student reported, “the Chinese want people to think they are really good at sport.” Another suggested that people from China want others to think they are not forced to do it. Lillian scaffolded further reflection, guiding the students to think beyond homogeneous, “one country – one culture” conceptualisations: “Do all schools in China do sports this way? How do you know? What makes you think that?”

5.3.2 Phase III Inquiry: Using Senses and Feelings to Compare Schooling

Lillian noted that through the prompting and reflecting in the first inquiry, her students were beginning to challenge stereotypical views. She wanted to extend this further with her class as they moved into Year 8 the following year, aiming to foster exploratory mindsets through cultural comparisons and connections (Newton et al.’s [2010] Principles 3 and 4). The context for this was education in China.

The first observed lesson began with the students conducting research on their own devices about schooling for a student in China. Lillian prompted with questions such as “do they start school at 5? Are years organised in the same way?” As the students discussed some of their findings, Lillian drew attention to similarities and differences in practice, and invited a Korean student to make comparisons with the Korean school system. The students then watched a brief clip from a BBC documentary about a Chinese high school. Key messages included the school’s allegiance to the Communist party, the strong academic focus, the teacher’s role in students’ success, and competition for university places. As the students discussed the video (in English), Lillian encouraged deeper reflection and explicit intercultural comparison: “How does this clip make you feel? How did it make you feel about if they failed their exam? What about the students who don’t get the teachers’ attention?” Alongside the cultural provocations, Lillian also guided the students as they added to a shared Google document to record their observations. When they watched a second video about school life, this time made by Chinese students, Lillian again probed to help the students decentre and consider their reactions further.

In the next observed lesson, Lillian showed the two videos again as triggers for further exploration and comparison. The students recorded their observations and reactions in four categories (what they see, what they hear, what they feel, and ideas generated). Most of the class engaged enthusiastically in the session that followed, comparing and contrasting the videos with their own experiences at school in New Zealand. In particular, they commented on the sense of pressure, attention on just one smart student in a class of sixty and that life seemed easier for them in New Zealand compared to students in China. One student went beyond reflecting from just a student perspective, speculating that the teacher in one of the videos may have felt proud to support the top students. Further discussion centred on what Lillian’s class perceived as greater conformity in the Chinese schools, based on the students’ uniforms, restrictions in voicing their opinions and disciplinary actions.

5.4 Kelly

5.4.1 Phase II Inquiry: Exploring Concepts of Family Through Language and Culture

For her first inquiry, Kelly wanted to give her class opportunities to compare and contrast their own values and beliefs with those held by people in China. She aimed to achieve this with her class of mostly Pasifika-heritage students by exploring aspects of family life.

Focusing initially on language, in the first lesson the students recalled words they already knew in Mandarin relating to family, and reinforced their familiarity by playing a game of Memory. Focusing on family size, Kelly then showed the students a photo of a family she had visited in China. In response to her question about why there was only one child in the photo, a student replied that it was because there were too many people (in China). Kelly expanded on this, explaining about China’s one-child policy, the rationale for different rules for rural areas, and why some families preferred to have a boy. She also explained that the law had recently changed in China, but “there is a whole generation who grew up without siblings.” The students explored how family life might be different for an only child in China, and compared this with their own (mostly larger) families. They also discussed similarities and differences between the types of activities the child in the photo did for fun, and activities they enjoyed themselves. The students then conducted a survey (in Mandarin) to elicit the number and gender of their classmates’ siblings. This prompted a number of questions, including about who, specifically, counted as “part of a family.”

The second observed lesson focused on the role of grandparents in China. The students played another game of Memory, which, this time, included Mandarin words for older and younger siblings, and formal and informal terms of address for parents. Kelly read an account in Mandarin about her own family, while the students wrote their understanding (in English) of what she was saying. This provided the opportunity for more explicit attention to culture-in-language, as Kelly also drew attention to the different names in Mandarin for maternal and paternal grandparents. It also provided a springboard for deeper intercultural reflection and comparison through discussion about the role of grandparents. The students then completed their own family tree and wrote about their families (in Mandarin), using Kelly’s earlier account as a model.

5.4.2 Phase III Inquiry: Comparing Values and Beliefs Reflected in Colours and Clothing

At the time of her second intercultural inquiry, Kelly was at a different school, and had a Mandarin Language Assistant (MLA) working alongside her in her language classes. In contrast to the largely Pasifika school community in her previous school, the majority of the students were from New Zealand European or Asian backgrounds, including two fluent Mandarin speakers. As with Kelly’s first inquiry, the aim was for her students to reflect, comparatively, on values and beliefs important to Chinese people—this time through explorations of colour and clothing.

As a warm-up exercise in the first observed lesson, Kelly named a series of colours in Mandarin and her students found instances of them around the room. Kelly then introduced an explicit intercultural focus, guiding the class as they discussed what they associated with hóng sè (red) in a Chinese context (“flag,” “envelopes for new year,” “lucky colour”), and compared their associations with the colour red in New Zealand (“stars on the flag,” “war and blood,” “strawberries [with pavlova]).” After a game of Go Fish in Mandarin to reinforce the students’ colour vocabulary, Kelly introduced the zodiac animal at that time (the rooster), and discussed its characteristics and associated colours. The students then played a barrier game, using prompts on the board to help them instruct their partner (in Mandarin) to colour a picture of a rooster.

The next observed lesson began with a PowerPoint presentation (in English) about qí páo (a traditional dress). The MLA drew attention to specific elements of the fabric and design, and clarified when a qí páo was usually worn. The students used posters of clothing labelled in pīn yīn to support them as they mimed putting on different garments when Kelly called them out in Mandarin. Reintroducing the intended intercultural focus, Kelly elaborated on the meaning of some colours within Chinese and Western cultures, and the students then “dressed” a picture of a puppet, following Kelly’s instructions for it to be “labelled in Chinese.”

In a subsequent lesson, Kelly introduced the connector de for use between an adjective and noun in Mandarin. Some of the students then used de as they worked in groups to describe clothing items worn by one of their classmates. After the MLA described some other traditional Chinese clothing, including hàn fú (which, like the Korean hanbok, is worn by men and women), the intercultural focus continued as the class discussed “skirts” for men in other cultures, with the students adding Scottish, Māori, Samoan and Tongan clothing as examples.

5.5 Kathryn

5.5.1 Phase II Inquiry: Noticing Similarities and Differences in the Use of Time

Teaching in an International Baccalaureate school, Kathryn saw a close alignment between her school’s emphasis on reflective learning through student inquiries and Newton et al.’s (2010) Principle 3. Based on this and Principle 4, her first inquiry focused on comparing and contrasting the ways families in New Zealand and Japan use time. In a change from her previous teaching pattern, Kathryn planned to embed cultural aspects into all her lessons.

For the first observed lesson, Kathryn’s goal was to develop the students’ topic-related language repertoire, particularly in relation to numbers, as a foundation for their intercultural exploration of the use of time. As the students said their phone numbers, Kathryn guided them to notice how they were structured (“we cluster them a little”), before she explained that people in Japan say the word for “dash” when it is written between groups of numbers (e.g., 555 dash 55 dash 55). She introduced a further intercultural element when she later explained about the use of moshi moshi as a greeting for answering the phone. The students then practised writing phone numbers in Japanese.

In a later lesson, the students watched a video of Japanese people counting using their fingers. As the students then demonstrated how they counted on their fingers, Kathryn encouraged them to make comparisons, not only with the Japanese people they viewed in the video, but also with students in the class from different cultural backgrounds (Newton et al.’s [2010] Principle 5).

To gather up to date information for the inquiry, Kathryn arranged for students on an exchange to Japan (who were not part of the observed class) to document what their host families did in relation to time incidents and the concept of time. The class were to compare this with data they gathered about their own families’ use of time. Kathryn began the next observed lesson with a discussion about the relative importance of time for different cultures and different people (such as farmers). The students contributed ideas about why time was important for them. They then watched a PowerPoint presentation that illustrated the concept of Japanese punctuality, and Kathryn gave some anecdotal examples that showed contrasting perspectives on the importance of being on time. To conclude the lesson, the students worked in pairs asking and answering questions in Japanese related to time.

5.5.2 Phase III Inquiry: Using Student Inquiries About Food for Intercultural Exploration

Noting that the intercultural elements in her first inquiry had heightened her students’ interest and curiosity, Kathryn’s goal for the next inquiry was for her students to go beyond cultural facts and surface-level comparisons, to consider “more the thinking behind” (Phase III hui) particular ways for doing things. Kathryn also wanted to guide her students to notice similarities as well as differences. Capitalising on her students’ familiarity with inquiry learning and their strong digital literacy, Kathryn hoped that student-led inquiries around the theme of food in Japan would enrich her students’ understanding of Japanese people, rather than just the language.

The unit began with predominantly language-focused lessons in which the students learned the names for food in Japanese, and some compatible sentence structures such as how to express “like,” “dislike” and “love.” They also watched video clips of Japanese food in a range of contexts, and learned about some of the cultural protocols around food. Kathryn then introduced the inquiry plan to the class, and suggested some themes that provided opportunities for the students to explore the dynamic nature of culture, such as changes in diet and attitudes to food over time. She also provided a list of websites and YouTube videos that might provide starting points as the students selected a focus for their inquiries.

As they researched their chosen topics over the following three lessons, most groups worked intently, organising the information they found into KWL charts (what we already know; what we wonder; what we have learned) in shared Google documents. Kathryn provided encouragement and probed, at times, to help students clarify the goals of their inquiries. She also emphasised to the students that cultural comparison was not an end in itself, and stressed the importance of deeper reflection on “why” in relation to the information they found.

In the next observed lesson, Kathryn used the arrival of other staff to her class as an authentic and context-appropriate opportunity to teach how to greet more than one person using the Japanese conjunction to (and). For the remainder of the lesson, the students drew on their KWL charts to create posters on topics such as Japanese school lunches, dining etiquette, tableware, the history and cultural significance of food presentation and the impact of diet on life expectancy. They subsequently shared these with the class.

5.6 Mike

5.6.1 Phase II Inquiry: Challenging Notions of “Normal” Through Food and Drink

Using food as a linguistic and intercultural framework, Mike’s aims for his first inquiry were (1) to “challenge the idea of the ‘normal’ within [the students’] own cultures … to get an idea that there is no real normal,” thereby helping his students to “create their own sense of identity” and develop “a greater idea of their own culture” (Phase II hui), and (2) for his beginner level students “to appreciate that culture is quite a complex idea … you can’t just say ‘people in France do this’” (Phase II interview). That is, he wanted his students to question what might be regarded as “normative,” thereby challenging their own preconceived ideas. Importantly, however, Mike did not want these intercultural objectives to diminish the students’ language learning opportunities.

In the first of the observed lessons, each student was to survey five classmates (in French) about what they ate for breakfast. Before they began, Mike elicited the appropriate etiquette and phrases for conducting a conversation with someone in French, and, incidentally, drew attention to a link between the dual functionality of salut in French and aroha in te reo Māori (both functioning as greetings of arrival and departure). Using a series of specified question/response structures and a list of five breakfast foods, the students conducted their interviews. They then worked in small groups to record their data in a histogram, with some groups adding an extra bar to represent the (majority of) students who had not eaten anything at all for breakfast. This provided an unexpected but timely segue for a discussion about assumptions and generalising, in which Mike confessed to the students that their survey results challenged his own preconceived ideas about what was “normal” for the class.

A “noticing” activity then followed, with the students watching a YouTube clip of a French family having breakfast. This served as a stimulus for intercultural reflection, during which Mike guided a discussion (in English) about similarities and differences between the video and the students’ own breakfasts. The students observed: “they have breakfast together”; “they have all the food spread out on the table”; “[the French family] aren’t in a rush”; and, “it’s simpler [in New Zealand].” Mike speculated aloud about whether breakfast would be like this for all French families, and probed as the students offered further observations and recounted their experiences in other countries. The lesson concluded with Mike reminding the students that they had just seen “one video of one family in France”—they could not assume it was “typical.”

The second observed lesson was similar in structure to the first, and similarly had dual language and intercultural goals. The students began by practising sentences in French in preparation for a survey activity intended to provide multiple opportunities for the students to use the target structures and vocabulary while they gathered data about how often they eat particular items of food. This time, though, many of the students employed a range of “avoidance strategies” and completed the activity with minimal TL use. In the cross-cultural comparison that followed, Mike encouraged the students to reflect on similarities as well as differences between the results of their survey and observations from videos of French meals they had viewed in intervening lessons. Despite Mike’s further efforts to elicit some similarities, the students’ focus remained almost exclusively on differences.

5.6.2 Phase III Inquiry: Reflecting on School Systems

Although Mike commented that the intercultural focus during his first inquiry added depth to his lessons, and his students “were beginning to dispel stereotypes about French culture” (Phase II interview, our emphasis), he wanted (as with Kathryn’s second inquiry) to do more to guide his students to understand and appreciate commonalities as well as differences between languages and cultures. As a vehicle for this, Mike explored aspects of the French education system with his new Year 7 class, aligning the language objectives for the term, and drawing on “culturally rich resources” (Phase III interview) sourced through the internet to bring French schooling into his classroom. Mike aimed to use deeper reflective questioning throughout these lessons, instead of his earlier pattern of impromptu questions mainly at the end. He also hoped to achieve a “balance” between “the cultural element and the language element” (Phase III interview).

The students’ schema for the second inquiry was activated using a video of a young French student reciting a poem about returning to school after the summer break. The class then compared their own feelings about returning after their recent holiday. In the next observed lesson, an authentic French school timetable was used as a medium for both language development and intercultural exploration. Most of the students quickly worked out the days of the week and the school subjects. They then compared the French school week with their own, focusing particularly on the length of the school day and having “free periods.” Regarding days for attendance, Mike asked, “who’d be happy to go on Saturday, if you have Wednesday off?” This type of questioning led to a lively discussion about which system the students would prefer if they were able to choose, which they thought French students might prefer, and why. Towards the end of the lesson, when Mike asked a series of factual questions (in English) about the timetable, a larger than usual number of the students responded in French.

In the lessons that followed, the class read accounts about French children’s daily routines, watched short videos of French students describing their day at school, and did more activities based around the French school timetable. There was a high level of engagement when Mike probed to elicit the students’ thoughts and feelings about commonalities and differences throughout the lessons. Additionally, Mike drew attention to cognates and the origins of words at times, and explored instances of culture-in-language as they arose (Newton et al.’s [2010] Principle 3). In the fourth observed lesson, for example, a discussion about petit déjeuner (“small dinner”) led to a comparison with the English breakfast (“breaking the fast”), which, in turn, led to a discussion about language and cultural change over time. In a later activity that included French addresses, Mike made links to a nearby town in New Zealand founded by French settlers, where the streets are still called Rue. Connections such as this appeared to pique the students’ interest further, and some previously reticent students engaged enthusiastically in some of the discussions. The students used French to answer questions far more than Mike had experienced earlier, and incorporated French vocabulary they had not been explicitly taught.

5.7 Tamara

5.7.1 Phase II Inquiry: Making Connections Through Movement

Tamara’s approach to teaching te reo Māori stems from her belief that no matter what the subject, “there is always a [Māori] component you can weave in” (Phase II interview). Applying this philosophy as much to tikanga (values and practices) as she does to language, it was not surprising that Tamara’s intercultural goals for this inquiry were the integration of language and culture (Newton et al.’s [2010] Principle 1) and making connections between languages and cultures (Newton et al.’s Principle 4). She wanted her students to go beyond superficial comparisons, to make personal connections with Māori words, and, using Māori concepts, to make connections with each other within their diverse class and school setting. She recognised that this would also help develop her students’ key competencies (see Chap. 3), particularly relating to others. Tamara selected te ao kori (the world of movement) as a conduit and theme for her inquiry.

In the first observed lesson, a traditional Māori games facilitator helped teach Tamara’s Year 8 class how to play a game called kī-o-rahi. Tamara explained to the students that this is “all about taniwha (powerful creatures) and hunting … It’s based on a Māori perception of how creatures move.” An explanation about the taniwha myth provided the cultural context for how the game evolved. As they played the game, the students had opportunities to use the kīwaha (Māori colloquial expressions) they had been learning.

The facilitator made further cultural links in the next lesson, as she described how another game, tapu ae, relates to traditional Māori warfare. She interspersed Māori words with English as she explained that during pā (fortified village) wars, Māori warriors defended their women and babies (represented in the game by tennis balls on upturned cones within a circle at each end of the playing field). Assuming the roles of defenders, attackers and runners, the students then played the game, enthusiastically passing a ball along the playing area and trying to knock their opponents’ “babies” out of their “nests.” The game provided authentic opportunities for the students to use kīwaha, including side-line encouragements, such as Hopukina! (Catch it!), and Ka mau te wehi! (That’s outstanding!). Some of the students carried flashcards to help reinforce these new phrases.

The intercultural focus on te ao kori continued in the next lesson as the class compared and reflected on movements across a range of cultures, including Irish dancing, Siva Tau (Samoan war dance), and striking a piñata (Mexico). Tamara introduced additional Māori vocabulary when the students needed it to describe some of the movements. The students also learned yoga poses with what Tamara termed “a Māori spin,” making links between the sacredness of the head for Māori people and some other cultures. Tamara continued this cross-curricular intercultural approach in a later class about flight (in planes), and another about birds. Throughout the lessons, she drew on the diversity of the class as a pedagogical resource, encouraging students who had lived in other cultural contexts to contribute their experiences and understandings (Newton et al.’s [2010] Principle 5) as she guided the class to make connections—with each other, with their own heritages and with Māori language and culture.

5.8 The Students’ Journeys: Emergent Intercultural Growth

Having provided overviews of the observed lessons, in what follows we turn our attention to the students’ journeys during the inquiries, drawing primarily on the focus group discussions we had with the students at the end of each inquiry cycle (see also Howard et al., 2019). Using illustrative quotations, we explore the students’ reported gains from the opportunities that the nine inquiries presented for intercultural growth as well as “what they actually learn from those practices” (Bolstad et al., 2013, p. 17). We follow the students’ voices with a brief account of the intercultural growth their teachers perceived had been made.

5.8.1 Facts About the Target Cultures

When the students were asked what they had learned during the inquiries, some of the initial responses related to vocabulary, language functions and pronunciation. With regard to cultural learning, the responses frequently suggested an apparent focus on facts:

There’s at least a billion people in China. (Asher, Mandarin 1)Footnote 2

We learnt about the history of the Moa [extinct bird]. (Isla, Māori)

5.8.2 Noticing Differences

It is possible that the initial factual focus noted above was due, at least in part, to how the opening focus group prompts used by the researchers were framed. Further probing elicited evidence that, within a range of intercultural thematic contexts, students were moved beyond factual knowledge to a position that demonstrated distinct noticing of differences, often triggered by videos they had watched:

It’s not like sports we know. (Simon, Mandarin 1)

The homework and the pressure was bigger, and bigger classrooms and bigger expectations. (Hunter, Mandarin 1)

In many instances, it seemed that images and videos of the target cultures also prompted students to become conscious of their own cultural practices explicitly for the first time:

Their baths – they would wash themselves off first, then they would hop in a bath to soak. (Cora, Japanese)

This heightened awareness of difference was often expressed comparatively:

They don’t move out of their house until they get married … [whereas] my oldest brother, he has moved out and he’s not married. (Bruno, Japanese)

We normally associate [red] with blood, whereas in China it’s lucky. (Willow, Mandarin 2)

Not all students demonstrated acceptance of the differences they noticed. First-culture positioning was demonstrated when some of the students discussed what they perceived as peculiarities of practice—at least initially:

They lock people out of school if they are late, but here we don’t (Felix). But if it was not their fault and the bus was late or something they would still get locked out … it’s kind of stupid. (Cameron, French)

When you go to the market to buy the iconic breadstick … they would just wrap it in the middle … so it would just leave the rest of the world to touch it … I thought it was really gross and unhygienic. (Cleo, French)

There were further examples of reductive, homogeneous conceptualisations of cultures at the beginning of the inquiries. Gillian, for example, provided a perspective from before the opportunities to reflect on similarities and differences:

I thought they were weird … three mums sitting at a coffee table eating frogs’ legs and snails and doing evil laughs ... and [wearing] the berets. (Gillian, French)

In some cases, however, initial stereotypical understandings were later replaced with more open attitudes and a degree of self-awareness regarding personal positionalities. Declan (Mandarin 1), for example, initially viewed China “as a dark country … corrupted … bad … polluted,” but demonstrated developing critical awareness as he later explained that movies had helped shape and reinforce some of his earlier perceptions. Other students, similarly, demonstrated developing abilities to recognise and question some of their initial stereotypes.

5.8.3 Openness to Difference

As the students reflected on similarities and differences, it was evident that some examples of noticing had led them to less rigid “our” and “other” culture standpoints. At times, they expressed this in terms of acceptance of different ways of “doing” and “being”:

Their school day starts earlier than ours and finishes later, and I think they’ve got quite a bit of homework they have to do each day … If they want to do this, then it’s not abnormal. It is unique to them. (Emmett, Japanese)

Likewise, two students from another class displayed acceptance of difference, and, further, demonstrated their growing reflective capacity as they discussed what they perceived to be a stricter school system:

I would be pretty stressed [in a Chinese school], but it would help me learn more and be a better person. (Hunter, Mandarin 1)

I kind of feel the same … it would be even more stressful, but … I would learn more and have more time to learn a lot more. (Rhett, Mandarin 1)

For some students, this also extended to empathy with people in situations they perceived would be challenging:

I would probably feel pretty stressed because I probably deserve a good night’s sleep. (Asher, Mandarin 1)

Other students illustrated the beginnings of deeper understandings when they made connections between target cultures and their own or others they knew about:

Well, there are different tribes within the Māori, and [in China] they have different dresses and different languages. (Stella, Mandarin 2)

At times, increased openness to difference was evident in students’ expressions of curiosity or “wonderings” as they considered the possibility of further cultural differences:

Sometimes I wonder … how they live … [whether] their rules and stuff are different. (Isla, Māori)

… what church they go to, and how they’ve grown up. (Sage, Māori)

Reflection on practices in target cultures sometimes led students to make broad generalisations about perceived acceptability if these same practices were used in their own context:

[In France] the girls usually go up to each other and kiss each other’s cheek. In New Zealand, if people did that, they would find it creepy, and you would be alarmed. (Janice, French)

In this instance, the student later demonstrated the ability to view herself “as Other” (Kramsch, 2009, p. 18) as she reflected on greeting with a hongi (a traditional Māori greeting where noses are pressed together) in her own culture:

Some of our Māori culture things that we do – people would think we are the weirdest people in the world, because we go up and [she demonstrated a hongi], but in other countries, they would be creeped out by that. (Janice, French)

5.8.4 Comfortableness with Difference

There is evidence that several students felt more comfortable with perceived differences as a result of the intercultural orientation in their L2 programmes. This was frequently expressed in terms of movement from an “at first I thought…” to a “now I think…” position:

I used to think French people were amazing, magnificent, almost like dolls in a dolls’ house, they needed to be put on display. But now I’ve learnt more about them, I think they are just normal people. They are just doing what their culture says. (Janice, French)

At the start, I thought French people were weirdos, but now I think they are just normal people following their culture. (James, French)

Rather than minimising the differences they observed in an attitude of universalism, these two students had become less judgemental and more comfortable with cultural differences. This attitudinal change was also evident in an exchange where they reflected on possible future interactions with people from the target cultures:

[Before] I probably would have imitated them and mocked them [but not] now I know their culture. (James, French)

I don’t think anyone who learnt about the culture would do anything like that. (Janice, French)

Having reflected on differences, other students were also beginning to understand, or at least think about, how they might engage themselves in interaction with people from the target cultures. Isla, in the Māori class, explained that she could greet Māori people in the community now in Māori, not because she did not know how to do this previously, but because she now felt more comfortable about doing it.

For some students, their increased comfortableness with difference was expressed in terms of acceptance and respect:

You have to respect how [people from other cultures] are different to us … you have to accept how they are and how they do things. (Khalessi, Mandarin 1)

I understand them better and so I know why they do specific things unlike me or others … so I kind of respect the other cultures. (Simon, Mandarin 1)

How this might look in practice was also discussed:

I actually went to a Chinese restaurant and ordered it in Chinese … letting them know that people care about their culture and want to learn more. (Tim, Mandarin 1)

Food appeared to be a salient distinguishing feature of other cultures in a number of discussions. It was also the vehicle through which another student expressed her growth in confidence to engage with cultural otherness. Having initially thought that eating French food “would be really weird,” Janice announced enthusiastically at the end of the inquiry, “I really want to go there and try every food they’ve got.” While, at first sight, this modified stance may appear superficial, it revealed a significant underlying shift, from a position of distance from the “other” to a place of willingness to enter comfortably into an intercultural experience that had previously been perceived as “alien.”

5.8.5 “Third Place” Positioning

At least one student was explicitly aware that the intercultural exploration, for her, had been transformative. This was expressed simply:

It has changed me, how I see things … I normally would see it from that [monocultural] perspective, and now I look at another perspective. (Jade, Japanese)

The student focus groups also revealed that several students experienced learning gains in terms of coming to appreciate and value their own cultures and uniqueness alongside the cultures and uniqueness of others. It was apparent that some students were also beginning to understand what it meant to position themselves in a “third place.” Although, at times, they struggled to articulate it, there is evidence above from the focus groups of movement towards spaces of “accommodation” (Liddicoat, 2008, p. 279) in which the students accepted cultural difference as non-threatening, and where their “first culture” positioning could be suspended without needing to discard their own sense of self.

We must nonetheless be cautious with extrapolations. We cannot confidently claim “third place” positioning for any of these students. The intercultural activities they engaged in did not include navigating different cultural perspectives with TL speakers, hence the students’ capability to function interdependently with cultural difference is not known. Similarly, articulations of change—such as Isla’s intention to greet Māori people using Māori—were, at that point, still intentions rather than enacted. However, it is clear from reflective discussions with the teachers that they also recognised that intercultural learning gains were made by their students during the inquiries. The teachers’ journeys in this project are explored in depth in Chap. 6. However, in what follows, we turn briefly to what the teachers reported in regard to their students’ learning gains.

5.9 Teachers’ Perceptions of Students’ Intercultural Learning Gains

The intentional intercultural dimensions within the five teachers’ language programmes provided valuable spaces to explore cultural similarities and differences, and help the students develop a greater openness to “otherness.” This was particularly apparent in the Phase III post-lesson reflections. Kelly noted that her students had “been exploring stereotypes and discussing them openly.” Mike similarly reported that the inquiries provided a context for “allowing students room to explore, challenging their pre-existing ideas.” For Lillian, it was about her students “seeing the bigger picture.”

An important outcome noted by all the teachers was that their students were beginning to make connections not only between the target culture and their own cultures, but also with students from diverse heritages within their own classes. In terms of students’ engagement with diversity and relating to others, Tamara noted that the inquiry had provided opportunities for genuine social interactions between the different cultures in her class, including the use of some Māori. The teachers also observed that, through the process of intercultural comparison and reflection, students were gaining insights into their own taken for granted values and practices. Mike explained it this way: “they were beginning to pick up some of their own culture as well … actually just looking and reflecting on your own culture … is an important part of it” (Phase II interview).

Examining similarities and differences across cultures also appeared to help move students towards an appreciation that culture cannot be reduced to a single set of beliefs and behaviours. In relation to actual measurement of growth within “the intercultural aspect,” Mike pointed out that it was not as easy as with language acquisition. Nevertheless, he felt that his students “were beginning to dispel stereotypes about French culture. I think that was beginning to happen” (Phase III reflection). Lillian was also aware that, through prompting and reflection, her students were beginning to challenge stereotypical views, and “they can actually say to me ‘well, you know, my friend so and so is from China, they don’t celebrate this and also they don’t do things in certain ways like that’” (Phase II interview). Tamara concluded that being able to take a different perspective was a key intercultural achievement for her class.

5.10 Unanticipated Outcomes

The student focus group discussions and teachers’ reflections revealed that the students’ learning journeys extended well beyond the explicit intercultural aims of the inquiries. That is, the students’ journeys were not just towards intercultural growth, but also—encouragingly—appeared to lead to increased engagement, greater use of the target language, and heightened motivation for language use, language learning and intercultural interactions in the future. In what follows, we interweave some of the unanticipated comments from the students with the reflections of the teachers.

5.10.1 Increased Engagement

As the students reflected on the inquiries, there were frequent unprompted references to the zest they felt about the opportunities they had had to encounter and consider cultural differences during the interculturally focused activities:

I enjoyed the fact that I’ve learned something not just from my culture – that I understand other people. (Brie, Mandarin 1)

I really enjoy, like, the videos, and the new things we get to learn … they actually tell you more about [Japanese people]. (Carol, Japanese)

I really enjoyed … learning what other people do in their lives to see if they are like us. (Zian, Mandarin 2)

I enjoyed learning about other cultures and how they look at things, and the differences and similarities. (Khalessi, Mandarin 1)

The students’ enjoyment, enthusiasm and engagement was also a recurring theme in the teachers’ post-lesson reflections (and something we pick up on in Chap. 6). Kathryn referred to her students’ “passion” when she observed that they were “thoroughly enjoying what they are finding out and they are enjoying sharing it with other people too and discussing it” (Phase III). Lillian and Kelly also reported that their students were more engaged. Kelly attributed this to her students having opportunities to compare and make connections with their own cultures. Further to this, Mike felt that exploring similarities and differences between themselves and similar-aged students contributed to the heightened interest and engagement he observed in his classes.

5.10.2 Greater Use of the Target Language

The positive emotions the students expressed in relation to cultural aspects of their learning sometimes also extended to language learning:

It’s just fun learning another language and some of the things they do there to entertain themselves instead of what we do here. (Felix, French)

I really enjoyed learning about the cultures and what they like doing over there and also the language itself. (Louis, Japanese)

I feel good because we are not just learning English. [Mandarin] is very interesting. (Adam, Mandarin 2)

The teachers also perceived changes in their students’ attitudes to language learning—not just in terms of engagement, but also their use of the TL. Lillian, for example, noted that her students were “really enthusiastic in the language learning while they’re going through this process” (Phase III). Kelly noticed her students were more willing to ask for additional vocabulary items and (Mandarin) characters. Mike similarly perceived increases in his students’ motivation for language learning, particularly in his second inquiry (Phase III). He attributed this to the “relevant, authentic and engaging context” the intercultural dimension provided, whereby “students enjoyed the challenge of ‘decoding’ the resources.” He was excited to notice that, although he was spending less time on explicit language teaching during the inquiries, his students were using the TL more. He commented, “[i]t amazed me how much language they have actually learned. Quite obscure words that I never actually taught.” In contrast to previous years, he noticed during the inquiries “the students’ language use was fun and adaptive … they were trying to communicate.” Tamara also noted that her students appeared to gain in confidence to use the TL during the intercultural activities. This was also mentioned in the students’ focus group discussions:

We don’t even really know we are doing it [speaking in Māori] because we are using it so much. (Isla, Māori)

5.10.3 Heightened Motivation for Future Language Use and Language Learning

Kathryn (teaching Japanese) felt that the increased motivation she perceived in her students derived from a sense of increased connection. She noted that although there was no guarantee that the students would continue with the language after intermediate school, “the culture … has really fulfilled the kids.” She conjectured that the students’ heightened interest may prompt them to study a language at high school, noting that “they feel related, I think, to Japan now” (end of Phase III).

The focus group discussions also suggested that increased cultural understandings the students had gained during the intercultural explorations manifested in greater confidence and positive attitudes towards engaging in the target languages in the future:

If someone needs help, like in a mall, and they don’t know their way around, you could help them. (Mae, French)

I’ll use it when I’m older, when I travel. (Cleo, French)

For some students, this extended beyond just the language they were learning during the inquiries, and indicated an openness to learn (and use) further languages if they had the opportunity:

I would love to be able to speak to people from other cultures … we’ve got Chinese people [in our class]. (Isla, Māori)

5.11 Reflections on the Outcomes

As discussed in Chap. 1, the notion of interculturality has been the subject of extensive debate for decades now, with multiple and overlapping nomenclatures, interpretations and definitions contributing to what Dervin et al. (2020) referred to as “muddy roads” (p. 5) in this terrain. This lack of consensus as to what the intercultural dimension actually is raised important questions as we embarked on this project. What does it mean to enhance intercultural capability? What does it mean in relation to language learners? And how is it best evaluated? In response to these questions, we have presented what emerged from the student data as five components of learning (knowledge of facts, noticing differences, openness to difference, comfortableness with difference, and “third place” positioning). We chose these components as an effective lens for us to examine the students’ journeys, and begin to explore the extent to which the students themselves reported intercultural gains. It is important to reiterate here that these five components are not conceptualised as either fixed levels of attainment, or unidirectional progressions (see Chap. 4). Rather, they act somewhat as roadside markers, where students’ (contextual) positionality at a brief moment in time can be gauged, but from which movement, in any direction, is possible.

The students’ voices reported above signal shifts—at least in some students—to increased recognition, acceptance and accommodation of cultural difference. Greater “appreciation of diversity” (Dervin, 2007, p. 8) was evident in relation to students’ understandings of their own culture(s) as well as those of others. For some students, shifts were evident from initial fixed, stereotypical views to more moderated positions that allowed for spaces of “greyness” and less rigid language–culture associations. The focus group discussions also revealed glimpses of some students’ growing recognition of the complexity of the notion of culture, and of relationships between languages and cultures. In addition to reporting greater openness to difference, some students demonstrated growing abilities to decentre and consider alternative perspectives. At least one student was also able to reflect on “the self as foreign”—a competency that Parks (2018, p. 120) suggested is an additional intercultural dimension, or savoir, to the five proposed by Byram (1997). Although variable across the students, these outcomes are encouraging.

The teachers similarly perceived that their students had made some worthwhile intercultural learning gains, although, again, these were variable, and were mostly reported by the teachers in somewhat tentative terms. Mike, for example, felt his students “were beginning to pick up some of their own culture” and “were beginning to dispel stereotypes,” adding “I think that was beginning to happen” (Phase II interview, our emphases). Lillian similarly hedged when she reported “I think they have taken away with them that there are different perspectives at looking at things” (Phase III interview, our emphasis). This, then, raises questions about what type of growth, and how much, teachers can realistically expect when they integrate intercultural pedagogies into L2 programmes with learners of this age.

5.11.1 The Issue of Age

A key goal of intercultural language teaching is to facilitate a “shift in the positioning of learners, so that they are no longer rooted only in the experiences and identity derived from their existing cultures and languages” (Newton et al., 2010, p. 47). However, research from other fields indicates that the extent to which such a “shift” is possible for young learners may be constrained by factors beyond their own control, or that of their teachers.

Pre- and early adolescence—the age of the students in this study—are well documented as periods of considerable maturational developments. These manifest not just in visible characteristics, such as physical growth, but also in less visibly discernible attributes, such as cognitive changes (Berk, 2013). Certainly, it would be unrealistic to assume that the students in this study would have the same levels of reflexivity and criticality expected of older learners. More than this, however, the variability in cognitive, perceptual and neurobiological development in 11–13-year-olds suggests that wide variability in their growing intercultural maturity can also be expected. The students in this study were at differing stages of developing the reflective skills necessary for critical exploration of their own cultures. It is also likely they had experienced wide variability in the extent to which these skills had been fostered explicitly earlier in their education. Indeed, Lillian conjectured that her students had never been asked the types of questions she was posing during her inquiries.

In addition to the skills required for self-reflection, specific competencies are needed to make intercultural comparisons and connections (Newton et al.’s [2010] Principle 4). Within an instructed context, this frequently requires students to consider life in cultural settings that are not physically present for them, and, further, are beyond what they have ever personally experienced. This was the case for most of the students in this study (with the possible exception of those learning te reo Māori), since cultural “otherness” was largely encountered in the inquiries indirectly (e.g., through video clips). Development of abstract and hypothetical reasoning skills that are necessary for intercultural comparative and reflective tasks generally begins at around 11–12 years of age (Byrnes, 2003). Hence, it is probable that the capacity for change in students’ openness and comfortableness with cultural difference, or “shifts in position,” is impacted by the (im)maturity of their developing propositional and abstract thought processes at that age (Berk, 2013).

Research from other disciplines points to further age-related factors that may impact intercultural growth. Social identity research, for example, indicates that an internally defined sense of self (which develops with both time and experience) is required in order to be able to accept difference without feeling threatened (King & Baxter Magolda, 2005). Studies have also found that stereotyping and in-group favouritism (“us” over “them”) may be stronger in early adolescents than in older students (Tanti et al., 2011). Neurobiological research similarly suggests that negative out-group (“them” or “other”) conceptualisations, such as those reported by some of the students in our study, may reflect age-related underlying capabilities that are still developing (see Howard et al., 2019, for a related discussion).

In summary, the extent to which maturational factors, such as those noted above, interact to impact on learners’ developmental receptiveness for intercultural growth remains largely unknown. However, the growth reported by the 11–13 year-old students in our study is evidence of important steps towards intercultural capability that are possible for (at least some) learners of this age.

5.11.2 Affective Impacts

Of further interest, as we consider the outcomes of these intercultural inquiries, is the potential impact the inquiries had on other aspects of the students’ language learning journeys. Certainly, the unanticipated outcomes (reported earlier) raise questions about the extent to which the intercultural dimension, in and of itself, influenced the students’ overall engagement and sense of enjoyment, and further, the possibility of consequential impacts on their language learning and language use.

The role of socio-affective factors in L2 education has been the subject of extensive investigation since the early 1970s. Nevertheless, until recently, studies have focused predominantly on negative emotions, with anxiety, in particular, receiving significant attention (see Horwitz, 2010, for a timeline of research in this area). It is only in the last decade, as interest in positive affective variables across the wider educational sphere has increased, that positive emotions (such as enjoyment) have become more prominent in second language acquisition research (see, e.g., Dewaele & MacIntyre, 2014; MacIntyre et al., 2016).

Studies in educational psychology suggest that positive academic emotions play a key role in sustaining motivation (Pekrun & Linnenbrink-Garcia, 2014). This aligns with some of our findings. As noted earlier, students in the focus group discussions frequently referred to enjoyment, in relation to both the intercultural inquiries and language learning. There was evidence that the interculturally focused inquiries may have heightened some students’ motivation, not just in relation to cultural understandings, but also in seeing themselves using the TL in the future.

Research also suggests that positive emotions foster behaviours such as “play, creativity, curiosity, and exploration” (Boudreau et al., 2018, p. 152). Again, this resonates with reports from the students and the teachers in our study. As we pointed out earlier, Mike (teaching French), for example, noted that his students’ language use during his second inquiry was “fun and adaptive.” The teachers and students also reported increased interest and curiosity. Boudreau et al. (2018) further suggested, specifically in relation to language learning, that positive emotions may “broaden the perspective of an individual learner, facilitating engagement with the language” (p. 152). This was also evident in our findings, with teachers reporting that their students had greater interest in acquiring new vocabulary and more use of the language during some of the inquiries.

Whether, and to what extent, positive emotions resulting from engagement in the intercultural inquiries influenced the students’ language learning in this study remains conjecture. Enjoyment, in itself, can be associated with other factors, and its cause and effects in this study cannot be isolated from other variables. However, the possibility that integration of an intercultural dimension in language programmes may have a positive effect on students’ language learning, and on their attitudes to language learning in the future, is exciting. Certainly, the unanticipated outcomes of this study signal this as a fertile area for further investigation.

5.12 Conclusion

The principal goal of our study was to support teachers as they aimed to integrate an intercultural dimension into their L2 programmes. The anticipated outcome was “shifts” in the student travellers as they journeyed towards greater understandings of themselves and cultural others. It is evident from the findings that, using Newton et al.’s (2010) principles as a guide, the teachers had certainly begun the process of “the bringing together of worlds” for their students. More than this, it seemed that the teachers were successful in “lighting a path” for their students’ intercultural growth, and perhaps also for their language learning journeys, that they may otherwise not have embarked on. That said, evidence gathered from the teachers through reflective interviews after each observation and comments made during the two two-day hui (start of Phases II and III) revealed several tensions in practice.

In Chap. 6, we turn to the teachers, and uncover not only the positives they reported, but also the challenges they encountered, as they undertook their journeys with us.