6.1 Introduction

In Chap. 5, we presented overviews of the interculturally focused lessons the teacher participants had facilitated during the two inquiry cycles in our two-year project, alongside the intercultural learning that the students reported had taken place for them. We also included some reflections from the teachers regarding their students’ perceived intercultural learning gains. Building on that initial presentation, this chapter continues an exploration of facets of the reflections of the five participating teachers on their inquiries over the duration of the project, including a more thorough discussion of their thoughts and reflections on their endeavours to promote the intercultural dimension in their teaching.

We have previously published some aspects of the teachers’ stories emerging from Phase II of the project (Biebricher et al., 2019; East et al., 2017; Tolosa et al., 2018). In this chapter, we re-present key data emerging from Phase II and also include insights expressed by the teacher participants in Phase III. Findings are based on individual post-observation reflective teacher-researcher interviews that took place on at least three occasions during the two inquiry cycles, discussions among the teacher-researcher partners as a group during the two hui (two-day meetings) that took place at the start of each inquiry cycle, teachers’ written reflections as their inquiries were ongoing, and summative written reflections once the inquiries had been completed (see Chap. 4 for more detail on all phases of the project, including data collection processes).

Chapter 5 presented a largely positive account of what the teachers did with their students in the course of the project and what the students reported that they had learned. This chapter starts with briefly contextualising the challenges faced in particular by primary/intermediate school additional language (L2) teachers in the New Zealand context. The chapter then looks at the teachers’ reported developments in the course of the project, highlighting where those developments intersect for all or most of the participants. We identify those intersections as emerging themes and use them to present our findings. We portray the teachers’ challenges as salient features of encountering a new construct and a different way of approaching their language teaching. Those challenges pave the way for reflection on what the participants appeared to learn as they continued on their journeys, leading to a presentation of the deeper insights and benefits the teachers identified by the end of Phase III of the project. We also draw readers’ attention to the teachers’ diverging experiences.

6.2 Contextual Background

In Chap. 3, we pointed out that New Zealand’s teachers cannot rely on specific documents or support resources that outline how they might develop learners’ intercultural capabilities, which (as we noted in Chap. 1) we define as “the ability to relate comfortably with people from diverse linguistic and cultural backgrounds, appreciating and valuing the learners’ own cultures and uniqueness alongside the cultures and uniqueness of others” (Biebricher et al., 2019, p. 606). That is, two significant literature review reports (Ellis, 2005; Newton et al., 2010) provide bigger picture conceptualisations. However, as a consequence of the introduction of the revised New Zealand Curriculum (NZC) (Ministry of Education, 2007), language-specific support documents that proposed, in a step-by-step, hierarchical and sequential way, how teachers might teach the target language (TL) have officially been withdrawn. Teachers are now required to decide for themselves the content they would like to deliver within the overarching and quite generic expectations of the three strands of Learning Languages (communication; language knowledge and cultural knowledge). Furthermore, although achievement objectives for the cultural knowledge strand have been published (Ministry of Education, 2009), and these became a guide for us as we worked with the teacher partners in this project, they are provided as a general guideline. Thus, two key documents (Ministry of Education, 2007, 2009) offer teachers only limited guidance and no prescription in how desired intercultural outcomes should be achieved.

As a consequence of a lack of specific direction, teachers are reliant on their own knowledge and ideas as they attempt to incorporate an intercultural dimension into their language teaching.Footnote 1 This level of autonomy might seem like a benefit for teachers who are now free to be creative with their L2 classes. In many cases, however, it can be challenging, particularly for teachers who are less experienced. As we also noted in Chaps. 1 and 3, an additional challenge is the fact that many primary and intermediate teachers, like the ones in our study, are classroom teachers who may be encouraged by their schools to teach a language, but may not have received any specific teacher education, preparation or professional development to do so. Very often, they are on similar language learning journeys to their students and are learning and discovering the target language and culture alongside their students (Scott & Butler, 2007).

6.3 The Participating Teachers

As explained in Chap. 4, the teachers in this project came from a variety of backgrounds, and taught different languages, in different school contexts, with varying structural affordances and constraints. They also differed by way of their pedagogical approaches, proficiency in the languages they taught, and the extent of their personal experiences within the TL cultures.

What all five of the teachers had in common from the outset of the project was their strong interest in ongoing learning to enhance their language programmes. However, none of the participants had formally undertaken any language-specific teacher education, although two teachers, Mike and Kelly, had participated in the year-long Teacher Professional Development Languages (TPDL) programme (see Chap. 3) several years prior to our project. These two teachers had therefore had a level of exposure to the ten principles of instructed second language acquisition (Ellis, 2005) and would have undertaken teaching as inquiry cycles focusing on aspects of the principles as part of that programme. Kathryn reported on only isolated, rare in-school professional learning and development (PLD) opportunities, while Lillian and Tamara reported that they had not participated in any language-related PLD.

Table 6.1. reminds readers of the inquiry topics selected by the participants (see also Table 5.1, Chap. 5).

Table 6.1 Participant inquiry foci
Full size table

6.4 Preparing Teachers for Their Inquiry Cycles

As we have made clear in previous chapters, our project aimed to support the participating teachers to incorporate an intercultural dimension into their L2 teaching by means of two interculturally focused teaching as inquiry cycles (Phases II and III of the project). Initial interviews with the teachers at the beginning of Phase I revealed that the teachers had limited or no knowledge and understanding of the six Newton et al. (2010) principles. Therefore, to prepare the teachers for their first inquiries, an initial two-day hui (Phase II) with the teachers framed the approach to developing L2 learners’ intercultural capability through presenting and discussing these principles. We encouraged the teachers to focus on two specific principles for their inquiries:

  • Principle 3: encourage and develop an exploratory and reflective approach to culture and culture-in-language.

  • Principle 4: foster explicit comparisons and connections between languages and cultures (Newton et al., 2010, p. 64).

Achievement objectives aligned to these principles (Ministry of Education, 2009) are that students will:

  • recognise that the target culture(s) is (are) organised in particular ways.

  • make connections with known culture(s) (Achievement Levels 1 and 2).

  • recognise and describe ways in which the target culture(s) is (are) organised.

  • compare and contrast cultural practices (Achievement Levels 3 and 4).

The second inquiry cycle began with a further two-day hui (Phase III) where the teachers presented the outcomes of their initial inquiries to other participants, and continued their exploration of the intercultural dimension, this time focusing more on practical outworkings of the principles.

6.5 Initial Reflections

The final session at the end of the second day of the initial two-day hui provided the teachers with their first opportunity to reflect back on the input they had received and how this might inform their inquiries.Footnote 2 It was encouraging that, in line with the Newton et al. (2010) Principles 3 and 4 and the achievement objectives, the teachers were able to identify and articulate a desire to promote critical reflection on similarity and difference across cultures. Lillian spoke positively of “the goal of wanting the students to become more empathetic and more aware of different attitudes and perspectives … [and] actually compare and contrast the attitudes.” Kelly wanted her students to “get an opportunity to learn and reflect upon the values and beliefs important to Chinese in comparison to their own.” Mike’s primary focus would become, “can students increase their intercultural awareness by noticing cultural differences and similarities presented in primary resources?” With a view to embedding intercultural learning into physical activity (game-playing), Tamara suggested that this “could be actually an opportunity to teach the games from a different culture and compare and contrast.” The teaching as inquiry cycles became the vehicles through which the teachers’ positive reception of the principles would be tested in practice.

6.6 Challenges Encountered in Practice

While every teacher’s personal and professional context and teaching situation was different, the teachers’ reflections as they completed their inquiries highlighted some commonly experienced challenges, which we address below. These challenges ranged from: (1) a perceived lack of familiarity with an appropriate pedagogical approach and lack of confidence about how to help students explore intercultural aspects; (2) apprehension around addressing students’ stereotyped beliefs about culture and finding appropriate responses; (3) balancing linguistic aspects and cultural aspects (i.e., how and to what extent language and culture could be integrated) and deciding which language to use to teach intercultural aspects (i.e., L1 or TL) and (4) time constraints when it came to researching, preparing and exploring intercultural aspects with learners.

6.7 Pedagogical Approaches

Although we encouraged a focus on the Newton et al. Principles 3 and 4 (as noted above), supported the teachers as they determined their topics and guided them as they began to plan their inquiries, we were committed to a non-interventionist approach whereby we would prescribe neither what the inquiries should be nor what pedagogical approach the teachers should follow with regard to the intercultural dimension. The project’s focus was, rather, to observe how the participating teachers attempted to include intercultural aspects and to encourage critical reflection on their practice in debriefing conversations after lesson observations. The absence of an existing evidence-based teaching approach to develop L2 learners’ intercultural capability led to a variety of challenges that the teachers reported over the duration of the project.

Lillian reported that she had decided to explore the intercultural dimension through a student inquiry learning approach, since this was an established pedagogical approach in her school with which her students were already familiar. Furthermore, she believed this would enable her to support her students’ focus on constructing their own learning through discovery as they investigated and researched a specific intercultural theme, rather than by direct instruction. Lillian later acknowledged, however, that this decision turned out to be a challenge. Whereas the students were undertaking inquiry projects in other curriculum areas on a daily basis, Lillian was only able to facilitate the inquiry with her students once a week. As a consequence of a long time between lessons, she felt that students lost their focus in the inquiries.

Lillian pondered whether she needed to give her students more time to think about questions and create more opportunities and time for reflection. When reflecting on the extent to which she had achieved her goals, Lillian conceded at the end of Phase II that “we [were] kind of brushing on the surface,” and the students’ comments on cultural aspects lacked depth. She acknowledged that her students “were having difficulty in discussing what they [were] actually thinking,” since this level of critical reflection was new to the students and potentially beyond what they were able to do at that time. Despite Lillian’s best intentions to foster her students’ intercultural understanding by her approach of encouraging students to reflect critically on culturally related behaviour and underlying values, Lillian concluded that, by the end of the whole project, she was not satisfied with the classroom discussions as they had not “gone in depth enough” (end of Phase III).

For the four teachers for whom the TL was also an L2, lack of knowledge about the target culture presented further barriers. Kelly, for example, noted that her own lack of cultural knowledge was a challenge when it came to focusing on culture. Feeling like a cultural “outsider”, she was uneasy answering some of her students’ questions. This was particularly the case when discussing “controversial subjects” like the Chinese one-child policy that she chose to address in her first inquiry. Not only did Kelly feel uncomfortable presenting the policy from an outsider’s and foreigner’s point of view, but she also felt that it was inappropriate to discuss underlying issues such as abortion with her students. The lack of prior guidance about how to deal with intercultural questions and her lack of in-depth knowledge of the target culture resulted in her “skirting around” (Phase II) some of the deeper discussion she had wanted for her students as they explored the values underlying family structures in China. Similarly, Kathryn, who, like Lillian, chose a learner-centred inquiry learning approach for her students, highlighted the additional challenge of students retrieving wrong information or misunderstanding and misrepresenting the information they had found. Because she felt “insecure about [her] lack of knowledge about the culture” (end of Phase III), she could not necessarily correct information students had compiled in their independent learning inquiries.

Although Tamara strongly identified as Māori and Pasifika and noted she had “all the passion and enthusiasm” for teaching te reo Māori, she also felt she “lacked knowledge” about cultural aspects and about how to help her students to explore the culture. In her opinion, reading “all the books and watching the movies” was not enough to portray and explore Māori concepts authentically, leaving her uncertain about how to approach intercultural aspects respectfully (Phase II).

Mike reported that, similarly to his colleagues, he lacked self-confidence teaching “culture” at the beginning of the project. He concluded that teachers lacking confidence would most probably not include intercultural aspects in their language lessons and would resort to only focusing on linguistic aspects. In an attempt to counterbalance his limited experience in French culture, Mike’s chosen approach to developing his students’ intercultural capability was to use authentic resources, often in the form of online video clips. His aim was to make his students aware of similarities and differences across cultures. Mike was eager to guide his students to understand the complexities and subtleties of culture, rather than enforcing a monolithic conceptualisation of “this is what the French do” (Phase II). At the same time, he endeavoured to guide his students to the realisation that cultures shared more aspects in common than had aspects that separated them. However, he found it quite challenging to achieve his goal of letting students discover the similarities themselves, and, in the end, he found he often had to revert to telling his students what the similarities and differences were.

In the course of the project, Mike had also become aware of other challenges. Recognising and realising differences in another culture was one thing, but an appreciation or even awareness among his students of their own different cultures was difficult to achieve and he acknowledged that he had “to think a bit more about that” (start of Phase III). A further challenge emerged when trying to assess his students’ intercultural learnings. He pointed out that with language instruction you could, for example, “blitz vocabulary,” whereas, because developing intercultural capability was “more long-term,” he was unsure how to ascertain or measure what his students had learned. Since, in Mike’s view, intercultural capability was linked to “observing and understanding,” not only other cultures but also one’s own, Mike felt that time limitations had not enabled him to facilitate sufficient cross-cultural reflection and came to the conclusion that this could not be achieved in a few school terms. Thus, as with Lillian, Mike perceived that the development of intercultural capability required a considerable investment of time.

The teachers’ experiences and struggles highlight that, while the absence of an “approved” and successful model of how to explore the intercultural dimension is arguably a challenge for the specialist language teacher (see, e.g., Kennedy, 2016; Oranje, 2016), this is amplified for non-specialist teachers who are faced with their own limitations in terms of knowledge of both the TL and the TL culture, and also with incorporating an intercultural dimension into practice. This points to the systemic issues in the New Zealand delivery of L2 teaching which we outlined at the start of this chapter and which are supported in Lillian’s reflection—the biggest challenge to achieving L2 teaching with an intercultural dimension was related to structural issues in the New Zealand primary and intermediate sector. According to Lillian, where non-specialist teachers were being asked to teach a language they did not speak, this contributed to a high turnover of staff and often resulted in L2 teaching starting “from the beginning again” (Phase III) as each new teacher attempted to teach the language. Short teaching sessions also presented an additional challenge. It was difficult for students to retain any learning from one lesson to the next. Lillian believed that in such a context it was unrealistic to include both language and culture. She concluded that only once there was “substantial systemic change” could intercultural aspects be incorporated successfully.

6.8 Addressing Stereotypes

Linked to uncertainty about including an intercultural dimension in a time-limited L2 context and perceiving themselves as cultural “outsiders,” the participating teachers also expressed their concern about reinforcing stereotypical views of what it meant to represent a particular culture.

Mike early recognised that, in addition to being “nervous of me not having the culture knowledge myself,” his students “don’t have much cultural knowledge outside stereotypes” (Phase II hui). He was therefore apprehensive about perpetuating stereotypes and generalisations as he and his students explored aspects of French culture, although he was very aware that this was the opposite of what he wanted to achieve with his students. As we noted above, what helped Mike in practice was, for example, using video extracts in French as primary resources. These, he commented, helped him to solve his dilemma that “I don’t know enough about French culture” (end of Phase II).

Similarly, Kelly was concerned about propagating stereotypes involuntarily when discussing cultural aspects. Kelly “worried about giving wrong information” (Phase II) and felt there was a danger of misrepresenting Chinese values and culture. She acknowledged at the end of the first hui, “I do need to take extra effort to research that I am teaching proper Chinese ideas.” At the same time, she struggled to decide how much exposure her students should get to existing stereotypes, highlighting that she “just found it hard not knowing how far to go culturally, because there are so many stereotypes out there” (end of Phase II). This was a particular concern in her first inquiry as most of her students, according to Kelly, had no experience of interacting with someone from the target culture and therefore no opportunity to adjust their views through meeting somebody with an Asian background in their everyday encounters. That is, the majority of Kelly’s students were of Pacific heritage and lived in neighbourhoods dominated by Pacific ethnicities. Furthermore, Kelly was aware that her students “don’t always have positive comments to say about the Chinese people, because they don’t know, and they hear silly things in movies and stuff like that.” She noted the importance of “addressing that kind of thing in a respectful and proper way” (end of Phase II). While Kelly acknowledged the importance of realising, addressing and confronting her students’, and potentially her own, stereotypical assumptions and was mindful that ignoring stereotypes would not change existing perceptions, she experienced this as an enormous challenge that she felt ill-equipped to deal with. She opted to try to avoid the stereotypes in her lessons because she felt she lacked suitable tools to address them.

In contrast to Kelly’s avoidance strategy, Tamara chose to challenge some of her students’ preconceived ideas, which surfaced when discussing intercultural aspects of playing sports. For example, Tamara reported that one of her students struggled to accept that in the French rugby team “there were a couple of men who were darker.” In the discussion, Tamara challenged her student’s view that “French people are white” and contested generalisations, querying the source of her student’s assumption by asking “How do you know? Have you met every single person in France?” (end of Phase II). Tamara attributed the student’s view to her upbringing in South Africa, noting that this might also potentially be a reflection of her parents’ views. While Tamara acknowledged that this student’s perceptions might not be altered through a few lessons, she saw it as a positive to raise the girl’s and her other students’ awareness and to be able to challenge students’ stereotypical beliefs.

Lillian struggled with how she could challenge stereotypical views because she “want[ed] them to know you must not stereotype” (end of Phase II). She realised, however, that, by presenting them with stereotypical situations or perceptions (e.g., what a Chinese restaurant looks like), she might present stereotypes that her students may not even have been aware of before. When Lillian introduced various topics like food, sports or colour, she tried her best to illustrate that one could not generalise and that, in fact, everybody was different. However, Lillian found it challenging to elicit some of the discussion about stereotyping with her students. She commented that students were not used to reflecting on stereotypes, which (as we have already noted) made some of the ensuing conversations very superficial.

6.9 The Language–Culture Interface

A positive finding of this project was the evidence that participating in the project had made the teachers become aware of the importance of intercultural capabilities and the need to include an intercultural dimension in their L2 lessons, something that had only featured marginally or incidentally (if at all) prior to the project. It is also important to acknowledge what we stated in Chap. 5 that there were instances where TL use seemed to increase as the teachers grappled with the language–culture interface. Nevertheless, it was also clear that all participating teachers struggled with finding a balance between teaching language and addressing culture in their respective classrooms. It was also apparent that the teachers responded to this struggle in quite different ways.

Lillian felt that creating a balance between teaching language and focusing on culture, and “how to weave [culture] into language learning itself” (Phase II), remained one of the biggest challenges. Her approach to resolving the conflict between TL use and intercultural exploration led her to completely separate both components, having two language sessions per week focusing on Mandarin and one cultural session discussing Chinese culture in English (her students’ learning inquiry).Footnote 3 This did not preclude some attention to language in the culturally oriented lessons (see Chap. 5). However, by the end of the project, Lillian commented, “I’m starting to see that it [the intercultural dimension] needs to be quite distinguished and focused and independent almost.” She acknowledged the three-strand model of the NZC (communication, language knowledge and cultural knowledge), and recognised in principle that the model “intertwines everything together.” However, in practice, “I think it is really hard to see the three together in one lesson” (end of Phase III)—hence an operational separation.

Kathryn acknowledged that she ideally wanted to maintain “a balance between the Japanese language and the Japanese culture” (Phase II). However, the struggle to find this balance led to conflicting thoughts as she aimed to determine what was more important. Kathryn acknowledged that culture was “valid and interesting,” but she still wanted her students to develop their knowledge of the language, to, for example, “have that vocab and to learn to tell the time in that context” (end of Phase II). Nevertheless, over the duration of the project, Kathryn found herself shifting to a greater emphasis on the intercultural aspects, consequently giving up on attempting to achieve a balance.

When prompted at the end of the second inquiry cycle to reflect on her previously experienced conflict regarding balancing linguistic and cultural aspects, Kathryn stated that, for her, the conflict had dissolved, and was something that, by the end, she was “far less stressed” about. She explained that, by focusing more on intercultural aspects, she was not able to include as much language, but she believed the focus on the intercultural was “making the students richer in their understanding of Japanese” (end of Phase III). She emphasised that the very limited time weekly for Japanese language teaching, and infrequent Japanese lessons, made it difficult for students to retain their knowledge of the TL. By contrast, Kathryn believed that the students’ “retention of what they learn through the [cultural] inquiry will be strong.” To her, focusing on intercultural learning “[builds] up the broader person” which she considered an important aspect in her teaching (end of Phase III). When Kathryn evaluated what she had gained in the project, she concluded that she had “achieved the cultural side” even though “the language side wasn’t there.” Although she taught the students some language, she believed that the extended focus on intercultural learning meant her students forgot most of their Japanese. However, in Kathryn’s opinion the intercultural aspect had more long-term impact on her students.

Kelly reported that, as a consequence of the project, she had become very focused on not only teaching the language but also including cultural aspects of Chinese. Like the other teachers, Kelly found it challenging to balance language and culture in her Mandarin classes. Nevertheless, unlike Lillian who separated language and culture as two distinct dimensions and Kathryn who focused mainly on cultural aspects, Kelly attempted to integrate language and culture equally in her lessons. For Kelly, it was important to expose her students to as much Mandarin as possible and to allow her students to use as much TL as they could. However, she emphasised that her choice to focus on language meant that she had to grapple not only with the challenge of how much time or focus she could give to each aspect but also how much TL could realistically be used during intercultural discussions.

Inevitably, due to students’ and Kelly’s lack of adequate knowledge of Mandarin, the cultural discussions took place in English. As a result, including cultural discussion not only led to reduced time to focus on the language but also less exposure to Mandarin, which Kelly perceived as a disadvantage for her students. At the same time, Kelly conceded that being able to contribute to discussions in English was advantageous due to the range of students’ questions and the nature of the discussions, and this certainly encouraged more students to engage in conversations and reflections. By the end, she noted, “I guess a natural part of my Chinese lessons has [now] become quite a lot of discussing and asking questions and reflecting.” She continued, “it feels like that is how I start or finish every single Chinese lesson nowadays, which is quite nice.” Although that meant “a lot more talking in English,” at least this “gives that chance to reflect on a culture, which is good” (end of Phase III).

Tamara also struggled with including a high proportion of linguistic input. Her intercultural topic, an exploration and cross-comparison of how different cultures played games and celebrated in sport, had prompted her to try a hands-on approach to integrating language and culture. At the end of the first hui, she commented, “if we can play a game [with] all the instructions given in a language that’s associated with whatever game it is,” this could lead to reflection on “how do you feel about it, how do you find it?” Furthermore, if the focus were on “games around different cultures,” the class would “want to look at the ethos behind it, what’s in those countries? What kind of language is associated? What’s appropriate? What’s not appropriate?” She first provided linguistic resources for te reo Māori followed by her students playing different games and being encouraged to use the language as they played. However, Tamara noted that a specific focus on language was lost when she discussed other cultures and their corresponding games with her students, leading to a more generic lesson. Her own “survival-level” linguistic knowledge of Māori added to this challenge and resulted in very limited student exposure to the TL.

While it was positive for Mike to include culture into his language teaching and into his thinking about culture as “part of language teaching” (Phase II), it also created a challenge as to which language to choose when engaging with cultural content. Mike had originally proposed that he would organise the intercultural focus by having a “small segment dedicated entirely to cultures,” such that “we stop the language learning … to talk [about] and discuss how the things were different” (Phase II hui). He was aware, however, of the danger that this might transform language lessons with cultural foci into “social studies lessons” (end of Phase II). Those lessons could arguably be taught outside a language setting and in a different curriculum area.

Mike stated that his goal for the future was to create lessons that could focus on both language and culture, without separating the aspects and without allowing one aspect to dominate. As Mike summed it up, whereas earlier in the project, “I would have been teaching them [language and culture] in isolation,” by the end of the project he was “now relaxed a bit and just saying they need to be exposed to the culture … [but] the language can still be the focus” (Phase III, our emphasis). However, just how exactly he could achieve that balance remained unclear to him. Thus, it seemed that, for all teachers in the project, an added focus on the intercultural dimension came at the cost of less TL input, output and interaction.

6.10 Time Constraints

We have already signalled that lack of time was a perceived barrier for the participants. All five of the teachers agreed that time was a challenge in their attempts to include an intercultural dimension in their L2 classrooms, and this was certainly a factor in attempting to ensure more equal attention to language and intercultural aspects.

With regard to the teachers’ participation in the project, Mike welcomed the time that this participation had allowed him for reflection, discussion and planning concerning intercultural aspects, and lamented the fact that these aspects might be missing beyond the research project. Similarly, Tamara was excited that the project had enabled her to observe other teachers’ language lessons and to have professional conversations with teachers to discuss various language teaching approaches that she could reflect on and that she could adapt to her own approach. She was aware that her regular schedule beyond the project allowed no time to do any of this. Both Kathryn and Lillian stated as a learning outcome the importance of familiarising themselves with theoretical underpinnings and relevant literature to better understand how intercultural learning could be included in a language teaching approach.

Tamara, Kathryn and Kelly commented that, particularly as L2 speakers of the TL and as cultural “outsiders,” they needed to spend extra time on planning how to include the intercultural dimension as well as familiarising themselves with the cultural aspects that might become the foci. At the end of Phase II, Tamara, for example, noted that, despite her Māori heritage, finding out about specific cultural aspects could be the “largest barrier to implementation,” and Kathryn concluded that “researching the culture might be a step too far” for a busy teacher. Kelly commented that even after investing time researching cultural aspects, for example, via the internet, it was important to “verify your sources” with an L1 speaker or cultural expert “to ensure your knowledge of the culture is correct, up to date and relevant” (Phase III, survival memo).

Time was not only a factor for teachers’ planning and reflecting on the intercultural aspects the teachers wished to explore. Time was also needed in class to ensure adequate or meaningful discussion of those aspects. In the context of her first inquiry, Lillian stated that a lack of time to discuss cultural aspects in depth led her to only focus on “vocabulary and grammar” at times, although she had planned to address topics in a different way. As she reflected on the outcomes of her second inquiry, with its comparative focus on schools in China and New Zealand, she commented, “I think a few of them [my students] have really … started to think about identity and really started thinking about ‘oh, hold on, ok, so if you have 60 students in a class [in China], does the teacher actually know your name?’” Nevertheless, “the next step, if I had more time, would be ‘so, how does that make you feel in terms of value, identity, the existence of yourself?’” (end of Phase III, our emphasis).

As stated earlier, Mike pointed out that intercultural discussions took time. Indeed, for Mike, the separation of language and culture, with language taking a back seat, was predicated on his belief that “I would have felt like there was not enough time to include it [the language]” (end of Phase III). Furthermore, he accepted that intercultural capability could only develop over time. For Mike, the key to intercultural capability was to “understand why we think that [and] why things are different” (end of Phase II), which, in his opinion, could only be achieved over a longer period of time and by continuous revisiting of intercultural aspects. He concluded that deepening this capability could not be achieved in a few lessons that focused on isolated cultural aspects. Kelly concurred that, in practice, time was a constraint, and commented (end of Phase III) that there really needed to be “another year of really doing it in depth” with her students.

6.11 Teachers’ Reflections and Learnings from the Project

Having thus far in this chapter presented the challenges and limitations that the teachers encountered as they aimed to incorporate an intercultural dimension into their L2 teaching, in what follows we present the teachers’ reflections on their learning gains by virtue of participation in the project over time. In particular, we focus on two aspects (1) the teachers’ approach and (2) the need for critical reflection. Some aspects we present could be perceived as challenges and could therefore have been included in the previous section. However, the participating teachers identified the aspects we present below as what they had learned and what they could “take away” from the project, despite ongoing challenges in practice. We begin with teachers’ learnings related to their approach to enhancing learners’ intercultural capability, including the value of culture, the need for pedagogical content knowledge, the unpredictability of intercultural discussions, language use and a focus on similarities rather than differences between cultures. This is followed by teachers’ expressed need for more enhanced critical reflection, not only for themselves but also for their students.

6.12 Realisations About the Teaching Approach

For Kathryn, one of the greatest areas of learning was the realisation that “students don’t have to be perfect [in the TL] for there to be communication” and that “teaching about the Japanese people’s lifestyles, beliefs, and culture [was] just as valid” as a focus on language (Phase II). Furthermore, Kathryn reported that, prior to the project, she had put herself under enormous pressure to develop her students’ knowledge of the Japanese language, finding herself concerned about lack of progress. The project, and its emphasis on the intercultural, enabled her to feel her students did not have to “achieve an overwhelming amount of linguistic knowledge.” She perceived that the NZC actually gave her permission to focus on cultural aspects. Reflecting back on her journey towards the end of the project, Kathryn explained:

I didn’t get it last year [in Phase II] … I didn’t make that link enough … I think I was still trying to put cultural stuff in alongside the language in that short period of time. And now this year I [realised] I don’t actually have to do language every lesson. The curriculum tells me to do culture, I can do culture, and so actually just focusing on that has really made a difference. [end of Phase III]

While this realisation was liberating for Kathryn, the flipside of focusing almost exclusively on culture was also a challenge, as mentioned in the previous section. Not using Japanese in her lessons also led her to ponder that she needed “to improve [her] Japanese again” (Phase III).

The project enabled Mike to become more aware of his teaching. For him, it was easy to “revert to teaching how you were taught” (Phase III hui), whereas the project had raised his self-awareness and encouraged him to include cultural aspects. However, this newly introduced element of his teaching made Mike feel slightly “out of control” (Phase III hui) due to the unpredictability of intercultural discussion and his own lack of in-depth knowledge of the culture at times. Therefore, an important lesson for Mike was to accept unpredictable situations, in which he might feel out of his depth, and to make these a more integral part of his teaching. Mike stated that, prior to the project, he strongly believed in a focus on exclusive TL use where possible, but over the time of the project he came to accept the reality that discussions about culture would most likely need to be in English. Kelly came to a similar conclusion regarding follow-up discussions on intercultural aspects in English, but acknowledged that, in her view, introducing students to intercultural topics was possible in the TL. One of Kelly’s realisations was that she believed her students would be capable of understanding those aspects in Mandarin, if she had prepared adequately. This would mean that her learners would be exposed to more TL input and that this could potentially tip the scales in favour of a balance between language and culture, something which she had perceived as a challenge.

Kelly noted that concentrating on intercultural aspects could inadvertently lead to a focus on differences between cultures. Once she had become aware of this tendency, she actively also tried to point her students to similarities between various cultures, including their own. While it was important for Mike to focus on both differences and similarities across cultures, he noticed, similarly to Kelly, that students found it more difficult to see common aspects. By the end of the project, he had come to realise that it was important to support his students to develop “an appreciation of their own culture … just to be aware of it” (Phase III). In a similar vein, Kathryn noted shifts in her approach to addressing the intercultural over the duration of the project. She commented, “before I did this project, I would have wanted them [the students] to see the differences, now I want them to see the similarities” (Phase II). Rather than focusing on “the other,” Kathryn stated that for her it had “become quite important … the fact that we are the same,” even though she acknowledged that at times “you may have to look harder” to find similarities. Nevertheless, Kathryn wanted her students to focus on what unites us rather than what divides. Like Kelly and Kathryn, Mike emphasised that there was no right or wrong when it came to culture and that, in his view, the teacher’s role was to steer students away from generalisations and stereotypes and instead to enable them to relate to others.

As much as time was a challenging factor, it also played a part in the teachers’ learnings. They acknowledged that it took time to implement changes in their own thinking and doing. At the same time, in her reflection at the end of the project, Kathryn reinforced that the perceived success of her intercultural inquiry was based on allowing students time for the project to develop and she “didn’t rush it.” Indeed, although Kathryn acknowledged that her second inquiry “was taking so much time,” she commented nonetheless, “I gave them pretty much the time they needed, so it meant that they could really get into depth.” She felt that, as a consequence, “they loved it; they really enjoyed it, and they feel knowledgeable, and they feel like they have a proper understanding, I think.”

Overall, Kelly acknowledged the benefits of including intercultural aspects in her L2 teaching, but (as we previously pointed out) was mindful that it might take more time for her students’ thinking and behaviour to change as a result of what they had learned over the years. A contrast for her was the type of students she was dealing with in her two teaching contexts. Her first school was “an environment where these kids don’t know anyone Chinese. A lot of them might have said ‘hello’ to a Chinese person before that, but that would be about it” (end of Phase II). By contrast, in her second school, she found the intercultural exploration “much easier to bring up” because the students “don’t seem to buy much into stereotypes … they’ve got such experience with the Chinese girls right here in the class and within the whole school,” meaning “I don’t think it is quite as foreign to them” (end of Phase III). This reflection points to the important dimension of students’ own backgrounds and experiences, and the impact of these on the potential success of intercultural reflection.

6.13 Self-Reflection and Critical Thinking

All teachers highlighted the importance of increasing the ability to reflect critically on others’ and one’s own cultures. They emphasised that this reflection was equally as important for teachers as for students. For example, Kathryn pointed out that initiating an intercultural teaching inquiry required “honest reflection on your practice” (Phase III survival memo) but self-reflection was not limited to teaching practice; it also included one’s beliefs about culture and as a person one had to be prepared to “let go of old beliefs.” Kelly also commented that as a teacher she had to reflect on her perceptions and on her own culture and acknowledged “both my students and I struggled at times” (end of Phase II). Kelly’s first set of predominantly Māori and Pasifika students expressed that they had come to know “more about Chinese families” than about their own. Kelly noted that her students most likely had not reflected much on their own culture before and mused that “people are often unaware of their own culture, particularly if they are part of the majority [within a cultural context].” She felt that an important part of “developing knowledge about another culture” was learning about and “identifying your own cultural practices, beliefs and values” (end of Phase II).

Another important dimension of critical reflection was the realisation that culture was not static, even within a particular cultural group. Mike’s attempt to reflect critically and differentiate even further within a particular culture was echoed in the following comment: he encouraged his students to challenge a view of culture “as one thing” and to take “the idea of a ‘typical’ thing [within a culture] with a grain of salt” (Phase III). Towards the end of the project, Mike acknowledged, “I don’t even think I could tell kids about Kiwi culture … my culture is quite different from what yours would be and I don’t like the idea of me imposing my views on anyone else.” For Mike, “the big thing was [that] we expose them to cultural elements, we try to question and get them questioning their own culture and they make their own judgement.” There may be times when “we may not agree with their judgements.” However, “we are just hopefully creating the environment where they are making more informed judgements” (Phase III hui).

Mike thus established that becoming aware of one’s own culture went “hand in hand with questioning what a ‘typical’ person from a particular country looks like.” The aim was to reflect on oneself and on others simultaneously. In this regard, Mike emphasised that it was important to “know which questions to ask” to elicit useful responses in an intercultural discussion and in guiding his students’ reflections. Mike’s learning for future planning was to “think more thoroughly about the questioning” and to “actually write the questions down … rather than just discuss and make it up on the fly” (Phase III hui).

Like Mike, Lillian was passionate about increasing her students’ critical thinking and wanted her students to recognise the complexities of culture and that “you don’t identify a group of people as one culture” (Phase II), but, rather, people could belong to a multitude of cultures and ‘culture’ represented a range of perspectives. However, bringing students to this place of recognition was quite an ambitious goal, as it extended the concept of ‘culture’ beyond the static and uniform and challenged students’ perception and understanding of it. For example, using the topic “sports in China,” Lillian aimed to focus on raising her students’ awareness of different perspectives on sports, not just interculturally but also intraculturally, that is, even within China and among Chinese people. In her approach to prompting critical thinking, Lillian started challenging labels and terminology, raising issues of who could be called “Chinese” in a globalised and internationalised world. Her goal was to challenge students’ thinking patterns and ultimately “to make sure that we don’t get kids to be narrow-minded” (Phase III hui).

Lillian stated the necessity to “challenge stereotypes,” but, upon reflection, noted that prior to the project her school, herself included, “taught culture in a stereotype way” by focusing on aspects typical of a culture. As a person navigating multiple cultures herself, and who found herself “in between cultures” at times, Lillian saw exploring the intercultural dimension as an opportunity for young people in a similar situation. Reflecting on “why we do what we do” (Phase III hui) and realising the values underpinning those behaviours could, in Lillian’s view, help with how young people positioned themselves within a range of cultures.

Tamara was enthusiastic about exploring underlying values and associated language and behaviour for different sports in different cultures. She also pointed out the need to reflect more generally beyond sports on “what do we do at home, what do our grandparents do?” (Phase II hui) so as to consider our behaviours and associated values in particular cultural contexts. That type of reflection was crucial both for her as the teacher and for her students. Students’ reflections enabled some of them not only to bring in their “expertise” in a particular culture but also to “educate their classmates.” However, Tamara’s focus on sports also enabled some of her students to be confronted with their own stereotypes and prejudice, for example when the class looked at yoga. Tamara included words in te reo Māori in that context and students commented that it was “really weird” (end of Phase II) because in their perception yoga was linked to India. The assumption by some of Tamara’s students that “only certain people do yoga and Pilates” sparked intercultural discussions between students from various cultural backgrounds and led to insights into the origins of and concepts underpinning both practices, while at the same time encouraging students to engage in a level of critical reflection into their own beliefs. She concluded by the end of Phase II that “looking at things differently” was a key thing she had achieved with her class during the inquiry.

6.14 Benefits of the Project

At the end of the project, the teachers were asked to reflect on the overall insights they had gained from the project. In what follows, we illustrate first where there was overlap among the teachers’ final evaluations and reflections, which mostly focused on increased student motivation and increased critical reflection. We then point out additional insights from individual teachers.

6.14.1 Motivation and Student Engagement

In Chap. 5, we drew attention to the motivational dimension of the intercultural inquiries from the students’ perspective. All participating teachers commented that focusing on intercultural aspects in their language teaching had led to increased student engagement and motivation. Kathryn was “quite amazed” about her students’ “excitement” (Phase III) when it came to their intercultural learning inquiries, something she clearly had not anticipated to the extent that it was demonstrated. In Phase II, for example, they were “so excited about seeing the Japanese family schedule and comparing it to their own.” Kelly echoed that one of the major positives of an intercultural focus for her was that her students were “engaged during language lessons and enjoyed learning the language as well as finding out about Chinese culture” (end of Phase III).

As we pointed out in Chap. 5, Lillian also noticed that her students were “definitely a lot more engaged than just teaching them, like, the actual characters and just the language of Chinese” (end of Phase II). She emphasised that there was a particular change in engagement for the boys in her classes. Before the project and its emphasis on intercultural learning, many students, but the boys in particular, were disengaged or even disruptive during language lessons. Focusing on intercultural aspects appeared to capture the boys’ interest and encouraged them to participate more in discussions. Interestingly, the boys’ engagement even stood out in comparison to the usually more actively involved girls in the language focused classes. Mike summed up the teachers’ impression when he noted that “the main advantage” he could observe was “the increased student motivation.”

Student motivation and engagement are arguably two of the principal goals for any teaching, especially as interest and motivation can support student learning. Achieving student engagement is, however, no easy feat. It cannot be taken for granted and, while desirable for both the teacher and the learner, is often not part of classroom reality. The fact that student interest in intercultural learning was not only affirmed, but highlighted as a main positive by all the participating teachers, despite their varying contexts, is noteworthy. Even with the lamented time constraints and largely varying approaches between teachers as they sought to include an intercultural dimension into their teaching, the outcome was the same: students enjoyed exploring intercultural dimensions even without a prescribed approach.

6.14.2 Increased Critical Reflection

The second overall positive of the intercultural project as perceived by the teachers was the increased critical reflection, both for themselves and for their learners. As indicated earlier in this chapter, the need for reflection and the opportunity to do so through the intercultural focus were two of the learnings for the participating teachers. Lillian noted that conversations about culture were “a success” because they encouraged her students to reflect critically on cultural ideas and beliefs, and “nobody [had] asked [the students] to think about that before” (Phase II). Although she realised that those critical thinking skills would take some time to develop, she was glad that she had at least begun to “raise awareness” and that discussions and reflections had started that process.

Kelly concurred that it was beneficial for her students to be presented with different cultures while reflecting on and making connections to their own. Mike also expressed the importance of developing critical thinking and reflection skills in his students. In his view, “the aim [was] not to teach children culture as this [is] unattainable and wrong—instead by including cultural elements in our learning and by intelligent questioning we can heighten students’ awareness of culture, question their preconceived ideas and develop increased tolerance and respect” (Phase III survival memo). Mike’s reflection highlights the fluidity of cultural aspects, or “unpredictability,” as he called it in a previous reflection, but his comment also highlights an important desired outcome of intercultural language teaching: tolerance and mutual respect.

6.14.3 Additional Realisations

Apart from the two main foci mentioned above, some teachers emphasised additional benefits of the project.

One of Tamara’s goals had been to try “to integrate Māori into everything we do” (Phase II). Participating in the project allowed her to “embrace the language” in her everyday teaching and to encourage her students to use te reo Māori every day. She had also valued the opportunity to “normalise” Māori into all aspects of teaching (beginning Phase II). This was a significant benefit to her and her students. Tamara’s decision to integrate Māori into game-playing had enabled her students to “look at the values behind why Māori had these games, what was the purpose behind them … and then … relating it back to childhood games that the kids had played.” She acknowledged that the “different games and looking at things differently” was the “big thing” she felt she had achieved with her class (end of Phase II). The moments for intercultural reflection were not just isolated to Māori, but included cross-cultural comparisons with other sports and pastimes.

For Kathryn, an important step forward was the acknowledgment and realisation that culture was a valid and important part of language teaching. In her view, the focus on culture allowed the students to get “the taste for it,” potentially increasing “their desire to take a language anyway when they move into high school, because they are so interested” (end of Phase III). To her, therefore, a focus on culture was the gateway to an increased interest in language learning in her students.

Lillian also saw the inclusion of intercultural conversations and dimensions as a gateway, albeit a slightly different one. She looked at the project from the perspective of a “multicultural person,” as she referred to herself in Phase II. An immigrant to New Zealand at the age of seven, Lillian explained that, for her, it was a positive change to include intercultural aspects into language teaching. When she came to New Zealand, “relating across cultures was just not talked about.” She commented that reflection on different cultures would have made it easier for her to “find [her] identity” and to determine who she was as somebody “in between cultures.” In Lillian’s view, discussing others’ cultures and becoming aware of one’s own would make life easier for young multicultural students. Including intercultural aspects into teaching and reflecting on different cultures was thus a gateway and opportunity for her to contribute to the creation of a more respectful and knowledgeable multicultural society.

6.14.4 The Broader Context

It is noteworthy that the challenges experienced by the teachers participating in our project align in many ways with those of teachers in other studies (see Chaps. 2 and 3). The teachers’ perceptions that they did not feel prepared enough and did not know how to enhance their learners’ intercultural capabilities resonate, for example, with findings in Sercu’s (2013) study. In this regard, teachers in Brunsmeier’s (2017) study asked for a framework that would help them to include intercultural aspects and felt that they needed trigger questions that would support them as they worked with students. Liddicoat (2008) likewise pointed out the importance of upskilling teachers in posing questions that would enhance intercultural learning. Similarly, the teachers in our study felt that asking “the right questions” to elicit intercultural responses was a challenge.

The expressed challenge around balancing linguistic and cultural aspects in their language lessons is echoed in several other studies (see, e.g., Brunsmeier, 2017; Díaz, 2013; Sercu, 2005), and the lack of time to research, prepare and implement intercultural aspects is also acknowledged in previous studies (Castro et al., 2004; Díaz, 2013; Sercu, 2005).

Prior studies also highlight the crucial role of reflection, as expressed by teachers in our study. The teachers’ perceived need to reflect on their own beliefs and values is also noted in studies by Liddicoat (2008) and Sercu (2005) and aligns with Moloney’s (2008) perception that teachers are sometimes not aware of their own cultural understandings. The teachers in our study also emphasised that they aimed to foster critical reflection in their students and there was evidence to suggest that at least some of their students’ abilities to see things from a different viewpoint developed over time (see Chap. 5). These findings concur with studies conducted in the United States where teachers reported that their students could reflect on different views (see, e.g., Despoteris & Ananda, 2017; Roher & Kagan, 2017).

6.15 Conclusion

In summary, it appeared that the main outcome of the teachers’ learnings and perceived benefits of including an intercultural dimension in their language teaching was increased student motivation. This seemed to signal clearly students’ readiness to learn about others and their interest in reflecting on other cultures as well as on their own. The teachers agreed that the exploration of culture was complex, but that it was important to expose their students to cultural aspects, and, as Mike had put it, to get them questioning their own cultures and making their own judgements. Although the teachers might not necessarily agree with the standpoints reached by the students, this was part of the teachers’ acknowledgement that there was no “right or wrong” in culture, but, as Kathryn and Tamara agreed, it was their role as teachers to help their students to “see things from another viewpoint.” Thus, although discussions might have unpredictable outcomes, lack depth, need time and require careful teacher preparation, including intercultural aspects and reflections can be seen as stepping-stones in the journeys towards relating comfortably to people from diverse linguistic and cultural backgrounds, and appreciating and valuing the learners’ own cultures and uniqueness alongside the cultures and uniqueness of others, that is, intercultural capability (see also Biebricher et al., 2019).

In Chap. 7, we turn from the teachers to us as researchers and present critical dimensions of our own learning journeys in this project.