8.1 Introduction

In the preceding three chapters, we have presented the findings of our two-year New Zealand Ministry of Education-funded study into the development of the intercultural capability of young beginner learners of an additional language (L2). We focused, respectively, on the students (Chap. 5), the teachers (Chap. 6) and ourselves as researchers/teacher educators (Chap. 7). In this concluding chapter, we draw each of the strands from Chaps. 5–7 together. In particular, we consider what we learned and the recommendations we would make, as both researchers and teacher educators, to move the debates about developing young L2 learners’ intercultural capability further. Drawing on the three preceding chapters and aspects of the final report we submitted to our funder (East et al., 2018b), this chapter revisits the positive outcomes, along with the problems and challenges. We first present a summary of our key findings and then discuss the implications.

8.2 What We Found

Our first research question (RQ1) was this: How do stakeholders’ understandings about enhancing language learners’ intercultural capability change and develop over time?

In Chap. 1, we owned the reality that, for a host of reasons, the development of interculturality through L2 learning (in particular with younger learners) is a challenging enterprise. The challenge is exacerbated by the fact that the construct of “the intercultural” is murky (Dervin et al., 2020). By way of bringing some level of clarity, Dervin (2020) argued, “objectively, no one can claim to be right or wrong, better or worse in their visions of interculturality.” He went on to suggest that, as a consequence, “one must be transparent about the way(s) one defines, problematises and uses the notion of interculturality” (p. 58). In our opening chapter, we presented transparently the definition of intercultural capability that we had set for ourselves, for the project and for RQ1—“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).

We also explained in Chap. 5 that, in line with our definition of intercultural capability, the Newton et al. (2010) Principles 3 and 4 became the primary (albeit not exclusive) foci for the five generalist teachers as they planned their lessons. This emphasis was in accord with two stated outcomes of the curriculum: that beginners with learning the target language (TL) might be expected, first, to recognise that the target culture is organised in particular ways, and, as they make progress, to be able to describe, compare and contrast cultural practices (Ministry of Education, 2009). These learning outcomes were designed to fulfil “the need to compare, contrast and establish relationships between concepts in their own and the foreign language” (Byram, 2021, p. 52). RQ1 specifically addressed the journeys of the different stakeholders as they engaged with practices that might lead towards the stated outcomes.

8.2.1 Students’ Journeys: Developing Intercultural Capability

With regard to the students, there was evidence of nascent intercultural growth, and the emergence of skills, abilities and knowledge that might inform successful intercultural interactions, by virtue of comparison, contrast and reflection. Although, as we acknowledged in Chap. 5, this growth could not be described as linear or incremental (that is, it did not necessarily follow a particular upwards or deepening trajectory, but, rather, instances of learning and growth were discernible at different points), several key issues emerged.

Fundamentally, the students identified that their classroom experiences had introduced them to key facts or knowledge about the target culture that they may not have encountered previously. This led to a distinct noticing of differences, alongside greater awareness of their own cultural practices. These instances of noticing were often triggered by the videos they had been exposed to in lessons. In some instances, the students’ first culture appeared to be regarded as normative, making the target culture “strange” in comparison. However, in other instances, initial stereotypical understandings became replaced with the ability to demonstrate greater openness to otherness, greater self-awareness regarding personal positionings, and greater questioning of initial stereotypes. There was also some evidence of comfortableness with a difference, expressed as a movement from “at first I thought…” to “now I think…” This led, for some students, to an increase in acceptance of and respect for difference.

It was clear that the students in our study exhibited dimensions of Byram’s (1997, 2021) savoirs, in particular with regard to comparative acceptance of self and others, and some emergent skills in critical evaluation. It was also clear that, although they were not necessarily able to express it as such, and although we acknowledged in Chap. 5 that we cannot confidently claim “third place” positioning for any of the students, some students were beginning to understand the meaning of such positioning. This could be described as a “comfortable and unbounded” space (Liddicoat & Crozet, 2000, p. 1), that is, a space of accommodation where users of an L2 are able to accept difference as something to be expected, rather than something to be threatened by, alongside a willingness to suspend a separatist “first culture” perspective. One student of French in Mike’s class put it like this: “I think our culture, I think there is … almost a blend together … because sometimes we do the same things, sometimes we don’t.” This student went on to explain that this “blending” necessarily compelled people to confront difference and otherness without necessarily losing sight of their own positioning.

A student of Mandarin in Lillian’s class suggested, “we should respect their culture and they should respect ours … like sharing everybody’s cultures around, like knowing about different cultures.” From this perspective, “we are all treated equally.” Another in the same class ventured that, in light of an intercultural focus, “first of all, I understand them better and so I know why they do specific things unlike me or others.” As a consequence, “I kind of respect the other cultures, and I kind of, well, replace my culture with the other culture so I can make my culture, like, better, I guess.” This student went on to give an example that usefully illustrates a third place positioning, and what this student meant by “replace my culture with the other culture,” even though the student could not articulate this in a more elaborate way:

Everybody has a different culture … so it is sharing … [until] there is no such thing called ‘country’, like everybody will be just mixed up in a bunch, jumbled up in a salad. Instead of ‘this is a tomato corner’, ‘this is a cucumber corner’—this is a ‘salad corner.’

In interpreting this perspective in our final report (East et al., 2018b), we argued:

a tomato and a cucumber do not cease to be by virtue of being in a salad, but they are no longer individual and standing alone; each contributes its own uniqueness to the whole, arguably making the whole a more complete expression by virtue of its contributing parts. (p. 12)

Over and above any student learning that appeared to have occurred as a consequence of explicit intercultural aims, the student focus group discussions revealed other aspects of the students’ learning journeys. Most particularly, the students made frequent spontaneous references to increases in motivation and enjoyment as a consequence of opportunities to encounter and think about cultural differences.

The student discussions also suggested that increased cultural understandings manifested in greater confidence and more positive attitudes towards engaging with the TL in the future. As we noted in Chap. 5, these unanticipated outcomes highlight the possibility that the specific intercultural foci, in and of themselves and quite apart from language learning, influenced the learners’ overall engagement and sense of enjoyment. They also point to the possibility that, as a result, these students might not only choose to continue with L2 study but might also find opportunities to put what they had learned into practice in future real contexts.

8.2.2 Teachers’ Journeys: Developing Intercultural Teaching and Learning

A tangible benefit for the teachers, as noted in Chap. 6, was that the increased intercultural focus was a new dimension of language teaching and learning that they had not seriously considered up to that time. Lillian, for example, commented, “I do fully support that [this] is what language is all about. It’s not just about teaching how to say it, the structure, but it is actually seeing the bigger picture.” The intercultural focus had enabled the teachers to bring greater perceived relevance into their teaching, giving the learners opportunities to explore and challenge pre-existing ideas in self-reflective ways.

The teachers recognised that the inquiry learning cycles had prompted instances of deeper levels of critical reflection on the part of the students that helped to move them beyond generalised or stereotypical thinking—for example, an important driver for what Mike attempted to achieve in his classroom was, as he put it, “you can’t just say ‘people in France do this’.” The inquiries, in the teachers’ perception, also facilitated students’ ability to make connections between the target culture, their own cultures, and the cultures of others in their class, in ways that illustrated that culture is dynamic and not static. Lillian explained, “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’.”

In parallel with what the student data had shown us, the teachers also noted an added motivational benefit to the intercultural foci that seemed to be absent when the focus was purely on language. For example, in Lillian’s experience “[t]hey are definitely a lot more engaged than just teaching them, like, the actual characters and just the language of Chinese.”

Despite the advantages, teachers perceived that they lacked sufficient knowledge of the target culture, and were concerned that they might as a consequence pass on inaccurate information or embed uninformed stereotypical thinking into their students. There was also perceived insufficient time to undertake intercultural exploration that they believed would really make a difference. Teachers were concerned that, going forward, they would simply not be able to sustain the level of intercultural inquiry they had been able to undertake by virtue of the project. In this regard, it was recognised that developing students’ intercultural capability needed to be viewed as a longer-term goal, and something that required ongoing commitment over and above language teaching and learning—a hint, perhaps, that the intercultural was a bigger issue than one that could be addressed in the confines of a short language lesson.

That the intercultural exploration was viewed as “over and above” also indicated that, to varying degrees, the teachers were concerned that a focus on the intercultural detracted from learning the language, and that these teachers perceived L2 learning as largely about language. There was evidence of some genuine attempts to embed the culture within the language, for example by enabling the intercultural exploration to emerge from a specific language focus. Nevertheless, this was variable, and the teachers struggled with an apparent incompatibility between language learning and intercultural learning. This was perhaps most starkly expressed by Kathryn when she said towards the end of the project, “I think I achieved the cultural side, but the language side wasn’t there just because the half hour wasn’t long enough to be including the language and the culture.” For Kathryn, the maintenance of balance was something that would exercise her once the project was completed. Lillian concurred that “a balance between the language structure learning as well as this [intercultural focus]” was “at the moment … a bit hard.”

The segregation between language and culture was not always apparent. Tamara, in contrast to others, felt she had succeeded in her goal of “integrating Māori,” through “not having a set lesson, but just embracing the bicultural nature of New Zealand through learning te reo” as part of the classroom programme. That is, “instead of saying ‘we are going to be doing reading’, right, panui [reading] time, and the kids, they just know it. Like, do you need to go to the wharepaku [toilet]? That kind of without it being ‘I am doing Māori now’.” Language use thus became “part of our kaupapa [programme] … part of what we do.” However, seamless integration of language was arguably easier in a situation where Māori and English were often intertwined in daily lives. In the context of a nation in which te reo Māori is an official language with legal status, it is arguably easier to achieve greater integration than with a language (such as French or Japanese) that may be perceived as “other” or “separate,” and that certainly does not feature in everyday life in the way that te reo Māori does.

8.2.3 Researchers’ Journeys: Uncovering What Is Feasible

In Chap. 7, we took a step back from the students and the teachers, and considered our own journeys, primarily as researchers but also as teacher educators. For us as researchers, a number of events that we reported in Chap. 7 provided catalysts for our own reflection and growth as we grappled with what the teachers were experiencing. In particular, we focused on what we regarded as several “critical incidents” (Brandenburg, 2008; Tripp, 2012) that we identified through our reflections at different points in the research cycles.

We believed that the inquiry learning stance we were advocating fitted well with the constructivist learner-centred and experiential approach to learning underpinning the New Zealand Curriculum (NZC). The teachers confirmed their familiarity with the inquiry teaching and learning models, and so we believed that we were on relatively solid ground by advocating their use for learner-centred intercultural exploration. Our stance to supporting the teachers as they undertook their intercultural inquiries was framed from a mutual starting point.

Nonetheless, significant challenges emerged as the project progressed. We begin by summarising what we as researchers observed as challenges for the teachers in light of the findings of previous studies. First of all, it is noteworthy, and important to acknowledge, that the challenges experienced by the participating teachers align in many ways with those of teachers in other studies. These included feeling insufficiently prepared and uncertain what questions they should ask (Brunsmeier, 2017; Sercu, 2013), highlighting a need for upskilling in how to guide the conversations (Liddicoat, 2008). The challenge the teachers expressed around balancing linguistic and cultural aspects in their language lessons is also echoed in several other studies (see, e.g., Brunsmeier, 2017; Díaz, 2013; Sercu et al., 2005), and the lack of time to research, prepare and implement intercultural aspects has also been acknowledged (Castro et al., 2004; Díaz, 2013; Sercu et al., 2005).

Previous investigations also highlight the crucial role of reflection, as expressed by teachers in our project. The teachers’ perceived need to reflect on their own beliefs and values is acknowledged by Liddicoat (2008) and Sercu et al. (2005) and is complemented by Moloney (2008)’s 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 at least some observed that their students’ abilities to see things from a different viewpoint developed over time. 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; Wagner et al., 2017).

Several significant challenges emerged by virtue of the context in which we were working. As previously stated, a key driver for us was to provide a balance between a top-down approach (whereby we as the researchers and the “experts” imposed both our theoretical understandings of “the intercultural” and how it might be developed in L2 classrooms) and a bottom-up approach (whereby we gave ownership to the teachers to discover for themselves what the intercultural meant to them alongside its development in each teaching context). However, and in line with the learner-centred and experiential emphases of the NZC alongside the important places for teaching as inquiry and inquiry learning in the curriculum, we deliberately placed greater emphasis on the teachers’ own self-discovery, albeit a self-discovery that was guided by our prompting and input. As we acknowledged in Chap. 7, we wanted the teachers to become “agentive actors and investigators within their own social contexts” (Burns, 2019, p. 166).

Our navigation of a balance between top-down and bottom-up was not always easy. One critical incident (which we reported in Chap. 7) illustrated this for us in quite a powerful way. In the process of our second hui with the teachers in preparation for the second inquiry cycle, one of the teachers in the team expressed, in quite strong terms, a view that we, as researchers, had an agenda that we were imposing on the teachers and that we would formally assess in relation to student outcomes. This agenda, in this teacher’s view, undermined the teacher’s sense of autonomy and a consideration of what the teacher regarded as important for the classroom. We were concerned and surprised that this teacher, at least at this stage in the process and apparently in contrast to the other participants, perceived the imposition of a particular agenda rather than the negotiation of a shared agenda.

Our bottom-up stance was subsequently reinforced for the teachers in an email sent by Martin as Principal Investigator, in which he reiterated that the work that the teachers should carry out with their own students should be “work that you CHOOSE to do in the context of your own school.” It was further clarified that we did not wish to impose a specific agenda but, rather, to encourage the teachers to explore what they were comfortable with in light of their immediate situations. Nonetheless, a largely bottom-up approach did raise significant issues which we will return to towards the end of this chapter.

Two other crucial tensions emerged as the project progressed, with which we wrestled quite extensively. The first of these was the tension between practising and using the TL versus utilising English as L1 as the vehicle for intercultural exploration. This led to the second issue—the extent to which the intercultural episodes needed to become separated from instances of TL use.

We were mindful that the teachers struggled as they attempted to juggle what they perceived as the primary goal of the project—intercultural comparison, contrast and reflection (which almost invariably required use of English)—and the primary goal of the L2 classroom—the learning of the language in question—which carried an assumption of maximal or exclusive TL use. In turn, the teachers struggled with the extent to which they could integrate the intercultural exploration into what they were doing in the classroom (i.e., interweave language with relevant episodes of cultural reflection and incorporate a culture-in-language position) and the extent to which they felt this intercultural exploration needed to be isolated from a language focus (i.e., dealt with in a separate and targeted way, albeit aligned in some way to the linguistic foci of the lesson or series of lessons). These two tensions became crucial issues for considerable reflection on our part (see our discussion of this in East et al., 2017). In what follows, we outline several theoretical considerations with regard to how L2 teaching and learning is perceived, both in the immediate context and beyond, that informed our reflections.

8.3 Language Teaching and Learning: Theoretical Considerations

8.3.1 Target Language or First Language Use?

The use of English for intercultural exploration, and what this might mean for a separation between language learning and intercultural exploration, begs more fundamental questions about how L2 pedagogy is perceived in the context. First of all, in the NZC the overriding goal of L2 programmes, and the core expectation of teachers’ work, is clearly stated as communication in the TL. Also, as we have already made clear, the NZC encourages learner-centred and experiential pedagogical approaches in contrast to a top-down teacher-led model. For Learning Languages, a communicative and experiential L2 pedagogy is encouraged, for example, through the ten principles of the Ellis report (Ellis, 2005). As we outlined in Chap. 3, essentially it has been recommended that effective instruction in the L2 classroom would ensure a particular focus on fluency in the TL, predicated on extensive opportunities for learners to process language input, create language output and interact in the TL, alongside the development of implicit grammatical knowledge for purposes of effective communication.

Building on the ten Ellis principles as aligned to a learner-centred and experiential perspective, teachers have been encouraged to consider task-based language teaching (TBLT)—an approach we acknowledged in Chap. 1. In TBLT, however, “task” has taken on particular meanings and components which make it a specific phenomenon for L2 pedagogy.

To support teachers in achieving curricular aims from a task-based perspective, significant professional development has been provided for New Zealand teachers, particularly around the ten Ellis principles and TBLT. Thus, although in practice the enactment of TBLT in New Zealand classrooms is not mandated (and has also not necessarily been straightforward—see, e.g., Erlam & Tolosa, 2022), both TBLT and the principles that inform it have been extensively promoted (as we recognised in Chap. 3). As a consequence, approaches to L2 pedagogy in the New Zealand context place clear expectation on extensive TL use. That is, teachers are encouraged, according to Ellis (2005), to “[m]aximise use of the L2 inside the classroom,” with the L2 becoming “the medium as well as the object of instruction” (our emphases), otherwise learners are “unlikely to achieve high levels of L2 proficiency” (p. 39). This brings into question the use of English as L1 as a component of curriculum delivery in the L2 classroom.

Although Ellis (2005) made the case that TL use should be maximised rather than exclusive, his principles appear to provide minimal scope for L1 use as a component of encouraging acquisition of the L2 in learner-centred ways. As a consequence, it should come as no surprise that teachers in the New Zealand context who have been exposed to the Ellis principles and professional development around TBLT would likely consider extensive TL use to be a significant component of learner-centred and experiential L2 pedagogy.

As we acknowledged in Chap. 1, however, TBLT does offer some potential for an integration between language and culture. Several authors have begun to explore the interface that can exist between TBLT and the development of intercultural capability (see, e.g., the study by Müller-Hartmann and Schocker [2018] that we noted in Chap. 2). With regard to the use of L1 in the context of TBLT, the value of the L1 as a mediating tool when completing L2 communicative tasks has been widely acknowledged (see, e.g., Seals et al., 2020). Learners may potentially use the L1 to support them in working at a higher level than might be possible if they only used the TL (Alegría de la Colina & García Mayo, 2009; Lightbown & Spada, 2020). As Swain and Lapkin (1995) put it, “[t]o insist that no use be made of the L1 in carrying out tasks that are both linguistically and cognitively complex is to deny the use of an important cognitive tool” (p. 269). Findings of studies have indicated that L1 use helps learners to manage the task and gives students opportunities to talk about the language they need to fulfil the task (Lasito & Storch, 2013).

Carless (2008) argued for “a balanced and flexible view of MT [mother tongue] use in the task-based classroom” (p. 336). An appropriate balance, according to Newton and Le Diem Bui (2020), “requires strategic and negotiated roles for L1 use and consideration of how it fits within the different phases of a task-based lesson” (p. 40). There is therefore precedent for judicious, balanced and flexible L1 use, even within a pedagogical approach such as TBLT that emphasises extensive use of the TL for purposes of input, output and interaction. This potentially creates room for intercultural explorations as “phases” of task-based lessons.

Nevertheless, the perception that teachers working within communicative or task-based paradigms should rely heavily on TL use (and avoid L1 use) is pervasive. We also acknowledged in Chap. 1 that exploration of the TBLT-intercultural interface is in its infancy. It is not likely to become part of the mainstream of the TBLT agenda for some time, if at all. As Scarino and Crichton (2007), for example, suggested, current approaches to language pedagogy do not sufficiently acknowledge the intercultural and do not help L2 learners to become intercultural. In the case of TBLT, TBLT and the intercultural are often seen as two distinct fields of scholarship (Adams & Newton, 2009). Exploring the intercultural within a communicative orientation to L2 pedagogy requires, as both Díaz (2013) and Crozet (2017) suggested, a radical rethinking of how language teaching may be conducted. This raises a further implication for our project.

8.3.2 Isolated or Integrated?

In the work we were undertaking with the teachers, we did not frame what we were encouraging the teachers to do as tasks as interpreted from a TBLT perspective. Additionally, the teachers in this study did not claim any substantial knowledge of or allegiance to TBLT or task use—even though two of them (Kelly and Mike) had undertaken the professional development programme reported by Erlam and Tolosa (2022). Kelly and Mike would therefore have been introduced to task-based ideas as part of exploring the ten Ellis principles, and did also aim to utilise tasks in their classrooms to some extent (e.g., Kelly’s Mandarin as L2 classroom survey to elicit number and gender of classmates’ siblings, and Mike’s French as L2 classroom survey of breakfast items). Kelly and Mike were certainly able to use the survey tasks as segues into comparisons and contrasts across cultures; nonetheless, the intercultural reflections were separated from the TL practice as put into operation through the surveys, something that Mike worried could potentially be turning his class into a social studies lesson.

With regard to a separation in practice, a fundamental problem for the enactment of interculturally reflective activities in the New Zealand context is the exhortation, within the overarching goal of communication, to take into account both language knowledge and cultural knowledge. This is, however, to be done on the basis of two arguably largely mutually exclusive reports (Ellis, 2005; Newton et al., 2010)—even though Newton et al. argued that their report provided “an important sociocultural balance to the set of principles proposed by Ellis” (p. 72).

The isolated/integrated question was problematic in several respects. An initial problem was Newton et al.’s (2010) first principle—that an intercultural communicative approach integrates language and culture from the beginning. As we explained in Chap. 3, the intention of this first principle was to underline how language and culture are inextricably bound together, with the expectation that teachers will help learners to build conceptual bridges between language and culture right from the start of the language learning journey. This was seen as relatively easy to achieve, by highlighting, for example, the cultural content embedded in straightforward samples of language (and associated behaviours), such as greetings.

It is also important to acknowledge that the primary author of the Newton et al. (2010) report aligns himself strongly with the TBLT agenda and with task-based research. With regard to an interface between communicative approaches to language pedagogy and the intercultural dimension, Newton et al. (2010) suggested, “[t]he integration of culture and language is more easily achieved in classrooms informed by communicative language teaching and task-based language teaching … since these approaches require active participation and experiential learning.” They went on to argue, “the adoption of intercultural language teaching promotes a fuller realization of communication by focusing learners’ attention on the effects of the implicit messages conveyed in their choice of linguistic forms and communication strategies” (p. 65). This argument further allows for an interface between TBLT and the intercultural dimension. A “fuller realization of communication” supports, for example, Kramsch’s (2005) perspective that a communicative orientation must involve “more than just learning to get one’s message across” (p. 551).

However, the Newton et al. (2010) report itself does not draw substantially on the task-based literature. Furthermore, it remains unclear how “more focused attention on the effects of messages” in the context of learner-centred experiential learning is to take place. It is also unclear how learners may be supported to take the next steps of comparison, contrast and reflection. More focused attention arguably requires some kind of intervention that might ask learners to step back from a particular interaction and articulate what they notice about it. As a consequence, even such a potentially integrated approach might require L1 as the vehicle through which the highlighting occurs, thereby potentially ultimately forcing a segregation between language and culture. The question then becomes whether the intervention and subsequent steps are better served in the TL or in the learners’ L1, and therefore (to a greater or lesser extent) in separation from the language. The teachers in our study came to different conclusions as they encountered and reflected on the language–culture interface.

Certainly, a more integrated approach has arguably been taken up successfully in the Australian context. Morgan (2010), for example, presented a study that explored how an intercultural language focus might occur in a beginner Indonesian classroom. Even so, the intercultural exploration was facilitated in the L1 (something that Morgan accepted as valid).

It must also be acknowledged that Oranje’s (2016) cultural portfolio projects (see Chap. 3) appeared to steer learners in the direction of undertaking reflection in English (rather than in the TL) in a relatively isolationist (discrete) way, thereby potentially minimising a strong language–culture interface and perpetuating a language–culture divide—even though a final presentation could be in the TL. Similarly to Oranje, Kennedy (2020) appeared to propose activities that would separate a language focus from an intercultural focus. Kennedy argued nonetheless that, if intercultural capabilities are to be developed among L2 learners, there needs to be “intentional [i.e., discrete] time for intercultural comparison and reflection in classrooms” (p. 427, our emphasis). She further maintained, “without explicit inclusion of intercultural pedagogies during class (involving discussing, comparing, connecting outside experiences with those in the classroom and reflecting), the skills, knowledge and traits which make up intercultural competence are not likely to evolve” (p. 437, our emphasis).

We will return to the integrated/isolated issue towards the end of this chapter. In what follows, we turn to our second research question (RQ2): What are the implications for language education going forward?

8.4 Implications for Language Education

We would like to suggest some broader implications gleaned from our project set in the New Zealand context and drawing on the teachers’ experiences. We acknowledge that every teacher’s setting and context are different. However, based on the participating teachers’ experiences, we offer suggestions for teachers, whatever the context, who would like to include an intercultural dimension into their teaching of an L2 with a view to encouraging the development of intercultural capability. We see implications for planning, teaching and reflecting.

8.4.1 Planning

  • Based on our findings, and in light of the findings of other studies, it is apparent that careful and thoughtful teacher planning is a prerequisite for moving learners towards greater intercultural capabilities.

  • Teachers need time to invest in planning and researching the content they wish to use for intercultural reflection.

  • Planning is also needed to verify selected cultural resources and to locate, where possible, L1 speakers who can evaluate these resources and point out any areas that may require particular attention (e.g., the perpetuation of biases or stereotypes).

  • Teachers might benefit, at least initially, from planning content of lessons in detail, including writing down prompts, questions and ideas about how to guide a discussion focused on intercultural aspects.

  • Teachers need to familiarise themselves with different pedagogical approaches that may be adopted for an exploration of the intercultural dimension and then plan their lessons based on a particular approach or as a mix-and-match from several approaches (e.g., approaches that may integrate the intercultural into, or alternatively isolate the intercultural from, language use).

8.4.2 Teaching

Implications for teaching based on our project relate to aspects of required professional learning and development (PLD), available resources and the selection of a viable teaching approach.

  • Teachers would benefit from PLD that demonstrates how language and culture can be taught in conjunction and woven together. Existing PLD reports and resources could be used as starting points, but would need to be adapted to the local context (e.g., the “plurilingual and pluricultural competence” descriptors of the Common European Framework of Reference [Council of Europe, 2018] or the Framework of Reference for Pluralistic Approaches to Languages and Cultures [Council of Europe, 2010]).

  • Teachers would benefit from PLD that supports them in asking the right kinds of questions, using prompts, and eliciting responses from students, as well as how to navigate and respond to stereotypical views. In our final report (East et al., 2018b), we suggested that possible questions might include:

    • What do I learn about the target culture through the input?

    • What differences do I notice? What similarities?

    • What do I think about the target culture through this input in relation to my own culture?

    • How will what I have learned and think change the way I act towards those from a different language and cultural background? (p. 13)

  • Linguistic resources are needed that also present intercultural aspects, particularly if teachers wish to use the TL as they explore some of these aspects. The TL could be used, for example, to introduce an (inter)cultural feature, present topical material or initiate discussion by providing examples of the kind of language that may be used. Such resources do not seem to exist, at least for the New Zealand primary/intermediate school context (or indeed other contexts for young learners).

  • Teachers need to be flexible and open to the possible directions that intercultural conversations could take. While thoughtful planning is helpful, teachers also need to accept the unpredictability of the conversations and of their students’ opinions.

  • Teachers need to accept and be comfortable with ambiguity. Culture is complex, and beliefs and values are not static, but dynamic.

  • Acknowledging the diverse backgrounds of students in the classroom and allowing learners to uncover and discover their own cultural standpoints as they explore the intercultural with regard to the TL will create richer and more insightful discussions.

8.4.3 Reflecting

Teachers in our project considered reflection an important component for moving learners towards more enhanced intercultural capabilities.

  • Teachers and learners should be encouraged to be open-minded and to reflect on their own cultures, values and beliefs. They also need to be aware of their own stance and allow room for differing opinions and perspectives.

  • Teachers and learners could be encouraged to keep a reflection log or diary in an effort to raise awareness of their own values and beliefs as they encounter different aspects of the target culture. This could also sensitise them to different attitudes and behaviours in different situations and contexts.

8.5 Further Implications for Language Education

Our premise at the start of this book was that L2 programmes provided significant vehicles for an exploration of the intercultural. Considerable promise is held out at the theoretical level that a meaningful language–culture interface is achievable. However, classroom-based research studies, including our own, indicate that in practice there are significant challenges to be overcome, and the goal of developing intercultural capabilities as part of students’ L2 learning journeys has had mixed success to date. The challenges have been attributed, in part, to teachers’ unfamiliarity with the concept of intercultural capability, the absence or extreme variability of intercultural pedagogy within teacher education programmes, and ongoing uncertainty about expected intercultural goals and outcomes for different ages and stages (see, e.g., Brunsmeier, 2017; Díaz, 2013; Dervin et al., 2020; Hu & Byram, 2009; Oranje & Smith, 2018).

In our case, perhaps our efforts might have been more impactful if we had scaffolded the teachers more and had been more directive, and if we had provided the teachers with more examples of what could be done. Notwithstanding the constructivist principles on which we built this project, Kirschner et al.’s (2006) analysis of a range of studies led them to conclude that, in their words, “direct, strong instructional guidance” can be equally as effective as “constructivist-based minimal guidance” (p. 83), particularly when the learner is more advanced in expertise (as might be the case with currently practising teachers who are not absolute beginners or novices). As Conway and Richards (2018) made clear, there is a need for explicit PLD in order to help teachers to understand the distinction between culture and intercultural learning goals.

On the one hand, our findings suggest that, bearing in mind teachers’ unfamiliarity with the concepts at hand alongside the innovative nature of the concepts, there is arguably greater room for direct instruction at the level of teacher education, or in scaffolding future research projects. On the other, lack of progress with the intercultural seems to be the case even when clear emphasis has been placed on teacher education and professional development initiatives. For example, despite the significant focus on the intercultural in Australia, teachers and learners are reported to have made limited progress (see, e.g., Díaz, 2013). The level of scaffolding might actually be an irrelevant variable (or at least a variable whose potential impact is over-stated).

In light of the challenges, López-Jiménez and Sánchez-Torres (2021) raise two tensions with regard to the intercultural in L2 learning that require some exploration. Noting that L2 language classrooms would seem to be particularly appropriate contexts for the development of intercultural competence, they argued nonetheless that L2 teaching and learning in many contexts continually focuses more on the development of communicative competence from a linguistic perspective than on the development of cultural and intercultural competencies. They also made the observation that intercultural competence is not usually located within a specific subject area of the curriculum. It is, rather, found within and across different subjects.

8.5.1 Implications for the L2 Classroom—Integrating Culture and Language

With regard to what is feasible within the L2 classroom, there is evidence from our findings that there can be a specific place for intercultural exploration. We caution, however, that L2 teaching and learning goals may need to be revised accordingly, with divergent goals across primary/intermediate and secondary sectors.

Our findings suggest that, despite the time limitations and the lack of teacher expertise at the primary/intermediate level, students could reflect, and intercultural awareness could be raised. We also noted instances of increased engagement and motivation, from both the students and the teachers. However, this seemed to be at the expense of teaching the language. That is, for the students, nothing appeared to be negative or counter-productive. For the teachers, the only perceived negative was the relative lack of target language input and growth. Even then, teachers were positive about the refreshed emphasis. One notion expressed in the teacher data was a sense of relief that the focus could be moved somewhat away from language (where some teachers felt that they lacked sufficient expertise), while recognising that meaningful, positive and motivating L2-related learning experiences could still be provided.

The clear and positive learning potential of intercultural exploration in L2 classrooms at the primary/intermediate levels leads us to speculate on whether, at these levels, the primary focus should move away from language and towards the cultural/intercultural. It would then make sense to support primary/intermediate teachers (who in the New Zealand context are not L2 specialists) with helping their students to develop their awareness of who they are in relation to others, including those in the class and those of the TL culture. This may provide a motivating and worthwhile foundation on which dedicated study of the TL might subsequently be built. More focused study of the language may then perhaps be left to secondary school specialists, who require time to ensure that linguistic/communicative goals are met.

Indeed, at the time of planning and discussion around the introduction of Learning Languages in the NZC, Barnard (2004) had suggested that, depending on the TL selected, the goal of communicative competence was effectively unrealistic in the primary/intermediate years. This, he maintained, was due not only to the limited hours available for instruction but also to the lack of suitably qualified and experienced teachers. Barnard went on to argue that it might be more worthwhile to aim for “a limited measure of linguistic and intercultural competence” (p. 215). The first (linguistic) could provide learners with “a basic conceptual framework for future study,” and the second (intercultural) could be achieved “through the interactive use of attractive and socioculturally relevant media” (pp. 215–216). He asserted that, in such an approach, “[t]he exclusive use, or even a dominant use, of the target language is not necessary for a limited attainment of linguistic and intercultural competence” (p. 216).

Barnard’s (2004) propositions do not preclude an exploration of language, but provide space for intercultural reflection without the anxiety, for both teachers and learners, of having to reach a certain level of linguistic proficiency. Furthermore, these suggestions align with what the teachers in our study, whom we encouraged to find out what was most comfortable and feasible for them in their contexts, actually ended up doing—with a good degree of success.

8.5.2 Implications Beyond the L2 Classroom—Isolating Culture from Language

Another conclusion that we reach is that the intercultural is so much bigger than language learning. This would make L2 programmes, in and of themselves, insufficient. Additionally to the L2 classroom (or even as an alternative), we suggest that the development of interculturality needs to be a whole-school endeavour, offered across the curriculum, and supported by school-wide PLD.

Furthermore, we reach the conclusion that moving the intercultural beyond the L2 classroom would enable L2 teachers (particularly at the secondary level) to provide more focus on the language to be learned. After all, learning the language does remain a central priority of the communicative classroom and of aligned assessments. This does not mean that cross-cultural issues and a language–culture interface cannot or should not be addressed (theoretical models of communicative competence regard sociolinguistic competence as a key component). However, the intercultural speaks to the broader ideals of education that may be better addressed in a cross-curricular way (as proposed, for example, in the principles, values and key competencies articulated in New Zealand’s curriculum document that we referred to in Chap. 1). The primary/intermediate context, with its merging of subject boundaries and a flexible timetable, provides a viable vehicle for incorporating an intercultural dimension across the curriculum. Nevertheless, a stronger cross-curricular approach to developing learners’ intercultural capability raises questions around feasibility in a secondary sector that appears to remain wedded to discrete subject boundaries.

8.5.3 Reconciling the Language–Culture Interface in the New Zealand Context

Notwithstanding arguments for the broadening out of intercultural exploration across the curriculum, and recognition of the persistence of linguistic foci in L2 classrooms, in East et al. (2018b) we strongly recommended that, with regard to L2 classrooms in New Zealand, work needed to be done to reconcile the perceived incompatibility between two influential but quite distinct reports (Ellis, 2005; Newton et al., 2010). This work, we suggested, might include the preparation and presentation of a revised set of overarching principles. At the very least, these principles would need to take into consideration to what extent the currently existing principles can be reconciled. Any reconfiguration would need to offer teachers clear guidance about navigating the intercultural dimension of L2 learning.

We concede that, given the different theoretical frameworks and arguments that underpin the recommendations of the two reports, reconciliation may simply not be possible. With regard to second language acquisition or SLA (as represented in Ellis, 2005), it seems possible to fall back on relatively developed and stable theoretical frameworks and an aligned history of practice. This does not mean that theory and practice have not been questioned over many years—as Mitchell et al. (2019) put it, there can be “no ‘one best method’, however much research evidence supports it, which applies at all times and in all situations, with every type of learner” (p. 406)—but it does mean that there are established theoretical and empirically tested bases on which the Ellis principles are built. Also, as we noted in Chap. 1, mainstream researchers into SLA have tended, by and large, not to consider interculturality as a component of either theories of SLA or empirical studies into SLA. With regard to the intercultural (as represented in Newton et al., 2010), the situation is murkier (see, e.g., Dervin et al., 2020). ICLT as an attempt at reconciliation is an interesting proposition, but seems limited in face of the realities and constraints of L2 classrooms.

If reconciliation between the two sets of principles is not possible, this needs to be owned, and careful consideration needs to be given to how the intercultural in the context of L2 learning is to be framed. We have suggested potential ways forward for L2 teachers, but acknowledge that perhaps a cross-curricular approach would be a more effective means of achieving greater intercultural outcomes. Particularly in light of the ongoing tendency for L2 teachers (whether specialist or non-specialist) to view language teaching as a priority, and an increasing emphasis on the removal of separate subject barriers and greater cross-curricular experimentation, a cross-curricular approach would not necessarily undermine the intercultural endeavour, and may even enhance its viability by recognising that interculturality necessarily crosses discrete boundaries.

Our own reflections, as both the researchers and the teacher educators working alongside the teachers in this study, led us to the following conclusion:

… dichotomous thinking (isolated or integrated) is likely to diminish rather than enhance the students’ learning experiences. There is arguably no one best path to helping students to acquire intercultural understanding. The choice must surely depend on several factors, including the intercultural goal(s) the teacher has in mind. It is not a question of ‘either/or’. It is a question of ‘both/and.’ (East et al., 2017, p. 30)

That is, we see the importance of both integration (exploration of the language–culture interface in L2 classrooms) and isolation (opportunities to step back from the language—whether in or beyond the L2 classroom—to explore, compare, contrast and reflect on similarity and difference in behaviours, practices and actions). In this regard, we argued that it was important for teachers not to “erect an artificial divide” (East et al., 2017, p. 30), by making the assumption that L1 use inevitably means that the intercultural focus is not integrated or, indeed, must be separated. For example, Kelly’s and Mike’s class surveys to elicit (in the TL) the siblings students have or what students ate for breakfast could be followed up with explorations (in the L1) of what students think about differences they have encountered, not only between themselves in class but also through a consideration of what they may have noticed from TL sources. In East et al. (2017), we went on to note that the challenge for teachers is to determine the conditions in which an isolated or integrated focus on developing intercultural capability is more appropriate. These, we acknowledged, will likely vary from situation to situation, and from class to class.

8.6 Limitations and Directions for Further Research

In our final report to the funder (East et al., 2018b), we identified several limitations to this study. These limitations remain apposite.

First, this was a locally situated small-scale study where teachers (regardless of their level of knowledge and understanding) are guided to operate within specific parameters articulated in such documents as the NZC (Ministry of Education, 2007), and the Ellis (2005) and Newton et al. (2010) reports. This local contextualisation provides both benefits and constraints, but limits both the generalisability of our findings and the extent to which the intercultural inquiries selected by the teachers can be implemented in other contexts without modifications. Even so, the project was built on the belief that intercultural inquiries will likely be most effective when they are personalised to teachers’ own contexts. Furthermore, we believe that what the teachers did can be useful springboards for other teachers, hence the “engaging examples of practice” that we produced (East et al., 2018a).

Second, the teachers in our project held a range of understandings and beliefs about, and developed a variety of practices concerning, the place of culture and the intercultural dimension in their teaching of languages, including a stance that emphasised facts about the target culture. Also, these primary/intermediate school teachers, unlike their secondary school counterparts, had not undertaken any specific initial teacher education focused on L2 pedagogy (although some had engaged in a level of PLD). They were in these regards not untypical of teachers in this context (see Chap. 1). This contextual reality meant, however, that observed shifts in these teachers’ learning and practices, and the incremental steps taken by the teachers, were less extensive and more modest than we had anticipated or hoped for. This may have been intensified by our deliberate non-interventionist stance whereby we did not direct and instruct the teachers in how to approach the intercultural and in what the foci of their inquiries should be. Rather, and in line with a constructivist approach to teaching and learning, we guided the teachers, and questioned them as they worked through the process themselves.

Third, self-report data are, in themselves, potentially limiting. We sought to enhance the validity and reliability of our findings by triangulating data using several sources of evidence. Additionally, the young age of the students limited these students’ ability to articulate clearly the level of intercultural gains that they had reached, in particular with regard to the “third place.” The indications of students’ third place positioning were often embedded within more superficial comments. They could easily have been missed and required careful extrapolation. These comments did, however, represent learning gains by virtue of the sowing of “small intercultural seeds.”

Further studies would benefit from investigating scaffolding and direction as variables that might influence teachers’ understanding and practices. These may include taking into account the implications for planning, teaching and reflecting that we presented earlier in this chapter. Additional studies would also benefit from collecting a broader range of evidence on students’ learning and intercultural gains. For example, ongoing reflective journals might enable evidence of exploration and gain to be gathered as part of the process of intercultural reflection, rather than relying on a summative snapshot. Additionally, researchers (and teachers) may wish to draw on instruments that have been designed to measure the intercultural dimension. Revised CEFR descriptors might provide a useful starting point.Footnote 1

8.7 Conclusion

It is important in closing to restate the assertion we made both in Chap. 1 and towards the beginning of this chapter—that the development of the intercultural dimension through language learning (particularly with younger students) is mired by challenges. Its implementation represents what Dervin et al. (2020) described as one that follows “diverse and uneven pathways,” with its implementers forced to confront “personal and pedagogical risk, growth, … struggle and frustration” (p. 9).

The project we have presented in this book represented a new journey for both the teachers and their students. It also represented a new journey for us as researchers and teacher educators, despite our strong familiarity with the requirements of the NZC. Furthermore, the journeys have not been unidimensional for any of the stakeholders. Sometimes there was wandering off the path; at other times there were roadblocks to be overcome; at others, the pathway would have benefitted from being better lit.

The journeys for all of us were predicated on attempting to make sense of the NZC and its three-strand model for L2 learning—the core communication strand and the supporting language knowledge and cultural knowledge strands. We have ended up still in a place of uncertainty about how best to integrate the intercultural into L2 classrooms, and have reached what we now see as clear (and perhaps irreconcilable) tensions in the NZC’s three-strand model. It seems that the New Zealand system is asking teachers to do things that they actually cannot do, or at least not do well within their contextual constraints.

We acknowledge that the goals of ICC as articulated by Byram (e.g., 2021) are positive, and certainly seem to have suited the European context at a particular time very well. While our study has aimed to address a perceived gap in knowledge with regard to younger learners (as noted, e.g., by Byram, 1997), the reality is that it is very challenging to realise more fully the goals of interculturality with such learners, as has been demonstrated in other contexts.

Nevertheless, the evidence from our study is that the teachers (and the learners) did make positive progress, even as the teachers, in particular, encountered struggles, questions and frustrations as they took risks to implement something new. We as researchers and teacher educators also made progress as we engaged reflectively with what we observed and drew conclusions about what seemed to be realistic and achievable in the context. Although we cannot claim fundamental shifts in learning or practice, there were glimpses of steps forward in line with our operational definition of the construct of intercultural capability, and, given the significant constraints, we believe that what all the stakeholders in our project achieved was noteworthy. The stakeholders in our project certainly did get their boots dirty as they made their journeys towards enhanced intercultural capability in L2 classrooms. Nonetheless, we encourage all stakeholders, whatever the context, to continue the journeys. Their experiences will provide further illumination along the way.