Implications for pedagogy

The purpose of any practitioner research into pedagogical approaches should serve to

further practice, and therefore, in an attempt to summarise the key implications for

language pedagogy, the following points are made:

1. Teachers and authors alike conceptualise culture as a triptych of beliefs,

values and behaviours, and most view intercultural understanding as an

important skill to develop within the paradigm of language teaching and

learning. Intercultural understanding should therefore not simply be ignored,

or added-on, but form an integral part - and importantly, be on a par with the

linguistic, where language teaching and learning is concerned. Culture is not

an add-on, or a fifth skill in language teaching and learning. Culture is

language, and language is culture, and the failure to either acknowledge

this in the conceptualisation of both, or to enact it in practice, is the biggest

constraint which can - and is - placed on language teachers and learners.

2. The acculturation process which can, and should be promoted in language

teaching and learning, is also a way to achieve deeper enculturation. The

opportunities for learners to reflect on their own culture at all stages of the

process should not be sidelined. Enculturation should be a central tenet of

acculturation, in providing opportunities for learners to engage in reflection,

comparison and contrast. It is therefore essential that teachers give sufficient

time and opportunity for learners to reflect on their own culture as well as

exploring those of others. Furthermore, the role of materials in the process of

acculturation need not be seen as insignificant: although representations of

other cultures in some materials may be viewed as stereotypical or over-

simplified, it can also be argued that making complex concepts accessible to

learners is central to teachers’ role in mediating acculturation for learners

(Brumfit, 2001), and that critical reflection on the part of learners may serve

to palliate the limitations of simplified cultural representations (Baker, 2015;

Byram, 1997).

3. If what is meant through intercultural teaching is a greater understanding of

one’s own and others’ beliefs, values and behaviours, then this needs to

include the development of intercultural skills, attitudes and cultural

knowledge. Cultural knowledge acquisition is an important part of

developing intercultural understanding, and also one which is, initially,

more accessible to learners, and for which it is easier, from teachers’ view

point, to plan for in terms of materials development but also in terms of

charting progress, especially where this concept is at the core of educational

policy and practice in England. Therefore, I share the view of Hennebry

(2014a) that integrating cultural knowledge transmission and intercultural

understanding can prove a more effective model. There is no need for a

divide between ‘big C’ and ‘little c’ culture - it is simply a false debate, and

one which has only served to contribute to the subordinate place intercultural

teaching and learning have been afforded in curriculum policy and practice,

and which has placed barriers on the development of effective models.

4. The link made by some researchers and practitioners between linguistic

competence and the suitability of ‘lower ability’ learners for intercultural

teaching and learning, is, in my view, not acceptable, nor is it informed or

ethical. Whilst linguistic competence may well be a consideration when

planning and teaching, it is one which can be addressed through careful task,

material and language selection, something which many teachers have the

necessary expertise to navigate. Whether time constraints are an issue here is

very possible, and it may well also be that the little place which has

traditionally been afforded to intercultural understanding in most published

language teaching materials aimed at younger secondary learners has served

to strengthen this false perception that materials associated with the

development of intercultural understanding are not suited for younger and/or

less linguistically able learners. The focus of the intervention has

demonstrated that learners who were not necessarily very able in terms of

linguistic competence, were able to access complex texts and materials, and

were also able to develop their cultural knowledge base as well as their

intercultural attitudes. Linguistic ability should not be a prerequisite for

intercultural learning.

5. Beyond their linguistic ability, a number of other factors should be

considered. In particular, learners’ cognitive ability should be considered a

more decisive factor, both in terms of the materials on offer, but also in

nurturing their motivation for language learning, especially when comparing

engagement across curriculum subjects. In considering learners’ cognitive

ability, we also ought to consider how their age may impact on their openness

to intercultural teaching and reflect on what the optimum stage of their

education may lend itself best to intercultural teaching, when external

pressures are also taken into account. I believe the evidence may point

towards the fact that an effective model of intercultural teaching includes a

combination of enculturation and acculturation across late primary and early secondary phases, the latter not having been considered systematically

in existing research.

6. Teaching is complex, in particular the teaching of culture and intercultural

understanding. Schools and classrooms are also complex and highly

contextualised and diverse places, and teachers are often hard-pressed to

know what to prioritise, especially where time constraints do not afford them

the opportunity to ‘step-back’ and reflect on their practice. However, it may

be that teachers’ interpretation of the curriculum, and of the level of freedom

it may or may not give them, is blinkered by these time-constraints, and their

reluctance to engage with intercultural teaching influenced by how much time

they feel they would have to devote to the development of a successful model

and materials; yet some models, past and present, exist to provide at the

very least an initial framework for the implementation of intercultural teaching, even in the fraught context of secondary schools in England.

7. Such models also include useful ones for assessment. There has been

considerable commentary on the issue of assessment in CLIL, but I contend

that the issue is not of assessment within a CLIL framework, but rather the

need to position the assessment of intercultural understanding within existing formal frameworks for assessment: as evidenced in the study, the

instrumental motivation for teachers to implement intercultural teaching, and

for learners and teachers alike to give this parity with linguistic and

grammatical skills, is unlikely to occur if intercultural understanding is not

afforded higher-stake importance in formal assessment. Why developing

models of assessment for intercultural understanding, such as the diplomas

model, were scrapped, and whether they will re-emerge, and whether or not

recent changes to the curriculum for languages and to assessment and

examinations frameworks in England will contribute to, or further distract

from giving intercultural learning greater importance, remains to be seen,

especially if the sole focus of assessment remains on external summative

assessment at the expense of other, equally valuable approaches.

8. While teachers express reluctance to make use of ready-made materials for

the teaching of intercultural understanding, the study has clearly established

an over-reliance - for many reasons - on textbooks and materials such as

worksheets and slides, all of which can easily be accessed and re-utilised. It

may therefore be worth considering a corpus of materials for intercultural

teaching, even if these can only serve as a starting point and would need

adapting to learners’ and teachers’ specific contexts.

9. Nonetheless, teachers need training in how to plan for and deliver

intercultural teaching, and guidance on how to implement their own model

within their specific contexts, be they at classroom, school, local or national

level. Training teachers for intercultural teaching needs to occur both at

initial training stage, and throughout their career.

10. In order to facilitate the implementation of intercultural teaching within the

language curriculum, greater emphasis should be placed on the role of

technology, both in terms of access to authentic materials, but also in

establishing a community of practitioners and in fostering greater collegiality

across contexts.

11. While some may argue that integrated models need to be normalised and

replicable (Wiesemes, 2009), the very contextualised nature of both culture as

a concept, and schools as organisations need to be acknowledged and taken

into account for the effective development and implementation of integrated

models. Intercultural teaching may not be generalisable or transferable,

but if it is purposeful, systematically planned and delivered, supported at all levels and contextualised, then it is more likely that the model will be effective and sustainable.

12. While integrated models may not be fully generalisable or transferable, it is

also important to acknowledge that any practice-based research will

contribute to the wider knowledge and evidence base. It is therefore also

important for research in the field to accept these variations on the same

theme, and to liberate itself from the pursuit of replicability and

generalisability, especially where educational research is concerned. Links

need to be developed between research and practice. In doing so, both small-

scale practitioners’ research (like this study) and larger-scale academic studies should be given parity and the dialogue between practitioners and

researcher should be facilitated by all involved in education.

13. In considering the implementation of integrated models such as CLIL, it is

also important to acknowledge that, if intercultural teaching is left to the sole

charge of language teachers, there is little chance that learners will be able to

conceptualise or realise its true scope and importance. In the same way that

language classrooms can play a key role in developing learners’

communication skills, they can lead the way where intercultural skills are

concerned, but both are sets of skills which can have far-reaching

applications - and implications - beyond the classroom walls, and therefore

the responsibility for equipping learners with both communication skills and intercultural skills is one which must be shared by parents, educational organisations and policy makers alike.

14. Intercultural teaching is not only desirable, it is a necessity, in order to reflect

the linguistic and cultural diversity found in many a classroom in England,

but also in order to enable acculturation processes where this diversity may

still be lacking. Integrating language and culture is therefore both a

pedagogical and political statement.

15. An important finding was that intercultural teaching has an important role to

play in developing learners’ motivation and in particular on their affective

motivation. Motivation has often been identified as a key issue in language

teaching and learning, and in England in particular, and teachers, learners and

policy-makers seem to have an instrumental conception of motivation where

language learning is concerned. However, it could be argued that the framing

of language learning within an instrumental motivation construct has had

little, if any, benefit on the value attributed by all parties to language learning.

I believe the answer may lie in shifting the focus of enquiry on how

developing learners’ affective motivation through intercultural teaching may benefit motivation for language learning, and may prove a more

pertinent pursuit.

In document To what extent is a CLIL approach useful in teaching intercultural understanding in MFL? (Page 189-196)