Intercultural Understanding and primary-level second language learning and teaching

This article was downloaded by: [York University Libraries]On: 24 November 2014, At: 03:58Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Language AwarenessPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rmla20

Intercultural Understanding andprimary-level second language learningand teachingAlex Woodgate-Jones a & Michael Grenfell ba School of Education , University of Southampton , UKb School of Education, Trinity College , University of Dublin ,IrelandPublished online: 01 Mar 2012.

To cite this article: Alex Woodgate-Jones & Michael Grenfell (2012) Intercultural Understandingand primary-level second language learning and teaching, Language Awareness, 21:4, 331-345, DOI:10.1080/09658416.2011.609623

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09658416.2011.609623

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoeveror howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to orarising out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rmla20

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/showCitFormats?doi=10.1080/09658416.2011.609623

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09658416.2011.609623

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Language AwarenessVol. 21, No. 4, November 2012, 331–345

Intercultural Understanding and primary-level second languagelearning and teaching

Alex Woodgate-Jonesa∗ and Michael Grenfellb

aSchool of Education, University of Southampton, UK; bSchool of Education, Trinity College,University of Dublin, Ireland

(Received 11 October 2010; final version received 8 July 2011)

This paper considers the case of Intercultural Understanding (IU) as a component partof foreign language learning and teaching in the upper stage of primary schools (roughlyages 7–11 years) in the UK. It is set within a specific context of curriculum innovation,namely recent policy changes which have introduced IU as a key part of primary modernforeign languages (PMFLs). The paper begins with setting out the background to thispolicy and the place of IU within it. It then addresses the following questions: how is IUdefined and what is the theoretical rationale for it occupying such a prominent positionin the PMFL curriculum? Is there a link between the theoretical justification for IUinclusion and its practice? Is there the danger that the rhetoric surrounding IU promisesmore than it delivers? The way in which IU is treated in the PMFL curriculum in the UKis then contrasted with a range of other IU schemes and taxonomies. Finally, it raisesa number of pertinent issues with respect to IU and assesses its potential role in futuredevelopments in PMFLs.

Keywords: cultural awareness; foreign language pedagogy; intercultural communica-tion; language attitudes; second language learning

Introduction

In December 2002, the Department for Education and Skills (DfES) published a newNational Languages Strategy (NLS) outlining the government’s strategy for modern for-eign languages (MFLs) in England over the next decade. One of its key ambitions was togive all primary school children an entitlement to study an MFL throughout Key Stage 2(KS2; ages 7–11) by 2010. Since the publication of this Strategy, one question to emergeis, what exactly should be taught in the primary curriculum? In the past, arriving at a con-sensus with respect to this question has proven to be problematic, and divergence amongschools and initial teacher training (ITT) institutions has been found (see, e.g., Hunt, Barnes,Powell, Lindsay, & Muijs 2005; Office for Standards in Education 2003). The educationalaims of introducing MFLs into primary schools are multiple, ranging from raising chil-dren’s linguistic attainment in a particular language to developing positive attitudes towardsforeign languages and cultures (see Martin, 2000). Although some non-statutory guidancehas been available (e.g. the scheme of work suggested by the Qualifications and CurriculumAuthority [QCA] [2000]), there has been no overall agreement on the exact content of aprimary modern foreign language (PMFL) curriculum. The different aims of PMFLs havebeen reflected in the variety of approaches that have been implemented in primary schools

∗Corresponding author. Email: [email protected]

ISSN 0965-8416 print / ISSN 1747-7565 onlineC© 2012 Taylor & Francishttp://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09658416.2011.609623http://www.tandfonline.com

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Yor

k U

nive

rsity

Lib

rari

es]

at 0

3:58

24

Nov

embe

r 20

14

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09658416.2011.609623

http://www.tandfonline.com

332 A. Woodgate-Jones and M. Grenfell

nationwide: some focusing on linguistic competence (language acquisition programmesand, to a lesser extent, sensitisation programmes), but others maintaining that cultural en-richment and general language awareness programmes (e.g. language awareness schemes)are more appropriate (see Driscoll, 1999). NLS itself seemed to promote a combinedapproach as it concluded that: ‘In the knowledge society of the 21st century, languagecompetence and intercultural understanding are not optional extras, they are an essentialpart of being a citizen’ (DfES, 2002, p. 5).

In an attempt to encourage coherence and support teachers in promoting a more struc-tured and consistent approach towards the key aspects of MFL learning, the Key Stage2 Framework for Languages (in short, KS2 Framework; DfES, 2005) was produced andtrialed during 2004–2005. A revised version was then made available to all primary schoolsin England in October 2005, and for the first time, teachers in primary schools in Englandhad a single framework from which to work.

The KS2 Framework (DfES, 2005) was developed as a result of the NLS (2002)and set out to provide a lead on both the content of PMFLs and the way they shouldbe taught. It aimed to ensure that the delivery of MFLs in primary education in Englanddeveloped coherently and provided a stimulating and solid foundation for language learningin secondary schools. In the foreword, the then Parliamentary Under-secretary of State forSchools stated that the Framework’s objectives themselves make clear that the aim is not onlyto develop competence in one or more languages but that ‘it is about the broader curriculum,about understanding language and identity, about developing an international outlook, andabout learning’ (2005, p. 1). The rationale therefore explicitly encompassed more thandeveloping linguistic competence; from the outset, the cultural component to languagelearning was prioritised and given equal status to the linguistic elements. The entitlementalso stated that ‘Every child throughout Key Stage 2 should have the opportunity to studya foreign language and develop their interest in the culture of other nations’ (2005, p. 15).

The KS2 Framework is not a ‘statutory’ document and should be seen ‘as a support,not a constraint: a climbing frame, not a cage’ (2005, p. 4). It claims to build on thekey principles for teaching and learning already espoused in other national documents,including Languages for All, Languages for Life (DfES, 2002), the Primary NationalStrategy Excellence and Enjoyment (DfES, 2004), the QCA scheme of work for MFL(QCA, 2000), the non-statutory guidelines for MFLs as well as the framework for teachingMFLs from Year 7 to Year 9. In this way, the aim is to offer a curriculum ‘to guide andshape’ primary MFL learning that can be used as a reference tool for planning, teaching,and assessing PMFLs in primary education. Learning objectives are organised around threemain strands:

• Oracy• Literacy• Intercultural Understanding

with two cross-cutting strands:

• Knowledge about Language• Language Learning Strategies

This list is seen as broadening the curriculum from the former focus on the ‘fourskills’ (reading, writing, speaking, and listening), most noticeably with the explicit inclu-sion of Intercultural Understanding, Knowledge about Language, and Language Learning

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Yor

k U

nive

rsity

Lib

rari

es]

at 0

3:58

24

Nov

embe

r 20

14

Language Awareness 333

Strategies as framing elements for language learning and teaching. As such, the KS2Framework needs to be understood both in terms of building on successes of the past andmoving to develop learning in the light of methodological disappointments. For instance, in1974, Clare Burstall reported little evidence for primary language learning after a lengthyevaluation of the then primary French initiative, although the current initiative is alsoseen as addressing the failings of secondary school MFLs, for example, as identified byDobson (1998). Both critiques highlight issues concerning motivation, progress, and thesocio-cultural authenticity of work in the language classroom and raise questions about theimpact of these on actual competence. The KS2 Framework aims to address these features,partly by emphasising culture and learning in a way which previous approaches did not:‘Language competence and intercultural understanding are an essential part of being acitizen’ (DfES, 2005, p. 8).

Culture and language learning: a historical context

This section takes a historical perspective on the way culture has featured in languagelearning. Firstly, it is important at this point to ask exactly what is meant by ‘culture’and ‘Intercultural Understanding’ (IU) in this context of language learning. ‘Culture’ is aubiquitous word these days, and it has become a multifaceted concept since its emergencein the nineteenth century as a way of referring to the notions of progress and civilisation atthe heart of the emerging world. In 1952, some 152 definitions of culture were identified,and since then, its sense has diversified even more to include not only the arts but alsohuman knowledge, beliefs, behaviour, shared attitudes, values, goals, practice, and tradi-tions. Language itself would therefore be seen as part of culture. However, this still leavesquestions and perspectives unanswered concerning the link between them. The foundingfather of modern-day linguistics – Ferdinand de Saussure – has also acted as a key sourcefor writers from a range of socio-cultural philosophies, e.g., Derrida, Foucault, and Bathes.Here, language is often seen as being synonymous with culture, sharing most of its gener-ative processes; indeed, at times, linguistic terms such as ‘sign’ and ‘discourse’ have beenapplied to socio-cultural analyses.

Culture can also be seen to feature in second language learning and teaching over thecourse of its development in recent decades. For example, the communicative revolutionwas partly inspired by a cultural imperative to ‘use’ languages more in human exchanges.

Brumfit (1987) was able to identify a range of ‘theoretical bases’ in communicativelanguage teaching (CLT), many of which arose from ‘cultural’ disciplines: for example, thelinguistic anthropology of Hymes (1967), the ethnomethodology of Garfinkel (1968), andthe linguistic philosophy of Austin (1962), Searle (1969), and Grice (1975). All of thesestress the cultural context of language use. Kramsch echoes this belief:

If . . . language is seen as social practice, culture becomes the very core of language teaching.Cultural awareness must then be viewed as enabling language proficiency . . . Culture inlanguage teaching is not an expendable fifth skill, tacked on, so to speak, to the teaching ofspeaking, listening, reading and writing. (1993, p. 8)

Certain strands of second language acquisition (SLA) research have certainly developedinterests in the role of culture in the psychological processes, with which it has been pre-occupied. For example, Schumann (1978) developed the notion of ‘acculturation’ to un-derline the importance of a certain socio-affective empathy when an L1 learner approacheshis/her second language learning (L2). The cultural dimension is also inherently a part ofsocial psycholinguistics, with its notions of ‘convergence’ and ‘divergence’, and cultural

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Yor

k U

nive

rsity

Lib

rari

es]

at 0

3:58

24

Nov

embe

r 20

14


barriers when two language backgrounds meet in formal and informal language learningcontexts (see Hamers & Blanc, 1989). Here, culture is the stimulus for a range of affectiveresponses which impact, negatively or positively, on language learning. Furthermore, socio-cognitive views of second language learning, for example, those taking inspiration from thework of Lev Vygotsky but also including the recent popularity of cognitive theory in SLA,might also be seen in ‘cultural’ terms by stressing the socio-cultural context of learning,for example, in providing ‘scaffolding’ for learning (see Edwards & Mercer, 1987; Skehan,1998). Indeed, writers such as Lantolf and Frawley (1983) have offered pioneering work onthe way language learning needs to be seen as a socio-cultural engagement; in other words,implicating individual personality traits, partly gained from cultural background, and theextent to which these mesh with the culture implicitly expressed through the learning en-vironment. Norton (2000; Norton & Toohey, 2001) too has shown how a range of culturalfactors can impede, or otherwise, the effectiveness of ‘language learner strategies’.

Clearly, it is important to view every classroom in terms of its ‘cultural’ context.It can then be liable to have virtually any definition of culture applied to it, includingcritical pedagogies. However, in the specific case of IU, its prominence in current Englishcurricula suggests an assumption that in line with the sort of literature quoted in thissection, learning a second language itself must be regarded – in theory and in practice – asa ‘cultural’ experience. Although it seems practically unthinkable that an individual couldbe a successful language learner and not in some ways develop an understanding of theculture represented in and through the language, support for an explicit cultural dimensionin language learning and teaching goes beyond this basic assumption. In the next section,we address the example of IU in the primary context under consideration.

KS2 and IU

It is important at this stage of the discussion to make a distinction between children learningabout a foreign culture (as an outsider) and developing children’s critical IU, which impliesa much deeper level of engagement and appreciation. Entwistle (as cited in Gipps, 1994)makes the distinction between ‘deep learning’ and ‘shallow learning’. Deep learning isdescribed as ‘an intention to understand material for oneself; interacting vigorously andcritically with the content; relating ideas to previous knowledge and experience; usingorganising principles to integrate ideas; relating evidence to conclusions and examining thelogic of the argument’ (1994, p. 24). The view that this approach to learning about cultureis the preferable one is supported by others, including Byram (1997), Gohard-Radenkovic,Lussier, Penz, and Zarate (2004), and Met and Byram (1999, p. 68): ‘It might be argued thatit is more useful to teach students to become independent culture learners – that is, teachstudents how to observe and analyse other cultures in order to gain cultural understanding’.

However, the teaching of culture in a foreign language classroom has often been accusedof being shallow; what Kramsch has referred to as teaching ‘the four Fs – foods, fairs,folklore and statistical facts’ (1991, p. 218). This can also be described as the ‘iceberg’approach to culture: these superficial, more obvious reflections of culture are visible abovethe surface, but below the surface, nine tenths of the culture remains hidden (e.g. values,ideals, conceptions, etc). The risk is that if only the superficial aspects of culture are taught,learners’ stereotypical attitudes may be reinforced (see Lawes, 2000).

The KS2 Framework needs to be reviewed in the light of this issue. It is clearly aimingto encourage the ‘deeper’ approach to IU. It calls for an exploration of ‘the similaritiesand differences between children’s own locality and that of another country’ (DfES, 2005,p. 44) and for children ‘to demonstrate an understanding of and respect for cultural diversity’(2005, p. 75). In order for children to truly ‘gain insights into their own lives and those

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Yor

k U

nive

rsity

Lib

rari

es]

at 0

3:58

24

Nov

embe

r 20

14


of others around the world’ (2005, part 2, p. 4), they will clearly need to do more thansimply study another culture as an outsider: they will need to critically engage with it. Akey question to emerge from developments in language teaching in England with regardto the promotion of IU is, therefore, one of definition and approach. The introduction tothe Framework outlines the rationale for each of its strands, and IU is couched in terms of‘developing citizenship’. It claims that children develop a greater understanding of theirown lives by comparing them with others and that they also develop a deeper awareness oftheir own and others’ cultures by focusing on similarities and differences between peoples,their daily lives, beliefs, and values (DfES, 2005). This introduction also makes it clear thatIU can be integrated into language lessons or taught discretely in other non-language-basedsubjects.

In fact, and despite containing a rationale for its inclusion and a strand of learningobjectives under the heading of IU, a clear definition of what is meant by IU is exactlywhat is missing from the KS2 Framework. At no point does it define what it means byculture or IU. Nor does the Framework provide any taxonomy for developing IU, and noresearch evidence is offered to support the claim that teaching it will lead to childrendeveloping their sense of citizenship or their interest in other cultures. Language policystatements and syllabus aims have often been based on the assumption that teaching andlearning cultural information will simply be passed on to the learner as an implicit resultof language teaching, that cultural element are ‘carried’ in language learning rather thanneeding to be addressed separately. Where they are explicitly addressed, cultural elementsremain at the level of useful tourist information about customs, traditions, types of food,etc. This assumption also seems to be true of the KS2 Framework, a premise that hasbeen questioned by many, including Byram and Esarte-Savries (1990), Wright (1996), andLawes (2000). Indeed, the cultural aspects of learning a second language may not all resultin positive outcomes.

The Common European Framework of Reference for Languages (in short, CEF; Councilof Europe, 2001), for example, makes the point that it is not uncommon for the learningof one foreign language and contact with one foreign culture to reinforce stereotypesand preconceived ideas rather than reduce them. For this reason, the CEF, which hasshaped and influenced the curriculum frameworks of many European countries, insteadencourages knowledge of several languages and cultures (2001, p. 134). Before highlightingthe consequent emergent issues with respect to IU and language learning, we next considerother approaches to it in the light of the KS2 Framework.

KS2 and IU frameworks

At this point, it is important to make a basic distinction: between Intercultural Understandingand Intercultural Competence. As noted, the KS2 Framework does not explain exactly whatit means by IU or the philosophy underpinning it. It is, therefore, unclear why this particularterm was used. According to the Framework, Intercultural Understanding involves enablingchildren to:

develop a greater understanding of their own lives in the context of exploring the lives ofothers. They learn to look at things from another’s perspective, giving them insight into thepeople, culture and traditions of other cultures. Children become more aware of the similaritiesand differences between peoples, their daily lives, beliefs and values. (DfES, 2005, p. 8)

The most widely accepted and commonly used approach to Intercultural Competencehowever was produced by Byram in 1997, consisting of the development of five ‘savoirs’.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Yor

k U

nive

rsity

Lib

rari

es]

at 0

3:58

24

Nov

embe

r 20

14


These will be discussed in detail in the next section. A more recent definition of InterculturalCompetence which makes the potential difference between understanding and competenceclear is provided by Kirsch (2008, p. 157):

The development of intercultural competence enables pupils to increase their understandingof their own culture and ‘cultural selves’ as well as those of others. This understanding canhelp them (children) act sensitively and culturally appropriately. Intercultural competence thusgoes beyond a body of knowledge. It includes a set of practices requiring knowledge, attitudesand skills such as:

• Observing and identifying• Comparing and contrasting• Dealing with or tolerating ambiguity• Accepting difference• Decentring and taking the perspective of somebody else• Interpreting messages and limiting the possibility of misinterpretation• Defending one’s own point of view while acknowledging the legitimacy of those of

others.

To summarise, Kirsch explains that cultural awareness concerns the raising of awarenessand understanding of culture (both of one’s own and that of others) but does not incorporatethe ability to function cross-culturally. Cultural competence goes further in that it usuallyinvolves a change of one’s attitudes and values. It is a relatively recent term, mainlyused in the US in the fields of social work, health care, and education: ‘It refers to aperson’s sensitivity to ethnic, linguistic, religious and class differences which enables themto function effectively in different cultural contexts and to provide effective services topeople of another culture’ (Kirsch, 2008, p. 156).

The fact that Intercultural Understanding has been used rather than a term includ-ing the word competence implies that there is no performance/interaction required. In-stead, it could be seen as knowing about cultures rather than being able to operatecross-culturally.

This distinction is significant in comparing other IU schemes of work to the KS2Framework. The National Standards in Foreign Language Education (1999), which werethe result of a collaborative project of the American Council on the Teaching of ForeignLanguages, American Association of Teachers of French, American Association of Teachersof German, and the American Association of Teachers of Spanish and Portuguese, consistsof basic standards for foreign language education at elementary and secondary school levels.These standards reflect five educational goal areas: Communication, Cultures, Connections,Comparisons, and Communities. In sharp contrast to the KS2 Framework, these standardsbegin with a statement of philosophy, background information on the principles behind andthe development of standards for foreign language study, and notes on language study inthe US: ‘From this philosophy the goals for foreign language education were derived, andall the work in standards setting relates to these concepts’ (1999, p. 7). The five educationalgoal areas are then discussed in greater depth, and a clear rationale is provided for each.In the opening discussion of Cultures, a definition is also provided: ‘The term “culture” isgenerally understood to include the philosophical perspectives, the behavioural practicesand the products – both tangible and intangible – of a society’ (1999, p. 47). Sample progressindicators are then suggested for Years 4, 8, and 12. Although there are only two specificstandards under the heading of Cultures, all five areas are closely connected and the area ofComparisons also requires cultural comparisons to be made. Sample ‘learning scenarios’,classroom activities reflecting the standards outlined, are also described. These scenarioswere collected from teachers around the country and reflect a wide variety of programmes,

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Yor

k U

nive

rsity

Lib

rari

es]

at 0

3:58

24

Nov

embe

r 20

14


languages, and school settings. The report concludes with some frequently asked questionssuch as ‘Why study a language at an early age?’ and ‘But what if I think the communicativegoal is the most important?’ (1999, p. 99). This detailed support, explanation, and examplesare missing from the KS2 Framework in England.

These US national standards emphasise that a language cannot be fully mastered withoutmastery of the cultural contexts in which this language occurs. They appear to encourage amore truly integrated approach to teaching Intercultural Competence. Although it separatesCultures as an aspect of language learning, as already highlighted, the type of skills andcompetencies involved in developing IU at a deeper level are included in the other aspectsof the framework,for example, under Connections – ‘Students acquire information andrecognize the distinctive viewpoints that are available through the foreign language andits cultures’ (1999, p. 56), and under Comparisons – ‘Students recognize that cultures usedifferent patterns of interaction and can apply this knowledge to their own culture’ (1999,p. 60). In this way, IU objectives are explored and appear to be truly integrated into theoverall language curriculum. The KS2 Framework in England differs in this respect as,although it is suggested that IU is integrated into the rest of the PMFL curriculum, it alsostates explicitly that the IU strand can be taught discretely rather than as part of languagelessons.

Questions about the approach to IU in the Framework therefore remain: what doesit mean by Intercultural Understanding? Why and how is it to be taught – as a separatecultural requisite per se or as an integral part of second language learning and teaching?Upon which model of IU is it based and why? In fact, it could be argued that the KS2Framework falls into the trap of including IU as simply a third separate strand of leaningobjectives, thus running the risk of giving the impression that it can be taught in a separate,non-integrated way. Furthermore, it is clear that if IU is to be successfully taught as anintegrated part of PMFLs teaching, teachers would need to be confident in their ability toteach it.

Mapping objectives against models/approaches towards IU

There have been several attempts (mentioned next) to identify the individual components, orstrands, within IU in order to enable it to be studied and progression identified. This sectionwill examine three of the most influential models suggested and explore how/whether theobjectives outlined in the KS2 Framework correspond with them.

As already mentioned, the first and perhaps most widely used model is that of Byram(1997). He argued that learners should develop more than Intercultural Understandingor awareness in order to achieve Intercultural Competence. He proposed a set of relatedsavoirs comprising savoir, savoir comprendre, savoir apprendre/faire, savoir s’engager,and savoir etre (see 1997, p. 88). Byram defines savoir as ‘knowledge of social groupsand their products and practices in one’s own and in one’s interlocutor’s country, and of thegeneral processes of societal and individual interaction’ (1997, p. 58). He further definessavoir-comprendre as ‘the ability to interpret a document or event from another culture, toexplain it and relate it to documents or events from one’s own’ (1997, p. 61) and savoir-apprendre/faire as the ‘skill of discovery and interaction: ability to acquire new knowledgeof a culture and cultural practices and the ability to operate knowledge, attitudes and skillsunder the constraints of real-time communication and interaction’ (1997, p. 61). Savoirs’engager is then defined as ‘critical cultural awareness/political education: an ability toevaluate, critically and on the basis of explicit criteria, perspectives, practices and productsin one’s own and other cultures and countries’ (1997, p. 63). Finally, savoir-etre is defined

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Yor

k U

nive

rsity

Lib

rari

es]

at 0

3:58

24

Nov

embe

r 20

14


as ‘curiosity and openness, readiness to suspend disbelief about other cultures and beliefabout one’s own’ (1997, p. 57). It is this final savoir that he believes is the most appropriateto develop in the primary phase (Cable et al., 2010).

There are 14 learning objectives in the IU strand identified in the KS2 Framework,divided between the four age phases that constitute KS2 (Years 3–6). It is difficult tocategorise these objectives definitively into Byram’s (1997) savoirs as there will inevitablybe a degree of individual interpretation on behalf of the teachers, which will affect theclassification. Perhaps unsurprisingly, therefore, the recent review of the KS2 experiment(Cable et al., 2010) was able to find few of the savoirs present in classroom in any explicitmanner.

It is clear that the vast majority of the KS2 objectives relate to savoir itself (knowledge).Many of the objectives concern developing factual knowledge about another culture, forexample: ‘3.2 to locate countries where the target language is spoken’ (DfES, 2005, p. 19),which also includes knowing some facts about those countries, such as the climate, the maintowns, famous landmarks, and typical national products. Objective 4.2 is another exampleof this. It states that ‘children should be taught to know about some aspects of everydaylife and compare then with their own’ (2005, p. 33). At first, this appears to be a complexobjective that could be categorised under several of Byram’s (1997) savoirs, but it couldalso be interpreted as more superficial, comprised as simply knowing what the pastimes andhobbies of children in the target country are in order to compare them with their own. Aswith many of the other objectives, much will depend on how an individual teacher deliversa particular learning objective; the cultural information could be treated superficially as aseries of facts or more investigation could take place in order to explore the reasons behindthe observed similarities and differences. Objective 3.3 further exemplifies this: it statesthat ‘children should identify social conventions at home and in other cultures, includinglearning about polite forms of address and knowing how to greet native speakers’ (DfES,2005, p. 76). This could be reduced to factual information or could serve as a starting pointfor exploring why differences exist and what the implications of these are.

One of the reasons for the difficulty in classifying the IU objectives in the framework isthat many are so broad and vague, for example, objective 5.3: ‘to compare symbols, objectsor products which represent their own culture and those of another country’ (2005, p. 77).This could encompass all of Byram’s (1997) savoirs or it could result merely in listingsome symbols from one country and some from another, with no explanation/justificationof their existence. There are very few objectives that actually specify any sort of attitudi-nal development as opposed to factual learning. Objective 6.2 could be said to fulfill thisinsofar as it states that ‘children should be taught to recognise and understand some of thedifferences between people’ (DfES, 2005, p. 77). However, although this is clearly aimed athaving an impact on children’s attitudes towards other cultures, it does not specify how thisshould be done. The exemplification suggests ‘discussing similarities and differences be-tween the cultures they have learned about’ and ‘recognising and challenging stereotypes’.The teaching activities themselves are not much more detailed in that they suggest furtherdiscussion about the role of languages in improving understanding between cultures anddiscussing the concept of a stereotype, encouraging children to think about what stereotypesthey think others would have of the UK and vice versa, and the link between stereotypingand prejudice and racism. These are complicated issues and therefore much will depend onthe individual teacher’s ability to raise these issues sensitively and effectively.

The objectives in the framework when mapped against Byram’s (1997) model of thefive savoirs can therefore be said to fit mainly under the first savoir (knowledge). Althoughthere are some that allude to encouraging more attitudinal development, much is left to the

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Yor

k U

nive

rsity

Lib

rari

es]

at 0

3:58

24

Nov

embe

r 20

14


imagination and expertise of the teacher, who will need to interpret the rather broad/vagueobjectives. Many of the objectives certainly hint at developing children’s attitudes and there-fore have the potential to develop the competence encompassed in Byram’s (1997) savoiretre, but equally, they could be interpreted using a more factual (savoir) approach. Thesecomments on the objectives outlined in the KS2 Framework appear to concur with researchfrom many other European countries in that knowledge and attitudes are mentioned mostoften, with discovery and interaction and interpreting and relating receiving less attention,and critical cultural awareness being least often referred to (see Languages and Culturesin Europe [LACE], 2007, p. 23). For this reason, it is understandable that the term Inter-cultural Understanding is indeed most apposite as opposed to Intercultural Competenceor Intercultural Communicative Competence, which as mentioned above, involves moreperformance and behavioural aspects of learning.

Another approach to IU is that taken by Sercu (2004). In her debate about assess-ment of Intercultural Competence, she discusses a range of definitions for InterculturalCompetence and suggests a way of grouping the aspects inherent in teaching and as-sessing it, incorporating Byram’s (1997) model of savoirs. She proposes that the threeaspects of Intercultural Competence that should be addressed in education are knowl-edge, skills/behaviour, and attitudes/traits. When the objectives in the KS2 Framework aremapped against these dimensions, it becomes clear that the majority of them could againbe considered to be aimed at developing children’s knowledge and their attitudes/traits(similarly depending on the interpretation of the teacher), but that skills/behaviour arelargely absent. For example, objective 4.3 (‘to compare traditional stories’; DfES, 2005,p. 76) serves as an example of several IU objectives on the Framework insofar as it isdifficult to classify because the exemplification goes on to suggest that children ‘comparecharacteristics of simple stories between cultures’. Like many others, this objective couldbe seen to be encouraging a meaningful exploration of the similarities and differencesbetween the traditions of different cultures, but it could equally serve simply as a factualexercise. When mapped against Sercu’s (2004) dimensions of Intercultural Competence, itagain appears that developing IU in the KS2 Framework is based mostly on learning factualinformation.

Crozet and Liddicoat (as cited in Liddicoat, Papademetre, Scarino, & Kohler, 2003)offer a third approach. Here, they identify and offer a critique of four broad groupings ofapproaches to teaching culture in language: (1) High culture, (2) Area studies, (3) Culturaland societal norms, and (4) Culture as practice. They argue that a solid approach to teach-ing culture would incorporate all of these aspects rather than representing these differentapproaches as alternatives. Mapping the IU objectives outlined in the KS2 Framework ontothese groupings will help us discover which ones have influenced the IU strand in it. Notsurprisingly perhaps (given the age of the children, 7–11 years), not many objectives re-late directly to promoting High culture (Grouping 1), although objective 4.3 does concern‘comparing traditional stories’. Area studies (Grouping 2) seems to be better represented:several objectives come under this heading, including locating the countries where thetarget language is spoken, learning about festivals in other countries, recognising simi-larities and differences between places by comparing geographical features, and learningabout buildings, etc. (DfES, 2005, pp. 76, 77). However, Liddicoat et al. claim that thisgrouping

implicitly seems to view contact with another culture as a matter of observation, in which thelearner knows about the country but remains external to it. The relationship between languageand culture remains tenuous in such a view, and language here is primarily used for namingevents, institutions, people and places. (2003, p. 6)

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Yor

k U

nive

rsity

Lib

rari

es]

at 0

3:58

24

Nov

embe

r 20

14


As already noted, the guidance for teaching the IU strand of the Framework states that itcan be taught independently of the language lessons, and therefore, this tenuous relationshipbetween culture and language does indeed appear to be promoted (or at least accepted).

Liddicoat et al. define the third grouping – Culture – as societal norms, ‘describingcultures in terms of the practices and values that typify them’ (2003, p. 6), a view that wasprevalent in the 1980s under the dominant anthropologically based paradigm. Culture associetal norms (Grouping 3) is indeed represented in the KS2 Framework IU objectives:for example, ‘Comparing attitudes towards aspects of everyday life’ (objective 6.1) couldbe said to fit into this approach, as does ‘Identifying the target cultures’ social conventions’(objective 3.3). However, as noted, the key criticism of such an approach paradigm is thatthe learners here stay within their own cultural worldview and observe/interpret the wordsand actions of others from a different cultural one. Objective 5.1 does indeed encouragelearners to move away from their own cultural paradigm in order to understand how theirown actions might be interpreted through the eyes of others, and this objective could be seenas an attempt to counteract the potential problem with viewing ‘culture as societal norms’.However, a further criticism of this position is that it tends to present the culture as static andhomogeneous (see Liddicoat, 2002b, in Liddicoat et al., 2003), which might consequentlylead to stereotyping, particularly where there is little opportunity for interaction with thetarget culture. It cannot be assumed that children learning an MFL in primary school in theUK will necessarily have much interaction with the target country. To further counteractthis possibility, objective 6.2 aims ‘to recognise and understand some of the differencesbetween people suggests recognising and challenging stereotypes’ as an approach.

The final category identified by Liddicoat et al. (2003, p. 6) is that of Culture as practice(Grouping 4), where culture is considered to be a set of practices and therefore action iscontext-specific and variable. This approach sees cultural competence as ‘the ability tointeract with the target culture in informed ways. The target for the language learner isto develop an intercultural perspective in which the native culture and language is madeapparent alongside the target culture’ (2003, p. 6). Several examples of this approach canbe found in the KS2 Framework, for example, objective 4.2 – ‘to know about some aspectsof everyday life and compare them with their own’ (DfES, 2005, p. 76) – could developchildren’s understandings of the target cultures’ practices in relation to their own culture.Other objectives also refer to learning about the target culture by exploring their own.Objective 5.1 is closely related to this area as it requires children to consider their ownculture as seen by others.

In summary, the objectives in the Framework do seem to offer a combination of thegroupings identified by Liddicoat et al. (2003) to the teaching of culture (with the exceptionof High culture). However, most of the objectives seem to have an underlying factual nature(as already noted in discussion of the other schemes above) which we might characterise asa static view of culture. Such an approach considers cultural knowledge as either facts orartefacts. Learners are expected to learn information about a country or people, their lives,their history, their institutions, or their customs, or about the cultural icons these peoplehave produced, such as their literature, their art, their architecture, or their music.

Discussion

This paper set out to raise a number of issues with respect to IU and its place in secondlanguage learning and teaching, in particular with respect to the KS2 Framework in England.This example, and with it the attempt to broaden the curriculum, is an excellent case of a

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Yor

k U

nive

rsity

Lib

rari

es]

at 0

3:58

24

Nov

embe

r 20

14


fundamental paradox in second language learning and teaching. Earlier in this paper, wereferred to the changes in curricula and underlying language teaching methodology thattook place in the second half of the twentieth century. As noted above, Brumfit (1987) arguesfor the inherently ‘cultural’ character of CLT, a socio-cultural orientation which also set outto break away from teaching straight grammatical ‘facts’ and so adopted a more inductiveapproaches to learning. However, this break itself led more often to the explicit teachingof (factual) stock phrases rather than a truly generative pedagogy (see, e.g., Grenfell, 2000and Dobson, 1998 for basic critiques of its implementation in the British context). In otherwords, rather than lead to the development of a truly communicative competence, CLTtoo often resulted in the cliche of ‘walking phrase books’, with learners committing (ortoo often not) a series of transactional phrases to memory. Indeed, disappointments withthe CLT approach (lack or progress, falling motivation, poor understanding of grammar,and the eventual dropping of MFLs – see Dobson, 1998 and Grenfell, 2000) were partlyresponsible for curricula and pedagogic developments that gave rise to the introduction ofIU in PMFLs in the first place. Such developments have increasingly taken on a cognitiveor socio-cultural perspective to second language learning and teaching, for example, thewhole ‘learning to learn’ agenda, autonomy, and a strategic approach to the second languageclassroom, as exemplified by the KS3 Strategy (Department for Education and Employment[DEE], 2003). This cognitive orientation itself is based on a fundamental dichotomy betweendeclarative and procedural thinking, between knowledge of facts and knowledge of ‘howto’ do something. If we can think of language in terms of facts and process, it seems possibleto consider IU in a similar fashion, as being based on a fundamental distinction betweenactual cultural facts and broader procedural aspects, for example, attitudes, behaviors,emotions, etc. Indeed, we might conclude that IU has followed the same path as CLT andcome up against the same dilemma, namely the very tension between the declarative andthe procedural. This dilemma might be summed up as aiming for procedural competence,but having to attain it through a declarative knowledge, which can act as a barrier to thesought-after aim of a truly authentic IU. It might consequently be useful to think of someof the defining categories of IU – the interpersonal, attitudinal, and content base – as eachindeed existing in these two forms: declarative and procedural. In ideal social conditions,a good deal of cultural information is, of course, soaked up by the second language learner,and this helps develop understanding and empathy with the culture, which itself willenhance motivation and subsequent learning. However, it is a moot point as to whethera similar process can occur in a context which is less favourable to natural assimilation.And, furthermore, as we have noted, attempts to do so often can lead to a rather externalprocessing of factual information about other countries and their traditions that can havelittle relevance to a learner with no first-hand experience of the same.

We would argue that many of these misuses and misplaced extrapolations of culture tosecond language learning and teaching arise not only because of its multifaceted definitions,which lead to partial or simplistic applications for pedagogy in the classroom, for example,that existing IU frameworks do not take sufficient account of the culture of the learnerand how that interacts with the culture of the language being learnt, indeed within thecultural context of a specific classroom. A more sophisticated theory of culture would offermore insight, and thus greater practical pedagogic usefulness, into the essential culturalrelationship between these three and how they interact with each other. For example,the French cultural theorist Pierre Bourdieu sees culture in terms of structures (which areequally structured) and structuring in constituting both personal and contextual information(see Grenfell, 2008). Structures are also defined as both socio-cognitive and social; indeed,there is a homology between the two. This is represented in his two key concepts – habitus

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Yor

k U

nive

rsity

Lib

rari

es]

at 0

3:58

24

Nov

embe

r 20

14


and field – which, he argues, exist as if in ‘ontological complicity’ with each other. If weextrapolate this perspective to the case of IU, it might seem fairly obvious that any attempt toimport another culture into the classroom is bound to fail as there is a kind of cultural clash,an epistemological dissonance that goes to the heart of the structural relations between mindsand social conditions in Bourdieu’s terms (a mismatch between the cognitive and social,which as argued above, has always been a key aspect of the IU debate). Indeed, and as byway of example, the existence of realia and views of language classrooms as prefabricatedcultural oases has always been a dubious undertaking. The truly authentic culture of theclassroom is the school and classroom itself, and the most powerful cultural requisiteswith which learners arrive are from their own personal backgrounds. Later versions ofCLT have taken on board this understanding, shifting the accent away from the culture ofthe language taught to the culture of the pupil and classroom as a way of impacting onprogress and proficiency. In this case, IU becomes not so much as cultural understandingbetween nations as that between students and their learning environments. Here, culturalaspects of the home cultures of language being taught are downgraded in favour of theculture of the immediate experience. CLT needs to further develop techniques for this newperspective on IU, based much more around individual learner response within the contextof the learner’s own cultural understanding. Such techniques will include language leanerand communication strategies as well as the more social and affective aspects of languagelearning and teaching.

In the light of the above, it is perhaps predictable that teachers and policy writers havestruggled with IU; with its definition and practical application, the result has often beenlack of clarity and overlap certainly, as presented in the KS2 Framework – what results is arather mechanistic, instrumental approach to its coverage in teaching second languages. Thisoutcome is avoidable. Nevertheless, these issues relate to cultural dimensions of languageand language learning which go to the heart of what we know about teaching and learning.If the cultural nature of the language teaching could be developed, it would lead to a trulyenhanced form of pedagogy. Such a development would require greater appreciation on thepart of teachers’ of ‘culture’ itself and its place in the language learning process. Without amore in-depth understanding of culture and how it is integral to language learning, it seemsthat at best, IU will continue to be a bolt-on element in the curriculum, sitting somewhatoutside of the main activities of language teaching.

Conclusion

This paper has raised issues with respect to IU: definition, application, and exemplification.It has addressed the question of the nature of IU and how it has been represented in a rangeof schemes and curricula. What is clear is that despite conceptual sophistication, IU inpractice tends to adopt a rather static approach to content. This static model of culture evenenables it to be taught in the learners’ first language rather than the target language and canlead to culture being treated as a separate entity to language learning; thus, language andculture become separated. Moreover, it is questionable – both in terms of the learners’ andthe teachers’ linguistic competence – to what extent it can be transmitted through the targetlanguage.

A more dynamic version of IU portrays culture as much more variable and as constantlyshifting. Culture is not just about information and facts but also about actions and under-standing: ‘cultural knowledge is not therefore a case of knowing information about theculture; it is about knowing how to engage with the culture’ (Liddicoat et al., 2003, p. 8).In this dynamic model of cultural competence, language and culture are closely connected

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Yor

k U

nive

rsity

Lib

rari

es]

at 0

3:58

24

Nov

embe

r 20

14


since the former cannot be seen to function independently from its context (as consistentlyargued by such cultural linguists as Kramsch, 1993). What we have also made clear is thatthese issues of culture pertain to the actual processes of language teaching and learningthemselves. A more sophisticated and dynamic understanding of the culture of languageand pedagogy would therefore need to include a socio-cognitive view of what is going on inthis context, where culture would have both a broader and a more profound functional role.Perhaps, for example, the aim of the IU strand in the KS2 Framework might be to focusmore on developing children’s abilities to de-centre (and learning a language is in itselfa way of doing this) rather than teaching children facts about the target culture. Encour-aging children to de-centre and to consider issues such as difference, empathy, tolerance,ambiguity, and stereotyping might be a more effective approach to developing these ‘socio-cognitive’ aspects of language learning than trying to get them to imbibe factual knowledgein the belief that this will help them to feel more involved with the language. That is not tosay that factual knowledge will not play a part – declarative knowledge is always neededin formal teaching contexts – but social, affective, and cultural dimensions of languagelearning might also be included as a way to enhance procedural knowledge and process.Indeed, these elements themselves would seem to form an important part of the kind ofreflexive dimension now so often advocated in policy documents. Such reflexivity itselflinks with a cognitive approach to language learning: for example, metacognition can bedefined in terms of evaluation, monitoring, and planning (see O’Malley & Chamot, 1990).In the case of the current KS2 Framework, although different paradigms are included in itsobjectives, the underlying model of culture unfortunately remains a static one. To return tothe question we posed in the Introduction: Is there the danger that the rhetoric surroundingIU promises more than it delivers? The answer, unfortunately, is that it probably does.

Notes on contributorsAlex Woodgate-Jones is a Lecturer at the School of Education, University of Southampton. Herresearch interests include primary modern foreign language teaching and learning, educational in-clusion, and teacher voice.

Michael Grenfell is a Professor of Education at Trinity College, Dublin. His work focuses on researchinto the policy and practice of second language learning and teaching.

ReferencesAustin, J.L. (1962). How to do things with words. London: Oxford University Press.Brumfit, C. (1987). Applied linguistics and communicative language teaching. Annual Review of

Applied Linguistics, 8, 3–13.Burstall, C. (1974). Primary French in the balance. Windsor: NFER.Byram, M. (1997). Teaching and assessing intercultural communicative competence. Clevedon:

Multilingual Matters.Byram, M., & Esarte-Savries, V. (1990). Cultural studies and language learning: A research report.

Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.Cable, C., Driscoll, P., Mitchell, R., Sing, S., Cremin, T., Earl, J., Eyres, I., Holmes, B., Martin, C.,

with Heins, B. (2010). Languages learning at Key Stage 2: A longitudinal study. Research ReportNo. DCSF-RR198 DCSF. Cheshire: DCSF.

Council of Europe. (2001). Common European framework of reference for languages: Learning,teaching, assessment. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Department for Education and Employment (DEE). (2003). The Key Stage 3 strategy: Framework forteaching modern foreign language. London: HMSO.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Yor

k U

nive

rsity

Lib

rari

es]

at 0

3:58

24

Nov

embe

r 20

14


Department for Education and Skills (DfES). (2002). Languages for all: Languages for life: A strategyfor England. Nottingham: DfES.

Department for Education and Skills (DfES). (2004). Primary national strategy excellence andenjoyment: Learning and teaching in the primary years. Nottingham: DfES.

Department for Education and Skills (DfES). (2005). The Key Stage 2 Framework for Languages:Guidance for headteachers, teachers and practitioners. Nottingham: DfES.

Dobson, A. (1998). Modern foreign language inspected. London: CILT.Driscoll, P. (1999). Modern foreign languages in the primary school: A fresh start. In P. Driscoll

& D. Frost (Eds.), The teaching of modern foreign languages in the primary school (pp. 9–26).London: Routledge.

Edwards, D., & Mercer, N. (1987). Common knowledge: The development of understanding in theclassroom. London: Routledge.

Garfinkel, H. (1968). Studies in ethnomethodology. London: Polity Press.Gipps, C. (1994). Beyond testing: Towards a theory of educational assessment. London: Routledge.Gohard-Radenkovic, A., Lussier, D., Penz, H., & Zarate, G. (2004). Reference fields and methodology.

In G. Zarate, A. Gohard-Radenkovic, D. Lussier, & H. Penz (Eds.), Cultural mediation in languagelearning and teaching (pp. 27–57). Kapfenberg: Council of Europe Publishing.

Grenfell, M. (2000). Modern languages – Beyond Nuffield, and into the 21st century. LanguageLearning Journal, 46, 23–30.

Grenfell, M. (2008). Pierre Bourdieu: Key concepts. London: Acumen.Grice, H. (1975). Logic and conversation. In P. Cole & J. Morgon (Eds.), Syntax and semantics:

Speech acts (pp. 121–133). New York: Academic Press.Hamers, J., & Blanc, M. (1989). Bilinguality and bilingualism. Cambridge: Cambridge University

Press.Hunt, M., Barnes, A., Powell, B., Lindsay, G., & Muijs, D. (2005). Primary modern foreign languages:

An overview of recent research, key issues and challenges for educational policy and practice.Research Papers in Education, 20(4), 371–394.

Kirsch, C. (2008). Teaching foreign languages in the primary school. London: Continuum.Kramsch, C. (1991). Culture in language learning: A view from the States. In K. de Bot, R.B.

Ginsberg, & C. Kramsch (Eds.), Foreign language research in cross cultural perspective (pp.217–240). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Kramsch, C. (1993). Context and culture in language education. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Languages and Cultures in Europe (LACE). (2007). The LACE report: The intercultural compe-

tences developed in compulsory foreign languages education in the European Union. Brussels:DG Education, Training, Culture and Multilingualism, European Commission. Retrieved fromhttp://ec.europa.eu/education/policies/lang/doc/lace_en.pdf.

Lantolf, J., & Frawley, W. (1983). Second language performance and Vygotskyan psycholinguistics.LACUS Forum, 10, 19–44.

Lawes, S. (2000). The unique contribution of MFLs. In K. Field (Ed.), Issues in modern foreignlanguage teaching (pp. 87–98). London: RoutledgeFalmer.

Liddicoat, A., Papademetre, L., Scarino, A., & Kohler, M. (2003). Report on intercultural languagelearning. Perth: Department of Education, Science and Training.

Martin, C. (2000). Modern foreign languages at primary school: A three pronged approach? LanguageLearning Journal, 22, 5–10.

Met, M., & Byram, M. (1999). Standards for foreign language learning and the teaching of culture.Language Learning Journal, 19, 61–68.

National Standards in Foreign Language Education Project. (1999). Standards for foreign languagelearning in the 21st century. Lawrence, KS: Allen Press.

Norton, B. (2000). Identity and language learning: Gender, ethnicity and educational change. Harlow:Longman/Pearson Education.

Norton, B., & Toohey, K. (2001) Changing perspectives on good language learners. TESOL Quarterly,35(2), 307–322.

Office for Standards in Education (OfSTED). (2003). Primary modern foreign languagesin initial teacher training. Manchester: OfSTED. Retrieved from http://www.ofsted.gov.uk/resources/primary-modern-foreign-languages-initial-teacher-training.

O’Malley, M., & Chamot, A. (1990). Language learning strategies in second language acquisition.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Yor

k U

nive

rsity

Lib

rari

es]

at 0

3:58

24

Nov

embe

r 20

14

http://ec.europa.eu/education/policies/lang/doc/lace_en.pdf

http://www.ofsted.gov.uk/resources/primary-modern-foreign-languages-initial-teacher-training

http://www.ofsted.gov.uk/resources/primary-modern-foreign-languages-initial-teacher-training


Qualifications and Curriculum Authority (QCA). (2000). Modern foreign languages: A scheme ofwork for Key Stage 2. Sudbury: QCA.

Schumann, J. (1978). The acculturation model for second language acquisition. In R.C. Grngas(Ed.), Second language acquisition and foreign language teaching. (pp. 379–385) Arlington,VA: Centre for Applied Linguistics.

Searle, J.R. (1969). Speech acts. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Sercu, L. (2004). Assessing intercultural competence: A framework for systematic test development

in foreign language education and beyond. Intercultural Education, 15(1), 73–89.Skehan, P. (1998). A cognitive approach top language learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Wright, M. (1996). The cultural aims of modern language teaching: Why are they not being met?

Language Learning Journal, 13(1), 36–37.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Yor

k U

nive

rsity

Lib

rari

es]

at 0

3:58

24

Nov

embe

r 20

14

Documents

Intercultural Understanding and primary-level second language learning and teaching