Culture in the classroom of ESL learners: A case study

of how culture is represented in the lessons of ESL

children at a New Zealand mainstream primary school

Joanne Maree Oranje

A thesis submitted for the degree of

Master of Arts (Linguistics)
at the University of Otago
Dunedin, New Zealand

June 2012
 Abstract

This study investigated whether teachers at a New Zealand full primary school considered
it important for culture generally, and the cultures of their English Second Language (ESL)
learners’ specifically, to feature in their teaching of ESL pupils. It also examined how the
ESL learners’ cultures were represented in their lessons. The subject school’s six
mainstream teachers and sole ESL teacher were interviewed and observed. It was found
that teachers had limited knowledge of the backgrounds of their ESL pupils and faced
challenges in developing constructive relationships with the ESL families. All teachers
reported being aware of their own culture but appeared not to reflect upon it or objectively
compare it with cultures they explored as a class, a key component of intercultural
language teaching practices promoted in Ministry of Education-endorsed materials for
mainstream education of ESL students. New Zealand cultures were dominant as the
everyday ‘classroom culture’. Explicit teaching of the classroom culture was infrequent,
but some elements were made noticeable through more implicit means. Cultures regularly
featured as topic studies, however the intentional incorporation of the ESL learners’
cultures was infrequent, and most often occurred non-purposefully. It was not clear that
teachers recognised school-wide benefits of involving ESL learners’ home cultures. Lave
and Wenger’s (1991) communities of practice model interpreted the findings and indicated
current practices might affect the ESL learners’ legitimacy as a member of the classroom
community of practice and affect their access to the community’s resources, its more
expert members and its practices. However, it is likely that this is a result of the teachers
having limited knowledge of intercultural teaching principles and associated practices, and
the belief, of most, that culture is a separate topic, warranting is own allocation of time and
other resources, but needing to be sacrificed in order to meet the other challenges of a full
curriculum and busy classroom.

ii
 Acknowledgements

Firstly, I wish to acknowledge the University of Otago. I am very proud to be associated

with the university and hope that it is a relationship that will continue. I am particularly
grateful for the Masters Scholarship without which I would not have been able to pursue
full-time study. I thank the staff and other post-graduate students of the Linguistics
programme for the camaraderie that invariably arises from a small and welcoming section
of a greater department. Thank you, too, to the backbone of the English department – the
administration staff – for their assistance with the practical matters of operating within the
Masters programme.

Special thanks go to the Principal and staff of Parkside School for their willingness to be
involved in my project and withstanding my presence as yet another thing to juggle in their
incredibly busy school day. I am also grateful to the pupils who allowed me to watch
them, work with them, and get to know them. I was entirely reliant on Parkside School
and without them this study could not have happened.

I express great gratitude to my supervisor, Dr Anne Feryok, for the professional guidance
and personal encouragement that she gave me. No matter where I was on the rollercoaster
that is post-graduate study, my discussions with Anne always propelled me in upward
direction again. I am very grateful for the wealth of knowledge that she shared with me,
the belief she showed in me, and her ability to recognise and accommodate my particular
learning needs and funny ways.

Thank you to my parents, Ray and Beverley Harvey, for teaching me the value of ongoing
education and for demonstrating pride in my academic achievements.

Finally, I owe so much to my husband, Ron Oranje, who kept the home fires burning and
allowed me the luxury of post-graduate study. He made a lot of sacrifices so I could focus
on my research and writing. Thank you for being a patient, loving and unselfish husband
and supporting me to achieve this goal.

iii
 Table of Contents
1.0 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................. 1
1.1 Background ........................................................................................................................... 1
1.2 Research Themes ................................................................................................................... 2
1.2.1 The role of culture in SLA ................................................................................................ 2
1.2.2 Intercultural language teaching ....................................................................................... 2
1.2.3 The role of the target cultures .......................................................................................... 3
1.2.4 The role of the ESL learners’ cultures ............................................................................. 3
1.2.5 Knowing the learner ......................................................................................................... 4
1.3 Research Methodology .......................................................................................................... 4
1.4 Research position .................................................................................................................. 5
1.5 Summary ............................................................................................................................... 6
2.0 LITERATURE REVIEW ...................................................................................................... 7
2.1 Concepts ................................................................................................................................ 7
2.1.1 The relationship between culture and language .............................................................. 8
2.1.2 The relationship between culture and language teaching and learning .......................... 8
2.1.3 Teaching culture............................................................................................................. 11
2.1.3.1 Intercultural language teaching ........................................................................ 12
2.1.4 Sociocultural theory research paradigm........................................................................ 13
2.1.4 Communities of Practice model ..................................................................................... 15
2.1.5.1 Legitimacy ......................................................................................................... 17
2.2 International research on culture in the classroom .............................................................. 19
2.2.1 Understanding the learner ............................................................................................. 23
2.2.2 Incorporating the learners’ culture................................................................................ 25
2.2.3 Involving the learners’ families...................................................................................... 26
2.2.4 Understanding teachers ................................................................................................. 28
2.3 The New Zealand context.................................................................................................... 32
2.3.1 New Zealand studies ...................................................................................................... 34
2.3.1.1 Understanding the learner ................................................................................ 34
2.3.1.2 Incorporating the learners’ culture ................................................................... 35
2.3.1.3 Involving the learners’ families ......................................................................... 36
2.3.1.4 Understanding teachers .................................................................................... 37
2.3.1.5 Classroom culture ............................................................................................. 38
2.3.2 New Zealand Ministry of Education documents............................................................. 40
iv
 2.4 Themes ................................................................................................................................ 42
3.0 METHODOLOGY ..................................................................................................................... 43
3.1 The context .......................................................................................................................... 43
3.1.1 The subject institution – Parkside School ...................................................................... 44
3.2 Participants .......................................................................................................................... 45
3.2.1 Teacher participants ...................................................................................................... 46
3.2.2 Pupil participants ........................................................................................................... 46
3.3 Investigative procedures ...................................................................................................... 46
3.3.1 Perspective .............................................................................................................. 47
3.3.2 Observations .............................................................................................................. 48
3.3.2.1 Observations of English support sessions ......................................................... 48
3.3.2.2 Observations of mainstream classes ................................................................. 50
3.3.3 Interviews with teaching staff......................................................................................... 51
3.3.3.1 Interview with ESL teacher ............................................................................... 51
3.3.3.2 Interviews with mainstream teachers ................................................................ 51
3.3.3.3 Interview procedure .......................................................................................... 52
3.3.3.4 Interview questions ............................................................................................ 52
3.3.4 Review of materials ........................................................................................................ 53
3.3.5 Procedures for transcriptions and other written data.................................................... 53
3.4 Analysis ............................................................................................................................... 54
3.4.1 Coding .............................................................................................................. 55
3.4.2 Memos .............................................................................................................. 58
3.4.3 Inductive and deductive analyses and grounded theory ................................................ 58
3.4.4 Themes .............................................................................................................. 59
3.4.4.1 Theme 1 – Know the ESL learner ...................................................................... 60
3.4.4.2 Theme 2 - Reflect, explore, and compare .......................................................... 60
3.4.4.3 Theme 3 – Affirm and incorporate .................................................................... 61
3.5 Application of communities of practice model ................................................................... 61
3.6 Research questions .............................................................................................................. 62
3.7 Warrants .............................................................................................................................. 62
3.7.1 Credibility .............................................................................................................. 63
3.7.2 Transferability .............................................................................................................. 63
3.7.3 Dependability .............................................................................................................. 64
3.7.4 Confirmability .............................................................................................................. 64
3.8 Ethics ................................................................................................................................... 65
v
4.0 FINDINGS .......................................................................................................................... 66
4.1 Themes ................................................................................................................................ 66
4.2 Know the ESL learner ......................................................................................................... 67
4.2.1 Teachers’ knowledge of learners’ cultural background ................................................ 67
4.2.1.1 Gaining information from the ESL families ...................................................... 67
4.2.1.2 Gaining information directly from the child ..................................................... 69
4.2.1.3 Assumptions about the learner’s background ................................................... 72
4.2.1.4 Sharing the knowledge ...................................................................................... 73
4.2.2 Teachers’ knowledge of the learners’ understanding of the surrounding culture ......... 74
4.2.3 Summary – Know the learner ......................................................................................... 76
4.3 Reflect on own, explore others, compare and contrast ........................................................ 76
4.3.1 Awareness of own culture .............................................................................................. 76
4.3.2 Exploring cultures .......................................................................................................... 78
4.3.2.1 New Zealand culture – Classroom culture ........................................................ 78
4.3.2.1.1 Management of behaviour. . ..................................................................... 79
4.3.2.1.2 Routines. . ................................................................................................. 81
4.3.2.1.2.1 On the mat. ......................................................................................... 81
4.3.2.1.2.2 Raise hands. ........................................................................................ 81
4.3.2.1.2.3 Roll call. . ............................................................................................. 82
4.3.2.1.2.4 Run a circuit. ..................................................................................... 82
4.3.2.1.2.5 Class leader. ....................................................................................... 82
4.3.2.1.2.6 News. . ................................................................................................. 83
4.3.2.1.2.7 Lining up. ........................................................................................... 83
4.3.2.1.2.8 Use of paint. ........................................................................................ 83
4.3.2.1.2.9 Library. . .............................................................................................. 84
4.3.2.1.2.10 Assembly . ........................................................................................... 84
4.3.2.1.2.11 Teaching style. . ................................................................................... 84
4.3.2.2 New Zealand culture – Capital C culture.......................................................... 86
4.3.2.3 Other cultures .................................................................................................... 87
4.3.3 Compare and contrast .................................................................................................... 89
4.3.4 Summary – Reflect, Explore, Compare .......................................................................... 91
4.4 Affirm and incorporate ........................................................................................................ 91
4.4.1 Attitudes .............................................................................................................. 91
4.4.2 Incorporate .............................................................................................................. 94
4.4.3 Summary – Affirm and incorporate ................................................................................ 96
vi
 4.5 Relation of themes to research questions ............................................................................ 96
5 DISCUSSION ..................................................................................................................... 97
5.1 Research questions .............................................................................................................. 97
5.1.1 Research Question 1: Do teachers consider it important that culture features in their
teaching of ESL children? .............................................................................................. 97
5.1.1.1 Importance of other cultures ............................................................................. 98
5.1.1.2 Importance of New Zealand cultures ................................................................ 99
5.1.1.2.1 Small culture. . ........................................................................................ 100
5.1.1.2.1.1 Intercultural teaching .............................................................................. 104
5.1.1.2.1.2 Understanding and accommodating other approaches to learning within
the classroom culture. ....................................................................... 106
5.1.1.3 Summary Research Question 1........................................................................ 110
5.1.2 Research Question 2: Do teachers consider it important that the ESL learners’ cultures
specifically feature in their teaching of ESL children? ................................................ 110
5.1.2.1 Knowledge about the learner .......................................................................... 111
5.1.2.2 Awareness of the influence of home cultures on the understanding of the new
languaculture................................................................................................... 113
5.1.2.3 Sharing knowledge about the learners ............................................................ 115
5.1.2.4 Teacher attitudes towards the home cultures .................................................. 116
5.1.2.5 Perception of Legitimacy................................................................................. 121
5.1.2.6 Summary Research Question 2........................................................................ 122
5.1.3 Research Question 3: How do the cultures of the ESL learners feature in their lessons? .
............................................................................................................ 123
5.1.3.1 Summary Research Question 3........................................................................ 125
5.2 Communities of practice ................................................................................................... 125
6.0 CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................. 128
6.1 Summary of results ............................................................................................................ 128
6.2 Implications ....................................................................................................................... 129
6.3 Limitations ........................................................................................................................ 133
6.4 Future directions ................................................................................................................ 136
7.0 REFERENCES .................................................................................................................. 137
8.0 APPENDICES ................................................................................................................... 153
Appendix A - Tables .................................................................................................................. 153
Ethnicity Composition ............................................................................................................ 153
Biographical Data of Teacher Participants ........................................................................... 154
Biographical Data of Pupil Participants ............................................................................... 155

vii
 Appendix B – Field note example .............................................................................................. 156
Appendix C – Transcription conventions................................................................................... 158
Appendix D – Interview schedules ............................................................................................ 159
For ESL teacher ............................................................................................................ 159
For mainstream teachers ....................................................................................................... 162
Appendix E – Legend of macro coded for document management ........................................... 164
Appendix F - Legend of micro coded data for analysis ……………………………………….164
Grouping of codes to theme ................................................................................................... 168
Appendix G – Examples of coded data ...................................................................................... 169
From interview with Miss Scott (I2) ....................................................................................... 169
From observation of Mrs Harrington (M3) ........................................................................... 170
Appendix H – Participant information sheets ............................................................................ 171
Parents ............................................................................................................ 171
Pupil participants ............................................................................................................ 173
ESL Teacher ............................................................................................................ 175
Mainstream teachers ............................................................................................................ 178
Appendix I – Consent forms ...................................................................................................... 181
Pupil participants ............................................................................................................ 181
Parents ............................................................................................................ 182
ESL and mainstream teachers - Interviews ............................................................................ 183
ESL and mainstream teachers - Observations ....................................................................... 185
Appendix J – Covering letters .................................................................................................... 186
Original letter ............................................................................................................ 186
Follow up letter ............................................................................................................ 187
Appendix K – School newsletter entry ...................................................................................... 188
Appendix L – Entries from school publicity material ................................................................ 189
9.0 ENDNOTES . ……………………………………………………………………………190

viii
 1 INTRODUCTION

The more that you read, the more things you will know. The more that you learn, the more places you’ll go.
Dr Seuss, from I can read with my eyes shut! (1978)1

To introduce the study, a brief background of the research context is provided, followed by
presentation of the major underlying themes. A short summary of the methodology is
given, and the section ends by positioning the study within second language acquisition
(SLA) research and paradigms.

1.1 Background

It is usual practice in New Zealand for young learners of English as a second language
(ESL) to be enrolled in mainstream schools, regardless of their level of proficiency in
English. Limited government funding is available, subject to conditions (Ministry of
Education, 2010a), to assist schools in their support of the ESL pupils as the children
endeavour to learn New Zealand’s languages and cultures, or ‘languacultures’ (Agar,
1994), as they are educated within the school curriculum (Ministry of Education, 2007b).
The schools decide how best to spend their ESL funding allocation but it often
involves targeted English support for the child, such as in-class assistance or withdrawal
sessions (Franken & McComish, 2003). However, for most ESL children the significant
majority of their school time is spent in a regular mainstream class (Franken & McComish,
2003). New Zealand teacher training programmes rarely include papers in SLA theories
and practices (Haworth, 2008), and professional development opportunities are not
routinely available and not always prioritised by teachers (Barnard, Campbell, Campbell,
Smithson & Vickery, 2001; Cameron & Simpson, 2002; Haworth, 2003). It is also often
the case that staff members responsible for ESL support are not qualified in mainstream or
second language teaching (Education Counts, 2002; Franson, 1999; Haworth, 2003, 2005a
& 2008; Seo & Hoover, 2009).
The context of this study reflects these circumstances. The research project was
undertaken at a New Zealand primary school in which the ESL children received short
weekly periods of English support with an ESL teacher but were in a regular mainstream
class for the greater part of their time, under the instruction of teachers whose experience
and knowledge of SLA ranged from certification in language teaching to no training at all.

1
 1.2 Research Themes

This section briefly presents a series of themes that are central to the research area and this
project. The specific area of interest for this study is the involvement of culture in the
mainstream education of their ESL students.

1.2.1 The role of culture in SLA

In the absence of a foundation of theoretical knowledge of SLA principles, teachers might

be unaware of the strength of the relationship between language and culture (Conway,
Richards, Harvey & Roskvist, 2010). The relevance of the role of culture and its influence
on second language pedagogy has been highlighted in recent research, a change from
earlier approaches that considered culture as a subject to be taught through transmission of
facts about countries, their history, geography, literature and so on (Crozet, Liddicoat & Lo
Bianco, 1999). In 1993, Kramsch asserted that culture is “a feature of language”
(Kramsch, 1993, p. 8) and not a separate topic to teach in addition to reading, writing,
speaking and listening. Today, the promoted approach is Intercultural Language Teaching
(Crozet et al., 1999).

1.2.2 Intercultural language teaching

Intercultural language teaching is still emerging in New Zealand (Conway et al., 2010) but
is recommended by the Ministry of Education for teaching languages and for teaching ESL
children in mainstream schools (Newton, Yates, Shearn & Nowitzki, 2010, Conway et al.,
2010).
The principles of intercultural language teaching require consideration of the home
and target cultures relative to each other in order to discover similarities and differences
(Crozet et al., 1999; Newton et al., 2010). The approach requires an ability to reflect on
one’s own culture and consider it objectively in relation to other cultures (Crozet et al.,
1999; Newton et al., 2010). Importance is placed on the teaching of an ability to explore,
or research, other cultures so intercultural learning can continue to take place outside the
classroom and in perpetuity (Agar, 1994; Atkinson, 1999; Crozet & Maurer, 2003). The
cultures of the target language and of the ESL learner’s background are both important for
effective language learning.

2
 1.2.3 The role of the target cultures

In the context of ESL learners in New Zealand mainstream schools, the target
languaculture is predominantly English but also includes Māori. The target cultures
influence learning because they are the medium through which the education is conducted,
and in some respects are also subjects of instruction. They are the usually majority
cultures of the school, staff especially. They are the cultures to which the ESL learner is
most intensively and extensively exposed during the school day. While being all-
pervasive, not all elements of the target cultures are ‘visible’ to the learners, or even to the
cultures’ own members (Agar, 1994; Barraja-Rohan, 2003; Crozet & Liddicoat, 1999;
Kramsch, 1993; Lo Bianco & Crozet, 2003; Newton et al., 2010; Thielmann, 2003; Zaid,
1999). The target cultures are also the norms against which the ESL learner’s behaviours
are inevitably measured by staff and native peers, being the foundations of their life
experiences, beliefs (Chan, 2007), assumptions (Atkinson, 1999; Barnard, 2003a, 2005,
2009a, 2009b; Guest, 2002; Parker, 2010; Riley, 2007; Rowsell, Sztainbok & Blaney,
2007; Spencer-Oatey & Franklin, 2009) and stereotypes (Kumaravadivelu, 2003;
Littlewood, 2000; Zhu, 2011).

1.2.4 The role of the ESL learners’ cultures

The learners’ own cultures, henceforth called ‘home cultures’, also influence learning of
the new languaculture. Learners can interpret situations at school from the perspective of
their own culture (Bonvillain, 2008; Chan, 2007; Cummins, Bismilla, Chow, Cohen,
Giampapa, Leoni et al., 2005; Flory & McCaughtry, 2011; Spencer-Oatey & Franklin,
2009; Zhu, 2011;). Home cultures can be purposefully utilised by teachers for the benefit
of the language learner, to demonstrate respect for the learner and their culture (e.g.,
Fassler, 2001; Roessingh, 2011; Rowsell et al., 2007; Rymes, 2003; Short, 1994; Stagg-
Peterson & Heywood, 2007), and to provide a meaningful foundation of knowledge to
which new information can be related to assist learning (e.g., Ashcraft, 1999; Barraja-
Rohan, 1999; Cummins et al., 2005; Duff & Uchida, 1997; Kennedy & Dewar, 1997; Lee,
Lee & Amaro-Jiménez, 2011; Mackey, Kanganas & Oliver, 2007; McLean, 2002; Parker,
2010; Rowsell et al., 2007; Stagg-Peterson & Heywood, 2007). In fact, the benefits of
incorporation of home cultures extend to all in the school community (Kennedy & Dewar,

3
1997; Lo Bianco, 1996; Pease-Alvarez & Vasquez, 1994; Rodriguez & Sjostrom, 1995;
Rymes, 2004; Sharifan, 2007).

1.2.5 Knowing the learner

Research has highlighted the importance for teachers to have knowledge of their ESL
pupils as individuals. Such knowledge reduces the likelihood of essentialising the child to
his/her culture because the child is recognised as unique and not a representative of an
entire non-homogeneous culture (Atkinson, 1999; Crozet, 2003; Crozet & Maurer, 2003;
Guest, 2002; Riley, 2007). Knowing the learner allows gaps in the child’s understanding
of the new languaculture to be revealed and subsequently bridged (Barnard, 2003a, 2003b,
2005, 2009a, 2009b; Kennedy & Dewar, 1997). Mutually respectful relationships between
the school and the ESL families are promoted as an effective way of learning about the
child and their backgrounds, although challenges associated with doing so are recognised
(e.g., Barnard, 2005; Chen & Harris, 2009; Cummins et al., 2005; Meoli, 2001; Morita,
2004; Pease-Alvarez and Vasquez, 1994; Rodriguez & Sjostrom, 1995; Roessingh, 2011;
Rowsell et al., 2007; Rymes, 2003 & 2004; Stagg-Peterson & Haywood, 2007).

1.3 Research Methodology

The study was carried out at Parkside School2, a New Zealand primary school, where 15
children, of the total roll of 119, received English support.
Data was gathered from semi-structured interviews with all mainstream teachers
and the sole ESL teacher, and from classroom observations of each teacher. The data
represents an emic perspective where themes emerged through the participants’ own words
produced in situations where the context was important (Harvard University, 2010). A
range of documents published or commissioned by the Ministry of Education to support
teachers in their education of ESL pupils are also considered. Multiple data sources
allowed triangulation in data interpretation.
Qualitative methods were used with a chiefly inductive approach. Following the
principles of grounded theory and using Glaser and Strauss’s constant comparative method
(1967, cited in Merriam, 1998; Saldaña, Leavy & Beretvas, 2011), memos revealed a
range of categories that could be associated with themes (Liamputtong, 2009; Merriam,
1998) that had been derived from an inductive review of the literature. Three primary

4
themes recur across the data, the research literature and the Ministry documents: (i) Know
the ESL learner; (ii) Reflect, Explore, Compare; and (iii) Affirm and Incorporate.
Qualitative warrants of credibility, transferability, dependability, and
confirmability (Brown, 2009a; Brown, 2009b; Lincoln & Guba, 1985) are addressed to
justify the overall trustworthiness of the study.

1.4 Research position

This study is founded in sociocultural theory, where practical activity (such as learning a
language or making a presentation in the class ‘news’ session) is socially and culturally
mediated by material and symbolic tools (Ajayi, 2008; Lantolf, 2000; Swain, Kinnear &
Steinman, 2011; Vygotsky, 1978), including language (Barnard, 2003b) and other people.
Of particular relevance to this study is the individual’s ‘ontogenesis’ (Cross, 2010; Swain
et al., 2011) – their personal history of experiences and beliefs – and its influence on their
ability to access tools (e.g., teachers, English language, classroom stationery) necessary to
participate in school life.
The study applies Lave and Wenger’s (1991) communities of practice model to the
findings, relating them to the sociocultural concept of learning being “situated in practice”
(Lave & Wenger, 1991, p. 35). Each classroom at Parkside School is treated as an
individual community. Key notions of the communities of practice model at play in this
study are the learner’s access to resources, other members of the community, and the
practice (e.g., Barab & Duffy, 1998; Lave & Wenger, 1991; Swain & Deters, 2007), and
the legitimisation of the learner as a valued member with worthwhile contributions to
make to the practice (e.g., Duff & Talmy, 2011; Iddings, 2005; Lave & Wenger, 1991;
Morita, 2004; Toohey, 1998; Wenger, 1998). This approach revealed a number of
implications for the education of ESL pupils in languaculture and curriculum content
within a mainstream school.
The study also draws strongly on classroom based studies of the role of culture in
the mainstream education of ESL learners, with particular attention given to those who
applied the communities of practice model to clarify the impacts of practices on the
language learner. New Zealand based research on mainstreaming ESL learners was
specifically relevant, in particular the collection of work based on classroom studies by
Roger Barnard (2003a, 2003b, 2005, 2009a, 2009b; Barnard et al., 2001), Penny Haworth
(2003, 2005a, 2005b, 2008, 2009) and Elaine Vine (2003a, 2003b), and the reports and
5
reviews of New Zealand schools’ ESL practices undertaken by Kennedy and Dewar
(1997), Franken and McComish (2003), Newton et al. (2010), and Conway et al. (2010).
The associations made with those works have provided a sound research context within
which this study can be positioned.

1.5 Summary

This section has introduced the context of the study, the key themes and the
methodological and theoretical frameworks applied. The next chapter reviews relevant
literature, canvassing conceptual issues of culture and its role in second language
acquisition, theoretical paradigms of sociocultural theory and communities of practice,
pertinent classroom based research, and Ministry of Education documents associated with
the education of ESL learners in mainstream New Zealand schools.

6
 2 LITERATURE REVIEW

Children have to be educated, but they have also to be left to educate themselves.
- Ernest Dimnet

This review focuses on theory and research relating to the role of culture in the English-
medium education of young ESL learners. Firstly, conceptual issues are explored,
including the relationship between culture and language, and the role of culture in
language teaching. Secondly, a brief synopsis of past and present approaches to teaching
culture as part of second language acquisition is given, focusing on the currently favoured
Intercultural Language Teaching. Thirdly, the framework of this study is described by
outlining sociocultural theory and Lave and Wenger’s (1991) communities of practice
model. Next, relevant research studies are presented, with international research followed
by New Zealand research. Lastly, the New Zealand Ministry of Education’s principle
policies and guidelines for the education of ESL children are summarized. Three main
themes from the literature are then identified.

2.1 Concepts

Neither the review, nor the study itself, intends to define ‘culture’. The concept is
recognised as difficult to define by a number of researchers; for example, Spencer-Oatey
and Franklin (2009) refer to work carried out in 1952 by anthropologists Kroeber and
Kluckhohn in which 164 different definitions were reviewed3. Spencer-Oatey and
Franklin generate four key characteristics of culture as it pertains to second language
acquisition (SLA):
 Culture is manifested through different types of regularities, some of which are more
explicit than others;
 Culture is associated with social groups, but no two individuals within a group share
exactly the same cultural characteristics;
 Culture affects people’s behaviour and interpretations of behaviour;
 Culture is acquired and/or constructed through interaction with others (Spencer-Oatey
& Franklin, 2009).

The relevance of these characteristics becomes apparent throughout this review.

7
 2.1.1 The relationship between culture and language

“Language is the essence of culture”, say Newton et al. (2010, p. 7) in their report to New
Zealand’s Ministry of Education on effective teaching and learning of language.
Anthropologist Michael Agar considers the relationship between culture and language to
be so strong that he coined the term ‘languaculture’ to linguistically and symbolically
demonstrate that “culture is in language, and language is loaded with culture” (Agar, 1994,
p. 28). This interconnection is supported by others, including Barraja-Rohan (2003) and
Thielmann (2003).
Agar makes no attempt to define culture per se, but he does explain what it is not,
where it is found, and how it works:

Culture isn’t something a group of people “have”; it’s something you make up to
fill in the spaces between them and you. Culture isn’t an exhaustive description of
everything inside a closed space; it’s something that handles rich points and uses
similarities to organize them. Culture isn’t just tied to the kinds of identities that
anthropologists use to deal with, like Australian aborigines; it might be tied to
identity, including occupation, ethnicity, leisure time activity, or gender. (Agar,
1994, p. 128)

‘Rich points’ is Agar’s term for points of difference between two languacultures. When
considering rich points a learner applies their current ‘default values’ to build and
continually remodel new frames of reference to eventually develop a unique perspective
on languaculture (Agar, 1994). The notion of reviewing, reconstructing, and transforming
one’s perspectives is raised throughout this review.
Riley (2007) also notes that members of a given languaculture will not necessarily
know the same things or share the same beliefs because they have been exposed to
different experiences. Agar and Riley’s ideas reflect Spencer-Oatey and Franklin’s (2009)
characteristics of culture, particularly the interpretation of behaviour through one’s cultural
norms and the unique character of an individual’s perspectives.

2.1.2 The relationship between culture and language teaching and learning

Kramsch highlights the interplay between culture and language, asserting that culture
should not be “tacked on, so to speak, to the teaching of speaking, listening, reading, and

8
writing” (Kramsch, 1993, p. 1). She describes culture as a “feature of language” (p. 8), a
concept supported by a number of SLA researchers (e.g., Atkinson, 1999; Barnard, 2003a,
2005, 2009a, 2009b; Barraja-Rohan, 2003; Bonvillain, 2008; Liddicoat & Crozet, 2000a;
Rowsell et al., 2007; Thielmann, 2003). Rowsell et al. highlight how “culture [is]
constantly beneath the surface of ESL teaching and learning” (Rowsell et al., 2007, p.
141).
The part culture plays in learning a language is most often evident when
misinterpretations arise during interactions. According to Bonvillain (2008), these
misunderstandings can result from: (1) Participant A saying or doing something not
present in Participant B’s cultural norms; or (2) Participant A saying or doing something
that is present in Participant B’s norms, but where it carries a different meaning. Spencer-
Oatey and Franklin (2009) add that interactants negotiating meaning draw on their
knowledge of the target verbal and non-verbal conventions as well as those of their own
social group. Cultural background therefore contributes to interpretations that can lead to
misunderstanding. FitzGerald (1999) claims that a learner’s transference of their native
culture gives rise to most intercultural communication problems, and that these mistakes
are judged more harshly than are linguistic errors. These assertions align with Spencer-
Oatey and Franklin’s (2009) third characteristic of culture: Culture effects interpretation of
behaviour.
Kramsch emphasises that if “language is seen as social practice, culture becomes
the very core of language teaching” (Kramsch, 1993, p. 8). Liddicoat & Crozet (2000a)
agree that “[c]ultural understandings are … the basic underpinnings of communication” (p.
13), stating it is central to teaching and learning. Atkinson also takes seriously the role of
culture in teaching English:

Except for ‘language’, ‘learning’, and ‘teaching’, there is perhaps no more

important concept in the field of TESOL than culture. Implicitly or explicitly, ESL
teachers face it in everything they do. (Atkinson, 1999, p. 625)

Written 13 years ago, Atkinson’s article was concerned about the lack of attention given to
culture. Much has changed, with culture now widely recognised as important in language
acquisition, both in terms of teaching target cultural norms (e.g., Corbett 2010; Crozet,
2003; Liddicoat & Crozet, 2000b; Lo Bianco 2003a; Rowan, 2001), and of the relevance
of learner’s home culture to their learning (e.g., Chan, 2007; Cummins et al., 2005; Flory
9
& McCaughtry, 2011; Zhu, 2011). While these scholars consider the involvement of
culture in language teaching to be essential, it does not necessarily occur without
associated tensions in the classroom community.
Some of the specific tensions are discussed in the research reviewed below, but at
the conceptual level, Scollon and Wong Scollon (1995) warn against overusing the
construct of culture, noting that communication is carried out between individuals not
cultures. Others recognise the risk of attributing stereotypes and making assumptions
based on perceived cultural membership, echoing Spencer-Oatey and Franklin’s (2009)
point that not all members of a culture are alike. Knutson (2006) refers to the tendency to
consider a person as a ‘cultural object’ rather than a ‘cultural subject’, while others note
the danger of categorising individuals into static homogeneous groups (e.g., Atkinson,
1999; Guest, 2002; Riley, 2007). Group membership and group values can change; so can
individuals, whose cultural perspectives can change as they relocate within a culture’s
subgroups. Guest (2002) suggests that distinctions between cultures are becoming less
clear-cut and highlights how individuals in a cultural group concurrently belong to other
subcultures. Bonvillain (2008) reports that cultural beliefs and behaviours are
“contextually created and serve specific social functions; as conditions change … cultural
beliefs change …and so do the linguistic behaviours that reflect them” (p. 385). For these
reasons, it is worthwhile to add a fifth characteristic to Spencer-Oatey and Franklin’s list:
Culture is dynamic and fluid.
Emphasis should, therefore, be on teaching cultural traits as general traits that are
individually variable and context relative. This reflects the range of variation and thereby
reduces the likelihood of stereotypes (Crozet, 2003; Crozet & Maurer, 2003). In
Atkinson’s (1999) view, cultural understanding accommodates individual differences and
avoids reducing or essentialising individuals to their culture, or as put by Guest, treating
people as “little cultures” (2002, p. 159).
Crucially, creating expectations about an individual based solely on their cultural
membership disallows recognising that individuals may have views alternative to those of
the group (Guest, 2002). It also disallows for individuals making adjustments or
exceptions because of their awareness of intercultural differences. People are not so
“culturally inflexible” and “pre-programmed” that they apply only their own cultural
standards regardless of the circumstance (Guest, 2002, p. 159); something has led them to
learn about another culture, after all. This thinking supports Spencer-Oatey and Franklin’s
10
(2009) fourth characteristic of culture in SLA: Culture is acquired and constructed through
interactions with others.

2.1.3 Teaching culture

Before considering current views on teaching culture, past approaches are reviewed.
Crozet, Liddicoat and Lo Bianco (1999) provide a historical summary of approaches to the
role of culture in language teaching:

(1) The Traditional Approach; pre-1970s thinking highlighted high culture and
emphasised written language. Cultural competence was measured in terms of
mastery of a canon of literature, over which the native speaker exercised control.
There was very little link between language and culture.

(2) The Culture Studies Approach; in the 1970s knowledge of the target country’s
history, geography and institutions was promoted. Cultural competence was
assumed when knowledge about the country was possessed. The link between
language and culture was still weak and essentially limited to language being
needed to state cultural facts.

(3) The Culture as Practices Approach; in the 1980s culture was described as typical
practices and values. A learner interpreted words and actions of people from other
cultures using his/her own cultural background as a reference. Cultural
competence was judged on knowing what interactants from the target culture will
do/say. It held action through language as central to culture but tended to view
cultures as static and homogeneous. Cross-cultural awareness is linked to this
approach.

(4) Intercultural Language Teaching; in its relative infancy when Crozet et al. (1999)
outlined this summary. It emphasises the strength of the relationship between
language and culture, and nurtures the ability to explore cultures, including one’s
own, objectively. It is discussed in greater detail in the next section.

Knutson (2006) summarises the early approaches as “culture as information”, noting they
required decisions about which culture to teach, as well as which elements to teach,
resulting in them being treated as ‘other’ or divergent from the native cultures.

11
2.1.3.1 Intercultural language teaching

Intercultural language teaching (ILT) is the dominant approach in current research and is
promoted in New Zealand schools in Ministry of Education publications (Newton et al.,
2010). It involves analysis of home and target cultures relative to each other. This
encourages learners and teachers to recognise that they are “culturally marked” (Knutson,
2006, p. 598) and that their viewpoint is subjective and not neutral or incontestable. Every
time a teacher and learner/s strike a situation where cultural views differ, a rich point
(Agar, 1994) is generated, providing an opportunity for gaps between cultures to be
noticed. This is the nub of ILT.
Crozet et al. (1999) identify three tenets of ILT, namely:

(i) Teaching linguaculture (akin to Agar’s languaculture)

(ii) Comparing the learner’s first language/culture and the target
language/culture
(iii) Exploring intercultural features. (Crozet et al., 1999)

ILT involves the teacher acting as cultural mediator (Liddicoat & Crozet, 2000a) and
respecting learners as cultural beings, valued for their differences (Barraja-Rohan, 1999).
The second element, comparison, can only take place once individuals view their own
culture objectively, recognizing that one’s viewpoint is valid but is only one perspective
that might be culturally-derived. Finally, teachers support learners through intercultural
exploration of the rich points that arise from cultural mismatches.
Such intercultural interactions do not mean that upholding one’s cultural viewpoint
or accepting that of the interactant are mutually exclusive choices (Crozet et al., 1999;
FitzGerald, 1999). In fact, according to Bosher (1997), ESL students who are successful
academically have adapted to the new culture without giving up their native culture. It is
about understanding, not necessarily agreement (Menard-Warwick, 2009). Interactants
reflect on their convictions and explore new and unfamiliar views which together inform
their own unique perspectives (Spencer-Oatey and Franklin’s (2009) fourth characteristic
of culture being constructed through interaction). The interactant is an “experiencer, not
an observer” (Crozet et al., 1999), a significant shift from earlier theories.
It can be challenging to know what cultural content to teach. Many elements can
be readily identified. High culture, also called “culture with a capital C” (Thanasoulas,

12
2009, p. 2) or “large culture” (Holliday, 1999, p. 237), encompasses aspects such as art,
literature, music, festivals, castles, foods and so on, that can be generally recognised.
These aspects are commonly taught in schools, in language lessons and as part of the
mainstream school curricula; Crozet and Maurer (2003) refer to school French lessons
about frogs’ legs, for example. However, it has been said that culture pervades all aspects
of living (e.g., Agar, 1994; Barraja-Rohan, 2003; Kramsch, 1993; Thielmann, 2003). It is
the everyday, taken-for-granted nature of culture that can make it difficult to discern, teach
and learn; “culture with a small c” (Thanasoulas, 2009, p. 2), or ‘small culture’ (Holliday,
1999, p. 237). This represents Spencer-Oatey and Franklin’s (2009) first characteristic of
culture: some cultural regularities are more explicit than others. Small culture is often
described as being ‘invisible’ (e.g., Crozet & Liddicoat, 1999; Kramsch, 1993; Lo Bianco
& Crozet, 2003) or not easily noticeable (Crozet & Maurer, 2003; Newton, 2007; Rowsell
et al., 2007), making it all the more important for culture to be addressed.
When considering what aspects of culture to teach, the most convincing researchers
promote teaching skills that allow the learner to explore culture for themselves. Teaching
how to undertake “cultural research” (Atkinson, 1999, p. 648) by exploring, discovering
and accepting rich points, advantages learners by encouraging them to continually educate
themselves, beyond the bounds of the classroom (Agar, 1994; Crozet & Maurer, 2003).
2.1.4 Sociocultural theory research paradigm

This study takes a sociocultural theory approach. This is now a prevalent influence on
SLA research (Cross, 2010), so this review offers only a basic summary of relevant
assumptions.
Sociocultural theory is based upon Lev Vygotsky’s focus on the social origins of
psychological processes (Vygotsky, 1978). An individual’s participation in the world is
socially and culturally mediated by others and by material and symbolic artefacts (also
referred to as tools and signs) (Ajayi, 2008; Lantolf, 2000; Swain et al., 2011; Vygotsky,
1978), “chief among which, is language” (Barnard, 2003b, p. 167). That is, learning is
“situated and socially distributed” (Cross, 2010).
Development, or “internalization” (Vygotsky, 1978, p. 56), occurs through three
transformations:

(a) An operation that initially represents an external activity is reconstructed and

begins to occur internally….(b) An interpersonal process is transformed into an
13
 intrapersonal one.…(c) The transformation of an interpersonal process into an
intrapersonal one is the result of a long series of developmental events. (Vygotsky,
1978, p. 56-57)

This occurs as the mediation of social, material, and “symbolic systems take on
psychological status” (Swain et al., 2011, p. 8). This means mental activity is organised
and “culturally shaped” (Lantolf, 2000, p. 2) allowing practical activity to be carried out
more effectively. Cole and Scribner describe internalisation as “the bridge between early
and later forms of individual development” (Vygotsky, 1978, p.7).
An individual’s personal history, previous experiences, beliefs, values and so on,
collectively described as their “ontogenesis” (Cross, 2010, pp. 438-439; Swain et al., 2011,
p. 11), provide “affordances and constraints” on an individual’s participation and their
ability to use the artefacts available to them (Swain et al., 2011, p. 11). Therefore, in order
to understand an individual’s learning and development it is necessary to be aware of their
cultural heritage, educational history, knowledge and preconceptions (Ajayi, 2008).
Vygotsky referenced this point in his comment that the foundation of theoretical study is
the analysis of development that focuses on the process as much as the product, in other
words, takes a “historical perspective” (p. 64). Ajayi adds that policies, teaching practices
and materials should take account of the sociocultural backgrounds of the learners (Ajayi,
2008, p. 640) and Cross highlights the “complexities of the context” for teachers and their
understanding of their roles and relationships (Cross, 2010, p. 434).
An important construct of sociocultural theory is the concept of the Zone of
Proximal Development (ZPD), a “metaphor” (Lantolf, 2000, p. 17) representing the
difference between what a learner can achieve independently and what s/he can achieve
with assistance (Lantolf, 2000; Swain et al., 2011). The ‘assistant’ could be an artefact or
a social interactant such as the expert class teacher (Swain et al., 2011) or even a fellow
student (Lantolf, 2000, p. 17). Vygotsky described the ZPD as including functions that are
in “the process of maturation …currently in an embryonic state … ‘buds’ or ‘flowers’ of
development rather than the ‘fruits’ of development” (Vygotsky, 1978, p. 86). In Lantolf’s
view, the ZPD is “the collaborative construction of opportunities for individuals to develop
their mental abilities” (p. 17), a description that accounts for the range of situations besides
the expert’s transmission to the novice, and accommodates the novice’s unique
transformation of the transmission as they internalise it.

14
 According to Swain et al. (2011), application of a sociocultural framework “makes
for a richer and deeper understanding of many phenomena, and particularly of second
language learning and teaching” (p. xv) and, in Ajayi’s view, provides a “dynamic
interaction, interrelation, and interconnection of theory and practice” (2008, p. 654). For
these reasons, this study has been grounded in sociocultural theory, and in particular, has
applied the communities of practice model.

2.1.4 Communities of Practice model

The communities of practice model was originally propounded by social anthropologists

Jean Lave and Etienne Wenger (1991) and has subsequently been applied by many in the
context of classroom-based SLA research (e.g., Barnard, 2005, 2009a, 2009b; Chen &
Harris, 2009; Duff, 2007; Haneda, 2006; Iddings, 2005; Morita, 2004; Norton & Toohey,
2001; Swain & Deters, 2007).
Lave and Wenger describe learning as being “situated in practice” (p. 35). The
practice is a shared endeavour, or activity, carried out by members of a community; it is
“dynamic and involves learning on the part of everyone” (Wenger, 2006). A community
can be diverse and its members need not share viewpoints or even physical space. The
crux of a community is its mutual engagement in an activity system (Lave & Wenger,
1991 p. 98; Wenger, 1998, p. 73). Wenger adds that communities of practice represent
“shared histories of learning” (Wenger, 1998, p. 86), but this does not mean that the
community is homogeneous (Clarke, 2008).
Communities of practice are neither self-contained nor independent (Wenger, 1998,
p. 79); they develop in association with a specific activity carried out by a specific group
of people with a specific set of resources. Multiple communities may carry out the same
or similar activities, but have different membership or access to different resources.
Correspondingly, resources can be shared by multiple communities, and individuals are
members of multiple communities at one time, with various degrees of participation
(Wenger, 1998, p. 103). Wenger talks of ‘brokers’, individuals with multiple memberships
and skills to make connections across communities, to coordinate, translate, facilitate, and
assist with solutions and alternative meanings (Wenger, 1998, p. 109). Communities of
practice are embedded in their surrounding contexts and are likely to be sub-communities
of greater communities of practice.

15
 According to this model, learning occurs as the individuals change their “locations
and perspectives” (Lave & Wenger, 1991, p. 35) and their identities (Wenger, 1998, p. 5),
as they participate in the practice and progress along a “trajectory” (Lave & Wenger, 1991,
p. 35) towards mastering knowledge and achieving socialisation into the community
(Iddings, 2005; Lave & Wenger, 1991). Participation refers to a member’s personal
contributions (physical actions, thoughts, feelings) as well as their social relations with
other members (Wenger, 1998). Participation as a member of a community is “vital in
learning and as learning” (Duff, 2007, p. 313, emphasis original). This is particularly
relevant to the languacultural learning environment since it is through participation in a
community that a learner experiences language socialisation, as Duff (2007) elucidates:

[Language socialisation is] the process by which novices or newcomers in a

community or culture gain communicative competence, membership, and
legitimacy in group[,] … a process mediated by language and whose goal is the
mastery of linguistic conventions, pragmatics, the adoption of appropriate
identities, stances … or ideologies, and other behaviors associated with the target
group and its normative practices (2007, p. 310).

Duff and Talmy (2011) add that language socialisation relates to “the development of
linguistic, cultural and communicative competence through interaction with others who are
more knowledgeable or proficient” (p. 95). Ortega (2009) describes socialisation studies
as being “preoccupied with the connection between language and culture … and
analytically centred around routines, rituals and other kinds of human activities that recur
and are typical of a given community” (p. 237).
A new member of the community, known as a “newcomer” (Lave & Wenger,
1991, p. 29), “novice” (p. 99), or “apprentice” (p. 29), is partially involved as a “legitimate
peripheral participant” (p. 29), but with increased engagement they move from the
periphery towards eventual full participation in the community (p. 36). Peripheral
involvement is a positive concept and not intended to mean “disconnected” or “unrelated”
to the practice (Lave & Wenger, 1991, p. 36); it reflects different levels of participation
(Swain & Deters, 2007). Lave and Wenger advise that they intentionally used the term
‘full participation’ rather than ‘complete’ or ‘core4’ participation, because the community
of practice has no centre and, likewise, the periphery has no designated boundary.

16
 Members of a community take on different roles; in addition to newcomers there
are others with expertise known as “old-timers” or “masters” (Lave & Wenger, 1991, p.
29), those “more knowledgeable and proficient” in Duff and Talmy’s (2011) reference
above. One individual can act in multiple roles, whether through changing role as s/he
progresses from peripheral to full participation, or by alternating between roles in relation
to different components of a practice, changes in divisions of labour in a practice, or with
respect to relationships with other members (Lave & Wenger, 1991). Different roles are
differently empowered and have different levels of access to resources (Iddings, 2005, p.
167), and everyone is a member of multiple communities at any one time. Chen and
Harris (2009) add that different levels of participation will lead to different trajectories and
will therefore differently transform the member’s identity. According to Lave and Wenger
(1991), “learning … implies becoming a different person” (p. 53). The process of
negotiating meaning by developing new understandings and associating with other
community members while participating in the activity transforms the individual, expands
their experiences, and reconstructs their identity (Chen & Harris, 2007; Duff, 2007; Lave
& Wenger, 1991; Wenger, 1998). Individuals also gain a sense of identity by virtue of
membership in a particular group (Barab & Duffy, 1998; Wenger, 1998) or even by
intentional non-participation (Wenger, 1998).
Lave and Wenger (1991) assert that learning within a community of practice does
not rely on a ‘teacher’ intentionally instructing a ‘student’ (although they allow that
learning can be “caused” (p.40) by intentional instruction); rather it occurs as a “whole
person act[s] in the world” (p. 49), where that action is “socially mediated” (p. 51), and
where meaning is negotiated (p.50). ‘Negotiation’ reflects the “continuous interaction,
gradual achievement, and give-and-take” (Wenger, 1998, p. 53) of participation in an
activity, the “interpreting and acting, and understanding and responding” (Chen & Harris,
2009, p. 129), and need not involve use of language (Wenger, 1998). Haneda (2006)
asserts that there is a place for explicit instruction from the expert/teacher, though, and that
such knowledge is vital to enable participation in some communities.

2.1.5.1 Legitimacy

The notion of legitimacy is particularly relevant to this study. In order to be a participating

member of a community, an individual must be legitimised by existing members. A
legitimate member is accepted by other participants, has relationships with them, and
17
makes valued contributions, regardless of ability (Lave & Wenger, 1991). In order to
progress from the periphery to more intensive involvement, the individual must have
ongoing access to the activity itself, opportunities for appropriate levels of participation,
relationships with other community members of a range of expertise, and access to the
repertoire of resources needed to achieve the community’s endeavour (Barab & Duffy,
1998; Lave & Wenger, 1991); “access is key and crucial” (Swain & Deters, 2007, p. 824).
Adverse conditions in a community of practice (such as disharmonious
relationships, unreasonable expectations, and barriers to accessing resources) can influence
an individual’s legitimacy and “distort, partially or completely, the prospects for learning
in practice” (Lave & Wenger, 1991, p. 64). Furthermore, legitimacy is necessary to allow
a participant to continue on an “inbound trajectory” so that mistakes or inadvertent
violations are treated as learning opportunities rather than grounds for dismissal or
exclusion from the community (Wenger, 1998, p. 101). Lave and Wenger particularly
highlight the potential for the attitudes of old-timers to negatively impact on legitimacy
and consequently on learning, saying “the issue of conferring legitimacy is more important
than the issue of providing teaching” (p. 92).
Toohey (1998) describes a community where the behaviours and attitudes of the
old-timer community members (teacher and more socialised pupils) threatened the
legitimisation of the newcomers. The classroom community valued individualisation by
supporting children who sat at their own desk, used their own resources and did not copy
the work or repeat the verbal contributions of others. When ESL children breached those
conventions (knowingly or not) they were “defined as deficient” (p. 62) and excluded from
opportunities for legitimate peripheral participation, such as conversations with proficient
language users and having autonomy over their activities.
Morita (2004) maintains that legitimate peripheral participation is “never a matter
of peaceful transmission and assimilation, but a conflictual process of negotiation and
transformation” where power relations are always implicated (Morita, 2004, p. 577; Swain
& Deters, 2007). Iddings describes members as being “simultaneously in conflict and
affiliation with one another” (Iddings, 2005, p. 167). The distribution of power within a
community has been emphasised as an area where the basic parameters of the community
of practice model fail to provide sufficient substance as a theoretical construct (e.g., Duff,
2007 and Haneda, 2006). Morita notes the potential for power distribution to influence the

18
degree to which a participant is legitimised, and that “different learners may be granted
different degrees of legitimacy” (Morita, 2004, p. 577).
Relationships within the community are most influential in creating learning
opportunities (Lave & Wenger, 1991). Social distance, other demands on the master, or
even the more practical issue of physical proximity of members may limit a newcomer’s
exposure to an expert. However, learning can still take place under such restricted
circumstances. Lave and Wenger (1991) believe that knowledge can be successfully
exchanged between peers and near-peers, transferred “exceedingly rapidly and effectively”
(p. 93) as the apprentices work alongside each other because “mastery does not reside in
the master, but in the organisation of the community of practice of which the master is
part” (p. 94). This calls for the “decentring” (p. 94) of the roles of master and apprentice
because it is engagement in a task that is the condition for learning, rather than direct
pedagogical practice. This is particularly relevant to the communicative and interactive
nature of New Zealand classrooms where pupils often work collaboratively on tasks under
guidance from the master, the teacher, and where teachers regularly encourage
contributions from pupils which, in turn, transmits knowledge among all members of the
community.

2.2 International research on culture in the classroom

This section introduces and summarises studies concerning the role of culture in the
education of ESL students. To reflect the context of this project, the research is restricted
to ESL learners in English-medium mainstream educational institutions in English-
speaking countries. The review first considers studies using the communities of practice
model to clarify how culture worked in the classroom. The review then considers four
main impacts on how culture is represented in the classroom. Studies undertaken in New
Zealand classrooms are reviewed separately, in section 2.3.
Duff’s examination of the trajectories of Korean student members of a Canadian
university classroom community allowed her to understand how their cultural standpoints
affected their access to resources, their social relations, and, ultimately, their learning of
the new languaculture (Duff 2004; 2002, cited in Duff, 2007). The students reported
having “limited (meaningful) access” (Duff, 2007, p. 316) to English-speaking networks (a
resource) despite being members of communities that included native English speakers.
Cultural pressure to remain strongly affiliated with Korean groups for future career and
19
social connections strengthened associations with other Koreans, to the detriment of
relationships with English-speaking peers (Duff, 2007). In addition, the students
considered the languacultural distance (Barnard, 2005, 2009a, 2009b) to be too wide to
successfully bridge, so they developed affiliations with those who shared their cultural
perspectives. Duff also found that students fluent and acculturated in both Korean and
English acted as languacultural ‘brokers’, assisting the participants’ socialisation into the
Canadian university community, and in a “multidirectional” fashion associated with
Korean and other Asian expectations rather than the “unidirectional, towards Anglo-
Canadian … norms” that the students had initially intended (Duff, 2007, p. 316). This
notion of multi-directional socialisation also featured in Duff’s work with Talmy, where
learners socialised more proficient interactants “into their identities and practices” (Duff &
Talmy, 2011, p. 97, emphasis original). In other words, newcomers can also act as agents,
socialising more proficient members into their role as old-timers. Similarly, Talmy (2008)
found multi-directionality to exist in a high school classroom in which the old-timer local
ESL students socialised their newcomer teachers into their identities as ESL teachers.
Multi-directional socialisation was also seen in Rymes’ (2003, 2004) research
study where popular culture in the classroom influenced the distribution of roles within the
community. Because children are often the most knowledgeable about popular culture,
teachers are not always the experts, a potentially uncomfortable situation for some teachers
(Rymes, 2004). Rymes notes that such circumstances could be capitalised on with all in
the class taking a journey as “culture traveler[s]” (p. 334) when a teacher accepted being a
novice. However, involvement of popular culture can be problematic for language
learners (Duff, 2004), as outlined on page 29.
Rymes’ project reveals another way of reassigning roles has educational benefits
for language learners. The home culture of a shy Costa Rican learner of English had been
incorporated into a lesson allowing his “invisible expertise [to be] made visible” (Ortega,
2009, p. 238) and, in doing so, legitimised him as a valued member of the classroom
community. The boy’s earlier classroom community had been dominated, in Ortega’s
view, by a “zealous teacher, who overacted as the expert with her excessive modeling of
classroom activities, and by other already socialized students” (Ortega, 2009, p. 238).
However, with another teacher accepting the non-expert role and other Latin American
children assisting as “co-narrators” (Rymes, 2003, p. 397), the boy had shared an
entertaining story about his culture’s birthday traditions. His contribution was validated by
20
the interest and amusement of his classmates. Ortega asserts that repositioning community
roles creates an “important site for language socialization and learning” (Ortega, 2009, p.
238), nicely paralleling Lave and Wenger’s description of learning being “an evolving
form of membership” (Lave & Wenger, 1991, p.53). Moving beyond the usual position as
novice, if even for a short time, advances the ESL child towards the part of expert, and
allows the community as a whole to learn alternative perspectives.
Morita (2004) applies the community of practice model in her analysis of the
socialisation of Japanese students to open-ended class discussions in their Canadian
university courses. She found that the students faced challenges to their acceptance as
legitimate and competent members of the classroom communities (Morita, 2004; Swain &
Deters, 2007), leading her to comment that learning is not always a simple trajectory from
newcomer to full participant. In Morita’s study, the level of participation in classroom
discussions depended on the learner’s personal background and goals, and the specific
conditions of the classroom context. Participants who described their identities as inferior,
because of language difficulties and their beliefs about how others perceived them,
restricted their participation. Not all felt this way though, with one participant considering
herself to be a “competent and valued member” of the classroom community, which
encouraged her to intensify her participation (Morita, 2004, p. 584).
Morita also notes that participants held different identities in different classrooms
and thus participated to different extents. One student recognised that she was quiet in all
three of her classes, but explained that it was for different reasons in each context, such as
pace of discussion, her lack of familiarity with the topic, and her feeling of isolation
caused by her belief that the tutor ignored international students. Some actively negotiated
their positions, by asking their tutors for advice or support, for example. Morita comments
that multiple factors influence a learner’s behaviour, saying her participants’ reticence was
not simply a factor of their language competence or cultural background, but was also
associated with identity, curriculum, pedagogy and power. Morita recommends that
classroom communities should value their ESL students as intellectual and cultural
resources to aid in legitimising their participation, and should consider the English-
speaking community members as “peripheral participants who also need to be socialised
into increasingly heterogeneous communities” (Morita, 2004, p. 599)( Lave & Wenger,
1991).

21
 Iddings’ (2005) observations of ESL pupils in a mainstream classroom in the
United States revealed the emergence of parallel communities of practice. The ESL pupils
identified themselves as being less competent than their native English classmates;
however, with respect to the community of their ESL peers, the identities of the ESL
students were reconstructed as being competent individuals and even experts in the group.
The ESL students developed a mutual dependency and “a shared classroom repertoire,
which was at best tangential to the rest of the class” (Iddings, 2005, p. 179) eventually
forming a parallel community of practice. While this allowed them to combine their
linguistic resources and enhance participation in activities worked on together, the
“disjointedness of communities of practice” (p. 179) restricted their access to resources of
the greater classroom community, such as conversations with native speakers. Iddings
also showed that some teachers underestimated the abilities of the ESL students, primarily
due to misunderstanding the learners and the unique factors that influenced them.
Consequently, tasks did not align with the students’ intellectual capabilities, resulting in
insufficient legitimisation of their membership in the community and ultimately inhibiting
their participation in the classroom practice.
Norton and Toohey summarised their individual studies of ESL learners in Canada
and applied the community of practice construct to their findings (Norton & Toohey,
2001). Norton’s study of Eva, a Polish woman who was a successful learner of English,
found her employment at a fast-food restaurant afforded her only limited opportunities to
interact in English due to the fast pace of the business and because she was regularly
tasked with the less desirable solitary jobs thanks to being a newcomer (to the business, the
country and the language). Her access to that community’s resources, most crucially,
opportunities for interaction with proficient speakers, was therefore restricted. However,
Eva was also a member of an overlapping community of practice, a group of restaurant
employees that socialised outside work. It was there that Eva’s “youth and charm” were
valued (as was her partner’s willingness to provide transportation for the outings), and
opportunities were created for her to access resources and participate in the social activities
of this community (Norton & Toohey, 2001, p. 315).
Toohey’s research of Julie, a five year old Polish child competent in English and a
regular participant in class, focussed on the classroom community of practice where few
activities were solitary and the contributions from the children were encouraged. While
there were instances where children were “forcefully excluded” from access to resources
22
(e.g., peers, play, equipment), Julie had “allies” in children and staff who “protected her
right to participate”, thus legitimising her position as a peripheral member of the
community (Norton & Toohey, 2001, p. 316). Application of the community of practice
framework clarified that Eva and Julie’s language learning abilities were not solely
attributable to their personal strategies, but also the extent to which they participated (or
were allowed to participate) in their various communities. Their participation was
influenced by the agency exerted by Eva and Julie, Eva’s willingness to assist co-workers
learn European languages and Julie’s possession of school secrets, which allowed them to
be accepted by their community and gain access to resources. Swain and Deters’ review
of Norton’s research on Eva adds that “access to Anglophones does not necessarily mean
access to opportunities to use English” (Swain & Deters, 2007, p. 828).
Chen and Harris’s (2009) research involved parents of ESL school pupils at an
Australian primary school and investigated how one parent, Mary from China, become
literate in Australian school practices. When her first child was enrolled, Mary struggled
with the school’s practices as being different to her cultural expectations and beliefs and
consequently felt disempowered. However, as each of her children attended school she
gradually transformed her identity, “reshape[d] her beliefs” (p. 126) and “question[ed] and
redefine[d]” her expectations (p. 129). This process led to her to attend school meetings,
assist in school activities, and interact with teachers, thereby increasing her access to the
school’s practices to sustain her trajectory from peripheral involvement towards full
participation as a school-literate parent.
The following international studies are grouped to reflect viewpoints that recur
across the research and which generally align with the principles of ILT.

2.2.1 Understanding the learner

Understanding the learner means having accurate knowledge of her/him as an individual;

their personal background or life history including their culture, their spiritual beliefs, their
previous educational experiences, their reasons for learning English; their ontogenesis
(Cross, 2010; Swain et al., 2011). It also involves understanding their current situation;
where they live, with whom, their interests outside of school and their particular talents.
There are different ways to gather this information; some involve actively seeking the
knowledge and some simply involve listening to the students (Lee, Lee & Amaro-Jiménez,
2011).
23
 Chan (2007) asserts that simply knowing the country from which the student hails
is insufficient to develop a genuinely culturally responsive programme (see also Parker,
2010). Rather, the teacher needs to become acquainted with the child to discover their
experiences. Curtin (2005) describes teacher awareness of their students’ cultural
backgrounds as a “necessary component … to provid[ing] a more successful educational
experience for these students” (p. 36).
Flory and McCaughtry (2011) refer to their “cultural relevance cycle” (p. 49),
which involves teachers getting to know the students and their cultural communities, such
as their living arrangements, exposure to languages, socioeconomic factors, religious
involvement, exposure to harm (gangs, crime, violence), and extracurricular activities.
Then, teachers need to consider how these factors could influence the student’s learning
processes. Once a teacher has a fuller understanding of their pupils, s/he can develop
appropriate strategies and practices. This cycle also supports stronger relationships
between teacher and student, and between school and family.
The absence of specific knowledge might lead to reliance on assumptions about a
culture or its members. In one study a teacher considered herself to be culturally sensitive
by attributing a girl’s shyness to being a female Muslim (Roswell et al, 2007). Reasons for
any child’s behavior can be complex and while they might include cultural influences, they
may equally relate to characteristics of the individual and the specific classroom context,
as raised by Morita’s (2004) discussed earlier on page 21. Pease-Alvarez and Casquez
(1994) point out that even children from the same culture, in the same neighbourhood and
of the same socio-economic level will experience “variability in their linguistic, regional,
and generational backgrounds” (pp. 94-95). In a similar vein, a teacher in Cabello and
Burstein’s (1995) study had to reconsider her assumption that being a member of the same
culture as some of her ESL pupils would automatically allow her to understand and
empathise with them. While sharing a culture did help, there was such diversity that
focusing on conceptual cultural similarities obscured the individual differences. These
findings reflect Spencer-Oatey and Franklin’s (2009) characteristics of culture outlined
earlier (page 7), particularly the need to recognise that no two members of one cultural
group will share the same perspective due to their unique experiences.
According to Saville-Troike (2006), learning strategies and cognitive styles can be
influenced by a child’s exposure to prior learning in the native language/culture. Even pre-
school aged children have “learned how to learn” (p. 128) before they formally attend
24
school, encouraging preferences towards certain ways of processing and learning new
material. Harmer (2007) advised that teachers must recognise how their teaching practices
are culturally informed, and may therefore differ from those the learner has previously
experienced, a finding supported by Duff and Uchida (1997), who showed teachers’
identities and practices to “develop along at least two dimensions: a biographical/
professional basis and a more immediate contextual basis” (p. 467). Harmer noted that
students in Western educational situations are generally expected to contribute in class and
are sometimes asked to share rather personal facts and feelings. Teachers are often guides
and mediators as opposed to the purveyors of knowledge. Students need not be expected
to conform to these characteristics for teaching to achieve its goals (Harmer, 2007), but
knowing a learner’s educational history will assist the teacher in developing methods that
recognise a range of experiences and strategies. It will also provide an understanding of
the specific learner’s culture and what elements can be appropriately incorporated into the
lessons.
2.2.2 Incorporating the learners’ culture

Studies of classrooms where elements of the learners’ culture have been incorporated in
their English-medium lessons have revealed a range of benefits for language learners.
Parker’s (2010) investigation of a Canadian classroom where ESL student heritage
cultures were highlighted in class activities revealed that students who had assimilated into
the Canadian culture demonstrated great interest in connecting with their cultural origins,
showing confidence in themselves and pride in their backgrounds. Learners who share
their personal backgrounds and narratives with their class are “multicultural informants”
(Short, 1994, p. 599). Fassler (2001) adds that “what is worth knowing in the classroom
is not limited to the teacher’s knowledge” (p. 27) and that asking for learners’ personal
contributions, and genuinely showing interest in their perspective, makes the learner feels
respected and involved (p. 25). Stagg-Peterson and Heywood (2007) assert that involving
learners’ native languages and cultures validates and boosts the individual’s self-worth.
These feelings, along with recognising the subject matter as familiar and personally
relevant, makes them more likely to actively engage in the learning process (Stagg-
Peterson & Heywood, 2007) and to better focus on the language needed to share the
information (Ashcraft, 1999; Barraja-Rohan, 1999). Language learners may produce
language more easily when the topic is culturally familiar (Ashcraft, 1999; Lee, Lee &

25
Amaro-Jiménez, 2011; Rowsell et al., 2007; Rymes, 2003); this principle may even apply
to mathematics instruction (McLean, 2002).
Incorporation of cultures can come with challenges. Care must be taken in asking
learners to share personal stories. Parker (2010) notes that some students might not be
willing to make elements of their culture open for discussion. Chan (2007), too, observed
situations where students were not receptive to discussing their culture. Possible reasons
for this include wishing to avoid emphasising their differences or exposing themselves to
prejudice. It might also be because of unhappy memories. Some children could have
difficulty defining their cultural heritage due to mixed ancestry, frequent relocations, being
raised by foster guardians, or, as Chan notes, struggling with “balancing affiliation to both
their home and their school culture” (Chan, 2007, p. 185). Parker recommends that
students be given choice, in terms of which culture/s they wish to share, which elements of
that culture they will share, and even whether they tell a personal story. Chan questions
whether a curriculum should simply seek to educate about cultural diversity or should
reflect the actual cultural composition of the school. Notwithstanding the associated
challenges, including home cultures in their education will facilitate connections between
the home and school cultures and will “allow people to enter new intercultural spaces, to
cross borders, to become anchored” (Duff & Uchida, 1997).

2.2.3 Involving the learners’ families

Many researchers promote the benefits of family involvement in the learner’s language
education. Borrowing a phrase from Moll (1992, cited in Pease-Alvarez & Vasquez,
1994), Pease-Alvarez and Vasquez talk of families as possessing “funds of knowledge” (p.
95), which can provide a better understanding of the individual student and be used as
foundation content in a class lesson. Such lessons may allow the ESL child to be the
expert by demonstrating talents not otherwise exposed in the usual curriculum. Other
benefits of role repositioning have already been raised in this chapter (Chen & Harris,
2009; Morita, 2004; Ortega, 2009; Rymes, 2003, 2004). Pease-Alvarez and Vasquez
(1994) promote ethnographic studies where teachers and students together research the
students’ communities in order to gather information, as well as “making meaningful
connections between curriculum and community” (p. 95). Dual language books are
endorsed by some researchers, particularly for young language learners (e.g., Cummins et
al., 2005; Cummins, 2007b, cited in Parker, 2010; Roessingh, 2011). When created by the
26
children with assistance from their families, dual-language books encourage learners to
make positive statements about themselves and their home cultures, show a school’s
meaningful validation of the child’s out-of-school narrative and, according to Meoli
(2001), help reduce the distinction between the pupils’ home and school cultures.
A teacher participant in Rodriguez and Sjostrom’s (1995) research treated the ESL
children’s parents as “cultural experts” (p. 306), inviting them to talk to her about their
culture, information which she later integrated into her lessons. Rowsell et al. support
Cummins’ (1996, cited in Rowsell et al., 2007) model for two-way partnerships between
schools and families, where those involved in the education of the child share their
expectations, cultures, traditions, and their language (see also Barnard (2005) discussed
later on page 35). They believe schools should be genuinely committed to including ESL
families by actively “reaching out” to parents, explicitly inviting them to school, making
use of interpreters when interacting, and emphasising that it is “their school as well”
(p.148). Speaking personally with the parents is promoted over sending home written
information to ensure the message is understood and acted upon. Not offering translated
information could inadvertently galvanize parents’ feeling like outsiders to the school’s
community. However, although teachers may recognise the importance of links with ESL
families, there may still be difficulties in creating and maintaining the connections
(Roswell et al, 2007).
Endeavours to involve families come with challenges. Some parents of language
learners who are not themselves proficient in the target languaculture mistakenly believe
they can provide little assistance to their child’s learning (Roessingh, 2011; Stagg-Peterson
& Haywood, 2007; Wong Fillmore, 2000). Some parents believe that their continued use
of their native language, poor use of the target language or insistence on adherence to the
native cultural norms will hinder their child’s progress in the target. In fact, sacrificing the
native language and culture with the intention of supporting the child learning a new
languaculture can give rise to significant adverse effects on the whole family. Wong
Fillmore (2000) reports on a Cantonese family’s experience of immigration to the United
States where the children were eventually “alienated” (p. 209) from their parents and
grandparents as they became “Americanized” (p.208). The children experienced language
loss with respect to Cantonese and their increasing acculturation to US languaculture
distanced them from their elders, effectively severing the familial, moral, spiritual and

27
authoritative connections and support. To avoid this, Wong Fillmore asserts, “parents
must be convinced that they need to be involved …with the school” (p. 209).
Stagg-Peterson & Heywood’s (2007) interviews of parents and teachers of
kindergarten-aged second language learners reveal differences in educational expectations.
For example, some parents favoured learning techniques familiar to their home culture, but
the teachers, while realising the parents’ good intentions, believed the strategies would
hinder the child’s learning (rote learning was one example cited). Views also differed
between teachers and parents with respect to the quantity of homework and the relative
importance of reading and writing. Some teachers expressed concern that the parents
made no effort to learn English themselves and did not ensure the child’s regular
attendance at school.
2.2.4 Understanding teachers

As Chan (2007) asserts, “teachers bring experience gained through prior experiences of
teaching and learning about what they deem appropriate for students of ethnic-minority
backgrounds” (p. 180, emphasis original). They also bring their beliefs about culture and
its role in education.
Some teachers may be inclined to rely on assumptions, generalisations or
stereotypes about a culture to explain a students’ behaviour, or to justify their own
teaching approach. Stereotypes are most often applied to students from Asian countries,
according to Kumaravadivelu (2003). Littlewood (2000) raises the widely-held
preconceptions that Asian students see the teacher as an authority figure, and that they just
want to listen and obey. Littlewood accepts that the regularity with which such
generalisations are made suggest that they are likely to have some foundation in reality,
but he asks, “In what reality?” (p. 32, emphasis original). Confounded by the idea that
there could be a single concept of ‘Asian student’ who represents an extremely large
population from a diverse range of countries, Littlewood asked students from a number of
countries in Asia (and Europe) whether they wanted to listen and obey. He found that the
stereotype was probably more a consequence of the restrictions imposed by schools in
some Asian countries rather than “any inherent dispositions of the students themselves” (p.
33). In reality, many of the Asian students wanted to explore knowledge, and preferred the
guidance of their fellow students. In fact, Littlewood found greater differences in
responses from students of the same Asian country than between Asian and European

28
students. Simpson (2008) researched “East-West classroom culture conflicts” (p. 381)
arising between Western teachers and Chinese students of English in a language school in
China. Western teachers’ complaints included students lacking motivation, not
participating, demanding specific answers and using others to talk to the teacher on their
behalf (p. 385), whereas the Chinese students considered the Western teachers offered too
little time for practice, allowed too little contact outside class, were disorganized, and
talked aimlessly (p. 386). Marlina (2009) refers to this as taking a “deficit view” (p. 236)
implying that the alternative approach is inferior. Recognising that “pedagogies are often
bound up in and are expressions of cultural mores” (p. 382), like Littlewood, Simpson
(2008) attributes the complaints to judgements made from a single cultural standpoint and
ignoring how situations may be context-specific (p. 386). Reducing such frustrations
requires enhanced understanding of each others’ historical and cultural backgrounds and
their impact on educational expectations.
Zhu (2011) asserts that simply being culturally aware is not, in itself, sufficient. He
promotes ‘intercultural empathy’, a state in which an individual is able to stand in the
shoes, so to speak, of someone from another cultural world and “effectively communicate
[an] understanding of that world” (p. 116). Zhu uses the word ‘ideal’ (p. 117) and it seems
that this position is, indeed, idealistic in situations where a class’ composition many
change annually, even hourly.
In something of a mid-way position between basic cultural awareness and Zhu’s in-
depth cultural empathy, Rowsell et al. (2007) encourage teachers to “inhabit … the sense
of strangeness” experienced by those new to a culture and language in order to gain
sensitivity and create a “more inclusive classroom” (p. 141). This approach requires
understanding that there are different cultural backgrounds present and that connections,
rather than boundaries, should be made between them. Duff (2004) describes a situation in
which boundaries were created in a Canadian secondary school class through regular
references to popular culture (e.g., the British royal family, the US television series The
Simpsons and Seinfeld, and the local ice hockey team). The Canadians in the classroom
community showed little awareness of the difficulties of ESL students who might have a
“lack of required cultural schemata” (p. 253). Curriculum content was also “unequally
accessible” (p. 231); output from the ESL students was significantly reduced and Duff
reported a “consistently observed silence” (p. 253). Newcomer students commented that it

29
was “fun … [but] they felt no obligation to contribute to the discussion” (p. 259). As a
consequence, their learning of the lesson content was negatively impacted.
According to Zhu, barriers to intercultural empathy can arise from: ignorance of the
‘other’ culture (including lack of contact); emphasis on similarities and neglect of
differences across cultures; little understanding of negative cultural transfer; application of
cultural stereotypes; prejudice; and lack of cultural sensitivity (Zhu, 2011). He encourages
viewing misunderstandings as opportunities, maintaining open communication, accepting
differences, being honest and non-judgemental, and taking an active interest in the other
culture.
Youngs and Youngs (2001) found that mainstream teachers in the United States
were most likely to have positive attitudes towards ESL learners if the teachers had
personal experience of learning a new languaculture, had worked in specific fields
(including social sciences and humanities), had received some training in ESL teaching,
had lived or taught outside of the country, had interacted with people from diverse
cultures, and were female. They emphasise exposure to cultural diversity as the chief
influencing factor in appreciation for cultural diversity in the classroom. Similarly,
Haworth (2009) found that teachers reported low levels of confidence in their ability to
teach ESL pupils when they perceived significant cultural and linguistic distance between
themselves and their pupil. (Haworth’s work is more extensively addressed below in
section 2.3.1.)
A teacher’s attitude towards other cultures can also be associated with the
perspective from which they view those cultures and how they regard the differences
between the ‘other’ and their own. Bennett (1986) proposed a developmental model of
intercultural sensitivity, designed as a six-stage continuum from ethnocentrism to
ethnorelativism. The three stages to the left of the centre of the continuum reflect the most
parochial stances; at the ethnocentric extreme experiences of differences are denied, but
with progress along the continuum differences become defended against and then
minimised at the centre point. Moving to the right of centre, intercultural sensitivity
increases through acceptance of, adaptation to, and, at the ethnorelative extreme,
integration of, differences. Bennett’s intention was that intercultural communication
trainers use the model to assess the “immediate subjective experience” of the trainees in
order to determine the level of development they require (p. 179).

30
 Curtin (2005) investigated different teaching styles exhibited by teachers of Texan
mainstream classes that included ESL pupils. Curtin found those teachers with an
interactive and democratic classroom management style to be the most “culturally
responsive” (p. 40), intentionally involving the ESL students, checking their
understanding, incorporating home cultures in a natural and conversational manner, having
knowledge of the cultural backgrounds of the students, and having relationships with the
parents. On the other hand, didactic-autocratic teachers considered it important to treat all
in the class equally, rarely interacted with ESL pupils on a personal level, blamed the
students and their families for lack of academic progress, and considered their cultural
backgrounds as an impediment.
Franson (1999) found that mainstream teachers generally considered the ESL
teacher and pupil to be responsible for English, thus absolving them of having to
accommodate the pupil through culturally-responsive teaching strategies. Reeves (2006)
found that mainstream teachers were positive about the general idea of including ESL
learners in mainstream classes, but their specific comments about their own classes
showed they were reluctant to teach pupils with minimal proficiency in English. Teachers
in Ajayi’s study talked of pressures to cover content in a set timeframe, along with the
inadequate resources to support sociocultural practices (Ajayi, 2008, p. 648). In the
opinion of Sharifan (2007), cultural diversity in a classroom should not cause concern or
stress for teachers. Rather, he promotes it as a basis for lively class discussions and a way
to broaden and enrich the minds of all participants, including teachers.
Rowsell et al.’s (2007) interviews of teachers asked a series of questions about
their knowledge and understanding of the cultural composition of their class, the role of
language in culture, and the role of their own culture when teaching ESL students. When
responding to general questions about culture, teachers focused on the cultures of the
learners as opposed to recognizing their own culture. Furthermore, their knowledge and
assumptions of other cultures, accurate or otherwise, influenced their teaching practices.
Newton advises that self-awareness of one’s own culture, and its influence on behaviour
and language choices, “is the foundation for being able to understand other cultures, and to
make sense of and function sensitively in intercultural interactions” (Newton, 2007, p. 1),
making them essential attributes of an effective teacher of ESL students (Sparks, 2002).
Such a teacher can both share information about their culture generally and represent that

31
culture specifically (Ryan, 1998), thereby demonstrating that not all group members are
the same.
The importance that teachers (and school policies) place on culture will affect the
extent to which target and home cultures feature in the classroom. Teachers’ attitudes and
practices have implications for students’ participation and “how they perceive themselves”
(Marlina, 2009, p. 243). “Culture invites our ESL students into our classroom”, write
Rowsell et al. (2007), but “culture and cultural awareness personalizes ESL teaching” (p.
153).

2.3 The New Zealand context

Firstly, a note; in New Zealand Ministry of Education (the Ministry) documentation, the
ESL learners are referred to as Non-English-Speaking-Background (NESB) students5 but
for consistency’s sake the acronym ESL will continue to be used.
It is usual practice in New Zealand for ESL students to be enrolled in mainstream
schools on arrival, regardless of their level of proficiency in English. In 2010 there were
approximately 28,000 ESL children in New Zealand primary schools, which included
refugees, migrants and fee-paying international students (Ministry of Education, 2010b).
Some children may be in classes that include pupils who share their first language and
culture, while others may be the sole ESL child (Franken & McComish, 2003). The
Franken and McComish report also reveals regular groupings by first language/culture in
some schools, usually associated with the school’s decile level. Individual schools
determine the extent of English support an ESL child receives, and the nature of that
support, whether it be an organised class and learning programme, one-on-one, in-class or
withdrawal. These variables, among others, mean that the contexts in which ESL children
are educated vary widely across New Zealand.
Funding from the New Zealand government is available to schools to support ESL
pupils, ranging from NZ$534 to NZ$1067 per child per year, dependent upon the length of
their time in a New Zealand school, and whether they are immigrants/refugees, or New
Zealand-born children of immigrants/refugees (Ministry of Education, 2010a). Funding
ceases when the child reaches the Ministry’s documented benchmark of achievement or
after five years for immigrants/refugees and three years for New Zealand born children of
immigrants/refugees (Ministry of Education, 2010a).

32
 Writing in 2003, Franken and McComish calculated the then $500 annual funding
for a migrant ESL student as providing 33 hours of teacher aid time over the year, at a
wage of $15 per hour (p. 150). They used this information to emphasise the responsibility
that mainstream teachers have for ESL students’ learning English language and culture in
addition to curriculum content. Nearly ten years on, translating this calculation to today’s
rates, the per child funding has increased to $534 and the median teacher aid wage is
around $18 an hour, meaning the funding now provides less than 30 hours of support in a
school year, not even one hour per week.
Withdrawal teaching is a common method of English support in New Zealand
schools – 60% of the 94 schools in Franken and McComish’s study (2003) – which
provides a learner with a period of focused English instruction. Franken and McComish
report that withdrawal classes are often not based around any set syllabus or planned
programme, and that few schools target language to the curriculum content of the
mainstream classes. The length of the withdrawal periods varied greatly across the
schools, some lasting 15 minutes and others as long as 2 hours. It is also worthwhile to
note that withdrawal sessions are often undertaken without any input from mainstream
teaching staff; only one of the eight teachers in Haworth’s (2008) study had even observed
a withdrawal English session in progress.
Papers in second language teaching are uncommon in New Zealand teaching
qualifications (generally Bachelor’s degree or Graduate Diploma programmes) (Haworth,
2008) and a cursory review of New Zealand universities’ websites suggests that any that
do exist are not compulsory for Education courses. Second language teaching programmes
are offered at some New Zealand universities, frequently outside of Education within the
Linguistics or English divisions. Haworth also comments that New Zealand’s English
support teachers are often part time and/or with limited tenure and that mainstream
teachers “do not always prioritise professional development in [the second language
teaching] area” (Haworth, 2003, p. 140). Furthermore, studies by Cameron and Simpson
(2002) and Barnard et al. (2001) refer to there being unequal opportunities for ESL
professional development across New Zealand, with Auckland-based teachers being better
served than those in Hamilton schools because Auckland had the greater number of ESL
students. Auckland teachers felt better able to cope as a result (Cameron & Simpson,
2002).

33
 The Ministry of Education has sponsored a one-year professional development
programme covering SLA theories and methods for language teachers to address
practicing language teachers’ “lack of a principled knowledge base of intercultural
language teaching” (Conway et al., 2010, p. 449). The programme was reviewed by
Conway et al. (2010) and found to be successful in educating teachers in approaches and
practices for teaching language knowledge, but was significantly less effective in
increasing their understanding of developing cultural knowledge. Reasons generally
stemmed from ILT being an “emerging area in New Zealand” (p. 459) and therefore
without a clear set of principles and supporting resources, and the teacher participants not
being tested on the cultural knowledge strand.
Having introduced some of the features of the education of ESL learners in New
Zealand schools we turn now to consider examples of the country’s classroom-based
research.
2.3.1 New Zealand studies

In order to set the scene of the current study, it is worthwhile to review research from the
New Zealand classrooms of ESL learners. This review covers the same foci addressed in
the review of international research and includes an additional category, the classroom
culture. As noted earlier, understanding the ESL learner provides something of a
foundation for successful education of ESL children in a new languaculture. For that
reason, the review of New Zealand studies leads with understanding the learner.

2.3.1.1 Understanding the learner

Cameron and Simpson (2002) asked ESL teachers about their experiences working in
mainstream secondary schools6. Some schools provided reception classes (also called
immersion or foundation classes) for ESL students’ tuition in English and all core subjects,
sometimes supported by the mainstream teacher for the subject. One feature was their
assistance with “acculturation, orientation, and pastoral care” (p. 19) of the students. Some
schools provided students with an “introduction form” (p. 20) to give to their new
mainstream teacher, containing information about themselves, their backgrounds and
current level of language proficiency. One school produced booklets for mainstream
teachers that included details about the ESL student such as “information on the classroom
cultures they came from and the possible effects of culture shock” (p. 20). That school had

34
also created booklets for the students, outlining school processes, services and rules,
although whether it was created in English or the learners’ home languages was not
revealed by Cameron and Simpson.
In an effort to provide information to New Zealand schools about the general
cultural backgrounds of Somali students, a group of Somali women published an article
with detailing significant components of Somali culture as well as Somali families’
thoughts on New Zealand’s educational culture (Abdi, Ahmed, Elmi, Hussein, Hussein &
Hussein, 2002). The authors expressly note the New Zealand teachers’ lack of
understanding of Somali culture as a “problem facing Somali children” that affected their
achievement at school (p. 15), a finding supported by Humpage’s research (2009) in which
she noted significant differences in educational expectations.
Teachers in Kennedy and Dewar’s (1997) review of New Zealand ESL
programmes talked of the importance of gaining and sharing knowledge about pupils’
alternative cultural viewpoints on matters such as interacting and personal space, and
teaching and learning practices in order to reduce tensions and best support the ESL pupil
in their learning. Knowledge about the learner provides schools with more information
around which they can plan support for the learner (Johnson, 1991, cited in Kennedy &
Dewar, 1997), such as the individual languacultural plans recommended by Barnard
(2005), intended to be co-constructed by mainstream and ESL teachers, parents, and other
relevant experts (e.g., interpreters). Consideration of cultural and classroom differences
(Kennedy & Dewar, 1997) allows each individual student’s needs to be identified and
addressed.
Teachers in Kennedy and Dewar’s research expressed concern that the
backgrounds of some children could include traumatic circumstances (war, for example),
making those students “very hard to handle” in the classroom. This makes it all the more
important that schools are aware of their backgrounds in order to support them in their new
life, and also to help staff rationalise the child’s seemingly inconsistent behaviours and
attitudes.

2.3.1.2 Incorporating the learners’ culture

As will be seen below, incorporation of the learners’ cultures is encouraged in the New
Zealand schooling system. Teachers in Kennedy and Dewar’s (1997) review described
incorporating music, dance, food and first languages of ESL children in the class as an
35
“informative and an enjoyable positive experience for all participants” (p. 114). They also
talked of improved learning outcomes for students who were given opportunities to read,
write and talk about familiar things (Kennedy & Dewar, 1997; Mackey, Kanganas &
Oliver, 2007). Some teachers reported developing their own resources while working
with the ESL student, for example, together writing and illustrating a dual language story
(Kennedy & Dewar, 1997, p. 147).
Haworth (2003) describes a teacher as “enhanc[ing] the learning” of the ESL
children in her class by acknowledging their cultural and linguistic backgrounds (p. 154),
incorporating several languages into morning greetings and counting, and sharing food
associated with particular cultures. Glynn (2003) adds that allowing ESL children to
“engage on the basis of their expertise and experience” benefits the whole class (p. 277).
Challenges have been recognised. Haworth (2003) counsels that a mono-cultural
teacher may wish to engage the support of “an informed resource person” (p.154) when
first involving cultural activities in the classroom. Haworth submits that her study shows
that teachers who experience low self-efficacy when teaching ESL students can improve
their appraisal “simply by spending more time teaching them” (Haworth, 2003, p. 158).
Glynn (2003) warns of the dilemma arising from too readily using a learner’s cultural and
linguistic differences as a focus of a lesson; while second language acquisition may be
promoted through this, it could result in marginalisation of the learner’s first language and
culture.

2.3.1.3 Involving the learners’ families

As already noted, interactions with family members must be made with genuine
commitment and respect which requires effort and resources. Franken and McComish
report that many New Zealand schools found encouraging involvement of ESL families to
be challenging (Franken & McComish, 2003, p. 119). Teacher participants in Haworth’s
(2005a) research “found it hard” to establish relationships with ESL families that were
sufficiently meaningful to assist with integration of minority cultures into the curriculum
(p. 32). A number of schools in Cameron and Simpson’s (2002) research reported using
multilingual people to support interactions between the school and its ESL families.
However, teachers considered time, funding, and staff resources to be so restrictive that
most strategies for involving ESL student families could not be practically implemented.
In an associated study, 49 teachers told Barnard and his colleagues (2001) that they used
36
only verbal communication to liaise with the ESL families, and only seven reported
involving translation assistance, which had included using the ESL child themselves.
In their research on improving learning outcomes for Māori and Pasifika7 children,
Glynn and Berryman (2003) exhort involving families in the child’s learning and
emphasise the reciprocity of teacher and learner roles. According to Pere (1982, cited in
Glynn & Berryman, 2003 and Berryman & Glynn, 2003), traditional Māori education
includes the principle of ako, the “reciprocal and continuous interchange between the
teacher and learner roles” (Glynn & Berryman, 2003, p. 49), a “process” (Berryman &
Glynn, 2003, p. 59) that is free from ascribing power and labels to individuals as either
teacher or student. When applied to the context of ESL children at school, the roles of
mentor and mentored can be circulated through the schoolteacher, the parent and the child.
In this way, all members of the school community can assist with the academic success of
the children and educating ESL families can be a welcome by-product of these
relationships (Glynn, 2003). Kennedy and Dewar’s (1997) research also recognises the
value of providing English support for the parents of the ESL student, with the associated
benefits flowing back to their child and into the wider community. Parallels can be drawn
between ako and the previously mentioned notion of multidirectional socialisation (Duff &
Talmy, 2011), where community members at all levels can act as agents in the
socialisation of other members.
While New Zealand schools strongly promote parental involvement, and some
writers talk of it as a feature that might differ from school practices elsewhere (e.g.,
Barnard, 2003a; Vine, 2003a, 2003b), it will not necessarily be an unfamiliar concept to all
ESL families. New Zealand based researchers Xu and Lewis (2002) consulted Chinese
teachers at an English language school in China and found that the classroom experiences
of the Chinese pupils were not always “traditional” in terms of Chinese education (p. 12),
and parents were heavily involved.

2.3.1.4 Understanding teachers

New Zealand studies have also considered how teachers’ attitudes impact on culture in
their lesson and on the specific cultural composition of their class.
Kennedy and Dewar (1997) found teachers’ attitudes towards other cultures to be
one factor that influenced the extent they supported the ESL children in their class. Other
factors included training in second language teaching, their own experiences of language
37
learning, their flexibility, and whether they were comfortable seeking assistance. This
research also suggests that a teacher’s expectations of an ESL child’s success can impact
on the learner’s acquisition of English languaculture and their achievements in general
curriculum content. Franken and McComish (2003) reinforce the point, recommending
that teachers should set high standards for the ESL students and “not create climates” that
hold back their educational advancement (p. 68).
Barnard’s (2003b) study on the use of inner speech by a Korean boy in a New
Zealand classroom included recommending that teachers experience learning a language to
help them appreciate the challenges faced by the ESL pupils grappling with both a new
language and culture. Barnard also suggests that teacher education and professional
development programmes include more support for teaching ESL students so teachers
learn to recognise the presence of languacultural gaps and gain strategies for bridging them
(Barnard, 2003b).
Mainstream teachers in the studies of Barnard et al. (2001) and Haworth (2003)
regularly described the ESL students in positive terms, such as, “polite, diligent, and less
likely to cause problems through chattering” (Barnard et al., 2001, p. 22), and “quiet and
cooperative” (Haworth, 2003, p. 156), even though contrasting examples are experienced.
This led Haworth to suggest that the teachers were using “positive stereotypes” (p. 156),
although she did note one occasion where a teacher attributed an ESL child’s reluctance to
interact as being a personality trait rather than solely attributable to her cultural
membership.

2.3.1.5 Classroom culture

Haworth’s work (2003, 2005a, 2005b, 2008) focuses on the classroom setting and the
“daily realities” (2003, p. 138) of classroom life for all members of the classroom
community. It is those ‘daily realities’ that have the potential to pose problems for ESL
pupils, especially when they are first enrolled in an English-medium school, because each
classroom has a culture of its own.
Features of education style in New Zealand include emphasis on socialisation
(Barnard, 2003b), where children are encouraged to make choices about what they learn,
take responsibility for their own achievement, and “collaborate” with classmates and
teachers (Barnard, 2003a, p. 1). Content is rarely transmitted through direct instruction
from teacher to learner; rather, learning is scaffolded and knowledge co-constructed in the
38
classroom community (e.g., Barnard, 2003a; Vine, 2003a, 2003b). While these practices
and approaches are not unique to New Zealand, they are not shared by all cultures and in
some cases, the New Zealand style of education might be “radically different” from a
child’s earlier experiences (Ministry of Education, 2006). Barnard (2003a) notes the
potential for difficulties when an ESL learner has no understanding of the unfamiliar
elements of the classroom culture, and/or the teacher does not recognise that a gap exists.
Barnard (2003b, 2005, 2009a, 2009b) followed the placement of children from
Taiwan and Korea in a mainstream New Zealand primary school classroom. Not
uncommonly, the school had received minimal background information about the children
at their enrolments. This impacted a number of areas, including the time allocated to
withdrawal ESL sessions and the ability for teachers to recognise languacultural
differences. The ESL children had arrived at various times throughout the year; none were
enrolled at the start of the first term when the teacher had established explicit ground rules
and expectations of the classroom culture. Barnard terms these classroom cultural norms
and conventions Classroom Interaction Communication Skills (CICS), his particularisation
of the first of Cummins’ (1981, cited in Barnard, 2005, 2009a, 2009b) categories of
linguistic competence, Basic Interpersonal Communication Skills (BICS), the other being
Cognitive Academic Language Proficiency (CALP). No “induction” (Barnard, 2009b, p.
235) was provided when the children joined the class, meaning they were required to pick
up the CICS in an ad hoc fashion. If explicit information was provided, it was done under
the teacher’s assumptions about other students and, consequently, may not have provided
sufficient detail for ESL children.
In a study of an ESL child’s understanding of particular CICSs, Vine researched a
young Samoan boy’s immersion in a New Zealand classroom. Vine notes that Fa’afetai
had to learn the practices of the classroom when he first joined the class and that at times
he was “searching for understanding” (Vine, 2003b, p.128) of some of the routines and
procedures that others took for granted (Barnard, 2003a; Haworth, 2003; Vine, 2003b).
However, observations showed his teacher “construct[ing] experiences of using English
with Fa’afetai to mediate their joint understanding of curriculum concepts” and that this
helped him to learn the language of the content as well as understand “part of what ‘doing
school’ is about” (2003b, pp. 129-130), that is, “learning languaculture, not just language”
(2003a, p. 119).

39
 Ina rather different example, John from Taiwan was observed by Barnard (2005,
2009a, 2009b) to behave in ways that breached the norms of the classroom culture, leading
to admonishment from his teacher, tale-telling by classmates, and jeopardising his ability
to participate in class activities. Barnard surmises that some of these behaviours were due
to John “still probably waiting for a simple transmission of information” (2009b, p. 242),
as he grappled with the boundaries in a classroom where he confronted unfamiliar freedom
of movement. Barnard (2009b) notes the potential for a teacher to interpret such non-
compliance as intentional if they do not appreciate languacultural differences. His findings
led him to emphasise the need for teachers to assist ESL children with adjusting to the new
classroom culture with explicit induction into expectations for classroom behaviour;
appreciation of the potential for differences between their previous experiences and their
new school life; recognition that other members of the classroom community can be
effective as peer support; willingness to engage in exploratory and reflective practices; and
sufficient experience to manage the child’s challenges along with the usual demands on a
mainstream teacher (2009b).

2.3.2 New Zealand Ministry of Education documents

To round out the New Zealand context, documents published or commissioned by the
Ministry related to educating ESL children and supporting staff in mainstream schools are
summarised here. The principal document is the New Zealand National Curriculum
(Ministry of Education, 2007b) that covers the values, key competencies, learning areas
and principles. The following can be interpreted as relating to culture in the classroom:

 Diversity and respect (Values, p. 7). Students are encouraged to value “diversity,
as found in our different cultures, languages and heritages” and “respect
themselves, others, and human rights”. Students will learn about “their own values
and those of others [including] different kinds of values, such as moral, social,
cultural”, and they will develop their ability to “express their own values; explore,
with empathy, the values of others; critically analyse values … [and] discuss
disagreements that arise from differences” (p. 10).

 Using language, managing self, relating to others, and contributing (Key

Competencies, p. 7). Students will learn to “recognise different points of view …
[and be] aware of how their words and actions affect others” (p. 12).
40
  English, learning languages, official languages, and the arts (Learning Areas, p. 7).
“English can be studied as both a heritage language and as an additional language”
(p. 18). Those who learn another language “explore different world views in
relation to their own” (p. 17) allowing communication with people of other cultures
“and explor[ation] of one’s own personal world” (p. 24). Te reo Māori (the Māori
language) and New Zealand Sign Language are New Zealand’s official languages;
English is a “de facto official language”. Students are encouraged to learn te reo
and become “familiar” with tikanga Māori (Māori customs and values) to
strengthen Māori students’ identity and assist the “journey towards shared cultural
understandings” (p. 14). The Arts “are powerful forms of expression that
recognise, value, and contribute to the unique bicultural and multicultural character
of Aotearoa8 New Zealand, enriching the lives of all New Zealanders… [and]
learners in the arts are able to view their world from new perspectives” (p. 20).
The contributions and roles of different cultures are also referred to in other
learning areas, such as science, mathematics, health and physical education (pp. 23-
32).

 Cultural diversity, inclusion, and community engagement (Principles, p. 7) refer to

the need for “students’ identities, languages, abilities and talents [to be] recognised
and affirmed and that their learning needs are addressed” (p. 9).

 The curriculum’s vision for young people includes “all cultures [being] valued for
the contributions they bring”, where young people are “positive in their own
identity” and “connected…international citizens” (p. 8).

The second primary document relates to education of ESL pupils specifically. The English
Language Learner Progressions (ELLPs) (Ministry of Education, 2008a), which is
strongly informed by the Alton-Lee (2003) report on quality teaching of diverse students,
provide information on factors that affect learners’ achievement, such as their previous
educational experiences, their exposure to English, their age and affective factors. While
not specifying content, the ELLPs include suggested activities and websites for teaching
resources. The ELLPs promote the use of the learners’ first languages, and they encourage
opportunities for the learners to use English to speak, read or write about topics that are
culturally familiar to them. A supporting document, ELLP: Facilitation Manual for

41
School Self-Access Professional Development (Ministry of Education, 2008b), includes a
series of self-development resources for teachers that focus on gaining information on the
child’s background.
Effective Provision for International Students (Ministry of Education, 2003) guides
planning for cultural diversity and recommends that schools “affirm cultural and language
diversity” through actions such as flag displays, ethnic dinners, bilingual library books,
participation in local multi-cultural festivals, and use of languages other than English at
formal occasions (p. 10). It recommends providing opportunities for the students to share
their cultures, establishing strong links with the ESL pupils’ communities, implementing
clear orientation and enrolment procedures, and incorporating home cultures while
“orientating [students] towards New Zealand language and customs” (pp. 17-18).
A brief brochure issued in 2007 details various ESL resources available to schools,
teachers and school communities (Ministry of Education, 2007a). It includes a list of
“simple but effective ways” to support ESL students, including “find[ing] out as much as
… possibl[e] … about the background and prior learning of the students” by talking to
parents and students through translation services used if necessary, and “find[ing] ways to
build on what the [ESL] students already know and can do” (p. 1). It lists publications and
materials available for teachers of ESL children, many noted as distributed by the Ministry
to schools with funded ESL pupils. Some publications are available in other languages.

2.4 Themes

In compiling this review, three themes emerged as being consistently reiterated across
theory, research, and policy as recommended strategies for the enhancement of the ESL
students’ acquisition of a new languaculture. They were:

(i) Know the learner

(ii) Reflect, Explore, Compare

(iii) Affirm and Incorporate

The process of deducing these themes, and their boundaries, is outlined in the next chapter,
as is their relationship to the research questions. These themes then serve as the
organisational structure for the presentation of the study’s findings in the subsequent
chapter.
42
 3 METHODOLOGY

I hear and I forget. I see and I remember. I do and I understand.

- Confucius

This research examines one school’s approach to the involvement of culture in their
education of ESL pupils, through analysis of teachers’ reported experiences and opinions
on culture in teaching and their observed practices in the classrooms. The project does not
evaluate the teachers or the school, but describes current practices and ideals. It is
organised as a case study using qualitative methods.
This chapter provides a description of the context of the study and its participants,
all methods for data collection and analysis, and defines relevant concepts of the
framework.
3.1 The context

The study takes place in New Zealand, a country with a population of 4.4 million
(Statistics New Zealand, 2012) and where, in the first half of 2012, government funding
for English support was provided to 1,303 mainstream schools for 32,487 ESL pupils from
161 ethnic groups (Ministry of Education, 2012). Almost half of New Zealand schools
funded for ESL support have less than 10 ESL pupils on the roll (631 schools nationwide),
with a further 478 schools having between 10 and 49 ESL pupils (Ministry of Education,
2012). Seventy percent of all ESL pupils are at schools in the Auckland/Northland region
of the country (Ministry of Education, 2012).
Data was collected at Parkside School, a full primary school in a main urban centre
(not Auckland) in New Zealand. The most recent national census9, conducted by Statistics
New Zealand in 2006 (Statistics New Zealand, 2011), provided ethnicity statistics for the
subject city indicating 16.6% of the population were not native New Zealanders. ‘Native
New Zealanders’ comprise those who identify as Māori, the nation’s indigenous people,
and those New Zealanders of European descent, often referred to by the Māori word,
Pākehā, the term used throughout this report. Those statistics show that English was the
most commonly spoken language in the city, with 86.7% of the population monolingual;
the next most common language was French, spoken by 2% of the population. These
figures compare with the national average of 80.5% monolinguals, and where English was
the most commonly spoken language followed by Māori, spoken by 4% nationally.

43
 All of New Zealand’s state and state-integrated schools are given a decile ranking
which reflects “the extent to which the school draws its students from the low socio-
economic communities. Decile 1 denotes the 10% of schools with the highest proportion
of students from the low socio-economic communities, whereas decile 10 schools are the
10% of schools with the lowest proportion of these students” (Ministry of Education,
2011a). The decile ranking affects the Ministry’s allocation of general funding to the
school. Parkside School was ranked Decile 8 indicating it had a reasonably low proportion
of pupils from low socio-economic communities. It covers Years 1 to 8, with children
aged 5 to 12 or 13 years.

3.1.1 The subject institution – Parkside School

Parkside School was selected as the research site because of my association with the
school’s principal. Notwithstanding this “opportunistic” sample selection (Nunan &
Bailey, 2009, p. 48), the Ministry of Education’s statistics indicate that Parkside School is
a representative example of a New Zealand full primary school (Ministry of Education
2011c). When the study commenced there were 119 children enrolled, of whom 29 were
not Māori or Pākehā; in other words, almost 25% of the school roll was comprised of
children not native to New Zealand (Ministry of Education, 2011c). Ethnicity composition
statistics, presented in Table 1 (Appendix A), show Parkside School to be generally
representative of New Zealand schools.
The 119 pupils were spread across six regular classes, conducted by six full-time
mainstream teachers. One of the teachers also had the role of Deputy Principal (Mr
Lawrence), and another the role of Assistant Principal (Mrs McIntyre). (All names are
pseudonyms.) The Principal, Ms Ballantyne, had limited teaching time. The children
spent much of their lesson time in regular classes managed by a class teacher, although
there were exceptions (e.g., mathematics, ‘house periods’ and some physical activities)
when the children were redistributed across the school (and the teachers) based on
competence level or group membership. The curriculum included many out-of-class
experiences, for example, music, drama, sports, technology and field trips. The small size
of the school meant that children of different ages often worked and played together.
The school employed Mrs Stephenson as the sole support person for the ESL
children on a ‘flexible hours’ basis with a minimum of 15.5 hours per week. Mrs
Stephenson is hereafter referred to as the ‘ESL teacher’; she had ESL teaching certification
44
for adults but was not a qualified primary school teacher (see Table 2, Appendix A, for
teacher qualifications). Throughout the study Mrs Stephenson was a teacher aide in one
mainstream class (New Entrant/Year 1) for two hours per week. Studies by Franson
(1999), Haworth (2003, 2005a, 2008) and Seo & Hoover (2009) refer to ESL support staff
often being untrained in mainstream teaching, having little or no training in second
language teaching, and often employed as teacher aides. In fact, in 2002, only half of ESL
support staff in New Zealand schools were qualified in ESL teaching (Education Counts,
2002).
During the research period, two support staff – a second teacher aide and a
volunteer – assisted in all classes wherever there was a need. This sometimes included
work with ESL children. Mrs Stephenson’s teacher aide hours were spent working
alongside pupils (usually ESL children) in their mainstream class.
Notwithstanding Parkside School’s diverse ethnicity composition, not all of the 29
ESL children received funding for support in English. Some were assessed as being
sufficiently proficient in English for their cohort, as per the relevant policies of the
Ministry of Education (Ministry of Education, 2011b). The number of children at Parkside
School receiving English support varied throughout the study, ranging from 15 to 19
children. In the first half of the study period the school had one fee-paying international
student, Suhairie; that number increased to four in the second half.
The ESL pupils were placed in classrooms based on academic proficiency and age.
The time each child spent with the ESL teacher was almost entirely dependent upon the
level of funding the school received on their behalf. At the time of the primary data
collection phase of the study, 12 of the 15 children spent two half-hour sessions per week
in ESL sessions; the other three children had three half-hour sessions. Of the 24 ESL
sessions Mrs Stephenson conducted in a week, six were shared by two or three pupils and
the rest were one-on-one lessons.

3.2 Participants

The study involved two participant groups:

(i) Teacher participants: The school’s mainstream teachers and ESL teacher; and

(ii) Pupil participants: Pupils who received support for English as a second language
(referred to hereafter as ‘the ESL pupils’).
45
 3.2.1 Teacher participants

While the school principal was “the key gatekeeper” (Bogdan & Biklen, 1998, p. 75) and
had granted me permission to “enter … the field” (Cowie, 2009, p. 169), the individual
consent of each teacher was also sought given the personal commitment each was required
to make. All teachers attended an informal meeting during a morning tea break at which I
outlined the general nature of the research project and distributed participant information
sheets. After an opportunity to ask questions the teachers were given consent forms. All
six mainstream teachers and the sole ESL teacher agreed to participate. Table 2 of
Appendix A shows relevant biographical data for the teacher participants, gathered as part
of their interview, including, inter alia, teaching qualifications, length of teaching career,
and ethnicity (described in their own words). Six of the seven teachers were female,
reflecting the predominance of female teachers in New Zealand’s primary schools
(Haworth, 2008). No attempt has been made to hide the gender of the participants, in
order for the study to be as transparent as possible (Heigham & Croker, 2009, p.307;
Bachman, 2004, p. 727).

3.2.2 Pupil participants

All 15 ESL pupils enrolled at the time were given the opportunity to participate.
Participant information sheets and consent forms were prepared, one set tailored for the
parents and one set for the child. These were accompanied by a covering letter and given
to mainstream teachers to distribute to ESL pupils to take home to their families. Six of
the ESL children initially returned all required forms, with consent given. The remaining
nine were given brief reminder letters, leading to one further signed consent. One child
from whom consent had been obtained left the city before data collection commenced.
(See Table 3, Appendix A, for ESL pupils’ biographical data, Appendix H for participant
information sheets, Appendix I for consent forms, and Appendix J for covering letters.)

3.3 Investigative procedures

In order to develop a broad understanding about the role of culture in the classroom and
gain a variety of perspectives, data were collected from multiple sources. This allowed for
a degree of triangulation (see section 3.7). Data collection methods canvassed the beliefs

46
of the teachers and their actual practices, and took place over the first three terms of the
2011 four-term year.
Prior to data collection, I spent a number of hours at the school in an informal
capacity, sharing morning tea breaks with staff, participating in ESL pupils’ one-on-one
sessions with Mrs Stephenson, sharing two of her teacher aide sessions, and making a
single visit to Miss Johnston’s class. During my time at the school I was invited to attend
assemblies, library visits, a health class in the ‘Life Education’ mobile classroom, the year-
end show, swimming sports, pet day, and a class trip to the theatre. These visits enabled
me to meet all members of the teaching staff and all of the ESL children, as well as other
staff and pupils at the school in a variety of settings. Thus, my presence at the school
became familiar so when I was formally collecting data all participants were used to my
company, increasing the likelihood of the data being authentic. As Bogdan and Biklen
(1998) suggest, this approach meant that teachers were more likely to “accept what [I was]
doing” (p. 76) and enhanced the possibility of a positive relationship between researcher
and participants, particularly crucial, according to Cowie (2009), for observations in
qualitative research.
Formal data were collected from three principal sources: observations of English
support sessions; observation of mainstream lessons; and interviews of the mainstream and
ESL teachers. A fourth source of data is an overview of materials used or on display and
their representation of culture, but this was not an intensive review. Data was augmented
by “descriptive field notes” (Bogdan & Biklen, 1998, p. 121) during observations,
restricted to aspects salient to the research topic (Saldaña et al., 2011).

3.3.1 Perspective

Consideration was given to whether this project took an etic or emic perspective. There are
tensions between the two extremes (Harvard University, 2010) and some dispute over
whether there is a clear cut distinction between them. Croker (2009) describes an emic
perspective as one where researchers “endeavour to see the world as their participants do”
(p. 8), by directly interacting with them, and using the participants’ words and concepts.
An etic perspective, according to Croker, is “the researcher or ‘outsider’ point of view” (p.
8). Nunan and Bailey describe etic as “the researcher’s interpretive framework” (2009, p.
197).

47
 An emic approach has also been described as one that “put[s] aside prior theories
and assumptions in order to let the participants and data ‘speak’ … and to allow themes,
patterns, and concepts to emerge”, and is often used in studies where the influence of
context is of importance (Harvard University, 2010, para. 2). This explanation reflects the
perspective taken in this project. The interviews allowed the teacher participants to
explain their world to me, and the findings use their language and concepts in an effort to
display their perspectives. I was not ‘testing’ a theory or hypothesis against the data.
Rather, I was endeavouring to experience the classroom situation for myself in order to
gather data to triangulate with that of other methods to find corroborations and
irregularities. However, it is recognised that the analysis of the data, particularly with
respect to allocation of codes, relied on me making decisions based on my own perspective
of what was (or was not) culture. (This is also raised as a limitation on page 135).

3.3.2 Observations

Collecting data through observing lessons in practice provided exposure to the settings
where the teacher and pupil “subjects normally spend their time” together (Bogdan &
Biklen, 1998, p. 2), also known as naturalistic research (p. 3). It allowed encounters with
the “daily realities” (Haworth, 2003, p. 138) of classroom life. I was chiefly interested in
the spoken data, particularly cultural references made by the teachers. In addition, I took
field notes describing any cultural representations in the room as well as details about the
physical environment and where the children were (e.g., on the mat, at usual desks, in
groups). I occasionally noted my interpretation of an event (e.g., whether a child was
enjoying a lesson). A copy of a field note is included as Appendix B and shows how I
distinguished personal reflections from facts (see section 3.7.4, pages 64-65, for additional
explanation).
The manner in which I carried out the observations did not differ substantially
between observing ESL lessons and mainstream lessons.

3.3.2.1 Observations of English support sessions

The intention of this data collection method, which was intended to address all three
research questions, was to examine how culture was represented in the children’s English
support lessons and to ascertain whether, and how, the ESL pupils’ home cultures were
referred to during these sessions.
48
 Just prior to the formal data collection period, the school’s former dental clinic was
assigned to Mrs Stephenson for the exclusive use of the ESL programme. The building
was located approximately 30 metres from the nearest classroom block. The classroom
space was approximately 5m x 4m in area and had a whiteboard across the western wall
and a window along the northern wall. A round 1.5m diameter table was in the centre of
the teaching space and all lessons were conducted there. During the formal observations
Mrs Stephenson always sat in the same chair and the children sat to her left when working
one-on-one. There was a world map and a brightly coloured poster titled English at
School on the walls.
During formal observations, audio recordings were made of the entire lesson, using
an Olympus digital voice recorder, model WS-321M. This was placed on the table amid
other objects regularly there so as to be visible but not conspicuous.
By the time the data collection period had started I was a familiar presence to the
participants, but to mitigate the impact of my presence I sat in same seat at the table
whenever I was present in the sessions, opposite Mrs Stephenson, whether recording or
not. I attempted to keep my participation in activities to a minimum in recorded sessions,
but given my previous involvement in these periods it felt out of the ordinary to exclude
myself entirely. Consequently, to some extent I was acting as a participant observer
(Nunan & Bailey, 2009), or an “engaged spectator” (Brown & Canter, 1985, cited in
Haworth, 2003, p. 140). Field notes were taken to record non-verbal information, such as
gestures or other contextual information relevant to completing the scene for later analysis
(Bogdan & Biklen, 1998).
Ten ESL classes were formally observed and recorded. These sessions varied in
length and allowed observation of each of the six pupil participants. The observations
included one-on-one sessions between the pupil and Mrs Stephenson, and groups of two or
three pupils where the children usually worked directly with Mrs Stephenson. Nearly six
hours of recordings were made, with each of the six pupil participants being recorded for
at least one lesson of 20 minutes to one hour. Lessons varied because of the child’s
English support funding, the time it took a child to get to the building if unaccompanied, or
because the child’s mainstream class activities had imposed on the session time.
Each lesson was broadly transcribed. (See Appendix C for conventions.)
Additional information on the transcription process is given in section 3.3.5.

49
3.3.2.2 Observations of mainstream classes

The object of this data collection method was to determine how culture featured in the
regular lessons of the mainstream teachers, including whether the cultures of the ESL
pupils present were represented. Again, this data was intended to address all three
research questions.
Six classes were observed and recorded; each was conducted by a different one of
the six mainstream teacher participants, in a different teaching space, and with a different
subject focus. Each class included at least one of the school’s ESL pupils (some of whom
were not pupil participants in the study). Observation times were prearranged by the
principal.
The classrooms at Parkside School were arranged across two buildings, both two-
storeyed, and identical to each other in structural layout; one building accommodated the
three classes of the Junior Syndicate, those of Mrs McIntyre, Miss Scott and Mrs
Harrington, the other housed the Senior Syndicate, the classes of Ms Barringer, Mr
Lawrence and Miss Johnston. All classrooms were of the same size but were individually
laid out. With the exception of Mrs Harrington’s room, all classrooms had a wall-mounted
whiteboard which was treated as the ‘front’ of the room regardless of its position in
relation to the room’s main entry. In Mrs Harrington’s room, there was no main
whiteboard; she chose to exclusively use a small, easel-style mobile whiteboard. All
rooms had three or four computers for the children’s use.
Audio-recordings were made using the digital voice recorder and in the majority of
cases an external microphone was clipped to the teacher’s clothing to ensure decipherable
recording as s/he moved about the classroom. In all observations I sat at the rear or the
side of the room away from the pupils to mitigate my presence as much as possible. My
role would be best described as a non-participant observer (Nunan & Bailey, 2009). Field
notes were taken throughout the lessons (Bogdan & Biklen, 1998).
A total of 5.25 hours of recordings were obtained from the mainstream lesson
observations, ranging from 21 minutes to 1 hour 35 minutes. All audio recordings were
transcribed in full (see section 3.3.5). The primary participants in these observations were
the teachers (as opposed to the children in the room).

50
 3.3.3 Interviews with teaching staff

All teachers were interviewed using a semi-structured format with similar lines of
questioning posed to all. (See interview procedures in sections 3.3.3.1-3, interview
questions in section 3.3.3.4, and the interview schedules in Appendix D).

3.3.3.1 Interview with ESL teacher

A semi-structured interview was conducted with Mrs Stephenson, the school’s ESL
teacher. Mrs Stephenson’s willingness to be involved in the project, and the rapport that
we had developed through my informal visits, enhanced the opportunities for data
collection (see section 6.3, page 134 for possible associated limitations). This relationship
created “mutual trust, openness and engagement” in the interview resulting in “self-
disclosure, personal investment and equality” (Bishop and Glynn, 1999, p. 109). The
interview was conducted in Mrs Stephenson’s classroom during school hours and lasted
one hour and 40 minutes. The relaxed and comfortable nature of this interview provided
something of a test situation for the data collection method, where question lines could be
posed in a non-threatening environment revealing to me how the topics, and even the
phrasing, were received and whether they were likely to elicit analysable responses. This
created the opportunity for me to fine tune the interview schedule before the questions
were put to the mainstream teachers, with whom my relationship was not as well-
established. That said, fine tuning mostly involved reducing the number of questions,
through deletion as not being directly relevant, or condensing related questions into single
questions. Very little change was made to the content of any question other than to
provide clearer wording. All questions put to the mainstream teachers had been previously
put to the ESL teacher, allowing for comparison of responses across all teaching staff.
(See sections 3.3.3.3 and 3.3.3.4 for further interview details.)

3.3.3.2 Interviews with mainstream teachers

Interviews were conducted with all six mainstream teachers. The interviews were carried
out over a period of four inconsecutive days, from which approximately six hours of
recordings were obtained with durations ranging from 21 minutes to 38 minutes. While
the same pre-formulated question leads were put to all teachers, the length of responses
and tangential discussions that arose impacted on the length of each interview.
51
 All interviews were audio-taped using the digital voice recorder and all were
transcribed in full. The first four interviews were carried out in the staffroom at times
when it was not in use by others; the last two were conducted in a small meeting room not
previously available.

3.3.3.3 Interview procedure

Bogdan and Biklen’s (1998) recommendations for interview tone and technique were
followed, including commencing the interviews with a brief explanation of the topic and
the nature of the questions, before asking participants for basic biographical information.
Teachers were treated as “experts” (Bogdan & Biklen, 1998, p. 97) and the tone of the
interview emphasised my intention to learn from them and reinforce that their responses
were valuable.
Use of an interview schedule allowed comparable data to be gathered from all
interviews (Bogdan & Biklen, 1998; Merriam, 1998). Semi-structuring allowed alterations
in order of presentation, so questions more naturally aligned with the subject matter raised
by the interviewees (Bogdan & Biklen, 1998; Merriam, 1998; Nunan & Bailey, 2009;
Richards, 2009) and accommodated some extensive answers that went beyond the initial
question; such responses allowed participants to “shape the content” (Bogdan & Biklen,
1998, p. 94).

3.3.3.4 Interview questions

The interview schedules (Appendix D) included questions intended to allow an

“understanding [of] the lived world” of the teacher participants (Richards, 2009, p. 187),
their professional practices and their personal attitudes. The questions were mostly of the
nature of Strauss, Schatzman, Bucher and Sabsin’s “ideal position” questions (1981, cited
in Merriam, 1998, p. 77), where teachers were asked to describe situations and
experiences, and consequently elicited both information and opinion from the participants
(Merriam, 1998).
Interview questions were prepared with the proposed research questions in mind to
ensure that the responses gathered would provide relevant data to allow answers to be
formed. Commencing with biographical details, the questions then related to the role
culture played at school (related to Research Questions 1, 2 and 3), the teachers’
experiences relating to other cultures (RQ1), and their opinions on the importance or
52
relevance of culture teaching and learning (RQs 1, 2 and 3). Rowsell et al. (2007) asked
six questions in their interviews of teachers as part of their research into ways in which
culture could be “infused” (p. 140) into ESL teacher training coursework. Some of those
questions were incorporated in the schedules of this study, asking teachers to describe the
first language and cultural composition of their classes (RQs 2 and 3), their awareness of
their own culture when working with ESL students (RQ1), and whether their teaching
methods were influenced by the presence of ESL pupils (RQs 1, 2 and 3).

3.3.4 Review of materials

The materials used in the observed lessons (ESL and mainstream) and displayed in the
rooms (including hall and library) were recorded in field notes and subsequently reviewed
with respect to their cultural representations. This detail relates to all three research
questions. In addition, examination was made of “external documents” (Bogdan & Biklen,
1998, p. 137), also known as “archival data” (Nunan & Bailey, 2009, p. 414), being the
school’s publications intended for the wider community. These comprised a brochure
promoting the school to prospective students and families, and information on the school’s
website. The website included, inter alia, the school’s charter, the Board of Trustee’s
policies, the Parent Teachers Association’s aims and objectives, a welcome statement from
the Principal, and reports from the teachers and their pupils about life in their classroom.

3.3.5 Procedures for transcriptions and other written data

All transcribing was done by me, with the assistance of Express Scribe, free software
downloaded from the Internet (www.nch.com.au/scribe). All transcriptions were saved as
individual Microsoft Word document on my personal computer and stored in a folder
labelled Transcriptions under the relevant subfolder of ESL observations, Mainstream
observations or Interviews (Bogdan & Biklen, 1998). All field notes, initially taken by
hand, were expanded up as I typed them up as individual Word documents (Bogdan &
Biklen, 1998). Every document was separately labelled with a shorthand reference code
representing the data source and teacher participant, for example, I1 is the data
management code for the interview with Mrs McIntyre, M1 is the mainstream observation
of Mrs McIntyre’s lesson, and FN1 is the file note relating to Mrs McIntyre’s class. This
is described by Hood as coding at a “macro-level” (2009, p. 79). These labels are used as

53
citations for excerpts and other direct reference to documented data (Hood, 2009;
Merriam, 1998), and are listed in Appendix E.
I transcribed the recordings of the classroom observations soon after each lesson
had taken place. The entire session was fresh in my mind, supported from typing up and
expanding on field notes, so I took the approach of including a lot of contextual detail
around the transcribed utterances, essentially incorporating field noted information
alongside speech. Where non-ESL children made contributions, their utterances were
summarised in the style of a stage direction to provide the context of the teachers’
utterances. The result was transcriptions with thorough, “rich” (Bachman, 2004, p. 724;
Bogdan & Biklen, 1998, p. 122; Croker, 2009, p. 3; Duff, 2008, p. 43; Merriam, 1998,
p.6), or “thick description” (Croker, 2009, p. 9; Duff, 2008, p. 43; Hood, 2009, p. 83;),
able to be read as a detailed script of the entire classroom event.
Where participants mentioned any other participant by name the relevant
pseudonym was used in the transcription. References by name of any non-participant were
recorded as: (name). Two ESL observations of groups involved a child who was not a
pupil participant. The transcriptions recorded that the pupil had contributed, but in place
of their name was NP (non-participant) and the utterance was represented by ---. At times
this may influence the reader’s ability to make sense of the consented participants’
associated output, but the approach did not adversely affect the coding of the data with
respect to the analysis undertaken.
Because the analysis of the transcribed data was based on content (Duff, 2008),
phonological features were only noted where their use provided relevant information or
contextual information, such as uncertainty, tone of voice, and so on.

3.4 Analysis

The data was analysed using qualitative methods. Qualitative data is “soft … rich in
description of people, places and conversations … not easily handled by statistical
procedures” (Bogdan & Biklen, 1998, p. 2) and “represents the nature or attributes of
something” rather than elements that can be measured or counted (Ellis & Barkhuizen,
2005). In gathering data from the natural setting the researcher is the “primary research
instrument” (Croker, 2009, p. 11), concerned with “process rather than simply with
outcomes” (Bogdan & Biklen, 2009, p.6) by investigating topics “in all their complexity”
(Bogdan & Biklen, 2009, p. 2). Qualitative data are gathered from the field through
54
observing, engaging, interacting with participants; the researcher is “enmeshed in the
study” (Hood, 2009, p. 71) and the findings are “windows into human experience” (Ellis &
Barkhuizen, 2005, p. 256).
This project is a case study, a comprehensive exploration of the single institution,
or “bounded system” (Hood, 2009, p. 68), of Parkside School, intended to “learn what
[was] happening” (Nunan & Bailey, 2009, p. 158). The multiple participants and multiple
data collection methods provide rich description of the context of the case. This project is
an example of Stake’s “intrinsic case study” (1995, cited in Hood, 2009, p. 69), with the
prime area of interest being how culture is represented at Parkside School, a case with
clearly defined boundaries, and with no claim made that the findings will necessarily be
similar in other New Zealand primary schools or any other cases (Johnston, Juhasz,
Marken & Ruiz, 1998). Using categorisation offered by Duff (2008) and by Yin, the
project can also be termed a descriptive case study, as it “present[s] a detailed,
contextualised picture of a particular phenomenon” (Yin, 2003, cited in Hood, 2009, pp.
70-71).
The analysis of qualitative data is interpretive (Croker, 2009; Merriam, 1998) and
exploratory (Croker, 2009). Coding data is a key feature of qualitative research as it
allows the organisation of the data for management purposes and as a means of analysis
(Hood, 2009). My approach to data coding for analysis is described next.

3.4.1 Coding

A “micro-level” (Hood, 2009, p. 79) coding system was developed to tag units of data to
organise and reorganise them to allow interpretation of the material (Bogdan & Biklen,
1998; Ellis & Barkhuizen, 2005; Hood, 2009; Liamputtong, 2009; Merriam, 1998; Nunan
& Bailey, 2009), a “method of discovery” (Saldaña et al., 2011, p. 95). The specific codes
used reflect the concepts raised in the data unit or are “summative” of it (Saldaña et al.,
2011, p.99), and are short and semantically related to the feature it labels (Ellis &
Barkhuizen, 2005), as can be seen in the examples mentioned shortly. (All micro-codes
and their descriptions are listed in Appendix F.)
A total of 78 codes were applied. Following a recommendation of Ellis and
Barkhuizen (2005) the codes were stored in a codebook along with their “operational
definitions”; this was particularly useful given the large number of codes involved.

55
 Codes affixed to interview data are primarily “values” codes (LeCompte &
Preissle, 1993 and Saldaña, 2009, both cited in Saldaña et al., 2011, p. 105), representing
“values, attitudes and beliefs of a participant, as shared by the individual and/or interpreted
by the analyst” (p. 105), such as shown in the following examples:

OwnPos (own positive) represented a positive expression about the speaker’s own
culture, for example, “This is a really cool place to live” (I4 p11)

CultBehSp (culture behaviour specific) represented reference to a behaviour as

being attributable to a specific culture (as opposed to culture generally, CultBehG),
for example, “The little Asian girls they’re really insecure” (I5 p13).

The remaining codes are “descriptive codes” (Miles & Huberman, 1994, cited in Saldaña
et al., 2011, p. 104), and are the most common in the observations and biographical data
from the interviews. The descriptive codes directly relate to the topic of the data item, as
shown in the following examples:

ESLL (ESL training low) represented a response about the extent of training in ESL
teaching, eg, “Well I’ve done a few workshoppy things but I haven’t done any
actual qualification” (I3 p1)

NZH (New Zealand high culture) coded references to an element of New Zealand’s
high culture, for example, “Please stand quietly for the national anthem” (M3 p3).

Through “micro-analysis” (Ellis & Barkhuizen, 2005, p. 266), scrutinising the datasets
line-by-line, each relevant unit of data was allocated at least one code. The “first attempt”
at allocating codes (Bogdan & Biklen, 1998, p. 183) revealed obvious and recurring topics,
views, comments and practices, each labelled with a unique code. Two codes created at
the first attempt were:

Know (knowledge) - demonstration of knowledge about an ESL child’s culture;

and
Att (attitude) - comment indicative of attitude towards a culture.

Subsequent iterative readings of the texts and use of the “constant comparison method”
(Heigham & Croker, 2009, p. 307; Merriam, 1998, p. 159) gradually revealed new topics
that warranted unique identifiers, instances where initial coded items could be subdivided

56
into multiple codes, and occasions where initial codes could be better combined as one
code or even discarded altogether (Liamputtong, 2009). For example, items first coded Att
were later subdivided into AttNeu (attitude neutral) and AttNN (attitude not neutral). Later
iterations lead to the creation of further divisions with AttPos (attitude positive) and AttNeg
(attitude negative), and still later AttPos was split into AttPosSp (attitude positive towards
specific culture) and AttPosG (attitude positive towards culture in general). Likewise,
code Know was subsequently broken down into demonstration of knowledge about the
specific culture of an ESL child, coded KnowSp, for example,

69 mm yeah um I mean in Anuj’s case he’s Fijian Indian he’s spent time in Fiji he’s also spent
70 time living in India and now he’s here in New Zealand …(I2 p3)

and demonstration of knowledge in general about a culture, coded KnowG, for example,

115 …but that’s unfortunately that’s the way they’ve been bought up to sit in the school to observe
116 to rote learn and never challenge or respond back just what you’re told is what it is … (I5 p4)

There were many instances of one utterance being allocated more than one code (Bogdan
& Biklen, 1998), an example of which was Miss Scott’s caution in her observed lesson, “If
you don’t choose at three I’m going to give you one, one … two … three” (M2 p5), which
was coded Q (question/choice/interaction encouraged) because it offered the child a
choice, Dis (discipline/behaviour management) because it served as a warning and sought
to control a child’s behaviour, and CR (class rule/expectation/convention) because a
countdown was a classroom convention to hasten an action.
The allocation of codes was done by hand and without the assistance of computer
software. All typed documents were printed out and codes were hand written directly
alongside the data unit (Ellis & Barkhuizen, 2005). Where a code was applicable to only a
part of an utterance, the relevant portion was underlined for clarity; where it was
applicable to a series of consecutive utterances a curly bracket { grouped the relevant data
items. To assist with quick reference to coding, different coloured pens were used for
different codes. There were more codes than pen colours, however, so some colours were
used for more than one code, but because many of the codes were more common to either
observation data or to interview data, doubling up within one data source was limited.
(See Appendix G for examples of coded data.)
As recommended by Hood (2009) and Duff (2008), the process of analysis began
as data was collected and coded. I continually reflected on the data, making inferences,
57
hand writing “analytic” notes (Heigham & Croker, 2009, p. 307) of possible patterns and
making initial connections between data items (Liamputtong, 2009; Nunan & Bailey,
2009) by reflecting on their “interact[ion] and interplay” (Saldaña et al., 2011, p. 98).
Once satisfied that all relevant data was exhaustively coded and “data saturation”
(Heigham & Croker, 2009, p. 307) had been reached where no greater understanding of the
data could have been gained with further division by code, I created memos to reveal
patterns.
3.4.2 Memos

Memos have been described as “think-pieces” (Bogdan & Biklen, 1998, p. 123; Saldaña et
al., 2011, p. 98), where potential connections can be speculated about and where patterns
and assumptions can be tested. Having coding the raw data, a “reflexive free-writing”
process (Saldaña et al., 2011, p. 98) of memo-writing was undertaken, progressing in a
reiterative (Duff, 2008) and cyclical fashion (Croker, 2009). Each reorganisation of the
data shed light on a different feature by grouping coded items into categories (Ellis &
Barkhuizen, 2005). The first round of memos was based on emerging categories relating
to recurring topics, such as the category of classroom culture, represented by subcategories
like behaviour management, routines, and teaching style. Data from across sources were
grouped in accordance by category and subcategory. Another round of memos organised
data on the basis of the category of the teacher; a separate memo was written for each
teacher, collating the data gathered from that individual’s interview, their observation and
the associated field notes. This process allowed comparisons to be made between a
teacher’s reports and their actual practices.

3.4.3 Inductive and deductive analyses and grounded theory

This synthesis allowed the teachers’ approaches to each respective theme to be constantly
compared (Merriam, 1998; Saldaña et al., 2011) with each other to reveal patterns.
Merriam describes Glaser and Strauss’s constant comparative method (1967, cited in
Merriam, 1998) as repeatedly comparing one piece of data with another to allow tentative
themes emerge. The comparison can take place at every level of analysis, for example,
comparing individual data items from a single interview, comparing categories, through to
comparing one theme with another, until theories can be constructed. This “systematic…
searching and arranging” (Bogdan & Biklen, 1998, p. 157) of data through memo-writing

58
and the distribution of data across categories was the central element of the inductive
method of analysis. Inductive analysis is a “data-driven” (Ellis & Barkhuizen, 2005, p.
257), “bottom up” (Bogdan & Biklen, 1998, p.6; Ellis & Barkhuizen, 2005, p. 259)
approach. It allows “transfer[ence] of the particular to the general, based on an
examination of the evidence and an accumulation of knowledge” (Saldaña et al., 2011, p.
93). This is the basis of grounded theory (Bogdan & Biklen, 1998; Heigham & Croker,
2009; Nunan & Bailey, 2009; Saldaña et al., 2011).
Qualitative research can never be wholly inductive or deductive, however (Ellis
and Barkhuizen 2005; Nunan and Bailey, 2009), as some theory or idea will be guiding the
gathering of data. Deductive analysis is referred to as “theory-driven” (Ellis &
Barkhuizen, 2005, p. 257) or “top-down” (Bogdan & Biklen, 2009, p. 6; Ellis &
Barkhuizen, 2005, p. 258). It involves drawing conclusions from what is already
established or known (Saldaña et al., 2011) and looking for data to confirm a pre-held
theory (Nunan & Bailey, 2009) or hypothesis. While chiefly inductive, this study did
include a degree of deductive analysis, with respect to the comparison of themes in the
data with themes derived from the Ministry of Education’s publications, as described in
the next section.
Those themes were the organising principle for the inductive analysis of the data
and revealed relationships between the interview and observation data. The three primary
themes of the findings, their sub-themes, and how they were deduced, are now described.

3.4.4 Themes

Ideas generated through the cyclical arrangement and rearrangement of data by category
allowed subsequent grouping of categories by themes, a process Liamputtong calls
“thematic analysis” (2009, p. 135). The themes were derived from an inductive review of
the literature (described below). The themes “cut across” the data (Merriam, 1998, p.
178), revealing consistencies and inconsistencies that formed the basis of the tentative
answers to the research questions and beginning of the formation of “substantive” theory,
(Croker, 2009, p. 17; Heigham & Croker, 2009, p. 307), that is, one with a narrow focus
applicable to the reality of teaching ESL children in New Zealand primary schools.
The themes were devised through a systematic review of the Ministry of Education
policy and support documentation. As each document was read, the key recommendations
relating to culture in the classroom were noted, which revealed their recurrence across the
59
documents. Inductive assessment of the list of practices gave rise to three general themes
under which the data findings could be naturally grouped. Relating those themes back to
the research review highlighted that they were also regularly recommended by local and
international scholars. Their relevance was further checked by ensuring that the themes
related to the micro-level codes (Liamputtong, 2009). (See Appendix F for codes and their
grouping by theme.)

3.4.4.1 Theme 1 – Know the ESL learner

This theme relates to the extent to which the teachers of the ESL children have knowledge
about the ESL pupils in their class with specific, and separate, attention given to:

(i) The child’s background, including their culture, previous educational experiences
and current social situation; and

(ii) The child’s understanding about New Zealand cultures, including the context-
specific ‘classroom culture’.

It relates generally to the role of culture (RQ1) and directly to the role of the learner’s
culture (RQs 2 and 3).

3.4.4.2 Theme 2 - Reflect, explore, and compare

This theme relates to intercultural competence, the ability to successfully negotiate

meaning when interacting with people from other cultures (e.g., Menard-Warwick, 2009;
Spencer-Oatey & Franklin, 2009). This topic was divided into three sub-themes:

(i) The teachers’ awareness of their own cultures; and

(ii) How cultures are explored in the lessons of the ESL children; and

(iii) Whether comparisons are made between the teachers’ and learners’ cultures.

Together these three skills highlight the importance of culture in education (RQ1) and
require involvement of the learners’ home cultures, associated with Research Questions 2
and 3.

60
3.4.4.3 Theme 3 – Affirm and incorporate

This theme related to the importance of affirming, valuing and celebrating the cultural
diversity of the school, and the incorporation of the pupil’s cultures in learning
programmes and its associated sub-themes of:

(i) The teachers’ attitudes towards other cultures;

(ii) How the ESL learner’s cultures are celebrated and incorporated at school.

These themes address research questions 2 and 3.

Relating the data back to the pre-formed themes was a deductive approach to
analysing how the classroom practices and interview responses reflected those
recommendations for involvement of culture in the classroom.

3.5 Application of communities of practice model

Each class is treated as an individual community with a membership comprising the

teacher and their pupils. Using the language of the Ministry of Education’s
documentation, the classroom community’s joint endeavour, or practice, was to
“participate successfully in the New Zealand school curriculum and interact socially with
New Zealand students and within the wider New Zealand community” (Ministry of
Education, 2003). The extent to which each member could assist in achieving this goal
depended on the role they played in the community and the extent to which they were able
to participate. Each classroom community included individuals in the roles of newcomer
and old-timer, with positions on the periphery and others participating more fully (Barab &
Duffy, 1998; Chen & Harris, 2009; Haneda, 2006; Iddings, 2005; Lave & Wenger, 1991;
Morita, 2004; Norton & Toohey, 2001; Swain & Deters, 2007; Wenger, 1998). As noted
in the associated literature, the classroom communities were part of greater communities
and all members of each classroom community were also members of many other
communities outside of the school. However this is a bounded case study (Duff, 2008;
Hood, 2009), so communities beyond the school’s boundaries do not form part of the
analysis. (See section 5.3 for discussion on the communities of practice model.)

61
 3.6 Research questions

In order to avoid specific constraints on the nature or extent of data gathered, the research
questions were not finalised until the data interpretation stage, after “proactive, ongoing …
iterative” (Croker, 2009, p. 28) and methodical reformulation throughout the research
process (Bogdan & Biklen, 1998; Croker, 2009).
The research questions were designed with the intention of understanding the
“complexity, in context” (Bogdan & Biklen, 1998, p. 2) of culture in the classroom, in
terms of the ways in which culture actually featured in the lessons of the ESL children as
well as “understanding … from the subject’s own frame of reference” (Bogdan & Biklen,
1998, p. 2) the importance placed on culture in teaching.
The research questions in their final form were:

1 Do the teachers consider it important that culture features in their teaching of the
ESL children?

2 Do the teachers consider it important that the ESL learners’ cultures specifically
feature in their teaching of the ESL children?

3 How do the cultures of the ESL learners feature in their lessons?

Answers to the questions were found through triangulating data gathered from different
sources and the inductive reorganisation by various categories. Using themes as the
organising principle of the findings “provid[ed] hubs around which the story [could] be
told” (Eisner, 1991, cited in Bishop & Glynn, 1999, p. 112), and from which tentative
answers could be formed. Deductive analysis of the findings’ relation to the apparent best
practice strategies of the themes provided a means of shoring up those tentative answers.
Lastly, the communities of practice model shed light on potential implications of the
research question responses.
3.7 Warrants

“Warrants” (Bachman, 2004, p. 727; Heigham & Croker, 2009, p.307), or justifications,
are required in order for the reader to accept the findings and interpretations of this study.
Qualitative-specific terminology for four warrants (Brown, 2009a; Brown, 2009b; Lincoln
& Guba, 1985) is addressed below, so the overall trustworthiness of the study can be
evaluated.
62
 3.7.1 Credibility

Brown (2009a, 2009b) promotes the use of the term credibility as the qualitative
equivalent of validity in quantitative research. Brown defines credibility as “maximis[ing]
the accuracy” (2009b, p. 215) of the concepts of the investigation and as “verifiability”
(2009a, p. 282). Lincoln and Guba (1985) describe it as reflecting the extent to which
readers can have confidence in the truth of the findings. The use of triangulation has
assisted in enhancing this study’s credibility. Gathering data from multiple sources allows
verification and fuller understanding of the evidence through comparison across
participants (data triangulation) and across collection methods (methods triangulation)
(Bachman, 2004; Bogdan & Biklen, 1998; Brown, 2009b; Iddings, 2005; Johnston et al.,
1998; Morita, 2004; Nunan & Bailey, 2009). In particular, including a review of the
materials in all classrooms (e.g., visual displays, coursebooks) provides a historic and
enduring record of the presence of culture in the class. The series of analyses carried out
across various groupings of data (by participant, by category, and by theme) also improves
the accuracy of the findings. In addition, my time at the school in a research capacity was
over a prolonged period of three of the four school terms and involved all teachers at the
school. All procedures were documented with rich description which will help to reveal
any influences on the findings of the research design itself (Bachman, 2004).

3.7.2 Transferability

Qualitative analysis’ version of the quantitative term generalisability is “transferability”

(Brown, 2009a, p. 282; Brown, 2009b, p. 215), and refers to the extent to which the study
is applicable to other contexts (Lincoln & Guba, 1985) or its “meaningfulness” (Bachman,
2004, p. 726; Brown, 2009a, p. 282). Whereas quantitative research places importance on
consistency of findings across researchers or by the same researcher over time, such
uniformity is not so strong an expectation for qualitative studies (Bogdan & Biklen, 1998).
As noted by Hood (2009), a single study and its findings with respect to that particular
setting can be a sufficient outcome of qualitative research. Whether the findings of a
particular qualitative study are transferable involves determining which other subjects
and/or settings they could relate to, rather than whether they are transferable as findings in
themselves (Bogdan & Biklen, 1998). In most cases, it is best left up to the reader to
decide whether the findings are relevant to their own context (Brown, 2009b) rather than

63
researchers making assumptions (Duff, 2008). The case study includes a sufficiently thick
description of the context to allow readers to judge the extent of correspondence with their
own experiences (Brown, 2009b).

3.7.3 Dependability

Dependability is the extent to which changing features within the study could have
impacted on its findings, its “fidelity” in other words (Brown, 2009a, p. 282), and is
analogous to the quantitative notion of reliability (Bachman, 2004; Brown, 2009a &
2009b). Dependability relates to whether others would agree that the interpretations
“make sense” (Merriam, 1998) and whether the findings are consistent and could be
repeated (Lincoln & Guba, 1985). In this study, dependability has been supported through
an audit trail created by recording, often with thick description, each step of the research
procedure as well as the retention of all raw data and documentation created throughout
the study. Use of overlapping methods (Brown, 2009b) such as triangulation across
observations and interviews, and triangulation across participants, along with the peer-
review of procedures and findings by my supervisor who is a researcher in the field,
bolster the dependability of the study.

3.7.4 Confirmability

It is important that data and findings can be confirmed, or verified (Brown, 2009a), a
qualitative concept akin to that of replicability in quantitative terms (Brown, 2009b).
Confirmability relates to whether the analysis has been neutral and whether sufficient data
is made available to allow others to determine whether the findings are supported by the
data (Lincoln & Guba, 1985). In this study, confirmability was enhanced by documenting
all steps of the research process, making audio recordings of all data which were
transcribed in their entirety, and by retaining all documentation in line with the ethical
procedures of the research university. Excerpts of actual data are extensively incorporated
within the report, with references to their origin also noted, and samples of coded data are
appended (Appendix G). Throughout the note taking process comments based on my
reflections were marked as such to distinguish them from the fact-based data. References
in written notes to personal reflections were clearly recorded as such, using the notation
“OC” to note observer’s comment (Bogdan & Biklen, 1998, p. 123), as shown in an
excerpt from a field note (included as Appendix B):
64
 OC - It appeared at times that he might not have understood the details of Ms B’s
instructions, but he would watch other competitors and follow their lead. OC - He is
clearly well liked by his classmates (FN4 p1).

3.8 Ethics

Finally, a note on the ethics procedures followed in the study.

Because the study involved human participants, approval from the research
university’s Human Ethics Committee was required, sought and obtained.
Of particular importance was the need to protect the anonymity of all participants.
This was achieved by the use of pseudonyms for all participants and for the subject school.
The city in which the study was conducted has not been named. The speech of non-
participant children present in observed lessons was unavoidably recorded as the teacher
interacted with them but the speakers were not identified. At the suggestion of the
principal, a notice was included in the school’s newsletter, prior to data collection,
informing the wider school community of the project and of my proposed presence in the
classroom. Parents were given the option of requesting that their child not attend a
recorded class; no parent made such a request. (See that entry in Appendix K.)
Because the ESL pupil participants were under 18 years of age, written consent
was required from their parents. In accordance with the practice of the researcher’s
university, approval was sought also from the children. A set of participant information
sheets were prepared for the parents and a second simplified set was tailored for the
children. When preparing the information to be sent to the ESL families I was mindful
that it would be read by people who were not native English speakers. I endeavoured to
use simple language and brevity wherever possible, however, my ability to do this was
limited due to the range of matters that I was obliged to include to address ethical issues.
The parents’ consent forms and their covering letters offered to provide translation
assistance to ensure they understood the project.
All teacher and pupil participants were advised that their involvement was entirely
voluntary and that they could withdraw at any point without recourse. A small gift of
thanks was given to each participant at the conclusion of the data collection.
In accordance with the research university’s memorandum of understanding with
local Māori, and its commitment to the Treaty of Waitangi10, research consultation with
Māori was completed favourably prior to commencement of research.
65
 4 FINDINGS

Whatever is good to know is difficult to learn.

- Greek Proverb

The findings are presented using a theme-based framework. Three themes were distilled
from New Zealand Ministry of Education recommendations and guidelines for the
involvement of culture in the education of ESL learners.

4.1 Themes

As described in detail above in the methodology in section 3.4.4, three themes, each with
sub-themes, framed the data analysis. These are:

1 Know the ESL learner.

(i) The teachers’ knowledge of the ESL learners’ background, including their
previous educational experiences and current social situation.

(ii) The teachers’ knowledge of what the learner understands about the cultures
in which they are now ‘submerged’ (Barnard, 2005; Haworth, 2003), that is,
New Zealand cultures.

2 Reflect, Explore, Compare.

(i) The teachers’ awareness of their own cultures.

(ii) How cultures are explored in the lessons of the ESL children.

(iii) Whether comparisons are made between the teachers’ and learners’
cultures.

3 Affirm and incorporate.

(i) The teachers’ sentiments about other cultures.

(ii) How the ESL learner’s cultures are celebrated and incorporated at school.

The findings are presented using the themes and sub-themes as the organisational
framework, and with reference to the codes allocated to the associated data.

66
 4.2 Know the ESL learner

This section presents findings associated with the codes grouped as Theme 1 – Know the
ESL learner. The study has defined two distinct ways a teacher can know about their ESL
pupils: knowing the child’s personal cultural background and experiences, that is, their
ontogenesis (Cross, 2010; Swain et al., 2011); and knowing the child’s understanding of
New Zealand’s cultures, including the small culture (Holliday, 1999) of their classroom.
These sub-themes serve as secondary headings; some are further divided. Commencing
with the teachers’ knowledge of their pupils’ personal cultural history, the findings first
address how such knowledge is gained from the child and the child’s family. The first
sub-theme is the extent to which teachers share their knowledge of learners’ backgrounds
and the assumptions they make. The second sub-theme is teachers’ knowledge of the
learners’ understanding of the New Zealand classroom culture.

4.2.1 Teachers’ knowledge of learners’ cultural background

The teachers at Parkside School demonstrated varying degrees of knowledge of their ESL
pupils’ backgrounds. When asked about the cultural composition of their current class
(Rowsell et al., 2007), most teachers listed the countries of origin or first languages of their
pupils. Miss Scott’s response was more detailed than most, providing cultural heritage
information and personal background details. When referring to Anuj, for example, Miss
Scott advised that he was of Fijian Indian ethnicity with Hindi as his first language, that he
had spent time in Fiji and in India, and was of the Muslim faith (I2p2-3; see Appendix E
for data reference conventions). This is not to say that the other teachers did not have
equivalent knowledge of their pupils, though. Some teachers might not have thought such
details were necessary or might not have instantly recalled such information in the
interview.

4.2.1.1 Gaining information from the ESL families

The extent to which parents and other family members are involved with the school may
influence the amount of knowledge teachers have about their children. Parkside School
strongly encouraged families, and the wider community, to participate in school activities,
and to share the responsibility of educating the community’s young people. The school’s
promotional material included a number of statements about “respecting all cultures” (a
67
strategic aim of the school’s charter), working to “encourage parents to be active
participants” (Principal’s welcome message), and “enhanc[ing] the sense of community”
(an aim of the Parent Teachers Association) with an “open door policy” (school’s
description of its culture). 11 (See Appendix L for the contexts of these excerpts.)
While in theory these aims and policies would provide opportunities for teachers to
learn about the cultural backgrounds of the ESL children, the extent to which this occurred
depended on the relationships between the teachers and the parents. While all teachers
referred to parents as being a source of information about their ESL pupils, only the
teachers of the junior classes spoke of having positive relationships with the parents of the
ESL children.
The teachers had mixed impressions of the extent to which the ESL parents were
involved in the school. The teachers of the junior children generally considered that ESL
parents attended parent-teacher interviews at the same rate as the New Zealand families,
although some talked of ESL parents’ reticence about getting involved in school life
(I1p12), not being used to the “open door policy” of New Zealand schools (I2p8) and
placing school and teachers “on a pedestal” (I3p11). The teachers of the junior classes
arguably had more opportunities for direct contact with parents, since many parents
(including ESL families) routinely escorted their child to and from the classroom (M1p1)
and teachers took these opportunities to talk to the parents.
The data obtained from the teachers of the senior syndicate suggested that their
relationships with the ESL parents were not as constructive. These teachers, and the ESL
teacher, did not think the ESL parents were as involved in school life as other parents.
Miss Johnston acknowledged that some were restricted by employment or study. She also
referred to a situation where the father of a boy from China had asked to meet with her but
had cancelled the appointment because he could not get the translator. Miss Johnston had
offered to arrange another time, but because the father could not arrange translation, the
meeting never eventuated (I6p20).
Ms Barringer reported that the information she gleaned about her ESL pupils
depended upon the extent to which she knew the parents and their proficiency in English
(M4p12), commenting that in some cases she “wouldn’t know their parents if [she] tripped
over them” and consequently knew very little about the children. Mr Lawrence provided
examples of his contact with the ESL parents, all of which had been arranged for
redressing their child’s behaviour rather than learning more about the child.
68
 Two teachers mentioned situations where a lack of information about a child had
bothered them. Miss Johnston expressed concern that a family had not advised her that
their son was fasting for Ramadan; with that knowledge she would have managed the
child’s involvement in physical activity and exposure to the sun’s heat (I6pp15-16). Ms
Barringer said that she had not heard a particular Filipino pupil “say a complete sentence
yet”, or even ask to go to the toilet, in his seven months at the school (I4pp 13 & 17). She
was not sure whether this silence was due to shyness, general ability, bad school
experiences in the Philippines, or insufficient English proficiency. She added that she did
not know specific background information about her Filipino and Korean pupils because
of their lack of English proficiency (I4p12).

4.2.1.2 Gaining information directly from the child

Teacher perspectives on talking to children about their background varied because of

different experiences and attitudes.
Most Parkside teachers reported developing cultural knowledge of the students
during classroom teaching. Curtin (2005) includes having personal knowledge of students
and their backgrounds as one feature of an interactive teacher. Interactive teaching is
prevalent in New Zealand schools (Barnard, 2003a) and, as documented by Harmer (2007)
and Duff and Uchida (1997), may differ from the methods to which ESL children were
previously exposed. All teachers were observed employing interactive teaching methods
in one way or another.
Mrs McIntyre’s interactive teaching style regularly created opportunities for the
children to offer information about their backgrounds. One observed example was the
children’s ‘news’ activity. The children’s presentation of their news and the subsequent
questions from the floor had the potential for teacher and pupils alike to learn about their
fellow classroom community member, as is shown in the following example. (Note, all
numbered lines are Mrs McIntyre’s (M) utterances):

Child goes to front of class and says “good morning Room four” and the class and M reply in chorus “good
morning (name)”. This news-teller says “um I went to a house with my dad that I’ve never been to before”
193 a house you’ve never been to . before . is it one of your dad’s friend’s
Child nodded and added that she’d gone to the school with the girls from the house
194 oh okay so which which school was that can you remember
Child advised she didn’t know the school’s name but that it was close so had gone two times

69
195 so what was special about their house
Child advised that there were lots of toys
196 lots of toys . so how many children do they have in that house
Child advised “three”
197 three children
Child confirmed “two big girls and one boy”
198 I’m glad you had a lovely time . does anybody want to ask (name) a question before she sits down
News-teller selects someone to ask a question. That child asked “there was a shop?” She replied “no, it
was a scoo-well”. M corrects her pronunciation:
199 a school
Another child asks “why did you go there?” to which the news-teller replied “coz my dad wanted to”
200 (to news-teller) thank you for that . lovely I heard every single word well done … (M1pp10-11)

Personal information about the children also came up informally in other classroom
situations. For example, when taking the roll and noting a boy’s absence Mrs McIntyre
explained to the class that he was in hospital getting grommets, and she asked whether
anyone in the class had grommets in their ears. The discussion led to sharing other
medical stories. When telling the class about her grandchild’s first birthday Mrs McIntyre
asked the children for their recollections of their last birthday, and whether they had “a
little baby at home” (M1p6). These observations supported Mrs McIntyre’s report that she
attempted to find out about the ESL children’s backgrounds by “try[ing] to get them to talk
… about where they come from” (I1p9).
Reading stories aloud to the children presented opportunities to involve learners’
backgrounds. Knowing that two girls had recently welcomed baby brothers into their
family, Mrs McIntyre chose a story called Michael and His New Baby Brother (Duchess of
York, 2010) (M1p11; FN1p3). As she read, Mrs McIntyre related the story back to the
children, asking who had little brothers or sisters, asking what they did to help mum and
dad with the baby (FN1p3), and talking about giving presents at the birth of a child
(FN1p3). Miss Scott also used story telling as a way of finding out more about her
children. Reading aloud Silly Billy (Browne, 2006), about a boy who worried a lot, she
suggested that the students, “Put one finger on your nose if you worry about things
sometimes” (M2p13). At the conclusion of the story she suggested that one day in ‘circle
time’12 “we could talk about the things that worry us, couldn’t we?” (M2p14).
The above examples all occurred in junior classes. Teachers of the senior classes
considered getting information directly from the children to be problematic. Ms Barringer

70
reported that in order to find out anything about some of the ESL children she had to “drag
it out” of them (I4p12). Mr Lawrence rarely sought personal information directly from a
pupil believing that it was “rude to ask” (I5p8), and children’s situations could be “very
complicated” (I5p9). By way of example, Mr Lawrence said he chose not to ask a boy
from Papua New Guinea about his culture because “they’re quite a violent country and I’m
not sure if he lives in one of the compounds or if he’s just part of the bigger population
which is known for its terrible violence … it’s not my business to ask” (I5p8).
Mr Lawrence did enjoy it, though, when ESL children chose to share their cultural
and social perspectives (I5p9). Some of his own knowledge of tikanga Māori had been
gained directly from Māori pupils (I5p2). Knowledge of the emotional and cognitive
challenges that the ESL children had to manage made him sympathetic, and he focussed on
keeping them safe and happy. He would be seriously concerned if they were intimidated
or bullied, especially if it involved the “little Asian girls [who were] really insecure”
(I5p13).
Miss Johnston implied that learning about personal backgrounds from the children
themselves was difficult: “Sometimes these guys are really quiet … they don’t offer up
much” (I6p12). She had learned little about the ESL children in her current class because
they were either embarrassed or very quiet (I6p12). When she asked what they had done
on the weekend the children were not “forthcoming” and usually replied, “Nothing”
(I6p13). Perhaps this is why Miss Scott said that she undertook her own research on
cultures in order to know more about her pupils. She reported that if she was to have an
ESL pupil from a culture that was unfamiliar to her she would not only talk to the child
and the parents, but would also seek information about the culture from books and the
Internet (M2p7).
Most of Mrs Stephenson’s knowledge about the learners came from direct
interactions with students, although she did not consider a child’s culture to be especially
relevant to her involvement with them as their English teacher. The withdrawal English
sessions, for which there was no set learning programme, allowed the relative luxury of
one-on-one personal conversations about anything the child wished to discuss. In this
respect, the ESL classroom context differed markedly from the mainstream. To illustrate
the nature of cultural content that arose in those one-on-one conversations, Mrs
Stephenson referred to Alice’s imminent return to Papua New Guinea (PNG). Mrs
Stephenson believed her understanding of aspects of PNG life – “it’s dangerous … one
71
hundred percent different to New Zealand culture … quite volatile” (I7p33) – would allow
her to support Alice. She would not “get involved and … say well why does that happen”,
but would encourage Alice to talk about situations at a personal level (I7p33). In a similar
vein, Mrs Stephenson believed she had understood a Korean boy’s interest in talking about
guns; he had a gun at home in Korea “because North Korea could come and get [him], and
you see that’s a reality [for him] and they learn at a very young age how to use a gun …
that’s part of their culture” (I7p34).
In those situations Mrs Stephenson was providing a form of pastoral support for her
pupils rather than purposefully seeking to learn about their cultures. She endeavoured to
learn about her pupil’s backgrounds “in general” (I7p17), but only if she sensed that it
affected their learning. To illustrate this point she referred to Prem and Anuj’s father’s
strict approach to the boys being assigned and completing homework. She wanted to
know “why that happen[ed] … how does that work”. Because “a lot of kiwi dad’s don’t do
that”, she considered the approach to be related to the family’s culture (I7p32). Otherwise,
involving children’s cultural background in their ESL lessons was mostly “just through
talking to them … [as part of] an exercise of some sort” (I7p17). For example, Alice and
Aafreen’s work on Headway (Soars & Soars, 2000) tasks (E10) had allowed Mrs
Stephenson to learn about their domestic situations through Aafreen’s response to an
exercise about describing her house (E10p2) and Alice’s letter about herself to a pen pal
(E10; I7p33).

4.2.1.3 Assumptions about the learner’s background

The school received minimal information, if any, on most ESL children’s former education
and personal background, as also mentioned by Barnard (2009) and Franson (1999). This
might have led some teachers to rely on assumptions about a child based on their
knowledge (whether accurate or misguided) of the child’s culture.
Data included comments from a number of teachers about their impressions of
education systems in some countries. Miss Scott’s and Ms Barringer’s comments were
based on their experiences teaching overseas (I2p8; I4pp6-7). Other teachers referred to
some children being rote learners, which they believed adversely affected their ability to
problem solve (I1p10; I3p8; I5p8). It was not clear whether these viewpoints were based
on specific authenticated knowledge of the children’s previous educational experience or
assumptions about non-English-medium educational systems.
72
 Although Mrs Stephenson advised that she was mindful of the children’s family
situation, that is, who they lived with and their position as oldest, youngest, or only child
(I7p15), the examples she used to demonstrate this might have involved her own cultural
interpretations. She talked of a Russian girl being an attention-seeker because she was an
only child (I7p23), and her interview comments about a boy from China similarly
combined individual knowledge and cultural assumptions:

541 …yeah that that that was really naughty I mean and that was his attitude he’s an only child y see
542 and the boy of the family coz that still happens in China you know they have
…
544 it’s all ground in now to have that boy child
…
546 y' know that first one is so important um so yeah he that was a difficult time I used to get annoyed with
547 him yeah and he’d just y know flatly refuse to work and the attitude was quite hard to break
…
549 break through
550 JO because he’s sort of used to getting what he wants?
551 yeah and I’m a woman you don’t take instruction from a woman … (I7p17)

4.2.1.4 Sharing the knowledge

According to Barnard, bridging the languaculture distance and creating a future path for
the child to achieve academically and socially requires teachers, families and any other
involved parties “to share their respective knowledge, experience and understandings”
(Barnard, 2005, p. 7). Parkside School had a small roll of 119; all the teachers knew all
the children, and some activities were conducted with groupings from across the school.
The teachers who reported making efforts to find out about the children’s background were
asked whether they then shared that knowledge with the other teachers. Mainstream
teachers responded that they did, supporting Mrs Harrington’s comment, “If it was
important we would share it with the rest of the staff … we’re quite open to talking about
the other kids and just letting everyone know” (I3p7). However, there was a noticeable
difference in the response from the ESL teacher, who said she did not share the
information she had on pupils’ backgrounds (I7p18), because a lot was “just general and
…a lot of it’s personal” (I7p18).

73
 4.2.2 Teachers’ knowledge of the learners’ understanding of the surrounding culture

Arguably, the most relevant and important local culture for the children to understand was
that of their classroom community. If teachers appreciate the level of understanding that
the ESL learners have of the classroom culture, they will be better placed to determine
where languacultural gaps might lie and have greater understanding of non-compliant
behaviours (Barnard, 2005, 2009a, 2009b). I use the term ‘classroom culture’ to refer to
the rules and expectations for behaviour in the classroom, reinforced and enforced
implicitly and explicitly.
The classroom culture is a resource for its members, whose access to or
understanding of it allows for better engagement in the community’s joint practices.
Compliance with the classroom culture is valued by the teachers who, because they are
(usually) the most authoritative in the community, significantly influence whether the child
is legitimised as a community member.
It was not always clear whether the teachers at Parkside had an accurate picture of
the ESL children’s level of understanding of New Zealand cultures. The data suggests that
when children’s behaviour was inconsistent with the classroom culture, there was
recognition of a languacultural gap. Mr Lawrence talked about a boy from China whose
“stroppy attitude” was “sorted …out” with the help of an interpreter explaining the
school’s rules and expectations to the boy and his parents (I5p8).
Miss Scott’s overseas teaching experiences had given her some insight into
alternative educational methods and she thus recognised that some ESL children and their
families may be unfamiliar with New Zealand’s school culture. She provided an example
of a former pupil, from Japan, whom she knew would be unused to the extent to which her
classroom was “child-centred [and] hands on” (I2p8). Miss Scott’s ability to recognise
this particular languacultural divide (Agar, 1994; Barnard, 2005, 2009a, 2009b) led her to
offer targeted support, talking to the parents and the children about the “good learning”
(I2p8) that was taking place and providing additional tasks to help with the “huge change”
(I2p8).
Miss Johnston recognised the extent to which the school’s culture would impact
upon ESL children, albeit in a general sense. She was conscious that some ESL children
were learning a new language, a new style of teaching, “taking away everything that

74
they’ve had” (I6p17), as well as lesson content which essentially required them to do
“twice as much work in the same space of time” (I6p17).
Most of the mainstream teachers talked of their difficulties with some of the ESL
learners not responding to the teachers’ attempts at engagement, an expectation of New
Zealand classroom culture (e.g., Barnard, 2003a, 2003b; Vine, 2003a, 2003b). Mr
Lawrence mentioned that the teachers had “been talking about that issue” (I5p4), which
might explain why so many raised it in their interviews. Teachers talked of the lack of
responses as being the “biggest issue at the moment” (I6p8), with comments such as, “it is
a struggle … I’m only going to do it for so long… and then I’m going to give up, you
know… I need something back from them” (I4 pp6-7). Some considered the regular
presentation of a “[dead]pan expression” (I6p14) or “bland face” (I5p4), to indicate that
there was “no helping of [them]selves” and a lack of “drive … or inquiry” (I6p14). Mr
Lawrence attributed these behaviours to the children’s previous educational experiences
where they were “taught to sit … observe, to rote learn and never challenge or respond
back” (I5p4). Again, it was not clear whether this was based on verified information or
personal beliefs. He advised that he was working with his class on communication and the
message, “You’ve got to give back” (I5p4).
Ms Barringer’s experience of teaching in Korea allowed her to recognise a difference
in educational cultures, describing the Korean education system as “very passive” and “the
complete opposite to the fabulousness of our classrooms and teaching” (I4p7). However,
Mrs Harrington believed some behaviour was due to a lack of confidence in English, rather
than a particular cultural background (I3p8). Some teachers referred to their awareness
that some ESL children would be unused to New Zealand mathematics learning and were
concerned that ESL children’s use of rote learning undermined development of problem-
solving skills.
Teachers were asked whether they altered their teaching style or the specific tasks
in order to assist the ESL learners. Most teachers said they did not. Ms Barringer did not
“dilute [tasks] down and make [them] easier for them to understand … just as long as they
give it a go” (I4p15). This was evidenced in a task she had set for her class which required
lateral thinking and solving rebus devices in order to complete a worksheet. My informal
observation of an ESL child showed the task to be well beyond her ability, but she was not
deterred. Mr Lawrence reported helping ESL children to “take out of the task what they
can” (I5pp10-11), but he had modified his mathematics programme to be “more visual
75
because it’s easier for them to learn”. Miss Johnston had sought advice from the College
of Education’s ESOL Advisor because she was concerned that changing from her usual
“take responsibility for yourself style of teaching” to a “top down” approach and giving
more detailed instructions would be “doing them a disservice because they’re not going to
have any self-discipline” (I6p13). Nonetheless, she provided more detailed instructions on
at least one project worksheet than she had previously.

4.2.3 Summary – Know the learner

To summarise the findings associated with the first sub-theme, it appears that teachers had
different extents of knowledge about their ESL pupils, for a variety of reasons. The data
suggest that there was difference in the practice of the teachers of the junior and senior
schools with respect to their relationships with the ESL parents and their interactions with
learners. Most teachers recognised that the ESL children could have difficulties
understanding elements of classroom culture, including approaches to teaching and
learning, but this knowledge did not seem to greatly assist the teachers or lead them to alter
their approaches in any significant way.

4.3 Reflect on own, explore others, compare and contrast

The findings associated with this theme were developed from almost half of the coded
data, with items grouped by three elements relating to core principles of ILT: reflection,
exploration and comparison/contrast.
This section starts with findings on the teachers’ awareness of their own culture, or
its lack, and their ability to consider their own culture objectively. For exploration of
cultures, learning about New Zealand cultures and learning about other cultures are
distinguished. New Zealand cultures are further divided into high culture and classroom
culture; for the latter the findings are organised under behaviour management, routines and
teaching style. Finally, the findings describe how Parkside teachers compare and contrast
cultures; this includes the roles of teacher/learner and expert/novice.

4.3.1 Awareness of own culture

Six of the seven teachers were New Zealand born and of New Zealand European (Pākehā)
ethnicity. Mrs McIntyre was British born and raised, of British European ethnicity, with
New Zealand citizenship. All teachers were therefore native to English cultures, and all
76
bar Mrs McIntyre were native to New Zealand European cultures. All teachers had
learned te reo Māori and tikanga Māori to varying degrees, mostly as part of their teacher
training and subsequent professional development.
Educational guidelines and research (e.g., the New Zealand Curriculum (Ministry
of Education, 2007b), Newton, 2007, Newton et al., 2010, Rowsell et al., 2007 and Sparks,
2002) encourage self-reflection on one’s own culture in order to master intercultural
understanding.
Self-reflection requires awareness of what one’s own culture comprises in order to
determine how it is similar or different to other cultures being considered. All teacher
participants were asked if they were aware of their own culture when they were teaching
ESL pupils (Rowsell, et al., 2007). All advised that they were aware to some extent, but
most found it hard to articulate beyond the acknowledgement. Most commonly, their
awareness had developed from ESL children’s behaviours that were inconsistent with their
expectations, leading them to realise that culture was at play. In particular, perturbation at
the pupils’ lack of responses had heightened Ms Barringer’s awareness of her own
culture’s emphasis on a pupil’s engagement with a teacher. Miss Johnston’s awareness
seemed restricted to her use of New Zealand English and her accent, saying, “Yeah
sometimes I think I sound very kiwi-ish…especially colloquialisms” (I6p7).
Miss Scott offered a slightly different perspective; her awareness reflected
knowledge of her culture in its own right, rather than what it was not when compared to
other cultures in the classroom. Miss Scott’s understanding of New Zealand culture
included her personal association with the country’s “outdoor environmental … culture”
(I2p5), and she exposed her class to this by sharing her interests in sailing and bush-
walking. She added:

123 …I am aware of what I bring any my own background cultural bias and the way I see
124 the world I I’ve worked in international environments with international staff as well as international
125 students
126 JO ahh okay
127 so you tend to be quite aware that okay I’m seeing it from this perspective but that is you know my
128 perspective and I have been you know in staff room discussions overseas you know we’re planning say
129 social studies unit so who’s perspective are we teaching it from who’s history are we teaching there are
130 different perspectives to certain international events… (I2p4)

77
In summary, while all teachers believed themselves to be aware of their own culture, most
were only conscious of specific elements when they were challenged by a child’s
alternative viewpoint, as opposed to having an understanding of their culture in its own
right, for its own sake. Furthermore, having awareness of their own culture did not
necessarily mean the teachers reflected upon it in order to analyse, question or critique it.
In fact, as will be noted later, some teachers demonstrated an ethnocentric slant when
comparing cultures.

4.3.2 Exploring cultures

This section describes the ways in which cultures featured in the classroom, either overtly
or subtly, and whether they related to New Zealand, the ESL students’ home countries or
other cultures with no particular association with the classroom community. In some
respects, culture featured as a subject to learn about, raised explicitly under the assumption
it was knowledge not already held by the children. In other cases, it was underlying the
lesson, regardless of the topic of study, as ‘classroom culture’ and while the occasional
feature was specifically emphasised as being important, much of it went unsaid requiring
socialisation into it by means other than explicit teaching. This all-pervasive classroom
culture is discussed first.

4.3.2.1 New Zealand culture – Classroom culture

The primary way in which ESL children were exposed to New Zealand culture was
through the social, linguistic and behavioural rules and expectations governing life in the
classroom, the classroom culture. Regardless of the subject of the lessons observed, or the
age of the pupils, the data showed evidence of socialisation of the children into the culture
of the classrooms. Mainstream teachers used explicit and implicit strategies to encourage
and discourage, reward or remind about behaviours that were valued, expected, tolerated
or prohibited in the classroom.
Many classroom cultural features were observed to be common to all mainstream
classes; others were particular to some classes, or were attributed different values or
tolerance in some classes. Three elements were specifically noted and are separately
addressed:

78
  Behaviour management, that is control of undesirable behaviours and positive
reinforcement of good behaviours, particularly good manners and respect;
 Routine activities; and
 Teaching styles focusing on student input and self-direction.
The techniques used by teachers to socialise the children to the classroom’s culture are not
mentioned here in order to evaluate their effectiveness, but to demonstrate the variety of
methods through which the students are socialised.

4.3.2.1.1 Management of behaviour. Two of the teachers noted in interviews

that so much of their time was spent on behaviour management that it reduced the time in
which to teach cultural content (I1p8; I2p7). The methods teachers used to manage
behaviour varied.
Children were praised for following their teacher’s explicit instructions, complying
with the classroom rules, and contributing sensibly to class discussions. The extent and
form of praise differed notably between teachers, with some praising infrequently and
others making regular use of praise in general forms, such as, “good boy” (e.g., M3p1),
“well done” (e.g., M1p2), and “fab-u-lous” (M3p3), or the more explicit, for example, “I
like the way all your letters are sitting in a line” (M2p6).
Miss Scott was observed using a sticker reward system for compliance with rules of
the class community, such as being “very resourceful during the pack up” (M2p12). A full
sheet of stickers earned the child a sweet treat. Rewards were also a feature of the
community of practice of Parkside School as a whole, with ‘playground awards’ presented
by the principal at assembly and certificates for good behaviour in class presented by the
class teacher.
Use of the ‘iconic’ good manners words, please, thank you, excuse me and sorry,
drew praise (e.g., “gorgeous manners” (M2pp14 & 15)). One example involved an ESL
student; Miss Scott asked Anuj, “What do you say?”, Anuj replied, “thank you”, and he
was further reinforced with, “Good boy, thank you” (M2p15). Some teachers commonly
made use of good manners words in a peremptory fashion, such as Miss Scott’s use of
excuse me in her regulatory statement, “Excuse me you need to sit down … excuse me turn
around now” (M2p6).
Parkside School’s charter included “The Three Rs: Respect, Responsibility and
Resourcefulness”. ‘The Three Rs’ featured regularly in the data through explicit

79
references by teachers in observations and interviews, by the principal at assembly, and in
a classroom poster. Other posters encouraged associated traits such as Be cooperative, Be
polite, Respect your property and others’ (FN6p1) from Miss Johnston’s class, and Touch
we like, Touch we don’t like, Good surprises, and Bad surprises from Mrs Harrington’s
class (FN3p1). The school’s values featured in their promotional material included
honesty, kindness, consideration, supportiveness, respect, courtesy, inclusiveness and
generosity.
Related to respect were the expected terms of address for community members.
Most teachers routinely used the child’s first name and almost all used terms of
endearment, such as love (e.g., M1p3; M2p15; E1p7), lovelies (M4p11), dear (e.g., M5p3;
E1p29), and chaps (e.g., I6pp3). Three Parkside teachers referred to themselves in the
third person, which demonstrated how the teachers expected to be addressed by the
children, but could have been confusing for ESL students when two teachers referred to
themself in both the first and third person within a single utterance (M1p6; E6p1)
Teachers used different techniques to gain the children’s attention. Some simply
paused while speaking to wait for silence before continuing, some clapped their hands,
some called “eyes this way” (M3pp2, 3 & 6) or “hands on heads” (M6p19: FN6p3), and
Miss Scott rang a small bell and was heard counting to (or from) three to indicate to the
children that they needed to act quickly. Miss Scott also had magnetised photographs of
each child on the whiteboard, positioned under pictures of a sun, a cloud-covered sun and a
dark cloud with rain, and she was observed tapping the appropriate area as a warning
(FN2p2).
Almost exclusively, Mr Lawrence’s controlling measures were explicit directives
in the imperative mood, such as, “Don’t do that” (M5p17), and “Don’t ask questions”
(M5p2). Their directness did not appear to signal anger, but was simply part of his regular
teaching style. Ms Barringer’s class was observed during their daily fitness session and a
visit to the library, and the children’s enthusiasm for these out-of-class activities generated
a number of minor behaviour management situations. Not being happy with the noise and
disorganisation when the class entered the hall, Mrs Barringer asked that they line up and
re-enter, adding to me, “We get very excited about fitness” (I4p1).
Behavioural management of any form was rare in the observed ESL lessons, with
more than half of the ten observations having no recorded instances. The few occasions
where Mrs Stephenson did seek to moderate a child’s behaviour were during two lessons
80
shared by three girls aged 10-12 years (E9 & E10), where Aafreen, Alice and another ESL
child were talkative, argumentative or distracting.

4.3.2.1.2 Routines. A number of routine activities revealed themselves in the

observations, each of which formed part of the classroom culture and was governed by
particular conventions, although the conventions were not identical across all classes. A
selection is described here.

4.3.2.1.2.1 On the mat. As is commonplace and longstanding in New Zealand

primary schools, the children were regularly asked to sit ‘on the mat’, a literal or a
metaphorical mat where the children sat when being addressed as a group. Children in
Mrs McIntyre’s class were required to sit closely together where they could look at Mrs
McIntyre when she was speaking (e.g., “Eyes this way” (M1p2 & p11)) and to keep still
and sit properly (e.g., “Show me you’re ready … sitting with your legs crossed” (M1p3)).
She noticeably lowered her voice when speaking on these occasions. Mr Lawrence asked
the children to sit closely together on the mat and to sit up “nice and tall” (M5p1).

4.3.2.1.2.2 Raise hands. Some teachers placed particular emphasis on children

raising their hands and waiting to be nominated to speak. This was one of the few
behavioural standards that Mrs McIntyre (M) explicitly stated in the observation:
139 (to child calling out) (name)(name)(name) …
M waits quietly until she has the attention of the child
140 you see everyone’s putting their hands up . I’m going to choose those children that’ve got their
141 hands up
M waits to give the children a few seconds to settle quietly and then selects one child with her hand up…
(M1p7)

This rule was reinforced in Mrs McIntyre’s classroom by small posters stuck to the
whiteboard showing illustrations of raised hands with the statements, Remember to put
your hand up, and Give Me 5: Be still, Listen, Look at the teacher, Keep hands free, Put
your hand up (FN1p1). In informal observations of Mrs McIntyre’s class ESL children
were twice seen to raise their hand, but when called upon they did not speak.
Mr Lawrence socialised the children to raise their hand by selecting only those with
their hand up, admonishing those who spoke without raising their hand, and publicly
praising those who did:

81
172 … (selects another child) good boy for putting your hand up how can I
173 help you … (M5p5)

Mr Lawrence did not respond to a raised hand on every occasion though. When
transmitting information he would not accept questions (M5pp2 & 8).
In Miss Johnston’s lesson children who wanted her attention were observed calling
out, “Miss Johnston!” Some raised their hand but did not wait to be called upon, and it
was common to hear children call out their entire question, regardless of where Miss
Johnston was in the room or what she was engaged in (FN6pp2-4). At no point in the
observation did Miss Johnston ask the children to raise their hand or to not call out, and
she was seen to regularly interrupt her discussions with one child or group, in order to
answer a question called out by another child.

4.3.2.1.2.3 Roll call. The observations of Mrs McIntyre’s and Mr Lawrence’s

classes were conducted first thing in the morning and involved taking the roll. Mrs
McIntyre incorporated te reo Māori into her roll call (M1pp3-5), commencing with a
Māori greeting to the group, and then calling each name along with a Māori greeting:
“Tena koe (name)”. Each child responded either, “Tena koe Mrs McIntyre” or “Good
morning Mrs McIntyre”. It was uncertain whether the ESL children or new arrivals knew
the specific words, their meaning, or that they were Māori. In an informal observation,
newly enrolled ESL children were heard to imitate the general phonological pattern of the
Māori greeting and a recently enrolled girl from Russia once responded with what sounded
like, I love you. In Mr Lawrence’s class he called each child’s name with the English
greeting, “Good morning (name)”; the child present responded with, “Good morning Mr
Lawrence” (M5pp6-7). Mr Lawrence told me that he makes “a big thing” of the morning
roll and greeting routine so that he does not “miss a child in a day” (M5p15).

4.3.2.1.2.4 Run a circuit. One of the routines undertaken by all classes at

Parkside School was short bursts of exercise between class activities or as a break from an
ongoing activity. Miss Scott’s class took part in ‘spinning and climbing time’ on the
monkey bars. At the conclusion of their fitness session, Ms Barringer asked her class to
“run one circuit” (M4p7) before they went to the library.

4.3.2.1.2.5 Class leader. A daily routine in Mrs McIntyre’s class was selection
of the class leader for the day. This position was cycled through the class roll, alternating

82
between boys and girls. The name of the class leader was written on the whiteboard and,
judging by the reaction of the boy selected in the observed lesson (M1p5), the children
valued the role. Observed duties included moderating of the news sessions and heading
the line when children travelled as a group.

4.3.2.1.2.6 News. A traditional feature of New Zealand primary school classes

is news, a show-and-tell activity where the children share something of interest with the
class. While the topic choice appeared unrestricted it typically involved places visited or
new possessions. The observation of Mrs McIntyre’s new entrants included their daily
news (M1pp8-11). Those with something to share raised their hand and were selected by
the class leader. The news-teller stood at the front of the group and said, “Good morning
Room 4”, to which the children responded, in chorus, “Good morning (name)” (M1pp8 &
10). At the conclusion of the main story, Mrs McIntyre asked questions to draw out more
information, after which the floor was open for questions from the children (see excerpt on
page 69). The news readers during the observation did not include an ESL child but later
informal visits allowed me to see each ESL child present an item.

4.3.2.1.2.7 Lining up. With the exception of Miss Johnston’s class of the most
senior pupils, the standard procedure at Parkside School was for children to line up before
moving as a group. In Mrs McIntyre’s class the children lined up in single file behind the
class leader in their own order. While instructing the children to “line up quietly”
(M1p11), Mrs McIntyre seemed to tolerate quiet talking in line (FN1p3). In Mrs
Harrington’s class the children lined up to go the hall where they were to host the
assembly, so Mrs Harrington dictated their order so that they would be in a position
corresponding to their place in the proceedings. In Ms Barringer’s class, the children were
instructed to “line up where we normally line up” (M4p7) for their journeys between
classroom and library before entering the fitness hall. Ms Barringer allowed talking when
moving to and from the library, but when they were not quiet when lining up and entering
the hall she reprimanded them (M4pp1-2). Unique to Miss Scott’s Years 2/3 class was the
requirement to line up outside the building at the start of the school day and after break
times. At Miss Scott’s arrival the children filed into the room.

4.3.2.1.2.8 Use of paint. Observation of Mr Lawrence’s class’ art project

revealed that painting was subject to a number of rules, including protecting desks, floors

83
and people from spillages, and using specific brush techniques. Mr Lawrence confirmed
understanding of some of the rules by saying, “I don’t want to see too many children
wandering around while we’re using paint, why is that?” (M5p20), and, “How do we use
[the paintbrushes]? Who can tell me? … What’s the drill?” (M5p20). Miss Johnston’s
class was to commence an art project at the conclusion of the observed lesson, and in
preparing the class she delivered rules about covering desks in newspaper and using the
school’s new paintbrushes (M6p21).

4.3.2.1.2.9 Library. All classes at Parkside School had an allotted time in

which to visit the library. Children were allowed to borrow a limited number of books and
were charged for books not returned by the due dates. The children in Ms Barringer’s
class were allowed four books at one time, and one class rule was that at least one book
was a “chapter book” (M4p11) for silent reading in class. The librarian seemed to know
most of the children at Parkside by their name. I noted in informal observations that new
ESL children were not able to tell the librarian their family name when asked, and another
ESL child with four books already on loan did not understand the rules for borrowing.
During my observation of Ms Barringer’s class, I noted a significant number of books that
suggested cultural content, including: ‘Buddhists’; ‘Mom and Dad don’t live together
anymore’, and ‘Human Barriers: the Walls of the World’ (FN4p2).

4.3.2.1.2.10 Assembly. A feature of the school culture was the regular full-
school assemblies in the hall. Mrs Harrington’s class were the hosts for the assembly I
observed (FN7) and each speaker went to the front to introduce a section of proceedings.
The assembly included a message from the principal and distribution of awards, and a visit
from the school fitness campaign coordinator, who reminded the children of the prizes
(sports equipment for the winning schools). The New Zealand National Anthem was
usually sung so everyone stood in anticipation, but on this occasion the CD player
malfunctioned and the anthem was not sung. Later, the school sang a song called ‘Kiwi
Kids (r Rockin’ it)’ (Clark & Marriott, 2007) (see later reference on page 87).

4.3.2.1.2.11 Teaching style. Consideration was given to the teachers’ styles

within the limitations of teacher-directed (didactic, autocratic) and student-centred
(collaborative, interactive, democratic) (Curtin, 2005).

84
 Statements in the school’s promotional material referred to teaching values
including “flexibility and curiosity … competence and self-directed improvement … open-
mindedness”. All teachers demonstrated elements of an interactive (Curtin, 2005)
teaching style that elicited significant contributions from the children. In all of the
observations, students were given choices regarding which tasks to do, or how to do them.
The bulk of Mrs McIntyre’s lesson involved teacher-initiated discussions about
birthdays, babies and starting school which involved personal contributions from the
children (M1), and the news session routine was entirely child-led (M1pp8-11). In Mrs
Harrington’s observation, the children could choose between continuing a writing task and
reading a book (M3p2). Miss Johnston’s class project about New Zealand native birds
required each child to choose a bird to study and gather information from at least five
sources in order to complete a worksheet (M6p14-20). Mr Lawrence’s lesson involved the
children choosing to blow up balloons or make streamers for the school disco (M5p8),
with the more experienced children acting as experts and teaching their classmates how to
make streamers (M5p10). The children working on Mr Lawrence’s First Nations art
project made small tepees and created their own painted design on the calico (M5pp16-
25). In Miss Scott’s children wrote stories about a topic of their choice (M2). Mrs
Stephenson allowed a degree of self-management for the ESL students in their English
lessons; the children often selected activities on the computer that they wished to work on
(e.g., Suhairie E4p13; Prem E2p1; Alice E3pp1-12). In three of the ten observations, Mrs
Stephenson gave the child the opportunity to ask her about the content they were covering
in the mainstream class. This allowed Suhairie to practice his multiplication tables, Anuj
to clarify the meanings of spelling words, and Mei to discuss her confusion about Chinese
and New Zealand New Years.
Very little content was transmitted to the pupils directly from the mainstream
teachers in a didactic style. Such situations were mostly directives to provide instructions,
for example, Ms Barringer’s explanation of the fitness session relays (M4), and Mr
Lawrence’s advice on constructing tepees (M5). Much lesson content was regularly drawn
from the children themselves, such as Miss Johnston’s approach to mathematics revision,
where she asked the class for the answer of each step of a geometry problem. When
updating the date on the whiteboard Mrs McIntyre called upon the class to tell her the day,
as well as yesterday, and tomorrow. Rather than correcting the children’s punctuation,
Miss Scott encouraged children to consider where their work might be improved, as in,
85
“So where do you think the first full stop goes?” (M2p9). Even during a scripted rehearsal
Mrs Harrington still allowed children’s input:

The child reads the poem, which is on the easel […]: “Daffodils; delicate, amazing, fragile, favourite, ozone-
friendly, dazzling, incredibly poisonous, living flower, spring”
26 good girl make sure you have a little break in between each one . um would you like to say that Room
27 One have been writing some acrostic poems? And you will read our class poem? Okay
A child suggests it should say “living flowers”, the plural, because the title of the poem is in plural form,
‘Daffodils’
28 oh okay living flow-ERS . that’s a good point? Let’s put an S on the end . excellent .. okay… (M3p2)

When students asked how to spell words, Miss Scott suggested writing down the sounds
that could be heard (M2pp2, 5, 7, 10 & 11) and Mrs Harrington suggested looking in a
dictionary (M3p6). Mrs Stephenson more regularly provided explicit meanings and
spellings and directly transmitted content in contrast to the mainstream teachers.
In all classes, the children appeared to be encouraged to take responsibility for their
own welfare, going to the toilet without seeking express permission or by using the ‘time
out’ hand gesture (e.g., FN2p2), getting themselves tissues from a box on their teacher’s
desk (e.g., FN2p2), operating the window blind without comment (E1p7), and visiting the
sick bay/office manager when ill or injured (M2p2; M6p8 and FN6p2).

4.3.2.2 New Zealand culture – Capital C culture

Having provided detailed descriptions of how the small culture (Holliday, 1999) of the
classroom was represented in the classroom communities, the representations of New
Zealand’s high culture are now considered.
Miss Johnston’s class’ research on their chosen New Zealand native bird was seen
in observations (M6). However, other than visual displays in te reo Māori, posters of New
Zealand’s sports teams, New Zealand flags (FN5p1; FN6p1), and the inclusion of te reo
Māori in classroom instructions, no other overt reference to the culture of New Zealand
was observed. However, teacher interviews revealed other New Zealand culture study
topics, including the then current Rugby World Cup (e.g., I1p7; I4p7), New Zealand’s
involvement in World Wars I and II and ANZAC Day (I6p8), New Zealand literature (e.g.
I2p5; I4p7), and Māori myths, legends, art and music (I2p5).
As noted already, Mrs McIntyre was seen to incorporate Māori greetings in her
daily roll call (M1pp3-5). Mr Lawrence ended his roll call with a Christian prayer in te
86
reo Māori (M5p7). Mrs Harrington used the Māori phrase, e tu, to ask children to stand
when rehearsing their lines for assembly (M3p1), and two teachers used the Māori term, ka
pai (translating to ‘good’ or ‘well done’) when praising children (M1p5; M2p6). New
Zealand culture was also seen in the school assembly with Prem welcoming school with a
Māori greeting (M3p3), and the intention to sing the National (M3p3; FN7p1). The song
sung by the school, ‘Kiwi Kids (r Rockin’ it)’ (FN7p1), was from the Ministry of
Education funded album ‘10 Great Kiwi Kidsongs’ (Clark & Marriott, 2007), and the
chorus left no doubt it was about New Zealand:

Kiwi kids are rockin’ it, rockin’ it

Kiwi kids are tops
Kiwi kids are living it, living it
Look what we’ve got
Kids can do anything, anything
Give it a try
Kiwi kids are rockin’ it, rockin’ it
Just watch us fly (FN7).

Mrs Stephenson’s classes were somewhat different, largely because all English lessons
observed were based around commercial teaching materials that had been published in the
UK or in Australia, and as such did not reflect New Zealand’s unique cultures. However,
the concepts they presented were shared by New Zealanders, including cultural models
such as, shopping, houses, camping, picnics, divorce, Hollywood movies, the British
Royal family, alcohol, Brownie Guide groups, and many more.
To summarise, New Zealand culture was pervasive in the everyday classroom
culture, as the prevailing basis of the rules, expectations and routines of the activities
carried out in the classrooms. It was also given prominence through the display of New
Zealand flags, the incorporation of Māori in the classroom, and the school song extolling
“kiwi kids” (Clark & Marriott, 2007).

4.3.2.3 Other cultures

All teachers mentioned study topics about cultures other than those associated with New
Zealand. One was observed, Mr Lawrence’s art project making tepees as part of their
study on the people of the First Nations (M5pp16-25). The decoration in Mr Lawrence’s
room reflected cultures associated with countries in Asia, such as photographs of the

87
Chinese Garden, handmade Chinese lanterns, Japanese masks, and fans with Asian-
influenced designs (FN5p1).
All other references to other cultures were in teacher interview responses. Some
teachers mentioned the Rugby World Cup as providing opportunities for learning about
competing nations, especially through their music. Mrs Harrington advised that her class
(Years 3/4) benefited from the weekly visit of a pupil’s Spanish-speaking grandmother
who taught the class basic Spanish vocabulary and nursery rhymes, and shared books
which presented familiar stories in Spanish (I3p11). Mrs Harrington had noticed that
Prem, in particular, was quick to pick up Spanish words and phrases, as well as te reo
Māori, and mentioned his positive response to learning those languages (I3p4; M3p5).
Dance was another way in which other cultures were studied; two teachers referred to the
previous year’s dance-themed school expo, where each class performed a dance associated
with another culture (I2pp5-6; I5p6).
Ms Barringer had a collection of flags flown from the school’s flagpole to recognise
the day’s association with an event or occasion in a particular country (I4p7); the reason
for the flag was included in the school’s daily notices read to each class every morning.
For example, one day the Union Jack was flying to mark an 11 year old boy’s swim across
the English Channel (I4pp7-8). Ms Barringer reported that in the past her class had studied
festivals and their associated foods; this had mostly focussed on Spain because of her
knowledge and interest in the country (I4p9). International World Languages Week had
spurred the use of different greetings, foods and music in the class (I4p9), and they had
done case studies on children from other countries (I4p12).
Miss Scott said she did not often specifically plan to represent other cultures, but
that it was “inherent within the classroom all the time” (I2p5). She referred to the class’
enjoyment of “thinking music” (I2p5) while eating lunch, which included children’s songs
from around the world, and she added that her class greeted each other in a variety of
languages in the morning (I2p5). Yoga was another personal interest that Miss Scott
shared with her class, believing it exposed them to the “Indian culture … and different
ways of being with ourselves” (I2p5).
Miss Johnston initially considered that other cultures were only involved in her
lessons as topics of study. She added that sometimes a topic would relate to the cultures of
the children in the class, such as some sports, but that not all topics were suitable,
especially if resources weren’t readily available. Studying an “obscure culture” would
88
mean there was “nothing for [the children] to be able to do” (I6p10). There was little
decoration in Miss Johnston’s class but it did include a map of the world on the wall.
Some of ESL pupils’ Headway (Soars & Soars, 2000) exercises undertaken in their
ESL sessions included references to other cultures, often through the characters, such as
Akiko, Pedro, and Olga (E8p2; FNE7-8p1), and geographical locations like Albufeira,
Chile and Moscow. Primarily, these materials depicted British culture, such as Suhairie’s
task demonstrating the possessive morpheme -’s through the British Royal family tree
(E7p4).
There were no observed instances in mainstream classes of teachers mentioning the
home cultures of the ESL learners, or where those pupils were explicitly asked to share
their culture or cultural perspective. However, the teachers’ interview responses suggested
that there were times when they intentionally involved the learners’ cultures in a lesson
and these are covered specifically below with reference to the third theme.

4.3.3 Compare and contrast

The above findings show that New Zealand cultures and other cultures featured in all of
the classrooms to various extents. Evidence of consciously creating opportunities to allow
cultures to be compared and contrasted was less prevalent and not observed. The clearest
reference was when Mr Lawrence talked about his Years 6/7 class project on Chinese New
Year, which had allowed them to “mak[e] good comparisons between China and New
Zealand in the form of inquiry based learning” and had helped the Asian children in the
class to “feel proud about themselves” (I5p6). Mrs McIntyre referred to the Rugby World
Cup as creating an opportunity for her class to do “comparative studies albeit it at a low
level” (I1p7).
Other teachers mentioned discussing differences in cultures with the children. Ms
Barringer believed it was important to do this, and through such discussions she had
learned recently that children fasting for Ramadan could not swim in case they swallowed
water; she found such discoveries to be “fascinating” (I4p14). This suggests that Ms
Barringer was prepared to adjust her role from teacher to learner, or in communities of
practice terminology, from expert to novice, an attitude shared by her colleague, Mrs
McIntyre, who commented, “we can learn from each other” (I1p11). Ms Barringer
remarked that sometimes the differences could seem negative (I4p14) and she provided
examples of some of the comments her pupils had made such as, “why can’t this person
89
put the flag up” and “why [don’t] they have birthdays”, to which her response had been,
“well she’s not allowed to” (I4p14). She considered it important to explain that “a lot of it
can be a positive thing as well” (I4p14). She illustrated this point with a remark that while
people of the Jehovah’s Witness faith did not celebrate birthdays, they did get presents at
other times (I4p14). This coincides with Ms Barringer’s earlier comment, “it’s also about
being proud of what we have and to realise that other cultures don’t have the same stuff we
do but can be equally happy” (I4p11).
Ms Barringer’s responses suggest that discussions about New Zealand’s cultural
approaches amounted to informing pupils of New Zealand’s ways, but did not objectively
compare them with other viewpoints, as evidenced in her comment, “that’s what we do
here … based on this idea here” (I4p10). Any comparisons made with other cultures
seemed to focus on how those cultures were different; she listed a number of examples,
“don’t celebrate Christmas, don’t sing the national anthem … then there’s the dietary
aspect, don’t eat meat, dairy, endless” (I4p10). Her comment, “they look like us but this is
what’s different about them” (I4p14), epitomises this stance and suggests that
opportunities were not often taken to impartially consider New Zealand’s ways or look
into how cultures were similar.
Not all teachers shared this approach. Mrs Harrington reported that she liked to talk
with the children about “similarities and differences with people and the fact that basically
we’re all the same even though we may look different” (I3p5), and one culture is just as
important as another (I3p6). When discussing the cultural content she considered
important to teach, Miss Scott mentioned behaviours that allow people to interact without
offence, such as “sitting on tables or not sitting on tables … feet facing or not facing …
eye contact or not eye contact” (I2p7). Her provision of alternatives for each example and
inclusion of aspects not necessarily associated with her own New Zealand Pākehā culture
revealed her awareness of different cultural perspectives and avoided attributing primacy
to her own cultural standpoint.
Mrs McIntyre was observed asking a question that caused the children to reflect on
an element of New Zealand culture, but her framing of the question suggested that
alternatives were possible:

126 …what do children do in New Zealand when they turn five . most
127 children . (name)? (M1p6)

90
A child provided the anticipated answer that they started school and Mrs McIntyre turned
the conversation to whether the children could remember their first day at school.
The teachers of the youngest pupils remarked that their pupils were very accepting
of cultural differences and did not require extensive explanations of distinctions (M1p11;
M2p9). While commenting that she was unsure of the age when children identify
personally with a culture (I2p3), Miss Scott advised that she did talk to older children
about cultural matters if they arose, sharing the different cultural approaches to the
situation (I2p9).
Mrs Stephenson considered that discussions about culture were not relevant to her
teaching of the English language so she made no mention of comparing cultures and the
ten observations of her lessons did not reveal any intentional instances where this
occurred. However, during an informal observation of her lesson with a boy from the
Philippines, the boy said he had coffee every morning for breakfast and Mrs Stephenson
responded that it was “unusual for us” to think of children drinking coffee (FNE9p1).

4.3.4 Summary – Reflect, Explore, Compare

New Zealand cultures were undoubtedly, and unsurprisingly, prevalent. Despite this it
seemed that not all teachers were skilled in objectively reflecting upon their own cultures,
especially when exploring cultural differences. Comparisons between cultures were
carried out occasionally, but tended to focus on how they differed from New Zealand’s
perspectives, rather than making links between cultures and promoting intercultural
understanding.
4.4 Affirm and incorporate

A large proportion of the coded data were grouped as reflecting this theme and the
associated findings are divided into two sub-themes. The first examines the teachers’
beliefs and attitudes towards other cultures and their possible influence on their affirmation
of the cultures of their class. The second component of this section addresses how other
cultures were actually incorporated at school.

4.4.1 Attitudes

In the interviews, teachers were asked about their affiliations with people from other
cultures. Of the teacher participants, only British-born Mrs McIntyre hailed from outside
91
of New Zealand and all teachers had family heritage links to the United Kingdom (I1pp2-
4; I2pp2-3; I3pp2-3; I4pp2-3; I5p2; I6pp3-5; I7pp3-4). Ms Barringer reported having been
in a relationship with someone from a non-English speaking background (I4p3), and a
number of the teachers had been exposed to other cultures through their children’s
relationships.
Most of the teachers reported travelling to other countries. Mrs McIntyre, Mrs
Harrington, Miss Scott and Ms Barringer had all lived overseas, and Miss Scott and Ms
Barringer had taught in countries where English was not the first language (I3pp 2-3;
I4pp2-3). Mrs Stephenson had spent some weeks in a voluntary position in an orphanage
in China.
Most had learned other languages through lessons, study or immersion. For some
it had been many years ago as part of their own schooling or in the early part of their
teaching career (I1p4; I2p2; I3pp2-3; I4pp3-4; I7p3). All mainstream teachers had learned
some Māori as part of their teacher training and/or professional development.
All teachers were asked if they enjoyed learning about other cultures. All replied
in the affirmative; some were enthusiastic, “yeah absolutely love it, really interesting”
(I2p2), others spoke of specific elements, “particularly Asian culture” (I5p3) and
“specifically the food” (I6p5). One teacher believed that her own interest was, in part,
responsible for the children in her class being fascinated by other cultures (I4p11).
The school’s promotional material affirmed other cultures at Parkside, including
items written from the perspective of the class members:

 We are simply just awesome in room seven. We have ten different nationalities
within the room, covering almost every continent.

 We have children from all over the world in our class; we learn many interesting
things about their customs and beliefs

“Inclusiveness and acceptance of difference and diversity” was one of the school’s values.
The teachers supported the ESL children’s first language and culture maintenance.
Some mentioned the importance of maintaining home languages and cultures so the
children did not “lose [their] own identity” (I3p10), so they could “take pride in their own
culture” (I1p12), and because it is “part of who they are” (I2p11). Having multiple
language and cultural backgrounds was recognised as beneficial: “they both exist and they

92
both have value” (I2p11), and “I do think they are incredibly lucky to have… another
…culture to fall back on… I just so wish that I had … other languages at my disposal”
(I4p17). The ESL teacher approached the question from a slightly different tack, advising
that in her experience the families of the ESL learners had paid a lot of money to come to
New Zealand for the children to learn English, and they were therefore unlikely to “fully
focus on their culture” (I7p28).
While generally speaking positively about other cultures, some teachers did make
comments that were suggestive of neutral or even negative feelings towards some cultures.
These comments typically attributed behaviours to cultural stereotypes and commonly
demonstrated an ethnocentric perspective. Comments of this nature included the
following:

 With reference to travel experiences of the social norms of other cultures, “spitting in
the street … it was disgusting” and not flushing toilet tissues, “that was gross …
having that all in a bin on the side”, and “we’re very chilled normally but some
things I think really do gross us out” (I4pp10-11).

 With reference to the purpose of case studies of children from other cultures, “it is
great because you can look at different children and think this is your daily lot … it’s
an accident of birth … you know we’re just very lucky to be here” (I4p12)

 Talking of “endless” festivals and celebrations; “[they] just about [give] the doorbell
a festival” (I5p9)

 With respect to Chinese girls walking with a shuffle, “no no you can walk in New
Zealand it’s okay I’m not going to bind your feet it’s okay” (I5p13)

 With reference to the parents of a boy from China, “being Chinese they were very
pushy” (I6p19)

 “I know that with the Indian culture they … beat their wives” (I7p15).

Despite the few comments of this nature, all mainstream teachers considered the presence
of ESL learners in their class to be beneficial (I1p11; I2p10; I3p9; I4p16; I5p14; I6p16),
even if a little “overwhelming” (I4p16). Most recognised both they and other children in
the class benefited from it. Two teachers believed the benefits extended to the wider

93
school community, noting that parents of New Zealand children had expressed pleasure
that their children were associating with peers from other cultures. Mrs McIntyre
described the ESL children’s presence as being “like travel” (I1p11) and Mr Lawrence said
the children added “a really awesome dynamic” to the class (I5p14).

4.4.2 Incorporate

Incorporation of culture refers to the involvement of learners’ home cultures in the lessons
and can be achieved through topic content, intended to educate the whole class, or
intended to provide the ESL child with a mediating tool to enhance their participation in
the class community’s practice. The section describes ways in which home cultures were
incorporated into the lessons at Parkside School. Because there was a paucity of references
to the ESL learners’ cultures in the observations, the majority of relevant data were
gathered from the teachers’ interviews.
Mrs Stephenson reported that she did not involve culture in her lessons because
“we focus on the language … basically they are here to learn the English … so that’s my
job not to get too much into the cultural side of it” (I7p19). With respect to involvement of
home cultures in particular, Mrs Stephenson preferred to acknowledge the children as
“their own person, as an individual more than worrying about the culture” (I7p20). While
she recognised that each child might “approach English slightly different[ly]” she did not
focus on the “culture side of it” and “never” considered a child as being a representative of
his or her culture, because that was “putting them in a box” (I7p20). She justified her
approach with her understanding that the child was in New Zealand “for a reason and the
reason [is] to be individuals to stand on their own two feet, learn English for the better …
opportunities” (I7p21).
Miss Johnston advised that she had started the native bird project by asking her
ESL pupils to think of native animals from their home country. She had written the
pupil’s home countries on the whiteboard with the intention of listing native animals under
each. However, she considered the exercise had not borne fruit, describing it as being
“like pulling teeth”, with “very sluggish” responses (I6p6); “I’m not so sure how much
knowledge of their own culture they have” (I6p6), and a Chinese boy “didn’t even mention
the panda” (I6p7).
Mr Lawrence said his class was “pretty lucky because [he was] prepared to reflect
their cultural background” (I5p6) and he referred to “the Asian contingent” as having quite
94
a lot of representation at the time (I5p5). This was confirmed by the presence of Chinese
and Japanese inspired visual displays in his classroom (FN5p1). However, Mr Lawrence
also commented that “sometimes it’s not paramount to target your learning straight at a
culture because it’s embarrassing for the children, they don’t like to talk about it so much”
(I5p6) (see Chan, 2007).
Mrs Harrington asked parents for their language’s equivalents of good morning and
how are you and incorporated the phrases into her lessons (I3p5). Ms Barringer mentioned
enjoying “international breakfast[s]” where ESL children and their mothers brought
breakfast foods from their home culture. She ensured that ESL children’s home nation
flags were flown on days such as their birthdays, first day at school, and obtaining New
Zealand citizenship (I4p8). The previous year’s dance expo involved each class
performing a dance from a different country with a focus on cultures within the school
(I5p6). Miss Johnston reported that her class had chosen to learn volleyball because it was
popular in the home countries of some ESL pupils (I6p10).
Parkside School did not have a school uniform. There were situations in which the
children’s clothing could be said to represent their culture. A boy from Papua New Guinea
in Mr Lawrence’s class was wearing a shirt featuring his country’s national flag and
national colours (FN5p1), and Miss Johnston’s pupil from the United States had Reno
Gamble printed on her sweatshirt (FN6p3). In her interview, Miss Scott recalled Anuj’s
first experiences swimming with the class:

291 … when Anuj first came um to go swimming he would be almost fully

292 clothed he wore long long shorts and a t-shirt down to here (points to wrists) but after I just said that’s
293 fine I just explained to the swimming teacher this is Anuj he’s just come from Fiji and he’s Muslim as
294 well and this is what he needs to wear for swimming at the moment and then he after a couple of
295 sessions that just disappeared and he was into his shorts by choice I mean it wasn’t discussed he
296 decided … (I2p9)

Mr Lawrence suggested improvements could be made to celebrate the home cultures of the
ESL children, such as including “Asian interpretations” (I5p5) on signage and creating
welcome displays as he had seen at other schools. Mr Lawrence also considered more
could be done to support using first languages, including in written work, so ESL children
could better demonstrate their knowledge (I5p6). Ms Barringer, too, supported children
using their first language, particularly to assist others that shared it; “no amount of

95
charades will get my point across when a sentence from [a peer] in Malaysian is going to
sort the problem out immediately” (I4p17).
A number of the teachers commented that planning for the involvement of culture
in the lessons was limited by the busy (“over-packed” (I6p10), “crowded” (I2p7), “over-
crowded” (I5p12)) curriculum under which they were operating and the time that was
taken up with behaviour management (I1p8, I2p7), and Miss Johnston believed there to be
insufficient materials to assist learning about some cultures (I6p10).
While there were few examples of ESL learners’ home cultures featuring in the
observed lessons, when they did feature it was often the result of the teachers’ interactive
styles that encouraged the children to contribute to discussions and share personal
histories. Mrs McIntyre created many such opportunities in the lesson observed, although
it was rare for an ESL child to contribute and only one instance was recorded; a Filipino
boy shared that he had enjoyed an “ice cream cake chocolate” for his fifth birthday
(M1p7). In other informal visits to this class, the ESL children were seen to be more
involved than this observation suggests.
As noted previously, tasks in the commercial materials used by Mrs Stephenson
involved children recounting personal experiences. On a few occasions, Mrs Stephenson
was observed directly referring to the child’s home country, such as asking Suhairie
whether there were snakes and frogs in Malaysia (E4pp10-12) and talking to a Filipino
child about his habit of drinking coffee for breakfast (FNE9p1).

4.4.3 Summary – Affirm and incorporate

While the odd comment might suggest partisan personal views about some cultures, from a
professional perspective all teachers valued affirming and celebrating the learners’ home
cultures. Some did incorporate them in lessons, when supported by materials and time,
although it was not always clear that this was expressly intended to assist the ESL
children, and the teachers’ understanding of the associated benefits were not explicated.
Some teachers recognised that more could be done to achieve this.

4.5 Relation of themes to research questions

In the next chapter, the findings are interpreted to discover their relationship to importance
placed on culture in the classroom and how the learners’ cultures are involved in the
lessons, in answer to the research questions.
96
 5 DISCUSSION

Learning is finding out what we already know. Doing is demonstrating that you know it. Teaching is
reminding others that they know just as well as you. You are all learners, doers and teachers.
- Richard Bach

This chapter discusses the three research questions by interpreting findings in light of the
literature and Lave and Wenger’s communities of practice model (Lave & Wenger, 1991;
Wenger, 1998).
It should first be underlined, that grouping the findings under themes based on
Ministry of Education publications, and considering their consistency with those themes,
was not intended to assess individual teachers or their approaches. The study was not
aimed at discovering knowledge of, or compliance with, these documents nor were their
contents discussed.
First, the research questions posed by this project are recalled.

5.1 Research questions

The study sought to answer three research questions:

1 Do the teachers consider it important that culture should feature in their
teaching of the ESL children?
2 Do the teachers consider it important that the ESL learners’ cultures
specifically should feature in their teaching of the ESL children?
3 How do the cultures of the ESL learners feature in their lessons?

Each question is used as a subheading, with the discussion organised by the same themes
used to organise the findings.

5.1.1 Research Question 1: Do teachers consider it important that culture features in

their teaching of ESL children?

This question asks about the role of culture, not the role of any specific culture, in teaching
ESL children. The data revealed an apparent difference between teaching about non-
dominant cultures and the more prevalent New Zealand cultures, especially the everyday
small culture (Holliday, 1999). So, the response to the first research question is separated

97
into two subsections: (i) the importance of other cultures, and (ii) the importance of New
Zealand cultures.

5.1.1.1 Importance of other cultures

This section considers how the teachers demonstrated the importance of other cultures in
teaching ESL children. The term ‘other cultures’ here refers to cultures other than those
dominant in New Zealand, but does not specifically focus on the ESL pupils’ home
cultures, which are addressed in the second and third research questions.
It was clear that all the teachers valued teaching and learning about other cultures.
All reported introducing culture as content topics in their lessons and, in Mr Lawrence’s
class in particular, other cultures were visually represented. This positive attitude to
diversity was displayed by the school as a whole through school projects and annual events
such as the school Expo which had themes associated with other cultures.
In classes, individual teachers selected cultural information, which appeared
generally to be about foods (e.g., Spanish cuisine), festivals (e.g., Chinese New Year), and
history (e.g., Ancient Rome), and often related to a teacher’s personal interest. This
information was reported as learning content for its own sake, rather than encouraging
objective reflection on similarities and differences with among cultures or focusing on
techniques to explore cultures (e.g., Agar, 1994; Atkinson, 1999; Crozet et al., 1999;
Crozet & Maurer, 2003). There were exceptions; one was Miss Scott treating yoga, used
for mind-body awareness in her regular classes, as an opportunity to discuss “Indian
culture” (I2p5). Another atypical example was Mrs Harrington’s Years 3/4 class, which
included Spanish language versions of nursery rhymes and stories already known to the
children, which demonstrated similarities across everyday cultures (I3p11). These are both
examples of small culture (Holliday, 1999) in class routines, which contrasts with the more
common ‘foods and festivals’ variety of cultural content, related to the “culture as area
studies” (Newton et al., 2010 p. 40) or ‘culture studies approach’ (Crozet et al., 1999).
Like half of New Zealand schools with ESL programmes (Education Counts, 2002),
Parkside teaching staff had limited second language teaching knowledge. It is a primary
finding of this study that many of the teachers had little or no specific pedagogic
knowledge of intercultural teaching principles. Haworth (2008), Cameron and Simpson
(2002), and Barnard et al. (2001) indicate that New Zealand teacher training programmes
include minimal, if any, TESOL instruction and that subsequent opportunities for
98
professional development in TESOL are few, far between, and often not given priority by
mainstream teachers.
This finding is pertinent when considered against the time ESL children spend with
the mainstream teachers as opposed to dedicated English sessions with a qualified and/or
experienced ESL teacher. As noted previously (see page 33), there is, in theory, less than
one hour per week of English support for ESL children in mainstream schools, which
reflects Parkside’s provision of withdrawal lessons. ESL pupils are almost always with a
mainstream teacher, who, according to this and other studies, may have limited knowledge
of currently recommended practices for language teaching and of the importance of
involving culture.
Despite any gap in Parkside teachers’ knowledge, the range of topics and variety of
ways in which culture formed the basis of studies made it clear that individual teachers and
the school as a whole recognised that incorporating culture in community practices was
important. Crucially though, nothing suggested that recognising this included recognising
that it specifically benefited the ESL children. That is, it was a standard feature of
teaching, regardless of whether the class included ESL children.
In summary, it appears that the teachers considered it important that culture feature
in their teaching, but that there was no specific importance attributed to its role in teaching
ESL children.

5.1.1.2 Importance of New Zealand cultures

New Zealand cultures also featured as content topics in Parkside’s lessons, but most
commonly they were the all-pervasive, and consequently often invisible (Agar, 1994;
Barraja-Rohan, 2003; Crozet & Liddicoat, 1999; Kramsch, 1993; Lo Bianco & Crozet,
2003; Thielmann, 2003), everyday cultures of life in the classroom.
New Zealand cultures were not overtly presented as lesson content in any of the
observations, but teachers did report teaching about New Zealand cultures. Te reo Māori
and tikanga Māori, for example, were studied as were Māori literature, art and music.
New Zealand also featured in projects about the country’s support of Britain in the World
Wars, its association with Australia in ANZAC commemorations, its hosting of 20
competing nations in the Rugby World Cup tournament, and references to the British royal
family. These examples suggest that Parkside teachers applied the ‘culture as area studies’

99
approach to their teaching about New Zealand’s ‘culture with a capital C’ (Thanasoulas,
2009).
It also appears that the less visible New Zealand small culture was not always clearly
explicated to the children. Just as how to live in other cultures was not part of teaching
about other cultures, so it was not part of teaching about New Zealand cultures. Focusing
on a country’s capital C culture may restrict opportunities to practice intercultural
approaches which could ease ESL children’s transition into life within New Zealand’s
cultures. Intercultural teaching about New Zealand’s small cultures can also help ‘local’13
children better understand their own culture, given that cultural self-awareness is an
uncommon skill (Crozet et al., 1999; Newton, 2007; Sparks, 2002). This is the topic of the
next section.

5.1.1.2.1 Small culture. This section discusses how children were socialised into the
small culture of the classroom. It first considers explicit culture teaching among individual
teachers, the two school levels (junior and senior), and the school as a whole; it then
considers implicit teaching.
Classroom culture is the small culture that ESL children are most regularly exposed
to as they adjust to the new languaculture; some of its elements apply to life in New
Zealand generally (e.g., ‘the Three Rs’ and turn taking). While explicitly teaching
classroom culture might not have been common, even implicitly highlighting features can
make them visible enough for ESL learners to notice (Agar, 1994; Crozet & Maurer,
2003). Making such features noticeable is one way to demonstrate the importance placed
on New Zealand cultures in the school life of the ESL children.
Analysis of the interview data showed that all teachers considered it important to
teach about New Zealand’s small culture, although they did not use this term. They chiefly
listed social features to avoid offence and “make people feel emotionally safe” (I2 p7).
However, there was some inconsistency between the teachers’ reported beliefs and their
practices. For example, Mr Lawrence stating religion was inappropriate to teach but
including Christian prayer in te reo Māori in the morning routine, and Mrs Stephenson
remarking that it was not her responsibility to teach culture but using workbook-based
activities that relied heavily on cultural topics. It did not appear from the observations that
the teachers personally endeavoured to teach small culture, but the observations were
limited; neither, however, did any teacher mention instances where small culture features

100
were explicitly taught in their classroom. This might be related to the teachers’ perception
that culture teaching was related to ‘cultural area studies’ and required a specific allocation
of time and resources. While seeing value in cultural content, it is likely that the teachers
found little time to purposefully address it amid the other pressures of the curriculum,
other than in an ad hoc fashion triggered by ‘anti-social’ behaviour.
Because of their young age and short experience the classroom is something of a
foreign place for all children in the New Entrants-Year 1 class, and to a lesser extent the
Years 2/3 class. It might therefore be expected that classroom culture is more explicitly
taught in the junior classes, since those conventions are part of the classroom community’s
repertoire of resources; understanding them (i.e., having access) is necessary to
successfully participate in the classroom community’s practices. In the senior classes the
majority of the children (i.e., ‘local’ pupils) would be familiar with the classroom
community and its culture and practices, and therefore senior teachers might be less used
to explicitly instructing about them, and less conscious of needing to when an ESL child
joins the class. However, this study revealed no evidence of a marked difference between
the junior and senior levels, which is not surprising given the limited number of
observations, although it did note considerable differences among the teachers, which may
have been related to other factors beyond the scope of this study (e.g., their personalities).
Perhaps it would be more accurate to suggest that there was a different purpose
behind the instructions in the junior and senior classes. Whereas Mrs McIntyre and Miss
Scott may have needed to instruct new entrants to the community about its conventions,
the senior class teachers may have only felt they needed to remind children about
expectations under the assumptions that the children knew about classroom culture and
were therefore being disobedient. As Barnard (2005, 2009b) noted, even if a teacher
explains the rules and expectations about a particular individual task, they do so under
assumptions about the children’s existing understanding of classroom activities, and may
therefore explicate only what is novel, not recognising that much more is novel to the
newcomer ESL pupils. Haworth (2003) emphasised the need to constantly reassure ESL
learners that they have understood the requirements of the activity.
Across the school, the emphasis on the school charter’s Three Rs: Respect,
Responsibility and Resourcefulness was an example of a classroom cultural feature that
was explicitly and repeatedly raised at all levels. It was verbalised in classrooms,
presented on posters, highlighted by praise and admonition, and, as already noted,
101
mentioned by teachers in their interviews. In communities of practice terms, these
multiple references emphasise the importance the old-timers/teachers placed on those
characteristics when participating in the community’s practice. There were few other
instances of explicit teaching of classroom culture, the only other regular references being
raising hands and using iconic good manners words by some teachers.
Another school-level explicit focus on classroom culture occurred through
induction for newcomers at Parkside School, which included introducing them to key
members of staff, showing them important places around the school, and allowing them to
spend time as part of the class prior to formal enrolment. This was reinforced in individual
teachers’ classes. During my informal visits at the school I observed prospective and new
pupils (native English speakers and ESL children) being allocated a peer buddy in the new
entrants class, where the role of buddy was valued by old-timer children, who would ask if
they could also assist the new-comer. Mrs Harrington (Years 3/4), was also observed to
assign a buddy, and a number of other children instructed the boy about class expectations.
These observations show that it was common for the old-timer pupil members of the
classroom communities to take seriously their roles in assisting the newcomers. Barnard
(2003a, 2009b) and Vine (2003a, 2003b) suggest that these peer-near peer relationships are
effective in bridging languacultural gaps, especially through co-construction of classroom
concepts and language. This reflects Lave and Wenger’s (1991) comment that knowledge
can be successfully transmitted by peers and near-peers and also supports the
recommendations of Duff (2007) and Morita (2004) for a greater range of community roles
than expert and novice. However, induction for new entrants is complicated by Parkside
School accepting ESL children enrolments throughout the year (see Barnard, 2005, 2009a,
2009b).
While frequent explicit teaching of classroom culture was not evident, the data
indicates that particular conventions were still made noticeable through less overt
approaches. At the senior level, for example, Ms Barringer reprimanded children who
pushed in front of her, and Mr Lawrence praised a child for raising his hand. Routines such
as hand-raising and roll call were a strong feature of classroom culture. The repetitiveness
of such routines may have illuminated some conventions (Rowsell et al., 2007), socialising
the children into recognising a sociocultural context and realising its associated
expectations (Peters & Boggs, 1986; Schieffelin & Ochs, 1986a). That said, many of the
routines were uniquely influenced by the individual teachers’ practices. Because many
102
children regularly spent time with more than one teacher (e.g., relief teachers, teachers’
aides, maths groupings), they had to learn to adjust to different classroom cultures.
It is evident that the ESL children of Parkside School were exposed to multiple and
potentially confusing representations of New Zealand small culture, and the observations
offered examples of small culture that were not understood by ESL students. For example,
one routine where different behaviours could be appropriate, and where different teachers
had different practices, was roll call; observations showed that some newly enrolled ESL
children did not know the appropriate responses. But there were also difficulties even
where a single convention existed; observations showed that some ESL pupils did not
understanding the rules for borrowing books. Because “cultural knowledge is not
something that learners can just pick up” (Dellitt, 2005), largely due to its invisibility (e.g.,
Crozet & Liddicoat, 1999; Lo Bianco & Crozet, 2003; Kramsch, 1993), ESL pupils are
more likely to notice (Crozet & Maurer, 2003; Newton, 2007; Rowsell et al., 2007) and
take up new cultural features if the differences and similarities are made clear to them
through explicit teaching.
It is not surprising that culture was not made as explicit as it could have been made
at Parkside School. Rowsell et al. (2007) assert that culture is often not made explicit in
practical terms despite being recognised as significant in teaching second language
learners. One reason may be that teachers are a product of their own experiences as
students (Chan 2006, 2007; Harmer, 2007; Haworth, 2009; Lortie, 2002) – “being a
student is like serving an apprenticeship in teaching” (Lortie, 2002, p. 61). With the
exception of Miss Scott and Ms Barringer, the Parkside teachers’ own education (and
teaching careers) took place in English-medium schools in English-speaking countries.
The extent to which the “daily realities” (Haworth, 2003, p. 138) of classroom life are
culturally-founded may be difficult to discern and a teacher might not realise the size, or
even the existence, of a gap between teacher and ESL pupil expectations. This is one
reason why Barnard proposed individual languaculture plans (2005, 2009a) for ESL
children, accompanied by comprehensive and structured induction (2009b).
Knowledge of these everyday classroom culture rules is important because it is a
resource that allows an ESL learner (in fact, all pupil members of the classroom
community) to be legitimised as a participating member. Compliance with those rules is
also a part of the community’s practices, such as the students’ successful participation in
the school curriculum (Ministry of Education, 2003). Mastering classroom cultural
103
knowledge will reduce the likelihood of the ESL learners being hindered in their access to
resources. For example, they will be allowed to participate in a class discussion if they
first put their hand up, which will, in turn, give them opportunities for output and
feedback; and they will be allowed to participate in an art project if they follow the rules of
working with paint, an opportunity to display a talent unrelated to their language
proficiency.
Understanding the classroom culture will also reduce the likelihood of being
marginalised by other members because they will not inadvertently breach rules and be
deemed disruptive or disobedient (Barnard, 2009b). The present study suggests that there
is potential for this to occur in Parkside classes, in the negative interpretations of the ESL
children’s disinclination to engage, look their teacher in the eye, answer questions directly,
think for themselves, and so on. Bonvillain (2008) points out that interactants can
associate different meanings with a behaviour, and some Parkside ESL children’s
behaviours may have had a different meaning in their culture than in the teachers’ culture,
leading teachers to interpret them negatively as disobedience (Barnard, 2009b), defiance,
stroppiness, and laziness. The ramifications of such an approach were exemplified in
Toohey’s (1998) observations of a classroom community where ESL pupils’ lack of
compliance with unfamiliar conventions led to them being “defined as deficient” (p. 62),
restricted their participation and affected their competence and sociocultural identity.
The importance of making the small classroom culture explicit to the ESL learners,
as well as confirming and praising their compliance with it (Haworth, 2003), cannot be
overstated. Research suggests that an effective way to achieve this is through use of
intercultural teaching methods (e.g., Conway et al., 2010; Crozet & Liddicoat, 1999;
Dellitt, 2005; Lo Bianco & Crozet, 2003; Newton et al., 2010).

5.1.1.2.1.1 Intercultural teaching. Perhaps the most demonstrable way in

which to appreciate a teacher’s perspective on the importance of culture is the extent to
which they practice intercultural teaching, whether knowingly or through practices that
concur with its principles. It has been established that an important component of
intercultural teaching is the ability to reflect on one’s own culture, beyond which other
cultures can be explored, compared and contrasted with one’s own. In Newton’s (2007)
opinion, cultural self-awareness is necessary for understanding other cultures and
effectively teaching language learners.

104
 Each of Parkside’s teachers reported that they were aware of their own culture when
teaching ESL pupils. For most though, this seemed to be restricted to particular features of
their culture (e.g., New Zealand accent), or features made salient by an ESL child
demonstrating an alternative approach (e.g., eye contact). It was not evident that all
teachers understood their culture, and it was consequently not clear whether they reflected
on their culture as part of intercultural teaching practices.
An exception was Miss Scott, the only participant to articulate an awareness of
herself as “culturally marked” (Knutson, 2006, p. 598). She used her self-awareness as a
cultural resource (Ryan, 1998) not only to teach about the target culture in general (as did
other teachers), but also to explain her perspective on New Zealand culture as unique and
not necessarily representative. She demonstrated cognisance of alternative viewpoints in
her comments about various cultural beliefs (e.g., appropriateness of sitting on tables, see
section 4.3.3, page 90).
Turning to the intercultural teaching principles of exploring and contrasting
cultures, Ms Barringer and Mrs McIntyre both talked of comparing New Zealand
perspectives to other cultures. It was not clear whether the comparisons were objective
and ethnorelative (Bennett, 1986) and intended for “the development of an intercultural
mindset” as opposed to learning facts (Bennett, Bennett & Allen, 2003, cited in Newton et
al., 2010, p. 32). Using an intercultural mindset to learn about other cultures requires
‘decentring’ from one’s own culture (Agar, 1994; Atkinson, 1999; Crozet & Maurer, 2003;
Newton et al., 2010), as well as recognising that discrete items may not be representative
of all members.
When Ms Barringer referred to her students learning about the daily life of a
Chinese school girl, she highlighted the “hardship” (I4 p12) of life in China and extracted
gratitude for life in New Zealand. Heightening awareness of differences can create a
boundary between the cultures (Haworth, 2008) rather than making an intercultural
connection between them and/or breaking down an existing barrier (Zhu, 2011).
However, Ms Barringer also described her class’ participation in international breakfasts
where ESL children brought typical foods; such activities can enhance interculturality by
showing alternatives without insisting on conformity (Bosher, 1997; FitzGerald, 1999;
Menard-Warwick, 2009; Merryfield, 2004). Ms Barringer did not say whether New
Zealand breakfasts were included, but doing so would elucidate New Zealand culture to

105
the ESL students, and might also reveal differences among its members, thus serving to
dilute stereotypes and remedy assumptions.
Interestingly, Miss Scott recalled an instance in which her pupils learned from each
other, without her input. She had overheard a conversation between Anuj and a New
Zealand child, where the local child talked about fasting as part of a church fundraiser
(I2p6). Anuj expressed his belief that fasting could only be undertaken in association with
a mosque. Situations such as this suggest that children can undertake their own cultural
investigations (Atkinson, 1999). These children, despite being only 6 or 7 years old, were
interested in sharing their viewpoints and created the opportunity to do so. Such moments
can be expanded into an intercultural exploration opportunity for all.
Mr Lawrence mentioned that he had learned about tikanga Māori through
instruction from Māori pupils who had enhanced his knowledge by telling him about their
customs, traditions and principles. This situation demonstrates the Māori principle of ako
(Bishop & Berryman, 2006, p. 273) – to learn as well as to teach – which is associated
with intercultural teaching in New Zealand publications (e.g., Alton-Lee, 2003; Berryman
& Glynn, 2003; Bishop, 2003, cited in Bishop & Berryman, 2006; Glynn & Berryman,
2003; Newton et al., 2010). Relating it to the communities of practice model (Lave &
Wenger, 1991), ako “does not assume any power relationship between teacher and
student”, instead it allows for “dual learning” (Berryman & Glynn, 2003a, p. 59). It
mirrors Fassler’s (2001) assertion that “what is worth knowing in the classroom is not
limited to the teacher’s knowledge” (p. 27). Mr Lawrence also applied this principle when
he described some of his pupils as experts in streamer making. Ms Barringer also referred
to her enjoyment in learning about Muslim and Jehovah’s Witnesses cultural practices
from her pupils.
These situations involved redistributing novice and expert roles. Valuing ESL
pupil contributions and recognising ESL pupil expert knowledge can enhance their
legitimisation as worthy participants in the classroom’s practices. It has a levelling effect
on the distribution of power across the community by diluting the ‘insider/outside’
distinction, and is likely to encourage greater participation from the pupils. Such
contributions add to the classroom community’s repertoire of resources.

5.1.1.2.1.2 Understanding and accommodating other approaches to learning

within the classroom culture. Recognising and accommodating differences in small

106
culture is associated with the intercultural principle of being aware of one’s own culture.
This section discusses the Parkside teachers’ experiences and practices about the impact of
previous cultural and educational experiences on ESL children. Awareness of alternative
approaches and willingness to accommodate them can align with consciousness of how
culture may impact both teaching and ESL pupils’ learning, including of classroom
culture.
Harmer (2007) asserted that effective teaching and learning included teachers
recognising that practices were culturally based, along with accepting and possibly
accommodating learners’ preferred strategies. This was true of some Parkside teachers,
such as Miss Scott talking to Japanese families about “child-centred” learning (I2 p8), Mr
Lawrence making his maths programme more “visual” (I5 p11), and Miss Johnston
modifying project worksheets for ESL children less used to self-direction. While Miss
Johnston expressed some frustration and doubt, she described the results as “fantastic” (I6
p15). This suggests that her frustration and doubt were due to not realizing how her efforts
were helping her ESL pupils not only complete the project, but also learn the
languaculture. This underscores the value of apprising teachers of intercultural teaching
(Conway et al., 2010).
Other teachers made no specific concessions to the ESL learners beyond reduced
expectations regarding work quality or quantity, and the need to offer more support. In
fact, ESL children were usually assigned the same tasks as everyone else, but with lower
outcomes expected. Making an effort was considered sufficient. Requiring the children to
work on the same task as their English-speaking classmates does provide a challenge and
reduces distinctions – both benefits for language learning (Franken & McComish, 2003;
Kennedy & Dewar, 1997; Talmy, 2008) – but lowered expectations may make learners
believe they are less legitimate members of the classroom community, thus impacting on
their participation in the practice.
Iddings (2005) describes the potentially divisive effects in a classroom community
when ESL learners identify themselves as less competent. She describes how the ESL
students established a parallel community; while this allowed some to take on the roles of
experts, it restricted the ESL pupils’ access to resources in the greater classroom
community and negatively impacted opportunities for languaculture learning. This was
illustrated in my informal observation at Parkside School of an ESL girl struggling with a
gap-fill task created to challenge native users of English. Despite the difficulty, the child
107
was determined to complete the worksheet. With a less determined attitude, the girl could
have questioned her legitimacy in participating in this community practice. Iddings’
(2005) use of the communities of practice model reveals how the inaccurate understanding
of ESL learners and their development can lead to making erroneous assumptions,
assigning inappropriate tasks, and hindering participation. Swain and Deters (2007),
Toohey (1998), and Duff (in press, cited in Duff & Talmy, 2011) all emphasise that the
more a learner is legitimised as a language user the more likely their success in language
learning, through improved access to resources, greater opportunities for socialisation, and
increased participation in appropriate practices. Mr Lawrence reflected this approach by
remarking that he did not consider a learner’s English ability equated to their general
ability. Such thinking is an important part of legitimising a novice.
There were reported instances of an ESL child’s behaviour being interpreted by
teachers as misbehaviour or an attitudinal problem, as already discussed. When making
such references, the teachers did not explicitly connect the behaviours and the potential
misalignments between teacher and pupil expectations of classroom culture, or of cultural
transfer (FitzGerald, 1999). Like FitzGerald mentions, the teachers appeared to be more
concerned by cultural misunderstandings than by language mistakes. Nevertheless, in
some cases this concern had a positive outcome because they then explicated the relevant
classroom conventions. With the conventions noticeable, the ESL learners abided by them,
increasing their legitimisation as community members. This was evidenced in Mr
Lawrence’s remark that a “stroppy” pupil had become a “lovely boy” once expectations
had been clarified (I5 p7).
While many teachers commented that mathematics teaching was approached
differently in some Asian countries, Miss Johnston was the only teacher to express
recognition of how for an EFL learner such a change was “taking away everything that
they’ve had” (I6 p17), requiring them to acculturate to a new style of “doing school”
(Vine, 2003b, p. 129), as well as learning new content. Miss Johnston was one of the only
teachers to acknowledge this pedagogical issue and, as described earlier, had adapted her
teaching style to accommodate the ESL pupils after seeking advice from the local ESOL
advisor.
As might be expected in mainstream teaching, New Zealand’s popular culture
sometimes featured in lessons. This can pose challenges for ESL learners. Like the
classrooms in Duff’s (2004) study, data obtained from Parkside School included references
108
to the British royal family and sports teams, most notably New Zealand’s involvement in a
rugby tournament. (The study was conducted immediately following a British royal
wedding, and while New Zealand hosted the 2011 Rugby World Cup.) With the Ministry
of Education’s support, the rugby tournament was a regular feature of the children’s
lessons during this study. When Ms Barringer was asked whether the ESL children were
gaining anything from the rugby focus, she advised that she had not thought they would be
interested because they were unlikely to realise its “importance” (I4p8) to New Zealand.
For those children the languacultural gap may have been significant, but was not
addressed.
Applying the principles from Duff’s (2004) findings, such strong involvement of
the popular culture could “marginalize newcomers, potentially preventing the[m] …from
participating more fully in classroom speech events” (p. 231). Many ESL children may
not have watched or attended rugby matches, may not have been familiar with the lexicon,
and may not have recognised the ‘main characters’ of the popular teams. Like the students
in Duff’s study, the absence of such local knowledge might have reduced the children’s
access to discourse and limited their productive opportunities. However, it also strikes me,
that given the inclusive nature of the whole-school community, that peer-peer engagement
may have occurred with classmates of the ESL children demonstrating their knowledge of
their ‘national game’. This is a feature of peripheral engagement, where openings are
provided, such as through sharing “stories or explanations” (Wenger, 1998, p. 100)
intended to “give exposure to actual practice” at a reduced level, with less risk for the
newcomers (p. 100), and without an expectation for the novices to contribute in any
significant way (Duff, 2004). If this occurred, the ESL children would have been exposed
to valuable cultural information relevant beyond the school, and it would have arisen from
a shift in typical community roles and power distribution as the local children were
elevated to experts.
According to Simpson (2008), understanding learners’ cultural backgrounds and
previous experiences can mitigate frustrations like those mentioned here, and can clarify
which features of the classroom require explicit instruction. A teacher’s knowledge of the
educational histories of learners can help them develop methods that build on or
accommodate a range of experiences and strategies, and even which elements of other
cultures can be appropriately incorporated into the lessons.

109
5.1.1.3 Summary Research Question 1

It appeared that a few elements of the classroom culture were made explicit, often in
reaction to a learner’s alternative response. Other conventions were raised more implicitly.
While it seemed that there was general agreement that ESL pupils should learn how to
avoid offending New Zealanders, such features were not often explicitly taught. Most
teachers recognised that there were probably differences between ESL children’s previous
educational experiences and Parkside School classroom cultures, and several had
attempted to make allowances for those differences in their teaching practices.
The Parkside teachers practiced elements of intercultural teaching methods to
varying degrees. At least one recognised the relevance of understanding she was
“culturally marked” (Knutson, 2006, p. 598), and some appreciated the role their own
culture played in their teaching. Few, however, demonstrated skills in objectively
comparing the dominant majority culture with other cultures. It appears that the teachers
might not have regarded the role of the majority culture as important in their teaching of
the ESL children. There was no evidence that intercultural teaching was recognized as a
specific, effective and promoted approach (Conway et al., 2010), but in some respects its
principles were borne out in the teachers’ practices.
All teachers involved other cultures in their lessons and expressed positive attitudes
towards doing so. This suggests that learning about cultures was considered important by
all of Parkside’s teachers. The issue then comes to which cultures are important. As will
be seen in section 5.1.3, incorporating the learners’ own cultural viewpoints was rare.
Furthermore, despite valuing the role of culture in their lessons, it seems that teachers were
less aware of the importance of culture in teaching ESL children in particular.

5.1.2 Research Question 2: Do teachers consider it important that the ESL learners’
cultures specifically feature in their teaching of ESL children?

This section discusses teachers’ perspectives on the specific importance of involving the
home cultures of the ESL students in lessons. Those perspectives have been ascertained
by considering the extent of teachers’ knowledge about the ESL children and about how
home cultures might affect their understanding of the new languaculture. How that
knowledge was gained and shared is then discussed, followed by an exploration of the
findings associated with the teachers’ attitudes towards other cultures and the possible

110
impacts on ESL pupils’ learning. The section ends with a remark about legitimacy and
whether it is granted or under the control of the learner.

5.1.2.1 Knowledge about the learner

Attributing value to the role of the ESL student’s culture in their learning implies the need
to know the learner as an individual member of their culture and as newcomer to the
classroom community who might be facing challenges. According to Rowsell et al.,
“understanding the ESL learner is essential” for teachers of culturally diverse classrooms
(Rowsell et al., 2007, p. 142).
Barnard’s (2005, 2009a, 2009b) studies of ESL children within the mainstream of
New Zealand primary schools referred to the concept of languaculture distance and
emphasised that the distance must be bridged to give the ESL child the opportunity to
progress in their ability to communicate, interact and gain academic knowledge within the
new languaculture. Vital planks of any bridge spanning that distance are “due
consideration of the key social and historical influences that have shaped each individual
learner” (Barnard, 2005, p.5), “understand[ing], literally, where the particular children are
coming from” (Barnard, 2005, p. 6, 2009a, p80), and recognising that the learner has
“strengths and resources to bring to bear” (Barnard, 2005, p.7; 2009a, p80, emphasis
original).
Most teachers reported attempting to learn about the children by one means or
another, implying that they considered it worthwhile. Many had tried to gain information
from the children, but not always successfully. In the junior classes, the interactive
teaching style and associated activities provided many situations when the pupils could
share their perspective. However, Mrs Stephenson and Mr Lawrence believed that asking
children about their backgrounds could be difficult or embarrassing for the children, or
was not the teacher’s job. Other New Zealand teachers have made similar comments
(Kennedy & Dewar, 1997), as have teachers elsewhere (Chan, 2007; Parker, 2010), but
avoiding the matter reduces awareness of how some children need to be supported.
Asking pupils to share information from their culture is mediated by the teacher’s
own cultural viewpoint that it is appropriate and acceptable to talk with class community
members about personal, non-school matters. This viewpoint reflects how teachers are
influenced by their own educational experiences, and that their lessons are often based on
their personal interpretation, or assumption, of what is appropriate (Chan, 2006, 2007).
111
Not all of Parkside’s teachers shared the view that such information was appropriate to
seek out, and the teachers’ reports indicate that not all ESL children appeared comfortable
doing so, so it only occurred in some classrooms. This inconsistency across classrooms
might reflect Chan’s consideration of whether school curriculum should relate directly to
the actual cultures present at the school under the assumption that all families want their
home cultures recognised, or whether focus should be on educating about cultural diversity
in general in order to “tread lightly”, avoiding “complexities and tensions” (Chan, 2007, p.
190).
Willingness to contribute detail about their personal histories may also be related to
pupils’ ages, given the apparent differences between junior and senior teachers. Parker
(2010) and Chan (2007) suggest that a child’s reluctance to share personal cultural
viewpoints may be related to recognising their culture is different to others in the class, or
realising their cultural membership contributes to their personal identity; together these
may lead others to somehow define them.
Another potential age-related factor was the nature of the tasks the children worked
on. The senior school activities more often included sustained projects associated with
predetermined topics which may have provided fewer opportunities for the older ESL
children to contribute their personal viewpoints than the juniors were given. The senior
children also tended to be tasked with working methodically through set worksheets,
problem questions, or directed assignments. Other possible influences, beyond the scope
of this study, are the child’s language proficiency, and how the classroom community
conditions influenced their ‘affective filter’ (Krashen, 1985).
Different experiences with the ESL children’s parents affected how much
information teachers could gain. Whereas junior school teachers had regular casual
encounters with ESL parents, senior school teachers relied on organised parent-teacher
interviews, which ESL parents rarely attended. Ms Barringer expressed concern about the
effect on student information due to language barriers impeding relationships with the
parents. Miss Johnston’s recollection of a meeting missed due to problems finding a
translator suggested that the responsibility for bridging the language gap was largely left to
the parents. These attitudes existed despite the teachers stated awareness of how New
Zealand school-home relationships differed from those in other countries, such as Miss
Scott’s comments about New Zealand’s open door policy (I2p8).

112
 Similar responses have been documented elsewhere (e.g., Roessingh, 2011;
Rowsell et al., 2007; Stagg-Peterson & Haywood, 2007), but despite the challenges, the
literature commonly recommends that schools make the effort to reach out and welcome
ESL families, and not doing so or making “weak attempts” (Rowsell et al., 2007, p. 151),
such as relying on written communication and not offering translation services, could
actually make matters worse, fortifying boundaries between the ESL homes and the school
(Rowsell et al., 2007). Parkside School had only limited resources to cover translation and
limited awareness of such skills in its community, but it also seemed that staff was not
aware of some resources available on the Ministry of Education’s website, including
translations of standard schools forms and documents.
At face value, the Parkside teachers’ responses might suggest that they did not
value the home cultures of the school or the role of their families in the school community.
However, there is good reason to think otherwise. It conflicts with Parkside’s promotional
information that refers to the school’s cultural diversity and repeatedly encourages (in
English) for parents to be active participants. It also conflicts with reports from all
teachers that they enjoyed learning about other cultures. Despite many teachers
commenting on the absence of ESL families at school events and parent-teacher meetings,
there were no clear commitments to increase that involvement. Ancillary to that is the need
to address any mistaken belief that families are unable to assist with the child’s education
in English (Roessingh, 2011; Stagg-Peterson & Haywood, 2007).
The teachers’ concerns about the lack of information and the inadequacy of the
teacher-parent relationships suggest that they place importance on knowing the pupils, but
the limited ways of operationalising contact with families would seem to temper that
importance.

5.1.2.2 Awareness of the influence of home cultures on the understanding of the new
languaculture

This section considers the teachers’ awareness of how home cultures might impact on the
ESL pupils’ operation within the target culture.
The ESL children would have already “learned how to learn” (Saville-Troike, 2006,
p. 128) before they had joined Parkside School’s communities. A number of the teachers
raised “rote learning” (I3 p8 and I1 p10) as being used by pupils from Asian countries, and
supported by their parents. However, the teachers spoke of this strategy as a hindrance to
113
the child’s ability to operate within New Zealand’s teaching and learning culture, which
has a strong focus on socialisation, and where children take responsibility for problem-
solving and their individual and collaborative learning (Barnard, 2003b; Vine, 2003a &
2003b). It was not clear whether the teachers’ comments were based on verified accounts
of use of such strategies or whether they were assumptions made about other educational
systems, since both knowledge and assumptions “inform… pedagogical practice[s]”
(Rowsell et al., 2007, p. 142). In addition, no reference was made to whether the pupils
necessarily preferred these methods. Littlewood (2000) found that students from Asia
were often restricted to particular strategies, as opposed to being personally disposed
towards them, and Xu and Lewis (2002) found that English language education in China
was not always conducted using “traditional” Chinese methods (p. 12). These studies
reiterate the importance for teachers to know each ESL learner as an individual with
particular experiences, preferences and ambitions, and whether those three views are
identical.
Simpson (2008) observed that Western teachers at an English language school in
China commonly complained that the Chinese students lacked motivation and willingness
to participate, instead wanting specific answers. He also mentioned their concern with
other children acting as intermediaries when pupils had issues to discuss with the teacher.
Parkside teachers specifically raised all of these as concerns they had experienced and
which they attributed to the child’s culture. This also reflects Kumaravadivelu’s (2003)
assertion that students from countries in Asia are often stereotyped.
As already mentioned, almost all of Parkside’s teachers remarked on the ESL
children’s apparent unresponsiveness to the teachers’ attempts at engagement, and even
their lack of facial expression. Mr Lawrence’s reference to the teachers having recently
talked about the issue emphasised the impact that the matter had made on the staff. While
some judged such behaviours as being culturally influenced, there was also some
appreciation that the pupils’ conduct might have been more due to unfamiliar conventions.
In some cases, the teachers had explained the particular convention to the ESL pupil and in
some instances, to the parents too. These perspectives indicate that the teachers recognised
the importance that the learners’ home culture played in their interpretation of school
practices. It was not clear whether the teachers would always address such issues of
apparent cultural difference, or whether all teachers considered addressing them, but there

114
was evidence of the teachers discussing the situations with their colleagues, suggesting
they considered such matters important.

5.1.2.3 Sharing knowledge about the learners

Having gained knowledge of the ESL children’s background, most teachers reported that
they would share it with other teachers. Teachers in ESL programmes around New
Zealand emphasised to Kennedy and Dewar (1997) the importance of gaining and sharing
knowledge about the pupils’ cultures and their possible alternative viewpoints (see also
Barnard, 2003a, 2005, 2009a and Stagg-Peterson & Heywood, 2007). Knowledge sharing
has a number of benefits, including clarification of languacultural gaps that require
bridging (Barnard, 2003a, 2005, 2009a; Kennedy & Dewar, 1997), assistance with ways to
incorporate learners’ cultures in their lessons (Johnson, 1991, cited in Kennedy & Dewar,
1997), possible explanations for a child’s alternative behaviours (Barnard, 2009b;
Kennedy & Dewar, 1997) and understanding alternative approaches that could be
accommodated in teaching (Stagg-Peterson & Heywood, 2007). In addition, it could
reduce tensions among classroom community members and lower barriers between ESL
and mainstream classroom communities.
As recognised earlier, Parkside School was small enough to allow all teachers to
know all children by name and there were regular situations where teachers managed
groups of children other than their usual class. Because of this, sharing information
between teachers was practically achievable. When sharing took place it was usually
during breaks or staff meetings. Mrs Stephenson was not expected to attend the staff
meetings, nor were the teacher aides (see Haworth, 2008). There were, therefore, no
regularly scheduled times at which all staff could together focus on the needs of the ESL
learners, clearly a missed opportunity for sharing information about the learners and for
developing strategies to assist teachers and learners alike.
Because of her unique opportunity to work intensively with the ESL children in
one-on-one situations, Mrs Stephenson was privy to personal information shared by the
pupils. It appeared that she valued those near-pastoral relationships and, in good honour,
saw no need to share details that were not directly relevant to their learning. It was an
unfortunate consequence of her good intentions that information, which could have been
useful to the other staff for understanding pupils as individuals, was protected.

115
 Such relationships between teachers and students, and their value in enhancing
information sharing, support Haworth’s (2003) assertion that teachers can learn more
about their pupils simply by spending time with them. However, Mrs Stephenson’s
approach also reflected Haworth’s (2008) concern that “borders” (p. 411) can be created
between the ESL programme and the mainstream programmes. Haworth (2008) recorded
that only one of eight mainstream teachers had visited their school’s ESL setting. I
understand the situation was identical at Parkside School. Saville-Troike also described
how the minimal interactions between ESL and mainstream teachers created “hard-shelled
communities” (Saville-Troike, 1989, p. 119). The distinct boundaries around the roles of
mainstream teacher and ESL teacher, coupled with Mrs Stephenson’s beliefs that teaching
culture in her English sessions was not her role and personal information should not be
passed on, probably limited how knowledge about the children’s cultures could be shared
and potentially disadvantaged the school and the ESL pupils, in particular. The children
effectively received their education in two quite different classroom communities – their
mainstream class and their ESL sessions – where each context had different resources
available, different members (with different practices, attitudes and expectations, levels of
expertise) and different endeavours.
To summarise, while most teachers could see value in sharing knowledge about the
learner, their culture and their understanding of New Zealand’s cultures, the scarcity of
opportunities created for this purpose moderated the apparent extent to which the teachers
considered it significant in the education of ESL pupils.

5.1.2.4 Teacher attitudes towards the home cultures

Attitudes of teachers towards other cultures can impact on how language learners are
involved in the classroom’s joint practice (Franken & McComish, 2003; Kennedy &
Dewar, 1997; Marlina, 2009; Rodriguez & Sjostrom, 1995; Rowsell et al., 2007; Talmy,
2008; Youngs & Youngs, 2001). Rodriguez and Sjostrom (1995) assert that “respect for
cultural differences is an attitudinal prerequisite to good teaching” (p. 305). Teacher
attitudes are likely to correlate with the importance placed on the learners’ home cultures
in the classroom.
All of Parkside teachers expressed positive attitudes about cultural diversity. They
created opportunities to learn about cultures generally, were interested in learning about
other cultures personally and were enthusiastic about class and school-wide events that
116
centred on cultures. Such positive attitudes and opportunities related to the ESL home
cultures demonstrated respect for the children and their experiences, thus legitimising them
as valued participants, and resources, in the community’s practice (Barnard, 2005, 2009a;
Barnard et al., 2001; Barraja-Rohan, 1999; Lee, Lee & Amaro-Jiménez, 2011; Lo Bianco,
1996; Morita, 2004; Ortega, 2009; Roessingh, 2011; Rymes, 2003).
On the other hand, negative attitudes can inhibit a learner’s contribution to the
class’ joint practice by impeding their trajectory to mastery and full participation. One
such impediment is a teacher’s insufficient knowledge of a pupil’s unique learning needs
and/or being unable to offer sufficient support for those needs (Barnard, 2003a, 2005,
2009a; Kennedy & Dewar, 1997); supporting students’ individual needs is a principle of
the New Zealand National Curriculum (Ministry of Education, 2007b). A teacher’s
tendency to rely on unsubstantiated assumptions and/or stereotypes (Cabello & Burstein,
1995; Kumaravadivelu, 2003; Littlewood, 2000; Parker, 2010; Rowsell et al., 2007; Zhu,
2011) and the imposition of their personal expectations of a learner’s abilities (Franken &
McComish, 2003; Haworth, 2005; Kennedy & Dewar, 1997; Talmy, 2008;) are also
attitudinal features that may negatively impact on the learners’ participation.
Since the teacher participants had little knowledge about their ESL pupils as
individuals, consideration was given to whether there was evidence that they essentialised
the children to their cultures (Atkinson, 1999; Guest, 2002). There were responses that
might suggest this approach was taken at times, such as generalisations like, “Dutch people
do that apparently” (I6 p19) and “being Chinese they were very pushy” (I6 p19), and
describing a group of classmates as “the Asian contingent” (I5 p5). The latter two
examples reflect Kumaravadivelu’s (2003) claim that stereotypes are most often applied to
people from countries in Asia, homogenising people from “contrasting and conflicting
cultures” (Kumaravadivelu, 2003, p. 710)(Littlewood, 2000). However, there were as
many, if not more, statements reflecting the teachers’ appreciation that behaviours and
opinions need not be related to an individual’s culture, and any generalisations that were
voiced were not necessarily framed in a negative light.
The role of culture in explanations of children’s behaviours were downplayed by
Mrs Stephenson, Mrs Harrington and Mrs McIntyre; the latter also pointed out that a child
might have had little direct experience of their home culture because of having relocated
when very young, or having parents of mixed cultural heritage. Again, though, results
showed situations in which teachers might have been unaware of their own culture, or the
117
extent to which it had influenced their interpretations. Even when it was asserted that
culture was not part of their thinking when working with the ESL children, it appeared that
it was still at play, invisible to its members (Crozet & Liddicoat, 1999; Kramsch, 1993; Lo
Bianco & Crozet, 2003; Newton et al., 2010; Zaid, 1999) but mediating their
interpretations of behaviour, such as explaining a child’s laziness as symptomatic of him
being the only son in a Chinese family (I7p17).
Most teachers advised that time restricted the incorporation of culture in their
lessons. Others added that associated resources were a limitation. Perhaps those same
restrictions affected the teachers’ ability to reflect on, and research, the role that culture
plays in the education system. Responses from the teachers did not suggest an awareness
of the ESL children as resources in their own right (Barnard, 2005, 2009a; Barnard et al.,
2001) – “cultural capital” (Lo Bianco, 1996, p. 588) or “assets” (Glynn, 2003) to the
classroom community. Equally, most teachers did not recognise themselves as primary
cultural resources representing their culture (Ryan, 1998).
Many believed that culture was another content topic to be taught, so it was
understandable that they thought it difficult to find curricular space to do so. Similarly,
teachers in Ajayi’s (2008) study believed time pressures, lack of resources and other
challenges in the school system made it impractical to integrate sociocultural theories into
their pedagogical practices. Kramsch (1993) asserted that culture is a feature of language
and not an add-on to the teaching of second language skills; this equally applies to
mainstream education where lesson content essentially serves as both first and second
language instruction, depending on the pupil’s background.
Another matter that might have influenced the importance placed on culture in the
classroom was the teachers’ perspectives on viewpoints that differed from their own
culture. Bennett’s (1986) continuum of ethnocentrism-ethnorelativism (see page 30) is
one method of measuring the cultural sensitivity of an individual, from the ethnocentric
extreme of denial to the most culturally sensitive, ethnorelative, integration. Some
personal viewpoints expressed by Parkside’s teachers could be described as hovering in
the ethnocentric positions of the continuum, through elevation of their own culture, or
elements of it, taking a “deficit view” (Marlina, 2009, p.236) of other cultures’ approaches
in some respects (defence), and even by considering differences as being unimportant
(minimisation) (see section 4.4.1.) However, those same teachers also made comments
that suggested their acknowledgement of, and respect for, differences (acceptance)
118
(Bennett, 1986) as well as “recognis[ing] the cultural context in which these things arise”
(Newton et al., 2010, p. 31). Some even expressed the empathy that Bennett associates
with adaptation. The findings from this study indicate that Bennett’s (1986) basic model
may be too blunt an instrument to measure sensitivity. Just as Guest (2002) cautioned
against generalisations about members of a culture, people’s attitudes are not so inflexible
that they do not take account of the circumstances (e.g., personal versus professional
attitude) or are not open to change.
A possible explanation for the tendencies of some to trivialise differences and
exhibit less than ethnorelative stances is their apparent difficulty in articulating awareness
of their own culture (Newton et al., 2010). The irregularity with which the teachers
compared other cultures and their own might also have been a result of the reported
experience of Pākehā as feeling “cultureless” (Newton et al., 2010, p. 38), or simply
because they are the dominant culture with no specific representation of its composition,
with few visible elements to compare. Haworth (2008) notes that most teachers who
belong to the majority culture find it “difficult to make learning relevant for [ESL]
students” (p. 426). All of Parkside’s teachers represented the dominant English culture of
the school, all but one were native to New Zealand’s English cultures, and the significant
majority had difficulty in articulating their cultural self-awareness.
When talking in general about having children of different cultures at the school,
all teachers spoke positively, describing them in terms such as exciting, dynamic and
vibrant, despite their more specific frustrations attributed to having ESL children in their
classes. This reflects the findings of Barnard et al. (2001), Reeves (2006) and Haworth
(2003), where mainstream teachers described ESL pupils using affirmative terms, while
apparently overlooking specific situations that demonstrated the contrary. Haworth termed
this propensity as expressing “positive stereotypes” (Haworth, 2003, p. 156).
An awareness of culture in teaching may come from a teacher’s previous life
experiences. Barnard (2003b) suggested that having experience in learning a language
would assist those teaching language learners, allowing appreciation of the learner’s
experiences. All teachers at Parkside had learned at least one other language, by a variety
of means, but for some it was more recent than others. However, those experiences did not
directly correlate with the teachers’ practices or attitudes, possibly because it had taken
place too long ago, or under such different circumstances, making empathetic connections

119
difficult and not enabling them to “inhabit… the sense of strangeness” (Rowsell et al.,
2007, p. 141) that the pupils might experience.
Youngs and Youngs (2001) found that the most culturally open teachers were those
who had learned a second languaculture, and lived outside their home country, and
received training in second language teaching, and, most influentially, interacted outside of
school with people from diverse cultures. Zhu (2011) associated a lack of cultural
empathy with ignorance of other cultures, lack of contact with people from other cultures,
lack of awareness of native culture transferral, as well as prejudicial attitudes and a
propensity to stereotype. Bennett (1986) commented that what he termed ‘SOLE’ –
“significant overseas (or other-culture) living experience” (p. 186) – was useful but not
sufficient for intercultural sensitivity.
Assessing the Parkside teachers against Youngs and Youngs’ (2001) traits, the
majority had travelled overseas, some extensively so, and Miss Scott and Ms Barringer had
lived and taught English in non-English speaking countries. All teachers had learned a
second language at some point, although reports varied on the extent to which it included
cultural knowledge. At least two teachers had gained certification in a recognised TESOL
training programme. With respect to the most important characteristic of Youngs and
Youngs’s work –personal affiliations with people from other cultures – only Ms Barringer
mentioned having close friends or partners from cultures other than New Zealand’s or
Britain’s. All teachers with adult children reported having sons- or daughter-in-law from
other cultures. Without exception, the family heritages of all teachers were British or Irish.
It is important to note that while the teachers in Youngs and Youngs’s study with
all of the characteristics were likely to have a more positive attitude towards ESL students,
it was not a conclusion that possession of the traits necessarily resulted in a positive
attitude. That is, a positive attitude could be explained by the traits, but it was not a
reciprocal causal relationship.
Some of the Parkside teachers did make comments that suggested a non-positive
attitude towards other cultures, or particular cultures (see page 93). But despite these
comments, they seemed to recognise the importance of the school affirming the presence
of children from diverse backgrounds. They mainly demonstrated positive attitudes
towards diversity of cultures present at the school and made use of positive stereotypes
(Haworth, 2003) to explain the benefits of their presence in the class. However, the
positioning of some of the teachers near the centre of the enthnocentric-ethnorelative scale
120
through their trivialising of differences and occasionally essentialising students to their
culture, did suggest the potential for some personally-held views to impact of the extent to
which ESL learner could participate in the classroom communities’ endeavours (Barnard,
2003b; Barnard et al., 2001; Franken & McComish, 2003; Haworth, 2003, 2009; Kennedy
& Dewar, 1997; Marlina, 2009; Talmy, 2008).

5.1.2.5 Perception of Legitimacy

The preceding sections relating to seeking knowledge about the learners and the potential
influences of their cultures on learning, sharing that knowledge, and the professional
attitudes of teachers all have the potential to impact on the legitimacy of the ESL pupils as
worthy contributors to their community’s practice. However, consideration of the findings
of this study alongside other research, suggests that legitimacy is not necessarily a mantle
bestowed on the learner as a direct result of a teacher learning about them as an individual,
sharing the knowledge, and demonstrating positive attitudes towards them. This is despite
Lave and Wenger’s reference to “conferring legitimacy” (Lave & Wenger, 1991, p. 92).
In Talmy’s (2008) study, a teacher’s lack of awareness of the individual
backgrounds, talents and needs of ESL pupils and treatment of them as one homogenized
group, led to disharmonious relationships among class members and the formation of a
dissident ESL sub-community within the mainstream community of practice. In that case,
the teacher’s practices restricted the learners’ legitimacy. Comparison of this with the ESL
students in Morita’s (2004) research reveals a minor difference. Morita’s learners believed
that others (classmates and teachers) considered them as inferior and this impacted on their
perception of their legitimacy and led them to restrict their participation. This suggests
that, to some extent, the control of legitimacy is also held by the learner themselves. Duff
and Talmy (2011) note that if learners are “made to feel like outsiders and illegitimate
users of a language” (p. 105, my emphasis) their success in acquisition will be
compromised. It appears, then, that the issue of legitimacy is not only about whether the
old-timers in the group grant legitimacy to the novices, but whether the novices perceive
themselves to be legitimate, a notion closely associated with identity (Chen & Harris,
2009; Duff, 2007; Lave & Wenger, 1991; Morita, 2004; Wenger, 1998).
Teachers can intend to demonstrate that ESL learners’ contributions are valued and
their participation is legitimate by purposefully engaging with the expertise they have as
members of another culture, as Miss Johnston tried to do in her native animal discussion,
121
similar to the well-meaning teachers in Chan’s (2007) study. However, such efforts may
be perceived by some learners as emphasising their differences (in culture and language
ability) and identifying them as outsiders and therefore less legitimate members of the
classroom community. The opposite scenario does not necessarily threaten legitimacy:
ESL learners may believe themselves to be legitimate participants even when teachers
lower expectations about completion of worksheets and involvement in pop-culture related
activities. An ESL student in Morita’s (2004) study had sufficient self-confidence (unlike
her peers) to make her feel competent and stimulate her participation in class practices.
Similarly, in this study a Parkside pupil from China was determined to complete a
complicated English worksheet despite her teacher’s lowered expectations. Such examples
show that the attitudes of novices can contribute to their sense of legitimacy.
In this study, Miss Johnston was frustrated at the lack of responses in her native
animal discussion (I6 p7) and Mr Lawrence believed it was not his place to ask the
children about their previous life experiences because it might embarrass them (I5 p6).
However, teachers should not be dissuaded from attributing importance to home cultures
in their teaching simply because they do not always receive positive responses for doing
so. The research overwhelmingly promotes having knowledge of the learner, using
culturally open teaching approaches and involving the home cultures as positive influences
on legitimising the ESL children as participants in the classroom communities.
Unexpected pupil responses may result from individual choices – another reason why
knowledge of learners as individuals is important – and should not necessarily stymie
endeavours to involve home cultures in classroom teaching.

5.1.2.6 Summary Research Question 2

Crucially, all teachers expressed positive attitudes to other cultures. Despite the occasional
non-ethnorelative comments expressed, it seemed that any such remarks did not represent
the teachers’ general attitudes towards other cultures. All had voluntarily participated in
personal life encounters that supported their assertion that they enjoyed experiencing other
cultures. Those who made genuine attempts to learn about their pupils’ cultural
background and previous learning experiences, and shared that detail with colleagues, are
likely to have recognised the influences of ESL children’s cultures on their learning and on
the whole classroom community’s success in its practices. There was little evidence of
learners’ home cultures being incorporated in lessons, though, and the few occurrences
122
seemed to be inadvertent by-products of interactive teaching rather than intended
outcomes, especially in the junior classes. At face value it might seem that the teachers
placed little importance on involving home cultures in order to create opportunities for
ESL children to learn about New Zealand languaculture; however, this appears to be due to
the teachers being unaware of its benefits and practices, rather than reluctance or refusal.

5.1.3 Research Question 3: How do the cultures of the ESL learners feature in their
lessons?

There is research evidence that the involvement of home culture in ESL students’ lessons
benefits their learning the new languaculture. It demonstrates they are valued (Barraja-
Rohan, 1999; Fassler, 2001; Morita, 2004; Ortega, 2009) and validated (Lo Bianco, 1996;
Rowsell et al., 2007), and it assists with their overall academic success (Bosher, 1997;
Cummins et al., 2005) chiefly by allowing new information to be made meaningful by
“relating it to the cultural world they know” (Fassler, 2001; McLean, 2002; Rodriguez &
Sjostrom, 1995, p. 306; Roessingh, 2011; Short, 1994). Studies have also shown there to
be benefits for all in the school community. It broadens and enriches minds (Sharifan,
2007), is “informative … enjoyable [and] positive” (Kennedy & Dewar, 1997, p. 114) and
importantly, enhances learning outcomes for all students (e.g., Glynn, 2003; Haworth,
2003; Lee, Lee & Amaro-Jiménez, 2011; Mackey et al., 2007; McLean, 2002; Meoli,
2001; Pease-Alvarez & Vasquez, 1994; Rodriguez & Sjostrom, 1995; Rowsell et al.,
2007). Parkside teachers reported that staff and children enjoyed learning about the
cultures of their classmates, and that local parents chose to enrol their children at Parkside
School because of its cultural diversity, providing further evidence of community-wide
benefits.
All teachers recollected situations where ESL pupils had shared something about
their culture to the interest, and edification, of their classmates and the teacher. The value
teachers placed on these situations evidenced support of the Māori principle of ako
(Berryman & Glynn, 2003; Glynn & Berryman, 2003), and their occurrence, intentional or
not, legitimises ESL pupils as members of their classroom community. It allows their
“invisible expertise [to be] made visible” (Ortega, 2009, p. 238) and to make them feel
their contribution is worthwhile (Fassler, 2001) by providing them with opportunities to
move beyond their usual position as novice. This mixing of roles and redistribution of
power within the community (Duff & Talmy, 2011) advances the ESL child along the
123
trajectory towards the role of expert, and repositions as novices the teacher and the local
students as they learn about alternative perspectives. This was exemplified in Rymes’
(2004) observations of a Costa Rican boy being stymied by one teacher’s control of the
expert role but later flourishing with a teacher prepared to share power across the
community; he was legitimised and so enhanced his participation in the community’s
practices.
Not necessarily aware of the theory behind it, Miss Johnston created an opportunity
for ‘multicultural informants’ (Short, 1994, p. 599) by rejigging participant roles when she
enlisted contributions from the ESL children about native animals of their home country.
Had that exercise proceeded as planned, “productive moments” (Ortega, 2009, p. 238)
could have occurred for the pupils taking on an expert ‘informant’ role. Nevertheless, in
the simple act of seeking their contribution Miss Johnston had delivered the message that
the ESL pupils’ knowledge was valued as interesting and potentially edifying.
Teacher beliefs can affect how teachers respond to diversity in the classroom
(Harrington & Hathaway, 1995; Haworth, 2005b; Kennedy & Dewar, 1997), (see section
5.1.2.4), and may also influence how they incorporate home cultures in their teaching.
Beliefs about the value of affirming the learners’ cultures were tacitly demonstrated in the
native animal project, cultural representations of the dance expo, and news sessions in
junior classes. They indicated that ESL pupils are valued as individuals and for the
resources they bring, on which the community can capitalise (Barnard, 2005, 2009a; Lo
Bianco, 1996). Allowing a learner’s culture to feature in a lesson also provides a
background knowledge to which new content can be related to assist their education within
the curriculum (e.g., Ashcraft, 1999; Fassler, 2001; Lee, Lee & Amaro-Jiménez, 2011;
Mackey et al., 2007; McLean, 2002; Rodriguez & Sjostrom, 1995; Roessingh, 2011;
Rowsell et al., 2007; Short, 1994). Teachers who practiced this approach are therefore
likely to have attributed importance to the incorporation of the home cultures in their
lessons and recognised the value in doing so.
That said, while other cultures were represented in the classes through topic studies,
incorporating ESL children’s cultures was not common in the Parkside School data.
Observation and interview data suggest that the greatest opportunity was through tasks
requiring reflective responses from the pupils. Such activities were a staple of their ESL
lessons. They also featured in the interactive style of the teachers in junior classes through
brief forays into home cultures, such as Mrs McIntyre asking children what they
124
remembered about their last birthday. However, they did not appear to be the basis for
entire lessons as they were in Mrs Stephenson’s coursebook-based English sessions. More
relevantly, the teachers did not report intentionally creating regular opportunities for
students to contribute their own cultural viewpoint, or for home cultures to serve as the
basis for a child’s literacy or numeracy work. This finding reflects Conway et al.’s (2010)
research on the value of a New Zealand professional development course in SLA
principles for language teachers, which found language teachers demonstrated less
understanding of principles and practices associated with the role of cultural knowledge
than the role of language knowledge.

5.1.3.1 Summary Research Question 3

The minimal recognition given to the benefits of incorporating home cultures indicates that
it might have been a ‘happy accident’ that the ESL children were able to talk about their
backgrounds in some lessons. Interview and observation data did not provide evidence
that opportunities were regularly and purposefully created for home cultures to feature in
the ESL children’s lessons. As noted already, it is most likely due to a lack of familiarity
with the theories and research that promote these approaches, or low awareness of
practical techniques to do so. It may also stem from teachers having insufficient
information about the ESL children’s culture and the child’s attitude towards sharing it.

5.2 Communities of practice

Having considered the data and its relationship to the relevant literature to answer the three
research questions, this section explains the practical application of Lave and Wenger’s
(1991; Wenger, 1998) communities of practice model.
In this study each classroom, including the ESL classroom, was considered as a
separate, although not unrelated, community of practice. Each community was engaged in
multiple joint enterprises; some were shared with other classroom communities, and some
were unique to a particular classroom. One joint enterprise of the classroom communities
was the Ministry of Education’s stated objective that “students are able to participate
successfully in the New Zealand school curriculum and interact socially with New Zealand
students and within the wider New Zealand community” (Ministry of Education, 2003, p.
5). Written with ESL students in mind, this practice is applicable to all pupils enrolled in a
New Zealand school. It represents their day-to-day participation in the everyday small
125
culture of participating in school life. Holliday’s definition of ‘small culture’ as an
“ongoing group process” of which “group members … make sense … and operate”
(Holliday, 1999, p. 248) uses terminology akin to that of Lave and Wenger’s (1991)
communities of practice framework, supporting the interpretation of it as a joint practice.
Of course, the ESL children were involved in additional concurrent practices which more
directly related to their pursuit of linguistic, cultural and communicative competence in the
New Zealand languaculture; those were joint endeavours of other overlapping, yet distinct
communities, such as those comprising all ESL pupils at Parkside School, or migrant
communities of New Zealand.
The membership of each classroom community comprised the pupils streamed into
that class and the usual teacher. From time to time other temporary members, or members
with restricted roles, were involved, including relief teachers, the grandparent that taught
Spanish in Mrs Harrington’s class, and even me in my role as an observer. Wenger termed
such intermittent roles “practice-based connections” (Wenger, 1998, p114) to differentiate
them from core members. There were also other more complicated memberships. The
school principal, Ms Ballantyne, had a strong investment in the successful outcomes of all
of the communities’ shared goals, but, being chiefly a manager, her presence in the
classroom was sporadic. Most teachers were members in multiple communities, such as
the class teacher of room X, the teacher of maths group Y and the coach of sports team Z.
The multiple roles of the ESL teacher were also relevant in this study. While being a core
member of the community of her ESL lessons in her own teaching space, she was also
present in some of the other classroom communities as a teacher aide and of course was a
member of the community of Parkside teaching staff. Her memberships straddled
communities; her roles and participation varied in these other communities. This
multiplicity of memberships reflects other classroom-based research, particularly that of
Duff (2007) and Morita (2004), who showed how mixed levels of investment in a joint
enterprise, and differing levels of access to the community’s resources, revealed the need
for an expanded division of member roles than Lave and Wenger’s (1991) original
newcomer and old-timer.
Reflecting the core sociocultural principle that learning is socially and culturally
mediated (e.g., Ajayi, 2008; Lantolf, 2000; Swain et al., 2011; Vygotsky, 1978),
languacultural exposure in each classroom community of practice was mediated by the
specific perspectives of the members of the community, and the repertoires of each of
126
those communities. As explicated by Wenger (1998), repertoires comprise “routines,
words, tools, ways of doing things, stories, gestures, symbols, genres, actions or concepts
that the community has produced or adopted in the course of its existence, and which have
become part of its practice” (p. 83), and include the discourse of the community and the
ways in which members express their identities. The members of each of Parkside’s
classroom communities had access to a repertoire with a mix of elements common across
the school and elements unique to the particular community. Often, those unique features
were associated with the individual teacher who (usually) played the role of community
old-timer, or expert.
With the roles, power distribution, and resources of the classroom communities
clarified through use of the communities of practice framework, it was possible to see the
potential impact of the research results on ESL children’s access to their community’s
resources and practices, and their legitimisation as participants. These are addressed as
implications of the study, in the next chapter.

127
 6 CONCLUSION

The whole purpose of education is to turn mirrors into windows

- Sydney J Harris

6.1 Summary of results

This study set out to determine teachers’ views of the importance of culture in teaching
ESL pupils, with respect to the role of culture generally, and the involvement of the ESL
learners’ home cultures specifically. All teachers saw value in teaching about cultures,
particularly New Zealand’s high culture (e.g., literature, history, Māori arts, etc.) as well as
cultures of other groups and largely did so taking a “culture as area studies” approach
(Newton et al., 2010, p. 40). Objective reflection on their own dominant culture and
comparison of it to other cultures was rare, meaning that some elements of the
predominant small culture might not have be elucidated and therefore gone unnoticed by
the ESL children. There was little evidence that importance was placed on regular
involvement of the ESL learners’ home cultures; of those instances that were recorded
many seemingly arose as by-products of an interactive teaching style. However, when
teachers reported times when home cultures had been purposefully involved (e.g., dance
expo or international breakfast), it was clear that they recognised the associated value for
the classroom community.
What remains unclear was whether culture was considered important for the ESL
learners in particular. There appeared to be little knowledge of SLA theory, and
intercultural teaching principles in particular. In the absence of such knowledge, the
importance of knowing the ESL learner, of fostering relationships with ESL families, of
objectively considering the dominant culture, and of the development of intercultural
competence might not be recognised.
Making use of Lave and Wenger’s (1991) communities of practice framework
revealed the possibility of restrictions on ESL learners’ ability to participate in their
classroom community’s joint practices with respect to access to resources and
legitimisation as valued contributors. However, any such limitations were not intentional
and the potential detriment to learning was probably not recognised. Rather, they were
more likely to be the result of teachers conducting their classes through their regular,
culturally-founded, practices without the support of grounding in intercultural teaching

128
theory and practices, resources for guidance and professional development, and time to
address such shortfalls. Nevertheless, it is in the assumed safe environment of school that
ESL learners need to be taught the ‘langua’ and the ‘culture’ (Agar, 1994) so they are
enabled in becoming successful intercultural contributors to the society that is their current
home.
It must be recognised that a number changes are afoot at Parkside School.
Teachers report that the school is looking toward being more involved in ESL learners’
communities, and has recently commenced a programme to teach English to ESL parents.
Mrs Stephenson has enrolled for additional tertiary level training in second language
teaching, in her personal time and at personal cost. School documents are in the process of
being translated into Mandarin and Tagalog, the most common first languages at the
school, and Mandarin translations of simple class instructions have been obtained to assist
a newly enrolled Chinese boy. Such endeavours indicate that the school is actively
seeking to improve their approach to educating ESL children. Put simply, the Parkside
staff has good intentions and with continued progress along those directions and with
support of the nature described below, improvements are inevitable.

6.2 Implications

This study has a number of implications for the education of ESL pupils in mainstream
contexts, the most significant of which is the effect of the teaching staff’s unfamiliarity
with theoretical and practical knowledge of language teaching principles. Given the
meagre amount of time that the pupils can spend with an ESL teacher, the significant
majority of the child’s school hours are spent with a mainstream teacher. A child’s
inadequate understanding of the new ‘languaculture’ (Agar, 1994) is likely to hinder their
progress in their general education, holding them back from achieving at, or near, levels of
their English-proficient cohorts and from fully participating in curriculum practices. It is
clear that mainstream teachers carry a significant responsibility for teaching languaculture
(Franken & McComish, 2003).
Use of intercultural teaching principles were not often apparent, particularly those
associated with making the dominant New Zealand cultures visible and open to objective
contrast and comparison. In communities of practice terms, not elucidating elements of
the dominant culture, especially its small culture, may emphasise distinctions between
novice and old-timers (including classmates more proficient in English) as insiders versus
129
outsiders, locking in the roles of the knowledgeable and the “deficient” (Toohey, 1998, p.
62). Consequently, ESL learners might not perceive themselves as legitimate participants,
thus affecting relationships within the community. According to Lave and Wenger (1991),
relationships within the community have the most influence on creating learning
opportunities. Relationships can influence the extent to which a member has access to the
community’s resources (such as natural language, classroom routines and conventions,
stationery, and so on), affecting the quality of contribution the member can make to the
community’s practice. Although the ESL pupils can be described as peripheral members
(Lave & Wenger, 1991; Wenger, 2008), involvement on the periphery does not necessarily
mean the child must feel marginalized, kept from the core activity, or anxious at their
reduced level of involvement (Duff, 2001). However, there are times when the peripheral
member does suffer these negative experiences, often as a result of poor relationships with
other members.
The absence of an intercultural approach is not likely to be attributable to the
teachers’ lack of support for it, but a lack of awareness of it, and the implication arises that
professional development of mainstream teachers in second language teaching approaches
is crucial. The lack of teacher training and professional development in second language
teaching methods (Barnard et al., 2001; Cameron & Simpson, 2002; Haworth, 2003, 2008)
exists despite the Ministry of Education promoting intercultural teaching specifically, and
its principles generally, across their publications particularly in the substantive research-
based report by Newton et al. (2010). This situation appears to substantiate the remarks of
Rodriguez and Sjostrom (1995) that more than lip service is required to inform teachers
about the importance of cultural diversity in education; positive approaches to diversity
must be shown by educators as they train new teachers and emphasise the importance of
“culture diversity [as] a central issue, not a minor concern” (p. 311).
Cameron and Simpson (2002) revealed that Hamilton-based teachers have fewer
opportunities for professional development in TESOL than their peers in the neighbouring
city of Auckland, because Hamilton has fewer ESL students. Those centres outside of the
Auckland/Northland region where ESL enrolments are low or sporadic may therefore be
very poorly served. (According to the latest Ministry of Education (2012) figures, 70% of
ESL students are based in Auckland/Northland, a region with a residential population 1.6
million (Statistics New Zealand, 2011b), but only 9% of ESL students are based in the
whole of the South Island, a large land mass with a residential population 1.03 million
130
(Statistics New Zealand, 2011b)). A census of New Zealand ESOL providers published in
2002 noted that the majority of teachers at schools with ESL pupils believed they needed
more guidance and professional development from the Ministry of Education (Education
Counts, 2002).
It would therefore be beneficial to enhance staff understanding of the school-wide
gains that can arise from practices informed by sociocultural theories such as intercultural
teaching, socialisation, and communities of practice. A New Zealand Ministry of
Education professional development programme of this nature was reviewed by Conway et
al. (2010), who found that the language teachers involved had little prior knowledge of
SLA theories but reported significant professional benefits following exposure to, and
testing on, SLA principles and their application in the classroom. Because mainstream
teachers of ESL children are essentially functioning as language teachers, they too deserve
equivalent professional support to enhance their practices.
There also seems significant scope for reminding schools about available support
materials. While some materials are particularly targeted at ESL teachers or at mainstream
teachers the content is easily digestible and might enlighten both sub-professions. The
Ministry’s website (www.minedu.govt.nz) and those of affiliates Education Counts
(www.educationcounts.govt.nz) and Te Kete Ipurangi (‘English Online’,
www.englishonline.tki.org.nz) all contain links to an extensive array of resources, some of
which include self-guided professional development. Perhaps a concentrated campaign to
highlight them would be worthwhile, or, to save the already time-poor teachers from
sourcing and trawling through materials, provision of a single index of Ministry-supported
materials in the form of an annotated bibliography might prove useful.
Another major implication of this study is the need for schools to (1) do all they can
to learn about the personal histories of their ESL pupils and (2) teach about the new
languaculture in which the children are immersed. This will better facilitate participation
of all members in the classroom’s joint endeavours and foster mutually respectful
relationships between those in the various community roles.
This study produced further evidence of challenges for teachers in inviting the
families to school, communicating across language differences, and gaining personal
information about the ESL learners. Some forms of practical assistance with some of
those challenges are already available but, again, it seemed their existence was not
necessarily widely known. Further resources can be uniquely developed by a school to suit
131
the specific needs of its community, such as dual-language materials (Cummins et al.,
2005; Kennedy & Dewar, 1997; Roessingh, 2011), languacultural plans (Barnard, 2005,
2009a) and booklets with general information about the new cultures and introduction
forms about the learners (Cameron & Simpson, 2002). A school’s genuine efforts to show
the value they place on the home cultures can improve relationships with ESL families
(Roessingh, 2011).
With respect to sharing information about learners and teaching techniques, the
application of the communities of practice model implies more might be made of
Wenger’s notion of ‘brokering’, making use of “connections provided by people who can
introduce elements of one practice into another” (Wenger, 1998, p. 105). Brokers have
“multimembership” (p. 109) across related communities of practice and can coordinate,
make connections, translate and align perspectives, and facilitate relationships. A number
of people in school communities could take on brokering roles, but the most obvious is the
ESL teacher who has the unique position of being a member of general teaching staff as
well as in regular one-on-one contact with ESL pupils. As was the case with Parkside
School’s ESL teacher, some staff might have training or experience in relating to adults of
other cultures and might be best placed to liaise with the ESL children’s families.
Involving ESL teachers in regular staff meetings, even part of the session, would
allow the brokers to connect the individual classroom communities with the greater staff
community. It would create a block of time for all staff to focus on the requirements of the
ESL children and facilitate sharing information about them. Other brokers might be
teacher aides who work one-on-one with the ESL children and learn information about the
child’s background that the mainstream teachers do not have time to discover. ESL
families could also assume brokering roles, having membership of the school community
and the child’s cultural communities. Being assisted and encouraged to provide
connections between those communities by sharing information with teachers and pupils
about their cultural background and their new languaculture is an intercultural teaching
situation in itself. This exposure to people from other cultures might also allow individual
differences to become apparent, thus breaking down stereotypes by recognising that a
person is distinct from a culture. Resources, such as booklets about New Zealand school
culture and translations of school documents, are existing boundary-crossing resources
able to be shared by multiple communities in the pursuit of shared knowledge.

132
 Despite the study’s findings supporting existing literature and revealing a range of
implications for future consideration, it was subject to a range of limitations. These are
now described.

6.3 Limitations

Limitations are the factors that “render the study atypical” (Wolcott, 2009, p. 34), and
could have had an impact on the nature of the data collected, or the interpretations made,
and may consequently affect the reliability of the findings. This section is the “academic
throat-clearing” (Wolcott, 2009, p. 34) where potential limitations are recognised.
Probably the most significant limitation relates to the association between the
research questions and the data collection, specifically the interview questions. Research
Questions 1 and 2 sought to discover the importance that teachers placed on culture in their
teaching of ESL children, yet no interview question asked that directly. Questions did ask
about what cultural content is important to teach, and whether it is important to recognise
ESL cultures in class, but teachers were not expressly asked about the importance they
placed in the role of culture when teaching ESL learners. Instead, the answers to Research
Questions 1 and 2 were interpreted from responses to other question lines and triangulated
against their observed practices and reviewed materials. However, for Research Question
3, all teacher participants were expressly asked how they involved New Zealand cultures,
other cultures and ESL pupil’s cultures in their lessons.
I now address some more specific limitations associated with the project design
and data analysis. I attempted to “objectively study the subjective states of [the] subjects”
(Bogdan & Biklen, 1998, p33) but it is accepted that there was potential for my personal
opinions and biases to impact on the research design and analysis. Nevertheless, Bogdan
and Biklen (1998) realistically describe the need for “limiting observers’ biases, not
eliminating them” (p. 33), and Hood (2009), supported by Merriam (1998), asserts that the
researcher is “an intervening factor, but not one to be controlled for” (p. 71), as long as the
potential for influence is made transparent. Duff (2008) adds that a degree of subjectivity
is “inevitable” (p.56) when researchers engage with the world in order to gather data from
which they then construct realities. The warrants outlined in section 3.7 make transparent
how any undesirable personal biases were accounted for.
Bogdan and Biklen (1998) mention the potential for time to impact on the nature of
data collected, particularly in schools where the time of day and year can influence
133
proceedings. All observations occurred during morning lessons in the middle of the year
before the break at the end of the second school term. There were clear routines in place
for particular points in the school day and these were apparent in most observations; roll
call, library visit, fitness session, and so on. Some observations concerned occasional
events such as Mrs Harrington’s class’ school assembly rehearsal, an activity undertaken
only once a term. Mr Lawrence’s talk to Year 6 children about their schooling for Years 7
and 8 was an annual session and a rare example of concentrated transmission of
information, and a situation where being near the end of term might have affected lessons.
My presence may have affected the authenticity of the classroom practices and
therefore the data. I was partially involved in the ESL observations, but in mainstream
classes I positioned myself away from the children and had virtually no interaction with
them. In all mainstream classes the students appear unconcerned about my presence,
usually ignoring me entirely. They were, however, particularly interested in the
microphone attached to their teacher’s clothing, which generated interactions between the
children and the teacher. While the teachers appeared to pay little attention to me in the
lessons, it was common for them to talk to me while the children were working; this
suggests that my presence had not been forgotten and may have had an impact on
practices.
Only one observation of each mainstream teacher amounts to a very short exposure
to their everyday classroom experiences. Observing different subjects with each teacher,
and in some cases, in different spaces in the school, allowed data to be gathered from a
wide range of activities; however, this might have influenced the extent to which the data
was comparable across teachers. Activities such as fitness sessions, library visits, and
mathematics lessons, may be more or less likely to generate culture-based interactions than
routine roll-calls, project work and ESL sessions. However, the impact of these limitations
may have been mitigated by use of mixed data sources; for example, while a single
observation of each mainstream teacher might not have been representative of their regular
approach, the interviews gave teachers an opportunity to discuss their typical practices and
attitudes beyond what I observed and inferred in the classroom visits.
There are possible limitations associated with the interviews. Different
respondents took different approaches; some provided brief answers responding directly to
the questions, others used the question lines as starting points for monologues addressing a
range of culture-related subject matter. Some were very relaxed, sharing personal
134
information and telling tangential stories. My familiarity with the teachers, and rapport
established with some, may have led to some of the interview responses being co-
constructed by me and the interviewee, especially if empathy was assumed by one or other
of us (Mann, 2010); “empathy is the foundation of rapport” (Merriam, 1998, p. 23). While
spending time at the school before formal data collection took place had benefits (see
section 3.3), for some participants it may have reduced the feeling of social distance and
softened the formality that might have otherwise existed between a participant and
researcher. This might have influenced the nature of the data gathered.
With the exception of the questions incorporated from Rowsell et al.’s (2007) study
all questions put to the interviewees were of my own design and therefore open to bias
from my own areas of interest, expectations and assumptions (Merriam, 1998). In fact,
even the decision to use questions from Rowsell et al.’s work, and the selection of some
questions over others, was made under my own personal judgements based on the nature
of the data that I was expecting to gather.
When coding the data, I assessed each unit for its relevance to culture. I accept that
in doing this I applied my own perspectives, “biographical experiences” (Iddings, 2005, p.
171), and “intellectual baggage” (Croker, 2009, p. 11). I share the culture of all teacher
participants, also the dominant culture of the school. As regularly noted already, one’s
own culture cannot always be recognised (eg, Crozet & Liddicoat, 1999; Crozet & Maurer,
2003; Kramsch, 1993; Lo Bianco and Crozet, 2003; Newton, 2007; Rowsell et al., 2007)
so in reviewing data for evidence of references to New Zealand cultures, particularly in the
observations, some examples may have been invisible to me (Crozet & Liddicoat, 1999;
Kramsch, 1993; Lo Bianco and Crozet, 2003).
I also note here, that at the conclusion of the data collection period I accepted an
offer of one term’s part time employment as a teacher aide working with ESL pupils who
could not be accommodated within Mrs Stephenson’s timetable. I treated the role entirely
separately from my time at the school as a researcher, and no additional data was collected
during that time. Furthermore, the time lapse between roles meant that the “control over
[my] time and mobility” that teaching staff might have had when I was an aide had not
existed when I was collecting data (Bogdan & Biklen, 1998, p. 76). Notwithstanding this,
I accept that being a member of staff enhanced my acquaintance with the teachers and my
knowledge of school practices, and may therefore have influenced my interpretations at the
later stage of data analysis.
135
 6.4 Future directions

While this project presents the practices of only one school over a limited period, it is
hoped that it might serve as a basis for comparison by teaching professionals and other
stakeholders in the education of ESL children, encouraging self-reflection on existing
practices and their effectiveness, their impact on their own classroom community, and the
potential for alternative approaches or improvement.
Ideally, instruction in SLA theory and practices in all teacher training programmes
would allow future mainstream teachers of ESL children to better understand how culture
can be incorporated in education programmes to the benefit of all members of the school
community. In the absence of this, I see scope for future research investigating the
expectations and beliefs of trainee teachers with respect to their education in second
language acquisition theories and methods, to allow comparison with existing research that
has revealed that practicing teachers desire further education and support in the field. If
views are consistent across pre-service and in-service teachers it might be possible to
mount a case for the Ministry of Education to consider compulsory training in SLA
principles for mainstream teachers. The current government has recently revealed its
intention to enhance the quality of teacher education and this could be one strand of that
improvement.

136
 7 REFERENCES

Abdi, B. N., Ahmed, U. M., Elmi, L. A., Hussein, S. A., Hussein, N., & Hussein, H. H.
(2002). Somali students in Christchurch schools. Many Voices, 19, 14-16.

Agar, M. (1994). Language Shock: Understanding the Culture of Conversation. New

York: Perennial Harper Collins.

Ajayi, L. (2008). ESL theory-practice dynamics: The difficulty of integrating

sociocultural perspectives into pedagogical practices. Foreign Language Annals,
41 (4), 639-659.

Alton-Lee, A. (2003). Quality Teaching for Diverse Students in Schooling: Best Evidence
Synthesis. Ministry of Education, Medium Term Strategy Policy Division.
Wellington NZ: Ministry of Education.

Ashcraft, N. (1999). Defining your culture. TESOL Journal, Autumn, 42-43.

Atkinson, D. (1999). TESOL and culture. TESOL Quarterly, 33(4) , 625-654.

Bachman, L. (2004). Research guidelines in TESOL: Alternative perspectives - Linking

observations to interpretations and uses in TESOL research. TESOL Quarterly, 38
(4), 723-728.

Barab, S. A., & Duffy, T. (1998). From Practice Fields to Communities of Practice. CRLT
Technical Report No 1-98. Retrieved December 29, 2011, from
http://www.crlt.indiana.edu/publications/duffy_publ3.pdf

Barnard, R. (2003a). Introduction. In R. Barnard, & T. Glynn (Eds.), Bilingual Children's

Language and Literacy Development (pp. 1-7). Clevedon UK: Multilingual
Matters.

Barnard, R. (2003b). Private speech in the primary classroom: Jack, a Korean learner. In
R. Barnard, & T. Glynn (Eds.), Bilingual Children's Language and Literacy
Development (pp. 166-193). Clevedon UK: Multilingual Matters.

137
Barnard, R. (2005). Isolated learners from diverse language backgrounds in the
mainstream primary classroom: A sociocultural perspective. In S. May, M.
Franken, & R. Barnard (Ed.), LED 2003: 1st International Conference on
Language, Education and Diversity, Refereed Conference Proceedings and
Keynotes. Hamilton NZ: University of Waikato.

Barnard, R. (2009a). Sinking or swimming in the New Zealand mainstream: Four young
Asian learners in a new languaculture. In L. J. Zhange, R. Rubdy, & L. Alsagoff
(Ed.), Englishes and Literatures-in-English in a Globalised World: Proceedings of
the 13th International Conference on English in Southeast Asia (pp. 74-82).
Singapore: National Institute of Education, Nanyang Technological University.

Barnard, R. (2009b). Submerged in the mainstream? A case study of an immigrant learner

in a New Zealand primary classroom. Language and Education, 233-248.

Barnard, R., Campbell, L., Campbell, N., Smithson, D., & Vickery, K. (2001). A Survey
of the Regular Classroom Teacher's Perspective of NESB Students in Hamilton
Secondary Schools. Many Voices, 17, 21-25.

Barraja-Rohan, A.-M. (1999). Teaching conversation for intercultural competence. In J. Lo

Bianco, A. J. Liddicoat, & C. Crozet (Eds.), Striving for the third
place:Intercultural competence through language education (pp. 143-154).
Melbourne: Language Australia.

Barraja-Rohan, A.-M. (2003). How can we make Australian English meaningful to ESL
learners? In J. Lo Bianco, & C. Crozet (Eds.), Teaching Invisible Culture:
Classroom Practice and Theory (pp. 101-118). Melbourne: Language Australia
Ltd.

Bennett, M. J. (1986). A developmental approach to training for intercultural sensitivity.

International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 10, 179-196.

Berryman, M., & Glynn, T. (2003). Reciprocal language learning for Maori students and
parents. In R. Barnard, & T. Glynn (Eds.), Bilingual Children's Language and
Literacy Development (pp. 59-79). Clevedon UK: Multilingual Matters.

138
Bishop, R., & Berryman, M. (2006). Culture Speaks: Cultural relationships & classroom
learning. Wellington NZ: Huia Publishers.

Bishop, R., & Glynn, T. (1999). Culture Counts: Changing Power Relations in Education.
Palmerston North, New Zealand: Dunmore Press.

Bogdan, R. C., & Biklen, S. K. (1998). Qualitative Research in Education: An

Introduction to Theory and Methods (Third ed.). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

Bonvillain, N. (2008). Language, Culture and Communication: The Meaning of Messages

(5th ed.). New Jersey: Pearson.

Bosher, S. (1997). Language and cultural identity: A study of Hmong students at the
postsecondary level. TESOL Quarterly, 31 (3), 593-603.

Brown, J. D. (2009a). Foreign and second language needs analysis. In M. H. Long, & C. J.
Doughty (Eds.), The handbook of language teaching (pp. 267-293). Oxford, UK:
Wiley-Blackwell.

Brown, J. D. (2009b). Open-response items in questionnaires. In J. Heigham, & R. A.

Croker (Eds.), Qualitative research in applied linguistics: A practical introduction
(pp. 200-219). Basingstoke UK: Palgrave Macmillan.

Browne, A. (2006). Silly Billy. London: Walker Books.

Cabello, B., & Burstein, N. D. (1995). Examining teachers' beliefs about teaching in
culturally diverse classrooms. Journal of Teacher Education, 46 (4), 285-294.

Cameron, S., & Simpson, J. (2002). ESOL teachers' perspectives on the provision for
NESB students in Hamilton and Auckland secondary schools. Many Voices, 19,
16-23.

Chan, E. (2006). Teacher experience of culture in the curriculum. Journal of Curriculum

Studies, 38 (2), 161-176.

Chan, E. (2007). Student experiences of a culturally-sensitive curriculum: Ethnic identity

development amid conflicting stories to live by. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 39
(2), 177-194.

139
Chen, H., & Harris, P. (2009). Becoming school literate parents: An ESL perspective.
Australian Journal of Language and Literacy, 32 (2), 118-135.

Clark, D. A., & Marriott, J. (Composers). (2007). Kiwi Kids (r Rockin' it). [Universal
Childrens Audio, Performer] Porirua, New Zealand.

Clarke, M. (2008). Language Teacher Identities: Co-constructing discourse and

community. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.

Conway, C., Richards, H., Harvey, S., & Roskvist, A. (2010). Teacher provision of
opportunities for learners to develop language knowledge and cultural knowledge.
Asia Pacific Journal of Education, 30 (4), 449-462.

Corbett, J. (2010). Intercultural Language Activities. (S. Thornbury, Ed.) Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press.

Cowie, N. (2009). Observation. In J. Heigham, & R. A. Croker (Eds.), Qualitative

Research in Applied Linguistics: A Practical Introduction (pp. 165-181).
Basingstoke UK: Palgrave Macmillan.

Croker, R. A. (2009). An introduction to qualitative research. In J. Heigham, & R. A.

Croker (Eds.), Qualitative research in applied linguistics: A practical introduction
(pp. 3-24). Basingstoke UK: Palgrave Macmillan.

Cross, R. (2010). Language teaching as sociocultural activity: Rethinking language

teacher practice. The Modern Language Journal, 94 (iii), 434-452.

Crozet, C. (2003). A conceptual framework to help teachers identify where culture is

located in language use. In J. Lo Bianco, & C. Crozet (Eds.), Teaching Invisible
Culture: Classroom Practice and Theory (pp. 39-49). Melbourne: Language
Australia Ltd.

Crozet, C., & Liddicoat, A. (1999). The challenge of Intercultural Language Teaching:
Engaging with culture in the classroom. In J. Lo Bianco, A. J. Liddicoat, & C.
Crozet (Eds.), Striving for the Third Place: Intercultural competence through
language education (pp. 113-125). Melbourne: Language Australia.

140
Crozet, C., & Maurer, L. (2003). Teaching French culture in language use. In J. Lo Bianco,
& C. Crozet (Eds.), Teaching Invisible Culture: Classroom Practice and Theory
(pp. 119-145). Melbourne: Language Australia Ltd.

Crozet, C., Liddicoat, A. J., & Lo Bianco, J. (1999). Intercultural competence: from
language policy to language education. In J. Lo Bianco, A. J. Liddicoat, & C.
Crozet (Eds.), Striving for the Third Place: Intercultural competence through
language education (pp. 1-20). Melbourne: Language Australia.

Cummins, J., Bismilla, V., Chow, P., Cohen, S., Giampapa, F., Leoni, L., et al. (2005).
Affirming identity in multilingual classrooms. Educational Leadership,
September, 38-43.

Curtin, E. (2005). Instructional styles used by regular classroom teachers while teaching
recently mainstreamed ESL students: Six urban middle school teachers in Texas
share their experiences and perceptions. Multicultural Education, 12 (4), 36-57.

Dellit, J. (2005). Getting Started with Intercultural Language Learning: A Resource for
Schools. Melbourne: Asian Languages Professional Learning Project, Asia
Education Foundation.

Duchess of York, S., & Cunliffe, I. (2010). Michael and his new baby brother. New York:
Sterling.

Duff, P. A. (2004). Intertextuality and hybrid discourses: The infusion of pop culture in
educational discourse. Linguistics and Education, 14, 231-276.

Duff, P. A. (2007). Second language socialization as sociocultural theory: Insights and

issues. Language Teaching, 40, 309-319.

Duff, P. A. (2008). Case Study Research in Applied Linguistics. New York: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates.

Duff, P. A., & Talmy, S. (2011). Language socialization approaches to second language
acquisition. In D. Atkinson (Ed.), Alternative approaches to second language
acquisition (pp. 95-116). London: Routledge.

141
Duff, P. A., & Uchida, Y. (1997). The negotiation of teachers' sociocultural identities
and practices in postsecondary EFL classrooms. TESOL Quarterly, 31 (3), 451-
486.

Education Counts. (2002). A Census of Providers of ESOL Programmes for International

Students. Retrieved May 18, 2011, from
http://www.educationcounts.govt.nz/publications/international/a_census_of_provid
ers_of_esol_programmes_for_international_students

Ellis, R., & Barkhuizen, G. (2005). Analysing Learner Language. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.

Fassler, R. (2001). "Snow fighting with Spring": Building on young English language
learners' thinking. Childhood Education, 25-29.

FitzGerald, H. (1999). What culture do we teach? In J. Lo Bianco, A. J. Liddicoat, & C.

Crozet (Eds.), Striving for the third place: Intercultural competence through
language education (pp. 127-142). Melbourne: Language Australia.

Flory, S. B., & McCaughtry, N. (2011). Culturally relevant physical education in urban
schools: Reflecting cultural knowledge. Research Quarterly for Exercise and
Sport, 82 (1), 49-60.

Franken, M., & McComish, J. (2003). Improving English Language Outcomes for Students
Receiving ESOLServices in New Zealand Schools, with a Particular Focus on New
Immigrants. Ministry of Education, Research Division. Wellington: Ministry of
Education.

Franson, C. (1999). Mainstreaming learners of English as an additional language: The

class teacher's perspective. Language, Culture and Curriculum, 12 (1), 59-71.

Glynn, T. (2003). Responding to language diversity: A way forward for New Zealand
education. In R. Barnard, & T. Glynn (Eds.), Bilingual Children's Language and
Literacy Development (pp. 273-281). Clevedon UK: Multilingual Matters.

Glynn, T., & Berryman, M. (2003). A community elder's role in improving reading and
writing for Maori students. In R. Barnard, & T. Glynn (Eds.), Bilingual Children's

142
 Language and Literacy Development (pp. 36-58). Clevedon UK: Multilingual
Matters.

Guest, M. (2002). A critical 'checkbook' for culture teaching and learning. ELT Journal, 56
(2), 154-161.

Haneda, M. (2006). Classrooms as communities of practice: A reevaluation. TESOL

Quarterly, 40 (4), 807-817.

Harmer, J. (2007). The Practice of English Language Teaching (4th Ed). Harlow: Pearson
Education Limited.

Harrington, H. L., & Hathaway, R. S. (1995). Illuminating beliefs about diversity. Journal
of Teacher Education, 16,(4), 275-284.

Harvard University. (2010, August 17). Emic and etic approaches. Retrieved February 29,
2012, from Harvard University foundations of qualitative research in education:
http://isites.harvard.edu/icb/icb.do?keyword=qualitative&pageid=icb.page340911
&pageContentId=icb.pagecontent751913&state=maximize&view=view.do&viewP
aram_name=Emic%20and%20Etic

Haworth, P. (2003). Students from diverse language backgrounds in the primary

classroom. In R. Barnard, & T. Glynn (Eds.), Bilingual Children's Language and
Literacy Development (pp. 136-165). Clevedon UK: Multilingual Matters.

Haworth, P. (2005a). Developing praxis for a few non-English speaking background

students in the class. New Zealand Journal of Teachers' Work, 2 (1), 31-33.

Haworth, P. (2005b). Learning about teaching NESB students in a class. New Zealand
Studies in Applied Linguistics, 11 (1), 91-112.

Haworth, P. (2008). Crossing borders to teach English language learners. Teachers and
Teaching, 14 (5), 411-430.

Haworth, P. (2009). The quest for a mainstream EAL pedagogy. Teachers College
Record, 111 (9), 2179-2208.

Heigham, J., & Croker, R. A. (Eds.). (2009). Qualitative research in applied linguistics:
A pratical introduction. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.
143
Holliday, A. (1999). Small cultures. Applied Linguistics, 20 (2), 237-264.

Hood, M. (2009). Case study. In J. Heigham, & R. A. Croker (Eds.), Qualitative research
in applied linguistics: A practical introduction (pp. 66-90). Basingstoke UK:
Palgrave Macmillan.

Humpage, L. (2009). A 'culturally unsafe' space? The Somali experience of Christchurch

secondary schools. New Zealand Geographer, 65, 73-82.

Iddings, A. C. (2005). Linguistic access and participation: English language learners in

an English-dominant community of practice. Bilingual Research Journal, 29 (1),
165-184.

Johnston, B., Juhasz, A., Marken, J., & Ruiz, B. R. (1998). The ESL teacher as moral
agent. Research in the Teaching of English, 32 (2), 161-181.

Kennedy, S., & Dewar, S. (1997). Non-English-Speaking Background Students: A Study of

Programmes and Support in New Zealand School. Wellington: Ministry of
Education.

Knutson, E. M. (2006). Cross-cultural awareness for second/foreign language learners.

The Canadian Modern Language Review, 62 (4), 591-610.

Kramsch, C. (1993). Context and Culture in Language Teaching. Oxford: Oxford

University Press.

Krashen, S. D. (1985). The input hypothesis: Issues and implications. London: Longman.

Kumaravadivelu, B. (2003). Problematizing cultural stereotypes in TESOL. TESOL

Quarterly, 37 (4), 709-719.

Lantolf, J. P. (Ed.). (2000). Sociocultural Theory and Second Language Learning. Oxford:
Oxford University Press.

Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated Learning: Legitimate peripheral participation.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Lee, J., Lee, Y. A., & Amaro-Jimenez, C. (2011). Teaching English language learners
(ELL) mathematics in early childhood. Childhood Education, Summer, 253-260.

144
Liamputtong, P. (2009). Qualitative data analysis: Conceptual and practical considerations.
Health Promotion Journal of Australia, 20 (2), 133-139.

Liddicoat, A. J., & Crozet, C. (2000a). Teaching culture as an integrated part of language:
implications for the aims, approaches and pedagogies of language teaching. In A. J.
Liddicoat, & C. Crozet (Eds.), Teaching Languages, Teaching Cultures (pp. 1-18).
Melbourne: Applied Linguistics Association of Australia.

Liddicoat, A. J., & Crozet, C. (Eds.). (2000b). Teaching Languages, Teaching Cultures.
Melbourne: Applied Linguistics Association of Australia.

Lincoln, Y.S., & Guba, E.G. (1985). Naturalistic Inquiry. California: Sage.

Littlewood, W. (2000). Do Asian students really want to listen and obey? ELT Journal,
54 (1), 31-36.

Lo Bianco, J. (1996). Institutional responses: Empowering minority children. TESOL

Quarterly, 30 (3), 586-590.

Lo Bianco, J. (2003). Common themes. In J. Lo Bianco, & C. Crozet (Eds.), Teaching

Invisible Culture: Classroom Practice and Theory (pp. 7-9). Melbourne: Language
Australia.

Lo Bianco, J., & Crozet, C. (Eds.). (2003). Teaching Invisible Culture: Classroom practice
and theory. Melbourne: Language Australia Ltd.

Lortie, D.C. (2002). Schoolteacher. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

Mackey, A., Kanganas, A. P., & Oliver, R. (2007). Task familiarity and interactional
feedback in child ESL classrooms. TESOL Quarterly, 41 (2), 285-312.

Mann, S. (2010). A critical review of qualitative interviews in applied linguistics. Applied

Linguistics, 32 (1), 6-24.

Marlina, R. (2009). "I don't talk or I decide not to talk? Is it my culture?" - International
Students' Experiences of Tutorial Preparation. International Journal of Educational
Research, 48, 235-244.

145
McLean, D. (2002). Honoring traditions: Making connections with mathematics through
culture. Teaching Children Mathematics, 9 (3), 184-188.

Menard-Warwick, J. (2009). Co-constructing representations of culture in ESL and EFL

classrooms: Discursive faultlines in Chile and California. The Modern Language
Journal, 93 (i), 30-45.

Meoli, P. L. (2001). Family stories night: Celebrating culture and community. The
Reading Teacher, 54 (8), 746-747.

Merriam, S. B. (1998). Qualitative Research and Case Study Applications in Education.

San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Merryfield, M. M. (2004). Elementary students in substantive culture learning. Social

Education, 68 (4), 270-274.

Ministry of Education. (2003). English for Speakers of Other Languages (ESOL): Effective
Provision for International Students - A Resource for Schools. Wellington NZ:
Ministry of Education.

Ministry of Education. (2006). Migrant and refugee streams: A guide to understanding

how migrants and refugees enter New Zealand. Wellington, NZ: Ministry of
Education.

Ministry of Education. (2007a). ESOL Resources for Schools, Teachers and School
Communities. Wellington NZ: Ministry of Education.

Ministry of Education. (2007b). The New Zealand Curriculum. Wellington: Ministry of

Education.

Ministry of Education. (2008a). The English Language Learner Progressions:

Introduction - A Resource for Mainstream and ESOL Teachers. Wellington NZ:
Ministry of Education.

Ministry of Education. (2008b). English Language Learner Progressions: Facilitation

Manual for School Self-Access Professional Development. Wellington NZ:
Ministry of Education.

146
Ministry of Education. (2010a, October 14). ESOL Funding Levels. Retrieved February
22, 2012, from Ministry of Education:
http://www.minedu.govt.nz/NZEducation/EducationPolicies/Schools/EnglishForSp
eakersOfOtherLanguages/FundingSupportInitiatives/ESOLFundingPolicy.aspx

Ministry of Education. (2010b). National Standards Factsheet 9: English Language

Learners and National Standards. Retrieved October 14, 2011, from ESOL online,
Te Kete Ipurangi: esolonline.tki.org.nz/ESOL-Online/Student-Needs/National-
Standards

Ministry of Education. (2011a). Deciles. Retrieved May 18, 2011, from Ministry of
Education:
http://www.minedu.govt.nz/NZEducation/EducationPolicies/Schools/SchoolOperat
ions/Resourcing/OperationalFunding/Deciles.aspx

Ministry of Education. (2011b). In class ESOL support. Retrieved May 12, 2011, from
http://minedu.govt.nz

Ministry of Education. (2011c). Ministry of Education - School Roll Summary Report July
2010. Retrieved May 18, 2011, from
http://www.educationcounts.govt.nz/publications/series/2259/july_school_roll_retu
rns/school-roll-rummary-report-july-2010

Ministry of Education. (2012, May). ESOL News Update May 2012. Wellington, New
Zealand. Retrieved May 25, 2012, from
http://www.minedu.govt.nz/NZEducation/EducationPolicies/Schools/EnglishForSp
eakersOfOtherLanguages/ESOLNewsUpdates.aspx

Morita, N. (2004). Negotiating participation and identity in second language academic

communities. TESOL Quarterly, 38 (4), 573-603.

Newton, J. (2007). Connecting cultures in the language classroom. NZALT Polyglot, 32,
1-2.

Newton, J., Yates, E., Shearn, S., & Nowitzki, W. (2010). Intercultural Communicative
Language Teaching: Implications for Effective Teaching and Learning. Victoria
University of Wellington. Wellington NZ: Ministry of Education.

147
Norton, B., & Toohey, K. (2001). Changing perspectives on good language learners.
TESOL Quarterly, 35 (2), 307-322.

Nunan, D., & Bailey, K. M. (2009). Exploring Second Language Classroom Research: A
comprehensive guide. Boston: Heinle.

Ortega, L. (2009). Understanding Second Language Acquisition. London: Hodder

Education.

Parker, C. (2010). Finding our way home (at school): A study of students' experiences
of bringing their home culture into the classroom. Journal of Teaching and
Learning, 7 (1), 17-29.

Pease-Alvarez, C., & Vasquez, O. (1994). Language socialization in ethnic minority

communities. In F. Genesee (Ed.), Educating Second Language Children: The
Whole Child, the Whole Curriculum, the Whole Community (pp. 82-102).
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Peters, A. M., & Boggs, S. T. (1986). Interactional routines as cultural influences upon
language acquisition. In B. B. Schieffelin, & E. Ochs (Eds.), Language
Socialization Across Cultures (pp. 80-96). Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.

Reeves, J. R. (2006). Secondary teacher attitudes toward including English-language

learners in mainstream classrooms. The Journal of Educational Research, 99 (3),
131-142.

Richards, K. (2009). Interviews. In J. Heigham, & R. A. Croker (Eds.), Qualitative

research in applied linguistics: A practical introduction (pp. 182-199).
Basingstoke UK: Palgrave Macmillan.

Riley, P. (2007). Language, Culture and Identity: An Ethnolinguistic Perspective. London:

Continuum.

Rodriguez, Y. E., & Sjostrom, B. R. (1995). Culturally responsive teacher preparation

evident in classroom approaches to cultural diversity: A novice and an
experienced teacher. Journal of Teacher Education, 46 (4), 304-311.

148
Roessingh, H. (2011). Family treasures: A dual-language book project for negotiating
language, literacy, culture, and identity. The Canadian Modern Language Review,
67 (1), 123-148.

Rowan, S. (2001). Delving deeper: Teaching culture as an integral element of second-

language learning. The Clearing House, 74 (5), 238-241.

Rowsell, J., Sztainbok, V., & Blaney, J. (2007). Losing strangeness: Using culture to
mediate ESL teaching. Language, Culture and Curriculum, 20 (2), 140-154.

Ryan, P. M. (1998). Cultural knowledge and foreign language teachers: A case study of a
native speaker of English and a native speaker of Spanish. Language, Culture and
Curriculum, 11 (2), 135-153.

Rymes, B. (2003). Eliciting narratives: Drawing attention to the margins of classroom

talk. Research in the Teaching of English, 37 (3), 380-407.

Rymes, B. (2004). Contrasting zones of comfortable competence: Popular culture in a

phonics lesson. Linguistics and Education, 14, 321-335.

Saldaña, J., Leavy, P., & Beretvas, N. (2011). Fundamentals of Qualitative Research.
USA: Oxford University Press. Retrieved 21 August 2011 from Ebook Library.

Saville-Troike, M. (2006). Introducing Second Language Acquisition. Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press.

Schieffelin, B. B., & Ochs, E. (1986a). Language socialization. Annual Review of

Anthropology, 15, 163-191.

Scollon, R., & Wong Scollon, S. (1995). Intercultural Communication: A discourse

approach. Oxford: Blackwell.

Seo, K., & Hoover, J. H. (2009). Navigating a strange culture: Nurturing new English
learners. Reclaiming Children and Youth, 18 (3), 58-61.

Sharifan, F. (2007). L1 cultural conceptualisations in L2 learning. In F. Sharifian, & G. B.

Palmer (Eds.), Applied Cultural Linguistics: Converging Evidence in Language
and Communication Research (Vol. 7, pp. 33-51). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John
Benjamins Publishing Company.
149
Short, D. J. (1994). Expanding middle school horizons: Integrating language, culture,
and social studies. TESOL Quarterly, 28 (3), 581-608.

Simpson, S. T. (2008). Western EFL teachers and East-West classroom-culture

conflicts. RELC Journal, 39 , 381-394.

Soars, L., & Soars, J. (2000). New Headway English Course: Beginner (Third ed.).
Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Sparks, B. (2002). A sociocultural approach to planning programs for immigrant learners.

Adult Learning, 12/13 (4/1), 22-25.

Spencer-Oatey, H., & Franklin, P. (2009). Intercultural Interaction: A multidisciplinary

approach to intercultural communication. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.

Stagg-Peterson, S., & Heywood, D. (2007). Contributions of families' linguistic, social,

and cultural capital to minority-language children's literacy: Parents', teachers',
and principals' perspectives. The Canadian Modern Language Review, 63 (4),
517-538.

Statistics New Zealand. (2011). Statistics New Zealand - Census. Retrieved May 17, 2011,
from http://www.stats.govt.nz/Census

Statistics New Zealand. (2012). Population Clock. Retrieved May 25, 2012, from
Estimated residential population of New Zealand:
http://www.stats.govt.nz/tools_and_services/tools/population_clock.aspx

Swain, M., & Deters, P. (2007). "New" mainstream SLA theory: Expanded and enriched.
The Modern Language Journal, 91, 820-836.

Swain, M., Kinnear, P., & Steinman, L. (2011). Sociocultural Theory in Second Language
Teaching: An Introduction through Narratives. Bristol UK: Multilingual Matters.

Talmy, S. (2008). The cultural productions of the ESL student at Tradewinds High:
Contingency, multidirectionality, and identity in L2 socialization. Applied
Linguistics, 29 (4), 619-644.

150
Thanasoulas, D. (2009, March 7). Language and Culture: A thesis. Retrieved August 19,
2011, from Developing Teachers:
http://www.developingteachers.com/articles_tchtraining/culture1_dimitrios.htm

Thielmann, W. (2003). Are Germans rude or just doing things differently? Understanding
and teaching language and culture. In J. Lo Bianco, & C. Crozet (Eds.), Teaching
Invisible Culture: Classroom Practice and Theory (pp. 147-176). Melbourne:
Language Australia Ltd.

Toohey, K. (1998). "Breaking them up, taking them away": ESL students in Grade 1.
TESOL Quarterly, 32 (1), 61-84.

Vine, E. W. (2003a). "My partner": A five-year-old Samoan boy learns how to

participate in class through interactions with his English-speaking peers.
Linguistics and Education, 14 (1), 99-121.

Vine, E. W. (2003b). A five-year-old Samoan boy interacts with his teacher in a New
Zealand classroom. In R. Barnard, & T. Glynn (Eds.), Bilingual Children's
Language and Literacy Development (pp. 108-135). Clevedon UK: Multilingual
Matters.

Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University

Press.

Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of Practice: Learning, Meaning and Identity. Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press.

Wenger, E. (2006, June). Communities of Practice: A brief introduction. Retrieved

February 8, 2012, from E Wenger: http://www.ewenger.com/theory/

Wolcott, H. F. (2009). Writing Up Qualitative Research (3rd ed.). California: SAGE

publications.

Wong Fillmore, L. (2000). Loss of family languages: Should educators be concerned?

Theory into Practice, 39 (4), 203-210.

Xu, S., & Lewis, M. (2002). Innovation in a Chinese English-language school. Many
Voices, 19, 12-13.

151
Youngs, C. S., & Youngs, G. A. (2001). Predictors of mainstream teachers' attitudes
toward ESL students. TESOL Quarterly, 35 (1), 97-120.

Zaid, M. A. (1999). Cultural confrontation and cultural acquisition in the EFL classroom.
International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 37 (2), 111-
127.

Zhu, H. (2011). From intercultural awareness to intercultural empathy. English Language

Teaching, 4 (1), 116-119.

152
 8.0 APPENDICES

Appendix A

Tables

Table 1

Ethnicity Composition

Ethnicity Nationwide (%) Parkside School

European (Pākehā) 55.8 62

Māori 22.5 13
Pasifika a 9.9 10
Asian 9.4 11
Other 2.4 3

Note. Ethnicity composition (shown as a percentage of the school roll) as a comparison

between the average of all New Zealand schools and the roll of the subject school, taken
from July 2010 School Roll Summary Report (Education Counts, 2011a and 2011b).

a
Pasifika is a term used to refer to people of all Pacific Island nations.

153
Table 2

Biographical Data of Teacher Participants

Name Teaching and ESL qualifications Years Age Ethnicity

teaching band (own words)

Mr Lawrence  Diploma of Teaching; 30+ Late New Zealand

(Years 6/7)  Post-graduate study 40s European
(unspecified);
 “Trained ESOL teacher”
(training unspecified)
Mrs  Bachelor of Education; 37 Late British born
McIntyre  ESOL workshop 50s New Zealander
(New
Entrants)
Mrs  Higher Diploma of Teaching; 30+ Late New Zealander
Harrington  ESOL workshops 50s
(Years 3/4)
Ms Barringer  Bachelor of Education; 14 Early European
(Years 5/6)  Diploma of teaching; 40s
 3 month TESOL course
Miss  Master of Teaching 9 Early New Zealand
Johnston 30s European
(Years 7/8)

Miss Scott  Graduate Diploma in 14 Early New Zealand

(Years 2/3) Education and Teaching; 40s European
 ESOL workshops; Pākehā
 Unspecified overseas training
in TESOL
Mrs  CLTAb; 9 Mid- “Kiwi” 4th
Stephenson  Undergraduate paper in 60s generation
(ESL) TESOL New Zealander

a
CLTA is the acronym for Certificate in Language Teaching for Adults

154
Table 3

Biographical Data of Pupil Participants

Name Gender Age (Years) Ethnicity Time in New

Zealand
(months)

Mei F 10 Mainland 9
Chinese

Alice F 11 Papua New 18

Guinean

Prem M 9 Fijian Indian 7

Anuj M 7 Fijian Indian 7

Suhairie M 12 Malaysian 15

Aafreen F 10 Indian 20

a
The age shown is the child’s age at the commencement of data collection

b
The length of time in New Zealand refers to the number of months that the child had been
in New Zealand at the commencement of data collection (June 2011). It is taken from the
date of entry into the country recorded on the child’s enrolment school information and
does not necessarily tally with the length of time the child had been a pupil at Parkside
School

155
 Appendix B

Field note example

FN4

Observation notes from Ms Barringer’s class

30 August 2011 9am

Subject: Fitness then library

When I arrived the children were just about to set off for their daily fitness session, which B told
me that they love.

I was not in the classroom for long so did not have an opportunity to have a close look at
displayed material that could be said to relate to culture. I did notice that there were a number
of flags of different countries displayed. There was also a book lying near me called “Chinese
Inspired Cinquains” which is a style of poetry.

Once out of the door they ran to the school hall and lined up outside. Ms B asked them to let
her in first and then they all went in chatting excitedly. Yesterday they had been put into teams
for fitness activities so the children were trying to organise themselves back into those groups.
Ms B was not happy with the amount of noise they were making in doing this so she sent them
back outside to line up quietly and come into the hall with less noise and take their places in their
groups. This they did, without too much more fuss. The groups were mixed gender and were
made up of five children with one group of four. The majority of the exercise equipment (balls,
small cones) were stored in a small room at the back of the stage in the hall. The other main
piece of equipment used for foam ‘zips’, being the offcuts of a new set of foam floor mats. Rather
then throw them out Ms B used some lateral thinking and employed them in her activities. The
strip of foam had a row of dovetails down one side so, when folded in half lengthwise, the
dovetails connected, or ‘zipped’ together and created a shape akin to a sports bat.

The children participated in a range of relay style activities; Ms B described and demonstrated
each activity and then called out ‘go!’ to start each one. The groups were in lines and the first
person in the line had to complete the activity and run to the back of the line at which time the
next person at the front completed the activity. One group had one less member so someone had
to do each activity twice. Another group had a child who was physically disabled having no left
hand. This seemed to prove no hindrance and he participated in every activity except for one
that required the children to pass the ball around the legs in a figure eight style.

There were two ESOL children in the class, one of which, Aafreen, is a participant of my study.
The other, was a Filipino boy. Both children were excitedly involved in the game. OC- The boy
seemed to especially enjoy it, with sports and exercise being a love of his, and it being something
at which he could achieve equality with, or even better, his classmates. OC - It appeared at times
that he might not have understood the details of Ms B’s instructions, but he would watch other
competitors and follow their lead. OC - He is clearly well liked by his classmates.

156
At the conclusion of the fitness session the children were instructed to run once around a regular
circuit of the school and back to their classroom from where they had to collect their library
books.

Once they had collected their books the children lined up again, this time in a central place in the
playground so they could walk in an orderly fashion to the library. The children chatted to each
other, often discussing their books, while waiting in line for all of the slower runners, or those
having trouble finding their books to get there. Once everyone was there they made their way
across the sealed sports courts to the library. When they arrived there they put the books they
were returning on the librarian’s desk.

There is one full time librarian at Parkside and she has an assistant. Both ladies were at the
librarian’s desk and were chatting to each other, to the children and to Ms B throughout the time
we were in the library. The librarian knew the majority of the children’s names. The children
filtered out around the library selecting new books to borrow.

During my time in the library I noticed in prominent view a significant range of books that
appeared to be cultural in nature. Some of the titles or topics included:

Hindu Stories
Buddhist
A series of ‘I am a Sikh’, ‘I am a Jew’, ‘I am a Roman Catholic’ (I flicked through the latter and
noted that the family depicted were of mixed race)
‘Egypt of the Nile’
‘War Boy’
‘New Zealanders in Action’ (the latter two relating to New Zealand’s involvement in world wars)
‘Getting Into Drugs’
‘Mom and Dad don’t live together anymore’
‘The Seven Chinese Brothers’ (a Chinese folk tale rewritten by New Zealand author Margaret
Mahy)
‘The Ghost called Hemo Phil’ (about a person called Phil who is a Haemophiliac)
‘The Boss’ by Allan Baillie, a children’s story by an Australian author involving Chinese characters
and set in what appears to be China – when I flicked through it appeared that it wasn’t explicitly
stated that it was about a Chinese situation, but it referred to rice paddies, chopsticks etc without
any emphasis on the characters being different to the majority of stories or story settings.
‘New to New Zealand: A guide to ethnic groups in New Zealand’
‘Human Barriers; the walls of the world’ , by Nelson Eggleton – this reference book talked of the
Great Wall of China, Hadrian’s wall, the Berlin wall, the Wailing wall, calling them great walls
through history. (I noted the absence of reference to the current wall around the west bank
Palestine.)
‘Classic Kiwiana – An essential guide to New Zealand popular culture’ by Richard Wolfe and
Stephen Bennett.

I concluded my observation once the children had borrowed their next selection of books, which
they were going to return to class.

While observations of a fitness session and a library session offered variety to me, it made it hard
for me to make an accurate assessment of Ms B’s teaching and discipline styles. OC - The activity
I did see suggested that Ms B’s teaching style was a combination of didactic and interactive,
usually depending on the nature of the activity. OC - Her discipline style was generally
democratic (Curtin, 2005).

157
 Appendix C

Transcription conventions

? high rising tone, questioning tone

! exclamation; sound made with excitement, particularly lively etc

[ signifies point at which overlap commences

] signifies end of section of overlapped speech

Italics additional information to give context, provided outside of the turns

( ) non verbal information that forms part of the turn

CAPS emphasised speech

. indicates a short untimed lull in speech. Longer pauses due to the participants being
engaged in silent tasks are specifically noted

Bold Content from cassette tape or computer

“ ” indicates phrases read aloud from written material

S-O-C indicates letters being named for the purpose of spelling a word

NP---- utterances made by individual who did not supply written consent for participation

Note, where other participants are mentioned in utterances their names are replaced with
the pseudonyms used throughout

158
 Appendix D

Interview schedules

For ESL teacher

Biodata

1 Do you have any teaching qualifications? If so, what are they?

2 Have you undertaken any specific ESL qualifications/courses/papers or attending ESL

seminars or other training/development sessions?

3 How many years have you been teaching English as a second language?

4 Outline your experience in teaching ESL with respect to environment, ages, levels of
English, content, control of lessons/curriculum etc

5 What age band do you fall into:

20-29 30-39 40-49 50-59 60-69 70+ rather not say

6 What ethnicity/ies to you consider yourself to be?

7 In a similar vein, what cultures do you consider yourself to belong to, or closely identify
with? Eg, if NZer – identify with Maori, British, New Zealand, Scottish heritage, that of
marriage partner, etc

Lines of questioning:

8 What languages have you learned, whether you speak them fluently or not?

9 How did you learn those languages?

10 Did you learn about the associated cultures?

11 If so, were you conscious of gaining knowledge of the cultures?

12 Was your cultural learning gained through specific instruction in cultural matters or
simply as part and parcel of language learning?

13 Are you happy with the amount of cultural knowledge you gained about the languages
you have learned or do you wish you learned more about the cultures of the languages
you know?

14 Other than children in your classes, what experience do you have, or what exposure have
you had, to other cultures (ie, don’t need to know other languages)? eg, friends from a
different culture, travel, language courses, cultural events, family marriages etc

Turning to your current teaching –

15 What second languages are present in your classroom? Are you aware of any child having
knowledge of more than two languages?

159
16 A linked, but slightly different question - What cultures are present in your classroom?
(eg, might come from a multi-cultural place, eg, Malaysia, Fiji, where they have multiple
cultures.) Have you ever thought about that differentiation before?

Thinking now about your teaching experience generally -

17 Are you aware of your own culture when you work with ESL students?

18 Have you personally experienced culture shock in class, or have you witnessed a pupil
experiencing culture shock? ie, discomfort caused by the presence of another culture,
difficulty adjusting to a different culture, anxiety related to different culture.

19 Do you recall any instances where a pupil’s cultural background had a significant effect on
their role as a student in your class?

20 Have you have any conflict with a student or their parent as a result of cultural
differences?

21 Have you felt like your own values/beliefs are under scrutiny by pupils of other cultures
that you have taught?

22 Do you learn about the student’s cultural/community/personal background? If not, why

not? If so, how and to what extent? Is that information shared between teachers? If so,
how; if not, why not?

23 In what ways, if at all, do you represent culture (of English/New Zealand and others) in
your lessons – how does it feature in your lessons, classroom?

24 Do you consider it your responsibility to recognise the cultures of your pupils? Is this
practical? Difficult? Important? Idealistic? Or do you prefer to treat them equally, not
emphasis any difference etc?

25 If you do think it important, in what ways do you do take account of their cultures? Eg,
make allowances, make it a feature of a lesson etc

26 Does knowing about a student’s cultural background influence the way you teach them or
the class as a whole?

27 Can you think of any cultural knowledge about your students which has proved important
to know, that has helped you or the class?

Your general opinions now:

28 With respect to teachers of mainstream classes, do you think ESL qualifications are
necessary, worthwhile, beneficial, unnecessary?

29 With respect to teachers of children who require English support, such as yourself, do you
think ESL qualifications are necessary, worthwhile, beneficial, unnecessary?

30 How do you define ‘culture’? Or, what do you think of when you hear the term ‘culture’?

31 In your opinion, how does language play a role in culture? Or, as an alternative, how are
language and culture related? [Hints, use language to teach culture, to pass on culture
within language, to some their language is their culture, language conventions are
culturally founded etc. Consider the culture of the learner and the target culture. ]
160
32 Do you consider it your role to teach culture?

33 What are your views on the significance of involving culture in the classroom? Is it
important, relevant, not necessary?

34 Leading from that, if you think there is a place for the involvement of culture, what are
your ideals with respect to culture in the classroom?

35 Is there a difference in your response with respect to the target language and the
learners’ cultures?

36 Do you perceive any hindrances to, limitations on, your ability to enact your cultural
education ideals?

37 Do you think a family’s concerted effort to maintain their child’s native/‘first’/home

culture (as opposed to just language) will affect their ability to learn English, or learn
about English/NZ cultures?

38 Do you think involving ESL families (in particular) in school life is important? Why? [Hints
– do they say the school/child can benefit from involvement of families?]

39 In your opinion, in an ideal world where resources and other restrictions were not an
issue, how would an ESL teacher be best used in a mainstream school? Eg, complete ESL
class, withdrawal for one-on-one sessions, in-class support as and when required etc?

40 Do you personally enjoy learning about other cultures?

41 Have you thought of the non-English-background children in your class as a resource from
which you too can learn about other cultures?

42 Have you heard of Intercultural Language Teaching? It is a second language teaching

theory that emphasises a relationship between language and culture. It encourages
teacher and learners to objectively explore cultures, including their own, to allow
understanding of other cultures without necessarily giving up or replacing their own, and
teaches them to notice similarities and gaps across cultures. Whether you were aware of
the theory or not, do you think you employ this teaching method? Do you see merits in
it? Do you see drawbacks? Do you think it sounds best suited to ESL classes, or could
there be a place for it in mainstream teaching of ESL learners? Or, is it too idealistic?

161
For mainstream teachers
Biodata

1 What teaching qualifications do you have?

2 How long have you been teaching?

3 Have you ever undertaken any specific ESL study? Eg, courses/papers, or attended ESL
related training or development sessions/workshops?

4 Has it been a regular feature of your teaching experience to have ESL children in your
class?

5 What age band do you fall into:

20s 30s 40s 50s 60s rather not say

6 What ethnicity/ies to you consider yourself to be?

7 In a similar vein, what cultures do you consider yourself to belong to, or identify with, or
be affiliated to? Eg, if NZer – identify with Maori, British, New Zealand, Scottish heritage,
partner of other culture, etc

Personal background experiences:

8 Have you learned any languages (you need not speak them now, or fluently) and how did
you learn them?

9 Did you learn about the associated culture? How?

10 What experience do you have, or what exposure have you had, to other cultures? (ie,
don’t need to know other languages) eg, friends from a different culture, travel, language
courses, cultural events, family marriages etc

11 Do you personally enjoy learning about other cultures?

Turning to your current class –

12 What second languages do students in your current class have? Are you aware of any
child having knowledge or more than two languages, ie, already learned another
language?

13 A linked, but slightly different question - What other cultures are present in your
classroom amongst the ESL children? (eg, might come from a multi-cultural place, eg,
Malaysia, Fiji where they have a specific L1, but multiple cultures.) Have you ever
thought about that differentiation before?

Thinking now about your teaching experience generally -

14 Are you aware of your own culture when you work with ESL students?

15 In what ways do you represent New Zealand cultures (including Māori and English) in
your lessons – how does it feature in your lessons, classroom?

16 In what ways do you represent other cultures in your lessons?

162
17 With regard to those lessons/activities that are related to other cultures – are they
related to ministry requirements or of your own design/initiative? Are they intended to
represent the children in your class, or just world cultures? Is there a required cultural
component of the curriculum? How specific are those requirements, ie, do they relate to
specific cultures, or culture generally?

18 What cultural content do you think it is important to teach? [New Zealand/English

culture and the ESL children’s cultures mentioned?]

19 Do you perceive any hindrances to, limitations on, your ability to enact your cultural
education ideals? Eg resources, time, patience, relevance to some.

20 Do you actively find out about the ESL students’ cultural/community/personal

background? If so, how and to what extent? Is that information shared between
teachers? If so, how?

21 Do you consider it important to recognise and mention the cultures of your pupils in
class? Or do you prefer to consider them as assimilated members of the class and not
emphasise any difference?

22 Does knowing about a student’s cultural background influence the way you work? Do
you make any specific accommodation for the ESL children in your class? Or put in place
particular practices? Eg, slow things down, make simpler ESL versions of a task, make
allowances, make their culture a feature of a lesson, teach their families about the
school’s literacy practices, expectations, homework etc? Allow you to understand their
behaviour/approach.

23 Have you experienced issues with a student or their parent as a result of specific cultural
differences? Eg, girls participating in physical exercise, with overnight trips, activity on
religious days, foods (Ramadan), clothing etc.

24 Do you see benefits in having ESL pupils in your class? What are they? Who benefits?

25 Does having ESL pupils in your class cause you any problems, eg, stressful, time
consuming, frustrating, testing etc

26 Do you have any thoughts on whether families should encourage the maintenance of
their child’s native culture (ie, not just language) – might doing so affect their ability to
learn about English/NZ cultures or affect their association with their home culture?

27 I know Parkside School places importance on involving families in the school. Do the ESL
families get involved at school? Any benefits from ESL families in particular? Are there
difficulties in contacting ESL families?

163
 Appendix E

Legend of macro coded for document management

Interviews: Mainstream observations:

I1 Mrs McIntyre, New Entrants M1 Mrs McIntyre, New Entrants

I2 Miss Scott, Years 2/3 M2 Miss Scott, Years 2/3

I3 Mrs Harrington, Years 3/4 M3 Mrs Harrington, Years 3/4

I4 Ms Barringer, Years 5/6 M4 Ms Barringer, Years 5/6

I5 Mr Lawrence, Years 6/7 M5 Mr Lawrence, Years 6/7

I6 Miss Johnston, Years 7/8 M6 Miss Johnston, Years 7/8

I7 Mrs Stephenson, ESL M7 Mrs Stephenson, ESL

ESL observations: Field Notes:

E1 Alice FN1 Mrs McIntyre, New Entrants

E2 Prem FN2 Miss Scott, Years 2/3

E3 Alice FN3 Mrs Harrington, Years 3/4

E4 Suhairie FN4 Ms Barringer, Years 5/6

E5 Anuj FN5 Mr Lawrence, Years 6/7

E6 Mei FN6 Miss Johnston, Years 7/8

E7 Suhairie FN7 Assembly

E8 Mei FNE1 ESL, Alice

E9 Alice, Aafreen and NP FNE2-3 ESL, Alice, Prem

E10 Alice, Aafreen and NP FNE4 ESL, Suhairie

FNE5-6-10 ESL, Anuj, Mei, Alice, Aafreen

FNE7-8 ESL, Mei, Suhairie

FNE9 ESL, Alice, Aafreen

References to items from these documents are annotated by the document code and the
page number, thus, M1p3, refers to page three of the transcript of Mrs McIntyre’s
observation.
164
 Appendix F

Legend of micro codes, descriptions and groupings by theme

1. KnowG: General knowledge of cultures of pupils

2. KnowSp: Knowledge of specific culture of pupil
3. DKnowG: Lack of general knowledge of cultures of pupils
4. DKnowSp: Lack of specific knowledge of culture of pupil
5. Ass: Assumptions, suppositions on behalf of pupils,
accuracy/foundation unknown
6. RcogDiff: Recognise difficulties and differences for learner
7. NMJ: “Not my job”/business
8. FamY: ESL family involved Yes
9. FamN: ESL family involved No
10. AwOwnG: General awareness of own culture
---------------------------------------------------------------

11. AwOwnSp: Specific awareness of own culture

12. UnAwOwn: Lack of awareness of own culture
13. PedIss: Pedagogical issue relation to TESOL
14. ImpEd: Imposing New Zealand educational culture
15. AppNeg: Negative attitude to current educational approach/Improvement
needed
16. AppPos: Positive attitude to current educational approach
17. AdmnIss: Administrative issues, funding etc influence on culture
education
18. LrAdv: Learner required to advise, raise, tell of cultural issue/conflict
19. AvdCult: Avoid cultural issue
20. DiffExp: Difference in expectations apparent (compared with
teacher’s New Zealand-centric expectations)
21. Waste: Opportunity for learning wasted
22. AvdOff: Teach cultural content in order to avoid offence

165
23. NZ: Relates to New Zealand culture
24. Oth: Relates to ‘other cultures’
25. Home: Relates to home cultures of ESL learner
26. H: High culture, Capital C
27. S: Small culture, everyday, little C
28. Imp: Raised implicitly
29. Exp: Taught explicitly
30. P: Positive reinforcement, praise
31. CR: Class rules/routines
32. Dir: Use of directives
33. Q: Use of interactive, questioning, student choice style
34. Disc: Discipline, reprimands, corrective behaviour, behaviour control
35. PT: Please, thank you, sorry, excuse me, pardon
36. SC: Student-centred teaching
37. TD: Teacher-directed teaching
38. TgCCCT: Teaching Culture Capital C for Target
39. TgCLCT: Teaching Culture Little C for Target
40. TrLr: Teacher as learner
41. ≠TrLr: Not teacher as learner
42. iCLT: Intercultural Communicative Language Teaching (explore,
reflect, compare)
43. ≠iCLT: Not Intercultural Communicative Language Teaching
---------------------------------------------------------------

44. CultSter: Cultural generalisation, stereotype

45. CultBehG: Appropriating behaviour to culture, generally
46. CultBehSp: Appropriating behaviour to specific culture
47. AttNN: Attitude not entirely neutral, has mixed or ambiguous
connotations
48. AttNNNeg: Attitude not neutral, expressed with negative connotations or
implied inferiority
166
49. CultLmt: Defines or limits culture
50. AttNeut: Attitude neutral, neither positive nor negative
51. AttPosG: Attitude positive towards other cultures, in general
52. AttPosSp: Attitude positive towards specific other culture
53. OwnNeg: Attitude towards own culture negative
54. OwnPos: Attitude towards own culture positive
55. ImpSug: Improvement suggested or used by teacher
56. Prob: Culture led to problem or conflict
57. InvPos: Positive attitude to involvement of home cultures
58. InvNeg: Negative attitude to involvement of home cultures, discouraged
59. InvNeut: Neutral attitude to involvement of home cultures
60. InvEff: Effort required, hassle, to involve home cultures but accept it is
necessary
61. ProAss: Promotes assimilation within target culture
62. ProAcc: Promotes acceptance of home cultures
63. ML1: Positive towards maintenance of first language
64. AccH: Accept home culture approach to activity
65. NoConc: No or little concession made for ESL learners
66. Conc: Concession made for ESL learners
67. ESLH: Teaching ESL training at high level (eg, formal qualifications)
68. ESLL: Teaching ESL training at low level (eg, attend workshop)
69. ESLØ: No Teaching ESL training
70. ExpC: Exposure to other cultures
71. LLYL: Language learning experience Yes, by formal lesson
72. LLYI: Language learning experience Yes, by immersion
73. LLYN: Language learning experience No
74. Val: Reference to learner feeling valued
75. SelfEst: Reference to learner’s self esteem/pride
76. Ident: Reference to learners’ identity

167
 77. Safe: Reference to learner feeling safe
78. ImpSoc: Imposing New Zealand social culture, primacy to New Zealand

Grouping of codes to theme:

Codes 1-9 above were grouped as Theme 1 – ‘Know the ESL learner’

Codes 10-43 above were grouped as Theme 2 – ‘Reflect, explore, compare’

Codes 44-78 above were grouped as Theme 3 – ‘Affirm and Incorporate’.

168
 Appendix G

Examples of coded data

From interview with Miss Scott (I2)

169
From observation of Mrs Harrington (M3)

170
 Appendix H

Participant information sheets

Parents
Reference Number: 11/053
May 2011

CULTURE IN THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE CLASSROOM

INFORMATION SHEET FOR PARENT PARTICIPANTS – PHASE 1

Thank you for showing an interest in this project. Please read this information sheet carefully
before deciding whether or not to participate. If you decide to participate, we thank you. If you
decide not to take part there will be no disadvantage to you of any kind and we thank you for
considering our request.
If you experience difficulties understanding any written or spoken element of this project
then you may ask the researcher to seek the translation assistance of someone who can
adequately understand English and your preferred language. Alternatively, you may involve
someone you know who can act as a translator or your language support person.

What is the aim of the project?

This project is being undertaken as part of a research study for a Master of Arts degree, in the
field of Linguistics. The project is an investigation into the ways in which culture features in the
education of this school’s English as a Second Language (ESL) pupils. This particular study is to be
conducted at the subject school only, but it is possible that the project will lead to the
development of a set of methods that can be transferred to allow the future study of culture in
language classes at other schools in New Zealand. It is hoped that the study will contribute to the
understanding of the relevance of culture in the successful teaching of English to speakers of
other languages.

What types of participants are being sought?

All participants will be associated with your primary school’s ESL programme and comprise:
(a) The pupils that receive ESL lessons;
(b) Teaching staff (ESL teacher and mainstream teachers with ESL pupils in their class); and
(c) Parents (or legal guardians) of the ESL pupils (In Phase 2 – to be arranged separately).
It is not expected that any participant will be unduly inconvenienced or exposed to costs as a
result of their involvement in the study, but a small gift will be offered to all participants as a
token of thanks for their contribution to the project.

What will the parents/guardian participants be asked to do as part of Phase 1?

Observation of your child’s classes
You are asked to allow the researcher to observe a number of your child’s school lessons. It is
anticipated that a maximum four of your child’s classes will be observed during Term 2 and the
start of Term 3. ESL lessons and standard school lessons will be observed. The times and dates
of the particular lessons will be determined in consultation with the teachers but we wish to
171
follow the ESL pupils (including your child) from their ESL lesson to their standard lesson. If you
choose not to allow your child to participate, every effort will be made to observe classes where
your child is not present. Should this not be possible, interactions between the teacher and your
child will not be transcribed and will not be analysed.
[Note: We will contact you again, as part of Phase 2 of the project, to ask permission to meet
with you. This will be done separately and does not form part of this consent information.]14

What data or information will be collected and what use will be made of it?
In all classes observed by the researcher, a small voice recorder will be used to record all verbal
interactions for the length of the particular lesson. Because of the project’s focus on the
references to culture in the lesson, only those interactions that directly or indirectly relate to
culture (of any nation) will be transcribed for further analysis. The researcher will take hand
written notes while in the classroom, noting relevant non-verbal activity that relates to the
matter of culture and describe the physical environment.
No participant’s name will be recorded (in raw data or completed research). The name of the
school will not be recorded. It is therefore unlikely that any participant will be able to be
identified from the research. The raw data collected will be securely stored in such a way that it
can only be accessed by those people mentioned below. At the end of the project any personal
information will be destroyed immediately except that, as required by the University's research
policy, any raw data on which the results of the project depend will be retained in secure storage
for five years, after which it will be destroyed. All transcription and administration (copying,
typing etc) will be carried out by the researcher.
Any participant may, at any point, request a copy of the data as it pertains directly to
them, where this can be shared without revealing the identities of other participants that would
otherwise remain unidentified. Once the period of data collection has concluded (scheduled to
be the last week of May for all interviews and the last week of August 2011 for class
observations) participants will have one further week within which they may amend the data.
Raw data will not be published. The results of the project may be published and will be available
in the University of Otago Library (Dunedin, New Zealand) but every attempt will be made to
preserve your anonymity. A copy of the completed thesis will be given to the school once it has
been assessed for the researcher’s Masters Degree.

Can participants change their mind and withdraw from the project?
You may withdraw your child from participation in the project at any time and without any
disadvantage of any kind to you. The researcher must ascertain whether you will allow the use of
any data obtained prior to your notice of withdrawal.

What if participants have any questions?

If you have any questions about our project, either now or in the future, please feel free to
contact either:-
The researcher: The research and thesis supervisor:
Mrs Jo Oranje Dr Anne Feryok
Department of English (Linguistics Programme) Department of English (Linguistics)
University of Otago University of Otago
University email: Jo’s email address Telephone number: Anne’s phone number
University Email: Anne’s email address

This study has been approved by the University of Otago Human Ethics Committee. If you have
any concerns about the ethical conduct of the research you may contact the Committee through
the Human Ethics Committee Administrator (ph 03 479 8256). Any issues you raise will be treated
in confidence and investigated and you will be informed of the outcome.

172
Pupil participants
Reference Number: 11/053
May 2011

CULTURE IN THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE CLASSROOM

INFORMATION SHEET FOR CHILD PARTICIPANTS

Thank you for thinking about taking part in our project. Here is some information
that you need to read carefully, or have read out to you, so you can decide whether
or not you want to join in. If you decide not to take part, that’s fine.

Why are we doing the project?

This project is part of a university student’s work for her degree. The student’s
name is Mrs Jo Oranje and she is learning how to teach people a new language. Jo is
interested in how children learn English so she wants to work with some of the
children and teachers at your school. Jo wants to know how often you talk about
culture in your lessons. We hope that the project will help us know how to talk about
culture in a way that makes learning English easier.

Why are we asking you to be involved?

Jo would like you to help her because you are one of the children that have special
lessons in English at school. Your parents (or the people that look after you) have
been given some information about the project so they know what Jo wants to do.
The university needs to know that you and your parents have said that it’s okay for
you to join in.

What will you have to do?

Jo wants to watch some of your lessons with your English teacher and some of your
lessons with your usual class teacher. She would like to watch up to four of your
school lessons during Terms 2 and 3. She will just sit in the back of the room so she
can watch and listen without getting in your way. You don’t have to do anything
special or different.
Jo wants to know how often you and your teachers talk about culture; either
your own culture, or the New Zealand cultures. You don’t have to do anything special
to be a part of the project, just work in class like you usually do, but because Jo
wants to record your lessons she needs you to say if it is okay.

173
 Jo will use a small tape recorder so she can remember what people say in the
class. The tapes will be destroyed when the study is finished. To thank you for
letting her watch, Jo will give you a small gift at the end.

What information do we want and what will it be used for?

Jo wants to watch some of your lessons and see if culture is talked about in class.
A small voice recorder will be used to record everything that people say
during the class. Because Jo is interested in culture, only those bits of your lesson
that talk about culture will be used by Jo. While she’s in the classroom, Jo might
also write some notes about what she can see.
The paper and computer files with your comments will be seen only by Jo and
the people she is working with. They will keep whatever you say private. Jo will write
up the results from this study for her University work. The results may also be put
in journals and talked about at conferences. Your name will not be on anything Jo
writes about this study.

Can I change my mind and stop being part of the project?

Participation in this study is voluntary, which means that you do not have to take part
if you don’t want to and nothing will happen to you.
Anytime you want to stop, that’s okay and you don’t have to give a reason.

What if I have any questions?

If you have any questions about the project, either now or later, you can talk to Jo
when you see her at school, or email her. You can also talk to your teacher about it
if you want to. Your parents can talk to Jo too, or to the people working with Jo.
Their contact information is here:

The researcher: The research and thesis supervisor:

Mrs Jo Oranje Dr Anne Feryok
Department of English (Linguistics Programme) Department of English (Linguistics)
University of Otago University of Otago
Email: Jo’s email address Telephone number: Anne’s ph number
Email: Anne’s email address

174
ESL Teacher
Reference Number: 11/053
April 2011

CULTURE IN THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE CLASSROOM

INFORMATION SHEET FOR ESL TEACHER PARTICIPANT

Thank you for showing an interest in this project. Please read this information sheet carefully
before deciding whether or not to participate. If you decide to participate, we thank you. If you
decide not to take part there will be no disadvantage to you of any kind and we thank you for
considering our request.

What is the aim of the project?

This project is being undertaken as part of a research study for a Master of Arts degree, in the
field of Linguistics. The project is an investigation into the ways in which culture features in the
education of this school’s English as a Second Language (ESL) pupils. This particular study is to be
conducted at the subject school only, but it is possible that the project will lead to the
development of a set of methods that can be transferred to allow the future study of culture in
language classes at other schools in New Zealand. It is hoped that the study will contribute to the
understanding of the relevance of culture in the successful teaching of English to speakers of
other languages.

What types of participants are being sought?

All participants will be associated with your primary school’s ESL programme and comprise:
(a) The pupils that receive ESL lessons;
(b) Teaching staff (ESL teacher and mainstream teachers with ESL pupils in their class); and
(c) Parents (or legal guardians) of the ESL pupils.
It is not expected that any participant will be unduly inconvenienced or exposed to costs as a
result of their involvement in the study, but a small gift will be offered to all participants as a
token of thanks for their contribution to the project.

What will the ESL teacher participant be asked to do?

Should you agree to take part in this project, you will be asked to be involved in two data
collection techniques. Each element is separate and therefore requires separate consent from
you. You may consent to only one part if that is your preference.

1 Classroom Observations
You are asked to allow the researcher to sit in on a number of your ESL lessons. It is anticipated
that a maximum of six classes will be observed, Terms 2 and 3. The times and dates of the
particular lessons will be determined in consultation with you but it would be most beneficial to
the study if the maximum number of ESL pupils can be observed over the study period.
175
2 Personal Interviews
You will be asked to be involved in a semi-structured one-on-one discussion-style interview.
While there will be particular lines of questioning (discussed further below), the style of the
interview is intended to be open to allow free and flowing discussion about your opinions and
experiences of culture in ESL teaching. This interview is scheduled to be conducted during Term
2. It is difficult to confirm the time commitment that this interview will require given the
discussion style proposed but it has been estimated at 45 minutes to 1 hour. The interview time
will be arranged in consultation with you and it will be carried out at school, in a private and quiet
space.

What data or information will be collected and what use will be made of it?
In all classes observed by the researcher, a small voice recorder will be used to record all verbal
interactions for the length of the particular lesson. Because of the project’s focus on the
references to culture in the lesson, only those interactions that directly or indirectly relate to
culture (of any nation) will be transcribed for further analysis. The researcher will take hand
written notes while in the classroom, noting relevant non-verbal activity that relates to the
matter of culture and describe the physical environment (including resources, if relevant). The
second data source is the responses given in interviews. These interviews will be taped by voice
recorder and subsequently transcribed, probably in their entirety.
No participant’s name will be recorded (in raw data or completed research). The name of
the school will not be recorded. It is therefore unlikely that any participant will be able to be
identified from the research. The raw data collected will be securely stored in such a way that it
can only be accessed by those mentioned below. At the end of the project any personal
information will be destroyed immediately except that, as required by the University's research
policy, any raw data on which the results of the project depend will be retained in secure storage
for five years, after which it will be destroyed. All transcription and administration (copying,
typing etc) will be carried out by the researcher.
Any participant may, at any point, request a copy of the data as it pertains directly to
them, where this can be shared without revealing the identities of other participants that would
otherwise remain unidentified. Once the period of data collection has concluded (scheduled to
be mid-Term 3) participants will have one further week within which they may amend the data.
Raw data will not be published. The results of the project may be published and will be
available in the University of Otago Library (Dunedin, New Zealand) but every attempt will be
made to preserve your anonymity. A copy of the completed thesis will be given to the school
once it has been assessed for the researcher’s Masters Degree.
This project involves an open-questioning interview technique. The specific questions
have not been determined in advance, but will depend on the way in which the interview
develops. Consequently, although the University of Otago Human Ethics Committee is aware of
the general areas to be explored in the interview, the Committee has not been able to review the
precise questions to be used. The general line of questioning includes asking about your own
nationality and the culture/s with which you personally identify. Questioning will seek to divulge
detail about which languages and cultures are represented in your class; what background
knowledge you have of those cultures; your views on the significance of involving culture in the
classroom (both the learners’ cultures and the English/New Zealand culture/s); the ways in which
culture is represented in your lessons; and the correlation between language and culture. In the
event that the line of questioning does develop in such a way that you feel hesitant or
uncomfortable you are reminded of your right to decline to answer any particular question(s)
without any disadvantage to yourself of any kind.

176
Can participants change their mind and withdraw from the project?
You may withdraw from participation in the project at any time and without any disadvantage of
any kind to you. The researcher must ascertain whether you will allow the use of any data
obtained prior to your notice of withdrawal.

What if participants have any questions?

If you have any questions about our project, either now or in the future, please feel free to
contact either:-
The researcher: The research and thesis supervisor:
Mrs Jo Oranje Dr Anne Feryok
Department of English (Linguistics Programme) Department of English (Linguistics
Programme)
University of Otago University of Otago
University email: Jo’s email address Telephone number: Anne’s phone number
University Email: Anne’s email address

This study has been approved by the University of Otago Human Ethics Committee. If you have
any concerns about the ethical conduct of the research you may contact the Committee through
the Human Ethics Committee Administrator (ph 03 479 8256). Any issues you raise will be treated
in confidence and investigated and you will be informed of the outcome.

177
Mainstream teachers
Reference Number: 11/053
April 2011

CULTURE IN THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE CLASSROOM

INFORMATION SHEET FOR MAINSTREAM TEACHER PARTICIPANTS

Thank you for showing an interest in this project. Please read this information sheet carefully
before deciding whether or not to participate. If you decide to participate, we thank you. If you
decide not to take part there will be no disadvantage to you of any kind and we thank you for
considering our request.

What is the aim of the project?

This project is being undertaken as part of a research study for a Master of Arts degree, in the
field of Linguistics. The project is an investigation into the ways in which culture features in the
education of this school’s English as a Second Language (ESL) pupils. This particular study is to be
conducted at the subject school only, but it is possible that the project will lead to the
development of a set of methods that can be transferred to allow the future study of culture in
language classes at other schools in New Zealand. It is hoped that the study will contribute to the
understanding of the relevance of culture in the successful teaching of English to speakers of
other languages.

What types of participants are being sought?

All participants will be associated with your primary school’s ESL programme and comprise:
(a) The pupils that receive ESL lessons;
(b) Teaching staff (ESL teacher and mainstream teachers with ESL pupils in their class); and
(c) Parents (or legal guardians) of the ESL pupils.
It is not expected that any participant will be unduly inconvenienced or exposed to costs as a
result of their involvement in the study, but a small gift will be offered to all participants as a
token of thanks for their contribution to the project.

What will the mainstream teacher participants be asked to do?

Should you, a mainstream teacher participant, agree to take part in this project, you will be asked
to be involved in two data collection techniques. Each element is separate and therefore
requires separate consent from you. You may consent to only one part if that is your preference.

1 Classroom Observations
You are asked to allow the researcher to observe, at most, two of your lessons where the class
includes one or more ESL pupils. Ideally, a total of six mainstream classes at the school will be
observed. The number of mainstream teacher participants will determinate whether one or two
of your classes are observed in order to amass a total of six observation’s worth of data. The
times and dates of the particular lessons will be determined in consultation with you but, ideally,
178
they will follow particular ESL children from their ESL session to their mainstream class. Half of
the observations are scheduled to be conducted at the end of May and the remaining
observations are scheduled for August.

2 Personal Interviews
You will be asked to be involved in a semi-structured discussion-style interview. While there will
be particular lines of questioning (discussed further below), the style of the interview is intended
to be open to allow free and flowing discussion about your opinions and experiences of the role
of culture in the lessons of ESL pupils. This interview is scheduled to be conducted in the final
weeks of Term 2. Once the number of teacher participants has been confirmed there might be
scope for the interviews to be conducted as a focus group of your colleagues and the researcher,
if this is the preferred means of discussion. If this is not agreeable to you, the interview will be
carried out on a one-on-one basis between you and the researcher. These details and the time of
the interview will be confirmed later, in consultation with you and it will take place at school in a
private and quiet space. It is difficult to confirm the time commitment that this interview will
require given the discussion style proposed. If there are multiple participants, it has been
estimated to take 1 hour to 90 minutes. If the group prefers, the interview can take place over
two sessions if you and your colleagues find it difficult to set aside a continuous block of time.
This can be arranged directly between the teachers and the researcher. A one-on-one interview
has been estimated to take between 45 minutes and 1 hour.

What data or information will be collected and what use will be made of it?
In all classes observed by the researcher, a small voice recorder will be used to record all verbal
interactions for the length of the particular lesson. Because of the project’s focus on the
references to culture in the lesson, only those interactions that directly or indirectly relate to
culture (of any nation) and involve the ESL pupils will be subsequently transcribed for analysis.
The researcher will take hand written notes while in the classroom, noting relevant non-verbal
activity that relates to the matter of culture and to describe the physical environment. The
second data source is the responses given in interviews which will be taped by voice recorder and
subsequently transcribed, probably in their entirety.
No participant’s name will be recorded (in raw data or completed research). The name of
the school will not be recorded. It is therefore unlikely that any participant will be able to be
identified from the research. The raw data collected will be securely stored in such a way that it
can only be accessed by those mentioned below. At the end of the project any personal
information will be destroyed immediately except that, as required by the University's research
policy, any raw data on which the results of the project depend will be retained in secure storage
for five years, after which it will be destroyed. All transcription and administration (copying,
typing etc) will be carried out by the researcher.
Any participant may, at any point, request a copy of the data as it pertains directly to
them, where this can be shared without revealing the identities of other participants that would
otherwise remain unidentified. Once the period of data collection has concluded (scheduled to
be the last week of May for all interviews and the last week of August 2011 for class
observations) participants will have one further week within which they may amend the data.
Raw data will not be published. The results of the project may be published and will be available
in the University of Otago Library (Dunedin, New Zealand) but every attempt will be made to
preserve your anonymity. A copy of the completed thesis will be given to the school once it has
been assessed for the researcher’s Masters Degree.
This project involves an open-questioning interview technique. The specific questions
which will be asked have not been determined in advance, but will depend on the way in which
the interview develops. Consequently, although the University of Otago Human Ethics Committee

179
is aware of the general areas to be explored in the interview, the Committee has not been able to
review the precise questions to be used. The general line of questioning includes asking about
your own nationality and the culture/s with which you personally identify. Questioning will seek
to divulge detail about which languages and cultures are represented in your class; what
background knowledge you have of those cultures; your views on the significance of involving
culture in the classroom (both the learners’ cultures and the English/New Zealand culture/s); the
ways in which culture is represented in your lessons; and the correlation between language and
culture. In the event that the line of questioning does develop in such a way that you feel
hesitant or uncomfortable you are reminded of your right to decline to answer any particular
question(s) without any disadvantage to yourself of any kind.

Can participants change their mind and withdraw from the project?
You may withdraw from participation in the project at any time and without any disadvantage of
any kind to you. The researcher must ascertain whether you will allow the use of any data
obtained prior to your notice of withdrawal.

What if participants have any questions?

If you have any questions about our project, either now or in the future, please feel free to
contact either:-

The researcher: The research and thesis supervisor:

Mrs Jo Oranje Dr Anne Feryok
Department of English (Linguistics Programme) Department of English (Linguistics
Programme)
University of Otago University of Otago
University email: Jo’s email address Telephone number: Anne’s ph number
University Email: Anne’s email address

This study has been approved by the University of Otago Human Ethics Committee. If you have
any concerns about the ethical conduct of the research you may contact the Committee through
the Human Ethics Committee Administrator (ph 03 479 8256). Any issues you raise will be treated
in confidence and investigated and you will be informed of the outcome.

180
 Appendix I

Consent forms

Pupil participants

Reference Number: 11/053

May 2011
CULTURE IN THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE CLASSROOM
CONSENT FORM FOR CHILD PARTICIPANTS

I have been told about this study and understand what it is about. All my questions
have been answered in a way that makes sense. I know that:

1. Participation in this study is voluntary, which means that I do not have to take
part if I don’t want to and nothing will happen to me.

2. Anytime I want to stop, that’s okay and I don’t have to give a reason.

3. Mrs Jo Oranje will watch some of my lessons. She will record them on audio-
tape so that she can remember what we say in class, but the tapes will be
destroyed after the study has ended.

4. If I don’t want to talk in class, that’s fine.

5. If I have any worries or if I have any other questions, then I can talk about
these with Mrs Jo Oranje or with my teacher.

6. The paper and computer files with my comments will only be seen by Mrs Jo
Oranje and the people she is working with. They will keep whatever I say private.

7. I will receive a small gift as thanks for helping with this study.

8. Mrs Jo Oranje will write up the results from this study for her University work.
The results may also be written up in journals and talked about at conferences.
My name will not be on anything Jo writes up about this study.

I agree to take part in the study.

............................................................................. ...............................
Signed Date

181
Parents

Reference Number: 11/053

May 2011
CULTURE IN THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE CLASSROOM
CONSENT FORM FOR PARENTS/GUARDIANS - CLASSROOM OBSERVATIONS

I have read the Information Sheet concerning this project and understand what it is about. All my
questions have been answered to my satisfaction. I understand that I am free to request further
information at any stage. I know that:-

1. My child’s participation in the project is entirely voluntary;

2. I am free to withdraw my child from the project at any time without any disadvantage;

3. Personal identifying information on audiotapes will be destroyed at the conclusion of the

project but any raw data on which the results of the project depend will be retained in
secure storage for at least five years;

4. There will be no commercial use of the data.

5. My child will receive a small gift as a token of thanks for her/his contribution to the
project.

6. The results of the project may be published and will be available in the University of
Otago Library (Dunedin, New Zealand) but every attempt will be made to preserve my
anonymity.

7. My child has signed the accompanying consent form.

I agree for my child to take part in this project. (Only one parent/guardian needs to sign this
form.)

............................................................................. ……...............................
(Signature of parent/guardian) (Date)

.............................................................................
(Name of child)

This study has been approved by the University of Otago Human Ethics Committee. If you have
any concerns about the ethical conduct of the research you may contact the Committee through
the Human Ethics Committee Administrator (ph 03 479 8256). Any issues you raise will be treated
in confidence and investigated and you will be informed of the outcome.

182
ESL and mainstream teachers - Interviews

Reference Number: 11/053

April 2011
CULTURE IN THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE CLASSROOM
CONSENT FORM FOR ALL TEACHER PARTICIPANTS - TEACHER INTERVIEW

I have read the Information Sheet concerning the interview element of the project and
understand what it is about. All my questions have been answered to my satisfaction. I
understand that I am free to request further information at any stage. I know that:-

1. My participation in the project is entirely voluntary;

2. I am free to withdraw from the project at any time without any disadvantage;

3. Personal identifying information on audio-tapes will be destroyed at the conclusion of the

project but any raw data on which the results of the project depend will be retained in
secure storage for at least five years;

4. This project involves an open-questioning technique. The general line of questioning will
ask about my culture; the cultures of the ESOL pupils in my class; the role of culture in
teaching English; use of culture in the classroom; and my opinions on the correlation
between language and culture. The precise nature of the questions which will be asked
have not been determined in advance, but will depend on the way in which the interview
develops. In the event that the line of questioning develops in such a way that I feel
hesitant or uncomfortable I may decline to answer any particular question(s) and/or may
withdraw from the project without any disadvantage of any kind.

5. If agreed by other teacher participants, the interview can be carried out as a group focus
discussion. This will be arranged once participants are confirmed.

6. I will receive a small gift as a token of thanks for my contribution in the project.

7. There will be no commercial use of the data.

8. The results of the project may be published and will be available in the University of
Otago Library (Dunedin, New Zealand) but every attempt will be made to preserve my
anonymity.

I agree to take part in this project.

............................................................................. …………………………………
(Signature of participant) (Date)
This study has been approved by the University of Otago Human Ethics Committee. If you have
any concerns about the ethical conduct of the research you may contact the Committee through
the Human Ethics Committee Administrator (ph 03 479 8256). Any issues you raise will be treated
in confidence and investigated and you will be informed of the outcome.

183
If you would like a copy of the results of the project, please provide your name and contact
details below. The school will be given a copy at the conclusion of the study. The completed
thesis will also be able to be obtained from the University of Otago library.

I would like to receive a copy of the results of the study.

My name is: _____________________________________________________________________

Please:

Email a copy to:

______________________________________________________________________

or

Deliver a copy to:

______________________________________________________________________

184
ESL and mainstream teachers - Observations

Reference Number: 11/053

April 2011

CULTURE IN THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE CLASSROOM

CONSENT FORM FOR ALL TEACHER PARTICIPANTS - CLASSROOM OBSERVATIONS

I have read the Information Sheet concerning the class observation element of the project and
understand what it is about. All my questions have been answered to my satisfaction. I
understand that I am free to request further information at any stage.

I know that:-

1. My participation in the project is entirely voluntary;

2. I am free to withdraw from the project at any time without any disadvantage;

3. Personal identifying information on audio-tapes will be destroyed at the conclusion of the

project but any raw data on which the results of the project depend will be retained in
secure storage for at least five years;

4. There will be no commercial use of the data.

5. I will receive a small gift as a token of thanks for my contribution to the project.

6. The results of the project may be published and will be available in the University of
Otago Library (Dunedin, New Zealand) but every attempt will be made to preserve my
anonymity.

I agree to take part in this project.

............................................................................. …………………………………
(Signature of participant) (Date)

This study has been approved by the University of Otago Human Ethics Committee. If you have
any concerns about the ethical conduct of the research you may contact the Committee through
the Human Ethics Committee Administrator (ph 03 479 8256). Any issues you raise will be treated
in confidence and investigated and you will be informed of the outcome.

185
 Appendix J

Covering letters

Original letter

Dear Parents of name (merge field),

Parkside15 School is involved in a University of Otago project.

I am a student of the University’s English Department and I am studying how the subject
of culture features in the lessons of the pupils that receive English language support at
school.

I would like to involve name in my study by watching four of his/her lessons. I also want
to record what is said during those lessons. I need your permission to do this.

I have prepared an information sheet for you to read about the project. The information
sheet is for you to keep.

If you agree to let name be involved in the study, please sign the attached consent form
and return it to school by Monday 16 May 2011.

There is also an information sheet and consent form for name to read and sign to show
that s/he agrees to be part of the study. Please include her/his signed consent form with
your own and return them to school.

If you want to talk to me about the project, you can email me at:

Jo’s email address

Or you can ask the school to contact me so I can meet with you personally.

Thank you

Yours sincerely

Mrs Jo Oranje

186
Follow up letter

Dear Parents of name (merge field),

Last week name took home some information for you about a study that I am carrying
out at Parkside School as part of my research for the University of Otago.

I am studying how the subject of culture features in the lessons of the pupils that receive
English language support at school.

I would really like to include name in the study but I cannot do this without your
permission.

In case you have forgotten to sign the consent forms or have not yet managed returned
them, can I please remind you to sign them and deliver them to the school office as soon
as possible?

If you choose not to allow name to be involved in the study that is okay, and you don’t
need to do anything.

If you want to talk to me about the project, you can email me at:

Jo’s email address

Or you can ask the school to contact me so I can meet with you personally.

Thank you

Yours sincerely

Mrs Jo Oranje

187
 Appendix K

School newsletter entry

Research Project at Parkside School

Parkside School is to be involved in a research project carried out by the University of Otago. The
researcher, Mrs Jo Oranje, is doing the work as part of her Master of Arts course with the
Linguistics Programme of the University’s English Department. The research specifically involves
the children of our school that receive support in English as a second language (ESL), their
parents and their teachers. Jo’s research project focuses on the role of culture in language learning
and how the ‘target’ cultures (in our case, English, New Zealand and Māori cultures) and the
learners’ cultures feature in the lessons of our ESL children. She will sit in on ESL lessons and four
mainstream lessons during which she will make voice recordings and take notes. Transcriptions
will be made of the recorded interactions that relate to the matter of culture and only those
interactions involving the teacher and/or the ESL children. Interactions involving children other than
the ESL pupils cannot help but be recorded during these sessions, but no use will be made of
those interactions. They will not be transcribed or analysed in any way, the children will not be
identified, and anything other than the raw data on which the study depends will be destroyed at
the completion of the study in accordance with the University of Otago’s standard research
procedures. Because your child is not to be recruited as a participant in the study your formal
consent is not required, but since your child’s lesson might be one that is observed and recorded it
is appropriate that you are informed of the study. Please advise the school if you do not want your
child to be present in a recorded class. You do not need to provide a reason and your child will not
be disadvantaged in any way. The study has been approved by the University of Otago Human
Ethics Committee (Reference Number: 11/053). If you have any concerns about the ethical
conduct of the research you may contact the Committee through the Human Ethics Committee
Administrator (ph phone number). Any issues you raise will be treated in confidence and
investigated and you will be informed of the outcome. Jo is happy for you to email her if you wish to
find out more about the study Jo’s email address.

188
 Appendix L

Entries from school publicity material

The full extracts are provided here to give context to the condensed excerpts incorporated
in the report

“To welcome and encourage community participation in the life of the school
while respecting all cultures represented within the school and recognising the
unique position of Māori culture with New Zealand.” (A Strategic Aim of the
School’s Charter)

“Together with parents we work to develop life long learners. Our staff are happy
to meet with parents to discuss children’s learning and progress and we encourage
parents to be active participants in their child’s education. My door is always open
and I enjoy the opportunity to meet with families to discuss children’s progress and
development.” (Principal’s welcome message)

“…foster positive interactions and enhance the sense of community between

parents, teachers and children of the school.” (An aim of the Parent Teachers
Association (PTA))

“Community Partnership: Opportunity for consultation and communication with

the wider community.” (A commitment from the Board of Trustees (BOT))

“[Parkside School] welcomes and encourages parental/caregiver input. Parents are

welcome at any time into the school with our “open door policy”. Parental opinion
is invited, acknowledged and acted upon. Weekly newsletters, house meetings,
open BOT and PTA meetings, parent interviews and ready access to teaching staff
and the principal are some of the ways good home/school communication is
maintained.” 16

189
 9 ENDNOTES
1
The quotations that appear at the head of each chapter are taken from Parkside
School’s weekly schedule, a copy of the school’s diary of planned activities and staff
movements for the coming week printed on a Friday for each member of staff (including
me during my time at the school). Every week, the schedule ended with a “Thought for
the week” that bore some relation to education. In many cases, the thought carried
nuances of culture and could be said to reflect Parkside School’s cultural standpoint on
education. I have selected one to begin each chapter and they are quoted as they appeared
on the schedules.
2
The names of the school and all participants are pseudonyms to protect the identities
of those involved in the study. With respect to the pupil participants, fictitious names were
generated by an Internet Google search for popular names of the respective gender in the
pupil’s native country, the intention being for the pseudonym to evoke the child’s home
country and culture for the benefit of the reader. The pseudonym selection was essentially
random so any cultural or religious disrespect that could be inferred from the names used
was entirely unintentional and regretted.
3
Clarke (2008, p. 21) also refers to Kroeber and Kluckholn’s review (as a citation from
Seel, 2000), although his reference talks of 156 different definitions for culture.
4
Despite making this assertion in his 1991 work with Lave, Wenger later refers to “core
members” in his 1998 publication (Wenger, 1998, p. 7). Other writers, too, find it difficult
to steer clear of the term core, or its synonyms (e.g., Morita, 2004, p. 576; Barab & Duffy,
1998, p. 16)
5
Penny Haworth offers her preference of the more positive “students from diverse
language backgrounds” (Haworth, 2003, p. 136).
6
This was a follow up of surveys carried out by Johnston (1999) and Barnard et al.
(2001) of mainstream teachers’ perspectives, the results of which are discussed later in the
section.
7
Pasifika is the Ministry of Education’s term for people of Pacific Island descent
(Barnard & Glynn, 2003).
8
Aotearoa is the Māori name for New Zealand.
9
The five-yearly national census was scheduled for March 2011 but was postponed due
to the Canterbury earthquake of 22 February 2011and its likely impacts on census results.
10
The Treaty of Waitangi, signed in 1840, is the founding agreement between Māori
and the British settlers.
11
Specific citation details are not provided for the sources from which these quotations
are taken as they would expose the identity of the subject school.
12
‘Circle time’ was not seen in practice so its purpose or structure cannot be defined or
detailed.

190
 13
The term ‘local’ is based on Talmy’s (2008) use as a relational category, and refers
here to the non-ESL children, that is, the pan-cultural group of children comprising New
Zealanders and others that are sufficiently proficient in English to not require focussed
support in English as a second language
14
Phase 2 was not carried out due to time and data quantity restrictions imposed on a
Masters thesis.
15
Pseudonyms or summaries (e.g. Jo’s email address) added for the purpose of
maintaining anonymity in order to include the document in the appendix
16
Citation information is not provided for the materials from which these quotations are
taken in order to maintain the anonymity of the subject school.

191