Another example came from Nicole, who described organising a classroom activity where students participated in a “Master Chef cooking” project. She explained: “Each child made a dish from their own culture, then they met and made a video… something they can be proud of, something that’s positive about their culture.” Such projects offered students the opportunity to share their traditions while practising communication, creativity, and collaboration. For many teachers, these moments of cultural exchange were framed not as isolated lessons but as integrated, organic elements of the classroom ethos.

In addition to event-based practices, group work and student presentations were commonly employed to encourage the exchange of cultural perspectives. Teachers viewed collaborative activities as not only pedagogically effective but also essential in fostering students’ ability to understand and navigate cultural differences. These practices aligned with teachers’ broader aim to normalise diversity in their classrooms and promote a climate of inclusion through everyday interactions.

 

Teachers often described their efforts to help students become more open-minded by encouraging them to share personal experiences and reflect on cultural differences. In this regard, Nicole emphasised creating a safe and inclusive space: “When students feel heard, they’re more willing to listen to others.” Activities such as storytelling, collaborative projects, and guided discussions were commonly used to promote empathy and emotional engagement. One teacher mentioned incorporating real-world scenarios and role-plays to help students understand others’ perspectives, noting that “putting yourself in someone else’s shoes” was a key step toward fostering respect.

However, some teachers admitted challenges in promoting these attitudes, especially when students came from culturally homogeneous or rigid backgrounds. For example, Kevin reflected, “Some kids find it hard to accept different views. But over time, they begin to see there’s more than one way of doing things.” Others highlighted that while empathy and openness could be nurtured in younger students, older pupils sometimes resisted due to prior socialisation or biases acquired at home. This suggests the need for sustained, developmentally appropriate approaches to values education.

Critically, while empathy and openness were framed as moral and educational goals, they were also viewed as necessary tools for classroom harmony and future global citizenship. Teachers believed that by helping students develop these dispositions, they were equipping them with intercultural sensitivity vital for their personal and professional lives. This reflects what Byram (1997) and Barrett et al. (2014) describe as foundational components of ICC, where affective skills such as decentring, emotional flexibility, and tolerance of ambiguity are just as important as knowledge and behaviour. In summary, fostering empathy, openness, and respect was not treated as an ancillary goal but as an integral element of effective culture teaching, particularly in multilingual, multicultural educational contexts.

 

Teamwork and collaborative projects were also commonly employed to facilitate intercultural dialogue and reflection. Teachers strategically arranged students from different backgrounds to work together, encouraging them to negotiate meaning and communicate despite linguistic and cultural differences. As Nicole noted, such groupings provided exposure to diverse communication styles, while Helen observed, “They need to be able to communicate with each other in one language. And it helps to develop their intercultural skills.” Several teachers pointed out that English, as the lingua franca in the classroom, placed students on equal footing, especially since few were native speakers. This equality was seen as a crucial enabler of shared learning and inclusion.

Beyond fostering mutual understanding, teachers believed that multicultural classrooms also nurtured empathy, acceptance, and emotional openness. Valeria offered a striking interpretation of this process, claiming that such education models could even contribute to preventing future global conflicts: “They’re preventing the possibility of the third world war. We are teaching children at international schools to respect other cultures and differences.” Although somewhat hyperbolic, her statement captured the moral and societal significance many teachers attached to multicultural education. The emotional tone in many interviews suggested that these were not merely pedagogical goals, but ethical imperatives.

Students’ communication skills—both verbal and non-verbal—were also seen to improve significantly in culturally mixed settings. Teachers noted that younger children, in particular, were quick to develop adaptive strategies like using gestures, facial expressions, drawings, and short written notes. Isabel explained that, regardless of linguistic ability, “there is always communication,” while Victoria highlighted the fearlessness of young learners: “Children don’t have hang-ups about, you know, am I saying it correctly… and this is why they pick up languages much faster than adults.” Peer interaction and play were viewed as key mechanisms in this process, with several teachers stating that students with no prior English often began speaking within months—sometimes learning from classmates before teachers.

While most reflections were positive, some participants critiqued the curriculum, syllabus, and teaching materials for not sufficiently supporting intercultural development. Many teachers stated that the materials they were expected to use were designed from a monocultural British perspective, making them less suitable for the international and multilingual classroom environment. Ethan noted the lack of cultural breadth: “It should be more intercultural… it would be great to learn more about Hinduism and Confucianism.” George echoed this sentiment, expressing discomfort with teaching a “culturally biased education from a culture you’re not a part of.” Even when multicultural content was present—such as a unit on global stories—it was often viewed as tokenistic or insufficiently integrated into the broader educational framework.

Despite these limitations, the freedom granted by school leadership allowed teachers to adapt or supplement the curriculum to better reflect their students’ backgrounds. Several teachers reported modifying geography lessons or mathematics examples to include other currencies or countries, thereby enhancing relevance and inclusivity. As Helen put it, “Let’s take this out to Europe and focus on the countries in Europe that we’re all from.” The autonomy to adjust content was not just a practical solution, but also a symbolic gesture of responsiveness to classroom diversity.

In critically synthesising this section, it becomes clear that multicultural classroom settings are not simply backdrops for teaching culture—they are active spaces where intercultural learning unfolds naturally and organically. Teachers recognised the value of these environments in shaping students’ attitudes, linguistic skills, and sense of global belonging. At the same time, there was a strong awareness of institutional limitations, especially regarding curricula that lag behind the needs of international student populations. As Byram (1997) and Gómez Rodríguez (2015b) argue, intercultural competence develops not only through exposure but through guided reflection and contextualised input. The teachers in this study navigated these tensions by leveraging the diversity around them, fostering openness, respect, and empathy through interaction, even when teaching materials failed to support them adequately.

 

However, those who perceived it as “not difficult but challenging” often referred to the sensitive nature of cultural topics and the risk of offending students or their parents. Nicole articulated this tension: “I’ve had to come up with creative ways to get the information across but not be so imposing… because it will get back to the parents, and then there’s trouble.” Teachers reported adopting cautious, non-confrontational strategies to avoid cultural insensitivity while still fostering discussion. Victoria’s approach was to frame her teaching as perspective-based: “You can always explain that this is your experience of that culture.” Such remarks illustrate teachers’ emotional labour in navigating potentially contentious material in inclusive yet safe ways.

Some teachers associated difficulty with a lack of in-depth knowledge about cultures beyond their own. Olivia remarked, “It’s definitely difficult because it’s not your own culture… we definitely don’t have the same way of doing things.” George, too, voiced concern about making mistakes when representing unfamiliar cultural practices: “If you’re teaching someone else’s culture, you will make mistakes.” For Valeria, the unpredictability of students' questions also presented a challenge, especially when these touched on abstract or controversial issues.

A number of teachers highlighted the influence of learner variables—especially age and language proficiency—on the feasibility of culture teaching. Olivia pointed to linguistic limitations in lower primary: “At this stage, it’s just difficult; it’s definitely a language barrier.” Ethan, echoing a developmental perspective, felt that abstract discussions were not always appropriate: “You’re not going off into the abstract… you’re trying to teach them foundational things for their language and thought development.” Thus, the perceived difficulty of culture teaching was not solely about the subject matter but often about student readiness and contextual suitability.

Additionally, some teachers expressed reluctance to address complex or controversial cultural issues, not out of disinterest but due to fears of being perceived as judgmental or biased. As the literature suggests, this hesitation is not uncommon. Byram (1997) and Barrett et al. (2014) argue that developing students’ critical cultural awareness involves more than simply sharing cultural facts—it requires the ability to question assumptions, power dynamics, and ethical dilemmas across cultures. Gómez Rodríguez (2015b) further highlights the importance of engaging with ‘deep culture’ issues—such as inequality and social justice—yet most teachers in this study tended to avoid such territory in primary-level classrooms.

In critically reflecting on the responses, it is evident that culture teaching is perceived along a continuum ranging from enjoyable to ethically and pedagogically complex. Teachers’ willingness to embrace intercultural content is shaped by their own experiences, confidence levels, institutional contexts, and learner characteristics. The challenges they described—fear of offending, lack of knowledge, student language ability—reflect not resistance, but a need for clearer pedagogical guidance and structural support. The theoretical frameworks of Byram’s (1997) ICC model and Kubota’s (2004) critical multiculturalism could help scaffold teachers’ efforts by offering tools to facilitate respectful yet critical exploration of difference. Rather than viewing culture teaching as inherently difficult, many teachers in this study appeared to see it as a professional responsibility—one requiring care, adaptability, and ongoing development.