Beyond the Script: Ecological Influences on Chinese High School EFL Teachers’ Intercultural Language Teaching Competency

Interaction with Students

The microsystem is the immediate environment where individuals engage most directly, and students are key interactors in this context. Interviews and observations reveal that students’ low enthusiasm for cultural sections in textbooks impacts teachers’ ILTC. Many students perceive cultural content as irrelevant to the Gaokao, focusing instead on vocabulary and grammar, which they believe will directly boost their scores. In learning cultural sections, students often prioritize highlighting or annotating new words, rather than exploring the cultural phenomena or meanings within the texts. As a result, students’ internalized test-taking logic directly constrains the implementation space and effectiveness of ILT practices.

Students may still care more about the grammatical knowledge for the Gaokao, as this is the key to scoring. — T6

Talking about cultural sections is like watching a documentary; students might feel it doesn’t make a difference whether they engage or not. — T7

Although some teachers try to engage students in cultural discussions, students often respond minimally due to cognitive limitations. For example, T3 planned to use a textbook article about the Rosetta Stone to foster cultural awareness and encourage a discussion on prioritizing national versus global perspectives. However, he expressed regret over the students’ superficial engagement, saying, “It’s a pity that my students don’t fully grasp this point… I hoped for a deeper discussion, but the conversation didn’t unfold as expected.” His regret clearly demonstrates that when the most direct interactors in the microsystem do not value ILT activities, the teacher’s carefully designed pedagogical processes fail to trigger effective “proximal process” (Rosa & Tudge, 2013).

The case of T13, however, provides a critical contrast that reveals the potential for altering systemic dynamics. Unlike many teachers who struggle with student disengagement, T13 works with some of Shanghai’s top students, who manage their learning efficiently. He benefits from his students’ ability to efficiently handle fundamental language tasks, thereby creating a valuable cognitive surplus for cultural exploration. In his class, students share experiences from reading original English texts and express their thoughts fluently. “I even let them translate poems, and they do it very well.” This indicates that students, as core agents in the microsystem, can significantly mediate the impact of the Gaokao pressure on ILT through their cognitive readiness and learning orientation. T13’s experience proves that when students transform from a barrier into a driving force for ILT, they can directly motivate teachers to enhance their ILTC.

Interaction with Colleagues

When teachers feel frustrated or stuck in fostering students’ cultural awareness, their first instinct is not to consult the New Standards but to observe their colleagues’ practices or ask for their experiences. In this hierarchical system, frontline teachers typically engage in “upward observation,”“lateral communication,” and “downward guidance.”“Upward observation” involves teachers observing lectures, online classes, or demonstration lessons organized by academic leaders or experienced teachers. “Lateral communication” refers to teachers informally discussing practices with peers. “Downward guidance” is when senior or experienced teachers provide mentorship to less experienced colleagues. However, these interactions often remain fragmented and insufficient for fostering robust ILTC. Widespread collaboration in ILT is limited. Teacher collaboration is often confined to individual teachers with shared interests, engaging in small-scale activities. Even when teachers discuss ILT, if doubts remain unresolved, they rarely form teams or seek higher-level support. Instead, they tend to engage in upward observation and self-exploration.

… Sometimes I discuss grammar issues with foreign teachers … But later, I realized that in their everyday language, foreigners aren’t very focused on grammar. I might tell my students that grammar is important in our teaching, but in practice, when speaking with foreigners, it’s okay—they can understand and accept it. — T8

Even when lateral communication occurs, as in T8’s discussion with foreign teachers about grammar, the insights gained may not lead to a deeper understanding of ILT. T8’s observation touches on the core of ICC and cultural pragmatics. However, her immediate retreat to the position of “I might tell my students that grammar is important in our teaching” reveals a critical tension. This tension exists between the communicative flexibility inherent in authentic language use and the rigid emphasis on grammatical accuracy enforced by the Gaokao system.

Interaction with Principals

Within the school’s microsystem, the principal’s management style, educational philosophy, and, most importantly, the evaluation criteria they prioritize create an incentive structure that often sidelines the development of ILTC. Principals typically evaluate teachers based on factors such as exam results, research achievements, classroom management, and home-school cooperation, but this assessment remains largely result-oriented. This contrasts with ILT, which emphasizes the teaching process (Zhang, 2007), the outcome of which is difficult to quantify. This misalignment means that the efforts teachers invest in fostering intercultural awareness, an outcome difficult to quantify in the short term, remain invisible and unrewarded within the formal system, thereby dampening motivation.

Some participants express a desire for the principal to offer more effective ILT support. However, most teachers tend to be reserved when interacting with the principal and are reluctant to seek help when faced with challenges. Given that principals cannot engage in regular one-on-one communication with every teacher, their interactions with teachers typically occur during formal meetings or interviews. These occasions rarely provide an opportunity to discuss ILT. Most EFL teachers are reluctant to communicate upward, becoming the silent majority.

Additionally, the principal’s academic background significantly impacts the ILTC of EFL teachers. Over half of the principals observed in this study come from STEM backgrounds. These principals often apply science teaching principles to English instruction, emphasizing efficiency, logical output, and behaviorism. While this approach aligns with an exam-oriented focus, it inadvertently stifles the emotional aspects of ILT. T1 expressed frustration with the principal’s response to her attempts to integrate ILT activities in class. “The management thinking is different. They want to see high grades; they believe that numbers can illustrate the improvement of students’ language abilities. Sometimes we teachers think that the leadership should learn to wait; for both English and Chinese subjects, you must give us time… (the management) doesn’t understand.”

Interaction with Parents

Within the microsystem, direct interactions between parents and teachers constitute a critical proximal process that profoundly influences teachers’ agency in ILT. However, the content and nature of these interactions reveal a significant constraint on ILT. While parent-teacher interactions within the microsystem hold the potential to be a fertile ground for ILT development, they currently function as a constraining bottleneck. Moreover, the communication pattern is often driven by academic performance, rather than being a continuous dialog about holistic student development, leaving teachers to navigate these complexities in relative isolation. For example:

Yesterday, a parent came to me and said, ‘Please help my child’s score go above 130.— T3

T3 observes that parents have unrealistic, score-driven expectations, focusing solely on test results and neglecting the broader principles of language acquisition. This narrow view prevents them from valuing long-term ILT and the patience required for language development. Teachers, facing such demands, often feel unable to explain broader educational goals and helpless. This communication gap stems from historical factors in Chinese society, where English has long been seen as an exam tool. Parents, taught within this framework, struggle to appreciate the importance of culture, reinforcing a results-oriented system that undermines teachers’ ILT efforts.

Interaction with the Teaching and Research Group

The mesosystem, defined as the linkages and processes between two or more microsystems, plays a pivotal role in either fostering or inhibiting teacher agency in ILT (Bronfenbrenner, 1979, 1994, 1999). In China, the subject-based Teaching and Research Group (TRG) constitutes a critical mesosystem entity, connecting teachers’ individual classroom practices (microsystem) with broader school-level goals and external curriculum reforms. Leadership within TRG plays a pivotal role in mediating external learning requirements and individual teachers’ learning needs (Zeng, 2013, p. 293). This study finds that the qualitative difference in ILT emphasis between TRGs can be directly attributed to leadership vision and the cultivation of a collaborative learning community. Under a leader like T12, who explicitly values the intrinsic connection between language and culture, the TRG transforms from an administrative unit into a professional learning community. T12 explained: “A teacher’s language ability inherently contains cultural awareness, and the two complement each other. When we use the new textbooks for senior students, we always plan the cultural units together, treating them as a key part of the process.”

In contrast, many TRGs remain dominated by the imperative of exam success. As T2, another group leader, noted: “I have been teaching senior high school students for years. To be honest, I don’t have the time or motivation to read the New Standards. Our focus is still primarily on exam-oriented teaching.” When the mesosystem is primarily oriented toward exam-focused teaching, a powerful disincentive for ILT is created. The mesosystemic interactions within such TRGs often center on sharing test-taking strategies and analyzing score data. The mesosystem, in this case, acts as an amplifier of macrosystem pressure, rather than a buffer.

A revealing finding concerns the context-dependent nature of ILT within TRGs. The same group that encourages innovative, culture-integrated lessons for open classes or competitions may marginalize ILT in day-to-day teaching. This schism reveals a critical mesosystem dynamic: ILT is often treated as a performance indicator for external validation, rather than an integral component of core instructional practice. Many teachers noted, “If you want to see how I impart cultural awareness, you should come to my open class.”

Interaction with EFL Teachers from Other Schools

Teachers exchange information about ILT through teacher education programs, teaching competitions, and public teaching research activities. During these interactions, teachers from Shanghai’s key high schools often serve as models for others. Their ILT approaches provide valuable examples for schools of different types, prompting reflections on their own practices. Some teachers report gaining new insights and attitudes toward ILT. For example:

After observing an English class at a key high school, T6 noted that top-tier high school teachers employ diverse and flexible methods, effectively integrating ILT with language instruction and organizing student-centered activities. She realized that the traditional drill-based approach used at her own school did not align with modern foreign language education philosophies. Reflecting on her experience, she said, “The teachers at the key schools don’t just drill students—they engage them in mini projects and creative activities. At our school, we focus on quickly getting students to a certain level, but this approach feels more like intense practice. When it comes to truly nurturing students, it’s all about perspective.”

However, the transfer of ILT practices is not always straightforward. Teachers from general high schools often confront a significant “context mismatch” (Sheety et al., 2018). Though they gain knowledge of ILT, they still face challenges with students who have weak foundational skills, requiring extensive time to solidify vocabulary and grammar. In practice, the strategies and activities demonstrated in exemplary schools often assume a certain level of linguistic proficiency among students—something that may not exist in lower-performing classrooms. As a result, these teachers struggle to adapt ILT methods to fit their own students’ needs, frequently having to modify or simplify the tasks significantly.

Interaction with Family Members

The development of a teacher’s ILTC is not confined to the school environment; it is also profoundly shaped by the mesosystem of the family. This study identifies that a spouse with relevant expertise can positively influence a teacher’s philosophy and practice. For example, T4’s husband, a high school Chinese teacher, supports her ILT through his teaching experience, reading habits, and professional knowledge. While preparing lessons on The Old Man and the Sea, they would read both the Chinese and English versions together, analyzing students’ reactions and creating a collaborative learning community.

Since he (my husband) teaches Chinese, he uses a lot of documentaries and encourages full-book reading to immerse students. This inspires me, as in English teaching, texts are often short and fragmented, and students tend to forget them once completed. I plan to adopt a more immersive approach in my teaching, allowing students to engage actively in the learning process, rather than focusing solely on excerpts. — T4

T4’s husband espoused a teaching philosophy centered on immersive, holistic cultural understanding, directly opposing the compartmentalization of language and culture. Through sustained dialog, T4 internalized this philosophy, resulting in a tangible shift in her own practice: she became more attentive to providing comprehensive background materials to support deeper cultural understanding. This aligns with Fischer’s (1996) assertion on the value of interdisciplinary collaboration, yet it uniquely demonstrates how such collaboration can occur organically with different personal microsystem, outside formal institutional structures. This case illustrates how ILTC develops ecologically: the family environment, when enriched by domain-relevant discourse, operates as an informal site that extends school teaching.

Interaction with the Evaluation Criteria for English Classes

The exosystem represents the broader survival space beyond individual teachers, where they may not directly participate in certain system interactions, yet these interactions can either promote or constrain their ILTC. For teachers, the formal lesson evaluation system constitutes a powerful exosystemic force. Although teachers do not design these criteria, the New Standards used to assess their teaching profoundly shapes their pedagogical priorities and, consequently, the development of their ILTC. A critical tension arises from the divergent evaluation frameworks applied to routine versus demonstration lessons, leading to a situational and often superficial engagement with ILT.

Field observations show that most schools’ evaluation criteria for teachers’ regular classes include both outcome-based and process-based assessments. Outcome-based evaluation focuses on student scores, while process-based criteria assess a teacher’s sense of responsibility, ability to balance authoritative and democratic roles, skill in motivating students, and effective management of home-school conflicts. Notably, the omission of cultural awareness sends a clear signal: ILT is not a valued component of core teaching competency.

(A good English teacher) can effectively implement students’ knowledge, not necessarily being culturally diverse, but ensuring their core work is solid. — T2

Unlike regular classes, open classes are less frequent, serve a broader audience, and are evaluated under a flexible, exam-free system. These classes aim to select teachers for higher-level competitions, assess teaching standards, and promote professional development. Teachers who perform well in district or municipal competitions gain career advantages, and therefore invest more efforts in aligning lessons with the New Standards. However, even in these demonstrations, cultural awareness remains marginalized. T17 explains the reason: “You can't judge a teacher’s cultural understanding in just one or two classes, but language ability is easier to measure … After all, language is communication, and Chinese people have high expectations for language proficiency.” This perception reinforces a system that prioritizes readily quantifiable skills over process-oriented ILTC.

Interaction with Students’ Family Education

Students’ family education functions as a significant exosystemic factor, indirectly shaping EFL teachers’ ILTC through the academic and cultural capital that students bring into the classroom. This study identifies a distinct contrast in how parental attitudes, often correlated with socioeconomic background, either facilitate, or constrain teachers’ capacity to implement ILT. Specifically, parents from higher socioeconomic backgrounds are more proactive in providing their children with opportunities to enhance ICC, such as through international travel. This dynamic encourages teachers to adapt their traditional teaching methods. For instance, T13 found that some parents have developed an intercultural perspective, recognizing the connection between language and culture, as well as the communicative functions and humanistic values of language. He explained, “They (students) have been reading English original books and Chinese literature since they were kids, and they already have this intercultural awareness, which is cultivated from childhood.” Consequently, the intercultural education students receive at home aligns with the IFT concepts outlined in the New Standards.

Conversely, the majority of teachers reported that most parents prioritize a narrow, instrumental view of English, seeing it primarily as a subject for scoring high on vocabulary and grammar exams. This perspective is often reinforced by their own past learning experiences and current professional environments that emphasize quantitative outcomes. Even if some parents acknowledge the role of English in future, their focus remains on passing the Gaokao. This approach fosters a short-sighted, exam-driven mentality in students that the key to learning English is simply following the exam format. As T14 recounted, “During a home visit, a parent immediately presented a grammar question and urged her child, ‘The teacher is here; let’s have him explain this to you.’ I explained that language learning is comprehensive and not just about practicing grammar. She responded, ‘We learned English this way—practice more, summarize more, and the score will improve.’ Many parents, used to KPI-driven work environments, prioritize quantitative results.” Teachers’ ILTC is profoundly shaped by the cultural and motivational dispositions students acquire at home. This dynamic places teachers in a reactive position, constantly adapting their practices to a student mindset that is largely pre-formed by external, exosystemic influences beyond their control.

Interaction with Students’ Academic Workload

The heavy workload of high school students also impacts EFL teachers’ ILTC. In the high school context, English is just one of several subjects students must focus on, and they cannot dedicate all their energy to it. In China, the fast-paced high school life and limited extracurricular activities make it difficult for students to find time for intercultural learning. Students must absorb knowledge from multiple subjects, with teachers constantly assigning tasks that compete for their time. As students’ free time is largely consumed by additional classes, they struggle to manage their study independently, making student-centered teaching methods harder to implement and complicating ILT.

Some teachers try to assign culturally relevant English homework, but students, overwhelmed by their workload, often see it as an additional burden. As T7 explained, “Students don’t usually have time to fully focus on English. We need to acknowledge this reality. Once they enter high school, the subject that puts the most pressure on them is mathematics, which is far more difficult than what they learned in junior high schools.” The time-intensive nature of ILT methods (e.g., literature reading or writing intercultural logs) is structurally incompatible with students’ overwhelming academic workloads. This practical constraint forces teachers to prioritize efficient, exam-focused instruction over ILT, whose implementation is suppressed not by opposition but by a lack of feasible space.

Interaction with the New Standards

Although the macrosystem belongs to the outermost layer of Bronfenbrenner’s ecological model, it can have “top-down effects” (Brinck & Jensen, 2018) on individual development. In practice, the influence of education policies depends on how individuals interpret and apply them in local contexts. While policies shape teachers’ behavior at the macro level, their understanding and implementation at the micro level also affect policy execution. While the New Standards guide high school English teaching and serve as the main link between teachers and national education policies, their impact is significantly mediated by how teachers engage with them in daily contexts. However, many teachers overlook the New Standards in practice, engaging with them mainly when preparing for lectures, open classes, competitions, writing syllabi, or conducting research, often using teaching theories as a “shield.”

窗体顶端

窗体底端

I believe the new textbooks subtly teach our students a great deal about the comparison between Chinese and Western cultures, including the development of intercultural communication awareness and an understanding of cultural comparisons. — T3.

This statement highlights a critical finding: even when direct engagement with policy documents is limited, the macrosystem can influence teacher development through other channels. Although many teachers do not read the official guidelines and continue to rely on traditional teaching approaches (M. Li, 2010), this research finds that updated textbooks have at least drawn teachers’ attention to the cultural shifts embedded in recent language policy reforms, “serving as a form of teacher training” (Richards, 2001, p. 251). The updated textbooks in Shanghai—featuring cultural sections such as Culture Link and Culture Focus—function as a form of “hidden curriculum” (McGrath, 2020, p. 12) that subtly shapes teachers’ understanding and incorporation of intercultural content. These embedded cultural elements operationalize the macro-level policy ideals into concrete teaching points, thereby indirectly socializing teachers into the principles of ILT. The daily interaction with these materials serves as a form of continuous, situated professional development. Compared to the broader curriculum, the interaction between teachers and textbooks is more direct and frequent. Teachers tend to be more responsive to changes in teaching materials, as the textbooks significantly influence not only what they teach but also, to some extent, how students learn (McGrath, 2002, p. 12).

Interaction with Social Values of English

In Chinese society, English is widely seen as a tool for upward social mobility, a belief that also shapes the high school English teaching environment. Field research reveals that high school EFL teachers hold a contradictory view of the language’s value. Theoretically, they acknowledge that English learning aims to develop students’ intercultural understandings and to spread Chinese culture. However, in practice, they often view their primary responsibility as ensuring students’ success in the Gaokao to secure university admission and future career prospects.

This fragmented value system toward English is largely shaped by the top-down effects of the Gaokao. As a high-stakes test, its structure influences the actions of EFL teachers. Since 2017, the Shanghai Gaokao has included a listening and speaking component, aimed at developing students’ ICC. However, most teachers observed still neglect speaking practice, offering targeted training sessions at the end of each semester, focusing on the test’s topic pool and providing standardized templates to help students pass. Many view the speaking component as too minor to warrant significant attention. As T14 noted: “Although there is the listening and speaking test, let me tell you, our school students probably only have about 20 class periods dedicated to specialized listening and speaking training over three years. With two crash courses, most students can score in the 4-, 5-, or 6-point range.”

Teachers face conflicting systemic demands: the macro-level push for ILT through the New Standards clashes with the micro-level pull of examination-centric imperative. While the New Standards promote ILT, the Gaokao requires students to acquire broad textual and technical knowledge, which is often best developed through traditional teaching methods (Henry, 2016, p. 193). This tension is further reflected in teachers’ perceptions of the Gaokao. While participants generally believe that language ability and thinking skills are explicitly assessed, but cultural awareness is only implied. In practice, the exam still prioritizes vocabulary and grammar, leading teachers to believe that mastering these areas is key to student success.

T17 explained: “Understanding based on vocabulary is the most important. No matter what text is given to you, if you have strong vocabulary and comprehension skills, you can read it. It’s impossible to say that I will test your background knowledge in the test, or generally assess it.”

The Gaokao plays a crucial role in social mobility (Huang et al., 2008), with getting into a good university being a key means of advancing in Chinese society. As a result, students must meet its requirements and continuously strive for higher scores to stay competitive. Even when teachers value the broader goals of language learning, they must focus on test-oriented skills, often at the expense of cultivating deeper cultural insights or critical comparative perspectives. Ultimately, the social values attached to English in China’s broader societal system create a complex tension that directly influences teachers’ ILTC.

Interaction with Traditional Culture

Culture possesses inertia, perpetuating its values and practices across generations (Hofstede et al., 2019). This study reveals that traditional values, particularly the Chinese culture of “face,” English cultural norms, and the entrenched patterns of traditional teaching, significantly hinder teachers’ ILTC. Many participants expressed feelings of embarrassment over the disconnect between their ideal and actual classroom dynamics.

T15 designed an activity resembling an academic defense to foster students’ language and critical thinking skills, with the audience asking questions while the presenter responded. However, fewer students participated actively. After discussing with some silent students, T15 found they feared embarrassing the speaker or provoking negative reactions from peers. Even those initially willing to participate eventually conformed to the collective silence. This pattern of behavior illustrates how face-consciousness in collectivist learning environments can constrain teachers’ ILTC. T15 reflected on this dynamic: “They don’t realize that such questions are mutually beneficial, a form of learning and practice. They just think it will embarrass others.” A parallel manifestation of this cultural barrier appeared in students’ reluctance to seek academic help, as T14 noted: “Students may feel it’s a loss of face to seek help. They might appear to understand in class, but they won’t ask for clarification.”

The phenomenon of silence extends beyond students to teachers as well. Observations show that teachers rarely speak up in formal settings. When faced with challenges in ILT, they often feel unsure and reluctant to voice differing opinions publicly. This collective silence—rooted in the desire to preserve “face”—is common in high-context, collectivistic cultures, where individuals avoid public mistakes and suppress personal opinions to maintain social esteem (Ting-Toomey, 1988). For example, the hesitancy to proactively engage with teaching researchers (full-time specialists who guide in-service teachers’ professional development), as captured in the statement: “I always feel that the teaching researchers are high and mighty.” (T15)

Although teachers are generally familiar with modern ILT theories advocating for “student-centered,”“task-centered,” and “learning-centered” approaches, many remain constrained by an essentialist approach to teaching. These entrenched practices, passed down through generations of teachers, persist. For instance, some teachers prioritize completing the syllabus, adopt a self-centered approach, and neglect students’ understanding levels. They treat cultural content with little care, often explaining it through grammar-translation methods, simply translating facts without exploring deeper cultural meanings. This essentialist view of culture, often simplified into binary East-West comparisons, reinforces a narrow perspective of ILT.

Many frontline teachers believe that if they adopt a student-centered approach, they risk losing their authority and being unable to teach effectively. They think such an approach works only in open classes, while in regular ones, they tend to lecture and occasionally ask students to answer questions. — T12

Teachers attempting to shift away from traditional methods face resistance from students’ longstanding habits. Even those aware of ILT struggles to alter students’ expectations. Many students view English learning primarily as preparation for exams, with communication seen as a distant, less urgent concern. When collaborating with teachers to interpret texts culturally, students tend to focus on language-level responses, not underlying values. They remain accustomed to a teacher-driven learning style—memorizations, homework, and tests—and struggle to connect language skills with cultural awareness. Students often resist abandoning rote learning, particularly in the cultural sections of lessons, preferring to highlight unfamiliar vocabulary over exploring cultural context. Ultimately, this student-level inertia, embedded within a larger ecosystem of traditional pedagogical culture, hampers teachers’ capacity to implement and develop their ILTC.

Continuation and Reconstruction of Student Experiences

The development of teachers’ ILTC demonstrates a significant life-history dimension. This research reveals that the depth of teachers’ reflection on their own language learning experiences during their student years, rather than the quality of those experiences per se, serves as the key mediating variable in determining their current ILTC. Teachers’ transformation transcends mere knowledge acquisition, representing instead a cognitive restructuring of the relationship between language and culture. For example:

My years of learning English felt detached from its cultural context, like studying in a vacuum. I could speak the language, yet real-life immersion abroad left me baffled by many nuances. Now, with access to short videos and abundant resources, I finally grasp the true meaning behind words and expressions—leading to those ‘So that’s what it really means!’ epiphanies. — T15

T15’s case demonstrates that her metacognitive capacity enabled a reflective reconstruction of her past learning experiences as a student, transitioning from cultural disengagement to cultural integration. Even though her language learning in the past was characterized by a sense of detachment from culture, this deficient experience ultimately became a driving force for her ILTC development, once she had cultivated reflective awareness. Her critical examination of previous learning methods and proactive utilization of the current multimedia-rich environment reflect a dynamic interaction between the individual and the microsystem (i.e., the teaching resource context) across time. This process not only highlights teacher agency but also aligns with the ecological perspective that individuals within systems are perpetually evolving (Grimm et al., 2025).

In contrast, T14’s case exemplifies an alternative developmental pathway: the continuous construction of theoretical knowledge. As he reflected: “My linguistics background, including my master’s thesis research, focused on East–West differences—particularly how language shapes cultural and cognitive patterns. Over three years in graduate school, I regularly attended lectures across universities, which gradually cultivated this mindset. As a result, cultural awareness has become both a personal inclination and a core element of my teaching practice.”

Systematic training in linguistic theory during T14’s academic years provided a coherent theoretical foundation for his ILTC. This preconception enabled him to consciously prioritize cultural awareness in teaching. The case underscores that seamless connections between mesosystems (e.g., university academia and high school environments) can offer stable ideological support, sustaining the development of ILTC. Moreover, T14’s habit formation demonstrates how consistent positive interactions within the chronosystem continually reshape individual cognitive structures.

Cross-Environment Learning and Identity Negotiation in Career Mobility

Teacher mobility across different working environments provides a typical scenario for interacting with external systems, which often triggers critical comparisons and identity negotiation that dynamically shape ILTC. For example, T12 observed that in rural Yunnan, local educators’ limited cultural awareness resulted in disengaging English classes and poor student outcomes. In response, T12 proactively guided them to integrate culturally rich materials into lesson planning, demonstrating how mobility fosters the transfer and application of ILT principles.

T12’s volunteer experience in Yunnan, a less developed region in Southwest China, exposed him to regional disparities in ILTC, sharpening his awareness of educational inequality and triggering a sense of pedagogical responsibility. This immersion prompted critical reflection, leading him to identify a prevalent lack of cultural awareness in local teaching practices and to awaken his agency as a change catalyst. He proactively guided local teachers in lesson preparation, an initiative that transcended individual pedagogy and represented a conscious effort to reshape both the school’s teaching-research culture (microsystem) and professional exchange networks among teachers (mesosystem). This case illustrates how teachers can transfer ILT philosophies from one educational context, such as Shanghai’s, to another, like schools in Yunnan, and, through negotiating divergent systemic demands, further strengthen their ILT convictions. Ultimately, the environment acts as a powerful mediator in teacher development, simultaneously shaping pedagogical understanding and being shaped by it.

T3’s narrative underscores the impact of systemic factors on pedagogical priorities. As he stated: “Previously, as a university instructor, I didn’t need to focus heavily on exam scores. I enjoyed introducing students to cultural perspectives to broaden their horizons… I’ve always aimed to bring this expansive worldview into the classroom.” This reflection highlights how the flexible assessment environment in higher education allowed him to prioritize the humanistic dimensions of language. His case illustrates that when transitioning to the Gaokao–dominated context of high school teaching, he actively transplanted this ILT philosophy. This endeavor to preserve space for ILT within a score–driven system exemplifies how teachers, as proactive agents, dynamically negotiate systemic constraints to sustain their ILTC across different temporal contexts.

Pedagogical Transformation of Overseas Experiences

This study reveals that teachers’ ILTC develops not as a linear outcome of overseas experiences, but as a dynamic process fueled by their ability to engage in critical reflection throughout their professional life course. While overseas experiences may enhance teachers’ ICC, this study confirms that such growth does not automatically translate into effective teaching practices. The key lies in whether teachers critically reflect on these experiences to achieve a profound pedagogical transformation. This reflective capacity is therefore the core mechanism for ILTC development and the fundamental driver of sustained professional growth, a process best supported by a cohesive ecosystem including supportive policies, collaborative professional communities, and opportunities for reflective practice.

A UK summer trip showed me textbook English isn’t street English. The gap made me ask why natives joke the way they do. Now I dig online for culture, not just grammar, and feed it straight to my students. — T8

T8’s short-term travel experience in the UK served as a “disruptive event” that triggered a cultural turn in her teaching practice. It led her to realize that effective intercultural communication requires “the flexible selection of accurate and appropriate forms within specific social contexts, rather than merely adhering to the academic norms or social etiquette of a single cultural community” (Kramsch, 1998, p. 27). She began delving into the cultural connotations underlying linguistic forms, analyzing which language ideologies and speech acts foster effective and appropriate communication. This critical reflection revealed that communication challenges often stem from distinct cultural psychologies, suggesting that such issues are fundamentally cultural in nature and require cultural knowledge for resolution. Consequently, this process enhanced T8’s ILTC, fueling her motivation for autonomous cultural learning and the adoption of culturally responsive pedagogy.

The Confrontation Between Essentialism and Anti-Essentialism

Existing research has identified a common essentialist approach in Chinese EFL teachers’ practice (Qian, 2024; Y. Z. Sun et al., 2021; Wang et al., 2024). Drawing on ecological systems theory, which considers the influences of all systems affecting an individual’s lived experience, no matter how remote (Bronfenbrenner, 1994), this study reveals a tension between essentialist and anti-essentialist views coexisting within teachers’ ecological environments. Although the New Standards promotes an anti-essentialist perspective, this is challenged by the microsystemic realities of classroom practice, dominated by the Gaokao exam. Consequently, teachers often resort to essentialist teaching focused on discrete knowledge to help students succeed in exams, even if they personally favor anti-essentialist ideas. This creates a gap where teachers’ theoretical beliefs are anti-essentialist, but their actual teaching remains essentialist. This tension is reinforced by China’s longstanding teaching tradition, which emphasizes teacher-centered methods and instrumental English learning, often framing cultures in binary oppositions and neglecting internal cultural diversity.

Furthermore, in Chinese society, English is predominantly perceived through an instrumental lens, a view that conflicts with the national strategic goal of fostering ILT aimed at promoting mutual understanding between China and the world. For many teachers, students, parents, and education administrators, English is seen as a practical tool for navigating real-life competition and a resource for upward social mobility. That is to say, the societal emphasis on English as a tool for academic and professional success results in the primary focus of high school education being to help students attend prestigious universities and secure well-paying jobs, thus enhancing their competitive standing within their intracultural group and achieving social mobility. This divergence illustrates how macrosystemic ideals are mediated and often redirected by exosystemic (e.g., societal values) and mesosystemic (e.g., school-parent expectations) pressures, strengthening the instrumentalist perception of English, diminishing its intrinsic humanistic value, and contributing to the persistence of essentialist views in teachers’ ILTC.

The Confrontation Between Theoretical Knowledge and Practical Knowledge

Previous research generally suggests that although teachers recognize the importance of ILT, most comprehend it primarily at a theoretical level and lack the deeper conceptual and procedural knowledge needed to effectively apply it in practice (Nafisah et al., 2024). However, the present study reveals a different perspective: teachers’ ILTC is dynamically shaped by context. It is not a matter of theory being superior to practice; rather, ILTC adapts in real time through interactions with various environmental factors. Teachers’ ILTC is more pronounced in formal teaching competitions or demo classes, where they fully acknowledge that English is deeply connected to culture. However, in daily teaching contexts, English is often viewed primarily as a tool-oriented subject. Ecological systems theory helps explain this variation: formal demonstrations often involve support from the exosystem and macrosystem, creating a temporary, favorable ecosystem that empowers teachers. In contrast, daily teaching is dominated by microsystemic immediacies (e.g., students’ cognitive levels) and mesosystemic constraints (e.g., family education). Therefore, teachers frequently adapt their practices opportunistically, drawing on their awareness of students’ diverse backgrounds, and responding flexibly to differing institutional evaluation criteria. These findings strongly illustrate the academic claim that “context is a multidimensional and multimodal network in which action emerges from the possibilities created by the relationships among resources in that environment” (Kearney, 2016).

The tension between theoretical and practical knowledge highlights that teaching is not routine, but a dynamic process shaped by institutional structures, student needs, and teachers’ evolving beliefs. Therefore, these findings further challenge the prevailing view in many empirical studies that teachers’ practical abilities lag behind their theoretical knowledge. Instead, this research suggests that the gap should not be attributed to teachers’ supposedly weaker practical abilities, as their practical knowledge is highly “context-oriented” (Elbaz, 1983). In addition, the teaching context itself functions as a complex ecosystem, where teachers must navigate whether theoretical or practical knowledge is more relevant in a given situation. Although the environment requires teachers to actively engage with, understand, and apply the New Standards, this study finds that teachers often set these standards aside, reading them passively only when necessary.

The Confrontation Between Individual Discourse Power and Collectivist Culture

Previous research (El Boubekri, 2023; Liao & Li, 2023; Zhou et al., 2024) has mainly focused on teachers’ pedagogical factors or their ICC, neglecting the wider sociocultural context. This narrow focus also limits the development of teachers’ ILTC. Bronfenbrenner (1979, p. 41) emphasized that person and environment must be seen as interdependent within systems. In China’s collectivist culture, which values harmony and face-saving, teachers often hesitate to voice dissent in groups. Interviews revealed concerns that principals lack interdisciplinary awareness, overlook cultural competencies in EFL evaluation, and fail to build trust through respectful communication with other subject teachers. Teachers hope principals will value the long-term benefits of ILT rather than quick results. However, field observations show limited communication between researchers and teachers, leaving principals unaware of EFL teachers’ deeper concerns.

Ultimately, going with the flow and conforming to the environment is a common practice among front-line EFL teachers of high schools, likely due to the hierarchical nature of collectivist culture. When faced with challenges in ILT, most teachers are reluctant to express their concerns to those in higher positions. Instead, they often seek guidance from peers or rely on the most intuitive methods, preferring to blend in rather than innovate. This reflects how the macrosystemic value of collectivism powerfully regulates individual agency at the microsystem level, making teachers’ individual voices are weak, as the environment exerts strong influence. Teachers also reshape their ecological contexts. At the high school level, exam-oriented English teaching dominates, and there is little room for ILT research. Although high school EFL teachers possess substantial teaching experience, the overall capacity for self-directed research is limited, and their academic influence remains relatively low. They tend to see themselves as “practical people and not as theorists” (M. Li, 2010, p. 447).

Integrating Language and Culture Instruction

Teacher educators should help teachers understand that language and culture instruction are inherently interconnected rather than separate. While this study does not oppose the widespread teaching of vocabulary and grammar—especially in under-resourced schools—it does question the practice of isolating language forms from cultural content. Such separation often leads to essentialist and ethnocentric teaching approaches that risk reinforcing stereotypes (Holliday, 1999). In reality, grammar reflects different ways of thinking, and vocabulary carries cultural significance. Importantly, integrating an intercultural perspective into vocabulary and grammar instruction is compatible with the demands of high-stakes exams and can be achieved even within limited classroom time.

Making ILT Practical and Accessible

Teacher educators should help teachers understand that ILT does not represent an additional burden or an unattainable task. Although the exosystemic constraint of excessive student workload often makes ILT seem pedagogically impractical—forcing a focus on exam-oriented teaching—small, thoughtful adjustments in lesson design can make a difference. For example, teachers can introduce anti-essentialist cultural perspectives in just a few sentences, emphasizing that culture is fluid, boundaries are blurred, and cultures are not binary or mutually exclusive. Planting these seeds of intercultural understanding is itself an attainable and valuable goal for teachers.

Integrating Language and Culture from the Start

Pre-service, in-service, and continuing professional development programs should all address and challenge the prevailing notion that language skills must precede cultural content. While this sequential approach is common and has practical reasons behind it, teacher educators are encouraged to adopt a more fundamental perspective: language and culture are two sides of the same coin and should be integrated from the very beginning of language learning. This shift should be reflected in the curriculum for English teacher preparation programs.