Introduction

The approach to language teaching and learning known as intercultural language learning (IcLL) has had an undeniable influence in Australia in recent times. Associated with names such as Zarate, Kramsch, Byram, and, closer to home, Crozet and Liddicoat, it represents a turn away from the attempt to produce ersatz native speakers through institutionalized language learning and places greater emphasis on learners' abilities to apprehend the particularities of their own culture as exposed through comparison with other cultures (see byram et al. 2001: 5). As pointed out by Harbon and Browett, the status of IcLL “as a curriculum imperative” (2006: 28) is confirmed in the MCEETYA (2005) statement on language education for the whole of Australia.

Yet, the continued appearance of articles regularly reiterating the principles of the approach suggests, either explicitly or implicitly, that despite widespread notional acceptance of IcLL, there is further work to be done on its implementation. For example, Kohler (2005: 16) points to the missing link between the teaching approach and assessment. Or again, Harbon and Browett's recent paper (2006), written from the teacher educators' point of view, notes the difficulty of persuading teacher trainees to follow through, as practitioners, on the principles of IcLL they espoused as students. Elsewhere (Hanna & Toohey 2005), we have also lamented the lack of work on the assessment of intercultural competence, pointing out, however, the difficulties of devising valid assessment instruments when the learning outcomes of IcLL are confined to the domains of attitudinal change and the acquisition of desirable values.