i The Perceptions and Practices of Second Language Teachers Regarding Digital Technologies for Communicative Competence A thesis presented in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Education Massey University, Manawatū, New Zealand Yi Liu 2026 ii Copyright is owned by the Author of the thesis. Permission is given for a copy to be downloaded by an individual for the purpose of research and private study only. The thesis may not be reproduced elsewhere without the permission of the Author. iii Acknowledgements First and foremost, I am sincerely thankful to my main supervisor, Dr Maggie Hartnett, for her guidance, encouragement, and unwavering belief in me. Her calm wisdom and thoughtful feedback consistently helped me move forward, especially at times when I struggled to find clarity. I am also deeply grateful to my co-supervisor, Dr Karen Ashton, who joined my supervisory team partway through the journey. Her critical insights and practical advice, especially her deep understanding of the Aotearoa New Zealand language education context, greatly enhanced the depth and relevance of this study. I would also like to thank Dr Ute Walker for her valuable input and encouragement throughout a substantial phase of this journey. I am sincerely thankful to the language teachers and students who participated in the online survey and case studies. Their time, openness, and commitment formed the heart of this work. I also appreciate the support of the New Zealand Association of Language Teachers, and Tui Tuia | Learning Circle for helping distribute the survey. Special thanks go to the Massey University Library and online writing consultants, whose guidance helped refine my thinking and expression. I feel fortunate to have shared this journey with supportive fellow students and friends. I especially thank Huan Huang, Fangshu (Blair) Wang, Josephine Tilton, and Victoria Macann for their encouragement and solidarity. I am also grateful to the online study group whose companionship and accountability sustained my motivation during the final, increasingly remote stages of study. My heartfelt thanks also go to my family, whose love and support have sustained me throughout this journey. To our daughter Bella, who was born during my doctoral study, your arrival brought immeasurable joy and transformed even the most difficult days with your laughter and light. To my parents-in-law, thank you for your tireless help in caring for Bella, which enabled me to focus on my research when it was most demanding. To my husband, iv Fangbin (Brook) Meng, I owe more than I can say. Your love, patience, and steadfast presence carried me through every high and low. You cooked, cleaned, comforted, encouraged, and created the space for me to keep going, even when I wanted to stop. This thesis simply would not have been possible without you. v Abstract This study investigated how secondary school language teachers in Aotearoa New Zealand perceive and integrate digital technologies to support students’ Communicative Competence development in pre-NCEA language classrooms. Employing an explanatory sequential mixed- methods design, it involved a survey of 89 teachers from diverse languages and three case studies across New Zealand Sign Language, Chinese, and te reo Māori classes. Student perspectives were incorporated to complement the teacher-focused analysis. Findings show the uneven development of Communicative Competence components in beginner-level classrooms. Linguistic competence was consistently perceived as important, with digital technologies primarily used to support vocabulary, grammar, and pronunciation. While Intercultural Communicative Competence (ICC) was conceptually valued, it was typically addressed through static cultural content rather than authentic interaction. Although most teachers expressed positive perceptions of digital technologies, their integration remained cautious and selective, influenced by teacher, student, and technology-related challenges. Students’ views on technology integration generally aligned with teachers’ established classroom practices, though differing interpretations of specific digital tools were noted. The study contributes to understanding how the Communicative Competence framework operates in Computer-Assisted Language Learning (CALL), particularly within the linguistically and culturally distinctive language classrooms of Aotearoa New Zealand. It also offers a contextually grounded and methodologically layered understanding of digital language teaching, having examined how teachers of diverse languages interpreted and implemented digital integration, supported by student perspectives to illuminate the classroom experience. In addition, it presents a more dynamic view of the relationship between teacher perceptions and practice, showing that in some cases, digital classroom practice preceded teachers’ stated perceptions. vi Table of Contents Acknowledgements ................................................................................................................... iii Abstract ...................................................................................................................................... v Table of Contents ...................................................................................................................... vi List of Figures .......................................................................................................................... xii List of Tables ........................................................................................................................... xiv List of Appendices ................................................................................................................... xv Glossary of Key Terms and Acronyms ................................................................................... xvi Chapter 1: Introduction to the Study .......................................................................................... 1 1.1 Research Background and Rationale ................................................................................ 1 1.2 Scope and Focus ............................................................................................................... 4 1.3 Significance of the Study .................................................................................................. 6 1.4 Researcher Positionality ................................................................................................... 7 1.5 Structure of the Thesis ...................................................................................................... 8 Chapter 2: Literature Review ................................................................................................... 10 2.1 Communicative Competence in Language Teaching ..................................................... 11 2.2 Intercultural Communicative Competence ..................................................................... 18 2.2.1 Communicative Competence in the Aotearoa New Zealand Context: Incorporating Intercultural Dimensions ................................................................................................... 20 2.2.2 Communicative Language Teaching and Intercultural Communicative Language Teaching ............................................................................................................................ 23 2.3 Integrating Digital Technologies in Language Teaching: Potential and Challenges ..... 27 2.3.1 The Potential of Integrating Digital Technologies in Language Teaching and Learning ............................................................................................................................ 29 2.3.2 Barriers Between Teachers’ Perceptions and Practice in Integrating Digital Technologies ..................................................................................................................... 38 2.4 Limited Integration of Teacher and Student Perspectives in Digital Technology Use .. 44 2.5 Chapter Summary ........................................................................................................... 45 Chapter 3: Methodology ........................................................................................................... 47 3.1 Introduction .................................................................................................................... 47 vii 3.2 Research Questions ......................................................................................................... 47 3.3 Research Paradigm ......................................................................................................... 49 3.4 Mixed Methods Research Design ................................................................................... 52 3.5 Phase One: Online Survey .............................................................................................. 54 3.5.1 Development of Survey Questions .......................................................................... 56 3.5.2 Survey Data Analysis ............................................................................................... 60 3.6 Phase Two: Multiple Cases Study .................................................................................. 62 3.6.1 Case Selection Criteria ............................................................................................. 64 3.6.2 Case Study Data Collection Methods ...................................................................... 65 3.6.3 Case Study Data Analysis ........................................................................................ 71 3.7 Reliability, Validity and Trustworthiness ....................................................................... 74 3.7.1 Reliability of the Online Survey .............................................................................. 74 3.7.2 Validity of the Online Survey .................................................................................. 74 3.7.3 Trustworthiness of the Case Studies ........................................................................ 75 3.8 Research Ethics ............................................................................................................... 76 3.9 Chapter Summary ........................................................................................................... 79 Chapter 4: Survey Findings ...................................................................................................... 80 4.1 Introduction .................................................................................................................... 80 4.2 Participants of the Survey ............................................................................................... 80 4.2.1 Demographic Characteristics of Participants ........................................................... 81 4.2.2 Teaching Context ..................................................................................................... 83 4.3 Teachers’ Objectives in Developing Communicative Competence ............................... 85 4.3.1 Structured Survey Findings: Focus on Communicative Competence ..................... 86 4.3.2 Qualitative Insights: Additional Teaching Objectives Valued by Teachers ............ 90 4.4 Teachers’ Overall Perceptions of Digital Technologies in Language Teaching ............ 92 4.5 Teachers’ Perceived Roles of Digital Technologies in Language Teaching .................. 96 4.6 Teachers’ Use of Digital Technologies in Language Teaching ..................................... 98 4.6.1 Distribution of Teaching Modes Across Demographic Groups .............................. 98 4.6.2 Digital Technologies Used in Language Class ...................................................... 105 4.7 Effect of the Pandemic on the Teachers’ Perceptions and Practices ............................ 119 4.8 Chapter Summary ......................................................................................................... 121 Chapter 5: Case Study One .................................................................................................... 123 viii 5.1 Introduction .................................................................................................................. 123 5.2 Context of Case Study One .......................................................................................... 124 5.3 Teacher’s Objectives in Developing Students’ Communicative Competencies ......... 127 5.3.1 Linguistic Competence .......................................................................................... 127 5.3.2 Discourse Competence ........................................................................................... 129 5.3.3 Strategic Competence ............................................................................................ 130 5.3.4 Intercultural Communicative Competence ............................................................ 130 5.3.5 Digital Competence ............................................................................................... 131 5.4 The Teacher’s Perceptions and Practices of Using Digital Technologies in Language Teaching ............................................................................................................................. 133 5.4.1 How the Teacher Sees and Implements the Potential of Digital Technologies in Language Teaching and Learning ................................................................................... 133 5.4.2 Challenges in Technology Integration and How the Teacher Responds in Language Teaching and Learning ................................................................................................... 143 5.4.3 Other Perceptions of Digital Language Learning .................................................. 148 5.5 Students’ Perceptions and Experience of digital technologies in Language Learning . 150 5.5.1 How Students Perceive and Experience the Potential of Digital Technologies .... 151 5.5.2 Bridging Teacher and Student Perspectives on Benefits of Digital Technology Integration in Sign Language Education ......................................................................... 157 5.5.3 Students’ Perspectives on Challenges and Strategies in Digital Technology Integration ....................................................................................................................... 160 5.5.4 Comparing Student and Teacher Perspectives on Challenges ............................... 163 5.6 Chapter Summary ......................................................................................................... 164 Chapter 6: Case Study Two .................................................................................................... 167 6.1 Introduction .................................................................................................................. 167 6.2 Context of Case Study Two .......................................................................................... 167 6.3 Teacher’s Objectives in Developing Students’ Communicative Competencies .......... 170 6.3.1 Linguistic Competence .......................................................................................... 170 6.3.2 Intercultural Communicative Competence ............................................................ 171 6.3.3 Discourse Competence ........................................................................................... 172 6.3.4 Strategic Competence ............................................................................................ 173 6.3.5 Digital Competence ............................................................................................... 173 ix 6.4 The Teacher’s Perceptions and Practices of Using Digital Technologies in Language Teaching ............................................................................................................................. 174 6.4.1 How the Teacher Sees and Implements the Potential of Digital Technologies in Language Teaching and Learning ................................................................................... 174 6.4.2 Challenges in Technology Integration and How the Teacher Responds in Language Teaching and Learning ................................................................................................... 180 6.4.3 Other Perceptions ................................................................................................... 185 6.5 Students’ Perceptions and Experience of Digital Technologies in Language Learning ............................................................................................................................................ 186 6.5.1 How Students Perceived and Experienced the Potential of Digital Technologies 186 6.5.2 Bridging Teacher and Student Perspectives on Benefits of Digital Technology Integration in Language Education ................................................................................. 191 6.5.3 Students’ Perspective on Challenges and Strategies in Digital Technology Integration ....................................................................................................................... 193 6.5.4 Comparing Student and Teacher Perspectives on Challenges ............................... 196 6.6 Chapter Summary ......................................................................................................... 199 Chapter 7: Case Study Three .................................................................................................. 202 7.1 Introduction .................................................................................................................. 202 7.2 Context of Case Study Three ........................................................................................ 202 7.3 Teacher’s Objectives in Developing Students’ Communicative Competencies .......... 206 7.3.1 Linguistic Competence .......................................................................................... 206 7.3.2 Intercultural Communicative Competence ............................................................ 207 7.3.3 Discourse Competence ........................................................................................... 209 7.3.4 Strategic Competence ............................................................................................ 210 7.3.5 Digital Competence ............................................................................................... 210 7.4 Teacher’s Perceptions and Practices of Using Digital Technologies in Language Teaching ............................................................................................................................. 211 7.4.1 How the Teacher Sees and Implements the Potential of Digital Technologies in Language Teaching and Learning ................................................................................... 212 7.4.2 Challenges in Technology Integration and How the Teacher Responds in Language Teaching and Learning ................................................................................................... 219 7.5 Students’ Perceptions and Experience of Digital Technologies in Language Learning ............................................................................................................................................ 225 7.5.1 How Students Perceive and Experience the Potential of Digital Technologies .... 226 x 7.5.2 Bridging Teacher and Student Perspectives on Benefits of Digital Technology Integration in Language Education ................................................................................. 234 7.5.3 Students’ Perspective on Challenges and Strategies in Digital Technology Integration and Alignment with the Teacher’s Perspectives .......................................... 235 7.5.4 Comparing Student and Teacher Perspectives on Challenges ............................... 238 7.6 Chapter Summary ......................................................................................................... 240 Chapter 8: Cross-case Analysis .............................................................................................. 242 8.1 Introduction .................................................................................................................. 242 8.2 Comparing Teachers’ Objectives in Developing Students’ Communicative Competencies ...................................................................................................................... 248 8.3 Teachers’ Perceptions and Practice of Using Digital Technologies in Language Teaching ............................................................................................................................. 252 8.3.1 How Teachers See and Implement the Potential of Digital Technologies ............ 252 8.3.2 Challenges in Technology Integration ................................................................... 258 8.3.3 Adapting to Digital Education and Perceived Teachers’ Role .............................. 263 8.4 Comparing Students’ Perceptions and Experiences of Digital Technologies in Language Learning .............................................................................................................................. 266 8.4.1 How Students Perceive and Experience the Potential of Digital Technologies .... 266 8.4.2 Students’ Perspectives on Challenges .................................................................... 271 8.4.3 Bridging Teacher and Student Perspectives .......................................................... 272 8.5 Chapter Summary ......................................................................................................... 276 Chapter 9: Discussion ............................................................................................................. 278 9.1 Introduction .................................................................................................................. 278 9.2 Communicative Competence and Digital Technology Integration .............................. 279 9.2.1 Linguistic Competence: A Central Focus in Teachers’ Perceptions and Practice . 279 9.2.2 ICC: The Gap Between Recognition and Implementation .................................... 285 9.2.3 Discourse and Strategic Competence: Limited and Implicit Instructional Attention ......................................................................................................................................... 288 9.2.4 Digital Competence: Divergent Views in Teachers’ Perceptions and Practice ..... 290 9.3 Beyond Communicative Competence: Broader Technology Integration in Language Education ............................................................................................................................ 292 9.3.1 Perceived Broader Potential of Digital Integration in Language Teaching ........... 293 9.3.2 Perceived Challenges of Digital Technology Integration in Language Teaching . 297 xi 9.3.3 Teacher–Student Perspectives on Digital Learning: Similarities and Differences 302 9.4 Chapter Summary ......................................................................................................... 305 Chapter 10: Conclusions and Implications ............................................................................. 307 10.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................ 307 10.2 Research Conclusions ................................................................................................. 307 10.2.1 Digital Technology Integration for Communicative Competence and Broader Instruction ....................................................................................................................... 307 10.2.2 Challenges in Digital Technology Integration in Language Teaching ................ 310 10.2.3 Similarities and Differences Between Teacher and Student Perspectives ........... 311 10.3 Contributions of the Study .......................................................................................... 312 10.4 Implications ................................................................................................................ 314 10.4.1 Implications for Language Teachers .................................................................... 314 10.4.2 Implications for Teacher Professional Development ........................................... 316 10.4.3 Implications for Institutional Decision Makers and Technology Developers ..... 317 10.5 Limitations .................................................................................................................. 319 10.6 Suggestions for Future Research ................................................................................ 320 10.7 Final Remarks ............................................................................................................. 321 References .............................................................................................................................. 322 Appendices ............................................................................................................................. 344 xii List of Figures Figure 2.1 Revisited Communicative Competence Framework (Adapted from Canale (1983)) ...................................................................................................................... 17 Figure 3.1 Adapted Explanatory Sequential Mixed-Method Design from Creswell (2018) ....................................................................................................................... 54 Figure 4.1 School Deciles of the Respondents ................................................................ 85 Figure 4.2 Teaching Modes of the Respondents ............................................................. 85 Figure 4.3 Importance of Language Teaching Objectives .............................................. 89 Figure 4.4 Nine Statements of Teachers’ Perceptions of Using Digital Technologies in Language Teaching .................................................................................................. 95 Figure 4.5 Perceived Roles of Digital Technologies ....................................................... 96 Figure 4.6 Digital Technologies used for Designing and Presenting the Course Content or Uploading Learning Resources .......................................................................... 110 Figure 4.7 Digital Technologies Teachers Have Students Use for Improving Their Language Performance ........................................................................................... 110 Figure 4.8 Teachers Encourage Students to Use Digital Technologies to Practice Their Language Skills ...................................................................................................... 111 Figure 4.9 Teachers Encourage Students to Use Digital Technologies to Learn at Their Own Pace ................................................................................................................ 111 Figure 5.1 Breakdown of the Theme Concerning the Teacher’s Perceived Potential of Using Digital Technologies in Language Teaching in Case Study One ................ 134 Figure 5.2 Breakdown of the Theme Concerning the Teacher’s Perceived Challenges in Technology Integration in Language Teaching in Case Study One ....................... 144 Figure 5.3 Breakdown of the Theme Concerning the Students’ Perceived Potential of xiii Using Digital Technologies in Language Learning in Case Study One ................ 152 Figure 5.4 Breakdown of the Theme Concerning the Students’ Perceived Challenges in Technology Integration in Language Learning in Case Study One ....................... 162 Figure 6.1 Breakdown of the Theme Concerning the Teacher’s Perceived Potential of Using Digital Technologies in Language Teaching in Case Study Two ............... 175 Figure 6.2 Breakdown of the Theme Concerning the Teacher’s Perceived Challenges in Technology Integration in Language Teaching in Case Study Two ...................... 181 Figure 6.3 Breakdown of the Theme Concerning the Students’ Perceived Potential of Using Digital Technologies in Language Learning in Case Study Two ................ 187 Figure 6.4 Breakdown of the Theme Concerning the Students’ Perceived Challenges in Technology Integration in Language Learning in Case Study Two ...................... 194 Figure 7.1 Breakdown of the Theme Concerning the Teacher’s Perceived Potential of Using Digital Technologies in Language Teaching in Case Study Three ............. 213 Figure 7.2 Breakdown of the Theme Concerning the Teacher’s Perceived Challenges in Technology Integration in Language Teaching in Case Study Three .................... 220 Figure 7.3 Breakdown of the Theme Concerning the Students’ Perceived Potential of Using Digital Technologies in Language Learning in Case Study Three .............. 227 Figure 7.4 Breakdown of the Theme Concerning the Students’ Perceived Challenges in Technology Integration in Language Learning in Case Study Three .................... 236 xiv List of Tables Table 4.1 Demographic Characteristics of Subjects (n=89) ............................................ 81 Table 4.2 Language Taught by the respondents .............................................................. 83 Table 4.3 Distribution of Teachers by School Decile Level and Teaching Mode .......... 99 Table 4.4 Distribution of Teachers by Language Taught and Teaching Mode ............. 101 Table 4.5 Distribution of Teachers by Age Group and Teaching Mode ....................... 103 Table 4.6 Distribution of Teachers by Teaching Experience and Teaching Mode ....... 104 Table 4.7 Digital Devices Used in Language Class ...................................................... 106 Table 4.8 Digital Technologies Used in the Language Class ........................................ 108 Table 5.1 Teachers and Students’ Pseudonyms in Case Study One .............................. 124 Table 5.2 Correspondence Between Data Sources and Research Questions in Case Study One ......................................................................................................................... 124 Table 6.1 Teachers and Students’ Pseudonyms in Case Study Two ............................. 170 Table 6.2 Correspondence Between Data Sources and Research Questions in Case Study Two ......................................................................................................................... 170 Table 7.1 Teachers and Students’ Pseudonyms in Case Study Three ........................... 206 Table 7.2 Correspondence Between Data Sources and Research Questions in Case Study Three ....................................................................................................................... 206 Table 8.1 High-Level Cross-Case Comparison Across the Three Cases ...................... 243 xv List of Appendices Appendix A: Online Survey for Language Teachers ....................................................... 344 Appendix B: Advertising of Survey ................................................................................ 359 Appendix C: Email to New Zealand Association of Language Teachers (NZALT) ....... 360 Appendix D: Information Sheet for the NZALT ............................................................. 362 Appendix E: Link and QR Code of Online Survey ......................................................... 364 Appendix F: Information Sheet for Teachers in the Case Studies .................................. 365 Appendix G: Consent Form for Language Teachers in the Case Studies ........................ 369 Appendix H: Permission Request Letter to the School .................................................... 370 Appendix I: Information Sheet for Schools in the Case Studies .................................... 371 Appendix J: Consent Form for School in the Case Studies ............................................ 374 Appendix K: Information Sheet for Students in the Case Studies ................................... 375 Appendix L: Consent Form for Students in the Case Studies ......................................... 379 Appendix M: Focus Group Confidentiality Agreement ................................................... 380 Appendix N: Information Sheet for the Parents in the Case Studies ............................... 381 Appendix O: Consent Form for Parents ........................................................................... 385 Appendix P: Interview Questions for Teachers in the Case Studies ............................... 386 Appendix Q: Focus Group Guide .................................................................................... 392 Appendix R: Ethics Approval Document ........................................................................ 393 Appendix S: Example of SPSS Analysis ........................................................................ 394 Appendix T: Example of NVivo Codes .......................................................................... 395 Appendix U: Example of Lesson Plan Coding ................................................................ 396 Appendix V: Example of Observation Note Coding ....................................................... 397 xvi Glossary of Key Terms and Acronyms Automatic Speech Recognition (ASR) Technology that converts spoken language into text and supports pronunciation or speaking practice. Communicative Competence Learners’ ability to use a language effectively and appropriately for communication in real contexts. Communicative Language Teaching (CLT) A pedagogical orientation that prioritises meaningful communication and the development of learners’ Communicative Competence. Computer-Assisted Language Learning (CALL) The study and use of digital technologies to support language learning and teaching. Intercultural Communicative Competence (ICC) Learners’ ability to communicate appropriately and effectively across cultural contexts, integrating knowledge, skills, attitudes, and critical cultural awareness. Intercultural Communicative Language Teaching (ICLT) A pedagogical orientation that integrates language learning with the development of Intercultural Communicative Competence. It emphasises helping learners engage with cultural perspectives, compare cultural meanings, and communicate appropriately across cultural contexts through a range of instructional practices. Learning Management Systems (LMSs) Digital platforms used to organise course content, deliver resources, manage assessment, and support communication (e.g., Moodle, Schoology). New Zealand Association of Language Teachers (NZALT) The national professional association for language teachers in New Zealand. New Zealand Sign Language (NZSL) One of Aotearoa New Zealand’s official languages, alongside te reo Māori, and the primary language of the Deaf community. pre-NCEA Years 9–10 of secondary schooling in Aotearoa New Zealand, xvii prior to the National Certificate of Educational Achievement (NCEA) TPACK A framework describing teachers’ integrated knowledge of technology, pedagogy, and content, used to guide effective technology integration. Te reo Māori The Indigenous language of Aotearoa New Zealand and one of its official languages, alongside New Zealand Sign Language. 1 Chapter 1: Introduction to the Study 1.1 Research Background and Rationale In contemporary language education, communication has been widely recognised as a central orientation of language learning, as it enables learners to use language effectively in real-world interactions (Kanwit & Solon, 2023). In Aotearoa New Zealand, this communicative focus is explicitly reflected in the New Zealand Curriculum (Ministry of Education, 2007), which positions communication at the heart of language learning and emphasises the role of linguistic knowledge and cultural understanding in students’ communicative development. To conceptualise what it means to use language effectively in real-world contexts, language education research has long drawn on the concept of Communicative Competence (e.g., Bachman & Palmer, 1996; Canale, 1983; Canale & Swain, 1980; Hymes, 1972). In particular, the frameworks proposed by Canale and Swain (1980), and further developed by Canale (1983), marked a significant shift away from grammar-based models of language ability towards a multidimensional view of communication that encompasses linguistic, sociolinguistic, discourse, and strategic competencies. The concept of Communicative Competence has informed the development of Communicative Language Teaching (CLT), which emphasises learners’ ability to use language meaningfully for communicative purposes (Littlewood, 2014; Qasserras, 2023). While Communicative Competence has broadened the focus of language teaching beyond grammatical accuracy, its conceptual foundations were developed prior to the current conditions of globalisation and digitalisation (Block, 2010; Savignon, 2007). As communication increasingly takes place across linguistically and culturally diverse contexts and through both digital and face-to-face modes, scholars have suggested that traditional conceptualisations of Communicative Competence may not fully capture the communicative demands of contemporary language use (e.g., Celce-Murcia, 2008; Kanwit & Solon, 2023). 2 In the present study, drawing on Canale’s (1983) framework, Communicative Competence is conceptualised as an umbrella construct that encompasses linguistic, discourse, strategic, intercultural, and digital dimensions of communication. Thus, this study uses the term Communicative Competence to also encompass Intercultural Communicative Competence (ICC), which foregrounds the ability of learners to communicate and relate across cultures, engage with diverse perspectives, and negotiate meaning in varied sociocultural contexts (Byram, 1997; Liddicoat & Scarino, 2010). At the pedagogical level, these intercultural aims have informed the development of Intercultural Communicative Language Teaching (ICLT), which explicitly incorporates attention to cultural difference and intercultural learning within communicative approaches to language teaching (Kennedy, 2016). Despite the prominence of intercultural aims in curricular documents such as the New Zealand Curriculum (Ministry of Education, 2007), their integration into classroom practice has faced challenges. For example, Conway and Richards (2017) and Oranje and Smith (2018) found that teachers often reduce culture to surface-level topics such as food and festivals, with limited engagement in deeper cultural reflection or comparison. Similarly, East et al. (2022) found that a lack of training, assessment tools, and institutional support hindered the meaningful incorporation of intercultural objectives into teaching. Moreover, digital technologies have been increasingly recognised as resources that can support language teaching and learning, particularly in relation to Communicative Competence (e.g., Ruan & Medwell, 2020; Rustam & Jiatian, 2024). Digital technologies can provide learners with access to authentic language input (Golonka et al., 2014), multimodal resources (Regina & Anitha Devi, 2022), and opportunities for synchronous or asynchronous communication that transcend time and space (Akayoglu et al., 2021; Chun, Smith, & Kern, 2016). However, their effectiveness in supporting learning depends largely on how teachers perceive and integrate them into pedagogy (Stickler, 2022). As Stickler (2022) notes, effective technology integration is shaped not by the tools themselves, but by the pedagogical principles that guide their use. 3 While numerous studies highlight the pedagogical potential of digital technologies, relatively few have examined how language teachers understand and use these tools in their teaching and how this potential is realised in classroom practice, particularly in relation to students’ development of Communicative Competence (Alsuhaibani, 2019; Shin & Son, 2007). Despite substantial research in the field of Computer-Assisted Language Learning (CALL), significant gaps remain. Much of the literature centres on higher education settings (e.g., Chen, 2008; Xue & Churchill, 2022) and English as a second language teaching contexts (e.g., Albirini, 2006; Coskun, 2011), leaving the integration of technology for communicative purposes in secondary school settings relatively underexplored. In addition, many studies rely on short-term experimental interventions conducted under controlled conditions (e.g., Ashcroft et al., 2018; Özer et al., 2017). While these offer insights into immediate learning outcomes, they often fail to reflect how digital technologies are embedded in the long-term, context-dependent practices of everyday classrooms. Given the dynamic nature of language education, which is shaped by teacher agency, language-specific pedagogical demands, curriculum requirements, and learner diversity, there is a pressing need for more contextualised, practice-oriented research that captures the complexities teachers and students navigate in real settings. In Aotearoa New Zealand, this need is particularly pronounced. The country’s multilingual and multicultural context presents both unique challenges and valuable opportunities for language teachers (Kennedy, 2016). However, little empirical research has examined how secondary school teachers in this setting perceive and use digital tools to support Communicative Competence, including its intercultural dimensions and the role of digital technologies in its development. This study addresses these gaps by exploring how language teachers perceive and use digital technologies to support the development of students’ Communicative Competence within the distinctive curricular and cultural landscape of Aotearoa New Zealand. It aims to provide a holistic and context-sensitive account of how Communicative Competence is developed through technology-supported language education. 4 1.2 Scope and Focus This study investigates how digital technologies are perceived and implemented by secondary school language teachers in Aotearoa New Zealand, with a particular focus on their role in developing students’ Communicative Competence. The research is situated in the pre-NCEA stage of secondary education, typically covering Years 9 and 10 (ages 13–15), which represent the first two years of secondary school in Aotearoa New Zealand. NCEA (National Certificate of Educational Achievement) is the main national qualification for senior secondary students. This pre-NCEA stage marks a transitional period when students shift from general exposure to more formal language learning (Ashton, 2021). Unlike the NCEA phase, where teaching is often shaped by assessment pressures (East, 2016), this stage allows for greater pedagogical flexibility (Ashton, 2021). At the same time, students are still developing their academic identities and digital learning habits, making them less self-directed than tertiary learners (Ashton, 2017). For some learners, this pre-NCEA stage may represent their first sustained engagement with structured language learning, as well as with how digital technologies are introduced and facilitated by teachers. The ways in which digital tools are integrated during this period may contribute to shaping students’ early understandings of technology-supported learning and influence, to some extent, their confidence and willingness to engage in more autonomous language learning over time (Reinders & White, 2016). This pre-NCEA stage is particularly important because language study becomes optional in the senior secondary curriculum. Students’ experiences at the pre-NCEA level may therefore play a critical role in shaping their motivation and choices regarding continued language learning in later years (Kennedy, 2016). The study focuses on registered teachers who teach languages in Aotearoa New Zealand secondary schools. These include commonly taught languages such as French, German, 5 Japanese, Spanish, and Mandarin Chinese, as well as New Zealand Sign Language (NZSL) and te reo Māori. Both NZSL, recognised under the New Zealand Sign Language Act 2006 (New Zealand Government, 2006), and te reo Māori, recognised under the Māori Language Act 1987 (New Zealand Government, 1987), hold official language status and reflect the distinctive linguistic and cultural landscape of Aotearoa New Zealand. By engaging with teachers across a range of languages, the study hopes to capture the diversity of language teaching contexts in Aotearoa New Zealand secondary schools and to explore how digital technology integration varies across different languages. This contrasts with much of the existing CALL research, which tends to focus on a single language, typically English or other major global languages (e.g., Lai & Morrison, 2013; Stockwell, 2013). As a result, this study offers a more nuanced understanding of how language-specific factors such as curriculum status, teaching traditions, resource availability, and community expectations interact with broader institutional and technological conditions. In doing so, it contributes to a more context-sensitive and inclusive picture of digital integration in language education. Although the central focus of this study is on teachers’ perceptions and practices of using digital technologies in language classes, it also incorporates student perspectives in the case study phase. These student voices do not form a separate object of analysis but are used as complementary evidence to interpret and assess the effectiveness and reception of digital strategies employed by teachers. By attending to how students engage with, resist, or reframe digital learning tasks, the study enriches its understanding of teacher decision-making and reveals the dialogic nature of digital pedagogy. This inclusion also highlights areas of similarity and difference between teacher intention and learner experience, offering critical insight into the relational dynamics of language teaching in digital learning environments. Regarding technological scope, the study adopts a broad and pedagogically grounded definition of digital technologies (Bui, 2022; Chen, 2008), encompassing internet-based tools, platforms, and multimedia resources commonly used in language instruction. These include learning 6 management systems (e.g., Google Classroom, Moodle), vocabulary applications (e.g., Quizlet), online videos, collaborative platforms (e.g., Google Docs, Padlet), audio/video recording tools, and synchronous platforms (e.g., Zoom). The research does not evaluate or design technologies, nor does it focus on the technical architecture or user interface of specific tools. Instead, the emphasis lies on how these tools are pedagogically selected, adapted, and embedded into language teaching practices, particularly as they relate to fostering Communicative Competence and shaping learner engagement. 1.3 Significance of the Study This study addresses a timely and important intersection between digitalisation and language education. In an era where communication and culture are increasingly facilitated by digital technologies, understanding how teachers interpret and enact Communicative Competence through digital means is both conceptually and pedagogically significant. Such understanding is essential for rethinking how communicative goals can be realised in technology-rich learning environments. By examining how communicative and technological intentions converge in classroom practice, the study advances theoretical understanding of how digital technologies support Communicative Competence development in classroom practice. It moves beyond instrumental views of digital tools by foregrounding how teaching practices, digital technologies, and classroom contexts jointly shape the development of students’ Communicative Competence. Focusing on Aotearoa New Zealand, the study holds particular significance in revealing how digital language teaching evolves within a linguistically and culturally diverse education system where inclusivity and responsiveness to local identities are essential. By centring on teachers’ perspectives during the pre-NCEA years, it highlights their pivotal role in shaping how digital practices and communicative learning take root at this formative stage of students’ language education. Through this lens, the study underscores the broader educational importance of 7 understanding how technology can meaningfully influence the development of Communicative Competence in secondary schooling contexts. 1.4 Researcher Positionality As Bogdan and Biklen (2006) argue, a researcher’s beliefs, values, past experiences, and personal identity are inherently intertwined with the research process and should not be artificially separated. The reflections below outline how my personal and professional background has shaped the research focus and interpretive lens. My first direct engagement with the New Zealand education system began in 2018, when I participated as a Mandarin Language Assistant in three local schools as part of a master’s programme placement. Before this, my academic background was grounded in teaching Chinese as a second language. Growing up in a mid-sized Chinese city, I experienced classrooms where technology use was minimal. Even in university, digital tools such as laptops and online platforms remained peripheral, supporting delivery rather than interaction. In parallel, my own experience as a language learner also shaped my perspective. Like many students in China, I studied English for over a decade, but my learning was heavily exam-oriented. This gap became evident when I failed to respond to a simple question from a foreign student during my postgraduate studies in Shanghai. It was a moment that highlighted the lack of communicative focus in my language learning. This realisation, alongside my teaching placement in Aotearoa New Zealand, prompted me to reframe language learning as a communicative and contextualised process. These insights were further shaped during my Mandarin Language Assistant placement in Hamilton, where I observed how local teachers integrated diverse digital tools into their practice. Initially enthusiastic about the abundance of online resources, I later faced challenges in selecting and applying them effectively. These early tensions sparked my interest in the complexities of technology use in language education. Through my doctoral research and later teaching experience in a New Zealand secondary school, I came to see that meaningful 8 integration relies not only on access, but on teachers’ perceptions of digital technologies, practices, and adaptability. Approaching this research as a non-New Zealand-based educator has shaped my perspective in distinctive ways. Rather than seeing this position as a limitation, I view it as a strength that has enabled me to engage with local practices with fresh eyes and a reflexive attitude. My outsider status has encouraged a learning-oriented stance throughout the research process, grounded in openness, curiosity, and a willingness to challenge my assumptions. This has been particularly valuable in interpreting classroom practices that might otherwise appear familiar or self-evident to local observers. For example, in analysing the Chinese language classroom in one of my case studies, my own experience as both a Chinese language teacher and a cross-cultural learner allowed me to recognise subtle tensions between global pedagogical trends and local classroom realities. This dual perspective, rooted in both insider knowledge and outsider reflection, has contributed meaningfully to the way I have approached and interpreted the data throughout this study. 1.5 Structure of the Thesis This thesis is organised into ten chapters, moving from theoretical and methodological foundations to empirical findings and concluding implications. It investigates how digital technologies are integrated into secondary language teaching in Aotearoa New Zealand, with a particular focus on Communicative Competence. Chapter 2 reviews relevant literature, outlining key frameworks of Communicative Competence and introducing ICC as an important extension, with attention to its relevance in the Aotearoa New Zealand context. It also examines research on digital technology integration, including its pedagogical potential and challenges in language teaching and learning. Chapter 3 details the study’s methodological approach, which combines a survey with three qualitative case studies. 9 Chapter 4 presents findings from the survey, providing a broad overview of teachers’ practices and perceptions. Chapters 5 to 7 offer in-depth case studies of three different language classrooms, highlighting teacher perceptions, digital practices, and student experiences. Building on these, Chapter 8 provides a cross-case analysis, identifying commonalities and differences across the cases. Chapter 9 discusses the findings in relation to existing literature, examining how digital tools support or constrain the development of Communicative Competence and related pedagogical aims. Finally, Chapter 10 concludes the thesis by summarising key findings, contributions, and implications, and suggesting directions for future research. 10 Chapter 2: Literature Review This study aims to understand how language teachers perceive and use digital technologies in language teaching to support the development of learners’ Communicative Competence. This objective aligns with the New Zealand Curriculum (Ministry of Education, 2007), which emphasises communication as the central goal of language learning. To provide a comprehensive understanding of the existing research landscape and the gaps that necessitate this study, this literature review chapter is structured around four key areas. Firstly, it reviews the evolution of Communicative Competence, highlighting its theoretical foundations, which underpin Communicative Language Teaching (CLT). While CLT promotes authentic language use, scholars have noted various challenges in its practical implementation (Nazari, 2007; Ngoc & Iwashita, 2012). These include tensions between its theoretical ideals and classroom realities (Ngoc & Iwashita, 2012), which will be further explored in the first section of this chapter. Secondly, this chapter examines ICC as an extended component within the Communicative Competence framework, emphasising the ability to communicate effectively across cultural differences. This section details how ICC is understood in global research and how it has been integrated into language education in Aotearoa New Zealand. The third section focuses on digital technology integration in language teaching, discussing how teachers’ perceptions and pedagogical choices influence the effectiveness of technology in supporting Communicative Competence. It emphasises that technology alone does not guarantee learning outcomes. Its success depends on pedagogical alignment with teaching content and instructional strategies. Finally, the chapter considers teachers’ and learners’ perspectives on digital technology use. While this study primarily investigates teachers’ perceptions and practices, learners’ views were included to enrich the understanding of how technology is experienced in the classroom. 11 2.1 Communicative Competence in Language Teaching This section first outlines the historical foundations of Communicative Competence and its significance in language education. It then evaluates several theoretical models of Communicative Competence, with a particular emphasis on Canale and Swain’s (1980) framework and Canale’s (1983) refinement, which provide a structured perspective on Communicative Competence and form the theoretical foundation of this study. However, as globalisation and digitalisation reshape language education (Chun, Smith, & Kern, 2016), the continued applicability of this classic framework requires further consideration (Chapelle, 2009). Accordingly, this study conceptualises Communicative Competence as an expanded construct that integrates intercultural and digital dimensions, contributing to a more nuanced understanding of language use in contemporary contexts. The concept of Communicative Competence emerged in the 1960s as researchers and practitioners began to question dominant language learning theories and practices that prioritised grammatical accuracy and mechanical repetition (Kanwit & Solon, 2023; Richards & Rodgers, 2014). Early language teaching methods such as the Grammar Translation Method and the Audiolingual Method, rooted in behaviourist theory (Skinner, 1957), emphasised rote memorisation, drill-based learning, and error avoidance (VanPatten & Williams, 2014). While Chomsky’s theory of Generative Grammar (1965) challenged behaviourist assumptions by introducing the idea of an innate language faculty and focusing on internal cognitive processes, it did not account for the functional and social dimensions of language use. Around the same period, interlanguage theory (Selinker, 1972) introduced the notion that second language learners develop a unique linguistic system, shaped by internal cognitive processes and influenced by both the first and target languages. This perspective shifted attention from surface errors to the developmental nature of learner language (Kanwit & Solon, 2023). Later, cognitive-functional linguistics (Larsen-Freeman, 2000) emphasised the role of meaning, usage patterns, and conceptual structures in shaping language knowledge, proposing that language emerges from usage and is grounded in general cognitive abilities. However, as Firth and 12 Wagner (1997) and Atkinson (2002) argue, such approaches often marginalised the socio- cultural, strategic, and pragmatic dimensions of language use, which are central to real-world communicative success. In response to these limitations, Hymes (1967) introduced the concept of Communicative Competence, defining successful language learning as the ability to use language appropriately and effectively in real-world contexts, rather than the mere mastery of grammatical rules. His conceptualisation challenged Chomsky’s idealised notion of linguistic competence (Chomsky, 1965), which had previously been regarded as the sole theoretical basis for language learning, teaching, and assessment (Jeong, 2018; Savignon, 1987). By incorporating a sociolinguistic perspective, Communicative Competence expanded the narrow scope of linguistic competence to include not only internalised grammatical knowledge but also cultural norms, contextual appropriateness, and pragmatic judgement (Hymes, 1972). This shift redirected the focus of language teaching from form-focused instruction to communicative goals, fostering meaningful interaction and negotiation of meaning across diverse social contexts (Firth & Wagner, 1997; Kanwit & Solon, 2023). Unlike traditional theories that positioned learners as deficient communicators striving for native-like proficiency (Firth & Wagner, 1997), the Communicative Competence framework recognised learners as active communicators and meaning negotiators (Richards & Rodgers, 2014). A competent language user, in this view, not only possesses grammatical knowledge, e.g., syntax, morphology, phonology, but also understands how and when to express meaning appropriately within specific sociocultural contexts (Jeong, 2018). This perspective laid the foundation for CLT, which explicitly prioritises learners’ ability to participate in meaningful interaction over rigid grammatical accuracy (Kanwit & Solon, 2023; Richards & Rodgers, 2014). While Hymes’ model was groundbreaking, it was criticised as lacking clear operational definitions, making their application in language teaching challenging (Wiemann & Backlund, 1980). In response, Canale and Swain (1980), and later Canale (1983) expanded Hymes’ model 13 by developing a more structured and pedagogically applicable model of Communicative Competence (Richards & Rodgers, 2014; Whyte, 2019). Their framework, which remains highly influential in second language education (Kanwit & Solon, 2023), conceptualises Communicative Competence as the integration of four key components (Canale, 1983; Canale & Swain, 1980): grammatical competence, sociolinguistic competence, discourse competence, and strategic competence: • Grammatical competence: It refers to the ability to master the formal rules of a language, including grammar, vocabulary and pronunciation. It provides the foundation for constructing meaningful utterances. Canale and Swain (1980) emphasised that grammatical competence alone is insufficient for effective communication but remains a fundamental component. • Sociolinguistic competence: It refers to the ability to use language appropriately in different social and cultural contexts. This includes understanding politeness conventions, speech acts, and the influence of cultural and social norms such as participant roles and levels of formality (Canale, 1983). For example, a language learner greeting a professor in an academic setting might say, “Good morning, Professor,” whereas in a casual setting with a friend, they might use “Hey, how’s it going?”, highlighting how sociolinguistic awareness operates in everyday communication (example by the author). • Strategic competence: This refers to the ability to overcome communicative barriers through verbal or non-verbal strategies caused by limited language proficiency, such as a lack of vocabulary, and also enhance the efficiency and effectiveness of communication (Canale, 1983). The strategies include paraphrasing, using gestures, or adjusting speech to maintain interaction. For instance, when a learner forgets the word “vegetarian”, they might say, “I don’t eat meat” to convey the intended meaning effectively (example by the author). • Discourse competence: The ability to produce coherent and cohesive language beyond the sentence level, ensuring logical flow and appropriate structuring of ideas. This involves both cohesion (e.g., using pronouns and conjunctions) and coherence (e.g., 14 maintaining logical connections). Canale (1983) highlights the role of discourse competence in structuring extended communication, such as storytelling, academic writing, or formal presentations. For instance, in “John went to the store. He bought some milk,” the pronoun “he” creates cohesion, while the logical relationship between the two sentences ensures coherence (example by the author). Also, this competence requires an awareness of genre and style, enabling speakers or writers to adapt their language to different contexts. Together, these four components define Communicative Competence as the ability to convey and interpret messages meaningfully and appropriately across grammatical, sociocultural, discourse, and strategic dimensions (Canale, 1983). Compared to Hymes’ model (1972), Canale and Swain’s framework of Communicative Competence stands out for its clear structure and strong practicality (Richards & Rodgers, 2014), making it well-suited for language teaching practice (Kanwit & Solon, 2023). It provides specific guidance on communicative functions and defines the key competences learners need to master for effective and appropriate communication (Heng, 2014), leading to its widespread acceptance in second and foreign language education (Rahman & Ahmed, 2017). However, the literature has identified several limitations in this framework (e.g., Whyte, 2019). While it offers a comprehensive theoretical foundation, it primarily outlines the ideal competences learners should develop, without providing guidance on how teachers can cultivate these competences in classroom contexts (Whyte, 2019). Building on this foundational model, several scholars (e.g., Bachman & Palmer, 1996; Celce- Murcia, 2008) further developed and elaborated the concept of Communicative Competence to accommodate new emphases in language education. For instance, Celce-Murcia et al. (1995) expanded sociolinguistic competence into sociocultural competence to better account for cultural knowledge, and renamed grammatical competence as linguistic competence to include broader language components such as phonology and vocabulary. They also introduced actional 15 competence, emphasising the alignment between linguistic forms and communicative intentions. In a later revision, Celce-Murcia (2008) restructured the model to place discourse competence at its centre and elaborated on strategic competence to include compensatory and preventive strategies. Meanwhile, Bachman and Palmer (1996) proposed a comprehensive model particularly influential in the field of language assessment. Their framework distinguishes between organisational knowledge (including grammatical and textual knowledge) and pragmatic knowledge (including functional and sociocultural competence) and introduces metacognitive strategies to account for learners’ ability to monitor and regulate their communication (Bachman & Palmer, 1982, 1996). Although both models offer valuable insights, they present certain limitations for the purposes of the present study. Celce-Murcia et al.’s model has been critiqued as overly complex for practical application (Syarief, 2005), whereas Bachman and Palmer’s framework was primarily designed for assessment purposes (Kanwit & Solon, 2023) and has been noted for insufficient attention to cultural adaptability (Liao et al., 2023). Given these considerations, the present study primarily adopts Canale and Swain and Canale’s (1983; 1980) framework as its theoretical foundation, with selective reference to subsequent developments that have expanded and restructured the categorisation of Communicative Competence. In particular, it adopts the term “linguistic competence” (Celce-Murcia et al., 1995) in place of Canale’s original “grammatical competence”, as the updated terminology more accurately reflects the full range of formal language knowledge, including grammar, vocabulary and phonology. This broader framing better captures the foundational elements that underpin communicative development across all proficiency levels. Given that Canale’s (1983) model of Communicative Competence was proposed at a time when the impacts of globalisation and digitalisation were not as profound and widespread as they are today, communication remained largely confined to face-to-face contexts (Block, 2010; Chapelle, 2009). Today, however, the accelerating processes of globalisation have dramatically 16 reshaped the sociolinguistic landscape in many parts of the world. In Aotearoa New Zealand, for example, increasing ease of international travel, business, education, and migration has led to significant demographic shifts, resulting in a superdiverse society (Ashton & Qi, 2025). This rapid diversification has highlighted the urgent need for individuals to establish effective communication across linguistic and cultural boundaries. At the same time, the digitalisation of communication has introduced new and complex demands on language learners, extending beyond traditional face-to-face interaction. As Chapelle (2009) argues, the definition of Communicative Competence developed prior to the digital era is no longer sufficient in today’s communicative landscape that spans both digital and face-to-face contexts. Learners are now expected to demonstrate multimodal communication skills, digital literacy, and the ability to interact appropriately across both virtual and physical contexts. These evolving requirements highlight the need to reconceptualise Communicative Competence to incorporate digital tools, online discourse strategies, and context-sensitive mode selection in communication (Chapelle, 2009). As illustrated in Figure 2.1, this study extends Canale’s framework (1983) of Communicative Competence by incorporating intercultural and digital dimensions. These additions better address the communicative needs arising from globalisation and digitalisation and respond to curriculum expectations for digital technology integration in Aotearoa New Zealand secondary schools. Specifically, the first refinement involves introducing ICC to replace Canale’s sociolinguistic component, thereby extending the framework to encompass a broader intercultural dimension. While sociolinguistic competence focuses on the appropriate use of language based on established norms such as politeness conventions, forms of address, and register (Canale, 1983), it has been critiqued for conceptualising culture in static terms (Byram, 1997). In contrast, ICC emphasises learners’ ability to navigate cultural diversity, understand alternative perspectives, and co-construct meaning across cultural boundaries (Byram, 1997). To reflect this shift, this study conceptualises ICC as a distinct and integral component of Communicative Competence, positioned alongside linguistic, discourse, and strategic competences, as illustrated in Figure 2.1. Although it incorporates elements of sociolinguistic competence, ICC is broader in scope, 17 extending to intercultural awareness and interaction. A detailed discussion of ICC follows in Section 2.2. The second refinement involves incorporating a digital dimension into the Communicative Competence framework, recognising the increasing role of technology in shaping communicative practices and language learning environments. As shown in Figure 2.1, this study conceptualises digital competence not as a standalone component but as a cross-cutting factor that intersects with the four components of Communicative Competence, influencing how learners engage in multimodal, synchronous, and asynchronous communication. Digital competence has been shown to support opportunities for language use and development across different dimensions of Communicative Competence (Huang, 2018; Rustam & Jiatian, 2024). This includes supporting linguistic practice and access to input (Golonka et al., 2014), facilitating intercultural interaction in online environments (Akayoglu et al., 2021), supporting discourse organisation through tools such as collaborative writing platforms (Eleni & Eleni, 2024), and enabling interactional strategies in online settings (Chimeva & Trenchs-Parera, 2024). More broadly, in this study, digital competence in language learning refers to learners’ ability to use digital tools effectively to support target language development and participate in social interaction within digital environments using the target language. Figure 2.1 18 Revisited Communicative Competence Framework (Adapted from Canale (1983)) 2.2 Intercultural Communicative Competence ICC has become a key focus in language education, reflecting the intrinsic link between language and culture (East et al., 2022; Liddicoat & Scarino, 2013; Newton et al., 2015). As Liddicoat (2008) has pointed out, learners’ need for cultural knowledge is as much as their need for grammar and vocabulary. As East et al. (2022) observe, in the early days of CLT, cultural knowledge was often reduced to “facts about the target culture” (p. 10), reflecting an “isolationist approach” in which culture was treated as an “optional extra” rather than an integral part of communication (pp. 10-11). Such perspectives tended to emphasise sociolinguistic appropriateness, such as knowing how to greet others or behave politely in a given context, without fully engaging learners in the exploration of cultural perspectives or the development of reflective intercultural awareness (Liddicoat & Scarino, 2013). In contrast, contemporary understandings of ICC promote a more dynamic and dialogic view of culture, encompassing not only knowledge but also attitudes, dispositions, and the ability to interpret and convey meaning across cultural boundaries (Byram, 1997; Newton et al., 2015). Specifically, learners are encouraged to approach “the other” with openness, curiosity and Communicative Competence Digital Technologies 19 criticality, developing the capacity to “engage with” culture rather than simply “know about” it (East et al., 2022, p. 10; see also Liddicoat & Scarino, 2013). In this sense, ICC is not merely a supplementary skill but a core competence that enables individuals to participate meaningfully in intercultural communication and navigate the complexities of globalised, multilingual societies (Newton et al., 2015). ICC is understood by scholars (e.g., Byram, 1997; Deardorff, 2006; Liddicoat & Scarino, 2013) not only as a set of competences but as a dynamic process that is continually shaped and reshaped through actual intercultural interaction. Different scholars have proposed distinct frameworks to describe this process, such as Byram’s (1997) Savoirs model, which conceptualises ICC in terms of attitudes, knowledge, and skills involved in intercultural interaction, and Deardorff’s (2006) Pyramid Model, which presents ICC as a developmental and process-oriented construct, both of which have become influential in language education research. However, rather than detailing the numerous ICC models and their evolution, this study draws primarily on the common aspects highlighted across models to capture the core conceptual essence of ICC and to embed it within the extended Communicative Competence framework (Figure 2.1), which constitutes the main theoretical foundation of the present study. Within these shared conceptions, ICC is therefore understood to involve openness and curiosity towards other perspectives, an awareness of both one’s own and others’ cultural backgrounds, and the ability to interpret meanings, compare viewpoints, and interact effectively across cultural boundaries (Byram, 1997; Liddicoat & Scarino, 2013; Newton et al., 2015). The following subsections outline the ways in which the concept of Communicative Competence, with a focus on its intercultural dimension, has been embedded in the Aotearoa New Zealand language education context. It then examines the development and interpretation of CLT and Intercultural Communicative Language Teaching (ICLT) in the wider international literature, before narrowing the focus to studies conducted in school settings and in the Aotearoa New Zealand context. Accordingly, the following subsections focus on Communicative 20 Competence and its intercultural dimension, as well as the development and interpretation of CLT and ICLT, while the integration of digital technologies in language teaching is addressed in Section 2.3. 2.2.1 Communicative Competence in the Aotearoa New Zealand Context: Incorporating Intercultural Dimensions In the New Zealand Curriculum, language and culture are positioned side by side as mutually reinforcing components within the overarching strand of communication (Ministry of Education, 2007). This structural integration reflects an understanding of language learning as a culturally situated process, in which Communicative Competence encompasses not only linguistic proficiency but also the ability to acquire cultural knowledge, compare cultural perspectives, and interact meaningfully with others. From a historical perspective, the linguistic landscape of Aotearoa New Zealand has evolved significantly, shaped by political, social, and cultural transformations (East et al., 2022). During the early colonial period, te reo Māori was the primary language among the indigenous Māori population. However, as English gained political and economic dominance, te reo Māori faced significant suppression (East et al., 2022; Skyrme & Ker, 2020; Starks et al., 2005). At the same time, the arrival of European settlers brought other European languages, which influenced not only language use within specific communities but also had a lasting impact on national language policies and the range of languages taught in Aotearoa New Zealand schools (East et al., 2022). From the latter half of the 20th century, the Māori cultural renaissance revitalised te reo Māori, leading to policy changes such as the Māori Language Act (New Zealand Government, 1987), which granted te reo Māori official status, followed by the recognition of NZSL as an official language in 2006. Despite these efforts, English remains the dominant language in both official and everyday communication (Starks et al., 2005). More recently, significant migration and demographic changes, particularly from Asia and the Pacific, have played an increasing role in shaping the contemporary linguistic landscape of Aotearoa New 21 Zealand (Ashton & Qi, 2025; Spoonley, 2023). The approach to language education of Aotearoa New Zealand has evolved alongside broader language policy debates and curricular reform (East et al., 2022). The 1987 curriculum review marked a turning point by recommending the development of a national language policy, which would recognise the role of English, te reo Māori, Pasifika languages, and international languages across both L1 and L2 contexts (East et al., 2022; Waite, 1992). This call was reaffirmed by Waite (1992), who argued for the need to address the linguistic needs of a diverse and increasingly globalised society. However, despite repeated advocacy, no formal national languages policy has ever been implemented in Aotearoa New Zealand (East et al., 2022). Language learning gained more visibility with the 1993 New Zealand Curriculum Framework (NZCF), which recommended that students in Years 7 to 10 be given the opportunity to study an additional language. Yet, as East et al. (2022) note, L2 learning was often marginalised in practice, largely because it was subsumed under a broader learning area—Language and Languages—that prioritised English, enabling schools to meet curriculum expectations without offering foreign language instruction. A more substantial shift occurred with the publication of the New Zealand Curriculum in 2007, which introduced Learning Languages as a distinct learning area. L2 learning was framed as an “entitlement” rather than a compulsory requirement (East et al., 2022, p. 52), meaning that schools were expected to provide L2-learning opportunities (Skyrme & Ker, 2020), but students were not required to participate in them unless individual schools chose to make language learning mandatory within their local curriculum structures. The revised 2007 New Zealand Curriculum nevertheless created space for L2 programmes in Years 7 to 10 and reinforced a communicative orientation to language learning (East et al., 2022; Ministry of Education, 2007). It stated that “learning a new language extends students’ linguistic and cultural understanding and their ability to interact appropriately with other speakers” (Ministry of Education, 2007, p. 24). The 2007 Curriculum thus emphasises that the core objective of language learning is to 22 develop students’ Communicative Competence, encompassing accuracy, fluency and behavioural appropriateness in language use, while also placing greater emphasis on cultural understanding and interaction. The New Zealand Curriculum provides a structured framework for language learning in which language knowledge and cultural knowledge are positioned as two complementary strands that work together to support the overarching goal of communication (Ministry of Education, 2007). This configuration reflects a core principle of the New Zealand Curriculum, namely that effective communication is built upon a solid understanding of how language works and how it is shaped by cultural context. These strands define both curriculum structure and a progressive learning pathway, ensuring systematic skill development. According to the New Zealand Curriculum (Ministry of Education, 2007), the communication strand, as the core, focuses on developing students’ ability to use the target language effectively. It enhances both receptive (listening, reading, viewing) and productive (speaking, writing, presenting) skills, guiding learners from basic expressions to complex interactions. The language knowledge strand supports communicative development by fostering an understanding of linguistic structures, including grammar, vocabulary, and text organisation. Over time, this enables learners to progress from basic comprehension to analysing meaning across diverse contexts. The cultural knowledge strand deepens students’ awareness of the relationship between language and culture, requiring them to reflect on and critically analyse cultural values, norms, and practices. Together, these strands create a cohesive, progressive framework, embedding linguistic and intercultural development from the outset. While the 2007 New Zealand Curriculum remained in place during the period of this study, it is important to note that a comprehensive curriculum refresh is currently underway. This national initiative represents the most significant revision to the curriculum since 2007, aiming to create a more structured, knowledge-rich, and consistent foundation for learning across Aotearoa New Zealand. The refreshed curriculum is being released in phases, with full 23 implementation expected by 2027. Nevertheless, during the time of this research, the 2007 New Zealand Curriculum continued to guide language teaching in most secondary schools and served as the primary policy framework for understanding Communicative Competence in classroom practice. 2.2.2 Communicative Language Teaching and Intercultural Communicative Language Teaching The concept of Communicative Competence has profoundly shaped modern language pedagogy, prompting a shift from structuralist paradigms to a focus on meaningful, purposeful language use (Canale, 1983; Savignon, 2002). Emerging in response to the limitations of grammar-focused instruction, CLT advocates for authentic communication, learner interaction, and the negotiation of meaning (Littlewood, 1981; Richards & Rodgers, 2014). Rather than prescribing rigid techniques, CLT functions as a flexible pedagogical approach grounded in core principles such as balancing fluency and accuracy, engaging learners in functional tasks, and fostering interactional competence (Larsen-Freeman & Anderson, 2013). These principles are often realised through activities like role-plays, problem-solving tasks, and information gap exercises (Larsen-Freeman & Anderson, 2013), and further operationalised through Task- Based Language Teaching, which promotes agency and language development through goal- oriented communication (Littlewood, 1981; Richards & Rodgers, 2014). However, while CLT prioritised authentic communication, its early conceptualisations offered only limited engagement with the cultural dimensions of language use. In response, ICLT represents a related but distinct pedagogical orientation that places ICC at the centre of its pedagogical goals (Liddicoat, 2008). Grounded in the notion that language and culture are inseparable, ICLT broadens the communicative focus to include intercultural awareness, critical reflection, and the ability to navigate cultural diversity in authentic contexts (Liddicoat & Scarino, 2010; Oberste-Berghaus, 2024). The theoretical and pedagogical significance of ICLT has been acknowledged globally through influential frameworks such as the U.S. 24 National Standards for Foreign Language Learning (National Standards in Foreign Language Education Project, 1999). Recent developments in Aotearoa New Zealand language education similarly reflect growing interest in integrating culture within communicative pedagogy. By embedding cultural inquiry into communicative practices, ICLT enriches the goals of CLT, fostering not only linguistic proficiency but also the capacity to engage meaningfully and ethically across cultures. While CLT has received extensive theoretical support, studies have shown that its implementation can be uneven, particularly in multilingual and multicultural contexts such as Aotearoa New Zealand. Although CLT promotes authentic communication and student interaction, its classroom realisation is often constrained by institutional, pedagogical, and sociocultural factors (Butler, 2011; Nam, 2023). In some contexts, teacher training and curriculum development prioritise grammatical accuracy and exam preparation, leading to a misalignment between pedagogical ideals and everyday teaching practice (Fatima et al., 2024). Where high-stakes assessments prevail, and teacher-led instruction dominates, the inherently interactive nature of CLT may be difficult to sustain (Nam, 2023; Ngoc & Iwashita, 2012). In Aotearoa New Zealand, the implementation of CLT reflects both opportunity and constraint. Although the New Zealand Curriculum endorses communicative goals, translating these into practice is shaped by broader systemic pressures. One such influence is the National Certificate of Educational Achievement (NCEA), which reoriented senior-level language assessment from Converse, a scripted oral test, to Interact, which emphasises spontaneous and co-constructed communication (East, 2016). This shift reflected an effort to align assessment more closely with CLT principles. Yet, as East (2016) notes, many teachers expressed concerns about the logistical complexity and reliability of such tasks. Moreover, junior secondary teaching (Years 9–10), although formally outside NCEA, is often driven by implicit preparation for senior standards, leading to alignment in curriculum focus and pedagogical strategies across year levels (Hipkins, 2010; Hipkins & Spiller, 2012). 25 Whereas CLT focuses primarily on communicative fluency and meaning negotiation, ICLT repositions language learning as a process of intercultural engagement. However, while language education curricula (e.g., Ministry of Education, 2007; National Standards in Foreign Language Education Project, 1999) increasingly highlight intercultural goals, empirical research consistently shows a significant gap between aspiration and enactment. This gap is illustrated by international studies showing that, although teachers often support the idea of fostering intercultural competence, their practices are constrained by curricular pressures and by the lack of suitable pedagogical models (Oberste-Berghaus, 2024; Young & Sachdev, 2011). Also, Shishkina and Ushakova (2019) show that meaningful integration remains challenging without sustained professional learning and institutional support. This tension is also evident in Aotearoa New Zealand. The national curriculum articulates intercultural competence as a key outcome of language learning (Ministry of Education, 2007), and Newton et al. (2015) outline six principles for implementing ICLT, including integrating language and culture from the outset, fostering comparison, and encouraging interaction. Yet Newton et al. (2015) found that teachers felt underprepared to implement these principles, citing insufficient training and a lack of practical resources. Similarly, Oranje and Smith (2018) found a disconnect between teachers’ stated support for intercultural goals and their classroom practices, shaped in part by external pressures and internal uncertainties. Further classroom-based research echoes these findings. Kennedy (2016), in her case study of a Chinese language class in Aotearoa New Zealand, found that while intercultural moments sometimes arose, they were rarely planned or pedagogically framed. Without intentional design, cultural references tended to remain superficial, centred on topics like food or festivals, rather than fostering reflective engagement or cultural comparison (Liddicoat & Scarino, 2010). These findings suggest that even when teachers value the intercultural dimension, they may lack the conceptual or practical tools to make it a consistent part of their pedagogy (Kennedy, 2016; Liddicoat & Scarino, 2010; Oranje & Smith, 2018). Moreover, recent research has also underscored the need to consider the local sociolinguistic 26 realities of Aotearoa New Zealand classrooms. Qi (2024) argues that culturally responsive pedagogy, which shares conceptual ground with ICLT, must be tailored to New Zealand’s superdiverse learning environments. Her study reveals that teachers’ interpretations of intercultural teaching are deeply shaped by their professional histories and school contexts. However, Conway and Richards (2017) found that while teachers acknowledged student diversity, their responses were often broad and lacked the specificity needed for deeper intercultural engagement. In addition, much of the existing ICLT literature has focused on commonly taught foreign- language subjects (e.g., Ruan & Medwell, 2020; Shadiev & Yu, 2024). This focus has tended to overlook more complex multilingual and multimodal settings. In Aotearoa New Zealand, language subjects taught in schools may include not only commonly taught additional languages, but also indigenous and signed languages such as te reo Māori and NZSL, each of which presents unique pedagogical and cultural considerations. Te reo Māori, as an official language with its own curriculum framework (Ministry of Education, 2009), is deeply embedded in cultural and political imperatives shaped by the Treaty of Waitangi (Ministry of Education, 2011). Teachers of te reo Māori often operate within a more detailed educational curriculum and bring distinct understandings of language, culture, and identity (Ministry of Education, 2011). NZSL, on the other hand, poses additional pedagogical challenges due to its visual-spatial modality and lack of a written form, features largely unaccounted for in mainstream ICLT models (Fox et al., 2025). Beyond these two languages, the broader language education landscape in New Zealand encompasses a diverse range of languages, including Chinese, Japanese, French, and Spanish. Despite growing recognition of this diversity, few studies have examined how secondary school language teachers in Aotearoa New Zealand integrate digital technologies into their teaching to support students’ development of Communicative Competence across different language subjects. East et al. (2022) begin to address this gap by exploring how primary and intermediate 27 language teachers in Aotearoa New Zealand attempted to develop ICC among young learners. The study highlights both the potential of professional development and teacher inquiry, as well as the challenges posed by limited time and assessment ambiguity. However, the study by East et al. (2022) focused primarily on fostering ICC and did not explore other dimensions of Communicative Competence in depth. Additionally, digital tools can offer potential for intercultural exchange and authentic interaction (e.g., Liu et al., 2023), at the same time, they also raise challenges related to pedagogy, access, and digital literacy. Studies have shown that although technologies have the potential to support the development of communicative competence, their effectiveness depends on thoughtful pedagogical design and teacher readiness (Conway & Richards, 2017; Oberste-Berghaus, 2024). In some cases, digital tools have been used to promote cultural awareness through telecollaboration and multimodal resources, yet persistent issues such as unequal access, teacher training gaps, and curriculum misalignment remain (Newton et al., 2015; Oranje & Smith, 2018). These issues point to the importance of examining both the pedagogical potential and the challenges that digital technologies pose in pursuing communicative goals in language education. 2.3 Integrating Digital Technologies in Language Teaching: Potential and Challenges As illustrated in Figure 2.1, digital competence functions as a cross-cutting dimension within the theoretical framework of Communicative Competence adopted in this study, influencing the development of its core components. In this sense, the integration of digital technology is not peripheral but central to understanding how Communicative Competence is enacted in contemporary language education. With the continued advancement of digital technologies, language learning and cultural exchange have increasingly moved beyond physical classrooms, supporting communication across linguistic and cultural contexts in more fluid and multimodal ways (Chun, Kern, & Smith, 2016; Kern, 2015; Reinders & White, 2016). As Chun, Kern and 28 Smith (2016, p. 65) pointed out, “Teachers must pay attention to technology not because it is either a boon or a threat, but because technology inevitably affects language use.” The New Zealand Curriculum also acknowledges this shift: “Learning a new language can expand students’ linguistic and cultural understanding … Such interaction, whether face-to-face or supported by technology, encourages students to think, question, and interpret the world and their place in it in new ways” (Ministry of Education, 2007, p. 24). This statement acknowledges the potential of technology as a medium for communication and learning, aligning with broader understandings of how digital tools can enrich linguistic input, foster multimodal expression, and enable authentic interaction to create a more immersive learning environment. Beyond the Learning Languages area, the New Zealand Curriculum also designates Technology as a distinct learning area, which has evolved to encompass the integration of digital technologies and their impact on how learners interact, create, and solve problems in an increasingly connected world. However, digital technologies do not inherently transform learning; their impact depends on how they are integrated into pedagogy for specific teaching content (Dashtestani & Hojatpanah, 2022; O’Rourke & Stickler, 2017; Stickler, 2022). Meanwhile, as digital technologies continue to reshape modes of interaction, Communicative Competence is increasingly understood to include the skills needed for navigating online platforms, interpreting multimodal content, and participating effectively in technology-supported exchanges (Ilomäki et al., 2016; Reinders & White, 2016). Guth and Helm (2010) similarly argue that traditional models of Communicative Competence, such as those proposed by Byram, require expansion to account for the complex social practices, multimodal literacies, and interactional demands that arise in online intercultural exchanges. From this perspective, learners need to develop the capacity to shift between synchronous and asynchronous communication modes, engage across visual, textual, and oral channels, and negotiate meaning in diverse digital spaces (Avgousti, 2018; Guth & Helm, 2010). Developing such competencies supports more meaningful participation in both face-to-face and virtual settings, enhancing learners’ Communicative Competence in technology-rich environments (Avgousti, 2018; Reinders & White, 2016). 29 This section reviews literature on teachers’ perceptions and classroom practices, considering how digital technologies support Communicative Competence and the constraints affecting their pedagogical use. In this study, “digital technologies” refer to internet-based tools, software, and multimedia resources in language teaching. These technologies have the potential to facilitate content delivery (Yükselir, 2016) and promote learner engagement (Dehghanzadeh et al., 2021), support multimedia input (Lim & Aryadoust, 2021), enable interactive communication (Avgousti, 2018), and simulate real-world experiences (Shadiev & Yu, 2024). When thoughtfully integrated into pedagogy, they can support the development of Communicative Competence by enabling authentic interaction (Chen & Yang, 2016), multimodal meaning-making (Avgousti, 2018), and cross-cultural exchange (Susilo et al., 2023). The following two sections review empirical studies on how language teachers perceive and implement digital technologies in classroom practice, with particular attention to how these practices align with the dimensions of Communicative Competence outlined in Figure 2.1. The first focuses on the potential of digital technologies in language teaching and the specific constraints reported in relation to these practices, including uses linked to Communicative Competence as well as broader teaching purposes. The second examines studies that identify challenges between teachers’ stated perceptions and their actual implementation. 2.3.1 The Potential of Integrating Digital Technologies in Language Teaching and Learning This section reviews the potential identified in the literature for integrating digital technologies into language teaching, particularly in ways that support the development of Communicative Competence. The reviewed studies highlight several pedagogical potentials, including enhancing language input (e.g., Bahrani et al., 2014; Golonka et al., 2014), expanding o