Marco Referencial

Languages education in Australia is one of the eight key learning areas, however it does not appear to be afforded the prominence of English, Numeracy, or other STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering and Maths) subjects. Despite almost 70 reports

38

and investigations being conducted over the past two decades concerning Australia’s languages education, it is reported that “senior secondary languages enrolments, as a measure of systemic change, have not increased” (AEF, 2014 p.13). In 2014, the AEF (2014) report estimated that only 11% of Year 11 and 12 students were studying a second language (AEF, 2014), which means that 89% of students were choosing subjects other than languages. As these figures have remained low but stable over the past two decades, it can be estimated that in the past two years since the report, enrolment figures are similar. This demonstrates that despite nearly a decade since it was first declared, the argument that languages education is a national catastrophe and tragedy, as well as an international embarrassment (Clyne et al., 2007), remains unfortunately extremely relevant. A provocative yet descriptive title was created for a Group of Eight (Go8) (2007) report: ‘Languages in Crisis: A rescue plan for

Australia’, indicating the peril that it argued national languages education was (and still is) experiencing. The AEF (2014) report claimed that the pathway to Year 10 language learning is weak due to the non-compulsory status of languages after Year 8, which supports the argument of Liddicoat et al. (2007) that “languages at secondary school become elective too early for the learners to see the value of their learning” (p. 89). This is also in part due to the monolingual mindset of the nation, in which

students are not encouraged to value or study second languages. To this end, Scarino (2014) argued that Australia’s decade-old ‘ambivalent’ relationship with second language learning still persists “while the social, linguistic, cultural and educational contexts have become more complex” (p. 290), leading her to suggest that the relationship is better described as a state of inertia in which Clyne’s (2005) ‘monolingual mindset’ description prevails. This is demonstrated by Australia’s

39

literacy education which is “understood monolingually as literacy in English” (Scarino, 2014, p. 291) along with the modernist terms of an ‘inclusive’ education which Scarino (2014) argued is an additive, not transformative term, in which the ‘recognition’, ‘respect’ and ‘celebration’ of cultural diversity (but not linguistic diversity) is understood in regards to multiculturalism in education. While this mindset is affected by factors such as individual and national identity, and how the process of learning is understood (Scarino, 2014), it is also strong due to the majority of the population speaking only English at home, encouraging the narrow view that English is enough due to its status as a global lingua franca. Nationally, 76.8% of the population speak only English at home (Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2013a), and this rises to 91.7 when considering Tasmania independently (Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2013b). This data is represented by Figure 2.1 (AEF, 2014, p. 32), which depicts the spread of English-only speakers across Australia. As Tinsley and Board (2013) explained, “the incentive to step outside the comfort of the mother tongue is weak when you already speak the world’s lingua franca” (para. 2), however despite the current popularity of English as a global language, native speakers of Mandarin Chinese and Spanish already surpass the total of native English speakers.

Furthermore, as depicted by Figure 2.2, these top three most widely spoken native languages also have extremely large numbers of the global population speaking them as second language users (Tinsley & Board, 2014). Therefore, the threat to global English and the importance of the Asian century are clearly demonstrated, and the need for second language skills are high.

A report for the Longitudinal Surveys of Australian Youth (LSAY) research project revealed that only two percent of Year 12 enrolments were for a second

40

Figure 2.1: The spread of English-only speakers across Australia

Figure 2.2: The top three most widely spoken languages, by first language speakers

(millions)

848

406

335

41

language subject, the lowest enrolment of the eight key learning areas (Fullarton et al., 2003). Despite receiving funding and political support, languages education

enrolment figures remained low between 1990 and 2001, with only Japanese experiencing an increase of student enrolment rates from 2.2% in 1993 to 2.7% in 2001 (Fullarton et al., 2003). The period from 1990 to 2001 saw overall language enrolments remain steady and small, with only 10 percent of the Year 12 cohort choosing a second language subject. Declines in traditional languages were matched by increases in Asian languages (Fullarton et al., 2003). These figures regarding steady enrolment rates and the shift in focus from European to Asian languages are also reported by the AEF (2014), demonstrating that this is still the current situation.

Policy challenges are one of the main issues facing Australia’s languages education. Although Languages are included as one of the Key Learning Areas in the Australian Curriculum, it is clearly stated that not all areas are afforded the same value, with the priority given to mathematics and English. This is demonstrated by the Melbourne Declaration (MCEETYA, 2008) which stated that “the learning areas are not of equal importance at all year levels” (p. 14) and Fernandaz (2008), who

explained that for Languages, “its struggle for acceptance as a legitimate area in its own right is ongoing” (p. 1). Furthermore, Scarino (2014) argued that when the ‘crowded curriculum’ issue is raised, Languages is often the easy target for reducing the crowding. In Australian education, there is no current requirement for the

provision of languages education beyond Years 7 and 8 (AEF, 2014). Furthermore, Language curricula do not mandate time allocations, instead they are indicative and can be implemented by each school or jurisdiction according to their conditions, so students may experience an increase or decrease in the curricula’s recommended

42

languages education time (AEF, 2014). According to Bense (2015), compared to other Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) countries

Australian students only spend half as much time studying a second language, with only 60 and 100 hours allocated for primary and secondary programs respectively (AEF, 2014). This is compounded by the fact that the new curriculum spans Foundation to Year 10, whereas in nearly all other OECD countries, students complete their education in Year 12 with at least one second language, receiving an additional two years of languages study. Discussing the challenges in NSW in regards to languages education, Flohm (2016, cited in Munro, 2016) stated that the mandated 100 hours of languages education in Years 7 and 8 is “tokenistic” (para 12), and believes that the state’s lack of strategic policy or plan for languages education will lead to further enrolment decline. In comparison, in European countries, languages education is valued, compulsory and in demand, substantive and sustained, and there are highly qualified language teachers (Education, Audiovisual and Cultural

Executive Agency [EACEA], 2012, as cited in AEF, 2011). Many countries which do not have English as a national language allocate two to four hours per week per language to their languages education (AEF, 2014) which further demonstrates the lack of provision regarding time for Australian students.

In his review of the Australian Curriculum, in regards to Language curricula and goals, Cole (2007) argued that to reach the stated goal of significantly increasing student enrolments in second language subjects, the delivery of languages education will require a significant change itself. Accordingly, this is because:

Resources are inadequate, qualified teachers of LOTE are scarce, opportunities to use second languages are limited, [and] a culture of

43

valuing a second language does not exist. Untangling what are the causes and what are the symptoms of this failure to ignite students’ interest in second language learning is complex. (Cole, 2007, pp. 8-9) Cole (2007) suggested that in Australian education too many languages are offered, providing a disjointed learning pathway for students. He recommended that second language learning be limited to a core group of languages (two Asian and two European) so that second language communities of students can be developed in which students are able to practise their skills in conversation, as well as targeted teacher training and resource provision to hence deliver a quality education (Cole, 2007). Director of the Asia Education Foundation (AEF), Kathe Kirby (2016, as cited in Vukovic, 2016), argued that Australia should focus on just two languages like overseas models of languages education, a focus which, like Cole (2007), she argued would assist in addressing the issues of teacher training and professional learning. However, Scarino (2014), who was involved in planning the Languages framework, explained that making the national curriculum inclusive of all languages was “based on a view of justice for all and respect for linguistic diversity” (p. 296). Those involved in the discussion who favoured the focus to be on a small number of languages were described as having the view that less languages reduces the complexity of provision and the simplification allowing the implementation of sustainable language programmes from K – 12 (Scarino, 2014). Although reducing the amount of languages taught would allow a more manageable and sustainable languages education programme, it is at the exclusion of other languages, and this relates to Scarino’s (2014) previous argument regarding the Asian language focus. She argued that focusing on a small selection of languages ignores the “diverse

44

languages used by the local community – languages that are part of Australia’s linguistic and cultural resources that should be maintained and developed, and

languages that are an integral part of local people’s identities” (p. 293). Therefore, the new Languages curriculum was developed to include a diverse range of languages.

According to Scarino (2014) for the past twenty five years the term ‘policy’ in general languages education has been replaced with ‘plans’, ‘strategies’ and

‘programmes’, which she argued “do not constitute a policy and do not hold the same sense of mandate or commitment” (p. 292), and this is where one of the major

challenges for languages education lies. Although the NALSSP program initially saw rises in Chinese language enrolments, since 2010 they began to decline again (AEF, 2014), suggesting that funding initiatives are not the solution, at least as an exclusive measure, to solving the challenges in our languages education. According to the AEF (2014) report, “the relatively stable enrolment numbers for senior secondary

languages nationally indicates that current conditions in systems and schools are not conducive to building and sustaining student demand for languages” (p.13). While this is certainly true, in the present research study it was hypothesised that there was demand for languages education, however there were barriers preventing the uptake of language subjects. Therefore, in this thesis it is argued that the current conditions in systems and schools are also not conducive to meeting the demand and enabling students to study an elective second language. Additionally, the AEF (2014) report posited that:

Student demand for languages at Years 11 and 12 is inextricably linked to senior secondary certification structures in Australia. The creation of optimum conditions for students to select languages at the point of

45

senior secondary subject choice will be essential to scaling up enrolments. (p. 13)

This argument for the creation of optimum conditions is an integral point, not only in senior secondary languages education but in all Years in which language subjects are non-compulsory. This is demonstrated by the factors which affect students’ subject choices at school, and how these impact on the uptake of elective second language subjects. Factors include motivations which influence student enrolment in an elective L2, and barriers which prevent enrolment.