policy and implementation for the teaching of asian ... · 3.2.3 the australian language and...
TRANSCRIPT
Policy and Implementation for the Teaching of Asian Languages in
Australian Primary Schools - A Case Study of Japanese in Victoria
Shinji Okumura
BA, Aoyama Gakuin University, MA, Central Michigan University
A thesis submitted for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy at
Monash University in 2015
School of Languages, Literatures, Cultures and Linguistics
i
COPYRIGHT NOTICE
© The author (2015). Except as provided in the Copyright Act 1968, this thesis may not
be reproduced in any form without the written permission of the author.
ii
DECLARATION
This thesis contains no material which has been accepted for the award of any other
degree or diploma at any university or equivalent institution and that, to the best of my
knowledge and belief, this thesis contains no material previously published or written by
another person, except where due reference is made in the text of the thesis.
iii
ABSTRACT
This thesis provides a snapshot of recent language policy initiatives and examines how
languages education is being implemented in Victoria in four Primary schools,
exploring the nexus between policy and practice. The thesis takes a case study
approach, drawing upon interview data from primary school principals, Japanese
language teachers, and classroom teachers, as well as government personnel, and
members of language teachers’ associations. In examining the connection between
policy “intention” and its “implementation” (Lo Bianco and Aliani, 2013) the study
applies my expansion of Kaplan and Baldauf’s (1997, 2005) seven components for the
examination of the implementation of language-in-education policy.
This study identifies several distinctive policy intentions of the Victorian Government
which were intended to enable the facilitation of languages education for a student’s
personal development, social development, and economic success in this multicultural
society. The study particularly confirmed that the Victorian language policy was
formulated based on various research insights related to language education and was
evaluated reflectively. Furthermore, the Victorian Government actively involved the
local community in the policy implementation, which allowed the local community to
acknowledge the importance of languages education and to develop the quality of
languages education in Victoria.
In regard to the nexus between policy and practice, the study identifies various positive
impacts of policy, which arose with and were strengthened by the provision of extra
funding, often leading to successful implementation and practice within the Japanese
iv
programs examined. The current study, in particular, confirmed that strong relationships
between policy and practice resulted in the development and expansion of new
technology and the ability to explore authentic opportunities for languages education.
This study also identifies, however, that in the key area of curriculum the nexus
between policy and practice was more problematic. Although policy initiatives
supporting innovative approaches such as CLIL, and initiatives aimed at strengthening
the links between primary and secondary programs resulted in promising new
developments in the focal schools, these were undermined by failures in other policy
and resource areas to provide appropriate support. In particular, policies on the goals of
language teaching, and teaching time allocation were regarded by schools as unrealistic
and un-implementable, within existing school structures and budgets. In addition, in
some cases training and information for both Japanese teachers and other school
personnel was inadequate to ensure that innovative approaches were properly
understood, and that teachers had the skills and supportive conditions to implement
them. In these cases, the intention of the policy was not effectively captured in its
implementation.
Considering the above-mentioned findings, the study therefore argues for the significance
of the continuity of involving all community members who are associated with language-
in-education policy and its implementation, and ensuring that policy ideas are matched
by adequate resourcing and adjustments to educational structures, and are implemented
in a measured and sustainable way. The continuing wider involvement of all participants
and a greater match between policy ideas and the supports needed to implement them will
lead to the provision of more developed languages education for children in Victoria.
v
ACKNOWLDGEMENT
First and foremost, I would like to express my sincere appreciation to all the participants
in this study for providing with me their experiences and opinions. Without their
generous cooperation, this study would not have been possible.
I also wish to thank Dr Robyn Spence-Brown, my primary supervisor, for her warm
support and eternal passion for Japanese language education. Robyn “sensei” has
inspired me with her deep insight and supported me with her warm encouragements. I
also thank Associate Professor Helen Marriott, my former primary supervisor, who
guided me throughout the development of this research, and moreover, without her
primary assistance when I commenced my study, I would not be where I am today.
I express my appreciation to Monash University. I would not have been able to
complete this thesis without the financial support provided by the scholarships funded
by Monash University Institute of Graduate Research.
A special expression of gratitude goes to my friends and colleagues who always
encouraged me and commented professionally on my study. Special thanks also to Hiroshi
Honda and Carmel Campbell for their valuable assistance in regard to collecting and
managing data.
Finally, I would like to thank all of my family members, especially Keiko, Mariko and
Kotaro for all their understanding and sincere support they provided me through the
duration of my study.
vi
TABLE OF CONTENTS
COPYRIGHT NOTICE .................................................................................................. i
DECLARATION ............................................................................................................ ii
ABSTRACT ................................................................................................................... iii
ACKNOWLDGEMENT .................................................................................................v
TABLE OF CONTENTS .............................................................................................. vi
LIST OF TABLES ........................................................................................................ xii
LIST OF FIGURES ...................................................................................................... xii
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ..................................................................................... xiii
TERMINOLOGY ..........................................................................................................xv
Chapter 1: Introduction ..................................................................................................1
1.1 Why is foreign language education important in the world?.................................. 1
1.2 Advantages of early foreign language education ................................................... 2
1.3 Early foreign language education in English-speaking contexts ............................ 2
1.4 Asia and Asian languages for Australia ................................................................. 4
1.5 Japan and Japanese language for Australia ............................................................ 6
1.6 Education systems of Australia .............................................................................. 8
1.7 Significant characteristics of Australian education .............................................. 10
1.8 Significance of the current study .......................................................................... 12
1.9 Research questions ............................................................................................... 13
1.10 Outline of the thesis ............................................................................................ 15
Chapter 2: Language-in-education policy, curriculum and foreign .........................18
language education ........................................................................................................18
2.1 Language-in-education policy .............................................................................. 18
2.1.1 Foreign language-in-education policy ........................................................... 19
2.1.2 Agencies of foreign language-in-education policy ........................................ 19
2.1.3 Analytic frameworks for language-in-education policy for foreign language
education ................................................................................................................. 20
2.2 National/State curriculum frameworks as language-in-education policy............. 23
2.2.1 The Definition of curriculum ......................................................................... 23
2.2.2 Analytical frameworks for language curriculum ........................................... 24
2.3 Concepts related to targets of foreign language teaching ..................................... 26
2.3.1 Communicative competence.......................................................................... 26
2.3.2 Basic Interpersonal Communication Skills and Cognitive/Academic
Language Proficiency ............................................................................................. 27
vii
2.3.3 Cultural competence ...................................................................................... 28
2.3.4 Intercultural competence ............................................................................... 29
2.3.5 Students’ engagement .................................................................................... 31
2.4 Teaching methods for foreign languages.............................................................. 33
2.4.1 Language-centred approaches ....................................................................... 33
2.4.2 Content-based approaches to foreign language teaching .............................. 35
2.4.3 Teacher-centred and learned-centred approaches.......................................... 44
2.5 Conceptual framework of this study ..................................................................... 45
Chapter 3: The history of language-in-education policies in Australia ...................48
3.1 Introduction .......................................................................................................... 48
3.2 The history of language-in-education policies of the Federal Government ......... 50
3.2.1 Language policies until the 1980s ................................................................. 50
3.2.2 The National Policy on Languages ................................................................ 51
3.2.3 The Australian Language and Literacy Policy .............................................. 53
3.2.4 The National Asian Languages and Studies in Australian Schools Program 56
3.2.5 National Statement for Languages Education in Australian Schools: National
Plan for Languages Education in Australian Schools 2005-2008 .......................... 60
3.2.6 National Asian Languages and Studies in Schools Program ......................... 63
3.2.7 Australia in the Asian Century ...................................................................... 64
3.2.8 Language policy under the Abbott Federal Government .............................. 64
3.2.9 Issues in the Federal Government language-in- education policies .............. 66
3.3 The history of language-in-education policies in Victoria ................................... 67
3.3.1 The Place of Languages in Victorian Schools ............................................... 68
3.3.2 Languages Action Plan .................................................................................. 70
3.3.3 The LOTE Strategy Plan ............................................................................... 71
3.3.4 The Victorian Government’s Vision for Language Education ...................... 73
3.3.5 Languages-expanding your world: Plan to implement The Victorian .......... 73
Government’s Vision for Languages Education 2013-2025 .................................. 73
3.3.6 Issues in language-in-education policies of the Victorian Government ........ 74
3.4 National/State language curriculum frameworks as language-in-education policy
.................................................................................................................................... 75
3.4.1 The Australian Curriculum: Languages ........................................................ 75
3.4.2 The Curriculum and Standards Framework in Victoria ................................ 76
3.4.3 The Victorian Essential Learning Standards ................................................. 77
3.4.4 The Australian Curriculum in Victoria .......................................................... 78
3.4.5 Issues of national and Victorian State language curriculum frameworks ..... 79
viii
Chapter 4: Japanese language education in Australia ...............................................81
4.1 Brief history of Japanese language education in Australia................................... 81
4.2 Japanese language education in Australian primary schools ............................... 83
4.3 Situation of Japanese language education in Victoria .......................................... 84
4.4 Support from quasi and non-government organisations for Japanese language
education in Victoria .................................................................................................. 85
4.4.1 The Japan Foundation .................................................................................... 86
4.4.2 The Melbourne Centre for Japanese Language Education ............................ 87
4.4.3 The Modern Language Teachers’ Association of Victoria ........................... 87
4.4.4 The Japanese Language Teachers’ Association of Victoria .......................... 88
4.5 Practices of primary Japanese education in Australia .......................................... 89
4.6 Issues of Japanese language education in Australia ............................................. 91
4.6.1 Issues related to access policy ....................................................................... 91
4.6.2 Issues related to personnel policy .................................................................. 94
4.6.3 Issues related to curriculum policy ................................................................ 99
4.6.4 Issues related to methods and material policy ............................................. 101
4.6.5 Issues related to community policy ............................................................. 103
4.6.6 Issues related to resourcing policy............................................................... 105
4.6.7 Issues related to educational structures in primary education in Australia . 106
Chapter 5: Methodology .............................................................................................107
5.1 Overall research method ..................................................................................... 107
5.2 The data for the current study ............................................................................. 109
5.3 Data collection methods and procedures ............................................................ 110
5.3.1 Semi-structured interviews .......................................................................... 110
5.3.2 Interviews with school participants ............................................................. 112
5.3.3 Interviews with stakeholders ....................................................................... 120
5.3.4 Written documents ....................................................................................... 123
5.4 Limitations and issues in collecting data ............................................................ 125
5.5 Data analysis ....................................................................................................... 125
5.5.1 Methods of data analysis ............................................................................. 125
5.5.2 Transcription ................................................................................................ 126
5.5.3 Data analysis procedure ............................................................................... 127
Chapter 6: Recent language-in-education policies ...................................................129
6.1 Policies under the Rudd and Gillard Federal Government ................................. 130
6.1.1 Policy initiatives of the NALSSP ................................................................ 130
6.1.2 Policy initiatives of “Australian in the Asian Century” .............................. 133
ix
6.2 Policy initiatives of the recent Victorian language-in-education policy and
implementation plan ................................................................................................. 135
6.2.1 The structure of the current policy formulation and implementation in
Victoria ................................................................................................................. 135
6.2.2 Access policy ............................................................................................... 139
6.2.3 Personnel policy .......................................................................................... 142
6.2.4 Curriculum policy ........................................................................................ 144
6.2.5 Methods and material policy ....................................................................... 148
6.2.6 Resourcing policy ........................................................................................ 150
6.2.7 Community policy ....................................................................................... 152
6.2.8 Evaluation policy ......................................................................................... 155
6.3 Conclusion .......................................................................................................... 157
Chapter 7: Practices of Japanese language education in primary schools ............160
7.1 The case of School A .......................................................................................... 160
7.1.1 School profile .............................................................................................. 160
7.1.2 Access policy ............................................................................................... 160
7.1.3 Personal policy ............................................................................................ 162
7.1.4 Curriculum policy ........................................................................................ 165
7.1.5 Methods and material policy ....................................................................... 169
7.1.6 Resourcing policy ........................................................................................ 174
7.1.7 Community policy ....................................................................................... 176
7.1.8 Evaluation policy ......................................................................................... 178
7.2 The case of School B .......................................................................................... 179
7.2.1 School profile .............................................................................................. 179
7.2.2 Access policy ............................................................................................... 179
7.2.3 Personnel policy .......................................................................................... 181
7.2.4 Curriculum policy ........................................................................................ 182
7.2.5 Methods and material policy ....................................................................... 185
7.2.6 Resourcing policy ........................................................................................ 188
7.2.7 Community policy ....................................................................................... 190
7.2.8 Evaluation policy ......................................................................................... 192
7.3 The case of School C .......................................................................................... 193
7.3.1 School profile .............................................................................................. 193
7.3.2 Access policy ............................................................................................... 194
7.3.3 Personnel policy .......................................................................................... 196
7.3.4 Curriculum policy ........................................................................................ 197
x
7.3.5 Methods and material policy ....................................................................... 200
7.3.6 Resourcing policy ........................................................................................ 205
7.3.7 Community policy ....................................................................................... 208
7.3.8 Evaluation policy ......................................................................................... 210
7.4 The case of School D .......................................................................................... 211
7.4.1 School profile .............................................................................................. 211
7.4.2 Access policy ............................................................................................... 211
7.4.3 Personnel policy .......................................................................................... 213
7.4.4 Curriculum policy ........................................................................................ 215
7.4.5 Methods and material policy ....................................................................... 217
7.4.6 Resourcing policy ........................................................................................ 220
7.4.7 Community policy ....................................................................................... 221
7.4.8 Evaluation policy ......................................................................................... 222
7.5 Conclusion .......................................................................................................... 223
Chapter 8: The nexus between policy and practice ..................................................226
8.1 Access policy ...................................................................................................... 226
8.1.1 Selection of languages ................................................................................. 226
8.1.2 Articulation between primary and secondary schools ................................. 228
8.2 Personnel policy ................................................................................................. 231
8.2.1 Teacher supply ............................................................................................. 231
8.2.2 Language teacher’s status ............................................................................ 232
8.2.3 Teacher quality ............................................................................................ 235
8.3 Curriculum policy ............................................................................................... 237
8.3.1 Objectives and outcomes ............................................................................. 237
8.3.2 Syllabus ....................................................................................................... 240
8.3.3 Time allocation for Japanese education....................................................... 241
8.4 Methods and material policy .............................................................................. 242
8.4.1 Teaching methods and activities.................................................................. 242
8.4.2 CLIL ............................................................................................................ 244
8.4.3 Materials ...................................................................................................... 247
8.4.4 Use of ICT ................................................................................................... 249
8.5 Resourcing policy ............................................................................................... 250
8.5.1 Funding from the Federal Government ....................................................... 250
8.5.2 Funding from the Victorian Government .................................................... 251
8.6 Community policy .............................................................................................. 252
8.6.1 Involvement of the local community ........................................................... 252
xi
8.6.2 Involvement of the global community ........................................................ 253
8.6.3 Use of Japanese assistants ........................................................................... 254
8.7 Evaluation policy ................................................................................................ 255
8.7.1 Evaluation of Japanese programs in schools ............................................... 255
8.7.2 Assessment of students’ progress in schools ............................................... 256
8.8 Conclusion .......................................................................................................... 257
Chapter 9: Conclusion ................................................................................................260
9.1 Summary of major findings- Policy and implementation in Victoria ................ 260
9.1.1 Areas of strength in policy and implementation .......................................... 260
9.1.2 Areas of weakness in policy and implementation ....................................... 266
9.2 Contribution of the study to foreign language-in-education policy and
implementation ......................................................................................................... 270
9.2.1 Implication for policy makers...................................................................... 270
9.2.2 Implication for school principals ................................................................. 271
9.2.3 Implication for languages teachers .............................................................. 271
9.3 Limitations of the study and directions for future research ................................ 272
REFERENCES ............................................................................................................275
APPENDIX 1: Overview of language-in-education policy in Australia .................301
APPENDIX 2: Sample questions for the school participants ..................................302
APPENDIX 3: Sample questions for the personnel of the current .........................305
governmental education agencies ...............................................................................305
APPENDIX 4: Sample questions for the personnel of the former governmental
education agencies ...................................................................................................... 306
APPENDIX 5: Sample questions for the representatives of non-government
organisations ............................................................................................................... 307
xii
LIST OF TABLES
TABLE 1.1 STRUCTURES OF PRIMARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION ACROSS STATES AND
TERRITORIES ........................................................................................................... 10
TABLE 4.1 ENROLMENT TRENDS IN JAPANESE, 2007-14 (DEECD, 2014A, P.15).............. 85
TABLE 5.1 THE SCHOOL PARTICIPANTS AND THE INTERVIEW DATES ................................. 117
TABLE 5.2 THE BACKGROUNDS OF THE JAPANESE LANGUAGE TEACHERS ..................... 119
TABLE 5.3 THE PARTICIPANTS AND THE INTERVIEW DATE FOR THE GOVERNMENTAL
EDUCATION AGENCIES ............................................................................................ 122
TABLE 5.4 THE PARTICIPANTS AND THE INTERVIEW DATE FOR TEACHERS’ ASSOCIATIONS IN
VICTORIA .............................................................................................................. 123
TABLE 5.5 LIST OF WEBSITES OF GOVERNMENTAL EDUCATION AGENCIES .................... 124
LIST OF FIGURES
FIGURE 2.1 COMPARISON OF THREE CLIL TYPES (FROM IKEDA, 2013, P. 32) ................... 41
FIGURE 2.3 THE 4CS FRAMEWORK (COYLE, 2008, P.551) ............................................... 42
FIGURE 2.5 DIAGRAM OF THE CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORKS OF THE STUDY ...................... 47
FIGURE 6.1 DEECD’S REGIONAL BOUNDARIES (DEECD, 2013B) ................................ 138
xiii
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
Abbreviations Full name
ACER Australian Council of Educational Research
ACARA Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority
AEF Asia Education Foundation
ALLP Australian Language and Literacy Policy
APEC Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation
ATJP Assistants to Teachers of Japanese Program
BALGS Becoming Asia Literate: Grants to Schools
BICS Basic Interpersonal Communication Skills
CALP Cognitive/Academic Language Proficiency
CBI Content-based Instruction
CCLAIR Council of Local Authorities on International Relations
CLIL Content and Languages Integrated Learning
CSF Curriculum and Standards Framework
COAG Council of Australian Governments
DEECD (Victoria) Department of Education and Early Childhood
DEET (Federal) Department of Employment, Education and Training
DEEWR (Federal) Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations
DE&T (NSW) Department of Education and Training
DE&T (Victoria) Department of Education and Training
DET&YA (Federal) Department of Education Training and Youth Affairs
ECSEG (Victoria) Early Childhood School Education Group
EFL English as a Foreign Language
ELLA Early Learning Languages Australia
FLES Foreign Languages in Elementary Schools
FLEX Foreign Language Exploratory Program
ICT Information Communication Technology
IELTS International English Language Testing System
ILPIC Innovative Language Provision in Clusters
xiv
Abbreviations Full name
ILY International Literacy Year
ISLPR International Secondary Language Proficiency Rating
JAT Japanese Assistant Teacher
JLTAV Japanese Language Teachers’ Association of Victoria
LOTE Languages Other than English (see also Terminology)
LPAC Language Policy Across the Curriculum
MACMME (Victoria)
Ministerial Advisory Committee on Multicultural and Migrant
Education
MACLEM (Victoria) Ministerial Advisory Council on Languages Other Than English
MCEETYA (Federal)
Ministerial Council on Education Employment Training and Youth
Affairs
MCJLE Melbourne Centre for Japanese Language Education
MLTAV Modern Languages Teachers’ Association of Victoria
NALSAS National Asian Languages and Studies in Australian Schools
NALSSP National Asian Languages and Studies in School Program
NPL National Policy on Languages
PEAT Professional English Assessment for Teachers
PD Professional Development
SSCEA (Federal) Senate Standing Committee on Education and the Arts
SRP Student Resource Package
TOEFL Test of English as a Foreign Language
VCAA Victorian Curriculum and Assessment Authority
VSL Victorian School of Languages
xv
TERMINOLOGY
1. Languages Other than English (LOTE)
In Australia, the term “Languages Other than English (LOTE)” was formally given to
the subject concerning various additional languages at Australian schools, and was
officially utilised in the documents of federal language policies. This term is still used in
the policy documents and official reports in some States (e.g., NSW), and similarly
many schools throughout the country continue to use the term LOTE.
2. Languages
In the “National Statement for Languages Education in Australian Schools/the National
Plan for Languages Education in Australian Schools 2005-2008” (MCCEETYA, 2005),
the term “Languages” was used in place of the term “Languages Other Than English”.
This term refers to all languages other than English, including Australian indigenous
languages and AUSLAN (MCCEETYA, 2005, p.2). Since then this term has been used
in federal language policy documents and official reports. Since then the Victorian
Government has used the term “Languages” in their official language policy documents
including the website pages of the education department and official reports by the
department.
1
Chapter 1: Introduction
1.1 Why is foreign language education important in the world?
This thesis deals with foreign language-in-education polices and their implementation in
schools, while exploring some of the gaps that exist between policy and practice. A
foreign language is essentially any language which is not native to a specific region or
person. The notion of foreign languages varies from region to region and the persons
within a specific region. Kirsh (2008, p.11) proposes that the provision of foreign
language education is affected by several factors such as geographical and societal
factors (e.g., degree of exposure to the target language, attitudes toward language
learning), economic factors (e.g., a country’s economic requirements), political factors
(e.g., politics to endorse language learning, funding), and linguistic factors (e.g.,
closeness of the target language to the first language, teachers’ proficiency in the target
language). Similarly, Panda (2010) proposes the following five primary functions of
foreign language education: (1) “participatory function” which is to participate in
cultural activities such as foreign affairs, international trade and entertainment; (2)
“strategic function” which is to understand a language for security purposes; (3) “library
function” which is to refer to a language designated in a colonial policy (e.g., the spread
and dominion of English in India); (4) “utilitarian function” which is to study languages
for vocational or academic purposes (e.g., Chinese is a popular language in Australia
because of that country’s powerful economy) and (5) “plurialistic function” which has
the aim of plurilingualism and intercultural understanding. The above factors or
functions of foreign language education are closely associated with the development of
language policy, and policy makers’ consideration of why foreign languages are to be
2
taught and which language(s) is/are to be taught according to the primary objectives.
Moreover, foreign language education is often required or strongly encouraged in
primary and secondary education and an early start is a recent trend in many countries.
1.2 Advantages of early foreign language education
Many educationalists consider that an early start attains better results in the
development of foreign language competency, though others assume that an early start
is not necessary for better outcomes. Despite conflicts of an early start in foreign
language education, many academics agree on its impact on attitudes (Kirsh, 2008). In
this regard, Blondin et al. (1998) asserts that early foreign language education enhances
positive attitudes toward language learning, which sequentially nurture confidence,
enthusiasm, motivation, openness to pronunciation and a greater willingness to take
risks. Kirsh (2008) further points out that early foreign language education can develop
learners’ positive attitudes toward other cultures and reduce ethnocentric thinking,
racism and stereotyping. In relation to cultural advantages, Clyne et al. (1995),
additionally, proclaim that early foreign language learning promotes the development of
metalinguistic awareness and an ability to think and reflect about the nature and
function of language.
1.3 Early foreign language education in English-speaking contexts
Though various advantages can be recognized, as noted in the previous section, foreign
language education has not been emphasized in English-speaking countries such as the
United Kingdom and the United States. One significant reason for this is “the perceived
global dominance of English” (British Academy, 2009). In the United Kingdom, though
3
the French language has a long history in its foreign language education, it was in the
1990s that foreign language teaching became popular and it has been compulsory for
primary school students to be taught at least one language since 2010. In the United
States, foreign language education was popular in elementary schools during the 1950s
and 1960s, and many early language teaching programs were conducted. Nevertheless,
most programs disappeared due to lack of trained and proficient teachers, inappropriate
teaching methods, insufficient materials, transition problems and lack of appropriate
assessment procedures (Kirsh, 2008). Though the provision of learning foreign
languages increased in the late 1990s, in 2004 only 7 per cent of the 50 States required
schools to teach a foreign language to students between the age of 6 and 12 years of age
(Kirsh, 2008).
In the United States, three models of foreign language education exist: Foreign
Language Exploratory (FLEX) program, Foreign Languages in Elementary Schools
(FLES) and Immersion (Stewart, 2005). The first program focuses on the experience of
learning a foreign language and culture. The other two programs emphasize the
development of linguistic and cultural competence in the target language. On the other
hand, the lack of outcomes of foreign language education has contributed to doubts on
the value of foreign language education in elementary schools, and thus foreign
language education has not been significantly expanded or improved (Donato and
Tucker, 2010). On the other hand, Australia is an English-speaking country where
foreign language education has been diligently provided with strong policy initiatives
from the Federal and State Governments despite the issue of the dominance of English,
as mentioned above. With regard to foreign language education in primary schools,
4
though the provision varies across the State and Territories, the importance of an early
start has been recognized, and various languages have been taught in primary schools
throughout Australia. One significant reason for the enrichment of foreign language
education is that Australia has developed comprehensive language-in-education policy
and has placed an emphasis on foreign languages. Moreover, due to economic and
strategic relationships with Asian countries, the significance of Asian languages has
been highlighted in language-in-education policies and their implementation in recent
decades. Australia’s foreign language education is thus more Asia-centred than any
other English-speaking country.
1.4 Asia and Asian languages for Australia
Spolsky (2009, p.107) argues that “the teaching of what is clearly labelled as a foreign
language varies considerably”, and he emphasizes the importance of the choice of a
foreign language in such contexts. Spolsky (2009) suggests that the main forces related
to a language choice may be associated with historical (former colonial), geographical
(major regional languages), or economic (major trading partner) factors. In this respect,
some years earlier Lambert (1994) pointed out that Australia was choosing the
languages of the region they inhabit, namely Asia, as noted above. He contends, for
instance, that the powerful economy of Japan led to Japanese becoming a favoured
language in Australian schooling in the 1990s, when a significant increase in interest in
learning Japanese occurred. In more recent years, Chinese has been a focus of languages
education in Australia due to its increasing economic strength, and Australia’s
dependence on it. In the late 1980s, realisation that Australia needed to develop
integration with Asia has increased. It is mainly because Asia’s growing economic
5
powers have been key for enhancing Australia’s prosperity. Australia’s economy, in fact,
relies to a great extent on its relationships with Asia, and the economic benefits from
Asia have become significant for the nation as a whole. For example, Prime Minister
Bob Hawke called for more effective economic cooperation with a number of Asian
countries in 1989 and the Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC), aiming at
facilitating free trade and economic cooperation throughout the Asia-Pacific region, has
contributed to developing Australia’s close economic relationship with Asian countries,
including Japan. More recently, Australia’s top export destinations from 2000 to 2011
included China, Japan, South Korea and India (CPA Australia, 2012). The tourism
industry of Australia also demonstrates Australia’s growing dependence upon Asia
owing to an increasing number of Asian tourists visiting Australia. In the year to May
2012, Australia received 577,000 Chinese tourists who were the second largest group of
foreign tourists after New Zealand (Herscovitch, 2012).
Consequently, for the successful growth of Australia’s economy, Australia recognizes
that a more comprehensive ability to understand Asia and to communicate with Asian
people is necessary. This ability is now referred to as “Asia literacy” in Australia. The
idea of Asia literacy is that many Australian adolescents will speak an Asian language
and all of them will have knowledge, skills and understanding of cultures of various
Asian countries by the time they leave school (AEF, 2013). In recognition that the
progress of Asia literacy was an essential part of the national interest, the Keating
Labour Government released the National Asian Languages and Studies in Australian
Schools (NALSAS) from 1994 to 2002 and similarly, the Rudd Labour Government
released the National Asian Languages and Studies in School Program (NALSSP) from
6
2008 to 2012. Both were Asia focused policies backed by a large amount of funding,
with the goal of nurturing Australian students’ Asia literacy competency. More recently,
in October 2012, the Gillard Labour Federal Government released the White Paper,
“Australia in the Asian Century”, stating that every Australian student will have
exposure to studies of Asia across the curriculum and they will have the opportunity to
study one of the priority Asian languages (Australian Government, 2012). In 2013, the
Federal Government changed to the Abbot Federal Government, which is a Liberal-
National Coalition. Although the importance of Asian in Australian education seems to
continue under the Abbott Government, the focus is different from the previous Labour
Governments. A different policy initiative related to Asia was released and implemented
(see 3.2.8) by the Abbott Government.
1.5 Japan and Japanese language for Australia
Of the many Asian countries, Japan has been a key economic partner for Australia for
over 50 years. Specifically, Japan is Australia’s second largest export country and is also
the third most important source of imports. In 2014 the Japan-Australia Economic
Partnership Agreement was signed by the two countries. This agreement will deliver
valued access for Australia’s exports, and will also bring Australia’s economies and
societies closer to Japan and reinforce a strong relationship for many years to come
(Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, 2014). As well as the substantial economic
relations, a political-strategic partnership between Australia and Japan has been
established (McDougall, 2009). The most crucial development in the security relation
between the two countries was the signing of the joint declaration on security
cooperation in March 2007 (Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Japan, 2014). Hence, the
7
security relationship between the two countries will continue into the foreseeable future
(Cook and Wilkins, 2014). Furthermore, community level relations such as working
holiday programs and sister cities have been flourishing between Australia and Japan
for a number of years. In 2014, there were 28 sister cities including Osaka city and
Melbourne, and three sister states such as Okayama prefecture and South Australia
(Australian Embassy, Tokyo, 2014). In addition, educational exchange has been actively
conducted. For example, there are 658 sister school relationships between Australia and
Japan (Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, 2014). Several organizations such as
the Council of Local Authorities on International Relations (CLAIR) and the Asia
Literacy Teachers’ Association of Australia support Australian schools to find sister
schools in Japan. On a state basis, Victoria has promoted sister school programs in the
recent policy initiative, and a number of Victorian schools now have sister school
relations with schools in Japan (cf. Chapter 6). Sister school programs, in fact, offer
genuine opportunities for Australian students to communicate in Japanese and they can
enhance students’ motivation for Japanese language learning (de Kretser & Spence-
Brown, 2010). Such well-developed relations between Australia and Japan at the levels
of the economy, security and community may have a significant impact on Australian
people’s attitudes toward Japanese language and culture. Lo Bianco (2009a) described
Japanese language as:
It was the first ‘truly foreign’ language many Australians found a reason to learn;
the first Asian language many Australians came to esteem and remains for
growing numbers of Australians the first foreign language and culture whose
‘difference’ from the western canon Australian society has felt positive messages
about. (p.331)
8
Thomson (2013) asserts that foreign language education has two main aims. One is
obtaining professionally proficient people in target languages for the contribution to
national construction in government, business and other areas using the language. For
this aim, Japanese language is crucial for Australia, as Japan is Australia’s important
partner both economically and strategically, as mentioned in the previous section. The
second aim is acquiring broader and more critical perspectives of students’ own world
linguistically and culturally. For this goal, Japanese language is perfect for young
Australian students because of the huge diversity between English and Japanese. Due to
the above two aims, Japanese language has been recognized as a priority language in
language-in-education polices. In Australia, Japanese language is neither a community
language (e.g., Italian and Greek) nor a traditional school language subject (e.g.,
French). Moreover, Japanese culture has a variety of attractive characteristics that
interest students because it has a combination of traditional and modern aspects which
can deliver an excellent context for developing intercultural skills (de Kretser &
Spence-Brown, 2010). Because of Australian people’s interest in and positive
perception of Japan, Japanese language and culture have become embedded in
Australia’s education system.
1.6 Education systems of Australia
When considering the provision of foreign languages in schools based on policy
initiatives and associated financial support, it is necessary to clarify Australia’s
government systems which affect the provision and advocacy of foreign language
education. The government structure of Australia is complex, with two main systems:
federal and state/territory systems. The former system has a central national government
9
that administers the most important areas of national interest and welfare. The latter
system includes states and territories which are mostly self-governed and have powers
for primary and secondary education and other matters. Australia consists of six States
and two Territories, which are financially supported by the Federal Government. The
Federal Government has also an influence on languages education in Australia. One of
the Federal Government’s roles in languages education is to deliver national policy
leadership and to facilitate innovation and the implementation of national priorities by
States, Territories and non-government education providers (Australian Government,
Department of Education, 2014). However, the development of language-in-education
policy and its direct implementation is largely dependent upon state initiatives. Thus,
the policy initiatives of the States and Territories have a stronger impact upon languages
education because they provide direct implantation plans, including the provision of
funding. On the other hand, the policy initiatives and the funding allocation for
languages education differ in each State and Territory due to political and social factors.
Australian schools are basically categorised as either government or non-government
schools. Government schools are under the direct responsibility of the Director-General
of Education (or equivalent) in each State or Territory and are given funding from the
relevant State or Territory Government. Non-government schools are categorised
according to self-identification as either Catholic or independent schools. Non-
government schools operate under conditions decided by State and Territory
Government regulatory authorities and obtain some funding from the Australian
Government and relevant State or Territory Government. Both government and non-
government sectors include primary and secondary education, though the starting age
10
and the duration of schooling vary across the States and Territories. Moreover, the term
of foundation programs is different across the country. Table 1.1 overviews the structure
of primary and secondary education in Australia.
Table 1.1 Structures of primary and secondary education across States and
Territories
States and Territories Minimum
school starting
age
Primary education Secondary education
Australian Capital
Territory
4 years, 8
months
Kindergarten,
Years 1-6
Years 7-12
New South Wales 4 years, 5
months
Kindergarten,
Years 1-6
Years 7-12
Northern Territory 4 years, 6
months
Transition, Years 1-7 Years 7-12
Queensland 4 years, 6
months
Preparatory,
Years 1-7
Years 8-12
South Australia 5 years Reception,
Years 1-7
Years 8-12
Tasmania 5 years Preparatory,
Years 1-6
Years 7-10
Post-compulsory
Years 11-12
Victoria 4 years, 8
months
Preparatory,
Years 1-6
Years 7-12
Western Australia 4 years, 6
months
Pre-primary,
Years 1-7
Years 8-12
Source: ACARA (2010)
1.7 Significant characteristics of Australian education
Australian primary education, which is the most relevant to the current study, is
generally offered in a structured learning environment delivered by a qualified
generalist teacher but some subjects including music and languages have recently been
taught by specialist teachers. Primary schools are normally operated five days a week
across four terms consisting of about ten weeks. Primary school students have the
opportunity to study in the key curricular areas such as English and mathematics and
11
also learn other areas including specific music courses and foreign languages. In
primary education, textbooks are not usually used in any subject, including foreign
languages. Instead, teachers usually produce their materials or use other resources
according to students’ interests or attainment, utilising their creativity. In contrast,
secondary education is, generally, different from primary education in the mode of
delivery and various subjects to be learned by students. Secondary teachers normally
specialise in a specific subject and the students change classrooms to study a subject,
and these are taught by different teachers. Though some key subjects or curricular areas
are compulsory, electives such as foreign languages have increased for secondary
students. Unlike primary education, textbooks are usually used in most subjects,
including foreign languages. As well as primary education, secondary education is
usually delivered five days a week, and is spread across three or four terms, though it
differs in each State or Territory.
Although there was no national curriculum framework, the development of national
curriculum has been on the political agenda for a few decades in Australia. As
mentioned in 1.6, primary and secondary education is supported by each State/Territory
Government, and the curriculum in each subject is produced by each State/Territory
Government respectively. However, several educational issues such as an inefficiency of
the development of national curriculum frameworks were identified by academics and
commenters (e.g., Tudball, 2010; Berg, 2011). Against the background of these
educational issues, the Hobart Declaration (The Hobart Declaration on Schooling) was
released in 1989. This declaration represented the first effort to reach a consensus on a
national goal for education. After that, based on the Hobart Declaration, the Melbourne
12
Declaration (“Melbourne Declaration on Educational Goals for Young Australians”)
which set the direction for Australian schooling for the next 10 years was released in
2008. The Melbourne Declaration aimed for “all young Australians to become
successful learners, confident and creative individuals, and active and informed
citizens” (MCEETYA, 2008, p.8). Based on the two declarations, the Rudd Labour
Federal Government founded the independent National Curriculum Board in 2008, and
the next year, the Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority
(ACARA) was launched. ACARA has commenced the production of the Foundation to
Year 10 (F-10) Australian Curriculum since 2008. One significant characteristic of the
Australian Curriculum is that the curriculum includes cross-curriculum priorities
including Asia and Australia’s engagement with Asia. In this respect, ACARA (2013)
stated that “Asia and Australia’s engagement with Asia priority provides the opportunity
for students to celebrate the social, cultural, political and economic links that connect
Australia with Asia”.
1.8 Significance of the current study
Though foreign language education may have different purposes in different countries,
as noted in 1.1, throughout the world the provision of foreign languages
comprehensively relies on language-in-education policy initiatives and their
implementation. Conversely, the target language of language-in-education policy in
many countries is English because it has been recognized as a critical international
language. Hence, English as a foreign language (EFL) has become a significant research
topic for a great number of academics. Nevertheless, it is still necessary to investigate
objectives, places, roles and situations of other foreign languages even though studies
13
on EFL have been boosted in the world because languages other than English are vital
for different countries. In particular, Australia is a well-known English-speaking country
where the provision of foreign languages in school has been enhanced and Asian
languages especially have been highlighted throughout the country, as mentioned
earlier. Based on governmental initiatives and actions, Asian languages have become
popular foreign languages for many non-Asian background students, and the number of
students studying Asian languages has increased in Australian schooling. Under such
circumstances, many scholars have studied and reviewed the implementation of
language policy related to Asian languages and they have also advocated the provision
and practices of Asian languages in Australian schools. However the Federal and State
Governments have often changed and the Governments ceased the policy actions
formulated by the previous governments or they have often renewed language-in-
education policy as a political appeal to the public. Such policy termination and renewal
have had a strong influence on languages education in Australia. Therefore,
investigation concerning language-in-education policy, implementation and actual
practices is always critical in the field of language policy in Australia.
1.9 Research questions
As noted above, I will examine aspects related to the language-in-education policy
initiatives and implementation of Asian languages education in Australian primary
schools. Specifically, this study will focus on Japanese language which is one of the
most popular foreign languages in Australia. Taking a case study approach, I will
explore the following research questions:
14
1. What are language-in-education policies that underlie recent languages education in
Australian schools?
2. What are the actual practices concerning Japanese language education in Victorian
primary schools?
3. What is the nexus between language-in-education policies and practices in Japanese
education in Victoria? Are there any gaps between policy and practices?
In regard to Research Questions 1 and 2, I would like to take notice of the recent trend
in foreign language education which explores the integration of teaching curricula
content and languages which has been recently emphasized as cross-curriculum
priorities in Australia (cf. 1.7). For the integration of curricula content and languages
has recently been developed through content-based approaches such as immersion and
Content and Languages Integrated Learning (CLIL). More specifically, in the recent
trend of foreign language education, CLIL is highlighted. Although CLIL has been
endorsed at the macro level, the practices of CLIL have not been often investigated yet
in Australia. That is, CLIL is a remarkable topic to be examined in the contexts where
CLIL has been recently introduced. Therefore, the findings related to a CLIL policy and
its implementation will be able to give a useful insight for a potential not only for
developing innovative approaches in foreign language education but also for
incorporating cross-curricula perspectives.
In regard to Question 3, it is important to note that what gaps are. A “gap” generally means
“a big difference between two situations, amounts, groups of people etc.” (Longman,
Dictionary of Contemporary English Online, n.d.). However, in this thesis a gap is not
just a difference but it is a practical issue affected by a policy impact.
15
1.10 Outline of the thesis
This thesis, which consists of nine chapters, explores language-in-education policy and
policy implementation in four government primary schools which are offering Japanese
programs, based on a variety of theories related to language policy and foreign language
education. Firstly, Chapter 2 reviews the related literature, in particular, concerning the
theory of language-in-education policy, curriculum theory and principles related to
foreign language education. This chapter also discusses the conceptual frameworks for
the study which include Lo Bianco and Aliani’s (2013) model which enables us to
explore the nexus between policy and practice, and Kaplan and Baldauf’s (1997, 2005)
seven components for the assessment of implementation of language-in-education
policy.
Chapter 3 overviews language-education policies in Australia. Since this study focuses
on languages education in the State of Victoria, the thesis describes the development of
language-in-education policies of the Federal Government and the Victorian
Government. This chapter also discusses the development of national and state
curriculum frameworks related to languages, which have had a significant influence on
the delivery of languages program.
Chapter 4 overviews Japanese language education in Australia. It contains a brief
history of Japanese language education, the current situation of Japanese language
education in Victoria and discussion of issues related to Japanese language education in
Australia, including Victoria, based on previous research.
16
Chapter 5 delivers a detailed outline of how the data set was generated for this thesis.
The chapter contains information about the collection and analysis of data from
interviews with stakeholders, including government personnel and representatives of
teacher associations and school participants, including school principals, Japanese
language teachers, classroom teachers and Japanese assistants.
Chapter 6 includes a discussion of governmental initiatives and actions as embodied in
the recent Federal and the Victorian language-in-education policy which have a direct
impact on the provision and delivery of languages programs in Victoria. Interview data
from relevant personnel of the former and current Department of Education in Victoria
is also presented to support the discussion of the governmental policy initiatives and
actions.
Chapter 7 presents case study data describing the delivery of Japanese programs in four
Victorian government primary schools. Chapter 8 provides further analysis and
discussion of the data presented in Chapter 6 and Chapter 7. It brings together all the
data obtained from the case study as well as interview data from representatives of
teachers’ associations in Victoria. This chapter also discusses similarities and
differences among the four cases and examines the gaps between policy and practice
and the associated factors.
For the analysis of policy initiatives in Chapter 6 and practices in schools in Chapter 7
and overall analysis and discussion in Chapter 8, Kaplan and Baldauf’s (1997, 2005)
seven components and sub-categories are utilised. This chapter also considers practical
issues related to language-in-education policy implementation. Finally, Chapter 9
17
revisits the research questions through a discussion of major findings of the thesis and
discusses limitations of study. It also discusses implications for the improvement of
language-in-education policy development in Australia.
18
Chapter 2: Language-in-education policy, curriculum and foreign
language education
2.1 Language-in-education policy
Liddicoat (2013) suggests that language policy exists in relation to language planning
and that it can be considered as the outcome of language planning. Language policy is
mainly referred to as governmental initiatives and actions related to languages, though
the terms “language policy” and “language planning” are often used as synonyms in the
literature. Djité (1994, p.64) defines language policy as “the deliberate choices made by
governments or any other authority in regard to the relationship between language and
social life”. Similarly, Carroll (2001, p.13) refers to language policy as “specific plans
or statements of general intent from government bodies”. Additionally, in language
policy studies, Kaplan’s definition is widely accepted. He defines language policy as “a
body of ideas, laws, regulations, rules and practices intended to achieve the planned
language change in the society, group or system” (Kaplan, 2005, p.925). Language
policy, which is closely associated with the provision of languages in the education
system is referred to as “language-in-education policy”. In other words, this policy
decides how languages are spread in a society or a country through education. Kaplan
and Baldauf (1997) argue that language-in-education policy is a form of human resource
development, and develops language capabilities that the society recognizes as vital for
social and economic objectives. Therefore, in this thesis, I will focus on “language-in-
education policy” in order to analyse governmental initiatives which are closely related
to the development of language capabilities in the society.
19
2.1.1 Foreign language-in-education policy
Most societies have language policies concerning additional languages in education and
the teaching of additional languages, and this category of “additional languages”
thought of as a second or foreign languages. According to Littlewood’s (1984) earlier
distinction, second language can be recognized as a language which includes social
functions in the community, while a foreign language is for communication outside the
learners’ community. Nevertheless, it should be noted that some cases are not always
clear-cut, especially in contemporary Australian society. Based on Littlewood’s
distinction between second and foreign languages, Liddicoat (2013, p.8) proposes two
contexts in terms of the communicative goals of second language learning: “community
internal” and “community external” which is relevant to the current study. For example,
Japanese is one of the popular languages which is widely taught in Australian schools;
in contrast, Japanese is probably not categorised as a community language in Australian
society, even though there is a growing Japanese community. Hence, for most
Australian students, Japanese is one of the foreign languages in a community external
context.
2.1.2 Agencies of foreign language-in-education policy
In language-in-education policy formulation and implementation, it is important to
identify who undertakes language policy processes. Kaplan and Baldauf (1997)
propose: (1) governmental agencies; (2) education agencies; (3) quasi- or non-
government organisations, and (4) other groups or influential individuals. First,
governmental agencies have the “broad scope, since government generally has the
power to legislate and the ability to foster incentive structures (and disincentive
20
structures) to enforce planning decisions” (Kaplan & Baldauf, 1997, p.5). Second, the
education sector has been involved every time when any kind of official language
policy activity has been taken place. Third, a number of quasi- or non-governmental
organisations exist in terms of language policy development. The fourth category which
is associated with language policy development includes “those in which language
planning is an accidental outcome of the primary function of the body” (Kaplan &
Baldauf, 1997, p.12). More specifically, the most significant governmental education
agencies relevant to the current study include the Federal Department of Education and
the Victorian DEECD which are the most important in the development of foreign
language-in-education policy and implementation. Australian Curriculum, Assessment
and Reporting Authority (ACARA) and Victorian Curriculum and Assessment
Authority (VCAA) are also significant governmental education agencies for developing
language curriculum frameworks and observing the implementation. The most critical
quasi-government organisations which have a great influence on Japanese language
education in Australia is the Japan Foundation, and non-government organisations
include the Melbourne Centre for Japanese Language Education (MCJLE) and teachers’
associations such as the Modern Languages Teachers’ Association of Victoria
(MLTAV) and the Japanese Language Teachers’ Association of Victoria (JLTAV).
2.1.3 Analytic frameworks for language-in-education policy for foreign language
education
Developing language policy frameworks is a difficult task because the concept of
language policy is complex. In this thesis, as mentioned in 2.1, I will focus on foreign
language-in-education policy and foreign langsuage education. One significant
21
framework which can apply for analysis of the policy is Lo Bianco and Aliani’s (2013)
model. Lo Bianco and Aliani (2013) propose three layers of language policy:
“intention”, “interpretation”, and “implementation”. In short, “intention” refers to
official policy texts themselves. “Interpretation” refers to public debates around
language policy. “Implementation” has “the power to confirm, modify, and even subvert
or redirect the language policy plan” (Lo Bianco and Aliani, 2013, p. 3).
Lo Bianco and Aliani’s model is useful for the analysis of language-in-education policy;
however, their model is broad and more detailed components are necessary for analysis
of language-in-education policy for foreign language education. For in-depth analysis of
foreign language-in-education policy, Corson’s work on Language Policy Across the
Curriculum (LPAC) can be utilised. Corson (1990) proposes five key questions
concerning foreign language-in-education policy. The first one is how many languages
should be taught? The second is which language(s) should be taught? The third question
is to whom should the languages be taught? The fourth is how much of the languages
should be taught to each group? The last one is how should the languages be taught?
Citing a case in Europe by Trim (1994), Payne (2007) suggests that Corson’s questions
focus on a descriptive rationale for foreign language-in-education policymaking which
does not serve to unpick the fundamental dynamics of foreign language-in-education
policy. Instead, Lambert (1999, p.21) proposes the following six main policy issues: (1)
How centralised should policy making and supervision be?; (2) How can we maximise
and make the most [of] cumulative innovations in pedagogy and organizational style?;
(3) Where and by whom should teaching materials be produced, tested, and adopted?;
(4) How is teacher education and certification to be carried out? ; (5) Can a language-
22
teaching strategy be devised that relates foreign-language competencies more directly to
occupational use? And how should foreign- language training best be tied to cultural
learning?
As argued above, though several scholars have proposed frameworks for foreign
language-in-education policy, these are mainly for analysis of foreign language-in-
education policy development. Nevertheless, in this thesis, I will explore practices of
teaching Japanese as a foreign language as policy implementation. Therefore, I will
draw upon Kaplan and Baldauf’s (1997, 2005) framework which includes the following
seven components and the related sub-questions which can be applied to analysis of
language-in-education policy and implementation:
Access policy: Who learns what when?
Personnel policy: Where do teachers come from and how are they trained?
Curriculum policy: What is (the) objective in language teaching/learning?
Methods and material policy: What methodology and what materials are
employed over what duration?
Resourcing policy: How is everything paid for?
Community policy: Who is consulted and involved?
Evaluation policy: What is the connection between assessment on the one
hand and methods and materials that define the education objectives on the
other hand?
It is necessary to note that the notion of “curriculum” in curriculum policy is in the
narrower sense in reference to language curriculum in school. However, seven
components will in fact be worthwhile for the analysis of language-in-education policy
and implementation. On the other hand, each component needs some expansion in order
to examine policy and practices more thoroughly. For instance, curriculum policy
23
should include not only the setting of objectives but also time allocation and syllabus
design. Consequently, I will add some questions to each component thereby expanding
on Kaplan and Baldauf’s framework:
Access policy: Who learns what when and how long?
Personnel policy: Where do teachers come from; what are the roles of
principals and teachers; how are language teachers trained in order to be
qualified?
Curriculum policy: What is (the) objective in language teaching/learning;
how many hours do students learn, and how are syllabi or lessons
produced?
Methods and material policy: What methodology and what materials are
employed over what duration; what teaching methods and activities are
used to attain the objectives; what materials are developed and used to
attain the objectives?
Resourcing policy: How is everything paid for; how is funding gained;
how much is allocated?
Community policy: Who is consulted and involved, and who else supports
the language program?
Evaluation policy: What is the connection between assessment on the one
hand and methods and materials that define the education objectives on the
other hand; who evaluates language teaching and learning, and how is
language teaching and learning evaluated?
I will apply this expanded framework in my study.
2.2 National/State curriculum frameworks as language-in-education
policy
2.2.1 The Definition of curriculum
Language curriculum developed by governmental education agencies can be considered
as language-in-education policy because it is closely associated with the delivery of
24
languages in schools. For instance, the Australian Curriculum has been developed by
ACARA and Victorian state curriculum frameworks such as the Victorian Essential
Learning Standards (the VELS) and the Australian Curriculum in Victoria (the
AusVELS) are produced by Victorian VCAA. Although there remains substantial
argument with regard to the meaning of curriculum (Smith, 2000), curriculum is defined
by McBrien & Brandt as a written plan outlining what students will be taught (a course
of study). Curriculum may refer to all the courses offered at a given school, or all the
courses offered at a school in a particular area of study (McBrien & Brandt, 1997).
Even though many scholars argue that curriculum is the provision of teaching content,
some propose that expected outcomes are also included. In this regard, Wiggins and
McTighe (2006) suggest that:
Curriculum takes content (from external standards and local goals) and shapes
it into a plan for how to conduct effective teaching and learning. It is thus more
than a list of topics and lists of key facts and skills (the “input”). It is a map of
how to achieve the “outputs” of desired student performance, in which
appropriate learning activities and assessments are suggested to make it more
likely that students achieve the desired results. (p.6)
2.2.2 Analytical frameworks for language curriculum
One influential framework for the analysis of curriculum as language-in-education
policy, which I also draw upon in this thesis is the three layers of curriculum: “intended
curriculum”, “implemented curriculum”, and “attained curriculum” (Akker van den,
2002; Parsons and Beauchamp, 2012).
25
The intended curriculum
This concept refers to the objectives set at the beginning of any curricular plan, and it
also relates to policy, vision, rationale and philosophy underlying a curriculum. That is,
the intended curriculum is often what is encoded in curriculum documents, or what is
meant to be encoded by their creators. The concept of the intended curriculum is similar
to Lo Bianco and Alani’s (2013) concept “intention”, as introduced in 2.1.3.
The implemented curriculum
The implemented curriculum refers to actual educational activities being practiced in
school and by teachers. That is, the implemented curriculum is realized with teaching.
The implemented curriculum is also influenced by curriculum interpretation by school
administration and teachers. This notion is similar to Lo Bianco and Aliani’s (2013)
notion of “implementation”, as introduced in 2.1.3. Based on Lo Bianco and Aliani’s
(2013) discussion on language policy, I would suggest that the implemented curriculum
includes not only interpretation of curriculum but also transformation, modification, or
subversion of language curriculum.
The attained curriculum
The attained curriculum refers to the curriculum outcomes based on the first two types
of curriculum. The outcomes include what kind of knowledge and skills students
accomplish and it is usually explored through test scores and students’ performance.
However, Sigthorsson (2008) argues that there is not always a clear-cut differentiation
between the implemented and attained curricula, and that students’ motivation and self-
theories are outcomes of the teaching and learning process, although it is placed in the
implementation part of the framework, as an integral part of the learning process and a
significant condition for successful learning (cf. Dweck, 2006). Thus, it can be argued
26
that the implemented curriculum partly overlaps with the attained curriculum.
2.3 Concepts related to targets of foreign language teaching
2.3.1 Communicative competence
Developing proficiency in the target language is a main objective in language-in-
education policy for foreign languages; however, proficiency remains one of the most
controversial terms in the field of general and applied linguistics and in language-in-
education policy. One significant theory related to language proficiency is the notion of
communicative competence which was originally introduced by Hymes (1972). This
notion is, in fact, crucially associated with the field of language-in-education policy.
Johnson (2013, p.31) argues that “the notion of communicative competence is
foundational to the field of sociolinguistics in general, and therefore, the field of
language planning and policy” though he means language planning in the non-
educational sense. Hymes’ original idea was that speakers of a language must acquire
more than grammatical competence in order to be able communicate with others
effectively in a language. Additionally, Hymes (1966) considered that it is necessary for
speakers to know how language is used by members of a speech community to attain
their purposes. Canale and Swain (1980) defined communicative competence in terms
of three components: grammatical competence which is related to the rules of word and
sentence construction, meanings, spelling and pronunciation; sociolinguistic
competence which is associated with appropriateness; and strategic competence which
is related to appropriate use of communication strategies. Later, Canale (1983) refined
Canale and Swain’s model and added discourse competence which is related to
cohesion and coherence. The notion of communicative competence is the most
27
important theory underlay the communicative approach, which will be described later in
this chapter.
2.3.2 Basic Interpersonal Communication Skills and Cognitive/Academic
Language Proficiency
In addition to the notion of communicative competence, it is important to identify
another language proficiency concept which is closely related to content-based
approaches to language education such as Content and Language Integrated Learning
(CLIL) and immersion programs because these content-driven approaches have been
recently highlighted in language-in-education policy in many countries, including
Australia. When we consider the language proficiency related to content-based
approaches, it is necessary to divide the concept of language proficiency into two types:
Basic Interpersonal Communication Skills (BICS) and Cognitive/Academic Language
Proficiency (CALP). Both concepts were developed by Cummins (1979), and the
concepts frequently appear in discussion of bilingual education. The former refers to
language skills which are necessary in social situations. It is the day-to-day language
needed to interact socially with other people. Thus, Cummins also uses the term
“conversational competence” (Cummins, 2000). Social interactions are usually context
embedded, and they occur in a meaningful social context. BICS may be fairly quickly
acquired by second language learning (e.g., two or three years) (Baker, 2011). However,
if there is little opportunity to be exposed to the target language, acquiring BICS may
need more time. Hence, it is important to consider to what extent students are exposed
to the target language when we consider the development of BICS. In contrast, CALP
refers to academically related language competence (Baker, 2011). This competence
28
usually includes listening, speaking, reading, and writing about curricula content. This
latter level of language competence is vital for students to succeed in content-based
language education such as immersion and CLIL. Students need a lot of time to develop
CALP, and it usually takes from five to seven years (Baker, 2011). The distinction
between BICS and CALP has been influential and valuable for policy, provision, and
practice in language education (Baker, 2011). However, some criticise the BICS/CALP
distinction. First, the BICS/ CALP distinction does not indicate how the two concepts
are precisely assessed (Martin-Johns & Romaine, 1986). Second, the terms, BICS and
CALP may be utilised to label students, particularly if BICS is recognized as inferior to
CALP. Third, the relationship between BICS and CALP is not simple. Linguistic and
cognitive development is promoted by different factors including context or motivation
(Baker, 2011). Fourth, in terms of the sequential order of BICS and CALP acquisition, it
is usually thought that BICS comes first and CALP is next; nevertheless, the order
cannot be absolutely determined (Baker, 2011). As described above, there are some
doubts about the BICS and CALP distinction. However, the notions of BICS and CALP
are useful when language teachers produce objectives related to language proficiency,
especially in the contexts where foreign languages are taught through content-based
approaches. Content-based approaches to foreign languages education will be discussed
in detail in 2.4.2.
2.3.3 Cultural competence
As well as language competence, cultural competence is also highlighted in language-
in-education policy for foreign languages and language curriculum frameworks because
languages are closely related to cultures. Different academics from different fields
29
observe culture differently. In the field of foreign language education, culture has been
approached from various perspectives associated with language teaching. For instance,
Duranti (1997, p.24) defines culture as “something learned, transmitted, passed down
from one generation to the next, through human actions, often in the form of face-to-
face interaction and, of course, through linguistic communication”. Thus, culture is also
essential for language use, and thus, language and culture are not separable. Without
cultural components, linguistic competence itself is not enough for language learners to
become competent in that language (Krasner, 1999). Cultural understanding is an
integral part of foreign language teaching. For instance, language learners need to
recognize cultural appropriateness in order to greet a person, express appreciation, make
requests, and agree or disagree with someone. However, in Australia the nature and
scope of the cultural component in languages education has not been clearly stated in
language policy/curriculum framework documents, and a range of divergent approaches
to cultural knowledge can be identified (Liddicoat, 2004, p.297). Especially, in
language-in-education policy/language curriculum framework documents, there is a
crucial conflict between the outcomes for the teaching of cultural knowledge as a part of
language education and the means where cultural knowledge is conceptualised in the
same documents (Liddicoat, 2004, p.297). Therefore, it is important to consider the
purpose of teaching culture, the relation between language and culture, the
incorporation of culture into language curriculum and the method of teaching culture in
actual practices.
2.3.4 Intercultural competence
An emphasis on intercultural competence has been identified as the recent trend in
30
language-in-education policy/language curriculum in many countries such as the United
States and Australia. Though various terms such as intercultural communicative
competence or global competence are often used interchangeably, Fantini (2006, p.12)
defines, “a complex of abilities needed to perform effectively and appropriately when
interacting with others who are linguistically and culturally different from oneself”.
The concept of intercultural competence has been spreading in contemporary foreign
language education (Aguilar, 2010) and it is a key target in language-in-education
policy and language curriculum frameworks throughout Australia. The concept of
intercultural competence appeared in conjunction with the concept of communicative
competence especially in the European context, as Byram (1997) pointed out. As
numerous definitions have been proposed by various applied linguists, intercultural
competence cannot be simply defined. However, it can be explained as the ability to
communicate with people from different linguistic and cultural backgrounds.
Intercultural competence thus enables young adolescents to become responsible local
and global citizens through their education for living and working together in an
interrelated world.
Scarino and Liddicoat (2009, p.33) suggest that intercultural competence can be
developed by understanding of one’s own language(s) and culture(s) in relation to an
additional language and culture. The perspective of Liddicoat et al. (2003) on
developing intercultural competence is broad and they suggest five components for
nurturing intercultural competence:
1. Understanding and valuing all languages and cultures
2. Understating and valuing one’s own language(s) and culture(s)
3. Understanding and valuing one’s target language(s) and culture(s)
31
4. Understating and valuing how to mediate among language and cultures
5. Developing intercultural sensitivity as an ongoing goal. (p.46)
Nonetheless, it is necessary for language teachers to strike a balance between language
teaching and cultural understanding, especially in the case where the amount of time for
language education is limited in the school curriculum. Furthermore, the concept of
intercultural competence is too theoretical and too general for language teachers (Lange,
2010). Lange (2010, p.20) further argues that academics do not support language
teachers in training their students to develop intercultural competence though they may
indicate how much and what kind of intercultural competence students should be
equipped with.
Furthermore, it is challenging to attain the development of intercultural competence in
regular language classes. In particular, it often happens that traditional and pop cultures
of the target language are often focused and taught in foreign language classes.
Therefore, it is important to investigate how intercultural competence can be nurtured in
foreign language classes if it is an integral part of language-in-education policy.
2.3.5 Students’ engagement
In teaching and learning any foreign language, it is necessary to consider students’
engagement. In particular, engagement involves motivation which basically means the
psychological value that leads people to attain a goal. Gardner and Lambert (1972)
suggest that language teachers and researchers have recognized that motivation plays a
significant role in language learning. Here, I would suggest that scholars and
educationalists who study language-in-education policy need to consider the importance
32
of motivation for the success of foreign language education because the recent
language-in-education policy in Australia intends to develop linguistic, cultural, and
intercultural competence while enhancing students’ motivation. In the classical
classification of motivation, the concept is divided into instrumental and integrative
motivation. The former refers to language learning for utilitarian purposes and the latter
refers to language learning to become part of a speech community (Gardner & Lambert,
1959). On the other hand, intrinsic and extrinsic types have been recently explored in
order to incorporate psychological and “education-friendly” motivation into the field of
second/foreign language acquisition (Dörnyei, 2001). The notion of extrinsic motivation
is similar to instrumental motivation and is a concept that refers to wherever an activity
is done in order to achieve some distinguishable outcome (Deci & Ryan, 2000). In
contrast, intrinsic motivation is defined as “the doing an activity for its inherit
satisfactions rather than for some separable consequence” (Deci & Ryan, 2000) and this
motivation seems relevant to foreign language education in Australian primary schools.
For instance, for almost all primary students, Japanese language is not associated with
utilitarian purposes or distinguishable outcomes but it may be associated with students’
inherit satisfaction. Hence, language teachers need to consider the importance of
intrinsic motivation such as enjoyment of learning a foreign language because some
students and parents tend not to value the foreign language compared with more basic
curriculum components such as literacy and numeracy.
33
2.4 Teaching methods for foreign languages
2.4.1 Language-centred approaches
In foreign language education, it is difficult to determine which method or approach
should be adopted because each has advantages and disadvantages. Furthermore, the
selection of the teaching methods is closely associated with teaching context, objectives,
and learners’ needs. In the development of foreign language education, a number of
teaching methods and approaches have been invented based on linguistic or
psychological theories. The grammar translation method is recognized as the oldest
method and various methods have been developed. In the 1970s, the communicative
approach gained popularity as a major teaching method throughout the world.
Moreover, the Total Physical Response (TPR) is recognized as one important method
that is often used in teaching a foreign language for primary school students. My
analysis draws upon these two methodologies.
2.4.1.1 The communicative approach
As mentioned in 2.3.1, the communicative approach develops communicative
competence (Hymes, 1972), which focuses on communication as both the means and
the decisive goal of learning. Thus, authentic context is emphasized and authentic
materials are often used. In the communicative approach, a variety of activities such as
role play, information gap practice and pair work are incorporated in order to develop
students’ communicative competence. The communicative approach also encourages
students to use the target language outside the classroom and in project-based activities,
so that students can use the target language and/or interact with people in the target
34
language in various situations. Nevertheless, learners of foreign languages tend to have
low intrinsic motivation to communicate in a foreign language (Koosha & Yakhabi,
2012). That is, a clear established need or goal is critical for students to enhance their
motivation for learning a foreign language in the communicative approach.
Furthermore, one significant problem of the communicative approach is that making
classroom learning communicative depends highly upon the existence of native
speakers. Especially in a foreign language learning context at the primary level, because
of some physical limitations including the purpose of learning a foreign language,
teachers’ language proficiency, and the accessibility of authentic materials and native
speakers, the communicative approach may experience problems during its application.
2.4.1.2 The Total Physical Response
The Total Physical Response (TPR) is invented based on the synchronization of
language and physical movement. The combination of language and body actions
enables learners to integrate information and skills rapidly, thus enhancing leaners’
motivation. In this method, the teachers give commands in the target language and the
learners mainly listen to the commands and perform the actions. The TPR is
entertaining and it does not need a lot of preparation for the teacher. It is also a worthy
way for teaching and learning vocabulary. Conversely, the TPR is not a highly creative
method. That is, students do not have many opportunities to express their own thoughts
in the target language. In addition, nothing can be explained with this method. In
particular, it is difficult to clarify abstract words and expressions through this method.
Therefore, the TPR can be applied for only a part of lesson with other teaching methods
and/or approaches adopted.
35
2.4.2 Content-based approaches to foreign language teaching
2.4.2.1 Types of content-based approaches
The language-centred approaches mainly focus on developing language skills and the
target culture. On the other hand, in order to develop students’ linguistic knowledge and
non-linguistic curricula content, content-based approaches have been often adopted in
foreign language education throughout the world. Australia is a country where content-
based approaches have been recently adopted in foreign language education.
Content-based approaches offer the opportunity to study academic subjects in and
through two languages, in a balanced way. Content-based approaches for foreign
language teaching include immersion/partial immersion, Content-based Instruction
(CBI), and CLIL. These programs integrate language teaching with content teaching,
such that the emphasis of instruction is changed from language-driven to content-driven
with the incorporation of non-linguistic curricular content. Immersion programs are
those which provide at least 50 percent of instruction through the second language
during a given academic year (Genesee, 1987). The main goal of these programs is to
nurture proficient bilinguals. Immersion education originated from a Canadian
educational experiment in the 1960s. Canada has developed a national policy of
bilingualism, with English and French as official languages because the country has a
majority of French speakers in the province of Quebec. Immersion education has spread
rapidly in the rest of Canada and in parts of Europe (e.g., Spain and Finland), and has
also been adopted by schools in other countries (Bostwick, 2004). For instance, there
are several English immersion schools in Japan. In contrast, there are schools that have
Japanese immersion programs in the United States and Australia. A growing number of
36
researchers (e.g., Johnson & Swain, 1997; Bostwick, 2004; Baker, 2011) over the world
have studied immersion education, and they have discovered that immersion students
consistently surpass academic expectations in additional language skills, first language
skills, and subject knowledge. Immersion education can enhance metalinguistic
awareness, which is related to a comparison of language systems, and it can develop
intercultural competence. Thus, immersion education is stated to be the highest form of
integrated language teaching approaches (Olega, 2013). Because immersion education
is an umbrella term, various types exist. Baker (2011) suggests that there are three
generic levels of entry into language immersion education according to age: early
immersion when it starts in pre-school, middle immersion when it begins halfway
through primary school, and late immersion when it commences around the beginning
of secondary school.
Furthermore, according to categorisation by amount of time spent in immersion, partial
immersion programs provides close to 50% immersion in the second language
throughout infant and junior schooling (Baker, 2011). However, Genesee (1987) insists
that if the second language is used less than half the time over the school year, the
program cannot be recognized as immersion. Nonetheless, the term “immersion” and
“bilingual” are used for programs with a much lower proportion of target language
teaching in some areas of Australia. For example, in NSW “immersion” programs are
those which may have as little as five hours in target language instruction. Instead, the
program is considered CBI, a term which is mainly used in the United States, and more
recently, the term, CLIL has also been used in Europe and other countries including
Australia. CBI refers to language instruction which is based on parallel acquisition by
37
learners of knowledge associated with a certain non-linguistic discipline and target
language communication skills (Brinton et al, 1989). The concept and method of CBI
was mainly developed in the US context. CBI often focuses on learners’ attention to
professional content in their vocational or professional areas, and thus, the learning
process of CBI mostly includes case studies, brainstorming, discussions, and project
work (Oleg, 2013, p.4). In contrast, CLIL includes a wider complex of approaches than
CBI since it is not particularly aimed at adult education but is oriented at secondary
school and the language education of adolescents (Euridice Report, 2006). CLIL is a
dual-focused educational approach where an additional language is used for the learning
and teaching of content in another curriculum area and language (Coyle et al., 2010,
p.1). This approach was first adopted in 1994 in the European context (Marsh et al.,
2001). CLIL has grown in school-based language programs all across Europe and can
be found at all levels of education at present. For instance, Breidbach et al. (2012,
Editorial) assert that “CLIL is clearly on its way to becoming an option-not yet an
obligation-for mainstream learners in German schools”. CLIL has recently become a
significant activity at the primary level in Europe because of the recent trend for an
early start for foreign language learning (Cenoz & Gorter, 2012, p.311). Most recently,
CLIL has been promoted in Australia. For example, in Queensland, there are 11 schools
which adopt CLIL (Smala, 2013). In Victoria, the adoption of CLIL has been
emphasized in the recent language policy (DEECD, 2011a) and its implementation plan
(DEECD, 2013a). Thus, in this thesis, the term, CLIL will mainly be used instead of
CBI.
38
2.4.2.2 Similarities and differences between immersion and CLIL
In the field of bilingual education, the terms CLIL and immersion programs are often
used indiscriminately since both fall within the field of bilingual education and both
involve a content-led nature. However, Cenoz et al. (2013, p.247) argue that the
comparison between CLIL and immersion is vital as there is a lot of vagueness about
this relation among CLIL advocates. Many CLIL researchers have focused on the
differences between CLIL and immersion (Pérez-Vidal & Juan-Garau, 2010). For
instance, and Sierra (2010) suggest that teaching materials for immersion programs are
often aimed at native speakers; by contrast, CLIL materials should be adapted for a
particular country’s curriculum. Furthermore, the goal of immersion programs is to
reach second language (L2) proficiency like native speakers; on the other hand, in CLIL
programs, it is not necessarily the aim for the learners to reach the level of native
speakers (Lasagabaster & Sierra, 2009). Moreover, some advocates of CLIL assert that
there is more systematic planned integration of language and content in CLIL than in
immersion (Coyle 2008; Coyle et al. 2010). The significant pedagogical concepts of
CLIL in regard to the integration of language and content will be described later in this
chapter.
In contrast to those who seek to establish clear differences between immersion and
CLIL, other researchers have their doubts about the distinction between the two. For
example, Somers and Surmont (2012) point out that the language to be learned in
immersion and CLIL is not new to the students in some bilingual contexts such as
Quebec in Canada. In Quebec the classrooms consist of French native students, English
native students, and French-English bilingual students. Furthermore, Somers and
39
Surmont, (2012) argue that partial immersion programs cannot expect to reach native
proficiency either, even though Lasagabaster and Sierra point out that the objective of
immersion programs is to reach native-like L2 proficiency. Moreover, Johnson and
Swain (1997) suggest that for immersion programs a longstanding issue is the
acquisition of suitable teaching materials. Turner (2012) claims that immersion
programs in Australia are different from those discussed by Lasagabaster and Sierra.
The distinction between immersion and CLIL has attracted controversy, depending
upon contexts where CLIL is adopted. Cenoz et al. (2013) point out that there is not a
single position in terms of the relationship between CLIL and immersion among CLIL
advocates. Citing the case in Poland, Papaja and Czura (2013) argue that CLIL
implementation is recognized by crucial flexibility and that such flexibility may cause
too implausible interpretations of the CLIL concept. As a result, many confuse the
difference between immersion and CLIL, especially, in contexts where CLIL has been
newly introduced. In this regard, Turner (2012) points out that in Australia there is a
danger that any type of content-based or bilingual education is referred to as CLIL
(Turner, 2012). In her article, Turner (2013, p.318) argues that a partial immersion
qualifies as a CLIL program if it adheres to three principals: it is content-driven, a
fusion of methodologies occurs and there is an explicit focus on CLIL’s 4Cs Framework
(cf. 2.4.2.4).
2.4.2.3 Types of CLIL
Although the distinction between immersion and CLIL is controversial, it can be clearly
understood when we incorporate the notion of “strong/hard” and “soft/weak” CLIL
40
types (Ball, 2009). In short, strong/hard” CLIL has a more content-led nature; in
contrast, “soft/weak” CLIL has a more language-led nature. In the literature, there are
three CLIL continuum models. Ball (2009, pp. 37-38) identifies five types of CLIL
programs: total immersion, partial immersion, subject courses, language classes based
on thematic units and language classes with greater use of content. That is, any type of
content-based approaches to language education means CLIL. Bentley (2010, p. 9) has a
narrower perspective than Ball. Based upon time allocation, Bentley (2010) categorises
partial immersion (about half of the curriculum), subject-led/modular (15 hours per
term) and language-led (one 45-minute lesson per week). Similar to Bentley (2010),
Dale and Tanner (2012, pp. 4-5) make a distinction in terms of teachers’ specialities,
differentiating CLIL taught by subject teachers and CLIL taught by language teachers.
Ikeda (2013) diagrammatically compares the above three types of CLIL (Figure 2.1).
41
Figure 2.1 Comparison of three CLIL types (from Ikeda, 2013, p. 32)
These types of CLIL are useful for analysis of the CLIL implementation in Victoria
where CLIL has been recently introduced.
2.4.2.4 Framework for CLIL
As mentioned above, CLIL programs have developed and been practiced based on
certain essential concepts which distinguish them from other content-based programs.
One important pedagogic concept is the four key building blocks which is known as the
4Cs Framework (Coyle, 2006, p.9). The 4 Cs Framework is a holistic approach and
includes content (subject matter), communication (language learning and using),
cognition (learning and thinking processes), and culture (developing intercultural
42
understanding and global citizen-ship) in order to construct the collaborations of
integrating learning in other curriculum areas (content and cognition) and language
learning (communication and cultures). Thus, it is expected that students can develop
not only knowledge of languages and subjects but also communication skills and
intercultural knowledge by utilising the CLIL approach. Figure 2.3 indicates the
combination of the four elements in the 4Cs Framework and the interrelation between
these elements.
Figure 2.2 The 4Cs Framework (Coyle, 2008, p.551)
2.4.2.5 Characteristics of successful CLIL programs
In the CLIL National Statement and Guidelines published in England in 2009, Coyle et
al. (2009, pp.14-15) identify five characteristics of successful CLIL programs in
43
primary and secondary schools both nationally and internationally. The characteristics
are summarised as follows:
(1) Choosing appropriate content
CLIL is about new learning. In a CLIL class the students are discovering new
knowledge, developing new or existing skills and deepening understanding.
(2) Developing intercultural understanding
CLIL actively seeks to promote intercultural understanding by planning and
offering enough opportunities to examine and reflect on various cultures,
traditions, values and behaviour.
(3) Using language to learn/learning to use language
CLIL includes a lot of input. Students are expected to communicate with
language which is accessible to their existing language level but which
enhances linguistic development by exposing them to a wide variety of
authentic, unedited materials at a suitable level.
(4) Making meanings that matter
CLIL students are expected to communicate in the target language within and
beyond the classroom maximally. CLIL offers motivating contexts for
interaction which encourage students to utilise language to express thoughts,
ideas and feelings.
(5) Progression
Scaffolding in both use of language and interaction with content can be
identified in a sequence of learning in CLIL. Students will develop knowledge,
skills and understanding and improve their ability to utilise language in order to
construct new knowledge and develop a range of transferable and specific
skills.
44
2.4.3 Teacher-centred and learned-centred approaches
It can be stated that teaching paradigms related to implementation of language-in-
education policy can be basically divided into two: teacher-centred and learner-centred
approaches. The former refers to an approach where activity in the class is centred on
the teacher. As the benefits of the teacher-centred approach, it is often stated that the
classroom remains orderly; students are quiet, and the teacher keeps full control of the
classroom and its activities. On the other hand, the teacher-centred approach includes a
number of drawbacks. For instance, in a teacher-centred class, there is a little
opportunity for students to collaborate with other students. Moreover, the teacher-
centred approach may make students bored due to its passive nature. Hence, in the field
of foreign language education, there is a trend that the teacher-centred approach has
been avoided in class. Instead, the learner-centred approach should be advocated and
individual differences be respected. This has been recognized as the western-oriented
approach (O’Sullivan, 2003).
The learner-centred approach means a concept and a practice in which students and
teachers learn from one another, and it proposes a global shift away from instruction
that is fundamentally teacher-centred (Harris et al., 2013). Harris et al. (2013) further
argue that the learner-centred approach is not intended to diminish the importance of the
instructional side of the classroom experience. As an alternative instruction is broadened
to include other activities that yield desirable learning outcomes. The benefits of the
learner-centred approach include the enhancement of students’ communicative and
collaborative skills through pair or group work and the nurture of students’ motivation
through active participation in activities. Although the learner-centred approach has
45
been employed in language classrooms, some problematic issues can been identified.
For example, classrooms are often busy and noisy due to a lot of interaction with
students and some students miss important facts because of less instruction delivered by
teachers.
Despite some issues noted above, the learner-centred approach has been promoted as
effective for all learners and education systems both in Australia and internationally
(Harris et al., 2013). Thomson and Comber (2003, p. 305) assert that “engaged learning
occurs when the lives, knowledge, interests, bodies and energies of young people are at
the centre of the classroom and school”. In addition, international research and policy
literature advocate that the learner-centred approach can enhance engaged learning, and
that it makes a significant difference for students who have not responded to more
traditional teacher-centred classes or those who are disadvantaged in the classes (Harris
et al., 2013). In Australian schooling, the learner-centred approach has been widely
adopted in order to enhance students’ motivation and attitudes toward foreign language
learning. I will use this concept for the analysis of my case study.
2.5 Conceptual framework of this study
Since this study will focus on foreign language-in-education policy and national/state
language curriculum frameworks, I need to refer to frameworks of both, as described in
2.1.3 and 2.2.2. For the analysis of language-in-education policy and implementation, I
will focus on the concept of “intention” and “implementation” of Lo Bianco and Aliani
(2013) because I wish to investigate what the governmental initiatives and actions for
foreign language education are (“intention”), and what the actual foreign language
46
educational practices are in Australian primary schools (“implementation”). I will not
focus on public debate around language-in-education policy at this time because I would
like to examine direct relationships between policy and practices, and thus Lo Bianco
and Aliani’s concept of “interpretation” will not be considered in the study. For the
analysis of the curriculum frameworks, I will consider incorporating the concepts of the
intended curriculum and the implemented curriculum because this study will not give an
emphasis to students’ perception and achievement in Japanese as a foreign language,
and hence the attained curriculum will not be considered in the study.
Furthermore, in order to analyse these broad concepts in more depth, I will also draw on
my expansion of Kaplan and Baldauf’s (1997, 2005) seven components: access policy,
personnel policy, curriculum policy, methods and material policy, resourcing policy,
community policy and evaluation policy in order to analyse how language-in-education
policy is formulated and implemented, and to analyse how Japanese language education
is practiced as policy implementation. I will then explore the nexus between policy and
practices and the associated factors, comparing policy and practices. The relationship of
all conceptual components can be overviewed through the following diagram.
47
Figure 2.3 Diagram of the conceptual frameworks of the study
Foreign language-in-education policies,
curricula for languages at the Federal and
State levels (policy, vision, rationale and
philosophy)
Japanese language education
in Victorian government primary schools
Intention
(the intended
curriculum)
Implementation
(the implemented
curriculum)
The nexus
between policy
and practices
Access policy
Personnel policy
Curriculum policy
Methods and material
policy
Resourcing policy,
Community policy,
Evaluation policy
48
Chapter 3: The history of language-in-education policies in Australia
3.1 Introduction
Spolsky (2004) asserts that language policy does not just exist in official documents
such as language laws, legal records, or regulations. For Splosky’s assertion, Liddicoat
(2013, p.3) argues that Splosky’s view on language policy is something far broader than
just a policy document. In fact, Spolsky (2004) contends that language policy is closely
associated with beliefs or ideology. Similar to Spolsky’s assertion, Liddicaot (2007)
proclaims that the development of language policy can be considered as an ideologically
positioned process. Language policies are developed with the inclusion of belief
systems, attitudes and values concerning language and the language use (Schiffman,
1996). Considine (1994) states that policies comprise, (re)produce and transfer values
and assumptions about one phenomenon and policies, hence, intend what is valuable.
Thus, an ideology fundamentally affects language policy production.
Herriman (1996, p.35) points out that Australia’s language policy cannot be
characterised simply or easily because, as Lo Bianco (2009b) claims, Australia’s
language policy is affected by ideologies of Britishism, Australianism, Multiculturalism,
Asianism and Economism. Britishism is, in short, “English-monolingualism and
Southern British norms and language repression” (Lo Bianco, 2003, p. 15). Australian
language standards and styles of English expression, and the selections and aims of
foreign language education mirrored essential British prestige choosing. The main
objective was the pursuit of English monolingualism based on the standards of Southern
British pronunciation and usage (Lo Bianco, 2009b). Australianism is the replacement
of a British oriented assimilation in languages with Australian alternatives. Thus, local
49
linguistic norms became the appropriate models for educational practice in Australia,
and the alternative models were widespread though the country at that time.
Multilingualism is the ideology which advocated rights to maintain minority cultures
and languages declined. In the phase of multilingualism, language and cultural retention
was regarded as a “resource” rather than a “right” (Lo Bianco, 2000a, pp.50-51), and
LOTE education attracted positive and direct attention. Asianism is an ideology which
focuses on the development of Asia literacy due to the economic importance with Asian
countries. This Asia-focused economic imperative began from the 1980s and expanded
and developed into the early 1990s. This ideology is closely related to foreign language
education in Australia. For example, language education was boosted against the
background of Asianism. Economism is a new ideology which is focused on nurturing
the English literacy. Since the English language has become an international language
over the world, the recognition of the critical role of English has been widely
acknowledged not only in non-English speaking countries such as Japan and China, but
also in English speaking countries such as Australia. Thus, since the 1990s, English
literacy and communication skills have been emphasized.
Conversely, a number of Asia literacy advocates still demonstrate the significance of the
development of Asia literacy, and there have been debates about the balance of English
literacy and Asia literacy across Australia. These ideologies are critical when I overview
the history of language-in-education policy at the federal and state levels. In the next
section, I will overview the history of the Federal language-in-education polices.
50
3.2 The history of language-in-education policies of the Federal
Government
3.2.1 Language policies until the 1980s
Australia has a long history of languages education due to its diverse immigrant
settlement. Before Europeans settled in Australia in the late 18th Century, it is estimated
that there were about 300,000 indigenous Australians, speaking approximately 250
different languages and some 600 dialects (SSCEA, 1984, p.80). Until the 1860s, the
main languages used in Australia included English, Irish, Chinese, German, and Italian
as well as Aboriginal languages (Clyne, 1991, p.7). During this period, bilingual
education was offered in many schools, especially in Victoria and South Australia, and
the learning of both English and immigrants’ native languages was recognized as a
valuable strength (Clyne, 1991, p. 8). The languages of the bilingual schools included
English together with German, Hebrew, and French. However, during World War I,
“white Australia policy” boosted the ideology of Britishism. This ideology led to
decrease of bilingual education and promoted the adoption of a huge scale immigrant
education with a specific emphasis on the teaching of English as a second language
(Ingram, 2000).
From the 1960s to 1970s, the emphasis on assimilation was replaced by an emphasis on
multiculturalism. Moreover, during this period, Australia started to gain economic
interest in Asian countries as they began to assert or claim their sovereignty and
focussed on economic development. At the time of the increasing development of Asian
economies, the Commonwealth Advisory Committee released a review of the teaching
of Asian languages and cultures in 1970. This report was the first significant effort to
51
direct language education policy toward Asia and supported a significant increase of
education for Asian languages and cultures. Nevertheless, the report did not have much
influence on language education in Australia because it presented little attention to the
economic worth of attaining skills in Asian languages (Ingram, 2000). Instead, the
Galbally report, which was released in 1978, had a great impact on language policy and
practice and it contributed to the development of ethnic schools (Lo Bianco, 2009b).
3.2.2 The National Policy on Languages
Against the background of Australian ideology of multilingualism, the NPL was
adopted in 1987 under the Hawke Labour Government. According to Ingram (2000,
p.6), the NPL was recognized as the first comprehensive and systematic national
language policy attempted in an English-speaking country. Lo Bianco (1987) states that
the goals of the NPL includes: (a) English for all, (b) support for Aboriginal and Torres
Strait Island languages, (c) a language other than English for all, and (d) equitable and
widespread language services. These goals are to be realized through the following four
broad strategies: “the conservation of Australia’s linguistic resources; the development
and expansion of these resources; the integration of Australian language teaching and
language use efforts with national economic, social and cultural policies; [and] the
provision of information and services in languages understood by clients” (Lo Bianco,
1987, p.70).
Moreover, there was a new emphasis given to Asian languages such as Mandarin
Chinese, Indonesian/Malay, and Japanese in addition to European languages, namely
Italian, French, German, Greek, Italian and Spanish. These languages were referred to
52
as “languages of wider teaching”. One reason for the emphasis on Asian languages was
that the NPL aimed to enhance Australia’s place in Asia and to recognize the important
economic and strategic relationship with Asian countries. The priority languages gained
a priority-based resource allocation, quality advancement and constant program
improvement so that more students could learn and more schools could teach these
languages.
The NPL insisted on the language needs of children. Lo Bianco (1987, p.127) claimed
that language education is important for children who have English-speaking and non-
English-speaking backgrounds because “[t]heir society is multilingual and the world is
multilingual”. The key recommendations of this policy include that the study of LOTE
should be an essential part of the curriculum in all Australian schools during the
compulsory years of education. As evidence that this policy insisted on the importance
of an early start of languages teaching and learning, several cases of languages
education in primary schools were described in the policy document. Furthermore, this
policy referred to a possibility of immersion education. In this respect, Lo Bianco
(1987) asserted:
Bilingual programs are termed “immersion programs” when, for example,
English-speaking Australian students are taught partially or fully in the second
language. These programs are often very successful, since they allow for much
greater exposure to the second language than is possible in the language-as-
subject programs. (p. 155)
Hence, it can be stated that the NPL was informed by the view that Australia needs to
nurture young bilinguals who can use English and a second/foreign language by
adopting integrated approaches such as immersion education. Funding allocation was
53
also indicated in the NPL. From 1987 to 1988, the Federal Government assigned the
policy $15 million including $ 3.9 million for language education, $1.85 million extra
for intensive courses in Asian languages, $2 million for adult literacy, $0.5 million for
aboriginal languages, and $1 million for tertiary education projects. From 1988 to 1989,
$28 million was assured (Clyne, 1988). In this respect, the allocation of funding showed
that the Federal Government strongly promoted the implementation of the NPL.
In order to build on the strength existing in each State and Territory, the Federal
Government identified the proposals of each State and Territory Government for LOTE
education. For example, Queensland wanted to launch model projects in Japanese, and
Victoria wanted funding for extension of its primary bilingual programs and their full
evaluation. The allocation of funds targeted toward locally determined needs ensured
that the NPL influenced language policy in each State and Territory.
3.2.3 The Australian Language and Literacy Policy
Although a number of State policies were initiated in response to the NPL, the debate
over the provision of LOTE did not rest with this policy alone and “government
ideologies of economic rationalism tried to influence the direction of policy” (Ozolins
1993, p. 250). Furthermore, after the lessons learnt from the experience of participating
in the International Literacy Year (ILY) in 1990, the Hawke Labour Government gave
language policy in Australia some impetus in 1990-1991 with the publication of the
Language of Australia: Discussion Paper on an Australian Literacy and Language Policy
for the 1990s and the Australian Language and Literacy Policy (ALLP).
54
The Language of Australia: Discussion Paper on an Australian Literacy, which can be
considered as a follow-up report to the NPL, was released in 1991. The main intention
of this paper was to review the language and literacy needs of Australia, given that most
programs funded under the NPL and ILY were coming to an end (Djité, 1994). The
response to the Discussion paper showed that there was a growing awareness of the
strategic importance of language and literacy skills to the well-being of all Australians
(Department of Employment, Education and Training, 1991, iv). Thus, the Discussion
paper identified needs for language and literacy education and proposed possible
national goals and objectives, strategic directions and options for implementation
(DEET, 1991, vii).
Based on a series of consultations and the 343 written submissions received in response
to the Discussion paper, the ALLP was released in 1991. The basic policy position of
the ALLP was that Australians should become “literate” and “articulate” in Australian
English as the national language (DEET, 1991, iii).The four goals of the ALLP are
summarised as follows: (1) all Australians should develop and maintain effective
literacy in English to enable them to participate in Australian society; (2) the learning of
LOTE must be substantially expanded and improved; (3) those Aboriginal and Torres
Straits Islander languages which are still transmitted should be maintained and
developed; and (4) language services provided by interpreters and translators, the print
and electronic media and libraries should be expanded and improved (DEET, 1991,
p.4). Of the four goals, the development of English literacy skills was prioritised and
most commentators said that there was a shift toward emphasis on English. Lo Bianco
(2005) asserts that the ALLP moved the balance toward English literacy and away from
55
foreign languages. Whilst, the ALLP also claimed that proficiency in LOTE was
important in order to develop intellectual and cultural vitality and to help secure
Australia’s future economic prosperity. In fact, there was a clear intention that the
importance of proficiency in LOTE be recognized. In the ALLP, languages were
recognized as a human resource, and as a result, learning LOTE for economic
development was emphasized. Lo Bianco asserts that the ALLP reduced stress on
community languages and increased stress on trade foreign languages. Liddicoat (2013)
also argues that in the ALLP, language learning is considered to play an important role
in promoting and facilitating international trade, and that this function of language was
more strongly emphasized than in the NPL. In fact, DEET (1991, p.16) pointed out that
the aim should be to “maintain a pool of cultural resources to benefit business and
industry”. In this way, the perspective on languages in the ALLP overlaps with Kaplan
and Baldauf’s (1997) view of language-in-education policy which is the development of
language capabilities that the society recognizes as being vital for its social and
economic objectives.
The ALLP identified 14 languages as priority languages, including the nine languages
which were previously listed in the NPL. The priority languages included languages of
significant ethnic communities such as Aboriginal languages, Italian, German, Greek,
Spanish and Vietnamese, and they also involved six languages of economic importance,
namely Chinese, Indonesian/Malay, Japanese, Korean, Russian and Thai. The other two
languages were Arabic and French which were languages that were relevant for
economic and cultural reasons. The fact that six Asian languages were included in this
policy suggested that the ALLP aimed to increase the opportunity for Australian
56
students to have access to a variety of Asian languages. In fact, Liddicoat (2013, p.43)
points out that “there is an explicit focus on Asian languages and a lesser focus on
European languages traditionally associated with Australian immigration”. The
difference between the NPL and the ALLP concerning the priority languages was not
only the number of the languages but also the choice of the languages. In the ALLP,
each State and Territory had to identify eight of the 14 priority languages. Importantly,
the Federal Government provided special funding to schools in order to encourage the
study of the priority languages on the basis of $300 per student calculated on the
number of students studying the language in Year 12 of schooling. This funding is
another difference between the NPL and the ALLP, and it is clear that the ALLP tried to
facilitate teaching of the priority languages by providing the funding for Year 12
students. Furthermore, this policy indicated the need for support for the priority
languages in tertiary education and the need for more language study for vocational
education. However, unlike the NPL, the ALLP did not claim the importance of
children’s learning of languages other than English. Instead, English literacy for
children was emphasized as noted above.
3.2.4 The National Asian Languages and Studies in Australian Schools Program
Only three years after the adoption of the ALLP, the Council of Australian Governments
(COAG) published a major report entitled “Asian Languages and Australia’s Economic
Future” in 1994. It is clear that this report was published against the background of the
ideology of Asianism. This report was produced by Kevin Rudd, who at the time was a
fluent Chinese speaking politician, later to become Prime Minister, and is thus widely
referred to as “the Rudd Report”. In this report, a greater economic relationship with
57
Asian countries was emphasized as being important for Australia’s economic success.
Based on the recommendations of the Rudd Report, in 1994 the Keating Labour
Government introduced the National Asian Languages and Studies in Australian
Schools Program (NALSAS), which was designed to operate alongside the ALLP
(Liddicoat et al. 2007). The policy initiative of the NALSAS had a strong top-down
nature, and the NALSAS was aimed at assisting government and non-government
schools in order to develop Asia literacy from primary school years. In fact, COAG
agreed to introduce LOTE from Year 3. It can be asserted that the NALSAS led to
boosting early foreign language education though the focused languages were limited to
Asian languages. In the NALSAS, four Asian languages - Chinese, Japanese,
Indonesian and Korean - were indicated as priority languages based on the prediction by
the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade that these would be the languages used by
Australia’s four biggest trading partners in 2014 (Rudd, 1994). However, the NALSAS
limited coverage to the four priority countries and this meant that studies concerning
other Asian countries such as Vietnam, Malaysia, and Thailand were not supported. One
of the significant features of the NALSAS is the provision of a substantial amount of
funding. From 1994 to 2002, the Federal Government provided over $208 million in
order to develop Australian students’ Asia literacy in the four languages. The NALSAS
funding was allocated to all States and Territories, with 5% retained for funding national
projects. The projects included materials development, investigations of issues relating
to proficiency outcomes, and investigations of the relationship of language learning to
literacy. Additionally, the Federal Government supported the Asia Education Foundation
(AEF) with $1.2 million per year in order to enhance and support Asian studies across
all curriculum areas (Hampton, 2003). The NALSAS was associated with the
58
introduction of languages from primary schools. In 1994 the Council of Australian
Government agreed to introduce LOTE from Year 3.
Erebus Consulting Partners (2002b) identified several achievements of the NALSAS.
First, the number of schools teaching a NALSAS language and incorporating Asian
studies into their curriculum increased. Moreover, the number of students who studied a
NALSAS language also grew. Specifically, Chinese, Indonesian and Japanese almost
doubled from the commencement of the strategy, from 350,000 enrolments to just over
760,000 (Erebus Consulting Partners, 2002b). Of the four languages, Japanese had the
largest number of enrolments. In her study, Slaughter (2007) revealed that there was a
strong preference of Japanese for secondary students in NSW and Victoria. In contrast,
students’ enrolments in Korean remained very small throughout Australia even though it
slightly increased year-on-year. Consequently, the NALSAS strategy was not able to
enhance Asia literacy evenly across the four languages, as noted in the experience of
Korean language learning as a “priority” language. The goals of the NALSAS were
addressed through the following four strategic areas: curriculum delivery, teacher
quality and supply, strategic alliances and outcomes and accountability, and each
strategic area included objectives and strategies. As these four strategic areas indicate,
the NALSAS strategy was designed to operate practically in actual school settings, and
it can be considered to have been generally successful in achieving its goals. In addition,
the report made clear that many teachers upgraded their qualifications to teach an Asian
language. However, about one-quarter of schools did not teach about Asia at all, and at
least the same number do so in only superficial ways (Erebus Consulting Partners,
2002b). This fact was associated with teachers’ lack of knowledge about Asia, their
59
ineffectiveness of using resource material, and their insufficient understanding of how
to integrate Asia into their teaching of other subject areas.
Furthermore, the NALSAS was not able to attain some of its goals. Kaplan and Baldauf
(1997), for example, point out that under the NALSAS strategy qualified teachers and
curriculum materials were insufficient. Lo Bianco (2005) also argues that learning
outcomes were lower than targets, even though the NALSAS languages were
advantaged. Hence, it is possible to say that although the Federal Government spent
over $208 million for the strategy, the development of the priority languages was only
partly successful.
Another problem relating to the NALSAS strategy was that the Howard Government
cancelled the funding for it in 2002. This act suggests that the Howard Liberal-National
Coalition Government did not emphasize Asian language education to the same extent
as did its predecessor, though Aoki (2009) suggests that it was the prioritization of the
enhancement of English literacy education from 1997 which led to the cancellation of
the NALSAS strategy. The NALSAS was continued by the first Howard Liberal-
National Coalition Government but cancelled by the second Howard Government in
2002. The funding which continued was a re-named continuation of the former national
languages policy and some earlier programs (Lo Bianco, 2005).
The termination of the NALSAS created a significant political issue for the
development of Australian language polices. The sudden cancellation of the NALSAS
strategy suggests that the government did not believe that Asia-focused language-in-
education policy could contribute to the country’s economic development to an extent
60
that would justify the amount of money being spent on it. Additionally, as has been a
consistently reoccurring pattern in recent decades, the changing of the Federal
Government often leads to a change in language policy, and this means that consistency
in language policy in Australia has not always been possible. Lo Bianco (2005) points
out that the NALSAS was inconsistent with the comprehensive approach and
collaborative philosophy of former Australian language planning. As a result, State and
Territory Governments might be confused in terms of their own language-in-education
policies. Hence, it is not surprising that State and Territory Governments have had
difficulties adjusting to frequent changes in policy at the Federal level in past decades.
Furthermore, the frequent changes in language policy will influence how language
learning is implemented and practised in schools.
3.2.5 National Statement for Languages Education in Australian Schools: National
Plan for Languages Education in Australian Schools 2005-2008
Under the Howard Cabinet which was Liberal-National Coalition, the “National
Statement for Languages Education in Australian Schools: National Plan for Languages
Education in Australian Schools 2005-2008” (below is called National Statement and
Plan) (MCEETYA, 2005) was introduced in 2005. This policy is different from previous
policies of the Federal Government, as it represented collaboration between all
Australian Ministers of Education. The National Statement and Plan provided an
overarching framework for State, Territory Government activities regarding languages
education in Australia. The main goal of this statement is the provision of quality
languages education for all students, in all schools, in all parts of the country. An early
start for languages teaching and learning has been acknowledged in this National
61
Statement and Plan. In addition to this goal, the development of intercultural
competence was emphasized. The policy states:
Education in a global community brings with it an increasing need to focus on
developing inter-cultural understanding. This involves the integration of
language, culture and learning. Inter-cultural language learning helps learners to
know and understanding the world around them, and to understand commonality
and difference, global connections and patterns. Learners will view the world,
not from a single perspective of their own first language and culture, but from
the multiple perspectives gained through the study of second and subsequent
language and cultures. (MCEETYA, 2005, p.3)
Building on this National Statement and Plan, accordingly, the importance of
intercultural understanding in languages education has been incorporated in language
polices in the States and Territories, and ways of incorporating intercultural
understanding in language teaching more effectively have been explored throughout the
country. Since implementation plans are State responsibility, a comprehensive plan for
content, methods and outcomes concerning intercultural understanding was needed to
be developed by State and Territory Governments.
Unlike other previous language policy documents, the National Statement and Plan did
not indicate priority languages, and neither did this policy emphasize the importance of
learning Asian languages for Australia’s economic development, as did the NALSAS
strategy. Instead, the document argues that the choice of language taught should be
negotiated with parents, teachers, and students. Lo Bianco (2005) suggested that in the
National Statement and Plan all languages are regarded as equally valid. Lo Bianco and
Aliani (2013, p.15) point out that this spirit of an all-encompassing and inclusive
ideology is epitomised by statements such as “learners gain similar social, cognitive,
62
linguistic and cultural benefits, regardless of the language studied”. Although the
suggested negotiation of language choice in this policy is ideal, the selection of a
language at the school level is in reality closely related to the availability of teachers or
funding for hiring language teachers. Furthermore, even though this statement indicated
the relationship between languages education and intercultural understanding, it is very
general because the National Statement and Plan had to be agreed upon by all ministers.
In the Plan text, the aims of the National Plan were proposed. The first aim was
establishing long-term directions for languages education; the second was advancing the
implementation of high quality and sustainable programs; the third aim was maximizing
collaboration in the use of national, state and territory resources; and the fourth was
providing flexibility in implementation by individual jurisdictions. Furthermore, this
plan emphasized six strategic elements regarding languages education: (1) Teaching and
Learning, which aims to strengthen the quality of teaching and learning languages, (2)
Teacher supply and retention, which focuses on qualified languages teachers, (3)
Professional leaning, which aims at supporting on-going teacher training, (4) Program
development, which relates to better program structures, (5) Quality assurance, which is
concerned with evaluating the quality of languages education, and (6) Advocacy and the
promotion of language learning, which aims at promoting the benefits of languages
learning (MCCEETYA, 2005, pp.12-17).
In order to strengthen the quality of teaching and learning languages, the Federal
Government conducted in-service teacher training projects focusing on intercultural
understanding, such as the “Asian Language Professional Project” (2004-2005) and
“Intercultural Language Teaching and Learning in Practice” (2006-2007). In addition,
63
the “Professional Standards Project -Languages” (2007-2009) focused on defining key
competencies for teachers. Moreover, “Teaching and Learning Language - A Guide”
(Scarino & Liddicoat, 2009), which is a guidebook for teachers, was published.
“Intercultural learning” is a challenging concept for teachers to incorporate into their
teaching, but these were concrete attempts to address the need to increase
understanding, skills and the availability of materials in this area.
3.2.6 National Asian Languages and Studies in Schools Program
In another reversal of policy after a change of government, in 2008 the Rudd Labour
Ministry committed funding of $62.15 million over four years (2008 to 2012) for a new
program which also focused on Asian trade languages, that is the NALSSP. This
program marked a return to support for Asian languages, based on the perceived
importance of Asian countries to Australia’s economic development. Similar to the
NALSAS, the NALSSP constituted a significant top-down initiative from the Rudd
Labour Federal Government in the language policy area and Chinese, Indonesian,
Japanese and Korean were selected as prioritised Asian languages, and they are
beneficial for the economy, community and individuals, creating more jobs and higher
wages and overall better opportunities for all Australians (DEEWR, 2010). The
NALSSP implementation for each language was reported in 2008 and 2009. A report on
Chinese was firstly published by Jane Orton of the University of Melbourne (cf. Orton,
2008), and the Australian Federal Government then commissioned the AEF to publish
detailed reports on the NALSSP languages, assessing their situation in Australian
schools (Indonesian by Kohler & Mahnken, 2010; Korean by Shin, 2010; Japanese by
de Kretser & Spence-Brown, 2010). An overview report on the four languages was also
64
published (AEF, 2010). All four full reports provided detailed data and analysis for key
issues to each language. Moreover, the summary of the four reports addressed that
“[w]ithout new and sustained evidence-based efforts specifically tailored for each
language, the (NALSSP) target will be difficult to achieve” (AEF, 2010, p.9). Because
this policy seemed to have a direct impact on Japanese education in Victoria which will
be examined in the current study, significant policy initiatives will be described in
Chapter 6.
3.2.7 Australia in the Asian Century
The Asia-focused policy was passed from the Rudd Labour Government to the Gillard
Labour Government and the Gillard Government released a White Paper entitled
“Australian in the Asian Century” in 2012. This was broader than just language policy,
and focused on Australia’s economic and strategic policy and education, and
engagement in Asia. Because Julia Gillard served as Minister for Education under the
Rudd Government, it was obvious that she had a similar perspective on Asia-focused
language policy development as Rudd possessed. The released and activated period of
this policy overlapped with the period of the data collection of the current study, and it
is assumed that this policy might have a direct impact on the practices in the case study
schools undertaken as part of my research. The policy initiatives relating to language
education will be discussed in Chapter 6.
3.2.8 Language policy under the Abbott Federal Government
In the election held in September 2013, Tony Abbott led the Liberal-National Coalition
to victory against the Australian Labour Party, which at the time was led by Kevin
65
Rudd, and was elected Prime Minister of Australia. In regard to Asia literacy, the new
Prime Minister, Tony Abbott, asserted that Australia needs more Australians who can
speak Asian languages and understand cultural meanings, and that the Abbott Federal
Government will improve the recent rapidly declining trend of enrolments in Asian
languages education (Abbott, 2013). Despite some changes of emphasis and program
details, the focus on the development of Asian literacy in schools has continued under
the Abbott Federal Government. However, while the Government’s rhetoric has been
broadly supportive, financial support has been more limited, and no major programs
similar to the NALSAS and the NALSSP have been announced. Instead, the emphasis
has been on two major programs, the “New Colombo Plan” and the “Early Learning
Languages Australia (ELLA)” trial. The former is a signature initiative of the Federal
Government which aims at developing knowledge of the Indo Pacific in Australia by
assisting Australian undergraduates to study and undertake internships in the region
(Australian Government, Department of Education, 2014). More specifically, the
Federal Government has committed $100 million over five years to the program. A pilot
stage is proceeding in 2014, assisting about 1300 students and 40 scholarship holders to
be educated in the following four locations: Indonesia, Japan, Singapore and Hong
Kong (Australian Government, Department of Education, 2014). The latter is a
commitment to develop languages education for early childhood children. The aim of
the ELLA trial is to establish the effectiveness of online language learning programs
targeting children below school age, in a select range of languages, providing young
children with early exposure to various languages (Australian Government, Department
of Education, 2014). The Abbott Cabinet addresses to intend to cultivate early learners
of languages so as to boost the enrolment of languages learning in primary schools.
66
Additionally, the Abbott Federal Government supports ACARA to continue to develop
F-10 national language curricula with the allocation of funding. Despite the new
programs, the total amount of budget for education has fallen in comparison with
budgets under the previous governments. In consequence, the provision of languages
may be negatively affected by the budget cuts.
3.2.9 Issues in the Federal Government language-in- education policies
As can be seen from the above and in Table A in Appendix A, the Federal Government
has released various language-in-education policies and programs over the last four
decades. However, it has been claimed that achievement of the policies seems limited
(Liddicoat, 2010). Liddicoat (2010) further pointed out that one of the reasons for the
lack of success is that the Federal Government policies have set targets and allocated
funding; conversely, they have been weak in formulating implementation plans to attain
these goals. In other words, although the Federal Government has released a number of
language-in-education policies, their implementations have not been effectively
conducted and have not necessarily led to successful language educational practices in
schools. The policies and implementation, in fact, have not been assessed by the Federal
Government. Furthermore, changes of governments have affected the continuity of
language policy as programs of previous governments are often terminated. The
frequent change of the Federal Government leads to short-termism of language policy
including implementation plans and budget allocations and it may also have had a
negative influence on languages education in each State and Territory. Similarly, the
relationship with State/Territory Governments sometimes displays a fundamental
political conflict which is derived from the difference of political ideologies between the
67
two major parties, being Labour and Liberal. Kawakami (2012) suggested that
education of languages other than English in Australia has tapered off since the 2000s
as there is a tendency that the budget for languages education has been greatly reduced.
In this regard, Miyazaki (2009) asserted that the LOTE policy ended.
3.3 The history of language-in-education policies in Victoria
State and Territory Governments have a strong influence on languages education
especially for government schools in Australia. Consequently, it is important to examine
State and Territory language policy in conjunction with the Federal policies. As this
thesis focuses on schools in Victoria, I will examine Victorian policies and initiatives
over the last 40 years in this section. As can be grasped from the above and Table A in
Appendix A, As well as the Federal Languages polices in 3.2, the Victorian Government
has also released various language-in-education policies and programs over the last four
decades.
Victoria has been recognized as one of the successful States in terms of languages
education. Lo Bianco and Aliani (2013, p.58) point out that Victoria has a reputation for
having the most extensive and best-supported language-in-education policy, with
Victorian policies having mirrored federal initiatives and influenced them in turn. Djité
(1994) also claims that Victoria has been active in the successful integration of LOTE in
schools because of a large and diverse migrant community. Historically speaking, the
Victorian Government implemented the teaching of languages such as Modern Greek in
Year 12 in the early 1970s. With the introduction of LOTE programs in primary
schools, in 1983, the Victorian Government employed the first supernumerary
68
community language teachers in primary schools to support language maintenance and
development (Ozolins, 1993). This was well before the release of the NPL, and thus it is
important to note that Victoria was advanced in this aspect of LOTE education.
3.3.1 The Place of Languages in Victorian Schools
Based on the discussion paper entitled “The Place of Community Languages in
Victorian Schools” in 1984, language policy and implementation paper, “The Place of
Languages in Victorian Schools” (MACMME, 1985) was produced under the Cain
Labour State Ministry in 1985. In addition to the cognitive and social/psychological
advantages of language learning, this policy document argued political and economic
advantages in languages education because language learning can benefit Australia’s
political relationship with Asian countries. For example, this policy stated:
Viewed from a political and economic perspective, many benefits arise from
extending the range and teaching language education in Victorian schools.
Australia’s proximity to Asia and our growing political relationship with Asian
nations, together with the broadening of Australia’s trading partnerships across
the globe, are indicative of the wider direction in which Australia’s
international relationship have moved, for example, Australian diplomatic
missions are maintained in seventy-five countries. (MACMME, 1985, p.4)
In this respect, it is possible to assume that the Victorian Government had already
considered the political and economic advantages in LOTE education before the NPL
was adopted at the Federal level. Moreover, the Place of Community Languages in
Victorian Schools pointed out that Victoria’s multilingual character needed the
development of bilingual services in trade, tourism, and commerce (MACMME, 1985).
In this policy, the language needs of students were divided into two areas: students from
69
non-English-speaking backgrounds and students from English-speaking families.
Hence, this policy identified the diverse nature of the student population at that time and
considered the importance of community languages such as German, Greek, and Italian.
In this policy, three main priorities were indicated. The first one was that all students
develop competence in English. The second was that students from non-English
speaking backgrounds have an opportunity to maintain and develop their home
language or mother tongue. The third priority was that all students have an opportunity
to learn a second language. In addition, this policy addressed specific issues concerning
language education in primary and secondary schools. For instance, at the primary level,
the policy demonstrated the importance of experience-based teaching in the school
curriculum and emphasized that in order to develop appropriate materials, teachers
needed to complete in-service courses.
Furthermore, in this Victorian policy and its implementation plan, an acceptable level of
communicative competence in the target language was specified, requiring primary
students to learn how to use the target language in everyday situations. However, as
mentioned in 2.3.1, communicative competence includes a number of components such
as grammatical competence, sociolinguistic competence and strategic competence. Not
surprisingly, it was difficult for language teachers to identify what is an acceptable level
of communicative competence and to set objectives for teaching the target language. It
would have been desirable for this policy document to more clearly specify the
definition of communicative competence and its goals. As a result, policy practitioners,
including language teachers, probably did not gain help in setting clear objectives for
their language teaching
70
3.3.2 Languages Action Plan
Two years after the adoption of the NPL by the Hawke Labour Federal Government, in
1989 the Victorian Cain Labour Government published “The Victoria Languages Action
Plan”. This document was produced by Joseph Lo Bianco who was also the author of
the NPL. Therefore, it is not surprising that “The Victoria Languages Action Plan” was
closely related to the principals of the NPL. In fact, in this policy document, the main
principals of the NPL were reinforced and Lo Bianco (1989) argued that the NPL was
most enthusiastically supported by Victoria. The main features of this action plan
included a three-year timeline for its implementation. Furthermore, this policy
introduced a number of various types of case studies which could be used as models of
language education. These case studies indicated how language teaching was conducted
in Victoria in various places, so that regions and schools could refer to the models when
producing new curricula or programs. Consequently, the policies of the State
government were more concrete and explicit than those of the Federal Government
because States have primary responsibility for the implementation of education, as
explained earlier. This action plan included a number of commitments in terms of LOTE
such as teacher supply. For instance, this action plan proposed that it was desirable that
a number of primary generalist teachers should possess a language specialisation, and as
a result, the generalist bilingual teacher would be able to impart the regular primary
school curriculum bilingually. One of the advantages of this is that bilingual teaching
predisposes teachers to use communicative methodologies. In this regard, reflecting
“The Place of Languages in Victorian schools”, this action plan emphasized the
importance of the acquisition of the target language at the primary level. It is interesting
to note that this emphasis on a bilingual approach has been in existence since the
71
earliest policies relating to LOTE in primary schools. In fact, there were bilingual
programs in primary schools operating around this time in Victoria. For example, since
1991, Bayswater South Primary School has offered an English and German bilingual
program, and Camberwell Primary School has provided English and French bilingual
program. The development of bilingual approaches in Victoria will be described in
detail in Chapter 6.
3.3.3 The LOTE Strategy Plan
After a change in the State Government, a new LOTE policy was developed in Victoria.
In May 1993, “A Draft Strategy Development Plan for LOTEs” was released. Based on
the consultation of the draft paper, the language policy document, “The LOTE Strategy
Plan” (Directorate of School Education and Ministerial Advisory Council on Language
Other Than English, 1993), was adopted under the Kennett Liberal Ministry in October
1993. Since this policy document was published two years after the ALLP was adopted,
“The LOTE Strategy Plan” was influenced by the ALLP, and the Victorian Government
expressed its appreciation of the Federal Government’s support for LOTE in order to
attain the aims of LOTE education in Victoria. As the ALLP required each State to
select 8 languages from the 14 priority languages, Victoria selected Chinese, French,
German, Indonesian, Italian, Japanese, Modern Greek and Vietnamese, based on
demand and enrolments and a reflection of community interest and consensus.
Moreover, the selection of the languages contained a balance of Asian and European
languages, unlike some of the policy directions emanating from the Federal level. This
strategy plan also aimed to develop such languages as Arabic, Korean, Russian, Spanish
and Thai, which, it was argued, required additional support and development because of
72
their importance to Australia’s emerging language needs (Directorate of School
Education and Ministerial Advisory Council on Language Other Than English, 1993,
p.4). From this fact relating to the language choice, it can be stated that Victoria has
supported a variety languages which are not prioritised by the Federal Government.
This policy highly emphasized LOTE education in order to encourage all students to
study a language as part of their general education. In order to achieve this goal, funding
from the Federal and the State governments for LOTE programs was provided to
schools. Similar to “The Place of Languages in Victorian schools”, the acquisition of a
second language was encouraged at the primary level. However, according to Slaughter
& Hajek (2007, p.2), “[W]hile the LOTE strategy encourages the acquisition of another
language, in reality the aims of primary LOTE study in Victorian schools ranges from
language acquisition at the most ambitious, to development of cultural awareness at the
least ambitious”.
In this policy document, a number of issues were identified and recommendations to
solve these issues were also described. For example, teacher supply was seen as a
significant issue and the recommendations included the proposal that “new language
teachers be provided mainly through retraining of employed teachers to a high standard
of language proficiency” (Directorate of School Education and Ministerial Advisory
Council on Language Other Than English, 1993, p.9). Reporting on the situation as it
existed around this time, Nicholas et al. (1993) claimed that language teachers’
proficiency in the target language was quite low.
73
3.3.4 The Victorian Government’s Vision for Language Education
After another change in government, under the Baillieu Ministry which is Liberal-
National Coalition, in 2011 the DEECD published “The Victorian Government’s Vision
for Language Education”. The most important commitment in this language-in-
education policy is that languages will be compulsory for all Prep to Year 10 students by
2025. Because this is the most recent language-in-education policy which has a direct
impact on the provision and practices of languages in Victorian schools education, I will
discuss the content of this policy in Chapter 6.
3.3.5 Languages-expanding your world: Plan to implement The Victorian
Government’s Vision for Languages Education 2013-2025
In order to facilitate the direct implementation of “The Victorian Government’s Vision
for Language Education”, the Victorian Government produced a draft implementation
plan which was developed in consultation with the Ministerial Council on a
Multilingual and Multicultural Victoria and important internal stakeholders (DEECD,
2012a). Furthermore, various representatives from the Victorian community such as
students, principals, teachers and parents were involved in the development of the draft
plan. On this point, the implementation plan was formulated based on the idea of
“Policy Activism” (Lo Bianco & Wickert, et al., 2001). The plan was finalised
following consultation and submitted to the Minister for Education for consideration,
and then “Languages-expanding your world: Plan to implement The Victorian
Government’s Vision for Languages Education 2013-2025” was released in 2013.
74
The main aim of this plan is to achieve the commitment of making a language
compulsory by 2025. As well as the Victorian Government’s Vision for Language
Education, this plan has also given a strong impact on the facilitation of languages
education in Victoria, and therefore, I will also discuss the content of this
implementation plan in Chapter 6.
3.3.6 Issues in language-in-education policies of the Victorian Government
The language policies of Victoria are comprehensive, and they have been supportive of
many languages, including not only community languages but also foreign languages.
Although the Victorian Government has supported the teaching of many languages, the
definition of language is broad, and this may cause an implementation issue in
languages education. Additionally, based on the overview of the history of the Victorian
language-in-education policy, I identified that Victorian language-in-education policies
have emphasized the development of proficiency of the target language for 40 years.
Nonetheless, the Victorian Government has not assessed the development of the
students’ proficiency in the target language, especially at the primary level.
Furthermore, nobody has reported that language policy has contributed to students’
proficiency development in languages, especially at the primary level. It is argued that
proficiency development has long been an aspirational outcome in language policy.
Moreover, even though the Victoria Government has provided sufficient funding for a
number of support programs, the funding has usually been provided for a short-term,
possibly because the Government always considers language policy and the associated
funding based on the four year electoral cycle in Victoria. Hobson (2010) argued:
75
The more cynical might even suggest that policy is habitually tied to the
electoral cycle, so that what funding is meted out attracts primarily to short-
term, fixed-cost, tangible outcomes; a CD, website or book that the minister
can launch in front of the media, or sets goals that will not be evaluated until
well after the next election. (p.4)
3.4 National/State language curriculum frameworks as language-in-
education policy
Language policies such as the documents discussed above set out broad directions and
targets for language education, but the detailed specifications for what will be taught are
contained in curriculum framework documents. As noted in 2.2, national and state
curricula related to languages can be considered as language-in-education policy, and
the curriculum frameworks for languages have a direct impact on languages education.
The development of national and state curriculum frameworks is relatively new in
Australia. In this section, I will describe the development of national and Victorian
curriculum frameworks for languages.
3.4.1 The Australian Curriculum: Languages
As noted in the Introduction, ACARA has been producing F-10 Australian Curriculum
since 2008. Languages are included in key subject areas and the development of
languages curriculum started from 2009. The curriculum for Italian and Chinese was
developed first in April 2013. The draft F-10 Australian Curriculum: Languages for
Arabic, French, German, Indonesian, Japanese, Korean, Modern Greek, Spanish and
Vietnamese was released for public consultation from May 2013. This curriculum
development involves a network of contributors, including teachers, parents, other
language communities, jurisdictions, professional language associations, language
76
teacher educators, linguists, and researchers. In this regard, Kawakami (2012) pointed
out that the involvement of various citizens for the development of the Australian
Curriculum is an example of “Policy Activism” (Lo Bianco & Wickert, et al., 2001),
which aims at developing policy, involving a wide range of community. In the
Australian Curriculum: Languages, essential communication skills in the target
language, an intercultural capability, and the understanding of the role of language and
culture in human communication are emphasized. However, Muskovits (2010) asserts
that the funding for the implementation of the Australian Curriculum needs further
discussion, and that critical investment of resources will be necessary if ACARA
seriously thinks of producing the Australian Curriculum as a world-class curriculum.
Since the Australian Curriculum for Japanese is still under the development during my
research project, it does not have an impact on practices on Japanese education in
Victorian schools.
3.4.2 The Curriculum and Standards Framework in Victoria
Rather than the Australian Curriculum, the Victorian curriculum frameworks have a
crucial influence on practices of Japanese education in Victorian schools. In Victoria the
first state curriculum framework was the Curriculum and Standards Framework (CSF)
which was released in 1995. Updates were published during 2000 and 2001 which were
known as the Curriculum and Standards Framework II (CSF II) (VCAA, 2002a).
According to VCAA (2002b), the CSF designated what students should know and be
able to do in eight key learning areas including Mathematics, Science and LOTE from
Prep to Year 10. The CSF explained the key elements of the curriculum and the
standards to schools and the community. In regard to LOTE, it involved eight languages
77
(French, Chinese, German, Greek, Indonesian, Italian, Japanese and Vietnamese) which
were prioritised in the NPL and the ALLP. In this respect, it can be assumed that the
CSF incorporated the initiative of the Federal language policy. For the LOTE
component, four goals were included. The first was communication which aimed at
developing communication skills for accessing knowledge, ideas and information
written or spoken in the target language. The second was to acquire sociocultural
understanding which enables learners to use the target language with people who have
different cultural backgrounds. The third was language awareness which enables
language learners to understand how languages work. More specifically, language
awareness includes understanding language structures, the role of languages and the
effect of languages. The fourth was general knowledge which is related to concepts
drawn from other key learning areas. VCAA expected that these goals should be
combined in using the target language and in the criteria of attainment (VCAA, 2002a).
Language and program specific standards for the selected languages were designated
through supplementary documents. Specifically, the CSF LOTE Japanese supplement
was released by the Board of Studies, Victoria in 2000. A Japanese version of the
supplement was also published by the Japan Foundation, Japanese-Language Institute in
2004. This supplement mainly included learning outcomes in each pathway. Because
this supplement detailed outcomes for Japanese, I assumed that it became a useful
guideline for the curriculum development and the associated assessment.
3.4.3 The Victorian Essential Learning Standards
After the CFS II, the state curriculum framework for all subject areas for Prep-Year 10
was replaced to the VELS from 2006. The standard can be considered as expected
78
outcomes that successful learners should achieve. The VELS provides a set of common,
state-wide standards of education/curriculum planning which schools use to plan
student learning programs. LOTE was categorised as one of the domains of study in the
VELS. Within the LOTE domain, there are two dimensions: (1) Communicating in a
LOTE and (2) Intercultural knowledge and language awareness, with these two
dimensions being recognized as linked (VCAA, 2010). The importance of
intercultural knowledge is linked with the goal found in the National Statement and Plan
by the Federal Government. In this regard, it is possible to identify the relationship
between the policies of the Federal and Victorian governments at that time. As noted
earlier, as the VELS was a curriculum policy in Victoria, it played a significant role in
influencing languages education in this State. On the other hand, the document was
designed as a standards document, outlining attainment, and did not specify detailed
content or teaching methodology, so that every language to be taught in Victoria can be
fitted into this curriculum framework. As a result, different interpretations were made
by different language teachers and this may be an issue in languages teaching.
Nevertheless, the VELS seemed to have had a direct impact on Japanese education in
Victorian schools, relating to the Victorian Government’s Vision for Language
Education (DEECD, 2011a). The significant descriptions which are associated with the
Victorian language policy will be described in Chapter 6.
3.4.4 The Australian Curriculum in Victoria
From 2013, VCAA provided a new curriculum framework which is called the
Australian Curriculum in Victoria (AusVELS). The AusVELS is a single curriculum for
levels from Foundation to Year 10 that incorporates the Australian Curriculum, which is
79
being developed by ACARA. Therefore, the AusVELS has been designed to ensure that
schools and teachers are not required to manage two different curriculum and reporting
frameworks during the development of the Australian Curriculum at the national level.
The AusVELS incorporates the already-released Australian curriculum in other areas
such as Mathematics and Science; however, languages (formerly LOTE), is just an
extension of the VELS. As well as the VELS, the AusVELS seems to have a direct
impact on Japanese education in Victorian schools, relating to the Victorian
Government’s Vision for Language Education (DEECD, 2011a) and the
implementation plan (DEECD, 2013a). Therefore, the important descriptions which are
associated with the Victorian language policy will be described in Chapter 6.
3.4.5 Issues of national and Victorian State language curriculum frameworks
As noted above, ACARA started to develop the national curriculum for languages
education from 2008 (see Table A in Appendix 1), and its F-10 curriculum document
for key languages includes specific content and assessment criteria for teaching the
languages, even though some are still drafts in 2014. The national language curriculum
framework will be adopted in school and languages teachers will refer to the curriculum
for setting objectives and developing syllabus and lessons. Nevertheless, it has not been
sure to what extent the Australian Curriculum can contribute to languages education. It
is, hence, necessary to explore the effectiveness of the Australian Curriculum after
officially introducing in school.
The Victorian Government independently developed state curriculum frameworks in
2005 (CSF) and then two were released by 2014 (the VESL and the AusVELS) (see
80
Table A). In the Victorian curriculum frameworks, detail contents and specific criteria
for Japanese teaching were/are not indicated in the VELS and in the AusVELS, because
the curricula are broad curricula, many languages have to be encompassed.
Additionally, unlike CFS II, supplementary documents for specific languages, including
Japanese were/are not provided. The possible reason for this is that the Victorian
Government seems to value creativity and independence in terms of curriculum
development in each school and the language teachers with their considerations for
students’ needs and demands. Conversely, the broad curriculum is lasted to lack of
textbooks and common materials, and a lack of goals due to a deficiency of curriculum
articulation between primary and secondary levels. Furthermore, the issue of broad
curriculum could cause different interpretations in curriculum content, especially at the
primary level. As a result, outcomes of primary language education differ in each
primary school. For example, some primary schools only focus on enjoyment of
learning Japanese, whereas other schools emphasize development of proficiency.
81
Chapter 4: Japanese language education in Australia
4.1 Brief history of Japanese language education in Australia
Lo Bianco and Aliani (2013) point out that Japanese has a unique role in Australian
language education history. Japanese was firstly introduced as early as 1906 at Stotts &
Hoare’s Business College in Melbourne and was also taught as an unofficial subject at
the University of Melbourne (Shimazu, 2008). In 1917, Japanese was introduced at the
University of Sydney and also taught at Fort Street High School in 1918 (de Kretser &
Spence-Brown, 2010). According to Shimizu (2008), there were reports in Japan that
the teaching of Japanese in Australia was booming, especially in Adelaide and
Melbourne by the early 1940s. After the World War II, in the 1960s, Japanese language
programs were revived at many of the major universities such as Monash University
and the University of Queensland. In the 1970s secondary schools commenced Japanese
language education, long before its introduction at the secondary level in other countries
(Marriott, 1994). As described in 3.2.4, the NALSAS strategy facilitated Asian language
education in Australia with a lot of funding, and it boosted to increase the number of
students learning Japanese. By 1998, Australia had more than 300,000 students learning
Japanese, and about 90% of Japanese learners were primary and secondary students. At
the same time, the number of Japanese teachers also increased; more than 3,000
teachers taught Japanese (DE& T (Victoria), 2002). The situation involving the dramatic
increase in numbers of students and teachers was called the Tsunami at that time (Lo
Bianco, 2000b). Lo Bianco and Aliani (2013) argue that no country in the world
invested more effort in teaching Japanese than Australia and more students were
enrolled in Japanese programs in Australia than in any other country in the early 1990s.
82
Conversely, after the termination of the NALSAS, the enrolment of Japanese language
has begun to decrease, and six years after the NALSAS was discontinued, the number
of Japanese learners stood at 275,710 in 2008 (The Japan Foundation, 2013).
On the other hand, the NALSSP contributed to increasing Japanese language learners in
Australia. In fact, the Japanese Foundation surveys conducted in 2009 and 2012 on
Japanese language education in Australia revealed a 7.6% increase in overall learner
population in the four years (296,672 learners) throughout Australia (The Japan
Foundation, 2013). According to the data of the Japan Foundation, there were 133.2
learners per 10,000 head of populations, which was the second largest in the world,
following South Korea. However, the NALSSP ended in 2012, and as a result, the
learner population may decrease in the whole country, although we need to wait for
further survey results.
Although the NALSSP ceased in 2012, the Federal Government has continued to
develop the Australian Curriculum for languages focusing on nurturing Asia literacy,
and a specific curriculum for Japanese has also been commenced although it is still
under development in 2014. Therefore, it is expected that long-term support for
Japanese language education from government and quasi/non-government agencies will
be provided both at the federal and state levels, even in the foreseeable future. In
particular, it is expected that Japanese education for primary students will be better
supported.
83
4.2 Japanese language education in Australian primary schools
During the 1960s, the idea of introducing foreign languages in schools was popular and
primary foreign language programs were abundant in English-speaking countries such
as the United States (Curtain, 2010). Moreover, interest in teaching foreign language in
primary schools was explored in many European countries in the late 1980s and early
1900s (e.g., Hunt et al., 2005). Following this trend, foreign language education in
primary schools has been placed high on the educational agenda in Australia (Harbon,
2002). Japanese programs in primary schools were, in fact, commenced from the end of
the 1980s, though the number of schools was a few (Marriott et al., 1993). Since the
1990s Japanese has rapidly achieved the status of a major language at all levels (Djité
1994), overlapping the introduction of the NALSAS. Some claimed that the rapid
explosion of Japanese language at the primary level was due to the important economic
relationship between Australia and Japan (Shimazu, 2008), though as noted above, other
reasons have also been advanced.
In their report in 1994, Marriott et al. commented on various aspects of Japanese
language education at the primary level in 1990s. In regard to student enrolments,
although over 40,000 students were studying Japanese in the 1991/1992 period, there
were vast differences on a state basis. For instance, the Australian Capital Territory
(ACT) included the highest rate of primary students learning Japanese at 10.6%; by
contrast, in WA 1.5% of primary students studied Japanese. In addition, there were
differences in educational systems concerning primary school students’ enrolment in
Japanese language. In general, the government schools had the majority of students
studying Japanese, and independent schools had more students studying Japanese than
84
Catholic schools. Additionally, many schools provided regular programs for Japanese
language to students at all levels, though some schools offered Japanese as an extra-
curricular activity. More interestingly, a number of primary schools only focused on
Japanese culture in Japanese teaching (93.1% of the total), but only five schools only
focused on Japanese language. Based on their earlier survey results, Marriott et al.
(1993, p.14) concluded that “the development of Japanese teaching at primary level
presents exciting prospects for the future”. On the other hand, between 2000 and 2008,
the total enrolments of Japanese at the primary level declined from 284,058 to 224,531
due to a number of factors, including reduction of support from governments, school
sectors, and school leaders, dissatisfaction with Japanese by students, teachers, and
communities, rapid expansion without appropriate planning (de Kretser & Spence-
Brown, 2010). On a state basis there were the huge differences in 2008. Queensland
accounted for the most of all States at 78,380, followed by Victoria (de Kretser &
Spence-Brown, 2010). Though Victoria is the second largest State in Japanese language
education within the country, Japanese education in Victoria has been well-established,
paralleling the history of the Victorian language policy.
4.3 Situation of Japanese language education in Victoria
As well as at the Federal level, Victoria also has a significant relationship with Japan.
According to Business Victoria (2014), Japan is Victoria’s most valuable single market
for food and beverage exports and is also an important market for Victoria’s tourism and
education. This may be one reason why Japanese is one of the most popular foreign
languages in Victoria. The Victorian DEECD indicated that 58,950 students studied
Japanese in Victorian government schools (67,112 in Italian and 52,725 in Indonesian)
85
in 2013 (DEECD, 2014a). Specifically, 41,326 students learned in primary schools and
16,777 at the secondary level. Japanese was offered in 245 primary and secondary
schools, and in most schools it was taught in a “Languages program” which focuses on
learning of the target language and understanding the connection between language and
culture.
Table 4.1 Enrolment trends in Japanese, 2007-14 (DEECD, 2014a, p.15)
Although Japanese is a popular foreign language in Victorian schools, total enrolments
tended to decease between 2007 and 2012, paralleling its decreasing trend throughout
the country. Nevertheless, from 2012 to 2013, total enrolments increased, especially at
the primary level. The reason may be that many Victorian government schools are
preparing for the introduction of compulsory languages education by 2025, which is one
of the strong commitments in the 2011 Victorian language policy. As a result, some
schools newly commenced Japanese education with start-up grants (DEECD, 2011a).
4.4 Support from quasi and non-government organisations for
Japanese language education in Victoria
As noted in 2.1.2, quasi-and non-government organisations have played a significant
role in enhancing Japanese language education in Victoria. Critical organisations for
Japanese language education include the Japan Foundation, the MCJLE and teachers’
associations such as MLTAV and JLTAV.
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
Primary Schools 46,193 45,395 41,798 43,183 38,108 35,050 41,326
Secondary Schools 18,862 20,147 19,050 18,115 17,602 17,245 16,777
86
4.4.1 The Japan Foundation
First, the Japan Foundation is a Japanese public organization which was established in
1972 in order to endorse cultural and academic exchange between Japan and other
countries, and it contributes to the promotion of international understanding and the
construction of peace in the global society. The Japan Foundation in Australia was
founded in 1978 and has promoted cultural exchange, Japanese language education and
Japanese studies. In particular, working in combination with local educational
authorities, the Japan Foundation has tried to enhance Japanese language education
across all education sectors in Australia. One significant contribution to Japanese
language education is that the Japan Foundation dispatched a Japanese language advisor
to States in the past. According to Muroya (2004) who was a former Japanese advisor in
Victoria, the advisor’s work includes providing sessions for Professional Development
(PD) for Japanese language teachers, observing Japanese classes in school, providing
information for Japanese education through websites and administrating various events
such as Japanese speech contests.
However, the dispatch of the Japanese language advisor was ceased a number of years
ago. It is assumed that languages education generally was not emphasized by the
Victorian Government at that time. Nevertheless, though the dispatch of the Japanese
language advisor stopped, the Japan Foundation’s support for Japanese language
education in Australia has been continued. In particular, the Japan Foundation has
financially supported the current employment of a Japanese specific advisor being
appointed by the Victorian Government. Therefore, it is still a significant organisation
which plays a crucial role in the delivery of Japanese language education throughout
87
Australia.
4.4.2 The Melbourne Centre for Japanese Language Education
The Melbourne Centre for Japanese Language Education (MCJLE) was launched in
1996 with funding to Monash University from the Nippon Foundation. The main roles
of the MCJLE include the improvement of Japanese education in Victoria, South
Australia and Tasmania. The MCJLE has provided several activities such as in-service
training programs, lectures and workshops, and it also offers study scholarships for
teachers of Japanese. The MCJLE possesses a large materials collection, which is called
the MCJLE Collection, in the library of Monash University, for Japanese language
teachers. Another significant contribution of the MCJLE is to facilitate an email group
called “Nihongo Victoria” in order for Japanese teachers to exchange teaching ideas,
share resources and relevant information, and solve teachers’ questions concerning
Japanese language and culture. This email group also enables teachers or students to
find employment opportunities from other teachers and schools.
4.4.3 The Modern Language Teachers’ Association of Victoria
The Modern Language Teachers’ Association of Victoria (MLTAV) is a professional
association for languages teachers in Victoria and supports all languages offered in
Victorian school education. The MLTAV provides various PD opportunities. For
instance, in cooperation with the Victorian DEECD, the MLTAV offers workshops for
CLIL which is a significant policy initiative and also provides opportunities for
language teachers to understand the Australian Curriculum, so that they can incorporate
it into their school curriculum appropriately. An annual conference also offers
88
opportunities to share information for teaching languages. For instance, at the
conference held in 2014, different language teachers provided presentations based on
themes such as languages in the AusVELS, intercultural and interdisciplinary language
learning, immersion and bilingual programs and assessment and reporting. Additionally,
the MLTAV has launched a CLIL website page in order to share useful information for
language teachers. Though the MLTAV does not support Japanese language specifically,
its support has contributed to the effective delivery of Japanese language education in
Victoria.
4.4.4 The Japanese Language Teachers’ Association of Victoria
The Japanese Language Teachers’ Association of Victoria (JLTAV) is also a critical
teachers’ association and has long contributed to Japanese language education in
Victoria. The JLTAV was established in 1972, gathering about 30 teachers so that they
could share resources. Since the JLTAV was founded, the Victorian Government has
supported its activities. Currently, the JLTAV works closely in cooperation with DEECD
and is provided $30,000 per year by the Victorian Government. JLTAV has offered a
variety of PD opportunities concerning material development and sharing, and the use
of ICT tools. In addition, JLTAV provides PD workshops for new teachers and those
who would like a refresher. This is a critical opportunity to cultivate the quality of
Japanese teachers because creativity and flexibility are important in the Australian
education context. Similar to the MLTAV, the JLTAV offers a state-wide annual
conference that teachers can share knowledge of Japanese teaching and learning. For
example, at the 2014 conference, a number of primary and secondary Japanese teachers
presented various topics including the effective use of ICT, resources for teaching
89
Japanese collaborative learning and CLIL. The JLTAV also offers speech competitions
for primary and secondary school students who learn Japanese in Victoria and the
competitions seem to be able to develop the teachers’ and learners’ motivation for
teaching and learning Japanese. Because the JLTAV is made up mainly of Japanese
language teachers, it has long clearly identified the situation of Japanese language
education in Victoria and particularly the committee members may possess
comprehensive perspectives on Japanese language education in Victoria because they
can gather information from a number of teachers at the grassroots level. Hence,
interview with the committee members would enable me to gain important contextual
information and different perspectives on Japanese language education in Victoria.
4.5 Practices of primary Japanese education in Australia
Based on interviews with Japanese teachers in primary schools, Spence-Brown and
Hagino (2006) discussed characteristics of Japanese language education in Australia,
focusing on practices at the primary level. The characteristics of practices are related to
the syllabus, students’ engagement, teachers’ techniques and strategy, various learners
who have different abilities and backgrounds and authentic opportunities for
interactions. First, topic-based or task-based syllabi are widely used in Japanese
education possibly because they seem appropriate to incorporate content of other
learning areas and they seem to be able to develop not only Japanese language skills but
also academic skills. Lo Bianco and Aliani (2013) identified that many teachers from
other learning areas believe that various activities are needed for good language
education. Moreover, Lo Bianco and Aliani (2013, p.70) revealed that many teachers
from other subjects consider that it is important to make languages meaningful for
90
students, involving a lot of immersion activities. Second, Japanese teachers tend to
prioritise students’ engagement including active participation in activities and tasks so
that the students can enjoy learning and understand the significance of learning. In order
to facilitate active engagement, games and puzzles are often utilised. For example,
Japanese teachers often use bingo and karuta (traditional Japanese playing cards) which
can arouse a spirit of competition. In this regard, Lo Bianco and Aliani (2013) identified
that students feel Japanese lessons as fun when Japanese teachers often use games.
However, Spence-Brown and Hagino (2006) suggested that if teachers do not consider
the aim of games and do not develop a comprehensive structure of the program, games
would become just fun. Third, oral practices which include copying and repetition are
often incorporated in lessons. In addition, various learning strategies are indicated. For
instance, some teachers use a technique that enables students to memorise letters and
words combining songs and pictures. Picture books are often used and some teachers
have their students make their own picture books or brochures. Fourth, in Australian
school teachers actively deal with various students who have different abilities and
backgrounds. For instance, in a primary school, a Japanese teacher incorporates group-
based activity which enables students to engage in different activities in one class.
Finally, Japanese teachers try to provide opportunities for authentic interactions with
Japanese native speakers. For this, schools have sister school relationships with schools
in Japan and the students exchange emails and communicate with each other through
video conference systems. Moreover, some schools conduct a Japanese trip or invite
Japanese native students from a sister school in Japan. It is obvious that many Japanese
teachers make a lot of effort in order to enhance students’ motivation and provide
authentic opportunities for learning Japanese. In this respect, Lo Bianco and Aliani
91
(2013) argued that enthusiasm and a passion for teaching languages are necessary.
4.6 Issues of Japanese language education in Australia
Although both the Federal and State Governments have indicated policy initiatives and
provided funding and Japanese language education has been well-supported by various
organisations, there have been several long-term issues, which are difficult to solve, in
Japanese language education. Some issues are common in the education of many
languages, but some can be mainly seen in Japanese education. Various problems for
Japanese programs have been revealed by a number of previous studies. Because one of
the purposes of this thesis is to identify gaps between policy and practices and their
factors, it is important to describe issues related to policy implementation in Japanese
language education. These issues are related to access, personnel, curriculum, methods
and material, community and resourcing policies. In addition, since the primary
educational structure is closely associated with issues for the delivery of Japanese
programs in Australia, I will finally describe issues related to educational structures in
primary education in Australia.
4.6.1 Issues related to access policy
4.6.1.1 Transition problems between primary and secondary schools
The transition between primary and secondary schools has been considered as a
significant problem in Japanese language education. This problem may cause the
ineffectiveness of learners’ language proficiency improvement. For example, students
studying a language at primary school are often unable to continue the same language at
92
secondary school. In fact, in Japanese language education, articulation from primary to
secondary school is extremely rare (de Kretser & Spence-Brown, 2010). Alternatively,
students with Japanese learning experience in primary schools may be in the same
classrooms as beginners in the same class. This is problematic for both beginners and
continuing students (de Kretser & Spence-Brown, 2010).
Furthermore, Kleinsasser (2001) revealed four major factors which contributed to
transition problems. The first is that continuity in language education was impossible
due to unavailability of instructors. Secondly, expanded learning was hampered by
teachers’ inability to deal with a range of learner proficiencies. Thirdly, extended
learning was hampered by administrative decisions or policies, and finally, students
often lost interest in their first LOTE and switched to another. Moreover, as another
factor that may contribute to the transition issue, Crawford (2001) pointed out
differences in primary and secondary school language teachers’ commitment to
proficiency as a goal for the languages program. Imberger (1988) also asserted that
there are differences in the methodologies used and differences in the content and skills
covered at the primary and the secondary levels. In this respect, it is assumed that some
students are disappointed with Japanese learning at the secondary level due to the
significant differences in the methodologies and content. Djité (1994) argued that at the
primary level, precise grammar structures are not highlighted; on the contrary, overt
grammatical rules are emphasized at the secondary level. In fact, songs, games, and
hands-on learning are often used in Japanese language classes at the primary level,
whereas, in secondary schools Japanese programs focus on understanding Japanese
grammar and reading and writing Japanese texts. Moreover, memorising kanji
93
characters, and a lot of vocabulary tend to be included in Japanese lessons at the
secondary level. Some secondary students may be upset with their own difficulties in
understanding, speaking or reading Japanese, and they may have frustration with not
being able to progress. Clyne et al. (1995) admitted that transition will not always be
easy to achieve, claiming as follows:
[I]t is a demographic reality that many families move house, often when a child
reached the end of primary school. It is a fact that a large proportion of children
change school systems – usually from government to independent school,
sometimes from Catholic to government school or vice versa – at the end of
primary school. It is thus not possible to plan articulation of language study for
the entire population. (p.13)
Cunningham (2004) argues that Australia has had 20 years to identify successful
strategies for managing the transition between primary and secondary school in
languages education; however, little has been accomplished. Cunningham (1994, p.72)
advocated that there is a need for language teachers of both sectors to have an
understanding of the methodologies used by their counterparts. Some States have tried
to solve the transition issue incorporating a cluster approach. For instance, the
Department of Education and Training in NSW provided a Continuity Initiative between
1999 and 2002. This initiative made funding available for primary and secondary
schools which wanted to create a “language cluster”, and each cluster developed a
formal implementation plan. The initiative was successful in assisting continuity.
Nonetheless, the funding ended and only one cluster remains where the primary school
has a dedicated language teacher (New South Wales Board of Studies, 2013). In
Victoria, as an initiative of the recent language policy (DEECD, 2011a) and its strategic
plan (DEECD, 2013a), over 18 months in 2011 and 2012 the Victorian DEECD adopted
94
a cluster approach called Innovative Language Provision in Clusters (ILPIC) to
facilitate continuity in a transition from primary to secondary school. Because the ILPIC
trial is a significant policy initiative of the 2011 language policy, details will be
described in Chapter 6, and the ILPIC implementation will also be described in Chapter
7 because two of the case study schools in this study participated in the ILPIC project.
4.6.2 Issues related to personnel policy
4.6.2.1 Quality of non-native Japanese teachers
Of the most important issues relevant to this study, the quality of Japanese language
teachers have been identified as an issue. Firstly, the major issue related to the quality of
Japanese language teachers is their Japanese proficiency. In the past, Nicholas et al.
(1993) revealed that over 70 % of Japanese language teachers in Australian schools
were not able to conduct a normal conversation in Japanese. The New South Wales
Board of Studies (2013) claimed that few university degrees for primary school teachers
provide opportunities for students to develop language proficiency, and as a result,
graduates are unlikely to be able to teach languages to a level of proficiency necessary
for teaching. For that reason, it is important to recognize that tertiary education play a
significant role in the development of Japanese language teachers’ proficiency.
Furthermore, the Australian Language and Literacy Council (1996) claimed that the
development of languages teachers’ proficiency is closely associated with the
implementation of the language policies of the Federal, State and Territory
Governments. Thus, the Governments need to provide initiatives so that they can
cultivate languages teachers’ proficiency. For instance, the Department of Education and
Services, WA offers “the Western Australian Japanese Studies Scholarship” and “the
95
Western Australian/Hyogo Prefecture Japanese Studies Scholarship”. These
scholarships are provided each year to encourage students or graduates, and they can
have the opportunity to study at a tertiary institution in Japan for one year. The
scholarship includes a return airfare, a payment of $3,000 for education fees and a
monthly stipend of 226,600 Yen (Department of Education and Services, WA, 2014).
Similarly, the Victorian DEECD provided several scholarship programs aiming at
developing language teachers’ proficiency in the target language as a policy initiative.
I will describe Victoria’s engagement in Chapter 6.
4.6.2.2 Adoption of native Japanese teachers
In general, native teachers have excellent proficiency and enough cultural knowledge in
the target language, and thus they tend to be recognized as ideal languages teachers. As
a consequence, Nicholas et al. (1993) suggested that the recruitment of native-speaker
teachers was recognized as one of the solutions to the supply of highly proficient
languages teachers. Nonetheless, the employment and use of overseas native-speaker
teachers include several issues in Australian educational settings. Kohler et al. (2006,
p.25) emphasized that “being a native speaker does not automatically make one an
accomplished language teacher”. Citing the case of Queensland in 1995, Kato (1998)
reported that a Japanese education program was discontinued because Japanese teachers
from Japan were not confident enough in their classroom management, and because
their teaching approach did not suit Australian classrooms. Accordingly, overseas
native-speaker teachers have to develop adequate sociocultural knowledge and
understand the local perspective so that they can become socialised into the culture of
schools and classrooms (Peeler, 2002). In addition, Cruickshank (2004) pointed out that
96
a lack of competence in English is a large problem for teachers who have come from
overseas. Liddicoat et al. (2007), similarly, identified that problems related to overseas
native-speaker teachers involve their level of English proficiency. If Japanese teachers
do not possess enough proficiency in English, they cannot communicate with students
and their inadequate communication would cause the lack of good relationships with
them. Thus, efficient English proficiency of Japanese language teachers will likely lead
to effective management of the Japanese classes. Additionally, it is assumed that the
lack of English language proficiency causes the difficulty of communicating with other
school staff members such as the principal and classroom teachers for important
agendas such as students’ management and funding allocations. In order to increase
overseas languages teachers who have enough English proficiency, the Victorian
Government, for instance, requires for non-native English speakers to languages
teachers to undertake an English language test and to achieve a high level of English
language proficiency. This is recognized as a recent policy initiative of the Victorian
Government, and thus, the details will be described in Chapter 6.
4.6.2.3 Issues related to teachers’ knowledge on teaching
The other issue related to teacher quality is inadequate knowledge about teaching
Japanese. This issue is associated with both native and non-native Japanese teachers
because all Japanese teachers need to know much about teaching methodology for
effective Japanese teaching, regardless of their native languages. In general, Nicholas et
al. (1993, p.111) pointed out the lack of formal requirements that language teachers be
trained in language teaching methodology. More specifically, Marriott et al. (1993)
reported that there was a need for more training in Japanese language teaching
97
methodology during the initial training of Japanese teachers and beyond. Furthermore,
in their report, Erebus Consulting Partners (2002a) focused on inefficiency and
ineffectiveness of language methodology in primary school teacher programs. In some
cases, primary school teachers of various languages are all grouped together in their
teacher training, and they also study teaching methodology with secondary student
teachers (Erebus Consulting Partners, 2002a, p.69). In the report of Liddicoat et al.
(2007, p.108), school principals claimed that even though primary school language
teachers have competence in a language (often as native speakers), they have not been
educated in how to teach that language. In order to solve this issue, the education
departments in all States and Territories in Australia have offered in-service training
courses for current languages teachers to develop their language teaching skills.
Moreover, as described in 4.4, the language teacher associations offer a variety of PD
programs which enable language teachers to acquire knowledge on teaching languages.
However, de Kretser and Spence-Brown (2010) point out that many Japanese teachers
cannot have the time and they do not have the incentive to participate in PD
opportunities.
4.6.2.4 Supply and status of Japanese language teachers
As well as the quality of Japanese language teachers, teacher supply is, in general, an
issue for policy implementation. Nevertheless, in regard to Japanese education, teacher
supply varies according to sectors and geographical location. In fact, it is difficult to
find even minimally qualified Japanese language teachers in rural and outer-suburban
areas (Lo Bianco, 2009b); on the other hand, teacher supply is sufficient in most urban
areas (de Kretser & Spence-Brown, 2010). In addition, it has been claimed that the
98
difficulties of finding language teachers were exacerbated by the poor conditions for
language teachers in primary schools. Liddicoat et al. (2007, p.161) reported that
recruitment has been problematic because of a highly casualised workforce with little
support in schools and because of poor working conditions. Similarly, Lo Bianco
(2009b, pp.43-44) has recently pointed out that most languages teachers are employed
part-time; many of them teach large classes and they have to teach across more than one
school. Furthermore, de Kretser and Spence-Brown (2010) point out that as only
particular information has been identified for teacher supply, more research is needed to
investigate the nature of the teaching staff and current and future demands in Japanese
language education. Because languages education, including Japanese, will be
compulsory by 2025 in Victoria, more minimally qualified Japanese language teachers
will be necessary for the compulsory languages. Although there have been various
attempts to address the teacher supply issue, including re-training of language teachers
and the recruitment of overseas native teachers, these problems have not been solved to
date. Namely, the measures taken to combat supply issues, while boosting numbers in
certain areas, have not been totally successful in solving the supply issues nationally.
Lo Bianco (2009b) claimed that languages teachers in primary schools feel isolated and
de-motivated especially when they are employed part-time and work at several schools
in a week. Such severe working conditions for language teachers are related to the poor
retention of qualified language teachers (Liddicoat et al., 2007). Especially in primary
schools, it is important to note that Japanese specialist teachers tend to be peripheral in
the current curriculum model in Australia, and as a result, language teachers are often
appointed under short-term and unequal arrangements (Spence-Brown, 2014a, p.190).
99
4.6.3 Issues related to curriculum policy
4.6.3.1 Outcomes
Spence-Brown and Hagino (2006) point out Japanese language teachers have a
significant responsibility in the development of language syllabi and materials in
Australia, and thus the content of Japanese programs and their quality are different
across schools. In particular, the difference is obvious at the primary level because
syllabi are usually produced according to textbooks (Spence-Brown & Hagino, 2006,
p.49). Moreover, Spence-Brown and Hagino (2006) also stated that many Japanese
teachers think that achieving highly expected outcomes seems difficult, considering the
actual situations that the Japanese teachers are encountering.
One of the expected outcomes includes proficiency improvement in Japanese. However,
proficiency improvement cannot effectively capture in policy implementation alone.
Ingram (1992, p. 12) proclaimed that policy makers firstly need to set the target
proficiency levels they would like students to attain by the end of school in order to
accomplish the target levels. Independent Schools Queensland (2007) points out that
overall Australian students’ levels of second language learning are quite low when they
are compared to international standards although significant variation exits between the
States throughout Australia. On the other hand, some claim that language and cultural
awareness is a key objective at early primary levels. The conflict between language
proficiency and cultural awareness at the primary level is an ongoing issue in foreign
language education (Mackey, 2000). In regard to the connection between proficiency
development and articulation from primary to secondary schools, Hill et al. (1998)
claimed that the benefits of an early start raise a question. Brown et al. (2000)
100
concluded that students who had had most exposure to their target language were not
automatically those accomplishing the best results according to their longitudinal study
of Year 8 students’ test performance of exposure to several languages including
Japanese.
4.6.3.2 Time allocation
Curtain and Pesola (1988) asserted that there is a direct correlation between the amount
of time learning a language and the development of language skills. Liddicoat et al.
(2007) point out that the time allocation factor has been a long-term problem in
languages education including Japanese. Kirkpatrick (1995, p. 22) recommends that
children who are from Years 3 to 10 should learn a language for at least 2.5 hours and
senior secondary students should study a language for three hours per week. Rudd
(1994, p. 91) revealed that in 1991, 75% of primary school students studied a foreign
language for less than one hour a week. In this respect, Ingram (1992, p.16) asserted
that less than one hour is “less than effective” with regard to second language learning.
The amount of time spent in language study greatly varies in Australia. In some States
and Territories a particular amount of language learning is recommended at the policy
level; on the other hand, the recommendation of an amount of time is not always
followed. Even though a greater time allocation for language education has been
advocated; on the other hand, primary schools have been increasingly suffering from a
“crowded curriculum” issue because there has been a lot of competition from other
learning areas for a greater time allocation in the school curriculum (Rajakumar, 2003).
Spence-Brown (2014a) claims that in primary schools, minimal time for Japanese
programs is often allocated in the school curriculum mainly due to the temporary
101
employment arrangement of Japanese specialist teachers. Additionally, many parents
have been worried about the falling standards in numeracy and English literacy which
have been recognized a growth in their relative significance in the school curriculum
(Rajakumar, 2003). Citing the result of DEECD’s report, Spence-Brown (2014a) stated
that contact time that the Victorian Government recommends for languages is almost
universally disregarded in schools, and that the recommendation is aspirational and of
limited practical value.
4.6.4 Issues related to methods and material policy
4.6.4.1 Teaching methods
One significant issue to be discussed concerning methods policy includes the adoption
of integrated approaches such as immersion and CLIL, which has recently been
emphasized for language education in Australia. In particular for CLIL, Turner (2013,
p.396) points out that it is a method which can promote effective language teaching and
higher retention rate in languages education in Australia. Spence-Brown (2014a) points
out that CLIL has a possibility to increase contact time for the target language without
the necessity of displacing other learning areas. On the other hand, Turner (2013)
discusses three CLIL issues, focusing on Japanese language teaching in Australia. First,
suitable and effective teaching materials need to be developed for a successful CLIL
program, even though teaching resources for Japanese language education are plentiful
in Australia. In this regard, Turner (2013, p.321) suggests that in the case of Japanese
CLIL teaching, “developing an Australia-wide online resource bank for use in Japanese
CLIL classrooms has the potential to assist teachers in their endeavour”. Second,
competent bilingual teachers are necessary because many Japanese teachers are non-
102
native speakers in Australia. In fact, it is difficult for teachers to teach a subject through
Japanese if they do not have both knowledge of the subject and a good command of
Japanese. Hence, Turner (2013, p.322) argues that fluent bilingual teachers can be a
significant factor in the success of CLIL programs, but that a greater understanding of
the curriculum of Australia is also important. Finally, in Japanese CLIL classes the great
linguistic distance between Japanese and English would be a burden for many students’
proficiency in Japanese. Thus, Turner (2013, p.325) suggests that “expectations in
Japanese CLIL program should be in keeping with the time and resources - both human
and material - made available” Spence-Brown (2014a) points out an issue in terms of
the generalist and specialist distinction in primary education and states that if a school
does not employ generalist teachers who are also language specialists for CLIL
programs, it is difficult for the schools to provide a sustainable CLIL model within
existing funding limitation (Spence-Brown, 2014a, p.190). Spence-Brown (2014a)
further suggests that this is the possible reason why CLIL programs are being
implemented in minimal ways which covers a single unit or term.
Since CLIL is a critical initiative of the 2011 language policy, details of the initiatives
and actions will be described in Chapter 6. Moreover, two of the case study schools
adopted CLIL in their Japanese program under the ILPIC trial, and therefore, the CLIL
implementation of each school will be described in Chapter 7.
4.6.4.2 Materials
Teaching resources and materials are needed to be considered in Japanese education.
Although a variety of websites enable Japanese teachers to share teaching materials,
103
comprehensive materials which include assessment frameworks/materials and which
indicate the target range and outcomes are scarce (de Kretser & Spence-Brown, 2010).
Furthermore, it is necessary to invest in new teaching materials concerning modern
Japanese society and Japanese popular culture, as well as teaching resources which can
develop intercultural skills because intercultural skills are gaining increased attention in
recent policy documents (de Kretser & Spence-Brown, 2010). In fact, there is a few
resources for intercultural skills in Japanese language education. Moreover, Spence-
Brown (2014b) points out that not having a textbook is an issue in primary Japanese
education in Australia. Almost all Japanese teachers in Australian schooling usually
produce teaching materials on their own, but this may be burden, especially for new
graduates because of their lack of teaching experience.
4.6.5 Issues related to community policy
4.6.5.1 Japanese teaching assistants
As well as overseas native-speaker teachers as outlined in 4.6.2.2, in Japanese language
education it is crucial to consider the adoption and the use of native-speaker assistants.
Native-speaker assistants are quite common in Australian schooling and they contribute
to provide authentic opportunities for learning the target language. For example, in
some Japanese language classrooms, a collaborative team-teaching approach with
Japanese native-speaker volunteers is used. The native-speakers are commonly referred
to as Japanese Assistant Teachers (JATs) and they often constitute an indispensable asset
to school language programs (Hasegawa, 2011). JATs are usually Japanese native-
speakers who are prospective Japanese language teachers or those who have interests in
people and cultures in the country. JATs basically have the responsibilities of assisting
104
Japanese teachers, cooperating with the teacher to develop lessons, activities and
materials, nurturing an understanding of the Japanese language and culture in the school
community, or supporting school events for Japanese in schools. On the other hand,
similar to the issue related to overseas teachers in 4.6.2.2, JATs’ lack of knowledge of
language education and local perspectives is a significant issue. For the adoption of
qualified JATs, some States provide programs related to the supply of assistant language
teachers. Department of Education, Service of Western Australia has also offered one
year language assistants program for several languages including Japanese (Department
of Education, Service, 2011). Similarly, Victorian DEECD has provided two programs
for language assistants (DEECD, 2014b), to be described in Chapter 6.
When JATs are officially appointed by State Governments, most of them would be
qualified and be provided with appropriate working conditions. On the other hand, there
are a large number of unofficial study abroad agents who dispatch Japanese volunteer
assistants to English-speaking countries such as Australia, but many of the agents do not
require any qualification for the adoption of volunteer assistants. In this case, different
issues can be identified. First, the assistants are not given adequate status and they may
be expected to take on excessive workloads in language classrooms (Hasegawa, 2011).
In addition, a lack of transparent and clear allocations of responsibilities exists between
Japanese language teachers, JATs, and their agents (Hasegawa, 2011). Rajakumar
(2003) argued that some schools are guilty of misusing JATs because of expecting
largely untrained and inexperienced Japanese natives to plan and implement Japanese
programs without any support. This situation would be very stressful for the JATs, and
rarely produce a satisfactory Japanese program.
105
4.6.6 Issues related to resourcing policy
4.6.6.1 Funding allocation
When Japanese was widely introduced in the 1990s, the NALSAS taskforce supported
the introduction of Japanese throughout Australia, as mentioned in 3.2.4. Slaughter
(2009) emphasized the power of funding for the priority languages education including
Japanese under the NALSAS and she also asserted that funding is a crucial factor in the
success of language programs in addition to policy support (Slaughter, 2009). Funding
for languages programs is delivered by the Federal Government through the School
Languages Program and through supplementary sources including the NALSAS
(Slaughter, 2009). However, the provision of funding for languages programs is
different in each State, such as Victoria and NSW. In Victoria, funding from the Federal
Government is largely provided to language supporting organisations in Victoria. On the
other hand, in NSW some of the NALSAS funding was utilised to employ languages
teachers and launch new languages programs especially in primary schools, even though
the purpose of the NALSAS funding was not principally for the employment of Asian
language teachers. In this respect, Slaughter (2009) stressed that the use of the NALSAS
funding for the supply of Asian language teachers was a short-term solution for the
teacher supply of language programs if alternative funding is not available. In fact, a
number of language programs were discontinued in NSW. Furthermore, In Rajakumar’s
study (2003), a principal in a Victorian primary school reported that funding for
languages was not checked by anyone and principals do not need to report on the
outcome of language teaching. Rajakumar (2003) asserted that the tagged funding still
remains, and though almost all primary schools do some languages education, it is
106
mostly ineffective.
4.6.7 Issues related to educational structures in primary education in Australia
In addition to issues related to policy and implementation, educational structures
including school systems, school policies and structures are significant factors which
lead to issues in Japanese language education (de Kretser & Spence-Brown, 2010).
Spence-Brown (2014b) points out that structural factors can be identified especially in
primary education because primary education is conduced based on a generalist model
where classroom teachers cover the whole curriculum area. As a result, teaching a
specialist area is peripheral, as already pointed out, and it becomes weak in budgeting
and staffing in schools. In this regard, it can be hypothesised that classroom teachers
tend to have a politically stronger position in a school than do specialist teachers.
107
Chapter 5: Methodology
This chapter describes the methodology and the methodological issues with regard to
data collection and analysis for the current study. Firstly, I will describe the overall
approach taken. This will be followed by a detailed explanation of the actual data
collection procedures. In addition, this chapter will discuss my reasons for utilising
these particular methodologies, the theoretical issues involved and the strengths and
limitations of the methodologies employed. Finally, this chapter will state how the data
was analysed and utilised in order to answer the research questions.
5.1 Overall research method
In this research project, I will draw upon a qualitative approach which is often utilised
in the study of language-in-education policy (e.g. Breen, 2002; Slaughter, 2007;
Liddicoat et al., 2007). The qualitative approach, in general, enables researchers to
understand social phenomena with more depth and also to attempt to develop a complex
picture of the problem or issue under study, as Silverman (2005, p.8) points out.
Creswell (2009) has a similar perspective on the qualitative approach and argues that
qualitative research is a way of exploring and understanding the meanings that people
assign to social or human issues and problems (Creswell, 2009). Consistent with a
qualitative research approach, the current study adopted a case study approach. Dörnyei
(2007, p.151) refers to cases as primarily investigating people, but researchers are also
able to deeply investigate a program, an institution, an organization, or a community.
Dörnyei (2007, p.155) additionally points out that case studies can offer rich and
detailed insights that no other method or approach can yield, and that are often hidden
from view in more quantitative methodologies, as the former allow us to investigate
108
how a complex set of circumstances come together and interact in shaping the social
world around us. In addition, a case study enables researchers to address the “how” and
“why” questions on real-life events (Yin, 2004). Rather than analysing a single case
study, it is important in qualitative research to consider employing a multiple-case
design because the results from multiple-case studies can be regarded as being more
convincing (Yin, 1984). Also, a multiple-case design may be useful when case study
researchers need to explore similarities and differences among several cases. Within
research adopting either a single case or multiple cases approach, researchers usually
combine a variety of qualitative data collection methods including interviews, and the
collection of document archives and others. As a consequence, the case study enables
researchers to maximise our understanding of the unitary character of the social being or
object studied (Dörnyei, 2007, p.152).
In the current study, cases can be divided into macro and micro levels. The former
includes language-in-education policies at the Federal and State levels. As described in
1.6, Australia has two governmental systems, consisting of the Federal and
State/Territory Governments, and thus, investigation of language-in-education policies
and implementations in a State/Territory can be recognized as a single case at the macro
level. Simultaneously, the current study focuses on practices of Japanese language
education in four government schools which can be considered as a part of the policy
implementation in Victoria, and hence, the practices in four schools can be recognized
as multiple cases at the micro level. This multi-levelled case study enables me to
explore different perspectives on initiatives and actions of language-in-education policy
of the Federal and Victorian Governments and the associated practices of Japanese
109
language education in Victoria. Furthermore, data from the two levels also enables me
to explore the nexus between policy and practices, focusing on Japanese languages
education.
However, it is critical to consider several conflicting issues concerning the case study
approach. Firstly, issues with generalizability are recognized as a significant limitation.
As Duff and others note, the results of case studies cannot be generalized onto larger
populations because of the nature of the approach. In addition, it is important to
consider the relationship between objectivity and subjectivity in a case study approach.
Duff (2008) argues that two issues are relevant here. The first issue is that it is possible
for researchers to express bias when undertaking research or to become involved in the
case, since they choose to study participants or sites, and conduct interviews which are
filtered through a researcher’s perspectives. On the other hand, in order to analyse the
cases in depth, it is sometimes necessary to be close to the cases. The second issue is
about the subjectivity of the data collection process. In the interview process, the
reliability of each participant’s responses may be questionable at times. For example, it
may be likely that the participants will suppress facts that are unpalatable. These issues
are thus limitations of my case study which I will explain later in this chapter.
5.2 The data for the current study
The current study explores two levels of language-in-education policy. This consists of
governmental policy “intention” and practices in schools as “implementation” (Lo
Bianco and Aliani, 2013), as outlined in 2.5. It would be ideal for policy researchers to
study language-in-education policy and implementation in all States and Territories in
110
Australia in order to identify the nexus between the Federal and State/Territory policy in
languages education. However, it would be very complex in reality due to time and
financial restrictions. Considering such complexity, I decided to focus on the State of
Victoria which has developed comprehensive language-in-education polices, as
described in 3.3 above.
For the analysis of policy “intention”, I will collect the language-in-education policy
documents of the Federal and Victorian Governments and interview data from relevant
personnel of the former and current Victorian governmental education agencies. For the
analysis of practices as “implementation”, I will collect the data from interviews with
school participants including principals, classroom teachers, Japanese language teachers
and Japanese language assistants. I will also collect syllabus documents for Japanese
programs and Japanese teaching materials. Moreover, the data from interviews with
representatives of teachers’ organizations in Victoria will be valuable in order to gain
background information about issues related to Japanese language education in Victoria.
In the following sections, I will describe data collection methods and procedures.
5.3 Data collection methods and procedures
5.3.1 Semi-structured interviews
As Nunan (1992) points out, interview techniques have been widely used in applied
linguistics research. The critical data collection method in the current study is interview,
and more specifically, I employed semi-structured interviews for all the participants
described above. Semi-structured interviews include pre-prepared guided questions
designed to enable the participants to express their experiences and opinions more
111
openly. In general, semi-structured interviews aim to explore the research participants’
experiences as well as the meanings they attribute to these experiences (Adams, 2010).
Moreover, Dörnyei (2007, p.136) claims that through applying semi-structured
interviews, researchers are able to encourage interviewees to elaborate on various
research themes flexibly, and that researchers are not bound to static lines of
questioning. As with Slaughter’s (2007) study on Australian language policy and
planning, this study also considers interviews to be an effective way of accessing the
views and values of the various participants toward language-in-education policy
formulation and implementation.
Conversely, it is necessary to recognize the weaknesses of interviews. Rossman and
Rallis (2012), for instance, point out that willing engagement of the participant is
necessary because interviews include personal interaction. Furthermore, it is required to
consider whether the interviewer can ask all the relevant questions at the time and the
sort of responses the interviewees can provide or they do not provide. In this respect,
Rossman and Rallis (2012 p.179) argue that interviewees may be unwilling or
uncomfortable sharing all that the interviewer hopes to explore. Duff (2012) also claims
that interviews do not necessarily create complete or precise versions of interviewees’
perspectives since they are co-constructed speech events based on social relationships
and interaction.
Block (1995) also suggests that interviews are characterised by various problematic
issues, such as the social construction of the interview, power imbalance, interviewees
who perform during the encounter, and discursive psychology. Firstly, in terms of the
social construction which takes place in the context of an interview, it is important to
112
consider that interviewees may have various thoughts before or during an interview.
These thoughts may include concerns about the interviewer him/herself, the reasons for
the interview, and how the interview data will be analysed and reported. Secondly,
power imbalance may exist in an interview. In particular, the role of an interviewer
tends to be more active than that of the interviewee when asking questions. Thus, it is
generally believed that an interviewer has some power over the interviewee, but this is
not necessarily the case. In addition, it is important for researchers to consider whether
an interviewee performs freely and willingly or actually withholds certain information
during the interview process. Finally, it is crucial to consider an interviewee’s
discursive psychology. That is, interviewees tend to relate past incidents while
remaining concerned with accuracy and neutrality. In this regard, it is possible that the
interviewee does not explain a fact straight forwardly. Block (1995) concluded that of
these factors, power imbalances affecting the performance of the interviewees and
discursive psychology cannot be controlled since they are not obvious until the
interview has been conducted and the researcher has analysed the results. In his
conclusion, he advises that researchers take these inadequacies of interview data into
consideration when undertaking their analysis.
5.3.2 Interviews with school participants
5.3.2.1 Principals
School principals represent the first group of participants as they play an important role
in implementing language-in-education policy as a part of the school curriculum, and
they also have the responsibility of managing the school budget, as well as teacher
employment at their schools. As Spence-Brown (2014a) pointed out, principals have a
113
significant power in administrating schools and for the delivery of languages program in
the Australian educational context. Although the Federal and the State Governments
propose language-in-education policy, it is principals who usually make the decision
about which languages should be taught in their school, taking into account factors such
as resources, languages at other schools in the region and the community and parents’
opinions (Spence-Brown, 2014a).
5.3.2.2 Primary school teachers
Many scholars argue for the significance of recognising teachers as active agents in the
language policy process (e.g., Hornberger & Ricento, 1996; Skilton-Sylvester, 2003).
Lo Bianco’s (2010a) perspective on the teacher’s role is more directly associated with
language policy implementation. Lo Bianco (2010a) suggests that implementation of
language policy, which is determined by curriculum bodies or ministries of education
includes teachers. Therefore, teachers play a crucial role in the success of language-in-
education policy implementation.
Primary school teachers are basically divided into generalists and specialists in
Australian primary schools. McMaugh and Coutts (2010) assert that the delivery of the
primary curriculum has been a considerable topic of recent debate in many countries
such as the UK and Australia. In fact, most primary school teachers are generalists;
however a current contradiction can be identified whereby there are claims that
specialists are needed to deliver the curriculum in Australia. Masters (2009, p.73)
asserts that “ideally, every primary school teacher would be an expert teacher of
literacy, numeracy and science”. Similarly, Spence-Brown (2014a, p.189) points out
114
that “the current model for primary teaching assumes a full-time classroom specialist
allocated a single class”. Furthermore, Williams (2009, p.10) suggests that primary
schools should follow the practice of secondary schools, establishing curriculum units
with specialist teachers. On the other hand, the specialist teacher “would hone their
knowledge by teaching across year levels, and by delivering the same lessons to
numerous classes within the same year level.” Williams (2009, p.10) also proclaims that
“curriculum and learning objectives would become truly standardised as specialists not
only deliver deep knowledge but also uniformly plan and evaluate lessons”. Based on
such scholars’ assertions, Ardzejewska et al. (2010, p.204) conclude that we can
identify a transference from the ideologically valued position of the subject generalist to
the “deep knowledge” of the subject specialist. Spence-Brown (2014a, p.189) suggests
that there have been massive changes in the nature and content of primary teaching over
the past decades”. This is probably because modern society has become more
sophisticated and complex.
In addition, as Ardzejewska et al. (2010, p.204) argue, it is important to consider the
meaning of “specialist” in primary education in the Australian context. According to
some academics (e.g., Ramsey, 2000; Tinning et al., 1993), specialist teachers are those
who have undertaken significant further studies and who have responsibility for the
subject. In fact, in languages education, specialist teachers need to possess capability in
the language to be taught, including linguistic and cultural knowledge, and the ability to
develop language syllabi/ lesson plans and to provide effective lessons in the language.
Additionally, in the recent trend of language education, integrated approaches such as
immersion and CLIL are often incorporated into the language curriculum. Thus, while
115
they need the skills of a specialist in language, language teachers may also need to
possess specific knowledge and expertise related to the targeted subject area. On the
other hand, the role of specialist teachers tends to be an outlier in the current school
curriculum, and as a result, the employment of specialist teachers and the related budget
is not necessarily clearly mandated.
Considering the roles of generalist classroom teachers and specialist Japanese language
teachers, the current study decided to choose both classroom teachers and Japanese
specialist teachers as participants. First, classroom teachers (from Prep to Year 6 in
Victoria) have significant responsibilities in school education. For example, they spend
a lot of time with their classes and often have ample amounts of information about their
students, such as knowledge of the students’ prior language experience due to a
prolonged engagement with them. In addition, classroom teachers represent the
“mainstream” teaching in the school, so their views will be useful in assessing the place
of Japanese in the overall curriculum. Japanese specialist teachers carry out the daily
tasks of Japanese language teaching which represents the major foci of my research.
Needless to say, Japanese teachers, both native and non-native speakers, play a crucial
role in teaching Japanese, developing language curriculum, and selecting, adopting, and
making teaching materials, so it is crucial that they be centrally represented within the
data collection procedure. In their study, Lo Bianco and Aliani’s (2013) revealed that all
teaching staff in schools and the parents saw language specialist teachers as a significant
element of successful language programs. Moreover, when a Japanese native teaching
assistant engages in Japanese education in the school, these assistants were also
interviewed in order to gain as much contextual data as possible. Japanese native
116
assistants often work with Japanese teachers, and they can be an important benefit to
school language programs although some issues are attached to Japanese language
assistants, as noted in 4.6.5.1.
Before the recruitment of the school participants, it was necessary to obtain ethical
research approval from the researcher’s institution and the Victorian DEECD, which
allowed me to conduct the research. After this ethical clearance was obtained, I
contacted a number of government primary schools which offer Japanese language
education. In the recruitment process, I chose five government primary schools
randomly from a few regions, and I then sent an email which briefly explained the
research project to each school and invited principals to participate. Principals were
asked to email me if they were interested in participating. Once the principals contacted
me, I emailed them an explanatory statement and consent form. I also requested that the
principals passed the recruitment email on to Japanese teachers, assistants and
classroom teachers and the above-described process was replicated. A total of four
primary schools in the metropolitan area of two regions (North-eastern and South-
eastern regions) agreed to participate in this study.
With regard to the selection of classroom teachers, as noted above, the participation
depended upon each teacher’s willingness and thus, classroom teachers in different
grades participated in the study. Because I needed to examine the sequences of the
Japanese program in each school, I conducted interviews with Japanese language
teachers in 2012 and in 2014. One Japanese language assistant agreed to participate in
the project. The assistant was employed by two of the schools which participated in the
117
study at the time when I conducted the first interview. The participants, the codes which
will be used to refer to them, and the interview dates are set out in Table 5.1.
Table 5.1 The school participants and the interview dates
I obtained background information of Japanese language teachers through a
questionnaire at the time of the first interviews in 2012. Their backgrounds are
summarized in Table 5.2 below. The interview questions for all the school participants
School Region Participants Gender Code Interview date
A
North-eastern Principal Male Principal A 16/08/2012
Classroom teacher
(Year 5)
Male CRT A 30/08/2012
Japanese language teacher Female JLT A 16/08/2012
24/03/2014
Japanese assistant
Female Assistant A 22/10/2012
B
South-eastern Principal Female Principal B 12/09/2012
Classroom teacher
(Year 1)
Female CRT B 12/09/2012
Japanese language teacher Female JLT B 12/09/2012
06/11/2014
C
North-eastern Principal Female Principal C 22/10/2012
Classroom teacher
(Year 5)
Female CRT C 22/10/2012
Japanese language teacher Female JLT C 22/10/2012
25/03/2014
Japanese assistant Female Assistant A 22/10/2012
D South-eastern Principal Male Principal D 10/12/2012
Classroom teacher (Prep) Female CRT D 11/12/2012
Japanese language teacher Female JLT D 10/12/2012
03/09/2014
118
were generated based on Kaplan and Baldauf’s (1997, 2005) seven components and the
sub-questions under each component described in 2.1.3
Interview questions were also created based on issues for languages education in
Australia which previous studies had identified (e.g., Liddicoat et al., 2007; Lo Bianco,
2009b; de Kretser & Spence-Brown, 2010). Questions for the school participants were
tailored according to the role of each participant and they are available in Appendix 1.
In order to fully and freely develop their answers to the questions, I conducted
interviews in the participant’s first language. For instance, I conducted interviews with
all principals and classroom teachers in English. I interviewed JLT A/JLT C and
Assistant A in Japanese and interviewed JLT B and D in English, which was their first
language in each case. However, I sometimes used Japanese during the interview for
JLT B and JLT D so that I was able to identify the degree of their Japanese language
proficiency.
119
Table 5.2 The backgrounds of the Japanese language teachers
Code Native
language
Education and country Highest
academic
qualification
Course/major Teaching
experience
in
Australian
schools
Years at
current
school
Status of
staff
Primary
school
Secondary
School
Undergraduate
study
Post
graduate study
JLT A Japanese
Japan
Japan
Japan
Australia
Post graduate
diploma
Primary
education
6 yrs 6yrs Part-time
JLT B English Australia
Australia
Australia
None Bachelor
degree
Japanese and
linguistics
5 yrs 4yrs 9
months
Fulltime
JLT C Japanese Japan
Japan Japan Australia Master’s
degree
Master of
Education
2 yrs 2 yrs Fulltime
JLT D English Australia
Australia
Australia
None Bachelor
degree
Japanese and
Japanese
studies plus
LOTE method
32 yrs 18 yrs Part-time
120
5.3.3 Interviews with stakeholders
In the current study, stakeholders who were targeted for interviews were divided into
three groups. The first group included current officials from the Victorian Government’s
education agencies who are involved in formulating and implementing language-in-
education policies. The main aim of the interview was to obtain more information about
objectives, policies and their implementation. The second group included former
officials of the Victorian Government’s education agencies but who are not constrained
by being current state employees. The aims of the interview with the former officials
were to obtain relevant background historical information and also informed comment
from those with an understanding of the system. The third group involved personnel
involved in teacher associations. The interviews with these personnel aimed at obtaining
a broader view of policy and its implementation from the perspective of the teacher
representatives. Similar to the interviews with the school participants, interview
questions were produced based on Kaplan and Baldauf’s (1997, 2005) seven
components and the subcategories under each component described in 2.1.3. Practical
issues for languages education identified in previous studies were also considered for
suitable follow-up questions.
5.3.3.1 Personnel of the current governmental education agencies
In the Victorian context, DEECD is responsible for the provision and delivery of
languages education. In addition, VCAA is in charge of developing and monitoring the
State curriculum for languages. Therefore, I approached several officers of DEECD and
VCAA as representatives of the organisations involved in the delivery or support of
languages education programs. In the process of the recruitment of the participants, I
121
firstly sent out an email which briefly explains the research project and invited the
relevant personnel to participate after ethical clearance was obtained. Once the
personnel agreed to participate in the study, I emailed them an explanatory statement
and consent form and set the date and place for the interview. I was able to interview
two current DEECD officers (see Table 5.3). Sample questions for the personnel of the
current governmental education agencies have been listed in Appendix 2.
5.3.3.2 Personnel of the former governmental education agencies
As described above, I chose several officers of the former Victorian Department of
Education who were involved in policy formulation and implementation. In the process
of the recruitment of the participants, I firstly identified who had a significant role in the
past policy formulation and implementation in Victoria based on the interviews with
MLTAV and JLTAV representatives, and I chose three former officers. I then sent them
out an email which briefly explained the research project and invited the relevant
personnel to participate. Once the personnel agreed to participate in the study, I emailed
them an explanatory statement and consent form and set the date and place for the
interview. Two former officers of the Victorian Department of Education participated in
the study (see Table 5.3). Sample questions for the personnel of the former
governmental education agencies are available in Appendix 3.
122
Table 5.3 The participants and the interview date for the governmental education
agencies
5.3.3.3 Representatives of teachers’ associations in Victoria
For Japanese education in Victoria, MLTAV and JLTAV play an important role in the
delivery of Japanese language education in Victoria, as described in 4.4. The interviews
with personnel of these organisations enabled me to connect the case school data with
other cases concerning Japanese language education in Victoria because all members
were current or former Japanese language teachers who have specialised knowledge of
Japanese language education in Victoria. Therefore, in the current study, I focused on
representatives of MLTAV and JLTAV. The recruitment process of representatives of
the teachers’ associations was the same as that of DEECD or former DOE officers. One
MLTAV committee member and five JLTAV committee members including former
committee members participated in this project. Sample questions for the
representatives of non-government organisations have been listed in Appendix 4.
Agency Participants Gender Code Interview date
Former
Victorian
Department
of Education
(DOE)
Officer Female GO 1 21/07/2014
Officer Male GO 2 30/06/2014
DEECD Officer Female GO 3 08/07/2014
Officer Female GO 4 25/07/2014
123
Table 5.4 The participants and the interview date for teachers’ associations in
Victoria
5.3.4 Written documents
5.3.4.1 Policy and national/Victorian curriculum framework documents
As noted in 2.5, the concept of “intention” of Lo Bianco and Aliani (2013) will be
utilised for the analysis of language-in-education policy texts. For this analysis, I
collected official documents concerning languages education at the Federal and the
State levels. At the former level the following documents were included: the NPL
(1987); the ALLP (1991); the NALSAS (1994-2002); National Statement for
Languages Education in Australian Schools: National Plan for Languages Education in
Australian Schools 2005-2008; the Melbourne Declaration of Educational Goals for
Young Australians (2008); the NALSSP (2009-2012); and the Australian Asian
Century, White Paper (2012). At the state level, the following documents were selected:
The Place of Languages other than English in Victorian schools (1985); Languages
Action Plan (1993); LOTE Strategy Plan (1993); The Victorian Government’s Vision
Organisations Participants Gender Code Interview date
JLTAV Former committee
member
Female TA 1 05/05/2014
Committee member Female TA 2 08/05/2014
Former committee
member
Female TA 3 14/05/2014
Committee member Female TA 4 22/05/2014
Committee member Male TA 5 06/06/2014
MLTAV Committee member Female TA 6 12/05/2014
124
for Languages Education (2011); and Languages - expanding your world Plan to
implement The Victorian Government’s Vision for Languages Education 2013-2025
(2013). In addition, as discussed in 2.2, language curriculum documents delivered by
the Federal and the State governmental authorities were collected. These include
Australian Curriculum: Languages (2013); Draft of Australian Curriculum: Languages:
Japanese (2013); The CSF II (2000-2005); The VELS (2006-2012); The AusVELS
(2013-present). Moreover, much information related to policy and its implementation is
now provided on the websites of governmental agencies. Such websites were therefore
also included in the document analysis (see Table 5.5).
Table 5.5 List of websites of governmental education agencies
5.3.4.2 Syllabus documents and Japanese teaching materials in the case study
schools
I collected language syllabus documents and teaching materials such as handouts from
the case study schools. However, the submission of school syllabus documents and
Government Education agency URL
Federal Australian Government
Department of Education
https://www.education.gov.au/
languages-education
Australian Curriculum,
Assessment and Reporting
Authority (ACARA)
http://www.acara.edu.au/curriculum/
learning_areas/languages.html
State of
Victoria
Department of Education and
Early Childhood Development
(DEECD)
http://www.education.vic.gov.au/scho
ol/teachers/teachingresources/
discipline/languages/Pages/
default.aspx
Victorian Curriculum and
Assessment Authority (VCAA)
http://www.vcaa.vic.edu.au/Pages/
index.aspx
125
materials depended upon Japanese language teachers’ willingness to provide these
materials, which varied. Hence, the collection of the materials was limited to some
grades and topics.
5.4 Limitations and issues in collecting data
As discussed in 5.2, for practical reasons, the scope of this study was limited to
Victorian schools, so generalisation to other contexts may not be appropriate. In
addition to the restriction of the study to Victoria, the selection of schools also places
limitations on the generalisability of this study. While a Victoria-wide analysis
concerning Japanese language education in government primary schools may have been
ideal, this was not practical in a case study of this kind. I firstly planned to draw
samples from all regions in Victoria: North-eastern, North-western, South-eastern and
South-western regions because regional contexts may affect the provision and practice
of languages education. However, I encountered a difficulty in finding schools willing
to participate. Initially, 15 schools were approached in all regions. However, only two
schools in the South-eastern region and in two schools in the South-western region
agreed to participate in the research project. Although these are both suburban areas in
Melbourne, the limitation of the sample to schools in similar locations with similar
demographics meant that comparison between schools was easier, and therefore the
impact of factors other than geography and school type was more clearly discernible.
5.5 Data analysis
5.5.1 Methods of data analysis
In qualitative research, data analysis is a process of making meaning (Esterberg, 2002,
126
p.152). Similarly, Takagi (2010) points out that analysing qualitative data is also a
process of obtaining meaning. Esterberg (2002) argues that analysing qualitative data is
a creative process, and that it is essential for qualitative researchers to extract meaning
from raw data. In order to make the raw data more become meaningful, interpretive
processes are necessary. Ezzy (2002, p.73) asserts that analysing qualitative data is an
interpretive task. The current study will utilise transcribing, reading and coding in the
interpretation of the data.
Additionally¸ the current study employs a constant comparative method
(Silverman, 2005) because the study employs a multiple case study approach, as
described in 5.1. The constant comparative method enables researchers to enrich
the validity of qualitative research (Silverman, 2005). Silverman (2005) further
claims that the main purpose of the constant comparative method is comparing the
data fragments that appear in each single case.
5.5.2 Transcription
As described above, transcribing is one of the processes of making raw data become
meaningful. In the current study, all the interviews were recorded with an IC recorder
and the recorded interviews were then transcribed. When I came across unclear and
incomprehensible parts, I checked with the participants by e-mail. However, in the cases
in which they could not remember, I asked them to explain what they had intended to
say in these utterances. The interviews which were conducted in English were directly
utilised for citation but the interviews which were conducted Japanese were transcribed
in Japanese script, and then translated into English for citation.
127
5.5.3 Data analysis procedure
For the analysis of policy “intentions” and “implementation”, drawing upon Kaplan and
Baldauf’s (1997, 2005) seven components described in 2.5, I established sub-categories
of themes that came up under each of these components. For instance, sub-categories of
access policy include language choice, target year, duration for learning, and
articulation between primary and secondary schools. Similarly, sub-categories of
personnel policy involve teacher supply, teacher qualification, teacher status, and
teacher’s role.
5.5.3.1 Analysis of policy “intention”
The analysis of policy “intentions” involved an examination of the collected policy texts
including the relevant government website pages. After reviewing the policy texts a
number of times, the policy texts were further categorised into sub-categories described
above. For instance, as for access policy, I carefully examined the policy texts and
identified when the policy texts referred to the sub-categories including language
choice, target years and articulation. I then extracted the identified parts from the policy
texts. The interview transcriptions of the current DEECD’s officials were also utilised
supplementarily. The transcribed data from the officials were categorised into sub-
categories and matched with the extracted parts of the policy documents in order to
support the analysis of policy intention. For instance, if the DEECD’s official referred
to language choice in the access policy, I utilised the transcriptions for their relevant
remarks.
128
5.5.3.2 Analysis of “implementation”
For the analysis of “implementation”, I firstly reviewed the transcribed interviews many
times, and categorised the interview data into Kaplan and Baldauf’s components and
sub-categories. For example, the principals provided descriptions about teacher
qualification, and some descriptions affected their perspectives on ideal Japanese
teachers. At the same time, I constantly compared the transcribed interview data
between teachers in each school. Based on the comparison, I identified similarities and
differences in their perspectives on each sub-category in each case study school. For
example, in relation to the purpose of the Japanese program in curriculum policy, when
a principal reported the importance of ensuring students have fun in the Japanese
program, I examined the other teachers’ responses concerning the purpose of the
Japanese program. Where necessary, I then returned to topics identified in later
interviews.
129
Chapter 6: Recent language-in-education policies
As argued in Chapter 3, a significant issue for language-in-education policy at both the
Federal and Victorian level is that policy and implementation are affected by each
change of governments. While general directions have remained fairly consistent,
detailed policies and funding fluctuate. In this chapter, I will firstly discuss policy
initiatives and actions of the Rudd and Gillard Labour Federal Governments for
languages education which might give a direct influence on the practices of Japanese
education in the case study schools. I will then discuss policy initiatives of the Victorian
Government which have the greatest direct impact on the practices in the case study
schools. As discussed in Chapter 3, the major policy documents governing language
education in Victorian government schools during the period covered by this project are
“The Victorian Government’s Vision for Language Education” (DEECD, 2011a) and
“Languages-expanding your world: Plan to implement The Victorian Government’s
Vision for Languages Education 2013-2025” (DEECD, 2013a). Furthermore, paralleling
the language-in-education policy from 2011, the Victorian curriculum frameworks, the
VELS (2005-2012) and the AusVELS (2013-present) have also governed languages
education. The policy texts and curriculum documents are considered as the policy
“intention” of the Governments and bureaucracy. Furthermore, the content of these
policies and the curriculum documents will be analysed, dividing into Kaplan and
Baldauf’s (1997, 2005) seven components and subcategories.
130
6.1 Policies under the Rudd and Gillard Federal Government
6.1.1 Policy initiatives of the NALSSP
At the time when I commenced this study in 2011, the Rudd Federal Labour
Government was in power, and as briefly described in 3.2.6エラー! 参照元が見つか
りません。, the Rudd Government introduced the NALSSP, aimed at enhancing Asian
language education in Australian schools. The NALSSP policy continued under the
Gillard Labour Government until 2012. With $62.4 million in funding, the NALSSP
aimed to develop Australian students’ cultural understanding and proficiency in the
target languages (Chinese, Indonesian, Japanese, Korean) which were the same priority
languages as in the NALSAS. Similar to the NALSAS, the NALSSP was formulated
based upon the idea that a greater cultural understanding and a good command of the
target language skills would help to build a more productive and competitive nation. A
target indicated as “aspirational” proposed that at least 12 per cent of students exit Year
12 with a fluency in one of the target languages by 2020, although the definition of the
fluency in each target language was not clearly indicated.
In order to meet the aspirational target, the NALSSP allocated funding against three key
result areas: developing flexible delivery and pathways, increasing teacher supply and
support and stimulating students demand. First, the NALSSP tried to contribute to
flexible delivery and pathways for Asian language education. In order to do this,
two major elements were considered: enabling schools and strengthening strategic
partnerships and networks. The former focused on the school environment, facilities,
infrastructure and resources which support the quality of teaching and learning of Asian
languages and the studies of Asia. This element included continuous curricula for
131
languages through the year levels, enabling schools to offer enough time for languages
education, new teaching facilities and resources such as video conference systems, and
specialist language teachers who possess knowledge on the teaching method of
languages (DEEWR, 2010, p. 2) (e.g., increasing the number of qualified Asian
language teachers). In this respect, DEEWR (2010) stated:
Increasing and maintaining the supply of qualified Asian language teachers and
giving teachers the skills to teach about Asia are critical success factors to the
NALSSP. Action must be taken to recruit and train additional language
teachers, and retain, support and use existing teachers. (p.2)
The latter focused on strengthening strategic partnerships between schools, universities,
higher education providers, businesses and Asian communities which support Asian
languages education (DEEWR, 2010, p. 2).
Most of the funding was provided to government and non-government education
authorities in each State and Territory and the education authorities tried to develop their
own scholarship programs to support the achievement of the NALLSP’s aspirational
target. For example, in Victoria, the NALSSP ICT Professional Learning Project
(ICTPLP) was conducted from 2010 to 2012. This project aimed to increase the
teachers’ skills in terms of utilising Web 2.0 technologies in the targeted Asian
languages classes (Chinese, Japanese and Indonesian) and ultimately expand the use of
these technologies as a teaching and learning tool within Asian languages education.
Fifty one schools which were chosen from government and non-government sectors in
Victoria, joined in the project in 2010 and additional forty one government schools
participated in 2011 (Salt Group, 2012).
132
One notable NALSSP funding which had a significant impact on the delivery of Asian
language education was an outreach program, “Becoming Asia Literate: Grants to
Schools (BALGS)”. This grants which was direct grants to primary and secondary
schools in each State and Territory represented a shift from a focus extensively on
language to a focus which includes broader cultured “literacy”. This program was
managed by the AEF on behalf of the Australian Federal Government. The grants
provided funding to promote the nurture of Asia literacy in Australian schools. For the
BALGS, funding of $7.24 million over four years was allocated within the total amount
of the NALSSP funding. The schools which were provided with the grants were able to
purchase teaching resources including teaching materials and Information
Communication Technology (ICT) tools such as computers and iPads as AEF (2013)
reported. Some BALGS schools indicated variety with regard to the change of emphasis
they have started and the change of process they have commenced to develop and
reinforce Asia literacy. Overlapping the termination of the NALSSP, the BALGS project
was concluded on November 30, 2012 and by that time had funded 525 government,
Catholic and independent schools, both primary and secondary, across Australia (AEF,
2013).
Although the Rudd Labour Government invested a large amount of money in the
enhancement of Asian language education, the Government did not investigate the
complex relationship between students’ language development and the contribution to
the development of the Australian economy, which was also the case under the
NALSAS strategy. Some commentators questioned to the achievement of the NALSSP
aspirational target. In this respect, Garnaut (2013) stated:
133
Experts say the problem stems from badly structured programs and incentives
rather than a lack of student interest or teacher capabilities, as demonstrated by
the achievement of some schools to create bilingual programs, despite little
policy support.(para. 10-12)
Salter (2013) also points out that despite a strong initiative and some achievements,
there is ambivalence in the call for Asia literacy.
6.1.2 Policy initiatives of “Australian in the Asian Century”
One year after the NALSSP was finalised, the Gillard Labour Government released the
White Paper, “Australia in the Asian Century” which focused on economic and strategic
policy and education in October 2012. The governmental initiative for developing Asia
literacy which was aimed at in the NALSSP continued. Gillard (2012, iii) stated that
“the 21st century is the Asian century and Asia’s rapid rise has already changed the
Australian economy, society and strategic environment.” She further asserted that “It
calls on all of us to play our part in becoming a more Asia-literate and Asia-capable
nation” (Gillard, 2012, iii). More specifically, in terms of access policy, it was stated
that “every Australian student will have exposure to Asian studies through the
curriculum to increase students’ cultural knowledge and skills related to Asia”
(Australian Government, 2012, p.15). In order to attain this goal, all schools will engage
with at least one school in Asia to support the teaching of a priority language by using
the National Broadband Network. In this respect, the Gillard Labour Federal
Government emphasized on exchange and direct engagement with the target countries.
In the paper, it was proposed that all Australian students will have an opportunity to
learn at least one priority Asian language throughout their years of schooling. Korean
was dropped from the list of languages which was previously targeted under the
134
NALSAS and the NALSSP, and Hindi was added for the first time, so that the list of
priority languages was Chinese (Mandarin), Hindi, Indonesian, and Japanese. In this
respect, it is clear that the Gillard Labour Government identified the importance of the
Indian economy, which has recently grown, and was using the policy to promote ties
with India. Furthermore, it was proposed that Asia literacy would be developed together
with the Australian Curriculum which focuses on a cross-curriculum strategy. In the
White Paper, it was stated that “In recognising the need to build a sound knowledge of
Asia in schools, the ‘Asia and Australia’s engagement in Asia’ cross-curriculum priority
will be embedded in the Australian Curriculum” (Australian Government, 2012, p.168).
That is, Asia literacy will be nurtured through understanding of the histories,
geographies, societies, arts, literatures, and languages of the various Asian countries and
their engagement of Asia (AEF, 2012).
Nevertheless, while the Gillard Federal Government’s rhetoric was broadly supportive,
financial support was limited, and no programs similar to the NALSAS and the
NALSSP were introduced. That is, the policy of the Gillard Labour Federal Government
was not backed by substantial funding for languages programs, especially funding that
might directly affect classroom practices, and therefore, did little to materially affect the
actual practice of Asian language education at the time when data collection was
conducted from the case study schools.
135
6.2 Policy initiatives of the recent Victorian language-in-education
policy and implementation plan
6.2.1 The structure of the current policy formulation and implementation in
Victoria
I will describe policy initiatives and actions of the Victorian Government, which seem
to have a great impact on Japanese language education during the data collection period.
Firstly, the strong governmental policy initiative for languages can be identified in the
structure of the policy formulation and implementation for languages education. In the
recent Victorian governmental system, DEECD has established six groups for
education. The Early Childhood School Education Group (ECSEG) develops and
coordinates DEECD’s early childhood and schools policy and programs to distribute
and support high quality education in government and non-government schools
(DEECD, 2013b). ECSEG consists of eight Divisions, and one of the Divisions, the
Learning and Teaching Division is responsible for making and implementing Victorian
language-in-education policies. Based on the commitment of Victorian politicians,
Learning and Teaching Division draw up the 2011 language-in-education policy and the
2013 implementation plan, and it has managed languages education in Victoria. The
policy development incorporated a number of phases of consultation, and the
involvement of outside experts such as academics and the policy which was published
incorporated suggestions from education experts. After the language-in-education policy
was formulated, it was approved by Victorian Minister for Education.
DEECD employs language-specific advisors for the following popular languages in
Victorian schools: Chinese, French, German, Greek, Indonesian, Italian and Japanese,
136
which are formerly prioritised in the NPL and the ALLP. Though these languages are
not prioritised in the Victorian language policy of today, they are ranked in the top ten
languages studied in Victorian primary and secondary government schools. Hence, it is
obvious that there is a great demand for these languages. The language-specific advisors
work under the administration of officers of Learning and Teaching Division of ECSEG
and regularly meet and discuss how languages education is conducted in Victoria.
Specifically, the appointment of the current Japanese specific advisor by the Victorian
Government has continued for about two decades though it suspended for some years.
Moreover, as noted in 4.4.1, in regard to the employment of the current Japanese
advisor, the Japan Foundation has supported financially. The roles of the current
Japanese language advisor include supporting Japanese language teachers and sharing
information with the Japan Foundation, JLTAV and MCJLE for effective Japanese
language education. Moreover, language advisors often support schools which have just
started a language programs or which further develop their language programs. The
current Japanese language advisor also provides principals and teachers with a lot of
teaching resources concerning the target language through the DEECD web site.
DEECD has recently reorganised regions and divided the State into four regions: North-
eastern, North-western, South-eastern and South-Western regions (see figure 6.1). Each
region works closely with schools, communities and other organisations (DEECD,
2013b). In terms of languages education, specifically, each region employs a language
project officer who is a language expert although none of the regional officers was a
Japanese teacher. The main roles of the regional language project officers includes
grasping how languages education is conducted in the regions, and supporting and
137
facilitating languages education under the commitment of the 2011 policy and the 2013
implementation plan, considering the context of the region. In particular, the regional
officers are expected to encourage principals to acknowledge the importance of
languages education and to promote languages education in preparation for 2025 when
languages become compulsory in Victorian government schools. Principals’ initiatives
and active support for languages education are considered to be a significant factor for
the provision of languages in school. Furthermore, the regional language project officers
support the existing languages programs, incorporating several strategies. The four
regional officers also work closely with Learning and Teaching Division of ECSEG and
the language-specific advisors. They have meetings with officers of Learning and
Teaching Division twice in each school term. Moreover, the regional language project
officers often communicate with each other and share information on languages
education.
138
Figure 6.1 DEECD’s regional boundaries (DEECD, 2013b)
139
6.2.2 Access policy
6.2.2.1 Selection of languages
Although the Rudd and Gillard Labour Federal Government has prioritised Asian
languages in Australian schooling, as noted in 3.2, the Victorian DEECD emphasizes
that there is nothing in the policy favouring one language or another. GO 3 asserted that
all languages are equally valued and supported in school education although the
Victorian Government acknowledges the importance of the relationships with Asian
countries in trade. More specifically, the 2011 language-in-education policy, DEECD
(2011a) states:
The selection of languages to be taught, whether they are languages of global
significance, community languages or Aboriginal languages must be made at the
local level and reflect local community needs and interests and the resources
available.(p.9)
Similarly, in the VELS and the AusVELS, specific languages were/are not prioritised
and the document indicates that “languages can contribute materially to the universal
purposes of schooling and to the development of skills in thinking and reflection”
(VCAA, 2014). The Victorian Government implies that there is a long-standing
commitment to community languages, related to a diverse and multicultural population
as Lo Bianco (2009b) asserts, and it can also be assumed that the Victorian Government
needs to consider community internal and external contexts for the delivery of
languages in schools.
However, in the AusVELS, the Federal Governmental initiative which focuses on Asian
languages is included as cross-curricular priorities.
140
Additionally, Mandarin Chinese has been recently highlighted in the Victorian
community, as in Australia more generally, because of its strong economic influence on
the Victorian community. The rapid growth of Chinese immigrant may also affect
Australian people’s interests in the Chinese language. In this regard, GO 3 reported that
prioritising the Chinese language is not DEECD’s policy but in the 2013
implementation plan, as a strategy for strengthening delivery, resources and partnerships
DEECD (2013a) indicates:
We will invest $13 million to send 1,500 students to China on study programs
aimed at enhancing proficiency in Mandarin and cultural understanding of our
key trading partner. (p.3)
This strategy resembles that of the “New Colombo Plan” of the Abbott Federal
Government. No other languages were included for strengthening delivery, resources
and partnerships in the implementation plan. In this respect, the Victorian Government
may focus on Mandarin Chinese as a hidden policy intention.
6.2.2.2 Participation for languages programs
In Australia, an early start of second language education has been somewhat
controversial in that the primary principals have argued against it being made
compulsory. The early start of foreign languages has been promoted through “the
Victorian Early Years Learning and Development Framework” which highlights the
significance of assisting children’s language development from birth (DEECD, 2011b).
Additionally, the framework recognized bilingualism as an asset and it endorsed the
significance of children maintaining their first language and learning a second language
(DEECD, 2011b).
141
The significant policy initiative in terms of participation for languages programs is that
the Victorian Government has mandated that studying a second language will be
compulsory from Prep in government schools. In this respect, DEECD (2011a) asserts:
The provision of quality, compulsory languages education to all government
school students in Prep-Year 10, regardless of student background, school
location or size, will enable all students to participate in languages learning. (p.7)
In the VELS and the AusVELS, languages learning in years from Prep to Year 4 was/is
described as “Laying the foundations” which can help developing learners’ English
literacy (VCAA, 2010, 2014). Thus, it can be considered that the Victorian Government
intends to place importance on participation from Prep in languages education.
6.2.2.3 Articulation between primary and secondary schools
As described in 4.6.1.1, the continuity between primary and secondary schools has been
a significant issue in languages education including Japanese as de Kretser and Spence-
Brown (2010) pointed out. The Victorian Government has identified the transition issue
and states that a lack of connection of provision between and within schools obstructs
student’s languages learning (DEECD, 2011a, p.5). As the policy intention for solving
the transition issues, the Victorian Government promoted the cluster collaboration.
DEECD (2011a) states:
Greater collaboration with local schools enables schools to share resources and
ideas, and support greater continuity of learning for students moving between
schools in a locality. (p.10)
To support this policy, DEECD (2011a, 2013a) introduced the ILPIC initiative as one of
142
the short-term strategic initiatives from 2011 to 2012. This policy initiative was an
influential commitment with funding to solve the transition issue while incorporating
innovative approaches for languages such as content-based approaches and the use of
ICT tools. As two of my case study schools were involved in the ILPIC project, the
current study was able to examine the consequence of the ILPIC implementation in
specific clusters. The details of the ILPIC implementation in the two schools will be
discussed in the following chapter.
6.2.3 Personnel policy
6.2.3.1 Teacher supply and quality
The supply of languages teachers has been a concern in the previous policies of both the
Federal and Victorian Governments as described in Chapter 3. However, teacher supply
and quality is still a significant issue in languages education though the issue is not as
serious in Japanese education as in some other languages, as noted in Chapter 4. The
Victorian Government has recognized that teachers play a crucial role in languages
education. DEECD (2011a) states:
The Government needs to build demand for an increased number of high quality
languages teachers in Victorian schools and work with universities to develop
long-term and sustainable strategies to increase the number of university places
and training opportunities available for current and potential languages teachers.
(p.5)
In this respect, DEECD introduced languages teaching scholarship as one of the
strategic initiatives from 2012 to 2014. The $6 million Languages Teaching Scholarship
program was introduced in 2012. About 210 scholarships offered over three years to
143
undergraduates, aspiring and qualified teachers with languages skills who wish to
become qualified languages teachers. In 2012, 55 scholarships were awarded. In 2013
and 2014 further scholarships were awarded (DEECD, 2013a). This is a critical policy
for supplying qualified languages teachers but the policy initiative for teacher supply
was a short-term strategy but DEECD has continued to enhance teacher quality through
the languages advisors’ assistance, supports to MLTAV and JLTAV for professional
development. Moreover, it is expected that new policy initiatives for supplying qualified
languages teachers will be released by the new Victorian Government because the
supply of qualified teachers is a significant government concern.
6.2.3.2 Use of overseas teachers
The use of overseas native-speaker teachers has been emphasized in languages
education though they have several issues including their clarification and status as
described in 4.6.2.2. In the 2013 implementation plan, the Victorian Government
announced that “we will facilitate up to 400 language teacher exchanges, and support
schools to sponsor overseas language teachers in order to solve the issue of teacher
shortages” (DEECD, 2013a). On the other hand, the Victorian Government requires
overseas teachers to gain high level of English proficiency. Victorian Institute of
Teaching (2015) announced that prospective overseas native-speaker teachers will be
required to undertake the following English language test:
International Secondary Language Proficiency Rating (ISLPR) of Level 4 in each
of the areas of speaking, listening, reading and writing.
International English Language Testing System (IELTS) - Academic: Overall
score of 7.5 with the following scores required in each of the skill areas: speaking
8.0, listening 8.0, reading 7.0 and writing 7.0.
144
Professional English Assessment for Teachers (PEAT) test at Band A in each of
the areas of speaking, listening, reading and writing.
Although it is obvious that the Victorian Government expects prospective overseas
native teachers to possess adequate English proficiency in order for them to
communicate with other Australian teachers and parents, the high English requirement
seems to be a major obstacle for many non-native English speakers. Unfortunately,
many Japanese native speakers give up becoming Japanese teachers because of the high
requirement of English proficiency. This may lead to the decrease of native Japanese
teachers in Australian schools. However, the strict English requirement can be seen as a
positive thing as overseas teachers without good communication skills may experience
various problems in performing their roles.
6.2.4 Curriculum policy
6.2.4.1 Objectives and outcomes
As described in Chapter 3, proficiency development has been one of the critical policy
targets in both the Federal and the Victorian language-in-education policy. In the 2011
policy document, the Minister for Education states that “the Victorian Government
wants all students to be given the opportunity to learn a language and to achieve
proficiency in that language” (DEECD, 2011a, p.1). Similarly, in the 2013
implementation plan DEECD indicates that “Victorian students will be on track to be
fluent in an additional language” (DEECD, 2013a, p.3). More specifically, this
implementation plan aims that 60 % of Year 6 and 40 % of Year 10 students in
government schools will achieve a defined proficiency level in a target language. In
order to measure proficiency levels, DEECD announced that the government will
145
develop on-demand online assessment tools (DEECD, 2013a, p.5). The target
concerning the development of proficiency in a language was not stated in the previous
policies, and thus it can be said that the target in terms of proficiency has been made
clearer and observable in languages learning in this document.
In the VELS and the AusVELS, the development of proficiency was/is indicated as the
development of communication and cultural skills. VCAA (2010) stated:
In learning a language, students develop communication skills and knowledge and
come to understand social, historical, familial relationships and other aspects of the
specific language and culture of the speakers of the language they are studying.
(para. 11-12)
In order to develop communication skills, the VELS indicated and the AusVELS
indicates Phases of Learning to assess students’ progress. However, the measures are
broad and detailed outcomes in each language to be taught are not designated, although
the progress measures are divided into Roman alphabetical languages, Non-Roman
alphabetical languages, Character languages and Sign languages. This categorisation
seems broad, and hence, it is necessary for languages teachers to tailer the outcomes to
adjust to teaching their languages in their specific context.
In addition to proficiency in a target language, the acquisition of intercultural
competence has been emphasized in the previous polices of the Federal and Victorian
government as noted in Chapter 3. In the 2011 policy and the 2013 implementation
plan, the importance of intercultural competence was stated. However, the explicit
description concerning intercultural competence is quite sparse. In the 2011 policy, the
Hon. Martin Dixon, Minister for Education suggested that:
146
Languages education offers significant benefits for Victorian students, their
families and communities. At school, it helps our children and young people to
develop their first language literacy, problem-solving, intercultural and
communication skills, and it equips them for a wide range of careers. (DEECD,
2011a, p. 1)
Additionally, DEECD (2011a, p.3) states that “High-level language and intercultural
skills will be critical if our students are to respond with confidence to the challenges and
opportunities resulting from globalisation”.
In the 2013 implementation plan, DEECD (2013a) asserts:
The acquisition of an additional language and associated intercultural skills is key to
how children and young people at preschool and at school develop, both
intellectually and emotionally, but it also gives them greater confidence and choice
when it comes to future study and work.(p.4)
In regard to the development of intercultural competence, the VELS and the AusVELS
clearly stated/states that it aims to nurture intercultural knowledge and provides detailed
outcomes in each phase.
6.2.4.2 Time allocation
According to VCAA (2014), in Victoria all government and Catholic schools must
provide access to all the subjects and independent schools must provide access to the
eight learning areas including Languages in the AusVELS; however, there are no
mandated teaching time allocations except for the learning area of Physical Education
for Government schools. On the other hand, the Victorian education department has
recommended schools to deliver for a minimum of 150 minutes per week, spread as
147
evenly as possible across the week. Despite changes in government, the recommend
time allocation for languages remains. Department of Education and Training (former
DEECD) (2015) announces:
Some primary schools, in particular those that are introducing new
Prep/Foundation languages programs, may face challenges in providing 150
minutes of languages education per week. If a school is unable to initially
provide the recommended 150 minute time allocation it should explicitly build
into its Strategic Plan strategies detailing how the school will incrementally
increase time allocation for languages education. Meeting the recommended
time allocation will ensure students have the opportunity to achieve a level of
linguistic proficiency. (para.16-21)
However, it has been difficult for most government schools to accomplish the
recommendation, and limited contact time has been an issue as previous studies (e.g.,
Liddicoat et al., 2007) have discussed. In Victoria specifically, the average for languages
education was 57.2 minutes in primary schools in 2013 (DEECD, 2014a), and DEECD
reported that only 0.6% of “Language programs” consisted of more than 120 minutes
per week in 2013 (DEECD 2014a).
However, GO 3 reported that the Victorian Government has already acknowledged the
difficulty of increasing contact time for languages but it still expects the government
schools to increase contact time, so that the students can develop their proficiency in the
target language. GO 3 insisted that at least 150 minutes are needed in order to obtain
adequate proficiency in a target language. In this regard, the Victorian Government’s
recommendation for time allocation can be recognized as an aspirational policy which
intends to suggest that the Victorian Government aims at developing proficiency.
148
6.2.5 Methods and material policy
6.2.5.1 Introduction of CLIL
One significant policy initiative concerning teaching methods for additional languages
is the introduction of CLIL. This can be considered as a strong policy initiative, through
which DEECD aims at developing proficiency in the target language and solving the
“crowded curriculum” issue simultaneously. Moreover, DEECD also aims at providing
authentic opportunities for learning languages. In this regard, DEECD claims that CLIL
“provides a real-world application of languages” (DEECD, 2011a, p. 11).
CLIL was introduced as a significant short-term strategic initiative from 2011 to 2012
with the allocation of $2.5 million in the 2011 language policy (DEECD, 2011a).
DEECD provided a variety of strategies so that teachers can understand CLIL properly,
and they can adopt CLIL in their language classrooms effectively and appropriately. For
instance, in 2012 DEECD and the Melbourne Graduate School of Education conducted
CLIL research in order to examine the applicability of the CLIL approach to Victorian
schools. Furthermore, on the DEECD homepage many CLIL resources are uploaded and
a variety of resources such as video clips of CLIL practices in schools is available on
the website. Additionally, DEECD has supported teachers’ associations including
MLTAV and JLTAV in order to provide Professional Development opportunities for
languages teachers. For example, MLTAV invited a CLIL specialist from Italy and
offered a workshop that can support languages teachers to understand the concept of
CLIL and to develop CLIL lessons. It is obvious that the Victorian Government has
promoted the CLIL implementation. As two of my case study schools offered CLIL, the
consequences of the CLIL implementation will be discussed in the following chapter.
149
6.2.5.2 Use of ICT
The use of Information Communication Technology (ICT) can be recognized as another
critical policy intention in regard to methods and material policy. In the 2013
implementation plan, DEECD (2013a) asserts:
We need to find ways to extend and enrich languages learning, to make it more
engaging for young minds and more relevant for the real world. This strategy
focuses on supporting schools to develop partnerships, to share resources and
teachers, and to increase the quality and quantity of languages learning through
flexible and blended approaches using ICT. (p.14)
DEECD (2013) also notes that ICT can provide more authentic content as well as CLIL.
Moreover, DEECD (2013a, p.9) claims that ICT enables students to access native
speakers in the local community and overseas. It can be claimed that the policy
intention concerning methods and material policy includes the provision of authentic
content and contexts for language learning through ICT. In the VELS, the connection
between languages education and ICT was designated.
VCAA (2010) stated:
Teachers of languages and teachers of Information and Communications
Technology (ICT) share a common interest in the creative, extensive yet critical
use of ICT in general, and the multimedia texts made possible by the Internet
and various software in particular, can strongly support learners whose cognitive
or learning style is more toward the visualiser end of a continuum of learning
with visualisation and verbalisation at the two ends. (para.1-4)
However, in the AusVELS the relationships of languages with other domains are not
described although the AusVELS aims at developing knowledge and skills for ICT.
Thus, considering the emphasis of the use of ICT in language-in-education policy, I
150
would conclude that the Victorian Government expects language teachers to use ICT for
providing authentic opportunities for learning languages.
6.2.5.3 Distribution of teaching resources s through DEECD’s web site
The distribution of teaching resources thorough DEECD’s web site can be considered as
a significant policy initiative. DEECD created a website for providing a large amount of
teaching resources for teachers, which is called FUSE. This site is not only for
languages education but also any learning area. More specifically, for Japanese
languages education, FUSE delivers many games, songs, cultural components which
allows Japanese teachers to draw upon for their teaching. Furthermore, FUSE for
languages education provides a number of video clips which project language teaching
practices in classrooms with languages teachers. This site can be viewed by not only
Japanese teachers but also students and parents and thus it could contribute to a
student’s self-learning of Japanese at home.
6.2.6 Resourcing policy
6.2.6.1 General funding
Unlike Asian-focused funding such as the NALSAS and the NALSSP, funding for
schools is basically provided from the Victorian Government. Direct funding for
government schools is provided as the “Student Resource Package” (SRP) (DEECD,
2014c). The SRP includes three types. The first is student-based funding which is the
major source of resources. The majority of this funding is allocated through per student
rates. The second type is school-based funding which is provided for school
infrastructure and programs specific to individual schools. The third type is targeted
151
initiatives which include programs with specific targeting criteria and/or defined life
spans (DEECD, 2014b). In regard to funding allocation for languages in SRP, DEECD
(2013a) indicates:
Additional funding for languages education is now indicated in each government
school’s Student Resource Package (SRP), increasing transparency and
accountability around languages funding. (p.10)
However, distribution of the school budget depends upon school administrators’
decision. If principals do not value languages programs, they may reduce budget for
languages programs. Principals have, thus, a significant power on the budget allocation
for languages education in Victoria. On the other hand, as Rajakumar (2003) argues,
funding for languages was not checked by anyone and it is mostly ineffective at the
implementation level. Furthermore, a political issue in school may exist around budget
allocation. That is, teachers may scramble for budget. If a specialist teacher has more
political power than other specialist teachers, he or she may be able to obtain more
funding.
6.2.6.2 Specific funding for languages education
In the history of language-in-education policy in Australia, direct funding for languages
education has often been provided, and it has contributed to the delivery of languages
programs as several reports (e.g., Erebus Consulting Partners, 2002) addressed.
Nevertheless, the specific funding for language education was always shot-term mainly
because both the Federal and Victorian Governments allocate funding based on the
election cycle. In Victoria, the State election is conducted every four years, and the
previous election was conducted in 2010 and the recent election was conducted in
152
November, 2014. During the recent four year cycle, the language-in-education policy
was released in 2011 and the implementation plan was released in 2013. In the language
policy and implementation plan, all the funding for specific programs was allocated in a
short-term period from 2011 to 2014. For instance, $6 million was provided for
Languages Teaching Scholarship program in 2012. DEECD (2013a) states that further
scholarships will be awarded in 2013 and 2014. However, additional scholarships after
2014 are not stated. Similarly, in order for schools to start new languages programs, $1
million was allocated but it was provided only in 2013.
6.2.7 Community policy
6.2.7.1 Involvement of the local community
The Victorian Government has acknowledged the importance of collaboration with local
community for languages education. In the 2011 policy, Minister for Multicultural Affairs
and Citizenship, the Hon. Nicholas Kotsiras addresses:
The Victorian Government is fortunate to have many partners supporting the
delivery languages programs. We pay tribute to those in education and in the
community who have worked tirelessly to strengthen languages education over
many years, and look forward to continued collaboration with these partners.
(DEECD, 2011a, p.1)
The main reason why the Victorian Government facilities collaboration with local
community is that all Victorians including parents of school children need to value
languages education for their children’s future (DEECD, 2013a). DEECD (2013a, p.10)
further claims that “if parents better understand the personal, pedagogical and
vocational benefits of languages, demand will grow, and increased participation rates
153
will follow”. Moreover, DEECD considers that the use of the community enables
schools to provide authentic contexts (DEECD, 2013a). For instance, schools may be
able to invite native speakers residing in the vicinity so that children can communicate
with native speakers.
Another significant collaboration with local community includes close relationships
with teacher associations such as MLTAV and JLTAV. As Kaplan and Baldauf (1997)
emphasize, non-government organisations play a critical role in implementation of
language-in-education policy. The local teacher associations have supported languages
education in Victoria. In particular, DEECD’s relationship with JLTAV has been
established since JLTAV lunched in 1972 and the Victorian Government has provided
funding to JLTAV to support Japanese education in Victoria. DEECD’s relationship with
JLATV has continued regardless of the change of the government and JLTAV has also
contributed to the delivery of Japanese language education in Victoria.
6.2.7.2 Involvement of the global community
In addition to the local community, the Victorian Government has enhanced the
collaboration with global community outside the State. In the 2011 policy, DEECD
(2011a) states that the Victorian Government will develop the relationship with sister
schools and foreign governments. In particular, the Victoria Government has promoted
Sister School program with $.3 million over four years. DEECD (2011a) asserts:
154
As the Victorian Government continues to explore models of partnership that
strengthen education and equip our students for global citizenship, we will look
at how we can strengthen Victoria’s Sister School program. Relationships with
sister schools assists students who are learning a language to immerse
themselves in another language and culture and engage in real-life
communication with students, and others, who speak that language. (p.10)
Moreover, the development of the sister school relationship is closely associated with
the use of ICT. DEECD (2013a) indicates that leveraging ICT by combining face-to-
face, online and mobile learning to make languages learning more authentic and
connects language learners to native speakers overseas. For instance, DEECD expects
schools to have more opportunities to communicate with native speakers through ICT
tools such as video conference systems. It is obvious that DEECD has placed
importance on providing authentic contexts by promoting the sister school programs
and the use of ICT.
6.2.7.3 Use of native-speaker assistants
Similar to the use of overseas teachers, DEECD provides several paid and volunteer
language assistant programs for languages education programs in schools. More
specifically, native speakers of Chinese, French, German, Indonesian, Japanese or
Spanish are included in the assistant programs (DEECD, 2014b). Although DEECD
does not address why the languages assistants programs include only the above
languages, it is clear that these languages are included in the top ten languages studied
in Victorian primary and secondary government schools and there is a great demand for
the languages. Italian is the most studied language in Victoria but there is a huge Italian
community in Victoria, and it is assumed that native-speakers can be secured easily.
155
In regard to Japanese language, Victorian DEECD, has provided two programs for the
supply of assistant language teachers. One is Language Assistants Program (LAP),
which dispatches native speakers of several languages such as Japanese, French, and
Indonesian to government schools for a full school year. The assistants have a part-time
status and they are usually hosted by a cluster of schools. These assistants are paid as
education support staff and are required to find their own housing (DEECD, 2014c).
The other is the Assistants to Teachers of Japanese Program (ATJP) which focuses on
Japanese and it has commenced since 1996. The program has been available to students
of selected Japanese universities, and all applicants have to possess the required score of
English tests such as IELTS overall band score of at least 5.0 or a Test of English as a
Foreign Language (TOEFL) score of at least 500. In addition, all applicants prove an
ability to adjust to Australian cultures and situations (DEECD, 2012b). The length of the
ATJP is for either nine or twelve months commencing in mid to late April every year.
During the program, a contribution of $116 is provided per week for their incidentals,
and homestay accommodation, including three meals a day, is provided at no cost for
the duration of the school appointment (DEECD, 2012b). In addition to the regular
work in school, the assistants are able to participate in various professional learning
workshops (DEECD, 2012b). In this regard, it is clear that Victorian DEECD facilitates
to use of assistants in Japanese education as a language policy.
6.2.8 Evaluation policy
6.2.8.1 Evaluation of languages education in Victoria
DEECD observes and evaluates languages education in Victorian government schools
and is a governmental evaluation body for languages education. A comprehensive report
156
concerning languages education in Victorian government schools is published annually
and the reports are open to the public. Additionally, DEECD has evaluated funded pilot
projects such as the CLIL project and the ILPIC trial and published reports on the
projects. I acknowledge that Victoria is the only state which produces and publishes
such comprehensive and reflective reports, and they should be commended. At the
secondary level, the Victorian Certificate of Education (VCE) exam for Japanese
language is a critical measure which can assess students’ language skills. However, at
the primary level, since the outcomes vary across schools, it is, in fact, difficult for the
Victorian Government to directly observe students’ attainment in terms of proficiency in
Japanese throughout the state. On the other hand, as stated in the 2013 implementation
plan, DEECD announced its initiative to set defined proficiency and assess it at the Year
6 level by 2025. This policy initiative is a new development in language-in-education
policy and it will be an advanced model for assessing students’ proficiency
development. Nonetheless, it is questionable whether the development of the
assessment tool will be completed, because policy and the associated actions have often
been discontinued due to the change of government in Australia.
6.2.8.2 Evaluation of languages programs in schools
DEECD obligates government schools to assess their educational performance in
School self-evaluation. This evaluation includes examining teaching and learning
strategies, the performance and development culture and other aspects of school
operations (DEECD, 2013c) and principals have a critical responsibility in this
evaluation. However, a significant problem here is that most principals do not specialise
in languages education and do not know much about it. As a result, it may happen that
157
evaluation for languages programs becomes superficial. For instance, a principal may
evaluate languages programs according to whether the students have fun with learning a
language.
Students’ progress in language programs were/are assessed based on the VELS and the
AusVELS. VCAA provided “Phases of Learning” as evaluation criteria. Nonetheless,
Phases of Learning are broad to fit any language. Hence, languages teachers need to
develop their own criteria which can be suitable for their teaching contexts. In this
respect, evaluation will vary according to each teacher’s expectation. Only at the senior
secondary level is any external assessment conducted, or moderation strategies
employed.
6.3 Conclusion
The most significant point to be addressed here is what policies affected languages
education in Victorian primary schools. At the federal level, the NALSSP under the
Rudd Government and the White paper, “Australia in the Asian Century” under the
Gillard Government had an influence on the delivery of Japanese education in primary
schools during the current study. The aim of both of the policies was to enhance Asian
language education and to nurture Asian literacy of Australian students. In particular, as
with the previous policies which focused on Japanese language (e.g., the NPL, the
ALLP and the NALSAS), Japanese was also prioritised in the policies under the Rudd
and the Gillard Governments, and as a result, Japanese education benefitted from their
policy initiatives. However, many people would say that the White Paper emphasized
much more China and India, and that there has been a change in the degree to which
158
Japan is emphasized. Japanese continued to receive some benefit, but it certainly did not
increase.
At the Victorian State level, the language-in-education policies under the Liberal-
National Coalition were influential on the delivery of languages education in Victorian
schools. More specifically, initiatives of the 2011 language policy (DEECD, 2011a) and
the 2013 implementation plan (DEECD, 2013a) had a strong impact on developing the
quality of Japanese programs in the case study schools. In regard to access policy, the
Victorian Government expanded languages education throughout the State. The
Government implemented a policy initiative of making the language compulsory for the
government primary and secondary schools from 2011. Second, the current study
confirmed that the Victorian Government primarily aimed at developing proficiency in
the target language. In order to attain the primary aim, the Victorian Government
supported the development of quality language teachers and required them to obtain
professional skills in the target language skill and in maximizing flexibility and
creativity in their teaching, in order to handle the frequent changes of students’ needs
and backgrounds in schools.
Furthermore, the Victorian Government tried to combat continuing issues existing in
languages programs including a lack of transition between primary and secondary
school, and insufficient contact time for languages. For the former issue, the Victorian
Government introduced the ILPIC project which facilitated cluster collaboration to
manage the transition issue (cf. 6.2.2.3). For the latter issue, the Victorian Government
introduced CLIL which aimed to increase contact time for languages, teaching
languages and academic content. The CLIL policy was a distinctive feature in the policy
159
activity in Victoria because CLIL is a new innovative approach in the Australian
context, which expects students to develop their target language skills.
Finally, facilitating involvement of local and global communities contributed to
enhancing the quality of languages programs. In particular, the involvement of local and
global communities was promoted through the extensive use of new technology,
especially iPads and video conference systems such as Polycom and Skype. The
interrelation between the community involvement and the expansion of new technology
had greatest impact on the delivery of Japanese programs in the case study school.
Moreover, it is remarkable that these initiatives and actions were promoted with a
generous amount of funding. My observations support Slaughter’s (2009) findings that
money has a significant influence over the provision and sustainability of languages
programs.
However, as Hobson (2010) asserted, it cannot be denied that the language-in-education
policies of the Federal and the Victorian Governments are formulated based on the
electoral cycle. In this regard, it should be noted that the current study took a snapshot
of the policy initiatives and actions under the Liberal-National Coalition Government
from 2010 to 2014.
160
Chapter 7: Practices of Japanese language education in primary
schools
In this chapter, I will describe how the language-in-education policy is implemented in
the case study schools, and how this is related to the language polices of the Federal and
Victorian Governments and state curriculum frameworks for languages which I
described in Chapter 6. For the analysis of practice of Japanese language education in
my case study schools, I will draw upon Kaplan and Baldauf’s (1997, 2005) seven
components and subcategories to frame the discussion.
7.1 The case of School A
7.1.1 School profile
School A is located in a largely residential suburb in Melbourne, about 20km from
Melbourne’s central business district. According to “My School” (ACARA, 2014), in
2013 this school had approximately 710 students (boys 360 and girls 350) and 53% of
the students were of non-English language background. The school had 43 teaching
staff members in 2013. In terms of school finances, approximately $910,000 was
provided by the Federal Government and about $ 3,700,000 was funded by the
Victorian Government in 2012.
7.1.2 Access policy
7.1.2.1 Introduction of the Japanese program
Principal A, who has been at the school for many years, was responsible for introducing
161
the Japanese program in the early 1990s. The adoption of Japanese in School A overlaps
the time of the growth of economic relations between Australia and Japan in the early
1990s as described in 1.5. Principal A claimed that the economic relation between
Australia and Japan was crucial in terms of the language choice of LOTE at this school.
Furthermore, the introduction of Japanese was closely related to the governmental
policy initiative at that time. Principal A, in fact, said that starting Japanese education
was the result of one of the Federal Government initiatives to bring LOTE into
Victorian schools. Considering the history of language-in-education policy, it is
probable that the NALSAS had a significant impact on the selection of languages in
School A. In addition, parents’ opinions seemed to influence the introduction of
Japanese education. Principal A reported:
Excerpt 7-1
We chose Japanese because I surveyed the parents, and it was around the time
when there was talk about the Pacific Rim being an economic zone - Japan
through to Asia and Australia, and America as well. They talked about looking
at the world and that being an economic zone, like the Euro - that being the
European zone. (Principal A)
As Excerpt 7-1 indicates, it is clear that the parents’ interests in Australia’s economic tie
with Japan affected the choice of Japanese language in this school. Principal A further
reported that at that time the school council was quite powerful, and he followed the
view of the council in introducing Japanese. Since then the Japanese program has
continued and it has been offered from Prep to Year 6.
7.1.2.2 Articulation between primary and secondary schools
162
In the vicinity where School A is located, there are three government secondary schools,
and most students enter one of these secondary schools. Among these three secondary
schools, one does not offer a Japanese program but two of them do offer Japanese
programs. Since one secondary school participated in the ILPIC project in conjunction
with School A, JLT A had opportunities to discuss articulation between primary and
secondary schools with a Japanese teacher of the secondary school. In this respect, the
ILPIC project also contributed to facilitating collaboration with teachers at different
sectors. Through the discussion with the secondary teacher, JLT A was able to
understand how the students who graduated from School A engaged in the Japanese
program at secondary level.
Moreover, JLT A was able to identify what she needs to teach for the effective
articulation. JLT A highly appreciated the opportunity to discuss with the secondary
Japanese teacher, but she stated that it was difficult for her to discuss with the secondary
teacher regularly. Most teachers are busy for their daily work such as preparing for
materials, and as a result, find it challenging to find time for the collaboration. In
addition, apart from the special opportunity provided by ILPIC, there are not many
existing opportunities for Primary and Secondary teachers to consult or collaborate as
PD opportunities and the like are usually limited to one or the other.
7.1.3 Personal policy
When the interviews with all the participants in School A took place in 2012, Australian
classroom teachers were in charge of Japanese education in the Prep classes. For Years 1
to 6, one specialist teacher, who is a Japanese native speaker, was in charge of the
163
Japanese program. As described in Table 5.2, this Japanese teacher (JLT A) held a post
graduate diploma specialising in primary education from an Australian university.
Principal A reported that he was concerned to find good teachers, and that a Japanese
teacher does not have to be Japanese. In other words, Principal A placed importance on
a teacher’s quality, regardless of Japanese teachers’ first language. On the other hand,
Principal A acknowledged the quality of JLT A as a Japanese teacher and he described
JLT A as “an absolute gem”. Principal A added that one of the reasons why JLT A is an
excellent teacher is that students “love” this Japanese teacher and they want to learn
Japanese with her. Principal A appreciated that JLT A had a good relationship with her
students and she enhanced the students’ motivation for learning Japanese. It can be
stated that Principal A considered that a teacher who can develop students’ interests and
enhance their engagement in learning Japanese would be well qualified as a language
teacher. CRT A, who closely worked with JLT A, also acknowledged that JLT A is a
highly effective Japanese language teacher. In this respect, CRT A reported that the
children who learn Japanese:
Excerpt 7-2
They are positive; they are enthusiastic about learning, excitement. They are just
eager to learn and they are very focused in their Japanese language classes. I
think the reason (for) that being is we have a very, we have an amazing Japanese
language teacher who’s highly respected by the children. The actual activities
that she organises are very engaging for the children and they are using lots of
different things, doing games, flashcards, using iPads, using computers. (CRT
A)
As CRT A pointed out, the reasons why the students love JLT A is not only due to her
personality but also due to her effective teaching methodology. Furthermore, CRT A
164
recognized that JLT A produced well-organised curriculum documents and carefully
planned lessons.
Moreover, as described in 4.6.2, ability in classroom management is a priority for
effective teaching and behaviour management has been recognized as a significant issue
for teachers from overseas in the past as Kato (1998) reported. More specifically, it is
important for Japanese native teachers to acknowledge Australian educational context
and culture, and to have a good relationship with students, so that they can manage their
Japanese class effectively. At the time of the first interview in 2012, JLT A insisted on
the importance of classroom management. She commented:
Excerpt 7-3
学校によってだと思いますが、しっかりしつけをちゃんとしていくのも日本
語教師っていうだけじゃなくて、先生として大事なことだと思います。
I think, it depends on the school, but it is important to maintain discipline not
only as a Japanese language teacher but also as a teacher in general. (JLT A, the
first interview)
Since CRT A closely worked with JLT A as mentioned above, he observed JLT A’s
classroom management and claimed:
Excerpt 7-4
The children love her, they love learning Japanese, the management, the
behaviour management in the classroom she has is amazing. I came here, I was
WOW - that control! Instant engagement, quiet, listening, It's just her techniques.
We are very very fortunate to have her here. (CRT A)
It is significant that CRT A admired JLT A for her classroom management, as did
165
Principal A. As Principal A and CRT A who are both Australians acknowledged, JLT A
seemed to understand the educational culture of the Australian schooling and identified
how to manage Australian students’ behaviours in her Japanese classes.
7.1.4 Curriculum policy
7.1.4.1 Objectives
JLT A claimed that she produced the curriculum and set the objectives for her own
teaching. In the first interview in 2012, JLT A did not refer to the VELS in regard to
setting objectives she claimed that she aimed at developing the students’ interests in
Japan and practical communication skills. JLT A reported:
Excerpt 7-5
日本に興味を持ってもらえて、日本にいつか行ったら、ていう仮定のもとに、行っ
た時に例えば正しいあいさつができたりとか、乗り物にのれたりとか、実際日本に
行くといったときに、それなりの言語とマナーとを身につけてもらえたら、いいな
という目的でやっています。
I am teaching with the objectives that students develop an interest in Japan. Also
I want my students to acquire basic Japanese language and Japanese etiquette,
which they can use when they have an opportunity to visit Japan; for instance,
the students can greet people correctly and they can use transportation. (JLT A,
the first interview).
In regard to the development of language skills, JLT A stated in the second interview in
2014 as follows:
166
Excerpt 7-6
特にここまでやらなきゃいけないとか、ひらがなを絶対かけなきゃいけないとか、
そういうものはないんですけれども。今までならった言葉を使いながら応用して、
実際使えるようなクラスになれればという感じですかね。
There are no particular objectives which I have to teach toward, like students
having to master writing hiragana, or that kind of thing. However, I try to design
classes where the students can use Japanese practically, applying what they have
already learnt. (JLT A, the second interview)
It shows that JLT A seemed not to have much sense of external achievement targets that
she has to meet, and this is certainly a salient fact. Moreover, JLT A seemed to try to
create a classroom where students use the language they have learnt in practical ways,
and are perfectly consistent with communicative language teaching.
As described in Chapter 6, the Federal and the Victorian Government have emphasized
the development of intercultural competence in languages education. JLT A’s
understanding of the concept of intercultural competence seemed to be partial. In the
second interview in 2014, JLT A reported:
Excerpt 7-7
異文化コミュニケーションという言葉はよくわからないんですけれども、日本と
日本の文化的なものを、えーと、教えた場合、日本とオーストラリアを比べてみま
しょうというのはいつも言ってて、じゃあ、日本とオーストラリでは何が違います
か、そういう面では比べる、そうですね、比べるという面で、異文化のほうにはそ
れをとり入れているという感じですかね、はい。
I don’t totally understand the term intercultural communication but I always say
to the students "Let us compare Japan with Australia". When teaching Japan and
the Japanese culture, I ask "What are the differences between Japan and
Australia"? In this way, I incorporate intercultural understanding in terms of
comparing the two countries (JLT A, the second interview)
167
Comparisons are in fact a great starting point, and better than just teaching about
Japan’s culture. However, the concept of intercultural competence is highly theoretical
for language teachers as argued in 2.3.4 and needs a lot of time to understand and
manage in class. JLT A seems to aim at developing communication skills and
knowledge on Japanese culture, and thus, it seems difficult to have enough time to focus
on fostering intercultural competence within the allocated time for the Japanese
program.
7.1.4.2 Time allocation
In Victorian primary schools, the time allocation for language education is decided at
the school level, primarily by the principal. In this school, from Prep to Year 4 and in
Year 6, Japanese was offered for 50 minutes a week. Since this school participated in
the ILPIC trial which offered CLIL in 2012, an additional 50 minutes was provided for
Year 5 (as for CLIL, details will be discussed in 7.1.5.2). As noted in 4.6.3.2, a lack of
contact time is a significant issue for many Victorian schools, and Principal A was
clearly aware of the gap between the times recommended by DEECD and those that the
school was able to deliver. Principal A attributed this to the fact that the primary
education curriculum is crowded. In response to a question concerning the most
problematic aspect of the Japanese program, Principal A claimed:
Excerpt 7-8
Principal A: Achieving the time allocation that the government would like, that
the department would like.
Interviewer: Why?
Principal A: Alright. The biggest problem in primary education is the crowded
curriculum. We don’t have enough time to do what we are told to do.
168
A financial issue is clearly another factor in the allocation of time to subjects taught by
specialist teachers. In this respect, Principal A asserted that funding is not enough for
increasing time for languages because it is necessary to employ another Japanese
teacher if the school increases time for languages. Furthermore, CLIL offered a possible
solution to the shortage of contact time for the Japanese program but only an extra 50
minutes had been provided for Japanese classes for Year 5.
The time allocation for the Japanese program in school A had not changed at the time of
the second interview with JLT A in 2014. Even after the ILPIC project had ended, this
school still provided 100 minutes for Year 5 because School A obtained extra funding
for employing one assistant teacher. This also shows that ILPIC had a longer term
impact, even when the funded project ended, and the extra time still was connected to
CLIL. This fact suggests that Principal A values the Japanese program because
principals are significant decision makers for time allocation in school curricula as
Spence-Brown (2014a) points out.
7.1.4.3 Syllabus
Based on the objectives JLT A sets, JLT A generates her own syllabi for the Japanese
program except for the CLIL program which is planned by JLT A and CRT A. In other
words, JLT A takes almost all of the responsibilities related to Japanese educational
practices. Additionally, JLT A said that there are few opportunities whereby other
teachers’ opinions are included into her syllabus development and lesson planning.
This evidence shows that JLT A is independent in her teaching work. When JLT A
creates syllabi, she usually incorporates content which is related to students’ daily life,
169
such as families and pets. Namely, JLT A’s syllabus is topic-based and I also confirmed
this by the analysis of her materials. JLT A also considers students’ age-related cognitive
attainment when formulating the syllabus. In addition, JLT A seems to incorporate
cross-curricula approaches and also tries to draw on background knowledge acquired in
the students’ L1. For instance, when the Year 1 students are learning about the
vocabulary of fish in the sea, JLT A attempts to incorporate the lexicon of fish into her
Japanese classes, thus having her students learn about fish in Japanese. In order to
identify what the students learn in the mainstream classes, JLT A often communicates
with mainstream teachers and learns when and what students in all grades study in the
mainstream classes. As described in 7.1.4.1, JLT A aimed at developing practical
commutation skills, and therefore, JLT A tended to incorporate listening and speaking
activities in her syllabus. In contrast, she does not often include reading and writing
activities in the Japanese lessons. Although JLT A expects students to read all hiragana
characters by the end of Year 6, she seemed not to expect them to write all hiragana
characters.
7.1.5 Methods and material policy
7.1.5.1 Teaching methods and activities
JLT A did not mention that the teacher uses a particular teaching method for Japanese as
a foreign language. Instead, JLT A seems to adopt a learner-centred approach and
incorporates a variety of activities including games, songs, speaking sessions, quizzes,
and communication activities making lessons fun. For instance, in the Year 1 class, after
learning about transportation such as trains, the students play games using the
170
vocabulary connected with transportation. In Years 3 and 4, when teaching the lexicon
of stationary, the teacher teaches words related to stationary and then has the students
play a memory game. A lot of the learning seemed to relate to rote memorisation of
vocabulary and expressions. However, I was not able to identify that there was any clear
evidence of teaching of grammatical structures throughout the interview and analysis of
the teaching materials which I collected.
7.1.5.2 CLIL
In School A, as a teaching methodology associated with the ILPIC project in one cluster
which belonged to the North-Eastern region. The ILPIC project consisted of seven
government primary schools and three secondary schools which have provided Japanese
programs. The main aims of the ILPIC project of the cluster included increasing student
engagement in learning Japanese while identifying and sharing ICT technologies,
increasing the number of students who continue to learn Japanese from primary to
secondary school, and increasing the time allocation for languages through the CLIL
implementation. In all the participant schools, CLIL was introduced in Term 3, 2012 and
$20,000 was provided to each school. The CLIL subject was decided by the leadership
team of the cluster and Science was selected. According to the ILPIC cluster leader, the
reason why Science was selected is that Science is a very hands-on subject and it is like
cooking in the kitchen, which everyone knows how to do, and that the content of
Science can be seen visually and done actively. In this way, the cluster decided that
Science seemed suitable for CLIL teaching and learning for both teachers and students.
On the other hand, the theme and topic could be selected by each school, depending
upon teachers’ knowledge or availability.
171
JLT A did not clearly know why Science was chosen for the CLIL program at the time
when the first interview was conducted. However, she speculated that Science is not
regularly taught in Victorian primary schools. JLT A selected human body and food
science, and the reason for this is that the body parts are learned in the Year 3
mainstream class and it might be easy for the students to learn what they have already
learned in English. However, as noted in 2.4.2.5, new content should be introduced as
the basic principle of CLIL. Therefore, it is clear that JLT A either misunderstood, or did
not believe that she would be able to implement a CLIL program where totally new
content was being introduced. In the CLIL program, JLT A adopts a small group
approach which is called a “literacy rotation” model and 100 minutes is divided across
five groups of students. Thus, the total time of CLIL that each student receives is only
20 minutes, and other groups of the students engage in vocabulary card games, a writing
activity, and ICT activities which are supported by CRT A or assistants. Most of the
activities besides CLIL were related to the CLIL topic. CRT A who can understand
Japanese was the ILPIC project leader in 2012 and he also planned the CLIL activities
with JLT A. Principal A considered that CLIL was the most successful aspect of the
Japanese program. One successful aspect which Principal A recognized was that CLIL
could develop teacher collaboration, especially in terms of lesson planning. As noted in
2.4.2.5, successful CLIL needs cooperation between subject and language teachers. In
this regard, CLIL in School A attained one CLIL objective. However, at the time when
the second interview with JLT A was conducted in 2014, CRT A became an assistant
principal, and as result, JLT A planned the CLIL lessons on her own. Since JLT A had
already developed the CLIL program with CRT A, JLT A is able to adopt the developed
CLIL lessons. Though CRT A was not in charge of CLIL in 2014, he supported the
172
CLIL program from the administration side. Since CRT A had experience in organising
and planning CLIL, his assistance seemed critical for the sustainability of CLIL in
School A. Furthermore, JLT A reported that the content and activities of CLIL enabled
the students to develop their motivation for learning Japanese. On the other hand, JLT A
recognized some issues of CLIL implementation. In the first interview in 2012, JLT A
felt that it was very difficult for her to teach Science only through Japanese and said that
she struggled with the CLIL program. This was possibly because JLT A did not receive
any special training for the CLIL program at that time. Moreover, JLT A reported that
she did not have any CLIL network with other Japanese teachers even though School A
participated in the ILPIC project which promoted the cluster collaboration. It is difficult
for me to identify why JLT A reported that she had no connection with other teachers
but I speculate that JLT A did not have enough opportunities to discuss CLIL with other
teachers in the workshops, and thus, the workshop seemed not to contribute to the
network development.
In the interview in 2014, she identified other issues about CLIL. Firstly, there are few
opportunities for the students to communicate with others in Japanese because JLT A
needs to explain the content for students to understand and the students often do hands-
on activities which seem like TPR. Secondly, it is difficult for the Year 5 students to
develop their academic knowledge only in Japanese. In order to understand the content,
JLT A needs to use a lot of English, and Japanese is used for easy instructions such as
“kitte” (cut), “tatte” (stand up) and “mite” (look). These words are related to BICS and
it seems difficult for the students to acquire CALP in the CLIL program (cf. 2.3.2).
Thirdly, JLT A recognized the difficulty of enhancing intercultural competence because
173
human body parts and internal organs as the CLIL topic are universal and they seemed
inappropriate to develop intercultural skills. Finally, the provision of CLIL is
insufficient in School A. JLT A has some difficulties to conduct CLIL regularly, and
CLIL was not offered by Term 2 in 2014. JLT A reported that the students needed to
acquire basic skills in Japanese before conducting CLIL, although the students had
received the Japanese lessons for 50 minutes per week until Year 4.
7.1.5.3 Teaching materials
In School A, JLT A does not use any textbooks or workbooks for the Japanese classes
because it is not common practice to use textbooks in Japanese programs, especially for
primary education in Australia. In this regard, JLT A thinks that it is necessary to
identify the students’ needs and abilities, and to develop teaching materials which are
suitable for her students’ interests and language skills. JLT A has produced most
teaching materials, such as handouts and picture cards. In order to develop teaching
materials, JLT A refers to various resource websites. For instance, JLT A often uses a
website which is called “Japanese teaching ideas”
(http://www.japaneseteachingideas.com/), and on the website Japanese teachers can
share a variety of resources which are developed by other teachers after registering and
uploading the teacher’s own materials. JLT A appreciated the usefulness of the website
for developing the materials.
Through the analysis of the materials JLT A created, I identified that most of the
materials for lower grades focus on script (hiragana) and basic vocabulary such as the
names of colours and vegetables. The materials for upper grades include daily
174
conversational expressions such as “Konnichiwa Onamae wa nandesuka” (Hello, what
is your name?). Moreover, in the materials, a variety of pictures which are related to the
target words are drawn. I acknowledge that JLT A tries to connect Japanese language
with pictures in order to support students’ understanding.
7.1.5.4 Use of ICT
JLT A and CRT A reported that School A was able to purchase ICT equipment including
iPads for the Japanese programs because of the benefit of the ILPIC funding
(see 7.1.6.2). Thus, JLT A often uses computers and iPads which enable the students to
work individually. CRT A said that the students really engage with using the iPads to
learn Japanese. In addition, JLT A utilises Polycom for the activities of a sister school
relationship after the first interview in 2012. Details of the sister school relationship will
be discussed in 7.1.7.2. Since communication activities with Polycom seemed
successful, JLT A decided to continue the activity with the sister school. Conversely,
JLT A did not report to what extent ICT tools can contribute to the development of
proficiency in Japanese although JLT A appreciates the effectiveness of the video
conference system for the Japanese programs.
7.1.6 Resourcing policy
7.1.6.1 Regular funding
As noted in the school profile, government schools are provided with funding by both
the Federal and Victorian Governments and the amount of the State funding is decided
according to the number of student enrolments, but the distribution of the funding is
175
decided by the principal. In School A, annual budget for the Japanese program is not
allocated. Instead, JLT A consulted the principal about budget for purchase of things JLT
A needs when it is necessary. The principal then decides whether or not the school will
pay for those. JLT A reported that she is satisfied with the budget allocation, and further
asserted that most materials and teaching ideas can be obtained from the Internet and
that we can provide enjoyable lessons with creativity concerning teaching Japanese
even if we do not spend much money. For instance, JLT A finds various video clips and
songs on “You Tube” and uses them.
On the other hand, Principal A and CRT A identified the only problem for the Japanese
program is funding. Nevertheless, Principal A said, “It’s never been funded sufficiently
to implement the government requirement”. CRT A also stated that she believed the
Victorian Government should give the school more funding for languages. CRT A also
reported that if the school had more funding, it would be possible for the school to
purchase more resources, and that the school would be able to employ a full-time
language teacher.
7.1.6.2 Specific funding
For the ILPIC project, $ 20,000 was provided in 2012 and it was mainly used to
purchase ICT tools. However, the funding for the ILPIC project seemed not to be used
specifically for CLIL, possibly because there are few materials for CLIL and the
associated topics. Additionally, in the 2014 interview JLT A reported that she applied for
state funding concerning assistant teachers and obtained the funding. As a result, School
A was able to employ assistant teachers for the Japanese programs. In this regard,
176
language teachers should have a lot of information about extra funding for languages
programs and an ability to obtain extra funding seems a significant condition for
successful language teachers.
7.1.7 Community policy
7.1.7.1 Involvement of the local community
As described in Chapter 6, the Victorian Government has encouraged schools to involve
the local community, including parents. In fact, parents’ understanding is important for
the sustainability of languages program. As described in 7.1.2, the parents’ opinions
affected the selection of the language to teach at the school. Based on her discussion
with some mothers, JLT A reported that some parents appreciated the fact that their
children enjoyed learning Japanese. In terms of parents’ actual support, JLT A said that
native Japanese parents and students have recently increased, and that she wrote a letter
to the parents, in order to ask them to assist the Japanese classes, and a few of them
voluntarily helped for Years 2 and 5.
7.1.7.2 Involvement of the global community
DEECD has recently encouraged schools to have relationships with schools in overseas
countries in order to cultivate authentic opportunities to use a foreign language.
School A has a sister school relationship with a primary school in Tokyo. JLT A reported
that she obtained information about sister school programs through a mailing list and
applied to the program. This program provides schools with opportunities to find sister
schools but does not provide any funding. After finding a primary school in Tokyo,
177
exchange activities were conducted four times in 2013, and Years 3 and 5 students
participated in the activities. As described in 7.1.5.4, in the exchange activities, a video
conference system, Polycom is used, and Australian students speak Japanese, and
Japanese students use English, so that the students use the target language in each
language class. JLT A acknowledged that her students enjoyed the interaction with
Japanese students with the video conference system, and the students seemed to become
more interested in Japan and to enhance their intrinsic motivation for Japanese learning.
Hence, JLT A decided to continue the communication activity using the video
conference system.
7.1.7.3 Use of native assistants
In this school, there was one Japanese native assistant (Assistant A) who had the
responsibility for assisting the CLIL program in this school for one year during the
ILPIC project. This assistant was appointed by DEECD and trained in order to assist
Japanese languages teachers in the CLIL program. Assistant A reported that in the
training she learned how to use Japanese in content-based approach classes through the
observation of a Japanese-English bilingual primary school. Therefore, in the case of
Assistant A, there were not any issues concerning qualification as described in 4.6.5.1.
Furthermore, JLT A applied to an assistant program which is provided by the Victorian
Government with a secondary school in the same cluster, and was able to obtain the
dispatch of one Japanese native assistant. JLT A reported that the assistant works two
days a week and helps the Japanese program. JLT A appreciates the assistant’s support
and recognizes that she is able to provide more effective CLIL lessons with the
assistant’s support.
178
7.1.8 Evaluation policy
7.1.8.1 Evaluation of the Japanese program
Principal A constantly talks with JLT A about the Japanese program and grasps how the
Japanese program is delivered. In the interview in 2012, Principal A evaluated that the
Japanese program at this school is very successful because of the positive engagement
of the children in the Japanese classes. CRT A also commented that the Japanese
program is very successful. While positive engagement of the students is important, it is
interesting that Principal A did not mention how much the children were acquiring
Japanese language. In this regard, it seemed that for Principal A, engagement was the
uppermost goal against which the program was evaluated, and he did not have clear
proficiency goals with which to evaluate the program. In 2014, CRT A became the
assistant principal and he is involved in monitoring the Japanese program. Since the
assistant principal used to work closely with JLT A in the CLIL program, I assume that
the assistant principal is able to give significant support to JLT A monitoring the
Japanese program.
7.1.8.2 Assessment of students’ engagement and progress
In the second interview in 2014, JLT A reported that she assesses Years 5 and 6 students’
progress based on the AusVELS’s assessment measures. However, JLT A complained
that the assessment measures of the AusVELS are ambiguous and she seems to be
struggling with evaluating the students’ progress. In order to assess the students’
progress in detail, JLT A creates her own criteria. In regard to concreate assessment
179
methods, JLT A uses tests and portfolios. More specifically, for the assessment of
speaking skills, JLT A gives the students an interview task and self-introduction activity
which is recorded with a video recorder.
7.2 The case of School B
7.2.1 School profile
School B is situated in one of Melbourne’s bay-side residential suburbs. According to
“My School” (ACARA, 2014), the student enrolments were about 460 (about 240 male
and 220 female students) in 2013 and 10% of the students were non-English language
backgrounds. School B had 31 teaching staff in 2013. In regard to school finances,
about $580,000 was provided by the Federal Government and about $2,900,000 was
allocated by the Victorian Government in 2012. This school offers all areas of the
curriculum through classroom and specialist programs including Performing and Visual
Arts, Japanese and Physical Education. ICT tools such as iPads and cameras are
integrated into the students’ learning experience (ACARA, 2014).
7.2.2 Access policy
7.2.2.1 Introduction of the Japanese program
Principal B reported that Japanese language education commenced in 1988 before this
principal came to the school. A survey was conducted with parents for a privately
funded program, with positive responses. However, the school council considered that
there was not enough interest to support committing school funds. In 1988, a Japanese
180
visitor visited the school and a cultural awareness program commenced. After that, the
report from MACLEM (MACLEM, 1994) to the Victorian Minister for Education
recommended that all Victorian students P-10 study LOTE by the year 2000.
Subsequently, this school surveyed parents on a preferred LOTE and Japanese was
selected in 1988. Principal B argued that the reason why Japanese was chosen was that
parents at that time thought that Japan was economically close, and it was a good Asian
neighbour. Since the Japanese program started, Japanese has been offered from Prep to
Year 6.
7.2.2.2 Articulation between primary and secondary schools
JLT B reported that there is no government secondary school which offers Japanese
programs in the vicinity, and as a result, she is not able to identify whether her students
continue to study Japanese after primary education. On the other hand, in the second
interview JLT B said:
Excerpt 7-9
I have heard feedback from parents who have siblings at this school, whose
siblings have gone on to high school have said, “Oh, so and so is doing so well
in Japanese class. It’s all because of what you taught them in primary school”.
(JLT B, the second interview)
Since a pathway for studying Japanese is not developed for JLT B and the students, only
short-term objectives for teaching and learning Japanese seem to be set out. The short-
term objectives by the end of primary schools may limit the possibility of proficiency
development in Japanese. In regard to the lack of articulation, JLT B asserted that “it is
181
a real shame”. Additionally, JLT B claimed that she did not have opportunities to talk to
secondary school teachers, and it is natural that she had never discussed transitions
between primary and secondary schools with secondary teachers.
7.2.3 Personnel policy
As indicated in Table 5.2, one Australian teacher (JLT B) was in charge of the Japanese
program during the data collection period. This teacher was a full-time staff member
and she also taught Performing Arts in addition to Japanese. JLT B said that she was
busy for preparing both subjects and wanted to teach only Japanese. Furthermore, it is
necessary for JLT B to assess students’ progress in Japanese and Performing Arts. In this
respect, JLT B asserted that she works overload for the assessment for both subjects. In
regard to JLT B’s performance in terms of teaching Japanese, Principal B admired her
and recognized that she was an outstanding teacher. CRT B similarly reported that JLT
B organised and offered a very good Japanese program. In addition, CRT B stated that
JLT B was enthusiastic and creative because JLT B always tried to develop the students’
interests in Japanese learning and Japanese culture through a variety of activities. Since
JLT B is a non-native Japanese teacher, her Japanese proficiency would be concerned as
previous studies (e.g., Nicholas et al., 1993; Liddicoat et al., 2007) argued. As indicated
in Table 5.2, JLT B majored in Japanese and linguistics at an Australian university. JLT
B reported that she studied Japanese up to the advanced level and took N3 level of
Japanese Language Proficiency Test (JLPT) in her 2nd year of the university. JLT B said
that her Japanese proficiency lies between intermediate and advanced. When I listened
to her Japanese expressions in the interviews, I supposed that her evaluation was proper.
In the second interview in 2014, JLT B stated that she participated in a Japanese
182
language course for one week, which was hosted by the Japan Foundation in 2012, so
that she could retain her Japanese language proficiency. Moreover, since JLT B often
watches video clips in Japanese, which can be used for her lessons, she is frequently
exposed to Japanese expressions for children. JLT B also stated that she often uses
classroom expressions in Japanese. JLT B asserted that she seems to have good
pronunciation and enough vocabulary especially for teaching at the primary level, and
she feels confident with teaching Japanese to Australian children. In this regard, I would
suggest that JLT B’s Japanese language skills seem efficient for teaching specifically for
primary students.
7.2.4 Curriculum policy
7.2.4.1 Objectives
The objectives of the Japanese program are described in the school curriculum policy
document. There are five objectives for languages education in the LOTE policy and it
can be applied to any language. The first objective is generating gratitude of languages
and students’ intrinsic values. The second is for students to learn to converse in other
languages for different purposes and in different contexts. The third objective is for
students to learn to use other languages effectively and to develop an understanding of
the cultural contexts where the language is used. The fourth is developing students’
understanding of the way language works which may apply to other languages,
including English. The fifth objective is for students to gain knowledge of and to make
connections with a range of concepts drawn from other key learning areas while
learning other languages. It is important to note that the LOTE objectives include the
183
relationship with English and other circular content. These objectives seem to be
formulated based on the CFS which was the former curriculum framework of the
Victorian Government because most of the objectives overlap with those in the CSF
(see 3.4.2). Furthermore, the school language curriculum policy indicates that all
students will study a sequential language program. However, JLT B reported that the
main focus of Japanese was to develop the students’ cultural awareness through learning
about Japanese festivals, customs and lifestyles. In this regard, JLT B seemed not to
give a strong emphasis on the development of proficiency in the Japanese program.
Additionally, JLT B mentioned that she does not largely refer to the Victorian
curriculum guidelines (the VELS and the AusVELS) for setting objectives because the
standards in the guidelines does not match what JLT B would like to teach. According to
JLT B, the main objective of the Japanese program is that students enjoy Japanese
classes, so that they will want to continue to learn the language in high school.
However, as noted in 7.2.2.2, there is not a pathway to continue to study Japanese in
government secondary schools near School B. JLT B also claimed that “with 50 minutes
a week, they are not going to be fluent with Japanese”. In the second interview, JLT B
mentioned that she expects that the students can read all hiragana characters and
introduce themselves in Japanese.
7.2.4.2 Time allocation
In School B, all Japanese classes from Prep to Year 6 are scheduled for 50 minutes a
week. JLT B insisted that 50 minutes is not enough for learning Japanese language.
Nevertheless, despite her emphasis on enjoyment in the Japanese classes, it appeared
that JLT B sets an ambitious schedule, stating that she was always having to hurry the
184
students through their work, in order to finish within the allocated 50 minutes.
Moreover, JLT B added that if the students did not finish their work, she cannot say
“That’s ok, we’ll do it next week”, because she already has other work scheduled for the
following week. Hence, for JLT B, 50 minutes per week required very fast paced
teaching, and she needed more time for the Japanese program. JLT B suggested:
Excerpt 7-10
Yes, even for the older classes, if they had 2 classes a week. I’d love to have
Grades 5 and 6 twice a week. So they would get more time, like 2 sessions of
Japanese a week would be really good. Not 100 minutes all in one day, but
maybe 50 mins on Tuesday and 50 mins on Thursday, because that’s a good
way for them to get the language stuck in their heads. So if I had more class
time with the older students that would be really good. I feel it would be good
for the fives and sixes especially, because they do a lot more in the school, like
more sports. (JLT B, the first interview)
At the time of the second interview with JLT B in 2014, I confirmed that the time
allocation remained for all the grades. Nevertheless, as JLT B will obtain maternity
leave from the 2015 academic year, Principal B decided to decrease contact time for the
Japanese program during JLT B’s leave. Though a part-time teacher will be substituted,
Japanese classes for Prep to Year 2 will be provided in 1 semester, and then the next
semester will be for Years 3 to 6 in the 2015 academic year. In this respect, JLT B
confessed:
Excerpt 7-11
I hate that idea in that it is really horrible, but I can’t do anything about it. It’s
got to do with the budget. I'm not here anyway because I'm on maternity leave,
so. (JLT B, the second interview)
185
This fact supports that languages programs are often being peripheral and minimal time
for Japanese programs will be allocated in the school curriculum because of the
replacement of the Japanese specialist teacher as Spence-Brown (2014a) claims.
7.2.4.3 Syllabus
JLT B had a significant responsibility and freedom to develop syllabi for the Japanese
program in this school. In fact, JLT B said, “I’m the one who is making the decisions
and I can really do what I like, and what I want”. In addition, JLT B often incorporates
cross-curricular perspectives when developing her syllabi. JLT B asks the mainstream
classroom teachers about topics which they will cover in the regular classes during each
term. In this regard, JLT B uses topic-based syllabi like other Japanese teachers (cf.
Spence-Brown & Hagino, 2006)
7.2.5 Methods and material policy
7.2.5.1 Teaching methods and activities
JLT B seemed to adopt games as a strategy of a learner-centred approach. In
particular, JLT B used many games for Year 1 and 2 students. JLT B said that lower
grade students are very energetic and they like to move around. JLT B also claimed that
they also have a short attention span and do not sit still for a long time. Among a
number of games JLT B adopts, JLT B introduced one game, “Fly Swat Game” in the
first interview. In this game, the teacher places hiragana cards in the middle of the floor,
and one student from each table sits around with a fly swat. The teacher calls out one
hiragana and the students have to swat it down. This game seems like TPR (see 2.4.1)
186
which combines languages and actions. On the other hand, JLT B seemed not to adopt the
communicative approach in her lessons and did not mention any activities such as pair
work which can offer opportunities to interact with other students. Furthermore, in the
second interview, I asked JLT B about CLIL. JLT B did not know about CLIL at all. JLT
B also claimed that she does not know about the Victorian language policy and has not
read the 2011 policy document and the 2013 plan document which include the CLIL
initiative. JLT B said that “I just do my job here. I teach Japanese to the kids.” In this
respect, I speculate that JLT cannot afford to gain new knowledge on languages education
possibly because she is busy for teaching two subjects as mentioned above.
7.2.5.2 Use of ICT
At the time when I conducted the first interview in 2012, JLT B said that she actively
used iPads for the Japanese program. JLT B started to use iPads for the Japanese
program from 2012 after obtaining the BALGS funding from the NALSSP. JLT B
acknowledged the effectiveness of ICT tools in order to develop the students’ intrinsic
motivation for learning Japanese. JLT B reported:
Excerpt 7-12
Before we had the iPads students who were struggling and who were just not
ever going to be good at doing Japanese, they would just come in and would be
very disinterested. But now with the iPads, I’m getting a connection with even
the students who before just didn't have any positive thoughts at all about
Japanese. They now want to come to Japanese because they’ve got the iPads to
use and because there's always something different happening. (JLT B, the first
interview)
187
For Years 5 and 6 students, JLT B often uses iPads for making movies. In the activity,
the students set a theme such as “family” and proceed to make a movie based around this
theme. In their movies, the students wrote subtitles such as “Fujisan ni ikimasu” (I go to
Mt. Fuji). “Sushi o tabemasu”(I eat Sushi). JLT B emphasized that the students enjoy this
activity and it develops their interests in Japanese learning. The video making
activity is often incorporated for learning Japanese as a foreign language (e.g., Inaba,
2014). However, there are some issues related to the movie making activity for
Japanese. For instance, some students tend to excessively focus on making videos
instead of learning the target language (Inaba, 2014).
From 2012, JLT B started a blog site which is related to the Japanese program on the
Internet. The reason why JLT B created this blog is that her students are able to look at
her blog site so that the students have more opportunities to being exposed to Japanese
outside of the weekly 50 minute Japanese class. This blog site includes a variety of
content such as hiragana learning, pictures and video related to Japanese traditional
festivals, Japanese pop cultures, and language games. Furthermore, this site also
includes useful links related to Japanese learning. In this respect, JLT B seems to aim at
developing learners’ autonomy providing opportunities for learning Japanese outside
classes.
7.2.5.3 Teaching materials
As with most primary teachers, JLT B also did not use any textbook and
ready-made workbook for her Japanese classes. Instead, JLT B produced most of the
teaching materials including handouts. For example, I collected her original handouts
188
for Prep students and they were for hiragana writing practice. This handout seemed
appropriate for the age but hiragana characters are learned without context. It seems
important to provide more pictures related to hiragana words so that the students can
learn hiragana as words. JLT B produced materials which covered topics as Japanese
traditional culture such as “Hinamatsuri” (the Girls’ Festival) and it can be evaluated
that materials tended to focus on the Japanese traditional culture.
7.2.6 Resourcing policy
7.2.6.1 Regular funding for the Japanese program
In regard to the regular funding for the Japanese program, JLT B reported that $1000 is
provided annually, and that the amount of the funding is decided by the principal. JLT B
stated that the annual funding is mostly used for purchasing stationery and teaching
resources. Conversely, she claimed that $1000 is not enough when the school offers a
Japanese day which is held every second year. For example, JLT B needs to use the
regular funding for serving Japanese foods such as tempura to the students and inviting
a Taiko drum performance, which costs money, but JLT B has to disburse the money
from the amount of the annual regular funding. She confessed that “it’s tough”.
7.2.6.2 Specific funding for the Japanese program
In the 2012 interview, Principal B reported that the school received $19,000 as
the BALGS under the NALSSP strategy for one year. With the BALGS grant, this school
purchased seven iPads and a lot of teaching materials such as Japanese picture books.
Moreover, this grant enabled the school to disburse the grants to PD opportunities and the
189
employment of casual relief teachers. In this regard, Principal B was satisfied with the
extra funding from the Federal Government in 2012. Though the BALGS was provided
only for one year, I was assured that this direct funding seemed to contribute to developing
quality of the Japanese program with a variety of resources. More concretely, JLT B was
able to incorporate various activities by utilising iPads.
7.2.6.3 Special room for the Japanese program
One of the things that Principal B emphasized was that this school has a special room
for Japanese education. I recognize the provision of a special room for a
Japanese program as a significant investment which assists to facilitate Japanese
education in terms of resourcing policy. Both Principal B and JLT B indicated
their pride of the “Japanese room”. JLT B commented:
Excerpt 7-13
(That) we’ve got a Japanese room is really amazing because some schools don’t
have a Japanese room and when new parents who are doing a school tour, around
the school, when they find out that we've got a Japanese room, they go like “Wow,
this is great!” They walk into the room and it's kind of like they are coming into
Japan.
One advantage of special rooms for languages education is that teaching resources
such as collection of games and videos can be stored in one place and these can be used
whenever the language teachers would like to use in the language class. Another
advantage of special rooms is that students can be exposed to the target language and
culture during the lessons when authentic materials are displayed in the room.
190
In fact, many authentic materials such as Japanese traditional clothes such as kimono
and Japanese dolls are displayed in the Japanese room of School B. The students may
be able to enhance their interests in Japanese culture by being exposed to the authentic
materials.
7.2.7 Community policy
7.2.7.1 Involvement of the local community
The Japanese program of School B has been actively supported by Japanese people
in Melbourne. Every second year, School B conducts a “Japanese Day”, which
is a whole school culture day incorporating the entire school. In this event, Japanese
Taiko drum performers who are residing in Melbourne visit this schools and show the
students their performance and the students are able to access the authentic Japanese
traditional culture. Furthermore, several Japanese natives including parents whose
children are the students of School B participate in and support the cultural events such
as calligraphy writing and origami folding.
In regard to parents’ understating of the Japanese program, JLT B commented that many
parents seemed to be supportive for it. Nevertheless, some parents think that the
children are able to dramatically develop their Japanese proficiency with the learning
for a few years. This is an aspirational expectation for Japanese education, and JLT B
recounted that a number of parents did not fully understand that the school had only 50
minutes a week to teach Japanese. In this respect, it is important to inform objectives
and content of the Japanese program with a variety of advertisement such as schools’
191
websites or newsletters.
7.2.7.2 Involvement of the global community
In the second interview in 2014, I identified that JLT B had a strong motivation for
exchanging with a sister school relationship with a primary school in Japan. JLT B
reported that School B had a relationship with a primary school in Japan but the school
in Japan did not continue the relationship though JLT B did not know the reason.
Instead, School B obtained a new sister school relationship with a different primary
school in Japan in 2014 and started a sister school exchange program. In the sister
school activity, students in School B has exchanged letters and some students’ work by
mail with students in the primary school in Japan. Moreover, JLT B made a booklet
which indicated Australian culture and sent it to the school in Japan. JLT B stated:
Excerpt 7-14
I made up this booklet. I asked the students in Grade 4, 5 and 6 to provide photos
of their everyday life. And so I made up this book, because I thought they might
think that eating cereal for breakfast is interesting. And how we walk to school.
What our school uniform looks like. What we eat for lunch. What kinds of
activities we do after school. The kinds of things we have for dinner. Doing our
homework and what our bedrooms looks like. There's some Japanese decorations
and going to sleep.
Based on JLT B’s comments above, the sister school relationship seemed to enable the
students in School B to identify and value their own culture. Valuing Australian culture
may lead to the development of intercultural competence.
192
In addition to the sister school relationship, School B developed plans for a Japanese
tour for a week, and the first trip was conducted in 2013. This tour was initiated by
Principal B and JLT B. The school would take a maximum of 15 students on this tour. If
more than 15 students apply, the School Leadership and the Japanese teacher would
make the final decision. Once the tour participant list was finalised, the Pre-Tour
Orientation would commence. This program aims at introducing the students to unique
facets of Japanese culture. In the second interview in 2014, JLT B described how the
previous Japan tours were going. In the 2013 tour, 12 students and three teachers
including JLT B and Principal B participated in the tour. For the principal’s
participation, JLT B thought that it was good because the principal could see what it was
all about. In the 2014 tour, 10 students and 3 teachers including JLT B participated. JLT
B reviewed the first and second school trips and discussed that the students who
participated in the trip had a lot of opportunities to speak Japanese in the authentic
context. JLT B commented that the tours were successful. JLT B further proclaimed that
School B plans the third trip in the 2015 academic year and will continue it. The Japan
tour seems to become a good advertisement for parents and community to know that
School B puts strength into Japanese education.
7.2.8 Evaluation policy
7.2.8.1 Evaluation of the Japanese program
According to JLT B, this school conducts evaluation of teacher’s performance, which is
called a "Performance Development Plan". In this assessment task, all teachers meet the
principal in the middle of the year and discuss their goals for teaching. Then they meet
193
again at the end of the year and talk about how they went about meeting the goals. As
described in 7.2.3, JLT B has an entire responsibility in regard to operating the Japanese
program, and JLT B’s reports to the principal can be considered as evaluation of the
Japanese program in School B.
7.2.8.2 Assessment of students’ engagement and progress
JLT B reported that she assesses students’ progress for every grade and writes reports
for them. The progress report includes written comments for all grades, and the progress
of Years 5 and 6 students are rated by 4 scales in addition to written comments. In
regard to written comments, JLT B claimed that the parents’ feedback for the specialist
teachers involved that “we want the report to be more personalised”. Nonetheless, JLT
B confessed that it is difficult to personalise, especially when she sees the students just
once a week. In order to assess the students’ progress, JLT B gives them quizzes, and
also observes the students’ behaviour and efforts. As JLT B needs to write reports for
Performing Arts, the detailed assessment seems to be overload for JLT B.
7.3 The case of School C
7.3.1 School profile
School C is located in an inner suburb in Melbourne. This school has a long history of
education, serving the community for approximately 100 years. According to “My
School” (ACARA, 2014), in 2013 the school population stood at about 300 students
(140 male and 150 female students) and about 90 % of the total enrolments were non-
English background students in 2013. This school employed 25 fulltime teaching staff
194
members in 2013. The principal (Principal C) changed and a new principal was
appointed in the 2014 academic year. In regard to school finances, approximately
$ 530,000 was offered by the Federal Government and about $ 2,300,000 was provided
by Victorian Government in 2012.
7.3.2 Access policy
7.3.2.1 Introduction of the Japanese program
At the time the interview was conducted in 2012, Principal C reported that Japanese
language education commenced about 12 years ago before she came to the school.
According to Principal C, when the previous principal had an administrative
responsibility in School C, the school considered which language was to be taught. In
the selection procedure, the school conducted a survey to all parents, asking which
language should be taught in this school. Based on their responses, this school decided
to start a Japanese program for all grades. Given that there were a number of students
who came from other countries, such as Indonesia and Malaysia, Principal C reported
that it was reasonable for this school to choose Japanese which every student is able to
start at the similar level. JLT C also suggested two other possible reasons why Japanese
was chosen at this school. The first reason was that Victorian Government provided
funding when the Japanese program was commenced. The second reason was the
availability of Japanese teachers at that time. JLT C also said that there were many
Japanese native speakers who lived in the community at that time.
Nevertheless, during those initial 12 years, Japanese education was not conducted for
195
about two years. In this regard, Principal C thought the management at the time and the
staff felt that the number of hours spent teaching Japanese was not sufficient, and
therefore, the school did not value the Japanese program. Additionally, Principal C
reported that English literacy was very important for the students at this school because
a lot of the students arrived with very little English, given that there had been many
students who had come from different countries. Principal C said that within the student
population, approximately 35 different languages other than English represented the
students’ languages used at home.
7.3.2.2 Articulation between primary and secondary schools
In the cluster where School C is located, there are two government secondary schools
offering Japanese programs, and JLT C reported that many students in School C go to
these secondary schools. Thus, many students in School C have a clear pathway to study
Japanese from the primary to secondary levels. As School C participated in the ILPIC
trial (see 6.2.2.3), as well as School A, JLT C had a number of opportunities to discuss
continuity with secondary Japanese teachers during the project, and she had been
advised what to teach in primary schools by the secondary teachers. For instance, the
secondary schools had recently introduced a formation of classes according to students’
individual levels of Japanese language achievement, and a diagnostic test was
conducted in order to identify the students’ attainment by Year 6. JLT C stated that the
assessment standards of the diagnostic test included whether students could write
hiragana characters and whether they knew basic words and phrases. The discussion
with the secondary teachers allowed JLT C to identify what should be taught at the
primary level. JLT C acknowledged the importance of the relationship with secondary
196
teachers and the continuity between primary and secondary schools in terms of learning
Japanese.
7.3.3 Personnel policy
As described in Table 5.2, JLT C is a native Japanese teacher and has been employed as
full-time teaching staff since 2010. Unlike JLT B, JLT C only teaches Japanese, and
thus, this teacher can concentrate on it. CRT C reported that many students have
positive attitudes toward JLT C because JLT C always offers enjoyable Japanese
lessons. One possible reason why JLT C provides lessons that the students have interests
in is that JLT C often participates in various PD workshops which are offered by the
Victorian Government and JLTAV, in order to obtain knowledge and skills for teaching
Japanese. In the second interview in 2014, JLT C reported that she often participated in
PD workshops for CLIL and ICT which are offered by DEECD and JLTAV. As
described in Chapter 6, CLIL and the use of ICT are significant policy initiatives of the
Victorian Government, and thus, I am assured that JLT B tries to understand the policy
initiatives and to incorporate the innovative approaches which enable learners to
experience authentic language learning. In addition, JLT C also recognizes the
importance of controlling classes as an overseas teacher. In fact, JLT C reported that one
of the important roles is classroom management, as previous studies argued. (e.g., Kato,
1998). In regard to JLT C’s classroom management, CRT C described that JLT C
consults with classroom teachers if there are students who do not behave and tries to
solve the students’ behaviour issues with classroom teachers.
197
7.3.4 Curriculum policy
7.3.4.1 Objectives
Similar to JLT A and JLT B, JLT C usually sets objectives for the regular Japanese
program on her own, based on her own perspectives on teaching and learning Japanese.
JLT C stated:
Excerpt 7-15
日本語を勉強する理由はいくつかあると思うんですけども、他の言語を勉強する
ことで、自分の思考に新しい思考回路が増えるというか、英語だけしか知らなかっ
たら、英語だけの考え方、だと思うんですけど、日本語、他の文化を知ることで、
こういう人たちはこういう考えがあるか、こういう考えもしてもいいではないか、
視野を広げることができると思うし、他の国の文化を学ぶことは、すごく興味深い
ものだと思うので、その文化交流という意味でも日本語を学ぶベネフィットがあ
ると思います。(JLT C, the first interview)
I think that there are several reasons for students to study Japanese. By studying
other languages, they can gain new perspectives. If they know only English, they
have thoughts and perspectives only from English. By understanding the
Japanese language and other cultures, they can gain a wider perspective. For
example, they might realize that these people (who they are studying about) think
in a certain way, and that therefore it may be OK to think like those people. I
think that it is extremely interesting to learn about the cultures of other countries,
and that it is beneficial for them to learn Japanese in terms of cultural exchange.
(JLT C, the first interview)
As this excerpt indicates, JLT C seems to try to eliminate the English monolingual
mindset that Lo Bianco (2009b) asserted. Additionally, in the second interview, the
objectives of the Japanese program seemed to change and she focused on developing
language skills. JLT C stated:
198
Excerpt 7-16
違うこと言ってたらすみません。一番は日本語の授業を楽しく、あの楽しみながら、
日本語の言葉の習得と、文化の知識の理解、それが将来的に子供たちに少しでも日
本という国を理解してもらえたり、将来日本に訪れて、日本に関わった仕事ができ
たりという、あの手伝いをできたらと思っています。
I will apologise if I will say different things from what I said in the first interview.
The main objective is that the students acquire Japanese language and understand
Japanese culture, which may enable the students to understand Japan in the
future, while enjoying learning Japanese. Also, I would expect that the students
may visit Japan in the future and do jobs which are related to Japan. I would like
to support the students. (JLT C, the second interview)
In addition to focusing on developing language skills, JLT C seemed to consider
integrative motivation which is related to long-term objectives. Moreover, as described
in 7.3.2.2, JLT C had opportunities to discuss with secondary Japanese teachers during
the first and second interviews, and as a result, JLT C began considering the articulation
between primary and secondary schools in terms of setting objectives.
7.3.4.2 Time allocation
School C has offered one hour of a formal lesson a week from Prep to Year 6. In the
first interview, JLT C said that she was satisfied with 60 minutes for the regular
Japanese classes but Principal C considered that 60 minutes a week was not enough for
learning Japanese. In regard to this issue, Principal C thought that it was necessary for
the classroom teachers to become more proficient at using Japanese and to use Japanese
more in their classes, so that the students can be exposed to Japanese. Nevertheless, I
would argue that it seems unrealistic for all classroom teachers to gain adequate
Japanese proficiency because they were not trained as language teachers.
199
In 2012 this school offered the CLIL program in the ILPIC trial (see 6.2.2.3 and
6.2.5.1), and the school provided for Years 5 and 6 for another one hour a week in
addition to the regular Japanese classes, and thus the contact time of Years 5 and 6
covered 120 minutes a week. The CLIL implementation enabled School C to increase
contact time for approaching the Victorian Government’s recommendation of 150
minutes per week, and Principal C thought that it was a successful aspect by the school.
Principal C recounted that she would like to extend CLIL down the other grades and
also reported that “it would be 3 and 4. It’s a matter of finding enough, because it’s only
one teacher, finding her time or hiring another teacher. And that’s going to be difficult”.
As Principal C argued, more funding for employing another teacher is necessary in
order to increase contact time for languages. However, CLIL was ceased when the
ILPIC ended in 2013, and then the contact time for Years 5 and 6 returned to one hour
from 2014.
7.3.4.3 Syllabus
JLT C reported that she always develops syllabi with her own responsibility as well as
setting objectives. In this respect, JLT C is independent in the school as well as other
Japanese language teachers who participated in this study. On the other hand, JLT C
stated that she was sometimes given advice by other Japanese teachers in the vicinity.
As JLT C was only in her second year of working at School C at the time of the first
interview in 2012, she had a mentor teacher who was an Australian classroom teacher,
and JLT C sometimes sought advice about suitable activities for the mentor teacher.
Moreover, JLT C develops a topic-based syllabus, applying cross-curricular perspectives
which were/are emphasized in the VELS and the AusVELS. For this, JLT C asks
200
classroom teachers about topics which are dealt with in the mainstream classes and
incorporated them into the regular Japanese classes. For instance, if money is the topic
of a grade, JLT C teaches about money in the Japanese classes. Similarly, JLT C tries to
link a topic related to content in History to her teaching in Japanese.
7.3.5 Methods and material policy
7.3.5.1 Teaching methods and activities
JLT C did not refer to specific teaching methods and did not clearly mention that she
uses the communicative approach. However, I confirmed that JLT C tries to incorporate
conversational activities which can be recognized as the communicative approach. In
particular, JLT C includes communication activities for daily conversation at the first
part of the lesson. This activity seems useful for foreign language learners especially
who are at the beginning level because the daily conversational expressions which are
related to BICS can be acquired quite easily (cf. 2.3.2). In addition, JLT C incorporates
a variety of activities, considering students’ age and the associated cognitive level. For
instance, for the lower grade classes, JLT C incorporates “hands on learning” with clay
and puzzles. In this activity, students make Japanese letters with clay or do puzzles
which include hiragana characters. Similar to TPR (cf. 2.4.1), I assume that activities
which use students’ body actions seem effective especially for lower grade students who
have short attention span. JLT C seems to use a task-based syllabus for lower grade
students. For Years 3 and 4 students, since the students are able to study more advanced
language components, JLT C encourages the students to use Japanese-English
dictionaries to look for Japanese words that they do not know the meanings. JLT C also
201
teaches grammar for Years 5 and 6 students. In addition, JLT C has actively
incorporated writing activities and encourages the students to write hiragana characters
by Year 6. One reason why JLT C often includes writing activities is that there are many
non-Japanese background Asian students who are highly interested in writing Japanese.
JLT C gives different writing tasks according to the degree of attainment of each
student. Additionally, it is interesting to note that another reason why JLT C often
incorporates writing activities is that she tries to make Japanese classes quieter. This
seems a problem which is related to the distribution of a special room in resourcing
policy, which I will describe later.
In addition to the development of language skills, I confirmed that JLT C seemed to aim
at developing intercultural competence. JLT C reported:
Excerpt 7-17
この学校は、多国籍の子が多いので、日本の文化だけを押しつけるのでなく、日本
語の授業を通して、日本の文化ややりかたはこうだけど、他の誰か、ちがう国では
どうですか、というふうに比較することをよくしています。
Because there are many students who have different nationalities in this school,
I try to compare Japanese culture and ways with those in other countries instead
of pushing Japanese culture onto the students. (JLT C, the second interview)
Identifying the differences between the target culture and cultures of the students is one
significant part of the procedures in nurturing intercultural competence. As well as JLT
A, JLT C tries to focus on comparison between Japanese culture and other cultures, and
it can be stated that comparisons between Japanese culture and other cultures seem to be
a main activity in developing intercultural competence in JLT C’ s teaching.
202
7.3.5.2 CLIL
School C participated in the ILPIC project in the cluster where School A belong (as for
the background information of the cluster, see 7.1.5.2) and from Term 3 2012 this
school also offered CLIL combined Japanese and Science. In the first interview JLT C
did not clearly know why Science was selected as well as JLT A. However, JLT C had
the reason explained for this in a PD workshop which was held by the cluster, and she
acknowledged the reason at the time when the second interview was conducted in 2014.
In School C, CRT C who specialises in Science always worked with JLT C in regard to
planning and conducting CLIL lessons, and they chose garden plants as a CLIL topic.
Knowledge about garden plants was new to the students and this was one of the
significant principles of CLIL as described in 2.4.2.5. In the CLIL classes, some
activities were conducted outside the classroom, which provided opportunities for the
students to speak Japanese outside the classroom. For instance, in one CLIL class, the
students learned “niwa” (garden), “ga arimasu/arimasen” (there is/in not), “yasai”
(vegetable) and “kudamono” (fruits) in the school garden. JLT C stated that some
students used the target words in the school garden during the recess. CRT C evaluated
that the students built their vocabulary in Japanese effectively because the students
learned vocabulary in the authentic context. Furthermore, JLT C reported that CLIL
enabled most students to eagerly engage in the activities, and as a result, it could
enhance the students’ interests in learning Japanese. CRT C also acknowledged that the
students enjoyed the CLIL program in Science. On the other hand, in the first interview,
JLT C reported that she initially struggled with the CLIL method although JLT C had
opportunities to learn about CLIL in PD workshops. In this respect, JLT C argued that
203
CLIL in School C was not the same as the European CLIL model, and that CLIL in
School C was not real CLIL. JLT C further argued that if some criticise that CLIL in
school C is not real CLIL, she thinks that it is inevitable. Moreover, JLT C pointed out
that it was difficult to develop the students’ productive skills, especially speaking.
Another issue of CLIL in School C was that the teachers needed to spend a lot of time to
prepare for CLIL classes. As JLT C needs to prepare for the regular Japanese classes, the
CLIL preparation seemed to become, to some extent, a burden for JLT C. Additionally,
although CLIL could enhance teacher collaboration in planning and teaching, JLT C
reported that it was problematic to find time to communicate with CRT C for the CLIL
preparation. Finally, the biggest issue of CLIL in School C is that CLIL was ceased after
the ILPIC project. According to JLT C in the second interview, one reason for the
termination is that the new principal who was appointed in the 2014 academic year
seemed to be interested in developing a sister school relationship with a primary school
in Japan, and JLT C needed to concentrate on developing the sister school program. JLT
C said that CLIL was not purposefully terminated but it went into a state of dissolution.
7.3.5.3 Teaching materials
Similar to other Japanese language teachers who participated in this study,
JLT C does not adopt any textbook for her Japanese classes. In regard to textbooks,
JLT C thinks that textbooks are useful but teachers do not teach all the content
completely. JLT C’s perspectives on textbooks seemed to be formulated based on her
experience as a beginner teacher when she started teaching in Australian schools because
she did not know what to teach in the first year of her teaching.
204
JLT C chooses and uses a variety of materials for different grades based on her own
decision. For instance, as described in 7.3.5.1, JLT C uses clay for the hand-on learning.
Moreover, JLT C uses grammar handouts for upper grade students who are in the
advanced level. JLT C also refers to a variety of websites which involve Japanese
teaching resources including handouts and uses them. JLT C reported that when she
produces her own teaching materials, she considers the students’ prior knowledge and
the associated progress.
7.3.5.4 Use of ICT
In the first interview, JLT C acknowledged that many teachers recently started to use
ICTs in their teaching due to influences in pedagogical practices more broadly, and that
teachers’ associations such as JLTAV provided ICT workshops. In both the first and
second interviews, JLT C reported that she has participated in PD workshops for ICT
which introduced iPad application for learning Japanese. Hence, JLT C has a lot of
information about application software for iPads and often used them to enhance
learners’ Japanese skills. For instance, the application includes hiragana tracing and
“Comic Book” that learners can create cartons by using some Japanese words and
“Puppet Pal” where learners make some characters and they let the characters speak
Japanese in the application. Additionally, CRT C reported that JLT C sometimes lets the
students play hiragana and katakana games at lunch time on their iPads. In this respect,
using iPads seems to be a good idea for the students to learn Japanese outside the
Japanese class as Inaba (2011) suggested.
205
7.3.6 Resourcing policy
7.3.6.1 Funding for the Japanese program
In the second interview JLT C reported that School C had annually provided $500 for
the Japanese program in the past five years. JLT C usually utilises the budget to
purchase expendable supplies such as stationary and paper. However, she was not able
to purchase other teaching resources within the regular budget. In order to obtain extra
money, JLT C held a sushi workshop as an extra-curricular activity in 2014. Each
student who participated in the workshop payed $3, and JLT C gained a profit of about
$30. JLT C is not satisfied with the amount of the annual budget, and JLT C consulted
with the new principal. As a result, the annual budget for the Japanese program will
increase to $1000 from the 2015 academic year. This fact supports that principals have a
critical power for budget allocation as Spence-Brown (2014a) points out. JLT C
appreciated the increase of the annual budget because she will be able to purchase
teaching resources besides expendable supplies. However, JLT C thinks that $1000 per
year is not still enough.
The funding from the Victorian Government is correlated to the increase of contact time.
Principal C complained about funding for the Japanese program and reported:
206
Excerpt 7-18
Funding is the biggest problem, so if we could be funded for another teacher, a
whole other teacher, we could have a junior school teacher and a senior school
teacher, and then we can start implementing Japanese in other lessons. But
without funding, we could never afford to hire another Japanese teacher.
(Principal C)
This evidence suggests that if the Victorian Government expects schools to increase
contact time, it needs to provide more funding for the employment of extra specialist
language teachers.
7.3.6.2 Specific funding
Since the regular funding is not enough for the Japanese program, JLT C has made
significant efforts to attract extra funding for the Japanese program, applying for various
grants from the Federal and State governments. For instance, in 2012, JLT C applied for
NALSSP-ICT Languages Professional Learning Project and received about $5000 for
one year. In addition to the NALSSP grant, School C obtained funding for the ILPIC
project, with the school receiving $20,000. JLT C reported that most of the ILPIC
funding was used to purchase ICT equipment such as iPads, microphones and voice
recorders. This fact shows that extra funding was mainly utilised for new technologies
for languages education. In addition, JLT C purchased Japanese manga comics and
Japanese traditional clothes for festivals, which is called “happi” but JLT C stated that
not many Science resources for CLIL were purchased. JLT C did not clearly mentioned
the reason why she did not purchase Science materials for CLIL. Nonetheless, I assume
that few Science teaching materials for CLIL is sold and Science books or textbooks for
207
Japanese native students may be difficult for the primary CLIL students. In 2014, JLT C
applied for Victorian Government Sister School Grants in order to develop the sister
school relationship but JLT C supposed that the school was not able to receive it as no
announcement was provided to the school.
7.3.6.3 Special room for the Japanese program
I observed that facilities for Japanese language education at School C represented a
significant problem when I conducted the first interview with JLT C. There had been a
special room for the Japanese program until 2011. However, the school needed to use
that room for a classroom due to a spike in numbers during enrolment. As a result, the
special room for the Japanese program was no longer available as of this year. JLT C
felt frustrated by the fact that she was not able to use the special room, and commented
that she had to take all her teaching materials to each class and that it was inconvenient
for her. Nevertheless, the special room for the Japanese program has been provided
when I conducted the second interview with JLT C in 2014. JLT C has been satisfied
with using the special room because JLT C is able to store the teaching materials in the
room and she can use them whenever she needs. Moreover, many pictures related to the
Japanese language and culture can be posted in the room, and thus the students are
exposed to authentic materials in the room. On the other hand, as described in 7.3.5.1,
the distribution of the special room for the Japanese program involves an issue because
it is allocated next to a mainstream classroom, and the two rooms are divided by only a
thin accordion door. JLT C reported that it is problematic for JLT C to conduct
conversation activities because the students’ voices disturb the classroom teacher next to
the special Japanese room, and as a result, the classroom teacher complained about it.
208
7.3.7 Community policy
7.3.7.1 Involvement of the local community
As described in 7.3.2, a number of parents at this school come from Southeast Asian
countries such as Indonesia and Malaysia, and many of them have positive attitudes
toward the Japanese program. JLT C reported that she had opportunities to be given
positive feedback on the Japanese program from some Asian parents and she sometimes
identify that they have positive attitudes toward Japan. I suggest that parents’ positive
attitudes toward Japan and Japanese language may give a significant impact on the
delivery of Japanese programs in regard to developing students’ motivation for learning
Japanese. According to JLT C, from 2013 to 2014, one Japanese native woman
supported the Japanese program once a week regularly and she will continue to support
it in 2015. In addition, JLT C reported that every year this school conducts a Japanese
festival and the school invites some Japanese native volunteers. Furthermore, JLT C
recounted that there are some Japanese native parents and all of them voluntarily
support the annual Japanese festival. JLT C evaluated that the Japanese festival seems
successful especially for nurturing the students’ interest in Japanese culture.
7.3.7.2 Involvement of the global community
The new principal who had been appointed since 2014 was interested in sister school
relationship and asked JLT C to find a sister school in Japan. JLT C obtained
information about the sister school relationship through the Nihongo-Victoria email
group and she was able to find a primary school in the Western part of Japan. Activities
209
of the sister school relationship, which are conducted every two months, include
introducing each other through Skype and exchanging posters which the students
created. JLT C positively evaluates the sister school exchange opportunities. JLT C
considered that it enables the students to realize the authentic connection with Japan and
they seemed to be excited about it. In addition, JLT C believed that the students
developed their motivation for learning Japanese. JLT C stated that from 2015 School C
will commence another sister school program with a primary school in Japan, and JLT C
plans to conduct video conferences with Skype.
7.3.7.3 Use of Japanese native assistants
At the time when the first interview was conducted in 2012, one Japanese native
assistant gave support in the Japanese program. This assistant was Assistant A at School
A and she also worked at School C one day a week. In School C, Assistant A assisted
the Japanese classes of Years 3 to 6 and her roles included whole class support such as
classroom control, and individual support for students who transferred from other
schools and did not have Japanese learning experience. Assistant A reported that she had
a good relationship with JLT C and often discussed teaching activities and the students’
engagement. Assistant A also stated that many classroom teachers always welcomed
Assistant A, although Assistant A was employed at School C once a week. Assistant A
reported that she did not have any problems as a Japanese native assistant at School C
as well as School A. However, her contract for working at School A and School C was
only for one year, and as a result, JLT C had to find another native assistant. After
employing Assistant A in 2012, no formal assistant has been dispatched from the
Victorian Government but as mentioned in 7.3.7.1, a native volunteer has supported the
210
Japanese program.
7.3.8 Evaluation policy
7.3.8.1 Evaluation of the Japanese program
Under the administration of Principal C, every teacher had a formal meeting with
Principal C each term. JLT C had to report whole year aims of the Japanese program in
Term 1 and she had to describe strategic plans to attain the aims in Term 2. In the
meeting conducted in Term 3, JLT C had to explain the progress of the Japanese
program, and finally, JLT C had to recount the attainment of the goals in Term 4. As
mentioned above, JLT C sets objectives for the regular Japanese program and evaluates
the students’ progress on her own. Thus, JLT C’s reports to the principal can be
considered as a formal evaluation of the Japanese program in this school. After the new
principal was appointed in 2014, the “Performance Pay” system was introduced. This
assessment system evaluates teachers’ performances in the school and the result will
have a critical impact on their salary.
7.3.8.2 Assessment of students’ engagement and progress
In this school, JLT C assesses the students’ engagement and progress for all grades,
referring to the State curriculum standards. Assessment activities include hiragana
recognition tests and hiragana writing tests which are conducted at the beginning of the
academic year and at the end of the year. In regard to assessing the students’
conversation abilities, as it is difficult to assess individual student’s ability separately,
211
JLT C assigns each student to do a task using iPads, and evaluates it. From Prep to Year
4, only comments are provided to the students, but for Years 5 and 6 students, their
engagement and progress are assessed and reported by both comments and criteria being
indicated by numbers.
7.4 The case of School D
7.4.1 School profile
School D is situated in an outer suburb in Melbourne. According to “My School”
(ACARA, 2014), in 2013 the student enrolment was approximately 190 (90 male and
100 female students) and about 22 % of the total enrolments were non-English
background students. This school employed 16 teaching staff members in 2013. In
regard to the budget about $ 370,000 was funded by the Federal Government and
approximately $ 1,500,000 was provided by the Victorian Government in 2012. In this
school, in addition to strong focuses on Literacy and Numeracy, a wide range of
programs including Art, Music and Japanese are offered (ACARA, 2014b).
7.4.2 Access policy
7.4.2.1 Introduction of the Japanese program
According to Principal D, this school initially taught Japanese as an after school
program with a group of students, and it then commenced as the regular Japanese
program from 1994, before Principal D was appointed. Principal D suggested that the
introduction of languages was prompted by a directive from the Victorian Department
212
of Education and in his view, and one of the major reasons for introducing Japanese was
to make students more culturally aware. In terms of the selection of languages, the
availability of teachers was the most significant factor in this school. When Principal D
reviewed the situation around languages education, a lot of schools chose Japanese
because Japanese teachers were plentiful and easily accessible at that time. This
phenomenon seems to link to the explosion of Japanese in the Australian context as
described in 4.1. The regular Japanese program has been offered for all the grades since
it started.
7.4.2.2 Articulation between primary and secondary schools
JLT D reported that she had an opportunity to discuss continuity between primary and
secondary levels in terms of Japanese education with secondary Japanese teachers in
secondary schools. As JLT D’s husband is a secondary school teacher, she has a
personal relationship with Japanese teachers in secondary schools. JLT D stated that she
had personally met the secondary Japanese teachers once a year and is able to exchange
information and opinions about Japanese education. Taking the opportunity, JLT D
seemed to be able to consider what she should teach at the primary level. Nevertheless,
the informal meeting had not recently been conducted due to her busyness. In addition,
JLT D described that School D had conducted a visitor session that local secondary
school students who were learning Japanese visit School D, and the secondary students
support the Japanese program. This session seemed to have a significant impact on the
articulation between primary and secondary schools. This visitor session is more closely
associated with community policy, and therefore, the details of the visitor session will
be discussed later in 7.4.7.1.
213
7.4.3 Personnel policy
As described in Table 5.2 one Australian LOTE specialist teacher (JLT D) has been in
charge of Japanese language education. According to JLT D, before she came to work in
School D, this school wanted to have Japanese taught. JLT D was appointed to
commence the regular Japanese program about two decades ago. JLT D has currently
been employed as a part-time teacher but she was appointed as a full-time teacher when
the Japanese program commenced. JLT D teaches two periods from Prep to Year 3 and
she teaches three periods from Years 4 to 6. Principal D commented that JLT D teaches
Japanese for the students who are interested individually, as well as the regular Japanese
lessons. The principal appreciates her additional work. As well as JLT B, JLT D is a
non-native Japanese teacher, and thus, I was interested in her Japanese proficiency as a
non-native Japanese teacher. As indicated in Table 5.2, JLT D earned a Bachelor degree
majoring in Japanese and Japanese studies at a university in Victoria. In regard to JLT
D’s Japanese proficiency, JLT D described:
Excerpt 7-19
I could have a very good in depth conversation with very young children,
because I have the vocabulary for that. But my adult conversation is not - I
couldn't have a very deep conversation about Economics or anything like that.
When I was at University I could have. But now my topics of conversation are
very childish, because that's what I'm using. (JLT D, the second interview)
When I listened to her Japanese expressions, I supposed that JLT D is able to speak
Japanese with adequate pronunciation. In order to retain her Japanese skills, JLT D
often watches Japanese movies or TV programs every day because she uses them in the
214
classroom with the kids too, but at home as well. In this respect, using authentic
materials such as video clips in the target language may be able to contribute to not only
developing students’ language skills but also retaining non-native teachers’ language
skills. Additionally, as I pointed out in the case of JLT B, I would emphasize that
language teachers need to use a lot of classroom expressions in the target language. JLT
D reported that she uses Japanese expressions when she demonstrates tasks. It is
obvious that the combination of demonstrating tasks and directing with the target
language seems to be effective for the students to develop their listening skill.
In regard to classroom control, JLT D seems to be given a lot of support from classroom
teachers. Unlike classroom teachers, specialist teachers generally have significantly less
time with the students, and do not meet them every day. Thus, language specialist
teachers need to have a good relationship with classroom teachers and should be given
classroom teachers’ support for controlling students. CRT D reported:
Excerpt 7-20
I do discuss with her how my children behaved in her class. So we talk about
behaviour. Not specifically about what they are doing, but just whether I have
some children that I need to watch because of their behaviour, so we’ll talk about
the children (CRT D).
This evidence indicates that classroom control is an important consideration not only for
overseas Japanese teachers but also Australian teachers and the current study expands the
previous findings (e.g., Kato, 1998) which argued the importance of classroom control
for Japanese negative teachers.
215
7.4.4 Curriculum policy
7.4.4.1 Objectives
Within the school, JLT D reported that she always refers to the Victorian curriculum
frameworks when setting objectives. However, the priority is with the enjoyment of
learning Japanese rather than developing languages skills. JLT D mentioned:
Excerpt 7-21
The most important goal is that the children still enjoy learning Japanese by the
end of Year 6, because they start out enjoying Japanese and I love it and I like
the kids to still love it. I also like them to think that they can communicate so
that's part of enjoying it I think. If they come out of Year 6 and they think they
can actually communicate, like really communicate then I feel as if I have done
something. (JLT D, the first interview)
Principal D and CRT D acknowledged that the students enjoy learning Japanese. JLT D
emphasized enjoyment of communication. In the second interview, JLT D insisted that
enjoyment is not just fun and enjoyment leads to developing language skills in
Japanese. JLT D further argued that “I don’t think a student would enjoy a Japanese
lesson if they felt that they weren’t learning something”. In this regard, it is clear that
JLT D focuses on developing Japanese language skill while enjoying learning.
7.4.4.2 Time allocation
Japanese classes were scheduled for 60 minutes per week for all grades at the time when
the first interview was conducted in 2012. On the other hand, when Japanese education
216
commenced, this school initially offered three hours for Years 4 to 6. Concerning the
change of the time allocation, Principal D reported:
Excerpt 7-22
The plan was of course to make it more intensive, to have more benefit to the
students, and learn the language faster. As time’s gone on, the Government
initially funded it. But of course like everything else they do, they dropped off
the funding and schools can only justify one hour per week, as far as their budget
goes. (Principal D)
As Principal D said, time allocation for languages education is closely related with
funding from the Victorian Government. Principal D also reported that the Victorian
Government cut the funding, and as a result, this school had to reduce the contact time
for Japanese education. In this regard, it can be argued that while the Victorian
Government’s policy for time allocation was aspirational, monetary support was
limited. JLT D thinks that the lack of contact hours is the main factor which impedes the
teaching of Japanese at this school. Furthermore, Principal D claimed that one hour per
week is the most problematic aspect in the Japanese program at this school and he
thinks that it is hard for the students to develop Japanese language skills during the
allocated hours for six years.
7.4.4.3 Syllabus
As well as objective settings, JLT D has the responsibility of developing syllabi, as
well as other Japanese teachers. JLT D reported that she asks the classroom teachers
about content of other subjects that the students study in the mainstream classes, and
217
she tries to incorporate the content into Japanese lessons. In this regard, JLT D
considers cross-curricular priorities, incorporating a topic-based syllabus like other
Japanese teachers in the case study. However, JLT D argued that “topics
change from year to year and from student to student and sometimes different students
bring different experiences and so I change my curriculum every year”. Based on her
recognition, JLT D seems to try to develop creative syllabi. Her attempt can be
considered as the Victorian Government’s expectation for developing quality of
languages education. JLT D also argued that the broad curriculum of Victoria is good, but
she added that state curriculum guidelines are necessary, especially if teachers are
new graduates.
7.4.5 Methods and material policy
7.4.5.1 Teaching methods and activities
In the first interview in 2012, JLT D did not state that she used a specific method for
teaching Japanese. Instead, JLT D’s lessons usually follow a formula. For example, the
teacher usually chose two students to help her out the front and they lead the class for
the first 20 minutes of the lesson. After that, learning hiragana or kanji and singing
songs are always conducted. As JLT D has taught Japanese at this school for about two
decades, her teaching seems to run according to the well-practiced formula. JLT D also
emphasized singing songs in Japanese. JLT D urged the students to sing a hiragana song
like chanting in order to minimise the students’ Australian accents. JLT D reported:
218
Excerpt 7-23
Because if you sing the alphabet properly you’ve said every sound in the
Japanese alphabet. Every sound just about that you can say, but the trouble is that
sometimes they still don't sing the sound with the proper accent. (JLT D, the first
interview)
At the second interview in 2014, I asked JLT D about TPR and she reported that she
uses the method especially for Prep students. As well as TPR, JLT D often uses games
for lower grade students. JLT D reported that she uses games for Prep students every
lesson. It is obvious that JLT D tries to sustain the power of concentration and
attentiveness of Prep students, incorporating TPR and games which enable younger
students to have fun. In order to adopt a variety of activities, JLT D uses the Nihongo
Victoria email group and she often obtains useful teaching ideas through the email
group. I also asked whether she knows about CLIL in the second interview. JLT D
answered that she knew it but would not like to do CLIL because she thinks that it is
hard enough for students to understand difficult academic concepts, without having to
put it in a foreign language.
7.4.5.2 Teaching materials
JLT D does not utilise textbooks or workbooks for the Japanese lessons like other
Japanese teachers in the study. But unlike other JLTs, JLT D did not produce her own
materials. Instead, JLT D referred to a ready-made resource book called “Ohisama…
connect!” (Taguchi, 2005), which is published in Australia. This book, which is
designed for children covers Japanese language including kanji characters, and aspects
of Japanese traditional culture such as 12 zodiac animals, traditional crafts, and
219
festivals. Furthermore, JLT D reported that she often uses Japanese movies including
“My neighbour Totoro”, “Anpanman”, and “Doraemon” and that she lets the students
listen to Japanese. These movies include basic expressions for daily conversations, and
in fact, the students can be exposed to the authentic Japanese pronunciation and
expressions. JLT D added that the students can speak some words which were picked
from the movies.
7.4.5.3 Use of ICT
JLT D uses Nintendo DSi, which is a small game machine for the Japanese lessons.
Nintendo DSi costs about $100 for one and it is much cheaper than iPads or computers.
JLT D said that she uses Nintendo DSi, so that the students can work at their own level,
as the machines let the students work at whatever level they are at. JLT D uses this
machine for hiragana and kanji learning by utilising software for learning Japanese.
Principal D reported that using Nintendo DSi is one of the most successful aspects in
the Japanese program. Although many Victorian schools have recently used iPads for
languages programs, they were not used in the Japanese program in School D. In regard
to the reason, JLT D explained:
Excerpt 7-24
In the junior classes we do have little tablets instead of iPads. And we went for
them instead of iPads because - mainly because when you want to download an
App, you have to do it one at a time, which can take forever if you've got to do
30. I want to do the same with my Nintendo DSis. But yeah, I think that’s the
main reason why, and also because you can print from a Tablet, and you can’t
from an iPad. (JLT D, the second interview)
220
I would suggest that Nintendo DSi would be another possibility and a good idea in
terms of new technology for teaching languages.
7.4.6 Resourcing policy
7.4.6.1 Regular funding
Principal D reported that this school had enough funding to conduct a regular Japanese
program. JLT D reported she is provided about $1,500 in 2013 but it reduced to $750 as
the total enrolment of students decreased in 2014. JLT D spends the annual budget for
repairing Nintendo DSi if they are broken or replacing them. JLT D also purchases
movies, CDs for songs, expendable things like origami paper and prizes for speech
contests. Since JLT D did not complain about the annual funding, I speculate that the
regular funding seems enough for the Japanese teacher.
7.4.6.2 Specific funding
In the first interview in 2012, JLT D mentioned that this school received a financial
support from the Japan Foundation a few years ago, which contributed to support JLT D
with things like prizes for the best students. JLT D did not apply for any grants in 2012
but in the second interview in 2014, JLT D reported that she applied for a grant from the
Federal Government in 2013 and School D received $1000 or $2000 though she was not
able to remember the grant’s name and the exact amount. JLT D acknowledged that
languages have special funding available unlike other learning areas.
221
7.4.6.3 Special room for the Japanese program
School D has a special room for Japanese education as an important facility. JLT D
reported that the Federal Government provided the funding for allocating the special
room. JLT D highly appreciated that she can utilise the special room for the Japanese
program in order to deliver Japanese education effectively. In the special room,
authentic materials are stored and displayed like Japanese rooms of School B, and as a
result, the students can be exposed to the authentic materials whenever they are in the
room.
7.4.7 Community policy
7.4.7.1 Involvement of the local community
According to JLT D, in the local community where School D belongs, there is a local
Japanese association and it seems to encourage Japanese education in the community.
For example, the local community annually holds the Japanese speech contest and some
students in School D have participated in the contest. JLT D actively encourages the
students to participate in the speech contest, advertising with its brochure. Furthermore,
School D has the close connection with local government secondary schools which
offers the Japanese program, and by using the connection, School D annually invites
secondary students who study Japanese. In 2014, 16 primary students participated in the
visitor session and both primary and secondary students communicated with each other.
Moreover, JLT D reported in the second interview that about 30 Japanese native
students who study at a local university visited School D in 2014, and every primary
222
student was involved in the visitor session during the recess. Furthermore, selected 16
primary students had an opportunity to show the university students around the school.
According to JLT D, one parent, who has a connection with the local university staff,
put her in contact with the person she needed to speak with at the university and School
D had the Japanese university students come and visit. JLT D appreciated the parent’s
support and said that without the parent’s support, she was able to conduct the visitor
session in 2014.
7.4.7.2 Involvement of the global community
School D does not have a sister school relationship because it is hard for JLT D to
maintain the relationship. As one factor for this, JLT D stated that school terms in
Victorian schools are different from those in schools in Japan. In regard to the use of
Japanese native assistants, JLT D proclaimed that although she is interested in using
native assistants, she thinks that it seems difficult to organise it. Since JLT D has
maximised the involvement of the local community which can provide the authentic
opportunities for learning Japanese, she seems not to feel the necessity of the
involvement of the global community.
7.4.8 Evaluation policy
7.4.8.1 Evaluation of the Japanese program
In School D, as DEECD’s requirement, every staff member has a meeting with the
principal about what their objectives are and the associated students’ progress. The
223
meetings are conducted four times a year, and all the teachers have to submit a
document which details the objectives and the criteria that they are supposed to meet to
the principal and the vice principal. If the administrators do not understand the
objectives and the criteria, they ask for further explanations. JLT D reported that even
though the administrators do not speak Japanese, they can still tell whether the students
are engaged or not. It is a significant note here that the students’ engagement seems to
be a prioritised concern for the administrators.
7.4.8.2 Assessment of students’ engagement and progress
Every student in this school gets a written report to say what they are like at Japanese,
because JLT D thinks that it is important to promote the subject. JLT D claimed that the
parent might not even be aware that the student is learning Japanese. So every student
from Prep to Year 6 gets a written evaluation. Additionally, from Years 5 and 6, the
students also obtain a grading based on the AusVELS standards. JLT D refers to the
state curriculum standards (the VELS and the AusVELS) for both setting objectives and
evaluating students’ engagement and progress. In this regard, JLT D seems to value the
state curriculum frameworks and follow the frameworks to the fullest extent possible.
7.5 Conclusion
This chapter has explored practices of Japanese language education in four Victorian
primary schools. The schools which volunteered for the current study have reasonably
unproblematic Japanese programs which are conducted by enthusiastic Japanese
teachers and supportive staff. Thus, several similarities in practices such as focusing on
224
students’ engagement, incorporating topic-based syllabus and cross-curricular activities,
adopting a variety of teaching methods and activities and exploring authentic
opportunities for learning Japanese can be seen in each of the schools. These practices
overlap with those Spence-Brown and Hagino (2006) identified as characteristic of
Japanese education in Australia (cf. 4.5). Moreover, all case study schools actively
utilised new technology for Japanese teaching. In particular, JLT C seemed to maximise
the use of various ICT tools including iPads and other devices which aims at developing
students’ Japanese skills. JLT A and JLT B also actively utilised iPads and with these
tried to promote the students’ engagement for learning Japanese. JLT D did not use
iPads but with her flexibility, she actively utilised Nintendo DSi for the Japanese
program. JLT D’s engagement and use of ICT tools is distinctive because few teachers
often use such a personal gaming device for Japanese programs in schools.
Moreover, all the Japanese teachers in case study schools actively involve the local
and/or the global community. School B maximised the community involvement locally
and globally. JLT B and JLT D explored authentic opportunities for learning Japanese,
because they are non-native teachers of Japanese who regularly seek to provide
experiences in Japanese learning that are closely related to the real world and Japanese
society.
JLT A and JLT C who are native Japanese teachers also tried to explore authentic
opportunities to maximize the sister school relationship with primary schools in Japan.
In regard to the connection with Japanese schools, it was an advantage that they can
communicate with primary schools in Japan smoothly in their first language. Also,
225
communicating in the native language made it easier to organise the relationship
between the Australian and Japanese sister schools. As a result, the advantages enjoyed
by native Japanese speakers contributed to the quality of Japanese programs.
On the other hand, several differences between the schools were also identified mainly
because of the broad state curriculum frameworks, the principal’s initiatives and
support, budget allocation and teacher’s flexibility and creativity. In regard to the area of
the curriculum policy and the methods and material policy, the teachers set different
objectives, developed different materials and assessed the students’ progress in different
ways despite the existence of the state curriculum framework. In regard to the
resourcing policy, some differences were associated with whether or not the schools had
obtained extra funding from the Federal or the Victorian Government. For instance, the
ILPIC project, which was a significant initiative of the 2011 policy of the Victorian
Government (DEECD, 2011a), had a significant impact on the quality of the Japanese
programs in two schools in the case study. Additionally, the views of the principal and
administration affected the delivery of Japanese programs in different ways. For
instance, Principal B acknowledged the importance of authenticity in languages learning
and she initiated Japan tours as an extracurricular activity.
226
Chapter 8: The nexus between policy and practice
In Chapter 6, I analysed policy initiatives and actions which are relevant to the practice
of Japanese education in Victoria. In the next chapter, I then described practices in the
case study schools. In this chapter, I will examine the nexus between policy and
practice, and identify gaps and factors which are associated with the nexus.
8.1 Access policy
8.1.1 Selection of languages
During the late 1980s, and early 1990s, the policy initiative of the ALLP and NALSAS
of the Federal Government, which highlighted several Asian languages in schools,
exerted a significant influence on the provision and delivery of Asian language
education. The Victorian Government at that time followed the Federal Government’s
emphasis on Asian languages and “The LOTE Strategy Plan” of the Victorian
Government was influenced by the ALLP, as described in 3.3.3. All case study schools
commenced the Japanese program during the late 1980s and early 1990s when Japanese
was prioritized as a policy initiative. As the principals’ interviews indicated, the
provision of the Japanese programs at School A, School C and School D was
significantly influenced by the initiatives of the Federal and Victorian Governments at
that time. Principal A clearly mentioned that the NALSAS funding led to the
commencement of the Japanese program in School A. The funding from the Victorian
Government at that time also contributed to the employment of languages teachers in
School D, as the principal reported. In addition to the governmental policy initiatives
and actions, parents’ attitudes toward languages education also affected the delivery of
227
Japanese education in the case study schools. In this respect, the powerful Japanese
economy in the late 1980s and early 1990s exerted a critical influence on parents’
expectations for languages education, and many of them thought that their children
needed to learn Japanese. As Principal A, Principal B and Principal C reported, parents’
preference for Japanese became a great factor contributing to the provision of Japanese
programs.
The delivery of the Japanese program has remained for almost two decades in all case
study schools although School B experienced the suspension of the Japanese program
for two years in the early 2000s. As all the principals reported, none of the case study
schools had a plan to change languages from Japanese to others. Nonetheless, there
seems to have been a general shift in community, and thus parents’ needs and discourses
around languages education in recent years, which may have an influence on principals’
decision concerning the provision of languages in the next few years. For instance, as
describe in Chapter 6, China has been recently a significant economic partner for
Australia, and also a great number of Chinese people have immigrated in Australia.
Recent newspaper articles, in fact, have concerned about influence of Chinese economy
in Australia. As a result, the Chinese language has recently had a strong hold on the
public mind, and many people have begun considering that their children’s need to learn
Chinese. In this regard, Jane Orton who is a critical advocate of Chinese language stated
“Mandarin was increasingly regarded as a practical choice. ‘It’s going to absolutely be
part of Australia’s future - whatever happens we are going to be tied up with the
Chinese economy’” (Hosking, 2014). Moreover, the 2014 DEECD’s report on
languages education shows that in Victoria, primary schools offering Mandarin rapidly
228
increase from 2010; in contrast, those offering Japanese decrease over the last 5 years
(DEECD, 2014a).
In this situation, some principals may consider changing the language to be learned in
schools. In reality, TA 3 reported that the principal of her school, which is an
independent school in the Melbourne metropolitan area, has recently changed from
Japanese to Chinese at the primary level and will provide Chinese education even at the
secondary level in the foreseeable future. TA 3 is currently teaching Chinese in the
junior school though she is a Japanese native speaker. Teaching Chinese is not her
preference but TA 3 has to teach Chinese in order to retain her working contract. TA 3
worried that some principals change languages to be taught in order to show that they
consider the parents’ needs and expectations. TA 3 further commented that language
teachers have to do what they are told by principals. Though the case that TA 3
experienced happened in an independent school, a similar thing is occurring in
government schools. According to a recent news article in Victoria, one government
primary school in Melbourne introduced Mandarin in 2014, phasing out Italian for all
but grade 6 students (Hosking, 2014).
8.1.2 Articulation between primary and secondary schools
As a policy initiative, the recent Liberal Victorian Government until 2014 encouraged
Victorian schools to collaborate with other schools and teachers as described in Chapter
6. In the current study, as School A and School C participated in the ILPIC project
which facilitated teacher collaboration, both JLT A and JLT C had more opportunities to
interact with Japanese teachers in secondary schools than did JLT B and JLT D. The
229
ILPIC trial enabled JLT A to re-consider what she should teach at the primary level. For
instance, JLT A reported in the second interview conducted after ILPIC ended in March
2014, she was able to identify that her students need to be able to write all hiragana
characters by Year 6, so that they can continue to study Japanese in secondary schools
smoothly. Similarly, through the discussion with secondary Japanese teachers, JLT C
confirmed that she needs to develop the students’ writing skills, so that they can perform
well in the Japanese classes in secondary schools. In this respect, the governmental
initiative for the teachers’ collaboration contributed to primary Japanese teachers’
consideration of the articulation between primary and secondary schools, and thus
strengthened curriculum. For instance, in Japanese education, reading and writing
hiragana characters is an important skill which can facilitate further Japanese learning at
the secondary level and may be able to avoid boredom and frustration for students if
secondary teachers do not make the students repeat things they have already known
(Spence-Brown, 2014a). However, the teachers’ collaboration seems not have continued
actively after the ILPIC ended as both JLT A and JLT C reported. As the cases of School
A and School C indicate, the alliance between primary and secondary teachers has been,
to some extent, facilitated by the introduction of the Victorian Government’s funded
program. A review of ILPIC (by Zbar and Jane, 2012) revealed that in some cluster, the
prospect exists for more articulation of language provision from primary into secondary
school. On the other hand, some clusters have not been able to achieve continuity of
language provision between all their primary and secondary schools. Thus, the
sustainability of collaboration between primary and secondary schools seems still a
critical issue without the government’s active support. JLT D has also had an
opportunity to discuss the transition with Japanese teachers in secondary schools at the
230
individual level, because she has personal relationships with secondary Japanese
teachers in the vicinity. As JLT D reported, she has an opportunity to meet the secondary
Japanese teachers once a year and is able to exchange information about Japanese
education. However, the meeting has not recently been conducted due to her busyness.
Her case is not an isolated one, and illustrates how teachers’ busyness on daily work
seems a significant factor on limiting the facilitation of the articulation between primary
and secondary schools. In this respect, TA 1 asserted that primary teachers are always
busy preparing activities and secondary teachers are regularly busy assessing students’
work such as homework and writing.
In contrast to the other teachers interviewed, JLT B had never had opportunities to meet
secondary Japanese teachers formally because there is no secondary Japanese program
in her area. As a result, JLT B and the students have only short-term objectives for
teaching and learning Japanese. This short-termism which is associated with the lack of
continuity between primary and secondary schools limits the potential for student to
develop proficiency in Japanese. In this regard, it is important to reconsider goals in the
light of the lack of continuity. For example, it is necessary to focus on learning how to
learn skills, and to show both students, parents and teachers the benefits of learning
Japanese even if it is not continued. For instance, as discussed in 1.3 early foreign
language education can cultivate positive attitudes toward other cultures and lessen
ethnocentric thinking, racism and stereotyping (Kirsh, 2008) and it also can develop
metalinguistic awareness and an ability to think and reflect about the nature and
function of language. (Clyne et al., 1995). Giving short term goals that show students
what they have achieved by the end of primary school may also be important (e.g.,
231
opportunities to undertake certificates or to engage in interaction with Japanese people).
The goal should not just be preparing for the continuation of Japanese in secondary
schools.
Moreover, teachers’ associations, including JLTAV and MLTAV have a crucial role in
facilitating collaboration between primary and secondary teachers. If the teacher
associations provide an opportunity for primary and secondary teachers to share
information about teaching in each sector, the teachers can consider the effective
articulation between primary and secondary schools in languages education. TA 1
asserted that PD workshops, which enable primary and secondary teachers to consider
the articulation, should increase.
8.2 Personnel policy
8.2.1 Teacher supply
Teacher supply for languages education has been a continuing policy concern because
adequate teacher supply leads to a stable provision of language programs as Lo Bianco
(2009b) and others have pointed out. The Victorian Government has made an effort to
address the supply of qualified language teachers in its language-in-education policy. In
the 2011 language policy, the Victorian Government aimed at increasing qualified
language teachers and allocated funding for various teacher scholarship programs for
new graduates, aspiring teachers and currently employed teachers. Although we are not
able to identify how successful they are, I speculate that those programs, to some extent,
contributed to develop teachers’ quality because the scholarship programs cover the
target language study and a languages teaching methodology. On the other hand, teacher
232
supply has not been an issue since the Japanese program commenced in the case study
schools. This evidence shows that teacher supply in terms of Japanese language is not a
critical issue as de Kretser and Spence-Brown (2010) asserted. As Principal D reported,
Japanese teachers were abundant and easily available, riding the crest of the Japanese
boom in the 1990s. All schools in this case study were located in the metropolitan area
in Melbourne, and it is likely that Japanese teachers were more easily obtainable in the
metropolitan area. However, as many academics (e.g., Liddicoat et al.,2007;Lo Bianco,
2009b) point out, the shortage of teacher supply especially in remote areas is a
remaining issue for the stable delivery of languages program in Australia. As the
Victorian Government has mandated that language will be compulsory for all
government primary and secondary school by 2025, further government support for
efficient teacher supply especially in rural areas may be necessary.
8.2.2 Language teacher’s status
Above and beyond the teacher supply, it is critical to consider the working condition of
languages teachers. This is not an area that has been actively addressed in language-in-
education policy. However, as a number of scholars (e.g., Lo Bianco, 2009b; Liddicoat
et al.,2007 and Spence-Brown, 2014) argued, unstable working condition of language
teachers is still a significant issue in Australia. As Table 5.2 in Chapter 5 indicated, two
of the Japanese teachers (JLT B and JLT C) are full-time teachers, and thus, their
working condition seems stable. However, like JLT B, full-time language teachers
sometimes teach other specialist subjects (e.g., Performing Arts or Music) and are
required to participate in PD workshops which are not relevant to specialist teachers’
field (e.g., Mathematics). Furthermore, JLT B has to write students’ reports for both
233
Japanese and Performing Arts, and as a result, she becomes extremely busy with
assessment compared to other teachers. JLT B confessed that she works overload for the
assessment, and thus, I would suggest that principals need to take this into account in
workload allocation. The demands on language teachers are continuing to rise. Teaching
languages has become more complex due to the inclusion of cross-curricula activities as
the Australian Curriculum and the AusVELS proposed. Furthermore, as the recent
Victorian language policy (DEECD, 2011a) indicated, CLIL and the use of ICT are
recommended in order to provide authentic opportunities for learning languages, and
hence, language teachers need more time to understand innovative approaches and plan
for their implementation.
In contrast to JLT B, JLT C can concentrate on teaching Japanese without any other
work which is not relevant to Japanese education. JLT C reported that she develops
lessons which incorporate iPads as much as possible because she can concentrate on
Japanese education. JLT A and JLT D are part-time teachers but they are nearly full-time
in their status, and thus, their working condition seems stable. Both of JLT A and JLT D
did not confess any problems in terms of their working condition. In this case study,
therefore, I would conclude that significant inadequate working conditions were not
identified. As has been noted, only schools with strong and reasonably unproblematic
Japanese programs were likely to volunteer to participate in this study.
Another important concern with regard to a position of Japanese teachers in Australian
schools is that language teachers in general and Japanese native teachers in particular
tend to be politically weak in schools. As already discussed in 4.6.7, a generalist model
in primary school would affect language specialist teachers’ position in school and
234
issues related to specialist teachers and those related to native teachers are mixed.
Hence, it is sometimes difficult for the Japanese native teachers to express their
opinions in schools. In this regard, TA 1 reported:
Extract 8-1
その学校のポリティックス、学校内で、やっぱり、声を大にしてなにかを訴えた
りすることは不得意なので、日本人は特に。異文化ですから。
In terms of the politics of the school, within the school, it is difficult especially
for Japanese natives to appeal (to other staff) in a loud voice. We’re outsiders in
this culture.
TA 1 also pointed out that Japanese teachers do not often voice their opinions about
budget allocation and program development due to their political weakness. Similarly,
TA 4 agreed that political power differences between Australian and Japanese teachers
exist in schools. However, in my case studies, neither JLT A nor JLT C mentioned that
they are politically weak in their schools, possibly because Japanese education is highly
valued in the schools and the Japanese native teachers are considered as important staff,
especially by the principals. More specifically, JLT A has a strong relationship with an
assistant principal who acknowledges the importance of the Japanese program in the
school. Hence, I would conclude that it is important for the Japanese native teachers to
develop close relationships with the school administrators and to find a lot of
opportunities to argue for the importance of languages education to the administrators,
so that they value languages education in schools.
235
8.2.3 Teacher quality
As argued in 4.6.2.1, the language proficiency of languages teachers is considered as
one of the problematic issues in previous studies (e.g., Nicholas et al., 1993; Liddicoat
et al., 2007) and both the Federal and the Victorian Governments have emphasized the
development of language teachers’ proficiency in the target language as discussed in
Chapter 3. However, in the current study, JLT A and JLT C are Japanese native
speakers and no issues were identified in terms of their Japanese proficiency. JLT B and
JLT D are Australian teachers who learned Japanese at the university level, and
therefore it was appropriate to examine if their Japanese proficiency was sufficient for
teaching Japanese. JLT B and JLT D evaluated their Japanese proficiency as
intermediate involving basic communication skill in daily conversations. While level of
general proficiency is of course relevant, the most important concern related to language
proficiency as language teachers is to what extent they can use the target language in
their language classes, so that the students can be exposed to Japanese expressions. In
my opinion, teachers’ language proficiency should be assessed in terms of the specific
purpose of language teaching, and thus, I would like to emphasize that the most
important concern for language teachers’ proficiency is whether they can utilise a
variety of classroom expressions in the target language to provide students with
adequate input in the target language. JLT B insisted that she uses classroom
expressions in Japanese as much as possible in classes. Moreover, I was able to identify
that her Japanese competence seemed adequate enough for teaching Japanese when I
heard her Japanese in the first and second interviews. Similarly, JLT D stated that she
does not have any problems concerning the use of classroom expressions in Japanese
and she seems to use a lot of Japanese when she demonstrates tasks. Moreover, if non-
236
native Japanese teachers use a lot of Japanese in their classes, they will be a significant
role model for the students who wish to speak Japanese.
The language policy documents of both the Federal and Victorian Government have not
specifically discussed the effective use of instructions or basic classroom expressions in
language classrooms, possibly because it is a practical issue. However, I would assert
that language teachers should use the target language for classroom discourse wherever
possible and thus, the future language policy documents and implementation documents
need to focus more specifically on the acquisition and use of classroom discourse in
terms of language teachers’ proficiency.
Furthermore, the ability of classroom management is an essential skill that qualified
teachers possess. Recent language policy texts of the Victorian Government do not
specifically discuss these skills, although they are addressed more generally in other
policies, such as the Australian Professional Standards for Teachers. In fact, as previous
research (e.g., Kato, 1998), some Japanese native-speaker teachers follow the
management methods that are usually used in Japan and they are not able to manage
Australian students in their classes. TA 4 reported that she was wedded to the Japanese
way based on her experiences and beliefs in Japan when she started teaching Japanese
in Australia. In this respect, as Peeler (2002) pointed out, overseas teachers have to
acquire sociocultural knowledge and understand the local perspective in their schools
and classrooms. In this study both Japanese native teachers (JLT A and JLT C)
emphasized the importance of classroom management and they reported that they are
able to control their classes. JLT A stated that it is important to maintain discipline not
only as a Japanese language teacher but also as a teacher in general, and Principal A and
237
CRT A admired JLT A’s effective classroom management. Similar to JLT A, JLT C
considered that one of the important roles of language teachers is classroom
management, and she pointed out the importance of classroom management in her
teaching. JLT C consults with homeroom teachers if there are students who do not
behave well in her Japanese classes. Based on their reports, it can be stated that JLT A
and JLT C seem to have gained sociocultural knowledge and apprehend the local
perspective in their schools and classrooms in order to manage their students in their
classes appropriately.
8.3 Curriculum policy
8.3.1 Objectives and outcomes
As described in Chapter 3, language policies of the Federal and Victorian Governments
have aimed at developing students’ proficiency in the target language. Similarly, the
Victorian curriculum guidelines (the CSF, the VELS and the AusVELS) have intended
to develop communication skills in the target language. However, most of the Japanese
teachers in the study seem not prioritise the development of proficiency though all of
them teach language components including hiragana, vocabulary, and phrases. Only JLT
C seemed to aim at developing more extensive and systematic languages skills after
having a discussion with secondary Japanese teachers. The other teachers seem to have
limited goals relating to speaking skills as discussed in Chapter 7. In regard to the
difficulty of achieving any real proficiency, JLT B suggested that it is questionable to
aim for the students to speak Japanese fluently by the end of Year 6 due to limitation of
contact time. What JLT B suggested here is another evidence that many Japanese
teachers think that achieving highly expected outcomes seems difficult as Spence-
238
Brown and Hagino (2006) argued in their study. Arguably, low expectations in terms of
proficiency also lead to student disengagement. For instance, Lo Bianco and Aliani
(2013, p.72) revealed that “if students found language acquisition difficult they would
not want to continue”. Similarly, Spence-Brown (2014b) insisted that proficiency goals
at the primary level are not clear. In this respect, ACARA has been developing national
curriculum for Japanese language which includes concrete outcomes, and the clear
curriculum guidelines will be useful when Japanese teachers set objectives and
outcomes for their Japanese programs. The draft curriculum for Japanese is available on
the web but it is not clear how and when it will be implemented in Victoria.
Instead of focusing on developing proficiency, two objectives were common in all the
case study schools. The first objective is the enjoyment of learning Japanese. Students’
enjoyment of learning could be an important objective in order to enhance intrinsic
motivation and active engagement. Lo Bianco and Aliani (2013) identified that students
feel Japanese lessons as fun when Japanese teachers often use games. In regard to using
games, see 8.4.1. Focusing on engagement overlaps one of the significant characteristics
of practices of Japanese education in Australian schools described by Spence-Brown
and Hagino (2006). However, it may be problematic if language teachers focus on only
“fun” in languages education as Spence-Brown (2014b) suggested. In order to avoid the
overemphasis of fun, teachers need to understand the aim of games and consider what
students can master through the games. Lo Bianco and Aliani (2013, p.72) suggested
that there is a critical connection between the primary students’ enjoyment and
achievement in learning languages.
The second objective found in common among the case study schools is that the
239
Japanese teachers tend to focus on Japanese traditional culture, including kimono and
sumo. One of the possible reasons for their emphasis on understanding of Japanese
traditional culture is that Japanese traditional culture is visible and can be understood
easily by the primary students. Additionally, it is appealing, and teachers may think that
it helps develop intercultural understanding.
Language polices of both Federal and Victorian Governments have placed importance
on intercultural competence and there is general agreement that understanding of the
target culture is crucial for foreign language teaching and learning. In the case study
schools, on the other hand, the development of intercultural competence seems
relatively less emphasized. Out of all the schools, it appears that JLT B and JLT C
seemed to consider nurturing intercultural competence in their Japanese program. JLT B
designed activities that allowed the students to understand different cultures including
Denmark, Korea, and Spain that are origins of some students at this school, and JLT C
also had the students identify similarities and differences between Japan and the
students’ native countries as a number of students have different cultural backgrounds.
In particular, JLT C maximised the diversity of the student’s ethnic backgrounds for
teaching intercultural skills. However, as described in 2.3.4, intercultural understanding
seems to be more complex than simply comparing the target culture and learner’s own
culture. More broadly, students need to acknowledge and value all languages and
cultures, in order to deepen intercultural competency. In this respect, I would suggest
that developing proficiency and intercultural competency simultaneously is ideal but it
seems over aspirational in the limited time allocation for languages education. I would
also suggest that intercultural understanding should be treated in different learning areas
240
as cross-curricula activities because intercultural competence is important for all
teachers in schools.
8.3.2 Syllabus
Another concern related to curriculum policy is that syllabi for the regular Japanese
programs differ in each school and this may lead to the transition issue. One possible
reason for the difference is that curriculum guidelines have been ambiguous in Australia
(Spence-Brown, 2014a). More specifically, it is because the Victorian curriculum for
language is broad as discussed in 3.4. As for the curriculum broadness, GO 3 argued
that DEECD expects all teachers to show their originality in syllabus development and
teaching, considering their students’ backgrounds and needs. Another possible reason is
that language teachers are always independent and they have a lot of flexibility in
planning and teaching. More concretely, all the Japanese teachers in the case study
schools adopt a topic-based syllabus incorporating the cross-curricula perspectives as
the Australian Curriculum and the AusVELS expect. In the process of creating their
syllabi, all of the Japanese teachers ask classroom teachers about what they teach in the
mainstream classes and adopt the topics into their syllabi. Nevertheless, TA 3 asserted
that Japanese language teachers sometimes have questions about their own syllabi if
they do not have enough knowledge and skills about the syllabus development. As JLT
C experienced, when she started teaching Japanese, she was struggling with developing
the syllabus. I conclude that there may be a need for firmer guidance, especially for new
teachers, while retaining the ability of teachers to adapt curricula for their individual
circumstances.
241
8.3.3 Time allocation for Japanese education
As described in 6.2.4.2, the Victorian Government has recommended 150 minutes per
week for languages education in government schools. However, because contact time
for languages is decided by each school, it greatly varies. In the case study schools,
contact time for the regular Japanese program ranged from 50 minutes to 60 minutes per
week, which is close to the average of all Victorian government primary schools. Even
in the second interviews conducted with all Japanese teachers in 2014, contact time for
the regular Japanese program has remained static for two years in all schools. As Lo
Bianco (2009b) argued, the “crowded curriculum” issue is a significant factor that
makes it difficult for many primary schools to increase contact time for languages.
Principal A, in fact, pointed out that curriculum of primary schools is crowded and the
crowded curriculum seems to be a burden for increasing contact time for languages.
Furthermore, as Principal A and Principal C argued, funding is also important for
increasing contact time. Even though CLIL is a possible solution to increase contact
time in School A and School C, the provision of CLIL was limited for specific years. In
reality, CLIL was offered only for Year 5 in School A and Years 5 and 6 in School C.
Moreover, CLIL in School C was unfortunately, discontinued and the contact time for
Years 5 and 6 returned to 60 minutes which was the same amount of time as before
implementing CLIL. I would predict that there is little possibility to increase contact
time for Japanese in the foreseeable future in Victorian primary schools, and thus, this is
an area where there is a clear disconnect between policy and implementation that needs
to be resolved.
242
8.4 Methods and material policy
8.4.1 Teaching methods and activities
As GO 3 reported, the Victorian Government expects language teachers to draw upon
their creativity and utilise a variety of methods according to the students’ needs and
progress. Additionally, in foreign language teaching, the communicative approach has
been widely adopted in order to develop learners’ communicative competence as
described in 2.3.1. Nonetheless, none of the Japanese teachers clearly referred to
following any particular teaching methods for languages when I asked them directly.
Only JLT C seemed to utilise the communicative approach and often incorporate
conversational activities. Though JLT D did not clearly state that she incorporates the
communicative approach in her Japanese program, she often used communication
activities in class. Instead of the communicative approach, TPR seems to be often used
although the term TPR was not specified in the interviews of all the Japanese teachers in
the study. It is reasonable to consider TPR is an effective method especially for primary
school students because the students can enjoy learning a target language while doing
actions. Similarly, JLT C utilises hands-on learning whereby students utilise their hands
for making alphabet letters with clay or doing puzzles of hiragana characters. Lo Bianco
and Aliani (2013, p.70) argued that languages teachers believe that good language
education needs to involve hand-on activities which are linked to real-life situations. I
would agree that Japanese teachers need to gain knowledge about foreign language
teaching methods which are related to the authentic context, and they consider whether
students are given any authentic contexts for communication in the schools.
In addition, games are often incorporated for learning Japanese in the case study schools
243
since they seem effective activities that can enhance students’ intrinsic motivation and
develop language skills while participating in enjoyable activities. As stated in the
previous chapter, JLT A and JLT B often adopt games for teaching Japanese, mainly
aiming at vocabulary development. JLT D also uses a lot of games especially for lower
grade students. In fact, games can facilitate foreign language learning especially for
young learners (Yolageldili & Arikan, 2011). Additionally, Wright et al. (1984) argue
that games encourage students to direct their energy toward language learning.
Yolageldili and Arikan (2011) also point out that games can foster cooperation while
making learning fun. Similarly, Lo Bianco and Aliani (2013) discovered that games
enables Japanese learners in Australian primary schools to make their Japanese learning
fun. In regard to language acquisition, McCallum (1980) asserted that games enable
learners to pay attention on specific structures, grammatical patterns, and vocabulary
items. Games can reinforce, review and enrich the target language. For most Australian
primary school students who learn Japanese, Japanese language is a truly a foreign
language which is not related to vocational or academic purposes. Therefore, enhancing
and maintaining the learners’ intrinsic motivation for learning Japanese is a significant
concern, and games are useful for nurturing it. However, if language teachers only focus
on the fun aspect of games in language education, games will not be useful for
proficiency development. It is good that teachers have such a repertoire of fun activities,
but it necessary to consider that it was not always clear in their target schools that they
were firmly embedded in the curriculum and were targeting sequenced skills
development as well as fun.
244
8.4.2 CLIL
As described in Chapter 3, a content-based approach, especially partial immersion, has
been in evidence in a small number of schools in Australia since the NPL was
introduced. However, partial immersion programs have not expanded throughout
Australia mainly because they need a lot of qualified staff teachers and assistants to run.
In fact, partial immersion programs for Japanese language are offered in a few
government primary schools in Victoria. Though, GO 1 questioned to what extent
partial immersion programs can contribute to development of language proficiency
through her observation of languages education in Victoria and also criticised that
partial immersion programs spend a lot of money for the limited number of students.
However, the recent Victorian DEECD still places importance on content-based
approaches because they can provide authentic contexts in languages education and
address the need to find additional time for languages in a crowded curriculum. As
described in 6.2.5.1, the recent Victorian Government has supported the delivery of
CLIL as a strong policy initiative. As a result, many language teachers became
interested in CLIL and it has been spread through many Victorian schools. In the current
study, School A and School C introduced CLIL in the ILPIC trial and connected
Japanese with Science. As CLIL includes a number of benefits for second or foreign
language education (cf. 2.4.2.4), some benefits were confirmed in the CLIL
implementation in School A and School C as discussed in the previous chapter. The
main benefits which are common in the two schools include increase of contact time,
enhancement of students’ motivation, and facilitation of teacher collaboration in
planning and teaching. However, several issues were also confirmed in both schools.
Firstly, sustainability is an issue in terms of access policy. The significant issue in the
245
current case study is that CLIL in School C was discontinued after the ILPIC project
ended in spite of spending about 20,000 dollars for the project. The main reason for the
termination is that JLT C seemed busy for preparing for the regular Japanese program.
Moreover, the new principal in School C asked JLT C to develop sister school
relationship with a primary school in Japan and JLT C needed to focus on developing a
sister school program. The discontinuity of CLIL led to a negative connotation which
questions provision of CLIL in primary schools. Additionally, in regard to curriculum
policy, there seem to be significant issues with finding an approach to CLIL which is
suitable for the context, and understood and embraced by the participants. While
generally evaluating the effect on students positively, participant teachers expressed
reservations about the ability of the programs they implemented to develop
communication skills and intercultural understanding. In particular, it is questionable
that a topic about human body which is selected in School A is appropriate for CLIL
because it is universal and it seems difficult to develop intercultural competence.
Furthermore, it is challenging for students to develop academic knowledge related to the
target language given the low starting level of the students. In both schools, thematic
concepts related to the topics were introduced only in English and it was not clear how
to develop the cognitive aspect through CLIL. In addition, material development and
use need more consideration in terms of methods and material policy. In this respect, TA
1 reported that many CLIL teachers have been struggling with developing CLIL
materials because CLIL needs a great amount of time for preparation. Although DEECD
and teachers’ associations in Victoria have provided useful information about CLIL
materials, it seems not efficient yet. Concerning resourcing policy, the provision of
CLIL needs more funding to equip suitable resources and hire assistants. In this regard,
246
TA 2 reported that she needed a lot of funding to conduct CLIL in her school. Finally, it
is necessary to consider the necessity of assessment of the students’ engagement and
attainment. In the case study schools, the students’ engagement and attainment was not
assessed in the CLIL program because CLIL was a short-term trial project. If CLIL is
officially introduced in a Japanese program in school curricula, it is necessary for the
school to consider how the CLIL’s theoretical components (content, cognition,
communication and culture) are evaluated in students’ language learning. It seems
complicated for CLIL teachers to evaluate the theoretical components, and it may be
burden for many teachers especially who are inexperienced CLIL teachers. Similarly,
the development of the students’ assessment measures would require very large amounts
of time and labour for CLIL teachers because they need to develop the trialled
assessment standards, considering practices in each school. Conversely, content-based
approaches including CLIL still has a possibility of providing authenticity, enhancing
students’ motivation, increasing contact time for language learning and solving the
crowded curriculum issue. TA 1 argued that CLIL enables students to enjoy using
Japanese in class and to avoid negative attitudes toward learning Japanese. Similarly,
TA 4 identified that CLIL can enrich students’ motivation based on her own experience.
TA 1 also claimed that CLIL can facilitate that students can use the target language with
specific purposes. On the other hand, similar to the issue identified in the case of School
A, TA 3 reported that it is problematic how to choose academic terms related to the
CLIL topic. TA 3 is teaching dietary education in CLIL and she has identified the
difficulty with dealing with words related to nutrition in CLIL. Additionally, TA 4 has
confirmed that developing communication skills in CLIL is an issue. Hence, I would
conclude the issues of CLIL identified in School A and C seems common among other
247
CLIL cases. In this regard, I confirmed that implementation is not always be based on a
full understanding of the CLIL principals, and that new policy initiatives are often being
brought in and tried, perhaps with inadequate understanding and support, and then it
may be dropped again. This is a significant problem which underlies the nexus between
policy and practice.
8.4.3 Materials
I had expected variation with each school developing its own language curriculum and
utilising different teaching materials because textbooks and common materials are
rarely used in Japanese education at the primary level in Victoria. Similar to objective
setting and syllabus development, DEECD expects language teachers to create and to
use materials, drawing on their creativity and considering students’ needs. As a result,
language teachers are independent and have a lot of flexibility in adopting and using
materials. In the case study schools, this expectation was confirmed. As the interview
data indicate, JLT A, JLT B and JLT C usually produce their own materials and used
them in their teaching. Instead of textbooks, for instance, JLT A actively produced a
variety of materials. JLT A created hiragana writing worksheets, a variety of vocabulary
worksheets, and handouts which explain Japanese customs, based upon the students’
current Japanese abilities. Similar to JLT A, JLT B also produces various materials
which include several pictures about Japanese traditional culture. As for JLT C, she
creates not only various handouts but also PowerPoint slides for some lessons. In this
respect, three Japanese teachers in the case study draw on their creativity as much as
possible. TA 1 pointed out that developing own materials includes advantages that
teachers can incorporate students’ interests and prior knowledge into the materials. In
248
contrast, JLT D does not produce her own handouts for her Japanese classes but JLT D
uses a materials book which is photocopy-able, instead of original materials. It is
obvious that each Japanese teacher has her own style for developing and using teaching
materials. All of the Japanese teachers always consider what effective teaching
materials are and to enhance the students’ motivation. In this regard, producing and
using teaching materials indicates a language teacher’s enthusiasm and contribution to
the languages program. On the other hand, considering educational effectiveness,
producing materials may lead to work overload for the Japanese teachers because
teachers have many demands placed upon their limited work hours. In this regard, JLT
A and JLT C utilise resource websites that Japanese teachers can share their materials,
so that they can incorporate various ideas, saving their work hours. Furthermore, as TA
1 and TA 4 reported, many Japanese language teachers share materials in JLTAV
workshops. JLT D also reported that many Japanese teachers share ideas related to
materials through “Nihongo-Victoria” which is an e-mail group service provided by
MCJLE.
However, as Spence-Brown (2014a) pointed out, it is a basic issue for Japanese
education that textbooks are not used in Australian primary schools. Though textbooks
and common materials include some disadvantages such as lack of flexibility in
teaching, they can provide the common directions including outcomes in languages
education. Although textbooks are commonly used in secondary programs, there seems
to be a strong bias against them by primary teachers, perhaps reflecting the fact that
teachers do not want to teach a common curriculum. TA 1 who is a Japanese native
asserted that some educators think that better education can be provided if textbooks are
249
not used. Similarly, TA 2 argued that teachers cannot teach what they want if they have
to use textbooks. TA 2 further stated that it is better for the teachers to obtain resources
and share information with other teachers in different schools, so that they can teach
considering their schools’ characteristics. On the one hand, TA 4 argued that it may be
useful for Japanese teachers to use common textbooks or resources that can be a pillar
in Japanese education. After all, different teachers have different perspectives on
textbooks. Hence, the development and use of materials relies on each teacher’s
independency and creativity. As a result, teaching content varies in each Japanese
program and some teachers focus on fun or understanding traditional culture as argued
above. Furthermore, the development of materials may depend upon each teacher’s skill
and enthusiasm. Thus, experienced and enthusiastic teachers can develop and use
effective materials. On the other hand, it may be difficult for inexperienced and
unenthusiastic teachers to develop and utilize materials efficiently and effectively. In
this situation, the aims of language-in-education policy are unlikely to be fulfilled.
8.4.4 Use of ICT
Both the recent Federal Government and the Victorian Government have endorsed the
use of ICT in Australian schooling as described in Chapter 6. In particular, the recent
Victorian Government has promoted the use of ICT for languages education as a policy
initiative in order to provide students with authentic contexts for languages learning.
JLTAV has offered PD workshops for ICT in partnership with DEECD. For example,
one of the PD workshops held in 2014 aimed at developing Japanese teachers’ ICT
skills, so that they can effectively utilise a variety of ICT tools such as iPads,
PowerPoint and e-books. In the workshop, experienced Japanese teachers presented
250
methods how to use the ICT tools in class. In the case study, as described in the
previous chapter, JLT A, JLT B and JLT C often use iPads for their Japanese teaching.
Among them, JLT C has participated in professional development opportunity of ICT
and has become a most active ICT user who has a lot of knowledge about iPad
application software. Another notable adoption of ICT in the case study schools is the
use of video conference systems such as Polycom and Skype. As noted in 6.2.7.2, the
Victorian DEECD has also promoted sister school relationships with schools in
different countries, and JLT A and JLT C have conducted video conferences with a
primary school in Japan. As JLT A reported, the video conference enabled the students
to enhance their motivation for communicating in Japanese and to develop further
interests in learning Japanese. Only JLT D does not use iPads for the Japanese program.
One reason for this is that School D has not received any extra funding to purchase
iPads. In this respect, the provision of iPads is highly depended upon extra funding from
the Federal and State Governments. Instead, JLT D uses Nintendo DSi for teaching
Japanese as described in 7.3.5.4. Nintendo DSi has application software for hiragana
writing and JLT D uses it to develop the students’ writing skill and to enhance their
motivation for learning Japanese. JLT D reported that Nintendo DSi is less expensive
for repairs than iPads. Like JLT D, some language teachers make an effort to use a
variety of devices in order to enhance students’ language skills and motivation even
though funding is not enough for equipping cutting-edge devices.
8.5 Resourcing policy
8.5.1 Funding from the Federal Government
The Asian-focused funding strategies including the NALSAS and the NALSSP
251
contributed to facilitating Asian language education as described in Chapter 3. The
commencement of Japanese programs in School B and School C seemed to be
benefitted from the NALSAS funding. The NALSSP funding later contributed to the
delivery of the Japanese program in School B and School C. The NALSSP funding
enabled the schools to purchase ICT tools and a lot of materials for the Japanese
programs. After the NALSSP, the Gillard Labour Government released the Asia-focused
policy, “Australia in the Asian Century”, but no financial benefit was provided to
Japanese education in the case study schools because of the short-term policy
implementation of “Australia in the Asian Century” due to the change of government.
8.5.2 Funding from the Victorian Government
Annual funding for the Japanese programs in each school has been allocated by the
Victorian Government with the program. All Japanese teachers in the study seem to
manage with the Japanese programs on the allocated funding and seem not to have
significant financial issues for the delivery of the regular Japanese classes. However, TA
1 pointed out that funding for languages programs in school is not sometimes fully
allocated because the funding is mainly used for mainstream expenses. TA 3 pointed out
that administrative power of principals and school boards have a direct influence on
funding allocation in schools, and that school politics is also closely associated with
allocating budget. Similar to the issue of school politics as described in 8.2.2, Australian
teachers seem to manage the funding allocation better than Japanese native teachers. TA
1 claimed that some Japanese native teachers restrain themselves from arguing about the
funding and spend their own money for the Japanese program. A significant problem
here is whether the funding for languages is properly allocated in schools regardless of
252
school politics because funding for languages is not checked by anyone as Rajakumar
(2003) pointed out.
One significant funding for Japanese education in Victoria is that the Victorian
Government has allocated $30,000 annually to JLTAV. This funding has, in fact,
contributed to the facilitation of Japanese education in Victoria. As TA 3 and TA 5
reported, the funding is used for the delivery of PD workshops and other events such as
speech competitions. This budget for JLTAV seems to be an effective element to
enhance the quality of Japanese education in Victoria.
8.6 Community policy
8.6.1 Involvement of the local community
As mentioned in 6.2.7.1, the Victorian Government has placed importance on the
collaboration with local community in their language education policy. Among the case
study schools, School D has maximised involvement of the local community which
values Japanese education. In the local community to which School D belong, a
Japanese speech contest has been held annually and some students in School D have
participated in the contest. Another significant community involvement of School D is
the relationships with local government secondary schools. As described in the previous
chapter, local secondary students who study Japanese visit School D and support the
Japanese program. Although this opportunity is conducted once a year, this experience
is beneficial for both primary and secondary students, and this visitor program also
enables both sets of students to enhance their intrinsic motivation for learning Japanese.
Moreover, this visitor program may contribute to the facilitation of continuity between
253
primary and secondary schools in Japanese education whether the primary students wish
to learn Japanese in the secondary school. In this regard, secondary students who learn
Japanese will be role models for primary school students. TA 1 who used to work at a
secondary school which provided a similar visitor program asserted that visitor
programs involving secondary school students will lead to the promotion of Japanese
programs and should be facilitated for the expansion of Japanese education throughout
Victoria.
8.6.2 Involvement of the global community
As noted in 6.2.7.2, the Victoria Government has encouraged schools to develop sister
school relationships with schools abroad. In the current study, School A, School B and
School C have had sister school relationships with primary schools in Japan. In
particular, School A and School C have conducted video conferences with the sister
schools in Japan, and have provided authentic opportunities which can develop the
students’ interests in communicating in Japanese. GO 4 asserted that the use of ICT
seems a successful aspect in Japanese education in Victoria. Although School C does
not use the video conference systems, JLT C has a strong motivation for exchanging
with the sister school, and students in School C have exchanged letters and some
students’ work by mail. JLT C also makes a booklet which introduces the Australian life
style to Japanese students. I confirmed that this activity enables students to value their
own culture, which is a part of ILL. Although maintaining the relationships with
primary schools needs time and extra work, it should be definitely useful for the
students’ learning as the Victorian language policy has encouraged. Since primary
schools in Japan have also looked for opportunities to communicate with children in
254
English speaking countries due to the promotion of English education, and I would
recommend that relationships with schools in Japan be further facilitated. I would also
suggest that the students’ engagement regarding sister school programs should be
advertised to parents and the community, so that they can recognize that the school
promotes Japanese education with a variety of strategies including ICT.
8.6.3 Use of Japanese assistants
As described in 6.2.7.3, the Victorian Government has promoted the use of qualified
native speaker assistants for several popular languages including Japanese. The native
assistants who are appointed by the Victorian Government can obtain adequate status,
work conditions, accommodation and salary though their contract period is short-term.
Moreover, several native assistants for specific projects including ILPIC were appointed
by DEECD. The assistant in the current case study (Assistant A) was one who was
dispatched by DEECD. Since Assistant A was trained for CLIL, her assistance seemed
to contribute to the CLIL program in School A. Additionally, as JLT A reported that the
use of assistants enabled her to adopt small group work which helped the students be
exposed to Japanese. Some JLTAV committee members who participated in the current
study reported the importance of native speaker assistants. For example, TA 2
acknowledged the effectiveness of native speaker assistants and reported that the
students were able to question the assistant freely and also that the students had
freshness of attitude toward a native speaker of Japanese who was not their Japanese
teacher. TA 4 also pointed out that it is helpful for the students to learn how to
communicate with native speakers. On the other hand, TA 1 stated that some assistants
do not use Japanese in classes appropriately. TA 2 reported that some assistants
255
especially who do not have knowledge of education cannot communicate with other
teachers and children properly. Concerning the quality issues of Japanese language
assistants, TA 3 stated that she does not have excessive expectations of assistants, and
does not negatively evaluate them even if their work is not sufficient enough. TA 3
expects assistants to work enthusiastically and to understand cultural and linguistic
differences for themselves. TA 3’s perspective on language assistants leads to
development of assistant and teacher resources. This kind of positive and supportive
attitude seemed to be a positive response, leading to improved outcomes for both
teachers and students.
8.7 Evaluation policy
In regard to evaluation policy, the most relevant to the nexus between policy and practice
program evaluation by school administrators and/or teachers, and assessment of students’
engagement and attainment.
8.7.1 Evaluation of Japanese programs in schools
As described in 6.2.8.1, DEECD requires schools to evaluate languages education in the
process of Self Evaluation and Review, and as a result, evaluation of Japanese programs
varies in each school. Among the four schools, School B, School C and School D have a
formal system to monitor the delivery of Japanese program. In particular, as described
in 7.3.8.1, School C has recently introduced the “Performance Pay” system which
assesses full-time teachers’ performances in education and the result will influence their
salary. Usually, such things are done in all government schools; however, I was not able
to confirm the same evaluation system in other schools. School B has also formal
256
meetings that the principal and the Japanese teacher to discuss the Japanese program
and the teacher’s performance though the meetings do not affect the teacher’s status and
salary as JLT B reported. In School A, Principal A reported that he is constantly contact
with JLT A about the Japanese program, and the assistant principal who was CRT A at
the time when the first interview took place in 2012 is involved in monitoring the
Japanese program. In spite of the difference of the evaluation systems, all principals in
the case study schools have mechanisms to monitor and grasp the delivery of the
Japanese programs. In this regard, I confirmed that principals play a significant role in
the language program evaluation, and I would conclude that the principals’ evaluation
leads to their active support for the Japanese program because the evaluation system
seems a significant opportunity which enables principals to know much about the
delivery of the Japanese program.
8.7.2 Assessment of students’ progress in schools
As described in 3.4, assessment of students’ engagement and progress in language
learning should be conducted based on the Victorian curriculum standard. During the
current study, the VELS was utilised until 2012 and the AusVELS was then used from
2013. Although all the Japanese teachers have assessed students’ engagement and
progress in Japanese learning formally, methods and target grades for the assessment
vary in each school as described in Chapter 7. For instance, JLT D assesses the students’
progress from Prep to Year 6 and provides written reports consisting of the teacher’s
comments to all the years of students. On the other hand, JLT A evaluates the Years 5
and 6 students’ progress and produces reports based on the AusVELS’s assessment
rubric. On the other hand, JLT B does not largely refer to the AusVELS for the students’
257
evaluation as well as setting objectives. As JLT B reported, she considers that the
AusVELS is not suitable for the actual practice of the Japanese education in School B.
Since JLT B assesses the students’ progress without referring to the AusVELS, her
assessment is considered as not conforming with language-in-education policy. This is a
significant gap between policy and practice. Namely, assessment measures which are
recommended under the AusVELS does not match what JLT B would like to assess in
her Japanese program. As argued in 3.4, the AusVELS is a broad curriculum framework
which is available for any languages, and thus, it may be difficult for language teachers
to fully adopt the curriculum framework for their assessment. Similar to objective
setting and materials development as discussed above, the Australian curriculum may
help address these issues and provide more realistic guidelines for Japanese language
education.
8.8 Conclusion
In the nexus between policy and practice, the maximization of ICT tools (cf. 8.4.4) and
active involvement of the local and global community (cf. 8.6) can be recognized as
strong elements in the nexus between policy and practice, having a significant positive
impact on the delivery of the Japanese programs. These successful aspects did
correspond to the four case study schools. The interrelation between new technology
and wider community involvement contributed to the enhancement of the quality of
Japanese programs in the case study schools and, in particular, led to the facilitation of
students’ engagement and the development of their interest in learning Japanese.
In contrast, gaps identified in the nexus between policy and practice did not correspond
258
to all cases in the four schools, mainly because of the principal’s power, funding
allocation, and the teacher’s flexibility. In particular, the gaps between policy and
practice were identified in the access policy, curriculum policy, methods and material
policy and evaluation policy. Firstly, in regard to the access policy, the transition
between primary and secondary schools is an area of weakness as a number of previous
studies has pointed out (e.g., de Kretser & Spence-Brown, 2010). Like the case of
School B, the lack of continuity between primary and secondary schools limits the
possibility for students to nurture their proficiency in Japanese.
Secondly, although the development of proficiency in the target language has been
emphasized in language-in-education policy, proficiency development seems to be less
focused on in practice than I had expected. Of the Japanese teachers in the case study
schools, JLT C began considering the development of language skills after being
involved in the ILPIC trial which offered opportunities to discuss the articulation with
secondary Japanese teachers in the same cluster. However, the other Japanese teachers
tended to give emphasis on active engagement in their Japanese classes. However, as Lo
Bianco and Aliani (2013) argued, low expectations concerning proficiency in the target
language may lead to students’ disengagement.
Additionally, although time allocation has been a critical issue, the current study also
identified it as another area of weakness between policy and practice. The Victorian
Government has recommended 150 minutes per week for languages education but the
recommended time is not allocated for the Japanese education in the case study schools
even though CLIL was implemented in School A and School C. However, the Victorian
Government recognizes the Government’s recommendation as generous and
259
aspirational. Consequently, even though the Victorian Governments recommends 150
minutes per week for languages, the gap in terms of time allocation has not yet been
adequately dealt with.
Although the Federal and Victorian Governments expect to develop students’
proficiency in the target language and intercultural competence, implementation relies
on each teacher’s independency, creativity and flexibility in terms of teaching methods
and materials. In addition, the effective use and development of teaching materials tend
to depend on each teacher’s enthusiasm and skill. Hence, it may be difficult for
inexperienced teachers or unenthusiastic teachers to develop and utilize materials
effectively.
Finally, in regard to the evaluation policy, I confirmed that the assessment measure of
the AusVELS sometimes does not match what Japanese teachers would like to assess,
as recognized in JLT B’s case. Because the AusVELS is a broad curriculum which is
available for any language, it may be challenging for language teachers to fully adopt
the curriculum standard and associated evaluation criteria. In this respect, the Australian
curriculum specific to Japanese teaching may help address the issue, and provide more
realistic guidelines for Japanese teachers to assess students’ progress in their own
Japanese programs.
260
Chapter 9: Conclusion
The current study has examined aspects related to the language-in-education policy
initiatives and implementation of Asian languages education in Australian schools.
Specifically, this study focused on practices of Japanese education in four Victorian
government primary schools and also examined gaps between policy and practice, and
the factors associated with them. In this concluding chapter, I summarise the major
findings and discuss their implications for language-in-education policy and
implementation. Furthermore, I outline the limitations of this study and give suggestions
for further research.
9.1 Summary of major findings- Policy and implementation in Victoria
This present study has attempted to apply recent frameworks in the study of language-
in-education policy and endeavoured to address three main research questions.
The first research question, investigated in Chapter 6, addressed what language-in-
education policies underlie recent primary Japanese education in Victoria. The second
research question, explored in Chapter 7 addressed how Japanese language education is
practiced in four Victorian primary schools. The third research question, explored in
Chapter 8, addressed the nexus between policy and practice in primary languages
teaching. The analysis presented in the above chapters provided insights into the
innovations and conditions which can lead to successful programs, as well as issues
which continue to impede successful policy implementation and program delivery.
9.1.1 Areas of strength in policy and implementation
In the long history of the development of Victorian language-in-education policies, as
261
noted in 3.3, the Victorian Government has released various extensive and well-
supported language-in-education policies (Lo Bianco and Aliani, 2013), and it has been
active in the successful integration of a number of languages in school education (Djité,
1994). Considering the Victorian experiences, this study focused on the recent language
policy initiatives from 2011 to 2014, and confirmed several distinctive policy initiatives
which envisaged language as benefitting a student’s personal growth, their social
development, and economic prosperity in a multicultural community in a global era,
acknowledging that all languages are equally valued. This philosophy underlying the
Victorian language policy is a reflection of the involvement of the multicultural and
multilingual community.
The varied positive impacts of policy, which arose with and were reinforced by the
provision of extra funding, often led to successful implementation and practice of
Japanese education. The first significant area which had a strong connection between
policy and practice concerns the introduction of new technology for language education.
As described in Chapter 6, both the Federal and the Victorian Governments encouraged
schools to utilise a variety of ICT tools for improving the quality and delivery of
language education, which was evidenced by the fact that both the Federal and the
Victorian Governments have recently provided extra funding for the delivery of
language programs. In this area, the policy initiatives of the Federal Government were
strongly aligned with those of the Victorian Government.
For example, School A obtained extra funding under the ILPIC program from the
Victorian Government; School B acquired funding under the BALGS program from the
Federal Government, and School C was able to obtain a specific grant for ICT under the
262
NALSSP from the Federal Government and the ILPIC project from the Victorian
Government. As a result, these schools were able to purchase various ICT tools, such as
iPads, and utilise language teaching software, enabling the Japanese teacher to
implement a broader range of activities to aid the development of students’ language
skills and motivation. Similarly, as language learning is affected by many factors
particular to the individual learner, such as skill level and motivation, the use of ICT
tools will develop learners’ autonomy. Furthermore, the direct funding allowed Japanese
teachers to participate in PD opportunities for ICT. For example, JLT C was able to
maximise the opportunities provided by ICT devices by utilising them in the classroom,
while simultaneously developing her knowledge of ICT devices, their use and potential
benefits. JLT A and JLT B also used iPads for teaching although their use of ICT was
more geared toward enhancing students’ motivation rather than primarily developing
language skills. Although JLT D did not use iPads which were the most popular ICT
devices in Australian schools, as described in Chapter 7, she did adopt the use of
Nintendo DSi in her teaching. Nintendo DSi is a personal gaming device and although it
is not currently often used for language classes in schools, JLT D described the device
as being cost-effective and simple to use. In this regard, JLT D exhibits her flexibility in
the use of ICT. These findings are in accord with the view of GO 4 and it is that the use
of ICT seems a successful aspect in Japanese language education in Victoria (cf.
Chapter 6).
I have identified, through my case studies that the use of a variety of ICT tools was a
significant characteristic of languages education in Australia, which enables students to
learn individually and to engage in learning eagerly. Other countries, such as Japan,
263
which are shifting to a learner-centred model, may find that the Australian experience
provides useful models and examples to assist them in the development of their own
programs, with an emphasis on greater user engagement and interest.
Another strength in the nexus between policy and practice is that the Victorian
Government actively involved various local community members including teachers,
students and parents, especially in the formulation of the 2013 implementation plan as
noted in 3.3.5. This community involvement can be considered as one activity of
“Policy Activism” (Lo Bianco & Wickert, 2001) which enables the entire local
community to promote the policy initiatives. Similarly, the Victorian Government also
involved various local academics who have a deep understanding of the context of
languages education in Victoria and they actively supported the development of the
Victorian language-in-education policy, with their deep knowledge and distinctive
insights on language policy and education. For instance, for the introduction of CLIL in
Victoria, several local academics gave useful suggestions to the Victorian DEECD, and
furthermore they actively support teacher training for CLIL programs (cf. 6.2.5.1). In
addition, dissemination of language-in-education policy through web-based resources
which were delivered by the Victorian DEECD contained a large amount of useful
resources and information for languages education and provided it to schools and the
community. For instance, DEECD released a comprehensive annual report concerning
languages education in Victoria on the website, as noted in 6.2.8.1. The report not only
describes the situation of languages education in government schools but also evaluates
the delivery of languages education in terms of both successful and challenging aspects.
Such governmental attempt is remarkable because many governments, in general, tend
264
to conceal negative aspects of their policy implementation and its consequences.
Moreover, as also described in 6.2.8.1, DEECD evaluated funded pilot projects such as
the CLIL project and the ILPIC trial and released the evaluation reports on its website.
Additionally, DEECD delivered various language teaching resources for teachers
through its website. As noted in 6.2.5.3, FUSE for Japanese languages education
includes various games, songs, cultural components, and video clips of practices in
schools, which Japanese teachers are able to draw upon for their use in the classroom.
Furthermore, as noted in Chapter 6, the Victorian Government encouraged schools to
enlist the support of both the local and global languages teaching communities in order
to explore authentic opportunities for teaching the target language. The study
recognized the close ties maintained by the Victorian Government with the Japan
Foundation (a quasi-government organisation) and the local teachers’ associations
including MLTAV, and JLTAV. This close relationship with these organisations both in
the global and local communities enables the Victorian Government to enhance the
quality of Japanese education, especially in the area of teacher training and resource
development.
In regard to the practices in the case study schools, School B in particular attempted to
engage with the local and/or global communities. For example, the school holds a
Japanese Day every two years, inviting a number of Japanese native speakers from the
local community to participate, which provides opportunities for the students to be
exposed to authentic Japanese traditional culture. In engaging the global community,
School B conducts sister school programs which enable students to communicate with
native Japanese children. Additionally, this school offers Japan tours which provide
265
critical opportunities for students to experience Japan and Japanese society and culture
first hand. School A and School C also developed sister school relationships with
primary schools in Japan. As mentioned in Chapter 6, both schools benefitted from the
ILPIC funding and were equipped with various ICT software including Skype and
Polycom (both are video conference systems). Both schools conducted interaction
activities with students in Japanese primary schools using the video conference systems.
In this respect, the use of video conference system benefited from the expansion of new
technology and it was positively interlinked with the involvement of the global
community.
Although School D did not have a sister school relationship with a Japanese school,
School D fully involved the local community, utilising the relationship with local
secondary schools and a local university. Visitor sessions involving local secondary
school students who study Japanese also enhanced primary students’ motivation for
continuing learning Japanese at the secondary level. Similarly, visitor sessions involving
native Japanese university students from local universities provide opportunities for
primary students to be exposed to authentic Japanese communication and interaction.
As Spence-Brown and Hagino (2006) discussed, Japanese teachers in Australia actively
seek various opportunities for authentic interactions with Japanese native speakers. My
observations support their findings and further confirmed the recent engagements of
exploring authentic opportunities for Japanese education. In the recent global era, the
importance of authentic interactions in foreign language education has increased and it
involves many advantages, not only for Australian students but also Japanese students in
terms of development of the target language skill, cultural competence and intercultural
266
competence. Against the background, a number of primary schools in Japan have
recently looked for opportunities to communicate with children in English speaking
countries, to further enhance the evolution of English education in Japan. When each
student can use their target language, through video conferencing for example, it
contributes to developing those skills for both Japanese and Australian students.
In summary, the expansion of new technology and active involvement of all local
participants including the disclosure of information concerning languages education was
a significant successful area in the nexus between policy and practice. It was hence
interdependent; creating a positive chain for the development of the quality of languages
programs and as a result, contributing to Victorian students’ personal development, their
social growth and economic affluence in the multicultural community in a global epoch.
The successful aspect in the nexus between policy and practice seems highly advanced,
compared to that of other states in Australia. In this respect, my observations support
Slaughter’s (2007) and Lo Bianco and Aliani’s (2013) findings that the Victorian
language policy is more comprehensive and supportive than other States.
9.1.2 Areas of weakness in policy and implementation
In contrast to the areas of strength in policy and implementation discussed above, there
were a number of areas where the nexus was very weak. In particular, an area of
weakness in policy and implementation was a major factor leading to several issues in
Japanese education that a number of previous studies have already identified (cf. 4.6).
These issues were interrelated and together had a negative impact on the languages
programs. In this sub-section, I will discuss the interrelations in terms of the weak nexus
267
between policy and practice.
First, two particular areas where there was a disjunct between policy and
implementation related to the goals of languages teaching and time allocation. As
described in Chapter 6, the Victorian Government policy primarily aimed at improving
target language proficiency, and this is reflected in the state curriculum frameworks (the
VELS and the AusVELS) which focus on the development of communication skills. In
the current study, I confirmed that while JLT C did nurture systematic languages skills,
although it was not a first priority. The other Japanese teachers presented lesser aims
relating to speaking skills (cf. Chapter 7). It is important to note that JLT B doubted
whether the students can speak Japanese fluently by the end of their sixth year of
primary school.
JLT B’s doubts about the development of proficiency is closely associated with the
amount of time required for the development of language skills, as argued by a number
of academics (e.g., Curtain and Pesola, 1988; Ingram, 1992). The Victorian
Government’s targets for teaching time were generous. However, it was widely
acknowledged that these targets were aspirational, and actual implementation was found
to be difficult for most primary and secondary schools. The significant point here is that
the shortage of contact time with the target language is an obstacle to developing
proficiency in the target language. Namely, the time allocation issue is interrelated with
a gap in proficiency development and an inability to set realistic proficiency goals.
In the case study schools, as described in Chapter 7 and Chapter 8, contact time for the
regular Japanese program ranged from 50 minutes to 60 minutes per week, which is
close to the average of all Victorian government primary schools (cf. DEECD, 2014a).
268
My findings have confirmed those previously reported in Spence-Brown (2014a) that
Japanese programs have suffered from minimal time allocation within the broader
school curriculum. I confirmed that reasons for minimum time allocation for Japanese
programs was due to insufficient funding for extra teachers as reported by Principal B
from School B and Principal D from School D and the “crowded curriculum” issue (cf.
Rajakumar, 2003; Lo Bianco, 2009b), as in School A.
In order to combat the crowded curriculum issue, the Victorian DEECD introduced and
implemented CLIL as a policy initiative (DEECD, 2011a and 2013a) as noted in 6.2.5.1.
However, in the case study schools (School A and School C), CLIL was adopted for
specific grades only, and was not part of a broader program across the primary years. In
addition, CLIL in School C was discontinued and the contact time for Years 5 and 6
returned to 60 minutes which was the same amount of time as before the
implementation of CLIL. In this respect, I would suggest that the CLIL initiatives were
rendered ineffective as in the end no extra time was ultimately made available.
Additionally, for the CLIL implementation, the Victorian Government supported
schools and teachers by providing funding and resources, and offering PD opportunities
with MLTAV and JLTAV. Nevertheless, as CLIL was developed in the European EFL
context, it cannot be said to fully match the Australian context. In this regard, several
issues arose including limited funding which leads to a lack of suitable resources and
teacher training, and a shortage of trained CLIL teachers which leads to
misunderstanding or over-modification of the CLIL concept. My findings further
supported those issues identified in related studies (e.g., Turner, 2013; Spence-Brown,
2014a) as significant barriers to effective implementation of CLIL in Australia.
269
Similarly, I identified further difficulties in developing academic skills in Japanese.
Moreover, the fact that students’ progress was not assessed in their CLIL programs
remained a major subject of discussion. Hence, as discussed in Chapter 7, I conclude
that CLIL is not always conducted with a full understanding of its principals, and as
such, new policy initiatives are attempted with insufficient understanding and support,
which in turn illustrate significant gaps between policy and practice.
In addition, a question arose in terms of striking a balance between the expansion of
ICT and the facilitation of CLIL for languages education. As discussed in 9.1.1, the use
of ICT tools for languages education is a successful aspect of Japanese education in
Victoria. School A and School C implemented CLIL as a strategy of the ILPIC trial with
an adequate amount of funding. However, while these schools were financially well-
supported, the funding was mainly utilised for ICT equipment and tools but not for
enriching the CLIL resources. This fact indicates the existence of an imbalance of policy
implementation between ICT and other resources required to implement CLIL
programs.
Finally, the ILPIC project, in which School A and School C participated, tried to
facilitate teacher collaboration and transition between primary and secondary levels.
Both JLT A and JLT C had valuable opportunities to interact with Japanese teachers in
secondary schools. Moreover, the ILPIC trial enabled JLT A to re-consider what she
should teach at the primary level. However, teachers’ collaboration seems to have been
discontinued after the ILPIC project ended, as reported by both JLT A and JLT C (cf.
Chapter 7). As the cases of School A and School C indicate, the alliance between
270
primary and secondary teachers has been, to some extent, accelerated by the
introduction of the Victorian Government’s funded program. As Zbar and Jane (2012)
revealed, in some school clusters, the prospect exists for more articulation of language
provision from primary into secondary school; in contrast, some clusters have not been
able to achieve continuity of language provision between all their primary and
secondary schools. My observations support their findings and further acknowledge
the importance of continuing supports from the Victorian Government and local
teachers’ associations, mainly JLTAV for the effective articulation of languages
education through primary to secondary education.
Bridging the gap between policy and practice is often challenging because the gap is not
a single issue, rather it consists of a number of interrelated issues which exist in the
entire school system in Victoria.
9.2 Contribution of the study to foreign language-in-education policy
and implementation
In this section, I will discuss implications of my findings for policy makers, school
administrators and languages teachers, with the main focus on Japanese language
teachers.
9.2.1 Implication for policy makers
The development of Australian language policies have been significantly associated
with political intentions of successive governments which are shaped by local and
global economic and social trends. Furthermore, politicians may accommodate
themselves to a variety of discourses surrounding languages. The formulation and
271
implementation of language-in-education policy is an important on-going activity for a
nation striving to cultivate human resources, which can contribute the continued
economic, strategic and social development of the nation as described in Chapter 2.
Thus, language-in-education policy needs continuity and to be prioritised as part of a
nation’s long-term vison for human resource development in education. As has been
often noted, language-in-education policies have sometimes been short-term, and policy
initiatives and actions often discontinued abruptly. This study has confirmed that this
short-termism had a negative impact on the case study schools, where major new
initiatives. In particular, CLIL was introduced rapidly on the basis of short-term funding
but it then discontinued abruptly later when funding was no longer available in the case
of School C.
9.2.2 Implication for school principals
School principals, in particular, have a significant administrative power for language
programs in Australian schools, and the study confirmed their power in regard to time
allocation, teacher supply and budget allocation. In other words, principals are not only
school administrators but also significant policy implementers who can play a key role
in fulfilling the Victorian Government’s vison for language teaching. Furthermore, the
study confirmed that primary education involves structural issues including the
periphery or isolation of language specialist teachers in the current curriculum model in
Australia. Principals play an important role in employing and supporting teachers in
their schools.
9.2.3 Implication for languages teachers
272
The study confirmed several significant considerations which are related to the
development of languages teachers’ quality in regard to the nexus between policy and
practice. First, the examples of CLIL teachers who did not receive adequate training
showed the importance of training for updating teaching methodology, particularly in
regard to utilising innovative approaches such as cross-curricula activities and new
technologies including various ICT devices. Second, the example of cluster
collaboration indicated the importance of teacher networks. The teacher network
enables language teachers to expand their teaching ideas and resources. Simultaneously,
it allows them to further recognize and support the importance of continuity of
languages education from primary school to secondary school. In addition, the examples
of the constant and active discussion with principals showed the importance of support
from administrators who have crucial power over employing teaching staff, allocating
contact time in school curricula, developing school facilities and conducting school
events. Finally, the example of teachers’ performances indicated the significance of
teachers’ passion as confirmed by previous studies (e.g., Spence-Brown & Hagino,
2006; Lo Bianco and Aliani, 2013). My observations support their findings and further
acknowledge the importance of not only enthusiasm, but also expert professional
knowledge, flexibility and creativity in teaching.
9.3 Limitations of the study and directions for future research
The first limitation is a weakness characteristic in the case study approach, which
included a small number of primary schools and the school participants. Hence, the
small size of my sample means that generalisation across the entire population of
Australian schools and their participants is not possible. Despite this shortcoming I was
273
able to observe four relatively successful Japanese programs, even in conditions which
were relatively positive. I was able to therefore collect examples both of the positive
possibilities of Japanese language programs and their limitations. In addition, the
selection of the participant schools was limited to the metropolitan area of Victoria due
to the participants’ willingness. As a number of previous studies (e.g., Lo Bianco,
2009b) asserted, practical and structural issues of language education have existed
especially in remote areas, and thus, further research that examines the differences of
Japanese education between remote and metropolitan areas in Victoria is necessary.
In regard to methodology, semi-structured interviews enabled me to elicit a number of
details concerning the delivery of Japanese programs. Additionally, the curriculum
documents and teaching materials which the Japanese teachers utilise allowed me to
view the teachers’ flexibility and creativity in their teaching. Nevertheless, as pointed
out in Chapter 5, it is important to remember that self-report data is likely to be partial,
inaccurate and/or biased in various ways. As most of the data utilised in this study was
derived from semi-structured interviews conducted with the participants, it is vital to
note that the narratives and the analysis were based on the participants’ perspectives on
language education, and the recollection of their activities related to policy development
and practices of Japanese education. In this regard, I acknowledge that information
gathered from the interview could be limited, and therefore, results based on this data
should be interpreted thoughtfully.
Kaplan and Baldauf’s (1997, 2005) seven components enabled me to explore the nexus
between policy and practice. However, their original sub-questions for each of the seven
components did not provide enough scope to investigate details of language-in-
274
education policy and implementation. Thus, as noted in 2.1.3, I added several questions
for each component and expanded Kaplan and Baldauf’s framework. This expanded
framework may be worth utilising in the study of language-in-education policy in
different contexts, particularly for cases where language-in-education policy has a
critical impact on foreign language education in primary schools, such as Japan.
In summary, this research has shed valuable light on issues concerning language-in-
education policy and its implementation, and the effectiveness and short-comings of
languages education practices in Australian primary schools. It is hoped that the
findings presented in the study have provided useful insights for all those involved in
language education in Australian primary schools, as well as to those in other countries
who may learn from the Australian experience, thereby promoting further research into
the fields of language policy, foreign language education and primary education.
275
REFERENCES
Abbott, T. (2013). 2013 ‘Weary’ Dunlop lecture by the honourable Tony Abbott MP.
Retrieved from
http://asialink.unimelb.edu.au/calendar/Recent_Events/2013_asialink_chairma
ns_dinner_the_weary_dunlop_lecture_and_launch_of_the_pwc_melbourne_ins
titute_asialink_index,_keynote_by_the_honourable_tony_abbott_mp/2013_we
ary_dunlop_lecture_by_the_honourable_tony_abbott_mp
Aguilar, M. J. C. (2010). Intercultural communicative competence as a tool for
autonomous learning. Revista Canaria de Estusios Ingleses, 61, 87-98
Akker, J. van den (2002). The potential of development research for improving the
relationa between curriculum research and development. In M. Rosenmund, A.
Fries, & W. Heller (Eds.), Comparing curriculum making processes (pp. 37-
53). Bern: Peter Lang.
Aoki, M. (2009). Oosutoraria no gengo kyooiku seisaku. [Language education
policies in Australia]. Tokyo: Toshindo.
Ardzejewska, K., McMaugh, A. & Coutts, P. (2010). Delivering the primary curriculum:
The use of subject specialist and generalist teachers in NSW. Issues in
Educational Research, 20 (3).
Asia Education Foundation (2010). The current state of Chinese, Indonesian, Japanese
and Korean language education in Australian schools. Melbourne: Education
Services Australia.
Asia Education Foundation (2012). What works 1: Building demand. Retrieved from
http://www.asiaeducation.edu.au/policy_and_research/what_works_series/build
ing_demand/building_demand_-_landing.html
276
Asia Education Foundation (2013). What works 5: Schools becoming Asia literate:
What works? Retrieved from
http://www.asiaeducation.edu.au/policy_and_research/what_works_series/what
_works_5/what_works_5_report.html
Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority (2010). National report on
schooling in Australia 2010. Retrieved from
http://www.aph.gov.au/parliamentary_business/committees/house_of_represent
atives_committees?url=jsct/12march2013/subs/sub3_annexure4.pdf
Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority (2013). Cross-curriculum
priorities. Retrieved from
http://www.acara.edu.au/curriculum/cross_curriculum_priorities.html
Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority (2014). My schools.
Retrieved from http://www.myschool.edu.au/
Australian Language and Literacy Council (1996). Language teachers: The pivot of
policy. Canberra: The Australian Language and Literacy Council.
Australian Government (2012, October). Australia in the Asian century. White paper.
Retrieved from www.asiaeducation.edu.au/verve/_resources/australia-in-the-
asian-century-white-paper.pdf
Australian Government, Department of Education (2014). Languages education.
Retrieved from https://education.gov.au/languages-education
Ball, P. (2009). Does CLIL work?, In D. Hill and P. Alan (Eds.), The Best of both
worlds?: International perspectives on CLIL. (pp.32-43). Norwich Institute for
Language Education, Norwich.
277
Baker, C. (2011). Foundations of bilingual education and bilingualism (5th ed.).
Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.
Bentley, K. (2010). The TKT course: CLIL module. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Berg, C. (2011, 8 September). National curriculum: Labour’s big failure. Opinion. The
DRUM ABC. Retrieved from http://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-09-07/berg-no-
to-national-curriculums/2874804
Block, D. (1995). Social constraints on interviews. Prospect 10 (3), 35-48.
Blondin, C., Candelier, M., Edelenbos, P., Johnstone, R., Kubanek, German, A.&
Taeschner, T. (1998). Foreign languages in primary and pre-school education:
a review of recent research within the European Union. London: CILT.
Bostwick, R.M. (2004). What is immersion? Numazu, Shizuoka, Japan: Katoh Gakuen.
Retrieved from http://bi-lingual.com/school/INFO/WhatIsImmersion.html
Breen, M.P. (2002). From a language policy to classroom practice: The intervention of
identity and relationships. Language and Education, 16 (4), 260-283.
British Academy (2009). Language matters. A position paper. London: The British
Academy. Retrieved from, http://www.britac.ac.uk/reports/language-matters/
position-paper.cfm.
Brinton, D.M., Snow, M.A., & Wesche, M.B. (1989). Content-based second language
instruction. New York: Newbury House Publishers.
Brown, A. Hill, K. & Iwashita, N. (2000) A longitudinal and comparative study:
the attainment of language proficiency. Melbourne Papers in Language Testing,
9 (1), 1-29.
278
Business Victoria (2014). Export to Japan. Retrieved from
http://www.business.vic.gov.au/export/choose-an-export-market/japan
Byram, M. (1997). Teaching and assessing intercultural communicative competence.
Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Canale, M. (1983). From communicative competence to communicative language
pedagogy. In Richards, J. C., & Schmidt, R. W. (Eds.), Language and
Communication (pp. 2-27). London: Longman.
Canale, M & Swain, M. (1980).Theoretical bases of communicative approaches to
second language teaching and testing. Applied Linguistics, 1, 1- 47.
Cenoz, J., Genesee, F. & D. Gorter (2013). Critical analysis of CLIL: taking stock and
looking forward. Applied Linguistics, 13, 1-21.
Cenoz, J. & Gorter, D. (2012) Language policy in education II: additional languages. In
B. Spolsky (Ed.) The Cambridge Handbook of Language Policy (pp.301-319).
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Clyne, M. (1988). Bilingual education - What we can learn from the past. Australian
Journal of Education, 32, 95-114.
Clyne, M. (1991). Community Languages: The Australian experience. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Clyne, M., Jenkins, C., Chen, Y. I., Tsokalidou, R., & Wallner, T. (1995). Developing
second language from primary school: Models and outcomes. Canberra: The
National Languages and Literacy Institute of Australia.
Cook, M. & Wilkins, T.S. (2014, 24 December). Aligned allies: The Australia-Japan
strategic partnership. Retrieved from
http://www.tokyofoundation.org/en/articles/2014/aligned-allies
279
Corson, D. (1990). Language policy across the curriculum. Clevedon: Multilingual
Matters.
Coyle, D. (2006). Developing CLIL: Towards a theory of practice. Monograph 6.
Barcelona: APAC.
Coyle, D. (2008). CLIL-A pedagogical approach from, the European perspective. In N.
Van Dusen-Scholl and N.H. Hornberger (Eds.). Encyclopedia of language and
education (pp. 97-111). New York: Springer.
Coyle, D., Holmes, B. & King, L. (2009). Towards an integrated curriculum - CLIL
national statement and guidelines. Retrieved from
http://www.unifg.it/sites/default/files/allegatiparagrafo/20-01-
2014/coyle_et_al_towards_an_integrated_curriculum_clil_national_statement_
and_guidelines.pdf
Coyle, D., Hood, P., & Marsh, D. (2010). CLIL. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Corson, D. (1990). Language policy across the curriculum. Clevedon: Multilingual
Matters.
CPA Australia (2012). Submission to the Australia in the Asian century task force.
Retrieved from www.cpaaustralia.com.au/documents/submission-asian-
century-taskforce.pdf
Crawford, J. (2001). Teachers’ attitudes to proficiency as a goal in primary language
programs. Paper presented at the Applied Linguistics Association of Australia
2001, Canberra, ACT.
Creswell, J. W. (2009). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods
approaches. California: Sage Publications.
280
Cruickshank, K. (2004). Towards diversity in teacher education: Teacher preparation of
immigrant teachers. European Journal of Teacher Education 27 (2), 125-138.
Cummins, J. (1979). Cognitive/academic language proficiency, linguistic
interdependence, the optimum age question and some other matters. Working
Papers on Bilingualism, 19, 121-129.
Cummins, J. (2000). Putting language proficiency in its place: responding to critiques of
the conversational/academic language distinction. In J. Cenoz & U. Jessner
(Eds.), English in Europe. The acquisition of a third language (pp.54-83).
Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Cunningham, D. (1994). Continuity in LOTE curriculum and methodology. Language
Learning Journal 10, 69-74.
Cunningham, D. (2004). 20 Years of transition with not much continuity. Babel, 38 (3),
16-38.
Curtain, H. (2010, March 8). Foreign language education: An early start. Retrieved
from http://www.education.com/reference/article/Ref_Foreign_Learning/
Curtain, H. A. & Pesola, C. A. (1988) “Languages and children-making the match.”
Reading. MA: Addison-Wesley Publishing Company.
Dale, L. & Tanner, R (2012). CLIL Activities: A resource for subject and language
teachers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Deci, E. L. & Ryan, R. M. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of
intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. American
Psychologist, 55, 68-78.
de Kretser, A., & Spence-Brown, R. (2010). The current state of Japanese language
education in Australian schools. Melbourne: Education Services Australia.
281
Department of Education and Early Childhood Development (Victoria) (2011a). The
Victorian Government’s vision for language education. Melbourne: DEECD.
Department of Education and Early Childhood Development (Victoria) (2011b).
Victorian early years learning and development framework for all children
from birth to eight years. Melbourne: DEECD.
Department of Education and Early Childhood Development (Victoria) (2012a).
Language 2025. Draft plan for implementing the Victorian Government’s vision
for languages education. Melbourne: DEECD.
Department of Education and Early Childhood Development (Victoria) (2012b).
Assistants to teachers of Japanese program. A Unique chance to assist teachers
of Japanese in Victoria, Australia. Melbourne: DEECD.
Department of Education and Early Childhood Development (Victoria) (2013a).
Languages-expanding your world. Plan to implement the Victorian
Government’s vision for languages education 2013-2025. Melbourne: DEECD.
Department of Education and Early Childhood Development (Victoria) (2013b).
Structure. Retrieved from
http://www.education.vic.gov.au/about/department/structure/Pages/default.aspx
Department of Education and Early Childhood Development (Victoria) (2013c). School
self-evaluation. Retrieved from
http://www.education.vic.gov.au/school/principals/management/Pages/aifevalu
ation.aspx
282
Department of Education and Early Childhood Development (Victoria) (2014a).
Languages provision in Victorian government schools, 2013. Retrieved from
http://www.education.vic.gov.au/school/teachers/teachingresources/discipline/l
anguages/pages/research.aspx
Department of Education and Early Childhood Development (Victoria) (2014b).
Assistants for languages education programs. Retrieved from
http://www.education.vic.gov.au/school/principals/curriculum/Pages/languagea
ssistant.aspx
Department of Education and Early Childhood Development (Victoria) (2014c). Student
resource package. Retrieved from
http://www.education.vic.gov.au/school/principals/finance/pages/srp.aspx
Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations (2010). National
Asian languages and studies in schools program: Program guidelines 2009-
2013(v.3). Retrieved from
www.curriculum.edu.au/mceetya/publications,11582.html
Department of Education and Services (Western Australia) (2014). Scholarships.
Retrieved 24 April, 2014, from
http://www.des.wa.gov.au/Higher_education/Scholarships/Scholarships
Department of Education and Training (Victoria) (2002). Languages other than English
in government schools 2001. Melbourne: DE&T.
Department of Employment, Education and Training. (1991). Australia’s language:
Australian language and literacy policy. Canberra: AGPS.
Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (2014). Japan country brief. Retrieved from
https://www.dfat.gov.au/geo/japan/japan_brief.html
283
Directorate of School Education and Ministerial Advisory Council on Language Other
Than English (Victoria) (1993). The LOTE strategy plan. Victoria: Directorate
of School Education and Ministerial Advisory Council on Language Other
Than English.
Djité, G. P. (1994). From language policy to language planning: An overview of
language other than English in Australian education. Deakin, ACT: National
Languages and Literacy Institute of Australia Limited.
Donato, R. & Tucker, G. R. (2010). A Tale of two schools: Developing sustainable
early foreign language programs. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Dörnyei, Z. (2001). Motivational strategies in the language classroom. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Dörnyei, Z. (2007). Research methods in applied linguistics quantitative, qualitative,
and mixed methodologies. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Duranti, A. (1997). Linguistic anthropology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Duff, P. (2008). Case study research in applied linguistics. NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Duff, P. (2012). How to carry out case study. In R. Mackey, & S, Gass, S. M (Eds.),
Research methods in language acquisition (pp.95-116).UK: Wiley-Blackwell.
Dweck, C. S. (2006). Mindset: the new psychology of success. New York: Random
House.
Erebus Consulting Partners (2002a). Review of the commonwealth languages other
than English programme. DEST. Retrieved from
http://www.dest.gov.au/schools/publications/2003/LOTE/reviewreport.pdf.
284
Erebus Consulting Partners (2002b). Review of studies of Asia in Australian schools.
DEST. Retrieved from,
http://www.asiaeducation.edu.au/verve/_resources/reviews.pdf.
Esterberg, K. G. (2002). Qualitative methods in social research. Boston: McGraw-Hill.
Ezzy, D. (2002). Qualitative analysis: Practice and innovation. London: Routledge.
Gardner, R.C. & Lambert, W.E. (1959). Motivational variables in second-langage
acquisition. Canadian Journal of Psychology 13, 266–272.
Gardner, R., & Lambert, W. (1972). Attitudes and motivation in second-language
learning. MA: Newbury House
Garnaut, J. (2013, April 1). School starters set up to fail the 2025 Asia literacy target.
The Age.
Genesee, F. (1987). Learning through two languages. Studies of immersion and
bilingual education. New York: Newbury House Publisher.
Gillard, J. (2012). Forward. Australia in the Asian century. White paper.
Australian Government. Retrieved from
www.murdoch.edu.au/ALTC-Fellowship/_document/Resources/australia-in-
the-asian-century-white-paper.pdf
Hampton, R. (2003, November 28). Extra funding for studies of Asia. Chinese Studies
Association of Australia Newsletter, 28. Retrieved from
http://www.csaa.org.au/newsletter/
Harris, J., Spina, N., Ehrich, L. C. & Smeed, J. (2013). Literature review:
Student-centred schools make the difference. Australian institute for teaching
and school leadership. Retrieved from eprints.qut.edu.au/69161/1/69161.pdf
285
Hasegawa, H. (2011). The Japanese assistant teacher program in Western Australia.
Babel,45(2/3), 17-24.
Herriman, M. (1996). Language policy in Australia. In M. Herriman & B. Burnaby
(Eds.), Language policies in English-dominant countries (pp. 35-61).
Clevedon: Multilingual Matter.
Herscovitch, B. (2012). Australia’s Asia literacy non-problem. Issue Analysis, 123. The
Centre for Independent Studies.
Hill, K. Davies, A. Oldfield, J. & Watson, N (1998). Questioning an early start:
the transition from primary to secondary foreign language learning. Melbourne
Papers in Language Testing, 6 (2), 21-36.
Hobson, J. (2010). Introduction-Language policy and planning. In J. Hobson, K. Lowe,
S. Poetsch and M.Walsh (Eds.), Re-awakening languages: Theory and practice
in the revitalisation of Australia’s Indigenous languages, (pp.3-5). Sydney:
Sydney University Press.
Hornberger, N.H. & Ricento, T.K. (1996). Language planning and policy and the
English language teaching profession. TESOL Quarterly, 30 (3), entire issue.
Hosking, W. (2014, July 8). Mandarin now fourth most-popular choice for primary
school pupils. Herald Sun. Retrieved from
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/victoria/mandarin-now-fourth-
mostpopular-choice-for-primary-school-pupils/story-fni0fit3-1226981000620
Hunt, M., Barnes, A. Powell, B., Lindsay, G. & Muijs, D. (2005). Primary modern
foreign languages: an overview of recent research, key issues and challenges
for educational policy and practice. University of Warwick institutional
repository. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1080/02671520500335774
286
Hymes, D.H. (1966). Two types of linguistic relativity. In Bright, W. (Ed.),
Sociolinguistics, (pp. 114-158). Paris: Mouton & Co, The Hague.
Hymes, D. H. (1972). On communicative competence. In J. Pride & J. Holmes (Eds.),
Sociolinguistics, (pp. 269-293). London: Penguin.
Imberger, B. (1988). Transition issues in LOTE learning. Melbourne: Ministry of
Education (Schools Division).
Inaba, M. (2011). L2 literacy practices of learners of Japanese outside the classroom.
(Unpublished doctoral dissertation), Monash University, Melbourne.
Inaba, M. (2014, July). Bideo sakusee purojekuto no igi to kadai: intrinsic motibeesyon
to Jiritsu gakusyuu no kantenkara.[Significances and challenges of the video-
making project work: an analysis of intrinsic motivation and autonomous
language learning]. Paper presented at Sydney International Conference on
Japanese Language Education 2014.
Independent Schools Queensland (2007). Learning a second language: Why bother?
Independent Schools Queensland Briefings, 11 (7), 1–3.
Ingram, D. E. (1992, September). Primary school language teaching: An overview on
reasons, policies and implementation. Paper presented at the AFMLTA national
workshop on languages in the primary school, Adelaide, SA.
Ingram, D. E. (2000, August). Language policy and language education in Australia.
Invited paper to the students and staff of Akita University, Akita, Japan,
18 August 2000.Reprinted in a special issue of Akita English Studies, Trans-
Equator Exchanges: A Collection of Academic Papers in Honour of Professor
David Ingram, March 2001: 7 -20.
Johnson, D. C. (2013). Language policy. UK: Palgrave Macmillan.
287
Johnson, R. J. & Swain, M. (1997). Immersion education: International perspectives.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Kato, K. (1998). Classroom communication by Japanese native speaker and English
native speaker teachers. Paper presented at the Australian Association for
Research in Education Conference, Adelaide, SA.
Kaplan, R.B. (2005). Is language-in-education policy possible? In D. Cunningham and
A.Hatoss (Eds.). An international perspective on language policies, practices
and proficiencies. Melbourne: Australian Federation of Modern Language
Teachers Associations.
Kaplan, R. B. & Baldauf, R. B. (1997). Language planning from practice to theory.
Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Kaplan, R.B. & Baldauf, R.B. Jr. (2005). Language-in-education policy and planning. In
E. Hinkel (Ed.) Handbook of research in second language teaching and
learning (pp. 1013-1034). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Kawakami, I. (2012). Imin no konomotachi no gengo kyooiku - Oosutoraria no eigo
gakko de manabu kodomotachi [language education for immigrant children -
Children learning at English schools in Australia]. Yokohama: Oeania
Syuppanshya.
Kirkpatrick, A. (1995). Teaching and learning the four priority Asian languages. In
A. Kirkpatrick, Y. Zhong & H. Kirkpatrick (Eds.) Australian Review of Applied
Linguistics. Special Series 12.
Kleinsasser, R. (2001). Primary to secondary LOTE articulation: A local case in
Australia. Foreign Language Annals, 34 (3), 193- 205.
288
Kohler, M. and Mahnken, P. (2010). The current state of Indonesian language education
in Australian schools. Melbourne: Education Services Australia.
Koosha, M & Yakhabi, M. (2012). Problems associated with the use of communicative
language teaching in EFL contexts and possible solutions. International
Journal of Foreign Language Teaching and Research, 1 (2), 63-76.
Krasner, I. (1999). The role of culture in language teaching. Dialog on Language
Instruction, 13(1-2), 79-88.
Lambert, R. D. (Ed). (1994). Language planning around the world: Contexts and
Systematic Change. Washington, D.C.: National Foreign Language Center.
Lambert, R. D. (1999). A Scaffolding for language policy. International Journal of the
Sociology of Language, 137, 3-25.
Lange, K. (2010). Perspectives on intercultural competence. A textbook analysis and an
empirical study of teachers’ and students’ attitudes (Unpublished master’s
thesis). Freie Universität: Berlin.
Lasagabaster, D. & Sierra, J. M. (2009). Immersion and CLIL in English: more
difference than similarities. ELT Journal, 64 (4), 367-375.
Liddicoat, A. J. (2004). The conceptualisation of the cultural component of language
teaching in Australian language-in-education policy. Journal of Multilingual and
Multicultural Development, 25 (4), 297-317.
Liddicoat, A. J. (2010). Policy change and educational inertia: Language policy and
language education in Australian schooling. In A. J. Liddicoat & A. Scarino
(Eds.), Languages in Australian education: Problems, prospects and future
directions (pp.11-23). Newcastle: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
289
Liddicoat, A. J. (2013). Language-in-education policies. The discursive construction of
intercultural relation. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
Liddicoat, A.J., Papademetre, L. Scarino, A. & Kohler, M. (2003). Report on
intercultural language learning. Report to DEST. Retrieved from
www1.curriculum.edu.au
Liddicoat, A. J., Scarino, A., Curnow, T. J., Kohler, M., Scrimgeour, A., & Morgan, A.-
M. (2007). An investigation of the state and nature of languages in Australian
schools. Retrieved from http://pandora.nla.gov.au/tep/82870
Littlewood, W. (1984). Foreign and second language learning. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Lo Bianco, J. (1987). National policy on languages. Canberra: Australian Government
Publishing Service.
Lo Bianco, J. (1989). Victorian language action plan. Victoria: Melbourne: Ministry of
Education.
Lo Bianco, J. (2000a). Making languages an object of public policy. Agenda, 7 (1), 47-
61.
Lo Bianco, J. (2000b). After the tsunami, some dilemmas: Japanese language studies in
multicultural Australia. Australian Language Matters, 8 (1), 10-13.
Lo Bianco, J. (2003). A site for debate, negotiation and contest of national identity:
Language policy in Australia. Guide for the development of language
education policiesin Europe: from linguistic diversity to plurilingual education,
Reference study. Srasbourg: Council of Europe.
290
Lo Bianco, J. (2005). Including discourse in language planning theory. In P.
Bruthiux, D. Atkinson, W. G. Eggington, W. Grabe, & V. Ramanathan (Eds.),
Directions in applied linguistics (pp. 255-263). Clevedon, England:
Multilingual Matters.
Lo Bianco, J. (2009a). Return of the good times? Japanese teaching today. Japanese
Studies, 29 (3), 331-336.
Lo Bianco, J. (2009b). Second languages and Australian schooling. Camberwell,
Victoria: ACER Press.
Lo Bianco, J. (2010). Language policy and planning. In N. H. Hornberger & S. L.
McKay (Eds.), Sociolinguistics and language education (pp.143-174). Bristol:
Multilingual Matters.
Lo Bianco, J. & Aliani, R. (2013). Language planning and student experiences. Bristol:
Multilingual Matters.
Lo Bianco, J. & Wickert, R. (Eds.) (2001). Australian policy activism in language and
literacy. Melbourne: Language Australia
Longman, Dictionary of Contemporary English Online (n.d.) Retrieved from
http://www.ldoceonline.com/
Mackey, P. (2000). Foreign language teaching in Australian primary schools, In M.
Nikolov, & H. Curtain (Eds.). An early start: young learners and modern
languages in Europe and beyond (pp.225-240). Strasbourg: Council of Europe
Publishing.
Marriott, H. (1994). An overview of Japanese language education in Australia.
Asian Studies Review, 18 (1), 89-98.
291
Marriott, H., Neustupny, J. V., & Spence-Brown, R. (1993). Unlocking Australia's
language potential: Volume 7- Japanese. Canberra: The National Languages
and Literacy Institute of Australia.
Marsh, D., Maljers, A. & Hartiala, A-K. (2001). Profiling European CLIL classrooms.
Jyvaskyla: University of Jyvaskyla.
Masters, G. (2009). A shared challenge: Improving literacy, numeracy and science
learning in Queensland primary schools. Retrieved from
http://education.qld.gov.au/mastersreview/pdfs/final-report-masters.pdf
McBrien, J. L., & Brandt, R. (Eds.). (1997). The language of learning: A guide to
educational terms. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.
McCallum, G. P. (1980). 101 word games: For students of English as a second or
foreign language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
McDougall, D. (2009). Australian foreign relations: entering the 21st century
Frenchs forest. Sydney: Pearson Education Australia.
Ministerial Advisory Council on Languages Other Than English (1994). LOTE report to
the Minister for Education. Melbourne: Directorate of Schools Education.
Ministerial Advisory Committee on Multicultural and Migrant Education (1985). The
place of languages other than English in Victorian schools: report to the
Minister for Education. Victoria: MACMME.
Ministerial Council on Education, Employment, Training and Youth Affairs (2005). The
national statement for languages education in Australian schools/the national
plan for languages education in Australian schools 2005-2008. Retrieved from
www.curriculum.edu.au/verve/_.../languageeducation_file.pdf
292
Ministerial Council on Education, Employment, Training and Youth Affairs (2008). The
Melbourne declaration on educational goals for young Australians. Retrieved
from
http://www.curriculum.edu.au/verve/_resources/national_declaration_on_the_e
ducational_goals_for_young_australians.pdf
Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Japan (2014). Japan-Australia joint declaration on
security cooperation. Retrieved from http://www.mofa.go.jp/region/asia-
paci/australia/joint0703.html
Miyazaki, S. (2009). LOTE no syuuen kara manabu: Syakai seisaku to shiteno Policy
Activism [Learn from the end of LOTE: Policy activism as a social policy] - In
Institute of Australian Studies, Waseda University (ed.) Oosutoraria - Tabunka
syakai he mukau nihon heno teigen [Australia-a proposal for future
multicultural Japan]. pp.125-145. Oosutoraria kenkyuu [Study of Australia].
Yokohama: Oseania Syuppan sya.
Muroya, H. (2004). Bikutoria shuu no nihongo adobaizaa. [The Japanese advisor in the
State of Victoria]. Retrieved from
http://www.jpf.go.jp/j/japanese/dispatch/voice/taiyoushu/australia/2004/report0
7.html
Muskovits, J (2010). The Australian curriculum � a grand design... or is it? Education
Today, 10 (3), 30-33.
New South Wales Board of Studies (2013). Learning through languages. Review of
languages Education in NSW. Reference paper. Sydney: Board of Studies.
Nicholas, H. Moore, H. Clyne, M. & Pauwels, A. (1993). Languages at the crossroads.
Melbourne: NLLIA.
293
Nunan, D. (1992). Research methods in language learning. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Olega, T. (2013). Content-based instruction, CLIL, and immersion in teaching ESP at
tertiary schools in non-English-speaking countries. Journal of ELT and Applied
Linguistics 1 (1), 1-11.
Orton, J. (2008). The Current state of Chinese language education in Australian schools
(3rd ed.). Melbourne: The University of Melbourne, Melbourne Graduate
School of Education.
O’Sullivan, M. (2003). The reconceptualisation of learner-centred approaches: A
Namibian case study. International Journal of Educational Development, 24 (6),
585-602.
Ozolins, U. (1993). The Politics of language in Australia. Hong Kong: Cambridge
University Press.
Panda, K. (2010). Indo chutokyouiku ni okeru gaikokugo seisaku-nihongo kyouiku ni
shoten wo atenagara. [Foreign language policy of secondary education in
India - with special reference to Japanese language], (Unpublished doctoral
dissertation), Graduate Institute for Policy Studies, Tokyo.
Papaja, K, & Czura, A. (2013). Curricular models of CLIL education in Poland.
International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 16 (3),
321-333.
Parsons, J. & Beauchamp. L. (2012). From knowledge to action. Shaping the future of
curriculum development in Alberta. Retrieved from
http://www.education.alberta.ca/department/ipr/curriculum/research/knowledge
toaction.aspx
294
Payne, M. (2007). Foreign language planning. Towards a supporting framework.
Language Problems & Language Planning, 31 (3), 235-256.
Peeler, E. (2002, December). Changing culture, changing practice: Overseas born
teachers in Victorian educational contexts. Paper presented at the AARE
Conference 2002, Brisbane. Retrieved from
http://www.aare.edu.au/02pap/pee02345.htm.
Pérez-Vidal, C. & Juan-Garau, M. (2010). To CLIL or not to CLIL? From bilingualism
to multilingualism in Catalan/Spanish communities in Spain. In D.
Lasagabaster, Y. Ruiz de Zarobe (Eds.). CLIL in Spain: Implementation, results
and teacher training (pp. 115-138). UK: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
Rajakumar, A. (2003). Teaching primary Japanese: The Australian experience.
Retrieved from www.jpf.org.uk/language/download/ReportAustralia.doc
Ramsey, G. (2002). Quality matters. Revitalising teaching: critical times, critical
choices. Report of the review of teacher education. Sydney: NSW Department
of Education.
Rossman, G.B. & Rails, S.F. (2012). Learning in the field: An introduction to qualitative
research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Rudd, K. M. (1994). Asian languages and Australia’s economic future. The Rudd report.
Queensland: Queensland Government Press.
295
Salt Group (2012). The impact of web 2.0 technologies in Asian languages
classrooms. National Asian languages and studies in schools programs ICT
languages professional learning project-2011. Evaluation report. Retrieved
from
http://www.education.vic.gov.au/Documents/school/teachers/teachingresources
/discipline/languages/ictpdreport2.pdf.
Salter, P. (2013). The problem in policy: representations of Asia literacy in Australian
education for the Asian century. Asian Studies Review, 37 (1), 3-23.
Scarino, A. & Liddicoat, A.J. (2009). Teaching and learning languages: A guide.
Melbourne: DEEWR
Schiffman, H. F. (1996). Linguistic culture and language policy. New York: Routledge.
Senate Standing Committee on Education and the Arts (1984) Report on a national
language policy. Canberra: Australian Government Publishing Service.
Shimazu, T. (2008). Oosutoraria ni okeru nihongo kyooiku no ichi: sono 100-nen no
hensen [The position of Japanese language education in Australia: change over
100 years]. Tokyo: Bonjinsha.
Shin, S-C. (2009). The current state of Korean language education in Australian
schools. Melbourne: Education Services Australia.
Sigthorsson, R. (2008). Teaching and learning in Icelandic and science in the context of
national tests in Iceland: A conceptual model of curriculum, teaching and
learning. Educate, Special Issue, March 2008, 45-56.
Silverman, D. (2005). Doing qualitative research: A practical handbook (2nd ed.).
London: SAGE Publications.
296
Skilton-Sylvester, E. (2003). Legal discourse and decisions, teacher policymaking and
the multilingual classroom: Constraining and supporting Khmer/English
biliteracy in the United States. International Journal of Bilingual Education
and Bilingualism, 6 (3&4), 168-184.
Slaughter, Y. (2007). The study of Asian languages in two Australian states:
considerations for language-in-education policy and planning. (Unpublished
doctoral dissertation), University of Melbourne, Melbourne.
Slaughter, Y. (2009). Money and policy make languages go round: Language programs
in Australia after NALSAS. Babel, 43 (2), 4-11.
Slaughter, Y., & Hajeck, J. (2007). Community languages and LOTE provision in
Victorian primary school. Australian Review of Applied Linguistics, 30 (1), 7.1-
7.22.
Smala, S. (2013). Content and language integrated learning (CLIL) pedagogies in
Queensland. International Journal of Pedagogies and Learning, 8, 194-205.
Smith, M.K. (2000). Curriculum theory and practice. Retrieved from
http://infed.org/mobi/curriculum-theory-and-practice/
Somers, T., & Surmont, J. (2012). CLIL and immersion: how clear-cut are they? ELT
Journal, 66 (1), 113-116.
Spence-Brown, R. (2014a). On rocky ground: Monolingual educational structures and
Japanese language education in Australia. In N. Murray and A. Scarino (Eds).
Dynamic Ecologies (pp.183-198), Netherlands: Springer.
Spence-Brown, R. (2014b). Japanese language education in Australia: an overview of
the current environment [PowerPoint slides]. Retrieved from
https://icjle2014.arts.unsw.edu.au/jp/lecture-slides
297
Spence-Brown, R. & Hagino, S. (2006). Oosutoraira no nensyoosya nihongo kyooiku-
Syotoo Chuutoo kyooiku ni okeru nihongo kyooiku no rinen to jissen-
[Japanese language education for young learners in Australia: the theory and
practice of Japanese language education in primary and lower secondary
schools,] Nihongo Kyoiku: Journal of Japanese Language Teaching, 128 (128),
46-58.
Spolsky, B. (2004). Language policy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Spolsky, B. (2009). Language management. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Stewart, J. H. (2005). Foreign language study in elementary schools: benefits and
implication for achievement in reading and writing. Early Childhood
Education Journal, 33, 11-16.
Taguchi, M. (2005). Ohisama connect! Melbourne: Intext Book Company.
Takagi, A. (2010). A Critical analysis of English language entrance examinations at
Japanese universities. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation), University of
Exeter, Exeter.
The Japan Foundation (2013). Survey report on Japanese-language education abroad
2012. Tokyo: Kuroshio Publishers.
Thomson, P. & Comber, B. (2003). Deficient ‘disadvantaged students’ or media-savvy
meaning makers? Engaging new metaphors for redesigning classrooms and
pedagogies, McGill Journal of Education, 38 (2), 305-327.
Thomson, C.K. (2013). Japanese language learning in Australia - declining and mainly
for beginners. Retrieved from, http://johnmenadue.com/blog/?p=590
298
Tinning, R., Kirk, D., & Evans, J. (1993). Learning to teach physical education.
Sydney: Prentice Hall.
Trim, J. L. M. (1994). Some factors influencing national foreign language policymaking
in Europe. In R. D. Lambert (Ed.). Language planning around the world:
Contexts and systemic change (pp. 1-16). Washington D.C.: National Foreign
Language Center, Johns Hopkins University.
Tudball, L. (2010, March 2). Curriculum’s narrow focus leaves students bereft of big
ideas. The Sydney Morning Herald. Retrieved from
http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-opinion/curriculums-narrow-
focus-leaves-students-bereft-of-big-ideas-20100301-pdi2.html
Turner, M. (2012). CLIL in Australia: the importance of context. International Journal
of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 15 (5), 1-16.
Turner, M. (2013). Content-based Japanese language teaching in Australian schools: Is
CLIL a good fit? Japanese Studies, 33 (3), 315-330.
Victorian Curriculum and Assessment Authority (2002a). Curriculum and frameworks
II. Retrieved from
http://pandora.nla.gov.au/pan/99103/20090505-1614/csf.vcaa.vic.edu.au
/home.html
Victorian Curriculum and Assessment Authority (2002b). 2001-02 Annual
report. Retrieved from
www.vcaa.vic.edu.au/Documents/vcaareports/02VCAA-rpt.pdf
299
Victorian Curriculum and Assessment Authority (2010). The Victorian essential
learning standard. Languages other than English. Retrieved from
http://pandora.nla.gov.au/pan/129125/20121206-0015/vels.vcaa.vic.edu.au
/lote/index.html
Victorian Curriculum and Assessment Authority (2014). The Australian curriculum in
Victoria. Languages. Retrieved from
http://ausvels.vcaa.vic.edu.au/Languages/Overview/Introduction
Victorian Institute of Teaching (2015). English language requirements.
Retrieved from http://www.vit.vic.edu.au/registration/apply-for-registration/all-
other-applicants/pages/english-requirements.aspx
Williams, P. (2009, May 5). Education needs a specialist overhaul. Courier Mail.
Retrieved from http://www.couriermail.com.au/lifestyle/parenting/change-
must-come-to- classrooms/story-e6frer7o-1225708463203
Wiggins, G. & McTighe, J. (2006). Understanding by design (2nd ed). Pearson: Merrill
Prentice Hall.
Wright, A. Betteridge, D. & Buckby, M. (1984). Games for language learning.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Yin, R. K. (1984). Case study research: Design and methods. London: SAGE
publications.
Yin, R. K. (2004). The case study anthology. London: SAGE Publications.
Yolageldili, G & Arikan, A. (2011). Effectiveness of using games in teaching grammar
to young learners. Elementary Education Online, 10 (1), 219-229.
300
Zbar, V. & Jane, G. (2012, December). Innovative language provision in Clusters
(ILPIC) initiative evaluation. Retrieved from
http://www.education.vic.gov.au/school/teachers/teachingresources/discipline/l
anguages/Pages/research.aspx
301
APPENDIX 1: Overview of language-in-education policy in Australia
Table A History of policies and curriculum framework of the Federal and Victoria
Governments
Federal
language policies and
curriculum frameworks
Federal
Government
Victorian
language policies
and curriculum
frameworks
Victorian
Government
1985 Hawke Ministry
(Labour) 1983-1991
The Place of Languages in
Victorian Schools
Cain Ministry
(Labour) 1982-1990
1987 NPL Hawke Ministry
(Labour) 1983-1991
Cain Ministry
(Labour)1982-1990
1989 Hawke Ministry
(Labour) 1983-1991
Languages Action Plan Cain Ministry
(Labour)1982-1990
1991 ALLP Hawke Ministry
(Labour) 1983-1991
Kirner Ministry
(Labour)1990 -1992
1993 Keating Ministry
(Labour)1991-1996
The LOTE Strategy Plan Kennett Ministry
(Liberal) 1992-1999
1994 NALSAS
(-2002)
Keating Ministry
(Labour) 1991-1996
Kennett Ministry
(Liberal)1992-1999
1995 The Curriculum and
Standards Framework
(-2005)
Kennett Ministry
(Liberal)1992-1999
Bracks Ministry
(Labour) 1999-2007
2005 National Statement and
Plan (-2008)
Howard Ministry
(Liberal–National
Coalition)1996-2007
Bracks Ministry
(Labour) 1999-2007
2006 Howard Ministry
(Liberal–National
Coalition)1996-2007
VELS (-2012) Bracks Ministry
(Labour) 1999-2007
2008 NALSSP (-2012) Rudd Ministry
(Labour)2007-2010
Brumby Ministry
(Labour) 2007-2010
2008 Australian Curriculum:
Languages
Rudd Ministry
(Labour)2007-2010
Brumby Ministry
(Labor) 2007-2010
2011 Australia in the Asian
Century (-2013)
Gillard Ministry
(Labour) 2010-2013
The Victorian
Government’s Vision for
Language Education
Baillieu Ministry
(Liberal–National
Coalition) 2010-2013
2013 Rudd Ministry
(Labour)
2013
Languages-expanding
your world, AusVELS
Baillieu Ministry
(Liberal–National
Coalition) 2010-2013
2014 New Colombo Plan
ELLA
Abbott Ministry
(Liberal-National
Coalition)
Napthine Ministry
(Liberal–National
Coalition) 2013-2014
302
APPENDIX 2: Sample questions for the school participants
Interview questions for school principals
1. When was Japanese introduced?
2. What factors were taken into consideration when deciding which languages to
introduce to the school?
3. Whose input was considered?
4. Why was Japanese in particular chosen?
-Have the languages offered at the school changed in the past?
5. What is the place of the program in the overall school curriculum, and is there any
relationship between Japanese and other curriculum areas?
6. What aspects of the Japanese program as it operates in the school do you consider
to be the most successful?
7. What aspects of the Japanese program as it operates in the school do you consider
to be the most problematic?
8. What is the attitude of the students toward their Japanese classes?
9. What factors do you feel impede or support the teaching of Japanese language in
your school?
10. Are there any plans to expand/ to change the Japanese program in the near future?
Interview questions for homeroom teachers
1. Can you tell me what you know about the content of the Japanese program for your
class?
2. What is the relationship of Japanese to other curriculum areas?
3. What aspects of the Japanese program as it operates in the school do you consider
to be the most successful?
4. What aspects of the Japanese program as it operates in the school do you consider
to be the most problematic?
5. What is the attitude of the students toward their Japanese classes?
6. How often do you talk to the Japanese language teacher in a week?
-What do you usually discuss?
7. Do you do any follow up work relating to Japanese or Japan in your own classes?
303
Interview questions for Japanese language teachers
1. What can you tell me about the history of Japanese teaching at this school?
2. Why was Japanese chosen to be taught at your school?
3. Whose input was taken into consideration?
4. What other factors impacted on the choice of language study?
5. Who plans this school’s Japanese program?
- Do you do this alone, or there is input from others in the school?
6. What are the aims of the Japanese program at this school?
7. What types of classroom activities have you done in your class?
8. What kind of material do you use in your classes?
9. How do you see your role in the classroom as a teacher of Japanese?
10. What has happened each day in the last week in your Japanese class?
11. What things do you feel satisfied about when you teach Japanese in this school?
12. Are there things which you feel frustrated about when you teach Japanese in this
school?
13. What do you think is the parent’s attitude toward their child’s learning Japanese in
your school?
14. What is the attitude of students to Japanese?
15. What are the main factors which support the teaching of Japanese at this school?
16. What are the main factors which impede the teaching of Japanese at this school?
17. How often do you talk to the principal in a week or term?
18. What do you usually talk about with the principal?
19. How often do you talk to the homeroom teachers in a week?
20. What do you usually talk about with the homeroom teachers?
Interview questions for Japanese language assistants
1. Who plans the Japanese program?
2. What are the aims of the Japanese program?
3. What kind of material do you use in your classes?
4. How do you see your role in the classroom as an assistant of Japanese?
5. What has happened each day in the last week in your Japanese class?
6. What are your satisfactions in teaching Japanese in this school?
7. What are your frustrations in teaching Japanese in this school?
8. What is the attitude of students to their Japanese classes?
304
9. What do you think is the parent’s attitude toward their child’s learning Japanese in
your school?
10. Do you ever talk to the principal?
11. How often, and for how long do you talk to the Japanese teacher?
12. How often do you talk to the other staff in a week?
12. What do you usually talk about with other teachers?
305
APPENDIX 3: Sample questions for the personnel of the current
governmental education agencies
1. What is your background?
2. What is your role for languages education?
3. What is the relationship between you and Japanese language consultant?
4. What is the relationship between central office and regional language officers?
5. Who makes Victorian language policy?
6. Who consider the objectives and content of language policy?
7. To what extent are politicians related to policy making?
8. To what extent are language experts or scholars related to policy making?
9. How language policy is formulated?
10. Who brings new theories and approaches such as CLIL?
11. In languages education in Victorian primary schools, do you feel that there is a
need to use a textbook or common materials? What is DEECD’s opinion about
textbooks or common materials?
12. How will the language policy be assessed?
13. What are the successful aspects in languages education in Victoria?
14. What are the challenges in languages education in Victoria?
306
APPENDIX 4: Sample questions for the personnel of the former
governmental education agencies
1. How long did you work for Department of Education? What was your position?
2. What were the situations of LOTE education at that time?
3. What was the situation of Japanese language education at that time?
4. Do you think what factors influenced to languages education?
5. What do you think about language policy of Federal Government?
6. What do you think of the relationship between Federal language policy and Victorian
language policy?
7. What are the successful aspects in languages education in Victoria?
8. What are the challenges in languages education in Victoria?
307
APPENDIX 5: Sample questions for the representatives of non-
government organisations
1. What kinds of outcomes have you seen at the primary level?
2. Japanese language teachers usually make teaching plans and implement them. What
are the advantages and disadvantages?
3. What is your opinion about textbooks or common materials?
4. What do you think about the Japanese language skills of non-native Japanese
language teachers in Victoria?
5. What do you know about content-based approaches for languages education?
6. What do you think about the adoption of CLIL in primary schools?
7. What do you think about native Japanese language assistants?
8. What do you think about transitions between primary and secondary schools?
9. What are the successful aspects in Japanese language education in Victoria?
10. What are the issues in Japanese language education in Victoria?
11. What do you think about funding from the federal and state governments?