Considerations in developing a national curriculum for languages education in Australia

1
Considerations in developing a national
curriculum for languages education in Australia

• VATI Congress Melbourne
• 1 May 2009
• Angela Scarino
• Associate Professor and Director, Research
  Centre for Languages and Cultures
• University of South Australia
• Email angela.scarino_at_unisa.edu.au

2
Outline

• 1. A history of national curriculum development
  for Languages in Australia over the past 25
  years.
• 2. Re-framing
• - who our learners are in contemporary times,
  their learning and progress in learning
• - the relationship between Language, Culture and
  Learning
• - the distinctive place of Language/Languages
  and cultures in learning
• 3. Implications

3
National developments

• Australian Language Levels (ALL) Project
  (1985-1991) and the National Assessment
  Frameworks for Languages at Senior Secondary
  Level/Collaborative Curriculum and Assessment
  Framework for Languages (CCAFL).
• Statements and Profiles (1991-1994).
• ? in the context of the National Goals of
  Schooling (1989, 1999, 2008)
• ? national collaboration in curriculum
  development for languages for 25 years

4
The ALL Project aims

• to produce a curriculum framework and guidelines,
  based on common principles of teaching and
  learning and common goals which reflect
  theoretical insights and the wisdom of teacher
  experience
• to establish a process through which curriculum
  renewal in languages might be effected on an
  interstate basis within Australia
• to ensure that, through the common curriculum
  guidelines, all languages are accorded equal
  esteem
• to enable the language policies of the individual
  states and territories of Australia (where
  available) to be put into curriculum practice,
  thereby increasing access to language learning
  for all learners
• to foster the sharing of national expertise and
  resources
• to foster cooperation across languages
• to assist teachers and learners to determine
  programs which are more responsive to their
  varying needs (Scarino et al, 1989, Book 1, p.3)

5
Context of development of the ALL Project

• National policy on Languages (Lo Bianco 1987)
• National Goals of Schooling, the Hobart
  Declaration (1989)
• - all students to achieve high standards of
  learning ...
• self-esteem and respect for others
• - introduction of Key Learning Areas

6
ALL Framework of Stages

• ? to recognise the diversity of students and
  pathways in learning
• languages

7
ALL Curriculum Framework

• a set of principles of learning
• a set of goals, realised as activity-types
• guidelines for developing syllabuses and programs
• guidelines for methods for teaching languages
• guidelines for selecting, adapting and using
  resources
• guidelines for assessment and evaluation
• ? an integrated curriculum framework

8
ALL Curriculum Framework - orientation

• Orientation captured in the integrated goals

9
ALL implementation of curriculum

• dynamic nature of curriculum development
• ? curriculum renewal
• substantial teacher professional development
• acceptance at senior secondary level

10
National collaboration at senior secondary level

• National Assessment Framework for Languages at
  Senior Secondary Level
• Collaborative Curriculum and Assessment Framework
  for Languages
• Rationale
• access and participation
• provide state-of-the-art curriculum
• allow for comparability and consistency
• provide for economies of scale

11
SACE Board of South Australia Languages offered
in 2009
12
Discussion / analysis

• Value - diversity of languages/pathways
• - theoretical base
• - dynamic
• Limits - generic
• - conforming to a design vs the distinctiveness
  of each particular language and its distinctive
  history in Australian education

13
National Statement and Profile for Languages

• Context of development
• economic rationalism
• focus on outcomes and standards for systemic
  accountability
• National Goals for Schooling in the Twenty-First
  Century (the Adelaide Declaration)
• . promoted the economic use of public
  resources, and uphold the contribution of
  schooling to a socially cohesive and culturally
  rich society and explicit and defensible
  standards.. through which the effectiveness,
  efficiency and equity of schooling can be
  measured and evaluated

14
National Statement and Profile for Languages

• Range of students profile is written primarily
  for students with little or no background in a
  language and who begin to study it at lower
  primary school, but it also suits students with
  some background in a language (Curriculum
  Corporation, 1994bp.3)
• Strands communicating in LOTE oral
  interaction
• communicating in LOTE reading and responding
• communicating in LOTE writing
• Outcomes Levels 1- 8
• equity?

15
Discussion / analysis

• Value another round of dialogue
• Limits a missed opportunity for re-framing
  languages learning
• lack of attention to the diversity of
  students
• pre-structuring Languages as K-12 and as
• a generic field

16
Summary

• Need for re-framing of the diversity of learners
  and their learning and progress in learning ?
  conceptualisation of languages teaching and
  learning ? conceptualisation of the curriculum.
• Melbourne Declaration an indication of openings
• - national goals of schooling ? educational
  goals for young Australians role of education in
  building a democratic, equitable and just society

17
Re-framing a national curriculum in general and
for Languages

• the diversity of learners, their learning and
  progress in learning
• distinctiveness of Language/Languages and
  cultures in learning
• re-framing Language, Culture and Learning

18
Diversity of learners, learning, and progress in
learning

• learners and their life-worlds
• ? from background to learning and traits to
  constitutive of learning in the context of
  trajectories of engagement with particular,
  valued, cultural experiences
• language and culture have a mediating role
  learning emerges through linguistically and
  culturally mediated, historically-developing
  practical activity (Guttiérrez, 2003)
• note developmental through experiences
• increasing intercultural engagement
• ? a plurilingual and pluricultural view of
  learning for all

19
The distinctiveness of Language/Languages and
cultures in learning - 1

• Language/Languages as a subject
• - practised by communities of speakers whose
  identity is defined by their language
• - language learning as bridging home and school
  languages and cultures/or bridging L1 L2 ?
  developing an intercultural capability

20
The distinctiveness of Language/Languages and
cultures in learning - 2

• Language/Languages as medium
• - when children learn language they are not
  simply engaging in one kind of learning among
  many rather they are learning the foundation of
  learning itself
• - language is not a domain of human knowledge
  language is the essential condition of knowing,
  the process by which experience becomes
  knowledge
• (Halliday, 1993 93-94)

21
Re-framing Language, Culture, Learning
22
Implications - 1

• Framing of learning
• - a monolingual/monocultural or
  plurilingual/pluricultural view?
• - acquisition or sense-making?
• - episodic or a trajectory of educative
  experiences?
• Framing of Language/Languages
• - as separate or integrated view of literacy,
  language, English, Languages in the communicative
  repertoire of all learners?
• Culminating goal of learning/progress
• - young people as knowledgeable and skilled or as
  knowledgeable, reflective, ethical and capable of
  engaging interculturally with their world?

23
Implications - 2

• Framing of curriculum
• - a description of knowledge and skills or as
  lived by people?

24
Implications - 3

• Implications for formulating the Languages
  curriculum
• a re-framing that
• (i) does justice to the increasingly diverse
  linguistic and cultural backgrounds of students
• (ii) does justice to the intercultural goals that
  are claimed to be goals and outcome of learning
  Languages but have not always been fully realised
  
• (iii) stimulates new pedagogies that engage all
  learners in developing their communicative
  repertoires in experiences that require moving
  across languages and cultures
•  

25
Conclusion

• the curriculum as valued knowledge
• valued knowledge as cultural ? the curriculum as
  cultural (Kennedy, in press)
• what kinds of students do we want to educate for
  valuable life and work?
• what kinds of learning? what kinds of
  communication? what kinds of meanings? what kinds
  of exchanges?
•  
• Need genuine educational dialogue to ensure that
  social,cultural educational values determine the
  curriculum for now, for Australia.

26
References

• Australian Education Council (now MCEETYA)
  (1989). The Hobart Declaration (incorporating the
  Common and agreed national goals for schooling in
  Australia). http//www.curricullum.edu.au/mceetya/
  default.asp?id11577
• Brumfit, C.J. Johnson, K. (Eds) (1979). The
  communicative approach to language teaching.
  Oxford. Oxford University Press.
• Canale, M. And Swain, M. 1988). Theoretical bases
  of communicative approaches to second language
  teaching and testing. Applied Linguistics, 1, 1,
  pp.1-47.
• Canale, M. (1983). From communicative competence
  to communicative language pedagogy. In Richards,
  J.C. Schmidt, R.W. (Eds). Language and
  communication. London. Longmans.
• Candlin, C.N. (Ed) (1981). The communicative
  teaching of English. Harlow, Essex. Longmans.
• Clark, J.L. (1987). Curriculum renewal in school
  foreign language learning. Oxford. Oxford
  University Press.
• Curriculum Corporation (1994a). A statement on
  languages other than English for Australian
  schools. Melbourne Curriculum Corporation.
•  Curriculum Corporation (1994b). Languages Other
  Than English A curriculum profile for Australian
  schools. Melbourne Curriculum Corporation.
•  Department of Education, Employment and Training
  (DEET) (1991). Australias Language. The
  Australian Language and Literacy Policy.
  Canberras Australian Government Publishing
  Service.
• Freebody, P. (2007). Literacy Education in
  School. Melbourne. ACER.
• Goodson, I.F. (1997). The changing curriculum.
  Studies in social construction. Studies in the
  Postmodern Theory of Education. Vol.18. New York.
  Peter Lang Publishers.
• Kennedy, K.J. (in press). The idea of a national
  curriculum in Australia. What do Susan Ryan, John
  Dawkins and Julia Gillard have in common? (To
  appear in Curriculum Perspectives).
• Liddicoat, A., Papademtre, L., Scarino, A.
  Kohler, M. (2003) A report on intercultural
  language learning. Canberra. DEST (now DEEWR).

27
References (cont.)

• Littlewood, W. (1981). Communicative language
  teaching an introduction. Cambridge. Cambridge
  University Press.
• Lo Bianco, J. (1987). National Policy on
  Languages. Canberra. Australian Government
  Publishing Service.
• Ministerial Council on Education, Employment,
  Training and Youth Affairs (MCEETYA) (1999).
  Adelaide Declaration on National Goals for
  Schooling in the Twenty-First Century. On www at
  http//www.mceeetya.edu.au/mceetya/nationalgoals/n
  atgoals.htm.
• Ministerial Council on Education, Employment,
  Training and Youth Affairs (MCEETYA) (2005).
  National Statement for Languages Education in
  Australian Schools and National Plan for
  Languages Education in Australian Schools
  2005-2008. Canberra MCEETYA Languages Education
  Working Party.
• Musgrove, F. (1968). The contribution of
  sociology to the study of the curriculum. In
  Kerr, J.F. Changing the curriculum. London.
  University of London Press.
• Pinar, W. (2003). Introduction. In W. Pinar (Ed)
  International Handbook of Curriculum Research.
  Mahwah, NJ. Lawrence Erlbaum. pp.1-34.
• Scarino, A., Vale, D., McKay, P. and Clark, J.
  (1989). The Australian Language Levels (ALL)
  Guidelines. Canberra Curriculum Development
  Council.
• Scarino, A., Vale, D., McKay, P., Ludbrook, M.
  (1991). Developing language syllabuses and
  programs. Stage 5 of a K-12 series of syllabus
  exemplars. Italian. Melbourne Curriculum
  Corporation.
• Scarino, A. (1995a). Planning, describing and
  monitoring long-term progress in language
  learning. Babel , 30, pp.4-13.
• Scarino, A. (1995b). Language scales and language
  tests. Development in languages other than
  English. Melbourne Papers in Language Testing.
  4(1), pp.30-42.
• Scarino, A. (1998). Analysing the language of
  frameworks of outcomes for foreign language
  learning. In P. Voss (ed.) Proceedings of the
  Eleventh National Languages Conference
  (pp.241-258). Hobart Modern Language Teachers
  Association of  Tasmania.
•  

28
References (cont.)

• Scarino, A. (1999). Frameworks of standards for
  assessing school language learning An analysis
  of the outcomes orientation and research
  approaches. Paper presented at the 12th World
  Congress of Applied Linguistics, 1-7 August 1999.
• Scarino, A. (2000). Complexities in describing
  and using standards in languages education in the
  school setting Whose conceptions and values are
  at work? Australian Review of Applied Linguistics
  23(10), pp.7-20.
• Scarino, A. Papademetre, L. (2001).
  Ideologies, Languages, Policies Australias
  ambivalent relationship with learning to
  communicate in other languages. In J. Lo
  Bianco R. Wickert (Eds.) 2001. Australian
  Policy Activism, Melbourne Language Australia.
  pp.305323.
• The Collaborative Curriculum and Assessment
  Framework for Languages (see http//acaca.bos.nsw.
  edu.au/)
• Widdowson, H.G. (1978). Teaching language as
  communication. Oxford. Oxford University Press.