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@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, 1994b:p.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?id+11577 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). Australia’s Language. TheAustralian Language and Literacy Policy. Canberra’s 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/natgoals.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: Australia’s ambivalent relationship with learning to communicate in ‘other’ languages’. In J. Lo Bianco & R. Wickert (Eds.) 2001. Australian Policy Activism, Melbourne: Language Australia. pp.305–323. 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.