policy and implementation for the teaching of asian ... · 3.2.3 the australian language and...

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






7.2 The case of School B .......................................................................................... 179

7.2.1 School profile .............................................................................................. 179

7.2.2 Access policy ............................................................................................... 179







7.3 The case of School C .......................................................................................... 193

7.3.1 School profile .............................................................................................. 193

7.3.2 Access policy ............................................................................................... 194



x





7.4 The case of School D .......................................................................................... 211

7.4.1 School profile .............................................................................................. 211

7.4.2 Access policy ............................................................................................... 211







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.


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.


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.


7.1.4.1 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.


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.


7.1.5.1 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.


7.1.6.1 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.



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.


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


7.1.8.1 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


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


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.


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.


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.


7.2.4.1 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.


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)



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.


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.


7.2.6.1 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.



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.


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.



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.


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


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


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.


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.


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


7.3.4.1 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.


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.



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.


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


7.3.6.1 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.


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.


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



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.


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.



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.


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


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


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.


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


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


7.4.4.1 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.


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.



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.


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.


7.4.6.1 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.


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


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.



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.


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.



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.


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).


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.


Assistants to teachers of Japanese program. A Unique chance to assist teachers

of Japanese in Victoria, Australia. Melbourne: DEECD.


Languages-expanding your world. Plan to implement the Victorian

Government’s vision for languages education 2013-2025. Melbourne: DEECD.


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


Languages provision in Victorian government schools, 2013. Retrieved from

http://www.education.vic.gov.au/school/teachers/teachingresources/discipline/l

anguages/pages/research.aspx


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.


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.


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.

http://www1.curriculum.edu.au/nalsas/pdf/intercultural.pdf

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:


Lo Bianco, J. & Aliani, R. (2013). Language planning and student experiences. Bristol:


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.


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


2014 New Colombo Plan

ELLA

Abbott Ministry

(Liberal-National

Coalition)

Napthine Ministry

(Liberal–National


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?


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?


to be the most successful?


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?