1
MLTAV Feedback (DRAFT) to the draft Shape of the Australian Curriculum: Languages
Modern Language Teachers’ Association of Victoria Inc.
Statewide Resources Centre
150 Palmerston Street,
CARLTON VIC 3053
MLTAV Feedback (DRAFT) to the draft Shape of the Australian Curriculum: Languages
Summary
The following information was collated from MLTAV Committee member feedback upon initial review of the draft Shape of the Australian Curriculum: Languages at the Committee meeting on 9 Feb 2011, via an online survey completed by Committee members following the meeting and after consultation on Questions 7-12 at the SLA Presidents’ meeting 21 Feb 2011.
All participants in MLTAV feedback and consultation mechanisms are strongly encouraged also to complete the ACARA online feedback survey (
Topic: Languages as a Learning Area(ACARA online questionnaire reference – Qn. 7)
The Draft Shape of the Australian Curriculum: Languages paper captures the essential features of languages as a learning area and the rationale for learning them (pages 3-12) / Agree/
Disagree
The MLTAV only partially agrees with this statement –
a. The use of the term ‘second language learners’ (Paragraphs 20 and 21) is potentially confusing; it assumes a monolingual baseline. This is not the case for many students.
The MLTAV recommends the use of more inclusive terms, such as ‘students learning a language other than their own’ or ‘students learning additional/new languages’ in line with EAL(D) – English as an Additional Language (or Dialect).
Another approach which the MLTAV sees as fruitful is to focus on terms for the courses offered, rather than the current focus on describing groups of students. Thus the courses could be labeled L1, L2 etc.
b. The emphasis on Australian and Torres Strait languages, as well as on Asian languages, is welcomed but could be interpreted as an overemphasis on these two groups of languages at the expense of other languages, especially in light of Paragraph 14. The MLTAV does recognize that there is a necessary, current priority on these two groups of languages, which may change over time.
c. Following partly from #2, the MLTAV recommends the rewording of Paragraph 19 to include language learners from all linguistic backgrounds, i.e. “Learning languages meets the need and right of young people to learn their own language(s) and recognize their significance in the languages ecology of Australia.” This would substantially strengthen the rationale.
d. Paragraph 14 states that the development of the Australian Curriculum: Languages “recognizes diverse program types in language learning”, yet these are not mentioned in the draft Shape beyond this initial statement. This is a serious oversight which must be addressed.
The MLTAV believes that greater emphasis should be placed particularly on the fact that the content of other learning areas can be delivered using languages, e.g. in the section ‘Key Concepts and Understandings in Learning Languages’. This is especially important to address (in part) the perceived issue of the ‘crowded curriculum’ at Primary level.
f. Paragraph 7 states that “the draft … paper provides direction for the curriculum development of all languages, including … world languages, as well as classical languages and Australian sign language (Auslan)”.
This paragraph is confusing, in that world languages are not defined; the sentence implies that classical languages and Auslan are not ‘world languages’. Furthermore no further ‘direction’ for the development of these languages is given in the draft Shape.
Topic: Languages: Key Concepts and Understandings in Learning Languages
(ACARA online questionnaire reference – Qn. 8)
The Draft Shape of the Australian Curriculum: Languages paper captures a contemporary understanding of language, culture and language learning (pages 13-20) / Agree/
Disagree
a. The MLTAV generally agrees with this statement, although the contemporary understanding, as stated, is lacking in solid references to future skills needed by students. The MLTAV recommends closer alignment with the Melbourne Declaration in this regard.
b. Please also refer to answers provided for Qn. 7.
Topic: Australian Languages (ACARA online questionnaire reference – Qn. 9)
Q1: Australian languages is an appropriate term to designate the languages of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples. / Agree/
Disagree
The MLTAV does not agree with this statement –
a. The MLTAV feels that this term is potentially confusing. Especially for the general public in the context of national curriculum development, their expectation would probably be that all languages used in Australia are designated ‘Australian’ languages, including English.
The MLTAV recommends the use of either of the terms: ‘Australian Indigenous languages’ or ‘Aboriginal languages’ – this decision should, though, ultimately rest with the custodians of these languages.
b. With regard to the potential general confusion around the term ‘languages’ (which is used in the Shape Paper to mean languages which are not English), the MLTAV suggests that the capitalization of Languages might assist in bringing some clarity.
Within the MLTAV there is also some support for the term Languages Other Than English, noting that LOTE is an excellent acronym for the above purpose, succinct and inclusive, i.e. the term ‘other’ is neutral, rather than the terminology being proposed which has the underlying connotation of ‘which are not’ English.
Q2: Australian languages are addressed appropriately within the paper.
(ACARA online questionnaire reference – Qn. 10) / Agree/
Disagree
The MLTAV generally agrees with this statement, however is disappointed that there is not mention of sign language(s) as having been the lingua franca for Aborigines. This, together with the importation of sign language with early European settlement, highlights the imperative that Auslan be included much more strongly in the Shape, as a very important element of a comprehensive picture of Australian languages.
Topic: The Learners (ACARA online questionnaire reference – Qn. 11)
Q1: The groupings of students described in the paper are appropriate for the purposes of developing a curriculum that is sensitive to the diversity of learners. (pages 21-22) / Agree/
Disagree
The MLTAV only partially agrees with this statement –
a. The groupings as described are reasonably appropriate, noting though, that they are very broad. The MLTAV suggests that a larger number of groupings might assist in more appropriate differentiation between learners.
b. The draft Shape recognizes that there are ‘difficulties’ in defining each student group. The MLTAV recommends that this matter be further investigated, as the draft Shape is refined, in particular scanning current practice Australia-wide to learn from success and failures in attempting to address such difficulties.
c. The MLTAV emphasizes that the groupings of students must be given very careful consideration, as pathways, outcomes and assessments will be affected by decisions in this area. Eligibility criteria must be very clearly defined.
Q2: The terms used to describe the groupings of students are appropriate. (page 22)
(ACARA online questionnaire reference – Qn. 12)
The MLTAV disagrees with this statement –
a. The MLTAV is very concerned about what it considers an inappropriate term, namely ‘second language learners’. The term assumes a monolingual baseline. This is not sensitive to the significantly multicultural (and often multilingual) diversity of students in Australia.
b. The MLTAV recommends more inclusive terms, such as ‘students learning a language other than their own’ or ‘students learning additional languages’ in line with EAL(D) – English as an Additional Language (or Dialect).
Another approach which the MLTAV sees as fruitful is to focus on the courses offered, rather than the current focus on describing groups of students. Thus the courses could be labeled L1, L2 etc.
Topic: Curriculum Design for Languages
(ACARA online questionnaire reference – Qn. 13)
Q1: The overall aims are clear and relevant. (pages 24 - 25). / Agree/
Disagree
The MLTAV generally agrees with this statement –
a. The MLTAV suggests that the final dot point in part a) of Paragraph 59 could be strengthened by adding an extra word at the beginning: ‘Recognize’ or ‘Acknowledge’ – this is a separate and important communicative function.
b. The MLTAV is concerned that the word ‘reciprocal’ in the first paragraph in part c) of Paragraph 59 may be difficult for many teachers to interpret. More clear terms might be ‘interactive’ or ‘dynamic’.
c. The MLTAV supports the notion of languages education encouraging ethical behaviour. The second paragraph in part c) of Paragraph 59 could be strengthened by reference to ethical responsibility as global citizens.
Q2: The strands proposed capture important dimensions of language learning. (pages 25- 26) (ACARA online questionnaire reference – Qn. 14) / Agree/
Disagree
The MLTAV is divided on whether the strands capture important dimensions of language learning –
a. On the one hand there is support for a construct which is new and forward thinking; each strand describes valuable aspects of learning in languages. On the other hand there is genuine concern that the names of the strands will lead to confusion for teachers, both in designing and delivering curriculum as well as in assessment and reporting.
b. The MLTAV suggests that Strand b) be renamed ‘Language Awareness and Intercultural Exchange’.
c. The MLTAV suggests that Strand c) be renamed ‘Self in Relation to Others’
d. The MLTAV is also concerned that Strand b) encompasses too many aspects of learning in languages and recommends that it be divided at least into two sections (see b. above).
Q3: The section describing the nature of knowledge, skills and understanding in learning languages provides an appropriate framework for describing content in languages learning. (pages 26- 27). (ACARA online questionnaire reference – Qn. 15) / Agree/
Disagree
The MLTAV generally agrees with this statement.
Topic: General Capabilities and Cross Curriculum Priorities
(ACARA online questionnaire reference – Qn. 16)
Q1: The general capabilities are effectively integrated within the paper. (pages 27-30)
/ Agree/
Disagree
The MLTAV only partially agrees with this statement –
a. The general capability of Numeracy should also be include in this listing, as learning in languages can contribute significantly to this capability.
b. The MLTAV believes that the general capabilities of ‘Information and communication technology skills’ and ‘Critical and creative thinking’, whilst clearly described in this section of the draft Shape, are not particularly well integrated within the paper.
Q2: The cross-curriculum priorities are appropriately described for the languages learning area.(ACARA online questionnaire reference – Qn. 17) / Agree/
Disagree
The MLTAV agrees with this statement, noting that the cross-curriculum priorities may vary in the future (refer comment b. under Qn. 7).
Topic: Curriculum Development
(ACARA online questionnaire reference – Qn. 18)
The Draft Shape of the Curriculum: Languages paper provides a frame of reference that can be used for curriculum development across all languages. (pages 30-31) / Agree/
Disagree
The MLTAV generally agrees with this statement.
Topic: Hours of Study and Achievement Standards
(ACARA online questionnaire reference – Qn. 19)
The relationship between indicative hours of study and achievement standards for the different cohorts of students is clear and appropriate. (pages 32-34) / Agree/
Disagree
The MLTAV only partially agrees with this statement –
a. The notion that each group of learners is on a separate ‘track’ in learning languages is supported, but potentially highly problematic in high-stake senior secondary assessment contributing to ATAR scores. The MLTAV recommends that a statement is added to the draft Shape, indicating how ACARA envisages this will play out. This is especially important given the special nature of the ‘languages’ learning area in comparison with other learning areas in this regard.
b. The MLTAV believes that the proposed number of indicative hours for the Primary level is insufficient. Assuming that many schools will interpret these indicative hours as ‘sufficient’, maximum hours to achieve the Standards, the quality of programs may well suffer (i.e. program standards will be compromised, refer: e.g. a Foundation to Year 6 sequence will become a token program, with very short, infrequent, irregular classes or a Year 3-6 sequence, with frequent, regular classes of a suitable length will necessarily deny learners the significant advantages of starting their learning in the early Primary years.
Topic: Criteria for Determining Languages-specific Curriculum
(ACARA online questionnaire reference – Qn. 20)
The criteria used to determine the development of language-specific curriculum are appropriate. (page34) / Agree/
Disagree
The MLTAV only partially agrees with this statement –
a. The MLTAV strongly endorses the wide range and large number of language-specific curriculato be developed within the Australian Curriculum: Languages.
b. In general, the MLTAV agrees that the criteria are appropriate. The way, though, that languages have been chosen and identified is potentially confusing, as several criteria clearly apply to most of the languages listed.
c. First Stage of Development: The criterion of the ‘greatest range of learner’ is given for both Chinese and Italian. Whilst this may be substantially correct for Chinese, the MLTAV points out that this criterion applies equally to many of the languages listed in the second and third stages of development, as to Italian.
d. Second Stage of Development: The single mention of the criterion ‘of global importance’ is unfortunate. This criterion clearly applies to all the languages listed.
e. Third Stage of Development: The criterion ‘most commonly spoken languages at home in Australia and .. also supported by community schools’ applies to many of the languages listed.
Topic: Proposed Staging of Development
(ACARA online questionnaire reference – Qn. 21)
The proposed staging of language-specific development is appropriate. (page 35) / Agree/
Disagree
The MLTAV disagrees with this statement.
a. There is insufficient detail given about the staging to judge whether or not it is appropriate.
b. The MLTAV would expect a more detailed timeline and an outline of the planning phases. Why are there three stages of development? If the development of curricula for the first two languages is to be a trial, what will be the feedback process and timeframe?
MLTAV, Statewide Resources Centre, 150 Palmerston St, Carlton VIC 3053 | T 9349 5759 | |