Learning Second Language in Australia

 

Introduction

            Language is a very crucial part of people lives and to all other disciplines that human being engage in daily. Australia is a multicultural country with high linguistic diversity with more than 300 languages spoken (Gorter, Zenotz & Cenoz, 2016). English is the most common language spoken, and due to its multicultural nature there is a need to learn a second language (Barr, 2008). The essay will talk about learning of the second language in Australia. This paper will discuss the historical development of language education initiatives and policies that have been put in place. It will also discuss the challenges that the teachers and the students experience in teaching and learning simultaneously. The paper will also provide recommendations that can help in addressing the challenges encountered. Learning a second language can be challenging, and therefore a solution to the problem should always be put in place.

History of Language Education initiatives in Australia

            The fact Australia is a multicultural country the government has been coming up with policies and other prominent initiatives which have been developed at the national level (Liddicoat, 2009). Most of these policies were designed to solve the challenges that hindered the provision of the “literacy for all” with a particular focus on the children from the minority language.

            The government has attempted to bring a solution for the challenge in issues of language and literacy since the establishment of the first national policy concerning language in 1987 (Schalley, Guillemin & Eisenchlas, 2015). There have been crucial policies that have been developed and implemented. The national policy on Languages of 1987 was the first of its kind in the country which has English as the most common language. The main aim of this was to make community languages an essential part of the education of all the young children attending school. It also promoted multiculturalism and also multilingualism (Schalley, Guillemin & Eisenchlas, 2015). It made the community as the second language by offering it in the education system.

             NPL did not develop the conceptual understanding of the literacy, but it acknowledged the need to maintain the minority languages and also helped the families in instituting the early learning activities for the pre-school (Liddicoat, 2009). The financial provision was for the libraries, the tertiary institution and widespread interpreting and translating services. The NPL included everyone, and it progressed as it valued collaborations with the community and also promoted interrelationship between the community and the school. However, the success was hindered by the challenges in the implementations.

            The responsibility for promoting the initiative was left to primary school teachers and principals. However, the community language programs in the schools were developed without consideration of the provision of the necessary training to the primary teachers (Schalley, Guillemin & Eisenchlas, 2015). This resulted in the unwillingness of the teachers to acquire and facilitate the continuity of the process. There was also a lack of the ongoing review, support and proper funding by the governments.

            After the failure of npl, there was an introduction of The Australian Language and Literacy Policy (ALLP). The goals of this policy were to establish and maintain an adequate understanding of English to participate in Australian society. It was also to expand and improve the services on languages that were provided by the interpreters and the translator, the print and the electronic media (Schalley, Guillemin & Eisenchlas, 2015). It was also to significantly expand and make improvements on the learning languages other than the English and finally to develop and maintain Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander languages that were still in transmission and record of the ones that were not transmitted.

            With the introduction of the goal to learn other languages apart from English and also the maintenance of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander languages, there was a shift, and the home languages were not considered again as part of the goal (Schalley, Guillemin & Eisenchlas, 2015). English was also emphasized in this policy. The government also invested in school literacy, but it focused more on the provision of adult education and English as the second language. This aimed to create an educated workforce while making English the national language (Schalley, Guillemin & Eisenchlas, 2015). This indicates the changes in priorities from the pluralism to rationalism. The policy started on ‘language,’ and it focused on changing into the monolingual society from the multilingual and making English as the main language of Australia mainly English as a second language.

            Seven years later there was the establishment of another policy with the main goal which stated “literacy for all.” The policy was The Challenge for Australian Schools’ which challenged the schools to ensure that all the children who finish the primary school have the necessary skills such as the ability to write, read and spell at their level. The literacy in policy goal represented the English language which was declared the language goal. In this policy, literacy was described as a set of skill more than its relationship with language

            The emphasis of the policy was in the standards, measuring, and evaluation including assessment of their outcome and its focus was on the lower sensible level and in the areas where the level was not reached. The surveys that were done indicated that a third of the year 3 and 5 from non-English background did not meet the level and it resulted in considering the children from those backgrounds considered at risk. Although the policy considered that English was the second language it did not include special arrangements for them. The intervention that was considered for the children was only on the English language as it did not look at the background of the children and circumstances under which they grew up in.

            There were also issues with the benchmarking as it had only described the characteristics of those children born in Australia with English as their mother-tongue. This brought in the need to develop complimentary benchmark tools for the English as Second Language Learners at different stages of their schools. The activities involved in the benchmarking served to improve planning in education and bring accountability not to address the individual student achievement. The various concerns and also the processes in the policy indicates the ineffective which limited the attainment of the policy goal (Schalley, Guillemin & Eisenchlas, 2015). It is the most recent policy that was published by the federal government of Australia with the delivery of programmes and reports. , but initiatives have been put in place which includes the teaching reading initiative of 2005 and 2008 The National Assessment Program-Literacy and Numeracy.

            The Australian government launched a national inquiry into the teaching in 2004, and this was after an open later from a group of Australian Psychologist and reading researchers. The minister of education then instructed the committee to inquire into the teaching of reading in the Australian schools, assess on the ability to read well and noting those who had difficulties and the teacher education together with preparation for reading instructions (Schalley, Guillemin & Eisenchlas, 2015). Unfortunately, they focused on the reading leaving other literacy skills and also teaching not learning. The committee recommendation and report focused on the teaching and teaching and even made a discussion on the most appropriate approach between the phonic or the whole language approach.

            The report narrowed further the important areas concerning the literacy and recommendation mainly targeted teachers and the school but also made a recommendation to come up with programs, guides, and workshops that will support the parents and the caregivers in their children literacy development (Vass, 2016). This was thought to develop the languages that they learned at home. This recommendation addressed the different needs of various children both in the minority language group and also those from other countries.

            In 2008, there was formations of National Partnership Agreement on Literacy which was financed to come up with National Action Plan for Literacy and Numeracy (NAPLAN) which is involved in assessing the students in the years 3, 5, 7 and 9 in the various area including reading, languages conventions, writing including numeracy (Schalley, Guillemin & Eisenchlas, 2015). This has been instituted, and it is done each year as a countrywide assessment.

            The goals of the agreement emphasize the points that were noted in the literacy for all policy and the teaching reading initiative and also involved improving the literacy level for all young children with a special focus for those who needed support. It also included identification and implementation of better strategies that would bring improvements in literacy and addressing the needs of the students from disadvantaged backgrounds (Schalley, Guillemin & Eisenchlas, 2015). Assessment, reporting, and intervention have been retained and more emphasis done on achievement reports.

            NAPLAN uses a test which have effects on the person being tested, the teacher and also the institution. It has also been linked with anxiety and stress to students and also their teachers and also reduction of the student self-esteem. However, it has been linked with long-term productivity which is impressive

            Unfortunately, validity and reliability is not good. High stake test does not test the individual learning, and its use as a diagnostic tool for teachers is limited. There is also a challenge in setting as it assumes that all test takers are fluent in Standard English. Presence of linguistic barriers also plays a significant role

Challenges to students and teachers

            The language policies are not stable enough, and it has shown an overall fall in language learning. With the introduction of the new policies, the understanding of the word literacy has been reduced to mean literacy in English (Clyne, 2005). Literacy has not been connected with the multiculturalism. In some parts, there is a lack of coordinated language policies. There is also a significant challenge in for the field to give a solution for the unavailability of a coherent policy for languages generally and for specifically education languages in both national and the state level (Salter & Maxwell, 2016). There is also a lack of commitment to develop and keep to at least a level bilingual capability for all the students as part of their school education (Scarino, 2014). The government has also not made a formal statement concerning the unequal statement involving the value of learning languages for everyone.

            There is also the fact that the value of all the key areas is not equal. Languages had been included in the “key learning is” during the major changes that were made in the policies, but learning languages have not been given the same value as the rest (Salter & Maxwell, 2016). That is why, during debates that were made to discuss on crowding of the curriculum, the language learning area was seen as an option to reduce the overcrowding. This shows it is not valued as other areas.

            The government also introduced national programs to support the learning and teaching, for example, NALSSP, but on the other hand, it does not provide the same attention to other indigenous languages which are of equal importance (Hajek & Slaughter, 2014). Therefore, some of the programmes have been considered divisive. This brings confusion on what to teach and what is of no importance.

            Widespread variety of the minority language, level of literacy and different levels of motivations and the level of bonding between the community and the children possess a challenge during the learning process. There has also been inadequate past attempt to tackle the adult illiteracy levels with English.

             The immigrants also have a big challenge in comprehending the language which then makes it more difficult for the teacher and the student to have a better understanding of each other (Scarino & Liddicoat, 2009). English also has deficiencies as a second language. However, the government have tried as much as possible to make English a national language, and some people might find it difficult to understand thus making learning very difficult including the work of the teacher

Recommendations

              Creation of an educational platform that provides an individualized acquisition of literacy in diverse languages. Application of the new information technology which has that capability to promote tailoring of education experiences to each of the children need (Vass, 2014). There also need for the community, members to collaborate with researches to establish a resource and also guided learning experiences that are progressively challenging, engaging and also culturally acceptable

            There is also a need to join the community members from the grassroots to enable the children to be involved earlier with learning language which has been proved to be effective in developing a better understanding for the child (Díaz, 2013). Development of language policies that will guide in the learning of the languages.

            Involvement of the caregivers and parents through the provision of necessary support especially those from disadvantaged children will enable them to have the resources required to facilitate their learning and to understand the language quickly (Slaughter & Lo Bianco, 2009). It is also necessary to engage the teachers regularly and provide them with the necessary training to motivate them in providing the best service to the children.

            Teaching should involve ensuring that the needs of the children including those with disabilities be attended to. They consider the background and all the circumstances that may hinder learning and providing the necessary intervention to address the issues.

Conclusion

              Australia is a multicultural and multilingual country that has come a long way considering learning of languages. The country involved itself in promoting the study of different languages after the establishment of its first policy. There was also the development of the second policy which focused on learning the English language which then shifted focus from the multilingual to just one English. This was later changed, and the focus was on literacy which focused on the skill. The focus then moved to reading and then assessment. There are challenges faced such as lack of national policies of languages, and always recommendations must be given to help in solving the situation.

 

 

 

References

Barr, A., Gillard, J., Firth, V., Scrymgour, M., Welford, R., Lomax-Smith, J., ... & Constable, E. (2008). Melbourne declaration on educational goals for young Australians. Ministerial Council on Education, Employment, Training and Youth Affairs. PO Box 202 Carlton South Victoria, 3053, Australia.

Clyne, M. (2005, September). The social responsibility and impact of the linguist/applied linguist in Australia. In Australian Linguistic Society conference, Melbourne.

Díaz, A. (2013). Intercultural understanding and professional learning through critical engagement. Babel, 48(1), 12.

Gorter, D., Zenotz, V., & Cenoz, J. (2016). Minority languages and multilingual education. Springer.

Hajek, J., & Slaughter, Y. (Eds.). (2014). Challenging the monolingual mindset (Vol. 156). Multilingual matters.

Liddicoat, A. J. (2009). Evolving ideologies of the intercultural in Australian multicultural and language education policy. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 30(3), 189-203.

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.

Salter, P., & Maxwell, J. (2016). The inherent vulnerability of the Australian Curriculum’s cross-curriculum priorities. Critical Studies in Education, 57(3), 296-312.

Schalley, A. C., Guillemin, D., & Eisenchlas, S. A. (2015). Multilingualism and assimilationism in Australia's literacy-related educational policies. International Journal of Multilingualism, 12(2), 162-177.

Scarino, A. (2014). Situating the challenges in current languages education policy in Australia–unlearning monolingualism. International Journal of Multilingualism, 11(3), 289-306.

Scarino, A., & Liddicoat, A. (2009). Teaching and learning languages: A guide. Melbourne: Curriculum Corporation.

Slaughter, Y., & Lo Bianco, J. (2009). Language teaching and learning: Choice, pedagogy, rationale and goals. Babel, 44(1), 24.

Slaughter, Y. (2009). Money and policy make languages go round: language programs in Australia after NALSAS.[National Asian Languages and Studies Strategy in Australian Schools.]. Babel, 43(2), 4.

Vass, G. (2014). The racialised educational landscape in Australia: Listening to the whispering elephant. Race ethnicity and education, 17(2), 176-201.

Vass, G. (2016). Everyday race-making pedagogies in the classroom. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 37(3), 371-388.