1

Promoting language study in primary schools:

Mainstream teacher attitudes as a factor in success of language programs

Marina HoustonUniversity of Canberra

Dialogue, Discourse, Diversity AFMLTA Sydney 9th -12th July 2009

Today I would like you to take away with you the following

Primary classroom teachers form a significant group of school community that can be mobilised to support language programs in schools.

There is a range of things that can be done in this direction.

� Some are school-based, very practical and could be implemented almost immediately.

� Some are system-related, and could be viewed as ‘medium-term’ strategies.

� And finally, there are ways to go which are really long-term in human terms – may involve several generations.

References

Crozet, C. (2008) ‘Australia’s Linguistic Culture and Its Impact on Languages Education’ in Babel, Vol 42 Number 3 April 2008, pp. 19-23.

Liddicoat, A., Scarino, A., Curnow, T. J., Kohler, M., Scrimegour, A. & Morgan, A.-M. (2007) Report ‘An Investigation of the State and Nature of languages in Australian Schools’. University of South Australia (October 2007)

‘Attitudes Towards Study of languages in Australian Schools’(2007) A Report for the Australian Council of State Schools Organisations and the Australian Parents Council based on research conducted by Solved at McConchie Pty Ltd (March 2007)

Lo Bianco, J. & Aliani, R. (2008) ‘Executive Summary and Recommendations’ (‘The Centre of Excellence in LOTE Study’). University of Melbourne. (May 2008)

‘Review of the Commonwealth LOTE Programme’. ErbusConsulting Partners. (December 2002)

Scott, M. (2009) ‘Cinderella takes action: A local initiative to promote languages’ in Babel, Vol 43 Number 3 May 2009, pp. 32-35.

Distinct features of my study1. The focus on primary teachers2. The ACT educational context / attitude to language / specific languages

METHOD� Total of 19 primary teachers contributed their opinions (through survey or interview or both)

� 15 classroom teachers returned the survey � 6 primary teachers were interviewed:• 2 language teachers , 3 classroom teachers and 1 classroom teacher who also teachers a language (European)

• 30-50 minutes per interview • One teacher wanted to be interviewed more than once

• Most data collected in the first half of 2009

My study and its limitations

� This is a pilot study.� A small sample, which would allow us to map out themes and a range of opinions.

� The participants were all voluntary. So it is very likely that these are the people who cared in some way about the situation with languages.

� The people for interviews were chosen as those who I thought were likely to be prepared to give their time. 5 out of 6 teachers were the people I had met before, and I knew they had an interest in education. The 6th teacher was recommended by a 3rd party, and it was my one and only meeting with that teacher.

� The opinions presented may be opinions of the people who were to an extent interested in the issue. No comment can be made on the opinions of the people who did not wish to share them.

My informants

� ACT Primary school teachers (18 from state schools and 1 from an independent school, with many years of experience working in the government sector)

� Length of teaching – from 6 months to 43 years� Length of being in the current school – from 6 months to 6 years

� Teaching grades: Preschool through Year 6� Only one respondent said that his/her school did not offer a language.

� The majority were in a school with an Asian language (this was accidental; the original plan was to survey equal numbers of teachers from schools offering a European and an Asian language).

� 14 teachers came from Anglo-Celtic (English-speaking) backgrounds and 5 had another language spoken in the family when they were young.

� At present, 16 teachers spoke only English at home, and 3 spoke English and another language.

2

Languages in the ACT Curriculum

‘Every chance to learn: Curriculum framework for ACT schools preschool to year 10’ (2007)

(The information available on the ACT DET website)

[There is also a ‘Languages support plan (2008 - 2010)’ ]

4.3 Preschool to year 6 requirements

4.3.3 Schools have flexibility in how they implement their curriculum plans and deliver their teaching and learning programs, provided that:

Each year, from year 3 to year 6, schools provide students with a minimum of 60 minutes per week of languages education in one of the eight priority languages –French, German, Italian, Spanish, Indonesian, Japanese, Chinese/Mandarin and Korean

4.4 Years 7 to 10 requirements

4.4.3 Schools have flexibility in how they implement their curriculum plans and deliver their teaching and learning programs, provided that:

In years 7 and 8, schools provide students with a minimum of 150 minutes (or one line) per week of languages education in one of the eight priority languages -French, German, Italian, Spanish, Indonesian, Japanese, Chinese/Mandarin and Korean

Languages in the ACT government schools

� A 3-year plan of introducing languages programs across the schools in ACT (2008-2010)

� Primary Schools, High Schools and Colleges

� The DET has acknowledged that there needs to be continuity in language offering movement between sectors, and appears to be working on organising ‘clusters’ of primary schools feeding into high school.

� The DET particularly supports languages education in one of the eight priority languages –French, German, Italian, Spanish, Indonesian, Japanese, Chinese/Mandarin and Korean.

Languages distribution in the ACT government schools

� At college (years 11-12) level, most ‘popular’languages are French, Japanese and Chinese. At present there is only one school in ACT – a college where Korean and Hindi are is offered in Years 11 and 12.

� At high school level, the languages offered are mostly French, Indonesian and Japanese. 2 high schools offer Chinese, 2 high schools offer German, 2 – Italian, and 2 high schools offer Spanish.

� At primary level, Japanese is offered in 16 schools, followed by Indonesian – 10, and French – 7.

� At end of 2008, there were 12 primary schools where language was not being offered.

� The plan is to continue introducing languages this year and next.

Issues perceived by languages teachers

Teaching language in a school is hard work

3

A special language classroom in the school

� The language teachers commented exceptionally positively on situations over their teaching time when they had a special language room.

All acknowledged that having to run from classroom to classroom was not ideal.

Only a minority of the teachers surveyed (7) said that there is a language classroom in their school; out of these 7, 6 are in one and the same school and 1 teacher is in a private school.

Feeling different and isolated

� Language teachers often feel different and / or isolated in their school.

� Language teachers state that they always have to prove something to colleagues and parents / justify the existence of the language program in the school.

� The isolation is felt by most language teachers, and particularly by teachers from Asian backgrounds.

Being of a different cultural background

� An issue that some language teachers face is being from a different cultural background, especially from a different ethnic / racial background.

Some Asian background teachers commented on the attitude of the school staff to them and / or to other colleagues from Asian backgrounds.

First generation Asian teachers’teaching style and need for help

Language teachers from Asian backgrounds acknowledge that they may not be fully familiar with the teaching style that Australian children are used to.

They speak about their need for support from other staff in this area.

Attitudes of the school community

� An issue raised by all the interviewed language teachers has been that of attitudes of the school community.

The Liddicoat report (Oct 2007) acknowledges that the success of language programs depends on the attitudes of the school community.

According to Lo Bianco & Aliani (2008, p. 5), LOTE teachers mentioned ‘the importance of supportive attitudes and the fact that schools, local community and parents needed to make a clear show of support for LOTE and value it as a subject.’

Classroom teachers’ attitudes towards languages: explicit and implicit

� Classroom teachers’ attitudes towards languages can be both explicit and implicit.

� They can explicitly state that the language class is a pretty useless thing that is just a waste of time for many students.

� However, more commonly, classroom teachers’ attitudes are implicit.

4

Findings and discussion

� Language teachers who I spoke with strongly supported the thesis:

The success of language programs depends to a large extent on the attitude of the mainstream teachers.

� Report (March 2007, p. 23):‘A number of language teachers said that other teachers in their schools are also reflective of an unsupportive community viewpoint.’

The report notes the lack of any ‘plan to address the complex set of societal and attitudinal factors which combine to constrain this curriculum area.’

A language teacher:

According to this teacher, what classroom teachers think about language is extremely important.

The attitudes of classroom teachers are important.

A classroom teacher (also a language teacher)

The teacher argues that for most children the attitude comes from home.

This teacher shows awareness that she, as a classroom teacher, can shift parents’ attitudes.

Can a classroom teacher make a difference?

Language teachers believe that definitely ‘yes’.

Pedagogy

� A classroom / language teacher commented about the importance of the link between literacy in English and learning other languages:

The language teaching pedagogy and the English teaching pedagogy need to be similar. This way students will respond better to the language classes.

� A language teacher also brought up the issue of pedagogy, saying that when the two were congruent, there was a higher likelihood of the success of the language program.

She also acknowledged that this is one of the areas of the challenges for overseas trained teachers, particularly the teachers of Asian languages.

The Report (March 2007) notices the mismatch that often happens between the pedagogy of teaching English and teaching LOTEs.

� It asks if the language teachers are making the necessary classroom links, and if the can make these links.

� The report recommends:

‘The correlation between literacy in English and learning other languages needs to be made explicit. Language teachers and English teachers should ensure that the pedagogy used in English is consistent with, or at least overlaps with the pedagogy used in language classes.’

(Report March 2007, p. 26)

5

A language for students of below average English performance

If a student is below average in his/her English language performance, should he/she be in a compulsory language program? Why? Why not?

� My respondents were split on this issue, some arguing that such students should still be able to learn a LOTE.

� However quite a few teachers stated that a LOTE was not appropriate for such students.

� Interestingly, most of these teachers seemed to imply that the ‘below average’ performers were students with learning difficulties and/or ESL.

The March 2007 Report (P. 47) notes that many ‘stakeholders’, do not support ‘compulsion’ of language for all students.

� About 20% of principals and language advisors are against compulsory language for students who struggle with English. The Study did not survey classroom teachers.

� Many surveyed parents state ‘teach English first’.The Report recommends the level of compulsion of languages be maintained, not to send the wrong messages about language education, but increase the quality of provision.

The Report cites anecdotal evidence of LD students enjoying language classes.

The Lo Bianco & Aliani Report (May 2008, p.7) states that language teachers believed that ‘the elective nature of the subject … [negatively] impacted on student motivation.’

Hours of language per week

� Language teachers tend to support increased hours of language per week (which would be expected).

� Opinions about ‘how much’ language in the curriculum is needed vary among classroom teachers.

� Some teachers recognise that the proposed time of one hour per week (or the commonly practise times of 30 minutes per week may not be sufficient for language learning.

� Some classroom teachers (interviews) state that it is sometimes better not to have any language than just once a week for half an hour or even an hour.

This suggests a view of language as not a serious curriculum area (KLA), an optional extra that can be considered under some circumstances. But can be easily discarded.

However other classroom teachers (survey) state that they think a ‘good’ language program will have one or two half-hour classes per week.

� This shows:

(1) language classes are still viewed as an ‘optional extra’, not something that should happen regularly / for extended periods of time

(2) language classes are viewed as something to be entertaining / approached in terms of the process rather than long-lasting achievement

(3) classroom teachers are not aware of how languages are learnt – one or two half-hour sessions per week would not be sufficient for any substantial language learning

Mainstream and language teachers planning together

Do the language teachers and mainstream teachers in your school plan together?

� The answers fell roughly equally among ‘never’(5), ‘rarely’ (3) and ‘sometimes’ (7).

� Not a single teacher ticked off the ‘often’ box.

Do mainstream teachers and language teachers need to plan / work together?

� The overwhelming majority of the respondents 12 answered ‘definitely’, 2 teachers answered ‘maybe’, and only 1 ticked the ‘no’ box.

What would a good language program look like?

There are three major aspects that classroom teachers consider to be important for a good language program:

� the language teacher

� the program

� the adult participants involved

6

Do you think that each primary school should offer language lessons?

� Most teachers state that schools should offer language programs;

� ‘yes’ – 12

� ‘maybe’ – 2

� ‘no’ - 1

Findings Summarised

� Classroom teachers would like to see a language program in their school.

� There is not much planning together between classroom and language teachers. But both groups are positive about it.

� In relation to language for a child with a ‘below average’ English performance, some classroom teachers said that such students could actually enjoy a language program, and learning a language could be culturally enriching for all.

Many however do not envisage language being compulsory for all students.

Students with LD and from ESL backgrounds are often classed as somebody needing extra English tuition, and thus not suitable for language learning.

Comments about the ‘crowded curriculum’ indicate that language is viewed as an optional extra.

� Many classroom teachers viewed the integration of the language curriculum with the mainstream one as being crucial for the ‘good’ language program.

� As key elements of a good language program, many classroom teachers emphasise the quality of the language teacher as well as the quality of the language program.

� Many recognise the need for a link between what language teachers and mainstream teachers do.

� A minority (4) acknowledge an active role that mainstream teachers can take.

Conclusions

� This study revealed that language teachers view classroom teachers’ attitudes towards language in the school as being a key factor for the success of the program.

� Classroom teachers see the link between the language and mainstream programs as being important. However they do not display much awareness of the impact they can potentially have on the success of the language program. Classroom teachers appear unaware of the influence that they exert on the students’ and their parents’ attitudes towards languages in schools.

Most surveyed classroom teachers support language learning generally and would like to see a language program in their school.

They are not sure if studying a language should be compulsory for all.

� Some teachers seem to be aware of the value language can have in inter-cultural learning.

� Having an opportunity to learn a language on equity grounds is important to some.

� However knowing somebody who did not enjoy the language in school could justify not making languages compulsory.

� There seems to be lack of awareness of the cognitive benefits of language learning as well as its humanistic value (such as promoting a more just and harmonious society).

Classroom teachers view language programs largely as something for students to enjoy / have fun within.

� The educational value noted is that of cultural learning. There is no reference to language competency or being able to use language for any of the purposes for which for example English is used.

� The language teacher is expected to be well qualified and passionate about their job.

� The language program should be a ‘quality’ one.

7

Recommendations

At the School Level

� The language program needs to be integrated so that it is considered a part of the mainstream curriculum.

In terms of the themes being studied, explicit reference could be made to the language / culture / country.

� Time and space and opportunities need to be provided for classroom teachers to plan together.

� Time and space and opportunities need to be provided for classroom teachers to be part of language classrooms.

At the School Level

� The ‘whole school’ approach to language / that which involves support by principal, executive teachers and classroom teachers can be recommended.

� Their role as active participants and possibly leaders in a school community in relation to languages could be brought to the attention of classroom teachers. They could be promoting languages in school generally, for example showing their attitude to students, planning with language teachers, and outside the school –communicating with the parents and wider community.

The focus on training ‘quality’ teachers needs to continue. Both the DETs and faculties of education should have a role here.

� Teacher training courses need to include explicit expectations for classroom teachers to know about how the first and second languages are learnt.

� Further education regarding the effects of additional language learning needs to be provided. This could dispel the common misconception of languages being suitable for only proficient uses of English.

� Further education about the range of cognitive benefits involved in language learning as well as its humanistic values (such as promoting a more just and harmonious society) could be planned.

Pedagogy

� This study provides support for recommendation of the Report (March 2007):

Language teachers and English teachers should ensure that the pedagogy used in English is consistent with, or at least overlaps with the pedagogy used in language classes (p. 26).

� The implications for teacher education are as follows.

� Teacher educators need to develop in our graduates an awareness of the necessity of linking language teaching pedagogies across languages.

� For language teachers, explicit teaching about pedagogies commonly used in Australian mainstream classroom needs to be provided.

Promotion of the value of languages

� Further promotion of languages in a wider community is important as this shapes views of classroom teachers about the value of languages.

The March 2007 Report (p.29) notes a need for ‘a far reaching public awareness campaign’.

� For this purpose, all language champions need to work together, using all possible avenues to promote languages.

� The value / importance of languages could be further reinforced in teacher training courses. We need to fight for space in the language education curriculum, which could also be reinforced across other disciplines.

In summary :1. Primary classroom teachers form a significant group of schoolcommunity that can be mobilised to support language programs in schools.2. There is a range of things that can be done in this direction.

� Some are school-based, very practical and could be implemented almost immediately.

� Some are system-related, and could be viewed as ‘medium-term’ strategies.

� And finally, there are ways to go which are really long-term in human terms – may involve several generations.

“The mediocre state of language learning in this country is not from lack of effort or money being spent. The reality is much more complex, and we would not pretend that there is a simple solution to resolving the intricate interplay between a variety of social, cultural, economic and political forces. The current situation in Australia has taken many years to develop, and is thus likely to take many years to change.”

(Review of the Commonwealth LOTE Programme. Erbus Consulting Partners. December 2002, p. xiii)