acknowledgments - curriculum.edu.au · lote; and research into second language learning and...

U S I N G T H E L O T E P L A N N I N G F R A M E W O R K 1

Acknowledgments

Simpson Norris International would like to acknowledge the contributions of the following

people and organisations.

Firstly, we would like to acknowledge the work of the project team in the development of

the package and training course: John Hogan, Lindy Norris, and Natalia Norris. Flavia

Campos and Nick Norris have also contributed to the development and implementation of

the training programme.

We are grateful for the involvement of the National Asian Languages and Studies in

Australian Schools (NALSAS) Reference Group and for their invaluable feedback. The

Reference Group comprises Anne Eckstein, Elina Raso, Anne Roarty and Sue Tolbert.

In particular, we would like to thank those LOTE teachers, principals and consultants who

participated in the initial training courses that accompanied this package. Their responses

and feedback have been invaluable in helping us to create the final package. With their

permission, examples of their thinking have been included to illustrate the use of particular

instruments and tools.

This package is the culmination of research previously conducted by Simpson Norris

International and we would like to express our appreciation to the schools and individuals

who participated in that research, and without whom this package would not have come

into existence.

This project has been funded by the Commonwealth Department of Education, Training

and Youth Affairs (DETYA) under the NALSAS strategy.

© Commonwealth of Australia 2000

ISBN: 0-86905-785-5

This work is Commonwealth copyright. It may be reproduced in whole or in part for study or training purposes,

subject to the inclusion of an acknowledgment of the source and no commercial usage or sale. Reproduction for

the purposes other than those indicated above requires the written permission of the Department of Education,

Training and Youth Affairs. Requests and inquiries concerning reproduction and copyright should be addressed to

the Assistant Secretary, Quality Schooling Branch, Department of Education, Training and Youth Affairs, GPO Box

9880, Canberra, ACT 2601. The views expressed herein do not necessarily represent the views of the

Commonwealth Department of Education, Training and Youth Affairs.


ContentsAbout this package 4Introducing the Package 5

Introducing the Planning Framework 8The LOTE Planning Framework: Where did it come from? 9Key concepts associated with planning and sustaining LOTE programmes 10The LOTE Planning Framework: What is it? 11Envisioning and Enacting 14What do I need in order to work through the Framework? 16

Getting Started: Preparing to Use the Framework 19What to do initially 20Ways of using the Package 21Collecting baseline data 23School Profile Proforma 24Deciding who to involve 31

Introducing the Instruments 31Elaborating the Instruments 32Instrument 1: The Who Consultation Profile 32Instrument 2: The RASI Decision-making Profile 32

The Planning Framework by phase 33Monitor, Review and Act 34

Overview of the Phase 35Introducing the Instruments 35Elaborating the Instruments 37Instrument 3: Summaries of Research Findings:What the research says about Uptake of Languages by Schools 37Instrument 4: Summaries of Research Findings: What the research says about Uptake of Languages by Students 38Instrument 5: Summaries of Research Findings:What the research says about Sustainable LOTE Programmes 39Instrument 6: Summaries of Research Findings:

What the research says about developing proficiency 40Instrument 7: The Proficiency Potential Framework 41Instrument 8: An Instrument to Profile the Proficiency Potentialof a LOTE Programme and its Learners 55Overhead Transparencies: Proficiency Potential Framework 56Instrument 9: School Observation Form 63Instrument 10: Class Observation Form 64Instrument 11: Interview Schedules 65Conclusion 66

Identify Information Needs 67Overview of the Phase 68Introducing the Instruments 69Elaborating the Instruments 70Instrument 12: An Interview Protocol 70Instrument 13: Booklet: The Most Frequently Asked Questions in Respect of LOTE 72Conclusion 79

Interpreting and Connecting 80Overview of the Phase 81Introducing the Instruments 81Elaborating the Instruments 83Instrument 14: Connections Diagram 83Instrument 15: A Tool for Defining Possibilities 84Conclusion 90


Articulating Vision and Goals 91Overview of the Phase 92Introducing the Instruments 92Elaborating the Instruments 94Instrument 16: Developing a vision 94Instrument 17: Sharing the vision 97Instrument 18: Connecting the vision 100Instrument 19: Situation Analysis 100Instrument 20: Graphing the Change Equation 103Conclusion 106

Identify Factors 107Overview of the Phase 108Introducing the Instruments 108Elaborating the Instruments 109Instrument 21: SWOT Analysis 109Instrument 22: Fishbone Diagram 112Conclusion 114

Assess Impact 115Overview of the Phase 116Introducing the Instruments 116Elaborating the Instruments 117Instrument 23: Forcefield Analysis 117Instrument 24: Impact/Effort Matrix 122Conclusion 124

Plan and Do 125Overview of the Phase 126Introducing the Instruments 127Elaborating the Instruments 127Instrument 25: LOTE Programme Plan 128Instrument 26: LOTE Action Plan 129Conclusion 132

Appendices 133Case Study Scenarios 134

Scenario 1 – Clopvale Primary School 136Scenario 2 – Mt Nada Secondary School 143Scenario 3 – Belvedere Lower Secondary 149Scenario 4 – Gracelyn Primary 155Scenario 5 – Dayton High School 160Scenario 6 – Robinson Primary School 165

A Workshop on Using the Package 171Key concepts and the Training Programme 172The Training Programme 173

References and Glossary 174Reference List 175

Bibliography 177

Glossary of Key Terms 183

List of FiguresFigure 1: The LOTE Planning Framework 13Figure 2: Enacting and Envisioning 15Figure 3: Instruments for using the LOTE Planning Framework 17Figure 4: Who should I involve? 18


About this package


Introducing thePackage


Introduction to the Packagehe function of this package is to provide information and assistance for those working

towards the development of effective and sustainable Languages Other Than English

(LOTE) programmes in schools. The package offers advice with regard to the processes of

planning, implementing and evaluating LOTE programmes. It also provides support through

the use of case study examples and vignettes.

The package is the culmination of a number of interrelated research projects undertaken by

Simpson Norris International. These projects have involved case study research in every

Australian state and territory and across all jurisdictions. Issues covered in the research

include the factors impacting on uptake and sustainability of LOTE programmes; an

assessment of factors impacting on the potential for LOTE students to achieve linguistic

proficiency; an overview of issues relating to language teacher proficiency; cost benefit

analyses of LOTE programmes; evaluations of state policies and strategies in respect of

LOTE; and research into second language learning and children with special needs.1 The

research methodologies adopted have included interviews and focus groups with school

administrators, LOTE teachers, classroom teachers, parents and students, as well as

literature reviews of both national and international literature relating to language teaching

and learning.

The package was initially designed to be used in conjunction with a three-day professional

development programme for both school staff and external consultants working with

schools in the implementation or improvement of LOTE programmes. While the package

may be able to be used as a self-help manual for schools making decisions about their LOTE

programmes, it is best used in conjunction with a consultant2.

The package comprises a number of different sections. There is general information about

the package and about the LOTE Planning Framework. There is information about how to

start using the package, with an outline of a three-day professional development programme

designed to be used in conjunction with the package. There are specific sections designated

for each of the planning phases and there are sections containing case studies associated

with the establishment and maintenance of LOTE programmes.

In each of the sections designated to the different planning phases of the LOTE Planning

Framework, notes are included together with process instruments, or tools that can be used

to assist in the particular planning stage. In addition, short vignettes have been used to

illustrate specific issues associated with each planning phase. It is hoped that these stories,

collected and recounted by those who have trialed the package, will form a useful resource

for others who are accessing the package independently.

1 A list of research undertaken is included as Appendix 5.2 The best point of contact for consultancy services is either the jurisdictional officers for LOTE in the relevantstate or territory or Simpson Norris International.

T


For ease of reference, the instruments have been numbered. It should be noted, however,

that the numbers on instruments do not imply that they should be used in a set order.

Where appropriate, examples have been included to illustrate the use of the particular

instruments. These are real examples that emerged through the trialing of the package.

Every effort has been made to retain the integrity of these examples. The phraseology and

terminology used in the examples is close to that reported by the respondent. We would

like to acknowledge the willingness of those teachers and consultants who agreed to make

these available. Collectively, these examples form a body of information that can be used to

support the process of change and review. They are not, however, intended to be in any

way definitive.

It is intended that the information and instruments provided will provoke thinking about the

process and possible implications in specific contexts. Supplementary information is

included through case studies and stories, together with information summarising the major

findings from Australian LOTE research to date.

The package is built using real data from real schools. To ensure confidentiality, where

reference has been made to actual LOTE programmes, they are identified by pseudonyms.

Quotations are indicated in the package through the use of italics. Terminology used is that

of the jurisdiction from which the example was collected.


Introducing thePlanningFramework


The LOTE Planning Framework: Where did it come from?

n 1997, the Education Department of Western Australia initiated a project to

investigate the reasons for the slow uptake of Chinese and the perceived decline of

German in the state. Discussions with other state jurisdictions revealed similar issues

across a number of languages. As a result, the research project was subsequently expanded

to serve the needs of several systems and all states, and was further funded by the

Commonwealth Department of Education, Training and Youth Affairs (DETYA) as part of

the National Asian Languages and Studies in Australian Schools (NALSAS) Strategy. The

findings of this research, Factors influencing the uptake of Modern Standard Chinese, Korean,

Modern Greek and German at Primary and Secondary Level in Australian Schools, were published

by the Education Department of Western Australia in 1998.

This review of language uptake identified a number of factors that impacted on the

sustainability of particular languages and of LOTE programmes in general. A significant

finding of the research was that schools are generally unclear about how to support and

embed their LOTE programmes once established, and how to monitor and strengthen the

learning outcomes for students. It was clear that a process was needed to support schools

as they made decisions that impacted on LOTE programmes and on the language learning of

students.

The final chapter of the report presented to NALSAS and to the Education Department of

Western Australia addressed this issue of support by including the initial version of the

LOTE Planning Framework. Since that time, the Framework has been refined in response to

being trialed in a range of different LOTE teaching and learning contexts. As a result, the

Framework, as it appears here, is reflective of practical experiences and not just theoretical

assumptions. There was a need, during the trialing process, to preserve the notion of

fluidity in planning for languages uptake and sustainability. It is intended within this package,

and its application, that this notion of fluidity be retained.

I

U S I N G T H E L O T E P L A N N I N G F R A M E W O R K 1 0

Key concepts associated with planningand sustaining LOTE programmes andusing the LOTE Planning Framework

Planning and sustaining LOTE programmes

requires constant evaluation of programme

purpose and how that purpose is being

translated in schools and classrooms.

Being able to think, imagine and focus for the

future, in order to improve student learning

outcomes, is critical for the planning of

sustainable language programmes.

How the vision translates into the practical

reality of schools impacts on further planning and

envisioning.

Re-evaluating what LOTE means for schools,

their communities and language learners is an

ongoing process.

Evaluating

Envisioning

Enacting

Evaluating


The LOTE Planning Framework:What is it?

The LOTE Planning Framework (Figure 1) provides a process for implementing, supporting,

evaluating and reviewing LOTE programmes in schools.

The process is divided into 7 phases:

■ Monitor, Review, Act

This phase requires that a programme be evaluated, that the programme’s goals be

reviewed and modified if appropriate, and that there is a ‘stock take’ of progress and

problems.

■ Identify Information Needs

This phase of the process involves identifying the information that is required for

effective planning to take place. Information needs and sources have to be

determined so that decision-making processes can be informed by quality information

rather than just opinion.

■ Interpreting and Connecting

This phase is about interpreting and utilising information so that LOTE can be

connected to the rest of the school and its community.

■ Articulate Vision and Goals

This phase involves envisioning both what the future state of LOTE might be and how

this state can be attained.

■ Identify Factors

For the vision to come to fruition it is necessary to be able to identify factors that will

either hinder or promote the attainment of the vision.

■ Assess Impact

How these factors impact positively or negatively with regard to the vision is the

focus of this phase. Being able to identify where best to start and how to proceed so

that maximum benefit can be gained for minimum effort is a critical step in the

process.


■ Plan and Do

Having made a start, the planning and the doing phase is about using all the available

information to determine the order in which a school will deal with the factors that

impact on LOTE. This will result in a plan that can then be actioned.

The ongoing and cyclical nature of the process is illustrated by the fact that the progress

from one stage to another takes you back to your starting point: in this case monitor,

review and act.

■ Monitor, Review, Act

Reviewing the results of action, and evaluating the impact on LOTE teaching and

learning, will see the cycle as both complete and as beginning anew.

The cyclical nature of the Framework is represented on the following page by a circle that

suggests a natural progression from one stage to another. In practice, people working with

the process may find themselves returning to previous stages in light of their subsequent

work and working in more than one stage at any one time.

There is no one starting point in the cycle. Finding a starting point on the LOTE Planning

Framework depends essentially on ‘where a school is at’. For example:

■ Where a school is reviewing its curriculum, the starting point will be Monitor,

Review, Act

■ For a school that is considering introducing a LOTE, its starting point will be Identify

Information Needs

■ For others it may be appropriate for the beginning point to be Articulate Vision &

Goals.

Each school needs to identify the appropriate starting point for the planning process.


The LOTE Planning Framework

Hogan, J., Norris, L., Norris, N. and Norris, N. (2000). The LOTE Planning Framework: in NALSAS, Using the LOTE Planning Framework, Canberra: DETYA.

Identify information needs

What would make the LOTE programmebetter?

What do you want to know about LOTE?What have others done?What does research say?

Consult with others

Identify factorsWhat will promote?What will hinder?

Assess impactHow do the factors relate to our

situation?

Plan and do

Be TakeStrategic Action

Interpretingand connecting

Rest of school communitySchool plan

Other learning areasGeneric outcomes

Assessment/Reporting

Articulatevision and goals

What will the LOTE programme look like?

What willl be achieved?

Monitor,review and act

How is the LOTE programme going?What does the LOTE programme

look like?What is being achieved?

Figure one


Envisioning and Enacting

It is possible to divide the Framework conceptually into two parts: those stages that deal

with the process of envisioning and those stages that deal with the process of enacting.

Envisioning involves determining what the LOTE programme is going to look like, what its

vision and goals are and what its outcomes will be. It requires that information needs be

identified and that connections be made between the LOTE programme and other aspects of

school life, and the wider community context.

The phases of Envisioning are:

■ Identify Information Needs

■ Interpreting and Connecting

■ Articulate Vision and Goals

Enacting is the process of planning and implementing any changes to the school’s LOTE

programme and then reviewing the programme and acting on any modifications that need to

be made.

The phases of Enacting are:

■ Identify Factors

■ Assess Impact

■ Plan and Do

■ Monitor, Review and Act

Schools that are deciding whether or not to implement a LOTE programme, or who wish to

change the emphasis or direction of the LOTE programme, may find it useful to start with

envisioning.

Schools that already have a LOTE programme and wish to determine how effective it is, or

who are quite clear about what they want to achieve in their LOTE programmes, may

choose to start with enacting.

Both the stages of envisioning and the stages of enacting need to be addressed in order to

develop an effective plan.

The diagram on the following page (Figure 2) indicates the processes of envisioning and

enacting.


Envisioning and Enacting

Hogan, J., Norris, L., Norris, N. and Norris, N. (2000). The LOTE Planning Framework: in NALSAS, Using the LOTE Planning Framework, Canberra: DETYA


Interpreting andconnecting

Articulate visionand goals

Identify factorsAssess impact

Plan and do

Monitor, reviewand act

Figure two


What do I need in order to workthrough the Framework?

In order to assist people to work through the stages of the LOTE Planning Framework, a range

of process instruments, tools and proformas are provided in the package to facilitate the

planning processes.

The diagram on the following page (Figure 3) identifies the different instruments provided in

the package, which may be useful for working through the different planning stages.

Instruments listed under a particular stage may also be used in other stages of the

Framework.

The list of instruments provided is not definitive. There are any number of different ways of

approaching each task. Rather than providing an overwhelming number of models and

instruments, a selection of instruments has been chosen to illustrate the issues that arise.

The instruments listed are explained in the package and further clarification of their use is

provided as part of the training programme.

Figure 4 (on page 18) highlights the need to consider who should be enrolled in the various

stages of the planning process.


Instruments for using the LOTE Framework


Figure three


■ Connections Diagram■ A Tool for Defining

Possibilities


■ Developing a Vision■ Sharing the Vision■ Graphing the Change

Equation■ Situation Analysis

Identify factors■ SWOT Analysis■ Fishbone

Assess impact■ Impact/Effort Matrix■ Forcefield Analysis

Plan and do■ LOTE Programme Plan■ LOTE Action Plan


■ Summaries of Research Findings■ Proficiency Potential Framework■ Observation Forms■ Interview Schedule

IdentifyInformation Needs

■ School Profile Proforma■ An Interview Protocol■ The most frequently asked

questions in respect of LOTE


Who should I involve?






Plan and do


Who?Who should be involved in each stage?

Who should be responsible for each stage?Who should be consulted?Who should be informed?

Figure four


Getting started:preparing to use the

Framework


What to doinitially


Ways of using the Packagehis package is designed to be used by a variety of people in a range of different roles. It

is anticipated that LOTE teachers, language advisors and consultants, school executive

members and teachers will be able to use this document for different purposes and in

different ways.

Initial considerationsPrior to commencement, there are a number of questions that need to be considered if the

potential offered through the package is to be maximised. These questions relate to school

and community needs, to roles, relationships and responsibilities, and to the availability of

support. Such questions include:

■ What is the need in the school?

Are you considering implementing a LOTE programme for the first time?

Are you reviewing an established LOTE programme?

■ What is your role?

Are you working to make changes to the LOTE programme in your school?

Are you an external consultant working with a specific school?

Are you intending to run a training programme?

■ Who can you get to support you?

Is the school administration supportive?

Is it appropriate to draw on an external consultant?

Is the community supportive of LOTE?

Can you involve other members of the school staff?

■ Who is your client? Who is your audience?

The answer to these questions will relate to your role and the needs of the school.

Where should you start on the Planning Framework?As mentioned previously, there is no one starting point on the LOTE Planning Framework, it

depends essentially on ‘where the school is at’. For example:

■ Where a school is reviewing its curriculum, the starting point will be Monitor,

Review and Act

■ For a school that is considering introducing a LOTE, its starting point will be Identify

Information Needs

■ For others it may be appropriate for the beginning point to be Articulate Vision and

Goals

T


In each situation, an appropriate starting point for the planning process will need to be

identified. If you are unsure about where to start, the most appropriate starting point may

be Monitor, Review and Act, as this will provide valuable information about the current

school context and assist in identifying specific issues relating to LOTE in the school.

In practice, people working with the Framework may find themselves returning to previous

stages in light of their subsequent work, and working in more than one stage at any one time.

How do I get started?If you are using the package as a basis for an inservice programme, a set of overhead

transparencies and an outline of a training course have been provided at the end of the

package.

If you are working with your own school, turn to the phase of the Planning Framework that

provides the most appropriate starting point for you.

If you are an external agent or consultant working with a school, you may decide to focus

initially on one aspect of the planning process rather than introducing the total package at the

outset.


Collecting baseline data

The following School Profile Proforma (Proforma 1) is a means of collecting baseline data

about a school and its LOTE programme. As well as helping to obtain information pertaining

specifically to a school’s LOTE programme, the Proforma also focuses attention on the

broader school and community context. In addition, it provides valuable information about

people’s perceptions of LOTE.

While the form has been designed for use by an external consultant, its application is equally

relevant for people working within a school, as the information gathered will start to form a

picture of LOTE in the school. It will also begin to give some indication as to LOTE’s status

in the school so as to highlight any issues or inconsistencies relating to the programme.

Most of the questions on the form relate to LOTE programmes that are already in existence.

The form is, however, useful for generating thinking about the factors to consider when

implementing a LOTE programme, particularly in terms of connecting LOTE to other areas

within the school.

The proforma is, of course, able to be modified to suit particular circumstances and different

LOTE teaching and learning contexts.

Proforma 1


School Profile Proforma

The proforma provided below is designed to assist in the information collection process. This

information may be referred to at any stage of the planning process.

School:

Address:

Postcode

Telephone: Fax:

Email:

Contact Person:

Staff Numbers:

Total: Male: Female:

Student Numbers:

Total: Male: Female:

Year Levels catered for by School:

What jurisdiction is the school in?

Proforma 1


Brief description of the student population:

Brief description of the local community (eg socio-economic characteristics):

Proforma 1


Provide details of any LOTE programmes planned/offered at school:

Language NumbersYear Levels involved inthe programme

Number of classes Number of students Number of backgroundspeakers

LOTE 1

(Insert Name of LOTE)LOTE 2


(Insert Name of LOTE)

Provide a brief history of LOTE in the school:

Proforma 1


Using relevant curriculum and assessment frameworks in your system, provide abrief description of the proficiency attainment in LOTE of learners in the school (egupper primary learners are able to engage in short conversations about daily life andcan write short, simple texts that have been repeatedly modelled):

Provide a staffing profile for LOTE in the school

How many full time equivalent teachersteach/will teach LOTE?

How long has each teacher been teaching at theschool?

Which year levels does each teacher teach?

How many classes will each teacher teach perweek?

How many hours will each teacher teach perweek?

What is/will be each teacher’s non-contact timeallocation?

Do/will any teachers have any multilevel classes?

Are any LOTE teachers background speakers ofthe LOTE?

What qualifications/training does each teacherhave?

Is there provision for teacher assistants?And if so, describe briefly how they are/willbe used.

Proforma 1


What are the best things about LOTE in the school? According to whom?

What are the main priorities in the school? According to whom?

Proforma 1


What are the priorities for LOTE in the school? According to whom?

What are the main issues associated with LOTE in the school? According to whom?

Proforma 1


Add any additional information that you consider relevant.

Collect examples of important school and LOTE documents. Some examples of

documentation to collect:

■ The school brochure

■ The school development plan

■ The school charter

■ The school priorities

■ School subject manual

■ School policy manual

■ State/system curriculum documents

■ LOTE department or subject plan

■ Descriptions of LOTE programmes

■ Report forms for the school and LOTE

■ The school’s LOTE policy

■ Anything else you consider relevant


Deciding who to involve

hen starting to use the package it is important to be clear about your role in the

process. As a facilitator of the process, you do not necessarily have to take

responsibility for implementing each phase of the Framework. This is where the

question of who else to involve becomes important, together with determining at what point it is

both necessary and desirable to seek the involvement of other people.

Research indicates that sustainable LOTE programmes generally display a high degree of school

and community involvement. Failure to involve all stakeholders may result in some people

feeling disconnected from the programme. It also may result in the LOTE programme being

regarded as marginal to the school curriculum, rather than an integral part of it.

Introducing the Instruments

To help to elaborate this issue, two instruments have been provided.

The Who Consultation Profile

The Who Consultation Profile asks you to consider who should be responsible for each phase of

the Planning Framework; who needs to be involved in the planning process, either due to their

expertise, or the fact that they will be affected by the decision, irrespective of expertise; and

who needs to be aware or informed of the process that is occurring and the decisions made.

The RASI Decision-Making Instrument

RASI stands for Responsibility, Accountability, Support and Information. It asks you to consider

the question of who should be involved from a slightly different perspective.

W


Elaborating the Instruments

The Who Consultation Profile INSTRUMENT 1

Who Consultation Profile

Who should be responsible in this stage?

Who should be involved in this stage? Who will be affected by the decisions?

Who should be consulted? Who has the expertise we need?

Who should be informed?

The RASI Decision-Making Profile INSTRUMENT 2

The RASI Decision-Making Profile

Who is Responsible?

Whose Approval (or veto) is required?

What Support (people and resources) do you need?

Who needs to be Informed?


The Planning

Framework by phase


Monitor, Review

and ActIdentify

information needs




Plan and do



Monitor, Review and Act

Overview of the PhasePlanning and sustaining LOTE programmes requires constant evaluation of programme purpose

and how that purpose is being translated in schools and classrooms.

This phase of the LOTE Planning Framework involves evaluating a LOTE programme by reviewing

it against the purpose and goals of that LOTE programme in order to determine if modification

is necessary. In a sense, the phase requires a ‘stock take’ of progress and problems so that

additional needs information can be accessed for the next phase.

The need to monitor and review LOTE programmes is ongoing. Thus, while this phase may, in

many instances, form an entry point into the Planning Framework, it will then be necessary to

return, or to refer to this phase regularly. Such re-visits are essential in determining whether

the implementation of a plan has been effective in assisting the programme to achieve its purpose

or whether the plan, or the purpose, need to be reviewed.

Introducing the InstrumentsA selection of instruments or tools has been provided to help with the process of monitoring,

reviewing and acting.

Summaries of Research Findings

Summaries from recent Australian research relating to LOTE, conducted by Simpson Norris

International and Murdoch University have been provided. A list of references has been included

at the end of the package. These summaries can be useful tools within a process of review and

decision making. The summary instruments included are:

■ What the Research Says About Uptake of Languages by Schools

■ What the Research Says About Uptake of Languages by Students

■ What the Research Says About Sustainable LOTE Programmes

■ What the Research Says About Developing Proficiency

These summaries are designed as background information highlighting what to look for in a

LOTE programme in terms of its potential for long-term sustainability and its potential to

produce proficient language speakers.

The Proficiency Potential Framework

The Proficiency Potential Framework is designed to assist in the evaluation of LOTE programmes.

Originally developed as a tool to aid in the determination of the potential for LOTE programmes

to produce proficient LOTE speakers, the Framework focuses attention on all aspects of a LOTE

programme and not just on those factors immediately recognisable as being associated with

linguistic proficiency. Application of the Framework enables a holistic overview of the enhancing

and debilitating elements or attributes of a LOTE programme as it operates within its specific

context.

What does the LOTE programme currently look like?


Observation Forms and Interview Schedules

Observation and interview can be key mechanisms in the process of monitoring and review.

Included in this package are a number of examples of observation forms and interview schedules

that can serve as models for the development of instruments appropriate for any given LOTE

teaching and learning context. The examples included are:

■ A School Observation Form

■ A Class Observation Form

■ Sample Interview Schedule Relating to Learner and Teacher Perceptions

Overhead Transparencies

A set of overhead transparencies relating to the Proficiency Potential Framework has also been

provided to assist in the explanation of the key concepts.



Summaries of Research Findings INSTRUMENT 3

What the research3 says about uptake of languages by schoolsIn making choices about which LOTE to offer, there are a number of factors schools may need to consider:

■ The need to adopt a particular LOTE because of system initiatives or requirements. It may be, for example,that system level policies and directions drive the choice of LOTE. In other instances, however, system levelplanning may inform LOTE choice, but not necessarily determine it.

■ Continuity of language from primary to secondary schools within the same area may be an importantconsideration.

■ Perceived future benefits to students from studying a particular LOTE can also impact on decisions. Theseperceptions, however, may often be based on the values or biases of school decision-makers, rather than oninformed choice.

■ The existence/non-existence/previous existence of a background speaker population at a school can be asignificant factor. The research suggests that changing demographics can impact significantly on thesustainability of LOTE programmes.

■ The resourcing options available to a school are critical factors. While externally funded LOTE programmes(for example, programmes offered through consular agencies) may offer a simple and cheap LOTE solutionfor some schools, the research suggests that programmes implemented on this basis are not generallysustainable. This does not, however, suggest that external support may not be valuable or enhance a LOTEprogramme.

■ Teacher availability and continuity. This is a critical issue for schools and may well impact on the decisionabout LOTE choice. For example, if a school community is confident that a teacher who is a speaker of aparticular LOTE is going to remain within that school community this may affect the decision about languagechoice. From a different perspective, even though a school has access to a background speaker of a LOTE, itmay decide not to choose that LOTE if the school is not confident that the native or background speaker willbe able to really connect with the school and with the learners.

3 Taken from Education Department of Western Australia and National Asian Languages and Studies in AustralianSchools (NALSAS) Taskforce, (1998) Factors influencing the uptake of Modern Standard Chinese, Korean, Modern Greek andGerman at Primary and Secondary Level. Perth: Education Department of Western Australia, Chapter 8.



What the research4 says about uptake of languages by students■ Currently, LOTE uptake at primary level is generally a matter of students ‘doing’ the LOTE that is available as

a result of someone else’s decision-making process. For some children in the early and mid-childhood years,LOTE involves playing games, singing songs, exploring aspects of culture such as food and clothing, andlearning some target language words. There is very little evidence of more than this being achieved in someof these programmes. This is a situation that needs to change.

■ For early adolescent learners, there is evidence to suggest that, at present, ‘doing’ LOTE as described aboveis not meeting the majority of students’ needs or expectations. While student feedback is often not ‘anti-LOTE’, it is often ‘anti-’ doing the same things they have done for years. Older primary school LOTElearners say they want more from their study of LOTE. They want the teacher to use the target language, toreally be able to use the target language themselves, to learn more about target language speakingcommunities and to be treated according to their growing maturity.

■ LOTE uptake by students in the secondary context is significantly influenced by their primary LOTE learningexperiences. The decision to change or maintain the language of study is dependent on a number of factors.In making choices about LOTE, students ask themselves many questions. These include:• Do I like the teacher?

• Do I like the classroom tasks?

• Is the study of this particular LOTE interesting?

• Is it easy or hard?

• Am I making progress?

• Do I have to compete against background speakers?

• Will this LOTE be useful?

■ The research paints a picture of students as reasonably discerning LOTE learners. The decisions they makeare generally informed decisions and have the potential to impact on the sustainability of LOTE programmes.




What the research5 says about sustainable LOTE programmes■ The most sustainable programmes in LOTE are those with a clear rationale, purpose and clearly defined outcomes.

The rationale, purpose and outcomes are well understood and able to be clearly communicated by both the schooladministration and LOTE teachers in the school. The rationale, purpose and outcomes are obvious to allstakeholders including students and their parents.

■ Sustainable LOTE programmes are sufficiently resourced. There is a commitment to adequate and equitabledistribution of resources for LOTE. Where the majority of funding for the LOTE programme comes from externalagencies, chances of the LOTE programme being sustainable are low.

■ Sustainability is enhanced by continuity. This includescontinuity from primary school to secondary school in aspecific language. It also includes clear articulation of teachingmethods and strategies suitable for each level of schooling.Where tasks are not appropriate for various levels, students’enthusiasm and interest is diminished.

■ Long-term, sustainable LOTE programmes are incorporatedand not just integrated. Incorporation means that the LOTEpermeates the life of a school and its community, and thatthere is pride and ownership of the programme by thatschool’s community. Incorporation of LOTE into a school isfar more powerful than the integration of LOTE into otherlearning areas. Evidence shows that where LOTE isincorporated, LOTE is strong.

■ LOTE programmes have far more chance of sustainability when the LOTE teacher feels that he or she is a real andvalued member of the staff of a school, and that the LOTE programme has the same status and profile as otherlearning areas. Where teachers feel ‘marginalised’, the potential for sustainability is diminished. Marginalisation canoccur, for example, when the primary school teacher of LOTE is an ‘extra’ to the staffing allocation and feels thattheir major function is to provide non-contact time for ‘regular’ primary teachers. Marginalisation can also occur insecondary contexts. When a secondary school LOTE teacher provides a ‘drop in’ programme in a primary school,LOTE is also likely to be marginalised and will be seen as being ‘divorced’ from normal school activities. WhereLOTE is treated as an ‘option’ the perception of staff and students can have the effect of marginalising the LOTEprogramme within a school.

■ Quality teaching is critical for the sustainability of LOTE programmes. According to research, the concept ofquality teaching includes having a teacher who:• is committed to the school and its programme

• speaks the language confidently

• is a able to teach and engage learners

• is comfortable with students and is able to give them a sense of comfort

■ A disturbing finding of the research was, however, that in many instances, particularly in primary schools, LOTEteachers seemed to have to give 110% to ensure sustainability.

■ LOTE programmes will only be sustainable if they can maintain an ongoing client base. For students generally, therelevance of the language, the ability to use the language, and evidence of progress in the language are key elementsin continuing with the LOTE and are therefore key elements with regard to programme sustainability.


Exon School had originally been quitetentative about having LOTE integrated with

the curriculum content of other learning areas,but proceeded to do so with middle and upper

primary students. Because of the impact ofthe integrated program, 2 years later, earlychildhood students in the school were also

included in a programme of integrated LOTElearning. The success of the programme was

able to be measured through parental support,student learning outcomes and their obvious

enjoyment of the program, and also, theclassroom teachers’ willingness to be LOTE

learners themselves.


Summaries of research findings INSTRUMENT 6

What the research6 says about developing proficiency■ Proficiency is not just about continuous LOTE study from primary through to secondary education. What is

necessary is cumulative learning.■ Proficiency can be better enhanced through interventions that are able to be applied at different phases of learning

and that have the effect of speeding and enriching the process of language acquisition. Examples of suchinterventions are:• Improved access to, and use of, information technology to provide second language learners with opportunities

to interact with text (particularly viewing text) and with real target language users in overseas target languagespeaking communities

• The use of multiple target language speakers within single formal learning contexts, particularly large classcontexts, in order to enhance interactional opportunities and resources

• In-country experiences that target older learners and that require actual language learning together with theapplication of previously learned language rather than sight-seeing

■ In order for programmes to support proficiency, the programme needs to be embedded within the life of theschool. Embedment is a result of three factors, the context in which the LOTE programme is operating, thelanguage inputs to which learners are exposed, and the learning processes that take place to convert languageinput into intake. This suggests that:• If the context within which a LOTE programme is situated does not totally support that programme and its

students then the potential for proficiency is seriously inhibited• For proficiency to be a potential outcome, listening, reading and viewing text, reflecting a broad range of text

types or genres, needs to be made available to learners• The potential for proficiency is enhanced where teachers and learners are able to know, understand and utilise

language learning strategies. Where teachers and learners are able to talk about, and effectively engage with,the processes associated with language teaching and language learning there are better outcomes

■ In order to maximise proficiency, programmes need to have a deployment orientation. This means learners areable to bring the language into effective use. This is evidenced through the following outputs or proficiencypotential elements:• Ability to use language modes

• Sociolinguistic competence

• Sociocultural knowledge

• Knowledge about the system of the target language and the ability to apply that knowledge

• Attitudinal characteristics that facilitate the attainment and use of the elements listed above

• A context which supports all the other elements

■ Programmes that support learner autonomy and self-directedness have greater potential to produce proficientlanguage learners. The research suggests that learner autonomy does not necessarily correlate with age andcognitive maturity but rather, with classroom expectations and practices, learner attitudinal characteristics andlearners being taught how to learn a language.

■ Proficiency is enhanced where there is extensive target language use in the classroom, where collaborativelearning strategies are employed and where self-access and self-directed learning are an integral part of theteaching and learning environment.

■ There will only be potential for proficiency if learners find their language learning experiences to be meaningful, ifthey are able to relate to what they are doing and if they can build on what they have already done. Learnerswant to be able to communicate with people of similar age and interests both in Australia and overseas and thisexpectation impacts on programme proficiency potential.

6 Taken from National Asian Languages and Studies in Australian Schools (NALSAS) Taskforce, (1999)Pathways for Austraian School Students to Achieve Higher Levels of Proficiency in Asian Languages. Sydney: NewSouth Wales Department of Education and Training, Executive Summary.


The Proficiency Potential Framework INSTRUMENT 7

The Proficiency Potential Framework was developed by Simpson Norris International in conjunction

with the Centre for Curriculum and Professional Development at Murdoch University7. The

Framework emerged out of the Pathways to Higher Levels of Proficiency in Asian Languages research

project that was conducted for the National Asian Languages/Studies in Australian Schools

(NALSAS) Taskforce.

Understanding the Proficiency Potential FrameworkThe Proficiency Potential Framework provides a conceptual framework for describing school LOTE

programmes in terms of:

■ The context in which language teaching and learning takes place

■ The target language input language learners receive

■ The processes operationalised by both learners and their teachers to convert language

input into intake

■ The way learners use the language, ie their output

In addition, LOTE learners are described according to the extent to which they can be

considered as self-directed or autonomous in their learning.

Collectively, this information builds a picture of the solidity or fragility of a LOTE programme.

That is, it enables a programme to be described as either embedded or marginalised.

Language output of learners also enables the styling of a programme as one where there is a

deployment orientation or a non-deployment orientation. That is, a programme where

learners are able to really use the language as opposed to one where there is a focus on just

rehearsing, practising and pretending.

Applying the Proficiency Potential Framework‘Taking stock’ of a programme and being able to style it according to the extent to which it is

marginalised or embedded, and has a deployment or non-deployment orientation requires a

programme review.

ContextIn the first instance, in a review, it is important that the context in which the programme is

located is examined. Does the wider educational and/or political context impact on the

programme? To what extent do local contextual factors exert either a positive or negative

influence? The criticality of context with regard to the development of a sustainable and

successful programme is amply demonstrated by the following examples:

7 National Asian Languages and Studies in Australian Schools (NALSAS) Taskforce, (1999) Pathways for Australian SchoolStudents to Achieve High Levels of Proficiency in Asian Languages. Sydney: New South Wales Department of Education andTraining. Project conducted and reported by Simpson Norris International with the Centre for Curriculum andProfessional Development, Murdoch University, Ch 4 pp 51- 70.


Example 1:

At primary school A, the LOTE teacher is only in the school for 6.5 hours per week as sheteaches at four other schools during the week. She does not have a classroom or a desk. Shesupplies the non-teaching time for the classroom teachers. Two classrooms in the schoolhave examples of LOTE work on the walls, but there is no other evidence of LOTE in theschool. Classroom teachers describe LOTE as not being as ‘academic’ as other subjects inthe school and LOTE is not included on student report cards.

Example 2:

LOTE has been taught in primary school B for over 10 years. It is identified in the schoolplan as a priority area. The principal is extremely supportive of the programme. She islearning the LOTE herself, and often speaks to students in the target language in theschoolyard and runs assemblies in the target language. There are signs in the target languagearound the school as well as photographs of students participating in LOTE cultural days.

The importance of context seems to be readily overlooked in the planning processes undertaken

by both schools and by educational jurisdictions. The impact of contextual factors can, however,

be quite dramatic. It is therefore essential that the process of programme review examines and

attends to contextual issues.

InputThe target language material, or text, to which LOTE learners are exposed, can also have a

dramatic impact on a programme. It can condition the way learners learn (or don’t learn as the

case may be). It can determine the approach adopted by both school and teacher to the

teaching of LOTE. It impacts on what learners are able to do in the target language, and it can

have a profound effect on how learners view target language speaking communities. All of this

highlights the need for the process of review to include an examination of language material and

resources used in a LOTE programme.

The table overleaf demonstrates how input can be used as a mechanism to assist in the review

and categorisation of a LOTE programme.


Focused Input Characteristic of a programme where learners have unintentionally

restricted access to target language input. Programmes where

learners work predominantly from a textbook or from worksheets are

examples of a focused input programme.

Broad Input Characteristic of a programme where learners receive a wide range of

authentic listening, reading and viewing input.

Selective Input Characteristic of a programme where a conscious choice is made to

limit input to enable particular outcomes. Programmes where input is

selected to enhance prospects of success in an examination are

selective input programmes.

Decisions relating to how input is chosen are also fertile ground when evaluating and reviewing a

programme. Who made the decisions about input and on what basis? Teacher? Teacher in

consultation with learners? Teacher in consultation with cost-centre manager? Nobody, because

the books were already there? Such questions and responses can yield important evaluative

information.

IntakeHow learners get to be able to incorporate input into their existing knowledge of, and ability to

use the target language can shed light onto teaching and learning processes and practices. The

conversion of input into intake is critical. Intake refers to that portion of input that learners

attend to and take, first into short-term memory, and subsequently, given the right conditions,

into their interlanguage. Teacher and learner perceptions of this conversion process, and

practices adopted to support this process, have been shown to contribute significantly to how a

language programme is constructed within a school, together with the potential it then has for

embedment and for facilitating good learning outcomes for learners.

The articulation of intake processes by both teachers and learners can provide very useful

information about understandings of how language is acquired. For some, understandings are

limited to the ‘it just happens’ perspective. For others, attitude is considered critical, and for yet

others, there is the appreciation of the complexity of the process.

Asking learners what they can do with the language and how they got to be able to do these

things is a useful question.

You just have to memorise it.

Believe in yourself … believe that you can do it.

It depends on how the teacher makes you feel … like are you comfortable?


It’s good when teachers teach you ways to learn the language like giving youways of remembering words.

You’ve got to learn how to work out from a different structure.

Asking teachers what they do in order to help learners convert input into intake is also useful.

Good question. What do I do?

They do LOTE for an hour.

Where did this come from? I haven’t taught them this.

I don’t know the full answer but in part there is the idea of the real lifetask…that will carry the student forward.

By letting the kids know what they can do…By teaching in context…groupreading…I read them books and the kids guess from cues… and there ismore and more and more …

Emerging from research is a strong correlation in learner and teacher responses. Where

teachers are able to articulate the processes involved in teaching and learning, and are able to

talk lucidly about language teaching and learning skills and strategies, their learners also

demonstrate considerable awareness and knowledge. In general, the converse is also true.

Limited understanding of, and appreciation for, the complexities associated with intake can have

a bearing, not only on learner outcomes, but also on the way in which a programme is perceived.

Administrators, other teachers and even learners, may not consider LOTE deserving of

embedment status.

OutputMonitoring learner output in order to record student learning outcomes is an integral part of

teachers’ work. It is also an essential element of the process of Monitor, Review, Act.

Information about learner output can be collected from a wide variety of sources. Sample

information about learner output, derived from a variety of sources, is presented on the

following page. Information in the left-hand column suggests programmes where learners

actively use, or deploy, the language. The column on the right hand side reflects limited

opportunities and abilities to really use or deploy the target LOTE.


Primary School A Primary School B

Class observation at Primary School Ashowed students who had been learningLOTE for five years speaking in thetarget language for the whole class. Theteacher spoke exclusively in the LOTE.If students asked questions in English,she responded in target language.Students used conceptually completechunks of text. At the end of the lesson,students were able to use chunks of textin new contexts.

Parents also described studentsinteracting with the target languageoutside the classroom: Grade 3 & 5 boystalking, laughing their heads off in the[Target Language].

According to one parent: My son’sgreatest joy is to talk to hisgrandmother – the look on her facebecause she doesn’t speak a lot ofEnglish.

Class observation at Primary School Bshowed a focus on single words. Filesindicate a predominance of worksheetsinvolving a lot of colouring in and singleword responses.

In interviews, students described that byyear 3 they could count to 10, by year 4they could count to 20, year 5 to 30 andyear 6 to 20 or 30. When asked what theycould read, students who had beenlearning LOTE for six years commented:I can read…stuff I’ve been taughtbefore…teeth, mouth, ears, eyes,bodyparts.

Student comprehension was limited.Sometimes I understand when the teacherspeaks...It depends on what she says.Some older learners expressed a desire formore engagement with the targetlanguage: I want more conversation. Atthe moment we know lots of words, but wecan’t have a conversation.

When reviewing second language programmes, and when considering the nature and roles of

input, intake and output, the coffee percolator analogy, though simplistic, can be useful. Input

and existing knowledge (represented by water and coffee grounds) is converted to output (the

coffee) after intake has occurred (ie: the gurgling and percolating process that goes on inside the

machine which represents the learner). A diagrammatic representation of this analogy is included

over the page.

At Holiville Primary nobody bothered toreally work out how much of the LOTE the

kids were actually learning. Yes,everybody was having a great time. The

kids loved all the games they played and thecultural bits and pieces that they were

involved in. The school oozed the flavourof the target language community but …..

after four years, the learners could do littlemore than list some items of vocabulary andrepeat basic formulaic phrases. Failure tomonitor and review resulted in very poor

language learning outcomes for thestudents.


Learner AutonomyNational research demonstrates clearly that ‘best’

LOTE learners are able to self direct their learning and

demonstrate a capacity to move towards being

autonomous. In most marginalised programmes,

learners were either dependent or in co-dependent

relationship with their teachers. Moves towards

autonomous learning were much more in evidence in

programmes which were embedded and which had a

language deployment orientation. The Learner

Autonomy Continuum on the following page enables us

to pinpoint the relationship of teachers with their

learners and also the propensity of learners to be able

to take control of their own learning.

A strong correlation has been shown between the

development of self-direction and autonomy,

programme strength and substantial learning

outcomes.

A LOTE teacher from BeverleyGrammar, who had been introduced tothe Proficiency Potential Framework,realised that she was in a co-dependentrelationship with her students. While

this meant that life was comfortable forboth herself and her students, she alsorecognised that they were not achieving

their full potential. On furtherreflection, she decided that the learning

culture of the school was a culture ofco-dependence and this was why so

many students from the school failedwhen they got to University. She has

now set about breaking the co-dependence cycle and has, as one of

her focuses, teaching her learners howto take more responsibility for their

learning both in, and beyond theclassroom.


Learner Autonomy Continuum8

Dependent Autonomous

Dependence

■ Uncritical acceptance ofprogramme input, whetherbroad, focused or selective.

■ Repetition is major learningstrategy.

■ Belief that involvement inteacher directed activities anddoing homework will lead toachievement of the goal, whichis ‘to speak the language’.

■ Target culture describedstereotypically.

■ Intake is restricted to what thestudent considers necessary tomeet teacher or programmeneeds.

Opting into autonomy

■ Able to articulate broad learning goals,and engage in situations perceived asrelevant to the attainment of these goals.

■ Development of learning strategies basedon growing understanding of language as asystem and personal learning preferences.

■ Realisation that engagement with thetarget language and culture is the key tobeing able to ‘speak the language’.

■ Identification with superficial aspects ofthe target culture either at a personal orvocational level (or both).

Co-dependence

Teacher and student co-operate to meet eachothers needs, which may have characteristicsof autonomy or dependence. Appears to berelated to the importance the two partiesattach to relationships. Since the relationshipcannot be maintained indefinitely, a decisionpoint will eventually be reached.

Transition to autonomy

■ Learning goals become morediffuse and specific as therealisation comes that ‘speakingthe language’ is no longeradequate to describe learnerneeds.

■ Understanding of the need fora literacy rich environment, andthe development of strategiesto extract meaning from thisenvironment and interactsocially within it.

■ Development of relationshipswithin the target culture.

■ Tourist experience of thetarget culture.

Autonomy

■ Takes full personalresponsibility for attainingproficiency levels related toown goals.

■ Understanding of what itmeans to become culturallyliterate in another culture.

■ Process of enculturation andknowledge of how to positionself in another society to learnfrom it.

8 National Asian Languages and Studies in Australian Schools (NALSAS) Taskforce, (1999) Pathways for Australian School Students to Achieve Higher Levels of Proficiency in Asian Languages.Sydney: New South Wales Department of Education and Training. Project conducted and reported by Simpson Norris International with the Centre for Curriculum and ProfessionalDevelopment, Murdoch University.


Building a body of knowledge about teaching and learning practices within a given context is the

essence of programme evaluation and review. Recording that information in a format that

enables a programme to be profiled for embedment and language deployment and to have

significant conditioning factors noted does, however, need to be a relatively simple and useful

process.

Instrument 8, the Proficiency Potential Framework, presented on page 55 enables information about

context, input, intake, output and learner autonomy to be tabulated in such a way.

The examples provided on pages 51 - 54 show how information about a programme can be

tabulated to provide an overview of the strengths and weaknesses of that language programme.

It should be noted, however, that decisions about embedment status and deployment orientation

are not always clear cut. For example, in the one programme, there may be illustrators of both

embedment and marginalisation.

A decision must be made, however, as to whether a programme is either embedded or

marginalised, and what the status is for learners in terms of language deployment and autonomy.

Once tabulated, through the application of the Proficiency Potential Framework as a programme

audit tool, the illustrators can be overviewed and a decision made.


Diagram 1: Proficiency Potential Framework9

PROGRAMME

MARGINALISED EMBEDDED

Marginalisation and Embedment IndicatorsThe extent to which programmes are marginalised or embedded within schools or systems is determined

by factors relating to context, input and the processes associated with the conversion of input into

intake.

Deploymentversus

Non-deploymentorientation

Deploymentversus

Non-deploymentorientation

Deployment versus Non-deployment OrientationPrabhu (1991: 54) defines deployment as ‘a knowledge of the world handled through language’.Marginalised and embedded programmes both have the potential to have either a deployment or non-deployment orientation. Our research indicates, however, that it is only embedded programmes with adeployment orientation that have real potential for proficiency as an outcome for a community of languagelearners.

Deployment orientation is identifiable through elements of output. Output is defined in this frameworkthrough the responses provided by the interviewees. There was consistent reference to the ability oflearners to use language modes appropriately and effectively for real communication. There was also anidentification of the need for this language use to reveal an ever-evolving knowledge and understanding ofthe system of the target language. Also included was the requirement for language use to be appropriatefrom a sociolinguistic perspective. In addition, output was described as needing to reflect a knowledge andunderstanding of the sociocultural or non-linguistic features of target language speaking communities.Finally, output was seen as a reflection of the attitudinal characteristics and metalinguistic awareness of alanguage learner. These elements, together with factors which contextualise output (for example, supportprovided through the environment, the school or system, the home etc) collectively, and in balance,constitute the elements of proficiency identified through this research.

Autonomy ContinuumLEARNERS

Dependence Autonomy

Learners fall along a continuum which runs from dependence to autonomy and which is punctuated byreference points which mark opportunities for learners to develop a codependent relationship, opt forautonomy, or move towards becoming an autonomous learner.

The extent to which a programme nurtures the development of autonomy in learning is linked to thepotential of that programme to have learner proficiency as an outcome.

9 National Asian Languages and Studies in Australian Schools (NALSAS) Taskforce, (1999) Pathways for Australian SchoolStudents to Achieve High Levels of Proficiency in Asian Languages. Sydney: New South Wales Department of Education andTraining. Project conducted and reported by Simpson Norris International with the Centre for Curriculum andProfessional Development, Murdoch University, p 53.


Example 1: Proficiency Potential Framework10

PROGRAMME NAME Eastview (Primary)

MARGINALISED EMBEDDED DEPLOYMENTORIENTATION

NON-DEPLOYMENTORIENTATION

THE LEARNERS

✔

IllustratorsContext■ The principal wanted it to

succeed. She was strong andclear about what was beingdone and why.

■ There appears to be apathway for learners througha local non-government schoolalthough the local secondaryschool did not seem to bereluctant to have to provide apathway for learners fromthe primary school.

■ Best immersion learnersrespected their teacher ��When I go to year 6 and year7 and high school, I wish Icould take him with me.�

✔ Immersion LearnersIllustratorsOuput■ Total target language usage

by teacher �except whenpeople are naughty or whenwe are learning origami�,meant there was a reason forlearners to use the language �to understand the teacher.

■ Learners had no hesitation inusing the language. They werehappy to demonstrate, wantedto use it and were keen tocorrect each other, whichthey usually did. Lots ofevidence of the use of thelanguage.

■ Learners converse on theInternet.

✔Non-Immersion Learners

IllustratorsOuput■ Teacher found it difficult to

describe what learners coulddo � spoke in attitudinal termsrather than about languagemodes. Students talked aboutfun, game playing and the like.

Learners are clustered at thedependence andco-dependence referencepoints.

10 Norris, L.G.B. (1999) Pathways for Australian School Students to Achieve High Levels of Proficiency in Languages Others Than English, Unpublished Ed.D dissertation, Perth: MurdochUniversity.


Example 1: Proficiency Potential Framework (continued)PROGRAMME NAME Eastview (Primary)



THE LEARNERS

InputSelective for immersion learners.■ Total target language input for

immersion learners frombackground speaker teacher and ateacher�s aid and also �we have avisitor once or twice a month andwe ask them questions in Englishand the teacher translates.�

■ Society and environment was thecontent area and input related tothis.

InputFocused for non-immersion learners.■ Principal medium of instruction is

English although the teacher isstarting to pick up on targetlanguage instructions from theimmersion teacher.

■ Some background speaker visitorsused to provide input.

Intake■ Difficult for immersion teacher to

articulate because of limitedEnglish ability. Comments fromlearners include �we guess and tryto work it out�. Immersion learnerattitudinal characteristics seem todetermine the effectiveness ofthe input to intake processeswithin the immersion programme.

■ Immersion learnersdescribed by principal asmore than five times betterthan non-immersion LOTElearners.

■ This programme has openedup positive attitudes towards�Asian-ness�.�


Example 2: Proficiency Potential Framework11

PROGRAMME NAME Riverbank (Secondary)



THE LEARNERS

✔Illustrators:Context■ Even though planning and

implementation were wellresourced, well implemented,and articulated with feederprimary schools, thisprogramme is marginalisedbecause its survival isdependent on the support of adeputy principal. �The idealwould be a little more time inyear 8, but the curriculum isso bound up meeting all thedifferent requirements, itwas a major concession at thetime for all the faculties toagree on the elective line. Istill have to fight to get it upin the electives.�

✔Illustrators:Context■ Well resourced.■ Well articulated with feeder

primary schools.

✔Illustrators:Output■ Output in the programme was

described as �vocabulary andsentence structures.�

■ Best learners made thefollowing comments:• �It�d be fun if it was more

practical.�• �We should be able to read

things.�• �We�d understand a lot

more if we did differentthings other than writing.�

• �I�d like to be able to fit in,live like they do, I�d like tobe able to communicatereally well, understandtheir culture, know thestories behind it.�

■ Learners in this programmeexhibited characteristics ofdependency. Their approachto LOTE was quitemechanistic and routine.

■ Learners said:• �When do we need to have

the homework done?�• �We�re behind schedule,

they want to pump morestuff into you.�

• �It is a bit boringsometimes.�

• �You sit there and writeoff the blackboard.�

• �The family topic drags ontoo long. We only knowpets, families and sport.�

• The teacher said:• �They take things in quietly.

Given a word and astructure and anexplanation, they cansubstitute new words.Then they run with itthemselves.�

11 Norris, L.G.B. (1999) Pathways for Australian School Students to Achieve High Levels of Proficiency in Languages Others Than English, Unpublished Ed.D dissertation, Perth: MurdochUniversity.


Example 2: Proficiency Potential Framework continued

PROGRAMME NAME Riverbank (Secondary)



THE LEARNERS

InputFocused■ Input in this programme is

primarily focused on atextbook and on worksheetsdeveloped by the teacher ��I cobble and adapt.�

■ There was some attention toclassical Chinese poetry, abook of plays and �culture�videos.

■ Students said, �There�s lotsof games because she can�tcontrol the class.�

Intake■ Very much the �It just

happens� perspective. Theteacher described theprocess of how good learnerslearn as �innate.� They are�good overall.� At the lowersecondary phase of learning,she described it as �theability to spend timememorising especially withcharacters.�

■ The teacher said that, �I setstandards and insist theyachieve them, and there�s notmuch singing � it�s not cool tosing.� An additional point was,�It�s important to be able towrite characters well.�

■ �They answer my questions,write characters well.�

■ �Work is well organised� A lotdo extra work � they know mypatterns, and get one jumpahead� I select the mostuseful characters andstructures, I know which theyneed to recognise, otherwisethey�d be overloaded.�


An Instrument to Profile the Proficiency Potential of a LOTE Programme and itsLearners

INSTRUMENT 8

PROGRAMME NAME



THE LEARNERS

Context

■

■

Input

■

■

Intake

■

■

■

Context

■

■

Input

■

■

Intake

■

■

■

Output

■

■

■

■

■

■

■

■

Output

■

■

■

■

■

■

■

■

Dependent, Co-Dependent,Opting Into Autonomy,orAutonomous.

Norris, L.G.B. (1999) Pathways for Australian School Students to Achieve High Levels of Proficiency in Languages Others Than English, Unpublished Ed.D dissertation, Perth: Murdoch University.


O V E R H E A D T R A N S P A R E N C Y

What is the ProficiencyPotential Framework

The Proficiency Potential Framework is a conceptual

framework for auditing a LOTE programme.

It looks at:

■ The CONTEXT in which teaching and learning takes place

■ The target language INPUT language learners receive

■ The processes used by both learners and their teachers to

convert language input into INTAKE

■ The way learners use the target language (their OUTPUT)

■ The extent to which LOTE learners are considered to be

self-directed or autonomous in their learning



Understanding theProficiency PotentialFramework

Embedded vs Marginalised

The terms ‘embedded’ and ‘marginalised’ describe the

solidity or fragility of a LOTE programme.

Whether a programme is embedded or not

depends on the interaction of three aspects of

the programme:

■ the context in which the programme is situated

(ie: Is the overall school environment supportive

of the programme, or not?)

■ the target language input to which learners are

exposed

■ the intake processes by which input is internalised

and transformed so as to be able to become the

output of students




Context

Context refers to the wider educational and political

context in which language teaching and learning takes

place.

If the context in which the LOTE programme

operates does not totally support that programme

and its students, the potential for proficiency to be an

outcome is seriously inhibited.

Factors taken into account include the role of the

principal, economic constraints on the programme,

the position of the LOTE programme in terms of the

operation of the school, and overall school decision

making.




Compare the following two examples:

Example 1:

At primary school A, the LOTE teacher is only in theschool for 6.5 hours per week as she teaches at fourother schools during the week. She does not have aclassroom or a desk. She supplies the non-teachingtime for the classroom teachers. Two classrooms inthe school have examples of LOTE work on thewalls, but there is no other evidence of LOTE in theschool. Classroom teachers describe LOTE as notbeing as ‘academic’ as other subjects in the schooland LOTE is not included on student report cards.

Example 2:

LOTE has been taught in primary school B for over10 years. It is identified in the school plan as apriority area. The principal is extremely supportiveof the programme. She is learning the LOTE herself,and often speaks to students in the target language inthe schoolyard and runs assemblies in the targetlanguage. There are signs in the target languagearound the school as well as photographs of studentsparticipating in LOTE cultural days.



Understanding the ProficiencyPotential Framework

Input

Input refers to the samples of oral, written and

viewed language to which a learner is exposed while

learning or using a particular target language.

Focused Input Characteristic of a programme where learnershave unintentionally restricted access to targetlanguage input. Programmes where learnerswork predominantly from a textbook or fromworksheets are examples of a focused inputprogramme.

Broad Input Characteristic of a programme where learnersreceive a wide range of listening, reading andviewing input.

Selective Input Characteristic of a programme where aconscious choice is made to limit input toenable particular outcomes. Programmeswhere input is selected to enhance prospectsof success in an examination are selectiveinput programmes.



Understanding the ProficiencyPotential Framework

Intake

Intake refers to the that portion of input that learners

attend to and take, first into short-term memory, and

subsequently, given the right conditions, into their

interlanguage.

Interviews conducted with teachers and students as part of

the Pathways project indicate that where teachers show a

good understanding of intake, and of the processes

associated with language teaching and learning, students are

also more able to articulate how they are learning the

language.

Limited understanding of these processes impacts on an

ability to generate, and work in, an environment that

supports the attainment of language competence. It can also

have a bearing on the extent to which a programme is

perceived by administrators, teachers and learners as one

deserving of embedment status.



DeploymentvsNon-Deployment

Deployment Orientation Non-Deployment Orientation

Students are interacting with andthrough meaningful chunks of text.

Students are not exposed to meaningfultarget language usage.

Class observation at Primary School Ashowed students who had been learningLOTE for five years speaking in the targetlanguage for the whole class. The teacherspoke exclusively in the LOTE. If studentsasked questions in English, she respondedin target language. Students usedconceptually complete chunks of text. Atthe end of the lesson, students were ableto use chunks of text in new contexts.

Parents also described students interactingwith the target language outside theclassroom: Grade 3 & 5 boys talking, laughingtheir heads off in [the target language].

According to one parent:My son’s greatest joy is to talk to hisgrandmother – the look on her face becauseshe doesn’t speak a lot of English.

Class observation at Primary School Bshowed a focus on single words. Filesindicated a predominance of worksheetsinvolving a lot of colouring in and singleword responses.

In interviews, students described that byyear 3 they could count to 10, by year 4they could count to 20, year 5 to 30 andyear 6 to 20 or 30.

When asked what they could read,students who had been learning LOTE forsix years commented: I can read…stuff I’vebeen taught before…teeth, mouth, ears, eyes,bodyparts.

Student comprehension was limited.Sometimes I understand when the teacherspeaks...It depends on what she says.

Some older learners expressed a desire formore engagement with the target language:I want more conversation. At the moment weknow lots of words, but we can’t have aconversation.


Observation Forms and Interview SchedulesWhat to look for in a LOTE Programme

In order to be able to evaluate a LOTE programme it is necessary to obtain data about the

programme. The following are examples of different instruments for collecting information. The

instruments can be used in conjunction with the Proficiency Potential Framework. They are

examples which may be adapted to suit your needs and the specific requirements of the school in

which you are working.

School Observation Form INSTRUMENT 9

This instrument is a form that has been designed to elicit information about the status of LOTE

in a school. In analysing this data, conclusions are drawn about the perceived importance of

LOTE to a school, and the extent to which LOTE is considered to be a ‘part of the school’ or

just ‘a tack-on subject’.

Example of a School Observation FormIs there a LOTE classroom? Where is it?

Is there an office for the LOTE teacher/s?

When is LOTE taught? Does LOTE provide non-teaching time for other subjects?

Is LOTE spoken outside the LOTE classroom? By teachers? By the principal? By students?

Is there evidence of written LOTE throughout the school (ie: not just in the LOTE classroom), for example,signs in the target language?

Is there evidence of the school taking part in cultural activities associated with the LOTE?

(Collect examples of important school and LOTE documents. For example, the schooldevelopment plan, school charter, school priorities, descriptions of LOTE programmes etc.,samples of student work and the report forms for the school and LOTE.)

Is LOTE referred to in the school policy or development plan? In what way?

Is LOTE referred to in the school charter? In what way?

Is LOTE considered to be a school priority?

How is the LOTE programme referred to by staff and students?

Are non-LOTE staff aware of the purpose of the LOTE programme?


Class Observation Form INSTRUMENT 10

A class observation form can focus attention on two key areas:

■ The type of target language input students are exposed to

■ Whether the programme has a deployment or a non-deployment orientation

Example of a Class Observation FormDescribe what happens in the class.

What is the purpose of the particular class?

What learning strategies are being used? What is the outcome of the strategies (eg: will students be able to usewhole chunks of text at the end)?

How much time is being spent on ‘language practice’ tasks as opposed to ‘language use’ tasks?

Does LOTE fit into the normal pattern of what happens in class?

Does LOTE fit in with other activities in the classroom?

Describe the interaction between the students and the teacher (eg: are students working in groups, pairs?).

Who do the students speak to during the class? In what language?

How often do they interact with each other and in what language?

Does the teacher do most of the talking? Is this appropriate for the task?

What is the percentage of target language use on the part of the teacher?

How much code-switching takes place, by whom, and when?

Are students exposed to conceptually complete chunks of texts on the part of the teacher?

How does the teacher make the target language comprehensible to students (eg: gestures? pictures?)?

How long do the students have to interact with the target language?

How do students respond in class? Non-verbal responses? Words? Sentences? Meaningful chunks of text?

How formulaic is the students' target language use?

Do the students appear to understand when the teacher talks in the target language?

Are students talking in the target language themselves?

What kinds of tasks are students doing? Writing? Talking? Colouring in? Singing songs?

How much time do students spend on different tasks (eg: oral practice, reading, colouring in or doing worksheets)?

Draw a diagram of teacher/student interaction.

Flick through student files. What is in them? Worksheets, lists of words, meaningful target language?


Interview Schedules INSTRUMENT 11

Information about intake can be obtained through interviews with students and teachers. The

following sample Interview Schedules focus on the respondents’ understanding of the processes

of teaching and learning a second language.

Learner Perceptions Interview to gather information about intakeWhat is it like learning this LOTE?

Tell me about some of the things that you can do in your LOTE.

How did you get to be able to do these things?

What would you like to be able to do in the LOTE?

Is there anything you would change about how you learn LOTE?

If things were the way you wanted them to be, how would this help you to be able to do these things?

Is there anything else that you would like to say?

Teacher Perceptions Interview to gather information about intakeTell me about your LOTE programme.

What happens in the LOTE class?

What can learners in your class do in the LOTE?

What input do they get?

How do your learners convert this ‘input’ into ‘intake’? (ie: How do the learners learn LOTE, as opposed to

how do they, as teachers, help?)

What do you have that contributes to the success of your programme?

Where did you get these attributes?

Is there anything you want to be doing differently in the future? By when?

What do you think you will do to bring this about?

Is there anything else that you would like to say?


ConclusionThe instruments introduced and described in this section of the package can assist and support in

monitoring and reviewing a LOTE programme. Their use facilitates a response to the initial

question posed in this section:

What does the LOTE programme currently look like?

The answer to this question constitutes the review of the programme. The answer also provides

the impetus to act, because the information obtained through review enables a move to the next

phase and a determination of the information that is still required for effective planning. A group

of teachers’ pictorial representation of this process is presented below.


IdentifyInformation Needs




Plan and do

Monitor, reviewAnd act

Identify information

needs


Identify Information Needs

Overview of the Phase

Overview of the phaseThe programme review process yields a great deal of information about how LOTE is enacted in

a particular context. As well as providing information, however, the review process highlights

the need for additional information. Therefore, this next phase of the LOTE Planning Framework is

concerned with that additional information – with determining what information is still required,

together with identifying potential information sources. Sourcing and then accessing all

necessary additional information is a necessary step towards a process of fully informed decision-

making.

Research indicates that very often decision-making processes are not fully informed and that

many decisions about LOTE are made on the basis of opinion. Thus, one person’s perception of

the difficulty of learning a language, or their view of the utility of that language in terms of

economic benefits, may form the basis on which a LOTE programme is continued or

discontinued.

In order for decisions about LOTE to be fully informed, and not made on the basis of opinion,

there is a need for quality information. In the previous section reference was made to the

importance of context in the planning process for LOTE programme sustainability. The

gathering of information about context is critical for effective decision-making. Information on

context has two parts.

On the one hand, there is the analysis of the context in which the LOTE programme is

occurring. It has already been shown that the Proficiency Potential Framework is a useful

instrument for this exercise and for answering questions relating to what has happened to the

LOTE programme in the past. In addition, it is important to gather information that relates to

what is happening in the community and how this might affect LOTE. People’s perceptions about

LOTE, and about what they want for their future and the future of their children, must be taken

into account when decisions are made about a school’s LOTE programme.

On the other hand, there is a need to know about the external context of a programme. For

example: What has been learnt about LOTE? What are the system policies or directions in

respect of LOTE? What constitutes good teaching practice in LOTE?

What information is still needed if we are going to be able to

plan effectively?


Introducing the InstrumentsTo assist with the process of collecting information about context a number of instruments are

provided.

The Proficiency Potential Framework

This Framework and its use are described in the previous section of this package.

An Interview Protocol

This instrument has been included as a useful means of both gathering information and of

identifying additional information needs as they relate to the internal context of a LOTE

programme. The protocol can form the basis of an interview between a consultant and principal,

the basis of a focus group discussion for school decision-makers or as a questionnaire for school

staff to complete. The aim is to choose the questions that are most appropriate to the school

situation and arrange them as desired. In developing a questionnaire for a specific context, it is

important to take into account:

■ the purpose of the questions

■ the audience

■ the form of the questionnaire (ie: interview, survey, focus group questions)

Booklet: ‘The Most Often Asked Questions in Respect of LOTE’

This booklet has been included because it contains short answers to some of the most

commonly asked questions about LOTE programmes.

Other Useful InstrumentsThere are several instruments located in other sections of this package that can be useful in

identifying and collecting information.

■ The School Profile Proforma

This can be found in the ‘Getting Started’ section of this package and can be used to assist with

collecting baseline data about a school and its LOTE programme.

■ The School Observation Form

■ Class Observation Form

■ Sample Interview Schedule

These are all to be found in the ‘Monitor, Review and Act’ section of the package and are useful

instruments for collecting information about the internal context of a LOTE programme.

Visiting and CallingOther ways of collecting information about LOTE programmes might include visiting LOTE

programmes in other schools, talking to LOTE teachers in your district, or telephoning the

educational jurisdictions or universities in your state or territory to find out more about LOTE.



An interview protocol INSTRUMENT 12

A Set of Questions to help identify information needs

The questions below are a guideline for developing an interview protocol to help identify

information needs. They could be used as a basis for an interview, a focus group or in survey

form. Choose questions that are most suitable to your needs and modify, change and

arrange them to create a questionnaire that will suit YOUR purpose and audience.

What are your school’s priorities?

What is the direction for the school?

How does LOTE fit in with your school’s direction and priorities?

Is there a vision for LOTE? Who has determined the vision?

What is the history of LOTE at your school?

Why are you doing LOTE? Why do you want to do LOTE?

How much do you know about LOTE?

What do you think a good LOTE programme looks like?

What are the things that you think might assist you to

achieve your goals in terms of LOTE?

What are the things that might work against you achieving

your goals for LOTE?

Is there anyone outside the school that you can talk to

about LOTE?

Is there anyone inside the school you could be talking to

about LOTE?

Who can you involve in any or all of this process?

Who can you get information from?

Do you know what decisions have to be made in order to implement/review your LOTE programme?

Do you know what the characteristics of an effective LOTE classroom are?

Do you know what the intended outcomes for learners of LOTE are?

How can you find these things out?

What do you think you will do with this information?

At Aldon School, the school executive ensuredthat the school community was provided withan opportunity to be involved in a meaningful

way with the establishment of the school’sLOTE programme. Through meetings and the

distribution of a well-crafted questionnaire,parents were able to express their opinions andalso obtain information from individuals whowere both expert and experienced in the field.This allowed the community to feel that they

had both ownership of, and knowledge about,the LOTE programme.


Example: An Interview ProtocolThis is an example of how Instrument 12, the Interview Protocol, can be modified. The protocol

has been transformed into a survey instrument for use with school staff. The questionnaire

presented below was designed specifically to obtain information from school staff about their

knowledge, attitudes and perceptions regarding LOTE and to look at constructive ways of

supporting LOTE within the school environment.

The following questionnaire has been designed to obtain information about staff attitudes and perceptionsof the LOTE programme at Wiesbaden School. The results of the survey will inform future direction forcurriculum including the place of LOTE within the school. Please answer the following questions andreturn to the marked box in the staff room. All information will remain confidential.

1. Is LOTE a priority in the school? Why/Why not?________________________________________________________________________________________________________________2 What do you know about LOTE? Where did you get this information?________________________________________________________________________________________________________________3. Do you need to know more about LOTE? Why/Why not? Where can you get thisinformation?________________________________________________________________________________________________________________4. How closely do you work with the LOTE teacher(s)?________________________________________________________________________________________________________________5. Do you think all students should learn a LOTE? Why/Why not?________________________________________________________________________________________________________________6. What would you change about LOTE in the school?________________________________________________________________________________________________________________7. How do you see yourself supporting LOTE in the school?________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________8. How do you see the LOTE programme supporting you?________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Thank you for taking the time to fill in this questionnaire.


The most commonly asked questionsin respect of LOTE

INSTRUMENT 13

The following pages provide short responses related

to some of the most often asked questions about

how to plan, implement and review LOTE

programmes. The responses are summaries of

findings from research conducted by Simpson

Norris International.

The new principal of Morrison High took it upon himselfto make the decision to introduce Japanese in the school.

His decision was made without obtaining criticalinformation. He did not investigate the language

offerings of the feeder primary schools (all of whichoffered Indonesian) and he made no attempt to ascertaininformation about teacher availability. As a result of hisuninformed decision there were significant consequences

– disruption to the learning pathway from primary tosecondary school, an inexperienced Japanese teacher

was appointed to the school, and a culture of conflict andcompetition was established in the secondary LOTE

department.


How do you choose the language?Choice of language should be informed by the considerations listed below:

■ All staff should be involved in developing and actioning a planning model and in making

decisions about the programme.

■ Language choice is best made in reference to local factors and considerations

rather than against perceived difficulties of specific languages or other extraneous factors.

■ In choosing a language it is useful to work out if a particular language is of

significance to members of the school or local community. For example, it may

be desirable to establish a pathway between primary and secondary sectors. It may also be

that, in a specific geographic location, a particular language is important, for example,

because of the number of background speakers in the community or the history of the

community. Within a certain school community it may be that there is expertise or

interest in a particular second language. In such situations it would be advantageous to

choose the language that was ‘connected’.

■ An additional, important consideration relates to the skills of staff available to

teach the language other than English. LOTE teachers need to be able to engage and

enthuse their learners and to make the learning experience concrete and meaningful for

students at a range of different levels. Teachers need to be relaxed, accepting persons

who are approachable and interesting to talk to. In almost any language learning

environment, good teaching skills are as important as proficiency in a second language. In

an immersion environment, however, the need for linguistic proficiency becomes very

much more important.

Is there a need to consult with staff?It is crucial to have ALL staff engaged in the decision making process from the very outset.

■ All staff should be involved in developing and actioning a planning model and in making

decisions about the programme.

■ Training for programme implementation should also include all staff.

Failure to involve all staff may result in some people feeling disconnected from the programme

or, in the second language programme itself being regarded as marginal to the school curriculum,

rather than an integral part of it.

Is there a need to consult with parents?Parents have a right to be involved in school decision-making processes. To be able to exercise

this right productively, however, they need to be both fully engaged and fully informed as they

make decisions about the school, and about their children’s individual needs and circumstances.


Should students be consulted?

Often students get left out of school consultation processes. Student responses have, however,

been found to be extremely useful.

■ Students are the consumers of the programme and as consumers they have shown

themselves to be generally very astute and very able to provide effective commentary about

programmes.

■ Students are ostensibly being encouraged and taught to become self-directed and

autonomous and therefore their feedback deserves to be considered and included as a

regular part of any reflective process.

How do you deal with disagreement?

It is probable that a range of views regarding the provision and implementation of LOTE will,

initially, exist among staff and/or parents and students. Because of this:

■ Expect disagreements.

■ Don’t fight them.

■ Allow tensions and issues to be openly explored and expressed.

■ Provide people with information.

■ Value their willingness to engage with the issues and support them in making informed

decisions.

How do you deal with the structural issues?

Like any school programme, the introduction of a second language requires a number of

decisions that impact on the school as a whole. These decisions include:

■ When the programme will be taught?

■ By whom?

■ The size and structure of class groups.

■ Links that will be established with other programmes or activities within the school.

In making these decisions all stakeholders need to be consulted and encouraged to have genuine

input into the processes.


Who makes decisions about curriculum?

The study of a second language has the capacity to do more than provide some degree of second

language competence. It can:

■ Enhance the learning experiences associated with other learning areas.

■ Provide an additional medium through which other learning outcomes can be achieved.

Decisions about how LOTE can best complement, intersect or support other areas of the

curriculum need to be made jointly by all involved.

How do you choose the LOTE teacher?

■ In general, the decision about ‘which teacher’ may be more important than ‘which language’

when implementing a LOTE programme.

■ Research12 studies indicate that the pedagogical proficiency of teachers is critical, and at

least as important than their linguistic proficiency.

How do you get all staff to feel comfortable aboutLOTE?

Staff perceptions about LOTE can impact significantly on the development of a successful LOTE

programme. Involving staff in the planning and decision-making processes leading up to the

introduction of the LOTE, or to a review of LOTE, can help all staff members come to terms

with what LOTE learning means and the issues associated with it. It may be, however, that

further training in some key aspects will be required.

In some programmes classroom teachers, teacher aides, specialist staff and other expert

speakers of the LOTE will have a vital role to play in maximising the success of a LOTE

programme. Attention to training and providing for the professional development needs of these

people is vital.

Induction can provide a mechanism that enables everyone to feel comfortable with his or her

roles in relation to a LOTE programme, and associations with learners of a LOTE.

12 Simpson Norris International (1999) Language Teacher Proficiency or Teacher Language Proficiency: An Environmental Scanof the Qualities, Competencies and Knowledges Required of Language Teachers, unpublished, written for the NALSASTaskforce.

An education support centre interested in including LOTE in its curriculum failed torecognise the importance of the teacher for the success of a programme operating in thiscontext. Because this factor was not identified an unsatisfactory appointment was made— a secondary trained teacher who had had no contact with either primary schools or

education support settings.


How can commitment to the programme be developed?

Initial planning and induction needs to be seen as only a beginning. Decisions should also be

made as to how to best provide appropriate levels of on-going support for all involved in the

programme. It is also important that realistic goals are established and that successes, no matter

how small, are always acknowledged.

Equally important, in developing commitment to the programme, is the provision of open

communication channels so that people have an opportunity to discuss both progress and

problems and so that strategies can be adopted or modified where appropriate, in order to

provide a better, stronger programme.

What makes for an effective second language learning environment?

■ The environment is target language rich.

■ It is a safe and supportive learning environment.

■ The second language is the principal medium of instruction rather than just an end in itself.

■ The focus is initially on understanding, with learners having the opportunity to engage with

a broad range of target language input.

■ It is a place where learners understand that errors are signposts to learning and they are

therefore prepared to ‘have a go’.

■ It is a place where learning experiences are fun, active, stimulating, challenging and often

concrete and real.

■ It is a collaborative environment.

■ It is a place where learning is facilitated by a highly competent teacher.

Can all children learn a LOTE?

Research suggests that children can learn LOTE as well as they can learn anything else. For some

this will be very little, for others they will be able to demonstrate at least significant

comprehension and perhaps a great deal more.13

A quotation from an Education Support principal may be a useful reference point on this issue:

‘Don’t decide what your child is not able to do: Let them decide that.’

13 For further information see Education Department of Western Australia (1999) Two Languages Too: Second LanguageLearning and Children with Special Needs. Perth: Education Department of Western Australia.


What does a ‘good’ second language learning programme look like?

This is a complex question because LOTE can be configured in so many different ways. Some

features that are characteristic of a ‘good’ LOTE programme are listed below:

■ It is embedded within the fabric of the school.

■ There is a deployment orientation with learners being provided with opportunities to

really use all of the language modes.

■ Opportunities are provided for speaking turns to be maximised.

■ Learners are exposed to, and learn to work with, a broad variety of text that enables them

to develop understanding of the socio-linguistic features of the target language together

with sociocultural understandings of, and about, target language speaking communities.

■ Learners are taught how to learn.

■ Learners are provided with opportunities to manage their own learning with autonomous

learning seen as a desirable and achievable goal.

■ Learners are provided with an environment that fosters continuous and cumulative

language learning and where all learners, regardless of prior experiences of LOTE, can

make meaningful progress.

■ There are opportunities for learning and communication to be achieved through the

regular use of information technology.

■ Learners are able to engage in real communication with target language speakers who are

of the same age and have similar interests, either through information technology and/or

through in-country experience.

■ Learning is facilitated by a highly competent teacher.

■ Learners and teachers constantly reflect on the programme and the learning that is taking

place and where this process of reflection can lead to review and change.

■ There are opportunities for LOTE learning to intersect with other learning and other areas

of the curriculum.


Example: The Most Commonly Asked Questions in Respect of LOTEThe following example shows how one educational jurisdiction interpreted the national research

findings presented in Instrument 13 to better reflect the circumstances within their own

jurisdiction.

How do you choose the language?Language choice is best made in reference to local factors and considerations ratherthan against perceived difficulties of specific languages or other extraneous factors.

Benefits ofLOTE learning

■ In choosing a language it is important to avoid stereotyped and simplisticcategorisation of languages. Teaching Japanese has a purpose beyondthe economic one. Teaching Arabic has a broader purpose thanmaintaining the language of its background speakers. Languages aretaught because they have a range of interconnecting benefits:intellectual, psychological, social, economic, strategic.

Significanceof languagelearning tolocalcommunity

■ In choosing a language it is useful to work out if a particular language isof significance to members of the school or local community. It may bethat, in a specific geographic location, a particular language is of specialimportance. For example, there may be a sizeable number of backgroundspeakers in the community, or it is relevant to the history of thecommunity.

Opportunitiesfor developinglanguageproficiency

■ A further consideration relates to the opportunity for students to havecontinuity of LOTE learning beyond the primary school years. Gainingproficiency in a language takes a great deal of time, which can bemaximised by giving students the opportunity to pursue studies in aparticular LOTE across the primary and secondary years of schooling. Inthe process of choosing a language, schools ought to seriously considerwhich language or languages are being offered by neighbouring feederschools.

Teacheravailability

■ An additional, important consideration relates to the skills of staffavailable to teach the language other than English. LOTE teachers needproficiency in the LOTE. They also need to be able to engage andenthuse their learners and to make the learning experience concrete andmeaningful for students at a range of different levels.

Schoolcommitmentto a chosenlanguage

■ Language choice ought to give strong consideration to school commitmentto ensuring ongoing availability of staff with that LOTE and schoolcommitment to maintaining the language chosen.

Support oflanguage bylocalcommunity

■ In choosing a language you need to consider the support of the schoolcommunity. In doing so, it is important to ensure that the process ofconsultation with the school community is an informed one. The goal isnot necessarily to achieve full consensus. It is, rather, to ensure that allparties have the opportunity to inform the decision making process andto be informed of its outcome. In briefing parents prior theconsultation, the benefits of learning any LOTE need to be emphasised sothat competition between LOTEs is minimised.


Conclusion

In this section of the package ideas and instruments have been included to assist with the process

of finding out:

What information is still needed if we are going to be able to planeffectively?

Particular attention has been paid to information relating to both the internal and external

contexts of language teaching and learning. Information needs do, of course, go beyond this, and

there will always be a need to source and use a variety of information about teaching and

learning. It is also particularly important that information about student learning outcomes be

used when planning for an effective LOTE programme.


Interpreting andConnecting

Identifyinformation needs


Plan and do


Interpreting andConnecting

Articulate visionand Goals



Interpreting and Connecting

Overview of the Phasehis phase is about how to interpret and utilise the information collected in the previous

phases, and about how to connect LOTE to the rest of the school and its community.

Having gathered a great deal of information, it is

often difficult to see how it all fits together. It is

also common to overlook the interconnections

between LOTE and other learning areas, other

dimensions of the school and its activities, and the

broader community with its concerns, actions and

initiatives. The aim of this section is to focus

attention onto the areas where possible

connections can be made and how they can best

benefit LOTE learners and the school more

broadly.

Identifying possibilities for connections will, of course, also result in the identification of

barriers. This knowledge is essential for effective planning and for making decisions about

where change efforts can best be concentrated.

Introducing the InstrumentsTwo instruments have been provided in this section.

Connections Diagram

Step 1 is the construction of a Connections Diagram. The construction of a Connections

Diagram provides a mechanism for enabling intersections between LOTE and other areas, or

aspects of the school to be identified. A sample Connections Diagram is provided.

Step 2 involves ‘unpacking’ the Connections Diagram. Having identified the broad areas to

consider through the Connections Diagram, it is then important to articulate key questions and

issues for LOTE that arise where there are intersections. This will enable thinking to be

generated about the types of connections that may be possible in each area, and the barriers to

connecting that may occur.

T

What does LOTE mean and how can it be connected to the

rest of the school?

At Dayton High School, the Head of theLOTE Department is the Head of SOSE.He has no interest in making connections

with the LOTE department for which he isresponsible. His unwillingness to make

connections within his own area ofresponsibility ensures that it is impossiblefor LOTE to make connections with otherparts of the school community. The result

has been that a number of good LOTEteachers have left the school, which now

has a very marginalised LOTEprogramme.


A Tool for Defining Possibilities

Step 3 involves defining possibilities. Once the Connections

Diagram has been constructed and the information about

LOTE has been unpacked and located, a process of Defining

Possibilities for connections and interconnections can then

be undertaken.

This is done by brainstorming possibilities for connection

within each of the broad areas identified through the

Connections Diagram, in response to the key issues and

questions raised in Step 2.

Examples of how different school communities have

interpreted issues and defined possibilities are included on

pages 86-89. Each school community must find its own way

to identify and represent connections.

As part of a professionaldevelopment programme for

LOTE teachers, it wassuggested that the teachersapproach a member of theschool executive to attend aplanning meeting with them.

At the meeting, one of theteachers explained that no

one from her schooladministration was able to

come: I didn’t ask theprincipal because I knew he

would refuse to come and thedeputy principal said thatshe was leaving next term

and wasn’t prepared to takeit on.



Connections Diagram INSTRUMENT 14

The construction of a connections diagram

needs to be a shared activity involving a

range of individuals who, collectively

represent and have the task of identifying

areas both within, and beyond the school,

where there are connections or potential

connections with LOTE.

The connections diagram below recognises that there are potential links between LOTE and

areas such as school assessment and reporting practices, community priorities and interests,

and system requirements or departmental policy. Many more boxes may need to be added

to adequately reflect the connections that could exist for any one LOTE programme.

Connections Diagram

School

LOTE

Other Learning Areas

Community Interests


System Requirements

Other considerations

At Brackville Education Support Centre, theLOTE teacher also has expertise in Art andMusic. This means that the school is able to

capitalise on this and make curriculumconnections with the result that the classroomteachers don’t have to worry about Art andMusic because the LOTE teacher is able to

integrate those dimensions. The result is thatall the teachers are able to capitalise on their

individual strengths, the students benefitfrom teacher expertise, and the curriculum is

much more cohesive.


Once identified, the connections then need to be ‘pulled apart’. Information gathered previously

is then interpreted, sorted and recorded in the appropriate area(s) of connection. Some

examples are shown below:

School

L

System

How will the LOTE teacher

be able to report on 600

learners?

In which areas can firm links

be established – Art?

Music? Maths? Science?

How can we make LOTE

visible and relevant?

Community InterestsOther Learning Areas

LOTE

Assessment/ReportingSystem Requirements


How do we incorporate the

curriculum standards?

Sister school arrangement?

Will the LOTE teacher stay at

the school?


A Tool for Defining Possibilities INSTRUMENT 15

This instrument takes the information from the connections diagram and uses it to generate

thinking about specific possibilities, or ways, in which LOTE could be connected to the wider

school and its community. Possibilities can be recorded and their ramifications tracked. This is a

valuable exercise as a precursor to further planning.

A Tool for Defining Possibilities

Assessment/Re System

Defining Possibilities Defining Possibilities

May be possible to find abackground speaker in thecommunity who is willing to beinvolved in the programme.

This person may also be able tobe involved with another learningarea eg Technology andEnterprise to develop a websitein Indonesian.

SchoolL

LOTE


Community InterestsOther Learning Areas


SystemAssessment/ReportingSystem Requirements


SystemDefining Possibilities

The LOTE teacher teaches 600kids and provides non-contacttime. Maybe classroom teacherscan stay in class for one sessionto help evaluate student learning.


Examples: Connections Diagram

■ P R = Physical Resources

■ A&R = Assess & Report

■ S O = School Organisation

■ F S = Feeder Schools

■ C I = Communities Interests

■ S R = System Requirements

■ + / - = Connecting all stakeholders with + and � information flow

■ L&T = Learning and Teaching

Students Staff

L&T

Culture

?

?

PR

A&R

SO

SchoolOther KLAs

FS

LOTE

System Support

CI

Culture

SR

+/-



LOTE� Staffing� B/S Class Teach

Reporting &Assessing

HighSchool

Community� Background� Expectation

Learners K2 Bilingual 3-6 � Arabic � Vietnamese � Choice Equity Issue

PrimarySchool Other Learning Areas

� Literacy links � Community expectations

LOTE � Arabic � Vietnamese

Integration

Continuity

SystemResourcing



School: Private,Primary

System Requirement(School + Government)


�Real� KLA�s

�Extra� KLA�s:Music, Art

Teachers(Competition:

Asian vs EuropeanLanguage)

Inter FacultyCompetition

CommunityInterests

LOTEJapanese


Examples: Connections Diagram1: Not all students will be satisfied2: Community expectations vary, based on their own background3: Parental pressure on children to study family language

Someone will lose theirarea of expertise

(language))

Vietnamese

Japanese

German

French

Spanish

System Requirement

Primary School

LOTE Mandatory Requirement& LCI Requirement

Both HS & PSneeds to be

satisfied

Changes to classFormation/Curriculum

organisation

Staff Curriculum & KLAs

Students

Community

1

2

3


ConclusionThe information and tools included in this section of the package serve to:

■ Highlight the fact that decisions about LOTE cannot be made in isolation from the rest of

the school and its community

■ Provide a structure to locate information that has been previously collected

■ Generate and define possibilities for action and interconnections for the potential benefit of

all stakeholders

Through this ‘mapping’ process

What LOTE means within a given context can be clarified.

In addition, possibilities for

How LOTE can be connected to the rest of the school

and to the wider community can be formulated. This process of identifying connections and

establishing possibilities for these connections is an important stage when beginning to formulate

a vision.


Articulate Visionand Goals


Plan and do






Articulate vision and goals


This phase involves envisioning both what the future state of LOTE might be and how this

state can be attained.

Research indicates that many language programmes currently exist

in either a goal/purpose vacuum, or in some state where goals and

purposes are ill-defined and mean different things to different

stakeholders.

Envisioning a future state is often difficult for individuals and groups

in a well-established culture.

Where a school is able to articulate the way things will be at some

future point in time, it has effectively established a clear goal to

work towards.

This will not be a goal for the LOTE programme in isolation, but will be a future state that

takes into account the following:

■ Conflict of competing demands on the school’s time and resources

■ The nature of the clientele

■ Demands of government and community


To help with this phase, we have provided a number of instruments:

Developing a Vision

This instrument provides a process for developing a vision. This visualisation process aims at

generating creative thinking about the future state of LOTE.

Sharing the Vision

In addition, there is a process for sharing the vision. This has developed from the recognition

that LOTE programmes are most effective when there is a shared goal or purpose for the

programme, that is accepted and ‘owned’ by the whole school.

What will it look like?

Principals and LOTEteachers required to attend aLOTE Planning Forum were

asked to write downindividually the purpose of

their LOTE program. Therewas an overwhelming lack ofcongruence between what theLOTE teachers wrote as the

purpose for their LOTEprogrammes and what the

principals wrote.


Connecting the Vision

The process for connecting the vision links back to the previous

phase of the Planning Framework, ‘Interpreting and connecting’. The

aim is to ensure a vision for LOTE that is incorporated into a whole

school context.

Situation Analysis Proforma

The Situation Analysis Proforma helps to draw connections between

the current situation and the desired future state. It is useful for both

articulating and clarifying the vision, and as a ‘checklist’ for connecting

the vision to the wider school context. Some people may find it a

good starting point for developing their vision. It also provides a

means of identifying the actions that might need to be undertaken to

achieve the goal (see the ‘Plan and do’ phase) and the factors which

may impact on the attainment of the goal (see the following section

on ‘Identifying factors’).

Graphing the Change Equation

This instrument enables a school to get a picture of what the LOTE programme currently looks

like in terms of the Proficiency Potential Framework, what they want it to look like, and what areas

need to change.

At Grangeham, theschool’s vision is tohave all aspects ofschool life – both

curricular and co-curricular –

connected throughthe vision of students

learning to be self-directed. Because thisvision is shared by all

staff, and also bystudents, everyone inthe school shares the

“language” of thevision. There is an

overall sense ofcohesion in the school

with each learningarea able to

articulate that broadvision in relation to

its own goals.



Developing a vision INSTRUMENT 16

On your own, work through the following visualisation process:

■ How do you visualise the LOTE programme in 3 to 5 years time?

■ What does the school look like? Sound like? Has it changed in any way?

■ How can you tell LOTE is being taught in the school?

■ Where is LOTE taught?

■ What is the main focus of the LOTE programme?

■ What does the LOTE classroom look like? What can you hear?

■ How many expert speakers are in the classroom?

■ What is everyone doing?

■ What is being achieved in terms of student outcomes?

■ What is the school doing to support LOTE?

■ What are people saying about the programme? The principal? The LOTE teacher? The parents? The

students?

■ What is the general feeling about LOTE in the school?

The examples of visioning documents on the following pages were developed by two LOTE

teachers using the above process.

Once you have an idea of what might be happening in the LOTE programme, it is time to talk to

other people about their vision for LOTE. The following is a ‘jigsaw’ process that can be used to

share the vision.


Examples of vision


Sharing the vision INSTRUMENT 17

Each person involved in the visioning process should find one other person to talk to about his or her vision:

■ What do they see happening with LOTE in 3-5 years?

■ Tell them what you see.

■ What are the commonalities?

■ What are the differences? Why and what does this mean?

■ What are the best bits of both visions that you would want to keep?

Each pair should then connect with another pair and go through the same process. Then the groups of four

connect with another group of four and repeat, until there is one large group.

On the following pages are two examples of shared visions developed by secondary LOTE

teachers as part of a professional development programme. The first example focuses on the

teachers’ goal of developing autonomous learners. The second group portrayed their vision in

terms of a movement from the marginalisation to the embedment of LOTE in their schools.


Examples of vision

U S I N G T H E L O T E P L A N N I N G F R A M E W O R K 1 0 0

Connecting the vision INSTRUMENT 18

The process of connecting the LOTE programme to the overall school programme, through a

shared vision, requires a number of critical decisions that should be made through wide

consultation and with reference to the connection possibilities previously defined.

The following decisions need to be made if connections are to be viable:

■ Which language will the school teach?

■ Who will teach LOTE?

■ What will the structure of the programme look like?

■ What will other teachers be doing?

■ How will LOTE fit in with the rest of the curriculum?

■ What will the LOTE programme do to support the priorities of the school?

■ How will LOTE outcomes be assessed?

■ How will this information be reported to students and parents?

Situation Analysis INSTRUMENT 19

When using a Situation Analysis to articulate and clarify the vision, and as a checklist for

connecting that vision, it is important that the headings included on the proforma are reflective of

the particular circumstance.

The arrows in the middle column of the proforma are designed to draw attention to any factors

that may impact on your potential to achieve your vision. This information will be utilised in the

next phase of the Planning Framework, ‘Identify Factors’. It is also designed to make it easier to

make the connections between the actions that need to be undertaken in order to change the

current situation to the desired future state. This information can then be drawn on in the ‘Plan

and Do’ phase.

The sample proforma included over the page should not be randomly reproduced but rather, is

best used as a guide with regard to the headings that might be inserted for use in a particular

school or programme.


Situation AnalysisUse Measurable Terms eg units, value, size, dollars, rates, and specific outcomes. Use a large sheet of paper and work together.

THE SITUATION NOW FACTORS VISION FOR THE FUTURE

STUDENTS

• Outcomes

• Perceptions

• Attitudes

• Learning Activities

SCHOOL SUPPORT

• Involvement of classroomteachers

• Support from administration

• Involvement of parents andschool community

RESOURCES

• Funding

• Staff resources

• Teaching resources

• Classroom environment

• Training


Example: Situation Analysis

Situation AnalysisCedardale Senior High School

THE SITUATION NOW (Year 9 Learners) FACTORS VISION FOR THE FUTURE

STUDENTS

• Outcomes

• Perceptions

• Attitudes

• Learning Activities

• Limited words/phrases in lower secondary

• Year 9s, particularly boys, see LOTE as irrelevant

• Poor, year 9 boys disruptive in class

• Described predominantly as boring

Learners will see some relevance to LOTE, theywill be engaged in tasks they enjoy doing and willdevelop more positive attitudes to LOTE and topeople from other cultures.

SCHOOL SUPPORT

• Involvement of classroomteachers

• Support from administration

• Involvement of parents andschool community

• Non-LOTE teachers have no involvement in LOTE

• Extensive support & mentoring from deputy principal

• School communities have endorsed school plan

That language teachers will be able to worktowards the above vision on their own withoutextensive support and mentoring from thedeputy principal.

RESOURCES

• Funding

• Staff resources

• Teaching resources

• Classroom environment

• Training

• Additional funding in excess of $10,000 obtained tosupport mentoring and professional development ofteachers because year 9 students deemed �at risk�.

• Background and non-background speakers of Asianand European languages, deputy & School Counsellor

• Essentially focused input• Standard senior high school layout: 2 rooms,

designated for LOTE• External experts, counsellors brought in to

provide PD

Staff can operate effectively without externalsupport and they are able to develop/accessteaching resources that provide learners withbroad input.


Graphing the Change Equation INSTRUMENT 20

This instrument is designed to provide a visual image of where the LOTE programme is

currently situated in terms of:

■ Marginalisation/embedment

■ Deployment/non-deployment

■ Dependent/autonomous learners

and the desired future state of the programme.

To use it, locate your LOTE programme along the continuum from marginalisation to

embedment and mark it with a pen. Then, using the same method, locate your programme

along the continuum from deployment to non-deployment. Do the same for the dependence

to autonomy continuum. Then connect the three marked positions to form a line. The next

stage is to determine where you want your programme to be in terms of the marginalisation-

embedment continuum, the deployment-non-deployment continuum and the dependence-

autonomy continuum. Mark each of those desired positions. Then connect these three

positions. The resulting graph makes it easy to determine which areas of the LOTE

programme need the most work.


Graphing the Change Equation

Autonomy

Marginalised Embedded

Non Deployment Deployment

Dependence Codependence Opting into autonomy

CURRENT STATE FUTURE STATE

Indicators•••

Indicators•••

Indicators•••


Example: Graphing the Change Equation

Blackville High

Autonomy

Marginalised Embedded

Non Deployment Deployment

Dependence Codependence Opting into autonomy

CURRENT STATE FUTURE STATE

Indicators� Too many languages offered (5) with the result that upper secondary courses are non viable� LOTE teachers compete with each other rather than support each other

Indicators� In some classes, in some languages learners are provided with real opportunities to

use the language� Older learners have real contacts with target language speaker communities through

technology

Indicators� Older learners forced toward co-dependence in order to satisfy the demands of external examinations for

university entrance


ConclusionThe question posed at the start of this section,

What will it look like?

seems to be asked all too infrequently. It is hoped, therefore, that the information and

instruments contained in this section will help people think beyond habit – beyond what already

exists and beyond their own particular domain and specific interests.

Working towards a common goal with shared purposes can provide an environment that is

stimulating, challenging and enjoyable. Envisioning a future state should be a positive process

with the promise of tangible benefits for all concerned.


IdentifyFactors

Identifyinformation

needsne

Assess impact

Plan and do




Identify Factors


Identify Factors

Overview of the PhaseIn this phase, we move from the processes of envisioning

to the processes of enacting. Having developed a vision,

it is now necessary to determine what factors will either

hinder or promote the attainment of that vision.

Factors identified can be at several levels:

■ Factors impacting on the distribution of resources

and support for the various programmes that the

school offers

■ Factors impacting on either outcomes or desirable characteristics of a language

programme

■ Factors that impact on the school facilitating the achievement of desirable outcomes for

students

Introducing the InstrumentsTwo instruments are described in this section, but it needs to be understood that the process of

moving from envisioning to enacting will require reference to other instruments and their

previous application.

SWOT Analysis

The first instrument to be described here is a SWOT Analysis. The SWOT Analysis identifies

the internal aspects (Strengths and Weaknesses) of a school or LOTE programme that may have

an affect on the attainment of the programme’s goal. It also identifies the external events and

possibilities (Opportunities and Threats) that might impact on the goal.

Fishbone Diagram

An example of a Fishbone Diagram has also been included. The aim of the Fishbone Diagram is

to identify the factors that work to promote the goal (ie: a successful LOTE programme). The

benefit of the Fishbone Diagram is that it provides a means of grouping the factors that need to

be considered when making decisions about LOTE, thus facilitating the process of developing

strategies to address those factors in the final plan.

The Most Commonly Asked Questions in Respect of LOTE

The Booklet, The Most Commonly Asked Questions in Respect of LOTE, (see ‘Identify Information

Needs’), can be used as a resource to help identify factors that might promote or hinder the

achievement of the programme’s goals.

What factors need to be considered to achieve our goals?

The principal of Clopvale was all tooaware that there were a number of

factors that hindered the attainment ofher vision of Clopvale as having a

sustainable LOTE programme that wasable to provide learners with quality

teaching and continuity. She knew thathaving only a part-time coordinator,

having teachers on short-term contract,and having no guarantee of continuousfunding were factors that needed to be

addressed.



SWOT Analysis INSTRUMENT 21

The SWOT analysis is best done after, rather than

before, the envisioning process. Allowing people to

have the freedom to engage in the envisioning

process provides a positive direction. Undertaking

a SWOT without the vision may be limiting, as it

has the potential to focus attention on those factors

that hinder, rather than promote, the attainment of

the goal.

When tackling the Strengths and Weaknesses components of the SWOT, a programme

profile generated through the use of the Proficiency Potential Framework (see ‘Monitor,

Review, Act’) will be useful.

When engaging with the Opportunities and Threats components, reference back to the

information identified as necessary for decision-making will also be useful (see the phase

‘Identify Information Needs’).

It may prove to be useful for a number of individuals to undertake a SWOT as this will allow

different perspectives to emerge in spite of there being a shared vision.

Kurenmukin is a small ruralcommunity. The establishment of asuccessful LOTE programme in this

community was assisted by the schoolrecognising that the LOTE teacher

needed to be a long-term resident inorder to guarantee continuity.


SWOT ANALYSIS

STRENGTHS WEAKNESSES

OPPORTUNITIES THREATS


Example: SWOT

SWOT ANALYSIS

STRENGTHS WEAKNESSES

� Supportive principal

� Equitable resourcing

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

� Classes conducted in non-contact timeof classroom teachers

� Teacher has temporary teacherstatus

�

�

�

�

�

�

OPPORTUNITIES THREATS

� To negotiate with Departmentabout temporary teacher status

� Review timetabling structure

�

�

�

�

�

�

� Teacher has recently married andwishes to have a family

� Department policy on temporaryteacher status has been inflexible inthe past and is currently considered�in limbo�

�

�

�

�

�


Fishbone Diagram INSTRUMENT 22

A Fishbone Diagram is yet another way to focus attention on the positives more than the

negatives. It is about promoting the vision and seeing LOTE as a success. It also stresses the

importance of making connections between LOTE and other areas of the school.

To create your own Fishbone Diagram, identify the key areas that will need to be taken into

consideration in promoting a sustainable LOTE programme. These are the large ‘bones’ on the

diagram. Then identify the important elements that will impact on those key areas. These form

the smaller ‘bones’.

The example included in this package is taken from LOTE in an education support setting.14 It

identifies broad areas for consideration and then the specifics that relate to each area. The

construction of a Fishbone Diagram for a given context is a useful way of identifying impacting

factors.

14 The terminology varies from state to state. This refers to students who have difficulty achieving in academic contexts.


Design Your Own Fishbone

FACTORS PROMOTING A SUCCESSFUL LOTE PROGRAMME


Example of a Fishbone DiagramThis example of a Fishbone Diagram is taken from an education support setting.15

IEPs = Individual Education Plans

ConclusionAnswering the question,

What factors need to be considered to achieve our goals?

is a very necessary part of the planning process. Without the identification of all impacting

factors it becomes difficult to move to the next stage. This is because the way each factor

impacts on the enactment of the vision can have a profound influence on the achievement of the

goal.

15 Education Department of Western Australia (1999) Two Languages Too: Second Language Learning and Children withSpecial Needs. Perth: Education Department of Western Australia. Project conducted and reported by Simpson NorrisInternational with the Centre for Curriculum and Professional Development, Murdoch University.

Integrates LOTE - Evenif small way in otheractivities beyond LOTEclassroom

Learnerof LOTE

Observer ofstudents

Collaborateswith LOTEteacher

Understandspurposes ofLOTE

Understandspotential ofLOTE

Supporter ofLOTE

Flexible

Empathy, rapportwith students

AdequateLOTEknowledge

Reflectivepractice

Expertisein LOTEmethodology

Understandspurpose andpotential ofLOTE

Observer ofstudentlearning

Collaborateswith LOTEteacher

Successful

Learning

Enjoyment

Reinforcement

Support

Relevance

SupportsLOTE

Understandspurpose ofLOTE

Informed ofstudent progress

Knowledge ofsuccessfulprogrammeselsewhere

Involvement in class

Consultation

Recognisedpart of curriculum

Share of resources

Part of the planningprocess

Connection toschool purpose

IEPs

Studentreporting process

Displays ofstudentperformance

Practicalactivites

GenericLearning skills

Literacy

Standardsin mixed abilitygroups

Other learningissues

Socialskills

FACTORS PROMOTING A SUCCESSFUL LOTE PROGRAMME

CLASS TEACHER LOTE TEACHER OTHER SUPPORT STAFF STUDENTS

TEACHING &LEARNING

SCHOOL COMMUNITY

Willing tocontributeto otheraspects ofschool

Supporterof LOTE


AssessImpact

Identify factors

Assess impact

Plan and do


Assess impact




Assess impact


Assess Impact

Overview of the PhaseDetermining how the factors identified in the previous

section might impact positively or negatively on the

attainment of the vision is the focus of this phase. The aim

is to identify where best to start in terms of implementing

the plan and how to proceed so that maximum benefit can

be gained for minimum effort.

As a result of this phase a school will be able to prioritise the

factors according to the impact each factor will have on what

they are trying to achieve, and the effort it will take to influence

the factor. It is then possible to focus on those factors which

are relatively easy to influence, (low effort), and which are

assessed as having a significant impact on the ability to achieve

the desired outcome.

Introducing the InstrumentsTwo complementary tools have been provided to assist with

this phase, and each is elaborated at length.

Forcefield Analysis

The aim of a Forcefield Analysis is to weaken or remove one or more forces, which act to workagainst the achievement of the goal, and/or to strengthen forces, which can drive towards theachievement of a goal.

Two examples of the Forcefield Analyses can be found on pages 121-122. Both clearly identifythe factors which work towards the achievement of the goal and those which work against it.Such clarity in a Forcefield Analysis is not always possible. In both cases, the clarity is a result ofthe analyses having being done by a consultant external to the school system.

Impact/Effort MatrixIn using the Impact/Effort Matrix, the aim is to take the factors identified in the previous phaseand plot them according to the potential extent of their impact on the attainment of the desiredgoal and the potential effort required to address the factors.

Planning priorities thus focus on factors that will have a high impact on achieving the vision butwill require little effort.

To illustrate the use of the Impact/Effort Matrix, key factors from one of the Forcefield Analysis

have been plotted onto a matrix.

How do these factors impact on our situation?

The LOTE teacher at Bunalong recognisedthat he was carrying the LOTE programme.The Departmental transfer policy meant thatthere was considerable likelihood of him beingtransferred, and for the LOTE programme to

then fall into a hole. By recognising thepotential impact of this factor, he was able totake steps to ensure that other members of the

school community were able to takeresponsibility for elements of the LOTE

programme, thereby lessening the potentialimpact of his transfer.

.The principal at Blackville High realised

that the school could no longer pretend thatthere wasn’t an issue with LOTE. The

school would have to ‘bite the bullet’ andreview the number of languages offered, and

the quality of the LOTE programmesavailable, in order to provide for

sustainable LOTE programmes in the uppersecondary years. Action would have to be

taken but there would be an impact. Part ofthe impact would be language teachers

without languages to teach. How to dealwith this issue in a fair and equitable way,

and how to re-deploy these people in ameaningful way was part of the impact

assessment that needed to be done.



Forcefield Analysis INSTRUMENT 23

Kurt Lewin designed the Force Field Analysis as a tool that could be used for developing an

understanding of a problem situation and identifying possible courses of action. It is designed to

help achievement towards a goal.16

The Force Field

The restraining forces are represented by the arrows pointing downward on the equilibrium

line. These are forces existing in the situation, which push the equilibrium away from the goal.

Driving forces are represented by the arrows pointing upwards towards the goal. Arrows

differing in length represent forces of different strengths.

Some forces operate in direct opposition to others and can be shown as pushing against one

another. Lewin assumed that any situation always included forces pressing in both directions and

that it was the outcome or resultant of these forces which held the quasi-stationary

equilibrium in place. The entire diagram is referred to as the force field.

16 Lewin, K. (1997) Resolving Social Conflicts and Field Theory in Social Science. AM Psychological Association.

GOAL (preferred state)

Restraining Forces(working against the goal)

Driving Forces(working towards

the goal)

Quasi-StationaryEquilibrium(current state)


Using the Model

The usefulness of the model lies in the theory that the quasi-stationary equilibrium will move

nearer to the goal in response to the following process.

■ Weakening or removing one or more of the restraining forces and/or strengthening

existing driving forces or introducing a new driving force.

■ The object is to identify which forces can and cannot be influenced and invest your time

and effort in the former.

■ The first step in using the model requires specifying the quasi-equilibrium state, the goal,

the restraining forces and the driving forces. Remember to identify human beliefs and

attitudes when specifying the forces.

■ The final step involves deciding on a course of action that is most likely to succeed. Lewin

took the view that it was better to remove or weaken a restraining force than to

strengthen or introduce a driving force.

This is based on the belief that the more forces there are in a system, the more tension there is

and therefore the less likelihood of a shift in the quasi-stationary equilibrium.

Brainstorming

Brainstorming is a simple but effective technique that is very helpful in doing a Force Field

Analysis. Here are some guidelines:

■ Move quickly from one person to the next, asking every person, in turn, for an idea.

■ Do not allow any comments, praise or criticism about the ideas. Every idea is acceptable.

■ Have participants say ‘pass’ if they don’t have an idea.

Doing a Force Field Analysis

Step 1 Identify and label your present state and desired outcome in

quantifiable/measurable terms

Step 2 Brainstorm the driving forces and the restraining forces

Step 3 Discuss the items on both sides, and select the forces you can affect or control

Step 4 Design an action plan which will remove restraining forces and/or strengthen

driving forces. (see the ‘Plan and Do’ section)


Force Field Worksheet

Define the Driving Forces that will promote the achievement of your desired outcome and the

Restraining Forces that will work against you achieving that outcome. Draw an arrow to

represent the strength of those forces, the longer the arrow, the greater its impact.

Present State:

Driving Forces Restraining Forces

Desired outcome:


Example 1: Forcefield Analysis, Rollington Community School

Present State: LOTE taught years 1 � 9. Deployment orientation but a marginalisedprogramme. Programme will fold if the LOTE teacher leaves and a �clone� cannot befound.


Teacher very enthusiastic and gives morethan 100%

Children enjoy learning LOTE

School provided new room for LOTE

Deployment orientation in classroom

Broad target language input withmultiple target language text types used

Collaborative learning strategies used

Teacher has independence to make owndecisions

Teacher gives more than 100%

LOTE teacher only person in school withownership of LOTE programme

LOTE teacher does not have any controlof own budget. She often does not knowhow much money is available to LOTE andoften buys resources from her ownpocket.

LOTE not considered same status asother learning areas.

Other school staff not supportive ofLOTE

LOTE teacher not involved in whole schooldecision-making

No integration of LOTE across thecurriculum

Principal supports teacher by �stayingaway�

Desired outcome: Embedded LOTE programme notdependent on the LOTE teacher


Example 2: Forcefield Analysis, Santa Costa College (Primary)

Present State: LOTE programme marginalised and non-deployed. Programme only taughtin years 5 � 6 and taught by a high school teacher


Principal very supportive

School board has endorsed LOTE from year3 onwards

Classroom teachers expressed desire forinvolvement with LOTE, including giving uptheir non-teaching time.

Access Asia Programme already a priority inthe school.

State supports other ways of supplying non-teaching time.

Principal prepared to allocate resources toLOTE.

Clear pathways to high school.

LOTE teacher from high school unable toattend staff meetings and unfamiliar withprimary pedagogy.

LOTE teacher doesn�t believe youngchildren can learn a LOTE.

LOTE teacher resistant to classroomteachers watching her.

Focused input-only one text book used.Teacher is the primary source of targetlanguage input. Teacher makes onlylimited use of target language whenteaching.

State policy is that LOTE supplies non-teaching time for schools.

Lack of pedagogical continuity betweenyear 5 and year 6. Year 5 LOTE regardedas �fun� by students. Year 6 LOTEregarded as boring. Lack of continuity isdue to LOTE teacher�s belief that year 6students need to prepare for high school.

Desired outcome: An embedded LOTE programme with a deploymentorientation for years 3 to 6.


Impact/Effort Matrix17 INSTRUMENT 24

IMPACT

High Medium Low

Low Planning priorities would focus

on the factors rated in this box

Medium

High

17 The ‘Impact Effort/Matrix’ has been adapted from the ‘Prioritisation System’ in the Motorola University (1993) Cross Functional Process Mapping.Facilitator Guide – Total TimeImplementation Workshop. Issue Number 3, February 1993.

Goal –

Desired future

state to be

attained

EFFO

RT


Example of an Impact/Effort Matrix18: Santa Costa College (Primary)

IMPACT

High Medium Low

Low � Change the LOTEteacher to a primarytrained LOTEteacher*

Medium � Retrain current LOTEteacher

High � Change state policyon LOTE and non-teaching time

* Just because this option falls into the category of high impact/low effort does not mean it will be the most appropriate option for the school.

18 The ‘Impact Effort/Matrix’ has been adapted from the ‘Prioritisation System’ in the Motorola University (1993) Cross Functional Process Mapping.Facilitator Guide – Total TimeImplementation Workshop. Issue Number 3, February 1993.

Goal –

Desired future

state to be

attained

EFFO

RT


ConclusionAt the heart of the processes discussed in this section is not just the question,

How do these factors impact on our situation?

but rather the notion of making maximum inroads towards the goal for minimum effort. An

important aspect of this approach is that the change process is manageable and not

overwhelming. There is also a focus on the successes and not on the impediments. Obvious

gains for minimum effort can make it all worthwhile, seem achievable and keep people interested

and focused.


Plan and

Do


Identifyinformation

needs




Plan and do


Plan and Do


The Plan and Do phase of the LOTE Planning

Framework is about using the information

elicited in previous phases to determine the

strategies and the actions that a school will

take to implement a quality LOTE programme.

There are three main questions that need to

be asked in this phase of the planning process:

■ What are we trying to do?

■ How are we going to do it?

■ How are we going to know if

we’ve done it?

What are we trying to do?From working through the other phases of the Planning Framework, you should now

have a clear idea of what the aims and goals are for your LOTE programme. Hold the

vision for your LOTE programme and its purpose clearly in mind when you develop

your plan. Despite all the work you have done to date, there may be still a number of

options for action open to you and new insights may arise. So it is important to ask the

question – what alternatives are available? And then develop these alternatives in order

to choose the ones that are best for you.

How are we going to do it?In working out how you are going to achieve your goal, take into account the factors you

identified earlier that may promote your goal and those factors that may hinder it.

Be strategic. Think ahead. Refer to those factors identified in the section on ‘Interpreting and

Connecting’. How do these fit into the plan?

Take Action. Make sure someone is responsible for each part of the plan.

Don’t fall into the trap of the “Add-On Model of Change”. If you are going to do something

new, it won’t be possible to keep on doing all the things you were doing before. You will

have to stop doing something, or do something differently in order to achieve your goals.

Take account of the resources required, the staff development needs, and implications of

changes to the structure of the LOTE programme.

What do we need to do for it to work?

The deputy principal from NanajillaSenior High School applied the

Proficiency Potential Framework to theschool in order to audit the variouslanguage programmes offered by the

school. This was done even though thelanguage teachers in the school werevery threatened by the process. As a

result of the process, a number offactors that impacted on the difficulties

the school was having with lowersecondary students, particularly boys,became evident. Once identified it was

then possible to assess the impact ofeach factor and then develop a plan to

address the issues. Significant progresswas made over a six-month period. The

process has, however, now stalledbecause one of the key elements in thechange process (the deputy principal)

has left the school.


How are we going to know if we’vedone it?Give yourself some indicators to work towards. Make

them realistic and make them observable or

measurable. How might you measure them? Set a time

to review the plan and see how you’re going.


The instruments included to help you with this phase reflect a range of planning models.

A Programme Planning Model

The Programme Plan describes the strategies, areas of work, major tasks, and key objectives of

the initiative. It outlines what action is to be taken, who is responsible, who is to be involved,

the timeline, resources required, targets, and describes the monitoring and evaluation processes.

An Action Planning Model

The Action Plan focuses on the operational level.

It details the specifics of what needs doing, who

will do the work, why it is being done, how it is

to be done, and by when.

There is no one right way to plan. These models

are examples only. There may well be planning

models within your school and your school

system that you are required to use. On the

other hand you may be free to be creative in

your planning.

The examples on pages 131-132 were developed by a principal after reflecting on the state of

LOTE in his school during a training programme on the LOTE Planning Framework. They do not

follow the same format as the models provided.


The LOTE Programme Plan and LOTE Action Plan are included over the page as proformas that

enable the designation of tasks, the delegation of responsibilities, and the delineation of

parameters within which actions must be taken.

When provided with anopportunity to spend a dayworking with their LOTEteacher or LOTE Head of

Department at a LOTEPlanning forum set up

specifically to enable LOTEteachers and their principalsto work together for a day, allbar one principal declined the

offer on the basis that theycouldn’t find the time.

Pandal Education Support Centre looked atwhat was required in order to make a LOTEprogramme meaningful for students. It was

understood that within the context of theschool, the teacher had to be a special needsteacher, otherwise the plan wouldn’t work.The school went out of its way to satisfy thiscriterion as an initial consideration. Twelve

months after the programme had beenimplemented, the same teacher, through a

process of reflection and review, recognisedthat the students had stretched him and it wasnecessary for him to further develop his ownlinguistic skills if the learning of his students

was to continue to be cumulative.


LOTE Programme Plan INSTRUMENT 25

Strategy/Areas of work/Task/Objective

What specific actionis to be taken?How?

Who isresponsible?Who isinvolved?

Start date End date Resources Success criteria

Target

Monitoring of progressby whom, when andhow

Evaluation of effectivenessof action how and by whom,when


LOTE Action Plan INSTRUMENT 26

Action What? Why? How? Who? When? Where?


Example: LOTE Plan

Blackville High

Now Future state

There are currently 5 marginalisedlanguage programmes in school

Of the 5 programmes, 2 programmes aredeployed

3 programmes are non-deployed

Reduce number of language programmesto 3: all 3 programmes to be embedded.

All 3 language programmes to bedeployed.

The process

• Choice of LOTE programmes

• Phasing out of some LOTE programmes

• Presentation of Strategic Plan

Timeline, participation and responsibilities

This is outlined in diagram form on the following page. The diagram demonstrates the need for

these plans to evolve and change with some initial decisions being able to be made, but with the

need for decisions in other areas (e.g. how long will a particular process take?) to be made

further ‘down the track’.

}


Example: Action Plan

Blackville High

Senior Execand Head Teacher

Principal

Deputy Principal& Leading Teacher

Def

inin

g th

e pr

oble

mD

evel

opin

g so

luti

ons

Acc

epta

nce

of p

robl

ems

App

lyin

g so

luti

ons

Secu

rity

of

plac

e in

sch

ool

Acc

epta

nce

of n

ew p

lace

in s

choo

l

1 day To bedetermined

Timeframe

To bedetermined


Conclusion

In this section of the package ideas and instruments have been included to assist with the

process of finding out,

What do we need to do for it to work?

It is important to remember that there is no one right way to plan. These models are examples

only.

We finish this phase with the following advice:

■ The implementation of the plan may be a long process

■ It is very important to have ‘early wins’ (some kind of concrete result), even if they are

only small

■ There needs to be a way of monitoring so that success at each step of the plan can be

recognised, shared and celebrated

■ If the first easy steps are not implemented, there is no point in proceeding


Appendices


Case studyscenarios


How to use the Case Study ScenariosThe following case study scenarios have been taken from real schools. Each scenario includes a

completed School Profile Proforma and a brief description of the LOTE programme within the

school. All schools are referred to by a pseudonym.

The case study scenarios are not presented as ideal LOTE programmes. Rather, they are included

as examples of how languages have been offered in different contexts. Each case study illustrates

different factors and issues that may impact, positively or negatively, on the long-term sustainability

of the LOTE programme.

The case studies have been designed to be used in a number of ways to suit different purposes:

■ It is hoped that they will be a useful resource for people accessing the package independently,

in terms of broadening understandings about LOTE programmes.

■ External consultants who are working with schools may find it useful to work with the case

studies as examples. One way of doing this may be to apply the instruments found in the

package to the case studies initially before applying them to the school itself. This has the

benefit of ‘warming people up’ to the use of the tools so that they can feel comfortable with

concepts and principles prior to analysing their own situation.

■ In addition, it is also possible to use the case studies in a training context to illustrate the

application of particular tools.


These case study scenarios are not presented as ideal LOTE programmes, but as examples ofhow languages have been offered in different contexts. They illustrate both strengths and

weaknesses. These are all real examples (with the names changed). Information provided in theSchool Profile Proformas is presented as it was provided by the school.

Scenario 1: Clopvale Primary SchoolClopvale Primary School offers an immersion LOTE programme. The programme operates out of

two demountables located at the back of the school. Students from a number of schools in the

local area are included in the immersion programme and each year level included in the

programme undertakes two full days per week of immersion study.

Because the programme is cross-jurisdictional, funding comes from grants from three educational

jurisdictions. Funding arrangements vary from year to year with the result that there is a

continuing sense of uncertainty with regard to the programme and its future. Decisions about

funding, and about the programme structure, are made by the school’s executive committee and

the school’s management committee. These committees comprise representation from the

different educational sectors together with staff from the participating schools.

The programme is staffed by a part-time coordinator and a number of native-speaking teachers

who are appointed to the school on two-year contracts. There is little by way of training or

orientation provided for the teachers on their arrival at the school and there have been instances

where the expectations of teachers with regard to the programme are in conflict with the reality

that they find. Lack of familiarity with the Australian teaching and learning context can be

problematic for some teachers, particularly with regard to managing the behaviour of students.

There have also been instances where the desire of the teachers to enhance their own English

competence has conflicted with the programme’s policy of total target language usage.

Students are accepted into the programme at year 3. Acceptance is based, not on academic

achievement, but on learners’ study habits and work habits – we look for kids who can solve problems

independently and confidence is critical. Whilst the immersion programme extends across all the

primary years from year 3 there is no provision made for immersion study at secondary level. The

target language is available in local high schools as a language object programme and there is a very

strong programme, in the target language, at a local tertiary institution.

Science, Technology and Visual and Performing Arts are the content areas of the programme for all

students, with Science regarded as the principal focus. The decision to have Science as the

principal focus was made to enhance the programme’s appeal for boys and also to take the

programme out of the Studies of the Society and Environment learning area and away from


studying ‘My Family’. Even though Science is the principal focus there is no access to a sink within

the immersion classrooms and resources are limited. Also, whilst the students enjoy the content

areas they work with, some experience a sense of frustration. This is a result of difficulties

associated with the operation of the school’s committees and liaison between the programme and

other feeder schools with regard to providing a timetable that is supportive and acknowledging of

the language commitment and the content covered through the immersion programme – I have to

do Science twice and Sometimes it’s hard catching up in other subjects.

The programme demands that teachers talk solely in the target language both within and outside

the classroom and there is a requirement that year 5 learners speak exclusively in the target

language for 2 hours in the afternoon. Learners are able to distinguish the different styles of language

straight away, but lack daily vocabulary. Students know very little about the target country. After

two and half years students can express feelings, make questions, still have small particle problems but

can make sentences with small grammatical mistakes and make complex sentences with a mixture of

the target language and English. According to one teacher, they can understand almost anything I’m

talking about. Another stated that they learn deduction skills so that they can think by themselves…the

student has to be patient as well. Games are used extensively to consolidate vocabulary and to

enhance cooperation so that learners can support each other in the learning process.

The majority of learners are very positive about the experiences offered through the programme

but a number of the older learners are seriously considering not continuing with the programme

and doing ‘normal’ LOTE instead.



1. Please provide the following general school details:

School:

Clopvale Primary SchoolAddress:

Postcode

Telephone: Fax:

Email:

Contact Person:

School Type: Year Levels:

Government School: State Primary 3-6 (7 In 1999)Programme: Intersystemic Staff Numbers:

Total 4 (3-1/2) Male: 0 Female: 4

Student Numbers:

Total 61 Male: 21 Female: 40

Please tick those categories which apply to your schoolRural Location: !!!! Metropolitan Location:

Government :!!!! Non-Government:!!!!

Gender Specific: Co-Educational: !!!!


2. Please provide a brief description of the student population:

Students come to the programme from four base schools.Class sizes are restricted to 2 cohorts of 15 in year 3 and 1 cohort of up to 24in subsequent year levels. Students need to have passed the year 2 literacy &numeracy net but are not selected on the basis of academic excellence �more emphasis is placed on work habits.

3. Please provide a brief description of the local community (eg socio-economiccharacteristics):

Base schools:- 1 state co-ed, 1 catholic co-ed, 1 private co-ed & 1 girls privateprimary school. Students come from both country & city backgrounds in theseschools.

4. Please provide details of the major ethnic groups represented in your programme:

Major Ethnic Group Approx Population

Anglo Saxon/European

Aboriginal/Islander

5. Please provide details of language programmes offered at school:

Language NumbersYear Levels involved inthe programme

Number of classes Number of students Number of backgroundspeakers

LOTE 1

Asian LOTE (Insert Name of LOTE)LOTE 2




6. Please provide language enrolment details by year level (male, female, background

speaker):

Year Level LOTE 1 LOTE 2 LOTE 3

M F B M F B M F B

3 8 18

4 5 8

5 7 8

6 1 6

7 (from 1999)

7. Please provide a staffing profile for each language. (eg How many people teach each

LOTE, is there provision for teacher assistants, in what ways do other staff

complement the LOTE programmes?)

LOTE 1

Each teacher has 2 immersion classes, 2 days a week. There are two year 3classes and one class at each other year level. Each teacher covers thefollowing Key Learning Areas:- Science, Technology, Computing, Visual &Performing Arts Asian LOTE 1, Language, Arts and some Mathematics, and isresponsible for assessment in these areas.

There is provision for teaching assistant to work with each teacher; this is

under review at the moment.

The programme manager is 0.5 and there is an administration assistant for

10 hours a week.

Base school class teachers are available for reference and discussion.

LOTE 2

The Asian LOTE programme is complemented by the Access Asia programme.

LOTE 3


8. Please provide information on the provision of LOTE.

Year Level Time Allocation Intensity FrequencyLOTE 1

Asian LOTE 1 3 2 daysimmersion

4 2 daysimmersion

5 2 daysimmersion

6 2 daysimmersion

LOTE 2

LOTE 3

9. What is the teaching mode of delivery (eg face-to-face, distance education,

telematics, etc)?

Mode of delivery is face-to-face.

10. Please include a brief description of your LOTE programme type (eg content

based, language based, integrated etc)?

Immersion � content focus.Integrated approach across all key learning areas.Attempted to establish a spiral curriculum.

11. What makes LOTE in your programme special?

Early commencement � year 3 immersion methods � this has lead toenhanced receptive language skills and acceptance of the idea ofcommunicating in another language.


12. Please add any additional information that you consider relevant.

Thank you for taking the time to complete this School Profile

Instrument. Please return this instrument and the following

documents (if available) to the contact person shown on the bottom

of the form:

• Current School Development Plan

• LOTE Department Plan/Policy

• Curriculum Handbook

• LOTE Teaching/Learning programmes

• Any other documentation which you consider may be of interest to this

research project

These case study scenarios are not presented as ideal LOTE programmes, but as examples of

how languages have been offered in different contexts. They illustrate both strengths andweaknesses. These are all real examples (with the names changed). Information provided in the

School Profile Proformas is presented as it was provided by the school.


Scenario 2 – Mt Nada Secondary SchoolLanguage teaching and learning at Mt Nada has a long history of acceptance within the school and

success beyond the school (eg: external examinations and other endeavours such as exchange

programmes). The language department offers several LOTEs and is staffed by experienced

teachers who are involved in continuing professional development. The teaching style of the

languages staff has been intentionally crafted (through the efforts of the head of department) to

engage learners with text, to provide learners with opportunities to converse in the target

language, and to reduce learner dependence on the teacher. There is very strong support for the

school’s language programmes from the principal.

Timetabling in the school is very sympathetic to LOTE. LOTE is compulsory in year 8 and students

are encouraged to ‘opt into’ LOTE, regardless of previous background, at any stage in their

schooling. Programmes are structured to accommodate multilevel learning. For example, the top

student in year 10 commenced LOTE in year 9. Intellectually and physically challenged students are

also included in the programme regardless of perceived academic ability.

The language programmes are extremely well resourced. There is access to video cameras, badge

machines, printers, PAL system videos, Internet, reading trolleys, books, magazines and extensive

library stocks. Teachers have their own rooms, all with large quantities of teaching aids and

materials (both consumable and non-consumable). The classrooms present as attractive text rich

environments and Kids have ownership of the classrooms – they get materials, make games.

All staff are full time and, in addition, funds are expended to employ native speakers in third term

for conversation practice in order to prepare senior students for external examinations.

The school has a long term sister school relationship with a particular target language speaking

community and operates regular exchange programmes for students in a number of languages.

Students are fulsome in their praise of these exchange programmes — After exchange my marks

went from 70% to 94%. Things became relevant.

At lower and mid-secondary level language in the classroom is deployed in response to

interactional opportunities presented through a range of texts and task types, as well as through

background speakers and exchange opportunities. Students are able to converse confidently and read

with understanding. They have a way of getting what they want without English. They have strategies for

paraphrasing.

At upper secondary level there is a change of focus. There is an increased emphasis on correctness,

in order to satisfy the demands of the tertiary entrance examinations rather than “real world” use.

In the coming year Mt Nada will have both a new principal and a new head of the LOTE

department.




School:

Mt Nada Secondary SchoolAddress:

Postcode

Telephone: Fax:

Email:

Contact Person:


Private Girls 1-12 Staff Numbers:

Total 106 Male: 14 Female: 92Student Numbers:

Total 1012 Male: 0 Female: 1012Please tick those categories which apply to your schoolRural Location: Metropolitan Location: :!!!!

Government: Non-Government:!!!!

Gender Specific: !!!! Co-Educational:

2. Please provide a description of the student population:

We have a non-selective enrolments policy, therefore a full range of abilities.Students are from diverse backgrounds and cultures and all girls.We have 63 international students. The boarding students also contribute adifferent viewpoint.


3. Please provide a description of the local community (eg socio-economic

characteristics):

The local community could be described as advantaged socio-economically,however we have students from outer suburbs and of course the boarders,who bring a different outlook, but if you mean the actual locality it would behigh profile economically and sociologically.

4. Please provide details of the major ethnic groups represented in your school:


European majorityIndonesian, Chinese, Hong Kong, SingaporeanThai, Malaysian, Taiwanese 63

5. Please provide details of the languages offered at your school:

Language NumbersTotal Male Female Background speakers

LOTE 1

EuropeanLOTE 1(Insert Name of LOTE)

227 - 227 -

LOTE 2

Asian LOTE 1 (Insert Name of LOTE)

242 - 242 1

LOTE 3

EuropeanLOTE 2(Insert Name of LOTE)

91 - 91 2



speaker):


M F B M F B M F B

3 - 25 -4 - 25 -5 - 26 -6 - 53 -

7 - - 288 85 37 129 38 23 1210 30 22 1311 23 20 1012 24 11 16

7. Please provide a staffing profile for each language. (eg How many people teacheach LOTE, is there provision for teacher assistants, in what ways do other staffcomplement the LOTE programmes?)

LOTE 1European LOTE 1One full-time Head of Subject (years 8-12)One part-time (years 8,9,10,12)One doing Primary who also teaches European LOTE 1One assistant to come in to assist with oral practice and exams.

LOTE 2Asian LOTE 1One full-time Head of Subject (years 3, 8, 10, 11, 12)One part-time (years 4, 5, 6, 8, 9)One assistant to come in to assist with oral practices and exams.

LOTE 3European LOTE 2Two part-time job sharingOne responsibility as Head of Subject and Head of LOTE teaching years10, 11, 12One teaching years 7, 8, 9 and also European LOTE 1** No other staff � ALL SPECIALISTS



Year Level Time Allocation Intensity Frequency

LOTE 1

European LOTE 1 7 1 � 1/2 Hours 30 mins 3 per 8 day cycle

8 4 Hours 60mins 4 per 8 day cycle

9 4 Hours 60mins 4 per 8 day cycle

10 4 Hours 60 mins 4 per 8 day cycle



LOTE 2

Asian LOTE 1 3 1 - /2 hours 30 mins 3 per 8 day cycle

4 1 � 1/2 hours 30 mins 3 per 8 day cycle

5 1 - /2 hours 30 mins 3 per 8 day cycle

6 1 - /2 hours 30mins 3 per 8 day cycle




11 6 Hours 60 mins 60 mins


LOTE 3

European LOTE 2 7 1 - /2 hours 30 mins 3 per 8 day cycle





12 6 Hous 60 mins 6 per 8 day cycle


9. What is the teaching mode of delivery (eg face-to-face, distance education,telematics, etc)?

Face-to-FaceWe also use lots of cassettes, videos, group work, pair work � not too muchup-front teaching. Students responsible for their own learning is a big issuewith us, as is students working at their own pace.

10. Please include a brief description of your LOTE programme type (eg contentbased, language based, integrated etc)?

The LOTE programme is an outcomes based programmeCommunicative, integrating language skills, culture, grammar, use oftext books, themes, projects, so a mixture.

11. What makes LOTE in your school special?

The teachers! The environment!A difficult question. Non-threatening environment, students encouraged toexplore their own potential, fun, nice secluded definitive LOTE area whichteachers and students alike are able to �own�.


As Head of Department, I have for many years been able to build up afantastic environment thoroughly conducive to best practice LOTE learning �pick my staff, collect great resources and create exactly the rightenvironment.




of the form:






research project


Scenario 3 - Belvedere – Lower SecondaryThis programme provides the middle stage of an established pathway for LOTE learning from

primary to tertiary. LOTE is compulsory in the first year of secondary schooling. Beyond this

LOTE is treated as an option and retention rates are relatively low. There is a lot of evidence of

Asian LOTE in the physical environment of the school eg: signs, displays etc. The head of

department is vibrant and committed to LOTE and is tireless in her efforts to have LOTE

recognised and supported within the school context. Comments from the principal indicate that

he doesn’t see himself as having a role in the success of LOTE in his school. He is comfortable

leaving it all to the departmental head.

Resources for language learning principally comprise textbooks, although there is an

acknowledgment from the head of department that the school needs to think about possible future

roles for information technology in LOTE teaching and learning. Classroom activities are

orchestrated in accord with the demands of textbooks and, although learners role play and play

games extensively, these activities are predominantly rehearsed and there is little evidence of

spontaneous target language deployment in or beyond classrooms. Links between Asian languages

and the Society and Environment learning area are encouraged by the LOTE departmental head,

but links with other learning areas have not been established.

Many learners have been engaged in the study of their LOTE for a number of years. Many also

seem to have been using the same textbooks for both their primary and secondary language study.

Learners with in excess of four years experience of language learning describe language learning in

association with topics like animals, food and shopping.

There is very little evidence of consciousness about metacognition and metalanguage from either

staff or learners. One teacher commented, I think it is when they can actually reproduce it without me

having to stand there and provide them with every single word, that’s the actual point that they have learnt

something and they’ve remembered what they’ve learnt. Both learners and teachers talk about learning

LOTE by memorising a lot of things. Learners uncritically accept repetition and rote as the principal

tools of language learning. There is little evidence of learners being confident and comfortable with

risk taking even though the teachers talk about this as being important. Best learners did not

present as being confident LOTE speakers. One commented, it’s really confusing sometimes because

we mix things around and feel stupid.

Opportunities are provided for in-country trips and language camps but the focus of these activities

appears to be more on motivation than on actual language learning and language use.


School Profile Proforma1. Please provide the following general school details:

School:

Belvedere Secondary SchoolAddress:

Postcode

Telephone: Fax:

Email:

Contact Person:


Government � Co-Educational 7-10 Staff Numbers:


inc. 13 admin staff (5 admin) (8 admin)

Student Numbers:


Please tick those categories which apply to your schoolRural Location: Metropolitan Location: :!!!!

Government: !!!! Non-Government:



Students at the school range from 12 � 18 years old although there are veryfew students who are 17 & 18.Almost all of the students continue with their schooling in Year 11.



characteristics):





LOTE 1

Asian LOTE 1 (Insert Name of LOTE)LOTE 2

Asian LOTE 2 (Insert Name of LOTE)LOTE 3

EuropeanLOTE 1 (Insert Name of LOTE)

2


speaker):


M F B M F B M F B



LOTE 1

Two teachers teach Asian LOTE 1. One has been teaching at the school since1989 (although spent 1 year in Asia and 6 months working in the Departmentof Education). The other has been working at the School since the beginningof this year.Other staff who have been on study tours to Asia complement the programmeby teaching about Asia in their subject areas (Maths, English, P.E. &Technology).This programme is also complemented by the Access Asia programme.

LOTE 2

Two teachers teach Asian LOTE 2. One has been teaching at the school since1992 and the other since the beginning of this year. One is a backgroundspeaker.The Asian LOTE 2 programme is complemented by the Access Asiaprogramme.

LOTE 3

One teacher teaches European LOTE 1. She has been teaching at the schoolsince 1990. She is a background speaker in European LOTE 2.The programme is complemented by a number of other staff who speak theEuropean LOTE and so can talk to the students on simple topics.



Year Level Time Allocation Intensity FrequencyLOTE 1Asian LOTE 1 Year 7 2hrs 30mins 50min

lessons3 times perweek

Year 8,9,10 3hrs 20mins 2x50minlesson1x100minlesson

3 times perweek

LOTE 2Asian LOTE 2 Year 7 2hrs 30min 50min

lesson3 times perweek

Years 8,9,10 3hrs 20min 2x50minlesson1x100minlesson

3 times perweek

LOTE 3European LOTE 1 Year 7 2hrs 30 mins 50min

lesson3 times perweek

Years 8,9,10 3hrs 20mins 2x50 minlesson1x100minlesson

3 times perweek


telematics, etc)?

Face-to-Face.



The programme is an outcomes based programme and outcomes are reportedon to the parents at the end of each semester. Each semester unit followsthematic modules.The Asian LOTE 1 and 2 courses have been compiled from numerous sourcesincluding teacher written materials.


The high language proficiency level of each of our LOTE teachers with threebackground speakers.The innovations in our LOTE programmes through Department of Educationgrants we have won.The links with our feeder primary schools where Asian LOTE 1 and EuropeanLOTE 1 are taught and the links with the schools where Asian LOTE 2 istaught enable us to offer continuing LOTE in all languages, commencing year 7level.



LOTE has high profile in our school. The principal is very supportive being thehigh school principal representative on the Department of Education LOTEAdvisory group.Belvedere High School is one of the few schools where there is an executiveteacher with specialist LOTE skills in charge of LOTE faculty. There is only 1other high school like this.




of the form:






research project


Scenario 4 – Gracelyn Primary

Three years ago LOTE and Asian Studies were unanimously voted the number one priority by staff

in the school. Asia and the target language are evident everywhere in the physical environment of

the school. The programme is highly visible and has been actively supported and promoted by the

school principal over a number of years.

The LOTE programme is structured to provide all students from year 3 with two thirty-minute

lessons per week that are never timetabled on consecutive days. Classroom teachers are present

for each LOTE lesson and are expected to actively learn the target language with their students.

There is a designated LOTE teacher who teaches all classes and who is provided with an additional

time allocation for coordination of both the LOTE and Asian Studies programmes in the school.

In general, the school community is very positive about the LOTE programme. Over the years the

programme coordinator and the school principal have worked hard to both build and sell the

programme — It takes a lot of leadership to get the timetabling right, the resourcing right, and the PR

[Public Relations] bit — the communicating with parents … being a strong advocate when parents have

queries or concerns about the LOTE programme.

The LOTE programme is topic based (eg we can do shopping) and the teacher has made a conscious

decision to plan collectively for his classes. This means that there is not a huge differentiation

between what the year 5s and year 7s do in class, and can do in terms of target language output. In

talking about this, LOTE learners from different year groups responded with statements such as,

we can do pretty much the same as them, and basically the same.

There is a heavy emphasis on writing (for accountability according to the LOTE teacher) with the

result that the teacher is tied up for two to three weeks just to test. There are two textbooks used as

the principal source of input and worksheets are a common feature of lessons. The approach is

very mechanical with little evidence, from either teacher or learners, of any understanding of the

processes associated with second language acquisition.

Eighty percent of the staff are described as being supportive of the programme and this is very

much appreciated by the LOTE teacher — It’s handy to have bottom up support around you. A

number of classroom teachers expressed their enjoyment of being involved with their students’

language learning. None, however, had made any attempt to integrate LOTE with other areas of

the curriculum.

Learners were unquestioning about what happened in the programme. They just did it and saw it

as better than Social Studies and good but sometimes it’s a bit boring. Students from this programme,

with five years exposure to the target language, move from Gracelyn into a high school programme

where, in their first year, they complete two taster LOTE courses including 6 months of the LOTE

they have studied, but from the beginning again.




School:

Gracelyn Primary SchoolAddress:

Postcode

Telephone: Fax:

Email:

Contact Person:


Year Levels: K � 7 Linear Design Levels K-7 Staff Numbers:

Total: 24 Male: 5 Female: 19Student Numbers:


Please tick those categories which apply to your school

Rural Location: !!!! Fast growing town Metropolitan Location:





A very even distribution of boys to girls (gender balance). Theability/intelligence of the student is normally distributed with no largenumbers of gifted children requiring extension work no large numbers ofchildren requiring extra assistance (children at risk).


characteristics):

This area is one of the fastest growing shire area populations in Australia.The town supports a very prosperous hinterland featuring mineral sandsmining, a booming wine industry and tourist industry.The school draws students from a predominantly middle class socio-economicgroup (business and professional), although this is changing with more singleparent families on lower incomes moving into rental accommodation in thearea.



European with no significantly large ethnic groups



LOTE 1


307 149 158LOTE 2





speaker):


M F B M F B M F B3 29 34 63

4 26 37 635 26 39 656 34 33 67

7 32 17 49


LOTE 1

Asian LOTE 1� One LOTE teacher� Teachers stay in the LOTE class and participate in the lesson� Because the area is an Access Asia school, teachers complement the

learning of Asian LOTE 1 and other Asian countries across the curriculum.

LOTE 2

LOTE 3



Asian LOTE 1 3 2 X 30mins4 2 X 30mins5 2 X 30mins6 2 X 30mins



telematics, etc)?

Face-to-Face 2 X 30 Minutes Lessons Per Week.

10. Please include a brief description of your LOTE programme type (eg contentbased, language based, integrated etc)?

A language based programme that uses communicative tasks, games, gap tasks,rehearsed and unrehearsed role-plays. Classroom instructional language in thetarget language.


LOTE is not used as non-teaching time for other learning areas the classteachers stay in and learn alongside their students.The LOTE programme is supplemented by Studies of Asia across thecurriculum (K-7) through the Access Asia Programme.Year 7�s have the opportunity to participate in an annual trip to the targetcountry which includes activities with our sister school.





of the form:






research project





Scenario 5 – Dayton High School

At Dayton High School a language other than English is compulsory for all students in their first

two years. Students have access to three languages, and study their LOTE for five fifty-minute

lessons per week. A language other than English is not compulsory in year 10 and retention of

students into year 10 language classes is a problem for the school and has resulted in year 10

students being required to undertake their language studies through distance education.

Even though LOTE is considered to be a key learning area within the school there isn’t a Languages

Department per se, but rather, languages come under the umbrella of the school’s Social Science

Department. This situation means that the head of Social Sciences, who has no experience of

learning a second language and no knowledge with regard to teaching one is, in fact, responsible for

LOTE. Members of the language staff are very uncomfortable with this situation. They feel that

the head of department is not only ignorant of LOTE issues but that he is unsupportive of them.

There is also a sense, from the teachers, of them feeling as if they are under-resourced because

priority is perceived to be given to the Social Science area.

Language teachers express frustration at not being included in the decision-making processes of the

school. Not only do they feel that that have no voice in ‘their’ department, they find it difficult to

approach the principal and generally find him unresponsive.

There are no designated classrooms for LOTE in the school and because of this teachers find it

difficult to create language and print rich environments for their learners. Partly as a result of this,

language teaching and learning is heavily textbook dependent with learners focusing on reading and

writing and having only limited access to a variety of text types. Viewing text procured via satellite

is not available even though there is a satellite connection in the principal’s office.

Many students come to their high school experience having previously studied their LOTE. Little

account is taken of this and LOTE classes are not streamed until year 10. There is very little

evidence of multi-level learners being catered for, in any way, prior to year 10. It seems that there

is a correlation between this and the problem of retention into year10, but this issue has yet to be

explored by the school.

There are opportunities for learners to study in-country. Students who avail themselves of these

opportunities demonstrate considerably enhanced proficiency levels and are overall much more

positive about their language learning experiences on return from their period in-country.




School:

Dayton High SchoolAddress:

Postcode

Telephone: Fax:

Email:

Contact Person:


Government High School 7-12 Staff Numbers:

Total Male: Female:

Student Numbers:

Total Male: Female:


Rural Location: Metropolitan Location:

Government: Non-Government:

Gender Specific: Co-Educational:




characteristics):

Low to middle class socio-economic group.



Aboriginal 35 � 40 %Greek 10%


Asian Language NumbersTotal Male Female Background speakers

LOTE 1


112 43 41 2

LOTE 2EuropeanLOTE 1 (Insert Name of LOTE)

93 37 56 1

LOTE 3Asian LOTE 2 (Insert Name of LOTE)

58 26 32 1


speaker):


M F B M F B M F B8 27 19 46 12 18 30 9 11 20

9 29 18 57 24 30 54 12 17 29

10 7 4 11 1 8 9 5 4 9

11 0 1 1 ¯ 1 1 2

12 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0


7. Please provide a staffing profile for each language. (eg How many people teach

each LOTE, is there provision for teacher assistants, in what ways do other staff

complement the LOTE programmes?)

LOTE 1Asian LOTE 1

LOTE 2European LOTE 1

LOTE 3Asian LOTE 2



Asian LOTE 1 8 5 x 50mins 3 terms 1 double,35mins perweek

9 5 x 50mins � ��

10 5 x 50mins � ��

11 5 x 50mins � ��

12 5 x 50mins � ��

LOTE 2

European LOTE 1 8 as above9 as above10 as above

LOTE 3

Asian LOTE 2 8 as above9 as above10 as above11 as above



telematics, etc)?

Year 8, 9, 10 face-to-face. Except year 10 European LOTE 1 � distanceeducation and year 11 & 12 Asian LOTE 1 and 2 � distance education.



LOTE Programmes are both content and language based � following ALLguidelines at present.


The principal teaches Asian LOTE 1 promotes annual visits of Asian students to ourschool.LOTE is compulsory at Yr 8 and Yr 9I�m not really sure?!!LOTE is part of the Social Education faculty - ?!


LOTE compulsory for Yrs 8 & 9� Eng. and Maths streamed close but not other learning areas. Yr 10 recentlystreamed, kids comment positively on the difference this has made.Although LOTE is a key learning area, it is very much the option in the bookletgiven.




of the form:






research project





Scenario 6 – Robinson Primary SchoolThe principal of this primary school is very positive about LOTE and is anxious that his students

have as much exposure to LOTE as is possible. Because of this he has gone out of his way to be

able to offer a number of languages to the students in the school.

A teacher of a modern European language works part-time at the school and provides non-contact

time for classroom teachers. She is passionate about her LOTE and she exudes passion and

enthusiasm with the students which is generally reciprocated. She is keen to give the LOTE a

presence in the school. Because of this she is constantly involving the students in preparations for

the performance of assembly items, special days/afternoons, excursions and the like. She hosts

afternoon teas for parents and has a lot of after school gatherings associated with the LOTE and its

culture. She spends a great many more hours working in, and for the school than for which she is

paid.

In addition to this LOTE, one year group at Robinson Primary is involved with the study of another

European LOTE. The school principal was approached by the consulate who offered to provide a

teacher free of charge. Convinced of the value of learning languages other than English the

principal introduced this LOTE to year 4 students who had one year’s experience of learning the

other LOTE. The LOTE teacher’s only contact with the school is for the short periods of time

that he is in the school teaching. The language is not a community language for the school as only

one student can be considered to be a background speaker. Within these classes there appears to

be a more concentrated focus on aspects of culture and history than there is on language learning.

In the final two years of their education the children at Robinson Primary study an Asian LOTE.

The teachers of this LOTE come into the school from the local high school where neither of the

two European LOTEs is taught. The teachers are trained secondary teachers who are unfamiliar

with primary curricula and primary students. Many of the students regard this Asian LOTE as a fill

in subject — It’s not important anyway. Some are also quite contemptuous of both the teaching

styles of the teachers and the content of the Asian LOTE programme – I can’t understand her and its

sometimes difficult to hear what she [native speaker of the target language] says, and I’m sick of singing

silly little songs.

A number of students express frustration at having limited exposure to three very different

languages. The principal does not share this concern. He just wants the children to have lots of

different experiences. The teacher on site is trying to lobby for her LOTE to be taught in the final

two years. But, because the high school ‘picks up the tab’ for the Asian LOTE, and because the

European language is not offered in the secondary context, it seems unlikely that this will happen.




School:

Robinson Primary SchoolAddress:

Postcode

Telephone: Fax:

Email:

Contact Person:


Primary K-7 Staff Numbers:


Student Numbers:



Rural Location: Metropolitan Location: !!!!





In general the school population can be described as multi-cultural, althoughit is predominantly Australian/European. 7% of students, representing 13nationalities, were born in countries where English is not the nationallanguage. 1% of students belong to families where English is not spoken athome.


characteristics):

The suburb was established in the early 1970s. The majority of thepopulation has middle income and upper middle income, white and blue collaroccupations drawn from business houses, small business operators, publicservice, teachers, nurses, accountants, lecturers, private contractors, andtrades persons.



Australian/European 93%



LOTE 1


132 67 65 Nil

LOTE 2


93 44 39 Nil

LOTE 3


51 27 24 1



speaker):


M F B M F B M F BYear 2 7 6 0Year 3 15 16 0

Year 4 16 20 0 27 24 1Year 5 29 23 0

Year 6 23 23 0Year 7 19 28 0


LOTE 1

European LOTE 11 LOTE teacher who supplies non-contact time for other staff.No teacher assistants or background speaker helpers.LOTE teacher and library teacher co-plan for some classes about dinosaurs.LOTE teacher and year 3 teacher co-plan for fruit and vegetables.

LOTE 2

Asian LOTE 1Teacher from the local high school teaches 2 thirty minute lessons with year6 and year 7 students.There is no liaison with classroom teachers and the content is oriented aroundtopics like family, colours etc.

LOTE 3

European LOTE 2The consulate provides a teacher, at no cost to the school of 1 year grouptwice a week.The programme focuses predominantly on culture.




European LOTE 1 23

1 hr1 hr

Once a weekOnce a week

45

1 hr1 hr

Once a weekOnce a week

LOTE 2

Asian LOTE 1 6 1 hr 2 thirty minlessons

7 1 hr 2 thirty minlessons

LOTE 3

European LOTE 2 4 1 hr 2 thirty minlessons


telematics, etc)?

Face to face.



Predominantly language-object programme with some content-based emphasisin some classes.This is dependent on whether the classroom teacher is happy to liase with theLOTE teacher.

11. What makes LOTE in your school special?

This is a primary school and yet students access three languages.






of the form:






research project


A workshop on usingthe Package


Key concepts and the TrainingProgramme

Participants will learn about:• The Planning Framework• Various Instruments and Tools• Research into LOTE• Consulting & facilitating

Work through the phases of envisioning:• Identify information needs• Interpreting & connecting• Articulate visions & goals

Work through the phases of enacting:• Identify factors• Assess impact• Plan & do

Review vision & reflect on plan

Work through:• Monitor, review and act

Review programme, identify future directions

Practise on scenarios provided

Practise on own case study

Reflect on role & future actions

Act

Evaluating

Envisioning

Enacting

Evaluating

Develop a plan based on previous work



Reflect on role & future actions




The Training ProgrammePurposeTo educate participants in the use of the LOTE Planning Framework and to enhance participants’

consultancy skills in relation to their training work.

As a result, participants will be better able to support others in the use of this package as they plan

for LOTE programme sustainability.

ParticipantsState/territory LOTE Consultants/teachers and school administrators representing the

Government, Catholic and Independent sectors.

Programme Overview

Pre-course workWorkshop participants are expected to link with one school in which they intend to implement this package. Priorto the workshop participants are asked to collect some information about the current situation of LOTE in thatschool. Participants are encouraged to use Proforma 1 and, where possible, to organise a day for generalobservation of the chosen school and its LOTE programme. Collection of the case study information is critical forthe effectiveness of the training programme.

Training course Day 1

Evaluating

Day 2

Planning Phases

PlanningInstruments

Day 3

Putting it all

together

Session 1 Introduction to course andeach otherIntroduction to thePlanning Framework

Introduction to the dayIdentifying informationneeds

Introduction to the dayDeveloping the plan

Session 2 Identifying factors affectingthe uptake andsustainability of LOTEprogrammes in schools

Identifying possibleconnections between theLOTE programme andother aspects of the school

Evaluating the plan

Session 3 Using the ProficiencyPotential Framework toidentify the state of theLOTE programme within aschool

Developing and articulatingvision and goals for aLOTE programme

Consulting and Facilitating

Session 4 Evaluating own case studyusing information from thefirst two sessions

Review of the day

Identifying and analysingfactors that will promotethe vision and hinder thevision

Review the day

Review of programme andpackage, evaluation andplanning next steps.


References andGlossary


Reference List


List of ReferencesEducation Department of Western Australia and National Asian Languages and Studies in

Australian Schools (NALSAS) Taskforce, (1998) Factors influencing the uptake of Modern Standard

Chinese, Korean, Modern Greek and German at Primary and Secondary Level. Perth: Education

Department of Western Australia. Project conducted and reported by Simpson Norris

International.

Education Department of Western Australia (1999) Two Languages Too: Second Language Learning

and Children with Special Needs. Perth: Education Department of Western Australia. Project

conducted and reported by Simpson Norris International with the Centre for Curriculum and

Professional Development, Murdoch University.

National Asian Languages and Studies in Australian Schools (NALSAS) Taskforce, (1999) Pathways

for Australian School Students to Achieve High Levels of Proficiency in Asian Languages. Sydney: New

South Wales Department of Education and Training. Project conducted and reported by Simpson

Norris International with the Centre for Curriculum and Professional Development, Murdoch

University.

Norris, L.G.B (1999) Pathways for Australian School Students to Achieve High Levels of Proficiency in

Languages Other Than English. Unpublished EdD dissertation. Perth: Murdoch University.

Simpson Norris International (1999) A Cost Benefit Analysis of Italian Programmes in Western

Australian Government Primary Schools, unpublished, written for the Education Department of

Western Australia.

Simpson Norris International (1999) Language Teacher Proficiency or Teacher Language Proficiency: An

Environmental Scan of the Qualities, Competencies and Knowledges Required of Language Teachers,

unpublished, written for the NALSAS Taskforce.

Simpson Norris International (1999) LOTE 2000: New Horizons Strategy. An Evaluation Report,

unpublished, written for the Education Department of Western Australia.

Simpson Norris International (1999) A Review of the STAR Peer Tutoring Programme, unpublished,

written for the Education Department of Western Australia.

Lewin, K. (1997) Resolving Social Conflicts and Field Theory in Social Science. AM Psychological

Association.

Motorola University (1993) Cross Functional Process Mapping Facilitator Guide – Total Time

Implementation Workshop. Issue Number 3, February 1993.


Bibliography


Bibliography

Allwright, D. , & Bailey, K. M. (1991). Focus on the Language Classroom: An introduction to classroom

research for language teachers. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Bachman, L. , & Palmer, A. (1996). Language Testing in Practice. Oxford, UK: Oxford University

Press.

Bourne, R. , & Hagger-Vaughan, L. (1993). Developing IT in Modern Languages. Language Learning

Journal, 8, 51-53.

Christie, F. , & Rothery, J. (1990). Literacy in the Curriculum: Planning and assessment. In F.

Christie (Ed.), Literacy for a Changing World. Hawthorn, Australia: ACER.

Clyne, M. (1991). Immersion Principles in Second Language Programmes - research and policy in

multicultural Australia. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 12(1-2), 55-65.

Clyne, M. , Jenkins, C. , Chen, I. , Tsokalidou, R. , & Wallner, T. (1995). Developing Second

Language from Primary School: Models and outcomes. Deakin, ACT: NLLIA.

Coleman, J. A. (1992). Project-based Learning, Transferable Skills, Information Technology and

Video. Language Learning Journal, 5, 35-37.

Commins, L. (1996). Multi-Proficiency Levels in LOTE Learning. Nathan: NLLIA.

Council of Australian Governments. (1994). Asian Languages and Australia's Economic Future.

Queensland: Queensland Government Printer.

Cunningham, D. (1986). Transition in languages other than English from primary to post-primary

schools. Babel, 21, 3, Nov., 13-19.

Cunningham, D. (1994). Continuity in LOTE curriculum and methodology. Language Learning

Journal, 10, Sept., 69-74.

de Courcy, M. (1991). The Benowa Experience - student views of an immersion school in

Australia. Babel, 26, 1 July, 10-16.

de Courcy, M. (1993). Making Sense of the Australian French Immersion Classroom. Journal of

Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 14(3), 173-185.

de Courcy, M. (1997). Benowa High: A decade of French immersion in Australia. In R. K.

Johnson & M. Swain (Eds.), Immersion Education: International Perspectives. Cambridge, UK:

Cambridge Applied Linguistics.

de Courcy, M. , & Birch, G. (1993). Reading and Writing Strategies used in a Japanese Immersion

Programme: ERIC ED388 097.


DEET. (1991). Australia's Language: The Australian language and literacy policy. Canberra, ACT:

Australian Government Publishing Service.

Djite, P. G. (1994). From Language Policy to Language Planning: An overview of languages other than

English in Australian education. Canberra: NLLIA.

Doughty, C. , & Williams, J. (1998). Pedagogical Choices in Focus on Form. In C. Doughty & J.

Williams (Eds.), Focus on Form in Classroom Second Language Acquisition. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge

Applied Linguistics.

Eckermann, A-K . (1994). One Classroom, Many Cultures: Teaching strategies for culturally different

children. Sydney: Allen & Unwin.

Education Department of Western Australia (1999). Two Languages Too: Second Language Learning

and Children with Special Needs. Perth: Education Department of Western Australia. Project

conducted and reported by Simpson Norris International with the Centre for Curriculum and

Professional Development, Murdoch University.

Education Department of Western Australia and National Asian Languages and Studies in

Australian Schools (NALSAS) Taskforce, (1998). Factors influencing the uptake of Modern Standard

Chinese, Korean, Modern Greek and German at Primary and Secondary Level. Perth: Education

Department of Western Australia. Project conducted and reported by Simpson Norris

International.

Ellis, R. (1988). Classroom Second Language Development. Exeter: Prentice Hall.

Ellis, R. (1992). Learning to Communicate in the Classroom: A study of two language learners'

requests. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 14(1), 1-23.

Ellis, R. (1997). Second Language Acquisition. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

Ely, C. M. (1994). Preparing Second Language Teachers for Strategy Instruction: An Integrated

Approach. Foreign Language Annals. 27 (3), 335-342.

Fernandez, S,. Pauwels, A. and Clyne, M. (1993). Unlocking Australia’s Language Potential: Profiles of 9

key languages in Australia:. Canberra: NLLIA.

Fernandez, S. (1992). Room for Two: A study of bilingual education at Bayswater South Primary School.

Melbourne, Australia: National Languages and Literacy Institute of Australia.

Fraser, B. J. (1994) Parent involvement and participation at Glen Katherine Primary School, Victoria,

Australia: A case study. The International Congress for School Effectiveness and Improvement,

Melbourne.

Gao, M. (1996). Asian languages in Australia. Babel, 31, 1, Apr-June, 14-17.

Gibbons, J (1994). Depth or breadth? Some issues in LOTE teaching. Australian Review of Applied

Linguistics, 17 (1), 1-22.


Hamers, J. , & Blanc, M. (1982). Towards a social-psychological model of bilingual development.

Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 1, 29-50.

Harley, B. , Allen, P. , Cummins, J. , & Swain, M. (Eds.). (1990). The Development of Second

Language Proficiency. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Applied Linguistics.

Higgins, C. (1993). Computer-assisted Language Learning: Current programmes and projects.

Washington, DC: ERIC Digest.

Hill, D. T. (1994). Taking Stock: In-country Indonesian studies and the case for an Australian

consortium. Asian Studies Review, 18(1), 31-44.

Howden, B (1993). Planning for success: Introducing a primary language programme. Babel, 28, 3,

Nov., 10-14.

Howell, F. (1995). Chinese language learning: Student needs and expectations. Babel, 30, 2, July-

Oct., 22-27, 33.

Jenkins, S.-A. , & Servel-Way, M. (1990). Doing IT Meaningfully in Modern Languages. Language

Learning Journal, 2, 75-76.

Johnson, K. E. (1995). Understanding Communication in Second Language Classrooms. Cambridge.

UK: Cambridge Language Education.

Johnson, R. K. (1996). Discovering Successful Second Language Teaching Strategies and Practices:

From programme evaluation to classroom experimentation. A Response. Journal of Multilingual and

Multicultural Development, 17(2-4), 105-113.

Johnson, R. K. , & Swain, M. (Eds.). (1997). Immersion Education: International perspectives.

Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Applied Linguistics.

Kalantzis, M. , Cope, B. , Noble, G. and Poynting, S. (1990). Cultures of Schooling: Pedagogies for

cultural differences and social access. London: The Falmer Press.

Krashen, S. D. (1981). Second Language Acquisition and Second Language Learning. Oxford, UK:

Pergamon.

Lewin, K. (1997) Resolving Social Conflicts and Field Theory in Social Science. AM Psychological

Association.

Lightbown, P. , & Spada, N. (1993). How Languages are Learned. Oxford, UK: Oxford University

Press.

Long, M. H. (1980). Input, Interaction and Second Language Acquisition. Unpublished PhD.

Dissertation. Los Angeles: UCLA.


Long, M. H. , & Robinson, P. (1998). Focus on Form: Theory, Research and Practice. In C.

Doughty & J. Williams (Eds.), Focus on Form in Classroom Second Language Acquisition. Cambridge,

UK: Cambridge Applied Linguistics.

Long, M. H. , & Sato, C. J. (1983). Classroom Foreigner Talk Discourse: Forms and functions of

teachers' questions. In H. W. Seliger & M. H. Long (Eds.), Foreign Language Research in Cross-

cultural Perspective. Amsterdam, Holland: John Benjamins.

Mackerras, C. (1996) Asian languages: Policy issues and options. Babel, 31, 2, July-Sept, 8-15, 36.

Marcos, K. (1994). Internet for Language Teachers. Washington, DC: ERIC Digest.

McColl, J. (1992). Achieving Student Autonomy in Speaking through the use of Interactive Video.

Language Learning Journal, 5, 25-26.

Motorola University (1993) Cross Functional Process Mapping Facilitator Guide – Total Time

Implementation Workshop. Issue Number 3, February 1993. CLYNE, M. et al (1995). Developing

Second Language From Primary School: Models and outcomes. Canberra: NLLIA.

National Asian Languages and Studies in Australian Schools (NALSAS) Taskforce, (1999). Pathways

for Australian School Students to Achieve Higher Levels of Proficiency in Asian Languages. Sydney: New

South Wales Department of Education and Training. Project conducted and reported by Simpson

Norris International with the Centre for Curriculum and Professional Development, Murdoch

University.

National Board of Employment, E. A. T. (1996). The Implications of Technology for Language

Teaching. Canberra, ACT: AGPS.

Nicholas, H. , Moore, H. , Clyne, M. , & Pauwels, A. (1993). Languages at the Crossroads.

Melbourne, Australia: NLLIA.

Norris, L.G.B (1999). Pathways for Australian School Students to Achieve High Levels of Proficiency in

Languages Other Than English. Unpublished EdD dissertation. Perth: Murdoch University.

O’Malley, J. M & Chamot, A. U. (1990). Learning Strategies in Second Language Acquisition.

Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Applied Linguistics.

Peddie, R. A. (1992). Languages in Schools: Policy and practice. Language and Language Education, 2,

1, 30-59.

Prabhu, N. S. (1991). The learners' effort in the language classroom. In E. Sadtono (Ed.),

Language Acquisition and the Second/Foreign Language Classroom. Singapore, Malaysia: RELC.

Read, J. (1995, March 25-28). Recent Developments in Australian Immersion Language Education.

Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Association for Applied Linguistics, Long

Beach, CA.

Rice, A. (1994). In-country and Australian-based Indonesian Programmes. Asian Studies Review,

18(1), 44-60.


Rockwell, C. (1995). Attitudes to Language Learning - a survey of three Sydney high school

classes. Babel, 30, 2, July-Oct, 12-17, 36-37.

Simpson Norris International (1999). A Cost Benefit Analysis of Italian Programmes in Western

Australian Government Primary Schools, unpublished, written for the Education Department of

Western Australia.

Simpson Norris International (1999). A Review of the STAR Peer Tutoring Programme, unpublished,

written for the Education Department of Western Australia.

Simpson Norris International (1999). Language Teacher Proficiency or Teacher Language Proficiency: An

Environmental Scan of the Qualities, Competencies and Knowledges Required of Language Teachers,

unpublished, written for the NALSAS Taskforce.

Simpson Norris International (1999). LOTE 2000: New Horizons Strategy. An Evaluation Report,

unpublished, written for the Education Department of Western Australia.

Stern, H. H. (1983). Fundamental Concepts of Language Teaching. Oxford, UK: Oxford University

Press.

Swain, M. (1996). Discovering Successful Second Language Teaching Strategies and Practices:

From programme evaluation to classroom experimentation. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural

Development, 17, 2-4, 89-104.

Swain, M. (1998). Focus on form through conscious reflection. In C. Doughty & J. Williams

(Eds.), Focus on Form in Classroom Second Language Acquisition. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Applied

Linguistics.

Vincent, E. , & Hah, M. (1996). Strategies Employed by Users of a Japanese Computer Assisted

Language Learning (CALL) Programme. Australian Journal of Educational Technology, 12(1), 25-34.

Wallace, M. (1991). Training Foreign Language Teachers: A Reflective Approach. Cambridge, UK:

Cambridge University Press.

Zhang, F. (1992). Native Chinese speakers and teaching Chinese as a second language. In LOUIE, K

(Ed.), New Developments in Chinese Language Teaching and Teacher Training. Brisbane: Key Centre

for Asian Languages and Studies, University of Queensland.


Glossary ofKey Terms


Glossary of Key Terms

Autonomous – Term used in the Proficiency Potential Framework as an identifier of student

characteristics. Students who are autonomous take responsibility for their own learning, use the

teacher as a resource for their learning and are able to access other resources in order to improve

their proficiency in the LOTE.

Broad Input – Characteristic of a programme where learners receive a wide range of listening,

reading and viewing input in the target language.

Content Based Programme – A language programme where some other subject matter is

taught through the target language, rather than the language being an end in itself.

Context – One element of the Proficiency Potential Framework, which is significant in

determining whether a LOTE programme, is embedded or marginalised. Context refers to the

wider educational and political context in which language teaching and learning takes place. This

relates to issues such as politics, economics, the nature of the educational institution and learning

environment, status and power, positions and interrelationships.

Dependence – Term used in the Proficiency Potential Framework to denote student

characteristics. Students who are dependent are reliant on an external resource for their LOTE

learning, for example, the teacher or a specific textbook. Some styles of teaching may promote

student dependence.

Deployment Orientation – Term used in the Proficiency Potential Framework to indicate

whether students are using the target language meaningfully in real contexts or whether they are

generally restricted to rehearsal and artificial language use.

Embedded – The term embedded refers to the solidity of a LOTE programme. Whether a

programme is embedded or not depends on the interaction of three aspects of the programme:

the context in which the programme is situated (ie: Is the overall school environment supportive of

the programme, or not?); the language input to which learners are exposed; and the intake

processes by which input is transformed into intake and then output by students.

Focused Input – Characteristic of a programme where learners have unintentionally restricted

access to target language input. Programmes where learners work predominantly from a textbook

or from worksheets are examples of a focused input programme.

Incorporation – Incorporation of LOTE into the life of the school is regarded as one element of

sustainable LOTE programmes. Incorporation goes beyond integration of LOTE into other

learning areas and may be reflected in such things as general school activities such as school

assemblies, cultural days, school and community interaction and exchange programmes.


Input – Input refers to the samples of oral, written and viewed language to which a learner is

exposed while learning or using a particular target language. We have defined three types of target

language exposure, broad input, selective input and focused input.

Intake – Intake refers to the portion of input that learners attend to and take into their short-

term memory, and subsequently, given the right conditions, into their interlanguage.

Integration – Term used to refer to the use of LOTE in other learning areas and/or the learning

of skills from other learning areas in the LOTE.

Interlanguage – The learner’s developing second language knowledge. It may have

characteristics of the learner’s native language, characteristics of the second language and some

characteristics which seem to be very general and tend to occur in most interlangauge systems.

Language Object Programme – A language programme in which learning the target language is

the end in itself.

Marginalised – Opposite of embedded, it refers to the overall fragility of a LOTE programme. A

LOTE programme is considered marginalised when the overall context in which the programme is

operating is not supportive of LOTE, where students are exposed to focused target language input

and where there is little evidence that teachers or students understand the processes of teaching

and learning a LOTE.

Non-Deployment Orientation – Term used to describe a LOTE learning environment where

students are not provided with opportunities for real and meaningful language use.

Output – Output refers to what students are able to say and do in and through their target

language.

Proficiency Potential Framework – The Proficiency Potential Framework provides a

conceptual framework for describing language programmes in terms of language teaching and

learning and the potential for students to attain proficiency in the language. It is a tool for auditing

language programmes in terms of their potential to produce proficient learners.

Selective Input – Characteristic of a programme where a conscious choice is made to limit input

so as to enable particular outcomes. Programmes where input is selected for the purpose of

enhancing prospects of success in an examination are selective input programmes.

Sustainable – A LOTE programme is considered to be sustainable if the programme is embedded

in the fabric of the school and has the potential to sustain itself despite staffing or other changes.

acknowledgments - curriculum.edu.au · lote; and research into second language learning and...

Documents