Language Programme Sustainability: A case-study of two schools, Anita DasGupta

Loading...

Flash Player 9 (or above) is needed to view presentations.
We have detected that you do not have it on your computer. To install it, go here.

0 comments

Post a comment

    Post a comment
    Embed Video
    Edit your comment Cancel

    Notes on slide 1

    A brief talk through the definitions here

    Why Indonesian: my own interest area, and because Indo is the most prevalent language being taught in Primary Schools (but at risk at High School level)

    A brief reminder here about what NALSAS was

    Give mention to the fact that phased introduction happened over a 7 year period. Schools were expected to take over the management of the programme as funding decreased.

    NOTE: NALSAS THE FIRST TIME SAW 208 MILLION GOING INTO SCHOOLS BETWEEN 1994 – 2002

    With a look at my study we can see how each of these factors have played a role in school language programme sustainability in the past

    Language Policy: Models of language programme delivery: Here I was looking for appropriate models of language programme delivery. The Dept Ed. Tasmania put forward 12 models of language programme delivery, suggesting that a language teacher could be someone who is on staff permanently, part-time, or itinerantly to deliver language teaching. Models consisted of: combining classes together; online delivery; moving students from one school to another once or twice a week for language lessons. The DoE did not promote one preferred model of language programme implementation, opting instead to detail the most common method of language programme delivery in Tasmanian primary schools as a guide. From 1996-2002 the most common method of delivery was based on the standard implementation of the NALSAS strategy.

    System level leadership: Simpson and Norris (2000) suggest that system level personnel who support schools in the implementation of a language programme should provide: Information to schools about what a good language programme and effective language teaching will resemble; Quality, relevant professional development; and Access to funding for resources such as language teacher specialists, curriculum materials, and info tech. Research suggests that with strong system level leadership, language programme is difficult. Articulation: Language programme implementation should be articulated across school sectors according to Curtain and Dahlberg (2000) and Rosenbusch (1995). Articulation ensure that students studying a language have a clear transition of language learning from primary school to secondary school. Tolbert (2003) writes that she has found globally, features of successful transition are: Communication between sectors Knowledge and understanding of styles, approaches, teaching methods and levels attained in teach sector Recognition of prior learning Professional development Language Teacher Supply and Retention: System level decision makers need to consider the supply and retention of language teachers Brady (1995) and Marsh (2004). Rosenbusch (1995), Simpson and Norris (2000) and Curtain and Dahlberg (2000) have mentioned the importance of training language teacher specialists. Important to find a language teacher who has adequate training in languages as well as proficiency in the target language. This factor has been emphasised in documents such as the Review of Commonwealth Languages Other that English Programme and The National Statement for Languages Education in Australian Schools. In Tasmania, the response from system level planners has been to offer teachers to the opportunity to train, or upgrade skills through the Grad Cert in Ed or the Grad Dip. 18 months to complete and were subsidised by the DOE. We are just scratching the surface this one, because retention is a big issue on its own. Breen, Bruguglio and Tognini (1996) have written about the stresses facing itinerant teachers. Access to resources: This links to funding and providing resources such as info tech, time allocation and curriculum materials.

    Active engaged leadership: Active, engaged school based leadership creates a positive school culture around language education (Asia Education Foundation, 2004 & Browett and Spencer, 2006) So, a principal who does not see languages as a valued part of the curriculum may influence school level language programme sustainability in a negative manner. Browett and Spencer suggest that school leadership allocate: non-contact time for collective school discussion Access to teacher aide time Provision of time to visit schools with well sustained language programmes Opportunities for PD RESOURCES We also need to look at school based advocacy delivered on 3 levels, firstly, by consulting with P&F when implementing and sustaining (Simpson and Norris 2000), secondly, advocate school level requirements, of funding, staffing, and PD needs to system level personnel (Dellit 2002), and thirdly, school leadership, through their professional associations, could make uni teacher ed faculties aware of the need for graduates with training in Langs. Ed (Curtain and Dahlberg, 2004). A whole school approach: A whole school approach to language education helps to sustain a language programme within a school. Without a whole school approach to language education, a language programme is more likely to run in isolation from other school curriculum and school planning. Isolation of he language programme may lead to misunderstanding about the langauge programme’s purpose and the benefits to the learner (Rosenbusch, 1995, Dellit, 2002). A supportive environment for the language teacher: The provision of working conditions that assists the language teacher is influential to language programme sustainability. Key writers in the field of languages education believe that such support entails access to curriculum resources and reduction in professional isolation, as well as access to curriculum teaching resources, profession development and a positive school environment are all necessary to support the work of the language teacher (Breen, Bruguglio and Tognini, 1996, Curtain and Dahlberg (2004). Add personal reflection here about not having support? As Liddicoat et al., 2005 suggest that effective language teaching can only occur if the langauge teacher provided with a working situation that optimises their ability to teach.

    An effective language teacher in a sustainable language programme: An effective language teacher contributes significantly to language programme sustainability. Ensuring that a language teacher is proficient in language, culture, language teaching methodologies and general classroom practice, helps to create a language learning experience that is motivating and relevant to student learning. Again, a teacher who has proficiency in the target language, an understanding of first and second language acquisition, but also, someone who is familiar with what happens within the classroom, in terms of behaviour management, student encouragement and motivation, (Curtain and Dahlberg, 2004) (Liddicoat et al., 2005) Language Programme Continuity: A sustainable language programme builds on students’ prior learning in a coherent, carefully planned manner, student works samples need to be assessed, progress tracked. To maintain staff and student interest in the language programme, school level programme continuity needs to be ensured. Curtain and Dahl 2004, Simpson and Norris 2000.

    Economic and political influences: Federal economic and political interests have influenced the implementation and sustainability of language programmes in Australia. A particularly dominant influence has been government trade agendas. Changes in federal government interests have varied the amount of funding provided for Asian Language programme implementation in Australia. This has been reflected in the work of Rudd (1995) who emphasised that the NALSAS strategy was implemented due to a government economic agenda to increase trade with Asia – hence we had NALSAS funding the provision of four Asian languages deemed to be most important to Australian trade: Korean, Chinese, Japanese, Indonesian. Initially NALSAS funding was intended to offer financial support to schools for the provision of Asian languages until the year 2006. The NALSAS strategy was ceased in the year 2000, the Review of the Commonwealth Languages other Than English Programme states that part of the debate was whether continued funding would see the programme completed or would be “throwing good money after bad”. So from 208 million over 8 years, to 1.2 million core grant to the Asia Education Foundation (that was up until 2005), and now it seems we have 62.8 million for the next four years. Cultural influences: Skilbeck (1991) and Brady (1995) were two authors I referred to, who state that cultural influences impact upon general curriculum implementation. Djite (1994) suggests that a great deal of Australian language policy development and implementation has stemmed in shifts in Australian multicultural policy in the 1970s. An example used by Djite is the abandoning of the white aus policy, with more migrants demanding the right to learn languages in schools. Societal influences: Demographic change and values held by society. Saunders (2005) contends that from the beginning of formal secondary education until the 1970s, Australian society valued language education as “an essential part of a well-rounded education” (p.4). Saunders also mentions was a pre-requ. For tertiary study, but this prac was abandoned in the 1970s. Then we had another resurgence again in the 1990s, across all sectors and grades. Parents are also an important influence on all aspects of education, including language education. The work of Simpson and Norris (2000) and Scarino and Papadametre (2001) highlight the need for more parental contributions in the formation of language policy.

    Each participant had to have at least 5 years experience in their position to ensure that interview questions could be answered with insight.

    Research is not generalisable. Aims to provoke thought and discussion – how is this similar or different to our school?

    Regular PD, newsletters, networking, newsletters. These findings support Harbon (2000) who believes that language programme implementation in Tasmania has been supported by strong system level leadership.

    DOE participants A and B acknowledged that there has been a significant reduction in the amount of resources provided to schools, but maintained that is a school’s responsibility to sustain a solid language programme. Schools were not used to dedicating a proportion of the school budget to the language programme.

    Senior Staff participant A explained that in an attempt to keep the programme running, the school had taken steps along the way to assist funding. When NALSAS finished they attempted to keep classes running for just grade 6 classes, and then when Tasmanian State Government provided maintenance funding, School A provided language lessons for Grades 5 and 6.

    School B self funded for two years before NALSAS. With NALSAS they were able to offer two 45 minute Indonesian classes to students a week, with the generalist teacher in the classroom. This has now been reduced to one lesson a week, as non-contact for the class teacher.

    Funding issues has come up in documents by the Australian Primary Principals Association, 2002

    In some areas of Tasmania there is still a current struggle to access language teacher…

    School A found competing demands prevented the school from having the financial flexibility to hire a language teacher. School B highlighted the advantages of having a language teacher who was a full time member of staff but suggested that many schools did not have the flexibility with staffing quotas to allow this. Senior Staff Participant B believes that there is also a lack of generalist teachers leaving uni with a proficiency in a language and an understanding of language teaching methodology.

    With the experiences of Lang. Teacher A and Lang Teacher B reflect that language experience alone is insufficient to sustain a language programme – only effective if they are provided with a working situation that optimises their teaching.

    Both approaches had advantages and disadvantages. School A were exposed to informal learning about culture, and use their language for authentic purposes. School B emphasised sharing, which meant parents could be involved, and encouraged articulation between nearby primary schools and the cluster feeder school.

    Just to summarise – this diagram, the inverted triangle, represents a funnel of factors that the language programme at School A and School B passed through. School level is at the top to show it is most influential – and that school leadership ultimately are the ones that make the decisions surrounding language. System level is in the middle to show that it is influential, but not as important as school level. Wider community are at the bottom. Slightly insignificant at the moment, but they are at the base of both school’s experiences. Without wider community factors there would have been no NALSAS, and therefore no language programmes in both schools.

    A final note from Language Participant A, that I think really hit the nail on the head…. That despite all the factors, influences and impacts… no other subject has to justify its existence like languages do.

    1 Group

    Language Programme Sustainability: A case-study of two schools, Anita DasGupta - Presentation Transcript

    1. Language Programme Sustainability A case-study of two schools
    2. What is language programme sustainability?
      • Language: Refers to the learning of a language that is not English (Liddicoat et al., 2003) .
      • Language programme : A programme undertaken by a school to implement and support the learning of language (Rosenbusch, 1995; Curtain & Dahlberg, 2004).
      • Sustainability: Careful planning and management to ensure that languages have a continued role within school curriculum (Dellit, 2002; Simpson & Norris, 2000).
    3. Background to the study
      • A qualitative case study that examined the factors that affect a language programme’s sustainability in Tasmanian primary schools.
      • The experiences of two Tasmanian primary schools were analysed
      • The study had a specific focus on Indonesian language programmes
    4. Background to Languages Education in Tasmanian schools
      • The implementation of Languages Education in Tasmania has been largely influenced by the Tasmanian LOTE Policy (DEA, 1995)
      • The Tasmanian LOTE Policy was, in part, funded by the NALSAS Strategy
      • Therefore, the content of the Tas. LOTE Policy was reflective of NALSAS Strategy Goals
    5. The Tas. LOTE Policy stated targets that by year 2007:
      • 60% of Year 10 students studying an Asian language
      • 40% of Year 10 students studying a European or Aboriginal language or Auslan
      • 15% of Year 11 and Year 12 students will be studying an Asian language
      • 10% of Year 11 and 12 students will be studying a European or Aboriginal language or Auslan.
      • (DEA, 1995, p. 3)
    6. Funding to government schools consisted of:
      • Access to staffing provision of 1.25 hours per 30 students. Phased introduction was to occur with this provision.
      • Resources and materials worth $1000 per year for schools for the first four years of implementation
      • School, school cluster, district and state level support for language teachers
      • Relief allocation for professional development
      • (DEA, n.d.a. p. 3)
    7. Significance of the research
      • National Asian Languages and Studies in Schools Programme – new funding and goals
      • The NALSSP Information Pack states that $62.4 million has been set aside to fund opportunities in Asian languages over the next four years.
      • NALSSP also aims to have 12% of Year 12 students leaving school with an Asian language
      • The NALSSP Information Pack also claims that there will be challenges such as:
      • A shortage of qualified language teachers
      • Decline in value for language learning
      • Insufficient time allocated for language learning
      • Lack of ability to study languages continuously and sequentially
      • Lack of requirement to include studies of Asia across the curriculum in any jurisdiction
      • Need for teachers of SOSE, English and the Arts to develop knowledge, skills and understanding about Asia
      • (DEEW, 2009, p. 2)
    8. These challenges were not unfamiliar to this study
      • … ..And with this brief contextual overview, I’d now like to introduce you to the two schools.
    9. The schools
      • School A
      • Discontinued Indonesian programme in 2004
      • School B
      • Indonesian programme still continues today
      • Both schools were located in similar socio-economic areas, with similar student populations
      • School A and School B used NALSAS strategy funding to support their Indonesian programmes
    10. The Research Questions
      • Overarching research question:
      • What factors affected the sustainability of language programmes in two Tasmanian Primary Schools?
    11. Three sub-questions were used to guide the research:
      • What system level factors affected the sustainability of language programmes in two Tasmanian primary schools?
      • What school level factors affected the decision to continue or discontinue language programmes in two Tasmanian primary schools?
      • What factors in the wider community affected the sustainability of the language programmes in two Tasmanian primary schools?
    12. Literature Review
      • A framework of factors that contributed to language programme sustainability was put together.
    13. System level factors
      • Language Policy and language education curriculum frameworks
      • Models of language programme delivery
    14. System level factors
      • System level leadership
      • Articulation of a language programme between primary school and high school
      • Language teacher supply and retention
      • Access to resources
    15. School Level Factors
      • Active, engaged school based leadership
      • Whole school approaches
      • A supportive environment for the language teacher
    16. School level factors
      • An effective language teacher in a sustainable programme
      • Language programme continuity within a primary school
    17. Wider community factors
      • Economic and political influences
      • Cultural influences
      • Societal influences
      • Parental influences
    18. The next step
      • To interview participants using semi-structured interview
      • Interview questions pertained the research question and sub-questions
    19. Six key participants were interviewed
      • Two Department of Education personnel who had responsibility for the implementation of languages at a district level
      • The language teacher and a senior staff member from School A (discontinued)
      • The language teacher and a senior staff member from School B (continued)
    20. Examples of interview questions
      • Please tell me about the decision making processes that surrounded the introduction of the programme.
      • What curriculum structures underpinned the programme?
      • What factors in society and at the political level impact on Indonesian language study in schools?
      • In what ways has the district/Dept Ed continued to support primary language programmes?
    21. The next step
      • Interviews were member checked by participants.
      • A data analysis summary sheet was used to ensure data was kept in context according to typology and each particular research sub-question
    22. The findings Over arching question: What factors affected the sustainability of language programmes in two Tasmanian primary schools? System level factors School level factors Wider community factors
    23. Findings and discussion pertaining to sub-question 1 What system level factors affected the sustainability of language programmes in two Tasmanian primary schools?
      • System level strengths that emerged:
      • Strong leadership from District Languages Co-ordinators
      • Evidence of language pathways
      • System level weaknesses that emerged:
      • Access to funding resources
      • Access/flexibility to hire qualified languages teachers
    24. Leadership from District Language Co-ordinators
      • “ There is always support offered. Whether it is taken up or not, is another story” DoE Participant A
      • School level participants had no criticism of system level leadership
      • Dept. Ed participants reflected on their roles, implementing programmes and offering support to all schools in their district
    25. Evidence of language pathways
      • School level participants indicated that their language programmes were implemented under the provision of the NALSAS Strategy
      • This model ensured that language programmes at both School A and School B had links to a feeder high school.
    26. Language Pathways
      • School A (discontinued)
      • Had an itinerant Indonesian teacher, who was also shared with the local high school
      • “ It was really good having seen the kids from grade 3…I knew them well, and I knew where they had been at” Language Teacher Participant A
      • School B (continued)
      • Had regular contact with the Indonesian teacher at the cluster feeder high school
      • School B provided written information to the feeder high school about material covered
    27. Resources and funding
      • “ The impact has been from principals who believe the press they’ve been given (about the discontinuation of the NALSAS Strategy seven year funding cycle being the end of school language programme funding), and so some have used that as an excuse to say “no money – can’t do it””
      • DOE Participant A
    28. However, from the schools…
      • “ NALSAS was predicated on the assumption that we would see the value of languages to the point where we would just pick up the resourcing…at that point in time, that was politically na ïve…it wasn’t built in a sound, sustainable way to grow languages other than English”
      • Senior Staff Participant A
      • “ The primary factor that affected our school was financial. The school didn’t want to go into the school’s budget to fund LOTE (Languages). They wanted outside sourcing”
      • Language Teacher Participant A
      • At the end of 2004, Language Teacher Participant A decided it was time for her to leave the school. Senior Staff decided to discontinue the school’s language programme.
    29. In contrast
      • School B’s programme was initiated after the school community recognised that language education was about to become an emphasised area
      • They used the school budget to self fund the beginning of the school’s language programme
      • “ Funding has a huge impact. If you had to ask me how much, I would say it has a 9 out of 10 value if funding is given to have a LOTE teacher there in the school … Principals don’t have access to resources to keep buying in LOTE teachers. It’s one of the first things to be dropped”
      • Senior Staff Participant B
      • Funding issues identified by staff at both School A and School B are not uncommon system level factors affecting the sustainability of language programmes in Australian primary schools.
      • Maintenance funding is still offered by the Tasmanian government, schools are encouraged to make a contribution equal to the funding provided.
    30. Access/flexibility to hire a qualified language teacher
      • Staffing is an influential factor acknowledged by all participants
      • Department of Ed. Participants noted that there was a current struggle to access qualified language teachers
      • A school’s capacity to employ a suitably qualified language teacher is influenced by the provision of funding
      • School A
      • “ It’s not until you sit down and try to staff a school with the staffing that you’ve got…and assess the competing demands…in the end you make decisions that you might not necessarily be happy with…it’s regrettable. I suppose LOTE was a casualty in that process”
      • Senior Staff Participant A
      • School B
      • “ It helps to have a language teacher who is on staff, full time It is a more attractive package to principals to pick up somebody who has a LOTE and is flexible to take a number of classes”
      • Senior Staff Participant B
    31. Findings from research sub-question 1 indicate that:
      • School A and School B had adequate system level support and good articulation
      • Both schools reflected on the need for system level funding. School B, however, was prepared to continue Indonesian with less system level funding.
      • Access to qualified language teachers, and flexibility with staffing quotas were also key points
    32. Findings and discussion pertaining to sub-question 2 What school level factors affected the decision to continue or discontinue a primary school language programme in two Tasmanian primary schools?
    33. School level issues that emerged were:
      • Leadership within the school
      • Whole school approaches
      • Links to other curriculum areas
      • The language teacher within the school
      • Links made to the target language and culture beyond the school
    34. Leadership within the school
      • Department of Ed. Participants explained that a quality language programme should be valued by senior staff within a school
      • They believed that having school leadership that values language education is a necessary condition for language programme sustainability
    35. In School A:
      • Discontinuation was solely decided by school leadership
      • Language Teacher A noted the difference in value the school placed on languages when it was fully funded by NALSAS
      • Senior Staff Participant A justified the decision to discontinue the language programme due to other curriculum commitments that needed staffing
    36. The school participants emphasised:
      • Language Teacher A
      • “ The school was more than prepared to back languages, and they did back it really well – when there was outside money coming in”
      • Senior Staff Participant A
      • “ You feel like you’ve got such a tiny amount of resource to juggle around… I don’t think we’ve got enough flexibility to ride out some of those little rough patches”
    37. In School B:
      • LOTE is a valued part of the curriculum
      • Senior Staff Participant B had spent time learning Indonesian so she could support the language programme
      • “ LOTE is a part of the curriculum, and it’s expected that we teach LOTE”
      • Senior Staff Participant B
    38. The value of language learning in School B demonstrates:
      • The actions of leadership have a strong effect on the amount of value that is placed on a language programme
    39. A Whole School Approach
      • Department of Ed. Participants indicated that a quality language programme is one that is supported by the whole school
      • A clear distinction was found between the approaches in both schools
    40. School A
      • “ The driver of the programme was the Language teacher ” Senior Staff Participant A
      • The language teacher ensured that Indonesian displays, activities and greetings were evident within the school
      • Reports were done in tick-a-box style
    41. School B
      • “ Parents probably don’t have a second language themselves…but they do appreciate the efforts we make”
      • Senior Staff Participant B
      • Generalist teachers in School B follow up on incomplete Indonesian work
      • Displays, activities, assembly items were organised by the language teacher
      • Activity days were held in conjunction with the cluster high school
      • Performances were held for parents
      • Indonesian was evaluated by all staff at the end of the year, along with music, PE and library
    42. The difference
      • School A – the driver of the programme is the language teacher
      • School B- has all staff involved, thus integrating language as a part of the culture of the whole school
    43. Links to other curriculum areas
      • Department of Ed. Participant A had run professional development sessions in cross-curricular planning
      • Department of Ed. Participant A also believed that a sustainable school language programme should make cross curricular links
    44. In School A:
      • Language Teacher A tried to make cross curricular links but found it too difficult due to:
      • Her itinerant workload
      • That content in the classroom regularly changed
      • Staff were not interested
    45. School B:
      • Senior Staff Participant B and Language Teacher Participant B acknowledged that the intention was to link language and general classroom teaching
      • They both admitted that it didn’t always work but Language Teacher B noticed that students were more engaged when her programme related to class interests
    46. Cross-curricular links depend on:
      • The amount of time the language teacher spends in the school
      • The provision of time for teams of teachers to plan together
    47. The language teacher within the school:
      • Department of Education Participants A and B emphasised that a sustainable primary school language programme has a teacher who:
      • Is proficient in the target language
      • Can engage students in language learning
      • Understands the pedagogy needed to teach the target language
    48. In School A:
      • Language Teacher Participant A felt valued, but suggests it may have been due to her personality
      • Was trained as a generalist classroom teacher
      • Her strategy was based on building students’ Indonesian vocabulary and making language an enjoyable experience
    49. In School B:
      • Language Teacher B was full-time at the school and felt valued by staff and students
      • Senior Staff Participant B believed that the sustainability of the language programme at School B was assisted by
      • “ Having a language teacher that really knows the students, and isn’t itinerant. So although they are not a classroom based teacher, they are part of the school”
      • Senior Staff Participant B
    50. Links made to the target language and culture beyond the school
      • Department of Ed. Participant A reflected that a feature of effective language teaching is student engagement
      • In School A links were made through:
      • A writing exchange with a school learning Indonesian in Melbourne
      • The cultural experiences of an Australian, known to the school who was living in Kalimantan caring for orang-utans
      • In School B links were made through:
      • An Indonesian parent teaching dance
      • Cluster activity days, involving parents and students engaging in art, cooking, music and dance
      • A district Indonesian camp (6 students from each school in the district were selected to attend)
    51. Findings from research sub-question 2 indicate that:
      • Numerous school level factors play a large role in a school’s decision to continue or discontinue a language programme
      • School A and School B took differing paths
    52. School A
      • Senior Staff valued languages, until outside funding diminished
      • Communication between staff was limited
      • Staff were not informed that the language programme was to be discontinued
      • Links between schools at the local level were not maintained
    53. In School B
      • A whole school approach to language education had contributed to language programme sustainability
      • All staff were involved in the decision making process
      • The language programme was articulated with other primary schools in the local cluster
    54. Findings pertaining to research sub-question 3 What factors in the wider community affected the sustainability of language programmes in two Tasmanian primary schools?
    55. Two factors emerged:
      • Parental opinions
      • Current events in Indonesia
    56. Parental opinion
      • Department of Education Participant A explained that parents and guardians had to approve of the introduction of a language programme
      • Department of Education Participant B knew of schools in which the language programme had discontinued due to a lack of support from parents and senior staff
    57. In School A:
      • “ There never was…a strong parent reaction for one way or another towards language. For the overwhelming majority it would have been more a silent response to LOTE than an active one…”
      • Senior Staff Participant A
    58. Language Teacher A felt that:
      • School A was located in an area where learning about other cultures and languages were not really valued, so parents had little involvement in the programme
      • Occasionally students had a “what do you need to learn that for” attitude
    59. Furthermore:
      • Parents had no involvement in the decision to discontinue languages
      • Many had not realised!
      • “ Parents still come up to me now, six months after the start of this year and say, “Oh why aren’t you teaching Indonesian?” and its only just occurred..”
      • Language Teacher Participant A
    60. In School B:
      • Language Teacher B occasionally heard a racist comment that she felt originated from a student’s home
      • On the whole she felt that parents and guardians accepted Indonesian as part of the school
      • Some would comment about students teaching younger siblings at home
      • School based participants could not offer any information about how parents were involved in the implementation of the language programme
      • School A had tried to get some parent insight through surveys
      • School B opted to engage parents in language learning
    61. Current events in Indonesia
      • Past and present political events in Indonesia did not appear to have any direct negative influence upon the language programme at School A or School B
      • However, all participants offered an opinion regarding Indonesian language learning and current events in Indonesia
      • Department of Ed. Participants A and B believed that politics and the media were possibly influencing student perceptions
      • They also explained that in-country teacher training was an issue at the moment
      • “… kids still think about the Bali bombing, they still think about Muslims being “terrorists”… We really need to get to know Indonesians, get to know them as friends and family…”
      • Department of Education Participant B
    62. In School A:
      • Senior Staff Participant A believed that political relations were not an influence on language programme sustainability
      • However, Language Teacher A noted:
      • “ People were keen, but after the bombings, that has turned a lot of people off. I have noticed that interest has waned a lot since then and not as many schools now do Indonesian. It has got a lot smaller over the last four years… The scaremongering on the on the telly and stuff has made it harder to sell”
    63. In School B:
      • They could recall one negative parent response
      • On the whole, Indonesian is just accepted as a part of the programme
      • Politics and current events had not influenced the language programmes in School A and School B
      • Responses from Department of Ed. Participant B and Language Teacher Participant A suggest that Indonesian political instability is influencing the general support for Indonesian language programmes
    64. Findings from research sub-question 3 indicate that:
      • No wider community factors directly impacted the sustainability of language programmes in School A and School B
    65. School level factors Strong supportive leadership A whole school approach System level factors Access to government funding Access/flexibility to hire a qualified lang. teacher Wider community factors Trade with Asia NALSAS School A Discontinued School B Continued
      • School A
      • Expressed value of language education
      • Funding was an influential factor
      • Flexibility with staffing quotas affected decisions made by leadership
      • Whole school approach was lacking
      • School B
      • Expressed value of language education, and gave evidence of explicit support
      • Whole school approach was evident
      • Participants voiced the need for greater funding and access to staff
    66. In conclusion:
      • This study highlights the interrelated, diverse, and complex nature of language programme sustainability.
      • The research further suggests that if language programmes in Tasmanian primary schools are to become truly sustainable, then the system level, school level, and wider community need to work together.
      • School staff also need to actively support language education.
    67. “ No other subject has to justify its existence like languages do” Language Teacher Participant A, 2005
    SlideShare Zeitgeist 2009

    + Laura LochoreLaura Lochore Nominate

    custom

    147 views, 0 favs, 0 embeds more stats

    Language Programme Sustainability: A case-study of more

    More info about this document

    © All Rights Reserved

    Go to text version

    • Total Views 147
      • 147 on SlideShare
      • 0 from embeds
    • Comments 0
    • Favorites 0
    • Downloads 2
    Most viewed embeds

    more

    All embeds

    less

    Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
    Flag as inappropriate

    Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate. If needed, use the feedback form to let us know more details.

    Cancel
    File a copyright complaint
    Having problems? Go to our helpdesk?

    Categories

    Groups / Events