Faculty of Education

Although writers such as Pennycook (1994) have recognised that English has become an almost necessary prerequisite for global communication, it is recognised by others that cross-cultural communication and intercultural literacy are preferable for mutual understanding (Heyward, 1999). Many governments recognise a 'duty' to educate the next generations of citizens to be able to communicate (face-to-face or 'virtually') with speakers of other languages. As a result, foreign language (henceforth LOTE) education policies have been formulated by jurisdictions in most countries (Rubichi, 1995).

Debates over strategies by which to implement LOTE curriculum policy, about strategies to teach second or foreign languages, and about the optimal age to start second language learning continue to be controversial (McLaughlin, 1992; Stern, 1991). Researchers constantly question whether the teaching methods and program models are naturalistic and/or authentic for optimum student learning (Dunlop, Titone, Takala, Schrand, Lucas, Steele, Shohamy, Allen, Olshtain, Spolsky, Krashen & Bialystok, 1991; Met & Galloway, 1992), and whether a global awareness for language learners is possible by implementing programs utilising certain methods and models.

Curriculum policy becoming 'operational' (Thornton, 1988, p. 310), or translated into practice, is a concern of this study of Tasmanian LOTE Policy implementation. Inherent in the conceptual framework are the two areas forming a theoretical basis for this study: research on curriculum policy implementation, and research on, and practice in, primary LOTE education. The findings of this doctoral study concerning the latter, primary LOTE education, has been (Harbon, 2000) and will be reported elsewhere. What is presented below details the findings about one specific context of a curriculum policy implementation process.

Although simplifying curriculum policy implementation and its complex characteristics and processes, the conceptual framework below (see Figure 1) was an attempt to set this study within a structure to enable examination of implementation.

ê

Curriculum policy, according to Hughes (1991, p. 137) '...establishes the character of the curriculum, often specifying what must, should, or may be taught' or '...the blueprint from which detailed objectives, teaching strategies, evaluation procedures, or whatever, are to be derived' (Hughes, 1991, p. 137). Prior to the 1960s, curriculum policies were highly prescriptive, setting out guidelines with specific content, '...official directives established as public policy through government legislation...' (Hughes, 1991, p. 138). More and more, policies have become '...general statements or suggestions' (Fullan, 1991, p. 273), seen by Hughes (1991, p. 138) as '...vague advice'.

David Marquand's work, The unprincipled society: new demands and old politics (1988) acknowledges that teachers are key players in implementing the 'negotiated' national curriculum and policy. He argues that a curriculum is continuously constructed and reconstructed in an interlocking network of local (school level), regional (local/state government level) and national directives by teachers, principals and administrators. This contestation requires participants to dialogue aims, processes, understandings and forms of practice (Elliott, 1998, p. 35), to construct and reconstruct and deliver the curriculum.

Australia is one country where, for more than ten years, the teaching and learning of LOTE in schools has been placed high on the educational agenda. Tracing government reports and committee findings on LOTE education shows that from the late 1960s, Australia has placed LOTE on its list of national curriculum priorities. Many politicians from the major parties believed that trade and investment strategies would be enhanced if future generations of Australians understood the languages and cultures of, particularly, the Asia-Pacific region. This impetus was continually reinforced by the findings of successive reports and the work of bodies such as the Council of Australian Governments (COAG), the Asian Studies Council (ASC), the Asia Education Foundation (AEF) and the Australian Advisory Council on Languages and Multicultural Education (AACLAME). Coupled with an increased voice from the Federation of Ethnic Communities' Councils of Australia (FECCA), as it strove to ensure that languages other than English were included in school curricula, foreign language teaching was the centre of heightened interest among many educational pressure groups within the Australian community (Bostock, 1993).

Tasmania introduced LOTE into its primary schools in 1996 in similar fashion to the practices initiated in other Australian states and territories with the publication of the Tasmanian LOTE Policy in October 1995 (DEA, 1995a). These initiatives followed significant recommendations about LOTE education contained in documents such as the Hobart Declaration on Schooling (AEC, 1989) and Asian Languages and Australia's Economic Future: A Report prepared for the Council of Australian Governments on a Proposed National Asian Languages/Studies Strategy for Australian Schools (COAG, 1994). A Tasmanian LOTE Policy appeared in October 1995 (DEA, 1995a) and has subsequently been implemented incrementally in a significant number of Tasmanian government primary schools from Grade 3 level across the state.

In this study data were collected to answer these research questions:

RQ#1 According to the Tasmanian LOTE Policy (DEA, 1995a), how was LOTE intended to be implemented in Tasmanian primary schools? and,

RQ#2 How was LOTE implemented in practice in Tasmanian primary schools?

The data collection approaches were:

• survey method, to access perceptions about implementation and policy from fifty

(N = 50) primary LOTE teachers in 'on-line' Tasmanian government primary schools

(schools receiving departmental funding for these programs);

• case study method, firstly to access observational and interview data representing perceptions from three teachers involved in the first-hand implementation of primary LOTE programs in 'on-line' schools between 1996 and 1998, and secondly to access the intended policy guidelines through a document analysis.

A response rate of 80% was recorded for the survey, which is a high response rate for survey data. Forty primary LOTE teachers, 83% female (N=33) and 17% male (N=7) responded to the survey. 28% of respondents (N=11), which included the three teachers participating in the case studies, chose to identify themselves to the researcher. Mostly female teachers with relatively little experience teaching primary LOTE, but most of whom had travelled to the target country and approximately half of whom had learned the LOTE recently, were teaching multiple LOTE classes each week.

The Tasmanian LOTE Policy (DEA, 1995a) intended to provide systemic management, resources, a clarity in timetabling and an investment in human resources, highlighted as important in a review of the literature on curriculum policy (Fullan, 1991a; Kallos & Lundgren, 1979; McLaughlin, 1998; and Thornton, 1988).

In providing a management structure the Tasmanian LOTE Policy (DEA, 1995a) stated:

• a rationale for LOTE study. This rationale mirrored those found in other Australian states and overseas policies, including mention of balanced child cognitive and conceptual development, increased possibilities of inter-cultural understandings, communications and career prospects (Department of Education Queensland, 1991; Education Department of South Australia, 1987; Education Department of Western Australia, 1995; New South Wales Department of School Education, 1992; Northern Territory Teaching Service, 1987);

• details about which languages would be offered. The four pathway languages were to be French, German, Indonesian and Japanese, providing the Asian/European balance. There were also to be supported languages (Italian, Korean, Spanish, Modern Standard Chinese & Aboriginal languages), Auslan and community languages;

• the stipulation that national curriculum documents should guide implementation '...LOTEs will be taught to standards of language proficiency consistent with the LOTE Statement and Profile' (Curriculum Corporation, 1994a & 1994b)
• key outcomes would include language and cultural understandings as a priority for student learning. These were to be achieved by students linking the learning of the LOTE itself with specific socio-cultural background material. The LOTE Policy required that '...some of the cultural understanding components associated with LOTE offered by their school [be included] within their Studies of Society and the Environment program' (DEA, 1995a); and

• logistical details regarding expected collaboration between primary, secondary schools and colleges in a cluster, who provide a guaranteed pathway for students continuing with a language.

In order to provide resources for the curriculum innovation, the Tasmanian LOTE Policy (DEA, 1995a) briefly stated that curriculum materials and other resources, such as curriculum officer positions, would be made available to schools.

Providing a clarity in scope, sequence and timetabling, the Tasmanian LOTE Policy (DEA, 1995a) stated:

• goals for student learning outcomes. These included the following targets for 2007:

• details on time to be dedicated to this LOTE study; 2.5 hours per week between Year 3 and Year 10 (ie. a possible total of 800 hours) over eight 'guaranteed pathway' years.

Evidence of the Department of Education and the Arts' intention to invest in human resources was within the statement that '...an increasing number of teachers would be trained in a LOTE' (DEA, 1995a, p. 3) and that teachers would receive professional development opportunities. Details were included for intended roles and responsibilities for primary class teachers, secondary SOSE teachers, the LOTE teachers, principals, and senior departmental staff.

Overall the teachers participating in the study stated their conversance (90% 'strongly agreed' or 'agreed') and agreement (78% 'strongly agreed' or 'agreed') with the intended Policy. This 'sympathy' with the rationale, according to Noddings & Enright (1983, p. 182) is important for the successful resulting implementation. Teachers are said to understand and see the relevance of the change when they have 'sympathised' with the intended innovation, and when they have developed opinions, sensations, conditions and feelings about how it will impact on them. Particular comments included three teachers who, responding to the survey item relating to their perceptions of policy, commented that the 'guaranteed pathway' of 8 continuous years of LOTE study was beneficial.

Suggested in the research literature on language curriculum policy design, and evident in many aspects of the intended Tasmanian LOTE Policy, is the planning of a foreign language education policy which is:

• balanced in regard to 'top-down/bottom-up' procedures as can be seen with the intended responsibilities for teachers and senior departmental staff (Fullan, 1994; Sabatier, 1986);
• incrementally implemented (Fullan, 1991a);
• resourced with trained personnel and materials;
• designed with a clear scope and sequence, with a rationale which highlights the benefits of early LOTE learning for utilitarian as well as child-focused reasons.

The intended Tasmanian LOTE Policy attended to many of the factors which, if included in policy formulation, are likely to enhance the conditions for successful language curriculum implementation (Dunlop et al., 1991; Fullan, 1991a; Spolsky, 1991). Compared to other overseas and Australian foreign language education policies, the Tasmanian LOTE Policy is:

• more detailed than some (showing a strong-featured framework); and

• characterised by a leadership-dominated scenario as in the case of the NSW Policy (NSW Department of School Education, 1992), yet not overwhelming with the amount of detail as compared to others, showing the balanced flexibility of a weaker framework. The provision of a not too strong, yet not too weak framework which includes many surface details need not be perceived negatively, rather there will be opportunities available for 'bottom up' implementation strategies and the likelihood of teacher ownership after the initial leadership-dominated years.

However, a number of attributes of successful implementation of Policy were not evident, including:

• intention to monitor the Policy along a stipulated timeline;

• acknowledgement of the importance of the teacher collegial network;
• specification of teacher qualifications and proficiency levels;
• specification of teacher's use of LOTE teaching methodology;
• provision of coaching models; and
• specification of supporting mechanisms for LOTE teachers to reflect and acknowledge their personal and professional beliefs in their LOTE pedagogy.

The management structures indicated through the Tasmanian LOTE Policy documents show a policy aimed at incremental implementation of a goal-oriented set of guidelines, offering surface-level pointers on the 'why, when, who, where and how' of LOTE education for Tasmanian government primary schools as was highlighted in language curriculum policy research in Australia and overseas. Yet the Policy itself was not adequate to guide implementation. A set of supplementary documents were produced to 'unpack' the details of the Policy for school and administrative staff (DEA, 1995b; DEA, 1995c; Educational Programs Branch, 1995a; Educational Programs Branch, 1995b). These detailed guidelines were sent to senior staff in the Department of Education and the Arts, staff at District Offices, Principals and LOTE teachers who would implement LOTE programs for the start of the 1996 school year and who could plan and embark on implementation with intended Policy 'unpacked' further for the benefit of those implementing at various levels.

Working with the teachers and school-based resources available, the Tasmanian Department of Education and the Arts:

• implemented the 'pathway' languages in various schools according to decisions on choice of LOTE made at district level. The intended balance was not evident in 1998, with 19 Indonesian programs, 10 Japanese programs, 8 French programs, 2 Italian and 1 German programs. Due to this 'bottom-up' feature whereby teachers, schools and districts made decisions on choice of LOTE, this imbalance was the eventual case;

• set up the incremental implementation of these programs within 'peripatetic' contexts, where many of the teachers worked in one or more classrooms at their own and other schools. Teachers responding to the survey (60% 'strongly agreed' or 'agreed') that the most effective way of meeting the needs of the students learning LOTE is to provide a peripatetic LOTE teacher across a number of schools. The majority commented that this model ensures dedicated LOTE time, ensures continuity and allows teachers to focus on one task;
• supported 'team' delivery of LOTE programs, with both a specialist LOTE teacher and generalist class teacher in charge of the program delivery as had been intended. Teachers commented on the support they received from the generalist class teachers. 20% 'strongly agreed' and 67.5% 'agreed' that class teachers totally supported their teaching;
• initially allocated 2.5 hours of LOTE per class per week to the implementation of the programs. However, after the first year the DEA indicated that one of those hours should be dedicated to teacher preparation time;
• set up a teacher training framework, which included introductory LOTE implementation seminars and also the establishment of a Graduate Certificate in Education (LOTE Teaching) offered through the DEA as the accrediting body, for teachers to upgrade their LOTE specific and method qualifications;
• purchased syllabus documents and related materials for French, German, Indonesian and Japanese teachers to utilise in the implementation of programs. These were purchased through both the Western Australian and South Australian Education Departments; and
• appointed curriculum officers to the north and south of the state to aid implementation.

This teacher research tracked the initial years of implementation of a foreign language curriculum policy in one state of Australia. It examined Tasmania's policy intentions and actual attempts to prepare its school-aged children to be globally aware and gain skills in linguistic and cultural awareness, in keeping with trends in other Australian states and territories and nations overseas. This particular teacher research tracked teacher perceptions of which external and teacher-specific factors impacted on curriculum policy implementation.

Implementation in the initial years also saw the primary LOTE teachers actively seeking out the 'up-close' (McLaughlin, 1998) network of their LOTE teaching colleagues at other schools in order to discuss their planning and teaching and share resources, an aspect which had not been included in intended policy. Some districts made funding available for teachers to find this support network, though no reports occurred that it was systematically occurring.

The Department of Education and the Arts addressed implementation issues through the disseminating of memoranda to school principals. Yet there were no findings of this study which reported that Principals had actively sought to achieve greater levels of wider school community awareness and support through the dialogues which had been suggested in their intended roles and responsibilities noted in the Policy (DEA, 1995a). Yet no teachers mentioned that principals were investing large amounts of time and energy to this end.

Another intention of the LOTE Policy which was not realised in these early years was that computer-based technology should play a significant role in both teacher training and student learning, seen in the provision of the technology package schools received in coming on-line. Approximately half of the respondents reported (55% 'strongly agreed' and 'agreed') having the time to achieve success in mastering the skills necessary to utilise this technology.

The Department of Education and the Arts funded LOTE programs in order that both a specialist LOTE teacher and a generalist class teacher would be present to deliver the programs. Relationships fostered between the specialist or semi-specialist LOTE teachers and generalist class teachers or with primary LOTE teaching colleagues made an impact on how LOTE is delivered in classrooms. Teachers reported various levels of generalist class teacher support, depending on the individual school involved. Teacher P reported that '...some teachers participate as learners. Others are merely present in the room'.

The professional development programs for LOTE teachers were not without inherent issues. Teachers found fault with the initial years of the Department of Education's provision of professional development courses for LOTE within the Graduate Certificate in Education (LOTE Teaching). During 1998, alluding to the issues inherent in the Department of Education's professional development program for LOTE teachers at that time, Teacher B noted that she was '...hanging in, barely!' in the in-service professional development program.

Teachers negotiating policy guidelines admitted to have planned to demonstrate students' acquired learning, because of the authority and power that the wider system held (Elmore & Sykes) over teachers' decision making. All three teachers participating in the case studies admitted to demonstrating students' acquired learning to help market and promote LOTE education in their primary schools. Comments from Teacher A on accountability and overt demonstrations of student learning show her mixed feelings towards this trend, that it was not the total driving force, but certainly a strong consideration. She reported a belief in sending published work home to parents, but was quick to add that it isn't necessary, '...it shouldn't be a major thing. It shouldn't take up a lot of your time.' Teacher B commented that with LOTE, '...you get an impression of what's going on from what's around the walls, or what the kids...are doing...'. She said, 'I still don't think other areas are under the same sort of microscope...'. Teacher C commented that it is often the desire of the generalist class teacher to have a completed work sample for display in the classroom, '...something that they can be proud to show people.'

There is always room for more change in the educational sphere. Fullan stated that teachers are key figures in the process of understanding the implementation process, yet they may not be in a position to be able to influence more change (1991b, p. 383).

Both the literature reviewed and the findings of this study suggest that change in practice occurs when certain elements occur in combination: attention to the development of clear and validated materials; active administrative support and leadership at the district and especially the school level; focused, ongoing in-service or staff development activities; the development of collegiality and other interaction-based conditions at the school level; and the selective use of external resources (both people and materials).

For LOTE teachers, the recommendations of this research are that they continue to plan, design, implement, assess and evaluate high quality LOTE programs, using communicative methods with clear links to the cultural background of the language. Detailed recommendations from this research for LOTE specific purposes will be documented elsewhere. For generalist class teachers, the recommendation are that they continue to be work as a key part of the delivery team.

For primary principals, the recommendations are that they:

• continue to be accountable for the success of implementation of LOTE programs in their schools as this and other research on their role has implied;

• continue to develop their intended roles and responsibilities as per the Policy;

• place more emphasis on wider community dialogue concerning primary LOTE.

For schools, the recommendations are that, as Breen, Briguglio & Tognini (1996) recommended from Western Australian research, LOTE be included in school development plans; and schools should encourage the relationship between primary and secondary school LOTE staff to ensure smooth articulation between programs. For school communities, the recommendation is that the members of these communities actively involve themselves in the context of the LOTE curriculum so as to dialogue the issues surrounding the LOTE implementation.

For the jurisdiction responsible for LOTE curriculum implementation, the recommendations are that:

• the system continues to fund, provide system management for primary LOTE, paying attention to clarity of timetable and investment in human resources;

• a leadership-dominated start gives way to 'diffusion' (McBeath, 1997) of policy management to teachers later on;

• acknowledgement is made that the LOTE teachers need to maintain current knowledge and skills of the LOTE they teach and provide funding for this constant upgrading to occur; and that

• further dialogue opportunities are fostered between primary and secondary LOTE programs.

For the development of future LOTE policies beginning at primary school level, further studies should take place to monitor the both the 'initiation' and 'continuation' phases of the policy change process (Fullan, 1991a) in order to explore characteristics of the impacting factors in those phases.

Further research may also focus on curriculum policy implementation similar to this study to explore how policy makers might anticipate more effectively how policy is to be implemented. Future research on teachers' pedagogical practices and the ways in which teachers make decisions may also present important findings