1

JAPANESE LANGUAGEEDUCATION IN
AUSTRALIA TODAY:AN OVERVIEW
1ROBYN SPENCE-BROWN
Monash University

ABSTRACTIn the first decade of the twenty-first century Japanese was the most widely taught language in Australia and Australia had the third
highest number of students of Japanese in the world. In recent years, however, the position of Japanese has become less certain.
The economic and instrumental reasons for studying Japanese have become less compelling, although cultural motivations arestill strong, particularly among senior secondary and tertiary students. At the same time, the educational environment and policies
in Australia have also been evolving, with both positive and negative impacts on language education. In an era of globalisation, manyof the factors affecting the study of Japanese in other parts of the world also affect Australia, but the way in which they cometogether here is unique.

This paper examines the changing forces that have shaped JLE in Australia, provides a snapshot of the current situation,and explores implications for the future.

1 This paper is loosely based on an address given in Japanese at the ICJLE conference in Sydney in 2014.

2

STUDENT NUMBERS
At the beginning of the twenty-first century about 426,000 students (around 10% of all Australian school students) werestudying Japanese (de Kretser & Spence-Brown 2010). This was the culmination of a huge expansion in student numbers
over the last two decades of the twentieth century which can largely be attributed to the growing economic and strategic
importance of Japan, and to policy initiatives at the federal and state levels, building on the National Policy on Languages(Lo Bianco 1987) and underpinned by the NALSAS (National Asian Languages and Studies in Australian Schools) strategy
which provided large amounts of financial support for this expansion over the years 1994–2002.
Since then, however, enrolments have been gradually declining overall, although there have been considerable fluctuations
within particular jurisdictions, particularly at the primary level. As the most commonly taught language in Australia,
Japanese and its fortunes reflect the fortunes of languages in general, the study of which appears to have been declining
overall, at least at the senior secondary level, although this pattern is interrupted by sudden surges whenever new funding
is provided or governments change the policy settings. Between 2000 and 2008, numbers of school students of Japanese
fell by 16%, with the steepest decrease being at primary level. A large factor appears to have been the end of the NALSAS
funding program, but the depressed state of Japan’s economy and its overshadowing by China as a trading partner forAustralia were probably also significant factors (de Kretser & Spence-Brown 2010).
The following figures are for numbers of students in primary and secondary schools, based on figures provided by state
education authorities. The latest comprehensive national figures covering all sectors which we have been able to collectare for 2008 (de Kretser & Spence-Brown, 2010), but the analysis also draws on more recent figures, particularly forgovernment schools.

Figure 1: Distribution of students by state (2008)

As you can see from Figure 1, Victoria and Queensland have the highest number of students of Japanese in Australia. In
Queensland, Japanese is by far the most widely taught language, with around half of school language students enrolled
in it. In Victoria, it is not the strongest language at either primary or secondary level, with enrolments spread across anumber of Asian and European languages; the high numbers there instead reflect the much greater strength of language
enrolments in Victoria than in other states. New South Wales is the largest state in terms of school population, but it hasa relatively small number of language students, including students of Japanese. This is partly because, in contrast withother states, language teaching at the primary level is still not the norm in NSW. Even in secondary school, language is only
mandated to be taught for 100 hours, in either year 7 or year 8, and perhaps as a result enrolments post the compulsory
period are also relatively weak compared to other states.

3

RECENT TRENDS
The Japan Foundation conducts regular surveys at both school and post-school levels, which help identify changing trends
internationally. Their report on student numbers for 2012 (Japan Foundation 2013) shows increases since 2009 of 13.3%
at primary level, 1.4% at secondary level and 1.3% at tertiary level, although their statistics rely on self-reporting byschools and may be affected by fluctuations in response rates. It should also be kept in mind that these are increases inabsolute numbers, not in terms of percentage of the school population as a whole (which has increased over that period).
No Australian authority collects or publishes national statistics for language teaching, but information we have obtained
from the various education authorities suggests that it is difficult to identify universal national trends. Increases in somestates and sectors balance decreases in others, although the statistics confirm the Japan Foundation figures in showing asignificant increase in primary numbers overall, marking a recovery from the steep falls in the previous decade. After an
initial decline in enrolments in Japanese after the close of the NALSAS funding program, a new round of funding (NALSSP
National Asian Languages and Studies in Schools Program) was introduced for the 2006–2012 period by the Australian
government, and this appears to have helped recovery and even led to expansion in some sectors. There were changes insome states to policies such as school entry age and to the location of year 7 (from primary school to secondary school)
which also affected numbers. In addition, some states have recently expanded primary language provision in preparation
for introduction of the Australian curriculum, which assumes 350 hours of learning undertaken across Foundation to Year
6 (ACARA 2014). These general changes in policy, rather than any specific factors relating to Japanese in particular, appear
to have been the primary driver for the recovery in numbers, particularly at the primary level.

YEAR 12 STUDENT NUMBERS
Language study in secondary school is generally only compulsory for 1-3 years, and many students then discontinue theirstudies, with further dropout in subsequent years. While lack of data means that definitive calculations are not possible,
and the rate of continuation differs from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, it appears that up to 90% of students discontinue theirlanguage study before year 11. The numbers of students studying Japanese at year 12 are perhaps the best indicator of
the health of school languages education in Japanese. This is because these students are choosing to study the language,often in the face of pervasive forces acting against language study. Reliable and consistent statistics for completion of year
12 units are also available nationally.

Figure 2: Year 12 completions 2000–2014 (based on data published by state/territory authorities)

Year 12 enrolments have remained remarkably steady, compared to those at lower levels, at around 5000 students
nationally. However, recent figures suggest that year 12 enrolments are now starting to erode, with worrying implications
for the rest of the system.
All states and territories offer a course for Japanese “Continuers”, who have typically completed 3–4 years of study prior
to year 11. In the Australian Capital Territory, NSW, South Australia, Northern Territory and Western Australia, “Beginners”
courses are available to students who wish to commence Japanese in year 11; in NSW and the ACT these make up aroundhalf of the year 12 enrolments. In most jurisdictions separate courses exist for speakers who have some home backgroundin Japanese, and for those who have completed their schooling in Japan, but the rules for the type of background thatdisqualifies students from studying in the “Continuers” units vary considerably. The biggest drop in year 12 enrolments has
been in South Australia, where a change in the structure of the year 12 certificate and calculation of university entrance
scores has encouraged students to study fewer subjects, with consequent drops in enrolments for subjects that areconsidered to be less “core”, such as language study. Despite creative responses in many schools, the year 12 numbers
there are now at a critically low level, which threatens the viability of the language at lower levels.

4

TERTIARY STUDENT NUMBERS
Numbers of students in university Japanese courses are collected by the Asian Studies Association of Australia (McLaren2011). The latest figures published are for 2009, when there were 27 universities offering Japanese, including all the
major institutions. While national comparative data are not available, anecdotal evidence suggests that Japanese is still
the language of highest enrolment nationally. On the basis of the ASAA survey, and other data which I have been able toaccess, there were probably between 7000 and 8000 university students of Japanese in 2009. The Japan Foundation
survey, which included a wider range of post-secondary institutions, found there were 8,520 students in 35 institutions in
2009, increasing to 9,682 in 2012 (Japan Foundation 2013). Since 2009 two popular programs have closed, and others havebeen restricted, but several large institutions have changed educational structures in ways which have led to increased
language enrolments across the board (see Nettelbeck 2009). Accordingly, it is difficult to discern an overall trend. Many
students do not continue beyond one year, primarily because students from across the university enrol in Japanese as anelective, and do not continue to major level. This steep “attrition” has been noted as a problem more generally in language
education in Australian universities (Nettelbeck, 2009) but, depending on one’s perspective, it can be viewed as positive thatso many students decide to take Japanese, even if only for a semester.

FACTORS AFFECTING JAPANESE LANGUAGE EDUCATION ENVIRONMENT

Figure 3: Factors affecting Japanese Language Education

Figure 3 depicts some of the major factors which impact on Japanese language education. Each level impacts factors at
lower levels, and all influence the goals, capacities and actions of participants in language education: students and teachers,
as well as other stakeholders such as parents. Global factors include the relative decline in the economic importance ofJapan, but also cultural factors, such as interest in Japanese culture more generally, and the continuing popularity ofJapanese popular culture in particular. They also include advances in information communication technologies (ICT) whichhave created new communities in which students can participate, new tools to make communication and language learningeasier, and new motivations for language learning. These on-line possibilities intersect with and amplify the greater “realworld” opportunities for interaction provided by easier and cheaper travel and globalised markets. In general, Australianschools and universities have been quick to embrace these possibilities, at least in part, but they also pose challenges,
which teachers are still coming to terms with.
Local factors include what Michael Clyne has characterised as Australia’s “monolingual mindset” (Clyne 2005) and theambivalent attitude to foreign language learning of English-speaking Australians in the age of “Global English”. There is nospace to explore these factors in detail here, so I will concentrate instead on educational policy and structures.

5

THE RECENT POLICY ENVIRONMENT
The decline in the numbers of students of Japanese broadly coincided with the decade of John Howard’s conservative
Coalition government (March 1996–December 2007), during which time the NALSAS program came to an end.
In 2007, the incoming Labor Prime Minister Kevin Rudd was a fluent speaker of Mandarin and the author of an important
report on language teaching (Rudd 1994); under his leadership a new funding program, the NALSSP program (A$64 million
over 3 years), was established, giving Asian language teaching new impetus. This program finished in 2012 and was not
replaced. The Rudd/Gillard government also commissioned a White Paper, Australia in the Asian Century, which set out
policies for Australia’s engagement with the growing Asian region for the period until 2025 (Australian Government 2012).
The Australia–Japan relationship was acknowledged as important, multi-dimensional and strong, but arguably the mainemphasis had shifted to China and India. Policies on language education in the White Paper emphasised the importance of
Asian language competence and of Asia literacy more generally. Japanese was reaffirmed as one of four (later five) Asian
languages to be taught in schools. The Paper also stated that all students should have the opportunity to study language
sequentially (across their primary, secondary and tertiary education), and that universities should be assisted to promote
the study of Asian languages and related specialised skills. In terms of concrete ideas about how these goals were to beachieved, the paper strongly emphasised the role of technology (in particular the under-construction National Broadband
Network) and opportunities for interaction through sister school programs with Asian schools.
The other significant national policy development during the Rudd/Gillard government was the creation of the Australian
Curriculum Assessment and Reporting Authority, ACARA, and the initiation of the development of an Australian curriculum.
The confirmation of “Languages” as a key curriculum area, and the building of the curriculum around the assumption ofcontinuous teaching of language from R to 10 sent strong signals about the teaching of languages which had previously
been lacking, particularly in some states where provision had been less strong.
However, the educational policy landscape shifted yet again in 2013, when a new (conservative) Coalition government
took office. While the White Paper appeared to have been shelved, there is little immediate change in overt policies on
language education. There continues to be a degree of positive rhetoric, including the declaration of a wildly ambitious goalfor 40% of year 12 students to be studying a foreign language “within a decade” (a number which had not been achievedsince the 1960s). However, there is little funding, and few concrete policies for how such a major increase (from current
levels of about 11%) could be achieved. There is a continued focus on Asia literacy, study abroad, and technology, and thisis reflected in the only funding initiatives to have been announced. One is funding for study abroad in the form of the $100
million “New Colombo Plan”, which provides scholarships and mobility grants to undergraduate students for study andinternships or mentorships in the Asia-Pacific region. The second is a $9.8 million provision for a one-year trial of computerbased foreign language learning for children in forty-one “early learning services” (preschool programs), the Early Learning
Languages Australia (ELLA) program. Recent reports suggest that the trial is to be expanded, although it is not clear why
the extension of language learning down to preschool level has been prioritised in this way, while implementation at
primary level is still underdeveloped in many states. Transition issues that restrict students’ ability to follow through on
language learning across education levels have been highlighted as an ongoing problem and are only likely to be further
exacerbated by this extension down into preschool. There has also been some focus within wider programs (such as theteacher training review, and “Teach for Australia” program) on teacher supply, but arguably not enough to address theincreased needs in the primary sector and the effects of a rapidly ageing workforce.
There was more significant change in the government’s attitude to and support for the Australian Curriculum, which
underwent review and change in several areas, while at the same time there was increasing diversity in state and territory
policies regarding its implementation.
State policies continue to be of prime importance in shaping language education. In response to the impending
implementation of the Australian Curriculum, some powerful new policies were initiated in several states, somewith negative and some with positive impacts on language teaching. For example, in the ACT, the teaching of
languages was mandated from primary school to year 10, with an immediate impact on student numbers.
In Victoria, historically the strongest state for school language teaching, the Coalition government initiated acomprehensive policy review, and also announced that language teaching would be mandated across P–10, sparking
a flurry of activity. However, the Labor government which succeeded it took a quiet step back from this policy in2015, perhaps acknowledging the significant extra resources that would be necessary to implement it properly.

6

STRUCTURAL FACTORS
There is a long history of reports in Australia pointing out basic problems with language education across the country,
as Lo Bianco and others have noted (Lo Bianco, 2009). The following include some of the main structural factors which
commentators and teachers suggest affect Japanese language education (and in most cases, other languages as well).

STRUCTURAL FACTORS IN THE PRIMARY SECTOR
Compared with secondary schooling, the place in the curriculum, time allocation, and funding for language education
are less well defined at primary level, with policies for provision varying widely both within and across the jurisdictions,and largely dependent on the policies of individual schools. Major shifts in government policy have taken place at regularintervals, causing schools to increase language provisions when policies dictate they must do so, or when extra funding is
made available, only to discontinue the new programs as soon as the policy wind (almost inevitably) shifts again. One reason
for these shifts is that large expansions are almost never adequately resourced, leading to financial and staffing problems,
which in turn trigger contraction. I have argued elsewhere that there is a fundamental issue which leads to these problems,
and that is that the structures of primary education, largely unchanged since the nineteenth century, do not adapt easily tothe inclusion of new curriculum areas requiring specialised teaching (Spence-Brown 2014).
In addition, curriculum guidelines for languages have been broadly worded and subject to very flexible interpretation.
Combined with a culture in which each teacher produces their own curriculum and materials, this results in widely differingcontent and levels of proficiency from school to school. As a result, it is quite commonplace to find that teachers do notknow what students have been taught in previous years, and do not have clear targets for what students will achieve by
the end of their primary schooling. In fact, it is not unusual to find an over-worked teacher delivering basically the samelesson to every grade – reflecting the fact that there is little attention to cumulative building of grammatical and lexical
skills in many programs. Curriculum is topic based, and the language introduced under one topic is often forgotten once
students move to the next topic. Guidelines for teaching time, on which official curricula are based, are routinely ignored,
forcing teachers to be “creative” in their interpretations of what the guidelines require.
Most teachers are dedicated and resourceful. However, faced with very adverse conditions, teachers typically do nothave high expectations of what can be achieved by their students, and often focus on “fun” activities and on interesting
but unsystematic snippets of “cultural” content, rather than the systematic development of communication skills andintercultural competence.

STRUCTURAL FACTORS: TRANSITION ISSUES
The issue of lack of continuity of language study between primary and secondary school in Australia is well known (Liddicoat
2007; Lo Bianco 2009). While authorities in some areas have worked hard to coordinate language provision across primaryand secondary schools in a district, they have done much less to tackle the problem of high schools working to a “beginners”
curriculum that minimises the benefits of prior learning even where it is continuous. Although the National Curriculum has
tried to change this situation by instituting both an R–10 and a 7–10 curriculum, in practice there are many barriers to highschools offering separate classes for students with prior learning and for beginners. Unfortunately, by the end of year 7,
any advantage of prior study is typically lost.
While efforts to allow students to continue the language they began in primary school are laudable, with the diversity inpathways into high school, and the variety of languages taught, it is unlikely that the issue of mixed classes of beginningand continuing students at high school will go away. However, if the outcomes of primary school language programs haveas much to do with generic language learning skills, general language awareness and cross cultural skills as languagespecific skills, then all students can potentially benefit from primary school language learning, whether they continue
with the same language in high school or pick up a different one, as long as the early years of high school enable them tobuild on their primary school learning. Perhaps it would be more profitable for authorities to focus less on achieving theunachievable goal of continuity for all students and more on what goes on in the transition years of junior high school,
to ensure that both continuing and beginning students find the learning enriching and challenging, instead of the current
situation in which both groups are “disadvantaged” in some way.

7

STRUCTURAL FACTORS IN THE SECONDARY SECTOR
The main structural issues in secondary schools are associated with the number of years during which language learning iscompulsory, and with the treatment of Japanese once it becomes elective. There is wide variation across the country withregard to the years when language is compulsory, although two years or less appears to be the most widespread situation.
Once Japanese becomes an elective subject, many teachers complain that it is timetabled against other very attractive
options which discourage students from continuing.
The high drop-out rate when Japanese becomes an elective, particularly in schools where this occurs after only one yearof study, also has a negative effect on the viability of the subject itself, and thus threatens the opportunity to continue forthose students who wish to do so. Schools are often unwilling or unable to support small classes, and anecdotally there
is an increasing trend to combine small classes at years 11 and 12, and even lower down the school. This situation is very
difficult for both teachers and students, and tends to result in even more students choosing not to continue. This can leadin turn to the demise of Japanese as a senior secondary subject in the school. In some states and territories the numbers
at senior secondary level are now at a critical low, and this impacts on teachers and their mutual support, on community
perceptions of the place and viability of language learning and on student choices.

YEAR 12 ISSUES
Debates about increasing the numbers of students who continue with language studies in senior secondary levels
often ignore or sidestep the fundamental fact that subject choices are finite – so choosing Japanese will entail either
overloading, or not choosing something else. In comparison to many other countries, the number of subjects studied atyear 12 in Australia is quite low: five or six is the norm in Queensland and Victoria, but this falls to four or five in South
Australia and Northern Territory, where recent changes served to make it more common for students to decide not toinclude a fifth subject. This led to an immediate drop in year 12 Japanese enrolments, which, in systems with alreadyvery low year 12 enrolments despite healthy numbers in lower secondary school, has serious implications for viabilityof courses at lower levels as well. Anecdotally, Japanese is the fifth or sixth subject in terms of priorities for many
students, so they will take it if the system encourages them to take six subjects, but will drop it if they believe that taking
only four or five subjects will optimise their chances of success.
There is much talk about the desirability of language study, but much less about the need to make room for and incentivise
language study for more students. In Victoria, for example, there is an incentive to take six subjects, although five issufficient for completion of year 12 and university entrance, because students gain points towards university entrance
for all subjects taken (limited to 10% of the score for the fifth and sixth subject), whereas in other states points gained
are limited to the 4 or 5 top subjects completed. My research shows that in Victoria and Queensland, year 12 students ofJapanese are much more likely to be taking six subjects than is the norm, although this does not apply in NSW, where theexistence of “extension” units incentivises depth of study in a narrower range of subjects rather than breadth. The impactof these different systems on language learning deserves more widespread recognition and discussion.
At year 12, increasingly competitive university entrance, at least for popular courses, leads to subject choices dominatedby the need to maximise marks. Teachers report that there is a perception amongst students that Japanese is difficult
and requires more work than other subjects to obtain a good mark, and this perception is probably justified. As marks are
based on normal curves within the subject, only partly modified by statistical manipulations based on calculations of therelative difficulty of subjects, there is also a problem that if there are numbers of students with some extra background ina language above what is acquired through schooling, then these students will have an advantage and occupy the higher
mark ranges, making them inaccessible to students without such background. While there are relatively low numbers ofstudents in Australia with a home background in Japanese, there are increasing numbers of students spending time inJapan and large numbers of students who are literate in Chinese who have an advantage in the learning of kanji. Whether
it is justified or not, many students without such advantages feel that they are not on a level playing field, and are therefore
discouraged from continuing with their studies.

8

STRUCTURAL FACTORS IN THE TERTIARY SECTOR
As mentioned above, anecdotal evidence suggests that student numbers in Japanese have grown in some universities,
and decreased in others, making it very difficult to discern national trends. On the one hand, in an increasingly austerefunding environment, most universities have rationalised the number of disciplines and subjects offered, and this has led
to a decrease in Japanese subjects offered in many institutions, and the dropping of the language entirely in a few cases.
On the other hand, structural changes such as the introduction of “breadth” units at Melbourne University have supported
language teaching. Another structural initiative has been the use of a separate Diploma in Language to allow students who
do not have room in their main degree to add on a language major. In 2013 the Australian government increased fundingof places in these Diplomas for some institutions, which has enhanced its attractiveness and availability (Lane 2013).
However, it must be said that in institutions where numbers have grown substantially, anecdotally most of the growthappears to be in enrolments in elective units, not in students majoring in Japanese.
In summary, it is clear that many of the changes in student numbers at each level are related to policy and institutional
factors. Some of these are the result of state/territory and federal government policies on language teaching, or on Asian
languages in particular, but many are associated with more general educational policies, usually implemented without
much consideration of their impact on language learning. In an environment of competing priorities within a “crowded
curriculum”, language teaching often struggles for attention and resources. If governments are serious about increasing
the number of Australians who are competent in Japanese, more serious attention to language education must be given in
all areas of educational policy development, and not just restricted to the planning of language-specific initiatives.

CURRICULUM AND TEACHING APPROACHESIn 2009 the Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority (ACARA) was established and began work on anational curriculum. For Japanese, a “scope and sequence” (curriculum) for years F–10 was released in 2015 (ACARA
2015) and will start to be implemented in some states in 2016. However, decisions about how and when to implement theAustralian curriculum remain in the hands of the state authorities, and there is considerable variation in how that is occurring.
In addition, schools and individual teachers have considerable autonomy with regard to specific content and teachingapproach. As has been mentioned, in primary schools in particular, curriculum and standards vary widely.
A feature of Australian primary education in general is that cross-disciplinary theme-based learning is encouraged. While
traditionally, school cross-curriculum planning has often excluded languages, this feature provides fertile ground in someschools for content-based approaches to language teaching, such as Immersion and, more recently, CLIL (Content andLanguage Integrated Learning; see, for example, chapters by Howard and Kurihara in this volume). Some state authorities
have actively funded and encouraged such developments, and they have been influential in informing the practicesof teachers in regular programs as well. Recent developments include the introduction of CLIL initiatives in a range ofVictorian primary schools, to complement the 3 “bi-lingual” programs established in the late 1990s, the introduction ofprimary immersion in NSW and Queensland schools and the first high school immersion program, at Robina High School
in Queensland.
In secondary schools, commonly used textbooks and the demands of preparing students for year 12 assessment have led
to more standardised and more structured approaches to curriculum design than in primary schools. However, there is still
considerable variation in both quality and content, affected by the different needs and backgrounds of both teachers andstudents, and different policy settings in terms of time allocation and duration of compulsory study. In addition, innovations
in ICT are increasingly influential, and allow teachers and students access to a rich range of resources and technologies
not previously available. Unfortunately, curriculum design, particularly at the senior level, has not always kept pace with
developing technologies and resources, and it is common to hear that while teachers use technology creatively andextensively up until year 10, in years 11 and 12 they go back to more traditional approaches, to prepare students for pen
and paper exams.

9

CHANGING AIMS AND OBJECTIVESIn recent years, there has been a growing focus on cross cultural and intercultural knowledge and skills, in particular thekinds of intercultural skills that are transferrable across languages. As both Australia and the rest of the world become
more multi-lingual and multi-cultural there is a recognition that, even where English is used as a lingua franca, interculturalcompetence is a key to success, and there is an expectation that learning Japanese will provide students not just withthe competence to interact in Japanese, but to interact more competently in English with others from different cultural
backgrounds. In addition, there is a recognition that learning Japanese can promote language awareness and literacy(including online literacy), and also contribute to general educational skills and personal development. Policy makers andcurriculum planners have increasingly focused on these “additional benefits” of language learning, partly because theyrecognise and believe in them and partly, perhaps, because they are a way of “selling” language to Australian parents,
students and policy makers who may not believe the capacity to interact in Japanese is of much use or relevance.
While teachers are generally open to these ideas, in practical terms, despite some exemplary innovations, it is not clear thatteaching across the board has yet adapted adequately to reflect the changing goals. Many teachers still find it challenging to
add new social and cultural dimensions while still covering the linguistic skills traditionally focused on.

STUDENTS
The diversity in student backgrounds and interests has continued to grow in recent years. For example, in a year 7 Japaneseclass, there will usually be a combination of students who have studied Japanese at primary school and those who havenot. In addition, a few students will have already travelled to Japan, and students who are already multilingual will study
alongside students who are monolingual in English. Finally, there will be students who are regularly consuming Japanese
popular culture outside the classroom and those who are not, and there may even be a smattering of background speakers.
Such diversity provides both challenges and opportunities, and while Australian teachers are generally creative and flexible,
they often find it difficult to develop programs which are suitable for a varied student population.

STUDENT MOTIVATION
Despite the emphasis on economic imperatives in official support for Japanese language teaching, this is not always themost important factor in the choices of students themselves. In Australian society, where knowledge of another language
is often not viewed as a core competency, affective factors seem to be more important than instrumental factors such as
future career use in motivating students to commence or continue the study of Japanese. Recent research which I (notyet published) and others (Northwood & Thomson 2012) have conducted shows that liking Japanese, interest in Japaneseculture, and desire to travel to Japan are the most important motivations for the study of Japanese at all levels. Usefulness
for employment or tertiary study is a less important, although still significant, factor at school level, and becomes more
important at higher levels of university study. It seems to be rare for strong instrumental motivations to be expressed by
students in the absence of intrinsic motivations and cultural interest, and this suggests that it is interest in Japanese whichis the primary motivator. Students who wish to continue their studies then look around to see if they can make use of them,and at that point they start to consider uses of Japanese in future careers, and build these into their visions of their “L2future selves” (Dörnyei & Ryan 2015).

TEACHERS
Teacher supply is most often mentioned as a problem in remote and regional areas, or in primary education where newpolicies have led to surges in demand and conditions for Japanese teachers in some schools are extremely unattractive.
In general, teacher skills and qualifications have risen, both in terms of the language competence of non-native speaking
teachers (many of whom have spent time in Japan) and the English skills and familiarity with the Australian education
system of teachers who were born in Japan. While the majority of teachers are still non-native speakers, the proportionof native/non-native speaker teachers differs from area to area. Language assistants are also commonly employed, either
on a paid basis or as unpaid volunteers. Teachers in other languages often comment on the harmonious way in which
Japanese teachers from different backgrounds work together in schools and teachers associations, complementing eachother’s strengths and weaknesses.

10Teachers’ associations exist in each jurisdiction, either as independent associations or sub-groups of the Modern Language
Teachers Association. While activity levels vary, in general they play a very important role, in some states being one of the
major providers of professional development to Japanese teachers, as well as hosting lively websites and newsletters andrunning activities for students. Email lists and social networking sites are also very active. In recent years there has been
more recognition of the need for associations around Australia to work together, and The Japan Foundation, assisted by the
MCJLE, have hosted meetings to facilitate networking and joint activities.

CHALLENGES FOR POLICY AND PRACTICE
In conclusion, I would like to highlight some of the main challenges that Japanese language education faces and suggest
some of the responses which will be necessary to ensure that Japanese remains one of the strongest languages inAustralian schools and universities. Some of these challenges are shared with other languages, and require action at thehighest policy levels to make the education system more “languages-friendly”. Other changes must take place in individual
schools, and will require action by individual teachers as well as the support of school management and the broader schoolcommunity. In either case, it is unlikely that change will occur without the various stakeholders joining forces and working
to influence the broader agendas in Australia.

REFORMING STRUCTURAL PROBLEMSAt the most fundamental level, we need to convince our schools and universities to set aside adequate space in the
curriculum and resources for language teaching. One way of doing this is to demonstrate the wider cross-curricular
benefits which students can gain from studying a language such as Japanese. We also need to look for creative solutions
to the old conundrums of how to find extra time for language, and provide better conditions for language teachers inways that minimise the extra costs imposed. New ways of structuring primary school staffing, as well as content-based
approaches and cross-curricular partnerships are all promising avenues to explore in this regard. Creative solutions totransition issues are also of prime importance, acknowledging that R–12 continuity of language learning will likely remain
the exception, not the norm. At senior secondary level we urgently need to find ways of addressing perceived and realfairness issues, as well as to incentivise language study.

REPOSITIONING JAPANESE (GOALS AND “BRANDING”)
In order to reaffirm the relevance and appropriateness of the study of Japanese for Australians, policy makers and thegeneral public need to be persuaded not only of the continuing practical value of competence in Japanese, but also of thebroader educational roles which the teaching of Japanese can perform so effectively. To achieve this, we need to work on
both content and perceptions of our subject. We know that Japanese is a language and culture which engages students’interest, and which can serve as a vehicle for intercultural learning and for language awareness more generally, and also
as a gateway to other cultures and languages of Asia, and beyond. We need to both promote these benefits to parents,
students, our colleagues and the community, and also to teach in ways that demonstrate them.

RENEWING GOALS, CURRICULUM, TEACHING METHODSIn addition, we face the serious but rewarding challenge of making the study of Japanese at the same time less “difficult”,
but more “interesting”. We need to recognise that sometimes we can engage students better by raising the bar so thatthey feel that what they are learning is worthwhile, but we must do this in a way that is achievable. To make Japaneseless “difficult” for our students, we need to draw on all the affordances of ICT, and encourage students to use these tools
to communicate more, and more meaningfully. One thing that all the experts on second language acquisition agree on isthat greater interaction in and with a language is the key to learning success. It also needs to be recognised that someof the fundamental skills of Japanese literacy are very different in a digital world to a pen and paper world and that bothwhat and how we teach needs to change accordingly. We can lessen the time-consuming emphasis on the writing of kanji
in favour of the recognition skills on which digital literacy depends. We also need to shift our thinking away from aiming
for grammatical correctness as the main priority, and focus more on communicative success. It is common to pay lip
service to the importance of communication and task achievement, but when it comes to the crunch – that is marking
criteria – it is still grammatical accuracy that gets the most attention. While we apply native-speaker standards in judging
our students’ language production, they will always fall short and fear falling short. We need to value what they can do,
and show them its value in doing things they want to do in the world.

11

A corollary of this is that we need to recognise that many of our students are exposed to more Japanese outside theclassroom than inside. While we focus on basic textbook exercises, they are looking up pop song lyrics and checking out
the Facebook pages of the friends they met on their school trip. We need to link these activities with what is going on in theclassroom. We also need to keep striving to cater for individual differences in our programs, so we continue to challenge
the advanced students while keeping expectations for the weaker students reasonable. This will inevitably lead to different
outcomes, and how to value them in our norm-driven systems is an ongoing issue which is not going to go away.
An urgent priority, which is now more approachable than ever before due to the advent of the national curriculum, isagreeing on goals and minimum outcomes for the primary years and working to actually achieve them consistently – notjust on paper, but in fact. Only when this has started to happen can secondary teachers be persuaded to seriously value
what has been achieved at primary school, and to continue to build on it, rather than ignore it. But to achieve consistencyof outcomes, we need consistency of inputs in the form of teaching time and teacher quality, and the support of the whole
school in acknowledging that these outcomes are important – and for this we need to go back to the structural reforms
mentioned above.
At all levels, we need to continue to work on strategies to integrate cultural content and intercultural skills, and to demonstrate
their relevance. This is easy to do badly, leading to trivialising and stereotyping or even to confirmation of existing prejudices.
It is thus an area where sharing units of work can be particularly rewarding. Japanese teachers are justly proud of being
able to produce their own materials, tailored for their own classes, but a readily available core of expertly produced,
accurate and engaging materials, which still allow tailoring for individual situations, would be a great boon in this area. We
have many materials which deliver cultural knowledge, but fewer that truly develop intercultural skills.
Finally, we should continue to develop approaches which integrate content and language, such as CLIL, or at least modified
CLIL suited to Australian conditions (Turner 2013). Sometimes the content will be Japanese cultural content, taught because
it is valuable in its own right, and sometimes it will be content from other curriculum areas, like visual arts or maths.
These are no small challenges, but I believe Japanese teachers have the attitudes, skills and mutual support structures
to meet them.

12

REFERENCES
ACARA (Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority). 2014. Australian Curriculum: Languages Foundation to Year 10 Curriculum Design. ACARA Retrieved
from http://www.acara.edu.au/verve/_resources/AC_Languages__F-10_curriculum_design_paper.pdf

ACARA. 2015. Languages – Japanese – Foundation to Year 10 – Scope and Sequence. Retrieved from http://www.australiancurriculum.edu.au/languages/
japanese/pdf-documents
Australian Government. 2012. Australia in the Asian century White Paper. Canberra Retrieved from http://asiancentury.dpmc.gov.au/white-paper
de Kretser, A., & R. Spence-Brown. 2010. The Current State of Japanese Language Education in Australian Schools. Carlton South, Victoria: Education
Services Australia.
Dörnyei, Z., & S. Ryan. 2015. Psychology of the Language Learner Revisited. Retrieved from http://MONASH.eblib.com.au/patron/FullRecord.aspx?p=2034011
Japan Foundation. 2013. Survey Report on Japanese-language Education Abroad 2012. Tokyo: Kurosio Publishers.
Lane, B. 2013. “Language diplomas get a fillip”. The Australian, 17 May. Retrieved from http://www.theaustralian.com.au/higher-education/languagediplomas-get-a-fillip/story-e6frgcjx-1226644539990
Liddicoat, A. J., Angela Scarino, Timothy Jowan Curnow, Michelle Kohler, Andrew Scrimgeour, & Anne-Marie Morgan. 2007. An Investigation of the State andNature of Languages in Australian Schools. Retrieved from Canberra: www.deewr.gov.au downloaded 25-08-09
Lo Bianco, J. 1987. National Policy on Languages. Canberra: Australian Government Publishing Service.
Lo Bianco, J. 2009. Second Languages and Australian Schooling. Victoria: ACER Press.
McLaren, A. 2011. Asian Languages Enrolments in Australian Higher Education 2008-9. Retrieved from http://asaa.asn.au/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/
Asian-Languages-Enrolments-Report-Feb-2011.pdf
Nettelbeck, C. 2009. An Analysis of Retention Strategies and Technology Enhanced Learning in Beginners’ Languages other than English (LOTE) at Australian
Universities. Retrieved from http://www.humanities.org.au/Portals/0/documents/Policy/Research/Languages/txt/BeginnersRetentionLASP2.pdf and http://
www.humanities.org.au/PolicyResearch/Research/LanguagePolicyAdvocacy.aspx
Northwood, B., & C. Thomson. 2012. “What Keeps Them Going? Investigating ongoing learners of Japanese in Australian universities”. Japanese Studies,32(3): 335-355. doi:10.1080/10371397.2012.735988
Rudd, K. M. 1994. 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.
Spence-Brown, R. 2014. “On Rocky Ground: Monolingual educational structures and Japanese Language Education in Australia”. In Dynamic Ecologies. A
Relational Perspective on Languages Education in the Asia-Pacific Region, edited by N. Murray & A. Scarino, 183-198. Dordrecht: Springer.
Turner, M. 2013. “Content-based Japanese language teaching in Australian schools: is CLIL a good fit?” Japanese Studies, 33(3): 315-330.