Angela Scarino

The development of the Australian Curriculum and implications
for Japanese language education
Angela Scarino, University of South Australia

Abstract
In this paper I set the context and provide a rationale for a shift in languages educationin Australia. I discuss the major features of the Australian curriculum for languages
and draw implications for the learning and teaching of Japanese in Australian schools,
K–12; and for understanding and describing learner achievements. The discussion willdraw examples from recent research studies conducted in Australia.

Key words
Globalisation; intercultural language learning; Australian Curriculum; teaching
and learning Japanese in Australia; interpretation in communication and in learning

15

NSJLE Proceedings 2012

全国統一カリキュラムの開発が日本語教育にもたらす影響について
アンジェラ・スカリーノ、南オーストラリア大学

要旨
本稿では、
オーストラリアにおける言語教育の変化についてその背景と理由を述べる。
その上で、全国統一カリキュラムの言語教育部分の主な特徴を紹介し、統一カリキュラムがオースト
また生徒の学習
ラリアの学校(K–12年生)の日本語教育に今後どのような影響を与えるか、
成果を理解し説明するのにどう役立つのかを論じる。議論を進めるにあたっては、最近オース
トラリアで行われた調査研究を実例として挙げる。

キーワード
グローバル化、異文化間言語学習、全国統一カリキュラム、
オーストラリアの日本語教育、
コミュニケーションと学習の解釈

16

Angela Scarino

Introduction
The Australian education community is currently engaged in the development andimplementation of a national Australian curriculum, under the auspices of theAustralian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority (ACARA). The Australian
Curriculum is being developed through three dimensions: a set of learning areas (the Arts,
English, Geography, Health and Physical Education, History, Languages, Mathematics,
Science, Technologies, Humanities and Social Sciences, Economics and Business, Civics
and Citizenship); a set of cross-curricular capabilities (literacy, numeracy, informationand communication technology competence, critical and creative thinking, ethicalbehaviour, personal and social competence and intercultural understanding) andthree cross-curriculum priorities (Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander histories andcultures; Australia’s engagement with Asia; and sustainability). The development of
the curriculum for each learning area has begun with the preparation of a so-called
Shape Paper, written by an academic, to provide a conceptualisation of the learning
area that could be used as a blueprint for curriculum development according to the
key constructs developed by ACARA. I write this paper as the academic, invited by
ACARA, and working through its extensive consultative processes, to write the ShapePaper for Languages (see ACARA 2011). As such, I write as an actor in the development
process, although it must be highlighted that although I have had the opportunity topropose a design, I have had no role in the decision-making. Writing from this position,in this paper I discuss the context of the development that provides a rationale for thenature of the development. I then discuss six key considerations and features of thecurriculum for Languages. Throughout the discussion I draw implications specificallyfor curriculum design, and for the teaching, learning and assessment of K–12 Japanese
language learning in contemporary Australia. For the first time in the past three decadesof national curriculum development in Australia, the curriculum for Languages is not
being developed generically in a way that is intended to apply to all languages but,rather, the development is language-specific and it is for this reason that it becomes
particularly valuable to highlight implications for specific languages—Japanese, in thepresent instance.

Context: setting the scene for the development of the Australian Curriculum:
Languages
In setting the scene for the development of the Australian Curriculum: Languages,
I consider first the reality of globalisation and its impact, and second, the national
Australian Education reform agenda.

17

NSJLE Proceedings 2012

Language learning is taking place in the context of globalisation, which in its
contemporary guise is creating a new social order; it is producing the movementof people and their ideas and knowledge, goods and services at a scale and speed
that are unprecedented. The fact of such global circulation is not new but, combinedwith the reality of advanced technologies, the intensity is much more marked
than in previous times. The process of globalisation has altered the nature andextent of social, cultural and linguistic diversity in societies. The new term “superdiversity” (Vertovec 2010) is intended to capture the kind of sociocultural complexity
surpassing anything that many migrant-receiving communities have previously
experienced. The impact on education in general and on languages education inparticular has been well documented. The very nature of multilingualism andmulticulturalism is changing (see Blommaert 2010; Kramsch 2014; Kramschand Whiteside 2008; Lo Bianco 2010). In this context of mobility and global
information networks, language use and capabilities are increasingly important,and communicating successfully—that is, being able to exchange meaning acrosslanguages and cultures—becomes critical. Language issues are more salient than everbefore and mobility, mixing and social, cultural and political dynamics become central
concerns in the learning and teaching of languages. In his preface to an international
review of “non-native language learning” in a global world, Kurt Fischer sees
language learning as “central to politics, economics, history and most obviously education… language learning is not isolated, but totally enmeshed with all the important
issues of the future” (2012, 23). He views language learning as central to improving
communication, which is at a premium in this context, but also as a means to promoting
global understanding, highlighting: “To understand the importance of language
and culture, people need to be familiar with several languages and cultures” (23).
The new global reality of our times requires a renewed conceptualisation of
language learning itself. In languages education many diverse manifestations of the
impact of globalisation have emerged in recent times. These are best characterised asa shift from monolingual to multilingual views of language learning, or what Ortega(2010) has termed “the bilingual turn”. This means that the process of learning
additional languages is itself understood as a multilingual act—where all the languages
in the learners’ repertoires come into play—rather than one which involves learning
additional languages separately from the language of learners’ primary socialisation.
Cenoz and Gorter (2011) refer to this as a ‘holistic approach’. Cook (2005) coined theterm ‘multicompetence’ to refer to the co-existence of more than one language in thesame mind. Li Wei (2011), working with Chinese background learners, notes the codeand mode-switching in the language use of these students and that this hybridity isa natural part of their multilinguality and language use. García (2009) uses the term“translanguaging” to describe the kind of language use that is integral to bilingual
18Angela Scarino

language learning. Another dimension of change in language learning is in therecognition of language learning being not only a cognitive and linguistic activity, butalso a social and affective one.
Language learning is not simply a matter of learning a subject at school but, rather,learning about oneself and others and the way languages and cultures shape identity(Norton 2012). It requires individual learner biographies and trajectories of experiences
be taken seriously. Specifically, what are needed are curricula and pedagogies thatengage with and build on “the diversity in semiotic modes that learners, with diverse
social, cultural, linguistic and learning biographies bring into the classroom” (Stroudand Heugh 2011, 413-429). It is these understandings about the changing nature oflanguage learning that were brought to bear in the development of the Shape Paper for
Languages in the Australian Curriculum.
A second aspect of the context that has shaped the development of languages in theAustralian Curriculum is the National Educational Reform agenda.1 The Australian
Curriculum was foreshadowed in the Melbourne declaration on educational goals foryoung Australians (MCEETYA 2008). These national goals include languages as a key
learning area, prioritising Asian Languages. The Australian Government’s white paper,
Australia in the Asian century (2012) was released by the previous federal government,
marking in education a renewed emphasis on the learning of Asian languages andthe need for students to have direct experiences of Asia. As mentioned, ACARA has
designated Asia, and Australia’s engagement with Asia, as one of the cross-curriculum
priorities that needs to be enmeshed in learning in all learning areas. A recent review ofJapanese language learning (de Kretser and Spence-Brown 2010) provides a thoroughanalysis of the learning of Japanese language and culture in Australia at the present
time. Despite Australia being one of the largest centres in the world for the learning ofJapanese as a foreign language, and the positive uptake of Japanese in Australian schools
K–12, there are some signs of fragility in the provision and nature of learning Japanese.
These two aspects indicate the need for a curriculum for Languages, including Japanese,
which represents a significant change from the status quo. How these contextual realities
and their implications for language learning and teaching were conceptualised and“translated” into a curriculum design are discussed in the section that follows.

1

It should be noted that with the change of government at the end of 2013 some aspects of the Australian Education Reform agenda are likely to change.
Notably, the new government has initiated a review of the Australian Curriculum and a review of teacher education that are likely to impact on thenational educational landscape.

19

NSJLE Proceedings 2012

Key considerations and features of the Australian Curriculum: Languages
In this section I address six features that are central to the design of the Australian
Curriculum: Languages. These include (1) profiling learners and learning;(2) reconceptualising the key features of Language, Culture and Learning; (3)reconceptualising teaching and learning practices; (4) the specificity of Japanese; (5)reframing of aims, curriculum content and its scope and sequencing; and finally, (6)achievement standards.

Profiling learners and learning
The design of the Australian Curriculum: Languages began with a consideration oflearners and their learning. The profile of learners in the Australian language learningclassroom is rich and increasingly diverse. In designing a curriculum for language
learning, it is necessary to appreciate who the learners are linguistically and culturally.
Learners come to language learning with diverse knowledge, experiences of life andlearning, affiliations, desires and memories that come from their life-worlds (see Scarino
and Liddicoat 2009; Liddicoat and Scarino 2013, Chapter 3 for a detailed discussion).
Traditionally, these characteristics have been seen as part of a learner’s “background”
or traits and teachers were invited to “be aware” of the learner’s profile. The notion of“background” has meant that the life-worlds of students have indeed been backgrounded.
Yet, learners’ biographies or life-worlds, mediated through the languages and cultures of
their primary socialisation at home and at school, are constitutive of learning. Learning
is understood to emerge through linguistically and culturally mediated, historicallydeveloping practical activity (Gutiérrez 2003). In learning an additional language,
learners learn to operate within (at least) two linguistic and cultural worlds, and theylearn by constantly comparing, interacting and reflecting on the experience. It is in thissense that their language learning is intercultural. Their learning is not an abstracted
activity; it is embodied. Learners participate (1) as language learners, using language
and cultural tools to create new knowledge and understanding; (2) as intercultural
language users, using the target language to develop a personal voice in the target
language, recognising the linguistic and cultural demands of communication acrosslanguages and cultures; and (3) as persons, whose identities are developed through theprocess of learning.
The Australian Curriculum: Languages—Japanese2 will be based on this view of learners
and learning and an intercultural orientation to language learning, as described in the
2

20

At the time of writing this paper, the Australian Curriculum: Languages—Japanese has been written to a first draft stage only and, based on the data thatemerged from a national consultation on the initial draft, it is currently being re-written.

Angela Scarino

Shape Paper for Languages and as further elaborated in the Australian Curriculum:
Languages Design Paper.3 The implications for teachers of Japanese are that they needto recognise students of Japanese as diverse (as learners who may or may not have ahome “background” in Japanese or may or may not have a prior learning experience ofJapanese at school or in the community). They also need to recognise the role of theirstudents as language learners, as intercultural language users and as young persons. They
need to personalise the learning of Japanese, to consider what learning Japanese mightmean for different learners with different affiliations, goals and expectations in relation
to learning Japanese. They need to consider the different kinds of “bridging” towards
understanding that will be needed by different learners, the different kinds of challenges
that Japanese language learning poses for different learners, and they need to maintainhigh expectations. Teachers of Japanese also need to recognise that, for all learners,
learning Japanese in Australia is different from learning Japanese in Japan or indeed inany other context—for example, the USA or Singapore. They need to understand thechanging, contemporary world and Japan in this context, and reflect upon the kindsof experiences of Japan and Japanese-ness that they are creating with students in theirclassrooms. Finally, in relation to learners and learning, teachers need to recognise that,like their learners, they too bring their distinctive life-worlds to their teaching, and thatthey too see the world and learning through their linguistic and cultural lenses.

Reconceptualising Language, Culture and Learning
As already mentioned, the impact of globalisation on people’s lives, work and learning
is substantial. Language learning, including Japanese language learning, needs to be
responsive to changing global realities. For the languages education profession, thismeans moving beyond communicative language learning to accomplish a kind of
language learning that reflects the multilingual reality of the diverse spaces in which
languages are now used. Kramsch (2006; 2009; 2011) highlights a major difference from
communicative language teaching when she states that “today it is not sufficient forlearners to know how to communicate meanings, they have to understand the practiceof meaning making itself ” (Kramsch 2006, 251). This implies, firstly, that learners do
not just exchange words but, rather, that they exchange personal meanings, mediatedthrough the lens of the languages and cultures of their primary socialisation. It also
implies that they need to understand what is entailed in the reciprocal exchange of
meanings, especially when the exchange is across diverse linguistic and cultural worlds.
This also entails questioning assumptions, trying to understand the world from another’s
point of view or stance, and being able to “move between” languages and cultures.
Thus, the key concepts of language learning (Language, Culture and Learning) need3

In addition to the Australian Curriculum: Languages Shape Paper (ACARA 2011), the work on developing curricula in specific languages is based on theAustralian Curriculum Design: Languages, which ACARA has not yet released.

21

NSJLE Proceedings 2012

to be reconceptualised. The view of language in the Australian Curriculum: Languages(ACARA 2011) not only acknowledges language as a grammatical system and as social
practice, but also as a practice that involves people and their participation in a reciprocal
process of interpreting the language and culture, the person and the self. The view ofculture not only captures culture as facts, artefacts and information and as social practice(i.e. ways of doing things in diverse cultures), but also as a lens through which people
mutually interpret, create and exchange meaning. The view of learning not only includes
acquisition of new knowledge and participation in the use of knowledge, but also as
involving processes to make sense of knowledge, self and others (see Halliday 1993). It isa kind of language learning that calls for a greater emphasis on interpretation, reflectivity,
reflexivity and imagination (see Scarino 2014 for a detailed discussion).
Byrnes (2006) highlights another dimension of language learning that becomes crucial. Thisis the understanding that learning a language involves a process of engaging all languageusers in continued language development toward highly functional multilingualism. In
other words, it is necessary to take a long-term developmental perspective.
These ideas are also reflected in shifts in Japanese second language education, forexample, in the work of Hosokawa, who advocates a shift in language learning from“what” and “how” to “why”; that is, from Japanese language learning and Japanology
to Japanese language education; and from Japanese society and culture to “a pedagogyof language-culture and the development of problem-finding and problem-solving
learning by using Japanese” (Hosokawa 2005, 218). In this view, language learning shifts
from being teacher-guided to being learner-centred and, more recently, to highlighting
learner subjectivity. Developing literacy across languages is understood as holding inplay both the learners’ first language(s) and the additional language being learnt (Kodaand Zehler 2008).
In summary, for all students learning languages (with or without a home background),language learning involves necessarily moving between “bridging”, “negotiating”,“crossing”) at least two linguistic and cultural worlds. As Aoki, a Japanese–Canadianeducator, explains:
Bilingualism … is indeed a mode of being-and-becoming in the world. For me
personally, learning a second language has been an entering into the strange
world of unfamiliarity. Gradually, the new language sheds its unfamiliarity as
I see more deeply into another perspective of the world and see with my neweyes an already familiar world. Two perspectives dance before me and press
forward upon me, and when I find difficulty with one perspective, the otherlends a willing hand.
22Angela Scarino

Being bilingual … is to meet the unfamiliar second language at the margin of
the horizon of the mother language. It is to belong to two worlds at once andyet not belong to either completely. It offers an opportunity to fall back on the
only person I must depend on, myself. Being bilingual asks of me that I live
while probing life and life experiences. Because I live in tension at the margin,
questioning becomes central to my way of life. (Aoki 1987/1991, 243)

In learning to use the target language, learners learn to: (1) exchange meanings
reciprocally through interaction with people and/or texts; (2) “move between” and cometo understand the linguistic and cultural systems of the language they are learning, andat the same time referencing these to their own linguistic and cultural systems; and (3)develop metacognitive and metalinguistic awareness of what it means to interpret andto act in the world, and to be interpreted reciprocally by others (ACARA 2011).
The implications for teachers of Japanese of this reconceptualisation of the key concepts
in languages education is that they will need to go beyond traditional views of language,
culture and learning to consider using the Japanese language as a social practice, inAustralia and in Japan and other Japanese-speaking communities, in actual or virtual
spaces. They need to consider learning language as an intercultural endeavour, focusedon the exchange of meaning. They need to ensure that students are invited to reflect onAustralian English and Japanese, Englishness and Japanese-ness and on themselves andothers. Such reflection should become an integral and natural part of language learning.
Teachers also need to consider their own conceptions of these key concepts and the way
their own conceptions impact on the Japanese learning experiences that they create for
their learners.

The specificity of Japanese
Approaching the development of the Australian Curriculum: Languages as languagespecific after many years of developing generic frameworks for learning languages
in Australia raises an important question. What is it that is specific in teaching andlearning specific languages? Some aspects of the distinctiveness of particular languages
that need to be considered include the following:• Language communities: Languages are practised by communities of speakers
whose identity is defined by their language—which communities and which
identities, for Japanese?
• Learners: The profile of learners learning the specific language (i.e. Japanese) in
Australia here and now.
23

NSJLE Proceedings 2012

• Learning: Linguistic and cultural “distance” of the specific language for Australianlearners: the concept of what it is that is “difficult” or “different” to learn from anAustralian learner’s perspective.
• History: The history of the specific language in Australian education: how has it
been framed and what is the impact of this framing?
• Language: Distinctiveness of concepts, grammar, etc.
Thus, in relation to Japanese language learning some examples of the specificity ofJapanese might include explicit features of the linguistic system; principles of the kanaand kanji writing systems; knowledge of aspects of Japanese language use (e.g. levelsof formality and their significance in interpersonal relationships, awareness and useof honorifics, understanding politeness conventions); and aspects of Japanese cultural
practices and values (e.g. the interrelationship of traditional and modern perspectives
in society, an awareness of the role of respect for age and hierarchy, an awareness of theintegral role of Shinto and Buddhism).
The implications for teachers of Japanese are that they need to shift away from thegeneralising tendency that has resulted from generic frameworks and reconsider the
specificity of Japanese. It also means considering the learning of Japanese from the(Australian) learners’ points of view and imagining diverse ways of “bridging” theindividual, Japanese and Japanese-ness in the world. It also means seeking to avoid
reinforcing stereotypes through teaching and learning.

Reframing aims, curriculum content and its scope and sequencing
The expanded, interrelated aims of language learning in the Australian Curriculum:
Languages are as follows. Learners learn to:• communicate in the target language• understand language, culture, and learning and their relationship, and thereby
develop an intercultural capability in communication• understand themselves as communicators (ACARA 2011)
These aims are intended to capture the interpretive, reflective, reflexive and imaginative
work involved in learning languages. The third aim acknowledges that language
learning is not a static subject in the school curriculum, but rather that it involves
24Angela Scarino

people communicating with each other and coming to understand the nature ofcommunication and the self as a communicator when communicating both within alanguage and culture and across languages and cultures.
These aspects are further elaborated in the curriculum design through two strands: (1)communicating in the context of diversity and (2) understanding (not just language but
also the process of exchanging meanings). These are further elaborated through a set ofsub-strands as follows:• Communication– Socialising and taking action– Obtaining and using information– Responding and expressing imaginative experience– Translating (mediating; moving-between/languages and cultures)– Reflecting on intercultural language use• Understanding– Systems of language– Variability in language use– Understanding of the role of language and culture
It is through these strands and sub-strands that the nature, scope and sequence of language
learning is depicted. The progression in learning is captured in content descriptions andelaborations (see ACARA 2011). These sub-strands are further developed as “threads”
for specific languages. (see Scarino 2013 for a depiction).
The implication for teachers of Japanese is to ensure that they capture the distinctivenessof learning Japanese. It also means considering the nature of language learning andexpanding the domains or scope of work encompassed in the communication andunderstanding strands. For example, the translating sub-strand is one that has beenmuch debated in the development process. This arises from teachers understandingtranslation as the process of word-for-word rendering that it might have been in the past,rather than its contemporary sense of mediating cultural meanings. It is not by chance,
for example, that the concept of “lost in translation” has gained so much currency inliterature and cinema, or that the concept of translation and Japan should feature sostrongly in the theatre works of the Canadian director, Robert Lepage—particularly
25

NSJLE Proceedings 2012

in his work, The seven streams of the River Ota (Lepage 1996). It also means creating
opportunities for intercultural experiences and reflection for students. Teachers needto take a developmental view of learning, ensuring that they build connections acrossthe span of learning. Importantly, it means resourcing ourselves as teachers so that weare able to critically discuss our own experiences of an ever-expanding repertoire ofintercultural engagement with the target language.

Achievement standards
A number of issues arise in relation to seeking to describe student achievements inlanguages education, including Japanese. A major problem is the absence of an adequate
description of student achievements. A sustained study of students’ experience oflearning Japanese (Lo Bianco and Aliani 2013) shows how students are, in fact, seeking
more rigorous and extensive learning. There is no clear understanding of the nature,
range and level of achievements that might be expected of language learning inAustralia. This is due at least in part to the fact that descriptions of student achievements
in languages education have been generic rather than language-specific. Further, thereis evidence that there is a great deal of variation in student achievements and that thisrelates to two major variables: time on task and learner background.
The Student Achievement in Asian Languages Education (SAALE) project (Scarino
et al. 2011) investigated student achievement in four languages—Chinese, Japanese,Indonesian and Korean—through testing at three points along the K–12 continuum:at the end of the primary cycle, at the end of Year 10, and at the end of Year 12. The
study explicitly examined the variables of time on task and learner background. Basedon statistical analysis of the test data and qualitative analysis of student responses,
descriptions were created for specific student groupings. In other words, descriptionsof achievement were developed at “average” and “high” levels in a way that took into
account time on task and learner background. Furthermore, the descriptions aresupplemented by exemplars of students’ work with commentaries that outline thefeatures of language use and language learning evidenced in each exemplar. This work
represents an initial step in the direction of establishing empirically based descriptionsof achievements that are sensitive to the context of learning. Much more research isneeded to develop descriptions that do justice to the nature, range and scope of Japanese
language learning.
Teachers of Japanese need to consider actual student achievements, tailored to different
groups of learners (who have been learning Japanese for different periods of time andwho are learning Japanese as a second language or as a background user of Japanese).
26Angela Scarino

Teachers also need to reconsider their own expectations about the nature and extent ofstudent achievements, for these expectations can be highly influential.

Conclusion
The development of the Australian Curriculum: Languages—Japanese provides
an opportunity for teachers (and other interested parties) to re-examine and reconceptualise the learning and teaching of Japanese in Australian schools. In curriculum
terms, the shift needs to be towards a focus on meaning, recognising its centrality inboth the process of communication and the process of learning. It is also necessary toconsider the nature, range and scope of Japanese language learning. In pedagogy, it isnecessary to honour the learners, to recognise that language and culture need to be
integrated in learning experiences as students learn to move between at least two different
linguistic and cultural worlds. Further, it is necessary to reconsider the central role ofreflection, to build meta-awareness of the role of language and culture in communicationand in learning. Finally, it is important to develop students’ capability for reflection, in a
way that is reciprocal and recognises the knowledge, assumptions and values of others.
Through the assessment process, it is necessary to expand the learning that is valued, todevelop accounts of language-using-and-learning that capture communication as well
as reflection, and to develop alternative ways of assessing that do justice to learners ofJapanese.
For many, the Australian Curriculum: Languages, and specifically the curriculum
for Japanese, will not be seen as “new”. This may well be the case in some instances,
but it is certainly more. It seeks to put in place a necessary expansion of learning tofocus on meaning and the ways in which it is interpreted, created and exchanged, andwith this careful attention to reflection, both on the role of language and culture incommunication and on self in relation to other. In this way a utilitarian curriculum,
which is so often highlighted in relation to the learning of Japanese, will begin to becomplemented with a curriculum that is humanistic and educative.

27

NSJLE Proceedings 2012

Bibliography
ACARA. 2011. Shape of the Australian Curriculum: Languages. Accessed 7 February 2012. http://www.acara.edu.au/verve/_resources/Draft+Shape+of+the+Australian+Curriculum+-+Languages+-+FINAL.pdf.
Aoki, T.T. 1987/1991. “The dialectic of mother language and second language: a curriculum exploration.” InCurriculum in a new key: the collected works of Ted T. Aoki, edited by W.F. Pinar and R.L. Irwin, 235–245.
Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Australian Government. 2012. “Australia in the Asian century: white paper.” Accessed 27 May 2014. http://pandora.nla.
gov.au/pan/133850/20130914-0122/asiancentury.dpmc.gov.au/white-paper.html
Blommaert, J. 2010. The sociolinguistics of globalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Byrnes, H. 2006. “Perspectives: interrogating communicative competence as a framework for collegiate foreign
language study.” The Modern Language Journal 90(2): 244–246.
Cenoz, J. and Gorter, D. 2011. “A holistic approach to multilingual education: introduction.” The Modern Language
Journal 95(3): 339–343.
Cook, V. J. 2005. Multicompetence: black hole or wormhole? Accessed 4 March 2013. http://www.docstoc.com/
docs/8966609/Multi-competence-Black-hole-or-worm-hole-Vivian-Cook-MultiDe Kretser, A. and Spence-Brown, R. 2010. The current state of Japanese language education in Australian schools.
Carlton South, Victoria: Education Services Australia.
Fischer, K.W. 2012. “Preface: language learning and culture in a time of globalization.” In Languages in a global world:
learning for better cultural understanding, edited by B. Della Chiesa, J. Scott and C. Hinton, 23–24. Paris:
OECD Publishing.
García, O. 2009. Bilingual education in the 21st century: a global perspective. Chichester, West Sussex: Wiley-Blackwell.
Gutiérrez, K.D. and Rogoff, B. 2003. “Cultural ways of learning: individual traits or repertoires of practice?”
Educational Researcher 32(5): 19–25.
Hosokawa, H. 2005. “The meaning of ‘learner subjectivity’ and development of ‘literacy of interpersonal culture’ inJapanese as second language education.” In Theoretical studies and the development of practical models ofinterculturality in Japanese language education, edited by M. Sasaki. Tokyo: Waseda University.
Koda, K. and Zehler, A.M. 2008. “Introduction.” In Learning to read across languages: Cross-linguistic relationships infirst and second-language literacy development, edited by K. Koda and A.M. Zehler, 1–10. New York & London:
Routledge.
Kramsch, C. 2006. “From communicative competence to symbolic competence.” Modern Language Journal 90:
249–252.
Kramsch, C. 2009. The multilingual subject. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Kramsch, C. 2011. “The symbolic dimensions of the intercultural.” Language Teaching 44(3): 354–367.
Kramsch, C. 2014. “Teaching foreign languages in an era of globalization: introduction.” The Modern Language Journal
98: 296–311.

28

Angela Scarino

Kramsch, C. and Whiteside, A. 2008. “Language ecology in multilingual settings: towards a theory of symboliccompetence.” Applied Linguistics 29: 645–671.
Lepage, R. 1996. The seven streams of the River Ota. London: Methuen.
Li, W. 2011. “Multilinguality, multimodality, and multicompetence: Code and modeswitching by minority ethnic
children in complementary schools.” The Modern Language Journal 95(3): 370–384.
Liddicoat, A. J. and Scarino, A. 2013. Intercultural language teaching and learning. Wiley-Blackwell. Oxford.
Lo Bianco, J. 2010. “The importance of language policies and multilingualism for cultural diversity.” The International
Social Science Journal 61: 37–67.
Lo Bianco, J. and Aliani, R. 2013. Student voices, policy ambitions: language planning interactions. Bristol: Multilingual
Matters.
MCEETYA (Ministerial Council for Education, Employment, Training and Youth Affairs). 2008. The Melbourne
declaration on educational goals for young Australians. Accessed 14 March 2014. http://www.mceecdya.edu.au/verve/_resources/national_declaration_on_the_educational_goals_for_young_australians.pdf
Norton, B. 2012. Identity and language learning: extending the conversation (2nd edition). Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
Ortega, L. 2010. “The bilingual turn in SLA.” Plenary delivered at the Annual Conference of the American Association
for Applied Linguistics, Atlanta GA, March 6–9.
Scarino, A. 2013. “From concepts to design in developing languages in the Australian Curriculum.” Babel 43(2–3):
4–13.
Scarino, A. 2014. “Learning as reciprocal, interpretive meaning-making. A view from collaborative research into theprofessional learning of teachers of languages.” The Modern Language Journal 98: 386–401.
Scarino, A., Elder, C., Iwashita, N., Kim, S. H. O., Kohler, M. and Scrimgeour, A. 2011. “Student achievement in Asian
languages education. Part 1: project report.” Accessed 27 May 2014. http://www.saale.unisa.edu.au/project.
html
Scarino A. and Liddicoat A.J. 2009. Teaching and learning languages: a Guide. Melbourne: Curriculum Corporation.
Stroud, C. and Heugh, K. 2011. “Languages in education.” In Cambridge handbook of sociolinguistics, edited by R.
Mesthrie, 413–429. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Vertovec, S. 2010. “Towards post-multiculturalism. Changing communities, conditions and contexts of diversity.”
International Social Science Journal 199: 83–95.

29

NSJLE Proceedings 201230