U S I N G T H E L O T E P L A N N I N G F R A M E W O R K 1
Acknowledgments
Simpson Norris International would like to acknowledge the contributions of the following
people and organisations.
Firstly, we would like to acknowledge the work of the project team in the development of
the package and training course: John Hogan, Lindy Norris, and Natalia Norris. Flavia
Campos and Nick Norris have also contributed to the development and implementation of
the training programme.
We are grateful for the involvement of the National Asian Languages and Studies in
Australian Schools (NALSAS) Reference Group and for their invaluable feedback. The
Reference Group comprises Anne Eckstein, Elina Raso, Anne Roarty and Sue Tolbert.
In particular, we would like to thank those LOTE teachers, principals and consultants who
participated in the initial training courses that accompanied this package. Their responses
and feedback have been invaluable in helping us to create the final package. With their
permission, examples of their thinking have been included to illustrate the use of particular
instruments and tools.
This package is the culmination of research previously conducted by Simpson Norris
International and we would like to express our appreciation to the schools and individuals
who participated in that research, and without whom this package would not have come
into existence.
This project has been funded by the Commonwealth Department of Education, Training
and Youth Affairs (DETYA) under the NALSAS strategy.
© Commonwealth of Australia 2000
ISBN: 0-86905-785-5
This work is Commonwealth copyright. It may be reproduced in whole or in part for study or training purposes,
subject to the inclusion of an acknowledgment of the source and no commercial usage or sale. Reproduction for
the purposes other than those indicated above requires the written permission of the Department of Education,
Training and Youth Affairs. Requests and inquiries concerning reproduction and copyright should be addressed to
the Assistant Secretary, Quality Schooling Branch, Department of Education, Training and Youth Affairs, GPO Box
9880, Canberra, ACT 2601. The views expressed herein do not necessarily represent the views of the
Commonwealth Department of Education, Training and Youth Affairs.
U S I N G T H E L O T E P L A N N I N G F R A M E W O R K 2
ContentsAbout this package 4Introducing the Package 5
Introducing the Planning Framework 8The LOTE Planning Framework: Where did it come from? 9Key concepts associated with planning and sustaining LOTE programmes 10The LOTE Planning Framework: What is it? 11Envisioning and Enacting 14What do I need in order to work through the Framework? 16
Getting Started: Preparing to Use the Framework 19What to do initially 20Ways of using the Package 21Collecting baseline data 23School Profile Proforma 24Deciding who to involve 31
Introducing the Instruments 31Elaborating the Instruments 32Instrument 1: The Who Consultation Profile 32Instrument 2: The RASI Decision-making Profile 32
The Planning Framework by phase 33Monitor, Review and Act 34
Overview of the Phase 35Introducing the Instruments 35Elaborating the Instruments 37Instrument 3: Summaries of Research Findings:What the research says about Uptake of Languages by Schools 37Instrument 4: Summaries of Research Findings: What the research says about Uptake of Languages by Students 38Instrument 5: Summaries of Research Findings:What the research says about Sustainable LOTE Programmes 39Instrument 6: Summaries of Research Findings:
What the research says about developing proficiency 40Instrument 7: The Proficiency Potential Framework 41Instrument 8: An Instrument to Profile the Proficiency Potentialof a LOTE Programme and its Learners 55Overhead Transparencies: Proficiency Potential Framework 56Instrument 9: School Observation Form 63Instrument 10: Class Observation Form 64Instrument 11: Interview Schedules 65Conclusion 66
Identify Information Needs 67Overview of the Phase 68Introducing the Instruments 69Elaborating the Instruments 70Instrument 12: An Interview Protocol 70Instrument 13: Booklet: The Most Frequently Asked Questions in Respect of LOTE 72Conclusion 79
Interpreting and Connecting 80Overview of the Phase 81Introducing the Instruments 81Elaborating the Instruments 83Instrument 14: Connections Diagram 83Instrument 15: A Tool for Defining Possibilities 84Conclusion 90
U S I N G T H E L O T E P L A N N I N G F R A M E W O R K 3
Articulating Vision and Goals 91Overview of the Phase 92Introducing the Instruments 92Elaborating the Instruments 94Instrument 16: Developing a vision 94Instrument 17: Sharing the vision 97Instrument 18: Connecting the vision 100Instrument 19: Situation Analysis 100Instrument 20: Graphing the Change Equation 103Conclusion 106
Identify Factors 107Overview of the Phase 108Introducing the Instruments 108Elaborating the Instruments 109Instrument 21: SWOT Analysis 109Instrument 22: Fishbone Diagram 112Conclusion 114
Assess Impact 115Overview of the Phase 116Introducing the Instruments 116Elaborating the Instruments 117Instrument 23: Forcefield Analysis 117Instrument 24: Impact/Effort Matrix 122Conclusion 124
Plan and Do 125Overview of the Phase 126Introducing the Instruments 127Elaborating the Instruments 127Instrument 25: LOTE Programme Plan 128Instrument 26: LOTE Action Plan 129Conclusion 132
Appendices 133Case Study Scenarios 134
Scenario 1 – Clopvale Primary School 136Scenario 2 – Mt Nada Secondary School 143Scenario 3 – Belvedere Lower Secondary 149Scenario 4 – Gracelyn Primary 155Scenario 5 – Dayton High School 160Scenario 6 – Robinson Primary School 165
A Workshop on Using the Package 171Key concepts and the Training Programme 172The Training Programme 173
References and Glossary 174Reference List 175
Bibliography 177
Glossary of Key Terms 183
List of FiguresFigure 1: The LOTE Planning Framework 13Figure 2: Enacting and Envisioning 15Figure 3: Instruments for using the LOTE Planning Framework 17Figure 4: Who should I involve? 18
U S I N G T H E L O T E P L A N N I N G F R A M E W O R K 4
About this package
U S I N G T H E L O T E P L A N N I N G F R A M E W O R K 5
Introducing thePackage
U S I N G T H E L O T E P L A N N I N G F R A M E W O R K 6
Introduction to the Packagehe function of this package is to provide information and assistance for those working
towards the development of effective and sustainable Languages Other Than English
(LOTE) programmes in schools. The package offers advice with regard to the processes of
planning, implementing and evaluating LOTE programmes. It also provides support through
the use of case study examples and vignettes.
The package is the culmination of a number of interrelated research projects undertaken by
Simpson Norris International. These projects have involved case study research in every
Australian state and territory and across all jurisdictions. Issues covered in the research
include the factors impacting on uptake and sustainability of LOTE programmes; an
assessment of factors impacting on the potential for LOTE students to achieve linguistic
proficiency; an overview of issues relating to language teacher proficiency; cost benefit
analyses of LOTE programmes; evaluations of state policies and strategies in respect of
LOTE; and research into second language learning and children with special needs.1 The
research methodologies adopted have included interviews and focus groups with school
administrators, LOTE teachers, classroom teachers, parents and students, as well as
literature reviews of both national and international literature relating to language teaching
and learning.
The package was initially designed to be used in conjunction with a three-day professional
development programme for both school staff and external consultants working with
schools in the implementation or improvement of LOTE programmes. While the package
may be able to be used as a self-help manual for schools making decisions about their LOTE
programmes, it is best used in conjunction with a consultant2.
The package comprises a number of different sections. There is general information about
the package and about the LOTE Planning Framework. There is information about how to
start using the package, with an outline of a three-day professional development programme
designed to be used in conjunction with the package. There are specific sections designated
for each of the planning phases and there are sections containing case studies associated
with the establishment and maintenance of LOTE programmes.
In each of the sections designated to the different planning phases of the LOTE Planning
Framework, notes are included together with process instruments, or tools that can be used
to assist in the particular planning stage. In addition, short vignettes have been used to
illustrate specific issues associated with each planning phase. It is hoped that these stories,
collected and recounted by those who have trialed the package, will form a useful resource
for others who are accessing the package independently.
1 A list of research undertaken is included as Appendix 5.2 The best point of contact for consultancy services is either the jurisdictional officers for LOTE in the relevantstate or territory or Simpson Norris International.
T
U S I N G T H E L O T E P L A N N I N G F R A M E W O R K 7
For ease of reference, the instruments have been numbered. It should be noted, however,
that the numbers on instruments do not imply that they should be used in a set order.
Where appropriate, examples have been included to illustrate the use of the particular
instruments. These are real examples that emerged through the trialing of the package.
Every effort has been made to retain the integrity of these examples. The phraseology and
terminology used in the examples is close to that reported by the respondent. We would
like to acknowledge the willingness of those teachers and consultants who agreed to make
these available. Collectively, these examples form a body of information that can be used to
support the process of change and review. They are not, however, intended to be in any
way definitive.
It is intended that the information and instruments provided will provoke thinking about the
process and possible implications in specific contexts. Supplementary information is
included through case studies and stories, together with information summarising the major
findings from Australian LOTE research to date.
The package is built using real data from real schools. To ensure confidentiality, where
reference has been made to actual LOTE programmes, they are identified by pseudonyms.
Quotations are indicated in the package through the use of italics. Terminology used is that
of the jurisdiction from which the example was collected.
U S I N G T H E L O T E P L A N N I N G F R A M E W O R K 8
Introducing thePlanningFramework
U S I N G T H E L O T E P L A N N I N G F R A M E W O R K 9
The LOTE Planning Framework: Where did it come from?
n 1997, the Education Department of Western Australia initiated a project to
investigate the reasons for the slow uptake of Chinese and the perceived decline of
German in the state. Discussions with other state jurisdictions revealed similar issues
across a number of languages. As a result, the research project was subsequently expanded
to serve the needs of several systems and all states, and was further funded by the
Commonwealth Department of Education, Training and Youth Affairs (DETYA) as part of
the National Asian Languages and Studies in Australian Schools (NALSAS) Strategy. The
findings of this research, Factors influencing the uptake of Modern Standard Chinese, Korean,
Modern Greek and German at Primary and Secondary Level in Australian Schools, were published
by the Education Department of Western Australia in 1998.
This review of language uptake identified a number of factors that impacted on the
sustainability of particular languages and of LOTE programmes in general. A significant
finding of the research was that schools are generally unclear about how to support and
embed their LOTE programmes once established, and how to monitor and strengthen the
learning outcomes for students. It was clear that a process was needed to support schools
as they made decisions that impacted on LOTE programmes and on the language learning of
students.
The final chapter of the report presented to NALSAS and to the Education Department of
Western Australia addressed this issue of support by including the initial version of the
LOTE Planning Framework. Since that time, the Framework has been refined in response to
being trialed in a range of different LOTE teaching and learning contexts. As a result, the
Framework, as it appears here, is reflective of practical experiences and not just theoretical
assumptions. There was a need, during the trialing process, to preserve the notion of
fluidity in planning for languages uptake and sustainability. It is intended within this package,
and its application, that this notion of fluidity be retained.
I
U S I N G T H E L O T E P L A N N I N G F R A M E W O R K 1 0
Key concepts associated with planningand sustaining LOTE programmes andusing the LOTE Planning Framework
Planning and sustaining LOTE programmes
requires constant evaluation of programme
purpose and how that purpose is being
translated in schools and classrooms.
Being able to think, imagine and focus for the
future, in order to improve student learning
outcomes, is critical for the planning of
sustainable language programmes.
How the vision translates into the practical
reality of schools impacts on further planning and
envisioning.
Re-evaluating what LOTE means for schools,
their communities and language learners is an
ongoing process.
Evaluating
Envisioning
Enacting
Evaluating
U S I N G T H E L O T E P L A N N I N G F R A M E W O R K 1 1
The LOTE Planning Framework:What is it?
The LOTE Planning Framework (Figure 1) provides a process for implementing, supporting,
evaluating and reviewing LOTE programmes in schools.
The process is divided into 7 phases:
■ Monitor, Review, Act
This phase requires that a programme be evaluated, that the programme’s goals be
reviewed and modified if appropriate, and that there is a ‘stock take’ of progress and
problems.
■ Identify Information Needs
This phase of the process involves identifying the information that is required for
effective planning to take place. Information needs and sources have to be
determined so that decision-making processes can be informed by quality information
rather than just opinion.
■ Interpreting and Connecting
This phase is about interpreting and utilising information so that LOTE can be
connected to the rest of the school and its community.
■ Articulate Vision and Goals
This phase involves envisioning both what the future state of LOTE might be and how
this state can be attained.
■ Identify Factors
For the vision to come to fruition it is necessary to be able to identify factors that will
either hinder or promote the attainment of the vision.
■ Assess Impact
How these factors impact positively or negatively with regard to the vision is the
focus of this phase. Being able to identify where best to start and how to proceed so
that maximum benefit can be gained for minimum effort is a critical step in the
process.
U S I N G T H E L O T E P L A N N I N G F R A M E W O R K 1 2
■ Plan and Do
Having made a start, the planning and the doing phase is about using all the available
information to determine the order in which a school will deal with the factors that
impact on LOTE. This will result in a plan that can then be actioned.
The ongoing and cyclical nature of the process is illustrated by the fact that the progress
from one stage to another takes you back to your starting point: in this case monitor,
review and act.
■ Monitor, Review, Act
Reviewing the results of action, and evaluating the impact on LOTE teaching and
learning, will see the cycle as both complete and as beginning anew.
The cyclical nature of the Framework is represented on the following page by a circle that
suggests a natural progression from one stage to another. In practice, people working with
the process may find themselves returning to previous stages in light of their subsequent
work and working in more than one stage at any one time.
There is no one starting point in the cycle. Finding a starting point on the LOTE Planning
Framework depends essentially on ‘where a school is at’. For example:
■ Where a school is reviewing its curriculum, the starting point will be Monitor,
Review, Act
■ For a school that is considering introducing a LOTE, its starting point will be Identify
Information Needs
■ For others it may be appropriate for the beginning point to be Articulate Vision &
Goals.
Each school needs to identify the appropriate starting point for the planning process.
U S I N G T H E L O T E P L A N N I N G F R A M E W O R K 1 3
The LOTE Planning Framework
Hogan, J., Norris, L., Norris, N. and Norris, N. (2000). The LOTE Planning Framework: in NALSAS, Using the LOTE Planning Framework, Canberra: DETYA.
Identify information needs
What would make the LOTE programmebetter?
What do you want to know about LOTE?What have others done?What does research say?
Consult with others
Identify factorsWhat will promote?What will hinder?
Assess impactHow do the factors relate to our
situation?
Plan and do
Be TakeStrategic Action
Interpretingand connecting
Rest of school communitySchool plan
Other learning areasGeneric outcomes
Assessment/Reporting
Articulatevision and goals
What will the LOTE programme look like?
What willl be achieved?
Monitor,review and act
How is the LOTE programme going?What does the LOTE programme
look like?What is being achieved?
Figure one
U S I N G T H E L O T E P L A N N I N G F R A M E W O R K 1 4
Envisioning and Enacting
It is possible to divide the Framework conceptually into two parts: those stages that deal
with the process of envisioning and those stages that deal with the process of enacting.
Envisioning involves determining what the LOTE programme is going to look like, what its
vision and goals are and what its outcomes will be. It requires that information needs be
identified and that connections be made between the LOTE programme and other aspects of
school life, and the wider community context.
The phases of Envisioning are:
■ Identify Information Needs
■ Interpreting and Connecting
■ Articulate Vision and Goals
Enacting is the process of planning and implementing any changes to the school’s LOTE
programme and then reviewing the programme and acting on any modifications that need to
be made.
The phases of Enacting are:
■ Identify Factors
■ Assess Impact
■ Plan and Do
■ Monitor, Review and Act
Schools that are deciding whether or not to implement a LOTE programme, or who wish to
change the emphasis or direction of the LOTE programme, may find it useful to start with
envisioning.
Schools that already have a LOTE programme and wish to determine how effective it is, or
who are quite clear about what they want to achieve in their LOTE programmes, may
choose to start with enacting.
Both the stages of envisioning and the stages of enacting need to be addressed in order to
develop an effective plan.
The diagram on the following page (Figure 2) indicates the processes of envisioning and
enacting.
U S I N G T H E L O T E P L A N N I N G F R A M E W O R K 1 5
Envisioning and Enacting
Hogan, J., Norris, L., Norris, N. and Norris, N. (2000). The LOTE Planning Framework: in NALSAS, Using the LOTE Planning Framework, Canberra: DETYA
Identify information needs
Interpreting andconnecting
Articulate visionand goals
Identify factorsAssess impact
Plan and do
Monitor, reviewand act
Figure two
U S I N G T H E L O T E P L A N N I N G F R A M E W O R K 1 6
What do I need in order to workthrough the Framework?
In order to assist people to work through the stages of the LOTE Planning Framework, a range
of process instruments, tools and proformas are provided in the package to facilitate the
planning processes.
The diagram on the following page (Figure 3) identifies the different instruments provided in
the package, which may be useful for working through the different planning stages.
Instruments listed under a particular stage may also be used in other stages of the
Framework.
The list of instruments provided is not definitive. There are any number of different ways of
approaching each task. Rather than providing an overwhelming number of models and
instruments, a selection of instruments has been chosen to illustrate the issues that arise.
The instruments listed are explained in the package and further clarification of their use is
provided as part of the training programme.
Figure 4 (on page 18) highlights the need to consider who should be enrolled in the various
stages of the planning process.
U S I N G T H E L O T E P L A N N I N G F R A M E W O R K 1 7
Instruments for using the LOTE Framework
Hogan, J., Norris, L., Norris, N. and Norris, N. (2000). The LOTE Planning Framework: in NALSAS, Using the LOTE Planning Framework, Canberra: DETYA
Figure three
Interpretingand connecting
■ Connections Diagram■ A Tool for Defining
Possibilities
Articulate visionand goals
■ Developing a Vision■ Sharing the Vision■ Graphing the Change
Equation■ Situation Analysis
Identify factors■ SWOT Analysis■ Fishbone
Assess impact■ Impact/Effort Matrix■ Forcefield Analysis
Plan and do■ LOTE Programme Plan■ LOTE Action Plan
Monitor, reviewand act
■ Summaries of Research Findings■ Proficiency Potential Framework■ Observation Forms■ Interview Schedule
IdentifyInformation Needs
■ School Profile Proforma■ An Interview Protocol■ The most frequently asked
questions in respect of LOTE
U S I N G T H E L O T E P L A N N I N G F R A M E W O R K 1 8
Who should I involve?
Hogan, J., Norris, L., Norris, N. and Norris, N. (2000). The LOTE Planning Framework: in NALSAS, Using the LOTE Planning Framework, Canberra: DETYA
Identify information needs
Interpreting andconnecting
Articulate visionand goals
Identify factorsAssess impact
Plan and do
Monitor, reviewand act
Who?Who should be involved in each stage?
Who should be responsible for each stage?Who should be consulted?Who should be informed?
Figure four
U S I N G T H E L O T E P L A N N I N G F R A M E W O R K 1 9
Getting started:preparing to use the
Framework
U S I N G T H E L O T E P L A N N I N G F R A M E W O R K 2 0
What to doinitially
U S I N G T H E L O T E P L A N N I N G F R A M E W O R K 2 1
Ways of using the Packagehis package is designed to be used by a variety of people in a range of different roles. It
is anticipated that LOTE teachers, language advisors and consultants, school executive
members and teachers will be able to use this document for different purposes and in
different ways.
Initial considerationsPrior to commencement, there are a number of questions that need to be considered if the
potential offered through the package is to be maximised. These questions relate to school
and community needs, to roles, relationships and responsibilities, and to the availability of
support. Such questions include:
■ What is the need in the school?
Are you considering implementing a LOTE programme for the first time?
Are you reviewing an established LOTE programme?
■ What is your role?
Are you working to make changes to the LOTE programme in your school?
Are you an external consultant working with a specific school?
Are you intending to run a training programme?
■ Who can you get to support you?
Is the school administration supportive?
Is it appropriate to draw on an external consultant?
Is the community supportive of LOTE?
Can you involve other members of the school staff?
■ Who is your client? Who is your audience?
The answer to these questions will relate to your role and the needs of the school.
Where should you start on the Planning Framework?As mentioned previously, there is no one starting point on the LOTE Planning Framework, it
depends essentially on ‘where the school is at’. For example:
■ Where a school is reviewing its curriculum, the starting point will be Monitor,
Review and Act
■ For a school that is considering introducing a LOTE, its starting point will be Identify
Information Needs
■ For others it may be appropriate for the beginning point to be Articulate Vision and
Goals
T
U S I N G T H E L O T E P L A N N I N G F R A M E W O R K 2 2
In each situation, an appropriate starting point for the planning process will need to be
identified. If you are unsure about where to start, the most appropriate starting point may
be Monitor, Review and Act, as this will provide valuable information about the current
school context and assist in identifying specific issues relating to LOTE in the school.
In practice, people working with the Framework may find themselves returning to previous
stages in light of their subsequent work, and working in more than one stage at any one time.
How do I get started?If you are using the package as a basis for an inservice programme, a set of overhead
transparencies and an outline of a training course have been provided at the end of the
package.
If you are working with your own school, turn to the phase of the Planning Framework that
provides the most appropriate starting point for you.
If you are an external agent or consultant working with a school, you may decide to focus
initially on one aspect of the planning process rather than introducing the total package at the
outset.
U S I N G T H E L O T E P L A N N I N G F R A M E W O R K 2 3
Collecting baseline data
The following School Profile Proforma (Proforma 1) is a means of collecting baseline data
about a school and its LOTE programme. As well as helping to obtain information pertaining
specifically to a school’s LOTE programme, the Proforma also focuses attention on the
broader school and community context. In addition, it provides valuable information about
people’s perceptions of LOTE.
While the form has been designed for use by an external consultant, its application is equally
relevant for people working within a school, as the information gathered will start to form a
picture of LOTE in the school. It will also begin to give some indication as to LOTE’s status
in the school so as to highlight any issues or inconsistencies relating to the programme.
Most of the questions on the form relate to LOTE programmes that are already in existence.
The form is, however, useful for generating thinking about the factors to consider when
implementing a LOTE programme, particularly in terms of connecting LOTE to other areas
within the school.
The proforma is, of course, able to be modified to suit particular circumstances and different
LOTE teaching and learning contexts.
Proforma 1
U S I N G T H E L O T E P L A N N I N G F R A M E W O R K 2 4
School Profile Proforma
The proforma provided below is designed to assist in the information collection process. This
information may be referred to at any stage of the planning process.
School:
Address:
Postcode
Telephone: Fax:
Email:
Contact Person:
Staff Numbers:
Total: Male: Female:
Student Numbers:
Total: Male: Female:
Year Levels catered for by School:
What jurisdiction is the school in?
Proforma 1
U S I N G T H E L O T E P L A N N I N G F R A M E W O R K 2 5
Brief description of the student population:
Brief description of the local community (eg socio-economic characteristics):
Proforma 1
U S I N G T H E L O T E P L A N N I N G F R A M E W O R K 2 6
Provide details of any LOTE programmes planned/offered at school:
Language NumbersYear Levels involved inthe programme
Number of classes Number of students Number of backgroundspeakers
LOTE 1
(Insert Name of LOTE)LOTE 2
(Insert Name of LOTE)LOTE 3
(Insert Name of LOTE)
Provide a brief history of LOTE in the school:
Proforma 1
U S I N G T H E L O T E P L A N N I N G F R A M E W O R K 2 7
Using relevant curriculum and assessment frameworks in your system, provide abrief description of the proficiency attainment in LOTE of learners in the school (egupper primary learners are able to engage in short conversations about daily life andcan write short, simple texts that have been repeatedly modelled):
Provide a staffing profile for LOTE in the school
How many full time equivalent teachersteach/will teach LOTE?
How long has each teacher been teaching at theschool?
Which year levels does each teacher teach?
How many classes will each teacher teach perweek?
How many hours will each teacher teach perweek?
What is/will be each teacher’s non-contact timeallocation?
Do/will any teachers have any multilevel classes?
Are any LOTE teachers background speakers ofthe LOTE?
What qualifications/training does each teacherhave?
Is there provision for teacher assistants?And if so, describe briefly how they are/willbe used.
Proforma 1
U S I N G T H E L O T E P L A N N I N G F R A M E W O R K 2 8
What are the best things about LOTE in the school? According to whom?
What are the main priorities in the school? According to whom?
Proforma 1
U S I N G T H E L O T E P L A N N I N G F R A M E W O R K 2 9
What are the priorities for LOTE in the school? According to whom?
What are the main issues associated with LOTE in the school? According to whom?
Proforma 1
U S I N G T H E L O T E P L A N N I N G F R A M E W O R K 3 0
Add any additional information that you consider relevant.
Collect examples of important school and LOTE documents. Some examples of
documentation to collect:
■ The school brochure
■ The school development plan
■ The school charter
■ The school priorities
■ School subject manual
■ School policy manual
■ State/system curriculum documents
■ LOTE department or subject plan
■ Descriptions of LOTE programmes
■ Report forms for the school and LOTE
■ The school’s LOTE policy
■ Anything else you consider relevant
U S I N G T H E L O T E P L A N N I N G F R A M E W O R K 3 1
Deciding who to involve
hen starting to use the package it is important to be clear about your role in the
process. As a facilitator of the process, you do not necessarily have to take
responsibility for implementing each phase of the Framework. This is where the
question of who else to involve becomes important, together with determining at what point it is
both necessary and desirable to seek the involvement of other people.
Research indicates that sustainable LOTE programmes generally display a high degree of school
and community involvement. Failure to involve all stakeholders may result in some people
feeling disconnected from the programme. It also may result in the LOTE programme being
regarded as marginal to the school curriculum, rather than an integral part of it.
Introducing the Instruments
To help to elaborate this issue, two instruments have been provided.
The Who Consultation Profile
The Who Consultation Profile asks you to consider who should be responsible for each phase of
the Planning Framework; who needs to be involved in the planning process, either due to their
expertise, or the fact that they will be affected by the decision, irrespective of expertise; and
who needs to be aware or informed of the process that is occurring and the decisions made.
The RASI Decision-Making Instrument
RASI stands for Responsibility, Accountability, Support and Information. It asks you to consider
the question of who should be involved from a slightly different perspective.
W
U S I N G T H E L O T E P L A N N I N G F R A M E W O R K 3 2
Elaborating the Instruments
The Who Consultation Profile INSTRUMENT 1
Who Consultation Profile
Who should be responsible in this stage?
Who should be involved in this stage? Who will be affected by the decisions?
Who should be consulted? Who has the expertise we need?
Who should be informed?
The RASI Decision-Making Profile INSTRUMENT 2
The RASI Decision-Making Profile
Who is Responsible?
Whose Approval (or veto) is required?
What Support (people and resources) do you need?
Who needs to be Informed?
U S I N G T H E L O T E P L A N N I N G F R A M E W O R K 3 3
The Planning
Framework by phase
U S I N G T H E L O T E P L A N N I N G F R A M E W O R K 3 4
Monitor, Review
and ActIdentify
information needs
Interpreting andconnecting
Articulate visionand goals
Identify factorsAssess impact
Plan and do
Monitor, reviewand act
U S I N G T H E L O T E P L A N N I N G F R A M E W O R K 3 5
Monitor, Review and Act
Overview of the PhasePlanning and sustaining LOTE programmes requires constant evaluation of programme purpose
and how that purpose is being translated in schools and classrooms.
This phase of the LOTE Planning Framework involves evaluating a LOTE programme by reviewing
it against the purpose and goals of that LOTE programme in order to determine if modification
is necessary. In a sense, the phase requires a ‘stock take’ of progress and problems so that
additional needs information can be accessed for the next phase.
The need to monitor and review LOTE programmes is ongoing. Thus, while this phase may, in
many instances, form an entry point into the Planning Framework, it will then be necessary to
return, or to refer to this phase regularly. Such re-visits are essential in determining whether
the implementation of a plan has been effective in assisting the programme to achieve its purpose
or whether the plan, or the purpose, need to be reviewed.
Introducing the InstrumentsA selection of instruments or tools has been provided to help with the process of monitoring,
reviewing and acting.
Summaries of Research Findings
Summaries from recent Australian research relating to LOTE, conducted by Simpson Norris
International and Murdoch University have been provided. A list of references has been included
at the end of the package. These summaries can be useful tools within a process of review and
decision making. The summary instruments included are:
■ What the Research Says About Uptake of Languages by Schools
■ What the Research Says About Uptake of Languages by Students
■ What the Research Says About Sustainable LOTE Programmes
■ What the Research Says About Developing Proficiency
These summaries are designed as background information highlighting what to look for in a
LOTE programme in terms of its potential for long-term sustainability and its potential to
produce proficient language speakers.
The Proficiency Potential Framework
The Proficiency Potential Framework is designed to assist in the evaluation of LOTE programmes.
Originally developed as a tool to aid in the determination of the potential for LOTE programmes
to produce proficient LOTE speakers, the Framework focuses attention on all aspects of a LOTE
programme and not just on those factors immediately recognisable as being associated with
linguistic proficiency. Application of the Framework enables a holistic overview of the enhancing
and debilitating elements or attributes of a LOTE programme as it operates within its specific
context.
What does the LOTE programme currently look like?
U S I N G T H E L O T E P L A N N I N G F R A M E W O R K 3 6
Observation Forms and Interview Schedules
Observation and interview can be key mechanisms in the process of monitoring and review.
Included in this package are a number of examples of observation forms and interview schedules
that can serve as models for the development of instruments appropriate for any given LOTE
teaching and learning context. The examples included are:
■ A School Observation Form
■ A Class Observation Form
■ Sample Interview Schedule Relating to Learner and Teacher Perceptions
Overhead Transparencies
A set of overhead transparencies relating to the Proficiency Potential Framework has also been
provided to assist in the explanation of the key concepts.
U S I N G T H E L O T E P L A N N I N G F R A M E W O R K 3 7
Elaborating the Instruments
Summaries of Research Findings INSTRUMENT 3
What the research3 says about uptake of languages by schoolsIn making choices about which LOTE to offer, there are a number of factors schools may need to consider:
■ The need to adopt a particular LOTE because of system initiatives or requirements. It may be, for example,that system level policies and directions drive the choice of LOTE. In other instances, however, system levelplanning may inform LOTE choice, but not necessarily determine it.
■ Continuity of language from primary to secondary schools within the same area may be an importantconsideration.
■ Perceived future benefits to students from studying a particular LOTE can also impact on decisions. Theseperceptions, however, may often be based on the values or biases of school decision-makers, rather than oninformed choice.
■ The existence/non-existence/previous existence of a background speaker population at a school can be asignificant factor. The research suggests that changing demographics can impact significantly on thesustainability of LOTE programmes.
■ The resourcing options available to a school are critical factors. While externally funded LOTE programmes(for example, programmes offered through consular agencies) may offer a simple and cheap LOTE solutionfor some schools, the research suggests that programmes implemented on this basis are not generallysustainable. This does not, however, suggest that external support may not be valuable or enhance a LOTEprogramme.
■ Teacher availability and continuity. This is a critical issue for schools and may well impact on the decisionabout LOTE choice. For example, if a school community is confident that a teacher who is a speaker of aparticular LOTE is going to remain within that school community this may affect the decision about languagechoice. From a different perspective, even though a school has access to a background speaker of a LOTE, itmay decide not to choose that LOTE if the school is not confident that the native or background speaker willbe able to really connect with the school and with the learners.
3 Taken from Education Department of Western Australia and National Asian Languages and Studies in AustralianSchools (NALSAS) Taskforce, (1998) Factors influencing the uptake of Modern Standard Chinese, Korean, Modern Greek andGerman at Primary and Secondary Level. Perth: Education Department of Western Australia, Chapter 8.
U S I N G T H E L O T E P L A N N I N G F R A M E W O R K 3 8
Summaries of Research Findings INSTRUMENT 4
What the research4 says about uptake of languages by students■ Currently, LOTE uptake at primary level is generally a matter of students ‘doing’ the LOTE that is available as
a result of someone else’s decision-making process. For some children in the early and mid-childhood years,LOTE involves playing games, singing songs, exploring aspects of culture such as food and clothing, andlearning some target language words. There is very little evidence of more than this being achieved in someof these programmes. This is a situation that needs to change.
■ For early adolescent learners, there is evidence to suggest that, at present, ‘doing’ LOTE as described aboveis not meeting the majority of students’ needs or expectations. While student feedback is often not ‘anti-LOTE’, it is often ‘anti-’ doing the same things they have done for years. Older primary school LOTElearners say they want more from their study of LOTE. They want the teacher to use the target language, toreally be able to use the target language themselves, to learn more about target language speakingcommunities and to be treated according to their growing maturity.
■ LOTE uptake by students in the secondary context is significantly influenced by their primary LOTE learningexperiences. The decision to change or maintain the language of study is dependent on a number of factors.In making choices about LOTE, students ask themselves many questions. These include:• Do I like the teacher?
• Do I like the classroom tasks?
• Is the study of this particular LOTE interesting?
• Is it easy or hard?
• Am I making progress?
• Do I have to compete against background speakers?
• Will this LOTE be useful?
■ The research paints a picture of students as reasonably discerning LOTE learners. The decisions they makeare generally informed decisions and have the potential to impact on the sustainability of LOTE programmes.
4 Taken from Education Department of Western Australia and National Asian Languages and Studies in AustralianSchools (NALSAS) Taskforce, (1998) Factors influencing the uptake of Modern Standard Chinese, Korean, Modern Greek andGerman at Primary and Secondary Level. Perth: Education Department of Western Australia, Chapter 8.
U S I N G T H E L O T E P L A N N I N G F R A M E W O R K 3 9
Summaries of Research Findings INSTRUMENT 5
What the research5 says about sustainable LOTE programmes■ The most sustainable programmes in LOTE are those with a clear rationale, purpose and clearly defined outcomes.
The rationale, purpose and outcomes are well understood and able to be clearly communicated by both the schooladministration and LOTE teachers in the school. The rationale, purpose and outcomes are obvious to allstakeholders including students and their parents.
■ Sustainable LOTE programmes are sufficiently resourced. There is a commitment to adequate and equitabledistribution of resources for LOTE. Where the majority of funding for the LOTE programme comes from externalagencies, chances of the LOTE programme being sustainable are low.
■ Sustainability is enhanced by continuity. This includescontinuity from primary school to secondary school in aspecific language. It also includes clear articulation of teachingmethods and strategies suitable for each level of schooling.Where tasks are not appropriate for various levels, students’enthusiasm and interest is diminished.
■ Long-term, sustainable LOTE programmes are incorporatedand not just integrated. Incorporation means that the LOTEpermeates the life of a school and its community, and thatthere is pride and ownership of the programme by thatschool’s community. Incorporation of LOTE into a school isfar more powerful than the integration of LOTE into otherlearning areas. Evidence shows that where LOTE isincorporated, LOTE is strong.
■ LOTE programmes have far more chance of sustainability when the LOTE teacher feels that he or she is a real andvalued member of the staff of a school, and that the LOTE programme has the same status and profile as otherlearning areas. Where teachers feel ‘marginalised’, the potential for sustainability is diminished. Marginalisation canoccur, for example, when the primary school teacher of LOTE is an ‘extra’ to the staffing allocation and feels thattheir major function is to provide non-contact time for ‘regular’ primary teachers. Marginalisation can also occur insecondary contexts. When a secondary school LOTE teacher provides a ‘drop in’ programme in a primary school,LOTE is also likely to be marginalised and will be seen as being ‘divorced’ from normal school activities. WhereLOTE is treated as an ‘option’ the perception of staff and students can have the effect of marginalising the LOTEprogramme within a school.
■ Quality teaching is critical for the sustainability of LOTE programmes. According to research, the concept ofquality teaching includes having a teacher who:• is committed to the school and its programme
• speaks the language confidently
• is a able to teach and engage learners
• is comfortable with students and is able to give them a sense of comfort
■ A disturbing finding of the research was, however, that in many instances, particularly in primary schools, LOTEteachers seemed to have to give 110% to ensure sustainability.
■ LOTE programmes will only be sustainable if they can maintain an ongoing client base. For students generally, therelevance of the language, the ability to use the language, and evidence of progress in the language are key elementsin continuing with the LOTE and are therefore key elements with regard to programme sustainability.
5 Taken from Education Department of Western Australia and National Asian Languages and Studies in AustralianSchools (NALSAS) Taskforce, (1998) Factors influencing the uptake of Modern Standard Chinese, Korean, Modern Greek andGerman at Primary and Secondary Level. Perth: Education Department of Western Australia, Chapter 8.
Exon School had originally been quitetentative about having LOTE integrated with
the curriculum content of other learning areas,but proceeded to do so with middle and upper
primary students. Because of the impact ofthe integrated program, 2 years later, earlychildhood students in the school were also
included in a programme of integrated LOTElearning. The success of the programme was
able to be measured through parental support,student learning outcomes and their obvious
enjoyment of the program, and also, theclassroom teachers’ willingness to be LOTE
learners themselves.
U S I N G T H E L O T E P L A N N I N G F R A M E W O R K 4 0
Summaries of research findings INSTRUMENT 6
What the research6 says about developing proficiency■ Proficiency is not just about continuous LOTE study from primary through to secondary education. What is
necessary is cumulative learning.■ Proficiency can be better enhanced through interventions that are able to be applied at different phases of learning
and that have the effect of speeding and enriching the process of language acquisition. Examples of suchinterventions are:• Improved access to, and use of, information technology to provide second language learners with opportunities
to interact with text (particularly viewing text) and with real target language users in overseas target languagespeaking communities
• The use of multiple target language speakers within single formal learning contexts, particularly large classcontexts, in order to enhance interactional opportunities and resources
• In-country experiences that target older learners and that require actual language learning together with theapplication of previously learned language rather than sight-seeing
■ In order for programmes to support proficiency, the programme needs to be embedded within the life of theschool. Embedment is a result of three factors, the context in which the LOTE programme is operating, thelanguage inputs to which learners are exposed, and the learning processes that take place to convert languageinput into intake. This suggests that:• If the context within which a LOTE programme is situated does not totally support that programme and its
students then the potential for proficiency is seriously inhibited• For proficiency to be a potential outcome, listening, reading and viewing text, reflecting a broad range of text
types or genres, needs to be made available to learners• The potential for proficiency is enhanced where teachers and learners are able to know, understand and utilise
language learning strategies. Where teachers and learners are able to talk about, and effectively engage with,the processes associated with language teaching and language learning there are better outcomes
■ In order to maximise proficiency, programmes need to have a deployment orientation. This means learners areable to bring the language into effective use. This is evidenced through the following outputs or proficiencypotential elements:• Ability to use language modes
• Sociolinguistic competence
• Sociocultural knowledge
• Knowledge about the system of the target language and the ability to apply that knowledge
• Attitudinal characteristics that facilitate the attainment and use of the elements listed above
• A context which supports all the other elements
■ Programmes that support learner autonomy and self-directedness have greater potential to produce proficientlanguage learners. The research suggests that learner autonomy does not necessarily correlate with age andcognitive maturity but rather, with classroom expectations and practices, learner attitudinal characteristics andlearners being taught how to learn a language.
■ Proficiency is enhanced where there is extensive target language use in the classroom, where collaborativelearning strategies are employed and where self-access and self-directed learning are an integral part of theteaching and learning environment.
■ There will only be potential for proficiency if learners find their language learning experiences to be meaningful, ifthey are able to relate to what they are doing and if they can build on what they have already done. Learnerswant to be able to communicate with people of similar age and interests both in Australia and overseas and thisexpectation impacts on programme proficiency potential.
6 Taken from National Asian Languages and Studies in Australian Schools (NALSAS) Taskforce, (1999)Pathways for Austraian School Students to Achieve Higher Levels of Proficiency in Asian Languages. Sydney: NewSouth Wales Department of Education and Training, Executive Summary.
U S I N G T H E L O T E P L A N N I N G F R A M E W O R K 4 1
The Proficiency Potential Framework INSTRUMENT 7
The Proficiency Potential Framework was developed by Simpson Norris International in conjunction
with the Centre for Curriculum and Professional Development at Murdoch University7. The
Framework emerged out of the Pathways to Higher Levels of Proficiency in Asian Languages research
project that was conducted for the National Asian Languages/Studies in Australian Schools
(NALSAS) Taskforce.
Understanding the Proficiency Potential FrameworkThe Proficiency Potential Framework provides a conceptual framework for describing school LOTE
programmes in terms of:
■ The context in which language teaching and learning takes place
■ The target language input language learners receive
■ The processes operationalised by both learners and their teachers to convert language
input into intake
■ The way learners use the language, ie their output
In addition, LOTE learners are described according to the extent to which they can be
considered as self-directed or autonomous in their learning.
Collectively, this information builds a picture of the solidity or fragility of a LOTE programme.
That is, it enables a programme to be described as either embedded or marginalised.
Language output of learners also enables the styling of a programme as one where there is a
deployment orientation or a non-deployment orientation. That is, a programme where
learners are able to really use the language as opposed to one where there is a focus on just
rehearsing, practising and pretending.
Applying the Proficiency Potential Framework‘Taking stock’ of a programme and being able to style it according to the extent to which it is
marginalised or embedded, and has a deployment or non-deployment orientation requires a
programme review.
ContextIn the first instance, in a review, it is important that the context in which the programme is
located is examined. Does the wider educational and/or political context impact on the
programme? To what extent do local contextual factors exert either a positive or negative
influence? The criticality of context with regard to the development of a sustainable and
successful programme is amply demonstrated by the following examples:
7 National Asian Languages and Studies in Australian Schools (NALSAS) Taskforce, (1999) Pathways for Australian SchoolStudents to Achieve High Levels of Proficiency in Asian Languages. Sydney: New South Wales Department of Education andTraining. Project conducted and reported by Simpson Norris International with the Centre for Curriculum andProfessional Development, Murdoch University, Ch 4 pp 51- 70.
U S I N G T H E L O T E P L A N N I N G F R A M E W O R K 4 2
Example 1:
At primary school A, the LOTE teacher is only in the school for 6.5 hours per week as sheteaches at four other schools during the week. She does not have a classroom or a desk. Shesupplies the non-teaching time for the classroom teachers. Two classrooms in the schoolhave examples of LOTE work on the walls, but there is no other evidence of LOTE in theschool. Classroom teachers describe LOTE as not being as ‘academic’ as other subjects inthe school and LOTE is not included on student report cards.
Example 2:
LOTE has been taught in primary school B for over 10 years. It is identified in the schoolplan as a priority area. The principal is extremely supportive of the programme. She islearning the LOTE herself, and often speaks to students in the target language in theschoolyard and runs assemblies in the target language. There are signs in the target languagearound the school as well as photographs of students participating in LOTE cultural days.
The importance of context seems to be readily overlooked in the planning processes undertaken
by both schools and by educational jurisdictions. The impact of contextual factors can, however,
be quite dramatic. It is therefore essential that the process of programme review examines and
attends to contextual issues.
InputThe target language material, or text, to which LOTE learners are exposed, can also have a
dramatic impact on a programme. It can condition the way learners learn (or don’t learn as the
case may be). It can determine the approach adopted by both school and teacher to the
teaching of LOTE. It impacts on what learners are able to do in the target language, and it can
have a profound effect on how learners view target language speaking communities. All of this
highlights the need for the process of review to include an examination of language material and
resources used in a LOTE programme.
The table overleaf demonstrates how input can be used as a mechanism to assist in the review
and categorisation of a LOTE programme.
U S I N G T H E L O T E P L A N N I N G F R A M E W O R K 4 3
Focused Input Characteristic of a programme where learners have unintentionally
restricted access to target language input. Programmes where
learners work predominantly from a textbook or from worksheets are
examples of a focused input programme.
Broad Input Characteristic of a programme where learners receive a wide range of
authentic listening, reading and viewing input.
Selective Input Characteristic of a programme where a conscious choice is made to
limit input to enable particular outcomes. Programmes where input is
selected to enhance prospects of success in an examination are
selective input programmes.
Decisions relating to how input is chosen are also fertile ground when evaluating and reviewing a
programme. Who made the decisions about input and on what basis? Teacher? Teacher in
consultation with learners? Teacher in consultation with cost-centre manager? Nobody, because
the books were already there? Such questions and responses can yield important evaluative
information.
IntakeHow learners get to be able to incorporate input into their existing knowledge of, and ability to
use the target language can shed light onto teaching and learning processes and practices. The
conversion of input into intake is critical. Intake refers to that portion of input that learners
attend to and take, first into short-term memory, and subsequently, given the right conditions,
into their interlanguage. Teacher and learner perceptions of this conversion process, and
practices adopted to support this process, have been shown to contribute significantly to how a
language programme is constructed within a school, together with the potential it then has for
embedment and for facilitating good learning outcomes for learners.
The articulation of intake processes by both teachers and learners can provide very useful
information about understandings of how language is acquired. For some, understandings are
limited to the ‘it just happens’ perspective. For others, attitude is considered critical, and for yet
others, there is the appreciation of the complexity of the process.
Asking learners what they can do with the language and how they got to be able to do these
things is a useful question.
You just have to memorise it.
Believe in yourself … believe that you can do it.
It depends on how the teacher makes you feel … like are you comfortable?
U S I N G T H E L O T E P L A N N I N G F R A M E W O R K 4 4
It’s good when teachers teach you ways to learn the language like giving youways of remembering words.
You’ve got to learn how to work out from a different structure.
Asking teachers what they do in order to help learners convert input into intake is also useful.
Good question. What do I do?
They do LOTE for an hour.
Where did this come from? I haven’t taught them this.
I don’t know the full answer but in part there is the idea of the real lifetask…that will carry the student forward.
By letting the kids know what they can do…By teaching in context…groupreading…I read them books and the kids guess from cues… and there ismore and more and more …
Emerging from research is a strong correlation in learner and teacher responses. Where
teachers are able to articulate the processes involved in teaching and learning, and are able to
talk lucidly about language teaching and learning skills and strategies, their learners also
demonstrate considerable awareness and knowledge. In general, the converse is also true.
Limited understanding of, and appreciation for, the complexities associated with intake can have
a bearing, not only on learner outcomes, but also on the way in which a programme is perceived.
Administrators, other teachers and even learners, may not consider LOTE deserving of
embedment status.
OutputMonitoring learner output in order to record student learning outcomes is an integral part of
teachers’ work. It is also an essential element of the process of Monitor, Review, Act.
Information about learner output can be collected from a wide variety of sources. Sample
information about learner output, derived from a variety of sources, is presented on the
following page. Information in the left-hand column suggests programmes where learners
actively use, or deploy, the language. The column on the right hand side reflects limited
opportunities and abilities to really use or deploy the target LOTE.
U S I N G T H E L O T E P L A N N I N G F R A M E W O R K 4 5
Primary School A Primary School B
Class observation at Primary School Ashowed students who had been learningLOTE for five years speaking in thetarget language for the whole class. Theteacher spoke exclusively in the LOTE.If students asked questions in English,she responded in target language.Students used conceptually completechunks of text. At the end of the lesson,students were able to use chunks of textin new contexts.
Parents also described studentsinteracting with the target languageoutside the classroom: Grade 3 & 5 boystalking, laughing their heads off in the[Target Language].
According to one parent: My son’sgreatest joy is to talk to hisgrandmother – the look on her facebecause she doesn’t speak a lot ofEnglish.
Class observation at Primary School Bshowed a focus on single words. Filesindicate a predominance of worksheetsinvolving a lot of colouring in and singleword responses.
In interviews, students described that byyear 3 they could count to 10, by year 4they could count to 20, year 5 to 30 andyear 6 to 20 or 30. When asked what theycould read, students who had beenlearning LOTE for six years commented:I can read…stuff I’ve been taughtbefore…teeth, mouth, ears, eyes,bodyparts.
Student comprehension was limited.Sometimes I understand when the teacherspeaks...It depends on what she says.Some older learners expressed a desire formore engagement with the targetlanguage: I want more conversation. Atthe moment we know lots of words, but wecan’t have a conversation.
When reviewing second language programmes, and when considering the nature and roles of
input, intake and output, the coffee percolator analogy, though simplistic, can be useful. Input
and existing knowledge (represented by water and coffee grounds) is converted to output (the
coffee) after intake has occurred (ie: the gurgling and percolating process that goes on inside the
machine which represents the learner). A diagrammatic representation of this analogy is included
over the page.
At Holiville Primary nobody bothered toreally work out how much of the LOTE the
kids were actually learning. Yes,everybody was having a great time. The
kids loved all the games they played and thecultural bits and pieces that they were
involved in. The school oozed the flavourof the target language community but …..
after four years, the learners could do littlemore than list some items of vocabulary andrepeat basic formulaic phrases. Failure tomonitor and review resulted in very poor
language learning outcomes for thestudents.
U S I N G T H E L O T E P L A N N I N G F R A M E W O R K 4 6
U S I N G T H E L O T E P L A N N I N G F R A M E W O R K 4 7
Learner AutonomyNational research demonstrates clearly that ‘best’
LOTE learners are able to self direct their learning and
demonstrate a capacity to move towards being
autonomous. In most marginalised programmes,
learners were either dependent or in co-dependent
relationship with their teachers. Moves towards
autonomous learning were much more in evidence in
programmes which were embedded and which had a
language deployment orientation. The Learner
Autonomy Continuum on the following page enables us
to pinpoint the relationship of teachers with their
learners and also the propensity of learners to be able
to take control of their own learning.
A strong correlation has been shown between the
development of self-direction and autonomy,
programme strength and substantial learning
outcomes.
A LOTE teacher from BeverleyGrammar, who had been introduced tothe Proficiency Potential Framework,realised that she was in a co-dependentrelationship with her students. While
this meant that life was comfortable forboth herself and her students, she alsorecognised that they were not achieving
their full potential. On furtherreflection, she decided that the learning
culture of the school was a culture ofco-dependence and this was why so
many students from the school failedwhen they got to University. She has
now set about breaking the co-dependence cycle and has, as one of
her focuses, teaching her learners howto take more responsibility for their
learning both in, and beyond theclassroom.
U S I N G T H E L O T E P L A N N I N G F R A M E W O R K 4 8
Learner Autonomy Continuum8
Dependent Autonomous
Dependence
■ Uncritical acceptance ofprogramme input, whetherbroad, focused or selective.
■ Repetition is major learningstrategy.
■ Belief that involvement inteacher directed activities anddoing homework will lead toachievement of the goal, whichis ‘to speak the language’.
■ Target culture describedstereotypically.
■ Intake is restricted to what thestudent considers necessary tomeet teacher or programmeneeds.
Opting into autonomy
■ Able to articulate broad learning goals,and engage in situations perceived asrelevant to the attainment of these goals.
■ Development of learning strategies basedon growing understanding of language as asystem and personal learning preferences.
■ Realisation that engagement with thetarget language and culture is the key tobeing able to ‘speak the language’.
■ Identification with superficial aspects ofthe target culture either at a personal orvocational level (or both).
Co-dependence
Teacher and student co-operate to meet eachothers needs, which may have characteristicsof autonomy or dependence. Appears to berelated to the importance the two partiesattach to relationships. Since the relationshipcannot be maintained indefinitely, a decisionpoint will eventually be reached.
Transition to autonomy
■ Learning goals become morediffuse and specific as therealisation comes that ‘speakingthe language’ is no longeradequate to describe learnerneeds.
■ Understanding of the need fora literacy rich environment, andthe development of strategiesto extract meaning from thisenvironment and interactsocially within it.
■ Development of relationshipswithin the target culture.
■ Tourist experience of thetarget culture.
Autonomy
■ Takes full personalresponsibility for attainingproficiency levels related toown goals.
■ Understanding of what itmeans to become culturallyliterate in another culture.
■ Process of enculturation andknowledge of how to positionself in another society to learnfrom it.
8 National Asian Languages and Studies in Australian Schools (NALSAS) Taskforce, (1999) Pathways for Australian School Students to Achieve Higher Levels of Proficiency in Asian Languages.Sydney: New South Wales Department of Education and Training. Project conducted and reported by Simpson Norris International with the Centre for Curriculum and ProfessionalDevelopment, Murdoch University.
U S I N G T H E L O T E P L A N N I N G F R A M E W O R K 4 9
Building a body of knowledge about teaching and learning practices within a given context is the
essence of programme evaluation and review. Recording that information in a format that
enables a programme to be profiled for embedment and language deployment and to have
significant conditioning factors noted does, however, need to be a relatively simple and useful
process.
Instrument 8, the Proficiency Potential Framework, presented on page 55 enables information about
context, input, intake, output and learner autonomy to be tabulated in such a way.
The examples provided on pages 51 - 54 show how information about a programme can be
tabulated to provide an overview of the strengths and weaknesses of that language programme.
It should be noted, however, that decisions about embedment status and deployment orientation
are not always clear cut. For example, in the one programme, there may be illustrators of both
embedment and marginalisation.
A decision must be made, however, as to whether a programme is either embedded or
marginalised, and what the status is for learners in terms of language deployment and autonomy.
Once tabulated, through the application of the Proficiency Potential Framework as a programme
audit tool, the illustrators can be overviewed and a decision made.
U S I N G T H E L O T E P L A N N I N G F R A M E W O R K 5 0
Diagram 1: Proficiency Potential Framework9
PROGRAMME
MARGINALISED EMBEDDED
Marginalisation and Embedment IndicatorsThe extent to which programmes are marginalised or embedded within schools or systems is determined
by factors relating to context, input and the processes associated with the conversion of input into
intake.
Deploymentversus
Non-deploymentorientation
Deploymentversus
Non-deploymentorientation
Deployment versus Non-deployment OrientationPrabhu (1991: 54) defines deployment as ‘a knowledge of the world handled through language’.Marginalised and embedded programmes both have the potential to have either a deployment or non-deployment orientation. Our research indicates, however, that it is only embedded programmes with adeployment orientation that have real potential for proficiency as an outcome for a community of languagelearners.
Deployment orientation is identifiable through elements of output. Output is defined in this frameworkthrough the responses provided by the interviewees. There was consistent reference to the ability oflearners to use language modes appropriately and effectively for real communication. There was also anidentification of the need for this language use to reveal an ever-evolving knowledge and understanding ofthe system of the target language. Also included was the requirement for language use to be appropriatefrom a sociolinguistic perspective. In addition, output was described as needing to reflect a knowledge andunderstanding of the sociocultural or non-linguistic features of target language speaking communities.Finally, output was seen as a reflection of the attitudinal characteristics and metalinguistic awareness of alanguage learner. These elements, together with factors which contextualise output (for example, supportprovided through the environment, the school or system, the home etc) collectively, and in balance,constitute the elements of proficiency identified through this research.
Autonomy ContinuumLEARNERS
Dependence Autonomy
Learners fall along a continuum which runs from dependence to autonomy and which is punctuated byreference points which mark opportunities for learners to develop a codependent relationship, opt forautonomy, or move towards becoming an autonomous learner.
The extent to which a programme nurtures the development of autonomy in learning is linked to thepotential of that programme to have learner proficiency as an outcome.
9 National Asian Languages and Studies in Australian Schools (NALSAS) Taskforce, (1999) Pathways for Australian SchoolStudents to Achieve High Levels of Proficiency in Asian Languages. Sydney: New South Wales Department of Education andTraining. Project conducted and reported by Simpson Norris International with the Centre for Curriculum andProfessional Development, Murdoch University, p 53.
U S I N G T H E L O T E P L A N N I N G F R A M E W O R K 5 1
Example 1: Proficiency Potential Framework10
PROGRAMME NAME Eastview (Primary)
MARGINALISED EMBEDDED DEPLOYMENTORIENTATION
NON-DEPLOYMENTORIENTATION
THE LEARNERS
✔
IllustratorsContext■ The principal wanted it to
succeed. She was strong andclear about what was beingdone and why.
■ There appears to be apathway for learners througha local non-government schoolalthough the local secondaryschool did not seem to bereluctant to have to provide apathway for learners fromthe primary school.
■ Best immersion learnersrespected their teacher ��When I go to year 6 and year7 and high school, I wish Icould take him with me.�
✔ Immersion LearnersIllustratorsOuput■ Total target language usage
by teacher �except whenpeople are naughty or whenwe are learning origami�,meant there was a reason forlearners to use the language �to understand the teacher.
■ Learners had no hesitation inusing the language. They werehappy to demonstrate, wantedto use it and were keen tocorrect each other, whichthey usually did. Lots ofevidence of the use of thelanguage.
■ Learners converse on theInternet.
✔Non-Immersion Learners
IllustratorsOuput■ Teacher found it difficult to
describe what learners coulddo � spoke in attitudinal termsrather than about languagemodes. Students talked aboutfun, game playing and the like.
Learners are clustered at thedependence andco-dependence referencepoints.
10 Norris, L.G.B. (1999) Pathways for Australian School Students to Achieve High Levels of Proficiency in Languages Others Than English, Unpublished Ed.D dissertation, Perth: MurdochUniversity.
U S I N G T H E L O T E P L A N N I N G F R A M E W O R K 5 2
Example 1: Proficiency Potential Framework (continued)PROGRAMME NAME Eastview (Primary)
MARGINALISED EMBEDDED DEPLOYMENTORIENTATION
NON-DEPLOYMENTORIENTATION
THE LEARNERS
InputSelective for immersion learners.■ Total target language input for
immersion learners frombackground speaker teacher and ateacher�s aid and also �we have avisitor once or twice a month andwe ask them questions in Englishand the teacher translates.�
■ Society and environment was thecontent area and input related tothis.
InputFocused for non-immersion learners.■ Principal medium of instruction is
English although the teacher isstarting to pick up on targetlanguage instructions from theimmersion teacher.
■ Some background speaker visitorsused to provide input.
Intake■ Difficult for immersion teacher to
articulate because of limitedEnglish ability. Comments fromlearners include �we guess and tryto work it out�. Immersion learnerattitudinal characteristics seem todetermine the effectiveness ofthe input to intake processeswithin the immersion programme.
■ Immersion learnersdescribed by principal asmore than five times betterthan non-immersion LOTElearners.
■ This programme has openedup positive attitudes towards�Asian-ness�.�
U S I N G T H E L O T E P L A N N I N G F R A M E W O R K 5 3
Example 2: Proficiency Potential Framework11
PROGRAMME NAME Riverbank (Secondary)
MARGINALISED EMBEDDED DEPLOYMENTORIENTATION
NON-DEPLOYMENTORIENTATION
THE LEARNERS
✔Illustrators:Context■ Even though planning and
implementation were wellresourced, well implemented,and articulated with feederprimary schools, thisprogramme is marginalisedbecause its survival isdependent on the support of adeputy principal. �The idealwould be a little more time inyear 8, but the curriculum isso bound up meeting all thedifferent requirements, itwas a major concession at thetime for all the faculties toagree on the elective line. Istill have to fight to get it upin the electives.�
✔Illustrators:Context■ Well resourced.■ Well articulated with feeder
primary schools.
✔Illustrators:Output■ Output in the programme was
described as �vocabulary andsentence structures.�
■ Best learners made thefollowing comments:• �It�d be fun if it was more
practical.�• �We should be able to read
things.�• �We�d understand a lot
more if we did differentthings other than writing.�
• �I�d like to be able to fit in,live like they do, I�d like tobe able to communicatereally well, understandtheir culture, know thestories behind it.�
■ Learners in this programmeexhibited characteristics ofdependency. Their approachto LOTE was quitemechanistic and routine.
■ Learners said:• �When do we need to have
the homework done?�• �We�re behind schedule,
they want to pump morestuff into you.�
• �It is a bit boringsometimes.�
• �You sit there and writeoff the blackboard.�
• �The family topic drags ontoo long. We only knowpets, families and sport.�
• The teacher said:• �They take things in quietly.
Given a word and astructure and anexplanation, they cansubstitute new words.Then they run with itthemselves.�
11 Norris, L.G.B. (1999) Pathways for Australian School Students to Achieve High Levels of Proficiency in Languages Others Than English, Unpublished Ed.D dissertation, Perth: MurdochUniversity.
U S I N G T H E L O T E P L A N N I N G F R A M E W O R K 5 4
Example 2: Proficiency Potential Framework continued
PROGRAMME NAME Riverbank (Secondary)
MARGINALISED EMBEDDED DEPLOYMENTORIENTATION
NON-DEPLOYMENTORIENTATION
THE LEARNERS
InputFocused■ Input in this programme is
primarily focused on atextbook and on worksheetsdeveloped by the teacher ��I cobble and adapt.�
■ There was some attention toclassical Chinese poetry, abook of plays and �culture�videos.
■ Students said, �There�s lotsof games because she can�tcontrol the class.�
Intake■ Very much the �It just
happens� perspective. Theteacher described theprocess of how good learnerslearn as �innate.� They are�good overall.� At the lowersecondary phase of learning,she described it as �theability to spend timememorising especially withcharacters.�
■ The teacher said that, �I setstandards and insist theyachieve them, and there�s notmuch singing � it�s not cool tosing.� An additional point was,�It�s important to be able towrite characters well.�
■ �They answer my questions,write characters well.�
■ �Work is well organised� A lotdo extra work � they know mypatterns, and get one jumpahead� I select the mostuseful characters andstructures, I know which theyneed to recognise, otherwisethey�d be overloaded.�
U S I N G T H E L O T E P L A N N I N G F R A M E W O R K 5 5
An Instrument to Profile the Proficiency Potential of a LOTE Programme and itsLearners
INSTRUMENT 8
PROGRAMME NAME
MARGINALISED EMBEDDED DEPLOYMENTORIENTATION
NON-DEPLOYMENTORIENTATION
THE LEARNERS
Context
■
■
Input
■
■
Intake
■
■
■
Context
■
■
Input
■
■
Intake
■
■
■
Output
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
Output
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
Dependent, Co-Dependent,Opting Into Autonomy,orAutonomous.
Norris, L.G.B. (1999) Pathways for Australian School Students to Achieve High Levels of Proficiency in Languages Others Than English, Unpublished Ed.D dissertation, Perth: Murdoch University.
U S I N G T H E L O T E P L A N N I N G F R A M E W O R K 5 6
O V E R H E A D T R A N S P A R E N C Y
What is the ProficiencyPotential Framework
The Proficiency Potential Framework is a conceptual
framework for auditing a LOTE programme.
It looks at:
■ The CONTEXT in which teaching and learning takes place
■ The target language INPUT language learners receive
■ The processes used by both learners and their teachers to
convert language input into INTAKE
■ The way learners use the target language (their OUTPUT)
■ The extent to which LOTE learners are considered to be
self-directed or autonomous in their learning
U S I N G T H E L O T E P L A N N I N G F R A M E W O R K 5 7
O V E R H E A D T R A N S P A R E N C Y
Understanding theProficiency PotentialFramework
Embedded vs Marginalised
The terms ‘embedded’ and ‘marginalised’ describe the
solidity or fragility of a LOTE programme.
Whether a programme is embedded or not
depends on the interaction of three aspects of
the programme:
■ the context in which the programme is situated
(ie: Is the overall school environment supportive
of the programme, or not?)
■ the target language input to which learners are
exposed
■ the intake processes by which input is internalised
and transformed so as to be able to become the
output of students
U S I N G T H E L O T E P L A N N I N G F R A M E W O R K 5 8
O V E R H E A D T R A N S P A R E N C Y
Understanding theProficiency PotentialFramework
Context
Context refers to the wider educational and political
context in which language teaching and learning takes
place.
If the context in which the LOTE programme
operates does not totally support that programme
and its students, the potential for proficiency to be an
outcome is seriously inhibited.
Factors taken into account include the role of the
principal, economic constraints on the programme,
the position of the LOTE programme in terms of the
operation of the school, and overall school decision
making.
U S I N G T H E L O T E P L A N N I N G F R A M E W O R K 5 9
O V E R H E A D T R A N S P A R E N C Y
Understanding theProficiency PotentialFramework
Compare the following two examples:
Example 1:
At primary school A, the LOTE teacher is only in theschool for 6.5 hours per week as she teaches at fourother schools during the week. She does not have aclassroom or a desk. She supplies the non-teachingtime for the classroom teachers. Two classrooms inthe school have examples of LOTE work on thewalls, but there is no other evidence of LOTE in theschool. Classroom teachers describe LOTE as notbeing as ‘academic’ as other subjects in the schooland LOTE is not included on student report cards.
Example 2:
LOTE has been taught in primary school B for over10 years. It is identified in the school plan as apriority area. The principal is extremely supportiveof the programme. She is learning the LOTE herself,and often speaks to students in the target language inthe schoolyard and runs assemblies in the targetlanguage. There are signs in the target languagearound the school as well as photographs of studentsparticipating in LOTE cultural days.
U S I N G T H E L O T E P L A N N I N G F R A M E W O R K 6 0
O V E R H E A D T R A N S P A R E N C Y
Understanding the ProficiencyPotential Framework
Input
Input refers to the samples of oral, written and
viewed language to which a learner is exposed while
learning or using a particular target language.
Focused Input Characteristic of a programme where learnershave unintentionally restricted access to targetlanguage input. Programmes where learnerswork predominantly from a textbook or fromworksheets are examples of a focused inputprogramme.
Broad Input Characteristic of a programme where learnersreceive a wide range of listening, reading andviewing input.
Selective Input Characteristic of a programme where aconscious choice is made to limit input toenable particular outcomes. Programmeswhere input is selected to enhance prospectsof success in an examination are selectiveinput programmes.
U S I N G T H E L O T E P L A N N I N G F R A M E W O R K 6 1
O V E R H E A D T R A N S P A R E N C Y
Understanding the ProficiencyPotential Framework
Intake
Intake refers to the that portion of input that learners
attend to and take, first into short-term memory, and
subsequently, given the right conditions, into their
interlanguage.
Interviews conducted with teachers and students as part of
the Pathways project indicate that where teachers show a
good understanding of intake, and of the processes
associated with language teaching and learning, students are
also more able to articulate how they are learning the
language.
Limited understanding of these processes impacts on an
ability to generate, and work in, an environment that
supports the attainment of language competence. It can also
have a bearing on the extent to which a programme is
perceived by administrators, teachers and learners as one
deserving of embedment status.
U S I N G T H E L O T E P L A N N I N G F R A M E W O R K 6 2
O V E R H E A D T R A N S P A R E N C Y
DeploymentvsNon-Deployment
Deployment Orientation Non-Deployment Orientation
Students are interacting with andthrough meaningful chunks of text.
Students are not exposed to meaningfultarget language usage.
Class observation at Primary School Ashowed students who had been learningLOTE for five years speaking in the targetlanguage for the whole class. The teacherspoke exclusively in the LOTE. If studentsasked questions in English, she respondedin target language. Students usedconceptually complete chunks of text. Atthe end of the lesson, students were ableto use chunks of text in new contexts.
Parents also described students interactingwith the target language outside theclassroom: Grade 3 & 5 boys talking, laughingtheir heads off in [the target language].
According to one parent:My son’s greatest joy is to talk to hisgrandmother – the look on her face becauseshe doesn’t speak a lot of English.
Class observation at Primary School Bshowed a focus on single words. Filesindicated a predominance of worksheetsinvolving a lot of colouring in and singleword responses.
In interviews, students described that byyear 3 they could count to 10, by year 4they could count to 20, year 5 to 30 andyear 6 to 20 or 30.
When asked what they could read,students who had been learning LOTE forsix years commented: I can read…stuff I’vebeen taught before…teeth, mouth, ears, eyes,bodyparts.
Student comprehension was limited.Sometimes I understand when the teacherspeaks...It depends on what she says.
Some older learners expressed a desire formore engagement with the target language:I want more conversation. At the moment weknow lots of words, but we can’t have aconversation.
U S I N G T H E L O T E P L A N N I N G F R A M E W O R K 6 3
Observation Forms and Interview SchedulesWhat to look for in a LOTE Programme
In order to be able to evaluate a LOTE programme it is necessary to obtain data about the
programme. The following are examples of different instruments for collecting information. The
instruments can be used in conjunction with the Proficiency Potential Framework. They are
examples which may be adapted to suit your needs and the specific requirements of the school in
which you are working.
School Observation Form INSTRUMENT 9
This instrument is a form that has been designed to elicit information about the status of LOTE
in a school. In analysing this data, conclusions are drawn about the perceived importance of
LOTE to a school, and the extent to which LOTE is considered to be a ‘part of the school’ or
just ‘a tack-on subject’.
Example of a School Observation FormIs there a LOTE classroom? Where is it?
Is there an office for the LOTE teacher/s?
When is LOTE taught? Does LOTE provide non-teaching time for other subjects?
Is LOTE spoken outside the LOTE classroom? By teachers? By the principal? By students?
Is there evidence of written LOTE throughout the school (ie: not just in the LOTE classroom), for example,signs in the target language?
Is there evidence of the school taking part in cultural activities associated with the LOTE?
(Collect examples of important school and LOTE documents. For example, the schooldevelopment plan, school charter, school priorities, descriptions of LOTE programmes etc.,samples of student work and the report forms for the school and LOTE.)
Is LOTE referred to in the school policy or development plan? In what way?
Is LOTE referred to in the school charter? In what way?
Is LOTE considered to be a school priority?
How is the LOTE programme referred to by staff and students?
Are non-LOTE staff aware of the purpose of the LOTE programme?
U S I N G T H E L O T E P L A N N I N G F R A M E W O R K 6 4
Class Observation Form INSTRUMENT 10
A class observation form can focus attention on two key areas:
■ The type of target language input students are exposed to
■ Whether the programme has a deployment or a non-deployment orientation
Example of a Class Observation FormDescribe what happens in the class.
What is the purpose of the particular class?
What learning strategies are being used? What is the outcome of the strategies (eg: will students be able to usewhole chunks of text at the end)?
How much time is being spent on ‘language practice’ tasks as opposed to ‘language use’ tasks?
Does LOTE fit into the normal pattern of what happens in class?
Does LOTE fit in with other activities in the classroom?
Describe the interaction between the students and the teacher (eg: are students working in groups, pairs?).
Who do the students speak to during the class? In what language?
How often do they interact with each other and in what language?
Does the teacher do most of the talking? Is this appropriate for the task?
What is the percentage of target language use on the part of the teacher?
How much code-switching takes place, by whom, and when?
Are students exposed to conceptually complete chunks of texts on the part of the teacher?
How does the teacher make the target language comprehensible to students (eg: gestures? pictures?)?
How long do the students have to interact with the target language?
How do students respond in class? Non-verbal responses? Words? Sentences? Meaningful chunks of text?
How formulaic is the students' target language use?
Do the students appear to understand when the teacher talks in the target language?
Are students talking in the target language themselves?
What kinds of tasks are students doing? Writing? Talking? Colouring in? Singing songs?
How much time do students spend on different tasks (eg: oral practice, reading, colouring in or doing worksheets)?
Draw a diagram of teacher/student interaction.
Flick through student files. What is in them? Worksheets, lists of words, meaningful target language?
U S I N G T H E L O T E P L A N N I N G F R A M E W O R K 6 5
Interview Schedules INSTRUMENT 11
Information about intake can be obtained through interviews with students and teachers. The
following sample Interview Schedules focus on the respondents’ understanding of the processes
of teaching and learning a second language.
Learner Perceptions Interview to gather information about intakeWhat is it like learning this LOTE?
Tell me about some of the things that you can do in your LOTE.
How did you get to be able to do these things?
What would you like to be able to do in the LOTE?
Is there anything you would change about how you learn LOTE?
If things were the way you wanted them to be, how would this help you to be able to do these things?
Is there anything else that you would like to say?
Teacher Perceptions Interview to gather information about intakeTell me about your LOTE programme.
What happens in the LOTE class?
What can learners in your class do in the LOTE?
What input do they get?
How do your learners convert this ‘input’ into ‘intake’? (ie: How do the learners learn LOTE, as opposed to
how do they, as teachers, help?)
What do you have that contributes to the success of your programme?
Where did you get these attributes?
Is there anything you want to be doing differently in the future? By when?
What do you think you will do to bring this about?
Is there anything else that you would like to say?
U S I N G T H E L O T E P L A N N I N G F R A M E W O R K 6 6
ConclusionThe instruments introduced and described in this section of the package can assist and support in
monitoring and reviewing a LOTE programme. Their use facilitates a response to the initial
question posed in this section:
What does the LOTE programme currently look like?
The answer to this question constitutes the review of the programme. The answer also provides
the impetus to act, because the information obtained through review enables a move to the next
phase and a determination of the information that is still required for effective planning. A group
of teachers’ pictorial representation of this process is presented below.
U S I N G T H E L O T E P L A N N I N G F R A M E W O R K 6 7
IdentifyInformation Needs
Interpreting andconnecting
Articulate visionand goals
Identify factorsAssess impact
Plan and do
Monitor, reviewAnd act
Identify information
needs
U S I N G T H E L O T E P L A N N I N G F R A M E W O R K 6 8
Identify Information Needs
Overview of the Phase
Overview of the phaseThe programme review process yields a great deal of information about how LOTE is enacted in
a particular context. As well as providing information, however, the review process highlights
the need for additional information. Therefore, this next phase of the LOTE Planning Framework is
concerned with that additional information – with determining what information is still required,
together with identifying potential information sources. Sourcing and then accessing all
necessary additional information is a necessary step towards a process of fully informed decision-
making.
Research indicates that very often decision-making processes are not fully informed and that
many decisions about LOTE are made on the basis of opinion. Thus, one person’s perception of
the difficulty of learning a language, or their view of the utility of that language in terms of
economic benefits, may form the basis on which a LOTE programme is continued or
discontinued.
In order for decisions about LOTE to be fully informed, and not made on the basis of opinion,
there is a need for quality information. In the previous section reference was made to the
importance of context in the planning process for LOTE programme sustainability. The
gathering of information about context is critical for effective decision-making. Information on
context has two parts.
On the one hand, there is the analysis of the context in which the LOTE programme is
occurring. It has already been shown that the Proficiency Potential Framework is a useful
instrument for this exercise and for answering questions relating to what has happened to the
LOTE programme in the past. In addition, it is important to gather information that relates to
what is happening in the community and how this might affect LOTE. People’s perceptions about
LOTE, and about what they want for their future and the future of their children, must be taken
into account when decisions are made about a school’s LOTE programme.
On the other hand, there is a need to know about the external context of a programme. For
example: What has been learnt about LOTE? What are the system policies or directions in
respect of LOTE? What constitutes good teaching practice in LOTE?
What information is still needed if we are going to be able to
plan effectively?
U S I N G T H E L O T E P L A N N I N G F R A M E W O R K 6 9
Introducing the InstrumentsTo assist with the process of collecting information about context a number of instruments are
provided.
The Proficiency Potential Framework
This Framework and its use are described in the previous section of this package.
An Interview Protocol
This instrument has been included as a useful means of both gathering information and of
identifying additional information needs as they relate to the internal context of a LOTE
programme. The protocol can form the basis of an interview between a consultant and principal,
the basis of a focus group discussion for school decision-makers or as a questionnaire for school
staff to complete. The aim is to choose the questions that are most appropriate to the school
situation and arrange them as desired. In developing a questionnaire for a specific context, it is
important to take into account:
■ the purpose of the questions
■ the audience
■ the form of the questionnaire (ie: interview, survey, focus group questions)
Booklet: ‘The Most Often Asked Questions in Respect of LOTE’
This booklet has been included because it contains short answers to some of the most
commonly asked questions about LOTE programmes.
Other Useful InstrumentsThere are several instruments located in other sections of this package that can be useful in
identifying and collecting information.
■ The School Profile Proforma
This can be found in the ‘Getting Started’ section of this package and can be used to assist with
collecting baseline data about a school and its LOTE programme.
■ The School Observation Form
■ Class Observation Form
■ Sample Interview Schedule
These are all to be found in the ‘Monitor, Review and Act’ section of the package and are useful
instruments for collecting information about the internal context of a LOTE programme.
Visiting and CallingOther ways of collecting information about LOTE programmes might include visiting LOTE
programmes in other schools, talking to LOTE teachers in your district, or telephoning the
educational jurisdictions or universities in your state or territory to find out more about LOTE.
U S I N G T H E L O T E P L A N N I N G F R A M E W O R K 7 0
Elaborating the Instruments
An interview protocol INSTRUMENT 12
A Set of Questions to help identify information needs
The questions below are a guideline for developing an interview protocol to help identify
information needs. They could be used as a basis for an interview, a focus group or in survey
form. Choose questions that are most suitable to your needs and modify, change and
arrange them to create a questionnaire that will suit YOUR purpose and audience.
What are your school’s priorities?
What is the direction for the school?
How does LOTE fit in with your school’s direction and priorities?
Is there a vision for LOTE? Who has determined the vision?
What is the history of LOTE at your school?
Why are you doing LOTE? Why do you want to do LOTE?
How much do you know about LOTE?
What do you think a good LOTE programme looks like?
What are the things that you think might assist you to
achieve your goals in terms of LOTE?
What are the things that might work against you achieving
your goals for LOTE?
Is there anyone outside the school that you can talk to
about LOTE?
Is there anyone inside the school you could be talking to
about LOTE?
Who can you involve in any or all of this process?
Who can you get information from?
Do you know what decisions have to be made in order to implement/review your LOTE programme?
Do you know what the characteristics of an effective LOTE classroom are?
Do you know what the intended outcomes for learners of LOTE are?
How can you find these things out?
What do you think you will do with this information?
At Aldon School, the school executive ensuredthat the school community was provided withan opportunity to be involved in a meaningful
way with the establishment of the school’sLOTE programme. Through meetings and the
distribution of a well-crafted questionnaire,parents were able to express their opinions andalso obtain information from individuals whowere both expert and experienced in the field.This allowed the community to feel that they
had both ownership of, and knowledge about,the LOTE programme.
U S I N G T H E L O T E P L A N N I N G F R A M E W O R K 7 1
Example: An Interview ProtocolThis is an example of how Instrument 12, the Interview Protocol, can be modified. The protocol
has been transformed into a survey instrument for use with school staff. The questionnaire
presented below was designed specifically to obtain information from school staff about their
knowledge, attitudes and perceptions regarding LOTE and to look at constructive ways of
supporting LOTE within the school environment.
The following questionnaire has been designed to obtain information about staff attitudes and perceptionsof the LOTE programme at Wiesbaden School. The results of the survey will inform future direction forcurriculum including the place of LOTE within the school. Please answer the following questions andreturn to the marked box in the staff room. All information will remain confidential.
1. Is LOTE a priority in the school? Why/Why not?________________________________________________________________________________________________________________2 What do you know about LOTE? Where did you get this information?________________________________________________________________________________________________________________3. Do you need to know more about LOTE? Why/Why not? Where can you get thisinformation?________________________________________________________________________________________________________________4. How closely do you work with the LOTE teacher(s)?________________________________________________________________________________________________________________5. Do you think all students should learn a LOTE? Why/Why not?________________________________________________________________________________________________________________6. What would you change about LOTE in the school?________________________________________________________________________________________________________________7. How do you see yourself supporting LOTE in the school?________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________8. How do you see the LOTE programme supporting you?________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Thank you for taking the time to fill in this questionnaire.
U S I N G T H E L O T E P L A N N I N G F R A M E W O R K 7 2
The most commonly asked questionsin respect of LOTE
INSTRUMENT 13
The following pages provide short responses related
to some of the most often asked questions about
how to plan, implement and review LOTE
programmes. The responses are summaries of
findings from research conducted by Simpson
Norris International.
The new principal of Morrison High took it upon himselfto make the decision to introduce Japanese in the school.
His decision was made without obtaining criticalinformation. He did not investigate the language
offerings of the feeder primary schools (all of whichoffered Indonesian) and he made no attempt to ascertaininformation about teacher availability. As a result of hisuninformed decision there were significant consequences
– disruption to the learning pathway from primary tosecondary school, an inexperienced Japanese teacher
was appointed to the school, and a culture of conflict andcompetition was established in the secondary LOTE
department.
U S I N G T H E L O T E P L A N N I N G F R A M E W O R K 7 3
How do you choose the language?Choice of language should be informed by the considerations listed below:
■ All staff should be involved in developing and actioning a planning model and in making
decisions about the programme.
■ Language choice is best made in reference to local factors and considerations
rather than against perceived difficulties of specific languages or other extraneous factors.
■ In choosing a language it is useful to work out if a particular language is of
significance to members of the school or local community. For example, it may
be desirable to establish a pathway between primary and secondary sectors. It may also be
that, in a specific geographic location, a particular language is important, for example,
because of the number of background speakers in the community or the history of the
community. Within a certain school community it may be that there is expertise or
interest in a particular second language. In such situations it would be advantageous to
choose the language that was ‘connected’.
■ An additional, important consideration relates to the skills of staff available to
teach the language other than English. LOTE teachers need to be able to engage and
enthuse their learners and to make the learning experience concrete and meaningful for
students at a range of different levels. Teachers need to be relaxed, accepting persons
who are approachable and interesting to talk to. In almost any language learning
environment, good teaching skills are as important as proficiency in a second language. In
an immersion environment, however, the need for linguistic proficiency becomes very
much more important.
Is there a need to consult with staff?It is crucial to have ALL staff engaged in the decision making process from the very outset.
■ All staff should be involved in developing and actioning a planning model and in making
decisions about the programme.
■ Training for programme implementation should also include all staff.
Failure to involve all staff may result in some people feeling disconnected from the programme
or, in the second language programme itself being regarded as marginal to the school curriculum,
rather than an integral part of it.
Is there a need to consult with parents?Parents have a right to be involved in school decision-making processes. To be able to exercise
this right productively, however, they need to be both fully engaged and fully informed as they
make decisions about the school, and about their children’s individual needs and circumstances.
U S I N G T H E L O T E P L A N N I N G F R A M E W O R K 7 4
Should students be consulted?
Often students get left out of school consultation processes. Student responses have, however,
been found to be extremely useful.
■ Students are the consumers of the programme and as consumers they have shown
themselves to be generally very astute and very able to provide effective commentary about
programmes.
■ Students are ostensibly being encouraged and taught to become self-directed and
autonomous and therefore their feedback deserves to be considered and included as a
regular part of any reflective process.
How do you deal with disagreement?
It is probable that a range of views regarding the provision and implementation of LOTE will,
initially, exist among staff and/or parents and students. Because of this:
■ Expect disagreements.
■ Don’t fight them.
■ Allow tensions and issues to be openly explored and expressed.
■ Provide people with information.
■ Value their willingness to engage with the issues and support them in making informed
decisions.
How do you deal with the structural issues?
Like any school programme, the introduction of a second language requires a number of
decisions that impact on the school as a whole. These decisions include:
■ When the programme will be taught?
■ By whom?
■ The size and structure of class groups.
■ Links that will be established with other programmes or activities within the school.
In making these decisions all stakeholders need to be consulted and encouraged to have genuine
input into the processes.
U S I N G T H E L O T E P L A N N I N G F R A M E W O R K 7 5
Who makes decisions about curriculum?
The study of a second language has the capacity to do more than provide some degree of second
language competence. It can:
■ Enhance the learning experiences associated with other learning areas.
■ Provide an additional medium through which other learning outcomes can be achieved.
Decisions about how LOTE can best complement, intersect or support other areas of the
curriculum need to be made jointly by all involved.
How do you choose the LOTE teacher?
■ In general, the decision about ‘which teacher’ may be more important than ‘which language’
when implementing a LOTE programme.
■ Research12 studies indicate that the pedagogical proficiency of teachers is critical, and at
least as important than their linguistic proficiency.
How do you get all staff to feel comfortable aboutLOTE?
Staff perceptions about LOTE can impact significantly on the development of a successful LOTE
programme. Involving staff in the planning and decision-making processes leading up to the
introduction of the LOTE, or to a review of LOTE, can help all staff members come to terms
with what LOTE learning means and the issues associated with it. It may be, however, that
further training in some key aspects will be required.
In some programmes classroom teachers, teacher aides, specialist staff and other expert
speakers of the LOTE will have a vital role to play in maximising the success of a LOTE
programme. Attention to training and providing for the professional development needs of these
people is vital.
Induction can provide a mechanism that enables everyone to feel comfortable with his or her
roles in relation to a LOTE programme, and associations with learners of a LOTE.
12 Simpson Norris International (1999) Language Teacher Proficiency or Teacher Language Proficiency: An Environmental Scanof the Qualities, Competencies and Knowledges Required of Language Teachers, unpublished, written for the NALSASTaskforce.
An education support centre interested in including LOTE in its curriculum failed torecognise the importance of the teacher for the success of a programme operating in thiscontext. Because this factor was not identified an unsatisfactory appointment was made— a secondary trained teacher who had had no contact with either primary schools or
education support settings.
U S I N G T H E L O T E P L A N N I N G F R A M E W O R K 7 6
How can commitment to the programme be developed?
Initial planning and induction needs to be seen as only a beginning. Decisions should also be
made as to how to best provide appropriate levels of on-going support for all involved in the
programme. It is also important that realistic goals are established and that successes, no matter
how small, are always acknowledged.
Equally important, in developing commitment to the programme, is the provision of open
communication channels so that people have an opportunity to discuss both progress and
problems and so that strategies can be adopted or modified where appropriate, in order to
provide a better, stronger programme.
What makes for an effective second language learning environment?
■ The environment is target language rich.
■ It is a safe and supportive learning environment.
■ The second language is the principal medium of instruction rather than just an end in itself.
■ The focus is initially on understanding, with learners having the opportunity to engage with
a broad range of target language input.
■ It is a place where learners understand that errors are signposts to learning and they are
therefore prepared to ‘have a go’.
■ It is a place where learning experiences are fun, active, stimulating, challenging and often
concrete and real.
■ It is a collaborative environment.
■ It is a place where learning is facilitated by a highly competent teacher.
Can all children learn a LOTE?
Research suggests that children can learn LOTE as well as they can learn anything else. For some
this will be very little, for others they will be able to demonstrate at least significant
comprehension and perhaps a great deal more.13
A quotation from an Education Support principal may be a useful reference point on this issue:
‘Don’t decide what your child is not able to do: Let them decide that.’
13 For further information see Education Department of Western Australia (1999) Two Languages Too: Second LanguageLearning and Children with Special Needs. Perth: Education Department of Western Australia.
U S I N G T H E L O T E P L A N N I N G F R A M E W O R K 7 7
What does a ‘good’ second language learning programme look like?
This is a complex question because LOTE can be configured in so many different ways. Some
features that are characteristic of a ‘good’ LOTE programme are listed below:
■ It is embedded within the fabric of the school.
■ There is a deployment orientation with learners being provided with opportunities to
really use all of the language modes.
■ Opportunities are provided for speaking turns to be maximised.
■ Learners are exposed to, and learn to work with, a broad variety of text that enables them
to develop understanding of the socio-linguistic features of the target language together
with sociocultural understandings of, and about, target language speaking communities.
■ Learners are taught how to learn.
■ Learners are provided with opportunities to manage their own learning with autonomous
learning seen as a desirable and achievable goal.
■ Learners are provided with an environment that fosters continuous and cumulative
language learning and where all learners, regardless of prior experiences of LOTE, can
make meaningful progress.
■ There are opportunities for learning and communication to be achieved through the
regular use of information technology.
■ Learners are able to engage in real communication with target language speakers who are
of the same age and have similar interests, either through information technology and/or
through in-country experience.
■ Learning is facilitated by a highly competent teacher.
■ Learners and teachers constantly reflect on the programme and the learning that is taking
place and where this process of reflection can lead to review and change.
■ There are opportunities for LOTE learning to intersect with other learning and other areas
of the curriculum.
U S I N G T H E L O T E P L A N N I N G F R A M E W O R K 7 8
Example: The Most Commonly Asked Questions in Respect of LOTEThe following example shows how one educational jurisdiction interpreted the national research
findings presented in Instrument 13 to better reflect the circumstances within their own
jurisdiction.
How do you choose the language?Language choice is best made in reference to local factors and considerations ratherthan against perceived difficulties of specific languages or other extraneous factors.
Benefits ofLOTE learning
■ In choosing a language it is important to avoid stereotyped and simplisticcategorisation of languages. Teaching Japanese has a purpose beyondthe economic one. Teaching Arabic has a broader purpose thanmaintaining the language of its background speakers. Languages aretaught because they have a range of interconnecting benefits:intellectual, psychological, social, economic, strategic.
Significanceof languagelearning tolocalcommunity
■ In choosing a language it is useful to work out if a particular language isof significance to members of the school or local community. It may bethat, in a specific geographic location, a particular language is of specialimportance. For example, there may be a sizeable number of backgroundspeakers in the community, or it is relevant to the history of thecommunity.
Opportunitiesfor developinglanguageproficiency
■ A further consideration relates to the opportunity for students to havecontinuity of LOTE learning beyond the primary school years. Gainingproficiency in a language takes a great deal of time, which can bemaximised by giving students the opportunity to pursue studies in aparticular LOTE across the primary and secondary years of schooling. Inthe process of choosing a language, schools ought to seriously considerwhich language or languages are being offered by neighbouring feederschools.
Teacheravailability
■ An additional, important consideration relates to the skills of staffavailable to teach the language other than English. LOTE teachers needproficiency in the LOTE. They also need to be able to engage andenthuse their learners and to make the learning experience concrete andmeaningful for students at a range of different levels.
Schoolcommitmentto a chosenlanguage
■ Language choice ought to give strong consideration to school commitmentto ensuring ongoing availability of staff with that LOTE and schoolcommitment to maintaining the language chosen.
Support oflanguage bylocalcommunity
■ In choosing a language you need to consider the support of the schoolcommunity. In doing so, it is important to ensure that the process ofconsultation with the school community is an informed one. The goal isnot necessarily to achieve full consensus. It is, rather, to ensure that allparties have the opportunity to inform the decision making process andto be informed of its outcome. In briefing parents prior theconsultation, the benefits of learning any LOTE need to be emphasised sothat competition between LOTEs is minimised.
U S I N G T H E L O T E P L A N N I N G F R A M E W O R K 7 9
Conclusion
In this section of the package ideas and instruments have been included to assist with the process
of finding out:
What information is still needed if we are going to be able to planeffectively?
Particular attention has been paid to information relating to both the internal and external
contexts of language teaching and learning. Information needs do, of course, go beyond this, and
there will always be a need to source and use a variety of information about teaching and
learning. It is also particularly important that information about student learning outcomes be
used when planning for an effective LOTE programme.
U S I N G T H E L O T E P L A N N I N G F R A M E W O R K 8 0
Interpreting andConnecting
Identifyinformation needs
Identify factorsAssess impact
Plan and do
Monitor, reviewand act
Interpreting andConnecting
Articulate visionand Goals
Interpreting andconnecting
U S I N G T H E L O T E P L A N N I N G F R A M E W O R K 8 1
Interpreting and Connecting
Overview of the Phasehis phase is about how to interpret and utilise the information collected in the previous
phases, and about how to connect LOTE to the rest of the school and its community.
Having gathered a great deal of information, it is
often difficult to see how it all fits together. It is
also common to overlook the interconnections
between LOTE and other learning areas, other
dimensions of the school and its activities, and the
broader community with its concerns, actions and
initiatives. The aim of this section is to focus
attention onto the areas where possible
connections can be made and how they can best
benefit LOTE learners and the school more
broadly.
Identifying possibilities for connections will, of course, also result in the identification of
barriers. This knowledge is essential for effective planning and for making decisions about
where change efforts can best be concentrated.
Introducing the InstrumentsTwo instruments have been provided in this section.
Connections Diagram
Step 1 is the construction of a Connections Diagram. The construction of a Connections
Diagram provides a mechanism for enabling intersections between LOTE and other areas, or
aspects of the school to be identified. A sample Connections Diagram is provided.
Step 2 involves ‘unpacking’ the Connections Diagram. Having identified the broad areas to
consider through the Connections Diagram, it is then important to articulate key questions and
issues for LOTE that arise where there are intersections. This will enable thinking to be
generated about the types of connections that may be possible in each area, and the barriers to
connecting that may occur.
T
What does LOTE mean and how can it be connected to the
rest of the school?
At Dayton High School, the Head of theLOTE Department is the Head of SOSE.He has no interest in making connections
with the LOTE department for which he isresponsible. His unwillingness to make
connections within his own area ofresponsibility ensures that it is impossiblefor LOTE to make connections with otherparts of the school community. The result
has been that a number of good LOTEteachers have left the school, which now
has a very marginalised LOTEprogramme.
U S I N G T H E L O T E P L A N N I N G F R A M E W O R K 8 2
A Tool for Defining Possibilities
Step 3 involves defining possibilities. Once the Connections
Diagram has been constructed and the information about
LOTE has been unpacked and located, a process of Defining
Possibilities for connections and interconnections can then
be undertaken.
This is done by brainstorming possibilities for connection
within each of the broad areas identified through the
Connections Diagram, in response to the key issues and
questions raised in Step 2.
Examples of how different school communities have
interpreted issues and defined possibilities are included on
pages 86-89. Each school community must find its own way
to identify and represent connections.
As part of a professionaldevelopment programme for
LOTE teachers, it wassuggested that the teachersapproach a member of theschool executive to attend aplanning meeting with them.
At the meeting, one of theteachers explained that no
one from her schooladministration was able to
come: I didn’t ask theprincipal because I knew he
would refuse to come and thedeputy principal said thatshe was leaving next term
and wasn’t prepared to takeit on.
U S I N G T H E L O T E P L A N N I N G F R A M E W O R K 8 3
Elaborating the Instruments
Connections Diagram INSTRUMENT 14
The construction of a connections diagram
needs to be a shared activity involving a
range of individuals who, collectively
represent and have the task of identifying
areas both within, and beyond the school,
where there are connections or potential
connections with LOTE.
The connections diagram below recognises that there are potential links between LOTE and
areas such as school assessment and reporting practices, community priorities and interests,
and system requirements or departmental policy. Many more boxes may need to be added
to adequately reflect the connections that could exist for any one LOTE programme.
Connections Diagram
School
LOTE
Other Learning Areas
Community Interests
Assessment/Reporting
System Requirements
Other considerations
At Brackville Education Support Centre, theLOTE teacher also has expertise in Art andMusic. This means that the school is able to
capitalise on this and make curriculumconnections with the result that the classroomteachers don’t have to worry about Art andMusic because the LOTE teacher is able to
integrate those dimensions. The result is thatall the teachers are able to capitalise on their
individual strengths, the students benefitfrom teacher expertise, and the curriculum is
much more cohesive.
U S I N G T H E L O T E P L A N N I N G F R A M E W O R K 8 4
Once identified, the connections then need to be ‘pulled apart’. Information gathered previously
is then interpreted, sorted and recorded in the appropriate area(s) of connection. Some
examples are shown below:
School
L
System
How will the LOTE teacher
be able to report on 600
learners?
In which areas can firm links
be established – Art?
Music? Maths? Science?
How can we make LOTE
visible and relevant?
Community InterestsOther Learning Areas
LOTE
Assessment/ReportingSystem Requirements
Other considerations
How do we incorporate the
curriculum standards?
Sister school arrangement?
Will the LOTE teacher stay at
the school?
U S I N G T H E L O T E P L A N N I N G F R A M E W O R K 8 5
A Tool for Defining Possibilities INSTRUMENT 15
This instrument takes the information from the connections diagram and uses it to generate
thinking about specific possibilities, or ways, in which LOTE could be connected to the wider
school and its community. Possibilities can be recorded and their ramifications tracked. This is a
valuable exercise as a precursor to further planning.
A Tool for Defining Possibilities
Assessment/Re System
Defining Possibilities Defining Possibilities
May be possible to find abackground speaker in thecommunity who is willing to beinvolved in the programme.
This person may also be able tobe involved with another learningarea eg Technology andEnterprise to develop a websitein Indonesian.
SchoolL
LOTE
Defining Possibilities Defining Possibilities
Community InterestsOther Learning Areas
Defining Possibilities Defining Possibilities
SystemAssessment/ReportingSystem Requirements
Other considerations
SystemDefining Possibilities
The LOTE teacher teaches 600kids and provides non-contacttime. Maybe classroom teacherscan stay in class for one sessionto help evaluate student learning.
U S I N G T H E L O T E P L A N N I N G F R A M E W O R K 8 6
Examples: Connections Diagram
■ P R = Physical Resources
■ A&R = Assess & Report
■ S O = School Organisation
■ F S = Feeder Schools
■ C I = Communities Interests
■ S R = System Requirements
■ + / - = Connecting all stakeholders with + and � information flow
■ L&T = Learning and Teaching
Students Staff
L&T
Culture
?
?
PR
A&R
SO
SchoolOther KLAs
FS
LOTE
System Support
CI
Culture
SR
+/-
U S I N G T H E L O T E P L A N N I N G F R A M E W O R K 8 7
Examples: Connections Diagram
LOTE� Staffing� B/S Class Teach
Reporting &Assessing
HighSchool
Community� Background� Expectation
Learners K2 Bilingual 3-6 � Arabic � Vietnamese � Choice Equity Issue
PrimarySchool Other Learning Areas
� Literacy links � Community expectations
LOTE � Arabic � Vietnamese
Integration
Continuity
SystemResourcing
U S I N G T H E L O T E P L A N N I N G F R A M E W O R K 8 8
Examples: Connections Diagram
School: Private,Primary
System Requirement(School + Government)
Assessment/Reporting
�Real� KLA�s
�Extra� KLA�s:Music, Art
Teachers(Competition:
Asian vs EuropeanLanguage)
Inter FacultyCompetition
CommunityInterests
LOTEJapanese
U S I N G T H E L O T E P L A N N I N G F R A M E W O R K 8 9
Examples: Connections Diagram1: Not all students will be satisfied2: Community expectations vary, based on their own background3: Parental pressure on children to study family language
Someone will lose theirarea of expertise
(language))
Vietnamese
Japanese
German
French
Spanish
System Requirement
Primary School
LOTE Mandatory Requirement& LCI Requirement
Both HS & PSneeds to be
satisfied
Changes to classFormation/Curriculum
organisation
Staff Curriculum & KLAs
Students
Community
1
2
3
U S I N G T H E L O T E P L A N N I N G F R A M E W O R K 9 0
ConclusionThe information and tools included in this section of the package serve to:
■ Highlight the fact that decisions about LOTE cannot be made in isolation from the rest of
the school and its community
■ Provide a structure to locate information that has been previously collected
■ Generate and define possibilities for action and interconnections for the potential benefit of
all stakeholders
Through this ‘mapping’ process
What LOTE means within a given context can be clarified.
In addition, possibilities for
How LOTE can be connected to the rest of the school
and to the wider community can be formulated. This process of identifying connections and
establishing possibilities for these connections is an important stage when beginning to formulate
a vision.
U S I N G T H E L O T E P L A N N I N G F R A M E W O R K 9 1
Articulate Visionand Goals
Identify factorsAssess impact
Plan and do
Monitor, reviewand act
Identifyinformation needs
Interpreting andconnecting
Articulate visionand goals
U S I N G T H E L O T E P L A N N I N G F R A M E W O R K 9 2
Articulate vision and goals
Overview of the Phase
This phase involves envisioning both what the future state of LOTE might be and how this
state can be attained.
Research indicates that many language programmes currently exist
in either a goal/purpose vacuum, or in some state where goals and
purposes are ill-defined and mean different things to different
stakeholders.
Envisioning a future state is often difficult for individuals and groups
in a well-established culture.
Where a school is able to articulate the way things will be at some
future point in time, it has effectively established a clear goal to
work towards.
This will not be a goal for the LOTE programme in isolation, but will be a future state that
takes into account the following:
■ Conflict of competing demands on the school’s time and resources
■ The nature of the clientele
■ Demands of government and community
Introducing the Instruments
To help with this phase, we have provided a number of instruments:
Developing a Vision
This instrument provides a process for developing a vision. This visualisation process aims at
generating creative thinking about the future state of LOTE.
Sharing the Vision
In addition, there is a process for sharing the vision. This has developed from the recognition
that LOTE programmes are most effective when there is a shared goal or purpose for the
programme, that is accepted and ‘owned’ by the whole school.
What will it look like?
Principals and LOTEteachers required to attend aLOTE Planning Forum were
asked to write downindividually the purpose of
their LOTE program. Therewas an overwhelming lack ofcongruence between what theLOTE teachers wrote as the
purpose for their LOTEprogrammes and what the
principals wrote.
U S I N G T H E L O T E P L A N N I N G F R A M E W O R K 9 3
Connecting the Vision
The process for connecting the vision links back to the previous
phase of the Planning Framework, ‘Interpreting and connecting’. The
aim is to ensure a vision for LOTE that is incorporated into a whole
school context.
Situation Analysis Proforma
The Situation Analysis Proforma helps to draw connections between
the current situation and the desired future state. It is useful for both
articulating and clarifying the vision, and as a ‘checklist’ for connecting
the vision to the wider school context. Some people may find it a
good starting point for developing their vision. It also provides a
means of identifying the actions that might need to be undertaken to
achieve the goal (see the ‘Plan and do’ phase) and the factors which
may impact on the attainment of the goal (see the following section
on ‘Identifying factors’).
Graphing the Change Equation
This instrument enables a school to get a picture of what the LOTE programme currently looks
like in terms of the Proficiency Potential Framework, what they want it to look like, and what areas
need to change.
At Grangeham, theschool’s vision is tohave all aspects ofschool life – both
curricular and co-curricular –
connected throughthe vision of students
learning to be self-directed. Because thisvision is shared by all
staff, and also bystudents, everyone inthe school shares the
“language” of thevision. There is an
overall sense ofcohesion in the school
with each learningarea able to
articulate that broadvision in relation to
its own goals.
U S I N G T H E L O T E P L A N N I N G F R A M E W O R K 9 4
Elaborating the Instruments
Developing a vision INSTRUMENT 16
On your own, work through the following visualisation process:
■ How do you visualise the LOTE programme in 3 to 5 years time?
■ What does the school look like? Sound like? Has it changed in any way?
■ How can you tell LOTE is being taught in the school?
■ Where is LOTE taught?
■ What is the main focus of the LOTE programme?
■ What does the LOTE classroom look like? What can you hear?
■ How many expert speakers are in the classroom?
■ What is everyone doing?
■ What is being achieved in terms of student outcomes?
■ What is the school doing to support LOTE?
■ What are people saying about the programme? The principal? The LOTE teacher? The parents? The
students?
■ What is the general feeling about LOTE in the school?
The examples of visioning documents on the following pages were developed by two LOTE
teachers using the above process.
Once you have an idea of what might be happening in the LOTE programme, it is time to talk to
other people about their vision for LOTE. The following is a ‘jigsaw’ process that can be used to
share the vision.
U S I N G T H E L O T E P L A N N I N G F R A M E W O R K 9 5
Examples of vision
U S I N G T H E L O T E P L A N N I N G F R A M E W O R K 9 6
Examples of vision
U S I N G T H E L O T E P L A N N I N G F R A M E W O R K 9 7
Sharing the vision INSTRUMENT 17
Each person involved in the visioning process should find one other person to talk to about his or her vision:
■ What do they see happening with LOTE in 3-5 years?
■ Tell them what you see.
■ What are the commonalities?
■ What are the differences? Why and what does this mean?
■ What are the best bits of both visions that you would want to keep?
Each pair should then connect with another pair and go through the same process. Then the groups of four
connect with another group of four and repeat, until there is one large group.
On the following pages are two examples of shared visions developed by secondary LOTE
teachers as part of a professional development programme. The first example focuses on the
teachers’ goal of developing autonomous learners. The second group portrayed their vision in
terms of a movement from the marginalisation to the embedment of LOTE in their schools.
U S I N G T H E L O T E P L A N N I N G F R A M E W O R K 9 8
Examples of vision
U S I N G T H E L O T E P L A N N I N G F R A M E W O R K 9 9
Examples of vision
U S I N G T H E L O T E P L A N N I N G F R A M E W O R K 1 0 0
Connecting the vision INSTRUMENT 18
The process of connecting the LOTE programme to the overall school programme, through a
shared vision, requires a number of critical decisions that should be made through wide
consultation and with reference to the connection possibilities previously defined.
The following decisions need to be made if connections are to be viable:
■ Which language will the school teach?
■ Who will teach LOTE?
■ What will the structure of the programme look like?
■ What will other teachers be doing?
■ How will LOTE fit in with the rest of the curriculum?
■ What will the LOTE programme do to support the priorities of the school?
■ How will LOTE outcomes be assessed?
■ How will this information be reported to students and parents?
Situation Analysis INSTRUMENT 19
When using a Situation Analysis to articulate and clarify the vision, and as a checklist for
connecting that vision, it is important that the headings included on the proforma are reflective of
the particular circumstance.
The arrows in the middle column of the proforma are designed to draw attention to any factors
that may impact on your potential to achieve your vision. This information will be utilised in the
next phase of the Planning Framework, ‘Identify Factors’. It is also designed to make it easier to
make the connections between the actions that need to be undertaken in order to change the
current situation to the desired future state. This information can then be drawn on in the ‘Plan
and Do’ phase.
The sample proforma included over the page should not be randomly reproduced but rather, is
best used as a guide with regard to the headings that might be inserted for use in a particular
school or programme.
U S I N G T H E L O T E P L A N N I N G F R A M E W O R K 1 0 1
Situation AnalysisUse Measurable Terms eg units, value, size, dollars, rates, and specific outcomes. Use a large sheet of paper and work together.
THE SITUATION NOW FACTORS VISION FOR THE FUTURE
STUDENTS
• Outcomes
• Perceptions
• Attitudes
• Learning Activities
SCHOOL SUPPORT
• Involvement of classroomteachers
• Support from administration
• Involvement of parents andschool community
RESOURCES
• Funding
• Staff resources
• Teaching resources
• Classroom environment
• Training
U S I N G T H E L O T E P L A N N I N G F R A M E W O R K 1 0 2
Example: Situation Analysis
Situation AnalysisCedardale Senior High School
THE SITUATION NOW (Year 9 Learners) FACTORS VISION FOR THE FUTURE
STUDENTS
• Outcomes
• Perceptions
• Attitudes
• Learning Activities
• Limited words/phrases in lower secondary
• Year 9s, particularly boys, see LOTE as irrelevant
• Poor, year 9 boys disruptive in class
• Described predominantly as boring
Learners will see some relevance to LOTE, theywill be engaged in tasks they enjoy doing and willdevelop more positive attitudes to LOTE and topeople from other cultures.
SCHOOL SUPPORT
• Involvement of classroomteachers
• Support from administration
• Involvement of parents andschool community
• Non-LOTE teachers have no involvement in LOTE
• Extensive support & mentoring from deputy principal
• School communities have endorsed school plan
That language teachers will be able to worktowards the above vision on their own withoutextensive support and mentoring from thedeputy principal.
RESOURCES
• Funding
• Staff resources
• Teaching resources
• Classroom environment
• Training
• Additional funding in excess of $10,000 obtained tosupport mentoring and professional development ofteachers because year 9 students deemed �at risk�.
• Background and non-background speakers of Asianand European languages, deputy & School Counsellor
• Essentially focused input• Standard senior high school layout: 2 rooms,
designated for LOTE• External experts, counsellors brought in to
provide PD
Staff can operate effectively without externalsupport and they are able to develop/accessteaching resources that provide learners withbroad input.
U S I N G T H E L O T E P L A N N I N G F R A M E W O R K 1 0 3
Graphing the Change Equation INSTRUMENT 20
This instrument is designed to provide a visual image of where the LOTE programme is
currently situated in terms of:
■ Marginalisation/embedment
■ Deployment/non-deployment
■ Dependent/autonomous learners
and the desired future state of the programme.
To use it, locate your LOTE programme along the continuum from marginalisation to
embedment and mark it with a pen. Then, using the same method, locate your programme
along the continuum from deployment to non-deployment. Do the same for the dependence
to autonomy continuum. Then connect the three marked positions to form a line. The next
stage is to determine where you want your programme to be in terms of the marginalisation-
embedment continuum, the deployment-non-deployment continuum and the dependence-
autonomy continuum. Mark each of those desired positions. Then connect these three
positions. The resulting graph makes it easy to determine which areas of the LOTE
programme need the most work.
U S I N G T H E L O T E P L A N N I N G F R A M E W O R K 1 0 4
Graphing the Change Equation
Autonomy
Marginalised Embedded
Non Deployment Deployment
Dependence Codependence Opting into autonomy
CURRENT STATE FUTURE STATE
Indicators•••
Indicators•••
Indicators•••
U S I N G T H E L O T E P L A N N I N G F R A M E W O R K 1 0 5
Example: Graphing the Change Equation
Blackville High
Autonomy
Marginalised Embedded
Non Deployment Deployment
Dependence Codependence Opting into autonomy
CURRENT STATE FUTURE STATE
Indicators� Too many languages offered (5) with the result that upper secondary courses are non viable� LOTE teachers compete with each other rather than support each other
Indicators� In some classes, in some languages learners are provided with real opportunities to
use the language� Older learners have real contacts with target language speaker communities through
technology
Indicators� Older learners forced toward co-dependence in order to satisfy the demands of external examinations for
university entrance
U S I N G T H E L O T E P L A N N I N G F R A M E W O R K 1 0 6
ConclusionThe question posed at the start of this section,
What will it look like?
seems to be asked all too infrequently. It is hoped, therefore, that the information and
instruments contained in this section will help people think beyond habit – beyond what already
exists and beyond their own particular domain and specific interests.
Working towards a common goal with shared purposes can provide an environment that is
stimulating, challenging and enjoyable. Envisioning a future state should be a positive process
with the promise of tangible benefits for all concerned.
U S I N G T H E L O T E P L A N N I N G F R A M E W O R K 1 0 7
IdentifyFactors
Identifyinformation
needsne
Assess impact
Plan and do
Monitor, reviewand act
Interpreting andconnecting
Articulate visionand goals
Identify Factors
U S I N G T H E L O T E P L A N N I N G F R A M E W O R K 1 0 8
Identify Factors
Overview of the PhaseIn this phase, we move from the processes of envisioning
to the processes of enacting. Having developed a vision,
it is now necessary to determine what factors will either
hinder or promote the attainment of that vision.
Factors identified can be at several levels:
■ Factors impacting on the distribution of resources
and support for the various programmes that the
school offers
■ Factors impacting on either outcomes or desirable characteristics of a language
programme
■ Factors that impact on the school facilitating the achievement of desirable outcomes for
students
Introducing the InstrumentsTwo instruments are described in this section, but it needs to be understood that the process of
moving from envisioning to enacting will require reference to other instruments and their
previous application.
SWOT Analysis
The first instrument to be described here is a SWOT Analysis. The SWOT Analysis identifies
the internal aspects (Strengths and Weaknesses) of a school or LOTE programme that may have
an affect on the attainment of the programme’s goal. It also identifies the external events and
possibilities (Opportunities and Threats) that might impact on the goal.
Fishbone Diagram
An example of a Fishbone Diagram has also been included. The aim of the Fishbone Diagram is
to identify the factors that work to promote the goal (ie: a successful LOTE programme). The
benefit of the Fishbone Diagram is that it provides a means of grouping the factors that need to
be considered when making decisions about LOTE, thus facilitating the process of developing
strategies to address those factors in the final plan.
The Most Commonly Asked Questions in Respect of LOTE
The Booklet, The Most Commonly Asked Questions in Respect of LOTE, (see ‘Identify Information
Needs’), can be used as a resource to help identify factors that might promote or hinder the
achievement of the programme’s goals.
What factors need to be considered to achieve our goals?
The principal of Clopvale was all tooaware that there were a number of
factors that hindered the attainment ofher vision of Clopvale as having a
sustainable LOTE programme that wasable to provide learners with quality
teaching and continuity. She knew thathaving only a part-time coordinator,
having teachers on short-term contract,and having no guarantee of continuousfunding were factors that needed to be
addressed.
U S I N G T H E L O T E P L A N N I N G F R A M E W O R K 1 0 9
Elaborating the Instruments
SWOT Analysis INSTRUMENT 21
The SWOT analysis is best done after, rather than
before, the envisioning process. Allowing people to
have the freedom to engage in the envisioning
process provides a positive direction. Undertaking
a SWOT without the vision may be limiting, as it
has the potential to focus attention on those factors
that hinder, rather than promote, the attainment of
the goal.
When tackling the Strengths and Weaknesses components of the SWOT, a programme
profile generated through the use of the Proficiency Potential Framework (see ‘Monitor,
Review, Act’) will be useful.
When engaging with the Opportunities and Threats components, reference back to the
information identified as necessary for decision-making will also be useful (see the phase
‘Identify Information Needs’).
It may prove to be useful for a number of individuals to undertake a SWOT as this will allow
different perspectives to emerge in spite of there being a shared vision.
Kurenmukin is a small ruralcommunity. The establishment of asuccessful LOTE programme in this
community was assisted by the schoolrecognising that the LOTE teacher
needed to be a long-term resident inorder to guarantee continuity.
U S I N G T H E L O T E P L A N N I N G F R A M E W O R K 1 1 0
SWOT ANALYSIS
STRENGTHS WEAKNESSES
OPPORTUNITIES THREATS
U S I N G T H E L O T E P L A N N I N G F R A M E W O R K 1 1 1
Example: SWOT
SWOT ANALYSIS
STRENGTHS WEAKNESSES
� Supportive principal
� Equitable resourcing
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
� Classes conducted in non-contact timeof classroom teachers
� Teacher has temporary teacherstatus
�
�
�
�
�
�
OPPORTUNITIES THREATS
� To negotiate with Departmentabout temporary teacher status
� Review timetabling structure
�
�
�
�
�
�
� Teacher has recently married andwishes to have a family
� Department policy on temporaryteacher status has been inflexible inthe past and is currently considered�in limbo�
�
�
�
�
�
U S I N G T H E L O T E P L A N N I N G F R A M E W O R K 1 1 2
Fishbone Diagram INSTRUMENT 22
A Fishbone Diagram is yet another way to focus attention on the positives more than the
negatives. It is about promoting the vision and seeing LOTE as a success. It also stresses the
importance of making connections between LOTE and other areas of the school.
To create your own Fishbone Diagram, identify the key areas that will need to be taken into
consideration in promoting a sustainable LOTE programme. These are the large ‘bones’ on the
diagram. Then identify the important elements that will impact on those key areas. These form
the smaller ‘bones’.
The example included in this package is taken from LOTE in an education support setting.14 It
identifies broad areas for consideration and then the specifics that relate to each area. The
construction of a Fishbone Diagram for a given context is a useful way of identifying impacting
factors.
14 The terminology varies from state to state. This refers to students who have difficulty achieving in academic contexts.
U S I N G T H E L O T E P L A N N I N G F R A M E W O R K 1 1 3
Design Your Own Fishbone
FACTORS PROMOTING A SUCCESSFUL LOTE PROGRAMME
U S I N G T H E L O T E P L A N N I N G F R A M E W O R K 1 1 4
Example of a Fishbone DiagramThis example of a Fishbone Diagram is taken from an education support setting.15
IEPs = Individual Education Plans
ConclusionAnswering the question,
What factors need to be considered to achieve our goals?
is a very necessary part of the planning process. Without the identification of all impacting
factors it becomes difficult to move to the next stage. This is because the way each factor
impacts on the enactment of the vision can have a profound influence on the achievement of the
goal.
15 Education Department of Western Australia (1999) Two Languages Too: Second Language Learning and Children withSpecial Needs. Perth: Education Department of Western Australia. Project conducted and reported by Simpson NorrisInternational with the Centre for Curriculum and Professional Development, Murdoch University.
Integrates LOTE - Evenif small way in otheractivities beyond LOTEclassroom
Learnerof LOTE
Observer ofstudents
Collaborateswith LOTEteacher
Understandspurposes ofLOTE
Understandspotential ofLOTE
Supporter ofLOTE
Flexible
Empathy, rapportwith students
AdequateLOTEknowledge
Reflectivepractice
Expertisein LOTEmethodology
Understandspurpose andpotential ofLOTE
Observer ofstudentlearning
Collaborateswith LOTEteacher
Successful
Learning
Enjoyment
Reinforcement
Support
Relevance
SupportsLOTE
Understandspurpose ofLOTE
Informed ofstudent progress
Knowledge ofsuccessfulprogrammeselsewhere
Involvement in class
Consultation
Recognisedpart of curriculum
Share of resources
Part of the planningprocess
Connection toschool purpose
IEPs
Studentreporting process
Displays ofstudentperformance
Practicalactivites
GenericLearning skills
Literacy
Standardsin mixed abilitygroups
Other learningissues
Socialskills
FACTORS PROMOTING A SUCCESSFUL LOTE PROGRAMME
CLASS TEACHER LOTE TEACHER OTHER SUPPORT STAFF STUDENTS
TEACHING &LEARNING
SCHOOL COMMUNITY
Willing tocontributeto otheraspects ofschool
Supporterof LOTE
U S I N G T H E L O T E P L A N N I N G F R A M E W O R K 1 1 5
AssessImpact
Identify factors
Assess impact
Plan and do
Monitor, reviewand act
Assess impact
Articulate visionand goals
Identifyinformation needs
Interpretingand connecting
Assess impact
U S I N G T H E L O T E P L A N N I N G F R A M E W O R K 1 1 6
Assess Impact
Overview of the PhaseDetermining how the factors identified in the previous
section might impact positively or negatively on the
attainment of the vision is the focus of this phase. The aim
is to identify where best to start in terms of implementing
the plan and how to proceed so that maximum benefit can
be gained for minimum effort.
As a result of this phase a school will be able to prioritise the
factors according to the impact each factor will have on what
they are trying to achieve, and the effort it will take to influence
the factor. It is then possible to focus on those factors which
are relatively easy to influence, (low effort), and which are
assessed as having a significant impact on the ability to achieve
the desired outcome.
Introducing the InstrumentsTwo complementary tools have been provided to assist with
this phase, and each is elaborated at length.
Forcefield Analysis
The aim of a Forcefield Analysis is to weaken or remove one or more forces, which act to workagainst the achievement of the goal, and/or to strengthen forces, which can drive towards theachievement of a goal.
Two examples of the Forcefield Analyses can be found on pages 121-122. Both clearly identifythe factors which work towards the achievement of the goal and those which work against it.Such clarity in a Forcefield Analysis is not always possible. In both cases, the clarity is a result ofthe analyses having being done by a consultant external to the school system.
Impact/Effort MatrixIn using the Impact/Effort Matrix, the aim is to take the factors identified in the previous phaseand plot them according to the potential extent of their impact on the attainment of the desiredgoal and the potential effort required to address the factors.
Planning priorities thus focus on factors that will have a high impact on achieving the vision butwill require little effort.
To illustrate the use of the Impact/Effort Matrix, key factors from one of the Forcefield Analysis
have been plotted onto a matrix.
How do these factors impact on our situation?
The LOTE teacher at Bunalong recognisedthat he was carrying the LOTE programme.The Departmental transfer policy meant thatthere was considerable likelihood of him beingtransferred, and for the LOTE programme to
then fall into a hole. By recognising thepotential impact of this factor, he was able totake steps to ensure that other members of the
school community were able to takeresponsibility for elements of the LOTE
programme, thereby lessening the potentialimpact of his transfer.
.The principal at Blackville High realised
that the school could no longer pretend thatthere wasn’t an issue with LOTE. The
school would have to ‘bite the bullet’ andreview the number of languages offered, and
the quality of the LOTE programmesavailable, in order to provide for
sustainable LOTE programmes in the uppersecondary years. Action would have to be
taken but there would be an impact. Part ofthe impact would be language teachers
without languages to teach. How to dealwith this issue in a fair and equitable way,
and how to re-deploy these people in ameaningful way was part of the impact
assessment that needed to be done.
U S I N G T H E L O T E P L A N N I N G F R A M E W O R K 1 1 7
Elaborating the Instruments
Forcefield Analysis INSTRUMENT 23
Kurt Lewin designed the Force Field Analysis as a tool that could be used for developing an
understanding of a problem situation and identifying possible courses of action. It is designed to
help achievement towards a goal.16
The Force Field
The restraining forces are represented by the arrows pointing downward on the equilibrium
line. These are forces existing in the situation, which push the equilibrium away from the goal.
Driving forces are represented by the arrows pointing upwards towards the goal. Arrows
differing in length represent forces of different strengths.
Some forces operate in direct opposition to others and can be shown as pushing against one
another. Lewin assumed that any situation always included forces pressing in both directions and
that it was the outcome or resultant of these forces which held the quasi-stationary
equilibrium in place. The entire diagram is referred to as the force field.
16 Lewin, K. (1997) Resolving Social Conflicts and Field Theory in Social Science. AM Psychological Association.
GOAL (preferred state)
Restraining Forces(working against the goal)
Driving Forces(working towards
the goal)
Quasi-StationaryEquilibrium(current state)
U S I N G T H E L O T E P L A N N I N G F R A M E W O R K 1 1 8
Using the Model
The usefulness of the model lies in the theory that the quasi-stationary equilibrium will move
nearer to the goal in response to the following process.
■ Weakening or removing one or more of the restraining forces and/or strengthening
existing driving forces or introducing a new driving force.
■ The object is to identify which forces can and cannot be influenced and invest your time
and effort in the former.
■ The first step in using the model requires specifying the quasi-equilibrium state, the goal,
the restraining forces and the driving forces. Remember to identify human beliefs and
attitudes when specifying the forces.
■ The final step involves deciding on a course of action that is most likely to succeed. Lewin
took the view that it was better to remove or weaken a restraining force than to
strengthen or introduce a driving force.
This is based on the belief that the more forces there are in a system, the more tension there is
and therefore the less likelihood of a shift in the quasi-stationary equilibrium.
Brainstorming
Brainstorming is a simple but effective technique that is very helpful in doing a Force Field
Analysis. Here are some guidelines:
■ Move quickly from one person to the next, asking every person, in turn, for an idea.
■ Do not allow any comments, praise or criticism about the ideas. Every idea is acceptable.
■ Have participants say ‘pass’ if they don’t have an idea.
Doing a Force Field Analysis
Step 1 Identify and label your present state and desired outcome in
quantifiable/measurable terms
Step 2 Brainstorm the driving forces and the restraining forces
Step 3 Discuss the items on both sides, and select the forces you can affect or control
Step 4 Design an action plan which will remove restraining forces and/or strengthen
driving forces. (see the ‘Plan and Do’ section)
U S I N G T H E L O T E P L A N N I N G F R A M E W O R K 1 1 9
Force Field Worksheet
Define the Driving Forces that will promote the achievement of your desired outcome and the
Restraining Forces that will work against you achieving that outcome. Draw an arrow to
represent the strength of those forces, the longer the arrow, the greater its impact.
Present State:
Driving Forces Restraining Forces
Desired outcome:
U S I N G T H E L O T E P L A N N I N G F R A M E W O R K 1 2 0
Example 1: Forcefield Analysis, Rollington Community School
Present State: LOTE taught years 1 � 9. Deployment orientation but a marginalisedprogramme. Programme will fold if the LOTE teacher leaves and a �clone� cannot befound.
Driving Forces Restraining Forces
Teacher very enthusiastic and gives morethan 100%
Children enjoy learning LOTE
School provided new room for LOTE
Deployment orientation in classroom
Broad target language input withmultiple target language text types used
Collaborative learning strategies used
Teacher has independence to make owndecisions
Teacher gives more than 100%
LOTE teacher only person in school withownership of LOTE programme
LOTE teacher does not have any controlof own budget. She often does not knowhow much money is available to LOTE andoften buys resources from her ownpocket.
LOTE not considered same status asother learning areas.
Other school staff not supportive ofLOTE
LOTE teacher not involved in whole schooldecision-making
No integration of LOTE across thecurriculum
Principal supports teacher by �stayingaway�
Desired outcome: Embedded LOTE programme notdependent on the LOTE teacher
U S I N G T H E L O T E P L A N N I N G F R A M E W O R K 1 2 1
Example 2: Forcefield Analysis, Santa Costa College (Primary)
Present State: LOTE programme marginalised and non-deployed. Programme only taughtin years 5 � 6 and taught by a high school teacher
Driving Forces Restraining Forces
Principal very supportive
School board has endorsed LOTE from year3 onwards
Classroom teachers expressed desire forinvolvement with LOTE, including giving uptheir non-teaching time.
Access Asia Programme already a priority inthe school.
State supports other ways of supplying non-teaching time.
Principal prepared to allocate resources toLOTE.
Clear pathways to high school.
LOTE teacher from high school unable toattend staff meetings and unfamiliar withprimary pedagogy.
LOTE teacher doesn�t believe youngchildren can learn a LOTE.
LOTE teacher resistant to classroomteachers watching her.
Focused input-only one text book used.Teacher is the primary source of targetlanguage input. Teacher makes onlylimited use of target language whenteaching.
State policy is that LOTE supplies non-teaching time for schools.
Lack of pedagogical continuity betweenyear 5 and year 6. Year 5 LOTE regardedas �fun� by students. Year 6 LOTEregarded as boring. Lack of continuity isdue to LOTE teacher�s belief that year 6students need to prepare for high school.
Desired outcome: An embedded LOTE programme with a deploymentorientation for years 3 to 6.
U S I N G T H E L O T E P L A N N I N G F R A M E W O R K 1 2 2
Impact/Effort Matrix17 INSTRUMENT 24
IMPACT
High Medium Low
Low Planning priorities would focus
on the factors rated in this box
Medium
High
17 The ‘Impact Effort/Matrix’ has been adapted from the ‘Prioritisation System’ in the Motorola University (1993) Cross Functional Process Mapping.Facilitator Guide – Total TimeImplementation Workshop. Issue Number 3, February 1993.
Goal –
Desired future
state to be
attained
EFFO
RT
U S I N G T H E L O T E P L A N N I N G F R A M E W O R K 1 2 3
Example of an Impact/Effort Matrix18: Santa Costa College (Primary)
IMPACT
High Medium Low
Low � Change the LOTEteacher to a primarytrained LOTEteacher*
Medium � Retrain current LOTEteacher
High � Change state policyon LOTE and non-teaching time
* Just because this option falls into the category of high impact/low effort does not mean it will be the most appropriate option for the school.
18 The ‘Impact Effort/Matrix’ has been adapted from the ‘Prioritisation System’ in the Motorola University (1993) Cross Functional Process Mapping.Facilitator Guide – Total TimeImplementation Workshop. Issue Number 3, February 1993.
Goal –
Desired future
state to be
attained
EFFO
RT
U S I N G T H E L O T E P L A N N I N G F R A M E W O R K 1 2 4
ConclusionAt the heart of the processes discussed in this section is not just the question,
How do these factors impact on our situation?
but rather the notion of making maximum inroads towards the goal for minimum effort. An
important aspect of this approach is that the change process is manageable and not
overwhelming. There is also a focus on the successes and not on the impediments. Obvious
gains for minimum effort can make it all worthwhile, seem achievable and keep people interested
and focused.
U S I N G T H E L O T E P L A N N I N G F R A M E W O R K 1 2 5
Plan and
Do
Identify factorsAssess impact
Identifyinformation
needs
Monitor, reviewand act
Interpretingand connecting
Articulate visionand goals
Plan and do
U S I N G T H E L O T E P L A N N I N G F R A M E W O R K 1 2 6
Plan and Do
Overview of the Phase
The Plan and Do phase of the LOTE Planning
Framework is about using the information
elicited in previous phases to determine the
strategies and the actions that a school will
take to implement a quality LOTE programme.
There are three main questions that need to
be asked in this phase of the planning process:
■ What are we trying to do?
■ How are we going to do it?
■ How are we going to know if
we’ve done it?
What are we trying to do?From working through the other phases of the Planning Framework, you should now
have a clear idea of what the aims and goals are for your LOTE programme. Hold the
vision for your LOTE programme and its purpose clearly in mind when you develop
your plan. Despite all the work you have done to date, there may be still a number of
options for action open to you and new insights may arise. So it is important to ask the
question – what alternatives are available? And then develop these alternatives in order
to choose the ones that are best for you.
How are we going to do it?In working out how you are going to achieve your goal, take into account the factors you
identified earlier that may promote your goal and those factors that may hinder it.
Be strategic. Think ahead. Refer to those factors identified in the section on ‘Interpreting and
Connecting’. How do these fit into the plan?
Take Action. Make sure someone is responsible for each part of the plan.
Don’t fall into the trap of the “Add-On Model of Change”. If you are going to do something
new, it won’t be possible to keep on doing all the things you were doing before. You will
have to stop doing something, or do something differently in order to achieve your goals.
Take account of the resources required, the staff development needs, and implications of
changes to the structure of the LOTE programme.
What do we need to do for it to work?
The deputy principal from NanajillaSenior High School applied the
Proficiency Potential Framework to theschool in order to audit the variouslanguage programmes offered by the
school. This was done even though thelanguage teachers in the school werevery threatened by the process. As a
result of the process, a number offactors that impacted on the difficulties
the school was having with lowersecondary students, particularly boys,became evident. Once identified it was
then possible to assess the impact ofeach factor and then develop a plan to
address the issues. Significant progresswas made over a six-month period. The
process has, however, now stalledbecause one of the key elements in thechange process (the deputy principal)
has left the school.
U S I N G T H E L O T E P L A N N I N G F R A M E W O R K 1 2 7
How are we going to know if we’vedone it?Give yourself some indicators to work towards. Make
them realistic and make them observable or
measurable. How might you measure them? Set a time
to review the plan and see how you’re going.
Introducing the Instruments
The instruments included to help you with this phase reflect a range of planning models.
A Programme Planning Model
The Programme Plan describes the strategies, areas of work, major tasks, and key objectives of
the initiative. It outlines what action is to be taken, who is responsible, who is to be involved,
the timeline, resources required, targets, and describes the monitoring and evaluation processes.
An Action Planning Model
The Action Plan focuses on the operational level.
It details the specifics of what needs doing, who
will do the work, why it is being done, how it is
to be done, and by when.
There is no one right way to plan. These models
are examples only. There may well be planning
models within your school and your school
system that you are required to use. On the
other hand you may be free to be creative in
your planning.
The examples on pages 131-132 were developed by a principal after reflecting on the state of
LOTE in his school during a training programme on the LOTE Planning Framework. They do not
follow the same format as the models provided.
Elaborating the Instruments
The LOTE Programme Plan and LOTE Action Plan are included over the page as proformas that
enable the designation of tasks, the delegation of responsibilities, and the delineation of
parameters within which actions must be taken.
When provided with anopportunity to spend a dayworking with their LOTEteacher or LOTE Head of
Department at a LOTEPlanning forum set up
specifically to enable LOTEteachers and their principalsto work together for a day, allbar one principal declined the
offer on the basis that theycouldn’t find the time.
Pandal Education Support Centre looked atwhat was required in order to make a LOTEprogramme meaningful for students. It was
understood that within the context of theschool, the teacher had to be a special needsteacher, otherwise the plan wouldn’t work.The school went out of its way to satisfy thiscriterion as an initial consideration. Twelve
months after the programme had beenimplemented, the same teacher, through a
process of reflection and review, recognisedthat the students had stretched him and it wasnecessary for him to further develop his ownlinguistic skills if the learning of his students
was to continue to be cumulative.
U S I N G T H E L O T E P L A N N I N G F R A M E W O R K 1 2 8
LOTE Programme Plan INSTRUMENT 25
Strategy/Areas of work/Task/Objective
What specific actionis to be taken?How?
Who isresponsible?Who isinvolved?
Start date End date Resources Success criteria
Target
Monitoring of progressby whom, when andhow
Evaluation of effectivenessof action how and by whom,when
U S I N G T H E L O T E P L A N N I N G F R A M E W O R K 1 2 9
LOTE Action Plan INSTRUMENT 26
Action What? Why? How? Who? When? Where?
U S I N G T H E L O T E P L A N N I N G F R A M E W O R K 1 3 0
Example: LOTE Plan
Blackville High
Now Future state
There are currently 5 marginalisedlanguage programmes in school
Of the 5 programmes, 2 programmes aredeployed
3 programmes are non-deployed
Reduce number of language programmesto 3: all 3 programmes to be embedded.
All 3 language programmes to bedeployed.
The process
• Choice of LOTE programmes
• Phasing out of some LOTE programmes
• Presentation of Strategic Plan
Timeline, participation and responsibilities
This is outlined in diagram form on the following page. The diagram demonstrates the need for
these plans to evolve and change with some initial decisions being able to be made, but with the
need for decisions in other areas (e.g. how long will a particular process take?) to be made
further ‘down the track’.
}
U S I N G T H E L O T E P L A N N I N G F R A M E W O R K 1 3 1
Example: Action Plan
Blackville High
Senior Execand Head Teacher
Principal
Deputy Principal& Leading Teacher
Def
inin
g th
e pr
oble
mD
evel
opin
g so
luti
ons
Acc
epta
nce
of p
robl
ems
App
lyin
g so
luti
ons
Secu
rity
of
plac
e in
sch
ool
Acc
epta
nce
of n
ew p
lace
in s
choo
l
1 day To bedetermined
Timeframe
To bedetermined
U S I N G T H E L O T E P L A N N I N G F R A M E W O R K 1 3 2
Conclusion
In this section of the package ideas and instruments have been included to assist with the
process of finding out,
What do we need to do for it to work?
It is important to remember that there is no one right way to plan. These models are examples
only.
We finish this phase with the following advice:
■ The implementation of the plan may be a long process
■ It is very important to have ‘early wins’ (some kind of concrete result), even if they are
only small
■ There needs to be a way of monitoring so that success at each step of the plan can be
recognised, shared and celebrated
■ If the first easy steps are not implemented, there is no point in proceeding
U S I N G T H E L O T E P L A N N I N G F R A M E W O R K 1 3 3
Appendices
U S I N G T H E L O T E P L A N N I N G F R A M E W O R K 1 3 4
Case studyscenarios
U S I N G T H E L O T E P L A N N I N G F R A M E W O R K 1 3 5
How to use the Case Study ScenariosThe following case study scenarios have been taken from real schools. Each scenario includes a
completed School Profile Proforma and a brief description of the LOTE programme within the
school. All schools are referred to by a pseudonym.
The case study scenarios are not presented as ideal LOTE programmes. Rather, they are included
as examples of how languages have been offered in different contexts. Each case study illustrates
different factors and issues that may impact, positively or negatively, on the long-term sustainability
of the LOTE programme.
The case studies have been designed to be used in a number of ways to suit different purposes:
■ It is hoped that they will be a useful resource for people accessing the package independently,
in terms of broadening understandings about LOTE programmes.
■ External consultants who are working with schools may find it useful to work with the case
studies as examples. One way of doing this may be to apply the instruments found in the
package to the case studies initially before applying them to the school itself. This has the
benefit of ‘warming people up’ to the use of the tools so that they can feel comfortable with
concepts and principles prior to analysing their own situation.
■ In addition, it is also possible to use the case studies in a training context to illustrate the
application of particular tools.
U S I N G T H E L O T E P L A N N I N G F R A M E W O R K 1 3 6
These case study scenarios are not presented as ideal LOTE programmes, but as examples ofhow languages have been offered in different contexts. They illustrate both strengths and
weaknesses. These are all real examples (with the names changed). Information provided in theSchool Profile Proformas is presented as it was provided by the school.
Scenario 1: Clopvale Primary SchoolClopvale Primary School offers an immersion LOTE programme. The programme operates out of
two demountables located at the back of the school. Students from a number of schools in the
local area are included in the immersion programme and each year level included in the
programme undertakes two full days per week of immersion study.
Because the programme is cross-jurisdictional, funding comes from grants from three educational
jurisdictions. Funding arrangements vary from year to year with the result that there is a
continuing sense of uncertainty with regard to the programme and its future. Decisions about
funding, and about the programme structure, are made by the school’s executive committee and
the school’s management committee. These committees comprise representation from the
different educational sectors together with staff from the participating schools.
The programme is staffed by a part-time coordinator and a number of native-speaking teachers
who are appointed to the school on two-year contracts. There is little by way of training or
orientation provided for the teachers on their arrival at the school and there have been instances
where the expectations of teachers with regard to the programme are in conflict with the reality
that they find. Lack of familiarity with the Australian teaching and learning context can be
problematic for some teachers, particularly with regard to managing the behaviour of students.
There have also been instances where the desire of the teachers to enhance their own English
competence has conflicted with the programme’s policy of total target language usage.
Students are accepted into the programme at year 3. Acceptance is based, not on academic
achievement, but on learners’ study habits and work habits – we look for kids who can solve problems
independently and confidence is critical. Whilst the immersion programme extends across all the
primary years from year 3 there is no provision made for immersion study at secondary level. The
target language is available in local high schools as a language object programme and there is a very
strong programme, in the target language, at a local tertiary institution.
Science, Technology and Visual and Performing Arts are the content areas of the programme for all
students, with Science regarded as the principal focus. The decision to have Science as the
principal focus was made to enhance the programme’s appeal for boys and also to take the
programme out of the Studies of the Society and Environment learning area and away from
U S I N G T H E L O T E P L A N N I N G F R A M E W O R K 1 3 7
studying ‘My Family’. Even though Science is the principal focus there is no access to a sink within
the immersion classrooms and resources are limited. Also, whilst the students enjoy the content
areas they work with, some experience a sense of frustration. This is a result of difficulties
associated with the operation of the school’s committees and liaison between the programme and
other feeder schools with regard to providing a timetable that is supportive and acknowledging of
the language commitment and the content covered through the immersion programme – I have to
do Science twice and Sometimes it’s hard catching up in other subjects.
The programme demands that teachers talk solely in the target language both within and outside
the classroom and there is a requirement that year 5 learners speak exclusively in the target
language for 2 hours in the afternoon. Learners are able to distinguish the different styles of language
straight away, but lack daily vocabulary. Students know very little about the target country. After
two and half years students can express feelings, make questions, still have small particle problems but
can make sentences with small grammatical mistakes and make complex sentences with a mixture of
the target language and English. According to one teacher, they can understand almost anything I’m
talking about. Another stated that they learn deduction skills so that they can think by themselves…the
student has to be patient as well. Games are used extensively to consolidate vocabulary and to
enhance cooperation so that learners can support each other in the learning process.
The majority of learners are very positive about the experiences offered through the programme
but a number of the older learners are seriously considering not continuing with the programme
and doing ‘normal’ LOTE instead.
U S I N G T H E L O T E P L A N N I N G F R A M E W O R K 1 3 8
School Profile Proforma
1. Please provide the following general school details:
School:
Clopvale Primary SchoolAddress:
Postcode
Telephone: Fax:
Email:
Contact Person:
School Type: Year Levels:
Government School: State Primary 3-6 (7 In 1999)Programme: Intersystemic Staff Numbers:
Total 4 (3-1/2) Male: 0 Female: 4
Student Numbers:
Total 61 Male: 21 Female: 40
Please tick those categories which apply to your schoolRural Location: !!!! Metropolitan Location:
Government :!!!! Non-Government:!!!!
Gender Specific: Co-Educational: !!!!
U S I N G T H E L O T E P L A N N I N G F R A M E W O R K 1 3 9
2. Please provide a brief description of the student population:
Students come to the programme from four base schools.Class sizes are restricted to 2 cohorts of 15 in year 3 and 1 cohort of up to 24in subsequent year levels. Students need to have passed the year 2 literacy &numeracy net but are not selected on the basis of academic excellence �more emphasis is placed on work habits.
3. Please provide a brief description of the local community (eg socio-economiccharacteristics):
Base schools:- 1 state co-ed, 1 catholic co-ed, 1 private co-ed & 1 girls privateprimary school. Students come from both country & city backgrounds in theseschools.
4. Please provide details of the major ethnic groups represented in your programme:
Major Ethnic Group Approx Population
Anglo Saxon/European
Aboriginal/Islander
5. Please provide details of language programmes offered at school:
Language NumbersYear Levels involved inthe programme
Number of classes Number of students Number of backgroundspeakers
LOTE 1
Asian LOTE (Insert Name of LOTE)LOTE 2
(Insert Name of LOTE)LOTE 3
(Insert Name of LOTE)
U S I N G T H E L O T E P L A N N I N G F R A M E W O R K 1 4 0
6. Please provide language enrolment details by year level (male, female, background
speaker):
Year Level LOTE 1 LOTE 2 LOTE 3
M F B M F B M F B
3 8 18
4 5 8
5 7 8
6 1 6
7 (from 1999)
7. Please provide a staffing profile for each language. (eg How many people teach each
LOTE, is there provision for teacher assistants, in what ways do other staff
complement the LOTE programmes?)
LOTE 1
Each teacher has 2 immersion classes, 2 days a week. There are two year 3classes and one class at each other year level. Each teacher covers thefollowing Key Learning Areas:- Science, Technology, Computing, Visual &Performing Arts Asian LOTE 1, Language, Arts and some Mathematics, and isresponsible for assessment in these areas.
There is provision for teaching assistant to work with each teacher; this is
under review at the moment.
The programme manager is 0.5 and there is an administration assistant for
10 hours a week.
Base school class teachers are available for reference and discussion.
LOTE 2
The Asian LOTE programme is complemented by the Access Asia programme.
LOTE 3
U S I N G T H E L O T E P L A N N I N G F R A M E W O R K 1 4 1
8. Please provide information on the provision of LOTE.
Year Level Time Allocation Intensity FrequencyLOTE 1
Asian LOTE 1 3 2 daysimmersion
4 2 daysimmersion
5 2 daysimmersion
6 2 daysimmersion
LOTE 2
LOTE 3
9. What is the teaching mode of delivery (eg face-to-face, distance education,
telematics, etc)?
Mode of delivery is face-to-face.
10. Please include a brief description of your LOTE programme type (eg content
based, language based, integrated etc)?
Immersion � content focus.Integrated approach across all key learning areas.Attempted to establish a spiral curriculum.
11. What makes LOTE in your programme special?
Early commencement � year 3 immersion methods � this has lead toenhanced receptive language skills and acceptance of the idea ofcommunicating in another language.
U S I N G T H E L O T E P L A N N I N G F R A M E W O R K 1 4 2
12. Please add any additional information that you consider relevant.
Thank you for taking the time to complete this School Profile
Instrument. Please return this instrument and the following
documents (if available) to the contact person shown on the bottom
of the form:
• Current School Development Plan
• LOTE Department Plan/Policy
• Curriculum Handbook
• LOTE Teaching/Learning programmes
• Any other documentation which you consider may be of interest to this
research project
These case study scenarios are not presented as ideal LOTE programmes, but as examples of
how languages have been offered in different contexts. They illustrate both strengths andweaknesses. These are all real examples (with the names changed). Information provided in the
School Profile Proformas is presented as it was provided by the school.
U S I N G T H E L O T E P L A N N I N G F R A M E W O R K 1 4 3
Scenario 2 – Mt Nada Secondary SchoolLanguage teaching and learning at Mt Nada has a long history of acceptance within the school and
success beyond the school (eg: external examinations and other endeavours such as exchange
programmes). The language department offers several LOTEs and is staffed by experienced
teachers who are involved in continuing professional development. The teaching style of the
languages staff has been intentionally crafted (through the efforts of the head of department) to
engage learners with text, to provide learners with opportunities to converse in the target
language, and to reduce learner dependence on the teacher. There is very strong support for the
school’s language programmes from the principal.
Timetabling in the school is very sympathetic to LOTE. LOTE is compulsory in year 8 and students
are encouraged to ‘opt into’ LOTE, regardless of previous background, at any stage in their
schooling. Programmes are structured to accommodate multilevel learning. For example, the top
student in year 10 commenced LOTE in year 9. Intellectually and physically challenged students are
also included in the programme regardless of perceived academic ability.
The language programmes are extremely well resourced. There is access to video cameras, badge
machines, printers, PAL system videos, Internet, reading trolleys, books, magazines and extensive
library stocks. Teachers have their own rooms, all with large quantities of teaching aids and
materials (both consumable and non-consumable). The classrooms present as attractive text rich
environments and Kids have ownership of the classrooms – they get materials, make games.
All staff are full time and, in addition, funds are expended to employ native speakers in third term
for conversation practice in order to prepare senior students for external examinations.
The school has a long term sister school relationship with a particular target language speaking
community and operates regular exchange programmes for students in a number of languages.
Students are fulsome in their praise of these exchange programmes — After exchange my marks
went from 70% to 94%. Things became relevant.
At lower and mid-secondary level language in the classroom is deployed in response to
interactional opportunities presented through a range of texts and task types, as well as through
background speakers and exchange opportunities. Students are able to converse confidently and read
with understanding. They have a way of getting what they want without English. They have strategies for
paraphrasing.
At upper secondary level there is a change of focus. There is an increased emphasis on correctness,
in order to satisfy the demands of the tertiary entrance examinations rather than “real world” use.
In the coming year Mt Nada will have both a new principal and a new head of the LOTE
department.
U S I N G T H E L O T E P L A N N I N G F R A M E W O R K 1 4 4
School Profile Proforma
1. Please provide the following general school details:
School:
Mt Nada Secondary SchoolAddress:
Postcode
Telephone: Fax:
Email:
Contact Person:
School Type: Year Levels:
Private Girls 1-12 Staff Numbers:
Total 106 Male: 14 Female: 92Student Numbers:
Total 1012 Male: 0 Female: 1012Please tick those categories which apply to your schoolRural Location: Metropolitan Location: :!!!!
Government: Non-Government:!!!!
Gender Specific: !!!! Co-Educational:
2. Please provide a description of the student population:
We have a non-selective enrolments policy, therefore a full range of abilities.Students are from diverse backgrounds and cultures and all girls.We have 63 international students. The boarding students also contribute adifferent viewpoint.
U S I N G T H E L O T E P L A N N I N G F R A M E W O R K 1 4 5
3. Please provide a description of the local community (eg socio-economic
characteristics):
The local community could be described as advantaged socio-economically,however we have students from outer suburbs and of course the boarders,who bring a different outlook, but if you mean the actual locality it would behigh profile economically and sociologically.
4. Please provide details of the major ethnic groups represented in your school:
Major Ethnic Group Approx Population
European majorityIndonesian, Chinese, Hong Kong, SingaporeanThai, Malaysian, Taiwanese 63
5. Please provide details of the languages offered at your school:
Language NumbersTotal Male Female Background speakers
LOTE 1
EuropeanLOTE 1(Insert Name of LOTE)
227 - 227 -
LOTE 2
Asian LOTE 1 (Insert Name of LOTE)
242 - 242 1
LOTE 3
EuropeanLOTE 2(Insert Name of LOTE)
91 - 91 2
U S I N G T H E L O T E P L A N N I N G F R A M E W O R K 1 4 6
6. Please provide language enrolment details by year level (male, female, background
speaker):
Year Level LOTE 1 LOTE 2 LOTE 3
M F B M F B M F B
3 - 25 -4 - 25 -5 - 26 -6 - 53 -
7 - - 288 85 37 129 38 23 1210 30 22 1311 23 20 1012 24 11 16
7. Please provide a staffing profile for each language. (eg How many people teacheach LOTE, is there provision for teacher assistants, in what ways do other staffcomplement the LOTE programmes?)
LOTE 1European LOTE 1One full-time Head of Subject (years 8-12)One part-time (years 8,9,10,12)One doing Primary who also teaches European LOTE 1One assistant to come in to assist with oral practice and exams.
LOTE 2Asian LOTE 1One full-time Head of Subject (years 3, 8, 10, 11, 12)One part-time (years 4, 5, 6, 8, 9)One assistant to come in to assist with oral practices and exams.
LOTE 3European LOTE 2Two part-time job sharingOne responsibility as Head of Subject and Head of LOTE teaching years10, 11, 12One teaching years 7, 8, 9 and also European LOTE 1** No other staff � ALL SPECIALISTS
U S I N G T H E L O T E P L A N N I N G F R A M E W O R K 1 4 7
8. Please provide information on the provision of LOTE.
Year Level Time Allocation Intensity Frequency
LOTE 1
European LOTE 1 7 1 � 1/2 Hours 30 mins 3 per 8 day cycle
8 4 Hours 60mins 4 per 8 day cycle
9 4 Hours 60mins 4 per 8 day cycle
10 4 Hours 60 mins 4 per 8 day cycle
11 6 Hours 60 mins 6 per 8 day cycle
12 6 Hours 60 mins 6 per 8 day cycle
LOTE 2
Asian LOTE 1 3 1 - /2 hours 30 mins 3 per 8 day cycle
4 1 � 1/2 hours 30 mins 3 per 8 day cycle
5 1 - /2 hours 30 mins 3 per 8 day cycle
6 1 - /2 hours 30mins 3 per 8 day cycle
8 4 Hours 60 mins 4 per 8 day cycle
9 4 Hours 60 mins 4 per 8 day cycle
10 4 Hours 60 mins 4 per 8 day cycle
11 6 Hours 60 mins 60 mins
12 6 Hours 60 mins 6 per 8 day cycle
LOTE 3
European LOTE 2 7 1 - /2 hours 30 mins 3 per 8 day cycle
8 4 Hours 60 mins 4 per 8 day cycle
9 4 Hours 60 mins 4 per 8 day cycle
10 4 Hours 60 mins 4 per 8 day cycle
11 6 Hours 60 mins 6 per 8 day cycle
12 6 Hous 60 mins 6 per 8 day cycle
U S I N G T H E L O T E P L A N N I N G F R A M E W O R K 1 4 8
9. What is the teaching mode of delivery (eg face-to-face, distance education,telematics, etc)?
Face-to-FaceWe also use lots of cassettes, videos, group work, pair work � not too muchup-front teaching. Students responsible for their own learning is a big issuewith us, as is students working at their own pace.
10. Please include a brief description of your LOTE programme type (eg contentbased, language based, integrated etc)?
The LOTE programme is an outcomes based programmeCommunicative, integrating language skills, culture, grammar, use oftext books, themes, projects, so a mixture.
11. What makes LOTE in your school special?
The teachers! The environment!A difficult question. Non-threatening environment, students encouraged toexplore their own potential, fun, nice secluded definitive LOTE area whichteachers and students alike are able to �own�.
12. Please add any additional information that you consider relevant.
As Head of Department, I have for many years been able to build up afantastic environment thoroughly conducive to best practice LOTE learning �pick my staff, collect great resources and create exactly the rightenvironment.
Thank you for taking the time to complete this School Profile
Instrument. Please return this instrument and the following
documents (if available) to the contact person shown on the bottom
of the form:
• Current School Development Plan
• LOTE Department Plan/Policy
• Curriculum Handbook
• LOTE Teaching/Learning programmes
• Any other documentation which you consider may be of interest to this
research project
U S I N G T H E L O T E P L A N N I N G F R A M E W O R K 1 4 9
Scenario 3 - Belvedere – Lower SecondaryThis programme provides the middle stage of an established pathway for LOTE learning from
primary to tertiary. LOTE is compulsory in the first year of secondary schooling. Beyond this
LOTE is treated as an option and retention rates are relatively low. There is a lot of evidence of
Asian LOTE in the physical environment of the school eg: signs, displays etc. The head of
department is vibrant and committed to LOTE and is tireless in her efforts to have LOTE
recognised and supported within the school context. Comments from the principal indicate that
he doesn’t see himself as having a role in the success of LOTE in his school. He is comfortable
leaving it all to the departmental head.
Resources for language learning principally comprise textbooks, although there is an
acknowledgment from the head of department that the school needs to think about possible future
roles for information technology in LOTE teaching and learning. Classroom activities are
orchestrated in accord with the demands of textbooks and, although learners role play and play
games extensively, these activities are predominantly rehearsed and there is little evidence of
spontaneous target language deployment in or beyond classrooms. Links between Asian languages
and the Society and Environment learning area are encouraged by the LOTE departmental head,
but links with other learning areas have not been established.
Many learners have been engaged in the study of their LOTE for a number of years. Many also
seem to have been using the same textbooks for both their primary and secondary language study.
Learners with in excess of four years experience of language learning describe language learning in
association with topics like animals, food and shopping.
There is very little evidence of consciousness about metacognition and metalanguage from either
staff or learners. One teacher commented, I think it is when they can actually reproduce it without me
having to stand there and provide them with every single word, that’s the actual point that they have learnt
something and they’ve remembered what they’ve learnt. Both learners and teachers talk about learning
LOTE by memorising a lot of things. Learners uncritically accept repetition and rote as the principal
tools of language learning. There is little evidence of learners being confident and comfortable with
risk taking even though the teachers talk about this as being important. Best learners did not
present as being confident LOTE speakers. One commented, it’s really confusing sometimes because
we mix things around and feel stupid.
Opportunities are provided for in-country trips and language camps but the focus of these activities
appears to be more on motivation than on actual language learning and language use.
U S I N G T H E L O T E P L A N N I N G F R A M E W O R K 1 5 0
School Profile Proforma1. Please provide the following general school details:
School:
Belvedere Secondary SchoolAddress:
Postcode
Telephone: Fax:
Email:
Contact Person:
School Type: Year Levels:
Government � Co-Educational 7-10 Staff Numbers:
Total 78 Male: 24 Female: 54
inc. 13 admin staff (5 admin) (8 admin)
Student Numbers:
Total 725 Male: 357 Female: 368
Please tick those categories which apply to your schoolRural Location: Metropolitan Location: :!!!!
Government: !!!! Non-Government:
Gender Specific: Co-Educational: !!!!
2. Please provide a description of the student population:
Students at the school range from 12 � 18 years old although there are veryfew students who are 17 & 18.Almost all of the students continue with their schooling in Year 11.
U S I N G T H E L O T E P L A N N I N G F R A M E W O R K 1 5 1
3. Please provide a description of the local community (eg socio-economic
characteristics):
4. Please provide details of the major ethnic groups represented in your school:
Major Ethnic Group Approx Population
5. Please provide details of the languages offered at your school:
Language NumbersTotal Male Female Background speakers
LOTE 1
Asian LOTE 1 (Insert Name of LOTE)LOTE 2
Asian LOTE 2 (Insert Name of LOTE)LOTE 3
EuropeanLOTE 1 (Insert Name of LOTE)
2
6. Please provide language enrolment details by year level (male, female, background
speaker):
Year Level LOTE 1 LOTE 2 LOTE 3
M F B M F B M F B
U S I N G T H E L O T E P L A N N I N G F R A M E W O R K 1 5 2
7. Please provide a staffing profile for each language. (eg How many people teacheach LOTE, is there provision for teacher assistants, in what ways do other staffcomplement the LOTE programmes?)
LOTE 1
Two teachers teach Asian LOTE 1. One has been teaching at the school since1989 (although spent 1 year in Asia and 6 months working in the Departmentof Education). The other has been working at the School since the beginningof this year.Other staff who have been on study tours to Asia complement the programmeby teaching about Asia in their subject areas (Maths, English, P.E. &Technology).This programme is also complemented by the Access Asia programme.
LOTE 2
Two teachers teach Asian LOTE 2. One has been teaching at the school since1992 and the other since the beginning of this year. One is a backgroundspeaker.The Asian LOTE 2 programme is complemented by the Access Asiaprogramme.
LOTE 3
One teacher teaches European LOTE 1. She has been teaching at the schoolsince 1990. She is a background speaker in European LOTE 2.The programme is complemented by a number of other staff who speak theEuropean LOTE and so can talk to the students on simple topics.
U S I N G T H E L O T E P L A N N I N G F R A M E W O R K 1 5 3
8. Please provide information on the provision of LOTE.
Year Level Time Allocation Intensity FrequencyLOTE 1Asian LOTE 1 Year 7 2hrs 30mins 50min
lessons3 times perweek
Year 8,9,10 3hrs 20mins 2x50minlesson1x100minlesson
3 times perweek
LOTE 2Asian LOTE 2 Year 7 2hrs 30min 50min
lesson3 times perweek
Years 8,9,10 3hrs 20min 2x50minlesson1x100minlesson
3 times perweek
LOTE 3European LOTE 1 Year 7 2hrs 30 mins 50min
lesson3 times perweek
Years 8,9,10 3hrs 20mins 2x50 minlesson1x100minlesson
3 times perweek
9. What is the teaching mode of delivery (eg face-to-face, distance education,
telematics, etc)?
Face-to-Face.
10. Please include a brief description of your LOTE programme type (eg content
based, language based, integrated etc)?
The programme is an outcomes based programme and outcomes are reportedon to the parents at the end of each semester. Each semester unit followsthematic modules.The Asian LOTE 1 and 2 courses have been compiled from numerous sourcesincluding teacher written materials.
11. What makes LOTE in your programme special?
The high language proficiency level of each of our LOTE teachers with threebackground speakers.The innovations in our LOTE programmes through Department of Educationgrants we have won.The links with our feeder primary schools where Asian LOTE 1 and EuropeanLOTE 1 are taught and the links with the schools where Asian LOTE 2 istaught enable us to offer continuing LOTE in all languages, commencing year 7level.
U S I N G T H E L O T E P L A N N I N G F R A M E W O R K 1 5 4
12. Please add any additional information that you consider relevant.
LOTE has high profile in our school. The principal is very supportive being thehigh school principal representative on the Department of Education LOTEAdvisory group.Belvedere High School is one of the few schools where there is an executiveteacher with specialist LOTE skills in charge of LOTE faculty. There is only 1other high school like this.
Thank you for taking the time to complete this School Profile
Instrument. Please return this instrument and the following
documents (if available) to the contact person shown on the bottom
of the form:
• Current School Development Plan
• LOTE Department Plan/Policy
• Curriculum Handbook
• LOTE Teaching/Learning programmes
• Any other documentation which you consider may be of interest to this
research project
U S I N G T H E L O T E P L A N N I N G F R A M E W O R K 1 5 5
Scenario 4 – Gracelyn Primary
Three years ago LOTE and Asian Studies were unanimously voted the number one priority by staff
in the school. Asia and the target language are evident everywhere in the physical environment of
the school. The programme is highly visible and has been actively supported and promoted by the
school principal over a number of years.
The LOTE programme is structured to provide all students from year 3 with two thirty-minute
lessons per week that are never timetabled on consecutive days. Classroom teachers are present
for each LOTE lesson and are expected to actively learn the target language with their students.
There is a designated LOTE teacher who teaches all classes and who is provided with an additional
time allocation for coordination of both the LOTE and Asian Studies programmes in the school.
In general, the school community is very positive about the LOTE programme. Over the years the
programme coordinator and the school principal have worked hard to both build and sell the
programme — It takes a lot of leadership to get the timetabling right, the resourcing right, and the PR
[Public Relations] bit — the communicating with parents … being a strong advocate when parents have
queries or concerns about the LOTE programme.
The LOTE programme is topic based (eg we can do shopping) and the teacher has made a conscious
decision to plan collectively for his classes. This means that there is not a huge differentiation
between what the year 5s and year 7s do in class, and can do in terms of target language output. In
talking about this, LOTE learners from different year groups responded with statements such as,
we can do pretty much the same as them, and basically the same.
There is a heavy emphasis on writing (for accountability according to the LOTE teacher) with the
result that the teacher is tied up for two to three weeks just to test. There are two textbooks used as
the principal source of input and worksheets are a common feature of lessons. The approach is
very mechanical with little evidence, from either teacher or learners, of any understanding of the
processes associated with second language acquisition.
Eighty percent of the staff are described as being supportive of the programme and this is very
much appreciated by the LOTE teacher — It’s handy to have bottom up support around you. A
number of classroom teachers expressed their enjoyment of being involved with their students’
language learning. None, however, had made any attempt to integrate LOTE with other areas of
the curriculum.
Learners were unquestioning about what happened in the programme. They just did it and saw it
as better than Social Studies and good but sometimes it’s a bit boring. Students from this programme,
with five years exposure to the target language, move from Gracelyn into a high school programme
where, in their first year, they complete two taster LOTE courses including 6 months of the LOTE
they have studied, but from the beginning again.
U S I N G T H E L O T E P L A N N I N G F R A M E W O R K 1 5 6
School Profile Proforma
1. Please provide the following general school details:
School:
Gracelyn Primary SchoolAddress:
Postcode
Telephone: Fax:
Email:
Contact Person:
School Type: Year Levels:
Year Levels: K � 7 Linear Design Levels K-7 Staff Numbers:
Total: 24 Male: 5 Female: 19Student Numbers:
Total 473 Male: 237 Female: 236
Please tick those categories which apply to your school
Rural Location: !!!! Fast growing town Metropolitan Location:
Government: !!!! Non-Government:
Gender Specific: Co-Educational: !!!!
U S I N G T H E L O T E P L A N N I N G F R A M E W O R K 1 5 7
2. Please provide a description of the student population:
A very even distribution of boys to girls (gender balance). Theability/intelligence of the student is normally distributed with no largenumbers of gifted children requiring extension work no large numbers ofchildren requiring extra assistance (children at risk).
3. Please provide a description of the local community (eg socio-economic
characteristics):
This area is one of the fastest growing shire area populations in Australia.The town supports a very prosperous hinterland featuring mineral sandsmining, a booming wine industry and tourist industry.The school draws students from a predominantly middle class socio-economicgroup (business and professional), although this is changing with more singleparent families on lower incomes moving into rental accommodation in thearea.
4. Please provide details of the major ethnic groups represented in your school:
Major Ethnic Group Approx Population
European with no significantly large ethnic groups
5. Please provide details of the languages offered at your school:
Language NumbersTotal Male Female Background speakers
LOTE 1
Asian LOTE 1 (Insert Name of LOTE)
307 149 158LOTE 2
(Insert Name of LOTE)LOTE 3
(Insert Name of LOTE)
U S I N G T H E L O T E P L A N N I N G F R A M E W O R K 1 5 8
6. Please provide language enrolment details by year level (male, female, background
speaker):
Year Level LOTE 1 LOTE 2 LOTE 3
M F B M F B M F B3 29 34 63
4 26 37 635 26 39 656 34 33 67
7 32 17 49
7. Please provide a staffing profile for each language. (eg How many people teacheach LOTE, is there provision for teacher assistants, in what ways do other staffcomplement the LOTE programmes?)
LOTE 1
Asian LOTE 1� One LOTE teacher� Teachers stay in the LOTE class and participate in the lesson� Because the area is an Access Asia school, teachers complement the
learning of Asian LOTE 1 and other Asian countries across the curriculum.
LOTE 2
LOTE 3
8. Please provide information on the provision of LOTE.
Year Level Time Allocation Intensity FrequencyLOTE 1
Asian LOTE 1 3 2 X 30mins4 2 X 30mins5 2 X 30mins6 2 X 30mins
U S I N G T H E L O T E P L A N N I N G F R A M E W O R K 1 5 9
9. What is the teaching mode of delivery (eg face-to-face, distance education,
telematics, etc)?
Face-to-Face 2 X 30 Minutes Lessons Per Week.
10. Please include a brief description of your LOTE programme type (eg contentbased, language based, integrated etc)?
A language based programme that uses communicative tasks, games, gap tasks,rehearsed and unrehearsed role-plays. Classroom instructional language in thetarget language.
11. What makes LOTE in your programme special?
LOTE is not used as non-teaching time for other learning areas the classteachers stay in and learn alongside their students.The LOTE programme is supplemented by Studies of Asia across thecurriculum (K-7) through the Access Asia Programme.Year 7�s have the opportunity to participate in an annual trip to the targetcountry which includes activities with our sister school.
12. Please add any additional information that you consider relevant.
Thank you for taking the time to complete this School Profile
Instrument. Please return this instrument and the following
documents (if available) to the contact person shown on the bottom
of the form:
• Current School Development Plan
• LOTE Department Plan/Policy
• Curriculum Handbook
• LOTE Teaching/Learning programmes
• Any other documentation which you consider may be of interest to this
research project
These case study scenarios are not presented as ideal LOTE programmes, but as examples of
how languages have been offered in different contexts. They illustrate both strengths andweaknesses. These are all real examples (with the names changed). Information provided in the
School Profile Proformas is presented as it was provided by the school.
U S I N G T H E L O T E P L A N N I N G F R A M E W O R K 1 6 0
Scenario 5 – Dayton High School
At Dayton High School a language other than English is compulsory for all students in their first
two years. Students have access to three languages, and study their LOTE for five fifty-minute
lessons per week. A language other than English is not compulsory in year 10 and retention of
students into year 10 language classes is a problem for the school and has resulted in year 10
students being required to undertake their language studies through distance education.
Even though LOTE is considered to be a key learning area within the school there isn’t a Languages
Department per se, but rather, languages come under the umbrella of the school’s Social Science
Department. This situation means that the head of Social Sciences, who has no experience of
learning a second language and no knowledge with regard to teaching one is, in fact, responsible for
LOTE. Members of the language staff are very uncomfortable with this situation. They feel that
the head of department is not only ignorant of LOTE issues but that he is unsupportive of them.
There is also a sense, from the teachers, of them feeling as if they are under-resourced because
priority is perceived to be given to the Social Science area.
Language teachers express frustration at not being included in the decision-making processes of the
school. Not only do they feel that that have no voice in ‘their’ department, they find it difficult to
approach the principal and generally find him unresponsive.
There are no designated classrooms for LOTE in the school and because of this teachers find it
difficult to create language and print rich environments for their learners. Partly as a result of this,
language teaching and learning is heavily textbook dependent with learners focusing on reading and
writing and having only limited access to a variety of text types. Viewing text procured via satellite
is not available even though there is a satellite connection in the principal’s office.
Many students come to their high school experience having previously studied their LOTE. Little
account is taken of this and LOTE classes are not streamed until year 10. There is very little
evidence of multi-level learners being catered for, in any way, prior to year 10. It seems that there
is a correlation between this and the problem of retention into year10, but this issue has yet to be
explored by the school.
There are opportunities for learners to study in-country. Students who avail themselves of these
opportunities demonstrate considerably enhanced proficiency levels and are overall much more
positive about their language learning experiences on return from their period in-country.
U S I N G T H E L O T E P L A N N I N G F R A M E W O R K 1 6 1
School Profile Proforma
1. Please provide the following general school details:
School:
Dayton High SchoolAddress:
Postcode
Telephone: Fax:
Email:
Contact Person:
School Type: Year Levels:
Government High School 7-12 Staff Numbers:
Total Male: Female:
Student Numbers:
Total Male: Female:
Please tick those categories which apply to your school
Rural Location: Metropolitan Location:
Government: Non-Government:
Gender Specific: Co-Educational:
2. Please provide a description of the student population:
U S I N G T H E L O T E P L A N N I N G F R A M E W O R K 1 6 2
3. Please provide a description of the local community (eg socio-economic
characteristics):
Low to middle class socio-economic group.
4. Please provide details of the major ethnic groups represented in your school:
Major Ethnic Group Approx Population
Aboriginal 35 � 40 %Greek 10%
5. Please provide details of the languages offered at your school:
Asian Language NumbersTotal Male Female Background speakers
LOTE 1
Asian LOTE 1 (Insert Name of LOTE)
112 43 41 2
LOTE 2EuropeanLOTE 1 (Insert Name of LOTE)
93 37 56 1
LOTE 3Asian LOTE 2 (Insert Name of LOTE)
58 26 32 1
6. Please provide language enrolment details by year level (male, female, background
speaker):
Year Level LOTE 1 LOTE 2 LOTE 3
M F B M F B M F B8 27 19 46 12 18 30 9 11 20
9 29 18 57 24 30 54 12 17 29
10 7 4 11 1 8 9 5 4 9
11 0 1 1 ¯ 1 1 2
12 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0
U S I N G T H E L O T E P L A N N I N G F R A M E W O R K 1 6 3
7. Please provide a staffing profile for each language. (eg How many people teach
each LOTE, is there provision for teacher assistants, in what ways do other staff
complement the LOTE programmes?)
LOTE 1Asian LOTE 1
LOTE 2European LOTE 1
LOTE 3Asian LOTE 2
8. Please provide information on the provision of LOTE.
Year Level Time Allocation Intensity FrequencyLOTE 1
Asian LOTE 1 8 5 x 50mins 3 terms 1 double,35mins perweek
9 5 x 50mins � ��
10 5 x 50mins � ��
11 5 x 50mins � ��
12 5 x 50mins � ��
LOTE 2
European LOTE 1 8 as above9 as above10 as above
LOTE 3
Asian LOTE 2 8 as above9 as above10 as above11 as above
U S I N G T H E L O T E P L A N N I N G F R A M E W O R K 1 6 4
9. What is the teaching mode of delivery (eg face-to-face, distance education,
telematics, etc)?
Year 8, 9, 10 face-to-face. Except year 10 European LOTE 1 � distanceeducation and year 11 & 12 Asian LOTE 1 and 2 � distance education.
10. Please include a brief description of your LOTE programme type (eg content
based, language based, integrated etc)?
LOTE Programmes are both content and language based � following ALLguidelines at present.
11. What makes LOTE in your programme special?
The principal teaches Asian LOTE 1 promotes annual visits of Asian students to ourschool.LOTE is compulsory at Yr 8 and Yr 9I�m not really sure?!!LOTE is part of the Social Education faculty - ?!
12. Please add any additional information that you consider relevant.
LOTE compulsory for Yrs 8 & 9� Eng. and Maths streamed close but not other learning areas. Yr 10 recentlystreamed, kids comment positively on the difference this has made.Although LOTE is a key learning area, it is very much the option in the bookletgiven.
Thank you for taking the time to complete this School Profile
Instrument. Please return this instrument and the following
documents (if available) to the contact person shown on the bottom
of the form:
• Current School Development Plan
• LOTE Department Plan/Policy
• Curriculum Handbook
• LOTE Teaching/Learning programmes
• Any other documentation which you consider may be of interest to this
research project
These case study scenarios are not presented as ideal LOTE programmes, but as examples of
how languages have been offered in different contexts. They illustrate both strengths andweaknesses. These are all real examples (with the names changed). Information provided in the
School Profile Proformas is presented as it was provided by the school.
U S I N G T H E L O T E P L A N N I N G F R A M E W O R K 1 6 5
Scenario 6 – Robinson Primary SchoolThe principal of this primary school is very positive about LOTE and is anxious that his students
have as much exposure to LOTE as is possible. Because of this he has gone out of his way to be
able to offer a number of languages to the students in the school.
A teacher of a modern European language works part-time at the school and provides non-contact
time for classroom teachers. She is passionate about her LOTE and she exudes passion and
enthusiasm with the students which is generally reciprocated. She is keen to give the LOTE a
presence in the school. Because of this she is constantly involving the students in preparations for
the performance of assembly items, special days/afternoons, excursions and the like. She hosts
afternoon teas for parents and has a lot of after school gatherings associated with the LOTE and its
culture. She spends a great many more hours working in, and for the school than for which she is
paid.
In addition to this LOTE, one year group at Robinson Primary is involved with the study of another
European LOTE. The school principal was approached by the consulate who offered to provide a
teacher free of charge. Convinced of the value of learning languages other than English the
principal introduced this LOTE to year 4 students who had one year’s experience of learning the
other LOTE. The LOTE teacher’s only contact with the school is for the short periods of time
that he is in the school teaching. The language is not a community language for the school as only
one student can be considered to be a background speaker. Within these classes there appears to
be a more concentrated focus on aspects of culture and history than there is on language learning.
In the final two years of their education the children at Robinson Primary study an Asian LOTE.
The teachers of this LOTE come into the school from the local high school where neither of the
two European LOTEs is taught. The teachers are trained secondary teachers who are unfamiliar
with primary curricula and primary students. Many of the students regard this Asian LOTE as a fill
in subject — It’s not important anyway. Some are also quite contemptuous of both the teaching
styles of the teachers and the content of the Asian LOTE programme – I can’t understand her and its
sometimes difficult to hear what she [native speaker of the target language] says, and I’m sick of singing
silly little songs.
A number of students express frustration at having limited exposure to three very different
languages. The principal does not share this concern. He just wants the children to have lots of
different experiences. The teacher on site is trying to lobby for her LOTE to be taught in the final
two years. But, because the high school ‘picks up the tab’ for the Asian LOTE, and because the
European language is not offered in the secondary context, it seems unlikely that this will happen.
U S I N G T H E L O T E P L A N N I N G F R A M E W O R K 1 6 6
School Profile Proforma
1. Please provide the following general school details:
School:
Robinson Primary SchoolAddress:
Postcode
Telephone: Fax:
Email:
Contact Person:
School Type: Year Levels:
Primary K-7 Staff Numbers:
Total 20 Male: 7 Female: 13
Student Numbers:
Total 340 Male: 146 Female: 194
Please tick those categories which apply to your school
Rural Location: Metropolitan Location: !!!!
Government: !!!! Non-Government:
Gender Specific: Co-Educational: !!!!
U S I N G T H E L O T E P L A N N I N G F R A M E W O R K 1 6 7
2. Please provide a description of the student population:
In general the school population can be described as multi-cultural, althoughit is predominantly Australian/European. 7% of students, representing 13nationalities, were born in countries where English is not the nationallanguage. 1% of students belong to families where English is not spoken athome.
3. Please provide a description of the local community (eg socio-economic
characteristics):
The suburb was established in the early 1970s. The majority of thepopulation has middle income and upper middle income, white and blue collaroccupations drawn from business houses, small business operators, publicservice, teachers, nurses, accountants, lecturers, private contractors, andtrades persons.
4. Please provide details of the major ethnic groups represented in your school:
Major Ethnic Group Approx Population
Australian/European 93%
5. Please provide details of the languages offered at your school:
Language NumbersTotal Male Female Background speakers
LOTE 1
EuropeanLOTE 1 (Insert Name of LOTE)
132 67 65 Nil
LOTE 2
Asian LOTE 1 (Insert Name of LOTE)
93 44 39 Nil
LOTE 3
EuropeanLOTE 2 (Insert Name of LOTE)
51 27 24 1
U S I N G T H E L O T E P L A N N I N G F R A M E W O R K 1 6 8
6. Please provide language enrolment details by year level (male, female, background
speaker):
Year Level LOTE 1 LOTE 2 LOTE 3
M F B M F B M F BYear 2 7 6 0Year 3 15 16 0
Year 4 16 20 0 27 24 1Year 5 29 23 0
Year 6 23 23 0Year 7 19 28 0
7. Please provide a staffing profile for each language. (eg How many people teacheach LOTE, is there provision for teacher assistants, in what ways do other staffcomplement the LOTE programmes?)
LOTE 1
European LOTE 11 LOTE teacher who supplies non-contact time for other staff.No teacher assistants or background speaker helpers.LOTE teacher and library teacher co-plan for some classes about dinosaurs.LOTE teacher and year 3 teacher co-plan for fruit and vegetables.
LOTE 2
Asian LOTE 1Teacher from the local high school teaches 2 thirty minute lessons with year6 and year 7 students.There is no liaison with classroom teachers and the content is oriented aroundtopics like family, colours etc.
LOTE 3
European LOTE 2The consulate provides a teacher, at no cost to the school of 1 year grouptwice a week.The programme focuses predominantly on culture.
U S I N G T H E L O T E P L A N N I N G F R A M E W O R K 1 6 9
8. Please provide information on the provision of LOTE.
Year Level Time Allocation Intensity FrequencyLOTE 1
European LOTE 1 23
1 hr1 hr
Once a weekOnce a week
45
1 hr1 hr
Once a weekOnce a week
LOTE 2
Asian LOTE 1 6 1 hr 2 thirty minlessons
7 1 hr 2 thirty minlessons
LOTE 3
European LOTE 2 4 1 hr 2 thirty minlessons
9. What is the teaching mode of delivery (eg face-to-face, distance education,
telematics, etc)?
Face to face.
10. Please include a brief description of your LOTE programme type (eg content
based, language based, integrated etc)?
Predominantly language-object programme with some content-based emphasisin some classes.This is dependent on whether the classroom teacher is happy to liase with theLOTE teacher.
11. What makes LOTE in your school special?
This is a primary school and yet students access three languages.
U S I N G T H E L O T E P L A N N I N G F R A M E W O R K 1 7 0
12. Please add any additional information that you consider relevant.
Thank you for taking the time to complete this School Profile
Instrument. Please return this instrument and the following
documents (if available) to the contact person shown on the bottom
of the form:
• Current School Development Plan
• LOTE Department Plan/Policy
• Curriculum Handbook
• LOTE Teaching/Learning programmes
• Any other documentation which you consider may be of interest to this
research project
U S I N G T H E L O T E P L A N N I N G F R A M E W O R K 1 7 1
A workshop on usingthe Package
U S I N G T H E L O T E P L A N N I N G F R A M E W O R K 1 7 2
Key concepts and the TrainingProgramme
Participants will learn about:• The Planning Framework• Various Instruments and Tools• Research into LOTE• Consulting & facilitating
Work through the phases of envisioning:• Identify information needs• Interpreting & connecting• Articulate visions & goals
Work through the phases of enacting:• Identify factors• Assess impact• Plan & do
Review vision & reflect on plan
Work through:• Monitor, review and act
Review programme, identify future directions
Practise on scenarios provided
Practise on own case study
Reflect on role & future actions
Act
Evaluating
Envisioning
Enacting
Evaluating
Develop a plan based on previous work
Practise on scenarios provided
Practise on own case study
Reflect on role & future actions
Practise on scenarios provided
Practise on own case study
U S I N G T H E L O T E P L A N N I N G F R A M E W O R K 1 7 3
The Training ProgrammePurposeTo educate participants in the use of the LOTE Planning Framework and to enhance participants’
consultancy skills in relation to their training work.
As a result, participants will be better able to support others in the use of this package as they plan
for LOTE programme sustainability.
ParticipantsState/territory LOTE Consultants/teachers and school administrators representing the
Government, Catholic and Independent sectors.
Programme Overview
Pre-course workWorkshop participants are expected to link with one school in which they intend to implement this package. Priorto the workshop participants are asked to collect some information about the current situation of LOTE in thatschool. Participants are encouraged to use Proforma 1 and, where possible, to organise a day for generalobservation of the chosen school and its LOTE programme. Collection of the case study information is critical forthe effectiveness of the training programme.
Training course Day 1
Evaluating
Day 2
Planning Phases
PlanningInstruments
Day 3
Putting it all
together
Session 1 Introduction to course andeach otherIntroduction to thePlanning Framework
Introduction to the dayIdentifying informationneeds
Introduction to the dayDeveloping the plan
Session 2 Identifying factors affectingthe uptake andsustainability of LOTEprogrammes in schools
Identifying possibleconnections between theLOTE programme andother aspects of the school
Evaluating the plan
Session 3 Using the ProficiencyPotential Framework toidentify the state of theLOTE programme within aschool
Developing and articulatingvision and goals for aLOTE programme
Consulting and Facilitating
Session 4 Evaluating own case studyusing information from thefirst two sessions
Review of the day
Identifying and analysingfactors that will promotethe vision and hinder thevision
Review the day
Review of programme andpackage, evaluation andplanning next steps.
U S I N G T H E L O T E P L A N N I N G F R A M E W O R K 1 7 4
References andGlossary
U S I N G T H E L O T E P L A N N I N G F R A M E W O R K 1 7 5
Reference List
U S I N G T H E L O T E P L A N N I N G F R A M E W O R K 1 7 6
List of ReferencesEducation Department of Western Australia and National Asian Languages and Studies in
Australian Schools (NALSAS) Taskforce, (1998) Factors influencing the uptake of Modern Standard
Chinese, Korean, Modern Greek and German at Primary and Secondary Level. Perth: Education
Department of Western Australia. Project conducted and reported by Simpson Norris
International.
Education Department of Western Australia (1999) Two Languages Too: Second Language Learning
and Children with Special Needs. Perth: Education Department of Western Australia. Project
conducted and reported by Simpson Norris International with the Centre for Curriculum and
Professional Development, Murdoch University.
National Asian Languages and Studies in Australian Schools (NALSAS) Taskforce, (1999) Pathways
for Australian School Students to Achieve High Levels of Proficiency in Asian Languages. Sydney: New
South Wales Department of Education and Training. Project conducted and reported by Simpson
Norris International with the Centre for Curriculum and Professional Development, Murdoch
University.
Norris, L.G.B (1999) Pathways for Australian School Students to Achieve High Levels of Proficiency in
Languages Other Than English. Unpublished EdD dissertation. Perth: Murdoch University.
Simpson Norris International (1999) A Cost Benefit Analysis of Italian Programmes in Western
Australian Government Primary Schools, unpublished, written for the Education Department of
Western Australia.
Simpson Norris International (1999) Language Teacher Proficiency or Teacher Language Proficiency: An
Environmental Scan of the Qualities, Competencies and Knowledges Required of Language Teachers,
unpublished, written for the NALSAS Taskforce.
Simpson Norris International (1999) LOTE 2000: New Horizons Strategy. An Evaluation Report,
unpublished, written for the Education Department of Western Australia.
Simpson Norris International (1999) A Review of the STAR Peer Tutoring Programme, unpublished,
written for the Education Department of Western Australia.
Lewin, K. (1997) Resolving Social Conflicts and Field Theory in Social Science. AM Psychological
Association.
Motorola University (1993) Cross Functional Process Mapping Facilitator Guide – Total Time
Implementation Workshop. Issue Number 3, February 1993.
U S I N G T H E L O T E P L A N N I N G F R A M E W O R K 1 7 7
Bibliography
U S I N G T H E L O T E P L A N N I N G F R A M E W O R K 1 7 8
Bibliography
Allwright, D. , & Bailey, K. M. (1991). Focus on the Language Classroom: An introduction to classroom
research for language teachers. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Bachman, L. , & Palmer, A. (1996). Language Testing in Practice. Oxford, UK: Oxford University
Press.
Bourne, R. , & Hagger-Vaughan, L. (1993). Developing IT in Modern Languages. Language Learning
Journal, 8, 51-53.
Christie, F. , & Rothery, J. (1990). Literacy in the Curriculum: Planning and assessment. In F.
Christie (Ed.), Literacy for a Changing World. Hawthorn, Australia: ACER.
Clyne, M. (1991). Immersion Principles in Second Language Programmes - research and policy in
multicultural Australia. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 12(1-2), 55-65.
Clyne, M. , Jenkins, C. , Chen, I. , Tsokalidou, R. , & Wallner, T. (1995). Developing Second
Language from Primary School: Models and outcomes. Deakin, ACT: NLLIA.
Coleman, J. A. (1992). Project-based Learning, Transferable Skills, Information Technology and
Video. Language Learning Journal, 5, 35-37.
Commins, L. (1996). Multi-Proficiency Levels in LOTE Learning. Nathan: NLLIA.
Council of Australian Governments. (1994). Asian Languages and Australia's Economic Future.
Queensland: Queensland Government Printer.
Cunningham, D. (1986). Transition in languages other than English from primary to post-primary
schools. Babel, 21, 3, Nov., 13-19.
Cunningham, D. (1994). Continuity in LOTE curriculum and methodology. Language Learning
Journal, 10, Sept., 69-74.
de Courcy, M. (1991). The Benowa Experience - student views of an immersion school in
Australia. Babel, 26, 1 July, 10-16.
de Courcy, M. (1993). Making Sense of the Australian French Immersion Classroom. Journal of
Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 14(3), 173-185.
de Courcy, M. (1997). Benowa High: A decade of French immersion in Australia. In R. K.
Johnson & M. Swain (Eds.), Immersion Education: International Perspectives. Cambridge, UK:
Cambridge Applied Linguistics.
de Courcy, M. , & Birch, G. (1993). Reading and Writing Strategies used in a Japanese Immersion
Programme: ERIC ED388 097.
U S I N G T H E L O T E P L A N N I N G F R A M E W O R K 1 7 9
DEET. (1991). Australia's Language: The Australian language and literacy policy. Canberra, ACT:
Australian Government Publishing Service.
Djite, P. G. (1994). From Language Policy to Language Planning: An overview of languages other than
English in Australian education. Canberra: NLLIA.
Doughty, C. , & Williams, J. (1998). Pedagogical Choices in Focus on Form. In C. Doughty & J.
Williams (Eds.), Focus on Form in Classroom Second Language Acquisition. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge
Applied Linguistics.
Eckermann, A-K . (1994). One Classroom, Many Cultures: Teaching strategies for culturally different
children. Sydney: Allen & Unwin.
Education Department of Western Australia (1999). Two Languages Too: Second Language Learning
and Children with Special Needs. Perth: Education Department of Western Australia. Project
conducted and reported by Simpson Norris International with the Centre for Curriculum and
Professional Development, Murdoch University.
Education Department of Western Australia and National Asian Languages and Studies in
Australian Schools (NALSAS) Taskforce, (1998). Factors influencing the uptake of Modern Standard
Chinese, Korean, Modern Greek and German at Primary and Secondary Level. Perth: Education
Department of Western Australia. Project conducted and reported by Simpson Norris
International.
Ellis, R. (1988). Classroom Second Language Development. Exeter: Prentice Hall.
Ellis, R. (1992). Learning to Communicate in the Classroom: A study of two language learners'
requests. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 14(1), 1-23.
Ellis, R. (1997). Second Language Acquisition. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Ely, C. M. (1994). Preparing Second Language Teachers for Strategy Instruction: An Integrated
Approach. Foreign Language Annals. 27 (3), 335-342.
Fernandez, S,. Pauwels, A. and Clyne, M. (1993). Unlocking Australia’s Language Potential: Profiles of 9
key languages in Australia:. Canberra: NLLIA.
Fernandez, S. (1992). Room for Two: A study of bilingual education at Bayswater South Primary School.
Melbourne, Australia: National Languages and Literacy Institute of Australia.
Fraser, B. J. (1994) Parent involvement and participation at Glen Katherine Primary School, Victoria,
Australia: A case study. The International Congress for School Effectiveness and Improvement,
Melbourne.
Gao, M. (1996). Asian languages in Australia. Babel, 31, 1, Apr-June, 14-17.
Gibbons, J (1994). Depth or breadth? Some issues in LOTE teaching. Australian Review of Applied
Linguistics, 17 (1), 1-22.
U S I N G T H E L O T E P L A N N I N G F R A M E W O R K 1 8 0
Hamers, J. , & Blanc, M. (1982). Towards a social-psychological model of bilingual development.
Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 1, 29-50.
Harley, B. , Allen, P. , Cummins, J. , & Swain, M. (Eds.). (1990). The Development of Second
Language Proficiency. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Applied Linguistics.
Higgins, C. (1993). Computer-assisted Language Learning: Current programmes and projects.
Washington, DC: ERIC Digest.
Hill, D. T. (1994). Taking Stock: In-country Indonesian studies and the case for an Australian
consortium. Asian Studies Review, 18(1), 31-44.
Howden, B (1993). Planning for success: Introducing a primary language programme. Babel, 28, 3,
Nov., 10-14.
Howell, F. (1995). Chinese language learning: Student needs and expectations. Babel, 30, 2, July-
Oct., 22-27, 33.
Jenkins, S.-A. , & Servel-Way, M. (1990). Doing IT Meaningfully in Modern Languages. Language
Learning Journal, 2, 75-76.
Johnson, K. E. (1995). Understanding Communication in Second Language Classrooms. Cambridge.
UK: Cambridge Language Education.
Johnson, R. K. (1996). Discovering Successful Second Language Teaching Strategies and Practices:
From programme evaluation to classroom experimentation. A Response. Journal of Multilingual and
Multicultural Development, 17(2-4), 105-113.
Johnson, R. K. , & Swain, M. (Eds.). (1997). Immersion Education: International perspectives.
Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Applied Linguistics.
Kalantzis, M. , Cope, B. , Noble, G. and Poynting, S. (1990). Cultures of Schooling: Pedagogies for
cultural differences and social access. London: The Falmer Press.
Krashen, S. D. (1981). Second Language Acquisition and Second Language Learning. Oxford, UK:
Pergamon.
Lewin, K. (1997) Resolving Social Conflicts and Field Theory in Social Science. AM Psychological
Association.
Lightbown, P. , & Spada, N. (1993). How Languages are Learned. Oxford, UK: Oxford University
Press.
Long, M. H. (1980). Input, Interaction and Second Language Acquisition. Unpublished PhD.
Dissertation. Los Angeles: UCLA.
U S I N G T H E L O T E P L A N N I N G F R A M E W O R K 1 8 1
Long, M. H. , & Robinson, P. (1998). Focus on Form: Theory, Research and Practice. In C.
Doughty & J. Williams (Eds.), Focus on Form in Classroom Second Language Acquisition. Cambridge,
UK: Cambridge Applied Linguistics.
Long, M. H. , & Sato, C. J. (1983). Classroom Foreigner Talk Discourse: Forms and functions of
teachers' questions. In H. W. Seliger & M. H. Long (Eds.), Foreign Language Research in Cross-
cultural Perspective. Amsterdam, Holland: John Benjamins.
Mackerras, C. (1996) Asian languages: Policy issues and options. Babel, 31, 2, July-Sept, 8-15, 36.
Marcos, K. (1994). Internet for Language Teachers. Washington, DC: ERIC Digest.
McColl, J. (1992). Achieving Student Autonomy in Speaking through the use of Interactive Video.
Language Learning Journal, 5, 25-26.
Motorola University (1993) Cross Functional Process Mapping Facilitator Guide – Total Time
Implementation Workshop. Issue Number 3, February 1993. CLYNE, M. et al (1995). Developing
Second Language From Primary School: Models and outcomes. Canberra: NLLIA.
National Asian Languages and Studies in Australian Schools (NALSAS) Taskforce, (1999). Pathways
for Australian School Students to Achieve Higher Levels of Proficiency in Asian Languages. Sydney: New
South Wales Department of Education and Training. Project conducted and reported by Simpson
Norris International with the Centre for Curriculum and Professional Development, Murdoch
University.
National Board of Employment, E. A. T. (1996). The Implications of Technology for Language
Teaching. Canberra, ACT: AGPS.
Nicholas, H. , Moore, H. , Clyne, M. , & Pauwels, A. (1993). Languages at the Crossroads.
Melbourne, Australia: NLLIA.
Norris, L.G.B (1999). Pathways for Australian School Students to Achieve High Levels of Proficiency in
Languages Other Than English. Unpublished EdD dissertation. Perth: Murdoch University.
O’Malley, J. M & Chamot, A. U. (1990). Learning Strategies in Second Language Acquisition.
Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Applied Linguistics.
Peddie, R. A. (1992). Languages in Schools: Policy and practice. Language and Language Education, 2,
1, 30-59.
Prabhu, N. S. (1991). The learners' effort in the language classroom. In E. Sadtono (Ed.),
Language Acquisition and the Second/Foreign Language Classroom. Singapore, Malaysia: RELC.
Read, J. (1995, March 25-28). Recent Developments in Australian Immersion Language Education.
Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Association for Applied Linguistics, Long
Beach, CA.
Rice, A. (1994). In-country and Australian-based Indonesian Programmes. Asian Studies Review,
18(1), 44-60.
U S I N G T H E L O T E P L A N N I N G F R A M E W O R K 1 8 2
Rockwell, C. (1995). Attitudes to Language Learning - a survey of three Sydney high school
classes. Babel, 30, 2, July-Oct, 12-17, 36-37.
Simpson Norris International (1999). A Cost Benefit Analysis of Italian Programmes in Western
Australian Government Primary Schools, unpublished, written for the Education Department of
Western Australia.
Simpson Norris International (1999). A Review of the STAR Peer Tutoring Programme, unpublished,
written for the Education Department of Western Australia.
Simpson Norris International (1999). Language Teacher Proficiency or Teacher Language Proficiency: An
Environmental Scan of the Qualities, Competencies and Knowledges Required of Language Teachers,
unpublished, written for the NALSAS Taskforce.
Simpson Norris International (1999). LOTE 2000: New Horizons Strategy. An Evaluation Report,
unpublished, written for the Education Department of Western Australia.
Stern, H. H. (1983). Fundamental Concepts of Language Teaching. Oxford, UK: Oxford University
Press.
Swain, M. (1996). Discovering Successful Second Language Teaching Strategies and Practices:
From programme evaluation to classroom experimentation. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural
Development, 17, 2-4, 89-104.
Swain, M. (1998). Focus on form through conscious reflection. In C. Doughty & J. Williams
(Eds.), Focus on Form in Classroom Second Language Acquisition. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Applied
Linguistics.
Vincent, E. , & Hah, M. (1996). Strategies Employed by Users of a Japanese Computer Assisted
Language Learning (CALL) Programme. Australian Journal of Educational Technology, 12(1), 25-34.
Wallace, M. (1991). Training Foreign Language Teachers: A Reflective Approach. Cambridge, UK:
Cambridge University Press.
Zhang, F. (1992). Native Chinese speakers and teaching Chinese as a second language. In LOUIE, K
(Ed.), New Developments in Chinese Language Teaching and Teacher Training. Brisbane: Key Centre
for Asian Languages and Studies, University of Queensland.
U S I N G T H E L O T E P L A N N I N G F R A M E W O R K 1 8 3
Glossary ofKey Terms
U S I N G T H E L O T E P L A N N I N G F R A M E W O R K 1 8 4
Glossary of Key Terms
Autonomous – Term used in the Proficiency Potential Framework as an identifier of student
characteristics. Students who are autonomous take responsibility for their own learning, use the
teacher as a resource for their learning and are able to access other resources in order to improve
their proficiency in the LOTE.
Broad Input – Characteristic of a programme where learners receive a wide range of listening,
reading and viewing input in the target language.
Content Based Programme – A language programme where some other subject matter is
taught through the target language, rather than the language being an end in itself.
Context – One element of the Proficiency Potential Framework, which is significant in
determining whether a LOTE programme, is embedded or marginalised. Context refers to the
wider educational and political context in which language teaching and learning takes place. This
relates to issues such as politics, economics, the nature of the educational institution and learning
environment, status and power, positions and interrelationships.
Dependence – Term used in the Proficiency Potential Framework to denote student
characteristics. Students who are dependent are reliant on an external resource for their LOTE
learning, for example, the teacher or a specific textbook. Some styles of teaching may promote
student dependence.
Deployment Orientation – Term used in the Proficiency Potential Framework to indicate
whether students are using the target language meaningfully in real contexts or whether they are
generally restricted to rehearsal and artificial language use.
Embedded – The term embedded refers to the solidity of a LOTE programme. Whether a
programme is embedded or not depends on the interaction of three aspects of the programme:
the context in which the programme is situated (ie: Is the overall school environment supportive of
the programme, or not?); the language input to which learners are exposed; and the intake
processes by which input is transformed into intake and then output by students.
Focused Input – Characteristic of a programme where learners have unintentionally restricted
access to target language input. Programmes where learners work predominantly from a textbook
or from worksheets are examples of a focused input programme.
Incorporation – Incorporation of LOTE into the life of the school is regarded as one element of
sustainable LOTE programmes. Incorporation goes beyond integration of LOTE into other
learning areas and may be reflected in such things as general school activities such as school
assemblies, cultural days, school and community interaction and exchange programmes.
U S I N G T H E L O T E P L A N N I N G F R A M E W O R K 1 8 5
Input – Input refers to the samples of oral, written and viewed language to which a learner is
exposed while learning or using a particular target language. We have defined three types of target
language exposure, broad input, selective input and focused input.
Intake – Intake refers to the portion of input that learners attend to and take into their short-
term memory, and subsequently, given the right conditions, into their interlanguage.
Integration – Term used to refer to the use of LOTE in other learning areas and/or the learning
of skills from other learning areas in the LOTE.
Interlanguage – The learner’s developing second language knowledge. It may have
characteristics of the learner’s native language, characteristics of the second language and some
characteristics which seem to be very general and tend to occur in most interlangauge systems.
Language Object Programme – A language programme in which learning the target language is
the end in itself.
Marginalised – Opposite of embedded, it refers to the overall fragility of a LOTE programme. A
LOTE programme is considered marginalised when the overall context in which the programme is
operating is not supportive of LOTE, where students are exposed to focused target language input
and where there is little evidence that teachers or students understand the processes of teaching
and learning a LOTE.
Non-Deployment Orientation – Term used to describe a LOTE learning environment where
students are not provided with opportunities for real and meaningful language use.
Output – Output refers to what students are able to say and do in and through their target
language.
Proficiency Potential Framework – The Proficiency Potential Framework provides a
conceptual framework for describing language programmes in terms of language teaching and
learning and the potential for students to attain proficiency in the language. It is a tool for auditing
language programmes in terms of their potential to produce proficient learners.
Selective Input – Characteristic of a programme where a conscious choice is made to limit input
so as to enable particular outcomes. Programmes where input is selected for the purpose of
enhancing prospects of success in an examination are selective input programmes.
Sustainable – A LOTE programme is considered to be sustainable if the programme is embedded
in the fabric of the school and has the potential to sustain itself despite staffing or other changes.