2.1 SLA research

In the last two decades in Australia this has been a burgeoning field heavily influenced by connections with and visits from international scholars, particularly SLA researchers, such as Long, Lightbown, Gass, Pica, Pienemann and Swain. It also reflects the presence in Australia of the postgraduate students supervised by these scholars and/or those closely associated with them (e.g. Di Biase, Doughty, Harrington, Iwashita, Mackey, Nicholas, Oliver, Philp, Storch). In more recent times the field has benefitted from a great deal of cross-fertilization with New Zealand, for instance through the combined Australian and New Zealand applied linguistics conferences, and especially through collaboration with internationally recognized scholars from that country, particularly Ellis, and also Adams et al. (e.g. Loewen & Philp Reference Loewen and Philp2006; Bitchener & Storch Reference Bitchener and Storch2013; Philp, Adams & Iwashita Reference Philp, Adams and Iwashita2014).

Studies in SLA in Australia have been underpinned by various theoretical positions, ranging from cognitive interactionist (e.g. Iwashita & Harrington Reference Iwashita, Harrington and Sakamoto2008; Alptekin Reference Alptekin2011) and from more sociocultural perspectives (e.g. Storch & Wigglesworth Reference Storch, Wigglesworth and Batston2010). However, it does appear that those Australians working within the interactionist paradigm, which is most commonly attributed to the work of Long (see, for example, his updated Interaction Hypothesis, 1996), seem to adopt a fairly pragmatic position explaining acquisition to both cognitive and social-cultural perspectives. For instance, Tognini, Oliver & Philp (Reference Tognini, Oliver and Philp2010) found in their study of peer interaction and language choice that both theoretical perspectives had explanatory power. Specifically, meaning-focused tasks that embedded information exchange and co-construction of meaning appeared to support second language (L2) development. However, use of first language (L1) (English) for foreign language learning, in this case Italian and French, also had an important role to play, but this was context dependent.

Australian SLA research in the reviewed period has also covered a diverse range of areas including that with a focus on: vocabulary (e.g. Harrington & Jiang Reference Harrington and Jiang2013; Van Zeeland Reference Van Zeeland2013); morphology (Zhang & Widyastuti Reference Zhang and Widyastuti2010); feedback (e.g. written feedback – Bloomfield Reference Bloomfield2013); affective factors (e.g. Bordia et al. Reference Bordia, Wales, Gallois and Pittam2008; Matsumoto Reference Matsumoto2009; Swain Reference Swain2013), and more specifically learning strategies (Lam Reference Lam2010); and, processing of L2 forms (Boss Reference Boss2008; Dyson Reference Dyson2010; Al Shatter Reference Al Shatter2011; Bae & Oh Reference Bae and Oh2013).

With regard to the area of ‘processing’, and based on the work of Pienemann (who was located in Australia for a number of years), Processability Theory has had a considerable impact on SLA research, both internationally and within Australia. Research carried out by Di Biase and colleagues (e.g. Di Biase, Bettoni & Nuzzo Reference Di Biase, Bettoni, Nuzzo, Keatinge and Kessler2009), but also Mackey & Oliver (Reference Mackey and Oliver2002), Philp (Reference Philp2003), Iwasaki (Reference Iwasaki, Philp, Oliver and Mackey2008) and others demonstrates the influence of this work. For example, a longitudinal study by Dyson (Reference Dyson2010) followed the development of two English as a second language (ESL) learners, aged 11 and 12, and explored their acquisition based on the emergence criteria incumbent within the Processability Theory.

Australian SLA studies have been undertaken within oral and written SLA domains. Storch (Reference Storch2009, Reference Storch2011), for example, has undertaken a considerable body of research on L2 writing, particularly in relation to collaborative writing, both individually and with colleagues (e.g. with Wigglesworth 2010). Like many SLA studies in Australia, this work has important implications for pedagogy. For instance, one study by Storch & Hill (Reference Storch and Hill2008) used a mixed method design to examine those factors that contribute to improved English proficiency, particularly related to writing skill development. They found that positive change was associated with an input-rich environment within classes, the performance of various writing tasks and feedback on student writing.

Australian SLA studies have mostly been concerned with the development of English as a second and target language, but they have also included other languages, such as Spanish (Sánchez-Castro & Mrowa-Hopkins Reference Sánchez-Castro and Mrowa-Hopkins2012), French (White & Storch Reference White and Storch2012), Japanese (Iwashita & Sekiguchi Reference Iwashita and Sekiguchi2009; Iwashita Reference Iwashita2012), Chinese (Campbell & Storch Reference Campbell and Storch2011; Harrington & Jiang Reference Harrington and Jiang2013), Korean (Kim Reference Kim2012) and even Australian sign language (Auslan) (Slegers Reference Slegers2010). Further, and possibly as a consequence of the large number of international postgraduate students studying SLA in Australian universities, local publications also include research undertaken in other locations. For example, Maad (Reference Maad2012) examined task difficulty in Tunisia; Dibaj (Reference Dibaj2011) investigated vocabulary acquisition in Iran; and Yu & Watkins (Reference Yu and Watkins2008) studied motivational and cultural correlates for SLA in China. Cai & Lee (Reference Cai and Lee2010) also undertook their study in China, investigating lexical processing by students studying English. In addition, SLA studies in Australia, like many places around the world, have predominately focused on adult learners, but they have also included child and adolescent studies (Oliver, Philp & Mackey Reference Oliver, Philp, Mackey, Philp, Oliver and Mackey2008; Oliver Reference Oliver, Mackey and Polio2009; Tognini & Oliver Reference Tognini, Oliver, Alcón and Safont2012).

As well as diversity in topics, SLA research in Australia has also involved a range of research methods – experimental (e.g. Iwashita & Sekiguchi Reference Iwashita and Sekiguchi2009); quasi-experimental (e.g. Oliver & Grote Reference Oliver and Grote2010), using stimulated recall (Lam Reference Lam2010); mixed methods (e.g. Storch & Hill Reference Storch and Hill2008; Coxhead Reference Coxhead2011); qualitative methods, including interviews (e.g. Gvozdenko & Bernat Reference Gvozdenko and Bernat2011); case studies (e.g. Zhang & Widyastuti Reference Zhang and Widyastuti2010); and longitudinal research (e.g. Iwasaki Reference Iwasaki, Philp, Oliver and Mackey2008; Dyson Reference Dyson2010). For example, Iwasaki in her study followed an English background child ‘Ben’ who acquired Japanese as a L2 in an immersion context in Australia. Her study can be described as ‘theory testing’ as she investigated the acquisition of different structures, comparing these to developmental order of acquisition of adult Japanese as an L2 (JSL) learners in both cross-sectional and longitudinal studies.

Most of the SLA research undertaken in Australia has implications for pedagogy, but also aligned with this is research explicitly concerned with L2 teaching. Recent publications in these areas are described in the next section.

2.2 L2 teaching and pedagogy research

Research into ESL and languages teaching and pedagogy in Australia represents significant areas of contribution. The areas of research into ESL pedagogy range from ESL in mainstream Australian schools through to teaching adult international students and adult migrants. Taken together, the studies provide valuable insights into how best to support the needs and language development of students from culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds.

Australian researchers such as Gibbons (Reference Gibbons2008) and Hammond (Reference Hammond2008a, Reference Hammond2008b, Reference Hammond2012) have made notable contributions to understanding what constitutes an optimal learning environment for ESL students in mainstream classrooms. Drawing on Vygotsky's sociocultural theory of learning, Gibbons, Hammond and their team have developed a model of quality ESL instruction, which is widely known as ‘scaffolding pedagogy’ (Gibbons Reference Gibbons2008; Hammond Reference Hammond2008a, Reference Hammond2008b). This pedagogy recognizes the importance of: explicit modelling of academic language; the need to make connections with students’ prior knowledge; the need for careful sequencing of learning through achievable steps; and, the importance of engaging students in substantive conversation. The model of pedagogic design provides an invaluable framework for creating a ‘high challenge and high support’ learning environment which is conducive to ESL learning and development (Hammond Reference Hammond2008a, Reference Hammond2008b; Alford & Jetnikoff Reference Alford and Jetnikoff2011; Booth Reference Booth2012).

The diversity of students in Australian classrooms has been the impetus for research into an effective ESL pedagogy – one which is responsive to differences between students and language learning processes. For a considerable period of time in Australia there have been many students from refugee backgrounds enrolling in schools. In recent times there have been increasing numbers of students from Africa, Asia and the Middle East. Some of these students have disrupted schooling and low levels of literacy in both English and their L1. As a result, several Australian research teams have examined the challenges confronted by African refugee students and their teachers (Oliver, Haig & Grote Reference Oliver, Haig and Grote2009; Miller & Windle Reference Miller and Windle2010; Windle & Miller Reference Windle and Miller2012; Miller Reference Miller2013). This body of research highlights significant issues relating to these students’ literacy levels, which affect their access to and success in the mainstream classroom. For example, Miller & Windle (Reference Miller and Windle2010), Windle & Miller (Reference Windle and Miller2012) and Miller (Reference Miller2013) report on their ongoing project concerning the needs of low-literacy refugee-background students. They argue that supporting these students requires a differentiated learning programme that focuses on comprehension, communication and written practice.

With the new Australian Curriculum: English (ACARA 2009) being implemented across all the Australian states, other work also has been undertaken to examine the implications of the curriculum changes for students from diverse language and cultural backgrounds (Morgan Reference Morgan2009). For instance, there is growing interest in Australian research about how school-based ESL curricula and pedagogy can acknowledge and support English language learning of Aboriginal students (Rose Reference Rose2011; Oliver et al. Reference Oliver, Grote, Rochecouste and Exell2013). The paper by Mullin & Oliver (Reference Mullin and Oliver2010) considered the various theoretical underpinnings of particular L2 pedagogy, namely Accelerated Literacy (AL), previously called Scaffolded Literacy, developed by Gray & Cowey (Reference Gray and Cowey2001) for Aboriginal students, and how acquisition of literacy in an L2 by Aboriginal students could potentially be explained by such theories. Australian researchers in this area also strongly advocate for literacy initiatives, such as those by Gray and Cowey, to supplement and enable home and school partnership (Chen & Harris Reference Chen and Harris2009).

In the extensive Australian ELICOS (English language courses for overseas students) setting, research into L2 teaching centres on the provision of effective English for academic purposes (EAP) programmes. Rather than simply focusing on the method of language delivery, recent Australian research has continued to pay attention to diverse aspects of academic literacies – vital to ESL students’ academic success in tertiary studies. In the selected EAP studies included in this review, Humphrey (Reference Humphrey2010) highlights the importance of making explicit the discourse practices of the community whilst providing learners with language skills necessary for their writing development. Rowland (Reference Rowland2009) examines how an ‘exploratory practice’ strategy can offer an integrated approach for teaching academic reading. Other aspects of academic literacies that have been examined include textual borrowing and citation practices of university students (Cheung Reference Cheung2012); vocabulary learning and development (Foley Reference Foley2009; Hirsh & Coxhead Reference Hirsh and Coxhead2009; Coxhead Reference Coxhead2011); effectiveness of conferencing in an EAP writing class (Xiang & O'Loughlin Reference Xiang and O'Loughlin2008); and embedded language support to meet diverse learning needs (Briguglio & Watson Reference Briguglio and Watson2014).

Recently, a significant number of Australian research studies have addressed the issues of good classroom practice, social inclusion and internationalization. These studies are strongly aligned with the current Australian education requirements and occur in an environment which is increasingly geared towards high-quality and sustainable programmes of study. For example, Dawson (Reference Dawson2011) reports on the positive impact brought about by the implementation of Good practice principles for English language proficiency for international students in Australian universities established by the Australian government in 2008. Human relationships and social inclusion are promoted as important areas of language teaching for their instrumental roles in fostering social and cultural understanding (Cadman Reference Cadman2008; Garvey Reference Garvey2008; Fallon Reference Fallon2010) and motivating learning (Kebble Reference Kebble2008; Dooey, Oliver & Rochecouste Reference Dooey, Oliver and Rochecouste2012). International students’ participation in learning and their learning outcomes is another key area of consideration. Norton (Reference Norton2008) and Dunworth (Reference Dunworth2010) suggest how successful group work and a peer-mentoring programme may promote participation.

Professional learning has been an important area of research in the ELICOS context in Australia. In acknowledging the complex and distinctive roles of TESOL professionals, research has also pointed to the importance of developing confidence in working with ESL students in pre-service (Andrew Reference Andrew2011) and in-service teachers (Rushton Reference Rushton2008; Cross Reference Cross2011; Nicholas, Starks & MacDonald Reference Nicholas, Starks and MacDonald2011; Thomsett et al. Reference Thomsett, Leggett and Ainsworth2011; Chappell & Benson Reference Chappell and Benson2013). Notably, Burns's (Reference Burns2014) scholarship in action research has made a significant contribution to the national professional learning programme in the Australian ELICOS sector since 2010. The success and impact of this programme has been documented in Edwards (Reference Edwards2013) and Denny et al. (Reference Denny, Couper, Healy, Macdonald, Sachtleben and Watkins2014).

The field of languages education has been plagued with a dramatic decline in students studying languages other than English in Australian schools. Research into the teaching of languages represents attempts to redress this dramatic downturn. Whilst provisions and uptake of languages involve a complex interplay of various factors, quality teaching is regarded as ‘the single most important controllable variable in successful language learning’ (Lo Bianco & Slaughter Reference Lo Bianco and Slaughter2009). As such, the body of Australian research included in this review has examined the potential use of profession standards in languages teacher development (Scarino Reference Scarino2009) and in pre-service language teacher education (Moloney 2009). Significantly, Australian work in the area of languages teaching in this period is most represented by national endeavours to develop an innovative and comprehensive curriculum for languages. For the first time, the Australian Curriculum: Languages provides an innovative architecture that specifies a cumulative sequence of fundamental learning in terms of content and achievement standards for languages teaching across the years of schooling (from primary through to secondary). The curriculum defines three distinctive learner pathways to address the issues of retention and participation (Scarino Reference Scarino2013). As an innovative curriculum, the Australian Curriculum: Languages provides a conceptual model for development of language specific curricula nationally and internationally. The reflections on the development process of this innovative undertaking are included in a special journal edition in BABEL (volume 48, number 2/3) (Kohler Reference Kohler2013; Scarino Reference Scarino2013; Scrimgeour, Foster & Mao Reference Scrimgeour, Foster and Mao2013; Troy & Walsh Reference Troy and Walsh2013). The implications of the new languages curriculum on teacher education are further discussed in Harbon (Reference Harbon2013).

A number of studies concerned with teaching practice have also provided valuable insights into how technological advances can make a difference to students’ learning. This is discussed in the following section.

2.3 Technology and language learning

The rapid development and uptake of technology has impacted in significant ways in the area of applied linguistics, most notably with regard to computer assisted language learning (CALL). In fact, CALL has gained considerable attention because of the potential benefits it can offer to language learning and teaching.

Although interest in the contribution of technology to the language field has also occurred in Australia, this has been to a much smaller extent than in other European and English-speaking countries. Moreover, the Australian studies that have been undertaken have focused as much on the way that the technology is used by language learners as it has on the way that the use of computers can assist language acquisition.

To the extent that the use of information and communication technology (ICT) and portable technologies for language learners has been researched in Australia it has mostly been done in the context of international and migrant adult ESL students (e.g. McDonald Reference McDonald2010). Studies have included the exploration of: collaborative contributions to online discussions (Prescott Reference Prescott2009); fostering active engagement in a blended learning environment (Prescott Reference Prescott2013); and the role of mobile learning technology in enhancing awareness of language learning strategies (Ashton-Hay & Brookes Reference Ashton-Hay and Brookes2011).

Tour (Reference Tour2010), for example, explores from a sociocultural perspective ICT use by international students and identifies challenges as well as the capabilities required for students’ development of ‘technoliteracy’. Four case studies were developed based on data collected by way of classroom observation, individual interviews, and participants’ diaries on their ICT use. The challenges to emerge were categorized as navigation, comprehension, application of discourses, critical analysis and factors lying within the affective domain. In alignment with these findings were those which identified capabilities and included English language, and critical and contextual capabilities. Tour concluded by stressing the importance of allowing ESL students to engage with ICT in their new sociocultural and linguistic environment.

As with papers published in other areas of applied linguistics, publications relating to ICT and language learning in Australia also include research undertaken elsewhere. For instance, Prescott (Reference Prescott2009), and Prescott & Prescott (Reference Prescott and Prescott2008) (reported above) conducted research about online/internet use by English trainee teachers in Brunei and their ability to navigate and comprehend the material they encounter. Dang & Robertson (Reference Dang and Robertson2010) collected data from Vietnamese undergraduate students, exploring their attitudes to online language learning. As with Tour (Reference Tour2010) their findings highlight the importance of sociocultural context and the benefits of structured opportunities for interactive communication and authentic learning experiences.

Two studies more closely aligned with ‘traditional’ CALL are those by Huang (Reference Huang2009), and Tan, Wigglesworth & Storch (Reference Tan, Wigglesworth and Storch2010). The first, again with data collected overseas – this time in Taiwan – reports on the code-switching that occurs in asynchronous computer-mediated communication (CMC) of Chinese-English bilinguals in Taiwan. The participants came from 20 native language backgrounds and four ethnic groups. Posts from two popular bulletin board system websites, available to the general public, and 223 emails, collected from participants, predominantly university students, were analysed in terms of patterns of language use and language choice. The findings suggest that code-switching happens not only between languages, but also between writing systems, reflecting the complex relationships that exist in CMC. In addition, the formality of the message also influenced the choice of the writing system.

In the second study, Tan et al. (Reference Tan, Wigglesworth and Storch2010) examined how the medium of communication influences the nature of pair interaction. Participants were Australian beginner-level learners of Chinese. Six pairs of students completed seven different types of writing tasks twice: once during face-to-face communication in the classroom, where they could also interact orally with each other, and once in CMC, that is using online communication outside class time. The data (i.e. audio recorded face-to-face exchanges and the logged CMC) were analysed using Storch's (Reference Storch2002) model of dyadic interaction. The findings show that the pattern of interaction did not depend on the task type, but rather on the medium of communication. In particular, CMC led to the pairs being more collaborative and cooperative. This was evident not only in the composition of the text but in the online interaction itself. Such research highlights the positive pedagogical role that CMC can play.

The role of technology in language testing has also attracted research attention in Australia. This and other testing and assessment issues are covered in the next section.

3.1 Language testing and assessment in higher education, migration and employment

Language testing research in Australia has been at the forefront of international research and developments in the field of language assessment and programme evaluation. The establishment, in 1990, of the Language Testing Research Centre at the University of Melbourne has drawn together a team of world-leading researchers including Davies, McNamara, Elder and Knoch, whose scholarship has advanced understanding of principles of language testing (Davies Reference Davies1990); measuring L2 performance (McNamara Reference McNamara1996); and the social dimension of language testing (McNamara & Roever Reference McNamara and Roever2006). Whilst Elder has published internationally during the period under review on the assessment of implicit and explicit knowledge, and Knoch has likewise published on assessing L2 writing, both have also contributed to Australian-published research investigating the assessment of Asian languages in Australian schools (see Section 3.2). This review draws heavily on selected papers from Papers in Language Testing and Assessment (until 2012, known as Melbourne Papers in Language Testing), which is now the official journal of the recently established Association for Language Testing and Assessment of Australia and New Zealand (ALTAANZ).

Because of the rapid expansion of international education in Australia, it is not surprising that the majority of language testing research in this country has focused on language proficiency tests for university studies, immigration and employment purposes. In the tertiary context, recent studies have considered issues of the validity of high-stakes tests as a reliable predictor of test-takers’ readiness for studies in English-medium universities. For example, Ohkubo (Reference Ohkubo2009) questioned the construct validity of the integrated writing task of the TOEFL iBT test, and Riazi (Reference Riazi2013) pursued a similar line of inquiry with a particular interest in the predictive validity of the Pearson Test of English (PTE) Academic for university entry. This study identified evidence of strong correlation between PTE Academic and International English Language Testing System (IELTS) tests. Other validation studies (e.g. O'Loughlin Reference O'Loughlin2009; Cope Reference Cope2011) sought to examine the validity of in-house language proficiency tests offered by ELICOS programmes. Further studies have turned to the validity of post-entry language assessments in diagnosing the needs of in-sessional L2 learners (Knoch & Elder Reference Knoch and Elder2013; Lockwood Reference Lockwood2013) as well as ethical issues of transparency and accountability apropos an in-house university test of English (Dobinson & Dunworth Reference Dobinson and Dunworth2009).

With regard to language testing for migration and citizenship purposes, both McNamara (e.g. McNamara Reference McNamara, Extra, Spotti and van Avermaet2009; McNamara & Ryan Reference McNamara and Ryan2011) and Möllering (e.g. Möllering Reference Möllering, Slade and Möllering2010; Slade & Möllering Reference Slade and Möllering2010) have published internationally in this area during the period under review, including a focus on Australian policies and practices. McNamara's work has also covered the issue of language testing, human rights and asylum seekers.

The construct of language proficiency in professional settings has attracted considerable research attention (Inoue Reference Inoue2009; Elder et al. Reference Elder, McNamara, Woodward-Kron, Manias, McColl, Webb and O'Hagan2013). This builds on earlier work on language for specific purposes (LSP) testing for occupational purposes by researchers at the Language Testing Research Centre. For example, Inoue (Reference Inoue2009) examined the validity of accuracy-orientated rating criteria for the Health Sciences Communication Skills Test (HCST) in search of a more valid and objective measure of test-takers’ strengths and weaknesses. Similarly, Elder et al. (Reference Elder, McNamara, Woodward-Kron, Manias, McColl, Webb and O'Hagan2013) identified the misalignment between the language-based rating criteria and the nature of communicative competence in clinical settings as perceived by health professionals. In the context of communication for aviation purposes, discussion of the development of an aviation test contributes to understanding the nature of test construct (i.e. precisely what is being tested) for professional communication (Van Moere et al. Reference Van Moere, Suzuki, Downey and Cheng2009) as well as the predictability of an automated test for spoken interactions modelled on simulated exchanges between pilots and controllers (Huhta Reference Huhta2009). It is worth noting that this discussion is located in a special issue of ARAL on aviation English edited by Read & Knoch (Reference Read and Knoch2009).

The fairness of language assessment has been the subject of analysis and critique in the field of language testing (e.g. McNamara & Roever Reference McNamara and Roever2006). This analysis occurs within the context of greater interest both locally and internationally in the social dimensions of language testing and the impact of tests on various stakeholders. In Australia, linking test validity to the social and cultural context of assessment, Motteram (Reference Motteram2013) contested test constructs contain tacit and implicit value assumptions such as in the IELTS academic writing test and argued that the social consequences of the use of tests should be considered as a core component of validation research.

Another key development in selected Australian studies of language testing is the attention to the effects of new technologies on computer-mediated speaking tests and challenges in assessing reading and comprehending digital and multimodal texts. Investigating the impact of the automated TOEFL computer-mediated speaking test on test results, Yu (Reference Yu2012) contends that the test-takers’ attitudes towards the delivery media is a key factor impacting on the test results. Focusing on the role of images in comprehending texts (both paper-based and digital), Unsworth & Chan (Reference Unsworth and Chan2009) argue that a national assessment programme should take account of the impact of the multimodal nature of texts in language testing.

There is also a small body of research that addresses the development of the competency-based assessment task bank unique to Australia's national Adult Migrant English Program (AMEP) (Moore & Hargreaves Reference Moore and Hargreaves2009). Lastly, and directly related to Section 4.4 on World Englishes, Elder & Harding (Reference Elder and Harding2008) provide a thoughtful commentary on the constraints of language testing with regard to English as an international language (EIL).

3.2 Language testing and assessment in school contexts

A wide variety of other research on language assessment has also been conducted in Australia in the period under review, particularly in school contexts. Australian scholar Davison has published internationally on school-based assessment and other Australian researchers have also investigated formative assessment practices. Dargusch (Reference Dargusch2010), for example, reports on formative assessment in Year 12 English, and provides a provisional framing of five elements that shaped her participant teachers’ formative assessment practices: policy and local contexts; relationships; teaching philosophy and prior experience; assessment documentation; and routines of practice. Faulkner (Reference Faulkner2011) gives an account of an innovative approach to providing feedback to students on their English essays by way of podcast recordings of comments made by the teacher as she read the essays. Other research of note on assessing writing is the innovative approach reported by Zhihui & Zhijun (Reference Zhihui and Zhijun2011), who discard rubrics-based writing assessment in favour of a ‘functional language analysis’ using a set of strategies that enable teachers to evaluate content, organization and style based on textual evidence. Oakley (Reference Oakley2011) addresses the issue of the language learning of students aged 10 to 12, and how their L1 reading comprehension cognitive strategies are assessed. Her survey found wide variability in teachers’ confidence levels and the range of strategies they used.

Another significant body of research in school contexts during the period under review concerns the Student Achievement in Asian Languages Education in Australia (SAALE) study, and a special issue of ARAL (2012, issue 3) edited by Scarino & Elder was devoted to reporting its key findings. In this edition a series of empirical studies about actual student achievements in four different Asian languages is presented and it argues for context-sensitive descriptions of learner achievements, in contrast to generalized scales that are proficiency-based (such as the Common European Framework of Reference (CEFR)). This research provides a realistic and meaningful description of language learning achievements of students learning Asian languages, taking account of two key structural variables that influence language learning: (1) time-on-task; and (2) learner background. Background is particularly pertinent in the Australian school context as there is a diversity of learners’ language and cultural backgrounds (e.g. heritage-background learners and learners of other backgrounds) which complicate language teaching.

Studies include that by Kohler (Reference Kohler2012), who deals with the time-on-task factor of learners of Indonesian, and reports that some benefits of early starters at Year 8 compared to those who have studied for only one year in secondary school, are not evident by Year 10. Iwashita (Reference Iwashita2012) investigates language background in her study of the cross-linguistic influence between similar languages (e.g. Korean and Chinese, for learners of Japanese), and learning achievements. Her findings show enhanced performance by such learners in speaking and writing tasks, but her research also highlights the importance of learners’ familiarity with aspects of Japanese culture as a key factor in their learning. Scrimgeour (Reference Scrimgeour2012) investigates the learning of Chinese by focusing on the writing performances of Year 10 Chinese heritage and non-heritage learners. He found significantly higher levels of achievement in the performances of the heritage learners, and differences in the nature of their performance (such as difficulties experienced by non-heritage learners in elaborating their writing beyond S-V-O patterns). Kim (Reference Kim2012) investigates the acquisition of discourse features of two groups of Year 10 Korean learners, one learning Korean as a foreign language in school, and the other as heritage-background learners in Saturday community schools. She found that performance differed according to task type within each group and that differences also existed between the two groups. In sum, the SAALE study provides an important foundation for further research about student learning rather than the need to simply account for proficiency levels.

Hill (Reference Hill2010) is also concerned with classroom-based assessment and languages other than English, and explores the issue of continuity between primary and secondary school languages programmes, suggesting that primary-based assessment is more concerned with cultural content and exposure whilst secondary is concerned with linguistic content and mastery.

In school contexts, the recently introduced National Assessment Program – Literacy and Numeracy (NAPLAN), a federal government attempt to set national standards across the curriculum, has been subjected to increasing public and academic scrutiny. Attention has been paid to the effects of this national testing regime and its value as a measure of quality of teaching and learner achievement. Studies have found that the institutional use of the NAPLAN test as an accountability measure has led to greater tensions between the external curriculum demands and individual students’ learning needs (Dreher Reference Dreher2012), and accompanying changes in classroom practice in literacy teaching (Hardy Reference Hardy2013). Other studies have raised the issues of reliability of the NAPLAN test as a valid indicator of EAL (English as an additional language) and Aboriginal students’ achievements (Wigglesworth, Simpson & Loakes Reference Wigglesworth, Simpson and Loakes2011; Angelo Reference Angelo2013; Dixon Reference Dixon2013; Freeman Reference Freeman2013; Nguyen, Oliver & Rochecouste Reference Nguyen, Oliver and Rochecouste2015). Consistent with these studies, in a submission to the Senate Education, Employment and Workplace Relations Committee, the Australian Council of TESOL Associations (ACTA 2013) questioned the effectiveness of this standardized testing regime. Based on the testimonies and feedback of experienced educators and other stakeholders, ACTA reported the unfair nature of NAPLAN to EAL students, highlighting its negative impact on students’ lives and the distress it causes in the classroom to teachers and students. The report also criticized the validity and reliability of NAPLAN tests for English as an additional language/dialect (EAL/D) learners, which are designed based on false assumptions that test-takers are all SAE speakers raised in Anglo-Australian culture. This is particularly the case for Indigenous students. The cultural and linguistic situation of Aboriginal people is uniquely Australian and, given its complexity, is discussed next in a separate section.

4.1 Australian Aboriginal languages and learning

In Australia there exists a small, diverse but significant Aboriginal population. These peoples, who come from all parts of the nation, have strong cultural and oral language traditions and their rich linguistic background has been the focus of a considerable body of research. This includes investigations describing often endangered languages because, although there has been ongoing assistance, support for Aboriginal people and their languages has been inconsistent. Australia also has a history of subjugating these people and their culture.

Leading this line of research work on traditional languages for over three decades is Walsh, whose research has focused mostly on those languages spoken in Northern Australia. For example, a monograph published in 2011 documents the Murinypata language. Other researchers have also targeted languages from different parts of the country: in 2008 Wafer & Lissarrague published A handbook of Aboriginal languages of New South Wales and the Australian Capital Territory. In addition, a variety of websites also exist as repositories for local languages or as a resource to support those interested in learning or teaching languages from particular regions.Footnote ²

A number of applied linguists in Australia have also been investigating the low status and lack of teaching of traditional languages and the consequence this has on the Aboriginal population. Other research in this area highlights the historical consequences of past cultural and language policies, expressing concern for the assimilationist and most recently ‘English only’ policy. For example, in 2011 a special edition of ARAL was devoted to the issue of maintenance and revitalization of Australian languages. It included articles by Devlin and McKay – both concerned with language policy and in particular the impact that changes to the bilingual policy in the Northern Territory is having on Aboriginal students. Devlin emphasizes a lack of government support in spite of evaluation and research findings, both local and international, describing the effectiveness of these bilingual programmes. He argues this lack of support results from fundamental misunderstandings about the nature and purpose of the programmes. He further claims that imposing a dominant language, namely English, without appreciating and building on the local languages is in conflict with children's rights. He describes the current compulsory teaching in English for the first four hours of each school day policy as being ‘political-bureaucratic’ and based on ‘backlash ideology’ for the purposes of ‘accountability’.

Similarly, McKay (Reference McKay2011) is critical of the unstable and largely state-dependent language situation of Aboriginal people. He outlines the importance of traditional languages, describing how crucial they are to the identity and sense of belonging of Aboriginal people, and that the poor status of these languages affects their speakers’ well-being. For example, he cites the Western Australian Aboriginal Child Health Survey in which the authors Zubrick et al. (Reference Zubrick, Lawrence, Silburn, Blair, Milroy, Wilkes, Eades, D'Antoine, Read, Ishiguchi and Doyle2004) describe the direct link between Aboriginal languages and culture, where cessation of the former leads to the loss of the latter. In turn they describe empirical studies showing that Aboriginal people who use their language are less inclined to alcohol abuse and violence. In his article, McKay also provides a brief overview of the history of Indigenous languages, including the recognition of these languages by the National Policy on Languages in 1987 (Lo Bianco) and the implementation of the bilingual programs (although he also highlights the problematic foundation of these programmes, which often did not consider different status of the languages – whether they are still spoken, known or not used at all). Overall, his article reveals a widespread ignorance about Aboriginal languages and the pressure that has been asserted on the Aboriginal population to assimilate with English speakers.

Another article in the special edition, by Gale (Reference Gale2011), provides a more optimistic slant, giving an account of teaching Aboriginal languages in the tertiary sector. She uses the metaphor of ‘rekindling warm embers’ (Reference Gale2011: 280) to describe the revival of traditional languages. She also describes the supply of language resources such as dictionaries and learner guides, a supportive classroom environment, but most especially the involvement of elders as key factors that facilitate this process. The work of Gale aligns closely with the book edited by Hobson et al. (Reference Hobson, Lowe, Poetsch and Walsh2010) titled Re-awakening languages: Theory and practice in the revitalisation of Australia's Indigenous languages published by Sydney University Press. This book describes a collection of initiatives resulting from a growing awareness of the value of Aboriginal people and their languages, and the understanding of their contribution to the linguistic and cultural diversity of the world.

In addition to research into traditional languages, and commencing with the work of Eagleson, Kaldor & Malcolm (Reference Eagleson, Kaldor and Malcolm1982), and continued by Malcolm and his colleagues (e.g. Malcolm et al. Reference Malcolm, Haig, Königsberg, Rochecouste, Collard, Hill and Cahill1999; Malcolm & Rochecouste Reference Malcolm and Rochecouste2000) including, in recent times, Sharifian, there has been a body of work centred on Aboriginal English (AE). This is the dialect spoken by many Aboriginal people in Australia – and it is one that is often used as the lingua franca between those from different language backgrounds. It is a linguistic code that is systematically different from SAE at all levels of language, i.e. phonology, vocabulary, morphology, syntax, discourse practices and cultural conceptualizations (Sharifian Reference Sharifian2000; Department of Education Western Australia 2012; Eades Reference Eades2013). As Eades (Reference Eades2013) describes it, although most Aboriginal students speak some kind of English, their variety of English, despite it being systematic and highly rule bound, differs substantially from SAE in terms of both formal features and semantic content. In relation to this, Sharifian (Reference Sharifian2008, Reference Sharifian2011) describes how Aboriginal world view, and in particular cultural conceptions, are reflected in the structure and meaning of AE.

Although there are a number of benefits of speaking AE beyond simply communicating, such as social inclusion, and creation of a positive self-identity (Eades Reference Eades2013), it can also have a number of deleterious consequences, especially social and educational. For example, Eades has undertaken extensive socio- and forensic-linguistic research on the legal consequences of being an AE speaker. She has examined the nature and implication of cross-cultural differences and the significant and often adverse impact this can have in courtrooms, especially when AE speakers are cross-examined (e.g. Eades Reference Eades2008, Reference Eades2009, Reference Eades2012).

For Aboriginal school students who speak a traditional language, creole (e.g. Kriol in the northern parts of Australia) or AE, the lack of accommodation of and understanding about linguistic diversity within the education system (see Devlin Reference Devlin2011, and McKay Reference McKay2011, as described previously), leads to considerable negative outcomes. For example, an analysis of the NAPLAN tests undertaken in 2010 shows that 40% of Aboriginal students – many of whom are AE speakers – failed (Santow Reference Santow2010). This has caused grave concerns for educators and policy makers (Wigglesworth, Simpson & Loakes Reference Wigglesworth, Simpson and Loakes2011; Gardner & Mushin Reference Gardner, Mushin and Jorgensen2013). Wigglesworth et al. (Reference Wigglesworth, Simpson and Loakes2011) highlight the problematic nature of NAPLAN describing how it is designed and targeted at those students who speak SAE, and does not accommodate the linguistic and experiential background of many Australian Aboriginal students. The research of Wigglesworth and colleagues continues and their efforts have led to questions being asked around the validity of using this type of assessment for such students, but also about those methods being used to teach Aboriginal students more generally. In particular it highlights the need to incorporate a more appropriate pedagogical approach. Recently this was highlighted in the study by Dixon (Reference Dixon2013) who questions the SAE-centric lens from which the curriculum, assessment and pedagogy are viewed.

In response to calls for improvement in this regard, there have been a number of research studies exploring how AE and Standard English co-inhabit the school classroom and the implications this has for language learning and teaching (e.g. Malcolm Reference Malcolm2011a, Reference Malcolm2011b; Malcolm & Truscott Reference Malcolm and Truscott2012). For example, some Australian schools have been less embracing of Aboriginal students’ language backgrounds and, rather than supporting and promoting their Aboriginality, the home language is discouraged in the classroom, and teaching approaches that are ‘uncomfortable’ and ‘alienating’ for the students are used (Forrest Reference Forrest and Johnson2013).

In a study published in ARAL in 2011, Oliver et al. describe teacher attitudes to AE speakers. One hundred and nine randomly chosen primary and high school teachers from different locations in Western Australia, those who participated in the special professional development (PD) programmes and those who did not, completed a questionnaire on their understanding of and attitudes towards AE. Teachers who had undertaken PD showed greater understanding of AE and more positive attitudes towards it, as well as greater metalinguistic awareness and knowledge about code-switching.

This study highlights not only the importance of teacher attitudes but also how vital it is to support the development of code-switching in school-aged Aboriginal students – that is supporting their ability to function well both in SAE and AE and to move seamlessly between the two linguistic codes, as appropriate for the communicative context. It is an idea that has received considerable support from researchers and educationalists. For instance, based on the work of Malcolm, Sharifian and Education Department-based colleagues, a number of resources have been developed (e.g. Konigsberg, Collard & McHugh Reference Konigsberg, Collard and McHugh2012; Sharifian et al. Reference Sharifian, Truscott, Konigsberg, Malcolm and Collard2012), which in turn are aligned with ongoing PD for teachers. Another example is a project undertaken by Oliver et al. (Reference Oliver, Grote, Rochecouste and Exell2013) informed by SLA methods, and involving a language needs analysis (Long Reference Long and Long2005) of Aboriginal students at a remote boarding school. The study highlighted the need for the students to develop, amongst a number of abilities, code-switching skills. Together, these various initiatives concerned with the staged development of code-switching strongly aligns with the research work of Lo Bianco (Reference Lo Bianco, Cummins and Hornberger2008). They also incorporate many of the approaches outlined by Siegel in his work on second dialect acquisition (Reference Siegel2012).

Whilst studies such as those described above may suggest a ‘deficit model’ whereby it is the Aboriginal students that have all the needs and the majority of the change must come from them, this is not, in fact, the case. Most are conceived as a two-way approach to learning (for explanation of this see the earlier work of Malcolm and colleagues, for example: Malcolm et al. (Reference Malcolm, Haig, Königsberg, Rochecouste, Collard, Hill and Cahill1999)). Other studies also celebrate the innovative and original construction of language and identity of Aboriginal youth, e.g. on Facebook (see Oliver, Grote & Nguyen Reference Oliver, Grote, Nguyen and Cree2014). Inge (Reference Inge2009) also describes how Aboriginal youth, through various multimodal literacy practices, combining image, text, song and gesture express themselves through their various linguistic codes. This includes texting, creating videos with computer software, Facebook and YouTube activity. Inge also highlights the influence of Aboriginal oral narrative structures on the development of writing. In a recent publication, James (Reference James2014) investigates an innovative approach to teaching rural Aboriginal students in Alice Springs, the Northern Territory (Australia). To make learning relevant to these AE speakers, activities based on Indigenous characters, themes and stories, as well as songs and rhymes, are used. Moreover, multimedia and high-quality, full-colour bilingual resources are created in consultation with community elders and local teachers to encourage class participation, students’ awareness of SAE grammar and production of SAE.

It is not only the cultural and linguistic diversity of Aboriginal people that has drawn the attention of Australian researchers. Australia has a history of migration of people from many backgrounds, and this is reflected in a body of research dealing with language, culture and diversity, which is described in the next section.

4.2 Language, culture and diversity

In recent decades skilled migrants, humanitarian refugees and international students have all contributed to the fabric of linguistic and cultural diversity now common in Australia, particularly in urban centres, and Australian applied linguistics researchers have investigated this rich national resource. BABEL, a journal produced by the Australian Federation of Modern Language Teacher Associations, featured a special issue in 2008 focusing on intercultural language learning and teaching. It reported on the Intercultural Language Teaching and Learning in Practice (ILTLP) Project, a nationwide programme run from 2006 to 2007, aimed at helping language teachers to increase their knowledge and understanding of the principles and pedagogy of intercultural language learning and then to put this to use by experimenting in their classroom practice to enhance student learning. Scarino & Crichton (Reference Scarino and Crichton2008) argue that intercultural language learning provides a basis for re-conceptualizing language teaching and learning, noting (2008: 5–6) that its orientation views language as:

Also in this special issue, Scarino, an ILTLP project leader, explores the shift from a focus on developing content for languages programmes to a focus on social interaction and meaning-making of participants in the teaching-learning process (Scarino Reference Scarino2008a); and, in Scarino (Reference Scarino2008b), issues concerning the difficulties with the assessment of the intercultural construct are raised and discussed. The need for a clearer focus on culture and context in language teaching and learning was subsequently addressed in an Australian-published book by Scarino & Liddicoat (Reference Scarino and Liddicoat2009), a practical guide for language teachers. Liddicoat (Reference Liddicoat2009) argues that culture and language must be understood together when considering language learning and communication in general, and provides an insightful discussion of key factors for consideration.

Papademetre (Reference Papademetre2008) is also concerned with the notion of the ‘intercultural’, particularly with how it is ‘discoursed’ in educational praxis. He challenges how researchers understand their disciplines and traditions of enquiry through dialogue that situates and/or imposes ways of interpreting and understanding ‘the intercultural’, and shows how these have implications for languages education.

The seminal work by Clyne which explored Australia's linguistic landscape, e.g. Community languages: The Australian experience (Clyne Reference Clyne1991); Australia's language potential (Clyne Reference Clyne2005), provides a backdrop for many publications that can be located at the meeting point of language, culture and diversity, during the period 2008 to 2014. Crozet (Reference Crozet2008), for example, investigates how Australia's ‘negative’ linguistic culture has shaped languages education in the country, and how knowledge of the history of languages education in Australia can help language teachers, especially those born overseas, to better understand the challenges they face in their daily work. Scarino (Reference Scarino2008c: 5.1) argues that the concept of ‘community’ has evolved in Australia over the past four decades from one seen as a ‘necessary definitional category’ to one that takes account of ‘the complexity of the lived, dynamic languages and cultures in the repertoire of students’. Piller has also written widely about issues of language, culture and diversity in the period under review in her ‘Language on the move’ blog.Footnote ³

A number of Australian scholars have investigated the nexus of language, culture and diversity from a language teacher or teacher education perspective. Neilsen (Reference Neilsen2011) sheds light on the professional and cultural identities of expatriate TESOL teachers, and how these are brought into focus by ‘moments of disruption’ in their working lives. Garvey (Reference Garvey2008) describes the ongoing development of a postgraduate certificate in TESOL programme as it responds to the needs of a diverse group of stakeholders (i.e. including students, teachers and workplaces), themselves being culturally diverse. Yazbeck (Reference Yazbeck2008) challenges the practice of assimilating EAP learners in university preparation courses. Echoing Scarino's comments on the school context, she argues that future EAP practitioners will need to focus more on individual students than teach as though cohorts were homogenous, adding that ‘critical EAP’ provides an appropriate paradigm to achieve this goal. Schmidt & Schweer (Reference Schmidt and Schweer2008) discuss university language teaching and learning, and an innovative project for advanced-level students of German in which an illustrated Swiss magazine is produced. Johnson (Reference Johnson2010) presents a case study of the Excellence in Cultural Experience Learning and Leadership (EXCELL) programme, through describing a series of workshops open to both non-English-speaking background and English-speaking background university students. Key competencies covered by the programme include: seeking help or information; making social contact and social conversation; working in a group or team setting; refusing a request; expressing disagreement; and giving feedback.

Further research of interest focuses on some, but not all, aspects of the theme of language, culture and diversity. For example, Senior (Reference Senior2008) presents the concept of ‘class-centred teaching’, and argues that it allows teachers to ‘accommodate diversity in their classes and to capitalize on that diversity for the learning and social benefit of all class members’ (p. 51). Crossman, Liu & Tang (Reference Crossman, Liu and Tang2008) provide an interesting account of perceptions of university teaching and learning in China and Australia, especially focusing on cultural stereotyping and how it is disputed by personal accounts of shared cultural, personal and professional spaces.

Several Australian scholars have focused on the issue of identity and its relation to language, culture and diversity. Pennycook, for example, has written widely on the theme of globalization, language and identity and, with Ramanathan, they offer a critical discussion of how identities get articulated in relation to migrations, spaces and histories. In particular, they provide an insightful and personal account of Anglo-Indians and identity issues, introducing the term ‘translocal post-colonialism’ to indicate ‘national identities handed down to each of us’ (Ramanathan & Pennycook Reference Ramanathan and Pennycook2008: 21). Williams & Setijadi-Dunn (Reference Williams and Setijadi-Dunn2011), discuss emergent migrant bilingual identities through research they undertook at Australia's AMEP Research Centre, as part of a longitudinal study of language and settlement issues. The bilingual participants talked of a tension between thinking of Australia as a physical location, rather than as an emotional attachment, and the researchers suggest that language teachers can usefully draw on such perceptions to explore with ‘sensitive consideration’. Two other interesting studies of note concerning language learners are Moni & Jobling (Reference Moni and Jobling2008), and Fielding (Reference Fielding2011). In the former paper, the authors make a case for including popular culture in literacy education for young adults with Down syndrome, arguing that popular culture plays a vital role in the lives of these learners and to exclude it from the curriculum leads to even further disenfranchising an already marginalized group. In the latter, Fielding reports the perspectives of two bilingual primary school students attending bilingual schools in Australia, and how they perceive their own identities as natural and positive, partly because the languages they speak are valued by society. Fielding (Reference Fielding2011: 15) argues that when the ‘assigned value of a language . . . is low, the element of investment – in the form of the community support needed – is missing from the frame required for positive bilingual identity development’ (emphasis in original).

Like these students, many within Australian society have languages other than English as their L1. This has resulted in a multicultural and multilingual society. In turn, it has been the case that many grapple with the issue of language maintenance. We discuss these areas next.

4.3 Language maintenance and multilingualism

Australian studies of multilingualism and language maintenance have made significant contributions to understanding the nuances of the multilingual practices and changes taking place within the multicultural and multilingual environment of Australia. This field of research has been, to a large extent, influenced by the work of the late Professor Michael Clyne, and his associates, in the shift and maintenance of immigrant languages.

The study of multilingual phenomena necessarily entails description of language varieties and language contact. The selected Australian studies of multilingualism have continued to focus on issues of cultural and linguistic diversity, and increased sensitivity towards the diversity. A collection of papers published in a special issue of ARAL (31, 3, 2008) addresses the issues of learning English as a contact language (Clyne & Sharifian Reference Clyne and Sharifian2008; Elder & Harding Reference Elder and Harding2008; Kirkpatrick Reference Kirkpatrick2008; Pennycook Reference Pennycook2008; Phillipson Reference Phillipson2008; Seidlhofer Reference Seidlhofer2008; Sharifian & Clyne Reference Sharifian and Clyne2008). Underpinned by a multilingual perspective, the collection provides a broader understanding of the diversity of translingual practices (Pennycook Reference Pennycook2008); the spread of English around the world (Phillipson Reference Phillipson2008; Wang Reference Wang2008); varieties of English as a major lingua franca (Seidlhofer Reference Seidlhofer2008); the linguistic features preferred in particular regions (Peters Reference Peters2008); multilingual performance/proficiency (Kirkpatrick Reference Kirkpatrick2008); and language testing (Elder & Harding Reference Elder and Harding2008). Whilst Sharifian & Clyne (Reference Sharifian and Clyne2008) question the extent to which the expansion of English is impacting on the status of other languages, Kirkpatrick argues that English provides the basis for the ‘acquisition of multilingualism’. Based on this it would seem that English education needs to be part of multilingualism (Phillipson Reference Phillipson2008).

Code-switching between languages is common as a multilingual phenomenon. In a study of language practices by Chinese-Australian children in three primary schools in Melbourne, Zheng (Reference Zheng2009) examined reasons underpinning the code-switching between English and Chinese amongst these bilingual children. The study suggests that switching in both directions is affected by the length of residence in an English-speaking community, the exposure to languages in schools, and family communication patterns; however, switching to English is found to be more closely related to the length of residence, so the longer the bilingual children live in Australia, the more they switch to English. Further, the Language other than English (LOTE), or ‘Languages’ programmes, as they have more recently been labelled, are reported to have played a significant role in fostering positive attitudes towards Chinese and helped maintain those heritage languages (e.g. Mandarin, Cantonese).

A significant contribution of Australian research has been the development of key methodologies for investigating language maintenance and shift phenomena. A comprehensive review of previous research trends in the area of language maintenance is provided in Rubino (Reference Rubino2010). Methods such as sociological mapping of the language ecology of the country using national census data have provided detailed analysis of language shift within each immigrant group, and across groups and time periods. For example, quantitative analysis of large-scale census data has enabled identification of key socio-demographic factors affecting language maintenance in the Australian context (Rubino Reference Rubino2010).

Other studies have continued to examine factors impacting on maintenance efforts. For example, Hatoss, Starks & van Rensburg (Reference Hatoss, Starks and Rensburg2011) examine factors affecting language maintenance in an Australian Afrikaans-speaking community. This study found evidence of language maintenance within the first generation where Afrikaans was employed as language of emotion and friendship, highlighting the fundamental role of family in language maintenance. However, the study also identified signs of language shift within the home with only 4 out of the 17 families studied reporting categorical use of Afrikaans as the home language. Hatoss et al. (Reference Hatoss, Starks and Rensburg2011) attributed the decline of the language use to the cultural proximity between English and African cultures. They argue that the perceived importance of the ethnic language to identity is critical to language maintenance.

Language planning and policy plays a pivotal role in language maintenance in immigrant contexts. The late Professor Richard Baldauf is well known for his very significant contribution to language planning and policy research, but it has been published internationally rather than locally and covers a wide range of different national contexts. Within Australia the selected work of Hatoss (Reference Hatoss2012) presents an interesting retrospective analysis of the planning decisions made by religious institutions such as ethnic churches, in this case, the Lutheran church in Australia between 1838 and 1921. The paper draws attention to the complex relationships between language, religion and identity in the immigrant context, highlighting the church's role in its language planning decisions and the complexity of factors shaping the German-Lutheran identity in Australia.

The role of languages education in promoting language maintenance has also been a subject of investigation. Lo Bianco (Reference Lo Bianco2009) pointed to a dramatic decline in the provision and uptake of languages programmes in Australian universities. He argues that the commitment to expanding language skills is crucial for revitalizing languages and developing a multilingual Australia. In another paper, Lo Bianco (Reference Lo Bianco2010) further suggests that ‘saving’ languages largely relies on work on ‘teaching’ languages, highlighting three important relations: that of language use and learning; investment in learning and purpose of language learning; and competence and identity. Lo Bianco & Slaughter (Reference Lo Bianco and Slaughter2009) argue that a positive attitude is required for the effective provision of a multi-language education in reviving language skills. Other suggestions include raising the profile of languages amongst the general community and promoting the learning of languages at a young age (Scott Reference Scott2009).

The studies reviewed above underscore the multifaceted nature of the factors contributing to language maintenance. This is further evident in Cruickshank's (Reference Cruickshank2012) analysis of the learning of Arabic in three different contexts. The study found that conflicting views of language impacted on learner engagement and on the identity positions available to learners, especially to Arabic-background speakers. It argues that the constructs of language and identity need to be taken into account in classrooms for language learning and teaching to be effective.

Related to these areas of language maintenance and multilingualism there is a small but significant number of Australian researchers working in the sub-discipline of World Englishes, and the next section provides an overview of their work, particularly how it relates to language teaching and learning.

4.4 World Englishes

A milestone publication in Australia on the topic of World Englishes was the special issue of the ARAL in 2008. As noted in the previous section, in its coverage EIL was viewed and debated by a range of leading scholars, both Australian or Australian-based, (e.g. Clyne, Sharifian, Pennycook, Kirkpatrick, Elder, Harding and Peters) and international researchers (Philippson, Seidlhofer and Lidi). To some extent this work captured the flavour of research that would subsequently be published in Australia or internationally by Australian researchers. Kirkpatrick is well known as a specialist on English in East and South-East Asia, especially in the context of language policies in the ten Association of South-East Asian (ASEAN) countries, and regarding issues of English intelligibility in the region. Pennycook has an international reputation for his work on the spread of English globally, although his more recent work (since 2007) has focused more on language, popular culture and linguistic diversity. Below, three specific areas are explored – those that we feel best encompass the work of Australian-published research in the field of World Englishes in the period 2008 to 2014: (1) native-speaker/non-native-speaker (NS/NNS) research; (2) empowerment and disadvantage caused by the rise of English; and (3) Australian English as a variety of World Englishes.

With regard to the first area, a study by Tananuraksakul explored the effects of EIL on NNS overseas students studying and living in Australia, and found unintelligibility, arising from having had contact with speakers of many different varieties of English causing them ‘World Englishes Shock’ (Tananuraksakul Reference Tananuraksakul2009). Several publications of Australian conference proceedings have included important research in the field of NS/NNS issues. For example, Mahboob, a leading figure in the non-native English teacher (NNEST) movement (see Mahboob Reference Lipovsky, Mahboob and Mahboob2010), has also researched racism and TESOL (Mahboob Reference Mahboob, Mahboob and Lipovsky2009) and, with Lipovsky, students’ appraisal of NS and NNS teachers (Lipovsky & Mahboob Reference Lipovsky, Mahboob and Mahboob2010). Findings from this research indicate the valuable role that NNS teachers have in supporting L2 learning in monolingual classrooms as they have a good understanding of L1 and potential L1 transfer. Indeed it is claimed they do this better than NS teachers can. Related to this work Hamid, Zhu & Baldauf (Reference Hamid, Zhu and Baldauf2014) raise the concern of how ESL teachers can distinguish between SLA errors and systematic features of nativized varieties of English.

Australian scholarship has made a significant contribution to understanding the consequences of the ‘rise of English’ in recent times, particularly in the fields of education and employment. Piller and colleagues have published on the marginalization of languages other than English in Australia, in particular discussing the failure of a top-down monolingual ‘mindset’ policy agenda. Most recently, a special issue of the ARAL in 2014, edited by Piller, is devoted to linguistic diversity and social cohesion in Australia. In the issue Musgrave & Bradshaw (Reference Musgrave and Bradshaw2014) review social inclusion policy in Australia and discuss the need for an evidence-based approach to address whether inclusion is construed primarily as enhancing intercultural communication or as assimilation to the mainstream. Dixon & Angelo (Reference Dixon and Angelo2014) discuss the implications for social inclusion of the ‘invisibility’ of the language competencies of Indigenous students in Queensland schools, arguing that language seems not to be perceived as an important operative variable in student performance. Butorac (Reference Butorac2014) reports on how English programmes for newly arrived migrants are based on a ‘deficiency’ model, and argues that race and gender issues are never problematized in their mediation of language learning and inclusion. Major et al. (Reference Major, Terraschkle, Major and Setijadi2014) consider social inclusion from the perspective of recent migrants in their workplaces. They investigated the ways that language and language practices can contribute to feelings of inclusion and exclusion, noting that a supportive work environment is more likely to lead to migrants feeling a sense of belonging; however, this can be offset when the job is not commensurate in status with pre-migration employment. Chang (Reference Chang2014) focuses on written feedback on assignments received by Taiwanese students studying at universities in Australia, and argues that the paucity of any valuable feedback in effect acts as an exclusionary practice in the development of learning and academic literacies.

Australian researchers, not surprisingly, have led the way in researching the English used in Australia. For example, important research has been undertaken by Malcolm on the phenomenon of AE (see 4.1) and, most recently, he has explored this in line with the way in which marginalized groups in other parts of the world have asserted ownership of their non-standard varieties of standard languages (Malcolm Reference Malcolm2011a, Reference Malcolm2011b).

Cox and colleagues have published internationally in this area, investigating Australian pronunciation as well as sub-varieties of Australian pronunciation, such as Lebanese Australian English, a distinctive sub-variety of English spoken by the Lebanese Australian community in Sydney's western suburbs. Her research highlights the widely held misconception that Australians typically speak with a broad accent epitomized by ‘Crocodile Dundee’ and Steve Irwin, when in fact very few speak such a dialect and there are indeed many more dialects in use thanks to the multicultural nature of contemporary Australia. Peters has extensively researched Australian English from a lexical and usage perspective, publishing internationally in this area. Butler, the editor of Australia's Macquarie Dictionary (the country's key lexical reference), has discussed the characteristics of SAE (Butler Reference Butler2010) and argues that it is difficult to determine what is actually meant by SAE because the boundaries between standard and non-standard are not very sharp, unlike the clear boundary between Australian English and AE (again see 4.1). Referring to K-12 teaching contexts she stresses that the preferences of the classroom teacher often determine what is acceptable English usage and the ‘quite specific errors [of lexicon, usage and pronunciation] which mark the speech or writing of people who are deemed to be uneducated’ (Butler Reference Butler2010: 1). Likewise, in ESL settings such as Australia's AMEP and ELICOS courses preparing for higher education studies, learners of English rely heavily on the teacher's sense of what is acceptable usage in terms of lexicon, grammar and pronunciation. The challenge for these learners is even greater as they need to cope with a variety of English registers (social, academic-specific, and workplace-related).

Varieties of English are, in many ways, contextually and culturally determined. A model that describes language as a social semiotic (Halliday Reference Halliday1978) where language choices are determined by and at the same time create the social and cultural contexts in which they occur is the focus of SFL. More recently, Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA) has also featured as an approach to understanding language use in social contexts. Australian research in these fields is discussed in the final sections of this paper.

5.1 SFL

Perhaps because of the long-term residency of the founding professor of linguistics at the University of Sydney, M. A. K. Halliday, a significant amount of research in applied linguistics in Australia draws inspiration from his scholarship in SFL. Central to the architecture of Halliday's theory of language is the importance of text-context relations. In the context of situation, linguistic choices are influenced by three aspects of the register – the subject matter (field), the role relationship (tenor) and means of communication (mode) – construing three broad areas of meaning: experiential, interpersonal and textual (Halliday Reference Halliday1994; Halliday & Matthiessen Reference Halliday and Matthiessen2013). In the context of culture, configurations of linguistic choices evolve to respond to recurrent social situations (Martin & Rose Reference Martin and Rose2003). The interdependence between text and context is represented in a sophisticated semiotic architecture organized into three strata, with features of the lexicogrammar combining to construe a higher order of meaning, that of semantics, which in turn creates a still higher order of abstraction, that of context (Matthiessen Reference Matthiessen2013). Analysing and explaining the connection between context and typified patterning of lexicogrammar, meanings, and generic structures has been an object of the longstanding SFL-informed inquiry in Australia. For some, this work has been informed by SFL discourse analysis (e.g. Martin & Rose Reference Martin and Rose2008). SFL in Australia has focused not only on English but explorations of discourse grammar and semantics of other languages, such as Tagalog, Chinese and German, have also been undertaken (Martin Reference Martin, Halliday and Webster2009).

Australian SFL scholars have continued the commitment to develop SFL as ‘applicable linguistics’ (Halliday Reference Halliday and Webster2007; Mahboob & Knight Reference Mahboob and Knight2010), adapting and applying SFL tools to studies of meaning making and language use in diverse fields such as child language learning and development (Painter Reference Painter, Halliday and Webster2009, Reference Painter2012; Feez Reference Feez2014; Williams Reference Williams2014); speech and language disorders (Armstrong Reference Armstrong, Halliday and Webster2009); academic writing (Hood Reference Hood2010; Humphrey & MacNaught Reference Humphrey and MacNaught2011); media and political discourse (Lukin Reference Lukin2014a, Reference Lukin2014b); social media (e.g. microblogging) (Zappavigna & Almutairi Reference Zappavigna and Almutairi2012); language use in healthcare contexts (Eggins & Slade Reference Eggins and Slade2012; Matthiessen Reference Matthiessen2013); youth justice conferencing (Martin, Zappavigna & Dwyer Reference Martin, Zappavigna and Dwyer2009); and meaning making by children with severe intellectual disabilities (Dreyfus Reference Dreyfus2012). The plethora of publications in Australia drawing on SFL is evidence of its contributions to theoretical and analytical insights in applied linguistics.

A recent extension of the SFL semiotic architecture includes the development of Appraisal Theory, a theory that accounts for interpersonal dimensions of language use (Martin & White Reference Martin and White2005). Originating from work conducted in the 1980s and 1990s for the ‘Write it Right’ project of the Disadvantaged Schools Program, Appraisal Theory provides a collection of evaluation language used to convey feelings, opinions, judgements, and interpersonal positioning. Recent research in this area applies this useful network to understanding the interpersonal meaning making in different contexts. For example, Caldwell (Reference Caldwell2009) explores Australian footballers’ evaluative language in post-match interviews. Hood (Reference Hood2010) examines the crucial role of evaluation in academic writing and textual impact arising from different appraisal choices. Stenglin (Reference Stenglin2012) analyses the complex interpersonal meanings that can emerge in three dimensional spaces. Zappavigna & Almutairi (Reference Zappavigna and Almutairi2012) discuss how identities are construed through intricate appraisal resources in microblogging. Economou (Reference Economou2013) demonstrates how appraisal analysis adds to understanding of visual meanings created by images and photos. White (Reference White2013) offers new insights into the ways in which textual identity and personae can be construed through evaluative language. Derewianka (Reference Derewianka2008) turns to the importance of making explicit the interpersonal resource valued in school discourse to EAL/D students.

A further development in SFL has been marked by an emerging interest in the exploration of language use in other semiotic modes such as images, gestures and space. Amongst the recent work in SFL-informed multimodal analysis, Daly & Unsworth (Reference Daly and Unsworth2011) unpack the complexity of multi-semiotic texts and factors impacting on the comprehension of multimodal texts in high-stakes English tests. Hood, Dreyfus & Stenglin (Reference Hood, Dreyfus and Stenglin2011) explore meaning making in the modalities such as laughter, music, colour and architectural spaces. Exley & Cottrell (Reference Exley and Cotrell2012) examine the affordances of an explicit technical metalanguage for an informed reading of multimodal texts. Painter, Martin & Unsworth (Reference Painter, Martin and Unsworth2013) provide an insightful semiotic analysis of complementary visual and verbal meaning systems in children's picture books. O'Halloran (Reference O'Halloran2014), McMurtrie (Reference McMurtrie2014) and van Leeuwen (Reference van Leeuwen2014) address challenges and new methods in analysing multimodal texts.

SFL has had a long association with Bernstein's sociology of education (Bernstein Reference Bernstein1971, Reference Bernstein2000) and in recent years in Australia there have been fruitful collaborations between SFL researchers and Bernsteinian sociologists such as Maton (Reference Maton2012). Such interdisciplinary endeavours have contributed to an enriching view of many educational issues such as disciplinarity in subject English (Freebody, Maton & Martin Reference Freebody, Maton and Martin2008; Chen & Derewianka Reference Chen and Derewianka2009), pedagogic interventions for addressing inequalities in learning outcomes (Rose Reference Rose2011) and semantic variation resulting from different recontextualization practices in the context of caregiver–child interaction (Williams Reference Williams2012).

Perhaps the most notable SFL contribution to applied linguistics in Australia is its commitment to the development of a language-based pedagogy for building students’ capacities to read and write literate discourse. Promoting a language-based pedagogy – the explicit goal of making valued resources visible and accessible as espoused by those working within the Sydney School of genre pedagogy (Martin & Rose Reference Martin and Rose2008) – has remained an area of strong research interest in Australia, along with Paltridge et al.’s (Reference Paltridge, Starfield, Ravelli and Tuckwell2012) scholarship in EAP-based genre research. In recent years, SFL-informed research has brought about a deepening understanding of the trajectory of writing development from early childhood to late adolescence (Christie & Derewianka Reference Christie and Derewianka2008); the semiotic resources necessary for accessing mathematical discourse (O'Halloran Reference O'Halloran2005; Abel & Exley Reference Abel and Exley2008); the rhetorical resources needed for adolescents to engage with the practices of school curriculum areas (Humphrey Reference Humphrey2010); the development of a shared metalanguage for enhancing learning and teaching about textuality (Macken-Horarick & Harders 2008; Macken-Horarik Reference Macken-Horarik2009); the nature of effective pedagogic practice in a technology integrated classroom (Jones, Kervin & McIntosh Reference Jones, Kervin and McIntosh2011); and the value of collaborative writing (i.e. joint construction) in effectively developing tertiary students’ mastery of academic genres (Humphrey & MacNaught Reference Humphrey and MacNaught2011).

Internationally, there has been increasing recognition of the importance of explicit teaching of knowledge about language in the subject English. The integration of knowledge about language within the new Australian Curriculum: English has provided much impetus for research into the implications of implementing a language and functionally orientated curriculum. For instance, Macken-Horarik, Love & Unsworth (Reference Macken-Horarik, Love and Unsworth2011) remind us of the importance of developing a ‘good enough’ metalanguage for studying text in context. Derewianka (Reference Derewianka2012) unpacks the theoretical underpinnings of the national curriculum. French (Reference French2012) and Chen & Jones (Reference Chen and Jones2012) discuss what it means to develop students’ metalinguistic understanding, which is valued by the curriculum. Jones & Chen (Reference Jones and Chen2012) address teachers’ professional learning needs in designing and enacting explicit pedagogies. Love & Humphrey (Reference Love and Humphrey2012) contribute towards a multi-level language framework to help teachers to develop students’ abilities to construct and appreciate the valued forms of persuasive discourse. Humphrey (Reference Humphrey2013) presents an SFL-informed linguistic toolkit (4 × 4 framework) combining resources at the abstract whole text level to their concrete manifestations at word and sentence levels. SFL's foundation, which sees language as social semiotic, has provided many critical discourse analysts with a text-analytic tool that complements CDA theory. The next section highlights recent Australian research in this area.

5.2 CDA

Australia has spawned many CDA studies that have used SFL as a basis for textual analysis. Most of this work has been published internationally, but some Australian-based research, less well known and from the period under review, is also worth noting. Le, Le & Short (Reference Le, Le and Short2009), for example, appears in a collection of papers from an Australian conference that was dedicated to CDA studies steeped in SFL and seen from interdisciplinary perspectives (i.e. linguistics, education, computer science, healthcare and social work). The contributors have different academic and cultural experiences, which extends understanding of CDA applications in various contexts. Garcia (Reference Garcia, Gitsaki and Baldauf2012) is another example of a CDA study recently published in Australia that uses quantifiable CDA tools to measure ideology in texts. Linked to CDA in Australia is the wider movement of Critical Applied Linguistics championed by Australian-based scholars such as Pennycook and Mahboob (see, for example, Mahboob & Knight Reference Mahboob and Knight2008, Reference Mahboob and Knight2010; Pennycook Reference Pennycook2010). Though not necessarily following an SFL orientation, a number of research papers have been published in Australia in this domain. For example, Mahboob & Lipovsky's (Reference Mahboob and Lipovsky2009) edited collection, also from an Australian conference, contains a wide variety of articles on, for example: critical constructions of a national Australian identity (Chisari Reference Chisari, Mahboob and Lipovsky2009); racism in the English language teaching industry (Mahboob Reference Mahboob, Mahboob and Lipovsky2009); ‘negotiating shame’ in youth justice conferencing (Martin, Zappavigna & Dwyer Reference Martin, Zappavigna and Dwyer2009); dialect and credibility judgements of Aboriginal Australian suspects (Devaraj & Goodman-Delahunty Reference Devaraj, Goodman-Delahunty, Mahboob and Lipovsky2009); and business discourse as a site of inherent struggle (Jones Reference Jones, Mahboob and Lipovsky2009).