Lost in transition? Perspectives on the transition to university language learning.

Stott, Carolyn ; Fielding, Ruth

[ILLUSTRATION OMITTED]

Introduction

This research focuses on one area associated with languages study in Australia: the transition from the final year of high school to the first year of university. The research was part of a study undertaken in 2012 that explored the transition of language learners from the secondary to the tertiary sectors and involving participants at secondary school and university. This paper focuses on the perceptions of a group of firstyear university language learners, some of whom struggled to find their feet in a tertiary learning environment, whilst others found the transition experience less turbulent. Falling numbers of enrolments in languages study is sometimes attributed to a misalignment between secondary and tertiary expectations and needs in language learning programs (Absalom, 2011), yet many students in this study indicated that the transition was manageable. Prior research has shown that students need high self-efficacy belief (i.e. belief in their ability to undertake the language study) in order to succeed at first year university language learning (Busse & Walter, 2011). Students in this study share particular traits which facilitated their transition, such as high intrinsic motivation to study their language, autonomy, well-developed study skills, high-level organisational and time-management skills. This study highlights transition issues specific to the study of languages in Australian universities, about which little research has thus far been published (See Absalom, 2011).

Context

The declining popularity of languages learning has long been noted in Australian schools (see for example Lo Bianco, 2009; Lo Bianco & Gvozdenko, 2006); an 'atmosphere of gloom' dates back to the 1960s (Ozilins, 1987) and more recent reports on language education indicate that language learning in Australia continues to struggle (Lo Bianco, 2009). Despite acknowledgement of the need to engage with Asia, a monolingual mindset has prevailed (Clyne, 2005; Hajek & Slaughter, 2015). The ground-breaking National Policy on Languages (Lo Bianco, 1987) highlighted the issue of student decline in language study in Australian schools, offered solutions and stimulated further discussion and subsequent policy development in the area of languages and literacy in Australia. Problems were identified in areas such as the range of languages taught, the institutional and educational frameworks of the various state secondary-school systems, the continuity of participation and retention rates in languages programs in Years 11 and 12, the needs of teachers and the supply of adequately trained teachers. Over the past decade several languages initiatives have been instigated to support and expand languages learning in Australia (see for example ACARA, 2011; Liddicoat et al, 2007; and the NALSAS and NALSSP strategies), with the Australian Curriculum Languages the most recent development foregrounding the importance of language study (ACARA, 2011).

In 2008 the Federal Government provided significant funding for the development of language study in four key Asian languages through the National Asian Languages and Studies in Schools Program (NALSSP), a follow-up program to the earlier National Asian Languages and Studies of Asia in Schools (NALSAS) scheme. In New South Wales, where the study reported here took place, the current 100 hours of mandatory languages study to be completed in either Stage 4 or 5 (years 7-10) is insufficient for students of any language to experience success, connect with the language and culture, and begin to see the rewards of their study. This could potentially be addressed by implementation of the Australian Curriculum Languages. The curriculum documents (released for eleven languages) acknowledge the need for increased hours of language learning in primary and middle years of schooling and recommend a much more substantial minimum number of hours (ACARA, 2011; Australian Curriculum, 2015). While ACT, Queensland (State of Queensland, 2014), South Australia and Tasmania have embraced the Australian Curriculum for Languages, and Victoria has a strong policy for language learning which exceeds the Australian Curriculum recommendations (State of Victoria, 2013), NSW has not committed to implementing the curriculum and retains the 100 hours policy (Board of Studies [BOSTES], 2013).

Politicians have been setting aims for increased numbers of students to be studying languages. The Australia in the Asian Century White Paper released in 2012 lists among its principal objectives the opportunity for all Australian students to increase their cultural knowledge of Asia and to study an Asian language from their first day at school (Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, 2012).

In spite of rhetoric from State and Federal governments acknowledging the need for Australian students to become globally aware Asia literate' intercultural communicators (Commonwealth of Australia, 2012), one pathway to achieving this--sustained language study--has not fully been incorporated as a core requirement in Australian educational policy, although some have argued that in the absence of a national policy the Australian Curriculum stands as a default languages policy (Scarino, 2013).

Language prerequisites for entry into Australian universities have long been abandoned, and the application of bonus points for additional-language study undertaken at secondary school is varied across Australian universities. While many universities offer bonus points for language study in some form, the amount of recognition varies from one university to another. For example: The University of Sydney's Flexible Entry Scheme takes superior performance into account for students enrolling in a degree closely related to their Higher School Certificate (Year 12) language; the Australian National University offers five bonus Australian Tertiary Admission Rank (ATAR) points for successful completion of a language at Year 12 for entry into most degree programs; the University of Queensland offers two ATAR points, and The University of Adelaide between two and four ATAR points (Group of Eight, 2014).

One obstacle to sustained and ongoing language study is the difficulty in transition between different stages of language learning, such as primary to secondary school, and secondary school to tertiary language study (see for example Absalom, 2011; Busse & Walters, 2011; Chambers, 2014; Gallagher-Brett & Canning, 2011; Macaro & Wingate, 2004). Our study sought to explore whether this difficulty in transition is true for current language students. Our findings indicate that many students find the transition experience less turbulent than may be commonly expected. Data reveal, however, that the students who experience a successful transition may have particular work habits already developed or inherent in their approach to language learning such as high intrinsic motivation, high levels of learner autonomy and well-developed time management.

Background literature

Transition from the secondary to the tertiary sector has been a cause for concern across all subject areas on an international scale. Chaskes (1996) drew parallels between the experiences of a newly-arrived immigrant and those of a first-year American college student: both are obliged to acquire an understanding of a new culture, its language, expectations and bureaucracy, which differs vastly from the culture to which they have previously been exposed. A decade later, Brady and Allingham (2007) suggested that Canadian high-school teachers were inadvertently hindering their students' successful transition to university by concentrating solely on achievement of the best possible score for university admission, by forming close staff-student relationships in the senior school years which are generally not duplicated at university, and by overlooking tasks requiring independent research and critical thinking skills that form an integral part of student learning at university. While the teacher-student relationship at secondary level is important for student engagement, Brady & Allingham (2007) have suggested that this may not prepare students well for the autonomy required in tertiary language study. Gee (2008) argues that in language learning students have to develop understanding of multiple 'cultures' including the culture of the academic learning setting as well as the culture of the language being studied. It may be more difficult for first-year students to acculturate into these new learning cultures when learning in tertiary environments is inherently more autonomous.

In the Australian context, the difficulty experienced during the first year of university has been partially attributed to lack of preparedness for the style of learning at university (Macaro & Wingate, 2004). Kift & Nelson (2005) first articulated a notion of 'transition pedagogy' in order to scaffold and enhance the first-year university experience. James, Krause & Jennings' (2010) longitudinal national study of the first-year experience in Australian universities that began in 1994 examines trends in the higher education sector at five-yearly intervals. The report published in 2010 highlights a pleasing recent tendency towards more pragmatic, organised and focussed first-year students who appear to have made the transition more easily than their counterparts from previous studies. The authors of the study put this down to the diligence of both schools and universities in improving this process (James, Krause & Jennings, 2010). It is clear that transition is facilitated when acknowledged to be a key issue by both sectors.

Discipline-specific research in the area of languages is more limited, and mostly based in the UK context. Gallagher-Brett and Canning (2011) concluded that firstyear university students' ability to cope with the transition from the secondary sector was affected by the content of the school language curricula, more specifically by the extent to which school students were exposed to cognitive and critical thinking activities in both foreign language and other humanities subjects. Harnisch, Sergeant and Winter (2011) tackled the issue of declining tertiary enrolments in foreign language departments in the UK, concluding that improved communication between the secondary and tertiary sectors would facilitate the transition process, as would addressing the issue of ongoing language study much earlier than in the upper-secondary sector. More recently, Busse and Walter's findings (2013) focussed on British language students' decreasing levels of motivation throughout their first year of study, highlighting the importance of self-determination and self-efficacy in a successful transition to university. The lack of instruction in the target language relative to their secondary school experience was also seen as a major factor in the decline in motivation.

Very little discipline-specific Australian research has been published. Absalom (2011) observed the declining numbers of university students undertaking study of languages, citing structural impediments such as the lack of availability of certain languages, timetabling issues, the problematic wide range of diversity in student levels within a particular language class and a lack of intrinsic motivation. James et al.'s (2010) report of the firstyear experience in Australian universities indicated that almost one quarter of firstyear students from the 2009 cohort were currently studying or planned to study a language. This not insignificant proportion, coupled with the Federal Government aims to have 12 per cent of all school leavers departing with a qualification in a language by 2020 and 40 per cent of all students learning a language throughout their school career (Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, 2012), points toward an urgent need for further research into the specific issues involved in the transition of Australian language students between the two sectors.

Methodology

The data presented in this paper were part of a study exploring both secondary and tertiary language students' perceptions about their language learning and transition (see Moloney & Harbon, this issue for the related publication focussing on the transition experience from the point of view of secondary learners). This paper focuses solely upon the data gathered from firstyear university students at The University of Sydney enrolled in languages study. University ethics protocols were followed and permissions granted. All participants consented to the study prior to their participation in the data collection.

The data were collected through an online survey administered using Survey Monkey. First-year French students were selected for the purpose of this small-scale study, access to these learners having been facilitated by one of the participating researchers' role as coordinator in two of the three units of study involved in this investigation. First-year students enrolled in Semester 1 French units of study (Advanced, Intermediate and Beginner streams) were invited to share their experiences across all languages that they were studying. The survey comprised general questions about students' prior learning, Likert scale statements about their attitudes and perceptions, and open-ended elaboration questions.

A hundred and eleven responses were obtained across a variety of languages: French (for all participants), and Chinese, German, Indonesian, Italian, Japanese and Spanish. The responses also incorporated a range of skill levels including beginners, intermediate, advanced and background speakers.

The Likert scale statements were collated and responses totalled to ascertain levels of agreement with each of the statements. The open-ended answers were reviewed and coded qualitatively using a grounded approach to enable themes to emerge from the data as expressed in students' own words.

It should be noted that due to delays in ethics permissions, data were collected later in the semester than initially intended, i.e. in weeks 9 and 10 of a 13-week Semester 1. By this point in the semester a number of students dissatisfied with their learning experience had already withdrawn from a language unit and were therefore not captured in this data. It must therefore be recognised that the range of student respondents at this late stage in the semester may well reflect those who were managing the transition process better than others, although it may also be the case that this late stage of the semester, by which time students have settled into university life, enabled collection of more pertinent data. In addition, some of the language units in which the respondents were enrolled already incorporate a number of strategies, outlined by Fielding and Stott (2012), aimed at assisting students through the transition process. Such strategies include vigilant pre-enrolment placement, increased scaffolding to familiarise students with relevant administrative procedures and policies, reinforcement of differences between the secondary and tertiary systems and provision of solutions to cope with these differences, and encouragement for students to establish a social network that enhances a feeling of belonging to a new community. There was thus very little negative commentary. Those who benefitted from these strategies might well be the students who responded to the survey, and would therefore not be representative of the overall student cohort. In addition, it cannot be assumed that the same approach to orienting students, including deliberate scaffolding of the transition process, would be used by other university teachers of languages at this or other universities.

It should also be noted that open-ended student comments did not always stipulate a specific language or language stream. It was therefore difficult to distinguish student opinions about specific languages, however the open-ended comments did underline how students felt generally about the transition process in languages but the difficulty in separating the data for different languages is noted as a limitation of the study.

Findings and discussion

Respondent profile

The survey was administered in Semester 1, 2012 via Survey Monkey to all first-year students of French, with a 25.5 per cent response rate. 146 language-learning experiences were represented across the 111 respondents, indicating 38 cases where students were studying French plus one, two or three other languages. Participating students were from one of three streams of French: Beginner (41 percent), Intermediate (29 per cent) or Advanced (30 per cent). Students of Beginner-level French may well not have been Beginners in the other language(s) that they were studying--our data collection processes did not seek this specification. Feedback from these students may thus relate to other languages that they have continued from high school as well as to Beginner French. Fifty per cent of respondents were enrolled in a Bachelor of Arts degree, with the other half enrolled across Commerce, Education, Engineering, Economics, Science, Law and Nursing. The majority of respondents (78 per cent) were female, living at home (76 per cent) with English as their first language (89 per cent). Ten per cent of students lived on campus in residential colleges and 15 per cent resided in non-university accommodation away from home. Nearly all respondents were domestic students (95 per cent) and studying full-time (97 per cent). Sixty-seven per cent of respondents indicated that they had studied the same language at HSC (senior secondary) level. Sixty per cent had visited the country of their nominated first language studied (French), and 14 per cent had visited the country of their second language studied.

[ILLUSTRATION OMITTED]

Fifty-four per cent of students rated their overall transition as smooth, and 19 per cent as bumpy, with 27 per cent of respondents neutral in their response to this question. Forty-one per cent agreed that the transition was more stressful than anticipated, whilst 43 per cent disagreed with this statement. This roughly equal rate of satisfaction/ dissatisfaction with the transition to university across the first-year cohort who participated in this study may indicate positive preparation at high school on the part of those who transitioned smoothly, and/or a particular approach taken by these students or their first-year university teachers that facilitated their transition. Moloney and Harbon (2014) (companion article in this issue) gives further insight into the success of secondary languages students in first-year university, indicating that those who construct a 'future self' as a language learner and user, and who thus have some idea of a career or future involving another language, make the transition between school and university more successfully.

In the analysis of responses, percentages from the language defined by students as Language 1 have predominantly been cited, as the majority of students (66 per cent) were studying only one language: French. Open comments made about all languages studied have been considered in this paper as this enables a fuller picture of the student experience, given that 34 per cent of those studying French were doing so alongside another language.

In their open comments, many students made reference to the Higher School Certificate, which is awarded to high-school students in NSW following successful completion of their Year 12 studies. In Year 11, students may choose to study a language at Beginners' level; if they continue with this language in Year 12, they would generally be placed in an Intermediate Stream in first-year university French Studies. If they studied the language continuously throughout their schooling, they would study it at Continuers Level in Year 12, with some taking the extra option of a further half-subject in that language, which is referred to as Extension. Students who have completed Continuers French are generally placed in the first-year Advanced stream, and those who completed both Continuers and Extension French with excellent results are encouraged to fast track directly into second-year Advanced French language studies.

The academic setting

Students were asked to compare workload, academic standards and curriculum content in their languages study at university and high school. The Strongly Agree/Agree responses and the Disagree/Strongly Disagree responses to the Likert Scale statements have been grouped together and referred to as Agree or Disagree in this report to represent the responses in a more concise manner, although data were collected on a five-point scale for methodological rigour, and can be used for future analysis in finer detail.

Seventy-two per cent of students agreed that the workload in university language units is 'very different' from that in the high-school classroom, with 66 per cent indicating that although the workload is higher they were coping with this increase. In the 37 open responses relating to workload, students did not imply that the elements of difference, which they identified as a faster pace, different assessment tasks and the expectation to study more independently at university, were problematic; indeed five comments indicated that this was a welcome change. Those who deemed the workload to be heavier at university generally felt this to be a positive factor. Four of the 23 students who commented on the increased workload indicated enjoying the challenge. One student cited a well-structured university curriculum as a motivating factor, with student interest maintained by the faster pace. Another referred to tutorial preparation as a new concept, different from homework set at high school. University assessment tasks were recognised as incorporating contextualised content as well as language skills; this recognition was generally favourable, and intimates a difference from high-school assessments. Several students found the end-of-semester assessment load heavy and unnecessarily crowded. However, this was balanced by recognition of the need to be highly organised in order to satisfy the university workload requirements. These comments concur with the findings of The University of Adelaide-led OLT Project on Staff and Student Expectations and Experiences (Brinkworth & McCann, 2013), which cited good organisation and timemanagement skills as crucial to success in first year at university. Students indicated a general preference for continuous assessment tasks throughout the semester rather than an end-of-semester exam during the formal examination period. This finding is in keeping with Gibbs and Simpson's (20042005) research into assessment that best supports student learning.

[ILLUSTRATION OMITTED]

Fifty-seven per cent of respondents agreed that the academic content of university language units was different from school, with 78 per cent stating that they were coping with that difference. Amongst the 25 comments relating to academic content, there were mixed reactions to the acknowledged heavy grammatical content in the Beginner and Intermediate streams. Open comments ranged from negative: the volume and complexity of grammar [was] too great for Semester 1, Year 1, to positive: The focus on grammar [...] makes me feel a lot more comfortable [;...] school only covered topical areas and didn't inform me as to how to form any sentences. Two students expressed the need for more practical application and repetition of new concepts in the Beginner stream. In the Advanced stream, the reaction to what was perceived by four students as a contentbased rather than skills-based curriculum was predominantly positive: It's about using the skills in real-world situations. I would compare it to doing HSC English but in a different language. One student acknowledged the need to continue to focus on language skills. Another student who had completed HSC Extension language studies cited a similarity between this and the Advanced-level university language unit. Three of these students found the Advanced level too easy. The open comments across the streams and languages studied indicated an overall desire for more speaking practice (10 mentions out of 17 comments), more listening practice (4 out of 12 comments) and more writing practice (2 out of 8 comments).

It was widely acknowledged (78 per cent agreement) that there is a difference in academic standards at university compared to high school. This result is in accordance with Brinkworth and McCann's (2013) findings in South Australian universities, which indicated 72 per cent agreement about different academic standards among continuing students. Thirty students contributed open comments about this difference that give insight into what they found different, and how they felt about this difference. Beginner and Intermediate respondents elaborated in a generally positive fashion, referring to a more logical approach [...] in placing emphasis on grammar, greater depth and the faster pace of university language curricula. One student perceived a change in going from school, where only a few students really work hard, to university, where the group of learners as a whole apply themselves diligently

When asked whether they were coping with the academic expectations at university, 68 per cent agreed that they were coping. In the related 21 open comments, six students acknowledged the challenging nature of the curriculum, with two commenting that they were thriving on that challenge, and five commenting that their work, study and social schedules prevented them from putting the necessary time into language study for them to cope better. Twelve per cent of students remained neutral on this question, but 18 per cent of respondents felt that they were not coping. These students felt they were falling behind and/or getting lower grades than they had anticipated. One student specified that although s/ he initially felt overwhelmed, by Week 10, when the survey was administered, s/he had developed strategies to cope with and prepare for classes and assessment tasks. This indicates there may be value in exploring the student experience at two points of the semester in order to see whether attrition rates are related to the experience of the first semester at university.

When asked about the language level and difficulty of the unit, 74 per cent of students agreed that the first-year language units were pitched appropriately. This could suggest that the streaming processes in place (placing students in ability groups based on entry testing) are working relatively effectively. In the 27 open comments related to this question, 10 students acknowledge their unit's difficulty and two appreciated the challenge and felt that they were reaping rewards for their efforts. Of the 15 per cent of respondents who felt that the language units were pitched inappropriately, some referred to a heavy workload relative to other subjects in their language(s), others to the overly fast pace and overemphasis on grammar, and some commented on the diversity of abilities within the unit cohort, perceiving that they were at a disadvantage compared to those with more experience in their language.

[ILLUSTRATION OMITTED]

Macro skills in the university setting

When asked to evaluate the strength of their communication skills (listening, speaking, reading and writing) in the language(s) they were studying, students rated their reading skills most highly (75 per cent agreed that they possessed strong reading skills). This result may be linked to other humanities subjects studied at Year 12 level such as English (95 per cent of respondents studied English at Year 12) or History (47 per cent). This link has been made by Gallagher-Brett and Canning (2011). These authors related increased confidence in essay writing, and critical and creative thinking in languages performance at university to prior study of Humanities subjects such as History and English at senior high school. Two of the five open comments about learning humanities at school further support this link.

Respondents were more reserved in assessing their skill levels in speaking, listening and writing, with 50 per cent agreement across the three skills that their skill levels were strong. Considerable emphasis in the 18 related open comments was on the progress students perceived that they had made in reading and listening since the start of the semester (five comments), as exemplified by the following statement: / have found that I need to use my dictionary less and can trust my instincts more. However, there was a common perception of the need for more opportunities to develop their speaking (7 out of 17 comments) and writing (3 out of 8 comments) skills, regardless of the stream and language in which the students were enrolled. One student commented on an inferior level of oral fluency relative to peers, who had in some cases been on exchange, spent a gap year in a country where the target language was spoken or studied HSC Extension-level language. Two students referred to the diversity of the language cohort within their stream, stating a preference for more streams in order to further homogenise language cohorts.

In our previous study (Fielding & Stott, 2012) we found that the perception amongst first-year language learners of their own ability relative to their peers is sometimes unfounded. Although 60 per cent of all students agreed that they were adequately prepared at high school in the four macro skills, two of the 14 related open comments acknowledged that the transition was considerable, with particular reference to the complexity of the university material and the relative speed at which content was covered. This result is in keeping with the 56 per cent agreement that the language-learning experience at high school prepared students well for their first-year university language studies and slightly better than other recent research undertaken by Brinkworth and McCann (2013). These authors' findings, which do not relate specifically to languages students, indicate that 46 per cent of students in the South Australian study believed that their secondary education had prepared them sufficiently for university.

The decision to enrol in a language

Of those students who elected to continue with a language previously studied at high school, almost half did so because of a positive school experience (47 per cent) or in order to further their career opportunities (34 per cent). Mention was also made by three of the respondents that they wished to continue with the language in spite of a negative language-learning experience in high school. Eleven respondents (10 per cent of the cohort) indicated that a negative school experience of the language led to them deciding not to continue with their high school language (although they did enrol in at least one additional other language). Forty-four per cent of students who took up a new language at university did so because of career aspirations, whilst 16 per cent cited a positive gap-year experience or the influence of another person (19 per cent) as the deciding factors in selecting a new language to study.

Forty per cent of respondents cited other reasons for language study including intercultural communication, an advantage over other candidates in job applications, language learning for learning's sake, continuing a language from school, enjoyment, love of the culture, personal interest, connection to cultural identity/ heritage, cognitive challenge, and a desire to study a subject that differs from the course in which they are enrolled (e.g. science-based). The cohort's motivations for studying a language at university are worthy of further analysis and comparison with Absalom's results from a similar study (2011) and those of other researchers. The respondents to this survey are self-aware learners who see an intrinsic value in their language study as well as, for some, an extrinsic reward within their future careers. They may thus correspond to the Year 12 participants in this study who were identified by Moloney and Harbon (2014) as having constructed a 'future self' and whose results are examined in detail in the companion article in this volume. The explicit mention of the cognitive benefits of language learning was notable from a first-year university student: A second or third language broadens the mind and also has numerous advantages for cognitive function to think in different language systems simultaneously. This comment concurs with research demonstrating the cognitive benefits of language learning and the transfer of skills to other areas (see for example Baker, 2014; Bialystok, 2002).

Teaching/learning styles and staff support

Sixty-seven per cent of respondents agreed that the teaching style is different at university compared to school. Ten of the 27 students who made an open comment perceived that a higher level of target language use and comprehension is expected at university but that they like this expectation and feel challenged and supported to achieve it. Student comments indicate that more of the teaching takes place in the language studied, which [...] is a good thing. Positive differences were highlighted, such as the learning situation being much more structured with more reinforcement and efficiency; the learning structure facilitating the development of French for use in all contexts as opposed to in school when [... complete] phrases [were learnt] for relevant topics [rather than being taught] how to form them.

While 41 per cent of students preferred learning a language at university (the 28 per cent neutrality is noteworthy), 34 per cent indicated the contrary, citing fewer opportunities at university for oral practice and less one-on-one interaction. It might therefore be argued that the students who prefer learning in the university environment might also be those who prefer reading and writing in the language.

Sixty-nine per cent of students agreed that they were coping with the teaching styles at university. Students who disagreed (nine per cent) or responded neutrally (21 per cent) attributed their difficulty with the teaching style to several different factors. One student felt that a native-speaker teacher didn't fully appreciate the challenges of learning a language. Another believed that some easier content was given too much class time while some of the harder content was not given sufficient time in class.

When asked whether the level of staff support at university is reduced in comparison to high school, respondents' opinions varied, with 50 per cent agreement, 27 per cent disagreement and 23 per cent neutral. Some of the students in the last category explained in the open comments that they did not have a point of comparison, as they had not previously studied a language at secondary school. Brinkworth and McCann (2013) report that 53 per cent of students in their study were not able to access lecturers easily, despite a pre-conceived idea that this support would be accessible. Our results would seem to concur with those of the afore-mentioned larger study. One student commented on the relative lack of face-to-face time at university compared to high school. Another suggested that smaller university tutorial sizes would enable more attention to individual students. In the 18 related open comments, four students commented positively on the acquisition of independent learning strategies at university while also acknowledging that staff are still supportive: The onus is placed upon students to learn independently. However this does not mean that lecturers and tutors are any less supportive when their help is actively sought out. I have found them much more supportive than high school teachers when individually approached. In response to the statement 'I am coping with the level of support from academic staff, 58 per cent agreed, 28 per cent responded neutrally and 13 per cent disagreed. This response rate may indicate that it was predominantly the students who were already coping at university level who responded to the questionnaire, with those struggling either no longer enrolled in the unit or not responding to the questionnaire. Several respondents stated that staff members were approachable and helpful. In the 14 related comments, two students indicated that they would have liked more help with grammar points and clearer explanations, preferably in English, of the assessment task requirements.

Autonomous learning at university

Eighty-eight per cent of students agreed that they have to work more independently at university compared to high school. Seventy-two per cent agreed that they were coping with the requirement to work more independently. It could be seen from the data that students believe they have to develop more autonomous skills to manage the workload and achieve at university language learning. However this is not seen as problematic with most students indicating that they feel supported in their work and study. Indeed, 41 per cent of students indicated a preference for learning a language at university over high school, with open comments revealing that the pace of progress was fast and challenging. It is clear that high-achieving students thrive on the challenge and pace of university learning and appreciate the rapid progress. It is also clear that students perceive the fast pace generally experienced at university differs greatly from some high school language settings.

Implications

According to participating researchers involved in teaching these language units, one of the main issues arising from the data collected concerns the diversity of language competency amongst students enrolled in the same unit of study. This is a subject of regular discussion amongst language students and teachers and has previously been identified as a major potential difficulty for language students (Absalom, 2011; Stott & Fielding, 2012). Whilst a complete resolution of the issue may not be possible, or desirable if differentiation is sufficiently employed, the implementation of several strategies to ensure a more homogenous student cohort could potentially facilitate the transition experience for some students. Possible strategies might include: a (more) rigorous placement test prior to enrolment (as already occurs in many universities), which also allows for movement between levels after initial placement (initially a self-assessment and if necessary a subsequent assessment by an academic staff member); a registration form filled out by students at the beginning of the semester outlining their previous experience in the language; and the inclusion of ice-breaking activities early on in the semester that allow students to openly acknowledge their own ability and past experience, and understand that of their classmates. Students who are identified early as too advanced for a particular level could then be encouraged to fast-track to more challenging units. Likewise, students who may be likely to find the more advanced units too challenging could start at a lower level.

Students should also be encouraged to accept that some diversity is natural, according to individual strengths and weaknesses, and teachers must be assisted to develop better skills in differentiating learning activities for a range of learners. Acknowledging the inherent differences may help to lessen and in some cases remove the perception of disadvantage by students who have not undertaken extensive travel to a country associated with their target language. Furthermore, the reality of financial constraints means that universities are limited in the number of pathways they can offer students. Differentiated assessment tasks in line with student ability might also lessen the perception of unfairness. If students are offered a degree of choice in their assessment tasks and are assured that all assessment is criterion-based rather than norm-referenced, the perception that they need to compete with their peers may be lessened. This finding is in accordance with Gibbs and Simpson's (2004-2005) on effective assessment procedures that best support student learning.

A consideration for language curriculum designers arising from this study relates to students' reasons for choosing to study a language at university level. Almost half the respondents stated personal career aspirations as a contributing factor. Future career options was similarly cited as a reason for studying a language in the data collected by Absalom (2011). Future research could explore which careers students are considering, and potentially offer specific programs of study to cater for common areas of interest, such as language for a career in teaching, business, translation, interpreting or diplomacy. This professional direction would be seen as positive by those students identified in Moloney and Harbon's (2014) companion article as having developed a sense of 'future self' in relation to their motivations for continuing language study at university.

Open comments in this study also reiterated the differences in language curriculum focus between the secondary and tertiary sectors. Gallagher-Brett and Canning (2011) note that content (for example literature, film, and social issues) is more important in university language curricula than in schools, where the focus tends to be more strongly on language skill acquisition (listening, speaking, reading and writing). This validates the respondents' perception of the gap between the knowledge valued by the two sectors, and explains the subsequent difficulty experienced by some students. The notable exception to this is the FISC Extension language students, who have, for example, studied some literature and social topics in Year 12 and, through the nature and style of the Extension course, have started to develop some of the skills required for successful university study such as autonomous learning and analytical thinking in and through the target language. In addition, it is notable from our interactions with students over the past decade that many students who study a language through the Open High School (a distance learning model) also come to university well prepared to study independently as they have had to previously master this skill in order to achieve high-school languagelearning outcomes.

Conclusions

The findings of this study support other research regarding the need to increase levels of communication between the secondary and tertiary sectors, regardless of the subject area under consideration (Harnisch et al., 2011; Brinkworth & McCann, 2013). If school students contemplating tertiary language study were made more aware of expectations, curriculum content, grading systems and standards, and learning structures common to the university sector prior to beginning their course, they could embark on their university language studies with increased levels of confidence. If their school teachers were kept up to date with university processes, they could assist their students in the transition process. Training in autonomous learning strategies would also help the learners both at senior secondary level and at first-year university.

Responsibility for this educative process falls to both sectors. Prior to enrolment, university teachers could offer taster sessions at schools and on campus for high-school students. The online environment also provides the perfect opportunity for a bridge into first-year university courses, via the MOOCS platform. Educating high-school students about differences in curriculum content would also facilitate the transition experience. In addition, tertiary educators could better communicate with secondary teachers to offer them more insight into the aims of the units they teach and the graduate attributes they attempt to instil in their students.

If university educators responsible for first-year units of study are made more aware of common transition issues and offered opportunities to develop strategies to address those issues, they will be in a position to offer appropriate support to their students, particularly in the first semester. It is through potentially aligning methods and strategies between the two sectors that the transition could be facilitated. In order to prepare school students for the university learning experience, secondary teachers could encourage and model independent learning strategies, (as happens already in the International Baccalaureate program and Extension level HSC) and incorporate a focus upon the development of critical thinking and analysis as important skills for all university level study. University educators could equally provide more support at tertiary level and better inform themselves of the nature and experience of their first-year students. Although some tertiary language learning is contentbased rather than skills-based (for example with a focus on literature, culture or film), there should remain a focus on skill development. Educators at tertiary level must build into their units support and strategies for listening, speaking, reading and writing development alongside the content learning in the target language. Tertiary language educators should ensure that they provide explicit indication of the differences that students might experience in the detail of content and speed with which it is covered, and furthermore offer tips on how to manage that content and pace. Understanding their students' prior experience in language learning would enable a better understanding of individual student learning processes. Finally, tertiary educators could also emphasise to their students the need to be organised and develop time management skills. They could direct students to existing resources in the university structure, such as libraries and learning centres.

The data collected for this study indicates that just over half of the respondents found the transition from high school to university language learning a smooth one. However, it is possible that more students who were already coping with the transition felt willing and able to complete the questionnaire. It is possible that those feeling lost in transition had already left the course or could not cope with the additional task of responding to a questionnaire. Even if many students are coping, there is no doubt scope to improve the transition experience for all students of languages.

The small scale of our study begins to illustrate some of the issues and highlights the need for further research in this area. It would be worthwhile conducting a national study of transition, and to explore a range of different languages, in different universities. Nevertheless, this study in an Australian context highlights the learning strategies that many students have already mastered to ensure success in their first year of university. It also indicates that some good strategies are already being embraced in schools and universities to ease the transition.

Acknowledgements

We would like to acknowledge the contribution of several colleagues to this research. Dr Alexandra McCormick was employed as a Research Assistant in December 2012--January 2013 to assist with data analysis. Professor Lesley Harbon (University of Technology Sydney) and Dr Robyn Moloney (Macquarie University) conducted the overarching project with us and have analysed the accompanying data from secondary school participants (see Moloney & Flarbon, this issue).

This research was undertaken with financial assistance from a Languages and Cultures Network for Australian Universities (LCNAU) seed-funding grant received in 2012 ("Student pathways in languages education from school to university: attrition and retention'; seewww.lcnau.org).

References

Absalom, M. 2011. 'Where have all the flowers gone?' Considering continuation of languages in secondary school. Babel 46, 2/3. Australian Federation of Modern Language Teachers Association.

ACARA, 2011. The Shape of the Australian Curriculum: Languages. Retrieved 30 October 2012 from http:// www.acara.edu.au/verve/_resources/Languages_-_ Shape_of_the_Australian_Curriculum.pdf

Australian Curriculum. 2015. Australian Curriculum Languages Retrieved 11 May 2015 from http://www. australiancurriculum.edu.au/languages/preamble

Baker, C. 2014. A Parents' and Teachers' Guide to Bilingualism (4th Ed). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.

Bialystok, E. 2002. Acquisition of literacy in bilingual children: A framework for research. Language Learning, 52, 1, March, 159-199.

Board of Studies (2013) Learning Through Languages: Review of Languages Education in NSW: Reference Paper, Sydney: Board of Studies. Available from: http:// www.boardofstudies.nsw.edu.au/languagesreview/ pdf_doc/reference-paper.pdf

Brinkworth, R. & McCann, B. (2013) Student and Staff Expectations and Experiences, Final Report of the OLT Project A Collaborative multi-faceted approach to address the gaps between student expectation and experience at university. Retrieved 15 May 2015 from http://fyhe.com.au/expectations/wp-content/ uploads/2014/03/CG9-1158_Adelaide_Brinkworth_Finalreport_2013.pdf

Busse, V. & Walter, C. 2013. Foreign Language Learning in Higher Education: A Longitudinal Study of Motivational Changes and their Causes. The Modern Language Journal, 97, 2, 435-456.

Brady, P & Allingham, P 2007. Help or Hindrance? The role of secondary schools in a successful transition to university. Journal of the First-Year Experience, 19, 2, 47-67.

Chambers, G. 2014. Transition in modern languages from primary to secondary school: the challenge of change, The Language Learning Journal, 42/ 3, 242-260.

Chaskes, J. 1996. The First-Year Student As Immigrant. Journal of the Freshman Year Experience & Students in Transition, 8, 1, 79-91.

Clyne, M. 2005. Australia's Language Potential. Sydney: University of New South Wales Press.

Commonwealth of Australia, 2012. Australia in the Asian Century White Paper. Canberra: Commonwealth of Australia. Retrieved 23 January 2013 from http:// asiancentury.dpmc.gov.au/

Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet (2012, October) Australia in the Asian Century: White Paper. Canberra, ACT: Commonwealth of Australia.

Fielding, R. & Stott, C. 2012. University Language Learners' Perceptions of the Transition from School to University, 15th International First Year in Higher Education Conference Proceedings: New Horizons, Brisbane: Queensland University of Technology, http://fyhe.com. au/past_papers/papers12/Papers/1A.pdf

Gallagher-Brett, A. & Canning, J. 2011. Disciplinary Disjunctures in the Transition from Secondary School to Higher Education Study of Modern Foreign Languages: A case study from the UK. Arts and Humanities in Higher Education, 10, 2, 171-188.

Gee, J. P 2008. A sociocultural perspective on opportunity to learn. In Moss, PA., Pullin, D.C., Gee, J.P, Haertel, E.H. & Young, L.J. Assessment, Equity and Opportunity to Learn, New York: Cambridge University Press.

Gibbs, G. & Simpson, C. 2004-5. Conditions under which assessment supports students' learning. Learning and Teaching in Higher Education, 1, 3-31.

Group of Eight. 2014. Go8 LOTE Incentive Schemes, January 2014. Group of Eight. Available from: https:// go8.edu.au/programs-and-fellowships/go8-languagesincentive-schemes.

Hajek, J. & Slaughter, Y. 2015. Challenging the Monolingual Mindset: Reconsidering Australia's 'language potential'. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.

Harnisch, H., Sargeant, H. & Winter, N. 2011. Lost in transition: Languages transition from post-16 schooling to higher education. Arts and Humanities in Higher Education, April 2011, 10, 157-170.

James, R., Krause, K.L. & Jennings, C. 2010. The First-Year Experience in Australian Universities Findings from 1994-2009, Centre for the Study of Higher Education, University of Melbourne, & Griffith Institute for Higher Education, Griffith University.

Kift, S. & Nelson, K. 2005. Beyond Curriculum Reform: Embedding the transition experience. In Brew, A. & Asmar, C. (Eds.), Higher Education in a Changing World: Research and development in higher education, 28, HERDSA.

Liddicoat, A., Scarino, A., Jowan Curnow, T, Kohler, M., Scrimgeour, A. and Morgan, A. 2007. An Investigation of the State and Nature of Languages in Australian Schools. Canberra: Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations.

Lo Bianco, J. 1987 National Policy on Languages, Canberra, Australian Government Publishing Service.

Lo Bianco, J. 2009. Australian Education Review: Second Languages and Australian Schooling. Camberwell Vic: Australian Council for Educational Research (ACER).

Lo Bianco, J. and Gvozdenko, I. 2006. Collaboration and innovation in the provision of Languages Other Than English in Australian Universities. Melbourne: Faculty of Education, University of Melbourne.

Macaro, E. & Wingate, U. 2004. From sixth form to university: motivation and transition among high achieving state school language students, Oxford Review of Education, 30:4, 467-488.

Moloney, R. & Harbon, L. 2014. Future selves: Year 12 students and their plans for studying languages postsecondary school, Babel.

Ozolinz, U. 1993. The Politics of Language in Australia, Melbourne: Cambridge University Press.

Scarino, A. 2013. From concepts to design in developing languages in the Australian curriculum, Babel, 48:2. 4-13.

State of Queensland 2014. Global Schools: Creating successful global citizens, Brisbane: State of Queensland (Department of Education, Training and Employment).

State of Victoria 2013. Languages--Expanding your world, Melbourne: State of Victoria (Department of Education and Early Childhood Development

Dr Carolyn Stott is a Lecturer in French Studies at the University of Sydney. She has published in a variety of different areas: teaching French as a foreign language, student transition from the secondary to the tertiary sector, gentrification in Paris and French detective fiction and roman noir. She is a 2015 recipient of the University of Sydney's Vice-Chancellor's Award for Outstanding Teaching.

Dr Ruth Fielding is an Assistant Professor of TESOL and Foreign Language Teaching at the University of Canberra. She is the convener of the TESOL and Foreign Language Teaching program and supervises PhD students undertaking research on a range of language education topics. She has worked for the past nine and a half years as a language teacher educator and a researcher with a focus on multilingualism and identity, as well as language teacher education, intercultural language learning and transition in language learning. She has been researching various aspects of bilingual programs in schools in NSW since 2006 and obtained her PhD in 2010. Her book Multilingualism in the Australian Suburbs has just been released by Springer. She was formerly a teacher of French and German at secondary school level. She is interested in language learning and teaching from preprimary through to tertiary levels.