INTRODUCTION

In July 2017, the AFMLTA held its 21 st International Languages Conference on the Gold Coast, in Queensland, Australia. Over 300 presenters and delegates from across Australia and around the globe considered 'keys to learning languages' as the conference theme. Seven major presenters at the conference were each asked to present three central ideas or challenges for languages teaching and learning in the 21 st century (hence 21 ideas in total) in an interactive panel session, moderated by the current President of the AFMLTA, Professor Anne-Marie Morgan. Audiencediscussion throughout the presentations provoked further thought and additional feedback and participation sessions on challenges and global versus local concerns, in presentations that all stressed the importance of context- of schools, universities, teachers, learners, program conditions, and political and socio-cultural conditions.

The seven presenters were conference Academic Chairs Anne-Marie Morgan (AFMLTA President), of the University of New England, and Andrew Scrimgeour (AFMLTA Vice President) of the University of South Australia; conference keynote speakers Nina Spada, of the University of Toronto, and John Hajek of The University of Melbourne; Jane Orton of The University of Melbourne; Martin East of the University of Auckland; and Lia Tedesco, Principal of the School of Languages, South Australia.

Presented below are the ideas from each of the contributors, which encompass some differences, but many commonalties and consistent themes and threads across the 21 ideas, and pose multiple provocations, posing further challenges for the future. Collectively, the set of ideas encapsulates concepts, challenges, issues and ideas that are important for all in the profession to consider-teachers of languages, learners of languages, teacher educators, researchers, school and system administrators, policy makers at all levels, and communities and users of languages.

The 21 key ideas are summarised in Table 1 below, under the broad headings: pedagogy and methodologies, strategy and policy, research, teacher education, and resources, and are followed by each presenter's three proposals.

NINA SPADA

QUANTITY OF INSTRUCTIONAL INPUT: CONCENTRATING TIME

One response to the limited amount of instructional time available for language teaching and learning has been to concentrate it over shorter periods. For example, in research conducted in regular French language programs in Canada, comparisons have been made of the progress of additional language learning students receiving daily 40 minute lessons for the entire school year from Grade 4 to Grade 8 (ages 9-13 years), with students receiving different degrees of concentrated instruction (e.g. 80 minutes per day over 5 months, versus 150 minutes per day over 10 weeks). Results have revealed linguistic advantages for the most concentrated instruction (Lapkin, Hart & Harley, 1998). Also, in Canada, there are programs in which learners receive larger amounts of instructional time that is concentrated. For example, one model of intensive English programs provides learners in Grade 5 or 6 (ages 11-12 years) with a 5-month experience during which time they are immersed in the English language for 5 hours a day, 5 days a week. This contrasts with learners in the regular English language program who received 20 minutes a day throughout the entire school year (10 months). Comparison studies have indicated significant advantages for intensive learners over students in the regular programs. Importantly, the findings also indicate superior performance of intensive learners over students in regular programs who had accumulated the same amount of instruction but spread over a longer period of time (i.e., 5 years) (Collins & White, 2011; Lightbown & Spada, 1994). Similar findings have been reported with school-age learners in intensive French programs in Canada (Netten & Germain, 2004) as well as with university-level learners in Spain (Serrano, Llanes, & Tragant, 2011). Other advantages to programs in which the instructional time is concentrated are that the programs allow for more communicative activities, more project-based learning, more learner-centred classes, improved literacy practice and higher levels of individualised instruction. These results suggest that it is not just the concentration of time that contributes positively to language learning but the range of pedagogical options that come with it,

QUALITY OF INSTRUCTIONAL INPUT: COMPREHENSION-BASED LEARNING

Even in the most communicative classrooms the input to which learners are exposed is restricted and does not represent the full range of language that occurs in the natural setting. Innovative approaches to providing learners with richer and more varied sources of input include comprehension-based instruction (CBI) that exposes learners to oral or written input requiring them to comprehend rather than produce language. Research to investigate the effects of CBI on additional language learning include an early Canadian study of primary-school learners of English in a French-speaking community where learners had virtually no exposure or opportunities to interact in English outside the classroom. Students in Grade 5 (10-11 years old) independently read and listened to a library of books and tapes made available to them in a language-lab like setting. There was no production practice (e.g. speaking) or interaction in English either with a teacher or other students. Comparisons of the English language development of the CBI learners with students in regular audio-lingual classes indicated that both groups made similar progress. This was true not only with respect to comprehension but also for speaking - a surprising finding. A follow-up program evaluation three years later indicated that while learners in the CBI programs continued to perform as well as learners in the regular program on comprehension measures, learners in the regular audio-lingual classes made greater progress in additional language production abilities (Light bown et al., 2002). Benefits for CBI have also been reported in Spain (Tragant, Munoz and Spada, 2016) and Japan (Shintani & Ellis, 2010). Researchers have interpreted the results as encouraging for language learning in contexts where the linguistic input is limited and particularly for low-level proficiency learners.

IS AN EARLY START BEST?

An early start is considered by many to be an optimal way of improving additional language learning based on observations of successful first language acquisition and naturalistic second language acquisition. Consequently, the trend to introduce additional language instruction in primary school (and even earlier) has grown in recent decades, particularly with respect to the teaching of English worldwide. Such decisions are questionable in view of research showing that 'early is best' does not hold for children who are in additional language classrooms where time and input is limited. There is substantial evidence that older learners learn faster and more efficiently than younger learners in limited-input instructional environments (Munoz, 2006). There are several reasons for this, including the fact that older learners have a more fully developed first language, more advanced cognitive abilities, and an ability to approach learning more analytically and explicitly. By contrast, younger learners are less cognitively and linguistically developed and approach learning more intuitively and implicitly. One of the conditions for implicit learning mechanisms to become activated is massive exposure to language and opportunities to engage in extensive communicative interactions with speakers of the target language. Unfortunately, small amounts of instruction (e.g., 45 minutes a week spread over a school year) do not provide sufficient conditions for implicit learning to take place. Even though there are no linguistic benefits for an early start in limited-input instructional contexts, there are other advantages including opening children's minds to multi/plurilingualism and contributing to the development of more positive attitudes toward other languages and cultures. There is also emerging research suggesting that early additional language learning can contribute positively to first language literacy development (Murphy et al., 2014).

JANE ORTON

Three thoughts for the future

INTERNATIONAL LEVEL: RESEARCH

Aftera working life reading research in the field I am left still feeling dissatisfied that despite good international communication and even collaboration, there has been so little real headway made in what we know about age and language-specific learning. As a result, we are still very ungrounded in many of the decisions we make about critical learning paths at different ages, in different languages, using different teaching approaches. This is because research too often is uncoordinated, so that even good projects don't get followed through, and within sub-areas of the field there is so little coordinated research over time on specific aspects.

Teaching is not just Applied Science. There is and always will be a degree of artistry in teaching. But we can be sure about some things and guided as to what more likely would be a good, if not best, way to do some of the things we do.

In saying this, let it be clear that I am also well aware of the dangers of prescribed research, but there could be some major goals with projects announced annually that everyone could apply to contribute to, under common rules, along with whatever else they do. If scientists all over the world can collaborate to map the human genome in just a few years, I do think we could do much better at creating a deeper and more comprehensive common base in languages education.

INTERNATIONAL LEVEL: RESOURCES

As teachers we need to tell resource makers what we want. Maybe there could be an annual fair with language-specific booths and sessions where we set out what we want and how we want it. We would have to do some homework for that, of course, and be able to promise that if what we want is produced it will be bought!

This may be more a Chinese language education problem than anything else, and indeed, it certainly is a problem for Chinese. If I see one more beginners' picture dictionary for Chinese or first 500 characters list or Book 1, I will cry. We need these beginnings to advance, and they don't. And they need to advance in ways that we want them to - and in many cases, to do this they need to be re-conceptualised from the beginning. There needs to be opportunities for serious ongoing dialogue with publishers to achieve the benefits of this collaboration for both sides. I am sure this much is true for all languages.

NATIONAL (AUSTRALIAN) LEVEL: TEACHER EDUCATION

Quality teacher education, for teacher education students and in-service teachers, is essential. Teacher education should be so well served that being accepted to be a teacher becomes a privilege. There are countries such as Finland and China where it is already the case that teaching is a high status occupation (Niemi, Toom, and Kallioniemi, 2016). Their models are different from each other's, although they have some underlying similarities. Australia could run a couple of trials for a few years based on these overseas models, to see what works best in our contexts. There is currently some airtime being given to better teacher education and language teacher education needs to be part of these trials and discussions (eg., Gorski, 2016). Compared with English, Mathematics and Science, however, we are a complex set to accommodate, with our range of languages, learner and teacher backgrounds, entry levels, program types, and time allocation and frequency of lessons. We need to acknowledge this complexity and to do more on our own behalf in establishing studies, gathering more data on effective models of teaching, and ensuring the profession is filled with appropriately prepared teachers, who continue to engage with learning throughout their careers.

I think as a group we in languages education are too complacent about the low status of teaching and about the generally low status of languages education within teaching and education. This is partly the result of us being fragmented by state-based education systems, which are further divided into government, independent and catholic jurisdictions, as well as divided primary-secondary; while internally we are further separated by being involved with different languages belonging to different areas of Australia's history and regional connections. But in the face of these fracturing, fragmenting elements, I would like to see us - and I guess that means the AMFLTA with our support - make a concerted effort to get the Federal Government to recognise the value of language knowledge in the plan for education. The current set of parliamentarians have been really off the radar on languages and it's time they got reminded of how important language learning is to an education for the real world - and I say 'education' intentionally. 'Skilling' for the 21st century is a recognisable goal, and I include it in the value of language learning, but I don't just mean language learning is important as 'skilling', but beyond that, as engagement in powerful learning that gives students 'the tools to think the unthinkable' (Young, 2012). We need to make a solid case for that and then as a group speak up on it often, and loudly, and not let up.

LIA TEDESCO

Access, choice and continuity in languages learning

CCAFL FOR ALL LANGUAGES

Through the Collaborative Curriculum and Assessment Framework for Languages (CCAFL) at senior secondary level, a number of small candidature languages are made available to students across a number of states. These languages have enrolment numbers that are too low to enable any one state to offer them; but through this national collaboration, students continue to have access to these languages for their senior secondary certification,

The collaboration has been in place for over 30 years now, and is a proven and successful model - it demonstrates that state and territory education systems can work together and reach national agreements for sharing high stakes curriculum and assessment; and for reaching agreement on the national calculation of Australian Tertiary Admission Rank (ATAR) scores, despite state certification differences.

Given the poor retention rates across Australia in all languages, one could say that all languages are now 'small candidature' languages; and yet we currently have a number of languages for which the curriculum and assessment is determined and developed at the state level - causing unnecessary duplication of effort across multiple states.

Could the CCAFL model be expanded to include all languages, to minimise duplication of effort, and provide greater certainty for both teachers and students of what is needed for senior secondary languages study?

NATIONAL COLLABORATION FOR DISTANCE EDUCATION IN LANGUAGES

Many students, particularly in country and regional areas, do not have access to languages programs, as schools often cannot find qualified teachers of Languages. Distance education provides the ideal solution to this dilemma.

There is currently a number of distance education providers in different states/territories; and most of them offer the same languages or range of languages- but in their own version of the Australian Curriculum: Languages. This duplication of effort is of concern.

Could the CCAFL model of collaboration be applied to the distance education context, to reduce duplication and to increase the number of languages available to all Australian students, no matter what their location?

If so, what could this look like? I am not proposing that one school have the sole responsibility for provision of all languages; but that there be agreement about which school(s) offer which language(s). Surely the Australian Curriculum: Languages can also provide a solution to state and territory differences, if we could garner agreement on which 'version' of the curriculum was to be used. CCAFL has shown that it can be done,

SCHOOLS OF LANGUAGES

Specialist Schools of Languages are in place in the ACT, NSW, Northern Territory, South Australia and Victoria. They have been established so that students can learn a language that is not available at their day school, and hence offer a much wider range of languages and across wider year levels. They also work as a national network, to provide professional learning for teachers, share pedagogies and administrative approaches, and learn from each other's practices.

Queensland, Tasmania and Western Australia are the only states that do not have such a structure to provide access, choice and continuity in language learning for their students, These students are missing out on the opportunities provided to students in the other states/territories.

Coupled with the absence of provision of a broad range of languages through distance education, the choices for students in these states are very limited indeed. Queensland, and Western Australia did consider the model some time ago, but did not proceed with it.

How could we encourage Queensland, Tasmania and Western Australia to (re) consider this model, to enhance access, choice and continuity for their students?

MARTIN EAST

TASK-BASED LANGUAGE TEACHING (TBLT)

Task-Based Language Teaching (TBLT) has been gaining momentum over several decades as a learner-centred and experiential approach to communicative language teaching and learning. It is based on the theoretical principle that language learners learn to communicate by communicating, or through interaction in the target language (Nunan, 2004). This principle leads to the assertion that languages are learned most effectively when learners are able to engage in tasks that involve real language use - "discussions, problems, games, and so on - which require learners to use language for themselves" (Willis & Willis, 2007, p. 1). Advocates of TBLT point to its motivational nature and emphasis on genuine meaning-making for the learners. Nevertheless, teachers, who may themselves have learned a language in more traditional, teacher-dominated and grammar-focused classrooms, often view TBLT cautiously as something 'new and out there. Critics of TBLT argue that the approach places too much emphasis on the learners and what they can discover for themselves about how language works as they engage in task completion. As a consequence, and particularly in time-limited instructional contexts (like learning an additional language in school settings), TBLT is said to neglect the need for structured teacher input and explanation, and focused practice of grammar and lexis. However, properly understood and carefully implemented, TBLT can offer "a balanced approach in which grammar pedagogy and focus on form are linked with communicative experience" (Mitchell, 2000, p. 296).

FLIPPING THE CLASSROOM

Where teachers want to maximise their students' opportunities to use the target language in meaningful contexts in the classroom (whether through TBLT or other means), flipping the classroom may provide a useful framework. Flipped classrooms require learners to take more ownership of their own learning, studying essential content before class, either on their own or in groups, and then, when in class, applying their knowledge and understanding in a range of in-class, more interactive activities (Collins & Muhoz, 2016; Spurritt, 2013). In the flipped language classroom, a lot of the background stuff that learners need to interact successfully (such as knowledge of grammatical rules, practice with those rules, and vocabulary acquisition) can be dealt with outside the classroom, and in preparation for forthcoming classes. This creates maximum in-class time for using the target language in productive communicative ways, giving students lots of interactional practice opportunities. There are two main challenges with a flipped classroom model. First, teachers may need to spend a lot of time locating or creating suitable and accessible input resources for out-of-class use, such as instructional videos or Internet sources on aspects of grammar alongside related practice exercises. Second, learners do need to see the point and value of giving their time out of class to adequate preparation, and there will always be those who will opt out (Collins & Muhoz, 2016). Linking in-class success with out-of-class effort may be a means of elevating the importance of the prior learning.

DEVELOPING LEARNERS' INTERCULTURAL UNDERSTANDING

As language learners preparetotake their place as 21st century global citizens, language acquisition alone is not going to be sufficient. As Liddicoat (2008) puts it, "[a] language learner who has learnt only the grammar and vocabulary of a language is... not well equipped to communicate in that language." He goes on to assert that "learners require cultural knowledge as much as they require grammar and vocabulary" (p. 278), It is important not to neglect the intercultural dimension of language learning. Intercultural capability' (or 'intercultural understanding') is more than just knowing facts about the target culture (no matter how interesting some of those facts might be). Intercultural understanding has been described by Kramsch (1993) as including three elements or 'places':

1. The first place: learners' understanding of their own culture and its influence on what they say and do

2. The second place: learners' understanding of their interlocutors' culture and its influence on what they say and do

3. The third place: creating a space between the learner's own culture and the target culture in which the learners and their interlocutors can interact in ways that are comfortable and non-threatening because they are based on mutual understanding of where each other is coming from.

The challenge here is exactly how to bring language learners to a meaningful 'third place', or even to move beyond 'third place' thinking to considering how they can apply a new reflexive lens to understanding their own language and culture use as well as that of others, and how to interpret culture embedded in language and language in culture, in ways that do not neglect time for communicative interactions in the target language. This is especially a challenge in time-limited instructional contexts, and where there are pressures to use target language all, or nearly all, the time.

ANDREW SCRIMGEOUR

LEARNERS AND THEIR LEARNING NEEDS

Policy in Australia typically dictates that we teach SiX or seven languages to the majority of our English monolingual students and allow those with a family background in another language to access complementary providers (often on weekends) in order to maintain their home language as long as or as best they can. We also have a national curriculum that acknowledges learner diversity to some extent, supporting the development of background learner pathways for some languages, and three pathways for Chinese (first language, background language and second language learners). However, these policies supporting languages of national interest and languages of community groups still tend to assume a rather homogenous learner group for each language pathway. Teaching practices, reinforced by textbooks, assume little linguistic and cultural diversity in the classroom, and, significantly, assume that there are no students of prior learning experience or home use of the 'second' language they are learning. This 'one size fits all' approach to language learning fails to acknowledge, support or build upon the potential for enhanced and advanced learning that many students display. The result of this approach is often lowest common denominator outcomes, where teaching is held back to meet the needs of, at worst, the least interested and least willing to advance their language skills, or, hopefully, teaching directed to those with the most significant needs in order to grasp the demands of learning the new language. In either case, those with prior knowledge find themselves marginalised or demotivated by menial exercises that don't challenge or reward their prior leaning or experience.

So what can be done? Ideally- and this really should be a priority if we are serious about attending to learner needs- there should be separate cohorts/classes, and separate curricula, as intended by the Australian Curriculum: Languages for Chinese, for example, where background and experience is to some extent considered, and curricula with age-appropriate and interesting materials are provided. In the absence of differentiated class groups, however, there is a need to ensure that the resource base for all languages taught in schools includes advice and material to assist in both scaffolding learning for those with limited background, and to enhance and enrich the learning experiences for those with advanced knowledge and skills. Such differentiated resources are increasingly accessible through digital technologies and have the potential to enliven our language classrooms and motivate those willing to advance their learning beyond current expectations. The risk in this approach, is that the differentiation within the class in terms of activities learners engage with, may make some learners feel that others in the class do more interesting things. It will require sensitive and thoughtful preparation of materials and scaffolding of lessons to pull this off effectively. Only through such initiatives, however, to provide engaging learning for all groups, might we see the types of retention rates and levels of achievement that we have long anticipatedin the Australian language classroom.

THE LANGUAGES WE TEACH AND THE STRATEGIC SUPPORT THEY NEED

It is a common refrain among language educators that all language learning is useful and the learning of all languages should be supported in our community, without prioritisation of one or more language(s) over others. However, there has always been a policy position that some languages are more equal than others - and clearly the support of Asian languages, especially Chinese, Japanese and Indonesian (and to a much lesser extent Korean), has seen a shift away from the teaching of more 'traditional' (for Australia) European languages, in the last few decades.

Beyond these changes in national, politically and economically driven priorities, it is more generally true that support for languages is universal and generic, and the types of policy decisions and curriculum development practices we see at a state or regional level do not prioritise one language over another.

This is clearly a good thing for the learning area as a whole, but as we have seen languages grow in schools we have seen a rise in language-specific issues in the delivery of programs and in the nature of learner engagement with those languages, Take for example the position of Indonesian in our schools. In South Australia it is among the most widely taught languages in schools (See Figure 1, below), but it also suffers from the highest attrition rate among all mainstream languages taught in South Australia.

The point here is not to try to identify why this is so, but to acknowledge that languages are different in their nature, their relationship to the Australian community, and in terms of the perception in the community about the merits or otherwise of studying that language (Midgley, 2017).

Another example of a language with complex diversity issues is Chinese. It is a language that has grown rapidly in its provision in primary schools and secondary schools across the country. It is also a language that is particularly challenging for learners of alphabetic first language background, and is particularly challenging, therefore, for the vast majority of Chinese teachers who are recently arrived native speakers of that language, unaccustomed to the additional language classroom with non-Chinese background students. Teachers of Chinese, more than any other language, also have to address the issue of background speaker participation in second language classrooms.

The provision of an additional pathway (in the Australian Curriculum: Languages) isn't in itself a solution. What is needed is deliberate and sustained professional learning for teachers to understand how to address the needs of diverse learners in the same classroom - an issue that the Australian Curriculum clearly does not address (and to be fair, the Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority [ACARA]'s remit was to provide the curriculum, not the pedagogy or implementation strategies). Whilst not wishing to suggest that resources should be diverted from other languages, it is clear that each language is unique in terms of its nature and place in the Australian community, and as we strive to improve the quality and uptake of particular languages we need to both understand and respond to the distinctive needs of teachers and learners of these languages, in language-specific ways.

Without strategic intervention to address learner and teacher complexity and language-specific challenges, some of the languages we teach will be destined to a long period of marginalisation, coupled with an increasing community perception that such languages are either too hard, irrelevant or dominated by native speaker students, to warrant the interest and attention of young second language learners.

THE NATIONAL AGENDA: AUSTRALIAN CURRICULUM: LANGUAGES

One feature of the roll out of the Australian Curriculum: Languages has been the diversity of ways in which this national initiative has been both interpreted and implemented in each state and territory. Despite the stated aim of the Australian Curriculum: Languages, supported by state and territory Ministers of Education, to bring greater consistency across the country, there is much diversity in implementation. This is evidenced by the very different (from each other) 'syllabuses' 'based on' the Australian Curriculum In NSW and Western Australia, another rebadged version of the curriculum in Victoria, and the curriculum more or less intact as used in the Northern Territory, South Australia, Tasmania, the ACT and Queensland. These variations highlight the need for national professional associations such as the AFMLTA to ensure there is a national conversation that continues in order to look beyond the state-particular interpretations and practices in languages education.

One area for continued national conversation is in the area of data gathering, in terms of language provision and learner participation, retention rates and how various policies toward promoting retention in languages education are working, and in terms of benchmarking student achievement in language learning under different conditions, such as frequency and duration of lessons. Such national data gathering is sorely absent in this demographically small nation and is a policy direction that the AFMLTA should be, and is, taking up with the federal government at every opportunity.

Much is spoken and written about the merits of the Australian Curriculum: Languages and its potential to improve learners' experiences and outcomes, but without sustained and widespread data gathering little will be known about the impact these critical intitules are having on our national languages education scene.

JOHN HAJEK

DEVELOP A STRATEGY TO DEFEND AGAINST THE PUSH FOR CODING AS A REPLACEMENT FOR LANGUAGES, TIED IN WITH BREAKING DOWN THE NEGATIVITY TOWARDS A SO-CALLED 'FOREIGN' LANGUAGE

As teachers of languages, we need to message in a very clear and simple way that coding is not languages learning, and does not belong in the languages space (Mason, 2017). Coding should be seen as having its rightful place in Science, Technology, Engineering and Maths (STEM) education, where, ironically, it could be taught through languages using a Content Integrated Learning and Language (CLIL) approach. Languages are more than just coding instructions for a digital application. Language learning brings with it not only cognitive benefits, language awareness and knowledge, but also important benefits to children and broader society with respect to intercultural understanding and emotional well-being.

Concomitantly, we also need to insist that the term 'foreign' language should not be used in public discourse any longer - and yet it shows some signs of recent resurgence. It was a hard-won battle in the 1980s to replace that exclusionary term with other terms such as 'community language', and languages other than English', Today the preferred term is simply languages' - which avoids diminishing the concept of language learning and its inclusive nature through a process of 'othering', i.e. 'not from here, not like us' (Derrida, 1973; Said, 1978).

Given the increasing proportion of Australians who speak a multitude of languages at home, i.e. are here and are not the 'other'- more than a quarter of the population (Australian Bureau of Statistics [ABS], 2016)- and that we recognise many different functions of language, e.g. world language, community language, additional language, etc... - all of which can be encompassed by a single word, language, there is no case for slippage back to the use of 'foreign', nor for considering the richness of a language something that can be reduced to another kind of mathematical code.

ADDRESS SOCIAL INCLUSION THROUGH LANGUAGES LEARNING AND RECOGNITION

We need school principals to understand that languages learning is incredibly helpful in supporting inclusion in the school - especially where English as an Additional Language or Dialect (EALD) children are involved. It is common practice in some schools to remove EALD children from languages classrooms - in the belief that these children are not capable of contributing to or learning in that setting - and require more direct instruction in English instead.

Proficiency in English is recognised as important, but the removal of children from a normal classroom has the unfortunate effect of stigmatising them as 'different' (more 'othering') and not able to learn in the same manner as other children. EALD children have much to offer the languages classroom - they have greater awareness about language in general and are also able to share their language knowledge and learning experience with other children in a language learning setting (D'Warte, 2014).

THE NEED FOR SO MUCH MORE RESEARCH, INCLUDING CLASSROOM-BASED INQUIRY

More research is needed about languages learning and teaching in Australia- including inquiry-based learning as might be conducted in the classroom, The presentations at the AFMLTA conference have amply demonstrated the value of such research - and the active participation of teachers themselves is of paramount importance.

There is still so much for us to learn and understand - in order to ensure high quality languages education for all Australian children. D'Warte's (2014) research cited above on multilingual repertoires as an asset in the classroom, which explores how language repertoires can be playfully included is the classroom, putting all the children at ease, is an example of new research opening new paths of understanding and educating.

ANNE-MARIE MORGAN

RECOGNISING THE PLURILINGUAL AND PLURICULTURAL COMPOSITION OF AUSTRALIAN SOCIETY

An urgent priority in Australia, and many other nations as well- especially those with tendencies towards monolingual national perspectives, or where the 'supremacy' of English has long held the status of being 'enough' (the only language resource needed)- is the recognition of the true diversity of its population. The richness of the diversity of language use, and of the myriad cultural influences in Australia, needs not only celebrating in multicultural festivals, but foregrounding in public policy, social commentary, school curricula and playgrounds, and elsewhere.

Our education system, in particular, needs to shift from an English-only perspective, 'foreignising' languages and cultures and people (see Hajek, above), even by those who would claim to be seeking to increase languages learning and to promote multicultural diversity, to truly acknowledging the plurilingual and pluricultural nature of the nation. In pluricultural and plurilingual theorisation, all linguistic and cultural resources are valued (see Ellis, this issue)- one need not be native-speaker fluent in an additional language to be able to use it or identify with its culture(s); but, rather, should be able to use varying amounts of language, and to mix languages and cultural contexts-translanguaging- in natural and ordinary ways, in all the contexts of use, and with different interlocutors, that might arise in that individual's life. Every classroom has individuals- teachers and learners- with, as Ellis (this issue) puts it languaged lives' complex connections of histories, cultures, backgrounds, and experiences, whose contributions should be recognised, and whose learning needs are met in our education systems.

How might this be possible? How do we cater for such diverse needs in an education system? What should curricula look like, especially languages' curricula, in such diverse contexts, and when the emphasis is on 'starting from scratch' (blank slate?) second language learning? Scrimgeour, above, suggests it needsto be as diverse as the learners in the classroom, so all are recognised, valued and can participate, meaningfully, and then want to continue to learn the language, or others, throughout the years of schooling.

What preparation do all teachers need to be effective in such contexts? Minimally, they need orientations, perspectives and curricula in their pre-teaching education, and in-service studies, that put this diversity and the varied semiotic resources learners will bring, front and centre in all that they teach. Their preparation must be rich in language and languages, and be prepared to shift and change with the variations that will be encountered in every class.

What political and community will is needed to achieve this? How do we recognise and value all languages and cultures in an increasingly suspicious and divisive world- think of Brexit (the UK divorced from Europe), Trump ('we must put America- and English monolingualism- first'), the migration crisis in Europe (how many nations can reject refugees arriving on their shores?); not to mention Australia's own migration policies, still reeling from the Howard era ('we will decide who comes to Australia and the circumstances in which they come')?

Responding to these challenges has never been so urgent, and teachers of languages and education systems are powerful sites to begin this work.

SUFFICIENT TEACHING TIME FOR LANGUAGES

My second key issue extends from the point above, and connects with the challenges posed by Spada (above), in relation to the most effective modes for language learning in limited time contexts- the best 'bang for buck' we can squeeze out of precious classroom time. Scrimgeour (above) also reminds us that duration and frequency of lessons are vital concerns if we want to be effective and engaging in teaching and learning languages. East (above and in this issue) also talks of the challenges, especially in New Zealand, where there are often non-specialist teachers, of carving out enough time to reflect on language use, to explore an intercultural orientation which really allows learners to challenge themselves and make personal meaning of their learning, when there are such limitations on time, and there is disproportionate pressure to arrive at some kind of proficiency in an additional language.

We know that there must be both sufficient time on task and frequency of lessons to achieve meaningful language learning- Spada (above) challenges us to consider some options not much explored in Australian mainstream teaching- such as concentrated time, learning solely in the target language for, say, half the year or even one term. We must demand that we have sufficient time to teach languages effectively, for all the benefits this will bring to literacy levels, cognitive gains and engaged, interculturally aware learners, or stop pretending that a patchwork approach will produce a fine and connected quilt. As it is, all those little squares of patchwork, with unfinished edges and weak patches, many that we attempt to start again and again, cannot be effectively sewn together, and instead leave both students and teachers with frayed edges and a sense of repetitive failure, futility, or an 'I cannot do this' attitude.

We need to consider what program types and modes- e.g. bilingual, CLL, immersion in all its forms, concentrated, and so on, would best suit meaningful acquisition needs in the Australian context, with the diversity of learners, and the challenge of broad curriculum demands. We also need to take up Scrimgeour's (above) point about the choice and suitability of a language, and its own specificities in the context of our classrooms. Finally, we need to work with, research and develop approaches teachers can use and are at ease with, and which will be rewarding for them and their students, whatever their own languaged lives' might be.

We urgently need a greater commitment of time for languages learning-for world, community and Australian languages- and we need the support of governments, education departments, and professional associations like the AFMLTA to advocate for these outcomes, to shift us into a space where we have sufficient time for effective learning of languages, and can reap the benefits.

INCREASED LEARNING OF ABORIGINAL AND TORRES STRAIT ISLANDER LANGUAGES

My third key issue relates to the learning of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander languages. I leave my keys ideas posing a number of questions:

How do we increase the learning of these languages, working with communities and elders and writers in a sensitive, respectful and productive way?

What engagement and pathways are needed to facilitate and negotiate the aim of increasing this learning? Who should be at the table, and who should drive implementation?

How do we increase the numbers of teachers of Aboriginal languages and Torres Strait Islander languages, and how do we prepare them? What additional resources and commitments are needed to grow this cohort of teachers and to employ them productively and meaningfully across the nation?

Engagement with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander languages and cultures is one of the most urgent issues for our nation, and one which I hope will be given more attention in the next few decades, so that we might reach a point, in this century, when it is more common than not to have facility with an Aboriginal language, and a deeper understanding of indigenous cultures and their significance in our nation; and first language users of indigenous languages have their languages and cultures commonly used and valued in schools and society across Australia (Morgan, Reid & Freebody, 2018).

REFERENCES

Collins, L. & Munoz, C 2016 The foreign language classroom: Current perspectives and future considerations The Modern Language Journal, 100(1), 133-147.

Collins, L, & White, J. 2011, An intensive look at intensity and language learning. TESOL Quarterly, 45(1), 106-133

Derrida, J 1973 Speech and phenomena and Other essays on Husserl's theory of signs Trans David B. Allison Evanston, Illinois; Northwestern University Press,

D'Warte, J. (2014). Linguistic repertoires: Teachers and students explore their everyday language worlds Language Arts, 91(5): 352-362

Gorski, P.C 2016 Making better multicultural and social justice teacher educators: a qualitative analysis of the professional learning and support needs of multicultural teacher education faculty, Multicultural Education Review, 8(3), 139-159

Kramsch, C. 1993. Culture and context in language teaching, Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press

Lapkin, S, Hart, D, & Harley, B. 1998. Case study of compact Core French models: Attitudes and achievement. In S. Lapkin (Ed.), French second language education in Canada: Empirical studies (pp. 3 - 30), Toronto, Ontario, Canada: University of Toronto Press

Liddicoat, A, 2008. Pedagogical practice for integrating the intercultural in language teaching and learning. Japanese Studies, 28(3), 277-290.

Lightbown, P.M., Halter, R, White, J., & Horst, M 2002 Comprehension-based learning: The limits of "Do it yourself. Canadian Modern Language Review, 58(3), 427-464.

Lightbown, P.M, & Spada, N. 1994. An innovative program for primary ESL in Quebec. TESOL Quarterly, 28(3), 563-579.

Mason, S, (2017). The coding versus language debate. MLTAQ Journal, 166, 23-28.

Midgley, W 2017 Which languages should Australian childre be learning to get ahead? The Conversation, 24 March 2017, retrieved from http://www.abc net.au/news/2017-03-24/which-languages-should-australian-children-be-learning/8383146

Mitchell, R. 2000. Applied linguistics and evidence-based classroom practice: The case of foreign language grammar pedagogy. Applied Linguistics, 21(3), 281-303.

Morgan, A., Reid, N, & Frebody, P. (2018) Literacy and language education in Australian schools: History, challenges and lessons. In Verhoeven, L., & Pugh, K, & Perfetti, C (eds), Cross-linguistic perspectives on literacy education. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Munoz, C. 2006 The effects of age on foreign language learning: The BAF project In C Munoz (Ed), Age and rate of foreign language learning (pp. 1-40). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.

Murphy, V., Macaro, E, Alba, S. & Cipolla, C 2015 The influence of learning a second language in primary school on developing first language literacy skills. Applied Psycholinguistics 36, 1133-1153

Netten, J., & Germain, C, 2004. Introduction: Intensive French. Canadian Modern Language Review, 60(3), 263-273.

Niemi, K, Toom, A, & Kallioniemi, A (eds.) 2016 Miracle of education: The principles and practices of teaching and learning in finnish schools. Rotterdam: sense Publishers.

Nunan, D 2004 Task-based language teaching Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Said, E.W. 1978 Orientalism New York: Pantheon Books

Serrano, R., Llanes, A., & Tragant, E. 2011 Analyzing the effect of context of second language learning: Domestic intensive and semi-intensive courses vs. study abroad in Europe. System, 39(2), 133-143

Shintani, N., & Ellis, R. 2010. The incidental acquisition of English plural -s by Japanese children in comprehension-based lessons: A process-product study Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 32(4), 607-637.

Spurritt, C 2013 Flipping the classroom, Prezi presentation Retrieved from https://prezi.com/zvdyoeuqhxxy/flipping-the-classroom/

Tragant, E., Munoz, C, & Spada, N 2016 Maximizing young learners' input: An intervention program Canadian Modern Language Review, 72(2), 234-257.

Willis, D., & Willis, J. 2007 Doing task-based teaching. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

Young, M, 2012. The Curriculum - 'An entitlement to powerful knowledge': A response to John White New visions for Education. Retrieved from www.newvisionsforeducation org uk/2012/05/03/the-curriculum%E2%80%98an-entitlement-to-powerful-knowledge%E2%80%99-a-response-to-john-white/.

Nina Spada, University of Toronto (*)

Dr. Nina Spada is Professor Emerita in the Language and Literacies Education program at OISE University of Toronto, Canada. Her research investigates the effects of instruction on L2 learning and how different combinations of form and meaning-focused instruction contribute to the development of different types of L2 knowledge. Dr. Spada is co-author of the book How Languages are Learned and co-editor of two book series: Language Learning and Language Teaching published by John Benjamins and the Oxford Key Concepts for the Language Classroom published by Oxford University Press. Dr. Spada is Past President of the American Association for Applied Linguistics.

Martin East, University of Auckland

Martin East is Professor of Language Education in the School of Cultures, Languages and Linguistics, the University of Auckland, New Zealand, and Immediate Past President of the New Zealand Association of Language Teachers. He was formerly a language teacher educator in the University's Faculty of Education and Social Work, working with those who would go on to teach languages other than English in schools. He has a particular interest in the impact of innovative practices in language teaching, learning and assessment, and he publishes widely in these areas. Jane Orton, The University of Melbourne

Jane Orton is an Honorary Fellow at the University of Melbourne where she was director of the Chinese Teacher Training Centre from 2009-2015. Jane is a Board member of the Chinese as a Second Language Research Association and lias researched and published widely in the learning of Chinese as a Second Language, most recently: Foundations for Content Learning in Chinese: Beyond the European Base (with Y. Zhang and X. Cui), in I. Kesckes & C. Sun (eds), Key Issues in Chinese as a Second Language Research, New York and London: Routledge, 2017; and Building Chinese Language Capacity in Australia. Sydney: ACRI, UTS, 2016.

Lia Tedesco, School of Languages, South Australia

Lia Tedesco is the Principal of the South Australian School of Languages, with a long history in representation of languages teaching and learning at national level in advisory boards, including for ACARA and state and national education departments. She supports the work of CCAFL, and community languages.Andrew Scrimgeour. University of South Australia, Vice President AFMLTA

Andrew Scrimgeour, University of South Australia

Andrew Scrimgeour is Vice-president of the AFMLTA. He is a lectuier at the University of South Australia in Languages Education & Chinese He lias been involved in a range of projects in the Chinese language education field, with a focus on national and state policy toward Asian languages, and tine development of the Australian Curriculum Chinese He undertakes research into learner diversity in the Chinese language classroom, literacy development in Chinese, the history of Chinese foreign language textbooks and dictionary compilation, and Chinese language teacher training.

John Hajek, The University of Melbourne

John Hajek is Professor of Italian Studies and director of the Research Unit for Multilingualism and Cross-cultural Communication (RUMACCC) at the University of Melbourne. He is a language teacher and linguist active in promoting the benefits of multilingualism and languages education h our schools. He has worked extensively in all sectors of languages education, and is also an active language teacher and researcher.

Anne-Marie Morgan, University of New England, President AFMLTA

Anne-Marie is Professor and Associate Dean, Teaching and Learning, in the Facility of Humanities, Arts and Social Sciences, and Education, at the University of New England, Australia. Her teaching and research interests include the work of teachers of languages, Indonesian language teaching and learning, languages curricula, intercultural language teaching and learning, teaching in bilingual contexts, plurilingualism, and literacy education. She is tine current President of the AFMLTA.

Caption: Figure 1: Top three languages taught in schools (Midgley, 2017; retrieved from http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-03-24/which-languages-should-australian-chlldren-be-leaming/8383146

Table 1: Summary of Key Ideas across Themes (*)

Pedagogy and                  Strategy and Policy
Methodologies

* Concentrated instructional  * Is an early start best? (NS)
time (NS)                     * Focus on national senior secondary
                                policy- CCAFL (LT)
* Comprehension based         * The importance of distance
learning (NS)                   education (LT)
                              * Schools of languages (LT)
* Task-based learning (ME)    * Resisting 'coding' as a proxy for
                                languages learning (JH)
* Flipped classrooms (ME)     * Promoting social inclusion (JH)
* Developing learners'        * Which languages and what support? (AS)
intercultural understanding     Which languages and what support? (AS)*
(ME)                          * National agenda- Australian Curriculum
                                Languages (AS)
* Learners and learning       * Recognising and catering for
needs  (AS)                     plurilingual and pluricultural
                                Australian society (AM)
* Sufficient learning time    * Increasing and supporting Aboriginal
(AM)                            and Torres Strait Islander languages
                                (AM)

Pedagogy and                   Research                  Teacher
Methodologies                                            Education

* Concentrated instructional   * Coordinated mapping     * Teacher
time (NS)                      of what works for         education- pre-
* Comprehension based          good teaching and         and in-service;
learning (NS)                  learning of languages,    preparation of
* Task-based learning (ME)     with international        all teachers of
* Flipped classrooms (ME)      contributions around      languages (JO)
* Developing learners'         key themes of global
intercultural understanding    interest (JO)
(ME)                           * increasing academic
* Learners and learning needs  * research and practice-
(AS)                           based inquiry (JH)
* Sufficient learning time
(AM)

Pedagogy and                   Resources
Methodologies

* Concentrated instructional   * Teaching
time (NS)                      resources-guide
* Comprehension based          the textbook
learning (NS)
* Task-based learning (ME)     producers to
* Flipped classrooms (ME)      generate what
* Developing learners'         teachers need,
intercultural understanding    and get beyond
(ME)                           'beginners' (JO)
* Learners and learning needs
(AS)
* Sufficient learning time
(AM)

(*) initials indicate authors

Please Note: Illustration(s) are not available due to copyright restrictions.