ATAR Notes: Forum
VCE Stuff => VCE Languages Other Than English (LOTE) => VCE Subjects + Help => VCE Chinese SL & SLA => Topic started by: Tasmania Jones on November 02, 2013, 04:57:24 pm
-
VCAA was proposing changes to Chinese to encourage more non-Chinese background students to study it.
I'm not sure what VCAA has decided to do yet but from other information it appears that they intend to modify the requirements for Chinese SL like this:
A student is NOT eligible for Chinese Second Language if they:
- have had more than 200 hours’ study of the language at the secondary level (or the equivalent); or
- regularly use the language for sustained communication outside the classroom, including, but not limited to, the home.
I don't think they have decided what to do yet, but I hope they don't implement this changes. I intend to do Units 3/4 next year, so will this affect me? Or are the changes to be implemented for 2015 or later?
See these resources for more information:
http://www.vcaa.vic.edu.au/Documents/vce/vceconsult/Strengthening_Chinese_language_provision_in_senior_secondary_schooling.pdf
http://www.theage.com.au/national/education/home-chat-cause-for-rethink-on-school-mandarin-eligibility-20131016-2vmzn.html
VCAA website seems down right now though :(
EDIT: fixed list formatting
-
I don't think you will be affected :)
"Chinese Second Language
Accreditation period - Units 1-4: 2008-2016" ~From VCAA. Normally when they want to change something, they do it after the accreditation period (ie 2017 in this case).
A student is NOT eligible for Chinese Second Language if they:
- regularly use the language for sustained communication outside the classroom, including, but not limited to, the home.
I wonder how they would know ???
-
I don't think you will be affected :)
"Chinese Second Language
Accreditation period - Units 1-4: 2008-2016" ~From VCAA. Normally when they want to change something, they do it after the accreditation period (ie 2017 in this case).
I wonder how they would know ???
Yes, and also what do they mean by "regularly use"? My mother is Chinese but my father is not so we mostly speak English at home, although my mother sometimes talks to me in Chinese. I also speak Chinese with my grandparents. The report also mentions that
It is not consistent with current legislation to prohibit students from enrolment in areas of study on account of their birthplace or their parents’ birthplace
And, say a student learns Chinese from years 7-10 for about 2 hours per week for 40 weeks
2x40x4=320 hours! So I'm not sure how the 200 hour rule will work.
Thanks for the reassurance; I thought it would be a bit late to make the changes next year :)
-
I don't think you will be affected :)
"Chinese Second Language
Accreditation period - Units 1-4: 2008-2016" ~From VCAA. Normally when they want to change something, they do it after the accreditation period (ie 2017 in this case).
I wonder how they would know ???
I have an Uyghur friend.. He fluently speaks Chinese..he was going to do Chinese as a second language but they didn't let him do it. I think they are testing your language level before commencing the unit...but I did turkish as a second language although it is my first language...shame on me that I got 35 :(
-
He fluently speaks Chinese..he was going to do Chinese as a second language but they didn't let him do it.
According to current requirements, just speaking chinese fluently is not really a valid reason for them to reject you doing second language. He must have met other requirements, such as living in china for more than x years (i think it is 3? I cannot remember)
-
Yeah, the current requirements to do CSL are:
A student is NOT eligible for Chinese Second Language if they have had either: 12 months or more education in a school where Chinese is the medium of instruction, or three years (36 months) or more residence in any of the VCAA-nominated countries or regions (the nominated countries and regions are China, Taiwan, Hong Kong or Macau).
-
Yeah, the current requirements to do CSL are:
A student is NOT eligible for Chinese Second Language if they have had either: 12 months or more education in a school where Chinese is the medium of instruction, or three years (36 months) or more residence in any of the VCAA-nominated countries or regions (the nominated countries and regions are China, Taiwan, Hong Kong or Macau).
Haha glad to know. I didn't do chinese, so i am quite happy with my knowledge of the requirements :)
-
Back in my days, the boundary between SLA and SL was very vague... e.g, there were some really fluent people, who had schooling in China, but still managed to do SL (VCE chinese politics ftw!).
-
Back in my days, the boundary between SLA and SL was very vague... e.g, there were some really fluent people, who had schooling in China, but still managed to do SL (VCE chinese politics ftw!).
This is still the case today.
-
lol not surprising at all ey
-
I think some of the proposals are outrageous.
A VET subject!? Half the cohort wouldn't bother with that because of the lack of aggregate boosting.
Discriminating based on ability? PFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFTTTTTTTTTTT. Are you kidding me. Are you REALLY kidding me. You're telling me, that I have to do some of English AND have it counted in my primary four, despite not speaking it at home, but that people who speak Chinese at home should be disadvantaged? What sort of stupid half-twisted logic is this? So we're being disadvantaged by the fact that we speak Chinese at home, and that we study it earlier? Well go have a cry VCAA, because penalising students from being good at Chinese is preposterous. If anything, if you want to make it easier for non-Chinese background students, acknowledge the fact that people with a Chinese background can speak a second language well! The only bit about the entire document that made remote sense was pushing up the scaling in SLA. However, seriously, another Chinese division is in order. The gap between SL and SLA is ridiculous.
Besides, good luck identifying who has spoken Chinese at home. If you disadvantage education in a subject, people will feign stupidity to pass your interview or whatever test you have. What on earth do you plan on achieving from that?
And I thought the maths and sciences were bad. This is racism.
http://www.vcaa.vic.edu.au/Documents/vce/vceconsult/Strengthening_Chinese_language_provision_in_senior_secondary_schooling.pdf
I quote: The VCAA has received many requests for this option from schools offering VCE CSL to non-background learners. They generally request that no student with any Chinese background be permitted to enrol in CSL.
See my original point about English and Chinese. Where the heck is the logic in that? If Chinese is our second language, what do you want us to enrol in? JUST because our parents are Chinese, doesn't mean we have to be any good at Chinese. Some of us here aren't actually any good at all in Chinese! By that logic, we should be able to all enrol in ESL then, because we're of "Chinese background" and presumably cannot be expected to cope with competing against Australians in English. Is that going to work? No.
VCAA never ceases to disappoint me.
-
It is a tough problem, the current system is bad, but I'm not too sure if theres a better way of splitting the subject up. The line between SL, SLA and first language is vague and quite stupid. (And allowing people to do ESL and SLA together wtf?)
But its true, any person at the moment with a non-chinese background who wants to do VCE chinese is at a huge disadvantage. Maybe look to at overseas curriculum designs? IB? Do they do it any better?
-
Yeah, wish they thought of it sooner, because if they did I wouldn't be feeling so overwhelmed this year! After all, when you're not exposed to mandarin at home, it's really hard to compete against mandarin-speaking peers, but I learnt that the hard way.
-
It's interesting that they would only focus on doing this with Chinese. Most likely, of course, because there are a large number of students who feel they are being disadvantage by taking Chinese SL because of the number of native speakers taking it. A lot of LOTE subjects are dominated by native speakers, though. At my school we had students take Macedonian, Bosnian, Croatian and Serbian through VSL and all of them got relatively mediocre scores despite all being native speakers themselves. It makes the process particularly frustrating for students who may like to take one of those languages, or the many others that experience the same thing. Very tricky to get right and without being too simplistic about it. Having Chinese heritage does not constitute a legitimate reason to prevent someone from taking that subject. Having it as an active language at home though, I daresay does.
-
*part of quote removed*
Having Chinese heritage does not constitute a legitimate reason to prevent someone from taking that subject. Having it as an active language at home though, I daresay does.
I completely agree that heritage should have nothing to do with it. Some people I know with a Chinese background can hardly put a sentence together in Mandarin and are hopeless at writing. But how would VCAA know if it is an active language spoken at home, and to what extent? As TT already stated, some people supposed to be doing SLA have slipped through the gaps. This would be even harder to measure.
I daresay that work ethic does play a part too in Chinese background students getting high marks for CSL.
-
Hmm... We speak English at home but my mum can speak Italian and when I was studying the language I often got her to check my work for any errors. I think that's the only advantage one's background can confer, perhaps in addition to a heightened level of interest and passion. In the end, it didn't make much of a difference compared to someone who is completely non-native.
-
Hmm... We speak English at home but my mum can speak Italian and when I was studying the language I often got her to check my work for any errors. I think that's the only advantage one's background can confer, perhaps in addition to a heightened level of interest and passion. In the end, it didn't make much of a difference compared to someone who is completely non-native.
To be fair, there is a large difference between Chinese speakers and non-Chinese speakers when learning Chinese. Chinese background learners are generally much more fluent; I personally speak without much of a distinguishable foreign accent apparently. Also, their vocabulary is literally three times as large, at least (I probably recognise around 2000 characters plus, even though VCAA only asks for the recognition of around 500 characters). Although I may be nearer the upper extreme of Chinese background second language learners of Chinese, I think my point is clear; in Chinese, a disparity does exist, I'll concede that.
However, IMO the only way anything will change is if a new Chinese subject altogether is introduced. The gap between SLA and SL is way too large to get any SL students to move up, UNLESS those SL students who do move up are compensated somehow for voluntarily doing SLA. I don't think VCAA will really do that though; it gets complicated.
-
I completely agree that heritage should have nothing to do with it. Some people I know with a Chinese background can hardly put a sentence together in Mandarin and are hopeless at writing. But how would VCAA know if it is an active language spoken at home, and to what extent? As TT already stated, some people supposed to be doing SLA have slipped through the gaps. This would be even harder to measure.
I daresay that work ethic does play a part too in Chinese background students getting high marks for CSL.
I completely agree. That's the issue with this and this is exactly what makes it a complex issue. I think that most people would agree that it is an unfair advantage to enter a language subject having already been able to speak the language fluently in the first place. The problem is putting this in practice. It's not only an issue in Chinese either. Italian and German, in particular, have quite a lot of fluent, native speakers taking the subject and there is little weighting against them.
Most of the ways to deal with this have a critical flaw. Some examples that have been trialled before or at least put up before:
-multiple levels of study (like we already have with Chinese). The HSC has (I think) four different levels for language subjects. Problem with that will come down to exams and assessment. The smaller the cohort you get, the uglier the maths of the scaling gets because you start to get random effects popping up.
-personal scaling. That is testing students before they enter the subject. Probably the most ideologically sensible, but it just wouldn't work in practice, particularly seeing that people enter language study at various times.
-heritage based. Clearly discriminatory and far too simplistic.
-
I completely agree that heritage should have nothing to do with it. Some people I know with a Chinese background can hardly put a sentence together in Mandarin and are hopeless at writing. But how would VCAA know if it is an active language spoken at home, and to what extent? As TT already stated, some people supposed to be doing SLA have slipped through the gaps. This would be even harder to measure.
I daresay that work ethic does play a part too in Chinese background students getting high marks for CSL.
If people come from a Chinese background but don't speak Chinese at home, there's a good chance that they wouldn't be placed into something more advanced. And I don't think it's all heritage - I know white people who speak Chinese/English at home because their families spent a while living in China and they didn't want to lose the language. And I also know a very small number of non-Chinese heritage people who took Chinese lessons from a young age and would be counted as background speakers. It would be hard to measure, but it's always going to be hard to measure, and I think the benefit of getting more people to take Chinese outweighs the costs of a very small group of people getting a comparative advantage.
Honestly, I think it's a good thing because Chinese is an important language, and huge portions of the population are being discouraged from gaining any proficiency in it because of VCE. I think parts of the policy are stupid (200 hours? Do they differentiate between background speakers and native speakers?) but I think it's important that they make the language more accessible to students who don't come from a background in it. Chinese is important, and given the state of language education in Australia, it's essential that it becomes more accessible.
-
(Also, consider the university model for education: anyone who has a background in a language is placed into the appropriate level. I'm taking intro Indonesian at the moment, but if I were in a class with people who'd grown up speaking it at home or had been taking additional classes in the language since primary school, I'd be discouraged from taking it. And that's without the intense ranking of VCE. Languages really should be finely calibrated for the incoming cohort, because people are not given the same opportunities to learn the language outside of the school curriculum.)
-
(Also, consider the university model for education: anyone who has a background in a language is placed into the appropriate level. I'm taking intro Indonesian at the moment, but if I were in a class with people who'd grown up speaking it at home or had been taking additional classes in the language since primary school, I'd be discouraged from taking it. And that's without the intense ranking of VCE. Languages really should be finely calibrated for the incoming cohort, because people are not given the same opportunities to learn the language outside of the school curriculum.)
This ^
The argument that usually comes up when this topic is raised is that someone learning a language from their parents is just like someone learning mathematics form their parents; a student who is fluent in Chinese because they speak it at home should be rewarded just like a student who is mathematically gifted because they were taught ahead of their age group should be. However, as appianway points out, the access to these opportunities is not equivalent. Being immersed within a Chinese-speaking environment at home is not something that is available to everyone, whereas learning additional mathematics (or whatever else) is.
I think some of the proposals are outrageous.
-snip-
Discriminating based on ability? PFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFTTTTTTTTTTT. Are you kidding me. Are you REALLY kidding me. You're telling me, that I have to do some of English AND have it counted in my primary four, despite not speaking it at home, but that people who speak Chinese at home should be disadvantaged? What sort of stupid half-twisted logic is this? So we're being disadvantaged by the fact that we speak Chinese at home, and that we study it earlier? Well go have a cry VCAA, because penalising students from being good at Chinese is preposterous.
-snip-
This is going into risky territory, and I definitely see where you're coming from nliu, but growing up in a Chinese-speaking environment is not an advantage that is available to everyone. From here is where the debate arises, I believe, but I'm with you in thinking that there really is no solution that seems appropriate. Clearly Chinese - among other languages - needs to be made more accessible to a wider population. Even at my school I saw many students dropping languages at year 11 because they feared inequality within the cohort that they were up against. The fact that this becomes a factor in a decision regarding education is just bullshit. Yet it seems that the desired increase in accessibility would only be achieved by division into levels of ability and of exposure before VCE. Not only does this become a tense proposition, however, but who knows how the hell you it could be managed in the first place.
-
This ^
The argument that usually comes up when this topic is raised is that someone learning a language from their parents is just like someone learning mathematics form their parents; a student who is fluent in Chinese because they speak it at home should be rewarded just like a student who is mathematically gifted because they were taught ahead of their age group should be. However, as appianway points out, the access to these opportunities is not equivalent. Being immersed within a Chinese-speaking environment at home is not something that is available to everyone, whereas learning additional mathematics (or whatever else) is.
The message I get here is that just because the access to these opportunities is not equivalent means that the people with an opportunity to learn more ahead of school have to then be disadvantaged to be brought onto equal footing with others. My issue with my interpretation of what you said is that this does not promote accelerated learning at all, and stifles students' desires to learn outside of class.
-
The message I get here is that just because the access to these opportunities is not equivalent means that the people with an opportunity to learn more ahead of school have to then be disadvantaged to be brought onto equal footing with others. My issue with my interpretation of what you said is that this does not promote accelerated learning at all, and stifles students' desires to learn outside of class.
I get where you're coming from, but no that's not what I intended. If a student has endeavoured to learn Chinese outside of school throughout his/her youth without the advantage of immersion within a Chinese-speaking environment at home, then they should not be disadvantaged, of course! But if another student, who still primarily speaks English, has learnt the language through their interactions with their Chinese-speaking family during their youth, then I don't see how they are on equal standing with the previously mentioned student.
I acknowledge that this argument has its flaws, but is that a little clearer?
-
The message I get here is that just because the access to these opportunities is not equivalent means that the people with an opportunity to learn more ahead of school have to then be disadvantaged to be brought onto equal footing with others. My issue with my interpretation of what you said is that this does not promote accelerated learning at all, and stifles students' desires to learn outside of class.
In the context of mathematics I would agree with you; if you've studied outside of school, it shouldn't matter if you already know some of the material that is being taught in the progression through the year 9 - 12 pathway. This is different though, there are specifically two streams of Chinese here, where one is designed for students who are already familiar with the language and the other is designed for students interested in learning the language from scratch. Preventing students who are already competent from enrolling in the CSL stream is perfectly fair and doesn't do anything to prevent "accelerated learning". If students are at a certain level in a language and there are classes offered at that level, there's no reason they should be enrolling below that level due to a lack of formal recognition of their education.
-
The current state of VCE LOTEs - being dominated by native speakers - is ridiculous and counterproductive. Fantastic, you're bilingual, do you want a special medal as well? You are given a unique opportunity to score extremely well in a LOTE subject. You also have to understand though that the fundamental nature of LOTE subjects is that they're geared towards those who picked the subject up in Year 7, and worked their butts off to learn a new language. Those are the people I truly respect in the whole LOTE system, and they are also those who get fucked over in most languages. It's ridiculous that someone cannot pick Chinese up in school anymore and expect to continue with it to VCE. Attempting to maintain the status-quo by calling suggested solutions 'racist' is deplorable.
The one instance in which this does not apply is for those in FL subjects, whom I really feel for. Not only are they tested to a higher standard, they also have to compete with fellow native speakers, and the scaling is not as high.
And to those of you whom are native speakers (regardless of where you lived) in a non-FL LOTE subject, let me tell you what's going to happen. Non-native speakers are going to leave your subject, as it becomes too hard to score well, even with the scaling bonus. You then move lower down the bell curve yourself. It becomes harder to score well. Non-native speakers leave the subject at an even greater rate. Scaling simultaneously goes down as well, as it's those who learn the subject as a second-language who tend to drive it up - they do very well in their other subjects. You're left with something equivalent to a FL subject - hard to score well in, and does not scale up as much anymore either.
And I'm writing all this as someone who benefited immensely from being a native speaker in a LOTE subject.
My solution would be to have everyone doing a language in one subject. The native speakers' scores would be calculated against the entire cohort, so they will benefit from competing against those with a lower degree of ability. Meanwhile, the non-native speakers would only compete against themselves. This will ensure that non-native speakers can learn a second language throughout their schooling, and not have to expect to be punished for it.
-
You are given a unique opportunity to score extremely well in a LOTE subject.
If that were the case, I'm sure people would not be complaining. The problem is, the net result of of VCAA's suggestion of pushing students to a higher LOTE subject would end up lowering their score overall, prompting them to forego taking the subject altogether. Although it can be argued that this system may benefit more true second language learners than the "advantaged" students that will be adversely affected, this plan nevertheless discourages taking up the LOTE by people from that particular background, which is also a slightly ridiculous notion.
You also have to understand though that the fundamental nature of LOTE subjects is that they're geared towards those who picked the subject up in Year 7, and worked their butts off to learn a new language. Those are the people I truly respect in the whole LOTE system, and they are also those who get fucked over in most languages. It's ridiculous that someone cannot pick Chinese up in school anymore and expect to continue with it to VCE.
I am not disagreeing with you here; that's why I proposed another level of Chinese, as currently the gap between SL and SLA Chinese is ridiculous. This way, we would have appease both sides.
Attempting to maintain the status-quo by calling suggested solutions 'racist' is deplorable.
It sort of is, if you think about it. One of VCAA's solutions is to force ANYONE with a Chinese background, regardless of if their parents speak Chinese or not, to do SLA. That is literally discriminating on the basis of cultural background.
The one instance in which this does not apply is for those in FL subjects, whom I really feel for. Not only are they tested to a higher standard, they also have to compete with fellow native speakers, and the scaling is not as high.
I agree with this point. First language learners are ripped off majorly.
My solution would be to have everyone doing a language in one subject. The native speakers' scores would be calculated against the entire cohort, so they will benefit from competing against those with a lower degree of ability. Meanwhile, the non-native speakers would only compete against themselves. This will ensure that non-native speakers can learn a second language throughout their schooling, and not have to expect to be punished for it.
While I like your objective, it would complicate the calculations system and it is doubtful as to whether VCAA would adopt something like that. Also, how do you plan on assessing the "native speakers"? Am I correct in interpreting your plan to mean that someone deemed a native speaker but with only a mediocre level of proficiency or achievement, who put in the same effort as a non-native speaker to rise against their respective competition, would thus get a lower score in the end?
-
In the context of mathematics I would agree with you; if you've studied outside of school, it shouldn't matter if you already know some of the material that is being taught in the progression through the year 9 - 12 pathway. This is different though, there are specifically two streams of Chinese here, where one is designed for students who are already familiar with the language and the other is designed for students interested in learning the language from scratch. Preventing students who are already competent from enrolling in the CSL stream is perfectly fair and doesn't do anything to prevent "accelerated learning". If students are at a certain level in a language and there are classes offered at that level, there's no reason they should be enrolling below that level due to a lack of formal recognition of their education.
So how about people who have attended Chinese School every weekend from prep to Yr 12? How is it fair they are not permitted to enrol in CSL and instead are forced to do SLA? If anything, this will turn off many background students from doing Chinese LOTE and would instead pick up another subject. I don't see any other subjects or languages where people are denied enrolment to subjects simply based on their ability.
Also, as I have emphasised many times already, how will VCAA measure 'competence' in a language?
-
How about this university-style approach as a solution:
Create a number of different streams. At the end of Year 10, all students wishing to take a language subject in VCE sit a special placement test which determines which stream they are put into (SAC results can also be referred to in order to ensure complete accuracy). That way, people are placed by their own individual ability, rather than any other learning factor, and they can learn content that is relevant and beneficial to them. Students do not change streams during VCE. Each stream is treated as if it were a different subject with appropriate assessments and scaling. Hopefully you'll get enough disparity between student's ability over the final two years of school and a bell curve results.
-
How about this university-style approach as a solution:
Create a number of different streams. At the end of Year 10, all students wishing to take a language subject in VCE sit a special placement test which determines which stream they are put into (SAC results can also be referred to in order to ensure complete accuracy). That way, people are placed by their own individual ability, rather than any other learning factor, and they can learn content that is relevant and beneficial to them. Students do not change streams during VCE. Each stream is treated as if it were a different subject with appropriate assessments and scaling. Hopefully you'll get enough disparity between student's ability over the final two years of school and a bell curve results.
You would need to make sure, however, that there is no benefit of taking a stream lower than the one people should be taking. Otherwise, people would play dumb to get into a lower class. It might also stretch resources for smaller schools with only a small number of students doing Chinese. It is one of the better proposals, however, and much more thought-out than VCAA's ideas. :)
On a side note, if current CSL students were forced to do CSLA, would the scaling (for CSLA) go up?
-
You would need to make sure, however, that there is no benefit of taking a stream lower than the one people should be taking. Otherwise, people would play dumb to get into a lower class. It might also stretch resources for smaller schools with only a small number of students doing Chinese. It is one of the better proposals, however, and much more thought-out than VCAA's ideas. :)
That's the only issue I see - and so perhaps other assessments and requirements should also be completed to ensure the utmost integrity (eg teacher's opinion).
In addition, it also ensures that students are rewarded based on their improvement over the course of the two years, rather than just what they do and don't know. That way, someone who has worked hard and improves a certain extent in a higher stream is regarded in the same way as someone who works equally as hard and improves by a similar extent in a lower stream (even though their overall competence is lower as a whole), and no one is unfairly advantaged or disadvantaged like in the current system where everyone seems to start at different levels to begin with.
-
The small problem is that there would be plenty of students who would be willing to do badly in year 10 on purpose in order to gain an upper hand in years 11 and 12, when it actually counts.
This is an issue, but I'm hoping that there'd be some way of making this work. :S
-
I am not disagreeing with you here; that's why I proposed another level of Chinese, as currently the gap between SL and SLA Chinese is ridiculous. This way, we would have appease both sides.
I can't see a fourth Chinese subject being created. This also does not solve the problem in other LOTE subjects with a sufficiently high proportion of native speakers to make them non-attractive to non-native speakers.
It sort of is, if you think about it. One of VCAA's solutions is to force ANYONE with a Chinese background, regardless of if their parents speak Chinese or not, to do SLA. That is literally discriminating on the basis of cultural background.
No, that's facially untrue. That option is simply not present in the discussion paper.
While I like your objective, it would complicate the calculations system and it is doubtful as to whether VCAA would adopt something like that. Also, how do you plan on assessing the "native speakers"? Am I correct in interpreting your plan to mean that someone deemed a native speaker but with only a mediocre level of proficiency or achievement, who put in the same effort as a non-native speaker to rise against their respective competition, would thus get a lower score in the end?
It's not too bad calculation-wise, and I don't really understand what you're trying to say there. There will be an arbitrary cutoff somewhere, sure, there has got to be that.
-
No, that's facially untrue. That option is simply not present in the discussion paper.
http://www.vcaa.vic.edu.au/Documents/vce/vceconsult/Strengthening_Chinese_language_provision_in_senior_secondary_schooling.pdf
Bottom of page 5
"regularly use the language for sustained communication outside the classroom,
including, but not limited to, the home."
Which covers many second-generation Chinese
I don't think I am being misinformed here
-
Let's compare the two things you have said:
It sort of is, if you think about it. One of VCAA's solutions is to force ANYONE with a Chinese background, regardless of if their parents speak Chinese or not, to do SLA.
As opposed to
... regularly use the language for sustained communication outside the classroom, including, but not limited to, the home.
Those two things are miles apart. The former is racist. The latter is completely appropriate.
-
Miles apart? The latter is still effectively discriminating against someone on the basis of their background. Sure, it doesn't explicitly say so, but when you put it into practice? Who are the people that will be affected?
I admit, my former comment was overexaggerated, but I stand by my statement that this proposal is racist.
-
Primary language used at home is one of the best way to distinguish between the true second language students, and the more advanced ones. I don't see the issue.
-
I speak Chinese at home, and took Chinese SL in year 11. I imagine that if I had done Chinese SLA, though, I would have done much worse. The distinction between SL and SLA essentially recognises that some students, who perhaps attended Chinese speaking schools, had greater opportunity to learn a language than other students. The new suggested changes to the system are simply the same logic applied to two other groups, those with a background in Chinese, and those without a background, so I think the proposals definitely have some merit to them.
However, I don't know if it would be best to merely dump all the native speakers into SLA, as you're adding one level of distinction, but removing another which exists for a reason. The difference between an native SL student and an SLA is student is being able to have a conversation on the weather and being able to write an essay on global warming. Grouping them together would essentially give you the same sort of problem - a group of language students finding it difficult to compete with another group of students with greater opportunity to learn the language. I suppose that it would encourage non-native speakers to take up the language, and reward them more aptly for their efforts, but it seems to me that it will punish middle band of Chinese native speakers, who speak the language too well to do Chinese SL, but not well enough to do well in SLA. It seems to be discouraging people who can speak Chinese quite well from taking the subject.
I guess the other issue is that, if speaking Chinese at home puts you into a different category than others, would speaking English at home put you in a different category from those who don't? I know people who, from a young age, only spoke Chinese at home, and as a result had difficulty learning English. While they were immersed in an English-speaking school environment, many struggled with the subject well into high school, resulting from their lack of exposure to the language as children. Yet, many students from such backgrounds also go on to learn English very well, and as a result it would be very difficult and perhaps arbitrary to be streaming students based on their exposure to the language.
I think it comes down to encouraging non-native speakers to take Chinese. The changes to the system would make it perhaps more accessible to non-native students, while making it more difficult for some native speakers to compete, and as a native speaker, albeit one completely done with Chinese, it's always going to feel a bit unfair having the scales tipped against us, when it is already quite difficult to do well in Chinese SL. But at the same time, I can see that the overall aim of the change is to increase enrollment in the subject of Chinese, as it is likely to be a very useful skill in times ahead.
I'm actually divided on the issue, but if the changes actually do go ahead, I'll be glad I did Chinese in 2012, haha.
-
The message I get here is that just because the access to these opportunities is not equivalent means that the people with an opportunity to learn more ahead of school have to then be disadvantaged to be brought onto equal footing with others. My issue with my interpretation of what you said is that this does not promote accelerated learning at all, and stifles students' desires to learn outside of class.
Not everything is about vce.
I think people are forgetting part of the reward about being able to speak a language at home and having additional classes is the skill. And being able to speak Chinese at home has nothing to do with skill and everything to do with opportunity - my parents both only speak English, and if I'd had the opportunity to speak French or Indonesian at home to any level or to take extra classes from an early age, I would have loved it. Not everything is about the grade, but currently, VCE Chinese is so inaccessible to non-background speakers that something needs to be done.
This policy is important because:
1) Current students with a background are deterring other students from taking the class because:
i) The coursework is not appropriately adjusted for their background
ii) Students are ranked and if you don't come from a Chinese speaking background, had Chinese classes from a young age or haven't done an exchange, I honestly can't imagine you ever getting over 40 in VCE Chinese.
2) It's important that people learn Chinese and that we get people who might not have otherwise learned Chinese to take the language.
Also, I really don't buy your point about not promoting accelerated learning, because in theory, students who have a background are placed into a stream which is more appropriate for their abilities. Anyway, in terms of gaming the system, people who have a background are already competing with people who have none; even it this policy isn't 100% effective, it would be better than what's going on now.
-
So how about people who have attended Chinese School every weekend from prep to Yr 12? How is it fair they are not permitted to enrol in CSL and instead are forced to do SLA?
Also, as I have emphasised many times already, how will VCAA measure 'competence' in a language?
So you think it's unfair that somebody who's spent 12 years studying a language is required to enrol into a higher stream?
As has been mentioned, the ideal method is competency testing but in the absence of that, using time spend studying or speaking the language seems like a reasonable proxy. And it is not racist, I'm not sure how anybody could actually think that
-
So you think it's unfair that somebody who's spent 12 years studying a language is required to enrol into a higher stream?
As has been mentioned, the ideal method is competency testing but in the absence of that, using time spend studying or speaking the language seems like a reasonable proxy. And it is not racist, I'm not sure how anybody could actually think that
No, I think it is unfair that a student who has spent 12 years studying a language would be disadvantaged by being forced to enrol in a higher stream and competing with people who should be in the higher stream simply because they have worked harder than others studying the language. It is like saying, "Oh you've spent x time more than other people studying the language, you're going to have to do SLA". No other subject allows/denies enrolment based on ability. Good maths students are forbidden from doing Further. Why should this be any different?
If the higher stream (SLA) marks and scaling were adjusted to give extra credit that balances any
advantage of doing the lower stream, then that would be a fairer solution though.
Speaking the language at home is difficult to prove/disprove by VCAA, and if they started looking at
parents' birth certificates or country of birth to decide whether or not to allow enrolment in a subject then that is racist.
EDIT: makes more sense now
-
No, that's facially untrue.
sorry, couldn't help myself. xD
-
sorry, couldn't help myself. xD
facially = on its face.
No typo there.
-
Taking 12 years of Chinese has no bearing on your personality, as I'm pretty sure that most people who start taking Chinese classes in prep are signed up by their parents. So I don't see it as something to be rewarded - you're rewarded by learning the language and developing the skill, but you shouldn't be taking classes with people who've been learning the language for four years.
-
I'm not going to chime in too much more, but this discussion is starting to take on the flavour of "Look at me I'm so special I'm really good at Chinese and I want my chance to shine like a little star and make my mummy proud so don't penalise me." I know many of you have a personal investment in this, but for the sake of the rest of us, please be tactful in your opinion.
-
Stick, this doesn't affect just people at the top end of SL. This affects people who would be branded as "Chinese speakers" just because they use Chinese at home, but have a very basic knowledge of Chinese (I know lots of people like this). Now, under VCAA's proposal, these students, who may want to learn Chinese as part of their heritage, would be discouraged from doing so because they're forced into competition with people who actually do have a large advantage in Chinese.
And please do not use that tone here. It's an insult to quite a fair proportion to the Chinese student population.
Is it really fair, then, that by VCAA's proposal students aren't rewarded for ability in a subject, even if it did come due to a family background? I agree, the current system does not work and does need to be improved; I just feel VCAA's suggestions make VCE Chinese bad for Chinese students. Although it could be argued that VCE Chinese is primarily designed to increase the number of second language students, it must not be forgotten that deterring students from Chinese background to do VCE Chinese doesn't feel right either.
-
Hey, I totally agree with you - it's just from what I'm hearing from a few other people, I'm telling you to proceed carefully, that's all. I didn't mean to cause offence, and I apologise if I did. :)
EDIT: Fixed.
-
Can we keep in mind that that was one potential rule alteration which is part of one of six potential remedies by VCAA to what is a serious problem? Get some perspective, please. It's a discussion paper. Intended to raise points for discussion. If the proposed rule change which you're all yelling about not feasible, then it'll be dropped.
-
I'm not going to chime in too much more, but this discussion is starting to take on the flavour of "Look at me I'm so special I'm really good at Chinese and I want my chance to shine like a little star and make my mummy proud so don't penalise me." I know many of you have a personal investment in this, but for the sake of the rest of us, please be tactful in your opinion.
I would like to clarify a few things.
1. I do recognise that there is a problem with non-Chinese students being discouraged from studying the language due to fierce competition from Chinese background students
2. I support sensible changes that give incentives for non-Chinese students to study Chinese WHILE At the same time NOT disadvantaging Chinese background students.
3. I rarely speak Chinese at home
4. I am quite average at Chinese compared to other students. While I may be better than some non-Chinese students, I would not consider myself good at Chinese. BY FAR
5. As stated in the beginning of the thread by others, the changes will not affect me (unless VCAA quickly rushes something through), so there would be no personal gain from fighting these.
6. I don't see anywhere where I have said anything to the effect of "Look at me I'm so special I'm really good at Chinese and I want my chance to shine like a little star and make my mummy proud so don't penalise me." If I have, please point it out.
-
Hey, I totally agree with you - it's just from what I'm hearing from a few other people, I'm telling you to proceed carefully, that's all. I didn't mean to cause offence, and I apologise if I did. :)
EDIT: Fixed.
All cool (:
Admittedly, it's easy for an argument against VCAA's proposition to seem elitist, but perhaps people aren't quite aware of the proportion of Chinese background students who aren't that great at Chinese and would probably struggle even more in SLA than non-background students currently do in SL. One thing we can agree on is that the system sucks. It really sucks. Which is why I HATED VCE Chinese.
Can we keep in mind that that was one potential rule alteration which is part of one of six potential remedies by VCAA to what is a serious problem? Get some perspective, please. It's a discussion paper. Intended to raise points for discussion. If the proposed rule change which you're all yelling about not feasible, then it'll be dropped.
Indeed, it is meant to be a discussion, but why the frustration and anger? I thought this was meant to be a friendly discussion (:
But ok, let's discuss each of these potential remedies in turn.
1. A double ATAR bonus that would recognise and reward students for having achieved a
level of communicative competence in both English and Mandarin
In principle, I like this one, although it shouldn't be restricted to Mandarin, and I wonder how it will be implemented.
2. A modified set of eligibility criteria for the current three VCE Chinese studies
This is the one I'm happy with least, as you can tell.
3. An ab initio course which would allow students to commence the study of VCE Units 1
and 2 Chinese at Beginner level
Which is effectively my plan of creating a new subject
4. A new VCE Chinese study, which would include conversational Chinese and the study of
Chinese culture and society. The component of cultural studies in this study would be
undertaken and assessed in English
Erm...I don't quite see the logic of this option. Firstly, why only Chinese culture; and secondly, this doesn't really help students who want to learn Chinese language and runs into the same issues as the current program as anyone could study this subject.
5. Expansion of the current VET Applied Language (Mandarin) study based on the two
current VET Certificates in Chinese language
Thing about VETs is that their inherent low scaling and inability to be counted in the primary four may be a major deterrent
6. A new scored VCE VET Chinese study based on either Certificate III in Mandarin or
Certificate III in Applied Language (Mandarin).
See above
-
I would like to clarify a few things.
1. I do recognise that there is a problem with non-Chinese students being discouraged from studying the language due to fierce competition from Chinese background students
2. I support sensible changes that give incentives for non-Chinese students to study Chinese WHILE At the same time NOT disadvantaging Chinese background students.
3. I rarely speak Chinese at home
4. I am quite average at Chinese compared to other students. While I may be better than some non-Chinese students, I would not consider myself good at Chinese. BY FAR
5. As stated in the beginning of the thread by others, the changes will not affect me (unless VCAA quickly rushes something through), so there would be no personal gain from fighting these.
6. I don't see anywhere where I have said anything to the effect of "Look at me I'm so special I'm really good at Chinese and I want my chance to shine like a little star and make my mummy proud so don't penalise me." If I have, please point it out.
I'm sorry you've taken my friendly warning the wrong way. :( Please don't take it personally. I really just wanted to avoid what has happened in a couple of other really insightful discussions recently. :)
-
I'm sorry you've taken my friendly warning the wrong way. :( Please don't take it personally. I really just wanted to avoid what has happened in a couple of other really insightful discussions recently. :)
That's okay, it's all good. 8)
-
Looks like the government will create a new subject focussing on conversational Chinese and culture and society. They are also expanding VET?? programs and boosting ATARs of those who complete harder Chinese subjects.
More here: http://www.theage.com.au/national/tertiary-education/new-vce-chinese-subject-to-level-playing-field-20131217-2zjbu.html
Not much detail there but it looks like they are good changes. Hopefully they will encourage more people to study VCE Chinese but time will tell.
-
a non-chinese VCE student can do well in chinese... i am proof... no background at all (non-asian, i am sri-lankan), never lived in china, no one in my family can speak chinese. i merely studied chinese at school and had a private tutor once a week. it is purely about hard work and memorising...as well as understanding the system and using it to your favour. during the entire year i continuously thought that the whole VCE chinese system was so unfair, but now i don't care!
-
All I can say about this proposal is that it is racist towards Chinese people. Many people from different ethnic groups do English as first language even though they do not have an English speaking background, so does that mean that we should be separated into English background and Non-English background?
Our Chinese school has already filed many complaints and a major petition from all parents and it is unlikely the proposal of the segregation would pass. If it should, VCAA should expect an uproar from the Chinese community.
-
All I can say about this proposal is that it is racist towards Chinese people. Many people from different ethnic groups do English as first language even though they do not have an English speaking background, so does that mean that we should be separated into English background and Non-English background?
Our Chinese school has already filed many complaints and a major petition from all parents and it is unlikely the proposal of the segregation would pass. If it should, VCAA should expect an uproar from the Chinese community.
It's a very difficult issue to tackle though, because they've got to balance things properly and still get people to take Chinese, which is a struggle because those with non-Chinese background are finding it difficult to compete.
-
It's a very difficult issue to tackle though, because they've got to balance things properly and still get people to take Chinese, which is a struggle because those with non-Chinese background are finding it difficult to compete.
Precisely. What people need to consider is: what is the bigger picture for students of Chinese? Is it simply to increase the number of 'non-background' students? Or is it to improve the standard of Chinese taught to students in Victoria, to *enhance* their Chinese language skills? What VCAA is proposing, in my opinion, is short-sighted and practically useless in achieving the true goal. (see http://www.theage.com.au/national/tertiary-education/new-vce-chinese-subject-to-level-playing-field-20131217-2zjbu.html)
In addition, what needs to be considered is: why do some students perform better than others in any subject? (and in particular Chinese). I think the answer lies more in effort and hark work (perhaps, having had earlier education) than simply being having a 'background'. And then, to use such a sweeping generalisation to account for good results in Chinese (i.e. this person did well because (s)he is a 'background speaker') is a bit demeaning, surely?
-
It's a very difficult issue to tackle though, because they've got to balance things properly and still get people to take Chinese, which is a struggle because those with non-Chinese background are finding it difficult to compete.
can I just say that this year only 2 people received 50 for Chinese SL and one of them was a Non-Chinese. It is just dedication and hardwork and many of my friends with no Chinese background still take the subject. It is like French, German and other language subjects, there are very few that actually segregate FL and SL and SLA, so I wonder why they are further segregating Chinese students into categories that do not seem fair to everyone.
-
can I just say that this year only 2 people received 50 for Chinese SL and one of them was a Non-Chinese. It is just dedication and hardwork and many of my friends with no Chinese background still take the subject. It is like French, German and other language subjects, there are very few that actually segregate FL and SL and SLA, so I wonder why they are further segregating Chinese students into categories that do not seem fair to everyone.
Chinese forms the largest minority language in Australia so is being targeted.
And honestly, VCE isn't fair to everybody even in its current form. This is partly due to the conflict between creating a fair system to rank students to enter tertiary education, and to ACTUALLY TEACH the students (but teach what? skills for the workforce? expanding knowledge and thinking ability? etc.)
The way I see it, it would be beneficial if more Australians were fluent in more than one language.
But have government initiatives like the +5 LOTE bonus effective in achieving this? No, I think not - fundamental to these failures is the emphasis of final years in high school being focused on limited study designs.
This is just one of many flaws with the current LOTE system. A scaled score in Chinese indicates a higher level of language fluency than the same score in any other language. Chinese dialects such as Cantonese are not available despite far smaller languages being offered.
The clearest, but arguably most difficult solution, would be to improve the LOTE system in Australian schools. Outside of VCE is where most language is learnt. In the years After passing through the compulsory LOTE system, I can barely understand a word of French or Italian.
-
can I just say that this year only 2 people received 50 for Chinese SL and one of them was a Non-Chinese. It is just dedication and hardwork and many of my friends with no Chinese background still take the subject. It is like French, German and other language subjects, there are very few that actually segregate FL and SL and SLA, so I wonder why they are further segregating Chinese students into categories that do not seem fair to everyone.
Well that makes quite a good point. The issue isn't that they're struggling to compete, it's that people think it is a struggle to compete. They see having Chinese heritage as some sort of great advantage, when in reality it doesn't represent a particularly huge advantage in itself at all. Free tutors at home and a bit of prior exposure is only going to get you so far.
I find it somewhat difficult to understand why the Australian Government and the various state governments have such an obsession with Asian languages. There isn't as great a need for Asian languages in particular as seems to be commonly accepted. It also completely misses the point about learning a language. Anybody who learns a language purely so they can use that language will never learn it.
-
This is just one of many flaws with the current LOTE system. A scaled score in Chinese indicates a higher level of language fluency than the same score in any other language.
Oh wow well done, you must have completed all LOTE subjects to say this, what a terrific achievement
-
A scaled score in Chinese indicates a higher level of language fluency than the same score in any other language.
With above Polopopotamus. That's rubbish.
-
XJS and its respective weekend school spinoffs has effectively destroyed chinese at the vce level. Insider exam question 'guessing', sac ranking tampering, are all common practices employed, and I'm only just scratching the surface. XJS is meant to be a springboard for learning chinese. Instead, it's just a battlefield for competition, where an elitist attitude thrives amongst the 'more-gifted students' and higher-ups.
I've heard that VCAA introduced scaling for chinese as a way to compensate for the emergence of XJS. Believe it or not, XJS and scaling for chinese did not exist 20 years ago (I think XJS kicked off operations in 1992 or so). What VCAA was (and is still) trying to do is to simply, level the footing between the black-haired and non black haired. It failed with generous scaling, which actually amplifies the counterintuitive effect for non-background speakers, as their scaled scores would be pushed back and scaled less, compared to the easy scaled 40's obtained by the background speaker.
Discriminating based on ability? PFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFTTTTTTTTTTT. Are you kidding me. Are you REALLY kidding me. You're telling me, that I have to do some of English AND have it counted in my primary four, despite not speaking it at home, but that people who speak Chinese at home should be disadvantaged? What sort of stupid half-twisted logic is this? So we're being disadvantaged by the fact that we speak Chinese at home, and that we study it earlier? Well go have a cry VCAA, because penalising students from being good at Chinese is preposterous.
How is segregating skill levels disadvantaging or penalising anyone at all? By removing scaling, you're essentially removing a cog that's rather responsible for the disparity. If you have beginners up against beginners, and the advanced up against advanced, isn't that fair?
What about the other LOTEs like japanese and french? I'm not saying that those LOTE subjects are perfect, as there's heaps of stuff that is dodgy behind the scenes for all subjects, but would you ACTUALLY want your OWN CHILD, that started from scratch, to compete against kids that have been fed through XJS for their entire childhood? I sure as hell wouldn't.
I'm an ABC, second generation. I went to XJS for a year or two back in primary school, and dropped chinese completely until I got dragged back into it for VCE. I was extremely pleased with my result even though I couldn't write/read at all to save my life, but I can honestly say I did not deserve it. Why should I be worried or even be concerned about the disparity between the 'huang mao/from scratch student' with the 'xjs baby'? Because this is a problem that can really hurt the future of LOTE education. This is my children's future, and isn't something that should be treated lightly or glossed over at all.
Students should not be groomed to support an approach that encourages one to memorise essays and fancy chengyus you'll never see again for the rest of your life, for the sake of the '50 pursuit' in CSL. This is about learning a language, and if you can't align hard work together with good marks alongside the backdrop of a level playing-ground, then the subject is inherently broken.
-
XJS and its respective weekend school spinoffs has effectively destroyed chinese at the vce level. Insider exam question 'guessing', sac ranking tampering, are all common practices employed, and I'm only just scratching the surface. XJS is meant to be a springboard for learning chinese. Instead, it's just a battlefield for competition, where an elitist attitude thrives amongst the 'more-gifted students' and higher-ups.
I've heard that VCAA introduced scaling for chinese as a way to compensate for the emergence of XJS. Believe it or not, XJS and scaling for chinese did not exist 20 years ago (I think XJS kicked off operations in 1992 or so). What VCAA was (and is still) trying to do is to simply, level the footing between the black-haired and non black haired. It failed with generous scaling, which actually amplifies the counterintuitive effect for non-background speakers, as their scaled scores would be pushed back and scaled less, compared to the easy scaled 40's obtained by the background speaker.
How is segregating skill levels disadvantaging or penalising anyone at all? By removing scaling, you're essentially removing a cog that's rather responsible for the disparity. If you have beginners up against beginners, and the advanced up against advanced, isn't that fair?
those LOTE subjects are perfect, as there's heaps of stuff that is dodgy behind the scenes for all subjects, but would you ACTUALLY want your OWN CHILD, that started from scratch, to compete against kids that have been fed through XJS for their entire childhood? I sure as hell wouldn't.
VCAA has been, and is always trying to solve this disparity between the 'huang mao/from scratch student' with the 'xjs baby'.
I'm an ABC, second generation. I went to XJS for a year or two back in primary school, and dropped chinese completely until I got dragged back into it for VCE. I was extremely pleased with my result even though I couldn't write/read at all to save my life, but I can honestly say I did not deserve it.
Students should not be groomed to support an approach that encourages one to memorise essays and fancy chengyus you'll never see again for the rest of your life, for the sake of the '50 pursuit' in CSL. This is about learning a language, and if you can't align hard work together with good marks alongside the backdrop of a level playing-ground, then the subject is inherently broken.
I'm not actually disagreeing with levelling the playing field. It is indeed saddening to see how Chinese SL is dominated by Chinese background students.
The only problem is, one of the recommendations was to force students in SL to move up to SLA solely because they've had experience with Chinese. Now, although that solves the problem for Chinese SL, those students moved up to SLA simply cannot cope. The gap between SL and SLA is similar to the gap between background and non-background students. The result is, for an equal amount of work, the students doing Chinese SL will do much better than those in SLA because the competition there is utterly ridiculous. I don't actually have any qualms with creating another Chinese subject with some form of incentive to lure the background SL students away. People here seem to think that the system is, right now, rigged in favour of us background speakers, and I'm not disagreeing with that. I just don't want us background speakers, who only have parents that speak Chinese to us, to be forced to compete with students that are again a massive stretch above us.
The aforementioned "discrimination based on ability" really just referred to this. A system needs to be implemented where students who are good at Chinese through hard work are rewarded. Making half the SL cohort do SLA will not achieve this. Giving them an incentive to leave regular Chinese SL for another subject would be more likely to.
-
I'm not actually disagreeing with levelling the playing field. It is indeed saddening to see how Chinese SL is dominated by Chinese background students.
The only problem is, one of the recommendations was to force students in SL to move up to SLA solely because they've had experience with Chinese. Now, although that solves the problem for Chinese SL, those students moved up to SLA simply cannot cope. The gap between SL and SLA is similar to the gap between background and non-background students. The result is, for an equal amount of work, the students doing Chinese SL will do much better than those in SLA because the competition there is utterly ridiculous. I don't actually have any qualms with creating another Chinese subject with some form of incentive to lure the background SL students away. People here seem to think that the system is, right now, rigged in favour of us background speakers, and I'm not disagreeing with that. I just don't want us background speakers, who only have parents that speak Chinese to us, to be forced to compete with students that are again a massive stretch above us.
The aforementioned "discrimination based on ability" really just referred to this. A system needs to be implemented where students who are good at Chinese through hard work are rewarded. Making half the SL cohort do SLA will not achieve this. Giving them an incentive to leave regular Chinese SL for another subject would be more likely to.
I think what we've really shown in this whole discussion is that this is a very, very tricky issue. Clearly the goal is to encourage students without a Chinese background to pursue Chinese. It's hard enough to get students to pursue LOTE full stop, so finding difficulties with the most "important" (which is bullshit but that's how the government sees it) LOTE really requires a response. The problem is that every sensible response is inherently racist and disadvantages students with a Chinese background... Then proficiency testing as well is far too cumbersome and costly. *sigh*
-
The gap between SL and SLA is similar to the gap between background and non-background students. The result is, for an equal amount of work, the students doing Chinese SL will do much better than those in SLA because the competition there is utterly ridiculous.
I just don't want us background speakers, who only have parents that speak Chinese to us, to be forced to compete with students that are again a massive stretch above us.
I think you're overstating the gap between SL and SLA. I know many kids that snuck in SL even though they were not only 'SLA-standard', but even had the 2 years (?) overseas thing well. Honky and singaporean students suffer in SLA as a result of that overseas chinese instruction bullshit.
At the high end, there are SL kids that have a very, very thorough grasp of the language that is marginally behind the high end of SLA, while the bottom end of SLA is similar to the majority of SL.
It is indeed a lazy bandaid approach by VCAA, but I'd argue it's still better than leaving the system as it is. SL scaling is ridiculous enough, and cutting SLA scaling to mimic japanese (think its 9 compared to 11 when you get 30) to compensate for the inflow isn't too bad as well.
-
I think you're overstating the gap between SL and SLA. I know many kids that snuck in SL even though they were not only 'SLA-standard', but even had the 2 years (?) overseas thing well. Honky and singaporean students suffer in SLA as a result of that overseas chinese instruction bullshit.
At the high end, there are SL kids that have a very, very thorough grasp of the language that is marginally behind the high end of SLA, while the bottom end of SLA is similar to the majority of SL.
It is indeed a lazy bandaid approach by VCAA, but I'd argue it's still better than leaving the system as it is. SL scaling is ridiculous enough, and cutting SLA scaling to mimic japanese (think its 9 compared to 11 when you get 30) to compensate for the inflow isn't too bad as well.
You've said it yourself; the bottom end of SLA is similar to SL. Then, students moving from SL to SLA would probably be at the bottom end. Chances are, they're not going to be able to overcome this deficit. Sure, the difference between bottom SLA and top SL might be small, but what about top SL and mid to high SLA? In the end, SL students may still be disadvantaged solely because they have a Chinese background.
Besides, as we've agreed on, this is a lazy approach that won't work. In the grand scheme of things, it might be better than the current system if VCAA's aim is to improve the non-Chinese enrolment in Chinese SL, but it'll kill off interest from background speakers. Then, we'll have a ridiculous scenario where the background speakers are deterred from learning Chinese.
-
XJS and its respective weekend school spinoffs has effectively destroyed chinese at the vce level. Insider exam question 'guessing', sac ranking tampering, are all common practices employed, and I'm only just scratching the surface. XJS is meant to be a springboard for learning chinese. Instead, it's just a battlefield for competition, where an elitist attitude thrives amongst the 'more-gifted students' and higher-ups.
...
Students should not be groomed to support an approach that encourages one to memorise essays and fancy chengyus you'll never see again for the rest of your life, for the sake of the '50 pursuit' in CSL. This is about learning a language, and if you can't align hard work together with good marks alongside the backdrop of a level playing-ground, then the subject is inherently broken.
While I don't agree with everything in this post (especially the assertion that scaling was introduced for VCE Chinese because of the existence of XJS), as a 'XJS baby', I can vouch for what I have quoted above. XJS is a really good language school overall. Most of the classes are designed specially to improve students' language skills. It is only really the VCE Chinese classes which I have an issue with. It isn't actually XJS's fault that these classes are so bad...it is VCAA's. VCE Chinese has long fallen into degeneracy. The oral exam is meant to test how well students can express themselves in Chinese, not how well students can rote-learn 100,000 characters worth of text. The nature of the VCE oral exam means that students can prepare everything in advance. Indeed, those who do not memorize their responses are at a major disadvantage. This defeats the purpose of an oral exam. I can talk for days about the demerits of VCE Chinese. The bottom line is: the VCE Chinese course really needs to be revised. It is not XJS that needs to change. It is the VCE.
-
Then, we'll have a ridiculous scenario where the background speakers are deterred from learning Chinese.
What about the ridiculous situation now where non-background speakers are deterred from learning Chinese?
-
What about the ridiculous situation now where non-background speakers are deterred from learning Chinese?
You've missed my point; I'm saying that the proposition isn't a solution.
-
Sure, the difference between bottom SLA and top SL might be small, but what about top SL and mid to high SLA?
The top tier of SL is definitely on par with mid-SLA, and arguably, not far behind top SLA. There are many many SL kids in XJS that are similar in proficiency to the "better" SLA students.
XJS is a really good language school overall. Most of the classes are designed specially to improve students' language skills. It is only really the VCE Chinese classes which I have an issue with. It isn't actually XJS's fault that these classes are so bad...it is VCAA's. VCE Chinese has long fallen into degeneracy. The oral exam is meant to test how well students can express themselves in Chinese, not how well students can rote-learn 100,000 characters worth of text.
I agree. XJS from prep to year 7 is perhaps the best way to get proficient in chinese at that age. There's nothing in melbourne that even comes remotely close to that experience of saturday mornings, repeating character after character in that little notepad book. I have nothing against XJS as an institute, just its awful handling of VCE chinese.
-
XJS and its respective weekend school spinoffs has effectively destroyed chinese at the vce level. Insider exam question 'guessing', sac ranking tampering, are all common practices employed, and I'm only just scratching the surface. XJS is meant to be a springboard for learning chinese. Instead, it's just a battlefield for competition, where an elitist attitude thrives amongst the 'more-gifted students' and higher-ups.
I've heard that VCAA introduced scaling for chinese as a way to compensate for the emergence of XJS. Believe it or not, XJS and scaling for chinese did not exist 20 years ago (I think XJS kicked off operations in 1992 or so). What VCAA was (and is still) trying to do is to simply, level the footing between the black-haired and non black haired. It failed with generous scaling, which actually amplifies the counterintuitive effect for non-background speakers, as their scaled scores would be pushed back and scaled less, compared to the easy scaled 40's obtained by the background speaker.
How is segregating skill levels disadvantaging or penalising anyone at all? By removing scaling, you're essentially removing a cog that's rather responsible for the disparity. If you have beginners up against beginners, and the advanced up against advanced, isn't that fair?
What about the other LOTEs like japanese and french? I'm not saying that those LOTE subjects are perfect, as there's heaps of stuff that is dodgy behind the scenes for all subjects, but would you ACTUALLY want your OWN CHILD, that started from scratch, to compete against kids that have been fed through XJS for their entire childhood? I sure as hell wouldn't.
I'm an ABC, second generation. I went to XJS for a year or two back in primary school, and dropped chinese completely until I got dragged back into it for VCE. I was extremely pleased with my result even though I couldn't write/read at all to save my life, but I can honestly say I did not deserve it. Why should I be worried or even be concerned about the disparity between the 'huang mao/from scratch student' with the 'xjs baby'? Because this is a problem that can really hurt the future of LOTE education. This is my children's future, and isn't something that should be treated lightly or glossed over at all.
Students should not be groomed to support an approach that encourages one to memorise essays and fancy chengyus you'll never see again for the rest of your life, for the sake of the '50 pursuit' in CSL. This is about learning a language, and if you can't align hard work together with good marks alongside the backdrop of a level playing-ground, then the subject is inherently broken.
So why is the blame suddenly shifting to XJS, and " level the footing between the black-haired and non black haired" are you serious? Well I'm telling you I have BLONDE hair and nothing has stopped me from achieving a study score I am satisfied with in Chinese SL.
-
This is just one of many flaws with the current LOTE system. A scaled score in Chinese indicates a higher level of language fluency than the same score in any other language.
This girl got a 38 in Serbian. Good luck making the case that she isn't fluent. Nearly every single one of the smaller LOTE subjects could expect to produce students with much greater fluency than the Chinese cohort.
EDIT: moved my stuff out of the quote, sorry.
-
So why is the blame suddenly shifting to XJS, and " level the footing between the black-haired and non black haired" are you serious? Well I'm telling you I have BLONDE hair and nothing has stopped me from achieving a study score I am satisfied with in Chinese SL.
Good for you.
CSL results from 2013: http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/special-features/news-in-education/vce/top-scorers#edusearch-subject-37.
Complete XJS domination.
Now compare this to http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/special-features/news-in-education/vce/top-scorers#edusearch-subject-53, and I don't know about you, but I reckon I can see A LOT better of a spread than CSL.
-
Good for you.
CSL results from 2013: http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/special-features/news-in-education/vce/top-scorers#edusearch-subject-37.
Complete XJS domination.
Now compare this to http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/special-features/news-in-education/vce/top-scorers#edusearch-subject-53, and I don't know about you, but I reckon I can see A LOT better of a spread than CSL.
I see your point, but you can not blame a school for achieving high results. It means they must be educating their students really well, not necessarily being dodgy like you think it is. XJS dominates, what of it?
-
I see your point, but you can not blame a school for achieving high results. It means they must be educating their students really well, not necessarily being dodgy like you think it is. XJS dominates, what of it?
'Educating their students really well' and advocating a questionable methodology that focuses on "teaching students" on how to groom themselves for the exam are two complete parallels. I have nothing against grooming yourself for an exam, how else are you going to succeed in any subject? I'm only against the 'what and how' that happens in the making.
Students! This week, I'm going to photocopy 20 copies of this flawless evaluative essay that an ex-student wrote, make sure you guys go home and copy it a few times! Don't write imaginary pieces if you don't want to fail! Memorise this paragraph of bs so that you'll sound ever so eloquent in front of the examiner for your oral! Slip this chengyu in, oh and make sure that if you see a bald man in his 50s with a twitchy eye give him a wink after you leave!
I don't think that's 'educating your students'. I don't even think it qualifies as spoonfeeding.
I've heard a lot worse from older graduates from XJS, but if you can't see past the sketchy stuff XJS pulls behind the scenes, especially as a high-achieving XJS student, then I just guess you aren't looking hard enough.
Indeed, XJS cannot be entirely blamed, as we can already tell, that VCE chinese is a flawed subject. However, its way of handling students is just saddening, especially for a school of their caliber that really should be devoted to provoking interest for the Chinese language, not singling out the potential 'good students' and bragging year after year about their 40+ intake.
After all, isn't that what learning a language is all about? Isn't this the goal that all LOTE teachers across the world should have in mind, immersing students so that they are able to have a genuine appreciation for a foreign language?
-
'Educating their students really well' and advocating a questionable methodology that focuses on "teaching students" on how to groom themselves for the exam are two complete parallels. I have nothing against grooming yourself for an exam, how else are you going to succeed in any subject? I'm only against the 'what and how' that happens in the making.
Students! This week, I'm going to photocopy 20 copies of this flawless evaluative essay that an ex-student wrote, make sure you guys go home and copy it a few times! Don't write imaginary pieces if you don't want to fail! Memorise this paragraph of bs so that you'll sound ever so eloquent in front of the examiner for your oral! Slip this chengyu in, oh and make sure that if you see a bald man in his 50s with a twitchy eye give him a wink after you leave!
I don't think that's 'educating your students'. I don't even think it qualifies as spoonfeeding.
I've heard a lot worse from older graduates from XJS, but if you can't see past the sketchy stuff XJS pulls behind the scenes, especially as a high-achieving XJS student, then I just guess you aren't looking hard enough.
Indeed, XJS cannot be entirely blamed, as we can already tell, that VCE chinese is a flawed subject. However, its way of handling students is just saddening, especially for a school of their caliber that really should be devoted to provoking interest for the Chinese language, not singling out the potential 'good students' and bragging year after year about their 40+ intake.
After all, isn't that what learning a language is all about? Isn't this the goal that all LOTE teachers across the world should have in mind, immersing students so that they are able to have a genuine appreciation for a foreign language?
This is so upsetting because you don't know how much effort some students really put into learning Chinese, copying essays isn't going to do much help except for learning good vocabulary.
We don't copy essays 100 times and replicate it in the exams and just score 40+ if you think that's what goes on. It doesn't work like that. And FYI the majority of Chinese Examiners are females, not to be sexist or anything but they are. Also a winky whatever isn't going to do you much good because there are two examiners and if there are any discrepancy with the markings, a third examiner is brought in.
Learning a language is not simple, even for people with Chinese background, all the grammar, writing construction and other aspects of a language make it extremely difficult for teachers to just "spoonfeed" their students. Instead, they have a systematic strategy and one that ensures all students can achieve the best to their ability in the language subject. If you think you can ace a language subject just by copying stuff and not really putting in the work, your wrong.