VCAA changes to VCE Chinese

[Stick]

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.

[lzxnl]

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.

[vox nihili]

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.

[appianway]

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.

[appianway]

(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.)

[~T]

(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.

[lzxnl]

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.

[~T]

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?

[Russ]

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.

[Professor Polonsky]

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.

[lzxnl]

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?

[Tasmania Jones]

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?

[Stick]

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.

[Tasmania Jones]

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?

[Stick]

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.