285

Adriana DAZ
Griffith University

Intercultural competence through

language education in Australian higher
education: Mission (im)possible?

Abstract
Language learning is now widely conceived as having to meet the twin goals
of language proficiency and intercultural competence. This interculturally-aware
vision for language learners is particularly evident in Australian university policy
statements and their descriptions of graduate attributes. However, for the most
part, the inherent structural features of university language programs and the
overall organisational philosophy of Australian universities fail to reflect a
commitment to this widened educational mission. In this study I analyse these
structural and organisational features through examination of three sources:
(a) government-commissioned reports; (b) academic publications and (c) news
items concerning the critical state of languages education in the Australian higher
education sector. I articulate the plethora of challenging, inherent limitations
reported in these sources, all of which point to the absence of correlation between
espoused goals and actual graduate outcomes. I then use the articulation of these
limitations as a platform to question the feasibility of these twin goals as they
are currently conceived and realised in practice.
 286

The twin goals and the Australian higher education

context
Australian universities have been increasingly concerned with preparing graduates
for an ever more globalised academic and employment market. Currently, most
university policy statements make explicit reference to the development of specific
graduate attributes such as global citizenship (Barrie 2006), and various related
descriptors such as intercultural understanding and sensitivity to other cultures
(Bosanquet 2010). In this context, languages education, as an inherently intercultural
activity, has been called upon to help equip learners with the development of such
attributes. Language learning is thus now widely conceived as having to meet the twin
goals of language proficiency and intercultural competence. This conceptualisation of
language and culture learning is evident in Australian language-in-education policies
at primary, secondary and tertiary education levels. These policies have ostensibly
endorsed an inter-cultural approach to language teaching with a view to developing
intercultural competence:
Education in a global community brings with it an increasing need to focus
on developing inter-cultural understanding. This involves the integration of
language, culture and learning. Inter-cultural language learning helps learners to
know and understand the world around them, and to understand commonality
and difference, global connections and pattern. (MCEETYA 2005: 3)
Yet, language teachers in Australian universities face trying challenges. Not least of
which is the dwindling number of languages offered at university level. This declining
trend has been substantiated by the 2007 Languages in Crisis discussion paper
presented by the Group of Eight (Go8), Australias leading universities. This document
revealed that in the ten years leading to 2007, the overall number of languages
offered at Australian universities was reduced by more than fifty percent, at a time
when monolingual native English speakers are losing their linguistic advantages and
are increasingly competing with multilingual graduates from around the world (Go8
2007: 1).
Given Australias multilingual potential, this pattern of decline and erosion in
the provision of languages education at university has been described as not only
a national tragedy, but also an international embarrassment (Clyne, Pauwels and
Sussex 2007). Paradoxically, in the face of this declining trend, the 2008 Review of
Australian Higher Education (DEEWR 2008) further highlighted the importance of
languages education in the context of the internationalisation of universities and the
development of interculturally competent graduates:
There is growing demand from employers for tertiary qualifications with a
strong international component both from the perspective of the curriculum
content and through exposure to different cultures to develop intercultural and
language skills and competencies. [] Knowledge of other cultures and their
languages is an essential life skill for future graduates if they are to engage
effectively in global professional practice. (DEEWR 2008: 104)
 287

Here lies the paradox; language education is in crisis, yet according to education
policies and university policy statements, languages are reported to be of ever-
increasing relevance in preparing interculturally competent students for the
globalised world in which we live. Moreover, despite these espoused goals, policy
documents do not offer any guidelines, or, at the very least, scaffolding strategies,
to help teachers achieve these goals in practice. In other words, top-down directives
are provided but it is up to the academics themselves to tackle this matter from the
bottom-up.
Several steps have been taken in this direction. The first steps have focused on
gaining a better understanding of the state of play of language studies and their
provision: the structure of degree offerings, main features of language programs
and subjects,1 etc. Several government-commissioned reports have addressed this
matter (Hajek, Slaughter and Stevens 2008; Nettelbeck et al. 2007; White and Baldauf
2006; Winter 2009). These reports echoed and expanded on numerous scholarly
publications concerning the critical state of languages education in Australian higher
education (Briguglio 2004, 2006; Clyne 2005; Clyne et al. 2007; Go8 2007; Pauwels
2002, 2007, Pitman and Broomhall 2009; to name a few). News coverage has provided
additional impetus to raise the level of awareness on this matter and further expose
this challenging situation (Lane 2009a, 2010a, 2010b, 2011a; 2011b, inter alia).
Overall, these sources provide compelling evidence as to the many obstacles and
constraints to ensuring the sustainable availability of languages in higher education.
In this contribution I endeavour to articulate these obstacles and constraints
to reveal a deep-seated lack of coherence between education and institutional
policies and the goals they ostensibly uphold, particularly, in relation to advancing
the development of intercultural competence. Here, it is important to clarify that
intercultural competence can be, and is indeed, fostered in other disciplines beyond
languages education. However, the scope of this paper is the exploration of this goal
as it relates to language learning in the higher education context.

Facing deep-seated internal impediments

The sources examined provide evidence to suggest that the main impediments
to meeting the dual goal of linguistic proficiency and intercultural competence
come from within. That is, that the overall organisational philosophy of Australian
universities and the inherent structural features of university language programs
and their provision represent obstacles to achieving the very mission and objectives
they set for themselves. I start by considering these last vis--vis graduate attributes
espoused by Australian universities, and I then move on to examine the support, or
lack thereof, provided by the inherent structural features of language programs and
their curricula.
As mentioned in earlier paragraphs, most Australian universities policy
statements now include among their graduate attributes various descriptors of
(inter)cultural competence. The most relevant to language and culture learning
 288

is that of global citizenship, an attitude or stance towards the world which

students are meant to develop during their studies (cf. Barrie 2006; ITL 2012;
Pitman and Broomhall 2009). Institutions use this and a plethora of related
concepts including: intercultural awareness, cross-cultural competence, inclusivity,
diversity, globalisation, sustainability, leadership, multiculturalism (Bosanquet 2010)
to address the imperative of developing graduates intercultural engagement,
communication and understanding for future participation in society (Council for
the Australian Federation 2007:17). This espoused vision does not, however, imply a
high level of institutional commitment and support for languages education. This is
surprising given the increasing imperative to rationalise and substantiate the quality
of Australian universities graduate outcomes. This was monitored by the Australian
Universities Quality Agency (AUQA), an independent, not-for-profit national agency
that promotes, audits, and reports on quality assurance in Australian higher
education; and from 2011, is now monitored by the Australian governments newly
established national regulatory and quality agency: the Tertiary Education Quality
and Standards Agency (TEQSA).
However, thus far, AUQA efforts have focused solely on examining universities
examples of good practice in the context of English language education for
international students. The AUQA report on Good Practice Principles for English
Language Proficiency for International Students in Australian Universities, funded
by the Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations (DEEWR),
acknowledged that there is also an increased recognition within universities of
the fundamental nature of language in learning and academic achievement for
all students (AUQA 2009: 2). This recognition is set against the background of
universities internationalisation processes, which are largely aimed to foster
better understandings about other people and cultures, and competence in foreign
languages (Harman 2005: 120).
Yet, significant quality assurance efforts continue to be focused on the
development of English language proficiency of full fee-paying overseas students,
thus prioritising target groups that are of direct economic relevance to many
universities. Two points can be made here. First, this is not the reality of all universities
in Australia, particularly, those that have strong, healthy language departments.
However, it is certainly true for many institutions whose language programs have
modest enrolments and are therefore seen as a financial deficit. Second, while the
development of English language proficiency is indeed a significant imperative, both
ethically and financially speaking (Lane 2011c), it is also a clear indication of the
narrow, one-dimensional conceptualisation of internationalisation processes largely
held not only by many institutions, but also by the national government (Crichton
and Scarino 2007; Trevaskes, Eisenchlas and Liddicoat 2003).
In addition to the lack of regulation of all graduates outcomes in terms of
linguistic proficiency and intercultural competence, there is also an absence of
overarching policies to regulate the structure and provision of languages education in
 289

the Australian higher education sector. This is partly explained by the establishment
of universities as highly autonomous bodies. However, given the current national
imperative to rationalise learning outcomes and standards, this absence has the
potential to widen the gap between graduates achievements in terms of language
and culture goals and the ways in which they are rationalised and substantiated in
practice.
Despite lack of regulation, a cursory examination of language departments
across the nation reveals that most language programs share fundamental structural
design features and thus face similar challenges in their endeavour to meet the twin
goals of language proficiency and intercultural competence. The typical structure
of a language program of studies is that of a major: a three-year (or six-semester)
sequence of subjects ranging from ab initio to advanced levels of language proficiency.
Language units average 52 direct contact hours per semester for European languages
and 65 for Asian languages, albeit some variations across institutions (Nettelbeck et
al. 2007; White and Baldauf 2006).
The current three-year program structure, however, is shaped by increasingly
marked features. Recent research in the form of surveys and government
commissioned reports (cf. Clyne et al. 2007; Fotheringham 2009; Go8 2007;
Hajek et al. 2008; Nettelbeck et al. 2007; Pauwels 2002; White and Baldauf 2006;
Winter 2009) suggests that university language programs have a growing bottom-
heavy structure, that is, a pyramid-like shape in terms of enrolments, with a high
number of enrolments in elementary, first year subjects and a high attrition rate in
the advanced, third year subjects. This trend in enrolments is aggravated by what
former University of Western Australia Arts Dean Anne Pauwels has labelled a new
breed of non-specialist language learners: language tasters (Pauwels cited in Lane
2010b). According to Pauwels, this new learner profile is characterised by students
interested in having a taste of the target language rather than undertaking its study
as a three-year major. This type of learner generally takes up the target language as
an additional subject or an elective within a professional degree, completing only
a semester or, at most, a year of language study. Many of these students decide to
continue despite their original intentions, thus exceeding the standard three-year
degree program. However, for the most part, language tasters add to an already
bottom-heavy, pyramid-like enrolment structure.
The overall structural design features of university language programs are
further weakened when one considers that fewer than 10% of first-year university
students undertake language studies of any kind, and fewer than 25% of these
students actually complete a three year language program (Lane 2009b; Nettelbeck
et al. 2007). This means that fewer than 5% of students exit university with at least
a minor study in a language other than English (Lo Bianco and Slaughter 2009: 56).
This figure refers to the study of languages over the typical three-year undergraduate
degree program and does not include study abroad or exchange components.
Nonetheless, it is a clear indication that a very low percentage of Australian graduates
 290

develops an intermediate to advanced level of proficiency in a language other than

English (Pauwels 2002). Considering that languages education is regarded, at least,
on paper, as an integral factor in the development of interculturally competent
graduates, these are clearly alarming figures.
Going beyond the language program level, there are additional challenges posed
by competing forces within universities which further question the feasibility of
meeting the twin goals of language proficiency and intercultural competence. Except
for those degrees specialising in linguistics or applied linguistics, most undergraduate
degree programs do not consider language studies compulsory. As Martn indicates,
none of the 38 doctorate-granting Australian universities has compulsory language
study requirements (compared with 90% of similar institutions in the United States)
(Martn 2005: 54). While most faculties, other than those in which languages are
taught, allow students to enrol in language studies as elective subjects (Nettelbeck
et al. 2007), the structure of their degree programs largely restricts the number
subjects that may be completed as such. In fact, in most degree programs, this
number is usually limited to one year of instruction, which is sufficient for no more
than a superficial introduction to the foreign language (Eisenchlas, Trevaskes, and
Liddicoat, 2003:145). In the last few years, many institutions have attempted to
alleviate this issue by allowing the concurrent enrolment in a Diploma of Languages
and by creating combined degrees with language study as a formal co-requisite. These
degrees include international business degrees, political science and international
relations, education (B.Ed., Dip.Ed.) and other communications degrees majoring in
journalism and public relations (Nettelbeck et al. 2007). However, these combined
requirements effectively extend the standard three year period of undergraduate
studies to a four or five year period and do not necessarily allow for completion of
the three-year sequence of specialist language studies.
When considering strategies for ensuring the maintenance of language study
in the higher education sector, Pauwels (2007) has argued for the exploration of
incentive schemes to study languages. Some universities have already implemented
such initiatives, for instance offering additional points on students entry scores if
they successfully completed the study of a language other than English to the end of
Year 12. These initiatives have the potential to strengthen the structure of language
programs by increasing enrolment numbers in intermediate and advanced levels,
thereby reshaping their pyramid-like features. However, in order to ensure their
efficacy, they should be coherently implemented nationwide.
Alternative initiatives to ensure the national availability of languages education
have also emerged at cross-institutional level. According to White and Baldauf (2006),
more than half Australian universities are involved in some sort of collaborative
arrangement, and these range from a one to one type of arrangement to consortia
with a number of [domestic and/or international] partners (White and Baldauf 2006:
21). These types of collaborative initiatives have been strategically promoted as
mutually satisfactory arrangements for all partners involved. Although in some cases
 291

these collaborations have provided an alternative to the closure of low-enrolment

language programs (cf. Lane 2011a), in other cases, they have actually resulted in
the closure of language programs and even of whole language departments (cf.
Fotheringham 2009). Moreover, many underlying, contentious aspects of their
collaborative nature remain unresolved. The most pressing of these is the lack of
clarity on how financial arrangements are established and administered, particularly
in terms of student enrolments or Equivalent Full-Time Student Load (EFTSL) per
subject and the provision of teaching resources (Hajek et al. 2008). As Lo Bianco
and Slaughter (2009: 56) indicate some of these schemes are failing under budget
pressures, with single-institution financial imperatives overriding the collaborative
rationale. In addition, other structural and logistical problems include differences
between collaborating institutions in their enrolment procedures (for both domestic
and international students), credit point systems and assessment procedures;
difficulties with timetable alignment; and largely, poor support from partner
institutions (White and Baldauf 2006: 18-26; Winter 2009). Overall, despite their
seemingly positive effect on language offerings, these initiatives add to the complex
landscape of curriculum development and implementation thus further reducing the
potential for developing an integrated language and culture learning agenda.

Looking for answers within the curriculum

Apart from the complexities and overall critical state of language studies provision
at Australian universities, when we consider the actual place of the (inter)cultural
dimension within the curricula of language programs, additional obstacles start
to emerge. A cursory examination of language programs descriptions and subject
outlines reveals at least three common trends to integrating an (inter)-cultural
dimension. Here, it is important to clarify that these trends are indicative; they do
not represent the realities of all institutions and language departments. Nonetheless,
they offer concrete snapshots of the current status quo.
At one end of the continuum, the most traditional strategy to integrate an (inter)
cultural dimension has been the integration of language content subjects dedicated
to the study of specific areas such as literature, film and other cultural traditions
through the target language. These subjects require intermediate to advanced levels
of language proficiency, which makes them accessible only to specialist learners,
mostly students who are enrolled in the more advanced subjects of these programs.
Given the bottom-heavy structure of most language programs, and the high attrition
rate in these advanced subjects, only a low percentage of language students benefit
from this strategy.
In addition, those students who are able to enrol in these advanced subjects,
most likely in the last year, or last semester of studies, are thus exposed to a relatively
limited view of language and culture learning. The syllabi of these subjects reveal
that their approach to the study of culture may be limited to the acquisition of what
 292

Crichton and Scarino (2007) describe as the content approach to the intercultural,
that is: a body of knowledge to be analysed and acquired by the learner, that is,
representations of culture textualised as, issues, case studies, examples,
values perspectives, and aspects, and practices, which students are required to
analyse, explore, compare, consider, and examine. The content approach is
evident in the type and focus of assessment items. Students are generally assessed
on their knowledge of the subject matter (literature, film and so forth) and more
specifically, on their development of the four macro-linguistic skills (listening,
speaking, reading and writing).
At the other end of the continuum, we find the second type of strategy which
focuses on non-language subject components. In addition to the core language
subject components, language programs generally include so-called cultural
context subjects. These subjects are typically offered at beginners level and are
taught in English, which means that they are also available to miscellaneous students
across faculties. These subjects offer a general introduction to a potpourri of themes
and cultural aspects (e.g. historical and political developments as well as literary,
film and other salient representations) of the country or countries where the target
language is spoken. However, this strategy isolates culture from language and is also
largely underpinned by a content approach to the integration of the (inter)cultural
dimension. In both cases we see two extreme versions of the acquisition of (inter)
cultural knowledge. They each target completely different learner profiles and
provide no clear indication of how they connect with other subjects to work towards
a coherent, sequential, development of linguistic proficiency and intercultural
competence.
The third strategy to address the (inter)cultural dimension is the incorporation
an overseas exchange component. Most Australian universities have formal exchange
agreements with universities around the world. As such, they offer students the
opportunity to go on exchange and provide various types of financial assistance to
support their studies (Daly and Barker 2010). Language programs generally encourage
students at intermediate and advanced levels to take advantage of these schemes.
While the opportunity to pursue language studies abroad is generally identified as a
motivating factor for students learning languages, in practice, the number of students
who take advantage of this opportunity is comparatively low (Nettelbeck et al. 2007).
Indeed, according to the 2007 report Outgoing international mobility of Australian
university students (Olsen 2007), only 5.8% of undergraduate student had an
overseas study experience (this included student exchange programs; semester or
year-long programs; cultural tours and language study visits; and internships). Thus,
despite universities claims regarding overseas studies as an integral component of
their commitment to the internationalisation process and the development of global
citizens, their impact in this regard seems negligible.
In addition, research suggests that periods of sojourn abroad do not
automatically guarantee the development of intercultural competencies (cf. Shaules
 293

2007). Indeed, according to Crichton and Scarino, the development of intercultural

competence through this type of strategy is largely regarded as a matter of moving
between culturally defined locations (2007: 4.9). They argue that limiting the
integration of an (inter)cultural dimension to this type of relocation approach,
confines students experiences to a matter of co-presence with diversity. This type of
strategy, therefore, does not guarantee participating students deliberate and active
engagement in reflective processes about their own identity in relation to others, or
on the reciprocal nature of interaction between languages and cultures, key aspects
to the dual development of linguistic proficiency and intercultural competence
(Crichton and Scarino 2007).
At subject-level, most outlines, particularly in elementary subjects, include broad
(inter)cultural learning objectives that appear to address university requirements
in a sort of tick the box manner. In addition to development of the four macro-
skills, learning objectives typically refer to the acquisition of cultural knowledge and
awareness of differences and similarities with the target culture. Yet course syllabi
fail to indicate how these objectives are addressed in terms of content, or how their
achievement is evaluated or monitored in terms of assessment. This does not mean
that language teachers do not address these objectives in everyday practice, but it
does suggest that cultural goals may be addressed in an ad hoc manner and that they
are subordinated to linguistic goals in formal assessment (Piasecka 2011).

Balancing the status quo

The academic literature reveals that numerous studies have attempted to address the
dual development of language proficiency and intercultural competence in Australian
university language programs. From the design of specific subjects to modules
within subjects, from syllabus selection to development of specific assessment
items (Eisenchlas and Hortiguera 1999; Eisenchlas and Trevaskes 2003; Eisenchlas
and Trevaskes 2007; Liddicoat and Crozet 2001; Mrowa-Hopkins and Strambi 2005;
Visocnik Murray and Laura 2001, to name a few), these studies provide ample
evidence of good practice toward the integration of an intercultural dimension in
university language programs. More notably, a study by Crichton et al. (2004) offers
a useful set of integrated resources for intercultural teaching and learning across
several disciplines. These resources are set against internationalisation processes in
Australian higher education and provide exemplars from one institution in particular.
For the most part, however, the parameters of these studies are relatively
narrow and focus on isolated instances of innovation, which may not be easily
replicable across languages or proficiency levels. That is, these studies focus on
specific languages and levels of proficiency and concern specific teaching contexts
that do not provide language educators with an overall, clear conceptualisation of
how language and culture learning goals can be coherently linked, and incrementally
developed throughout a program of studies.
 294

Here, it is important to clarify that there is no one-size fits all solution

to integrating the dual development of linguistic proficiency and intercultural
competence. However, three points can be made. First, as described earlier,
university language programs around the country share enough structural features to
support the development of shared practices and coherent strategies to address this
goal. Second, given the nation-wide imperative to rationalise universities graduate
outcomes, it is a particularly propitious moment draw and expand on instances of
good practice to formulate explicit goals and learning objectives that account for the
pedagogic realities in university language classrooms. Third, in the face of national
curriculum changes underway (ACARA 2011), it is important to ensure articulation
and continuity of pedagogical principles underlying compulsory and tertiary level
languages education. After all, amongst our language learners there are future
language teachers who, upon graduation, are expected to foster intercultural
language learning principles (Scarino and Crichton 2008) in their own practices.

Conclusion
In this contribution I have examined the pervasive lack of coherence between
Australian universities espoused goals in relation to language and culture learning
and their realisation in practice. This lack of coherence seems to be underpinned
by two contradictory forces. On the one hand, we have government and university
policy documents rhetoric of commitment to the development of interculturally
sensitive graduates alongside the internationalisation of degree programs. In this
rhetoric, languages education is regarded as an integral component of both the
internationalisation process and the development of intercultural competencies. On
the other hand, we have the reality of language programs, their inherent structural
features and their unrelenting erosion, all of which reveal a complete absence of
correlation between these espoused goals and actual graduate outcomes. While
steps have been taken to narrow the seemingly unbridgeable gap between policy and
practice, these steps require additional impetus to identify feasible shared practices
and coherent strategies to realise these goals.
As such, my critique does not seek to imply that the development of interculturally
competent graduates should be discarded as a goal for languages education. Nor does
it imply that attempts to foster the dual development of language proficiency and
intercultural competence should be forsaken. On the contrary, it points to the need
for government and university policymakers as well as language educators to re-visit
these goals to account for the pedagogic realities discussed above. Re-examination
of these goals is integral to the formulation of coherent, feasible learning objectives
and the overall achievement of an intercultural vision for the future of Australian
university graduates, a vision that adequately integrates the dual goal of linguistic
proficiency and intercultural competence.
 295

Notes
1. In this contribution, a subject refers to a set of learning activities (including lectures,
tutorials and workshops) underpinned by a coherent syllabus. This terminology may
vary depending on the institution, for instance, many universities use the term unit
rather than subject.

References
Australian Curriculum Assessment and Reporting Authority [ACARA]. 2011. The Shape of the
Australian Curriculum: Languages. Sydney: ACARA. Available at:
http://www.acara.edu.au/verve/_resources/The_Shape_of_the_Australian_
Curriculum_languages_final.pdf
Australian Universities Quality Agency [AUQA]. 2009. Good Practice Principles for English
Language Proficiency for International Students in Australian Universities. Canberra:
Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations.
Barrie, S. 2006. Understanding what we mean by the generic attributes of graduates. Higher
Education 51 (2), 215-241.
Bosanquet, A. 2010. Higher education guarantees global citizenship, or does it? Paper
presented at the Enhancing Learning Experiences in Higher Education: International
Conference, 2-3 December 2010, Hong Kong.
Briguglio, C. 2004. International business education: Selling knowledge to grow wisdom? Paper
presented at the 27th HERDSA Conference - Transforming Knowledge into Wisdom:
Holistic Approaches to Teaching and Learning, Miri, Malaysia. Retrieved from http://
www.herdsa.org.au/wp-content/uploads/conference/2004/PDF/P029-jt.pdf
Briguglio, C. 2006. Empowering students by developing their intercultural communication
competence: A two-way process. Educate, Advocate, Empower: ISANA 2006
Conference Proceedings. Retrieved from: http://www.isana.org.au/files/thurs_c2_
briguglio.pdf.
Clyne, M. 2005. Australias Language Potential. Sydney: UNSW Press.
Clyne, M., A. Pauwels and R. Sussex. 2007. The state of languages education in Australia: A
national tragedy and an international embarrassment. Australian Council of State
School Organisations or the Australian Parents Council [ACSSO] - Opinion Paper.
Retrieved from http://www.languageseducation.com/clyneetal070328.pdf
Council for the Australian Federation. 2007. The Future of Schooling in Australia: A Report by
the States and Territories (Federalist Paper 2). Melbourne: Department of Premier
and Cabinet.
Crichton, J., M. Paige, L. Papademetre and A. Scarino. 2004. Integrated Resources for
Intercultural Teaching and Learning in the Context of Internationalisation in Higher
Education. University of South Australia, School of International Studies, Research
Centre for Languages and Cultures Education.
Crichton, J. and A. Scarino. 2007. How are we to understand the intercultural dimension? An
examination of the intercultural dimension of internationalisation in the context of
higher education in Australia. Australian Review of Applied Linguistics 30 (1), 4.1-
4.21.
 296

Daly, A. and M. Barker. 2010. Australian universities strategic goals of student exchange and
participation rates in outbound exchange programs. Journal of Higher Education
Policy and Management 32 (4), 333-342.
Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations [DEEWR]. 2008. Review of
Australian Higher Education: Final Report. Canberra, ACT: Department of Education,
Employment and Workplace Relations.
Eisenchlas, S., and H. Hortiguera. 1999. Beyond the classroom: The Hispanic community as a
resource for teaching and learning. Babel 34 (3), 16-20.
Eisenchlas, S. and S. Trevaskes. 2003. Creating cultural spaces in the Australian university
setting: A pilot study of structured cultural exchanges. Australian Review of Applied
Linguistics 26 (2), 84-99.
Eisenchlas, S. and S. Trevaskes. 2007. Developing intercultural communication skills through
intergroup interaction. Intercultural Education 18 (5), 413-425.
Eisenchlas, S., S. Trevaskes and A. J. Liddicoat. 2003. Internationalisation: The slow move from
rhetoric to practice in Australian universities. In A. J. Liddicoat, S. Eisenchlas and
S. Trevaskes (eds), Australian Perspectives on Internationalising Education, 141-149.
Melbourne: Language Australia.
Fotheringham, R. 2009. The Brisbane Universities Languages Alliance: A Diversity Scheme for
Preserving Languages Other Than English and Building Demand Through Cross-
Institutional Enrolment (The University of Queensland, Queensland University
of Technology and Griffith University). Paper presented at the Dean of Arts Social
Sciences and Humanities Conference, Newcastle. Available at: http://dassh.edu.au/
resources/uploads/publications/project_reports/2009_BrisbaneLanguagesAlliance.
pdf
Group of Eight [Go8]. 2007. Languages in Crisis: A Rescue Plan for Australia. Available at:
http://www.go8.edu.au/__documents/university-staff/agreements/go8-languages-
in-crisis-discussion-paper.pdf.
Hajek, J., Y. Slaughter and M. Stevens. 2008. Innovative approaches in the provision of
languages other than English in Australian higher education. Evaluation of Model 2:
Collaborative city-based model. Melbourne: University of Melbourne.
Harman, G. 2005. Internationalisation of Australian higher education: A critical review of
the literature and research. In P. Ninnes and M. Hellstn (eds), Internationalising
Higher Education: Critical Explorations of Pedagogy and Policy, 119-140. Dordrecht:
Springer.
Institute for Teaching and Learning [ITL]. 2012. The National Graduate Attributes Project [GAP].
http://www.itl.usyd.edu.au/projects/nationalgap/introduction.htm
Lane, B. 2009a, June 24. Lingua, frankly, is underrated, The Australian, Higher Education.
Available at: http://www.theaustralian.com.au/lingua-frankly-is-underrated/story-
fna7dq6e-1225739550115
Lane, B. 2009b, June 17. Threatening blot on the polyglot, The Australian, Higher Education.
Available at: http://www.theaustralian.com.au/threatening-blot-on-the-polyglot/
story-fna7dq6e-1225736506374
Lane, B. 2010a, November 10. Breaking the Language Barrier, The Australian, Higher Education.
Available at: http://www.theaustralian.com.au/higher-education/breaking-the-
language-barrier/story-e6frgcjx-1225950313835
 297

Lane, B. 2010b, April 21. Language Tasters Point to the Future, The Australian, Higher Education,
Opinion. Available at: http://www.theaustralian.com.au/higher-education/
language-tasters-point-to-the-future/story-e6frgcjx-1225856114375
Lane, B. 2011a, June 8. Hubs speak a common language, The Australian, Higher Education.
Available at: http://www.theaustralian.com.au/higher-education/hubs-speak-a-
common-language/story-e6frgcjx-1226071190336
Lane, B. 2011b, October 4. Lets translate the research funding, The Australian, Higher
Education. Available at: http://www.theaustralian.com.au/higher-education/time-
to-translate-the-politics-of-research-funding/story-e6frgcjx-1226154344296
Lane, B. 2011c, September 28. TEQSA role to safeguard language standards, The Australian,
Higher Education. . Available at: http://www.theaustralian.com.au/higher-education/
teqsa-role-to-safeguard-language-standards/story-e6frgcjx-1226148430401
Liddicoat, A.J. and C. Crozet. 2001. Acquiring French international norms through instruction.
In K. R. Rose and G. Kasper (eds), Pragmatic Development in Instructional Contexts,
125-144. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Lo Bianco, J. and Y. Slaughter. 2009. Second Languages and Australian Schooling. Camberwell,
VIC: Australian Council for Educational Research (ACER) Press.
Martn, D. 2005. Permanent crisis, tenuous persistence: Foreign languages in Australian
universities. Arts and Humanities in Higher Education 4 (1), 53-75.
Ministerial Council on Education, Employment, Training and Youth Affairs [MCEETYA]. 2005.
National Statement for Languages Education in Australian Schools: National Plan for
Languages Education in Australian Schools 2005-2008. Hindmarsh, South Australia:
Department of Education and Children Services.
Mrowa-Hopkins, C. M. and A. Strambi. 2005. How angry can you be in French and Italian?
Integrating research and teaching for the development of pragmatic competencies
in L2 classrooms. FULGOR - Flinders University Languages Group Online Review, 2
(2). Available at: http://dspace.flinders.edu.au/xmlui/handle/2328/177
Nettelbeck, C., J. Byron, M. Clyne, J. Hajek, J. Lo Bianco and A. McLaren. 2007. Beginners
LOTE (Languages Other than English) in Australian Universities: An Audit Survey and
Analysis. Canberra: Australian Academy of the Humanities.
Olsen, A. 2007. Outgoing International Mobility of Australian University Students 2007. Paper
presented at the Australian International Education Conference: Global Citizens,
Global Impact, Brisbane, QLD. Available at: http://www.spre.com.au/download/
AUIDFMobility2007AIECPaper.pdf.
Pauwels, A. 2002. Languages in the university sector at the beginning of the third millennium.
Babel 37 (2), 16-20, 37-38.
Pauwels, A. 2007. Maintaining a language other than English through higher education in
Australia. In A. Pauwels, J. Lo Bianco and J. Winter (eds), Maintaining Minority
Languages in Transnational Contexts, 107-123. London: Palgrave.
Piasecka, L. 2011. Sensitizing foreign language learners to cultural diversity through developing
intercultural communicative competence. In J. Arabski and A. Wojtaszek (eds),
Aspects of Culture in Second Language Acquisition and Foreign Language Learning,
21-33. Berlin/Heidelberg: Springer.
Pitman, T. and S. Broomhall. 2009. Australian universities, generic skills and lifelong learning.
International Journal of Lifelong Education, 28 (4), 439-458.
 298

Scarino, A. and J. Crichton. 2008. Why the intercultural matters to language teaching and
learning: An orientation to the ILTLP program. Babel 43(1), 4-6, 38.
Shaules, J. 2007. Deep Culture: The Hidden Challenges of Global Living. Clevedon: Multilingual
Matters
Trevaskes, S., S. Eisenchlas and A.J. Liddicoat. 2003. Language, culture and literacy in the
internationalisation process of higher education. In A. J. Liddicoat, S. Eisenchlas and
S. Trevaskes (Eds.), Australian Perspectives on Internationalising Education, 1-12.
Melbourne: Language Australia.
Visocnik Murray, S. and F. Laura. 2001. Ti posso offrire un caff? Implementing an out-of-class
experience in a tertiary Italian program. Paper presented at the Innovations in Italian
Teaching Workshop, Brisbane, Australia. Available at: http://www.griffith.edu.au/__
data/assets/pdf_file/0008/340838/3_laura.pdf.
White, P. and R. Baldauf. 2006. Re-Examining Australias Tertiary Language Programs - A
Five Year Retrospective on Teaching and Collaboration. Brisbane: University of
Queensland, Faculty of Arts/Faculty of Social and Behavioural Sciences.
Winter, J. 2009. Collaborative Models for the Provision of Languages in Australian Universities.
Canberra: Dean of Arts, Social Sciences and Humanities.