Reconsidering languages learning

Reports of declining language enrollments and cuts to languages1 programs across levels of education have become increasingly familiar in recent years, particularly in Anglophone contexts (see Lanvers et al., 2021; Ushioda, 2017). Attempts to comprehend and potentially counteract this trend are also increasing, including the case of West Virginia University (WVU), which exemplifies how neoliberal ideologies and political influence are impacting the provision of languages education in the tertiary sector in the United States. The nature and extent of change, both in society and education, including languages education, are such that the current sociohistorical period presents major challenges, as well as an opportunity to reconsider fundamental orientations and the value of languages learning. Significant and cumulative theoretical expansions over recent decades in applied linguistics, sociolinguistics, and education have the potential to inform languages education and open possibilities for changing curricular and pedagogical practice. These expansions also offer the potential to change the conversation within the field and wider society about the contemporary nature and value of languages education. They invite a reconsideration of understandings regarding conceptions of language, culture, language learning, multilingualism, multiculturalism, and how these are “translated” into curriculum and pedagogical practice. In this commentary, we critically reflect on the case of WVU and use the case of languages education in Australian higher education to illustrate the complexity at play, examining how ideologies intersect with both provisioning and curricular and pedagogical practice to create particular tensions for this area of learning. We argue for the need to consider ideologies of neoliberalism and monolingualism and the related politics and policies as the macro forces, external to the field, that impact provisioning. Further, we also consider the influencing forces, internal to the field, arguing for the need for deep reflection and a reconceptualization of the nature, scope, and value of languages learning itself. We do so as researchers in applied linguistics whose work focuses predominantly on (foreign) languages education in the K–12 environment. We are committed to praxis, researching collaboratively with teachers of diverse languages. We have contributed actively and continuously to state and national policy and curriculum development work in Australia and beyond. Providing a detailed account of the lived experience of the dismantling of languages programs in higher education from the perspective of “insiders” is invaluable in acknowledging and potentially addressing the problem. The WVU experience highlights the influence of ideologies, funding, and political actors at the state level in the operational decisions of universities that ultimately lead to changes in course offerings. Through a detailed account of the events leading to the cuts, Thompson et al. (2025, this issue) argue that decisions to remove language programs are due to neoliberal ideologies, particularly those held by Republican-aligned local politicians. The authors, also the key participants in the case study, outlined their efforts to counter this ideology. Following the logic of economic rationalism to which the program was subjected, they provide a report of how their department was performing well in relation to performance measures. Despite the strong performance (stronger than some other areas), the languages programs were disestablished. Student protests and community backlash had some moderating effect with two languages retained—Chinese and Spanish. This decision was attributed to a neoliberal ideology and the reliance of the university on state funding. Yet how are we to understand this decision of WVU more fully? For example: Why were these languages chosen and not others? Who decides which languages should be offered or not? What is the nature of the programs? Are the programs standalone or linked to other discipline areas? Are they offered as majors, minors, or both? Questions such as these indicate that there are additional considerations in understanding this phenomenon, including: (a) the choice and status of languages in general and of specific languages that are offered, (b) the purpose and nature of programs, (c) perceptions of value held by insiders and outsiders, and (d) the framing of the area, all of which are ideologically influenced. Neoliberalism and the “marketization” of higher education can account to some extent for what happened at WVU; however, there is an interplay between ideology, politics, policies, and the nature of programs, with influences at every level. The case of WVU parallels targeted cuts to languages programs in higher education in Australia. In a sector with 41 universities, at least 6 institutions (i.e., Flinders University, La Trobe University, Macquarie University, Swinburne University of Technology, University of Western Australia, and currently the University of Wollongong) have attempted to reduce or abolish their languages and applied linguistics programs in recent years. The processes undertaken were like those at WVU, as though from the same playbook: Declare economic hardship for the university and the need to rein in spending, initiate a review to identify “underperforming” areas, make a pronouncement as to the areas to be cut, and allow a brief “consultation” period followed by a swift and minimal response, with a “change management” plan ready to be actioned. In some cases, academics enlisted support of professional bodies such as the Applied Linguistics Association of Australia to lobby relevant federal and state politicians (note, in Australia, university education is the responsibility of the federal Minister for Education), as well as activating local media and community support. In the case of Swinburne University of Technology in Melbourne, for example, affected staff tried to engage political intervention but the federal government chose not to get involved, citing the independence of universities to make program decisions. In another case, at Flinders University in South Australia, a restructure designed to “realign” discipline areas involved a review of all programs and course enrollments. This led to a recommendation to abolish the Italian program, with the university citing low enrollments and arguing that students could access the language through cross-institutional enrollment. The local Italian community lobbied the South Australian Premier and the state Minister for Education (whose wife was a member of the local Italian community), and the decision was overturned, with the state government allocating additional funding to attract more students into the program. While this may seem a positive example of intervention, it was also an additive, almost idiosyncratic one, which means the program remains fragile. Both cases indicate the precarious existence that language programs face, and in concert with WVU, reveal the entanglement of ideologies, politics, and even individual values in processes that make-or-break language programs. Arguably, the most notable influence of ideology on language programs in Australian higher education in recent times has been the Job-ready Graduates Package (JRGP) enacted by the previous federal conservative government. This funding scheme was promoted as the means to equip Australia with more “workforce ready” graduates (Commonwealth of Australia, 2020). The model was based on differentiated funding at the discipline level, whereby the amount that students contribute to their higher degree in some disciplines increased. For example, arts and humanities courses required a higher contribution from students, while science, nursing, and engineering courses required a lower contribution. The package identified languages as a priority area, hence they also attracted low fees. The government argued that the JRGP would send a signal to the market that would fill shortages and grow priority areas of national economic importance. Outside of the government, it was criticized as ideologically driven, designed to eliminate seemingly left-leaning disciplines. Clearly, the JRGP was rooted in neoliberal ideology with its emphasis on employability and economic advancement. Despite the funding change, the desired impact has not been achieved. Not only have enrollments shifted little in any discipline, but programs in languages (despite the financial incentives) have continued to decline. In 2022, the newly elected Labor government paused the JRGP and instituted its own review of the sector. The Universities Accord report (Commonwealth of Australia, 2023) carries its own biases, leaning toward greater access for students in rural areas and those with low socioeconomic status to university education. The report is silent on languages education. The politicization of education, and particularly languages education, is clear in these examples; however, there are broader historical and sociocultural factors at play also in the erosion of languages education. In Australia, languages policy and languages education are enmeshed with multicultural policy, and therefore the area is understood as synonymous with values of linguistic and cultural diversity, equity, and inclusion. This alignment means that languages education tends to rise or fall with the political and public sentiment toward diversity. At the height of multiculturalism, the National Policy on Languages (Lo Bianco, 1987) identified groups of languages with differing purposes and positions in the Australian social, economic, and educational landscape, notably: English, languages other than English, community languages, and Indigenous languages. This policy foregrounded both linguistic and cultural diversity; however, subsequent policies, borne out of political agendas, have focused on the primacy of English as a marker of national identity, as well as economic prosperity (cf. Asian Languages and Australia's Economic Future, Commonwealth of Australia, 1994). In so doing, these policies have prioritized (a) monolingual literacy and (b) a group of Asian languages (i.e., those of Australia's largest Asian trading partners: Indonesia, Korea, Japan, and China). Within language groupings, however, there are further hierarchies, as each language has its distinctive history, community, and place in the societal and educational landscape. With the government's critique of multiculturalism in the early 2000s, funding for the Asian languages and studies program in schools was stopped, indicating the influence of political short-termism. The underlying precarity of languages and languages education also means that the field has tended to justify its presence by chiming in with various political agendas (e.g., languages and multiculturalism and languages and literacy [understood as literacy in English]). This tendency has not only been enormously effortful (as is evident in the WVU case) but it ultimately positions the field as subservient to agendas that are other than those derived from the nature of the field itself. Furthermore, the framing of languages learning within a neoliberal and monolingual orientation as “skill-getting” has positioned languages as instrumental, rendering this an adjunct area of learning, potentially replaceable by new technologies. Much of the discussion related to both the WVU program and the Australian situation has focused on ideologies of neoliberalism and with this, the marketization of higher education, and ideologies of monolingualism. These ideologies, together with political forces at national, state, and institutional levels, have led to decisions about the “nonsustainability” of particular languages programs. The range of forces influencing the provision of languages education in Australia, as elsewhere, is entangled. The persistent and pervasive ideologies, politics, and policies create a complex constellation of factors in which causal relationships are often difficult to establish and yet, in the field of languages education, have led to fragility. In this context, it is also necessary to consider deeply the nature of the programs offered, their meaningfulness to the diverse students who participate in them, and how the programs are perceived both by students and interested parties beyond the programs. Ideologies and policies are also influential at this level—ideologies that come from within the field itself. It is necessary to consider languages programs “from the inside,” both at the level of individual programs and at the level of the field more broadly. This constitutes a disciplinary or field response to what languages learning can mean to individuals and to society, especially at a time of major disruptions in the world order. This approach enables a focus on the distinctive contribution that languages learning makes in education, which may be understood specifically to invite (a) the use of more than one linguistic and cultural system to interpret, create, and exchange meaning, and (b) reflection and reflexivity in relation to the entailments of communication both within and across languages and cultures, and the self in relation to others. Considering the field from the inside also represents the sphere of engagement over which languages teachers, as the creators and enactors of programs, have at least some degree of control, even though this, in turn, is always conditioned by general educational and societal ideologies and politics. Furthermore, such discussion from the inside offers a much-needed opportunity to (re)shape the discourse regarding the value of languages learning beyond rationales related to economics and trade, national defense, and security. This reconsideration of programs for languages learning coincides with theoretical expansions that constitute an important paradigmatic change in conceptualizing languages learning. This paradigmatic change seeks to implement expanded goals (Leung & Scarino, 2016), more equitable and socially just orientations (see, e.g., Kramsch & Whiteside, 2008; Ortega, 2019; The Douglas Fir Group, 2016; see also Anderson, 2022, for a critical discussion). Although this theoretical work is gathering momentum, it remains at the early stages of being translated into curricular and pedagogical practice in ways that do justice to the diversity of learners. Nevertheless, it offers ways of putting languages learning on a stronger footing and strengthening understandings of its value. Operating at the nexus of language and culture, going beyond language per se to studying how language contributes to realities, histories, and identities; Operating multilingually, dealing with ambiguity, mediating the exchange of meanings and diverse world views, perspectives and understanding the processes of meaning making—learning to “get inside” the process of reciprocal interpretation, creation, and exchange of meanings; Engaging with the lived experiences of students in their diversity and creating experiences for meaningful exchange; Working with significant (nontrivial) content and concepts that enable the constructing of conceptual and intellectual relationships; Foregrounding the meta level of language and culture work, inviting depth, elaboration, questioning of assumptions, and so on; Building reflectivity and reflexivity to engender critical analysis, creativity, ethical awareness, and cultural sensitivity for learning languages in a diverse world. A way of getting inside programs for languages learning is to consider the curriculum. It represents a useful unit of analysis because it considers the program as a whole (planned and enacted through pedagogy, resources and materials, assessment, and evaluation). It also represents a valuable translational space between theorizing and practice. The curriculum, with its embedded concepts and processes, can be seen as a conceptualization of the domain of languages learning that gives shape to the learning. As such, it too is influenced by both personal and more broadly held ideologies, political interventions, theoretical stances, and values, which need to be understood and continuously examined. Valdés (2023) offered a way of understanding the forces at work in shaping the domain of languages learning through what she described as “curricularization.” She saw curricularization as the process of rendering a language amenable to learning and teaching. She noted that when a language is curricularized, it is no longer treated as a living and lived phenomenon but rather it becomes a “subject” with its own concepts and processes. She presented three sets of forces that shape curricularization of languages learning: (a) framing mechanisms, (b) mediating mechanisms, and (c) instructional practices. These interact in consequential ways in the development and enactment of curricula. Following Valdés (2023), the framing mechanisms dimension invites a consideration of ideologies of language, culture, multilingualism, multiculturalism, race, class, gender, and that are enmeshed in the curriculum. Ideologies shape the conceptualization of the of language and culture, the ways in which languages learning is and how theoretical are translated for languages learning and teaching. The theoretical expansions related to the field have of the in languages learning such as its monolingual the orientation to language the consideration of culture in languages learning, the of or pedagogy, the of the and an consideration of development in languages learning. The framing dimension of curricularization a for critically examining current programs and a for The mediating mechanisms dimension of curricularization the influence of This dimension may the presence or of policies for languages this at state, or national well as policies related to in education (e.g., and educational policies more broadly that impact languages programs (e.g., education, and It is necessary to policy to the ways in which policies create such as of disciplines or of languages and program (e.g., the choice of languages, of time and other and that impact the nature, and for languages learning. These mediating mechanisms create the culture or of programs. The instructional dimension of curricularization to curricular and pedagogical practices. These are influenced by the framing and mediating mechanisms, as and to the of learning the of concepts and processes (i.e., the content of languages as well as the materials, assessment, and that are a process of as to what constitutes the conceptual content and processes of learning within a course and across the of courses that the program as a The that shape to the curriculum and related pedagogical practice social, and political values, which are for this need to open to reconsideration and The of curricularization are in complex ways shape the nature of languages learning offered in programs. The of the the value of languages learning is being so invites both individual programs and the field to the opportunity to their This work conceptual that enable the of the theoretical expansions into and programs. It also to create content that invites students to multilingually, to reflect on within and across languages and cultures, and to about self in relation to others. It also within and across languages and within and across discipline the field is to understand the of influencing forces that impact languages learning and and that lead to positive A example of to the need to languages learning is offered by in relation to a university program in language and Through as a and and a and the processes of and the program, mediating learning with students, and language learning, and their development as and of In she language learning experiences through concepts such as and The program also invites reflection on the of students, that through learning an additional language they come to understand how meanings are and across languages and Through students become of their own in their own language and culture and how this their way of the world. As such, language learning becomes a process of and toward ethical and socially just ways of being and This work is per also influenced by the who personal and professional histories, ideologies, of languages learning and and practices. are for the and enactment of languages programs. As such, it becomes necessary to open and with to the and political forces and their own internal and values that influence their programs. would enable a stronger and of programs, their nature, and in turn, may provide a for that from the nature and of the We have in complex times with a questioning of the and value of languages programs, there is a need to critically ideologies, politics, and policies that impact it is necessary to critically the nature of curricular and pedagogical for languages learning, in of the theoretical expansions being in the field and the ways in which these are translated in programs. The process of offers an opportunity for reflection on of languages programs that to the of times and to the and educational of universities as of higher this at the program level, as in the case of WVU, or at state or national It is through ideologies, politics, policies, and values at every level that the field can the influence of ideologies and politics and work toward change that both the language learning experience for diverse and the of its value to individuals and access by University of South Australia, as of the University of South Australia the of Australian University

Ideology · Interface (matter) · Linguistics · Mathematics education · Pedagogy · Political science · Politics · Sociology · Computer Science · EFL/ESL Teaching and Learning · Multilingual Education and Policy · Philosophy · Psychology · Second Language Learning and Teaching

• The Issue

  Open Access•Kristin J Davin•Modern Language Journal•2025

  Añadir item

• SLA and the Study of Equitable Multilingualism

  Open Access•Lourdes Ortega•Modern Language Journal•2019

  Añadir item

• The Impact of Global English on Motivation to Learn Other Languages

  Open Access•Ema Ushioda•Modern Language Journal•2017

  Añadir item

• What's in a name? Why ‘SLA’ is no longer fit for purpose and the emerging, more equitable alternatives

  Open Access•Jason Anderson•Language Teaching•2022

  Añadir item

• Social Justice Challenges of “Teaching” Languages

  Open Access•Guadalupe Valdes•Daedalus•2023

  Añadir item

• Language Ecology in Multilingual Settings. Towards a Theory of Symbolic Competence

  Claire Kramsch, Alexander Whiteside•Applied Linguistics•2008

  Añadir item