Opinion
Apparently 500 million people have accessed the language learning app Duolingo, and up to a tenth of these actually practise daily.
In the age of globalisation, learning other languages makes sense.
But in Australia it has always been difficult to decide which second language to learn. Recommendations keep changing. When I was young many people learnt European languages, later Asian languages were recommended, and, of course, Mandarin, is rightly popular.
But fewer students are formally studying languages. The National Languages Campaign was established to promote the benefits of learning languages after it was recognized that enrolments had been falling. In 2013 about 33,000 high school students took a language in their final year, but this fell to about 20,000 by 2021, which is about 6%. At universities the Job Ready Graduates program has reduced costs of studying languages, and recent interest in Asian languages is encouraging. I hope things are stabilising.
We should keep working on this but unless we succeed in turning the tide it looks like Australia will mostly rely on citizens brought up in bi- or multi-lingual families for its language needs.
Fortunately, there are quite a lot of these. This is perhaps one reason why native English speakers don’t enrol in languages more often. I remember at high school I was always competing against peers who could practice at home with parents or other relatives. If one was a competitive student (and our education system has become very competitive) then it made more sense to study Latin.
I am in awe of our international students who master English while tackling very demanding degree programs, and competing against native English speakers. Sadly, many people criticise the standard of English spoken by some international students – I remember when an academic read out a student essay to some of the senior leadership team to highlight the problem – but I kept thinking the student’s English was better than my French!
I think many Australians under-estimate how hard it is to become proficient in a second language.
I learnt French at school, and kept it up through books and films, but even though I could read, I could never really speak French. Recently the advent of new apps has changed things for me. I discovered Glossika and completed 800 hours last year. That may sound a lot, but the beauty of this app is that you can use it ‘hands free’ when driving, doing chores, walking the dogs, or clipping the hedge. I enjoy it so much that I have prioritised chores and I now regard traffic jams as a chance to catch up on difficult sentences.
Glossika simply reads sentences and you repeat them. Many sentences are simple and related to travel but there are also some funny ones that you wouldn’t want to use to start a conversation with a stranger on a train – things like “Est-ce que tu as deja été en prison?” (have you ever been in prison?) or “Pensez-vous que mon pantalon a besoin d’être lave?” (do you think my trousers need washing?).
After 800 hours my spoken French is still not as good as I would wish it. But I have now found a new Artificial Intelligence app that I can speak to in order to practise further. I’ll be passably bi-lingual in another year or two.
Whyever am I trying to perfect my French? Couldn’t I just use Google Translate?
No. I wanted to see how much effort it took to become properly bi-lingual, and I’d like to actually speak. And I, like so many people, enjoy learning, and I wanted to properly appreciate what it is like for our students, and also for our future as a university upskilling students in English. It helped that I could fit the learning in because I just utilised dead time spent driving etc.
People tell me that universities should offer short courses to help our students learn English, but I’ve come to the view that it takes more than 1,000 hours of learning to become fluent. Some short courses can build confidence and community, so I support these, but it is delusional to think that we can embed English language proficiency with one quick remedial course.
The changes I have seen are also relevant to what we teach. I believe that we should continue to encourage the formal learning of foreign languages, even if BabelFish-like apps (e.g. SEAMLESSMT4 Nature 637, 587–593 (2025)) emerge to enable instantaneous translations.
But we should also be realistic about the total number of students enrolling in languages.
When I think about our English enabling courses, my view is that we have to be ready for declines in enrolment. The free or inexpensive online learning methods are now so effective, and so inexpensive, that basic in-person English courses may soon become superfluous.
The bigger lesson here is that universities will, more generally, be pushed out of introductory basic skills courses by cheaper online platforms, and this is why micro-credentials have not taken off. The space for universities is deep learning. We must support our arts faculties to teach language and culture, and we must help our students to integrate into our learning communities, but we should not underestimate the time required to fully master languages, nor the impact the internet is having on delivering basic skills.
Most importantly we should respect the remarkable achievement of international students and all migrants, who manage to develop an English language proficiency that eclipses my hard won, but mediocre, capability in French.
Professor Merlin Crossley is DVC Academic Quality at UNSW Sydney