me on'"

INFORMATION TO USERS

ThilIIII:dUICripl:basheal ,.-oducedfromtbemic:ro6Immaster.UMI filmsdietextdirecdy&om.

me on'"

Ort:It1p'fIIII:I:riued. 1buI,ICme thesisanddisIertaDoD copiesaremrypewritc:rface.whileotbenmay be ftomonytypeot..-print<r.

DequIitJoftWs repnd. . . . .~.,.._ qulitroItlt.e copr A_lilted. Brokal oriIldiJtiDc::t prirx.coloredorpoorquality

... ^-..., ... ^{- . . ,} ... -

... _""'--~

Inthewilikdyeverd:that the author did notsendUMlacomplete IIWIUICripc aDd therearemissingNa.thesewillbenoted. Abo.if' unauthorized c:opyrisbtmaterialh8dto be remDYed, •DOtewiIliDticate

the_

Ovasizematerials(e.g..maps.drawings,.charts)arereproducedby sectiOflinstheorigiDal,beginniaJIttheupperleft-handcomerand continuingfromlefttorightillequal IeCticmwithsmaDovataps.Each oripwisalso photosRphedinODeexposure andisincludedinreduced formatthe backofthebook.

_-..sedmthe _ _ ... _ _

xerographicaDyindiscopy. Higberquality6'"x9"'bid::and white photographicprintIare available forany photographsorinustrations appearingin thiscopyforaDadditional c:lwp:.ContactUMI direcdyto onIe<.

UMI

A BellAHowdJlJlfonaIIjoaeo.puy XlONon.bZeebRDacLAtLaArbor Ml4I106-I346 USA

3Unn·4700 I0O.I$21-0600

St.John'.

AttitudesofF~TMCher&.

PrinciPII's .nd School B08rCI~..lon. 1Staff InNewfoundl.ncImell8bradot

toFrenchRemecbtion

AThesissubmittedto TheSchoolofGracfu8te Stud_

InpartiIlIfulfilmentoftheraquiNments for TheDeg,..ofMuterofEduc:ation

DepawtmentofCurriculum.ndInstruction Mem0ri81 UnlvenityofPMwfoundblnd

April 1997

I I I I I

I I

I

I

I

I

.+.

^:~Libnlry_~.-d

BCIiographiCSerW::es

=~=

BibliO(I'Ioiquenationale

"'co....

Ac:quiIIiIioN.t servicHbitIIbgrWIhique

... --

= O N IU..,ONoI

Theauthor basgrantedanco- exclusive licenceallowingthe National Library of Canada 10 reproduce.loan, disttibure or sen copiesofthisthesisinmicroform.

paperorelectronicformats.

Theauthorretainsownershipof the copyrightinIbisthesis.N.ilbcr !be thesisnorsubstantialextractsfrom.it maybeprinted orotherwise reproducedwithout the author's permission.

L'auteuraaceordeuoe licenceDOD

exclusivepcnncttant

a

la BibliothCquc nationale duCanadade reproduire,prCter,disttibucr au VCDdredescopiesde

eeee

thesesous I.formedemiaoficb<Jfilm,de reproduction surpapierau surformat electrouique.

L'auteurconservelapropriCtedu

droitd'auteurquiprotCg<:cette1hCse. Nilathesenidesextraitssubstantiels decelle-ciDedoiventetrei:mprimes auautremeatreproduitssansson autorisation.

0-612-23 126-7

Canada

Abstract

Thisthesis dealswiththeattitudesof Frenchteadlers.principals.andSdlooI boardprofessionalstaff inNewfourdand and LabradortoremediationinFrench second languageprog ram s.It was partiallyinitiat edIn responsetoan appa rent problemthat manyFrend1teacherswerepaving withthecurrentIacXof attentiontothis probleminthe province.

Theinstrumentatthecentreofthisthesiswas a questionnairethatwas distributedtoprincipals.schoolboardprofessionalstaff.and French teachers inthe province.Thisquestionnairewasdesignedasameanstoelicitaresponseconceming whetherstudentsare receivingremediation...theFrenchclassroomandtheQ.II'T8nt practicesused so thatall childrencanac:nievetheoutcomesoftheprogram and experiencesuccess.Thisstudy investigatedwhetherteachers,principal sandschool boardprofessiona lstaffacrosetheprovincebelievetheyhawadequateknowtedge and resourcestomaketheseadjustments.Thequestionnaqalsoaddressed the questionoftheneedfor a policyspecificallyaddressingthe proviSionof remediation in theFrench programs.

Theanatysisoftheresottsofthequestion1aireindudedthefrequencyof responses.validpercentages.andthemeanresponsesforUtertscale items.

Thefindings revealed thatthereisa definitedesire among respondentsand principalstokeepthestud entsintheFrenchprograms andprovide remediationto them. However.theyfeellackof resources.time andknowledgepreventthemfrom

doingso.Theyalso cite the lackof a specific policy document for Frenchasone of the majorreasons behindthe lackofprovisionofremedial supportforFrench.

Reconvnendationsandsuggestionsforimproyement aremade.Themajor recomme ndationsinvolvethe needforinserviceto furthereducate Frenchteachers.

principalsand sdlooIboardprofessional staff on the available resources andstrateg ies forFrenchremediation,andtheaeation ofa documentspecificallysupportingthe seriousneedforandmeritsofprovidingremediationfor Frenchprograms.

iii

ThisatudyIsdedicMadtomylovingmother LoNtiaNashOohey

andto mysuppoItiwhusbandand friendWDlilimUoyd MacKenzie·bothofwhomtliughtme so much.-bouthope, encouragement .-ndlove.

Al.:knowledgements

The solid adviCeandpositiveencouragementfromProfessor JoanNetten and thecomputer programmingskiUsdGerryWhite'N'ef'8greattyappreciated.Patricia Oohey and Brenda Harveydeservea very specialthank..youfor theirtimeandeffort that theyputintothetyping ofthisthesis.

Anote of appreciationisdirectedtotheFrenchLanguageServicesand French EducationalSeMcesacrossCanada.Itwasttvoughtheirco-operationthatafist of provinceswithIwithoutaFrenchremediation policywasdeveloped.

A final thank-you is extendedtothefifly-t\YOoutofonehundredFrench leache~.principals.andschoolboardofficiaJswhotookthe timetocomplete and returntheQUeStionnaire.

T.b le of Conte nts

Abstract Acknowl edg ements list ofTables

Chapter One-0YeMewoftheStudy 1.1 Introducborl

1.2 Backgroundtothestudy 1.3 Significance ofthestudy 1.4 Umitations ofthestudy 1.5 Definitionof tenns Chapte rTwo~Uteratu"eRev+ew 2.1 Introduction

2.2 CaseforTransferring Out oftheProgram 2.3 Case for RemainingintheProgram 2.4 RemediationInthecoreFrend1 Program 2.5 Difficulties Specffietolearning a Secondlanguage 2.6 PolicyDocumentsRegardingRemediationin

Newfoundland andlabrador 2.7 PolicyinOther CanadianProvr.ees 2.8 Attitudestowards Providing Remediationin

French Programs 2.9 Conclusion

ChapterTh ree~DesignoftheStudy 3.1 Introd uction

3.2 Generaldesign oftheinstrument 3.3 The sampk!

3.4 Data Analysis 3.5 Research Questions

Chapter Four-ReportofSurveyResults 4.1 Introduction

Page

viii

10 11 '3

"

17

2' 2'25 29 31 32 34 35 35

37

.,

37 '2 '3

44

'"

4.2 Findings

4.3 Discussion oftheFindings

Chapter Frve· Discussions.CondusionsandRecom mendations 5.1 Introduction

5.2 Discuss ionoftheFindings 5.3 AnswerstotheResearchQuestions 5.4 RecommendationsfortheDepartmenteX

EdueationinNewft:u1d1and and labrador 5.5 Recommend ations forFurtherResearctl 5.6 Conclusions

BibliographyandReference

--

Appendix A:Sample letter sent acrossCanada AppendixB:Sample lettersentwithsurvev Appendix

c:

QuestiomaireSlA'VeV

Appendix0:Responseletterssent fromotherprovinces AppendixE:Recommendations and suggestions when implementing

asecondlanguageinterventionprogram AppendixF:CertificateofApprovalfromEthicsReviewCommittee AppendixG:AlbertaTeacherResourceManuals

AppendixH:QuebecEducationAct(R S.Q.•Chapter 1-13.3)

46

rr

7"

7"

83 85 86

..

UstofTables

TableTitleofT. . . P. . .

4.1.1 . FrequencyofBackgroundlnfonnationforthe

EntirePopulation. 44

4.1.2. Schooland Community Responses 45

4.2.1. Frequencyofsd'loolservices across

NewfoundtandandLabrador 47

4.2.2. WhyFrenchremediationisoffered-Reasons.

Percentages.Mean and Standard Deviations S,

4.2.3. Percent of ResponsesforSectionC 52

4.2.4. SumtnatyofOpintonsandAttitudesforSectionC 57

4.2.5 . PercentofResponses forSectionD 58

4.2.6. Summary of Opinions and AttitudesforsectiOn D 62 4.2.7. Percentof Responsestothefivecategories

developedfor QuestionA 63

4.2.8. Responsesofprincipals,teachersandschoolboard

professional sta fftoQuestion A 64

4.2.9. Percentof Responsestothefive categories

developedfor QuestionB 65

4.2.10 . Responsesofprincjpals,18ad'ler$,andschoolboard

professional sta fftoQuestion B 66

4.2.11. Percentof Responsestothefive categories

developedtoQuestionC 67

4.2.12. Responsesofprincipals.teachers.andschoolboard

professionalstafftoQuestionC 68

viii

4.2.13. Percen t ofResponsestothefivecategories

_""QuestOOO

⁷⁰

4.2.14. Responsesofprincipals,teachers.andsd'ooIboard

professional stafftoQuestion0 71

4.2.15. Percent of Responsestothefivecategories

developed for QuestionE

n

42.16. Responsesofprincipals.teachers.andsd'ooIboard

professionalstafftoQuestionE

n

4.2.17 . Percen tdResponsestothefivecategories

developed for QuestionF 73

4.2.18. Responsesofptincipafs.teachers. and school board

professiona lstafftoQuestion F 7.

4.2.19 PercentofResponsestothefi...categories

developedforQuestionG 75

4.2.20. Responses ofprincipals .tead1en.andsd'ooIboard

professionalstafftoQuestionG 76

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

CHAPTER ONE~OVERV1EW OF THE STUDY 1.1 Introduction

Thereiscoosiderab'e interestamongeducators aboutFrenchsecond languageremediation.yetno researchhas beenconducIedtodeterminetheattitudes ofteacherstowardthemethod sand procedures necessaryfor its imP'ementation.The questionofremediation isaddressedintheEngl ish programs andinthe policy statementsoftheDivisionofStudent&.wortSeMces.DepartmentofEducation.

However,there has beenittIeinservice concerningthosewhomustdeal with this complexissueinthe FrenchdaSSItlom and teaehefS areleftwonderingabout some questions such as,"'Whatisremediation?-,-whoisitfor?",-Howdoesthe second languagefitin?" and"What knowledgeshouldIhaveabout this areaT.Theanswers to these questions areddficuIttofind forthere isnopolicydefinitionregardingremediation specifically forFrenchteachersinNewfoundlandandlabrador.Asa result.barriersare immediatelysetfortheteacher(s) who would liketoassist theirpupils who arefaced withmanyunansweredquestionsontheissue.Howdoes one choosewho receives remediation? Shouldtead'1tnutiliZethe InformationintheEnglish programs?Should thesd\ooIsand boardsen5lK8thatstudentneedsaremelinbaChlanguageprograms? What areasofadjustmentsmustbemadebytheteachertoensurethe succ:essofthe child?00French teachers,principalsandschoolboardprofessional staffacro ss Newfoundland andLabrador possesstheknowledgetocanyouttheseadjUSbnen ts?

Theseareeonc:emsthatneed10beaddressedtoheapFrenchteachersLndet'$tand

/0

RemediationforFrench in both the core andimmersion programs has not received much emphasis sincethe inceptionoftheprograms.

1.2 BKkgroundtothestudy

This study wasconducted10determ inetheatlitudesofFrenchteachers, ptincipals.andschcx:J'boardprofessionalstaff regarding remediationinFrenchsecond

languageprograms.TheresearcherfeltthatIherewasaneedtodiscoverwhether

schools withintheprovinceofNewfoundlandandLabradorareprovidi ng remediationor amodifiedprogram 10theexceptionalstudentsinFrench or whetherthesestudents aretakenoutofFrench spendingtimewithintheEng\ish program.It was also felt thatit wasimportantto determine ifFrenchteachershavethe knowledge tomakethe necessary adjustm entstothechild'sprog ramintheareaofresources .evaluati on, Ieami ng environment,and instnJctional strategiesOf'ifthey are -at akiss-as 10whatto do.Sincethereisnopc:Micy,guideIlnes.Of'setdefinitionspecifically designedforthe French-seoond-languageprogramsava ila blein Newfoundland andLabradoron remediation,teache rs and schoOl boardsforthemos tpartsettheirownage nda.While theDepartmentofEduca tionprovidesa continuumofsupports and eerveesforpu~s whoarehavingdifficultiesintheschoolsystem,of.michremediationisonly one aspect,therearedifferencesIntheschoolsystemin interpreting theexte nttowhich these servi cesapply 10theJeamjngofFrenchasasecond language.Asaresult,the objeCtivesfor Frenchadoptedin onesehoolboard maynotexistin another. for example,teachers inone areamaybeinservic:edonthe issue,wniJeinotherareas,

/I

studentswithproblems learningFrenchare takenoutoftheFrenchpl"DlJf3m.The decisionwhetherornottoprovide helpismadeby boardsandschools.acco rdingto theirinterpre tation ofthespiritandintentofthe NewfoundlandDepartmentofEduca tion policies.asisthecasewithoCher$l..qedareas.Howe\ter.sincethei'ltef'pfetation of thesepoliciesvariesmuch moreforFrench thanforsubject areassuch asEng lishor mathe matics.research needsto becondoctedtodetenninewhat areasoftheprovince havereceivedinservieeontheissue,thestrategiesthathavebeeninc:ofpOratedinto the Frenchsecondlanguage classroom andwhetherornot thestudents have benefitted fromsuchmethods.

Thisstudywasinitiatedtodisc:o'Yerthegeneralattitudeintheschoolsystem toward providing assistanceto studentsin French.andwheresome attemp thasbeen undertak entodoso,whattypesof changeshawbeen inccwporated.AsweB.itisthe hopethatthisresearchwinencourageothetStore1Ied:ontheirownviewofFrench,the importanceithas inthedevelopm en t of thewholechild and whethertheybelievethat measuresshouldbetakentohelpmeettheneedsof theFrenchstudentThisstudy also providesanoverviewofthepresentSitUationwithregardto the provisionof assis tancetostude nts In Fren ch·..seoonlj.!anguageprogramswithintheprovince,what ishappening tothesbJdents,howteachen;andschoolprofessionalstaffcopewiththe issueofprovidingassistanceandwhethertheyfeel thereisaneedfora remediation policyspecifi cally addressingFrench-as-a-sec::ond.tanguageintheschool system.

In researchingthesituationwrthrespedtothe provisionofassista nceto studentsintheFrench-second-tanguage programsinNewfOlKldland andLabrador.a

/2

stud entsintheFrenc:h-secorld-nguageprogramsin Newfoundlandandlabrador.a letter waswrittentoeachof theprovincestIYoughoutCanadaaskingthemto provide anypolicyguidelines thatmightexiStintheir provinceCKschoolboards regardingthe implementationofFrench remediation(SeeAppendixA).Themajorityoftheprovinces respondedbysayingthattheyhave noformalpolicy forremediationinFrenchas a seconc:Ilanguage.InAlberta.YukOn.NorthwestTenitories and Quebecteachersare request edto diagnosethelanguageproficiencyoftheirstudentstodetermineifthey are meetingtheotlfedivesgivennthe program guides.tiesatthis pointthat teachers cantailortheirteachingtocatertotheirstudents'needs.Thusitwouldappear thatthe situation in the other provincesofCanadais sim ilartothat intheprovinceof Newfoundland andlabradOrin thatteac:tlenareexpectedtoassist studentsin whateverwaystheycantoachieveprogramgoals.However,therearefewinstances of documents orpolicies addressing French-as-a-second langu ageseparatefromthe generalguidelines forall subject areas developedineachprovince.

1.3 SignificanceoftheStudy

Thesignifi cance ofthisstudyistoprovideteachers,students,parents and administratorswrth desaiptionSoftheattitudestowardsremediationinFrenc:tHecond- languageprogramsintheprovincec:ANewfoundlandandlabrador.

Thisresearchwillalso provide some information ontheextenttowhichFrench remed iationisprovidedinthepI'O'o'inee.andinthe strategiesand theprocedures that are currentlyusedinNewb..n1Iandand Labradorschoolstoprovideremediationfor 13

on their ownphilosophyofFrenchrem ed iation and thereforebegin10specify their obfectivesandgoals.Students'needs differin varyingdegrees:however. if French teachefs,principals andschool boardprofessionalstaff acrossNewfoundlandand LabradorconsiderthetoleofFrenchintheschoof systemandthereso urce s and knowledge avail able 10give assistance 10 studentshaving difficulties withtheprogram, thenthey winbeequippedwitha~commonbase-fordiscussionsonhowtoprovide effective remediationwithinthedassloom.

It isthe hopeof this researcher that this study wiDgivesome guidelines forthe developmentofadocumentonFrench remediation.Its purpose is similar10 that ofthe Quebec Task Forceon Education (1992),whichis-W moukt a poIfcy initiativeonschool successandon meetingfuturechaJIenges~(p.14).

1.4 LimtbltionaoftheStudy

Aswtthany researd'l,limitations exis t Throughoutthtsstudy several limitations werepresent

1.The ina bility10includeevery school withinthe provincedue 10time and feasibilityisalways a problem totheresearcher.However,attempts were made 10 includeantypesdschootsand everyregiondthe province.Therefore.as representativeaviewaspossib6eisgiventotheessueLnder invesbgatioll through the questionnaire.

2.NoswveysweresenttothePentecostalSc:hooIBoardortheSeventh Day Adventist5chooIBoard.ttis,however,assumedthatconditionsintheseschool

distri ct s arenotdramatically different fromthoseof otherdistricts inNewfoundland and Labrador.

3.Thisstudywasconductedat a timewhen the school boardsand staffwere being downsized.Asaresultoftheimpend ing change and uncertaintyin education it was difficulttoget participantstorespondtothequestionnaire.Consideringthe impendingeducational reform atthelimethesuveysweredistributed,theresponse wasencouraging andatleastenabledthestudytobeundertaken.

4.Theinfo nnationgatheredislimit edbytheinstrument de velo ped as in allsuch studies.

1.5 DefinitionofKeyTerms

For this stuclythereare anumber ofimportantterms whichmustbeclearty understoodinordertointerpre tcorredtythe questiondremediationintheFrench program.Therefore,aftthese keyterms aredefinedinthis section.

1. Remediation

Thereisno clear definitionforthisterm.VariousprovincesthroughoutCanada usethetenn somewhat differentty.AlbertaEducationLanguageSeMcesTeacher ResourceManual(1991) states~Remediationisrealtythe'flipside'ofenrichmentPut another way,what is one stud ent'senrichmen tisanother's remediation.Remed iation canbedoneina groupformatoron anindividual basis"(p.121).Bines(1986 )sta tes that~remedialedueationshouldbe c:oncemedwiththeprevention,investigation.and

IJ

that "remedial educa tion shouldbeconcernedwiththepreven tion. investigation,and treatmen t of ktamingdiflicurtiesfn:mwhateversourcetheyemanateandwhichhind er thenormaleducational developmentofthestudent"(p.21),

In this study,the teml,remediation.referstoanytypeofassistancethat maybe giventoastudenthavingproblemsordifficultiesinooping withtheFrenchprogram. Thus.thetermisusedinitsbroadestsenseofproviding helptostudentswitha wide varietyoflearningdifficUties.AsseenintheDepartmentofEducationmanual,Senior High Pathwa ystoGraduatio n(1993).students aretobeprovidedwith-nexibi tity oftheir programSOthat they have a maximumpotentialforptnOnalizingtheirprogra m'splan whileatthesametime ensuringastrongbasiceduC8tion~(p.1).

2. Adjustment

This tennreferstod1angeSmadetoa programwt1ichdonot reduce orchange inany wayprogramobfectives.Theteacherkeeps thesameoQ!ectivesfortheprogram butadjuststhe instrucbonalstrategies.learningenvironment,equipmentand resources.

as well astheeval uatio nsothatthechildrencan achievetheoutcomes oftheprogra m.

Inremediation.adjustmen t comesbeforemodification or individual programmingofthe child's programobjectives.As stated byOleDepartment01education _ High Pathways(199 3)ctoeument:theseadaptions are aintended tooffersupporttostuden ts within theapproved courseobjectives.Itisnotintended thattheadjustmen tsmade will altertheapprovedeotneobjeetivesa(p.8).

16

3. Modification

Modificationreferstotheprocessof adjustingtheoutcomesandobjectivesof thechild's program SOthat helshe may achieve some success.ModifICationofthe program takes placeafter adjustmentAs statedinthedoc:unentSenior High Pathways(199 3),"adaptions aremadetoktamingresources.instruction,learning envi ron mentinstructionallech niques.and evaluation procedures"(p.8 ).If thechildis stillnotsucceeclingonceadjustmentisputinplacethenmodificationoftheprogram must take place.If modificationis required,"it mayinvctvedetetion.subs titution or replacementofobjectives.additionofobjectives,OfChangestothe depthoftreatment of objectivesinorder10deve60pac:anemore appropriatetothestudents'needs (Senior HighPathways.199 3,p.18).

4. AftemateCourse

In this study,the termalternatecourse referstoan alterna teversionofthe progra m.inwhich thecurriculumoutcomesdifferfromthoseofthe regularprogram.

Supportservicesavailable10studentsfoI1owinga remedial programinclud e,butare not limitedto,learningresources,mentoring.peer-Moringandguidance services.

5. LearningDffftcutty

ThetermIeaming difficultyreferstoanyproblemwhich a child may encounterin attem pti ngtolearntheprescribedcontentofa program.Theseproblemsmaybedue tomanydifferentcausessuchas:

17

1.lack of background knowledge

2.inadequateexposure tolanguage(environmenta ldeprivation) 3.metacognitJon

4.difficulty In retrievalofinformation 5.inefficientstoringof infonnation

6.lackof comprehensionof one'sownteaming style.

6. t.e_ml ngOIHbllity

Thistermis a genericonewhichrefel1ltoaheterogenousgroupofdisordel1l due toan identifiableor Inferredcenlral nervous systemfunction, accordingtothelearning DisabilitiesAssociation.Suchdisorders maybemanifestedbydelays inearty development,attention,memory,reasoning, co-ordination,communication.reading.

writing,spelling,calculation, socialcompetenceand emotional maturation.

Leamingdisabilitiesareintrinsictotheindividual and mayaffectIeami ng and behaviou' inanyindividualindudingthose withaverage,potentially averageorabove averageintelligence.They are not dueprimarilytovisual,hearing ormotor handicaps;

tomentalretardation.emotional disturbance or erMranmental disadvantage,although theymay occurconc:urrentty withany01these.l.eamingdisabifitiesmayarisefrom geneticvariations .btochemical factors,eventsinthepre-to-post-natal period,or any subsequent events resulting inneurologicallmpai rme nl(Nicols,1995,p.107 )

Learning disabilities are disorders inwhichthemain

teab.n

isa serious impainnentInthedevelopmentofOCherlearning skills which arenotexplicabklinterms

/8

of generalintellectualretardation orof adequateschoofing. (Nicols.1995.p.112) DisabilitiesasSOCiatedwithlanguage and language learningaretheimportant aspectsoflearningdtsability,andtherefore manifestthemselvesinthe Frenchsecond languagedassroomas weQ asintheEnglishlanguage008.AIleamingisaffected.

and sothis iswhy theFrench programsoftheleaming-disabled childmustbeadjusted tofittherequiredneeds.Theycannot experience successwithoutassistanceor remediation.

In this study.thetermrefersto those difficuttiesrelatedtothese specified areas andma nife stedinsuchproblemsas:

1. dyslexia

2. shiftinginformation from short-tenntoIong-tenn memory 3. attention deficit disorder

4. lowerbrainstemdysfunction 5. neurologicalimmaturity 6. visualperception

7. Language-L8amlngDlaability

ThistermIa~mingdisabitityreferstoproblemsspecificallyassociated withlea rni ng alanguage.A childwtth a languagelearning disabil ityisone who in spite of physicalwell-being.normal intelligence,and a healthy personalityacquireslanguage withpain fUslowness.language-disab'edchildren are retatiYelylateinusWlgwords.in combiningthem,andindevelopingdear articulationandsyntacticsophistication.They /9

haveproblemsin comprehending aswell asproducingspeech.

Impaired language abilitiesare oneoftheprevalentconditionsamongchildren withleamingdisabil itieS.Kirkand Chalfont(1984),StaR.ardWaUach(1980),and Vellutino(1970 ) have noted thatitisditfiaJfttodistinguishleaming disabilities from languagedisorders.Manyleami~isabledchildrenshowlanguagedeficits or languagedisorders.ThiswasthereasonwhyStartandWallach(1980)proposeda ,iointcategorycaIed-.anguageIeamingd~sincecognitive.academic.and la nguage functiOningover1ap.

8. ExceptionalStudent

Astudentwithexceptionalitiesreferstoa studentwhosebehavioural, communica tive,intelleCtual. physical,or multiple exceptionalities are suchthat sheJheis consideredbytheprogram planning teamof a schoof toneeda special education program.Thedefinitionalsoincludesthoseleal"l"lngPf'Ob'emswhichareprimatiIythe resultofimpai rmentofvi$ionOfhearing;motorhandtcaps;mentalretardation;primary emotional disturbance;or environmental, cultural or economic disadvantage.(Policy Document.Newfoundlandandlabtador,1987,p.ri )

9. LeomingStylo

In this study,thetenn refers totheunique ways in whichIndividual students aequireJprocessinformation.Somestudents maybemorereceptivetovisualstimuli, others toauditoryones,somestudentsmayrequire more WlitI:enpracticethan others.

'0

10. lnstrudlonal Strategy

Instructional strategyreferstothevarious techniquesusedbyeduCatorsto accommodatethevarietyofstudents' learningneeds.Insb'udiOnalstrategiesindude suchtechniquesasdialogue Ieaming,rolept8ying ,question-answer,games,and so forth.

11. T.KhlngIIMhod

In this studythis tenn refers tothegeneraltypeof approach takentoteaching French.Thegrammartransla tion approachisateactUngmethod,whiletheuseof question-answerte<:hniqueisateachingstrategythat maybewYthinChatmethod.

12. French

Throug houtthis studythetennreferstotheteachingof French asasecond languageinthe Englishschool system.

13. CoreFrench

CoreFrench refers to Frenchstud ied as oneSlAlfedwithinthecurriculumof Englishlanguage schoots.Awideranged eoreFrenchprograms are avaitab6e across Canada.InNewfoundland.coreFrench generally startsatgrade4 and continuesto le vel 2or 3.Thetotal numberof hours ofinstructio n varies from schooltoschoo l. Core Frenchis usuaUyanoptionalsubfedaftergrade9.

2!

14. FrenchImmersion

InFrenchimmersionprograms.ideallyalactMtiesand Ieamingexcep tfor Englishlanguage artsdasses.areinFrenchuntilgrade2.Atgrade3.English lang uage artsisintroduced andinstructionInFrenchdiminish es somewhatat this grade levelandthoughtheelementary.intermediate .and seniorhigh schoolgrades.

PercentagesofInstn.Jd)onforeach grade~are rec:ommendedby the Departmentof Educationdesignedspecificaltyforchildrenwhosefntlanguageis notFrench.Such programsena~childrentoattai ngreater ftuencyinFrench thanisusually achieved in thecoreFrench programs.

Cuniculum guidelines ensure thaiimmersionprograms meetthesame general objectivesas EngIistHanguage programs.exceptlhattestsarewritteninFrench and thelanguageofinstructionisFrench.Carefulongoingevaluati onindicates that after several years in a French immersion program sbJctentsgenerallyperform aswellas thosein aregularEnglishprogram on a widespectrumatacademicperfonnancetests, includ ing Englishlanguagearts.(Wiss.1989)

15. CoreFrenchreacher

Forthisstudy,acoreFrenchteac:herisa teadlerwhoteachescoreFrenchfuI- time or at~ast80 percentofthe time.Thisteachermayormaynothavespecific preparationfor the teachingof French.

11

16. SchoolBoard Prof•••lonal SlUt

Thistann refers to a member ofthe professional district office staff,such as the co-ordina tor forthe Frenchprograms.However.sincenotanschooldistrictspossess Frencheo-ordinators.thetennrefersmorebroadtytotheprofessiorlid memberofthe districtoffice staffresponsibleforoversightoftheFrench programsintheschool district.

17. Special Education:

Thistermrefentospecific:altydesjgnedi'1sInJctionwhich meetthe uniqueneeds ofan excep tionalchild .

18. SpeciaI'ServicH:

Thetypeofprovisjonrequired depends onthelevelofthec:htIds'needs.The specialservices wouldbegtnatthektastintensivelevelwith theregularclassroom teacherthen progressto thespecial education teacher and further totheresource teacher.Inrecentyears,it hasbecomecommon practise forthespecial education teachertoprovidetheseservicesintheleastrestrictiveenWonment.

Note:

Inthis study distinctions arenot made amongstthedifferenttypesofremediation provided orthevarious levelsofIeaming difficutties.Remediation inthe broadest and most inclusive senseisinvestigatedandthepn:IvisiondremediationtoaNtypes of students.

13

CHAPTERTWO•REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE 2.1 Introducti on

AlthoughtheliteraturepertainingtoremediationintheEnglish programsis simplyoverwhelming,thereisv«yittie1iterabJr8available on remediation ofFrench studentsand evenlessontheattitudesofteachersorboardprofessional stafftowards French remedi ation.In addition ,mostofthe literatureavailable pertainstoremediatio n intheFrenchImmersionprogram.ReseardMnwho havecontributedprimarilytothe fieldareBruck(19 78),Genessee(1976),Trites(1976)ard WlSS(t989)who haswritten most often andmostrecentlyonthisissue.

Theprimary ques tion under discussioninthis researchiswhetherthechild with leaming disab ilities orwithIanguage-le aming disabilitiescanprofitablybeIncluded in a French immersion program.BasicaUy,two differingpointsofview'emerged.Onegroup claimedthatchildrenwithprob6emsshoIAdbeswitchedoutoftheFrenchimmersion program andbetransferredto•regular Eng\ish program.Thealterna te pointofview contended that studentsencountering difficu lties shouldremainintheprogram,and shouldbeprovidedwithremedialhefp.

2.2 TlleCnoforTronsforringOutof...

Itwas arguedthat Frenchimmersioneither causedorconbibutedtothe problems thatthesechildren experience(Trttes,1975).Trites arguedthat"thereare childrenwhohave a specific: mahsalionallagaffectingtheirabilitytoprogress satisfadorifyinaprimaryFrenchin~program.ThesectIikhn,when takenout

U

of the French immersionprogram in which theyare failing,acceleratein the developmentoftheir'languageartsskits- (p.139).ThusTritesargued that"a maturationallagor deYeIopmentaldeficitinthe temporallobe regions-wasresponsible forthelearningdiflieultiesofstudents inimmersion(p.200).Consequentlytheview thatchildrenexperiencingdifficuttiesintheFrenchimrnersklnprogramsshouldbe transferredtotheregular Englishprogramgainedcons;derabIepoputarity.

Trites (1976)statesthat"'thisgroupbelievedthat once childrenwereinan Engl ishprogram,theywouldhavea much easier time andtheprob&emswould dissipat eor disappear entirely.Itwasalso feltthat thechildren wouldbeunder less pressureWItheEnglishstream,and asaf8Sl.it,lifewouldbesmootherforthem psychologicalfy"(p.52).However,experience has demonstrated thatthispointofview hasnotbeensub sta ntiated. Evenwhen children withleaming problemshave been transferredtotheEnglishstream.theseproblemsdonot necessarily disappear oreven lessen.Theresultdependsonthecauseofthe problem.Whereproblemsmaybedue topsychologicaldifficuttieswiththe FrenchirNnersionprogramorcertaintypesof learningdisabilities,improvement maybedocume nted.However,forthosechildren with language-leami ng disabilitie sthedifficultypet'Sisbbecauseofthenatureoftheir problem-lho _ 01language.

2,3 TheC. . .forRem. lnlngIntheProgram

Anothergroup,however.daimed that childrenwithproblemsshouldstayin Frenchimmersionprograms andreceive remediation.WISS(1989) arguesthatifthese

zs

chilclren are provided with remediationintheFrenchprogramthentheycansucceedas wellas if theywentin theEnglishprogram.Suchchildren.ifswitched,wouldhave exactlythesame protMemsinan Eng lishstream.Furthermoreit was argued that Switching wouldbedetrimentaltothechild'ssetf-esteem.Finally,becauseknowledge of Frenchis necessaryfotsocialandeconomic survival inQuebec,and becausethe French immersionprogram producedstudents who wereproficientin thesecond lang uage,itwasfell:thattheleaming-disabledOflanguage-disab6ed childshould beleft intheprogram to acquirethesenecessarysIdIIs.

Btuck(1978)states"thatthereare nodetrimentaleffectsassociatedwithhaving a1anguage4eamingdisabifity andbeinginaFrenchIIT'IfneI"Sionctass"(p.60).She also indicates that eartyFre nchimmersion children who are languagedisabled dobecome proficientin the reading,writing and speaki ngofFrenchwithoutanylossof competence in thei rfirst language.Furthermore,theyprogressnormally incognitiveandacad em ic areas(p.S1).Swain andBruck(1976 )confirm,throughanumber of evaluationstudies, theprogressof earty French immersion students.According toBruck.such children im proved atthesame rate as their controls onIestsof English vocabulary,abstra d reasoningskiDs.grammaticalskills ,visueIskits,auditory mUs,and mathskills.Bruck's researchshowslhat·child renwithlanguage-.leamingproblemswho attendFrench imme rsion programscandeveloplingutstic:, cognitive,and academicskills at a rate simi larto that atwhichthey woulddevelopweretheyplaced in an all-English classroom"(p.65). Infact,stude ntswith Ianguage4eamingdisabilitieswhOattend FrenctHmmemon programs sometimes progress even taster than childrenwith

26

lang uage problemswhoareinstructed intheirnativelanguage.Bruck andher collea g uessuggestthatrather thanaddinganextraburdentothelanguage-disa~

child.instructionandremediationinFrench may adUaIIyhetpthem by providing experiencewithanotherlinguis ticcode.French programsmay alsohavecertain SOCial psychologicaladvantagesfortheIanguage-disa bled child sincethemajorityofstudents whostartimmetsioninthe kindergarten year do no knowFrench.Consequently,the disabledchildinimmersionisnot as liketytofeelstigmatizedasmightbethecasewere theyina regular English program.

Sinee childre nwithlanguagedisa bilities canbenefitfromremediation and learn inFren ch immersionprograms.Bruck argues thatchildrenshouldnotbeexcludedfrom participatinginFrenct'Iprogramsmerelybecauseitisfelt thattheirfirst-language development ispoor.IImay take these children alittlelongerto learnthebasics ofthe second andthefirstlanguages.but profidencyinthebothlanguagesisattainable.The factthatthey have more diffiaJlty expressingthemseIYesreflectsthebasicnatureof theirproblem-languagelearning.Nevertheless.theycanIeamnotone.buttwo languagesatan admirablerate.Itis intere stingtonotethatman yIanguage-disabl ed childrencancopeless wellwith•traditionalFrench-a s-a- sec:ond-Ianguag eprogram, typicallygivenfor20-40minJtes several limesaweek.8nJck(1978)states thatlhis maybeduetothefactthatmostsuch programs arebased on teaching methodswhich includea great dealofmemory work.repetitionof languageoutofcontext.andthe learning of abstractnJeswhichinadYertenUyexploittheweakne ssesofthelearning- disabledchild.-rheFrenchimmersionprogramdoesnot seemto havethiseffect

rr

ratheritprovidesa more suitable and naturalenW'onment for these childrentoIeam French"(p.78).ThereforeBruckconcludesthat studen ts whoare havingdiffICUltyin theFrench immersionprogramsshouldbegWen remedialhelp in French.Bruck also pointsout that~ctlildrenwithproblemsinEnglishdassesarereceiving morespecial help and moreappropriatespecial~forthErirprob6emsIhanthechidren inthe FrenchimnMmion classes: (p.71).However,theFrenchimrnersionchtldrenwith problems are progressing despitethefactthattheyarenotgettingthesame extra support U'lat they\NOU1dgetwerethey intheEnglish stream.

Ge~(1976)also argues

-uw

remediationinaFrench imme rsionprogramis suitablefor childrenwithlanguagedisabilitiesanikJwacademic ability"(p.494).

Factorsother than puretyintellec:luaJones maycontribute10successful second- language leaming;such otherfadlnindudemotivation.Geneseefurtherstatesthat belowaverage students may master certainaspectsoftheFrench languagetothe same extentas averageorabove average stude ntsandtheydonot suffer any differential native-languagedeficiencies.Inparticula r,Geneseecontendsthatsuch students are capableofmastemgtothesameextentasmorefavouredstudentsthe aspectsoforallanguageCClfTltnl.ri::a.

Wrthrespec:ttothe issueofthevaluedparticipationinFrenchimmersion programsfor students with problems.Stemetal (197 6)stale that~cantfulconsideration mustbegivenifthechildistobeswitchedoutoftheF~immersion programand not receive remediationinthatprogram.Norealevidence existsthat a childwhois retainedintheFrench programwin haveanydeteteriouseffects.01thatthechild winnot

18

eve ntua Hy remedythe~(p.2 11).Inaddition.Bruck(1978)adds that"to say Frenchimmersionmay notbe appropriate foraI childrenisnottosay thatitis inappropria teand shouldbeabandoned.Almostany educationalprogram will ha ve dropouts and individuals whodonotsucceed~(p.28).Theweightoftheevidencedoes not appeartosupportthe pointofviewthatstudentshav;ng difficulties wtththelearning ofFre nch ininvnersionprogra msshouldautomaticaftybetransferredoutofthe prog ram sintotheregularEnglishstrea m.

2.4 Remediation InttMICOfWFrench Program

Similarresearchhasnotbeenundertak eninto theroleofremediation inthecore French program.Despitethe importance 01remediationtothesuccessoftheprogram.

Lapkin and al (1990)statesthat"'notaSotofstucty hasbeendoneonthe design, delivery or assessmentofthistopic~(p.12).Thegenera llyacceptedconclusion drawn fromtheresearchundertak enin Frenchimmersionprogramsisthat most students can profit fromexposu-etothe studyr:JFrench.Thiscondusionisparticularlyappropriate sincetheadoptionofmorecommunica tivelyorientedprogramsforthecore French studentemphasizelanguage useinauthenticcommunicativesituationSrather thanthe memorizationdlanguagerulesor dialogues.However,themplieationforcore French programsoftheresearchconductedoniTlmersionprogramsalsoindicates thatthe succe ssofstudents manifes tingproblems learning Frenchcanbeimprovedifremedial instructionis provided.

Difficuttiesin learning afirstlanguagedonotprecludethelearning01asecond

"

language.Garcia and Langdon(cited inCarrasquilloand ai,1990) contendthat learni ng- disabledchildrenshouktparticipateilS8ClJl'1d.4anguageinstruction aslongas theyhave aleveloffirst4anguageproficiencyon whichtobasethe second-Ianguage acquisition.Although thedifficultiesobservedinthe fifstlanguage may alsoshowupin the secondlanguage,thetimeandeffort spentleaminglanguageskillsis considered to bebeneficial.Cummins(1983)believesthat

-ror

studentswithlearningdisordersin theirfirstlanguage,the acquisitionofthesecondlanguage mightbemorediffioA.butit canbelearned. Itisnottooditficutt orinappropriate- (p_379).However,caremustbe taken not to overwhelm or stressthechild.Cummins alsosuggeststhatforlanguage- disabledstudents,languageinstruction shouIcInotbebn:Ikeninto parts(phonicsor gramma rrutes)but intomeaningfultasks.Theinstructionaifocusofthe taskshou6dbe onthemessage(prod uctionand comprehension)notontheform.Accordingto Cummins ,the acquisitionof asecondlanguageisnotnecessarilytoodifficultfor studentswithlearning prob'emsinthefirsllanguageiftheinstructionismeaningfuland motivatesthemtobeoOrn8intrinsicaRyinYDtvedintheMamingprocess.However,WISS (1989)alsopointsoutthatthechildwhohas a learningdisab ility in Eng lishmay not havedifficultyillea mi ng asecondlanguageifthechitd'sneedsare adequatelymetin thefirstLanguage.Basicaly,Cummins(1983) ~thispotnt of view,Hebelieves thatfirst--andsecond-tanguageskills8l'8interdependent,acharacteristic whtch he referstoas ·common underlyi ngproficiency".Theextra timespentlearning languages andacquiringthesttiIlsoflanguageacquisition,eitherin a first orsecondlanguage, wouldbebeneficialtoOYel'8llanguageproficiency.Cumminsbelievesthattransferof

)0

skill soccurswhich helpsee languagestocomplement one another.

2.5 Difficulties SpedfictoLHmlng •SecondLIIngu.ge

It does not appearthat thereare any unique disabilities associated withthe acquisitionof a seconcIlanguage.WISS(198 9 ) stales that "giventhecomplexnature of thebrainandits virtualtylrimitedcapac;tyforUming,itistjghtyunlikelythatthere exist childre n who cannot~a secondlanguage.The0'UciaIfactors arethe environ me nt andthe methodof InslnJction^R(p.200). Althoughthestudent willbemore than likelytohave dif'lia.J1tiesinacquiring asecondlanguageifa Ieaming disability existsinthefirst language,itisalsotnJe that,eventhoughastudent doesnothavea leami ng disabilityi"llhefirstlanguagetheremaybesome difficultyin Ieaming asecond language.Lyster(198 7) states thatthisisduetothesecond language experience of thechild.The students arenotImmersed amongst native speakersin a French- spea kingQJtture andenvironment;theyare insteadIntegratedinananglOphOne context and exposedtolanguage withinan academiccontext.It isnotuncommonthen for stud ents wrthoutalearning disability to experiencesomedifficulty acquiringor learningasec::ondlanguage.AccordingtoCanasquilloand Bonilla(1990) -motivational andattitudinalfactorsalsoimpactonseoondlanguage1eaf1'Wlg"(p.32).

Surslan(1913) posited aconnectionbetween successinthesecondlanguage program and increasedmotivationtosucceed.Chaudron(1983)indicatedthat"stude nts are moremotivated...whentheyachievesuc:c:essfuecornrnt.Wlication"(p.9).

3/

2.6 Poliey Documents Regarding RemediationIn Newfoundland and Labrador

The current emphasis on equality of education foraIfocusesattention00 chiJdrenwtthexceptionalities.The Departmentol EducationSpecialEducation Policy Manual(1992)definesamildwithexcep60nalitiesas achid"whosebehavioural. communicative.intellectual.physM:al.ormultipleexceptionalities are such thathe/sheis consideredbythe programplanningteamof aschooltoneedspecialeducation program.Theterm"exc:eptionarrefentobothdisab6edandgiftedstudents(p.vii).

The SpecialEducationPolicyManualalsostates"thattheschooldistrictisenco.nged toprovide awide range ofseMcesto meettheneedsdstudenbwithin itsjurisdiction· (p.2.).WhiletheDepartment of Education developsthepoliciesandsuppo rt services forSpecial Education.itisthe schoolboardand the schools whichdeterminehow thesesupportservicesaretobedistributed.However.theDepartmentof Educa tionis notontyconcerned about studentswhOrequire aspecialeducationprogram. They are alsoaware thattherearemanytypesof Individual needs amongstthe students inthe province.The document,Senior High Pathways (1993) states that·unless adaptations aremadetoIeamingresoun:es.instruction, and/or evaluationprocedures.some students maynotbesuc:::oessfuIinachieving approyedCCll.JI'$eob;ec:tivesormaynotbe

identifiedin ordertoassiststudentstoattain programgoals.Theseincludethe provinciallyapproved courses.provinciallypresaibed cunicuIumwithsupports.

modifiedCOUf'MS.alternatecourses.andaltemate currieulum.Allofthesealtema tives

J:

areideallyopen for studentsin all subject areas.Theseoptionsare availableto the teacher ofFrench.astheyaI8toleacherainothersub;edareas.Whilethe DepartmentofEducationprovidesacontinuumofeffectivesupportsand services.

however,"it istheschoc:lIand schoof boardswho must ensure that programsare adapted tolocalresources,necessarymaterials aremadeavailableandthat all teachingpe:rs.onnetareprovidedwiththeopportunitytocurtivate atttludes thatare receptiveandpositiveasthe program is impIetnentec:r(ProgrammingforIndividual Needs,1996,p.1).Accon:lrngtothis document,·schoofadministra torsas instructional leaders,co-on::Iinatiors as cuniaJlumspecialists,andtheassistant superintendents [are]

responsibleforstudentsupportseMce"(p.1).Itisalsothe opinionofthe Department ofEducation,asreported inthisdocument,that Iheabove-mentiOnedpeopleareinthe bestpositiontohelptheleacner.

FortheFrench programs,asforothersubject areas,theuseofremediation techniquesof somesortistheresponsibilityoftheteachefinconjl.n:tionwiththe sehooIandtheschoolboard.Whitethe DepartmentofEducationsetsgeneral guidelines,itis theboard,sehooIand teach erworking togetherwhodecideonthe particu lar adjustmentstobe made.Thus,acc:ordingtothe policydocumentsof the DepartmentofEducation,Frendlteachers8t8enccuagedtoadjustinstnJc:tional strategies andtechniques,or even modify programob;edives,inOfdertoassist studentstoach ieve success Intheprogram.Awidevarietyofoptionsare suggested, depend ing ontheinitiativeof theteacherandthesupport given by the sc:tloo'and board.SuchadjustmentscaninckJdeprovisionofseIf-direc:tedactivities,opportuntties

J3

for participationintutorials,adjuStmentof assigrvnents,variationin completing tasks. suchas presentinginformationintaped rather than writtenanswerfonn.Teachef's are also enCOUragedtoadjus t evaluationstrategies , in particu lar by providing altemativesto written evaluation when thismethodis consideredinappropriatefor"thechild.Such alterna tivesc:oukIincludeoralresponsestoquesticr"I$,ortheprovisjonof a resource teacher,vofunteerorpeer toscribeanswen.Examina tion questions canbepresented in largeprintoron audiotapectthelanguageofthetestquestion maybesim plified.In addition.evaluation tec:::tnquesst1clI.*:t beadjustedto reftectarry adaptationsmadeto thelearning enWonmeot.suchas aIIcwingthestudentmoretimetocompleteatasx,

2.7 PoIk:yIn Other C.nadian Provinces

Ininitiatingthestudy,lettersweresentacross Canada~about their policies,if any.onremed iation for French.Itwas disco veredthat themajo rity ofthe other provincesare simila rto NewfoundlandandLabrad or InItletrapproach tothis issue.Thevarious departmentsofeducationprovide guidelines astothe typesof adjustmen tswhichmaybemadetoaprogramtorespondtotheneedsofthe exceptio nalchild. These guidelines mustthen beinterpre ted with respecttothe particular strategies necessaryforeach subjectareabytheschoolboardpersoMeI.

schoolandteachet 'oVOI'ki'"ogoonjoinIty.

TheProvinceofAlbertaappearstobean exception.French teachers inthis province are provided withtwosuppk!mentarydocuments.Thefirst isTeacher Resource Manual (199 1)whichdescribestheFrenc:h-second-f program andits

H

imple me ntation,andalsogivessuggestionstoteachers regardingremediatio nand erwichment.TheseconddocumententitiedSamplesofStudents'Work:Performance Criteria AccompaniedbyIllustrationsofStudents'Performance, gives information on expected performancestandards.The document providesteacherswithlanguage whichtheycan useinordertodesc:ril:lestudent ec::hievement, andit can alsoserveto identify students'strengthsand areas inneedr::Aimprovement(see AppendixG).

2.8 AttitudntowardsProvidingRMMdiation ....French Progrwns Theacceptance ofthe needforremediationinFrench has beenand wiN continuetobe,affectedby forcesfromoutsidethedassroom.Publicopinion towards theimportanceofFrench.economiCconstraints and thepoliticalmessageregardingthe rmportaneeofsubjectareassuchasmathematicsardseiencehavetheireffecton establ'ishing policiesfor providing remediation for students inthecoreFrench program.

Sale(1993)believesthat"thepublie'sopinion towardscore Frenchislink edtowhether theyronsidereduc:ationasaprivateorapublicgood"(p.34).tfthebenefits ofcore Frenchinstruction are primarilytotheindividual.thenitsimportance diminishesinthe contextof providinga high quality educationtoalld'lildren fromwhichsocietywill benefit inthelongrun.

J5

2.9 Conclus ion

The review oftheliterature has indicatedthatitisgenerallybelievedthat all studen tscanprofitfromilstructiOninFrench as asecondlanguageifc:et1ainconditions are melTheseconditionsindudethepn:MsionfAremediali1sb'Uctionwhen such assista nceiswarranted.Wrthoutthissupport chiIdrvn withlanguage learning difficultie s,tow academicachievement,orthosewhosimplyfindsecondlanguage in an academic situationsomev.tlatdifficuttwillnotbeabkttoachievesuccessin the program.

Thelitefaturereviewhasalsoindicatedthat.poicy fortheprovtsion of remedial instructionhasbeendeveloped atthelevelofthe Departmentof Education,and that thispolicyprovidesalternative sforboth adjustment and modification of a program in anysubjectareainorder10enablethestudenthavingdiffiaJItiestoachievesuccess.It isintendedbytheOepartmentthatthese guidefinesshouldbeimplemented andmade specificfaindMclualsub;ectareasand studentsbythesdlooIdis trict wortdngin conjuncti onwithaparticularschooland teacher.Thisgeneral approachtoremediation is similar tothatfollowedin alltheother Canadianprovinces.

LasUy,thelitera turereviewhasindicatedthatthe provisionof remediabon ina subjectareaiscontingentuponthepriofitywhichisgiventothelearning of thatsubject.

Withregard totheprovisKln of remediationinFrench,ingeneralthis issuedoesnot have the weight of strong publicopinion behindit and thustheprovision of French remediationisof considerablylowerprioritythanthatofremediationinsomeother subjectare as,suchasEnglishatmathematiCs.

J6

CHAPTER THREE·DESIGN OF THE STUDY 3.1 Introc:luction

Thestudywasdesigned to I1Yestigate

at

theattituOesofFrench teachers.

principals andschoolboardprofessionalstaff to Frenchremediation.Itspurpose was todetermi netheir viewsaboutandknowledgeof.thepoliciesthat existedin Newfot.rdlandandLabrador.thereconvnendedteachingstrategies.andwhether tea chers feet secureinadjus tingtheirstudents'programwhenremediating.Itwas intendedthatthedatacollected beusedtoassessthecurrentsituationand make some sugge stion sfor improvement

Whendecidingastowhat meanswouklbe themosteffectivein conductingthis investiga tion .t'NOprincipalfactorswereconsidefed.F"ll'Stty.Frenchteachersinthis province were widelydistributedgeographically.Secondly.it wasfeltthat there wasa needtoaffordthemthetimenecessarytoreflect onthemanycomponentsofFrench remedi ation.Dueprimarilytothesetwofactors.itwasdeddedtoconductthis elicitationthroug ha ques tionna irethatwouklbedistributedtoprincipals.schoo(board profession alstaff and French teachersforcompletion.

3.2 ~raIDesignoftI'MInstrument

Thequestionnaire(AppendixC)wasaten-pagedocumentconsistingoftwo distinctsections.Part A(SectionA)ofthequestionnaire requested some background infomlationoneachteacher.principalandschoolboardprofessional staffmember.

PartB(SectionsB-e)ofthequestionnafnlSUfVe)'edtheopinionsandattitudesof J7

schoolboardprofessio na lstaff,principals andFrench teacherstowardstheissueof French remediation in Newfoundlandandlabrador.AsecOOn ofopen-ended questions wasprovidedatthe endforadditionalpersonalresponsestospecfficquesbons.

PartB. representingthequestionnaire'score.was divided intofour sections.

whichfocusedonthe conditionsinNewfotM1dlandandLabradorrelated totheprovision ofremediationintheFrench programsofthe province.InSection8,Opinions and Attitudes,itemsone and fINo endthreeaddressedtheavailabiity01remediationin either Englishand/orFrenchintheparticularSChoolswithwhichtherespondentwas associated.Itemthree dealtwithwhether French 3200 and3201was offeredas a modifiedpubtieexaminationCOl.IB8.Thiswasinvestigated in order todetermine whethertheneedsofleaming-disa~studentsinSeniorHighweAlbeingconsidered.

Items four(a). five and six investigated opiniOns on why French remediation was offe redintheschool district.whileitems four(b)andseven dealt with whyFre nch remed iation wasnatoffered.Thepo..-p0s8ofthese items wasto providetheresearcher wtthsomeknowledgeofopinionsc:onc::emingthe provisionofFrench remediation.

Items oneto four requiredyes or no responses where as itemfiverequired a summarizationofwhatwas offered,sinceitwasindicated thatFrenchremediationwas indeed offeredinthatparticularschoolordistrict.Tocompletethissectionofthe questionnaire,Frenchteachers,principals andschoolboardprofessionalstaffwere askedtorankin orderofim po rtance,factorswhichtheyfelt hadInfluencedtheirschool to offer or nottoofferFrench remediation Intheschool.Ontherating scale,one represented importa ntand sevenleastimportant

38

SectionC address edsomegeneralconcernsaboutFrenchremediati on.These includedtheneed for resourcesandinseMce,andthequalific:ationsandisolationof teachers.Otherconcernsdealtwiththeextenttowtlic:tlteachersshould berequiredto provideFrenchremedia tion.TheFrench teachers,principal s,andschool board professional staffwere askedto rateeachitem inthecomponent onaLikert five-point ratingscale.Onthescale,fiveindicatedtoIaJagreement withthestatementfour

ind ica tedsomeagreement;threematedthecategory 'not sure':two.some

disagreementandonetotaldisagreement.

Section0addressedtheopinionsofprincipals,French teachersand school boardprofessionalstaffonsuch issuesasthebenefitsofFrench remediationfor the stud en ts andthe need fortea<:herassistants.Otherconcerns indudedthetypeof environmentinwhichFren chremediation takesplace as~Iastheresources and qualifica tionsrequiredtoimplement aAltTIedialprogram.This sectionalsorequired the respondentstorateeachiteminthe componenton8Likertfive..ix*rtrating scale.with five8gain indicating total agreement:fot.rsomeagreement:;three designating the categ ory·don'tknow";two.some disagreement :and onetotal disagreemen t.

Thefinalsection ofthesurvey,SectionE,involved open-endedque stion s.This se<:6onprovkled ... _ '"- - .'"""""'" _ andcomment onspecffic questions.These ques tions encompassed issues involvingtheextentto whichitwasfeltthatthepresent French cuniculumwas meetingtheneedsof all stud en ts;whatshouldbedonetohelp students who are haYingdifficuttyinboth English andFrench programs;thepriority thatisgr..en(orI'lOl)inNewfoundland and Labrador

;9

to studentswhoarehavingdiffICUltiesintheEnglish program.Otherconcerns dealt withresccodenreneeds andbeliefs:forexample,theirperceptionoftheneedfor a policyforFrench remediationin NewfoundlandandLabrador.theresourcesthat are needed.the inservice questionsteacherswould6ke answered.andtheexten ttowhich other staffmembers should becomeinvotved.

BeforetheproposedQuestionnaire wasdistributedtothesampfepopulation.it waspre-tested.ThreecoreFrenchteachersand threeDepartmentof Education officials comme nted onthequestionna ire.Through thesecomments,furtherclaritywas Qiven.Its subsequent acceptancebytheEthicsCommittee(AppendixF)ensuredthat itwasappropriate for use.hwasthendistributedtothesamplepoputation intheFallof 1995.

To ensurethat each respondentreasonabfyunde rs toodthe questionnaire.

specffic meaSlXeSwerecarriedout.Acopyofthequestionnaire waspersonaHy addressedtotheFren chteac/'ler(s l,theprinci pal(s),andtheschool boardprofessional staff member.Along withthequestionnaire,aseparateletterwasenclosed.This accompanying letter(AppendixB) incfudedadesoiptionofthepurposeofthestudy andaguar an teeof anonymi ty.Inaddition,each respondentwasprovided with aself·

addressedstampedenvelopeforthe questiomaire'.return.Aswell.earewas takenin theactuallayoutofthe QUeStionnairewiththenumberofpageskepttoten and Part B ofthe questio nnaire wasprecededbyappropriate directionswithimporta nt words underlined.Explanationswereaddedtomanyitemsforratingto enhance understanding.Inaddmon,therating scale wasrepeatedatthe topof each successive

40

page ofSectionC andDin ordertopreven tanyunnece ssa ry misunderstandinginthe mechanicsofthecompletionofthe quesboMai1e.

3.3 TheSampte

Thetargetgroupforthis study wasFrenchteachers.schoolprincipa lsand schoolboardprofessionalstaffinthe provinceofNewf'otnjlandand Labrador.Since mostteachersatFrenchintheprovincealsohave responsibilityforothereunicutt.m areas, a French teache rwasarbitrarily definedasonewhotaughtFrench atleast eighty percentofthetime.A tota lof onehundredsurveysweresentouttoa stratified rand om sample representative of anFrenc::hteachefs.schoolprincipalsandsdloot boardprofessional staff.Carefulattentionwasgiventoensurethaithesurvey was nol senttosevera l individuals in thesamedistrict for example, to a teacher.principal.and schoolboardprofessionalstaffmember employedwiththesamedistrict. Withinthe onehundredSUf\IeYS. fiftyteacherSwereselected:twenty.five from theRoman Catholic Schools andtwenty.fivefromIntegra tedschools.Withinthisgroupoffiftyteachers.ten taughtin the French imme rsio n programand thirty-fiv etaught core French.A totalof thirtyprincipalSwereselectedtorepresentthe geographicalregionsoftheprovincewith fifteenselectedfromtheRomanCatholic schoolsand fifteenfromIntegratedschools.

Theschoolboardofficesampleencompasseda totaloftwenty I)rOfessionalmembers of school boards.with ten represen tingtheRomanCatholic districtsand ten from Integ ra ted districts.

Fifty -twooutof one hundred survey questionnaireswerereturned.givinga 4/

respon serateofaboutfiftypercent Asseen in table4.1.1.twenty-nineteache rs responded:sixteen principals andeightschoolboard professionalstaff.This response was sufficiently high and variedtoallowforgeneraliZationstobemadeabout attitudes towardsremediation intheprovince.

3.4 DataAn.11ysis

Thefollowinganalyseswereconductedonthedata:frBquenc:iesofresponses;

averageresponses;valid percentof response.In Part ASectionA,frequencies are givenfor badl:groundinformation,employmentposition,community populationandthe typeofschool.Inaddition.frequencies8nlgiven fortheresponsestowhetherEnglish remediationisofferedintheschool.whetherstudentsinelementary, ;..norandseNor highinspeci alservicesprograms are taking partin French,as wen,as whether French 3200and3201 are offered asamodified course andwhetherFrenchremediation is offeredatthe school.

Therewereseven statementsinPart 8SectionB whichrespondents hadtorank from mosttoleast important. The purpose wasto determinethelop three reasons wtIy teachers,~boardprofessional staff and pnneipalsfelt remediationwasorwasnot offeredintheirschool.In sections CandOof Part8respondentswereaskedto determ ine(byuseof aUc:ertscale)their degreeofagreement or disagreementwitha statement. Means and standard deviations indicatedthedegree of the statements agree me nt/ disagreementwitheachof the statements.

InSectionE,majorcategorieswerecreated.These'W8I'8devetopedbasedon

theparticipantsresponsesto openendedques tions.Therespondentsopinionswere read and thencodedinto a specific category(with8maximumof five categories).

These categories were cross tabulatedwiththeindependent variable of occupational categoriestodeterminehowteachers.principalsandschool boardprofessional staff as agroupacrosstheprov;neerespondedto eachquesbOn.nus was an effective means todeterm inethediffering opinionsamongthethree major participanttypes.

3.5 R. . . .rch Qun Uons

This information was collectedinordertofind answersto thefollowingmajor questions:

(1)IsremediationforFrenchbeingprovidedintheproyinc:e?

(2)Whataretheattitudesofprincipals.teachersand sc:hooIboard professionalstaff membersto the provisionofFrench remediation?

(3)What strategies arebeing usedtoprovide remediation inthe Frenchprogra ms?

(4)Whatwouldteachers.principals andschoolboardprofessional staff liketosee providedto improve theprovisionofremediation forthoseFrench students whowouldprofitfromsuchsupport?

TheresultsofthisanalysisispresentedinChapter Four.

CHAPTER FOUR· REPORT OF SURVEYRESULTS 4.1 Introd uction

Out ofllle100questionnairesthaiweremailedtoFrenchteachers.principalS.

and schoolboardmembers. 52 were comp6etedandreturned.Thisproduceda return rate of fifty-two

percent.

which wasacceptableforasurveycontainingprimarilyrating scale(s)andopen-endedques tions.Thesuveywasalsodistributedatatimewhen there wasconsiderab'echangeintheeducation system..,thepn:Mnce.

As seen inTable 4.1.1about52percentoftherespondentsweremale.and 48 percentfemale.Thisresult reflectsthefadthatmore surveysweresentout tomale respondentsthantofemalerespondents.While more females than males are French teache rsintheprovinCe,principalsandschoolboardstaffinNewfoundland and Labradortend tobemales.Itisinterestingtonote,howe ver.thatmore fema les(60 perce nt)than males(41 percent) responded tothequestionnaire.

TAkE .. ,.,FMOUEItCTCll"aACKGROUIlDN'OItIMTION • .,IEN'1'1MKlP'l.U.'nC* "'.i2I

.- - ^{. ... . ..} - - - _-

^{'lloof T_}

... - ^{. - , - ::. " " "} _" ^{" " .., ".,}

^51.•

=- - _,

^~Sla«

_-

-ce

^{'" :: .. ': :;} " ^"' ...

^13.5

^{. .}

"

The largest percentageof responses came from teaChers witharesponserateof 58percent,principalsMce-principalswerenext,with aresponserateof53percentand finaltysc:f'll::IoIboardprofessO\al staffwitharesponserate of35percentThereforeit maybesaid thattheresultsof this survey arelessrepresentative ofschoolboard professionalstaff than of teachers and principals.Itshouldbenoted that thebw percentageofresponsesfromsd"Ioo'boardprofessional staff mayha\I8been dueto thechange and~intythatwastakingP'aceal thesd'IoOIboard~duringthe timetheresponseswere requested.

Asseenin Table 4.1.2themajorityoftherespondents were employedin a communitydless than5,000.The largestgroupofrespondents.33 percent.werein Jun iorHigh (7-9)SChOOl.whi5ethe secondlargestgroup.31percent.'N'8f'8fromtheall gradesch~(K-12).

T...t.2 ...e - - , _ . . _ _

.- - _ ^... _ ^{.. -} _.

""orT...

- ^-

""""'"""

5.Ql».10.000

... _{" " "} ...

" · ^"

^17.8

-

10.Ql».20.000

" ,

"

^u

2Q.(lOl).so.ooo

^...

_{r. .}

.. ^, · ^{, ..} " . ^{; ::}

".

^ea

Type"'$cPolllI

...., ,.

': ., ,,.

- ^{" ..}

^~~,

- ^{.... .. ': "}

s:-c: ^, .. _"" : : · _" ^..

^{sa 13.5}

^...

Thehighestresponserate(100 percent)wasfrom respondentswt10wor1l.edina communrtyof overSO.OOO.andthesecondhighest (65percent)wasfrom respondents who taught inaSChoolboardlocated in a commuMywithless than5.000people.Since aconsiderablyhigherresponserateoc::c:uredfarthesecorntrlU'\ities.itmayappearthat theproblemof remediationisof morec:oncemin thesetypesofcommunities.

To summarizethebackground information inSectionAitcanbestaled that whileslightty more thanhalf oftherespondentsweremaMl.alalger percentageof females thanmales respondedtothequestionnairewithbothteachen and principals

weu

receesented.Thelargestgroup of respondents 'Were employedina eommooityof less than5.000peopie.Aswei.thelargest singlegroupofrespondentswere engaged in Junior Highschool setting.

4.2 Findings

4.2.1 School ServicesAcrossNewfoundl.nd.ndLabrador

In SectionB ofPartA•informationwasgathered ontheavailabtlrtydFrench remediationservices8O"OSStheprovince.

Fromthedata in Table4.2.1itmaybeseenthatapproxima tely88 percen tofthe respondents statedthattheirschoolprovided servicesfarEnglishremediation.Onty 12 percentindicatedthattheirschoot didnot

Anoverwhel ming percentage(96 percent)of responsesstatedthat French remediationwas notoffered intheschoolwhereasonly4percentstated that it was provided.This findingindicatesthata verylarge numberofstuden ts arereceiving

46

instructionin Fren chwithoutreceivinganyremed ial assistanceinthesubject area.

The largestgroupof respondents,93percent,indica ted thatstudents in the elem entarygradeswhowerepartofaSpeciaJServicesPftl9IlImwerealso participatinginFrench.InJuniorHigh,80 pen::entofrespondentsindtcateclstudentsin a SpecialServices programwereparticipatinginFrench,whileonty36percentofthe respondentsconfinn ed that Senior Highstudentsin Special Servi ceswereenrolled in French.Acomparisonofthesepercentageswiththe provincialstatis ticscannotbe madesincenoeumtnIprovincialstatisticsareavaiab6eonthenumberofspecial educationstudentswhopartieipatein Frenc::hprograms.Thisproblemisduetothefad thatspecial educationstudentsarereportedundertheregular grad elevel.Therefore,it maybeassumedthatthesepercentagesare representativeofthe schoolsystem.

T....Ut.AIfQLEJC1'ClI'ICHOOl.I8MCUAe*lSI~AlGLAIUlADCllt

v...,

""'''''''''''''' """""""'"

~~ O'l _

." ^{" ..}

sc..-ain~s-;.,..-.g * in Ffwlcfl:

U-..,

~ :~

B."""-t49'I C-$eniorHigfl

''-32OlY320101lw'101l• •~ _ ~.

.2

~...,..... 1I:ftOIII

. . ..

Tocondudeit canbehypothesizedthati1theeattyyearsdinstructionmost students inthespecialeducationprogram areactivetyparticipa ting in French programs. However,asthey progressintheirschoolyears,theirpartici pa tionintheFrench programsdecreased.In SeniorHigh about 64pen::entof specialeducationstudents are

not invo lvedinsecond-languagelearning.This resultmaybeduetothe lack af provisionofremecliabonservicesinFrenchin the eat1iergradelevels.

The majorityoftheresponses(nearly70percent)stated thatFrench 3200 was not offeredasa modifiedcourse,whereas31percent repliedtha titwas.However, sinceonlyabout35percentof Special Education studentsatthisleve l8retaking French ,itwoukIappea r thatmost of thisgroupweregNenamodifiedcourse.Thus.it maybe hypothesizedthatthestudentswhodoremainwith theprogram aremostIikety 10bethosereceivingremed ial assistance.

To sum marizethisdata,thereisalargepercentageofschools thatprovide Engfishremediationbut onlyveryfew whichprovideFrench remediation.However.

despitethe lackofremediaOOninFrench .themajorityof students inspecialservices participa te in Fre nchclas ses.This isthecaseinboththe elementary classroomsand the Junior Highsection ofthe schools.However.thiS isnotthecase inSeniorHigh where almost 65percentdonottakepartinFrench.Itwould appearthaiFrench remediationisneededmostfof the elementaryandJuniorHigh special education studentsastheystilltakepartinFrench.

Thehighpercentageofspecialeduca tion students nottaki nghighschoolFrench canalsobeseen.It maybe hypoIhesCzecIthatoncestudentswithatanguage..or Ieaming-disabilityreachgradeninetheytendtooptoutofFrench.These findingsmay indicate thattheneedsof the learning and/orlanguagedisabledstudentsattheearly levelsarenotbeingmet, oritmayalso indicatethe lowpnomywhiChisP'acedon Frenchproficiency.

When askedtosummarize what type of serviceswell!offered when French remediationwasofferednthe school,answersindicated aconsiderable variationin thestrategiesused.One respondentstated:

"' ottenhelpstudents duringlunchtime.Also.during dess the stronger students arepaired withweaker students for revision and remediation,I often usethe suppleme ntary materialfromthecurriculum as a remediation resource as wetl as games.However.I amnotsurehowtohelpthemimprovetheirreading and writing skillsand what my instructionalstrategjesshoukS entail",

Anotherrespondent statedthat~are offeringreadingrecovery.inCoteFrench.

reading rescue andremedialclass forhighschool students",

These comments indicalethatwhereremediation isbeingoffered.some very sophistica ted ted1niques arebetngused.However.thelim:comment also indicates thatthereissome indecisklnorIadi:d knowledgeaboutthe remedial helpthat should beoffered in French.

4.2.2ReasonsWhy~iationisOffered

Whenaskedtorankinorderdimportance from onetofivethefactorsthat influencedtheirschoolto offerremediation.the most frequent reason given wasthat youngpeopleshould be given equalopportunitytolearn French regardlessof their learningstyleor ability. Otherreasonsgiveninorderoffrequencywere:thatal educa tors havethe responsibilitytomodify their programs;thatFrenchisan important subject intheschool;thatanstuden ts shouldbeexposedtoFrench duetothe factthat CanadaisabilingualCOU'ltry;and finallythatIeamingFrench helpsstudentswTththeir English skills.Thus.inschoolswhere Frenchremediationisoffereditmaybeseenthat

theimporta nce of French inthecunieulLnliswell understood.

4.2.3 Reasons Why FNnCh RamecUaUon ..Not otferwd

The datainTable 4.2.,2 indicatethereasonswhyFrench orRemediationisnot offeredrnthe schools.Seven reasonsweregiven.andrespondentswererequiredto rank them in order of importance.The major problem appears to bethelack of alterna tive leaming:forexample,manuals,videos.music and games.Thisreason had a meanof2.35.and33percentofrespondentssawthisastheprimary reason.The secondmostimportantreason wasthatthereisnopolicythatstatesFrench remed iation mustbeoffered.Thenext reasonwhyFrenchremediationwas not implemented was becausethefeasibility of Implementing French remediation in the schoolwaslimited.Thefourthreason.wTtha meanof3.55.wasthatthe present curriculumprovidesno alternativematerialforremediation.Thenext reasongiven dealt wrththelackofinformationamongteachers. principalsand schoofboard professional staff to implement remediationdue to lackofinsetVice.Theopinion that it wasnotthe responsibilityoftheschooltomodifyprograms wasof lesser importance witha meanof5.44.TheleastimportantreasonwhyFrenchremediationwasnotpart oftheschoolprogramhadtodowiththe opinionthatFrend1isnoteansideredan importantsubjectattheschool.withonty6.7percentofrespondentsindicatingthis as a primary reason.

50