of of of ofme of ofa

The Development of a Primary Core French Program for the Provlnce of NewfoundlandandLabrador

By

KarenL.Templeman

Aproject report submitted to the School ofGraduale Studies in partial fulfilmenc ofme regulations for the

degreeof Master of Education

Faculty of Education Memorial University ofNewfoundJand

August 2000

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Abstract.

Figure

Tables

Chapter 1 . Introduction.

Chapter 2 • Literature Review

Language Acquisitionand Critical AgeTheory Learning Theory .

Chapter 3 - Development Plan Overview ofProgramModel Rationale.

Background information . N<ed .

Problem Analysis Needs Assessment . Survey/Questionnai~Results

Logistical Information .

French Instructional Time Per Six Day Cycle

Grade Level Topics . . .

CommerciaJlyProducedResources Teacllcr-Made Resources . Resources Teachers Would like to Obtain Teacher Knowledge/Opinions.

Explanation ofWby French is Not Taught . Additional Comments .

Swnmaryof Results . Objectives

Chapter 4 - Product Description Mission Statement (nstructional Philosophy Leamer Characteristics

Program Goals. ObjectivesandLearner Outcomes Tcaching Methods .

Evaluation Methods

-i-

Poge ... iii iv

• •

.7 .. 12 .. 12 .. 15 IS .. 16 .. 16 . 17 18 19 .21 22

2.

26 27 .28 ..30 ..31 . ... 33 35 36 .36 .37 .. 38 .. 38 . .. 39 41

SuggestedResoun:cs Limitations .

Chapter 5 -Summary,Conclusiom IDdRecommendations . References

Appendix A AppendixB ..

Appendix C . Appendix 0 .

-li-

... 4\

. 42

. 44

46 .. 49

. 96

98 . ... 102

AbltI'liet

The purpose ofthis projC(:twastodevelop a primary Core French programtomeetthe needs of studentsandteachers intheprimarygrades(English stream) intheschools of NewfoundlandandLabrador.Theproject report contains a development plan that describes the rationale for the proposed program in terms ofbac:kground information, needs.andproblem analysis.Theprocedureandmethodology for conducting aneeds assessme.nt is discussed. followedbya descriptionandanalysis oftheresults ofthe survey/questionnaire distributedto390 primary teachers withintheAvalon East School Board. The results ofthesurvey/questionnaire combined with information gleaned from the lilerature review formthebasis for development of the primary Core French program. The components oft.he program are discussed, specificallythecurriculum guide that is the final and major component oftheproject The report concludeswitha summary of pointsthatdescribethe purpose andpotential value oft.heproposed program. followedbyrecommendations for its implementationandevaluation.

-iii-

FigureI -ProgramModel ..

Figure

-iv-

Page . 14

Tables

Table 1 . Logisticallnfonnation .

Table2 -French Instructional Time Per Six Day Cycle . Table 3· Grade Level Topics

Table 4~Commercially Produced Resources Table 5· Teacher Made Resources . Table 6 . Resources Teachers Would LiketoObtain Table 7 . Teacher Knowledge/Opinions . Table 8 . Explanation or Why French is Not Taught.

Table 9· Additional Comments.

Page .... 20 22 . .... 23 2S .... 27 . .... 28 29 ..31 .33

c... -..._

"Throoghoucblsrory,the human ability to communicate: effectivelyinmore than one languagehas beenessentialto developinginteractionsandinterrelationships between groups of peoplefromdiffm:nt languaget.ckgrounds~(Miramontes. Nadeau,

&Commins, 1997,p.21).Thefailure of culturaJlyllinguislically diverse groups to communicate effectivelyCUIbreedmisundcrstandiJlg, misundcrstaDding breeds confusion,andconfusionbreedscontempt. Convmely, facilitywithasecond:language promotes positiveandmcaningfullmeractionsandinterrelarionships,and encourages undemanding, sensitivityandempathy forothercu1rures.Sccond-lanpaeicuningCUI also produceperwnaJ benefits for the individuaJ. II can facilitate adeepercognitive understandingandlinguistic awareness of thestruc11.lI'eof one's own native language; it can openthedoortoa greater number ofcareer choicesandopportwtjties;and,itcan facilitate tnl.vellinginputsoftbecowmywhere.secondLanguage is spoken.Inthat Canada is a bilingual country,studentsofNewfoww:llaDdand Latndormay benefitfrom sccond-Ianguage skillsinorder to "pave the fOld'" for more positive intcrxtions with their FrenctH:1DIdianCOWIta'J*U.~Iancua&cskills may alsocDhance and expand their career opportunities.andpreparetbem for travelathome andIlbn:MM1If the education system istomeet societal needs, 5eCOQd.laDauaae instNcbon must meaningfullyandeffectively occur in our scbools. This project is premised onthe assumptionthat.tobemosteffective. ioscrucbonsbouk1begin in theplinwysradc:s.

SNdentsinNewfouocllaDdandI..abndorcurmttly~theoppornmilY 10 develop_~skiDstbroutlbCoreFrcncb IIIdEarlyI1AtcFlCllChImmcnioo

programs. inaccordaoeewiththeguidelinesfcriteriasetbytheDepartment ofEduc:ation.

Such is the case for moststudents. tM.c: tbc:reis onegroupfor whomthereis an exception. Studentswhodonotenroll in Early Frencb Immersion (kiDderprten) orLate French lmmersion(grlde sevcD}programseuterCoreFrenchinpadcfour. There is no formal primary (kinderpnen 10gradethree)Core French progrunandFrench as a secondlanguage isDOt.provincial requirement attheprimary level.Thewriteris IlOl advocating a change10provincial requirements. but rather aeknowlcdsing an area of need within our public school system.Thewriterhas responded to thisneedby developinga primary Core Frenchprogramthatmay beused,in wholeor input.as a resource for teachm ofprimary Core French. This pt'ogram isherebysubmitted as a finalproject10 satisfy therequirementsfor a Masters Oegrcc in Educatioafrom Memorial University of Newfoundland..

Chaptertwoofthisprojectreportcontains •liteRb.IRreviewofpastaDdcurmrt research theories related tothetopic., specifically "critical agetheory" andsecond- languageacquisitiontbcories. laDguage developmentandtbeoriesoflearningan:also discussed.Inchapler three.the writeraddRsses the dtvelopment plan fortheproject, beginningwiththeratioaakfortheproposed.prosram. The rationale isdescribedin terms ofbac:kground information.needsand probJcmanalysis.Theresults ofme problem analysis areused 10 establish objectives/criteria for aneedsassessment. The procedureandmetbodoJOI)' for conducting theneedsassessment an:discussed, followedbyadcsaiption andanalysis of the results ofa sun'ey/questionnaire distributedto390 primarytc.cben: withinthe Avalon East SchoolBoud.Theresultsof

this survey. combinedwilhinfOflDltiongk:ancd&omtheliterllUre review.delermined theobjectivesforthisprojectandformed thebasisfoc developmcnc oftheproposed primiU)'CoreFrenchprogram.Chapter four outlines the mission~Iand instructional philosophy of the program,anddescribes its components. CbapIcr five concludeswitha summary of points describing thepurposeandpoccotial value ofthe proposedprogram, followedbyconclusionsandrecommendations for implementing andevaluating it.Thecwncutumguidedeveloped for primary Core French is included in AppendixA.

Copter 1- LitentureReview

In that this project involved the development of a primary Core French program.

the literature review focused on critical ageandsecond-1ansuase acquisition!

development theories.andthe implications these theories have for second-Ianguage learners in grades kinderganen tothree.Learning theories also relate to seconQ.

language acquisitionandwere discussedintenDs of bow they relatetothe instructional ph.ilosophy of second·language teaching. These theories. combinedwiththeresults of a needs assessment, providedthebasis for development oftheprogram.

LanguageAcquisitionandCriticalAgeTbegry

A theory thai is particularly relevant totheneeds of primary children is "critical age theory". This theorybasbeen intensely debated overthelast fifty years. While it basically relatestofirst.languase learning. it alsotwsignificant implications for second-language learning. These implications will be addressed later in this section.

The "critical age theory" evolved as a result ofCbomsJcy'swork.as a grammarian in the 1950's. He refined his theories in the 1960's.andthese inchded discussions relating to language acquisition in childRn. He believed that children have a language-acquisition device that providesthemwithan innate knowledge of grunmaticalstructures (Chomsky. 1965). Chomsky also stated that young children were better abletoaccess this language.acquisition devicethanadults., and as a result have abettercapacity for language learning (Chomsky. 1965). Penfield and Roberts (1959)addedto the debate withideas based on neurophysiological evidence. They advancedthecriticalperiod hypothesisbystatingthat, •...a child's brainbasa specializedcapKity for learnins:

language - a capacity that decreaseswith the passageofyears"(p. 240). This argument was further advancedbyLcnne~1Iin1961.His ideas were alsobased on a biologically detennined critical period for language development. Lenneberg (1967) stated that younger learners have a superiorcapac:ity for acquiring languagesandthat, "...the incidence of 'language learning bkx:ks' rapidly increases after puberty"(p.176). More suppon was provided forthe"critical age theory"byDulay, Burt.andKrashen."The fact that childrenarebeneratlanguageacquisitionthanadoltsis supportedbyboth scieRlificandanecdotal evidence" (Duley, Burt,& Krashen,1982,p. 78). Genesee (1988), however, criticized this research onthegroundsthatitwasbased ontheability of neurologically impaired individualstorelearn fim-Ianguage skills. He didnot believe that the findings were relewot totheability ofadultswith healthy neurological systems learninga second language.

Nevenheless, the debateon"criticalage theory"basimplications forseco~

language acquisition.AstudybyJohnsonandNewpon (1989)reponedthat, "the primaryandmostgeneralfinding10aecommodate for any critical periodtheory...is that the critical period isnotjustafirst-languagephenomenon. butextends 10 a second language as well"(p.III).Itfurther indicatedthat,"some investigators haveSU¥BCS1ed thata critical periodtheorymustpredictthaichildml arebetterthanadoltsat learning second languages... (Johnson&;Newport, 1989, p.79).KrashenandTm.:11 supponed the idea of a criticalageforSCCOIJd.language learning.statingthaicbilc1renwerebetter in tenns ofL"eir long-tenn attainment (ICrasben&;Terrell, 1983). This means that learnerswhobegin learning. second languageinchildhood are likely 10 reach bigber

levels of proficiencythanthosewho begin as adults. Swain (l987), however,argued mat older learners were more efficientthan younger learners because of their copitive maturity and their ability to transfer skillsandknowledge from their first language.

Some studies investigatingtheeffectofageon the learning ofasecondlanguage concludedthattheeffectmay vary depending ontheaspectof language beiDg considered.Threestudies (Asher&.Price, 1967; Olson&.Samuels, 1973;Snow&:

Hocfnagel-Hohle, 1977)claimedanadultadvantagein phonology,andafourthstudy (Snow&Hoefnagel-Hohle, 1978) showedanadult advantagein syntax. Conversely, several other studies (Asher&.Gan:ia, 1969; Oyama, 1976; Seliger, Krashen,&.

Ladefogcd., 1975) stated that therewasdefinitely an advantage for children in acquiring phonology,andlatelearners, as opposed to children, would have anoticeable ICCent Lenneberg(1967) swed that,"foreignaccen~cannotbe overcome easilyafter puberty"

(p. 176). Olson&:Samuels (1973)andSnow&:HoefDagel-Hohle (1977) supponed this viewandLong (1988) suggested thaithe criticalperiodfor acquiringthepronuncialion of a native-speaker was about six years ofage.

In sWTlJIWy, "critical age Ibcory" hasbeensupportedbysome, while olbers continue 10argueagainstit No theory,however, ever goesunc:ball~ged.inreviewing research one mustattemptto interprettheresuI~andform an opinionbased on the works ofall.Thewriterfeels that "critical age theory" may have relevance for second- languageacquisitionandmuch oftbe literature supports this. Consequently, ··critical age theory'"hasimplications forthedcvclopmeol ofa primaryColeFrenchprogram.

Since childreningrades tindergarteoto tbrccarebetween the agesoffourandniDe.

they may beatthe"criticalage"foracquiring a secondlanguage.Also, the earlier students begin learning a second languageinschool, the more "cumulative time" they willgainthroughouttheir academiccareers.Therefore, "critical agetheory",which refers tothe·'starting time" for learning asecond language, supportstheconcept of

"cumulative time", which suggests a positivecorrelation between proficiency in a second languageand thelength oftimespent studying the language.TheDepartment of Education should take advantage ofmis by offering primary Core Frenchprograms during the "critical"period.With instruction beginninginthepriJTl8l)'grades,a student may speakasecond languagewithoutaforeign accentand reachhigherlevels of competency. Students who ret:eive French instruction in the primarygradesmay have a definite advantagewhen they enter the elementary core Frenchprogramingradefour.

They may have developed a more native-like accent,andwill havehadopponunitiesto participateandinteract in a French language environment Concomitantly, their potential for long·lcoo anainment maybeenhanced, thus enablingthem to reach higher levels of proficiency thanstudents who begin Iearn.iDg Frencb later in their academic careers.

LearningTheory

A discussion ofleaminS theory, as it relates to primary Core French, must focus on language developmenttheories.Theprevious section provided informationabout the

"critical age" for acquiring asecondlanguage.Inthis section a discussioo ofleaming theory will provide infonoationaboutbow language develops in children. WhHethere are many theories ofIanguase development,tbewriterwill discuss four ofthemajor

theories: behaviorist, linguistic, cognitive.andinteraetionist,andwill then relate interactionist theories totheconceptof whole-language learning.

"Behaviorist theories holdthatthere is nothins unique about language leaminS, thatall hwnan behavior, includinS language,hasits basis in physical processesandcan onlybestudied in tenns of these processes" (Piper, 1993,p.61).Basically, thereare two major contributorstolanguage-related behavioristtheories,Bloomfield (1930's)and Skinner (1950's). Bloomfield (1933)sussestedseveral stepsthailead totheacquistion of word meaning which include repetition, imitation, habilUalion,andreinforcement Skinners theory,too,sugsestedstepSthatleadtolanguageacquistion: stimulus, reinforcement,andassociation (Skinner, 1957). Behaviorist theory isbased on observable, measurable language events.Thebasic premise isthatchildren acquire language throughrandomverbalilationsandthen communicate as a result of classical conditioning,operantconditioning,andimitation (Skinner, 19S7).

Linguistic theories bejin withtheasswnption, "...thaichil<ircn are born with advanced knowlcdse oftileIypCofcategoriesand rules thaiare found inthegrammar of any hwnan language" (O'Grady&:Dobrovolsky, 1987, p. 317). This advanced knowledge is sometimes referred to as a language acquisition device(LAD),a tenn coined byCborosky in the 1960's.The purposeoftms device istomake sense of language.Theenvironment is viewed as something which activ8lcstheinnate, physiologic::allangu&ge acquisitiondevice(Chomsky, 1965). Certain linguistictheorists argue that languaae developsfromaninnateprocessingstI'UCtUl'ethatispresentatbirth.

This theory is directly relalcdtothe "crilicalagetheorY'thatwas discussed previow;ly,

in that children are considcTcdbetterablethanadults 10access this language-acquisition device.

Cognitive theories are similar to behaviorist theories in that they arguethat language learningisnol particularly differenlfrom otherlearning. Cognitive theories,

"consider language acquisition aspanofchildren's more general cognitive development" (Piper, 1993,p.78). Thereare severalcognitive theories of language learning which suggest. "... many similarities betweenlanguageacquisitionand cognitive developmenc" (O'Grady&.Dobrovolsky, 1987,p.309). Piaget's (1955) cognitive theory combinesbothbehavioristandlinguistic theories in the argument that language learning is similar to other learning (behaviorist theory),andthatthereare innatestructureswhich determine language learning (linguistic theory).Piaget(1955) believed that biologicalmaturationwasaneteswypre-requisite for learningandthat certaintypesof learning couldnotOlXurunlessachildwasinaspecificstageof development. Yet another cognitive theory fcx:uses on information processing, but it is not basedonstagetheory litePiaget's.Information processing isbasedontheideathat thereare noinnate structures for language learning, onlyasimultaneous processing of stimuli (Piper, 1993).

lnteractionisttheories, "asswnethatthecourseof language development is influencedbya myriad offactors -physical, linguistic,andSOli:ial-andthatthesefactors interactwithone another,modifyone another,andmay produce different effects in different children^u(Piper,1993, p. 61). These theories suggest a SIroDg connection between language learningaodtheenviroumeDt.Theories relating language acquisition

10 totheenvironmentbegan withthework ofVygotsky,who theorizedabouta"zoneof proximal development",Theproximal zone existsbetweena child's actua.Ilevel of developmentandhi&'ber level of polentiaJdevelopmentThis theory places emphasis onliterole oftheadult in children's learning. Itcbaracterizes a child's independent level of development in whichthechild is abletosolve problems without the guidance of an adult,anddescribeswhathelshe could potentially achieve withtheaid of anadultor other more capable peers (Vygotsky, 1962). Vygotskybelieved that it was possible to dc[cnnine a ernld's zone of proximal development,andthatinstruction shouldbe planned accordingly.lnteractionist theories are based ontheideathatchildren acquire language through aprocessof interaction between childrenandtheir caregivers.The theoriesdonot take a specific position onthenature venus nurture controversy. They arguethatchildren have an innate capacity for language learning. but emphasizetherole oftheenvironment as a mectwUsm to initiatelanguage acquisition. puticularly social interaction (Piper, 1993).

Whilethereis considerable research concern:ing all these theories. there remains a great deal of controversy concerningwbicbtheorybestexplains language acquisition.

Current trends, however, tendtorecognize interactionist theories as most useful in second-languageteaching.Thereis a great:dealofsupportfor ilrteractiomst theories (Richard-Amato,1988). The proposedprinwyCore Frencbprogramis based on interactionist theories or Imguage learning.Thiscboi" isbased upon a belier in: a

"critical age" for language learning;theimportanceor1be role of1he environment in learning;thefac11ha1 in1enctionist theoriestakeindividual differencesinto8C(X)lIDt;

II and,thecompatibfelnterfaaethatexists~interactionisttheories andthewho'e- language pltilosopby of_hilllandIcamiOS

Interaetiooisttheoriesare closely~IMedtothe whoJe..languageconcept.

AcrordingtoFroese (1990),-whole-language is. child-cemrcd...approacb.toIanguqe teaching that immerses studentsin realcommwUcabon situations wbcnever possible- (p.Z).Th=mseveralfilndomentaIaspcc1Softhewbolelaoguoge pltilosoplly thatare synonymouswithintcractionist theories. First.thewhole-language philosophy believes that language naturally occursandresults in asoc:ial phenomenonusedforthe purposeof communication. Whole-languageadvocates.like interKtiomsc theorists, believe in a strong connectionbe!wttnlanguage learning, physical developmentandthe environment Secood,bothwhoIc-languaaeandinterKtionisttheorists rcwgnize the uniqueness ofthe indivMloal_.and _ indivMloali>ed~OSThird.whoIe- languageandia&erlCtioaisttheoristssugestthallanguageis.means of

matins

sense of theworldand,therefore.shouldbelearnedin.meaningful.boIistiecomext Because thewhole-language _ b~eunentlyodvocofcd by ....y athepn:femd methodology forlaoguaaelearning,andbecause:it so closely interfaceswith inleractionist theories.the proposedprimary Core Frenchprosramwillbeb&sed oathe principles underlyingbothi.nteractiooi5ttheoryandwbole-lanauageIcamiDg.

12 Cba...J. _ . _ _ 'Plo.

The goal ofthisprojectwasto develop. primaryCorcf~nchprogramfor students from grades kindcrganentothree.Because there are few comprehensive program models oriented towardsprogramdevelopment in primary/elementary scbools.

the writer developed her own.Anoverview oflhis model willbepresented. after which the model willbeapplied to thedevelopment ofa primary Core French program.

OverviewQfProltAlDModel

The program model designed for thisstudy(see Figure 1) consists of five distinct phases:stimuJus, planning, development, implementation,andevaluation. Within each phase, are stageS that mustbecompleted. Broken-line circles enclosethephases10 representthefluiditybetweeneach,the cyclical nature of program development,and the preferred non·tinear format. AJthougb each phase is presented as a distinct entity, this does not imply that inleraction or relation does not existbetweenand/or among them.

There mustbea starting pointfromwhich aU developmentproceeds.but whenthe overall plan is initiated, all phases areverymuchmtmelalcd.Development and/or change in one phase impacts significantly on development in subsequent phases. A small modification in one area can result in t:bangcsthroughoutthe entirepWt.

Consequently, there is aneedfor flexibility within the program model.ItisnecessaJYto establish an "ebbandflow"patternofdevelopmeDt,so that developers can move through thephaseswithout beingrestricted.Ifprogram development is tobeeffective and comprehensive. it must providethe opportunity for retlective thought, purposive

evaluation.andconstantmodification.. ThefactthatvariousstageSmayneed10bere- visitedandmodified isindicated inthemodel throughtheuseof~wayarrows.

Acircle representing the environment isusedtoenclosethemodel. In a large contexttheenvironment may refertopolitics, demograpbics.andthe global marketplace. Moreimmediateenvironmental influences. however, may involvethe school or $(;0001 district,thelocaJ community and/or parents. as well astheprovincial Department of Education. Each can potentially affect all phases of development.In terms of its implications for program developmenttheenvironment isconstantly changing,andsbouldbeconsidered as a fluctuating variabletobeclosely monitored.

13

14

~(/~~'\~

:,,/,/~\'

^rqJ(lI1ioa

^}ii.'\,::,

dIUoQl/IccUon,-mis

~lMIysb ^{aOjcdi«:s .}

/ PIIASE 4 '\ / PRASEJ ",

/' . ~ '\/'. ==" \..

f ~tatbcn'I: ::=.=.=" \

:_~ pibcnlulcioB_r... ,~all;cctivcs:~.-:

\"'--_//\~~=-=//

Ei&Y!<..lProgramModel

15 .I!ililloa!<

Astimulus for change isthestart:inBp>inlfor program development,beginni,.

witha perceivedneedthatarisesin~toa given problem.Whentbc: needis identificd" an idea toaddress it mayemerge:intheform ofnew programsmdtor revision to existing programs. Before anempting10address theDeedvianew programs.

however. theproblemcausing theneedmustbeanalyzed.Thewriterwill. therefore.

discuss her rationale fortheproposed primaryCore Frenchprogramin tenns of background infonnabon, needs.andproblem analysis.

Backgroundinformatwn Inordertodiscuss theneedfor a primary Core French program. some beckground information isrequired.Thewriteriscurrently agrade lhreeteacher,andbas taught primaryCoreFrencbinher classroom forthe~three

~.Before this shetauahtCore French intheelementarygrades(grU::s four. five.

andsix) for five years. Acc:ordiIIg10proviDci&IDepartment ofEducarion guidelines the official starting point for Core Frenchisgradefow-(Governmenl ofNewfOWldlaDdand Labn>dor.1999),butit may be lalIgbt in theprimorygrodos(grodosone tolh=)Itthe discretion of admimstruorsattheschoollevel.If.school choosestooffer a primary Core French program. the Deputmcut of Education willprovidefulIding onlyifspecific criteria aremet,andafterSUlXCSSfuIsubmission of. proposal.Thecriteria are outlined in Ihe Program of Studies for 1999-2000andarcbased on personnel requirements., purpose,articulation, aDd scheduling. Schoolsthat doDOlwishto submitaproposalfor funding, may also offer a primaryCoreFrenchpropaminsome or all oftheirprimary gtadcs.While tbcn:issome _ provi<Icdin the ProgromorSlUlties<qponling

16 content,progmngoalsandmethodologies for schools that decide to offer aprimary Core French program, it isstatedinonlythreeshortpuagrapbs.Theguidelines as suggested by the Program of Studies arepresentedin AppendixB. There is no other reference in provincial documents to primafy Core French.

~Asindicatedpreviously, there are specific criteria thai mustbemetifa school wishes to obtain funding for implementation.but afterhaving received it there is very liute guidance for practicing teachers regarding content, goalsandmethodologies.

The fact that noprirrnuyCoreFretK:hprogram exists fonnedthebasis ofw need/idea for the development ofaprogrambythewriter.

Problem analysis Indeveloping a program, the first logical step is 10analyzethe problem that initiateditThis willbedone, inaccordancewith thecomponents of problem analysis of RothwellandKazanas(1998).Thefirst component is "condition".

Itdescribeswhatis happening. Since there is no program for primaryCoreFrench, and very few guidelines. a degree of inconsistency exists in schools throughouttheprovince in what is being taughtand howit istaughtwhen.infact,itis offered. There are even inconsistencies among classes ofa specificgradeintwt;andthree-stRamschools.

The second wmponcnt ofproblcm analysis is "criterion" Itdesc:ribes what showdbehappening. PrimaryCorefrench leaCbC'rs sbouId follow a specificprogramin the same waythat they follow curriculumguidesfor other curricular areas. This would eliminate many inconsistenciesandresultillmore effective teaching pncticc.

The third component is "cause",andexplainswhytheproblem exists.The cause for this p&rticular problem isthat00primary CoreFrenchprogrwnbasbeen

17 developed.ItdoesnotexistbecauseprimaryCore French isnota provincial curricular requirement and, therefore, isnota priority oftbe Department of Education in terms of time and effort.

The finaJ component is"symptoms",andrelates totheeffects oCtile problem.

The effects ofteaehing aprogramthatdoesnotexist are numerousaod variedThe main concern, however, is thatthereare inconsistencies in what is beingtaught,and how it is being taught, which will affect studentswhen they enter the "official" Core French program ingradefour. Teaching a programwithouta curriculwnguideis a challengingtask for teachers. More important, however, arethenegative implications for students. EvelY effort shouldbemade10 ensure that schools who offer primary Core French collabonlle forthepurposeof improving current practice.

Needs ASsessment

Inorder todevelopan effectiveprogramfor primary Core Frenc:h.,the needsof thestudentsandteaebetsin theprimarygradesmustbemetThis involves identifying anddefining their perceivedneedsvia a completeandtborougbneedsassessment To dothis, criteria/objectives fortheinfonnationtobeobtainedwerederived directlyfrom the problem analysis discussed previously. These criterialobje<:tivcs wereusedas the basis for designing a qucstioMaire to detennine theneeds ofteali:hersandstudentsin the primal)'grades.Thequestionnaire canbefound in Appendix C.Thewriterchose a combined qualitativclquantitative approach to rcscan:h. Qualitative methods allow for a subjective interpretation ofneedsbasedon altitudesandopinions. Quantitative analysis allows empiricaldatatobe gatbcredpertaining to instructional timeandleacbcr

18 qualifications. A survey/questionnairewasthetoolusedtogather data.itwas disbibuted to allprimary(EngJishstream)teacherswithin the AvalonEastSchool Board to obtain information on instructional time, methodologies.andresources that relate totheteaching of primaryCoreFrench.Itwasusedalso to gather opinions on whether teachers perceive primary Core Frenchtobean area ofneed.,andto determine thenaMe of thatneed.Thesamplewas one of convenience. Convenience sampling was chosen because itwasmore convenienttosample teachers from only oneboard. It is assumed that the reswts would have been similar from all school boards,and representative ofallprimary teachers. sinceallprimary teachers in Newfoundland ace required 10 follow the guidelines stated intheProgram of Studies for 1999·2000.The writer is not concerned with validity issues here, sincethepurpose: ofthe survey/questionnairewasonly togatherdata aboutcurrent practice.Thewriterdoesnot intend to use the resultstomakeeducational research claims.The datawillbe used only to detennine specific areas ofneed.

Sl1f\IeylQuesr;iOQMjf£ Re$J!11$

The questionnaire included in Appendix Cwas disuibutedbythe AvalonEast SchoolBoard,andreturnedyj&mail. To determinethenwnber of questionnaires required,the writerwasgiven aJistofgradeenrollments for each school withinthe districtThenumber ofprimaryteachers in each school couJdnotbe provided.so the writerhadtoestimate the number ofteaebers based on gnade cmollments.Inorderto ensure that aU primary teachers received a q!JCStionnaire.thewriter O\'Cf-estimatcd.

Consequentlyit is difficulttodetcrmiDcthenumber ofquestioMaim: actually received

19 by primaryteachers.Itcanbeassumed that the percentage ofreturnsmaybeslightly higher than indicated.

A totalof 390 questionnaires were sent outand98were returned. This indicates a return rate of25%which is low. A low return rate, however, is not unusual for surveys/questionnaires intheeducational field. While a lowreturnrate decreases external validity, the results arc: tobeused onJytogatherinformation,andnottomake any educational research claims.Thesurvey resuhs will nextbepresentedand analyzed on the basis afmedatagatheredviathequestionnaire.

LogisticaljnfomJAtjon Table I revealsthegradelevel ofrespondents and suggests a fairly equal diSU'ibution from each ofthegradelevels surveyed. ranging from 20% (20outof98) inkindergartento29% (28out0(98)in grade3.Ofthe 98 respondents, 21taughtFrench in their own classrooms.The gradelevel breakdown of the2\primlUY teachers who teach French to their students displays a range of 10% (2 out 0(21) in kindergarten to 52%(IIout of21) ingrade3,witha very obvious increase at the upper end of the spcctnun. Seven ofthe 21 respondentswhoteachFrench also leach it in classrooms other than their homerooms.with thegreatestnumber being found at thegrade3 level (860/. or 6 out of7). This maybeindicative of an emergingtrend towardthesubject-teaching ofFrencb at the primary level. Further supporting this observation is the fact that students of some ofthe respondents received French instruction from teachersotherthan their homeroom teachers,beginning with13% (I out of8) atthekinderprtcnlevel.andincreasing tilSO%(4outo(8)atthe grade3 level.Thetrend towards subject-teaehinginFrencb isgreatestatthegr8dc3 level.

20 Whenthe dataare combtncd,thereare 21 classrooms in which French is taught by the classroom teacher. plus 8 classrooms in which French is taught by another teacher. There are also 7respl)nOentswhoteach Frenchinclassroomsinadditionto their own. Tbls gives a combined incideaec: of French instruction in at least 36 primary classrooms. This may be enough to justify the need for aprimaryCore Frenchprogram.

Table I Logistical (nfonn"jon

Grade! ,evel of Respoodcnu(0 -91)

Kinderganen Grade I Grade 2 Grade 3

20 20

27 28

23 23

28 29

French Instruction OccualBeguivC11$$1])QQ)^{(0 ..}21)

Kindergarten Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3

2 10

2 10

6 29

11 52

21 Iil:lk..l(cont}

Teachers Instructing EnmcblOthq elawooD'S(0~] )

Kindergarten Grade I Grnde2 Grade 3

14 86

FrenchTaughtbyAnotherTeacher^{(00 ;}8) Kindergarten

Grade I Grade 2 Grade 3

13 38 SO

~Dashes indicatedata thatwerenotreported.

French instruGtiona! tiD'tl:;persix daysyc!'Table 2displaystheamount ofhme allocated for French instrue:tion per six-day cycle.w;ththelargest proportion of respondents(48%or10 outof21» iDdicaringthc lowestl'IDgt0£30 to 60 minutes per cycle. Because an instructiooaJ period in a primary day usually equals 30 minutes., this assignment of timetnmslatesinto approximately oneto twoperiodsofFrcnch instruction perweek.Thelargestamountof time allocated for French instruc:tion was 120to150minutes percycle. Thiswasreponedbyonlytwo respondents., one atthe grade3 levelandone ingrade2.andIrIIISlatesintoapproximately oneperiodper day.

The replies of76% (16 out of21) ofthc RSpondents fellintherangeoftbc combined

22 categories of 30to60minutesand60 to 90minutes, indicating a general application of one10three periods per weekbymost teachers.

Table 2

French InnOlCrional Time Per 6payCycle(0::<21)

Time Kjndmancp (A=2)GrwIc ".=2)GrId!; Un '" 61GqdsHg=III

30·60minutes 60 - 90minutes 90 - 120minutes 120 - 150minutes 150 - 180minutes

100

so

50 50 33 17

36 27 27 9

~Dashes indicate datathatwerenotreported.

Grade leveltgDic:; Table 3 showstherangeoftopics coveredbystudents in grades kindergartentograde 3asreported byrespondents.Themost common topics are colours, nwnbers,andgreetings. Most respondents in each of the primarysradescover these topics.Thegreatestamount ofconsiSlenCy occurs atthekindergartenand gradeI levels. probably because oflaw p&Jticipetion.Thne is an inverse relationship between thelevel of participationandthe degreeOfCODSistcDcyinprogramcontentWhen:there are a greater number ofteachers providing French il1$UUCtion (such as atthe grade2and 3 levels),thetableshows a lower level ofconsistencyandcontinuityinprogram

23 contenlTheonly columnshowins100% consistency inthe &opH;s~isgrade:t.

but onlytwoteaehcnareprovidinsFreueh lnsuuctioaatthis level. A primary Core French curriculumguide wouldallowfor agmakrdqp'ce ofconsislcncy.The inconsistenciesatthegrade2and3levels arcquiteotMous.They rangefrom17% to 83%(oefromIto5 respoodents out of6)interms ofconsisteney intopicscoveredat thegrade2 level,andfrom 9% to 100% (or from ItoII respondentsoutofll) in terms of consistency at the grade3level. Table 3 points towardsthediversity of what primary teachers are teaching regarding the content of French programs. 11 suggests aneedfor a scope and sequence plan for leameroutcomesand grade1C\'e1 content for French instruction in the primarygrades.

Table)

Gride LevelTopicsCn - 21)

Topics Kjpdqpnp(8. 2)GrwkI Cp '" 2)Grwk2 iD·§}GpdcJ(8· III

L...ll L...ll L...ll L...ll

actions SO

alphabet SO 17 27

animals 100 33 36

birthdays SO SO

bodyparts SO 33 64

classroom objects 17 9

classroomphrases SO

~

24 I.ib.k.1(cont.)

Topics Kindsmr!cpcp _ 2)GrIdsI Cn '" 2)Gg'!k2 Cp - 6}Grwk]'p '" II) L...ji L...ji L...JI ^L...ji

clothes 1 SO I 17 4 36

colours SO 2 100 S 83

•

⁸²

common phrases 2 .8

days_family SO_SO 83₁₇

•

_S ⁸²_4S

food 100 2 18

greetings 100 100 33 4 36

holidays SO 17 4 36

house 17 3 27

months SO SO

•

⁸²

numbers SO 100 83 11 100

seasons 7 64

shapes 33 2 18

simple directions_IOYS SO I_I

• •

transportation 2 18

weather 100 SO 8 73

year SO 4 36

tf21c...Dashesindicate data thatwerenotreponed.

Commercj.l!y-pnxIyced rnourccs Table 4 inditalcs that respondents have access to or use very few commercially-produced resources.Inkinderganen there is nothingused.and vCf)' little atthegradeI level. Some commerc:ially..produced resources are used ingrade3,but very few use the same thing. Most usc something different.Itis interesting 10 note, however. that 36% (4 out of II) oftbegrade3 respondents referenced Plrouli, a commercially-produced French instructionalprogram.

as a resource. While thisprogram is intended for lcaromagedfourtosix,itis probably

used by gnode3_hersbecausetheirstudents have ... hadIJI}'JRYiousexposureto French priortocnterinsgrade3.

Table 4

CQmmercjally.Produeed Resources(0 ...21)

~ ~ ~ ~

Aventures (TourA. B)

Bingo 17

Bonjour Les Amis 18

Chezles Petits 18

CollectioalmagiDatiOl1 • 3

Comptines Animees 9

Duso 50

Elementary French 9

Eveil i l'Ecrinue 9

Evt'i1 auxMatbCmMiques- 9

Explo-Scicnccs 9

FrenchSongs 17 17

lm>gine 9

LeLouvre Rouge 9

MattSongs 17 18

Pictures SO

Pirouli 17 36

Pistachou 9

Poems 9

Posters/Charts 33 36

PrimaryBooks 27

Ribambolltibambelle • 9

RO(:k"nLearn 9

Suzanne clPaul 9

_l:llIIIiDIIl:>

25

26 IiIlIU(oont)

Topjcs KiJHimMtcncD - 2)GAtk; I (p'" 2)Grwk2 'p - 6lGrJdc]Cg '" II)

~ ~ ~ ~

Tapes SO 17 27

Telifram;ais 9

Tous Ensemble 33 9

Train des Chansons 9

Un PeudeTout 17 9

~Dashes indicate data that werenotreported.

Teacher-maderesoW£eS Table 5 shows thai: teacher- made resourcesan:

almost as scarce as commercially produced resources. None areused bythe two kindergarten teachers,andonly very few ingrade1. Ingrade3there is a greater use of leacher-made resources, but again a IUghdegreeof inconsistency is evident.

Worksheets (45% or S out of II)andcharts (36% or 4 out of II) rated highest in consistency.

27 Table 5

Teacher-Made Resources (0 - 21)

Topjcs Kindmancp(9z;2) ON I (n :: 2)Grwk2(8 '"6)Gpdr; 3(0 '"I!)

L-J. L-J. L-J. L-J.

booklets $0

calendar materials 18

,harts 33 36

flashcards 3J 18

games ^$0 JJ

pictures ^$0

poems 18

posters $0 18

songs $0 18

weather chart 18

worksheets JJ 4$

vocabularysheets 9

~Dashesindicate datadlatwere oot reported.

Resoyrcesteachmwouldliketoobtain Table 6 renects a greatdealof inconsistency intheresowus teacherswould like to obtain, quite possibly resulting from the high degree of inconsiSiency inprogram content.Themostcommon need expressedwasfortapes.with50-1.(1outof2) requiringthem at the grade 1 level, SO%

(3out of6) at thegrade2 level,and45% (5 out of II) at thegrade 3 level.

28 Table 6

ResoyrcesTracbecsWould I iketoObtain(0 s21)

Topics KindcrBNt£n(g,"2) GrwkllA"Z) Ggds;2(o=6l Gpdc3(n=I!)

L-....!fg. ~ ^{L-.!f,. L-.!f,.}

bigbooks 18

charts 33 9

games SO 18

manipulatives 11

models of items 17

posters 17 9

readers 9

simple books/slories SO 18

skits/plays 18

tapes SO SO 4S

videos SO 17

visuals vocabulary workbook -

worksheets 17

~Dashesindicate data thatwere notreported.

Teacher kmwIcdgeJopjoions Table 7 showsthat 95% (20 out of21) ofthe respondents whowereactually teaching French in their classrooms feltthe needfor a primary Core Frenchprogram.and71% (IS out of21) did not feel thatthe cunent resources for teaching Frenchwereadequate.Yet when aslcedwhatresourcesthey would like to obtain. respondents did not reflect a greatdemand.This contradiction may exist because aCme absence ofa programanda related resource list. Teachers may notbeaware ofwhatotherteachersattheirgradelevel are teaching and/or using, or of

29 whatresources are available. Theproposedprimary Core French curriculum guide is designed10addressandmeet theseneeds.Table 7furtherrevealed that 57010 (12 out of 21) of the respondentswerenot familiar with the elementary Core French curriculum and its outcomes, which potentiallyaddstotheinconsistencies that primary students bring to beginning FrerK:b instruction ingrade4.

Table 7

Teacher KOQwledgeJOpjnjQDS

Need for a pOrnll)'

Core

Frenchpmgmm(0~2J)

yes no

20 95

Current ResoUrces Ade9'Jlle (0 ". 21) yes

no

4 19

15 71

Knowledge of ElementaryCore FrenshPrpgram'0 21) yes

no

9 43

12 57

~Dashesindicatedatathatwerenotreported.

30 Explanation ofwby frmw;b js agetausbt Thelargest proportion ofrcspondents in Table 8 (36% or 28 outofn)explainthatFrench isnottaughtinprimarygrades because it is not a requiredpartofthe primary curriculum, confirming whatthewriter suggested asthecause oftheproblem inthesection on problem anaJysis. Very closely related to this reason, and an outgrowth of it, is the second highest explanationthat French begins in grade 4 (180/. or 14 outorn).Clearly many primary teachers in this study feel that French instruction is not required for primary students. Some (14% or II OUIof77) feel there is insufficient time in an already overloadedprimarycurriculumto teach French. French instructionneednot "overload"thecurriculum. however. ifit is integrated in an interdisciplinary manner.

Itis interesting to notethat when the four categories:"notqualified to teach French" (10% or 8 out of 77); '1here is no French specialist" (9010 or 7 out 0(77);

"French is taughtbyanotherteacher"(4'1.or 3out0(77);and,"thereis noprimary Core FrelK:hprogram available" (50/. or 4 out 0(71) are~bined. 2~1o(22out o(77)of therespondentsdonotteach French because they are unable or do not feel ql.8lified.

Having a concise, clearlystructuredprimary Core French program. however. might help thosewholeel "not qualified" by providing: guidelines for implementation; background infonnation on teacbiogmethodology andinstructional philosophy; a list of suggested learnerOUICOmes;and,recommended content/topicsandresources. If teachers are given essential supportinthe fonn ofa cumcu1wn guide.thenmany more teachers may feel secure enough toprovideprimary Core Frencb instruction.

31

Table 8

ExplanatiqnofWbxfrenchisDOl Taupht Cn - TIl

Resoonse

French is oot a requiredpartofthe primary curriculum. it has never been discussed or suggested thatweteach French

French begins ingrade2 French begins ingrade4 French islaughtbyanother teacher There is no French specialist Not qualifiedtoteach French

Students already have an overloaded curriculumandthere is no time for French

Awaiting funding fromtheDepartment of Education No primary Core French program available NotaFrench immersion school

28

14

11

% 36

18

10 14

AddjtjqnalcornmenlS Theopen<nded section ofthequestionnaire allowed respondentstolJUlke additional comments thatprovidedsome very interesting observations.Thecombined incidenceof French instruction, for example, occurred in 36 classrooms,and36 ofthe98 respondents chose to lJUlke additional comments.Itis significant that 2S ofthe36 respondents

woo

commented feltthat French shouid begin in theprimarygrades.This may indicate thaitcachers

woo

aetuaJlyteachprimary Core Frenclt, andIorcxpcrieDCC it beingtaughtintheirclassrooms,findittobe a worthwhile.

positive experience.Itmay also mean that primary teachers whodonotfeel qualifiedto

32 teach Core Fmw::hatebesiWlllO comment Theymay fearbeing required10 teKh something for which they feciunqlalifled. They may perceive such a requirementtobe a potential threattotheir job security,DCCCSSitatins funher professtonal trainins for them.Assuggestedpreviously,. clearlysuuctwt:dprimaryCon:Frenchprogram might helpthose who feel"noc qualified".Itis possible thai ifwecould make thosewho perceive themselvC5 10beW'lQuaJifiedfeel secureandunthrcatmcd, they maybemore inclinedtosuppon a primuy Core French program.Itis somewhat CTK:owagingthaiat least 2S of the tOlal98 respondents fellthaiFrench instruction should begin in the primary grades.

Also noted is thefactthat 31% (II 001 of36) ofthc groupofresponaents who made additiooal comments feltthata prjmat)'Con::French curriculum guide. raources andprofessionaJ developmentateneeded.Although 11% (6outof 36) of this same groupdid no'olloe'"specific periods10dieiDslructionOCf...h,lheydid_1ess integrate the "'incldenl&llCKh.ina;" ofFrmch intootOO' subjectareas.with14%(5outof 36) saying that srudenu tborouPly eujoytheirFrenchcJasscs. Finally, 11% (4outof 36) feltthe needfor more consisaenqr&lIIODBsc:booIs intheteachingofprinwy Core French.

33 Table 9

Additional ComIDQlISCn -}6)

Response

"

31 69

11 2S I feellhat French instruction should Ixgjn in the primarygrades Iamable 10 teach Frenchbut theocherteachers at my gnde level have no French background. French insuuctioncannotoccur unless all classes participate.

We need a primary Core Frenchprogram.curriculum guide, resources and professional development

The primary curriculum is already fullandthere is no time for French Irregular classroom teachers arcnotqualified to teach French,the 14 government should allocate time for French specialists to te:ae:h it

There is aneedfor more consistencyamongschools inIhc:teaelUng II of French

French isnottaughtas&separatesubjectbutas 'incidental' teaching, 17 andis integrated intoothersubjectareas

The studentsthoroupty enjoy French class 14

Sumnwy

p(w"

Thesurveyn:sWtsprovidesomerationale fortheneedfor a primary Core Frenchprogram.Thisneedwas confirmedby9:5% (20 out of21) ofthe respondents whowere actually leaching French in their c:lusrooms,with71% (lS out of 21) indicatingthaitheresources they currently use are not adequate. Ifwe combine lhe number ofteacberswho arc presentlyallocatingiDSUUetionaJ time fortheteaching of French(310.4or 36 out o(98)withthose whoarc lCIChina: it inc:ideotaHy (5"-. or 6 out of 98), almost haJftberesponde:ltsarealtc:adytrying toleaCb French witboul&programoc

34 thenecessaryresources.TheMilerfeelstbattheydeservesupponintheform of.

primary Core French program.This wouldeliminatemanyoCtbeinconsiSlenCicsthat were so evident intheswvcy/qucstioonaire.Thefact thatsliptJy over one-quarter(25 out0(98)ofttletotaJrespoodmtsfeltthatFrench instructionshouldbeprovided inthe primarygrades.even though it isnota requirement.suaaeststhepotential value of a primary Core French program.Inancmpting 10 implement such aprogram,however.

one: mustbeaware oftbe pressure on primary teaehen10fit additional areas into 'an

"already crowdedprimarycwric:u1wn". Althoughthelargestproportion of teachers expressedtheneedforonJy one tothree periodsof Frenchperweek,thenatureofttle primal)' child requiresdailyexposure for effective learning to take place. If French instruction canbe integrl1Cdwithochersubject areas, it will reducethepressureand also make French instruction moremeaningful.

Finally, the survey indicaIed.~ofcurri<:ulumdevelopmentwherethe emphasisisplacedon Frenchinsuuctiooattheuppcrcndofwprimarygrades.

Critical agethcofy. bowever.sugeststhatitshouldbeginearlier.ConcomitantJy, becausetheFrench curricuJum is spitalinnature.&foundation sbouJdbelaid inthe early primarygradestomake leam.ina more effective in law yean. If we areto effectively implement Frenchinstruction inthe primarygr8dcswe must detide on learner outcomes forthe:beginningyearsandbuild onthem,rather than implement a program attheupper endoftbcspc:cwmIDdthentrytoc*idcwhatto fitinbelowit

35

Theobjectives oflhi, project are an outgroMh oCme theories disc::1.dSCd in the literature review, the rationale fortheproject.and thesurvey results. They will aim to address theneedsandproblemsootIined.Thewriter's irrtent is not10make educational research claims. butto addressthe needsof primary Core Frenchteachersandstudents.

While changing proviocial requirements 10 include a fonna.lizcd primaryCorefrcnch program wouldbeanideal solution to their problem. it isnotapracricaJone. ChanJcs to provincial requirements would involve more complicated issues. such as politicsand economics,andwould require more timeandresources than onegr.duateSlUdent has available.Thewriter's main objective therefore.istodevelop a primaryCoRfrench program forthose:whochoose to offer it,baedontheguidelinesIX'Dvidcdinthe ProgramofStud.ics. Schools that choose to offer primary Core French could usethe new program as a reference and/or resource, fully or inpen.Use oftheprogram may help10reducetheinconsistencies among schools that provide primary Core French..

Thewriter'sbasic:objectives maybesummarized as follows:

1. to reducelnconsi.uenciesamongschools that provideprimaryCore French;

2. to provide a reference/resource for sc:hoolsthatchoosetooffer primaryCon:French;IUd,

3. to helprealizeeach of the: abo\'ebydcvdoping. primaryCore FrenchCurricullllDguide.

16

ella... •

Pndoct_...

Thebasic component oflhis project is a primaryCore:french curriculwnguide.

Theguidewilli~ludesectionsthat containinformation rtlating 10 its mission statement, instructionalphilosophy,Icametcharlctcristics. programgoals.objectives.

learner outcomes, coruent, teachingmelhods,eva.luarionmethods.andsuggessed resources.Tc:achets of primary Core FrctK:h can uscthe proposedprimary Core French cwriculumguideas a rc5Ource, in whole or inpart.The guideis similar in format 10 other curriculumguides currently in usebyprimary/elementary teachers in Newfoundland.

Mission SWement

Amission statementprovides tbephilosophyuponwhich a program is founded., andstatestheoverallintentofa program.Themission SUtement fortheproposed primary Core Frenchprosram10bedevelopedfor thisprojectwill read as follows:

Themwiono/IheprimaryCon Fnnch program is to provide

""'queIwmingupe,i~ncu,1taIwilli~studerwtoliteFrench language and culture.The programisdesignedforMudenlsIn

kindergarten to grade ,bree. andisbased on interactionm Iheorru 01 languageacquisilionaNilhef"inciples ofwhole-language leaming.

Students will engage primarily in listening and speaking aClivilies relDred /0 general imerest topicsandfrant:opltonecultures in the CaNJdian conJU1.

37 Instructional Philosophy

TheinstJ'UCuonai philosophyfor aprinwyCore French program sbouIdbe founded uponthebasisof informationgleanedfromIanguqe-acquisition andlearning theories.Becausethewriter adheres tointeraetioniSl theories of languagedevelopment, these will Connthebasis forher instructionalphilosophy.Asan outgrowth of interactionist theorythewriter believes in the whole-language phitosophy of language-.

acquisition,andtheassumption that language is more effectively learned when taught within a holistic meaningfulcontextWhile recognizingandacknowledgingthevarious individual strands and/or components of language (listening, speaking, viewing, reading, Miling),thelotallanguagesystem is greaterthantheswnofitspans.Theliterature confirmstheexistence of a complex series of intcnelationships becwceothevarious strands (Herron, Morris. Secwes" Cwtis., I99S). Improvementandgrowthin one particular areawillinevitablypromplgrowth inanother. aJthoup perhaps not at the same rate.In a whole-Ianguqe learning envil'Ol'UMnt. allstrandsare recognizedbutnot isolaled, as uadirionally occurredwhensccond-LaDguaseIcamingwas synonymous with learning voc:abularyandgrammar. Ina wbole.luPF environment. astudent is exposed to all strands of language, particularly liscemns. speakingandviewing. The ultimate goaJ ofprimaryandelementary communicative language aching is to enable students to verbally communicate proficiently.Thelistening, speakingandviewing strands. therefore, mustbegi'JCD theirproperpriority,alonpidethoseof readingand writing. This canandwilloccur in a wbole.language environment.

38 LeamerCharacteristics

Almost every new curriculumguidebeginswitha description afthe soc:ial.

emotional, intellectual and physical chalacteristics oCttle intended learners. Leamer characteristics must be considered because learners of varyingagesare at different stages ofcognitive developmenlThecurriculum for primary Core French will include a description of learner characteristics fortheprimary studentagedfourthroughnine.

Program Goals ObjectiyesandLeamer Outcomes

Program goals outlinethegeneralpurposeofan entireprogram.whileits objectives provide a more focused and detailed description ofthe aims oCme program.

Leamer outcomes state the level of performance that learners should achieve after instruction.Thebasic difference between program objectivesandlearner outcomes is thai program objectives statetheaims oftheprogramover abroadspectrum,andlearner outcomes clearly outline whit learning shouldoteUfduring specific phases oftbe program.

The goals oflhe proposed primary Core French program, as developed bythe writer, are to:

I. enable childrentofeel comfortable in a French language environment;

2. encourage risk·takingbehaviorsin spoken language communication;

3. develop an a\WRncss offraocopboocculturesinthe Canadian context;

39 4. provide language experiences thai will lead to increased verbal

communicationandinteraction bytheend of grade: tlu'ee;and, 5. develop a positive attitude towardsthelearning of French.

Program objectivesandlearner outcomes outline curricular content for each grade level. This report will not cover curricular content becauseit is included inthe programguide in Appendix A.Thecontent is bescd on learningtheory, learner characteristics,andprogram goals.anddesignedin a manner to sttengthenandsupport the present elementary Core Frenchprogram. Specific learner outcomes for elemenwy Core French canbefound in Appendix D. To establish a meaningful interface between the primaryandelementary programs.,theprimary program fcx:uses only on listening, speakingandviewing activities thatpRparestudentsfor interactionandparticipation in the elementarygrades.Iftheprimary Core French program produces students who have well-developed listeningandspeaking skills.itwill allow elementary teachers to expand their instruction tothereadingandwriting strands ofttle French language, aslhey continue to stressandincrease: listeningandspeaking skillsthrotIghout the elementary grades.

leaching Methods

Theteaching methodology advocated fortheproposedprimary Core French program isbased on the inmuc:tional philosophy previouslystated.Torealizethe goals of this program, instruction willbedelivered via anapproach that takes into consideration, learning theoryandleamer cbaracteristics. Several teaching methods for French instruction are discussedin theliterature,butone must choose an approachthat

40 complementstheprogramanditsmission statementOnesuch approach isthemodified language experience approach. II has been proven effective for firstandsecond- language developmentandisbased on whole-language prineiples (Miramontes.. Nadeau..

&Commins. 1997).Thelanguage experience approech isadaptedfor second-Ianguage learners by focusing on oral language. According 10 Miramontes et aI., 1997,~... oraJ language development helps studentsbet:omeflexibleandfluent intheexpression of their ideas...~(p.135).Thedelivery ofinstrUl.'tion focuses on language-sensitive content lessons. Activities or experiences are developedbased on themes and/or students' interests. Followingtheseactivities. tt..chersandstudents engage in oral discussion.Thefeatures oflhis approach are based onCO(~ideas,group experience,and scaff'olded oral expression activities (Miramontes etaI.,1997). Core ideas providethe [hemes through which vocabularyandideas are learned in meaningful contexts. Group experience allows each studenttoparticipate as a resuJt oforaJ discussions or spontaneous language opportunities. Scaft'olded oral expression a«ivities allow students10usethenew language in morestructuredways with IeaCherguidance.In these activities, spetific linguistic elements canbetargetedand drawnfromtheoverall theme.Themodified language experience approach involves more than one delivery mode, which canbehelpfulinlddRssing individuaJleaming styles.Itis also in hannonywithinleractionisttheories of language development, because it takes into consideration factors such astheeovironmeDt.social iDteraction,and~tionofthe studentas an individual.

41 Evaluation Methods

Student achievement in any curricular area mustbeassessed andreportedto parentsbasedonthespecific learner outcomes specified for caehgradelevel.The evaluation methodsusedtorealizethispurposemustbean outgrowth afme learning theories upon whichtheprogram isbuilt.Assessment, therefore, in theprimaryCore French program willbedesigned todetenninc what students comprehendandcando with whattheyhave lcamcd. Sincetheprogram isbasedon listening, speakingand viewing activities,studentswill not be requiredtoperform reading or writingtasksto evaluate their progress.Assessmentwill involve keeping observational records,and may laketheform of a checklistthatcanbeused to record progress in listening and speaking skills. Assessment will also involve student-teacher conferencingtoassess proficiency.Achecklist will alsobe usedto recordprosressin this area. Students may keep ponfolios which are representative of theirworkrelatedtospecific content. Items tobekept in the ponfolio may inchade drawings, records ofgameplay,andactivity sheets. Portfolios also serve as a 1oOI for cvaluati"c purposes.

Syggested Resoyrc;es

According 10 theDeplU'1Dlentof Educationandthe AvalonEastSchootBoard.

there are currently nore<:ommeodedresources forprimaryCore French. Fromthe survey results, the writer consolidated a lise of all resoorces curremly in usebyteachers within the AvalonEastScboolBoard. Theresourceswerereviewed,asweresamples providedbylWOofthe leading school suppliers in Canada. Based on thisandapersonal search for resourcesthewriteris recommendiog resources for eachgradelevelthat

42 support the program's goals, objectivesandoutcomes.,andthatare consistent with the learning theoriesandteachingmethods advocatedComputer software willbeincluded on the list of recommended resources, specifically educational software packages and/or websites that interfacewiththeinmuctiona1 designandprogramgoals of the primary Core French program.

~

The most significanllimiwioo oftheproposedprimary Core French program relates 10 the return rateaCthesurvey. Since approximately only 25% of those surveyed returned their questionnaires, itisdiffifi:wllo determine iftbeproposed programis addressing theneedsofall teachersandstudents in the primary grades.Theresponse of those whodidreply, however. mayberepresentative ofttle total population of primary teachers.

Another pocentiallimitation oftbefinalproduct relates to the availability of resourccs.Inorder for theprogramtobeeffcaive,IC8Cherswhouse it must have adequate resources. Iffunding isnotavailable toprovidethe llCCeSSlUYresources., this will limit the potential effediveness oCtileproposedprimary Core Frenchprogram.

Successful implementation of theprogramcould also be limitedbytheskillsand abilities ofthoserequired 10 teaeb it Unless primary teachers have some facilitywith the french language,theeffectiveness oftbe program willbe severely limited. This problem canbem.inimized bythe (;reativeassigmnem: andsc;bedulinS ofstaffbyschool administration (as the responses of many teachers have shown). Neven.heless. there is a needfor astruetum1 programof incentives10

eocouraae

primary teachers10upgrade

43 their skillsandabilities in secondlanguageteaching. Much canandshouldbedone to motivate and encourage teachers to become proficient in french. We live in a bilingual counuy. and it is our duty as teacherstouansmit our culture to future generations.1£

elementarygradeIe8Cherscanbehired andscheduled in a manner that permits schools to offer Core Frenchprograms.then it may aJsobepossibletorealize the same outcome in primary grades.

44 Chapter 5·

s._.ry.

CHd. . . .Rec:oII. . . .tiou The writer has shown that there is a need for a primary Core Frenchprogram,as demonstrated bytheopinionsandattitudesof many oCher colleagues.Itis anticipalcd thatlIle development of a primary Core French curriculumguidewill satisfy litis need and provide more direction for current practice.Theproposed guide should serve as a means to effectively enrichthescco~languageexperiences of primary ctul<nn. Upon entering the ··official" Core Frenchprogramin grade four. students will have already developed some listeningandspeaking skillsthat are necessary in second-language developmentandacquisition. It isthecxperienee of thewriterthatyounger children are vel)' enthusiastic second-language learnersandneed Iinle motivation to panicipate in learning activities. By providing a curriculumguidetoschoolsthatchoosetooffer a primary Core French program,weare"~vingtheway" for future successand achievement in second-language learning.andfosteringpositive attitudes. This is a starting point for developing bilingual abilities in our students; for building more positive relationshipsandinterKtioas with their Frencb-Canadian counterparts;andfor expandingandenhancing theirfuturecareer opportunities. At a time when bilingualism is considered so important in CanIda,itwouldbeunfortunate ifwe werenotableto provide students withthe opportwrity to gain facilitywithbothofficial languages in me primarygrades.

To gain facilitywithFrench as asecond languagein theprimarygrades.the following recommendations are~tfWlysubmiRed:

45 1. A~yeartimeftame shouldbeestablished topilot,evaluate, reviseand

implementtheproposed primaryCore Frenchprogram.

2. Tc:achersshouldbein-serv1ced in two phases; beforethepilotproject; and, before full-scale implementation.

..I. Evaluation ofthe programshouldbeon going duringboththepilotand implementation phases. EvaJuation shouldbeformativeandsummative, providing teachers with an opportunity for feedback, including resoun:e evaluations. program evaluations.andrecommendations. Feedback. results shouldbeused to reviseand modifytheprogramtoensure its success.

4. Beforeimplementingthepilot and/or finalprogram, a curriculumguide shouldbe distributed to all administratorstoallow them sufficient time to request funding forresotIlteSfromtheDeplU'tmenl ofEducaaion.

5. Astr'UCtW'CdsySlCll'l of incentivesshouldbe designed toencourageprimary teachers toupgradeand/or improve their skillsandabilities teaching French.

6. Acomparativeresearch study shouldbeconsidered to comparethe achievement ofelementary Core FmKhstudentswho have completed the primary Core FrelK:h programwith those whohavenot.

46 References

Asher.J.&.Garcia,R.(1969).TheoptimaJagetolearn a foreign language.

Modem l.anguageJoornal53 334-341.

Asher,J. &.Price. B. (1967).Thelearningstrategyoftotalphysical response:

Some age differences. Cbjld Develomnenb 38 1219-1227.

Bloomfield, L. (1933).J..iIl&IaB.New York: Holt. Rinehart,andWinston.

Chomsky, N. (1965). Aspects pettle theory ofwlix. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Dulay, H.• Bun. M .•&. Krashen,S. (1982).~.New York: Oxford University Press.

Froese, V. (1990). Introduction to whole·language teaching&.learning. In V.

Froese (Ed), Whole language' Practiceandtheory(1'1'.1-13).Scarborough,Canada:

Prentice-Hall.

Genesee, F. (1988). Neurophysiologyandsecond language acquisition. InL.

Beebe (Ed.), Issyes in secondIlPfIlWrCacqYisition- Myltiple Pel"$llCCtiyes(pp.79-112).

New York: Newbury Hoose Publishers.

Government of NewfoundlandandLabrador, Department of Education, Division of Program Development. (1999).pmmmofStudje:r 1999-2;000 Kindergarten primary,leootmaNjOlCDDlldi"c andRior biBb.

Herron,

c..

Morris., M., Secules, T.,&: Curtis, L. (1995). A comparisonstudyof the effects of video-based versus tcxt-based instruction intheforeignlanguage classroom. TheFrenchReyjew6'(5),775-795.

Johnson, J.S.&.Newpon, E.L.(1989). Critical periodeffcets insecond language learning:Theinfluence of maturationaJstateontheKquisition of englishas a second language.InD.H.Brown&.S. T. Gonzo(Eds.),Readings onK&9ndlaosuase

~(pp.75.115). EnglewoodCliffs,NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Krashen,S.&.Terrell,T.(1983).ThenatwaIappnw;h' l.anguaps; acgy,isjtion intheclassroom.New York: PergamonPress.

lenneberg.E.(1967). BiologicalfoundeD.of l.nguaM. New York: Wiley.

41 Long,M. (1988). Matwarignal cgmtraj"CS on languye development Mimeograph., University of Hawaii.

Miramontes.O. B., Nadeau. A..&.Commins, N.L.(1997).~ schoo!:; for linguisticdjmsjty:I jnkjng decision makjnglQeffestixe programs. New York: Teachers CollegePress.

O'Grady,w.&.Dobrovolsky, M. (1981). Contemporary linguisticanalnis'An

~.Toroolo: CoppClarlcP1ttmanLtd.

Olson,L. &.Samuels, S. (1913).Therelationshipbetweenage and accuracy of foreign language pronunciation. Journalgff4l1fJ1ljgnplRsArsb 66 263-267.

Oyama, S. (1976). A sensitive period fortheacquisition oCa nonnative phonological system. JoomaI0fPsyeholinguiqjc Research 5 261-285.

Penfield, W.&.Roberts.L.(1959). Speeeband brain mechanisms. New York:

Atheneum Press.

Piaget.J. (1955).Thelanguage and thoyght ofthechild. Cleveland: World Publishing Co.

Piper,T.(1993). IapMS'forallowcbjldren New York: Macmillan.

Richard-Amato.P.A.(1988). Makingithappen'fntmctjonintbesccood language clawgow' Fromtheory to practice. New York: Longman.

Rothwell, W. J.&::Kazanas,H.C. (l998). MaslerjostheiMtDiFtioMIdesign process' A systematic; !l1?I?WlKjh. San Francisco: Jossey-Boss.

Seliger, H., Krasben, S.,&.Ladefoged, P. (1975). Maturational constraints in theacquisition of nativelike accent in second language leaming. '.111M'"Scim;;cs

~2o-22.

Skinner, B. F. (1957).\'erbaJBehayior. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Snow, C.&Hoetnagel4HobJe, M. (19n).Agedifferencesinpronunciation of foreign sounds.Lan!lU!UlS!andSllCiS!Ch 20 357-365.

Snow, C.&Hoefnagc:I-HobJe, M. (1978).Thecriti<:al period for language acquisition: Evidence fromsecond 1anguqc:leaming.CIWtlDnyIqetrtgt.

n

^1114-

1128.

48

Swain, M. (1987).Linguistic expectations: Core, extendedandimmersionprograms.In A.Mollica (Ed.), Frenchimmersion"Selectedreadingsintheory andpractice(pp.487· 497).

Ontario, Canada: Canadian Cataloguing in Publication Data.

Vygotsky.L.S. (1962). Iboughtansi language. Cambridge, MA: lMlT Press.

Appendix A Primary Core French Curriculum Guide