A PROFILE OF THE SPEECH OF FRENCH IMMERSIONSTUDENTS OF GRADES I, II ANDIII
IN NEWFOUNDLAND AND LABRADOR
Marguerite Noonan
A thesis submitted to tho School of Graduate Studiesin partial fulfillmont of the
requirements for thede g r e e of Master ofEdu c ation
FaCUl tyof Education MemorialUniversityof Newfound land
December 1990
11+1
National Library of CanadaBibliolhOQllCnancneic cc caoooa
CanadianTheses Service Serv;cc destimes canacrcnncs
Theauthorhasgrantedan irrevocablenon- exclusivelicence allowing theNationalLibrary ofCanadatoreprod uce,loan.distributeorsen copiesof hisfherthesisby any meansand in any formorformat.makingthisthesisavailable toInterestedpersons .
The authorretainsownershipofIhe copyright inhis/her thesis. Neitherthe thesis nor subs tantial extract sfromitmaybeprinted or otherwisereproducedwithouthis/her per- mission .
L'aut eur a accoroe unelicenc eoevocabre at non exclusivepcrm ell anl
a
taOibliolhequ c nationaleduCanada dereoroduee .pretor.distribu erouvend re des copies de sathese de quelque maoiereatsous quelqueforme que ce soil pourrnettre des excruorarresde cotta these
a
ta cccosnon doc ocrsc nnoa lntcrcssees .L'auteurconserveta prO!lrictcdudroitd'autour qui protegesa uiese.Nitathesenides exnuns subslanliels de ceue-cr no dorvont etrc snodmesouauuernontrcpwdui! ssans son autcdsanoo.
ISBN 13·315-733137-1
Canada
Abstract
Thepur poseof this studywa s to describethe speechof prima r yr.ev eaFrenCh immersion (F I ) stud entsin thepr ovLnc o of Newf ou nd l an d and Labrador withaviewto developing la n g uagedescriptionswhich could be usedas 11 basisfor eva luat i o n. The descriptionof FI speech wh i c h wasthe objective of this study , constitutesa framewor k through whLc h to more realistir::a llyexaminetheoral second Lanquaqo
iLl} ofFI primar ylevelstudentsthanthe frequently us ed native-sp e ake r cr iterionagainstwh i c h these studont s orten meas u resomewhat poo rly.
The sampleconsisted of fifteen stud ents, f iv e Crom eachof grad es I, II and III . They we r e interviewedand the spee ch wa s sc r ipt e d and the norganizedint o speech profil es basedon grad e levels.
Inad d i ti on to this datani ne teachers, three fromea ch of gr ades I, II andIII , were intervie wed. Cha rtsbased on the teacherdes cr i pti on s we rethenproduce d. Theche rus we reor gani z e d ba sedon grade levels. This data wasapp li e d as aba s is on whichtover ify that the profilesestablished from thestu den t datawer e reflectiveof the speechof the studentsinthe prinl::;'L Y FI grades in thispr ov i n c e.
i l
The student profilesindicate that, while there is error in that speech, in most areas of the L1there is evidence of real development and that that developmentcan be indicated by the application of descriptors loosely representative of a given level of primarygrade FI speech.
i i i
Acknowledgements
The wr i te rwishesto express he r appr e ci a tion to aII tho s e whoassistedin the completi on of this study .
Speci a l appreciatio n is extendedtoMrs. Joa n Not r.on forher con stantin t ere s t, co op erat i on andassi st a nc e .
The wr iterwishestoextenda very spe c ial wor d of thanksto her sister, Ri taMurray, whose long hou r s at the computerwere invaluable.
Thewr i terwishes to expre ss he r gra titude to ho r husband, Joe and her children,Sar ah and Kev infor t.uoLr su pp o rt and enco u r a g e me ntthrou ghtime s ofcons i d erabJe inco nv eni en c e tothe family.
Lv
Tableof Cont e n t s
Abstra ct
CHAPTERI Acknowledgements
INTRODUCTION
Rationa lefor the Study Backgroundof th eStudy Pu r p o s e ofthe Study . The Study . . • . • • . Statement of thePr ob l e m Li mi t a t ion softhe Study Significanceof the Study Outlineof the Rep o r t • • CHAPTER I I REVIEWOF RELATED LITERATURE
iii
10 11 12 13 14 14 15 16
Int rod uction . • . • 16
Early Findings FI . • . . 17
TheoreticalBasis FI . . 19
The Problems andtheir Causes 21 Imp li c a ti on s for FI Pedagogy 26 FI In t e rla ng u a g e-- Er r o rCo r r ec ti on 28 AnAlter n a t e Teaching/Learn ingModel 33
Communicat iveCompetence 34
Strategies . • . • • • 37
Communicative Testing 42
Summary • . . . • • . 43
CHAPTERIII PROCEDURErOR THESTUDY Introd uct i on . . . Type of Stu d y • • • Desig n of the Study Sample
Instr umentati o n . . Da t a Collection Procedures Data AnalysisPr oc e du r es Researc hQuestion . • Summar y . • . • • • . CHAPTER IV PRES ENTAT IO NOFRESULTS
In tr od uct i on . . .
SECTIONI .
52
!)2 53 53
"
Student Intervie ws !)!)
Anal y s i s of Stud e n t Interv i e wProfUc H 70
Conclusion of Section I 79
SECTIONI I . . . • . 60
Teac herInterviews • . 80
Analysi sof Teacher Descript i on s 66
Conclus i o nof Section II 92
Summary• • • . • • . 92
CHAPTERV PRESENTATIONOF RESULTS 9J
Introd u ct i on . . . . 93
Findin g s of the Stud y 93
Conclusions of the Study 105
Recommendations for Applicati ons 10 6
vi
REfF.;RENCES APPENDIX A APPENDIX B APPENDIX C APPENDIX 0
Recommendations for Further Study Summary
vii
107
loa
109 122 123 125 126
Tab l e1 Table2 Table 3
List of Tables
Pa g e Spe echp rof Lj.c: GradeI FI Lea r n 67 speechProfile: Gr a deII PI Learner 68 SpeechProfile: GradeIIIfI Learner 69 Ta b le 4
Tabl e 5
Table6
Can Do/Tryingto Do:
Lea r n e r . • . • . • Can DO/Tr yingto Do: Learne r . . . . • . Can Do/Tryi ng to Do:
Learner .
Grad e I FI
Gra de I I f I
Gra d eIII FI 74
75
76 Table 7
Table 8
Ta ble 9
Table 10
TeacherDescriptions of FI Speech:
GradesI - III • • • . . . 90 Comparisonof General Characterist ics that DenoteGrowingFluency 95 ComparisonofL1Specific
Characteristics . . . . 96
Continuumof De velo pment 102
viii
CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION
The bilingual statusof Canada ha s ensured the existence,indeed thestead y growt h of, secondla nguage (Ll )
programsac r o s s thisna tion . Havi:lgobserved thefrequently limi te doral performance of traditiona l second language prog rams, a group of Englishparents in St. Lambert,Quebec in 1965, esta blishedthe firstFren c h immersion (FI) program. This progra,1\diffe r ed from the tr a d iti on a l programs of secondLa nq ca qe instructionin thatitproposed to teachnot only themediumof communi ca tionbut; to teach cont entdirectlythroug htha t medium. Sucha radical depe r t.u r e from thetr a d i tion a l ap p r o a c hre q u i r e d consistent monitoringof results. Initial research (LambertIi Tucker, 1972) attestedto the su c c ess of the prog r amandsubsequent resea rc h (Genesee,197B; Lambert, Tucke r IiD'Anglejan, 1974;
Stern , 197 8; Swain, Burstal IiCarroll, 197 6) confirmed the earlier results.
Aft e r almost a decadeof neareuphoria vis avi s the effectivenessofFI, a periodwh ichwi t n e s s ed phenomenal growth of the program, researchersbegan toque s t i on the earlierresult s (Bibeau , 1984; Ha mmerl y, 198 2 ; Harle y , 198 4 ; Harley IiSwain, 197 8; Lapkin , 19 84; Singh, 1986 ;Spilka, 1976). Na ti ve- li ke commandofallaspectsof th e second lang ua ge loomed an elus i ve goa l. Expe c t a t ion spl un g e d. Perhaps FI wa s not the answer to the"howbestto learn an L11"question. Howe v e r , having viewe d FIfr om bothex t remes
of the success spect rum, a greaterawareness of the limitations of FI emerged as wellas a much mo re rea li s t i c set of expectationswith regardtothe products of this linguistic environment.
The more recent research results (Cilr ey s Cumm i ns, 198 3 ; Cummins, 19 8 3; Hammer ly&Pellerin, 19 f16 ; Jone s, 19B'1;
Swain &La p k i n, 198 6 )Ind.i cet,ethatF1 studen ts do ach i eve nearnative-likeabilityin the receptive51;i 11 s of liste ningco mpr e he ns i on and reading, but remainclearly distinguishablefromnative-languagepeersin the productLvo skillsof writing and speaking. Fur t he r , there exi stsa heightenedawareness in the literature (Lapki n, 19 64;
Pawley , 1985; Tardif&Weber, 1987) that n ..c rve-Lt xe ab ili t y may be an unrealist icgoal. More study is a nee oeo prerequisite to the establishmentof clearlystated goa l s for PI students' writingand to anever great er de g r e e , speaking.
Recently, caseexcber-shave focusedonthe speec h of fl students. The FI inter la ngua g ephe nome no n has beenob se r ved and described (Ca r e yI>Cummins, 1984; HarleyI>Swai n, 197 B;
Hammerly&Pellerin, 1986;Lyster, 19 8 7 ; Obadia, 198 3 ; Saville-Troike, McClure IiFritze, 1984; Szamosi, Swaint.
Lapkin, 1979; Tardif, 1980). Thi s interlanguagefocus has placedemphasis on the errors that FI studen tspe r s Lstent Ly produce. Such an emphasis juxt a pos e d against the elus ive goal ofnat iv e speaker perfectionhas caused concern abo ut
the accomplishments ofFl. Thepoor linguistic performance of FI stud entsappears to reflect on the progra m. The questionstha t arise fromsuch findings are: can FI do better?or perhapsmore pe r t ine nt l y,are these indi c e s just?
Must they be accepted as realisticassessments of bilingual educat i on?
Ra tion ale for the St~
The ques t ion"Wha t constitutes proficiencyin a language?"is one repeated lygeneratedbythe results of the studyof Llproducti on. Complicatingthe alreadydifficult
"l e ve l of skill"notion tha t the word "p r o f i c i e nc y " suggests is a wide acceptance of thewo r d in the United States. The res ul t i ng confusionwith thete r m isaki n toth e skewing of thete r m"compete nc e" caused byCh o ms ky'sus e of this lat t er term. He (1959) defined "competence"asthe knowledgeof an unde r l yi ng system which gives order and system tola ng uage acts. The already diff i cul t term"p r ofic i e nc y " is now similarly skewedbecause of the growth of proficiency- ori e nt e d instructionin theUnitedStates (Omaggio, 1986) . lis Oxford, Lavine and Cr ooka ll (1989:30) explainit:
The proficiencyapproachemphasizes the learners reachinga me a s ur a ble level of proficiency (abili tyto usethe language co mmun i c a t i vely ) in the four skillareas of listening, reading, speaking and writing.
Althoughthishas become a widely accepteddefi nit i on of proficiencyin the literature, what it meansto be proficient in a languagecont inuesto be debated.
Oxford, La v i n e and Croo kall go onto proposean interest ing link betweenthe proficienc yapproach,devel oped byth e AmericanCouncilonth e Te a c hi ngof fore ignLan guages
(ACTf L) and the communica t iveapproach. This link is relevant toth i s study sinc e it is wi thinthe construct of communica t ivecompetencethat we are loo ki n gtofi n d realisticoralev a l uati o n directivesfor FI,yet itis to ACTFLproficiency guidelines that we are lo okingfor pract ica l assistance.
It might be said that the commun i c a ti veapp r-oach and the profi ciencyappr oa c hareactuallyoneand the same, exceptth a t the lat t e r focus es more cle a r l yth a n the former on measurement iss ue s -- that is measuringth edegree to which lang uage prof i c iency or communicativecompete nce is developed (Oxford, Lavineand Cr o ok al l, 198 9 : 30). More central to this studyemerges a ski ll- s pec ific question, an outgrowthofth e above, another whichthe li t e r a ture hasbe e nuna b l e to satisfactor ilyanswer: Wha t constitutes oral proficiency in ala n g ua g e? The study of oralproficiencyis most problematic. It isso be ca us eof thenatureof the speech phenomenon (Carey&Cummins, 19 6~; Da y and Shapson, 1981;Heike, 1985). The complexand
variable nature of the oral fabricrendersany measurement most difficult.zva tuet Icnof oralpr of i ci en cy remains at best, varied and inconsistent, andatworst: "... replete withva c u ou s definitions , overlappingterminology and impractical assessment strategies" (Heike, 1985: 135).
Historically, testingreflected the methodology of the day. Thegrammar/translation me t hod s of the firsthalf of th i s century sawgrammar-orientedtestswithlittle orno concentrationon speakingthe language. Scoring was very subjectiveand la r ge l ywi t h out attention to suchstatistical checksas validity or reliability. Robert Lado, in 1961 , pioneereddevelopment in la ngua ge testing. He (Lado, 1961:
25) described language as being: "bu i l t of sounds, intonation, stress, morphemes , wo r ds and arrangementsof words having meanings that are linguistic and cultural. . Eachof these elementsof la ngu age constitutes avariable that wewill wan t to test".
This move towa r d a more valid assessmentof language learned wasparalleledby swe epi ng improve mentsin testing methodologyinthe b r cadex evalua tionfie ld. It was a pe ri od cha r acterizedby the adventof structuralism;its manifestation in the language le a r ni ng domai n be i ng audio- lingl.lalism. In conjunctionwith changein testing methodology, L1acquisitionnow be ga n to be me a s ured by
di screte points that were cle a r lydefinableand measurable. Reliability wasas s ure d . Discre te -po inttestinggained wi de acceptancedur i ng the succ ee dingdeca de (Lado, 1961:
valett e, 1967 ) .
In contrast , contempo ry test i ng (Howard, 1980:214)
" ... focuses on the integ r at ive Orgl obal testwh i c h at-temp t s tomea sure thetota l communicat ive as pe ct of utterances". Howard acxn o wt e dqe utha t suc h wholes ale testi ng does notdenythe need fo rsystemat ic ass e s s ment but stresses that emphasi sis clearlyplac e d on "... mastery of languageuse inthetotal contextof thegoa l la ng uage "
(Howard, 1980: 214).
Communi cat i ve compete nc e (CC) cannot be measur edby di s c re te-poi nt. methodology. It wa sdevel oped to measu re the goa l s of audi o-ling u a l1 s mbas e d on the premisethat
"lan gu a ge is a number of smal l patte rnsor habits". Accura cy waspri ma r y. Nbenone considerstheinte g rati ve natureof communicativecompe t e nc e, the lackofvali di ty of su ch ates t i ng appr oa ch is cl e a r.
Communicat i ve testing must as s e s s communi c a tive competence. Howe ver, development of suc htests has been min ima l. Valuableguidelineshave beenpro pose d (Howa r d , 198 0;Wes c he , 1981) , and sound communicativetests are gradually becoming availableto the pr a c t i t i on er . Oral communicati ve testi ng , tho u gh, remain s the wea klink.
Attempts in th i s domainof communicativetestingare very few corSE 1982-1983; Universityof Ottawa ,1983). Such te st s that are applicable to FI populationsare evenmo r e limited.
wit h the useof the global commun.lcatLve testcomesll.
con c ern for reliability. The multi-dimensional na t u re of the oral productto be measuredmakes reliabilit ya major co nc e r nfo r developers of such tests. In the UnitedStates, some inr o a ds havebe enmade toward an objective, efficient, defined (ye t not toa degree of its beinga re t urnto dis crete-pointoral testing) evaluative in s t r ume nt that at t e nds to the ri ch, all-encompass ingnature of the speech phen o me no n.
The OrC'.1Interviewdevelopedby the Foreign Service Institute (PSI) pioneeredde v elopmentin this area. ACTFL drewonthe FSI type oral interviewin pr odu c i n g their own ACTFLProvisionalProficiencyGuidelines.aropon-nts of this or al evaluationinstrumentinc lude : Higgs, 1984; Liski n- Ga s p a rro, 1984; Lowe, 1986;Ma gnon , 19 B7; Omaggio, 19 8 3 . The Governmentof New Brunswick , in thei r attempt to evaluate oral fluency at schoolleavingforco r e French stud e nt s, began to use FSI scales in thedevelopment of thei rownint e rvi e w program. Recently, the Newfoundland Departmentof Education institutedan oralint e r vie w procedur-ewhi c h adapted the New Brunswick inte rviewto the High Sc hool Core FrenchProgram for Ne wf ou ndl a nd and
Labrado r. These tests hav ethiscommoncharacteristic : theyallre ly on a list of clear lystatedspeech functions whi ch the evaluatorrat esac c or di ng toa givenscale. They differ in thedegree of specificityaswellas in linguist i c bases for givencriteria.
Sand raSavignonbestrepre s e nt s the critics (Bachman&- Sav ignon, 1986; Kra msch, 1986; Sa v i gnon, 1985) of this attempt to evaluateora l fluency. "No tably absen t fromthe litera tu re promo t in g these prov i si o na l guide l i n es (ACTFLj is reference to communi c a t ivecompetenc eas an underlying const ru ct " (Sav ignon, 1985: 129).
Eva luation
or
oral proficiency , then, constitutesone of the most alarmi nggaps inanev erimpr oving FIpedagogy.Because na tive- l i ke proficiencywould seemanunrea l i s ti c goal andbe c a u s e FIpupils are very definite ly learnersin a limitedlinguist i cenvironment, Lt pedagogy sugges ts the possibility of setti ng more re a li s t ic, ac hievablegoals . Thecommun icativecompetenceconstruct offe rs help in furthe rdefiningthose goal sbut it too Must befre ed from toowide an acceptanceof the na tive -spea ke rgoal. As Davies (1989 )puts it: "Ifit isacce pt ed thatthe na tive speaker is nolonger atthe centre of communic ative competenc e thenthat liberateslang ua getea chingbecaus e it me a ns that wo rthwh i l e goa ls aresuddenl yassessa ble...".
Evaluation viewedin thisway should be c ome more posit i ve and mo r e encouraging. It wou l d leantoward the
formative end of theeval u a t i ve task . Learner lang ua ge is, afterall, not an end product, but an int e r med i a r y one. Su rel y, it is as much the wor k of evaluationto encourage and foster learningas it is tome a s ure error? As a FI prima ryteacher recent l yexp ressedwhilespeakingof her students' oralpe rforma nce: nI can't get overhowmuch they ac c ompli sh,how far they'vecome by the end of Grade III."
Evalua tors, seekingto break groundin tihe evaluatio nof FI ora l flue ncymight be we ll guided in approaching this task fr o m the abovepoint ofvi e w.
Therefore , what is clea rly nee de d beforeoral eva luat i on in Fr can c akra step forward ar ede s c rip tion s of the language that can be realist icallyexpected from FI learnersat a particularlevel. Evaluationbased on desc rip ti vecriteria instead of the native-speaker no r m wouldthe n be possible. Such eval u ati on wou l d focuson reasonable expectations rather than elusive ideals. This cha n g eof focus in attempting to accentuatethepositive, whilestil lattending to the negative, could ensuremore consistencyin oralevaluationproceduresand could better fosterL1 learning in theFI cl a s s room thus generating a more positiveviewof what ha s beenaccomplishedinFl.
10 Background of th e Study
The Department of Education of Newfo undl and and Labrador has made significant improvements incur r i cu l um development forprimary FI withinthe past few years. The se improvements, markedpart i cu l a r l y by th e developmen t of cu r ri c u lu m guidesfor Grades I. II,and III wer eneeded in an educationforumwhere cu r r i c u l a were developedqu i ckly, locally andlargely withoutconsiderat i o n of the goa l s of the program so that immediate needs couldbe met. In the wake ofsuc h imp ro v e me n t s whichanswerte a ch ers ' in iti al qu e ri e s as tothemost effective mate r i al s touse inthofr classrooms, FI teache rs con t in ue toas k fo r direc t i o nin their eval uat ivepr ocedures .
Sincethe inceptionof FI type L2 instruc tion inthis province such programs have beenconsistentlyevaluated
(Nett.en, 198 8 ; Netten&spain, 1979, 198 2, 19 83). These evaluationscon firmed tha t Newfoundland FI stude nts performed closeto the nationallevels of performancein both first language (Lj) and L}reading, oral comp r e he nsi on and writingskills that were measu red. Lack of
instrumentation as well as lackof guide linesprecludedany measuring of the oral aspects of theL1learning ofthe se st.udent s . In an attempt to study how theoral skillwas taught and evaluatedin the FI classrooms in this province, Netten andSpain (1989) undertook a study of processes in the primary FI cl a s s r oom. However, when partic ipat ing
11 teacherswere askedto evaluate the oral competence of their students, it became evidentthatthere ap p e a r ed to bel i tt l e consi s t e ncy in evaluatingoralperformanceof students. Teachers frequently compl ain e d becau se of thelack oforal ev a lu ative in s t r ume nt s . The study then, cle a r l yra i s e d the quest iontowhi ch answersare .mcr-eas Inq Ly soughtby pra c t itioners in the PI arena: What are teac h e r s to look for when eva luting theoralprofi c iencyofth e ir FI pup i ls?
Purpos e of the Study
Thisstudywas conceived as a begi nningpoint from whichmore effect iveand more unifo r meva l ua t i o npro cedur e s co ul dbedevel oped for th eora l prOduc t i onof FI stude nts . If itcanbe established that the speech of FI primary stude nt s can be profiled, then gui d eline s couldbe developed astohow to evaluatestudents in relation tothat profile. Thegoa l of thisstudy, ne ce s s arily descriptive in nature.
is tobeginto chart such a profile.
fu rt her . while recogn itionof theimp o r t a n c eof evaluatingoral performance is universal, the established normfor an orallyproficientFI pupil, thena t i ve speaker, has resu ltedin a degree of negativefallout . If more at t e nti o ncoul d be directedtowards wha t is reasonably at tainab leat FI pr imarygr ade levels as we ll as a pract i cal
r
r
12 description of these outcomes, a significant step t.ovard imp rovingthe assessmentof this crucialskill in language development couldbe realized.
Thisstudy seeks to focus on the product iveskill- - oral fluency. The literature clearlyattests to a prob lem with oral evalua tion ofLzle ar n e r s . Cent raltothe emergence of FI as an alternatemeans of learningan
"I
wasthe demand for an approach which emphasi:7:ed oral compoto noor hence the need to begin to find a way to measure th e productive skillsof the FI student without final co ror cuc o to an unattainable native-speakerideal.
The characteristic methodology of most FI researchhas been theempirical-analyticalparadigm. Moreethno logical or qualitativestudies are being increasingly ca ll e dfor (Chaudron, 1986; Long, 1986; Tardif.. Weber, 1987). The:
belief thatworthwhil e research is limited to l arqe sampl e comparat ive studies is eroding. Many re s ea r c he r s , inacall for more process-orie ntedresearch, are re jectlnq the very narrow confines of the scientific methodfo r education al research.
Long (1986: 226) maintainsthat secondla ngua g e educatorsare guilty of a narrow approach to re s e a r c h. Some of there s e a r ch topics in our professional past seem tohave been selectednot on the basis of their contributionto
13 knowledge, but rather because theywere pa rt of the current bandwago n or becausethere s e a r c h could becarried out with minimal pr o b l ems.
Long (1986 : 226) looks to th e qualitativetypest u dy to add to a relativel ysmall database and to identify potential variables, contexts and probl ems for futureexpe r i men t a l resee rcn, aswell as to investigatethe secondlanguage learning/t eachingprocess.
Inth a t veinthis sl'Jdy propos esto use a qualitative research approachin orderto attemptto describe, with attention to the factors gov e rn ing the workings ofFl. the speech of primary FI students with a vie wto developing profileswhi chmi ght be used as aba s i s for evaluation.
St at e ment of the Probl em
This study, then , looks to the proposal ofalist of descriptive criteria of oral fluen cy that are re a li s t i c a lly characterist icof the speech ofFI learners at each of the primaryle ve l s . These descriptorsmightla t e r be usedto developanevaluative instrument thatwo uldma int a in bo t h validity for the FIprogram an dreliabili tyacross the immersionpopulation.
Limitations of theStud y
The generalizabilityof t.he resul ts is perhapsth e greatest limitation of thisstudy. Several fact orsimp ac t onthe range of genera l izability. Althoug h the Ln t.or v Loec r s were caref ully tr ai ne d and understoodthepu rpose , the format andthe rationale behind the inte rviewpr ccedur c s, theus e of onlyoneortwo interviewers will ne c e s si t ate due consid eration of th epo s s i b ili ty of da t a beingcolored by pers ona l perc ept i o n orprefere nc e . Th e verysmall stud e nt samp l e sets a sig nificant limit . The teacher factor must also be st ud i e d . The youngerof the studen t subjectswil l havebeenin fluencedlargely by only oneteacher.
Interpretation of the res u l t s of th i s studymus t also take into accou nt th e particula r linguist ic env ironme n t invo lve d in th e prov i nceof Newfo undla ndwhich is al mo st complet elyuni lingualanglophone, un lik e someoth e r FI environmentsthat Bore enrichedbyfr a ncop ho n e influences.
Signifi cance ofthe St u dy
The resultsof the studyhav e enabled the re s earc h e r to devel op aprofileof thespe e ch pr oduc t of FI pupilsat the con clusio nof gr ad e sI, II andIII. The s e profil e s , in of f ering some de t aileddes cripti ons, should al s ooffer guida n ce and insi ghtintothe progr e s si o n of speech deve l opmentinprimar yFI learner s. Thepro f ile s , too , should prov i dein f o r ma t i on wi t h whi ch to make
15 recommend atio ns fo r the possi b lefutur eCormul atio nof oralev a l ua t i ve instrumentto beuse din the assessmen t of FI oral profi cie nc yat theconc lusionofthepri mar ygra des.
Outlin e of the Report
Are view of selected re leva nt literature Id l lbe presented inChapterII. ChapterII I describes the design of the study , the lr:stru mentsused for data collection; the teacher and student int e r v i ew formats andtheme t hod used to study th edata. Anexte nsi ve des c ript i ve analysisof th e data is containedin Cha pt erIV. Chapte r Vincludesa summary of th estudy. discusses there s ul t s and contains some recommend ationsfor future research .
16 CHAPTER:II
REVIEW OF RELA'l'ED LI'rERATDRE
Introduction
Pol i tz er ' 5 (1980: 291) defini tio nsof botht.raditional and immers i on Lzprograms clearl y cont r a s t sthe two:
In immers i on-t yp e bil ingual education pr ogr ams, the second language isac qu i r e dexc l us i velyor at le a s t to a lar geextentasa resu l tof being used as a medi u m of instruction; in for eign language education the second langua geis learned primarily in the processof formal instruction.
Since the inception of its first immersion project 1n 1965,Canadahas been promi nentin the area ofre s ea r c h into second la n gua gelearningas it occurs in an Lmnersvon situation. Alth ough immersion prog ra ms exi s t thr o ug hou t Europe and in partsof the United States , it is Canada that ha s become synonomous wi t h immersion type L1le arn ing programs. The distincti ve French-Englishduality whi ch constitute stheCanadianlinguisticfabric ma de C..maca a positiveenvironme nt for thedevelopmentof practicesand studiesof imme rsionsecond la ng u age programs.
In196 5, a group of anglophoneparentsin a Montrea l suburb, St.Lambert, whowe r e very disillusionedwit h the trad itional instructionof Fren ch for their children
17 undertook tope r su ad e the Quebec Ministryof Education and the local school board to initiate an exp e r i ment a l
'i mme r s i o n' programin oneof its school s. Pro f essorW.E. Lambe r tand his associates fr o m the ps ycho logy dep a r t ment of McGi l l universit yconsentedto conduct exte ns ive re sea r c h and eva lu a t i on of the program. By the end of th edecade, the positive re s u l t s fromSt. Lambe rtinf l uen ce d the spread of immersionprograms , first to Ottawa then th roughout Ontar io . As th e 1970's pr ogres s e dgr owth of French immersio nprogramsacross Canada wa spheno menal. The rese arc har,.evaluation tr a d i t i on begun by Lambert and G.R.
Tucker fromMcGill was continued at othe r Canadian universities, most prominen t ly , the Ontario rn s t it utefo r Studiesin Education (Or SE) , the Universitiesof Ottawaand Car leton. As immersion progra ms spr eadto the east and to thewes t, uni ve r s it i e s the r e (Gra y, 1986; Mettenand S?ain, 1982; ShapsonandDay, 1~8Z) conti nuedthe res ear c h and eval uation patternthat ha d been set.
Earl y Findi n gsFI
Th is program evaluation has shownthat FI consistently produces more profici ent users of the Llthan traditional core pro grams. In the earl y immer s i o n program st udentsat t.ueend of theirelement aryyears achieve near native -l ike levels infrenchli sten i ngcompre he nsion andreadingskills,
16 althoughtheyfall short of th i s markin speakingand writ ingskills (Lapkin, 1984 ; LapkinandSwa in, 1984; Swai n andLa p ki n , 1982; Swain andLa p k i n , 198 6 ).
Parent's response has been particularlyposLt Ive toward ea r lyFre nchimmersion prog rams. Askedif, giventhe i r cu r r e nt exper iencewithear l yFI, theywou ld repe a t thei 1- decision to enr ol th e i r child r en in that pro g ram: "Ni n c ty- four percent of Frenchimmersionpare nt s indic a tedthe y would make the same choi c eag a i n." (u u ro s , 1987: 58). I t is clearthat they feelthe programis meeti ng thei r prima r y oc-iecrrveof improve d condi t i onsfor language learning for the i r coI Jd z-en.
This hi g h deg ree of paren tal su ppo rt issig nific a nt in thati ttranslates into a very posi tivepublicpercepti o n of FI. Harley (1985: 11) att ribu tesmoreimport a nc e tothls fact thanto growing enrollments.
Even morestartling perhaps than the enr olm en t figures isthepe r c e nt a ge of par e nt s acros s the count ry who desire bili ng ualis mfor tod a y' s ch i ld r e n. A recent Gallup pol l established th.1t 68 percentofadu ltanglophonessurveyed ac ro s s Canada think tha t childrenin their prov ince should learnFr e nc h at schoolto becomebi lingual.
And of th e s e parents, the largest numbe r (about S9 percent) prefer earlytotal imme r s ion as the route tobilingualism.
19 With such support in the public sector, itwould certainly seem very likelythat n wi ll remain an integralpart of the Canad ianeducational system.
Theseevaluative results, as well as the growth and endurance of FI as a popular alternativeto traditional language education, speakextremely we l l of this program. Given thatthese findings have beenconsistent across differentpopulationsfor the last decade, i twould seem prudent to register these as proof of the program' 5 worth.
TheoreticalBasi sFl:
Subsequentre s e arch has larg e l y confirmed the success of this approach to teaching aL, butha s also uncovered problems in the qualityof that L2pr od u c t (Ad i v, 1980;
Harley, 1984; Harley and Swain , 1978; Pawley, 1985; Spilka, 1976; Swain and Lapkin, 1986).
In the early19 7 0 s , secondla n gua gepe d a g og ywa s forced to re-evaluateits preferredlanguage learning paradigm , a largelystructural one, andconside r a more informal, active, unstructuredone characterizedlargelyby informal learning whichwa s in directnegative reaction to theaudi o - lingual one of the 19605.
Du r i n g the late sixties and earlyseventiesext e ns i ve researchwa s carriedout innatural languageacq u i siti on (Corder , 1967 ; DUlayandBurt,1973; Dulay and Burt , 1974;
Ervin-Tripp, 1974; Krashen, 1973; Taylor, 1974;Ter r e l l,
20 1977 ). Second la n g u ag e theoristsbegan to make a distinction be tw e e n learningand acquisition. Brown (19 87 : 187-188) definesthetwo concepts asfo ll ows :
. . .acquisition (is1 a subconsc ious and intuitiveprocess of construc ting th e system ofa lang uagenot un like the processus e d by achild to
"pi ck -up" a language. The second mea ns is a consciou s "lea r n i n g" process in which learners attend to for m, figureout rules, andar e generally awa re of their ownprocess.
Krashen'5 Inp u t Hypothesis (Krashen1985: 2) to rLows directlyfromth i s distincto n.
The Input Hypothesisclaimsthat humans acquire language inonly onewa y--b y understanding messages or by re c e i v i ng 'c omp r e hen sibl e input.' We pr og re s s along thena t ural orderby und e r s t a nd ing input that con t a i n s structures at ournext 's t a ge' - structuresthat are a bit beyondourcurrent levelof compet e nce.
Theorists usedtheFI model to confirmtheirpremi ses. Wh a t immersion has taught us is that
comprehens ible subject- matter te a c h ing isla n g ua ge teachi ng . Student sdon' tsimply learn the rulein the languag e class andha v e it "r e i n f o r c e d" in the SUbj ect - matterclass. The sub j e c t - ma t t e r classis a langu ag e class if it ismadecomprehensibleto
21 the languagestudent. InfactI the subject-matter class ma yeven be bette r tha n thelangu ageclass forla ng uageacq uis i t i on. Inlangua ge-t e a c h i ng classesope r atingaccordingto the principleof compr ehensibleinput, teachers alway s face the pr ob lem ofwha t to talk abou t. In imme rsion. the topic isautomatica llyprcv Lded-o-Lt;is the subject matter. Moreove r, sLnce students are tested in the sub ject ma t t e r, not the la ng ua ge, a constant focus onthe message and not form is guara nteed (Krash e n , 1984: 62 ).
The immersionprograms, the n, we r e designedto create many of thesa me typesof conditions that OCCUr during a child'5 first languagelearning. The dominant theory of lang ua gete a c hingunderlying the immers i o n approac hthen bec a me acqu isitionist ; thele a r ni ng approach beingrelegated to the more forma l language lear ning environment of ube core classroom.
TheProblems andthei rCauses
At theoutset the evalu ations (Lamber t and Tucker, 197 2 ) confirmed the earl yclaims that theprog ram could break L1instruction out of a tired, le s sth an successful , moldandensurebi l i ng ua l status to those studentswho completedit.
22 Pauley (1985) indicated that speaking was the weakest of the four skills of listening, reading, writing and speaking. When they examined 't he goods and the bads", Swain and Lapkin (1986} found that the productive skills were weaker than the receptive and that that weaknessW<lS further evident when the students were forced to access either spoken or written grammars.
As immersion programs matured throughout the 19805, the literature consistently reported the presenceora high number of errorsin immersion students' speech (Adiv, 1980;
Hammer Ly&Pellerin, 1986; Harley, 1984; Lyster, 1987). 'rho 'a c q ui s i ti on i s t ' methodology was identified as one of the most fundamental problems with Fl.
Research attention has further investigated the causes of these problems (Calve, 1986 ; Fallon, 1985; Hache. 1985;
Lapkin&swain, 1984; Tardif, 1984) and more recently ways to deal with these problems (Hammerly, 1989; Lyster, 1986;
Pellerin and Hammerly, 1986; Saft y , 1989; TardifI;-Weber, 1987).
As Lyster /1987: 705) affirms:
It has been assumed since the beginning of french Immersion that its students were in a second- language acquisition situation. They were therefore exposed to the whole language at once even though they were actually in a learning environment, the classroom.
23 Hammerly, too, (198 9: 568 )ha s seriousl yquestioned the premisethat immersion is an id ea l ac qui s i t i on environmen t.
five- and si x-yea r- o l dchildre n al r e ad y kn ow one langua ge, a fa c t that hasa mar ke d effec t on the learning of another la nguage ,andthat
in the classroomen vi ronm ent , eachchildsharesthe attentionof onlyone nat i ve spea k er(if that) while interacting wi t h 2S or 30 other children ignorant of French inste ad of being surroundedby nativespeakers of French.
PrecedingHammerly , thelit era tu r e had begun to give not i c e to thiser ror in like ni ng the FI le a rn i n g environment to thatof afi r s t languagele a r n i n g environment (Calve, 1986; Hache,1985;Jones, 1984; Tardif, 19BIl).
The curricu lumtha t wa s use dto foster such learning constituted a second cause of difficulty. It would follow thatifa natur a listic, acquisitionistenvironment for language lea r n ing exists becauseof th e nat u r e of the imme r s i on classroom, thenthose res ponsi ble for the curric ulumof suchpro g rams wo uldtu rn to lan g ua g e arts programs for French first lan guage (L1) lea r ner s. Th i s practice, coupled wi t h the morepractica l si tua t i on wh ich existed as a simpleresult of imme r s i on-typela n g ua g e programsbeing a recent innovation, i.e. there we r e no curriculumma t e r i a l s that hadbee n prepared forthis
2.
part icula r genre of languageat.udent, effectivelylimited thechoic eof immersi o n curricu lum planners to Fr enchL1
langua gemat e ri als.
As the field bega n to seriousl yexamineth ei r lesstha n id e alpro duc t, thela ck ofa curri culu mappropriate to the needs of theimmersionstude nt bec amemo r e apparent. "Host of the i r (FI studen t s). . .expo sur e to the language was throu g hma t e rial sdesi g ned for nati v e sp e akers ra the r tha n fo r aec ond-daaquaq e learners." Lyste r' s (19S,?: 705) vi e ws grow stro ngeras he laterpropos e s that "immers i on student s' fos s ilized interlanquageresultsfromthi s teac h i ng metho do log y whic h1s aimed at fir st-langua geusers". He indicated fu r ther that"mos t materi alsdeveloped fornat i ve speake rsof Fre nchare prob a b lyinappropiate for the immersion ctaseecca .> Somecurricu l um materials for FI are slowlybec omi ng availablebut, as re c e ntl y as 1989, one practitionerstatedmost emphatically: "One of the most signi f i c ant aca d e mi c cha ll en ge s still fa ci ng most Frenc h immersionte a cher s isthesca rci t yof appropriat e cu r r i c u lum mate ri als tobe tau gh t in Frenc h." (Saft y, 198 9 : 549-550J.
Further, it wouldse e m at the out s e t that immersi on teacher smost ideally suited to this natura li st language setti ng wou ldbe fr a nc o ph ones orfluent anglopho nes tr a ined toteachyo ungstudent sof their own langu ag e . Evaluat o r s
25 of the immersion programsacross the country attestedto thi s practice but as the 198 05progressed began to see the inhe r e nt problems:
Many immersionteachers have littleor notraining in second-language teaching. Instead they are tr a ine d to use traditional methods andto teach ch ildren in their mother tongue. Consequently, thereis a seri ous lack of well-preparedlanguage teachers in the immersionprogram. The co mmunica t i v e approachrequireste a c h e rstr a i n e d tointegratefir stand second language methodology . However, basic traininginschool s ofeducat ionare notgeared forinunersi on teach ing
(Cazabonand sd ee-caeebcn , 1987: 7).
Anglophones fluent inthe L2andin s tru c t e d inprimary methodsbegan tobe vi e we d more favorablyand actively sought . However, such well-suitedapplicantswere Ln short supply . Thecall forbe t t e r , moreappropriately trained imme rs ion teachersis repeated throughthe literature
(Calve, 1986; Hache, 1985 ; Lapkin, 1984; Ob ad i a , 1981;
Saf ty, 1989 ; Tardif, 1984).
The recent FI literature has tendered severa l wo r thwhil e insights into the short c omingsof FI language le a r n i ng. Lapkin and Swain (1984) maintain that recurring error patterns can be explainedby the limited chancesfor practice in the FI classroom. Increased output, they
26 contend, cou l d positive lyeffect f'I oral perfo rmance.
Nettenand Spain (l9891suggest that thesesrecur ri n g erro r s are alsoa functionof the teachingstrategiesemployedby th e teacher as "he/sheco r r e c t s." Lyster (1986: 715 ) proposesth e additionof:
a linguist icsyllabus whic hwouldhave as its goal th e prevention ofthe earlyfossilizat ionof immersionFrench. I tshouldbe presented ina systematic and graded way beginning in the first years of French Immersion .
Fallon (1986: 12) suggests
a shift fro m a type of instructi on thatai msto transmit mainly surface languagest r uc t u r e s unrelated to the child's inte r est , previous experience and need for growth of mind to teaching strategiesbased on creativeand in tr insica l ly interesting activities in whichchildrenare actively committed.
Implicat.ionsforFI Pedagogy
If FI is not whollyacquisitionist, it must be admitted,by vi r t ue ofits very naturewhich re q uire s that in h e r e n t insuch a language learningenvironment are many characteristicsof anatural ist one ,tha t "t h e lear ni ng of language per se is made quitein ci de nt a lto learninghow to make and do new and interestingthings. The ne w language
27 becomes a constant verbal accompanimentratherthanthe focus" (Lamber t, 1984:12). Yet the la ng ua ge learnercoming tosuchan environmentisle a r n i nghis/hersecondlanguage and nothi s /herfirst. This process, althoughnot tota lly divorcedfrom L1le a r n i ng , involves a process particular to the Lllearning task.
Stern (1983:393) maintains that: . . .the disti nc t i on between learningfrom expo sureto the secondla ng ua gein the target languageenvironment and learning from a teacher is not rig id. The twocondit io ns can be visuali zedin a continuum.
He argues th a t learni ng and acquisitionare complementary . While it is valuable tothele a rni ngof a new language to be exposed tothe targetenvironment, valuablele a r n i n gisals o to be gained from the for mal teaching ofth e classroom.
Cl a s s r o oms , giventhe methodologyespoused by the te a ch e r aswe l l as the program beingta u gh t , can take on as pect s ofboththe formal and the informa lla n gua g e environmen t. The FI environment, asit has been described prev i ous ly, leans fairly heavily towardth e acquisit ionend of Stern'scontinuum. FI, in the context ofth e rec ommenda tions of suchtheoristsas Hammerly (1982, 1987, 1989); Lyster (19d9);Nemmi (1985); Pellerin (1986); Fallon 11986) ; and Hammerly (1986) inorder to in c l ud e more formal
28 language learning inthe model, needs to move toward the learning end of that continuum. It is in embracing both ends of the continuum that the FI pedagogy can attend more fully to a second, rather a first, la n g ua g e learning task.
FI Ir":erlanqu aqo- -Er r o r Correction
The PI interlangu8ge is the product to be evaluated and this product has been seen to be consistently error ridden.
These errors have been observed to be somewhat systematic across different immersion populations. It would seem, then, that prior to more efficient oral evaluation, one must recognize that all errors were not "created equal"but are demonstrative of the mental activity that typifies a fitting together ofthe many componentsof a language. Many such errors do not impede communication (Ca r e y&Cummins, 1983;
Szamosi, Swain& Lapkin, 19791. As auch, they must figure, perhaps even positively, in the development of oral competence.
Traditionally,errors have been very simplistically interpreted as signsthat theL~student had not mastered thoseas p e ct s of the Ll being studied and that those errors must be corrected. Lado (1957) was among the first to look on errors as evidence of creating a new language code that the learnerwa s experiencing.
The hypothesis that these errors should be viewed more objectively, asan indication of what difficulties the
29 learner wa s experiencingwi th the language, wa s given credence bysuch later li ngu ists as Ne mser (1971 ) and Selinker (19721 who heavil y re se arc hed this whol ephe n ome n on of «rro r . From thi s research wa s borntheviewthat there exists (Se l i nk e r, 1972: 214)
. . . a separa te lin gu i st i c system ba s e d on observableoutput wh i c h resu lts fr om a learner 's attempted produc tio nof a TL (t a r g e t la nguag e ) norm. Th i s ling uisticsystem wewi ll ca ll interlanguage (IL).
The phenomeno nof a langua ge learner'5lan g u a gewa s thus recognizedand named.
ThisIL of theL1learnerpossesses certainobservable characteristics. It is:
1. systematic
2. separate fr o man dindependent of bothL: and Ll 3. particular to the in d i v i d ua l (mi ght be generalized
toaparticular groupwith simila r linguistic backgrounds and simi l a r L,le ar n i n genv i r o nme n t s as isth e case of most CanadianFI le ar n e r s) 4. tra nsitiona l (Corder, 197 8 ; Corder, 1981;Faerch,
1979; Nemser, 1971; Selinker, 197 2; Selinker, Swain
&Dumas, 197 9; Ta r on e , 198 2 ) .
30 The ILhypothe s i swas first thou gh t tobeapplicable onlytoadu lts . However. ina study by Selinker, Swain and Dumas (1971: 1401. theypresent ev ide nc e that :
the IL hypothe s is canbe ext e nded to child- la nguageacquisition set t ings , whenth e second- langu age acqu is it i o nisnon-simultaneous andalso when it occu r s in the absence of na t ive spea ki ng peers of TL.
The ILphenomenon is now effect ivelyan unquea ticne d productof the French imme r s i onlanguag elearning environment, an environment whichisrefle ct ive of theabo ve cha r ac t eris t ics . ThisIL,while havi ngthepote nt ia l to aid si gnificantl y inthestud yof L1learning. bec omes a concern toFI pra c t itionerswho are able to concur with three of the fourofthe above characteri sticsof IL. Howeve r , it is their contention theFI inte r lan guage, particularlygiven the abs e nc eof manyof the fosteringconditionsof the natu r a l lang uage le ar ni ngenvironment, isch ara c t e ri ze d pri nci pall yby its te ndencytofos s il iz e. Ha mmer ly (1982:
1761 explains: "Fos silizat ionrefe r s to approxima tiverules tha t do not goawaybut becomepa r t of ast abl e
int e r l angua ge " .
In Hammerly'sview (19B2), theFI int e r l a ngua geis SUbjectto fossili zat ionbecause the centralfocusof an FI pr ogra mis communicat ionrat her than er ror corr e c ti on .
31 Secondly, he suggests (1982: 268):
immer.sionstudents are expected to acquire th e second languagewithin le a r n i ng conctitions--the classroam--which do not resemble acquisition conditions (being surrounded by second language speaker-s in the environment) .
Researchers/theorists have hequn to turn their focus to tiletr e a t me n t of error (Pellerin&Hammerly, 1986; Tardi f, 1980; Tardif&Anglejan, 1981). Unlike the core French cl a s s r o om which provides a verylimi t e d oral product that no doubt challenges theteacher with regard to the technique of error correction, the~I classroomoral fabric is that very error-ridden languagele a r n i ng product which isin need of improvement.
There has been little empiricalevidence to suggest when to correct L2errors. Some studies, though, have produced interpretable data. Chastain (1980) suggests that error correctionshould occur if nativespeakers are uncomfortablewi t h the message. Hammerly (1982: 277-278) proposes a more definite response:
it is unrealisticto try to correct all errors, especially during communicative activities ... all errors should be corrected during the presentation and manipu lationphases of the teaching cycle •..
32 Burtand Kiparsky (19 72) have made aus e f ul distinc tion betweenglobal error and local error. Gl obal crror-is th a t error whi c h causes the listener to misunderstanda message whereasa local error relatestoan element of a mes snqe and doe s not imp e d e communication.
Ha v i n g conside redthisglobal/ l oca l vi ewof errors, Hammerly (l982: 278) proposesa hierarchyof er ror s that sho uldprove a valuable guide as to whichmistakes (bec ause it is impossib le toco rre c t all) to ch o o s e for correction.
1. Errorsthat inte rferewithth e inte l l i g i b il it y of the message to a monolingual nat i ve speaker.
2. Errors that areuna cc e ptable - - i r rit at i ngto .alive speakers .
3. Errors involv i ngrulesth a t have already been ta ught.
'I. Freque nterrorsof any kind. (Hedoe s odmtt; the Burt and Kiparsky disti nct i onbetweengl obal and lo c a l error. He alsoadmi t s thati f the erroris not s ystematLc, it is a mis takerather th a n an error, and as such shouldbe ignored.)
5. Er r or s resulting from venturinginto Li nquistIceLly unkno wnterritory, especia llyth os e showi ng natIvc language interference.
Other such hierarchieshave resulted from study (Al l wr i gh t , 1975; Hendrickson, 19 7 8; Holley&-King, 1911; Ta rdifand
33 d'Anglejan, 19B1) and pr ovide someinsightinto the troublingque s t i on ofwhe n to correcter r o r .
Agreement isreachedonthis "whento correct" questio n only to the rat hernebulouslevel of looselywo r de d hierarchies of error. Howth i serror 1.3 to be treated in the evaluation of the speechproductis a question that invites research.
AnAlte:r:nate Teaching/LearningModel forFI
A language lear ning theorythat has grownfromjust such awi de r understandingof the Ll learni ngdynamic is the communicative competence theory that embodies the communicative approach. Although the communicative approach as i t has been developed and interpretedby Breen and Candlin (1979), BrumEit (1984), Cana le an d Swain (1980), Lit t lewood (1981), Savignon (1972, 1983) pertains specificallyto the core L2learning environment, thereare many tenets of this philosophy of L2learning that may be appliedto the FI context.
Tardif (1 985 ), ale a di ng practitione rand theoristin FI, has described the communicativeapproachas being learner-centered withthe learner beingconstantlyput into communication trials whe r e skills enabling the learnerto successfullycommunicate a givenmessageare developed.
. doltatre vu In an earlierarticle Tardif , in attemptingto deac r Lbe a methodology attune dto the needs of immersion learners, proposes such guidingprinciplesas (Ta r d if1984:366-361) :
1. . . .il faut insistersur lapr Lrnaut.e de I'oral. 2. • . . la neceesice d'un enseignement centre
sur I'apprenant. L''Heve commeparticipant actif.
Shecle a r l y states the connectio nin her presentation ofthe thirdprinciple.
3. L'app r oche communicativeen situation d'immersionexrceunenouvelle orientation dans Le contenu des cours . . . en mettenc l'accent sur Ie sens p I utOt que surla forme.
Not only is therea marked similarity of these immersi on descriptorsto thoseof the communicativeapproachlis t e d above, thesesimilari tiesechothrough the communicative appro achliterature (Brumfit, 1984; Gareau , 1987;
Littl ewood, 1981; Savignon, 1983; Stern, 1983). Thus, the communicative approach,though having its origins in the core L2learningcontext, canbeseen to be characteristic of the FI learning context aswe ll .
Communicativa Competence
Theconstru c t, communicativecompetence {eel , the qoaI of the communicative app r o a c h seemsworthyofst ud y as a means throughwh i c h FI interlan g ua ge could be first
35 evaluated , then improved. Na t ive- l ike ora l compet e nce continues to elude eventh e mos t ski ll fu l gr a du a t es of an PI program. The de f i n i ti on of amo r e ach ievabl e lingu i s t i c goal could perh a ps mo rerea l i s tically lie in the notion of ce. I tis through a cle a r e r und e r s ta nd i n g of this construct that some prog ressmight beeffe c t e d inthe evaluationof FI oral production.
In 1912, the linguistHymes firstcoined the term
"c o mmu n i c a t i v e competence" whi c h as he proposed it (as reported in Stern, 1983: 229) , impli edakn owledg e of :
"whe n to speak , when not and as to what to talk aboutwith wh om, where and inwhat manner.II
The ensuingdebate as towha t learnings we re to be ma s t e r e d before onewa s communicativelycompetent grew as the concept earned more andmore favo u r in Lz pedagog y . The term was subsequentl y st udiedvery thoroughly (Can ale , 1983;
Canale and Swain , 1980; Savignon , 198 3) and given botha theoreticalas wel l as a practica l fra mework. Gone was the rather tentative, vaguepr o p o sal of Hymes. The Canale -Swain frameworkhelpedto de fine th econst r uct , butit also opened thewa y for furt he rinte rp retationsothat unive r s al acceptanceofwha t it mean s to be communi c a ti vely competent still eludesthe fleld.
The literature also bearswitnesstotheab s e nc e of un I ver saI acceptanceof met ho dolog y applicabl e to ce. Swan (1985a, 1985b) sees as its greate s t weakness, the use of
J6 broaddogmatic terms thatdetractfromany concret e re ali z a t i on of what CCme a nsl in gu i s t i ca l l y . These broad terms alsode tra c t from a clea r understand ingof its pedagogicalimplications (Swa n , 1985a: 7): "a li mited but valuableinsight has been over -generalized and is presented as ifi tapplied to thewhol e of language andal l of la nguage teaching."
Ase c ond weakness of the CC approach to second language learni ng , Swan sugg ests (1985a, 1985b) , followsfroma wi de ly acceptedassumption that young L1learners neither- posse s s nor can transfernormal, communicative skills from their native lang u a g e. Thisis at the heartof thegrowing ar g ume n t (Gareau, 19B7; Neroni , 1985; Swan, 1985a; Swan , 1985b) , that, although it is conducive to more efficient la ngua ge lea r n i ng to simulate realcommunicative situations
(t he y , at best ,remainon l ysimulations ) rat herthanto enga ge in stilted, rate exchang es, formallytaughtqrammar sho uldhave a more valid pl a ce withinthe communicative approach.
'rne Canale-S wain (1 9 8 0 ) framework remains the most uni ve r s all y accepted aswe ll as theoretically sound conce ptua lizationof communica tivecompetence.I t stated th atembeddedin the notion of communicative competenceare four compone nts: grammat icalcompetenc e , soc i oli n g ui s t ic co mpet e nce, discourse comp etence andst r a t e g i c competence.
The fo u r t h compet ence ,strategic competence, whichcomprises a se t of strategies whi ch the learner is able to call upon
37 i fa communicative exchange breaks down,is central to the question of how FI learners best man ifest their communicative competence.
Communicative competence remains the most widely emb r a c e dapproach to L1teachingin spite of criticism. In any attempt to ""arkwith i n the construct of communicative competence, dueconsideration should be given to view criticism constructively.
Strategi!!,!
Communicative competence is the consc r uct; through whi c h this study proposes to view FI student speech. Strategic competence is one of the four components thatcomprise CC (Canale and Swain, 1980) and thus is a fundamental goal of the communicative approach. Vital to strategic competence is the competent use of a variety of strategias to effect language learningor communicationin the L2 • Strategic competence, then ,derives from a trial and error viewof learning and hence includes error as a necessary step toward successful learning. Since it is the intention of this study to look at howto evaluate student L2 inter language, a language phenomenon in which error is an integral part, then a discussion of this one as pec t of CC is in order. Through further study, it is hoped that some insight might be gained thatwo u l d aid in the improvementof the linguistic quality of the FI inter language. It is therefore, appropriate to
38 re viewthis corpus of the L, body of literature for any insightsthat might aid in theimprov ement in the linguistic qualityof the FI int e r l a ng ua ge .
The inter lang ua ge of L2learne rs ha s been found to be indicativeof strategyuse (Bialystok , 1984; Faerchand Kasper, 198 3 ; Tarone, 198 3) and from thi s IL, taxonomiesof strat egie semployedby L2le a r ne r s have bee nproposed
(Bi a lysto k , 1984 ; Fa erch (, Kas p e r , 19 83 ; Oxfor d ,Lav ineand Crookal1, 1989; Pari bakht ,1985; 're rone , 1980). 1\concise beginning po in t defin itionofastrategyis propo.c:ed by Reiss (1986:513): "a conscious approach used by an indivi dualto facilitate learning." Tarone's (19In: 72) definitionseemsto refer moreto theheart of the communicati vedynamic , negotiation :
a communicative strategyisamutualat t e mpt of twoint e rlocutors to agree on a mean ingin si t ua t i onswhe re requisitemeaningstructuresdo not se emto be shared. (meaning structures includeboth linguistic andsociolinguis tic structures.1
In ear lierdi s cuss Lons of strateg yuse by L1theoris ts, arelabe ll edei t her communicative (Cord er , 1983;
Fal. dKasp e r, 19 8 3; 're xcne,1983)or learning (Bia l y stok , 19 8 4 ). The re seemedto beno clear agreement as to what constitutedthe diffe r en ce betw ee nthe two.
39 Paribakht (1965: 142) in suggesting that strategic competence should embracethetwo does make that dist inction stating that: "l e a rn i n g strategies [are) used to expand the speaker's competence and communication strategies Carel used to exploiti t."
Bialystok(1984: 4-51 identifies three criteria of the notion of strategy:
1. Problematicity: strategies are adapted when problems in ei thee learning or production are perceived.
2. Consciousness: refers et ther to the learner's awareness that the strategy is being employed for a particular purpose, or the awareness ofhowthat strategy might achieve its intended effect. 3. Intentionality: the learner's control over those
strategies so that particular ones may be selected from the range of options and deliberately applied to achieve certain effects.
Bialystok (1 9 8 4 : 7) raises the questionof the extent to which learners areIIin control of the selection of these devices and [are] at least somewhat conscious of their application and effect." Wenden (1986) identified metacognitive strategies such as paying attention, consciously practicing specific language tasks where the degree of consciousness and intentionality was extremely high. Bialystok(1984) argues that child language learners
'0 use ma ny of the sameproble m-solvingtechniquesas adults when faced with theta s kof acqui ringthela ng ua ge . It is in thedegreeto wh i c h these pr ob l e m-s o l v i ng techniques incl udethethreecriteria: problematicity, consciousness and intentionality that adult use and child use of strat egies is different; young Ll le a rne r s being somewhat le s s me t ac o gni t ive l y active than adult Lllearners. Fr o m a study in early FI, xa rrIe (1989: 95) foundthat:
Young subjects may not be awareof actuallychoosing strategies. They are aware ofla n g uage problems and tryto communicate;however, they do not appear tobe consciously choosing a strategy to overcome the problem. They areperhapscopying the language which they have heard or read.
Immersion methodologies ha ve tended to emphasizethe commun icativedimensions ofthelangua ge. However , Ita second purpose of language whi c h is often overlooked is that of language for discovery and learning" (Tardif andWe ber , 1987: 731. I fthis purpose of languageis consideredmore closely thenbothpedagogues and evaluators must become more acutelyawareofL2speakers as "active meaning-makers conti nuall y attemptingtomake sense of their exper Lencea"
(Tardif andweber, 19B7:13).
Pari ba kht (1985: H21ma kesthe suggestion that:
"St r ate gi c competence appearsto develop in the speakers Ll
with th e ind ividua l ' s increasing la nguageexperience and to
"
be freely transferab le to Lz learningsituations.tI This is significantwhenone considers th atthe FIpri ma ry learne r has betweenfi v eand ni ne ye ar s ofst ra t egy expert ise from which to dr aw. Ha rle y '5 (1984) repo r t ingof pronou nce d ability on the pa r t ofFI learners tousest ra t egie s effective l ywo uldse em to suppor t theabove contention . caution is in orde r that, whilest r a tegy use is a skill tha t wo u l d seem to carryoverto new learn i ng situations,the processes of learningaLl and a L,ar e dist i nc t.
FI strate g yuse vis
a
vi s th eFI interlangua ge,a remar kab l y consistentclassroomvariet y of fl awed L2r seems to be in contr astto adult Lz use whic h produceslearner behavior that is"t r a n s i t io na landdynamic" (Paribakht, 1985:141). Further to this taak, the strategymethodology isever impr ov i n g. Se veral recent works have proposed taxo nomiesof strategies that gobeyond the surfacefeatures in learn e r speechand conc entrat e mor e full y onthe menta l processes bei ng activiated bythe Llle ar ner (Paribakht, 1985; Bongaerts andPou li sse,1989 ) . Such adv a nc e s canonly assistin thesearch forwa y s to improve FI instruc tionand the learningwh i c his its product .42 Commun icati ve Language Te s t i ng
Ke l leen Toohey (1984 : 389) inparaphrasingCanaleand Swain(1980) an dWesche (1 gB! ) statedthat:
the languageteacher, aswel l as the language tester, has come to see language pr Of i cie ncyas something broa derthanmasteryov e ra l imited set of struc tural items.
This is particularly truewh e noral prOficiency is considere din th e CC context. The above contentionis adher edto inanyatte mptsto describe or formulat eoral tests thatmeasure CC (Swain, 1984; Toohey, 1981J; We s c he , 1981). In an integrativeoral language test, then, the ability to keep theme s s ag e going in theface ofling u l st.ie limitationsis what isto be ultimatelymeasured. Some guide lines for the formulationof such tests exist (Howard , 198 0; Newsham , 1989; Toohe y, 1984 ; We s c h e, 1981).
The di re c t ion of tho s e feworal communicative tests whic hha ve bee n for mulatedhas beentowa r dthe settingof le ve lsof spoke n ability. The ACTFL interview wi del y used across th e Unit e dStates to measureoralLl performanceuses thisapp r o a ch . TheFr e nc h 3200 OralInterview developed for the pro vi nceofNewf o u ndl an d has derived from this type of fo rma t. The highschool core L,stude ntsevalua t e dby this int e r vi ew are rat ed on a scalefromone to five. Eachlevel on thescale is marke dby a setof gener al language desc riptor s whichcharacte rize the speechof that level .
43 For example, Le v e l 2 of that scale is ma rkedbythe following descriptors:
- speaksmore inph r as e s thanisolatedwords - use s memor iz. ed sentences
- uses a storeof stockexpressions - tries to create but not often successful - link s learn edelements
- is unable to consistentlyspeak in sentences - ishe a vil y depen d e nt on use of the present tense The trained interviewer usingthis fo r ma t is also set the task. of evaluating the continuityand comprehensibility of the student' smessage. CC is clearly the organiz ing frameworkof such an evaluativeapproach.
Th i s studyseekstogo beyond givin g lip servrcetothe fact that strategyuse is apo s it ive sig n of language processingonthe part of the L1le a rneran d attemptsto cha r t an eva luat ivedirectionwhich would mor e
realis itical l ydefineoral proficienc yfor primary FI second languagele a rn e r s.
Summary
This ch a pterhas re viewedthose aspe ctsof L2accepted theorythat are relevant to the FI lang uage lea r n i ng enviro nment. Thehi s t o ry , types ,th eoretica lfoundations , probl ems ,as well as possiblecauses and implica tions of thosepr oble ms havebee n discussed.
CHAPTERIII PROCEDURE FOR THESTUDY
Introdu ction
Thi s ch a pt er presentsa discussi onof the typeand designof th e st udy,the sample,the instruments,the procedures forthecolle ct io n and analysisofthedata. It conc ludeswiththe questionwbi chdirectedthisutudy.
TypeofStudY
"A studythat seekstoest ablish normat i ve inf o r mati on . . .requiresthe descri pt iv eapproa ch ." Thi s contention of F.C. Helmstander' s (1 970:69) is borneout inmost qualitativeresearch methodolo gies whichsugges tthat when the researcher is looki ngto findhow people act i.n aql vcn situation, thequal itative is the research trad i ti on use d.
Th i s studyhasthe traitsof a quali ta t ive st udyin thatit attemptsto describewholisti ca lly thl.. phe nome non of the speech of fI primaryst uden ts. It derivesfr om qualitativetraditionals o in tnat thedat afor this stu dy were collectedinwords and have been pr esentedas such rat he r than numerically. Fur ther, th e basi s of the reasoningof th is stu dyis qraundadinthequali t at i ve tradition . This researcherapp r oache d the task of examining tha t speechinductivel y. Finally ,qualita tiveresearchis formulatedto di s co v er and explainsimilarity ratherthan
45 variance. In tha t the stated goalof this study was to discover the common characteristics of a given speech sample , i talso illustrates this characteristic. The study, then, is guided by several of the precepts of qualitative research.
There are elements of another research tradition at wo r k here also. It is the survey approach that enables researchers to describeth e specific behaviors of people across a given population. The oral productof thepdmary FI pupil in Newfoundlandcould best be sampled by surveying that product across schools. The study, then, borrows from and is shapedbyboth these traditions.
De signof theStudy
Th e studywa s a two-tie r edone. Firstly , 15 primaryFI students were interviewed. Du rin g an intervie wdesigned to work. themthrough various language functions, the students sp o k.e with a trained interviewer. The interviewswe r e recorded on audio tape. This flrst stage yielded the speech samples.
Following this stage the datawa s then analyzedin order to determine its characteristics. The researcher listened to the tapes, transcribed them, perused the data in order to distinguishsimilaritiesand differencesin the students' speech. Those characteristics we r e then separated
46 by grade levelswh e r e possible. Models illustrativeof the developmentof FI speech from grades I to IIIwe r e then produced.
In a second stage, nine FI primary teacherswere interviewed and askedhowthey wou lddescribe the speech of FI primary students. The descriptions sought and received were open-ended , generalizedconceptualizationsof the students L2• The teacher datawa s then corapc red to the speech profilesyielded from the studentdata.
Thereseems tobe agr eementamong research methodologists that there is need for a 'r o u g h working frame' (Miles, 1979: 1191 to give some guidance in the shaping of the study. Wh ile this researcher approached the studywi t h no clea r statement of whatwa s thought to be containedin the data, there existeda 'r oug hwo r k i ng frame,' The literatu re researched for the study, coupled wit.h years in the core French classroom and some experience with FI primarychildren, providedthe researcher with a frame of reference from which to look.at the data. Further, the speechwh i c h the data exemplifiedis a simple learner's speech. It has not yet attained a degree of sophistication so as to render the task of seeingwha t is clearly salient dif ficult. It is from th at frame of reference that the characte rist icsandconfigurations of FI speechpresented in the following chapterwe r e conceived.
"
sample
The populationconsistedof 15 PI pr ima r y stud e ntsand 9 FI primaryteachers all ofNewf ound la nd and Labr a do r.
Studentsample. The st u de nt swer e chosen tobe repres entativeof all typesof FI schools across the province. Cautionwa s applied so that no on e schoolor schoolsyste m wa s over rep resented. Of the fi f teen students in thesamp le:
- 5 students came from Grade I
- 3 studentscame fromur ba n schools; 2 from rural - 5 students came from Gra de II
- 3 students came fromur b a n schools; 2 fromrur a l - 5 st udents came fromGrade III.
- 3 stud e ntscame from urbanschools; 2 from ru ral. All students be ga n learningFrenchin Kind e rga rten. Wh il e in Kindergarten they receivedone hundre dpercentof theirinstructionin French. InGrades I and II instruction wasabout eight y per c e n t inFr en c hwhi l e in Gra de III the instructionwas about seventy-five percentinFr e n c h.
The st ude nts wh o partici pa tedin the study were chosen latein the springofthe school yearwhil e they were in eitherGrad es I, IIor III. Owing to difficulties causedby both school schedulesan d the in t erv i e we r' s schedu le, they we r e interviewedinthe early fall of the nex t ye ar. Because the subsequent school year hadprogressed ver y
