1887
Volume 6, Issue 2
  • ISSN 2212-8433
  • E-ISSN: 2212-8441
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

Over 11% of Canadian students are currently enrolled in French immersion (FI) – a program where French is a subject of study and is the language of instruction in at least two content areas. Research shows that stakeholders in FI initial teacher education (ITE) programs identify French language proficiency development as an area of high priority; however, Canadian ITE programs do not typically provide linguistic support. This article reports on an adaptation and implementation of the (CEFR) (specifically, the as part of a remedial 24-week French writing course in an FSL ITE program focused on developing French proficiency. Student-teachers ( = 25) and the course instructor identified strengths and challenges associated with this initiative via surveys and interviews. Findings show participant convergence and divergence on the portfolio experience, raising implications for decision-making related to its use in ITE programs targeting FI teachers.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/jicb.17008.arn
2018-10-23
2019-11-13
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Arnott, S., Brogden, L. M., Faez, F., Peguret, M., Piccardo, E., Rehner, K., Taylor, S. K., & Wernicke, M.
    (2017) The Common European Framework of Reference (CEFR) in Canada: A research agenda. Canadian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 20(1), 31–54.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Arnott, S., & Vignola, M. J.
    (2018) Using a language portfolio in FSL teacher education: Student and instructor perspectives. Paper presentation at theconference of the Canadian Association of Applied Linguistics, Regina, SK, 29 May 2018.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Association canadienne des professionnels de l’immersion, ACPI
    Association canadienne des professionnels de l’immersion, ACPI (2017) Sondage pancandien: Résultats préliminaires du sondage mené par l’ACPI, en octobre 2017, dans le but de mieux comprendre les réalités des professionnels de l’immersion française au Canada. Retrieved from www.acpi.ca/evenements/consultation-pancanadienne-de-l-acpi
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Bayliss, D., & Vignola, M. J.
    (2007) Training non-native second language teachers: The case of Anglophone FSL teacher candidates. Canadian Modern Language Review, 63(3), 371–398. doi: 10.3138/K2U7‑H14L‑5471‑61W0
    https://doi.org/10.3138/K2U7-H14L-5471-61W0 [Google Scholar]
  5. (2000) Assessing language proficiency of FSL candidates: What makes a successful candidate?Canadian Modern Language Review, 57(2), 217–244. doi: 10.3138/cmlr.57.2.217
    https://doi.org/10.3138/cmlr.57.2.217 [Google Scholar]
  6. Bergil, A. S., & Sariçoban, A.
    (2017) The use of EPOSTL to determine the self-efficacy of prospective EFL teachers: Raising awareness in English language teacher education. Journal of Language and Linguistic Studies, 13(1), 399–411.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Bournot-Trites, M.
    (2008) Vision pour le soutien des acquis linguistiques des enseignants de FLS. Revue Canadienne de Linguistique Appliquée, 11(1), 21–39.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Burkert, A., & Schwienhorst, K.
    (2008) Focus on the student teacher: The European portfolio for student teachers of languages (EPOSTL) as a tool to develop teacher autonomy. Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching, 2(3), 238–252. doi: 10.1080/17501220802158941
    https://doi.org/10.1080/17501220802158941 [Google Scholar]
  9. Cakir, A., & Balcikanli, C.
    (2012) The use of the European portfolio for student teachers of languages (EPOSTL) to foster teacher autonomy: English language teaching (ELT) student teachers’ and teacher trainers’ views. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 37(3), 1–16. doi: 10.14221/ajte.2012v37n3.7
    https://doi.org/10.14221/ajte.2012v37n3.7 [Google Scholar]
  10. Canadian Parents for French
    Canadian Parents for French (2014) French second language programs and student performance. Retrieved from https://cpf.ca/en/files/CPFMagazine_SPR-SUMM2014​_eVersion.pdf
  11. Canadian Parents for French
    Canadian Parents for French (2017) French second language enrolment statistics: 2011–12 to 2015–16. Retrieved from https://cpf.ca/en/files/Enrolement-Stats.pdf
  12. Carr, W.
    (2010) Raising FLAGS: Renewing core French at the pre-service teacher level. Canadian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 13(1), 37–51.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Centre for Applied Second Language Studies (University of Oregon)
    Centre for Applied Second Language Studies (University of Oregon) (2017) Linguafolio Online. Retrieved from https://linguafolio.uoregon.edu/
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Christiansen, H., & Laplante, B.
    (2004) Second language pre-service teachers as learners: The language portfolio project. The Canadian Modern Language Review, 60(4), 439–455. doi: 10.3138/cmlr.60.4.439
    https://doi.org/10.3138/cmlr.60.4.439 [Google Scholar]
  15. Council of Europe
    Council of Europe (2001) A Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: Learning, teaching, assessment. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Retrieved from https://www.coe.int/t/dg4/linguistic/source/framework_en.pdf
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Council of Europe
    Council of Europe (2017a) Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: Learning, teaching, assessment. Companion volume with new descriptors. Retrieved from https://rm.coe.int/common-european-framework-of-reference-for-languages-learning-teaching/168074a4e2
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Council of Europe
    Council of Europe (2017b) Developing an ELP. Retrieved from www.coe.int/en/web/portfolio/home1
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Council of Ministers of Education, Canada (CMEC)
    Council of Ministers of Education, Canada (CMEC) (2010) L’exploitation du Cadre européen commun de reference pour les langues (CECR) dans le contexte canadien: Guide à l’intention des responsables de l’élaboration des politiques et des concepteurs de programmes d’études. Retrieved from cmec.ca/docs/CECR-contexte-canadien.pdf
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Creswell, J. W.
    (2012) Educational research: Planning, conducting and evaluating quantitative and qualitative research (4th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Day, E. M., & Shapson, S.
    (1996) A national survey: French Immersion teachers’ preparation and their professional development needs. The Canadian Modern Language Review, 52, 248–270. doi: 10.3138/cmlr.52.2.248
    https://doi.org/10.3138/cmlr.52.2.248 [Google Scholar]
  21. Donato, R., & McCormick, D.
    (1994) A sociocultural perspective on language learning strategies: The role of mediation. Modern Language Journal, 78, 453–464. doi: 10.1111/j.1540‑4781.1994.tb02063.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.1994.tb02063.x [Google Scholar]
  22. ElAtia, S., & Lemaire, E.
    (2013) Engager les apprenants dans l’auto-évaluation de leurs productions écrites: Le cas du portfolio d’erreurs. Canadian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 16(1), 111–134.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Faez, F.
    (2011) Points of departure: Developing the knowledge base of ESL and FSL teachers for K-12 programs in Canada. Canadian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 14(1), 29–49.
    [Google Scholar]
  24. Flewelling, J.
    (1995) Addressing the challenge for FSL teachers: How to maintain and improve language, pedagogical skills and cultural knowledge. The Canadian Modern Language Review, 52(1), 22–33. doi: 10.3138/cmlr.52.1.22
    https://doi.org/10.3138/cmlr.52.1.22 [Google Scholar]
  25. Gagné, A., & Thomas, R.
    (2011) Language portfolio design for a concurrent teacher education program in Ontario. Synergies Europe, 6, 219–228.
    [Google Scholar]
  26. Karsenti, T., Collin, S., Villeneuve, S., Dumouchel, G., & Roy, N.
    (2008) Why are new French immersion and French as a second language teachers leaving the profession? Results of a Canada-wide survey. Ottawa, ON: Canadian Association of Immersion Teachers.
    [Google Scholar]
  27. Lapkin, S., MacFarlane, A., & Vandergrift, L.
    (2006) Teaching French in Canada: FSL teachers’ perspectives. Ottawa, ON: Canadian Teachers’ Federation.
    [Google Scholar]
  28. Laplante, B. & Christiansen, H.
    (2001) Portfolio langagier en français. The Canadian Modern Language Review, 57, 495–501. doi: 10.3138/cmlr.57.3.495
    https://doi.org/10.3138/cmlr.57.3.495 [Google Scholar]
  29. Lazaruk, W.
    (2007) Avantages linguistiques, scolaires et cognitifs de l’immersion française. La Revue Canadienne des Langues Vivantes, 63(5), 629–654. doi: 10.3138/cmlr.63.5.629
    https://doi.org/10.3138/cmlr.63.5.629 [Google Scholar]
  30. Lemaire, E.
    (2013) L’intégration du Portfolio européen des langues en milieu ouest-canadien minoritaire et universitaire. Canadian Modern Language Review, 69(4), 487–513. doi: 10.3138/cmlr.1273.487
    https://doi.org/10.3138/cmlr.1273.487 [Google Scholar]
  31. Little, D.
    (2009) Language learner autonomy and the European Language Portfolio: Two L2 English examples. Language Teaching, 42(2), 222–233. doi: 10.1017/S0261444808005636
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444808005636 [Google Scholar]
  32. (2011) The Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: A research agenda. Language Teaching, 44(3), 381–393. doi: 10.1017/S0261444811000097
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444811000097 [Google Scholar]
  33. Mandin, L.
    (2010) Portfolio langagier: Les finissants des programmes d’immersion se révèlent. The Canadian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 13(1), 104–118.
    [Google Scholar]
  34. Mathison, S.
    (1988) Why triangulate?Educational Researcher, 17, 13–17. doi: 10.3102/0013189X017002013
    https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X017002013 [Google Scholar]
  35. Newby, D.
    (2012) Supporting good practice in teacher education through the European portfolio for student teachers of languages. Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching, 6(3), 207–218. doi: 10.1080/17501229.2012.725250
    https://doi.org/10.1080/17501229.2012.725250 [Google Scholar]
  36. Newby, D., Allan, R., Fenner, A. B., Jones, B., Komorowska, H., & Soghikyan, K.
    (2007) The European portfolio for student teachers of languages (EPOSTL). Graz: European Center for Modern Languages.
    [Google Scholar]
  37. Newby, D., Fenner, A. B. & Jones, B.
    (2011) Using the European portfolio for student teachers of languages. Graz: European Center for Modern Languages.
    [Google Scholar]
  38. Nihlén, C.
    (2011) What goes into the EPOSTL dossier and why?InD. Newby, A. B. Fenner & B. Jones (eds.), Using the European portfolio for student teachers of languages (pp.55–63). Graz: European Center for Modern Languages.
    [Google Scholar]
  39. North, B.
    (2014) Putting the common European framework of reference to good use. Language Teaching, 47(2), 228–249. doi: 10.1017/S0261444811000206
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444811000206 [Google Scholar]
  40. Ontario College of Teachers
    Ontario College of Teachers (2015) Looking at…Enhanced teacher education. Retrieved from: https://www.oct.ca//media/PDF/Enhancing%20Teacher%20Education/Enhanced_Teacher_Education_EN_Digital.pdf
    [Google Scholar]
  41. Ontario College of Teachers
    Ontario College of Teachers (2017) Initial Teacher Education. Retrieved from https://www.oct.ca/public/professional-standards/how-teachers-are-certified/initial-teacher-education
    [Google Scholar]
  42. Ontario Ministry of Education
    Ontario Ministry of Education (2013) The Ontario Curriculum: French as a second language (Core French, Grades 4–8; Extended French, Grades 4–8; French Immersion, Grades 1–8). Retrieved from www.edu.gov.on.ca/eng/curriculum/elementary/fsl18-2013curr.pdf
    [Google Scholar]
  43. Orlova, N.
    (2011) Challenges of integrating EPOSTL into pre-service teacher training. InD. Newby, A. B. Fenner & B. Jones (eds.), Using the European portfolio for student teachers of languages (pp.19–28). Graz: European Center for Modern Languages.
    [Google Scholar]
  44. Piccardo, E.
    (2011) Du CECR au développement professionnel: Pour une démarche stratégique. Canadian Journal of Applied Linguistics,14(2), 20–52.
    [Google Scholar]
  45. (2013) Plurilingualism and curriculum design: Towards a synergic vision. TESOL Quarterly, 47(3), 600–614. doi: 10.1002/tesq.110
    https://doi.org/10.1002/tesq.110 [Google Scholar]
  46. Ragoonaden, K. O.
    (2011) La compétence interculturelle et la formation initiale: Le point sur le CECR et l’IDI. Canadian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 14(2), 86–105.
    [Google Scholar]
  47. Salvatori, M.
    (2009) A Canadian perspective on language teacher education: Challenges and opportunities. The Modern Language Journal, 93(2), 287–291. doi: 10.1111/j.1540‑4781.2009.00860_9.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.2009.00860_9.x [Google Scholar]
  48. Tedick, D. J.
    (2013) Embracing proficiency and program standards and rising to the challenge: A response to Burke. Modern Language Journal, 97(2), 535–538. doi: 10.1111/j.1540‑4781.2013.12017.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.2013.12017.x [Google Scholar]
  49. Turnbull, M.
    (2011) The Canadian language portfolio for teachers. Ottawa, ON: Canadian Association of Second Language Teachers (CASLT).
    [Google Scholar]
  50. Veilleux, I., & Bournot-Trites, M.
    (2005) Standards for the language competence of French immersion teachers: Is there a danger of erosion?Canadian Journal of Education, 28(3), 487–507. doi: 10.2307/4126480
    https://doi.org/10.2307/4126480 [Google Scholar]
  51. Wernicke, M.
    (2017) Navigating native-speaker ideologies as FSL teacher. Canadian Modern Language Review, 73(2), 208–236. doi: 10.3138/cmlr.2951
    https://doi.org/10.3138/cmlr.2951 [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/jicb.17008.arn
Loading
/content/journals/10.1075/jicb.17008.arn
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): Canada , CEFR , French immersion , initial teacher education and language portfolio
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error