1887
  1. Home
  2. e-Journals
  3. Journal of Immersion and Content-Based Language Education
  4. Volume 6, Issue 2
  5. Article
Volume 6, Issue 2
  • ISSN 2212-8433
  • E-ISSN: 2212-8441
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

As of late, French immersion (FI) teachers have been encouraged to adapt their instruction to support the inclusion and success of students with learning difficulties. In particular, pedagogical concepts such as Universal Design for Learning (UDL) (National Center on Universal Design for Learning, 2014) and differentiated instruction (Tomlinson, 2004) have been promoted as means to do so. This study used observations of nine FI teachers’ classes with the view to exploring their adaptations for students with learning difficulties in hopes of identifying future professional development directions. The observations revealed that the FI teachers were aptly adapting their instruction for the class as a whole whereas they were less apt to modify for individual students. In order to further their inclusive practices, the FI teachers in this study would benefit from future professional development opportunities that focus on differentiating instruction for individuals and conversations about if and how teacher language choices can provide additional means of differentiation.

© John Benjamins
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/jicb.17011.mad
2018-10-23
2024-12-12

  • From This Site

    /content/journals/10.1075/jicb.17011.mad
    dcterms_title,dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
    -contentType:Journal -contentType:Contributor -contentType:Concept -contentType:Institution
    10
    5
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Allen, P., Fröhlich, M., & Spada, N.
    (1983) The communicative orientation of language teaching: An observation scheme. Toronto: Ontario Institute for Studies in Education.
     [Google Scholar]
  2. Arnett, K.
    (2001) The accommodation of Grade 9 students with learning disabilities in the applied grade 9 core French classroom. Toronto: Ontario Institute for Studies in Education.
     [Google Scholar]
  3. (2003) Teacher adaptations in core French: A case study of one grade 9 class. The Canadian Modern Language Review, 60(2), 173–98. doi: 10.3138/cmlr.60.2.173
     https://doi.org/10.3138/cmlr.60.2.173 [Google Scholar]
  4. (2004) Effective teaching and adaptive instruction in core French: A case study of a Grade 8 classroom in Ontario. Toronto: Ontario Institute for Studies in Education.
     [Google Scholar]
  5. (2008) Exploring the use of student perspectives to inform topics in teacher education. Canadian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 11(1), 63–82.
     [Google Scholar]
  6. (2010) Scaffolding in a grade 8 core French classroom: An exploratory case study. The Canadian Modern Language Review, 66(4), 557–582. doi: 10.3138/cmlr.66.4.557
     https://doi.org/10.3138/cmlr.66.4.557 [Google Scholar]
  7. (2013a) The genesis and perpetuation of exemptions and transfers from French second language programs for students with diverse learning needs: A preliminary examination and their link to inclusion. InK. Arnett & C. Mady (Eds). Minority populations in Canadian second language education (pp.103–117). Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters. doi: 10.21832/9781783090310‑009
     https://doi.org/10.21832/9781783090310-009 [Google Scholar]
  8. (2013b) Languages for all: How to support and challenge students in a second language classroom. Toronto: ON: Pearson Education.
     [Google Scholar]
  9. Arnett, K., & Mady, C.
    (2010) A critically conscious examination of special education within FSL and its relevance to FSL teacher education programs. Canadian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 13(1), 19–36.
     [Google Scholar]
  10. Arnett, K., Mady, C., & Muilenburg, L.
    (2014) Canadian FSL teacher candidate beliefs about students with learning difficulties. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 4(3), 447–457. doi: 10.4304/tpls.4.3.447‑457
     https://doi.org/10.4304/tpls.4.3.447-457 [Google Scholar]
  11. Arnett, K., & Turnbull, M.
    (2008) Teacher beliefs in second and foreign language teaching: A state of the art review. InH. J. Sisken (Ed.), From thought to action: Exploring beliefs and outcomes in the foreign language program (pp.9–29). Boston, MA: Thomson Heinle.
     [Google Scholar]
  12. Baker, C.
    (2006) Foundations of bilingual education and bilingualism. (4th ed.). Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.
     [Google Scholar]
  13. Bonyun, R., Momison, F., & Unitt, J.
    (1986) When primary pupils transfer out of Immersion. Ottawa, ON: Ottawa Board of Education, Research Centre.
     [Google Scholar]
  14. Bournot-Trites, M., & Denizot, I.
    (2005, January). Conscience phonologique en immersion française au Canada. Paper presented at the1er Colloque International de Didactique Cognitive, Toulouse, France.
  15. Bruck, M.
    (1985) Predictors of transfer out of early French immersion programs. Applied Psycholinguistics, 6, 39–61. doi: 10.1017/S0142716400006007
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S0142716400006007 [Google Scholar]
  16. Burge, P., Ouellette-Kuntz, H., Hutchinson, N., & Box, H.
    (2008) A quarter century of inclusive education for children with intellectual disabilities in Ontario: Public perceptions. Canadian Journal of Educational Administration and Policy, 87, 1–22.
     [Google Scholar]
  17. Cenoz, J., & Gorter, D.
    (2011) A holistic approach to multilingual education: Introduction. The Modern Language Journal, 95, 339–343. doi: 10.1111/j.1540‑4781.2011.01204.x
     https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.2011.01204.x [Google Scholar]
  18. Clyne, R.
    (2011) There is too many in Australia. InC. Hélot & M. O’Laoire (Eds.), Language policy for the multilingual classroom (pp.174–187). Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters.
     [Google Scholar]
  19. Cummins, J.
    (2007) Rethinking monolingual instructional strategies in multilingual classrooms. Canadian Journal of Applied Linguistics/Revue Canadienne de Linguistique Appliquée, 10(2), 221–240.
     [Google Scholar]
  20. Genesee, F.
    (1992) Second/foreign language immersion and at-risk English-speaking children. Foreign Language Annals, 25(3), 199–213. doi: 10.1111/j.1944‑9720.1992.tb00529.x
     https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1944-9720.1992.tb00529.x [Google Scholar]
  21. (2007) French immersion and at-risk students: A review of research evidence. The Canadian Modern Language Review, 63(5), 655–688. doi: 10.3138/cmlr.63.5.655
     https://doi.org/10.3138/cmlr.63.5.655 [Google Scholar]
  22. Genesee, F., & Fortune, T.
    (2014) Bilingual education and at-risk students. Journal of Immersion and Content-based Language Education, 2(2), 196–209. doi: 10.1075/jicb.2.2.03gen
     https://doi.org/10.1075/jicb.2.2.03gen [Google Scholar]
  23. Hall, T., Strangman, N., & Meyer, A.
    (2003) Differentiated instruction and implications for UDL implementation. Wakefield, MA: National Center on Accessing the General Curriculum. Retrieved from aim.cast.org/learn/historyarchive/backgroundpapers/​differentiated_instruction_udl
     [Google Scholar]
  24. Harley, B.
    (1998) French immersion research in Canada: The 1990s in perspective. Mosaic, 6(1), 3–10.
     [Google Scholar]
  25. Hayden, H. M. R.
    (1988) French immersion drop-outs: Perspectives of parents, students, and teachers. Reading Canada, 6(4), 222–235.
     [Google Scholar]
  26. Hélot, C., & Ó’Laoire, M.
    (2011) From language education policy to a pedagogy of the possible. InC. Hélot & M. Ó’Laoire (Eds.), Language policy for the multilingual classroom: Pedagogy of the possible (pp.xi–xxv). Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters.
     [Google Scholar]
  27. Johnson, K. E.
    (1999) Understanding language teaching: Reasoning in action. Boston, MA: Heinle & Heinle.
     [Google Scholar]
  28. (2009) Second language teacher education: A sociocultural perspective. New York, NY: Routledge.10.4324/9780203878033
     https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203878033 [Google Scholar]
  29. Lapkin, S., MacFarlane, A., & Vandergrift, L.
    (2006) Teaching French in Canada: FSL teachers’ perspectives. Ottawa, ON: Canadian Teachers’ Federation.
     [Google Scholar]
  30. Lyster, R., Collins, L., & Ballinger, S.
    (2009) Linking languages through a bilingual read-aloud project. Language Awareness, 18, 366–383. doi: 10.1080/09658410903197322
     https://doi.org/10.1080/09658410903197322 [Google Scholar]
  31. MacCoubrey, S. J., Wade-Woolley, L., Klinger, D., & Kirby, J. R.
    (2004) Early identification of at-risk L2 readers. The Canadian Modern Language Review, 61, 11–28. doi: 10.3138/cmlr.61.1.11
     https://doi.org/10.3138/cmlr.61.1.11 [Google Scholar]
  32. MacCoubrey, S. J., Wade-Woolley, L., & Kirby, J. R.
    (2007) A phonemic awareness intervention for at-risk second language readers in French immersion (Unpublished manuscript). Queen’s University, Kingston, ON.
     [Google Scholar]
  33. Mady, C., & Arnett, K.
    (2009) Inclusion in French immersion in Canada: One parent’s perspective. Exceptionality Education International, 19(2), 37–49.
     [Google Scholar]
  34. (2015) Supporting Allophone students and students with learning difficulties in the second language classroom: FSL teacher candidates’ beliefs and knowledge. Canadian Journal of Applied Linguistics18(2), 78–95.
     [Google Scholar]
  35. Mannavarayan, J. M.
    (2002) The French immersion debate: French for all or all for French?Calgary: Detselig Enterprises.
     [Google Scholar]
  36. Mollica, A., Philips, G., & Smith, M.
    (2005) Teaching and learning French as a second language: Core French in the elementary schools in Ontario. Report prepared for the Ontario Modern Language Teachers’ Association.
     [Google Scholar]
  37. National Center on Universal Design for Learning
    National Center on Universal Design for Learning (2014a) What is UDL?Retrieved from www.udlcenter.org/aboutudl/whatisudl
     [Google Scholar]
  38. National Center on Universal Design for Learning
    National Center on Universal Design for Learning (2014b) Universal design for learning guidelines. Retrieved from www.udlcenter.org/aboutudl/udl​guidelines_theorypractice
     [Google Scholar]
  39. Ó Duibhir, P., Ní Dhíorbháin, A., & Cosgrove, J.
    (2016) An inductive approach to grammar teaching in Grade 5 and 6 Irish immersion classes. Journal of Immersion and Content-based Language Education, 4(1), 13–32. doi: 10.1075/jicb.4.1.02dui
     https://doi.org/10.1075/jicb.4.1.02dui [Google Scholar]
  40. Ontario Ministry of Education
    Ontario Ministry of Education (1999) The Ontario curriculum: French as a second language. Toronto, ON: Author.
     [Google Scholar]
  41. Ontario Ministry of Education
    Ontario Ministry of Education (2004) Policy/program memorandum no. 58. Toronto, ON: Author.
     [Google Scholar]
  42. Ontario Ministry of Education
    Ontario Ministry of Education (2005) Education for all. Toronto, ON: Author.
     [Google Scholar]
  43. Ontario Ministry of Education
    Ontario Ministry of Education (2013a) A framework for French as a second language in Ontario schoolsToronto, ON: Author.
     [Google Scholar]
  44. Ontario Ministry of Education
    Ontario Ministry of Education (2013b) Learning for all. Toronto, ON: Author.
     [Google Scholar]
  45. Ontario Ministry of Education
    Ontario Ministry of Education (2013c) The Ontario curriculum: French as a second language. Toronto, ON: Author.
     [Google Scholar]
  46. Ontario Ministry of Education
    Ontario Ministry of Education (2015) Including students with special education needs in French as a second language education programs. Toronto, ON: Author.
     [Google Scholar]
  47. Parkin, M., Morrison, F., & Watkin, G.
    (1987) French Immersion research relevant to decisions in Ontario. Toronto, ON: Ministry of Education.
  48. Public Service Commission of Canada [PSCC]
    Public Service Commission of Canada [PSCC] (2005) Second language evaluation: A research evaluation of French as a second language in selected Alberta schools. Ottawa, ON: Author.
     [Google Scholar]
  49. Reeder, K., & Bournot-Trites, M.
    (2001) Biliterate and mathematical performance in an intensified French immersion education program: Some evidence for the interdependence hypothesis. InE. Hughes, M. Hughes, & A. Greenhill (Eds.), BUCLD 21: Proceedings of the 21st annual Boston University Conference on Language Development (pp.567–571). Boston, MA: Cascadilla Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  50. Rix, J., & Sheehy, K.
    (2014) Nothing special: The everyday pedagogy of teaching. InL. Florian (Ed.) The Sage handbook of special education (pp.459–474). London: Sage.
     [Google Scholar]
  51. Spada, N., & Fröhlich, M.
    (1995) Communicative orientation of language teaching observation scheme: Coding conventions and applications. Sydney, Australia: Natioal Centre for English Language Teaching and research, Macquarie University.
     [Google Scholar]
  52. Swain, M., & Johnson, R. K.
    (1997) Immersion education: A category within bilingual education. InR. K. Johnson & M. Swain (Eds.), Immersion education: International perspectives (pp.1–16). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9781139524667.003
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139524667.003 [Google Scholar]
  53. Swain, M., & Lapkin, S.
    (2005) The evolving sociopolitical context of immersion education in Canada: Some implications for program development. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 15(2), 169–186. doi: 10.1111/j.1473‑4192.2005.00086.x
     https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1473-4192.2005.00086.x [Google Scholar]
  54. Tomlinson, C.
    (2004) La classe différenciée. Montreal: Chenelière/McGraw-Hill.
     [Google Scholar]
  55. Trites, R., & Moretti, P.
    (1986) Assessment of readiness for primary French immersion. Toronto, ON: Ministry of Education.
     [Google Scholar]
  56. Turnbull, M., Hart, D., & Lapkin, S.
    (2001) Grade 3 immersion students’ performance in literacy and mathematics: Province-wide results from Ontario (1998–99). The Canadian Modern Language Review, 58, 9–26. doi: 10.3138/cmlr.58.1.9
     https://doi.org/10.3138/cmlr.58.1.9 [Google Scholar]
  57. Turnbull, R., Turnbull, A., Shank, M., Smith, S., & Leal, D.
    (2002) Exceptional lives: Special education in today’s schools (3rd ed.). Columbus, OH: Merrill, Prentice-Hall.
     [Google Scholar]
  58. Valle, J., & Conner, D.
    (2010) Rethinking disability: A disability studies approach to inclusive practices (a practical guide). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
     [Google Scholar]
  59. Vygotsky, L. S.
    (1995) Problemy defectologii [Problems of defectology]. Moscow, Russia: Prosvecshenie Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  60. Wall, A.
    (2010) Myths and realities of French immersion. Language Portal of Canada. Retrieved from 205.193.86.57/collaborateurs-contributors/articles/mythes-myths-eng.html
     [Google Scholar]
  61. Willms, D.
    (2008) The case for universal French instruction. Canadian Research Institute for Social Policy. Retrieved from www.unb.ca/crisp/pdf/pbrief_case_for_french_instruction_(28_Apr_2008).pdf
  62. Wise, N., & Chen, X.
    (2010) At-risk readers in French immersion: Early identification and early intervention. Canadian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 13(2), 128–149.
     [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1075/jicb.17011.mad
Loading
Teacher adaptations to support students with special education needs in French immersion
Journal of Immersion and Content-Based Language Education 6, 244 (2018); https://doi.org/10.1075/jicb.17011.mad
/content/journals/10.1075/jicb.17011.mad
/content/journals/10.1075/jicb.17011.mad
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): French as a second language education; immersion education; second language education; special education needs; teacher adaptations

Most Cited

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