Second language education and micro-policy implementation in Canada: The meaning of pedagogical change

Abstract

Using data from a study investigating the implementation of a popular French as a second language (FSL) teaching method in Canada (i.e. the Accelerative Integrated Method), this article presents a second language (L2) perspective on micro-policy implementation and pedagogical change. According to Fullan (2007), successful change implementation requires the establishment of ‘shared meaning’: a balanced vision of what the change represents and coordinated management of its implementation. This inquiry compared stakeholder perspectives ( n = 36) on the method and its implementation in contexts where it was mandated and optional for FSL instruction. Data from interviews and focus groups were triangulated to provide a descriptive synthesis of the shared realities and practices of these local players. Findings showed that the bias for action and utility of the method, teacher agency and lack of collaborative monitoring emerged as factors affecting the short-term implementation of this change and its potential long-term sustainability. The findings present important implications for FSL education, micro-level L2 policy implementation and ongoing research focusing on L2 pedagogical change in the Canadian context.

Didactization of L2 French variation in a complex context

“…Also, limited exposure to authentic language outside of the classroom in a French-minority province, such as Ontario, represents a huge difficulty for the development of sociolinguistic competence among FSL students. Finally, negative attitudes (from students and instructors) towards varieties of Canadian French and the preference for idealized French spoken in Europe is an additional challenging factor in French-minority communities in Canada (Arnott, 2016;Arnott et al, 2019). In line with that, interesting findings emerged from our analysis of instructors' interviews: (i) general pro-normative attitude towards the European French norm rather than Canadian French; (ii) avoidance of less formal or vernacular forms; and (iii) the lack of CEFR and sociolinguistically oriented training (auto-perception).…”

Giving Voice to Our Core French Students: Implications for Attrition and the Discourse on the Benefits of Learning FSL in Ontario

“…The authors argue that "understanding these aspects of the CF context is key to exploring ways of improving CF programming" (p. 23), as they work to perpetuate negative stereotypes about CF and risk rendering it "invisible" in Canadian schools. Pedagogical efforts made to circumvent these contextual factors have been documented (e.g., Arnott, 2011Arnott, , 2015Dicks & Leblanc, 2009;Early & Yeung, 2009), with more recent research showing the potential for strategies from the Common European Framework of Reference (CEFR) to positively impact FSL students' French language confidence (Rehner, 2014) and reorient the FSL classroom towards a more actionoriented approach (Rehner, 2017(Rehner, , 2018. However, if student retention in CF were an indicator of program success (amongst other possible criteria), then it would likely be characterized as unsuccessful.…”

Exploring Trends in 21st Century Canadian K-12 French as Second Language Research: A Research Synthesis

“…For example, research has detailed what FSL teachers think about technology (Murphy, 2002); the CEFR (Faez, Taylor, Majhanovich, Brown, & Smith, 2011); inclusion of English language learners (ELLs) in FSL (Mady, 2012a); and grammar instruction . Other studies have included teacher perspectives as part of a broader analysis of the responsibilities of different FSL stakeholders when it comes to French language instruction (Arnott, 2015;Milley & Arnott, 2016).…”