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.
AIM Language Learning. (2015) AIM Language Learning [website]. North Vancouver, BC. Retrieved from: http://www.aimlanguagelearning.com (November2015).
2.
ArnottS. (2005). The Accelerative Integrated Method: A descriptive case-study. Unpublished qualifying research paper, Ontario Institute for Studies in Education of the University of Toronto, ON, Canada.
3.
ArnottS. (2011). Exploring the dynamic relationship between the Accelerative Integrated Method (AIM) and the core French teachers who use it: Why agency and experience matter. Canadian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 14, 156–176.
4.
ArnottS. (2012). Why AIM?: Educator perspectives and implementation of an instructional method for teaching core French as a second language in Ontario. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Ontario Institute for Studies in Education, Toronto, ON. Retrieved from http://www.collectionscanada.gc.ca/obj/thesescanada/vol2/OTU/TC-OTU-33909.pdf (November2015).
5.
ArnottS. (2013). Canadian empirical research on the CEFR: Laying the groundwork for future research. Panorama: CASLT Research Series. Ottawa, ON: Canadian Association of Second Language Teachers/Association canadienne des professeurs de langues secondes.
6.
ArnottS.BrogdenL.M.FaezF.PeguretM.PiccardoE.RehnerK.TaylorS.K.WernickeM. (under review). Implementing the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages (CEFR) in Canada: A research agenda.
7.
Atlantic Provinces Education Foundation. (2004). Core French survey: A regional report. Halifax, NS: Atlantic Provinces Education Foundation (APEF). Retrieved from: http://www.caslt.org/pdf/APEF%20-%20Section%20one.pdf (November2015).
8.
BellD.M. (2007). Do teachers think that methods are dead?ELT Journal, 61, 135–143.
9.
BourdagesJ.VignolaM.J. (2009). AIM: La communication orale chez les élèves de l’élémentaire en français de base [AIM: Oral communication of elementary students in core French]. Canadian Modern Language Review, 65, 731–755.
10.
BourdagesJ.VignolaM.J. (2014). Profil lexical à l’oral d’élèves de français langue seconde exposés à l’approche gestuelle AIM [The oral lexical profile of French as a second language students exposed to AIM]. Revue Canadienne de Linguistique Appliquée, 17, 78–100.
11.
Breckinridge-ChurchR.Ayman-NolleyS.MahootianS. (2004). The role of gesture in bilingual education: Does gesture enhance learning?Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 7, 303–319.
12.
BrumfitC.J. (1984). Communicative methodology in language teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
13.
CalmanR.DanielI. (1998). A board’s eye view of core French: The North York Board of Education. In: LapkinS. (Ed.), French second language education in Canada: Empirical studies (pp. 281–323). Toronto, ON: University of Toronto Press.
14.
Canadian Parents for French. (2008). The state of French-second-language education in Canada 2008. Ottawa, ON: Canadian Parents for French (CPF).
15.
Canadian Parents for French. (2010). The state of French-second-language education in Canada 2010. Ottawa, ON: Canadian Parents for French (CPF).
16.
CaracelliV.J.GreeneJ.C. (1993). Data analysis strategies for mixed-method evaluation designs. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 15, 195–207.
17.
CaracelliV.J.GreeneJ.C. (1997). Crafting mixed method evaluation designs. In: GreeneJ.C.CaracelliV.J. (Eds.), Advances in mixed methods evaluation: The challenges and benefits of integrating diverse paradigms (pp. 19–32). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
18.
CarrW. (2001). Study of York House School’s core French program: Accelerative integrated method approach: September 2000 to June 2001. Unpublished report, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada.
CollinsJ.SteadS.WoolfreyS. (2004). Rethinking teaching strategies for intensive French. Canadian Modern Language Review, 60, 373–391.
21.
CumminsJ. (2014). To what extent are Canadian second language policies evidence-based? Reflections on the interface of research and policy. Frontiers of Psychology: Language Sciences, 5, 1–10.
22.
DalkeA.F.CassidyK.GrobsteinP.BlankD. (2007). Emergent pedagogy: Learning to enjoy the uncontrollable – and make it productive. Journal of Educational Change, 8, 111–130.
23.
DanesiM. (2003). Second language teaching. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic.
24.
Darling-HammondL. (2005). Policy and change: Getting beyond bureaucracy. In: HargreavesA.LiebermanA.FullanM. (Eds.), Extending educational change: International handbook of educational change (pp. 362–388). Dordrecht: Springer
25.
DatnowA. (2006). Connections in the policy chain: The ‘co-construction’ of implementation in comprehensive school reform. In: HonigM.I. (Ed.), New directions in education policy implementation: Confronting complexity (pp. 105–123). Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.
26.
DodsonS. (2000). FAQs: Learning languages through drama. Texas Papers in Foreign Language Education, 5, 129–141.
27.
Evaluation Plus. (2002). Program review: French as a second language program summary report. Edmonton, AB: Edmonton Public Schools.
28.
FreemanD.RichardsJ.C. (1993). Conceptions of teaching and the education of second language teachers. TESOL Quarterly, 27, 193–216.
29.
FullanM. (1982). The meaning of educational change. 1st edition. Toronto, ON: Ontario Institute for Studies in Education Press.
30.
FullanM. (1991). The new meaning of educational change. 2nd edition. New York: Teachers College Press.
31.
FullanM. (2001). The new meaning of educational change. 3rd edition. New York: Teachers College Press.
32.
FullanM. (2007). The new meaning of educational change. 4th edition. New York: Teachers College Press.
33.
FullanM.HargreavesA. (2013). Teacher development and educational change. New York: Routledge.
34.
GaltonM. (2000). Should pedagogical change be mandated? Dumbing down on classroom standards: The perils of a technician’s approach to pedagogy. Journal of Educational Change, 1, 199–204.
35.
GermainC.NettenJ. (2004). Étude qualitative du régime pédagogique du français intensif [A qualitative study of intensive French]. Canadian Modern Language Review, 60, 393–408.
36.
HowardJ. (2006). Report for the Canadian Association of Second Language Teachers relating to the survey of core French and French immersion teachers: Data tabulation and analysis of open-ended questions 31 and 38. Ottawa, ON: Canadian Association of Second Language Teachers.
37.
KristmansonP. (2005). Beyond time on task: Strategy use and development in intensive core French. In: CohenJ.McAlisterK.T.RostadK.MacSwanJ.Paper presented at ISB4: 4th International Symposium on Bilingualism (pp. 1235–1251). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.
38.
LapkinS.HarleyB.TaylorS. (1993). Research directions for core French in Canada. Canadian Modern Language Review, 49, 476–513.
39.
LapkinS.MacFarlaneA.VandergriftL. (2006). Teaching French in Canada: FSL teachers’ perspectives. Ottawa, ON: Canadian Teachers’ Federation.
40.
LapkinS.MadyC.ArnottS. (2009). Research perspectives on Core French: A literature review. Canadian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 12, 6–30.
41.
Larsen-FreemanD. (2000). Techniques and principles in language teaching. 2nd edition. New York: Oxford University Press.
42.
Larsen-FreemanD.AndersonM. (2011). Techniques and principals in language teaching. 3rd edition. New York: Oxford University Press
43.
Larsen-FreemanD.CameronL. (2008). Complex systems and applied linguistics. New York: Oxford University Press
44.
LeBlancR. (1990). National core French study: A synthesis. Ottawa, ON: Canadian Association of Second Language Teachers.
MacFarlaneA. (2005). An examination of intensive French: A pedagogical strategy for the improvement of French as a second language outcomes in Canada. Ottawa, ON: Canadian Association of Second Language Teachers.
47.
MadyC.ArnottS.LapkinS. (2009). Assessing AIM: Case study of Grade 8 students in an Ontario School Board. The Canadian Modern Language Review, 65, 731–755.
MaxwellW. (2001). Evaluating the effectiveness of the Accelerative Integrated Method for teaching French as a second language. Unpublished dissertation, University of Toronto (OISE/UT), Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
50.
MaxwellW. (2006). Histoires en action: Program guide [Stories in action: Program guide]. North Vancouver, BC: AIM Language Learning Incorporated.
51.
MaxwellW. (2008). Jeunesse en action: Program Guide [Youth in action: Program guide]. North Vancouver, BC: AIM Language Learning Incorporated.
52.
McCauleyJ.K.McCauleyD.S. (1992). Using choral reading to promote language learning for ESL students. The Reading Teacher, 45, 526–533.
53.
MichelsM. (2008). Innovation in French as a second language teaching at the elementary level: An exploratory investigation. Unpublished dissertation, University of London Institute in Paris, France.
54.
NettenJ.GermainG. (2004). Intensive French: Introduction. The Canadian Modern Language Review, 60, 263–273.
55.
NettenJ.GermainC. (2005). Pedagogy and second language learning: Lessons learned from intensive French. Canadian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 8, 183–210.
56.
NettenJ.GermainC.AndersonB. (2004). Le français intensif: Guide pédagogique interprovincial [Intensive French: An interprovincial pedagogical guide]. Regina, Saskatchewan: Saskatchewan Learning. Retrieved from: http://www.mmecarr.ca/ICF/FORMS/IF_IRP-Jan08.pdf (November2015).
57.
Ontario Ministry of Education and Training. (1998). French as a second language: Core French, Grades 4–8. Toronto, ON: Ontario Ministry of Education and Training. Retrieved from: http://www.edu.gov.on.ca/eng/curriculum/elementary/fsl48curr.pdf (November2015).
58.
Ontario Ministry of Education and Training. (1999). French as a second language: Core French, Grades 11–12. Toronto, ON: Ontario Ministry of Education and Training. Retrieved from: http://www.edu.gov.on.ca/eng/curriculum/secondary/fsl.html (November2015).
59.
Ontario Ministry of Education and Training. (2015). Trillium list. Toronto, ON: Ontario Ministry of Education and Training. Retrieved from: http://www.trilliumlist.ca (November2015).
60.
PorterM. (1996). Educational projects as an effective and interesting means of meeting the objectives of the multidimensional curriculum. Unpublished master’s thesis, University of New Brunswick, Canada.
61.
PrabhuN.S. (1990). There is no best method: Why?TESOL Quarterly, 24, 161–176.
62.
RehorickS.DicksJ.KristmansonP.CogswellF. (2006). Quality learning in French second language in New Brunswick: A brief to the department of education. Fredericton, NB: Second Language Education Centre.
63.
ReynoldsD. (2000) Should pedagogical change be mandated? Can and should pedagogical change be mandated at times?Journal of Educational Change, 1, 193–198.
64.
RichardsJ.C.RodgersT.S. (1986). Approaches and methods in language teaching. New York: Cambridge University Press.
65.
RichardsJ.C.RodgersT.S. (2001). Approaches and methods in language teaching. 2nd edition. New York: Cambridge University Press.
66.
SalvatoriM.J. (2007). Learning, discerning and yearning: The development of language proficiency of non-native speaker French as a second language teachers in Ontario. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Ontario Institute for Studies in Education, Toronto, ON, Canada. Retrieved from: http://www.collectionscanada.gc.ca/obj/thesescanada/vol2/002/NR39438.PDF (November2015).
67.
SikesP. (2013). Imposed change and the experienced teacher. In: FullanM.HargreavesA. (Eds.), Teacher development and educational change (pp. 36–52). New York: Routledge.
68.
StakeR.E. (2006). Multiple case study analysis. New York: The Guilford Press.
69.
SternH.H. (1982). French core programs across Canada: How can we improve them?Canadian Modern Language Review, 39, 34–45.
70.
SternH.H. (1983). Fundamental concepts of language teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
71.
TeddlieC.TashakkoriA. (2006). A general typology of research designs featuring mixed methods. Research in the Schools, 13, 12–28.
TudorI. (2001). The dynamics of the language classroom. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
74.
TurnbullM. (1998). Multidimensional project-based teaching in core French: A case study. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Ontario Institute for Studies in Education, Toronto, ON, Canada. Retrieved from: http://www.nlc-bnc.ca/obj/s4/f2/dsk1/tape10/PQDD_0003/NQ41524.pdf (November2015).
75.
TurnbullM. (1999a). Multidimensional project-based second language teaching: Observations of four grade 9 core French teachers. The Canadian Modern Language Review, 56, 7–29.
76.
TurnbullM. (1999b). Multidimensional project-based teaching in French as a second language (FSL): A process-product case study. The Modern Language Journal, 83, 548–568.
77.
TurnbullM. (2001). There is a role for the L1 in second and foreign language teaching, but …Canadian Modern Language Review, 57, 531–540.
78.
VandergriftL. (1995). Commonalities in the core French curriculum documents in Canada: A synthesis report. Ottawa, ON: Faculty of Education.
79.
WertschJ.V.TulvisteP.HagstromF. (1993). A sociocultural approach to agency. In FormanE.A.MinickN.StoneC.A. (Eds.), Contexts for learning (pp.336–356). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
80.
YanC. (2012). ‘We can only change in a small way’: A study of secondary English teachers’ implementation of curriculum reform in China. Journal of Educational Change, 13, 431–447.
81.
YanC.HeC. (2012). Bridging the implementation gap: An ethnographic study of English teachers’ implementation of the curriculum reform in China. Ethnography and Education, 7, 1–19.
