Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Official Languages
Issue 11 - Evidence - Meeting of March 9, 2015
OTTAWA, Monday, March 9, 2015
The Standing Senate Committee on Official Languages met this day at 5:02 p.m. to continue its study on best practices for language policies and second-language learning in a context of linguistic duality or plurality.
Senator Claudette Tardif (Chair) in the chair.
[Translation]
The Chair: Honourable senators, I now call this meeting of the Standing Committee on Official Languages to order. I am Senator Claudette Tardif from Alberta, and I am the committee chair. I would ask the senators to introduce themselves, starting on my left.
Senator Poirier: Senator Rose-May Poirier from New Brunswick.
Senator Seidman: Judith Seidman from Montreal, Quebec.
Senator Fortin-Duplessis: Suzanne Fortin-Duplessis from Quebec City.
Senator McIntyre: Senator Paul McIntyre from New Brunswick.
Senator Charette-Poulin: Marie Poulin from northern Ontario.
The Chair: During the 41st Parliament, the members of this committee are studying language policies and second- language learning in a context of linguistic duality or plurality.
The purpose of this study is to examine the existing policies, the challenges and the best practices that encourage learning a second language in countries where there are two or more official languages. In the context of its study, the committee is looking at both the Canadian and the international perspective.
Today, we have the pleasure of welcoming two groups of witnesses who will contribute to our study. The first group is made up of experts who work in schools providing second-language programs. So we are pleased to welcome Jim Murphy, who joins us by video conference. He is an e-teacher of French as a second language at the Centre for Distance Learning and Innovation. Welcome, Mr. Murphy.
We also have with us Lesley Doell, a French language consultant with the French Language Resource Centre, and Chantal Bourbonnais, the executive director of the Canadian Association of Immersion Teachers, accompanies Ms. Doell. Welcome to you as well.
I invite Mr. Murphy to begin his presentation. Then we will hear from Ms. Doell. After these two presentations, the senators will ask you some questions.
Mr. Murphy, you have the floor.
Jim Murphy, E-Teacher, French as a Second Language, Centre for Distance Learning and Innovation, as an individual: Thank you and good evening from Newfoundland and Labrador.
[English]
Good evening, everyone. I think everyone has a copy of my presentation, so I won't go into too much detail around my experiences with regard to teaching and learning.
[Translation]
First of all, I would like to tell you that I have been involved in French as a second language education for about 28 years now.
[English]
I've held a variety of interesting positions over the years and have had opportunity to interact with many students. I have certainly had the privilege and honour of teaching many French programs.
[Translation]
I think it might be more beneficial to move directly to the challenges.
[English]
For me, personally, I've always felt that looking across at a pan-Canadian perspective we see a lot of diversity with regard to the language curriculum across the nation, so I certainly felt that was a challenge, if I were to be asked what challenges immediately came to mind.
[Translation]
I think it is very important to mention that professional development may be a problem, especially in isolated areas like here, in Newfoundland and Labrador.
[English]
Certainly, as well, I'd like to mention that over the years one of the areas that we have seen with regard to challenges has been student motivation, and not from the perspective of motivation in a classroom but being able to provide students with good reasons for wanting to learn an appreciation of a second language. I certainly felt that that was important as well.
[Translation]
There is also the teaching of culture and connecting it with the English or French context. We still have difficulty teaching culture, both online and face to face.
[English]
Culture and connecting students with culture have also been a challenge. As well, with the gap between the number of hours of learning of second language and the resulting linguistic competencies, I've always felt that it's an amazing amount of time we spend learning languages, yet it seems the expectations we have of students at the end of many years of language learning seem to be higher than we believe the students to have achieved. We have students spending a great amount of time — many, many hours — learning a second language, which we all realize is a challenge. In the end, however, I think that we all sometimes reflect and wonder why it is that our students are not more proficient with the language or is it that we have set expectations a little too high for them.
[Translation]
The lack of a national scale for measuring linguistic competence is something interesting. There are performance tests, like the DELF, but there is a lot of variation from province to province when it comes to assessing this linguistic competence. It is a challenge, especially for us here, and even from school to school, or school board to school board, to be able to examine in more detail a system of measurements that would be beneficial for everyone.
[English]
As well, opportunities for cultural and linguistic exchanges for students, teachers and administrators already exist, but I think it is a challenge to bring more opportunities to our students, administrators and teachers to actually experience the cultures.
[Translation]
Here, in Newfoundland, it is always difficult to find qualified personnel. It is a very significant challenge. Of course, school administrators play a role as language learning advocates and promoters, which is often another battle that we have to take on as second-language teachers.
[English]
So being able to convince our administrators as well of the importance of second-language learning is certainly very important.
If I may move on to best practices, in my experience, I have been trained in intensive languages, intensive French, and I will have to say that in terms of my experiences with best practices, I'm very pleased with the approaches that are used in intensive language learning, whatever it may be, French, English or any other language. It certainly brings to the forefront the importance of providing students with opportunities to have that block of language learning time. It seems to work very well.
[Translation]
There is always the issue of confidence in the language.
[English]
When I have students who have non-intensive core French arrive in my classroom, I can immediately tell the difference.
[Translation]
There is a big difference between a student who has simply taken a core program and another who has taken an intensive French program. You can hear and see the difference immediately.
[English]
These students are more willing to take risks with the language. This block of time that they spend learning the language, this little bank —
[Translation]
— this dip into language, if you will.
[English]
They seem to really do well with regard to that. As well, the action-oriented approach to language learning has of course been researched through many countries through Europe, through the CEFR criteria. The authentic use of language in the context of second-language classrooms, I feel, has certainly become a best practice.
The contextualization of learning, attempting to reproduce learning scenarios that are connected to the real world as opposed to being isolated language learning experiences in the classroom, and certainly the recent alignment in Canada with more of the CEFR criteria, the Common European Framework of Reference criteria, has always been a move in a good, sound direction. Of course, when we look at our challenges and potential recommendations, we'll certainly come back to that point.
With regard to my personal experiences, language learning online has proven to be a wonderful area in which the province of Newfoundland has been involved for many years. We've been involved for approximately 20 years in distance learning and providing distance and language learning opportunities. Of course, more recently, in the last 11 years, we have been using digital domains such as the Internet to provide the delivery.
However, I think the hard and fast of it is that we provide expert teachers to students in isolated communities across our province; so this provides us opportunities to promote official languages. It also provides us opportunities to allow students to continue their studies in a second language.
[Translation]
It also provides possibilities for sharing human resources across the province. On a larger scale, on a national scale, there are opportunities for sharing between provinces and territories, and that is something close to my heart.
[English]
It is something I really hold closely. The success that we've had with distance learning and teaching our students online has been phenomenal. If I could have a student sitting here with me today actually discussing this with me, I'm pretty sure they would be nodding their head as well. They appreciate these opportunities.
[Translation]
Among the other personal experiences, there is the integration of technology in the learning of languages, which has greatly helped promote language learning. For us, it has opened up the world to students and opened students up to the world.
This also helps us integrate 21st century competencies, especially with respect to communication, collaboration and cultural awareness. It gives the student an enormous amount of motivation and willingness to learn a second language.
[English]
Lastly, with regard to best practices, I think it's important to bring our attention as well to the cultural exchanges and educational visits. I still believe firmly that these are important and intrinsic to our programs; so it is very important for us to try to continue along those lines.
Wrapping up the best practices and the challenges, I do have a few recommendations that I have already shared obviously through the presentation that I've shared with you.
[Translation]
First, I think it would be quite worthwhile to provide a basic instructional design or a more universal curriculum that would contain basic concepts and common criteria across Canada. It would be interesting to be able to develop these programs, knowing that the provinces and territories would control their own curriculum. It would also be very interesting to be able to influence to some extent the way these programs are designed.
There would be universal themes, professional learning opportunities for all teachers, and the inclusion of culture and its connection in the curriculum. We know that this already exists and that it would be possible to address these topics in greater detail. We also know, of course, that the curriculum ensures the success of learners and that it recognizes their progress in second-language learning.
[English]
With regard to other recommendations, I feel that making language programs obligatory across our country would be an interesting step. We know that there would be challenges there, but we also know there are challenges with delivering high school French curriculum and middle school second-language learning curriculums because of the fact that they are not necessarily obligatory. There are challenges in both directions with regard to that.
As well, being able to create or redefine partnerships with universities, sometimes there is a distance between what is developed regarding curriculum and what our future teachers in practice receive with regard to their training. I think that's an important bridge that could probably be better bridged as well.
Certainly with regard to the increase in bursaries — I'm sure you've heard this at the table before — all of our students who experience linguistic or cultural exchanges come back far richer in their languages and far richer with regard to their willingness to want to become involved with language learning.
Again, that is very comparable to the results we see from intensive students as well. Their language competencies have a tendency to improve, as well as their motivation. I think the more students, teachers and administrators we can get involved with this, the better it is for our language learning.
A couple of other small points: Certainly more opportunities for professional learning of the teaching of languages and certainly partnerships with language organizations. We have some tremendous leadership in our language organizations, and we know that we need to share our ideas and enthusiasm for second-language learning, so we should certainly look at taking advantage of any opportunities we have to do so.
[Translation]
Lastly, it would certainly be interesting to create a partnership between language organizations, the federal government, and the provinces and territories to establish a network and a national voice for second-language education, regardless of the language, because we know that we are all working toward the same goal. It is very important that Canadians realize that we are working together to improve the situation of language learning in Canada. Thank you for listening.
[English]
Thank you very much for the audience today. It has indeed been a pleasure and an honour.
[Translation]
The Chair: Thank you for your suggestions and recommendations. We will now move on to our second witness, Ms. Doell.
Lesley Doell, French Language Consultant, French Language Resource Centre, as an individual: Thank you, Madam Chair, for your invitation. For nine years, I have been a French language consultant in northwestern Alberta, where I run a French language resource centre. I am also president of the Canadian Association of Immersion Teachers, CAIT, and director of a DELF-DALF exam centre.
My presentation will address three main points. First, I will tell you about one of the successes in best practices in a regional context. Then, I will review the current challenges with you. I will end with a few thoughts that might guide the government's action on promoting and learning official languages.
In 2006, the Grande Prairie school board and a few community organizations got together to identify some priorities. A study was conducted, after which federal funding was put in place to create a resource centre. I was appointed to a position that involved boosting French education in northwestern Alberta. What a dream. I could start and manage projects related to my passion. Needless to say, it was an immense pleasure for me to create projects inspired by what I would have liked to have seen as a teacher in immersion classes. Nine years later, we have 13 partners, including seven school boards, one regional college and several community organizations. We have an educational resource centre that contains 18,000 French resources in a municipal library. We arrange all professional development in French for the region, conferences and workshops. We have been able to receive the best second- language specialists in Canada.
Given the distance, we offer teachers $1,200 annually for any studies or for attending any conference in French. We coordinate artist tours by sharing costs with schools for all francophone artists. We were also the second DELF-DALF centre to open a school board in Canada in 2007, and we saw that DELF transformed classroom pedagogy and enhanced learning for young people. We subsidize school trips to Quebec and France, and we just signed an official partnership with the Nancy-Metz region thanks to the French embassy. Our projects basically involve sharing and exchanges. The province has recognized the success of the centre and its projects four times. Last Friday, I had the great honour of being named a chevalier of France's Ordre des Palmes académiques, particularly for the work I have done with the centre, for the provision and promotion of the DELF scolaire, for my work with the CAIT and for the partnership with France.
Despite the evidence of good practices regionally, there are still enormous challenges when it comes to policy. There is a challenge relating to the promotion of the language, and to the legislation and other levels within the school boards.
I will touch on three aspects of promotion. First, why is second-language teaching from kindergarten to Grade 12 not mandated? In Alberta, most schools provide French as an option starting in Grade 7. The option of taking an academic course like core French is often less desirable for a 12-year-old kid than a course involving outdoor activities. In a school schedule, one is often pitted against the other. Since language is not promoted within our school boards, this ensures that most of our young Canadians do not even achieve a basic A2 level in the other official language by the end of Grade 12.
If the school boards or the ministries do not require our young people to learn a second language up to Grade 12, despite the many studies that show a long list of advantages, how can we promote second-language learning? Should we encourage our post-secondary institutions to include a certain level of knowledge of a second language in their admission criteria?
This is why immersion and core French programs at the secondary level are very weak and have been for years. There is a vicious circle where few young people take French through Grade 12, so few students continue on to do post-secondary studies in immersion teaching. Therefore, we are faced with a serious issue of hiring immersion and core French teachers who are qualified linguistically, pedagogically and culturally.
Second, and I'm still talking about language promotion, our French immersion school principals are often unilingual anglophones, which is a problem for several reasons. I'm certain that if every immersion school had a bilingual principal, the quality of the immersion provided would improve immediately.
Lastly, the shortage of immersion teachers has become critical and is directly related to promoting the profession. Every year, only a small number of students from each faculty of education across the country graduate from the French-language immersion program. For instance, the 75 graduates from the Saint John campus typically find a position within 80 kilometres of where they did their studies.
This brings us to a secondary challenge: the quality of the French of immersion teachers. Is speaking correct French promoted? Do the young anglophone or francophone, but anglo-dominant, teachers speak a high quality level of the language? Young people need a convincing model, not a French that is too far removed from standard French.
I don't want to focus on the negative too much, so I am pleased to share a few thoughts that might guide this committee. We could facilitate the adoption of the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages — or CEFR — as a reference for developing study programs and the tools that stem from it, such as the DELF, which is a standardized evaluation at the international level, and the online languages portfolio developed in the Atlantic provinces for immersion and core French.
It would be a big step in the right direction. Our young people must receive recognition of their French language skills that would be recognized at the international and national level, and by more and more Canadian businesses, universities and organizations.
Second, we should encourage a standardized immersion teaching process in Canada. We need to learn to learn from each other. For example, so that we can learn from other provinces, I would like to draw your attention to a new document created by Manitoba's department of education, entitled French Language Education Review — French Immersion Program and French Courses. It is available at http://www.edu.gov.mb.ca/k12/finance/fr_grant/ fr_lang_review.html.
In September 2014, the department introduced a review to further support the full implementation of the French immersion program and the successful delivery of French courses within Manitoba schools. As part of this, school boards have permission to think in terms of the needs of immersion schools. One objective of the review is to provide clear expectations with respect to the role and responsibilities of school divisions in their reporting accountability.
Third, funding should be provided to organizations that could act upon the many recommendations in the final report of a study conducted by three organizations: the Canadian Association of Immersion Teachers, the Association des universités de la francophonie canadienne and the Réseau des cégeps et collèges francophones du Canada. This report, entitled Étude sur les besoins de la clientèle issue de l'immersion désirant poursuivre une scolarisation postsecondaire en français, considers action that can be taken to increase the accessibility of French-bilingual post- secondary programs and to encourage that francophile students be recruited.
The education of young Canadians in French immersion and French as a second language is a guarantee of a bilingual future for our country and represents a fundamental value of the Canadian identity. Immersion programs have increased by 17 per cent in recent years, despite a decrease in the school population. Investing in immersion means investing in the future of our youth and our country. Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you, Ms. Doell, and congratulations on the French government's recognition of your work with the centre. It's well-deserved.
Honourable senators, since we have another video conference with China that must start at 6 p.m., I ask that you keep your questions very short, if possible. The first question will come from Senator Fortin-Duplessis, followed by Senator Charette-Poulin.
Senator Fortin-Duplessis: My first question is for Mr. Murphy. Thank you for your presentation. I see that you have significant experience as a teacher, an educational consultant and a coordinator of a virtual centre for teachers.
Do you think that online teaching is the method of choice for the future?
I'll ask my second question, as well: is it a method that is really more effective?
Mr. Murphy: That's a very good question. In areas where you can call on classroom experts, get the necessary resources and provide a high quality program, my answer would be no.
Online education or online French courses are a necessity that we provide to people in remote areas. It is the only way we can provide our programs in isolated schools. However, we can certainly strike a balance between online courses and in-class courses by, for instance, giving a school in a city the opportunity to take a French course online that would be for students who cannot get these courses because of their timetable. This could be a possible approach for remote schools, but also an approach for schools in larger cities.
Is it the last word in terms of approaches? As is the case for in-class courses, I think the quality of online programs always depends on the quality of the teacher. It is very important to be able to establish a connection, a rapport with the students and be able to present the curriculum. For me, it's essential. Of course, an interesting core curriculum helps, too.
Senator Maltais: Online teaching is nothing new, and it's done in other provinces. Quebec has the Télé-université, which I'm sure you are familiar with and which is fairly effective.
In your presentation, you said that one of the problems is keeping the attention of students with the help of competent teachers. Do your school boards have the means to get these skills, which may exist in New Brunswick, Quebec, Ontario or Alberta, but can your school boards get access to this? Since we're talking about online teaching, you don't necessarily have to be from Newfoundland and Labrador, Quebec or elsewhere. It's a matter of competent people, regardless of where they are. This is the age of instantaneous information.
Mr. Murphy: I completely agree with you, but a few problems with the unions might arise. To hire teachers, the provinces and territories are going to recruit the best, that's for sure. We always hire teachers from elsewhere, teachers who have the skills we're looking for. My colleagues and I teach online in 135 schools, where we teach virtually. The issue is that there wasn't any expertise in those 135 schools that we could have provided before online education. That's the most important thing. With our four online French teachers, we can teach these students.
Hiring and recruitment is an issue everywhere — especially for teachers of French as a second language — but we are fortunate in that we can present our programs online without too many problems. Often, the teachers with the most experience with language and teaching are the ones who seek out employment in online education.
Senator Fortin-Duplessis: I'd like to put a question to Ms. Doell.
I noted that you have a certain amount of freedom and that you can innovate in certain areas; I hope I am not mistaken.
Ms. Doell: No, that is true.
Senator Fortin-Duplessis: Do you think current programs take the challenges inherent in second language learning sufficiently into account?
Ms. Doell: Are you talking about curriculums?
Senator Fortin-Duplessis: Yes.
Ms. Doell: In Canada, all second-language learning curriculums are being redesigned. In Alberta, for instance, we are developing a new definition of the curriculum. The old program — I do not know how the new program will approach this — did not put sufficient emphasis on oral production or oral comprehension. A lot of emphasis was put on reading and writing, but not enough work was done on hearing competence and oral production. That is the problem I see with our curriculum in Alberta, and it is particularly evident in achievement tests. That aspect is also being changed; these achievement tests used to be administered at the end of the third, sixth, ninth and twelfth grades, and they were used to assess two aspects of language competency. The problem is that a language is learned well if the four language competencies are taken into account, and they should be taught equally, in my opinion.
Senator Fortin-Duplessis: In Quebec, the accent is the issue. When it comes to reading and writing English, the students succeed, but they have more trouble speaking it. It is the same thing everywhere.
[English]
Senator Charette-Poulin: Mr. Murphy, I would like to thank you. Your presentation regarding the challenges and then your suggestions of best practices were extremely interesting. I have a question on your suggestion regarding providing students with blocks of learning time. What did you mean by that?
Mr. Murphy: Yes. Under the best practices in intensive language programs, what usually happens for a period of time during the intensive core program or intensive language learning program is that there's a block of time that is actually taken just for language learning. So, for example, from September until December, some of the curriculum that a student would normally have will be put aside, and there's a block of time that is associated only with language learning. Their language arts program in their first language, or maybe part of their mathematics program, all of those things will be put aside so that they have an opportunity to intensify their opportunities and the time for second- language learning. For example, on a typical schedule they may have French from 9 a.m. until noon every day for a period of four months, and of course they would have their physical education programs and whatnot. That would be the idea of an intensive core program. After Christmas it would go back to a more regular time, and the rest of the curriculum would be compacted back into their schedules. That's what we mean when we say a block of time.
Senator Charette-Poulin: Thank you, that's very helpful.
You also said you find it extremely important to connect students to the culture. Could you give us a few examples of what you do to reach that objective?
Mr. Murphy: It's very tough to connect students directly to culture, and it takes a lot of time and resources to do so. When I connect students to culture, I try to connect students deeper than simply having them listen to a song in a second language. I always go back to my childhood. The only thing I can really remember about my core French experiences as a child in high school was the Carnaval de Québec. Don't get me wrong. I think it was a wonderful, wonderful experience having learned about that, but oftentimes the cultural activities we do in classrooms can be very superficial. It's nice to try to bring cultural activities a little deeper so that students gain a better, more in-depth understanding of the culture of which we're speaking. When I look at introducing culture to my students, I really and truly do think deeper than just the meaning of a lyric. We go into the music. We go into the instruments. We'll go into the artists. Where is this artist from? Where did this artist grow up? What kind of a place is it? We like to look at the depth of treatment of cultural activities, which I think is much more profound than, like I said, and don't get me wrong because I thought it was wonderful and have been there many times, seeing pictures of the Carnaval de Québec. I think that was the point I was trying to get to.
Senator Charette-Poulin: Let's not underestimate the Carnaval de Québec and the motivation that is built into students to be able to better connect with the French culture.
[Translation]
Senator Charette-Poulin: Ms. Doell, I have a question for you in the same vein as the one I put to Mr. Murphy. Do you also have programs, experiences or suggestions to make so that language is not, as Mr. Murphy was saying, learned outside the context of its culture? My first language is French. As my colleagues were saying, my language is a part of a cultural environment. What projects would you advocate to communicate that cultural environment to your students?
Ms. Doell: I would like to give the floor to Chantal Bourbonnais. With the CAIT, we have just created a project which is having resounding success. This is the Intergenerational Project. I will take the floor again afterwards to tell you exactly what we are doing in our region.
Chantal Bourbonnais, Executive Director, Canadian Association of Immersion Teachers: This is a project we are proud of. Questions were asked about the language skills of teachers. In a minority environment, you speak French in the classroom; however, you do not have the opportunity to speak it elsewhere.
We twinned young teachers whose second language was French with retired francophones. They take part in five cultural outings. There is no classroom management. They can go and see a film together, go and have a coffee, or go to a play at the Cercle Molière. The purpose is to take part in cultural activities that allow these young teachers to discover the culture and then transmit it to their students.
The project has been in existence for three years. We are in Ottawa, Halifax, Prince Edward Island, Calgary and Winnipeg. We have heard glowing testimony from teachers who have improved their French and feel better equipped in class, both in terms of language and of cultural activities. The project is funded by Canadian Heritage.
This is an example of projects that can give wings to teachers and to students in the classroom.
Senator Poirier: I thank our witnesses for being here tonight. This is really interesting. My first question is for Mr. Murphy.
[English]
I was just wondering about online education for second-language training. Do they learn to speak, read and write? Comparing online training to in-class training, what's the success level?
Mr. Murphy: We teach all four competencies in the online format. I use mainly action-oriented approaches, believe it or not, in the online environment where we always try to start with the oral approach to the language. Just to give you a basic breakdown, a lot of modelling occurs. We start with oral competencies, and we build from the oral competencies up absolutely to listening as well with the oral. Once the students have a good understanding of what we're trying to achieve and are able to actually communicate, then we move into the other competencies of obviously written production and comprehension.
We teach all four competencies. They are pretty much given even weight in our programs in terms of how they're measured. I will say it's a challenge because we don't always know how engaged students are on the other end, but I have found that the approaches have worked well to date with regard to the oral competencies of my students. I have students in Grade 12 programs who have been with us for three years online, whose oral competencies are far above and beyond many of the oral competencies I've heard of students in regular classrooms. That's about motivation of students as well, but we've had great success with that, and I'm proud to say that it does work and it works well.
Senator Poirier: What's the normal time frame for a person to take the training to be considered bilingual?
Mr. Murphy: I guess the answer to that would be that we do not currently have a measuring stick by which we could even measure students in core French programs to ascertain their level of proficiency in the language, other than currently the CEFR or, of course, we could have them write the DELF assessments, which are good assessments.
I guess we could liken it to becoming an expert in anything. They say it takes upwards of 10,000 hours to become an expert, or I guess bilingual. I would say that our students leave our programs functionally bilingual in that they are certainly able to function, and if they were in situations where they needed to use their language, they certainly have had exposure to enough to be able to get through. With regard to saying precisely are they bilingual in a core French program, I would say no, and partially because we do not have a measuring stick right now by which we can really measure them.
Senator Poirier: Okay. My next and last question is to both our witnesses.
[Translation]
Several of the witnesses we have heard in the context of our study have told us that one of the challenges is to ensure having teachers who have the necessary training needed to teach. Is distance education one option to train second language teachers?
The Chair: Mr. Murphy, did you want to answer the question?
Mr. Murphy: The question was for me?
Senator Poirier: I would like to hear comments from both witnesses.
Mr. Murphy: Is it possible to train teachers from a distance? Of course it is. I work in cooperation with a group known as the Canadian Association of Second Language Teachers, CASLT. We have put together a network which does precisely that. We offer our members online programs with workshops. Some workshops last all day and go on for several days. In these workshops, the members follow a course with us in order to learn more, for instance, about how to integrate CEFR into the classroom, how to use the task-based approach in class, and how to integrate technology into it.
We now have teaching modules for our members where we talk about how to use new technologies such as Google in the classroom to further second-language learning. This already exists, and in universities as well. However, I am convinced, because I do it a lot, that we can teach teaching methods to teachers, clients and members. So my answer is yes.
Ms. Doell: There are master's programs that are already given in French, but there are fewer of them at the B.A. level. In fact, I am not sure that there are any. The Saint-Jean Campus offers a distance master's degree, in part. So does the University of British Columbia. As for Saint-Boniface, I will have to check to see whether there is an online B.A. program for our students. That would be a possibility. There is such a shortage of teachers in our regions that if this works as well as Mr. Murphy says at the high school level, I cannot see why it would not work well at the B.A. level also. This is something to explore.
The Chair: When I was dean of the Faculté Saint-Jean, we had set up a videoconference master's program for immersion teachers. Teachers took the course in Saskatchewan and various parts of Alberta.
Senator McIntyre: I thank all three of you for your presentations. Ms. Bourbonnais, I understand that you are the executive director of the Canadian Association of Immersion Teachers. Over the next few years, strategic orientations are going to guide the actions taken by your association. Can you tell me a bit more about these orientations?
Ms. Bourbonnais: One of our orientations is to support teachers at the pedagogical level, especially with professional development, because since immersion programs are managed by anglophone school boards, P.D. days are not necessarily devoted to the professional development of immersion teachers. We try to offset this by holding conferences or training days in the regions, by doing research, and so forth, to support immersion pedagogy.
We try to create resources to help teachers. We just spent an afternoon with Dr. Roy Lyster, a researcher for McGill University, who is revolutionizing the way we think about immersion. We are popularizing his research in writing with a view to meeting the needs of teachers. We also try to orient research. We try to forecast what will happen in the future at the post-secondary level, because we find that there is a lack of continuity. We lose our students at the high school level and we wonder why. When we ask them why, they often reply that if they decide to study at university or college in English, why continue in immersion? When these young people leave school at 18, they say they are bilingual, but when we ask them the question, they answer, "Sorry, madam, I forgot my French." So the post-secondary level is important. This is a strategy we would like to develop during the next few years: how do we encourage these young francophiles to continue studying in French?
We also want to be a voice for immersion. There is also the whole issue of evaluation. We talked today about developing a national instrument. Senator Poirier, you were asking earlier whether they would be bilingual, but what does it mean to be bilingual? It is difficult to define bilingualism.
Could we talk about a single voice from one province and one territory to another? Does being bilingual in Nova Scotia mean the same thing as it does in Montreal, in Quebec, or in British Colombia? We need a national tool, whether it is the DELF or something else. So that gives you some idea of the directions we want to go in.
Senator McIntyre: What you are saying is very interesting, Ms. Bourbonnais. I see that you are insisting a lot on immersion. Your association really has a vision for the future. Would you agree that the purpose of your association is to position yourself as the cornerstone of immersion in Canada?
Ms. Bourbonnais: That is exactly what we want to do. The cornerstone of immersion may be an immersion reference for all Canadians, because we believe that immersion is the best approach to bilingualism in our country. According to the last data from Statistics Canada, there will be a 17 per cent increase in immersion programs. Even if this means a decline in demographic terms, immersion continues to increase. There is enormous potential.
Senator Maltais: The witnesses have my utmost respect for the work they do. You all do exceptional work in your respective parts of the country. My question is addressed to you. How much time is allocated by school boards to the learning of a second language in Newfoundland and Labrador, and in your area?
Ms. Doell: In Alberta, the department recommends that 150 minutes per week be allocated to a basic French program. That works out to about 30 minutes a day.
The Chair: Is it mandatory?
Ms. Doell: It is not, unfortunately.
Mr. Murphy: It is about the same thing for us. We work at least 30 minutes a day, but it is one hour every two days.
The Chair: Is the teaching of French mandatory in Newfoundland and Labrador?
Mr. Murphy: It is mandatory from third to ninth grade, but after that it is optional. There is no program from kindergarten to third grade.
Senator Maltais: We have the good fortune of having a future member of the Académie française with us.
Mr. Murphy, you are close to Saint-Pierre-et-Miquelon, where there are French people from France; do you have any relationship with them at the school level?
Mr. Murphy: At the school level there are a lot of exchanges, because a lot of schools have field trips to Saint-Pierre- et-Miquelon and take advantage of the fact that France is right in front of us. There are also other relationships between the government and the teachers who can go there during summer to take intensive immersion courses. So yes, there are relationships.
The Chair: On behalf of the committee, I want to thank you for appearing before us and for having shared your experiences and recommendations in the context of this study. Your comments are greatly appreciated. Thank you very much.
We will recess for a few minutes so that we can prepare for the arrival of our second group of witnesses.
(The committee suspended.)
(The committee continued.)
The Chair: Honourable senators, it is our pleasure to welcome, in a roundtable for this second part of the meeting, some researchers, as well as a former deputy minister, who are going to discuss their knowledge of second-language teaching programs with us, as well as the policies that govern second-language learning.
We welcome Mr. Claude Germain, associate professor at the Université du Québec à Montréal. Mr. Germain is currently in China. Thank you for having agreed to be with us so early in the morning, as I believe it is 6:00 a.m. in China.
We also have with us Ms. Stephanie Arnott, who is assistant professor at the Faculty of Education, University of Ottawa. Finally, we welcome Mr. Norman Moyer, former associate deputy minister at Canadian Heritage, who was responsible for official language support programs from 1996 to 2003. Welcome to you all.
I will invite Mr. Germain to begin his presentation, since with technology, we never know when things might break down. Then we will hear from Ms. Arnott, and finally Mr. Moyer. The senators will ask their questions following the presentations.
Mr. Germain, you have the floor.
Claude Germain, Associate Professor, Université du Québec à Montréal, as an individual: Honourable senators, I would like to thank you most sincerely for the privilege of participating in the deliberations of your important committee.
In order that you may fully understand the significance of my contribution, I would like to indicate that I am one of the two authors of the Neurolinguistic Approach, NLA, known in Canada as intensive French. The other author is my anglophone colleague from Memorial University of Newfoundland, Dr. Joan Netten.
Through the implementation of this approach in all the provinces and territories of Canada except Quebec, my colleague and I have had the privilege of observing many classes of both core French and intensive French in all the provinces and the three territories of Canada. The major characteristic of our approach is that it is based on recent research in the neurosciences, in particular, the neurolinguistic theory of bilingualism developed by Michel Paradis of McGill University.
Since 1997, based on the findings from this neurolinguistic research, we conceived and developed a new understanding of the way that a second language should be taught in schools, based on the way a second language is learned and used in the brain. We would like to point out to you that the distinguishing characteristic of this approach is that a clear distinction is made between two different grammars: an internal, non-conscious grammar, particularly for oral competence, and an external, conscious grammar, particularly for written competence.
Why did we need to develop a different approach to teaching French? Because, as many people suspected at the time, for approximately 90 per cent of the students in core French, the program is a failure; students are unable to communicate in French, despite their knowledge about the language. We wished to put in place a program, open to all FSL students — 83 per cent, other than the 17 per cent who are in immersion — which would be effective.
This information is to demonstrate to you that, to improve the linguistic duality of Canada, it is not sufficient just to talk about best practices. What is needed is a radical change in the school system, a sort of mini-revolution, albeit a quiet one, to enable students to develop the internal grammar necessary to communicate in French. Immersion programs develop internal grammar; this is why they are successful. But this happens by chance, rather than by design, which is why they can also be improved.
As for intensive French, experiments were first undertaken from 1998 to 2004 in Newfoundland and Labrador, with the support of two consecutive three-year grants from the Department of Canadian Heritage. The positive results for oral development resulted in a rapid expansion of the program in other provinces. In 2008, New Brunswick replaced core French with intensive French, now compulsory for all students from Grade 5 to the end of Grade 10, who do not choose immersion in Grade 3. This change has enabled New Brunswick to bring about statistically significant improvement in their FSL results.
At the present time, all provinces and territories except Quebec have implemented intensive French in at least some of their school districts, which has enabled virtually all of the participating students to communicate in French. Since 1998, over 62,000 students registered for this program.
It should also be mentioned that making these changes has not been without strong resistance from some individuals and organizations more concerned with maintaining the status quo than in bringing about an improvement in the teaching and learning of French. The NLA has continued to expand. In Canada, experiments are in progress in several Aboriginal communities using the NLA not only to improve the teaching of French and English, but also for the survival of their own languages and cultures.
There are also experiments in progress at the University of Quebec in Montreal, UQAM, in teaching FSL, and also Spanish, to adults. Further afield, since 2010, the NLA has been implemented in China, with young adult university students. In two weeks, accompanied by three teachers from China and two from Canada, I will be giving a training session for the NLA in Tokyo, Japan. Other developments in other countries are still in the project stage.
These applications of, and research on, the NLA demonstrate clearly that our current understanding of how to teach a second language must change, even for adults. The NLA represents a new concept, or as the experts would say, a new paradigm, for the teaching of a second language, based on a new understanding of how a second language can be learned in the school system.
For the reminder of my presentation, I must be content with simply mentioning four myths, which can be discussed later, about the learning of second languages in schools, and then I will finish by stating my seven recommendations. All of these myths are the result of a lack of information about the most recent research on language learning.
Myth 1: in order to learn a second language, "the sooner the better." Myth 2: there is only one way to succeed in learning to speak a second language in school: participation in the immersion program. Myth 3: all students who come out of an immersion program are bilingual. Myth 4: in order to learn a second language, all that is necessary is an adequate number of instructional hours.
Here are my seven recommendations. Recommendation 1: guided by the model put in place by New Brunswick in 2008, gradually replace the core French program with an effective program, starting no sooner than Grade 4, based on the recent research in neurosciences.
Recommendation 2: regroup under one single administrative unit the present associations dedicated to the teaching and learning of French as a second language, with each of the existing organizations becoming a section of the larger administrative unit. Within this framework, the practice of many provincial and territorial representatives for French exchanging information about their challenges, already adopted in implementing intensive French, should be continued and extended to include other programs in discussions about curriculum, evaluations, training sessions, et cetera.
My third recommendation, concerning the renewal of federal-provincial/territorial funding agreements, is to radically modify the criteria for the distribution of funds for all programs. From now on, the basic criteria for all funding should be the percentage of students attaining a particular level of competence in each program, rather than the number of students registered in the programs.
As my fourth recommendation, I suggest to faculties of education that, in conjunction with researchers in neurolinguistics and applied linguistics, they undertake research on the best means of learning a second language in schools.
My fifth recommendation pertains to the adaptation of the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages to the Canadian context. It calls for the addition of a research-based section on second-language learning in schools, to ensure that effective teaching strategies are proposed based on a solid understanding of current theories of language learning.
My sixth recommendation concerns the training of teachers for intensive French. I recommend that the format already established at the beginning of such training, in 2000, be used; the format consists of offering summer professional development sessions of two weeks' duration, comprising three components: education, language skills and culture.
My seventh and final recommendation, with respect to the promotion of the official languages in a context of either linguistic duality or plurality, is to educate the public on the results of the most recent research in second language learning. The purpose would be to put an end to the widely disseminated myths about the learning of languages, for example, through messages entitled Urban Legends about the Learning of Second Languages.
[English]
It now gives me great pleasure to reply to your questions.
[Translation]
The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr. Germain. Before moving on to questions, we will hear from Ms. Arnott and Mr. Moyer.
Stephanie Arnott, Assistant Professor, Faculty of Education, University of Ottawa, as an individual: Good evening, Madam Chair and honourable senators. Thank you for the opportunity to contribute to your study on best practices for language policies and second-language learning in the context of linguistic duality or plurality.
My name is Stephanie Arnott, and I am an assistant professor in the Faculty of Education at the University of Ottawa.
[English]
I will begin with a brief overview of my experiences in the French-as-a-second-language education system. I will then share some of the academic and professional initiatives that I have been involved in in an effort to highlight two key areas that I feel would benefit greatly from government attention and action in order to optimize French-as-a-second- language education across Canada.
[Translation]
As a French as a second-language learner, I was in the first immersion class given by the Leeds and Grenville board of education, in Ontario, and I stayed in the program until I finished high school. After completing my undergraduate degree and earning a bachelor of education to teach French as a second language in the intermediate/senior division, I opted to pursue a master's degree in education with a concentration in second-language learning.
Then I went on to teach core French to primary students in Toronto for three years. My return to higher education was motivated by my empirical interest in French as a second-language teaching. I currently teach at the University of Ottawa, in the second-language education program for primary teachers, where I train future French as a second- language teachers and second-language learning researchers.
As you can see, I've really come full circle, especially given my appearance before the Senate committee this evening on this very important topic.
[English]
Based on my experiences to date and drawing from the empirical studies that I have most recently conducted, I would strongly urge you to keep the following points front of mind as you consider the recommendations you will make in the course of this important study.
Point number 1, supporting research and innovation in core French second-language programs. At present, more than 85 per cent of young Canadians are learning French as a second language in a core French program where French is taught as a subject of study either every day or a few times a week. Despite this being the program format that serves the majority of our school-based learners, core French to date has not received as much research attention as French immersion, and the research that has been conducted has documented the chronic marginalizing of core French relative to other subjects within the school system.
As a researcher and teacher-educator, I see a troubling trend emerging in this regard. In my context, new core French teachers are either moving to teach French immersion or within five years leaving FSL entirely. Equally worrisome is the consistently high core French student dropout rate across Canada when French is no longer an obligatory subject of study. For example, enrolment statistics in Ontario indicate that after five years of mandatory French study in the core French program, only 3 per cent of students continue to study French until the end of secondary school.
Teacher and student attrition is a national concern that can no longer be ignored. I firmly believe researchers need to start listening to these students and their teachers, who are living and in some cases revolutionizing the core French experience in order to validate their role as agents of change.
My current research program examining the motivation and demotivation of core French students at the adolescent level is further advancing our understanding of the student experience in this respect. For example, preliminary findings from my current work show that 20 per cent of the participating Grade 9 students who are planning on dropping core French when it becomes optional in Grade 10 report that French will still play a role in their future.
We need to figure out how to reach these students as well as others who plan on discontinuing and who do not see a role for French in their future, and how to make schools a preferred space where they feel they can further develop their French skills.
Initiatives aimed at getting more complete information about the teacher and student experience, as well as the status of core French education more broadly across the provinces and territories, would be a very positive step toward responding productively to this troubling trend.
Number 2, facilitating collaboration and inquiry into the current paradigm shift in French second-language education. As a participant in discussions with Canadian academics and professionals about the infusion of the Common European Framework of Reference, it has been refreshing to witness the collective reconsideration of central aspects of FSL education that I believe are worth revisiting, including desired learner proficiency outcomes of each of our FSL programs, desired FSL teacher proficiency, the self-assessment culture in FSL, and teacher beliefs about second-language learning.
Efforts to research and disseminate how faculties of education, post-secondary institutions, K to 12 schools and individual teachers are reacting to this paradigm shift in their official language programming need to be a top priority. I have been involved in two such efforts to date that can serve as noteworthy examples to build upon: one focused on FSL education more broadly, and the other more specifically on the Common European Framework of Reference.
The first is a study commissioned by the Council of Ministers of Education of Canada, which had two main goals: to provide an overview of issues in FSL teaching and learning that are top of mind across the various regions of Canada; and to identify areas where collaboration among the provinces and territories is already occurring and could be more productive in improving FSL education.
The findings detailed in our forthcoming report — and it is forthcoming — will serve as a call to action to improve FSL education through interprovincial initiatives that target priority areas identified by the stakeholders themselves.
The other was a CEFR research forum that I helped facilitate on behalf of the Canadian Association of Second Language Teachers. Last May we brought researchers from across Canada together to discuss what we know from the Canadian-based CEFR research to date and where continued research efforts should focus across K to 12, post- secondary and teacher education contexts. Disseminating the findings from this event is a top priority, and I am presently leading a team of seven authors to draft a Canadian CEFR research agenda based on the transcripts from this forum.
Into the future, I see considerable opportunity for the Canadian government to play a significant leadership role in ensuring the aforementioned points are considered when identifying key training and research priorities of such funding entities as Canadian Heritage and the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council. Prioritizing core French and opportunities for communication and collaboration across provinces and stakeholder groups is also essential to generating interest from young researchers who are presently studying or who are considering future study in the field of official languages. I look forward to discussing these points further with you.
The Chair: Thank you, Professor Arnott.
[Translation]
Norman Moyer, as an individual: Honourable senators, thank you for inviting me to share my perspective. And thank you for giving me the opportunity, this evening, to interact with other knowledgeable and passionate individuals who excel in the field of second-language learning in Canada. What a wonderful and new experience for my generation.
I'd like to share with you an anecdote that puts the progress we've made in Canada into context.
[English]
When Prime Minister Pearson wanted to inspire and lead the Canadian public service to learn more French, he turned to Gordon Robertson, his Clerk of the Privy Council, and said, "How can we do this?" This gives me a chance to pay homage to someone who recently left us, Ernest Côté, who was deputy minister of natural resources at the time and who passed away last week. He said, "How are we going to do this? I want you and your department, Ernest, to be the first one to bring in bilingual education for public servants."
In the end, Mr. Coté could find no resources in Canada to meet this challenge. He had to go to the State Department in the United States and bring in expertise from there.
[Translation]
With the few witnesses I've met here, thank you for showing that Canada is at the forefront of second-language learning.
Nevertheless, our approach has its gaps, one of which is in particular need of federal attention. It concerns the reality in the public service and the practical motivation young people have to learn a second language. The most advanced techniques and best practices will mean nothing if young people aren't motivated to learn and use both of Canada's official languages. To that end, there are things the Government of Canada can do. That is why I wanted to be here today to speak with the committee.
The country could not achieve bilingualism without a pool of Canadians who could speak both languages. Although the country's level of bilingualism may not be where we would like, Canada does have 5.8 million people who report being bilingual to varying degrees. So the federal government cannot claim that finding people who already speak both official languages is an impossible feat. It's imperative that Canada continue to promote bilingualism, as it does through government programs, and build innovative capacity in the field of second-language learning.
Now, I'd like to discuss the three gaps when it comes to bilingualism in Canada today. The government does not do enough to highlight the important role that bilingualism place in national unity. It's time for the government to, once again, engage in that kind of promotion, to talk proudly about what we have accomplished, what we haven't accomplished and what we can and should do through a committed approach. Unfortunately, our usual practice is to wait for the next national unity crisis to rediscover the beauty of bilingualism. Perhaps this time, we can take a proactive approach. The government should find new programs to assert its commitment to bilingualism, demonstrate that commitment and take it to the next level.
I'd like to draw your attention to two other gaps before sharing a few recommendations.
The committee has heard that young people who learn their second language in primary and high school tend to lose those language skills when they finish high school. Action has to be taken at the university level. The Commissioner of Official Languages studied the issue and proposed a number of somewhat technical solutions that require provincial cooperation. I have a solution that is both easier and more challenging. If we don't take action to address this loss in university years, we will continue to fall short of our objectives.
The third gap concerns the public service, as I mentioned. Lester Pearson started Canada off on this adventure when he shared his two dreams for the public service: that it be able to serve Canadians in both official languages whenever they need it no matter where they are in the country, and that every Government of Canada employee have the freedom to work in the official language of their choice. The first dream has more or less been realized, and it is the Commissioner of Official Languages' job to hold the government to account when it fails to do what it is supposed to.
I want a federal public service that functions in both official languages for everyone at all times. It's time to turn our focus back to the language of work. The commissioner's report addresses it, but with difficulty. A performance measurement system, progress and departmental targets are all lacking. All of these elements are within reach, however. We simply have to move in the right direction, and the time has come.
My three recommendations are as follows. First, the government needs to make a firm commitment to change and be willing to discuss it.
[English]
Secondly, let's look at a program of bursaries for students in universities, studying any subject, who can demonstrate that they have a prescribed level of bilingualism. We now have tools for measuring it. Let's use them, and let's reward those people who have dared to go into immersion or intensive French and are ready to show that they can function in two languages by giving them help to pay the incredible fees they have to pay to go to university today. That would be a wonderful, symbolic, meaningful and practical program to do. It would cost them money, but a country costs a little money. This is infrastructure for the country.
[Translation]
Third, I believe it is still necessary to target language of work in the public service. Despite having both an English and French name, departments operate primarily in English. I think we can do a lot better. The government should set an objective for Ottawa and work towards making all departments in the National Capital Region bilingual in 10 years, ensuring both languages are used as languages of work. A slew of details would have to be worked out, but that is what the government's objective should be. It can be done. Many young Canadians are studying our official languages, and they should be rewarded.
[English]
Isn't it shameful that if you spend all that time in primary school and secondary school becoming bilingual there's no priority for you in recruitment in the federal government? Why don't we reward those young people who choose to make the effort to learn both official languages and give them a hiring priority? I don't think Canadians would object anymore. They would have objected in 1965, and they did object because they felt people would be penalized, depending on where they lived. Now everywhere in the country you have the chance to learn both official languages.
[Translation]
Those are my views, and I thank you for giving me the opportunity to share them with you.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Moyer. You've given us a lot to think about.
Senator Fortin-Duplessis: I would like to begin by thanking all three of you for your well-thought-out briefs. You are forward-thinking and have a vision for the future.
My first question is for Mr. Germain. You are in China now, Mr. Germain. You have seen how the Chinese learn and you will be going to Japan. Do you think some countries are more effective in language education than others?
Mr. Germain: Yes, that's an important question. The reality is that, in a number of Asian countries, French language learning is on the decline, except in China. Oddly enough, China is experiencing a surge in French-language learning, adding 50 French departments to its universities over the past 10 years. That is part of China's development program, which, obviously, also has an English component.
It's a rather odd phenomenon. In countries where French used to have a strong presence, be it Laos or Vietnam, where I have given courses, that presence has weakened, but here, in China, it has increased. In Japan, it's more or less stable. French is regaining some popularity there, but nothing like in China.
Senator Fortin-Duplessis: My second question is for Ms. Arnott, and it's an easy one.
Your research focuses mainly on student motivation for second-language learning. What are the factors that you think drive young people to learn French as a second language?
Ms. Arnott: That's a good question and is precisely why I am doing this research.
I hear young people say that they are studying French so they can get a good job, a bilingual job. I think identity also plays a role in the discussion. The premise for my research is that I do not decide which factors motivate young people but, rather, that they tell me what those factors are.
In answer to your question about what motivates young people, what they tell me when I ask them the question is that they think it will help them get a good job, but they don't quite see the reality of the advantage it gives them. According to them, Canadian identity motivates immigrants to learn French, but they don't really know what the motivating factors are for other people.
I hope that answers your question. There is an idea called "willingness to communicate," and that may be the reason. What it really comes down to is wanting to be able to communicate with French speakers, as well as non- French speakers. It comes back to the notion of a francophone francophile identity. That's why I'm so interested in this research. It's not up to me to define what it means to be bilingual, but up to them.
Senator Fortin-Duplessis: But you have already heard students talk about what motivates them? Since you're doing this research, have you already heard young people talk about what motivates them?
Ms. Arnott: As I said, the data is preliminary, but they say that continuing their French education will guarantee them a bilingual job. They say they may be able to get by in a group of French speakers. But those are just notes. I can't really give you a list because, right now, my research shows they don't know what their motivation is. I think they know but don't really have an opportunity to talk or think about it. That's why I have proposed research based on giving students a voice and hearing what they have to say. We have a sense of what they think from questionnaires, but not really from actual discussions.
Senator Fortin-Duplessis: Mr. Moyer, I know you used to be the assistant deputy minister responsible for official languages support programs at the Department of Canadian Heritage from 1996 to 2003. You've already given us some important avenues to explore. With the benefit of your perspective and extensive experience, particularly with respect to school management and French-language high schools in Ontario, I'd like to know what concrete measures we could take, in addition to what you've already suggested, to promote second-language learning among young people while respecting the division of powers.
As you know, the provinces are fiercely protective of their jurisdiction and don't like it when the federal government encroaches on areas under their domain. We also see that in Quebec, which often disregards useful reports that could help bring about progress in certain fields simply because they came from the federal government.
In addition to making knowledge of both official languages a prerequisite for hiring, what other suggestions could you give us?
Mr. Moyer: The programs that have been around since the early 1970s, in other words, the federal-provincial agreements on the official languages education program, are an exception to many of the jurisdictional squabbles between the federal and provincial governments. The matter is an area of common ground that is under renewal; both sides will attempt to gain the upper hand, but, generally speaking, the issue is not one of the usual sore spots.
[English]
First idea: Continue with those programs. Don't put more pressure on them necessarily, but support them with enthusiasm. They deserve it. They have well-established patterns of implementation. The provinces created the Council of Ministers of Education as a means of getting into the negotiation with Ottawa for money. Money remains an important motivation for the provinces.
I would search for, as I have searched and as the ideas I give to you present, things that don't take us into conflict. What we can do as a federal government is to motivate.
In response partly to your question, although it's by ricochet, the Canadian Parents for French have surveyed several times why parents choose to send their children to French immersion, and to the surprise of lots of people, although getting a good job is an important part, there's still between a quarter and a third who do it to support the vision of a bilingual Canada.
I think that's an important stream to continue to support. People should feel that their contribution to Canada, by sending those children who are studying, is a good thing. That's why I see advantage in this program of bursaries, not just from a point of view of giving financial help to kids at university but because it rewards a behaviour that the Government of Canada thinks is good for Canada. If there are more young people learning and using both official languages, the country will be better off.
I don't want to repeat what I said about the federal government, but that is the most important tool that we can touch directly and we have not taken that next step, and we should take that step to become functionally bilingual so that we are a beacon on the Hill.
[Translation]
Senator McIntyre: My thanks to all three of you for your presentations. One of the purposes of today's meeting is to hear your views on second-language learning programs, given your working knowledge of these programs.
During public hearings, the Senate committee heard from numerous witnesses about the improvements to be made in the field of second-language teaching. Witnesses made a number of observations in relation to teacher training, access to programs, educational resources, student motivation, awareness of Canadian parents in general and allophone parents specifically, language skills assessment and second-language learning outside the classroom and beyond high school.
One thing is certain, all of those observations apply to most provinces and territories and could lead to better second-language teaching, be it at the primary, high-school or university level.
Do you think one of those areas requires more attention than another? And if so, which one?
Mr. Moyer: If I could make an investment in second-language learning research, I would focus on language skill assessment techniques in order to be able to draw emphasis to the results. Obviously, that builds on my other recommendations; you have to be able to measure results in order to grant bursaries.
Moreover, to determine whether a school board's education system is effective compared with another system, it would be useful if a mechanism was created to calculate different results. Some innovation has lately been noted in Canada and Europe in that area; I'd like to take things further.
Mr. Germain: In my opinion, the main message would be that, if we want to improve results — in other words, learning — we have to do research, but that research should focus on language learning or acquisition. If we want to change teaching, we first have to do some work on learning.
I think this area is all too neglected. Teaching is a means to an end, and the end — learning — must be paramount. I think it's in that context changes could be made, by doing research and especially by working on language acquisition and learning.
[English]
Ms. Arnott: I agree with my colleagues. I think, even though implementation and teaching are important, the space in which they are done is as important. To me, the findings have shown, as the ones that you rhymed off, such as lack of resources, certainly lack of classroom space in the case of core French, that we're talking about systematic marginalizing of the teachers. The two places where I think priority should be given are teacher motivation and in terms of speaking to them about why they entered the profession and the gains, I suppose, or what their feelings are about second-language learning. That connects very well with my colleague's point. If we're going to concentrate the research on learning, we need to focus equally on the beliefs about learning and how languages are learned in each context.
I've talked to teachers many times about research-based strategies, and this is where the framework comes into play. If I give them strategies, resources and techniques, they really won't make a difference unless they are based on and teachers have a chance to reflect on their own beliefs about language learning and how it's delivered. I hope that makes sense.
Otherwise, it just becomes something that's used in the classroom without any real reflection about the objective, which is the reason, really, why I highlighted this idea of desired proficiency not as an outcome on a test score but what is it that the students want to be doing in the end, and let's plan backwards from there.
[Translation]
Senator Maltais: We are honoured to have so many experts with us. Mr. Germain, are you still at UQAM?
Mr. Germain: I have retired from UQAM.
Senator Maltais: I am looking at the statistics, and your method seems effective and very worthwhile to me. Could it be reversed and applied to the learning of English in Quebec?
The teaching of English in Quebec is not exactly a disaster, but it's far from being highly successful. I remember that, 40 years ago, everything in Quebec was done in English, be it in business education or in other areas. I did my studies in insurance, and everything was in English. We had to figure things out as we went along. Now, 40 years later, I see that some of the programs taught at the Université Laval, a francophone university, are provided entirely in English. For instance, that's the case in medicine, engineering and other disciplines, but it's not the case in civil law in Quebec, which is taught in French.
Why do our high school students in Quebec no longer have access to 30 minutes of English language teaching once they get to CEGEP? CEGEP is the stage that prepares them for university. You're an expert; you'll be able to explain that to me.
Did senior management decide to cut that education short or said that students who obtained their high school diploma were perfectly bilingual? However, I think the results are not as obvious as they would like us to believe. What do you think?
Mr. Germain: Thank you for this important question. There is, however, a small difference in Quebec. That can be done, as it has been done in all provinces and territories, but we shouldn't forget that the socio-linguistic situation is not the same. In Quebec, French is a majority language for the province, but it remains a minority language in the rest of Canada. There is that small socio-linguistic difference.
Attempts have been made to provide intensive English programs, but those attempts are unfortunately not based on a solid theoretical foundation. Some worthwhile things are still being done in Quebec in terms of intensive English programs. However, we have met with department representatives in the past to explain to them that, if they wish to further improve English, they would need a solid foundation. We suggested they experiment with our foundation, but given that education is so decentralized in Quebec, there are already many intensive English models that are different from ours, so it's extremely difficult to implement that on a large scale.
This sort of extreme decentralization somewhat discouraged us from doing that for English, even though we had made videos in English for school administrators. We have done some work, but it's very difficult to implement. So there is some resistance I cannot explain. That's getting too political for me.
Senator Maltais: There may be another point, Mr. Germain. Not that your briefs weren't very interesting, but this affects us in particular because there is an anglophone community of almost 600,000 people in Quebec, and we don't feel like an effort is being made on the ground to make that anglophone community bilingual.
Do you agree with me? Is my view a backwards one? What do you think?
Mr. Germain: I would not say that your view is backwards, but the fact remains that the situation in Quebec is not like elsewhere. In Quebec, we can say that French is a second language. In other words, it truly surrounds the entire community — especially in Montreal and the vicinity — where anglophones and allophones live, while French is a foreign language outside Quebec. We talk about a second language, but it is a foreign language. It's practically a classroom-level language, with a few exceptions. Once again, Quebec's socio-linguistic reality is different, so what is being done elsewhere cannot always be transposed to Quebec. I do think that a lot of anglophones in Montreal now speak French. I feel that the situation has changed a lot lately, especially over the past five years. I live in Quebec when I am not abroad, and a lot of progress has been made lately. That is why I do not quite share your point of view.
Senator Maltais: I completely agree; I wanted to hear you say it. Madam Chair, I will yield my last five minutes to Senator Charette-Poulin.
Senator Charette-Poulin: My first question is for Professor Germain. You talked about the importance of language acquisition and learning. You also summarized the results of your research, which seems extremely complex and substantive to me. As part of your research, have you had an opportunity to somehow evaluate how important it is to have fun when learning a second language?
Mr. Germain: The question is extremely important. We have not evaluated that, but we have seen it. Motivation was discussed earlier. Our approach consists in making children communicate and talk. We have noticed that it was related to fun and that it increased their self-esteem. In a qualitative research project we carried out, what surprised us — we questioned parents, school directors, everyone — was that they were always talking about a very high self-esteem. We realized that motivation was not a primary concept. It was a secondary concept that derived from the self-esteem concept because, after all, children tell themselves that they may be able to do something with the language they are learning. Their self-esteem grows, and motivates them in turn. So it is a secondary concept. In that regard, communication is somewhat fun. You should watch our videos. We did not evaluate fun systematically, but children enjoy using the language, especially at that age — fifth or sixth year, when they start learning it. So they do have fun, and an intrinsic motivation stems from our approach. It is not external because it comes from the ability provided by the system, our education plan, to communicate using the language, and the self-esteem that leads to motivation is a source of real pleasure.
Senator Charette-Poulin: You are reminding me of the pride we felt when we first rode our bicycle or went skating.
My second question is for Ms. Arnott and Mr. Moyer. Both of you talked about motivation and pride. Given the world of communications we live in, do you think the federal government has a responsibility to develop a communications program to make Canadians proud of living in a bilingual country? Do you think the government could become involved in terms of marketing?
Mr. Moyer, has the federal government invested any money in a program similar to ParticipACTION — a program for raising awareness among Canadians?
Mr. Moyer: The answer to the last question is that some small-scale efforts are being made — or there were some promotional elements in my time — but there are few concentrated or sustained activities. Even while the biggest efforts were being made to move forward, the government rarely decided to really explain the concept to Canadians, and to promote it amongst them. There was a considerable public debate, but there was very little sustained promotion over the long term. Would that be a good idea? I would personally prefer a thousand grants to be given to students instead of that money being spent on an advertising program, but that is my personal preference.
Ms. Arnott: To come back to your question about fun, research shows that a link exists between the perception of proficiency and the idea of motivation among people who have abandoned French as a second language and the desire to continue their learning. We must work on bilingualism by focusing on two things — the idea of what being bilingual means and by hearing from students who are experiencing bilingualism. They need to be proficient, but they also need to have a vision of themselves that certainly exists among people who are in bilingual positions and could visit schools to share their experience with students. They could discuss with candidates the idea of being authentic or using authentic resources. What do authentic resources mean to young people? We are currently basing things on that idea of authenticity with a vision we believe to be authentic, but it is not. That question must be put to students and professors because a range of visions can be found among them. That is why the decision must come from them.
The Chair: Mr. Moyer, according to the latest census, 22.4 per cent of young Canadians aged 15 to 19 speak both official languages. Do you think the Canadian government should set a national target for young Canadian graduates?
Mr. Moyer: I believe that the efforts of that 22 per cent should be supported. The problem I am seeing is that those young people, who have a certain proficiency level, often lose it at university. It's really sad to see that investment disappear. We have to find ways. We have to engage the universities in conversation to find solutions. I have proposed a solution. It is simplistic, but it supports a very strong message. Can we set a higher target? I think that would probably be a distraction because it has a lot of impact on the provincial government. I would prefer it if the federal government took action under its mandate.
If the government announced that, in 10 years, only bilingual individuals would be hired within the public service, that would be feasible. It would indicate that we are supporting that 22 per cent of young people, so that they would have a real advantage.
The Chair: The rate was actually 24 per cent in 2001. So there has been a 1.8 per cent drop. We need to figure out what the possible solutions are. All three of you have recommended some solutions, and I thank you for that. But what could the Canadian government do to actually increase that number?
Mr. Moyer: It could use my strategy instead of increasing the percentage. It could provide that 20 per cent with something to do, since we are well positioned to achieve the type of bilingualism we want to have in Canada. I don't want to see that figure drop. However, the numbers are decreasing because young people are graduating from university and applying for jobs, and their cousin, who has never had a French course in his life, may get a public service job instead of them. Where's the logic in that?
The Chair: Would the other witnesses like to make one last comment before we wrap up?
[English]
Ms. Arnott: In relation to your question, is it in terms of setting a percentage goal?
Returning to a comment made by a teacher candidate of mine years ago who said — and I believe it was the 2013 plan that set that goal of generating bilinguals who are proficient in both languages. He said to me, "That's all well and good, but what does that look like?" I think for him, he saw himself in that percentage but didn't know what fit the percentage of bilingualism.
I find that striking for me, because I go into my own teacher education asking my teacher candidates what they see their goal to be and what they see their students being able to do. The framework is so well suited to speaking about French proficiency from a proficient standpoint and not a deficient standpoint. What is it you can do as opposed to what is it you can't do really, from the broader strokes, will touch the field quite a bit so it becomes more about demonstrating their proficiency in multiple contexts, like my colleagues have said, as opposed to meeting a certain percentage goal. Do you see what I mean? That's not quite clear. If you're going to do that, making sure it's clear would be important.
The Chair: Thank you.
[Translation]
I want to thank our three witnesses — Professor Arnott, Professor Germain and Mr. Moyer. Thank you for sharing your expertise with our committee.
Honourable senators, we will now discuss the budget. Based on a previous meeting, the clerk has prepared a budget for the committee to travel to Finland and Switzerland as part of our study on language policies.
The members of this committee are considering language policies and second-language learning in a context of linguistic duality or plurality. I need a motion to support the budget request to the internal economy committee.
Senator Fortin-Duplessis: I propose that we pass the budget for the request to the internal economy committee.
Senator Charette-Poulin: I support the motion.
The Chair: Is it your pleasure, honourable senators, to adopt the budget motion before you?
Some Hon. Senators: Yes.
The Chair: The motion is carried. Thank you.
Before we finish, I have some information for you. At the last meeting, Mr. Morrow, from Canadian Youth for French, had some additional comments to add to his presentation. He had them sent to the clerk in a written document that is being distributed to you now.
Is it your pleasure, honourable senators, to have that document classified as an exhibit in this study?
Some Hon. Senators: Yes.
The Chair: The motion put forward by Senator Fortin-Duplessis has been adopted.
I also want to provide you, for your information, with the work plan adopted by the steering committee. You will receive this plan if you do not have it already.
Are there any other questions or comments?
Senator Poirier: Have the dates for the trip to Switzerland and Finland been set?
The Chair: We first have to submit a request to the internal economy committee. The proposed dates are from May 11 to 18, but a presentation will have to be made to the internal economy committee on March 30, I think.
Since there are no further questions, the meeting is adjourned.
(The committee adjourned.)