ADDRESSING STUDENT NEEDS AND DIVERSITY: EXPLORING TEACHERS'
PERCEPTIONS AND PEDAGOGIES IN THE CONTEMPORARY FRENCH
IMMERSION PROGRAM
by
Myles Karpiuk

Bachelor of Education, Simon Fraser University, 2019
Bachelor of Kinesiology, University of the Fraser Valley, 2018

MAJOR PAPER SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL
FULFILLMENT OF
THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF

MASTER OF EDUCATION
(EDUCATIONAL LEADERSHIP AND MENTORSHIP)

In the
Teacher Education Department
© Myles Karpiuk 2023
UNIVERSITY OF THE FRASER VALLEY
2023
All rights reserved. This work may not be
reproduced in whole or in part, by photocopy
or other means, without permission of the author.

ii

Approval
Name: Myles Karpiuk
Degree: Master of Education (Educational Leadership and Mentorship)
Title: Addressing student needs and diversity: Teachers’ perceptions and pedagogies in
the contemporary French immersion program
Examining Committee:
Name: Dr. Chris Campbell
MEd Chair or Designate, Teacher Education Department
____________________________________________________________

Name: Dr. Joanne Robertson
Senior Supervisor
Assistant Professor and MEd Program Chair, Teacher Education
Department
____________________________________________________________

Name: Dr. Paula Gosal
Second Reader
Principal, Chilliwack School District
____________________________________________________________

Date Defended/Approved: June 2, 2023

iii

Abstract
Since its inception in Canada in 1965, the discourse regarding the function and success of the
French Immersion (FI) program have been debated. As the student population in the FI program
becomes more diverse, questions regarding equity and elitism persist. The increasing diversity in
FI classrooms presents challenges and opportunities for both learners and teachers. The present
study examines the perceptions of four FI teachers in a Lower Mainland school district regarding
what they believe to be the most important skills for students to acquire in the program, the
barriers to student language learning, and the pedagogies they use to meet the needs of all
learners. The results of the study indicate that FI teachers are currently placing an emphasis on
the acquisition and use of oral language skills, particularly focusing on spontaneous
communication, contextual understanding, listening, and risk-taking. Diversity of student
learning profiles - mental health challenges, language learning challenges, and special education
designations - contribute to the perceived barriers to language learning. FI teachers further
identify the barriers of students’ frustration and motivation to learn and to use the target language
(French). Teachers are currently addressing the needs of the diversity of learners in their classes
by using differentiated instruction and task-based and communicative approaches to create a
positive learning environment. The results of the study lead to key recommendations to better
support FI teachers and students in the program, particularly in the areas of inclusion and
pedagogies to strengthen students’ French language competencies.
Keywords: French immersion, pedagogy, second language acquisition, inclusion

iv

Acknowledgements
I could not have accomplished this research without the support of the people around me.
I would like to thank my supervisor, Dr. Joanne Robertson of the University of the Fraser Valley,
for her expertise in and commitment to the French Immersion program and the French language;
as well as my Second Reader, Dr. Paula Gosal, both for their time, feedback, and support. I
would like to thank all the professors and faculty involved in my Master of Education experience
– Dr. Joanne Robertson, Dr. Awneet Sivia, Dr. Sheryl MacMath, Dr. Anne Hales, Alison Davies,
and Heather Compeau. Finally, thank you to my friends and family who have supported me
throughout this process, especially my wife, Emilie, who had to put up with my constant work
throughout the past two years.

v

Dedication
Merci à ma femme, Emilie Poirier, et la famille Poirier qui m’ont aidé à retrouver une
passion pour la langue française.

vi

Table of Contents
Abstract............................................................................................................................. iii
Acknowledgements .......................................................................................................... iv
Dedication .......................................................................................................................... v
List of Tables .................................................................................................................... ix
Introduction ....................................................................................................................... 1
Literature Review ............................................................................................................. 4
French Immersion in British Columbia .................................................................................. 4
History of the French Immersion Program in Canada .......................................................... 4
Perceptions of the French Immersion Program ..................................................................... 6
The Discourse Regarding Diverse Learners in French Immersion ...................................... 7
Challenging the ‘Ideal’ French Immersion Student ................................................................ 7
The Diverse Learner in French Immersion ............................................................................. 9
Teacher Pedagogies and Ideologies in French Immersion ................................................... 12
Acknowledging and Addressing Diversity ........................................................................... 12
Addressing Language Learning Challenges and the Use of the First Language ................... 13
Promoting Literacy, Language Learning and Oral Production ............................................. 17

Methodology .................................................................................................................... 20
Method ...................................................................................................................................... 21
Bracketing ............................................................................................................................. 22
Data Sources.......................................................................................................................... 23
Data Tools ............................................................................................................................. 24
Data Analysis ........................................................................................................................ 25

Results .............................................................................................................................. 27

vii

Defining Success in the Contemporary French Immersion Program ................................. 27
Importance of Oral Language Skills ..................................................................................... 28
Importance of Contextual Understanding ............................................................................. 28
Importance of Listening and Mimicking Skills ..................................................................... 29
Importance of Risk-Taking, Confidence, and Social Competence ....................................... 29
Perception of Barriers to Student Learning .......................................................................... 30
Diverse Learners ................................................................................................................... 30
Limited Access to Resources and Opportunities ................................................................... 32
Intrinsic Barriers to Language Acquisition ........................................................................... 33
Promising Pedagogies to Meet Learner Needs ...................................................................... 35
Creating a Positive Classroom Environment ........................................................................ 35
Using Inclusive Practices ...................................................................................................... 37
Developing Innovative Instructional Approaches ................................................................. 40

Discussion ........................................................................................................................ 43
Defining Success in the French Immersion Program ........................................................... 44
Responding to Challenges in the French Immersion Program ........................................... 45
Diverse Learners ................................................................................................................... 45
Mental-Health Challenges, Anxiety, and Perfectionism ....................................................... 46
Opportunities for Spontaneous Communication and Use of the Target Language ............... 48
Student Frustration and Motivation in the French Immersion Program................................ 50

Limitations....................................................................................................................... 51
Implications and Recommendations ............................................................................. 52
Conclusion ....................................................................................................................... 54
References ........................................................................................................................ 55

viii

Appendix A ...................................................................................................................... 62
Appendix B: ..................................................................................................................... 63

ix

List of Tables
i. Participant Identification and Grade Levels

p.23

x

Glossary
i. Accelerative Integrated Method (AIM): A methodology that combines target language use with
emblematic gestures, choral activity, and drama to strengthen students’ oral fluency (Arnott,
2012).
ii. Allophone: Refers to a student whose first language is neither English nor French.
iii. Code-Switching: The use of or alternating between two language systems (Garcia & Kleyn,
2016).
iv. Content-Based Instruction: A curricular approach that places emphasis on the teaching of
language through content to maximize student language learning and use (Snow et al., 1989).
v. Counterbalanced Instruction: The “systematic integration of content (meaning) and language
(form) in teaching and learning” (p.11) for students to be able to engage with content taught
through the additional language while continuing to improve their proficiency in that language
(Tedick & Lyster, 2020).
vi. Early French Immersion: French Immersion program entry point in Kindergarten.
vii. Francophone program: Is designed for students whose parents’ first language is French.
viii. Late French Immersion: French Immersion program entry point in Grade 6 in BC.
ix. Oracy: Includes “dialogue (meaningful student participation in discussions around literacy),
language structures (expansion of the grammatical and syntactic complexity of students’ speech),
and vocabulary (expansion of students’ word and concept range)” (Tedick & Lyster, 2020,
p.238).
x. Plurilingualism: The use of multiple languages (Masson et al., 2021).

xi

xi. Social Emotional Learning: Used to help students “develop emotional awareness and skills to
manage emotions and behaviors and express them appropriately; communicate effectively with
others; and develop positive relationships.” (Keene, 2023).
xii. Task-Based Language Learning: The practice whereby students engage in real-life activities
that people do when planning and carrying out their day (Bourgoin & Le Bouthillier, 2021).
xiii. Translanguaging: Refers to the deployment of a speaker’s full linguistic repertoire and
represents an approach to language pedagogy that affirms and leverages students’ diverse and
dynamic language practices in teaching and learning (Garcia & Kleyn, 2016).

xii

Acronyms
i. FI: French Immersion
ii. FSL: French as a Second Language
iii. IEP: Individualized Education Plan
iv. L1: First language
v. L2: Second language
vii. LD: Learning disability
viii. PD: Professional Development
ix. SEL: Social Emotional Learning
x. TL: Target language

1

Introduction
French Immersion (FI) is a content-based teaching approach that integrates the teaching
of the target language (TL), French, into the curriculum (Roy, 2008). FI first began in Canada in
1965, and the program’s popularity expanded at a phenomenal rate (Roy, 2008; Safty, 1991). In
his early review of theory and practice in FI, Safty (1991) highlights the principal reasons why FI
became so successful in its first 25 years: 1) positive empirical evidence regarding the linguistic
and academic benefits for students, 2) a growing perception among Canadians that bilingual
competencies afforded socio-economic mobility, 3) a change in attitude toward second language
learning, and 4) a growing acceptance for multicultural settings in Canada. As a result of the
program’s success and increase in popularity, the benefits of FI have long been studied. In
Lazurak’s (2007) review of research on French as a second language (FSL) education in Canada,
he suggests that FI programs enable students to develop high levels of proficiency in both French
and English without negatively impacting their academic performance. Lazurak (2007) also
points out that the key goal of the FI Program - bilingualism - is associated with heightened
mental flexibility, creative thinking skills, and greater communicative sensitivity (the ability to
respond to verbal and non-verbal cues and to attend to listeners’ needs). In Barrett DeWiele and
Edgerton’s (2021) examination of FI programs in Canada, they found there to be three prominent
incentives for parents enrolling children in the program: 1) students can become functionally
bilingual with no negative academic effects on their first language (L1) or second language (L2);
2) speaking two languages has shown to enhance cognitive abilities such as memory and
creativity; and 3) the perceived enhanced career and life opportunities.
Despite the popularity of FI, many students struggle and leave the program (Arnett &
Fortune, 2004; Wise, 2011). It becomes problematic and questions of equity arise when the

2

students who do not remain in the program are those with learning exceptionalities (Wise, 2011).
FI has gained a reputation as a program for the academically elite as more people question if
students with diverse learning needs are receiving sufficient support to succeed in FI. In their
respective studies, Davis et al. (2019), Mady and Arnett (2009), Roy (2008), Wise (2011), and
Wise et al., (2016) have noted that FI programs often develop a negative image of exclusion and
elitism. Researchers identify the current cause for concern in the FI context: at-risk learners who
are not receiving equitable support such as differentiated instruction and learning assistance
services (Arnett & Mady, 2009; Bourgoin, 2014; Delcourt, 2018; Genesee & Jared, 2008; Wise,
2011). As inclusion of all learners is a key focus area in education today, FI programs must adapt
and re-examine teaching practices that may be considered exclusionary, antiquated, or elitist.
While early studies have suggested that FI poses no detrimental risk to any type of learner
(Bruck, 1978; Genesee, 1976), students with exceptional learning needs continue to struggle in
FI and many leave the program because of their challenges. As some scholars have pointed out,
there needs to be more of an emphasis on professional development (PD) around inclusion and a
more collaborative approach to supporting at-risk learners amongst stakeholders in FI (Bourgoin,
2014; Wise, 2011).
I have lived in Chilliwack, British Columbia (B.C.), my entire life. I went through the
Chilliwack School District, and I am a product of the local FI program. I am now in my fifth year
as a teacher and currently teaching Grade 7 Late FI in Chilliwack. I know the context of the FI
program both as a student and as a teacher. Naturally, I am invested in this program and the
success of its learners. My goal is that every student who comes through my class has a positive
experience and develops an appreciation for the French language that extends throughout their

3

schooling and beyond. However, I also recognize that the FI program is not the same as it once
was. The students coming into the FI program seem to have more diverse needs than ever before.
Teachers in FI cannot continue to operate under the assumption that it is an enrichment program,
solely for the academically gifted. In my own practice, I am challenged by trying to meet the
needs of all the learners in my class. I am in no way an expert on differentiated instruction, and I
have limited knowledge and PD in this area. Since I first began teaching in the program, my
values and beliefs regarding immersion pedagogies have changed and I have been shifting my
practices to create a more inclusive learning environment for all students. However, I do believe
that I have much more learning to do around inclusion.
These personal reflections have ultimately led to questions that represent the focus of this
research project: For whom is the FI program designed? What is considered best practice today
in FI classes? Today, some almost 60 years of research on the FI program these questions are
still relevant and need to be re-examined. I believe that a shift in the traditional discourse
regarding the FI program and its learners towards the promotion of inclusionary practices and
policies is critically important today. We need to ensure that the needs of all learners within the
program are met for more students to be successful in their second language learning journey.
My research, which aimed to provide a snapshot of the contemporary FI classroom,
sought to address two questions: 1) How are the needs of FI students perceived by FI teachers?
and 2) What pedagogies are these teachers using to address those perceptions? Specifically, I
sought to explore the perceptions and experiences of a group of Lower Mainland FI teachers
regarding their work with diverse learners, the challenges they face in their daily work, and the
pedagogies they use with their students. I hope that the findings of this study will help guide

4

stakeholders in FI, including teachers, school administrators, and school board representatives in
strengthening FI at a local level to ensure the success of all learners in the FI program.
The present study is structured in the following order: 1) I present a literature review to
demonstrate the history and perceptions of FI, the discourse regarding diverse learners in FI, and
current pedagogies and ideologies in FI; 2) I present the methods used for the research and the
parameters of the study; 3) I present the key themes that emerged from analyzing the interviews
in the results section; 4) I examine and connect the key themes from the results with existing
literature in the discussion section; and 5) I provide implications and recommendations for future
research and the study’s limitations in the conclusion.
Literature Review
French Immersion in British Columbia
The FI program first began in B.C. in the 1968-69 school year at Alderson Elementary in
Coquitlam with a group of 32 kindergarten students (Ministry of Education and Child Care,
2019). Between 1997 and 2014, B.C. FI programs saw an enrollment increase of 65% (Tardif &
Poirier, 2017). Now, over 50 years since its inception in B.C., enrollment is over 50,000
students, accounting for 9% of its total student population (Canadian Parents for French, n.d.).
Of the 60 school districts in B.C., 46 offer FI programs. Of these school districts, 40 offer an
early FI program 28 offer a late FI program, and 19 offer both late and early FI programs
(Canadian Parents for French, n.d.).
History of the French Immersion Program in Canada
The FI program first started in 1965 in St. Lambert, Quebec with the primary objective of
teaching students to be competent in oral and written French, while sustaining the development
of the students’ L1. The FI program also aimed to teach students content appropriate to their age

5

and school level, and to develop their understanding of and respect for the francophone culture
and language, while retaining their own culture and identity (Roy & Galiev, 2011). In Canada, FI
is a program of choice for bilingual education that provides students with a sheltered and
immersed classroom environment in which they receive at least half of their content courses
instruction through the TL (Culligan, 2015). FI students engage in most subject areas such as
sciences, language arts, and mathematics within a rich French L2 environment (Genesee, 2007).
Students learn to speak, read, and write in French while learning the required content in the
subject areas (Bourgoin & Dicks, 2019).
The following eight characteristics were identified by Swain and Johnson (1997) as
common factors of immersion programs in Canada: 1) use of the L2 as the main instructional
medium, 2) a curriculum that aligns with the L1 curriculum, 3) support for the students’ L1, 4) a
focus on promoting additive bilingualism, 5) limited exposure to the L2 outside of the classroom,
6) students start the program with minimal proficiency in the L2, 7) teachers are bilingual, and 8)
a classroom culture that reflects that of the L1 community. It has been suggested that these eight
characteristics of the FI program are no longer accurate in the current Canadian context,
particularly when it comes to the increasing diversity and multiculturalism in Canadian
classrooms (Davis et al., 2019 Lapkin & Swain, 2005). As Bourgoin and Dicks (2019) point out,
the FI program has continued to grow in popularity over the years but has also increased in
diversity with more and more students from various educational, linguistic, and cultural
backgrounds enrolling in the program. While the eight characteristics proposed by Swain and
Johnson in 1997 are outdated, my review of the literature did not provide a more current
framework that describes and reflects the reality of the FI program today. Research exploring the

6

characteristics that define FI programs today could help stakeholders re-examine the structure of
the program to reflect the current reality of its learners.
Perceptions of the French Immersion Program
Although the FI program has increased in popularity since its inception, it has also faced
criticism for being perceived as an enrichment program that caters to only the highest achievers
and creates a sense of elitism (Davis, 2019; Mady & Arnett, 2009; Roy, 2008; Wise, 2011; Wise
et al., 2016). There seem to be two key factors that contribute to this perception: the challenges
teacher face in meeting all learning needs in the classroom and the frequent recommendations by
teachers and administrators to withdraw students who have diverse learning needs (Delcourt,
2018; Wise, 2011). Some researchers argue that the structure of the FI program creates a system
by which diverse learners are given limited opportunities to access and/or receive support (Arnett
& Mady, 2009; Bourgoin, 2014; Delcourt, 2018; Genesee & Jared, 2008; Wise, 2011). The
debate about whether students who struggle to learn the language at the same level as their peers
should be withdrawn from the program has been going on since the start of the program (Arnett
& Mady, 2009). This debate has negative consequences for students who struggle with languagebased learning and who wish to learn the French language. It also has the potential to
subconsciously influence teachers to believe that immersion-based language learning is not
suitable for all students (Arnett & Mady, 2009).
The following review of literature is organized around two key themes: 1) the discourse
surrounding diverse learners in FI and 2) teacher pedagogies and ideologies in FI. Such themes
provide insight into the current functioning of the program and highlight the need for program
restructuring to meet the needs of all learners. Education is continually evolving and so must the
practices in education.

7

The Discourse Regarding Diverse Learners in French Immersion
It can be challenging for FI teachers to meet the needs of all learners, and it can be
equally challenging for students with diverse learning needs to learn an additional language. The
question becomes: How can all learners be best supported in the FI context? One barrier to FI is
the assumption that students who require special education support are better off learning in their
L1 due to beliefs that “bilingualism might delay a child’s language development…negatively
impact their academic achievement, [or] lead to general confusion” (Gerbrandt, 2022, p.74).
However, early studies suggested that FI does not negatively impact the academic achievement
of a student with diverse learning needs (Bruck, 1978; Genesee, 1976). It is critical that all
stakeholders in the FI program re-examine the discourse regarding diverse learners and adapt
practices to ensure that is a program for all.
Challenging the ‘Ideal’ French Immersion Student
The first step in this re-examination should be aimed at changing the narrative regarding
the concept of the ideal learner in FI. A limited number of studies have examined the perceptions
of teachers, administrators, and parents regarding which students are suitable for the program
(Arnett & Mady, 2018; Mady & Arnett, 2009; Mady & Masson, 2018; Masson et al., 2021;
Wise, 2011). Mady and Masson (2018) conducted interviews and surveys with FI principals in
Ontario in which principals’ perception of the ideal learner profile included the following
characteristics: verbal (likes to talk), strong literacy skills, risk taker, enjoys new challenges,
strong level of English, interested in learning the other language, and a capacity for learning
language. The principals’ perceptions of success in FI were primarily linked to students’
language competencies, with some principals in the study noting that learners in the FI program
need to produce visible, measurable results in competency-based skills such as communicating,

8

reading, thinking, and speaking. Others defined success in terms of reading and writing with
proficiency and the ability to comprehend and converse in the French language. While this study
by Mady and Masson sheds light on school leaders’ views regarding success in the FI program, it
does not provide information regarding the perceptions of classroom teachers.
It is important to critically examine what FI teachers believe about student abilities in the
FI context. In her analysis of a typical New Brunswick Grade 3 FI literacy block, Gerbrandt
(2022) attempted to identify and explain the systemic barriers to the FI program and the
underlying social forces that can sometimes pre-determine a student’s likelihood of being
supported and achieving academic success. Gerbrandt discusses the concept of habitus in the FI
program, defined as “a system of schemes of thought, perception, appreciation and action”
(p.74). According to Gerbrandt, teachers “impart the habits, values, and practices that are valued
by the dominant group” of students in a class (p.75). Within the FI context, an ideal habitus often
focuses on appreciating the French language and prioritizing the development of oral literacy
skills, while requiring students to adhere to routines such as raising their hand, organizing their
belongings, and being self-sufficient and accountable for their actions. Students who walk into
the classroom without these hidden prerequisites are less likely to be successful than their peers
(Gerbrandt, 2022). This habitus may still be held by some teachers and administrators in the FI
program.
The studies by Mady and Masson (2018) and Gerbrandt (2022) identify a barrier that can
silently exist in the FI context: the segregation of students into two groups – those who are wellbehaved and do well academically and those who are not and do not. Some students may be
walking into their classroom with their success in language already pre-determined by the
habitus created by the teacher and the program. If teachers and administrators have pre-

9

conceived ideas and a narrow definition of the ideal French language learner, diverse learners
could be coming into the FI program already with a disadvantage. While some teachers and
administrators think they may be doing struggling learners a favour by dissuading them from
enrolling in the FI program or later by persuading them to transfer out of the program, this
exclusion does not always consider the impact it may have on the child in question. Further
research into teacher perceptions regarding student success in FI could help stakeholders better
understand the current state of the program. Research could also contribute to evaluating and
transforming teacher pedagogies to better meet diverse learner needs moving forward.
The Diverse Learner in French Immersion
While there is continued debate regarding the suitability of diverse learners in FI, there is
limited recent research on the topic. When the FI program first began, a series of studies (e.g.,
Bruck, 1978, Genesee, 1976) emerged questioning whether students who struggled with
language learning should transfer to the English-only program. A study by Bruck (1978), which
followed the progress of FI students from kindergarten to Grade 3, attempted to determine the
feasibility of the FI program for children with language-learning disabilities. Using literacy and
academic achievement tests as data sources, the study found that the FI students with learning
disabilities (LDs) scored at the same level as students with LDs in the English program.
Unsurprisingly, both groups with LDs scored lower than their typically developing peers in their
respective programs. However, the study noted that participation in the FI program benefited the
students with LDs by providing them with the opportunity to develop significantly higher French
language proficiency skills in comparison to the students receiving Core French instruction in the
English program. The results of this early study suggest that there is little evidence to support the
discourse that children with LDs will do poorly in a FI program. In fact, the study provided

10

evidence that students with LDs can develop linguistic, cognitive, and academic skills at a rate
similar to what they would develop if they were to be placed in an English classroom. Bruck’s
(1978) study further demonstrated that there was a distinction between the students with
academic difficulties who withdrew from the FI program and those with academic difficulties
who remained in the program; the students who switched out of FI expressed significantly more
negative attitudes toward schooling. Bruck’s study suggests that a student’s inability to cope with
academic struggles may be a more serious problem than the academic struggles themselves. As
such, coping strategies and attitudes may be more relevant than academic ability in determining
which students will benefit from FI.
Studies such as Bruck (1978) provide insight regarding long-standing perceptions of the
ideal learner and student achievement in FI; however, such studies are outdated and much has
changed in education over the last 40 years. Research in FI has seemed to shift from whether
students can achieve success in the program to how they can be supported to attain success
(Masson et al., 2021). This shift reflects how the discourse regarding diverse learners in the
program is changing and how teachers can alter their practices, beyond supporting students
academically. FI teachers need to consider how they can support students emotionally and ensure
that they not are not developing negative attitudes toward school, the program, and language
learning in general.
The difficult journey of diverse learners has been highlighted by some researchers in the
field today. Mady and Arnett (2009) examined one mother’s journals about her son’s experience
in the FI program. Her son had academic difficulties in his early language learning and was
eventually diagnosed with Dyslexia. The mother actively sought support for her son’s struggles.
The principal’s response was that the FI program was for enrichment and that there would be no

11

extra support provided to him. The mother eventually withdrew her son from the program in
Grade 4.
Based upon her experiences as a special education FI teacher, Wise (2011) highlighted
the journey of a fictional student in the FI program. The narrative followed Hannah who had
language learning issues, particularly in writing, and was eventually diagnosed with a moderateto-severe LD. Hannah was placed on an Individual Education Plan (IEP); however, due to her
teacher’s lack of preparedness to address the needs of diverse learners and a lack of additional
educational support, Hannah continued to struggle. After several meetings with school staff and
administrators, her parents were encouraged to switch her to the English stream, where she could
access special education programs and services. Hannah was withdrawn from FI just prior to the
end of Grade 3. Examples such as these highlight the exclusionary practices that often persist in
FI programs. Wise (2011) advises that the exclusionary practices regarding diverse and
struggling learners in FI need to be carefully examined. Dialogue should be initiated to seek
answers to questions surrounding the equity issue in the FI program and why such practices
continue to occur. Both Mady and Arnett (2009) and Wise (2011) demonstrate how students with
exceptional needs not only struggle in the FI program but are often excluded from the program
due to their exceptionalities. The two studies were conducted over a decade ago, but the
recommendations made by Wise (2011) continue to hold true today – recognition of and
attention to issues of equity and inclusion in FI are still needed to expand the opportunities for
students with LDs and exceptionalities.
If students with significant learning difficulties can achieve similar levels of success in FI
programs as their bilingual peers, then there should be a movement towards more inclusive
practices. According to Wise (2011), there should be no more discussion regarding whether

12

specific students are suitable for the FI program; all students, including those with diverse needs,
can and should be accommodated in the FI program. However, it is not as simple as just shifting
mindsets regarding who is a suitable learner in the FI program. There is a need for equitable
funding and sufficient resources to meet the diverse learning needs of students and improved
access to professional learning opportunities for FSL teachers (Wise, 2011).
Teacher Pedagogies and Ideologies in French Immersion
As student diversity in FI classes continues to increase, it is important to consider
pedagogical factors in the success of FI students. The following section aims to provide a
comprehensive overview of the various pedagogies and ideologies that underpin successful FI
programs and to offer insights into best practices for teachers who are working with diverse
learners in this context.
Acknowledging and Addressing Diversity
The early study by Bruck (1978) suggested that barriers to language learning may be
associated with specific teaching methods such as the use of a great deal of memory work, the
repetition of language out of context, and the learning of abstract rules, all of which reflect
strategies that do not favour the strengths of students with LDs. In an analysis of key concepts
related to inclusion in FI in Canada, Bourgoin (2014) suggests that acknowledging that students
are entering FI with different needs, interests, and abilities is the first step toward implementing
appropriate instructional approaches and strategies required to address student diversity.
Bourgoin further notes that teachers should engage in PD sessions focusing on how specific
instructional adaptations can be used to support struggling learners and benefit other students in
the program. Further, Bourgoin highlights that recommended teaching strategies for students
with LDs in English programs parallel those for teaching L2 learners, such as the use of

13

alternative explanations, gestures, or pictures to emphasize language; the repetition of key
concepts; pre-teaching vocabulary; and frequent questioning. Bourgoin’s analysis also sheds
light on the need for more PD opportunities for teachers to learn how to adapt their instructional
approaches and strategies to support struggling learners in the program. An emphasis needs to be
placed on promoting an inclusive environment that provides students with the best opportunities
to meet their needs by removing any possible barriers to their participation.
For teachers to recognize and effectively manage student diversity in their classrooms, it
is essential to provide them with more opportunities to learn, develop, and receive support in this
area. Wise (2011) argues that FI teachers are not adequately trained in inclusive education
practices, which results in their lack of preparation to effectively teach students with diverse
needs. To address this issue, it is urgent that FI educators have increased access to PD
opportunities that can support their efforts to respond to the needs of diverse learners. Teachers
and students also have limited access to special education services in FI programs (Genesee,
2007; Genesee & Jared, 2008; Mady & Arnett, 2009; Wise, 2011). This lack of support
strengthens the elitist notion that FI is most appropriate for the academically strong. If FI is
suitable for all students, then teachers must have the necessary support and PD opportunities to
meet the needs of all learners (Davis, 2019).
Addressing Language Learning Challenges and the Use of the First Language
Balancing Content Learning and Language Acquisition. FI teachers are challenged in
their everyday practice, beyond meeting the needs of all learners, by the need to successfully
balance the learning of language and content (Cammarata & Tedick, 2012; Tedick & Zilmer,
2018). According to Roy (2008), one major issue is that FI teachers have focused on transmitting
the curriculum in such a way that students have had minimal opportunities to use oral or written

14

French for creative or problem-solving activities; meaning there is more of a focus on content
than on language (Cammarata & Tedick, 2012; Roy, 2008; Tedick & Zilmer, 2018). Further,
Roy (2008) suggests that most teachers rely on their own knowledge or understanding of what it
is to learn content in FI and many teachers continue to use more traditional approaches to
teaching language, rather than applying new theories or approaches to their practice. In a recent
case study, Cammarata and Haley (2018) examined the use of PD aimed at increasing teachers’
ability to implement instructional methods to better support students’ linguistic and literacy skills
during subject-matter instruction. The results of this study demonstrated that teachers struggled
on their own to create specific language targets in their content-based lesson plans, but with
focused PD and collaborative planning, they were able to better identify and create language and
literacy targets for lessons. Cammarata and Haley's (2018) study suggests that teachers require
significant time to develop their understanding of core areas such as language and language
teaching. The study also suggests that while teachers' knowledge and practice can develop, it
may not guarantee changes in their actual teaching practices. In other words, teachers' beliefs and
perceptions must align with the approaches they are attempting to learn. Studies such as Roy
(2008) and Cammarata and Haley (2018) shed light on how teacher beliefs regarding practice
can impact the way they integrate teaching approaches into their classes. It would be worthwhile
for researchers to examine the perceptions of teachers who are attempting to autonomously shift
their practice.
Cammarata and Tedick’s (2012) phenomenological study explored teachers’ experiences
with content and language integration and highlight the issues related to teachers’ understanding
of the relationship between language and content. The findings suggest that teachers are
challenged by balancing content and language in instruction due to limited resources, such as

15

materials specifically designed to integrate language and content and PD programs designed to
meet the unique needs of FI teachers. The authors contend that there is a need to “alter belief
systems related to immersion, program-level support for immersion teachers, and teacher
preparation and PD programs” (p.265). The promotion of research-based pedagogical practices is
one critical way to help teachers reform their practice.
Some research has found that FI teachers can be reluctant to implement more cooperative
learning and project-based strategies because they are concerned that students will use English
during these activities, which is seen as contravening the basic premises of FI (Culligan, 2015;
Roy, 2008). In Tedick and Lyster’s (2020) book, Scaffolding Language Development in
Immersion and Dual Language Classrooms, they introduce research-based pedagogical practices
for supporting and enhancing language development and use in school-based immersion and dual
language programs. The authors discuss using counterbalanced instruction and suggest the need
for students to engage in collaborative work to allow them to build vocabulary and maximize
language learning. Altering teachers’ practices regarding language and content requires further
empirical research to develop a more complete understanding of content and language
integration in FI. Research examining descriptions of FI teachers’ experience attempting to
balance content and language in their instruction could help further shift teacher pedagogies and
ideologies in FI. The current lack of knowledge regarding FI teachers’ actual lived experiences
“prevents us from fully understanding the key issues at the core of content and language
integration” (Cammarata & Tedick, 2012, p.254).
The Use of the First Language. The strict separation of languages in bilingual education
has also been identified as an issue in the literature, as it does not allow for cross-linguistic
reference. And yet this practice has persisted within immersion programs (Cummins, 2021;

16

Dressler, 2018). In a study examining teachers’ understanding of immersion pedagogy within a
German bilingual program, Dressler (2018) found that teachers’ understanding of immersion
pedagogy was influenced by beliefs related to separating L1 and L2 in the classroom. The
findings of Dressler’s (2018) study revealed that some teachers attempt to monitor and control
the language of the classroom by monopolizing talk time, forbidding code-switching, and
restricting student collaborative work, especially in the early years. Dressler’s (2018) study sheds
light on the need for teachers to explore their understanding of immersion pedagogy and identify
strategies to use the students’ L1 as a pedagogical tool to promote bilingualism and strengthen
the students’ understanding of the L2.
In their recent synthesis of Canadian FSL research, Masson et al. (2021) found that while
the use of L1 in FI classrooms remains a controversial topic, there is a growing acceptance of L1
as a support for L2 development. The authors suggest increasing acknowledgement of teachers’
and students’ plurilingual backgrounds and the use of languages other than French in the FI
classroom. When teachers value plurilingualism, students begin to develop positive plurilingual
identities. Other researchers have suggested that practices such as translanguaging can help
teachers actively welcome multiple languages into the classroom and creates new possibilities
for students to develop their own identities as bilingual users (Masson et al., 2021). This practice
can “support and encourage students’ [access of] their full linguistic repertoire, regardless of the
language of instruction” (Ballinger et al., 2017, p.36). Cummins' research (1998; 2021) suggests
that immersion educators enhance students' language awareness through activities that involve
comparing and contrasting their own languages and engaging in projects on various aspects of
language, including structure, sociolinguistics, and sociopolitics. Cummins (2021) advocates for
teachers’ use of translanguaging practices to foster multilingual literacies, improve students'

17

comprehension of academic language across subjects, promote active engagement in literacy
activities, and validate the identities of multilingual students.
The separation of students’ L1 and the TL within an immersion program will likely be
debated for years to come. There is a need for FI educators to rethink French-language-only rules
and the way that L1 can be used positively in their classes to promote bilingualism,
multiliteracies, and language development (Cammarata & Tedick, 2012; Culligan, 2015; Masson
et al., 2021). This may require further research regarding the use of L1 in the FI context for
teachers to better understand how multiple languages can be used productively in immersion
classrooms and to learn instructional strategies that support the cross-linguistic transfer of
knowledge.
Promoting Literacy, Language Learning and Oral Production
The term literacy has expanded over the years, reorienting toward an “emphasis on oral
language, interactions and socialization, and developing the critical perspectives” (Bourgoin &
Le Bouthillier, 2021, p. 71). In their study, Bourgoin and Le Bouthillier (2021) examined the use
of task-based language learning in a FI context. By using tasks that focus on meaning and
exchanges, FI students have more opportunities to take ownership of their language learning and
engage in the L2 in more meaningful and spontaneous ways. Task-based language learning
further allows students to critically reflect on their language use, to problem solve, and to
determine the next steps in using the language.
In their synthesis of FSL research, Masson et al. (2021) found that FSL teachers have
been transforming their practice by implementing more student-centred approaches to increase
student engagement. The use of multimodal literacy practices and authentic learning through
scaffolding techniques which use storytelling, gestures, active collaboration, and repetition has

18

been shown to increase student engagement in FSL (Masson et al., 2021). Student-centred
practices allow teachers to introduce content in more authentic ways, moving away from
traditional and mechanical approaches to language learning. Arnott (2012) examined the use of
the Accelerative Integrated Method (AIM) in Core French classes with the belief that “the more
students produce the language from the very beginning of L2 learning, either chorally with
gestures or spontaneously with teacher support, the more likely they are to become fluent and
accurate in their overall production of the target language” (p.158). In Arnott’s study, students
attributed their increased confidence and engagement in their additional language learning to
these student-centred practices.
Tedick and Lyster (2020) suggest that FI teachers should focus on the development of
oracy. The authors argue that oral language is the foundation for developing written vocabulary
and reading comprehension in both literacy and biliteracy. Teachers can develop student oracy
through the use of practices such as: 1) reading aloud for fluency development (echo reading,
choral reading, reading to partners, etc.); 2) the use of readers’ theatre (students read from a
script to dramatize a written work); and 3) the use of oracy centres (students listen to and read
along with a recording of a text, pairs or small groups can engage in echo or choral reading, etc.).
These student-centred activities not only teach specific language structures but also expand
students’ oral language production during classroom interaction. Similarly, Cummins (2014)
argues that student engagement is likely to increase when “instruction enables them to coconstruct knowledge with their teachers and to develop the critical literacy skills necessary to
understand and act on the world around them” (p.153). Teachers can use the expanded definition
of literacy and the concept of oracy to ensure that their literacy instruction includes the crucial
component of oral language development that allows students to co-construct their knowledge

19

with teachers. Since the early 2000s, researchers have examined FSL teachers transforming their
practice by implementing student-centred approaches and their impact on student engagement;
yet findings have not clearly demonstrated the factors that affect such innovation and teacher
decision-making (Masson et al., 2021). It would be worthwhile for researchers to continue
examining the benefits of student-centred approaches in the FI context and how teachers can
begin to use such approaches in their practice.
In the younger years, students are often eager to speak about themselves and their
emotions; and the use of emotional and personal language can also be used to increase oral
language production in the classroom. Haj-Broussard et. al (2017) examined the practices of
kindergarten FI teachers in Louisiana to evaluate students’ oral TL production in response to
different instructional practices. The authors found that teacher practices do influence student
oral language production. Choosing themes, activities, and discussions that revolved around the
students resulted in higher levels of oral production. This practice appeared to give students a
sense of ownership of the language and a way to communicate what was going on in their lives.
The authors further suggest that best practices for oral language development employed by the
teachers were those that facilitated significantly more meaningful student language production
and placed less emphasis on direct instruction.
It is important for teachers to reflect on the practices that they use in their classrooms in
relation to literacy, language learning, and oral language development. Oral interaction affords
opportunities for learners to use the TL in meaningful ways that also contribute to language
development (Tedick & Lyster, 2020). Shifting away from traditional language instruction that
isolates language from content and providing focus on language in contextualized ways can take
time and planning. It remains challenging for some FI teachers to experiment with innovative

20

and engaging practices, particularly when it comes to grammar instruction (Masson et al., 2021).
Further research that provides concrete strategies for FI educators and increased access to PD
and collaborative opportunities could help teachers be more comfortable and motivated to
engage in such practices.
There is currently limited research when it comes to teacher perceptions of student needs
in the contemporary FI classroom. As FI classrooms are becoming more diverse, it is equally
important to gain insight from teachers attempting to balance the complex learning environment
and the interplay of content, language, and learner. The current research study seeks to address
these gaps by exploring the perceptions and experiences of four FI teachers, to gain insight into
their interactions with diverse learners, the challenges they face in their daily work, and the
pedagogies they use with their students to ensure the success of all learners in the FI program.
Methodology
This study was conducted to address two questions: 1) How are the needs of FI students
perceived by FI teachers? and 2) What pedagogies are these teachers using to address those
perceptions? I conducted my inquiry through a constructivist paradigm which proposes that
reality is constructed within social environments and through interactions with others (Creswell
& Plano Clark, 2017). This paradigm was used to ensure that FI teachers’ diverse perceptions,
pedagogies, and experiences were heard and represented. Ontology addresses the nature of
reality (Creswell & Plano Clark, 2017). It is my ontological belief that our experiences, and our
interpretation of those experiences, lead to multiple realities. For example, in the context of FI,
one class could have multiple students with designations and little support that would greatly
impact a teacher’s pedagogical practice and perception of student success. Participants’
perceptions, experiences, and knowledge informed the results of my inquiry. Epistemology

21

addresses the relationship between the researcher and the participant (Creswell & Plano Clark,
2017). The epistemology of my research called for a close relationship with participants to
collect data, allowing participants to share their honest opinions and experiences with me.
Axiology addresses the role of values within research (Creswell & Plano Clark, 2017). The
axiology of my research required me to be transparent about biases and interpretations. As a
current FI teacher, I have my own perception of what is best practice, my own personal
pedagogies, and my own experiences that may not be the same as other FI teachers. It was
important that I bracketed those biases as much as possible throughout the research process.
Method
The qualitative method that I used was phenomenology. Phenomenology is the study of
lived experiences: capturing feelings, emotions, viewpoints, and perceptions (Creswell & Poth,
2017). Further, given the assumptions that knowledge is socially constructed and contextsensitive, reality is neither static nor fixed (Yilmaz, 2013). When compiling phenomenology,
researchers report on how the individuals participating in the study view their experiences
differently (Creswell, 2002). According to Creswell and Poth (2017), the defining features
typical of a phenomenological study include: 1) an emphasis on a phenomenon to be explored; 2)
the exploration of this phenomenon with a group of individuals who have all experienced this
phenomenon using interviews; 3) the researcher brackets themselves out of the study by
acknowledging and discussing personal experiences with the phenomenon; and 4) a data analysis
that follows systematic procedures that move from finding significant statements, to finding
themes and meaning, and then on to detailed descriptions of ‘what’ the individuals have
experienced and ‘how’ they have experienced it.

22

Phenomenology was selected for this study because I wanted to understand the
experiences of FI teachers in relation to their work with learners and its impact on their practice.
In conducting this phenomenological study, I was able to examine commonalities and
differences among FI teachers to create an understanding of how these FI teachers perceive the
current state of the program, its learners, and the realities they face. To focus on the perceptions
of participants, I need to bracket my own.
Bracketing
In phenomenology, the use of bracketing during interviews and data analysis is crucial.
As a researcher, I recognize that I bring my own experiences and perceptions regarding students
in the FI program and their learning needs. Having taught in the FI program for five years, I have
observed significant shifts in student demographics, abilities, and needs, which have influenced
my perspectives on teaching and learning in the program. I shifted my pedagogical practices
away from a focus on grammar and rote memorization towards prioritizing practical language
skills, such as oral communication, that students could apply in real-life contexts. It became
evident to me that the goals of the FI program should evolve with the changing educational
landscape. However, it is important to acknowledge that every teacher has their own unique
experiences and beliefs that shape their instructional approaches and pedagogical choices.
Therefore, as a researcher, I made a conscious effort to set aside my personal experiences and
beliefs to ensure that the voices of the participants in this study were accurately represented. I
worked to bracket myself out of the research by engaging in multiple rounds of coding and
working with my supervisor throughout the coding process, while also maintaining a reflexive
journal documenting my own thoughts, feelings, and reactions to the data. I sought to present
their experiences and stories in the findings, placing their perspectives at the forefront.

23

Data Sources
Data sources were based on interviews with four participants. After receiving ethics
approval from the Human Research Ethics Board, participants were recruited through an email
script sent to principals, which included a poster of participant criteria, that was later shared with
teachers. I sought to have a purposeful sampling in which I determined the criteria for
participation in advance. I sought participants with varied experience teaching FI: 1) one teacher
who had taught FI for more than the last five years, 2) one teacher who had taught FI for less
than the last five years, and 3) one teacher who self-identified as a leader and was involved in
inclusionary practices.
I also sought participants with varied grade levels to provide the voice of participants
from elementary, middle, and secondary levels. All the participants who were selected for the
study taught in the same district to enable consistency in teaching systems, funding, and access
to resources.
Table 1
Participant Identification and Grade Levels
Participant Identification*

Grade Level

Suzanne

Elementary

Claire

Middle

Sarah

Middle

Alex

Secondary

Note. * Years of experience for each teacher is not provided to limit identifiable factors for each
participant. Names used in the study are pseudonyms to de-identify participants of the study.

24

Four participants consented to participate in the study. Two participants were FI teachers
who have been teaching in the program for more than the last five years and two participants had
previous FI teaching experience but had returned to teaching the program within the last five
years. While none of the teachers in the study were early career teachers, the study was still able
to include diverse perspectives, knowledge, and experiences regarding the phenomenon being
studied.
Prior to the interview, I shared the Letter of Informed Consent and a copy of the
interview protocol and questions. At the start of our interview, I reviewed the Letter of Informed
Consent, after which the participants signed their consent to the interview and the study. Due to
the unique role of being a FI teacher, there was a limited pool of participants. With the use of
direct quotes, non-participants could identify participants indirectly. Participants were made
aware that I would do my best to limit identifiable characteristics when using direct quotes and
had the ability to approve the use of their direct quotes.
Data Tools
Participants were given the option to have their interview at the UFV Campus, at my
school or the participants' school, or via Zoom to strengthen convenience. A semi-structured
interview protocol was used that consisted of six open-ended questions (see Appendix B). While
conducting the interviews, participants were recorded using the Otter.ai transcription service on a
secure, personal device. Otter.ai is an online transcription and recording application that records
the audio of a conversation while transcribing it in real time. The transcription was then exported
into a Microsoft Word document. The interview transcript was audio-checked to ensure
accuracy. The transcript was exported from Otter.ai within 24 hours of each completed interview
and then deleted from the Otter.ai server. In the week following the interview, participants

25

received an email with the transcript. Participants read through and approved the transcript of the
interview for accuracy. They were able to alter, redact, or clarify personal quotes from the
interview, and were asked to confirm that there were no identifying remarks or comments made
within the transcript that needed to be altered or removed. Participants were informed that if they
did not respond within two weeks of receiving their transcript, approval of the transcript was to
be assumed. Participants could only withdraw from the study up until this two-week window.
Data Analysis
When I began analyzing my data, I used the Data Analysis Spiral as outlined in Creswell
and Poth (2017) which included the following measures:
1. Reading and noting emergent ideas: After participants accepted their interview
transcripts, I thoroughly reviewed each one, immersing myself in their words. I took
notes on the pages, capturing short phrases, ideas, and key concepts while engaging in
reflective thinking. This process helped me develop a sense of the data without
getting too caught up in coding details. The memos on the page guided code
development and summarized my reflections throughout the process.
2. Describing and classifying codes into themes: coding involved making sense of the
transcript, pulling out information and assigning it words or short phrases. For my
first level of coding, I was looking for emergent ideas from the participants.
Descriptive codes (the use of nouns to describe the code) were used. During this
process, I kept notes in a journal to track my ideas and organize my bracketing.
3. Developing interpretations: interpretation involves making sense of the codes and
looking at the meaningful patterns and themes generated by analysis. Using the
emergent codes during the first level of coding, larger unit themes were formed to be

26

compared or contrasted with current literature. An excel spreadsheet was used to
organize data, codes, and themes. I used my reflective journal to track my thinking
process as to why I was putting codes into certain themes.
4. Representing and visualizing the data: representation of the data was presented in a
visual form. I used tables to display codes, categories, and supporting quotes from
participants to demonstrate an overall account of the findings. Themes were
organized in order of what emerged as most prevalent during the coding process.
Managing Bias. I used several tools to organize and manage bias in my research. As
noted above, I kept a reflective journal to track my ideas and organize my bracketing. Notes in
my journal were colour-coded and categorized as questions, reflections, assumptions, or ideas. If
I had feelings of surprise or concern while reading a participant’s transcript, it was noted in my
journal. Recognizing that the study consisted of a limited sample size of four participants and
diverse voices, I looked for outliers and salient ideas in the data and made sure not to ignore data
that was not in line with current literature or my own beliefs. Further, I sought the support of my
supervisor in checking for bias in the interpretation of codes and themes in my research.
Strength of study. To ensure that my research was an appropriate representation of the
participants, I worked to address the “triple crisis” (Denzin & Lincoln, 2000) of representation,
legitimization, and praxis within my study. A crisis of representation refers to concerns about not
accurately representing a participant’s voice and identity in the research findings due to the
anonymization of the data (Denzin & Lincoln, 2000). A legitimation crisis refers to concerns
about trustworthiness and the risk of losing the participant’s voice when the data is combined
into codes and themes (Denzin & Lincoln, 2000). The crisis of praxis refers to the need for
research to have a practical purpose or benefit (Denzin & Lincoln, 2000).

27

When considering the crisis of representation throughout the study, I worked to minimize
its impact by including thick descriptions of the participant’s role and background in my
research. This, however, presented some challenges ethically. Due to the nature of participants’
unique roles in the district, I limited descriptors of participants due to concerns of indirect
participant identification. Participants were asked to choose their own pseudonyms for comfort.
When considering the crisis of legitimation, I included direct participant quotes throughout the
research and during the coding process, providing evidence that codes and themes were directly
linked to participant voices. When considering the crisis of praxis, I continually reflected on the
educational importance of this research. Teaching FI is an important role, requiring a voice from
its members. The interviews, thematic analyses, and themes can be used as a starting point to
create meaningful change or adaptations to best serve the needs of those who are teaching and
learning in the program. Overall, this research was intended to serve as a guiding framework to
support and strengthen the FI program in this Lower Mainland school district.
Results
The results of this study are based on the analysis of interviews with four FI teachers in a
Lower Mainland district. The four participants varied in their years of experience teaching in FI
and grade levels. Upon analyzing the interview transcripts, the data were organized into three
themes that reflected the lived experiences of FI teachers in this district and their perceptions
regarding: 1) defining success in the contemporary FI program, 2) barriers to student learning in
FI programs, and 3) promising FI pedagogies to meet learner needs.
Defining Success in the Contemporary French Immersion Program
The first theme that emerged from the data reflected the perceptions of participants
regarding success in the contemporary FI classes and included four sub-themes related to

28

important language skills for students to acquire relating to 1) oral language; 2) contextual
understanding; 3) listening and mimicking; and 4) risk-taking, confidence and social
competence.
Importance of Oral Language Skills
Participants emphasized the importance of developing oral language skills for students in
FI. Alex stressed the need for students to be able to “communicate spontaneously in oral and
written language,” emphasizing that this skill is key for students. Suzanne highlighted the
importance of accent and pronunciation as key elements to develop students’ oral language
skills. She further noted that she “would like to know that the students [she has] will also be
understood by everyone.” Likewise, Sarah highlighted that oral skills “are the number thing that
can drive any other skills,” noting that students who don't feel like they can speak French “are
never going to see themselves continuing in the program.”
Importance of Contextual Understanding
A second skill that participants emphasized was the importance of developing students'
contextual understanding, to learn how to navigate various language/social contexts and to
actively seek to understand the context in which they are communicating. Alex noted that this
skill is critical for spontaneous communication and responding appropriately, and that focusing
on “larger concepts and big picture thinking” rather than “being focused on memorization of
details, without really doing anything with it” is critical to “understanding and working with the
content.” Suzanne shared how she encouraged her students to get used to different contexts in
which they hear French:
I do explain to them that when I present songs or certain videos that are of a reading of a
book by someone else, that they may hear the words sounding differently than the way I

29

pronounce them and that it's okay. And that's the way it is, and they have to get used to
that, but they need to know that it's still the same word. And they need to understand
what the concept is being expressed. (Suzanne)
Similarly, Sarah underscored the value of learning within context, which encourages students to
push themselves to extend their language abilities, remarking “I really think that the students
benefit when we get away from the worksheet and the looking at verbs standing alone. It's
learning how to do things in context.”
Importance of Listening and Mimicking Skills
During the interviews, participants also emphasized the importance of listening and
mimicking skills:
I think the first and most important skill is listening…the ability to listen to your peers
and listen to your teacher is the first step in being a good learner…you have to be a
strong, powerful listener so that you can hear the sounds, hear the vocabulary, and pick
up on all this new-sounding information that's coming your way. (Claire)
Sarah emphasized the importance of being able to mirror the language back, suggesting that
listening and speaking should be taught side by side because “you have to be able to hear it, to be
able to get to the stage of being able to produce it yourself” and “as long as they can speak and
listen, and then they go on to writing, they get the reading.” Suzanne added that at the stage with
young learners, “it's more rote memory, it’s what they hear and mimic.”
Importance of Risk-Taking, Confidence, and Social Competence
Participants emphasized the importance of risk-taking, confidence, and social
competence. According to Claire, “Risk-taking is super important. The ability and the
willingness to take risks and play with the language is an important skill.” Claire further noted

30

the interconnectedness of risk-taking and social skills: “Good social skills are important because
[students] do a lot of partner work and group work. [They] must be motivated and willing to
speak frequently with other students.” Sarah shared that when students take risks, “They build on
it, their confidence grows, and then they want to try doing more and then they're hungry for more
words.” Suzanne also discussed how challenging these skills can be with early language learners,
noting that they won’t speak in French because “they don’t have the confidence yet” to go
outside the basic vocabulary that they have developed.
Perception of Barriers to Student Learning
The second theme that emerged from the data reflected the participants’ perceptions
regarding the barriers to student learning in the FI program. Participants identified barriers to
student learning that have been organized into three sub-themes: 1) diverse learners, 2) limited
access to resources and opportunities, and 3) intrinsic barriers to language acquisition.
Diverse Learners
Participants identified that the FI program has become more inclusive and diverse over
time, with a broader range of students being enrolled in the program. When reflecting on diverse
learners in the FI program, participants talked about three key groups of students: 1) students
with Ministry designations; 2) students with undiagnosed learning disabilities and literacy
challenges; and 3) students with high anxiety, self-regulation, and mental-health challenges.
Students with Ministry Designations. Participants acknowledged the presence of
students with various Ministry designations, including those with IEPs, LDs, and health
challenges. Claire stated, “I've had everything in my classroom from gifted categories to health
categories, to learning disabilities, to students that have very low written output or low reading
skills.” Suzanne spoke specifically about a student on the Autism spectrum who struggled with

31

the French language of instruction, noting “he did not like the fact that I was speaking another
language and made it very clear and was very upfront and said, ‘No, I don't like French.’” Sarah
discussed a range of Ministry designations among her students, including students with gifted
and chronic health designations, and another student who “has learning challenges that have
followed her from kindergarten.”
Students with Undiagnosed Learning Disabilities or Literacy Challenges.
Participants also reflected on the needs of students with undiagnosed LDs and literacy
challenges. Claire recognized that “students that don't have a solid foundation in language arts, in
general, struggle when they enter French Immersion because it's a very language arts-oriented
program” and thus, “[it] can be challenging for students that don't like to speak or don't like to
read or don't like to write.” As a result, Claire believes that FI students with undiagnosed LDs or
literacy challenges can face significant difficulties in their learning journey and that they need
adaptations such as “photocopied notes if they are unable to write their own notes or they may
benefit from using text-to-speech technology to assist with reading.”
Students with High Anxiety, Mental Health, and Self-Regulation Challenges. The
experiences of FI teachers in teaching students with high anxiety, mental health, and selfregulation challenges emerged as a significant concept in the data. Suzanne mentioned that her
younger students who struggle with self-regulation may be even more challenged in language
learning as “they cannot sit still” and may not be able to focus on the material. She suggested
that these students may continue to struggle in subsequent years, noting “they do not pick up the
language to the extent that they should, and they just go on to the next year and they suffer
again.” Anxiety was noted by Sarah as a common and complex challenge among her students,
explaining, “We've got students who have anxiety, and that anxiety drives them to succeed. And

32

we have students who have anxiety, and that anxiety stops them from being able to succeed.”
Similarly, Alex noted that high-achieving students may struggle with “unhealthy perfectionism,”
but because they are high-achieving, teachers don't really pay attention to those concerns. Claire
suggested other “very high achieving, perfectionist kids…don't want to take risks and play with
the early learning of the language.”
Limited Access to Resources and Opportunities
As teachers discussed access to resources and opportunities, two limitations emerged: 1)
limited opportunities for spontaneous communication, and 2) limited support at school.
Limited Opportunities for Spontaneous Communication. Participants highlighted the
challenge of limited opportunities for spontaneous communication in the TL, which can hinder
students' progress. Alex noted that there are still “practices that are more transmission oriented
[that] limit the amount of interaction in the target language, and with the subject material.” Alex
also spoke of the challenge of not “being in a fully immersive environment” and that “there just
isn't a Francophone community here. There is not a lot of opportunities for them to engage in the
language spontaneously outside of the classroom.” Similarly, Sarah noted the limited
opportunities for a fully immersive experience for students:
It would be spectacular if we could almost lock the French kids into their own area where
they have to speak French all day. I think their skills would be much richer, but they
instantly step into the hallway and they're like, “Oh, it's off” and you're like “No, it's still
an immersion block.” So, I think the opportunities aren't always there. (Sarah)
Further, Suzanne remarked that “it's unfortunate [for students], not hearing French or using it
outside of school” and then highlighted that it is important for students to be aware of their
options for continuing French learning outside of the classroom: “at least giving them those

33

options and knowing what’s out there…if they take the opportunities, I think they will be better
off in their learning of French.”
Limited Support at School. The lack of support for students emerged as a significant
issue for participants, expressing concern about the limited support available to students who
need extra help. Suzanne touched on the lack of learning assistance, and that students were not
receiving adequate support in either English or French: “The learning assistance time is very
minimal, 20 minutes, every couple of days, if that, it depends on their need. I think is a detriment
to those kids.” Sarah highlighted the challenge of meeting learner needs due to limited support
staff, saying, “We're not fully able to meet the needs of our students that have learning
challenges with one EA.”
Intrinsic Barriers to Language Acquisition
As teachers discussed intrinsic barriers to language acquisition, two significant concepts
emerged from the data: 1) student frustration and motivation and 2) challenges in using the target
language.
Student Frustration and Motivation. Student frustration and motivation emerged as a
prominent code in the data. A main challenge noted by participants is that some students “are
sitting in our classes that didn't choose to be [here]; their parents chose [it] for them” (Claire).
She believes “the greatest indicator of whether or not a student perseveres in French Immersion
is whether or not they were motivated to become bilingual and be in an immersion program in
the first place.” As a result, “it's challenging to connect with them. It's challenging to teach them
anything. You can kind of feel their unhappiness interfering with their learning.” In the end, she
noted these students may “eventually give up their resistance and fall into the learning,
and…come to understand and appreciate the good intentions of their parents. [However], some

34

students ‘win’ their battle with their parents and eventually leave the program.” Similarly, Sarah
emphasized the importance of student choice in the FI program, as these students usually “are
refusing to listen, they can't hear it and then they're interrupting the other people… If [they] don't
have a want, it's very difficult for them to see great success.” Claire emphasized the importance
of internal motivation for students, stating, "if they're motivated, and they want to be here, even
if they struggle in language arts, they seem to persevere, and they seem to be happier in general."
Alex discussed challenges at the secondary level, including the significant dropout rate among
students who struggle due to language limitations, stating that students “just can’t quite access
the material” and that they “realize that their language level is not up to where they need to
be...and there is frustration with that.” He further notes that others “don’t want to risk their GPA”
and end up leaving the program.
Use of the Target Language. Students using the TL emerged as a significant challenge
for teachers. Suzanne, in her work with young language learners, acknowledged that many
students “don’t have the confidence yet” to speak French, and as a result, are hesitant to use the
language. Alex recognized the struggle to keep students speaking in the TL, stating that it was a
problem that “plagues immersion teachers everywhere” but acknowledged the danger of using
external motivators as a means of enforcing the use of French:
I am trying to have students feeling a certain amount of intrinsic motivation to see in their
target language as much as I can, as opposed to using whatever cudgel I might happen to
have available…while it may keep them in the target language, I also think that makes
them hate it slowly over time, …[which] is not a consequence that I want to have. (Alex)

35

Sarah expressed frustration at having to be a “policewoman” who is “constantly reminding them
to be working in French.” She referred to this as “[reverting] to the language that [the students
are] most comfortable in, that's where they see their socializing piece.”
Promising Pedagogies to Meet Learner Needs
The final theme that emerged from the data reflected promising pedagogies that FI
teachers are using to meet learner needs in their classes. Participants identified several
pedagogies to meet the needs of all learners that have been organized into three categories: 1)
creating a positive classroom environment; 2) using inclusive practices; and 3) developing
innovative instructional approaches.
Creating a Positive Classroom Environment
As teachers discussed creating a positive classroom environment, two main concepts
emerged: 1) reducing social risk and valuing student mistakes, and 2) incorporating social
emotional learning and self-regulation practices into routines.
Reducing Social-Risk and Valuing Student Mistakes. All participants recognized the
importance of creating a welcoming environment for their students by making the learning of a
language enjoyable while reducing social risk and anxiety around making mistakes. Claire noted
that “by reducing the intensity of the social risk in the classroom, you can create an environment
where kids are more willing to try out new things or to take risks.” This, she believes, will ensure
that “students feel like they can take risks without the judgment from me or from their peers.”
She concluded her thought by saying that FI “has a reputation of being this big, scary, academic
place, but it doesn’t have to be. We can make it a fun, welcoming place where motivated
students make excellent progress towards becoming bilingual.” Suzanne noted that by providing

36

reassurance to students, they were able to overcome their fear of making mistakes and produce
grammatically correct sentences.
I tell them, “It's okay if you don't know one of the words, just say that word in English,
but the rest in French, because you know it. I know that you know it.” And as soon as
they hear me say in French, “I know, you know,” they were trying, and I was blown
away. (Suzanne)
Alex highlighted the need for FI teachers to model making mistakes to students by saying, “I like
to think of myself as somebody who can model imperfectionism to help them feel better.” Alex
highlighted the importance of valuing student mistakes as learning opportunities, rather than
stigmatizing them: “I value the thinking, I value the creativity, I value the content, and the
putting yourself outside of your typical comfort zone and making the mistakes. And I'm
deliberately valuing their mistakes and looking at them as learning opportunities.”
Incorporating Social Emotional Learning and Self-Regulation Practices into
Routines. The importance of incorporating social emotional learning (SEL) and self-regulation
into their pedagogies was prominent for two participants. For Sarah, SEL is central to her
teaching approach, as it helps her “work with [students] to manage [their] feelings, [allowing
them to] be in the zone to do the learning that needs to happen.” She further emphasized the
importance of checking in with students through circle time:
We're doing a circle, which is also building their oral language, or finding out how they're
feeling. They're doing a lot of sharing…a lot of them tend to talk about what's happening
in their world, which gives me a lot of insight into what they're needing right now. If kids
are super stressed out about school pieces, I'm able to hear that…So, that's our

37

opportunity to quietly readjust. We're building on identifying our feelings in French.
(Sarah)
Additionally, she stated, "we have to meet our students with this trauma-informed lens" and
recognized that they are not simply “machines for producing academic results.” Suzanne
discussed her current PD work with self-regulation in SEL and described her efforts to learn
more about attachment theory to better support struggling learners in her class: “The emphasis is
to have chosen one student who you feel has some challenges, whom you would like to learn
more about and learn to help better. I did choose a student who I feel has very little selfregulation.”
Using Inclusive Practices
As teachers discussed inclusive practices, three codes emerged: 1) the modification of
tasks and expectations, 2) meeting learners where they are, and 3) the need for professional
development.
Modification of Tasks and Expectations. Participants discussed the importance of
modifying tasks and expectations to accommodate the diverse needs of their students. Claire
highlighted the need to adapt teaching practices and expectations to support the inclusion of all
learners, regardless of their background and abilities:
Inclusive education is district-wide, province-wide, and probably even nation-wide, and
French immersion is part of the inclusive education model, and we need to be more
inclusive. Because our classrooms are more diverse…we have to welcome them and then
find out how we can help them and adapt our teaching practice and adapt our
expectations. This is a huge challenge in the French immersion context because there are
misunderstandings in society…about what French Immersion is and who's in French

38

immersion or who should be or who shouldn't be. I think everybody should be. If you
want to learn French and you want to be bilingual, come on in! Having a diversity of
learners in my classroom means I need to change the way I teach. (Claire)
Suzanne noted how she supports her diverse learners: “I try to just keep them near me. I try to
use little cues. I quieten my voice down, I start slowing down and hope that they will follow
those cues.” At times, she has to modify her communication:
I would start in English, bring a little French in and then conclude in English. Or with
someone else, I would try it in French, see how much they understood, ask, see if a
classmate understands and would help…but a child with autism, I'm not going to put
them through that. (Suzanne)
Additionally, Claire discussed the importance of being patient if a student is struggling, and
asking herself, “What do they need right now? What do they really need to feel successful in this
moment?” Sometimes it is as simple as telling a student to “go take a break” and taking “their
assignment away from them because…they [are] stuck and spiraling emotionally.” Claire
reflected that it is “patience that you need for responding to the diversity of student needs.” Alex
noted that by taking a problem-based approach in his teaching, it allows him “to create learning
opportunities that are widely accessible…where it becomes a matter of students [taking] an
approach that they are able to do, and then they can show me what they [can] do.”
Meeting Learners Where They Are. Claire emphasized the importance of meeting
learners where they are to help them succeed in FI, acknowledging that “if we throw too
much…at them too early, they can shut off…we have to meet them where they're at and figure
out what they need.” She highlighted the importance of motivating learners by using small,
achievable tasks to help them build their skills gradually: “it is easier to help them learn if they're

39

motivated, but just realizing where they're at and if they are a struggling student and they're not
strong in language arts, just giving them small pieces.” She recognized that students don’t always
need to perform tasks that make them frustrated; and suggested that teachers need to come up
with ways to allow students to progress at their own pace:
I have one student in particular right now…when everybody else is doing the dictée…for
them, I think it's punitive because I did a few with them earlier in the year and they’ve
never been successful. So, I thought, “Why? Why would I keep making them do
something that they can't do? That makes them frustrated? That makes them emotionally
upset?” So, when everybody else is doing a dictée and working at the word level for
spelling and producing writing, they’re working only at a phonemic level with a gamebased opportunity because that's where they’re at. They’re at the sound and syllable
level…They’re not ready for the reading and writing piece yet. So, just making that
adaptation, not making them do the same things that other people are doing because
they'll get frustrated…I adapt for them, and quietly. It's not a big deal. I just quietly give
them something else to do and they’re happy to do it. (Claire)
Claire discussed the use of technology as a tool to meet students where they are, acknowledging
that “technology is only one way to support kids that are struggling.” She described finding
success this year with an audiobook reading website to help support struggling readers:
So, that's been an area of support this year for some of my kids that don't like reading.
They've liked the website that I'm using…there's a huge selection and they can pick
whatever ones they want, whatever their interests are, all that differentiation. (Claire)
The Need for Professional Development. Participants did, however, note the need for
continued PD focusing on inclusive practices. Claire stated, “I need to find more professional

40

development opportunities to improve my understanding of how to teach a second language to
students with learning disabilities.” Alex echoed this sentiment, stating, “I want to explore more
inclusive practices … I want to also explore more culturally responsive practices.” Claire
acknowledged that inclusive practices can be challenging and require adaptation and support:
I chose to be on the inclusive side. I needed to do some professional development to
improve my pedagogy. I got on board with inclusion and with changing my own attitude
and accepting it as an awesome way to move forward and have more kids become
bilingual. (Claire)
Developing Innovative Instructional Approaches
As teachers discussed instructional approaches during the interviews, several key
concepts emerged, including: 1) the promotion of oral language and spontaneous
communication; 2) the use of action-oriented approaches; and 3) the promotion of risk-taking,
participation, and collaboration.
Promotion of Oral Language and Spontaneous Communication. The promotion of
oral language and spontaneous communication emerged as a central code in the data. Participants
emphasized the importance of designing speaking activities as a means of teaching content. Alex
stated, “part of that learning process [is] designing speaking activities that are required to
accomplish certain tasks or do certain things where they require the use of the content language
verbally.” Alex described using a problem or project-based approach to teaching that requires
collaboration in the TL:
It's just to try to get them to use [the language] for the purposes of accomplishing
tasks…if they are having to interact with something, they have to use language in order to
accomplish the [task]…it becomes more about the communication, the understanding,

41

rather than getting hung up on the grammar…and just to try to promote that spontaneous,
but also thoughtful communication, around accomplishing the tasks that I have given
them. (Alex)
Claire highlighted the importance of building confidence in speaking and providing opportunities
for students to practice oral communication through weekly dialogues:
Students need to be learning French, and that is an area where a lot of them
struggle...[doing] more listening and talking and dialogues and less writing and testing
and dictées works well for some of the students that find reading and writing challenging.
(Claire)
Suzanne discussed the use of songs, movement, and games as positive ways to rehearse and
encourage oral communication:
I think through the songs and the movement, and the games, all that, just rehearsing is
positive. My question of the day…is such a valuable tool to get the kids answering and
speaking…Usually, it starts out where it's going to be in English and then gradually, I
don't have to say it in English at all…But when they have to answer the question, they are
able to. They've got the grammatical pieces to put together to answer the question
properly in French. I think that it's incredible. (Suzanne)
Active Learning/Task-Based Approaches. The participants expressed a shift towards
using active learning and task-based approaches over time. Alex described a shift in his teaching
approach:
I took a very traditional approach to things, it was a very grammar-focused, systematic
approach to the language and through experience…I’ve shifted in my thinking around me

42

teaching and learning…I've moved away from the systematic approach to French and to
more of an experiential, communicative, action-oriented approach. (Alex)
Suzanne emphasized the use of “hands-on activities” that motivate students for learning math,
science, and social studies:
I bring in lots of different types of games, songs and music. The movement, going with
the language, that is when I will put on videos so that they can associate something visual
with the actual vocabulary and a lot of movement. I have some songs that create
movement. I also do a chant with them… They are repeating back but they're doing the
actions and I slowly pull the modelling away. I'm only saying the words and they're still
doing the actions and saying the words. And then sometimes, I'll do it out of order, or I
will just call out an action and see what they remember. (Suzanne)
Claire mentioned a shift in her practice towards the use of weekly dialogues to encourage more
oral practice:
So, instead of doing a weekly dictée, I do a weekly dialogue…they are doing the oral
language piece, and they enjoy that because it's fun. They get a partner or a group, they
bring props, and they're enjoying the language more because it's the talking piece…They
laugh, they enjoy it…I'm just looking for that risk-taking. Are you willing to get up with
a partner and play with the language? (Claire)
Promotion of Risk-Taking, Participation, and Collaboration. Participants emphasized
the importance of promoting risk-taking, participation, and collaboration in their classroom. As
Sarah stated, "the biggest piece is it has to be fun, almost like a game at the initial stage." This
sentiment was echoed by Suzanne who shared that she changes up her routine every 15 to 20
minutes and that she “get[s] them up…get[s] them moving, singing, clapping at their tables.”

43

Alex shared that he takes a problem or project-based approach to teaching content, which
requires collaboration and the use of the TL, as “it becomes more about the communication, the
understanding, rather than getting hung up on the grammar” and that he tries to… “promote that
spontaneous, but also thoughtful communication, around accomplishing the tasks.” Claire talked
about how she changed her approach to participation, moving away from relying on hand-raising
as it can be socially risky, explaining, “Now, I draw popsicle sticks with kids’ names on them to
get them to participate (they can pass if they need to) or everybody gets a whiteboard, and
everybody gets to participate at the same time.”
This section presented the findings of the present study and provided details from the
participants on their experiences teaching in FI and addressing the needs of all learners. We now
turn our attention to interpreting these results and discuss their implications.
Discussion
The aim of this study was to gain an understanding of the contemporary FI classroom by
investigating the perceptions and experiences of FI teachers regarding their work with all
learners in the FI context. By doing so, I aimed to provide insights into how the needs of FI
students today inform current teaching practices in the program. This curiosity has come from
my own experiences as a FI teacher over the past five years, navigating my own challenges and
shifting my personal pedagogies. The results of this study support my original query that the
student population within FI is becoming more diverse and teachers are shifting their teaching
approaches to create a more inclusive learning environment for all. Reflecting on the results of
this study, and returning to the literature reviewed, it became apparent to me that there were two
main areas for discussion: 1) defining success in the French Immersion program and 2)
responding to challenges in the French Immersion program.

44

Defining Success in the French Immersion Program
The data suggest that success in language learning in the program is related to four
important sub-themes. First, participants emphasized the importance of developing oral language
skills, particularly the ability to communicate spontaneously and to communicate in a manner
that can be understood by any French speaker. By developing students’ oral language skills,
participants believed that all other language skills, such as reading and writing, will eventually
fall into place. Second, contextual understanding was highlighted as an important skill for
students to acquire. Participants emphasized that students need to be able to navigate various
language and social contexts and understand the context in which they are communicating. An
emphasis was placed on moving away from isolated language learning, such as memorization,
and moving towards big-picture and open-ended thinking in the TL. Third, participants
emphasized the importance of listening and mimicking skills, noting that it is essential for
students to hear the language to pick up new sounds and vocabulary as one of the first steps for
producing the language on their own. Fourth, participants highlighted that students need to take
risks, be confident, and have good social skills to be successful in the program.
Participants' perceptions of success in the contemporary FI program are multi-faceted;
however, they all emphasized the importance of building students’ oral language skills, while
developing social competence and confidence to facilitate the progression of these skills. This
finding aligns with current research (Arnott, 2012; Bourgoin & Le Bouthillier, 2021; Masson et
al., 2021; Tedick and Lyster, 2020) that emphasizes moving away from isolated teaching
approaches towards more authentic, scaffolded, and contextualized approaches to language
learning. Further, the perceptions of participants in this study seem to reflect the expanded term
of literacy and the concept of oracy (Bourgoin & Le Bouthillier, 2021; Tedick and Lyster, 2020)

45

that places emphasis on oral language components and the interactions and socialization of the
students – beyond the traditional components of literacy such as reading and writing. The four
teachers who participated in this study understand that a successful FI program builds,
encourages, and strengthens students’ oral language skills by prioritizing spontaneous
communication and contextual understanding. In evaluating the contemporary FI program, we
need to consider the extent to which other teachers are placing emphasis on these important skills
of contextualized oracy in their daily teaching. It is important for teachers to examine the
pedagogies they are using to promote the acquisition of these skills and the challenges they face
in doing so.
Responding to Challenges in the French Immersion Program
Diverse Learners
All participants acknowledged the presence of students with various Ministry
designations in their classrooms. While the inclusion of a diverse range of learners in the FI
program is important, it also presents challenges for teachers. The participants recognized that
diverse learners require different supports and accommodations to succeed and that it can be
challenging to create an inclusive learning environment that meets the unique needs of each
student. Similarly, the participants recognized that students with undiagnosed LDs or literacy
challenges can also face significant difficulties, as the program requires a strong foundation in
literacy. This finding aligns with current research that suggests that FI classes are becoming
more diverse and that this poses a challenge for educators to respond to in appropriate ways
(Arnett & Mady, 2009; Bourgoin, 2014; Roy, 2008).
Contrary to the well-documented perception of FI being a program of enrichment suitable
only for high-ability students (Gerbrandt, 2022; Wise, 2011), participants in this study believe

46

that it is important to provide support and accommodations to help all students succeed. They
emphasized the importance of early intervention and identifying students who may be struggling
with undiagnosed LDs or literacy challenges. This finding, which reflects earlier research by
Bruck (1978) and Genesee (1976), suggests that teachers in the contemporary FI classroom have
values aligned with inclusionary principles and believe that the program is, indeed, for all.
However, without proper support and the tools and knowledge to support learners who
have language learning challenges, FI teachers may continue to struggle to meet the needs of
these types of learners. As noted by the participants and documented in research (Genesee, 2007;
Genesee & Jared, 2008; Mady & Arnett, 2009; Wise, 2011), FI programs do not always have the
necessary resources to support students with diverse learning needs. In addition, while
participants in the study use inclusive practices in their teaching, they still believe that there is a
need for more PD opportunities to better work with diverse learners. As noted by Wise (2011),
many FI teachers lack training in inclusionary practices and working with students with
exceptional needs. These findings suggest that teachers need increased support in two areas to
better meet the needs of diverse learners in their class: 1) increased access to learning assistance
for struggling learners and 2) increased professional development opportunities that focuses on
supporting diverse learner needs.
Mental-Health Challenges, Anxiety, and Perfectionism
A powerful topic that emerged from conversations with teachers was their experiences in
teaching students with high anxiety, “unhealthy perfection,” and/or self-regulation challenges.
As previously noted, the FI program is typically associated with the idea that they are geared
toward the academic elite and that there remain teachers, students, and parents who believe this
still to be true (Arnett & Mady, 2010; Davis, 2019; Mady & Arnett, 2009; Roy, 2008; Wise,

47

2011; Wise et al., 2016). Participants noted the challenges that the FI environment can present
for students. For example, Alex made a very intriguing point – students who deal with
perfectionism and high anxiety tendencies are sometimes overlooked at school because they do
usually succeed academically. This idea goes back to the rhetoric of the ideal learner in FI. The
program is most often structured to praise students who can produce visible and measurable
results (Gerbrandt, 2022; Mady & Masson, 2018). There are some students who are driven to
succeed by their anxiety, but there are many others who are unable to withstand the pressure that
it causes. An important consideration for teachers is to think about the learning environment that
they are setting up for their students and to reflect on their daily tasks and assessment standards
to critically examine and reflect on the habitus (Gerbrandt, 2022) they may be creating in their
classes with respect to what they value in their students.
Many of the participants in the study spoke about shifts they have made in their teaching
towards using practices that reduce anxiety and enhance participation and motivation for
learning. This aligns with the early work of Bruck (1978). By engaging in more open-ended,
active, and collaborative teaching approaches, students can demonstrate their learning in more
diverse ways, making learning more accessible and motivating to all FI students in FI. Other
teachers in this study are using specific SEL practices to help reduce anxiety in the learning
environment, including the use of circle time, self-regulation, attachment theory, and other SEL
strategies with students. These practices offer multiple advantages for FI teachers, including the
idea posited by Haj-Broussard et al. (2017) that the use of emotional and personal language by
students is linked with increased oral language production. The implementation of SEL into
practice is one way that FI teachers can better help support the mental-health challenges of their
students. Teachers can actively work on identifying students who they feel are dealing with

48

anxiety and self-regulation challenges and provide support to ensure their well-being in the
program. These findings suggest that teachers are increasingly placing emphasis on the mental
well-being of their students to help them succeed in the program. To do so, teachers must be
reflective about the practices that they are using in their classes to actively support the well-being
of their students.
Opportunities for Spontaneous Communication and Use of the Target Language
A major sub-theme that emerged in the discussion of barriers to student learning was
limited access to opportunities to use the TL. Teachers have limited influence on the amount of
exposure that students have to the French language and culture outside of school hours.
However, this finding does suggest that teachers are looking for more ways for students to
engage in and interact authentically with the French language outside of school. If students don’t
see the language that they are learning in their community or in contexts outside of their
education, one could argue that some students might be less motivated to continue learning the
language and view it as significant and worthwhile.
Using the TL also emerged as a significant challenge for FI teachers. There are students
who lack confidence in speaking French, which makes them hesitant to use the TL and students
frequently switch to English when they feel uncomfortable or when socializing with peers.
Participants in this study expressed concern that enforcing the use of French through external
motivators may result in negative associations with the language, and therefore, emphasized the
need for intrinsic motivation. They use practices aimed at reducing social risk for students and
promoting participation and collaboration in the classroom. While this study provides valuable
insights into the challenges faced by students in using the TL and the strategies employed by
teachers to address these challenges, there is still a need for further research to explore best

49

practices for positively motivating students to consistently use the TL. Understanding teachers'
and students' perceptions regarding motivation to use the TL and strategies to maintain positive
student attitudes toward TL use can contribute to the development of effective language learning
environments. Future research should aim to investigate these areas to enhance language
acquisition and create a more immersive and engaging learning experience for FI students.
All participants spoke to the need for creating activities that require participation from all
learners. This finding aligns with research by Bourgoin and Le Bouthillier (2021) who suggest
using information gap tasks to foster risk-taking and extended output and allow students to work
through language learning in new, creative, and spontaneous ways. It also reflects Tedick and
Lyster’s (2020) work on peer collaboration and cooperative learning activities that support
content and language development as well as risk-taking. Reducing social risk and valuing
student mistakes is an important factor in creating a supportive learning environment for FI
students to use the L2 and become more confident and engaged language learners. Learning
opportunities that prioritize peer collaboration and cooperative learning hold promise for
language development and risk-taking in FI classrooms.
The promotion of oral language and spontaneous communication through active learning
and task-based approaches emerged as a significant practice used by participants in this study.
All participants mentioned the focus that they place on the promotion of oral language in their
classes and the shifts they have made from traditional language teaching approaches towards
more active and task-based learning. These shifts in teaching practices align with
recommendations from current research such as Bourgoin and Le Bouthillier (2021) that suggest
that language teachers should be integrating more communicative tasks (related to real-life tasks)
into teaching practices, such as symbolic play, social interactions and inquiries that help students

50

learn about the world they live in and the way they communicate. Task-based activities allow
students to reflect on their own language use and to problem-solve in using the language. They
may also increase students’ confidence and foster more risk-taking with language.
The current study suggests that teachers in the contemporary FI setting may be moving
away from traditional and form-focused methods of language learning, placing less emphasis on
grammatical structures, and focusing more on task-based and communicative approaches to
promote language learning for their students. Further research is required regarding teacher
perceptions and their experience using more student-centred and task-based approaches to
demonstrate the benefits and to highlight challenges teachers might face when using these
practices. Professional learning opportunities that allow teachers to learn about new and
innovative language teaching approaches will also be beneficial to help them move away from
more traditional and teacher-centred approaches.
Student Frustration and Motivation in the French Immersion Program
Student frustration and lack of motivation were significant challenges mentioned by the
participants in this study. This finding reflects Bruck’s (1978) research that found that struggling
learners who leave the FI program are often those with negative attitudes toward schooling. It is
important that teachers evaluate the learning environment that they are creating and the practices
that they use. Teachers need to recognize and help students cope with their academic struggles
and identify ways that they can promote positive attitudes toward language learning, despite
these struggles.
Regardless of their academic ability, when students are positively motivated to learn the
language, are able to personalize their learning experience, and complete tasks that are at their
level, they will persevere through challenges in their language learning. FI teachers must look

51

beyond just academically supporting their struggling learners and consider strategies that
positively encourage students in their language development and help them find their small
successes that lead to greater motivation and love of the language. Further research into how
teachers can promote more positive attitudes toward language learning in FI could be a first step
to helping teachers establish more engaging and inclusive language learning environments for
students.
FI classrooms are more diverse than ever before. Thus, a shift in the traditional discourse
regarding the program and its learners, and the promotion of inclusive practices and policies is
critical for meeting the needs of all learners and retaining students in the FI program. Research
that provides evidence that students with academic challenges can benefit from the FI program is
limited, but studies have suggested that FI poses no detrimental risks to any type of learner
(Bruck, 1978; Genesee, 1976; Genesee, 2007). There needs to be an emphasis on PD in the area
of inclusion and FI, and a more collaborative approach to supporting at-risk FSL learners
(Bourgoin, 2014). It is important for teachers to continue reflecting on the pedagogies that they
use in their class and the skills that they are prioritizing, and to seek more support through PD
and collaborative professional learning opportunities.
Limitations
While this study sheds light on the complexity of the contemporary FI classroom and
several promising pedagogies, it is important to acknowledge several limitations. First, a small
sample size was used for this study; these results are reflective of four FI teachers working in a
single Lower Mainland District. The perceptions and experiences of these teachers can inform
the present topic; however, the findings of this study cannot generalize the experiences of all FI
teachers. A second limitation is that this study was related to time and resources. Interviews with

52

participants were conducted over a one-week span. With more time or resources available, the
study could have investigated other themes or included more participants, allowing for different
or broader findings than what was suggested in the present study. Future research could look at
the perceptions of FI teachers across Canada with a much larger sample size to make a more
compelling study. Lastly, bias is always an important consideration for the quality and accuracy
of this study. As the primary investigator of this study and as a current FI teacher, it is possible
that the data could have been misinterpreted or included biased information. Throughout the
study, I attempted to limit bias in every way possible to surmount this limitation. I kept a
reflective journal to track my ideas and organize my bracketing, looked for outliers and salient
ideas in the data, and made sure not to ignore data that was not in line with current literature or
my own beliefs.
Implications and Recommendations
Despite these limitations, these results suggest several implications for current FI
teachers. There was significant overlap between the literature reviewed and the results of this
study; notably, the acknowledgement that FI classes are becoming more diverse; and the
increased diversity poses significant challenges to teacher practice. However, teachers are
shifting their practices to try to meet the needs of all learners by employing various pedagogies.
Considering the input from participants of this study, I suggest the following five
recommendations for educators in the FI context to better meet the needs of all learners in the
program:
1) Teachers are seeking PD opportunities to adopt more inclusive practices in their classes to
better meet the needs of diverse learners. FI teachers require professional learning to enhance
their ability to effectively work with students with exceptional needs.

53

2) Through an investigation of current literature, there appears to be a considerable gap in the
research on the topic of mental well-being and anxiety in the FI context. It would be
worthwhile for researchers to examine the perceptions of students and teachers in the area of
anxiety and mental-health challenges to better support students. Student voice would be a
critical part of this research. Students in FI could offer insights into what kinds of support
they need in the realm of mental health.
3) Further research is also required on teachers’ perceptions and experiences using more
student-centred and task-based approaches to demonstrate potential benefits and highlight
potential challenges in using such practices. Further PD opportunities that allow teachers to
learn about new and innovative language teaching approaches will also be beneficial to help
them move away from more traditional and teacher-centred approaches.
4) Research and PD into how teachers can promote more positive attitudes toward language
learning, particularly when it comes to struggling learners, could be a first step to helping
teachers better establish inclusive learning environments for all students that foster
appreciation and motivation for language learning.
5) FI teachers are continuing to struggle with French-only rules in class. Teachers, schools, and
districts could consider adopting a more flexible approach in FI classrooms, one that
recognizes the value of students’ home languages and the importance of celebrating
multilingualism among students. There is a need for further research and PD opportunities
for teachers to better understand the benefits of plurilingualism and how they can
constructively use multiple languages in their class to promote French language learning.

54

Conclusion
The purpose of the present research study was to investigate teachers’ perceptions and
experiences teaching and working with all learners in the FI context. The overview of literature,
the voice of the participants, and the subsequent recommendations offers insight into the
complexity of the FI program. The participants in this study highlighted the barriers to student
language learning, but also the strategies they use to support student success. They recognize that
the FI program is for all and that students with exceptionalities should be included. However,
there are still the challenges such as lack of available support and PD to meet all learner needs.
Teachers are engaging in progressive and innovative practices to help become more confident
additional language users, but there is still growth to be made in this area. Teachers remain
challenged to balance all the components of the program, at times finding themselves pulled by
the forces of traditional approaches and ideologies surrounding language learning and Frenchonly classroom practices.
Throughout the study, in hearing the voices of participants, analyzing their perspectives,
and reviewing literature on the topic of student diversity and pedagogy in FI, I have actively
reflected on and questioned my own current teaching practices. It is only through the creation of
dialogue that we can begin to evaluate and question current practices in the contemporary FI
classroom. It is my hope that, even in this small scope, this project will guide stakeholders in FI,
including teachers, school administrators, and school board representatives in strengthening FI at
the local level to ensure the success of all learners.

55

References
Arnett, K., & Fortune, T. (2004). The bridge strategies for helping underperforming immersion
learners succeed. ACIE Newsletter, 7(3), 1-8.
https://carla.umn.edu/immersion/acie/vol7/bridge-7(3).pdf
Arnett, K., & Mady, C. (2010). A critically conscious examination of special education within
FSL and its relevance to FSL teacher education programs. Canadian Journal of Applied
Linguistics, 13(1), 19–36.
https://journals.lib.unb.ca/index.php/CJAL/article/view/19927
Arnett, K., & Mady, C. (2018). Exemption and exclusion from French second language
programs in Canada: Consideration of novice teachers’ rationales. Exceptionality
Education International, 28(1), 86–99. https://doi.org/10.5206/eei.v28i1.7760
Arnott, S. (2012). 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(2), 156–176.
https://journals.lib.unb.ca/index.php/CJAL/article/view/19862
Ballinger, S., Lyster, R., Sterzuk, A., & Genesee, F. (2017). Context-appropriate crosslinguistic
pedagogy: Considering the role of language status in immersion education. Journal of
Immersion and Content-Based Language Education, 5(1), 30–57.
https://doi.org/10.1075/jicb.5.1.02bal
Barrett DeWiele, C. E., & Edgerton, J. D. (2021). Opportunity or inequality? The paradox of
French immersion education in Canada. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural
Development, 1-15. https://doi.org/10.1080/01434632.2020.1865988
Bourgoin, R. (2014). Inclusionary practices in French immersion: A need to link research to

56

practice. Canadian Journal for New Scholars in Education, 5(1), 1-11.
Bourgoin, R., & Dicks, J. (2019). Learning to read in multiple languages: A study exploring
allophone students’ reading development in French Immersion. Language and Literacy,
21(2), 10–28. https://doi.org/10.20360/langandlit29466
Bourgoin, R., & Le Bouthillier, J. (2021). Task-based language learning and beginning language
learners: Examining classroom-based small group learning in Grade 1 French
immersion. Canadian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 24(2), 70-98.
https://doi.org/10.37213/cjal.2021.31378
Bruck, M. (1978). The suitability of early French immersion programs for the languagedisabled child. Canadian Journal of Education, 3(4), 51-72.
https://doi.org/10.2307/1494685
Canadian Parents for French. (n.d.) French as a second language enrolment statistics 2014-2015
to 2018-2019. https://cpf.ca/wp-content/uploads/2019-Enrolement-Stats.pdf
Cammarata, L., & Haley, C. (2018). Integrated content, language, and literacy instruction in a
Canadian French immersion context: A professional development journey. International
Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 21(3), 332-348.
https://doi.org/10.1080/13670050.2017.1386617
Cammarata, L., & Tedick, D. J. (2012). Balancing content and language in instruction: The
experience of immersion teachers. Modern Language Journal, 96(2), 251-269.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.2012.01330.x
Creswell, J. W. (2002). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five
traditions. Sage.
Creswell, J. W., & Plano Clark, V. L. (2017). Designing and conducting mixed methods research

57

(3rd ed.). Sage.
Creswell, J. W., & Poth, C. N. (2017). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing
among five approaches (4th ed.). Sage.
Culligan, K. (2015). Student and teacher perceptions of first language use in secondary French
immersion mathematics classrooms. Alberta Journal of Educational Research, 61(1), 1–
19. https://doi.org/10.11575/ajer.v61i1.55919
Cummins, J. (1998) Immersion education for the millennium: What have we learned from 30
years of research on second language immersion? In M. R. Childs and R. M. Bostwick
(Eds.), Learning through two languages: Research and practice. Second Katoh Gakuen
International Symposium on Immersion and Bilingual Education (pp. 34-47). Katoh
Gakuen.
Cummins, J. (2021). Translanguaging: A critical analysis of theoretical claims. In P. Juvonen &
M. Källkvist (Eds.), Pedagogical translanguaging: Theoretical, methodological and
empirical perspectives (pp.7-36). Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
Davis, S. (2019). “How am I supposed to teach them French when they can’t even speak
English?”: Unpacking the myth of English proficiency as a prerequisite for French
immersion. Journal of Belonging, Identity, Language, and Diversity, 3(1), 5–22.
Davis, S., Ballinger, S., & Sarkar, M. (2019). The suitability of French immersion for allophone
students in Saskatchewan: Exploring diverse perspectives on language learning and
inclusion. Canadian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 22(2), 27–63.
https://doi.org/10.7202/1063773ar
Delcourt, L. (2018). Elitist, inequitable and exclusionary practices: A problem within Ontario
French immersion programs? A literature review. Actes du Jean-Paul Dionne

58

Symposium Proceedings, 2(1), 7–26. https://doi.org/10.18192/jpds-sjpd.v2i1.3152.3518
Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (2000). The discipline and practice of qualitative research. In
N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research, 3rd ed., 1-32.
Sage.
Dressler, R. (2018). Canadian bilingual program teachers’ understanding of immersion
pedagogy: A nexus analysis of an early years classroom. The Canadian Modern
Language Review, 74(1), 176–195. https://doi.org/10.3138/cmlr.3407
Garcia, O., & Kleyn, T. (2016). Translanguaging with multilingual students: Learning from
classroom moments (1st ed.). Routledge.
Genesee, F. (1976). The role of intelligence in second language learning. Language Learning,
26(2), 267–280. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-1770.1976.tb00277.x
Genesee, F. (2007). French immersion and at-risk students: A review of research evidence.
Canadian Modern Language Review, 63(5), 655–687.
https://doi.org/10.3138/cmlr.63.5.655
Genesee, F., & Jared, D. (2008). Literacy development in early French immersion programs.
Canadian Psychology / Psychologie canadienne, 49(2), 140–147.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0708-5591.49.2.140
Gerbrandt, J. (2022). Systemic barriers to French immersion in New Brunswick. Canadian
Journal for New Scholars in Education, 13(1), 73-79.
Government of British Columbia. (n.d.). French Immersion Program.
https://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/content/education-training/k-12/administration/legislationpolicy/public-schools/french-immersion-program
Haj-Broussard, M., Olson Beal, H. K., & Boudreaux, N. (2017). Relating French immersion

59

teacher practices to better student oral production. The Canadian Modern Language
Review, 73(3), 319–342. https://doi.org/10.3138/cmlr.3521
Keene, B. M. (2023). Social and emotional learning (SEL). Salem Press Encyclopedia.
Lazaruk, W. (2007). Linguistic, academic, and cognitive benefits of French immersion.
Canadian Modern Language Review, 63(5), 605-627.
https://doi.org/10.3138/cmlr.63.5.605
Mady, C., & Arnett, K. (2009). Inclusion in French immersion in Canada: One parent’s
perspective. Exceptionality Education International,19(2), 37–49.
https://doi.org/10.5206/eei.v19i2.7642
Mady, C., & Masson, M. (2018). Principals' beliefs about language learning and inclusion of
English language learners in Canadian elementary French immersion programs.
Canadian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 21(1). 71-93.
https://doi.org/10.7202/1050811ar
Masson, M., Knouzi, I., Arnott, S., & Lapkin, S. (2021). A critical interpretive synthesis of postmillennial Canadian French as a second language research across stakeholders and
program. The Canadian Modern Language Review, 77(2), 154–188.
https://doi.org/10.3138/cmlr-2020-0025
Ministry of Education and Child Care. (2019, February 4). French immersion celebration week
marks 50 years of French immersion in B.C.
https://news.gov.bc.ca/releases/2019EDUC0013-000147
Paradis, J., Crago, M., Genesee, F., & Rice, M. (2003). French-English bilingual children with
SLI: How do they compare with their monolingual peers? J Speech Lang Hear Res,
46(1), 113-27. https://doi.org/10.1044/1092-4388

60

Roy, S. (2008). French immersion studies: From second-language acquisition (SLA) to social
issues. Alberta Journal of Educational Research, 54(4), 396-406.
https://doi.org/10.11575/ajer.v54i4.55246
Roy, S., & Galiev, A. (2011). Discourses on bilingualism in Canadian French immersion
programs, Canadian Modern Language Review, 67(3), 351-376.
https://doi.org/10.3138/cmlr.67.3.351
Safty, A. (1991). French immersion in Canada: Theory and practice. International Review of
Education / Revue Internationale de l'Education, 37(4), 473-488.
Snow, M. A., Met, M., & Genesee, F. (1989). A conceptual framework for the integration of
language and content in second/foreign language programs. TESOL Quarterly, 23(2),
201–217. https://doi.org/10.2307/3587333
Swain, M., & Johnson, R. K. (1997). Immersion education: A category within bilingual
education. In R. K. Johnson & M. Swain (Eds.), Immersion education: International
perspectives (pp. 1-16). Cambridge University Press.
Swain, M., & Lapkin, S. (2005). The evolving sociopolitical context of immersion education in
Canada: Some implications for program development. International Journal of Applied
Linguistics, 15(2), 169-186. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1473-4192.2005.00086.x
Tardif, C., & Poirier, R. M. (2017). Horizon 2018: Toward stronger support of Frenchlanguage learning in British Columbia. Senate Canada.
Tedick, D. J., & Lyster, R. (2020). Scaffolding language development in immersion and dual
language classrooms. Routledge.
Tedick, D. J., & Zilmer, C. (2018). Teacher perceptions of immersion professional development
experiences emphasizing language-focused content instruction. Journal of Immersion and

61

Content-Based Language Education, 6(2), 271–297.
Wise, N. (2011). Access to special education for exceptional students in French immersion
programs: An equity issue. The Canadian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 14(1). 177-193.
https://journals.lib.unb.ca/index.php/CJAL/article/view/19873
Wise, N., D’Angelo, N., & Chen, X. (2016). A school-based phonological awareness
intervention for struggling readers in early French immersion. Reading and Writing, 29,
183–205. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-015-9585-9
Yilmaz, K. (2013). Comparison of quantitative and qualitative research traditions:
Epistemological, theoretical, and methodological differences. European Journal of
Education, 48(2), 311-325.

62

Appendix A
Ethics Approval

63

Appendix B:
Interview Protocol
Research question:
How are the needs of French Immersion students perceived by teachers and what
pedagogies are they using to address those perceptions?
Prior to the interview:
Thank you very much for taking the time to talk with me today. As mentioned before, the
purpose of the study is to explore teachers’ perception of French Immersion student needs and to
understand which pedagogies are being used to address those perceptions. Your insights into this
subject will help us better understand the challenges and needs of those teaching and learning in
the program. For the questions I’m about to ask you, please take your time and answer in as
much detail as possible. Your participation in the study is strictly voluntary and you have the
right to refrain from answering any questions that make you uncomfortable. Please let me know
at any point if you need a break. Do you have any questions before starting the interview?
1. What do you believe are the most important skills for students to acquire while
learning in the French Immersion program?
2. What are the biggest challenges you see for students in the FI program today?
3. Tell me about your experience with diverse learners (IEP or ELL) in your class.
4. What strategies or practices do you use to meet their needs?
5. Has the inclusion of these learners changed your practice in any way?
6. What areas are you hoping to explore to better support all learners in your class?
After the interview:

64

Thank you for taking the time to answer these questions today. In the next two weeks, I
will transcribe our interview. I am going to be cleaning this transcript. This means that I will be
removing any filler speech (“uhs”, “ums”, etc.), stutters, repetition of words, idiosyncrasies
(“like”, “actually”, “sort of”, “kind of”, etc.), interjections made by the interviewer (“yeah”,
“mm-hmm”), or run-on sentences. Once the transcript is completed, it will be sent to you so that
may read through and approve it for accuracy and comfort. You will be able to alter, redact or
clarify personal quotes from the interview. You will have two weeks to review, make the
changes you wish, and provide me with a preferred pseudonym for the final report. If you do not
review the transcript and make contact with me within two weeks of my email, I will consider it
an approval. You also have the option to approve specific quotes that will be used in the final
report. You can request a copy of the final report upon its completion.