assessing aim: a study of grade 8 students in an ontario

Assessing AIM: A Study of Grade 8Students in an Ontario School Board

Callie MadyStephanie ArnottSharon Lapkin

Abstract: This mixed-method study examines the proficiency in andperceptions of French language learning of Grade 8 students who wereexposed to an instructional approach called the Accelerative IntegratedMethod (AIM). Six AIM classes (n ¼ 125) and six non-AIM classes (n ¼ 135)were observed and their students tested using a four-skills French as a secondlanguage (FSL) test package (Harley, Lapkin, Scane, Hart, & Trepanier, 1988). Alarger sample of students (N ¼ 439) initially completed a questionnaire abouttheir attitudes towards French, and a sub-sample (n ¼ 94) also participated in asemi-structured interview exploring their perceptions of their Frenchproficiency and learning experiences. Analysis of the FSL test package andquestionnaire results revealed no significant differences in French proficiencyor attitude towards French between the AIM and non-AIM groups. Interviewsoffered explanations for observed student and teacher practices, providinginsight into student perceptions of their French skill development and thepedagogical method they had experienced. The implications for core Frenchpedagogy and future research are discussed.

Keywords: core French, instructional approaches, program evaluation

Resume : Cette etude a fait appel a une methodologie mixte pourexaminer les perceptions concernant l’apprentissage du francais, et la compe-tence en francais, d’apprenants de 8e annee qui ont ete exposes a une approchepedagogique nommee la « methode integree acceleree » (AIM en anglais). Sixclasses exposees a l’AIM (n ¼ 125) et six classes temoins (n ¼ 135) ont eteobservees, et les eleves ont ete evalues dans les quatre habiletes en francaislangue seconde (FLS) a partir de la serie de tests de FLS mise au point parHarley, Lapkin, Scane, Hart et Trepanier (1988). A l’origine, un plus grandechantillon d’apprenants (N ¼ 439) a rempli un questionnaire concernant leursattitudes vis-a-vis du francais, et un sous-echantillon (n ¼ 94) a pris part a desentrevues semi-structurees visant a explorer leurs perceptions de leur compe-tence en francais et de leurs experiences d’apprentissage linguistique. Lesanalyses des resultats de la serie de tests et des reponses au questionnaire n’ontrevele aucune difference significative dans la competence en francais ou dansl’attitude vis-a-vis du francais entre les groupes exposes a l’AIM et les groupestemoins. Les entrevues ont fourni des explications concernant certaines des

# 2009 The Canadian Modern Language Review/La Revue canadienne des langues vivantes,

65, 5 (August/aout), 703–729 doi:10.3138/cmlr.65.5.703

pratiques qui avaient ete observees parmi les enseignants et les apprenants,ce qui permet de mieux comprendre les perceptions des eleves concernant ledeveloppement de leur competence en francais et concernant l’approche alaquelle ils ont ete exposes. Les auteurs considerent l’incidence des resultats decette etude pour la pedagogie en francais de base et pour les recherches a venir.

Mots cles : francais de base, approches pedagogiques, evaluationde programme

In 2003, the federal government of Canada made a formal political com-mitment to ‘double the proportion of secondary school graduates with afunctional knowledge of their second official language by 2013’(Government of Canada, 2003). Subsequently, an Expert ConsultativeGroup proposed a set of concrete ideas and strategies on how to reachthis ambitious goal (Department of Canadian Heritage, 2004). As a col-lective, this group suggested that exploring ways to ‘do things differ-ently’ was important for improving core French as a second language(CF) programs,1 and to meet the 2013 objective.

At present, approximately 3,500 schools across Canada are choosing to‘do things differently’ in CF by using a new instructional method calledthe Accelerative Integrated Method, known to many simply as AIM(AIM Language Learning, 2008). Created by Maxwell (2001), thismethod combines the use of gestures with a strong initial focus on oralsecond language (L2)2 production. AIM was originally designed for theCF classroom as ‘an initial step that provides students with a languagebase that will allow them to communicate with a basic level of fluencyin the language’ (Maxwell, 2004, p. 8, emphasis added). Nonetheless,AIM is currently in wide use across Canada at primary (Grades K to 3),junior (Grades 4–6), and intermediate levels (Grades 7–8).3

AIM can be considered to fall within the general label of communica-tive language teaching (CLT). In a recent review of the current statusand future prospects of CLT, Spada (2007; see also Larsen-Freeman,2000) questions the concept of ‘method’ in language teaching, pointingout that ‘different methods overlap in several ways . . . and that teacherswho report using the same method do not implement it in the same way’(p. 260). Readers will recognize in the description of AIM elements thatcan be associated with a variety of language teaching methods, includ-ing Total Physical Response, Audio-Lingual Method, and Direct Method(see descriptions in Larsen-Freeman). Evidence to support Spada’s claimcan be found in Turnbull’s (1998, 1999a, 1999b) study investigating theimplementation of multidimensional project-based teaching (MPB) in

704 Mady, Arnott, and Lapkin


65, 5 (August/aout), 703–729

four Grade 9 core French classrooms. Observations suggested that theteachers implemented a mandated MPB curriculum unit in differentways. After identifying more- and less-MPB classes, Turnbull foundthat students in the more-MPB groups achieved superior French testscores. This, along with the study we present here, is the only studywe know of in the FSL research literature that attempts a methodcomparison.

The AIM method

In an attempt to support learners’ use and manipulation of the targetlanguage as early as possible, AIM introduces high-frequency vocabu-lary from the first day of instruction. Years 1 through 9 of the AIM cur-riculum use vocabulary as the overall unit of progression (Nation,2001), and French verbs, nouns, and simple expressions are sequencedusing studies that have identified high-frequency vocabulary use bynative speakers of French (Clarke, 1985; O’Connor DiVito, 1991).

Each vocabulary item introduced in AIM has a matching gesture. Themajority of the gestures are straightforward; for example, the verb‘manger’ (to eat) uses the motion of bringing food to one’s mouth,and opening and closing your hand beside your mouth quickly means‘dire’ (to say). These gestures are initially taught in isolation, oftenduring choral work activities, but are quickly integrated through theuse of drama, music, literature, and dance. Although new vocabularyis always introduced with its corresponding gesture, the expectation isthat students will need the gestures less and less as they progressthrough the AIM units.4 While gesture use is one of the central featuresof AIM, kinesics in general continues to be somewhat overlooked in theempirical discourse on teaching and learning languages (Orton, 2007).Existing empirical research has shown that L2 learners certainlybenefit more with natural gesturing than without, especially at timeswhen speech is not immediately accessible to them (Breckinridge-Church, Ayman-Nolley, & Mahootian, 2004), or when they are dealingwith communication breakdowns (McCafferty, 2002).

In AIM, different modes of production are encouraged at differentstages of development: functional oral skills are fostered beforereading or writing in the target language is introduced. After becomingfamiliar with a specific play or story, students are given the opportu-nity to use this knowledge to answer questions orally and in writingusing full sentences. As time progresses, questions become morecomplex, and more challenging story re-telling activities and creative

Assessing AIM 705

# 2009 The Canadian Modern Language Review/ La Revue canadienne des langues vivantes,

65, 5 (August/aout), 703–729

writing tasks are introduced. As well, teachers move from an initialfocus on meaning to a dual focus on meaning and form, often taughtwithin the context of the story or play under study. This mix of decon-textualized and contextualized learning activities is consistent withempirical research that advises teachers to integrate both approachesin the L2 classroom in order to promote word retention and eventuallanguage production (Qian, 1996).

Related research

Although the AIM literature is quite clear on how this approach seeksto promote language learning, researchers are only now beginning toput AIM to the test, examining the method from both qualitative andquantitative perspectives. Maxwell (2001) conducted diagnostic inter-views in French with two groups of students in Grade 2—one AIMgroup and one control group—to assess and compare their relativefluency levels. Students were also asked to demonstrate their abilityin sustained speech by selecting from a variety of puppets and spon-taneously creating a story with them. Maxwell reported that the AIMgroup displayed significantly higher fluency levels than those of thestudents in the comparison group.

Carr (2001) and Arnott (2005) conducted qualitative studies withelementary-level beginning language learners. Carr examined the pro-gress of AIM students in Grades 1–3 at an all-girls school in BritishColumbia, creating her own interview protocol in an attempt to assessGrade 1 participants’ oral fluency. Findings revealed that the Grade 1students’ oral production abilities were typical of first-year Frenchimmersion and exceeded the introductory-level BC core French curricu-lum expectations (p. 2). However, this accuracy in L2 production waslimited to conversation about the AIM plays, and was not observedduring spontaneous communication in the interviews. Arnott con-ducted teacher and student interviews that confirmed student engage-ment and willingness to take risks with the target language in an AIMlearning environment. In this study, a dual focus on the teacher as facil-itator and the learner as active and vocal participant also emerged fromthe observation data, with overall findings revealing that teachers are anintegral factor in the launch and ultimate success of the AIM method forbeginning language learners in Grade 3. Both Carr and Arnott identifiedgaps in the AIM curriculum, cautioning educators to reconsider imple-menting AIM as the sole approach to CF instruction until more researchcan be conducted.



65, 5 (August/aout), 703–729

In the absence of formal program evaluations to document theimpact of this widespread movement in curriculum planning for FSLeducation, the Bluewater District School Board funded the presentstudy. This investigation also responds to the consistent appeals byresearchers for more CF studies in which ‘different program structuresor delivery models are examined’ (Lapkin, Harley, & Taylor, 1993,p. 480). In testing the effect of AIM at the Grade 8 level, this studywas meant to inform curriculum planning for core French in thisBoard. Moreover, this investigation has also provided core French sta-keholders with another look at how this method is being implementedand the impact its use is having on intermediate-level students.

Methodology

The research used a mixed-method design (Creswell & Plano Clark,2007) involving interviews, formal testing, and a questionnaire toexamine: (a) the French proficiency of a group of AIM participants ascompared to a group of non-AIM participants; and (b) the AIM partici-pants’ perceptions of the French learning experience as compared tothose of the non-AIM participants. This design enabled us to triangu-late student perceptions using questionnaire and interview data(Greene, 2006). The qualitative data were also an important comp-lement to the test results.

Sample selection

In April 2007, we conducted classroom observations guided by theCommunicative Orientation of Language Teaching (COLT) observationscheme (Spada & Frohlich, 1995) in order to select the sample of AIMand non-AIM French classes to be involved in the study. This also pro-vided an objective check of the Board’s own classification of its Grade8 classes into AIM or non-AIM groups. After eliminating schools thathad a mixture of AIM and non-AIM exposure, we conducted one obser-vation for each of 8 AIM classes (where students had experienced AIMfor two years) and 8 non-AIM classes. Of the 16 classes observed, 12were retained in the sample: 6 AIM (n ¼ 125), and 6 non-AIM (n ¼ 135).5

In May 2007, participants from these 12 classes (n ¼ 260) completedthe questionnaire (Appendix A) and the listening, reading, and writingsections of the French test (Appendix B), and approximately 25% of theparticipants were selected to complete the individual speaking part ofthe test package. Participants were chosen for the speaking section

Assessing AIM 707


65, 5 (August/aout), 703–729

using random case sampling (Glesne, 1999). Students to be interviewedwere recruited using network sampling (Patton, 1990); that is, byhaving the teachers elicit the help of their students when timepermitted. For the qualitative portion of the study, we conductedsemi-structured interviews (Appendix C) with a sub-sample of 94participants: 55 participants from the AIM group, and 39 participantsfrom the non-AIM group.

Instruments

Grade 8 core French test package

The selected participants completed the Grade 8 CF test package(Harley, Lapkin, Scane, Hart, & Trepanier, 1988), intended for use inthe evaluation of CF programs at the Grade 8 level. These tests weredeveloped to reflect the objectives of CF at the time, which were ‘todevelop communication skills in both receptive and expressiveaspects of French’ (Harley & Lapkin, 1988, p. 1). At that time, muchtest development was based on the Canale and Swain (1980) frame-work of communicative competence, as is this test package. The objec-tive cited above remains pertinent to today’s curriculum, whichhighlights the importance of ‘basic communication skills in Frenchand an understanding of the nature of the language’ by the end ofGrade 8 (Ontario Ministry of Education, 1998, p. 2). Moreover, thetest package continues to be used in FSL studies (e.g., Mady, 2006,2007; Marshall, 2009; Turnbull, 1998, 1999b).

The test has four parts intended to measure four French languageskills: listening, reading, writing, and speaking. Students completedeach section in the order prescribed by the detailed instructions foradministration of the tests.

Student questionnaire

Students in all 16 classes that were originally observed (N ¼ 439) com-pleted a background questionnaire. Part A of the questionnairerequested basic demographic information data such as gender, AIMexperience, previous French teachers, schools, place of birth, languageslearned, and places of study, as well as a self-assessment of proficiencyin other languages used, frequency of use, and study and performanceof these languages in current classes. Part B contained 23 statements towhich students responded using a five-point Likert scale. The items



65, 5 (August/aout), 703–729

reflect student attitudes towards the study of French and Frenchculture and people.

Findings

French proficiency testing6

Independent samples t-tests were conducted to determine whether stu-dents in the AIM group versus the non-AIM group performed differentlyon tests of listening, reading, composition, dictation, and speaking.Table 1 presents the mean score and standard deviation of both theAIM and non-AIM groups for each test and the results of the t-tests,which revealed no significant differences between the groups on anymeasure (i.e., the groups did not perform differently from each other).

Student perceptions

Factor analyses were performed to determine whether the 23 itemson the student questionnaire represented one construct, that is, wereone-dimensional, or whether they represented more than oneconstruct, that is, were multidimensional. The analyses indicated thata one-dimensional construct fit the data; therefore these items werecombined to create a total attitudes score. An independent samples

TABLE 1

Mean Scores for Listening, Reading, Composition, Dictation, and Speaking for AIM and

Non-AIM Students

Maximum

Possible Score

Mean SD Df t-test

Test AIM Non-AIM AIM Non-AIM

Listening 15 5.86 5.73 2.30 2.40 258 0.45

Reading 1 10 6.17 5.63 2.61 2.56 258 1.67

Reading 2 5 1.32 1.26 0.99 0.99 259 0.51

Reading 3 5 1.61 1.61 1.48 1.38 259 –0.01

Composition 1 6 3.87 3.64 2.36 2.37 258 0.80

Composition 2 6 1.82 1.81 1.40 1.55 236 0.06

Composition total 12 5.69 5.15 3.46 3.45 258 1.26

Dictation 71 36.58 38.02 17.70 16.68 252 –0.67

Speaking 1 20 9.37 9.33 3.73 3.11 72 0.04

Speaking 2 9 3.47 3.53 1.84 1.66 72 –0.13

Note: None of the t statistics were significant.

Assessing AIM 709


65, 5 (August/aout), 703–729

t-test was then conducted to investigate whether the AIM andnon-AIM groups differed in mean attitude score. Analysis showedthat the AIM (M ¼ 65.58, SD ¼ 17.94) and non-AIM (M ¼ 65.47,SD ¼ 18.06) groups did not differ significantly in their attitudestowards French or French culture and people [t (242) ¼ 0.05, p ¼ 0.96].

In order to understand the factors that influenced the participants’French language proficiency, it was important to understand the lear-ners. In that vein, a subset of 55 AIM students and 39 non-AIM partici-pants was interviewed. A content analysis of the student interviewdata was then conducted, coding specifically for major themes thatemerged between, and within, groups. The like-themed data weregrouped together and our analysis is presented below.

Initial reactions to FSL learning experience

When prompted to comment on their initial impressions about the waythey had been learning French, more students responded positivelythan responded negatively. Popular one-word responses from bothgroups ranged from ‘fun’ to ‘easy,’ ‘different,’ and even ‘effective.’

Many students from the non-AIM group attributed their positiveattitude towards learning French to two factors. First, many citedtheir teacher as the reason why they liked French class:

I like the way the teacher teaches it.

It’s easy because the teacher gives us a lot of ways to remember stuff like

rhymes and Dr. and Mrs. Vandertramp.7

Mme. makes it easy.

Second, like some AIM students, some non-AIM students cited theirown perceived success in French class as being the reason for theirpositive affect, saying,

The teacher makes it pretty understandable for us so I pick up the lessons

quickly.

It’s fun and I understand it, like I am doing really good in it, like 4s and

everything.8

It’s going good, I think I’m learning.



65, 5 (August/aout), 703–729

Many respondents within the AIM group who elaborated on theirresponses to the same question were quick to attribute their positiveaffect towards the way they were learning French to elements ofAIM, most specifically to the gestures. All AIM schools had partici-pants who commented explicitly on the gestures as one of theprimary reasons why they liked the way they were learning French.Some students found the gestures helpful, stating,

It helps, when they do the action and you can find out the word, and if you

don’t know the word, you just know the action.

They help you remember the word in French.

. . . because the actions help you understand, if they do an action, you know

what it is basically.

Also emergent from the AIM group data were some remarks citing apreference for AIM in relation to previous experience in a French class-room, with some participants commenting,

It’s a lot better than what we used to do.

It’s easier.

I think it’s better this way.

It’s better than the other way.

Among the negative responses, those AIM participants who were notpleased with the way they were learning French were quite specificin their reasons in comparison to the non-AIM participants. Citedexplanations ranged from some students not liking French classbecause ‘sometimes it’s boring with all of the actions,’ and ‘I don’tlike the actions personally . . . [I]t kind of confuses me.’ A couple ofstudents in particular expressed frustration at the constant change inprogramming:

When you go all the way up to Grade 6 and they want to teach you all over

again it’s kind of stupid and crazy and then a lot of people got prejudice

against it. . ..I thought the program would be better if they started it right

when you start French which is in Grade 4.

Assessing AIM 711


65, 5 (August/aout), 703–729

I think it’s stupid kind of because learning from writing without the actions

for so long and then going in from Grade 6 and learning. It’s like you’re

being treated like you just started.

Language use

When interview participants were asked about whether they spokeFrench (L2) in class and when, there was a clear difference in studentresponses between the two groups. A large majority from the AIMgroup said they spoke French during ‘all’ or ‘most’ of the class time.Conversely, just over one-third of the non-AIM responses includedthe words ‘yeah’ or ‘sometimes’ in their responses. The majority ofboth AIM and non-AIM students indicated that they used Frenchwhen responding to a teacher’s question, or whenever they had toaddress their teacher in class.

When prompted to indicate whether they spoke English (L1) inFrench class, over 50% of the non-AIM students answered ‘yes,’while 25% of the AIM participants answered with the same certainty.Almost all of the students followed up their one-word response witha specific time during French class when they used English. Remarksreflecting a significant amount of time using English in the non-AIMtranscriptions included ‘usually,’ ‘all the time,’ and ‘sometimes.’Alternatively, the comments ‘no,’ ‘not a lot,’ ‘we’re not allowed,’ and‘we’re not supposed to,’ appeared multiple times in responses fromstudents in the AIM group.

When asked about how much French their teachers used in class,almost the entire sample of AIM interview participants claimed thattheir teachers spoke French either ‘all,’ ‘most,’ or ‘the whole amount’of time. For the non-AIM sample, 10% of participants indicated ‘allthe time’ as their response to the same question. Of the remainingresponses, many participants also indicated that their teacher usedFrench in combination with English, without the interviewer prompt-ing them to comment on such use of English.

A large number of students from each non-AIM school made refer-ence to their teacher’s use of English immediately following utterancesin French, saying things like:

The teacher will use French when telling us what to do but then translate it

for us in English or ask someone to translate it.

Reasons given in the non-AIM group varied:



65, 5 (August/aout), 703–729

People don’t understand it if the teacher doesn’t say it in English after.

The teacher translates it into English in case we didn’t get it.

When the teacher thinks we wouldn’t understand it, then the teacher will

say it in English.

When prompted to indicate when their teacher spoke English, the mostcommon response from both the AIM and non-AIM groups was thattheir teacher used English to explain something that the studentsdidn’t know or wouldn’t understand. A number of non-AIM studentsindicated that their teacher used English to explain activities, or totranslate things they had previously said in French to ensurecomprehension:

The teacher speaks English sometimes right after speaking French so that

people know what the teacher is talking about most of the time.

When she’s explaining something, she’ll say it in French and we’ll try to stab

at what it means and then she will just tell us in English.

The majority of students in both the AIM and non-AIM groupsresponded with a strong ‘yes’ when asked whether it is important tospeak French in French class. Many rationalized simply that youshould speak French ‘because it’s French class’ or because ‘you’rethere to learn French so it would make sense to be able to speakFrench.’

When asked if they were satisfied with the amount of French theywere speaking in French class, a considerable majority of studentsfrom all schools responded by simply saying ‘yes’ (non-AIM 89%;AIM 75%). Most of the participants from both groups who were not sat-isfied with the amount of French they were speaking in class stated thatthey wished they were speaking more.

Support for the amount of French spoken by the French teachers inboth groups was overwhelmingly strong (non-AIM 95%; AIM 89%).The only common reason given for dissatisfaction across groups wasthat some students felt that they were having difficulty understandingthe teacher and were feeling frustrated as a result. One-quarterof the non-AIM respondents implied that they were pleased theteacher would explain her French utterances with Englishtranslations:9

Assessing AIM 713


65, 5 (August/aout), 703–729

It’s good that she speaks some English to explain the French part.

If it was all in French, it would be harder to understand.

Student preference

At this point in the interview, participants were invited to identify theirmost and least favourite aspects of French class. More than 90% ofrespondents from both groups provided detailed answers to both ofthese questions, whereas the remaining students replied ‘nothing’ or‘I don’t know.’ Both AIM and non-AIM groups reported that theirmost preferred activity was the games that their teacher introducedin French class (non-AIM 56%; AIM 27%). The most prevalent responseon the whole about their least favourite activity, from both groups, waswritten work (non-AIM 20%; AIM 27%), with tests coming in a closesecond in both groups (non-AIM 18%; AIM 20%).

Perceived development of L2 skills

Participants in both groups were asked to articulate how they per-ceived their French skills after the Grade 8 year, specifically in theareas of reading, writing, listening, and speaking. A considerablenumber of AIM students judged their competence relative to theirskills before entering the AIM program (‘better than before’), and alarge number of non-AIM students made reference to whether theirskills were improving or had improved over the course of theirGrade 8 year (‘improved or improving’).

Based on the total percentages of positive and negative comments, thedata show that the non-AIM group made the higher percentage of posi-tive comments about their reading skills, while the AIM participantsmade the higher percentage of positive comments about their listeningand speaking skills. The most negative comments were made about lis-tening skills for the non-AIM group and writing skills for the AIM group.

AIM components

In order to collect data on student perceptions of AIM, we asked AIMparticipants questions pertaining to the gestures, plays, dances, music,and written work. Collectively, these are considered to be centralcomponents of AIM.



65, 5 (August/aout), 703–729

Interview data showed that the AIM students had more positivethan negative things to say about each component.10 Based on thecumulative total of positive responses by each school in the AIMgroup, respondents made the most positive comments about theplays, and the most negative comments about the written activities.Interestingly, on the whole the most mixed responses were madeabout the gestures. In addition, some of the AIM group referred tothe gestures as ‘childish,’ claiming,

I think they’re meant to be introduced at a younger age cause they

introduced them late and we really didn’t like them very much and we still

don’t.

They’re fine but it feels like you’re in Grade 2 when you’re doing them.

Similarly, the few negative responses about the plays and stories alsoreflected the theme of immaturity with some students. Commentsincluded the following:

Well I don’t really like the stories or the plays because they’re sort of for like

little kids.

I think they’re a little young, they’re about a frog . . .

I think they’re more for younger kids, really . . . [I]t’s not appropriate.

Discussion

Based on the non-significant test results reported, it would be proble-matic to point to AIM as better able to produce overall FSL proficiency.Although researchers have made appeals for more CF studies to collectmore extensive data concerning ‘the relative influence of teachingapproach on student outcomes, as compared to other factors such asteachers’ second language use ‘(Turnbull, 1999a, p. 24), the inconclu-sive quantitative results seen here are not uncommon in studies com-paring language-teaching methodologies and student proficiency(Larsen-Freeman, 2000). In fact, these findings reflect the generalbelief that one particular method cannot be a prescription for successfor everyone. In his multidimensional curriculum for CF, Stern (1982)proposed that teachers be encouraged to choose from a bank of activi-ties, techniques, and strategies in order to maximize student

Assessing AIM 715


65, 5 (August/aout), 703–729

proficiency, as opposed to implementing one particular French curricu-lum. Observation data used for selecting the sample (Mady, Arnott, &Lapkin, 2007) suggest that the participant teachers from both groupsappeared to be doing just that: characteristics deemed central to AIMwere not exclusive to AIM classrooms. In this case, attempting toisolate the AIM method as the sole variable influencing Grade 8student proficiency has led to more speculation about its implemen-tation, reflecting Larsen-Freeman’s reservation that ‘saying that a par-ticular method is practiced certainly does not give us the whole pictureof what is happening in the classroom’ (p. xi).

Although student proficiency as measured by the French testpackage did not vary significantly across groups in our investigation,future studies comparing AIM and non-AIM classrooms wouldclearly benefit from more intensive observation periods to yield moredata on specific aspects of the AIM and non-AIM teachers’ methodsand strategies that may influence student proficiency. This kind ofinformation could help to identify desirable features of effectivelanguage teaching in general, and not just those that are exclusive toa particular method.

In AIM, speaking skills are emphasized from the beginning stages ofsecond language acquisition, and specific importance is placed on theacquisition of verbs for oral communication (Arnott, 2005; Maxwell,2001). Given that the AIM students in this study had been exposed toa method emphasizing oral language production for two years, it wasreasonable to hypothesize that they might outperform the non-AIM stu-dents on the speaking section of the French test. However, the test resultsproved otherwise. Despite this quantitative result, qualitative findingsshowed that AIM teachers used a substantially higher percentage ofFrench than the non-AIM teachers during the observations, and AIM stu-dents interviewed reported feeling considerably more confident in theirlistening and speaking skills than the non-AIM students. Many AIM stu-dents in this study also attributed their French language skill develop-ment to their change from non-AIM to AIM in Grade 6. This group ofstudents made reference to their language skills being ‘better thanbefore’ 47 times throughout their interviews. Although many AIM stu-dents also thought that aspects of the AIM method were ‘childish,’they expressed confidence in their French language skills (especiallytheir listening and speaking skills) in a classroom environment wheretarget language use was maximized.

In contrast, it is interesting to note the non-AIM perception thatFrench (L2) and English (L1) should coexist in the FSL classroom.Although there were similarities in the responses of both groups as



65, 5 (August/aout), 703–729

to why English might be used, the comments of non-AIM studentssupported their conviction that English use was both acceptable andadvantageous to them in their learning and understanding of French.This implication was also reflected in non-AIM student commentsabout satisfaction with French use in the FSL classroom, with manyvoluntarily associating satisfaction about French use with the opp-ortunity to pair it with English use. Conversely, although studentsfrom both groups said that they spoke French when responding tothe teacher, it was obvious that the AIM students knew and acceptedthat their teacher expected them to use French as much as possibleand that reverting to English was not necessary in the AIM classroom.

These findings, coupled with a strong AIM mandate for developingoral fluency, address previous research documenting stakeholderrecommendations for more effective CF programming. For instance,teachers and principals in Alberta identified oral fluency developmentas the key to a successful CF program (Evaluation Plus Inc., 2002),mirroring recommendations from a survey of East Coast studentsthat more oral communication skill development in CF programswould lead to more students feeling motivated to stay in CF beyondGrade 9 (Atlantic Provinces Education Foundation, 2004).

Future research in this respect could focus on comparing AIM andnon-AIM students’ oral fluency (Bourdages & Vignola, 2009), or com-paring AIM and non-AIM students’ perceptions of their languageskills and language learning experience over a longer period. Thisline of inquiry would address the ongoing trend of disturbingly nega-tive attitudes towards French held by some students and reported byteachers and administrators across Canada (Canadian Parents forFrench, 2006; Lapkin, MacFarlane, & Vandergrift, 2006).

Conclusion

In this study, analysis of the test results revealed no significant differ-ences in the French proficiency of students in the AIM and non-AIMgroups. The presence or absence of AIM criteria in the classroomdoes not appear to be a key factor in explaining the testing outcomes.It is important to reiterate that the majority of AIM and non-AIM stu-dents in the interview sample felt a positive connection to their Frenchclass. It is also noteworthy that despite the non-significant differencesbetween groups on the speaking section of the proficiency test, moreFrench was being spoken in the AIM classrooms than in non-AIMclassrooms. Moreover, the AIM students reported feeling confident

Assessing AIM 717


65, 5 (August/aout), 703–729

in their French speaking skills and being quite excited to speak French.On the other hand, although the non-AIM students also expressedconfidence in their skills, their confidence seemed to relate tocomfort in knowing that English would be available to help themunderstand.

The results from this study suggest that Grade 8 may not be anoptimal level at which to use AIM, implying that a more relativistapproach to this methodology may be more appropriate. Accordingto Larsen-Freeman (2000), methods may not be suitable for all learningsituations, and as Carr (2001) notes, AIM is probably best used as ‘partof an overall FSL program’ (p. 3). For this reason, we suggestthat similar research should be conducted in contexts in whichAIM is being implemented from the onset of CF instruction (e.g.,Grade 4 in Ontario) in order to assess student achievement and profi-ciency at earlier stages of exposure to AIM. As well, with the rate ofAIM implementation on the rise in Canada, more research shouldexplore exactly how this approach is being put into practice by CFteachers.

Examining the impact of AIM on student proficiency in this waycould help to identify desirable teaching techniques in AIM andnon-AIM teaching practice. Ultimately, AIM should continue to beinvestigated as one method or one component of a method to instruc-tion in CF, perhaps not only to discover the reasons underlying itswidespread implementation but also, as Spada (2007) argues, toprompt a reconsideration of the concept of ‘method’ as a strict prescrip-tion for effective classroom teaching.

Correspondence should be addressed to Callie Mady, Assistant Professor,

Nipissing University, 100 College Drive, Box 5002, North Bay, ON P1B 8L7

Canada. Email: [email protected].

Acknowledgements

We would like to acknowledge the Bluewater District School Board for funding

this research. We would also like to thank the administrators, teachers, and

students of the Board who welcomed us into their classrooms and facilitated

the completion of this study.



65, 5 (August/aout), 703–729

Notes

1 Core French is a program in which French as a second language is taught

as a subject for one period each day or a few times a week, with each

period lasting approximately 30–45 minutes.

2 In this article, ‘L2’ and ‘target language’ are used interchangeably.

3 Resources are also being produced for English as a second language (ESL)

and Spanish as a second language (SSL) teachers who are interested in

adopting the AIM approach (AIM Language Learning, 2009).

4 According to Maxwell (2001, 2004) the gestures can be used at any time to

facilitate retrieval of learned vocabulary or to introduce new vocabulary

through the units.

5 Among the four observers, on Part A of the COLT an inter-rater agreement

rate of 93% was established for the AIM classes and 97% for the non-AIM

classes. For Part B, an inter-rater agreement rate of 83.5% was established

for the AIM classes and 83% for the non-AIM classes.

6 Paper and pencil tests from four of the L2 classes (n ¼ 87) were chosen and

re-scored by the second rater. A second rater also scored 25% (n ¼ 19) of

the oral tests from the audio recordings. The percentage of agreement

for exact and adjacent scores between raters is high in each case, in the

83–100% agreement range.

7 This is a mnemonic device used to recall the verbs in French that are

conjugated with ‘etre’ instead of the regular auxiliary ‘avoir.’

8 The Ministry of Education in Ontario uses a four-point scale on which ‘4’

signifies exemplary performance.

9 Although our participant sample included both male and female students

and teachers, we will use the feminine pronouns ‘she’ and ‘her’ to

represent all individual responses in our reporting.

10 Again, positive responses were categorized according to the presence of

such words as ‘fun,’ ‘OK,’ ‘help you learn,’ and ‘alright’ in student

responses, and negative responses were categorized according to the

presence of such words as ‘boring,’ ‘difficult,’ ‘pointless,’ ‘weird,’ and

‘hard to learn’ or ‘hard to understand’ in student responses. Mixed

responses had a combination of positive and negative comments.

References

AIM Language Learning. (2008). AIM Language Learning home page.

Retrieved June 2009 from http://www.aimlanguagelearning.com.

Assessing AIM 719


65, 5 (August/aout), 703–729

Arnott, S. (2005). The accelerative integrated study: A descriptive case study.

Unpublished qualifying research paper, Ontario Institute for Studies in

Education, University of Toronto.

Atlantic Provinces Education Foundation. (2004). Core French survey: A regional

report. Halifax, NS: Author. Retrieved March 23, 2008, from http://www.

caslt.org/pdf/APEF%20-%20Section%20one.pdf

Bourdages, J., & Vignola, M.J. (2009). AIM : La communication orale chez les

eleves de l’elementaire en francais de base. Canadian Modern Language

Review, 65(5), 731–756.

Breckinridge-Church, R., Ayman-Nolley, S., & Mahootian, S. (2004). The role of

gesture in bilingual education: Does gesture enhance learning? Bilingual

Education and Bilingualism, 7(4), 303–319.

Canadian Parents for French. (2006). The state of French second language education

in Canada 2005. Ottawa, ON: Author.

Canale, M., & Swain, M. (1980). Theoretical bases of communicative approaches

to second language teaching and testing. Applied Linguistics, 1, 1–47.

Carr, W. (2001). Study of York House School’s core French program: Accelerative

integrated method approach: September 2000 to June 2001. Unpublished report.

Clarke, E.V. (1985). The acquisition of romance. In D.I. Slobin (Ed.), The

crosslinguistic study of language acquisition (pp. 687–782). Hillsdale,

NJ: L. Erlbaum Associates.

Creswell, J.W., & Plano Clark, V.L. (2007). Designing and conducting mixed

methods research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Department of Canadian Heritage. (2004). Plan 2013: Strategies for a national

approach in second language education. Ottawa ON: Author. Retrieved May 23,

2008, from http://www.pch.gc.ca/progs/lo-ol/pubs/plan-2013/index_e.cfm

Evaluation Plus Inc. (2002). French as a second language program review: Final

report. Edmonton, AB: Edmonton Public Schools.

Glesne, C. (1999). Becoming qualitative researchers. Don Mills, ON: Addison-

Wesley Longman.

Government of Canada. (2003). The next act: New momentum for Canada’s

linguistic duality. (Action plan for official languages.) Ottawa, ON: Author.

Greene, J.C. (2006). Mixed methods in social inquiry. San Francisco, CA:

Jossey-Bass.

Harley, B., & Lapkin, S. (1988). Testing outcomes in core French: The development of

communicative instruments for curriculum evaluation and research project report.

Toronto, ON: Modern Language Centre, Ontario Institute for Studies in


Harley, B., Lapkin, S., Scane, J., Hart, D., & Trepanier, C. (1988). Testing outcomes

in core French: The development of communicative instruments for curriculum

evaluation and research. Toronto, ON: Modern Language Centre, Ontario

Institute for Studies in Education, University of Toronto.



65, 5 (August/aout), 703–729

Lapkin, S., Harley, B., & Taylor, S. (1993). Research directions for core French in

Canada. The Canadian Modern Language Review, 49(3), 476–513.

Lapkin, S., MacFarlane, A., & Vandergrift, L. (2006). Teaching French in Canada:

FSL teachers’ perspectives. Ottawa, ON: Canadian Teachers’ Federation.

Larsen-Freeman, D. (2000). Techniques and principles in language teaching. Oxford,

UK: Oxford University Press.

Mady, C. (2006). The suitability of core French for recently arrived English as a second

language adolescent immigrants. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Ontario

Institute for Studies in Education, University of Toronto.

Mady, C. (2007). The suitability of core French for recently arrived adolescent

immigrants to Canada. Canadian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 10(2), 177–196.

Mady, C., Arnott, S., & Lapkin, S. (2007). A comparison of AIM and non-AIM Grade

8 core French in the Bluewater District School Board: Students’ French proficiency

and teacher and student perceptions. Unpublished report, Modern Language

Centre, Ontario Institute for Studies in Education, University of Toronto.

Marshall, P. (2009). A case study of compact core French: A pedagogic perspective.

Doctoral dissertation in preparation, Ontario Institute for Studies in


Maxwell, W. (2001). Evaluating the effectiveness of the accelerative integrated method

for teaching French as a second language. Unpublished master’s thesis, Ontario

Institute for Studies in Education, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada.

Maxwell, W. (2004). The accelerative integrated method: A holistic approach to

the teaching of FSL. Reflexions, 23(3), 6–10.

McCafferty, S.G. (2002). Gesture and creating zones of proximal development

for second language learning. Modern Language Journal, 86(2), 192–203.

Nation, I.S.P. (2001). Learning vocabulary in another language. Cambridge, UK:

Cambridge University Press.

O’Connor DiVito, N. (1991). Incorporating native speaker norms in second

language materials. Applied Linguistics, 12, 383–396.

Ontario Ministry of Education. (1998). The Ontario curriculum: French as a second

language: Core French Grades 4–8. Toronto, ON: Author.

Orton, J. (2007). Gesture in modern language teaching and learning. Babel,

42(2), 12–19.

Patton, M. (1990). Qualitative evaluation and research methods (2nd ed.). Newbury

Park, CA: Sage Publications.

Qian, D. (1996). ESL vocabulary acquisition: Contextualization and

decontextualization. The Canadian Modern Language Review, 53(1), 120–142.

Spada, N. (2007). Communicative language teaching: Current status and future

prospects. In J. Cummins & C. Davis (Eds.), Kluwer handbook of English

language teaching (pp. 2–22). Amsterdam: Kluwer Publications.

Spada, N., & Frohlich, M. (1995). Communicative orientation of language teaching

observation scheme: Coding conventions and applications. Sydney, Australia:

Assessing AIM 721


65, 5 (August/aout), 703–729

National Centre for English Language Teaching and Research, Macquarrie

University.

Stern, H.H. (1982). French core programs across Canada: How can we improve

them? The Canadian Modern Language Review, 39, 34–47.

Turnbull, M. (1998). Multidimensional project-based teaching in core French: A case

study. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Ontario Institute for Studies in


Turnbull, M. (1999a). Multidimensional project-based second language

teaching: Observations of four Grade 9 core French teachers. The Canadian

Modern Language Review, 56(1), 7–29.

Turnbull, M. (1999b). Multidimensional project-based teaching in French as a

second language (FSL): A process-product case study. Modern Language

Journal, 83(4), 548–568.

Appendix A: Student background questionnaire

Thank you for answering some questions for us. We are researchersfrom the University of Toronto. The answers you give will help usbetter understand how you learn French. Your answers may be differ-ent than those of your classmates. That is fine. There are no right andwrong answers so please complete the questionnaire individuallyand honestly. Thanks again.

When you see the word mother, mother means your mother,step-mother, or female guardian. The word father refers to yourfather, step-father, or male guardian.



65, 5 (August/aout), 703–729

Assessing AIM 723


65, 5 (August/aout), 703–729



65, 5 (August/aout), 703–729

Assessing AIM 725


65, 5 (August/aout), 703–729

Appendix B: Sample of French test components

Listening

Script

—Olivier, quelle est ta matiere preferee?—Ma matiere preferee, je pense que c’est plutot l’histoire. C’est dans lesmatieres nouvelles qu’on a cette annee et je trouve que c’est plus inter-essant que le francais, c’est toujours la grammaire, grammaire, mathstoujours les chiffres, ca devient fatiguant.—Quelle sorte d’histoire est-ce que tu etudies cette annee?—On a vu la prehistoire et on commence le chapitre en Egypte.—Pas l’Egypte contemporaine, l’ancienne n’est-ce pas?—Oui, l’ancienne Egypte.

Question

Quelle est la matiere preferee d’Olivier?

1. le francais2. l’histoire3. les mathematiques4. la geographie

Reading

le 5 juilletSalut Philippe!Me voici en route de Sorel a Rimouski, on a longe le fleuve

St-Laurent. On suit la route 132 qui va jusqu’a la ville de Levis. Hieron a eu de la pluie toute la journee et j’etais trempe. Tous mes vete-ments etaient mouilles. C’etait degueulasse! Passe cette carte auxautres de la gang. A bientot.

Ton ami, Olivier

Question

Les etudiants ont:

1. traverse le fleuve St-Laurent2. voyage loin du fleuve



65, 5 (August/aout), 703–729

3. voyage le long du fleuve4. nage dans le fleuve.

Dictee and composition

Dictee

————— en voir ————— cyclistes?On en ————— environ 20,000 —————.

Script

Veux-tu en voir des cyclistes? On en attend environ 20,000 a Montreal.

Composition 1: Une annonce

Tu cherches un ou une correspondant/e. Ecris une annonce pour lemagazine Quebec avec ton nom, ton adresse et ton age. Mentionnetrois de tes interets.

Sample speaking test component

Students were asked to order one dish from each section of a menu,excerpt below. Points for pronunciation were awarded for the pho-nemes underlined.

La Carte

Jus d’orange

Jus de tomate

Soupe aux legumes

Potage du chef

Salade aux oignons et aux oranges

Salade aux epinards et aux champignons

Assessing AIM 727


65, 5 (August/aout), 703–729

Appendix C: Interview questions

Initial reactions to FSL learning experience

† What do you think about the way you have been learningFrench?

Language use

† Do you speak French in class? When?† Do you speak English/L1 in your class? When?† Does your teacher speak French in class? When?† Does your teacher speak English/L1 in your class? When?† Do you think it is important to speak French in French class?

Why or why not?† Are you satisfied with the amount of French you speak in class?

Why or why not?† Are you satisfied with the amount of French your teacher

speaks in class? Why or why not?

Student preference

† What is your most favourite part about French class? Why?† What is your least favourite part about French class? Why?

Perceived development of L2 skills

† How do you feel about your reading skills in French after thisyear in French class?

† How do you feel about your writing skills in French after thisyear in French class?

† How do you feel about your listening skills in French after thisyear in French class?

† How do you feel about your speaking skills in French after thisyear in French class?



65, 5 (August/aout), 703–729

** Questions for AIM group ONLY**

AIM components

† What do you think about the gestures used in class?† What do you think about the stories and plays?† What do you think about the music?† What do you think about the dances you have learned?† What do you think about the written activities?

Assessing AIM 729


65, 5 (August/aout), 703–729

The CanadianModern Language Review /

La Revue canadiennedes langues vivantes

assessing aim: a study of grade 8 students in an ontario

Documents