Results
This following section provides the results of the project for Year 1 and Year 2 as well as two additional themes that emerged from the data.
YEAR 1
YEAR 2
Results from Year 1 provide information about the practices currently in place in the FSL Teacher Education programs at both participating Faculties of Education, as they related to the four pillars; the general entry profiles; the specific needs identified by professors and students, and; a comparison of the findings across both participating universities and the four pillars.
Results from Year 2 provide the general exit profile of FSL teacher candidates in each FSL Teacher Education program related to the four pillars; what the participants reported as strengths and weaknesses of the pilot projects; what changes (if any) participants reported related to the four pillars, and: a comparison of the findings across time, participating universities and the four pillars.
ADDITIONAL THEMES THAT EMERGED
As the project progressed, questions around how broader issues of social justice and equity were being addressed in the Teacher Education programs emerged. Upon reviewing the data collected from students and professors during Year 1, we applied an anti-biased anti-racist (ABAR) lens to examine how racialized power inequities that permeate French languages and cultures manifest within the context of FSL teacher preparation.
Collaboration is not always easy. As the project progressed, we noticed that teacher candidates had different interpretations about the success of collaborative initiatives in courses and workshops. Following data taken from a Year 2 pilot project, we analyzed the discourses of the candidates through the lens of performativity to examine their contrasting beliefs and actions around collaboration during FSL teacher preparation.
KEY HIGHLIGHTS FROM INNOVATION IN FSL TEACHER EDUCATION
Establishing Transparency: Across all of the pilot projects at the universities, people placed value on communication, the sharing of information, and making transparent processes in the ITE program.
For administrators, transparency came in the form of understanding their colleagues’ roles, responsibilities, and power to make decisions. Collaborative professionalism in this context means ensuring equitable access to information and redistributing power collectively, so that the decision-making process is transparent to all.
For professors, transparency involves access to the administrative processes and culture in the ITE program. Seeking clarity about program structure, schedules, and policy is a priority for seconded professors who may be unfamiliar with the university system.
For teacher candidates, transparency about the pilot project goals and the intentions of the researchers is essential. FSL teacher candidates are engaged when they understand and feel included in the decision-making over the research process. Non-FSL teacher candidates desire transparency when they see differences between what they do and what their colleagues do.
Overcoming Isolation: At all levels of the ITE program, pilot projects created collaborative, friendly spaces where actors made connections between their work, experiences, and roles, resulting in less professional isolation.
For administrators, participation in learning communities helps them overcome system-level isolation. They are able to find meaning in their responsibilities by connecting their actions to a common vision or goal.
For professors, participation in learning communities helps them overcome program-level isolation. They come to understand that their colleagues share similar feelings and develop confidence as they work through their concerns together.
For teacher candidates, participation in FSL-based learning communities helps them overcome pedagogical isolation. Candidates feel more comfortable tackling social anxiety as they work with like-minded colleagues in these intimate settings. Similar experiential backgrounds allow candidates to address concerns which are unique to them.
Responding to Resistance: Implementing pilot projects for the advancement of FSL was met with resistance by actors at all levels in the program. Honouring people’s concerns while negotiating solutions allowed the learning communities to mature.
For administrators, finding space for FSL programming often led to unproductive discussions about challenges and obstacles. Recognizing this mindset and encouraging a solution-oriented learning community resulted in more productive and creative discussions.
For professors, pedagogical disagreements created tensions in the learning community. Voluntary participation as a guiding principle allowed members to stay if learning was valuable to them, and leave if it was not.
For teacher candidates, different course expectations led to remarks of unfairness and inequality. Negotiating reasonable changes allowed candidates to embrace differentiation.
Addressing the immediate: Across all pilot projects, learning communities established in Year 1 allowed members to address immediate concerns. Objectives in learning communities are initially reactive.
For administrators, the initial purpose of the learning community was to find a way to make the research pilot projects feasible. Pre-established goals in this context were positive as they create a common purpose for people to come together.
For professors, the initial purpose of the learning community was to, broadly, offer them support. An open agenda allowed the creation of a space to address their immediate administrative needs.
For teacher candidates, the initial purpose of the FSL learning community was to address concerns established in a need-based analysis. Pre-established goals, such as opportunities to use French, addressed immediate concerns and fostered positive learning environments.
Transitioning to the possible: Only once immediate concerns are addressed, learning communities can become spaces of possibility. Objectives in learning communities become proactive.
For administrators, the learning community shifted to a space of unstructured dialogue and creative problem-solving. Achieving goals allowed members to recognize the learning community as a productive, useful space which can continue to fill their desired needs of connection and transparency.
For professors, the learning community shifted to a space of planning and organization. Members worked together to make connections between content and learning goals in their courses.
For teacher candidates, the learning community shifted to a space of content and language integration, where French proficiency becomes a vehicle for learning new ideas, rather than an end in itself. Pedagogical structures of “what works” for FSL candidates can be applied laterally in courses and workshops for the benefit of non-FSL cohorts.