Page 1
Page 2
Page 3
Page 4
Page 5
Page 6
Page 7
Page 8
Page 9
Page 10
Page 11
Page 12
Page 13
Page 14
Page 15
Page 16
Page 17
Page 18
Page 19
Page 20
Page 21
Page 22
Page 23
Page 24
Page 25
Page 26
Page 27
Page 28
Page 29
Page 30
Page 31

Simon Fraser University

Memorandum

S.00-73

TO: ?

Senate

FROM: ?

J.M. Munro, Vice-President, Academic

DATE: ?

August 16, 2000

SUBJECT: External Review - Department of French

External Reviews of academic units are conducted under Guidelines' approved

by Senate. The review process is intended to ensure that the quality of the department's

academic programs and research is high, that members of the department participate in

the administration of departments, and that the departmental environment is

conducive to the department's objectives. Under these Guidelines, Senate is expected to

receive advice from the new Senate Committee on University Priorities and to provide

feedback to the unit and the Dean.

The following materials are forwarded to Senate for consideration:

The External Review Report

The response to the External Review Report by the Department

The comments of the Dean

The comments of the Vice-President, Academic

The recommendations from the Senate Committee on University Priorities

The Department Chair, Dr. Guy Poirier

will

be available at Senate as a resource person.

Motion

That Senate concurs with the recommendation from the Senate Committee on

University Priorities concerning advice to the Department of French on priority

items resulting from the external review, as outlined in S.00-

_____

1C(OJJUkp

The ?

'Guidelines can be found at

http://www.reg.sfu.ca/Senate/SenateConims/SCUP-ExReview.hbnl

• ?

SIMON FRASER UNIVERSITY

Senate Committee on University Priorities

Memorandum

TO:

Senate ?

FROM:Ju i

sborne, Acting

ce Pr sident, Academic

Acting Chair, SCUP

RE: Department of French

DATE:

12 July 2000

External Review

The Senate Committee on University Priorities has reviewed the External Review

Report prepared on the Department of French May 6, 1999, together with the

response from the Department and comments from the Dean and the Vice

President, Academic.

SCUP recommends to Senate that the Department and Dean be advised to pursue

the following as priority items:

The Department of French should develop a comprehensive plan to work

toward increasing enrolment in the Master's program to 10 full-time

equivalent students. The Plan should be sent to the Dean and to SCUP for

information with an update back to SCUP by September 1, 2001. SCUP further

recommends that as part of this plan, the Department of French undertake

the following initiatives: (a) review and improve its current recruitment

strategy, emphasizing program streams and career options outside of

teaching; (b) evaluate whether the Department's focus is attractive to

prospective graduate students; and, (c) introduce more graduate funding

opportunities, particularly through an increase in the number of Teaching

Assistantships.

The Department of French should improve its collaboration with other

academic units, particularly the Faculty of Education and other language

Departments, for both graduate and undergraduate programming. The Deans

of the Faculty of Arts and Education should also develop plans for better co-

operation between their Faculties.

Page 2

The Department of French

should

work to achieve greater integration of

language instruction in the overall curriculum. This includes redefinition of

courses and pedagogy and greater emphasis on language skills throughout the

curriculum. It also requires a consideration of the evolving nature of new

technologies in support of language teaching. The Department of French

should re-deploy faculty resources to effectively support these recommended

changes.

The Department of French, in conjunction with the Dean of Arts and other

language Departments, should conduct an administrative review of language

learning services within the Department and Faculty. Such a review should

consider ways in

which

French language teaching can be integrated with

other language teaching and how the French Language Lab and the Language

Learning Centre can be integrated to offer the most effective language

teaching facilities in the Faculty of Arts. (The Faculty of Arts should evaluate

the technical support needs of all Departments and, if necessary, address any

deficiencies.)

G. Poirier

Pierce

scu

00-02

SIMON FRASER UNIVERSITY

Office of the Vice President, Academic ?

MEMORANDUM

TO: Senate Committee on ?

FROM:

J.M. Munro,

University Priorities

Vice President, Academic

SUBJECT: External Review, Department ?

DATE: June 7, 2000 ?

of French

The report of the External Review Committee of the Department of

French was submitted on May 6, 1999 following the review visit on February 25-

27, 1999. The Department offered to respond in the fall of 1999 but they were

asked to delay their response until the new Senate Guidelines for External

• ?

Reviews were in place. The response of the Department was submitted to the

Dean of Arts on March 27, 2000 and the Dean's comments were forwarded on

April 26, 2000.

My comments on this external review and the submissions from the

Department and Dean are as follows.

This is a concise, thoughtful, and useful review and is one that could serve

as an example for review committees in the future. The review presented a

fundamentally positive view of the Department of French and their encouraging

perspective on the Department - for example, their praise for the integration

of language, literature, and linguistics - appears to have been appreciated in

the Departmental response. There are differences between the Department's

and the Dean's views on certain issues such as language pedagogy and teaching

facilities with the Dean generally being more in agreement with the reviewers

than the Department.

The reviewers' advice concerning faculty renewal and the closer integration

of all complement teaching staff seems sound. The Department appears to be

undertaking one part of this process in its revision of its language courses -

further work would be advisable. The Dean's comments suggest a way in which

the effective integration of French language teaching can be integrated with

. ?

other language teaching in the Faculty of Arts through the Language Learning

Centre. It should be possible to accomplish this without compromising the

importance of these courses for the major program in French. From the Dean's

comments, it seems unlikely that the Departmental request for a major

renovation and re-equipment of the French Language Training Centre will be

successful. Thus, the Department of French and the Dean's office must reach

agreement on how to provide suitable [earning services through other facilities

The matter of co-operation between the Department of French and the

Faculty of Education has long been a matter of concern. The University should

be able to find ways of effectively promoting improved collaboration between

these two units, both of whose programs would seem to be able to benefit

from this. Perhaps the Deans of Arts and Education should be charged to

develop plans for better co-operation.

The Department's undergraduate program has stable enrollments and is

obviously offering Learning opportunities that are appreciated by enough

students to raise no concerns about its long term viability. Even so, the efforts

of the Chair and Department to broaden the community connections of the

Department of French are to be commended.

The graduate program has fewer students this year than in the year of the

review - enrollment is well below the ten specified by the reviewers as the

minimum viable level. (This target is itself at the very Low end of graduate

program size across the University.) The Department response notes that the

size of graduate programs fluctuates but it is the case that small programs

need to avoid fluctuation that takes them below the minimum viable level.

The measures underway and proposed by the Department are an appropriate

response to this problem; their success will be important for the Department.

Both the reviewers and the Department misunderstand the process by which

funding for equipment finds its way to departments. Equipment budgets are

allocated by the Vice President, Academic to Faculties, not to departments,

and it is the Dean's prerogative to allocate these funds. The fundamental

considerations in allocation of equipment budgets are the needs for start-up

funding for new faculty members and the distribution of weighted FTEs across

the Faculties. In some cases, special equipment allocations are made at the

University level but this comprises a relatively minor amount of centrally-

provided equipment funding. All Faculties generate funds internally from

salary fall-out which are then available for such purposes as equipment

purchase.

CC. G. Poirier

J. Pierce

scu

00-02

O ?

SIMON FRASER UNIVERSITY

MEMORANDUM

From:

Subject:

Date: ?

This was, on the whole, a very positive review for the Department of French. The

program and faculty are very good and with some minor adjustments, significant

improvements could be encouraged in both. I have structured my comments into

three thematic categories - strategic planning, curriculum and pedagogical reform

and renewal.

•

1. Strategic Planning:

The review implied steps in a number of areas that are critically linked

and should be considered together by the department in order to establish a

coherent and feasible plan for the next few years. Particularly important

in this connection are the areas of curricular and pedagogical reform, and

faculty renewal. These will be dealt with separately below. The department

should take stock of their audience of students, why they take French, and

what they use it for after graduation. The goals and interests of students

may inform the planning of future directions, and provide insights that

could lead to a plan to reverse the downward trend in enrollment evident

over the past several years.

Another area that requires collective study and resolve in the department

is the collaboration between the department and other units in the

University. The review mentions cooperation with Education and other

language departments; the process of implementation of the recommendations

of this review should include a careful consideration of the options in

this area. Clearly, the training of French teachers requires close

collaboration with the Faculty of Education, and the department should work

to enhance this relationship. Likewise, the joint development of language

programming initiatives and infrastructure should be a priority of the

S ?

department, because of the economies that can be achieved by

interdepartmental efforts in these areas.

CL,.

Finally, the department should carefully consider the future of the

graduate program. The review was clear in saying that it is currently below

the critical mass of active students. An examination of application

patterns and comparison with other French departments should be undertaken

to determine if a general drop in demand for graduate degrees is the cause,

or if a particular reorientation of focus might attract more students. The

department should also consider more extensive use of TAships for graduate

students in place of other forms of instructional support over the long

term, and attempt to increase the amount of graduate student support

generated by external research grants. The department should consider

setting a target date by which an increase to 10 students should be

achieved.

2. Curriculum and pedagogical reform:

The department makes clear that it is committed to the three-fold structure

of its curriculum (language, literature, and linguistics). Nonetheless, the

review makes it apparent that there are some efficiencies that need to be

considered in order for that curriculum to function well for students,

particularly in assuring that needed courses are available for degree

completion. The department should move quickly to implement reforms, as

language instruction in the

overall curriculum. There are two dimensions to this proposal: 1)

redefinition of courses and pedagogy, and 2) greater emphasis on language

skills throughout the curriculum. In both these aspects, the department

should consider redeploying faculty resources to reflect this emphasis. For

example, senior members of the department could become more involved in the

teaching of language, and the skills of some of the language lecturers

could be utilized in upper-division content courses. While the calendar

descriptions of courses may not need to be rewritten, the implementation of

the course content could be structured to take the need for ongoing

language training into account more explicitly.

The migration to new technologies in support of language teaching is taking

place across the entire range of languages offered at the University. This

will significantly inform the evolution of language course offerings. The

department should take steps now to begin the curricular reform that is

needed to enable the inclusion of French courses in this direction. This is

an important area where sharing of resources may be necessary, and this

process should be coordinated as much as possible with other languages in

the university. This is an area where the call for interdepartmental

collaboration in the review is important.

The French Department is to be complimented for the development of the Centre

for Francophone Studies. This should assist in establishing important research

links both internal and external to the University.

3. Renewal:

The review points out that there are no retirements in French until 2003,

but does recommend that the department dedicate that position to a

specialist in applied linguistics, who could also oversee the language

program. This has been an unfulfilled recruiting goal of the department in

the past, and should be the top priority for the next hire. This is a key

position if the recommendation of better integration of language teaching

into the department's curriculum is to be followed. If bridging monies can be

secured it will move forward the date of appointment of the applied linguist.

The department's stated desire for technical support and .dedicated language

laboratory facilities is of secondary importance in the resource picture.

There is no reason why these needs cannot be fully satisfied by shared

facilities and personnel. The department should seek to deal with these

points by means of closer collaboration with other departments. Presently the

Dean's office is reviewing resources available to the Language Training Institute and

•

reviewing the adminstrative structure of the Language Learning Centre. Both of

these initiatives will, in our view, positively impact access to French language

training.

F"A

Department of French

SCUP 00-02

tMt

w ?

MEMORANDUM

To: Tom Perry,

From: Guy Poirier, Chair

Associate Dean of Arts

Department of French

Re: Department of French 1999

Date: March 27, 2000

External Review

Tom:

As requested, you will find here enclosed the Response of the

Department of French to the External Reviewers' Report.

This document was unanimously approved at the March 23, 2000

General Meeting of the Department of French.

Sincerely,

Guy Poirier

Cc: John Pierce, Dean of Arts

of French External

Review

This response was approved unanimously at the March 23, 2000

Department of French General meeting

1. Introduction

We agree with the reviewers that the tri-partite nature of our program makes our

Department distinctive and unique in Western Canada. Moreover, such

distinctiveness should, in fact, be nurtured and, before the next external review,

receive financial support from the Faculty of Arts and the University, especially in

the areas of Faculty renewal, new technology, and renovation projects.

Teaching personnel and Faculty renewal

The reviewers mentioned, on page 8 of their report, that they concur with our

request for the restoration of the fourth position in Linguistics, and believe it is

intellectually justified both from a program and research point of view. We, of

course, maintain our request. ?

A way to secure Faculty renewal in the Department of French would be to follow

a steady but monitored pattern of hiring for the next decade. An acceptable

appointment/retirement sequence for the next three-year plan would be:

September 2000:

Search approved for Tenure Track Faculty Appointment

September 2001:

Appointment of a Tenure-Track Faculty member (Applied

linguist with expertise in second language acquisition, as suggested by the

external reviewers on page 8 of their report)

Faculty Renewal is an important issue for the Department of French. It has

to be secured, and steady, and planned in advance with the Office of the

Dean and the VP/Academic's office according to the balanced tri-partite

interdisciplinary orientation of our Department

Calendar and Curriculum revision

a)Guidelines for undergraduate program modifications

General guidelines were included in the External Review Report of the

Department under the section

current issues.

However, we agree with the

fio

• ?

reviewers that we must pursue, in the next few years, a general revision of our

undergraduate program.

"Ghettoization" of language courses

Since the reviewers thought the research abilities of our non-tenure track Faculty

members are under-exploited, and felt some concern over the "ghettoization" of

language teaching in the first two years of the programme, we believe that

innovative solutions should be found in conjunction with the Dean of Arts office to

address the "ghettoization" of language teaching described by the reviewers

(See

External reviewers report

p. 9). The rearticulation of our lower level

sequence of courses should therefore provide a better cross-fertilization of

linguistics, literature, and language courses. We moreover believe a permanent

mechanism should enable one lecturer, every year, to apply for professional

development time in the summer semester.

Priorities for the next three years:

A revision of the language curriculum in accordance with the following guidelines,

which are the results of ongoing discussion since the Fall of 1998:

+ reduction in the number of language courses from levels 099 up to 302; three

distinctive levels created (2 courses at the beginners level; 2 courses at the

intermediate level; 2 at the advanced level). Small groups will be preserved for

the first two levels.

•

+ rearticulation of the series of language courses 099-302.

+ revision of the curriculum of conversation courses; integration of multimedia

experimental methods (IXX-205-300). A team of lecturers and tenure-track

Faculty members will periodically review their course descriptions in light of new

developments in technology instruction and FSL techniques.

+ transformation of courses retrieved from the sequence 099-302 into service

courses that will be mounted by a team of lecturers and tenure-track Faculty

members.

+Course content of 206, 230, 240 and 270 will be revised by a team of lecturers

and Faculty members during this stage, as they "bridge" language, linguistics,

and literature studies. Emphasis will be placed on better use and integration of

new technology and of the research activities taking place at the Centre for

Francophone Studies.

A revision of the linguistics and literature sequences of courses will be conducted

after the revision of the language curriculum has been completed. The prospect

of hiring a fourth colleague in linguistics, planned the same year according to our

Faculty renewal proposal, will facilitate our efforts to strengthen some areas of

our linguistics curriculum. As it is right now, the two curricula should be modified,

towards a better bridging with the language courses (probably done at the 200

and 300 levels). At the 300 and 400 levels, a natural cross-discipline break

should be achieved between a more practical and traditional approach to

language, literature, and linguistics (applied linguistics, history of literature, FSL);

Ill

and a more theoretical one (theories of linguistics and literature, interdisciplinary

studies, Francophone studies, etc).

Once modifications to the program have been implemented, an undergraduate

curriculum committee will be created within the Department, in order to monitor

the newly revised program, and to better integrate language practice, student

participation, oral work and grammar review (Cf.

External Reviewers' report, p. 6)

to the upper-level course series.

d)G uidelines for graduate program modifications

According to the reviewers, the strongest points of the graduate program, which

was implemented in 1992, are its intellectual content, breadth and depth, the

personalized attention received by the students, its good completion rate, the

interesting mix of local and international students, and the excellent academic

record of some of its degree candidates. The Department's strength in both

literature and linguistics makes it unique in Western Canada, and a viable

alternative to the programs available at our sister institutions in B.C. The

flexibility afforded by graduate studies at SFU appeals to and serves the needs of

a non-traditional population. Faculty members are committed to serve this

clientele, and should be supported in their efforts to do so.

Financial support

The reviewers made various suggestions for improving the level of financial aid

to graduate students. Graduate faculty recognizes the importance of this issue

and its relevance to recruiting efforts. We will therefore address this issue and

seek ways to improve the level of financial support already available to students

(through T.A. positions, the Graduate Fellowships program, the Private

Scholarships program, Research Assistantships), and explore possible new

sources of funding (for example, the Centre for Francophone Studies).

Curriculum revision

The Department of French Graduate Studies Committee will continue its ongoing

discussion of the graduate curriculum in French. We will also explore

collaborative efforts with SFU departments in order to revamp, for example, the

joint MA in English and French Literatures, or to develop the FSL component of

our Master's program, possibly with Linguistics and Education, and with the help

and support of the Dean of Graduate Studies. A joint program with UBC's

Department of French, Italian and Hispanic Studies could eventually be an

interesting option for a Graduate program.

Enrolments and recruiting

We recognize the importance of achieving and maintaining a critical mass in

graduate enrolments, and will explore additional ways to enhance our ongoing

efforts to attract and retain good candidates to our graduate program. We note

that the graduate cohort will vary in number from time to time as students

• graduate from the program and others enter at later intervals; and in a small

program any fluctuation will inevitably appear significant because of the small

numbers. The Department will make recruiting a priority through continued

advertising, mailings and attention to web page design. Incoming students have

identified the web page as a primary source of information about the program,

and the page itself receives a steady flow of hits from inside and outside Canada.

4. ?

Linking issues

a) New Technology and alternative pedagogical approaches

The reviewers emphasized the fact that the Department was receptive to new

learning technologies (for example, Fren 301 is offered on-line in Spring 2000),

and we in fact believe that further integration of technology in the classroom is an

important factor in the rejuvenation of courses. As the reviewers also-pointed- out,-

to start such an innovative project would need a serious commitment not only

from the Faculty members of the Department of French, but also from the Dean

of Arts Office and the V.P./Academic's Office.

The first step to further integration of technology into our program would be to

clarify the status of the Language Learning Centre, as suggested on page 11 of

the reviewers' report, and also to clarify the status of the Language Training

Institute. Initial talks have been conducted in the Dean's office, but there are still

many discrepancies between discussions and official calendar descriptions

(1999-2000) of the Language Learning Centre and the Language Training

Institute. We therefore strongly believe that the Language

Learning Centre

should be an interdepartmental administrative unit run by an interdepartmental

steering committee.

The second way to facilitate further integration of technology into our curriculum

would be for the Central Administration to provide funds for seminars, and site

visits of external and technology experts.

The third pressure point in the area of new technology is tied to the equipment

and technical support we need to receive from the VP/Academic's Office and the

Faculty of Arts. In order to be able to integrate technology and, most of all, to

adapt it to our use in a French studies research and teaching environment, we

must receive prompt and adequate support not only to choose and run the best

technology, but to adapt new technology to our teaching and research in the

Department of French.

It is true that the Language Learning Centre can accommodate some of our

needs in second language teaching, but we need more appropriate pedagogical

and technical support to comply with the reviewer's statement: "(...) integration of

new technology does not merely mean importing hardware, but necessitates a

S ?

change of pedagogical orientation and learning schemes"

(External reviewers'

report,

p. 12).

113

In order to accelerate the revision of our undergraduate and graduate curricula

and to integrate new technology, we require a commitment from the University

and the Faculty of Arts to provide the following resources:

In 2000-2001: renovation of the French Language Training

Centre (RB7400 area), including installation of internet

connections, LCD projector facilities, satellite T.V., and creation

of a French Linguistics Lab. The reviewers referred to the

replacement of the audio lab as not being justified. The

Department does not wish to replace the lab in its actual form.

Considering newer orientations to language learning and

teaching, the Department is already using the Language

Learning Centre but finds it justifiable to propose an instructional

computer lab (integrating digital videocasting). This facility

located in the RB7400 area would be available to ESL and other

languages programs.

We also shall need a half-time Lab instructor position, and a

half-time technician position to increase, and then to maintain

and develop the integration of new technology into our teaching

and research.

Centre for Francophone Studies

be duplicated elsewhere. The Department is aware of the research potential of

the Centre and most Faculty members have been involved in its early

development.

The Centre was created in November 1998, and is now in the second year of its

initial three-year plan. We are also working on an advancement campaign to

raise private funding. With the Québec government presently helping us maintain

a minimal research activity, and with research funds from the small SSHRC

program, the immediate future of the Centre looks bright.

It is for this reason, and because we wish to see the external reviewers'

recommendations implemented, that we urge the University and the Faculty of

Arts to make the Centre a high priority development site, and to help us attract

further funding towards special SFU matching funds. Finally, we believe the

University should authorize the physical expansion of the Centre either on the

8"-floor or 7 t

'-floor of the Robert Brown Building.

Collaboration with other units

Since 1991, date of the previous external review, collaboration with other units

and Departments have been initiated and supported by the Department of

French:

114

Official collaboration with other units at SFU:

Humanities Program (teaching, steering committee)

Department of English (Conferences, joint M.A.)

Institute for the Humanities (Conference)

School of Contemporary Arts (Conference)

Faculty of Education (teaching)

Graduate Liberal Arts program (teaching, thesis surpervision)

SFU Art Gallery

Unofficial collaboration with other units at SFU:

Department of Linguistics

Canadian Studies Program

Official collaboration with other Universities:

UBC (Conferences, research)

Université de Montréal (Partnership program)

Moreover, the members of the Department of French, as individuals, have

regularly been involved in official collaborative teaching agreements or research

projects with the following universities or research institutions:

UBC, University of Alberta, Northrop Frye Centre (UofT), Centre for Renaissance

• and Reformation Studies (UofT), University of Toronto, Queen's University,

University of Ottawa, UQAM, Université de Montréal, Université-de Sherbrooke,

Newberry Library (USA), CNRS (France), University of Antilles-Guyane (France).

As for the collaborative teaching effort, two summer courses were planned in

conjunction with the Faculty of Education in the summers of 1997 and 1998. A

joint Minor French/Education was also created, in the past, but it

was

finally

deleted from the calendar in 1997 because the Faculty of Education could not

offer three required courses on a regular basis.

We concur with the reviewers' opinion that pressure to ensure ongoing

consultation, coordination of offerings and appropriate sharing of resources

(perhaps through the French funding program of the B.C. Ministry of Education)

has to occur at the decanal level to stimulate such an effort with the Faculty of

Education. Efforts-since 1996 to share the funding received by the Faculty of

Education from the B.C. Ministry of Education have had some results in Spring

2000.

d) Research

Since the 1991 review, various strategies have already been identified to

encourage and stimulate research in the Department of French. The Centre for

Francophone Studies is already working as an incentive through its different

/11

partnerships, workshops and seminars, and research groups of interest within

the Department have been and will be fostered in the future.

The report unfortunately does not mention that two international learned

conferences have been organized by the Department since the date of the

previous external review (Montréal-Vancouver Conference in March 1993, and

Renaissance-francophonie Conference in March 1999), and that both attracted

external funding from granting agencies and were instrumental to the formation

of research groups of interest. We should also mention that a one-day-

conference on New Technology and French studies took place in the Department

of French in Fall 1999, and that a three-day-international conference on Internet

& Multimedia Applications to French Studies is being organized for Spring 2001.

We also regret that the External Review Committee does not mention the gaps in

the SFU Library French collections, shortcomings which were explained to them

and documented in our report. We have been involved for many years in efforts

to improve and enhance the Library collections related to French studies, and we

believe the quality and strength of our undergraduate and graduate programs as

well as our research projects justify, at this point, a significant increase of the

Department of French Library acquisition budget.

5 ?

Future priorities

The Department of French has found a unique and original niche in Western

Canada, if not in Canada, with its tri-partite programs, both for its undergraduate

and graduate levels. Its research potential is expanding and its reputation,

through partnership programs or individual and team research projects, is

growing. Moreover, the recent addition of Italian Language courses funded 2/3 by

the Italian Grant is opening new exchange and research possibilities in

conjunction with the newly founded Department of Humanities. We believe it is

the right time to secure the Department Faculty renewal for the next decade, and

make it a priority for SFU and the Faculty of Arts. The University should also take

into account the fact that the development of our unit would benefit from a one-

time special funding for the rejuvenation of its French Language Training Centre

(RB 7400 area) and for the development of the Centre for Francophone Studies.

The Department of French foundations are deeply rooted in a tradition and

culture of excellence in teaching, both for its undergraduate and graduate

programs. As uniqueness was our key for success, in the past, it should also be

our trademark in the future. Our response to the external reviewers' report of the

1999 external review is therefore less a list of requests than a well thought out

plan that will ensure original, and innovative development of the Department of

French at Simon Fraser University.

f1t,

SOUP 00-02

UNIVERSITY OF

1CALGARY

FACULTY OF HUMANITIES

Department of French, Italian and Spanish

Craigie Hall D318

Telephone: (403) (403) 220-4755 ?

Fax: (403) (403) 284-3634 ?

Email: dcwalker@ucalgary.ca

Office of the Registrar

Simon Fraser University

8888 University Drive

Burnaby, B.C. V5A 1S6

Dear Ms. Watt,

It is my pleasure to submit, on behalf of the Committee members, our report as external reviewers of

the Department of French at Simon Fraser University.

This report has been seen by all members of the Committee, each of whom agrees with its contents.

We hope our comments are of some use to the Department and the University. If you have any

questions regarding the report, we would be happy to address them.

Thank you for making our visit to Simon Fraser so enjoyable.

2500 University Drive N.W., Calgary, Alberta, Canada T2N 1N4

• ?

www.ucalgary.ca

Simon Fraser University

Department of French

Report of the External Review Committee

4. Teaching Personnel

5. Linking Issues

Future Priorities

George Lang, University of Alberta

Dana Paramskas, University of Guelph

Douglas Walker, University of Calgary

Rodney Day, Simon Fraser University

1^1

19

Introduction

The External Review Committee for the Department of French consisted of

Professors George Lang (University of Alberta),Dana Paramskas, (University of Guelph)

and Douglas Walker (University of Calgary) as external members, aided by Professor

Rodney Day of the Simon Fraser Department of History as the internal member. The

Committee paid its site visit to the campus on February 25-27, 1999, meeting with

various groups and individuals on campus during the first two days and independently on

February 27 to discuss its preliminary findings and the structure of its report.

Prior to the visit, Committee members were provided with extensive

documentation relevant to the evaluation, including in particular terms of reference, a

number of planning documents (e.g. Preparing for the

21st

Century, the Faculty of Arts 3-

Year Plan), Faculty of Graduate Studies and University Fact Books, the University

Calendar and, most importantly, the Department's own Internal Report. In Burnaby, this

material was supplemented by further key information (e.g. departmental working

documents dealing with curricular revision, current timetables and statistics, a list of

graduate theses, information concerning the Language Learning Centre, student

submissions).

During two days of an intensive schedule, the Committee met with senior

University administrative personnel (Dr. David Gagan, Vice-President Academic; Dr.

Bruce Clayman, Vice-President Research and Dean of Graduate Studies; Dr. John Pierce,

Dean of Arts; Dr. Kathy Heinrich, Special Assistant, Academic Planning; and Ms. Alison

Watt, Director, Secretariat Services), with the Department Chair, Dr. Guy Poirier, with

the Chair of Graduate Studies, Dr. Phyllis Wrenn, with faculty members individually,

with members of the support staff, with limited term and language instructors, with

groups of graduate and undergraduate students, with Dr. Trude Heift, Director of the

Language Learning Centre, and with specialist librarians responsible for the

Department's collection. The Committee was able to visit all departmental facilities, as

well as the Language Learning Centre and the University Library. At the close of the site

visit, the Committee met again with the group of senior administrators to comment

briefly on its initial reactions. (A schedule of the visit is appended to this report.)

I'?

While the documentation made available to it was detailed and comprehensive,

the Committee wishes to emphasize the essential nature of on-site visits in external

reviews of this type. Access to fully up-to-date information, to an inspection of the

physical resources, to face-to-face meetings with individuals (where students in particular

provide strikingly important observations) and to the crucial impressions which do not

emerge from written texts remain the foundation upon which successful evaluations are

built.

Finally, the Committee wishes to comment on the positive atmosphere

surrounding its visit. The material arrangements by Alison Watt and Rebecca Tanner

were impeccable; all staff associated with the Department were frank, cooperative,

responsive and committed to the improvement of the Department and its programmes;

Guy Poirier, a dedicated and dynamic Department Chair, was an excellent host and

provider of last-minute information; and the students were insightful, constructive and

enthusiastic commentators on programmes to which they show strong allegiance.

Nature of Department

terms of its composition, physical resources and student body, the Department

of French at Simon Fraser University is not atypical in the

Canadian

context. While there

are obvious pressure points (budgetary and staffing needs, demands of technology, role of

non-professorial stream teaching personnel, graduate recruitment, interdepartmental

collaboration and so on), none of these is absent in the language departments with which

we are familiar (nor, we venture to say, in sister departments at Simon Fraser). We do

not believe that any of these factors present insoluble problems, and hope to suggest

possible and realizable improvements below.

In terms of its programmes (both undergraduate and graduate), the Department is

distinctive in terms of its tri-partite orientation: French language, literature and

linguistics. Few departments in Canada, and none in the West, show this programmatic

integration of these three central components of a broad preparation in French studies.

The Committee is not alone in finding this an appropriate orientation: it is well

appreciated by faculty, staff and students alike, and is a characteristic to be nurtured.

MVA

SIMI

Finally, the collegial atmosphere in the Department is striking. It is clearly firmly

rooted, despite the potential for friction that a heterogeneous set of interests and

specializations might bring. Those associated with the Department of French are

unanimous in recognizing this as a strength of the Department. The Committee concurs,

and suggests that such an atmosphere is a good indication of potential for continued

success in the implementation of the departmental mandate and in bringing about any

needed improvements.

Programmes

a) Undergraduate:

The Department offers BA programmes in French (Honours, Major, Extended

Minor) and participates in joint programmes with English, History and Politics, and

Humanities. Student numbers are strong (against the background of similar departments

across the country). Many students in departmental programmes intend to pursue further

• ?

studies in Education, with a view to becoming French language teachers. This mixture of

focused French programmes coupled with the possibility of interdisciplinary work is an

appropriate implementation of the mandate of a modern language department.

The French programmes themselves include obligatory course work in three

areas, French language, concentrated in the first two years, plus work in French literature

and French linguistics. This mixture is unusual, if not unique, in undergraduate

programmes. It serves to distinguish French at Simon Fraser from programmes at other

universities, and provides a well-rounded training for students, a mixture which students

themselves appreciate and strongly support. It is not without its challenges, however: it

requires a mixture of professors with more than the usually divergent specializations (it

would not be likely for a professor to teach in both literature and linguistic streams); it

provides for staffing challenges (in the case of leaves or administrative reductions); and it

makes timetable preparation difficult (offering the appropriate number of courses at the

proper level in multiple streams).

The Department, needless to say, is aware of these difficulties. The Committee

was able to consult an internal document initiating discussion of programme reforms.

This document supplies a good historical analysis, but requires further work

it is to

provide the basis for a full implementation of the suggestions for programme

modification that emerged in the course of our discussions. Importantly, the document

shows initiative in the language area. It considers, to take one instance, the nature of

French 099: as a service course 099 could be split into two separate offerings, one as now

structured leading into the Major; a second to respond to another important clientele

interested in Humanities or in French in general but not in continuing with French

studies. The second course, an analogue of which has been successfully implemented

elsewhere, could include language, literature and culture, with some basic language

instruction, offered in English. What is additionally important about this discussion is its

demonstration that the Department is willing to innovate and to respond to certain non-

traditional constituencies. What is further required is interaction with additional

traditional partners: Education and Linguistics. With Education, in particular, the

possibilities for collaboration are significant (consider the courses French 310, 311, 312),

and some pressure is needed to ensure ongoing consultation, coordination of offerings

and appropriate sharing of resources. (This pressure may need to occur at the decanal

level, given the impression strongly conveyed to the Committee that Education may be

resistant to more active collaboration. In our opinion, the matter needs prompt attention.)

In the literature and linguistics streams, the Department should continue in one

important direction outlined in its internal planning document: the use of umbrella

courses (of varying content) which may be repeated for credit. This type of "selected

topics" course adds teaching load and timetable flexibility, reduces the course bank and

the pressure to offer specialized courses on a regular basis, and encourages innovation.

The Committee was strongly impressed by the articulate, insightful and

constructive comments of a group of undergraduate students. These students are, in

general, very satisfied with the current orientation of the programme. Neither they nor

the Committee see a need to change its overall structure. Among the student

observations, however, there is one of particular significance. Students see language

practice as concentrated in the first two years of the programme. The concentration on

linguistic and literary content in years three and four, however interesting and relevant

that content may be, involves a fairly traditional method of presentation (teacher-centered

I!VE

instruction), and does not allow sufficiently for continuing language practice,

participation, oral work or grammar review. This is an important gap in view of the

interest of many students in the PDP programme in Education.

This student analysis, buttressed by the Committee's own observations, leads to a

more general comment. We encourage the Department to become more aware of and

actively involved in implementing alternative pedagogical approaches and methodologies

(to move away, individually and collectively, from the "active lecturer / passive class

model"). Multimedia should not be defined as just an "add-on", something which does

not need to be integrated into course structures. The Language Learning Centre should

not be seen as a peripheral and optional service. Small group work does not mean small

classes; it means reorganized classes. (When properly exploited, such reorganization is

resource neutral, and as a result can allay administrative fears which often concentrate on

class size and the "bottom line" rather than on student enthusiasm and pedagogical

results.) In all domains, not just language work, alternative pedagogical approaches and

teaching methodology, multimedia, larger lectures with tutorials, small group work, team

• ?

teaching and other current ideas can lead not just to economies in timetable and workload

but also to professional renewal. (We note, in conclusion, that such comments are

applicable to our own departments as well, and that they have generated debates similar

to those which will no doubt arise at Simon Fraser. But potential controversy is no

excuse for inaction.)

b. Graduate:

The MA in French is a small but well-tailored graduate programme. Students

unanimously like the programme structure: its intellectual content, breadth and depth, and

the personalized attention they receive. They also appreciate its flexibility--because of

the small graduate cohort, programmes may be designed specifically for student needs

and interests. Such programmes, particularly in departments with no PhD programme,

are often both "comfortable" to the students and more complex than MA degrees that do

not lead (potentially) into doctoral programmes. This situation can often produce

completion rates and time-to-degree figures which are excessive. In this case, however,

the Committee is of the opinion that departmental statistics are within normal limits and

fully comparable to other departments with which we are familiar, especially given the

mix of part-time and full-time students at Simon Fraser.

At the same time, the students (and staff) are sensitive to critical mass issues, and

to possible fragmentation because of the Department's double literature and linguistics

orientation. The Committee views the current enrolment of approximately ten as a

minimum to ensure appropriate numbers for graduate interaction. Any steps that can be

initiated or maintained to promote interaction with other graduate students (at UBC, or in

other Simon Fraser departments such as English, Linguistics or Education) would have

multiple benefits.

Recruitment into the programme is hampered by the minimal availability of

financial support, particularly support that can be guaranteed for a minimum of four

semesters. Despite this, the programme has a good mix of local, international, full-time

and part-time students, as well as recent graduates and those returning after an

interruption to their studies. Students have been very successful in obtaining competitive

fellowships (e.g. C.D. Nelson Memorial Graduate Scholarships) and other graduate

scholarships. Nonetheless, the programme would benefit if more financial aid could be

stabilized--perhaps through negotiations for service teaching with Continuing Studies,

through an on-going budget line in the Department devoted to teaching assistants, or

through research funding obtained by professors for their various projects.

A further challenge associated with the small size of the MA programme is the

need for professors to support it virtually exclusively through overload teaching.

Collaborative efforts (e.g. with Linguistics or English) might help here if the question of

the language of teaching could be resolved. (We believe solutions are available--

specialized reading lists, tutorials, written work done in French, for example.) It is a

clear sign of the importance the Department assigns to its graduate programme, and of

the devotion of its staff members, that the MA is supported through this additional

teaching load. While this situation is not ideal, the Committee firmly supports the

continued existence of the MA programme, whose benefits to staff morale and research

productivity clearly outweigh the added pressures on workload.

Teaching personnel

A first and significant remark to make is that both faculty and staff are highly

collegial. Although the career and professional interests at different points on the

academic hierarchy inevitably diverge, the collective commitment to the well-being of

the Department and its students struck all members of the Review Committee. This is an

invaluable asset which the University will want to preserve and nurture.

At same time, there is a deeply ingrained perception across the full spectrum of

faculty and staff that their individual and collective workloads are very heavy. This is not

surprising. Academic institutions across the land have experienced "downloading" and

the demand for increased productivity, which usually results in the kind of discontent just

referred to. One response from administration should to be to propose that this issue

could be addressed at least in part by programme revision and other reforms.

The Review Committee concurred with the Department that a fourth position in

the linguistics track would be intellectually justified, but our reading of the wider context

• ?

also suggests that this hope is not realistic at this time. The Department itself would

therefore do well to concentrate on arguments for retaining the position potentially

resulting from the next retirement. In any event, maintaining three positions in the

linguistics track is crucial; otherwise the distinctiveness of the Department is threatened,

and further potential damage to the standing of the Department foreseeable.

Under such circumstances, it would seem logical to argue in favour of the

retention of the position resulting from the forthcoming retirement in literature and its

conversion into a fourth position in linguistics, which would create a fifty-fifty balance of

the two tracks within the Department, albeit somewhat shrunk from its previous

complement. Were such a position to arise, it should not be thought of the chance to

clone past colleagues, i.e. to fill a vacancy with a duplicate of the retiree. For example,

the addition of an applied linguist with expertise in second language acquisition rather

than linguistics per se would help to reinforce the language component of the programme

throughout all four years, would link tenure-stream faculty and lecturers/lab

instructor/language instructors, and provide a holistic view of language in the

programme; it would also provide further potential links to linguistics, the Language

Learning Centre, Education, etc. - matters discussed elsewhere in this report.

Research productivity in the Department is mixed, no doubt in part due to the

stress suffered over recent years, to the demographics of the professorial corps, to the

concentration on major long-term projects which do not lead to immediate publication, or

to the distractions of administrative work. The Department is to be congratulated on the

quality of its recent hirings (Cawes, Steele, Canac Marquis), and these younger

colleagues (as well as the majority of their "elders") show well in research and

publication, in obtaining external research funding, and in increasing the visibility of the

Department. As a matter of principle, all colleagues should be encouraged to maintain the

research visibility of the Department through refereed publication in national and

international journals, not only or primarily through conference presentations and/or

proceedings.

Another strategy to increase the research profile would involve application for

external funding, which would have the additional benefit of obtaining support for

graduate students. The Centre Québec-Pacifique could lend some institutional footing to

such proposals, given it has both a unique status within Western Canada, and a research

agenda unlikely to be duplicated elsewhere. This approach would be bolstered were the

work of the Centre integrated more visibly into courses and graduate research work.

All members of the Review Committee felt some concern over the "ghettoization"

of language teaching in the first two years of the programme, concentrated in the hands of

a few non-tenure stream faculty. Although these non-tenure faculty are in general

respected, our impression is that the kinds of reforms regarding renewal of pedagogical

approaches they might develop do not input easily into departmental policy making.

Although this is in part simply due to their workload, which is heavy, the Department as

whole would stand to gain from opening conduits of input from these language teachers.

This "ghettoization" of language teaching is both structural, in the sense that

language practice is largely confined to the first two years of the BA, and differential in

terms of personnel, in the sense that it is relegated to non-tenure track personnel. At the

same time, the parts of their programmes in which many undergraduate students are most

interested, i.e. language training, are largely limited to the first two years of the

programme and are taught by the lowest-paid and least protected colleagues. This

problem is also related to the predominance of "active-lecturer

passive-class"

pedagogical model, which is a common feature of the academic tradition and largely

shared by the senior professors. This is not to say that such a model is necessarily

ineffective--students feel that they receive high quality instruction at the upper levels--but

it should not be the exclusive approach at those levels.

At the worst, if opportunities for career development are not accorded those who

perform what is considered by the students as the most important part of their

programmess, these instructors will burn-out, maybe even before those who live in the

"beaux quartiers" retire with grace. In addition, there appears to be under-exploitation of

scholarly resources found among lecturers (C. Caws, for example, could teach in the

linguistics track).

These issues are far from unique to Simon Fraser, but it would be of great benefit

to the institution were ways found for the Department to explore the possibility of greater

flexibility in teaching assignments, more equitable financial and other compensation for

non-tenured staff. Such reforms, which might appear daring to some, could be readily

justified both in terms of increasing "productivity" and also of meeting student demand.

Linking Issues: Technology and Pedagogy

The Department appears receptive to new learning technologies, but exhibits a

certain lack of information. In order to explore different teaching strategies, the

Department needs access to good advice, some of which is available locally: in the

Language Learning Centre, from those Tutors who have looked at the domain and

worked with media, from the Instructional Media Centre. It should address the issues of

integrating technology into all of its courses, not just language teaching, especially

through use of the extensive resources available on the WWW. Within the Department

itself, it should also seek to exploit resources such as TV5, and satellite access to

francophone media such as Radio-Canada.

This kind of expansion of teaching competence is difficult to organize from

within the Department. We suggest that the Central Administration find some way of

targeting French for helpful input, perhaps by proposing funds for seminars or site visits

from external experts in consultation with the one or two younger technophiles in the

Department, and with the help of the Language Learning Centre Director. Regular short

workshops could be offered by the Language Learning Centre to familiarize all faculty in

the French Department with available programmes and equipment, not only those faculty

members responsible for language courses. Integrating technology into pedagogy is also

a complex question, where the support of the Instructional Media Centre would be

effective: the temptation is to simply tack on media documents onto existing course

structures and approaches, a procedure which does not use technological resources

effectively.

There seems to exist an attachment to familiar uses of technology: the request for

a replacement of the audio lab, for example, is not justified in terms of either the

materials currently on the market or the newer orientations of language learning and

teaching. Closer consultation with the Language Learning Centre Director could result in

better use of existing hardware facilities and adaptation of those facilities to the needs of

the French Department. However, there is a perception that the Language Learning

Centre is somehow part of the Department of Linguistics and that in the past, the French

Department has not been properly recognized as having a stake in the facility, and that

French Department needs have not been listened to. Perhaps the administrative structure

of the Language Learning Centre needs to be re-thought so that the concerns of the

French Department are properly addressed.

Future priorities

In the short term, the Department should actively pursue last autumn's discussions

about curriculum and related reform. Our understanding is that the draft documents

emanating from these discussions - which the Department readily made available to us

once we learned of their existence - were not integrated into the self study because the

process they reflected was not complete. These proposals did seem to be heading in the

right direction, but the Review Committee was struck by the fact that the threads of

thought in these documents came to us by word of mouth and only in the last hours of our ?

visit. As a first, internal priority, the Department should be urged to complete this

process, perhaps as part of its response to this report.

The Department is nominally receptive to new learning technologies, but exhibits

a certain lack of information and understanding of their consequences. It needs access to

good advice, some of which is readily available in the Language Learning Centre, but

other aspects of which will require some financial support, as well as a serious

commitment on the part its internal consensus builders to make necessary changes. The

Department should also address the issues of integrating technology into all of its

courses, not just language teaching (e.g. use of the www, links, etc.). Its Web page is,

however, a useful first step. It will be crucial for colleagues to understand that the

integration of technology does not merely mean importing hardware, but necessitates a

change of pedagogical orientation and learning schemes. Concretely, we reiterate our

suggestion that the Central Administration encourage innovative pedagogical

developments in the technology domain by providing resources to allow interested

Department members, in collaboration with Trude Heift, to consult with experts in the

•

application of new learning technologies.

The Department should consolidate, reinforce, and publicize the Centre Québec-

Pacifique, which has great potential (in addition to its past accomplishments), and should

expect the University administration to support this unique achievement, due in no small

part to the active networking of the current Chair.

The long-term priority for the Department should be to persevere in its strategic

course, while making several major tactical shifts both within the Faculty and the

University, and its wider provincial and national context: strengthening its unique mix of

language learning, linguistic and literary studies through application of contemporary

technologies and varied models of pedagogy; integrating its diverse elements into a well-

knit package of services for both undergraduate and graduate students; and slowly but

steadily building its graduate programme on the foundations already laid.

Department of French - Schedule for External Review Committee?

25&26February1999

Thursday, February 25

7:20 am

Alison Watt picks up reviewers at Delta Suite Hotel - please meet

at the back entrance parking area - the entrance

off

Richards St.

8:00-8:50 ?

CC7402 ?

Initial meeting with Dr. David Gagart, VP, Academic; Dr. John

Pierce, Dean of Arts; Dr. Bruce Clayman, VP, Research & Dean of

Graduate Studies; Dr.Kathy Heinrich, Special Assistant,

Academic Planning & Ms. Alison Watt, Director, Secretariat

Services

9:00-10:00 ?

CC8200 ?

Initial meeting with Dr. Guy Poirier, Chair, French

Tour of Dept. and visit to the Language Learning Centre

Meeting with Dept. (including student rep.)

Open Lunch with Dept. of French

Meeting with individual Faculty Members

Break

Meeting with Graduate Students

Meeting with Mr. Christian Guilbault, Limited Term Instructor

3:30-4:20 ?

CC7402 ?

Meeting with Undergraduate Students

4:30-5:20 ?

CC8200 ?

Meeting with Dr. Phyllis Wrenn, Chair, Grad. Studies

5:20-5:35 ?

CC8200 ?

Committee meets on its own

5:30 - 6:30 Halpern Centre

Room 114

Reception with Department members

Meeting with Lang. Learning Centre Director, Dr. Trude Heift

Meeting with Dr. Bruce Clayman

Break

Meeting with individual Faculty members

Lunch with Ralph Stanton, Alexsandra Zielinski, Dr. Jacqueline

Viswana than, Library Rep. for French and Dr. Guy Poirier

Page)/

2/23/99

Committee meets on its own

3:00-3:50 ?

CC8200 (or cc8107B) Meeting with the Dr. Guy Poirier, Chair, French

4:00-4:45 ?

PCR ?

Closing meeting with Dr. David Gagan, VP, Academic; Dr. John

Pierce, Dean of Arts; Dr. Bruce Clayman, VP, Research & Dean of

Graduate Studies; Dr.Kathy Heinrich, Special Assistant,

Academic Planning & Ms. Alison Watt, Director, Secretariat

Services

Saturdays February 27

9:00-5:00 ?

Room 101, HC

Available to Reviewers for discussion

9:00-5:00

Room 1300, HC

Computing Lab - available to Reviewers for working on report

PCR - Presidents Conference Room, Strand Hall

I-IC - SFU at Harbour Centre, 515 West Hastings

St., Vancouver, BC, V613 51(3, Tel: 291-5000

Page/

2/23/99