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

Senate 

............ ................................................. ........................................ 

?

From

the ...Dean...o................................... 

..... 

?

.

............Graduate ... Studies.................................................... 

ubject .............. M,A,....-...Teacbing ... of...Rrench ...................... ........ 

. ?

.at

...........

Dc.tober...19,....19.76 ......................................... ......... 

MOTION: That the M.A. - Teaching of French Program be 

continued. 

Jon Wheatley [ 

Dean 

Gradua Studies. 

nvn/ 

S1MON FRASER UNIVERSITY

MEMORANDUM

Dr B Clayman, Chairman 

?

From H

Hammer ly, Acting Chairman 

Graduate Program Assessment Cttee. 

?

M.A.T.-French Cttee., D.M.L. 

Subject..

Reply ...tc... Points .... RaisedBY ............. ............. 

?

Date

..... 

Septeme br ? 

17, .1976 

Dr. Rieckhoff' Memo of Aug. 30 

In regard to the six points raised in Dr. Rieckhoff's memo of 

August 30, 1976, the M.A.T.-French Committee has met and has agreed 

on the following response: 

1) It is, of course, not really appropriate that a continuing 

program should depend upon being offered on a largely overload basis. 

However, there are certain organizational problems that make it impos- 

sible to assure continuity without at least part of the prbgram being 

funded on this basis. For example, as we pointed out in the original 

submission, this program --which is heavy in hours and cpm±nitment, 

required-- was established at a time when the DML (and espcia1ly the 

French Division) was understaffed in terms of the programs' it has to 

offer; there has been no increase in faculty --despite thb Academic 

Planning Board's suggestion of a joint appointment. The original sub- 

mission stated that we in the DML have the expertise but pointed out 

that the only way to use this expertise was on a partial overload basis. 

•

?

?

The situation would be improved by such a joint appointment. 

However, it seems to us that approximately one third to on6 half of 

each program will still depend upon individuals within the DML being 

willing to accept overloads or upon our ability to hire outside help 

in the form of visiting professors. Hiring mostly within the DML 

would ensure continuity and constant improvement of the program. We 

recognize nevertheless that the participation of visiting professors 

would guarantee that the program would reflect new trends in the field. 

The long term consequences of this overload basis are essen- 

tially of an economic nature. To be blunt, if we had to teach all the 

components of this program on a normal workload basis, the DNL would 

have to request from the Faculty the appointment of visiting facility 

members in order to teach the other courses and thereby enable us to 

fulfill our normal departmental commitments. 

2) The biennial intake works quite well, pedagogically and ad- 

ministratively, in terms of the relations between the programs. Thus, 

the "older" and "newer" groups seem to interact well, with the "older" 

being something of a guiding and reassuring factor for the"newer". 

Consecutive programs would lack this element, and would also mean 

that we, as teaching faculty, would start a new program every third 

year having lost contact with what we and others did threeyears 

earlier. This is not desirable either academically or from the point 

of view of economy of effort. 

A cost-effetive and teaching-effective minimum ofregistered 

Memo to Dr. Claan, 9/17/76, 

p.

2

students appears o be about 15. This would require an earlier fees-paid 

'date than is current, that is, May 30, as stated on page 7 6f our May 27 

submission. 

3)

This question on the part of the Assessment Committee is puz- 

zling, for a careful reading of the description of the program shows 

clearly that this is an M.A.-level program. There are, of course, no 

'absolute standards for what constitutes an M.A. program. There are, 

however, good pragmatic rea'sons for maintaining this program at the M.A. 

level rather than at the diploma level. First, there is apparently no 

'question that the academic content of the current program justifies it, 

.both in comparison with other M.A. programs offered in B.C. and particu- 

1,arly in relation to other M.A.T. programs offered in Canada and else- 

where. In terms of the effort students put into the program and in terms 

of the program's holistic approach, it would be somewhat difficult (and 

self-defeating) to water it down to a diploma level. Moreover, if 

teachers are going to be asked to undertake three years of fairly 

arduous work, it would be inadvisable to require them to do this for a 

diploma that is going to be of little or no value in terms of their 

salary scale potential (they might well be tempted to simp1y register at 

some American university that, over the same period of tijne., will offer 

them a weaker program and an M.A.). Thus, we have to remain competi- 

tive with other institutions; for the time involved, teachers are not 

going to follow a diploma program leading to no salary increase when 

they can expend less effort over the same 'period of time to earn a 

' (questionable) M.A. elsewhere that will increase their life-earnings. 

This is not to say that some sort of diploma coursest of a very 

• ? 

specific methodological or linguistic nature should not benvisaged, 

particularly in the context of the French Language Training Centre. 

4)

Your point regarding French language competence is indeed ap- 

propriate. We will have to be very careful in our future selection 

of students to assure that they are at least of a competence that can 

be raised to the B requirement by means of the components offered. 

Thus, 'those who are very weak should simply be refused admission to the 

program until they have increased their French language ability by their 

own means. We should not be expected to provide special means of-,their 

doing this, but they of course can enroll in our standard laguage pro- 

gram and, if really keen, can arrange a stay in France or Quebec. 

•

?

?

5) A separate "Micro-Teaching" component is not essential. However, 

we want to make it possible for the students, during their residence., 

first, to share their particularly 'successful techniques with 

'

the other 

students and, second, to try out new methods and techniques while at the 

same time improving their own teaching. 

6) Increased public demand for French teachers who nave gone 

through this program will depend largely upon the success and the in- 

fluence ,of those who have done so. The improved quality of the pro- 

grams and the teachir)g of our graduates in the field will establish 

their and our reputation. The demand can of course be created to a 

/...3 

Memo to Dr. Clayman, 9/17/76, 

p.

3

certain extent; thus, by widespread advertising and good public rela- 

tions (and making use in these efforts of our past graduates) we can 

create a greater awareness of the program. All principals, all French 

teachers, all French co-ordinators should be aware of the pogram, and 

we could perhaps do some useful public relations work at the PTA level, 

particularly in those districts where parents are evincing an interest 

in French and bilingual programs. We should also be aiming at the 

evident potential in the country's bilingual policy. 

So, publicity and reputation are the sole means at ur dis- 

posal of creating and answering a demand for better-prepared French 

teachers, particularly in the B.C. school system. 

Sincerely y urs, 

ector Hammerl , Acting Chairman, 

M.A. in the Teaching of French Cttee., 

Department of Modern Languages 

P.S.: Dr. Boutn and myself would be glad to appear in persDn before 

• ? 

your Committee at the earliest possible time. 

b.c.: Dr. J. Wheatley, Dean of Graduate Studies 

Ms. Ellen Bonsall, Graduate Studies 

Ms. Marian McGinn, Registrar's Office ? 

Members, M.A.T.-French Committee, DML 

i

•

SiMON FRASER UNIVERSITY

MEMORANDUM

...... ?

.......... 

Dr.B,E,... .ar.tiet.t,....C1ajrman. .... ................... 

.From ..... .K. E. 

Riecoff ............................ 

.............. ........ 

?

.............. 

................ 

?

.N.A.e.ahing...o.f....F.rench..P.ragr.am 

T.

Subject ............. Review 

...by ... Assessment ... Committee ..... .... ....... 

.Date 

........August .30.,.. .19.76............................................................... 

The Graduate Program Assessment Committee will conduct a forral 

review of the M.A. Teaching of French program in.the Fall 1976.. 

It should like to receive at the earliest an update of your report 

of May 27th, 1976 particularly addressing itself to the following pqints. 

1)

The appropriateness and long term consequences of having a program 

continuously taught essentially on an "Overload" basis. 

2)

Consideration of a biennial intake and what the minimum intake should 

be to be both cost-effective and teaching-effective. 

3)

Consider if in terms of the professional competence required the'program 

has to be at the Master's level. Could the requirements be reduced and 

the program be changed to a diploma level? 

4)

Consider a preparatory study period to upgrade the language competence 

.

?

to B level, thus making a greater body of potential students available 

for intake into the program. 

5)

Is the "Micro-Teaching" component essential? What do you have 

in

mind 

by wishing to reconsider it? 

6)

Could you make recommendations that would lead to increased pubi.c demand 

for French teachers. that have gone through this program? 

Please address all communications to Dr. Bruce Clayman, my successor 

as Chairman of the Committee. 

K.E. Rieckhoff 

KER:jm 

cc: Dr. B. Clayman, Physics 

Ms. Ellen Bonsall, Graduate Studies 

Ms. Marian McGinn, Registrar's Office 

1,1

• ?

SiMON FRASER UNIVERSITY

MEMORANDUM

ThE Dean .o 

.

f Graduate 

.....S.tdies 

Subject................................................................................................ 

From ...... B.E. ., Eartlett, hairm 

ark,

M.A.-Teaching: of   

?

Program 

Date......Nay..,Z7. ...... ,9.76 

.

.... 

............................ ............ 

.............................

Attached please find the documentation prepared to date to support the DML's 

request to make the M.A.-Teaching of French Program a permanent offering. 

This memo therefore formally presents the DML's request that Snate make the 

program a permanent offering, and asks for direction from your ioffice 

relating to any further documentation to be provided or any othr procedures 

to be undertaken by the M.A.-Teaching of French Committee to assure that 

this request is expeditiously handled. 

•

?

B.E. Bartlett. 

?

JUN 1 1970

STUDIES FPCE

Enclosures. 

•

.

.

REPORT OF THE M.A. TEACHING OF FRENCH COMMITTEE TO THE GRADUATE STUDIES? 

ASSESSMENT COMMITTEE 

As authorized by Senate, February, 1973, two cycles o the M.A. 

Teaching of French Program have been mounted by the DML. Program I 

will be technically complete b 

y

August 30th, 1976; ProgramII will 

end on August 30th, 1977. 

This report and evaluation is to support the DML's request that 

this program be made a permanent offering, thts permitting us to 

advertise the start of Program III - Summer Session, 1977. 

A? REPORT ON THE FUNCTIONING OF PROGRAMS I AND II 

Program I (Summer Sessions74, 75, 76) 

a) ? 

Enrolment (Prog. I - First year) 

34 applicants were formally considered. Of these, 29 were admitted 

into the program. Of these 29,. 6 chose hot to register, giving reasons 

of health, family plans, professional commitments, etc. 

The first Summer Session therefore started with 

23

registered stu- 

dents. In the course of the first week, 2 students withdrew - one be- 

cause of a recurring health problem, the other upon comprehending the 

demands of the program. 

system, 4 students received A's, 16 received 

By statutory regulations governing the pro- 

the Pass was barred from further participa- 

and student-questionnaires elicited the 

i)

despite the carefully prepared calendar and the prsonal inter- 

views, the program was quite different from students' expectations in 

different ways. 

ii)

the intensive, modular program was completely alin to all the 

students. 

iii) 

the work-load was heavy - both intellectually and physically. 

iv)

the initial strangeness of the program and its highly intensive 

nature over a range of what initially appeared unrelated topics, posed 

a threat. 

v)

the menace of the final series of exams and the piospect of one 

single 'note globale' also represented a threat. 

b)

B's, 

gram, 

tion. 

Results (Prog. I - First year) 

On an A, B, Pass, Fail? 

and 1 received a Pass.? 

the student receiving 

Student reaction (Prog 

Far-ranging discussions 

following general reactions: 

________________ ?

I -

First year) 

mo

2.

vi)

the micro-teaching component was universally unpopular - for 

a variety of stated reasons - but largely, we feel, because it con- 

stituted the most personal, direct, threat to the teachers whose perfor- 

mance was on the line. 

With the exception of vi) most of these complaints and feelirigs of 

insecurity and inadequacy derived from the initial shock of the completely 

unfamiliar and challengin4 nature of the program. Reactions to various 

parts of the program tended to vary according as to whether the students 

were native or non-native speakers of French. As the days passed, most 

of these complaints and fears evaporated. 

vii) 

many teachers had some difficulty in not looking for immediate, 

short-term benefits from the program. Thus, its very difficult to sell 

the idea that it is the total program that must be evaluated in terms of 

its benefit to teaching, rat1er than the first Session alone., 

As their anxieties were more or less allayed, the candidates reacted 

through a range of great enthusiasm to, in a small minoritj of cases, 

a muted scepticism. There were no completely negative reactions. 

a)

Enrolment (Prog. I - Second year) 

Of the 20 students entitled to continue in the prograIt, 5 withdrew, 

leaving 15 who are now expected to eventually graduate from the program. 

b)

Results (Prog. I - Second year) 

2 students received A's, 13 received B's. 

c)

Studdnt reaction (Prog. I - Second year) 

Although students continued to express their concern over the 

amount of work required of them and over the validity of the micro- 

teaching, it was quite apparent that most of them enjoyed he second 

session; their general, overall evaluation of the program N4as hearten- 

ingly enthusiastic. it was particularly encouraging to receive indivi 

-

dual reactions to the effect that what they had learnt in the first 

session (and from 

?

?

:the projects undertaken in the intervening 

hoóT 

sc-

year) had had a beneficial effect upon their classroom practices. 

In short, the general reaction had changed from hesitant to fairly 

consistent, enthusiastic approval. (See attached letters with students' 

individual comments - Appendix I). 

Program I Projects 

The program embodies two separate projects (5 credits each). In 

theory, Project I is undertaken between Summer Sessions I and 2, and 

Project II between Summer Sessions 2 and 3. Of the thirty projects 

required of the 15 students, 22 are in various stages of completion. 

The remaining 8 are to be completed by July 30th, 1977 - one year after 

the completion of course work. These delays have been auth 

9

rized by 

the Committee for pragmatic reasons - health problems, school work-loads, 

unusual working conditions, etc. 

3.

Program I costs 

(projected 

through Summer Session, 1976) 

Administrative, 

Equip.,  

Teaching 

Magazines, etc.       

Salaries 

First Year 

(74) 

$ ?

3,500.00 

(actual)  

$6,000 ? 

(actual) 

Second Year 

(75)           

2,225.00 

(actual)   

7,500 ? 

(actual) 

Third Year 

(76)            

2,225.00 

( p rojected)l 

4,500 

?

(actual) 

$7,950.00 ? 18,000 

Income from this program 

?

7,200 

Per capita graduation cost: ? 

1,250 * 

* This figure is related to the separate New Programs budget alotted. 

4.

Program II (Summer Sessions 75, 76, 77) 

a)

Enrolment (Prog. II - First year) 

22 applicants were formally considered. Of these, 15 were 

admitted into Program II. Of these 15, 5 failed to register (giving 

no reasons and no notification). 

The first Summer Session of Program II therefore started with 10 

registered students. In the course of the first week, 2 students 

withdrew - one because of the heavy time-commitment, the other upon 

recognizing that the work was going to be beyond her. Onestudent 

changed to audit status. 

b)

Results (Prog. II 

?

First year) 

2 students received A's, 5 received B's. 

c)

Student reaction (Prog. II - First year) 

Ver positive, with particular enthusiasm envinced by those students 

from the east. 

Program II - Second year (S.S. 1976) 

All seven students are expected to return. There may also be one 

'returnee' from Po 

g

. I, i.e. who abandoned the Program I last year but 

now wishes to continue. 

Program II costs (projected through Summer Session, 1976) 

Administrative, 

Magazines, Books, 

?

Taching 

Xeroxing, etc. 

?

Salaries 

First Year (75) 

?

$ 2,225 (actual) 

?

$i6,000 (actual) 

Second Year (76) 

?

2,225 (projected) 

?

4,500 (actual) 

B. REPORT ON ADMINISTRATION AND TEACHING OF PROGRAMS I AND II 

a) ? 

Administration 

The program is administered by a permanent five-membersub-committee 

of the DML Graduate Studies Committee. Members are: Drs. Bartlett 

(Chairman), Bouton, Hammerly, Merler, Roberts. 

The Committee is responsible for (1) selection of candidates, 

(2) mounting of programs, (3) articulation of content, (4) supervision 

and approval of projects. 

5.

1)

Selection of candidates 

Applications are accepted between September 30th - April 30th. 

Admission decisions are made between January 1st and May 15th. 

Besides completing normal Graduate Studies applicatidn forms, 

applicants are required to fill in a questionnaire relating to their 

specific teaching experience and to complete a self-eva1ution of 

their competence in French. 

When feasible, applicants are required to attend a personal 

interview with the Committee. 

2)

Mounting of programs 

The Committee is responsible for advertising, scheduling and 

assuring the teaching commitments of two simultaneous programs (amount- 

ing to 12 contact hours 

3) Articulation of content 

To ensure overall coherence, the content 

of

each comonent is 

established by the Committee; participating faculty who are not members 

of the Committee are required to work within this content. 

4) Supervision ad approval of projects 

Supervision of projects is undertaken solely by the -member 

•

?

committee. Because of the heavy and on-going supervising duties involved 

in these projects, the students are registered as off-camp us students in 

each Fall and Spring Semester. 

i)

Establishment of project 

An administrative suervisor is appointed for each student. The 

student discusses the choice of tooic with this supervisor who gives 

what advice he/she can and directs problems to other members of the 

committee with the greatest degree of specialization. Upon returning 

to his/her teaching situation, the student starts setting up the project 

and eventually submits an outline proosa1 to the Committee. The 

Committee as a whole examines the outline proposal, making suggestions 

for improvement 

77 -

3

—

re necessary. The outline proposal is eventually 

officially approved by the Committee as a whole (subject to any 

suggested changes). These decisions are recorded in the minutes and 

the student is officially notified by the Chairman that he/she may pro- 

ceed with the project. 

ii)

Supervision 

The student starts the project, contacting the administrative 

supervisor (in person, by mail, by phone) over problems and for further 

advice. When the administrative supervisor feels unable to help in a 

specific situation, the problem is brought to the Committee as a whole, 

and the advice given then becomes that of the Committee. 

S

In due course, the student presents the first draft of the project. 

This is circulated amongst Committee members who make marginal comments 

and also append an overall evaluation, criticism, suggestd improvements, 

etc. (Because of leave-patterns, sabbaticals, etc. this tage of the 

6.

process may involve no fewer that three members of the Committee). 

If substantial corrections, re-writing, reworking of data, etc. are 

S ?

demanded, the student is required to submit a second draft (which, 

when appropriate, may be a 'paste-and-paper' reworking of the first. 

iii) Approval 

The critical/supervisory process is repeated until the Committee 

as a whole is satisfied and gives its formal approval (recorded in 

the minutes). At this point, the Chairman of the 

Committee 

writes 

a formal letter to the student giving the Committee's official 

• ? 

imprimatur (really!). The student then prepares the final 'good' 

copy as per General Regulations and the LSA style-sheet. At this 

time, the student is encouraged to contact Miss Reva Clavier in the 

Library to discuss any unusual format problems involved in a 

particular project. 

General 

In this overall process, the Chairman of the Committee plays 

an overseeing, co-ordinating role, giving general advice to 

1    students, 

filling in for on-leave members, maintaining all necessary postal 

contact with students, and ensuring that submitted problems; and 

projects are circulated efficiently and that the various and fairly 

constant decisions required are made promptly. 

The overall procedure has many good points: 

. ?

a) it is efficient 

b)

it is not disturbed/delayed by leave-patterns 

c)

all formal and final decisions are of the Committee 

asl

a whole, 

meaning that there is an important overall control of i3tandards 

and of what is being demanded from each student 

d)

by the time the official imprimatur is given, all fivemembers 

of the Committee have had the opportunity to ensure that any 

initial misgivings, criticisms, etc. have been effectiely 

dealt with by the student. 

The process is effective only to the degree that the members are 

willing to participate almost weekly (and sometimes daily!) in the 

decisions. Meetings are therefore frequent even if short. 

b) ? 

Teaching 

All five members of the Committee have taught in the program - 

either on a regular or overload basis. Each year to date, the 

Faculty of Education has provided a Faculty Associate who prticipates 

in each year's program. 

The following DML faculty will also have participated by the. 

end of Summer Session, 1976: Profs. Belanger (Visiting, 75), Lincoln, 

St.-Jacques, Viswanathan, Mrs. Luu, Mrs. McDonald. 

'ill

7.

C. ? 

THE COMMITTEE EVALUATION OF THE PROGRAM TO DATE 

Short-comings 

a) ? 

Administative 

1)

The Committee failed to advertise Program II sufficiently 

frequently or sufficiently widely. There appears to be a large 

market outside of B.C. which should be exploited. 

2)

Teachers 

unfortunately

have a long-standing attitude of 

expecting to enrol in a summer program at the last minute. Similarly, 

they are quite willing to withdraw from a program for quitearbitrary 

reasons. A more forceful case must be made to impress uponaccepted 

candidates that they have been selected for the program and:are 

therefore expected to register. It must be brought home tothem that 

acceptance into the program implies a 3 year commitment - to 

themselves and to SFU. Thus, we must establish some form of guarantee 

that admitted students become registered students. It is suggested 

that payment of fees by May 30th be required. 

b) ? 

Proqram requlatior 

1)

School visits. Visits to schools by members of tIde Committee 

are impractical and fairly pointless. The geographic distribution of 

students (Quebec - Vancouver Island) makes such visits well -nigh 

impossible. Moreover, those undertaken to date demonstrate that the 

visits are of little value; these teachers are not neophyte 

g

but well- 

experienced teachers capable of adapting what they have learnt to 

their specific teaching situation. 

2)

Project supervision. There must be a broader 

bas:is 

for the 

supervision of projects with other DML faculty co-opted into the 

supervisory function. 

c) ? 

Program 

1)

The micro-teaching 

component

needs to be reconsidered. 

2)

There should be some minor chronological re-ordering of 

several 

components.

For example, it would seem advisable to move 

the Experimental Language Teaching 

component

to the first year in order 

to better prepare students to fulfil the project requirement. 

Strong Points 

1)

The intensive, coherent and closely-articulated wbrk of 

each session makes for a strong, total program. 

2)

The 'note giobale' for each session's work functions well, 

particularly as it is accompanied by an individual appraisal of each 

student's strengths and weaknesses (as established through discussion 

at summer's end by all teaching faculty). 

• ? 

8.

3)

The French requirements (B grade minimum to graduate) is a 

•

?

vital spur to those anglophones whose French is weak. It has, for 

example, led to one student taking a leave-of-absence to spend a 

whole year in France, and to another making a number of shdrt visits 

to France and Quebec for immersion experience. 

4)

Projects. While extremely demanding of both supervisors 

and students, the projects have proved an excellent learniiig device. 

5)

Student body. The heterogeneity of the 22 students enrolled 

has proved a strong point. The breakdown is as follows: 

Male: 14, female: 8, French-speaking: 11, anglophone: 11, 

Primary: 2, Elementary: 5, Secondary: 10, Government teachers: 

4, District supervisors: 3, College teachers: 1. 

D. ? 

GENERAL EVALUATION 

a)

Students - on the whole, very positive. Those approaching the 

end of the program appear to have no small satisfaction from the 

fact that the program has been extremely demanding. iAll are 

convinced that the program should continue. 

b)

Public - difficult to judge; rumour at teachers' conferences 

appears to have established that "the SFU M.A.-Teaching of French 

program is the hardest M.A. in B.C." 

is ? 

which 

Committee - an important and highly demanding DML program for 

which there is a continuing need and a large untappea demand - 

particularly in the light of a change in Federal policy which is 

beginning to realize that its bilingual aspirations ill be 

fulfilled only by the school-system. 

E. ? 

FUTURE PROGRAMS 

If the University is to permit the program to becomea permanent 

offering, the following factors should be considered 

1)

A dual faculty appointment DML/Facultyof Education (as 

originally suggested by the Academic Planning Board). 

2)

Sufficient permanent salary commitment. (i.e. not subject to 

annual decision) to permit, when need so dictates, the hiring of a 

Visiting faculty member to participate in one component of each of two 

simultaneous programs. 

3) It is suggested that 15 registered students constitute the 

minimum first-year enrolment necessary for a program to be started. 

May 31st should be the deadline for paid-up registration. 

4)

It would perhaps be useful to the economy of the! program to 

establish an out-of-province fee differential. 

F. ? 

COMMENTS 

The Committee wishes to acknowledge the excellent co-operation? 

which this unusual program has been given by all levels 

of!

the University: 

• the Faculty of Education, the Registrar's Office, the Library, 

room-scheduling, the bookstore. 

9.

.