Evaluation of the French Immersion Studies Academic Stream

Evaluation of the
French Immersion Studies
Academic Stream
Official Languages and Bilingualism Institute
Evaluation Report #1 to the French Immersion
Program Evaluation Steering Committee
Submitted by the Program Evaluation Committee:
Wendy Ryan, Graduate student, Evaluation consultant, Faculty of Education
Patrick Courcelles, Director of French immersion studies
Amelia Hope, Head of Language Testing Services, Second Language Institute
Catherine Buchanan, Language Teacher
Marlene Toews-Janzen, Language Teacher
September, 2007
Note: The report is intended exclusively for internal uses by the University of Ottawa. The project was commissioned
and funded by the office of the Vice-President Academic and Provost, University of Ottawa and benefited from technical
consultation provided by Professor J. Bradley Cousins (CRECS).

Evaluation of the French Immersion Studies Academic Stream
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Since September 2006, French immersion studies (Régime d’immersion en français) is a new
academic stream (Régime d’études) offered in collaboration with the Official Languages and
Bilingualism Institute (OLBI) in combination with over 50 programs of study at the University of
Ottawa. In the French immersion studies academic stream, students fulfill the requirements of a
regular degree program while maintaining and strengthening their French language skills. Students
follow a personalized immersion study plan developed with the assistance of a student mentor. The
plan must include at least 36 credits taught in French (with certain limitations) during their four
years of undergraduate studies to obtain an official “French immersion” designation on their
diploma. Students have access to language teachers, a mentoring centre and a club which
organizes social and cultural activities. They can also obtain scholarships and can opt for
qualitative grades (i.e. Satisfactory and Not Satisfactory, which do not affect the student’s average)
for certain courses (up to 24 credits) taken in French.
As a result of the University’s desire to evaluate this new academic stream, a French Immersion
Evaluation Steering Committee was struck to give direction and oversee a formative evaluation of
the French immersion studies academic stream over its first 5 years. The Steering Committee
produced an evaluation framework to guide the Program Evaluation Committee in the evaluation
process. The Steering Committee decided that the Evaluation Committee should address the first
two questions of the evaluation framework in this initial evaluation because the other three
questions were geared more towards the medium- to long-term results of this academic stream.
In the winter/spring 2007, the Program Evaluation Committee (PEC) conducted a mixed-method,
multi-informant study of the first year of the French immersion studies academic stream. We
integrated several streams of data generated by those associated with the program through: 1) an
analysis of archival information on French immersion (FI) applicants and registered students, 2) an
on-line survey for students registered in the French immersion studies academic stream, and 3)
focus group interviews. The focus groups were with (a) students who are in programs that offer FI
but are not registered in the French immersion studies academic stream, (b) students registered in
the French immersion studies academic stream, (c) FI language teachers, and (d) FI administrators.
Questions guiding this study were drawn from the evaluation framework created by the Steering
Committee. The two evaluation questions addressed in this first report and the abbreviated answers
compiled by the PEC are:
1. Is the program being delivered to the intended population? Why or why not?
The French immersion studies academic stream at the University of Ottawa is intended for
secondary French immersion and core French graduates who would like to pursue their postsecondary
education partially or entirely in French. To be eligible for admission to the French
immersion studies academic stream, the student must have studied in an English-language
secondary school, must meet the admission requirements of the four-year honours program of
i

study for which they wish to register, and then must take a language proficiency test, administered
by the Second Language Institute, and obtain a level F7 (60%) or higher.
In the fall 2006, there were 243 students registered in French immersion studies; there were 247
students registered in the winter 2007 term.
Much of the data collected suggest that, indeed, the recruitment efforts have targeted the
appropriate student group. For example, the majority of the students who are currently registered in
French immersion studies have a background in high school French immersion, but reported
limited opportunities in their home life and their communities to use their French skills. French
immersion students have a higher than average academic aptitude and many have experience
learning other languages. All ten provinces are represented by students in the French immersion
academic stream.
Although the intended students appear to have registered for the French immersion studies
academic stream, there are many students at the University of Ottawa in programs that offer the
French immersion studies academic stream who did not choose to apply for that option. Only three
such students opted to be interviewed about this concern, and they suggested that better marketing
of French immersion studies would have increased their likelihood of applying to that academic
stream.
2. Is the program being delivered as intended? Why or why not?
In French immersion studies, students take their four-year honours program partially in French
while having access to academic and linguistic support. This academic stream is customized to
each student’s linguistic goals and level of proficiency. To obtain an official “French immersion”
designation on their diploma, students must complete at least 36 credits in French (with certain
limitations) and must also obtain their Second Language Certificate by taking the independentlearning
course FLS 3500 and successfully passing the Second Language Certification Test. They
must obtain a level 2 (out of 4) in each competency: listening, reading, writing and speaking.
French credits can include: (a) French language courses (FLS, FRE, and FRA) (b) regular content
courses taught in French, or (c) immersion courses (regular content courses taught in French and
accompanied by a weekly 90-minute adjunct language course with a language teacher). The first
level of adjunct language course (FLS 2581) is designed to help students with their reading and
listening comprehension in the immersion course. The second level (FLS 3581) is intended to help
students with writing and speaking skills related to the immersion course.
Students registered in French immersion studies can choose up to 8 courses taught in French during
their first two years of study for which they can receive qualitative grades – Satisfactory (S) or Not
satisfactory (NS) – which do not affect the student’s grade point average. Additional services and
supports include the following: immersion scholarships, the Academic Writing Help Centre
(CARTU in French), the Immersion Mentoring Centre, the Second Language Resource Centre,
conversation groups organized by language monitors at the Second Language Institute, the Club
d’immersion, and opportunities for cultural exchanges and trips.
ii

For the most part, the program is being delivered as intended. However, there were indications that
some improvements could be made in program delivery, most notably in the adjunct language
courses (FLS 2581/3581), training of French immersion language teachers, and marketing of
services.
According to the data collected, it appears that there is generally a high level of satisfaction with all
aspects of the French immersion studies academic stream including courses, scholarships, the S/NS
option, and student resources and services. For the most part, courses were delivered as intended;
however, survey and focus group participants identified a need for course objectives to be clearer.
Students and language teachers agreed that small class sizes are beneficial, especially for adjunct
language courses, and that content professors need to be better informed about the French
immersion studies academic stream and their role in it. Some students voiced concerns and made
recommendations about course selection and registration, suggesting an increase in the number of
sections and variety of immersion courses offered, and on-line registration. Student comments also
point to the need for more training of staff and faculty to answer student questions and meet their
individual needs. Although levels of use of student services such as CARTU, the Immersion
Mentoring Center, the Immersion Club, and the Student Resource Center were not particularly
high, students who did use these services expressed high levels of satisfaction with them. Students
appreciated scholarships and having the S/NS option as important benefits of being in the French
immersion studies academic stream.
Recommendations
Based on these data, the Program Evaluation Committee offers a set of recommendations for
consideration:
• Maintain small class sizes for adjunct language courses
• Set clearer objectives for adjunct language courses
• Provide information to content professors about the FI studies academic stream and their role in
it
• Provide more focused training for language teachers
• Publicize more widely services such as CARTU, the Immersion Mentoring Center, the
Immersion Club, and the Student Resource Center
• Improve the publicity of the French immersion studies academic stream among current
University of Ottawa students who may be eligible
• Improve the quality of staff and faculty training to meet individual student needs
• Allow for on-line registration for language courses
• Provide consistent information in syllabuses for adjunct language courses
• Define terms more clearly and encourage consistency of use
The full report presents the findings from this study which is the first of many that will make up a
more complete evaluation of the French immersion studies academic stream over the next few
years.
iii

Glossary
Below you will find various definitions for terminology relating to French immersion studies.
French immersion studies (Régime d’immersion en français): A new academic stream (régime
d’études) offered at the University of Ottawa since September 2006 in which students take their fouryear
honours program partially in French while having access to academic and linguistic support. This
academic stream is customized to each student’s linguistic goals and level of proficiency. Within their
program of study, students take their own combination of content courses taught in French, French
immersion courses with adjunct language courses, French language courses (FLS, FRE or FRA) and
courses taught in English. Students have access to language teachers (within their adjunct language
courses), a mentoring centre and a club which organizes social and cultural activities. They can also
obtain scholarships and can opt for qualitative grades (i.e. Satisfactory and Not Satisfactory, which do
not affect the student’s average) for certain courses taken in French.
Immersion course (cours d’immersion): a university content course taken in one’s second language,
in conjunction with an adjunct language course. Students receive three credits for the immersion
course and three credits for the adjunct language course; they also receive separate marks for both
courses.
Adjunct language course (cours d’encadrement linguistique): a weekly 90-minute course that
accompanies an immersion course and is taught by a language teacher. The first level of adjunct
language course (FLS 2581) is designed to help students with their reading and listening
comprehension in the immersion course. The second level of adjunct language course (FLS 3581)
helps students with writing and speaking skills related to the immersion course. Students receive three
credits for the immersion course and three credits for the adjunct language course; they also receive
separate marks for both courses.
FLS – French-as-a-second-language courses (cours de français langue seconde): regular language
courses offered from basic to advanced levels taught by language teachers. Basic and intermediatelevel
courses generally touch upon all four competencies (reading, writing, listening and speaking),
whereas advanced-level courses normally deal with these competencies separately. Advanced-level
courses are also offered in areas such as pronunciation, grammar and culture.
FRE – French courses (cours de French): courses in French culture and literature that are taught in
French but are designed for non-Francophones. These courses generally require an advanced level of
proficiency in French as a second language.
FRA – Français courses (cours de français): courses in French literature that are designed for
Francophone students. These courses require a very advanced level of proficiency.
Language teacher (professeur de langue): teaches French-as-a-second-language (FLS) courses and/or
adjunct language courses (linked to immersion courses).
Content professor (professeur de discipline): in the context of French immersion studies, the content
professor teaches the immersion course, i.e. the content course that is taken in conjunction with an
adjunct language course.
iv

Table of Contents
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................................................. i
Recommendations......................................................................................................................iii
Glossary ......................................................................................................................................... iv
Table of Contents............................................................................................................................ v
List of Tables and Figures............................................................................................................. vii
List of Appendices .......................................................................................................................viii
Introduction..................................................................................................................................... 1
Context........................................................................................................................................ 1
Program Description ................................................................................................................... 1
Evaluation Framework................................................................................................................ 2
Method ............................................................................................................................................ 2
Design ......................................................................................................................................... 2
Sample Selection and Data Collection........................................................................................ 3
Archival data........................................................................................................................... 3
On-line survey......................................................................................................................... 3
Focus group interviews........................................................................................................... 3
Plan for Analysis......................................................................................................................... 4
Quantitative data. .................................................................................................................... 4
Qualitative data. ...................................................................................................................... 5
Findings........................................................................................................................................... 5
Question 1: Is the program being delivered to the intended population? Why or why not? .......... 5
Intended Population .................................................................................................................... 5
Applicants to French Immersion Studies.................................................................................... 5
Students Registered in French Immersion Studies in the Winter 2007 Term............................. 6
Survey of French Immersion Students........................................................................................ 8
Exposure to French at home. .................................................................................................. 8
Exposure to French at school.................................................................................................. 9
Extra-curricular French opportunities..................................................................................... 9
Exposure to French at work. ................................................................................................... 9
Use of French in daily life outside of work or classes.......................................................... 10
Other languages spoken. ....................................................................................................... 10
Reasons for registering in French immersion. ...................................................................... 11
Focus Group Discussion with Students Not Registered in French Immersion Studies............ 11
Summary of Question 1: Is the program being delivered to the intended population? ................ 12
Question 2: Is the program being delivered as intended? Why or why not? ................................ 13
Courses Taken by Students during the Fall 2006/Winter 2007 School Year ........................... 13
Success Rates in Courses Taught in French ............................................................................. 14
Overall Satisfaction with the French Immersion Studies Academic Stream............................ 16
Indicators of overall satisfaction with the FI academic stream............................................. 16
Overview of satisfaction with courses .................................................................................. 16
Satisfaction with adjunct language courses .......................................................................... 17
Satisfaction with immersion content courses........................................................................ 20
Satisfaction with S/NS marks ............................................................................................... 22
Satisfaction with scholarships............................................................................................... 23

Satisfaction with information sessions in September ........................................................... 23
Satisfaction with student resources and services .................................................................. 24
Areas identified for improvement......................................................................................... 27
Summary of Satisfaction with the French Immersion Studies Academic Stream.................... 29
Summary of Question 2: Is the program being delivered as intended? Why or why not? ........... 29
Conclusions................................................................................................................................... 30
Summary of Responses to Evaluation Questions ..................................................................... 30
Limitations ................................................................................................................................ 30
Recommendations..................................................................................................................... 30
Future Evaluations .................................................................................................................... 32
vi

List of Tables and Figures
Tables
Table 1: Samples for Focus Groups................................................................................................ 4
Table 2: Applicants’ Location of Origin (September 2006)........................................................... 6
Table 3: Admission Averages of FI Students Compared to Other Undergraduates....................... 7
Table 4: Immersion Admission Test Scores ................................................................................... 8
Table 5: Productive Skills Test Scores ........................................................................................... 8
Table 6: Courses Taught in French Taken by FI Students in 2006-2007 ..................................... 13
Table 7: Number of Adjunct Language Courses Taken per Student ............................................ 14
Table 8: Quantitative Marks by Course Type............................................................................... 15
Table 9: Qualitative Marks by Course Type................................................................................. 15
Figures
Figure 1: Faculties in which immersion students were enrolled (winter 2007)............................. 7
Figure 2: Types of French language instruction in high school...................................................... 9
Figure 3: Percentage of time French is used at work.................................................................... 10
Figure 4: Percentage of time French is used outside of work or classes ..................................... 10
Figure 5: Types of marks selected. ............................................................................................... 14
Figure 6: Course satisfaction. ....................................................................................................... 17
Figure 7: Use of French immersion services ................................................................................ 25
Figure 8: Satisfaction with French immersion services................................................................ 25
Figure 9: Reasons for not using services. ..................................................................................... 27
vii

List of Appendices
Appendix A: Steering Committee and Program Evaluation Committee...................................... 33
Appendix B: Evaluation Framework for the French Immersion Program Evaluation ................. 34
Appendix C: Logic Model ............................................................................................................ 36
Appendix D: Flow Chart............................................................................................................... 37
Appendix E: Responses to Student Survey................................................................................... 37
Appendix E: Responses to Student Survey................................................................................... 38
Appendix F: Focus Group Moderator’s Guide: Enrolled Students .............................................. 59
Appendix G: Focus Group Moderator’s Guide: Students who are not Enrolled in FI ................. 61
Appendix H: Focus Group Moderator’s Guide: Language Teachers ........................................... 63
Appendix I: Focus Group Moderator’s Guide: Administrators.................................................... 65
viii

Evaluation of the French Immersion Studies Academic Stream
Context
Introduction
The University of Ottawa’s commitment toward bilingualism was reaffirmed in the strategic plan
Vision 2010 that was approved by the Senate and Board of Governors of the University in
January 2005. Towards this goal, a new French immersion studies academic stream was
developed.
Students who have taken core French or French immersion in high school usually choose to
pursue their post-secondary studies in English; this often results in the loss of French-language
skills. By offering such students the opportunity to pursue their studies in French at the
University level with adequate guidance and support to do so, the University of Ottawa will
continue to promote bilingualism. The University’s commitment to the promotion of
bilingualism will also contribute to the development of programs and services in French for
Francophones.
Program Description
Since September 2006, French immersion studies is an “academic stream” offered in
collaboration with the Official Languages and Bilingualism Institute (OLBI) combination with
over 50 programs of study at the University of Ottawa. In French immersion studies, students
fulfill the requirements of a regular degree program while maintaining and strengthening their
French language skills by following a customized French study plan.
After being tested in reading, listening, writing and speaking at the beginning of their studies,
they meet with a student mentor to develop their own study plan. The plan must include at least
36 credits taught in French (with certain limitations) during their four years of undergraduate
studies to obtain an official “French immersion” designation on their diploma. To meet these
French requirements, students can take: (a) French language courses (FLS, FRE, and FRA) (b)
regular content courses taught in French, or (c) immersion courses (regular content courses
taught in French and accompanied by a weekly 90-minute adjunct language course with a
language teacher).
Adjunct language courses are generally given in small groups of students, with a maximum of
15-20 students depending on the level of the adjunct language course, but many are offered with
far fewer students. The average size of an adjunct language course during the 2006-2007
academic year was 9. Regular FLS courses are generally capped at 25-27 students.
Students registered in French immersion studies can choose up to 8 courses taught in French
during their first two years of study for which they can receive qualitative grades – Satisfactory
(S) or Not satisfactory (NS) – which do not affect the student’s grade point average.
1

To complete French immersion studies, students must complete at least 36 credits in French
(with certain limitations) and must also obtain their Second Language Certificate by taking the
independent-learning course FLS 3500 and successfully passing the Second Language
Certification Test. They must obtain a level 2 (out of 4) in each competency: listening, reading,
writing and speaking.
Additional services and supports include the following: immersion scholarships, the Academic
Writing Help Centre (CARTU in French), the Immersion Mentoring Centre, the Second
Language Resource Centre, conversation groups organized by language monitors at the Second
Language Institute, the Club d’immersion, and opportunities for cultural exchanges and trips.
Evaluation Framework
A French Immersion Evaluation Steering Committee (Appendix A) was struck in February 2006
to give direction and oversee the evaluation of the French immersion studies academic stream
over its first 5 years. The Steering Committee met several times during 2006 and produced an
evaluation framework (Appendix B), a logic model (Appendix C) and a flow chart (Appendix D)
to help guide the evaluation.
A Program Evaluation Committee (Appendix A) was struck in November 2006 to undertake
work outlined in the French Immersion Studies evaluation framework. The Evaluation Steering
Committee had decided that the Evaluation Committee should address the first two questions of
the evaluation framework in this initial evaluation because the other three questions were geared
more towards the medium- to long-term results of this academic stream. The Program Evaluation
Committee consulted with Brad Cousins, an expert in program evaluation, from the Faculty of
Education and Centre for Research and Educational and Community Services, to decide how to
address these questions:
1. Is the program being delivered to the intended population? Why or why not?
2. Is the program being delivered as intended? Why or why not?
In the winter/spring 2007, the Program Evaluation Committee conducted a mixed-method, multiinformant
study of the first year of the French immersion studies academic stream in order to
answer these questions. Details about the methods employed appear below.
Design
Method
The study intended to examine the perspectives of students, instructors, and administrators by
asking about their experiences with the program. We employed a mixed-method design and did
not use a comparison group. Rather, we integrated multiple streams of data generated by those
associated with program through: 1) an analysis of archival information on French immersion
(FI) applicants and registered students, 2) an on-line survey for students registered in the French
immersion studies academic stream, and 3) focus group interviews. The focus groups were with
2

(a) students who are in programs that offer FI but are not registered in the French immersion
studies academic stream, (b) students registered in the French immersion studies academic
stream, (c) FI language teachers, and (d) FI administrators.
Sample Selection and Data Collection
Archival data. Members of the Program Evaluation Committee met to determine what
type of information would be important to collect from archived records in order to respond to
the evaluation questions. This information was then requested from the University’s Office of the
Registrar and from the French Immersion Studies office. These data were examined in order to
identify what kinds of students had applied to the French immersion studies academic stream and
what kinds of students subsequently registered for French immersion.
Archival data from 743 applications to the University of Ottawa’s French immersion studies
academic stream were examined. In some cases, the same candidate applied to more than one
program; thus, the 743 applications were generated by a total of 608 candidates. Of these 608
students, 243 students were registered for French Immersion in the fall 2006 term. Eight of these
243 students had dropped their French Immersion registration by the winter 2007 term, and there
were 12 new registrants to French Immersion studies in the winter 2007 term. This resulted in a
total of 247 students who were registered in French immersion studies for the winter 2007 term.
On-line survey. All 247 students enrolled in the winter 2007 term in the French
immersion studies academic stream were sent an invitation by email to participate in an on-line
survey in April 2007.
The survey was developed by the Program Evaluation Committee and underwent several
iterations of development, critique and revision before it was put on-line using Survey Monkey
software. The instrument was then pilot tested on-line by several members of the Program
Evaluation Committee and further revisions were made. On average, it took pilot participants 15
minutes to complete the survey. See Appendix E for the survey questions and responses.
French immersion students were sent emails on April 4, 2007 which included a personalized link
to the survey, to prevent students from completing the survey more than once and to allow each
student to leave the survey and return at a later date to complete it. Students were also asked to
enter their student number so that we could cross-reference the responses with the archival data
if necessary. Reminder emails were sent out 6 days later and the survey was closed to
participation after 9 days from the initial invitation to participate. To encourage students to
participate in this on-line survey, participants were entered into a draw for one of two $100 gift
certificates.
Of the 247 students asked to participate, 129 students, or 53.7%, completed the survey. This is a
fairly high response rate for surveys of this nature.
Focus group interviews. Focus group interviews were held with four groups of
participants. For the focus group of registered students, all students who responded to the on-line
survey were sent an invitation by email to participate in a focus group to elaborate certain topics
3

included in the survey. For the focus group of students who were not enrolled in French
immersion studies, students who were enrolled in a program that offered French immersion and
were eligible to register were sent an email invitation to participate in a focus group to discuss
their reasons for not registering in French immersion studies and their ideas about what might
make the program more appealing. For the focus group of teachers, all teachers who were
teaching an adjunct language course at the Second Language Institute during the current
academic year were sent an email invitation to participate in a focus group to give their feedback
on the French immersion academic stream. For the focus group of French immersion
administrators, the director of French immersion studies, the head of Testing Services, the two
language teachers responsible for immersion courses and the Second Language Institute’s
academic assistant were all invited to participate. The final samples and response rates are shown
in Table 1.
Table 1: Samples for Focus Groups
Selected sample Final sample Response rate
FI students 129 2 1.5%
Other students 202 3 1.5%
Instructors 18 6 33.3%
Administrators 5 3 + 2 100%
Students had an extremely low response rate for focus groups even though incentives were
offered and email reminders were sent. One possible reason for this low response rate could be
that it was not convenient for students to participate in a focus group at that particular time of
year, that is, when classes were finished for the year and exams were in session. It may also be
that offering students a free pizza lunch is not sufficient compensation for an hour of their time.
Students might also have been concerned about the lack of anonymity in a focus group.
Focus group moderator guides were developed for each group. See Appendix F for the FI student
focus group protocol, Appendix G for the non-FI student focus group protocol, Appendix H for
the language teacher focus group protocol, and Appendix I for the administrator focus group
protocol. The protocols were semi-structured and open-ended. Probes were generated on the
basis of the evaluation framework (Appendix B).
Each group was interviewed separately. Respondents were assured that their identities would
remain confidential. All interviews were private and were audio-taped with the respondents’
permission. Notes were taken and the interviews were subsequently summarized by the
interviewer using the notes and audio recordings.
Plan for Analysis
Quantitative data. The archival and survey data were checked for data collection errors
and stored in files for analysis. Descriptive statistics, bar graphs, and pie charts were compiled to
describe the data. A draft report was distributed to Program Evaluation Committee members for
their comments. Members of the committee met to discuss the results and decide what form the
results section of the report should take in order to best answer the evaluation questions.
4

Qualitative data. Answers to open-ended questions from the student survey and
summaries of comments given during focus group interviews were organized according to
themes. Committee members helped to choose quotes that would be included in the report. The
quotations were selected for illustrative purposes.
Findings
Question 1: Is the program being delivered to the intended
population? Why or why not?
The Program Evaluation Committee attempted to address this question by looking at archival
data, survey data, and information collected through focus group interviews. The intended
population will be briefly described, followed by a description of the applicants for the 2006-
2007 academic year, a description of the students currently registered in the French immersion
academic stream, a description of a sample of registered students who completed an on-line
survey, and finally a description of a discussion with a small sample of University of Ottawa
students who are not registered in French immersion studies.
Intended Population
The French immersion studies academic stream at the University of Ottawa is intended for
secondary French immersion and core French graduates who would like to pursue their postsecondary
education partially or entirely in French. To be eligible for admission to the French
immersion studies academic stream, the student must have studied in an English-language
secondary school, must meet the admission requirements of the four-year honours program of
study for which they wish to register, and then must take a language proficiency test,
administered by the Second Language Institute, and obtain a level F7 (60%) or higher.
Applicants to French Immersion Studies
According to data collected from archival sources, there were 743 applications from 608
individual applicants to the University of Ottawa’s French immersion studies academic stream in
September 2006. This was due to the fact that potential students could submit multiple
applications to different programs of study in the French immersion studies academic stream.
Twenty-two applicants (3.6%) chose to submit multiple applications. Of the 608 individual
applicants, 50.3% were offered and accepted admission, 14.5% were offered admission but did
not accept (for a variety of reasons: they could have accepted offers in other programs at the
University of Ottawa, or offers in other universities, or decided to not pursue postsecondary
education), 17.1% were refused admission, 13.8% were cases where the University withdrew an
offer of admission (often because the student was admitted but did not respond by the deadline),
and 4.3% of applications were cancelled by the applicant.
While most applicants (78%) came from Ontario, there were also applicants from each of the 9
other provinces, reflecting the goal of the University of Ottawa being “Canada’s university”. See
Table 2 for distribution of applicants from each province.
5

Table 2: Applicants’ Location of Origin (September 2006)
Location
Number
of
applicants
percentage
(%) of
applicants
Alberta 18 2.96
British Columbia 18 2.96
international 27 4.44
Manitoba 5 0.82
New Brunswick 7 1.15
Newfoundland 3 0.49
Nova Scotia 15 2.47
Ontario 477 78.45
Prince Edward Island 4 0.66
Quebec 31 5.10
Saskatchewan 3 0.49
Total 608 100.00
Students Registered in French Immersion Studies in the Winter 2007 Term
In the winter 2007 term, there were 247 students registered for full-time studies in the University
of Ottawa’s French immersion studies. Of these, 78.1% were female. This can partially be
explained by the fact that in elementary and secondary schools across Canada, girls usually
account for roughly 60% of students registered in French immersion
(http://www.statcan.ca/english/freepub/81-004-XIE/200406/imm.htm), and that in the four
faculties of the University of Ottawa where French immersion is offered, women account for
approximately 65% of the undergraduate student population.
The vast majority of the registered students, 98.4%, named English as their language of
correspondence. For 97.2%, Canada was their country of birth. Most immersion students, 90.7%,
are in their first year of studies, 8.1% are in their 2 nd year, and 1.2% in their 3 rd year of studies.
The majority of French immersion students, 59%, are enrolled in programs at the Faculty of
Social Sciences, and 22% are in the Faculty of Arts. See Figure 1 for the distribution of students
by faculty.
6

8%
11%
22%
59%
Social Sciences
Arts
Health Sciences
Management
Figure 1: Faculties in which immersion students (n=247) were enrolled (winter 2007)
The students enrolled in the French immersion academic stream have comparatively high
admission averages. As shown in Table 3, 76.7% of the total undergraduate population at the
University of Ottawa (from Ontario high schools) has an admission average of 75% or higher,
whereas 95.5% of the Immersion students achieved that level. Only eleven percent of the total
undergraduate population (from Ontario high schools) had an admission average of 90% or
higher, while almost a third (30.4%) of the immersion had attained that average. This is an
indication that the French immersion academic stream attracts students with above average
academic abilities.
Table 3: Admission Averages of French Immersion Students Compared to Other Undergraduates
Admission averages
Percentage of all undergraduate
students from Ontario high
schools with these admission
averages (Source: uOttawa
Quick Facts 2007)
75% or higher 76.7% 95.5%
90% or higher 11.0% 30.4%
7
Percentage of French
immersion students with these
admission averages
In order to describe the level of French language competency of the Immersion studies students,
scores were examined on two French tests. Students were required to take an on-line proficiency
test called the Immersion Admission Test in order to determine their eligibility to French
Immersion. This multiple-choice test evaluates reading and listening ability and takes about 90
minutes to complete. The minimal score required is 60; this score places students at the “low
advanced” level of French ability and allows them to enroll in courses at the FLS2500 level.
Students who obtain scores in the range of 75-84.9% are judged to be mid-advanced and are
allowed to enroll in courses at the FLS2700 level. Scores over 85% place students at the “high
advanced” level and allow them to enroll in the highest level of FSL courses, the 3700 level. The
distribution of scores on the Immersion Admission Test is displayed in Table 4. It should be

noted that some students (n=25) were exempted from this test because alternate evidence of their
French ability (e.g. completion of FLS courses at the University of Ottawa) was submitted upon
application.
Table 4: Immersion Admission Test Scores
Score Range on the
Frequency Percent
Immersion Admissions Test
60% - 74.9% 68 30.6
75% - 84.9% 85 38.3
85% - 100% 69 31.1
Total 222 100.0
Registered immersion students also took a newly-developed computer-administered test to
evaluate their productive skills in their first semester. Results of this test were used to help
determine each student’s personalized study plan. These separate tests of speaking and writing
were marked on a 4-point scale, with 4 representing native-speaker-like abilities, and 1
indicating that the student experienced some difficulty in communicating his or her message. The
score distributions on these tests are displayed in Table 5. It should be noted that some scores are
missing due to two reasons: technical difficulties with initial administration of the test or student
absence from the testing session.
Table 5: Productive Skills Test Scores
Speaking level number and percent
(total n=207)
Writing Level number and percent
(total n=180)
1 17 = 8.2% 1 40 = 22.2%
2 78 = 37.7% 2 91 = 50.6%
3 81 = 39.1% 3 46 = 25.6%
4 31= 15.0% 4 3 = 1.6%
What the table makes evident is that immersion students are stronger in speaking than in writing,
consistent with the oral approach favored in high school French instruction. Very few students
(17, or 8.2%) were deemed to communicate with difficulty in speaking, whereas almost a quarter
of those tested (40, or 22.2%) had difficulty communicating in writing.
Survey of French Immersion Students
Further information on the characteristics of the French immersion students was obtained from
the on-line survey, completed by 129 (52.2%) of the 247 enrolled French immersion students.
Selected results are grouped below according to themes; a comprehensive summary of the
descriptive statistics can be found in Appendix E.
Exposure to French at home. Survey results indicate that some respondents had
exposure to French at home. For example, 17.1% (22 out of 129) of respondents indicated that
they have a francophone parent and 10.9% (14 out of 129) indicated that they spoke French at
home.
8

Thirty-seven of the 128 respondents, or 28.9%, said that they had lived in a region where
Francophones make up a large portion of the population. The most common region reported was
Quebec, followed by France. Of those 37 respondents who had lived in a francophone region,
40.5% had lived in these francophone regions for less than a year while 32.4% had lived in the
francophone region for more than 5 years.
These data indicate that the program is being delivered to students who need it the most, that is,
those who do not have extensive opportunities to use French in their homes or communities.
Exposure to French at school. Most respondents reported that they had been enrolled in
French immersion in elementary school (59.7%). When asked to specify their French program in
high school, the majority (72 people, or 56.2%) described it as an Immersion program. A quarter
of the students (n=32) had been enrolled in Extended French in high school, and 23.4% (n=30)
studied Core French. See Figure 2 for the distribution of the types of high school French
language instruction respondents reported.
No French in High School
Francophone school (school designed for students
whose mother tongue is French)
Core French (French taught as a second language
Extended French (less than half of your classes
taught in French
French Immersion (more than half of your classes
taught in French)
Figure 2: Types of French language instruction in high school
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
number of respondents
Extra-curricular French opportunities. Twenty nine out of 128 respondents, or
22.7%, indicated that they had participated in a French exchange program. The most common
location for such an exchange was France, followed by Quebec. About 10 % of respondents (13
out of 128) reported that they had participated in a Canadian Government Bursary program.
Exposure to French at work. When asked if they had ever had a job where they used
French, 61.7% of respondents (79 out of 128) replied “yes”. The most common types of jobs
where respondents reported using French were those in retail/sales, customer service, and
tourism. As shown in Figure 3, most respondents who reported using French at work indicated
that they used French less than 25% of the time for the job.
9

number of respondents
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
0 - 25% 25 - 50% 50 - 75 % 75 - 100%
Figure 3: Percentage of time French is used at work
Use of French in daily life outside of work or classes. Over half of the respondents,
51.6% (66 out of 128) reported that they used French in their daily life outside of work or
classes. Most reported that this occurred with friends, classmates, family members, or
roommates. Other answers included in public areas such as restaurants, volunteering, and
watching television. As shown in Figure 4, most of these respondents (37 out of 66, or 56%)
reported that they use French outside of work or classes less than 25% of the time.
40
35
number of respondents
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
0 - 25% 25 - 50% 50 - 75 % 75 - 100%
Figure 4: Percentage of time French is used outside of work or classes
Other languages spoken. When asked about other languages, 42.2% of respondents (54
out of 128) said that they could speak at least one language other than French or English. Of
these, the most common language reported was Spanish. This may indicate a favorable
10

disposition towards or previous success with learning another language. It is a high percentage
relative to the Canadian population as a whole. According to the 2001 census
(http://www.pch.gc.ca/progs/lo-ol/pubs/census2001/2_e.cfm), 22% of Canadians can speak a
language other than English or French (though they do not necessarily speak both official
languages) and 18% of Canadians speak both official languages.
Reasons for registering in French immersion. When asked to indicate all of their long
term goals/reasons for registering in French immersion, students endorsed both intrinsic
motivations such as: “I love learning French”, “I would like to become bilingual because I am a
Canadian”, “I am interested in French culture and language” and extrinsic motivations such as
“to improve my chances of getting a job in the future”, “to widen my circle of friends”, and “for
graduate school purposes”. Twenty respondents specified other goals including “to improve my
French”, “to become a French teacher”, and “for traveling purposes”. Some respondents
indicated that they did not want to lose the French they had or that they wanted to be able to
communicate with francophone family members.
Short-term goals also reflected intrinsic and extrinsic motivations. The most commonly selected
reason was: “to improve my French language skills”, followed by “to be able to take courses in
my field in French”, “I received a scholarship for this program”, “the S/NS marks option”, and
“to get to know francophone students here at the university”.
Focus Group Discussion with Students Not Registered in French Immersion
Studies
In an effort to understand why students eligible for French immersion studies did not enroll in
the immersion academic stream, 202 students were invited by email to participate in a focus
group. Only three students out of this 202 responded to the request; results of the focus group
discussion, therefore, cannot be considered as representative and must be interpreted with
caution.
Two of the three focus group participants knew little about the French immersion program, and
were attending the focus group mainly to get more information. Both of these participants were
in the political science program and had taken FLS courses to try to improve their French. Both
participants said that if they had known about the French Immersion academic stream when they
applied to university, they would have enrolled.
The third participant had taken French immersion courses but was not enrolled in the French
immersion studies academic stream because it was not offered when she first started her studies
two and a half years earlier. This participant spoke enthusiastically about French immersion
courses and gave the other two participants much information and encouragement to take
immersion courses. This participant also said that it would be nice to be able to enter French
immersion studies in your 3 rd or 4 th year as well, and to have the S/NS marks available to anyone
in a French immersion course.
When asked how the University could better promote the French immersion studies academic
stream, the participants provided the following suggestions targeted at students who are already
at the University:
11

• have FLS teachers promote the program in their French courses
• have student ambassadors go to first year classes to promote the program
• hang posters in key locations throughout the University
Summary of Question 1: Is the program being delivered to the
intended population? Why or why not?
One of the two main thrusts of this evaluation was to determine if the program is being delivered
to the intended population. Much of the data collected suggest that, indeed, the recruitment
efforts have targeted the appropriate student group. For example, the majority of the students
who are currently registered in French immersion studies have a background in high school
French immersion, but reported limited opportunities in their home life and their communities to
use their French skills. French immersion students have a higher than average academic aptitude
and many have experience learning other languages. All ten provinces are represented by
students in the French immersion academic stream.
The intended students appear to have registered for the program, but there are many students at
the University of Ottawa in programs that offer the French immersion studies academic stream
who did not choose it. Only three such students opted to be interviewed about this concern, and
they suggested more publicity, aimed especially at students already enrolled at the University of
Ottawa. Publicity will also naturally occur by word-of-mouth as the program grows and becomes
more well-known among University of Ottawa students and staff. And finally, students who have
the skills to join French immersion studies but perhaps lack the confidence, might be more likely
to consider registering in French immersion studies once this academic stream is more
established and “tested”.
12

Question 2: Is the program being delivered as intended? Why or
why not?
The Program Evaluation Committee attempted to address this question by looking at archival
data, survey data, and information collected through focus group interviews. The first section
makes use of archival data to describe the courses that French immersion students took during
the 2006/2007 academic year as well as their rates of success in these courses. The next section
uses data and comments from the student survey as well as feedback from student, teacher, and
administrator focus group discussions to illustrate whether French immersion classes and the
various other components of the French immersion academic stream are being delivered as
intended. Results are organized according to themes.
Courses Taken by Students during the Fall 2006/Winter 2007 School Year
In an effort to help students strengthen and maintain their French language skills, the French
immersion studies academic stream promotes enrollment in courses taught in French. Archival
data was examined to understand course enrollment patterns among FI students. As illustrated in
Table 6, the 247 French Immersion students enrolled in 1003 courses taught in French in 2006-
2007. Of these 1003 courses, over a third were regular university content courses taught in
French, without an adjunct language course. (*see Glossary for definitions of the different types
of courses.)
Table 6: Courses Taught in French Taken by FI Students in 2006-2007
Content course taught in
French (without adjunct
language course)
Number of courses
taken in 2006-2007
academic year
Average number of
each type of course
per student (n=247)
371 1.50
Immersion content course 236 0.96
Adjunct language course 236 0.96
FLS other 152 0.62
FRA 3 0.01
FRE 5 0.02
Total 1003 4.06
Another way to look at enrollment patterns is to consider the average number of courses taught
in French taken by FI students. Table 6 indicates that on average, FI students took 4.06 courses
taught in French in the 2006-2007 academic year.
Because French immersion courses with their adjunct language courses form a key component of
the FI academic stream, the enrollment data were analyzed to reveal how many such courses
13

were taken by each student. Table 7 indicates that a third of the FI students took two or more
adjunct language courses during the 2006/2007 academic year.
Table 7: Number of Adjunct Language Courses Taken per Student
Number of adjunct language courses taken per FI student
in 2006/2007
Frequency (%)
none 78 (33.1%)
one course 88 (37.3%)
two courses 63 (26.7%)
three courses 6 (2.5%)
four courses 1 (0.4%)
Total 236 (100.0%)
Success Rates in Courses Taught in French
To address the question of the success of FI students in their courses taught in French, final
marks for FI students were analyzed. FI students have the option of choosing qualitative marks
of S/NS (Satisfactory or Not Satisfactory) for some of their coursework in French; Figure 5
depicts the relative number of courses for which the S/NS option was chosen. As is clear, most
students chose to receive a regular alphanumeric mark for their coursework in French. The
qualitative mark S/NS was most frequently requested for content courses taught in French
(including immersion courses).
FRE
FRA
FLS
regular mark
S/NS mark
Accompanying language course
Content course (including immersion
courses)
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450
number of courses
Figure 5: Types of marks selected.
Two hundred and eighty-one (28%) of the 1003 French courses taken by FI students were
requested to be qualitatively graded. Of these 281 courses for which the S/NS option was chosen,
91.5% earned a mark of Satisfactory. Of the 680 courses that received traditional alphanumeric
grades, 666 (97.9%) received passing grades (A+ to D). There were 16 cases where a “CTN”
mark was given, indicating that course work will continue. Twenty-five courses received a “P”
14

mark, indicating that the course was “passed”. One mark of “INC” was given, indicating that the
coursework was “incomplete”.
For those students who received regular alphanumeric marks in their classes, the average marks
for the various types of courses taught in French are displayed in Table 8. The average GPA for
immersion students who took content courses taught in French (including immersion courses)
was 7.11. As a point of comparison, the average GPA of all students who took 1000-level
courses at uOttawa in 2006-2007 was 5.80. Immersion students’ average GPA for adjunct
language courses was 8.82, compared to an average of 8.60 for all students who took these
courses (note: French immersion students account for more than half of the students taking these
courses). And finally, immersion students had an average GPA of 7.40 for other FLS courses
taken in 2006-2007, whereas all students taking these courses received an average GPA of 7.16.
Table 8: Quantitative Marks by Course Type
Course type N Average
GPA 1
Std.
Deviation 2
Content courses taught in French 377 7.11 2.41
(including immersion courses)
Adjunct language courses 206 8.82 1.69
FLS 93 7.40 1.74
FRE 4 6.75 .50
1
Grade Point Average. GPA ranges from 0-10. A grade of F = 0, E = 1, D = 2, D+ = 3, C = 4, C+ = 5, B = 6,
B+ = 7, A- = 8, A = 9, A+ = 10.
2
Standard deviation is a measure of the extent to which scores were dispersed about the average (or mean). In the
case of content courses taught in French (including immersion courses), two thirds of the observed responses fall
between +2.41 and -2.41 of the average 7.11.
Table 9 shows the breakdown of grades by course type for those courses that received a
qualitative grade.
Table 9: Qualitative Marks by Course Type
Frequency Valid Percent
Content courses taught in French S 204 90.7
(including immersion courses) NS 21 9.3
Adjunct language courses
S 27 93.1
NS 2 6.9
FLS
S 22 95.7
NS 1 4.3
FRA S 3 100
FRE S 1 100
These data indicate that generally speaking, students in French immersion studies succeed quite
well in their courses taught in French, whether they be content courses or language courses.
More than a quarter of the courses taught in French that are taken by French immersion students
were graded using S/NS marks, however this can be as much due to the students’ lack of
confidence as to their level of proficiency.
15

Overall Satisfaction with the French Immersion Studies Academic Stream
Overall satisfaction with the French immersion studies academic stream was evaluated by
considering student feedback from surveys and focus groups, and data gathered in teacher and
administrator focus groups. In this section of the report, overall satisfaction will be addressed
first. Satisfaction with the various course options will be reported on next. Subsequently, other
aspects of the FI academic stream, such as the services and resources available to FI students will
be discussed. This section of the report will conclude with a discussion of areas identified for
improvement.
Indicators of overall satisfaction with the FI academic stream. Most data collected
indicate general satisfaction with the FI academic stream. The following quotes capture the
overall feeling of satisfaction expressed by students:
I would highly recommend to all students wishing to continue their learning of the French
language to pursue their studies at U of O….There are many opportunities to succeed with
your studies in French…I am glad I decided to enroll in the French Immersion stream.
I am glad this program is at this university, it influenced my decision a lot in choosing
which university I wanted to attend.
I think the University of Ottawa offers a very unique program, which I feel has benefited
me very much. I am proud to be a student here.
Another indicator of overall student satisfaction is the response to the survey question
concerning achievement of short term goals. Student survey respondents reported that many of
their short-term goals are being achieved through the French immersion academic stream. For
example, 80.5% endorsed “I have improved my French language skills”, 74.2% endorsed “I am
able to take courses in my field in French”, and 39.8% agreed that they had “gotten to know
French-speaking students here at the University”. Others noted: “I have gotten to know other
English-speaking students who are interested in French language and culture” and that they had
become “more confident in speaking French”.
Overview of satisfaction with courses. A sample of 128 students enrolled in French
immersion studies, rated their satisfaction with each type of course taught in French (see
Appendix E for survey results). Overall, most respondents were satisfied or very satisfied with
their courses (See Figure 6). The lowest level of satisfaction was reported for the adjunct
language courses.
16

Regular content
courses in French
FLS courses
Immersion
courses
Very satisfied
Satisfied
Dissatisfied
Very dissatisfied
Accompanying
language courses
Figure 6: Course satisfaction.
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Percentage of respondents
Satisfaction with adjunct language courses. The following themes arose from the data
and will be described below: a) High level of satisfaction, b) Mostly delivered as intended, c)
Course objectives need to be clearer, d) Preferences voiced by students, e) Resources, and f)
Small classes are beneficial.
High level of satisfaction: As illustrated in Figure 6, most students were satisfied with
their FLS 2581/3581 courses. One student commented:
I feel that the teachers of the FLS help courses are very helpful and understanding. It
is clear that they put a lot of effort into helping the students. They do a very good job
of helping immersion students.
Mostly delivered as intended: Participants in the administrators’ focus groups agreed that,
for the most part, language teachers are delivering courses as they were intended to be given (i.e.
focusing on comprehension in FLS 2581 and on production in FLS 3581). A few language
teachers, however, are evaluating productive skills (speaking and writing) and grammar in FLS
2581. It was recognized that teaching a French immersion course is very different from teaching
a regular language course. Language teachers must make a mind shift from the traditional
grammar-based teaching. The two levels (2581 & 3581) need to be clarified for teachers and
students. Students need to be given a clearer indication of course objectives. Training of
language teachers is important. It was agreed in the administrators’ focus groups that it would
be helpful if the same language teacher could teach the same course the next term or year so that
they can anticipate issues with a particular content course. It would also be nice to be able to
guarantee part-time teachers the same course that they have taught before. However, there is a
seniority system with the part-time teachers’ union that doesn’t guarantee these courses to the
same part-time teachers each year. Adjunct language courses are very demanding and take a lot
of preparation time. Participants in the administrators’ focus groups agreed that it is important to
have experienced and competent language teachers that can understand the concept of these
courses and deliver them in the way that they were intended to be delivered.
17

The participants in the language teachers’ focus group suggested that, at times, the
adjunct language courses are not being delivered as intended. For example, one participant in the
language teachers’ focus group admitted that sometimes she does teach language production
(writing) in the FLS 2581 course. She gave an example of a course she taught where the content
course professor required students to produce large essays. She had a small group of students, so
was able to give them the help they needed in this respect. Another participant in the language
teachers’ focus group found it frustrating that in the FLS 2581 course which focuses on listening
and reading comprehension, students cannot be penalized for grammatical mistakes in their
assignments. She said that she spends a lot of time correcting student grammatical errors and she
gets the same errors back the next time because the students know they cannot be penalized for
this. She found the artificial separation between comprehension and production to be frustrating.
Another language teacher said that she gets around this by allotting 20% of their mark to effort.
That way, if students are not correcting the mistakes they have already made, they can be
penalized for “lack of effort”. This teacher reported that she teaches her students to use language
software and dictionaries so that they can edit their own work. If they do not apply these tools
then they can be penalized for “lack of effort”. Participants seemed to agree that there is
something missing between FLS 2581 and FLS 3581 and that they cannot prepare students for
FLS 3581 unless they can mark students’ grammar in FLS 2581. One participant suggested that
it might be useful for students to take a regular FLS class to consolidate oral and written
production before taking FLS 3581.
Course objectives need to be clearer: When student survey respondents were asked for
open-ended feedback on adjunct language courses, several commented about there being a
lack of organization, structure, and consistency in these classes. Some students commented that
expectations were not clear and the course did not follow the course description. Others
complained about there being little opportunity to practice spoken French.
One student noted:
…improvements need to be made concerning the FLS 2581 and 3581 classes. They
need more structure, and a structure that is followed by professors. I think the
structure of these courses should be fairly standardized, so that students know that
their marks will always be divided between oral presentations, fiches de lectures,
exams etc no matter what class they take. I think these courses have great potential,
and would be very helpful if only they were more organized and the expectations of
the courses were clearer.
Participants from the administrator’s focus groups agreed that it is important for staff and
language teachers to make course objectives clear to students. One participant said that even in
recruitment, students should be told about the different levels of courses so that they will
understand that there are different levels with different objectives. It was also suggested that
more details should be put in the course syllabus; for example that 2581 does not focus on
productive skills. It was agreed that marketing is important. Students need to know that CARTU
can help them with their writing but that their FLS 2581 language teachers are not expected to do
that.
Preferences voiced by students: Several students commented that they liked being able to
listen to recordings of lectures at the Second Language Institute, and they liked being able to
18

discuss course content in French in a small group. Some students had specific suggestions that
would make the course more useful to them: “… give out a list of key terms and a general
summary of what will be learned in the French lectures, sometime before the French lecture,
so that we can get the most out of them.”
One student commented:
FLS courses should be more like discussion groups in which everyone has a chance to
express themselves and become more comfortable speaking in French…. Written
expression should still be addressed, of course, but with less of an emphasis on
grammar and spelling and all of this, and more on our structure, vocabulary,
anglicisms, etc.
A student in the focus group suggested that the adjunct language courses be more studentcentered,
i.e. the students should determine what they need, what will help them with their
content course.
Members of the student focus group commented that there should be more levels of the adjunct
language courses and less of a range of abilities in each class. One student survey respondent
commented: “I also don’t think that students should be able to retake FLS 2581 if they get an A+
in the first class! Having such good students in the class ruins it for the rest of us.”
On the survey, one student suggested that some French immersion teachers should be
bilingual Anglophones: “I think that at least half of the teachers should be bilingual
Anglophones who can relate to Anglophones learning French in a way that Francophones can
not.”
Resources: One participant in the language teachers’ focus group mentioned that it is
important for multi-media equipment to be readily available for language teachers, especially at
the 2581 level. A member of the administrative focus group stated that availability of appropriate
rooms for teaching immersion courses is an issue. This participant stated that it would be nice to
have small rooms with multi-media equipment available in all buildings.
Small classes are beneficial: Many survey respondents commented that they preferred
when adjunct language class sizes were small. They felt like their individual learning needs
were being better met when there were fewer students in the class. One student commented
that she enjoyed the “small, interactive setting” and “had the chance to speak French in a
comfortable environment”. This student also appreciated the “sense of belonging” that developed
and noted that he/she had made some of his/her “best friends” in an adjunct language class.
These comments were echoed in the focus group discussion and in other comments written by
survey respondents.
All of the participants in the language teachers’ focus group agreed that they prefer smaller
groups (ideally 5-7 students). With groups of this size, individual needs can more easily be met.
As well, smaller groups allow students to develop closer interpersonal relationships with each
other and provide support for each other in their learning. Several participants mentioned that
they would like to have a maximum of 8 students per class. Participants agreed that a class of 18,
19

for example, is too much. Large classes tend to include students that are at different levels and
have different needs. They agreed that this can make it frustrating for both instructor and student.
However, it is important to note that adjunct language courses have, on average, the smallest
number of students of any classes at the University of Ottawa, especially classes taken by firstand
second-year students, and that reducing the class sizes further would have important
financial repercussions.
Satisfaction with immersion content courses. The following themes emerged in the
data and will be described below: a) High level of satisfaction, and b) Content professors.
High level of satisfaction: As illustrated in Figure 6, most survey respondents reported
that they were satisfied or very satisfied with their immersion courses. Some respondents
commented that they appreciated it when course notes were available on-line, and when
professors were available to answer questions outside of class time. A student focus group
member said that the professors for the immersion courses that she took were excellent. They
were very engaging, used lots of visuals, and were available outside of class.
French immersion student focus group participants commented that they enjoy the sense of
community that develops in FI courses. They said that the FI students seem to stick together and
meet with each other even outside of class for study sessions. One down side mentioned was that
there is often little mixing of francophone students and FI students. One student suggested that
maybe some francophone students from their immersion courses could be invited to their adjunct
language courses.
Content professors: When survey respondents were asked for open-ended comments
about issues with which they were dissatisfied, some respondents complained that notes were
not being given, and that some professors were unavailable outside of class time. Some students
also noted that the grading was sometimes unfair or unclear.
There were also comments on the lack of consistency between content professors:
Teachers teaching discipline courses need to be aware that they have French
Immersion students in their classes and need to be prepared to make some minor
allowances for them. For example, this past semester, we were allowed to use a
French/English English/French dictionary on our midterm. I think that these type of
policies need to be set out by the French Immersion department so that each
immersion student is treated the same way and isn't at the mercy of their professors
who may or may not care that they are in French Immersion.
Students in the focus group agreed that if content professors gave more time to FI students to
finish assignments and tests in French that would help, and it would also help if they were
allowed to bring a dictionary to tests and exams.
Language teacher focus group participants agreed that much of the success of an immersion
course depends on the content professor. Participants noted that some content professors are
supportive and some are not. One participant stressed that it is very important that language
teachers meet with the content professor to introduce themselves and explain their job as a
20

French immersion teacher. It is helpful if the language teacher can receive the course outline and
text ahead of time, as well as PowerPoint slides. When language teachers are given these
resources, they are able to prepare more relevant lessons for their students. Giving the French
immersion students lecture notes or slides ahead of time is a good way to allow them to
concentrate on their comprehension skills. Content professors who are hired at the last minute or
who are teaching the course for the first time are not always able to meet the needs of their
French immersion students in this way.
Some language teachers’ focus group participants voiced frustration that some content professors
did not speak or write proper French. Some professors reportedly used a lot of “anglicisms” and
some made errors in spelling, grammar, and word usage. Language teachers were frustrated
because this set a poor example for the French immersion students.
Language teachers in the focus group reported that content professors can vary widely in terms
of their expectations of students. Some are willing to make allowances for French immersion
students by not penalizing grammatical errors when these students write their assignments in
French. However, other content professors maintain that they will penalize grammatical errors in
assignments, but concede that students may write their assignments in English because it is
University policy to allow assignments to be written in either official language. However, a focus
group participant noted that most of her students wanted to try to write assignments in French
because they were there to learn French. One focus group participant pointed out that courses
vary enormously regarding what the professor expects in terms of production. For example, in
first year psychology, all exams are multiple-choice and no production is required. This type of
course is perfect to coincide with FLS 2581 which focuses on comprehension. However, a course
like communications or anthropology might have small group discussions or written
assignments, making it difficult and less appropriate for students at the FLS 2581 level.
One language teacher in the focus group (who had also been a content professor) said that
sometimes professors do not even know that there are French immersion students in their class.
Everyone agreed that it is important that content professors be informed and educated about the
French immersion academic stream. Someone suggested a mandatory meeting. Another
participant said that it would be unrealistic to expect all content professors (from many different
departments) to attend such a meeting. Someone else suggested that an introductory letter would
be better. Other participants agreed, and also stressed the importance of speaking with the
content professor face-to-face and developing a good working relationship.
It was agreed in the administrators’ focus groups that having a competent content professor is
important for the success of a French immersion course. Ideally, the content professor should:
- understand the objectives of an immersion course
- be willing to collaborate with the language teacher
- have teaching experience and be a good pedagogue
- speak, pronounce and enunciate well
- be attentive to the particular needs of second language students and be prepared to respond to
these needs
- be able to instil confidence in the students and anticipate any challenges they might encounter.
21

It is also important to educate content professors about the French immersion academic stream in
general and on their role. It was suggested that a high quality glossy pamphlet be developed to
educate discipline professors.
One administrator explained that immersion courses are chosen many months ahead of time and
a specific course can be chosen for a variety of reasons; for example, to have a good distribution
of immersion courses at the first- and second- year levels, and in the fall and winter sessions.
Some content courses are not conducive to immersion; for example, some philosophy courses are
so abstract that students might have a hard time comprehending the materials in their mother
tongue let alone in a second language. And finally, a professor might not be assigned to teach a
course until the last minute, so it is sometimes impossible to determine whether the professor
will be competent or not at the time when the course is chosen as an immersion course. For all of
these reasons, choosing the best immersion courses with the best content professors is not an
easy task.
Satisfaction with S/NS marks. As noted above in the section concerning student marks,
according to archival data, 117 students requested S/NS marks in the Fall 2006 term, while 97
requested S/NS marks in the Winter 2007 term. The number of S/NS marks requested per student
ranged from 1-4. The average number of S/NS marks for students who made such a request was
1.38 for the Fall 2006 term and 1.39 for the Winter 2007 term.
According to comments from survey respondents, the ability to convert some of their numerical
grades into qualitative marks was very appealing to many students, as illustrated below by some
quotes: “I LOVED the program, particularly the S/NS option, it allowed me to take courses in
French for the first time.”, and “Thank goodness for S/NS grades!”.
Some respondents wanted the S/NS option expanded:
As a second year student in the first year of French immersion studies, I would benefit
from using the S/NS option one more year as I do not feel entirely confident yet in
taking courses without knowing this option exists.
I found that the qualitative mark option is great and that students should be allowed to
take more courses with qualitative mark option because it motivates them to study in
French without being worried of it affecting their mark.
Some respondents wanted the cut-off date for deciding whether to switch to a qualitative mark
extended.
I find that once I decide to use an S/NS, I get really lazy and don't try very hard in
the course. If we could decide on S/NS designation at the end of the year, there would
be a lot more incentive to keep trying in the course right up to and including the final
exam.
One thing I find difficult is that the cut-off date for deciding if I want to switch my
mark to S/NS sometimes arrives before I have had any work marked and handed back.
It would be useful if that date were pushed back (although it doesn't have to be pushed
back that far) so that I could get a better indication of whether or not I should convert
22

my mark.
I think that the option for the S/NS grade option should be given once the final grade
is obtained, rather than in the middle of the course. In some courses, the date to
change the mark comes before the midterm, so it's hard to gauge how you are doing in
the course. As well, this would encourage students to try their best in the courses, as
many (myself included) pay less attention when they know they only have to pass the
course.
Satisfaction with scholarships. The allocation of scholarship money to the French
immersion studies academic stream was also very appealing to students. However, some
respondents noted that they would like to see the scholarships being offered in all years of
study and the conditions being relaxed: “I certainly appreciate the scholarship”, “I think there
should be scholarships for future years as well, not just first year.”
I think that the scholarships themselves are one of the program's strengths, as they
really encourage people to consider the program and realize that U of 0 is a bilingual
university where we have the chance to take courses in either language.
I believe that for students who have won scholarships requiring French immersion
enrollment, and whose mother tongue is not French, they should be given a lower
average to attain in order to keep their scholarship.
It is important to note that French immersion students have the advantage of using S/NS marks
for courses taken in French, so it can be argued that they may more easily be able to renew their
Immersion scholarships. Also, French immersion scholarship recipients can obtain the equivalent
of their admission scholarship if their average falls between 8.0 and 8.5 (the average to renew
their French immersion scholarship). If, during the following year, they are able to raise their
average to 8.5, they can regain their French immersion scholarship, an option that is reserved
only for the French immersion scholarships.
Satisfaction with information sessions in September. 68.8% of survey respondents
reported that they had attended the French immersion information sessions in early September.
Of those who participated, most were satisfied or very satisfied. Members of the student focus
group agreed that the session was very reassuring. One participant stated: “…seeing a big group
of students in the same boat, made me feel reassured… It would have been nice to have a little
social event after though so that students could mingle and get to know each other more.”
A respondent who was dissatisfied explained by noting that there was “not enough information
given out about the program”. Another respondent wrote that “the session was good but students
should not be forced to go…” adding:
I had several questions throughout the semester that could not possibly have been
answered by the session but I asked Patrick Courcelles through e-mail and I received an
almost instant and extremely helpful response and I think for me personally that was
much more effective than being forced to come in for a session that I knew would not
assist me.
23

Those who did not participate in one of the French immersion information sessions had many
reasons for not attending. The most common reasons were that they “did not know it existed” or
“did not have the time”. Other reasons included “scheduling conflict”, and being “sick”. Some
respondents noted that they were not informed of this activity because they were not in first year
or they were not registered in French immersion until the winter session. One respondent stated
that it was “suggested by older students not to attend”.
One survey respondent noted: “The presentation in September was a bit late to be learning
about the program”. Another respondent commented:
An information session should be for people who need information not for people who
have already done the research beforehand and have things repeated to them. Even
better, there should be an info session for the FLS professors and as an introduction to
the course they should be able to answer the minor questions we have and provide us
with contact information to someone who can aid us in answering larger more
complicated questions.
Satisfaction with student resources and services. Other French immersion services
include the Immersion Mentoring Centre, the Academic Writing Help Center (CARTU), the
Student Resource Centre on the first floor of 600 King Edward Ave., conversation groups
organized by the Second Language Institute, and activities organized by the Club d’immersion.
Data are summarized below under the following themes: a) Use of French immersion services, b)
Satisfaction with French immersion services, and c) Reasons for not using services.
Use of French immersion services: As illustrated in Figure 7, with the exception of the
Immersion Mentoring Centre, most services were not used by the majority of students who
responded to the survey. A member of the administrative focus group and a member of the
student focus group both stated that the Immersion Mentoring Center is not very well used,
besides students going there for their one compulsory meeting with a student mentor. It was
suggested that more publicity needs to be undertaken. It was also noted that the mentoring center
is still in the process of developing their role/mandate based on student needs. Another member
of the administration noted that the Immersion Mentoring Centre is used as much as the other
Mentoring Centres that have been around for many years. As a point of comparison, when the
faculties of Arts and Social Sciences opened their mentoring centres a few years ago, they
received on average between 10 and 20 visitors during the whole year, even if they were
targeting a much larger group of students.
24

Club
d’immersion
conversation
groups
Student
Resource Centre
Yes
No
CARTU
Immersion
Mentoring Centre
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140
number of respondents
Figure 7: Use of French immersion services
Satisfaction with French immersion services. As can be seen in Figure 8, student survey
respondents who used these French immersion services were generally very satisfied or satisfied
with them.
Of the Student Resource Centre, one student commented: “I love this place! It is my little
heaven… there are lots of books and movies to improve my French. I join the conversation
groups when I can. I try to make the most of the Center.”
Another survey respondent noted: “The conversation groups were a really comfortable
environment to practice my spoken French.”
Club d’immersion
conversation
groups
Student Resource
Centre
CARTU
Very satisfied
Satisfied
Dissatisfied
Very dissatisfied
Immersion
Mentoring Centre
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
percentage of respondents
Figure 8: Satisfaction with French immersion services
25

One respondent noted: “I think that CARTU needs more funding and visibility. It could be an
enormous help to people writing their work in French.”
Of the very few students who were dissatisfied, some gave comments that might be useful for
improving services. One student who expressed dissatisfaction regarding the Mentoring Center
on the survey explained that there was “no set academic advisor”, they were given “different
advice from different people”, and it was “not comprehensive”. Another dissatisfied student
noted that “multimedia materials are not available in a great variety nor to be borrowed”. A
student who was dissatisfied with the Student Resource Centre noted: “the availability of
multimedia items is limited and they are not available to be borrowed, but merely to be used
within the centre.”
A student focus group participant said that the CARTU was helpful in correcting her written
assignments, but she would have liked some explanation as to why her grammar was incorrect so
that she wouldn’t make the same mistakes in the future. This participant also said that the
software “Antidote” was available at CARTU and is very helpful. This software corrects written
errors and gives explanations.
Reasons for not using services. As can be seen in Figure 9, the most common reason
reported for not using the services was that they “did not have the time”. Some students seemed
to be unclear as to the objectives of each of the different services. For example, one survey
respondent noted: “The Student Resource Center could be better advertised. While vaguely
aware of its existence, and the fact that it is in King Edward, I have very little idea of what it
is or how it differs from the CARTU.”
Several students noted that they “did not have the money” to participate in Immersion Club
activities. One student commented: “I also think that students in French immersion should get an
automatic membership to the French immersion club. I think it is an excellent way to meet
people who actually like speaking French, who are interested in French culture, and who may be
interested in practicing French. The French immersion club seems like a really cool way to
network within the immersion stream, and to find people to converse with in French. The only
reason why I didn’t join is that it cost $5, and I didn’t have any money.”
26

percentage of respondents
100%
80%
60%
40%
20%
0%
Immersion
Mentoring
Centre
CARTU
Student
Resource
Centre
conversation
groups
Club
d’immersion
Other (please specify)
I did not have the time
I did not think it would be useful
or helpful
I did not know it existed
Figure 9: Reasons for not using services.
Another reason for not visiting the Mentoring Centre included that it is “an intimidating
atmosphere”. Other reasons for not using CARTU included: “it was booked solid” or they left it
until the last minute so couldn’t get an appointment.
Participants in the student focus group commented that the Immersion Club needs to be
publicized more and the schedule of events needs to be sent out sooner.
Areas identified for improvement. Data are summarized under the following themes
below: a) Clarity of information about the FI academic stream, b) Concerns about course
selection and registration, and c) concerns about community and culture.
Clarity of information about the FI academic stream: Students, teachers and
administrators all identified aspects of the FI academic stream that needed to be explained more
clearly to various audiences. For example, as mentioned above in the section on adjunct language
courses, all stakeholders felt the need for more widely communicated information about this
component of the academic stream. In addition, some students felt that they needed better
information about the program as a whole and about specific requirements such as which courses
count as credits towards the French immersion distinction. Some students mentioned that they
would like more publicity about activities such as the trip to Lyon.
The following student comments exemplify the need for clarity:
Even though I am in French Immersion studies, I still don't really know what it is all
about. I think because it is still new to the university, it will take sometime for everyone to
understand its purpose and its potential advantages.
I am very confused by which courses count as credits to receive your immersion
diploma. I am confused as to why not all courses are considered.
27

Members of the administrative focus groups agreed that it was important to clarify objectives and
publicize the French immersion studies academic stream more.
Concerns about course selection and registration: Some students voiced concerns not
only about program requirements but also about logistical difficulties in selecting and registering
for the courses they wanted. Several students commented that they would like to see more
courses offered as immersion classes and have more sections available with different times to
choose from. Several students also commented that they would like to be able to take FLS and
immersion courses during the spring/summer semester. Other specific suggestions regarding
courses included:
It would be very nice if more French literature classes for Anglophones and
allophones were offered (known as FRE classes). This year I tried to take a couple
FRA courses and they are much too difficult for the average French immersion
student.
I think that immersion students should be given the option of replacing ENG 1100
and ENG 1120 with FRA 1710 and FRA 1720. I would have preferred to fulfill this
degree requirement in French, but could not without changing my status to being a
Francophone student and losing the immersion mention on my diploma and the
various other benefits that come with the program.
Several students mentioned that they would like to be able to register for French immersion
courses online. Some students living outside of Ottawa voiced frustration at having to come in
to the university to register or having to send information by fax.
Some students noted their frustrations about encountering faculty members who were not
knowledgeable about French immersion registration requirements. Some commented that having
one-to-one contact with a knowledge staff member was important to them:
The FLS courses are very confusing to become enrolled in, and there seem to be few people
who are able to help.
I felt lost until I came to the university and was directed to Patrick Courcelles. No
one else was able to help me and this was problematic in scheduling and choosing my
courses.
Concerns about community and culture: Some of the student comments addressed issues
of community and culture. Although there is an Immersion Club and a Student Mentoring
Centre, some students expressed a need for more contact with other students in the FI academic
stream. For example, a focus group participant recommended FaceBook as a way to connect with
other immersion students and become informed about events. A survey participant commented:
I think it would be great to have a better communication system for immersion students
to connect, such as an online forum. I really like that there are so many ways for students
to get themselves involved in immersion studies, according to their needs.
28

Other concerns raised by students related to the area of culture. Two students related their
experiences and challenges working in a francophone environment. One student suggested that
this issue be addressed directly:
A cultural component (such as a compulsory class or activity) should be added to the
immersion program to encourage not only bilingualism but also biculturalism.
Summary of Satisfaction with the French Immersion Studies Academic Stream
According to the data collected, it appears that there is generally a high level of satisfaction with
all aspects of the French immersion studies academic stream including courses, scholarships, the
S/NS option, and student resources and services. For the most part, courses were delivered as
intended; however, survey and focus group participants identified a need for course objectives to
be clearer. Students and language teachers agreed that small class sizes are beneficial, especially
for adjunct language courses, and that content professors need to be better informed about the
French immersion studies academic stream and their role in it. Some students voiced concerns
and made recommendations about course selection and registration, suggesting an increase in the
number of sections and variety of immersion courses offered, and on-line registration. Student
comments also point to the need for more training of staff and faculty to answer student
questions and meet their individual needs. Although levels of use of student services such as
CARTU, the Immersion Mentoring Center, the Immersion Club, and the Student Resource
Center were not particularly high, students who did use these services expressed high levels of
satisfaction with them. Students appreciated scholarships and having the S/NS option as
important benefits of being in the French immersion studies academic stream.
Summary of Question 2: Is the program being delivered as
intended? Why or why not?
For the most part, the French immersion academic stream is being delivered as intended. Most
participants are satisfied with most components of the French immersion academic stream.
However, there were indications that some improvements could be made in program delivery,
most notably in the adjunct language courses, training of French immersion language teachers,
and marketing of services.
The 247 students enrolled in the French immersion academic stream took an average of 4.25
courses taught in French during the 2006-2007 academic year, and were highly successful in
these courses.
29

Conclusions
This section will include a summary of the responses to the evaluation questions, identification
of study limitations, a list of recommendations with justifications, and ideas for future
evaluations of the French immersion academic stream.
Summary of Responses to Evaluation Questions
1. Is the program being delivered to the intended population? Why or why not?
The students who are currently enrolled in the French immersion studies academic stream
fit the description of the “intended population”. However, there are some students who
are in programs where French immersion is being offered and who fit the description of
the “intended population” but are not enrolled in French immersion studies. A small
sample of these students indicated that better marketing of the French immersion studies
academic stream would have increased their likelihood of applying.
2. Is the program being delivered as intended? Why or why not?
For the most part, the program is being delivered as intended. However, there were
indications that some improvements could be made in program delivery, most notably in
the adjunct language courses, training of French immersion language teachers, and
marketing of services.
Limitations
The extremely low response rate for student focus groups limits our ability to make any firm
conclusions on the basis of that data. However, some of the student focus group data was
consistent with findings from the on-line survey which had a much more respectable response
rate. Getting the same information from multiple sources increases our confidence in the validity
of the results.
Recommendations
Based on the data, the Program Evaluation Committee offers the following recommendations for
consideration:
• Maintain small class sizes for adjunct language courses. Language teachers and students
stressed that having a small class size for language courses was very important to them.
Language teachers stated that they could better meet individual student needs when class
sizes were small. Likewise, students commented that they felt that their needs were better
met when class sizes were small.
• Set clearer objectives for adjunct language courses. According to comments collected
from student surveys, many students are unclear about objectives for adjunct language
courses. In their focus group discussions, language teachers and administrators also
emphasized the need for course objectives to be made clearer.
30

• Provide information to content professors about the FI studies academic stream and
their role in it. Students and language teachers commented that content professors
sometimes fail to meet the needs of French immersion students because they are not
knowledgeable about the FI studies academic stream. Providing content professors with
information on the FI studies academic stream may aide these professors in better meeting
student needs.
• Provide more focused training for language teachers. Focus group data collected from
language teachers, and comments collected from student surveys indicated that language
teachers do not always deliver adjunct language courses as they were intended to be
delivered. For example, sometimes productive skills are taught and evaluated in FLS 2581.
More focused training on how to meet the specific objectives of FLS 2581 and FLS 3581
would be beneficial for language teachers.
• Publicize more widely services such as CARTU, the Immersion Mentoring Center, the
Immersion Club, and the Student Resource Center. Student survey data indicated that
many students do not make use of the special services that are available to them and that
some students are not aware of these services.
• Improve the publicity of the French immersion studies academic stream among current
University of Ottawa students who may be eligible. As was indicated by students who
participated in the focus group of non-registered students, better publicity of French
immersion studies could lead to more current University students registering in this academic
stream.
• Improve the quality of staff and faculty training to meet individual student needs.
Comments collected from student surveys indicated that there are few staff and faculty that
are knowledgeable enough to answer student questions about the French immersion studies
academic stream and assist them in course selection. This can be frustrating for students as
they enter the French immersion academic stream. Better training may help staff and faculty
to meet individual student needs.
• Allow for on-line registration for language courses. Several out-of-town students
commented that it was very frustrating for them to have to come in to the university or fax
information in order to complete their registration for the French immersion studies academic
stream. These students noted that on-line registration for language courses would be much
more convenient. Convenient registration for out-of-town students is important if the FI
academic stream is aiming to recruit candidates from throughout Canada and reinforce the
“Canada’s university” brand as noted in the “needs” section of the logic model (Appendix C).
• Provide consistent information in syllabuses for adjunct language courses. Data
collected from students, language teachers, and administrators indicated that there is
sometimes confusion over the goals and objectives for adjunct language courses. Having this
information presented in a consistent form in syllabuses would allow students and language
teachers to refer to this document when confusion arises.
31

• Define terms more clearly and encourage consistency of use. Data collected through focus
groups and surveys indicate that terms such as “immersion course” are not always used
consistently; miscommunication sometimes results from this. Having a glossary of terms
relating to the French immersion studies academic stream, distributing this to all
stakeholders, and encouraging consistent use of terms may lead to better communication.
Future Evaluations
As the French immersion academic stream moves into its second academic year, it will be
important to continue collecting data for use in future evaluations. The two evaluation questions
addressed in the current report will need to be answered again for the 2007-2008 academic year.
It is important to continue to determine 1) whether the program is being delivered to the intended
population and, 2) whether the program is being delivered as intended. The Program Evaluation
Committee should continue to monitor enrolment volume, collect archival information on
students, administer surveys, and run focus groups aimed at answering evaluation questions.
The methods used in the current evaluation can be improved on for future evaluations in order to
get more valid results. For example, running student focus group interviews at a more convenient
time of year for students, as well as providing better incentives to encourage student
participation, might increase response rates. Interviews with content professors would provide
valuable data towards answering question #2. As well, the Program Evaluation Committee
should review and revise the on-line survey for use in the 2007-2008 academic year.
Recommendations outlined in the current report should be used to identify areas to be monitored
and evaluated in the 2007-2008 academic year to determine whether any changes are being made
in how the French immersion academic stream is delivered.
During the 2007-2008 academic year, the Program Evaluation Committee should also start
collecting data aimed at addressing the other three evaluation questions: 3) Is program delivery
cost effective? 4) Is the program meeting its stated objectives? Is it sustainable? 5) To what
extent are patterns of program outcomes explained by program elements? Which program
components are most effective? As outlined in the evaluation framework (Appendix B) data
collection methods could include document/record reviews, and interviews with various
stakeholders.
It is recommended that the Steering Committee re-visit the evaluation framework (Appendix B)
and logic model (Appendix C) to make any changes deemed necessary considering the
information in the current report. For example, to have more consistency in language use, the
term “program” should be changed to “academic stream”. The title of the evaluation framework
document, should be changed to Evaluation Framework for the French Immersion Academic
Stream Evaluation. Evaluation Question #1, should read: Is the French Immersion Academic
Stream being delivered to the intended population? Why or why not? Question #2 should read: Is
the French Immersion Academic Stream being delivered as intended? Why or why not? Question
#3 should read: Is the French Immersion Academic Stream delivery cost-effective?
32

Steering Committee:
Appendix A: Steering Committee and Program Evaluation Committee
In February 2006, at the request of Sylvie Lauzon, Associate Vice-President (Academic),
the Immersion Evaluation Steering Committee was formed to give direction and oversee the
evaluation of the French immersion studies academic stream over its first 5 years. This steering
committee consisted of Sylvie Lauzon, Patrick Courcelles, Director of French immersion studies,
Bob Courchêne, Acting Director of the Second Language Institute (SLI), Amelia Hope, Head of
Testing Service at the SLI, Jennifer St. John, language teacher at the SLI, and Brad Cousins,
professor at the Faculty of Education and researcher at the Centre for Research on Educational
and Community Services. The committee met several times throughout the first half of 2006 to
develop the logic model for French immersion studies, as well as the evaluation framework that
was used to guide the work of the Program Evaluation Committee (PEC).
Program Evaluation Committee:
The Program Evaluation Committee (PEC) was struck in November 2006 to undertake work
outlined in the French Immersion Studies Evaluation framework (Immersion Evaluation Steering
Committee, August, 2006). This workgroup consisted of Wendy Ryan, an external evaluation
consultant and doctoral student at the Faculty of Education, Patrick Courcelles, the Director of
French immersion studies, Amelia Hope, the Head of Language Testing Services at the Second
Language Institute, and Catherine Buchanan, and Marlene Toews-Janzen, two Language
Teachers from the Second Language Institute. Professor Brad Cousins, an expert in program
evaluation, from the Faculty of Education and Centre for Research and Educational and
Community Services also performed a role as a consultant to the Program Evaluation
Committee.
33

Appendix B: Evaluation Framework for the French Immersion Program Evaluation (August 24, 2006)
Evaluation Questions and Issues Indicators Data Sources Data Collection
Methods
Is the program being delivered to the
intended population? Why or why not?
Is the program being delivered as
intended? Why or why not?
Is program delivery cost-effective?
Immersion student
profile and
characteristics
Enrolment volume.
Recruitment
Admission
Initiation
Program of studies
Graduation
Efficiencies
associate with:
-Recruitment
-Admission
-Initiation
-Testing costs
-Program of studies
-Graduation
-Program
management
-Class size/Studentteacher
ratio
Archival information
(student records)
Students
Language instructors
Immersion Instructors
Discip. Instructors
Mentors
Program managers
Archival information
(records)
Students
Archival Information
(records)
Program managers
Senior University
decision makers
Document/records
review
Questionnaire
Pre skills test
Interview
Focus group
Document/records
review
Class observation
Inst questionnaire
Prog Mgr Interviews
Mentor Interviews
Focus group with prog
mgrs & instructors
Document/records
review
Prog mgr interviews
Sen admin interviews
Bases for
Comparison
Program logic model
(needs, inputs)
Program logic model
(inputs, activities)
Immersion vs nonimmersion
Program logic model
Budget expenditures
34

Evaluation Questions and Issues Indicators Data Sources Data Collection
Methods
Is the program meeting its stated
objectives? Is it sustainable?
To what extent are patterns of program
outcomes explained by program
elements? Which program components
are most effective?
Institutional
-program growth
and presence
Student/clientele
-Course selection
patterns
-Course assignments
-Immersion club
attendance
-L2 competencies
-Confidence in L2
-Cultural
appreciation
-Transfer of L2
Process
-Recruitment
-Admission
-Initiation
-Program of studies
-Graduation
Outcome
-Course selection
patterns
-L2 competencies
-Confidence in L2
-Cultural appreciation
-Transfer of L2
Archival information
(records)
Students
Program managers
Mentors
Senior University
decision makers
Immersion teachers
Disciplinary teachers
Archival information
(records)
Students
Program managers
Mentors
Senior University
decision makers
Immersion admission
test
Instructor interviews
Instructor focus groups
Productive skills test
Student exit
questionnaire
Student focus groups
(longitudinal ?)
Prog mgr interviews
Mentor questionnaire
Senior Admin
interviews
L2 Certificate test or
exit test
Document/records
review
Prog mgr interviews
Sen admin interviews
Immersion admission
test
Productive skills test
Student exit
questionnaire
Student focus groups
Mentor questionnaire
Bases for
Comparison
Institutional
Program logic model
(outputs, outcomes)
Student/clientele
Program logic model
(outcomes)
35

Appendix C: Logic Model
University of Ottawa
- University central administration
- French immersion studies
- Second Language Institute, Faculty of Arts
- Faculties offering French immersion programs
Student in French immersion studies
- French immersion
- extended French
- core French
Potential French immersion students
- High school or CEGEP students in French immersion,
extended French or core French
- current uOttawa students originally from French immersion,
extended French or core French
NEEDS
Instrumental needs
- increase # of students in
courses taught in French
- reinforce the “Canada’s
university” brand
Integrative needs
- meet our mission of a
bilingual university
- play a leadership role in
promoting Canada’s official
languages
- advancement of the French
language outside of Québec
Instrumental needs
- maintain second language
skills while studying in
discipline of choice
- increase job opportunities
Integrative needs
- feed their love of French
language and culture
- become a better global
citizen
Human resources
- Program administrators
- Language teachers
- Professors
- Pedagogical administrators
- SLI support staff
- Faculty support staff
- Liaison officers
- Admissions officers
- Groups providing funding
- Student mentors
- Immersion Club
INPUTS
Financial resources
- uOttawa funding
- Provincial government funding
o BIUs for FLS courses and Second Language Certificate
o Action Plan on Official Languages
Physical resources
- Classroom space
- Office space
- Student service space (Immersion Club and Mentoring Centre)
- Computers, printers, office furnishings and supplies
Pedagogical resources
- Historical data and experience with immersion courses
Recruitment
- Recruitment
activities
- Scholarships
Admission
- Admission
- Immersion
Admission Test
- Potential future
students
- Confirmation of
admission
Initiation
- Course selection
- Welcome sessions
- Productive skills
testing
French immersion studies
- Immersion study plan
- Immersion courses with adjunct
language course, FLS courses,
FLS 3500
- Immersion Mentoring Centre
- Immersion Club
Graduation
- Number of graduates
- Number of immersion courses offered
- Number and variety of activities organized by the Immersion Club
- Number of meetings between mentors and immersion students
- Types of services offered at Immersion Mentoring Centre
- Number of language teachers (full-time and part-time)
- Amount of training given to language teachers
Short-term (1-2 years)
- Student satisfaction (with program
and immersion courses)
- Students’ linguistic gains
(productive and receptive skills)
- Level of appreciation of French
culture
- Students’ increased confidence level
Intermediate (2-5 years)
- Transferability of skills (able to function in
a French workplace, with friends and
family, etc.)
- Increased offering of courses taught in
French
- Increased quality of programs offered in
French
- Reseach projects, presentations and grants
generated
- Language teacher positions created
Long-term (5 years or more)
- Development of the level of
bilingualism in Ottawa-Gatineau and
in Canada
- Contributing to the appreciation of the
French and English cultures in Canada
36

Appendix D: Flow Chart
Recruitment activities
Scholarships
Potential future
students (FLS and
intensive French)
FAIL
Admission
Immersion Admission
Test
PASS
Confirmation of
admission
Course selection
Welcome sessions
Productive skills
testing
Immersion
courses with
adjunct language
course
Immersion Club
Immersion Mentoring Centre
Immersion study plan
FLS courses
Courses taught in
French
Legend
Recruitment
Admissions
Initiation
French immersion studies
Graduation
Graduation
37
Second Language
Certificate
(FLS3500)

Appendix E: Responses to Student Survey
Student number
Please provide your student number before beginning the survey.
Total Respondents 128
(skipped this question) 1
Part 1.Before arriving at the University of Ottawa
1. Do you have a francophone parent?
Response Percent Response Total
No 82.9% 107
Yes 17.1% 22
Total Respondents 129
(skipped this question) 0
2. Is your francophone parent your:
Response Percent Response Total
mother/stepmother 45.5% 10
father/stepfather 45.5% 10
both 9.1% 2
Total Respondents 22
(skipped this question) 107
3. Did you speak French at home?
Response Percent Response Total
No 89.1% 115
Yes 10.9% 14
Total Respondents 129
(skipped this question) 0
38

4. What percentage of the time did you speak French at home?
Response Percent Response Total
0 - 10% 0% 0
10 - 25% 21.4% 3
25 - 50% 21.4% 3
50 - 75 % 35.7% 5
75 - 100% 21.4% 3
Total Respondents 14
(skipped this question) 115
5. In which type(s) of French program(s) were you enrolled in
Elementary School (kindergarten to grade 8, or kindergarten to
Secondary II in Quebec)? (Please select ALL programs that apply)
Response
Percent
Response
Total
French Immersion (most of your classes taught in French) 59.7% 77
Extended French (French taught about half the school day or every other day) 12.4% 16
Core French (French taught as a second language, usually for 3 to 5 times a week) 23.3% 30
Francophone school (school designed for students whose mother tongue is French) 10.1% 13
No French in Elementary School 6.2% 8
Total Respondents 129
6. For each year of your Elementary School studies, please select the
French program you took:
French
immersion
Extended
Francophone
Core French
French school
No French in
this grade
Response
Total
Kindergarten 46% (55) 7% (8) 8% (9) 10% (12) 30% (36) 120
Grade 1 57% (68) 6% (7) 18% (21) 10% (12) 10% (12) 120
Grade 2 57% (68) 6% (7) 18% (22) 10% (12) 9% (11) 120
Grade 3 57% (68) 6% (7) 20% (24) 11% (13) 7% (8) 120
Grade 4 57% (68) 6% (7) 28% (33) 9% (11) 1% (1) 120
Grade 5 56% (67) 10% (12) 25% (30) 9% (11) 0% (0) 120
Grade 6 57% (68) 10% (12) 24% (29) 9% (11) 0% (0) 120
Grade 7 / Secondary I
in Québec
66% (79) 9% (11) 19% (23) 6% (7) 0% (0) 120
Grade 8 / Secondary
II in Québec
65% (78) 10% (12) 18% (22) 6% (7) 1% (1) 120
Total Respondents 120
39

7. In which type(s) of French program(s) were you enrolled in High
School (grades 9 to 12, or Secondary III to first year of CEGEP in
Quebec)? (please select ALL programs that apply)
Response
Percent
Response
Total
French Immersion (more than half of your classes taught in French) 56.2% 72
Extended French (less than half of your classes taught in French, but more than
just one course per year)
25% 32
Core French (French taught as a second language, usually one course per year) 23.4% 30
Francophone school (school designed for students whose mother tongue is
French)
2.3% 3
No French in High School 1.6% 2
Total Respondents 128
8. For each year of your High School studies, please select the French
program you took:
Grade 9 /
Secondary III
in Quebec
Grade 10 /
Secondary IV in
Quebec
Grade 11 /
Secondary V in
Quebec
Grade 12 / first
year of CEGEP
in Quebec
French
immersion
Extended
French
Core French
Francophone
school
No French or
Not
applicable
Response
Total
59% (74) 19% (24) 21% (27) 0% (0) 1% (1) 126
55% (69) 23% (29) 18% (23) 1% (1) 3% (4) 126
56% (71) 21% (27) 17% (22) 1% (1) 4% (5) 126
54% (68) 19% (24) 21% (27) 0% (0) 6% (7) 126
Total Respondents 126
Part 2. Other French-language experience
9. Did you ever participate in a French exchange program?
Response Percent Response Total
No 77.3% 99
Yes 22.7% 29
Total Respondents 128
(skipped this question) 1
40

10. In how many French exchange programs have you participated?
Response Percent Response Total
1 79.4% 27
2 17.6% 6
3 or more 2.9% 1
Total Respondents 34
(skipped this question) 95
11. At what age did you participate in your French exchange program?
Response Percent Response Total
Younger than 13 3.7% 1
13 3.7% 1
14 3.7% 1
15 25.9% 7
16 37% 10
17 22.2% 6
18 3.7% 1
19 or older 0% 0
Total Respondents 27
(skipped this question) 102
12. What was the length of your first French exchange program?
Response Percent Response Total
Less than a month 22.2% 6
1 - 2 months 25.9% 7
3 - 4 months 29.6% 8
5 - 6 months 3.7% 1
7 - 8 months 0% 0
9 - 10 months 11.1% 3
11 - 12 months 7.4% 2
Over a year 0% 0
Total Respondents 27
(skipped this question) 102
41

13. Where did your first French exchange program take place?
Response Percent Response Total
France 55.6% 15
Quebec 33.3% 9
Belgium 7.4% 2
Francophone parts of New Brunswick 3.7% 1
Switzerland 0% 0
Other (please specify) 0% 0
Total Respondents 27
(skipped this question) 102
14. At what age did you participate in your second French exchange
program?
Response Percent Response Total
Younger than 13 16.7% 1
13 16.7% 1
14 0% 0
15 16.7% 1
16 16.7% 1
17 16.7% 1
18 16.7% 1
19 0% 0
20 0% 0
Older than 20 0% 0
Total Respondents 6
(skipped this question) 123
15. What was the length of your second French exchange program?
Response Percent Response Total
Less than a month 16.7% 1
1 - 2 months 66.7% 4
3 - 4 months 0% 0
5 - 6 months 16.7% 1
7 - 8 months 0% 0
9 - 10 months 0% 0
11 - 12 months 0% 0
Over a year 0% 0
Total Respondents 6
(skipped this question) 123
42

16. Where did your second French exchange program take place?
Response Percent Response Total
Quebec 66.7% 4
France 33.3% 2
Francophone parts of New Brunswick 0% 0
Belgium 0% 0
Switzerland 0% 0
Other (please specify) 0% 0
Total Respondents 6
(skipped this question) 123
17. At what age did you participate in your third French exchange
program?
Response Percent Response Total
Younger than 13 0% 0
13 0% 0
14 0% 0
15 0% 0
16 33.3% 2
17 33.3% 2
18 16.7% 1
19 16.7% 1
20 0% 0
Older than 20 0% 0
Total Respondents 6
(skipped this question) 123
18. What was the length of your third French exchange program?
Response Percent Response Total
Less than a month 0% 0
1 - 2 months 66.7% 4
3 - 4 months 0% 0
5 - 6 months 16.7% 1
7 - 8 months 0% 0
9 - 10 months 16.7% 1
11 - 12 months 0% 0
Over a year 0% 0
Total Respondents 6
(skipped this question) 123
43

19. Where did your third French exchange program take place?
Response Percent Response Total
Quebec 50% 3
Francophone parts of NB 16.7% 1
France 16.7% 1
Switzerland 16.7% 1
Belgium 0% 0
Other (please specify) 0% 0
Total Respondents 6
(skipped this question) 123
20. Have you ever participated in one of the Canadian Federal
Government’s Bursary programs (for example, the Summer
Language Bursary Program or the Explore program) or any other
French summer program?
Response Percent Response Total
No 89.8% 115
Yes 10.2% 13
Total Respondents 128
(skipped this question) 1
21. In how many such programs have you participated?
Response Percent Response Total
1 78.6% 11
2 21.4% 3
3 0% 0
4 0% 0
5 or more 0% 0
Total Respondents 14
(skipped this question) 115
22. Have your ever had a job where you used French?
Response Percent Response Total
Yes 61.7% 79
No 38.3% 49
Total Respondents 128
(skipped this question) 1
44

23. In what kind of job do/did you use your French the most?
Total Respondents 79
(skipped this question) 50
24. What percentage of the time do/did you use French for this job?
Response Percent Response Total
0 - 10% 21.5% 17
10 - 25% 20.3% 16
25 - 50% 21.5% 17
50 - 75 % 19% 15
75 - 100% 17.7% 14
Total Respondents 79
(skipped this question) 50
25. Do you use French in daily life outside of work or classes?
Response Percent Response Total
Yes 51.6% 66
No 48.4% 62
Total Respondents 128
(skipped this question) 1
26. Where do you use French in daily life outside of work or classes?
(please select ALL that apply)
Response Percent Response Total
With friends 87.9% 58
With classmates 60.6% 40
With my family 25.8% 17
Other (please specify) 24.2% 16
With roommates 21.2% 14
Total Respondents 66
(skipped this question) 63
45

27. What percentage of the time do you use French outside of work or
classes?
Response Percent Response Total
0 - 10% 24.2% 16
10 - 25% 31.8% 21
25 - 50% 25.8% 17
50 - 75 % 15.2% 10
75 - 100% 3% 2
Total Respondents 66
(skipped this question) 63
28. Have you ever lived in a region where Francophones make up a large
portion of the population?
Response Percent Response Total
No 71.1% 91
Yes 28.9% 37
Total Respondents 128
(skipped this question) 1
29. In what region did you live where Francophones make up a large
portion of the population? (please select ALL locations that apply)
Response Percent
Response Total
Quebec 48.6% 18
Other (please specify) 27% 10
France 21.6% 8
Belgium 2.7% 1
Francophone parts of NB 2.7% 1
Western Africa 2.7% 1
Switzerland 0% 0
Northern Africa 0% 0
Middle East 0% 0
Total Respondents 37
(skipped this question) 92
46

30. If you selected more than one region above, please indicate the
region where you lived the longest.
Response Percent Response Total
France 33.3% 2
Other (please specify) 33.3% 2
Quebec 16.7% 1
Francophone parts of NB 16.7% 1
Belgium 0% 0
Switzerland 0% 0
Northern Africa 0% 0
Western Africa 0% 0
Middle East 0% 0
Total Respondents 6
(skipped this question) 123
31. How long did you live in a region where Francophones make up a
large portion of the population? (If you have lived in more than one
region, please indicate the total amount of time spent in all regions
combined.)
Response Percent Response Total
Less than one year 40.5% 15
1 - 3 years 16.2% 6
3 - 5 years 10.8% 4
more than 5 years 32.4% 12
Total Respondents 37
(skipped this question) 92
Part 3. Other languages
32. Do you speak any languages other than English or French?
Response Percent Response Total
No 57.8% 74
Yes 42.2% 54
Total Respondents 128
(skipped this question) 1
47

What other languages do you speak?
Total Respondents 56
(skipped this question) 73
Part 4. French immersion studies at the University of
Ottawa
33. What were your long term goals or reasons for registering in French
immersion studies? (please select ALL that apply)
Response
Percent
Response
Total
To improve my chances of getting a job in the future 89.8% 115
I would like to become bilingual because I am a Canadian 79.7% 102
I love learning French 59.4% 76
I am interested in French culture and language 58.6% 75
For graduate/professional school purposes 56.2% 72
To widen my circle of friends 20.3% 26
Other (please specify) 15.6% 20
Total Respondents 128
(skipped this question) 1
34. What were your short-term goals or reasons for registering in French
immersion studies? (please select ALL that apply)
Response
Percent
Response
Total
To improve my French language skills 94.5% 121
To be able to take courses in my field in French 62.5% 80
I received a scholarship for this program 46.1% 59
The S/NS marks (qualitative grades) option 33.6% 43
To get to know francophone students at the university 18% 23
Other (please specify 5.5% 7
Total Respondents 128
(skipped this question) 1
48

35. Which of these short-term goals do you think you have achieved as a
result of your French immersion studies so far? (please select all
that apply)
Response
Percent
Response
Total
I have improved my French language skills 80.5% 103
I am able to take courses in my field in French 74.2% 95
I have gotten to know French-speaking students
here at the university 39.8% 51
Other (please specify) 6.2% 8
Total Respondents 128
(skipped this question) 1
36. Describe your satisfaction with your courses in French at the
University of Ottawa. Rate your overall level of satisfaction with:
Very
satisfied
Satisfied Dissatisfied
Very
dissatisfied
I have
never
taken
this
type
of
course
Response
Average
(excluding
responses
of never
taken this
type of
course)
The FLS classes that accompany
immersion courses (adjunct) 11% (14) 45%
(58)
17% (22) 6% (8)
20%
(26)
2.24
Immersion courses (the discipline
component, for example, Political
Science, Psychology) 32% (41) 48%
(61)
2% (3) 1% (1)
17%
(22)
1.66
Regular FLS courses (regular French
language courses, not including
immersion courses)
Regular discipline courses (for
example, Political Science,
Psychology) taught in French, without
an adjunct FLS course attached
9% (12) 30% (38) 7% (9) 2% (2)
52%
(67)
2.02
27% (34)
40%
(51)
2% (2) 2% (2)
30%
(39)
1.69
Total Respondents 128
37. If you were dissatisfied with ANY of the types of courses mentioned
above, please explain briefly:
Total Respondents 49
(skipped this question) 80
49

38. In the course of your studies in French immersion at the University
of Ottawa, have you visited the Centre de mentorat en immersion
(Immersion Mentoring Centre)?
Response Percent Response Total
Yes 63.3% 81
No 36.7% 47
Total Respondents 128
(skipped this question) 1
39. How many times have you visited the Centre de mentorat en
immersion (Immersion Mentoring Centre)?
Response Percent Response Total
1 45.8% 38
2 25.3% 21
3 13.3% 11
4 6% 5
5 1.2% 1
6 2.4% 2
7 1.2% 1
8 0% 0
9 0% 0
10 or more 4.8% 4
Total Respondents 83
(skipped this question) 46
40. Rate your overall level of satisfaction with the Centre de mentorat en
immersion (Immersion Mentoring Centre):
Response Percent Response Total
Very satisfied 37.8% 31
Satisfied 59.8% 49
Dissatisfied 2.4% 2
Very dissatisfied 0% 0
Total Respondents 82
(skipped this question) 47
41. Please briefly explain why you are dissatisfied with the Centre de
mentorat en immersion (Immersion Mentoring Centre):
Total Respondents 3
(skipped this question) 126
50

42. Why have you NOT visited the Immersion Mentoring Centre (Centre
de mentorat en immersion)? (please select ALL that apply)
Response Percent
Response Total
I did not have the time 50% 23
I did not think it would be useful or helpful 43.5% 20
Other (please specify) 23.9% 11
I did not know it existed 10.9% 5
Total Respondents 46
(skipped this question) 83
43. Have you made use of the CARTU (the Academic Writing Help
Centre)?
Response Percent Response Total
No 79.7% 102
Yes 20.3% 26
Total Respondents 128
(skipped this question) 1
44. How many times have you made use of the CARTU (Academic
Writing Help Centre)?
Response Percent Response Total
1 25.9% 7
2 22.2% 6
3 29.6% 8
4 7.4% 2
5 3.7% 1
6 0% 0
7 0% 0
8 3.7% 1
9 0% 0
10 or more 7.4% 2
Total Respondents 27
(skipped this question) 102
51

45. Rate your overall level of satisfaction with the CARTU (Academic
Writing Help Centre):
Response Percent Response Total
Very satisfied 33.3% 9
Satisfied 63% 17
Dissatisfied 3.7% 1
Very dissatisfied 0% 0
Total Respondents 27
(skipped this question) 102
46. Please briefly explain why you are dissatisfied with the CARTU
(Academic Writing Help Centre):
Total Respondents 2
(skipped this question) 127
47. Why have you NOT made use of the CARTU (Academic Writing Help
Centre)? (please select ALL that apply)
Response Percent
Response Total
I did not have the time 53% 53
Other (please specify) 25% 25
I did not think it would be useful or helpful 24% 24
I did not know it existed 19% 19
Total Respondents 100
(skipped this question) 29
48. Have you used the Student Resource Centre on the first floor of 600
King Edward Ave?
Response Percent Response Total
No 60.2% 77
Yes 39.8% 51
Total Respondents 128
(skipped this question) 1
52

49. How many times have you used the Student Resource Centre on
the first floor of 600 King Edward Ave?
Response Percent Response Total
1 41.2% 21
2 17.6% 9
3 13.7% 7
4 7.8% 4
5 3.9% 2
6 2% 1
7 2% 1
8 2% 1
9 0% 0
10 or more 9.8% 5
Total Respondents 51
(skipped this question) 78
50. Rate your overall level of satisfaction with the Student Resource
Centre:
Response Percent Response Total
Very satisfied 33.3% 17
Satisfied 64.7% 33
Dissatisfied 2% 1
Very dissatisfied 0% 0
Total Respondents 51
(skipped this question) 78
51. Please briefly explain why you are dissatisfied with the Student
Resource Centre:
Total Respondents 1
(skipped this question) 128
53

52. Why have you NOT used the Student Resource Centre on the first
floor of 600 King Edward Avenue? (please select ALL that apply)
Response Percent
Response Total
I did not know it existed 48.1% 37
I did not have the time 26% 20
I did not think it would be useful or helpful 22.1% 17
Other (please specify) 14.3% 11
Total Respondents 77
(skipped this question) 52
53. Have you participated in the conversation groups organized by the
Second Language Institute?
Response Percent Response Total
No 91.4% 117
Yes 8.6% 11
Total Respondents 128
(skipped this question) 1
54. How many times have you participated in the conversation groups
organized by the Second Language Institute?
Response Percent Response Total
1 27.3% 3
2 9.1% 1
3 18.2% 2
4 9.1% 1
5 18.2% 2
6 0% 0
7 0% 0
8 0% 0
9 0% 0
10 or more 18.2% 2
Total Respondents 11
(skipped this question) 118
54

55. Rate your overall level of satisfaction with these conversation
groups:
Response Percent Response Total
Very satisfied 45.5% 5
Satisfied 45.5% 5
Dissatisfied 9.1% 1
Very dissatisfied 0% 0
Total Respondents 11
(skipped this question) 118
56. Please briefly explain why you are dissatisfied with these
conversation groups:
Total Respondents 1
(skipped this question) 128
57. Why have you NOT participated in the conversation groups
organized by the Second Language Institute? (please select ALL that
apply)
Response Percent Response Total
I did not have the time 59.5% 69
I did not know it existed 25% 29
I did not think it would be useful or helpful 20.7% 24
Other (please specify) 16.4% 19
Total Respondents 116
(skipped this question) 13
58. Have you participated in activities organized by the Club
d’immersion?
Response Percent Response Total
No 80.5% 103
Yes 19.5% 25
Total Respondents 128
(skipped this question) 1
55

59. How often have you participated in activities organized by the Club
d’immersion?
Response Percent Response Total
1 32% 8
2 16% 4
3 16% 4
4 0% 0
5 16% 4
6 4% 1
7 4% 1
8 0% 0
9 0% 0
10 or more 12% 3
Total Respondents 25
(skipped this question) 104
60. Rate your overall level of satisfaction with the activities organized
by the Club d’immersion:
Response Percent Response Total
Very satisfied 52% 13
Satisfied 44% 11
Dissatisfied 4% 1
Very dissatisfied 0% 0
Total Respondents 25
(skipped this question) 104
61. Please briefly explain why you are dissatisfied with the activities
organized by the Club d’immersion:
Total Respondents 1
(skipped this question) 128
62. Why have you NOT participated in the activities organized by the
Club d’immersion? (please select ALL that apply)
Response Percent Response Total
I did not have the time 72.8% 75
Other (please specify) 21.4% 22
I did not know it existed 11.7% 12
I did not think it would be useful or helpful 9.7% 10
Total Respondents 103
(skipped this question) 26
56

63. Did you participate in one of the French immersion information
sessions in early September, during university 101 week (welcome
week / frosh week)?
Response Percent Response Total
Yes 68.8% 88
No 31.2% 40
Total Respondents 128
(skipped this question) 1
64. Rate your level of satisfaction with the French immersion
information sessions during university 101 week:
Response Percent Response Total
Very satisfied 30.7% 27
Satisfied 67% 59
Dissatisfied 2.3% 2
Very dissatisfied 0% 0
Total Respondents 88
(skipped this question) 41
65. Please briefly explain why you are dissatisfied with the French
immersion information sessions:
Total Respondents 2
(skipped this question) 127
66. Why did you NOT participate in one of the French immersion
information sessions offered during university 101 week? (please
select ALL that apply)
Response Percent Response Total
Other (please specify) 40% 16
I did not know it existed 37.5% 15
I did not have the time 27.5% 11
I did not think it would be useful or helpful 10% 4
Total Respondents 40
(skipped this question) 89
57

67. You indicated that one of your reasons for registering in French
immersion studies was to improve your chances of getting a job in
the future. In what types of jobs requiring bilingualism are you
specifically interested? (please select ALL that apply)
Response Percent Response Total
International organizations 63.5% 73
Public servant 40.9% 47
Politician 34.8% 40
French/immersion teacher 30.4% 35
Other (please specify) 29.6% 34
Military 6.1% 7
RCMP 2.6% 3
Total Respondents 115
(skipped this question) 14
68. Do you have any final comments about French immersion studies at
the University of Ottawa, about your experience in this academic
stream or about any changes or improvement that could be made?
Total Respondents 73
(skipped this question) 56
58

Appendix F: Focus Group Moderator’s Guide: Enrolled Students
Intro:
Thank you for volunteering to participate in this focus group. The purpose of the
discussion group is to get your opinion on the French immersion studies academic stream
at the University of Ottawa. This is very important because it is the University of
Ottawa’s first year offering a French immersion studies academic stream and the
administrators would like to know if the program is being delivered as intended, and why
or why not.
The session is being tape recorded so that I can refer back to the discussion when I write
my report. All participant identities will be withheld from any reports. No one other than
the immediate research team will listen to the tape. If anyone feels uncomfortable being
recorded please say so now and, of course, you are free to leave with no negative
consequences. Because you are being tape recorded, I need you to speak in a loud and
clear voice. It is also important that only one person speak at a time and so I will try to
maintain a speaker list as we go.
In order to facilitate an effective session, please observe the following:
• Provide honest responses;
• Speak up and voice your opinion (particularly if you disagree with someone)
• Because we have limited time, I may need to stop you and re-direct our discussion
at times if we are getting off track
I will also be taking some notes during the discussion to help me keep track of the main
points that come up in the discussion.
Any questions before we begin?
Warm-up:
Why did you decide to enroll in the French immersion studies academic stream?
Questions focusing on their satisfaction/dissatisfaction:
1. How’s it going in your French immersion studies academic stream? What do you
like/dislike about it?
2. What could make the French immersion studies academic stream better for you?
3. What do you like/dislike about your FLS classes that are attached to the
immersion courses?
4. What do you like/dislike about the discipline component (e.g. psychology,
political science) of the immersion courses?
5. What do you like/dislike about your regular FLS courses (those that are not
immersion courses)?
6. What do you like/dislike about your regular discipline courses (e.g. psychology,
political science) taught in French without a supporting FLS course attached?
7. How do you like the Immersion Mentoring Centre? (If some have not used this
service, ask: What would make this more attractive to you?)
8. How do you like the Academic Writing Help Centre? (If some have not used this
service, ask: What would make this more attractive to you?)
59

9. How do you like the Student Resource Centre on the first floor of 600 King
Edward? (If some have not used this service, ask: What would make this more
attractive to you?)
10. How do you like the activities organized by the Immersion Club? (If some have
not used this service, ask: What would make this more attractive to you?)
11. How did you like the French immersion information sessions organized in
September? (If some did not attend these, ask: What would have made these
sessions more appealing to you?)
12. Is there anything else that you like/dislike about French immersion studies that
we haven’t talked about?
Wrap-up:
Summarize major points.
Member check:
How many of you felt that …………..?
Closing statement:
Thank you very much for participating.
60

Appendix G: Focus Group Moderator’s Guide: Students who are not Enrolled
in French Immersion
Intro:
Thank you for volunteering to participate in this focus group. The purpose of the
discussion group is to get your opinion on the French immersion studies academic stream
at the University of Ottawa. This is very important because it is the University of
Ottawa’s first year offering a French immersion studies academic stream and the
administrators would like to know if the program is being delivered to the intended
population, and why or why not.
The session is being tape recorded so that I can refer back to the discussion when I write
my report. All participant identities will be withheld from any reports. No one other than
the immediate research team will listen to the tape. If anyone feels uncomfortable being
recorded please say so now and, of course, you are free to leave with no negative
consequences. Because you are being tape recorded, I need you to speak in a loud and
clear voice. It is also important that only one person speak at a time and so I will try to
maintain a speaker list as we go.
In order to facilitate an effective session, please observe the following:
• Provide honest responses;
• Speak up and voice your opinion (particularly if you disagree with someone)
• Because we have limited time, I may need to stop you and re-direct our discussion
at times if we are getting off track
I will also be taking some notes during the discussion to help me keep track of the main
points that come up in the discussion.
Any questions before we begin?
Warm-up:
What do you know about the French immersion studies academic stream at the
University of Ottawa?
Where did you hear about it? How did you learn this?
Questions focusing on why they are not enrolled:
1. Why did you choose not to enroll in the French immersion studies academic
stream? If that were different, would you have applied/enrolled?
*Present info to the group on the French immersion studies academic stream
Questions focusing on what they like/dislike about the program as outlined:
2. Is there anything that I’ve presented that you didn’t know? Would you have more
seriously considered the French immersion studies academic stream if you had
known this? How could we better get the word out to students on this?
3. What are some things that you dislike about the French immersion studies
academic stream as I’ve described it? Would you have more seriously considered
61

applying for or enrolling in the French immersion studies academic stream if this
was different?
Wrap-up:
Summarize major points.
Member check:
How many of you felt that …………..?
Closing statement:
Thank you very much for participating.
62

Appendix H: Focus Group Moderator’s Guide: Language Teachers
Intro:
Thank you for volunteering to participate in this focus group. The purpose of the
discussion group is to get your opinion on the French immersion studies academic stream
at the University of Ottawa. This is very important because it is the University of
Ottawa’s first year offering a French immersion studies academic stream and the
administrators would like to know if the program is being delivered as intended, and why
or why not.
The session is being tape recorded so that I can refer back to the discussion when I write
my report. All participant identities will be withheld from any reports. No one other than
the immediate research team will listen to the tape. If anyone feels uncomfortable being
recorded please say so now and, of course, you are free to leave with no negative
consequences. Because you are being tape recorded, I need you to speak in a loud and
clear voice. It is also important that only one person speak at a time and so I will try to
maintain a speaker list as we go.
In order to facilitate an effective session, please observe the following:
• Provide honest responses;
• Speak up and voice your opinion (particularly if you disagree with someone)
• Because we have limited time, I may need to stop you and re-direct our discussion
at times if we are getting off track
I will also be taking some notes during the discussion to help me keep track of the main
points that come up in the discussion.
Any questions before we begin?
Warm-up:
How do you like teaching in the French immersion studies academic stream? What do
you like/dislike about it?
Questions focusing on their teaching experiences:
1. What do you like/dislike about teaching French immersion courses?
2. What are some challenges you face in teaching a French immersion course
compared to teaching a regular language course?
3. What’s important for you when you’re delivering a French immersion course?
*If there is enough time, present official info on the French immersion studies
academic stream
4. Do you feel that you have enough information on the other components of the
French immersion studies academic stream? What components would you like to
know more about and why?
5. What kinds of things make it difficult for you to deliver the immersion courses as
intended? What could be done to remedy this?
63

Wrap-up:
Summarize major points.
Member check:
How many of you felt that …………..?
Closing statement:
Thank you very much for participating.
64

Appendix I: Focus Group Moderator’s Guide: Administrators
Intro:
Thank you for volunteering to participate in this focus group. The purpose of the
discussion group is to get your opinion on the French immersion studies academic stream
at the University of Ottawa. This is very important because it is the University of
Ottawa’s first year offering a French immersion studies academic stream and the
administrators would like to know if the program is being delivered as intended, and why
or why not.
The session is being tape recorded so that I can refer back to the discussion when I write
my report. All participant identities will be withheld from any reports. No one other than
the immediate research team will listen to the tape. If anyone feels uncomfortable being
recorded please say so now and, of course, you are free to leave with no negative
consequences. Because you are being tape recorded, I need you to speak in a loud and
clear voice. It is also important that only one person speak at a time and so I will try to
maintain a speaker list as we go.
In order to facilitate an effective session, please observe the following:
• Provide honest responses;
• Speak up and voice your opinion (particularly if you disagree with someone)
• Because we have limited time, I may need to stop you and re-direct our discussion
at times if we are getting off track
I will also be taking some notes during the discussion to help me keep track of the main
points that come up in the discussion.
Any questions before we begin?
Warm-up:
I understand that you all have different roles in the French Immersion studies academic
stream. Could you please introduce yourself and tell me briefly what your role is?
Questions focusing on their knowledge of whether the program is being delivered as
intended:
1. I don’t know much about the French Immersion studies academic stream. Could
you please explain to me how the program is intended to be delivered?
2. In your opinion, is the program being delivered as intended? Please give
examples.
3. Why is this happening? What could be done to remedy this?
4. What are some challenges you think instructors might be facing in teaching
French immersion courses?
5. What kinds of things do you think are making it difficult to deliver the program as
intended? What could be done to remedy this?
Wrap-up:
Summarize major points.
65

Member check:
How many of you felt that …………..?
Closing statement:
Thank you very much for participating.
66