The DELF in Canada - · PDF filethe DELF junior except that it is administered in school...

The DELFin Canada:Stakeholder Perceptions

Larry Vandergrift, Ph.D.

Table of ContentsExecutive Summary ..........................................................................................................................1

1. Background on the DELF ......................................................................................................3

1.1. TheDELFtestanddiploma...................................................................................... 3

1.2. DELFandtheCEFR.................................................................................................. 4

2. State of research on the DELF ...............................................................................................6 2.1. ResearchontheDELFinEurope.............................................................................. 6

2.2. ResearchonDELFinCanada.................................................................................... 7

3. The current study ...............................................................................................................11 3.1. Motivationforthestudy..........................................................................................11

3.2. Methodology..............................................................................................................11

4. Findings ........................................................................................................................13 4.1. StudentperceptionsoftheDELF............................................................................13

4.1.1.DifficultyoftheDELF...................................................................................14

4.1.2.RelationshipoftheDELFtoclassroomlearning.......................................15

4.1.3.CulturalreferencesintheDELF...................................................................15

4.1.4.MotivationforwritingtheDELF..................................................................17

4.1.5.PreparationfortheDELF..............................................................................17

4.1.6.DELFandlearningFrench.............................................................................18

4.1.7.SummarydiscussionofstudentperceptionsoftheDELF........................19

4.2. TeacherperceptionsoftheDELF............................................................................20

4.2.1.DifficultyoftheDELF...................................................................................20

4.2.2.RelationshipofDELFtoteaching................................................................21

4.2.3.CulturalreferencesandtheDELF................................................................22


4.2.5.DELFandCEFR............................................................................................24

4.2.6.AdministrationandmarkingoftheDELF..................................................24

4.2.7.Additionalteachercomments........................................................................24

4.2.8.SummarydiscussionofteacherperceptionsoftheDELF.........................25

4.3.ParentperceptionsoftheDELF...............................................................................25


4.3.2.MotivationforwritingtheDELF..................................................................26

4.3.3.DELFandprovincial/territorialtesting.......................................................26

4.3.4.CostsassociatedwithDELFtesting.............................................................27

4.3.5.Additionalparentcomments..........................................................................27

4.3.6.SummarydiscussionofparentperceptionsoftheDELF..........................28

4.4. Perceptionsofuniversitystakeholders....................................................................28

4.4.1.FamiliaritywithDELF...................................................................................29

4.4.2.AcknowledgementofDELF/DALFcertification.......................................29

4.4.3.FamiliaritywithCEFR..................................................................................29

4.4.4.Additionalcommentsfromuniversityparticipants.....................................29

4.4.5.SummarydiscussionofuniversityperceptionsoftheDELF/DALF.......30

4.5.Perceptionsofprovincial/territorialministriesofeducation................................314.5.1.DELFasnationalproficiencytest.........................................................................31

4.5.2.RelationshipoftheDELFtoclassroomteaching........................................32

4.5.3.DELFandinternationalaccreditation..........................................................32

4.5.4.AdministrationoftheDELF.........................................................................33

4.5.5.FundingfortheDELF....................................................................................34

4.5.6.DELFandCEFR............................................................................................34

4.5.7.Summarydiscussionofprovincial/territorialministries ofeducationperceptionsoftheDELF........................................................35

5. Conclusions and recommendations ...................................................................................36 5.1. Conclusions................................................................................................................36

5.1.1.AppropriatemeasureofFSLproficiency.............................................................36

5.1.2.Teacherroleinpromotingcertification.........................................................365.1.3.Listeningtasks.......................................................................................................36

5.1.4.Unfamiliarculturalreferences........................................................................375.1.5.Positivewashbackonteaching...............................................................................37

5.1.6.Growingawarenessbyuniversities................................................................375.1.7.Divisionbetweenprovinces/territoriesonpolicypositions.............................37

5.1.8.Needformoreinformation...........................................................................37

5.2. Recommendations.....................................................................................................385.2.1.Developandimplementanactiveinformationcampaign...................................38

5.2.1.1.InformFSLteachersabouttheDELF...........................................38 5.2.1.2.Lobbyingofprovincial/territorialMinistriesofEducation....................38

5.2.1.3.Betterinformparents......................................................................38 5.2.1.4.InformuniversityFrenchdepartmentsandadmissionoffices.................39

5.2.2.SeekendorsementofCMEC.........................................................................39

5.2.3.OpenmoreDELFtestingcentres.................................................................39

5.2.4.Furtherresearch...............................................................................................40

5.2.4.1.Difficultyoflisteningtasks.............................................................40

5.2.4.2.Natureandextentofculturalinterference.....................................40

5.2.4.3.CostofDELFaspotentialbarrier..................................................40

5.2.4.4.DELFandprovincial/territorialFSLlearningoutcomes.............415.2.4.5.DELFpromotioninothercountries.................................................................41

Acknowledgements ........................................................................................................................42

References .........................................................................................................43

Liste des tableaux

Table 1RelationshipbetweenCEFRproficiencylevelsandDELF/DALFdiplomas............. 4

Table 2NumbersofCanadianstudentswhohavewritten(W)andpassed(P)theDELFScolairetestfrom2009-2011............................................................................................. 8

Table 3SummaryofprovincialgovernmentpolicypositionswithregardtotheDELFtestasaninternationallyrecognizedstandardforFSLproficiencyinCanada..........10

Table 4StudentperceptionsoflevelofdifficultyofDELFtasks..............................................15

Table 5StudentperceptionsofsimilaritybetweenclassroomlearningactivitiesandDELFtasks.................................................................................................................15

Table 6TeacherperceptionsoflevelofdifficultyofDELFtasks..............................................21

Table 7TeacherperceptionsofsimilaritybetweenclassroomlearningactivitiesandDELFtasks.................................................................................................................21

Liste des figures

Figure 1NumberofstudentparticipantsbylevelofDELF........................................................13

Figure 2StudentperceptionsoftheDELFasafairmeasureofFrench-languageproficiency..........................................................................................................................14

Figure 3Studentperceptionsofimpactofanyunfamiliarculturalreferencesontheirsuccess..................................................................................................................16

Figure 4 Perceptionsdesélèvesàl’égarddel’impactduDELFsurleurattitudefaceàl’apprentissagedufrançais.......................................................................................18

The DELF in Canada: Stakeholder Perceptions �

Executive SummaryTheDiplôme d’études de langue française (DELF)hasrecentlygainedattentioninCanadaforitspotentialasanationalFrench-languageproficiencytest.TherehasbeenmuchanecdotalevidenceaboutthebenefitsoftheDELF;however,thereisverylittleempiricalevidencefortheperceivedincentivesandrealadvantagesofthistest,noranyinvestigationofanypotentialbarrierstopar-ticipationandsuccessofCanadianstudents.

ThisstudydocumentsthecurrentstateofaffairswithregardtotheDELFScolaireinCanadaby1)gatheringinformationaboutexperienceswiththeDELFfromstudents,teachersandparentsfromanumberofschooljurisdictionsacrossCanada;2)determiningpolicypositionswithre-gardtotheDELFbyuniversityFrenchdepartments;French-languageuniversitiesandfaculties;MinistriesofEducationinCanada;and,3)discussingtheimplicationsofthefindingsforFSLproficiencytestinginCanada.

MethodologyStudents,parentsandteachersinjurisdictionsinvolvedintheApril2012sittingoftheDELFwereinvitedtoparticipate,eitherbyletterore-mail.Thosewhoacceptedtheinvitationtoparti-cipatewereprovidedwithanelectroniclinktotheappropriatequestionnaire.Inthecaseofuni-versityFrenchdepartmentsandministriesofeducation,appropriatecontactpeoplewereidenti-fiedandsentane-mailinvitationtoparticipate,alongwithanelectroniclinktotheappropriatequestionnaire.

Student perceptionsAhighpercentageofthestudentrespondents1)judgetheDELFtobeafairorveryfairmeasureofFSLproficiency(over94%);2)reportthatthetesthaseithersomeimpactorastrongimpacton theirattitude to learningFrench(over74%);and,3) recommendtheDELFtest tootherstudents(over93%).Studentcommentsmentionnotonlytheusualintrinsicmotivatorssuchasfuturejobprospects,travelandreward;theyalsohighlightmotivatorssuchaspersonalchallengeandaffirmationoftheirFSLproficiencyagainstanexternalbenchmark.

StudentswerealsoabletoprovideinsightintosomeofthechallengesoftheDELF.Overall,theydeemedreadingandwritingtaskstobethe leastdifficult.Listeningtasksweredeemedtobemostdifficult.WhenaskedaboutthedegreetowhichclassroomlearningactivitiesweresimilartoDELFtasks,thestudentsratedreadingandwritingtaskstobemostsimilarandlisteningasleastsimilar.Approximatelyone-halfoftherespondentsindicatedsomeculturalinterference,ofwhichalargemajoritydescribedthisinterferenceonlyas‘somewhat’.Studentscitedmanystrate-giesforovercominganyunknownreferences.

Teacher perceptionsSimilar to the students, a very high percentage of the teacher respondents (over 93%) judgetheDELFtobeafairandappropriatetoolformeasuringFrench-languageproficiency,deemaDELFcertificatetobehelpfulforfutureprospectsandwouldrecommendtheDELFtotheirstudents.

� Canadian Association of Immersion Teachers

Teachers also highlighted some challenges. They rated the DELF listening tasks as the mostdifficultcomparedtotheotherskilltaskswhichtheyratedaboutequalindifficulty.Withregardtoculturalreferences,ahigherpercentageoftheteachers(comparedtothestudents)indicatedthatthesereferencesmayhaveinterfered‘somewhat’withstudentsuccess.Overall,teachersjudgetheirclassroomactivitiestobesimilartotheDELFtasks.Onlylisteningactivitiesarerankedasdissimilaratanoteworthylevel.

Parent perceptionsAnoverwhelming94.5%oftheparentrespondentsrecommendedtheDELFandmanyelabo-ratedontheirresponsewithwrittencomments.Parentcommentsreiteratemanyofthesamebenefits of an internationally-recognized test/diploma, as cited by the teachers and students.Someparentsreportedneedingmoreinformation.

An importantelementof theparentquestionnairewas toexploreparentperspectiveson thecostoftheDELFandtherelationshipbetweenDELFandprovincialtesting.Onbothcounts,opinionsappeartobemixed.Clearly,parentsneedmoreinformationonthesequestionsbeforetheycanprovideamoreinformedopinion.

University perceptionsTheinformationprovidedbytheuniversityrespondentsshowedthatuniversitiesare justbe-ginningtobecomeawareoftheDELF(andtheCommonEuropeanFrameworkofReferenceforLanguages)andneedmoreinformationonthesetoolsandhowtorespondappropriatelytostudentsarrivingatuniversitywithDELFcertification.

Ministry of Education perceptionsTheresponsesoftheMOErepresentativesfromtheprovinces/territorieswhocompletedthequestionnaireindicateadividebetweenthosejurisdictionsthathavetakenapositivestancetotheDELFandthosewhoremainscepticalorresistant.TheformergrouphasdecidedtoworkwiththeDELFtocertifystudentFSLproficiencyusinganinternationallyrecognizedbench-mark,whereasthelattergroupismorefocusedonensuringthatprovincial/territorialFSLout-comeshavebeenmet.

ConclusionThefindingsofthisstudysuggestthattheDELFholdsagreatdealofpromiseasanappropriatemeasureofFSLproficiency;however,therearesomefactorsthatwillneedattentioninorderfortheDELFtorealizethatpotential.ThereportconcludeswithanumberofrecommendationstoadvanceuseoftheDELFasanationalFrench-languageproficiencytestinCanada.

TheDiplôme d’études de langue française (DELF)hasrecentlygainedattentioninCanadaforitspotentialasanationalFrench-languageproficiencytest.Inordertogainabetterunderstandingofthetestanditspotential,theCanadianAssociationofImmersionTeachers(CAIT)manda-tedastudyoftheperceptionsofvariousstakeholdersinCanadaonthebenefitsandbarrierstosuccessoftheDELFasanationalproficiencytest.ThisreportoffersacurrentunderstandingoftheDELFinCanadabypresentinganddiscussingthefindingsofthisstudyandoutliningrecommendationsonhowtomoveforward.

Canadian Association of Immersion Teachers The DELF in Canada: Stakeholder Perceptions �

�. Background on the DELF1.1. The DELF test and diplomaTheDELFis theofficialFrench-languagediplomaawardedbyFrance’sMinistryofNationalEducation.TheDELFisrecognizedin165countriesaroundtheworld;thatmakesitvaluableforcertifyingFrench-languageproficiencyonaninternationallevel.TheFrenchMinistryofNa-tionalEducationawardstheDELFdiplomaonthebasisofsuccessfulcompletionoftheDELFtest.Createdin1985,thisdiplomaisunderthepedagogicalsupervisionoftheCentre Internatio-nal d’Études Pédagogiques deSèvres(CIEP)whoadministersthetesteachyearfortheMinistryofNationalEducation.

TheDELF teststheabilityofstudentstouseFrenchinreal-lifesituations.Itassessesallfourlanguageskills:listening,speaking,readingandwriting.AlthoughinitiallyconceivedforuseinFrenchsecondorforeignlanguagecontexts,theDELFisalsoincreasinglyusedinFrancetoas-sessandmonitortheFrench-languagedevelopmentofimmigrantchildrenintheFrenchschoolsystem(Mous,2011).

DifferentversionsoftheDELFhavebeendevelopedtomeetawiderangeofneeds,suchasdif-ferentagesanddifferenttypesofFrench-languagelearnersaroundtheworld.TheDELFTous Publicsand theDELFJuniortargetadultsandadolescentsrespectively,whoarelearningFrenchinlanguagecentres,suchasanAllianceFrançaise,forexample.TheDELFScolaireisidenticaltotheDELFjuniorexceptthatitisadministeredinschoolsettings,inpartnershipwithlocaleduca-tionalauthorities.TheDELFPrimtargetsyoungchildrenandoffersdiplomasatbeginnerlevelsonly.ThetemplateoftheDELFtestsissimilar;however,thethemes,documentsandtasksofeachtestareappropriatetotheageandlifeexperienceofthetargetedlanguagelearner.Thedif-ferencebetweenthevariousversionsoftheDELFtestsliesinthethemesexplored,documentschosenandtypesoftasksperformed.Fortheveryadvancedlevels,thereistheDiplôme appro-fondi de langue française(DALF),whichismostlyusedinprofessionalandadvancededucationalcontexts.ItisonlyavailableinaTous Publicsversion.

DELFScolairetestingisofferedthreetimesperyear(November,AprilandJune)ataccreditedcentresaroundtheworld,ofwhich therearecurrently23 inCanada.Testingproceduresaremandated in order to ensure security of the test and credibility of the diploma (e.g., a givenversionofthetestataspecifictimeinagivencountrycannotbeusedagainatadifferenttimeandplace).Examinersandmarkersaretrainedbyauthorizedinstructorstoensureuniformstan-dardsofassessmentaroundtheworld,basedonevaluationgridsthatarecongruentwiththeconstructvalidityofthetest(Riba&Mavel,2008).Thevalidityandreliabilityoftestitemsarecarefullymonitored,ensuringthattheDELFcontinuestoberecognizedbytheAssociationofLanguageTestersinEurope(ALTE).

Basedonsuccessfultestresults,theFrenchMinistryofNationalEducationawardstheDELFdiploma.Eachofthefourlanguageskillstestedisworth25points,forapossibletotalof100


pointsforeachtest.Inordertosucceedandobtainthediploma,studentsmustobtainatleast50points,withaminimumof5/25foreachskill.TheDELFtesthasdifferentlevelsand, incontrasttoanotherwell-knownproficiencytestsuchastheOPI(OralProficiencyInterview),1studentsmustdecidebeforehand(withorwithout theguidanceof their instructor) the leveltheywishtochallenge.Studentsmaychoosetheentrylevel,buttheydonothavetostartatthebeginnerlevel.Theymaycontinuetochallengehigherlevelswhentheyfeelreadytodoso.FeestowritetheDELFrangefrom$70to$130,dependingonthelevel.Thecommissionchargedbythetestproducers(CIEP)amountsto15%ofthetotalfees,leaving85%ofthemoneywithinthelocaleconomyofthecountrywherethetestiswritten.DELFdiplomasarevalidforlife.

1.2. DELF and the CEFRIn2005,theDELFwasrestructuredtoalignitmorecloselywiththeCommonEuropeanFra-meworkofReferenceforLanguages(CEFR)(COE,2001).TheCEFRdefineslanguageprofi-ciencyalongsixincreasinglyadvancedgloballevelsoflanguageperformance(A1,A2,B1,B2,C1,C2),statedintermsofwhatthelanguagelearner‘cando’ateachlevel.TheCEFRwasdevelopedtoprovideacommonbasisfordefininglanguageproficiencyamongthemembercountriesoftheCouncilofEurope.Giventhewide-basedacceptanceoftheCEFRinEurope,theDELFdiplo-maswereharmonizedwiththelevelsoftheCEFRin2005,includingtheadditionofanA1leveltest(Dupoux,2004).TheDELFtestslanguageproficiencyattheAandBlevelsandtheDALFtestsFrench-languageproficiencyattheClevels.TherelationshipbetweenthesixlevelsoftheCEFRandtheDELF/DALFdiplomasisillustratedinTable1.

Table 1: Relationship between CEFR proficiency levels and DELF/DALF diplomas

CEFR levels DELF/DALF diplomasA1 Basic user Breakthrough DELF A1A2 Basic user Waystage DELF A2B1 Independent user Threshold DELF B1B2 Independent user Vantage DELF B2C1 Proficient user Effective operational DALF C1C2 Proficient user Mastery DALF C2

TheDELFtest,liketheCEFR,isgroundedinacommunicativeapproachtolanguagelearninganduse,morepreciselydefinedby theCEFRas‘uneapprocheactionnelle.’This‘actional’ ap-proachbaseslanguageteachinganduseontasksthatlanguagelearnersencounterindailylife,employment,oracademicsettings.Ittakesintoaccountthefullrangeofcompetencies(cogni-tive,psychological,andsocial)appliedbylearnersinthesecontexts(Piccardo,etal.,2012).

1 The OPI, administered by theAmerican Council on theTeaching of Foreign Languages, establishes thelevel of language proficiency by ‘probing’ for and verifying a proficiency level according to the ACTFLProficiency Guidelines (Liskin-Gasparro, 2003). In other words, instead of the student identifying alevel to be challenged, the assessor determines the student’s current level of (oral) language proficiency.


Giventhisorientation,theDELFassessesauthenticlanguageuse;thatis,theexamplacesstu-dentsincommunicativesituationsthatapproximatereal-lifelanguageuseasmuchaspossible.Inordertoassesscomprehension,forexample,studentsarerequiredtolistentoanansweringmachinemessagetofindaprecisepieceofinformation,orreadanumberofshortsummariesinordertochoosethebestbook,givencertaincriteriasuchasinterestsandageoftherecipient.Inorderforstudentstodemonstratetheirabilitytospeakandinteractwithaninterlocutor,theymaybeaskedtodoaroleplay(askforsomethingatalostandfoundoffice,forexample)orpre-sentanddefendapointofview,basedonanarticletheyread.Fororalproduction,studentsarealsorequiredtoadoanoralpresentation(monologue),forexample,describingwhichcountryonewouldliketovisitandwhy.Finally,forwrittenproduction,studentsmaybeaskedtowritealettertoaneditorbasedonanewspaperarticletheyread.Inshort,theDELFassessestheabilitytouselanguageinreal-lifecontexts,forreal-lifepurposes.


�. State of research on the DELF2.1. Research on the DELF in EuropeAreviewofthecurrentresearchliteratureinEuroperevealsverylittleempiricalresearchontheDELFtestitselfanditsusewithdifferentlanguagelearnerpopulations.Onabroadscale,theextantliteratureappearstofocusontheoverallcontentoftheDELF anditsvariousforms,mostlyinlightofthemodificationsmadetothetestin2005tobringitinlinewiththeCEFR(e.g., Jouette-Nagati,2009;Riba,Lepage,Chevallier-Wixler,2006)and its introduction intodifferentEuropeancountries(e.g.,Dupoux,2004;Rönneper,2008;Mistichelli&Salles,2007).Acloserexaminationofthisliteraturerevealssomethemesworthhighlighting:themotivationaldimension of DELF diplomas, the washback effect of the test, and the cultural assumptionsunderlyingthetest.

ArecurringthemeintheliteratureisthecapacityofaDELFdiplomatoenhancestudentmoti-vationtocontinuelanguagestudy.Althoughtheevidenceisonlyanecdotal,DELFdiplomasap-peartobolsterself-confidenceandfosteragreatersenseofaccomplishmentinstudentsbecausetheirlanguageachievementiscertifiedbyanexternaldiplomathathasinternationalcurrency.

GiventhataDELFdiplomacanbepresentedforpurposesofemploymentoruniversitystudiesinFrench,studentsaremotivatedtocontinuelearningFrench,for example, in Germany (e.g., Rönneper, 2008), Sweden (Premat & Simon,2010)andItaly(Mistichelli&Salles,2007).Furthermore,MistichelliandSalles(2007)suggestthatincreasedvisibilityandtransparencyintestingandcertifi-cationoflanguageproficiencythroughexternalevaluationtoolssuchasDELFfurtherenhancestudentmotivation.ThecertificationofFrench-languageprofi-

ciencybyaDELFdiplomawasalsonotedbyMous(2011)asamotivatingfactorforimmigrantstudents(andtheirfamilies)inFrance.

TheimpactoftheDELFonclassroomteachinghasalsobeennoted(e.g.,Jouette-Nagati,2009;Premat&Simon,2010;Riba&Mavel,2008).Thisphenomenon,oftenreferredtoaswashback,describestheimpactofatesttoaffectthecurriculum,teacherandlearneractionsandattitudes,resulting in behaviours that would not happen if it were not for the test (Alderson &Wall,1993).Positivewashback,forexample,occurswhenatestliketheDELF,whichrequiresstu-dentstoperformreal-lifelisteningorspeakingtasks,beginstoshapeclassroompedagogyandchangelearnerattitudestovaluepracticingreal-lifelanguagetasksintheclassroom.Thiswas-hbackeffectwasalsoalludedtobyRönneper(2008),inastudyoftheimpactofintroducingtheDELFandCEFRinGermany.Heobservedthefollowing:

• speakingabilitiesweregivengreaterprominenceanddevelopedmoresystematically;and,• teachersintroducedmorestimulatingauthenticdocumentsintotheirclassrooms.

Inshort,implementationoftheDELFinmanyEuropeanjurisdictionshascompelledteacherstoreorientandenrichtheirpedagogy.

.In short, implementation of the DELF in many European jurisdictions has compelled teachers to reorient and enrich their pedagogy.


TheDELFcanalsobringaboutchangeinattitudestotestinganddiplomas,aspointedoutbyPremat&Simon(2010)intheircasestudyoftheDELFinSweden.Agrowingacceptanceofthe CEFR in Europe and the concommitant need for certification for purposes of universitystudy,viaaDELFdiploma,isevenpromptingcountrieslikeSweden,withanoverallnon-testingculture,tomakechangestoclassroomteaching.

TheliteratureshowsthattheEuropeanexperiencewiththeDELFisverypositiveingeneral.Thereissomeconcernexpressedwithregardtoculturalbiasinthetest.Sinitsa,Berzkina,andBreen(2010),forexample,arguethatthetypeofanalyticalreadingandsummarizingrequiredtopreparefortheoralpresentationatadvancedlevelsisbiasedagainstRussianstudentswhogenerallypreparethesetypesoftasksathome,writeoutthefulltextoftheirpresentationandarepermittedtoreadpresentations.

Inanotherstudy,Boubnova(2010)describesherworkwithCIEPtoadapttheAll-Russian Olym-piade in FrenchtoconformmorecloselywiththeevaluationcriteriaofDELF.WhilethiswasdonetostrengthenoneoftheapprovedtypesoflanguagecertificationinRussia,itdemonstratesagrowingdesiretoadaptlocallyapprovedassessmenttoolstoawidelyacknowledgedEuropeanstandardforcertifyingFrench-languageproficiency.

Although DELF strives, in principle, to avoid cultural taboos in choice of task or document( Jouette-Nagati,2009),socioculturalcompetenceisnotassessedduetotheabsenceofappro-priatetools(Riba&Mavel,2008).

Finally,toensurerigouroftheDELFtest,CIEPcontinuestoevaluatetestitemstoensuretheirvalidityandreliability.AstudybyRibaandMavel(2008),moreempiricalinnature,discussessomeofthepsychometricsoftheDELFtestitemsbeforeapprovalfortheitembank.Thisstudyexplainstheitemanalysiscarriedouttoensureagoodfitwiththeconstructunderlyingthetest(internalreliabilitywithcronbachalphaofatleast.8)andtheRaschanalysisusedtodeterminethelevelofatestitemandensureagoodfitwiththatlevel.Theresearchersalsoreportonana-lyseswithregardtocontentvalidityandanypotentialbiasrelatedtosexoritemdifficulty.RibaandMavel(2008)concludethatreliabiltyandvalidityofthetestitemsareacceptable,buttheysuggestthatfurtherresearchisrequiredonthefacevalidity(thesubjectivejudgmentofthede-greetowhichatestreflectswhatitispurportedtoassess)oftheDELFwithtesttakersandtestadministrators.

2.2. Research on DELF in CanadaGrowinginterestinacommonnationalframeworkfordescribingandmeasuringlanguagepro-ficiencyacrossCanadaledtoaconcomitantsearchforavalid,reliablestandardizedtestwithin-ternationalcurrency,suchastheDELF.Thisdevelopmentcameintandemwithagreaterinter-estinanationalFSLproficiencytesttotrackprogresstowardnationalpolicygoals,suchasthecommitmentestablishedintheGovernmentofCanada’sActionPlantodoubletheproportionofsecondaryschoolstudentsgraduatingwithafunctional levelofproficiency intheirsecondofficiallanguagebytheyear2013(PCO,2003).CanadianParentsforFrench(CPF)haslongadvocatedfornationalbenchmarksandanationalproficiencytest.TheyarguethatanationalFSLproficiencytestwoulddothefollowing:


1) helpparentsandstudentsmakeinformedchoicesinFSLeducationdecisions;2) ensurethathighschoolgraduatesareawareoftheirabilitiesinFrenchandencouragethem

topursuepostsecondarystudiesinFrench;3) helppostsecondary institutionsdetermine theappropriateplacementof students infirst-

yearFrenchcourses;4) ensurethatpotentialemployersunderstandtheFrench-languageabilitiesofjobcandidates;

and,5) assistpostsecondaryinstitutionstodeterminewhichFSLprogramsmightmeritadvanced

standinginFrenchstudies(CPF,2012).Atthesametime,theEdmontonPublicSchoolBoard(EPSB)wasconductingacomprehensivereviewof itsFSLprograms.Arenewalprojectwas launched to increase studentenrolments,achievedistinguishedstudentresults,increasestudentcontactwithFrancophonecommunities,andformpartnershipswithagenciesinterestedinimprovingthelearningofFrench.Withthedual goals of 1) aligning program objectives with provincial, national and international stan-dards,and2)demonstratingFrench-languageproficiencyoutsideoftheclassroominreal-lifesituations,theEPSBwasthefirstCanadianschoolboardtousetheDELFScolaireinCanada.In2005,89studentswereawardedaDELFdiploma.

WorkonaproposaltoadopttheCEFRasaframeworkofreferenceforlanguagesinCanada(Vandergrift,2006)addedfurthermomentumtoexaminingtheDELFasanexternal,objectivetool formeasuringandcertifyingFrench languageproficiency.Given that theDELF is refer-

encedagainsttheCEFR,interestinthistestanddiplomahascontinuedtogrowacrossCanada.ThenumberofparticipatingschoolboardsincreaseseachyearandtheMinistryofEducationinNovaScotiahasformallyadoptedtheDELFasaprovincialFSLproficiencytest.

The number of Canadian students awarded a DELF diploma increases eachyear. Whereas 89 diplomas were awarded in 2005, 2920 students received

DELFdiplomasin2011(Harlaux&Georges,2012).AsillustratedinTable2,thenumberofdiplomasawardedoverthepastthreeyearscontinuestogrowexponentially.Thesuccessrateisveryhigh:over90%ofthestudentswhowritetheDELFtestaresuccessfulattheleveltheychoosetochallenge.

Table 2: Numbers of Canadian students who have written (W) and passed (P) the DELF Scolaire test from 2009 2011

A1 A2 B1 B2 TotalW P W P W P W P W P

2009 195 183 183 173 225 207 194 183 797 746 (93.6%)2010 336 321 625 604 412 399 721 649 2094 1973 (94.2%)2011 333 306 785 721 987 894 1074 999 3179 2920 (91.8%)Total 864 810 1593 1498 1624 1500 1989 1831 5997 5496 (92.9%)

.The success rate is very high: over 90% of the students who write the DELF test are successful at the level they choose to challenge.


VerylittlehasbeenwrittenabouttheDELF inCanada.Aspecial issueofLe Journal de l’im-mersion (ACPI,2010)consistsofmostlyinformativearticlesabouttheDELFforthejournal’sreadership(e.g.,Doell,2010).Thisissuealsoreportsonasmall-scaletrialoftheDELFinBritishColumbia.AgroupofGrade10FrenchimmersionstudentssucceededinpassingtheB1levelwithscoresrangingfrom67%to83%(Tang,2010).TestresultsconfirmedthatthesestudentswereperformingatB1, the level targetedforGrade10French immersion.Inthesame issue,Logie(2010)reportsthat,ofthemorethan300studentsinBritishColumbiawhoparticipatedinDELFtestingin2010,almostallpassedthelevelchallenged,withanoverallaverageof75%.LevelschallengedincludedA2,B1,andB2.ParticipantsincludedstudentsinFrenchimmersion(Grades6to12)andcoreFrench(Grades11and12),fromsixdifferentschoolboards.

ThemostcomprehensivestudiesontheDELFinCanadahavebeenconductedbytheOttawa-CarletonDistrictSchoolBoard(OCDSB)todetermine theappropriatenessof this testasaFLSproficiencymeasure.Inthefirststudy(OCDSB,2010),84Grade12studentswereinvitedtotaketheDELFtestandcompleteaquestionnaireabouttheirexperience.Thesevolunteers,assignedtoa levelbasedontheirFSLprogram, included18coreFrenchstudentswhochal-lengedtheA2level,22extendedFrenchstudentswhochallengedtheB1leveland45FrenchimmersionstudentswhochallengedtheB2level.AllstudentsweresuccessfulinobtainingtheDELFlevelchallengedand,furthermore,resultsfromthequestionnairesdemonstratedthatle-vel of confidence correlated significantly with test scores. Thirteen examiners also completedquestionnaires,commentingontherelationshipbetweentheDELFtesttasksandtheirteachingstrategiesandtasks.

Overall,bothstudentsandexaminerswerepositiveaboutthetest,althoughtheexaminersfeltthat the assigned level may have been too easy for some students. Examiners tended to rateDELFactivitiesasmoredifficult thanstudentratings.Students,however,perceived listeningactivitiestobemuchmoredifficultthantheexaminersdid.Basedontheresults,theresearchersobservedthatthestudentsmightbenefitfrommorespeakingandlisteningactivitiesinclass.

Afollow-upstudywasconductedtodetermineifthe2010studyresultscouldbemorebroadlygeneralizedtotheOCDSBFSLstudentpopulation(OCDSB,2011).Inthisstudy,arandomlyselectedgroupofGrade12FSLstudentswere invitedtoparticipate.Fromthe228returnedconsentforms,171studentstooktheDELF(approximately50%fromFrenchimmersionandtheother50%almostequallydividedbetweencoreandextendedFrench).Inthisstudy,studentschosetheleveloftheDELFtheywishedtochallengeand,asintheearlierstudy,completedaquestionnaireontheirexperience.Atotalof53examinersalsocompletedquestionnaires.Resultsshowedthat165students(96.5%)weresuccessfulontheDELFtestlevelchosen.Subsequentanalysesdeterminedthatstudentswhorespondedtothe invitationtoparticipatehadsignifi-cantlyhigherFrenchachievementmarksthanthosewhochosenottorespondtotheinvitation.

ManyofthefindingsofthefirststudywereconfirmedintermsofattitudestolearningFrench,relationshipbetweenself-confidenceandtestscores,andperceiveddifficultyofDELFactivities.Additionalfindingsrevealedthatmoststudents(94.7%)felttheyhadmadetherightchoicewithregardtolevel;two-thirdsfeltthattakingthetesthadbeenapositiveexperience;and93%ofthestudentsfeltthataDELFdiplomawouldhelptheminthefuture.Incontrasttothefirststudy,allexaminersnowfeltthattheDELFwasafairmeasureofGrade12Frenchproficiency,likely

�0 Canadian Association of Immersion Teachers

becausethechoiceoptionhadresultedinabetterfitbetweenactualstudentFSLproficiencyandDELFlevelchosen.TheresearchersconcludedthatbothstudiesprovideconvincingevidencefortheDELFasasuitableFrenchlanguageproficiencytestforOCDSBGrade12students.

Athirdstudy,buildingonchangesimplementedasaresultoftheearlierstudies,wascarriedoutinApril2012.GoalsofthisphaseofDELFresearch includedanexaminationof1)growingstudentinterestintheDELF;2)howtoencourageandfacilitatetheinclusionofagreaternum-berofstudents;and,3) thedegreetowhichmethodologicalchangesare feasible, sustainable,andwarrantedforfutureimplementationsoftheDELFinOCDSBschools(S.Pagan,personalcommunication,June22,2012).Resultsarenotyetavailabletothepublic.

Finally,inanefforttodetermineperceptionsofprovincialMinistriesofEducation,Manuard,Chelali,BergeronandLazaruk(2011)conductedaninformalinquiryintoprovincialpolicypo-sitionswithregardtoDELFasaninternationallyrecognizedstandardforFSLproficiencyinCanada. The written responses or reports by Ministries of Education across the country aresummarizedinTable3:

Table 3: Summary of provincial government policy positions with regard to the DELF test as an internationally recognized standard for FSL proficiency in Canada

Prov/Region Policy positionBC Students who successfully complete DELF can obtain provincial high school credits a

AB School jurisdictions have the freedom to make choices with regard to assessment of student language learning

SK No commitment to official recognition of DELFMB No plans to formally implement DELFON Administration of DELF is a board decisionQC Preference to develop and use assessment tools that reflect French language and culture in QuébecAtlantic

provinces

-Nova Scotia has an official provincial DELF-DALF examination centre;

-Prince Edward Island has initiated a DELF pilot project;

-Atlantic Canadian students who are successful in receiving a DELF diploma will receive ‘…provincial, regional, national and international recognition for their language competencies’ (Manuard, et al., 2011, p. 4)b

A NotclearwhetherthisisinlieuoftakingFSLcourses,howmanycreditscanbeobtainedandatwhichhighschoollevel(s);

b Notclearhowthiswillhappenatprovincial,regionalandnationallevels.

Althoughthisinquirywasinformal,thefindingsshowthatcurrentpolicypositionsacrossCanadawithregardtotheDELFarevaried.

Canadian Association of Immersion Teachers The DELF in Canada: Stakeholder Perceptions ��

�. The current study3.1. Motivation for the studyTheneedforacommonevaluationtoolforFSLproficiencyinCanadaandthemonumentaltaskofcreatingaseparateCanadiantoolledCAITtoproposeacloserexaminationoftheDELFSco-laireasapotentialnationalFSLproficiencymeasure.Therehasbeenmuchanecdotalevidenceoverthepastfewyears(see,forexample,ACPI[2010])aboutthebenefitsoftheDELF,itsim-pactonstudentmotivation,andconsequentchangesinattitudestoandretentionofstudentsinFSLprograms.However,thereisverylittleempiricalevidencefortheperceivedincentivesandrealadvantagesoftheDELFasanationalFSLproficiencytest.Neitherhastherebeenanyin-vestigationofanypotentialbarrierstoparticipationandsuccessofCanadianstudentsinDELFtesting.

Theobjectiveofthisstudy,therefore,istodocument,inmoreconcreteterms,thecurrentstateofaffairswithregardtotheDELFScolaireinCanada.2Morespecifically,thegoalsarethreefold:

1) togatherinformationaboutexperienceswiththeDELFfromstudents, teachersandparents invariousschool jurisdictionsacrossCanada;

2) todeterminepolicypositionswithregardtotheDELFbypo-tential stakeholders such as university French departments;French-languageuniversitiesandfaculties;MinistriesofEdu-cationinCanada;and,

3) toprovideastate-of-the-artunderstandingoftheDELFSco-laireinCanadathatsythesizesthecurrentliterature,presentsandreflectsontheempiricalevidencegathered,anddiscussesimplicationsofthefindingsforFSLproficiencytestinginCanada.

3.2. MethodologyThemethodologycomprisedfivesteps:1)asurveyofextantliteratureontheDELFinEuropeand in Canada; 2) designing questionnaires for parents, teachers and students; 3) requestingethicalapprovalandconsentfromparticipatingschoolboardsforpermissiontosolicitparticipa-tionbyparents,studentsandteachers;4)designingquestionnairesforuniversitiesandministriesofeducationregardingpolicypositionsrelatedtoDELF;5)piloting,revisionandadministrationofthequestionnaires;and,finally,6)analysisofquestionnaireresponses.

Asearchforrelevantliteraturewasconductedthroughakeywordsearchofthemostrelevantdatabanks(e.g.,PsychInfo,LinguisticsandLanguageBehaviourAbstracts)usingthekeywordsDELFandDALF.CIEPstaff(e.g.,SylvieLepage,BrunoMègre)andCanadianschoolboards

2 ThisstudywaslimitedtotheimpactoftheDELFScolaire sincethefocusisontheuseofDELFinschoolcontexts.

.The need for a common evaluation tool for FSL proficiency in Canada and the monu-mental task of creating a separate Canadian tool led CAIT to propose a closer exami-nation of the DELF Scolaire as a potential national FSL proficiency measure.

�� Canadian Association of Immersion Teachers

whohaveworkedwithDELFwerealsoconsultedforanyunpublishedresearchreportsavailabletothepublic.

Questionnairesweredesignedbasedonthemesof interestpertinent to thedifferentresearchpopulations:students,parents,andteachers.Thesethemesinclude:perceptionsoftestdifficulty,usefulnessofthetest/diploma,impactonteaching,relationshiptoschoolcurriculum,testpre-parationandchoiceoflevel.Questionnairesdesignedforuniversitiesandministriesofeducationfocusedonpolicyquestions related toacknowledgementanduseofDELFaccreditationandtesting.Thequestionnaireswerereviewedbyknowledgeablecolleaguestoensurequestioncom-pleteness,efficiencyandrelevancetostudyobjectives.

AlldraftquestionnaireswerepostedonSurveyMonkeyandpilotedforpurposesofclarityandtechnicalfunctionalitywithselectedmembersofthetargetpopulation.Eachquestionnairewasrevised,basedonpertinentfeedback.Allquestionnaires,exceptfortheparentandstudentques-tionnaire,wereavailable inEnglishand inFrench.Respondents couldchoose theirpreferredlanguageintheopeningwindowofthequestionnaire.

Researchethicsapplicationformswerecompletedforallpertinentschoolboardsinordertoob-taininformedconsentfromstudents,parentsandteacherstoparticipateinthestudy.Lettersofinvitationandconsentformsweretailoredtothespecificrequirementsofeachboard.

Students,parentsandteacherswereinvitedtoparticipate,eitherbyletterore-mail.Thosewhoacceptedtheinvitationtoparticipatewereprovidedwithanelectroniclinktotheappropriatequestionnaire.Inthecaseofuniversitiesandministriesofeducation,appropriatecontactpeoplewereidentifiedandsentane-mailinvitationtoparticipate,alongwithanelectroniclinktotheappropriate questionnaire.A consent form was posted in the opening window of each ques-tionnaire.AlllinkswereactivatedfordatacollectionatthebeginningoftheApril2012DELFtestingsessionandclosedattheendofMay2012.


�. FindingsThissectionwillreportthefindingsfromthedataprovidedbythedifferentparticipantgroups:students, teachers, parents, universities and provincial/territorial ministries of education. Re-sultswillbereportedinpercentagesandelucidatedbyparticipantcommentswhenpertinent.

4.1. Student perceptions of the DELFAtotalof117studentscompletedthequestionnaire.Ofthesestudents,most(47.8%)wereen-rolledinFrenchimmersionprograms.Another41.6%indicatedthattheywereenrolledinacoreFrenchprogramand4.4%indicatedextendedFrench.Withregardtolanguagespokenathome,70.8%reportedthattheyspokeEnglish,12.4%spokeFrenchoracombinationofFrenchandEnglishand,finally,16.8%reportedspeakinganotherlanguage.

Figure 1: Number of student participants by level of DELF taken

AscanbeseeninFigure1,mostoftheparticipatingstudentsreportedwritingtheA-leveltests:33.6%wroteA1and34.5%wroteA2.AsfortheBlevels,12.4%ofthetotalnumberofrespondentsreportedwritingB1and19.5%wroteB2.Overall,studentsappearedtobeconfidentabouttheirsuccessonthetest:34.5%indicatedthattheyfeltveryconfidentand58.2%confident.Onlyfourstudentsreportedthattheywerenotconfidentabouttheirsuccess,andfourotherswerenotsure.Formostofthestudentrespondents(70.6%)thiswasthefirsttimetheywroteaDELFtest;theremainderhadwrittenanearlierlevelofthetest.

Basedontheirexperience,respondentsbelievethattheDELFtestisafairmeasureofFrench-languageproficiency.AsillustratedinFigure2,50%deemedthetesttobeveryfair,44.5%con-sideredthetesttobefair.Onlyonestudentsuggestedthatthetestwasunfairandfiveotherswereunsure.


Figure 2: Student perceptions of the DELF as a fair measure of French-language proficiency

4.1.1. Difficulty of the DELFStudentresponsesrevealedaninterestingpatternwithregardtothedifficultylevelofthediffe-rentactivitiesinthetest(Table4).Overall,studentsdeemspeakingandlisteningtobethemostdifficultcomponentsof the test. In total,60.9%ofstudents indicatedthatspeakingactivitieswereeitherverydifficultordifficult,whereas59.1%ofthestudentsjudgedlisteningactivitiestobeeitherdifficultorverydifficult.Ontheotherhand,68.2%reportedthatreadingactivitieswerenotdifficultand70.9%foundwritingactivitiestobenotdifficult.

OfthestudentswhohadwrittenalowerleveloftheDELF,54.8%judgedthelevelsofthetesttobeequallychallenging,21.4%didnotagreeand23.8%wereuncertain.Thefollowingcommentsgivesomeinsightintoperceptionsbystudentsofincreasingchallenge:

• ‘Thelevelofdifficulty increasesasyouprogressthroughthetests.Therewasmoreonar-gumentationandexplanationontheB2thanontheB1.Therewaslesstimetowritetheanswerstothelisteningactivities,whichincreasedthedifficultyaswell.Theyareallchallen-ging,butsomeonecouldnotdoalloftheexamsandfindthemallequallychallengingasthelevelofdifficultyincreases’

• ‘myfirstDELFtestwasquiteeasyand thengotmoreandmorechallenging through theyears.ibelieveivedoneitthreetimes(?)andingradethreeihadnotroubleatallbutthisyearitwashardformetocomprehendmanythings.althoughididfantasticontheDELFtest,...butpleasedontchange!achallengeisgood!


Table 4: Student perceptions of level of difficulty of DELF tasks

Activity Very difficult Difficult Not difficultListening 23.6% 35.5% 40.9%Speaking 10.9% 50.0% 39.1%Reading 1.8% 30.0% 68.2%Writing 3.6% 25.5% 70.9%

4.1.2. Relationship of the DELF to classroom learning StudentswerealsoaskedtoassessthedegreetowhichtheDELFtasksweresimilartothelear-ningactivitiestheyexperienceintheirFSLclasses.AscanbeseeninTable5,studentsjudgedtheir classroom reading and writing activities to be most similar to the DELF tasks. In fact,49.5%ofthestudentsreportedthatreadingactivitieswereverysimilarand40.4%similar.Withregardtowriting,55.6%oftherespondingstudentsindicatedthatclassroomactivitieswereverysimilartoDELFwritingtasksand34.3%reportedtheyweresimilar.TheDELFreadingandwritingtasks,deemedtobeeasierthanthespeakingandlisteningtasks,werealsoratedasmoresimilartoregularFrenchclassroomlearningactivities.

ThecongruencebetweenclassroomactivitiesandtheDELFtasksforlisteningandspeakingwasnotasstrong.Withregardtolistening,42.2%ofthestudentsindicatedthatlearningactivitiesweresimilarand36.7%indicatedthatthesewereverysimilar.Asforspeaking,45%oftheres-pondentsstatedthatlearningactivitiesweresimilarand36.7%indicatedthatthesewereverysimilar.TheseresultsechostudentperceptionsofthedifficultyofDELFactivities.

Table 5: Student perceptions of similarity between classroom learning activities and DELF tasks

Activity Very similar Similar Not similarListening 36.7% 42.25 21.1%Speaking 36.7% 45.0% 10.1%Reading 49.5% 40.4% 10.1%Writing 55.6% 34.3% 10.2%

4.1.3. Cultural references in the DELFTheDELFisoftencriticizedforaEurocentricorientationthatmaymakeitunsuitablefortheCanadiancontext.ItisarguedthatsuccessratesmaybecompromisedbecauseCanadianstu-dentsdonothavetheculturalknowledgetounderstandsomeoftheoralandwrittentexts.Inordertotestthisclaim,studentswereaskedtospecifythedegreetowhichtheyperceivedthatanyunfamiliarculturalreferencesmayhaveinterferedwiththeirsuccess.AscanbeseeninFig-ure3,only9.1%ofrespondentsjudgedthatthesereferencesinterferedalotand42.7%judgedthatsuchreferencesmayhaveinterferedsomewhatwiththeirsuccess.30%thoughtthatculturalreferencesdidnotinterfereatalland18.2%ofrespondentswereuncertain.


Figure 3: Student perceptions of impact of any unfamiliar cultural references on their success

Studentswereasked,inanopen-endedquestion,howtheyovercamethedifficultyofunknownculturalreferences.Ananalysisoftheresponsesrevealedanoverwhelmingreferencetounknownwords(whichmayormaynothavebeencultural);however,therewereoccasionalreferencestoaccentandspeedofdelivery.Studentsdescribedanumberofstrategieswhichcanbebroadlygroupedundercategoriessuchas inferencing, interactive listening,andwordanalysis.Almostallstudentsdescribedsomeformofinferencing,asillustratedinthefollowingsampledescrip-tions:

• ‘Itrytorelateittosomethingweknowhereandthenusethatreferenceinthecontextofthestory’• ‘Usedbackgroundknowledgeandknownwordstofigureoutorguesstheword’ ‘relateittomyculture’• ‘ItriedtoimaginemyselflivinginFranceandthoughtaboutwhatIwoulddointhatsituation’• ‘Itriedtofocusingonthemainideasandreallyunderstandthequestionsbeingaskedandtriedtoignorethe

citiesorcustomstheyweretalkingaboutthatIwasnotfamiliarwith’

Fortheoralinterview,somestudentsalsodescribedwell-knowninteractivelisteningstrategiessuchasconfirmationchecksandrequests for furtherclarification, illustrated in the followingcomments:

• ‘Iaskedtorepeatthephraseorquestioninadifferentway’• ‘Ihadtoasktohavethingssimplified’• ‘Iaskedforanothersentenceoranotherword/phrase’

Otherrespondentsdescribedwordanalysisstrategies,likelyusedinreadingwheretheyhadtheluxuryoftimetodoso:

• ‘guessedorreasonedbybreakingdownthephrase’• ‘takepartofthewordtoguessatitsmeaning’

• ‘IwouldthinkofifthiswordissimilartoanyFrenchwordsIknow’


Manystudentsalsomentioned‘ignoring’or‘skipping’unknownwords,ostensibly to focusonwhattheyunderstoodandnotgetsidetracked.

4.1.4. Motivation for writing the DELFRespondentswerealsoaskedaboutmotivationfortakingtheDELFandanyguidancetheyweregiven.WhenaskedwhorecommendedtheytaketheDELF(multipleresponsesallowed),91.3%mentionedtheirFrenchteacher,12.8%mentionedfriendsorclassmatesand23.3%mentionedfamilymembers.

AstotheirmotivationsfortakingtheDELFtest,studentsmentionedthefollowing(multipleresponsespossible):

• Teacherguidance(55.2%)

• Pressurefromfamilyorfriends(10.5%)

• Futurecareeradvancement(52.4%)

• Post-secondarystudies(25.7%)

• OpportunitiesformeaningfulcontactwithFrenchspeakers(26.7%)

• Certificationoflanguageproficiency(56.2%)

WhenaskedaboutguidanceinchoosingtheappropriateleveloftheDELFtesttowrite,34.3%ofthestudentsindicatedthattheyreceivednoguidance.Ofthosewhoreportedreceivinggui-dance,92.8%mentionedtheirFrenchteacher.Intheend,78.3%oftherespondentsfelttheyhadmadetherightchoiceonlevelbut16%wereunsure.

4.1.5. Preparation for the DELFStudentswerealsoaskedanumberofquestionspertainingtopreparationfortheDELFtest.Alargemajority(84.1%)oftherespondentsindicatedthattheyhadpreparedforthetest.Theyreportedthefollowingpeopleasinstrumentalinhelpingthem(multipleresponsespossible):

• Myself(58.7%)

• Tutororotherteachers(13%)

• Frenchteacheratschool(84.8%)

• Friendsorclassmates(34.8%)

• Familymembers(15.2%)

Withregardtomaterialsusedforpreparation,studentsreportedthefollowing(multiplerespon-sespossible):

• DELFwebsite(28.3%)

• Othermedia(radio,television)(18.5%)

• Otheron-lineresources(16.3%)

• Books/dictionariesfromclassroom(37%)

• ResourcesprovidedbyFrenchteacher(84.8%)


When asked to suggest specific materials, activities or strategies that would be effective fortestpreparationinthefuture,studentsmentionedpracticetests;previousDELFtests;teacherworksheets;speakingactivities;and,listeningtoradio,televisionandmovies,asillustratedinthefollowingsamplecomments:

• ‘LearnnewvocabularywordsandspeakinFrenchwithfriendsandteachersnonstoptogetthehangofspea-kingfluentlywithnoEnglishwords’

• ‘practicetestsprovidedbytheteacheratschool’

• ‘Useresourcesthattheteacherprovidedforyou’

• ‘ThelisteningportionIfoundtobeextremelydifficultsoIencouragestudentstolistentothefrenchradio,watchfrenchtelevisionormovies,etc.’

• ‘Becoming familiarwith the test formatandpracticing theactivities isanexcellentandeffectivemethodofpreparation’

• ‘Bypracticinglisteningtotheradioandwritingdownkeypointsforthelisteningactivities.Bypracticingtakingastrongpointofviewforthespeakingactivities.

• ‘listeningtootherstudentsandthenexplainingwhatyouunderstoodbacktothem,readingcomprehensionofshortstories,andwritingessays’

• ‘RecordingssimilartothoseonthetestintheweirdaccentsthatyouneverhearinCanada’

4.1.6. DELF and learning FrenchFinally, students were asked to comment on the DELF and its relationship to their learningFrench.AsillustratedinFigure4,22.9%repliedthattheDELFhadastrongimpactontheirattitudetolearningFrench;50.5%indicatedsomeimpact,18.3%indicatednoimpact;and8.3%werenotsureoftheimpactoftheDELF.

Figure 4: Student perceptions of the impact of DELF on attitude to learning French


An overwhelming 93.1% of the respondents recommended that students take thisproficiencytest.Inadditiontotheoftencitedthemesoffuturecareeropportunities(e.g.,‘itwillhelpyouinthefuture’)andcertification(e.g.,‘thestudentgetsacertificate’),studentsalsomadereference topersonalchallengeandaffirmationof theirabilitiesinFrench.ThefollowingcommentstestifytothepersonalchallengethattheDELFpresentstostudents:

• ‘Itisagreatopportunitytochallengeyourselfandexperiencesomethingdifferent’• ‘Ithinkthatit'sagoodwaytochallengeyourself,anditmadememoreconfidentinthe

Frenchlanguage’• ‘ItisagreatwaytoassesswhatyouhavelearnedandproceedfurtherintotheFrenchlanguagetoextendyour

skills’• ‘Iwasstressedatfirst,butitwasactuallycomfortingandmakesmefeelproudofmyselfthatIcouldaccomplish

anexamlikethat:)’

ManystudentsalsomentionedthatatestsuchastheDELFaffirmstheirgrowingproficiencyinFrench,usingameasurementtooldifferentfromregularclassroomevaluation:

• ‘itisagoodmarkertoseeyourlevelofFrench,andawaytocompareyourselvestoacertainstandard’• ‘Takingatestnotgivenbyyourteacherisagreatwaytoseehowwellyou'redoinginthecourseandit’sagreat

confidencebooster...’• ‘ItprovidesanindicationofFrenchproficiencyandencouragesstudentstoimproveinareaswheretheystrug-

gle’

Manyofthethemesmentionedabovecanbesummarizedinthefollowingstudentcomment:

• ‘ItisareallygoodtestandmakesyoufeelbetteraboutyourFrench!Itlooksgreatwhenyouaretryingforajob...andreallygoodbumpupforfutureoptions.Itreallyopensthedoortonewopportunitiesanddoesn’trequiremucheffortatall!’

4.1.7. Summary discussion of student perceptions of the DELFOverall, student perceptions of the DELF are exceedingly positive.A high percentage of therespondents1)judgethetesttobeafairorveryfairmeasureofFSLproficiency(over94%);2)reportthatthetesthaseithersomeorastrongimpactontheirattitudetolearningFrench(over74%);and,3)recommendtheDELFtesttootherstudents(over93%).Thisisaverypositiveen-dorsement.ThesefindingscorroboratethoseoftheOCDSBstudies.Notonlydostudentscitetheusualintrinsicmotivatorssuchasfuturejobprospects,travelandreward(certificate),theyalsohighlightmotivators suchaspersonalchallengeandaffirmationof theirFSLproficiencyagainstanexternalbenchmark.

Studentswerealsoable toprovide insight intosomeof thechallengesof theDELF.Overall,theydeemedreadingandwritingtaskstobetheleastdifficult.Listeningtasksweredeemedtobemostdifficult;however,apost hocmoredetailedanalysisoftheseresultsshowedthat62%oftherespondentswhojudgedlisteningtobeverydifficultwerefromB2level,suggestingthattheperceptionsofthisgroupmayaccountforthefindingthatlisteningismostdifficult.ThissameresponsepatternofdifficultyofDELFtasksemergedintheOCDSBstudies,althoughtheOCDSBstudentstendedtorankspeakingactivitiesasmoredifficultthanthestudentsinthecurrentstudy.

.Many students also mentio-ned that a test such as the DELF affirms their growing proficiency in French, using a measurement tool diffe-rent from regular classroom evaluation


WhenaskedaboutthedegreetowhichclassroomlearningactivitiesweresimilartoDELFtasks,thestudents ratedreadingandwriting tasks tobemost similarand listeningas least similar.Onceagain,thepatternsofresponsecloselyresemblethoseoftheOCDSBstudies,particularlythoseforlistening.ItisnoteworthythattheresponsepatternofperceiveddifficultyofDELFtasksparallelstheresponsepatternofperceivedsimilaritybetweenDELFtasksandclassroomlearningactivities:thegreatertheperceiveddifficultylevel,thegreaterthedivergencebetweenDELFtasksandclassroomlearningactivities.

Thefindingsalsoprovide insight intotheperceived interferenceofanyunknownculturalre-ferences.Approximately one-half of the respondents indicated some interference, of which alarge majority described this inference only as‘somewhat.’ Students cited many strategies forovercominganyunknownreferences;however,itisnotclearwhetherunknownwordstowhichstudentsreferreddidindeedhaveadifferentculturalconnotation.Thesemaysimplyhavebeenunfamiliarwords.Furthermore,althoughstudentsdescribedwidely-usedstrategies,wecannotclaimthatanyculturalreferencesdidordidnotinterferewithstudentsuccess.However,theseresponsesdoprovidefurtherinsightintostudentperceptionsofanyculturalreferencesandhowstudentscopewiththem.

BasedonstudentresponsesregardingguidanceonwritingtheDELFandpreparationforthetest,itisclearthatteachersplayahugeroleinconsciousness-raisingaboutthetestandstudentsuccess.WenowturntoananalysisoftheteacherperceptionsoftheDELF.

4.2. Teacher perceptions of the DELFA total of 32 teachers chose to participate. Most participants reported teaching inFrench immersion programs (46.9%) with the remainder teaching in core French(25%), extended French (3.1%) or a combination of programs (21.9%). One res-pondenttaughtatafrancophoneschool.Mostrespondentsreportedteachingattheseniorhighschool level(60%),whereas20%taughtataprimaryormiddleschool,13.3%atthejuniorhighleveland6.7%reportedteachingatcombinedlevels.When

askedabouttheirfamiliaritywiththeDELF,mostrespondentsindicatedthattheywereeithercorrectors(54.8%)ortrainers(12.9%).Theremainingrespondentsconsideredthemselvestobequiteknowledgeable(29%)orhavingsomeknowledgeoftheDELF(3.3%).

4.2.1. Difficulty of the DELFThevastmajorityoftheteacherrespondentsconsidertheDELFtobeafairmeasureofstudentFrenchproficiency:64.5%judgeittobeveryfairand29%judgeittobefair.Theremaining6.5%wereuncertain.Whenasked if theyconsideredall levelsof theDELFtobeequallydifficult,64.5%oftheseteachersagreedandtheremaindereitherdisagreed(25.8%)orwereuncertain(9.7%).Ofthosewhochosetocomment,somesuggestedanotableincreaseindifficultyfromA2toB1(‘leniveaudedifficultéd’unA2àunB1estassez important’).Ontheotherhand,otherssuggestedthattheperceivedincreaseindifficultysimplyreflectedtheincreasedlanguageknowledgerequiredtomeetthestandardofthehigherlevels:

.The vast majority of the tea-cher respondents consider the DELF to be a fair measure of student French proficiency

Canadian Association of Immersion Teachers The DELF in Canada: Stakeholder Perceptions ��• ‘leniveauB2sedoitd'êtreplusdifficilecarilexigeuneconnaissanceplusapprofondiedela

structurelangagière.Toutefoisjecroisquechaqueniveaureprésenteundéfijuste’• ‘c'estsûrqueletestauxniveauxplusélevéssontplusexigeantsàcauseduniveaudefrançais

qu'ontlesélèves’• ‘ilyadescritèresassezclairspourchaqueniveau.Lestâchesquelesélèvesdevrontfaire

changentselonleniveauquel'élèvechoisitdefaire’

Similartothestudentrespondents,teacherswerealsoaskedtoratethedifficultylevelofthedifferentDELFtasks.AscanbeseeninTable6below,teachersjudgedthelisteningtaskstobethemostdifficult,36.7%ofthemratingtheseactivitiesasverydifficultandanother56.7%ratingthemasdifficult.Asforthespeakingtasks,atotalof53.3%oftherespondentsratedtheseactivitiestobeeitherdifficultorverydifficult,whereas46.7%rankedspeakingtasksasnotdifficult.Readingtaskswererankedverysimilarlytospeakingtaskswithmostteachers(50%)rankingthemasdifficultand46.7%rankingreadingtasksasnotdifficult.Writingtaskswerejudgedtobetheleastdifficultwithoveronehalfoftherespondents(53.3%)rankingtheseactivi-tiesnotdifficult,36.7%rankingwritingtasksasdifficultand10%rankingthemasverydifficult.

Table 6: Teacher perceptions of level of difficulty of DELF tasks

Activity Very Difficult Difficult Not difficultListening 36.7% 56.7% 6.6%Speaking 10.0% 43.3% 46.7%Reading 3.3% 50.0% 46.7%Writing 10.0% 36.7% 53.3%

4.2.2. Relationship of DELF to teachingTeacherresponsesindicateafairlyhighcongruencebetweenthetypeofDELFtasksandlearningactivitiesintheirclassroom.Readingandwritingtaskswereratedasbeingmoresimilarthanlis-teningandspeakingactivities.Table7showsthat,forreading,60%ofrespondentsjudgedclassreadingactivitiestobeverysimilartoDELFtasksand36.7%judgedthemtobesimilar.Asforwriting,56.7%indicatedthatclassactivitieswereverysimilartoDELFwritingtasksand33.3%indicatedthattheseweresimilar.Ontheotherhand,asmallerproportionoftherespondentsra-tedtheirclasslistening(30%)andspeaking(33.3%)activitiesasverysimilartoDELFlisteningandspeakingtasks.Aremaining50%judgedtheirlisteningactivitiestobesimilarand20%jud-gedthemtobenotsimilartoDELFtasks.Withregardtospeaking,53.4%oftheteachersratedtheirclassactivitiestobesimilarand13.3%judgedthemtobenotsimilartoDELFspeakingtasks.

Table 7: Teacher perceptions of similarity between classroom learning activities and DELF tasks

Activity Very similar Similar Not similarListening 30.0% 50.0 % 20.0%Speaking 33.3% 53.4% 13.3%Reading 60.0% 36.7% 3.3%Writing 56.7% 33.3% 10.0%

.‘It gives me an idea of where my students should be, gives me some very concrete models of performance for each level.


AdditionalcommentsbytheteacherrespondentssuggestthattheDELFmayhavehadanim-pactontheirteaching:

• ‘MacompréhensionduDELFetleconceptduCECRm'ontfaitchangermesméthodesd'enseignementsquisontmaintenantbeaucoupplusinteractives,orales,incluentdelapenséecritiqueetdel'instructiondifféren-ciée’

• ‘Jefaismaintenantplusdecompréhensiondel'orale’

Teacherswerealsoaskedabouttherelationshipofexternalevaluationtoolstoregularclassroomassessment of student performance. Responses to this open-ended question indicate the fol-lowing:

1)achangeinclassroomassessmentpractice:

• ‘J'aichangémesévaluationspourlaplupart-mesévaluationssontpluscommunicativesetinvitentlesélèvesàpenserdefaçoncritique.Doncmaintenantilyaplusunrapprochementqueilya2ans’

• ‘IbelievethattheDELFaddsthatlittleextrabitof"pressure"onthestudentsinapositiveway.Theybegintorealizethattheydoneedtobeaccurate,andputeffortintotheirwork,inordertobewellunderstoodinareallifesituation.Ihavestartedtobasemyevaluationlessandlessonveryspecificgrammaticalrules,andmoretobroadcontextualevaluations,withagrammaticalcomponent.’

2) theneedtocontinuetoworkwithprovincial/territoriallearningoutcomestodemonstrateprogresswithinthecontextofaparticularFLScourse:

• ‘LestestsdeclassesontalignésauxRASétablisparleministèred’évaluation,etlesélèvessontévaluésaprèsunepratiqueassezrigoureusedesobjectifs.LetestDELFchercheàquantifierlaconnaissancedel’élèvetandisquelestestsdeclassepermettentaussidesuivreleprogrès.(malgréquedeprendretoutelasériedetestsDELFarriveàunbutsemblable)’

3)theusefulnessofexternalbenchmarks:

• ‘Itgivesmeanideaofwheremystudentsshouldbe,givesmesomeveryconcretemodelsofperformanceforeachlevel.

• Usefulinordertoprovideinsight/compareresultsacrossthestreamofFSLeducation’

WhenaskedabouthowoftenstudentsshouldtakeaDELFtest,mostteachers(63.3%)indica-tedthatstudentsshouldtakethetestateachlevel,whentheyareready.Theremaining33.3%indicatedthatstudentsshouldonlytakethetestasanexitexam(attheendofhighschool,forexample)asanattestationofFSLproficiencyattained.Onepersonreplied‘never.’

4.2.3. Cultural references and the DELFInall,86.7%oftheteacherrespondentsjudgedtheDELFtobeanappropriatetoolforassessingFrenchlanguageproficiencyandtheremaining13.3%werenotsure.Whenaskedtoratethedegreetowhichunfamiliarculturalreferencesmight interferewithstudentsuccess,65.4%oftherespondentsindicated‘somewhat,’15.4%indicated‘alot’and19.2%indicated‘notatall.’ThefollowingcommentmayberepresentativeofthoseteacherswholiketheDELF,butexpresssomeconcernaboutitsappropriacyfortheCanadiancontext:

• ‘Ouipourlaplupart.Leseulproblèmeestlecôtéeurocentriquedutestquiestunaspectquejenetrouvepasjustepournoscanadiensquieuxdoiventcommuniqueretvivredansunmondebilinguedanslequellefrançaisn’estpascommelefrançaisdeFrance.’


Nevertheless,96.6%oftherespondingteachersrecommendthatstudentstaketheDELFtest.Thejustificationfortheirrecommendationechoesmanyoftheoften-citedbenefitsofaDELFdiploma(increasedopportunities,personalaccomplishment,externalvalidationofproficiencyattained,internationalcertificationinanincreasinglyglobalizedworld):

• ‘BecausetheDELFiswidelyacceptedinEurope,studentswillhaveaccesstogreateropportunitytoeducatio-nal/professionalopportunities’

• Because they get a sense of accomplishment. It is also a way to prove to them that they know a lot morethantheythinktheyknow.ThestudentsarealwaystellingmethattheyfeelasthoughtheydonotknowanyFrench’

• LetestdecompétenceDELFindiqueauxparentsqueleursenfantspourrontsedébrouillerrapidementdansuncontexteautrequecanadien.Celarassurelesparentsquidepuislamaternelleontmisésurl'apprentissagedufrançaispourleursenfants.Malheureusement,ilyapeud'institutionspost-secondairesauCanadaquire-connaissentleDELF.Maispersonnenepeutprédirel'aveniretuncertificatDELFdanssonportfoliopourraitdonnerunavantageaupossesseur’

• ‘Jetrouvequelaglobalisationl'imposedéjà.S'obstinerc'estdemanquerleschancesailleurs.C'estl'avenirdenosjeunes-ilsdoivents'adapteretêtrecapablesalaconcurrence’

Thevalueoftheoralinterviewwasoftenmentionedaswell:

• ‘Parceque je trouve l’entrevueoraleestutilepourplusieursraisons.Non,seulementpourcommuniquerenfrançais,maisaussipourpasserl’expérienced’unentrevue.Pourlesélèvesquin’ontjamaispasséunentrevueafindedécrocherunemploiceciestsemblable.Aussij’aimelefaitquelesrésultatssontinternationals’

AnumberofteachersmentionedusingtheDELFasanexitexamonly(‘ButonlyattheendofHighSchooltohaveproofoftheirlanguageproficiency’).

Finally,withregardtotheusefulnessofDELFcertification,46.7%oftheteacherrespondentsjudgedaDELFcertificatetobeveryhelpfulandanidenticalpercentageofrespondentsjudgedittobehelpful.

4.2.4. Preparation for the DELFWhenaskedtoindicatethebestresourcestohelpstudentspreparefortheDELFtest,teachersmentionedthefollowing(numberoftimeseachresourcewasmentioned):

• DELFwebsite(22)• Othermedia(radio,television)(16)• Otheron-lineresources(22)• Books/dictionariesfromclassroom(12)• ResourcesprovidedbyFrenchteacher(19)• Familymembersorfriends(6)

Thefollowingcommentwas insightfulwithregardtouseofpreviousDELFtestsasausefulresource:

• ‘PracticeDELFtestswouldbeuseful,justasiftheywerewritingaprovincialtest.Studentsneedtobecomfor-tablewiththeformatofthetestaswell.ItwouldalsobebeneficialiftheteacherscouldseethetestsAFTERtheyhavebeencompleted.Otherwise,weareleftinthedark.Moreknowledgehelpsteacherstobetterpreparetheirstudents’


4.2.5. DELF and CEFRWithregardtoincorporationoftheCEFRintotheirprovincialcurriculum,76.7%oftheteacherrespondentswouldliketoseethishappen.Theremaindereitherdisagreed(6.6%)orwerenotadequatelyfamiliarwiththeCEFRtoofferaninformedopinion(16.7%).

4.2.6. Administration and marking of the DELFOfthetotalnumberofteacherrespondents,23indicatedthattheywereeithertrainersorcor-rectors;theyare,inotherwords,agrouphighlyfamiliarwiththeDELFtestanditsadministra-tion.Thisgroupwasaskedtorespondtoanumberofquestionspertainingtoadministration,markingandtraining.

Whenaskedabouttheadministrationof theoralandwrittenpartsof thetest,56.5%of therespondentsperceivedittobe‘easy,’26.1%tobemanageableand13%tobeproblematic.Oneres-pondentwasuncertain.ThefewcommentsrelatedtothisquestionspokemostlytohowmuchthepositiveimpactoftheDELFmadetheeffortworthwhile,eventhoughitrequiredahugetimecommitment from the administrators. Comments that gave any insight into the problematicnatureofthetestreferredtotimeawayfromclassandtravel.

Overall,themarkingcomponentoftheDELFisperceivedasbeingeithereasy(30.4%)orma-nageable(43.5%).Only17.4%oftherespondentsdeemedthistobeproblematicand8.7%werenotsure.Additionalcommentsreferredmostlytothetimerequiredtoarriveatconsensus(in-ter-raterreliability)andtheimportanceofthatprocess.

Withregardtothetrainingprocess,mostrespondentsdeemedthistobeeitherhelpful(34.8%)oradequate(47.8%).Onlytworespondents(8.7%)feltthetrainingprocesstobeinadequateandtwootherswerenotsure.Commentsreferredtotheneedforaquickrefreshersessionbeforethecorrectionprocessbegins.

AlmostallrespondentsdeemedthequalitycontroloftheDELFtrainingandadministrationtobesatisfactory;43.5%suggesteditwasstrongand52.2%suggestedthatitwasadequate.

4.2.7. Additional teacher commentsAdditionalteachercommentsreiteratedmuchofwhatwasstatedearlier.Thefollowingsamplecommentsreflectsomeofthethemes:positiveimpact,potentialculturalbias,efficiencyinmar-kingandneedforgreateraccesstomorepracticetests:

• ‘OutildemotivationextraordinairepourlesélèvesetcefutundéclencheurimportantpouruneréflexiondespratiquesenFLScheznous’

• J'aimeraisvoirdanslematérieldepréparationdesthèmes,idéesoucontenupourlajeunesseentantquetelle,autrementdit,quelestextesoudocumentssoientplusenligneavecl'aspect"universel"desexpériencesjeunes-se;e.g.:éliminerlesréférencesàlapolitiquefrançaisemêmeencequiatraitàl'éducation;comparerlesjeunessesafricaine,canadienne,belgeoufrançaisedansvosdocuments;employerdestermesuniversellementcompris…’

• ‘Themarkingprocessneedstochangetobemoreefficient.ThebiggertheDELFgetsthebettertheorganiza-tionneedstobe’

• ‘itwouldbehelpfultohavegreateraccesstopracticetests(Ihavefoundsomeonlinehowever)anditwouldalsobehelpfultohavemultipleexamplesoftheoralassessmentinvideoform’


4.2.8. Summary discussion of teacher perceptions of the DELFTheteacherparticipants,mostofwhomarehighlyknowledgeableabouttheDELF,wereoverwhelminglypositiveaboutthistest.Similartothestudents,averyhighpercentageoftheteachersjudgetheDELFtobeafairandappro-priatetoolformeasuringFrench-languageproficiency,deemaDELFcertifi-catetobehelpfulandwouldrecommendtheDELFtotheirstudents.ThisverypositiveendorsementoftheDELFisalsoconsistentwiththeOCDSBteacherfindings.

Teachersalsohighlightedsomechallenges.TheyratedtheDELFlisteningtasksasthemostdif-ficultcomparedtotheotherskilltaskswhichtheyratedaboutequalindifficulty.Thispatternoffindingsechoesthepatternofstudentperceptions.ComparedtotheperceptionsoftheOCDSBteachers,theteachersinthepresentstudytendedtoratetheDELFtasksoverallaslessdifficult.Withregardtotheirperceptionoftheimpactofanyculturalreferences,ahigherpercentageoftheteachersinthepresentstudy(comparedtothestudents)indicatedthatthesereferencesmayhaveinterfered‘somewhat’withstudentsuccess.Indeed,teachersaremorelikelythanstudentstoidentifyanyunfamiliarculturalreferencesthatmaybeproblematic.

Overall,teachersjudgetheirclassroomlearningactivitiestobesimilartotheDELFtasks.Onlylisteningactivitiesarerankedasdissimilaratanoteworthylevel.ResponsesbytheOCDSBtea-chersregardingsimilarityofteachingactivitiestoDELFtaskstendedtoberankedloweroverall,particularlyforspeakingactivities.DELFreadingandwritingtasksinthepresentstudyweredeemedtobemostsimilartoclassroomactivitiesrelatedtothesetwoskills.Basedonthesefin-dings,itappearsthatclassroomlisteningandspeakingactivitiesmayneedtochangesomewhattoalignthembetterwiththetypesoftasksfoundintheDELFtest,anobservationalsomadeintheOCDSBstudies.

Onthewhole,theadministration,training,markingandqualitycontroloftheDELFaredee-medtobesatisfactory,withonlyafewrespondentscitingsomeproblems.

4.3. Parent perceptions of the DELFAtotalof85parentscompletedthequestionnaire.Parentalresponses indicatethat68.8%oftheirchildrenwereenrolledinFrenchimmersion,14.3%incoreFrenchand6.9%inextendedFrench.2.5%ofthestudentswereenrolledinafrancophoneschooland7.5%oftheparentswereunsureoftheprograminwhichtheirchildrenwereenrolled.WithregardtofamiliaritywiththeDELF,13.9%ofrespondentsreportedthattheywereveryfamiliarwiththeDELF,58.4%weresomewhatfamiliarand27.7%werenotfamiliarwiththetest.Intotal,23.1%oftheparentsreportedthattheirchildrenhadpreviouslywrittenaDELFtestandwerechallengingahigherlevelattheApril2012testingsession.

.Teachers also highlighted some challenges. They rated the DELF listening tasks as the most difficult compared to the other skill tasks which they rated about equal in difficulty.


4.3.1. Preparation for the DELFWhenaskedaboutstudentpreparationforthetest,amajorityoftheparentsrespondedpositi-vely:37.5%indicatedahighdegreeofpreparationand29.2%reportedthattheirchildwasso-mewhatprepared.Only6.9%statedthattheirchildwasnotpreparedand26.4%wereuncertain.Writtencommentssuggestthat,overall,parentsappreciatedthesupportprovidedbytheschoolinensuringsuccess,althoughnotinallcaseswereteachersabletoalleviatethestressexperiencedbysomestudents.

• ‘wegotexamsonline,listenedtovoicesamplesonline,etc.Xdidagreatjobofdoingpracticetests,2teacherswereinvolved.theypracticedtheoralpart,andmadethekidsfeelsoconfident’

• ‘mydaughtermentionedafewtimesthatshewasgivenpracticetestswhichshefeltshedidnotdoverywellandtheycausedhersomeanxietyandmadeherfearfultodotheactualtest.Infactwhenshedidtherealtestshesaiditwasmucheasierthanshethoughtitwouldbe’

4.3.2. Motivation for writing the DELFWhenaskedwhytheywouldwanttheirchildrentotaketheDELF,parentsgavethefollowingreasons(multipleresponsesallowed):

• Certificationoflanguageproficiency(59)• Careeradvancement(52)• Post-secondarystudies(38)• OpportunitiesformeaningfulengagementwithFrench-languagespeakers(29)• MotivationtocontinuestudyFrenchinhighschool(27)

Additionalwrittencommentsoverwhelminglyreferredtoconfidenceandmotivation;parentsfeltthatwritingtheDELFtestbuiltstudentconfidenceinFrench-languageabilities,asillustra-tedinthecommentsinsection4.3.5below.

4.3.3. DELF and provincial/territorial testingWhenaskedabouttheuseoftheDELFasanexitexamintheirprovince,parentresponsewasmixed.Of the69parentswhoanswered thisquestion,40.1%respondedaffirmatively,46.4%wereuncertainand12.5%disagreed.Writtenresponsesfocusedonobservationssuchas:examplacingrestrictionsonteachingandinadequateinformationtomakeaninformedresponse,asillustratedinthequotesbelow:

• ‘needmoreinformationbeforeadequatelyaddressingthisquestion’

• ‘my only hesitation in recommending this is that I would not like to see French teachersfeelingrestrictedbythisexam.Iwouldhopethattheteachersseeitasyetanothertooltoencouragethemtoemphasizeoralandespeciallyauraldevelopmentofthelanguage’

WhenaskedaboutincludingFSLproficiencytestingwithGrade12provincialtesting,46.2%ofthe78parentrespondentsagreed,17.9%disagreedand35.9%wereunsure.Writtencom-mentsfocusedmostlyontheimportanceofassessingoralproficiency,theneedforthetesttobeoptionalandtheconstraintsoftestinginsmallerjurisdictions.OnlyoneparentindicatedthataccessibilitytoaDELFtestingcentrewasaproblem.


4.3.4. Costs associated with DELF testingOne-quarter of the parent respondents answered questions related to costs associated withDELFtesting.Askediftheywouldbewillingtoassumecostsoftestinginthefuture,42.3%respondednegatively;23.1%affirmatively,and34.6%wereuncertain.TheywerealsoaskedhowmuchoftheDELFcoststheywouldbewillingtoassumeiffullfundingwerenotavailable.Ofthe14parentswhoansweredthisquestion,fourwouldnotpayanythingandthe10remainingrespondentswouldbewillingtopayapartofthecostsupto$100.Inreplytoanopen-endedquestionaskingparentsto indicatewhoshouldassumethecostsofaproficiencytestsuchastheDELF,the14responsesweredividedequallybetweenschoolboardandfederal/provincialgovernments.Afewrespondentssuggestedcostsshouldbesharedbytheschoolboardandthestudent/parentaslongasthetestisoptional.

4.3.5. Additional parent commentsFinally,whenaskedaboutrecommendingtheDELF,parentswereoverwhel-minglypositive.94.5%oftherespondentsrecommendedthetestandmanyelaboratedontheirresponsewithwrittencomments.Ananalysisofthesewrittencomments,alongwiththeadditionalcommentsprovidedattheendofthequestionnaire,revealedfiverecurringthemes:positiveexperience,vali-dationofachievementthroughanexternalmeasurementinstrument,inter-nationalcertification,feedbacktoteachersandneedformoreinformationtoparents.

TheDELFtestingprovedtobeanexcellentexperienceformanystudentsasillustratedinthefollowingparentcomments:

• ‘Iamgratefulfortheexperienceforourdaughterandfeelitwillbeanon-goingencouragementforhertopur-sueherFrenchstudiesfurther’

• ‘Shewassomewhatnervousgoingintothetestbut,overall,itwasapositiveexperience’• ‘Thisisatestthatmeasuresability,notinability.Thewayitissetupisforpracticalsuccess.Thechildonlytries

thetestlevelthatateacherfeelshe/shecanaccomplish’

ManyparentshighlightedthecapacityoftheDELFtovalidatetheirsonordaughter’seffortsandachievementinlearningFrenchbyanexternalmeasurementtool,separatefromclassroomevaluationbytheteacher:

• ‘IthinkitisappropriatetohaveaseparateassessmentoftheprogressionstudentshavemadewithFrenchlan-guageskills,especiallyforthoseinFrenchimmersion’

• …givesanindependentevaluationofproficiencyvsteacherrated’

• ‘Itprovidesthemanopportunitytobeevaluatedinalargercontextthantheirownhighschoolexperience…’

CloselyrelatedtotheexternalvalidationofFrench-languageproficiencyisinternationalrecogni-tionofthisacquiredproficiency:

• ‘Ibelieveitisavaluabletestasitisrecognizedinmanypartsoftheworld’• ‘Ibelievetheinternationalrecognitionofsuchproficiencytestingisbeneficialbothforpostsecondaryeduca-

tionandcareeradvancement’• ‘Goodtoknowwhereyoustandinternationally’

.Many parents highlighted the capacity of the DELF to vali-date their son or daughter’s efforts and achievement in learning French by an external measurement tool, separate from classroom evaluation by the teacher


ParentsalsocommentedontheusefulnessoftheDELFtoprovidefeedbacktoteachers:

• ‘Itisagoodchancetoalso‘grade’theteacher.Ifaclassdoesnotdowell,theyshouldlookintowhy.Ontheotherhand,ifaclassdoeswell,theteachershouldberewarded’

• ‘…itwillprovideteacherswithsomedataonthesuccessofthestudentsintheirlearning,andperhapsshowsomeareasthatcouldbeimprovedupon’

Finally,anoteworthynumberofcommentspointedtotheneedformoreinformationforpa-rents:

• ‘aparent’sinformationmeetingorpackagethatinformsuswhatthecourseentails…whatitmeans…Ireallyknownothingaboutit’

• ‘…perhapsifitwasincludedintheschoolnewsletterandstatedtheadvantagesofhavingthisexam/diploma…wouldbringincreasedparticipation’

• ‘notsure…thereneedstobeaparentmeetingtoaddresswhatthisisallabout’

4.3.6. Summary discussion of parent perceptions of the DELFThisisthefirststudytosystematicallydocumentparentperceptionsoftheDELF.Thesefindingsechothesamestrongendorsementofthistestanddiplomaasre-vealedintheteacherandstudentfindings.Clearly,thestakeholdersclosesttotheDELFexperience(students,teachersandparents)judgethistestasanappropriatetoolformeasuringFSLproficiency.Ahighpercentageofeachstakeholdergrouprecommendsthetesttoothers.Parentcommentsreiteratemanyofthesamebene-fitsofaninternationally-recognizedtest/diploma,ascitedbytheteachersandstu-dents.Nevertheless,someoftheparentsreportneedingmoreinformationabouttheDELF.

Animportantelementoftheparentquestionnairewastoexploreparentopinionsregardingthecost of the DELF and the relationship between DELF and provincial/territorial testing. Onbothcounts,opinionsappeartobemixed.Withregardtocosts,responseswereaboutequallydividedbetweenparentswhowouldbewilling,notwilling,oruncertainaboutassumingthecostoftesting.ThecostquestionwillhavetobeaddressedtoensurethatallstudentshaveaccesstoDELFtesting,ifdesired,notonlythosewithparentswhohavethemeanstopayforthis.WithregardtouseoftheDELFasahighschoolexitexamtocertifythelevelofFSLproficiencybyincludingthetestintheGrade12testingprogram,mostparentseitherdisagreeorareuncer-tain.Clearly,parentsneedmoreinformationonthesequestionsbeforetheycanprovideamoreinformedopinion.

4.4. Perceptions of university stakeholdersTheuniversityquestionnairewassentto24FrenchdepartmentsatCanadianuniversitiesandsevenadmissionofficesofFrench-languagefaculties(e.g.,CampusSt.Jean)anduniversities(e.g.,Laval).Atotalof21differentrespondantsopenedtheon-linequestionnaire,representing12Frenchdepartments,threeundergraduateadmissionsofficesandonelanguageandtranslationdepartment.Fiverespondentsdidnotansweranyofthequestions.

.Clearly, the stakeholders closest to the DELF expe-rience (students, teachers and parents) judge this test as an appropriate tool for measu-ring FSL proficiency


4.4.1. Familiarity with DELFWithregardtoleveloffamiliaritywithDELF/DALF,3ninerespondentsconsideredthemselvestobequiteknowledgeable,sixclaimedtohavesomeknowledge,andonerespondentindicatednoknowledgeofthetest.

4.4.2. Acknowledgement of DELF/DALF certificationAlthoughthereappearstobesomefamiliaritywiththeDELF/DALFbythosewhoresponded,fewuniversitiesacknowledgeDELF/DALFcertificationorusethetestinternallyasameasu-reofFrench-languageproficiency.Tworespondants indicated that theyacknowledgeDELF/DALFcertificationinsomeway;11donot;andonerespondantwasuncertain.Inthewrittencomments,onerespondant indicated thataone-coursecreditwasawarded foraB2diplomaobtained as part of the International Baccalaureate program. Of those who currently do notacknowledgecertification,fiveuniversitiesindicatedtheywouldconsiderDELF/DALFinplaceofcurrentplacementtests;fourspecifiedthatthiswasnotcurrentlyunderconsideration;andthreeindicatedtheywereuncertain.OftheninerespondantswhoansweredthequestionaboutpossiblyusingDELF/DALFasentranceorexitexam,onerepliedaffirmatively,threeindicatedtheywoulduseitasanadmissiontoolonly,threeothersindicatedtheywouldnotusethetestatall,andtworespondantswereuncertain.

4.4.3. Familiarity with CEFR WithregardtofamiliaritywiththeCEFR,sevenrespondentsindicatedtheywerequiteknowled-geable,onewassomewhatknowledgeable,andonewasuncertain.Oftheseninerespondants,oneindicatedthatFrenchcoursesattheiruniversitywerealignedwiththeCEFR,fourindicatedthattheywereplanningtodoso,andfourothershadnoplanstoaligntheirFSLcourseswiththisframework.Amongthesesamerespondants,fiveindicatedaneedformoreinformationre-gardingtheCEFR,threeindicatednoneed,andonerespondantwasuncertain.

4.4.4. Additional comments from university participantsAnanalysisofwrittencommentsbyrespondentsrevealedanincreasedinterestinDELF/DALF,aswellassomeresistance.Agrowingawarenessisevidentinthefollowingcommentsfromres-pondants:

• ‘…thisisverymuchpartofourgrowingconversationaboutrevitalizingour[French]program’

• ‘NousavonscommencéàfamiliarisernosprofesseursaveclescritèresduDELF…afind’uniformisernosatten-tes’

ThisgrowingawarenessofDELF/DALFandtheCEFRispromptingrespondantstoconsidermoreseriouslythesemovementsinFSLteachinginCanada,particularlyinresponsetothestu-dentsarrivingatuniversitywithDELFcertification:

3 TheuniversityquestionnaireincludedreferencetoboththeDELFandtheDALFbecauseuniversitiesshouldbepositionedtooffercontinuedcertificationopportunitiestostudentswhoarrivewithB2DELFcertificationandcontinuetheirstudyofFrenchattheClevel.


• ‘onypensepourl’avenir’

• ‘éventuellement’

GrowingawarenessaboutDELF/DALFcertification isalsopromptingagreaterinterestinandaneedtoknowmoreabouttheCEFRsincethisframeworkisnowan integral componentofmanyprovincialFSLprograms (e.g.,BritishColumbiaandtheAtlanticprovinces)andisusedinmanyschoolboardsinotherprovinces(e.g.,Edmonton,Calgary,GrandePrairie,Ottawa).MoreandmoregraduatesfromtheseprovincesandschoolboardsarecomingtouniversityidentifyingtheirlevelofFrench-languageproficiencywithreferencetotheCEFRlevels.UniversityFrenchdepartmentswanttoknowmore,asevidencedinthefollowingcomments:

• ‘laplupartdesenseignantsenontentenduparlermaisn’enpossèdentpasuneconnaissanceap-profondie’• ‘Ilseraitbond’intervenirdanslesuniversitésdel’ouestcanadienpourexpliquermieuxl’intérêt

etleslimitesduCECR(etleslimites)…

However, there is still someresistanceamongprofessors, as illustrated in the followingcom-ment:

• ‘Noustravaillonsenéquipeetilyabeaucoupderésistance’

• ‘…laplupartdescollèguescanadienssontrésistantsetpréfèrentleCLB’

Insum,thereisagrowingawarenessofDELF/DALFandCEFR,butaclearneedformoreinformationtoidentifythebenefitsforuniversitiesandtorespondtoanyresistancepromptedbymisinformationandapprehension.

4.4.5. Summary discussion of university perceptions of the DELF/DALFAsagreaternumberofCanadianhighschoolanduniversitystudentspresentDELF/DALFcertificationorspeaktouniversityadmissionsofficesandFrenchdepartmentsabouttheirFSLproficiencyintermsofCEFRlevels,universitiesneedtobecomemoreinformedandmorepre-pared.TheinformationprovidedbytherespondentsshowsthatuniversitiesarejustbeginningtobecomeawareofCEFRandDELF/DALFandneedmoreinformationabouttheadvantagesofthesetools.Thismaymeanthattheywillhavetoplaceagreateremphasisonlanguageoutco-mes,inadditiontothecurrentemphasisinmostFrenchdepartmentsonliteratureknowledgeoutcomes.

AnincreasedinterestintheDELF/DALFandtheCEFRdovetailswellwiththeresultsofarecentstudyonsecond(official)languageeducationinCanadianuniversitiesbytheCommis-sionerofOfficialLanguages(OCOL,2009).Thisstudyrevealedastrongdemandforimprovedsecond-languagelearningbeyondthecurrentoveremphasisonliteratureandfordifferentmo-delsforsecond-languagelearning.Thereportrecommended,firstofall,thatuniversitiesimproveopportunitiesforintensivesecond-languagelearning.Recognitionoflinguisticproficiency,inclu-dingspecialcertificates,wasalsomentioned.

.In sum, there is a growing awareness of DELF/DALF and CEFR, but a clear need for more information to identify the benefits for universities and to respond to any resis-tance prompted by misinfor-mation and apprehension.


4.5. Perceptions of provincial/territorial ministries of educationProvincialandterritorialministriesofeducation(MOE)werealsoconsulted.Ofthe12lettersofinvitationsentout,sixMOErepresentativesrespondedbycompletingtheon-linequestion-naire.Fiveidentifiedtheirprovince/territoryandonechosetoremainanonymous.Areasofre-sponsibilityoftherespondentsintheirMOErangedfromDirectorofProgramImplementa-tion,DirectorofFLSprograms,toProgramSpecialistforEvaluationandResearch.AllratedthemselvesasquiteknowledgeablewithregardtotheDELF.WithregardtoadministrationoftheDELFintheirprovince/territory,twoindicatedthatthiswasdonebyschoolboards;twoothersindicatedtheMOE;oneindicatedtheAlliancefrançaise;andoneindicatedthatitwasnotcurrentlyadministeredintheirprovince/territory.

4.5.1. DELF as national proficiency testRespondentswereaskedanumberofquestionsregarding theuseofDELF in theCanadiancontext.WhenaskedabouttheneedforanationalFSLproficiencytest,tworespondentsagreedthattherewasaneed,twodisagreed,andtwowereuncertain.Thefollowingcommentselaborateontheirresponses:

• ‘Ilnesemblepasyavoirunetrèsgrandedemandechezlesélèves,lesparentsoulesécolespouruntestdecom-pétencesauniveaunational.Auxx,leministèredel’Éducationévalueleshabiletésetconnaissancesdesélèvesàlasortiedela12eannéepardestestsbaséssurlesnormesétablisenfonctiondesprogrammesd’étudesdelaprovince’

• ‘Chaqueprovinceouterritoireestresponsablededéterminerlecontenudesesprogrammesd'étudesetplu-sieurs instancesont leurspropresoutilsd'évaluationqui sontalignésavec lesattentesde leursprogrammesd'études.Silesprovincesetterritoiresdécidentqu’unoutilnationalaàêtredéveloppé,leConseildesMinistresdel'Éducation,Canadaestlegroupequidoitentérinercettedécision.Deplus,siunoutild'évaluationnationalcanadienaàêtredéveloppé,ildoitrefléterdesnormesnationalescanadiennessurlesquellestouteslesinstances,incluantleQuébec,doivents'accorder.Commeletempsallouéetlaprogrammationdanslefrançaisdebaseetl'immersiondiffèrentd'unejuridictionàl'autre,lesrésultatsdesélèvesquiutilisentunoutilnormalisérisquentdedifférergrandement;cequinevoudraitpasdirequelesprogrammesd'étudesnerépondentpasauxbesoinsdesélèvesdelajuridiction’

• ‘seraétudiéparuncomitéen2012-2013• ‘astandardthatisrecognizedprovincially,nationallyandinternationallyiscertainlyanexcellentidea’

Furthermore,whenaskedabouttheappropriatenessoftheDELFasanationalFSLproficiencytest,threerespondentsagreedthatitwas,onedisagreed,andtwowereuncertain.Thefollowingcommentsprovidesomeofthereasoningunderlyingtheirresponses:

• ‘ThisisatoolthathasbeendevelopedbasedontheCommonEuropeanFrameworkbyexpertsinthefieldofsecondlanguageeducationandthathasbeenusedforsometimenow.Assuch,ithasbeenmodifiedtoensurevalidityandappropriateness’

• ‘LeDELFestunoutilquiestdéveloppéparlaFranceavecdesnormesquinereflètentpasnécessairementlaréalitécanadienneàcepoint-ci.Deplus,lesministèresdesprovincesetterritoiresn'ontpasaccèsàcetoutilpouranalyserenprofondeuretvérifiersisesnormescorrespondentàlaréalitédeleurjuridictionetàcelleduCanada.Unautrefacteurestquelesprovincesouterritoiresn'ontpasledroitdeparticiperaudéveloppementnid'influencerlecontenudecetest.Ceciposeplusieursdéfis,carl’éducationestuneresponsabilitéquirelèvedesprovincesetterritoiresauCanada.Deuxquestionssont:Quelsseraientlesbutsd'unteloutiletcommentlesrésultatsobtenusparlesélèvesseront-ilsemployés?’


• ‘LeDELFestunoutilquisertàévaluerlacompétenceenlanguefrançaisedel’élèvequiaapprislefrançaiscommelangueseconde.Cecidit,touttestdugenredoitêtreadaptéaucontextecanadiendanslequellejeuneévolue.Deplus,lecoûtd’administrationduDELFassezélevéestunobstacleimportant’

SomeoftheuncertaintywithregardtotheDELFappearstoberelatedtoitsperceivedEuro-centricbias.

4.5.2. Relationship of the DELF to classroom teachingMOErepresentativeswerealsoaskedanopen-endedquestionregardingtheroleofanexternalevaluationtoolsuchastheDELFinrelationtotheregularclassroomevaluationofstudentper-formanceinFSLprograms.Theresponseswerethefollowing:

• ‘theDELFisacommonstandardthatisrecognizedinternationally.Furthermore,itgoesthroughthevariousstagesofthetestbuildingprocesstoensurevalidity’

• ‘IlsemblequeleDELFpeutdonnerunecertaineassurancesurlastandardisationdesnormes(etdelalanguefrançaise)reconnue(etacceptée)surunescèneautrequelocale.LeDELFpermetpeut-êtrelaviséedemesu-res/butscommunsetlamiseencommunderessourcesdetoutessortes.Parcontre,commetouteévaluationponctuelleassezcourte,leDELFdonneunevisionsuperficielledescompétencescarils'agitd'unesituationdetestquinereprésentepastouteslescapacitésnécessairespourfonctionnerdansdescontextesauthentiques’

• ‘lesexamensduministèreetlecertificatdefind'études’• ‘Puisquenousn'avonspasd'évaluationofficielleenfrançaislanguesecondeauniveauprovincial,leDELFnous

offreunoutil appropriéafind'évaluerenfin toutes les compétences langagièresdenosapprenants.Deplus,l'analysedesrésultatsnousseradesplusutilesafindeguiderlemeilleurenseignementetformationdesensei-gnantsainsiquelemeilleurapprentissagedelalanguefrançaisecheznosélèves’

• ‘Lerôlen’estpasclairnidéfini.Siunélèvepeutprésenterundiplômed’étudessecondairesoupostsecondaired’uneautoritéreconnue,accompagnéd’unrelevédenotes,a-t-ilbesoind’autrespreuvesdesescompétences?’

It appears that most of the respondents acknowledge the importance of a test that evaluatesall languageskillsreferencedagainstanexternalbenchmark,asopposedtoregularclassroomevaluationwhichisoftenbasedonmorelimitedlearningobjectives,subjecttoteacherbias,andreferencedagainsttheoverallperformanceofagivengroupofstudents.Someofthecomments,however,alsosuggestarathernaiveunderstandingoftheopportunitiesandlimitationsofexter-nallyreferencedevaluationtools.

4.5.3. DELF and international accreditationWithregardtotheperceivedusefulnessoftheinternationalaccreditationaffordedbyaDELFdiploma,threerespondentsjudgedaDELFdiplomatobeusefulorveryusefulforfuturepursuitssuchasemploy-mentorpost-secondaryeducation.Theremainingthreerespondentswereuncertain.Thefollowingcom-mentswereofferedinsupportoftheirstatedopinions:

• ‘Pascertain.Nerevient-ilpasauxministèresdecommuniquerlavaleurdudiplômed’étudessecondaireetdescoursdelanguesaumilieuafind’enprivilégierleurreconnaissanceplutôtquedepromouvoirunautreinstru-ment?’

• ‘Employers,forexample,willknowwithcertaintythelevelofproficiencyofcandidatesthankstothisevaluationtool’

Canadian Association of Immersion Teachers The DELF in Canada: Stakeholder Perceptions ��• ‘LareconnaissanceauCanadaparlesemployeursetinstitutionsn'estpastrèsrépandue,alorslareconnaissance

accordéparcetestaprobablementuneduréelimitée.Deplus,àcepointondiraitquelesattraitsmajeurssontlareconnaissanceextérieuredonnéeparFranceàceuxetcellesquiontréussicetestetl'envoiparcepaysd’uncertificatdecompétences.Lesbénéficesd'avoirunetellereconnaissancenesontpasencoretrèsbienmesuréspardesétudessolides.Ils'agitplusd'uneaccumulationd'anecdotesindividuellesquedefaits’

4.5.4. Administration of the DELFMOErepresentativesalsoansweredquestionsrelatedtodetailsofDELFtesting.WhenaskedhowoftenstudentsshouldtaketheDELFtest,ofthefourrespondents,twoindicatedthattheDELFshouldbeusedasanexitexamonlyandtwowereuncertain.Thefollowingcommentselaborateontheirresponses:

• ‘OndevraitrépondreàcettequestionseulementunefoisquelerôleduDELFauraétéclairementdéfini’• ‘Enxx,ladécisiond'utiliserounoncetestrevientauxconseilsscolaires.C'esteuxquisontenmeilleuremesure

dedéterminerl'utilitépourleursélèvesd'unetelleévaluationexterne.C'estdoncàeuxdedéterminerquandsonutilisationestlaplusappropriée’

• ‘Aucomitédesepenchersurlaquestion’• ‘NousfaisonspasserleDELFauxélèvesde12eannéedepuis4ansetnousensommesmaintenantàévaluerla

possibilitéd'utiliserleDELFscolaireenfindecycles,possiblementen9eannée.Lesdiscussionssepoursuiventintensémentdansnotreprovinceàcesujet’

• ‘Duetothepreparationneededtoreachthevariouslevels,Iwouldsuggesttakingthetestinthefallorspringofone'sfinalyear’

WithregardtotheadministrationandtimedemandedbythetestingstructureoftheDELF,twoMOErepresentativesrepliedthatitwasworththeeffortandfourwereuncertain.Thefollowingcommentsexplaintheiruncertainty:

• ‘Lechoixd’investirl’effortetletempsrequispouradministrerletestdépendultimementdel’objectifdeceluiquiadministre.L’investissementdetempspourpasserletestdépendultimementdubesoindel’individuquileprend’

• ‘Encoreunefois,c'estauxconseilsscolairesquil'utilisentderépondreàcettequestion’• ‘Auraitunevaleurs'ilétaitobligatoirepourtouslesélèvespourqu'ilpuissed'outilpourunenseignantdanssa

classepouroffrirunenseignementsurmesure’

WhenaskediftheirMOEshouldadministertheDELF,tworepresentativesagreedandfourwereuncertain.

• ‘UntestdonnéparleMinistèrepourévaluerlescompétenceslangagièresdesélèvesdoits’arrimerauxprogram-mesd’étudesdelajuridictionenquestion.UntestexigéparleMinistèredoitrépondreauxbutsetobjectifsdecelui-cietdevraitavoirpourbutdefournirdel’informationpertinentesurlesconnaissancesetleshabiletésdesélèvesparrapportauxrésultatsd’apprentissageénoncésdanslesprogrammesd’étudesprovinciaux’

• ‘LeDELFappartientàlaFrance.Deplus,plusieursjuridictionsontleurspropresévaluationsprovincialesetjenecroispasqu'ellesvoudraientprendrelaresponsabilitéd'uneautreévaluationquineleurappartiendraitpas.Enxx,unfacteurimportantestlalibertédonnéeauxconseilsscolairesdechoisirlesoutilsd’évaluationquirépondentauxbesoinsdeleursélèves.Nousn’exigeronspasquelesconseilsscolairesadoptentunseuloutild’évaluationexternepourtousleursélèves’

• ‘Yes, I think itwouldbeagood idea for theMinistrytooversee itsadministration inconjunctionwiththeschooldistricts.IfeeltheDepartmentsofEducationcouldsurelyfacilitatetheadministrationoftheDELFsinceithasdirectcontactwiththevariousdistrictsandtheAlliancefrançaise’


WhenaskedabouttheimportanceofaCanadiancoordinatortomanageDELFtestinginCan-ada,onerepresentativedeemedthistobeimportant,threethoughtthiswasunimportant,andtwowereuncertain.Onerespondentofferedthefollowingexplanation:

• ‘L’utilisationdecetteévaluationquiprovientdelaFranceestunedécisionquirevientàchacunedesinstancesprovincialesetterritoriales.Uncoordonnateurnationald’unexamenquin’estpasutilisédelamêmefaçonpar-toutauCanadan’estpasjustifiableàcepoint.Deplus,comptetenudesresponsabilitésindividuellesdechacunedesjuridictionsenmatièred’éducation,onpeutsedemanderàquiserapporteraitcecoordinateuretquipaieraitpourlui.Silesprovincesetterritoiresdécidentqu’unoutilnationalaàêtredéveloppé,leConseildesMinistresdel’Éducation,Canadaestlegroupequidevraitcoordonnertouteinitiatived’évaluationnationale’

4.5.5. Funding for the DELFAnumberofquestionsrelatedtofundingfortheDELFasahighschoolexitexam.Threeres-pondentsindicatedthatnofundingwouldbemadeavailableandthreeotherswereuncertain.Whenaskedaboutobstaclestofunding,thefollowingcommentswereoffered:

• ‘Dupointdevuedexx,lesconseilsscolairesquichoisissentd'utilisercetexamenreçoiventdesfondsannuelsquileurpermettentdefairecechoix,toutenvisantderépondreauxbesoinsdeleursélèves.Laprovincen’estdoncpasenmesuredespéculersurlesraisonsquimotiventlesconseilsdefinancercetest.Alors,laprovincenes'ingèrepasdansleurdécisiond'offrirounoncetest’

• ‘testoptionnel’ ‘Nousnesommespasencoreenmesured'offrirl'examenàtousnosélèvesde12eannée.Deplus,utiliserle

DELFcommeexamenfinalpourl'ensembledelaprovinceexigeraitunerestructurationmajeuredenotrecen-tre,denosbudgetsetdespolitiquesd'évaluationdenotreministère’

• ‘Ilfautavanttoutrépondreàlaquestiondepertinence,debesoin,etde«créneau»pourleDELF’• Thecostsassociatedwith theadministrationandcorrectingcouldbeproblematic. I'mnotsure ifwecould

expectcandidatestopaythecostthemselvesifitisaprogramadministeredbytheMinistry.

4.5.6. DELF and CEFROnefinalquestionaskedtheMOErepresentativesiftheywouldliketoseetheCEFRincorporatedintotheirFSLprograms.Threerespondentsindicatedthatthiswasalreadythecaseintheirprovince/terri-tory.Thefollowingcommentsgivesomeofthereasonsprovidedbythosewhodidnotindicateachoice:

• ‘LeCECRestutiliséenxxcommeoutilderéférence(unparmidenombreuxautres).Comptetenudececi,ilestdifficilederépondreàcettequestionàcausedelafaçondontelleestposéeetduchoixderéponseoffert’

• ‘àl’étude’• ‘Lecadreeuropéencommunderéférenceestutilisécommeressource,parmid’autres,pourinspirerl’élaboration

desprogrammesd’étudesauManitoba’


4.5.7. Summary discussion of provincial/territorial ministries of education perceptions of the DELFTheresponsesof theMOErepresentatives fromtheprovinces/territories thatchosetocom-pletethequestionnaireindicateadividebetweenthosejurisdictionsthathavetakenapositivestancetotheDELFandthosewhoremainskepticalorresistant.TheformergrouphasdecidedtoworkwiththeDELFtocertifystudentFSLproficiencyusinganinternationallyrecognizedbenchmark.Ontheotherhand,thelattergrouphasbeenmorereticent,justifyingtheirpositioninthelightofprovincial/territorialautonomywithregardtoeducation.Eachprovince/territorysetsitsowneducationalprioritiesandestablishesitsownpolicieswithregardtolanguagelearning.Asaconsequence,thereisnocom-monCanadianpolicyorcurriculumforsecondlanguagelearning.Thereis,therefore,littleappetitebysomeprovinces/territoriestoworkcollaborativelytogetherwiththeMinistryofCanadianHeritage(PCH)todevelopandpro-motecommonpoliciesonsecond-languagelearninginCanada.Inthelattercase,DELFandtheCEFRarecurrentlyrecommendedasresourcesavailabletoschoolboardsiftheywishtomakeuseofthem.

Thissituationiscommoninthehistoryofthedevelopmentoflanguagepol-icy and educational policy in Canada. However, there is a growing use ofnationalbenchmarksinotherareasofeducationalpolicy,aslongastheyrespectprovincial/ter-ritorialjurisdictionovereducationalprogramming.ThesituationoftheDELFissimilarinthatregardtorecentdevelopmentsinotherareasofeducation.Differentprovincial/territorialposi-tionsrequiremoreattention,buttheyarenotaninsurmountablebarrierforuseoftheDELFonanationalscale.

Inthecaseofprovinces/territorieswithaGrade12testingprogram,themainpriorityappearstobeverifyingwhetherprovincial/territorialFSLoutcomeshavebeenmet.Theresponsesdocu-mentedabovesuggestthattheseprovinces/territorieshavenotinvestigatedthedegreetowhichtheDELFcouldverifyprovincial/territorialoutcomesand,atthesametime,attainoutcomesthatofferstudentslanguagecertificationwithinternationalcurrency.

TheMOEresponsesprovideasomewhatfullerunderstandingofsomeoftheprovincialpolicypositionsdocumentedbyManuard,etal(2009)andsummarizedearlierinTable3.

.The responses of the MOE representatives from the pro-vinces/territories that chose to complete the questionnaire indicate a divide between those jurisdictions that have taken a positive stance to the DELF and those who remain skeptical or resistant.


�. Conclusions and recommendationsThissectionwillcombinethefindingsfromvariousstakeholderstodrawsomeconclusionsaboutexperiencewiththeDELFinCanada.Basedontheseconclusions,recommendationsaremadefornextstepstodevelopthepotentialoftheDELFtestanddiplomainCanada.

5.1. Conclusions

5.1.1. Appropriate measure of FSL proficiencyThere is an overwhelmingly high level of agreement among students, parents, and teachersthattheDELFisanappropriateinstrumenttoserveasanationalFSLproficiencytest.Ahighpercentageofthestudents,parentsandteachersdeemtheDELFtobeafairandappropriatemeasureofFSLproficiencyandwouldrecommendthetesttoothers.ThisfindingisreinforcedbyfindingsofthetwoOCDSBstudieswhicharebasedonfeedbackfromagreaternumberofteachersandstudents,particularlystudentsattheBlevels.

Thisfindingalsoprovidesevidencefortheface validityoftheDELF.Facevalidityisthejudgmentbylearnersandteachersofthedegreetowhichatestreflectswhatitispurportedtoassess.Ifatestdoesnotmeetthiscriterion,primarystakeholders,suchasstudentsandteachers,mayperceivethetestasunfairandthatmayaffectperfor-manceandhowmuchthetest(andresults)arevalued.ResponsesindicatetheDELFisconsideredafair,validtestoflanguageproficiency.

5.1.2. Teacher role in promoting certificationBothstudentsandparentshighlighttheimportantrolethatteachersplayinraising

student awareness of the DELF and preparing students for success. Question responses andcommentsshowedthatteachersmakestudentsawareofthebenefitsofDELFcertification,gui-destudentsinchoosingtheappropriateleveltochallenge,andprovidetheresourcesstudentscanusetoprepareforthetest.

5.1.3. Listening tasks BothteachersandstudentsacknowledgethegreaterchallengeoftheDELFlisteningtasks,par-ticularlyattheBlevel.ThisfindingisalsoconsistentwiththeOCDSBfindings.Itisnotclear,however,whetherthisdifficultyisduetotextcharacteristics,taskcharacteristicsoracombina-tionofboth.Thisfindingisparalleledbythefindingthatthegreatestgapincongruencebetweentesttasksandclassroomactivitiesisinlistening.Thislikelycontributestostudentsfindingthisportionofthetestmorechallenging.Thisperceptionisvalidatedbytheactualmeanscoreinlis-teningcomprehensionfortheB1level;however,attheB2levelthemeanscoresforreadingandlisteningarenotsubstantiallydifferent(Harlaux&Georges,2012).

.There is an overwhelmingly high level of agreement among students, parents, and teachers that the DELF is an appropriate instrument to serve as a national FSL proficiency test.


5.1.4. Unfamiliar cultural referencesUnfamiliar cultural references are perceived as problematic, more soby the teachers than the students and especially so by the MOE re-presentatives.Theseareperceptionsonly.Furtherresearchisneededtodeterminewhetherunfamiliarculturalreferencesdoactuallyinterfereinstudentsuccessandthedegreetowhichthestrategiescitedbythestudentshelpthemtocopewiththeunfamiliar.

5.1.5. Positive washback on teachingTeachercommentspointtothewashbackeffectsoftheDELFontheirteaching.Inotherwords,theDELFcananddoeschangepedagogy.FSLclassesbecomemorecommunicativeinorienta-tionthroughincreasedpracticeofspeakingskillsandmoreemphasisonauthenticdocumentsforlisteningandreading.

5.1.6. Growing awareness by universitiesUniversitiesareonlynowbeginningtobecomeawareofdevelopmentsinFSLprogramsinhighschools(suchasCEFRandDELF)thatwillhaveimpactsforadmissionsandplacements,asstudentsincludeDELFcertificationintheirapplications.Althoughthereisevidenceofsomeresistance,thereisgreaterinterestinlearningmore.

5.1.7. Division between provinces/territories on policy positions Currently,thereappearstobeadistinctionbetweenthoseprovinces/territorieswhohavedeci-dedtomoveforwardinworkingcollaborativelywithotherprovinces/territoriesonFSLpolicyissuesandthosewhoarenotyetreadytodoso.Differingviewsontherelationshipbetweentestingglobalproficiencyoutcomesandtestingprovincial/territorialFSLoutcomesmaybeonefactorunderlyingthisdivide.

5.1.8. Need for more informationThereisaclearneedforinformationonanumberoffronts.Parentsarenotalwaysadequatelyin-formedaboutwhattheDELFisanditsbenefits.TheyarealsouncertainabouttherelationshipbetweenDELFtestingandtheassessmentofprovincial/territorialFLSlearningoutcomes.Uni-versities need more information about the DELF, the CEFR, and the implications of DELFcertificationforplacementpurposes.

..FSL classes become more communicative in orientation through increased practice of speaking skills and more em-phasis on authentic documents for listening and reading.


5.2. RecommendationsThefindingsofthisstudy,complementedbysimilarfindingsfromtheOCDSBstudies,suggestthattheDELFholdsagreatdealofpromiseasanappropriatemeasureofFSLproficiencyinCanada.Anationalproficiencytestwithinternationalcurrency,suchastheDELF,canhelp1)high schoolgraduatesdescribe their abilities inFrenchandestablishmore concretegoals;2)employersbetterunderstandtheFrench-languageabilitiesofjobcandidates;and,3)universitiesdeterminetheappropriateplacementofstudents.

Thisreportconfirmspotential; italsoindicatesfactorsthatwillneedattentiontorealizethatpotential. The followingactionswillbenecessary toadvanceuseof theDELFasanationalFrench-languageproficiencytestinCanada.

5.2.1. Develop and implement an active information campaign5.2.1.1. InformFSLteachersabouttheDELF

Teachersarekeyactorstoinformstudentsandschoolboardsabouttheprofes-sionalandpersonalbenefitsofDELFcertificationforstudents.CAITshouldworkwiththeCanadianAssociationofSecondLanguageTeachers(CASLT),provincial/territorial second language teacher associations and other nationalorganizations (e.g., Canadian Parents for French) to offer symposiums andworkshopsonDELF,virtualorface-to-face.

Moreteachersneedtobeinformedaboutthebenefits,supportedbythefindingsofthisstudy,tocreategreaterawarenessinschoolsandschoolboards,particularlyatthesecondarylevel.Mo-mentumfromparents,teachersandstudentsforadoptingtheDELFasanationalproficiencytestcangrowineachprovince/territorywhenteachersareawareofthebenefitsandcaninspirestudentstoseekDELFcertification.

5.2.1.2. Lobbyingofprovincial/territorialMinistriesofEducation

CAITshouldcontinuelobbyingprovincial/territorialMOEtoexploreoptionsfortheuseofDELFbyschoolboardsintheirjurisdiction.Asnewinformationbecomesavailable(seesection5.2.4.below),theMOEmustcontinuetobeinformedsothatpertinentfindingsaresharedandpotentialbarriersovercome.

Intheirlobbyingefforts,CAITshouldworkwiththeMinistryofCanadianHeritageandtheOfficeoftheCommissionerofOfficialLanguagesinasmuchasthemandatesofthesefederalinstitutionsallow.

5.2.1.3. Betterinformparents

DistributionofcopiesofthisreporttoallbranchesofCPFwillprovideabasisofinformationfordisseminationthroughnewsletters,informationbulletins,websites,andbrochures.

Schoolsandschoolboardsshouldreviewtheirpromotionalmaterialsandprocedurestoensurethatparentsareadequatelyinformedanddoreceivetheinformation.FindingsinthisreportandtheOCDSBstudiescanbeusedtofleshoutinformationbrochuresforparentsbyoutliningthebenefitsoftheDELF.

..This report confirms potential; it also indicates factors that will need attention to realize that potential.


5.2.1.4. InformuniversityFrenchdepartmentsandadmissionoffices

UniversityFrenchdepartmentshavebeenprimedtoexaminetheroleandimplicationsofDELF/DALFcertificationandtheCEFRfortheirprograms.DistributionofthisreporttoalluniversityFrenchdepartmentsinCanada,aswellasadmissionofficesofallFrench-languagepost-secon-daryinstitutions,willenhancetheinformationbasefordecision-making.Inaddition,informa-tionsessionswithrepresentativesfromeachpost-secondaryinstitutionshouldbeorganizedtoensurethattheimplicationsoftheinformationareunderstood,todispelmythsabouttheDELF,andtodiscussopportunitiesfortheuniversitycommunitytobenefitfromtheDELF.

ThisrecommendationcomplementsarecommendationoftheuniversitystudyconductedbytheofficeoftheCommissionerofOfficialLanguagesencouragingfurtherresearchonthesecond-languagelearningexperienceandproficiencyofstudentsarrivingatuniversityandproficiencylevelsongraduation(OCOL,2009).

5.2.2. Seek endorsement of CMECIntergovernmental bodies are best positioned to advanceknowledge about the DELF within the provincial/territorialministriesofeducation.AttentionbytheAdvisoryCommitteeofDeputyMinistersofEducationcouldhelpbringtheissueoftheDELFontotheagendaoftheCouncilofMinistersofEdu-cation,Canada(CMEC)inthesamewaythattheCEFRbegantoreceivemoreconcertednationalattentionin2006.Leadershipbyoneprovinceishelpful.SinceNovaScotiahasalreadyadoptedaprovincialpolicywithregardtotheDELF,representativesfromthisprovincemaybeinagoodpositiontoraisethismatterintheinter-governmentalarena.OncetheissuehasbeenbroughttothetableofCMEC,provin-cial/territorialgovernmentscanworktogethertodevelopanoverallpolicystatementwithregardtothebenefitsandpossibilitiesoftheDELFasanationalFrench-languageproficiencytest.

CMEC should also discuss funding options for provinces/territories to work collaborativelywithschoolboardsandparents,sothatequityisnotanissue.Costoptionsshouldalsobedis-cussedwithCIEP.

5.2.3. Open more DELF testing centresAllstudentsacrossCanadawillneedtohaveaccesstotestingcentresthatadministertheDELFScolaire, ifitisgoingtobecomethenationalFSLproficiencytestofchoice.Centresshouldbeopenedinallprovinces,ateithermajorschoolboardsoruniversities,withappropriatesatellitecentresintheterritoriesorotherregionsoftheprovinceasrequired.

Asmoretestingcentresareopened, theneedforaCanadiancentretoadminister theDELFbecomesmorevital.Withanincreaseintestingcentres,therewillbeneedformoreinformationandcollaborationbetweenjurisdictions.Theviabilityofsuchacentreneedstobeexplored.4

4 CAIThasrecentlyreceivedfundingtoexploretheviabilityofsuchacentreandwillembarkonthisprojectduringthe2012-13fundingyear.

.All students across Canada will need to have access to testing centres that administer the DELF Scolaire, if it is going to become the national FSL proficiency test of choice.


5.2.4. Further researchAlthoughthefindingsofthisstudyandtheOCDSBstudiesprovidecompellingevidenceformovingforwardwiththeDELFasanationalFrench-languageproficiencytest,somepotentialbarrierstogreatersuccessmeritfurtherresearch.

5.2.4.1. Difficultyoflisteningtasks

ListeningappearstobethemostdifficultoftheskillstestedbytheDELF,particu-larlyattheBlevels.Furtherresearchshoulddetermineifthisdifficultyisrelatedtothetypesofdocumentsused,thenatureofthelisteningtasksorthetypeofliste-ningpedagogyusedintheclassroom.

AnotherareaforfurtherresearchistheapparentdifferencebetweenlisteningtasksintheDELFandlisteningtasksintheclassroom,identifiedbybothstudentsandteachers. Factorstobeexploredincludethecurriculummaterials,theactivities,and the pedagogy for teaching listening skills. Based on how these relate to theDELFlisteningtasks,adjustmentsinclassroominstructionmaybeabletomake

thelevelofdifficultyinlisteningsimilartothatfortheotherskills.Moredetailedexplorationshouldaddressthismatter,giventheimportantroleofteachersandpedagogy.

5.2.4.2. Natureandextentofculturalinterference

FurtherinvestigationoftheimpactofunfamiliarreferencesintheDELFiswarrantedbecauseofthelackofconsensusinthisstudyontheextentofculturalinterference.Asmall-scalestudyofparticipantsfromvariousareasofthecountryateachofthefourlevelsshouldclarifythismatter.StudentscouldbeinterviewedimmediatelyafteraDELFtestsessionandaskedtorespondto/reflectonpotentiallyconfusingculturalreferencesthathadbeenearlieridentifiedbyateamofCanadianteachers.Thisprocesscouldverifywhethertheparticularitem/phenomenonactuallyinterferedwithsuccessand,ifnot,howstudentswereabletocopewiththeunfamiliar.

InordertoassurethattheDELFremainsinternationalinscope(notjustcontentfromFrance),ateamofCanadianwriterswasrecentlytrainedbyCIEPtodevelopandprovideCanadianmate-rialtobeincludedinfutureversionsoftheDELF Scolaire.ThisisthefirsttimeCIEPhastrainedatestdevelopmentteamoutsideofFrance,aninitiativewhichbodeswellforfutureCanadianparticipation.

5.2.4.3. CostofDELFaspotentialbarrier

FurtherstudyofwhowillpayforDELFshouldhappen.ShouldtheDELFbecomearequiredtest,itisclearthatthejurisdictionrequiringthetestwouldpay.However,iftheDELFbecomesaprovincial/territorialopportunityforGrade12studentstocertifytheirFrench-languagecompe-tenceatgraduation,anumberofdifferentfundingoptionsmightneedtobeexplored.Thismayneedtobedoneonanindividualbasisbyprovince/territorybasedontargetedoutcomesbyFSLprogram(e.g.,B2forGrade12Frenchimmersion).

..Further investigation of the im-pact of unfamiliar references in the DELF is warranted because of the lack of consensus in this study on the extent of cultural interference.


5.2.4.4. DELFandprovincial/territorialFSLlearningoutcomes

Giventheoften-citedconcernaboutthecapacityoftheDELFtoassessalllearningoutcomestargetedbydifferentprovincial/territorialFSLprogramsofstudies,theseoutcomesshouldbemappedagainstthetestspecificationsoftheDELF,whichareessentiallytheCEFRdescriptorsofagivenlevel.Onceaprovince/territorytargetsaspecificleveloftheCEFRasthe(Grade12)exitlevelforagivenFSLprogram(e.g.,B1forcoreFrenchorB2forFrenchimmersion)thepro-gramoutcomesshouldbemappedagainsttheCEFRleveldescriptorstodocumentthedegreetowhichgivenprovincial/territorialFSLoutcomescanbemetinDELFwhich,inaddition,offersinternationalcertificationofFrench-languageproficiencyforthatlevel.

5.2.4.5. DELFpromotioninothercountries

AsitgainsgreateracceptanceinCanada,furtherinformationontheuseandgovernanceoftheDELFScolaire incountrieswithahighparticipationrate,suchasGermanyandItaly,shouldbeinvestigated.MoreinformationonthepolicypositionsandDELFgovernancemodelsinthesecountriesmaybehelpfulinovercomingresistanceinCanada.


AcknowledgementsWewishtoexpressthanksandappreciationto:

• OfficialLanguagesSupportProgramBranch,DepartmentofCanadianHeritage,forfun-dingthisproject;

• OCDSBresearchteamforpermissiontousetheirquestionnairesasthestartingpointforourquestionnaires;

• MarcGobeilandstudentsatUniversityofOttawaforhelpinidentifyingcontactsatCana-dianuniversities;and,

• DELF Committee (Lesley Doell, Alicia Logie, Jean-Claude Bergeron, Denis Cousineau,MohChelali,DominiqueSuquet,LarryVandergrift,ChantalBourbonnais)


ReferencesACPI(Associationcanadiennedesprofesseursd’immersion).(2010).Le Journal de l’Immersion,

32(2).

Alderson,J.C.&Wall,D.(1993).Doeswashbackexist?Applied Linguistics,14,115–129.

Boubnova,G.(2010).L’olympiadefédéraledefrançaisenRussie:Unterraind’expérimentationetderéflexionpédagogique.Revue française de linguistique appliquée,15,75-88.

COE(CouncilofEurope).(2001). A common European framework of reference for languages: Learning, teaching assessment.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.

CPF(CanadianParentsforFrench).(2012).NationalFrench-Second-LanguageProficiencyBenchmarks.RetrievedJune12,2012fromhttp://cpf.ca/en/files/Proficiency-Bench-marks.pdf

Doell,L.(2010).Idéespratiquespourl’administrationdesexamensDELFScolairedanslesécolesetlesconseilsscolaires.Le Journal de l’Immersion,32,16-19.

Dupoux,B.(2004).Unecertificationpourunniveaudedécouverteenfrançais.Le français dans le monde,236,33-34.

Harlaux,P-A.&Georges,S.(2012).RapportCanada:LeDELFDALFdepuis2005.Paris:CIEP.

Jouette-Nagadi,I.(2009).L’impactduDELFScolaireenAllemagne.Praxis fremdsprachenun-terricht,6,46-50.

Liskin-Gasparro,J.(2003).TheACTFLProficiencyGuidelinesandtheOralProficiencyInterview:Abriefhistoryandanalysisoftheirsurvival.Foreign Language Annals, 36,483-490.

Logie,A.(2010).LasuiteduDELF.Le Journal de l’Immersion,32,25-27.

Manuard,É.,Chelali,M.,Bergeron,J-C.,&Lazaruk,W.(2011).DELF-DALF: An Internatio-nal Standard for French as a Second Language in Canada?Mimeo.

Mous,N.(2011).LeDELFScolaireenFrance.Entrées,8,A1-2.

Mistichelli,M.&Salles,V.(2007).LenouveauDELF,uneentréeréussie.Le français dans le monde,351,14.

OCOL(OfficeoftheCommissionerofOfficialLanguages).(2009).Two languages, a world of opportunities: Second-language learning in Canada’s universities.Ottawa,ON:MinisterofPublicWorksandGovernmentServicesCanada.

PCO(PrivyCouncilOffice).(2003).The next act: New momentum for Canada’s linguistic dual-ity. The action plan for official languages.RetrievedJune19,2012fromhttp://www.pch.gc.ca/pgm/lo-ol/pubs/plan/2007-2008/actpln-eng.pdf


Piccardo,E.,Berchoud,M.,Cignatta,T.,Mentz,O.,&Pamula,M.(2012).Pathways through assessing learning and teaching in the CEFR.Strasbourg:CouncilofEurope.

Premat,C.&Simon,V.(2010).Lescertificationsont-ellesuneffetdécisifsurl’apprentissagedufrançais?Synergies,5,133-142.

Riba,P.,Lepage,S.&Chevallier-Wixler,D.(2006).LaréformeduDELFetduDALF.Le français dans le monde,336,29-31.

Riba,P.&Mavel,M.(2008).L’harmonisationduDELFetduDALFsurlesniveauxduCadreeuropéencommunderéférencepourleslangues.InTaylor,L.(ed.)Studies in Language Testing,27,

OCDSB,QualityAssuranceDivision.(2010).Grade 12 French proficiency test: Spring 2010 pilot project.Mimeo.

OCDSB,QualityAssuranceDivision.(2011).Grade 12 French proficiency test:

Results from the 2010-2011 administration. Mimeo.

Rönneper,H.(2008).L’introductiond’unecertificationétrangèreenAllemagne.Revue interna-tionale d’éducation Sèvres,47,91-100.

Sinitsa,Y.,Berzkina,E.&Breen,J.(2010).DELF-DALF:Prioritéàladimensionintercultu-relle.Le français dans le monde,372,28-9.

Tang,M.(2010).LeDELFetl’avenirdel’apprentissagedufrançaisenColombie-Brittanique.Le Journal de l’Immersion,32(2),20-24.

Vandergrift,L.(2006).Proposal for a common framework of reference for languages for Canada.Ottawa,ON:CanadianHeritage,Queen’sPrinter.

The DELF in Canada - · PDF filethe DELF junior except that it is administered in school...

Documents

Transcript of The DELF in Canada - · PDF filethe DELF junior except that it is administered in school...