La présente étude avait pour objectif de décrire comment est enseignée (si elle l’est effectivement) la distinction d’emploi entre le passé composé et l’imparfait, une distinction aspectuelle posant problème aux apprenants du français langue seconde, dans trois classes de 3e à 5e années en immersion française précoce aux Territoires du Nord-Ouest et de décrire l’utilisation que font les enseignantes de ces temps verbaux. À partir de dix-neuf heures d’observation en classe et d’entretiens menés avec deux enseignantes, nous avons élaboré une proposition didactique basée sur la réflexion guidée avec exemples positifs et négatifs de Nadeau et Fisher (2006) mettant en évidence le contraste d’emploi entre le passé composé et l’imparfait. Cette proposition didactique fournit aux enseignantes une façon de l’enseigner alors qu’elles ne le font pas à ces niveaux, et aux apprenants, un intrant où la fréquence des emplois atypiques est plus grande que dans le discours de leur enseignante. / The present study is aimed at describing how the distinction in use between passé composé and imparfait, an aspectual distinction that is problematic to learners of French as a second language, is taught (if it is effectively taught) in three 3rd to 5th grade classes of the French early immersion program in the Northwestern Territories, and how the teachers use these verb tenses. Based on nineteen hours of classroom observations and interviews with two teachers, we developed a teaching proposal using Nadeau and Fisher’s « guided reflexion with positive and negative examples » (2006), that brings to light the contrast of use that exists between the passé composé and the imparfait. This teaching proposal gives the teachers a way to teach it, as they don’t teach it at these levels, and exposes the learners to an input in which the frequency of atypical uses is higher than in their teachers’ discourse.

La présente étude avait pour objectif de décrire comment est enseignée (si elle l’est effectivement) la distinction d’emploi entre le passé composé et l’imparfait, une distinction aspectuelle posant problème aux apprenants du français langue seconde, dans trois classes de 3e à 5e années en immersion française précoce aux Territoires du Nord-Ouest et de décrire l’utilisation que font les enseignantes de ces temps verbaux. À partir de dix-neuf heures d’observation en classe et d’entretiens menés avec deux enseignantes, nous avons élaboré une proposition didactique basée sur la réflexion guidée avec exemples positifs et négatifs de Nadeau et Fisher (2006) mettant en évidence le contraste d’emploi entre le passé composé et l’imparfait. Cette proposition didactique fournit aux enseignantes une façon de l’enseigner alors qu’elles ne le font pas à ces niveaux, et aux apprenants, un intrant où la fréquence des emplois atypiques est plus grande que dans le discours de leur enseignante. / The present study is aimed at describing how the distinction in use between passé composé and imparfait, an aspectual distinction that is problematic to learners of French as a second language, is taught (if it is effectively taught) in three 3rd to 5th grade classes of the French early immersion program in the Northwestern Territories, and how the teachers use these verb tenses. Based on nineteen hours of classroom observations and interviews with two teachers, we developed a teaching proposal using Nadeau and Fisher’s « guided reflexion with positive and negative examples » (2006), that brings to light the contrast of use that exists between the passé composé and the imparfait. This teaching proposal gives the teachers a way to teach it, as they don’t teach it at these levels, and exposes the learners to an input in which the frequency of atypical uses is higher than in their teachers’ discourse.

Content-based language instruction has gained widespread acceptance as an effective approach in a range of educational settings for adults and children. It is premised on the belief that language and content are inextricably linked and that learning is enhanced through an integrated approach. Yet the nature of the relationship between content and language, and how integration can be achieved in the content-based language classroom, continue to be points of divergence for both researchers and practitioners. One approach to this question draws on research in form-focused instruction (FFI), which describes various instructional options that draw learners’ attention to form in primarily meaning and content-based classrooms. While widely accepted that FFI has a positive impact on language learning outcomes in a variety of contexts, FFI research in content-based language programs for adults has been limited. This study investigated the effect and effectiveness of FFI in a content-based language program designed to prepare adult newcomers to Canada for employment in a specific workplace sector. Two groups of adult learners participated in the study. One group of 16 adults received content-based instruction integrated with FFI while the other group of 20 adults received the same content-based instruction with a focus on meaning only. A quasi-experimental, pre-test/post-test/delayed post-test design was adopted for this comparative study in order to measure language and content outcomes. Language measures included an error correction task, a cloze task, and oral production tasks. Content outcomes were measured via content tests. In addition, a retrospective awareness protocol was designed to assess learners’ awareness of language and content in their instruction and to explore the relationship between this awareness and language development. ANOVA and ANCOVA results indicated that there was no advantage for the participants receiving form-focused instruction on language outcomes but a significant benefit on the content knowledge tests. Analysis of the retrospective report data indicated that the participants were able to identify the focus of the instruction they received. However, no relationship between awareness of language and language development was found. These findings are discussed in light of previous research and in terms of their implications for content-based language instruction.

Content-based language instruction has gained widespread acceptance as an effective approach in a range of educational settings for adults and children. It is premised on the belief that language and content are inextricably linked and that learning is enhanced through an integrated approach. Yet the nature of the relationship between content and language, and how integration can be achieved in the content-based language classroom, continue to be points of divergence for both researchers and practitioners. One approach to this question draws on research in form-focused instruction (FFI), which describes various instructional options that draw learners’ attention to form in primarily meaning and content-based classrooms. While widely accepted that FFI has a positive impact on language learning outcomes in a variety of contexts, FFI research in content-based language programs for adults has been limited. This study investigated the effect and effectiveness of FFI in a content-based language program designed to prepare adult newcomers to Canada for employment in a specific workplace sector. Two groups of adult learners participated in the study. One group of 16 adults received content-based instruction integrated with FFI while the other group of 20 adults received the same content-based instruction with a focus on meaning only. A quasi-experimental, pre-test/post-test/delayed post-test design was adopted for this comparative study in order to measure language and content outcomes. Language measures included an error correction task, a cloze task, and oral production tasks. Content outcomes were measured via content tests. In addition, a retrospective awareness protocol was designed to assess learners’ awareness of language and content in their instruction and to explore the relationship between this awareness and language development. ANOVA and ANCOVA results indicated that there was no advantage for the participants receiving form-focused instruction on language outcomes but a significant benefit on the content knowledge tests. Analysis of the retrospective report data indicated that the participants were able to identify the focus of the instruction they received. However, no relationship between awareness of language and language development was found. These findings are discussed in light of previous research and in terms of their implications for content-based language instruction.