Access to French as Second Official Language Programs in English-Dominant Canada
Pourquoi ce travail est dans la base
Une base qui oublie comment elle a trouvé un travail ne peut pas être vérifiée. Voici les voies qui ont admis celui-ci.
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Language policies in any country exist within socio-historical contexts-embedded in history and influenced by socio-political factors.In Canada, such factors were the impetus to the formation of the Royal Commission on Bilingualism and Biculturalism (Royal Commission on Bilingualism and Biculturalism [RCBB], 1967), which was grounded in an English/French partnership and recommended that Canada become an English/French bilingual country.Although the subsequent Official Languages Act (Department of Justice, 1985) and Charter of Rights and Freedoms (Department of Justice, 1982) limited their focus to first language maintenance, they did recognise second language education as contributing to the equality of status of both official languages.In Canada, however, the impact of second language education is mitigated by the provinces and territories who hold constitutional jurisdiction over education (Liddicoat & Baldauf, 2008;Marsh & Willis, 2003).Currently in Canadian schools, policies for access to French as second official language (FSOL) programs range along a continuum from informal to formal.Where some Ministries of Education have developed informal policies that Delaney (2002) described as de facto policies or practices that have become legitimized over time, Loreman (2007) posits that these policies can lead to inconsistencies.On the other end of the continuum, some Ministries of Education have formal policies that have been developed through a formulation process that includes input by stakeholders before adoption of the policy (Delaney, 2002).As it pertains to access to FSOL education, the provinces and territories have not used their authority to create many formal policies.Such an absence of direction is a variable contributing to the inconsistent and inequitable access to FSOL education (Mady & Arnett, 2009;Mady & Turnbull, 2010) where formal policies may be the most effective starting point to achieving more equitable access (Conrick & Regan, 2007;Cooper, Fusarelli, & Randall, 2004).In addition to governments, language organizations also attempt to influence second language education.Canadian Parents for French (CPF), the sponsor of this research, is one such organization.With its view to improve FSOL, CPF identifies 11 criteria on which to judge equitability of access (CPF, 2010).It is these criteria that form the observation schema of this study. MethodThe purpose of this content analysis study was to examine formal provincial/territorial policies as they pertain to CPF's indicators of equitable access to FSOL programs.The study sought to
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,006 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,059 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle