Towards a cross-linguistic pedagogy: biliteracy and reciprocal learning strategies in French immersion
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
This dissertation is based on a 7-week classroom intervention in two French immersion classes (Grades 3and 3/4) in two schools that enroll both English- and French-dominant students near Montreal, Quebec. The intervention aimed to bridge the students' first and second languages (L2) through a 'biliteracy' project that linked English and French language arts content and through the instruction of reciprocal language learning strategies designed to help students make language-learning connections with other students.For the biliteracy project, students' English and French teachers read to them from the English and French versions of three picture books. Following each reading, student pairs consisting of one English- and one French-dominant partner engaged in collaborative literacy tasks. In addition, students received eight strategy lessons with the goals of raising their awareness of their L2 production and enhancing its accuracy, while increasing their awareness of themselves and their peers as language-learning resources.Data collection consisted of student and teacher interviews as well as audiotaped interactions of 8 focal pairs (n = 16) as they worked on all collaborative tasks. The study's mixed-methods data analysis was as follows: Transcripts of the interaction data were first analyzed quantitatively in terms of students' (a) focus on language (operationalized as language-related episodes) and (b) use of reciprocal strategies (operationalized as 'asking questions' and 'giving corrective feedback'). The quantitative analysis offered an overall portrait of students' interaction and allowed for a comparison of pair behaviors as well as of individual partners' behaviors. The patterns that emerged in the quantitative data helped guide the subsequent qualitative analysis of the data. The analyses revealed that all recorded pairs engaged in reciprocal strategy use and extensive on-task collaboration. Language dominance and task type both influenced students' interactional behavior to some degree, but the effectiveness of their task and language problem solving was tempered by the extent to which they engaged in additional interactional moves that sought and supported contributions from their partners. Thus, future instruction that teaches students how to collaborate constructively is highlighted as a key element in promoting the success of similar cross-linguistic approaches.
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.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
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 | 0,000 |
| 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 | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,003 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,012 | 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 découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».