MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1977309964 · doi:10.1080/07908310903494525

Students' attitudes to the secondary French immersion curriculum in a Canadian context

2010· article· en· W1977309964 on OpenAlexaffabout
Josée Makropoulos

Bibliographic record

VenueLanguage Culture and Curriculum · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicSecond Language Learning and Teaching
Canadian institutionsGovernment of Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFrench immersionCurriculumPedagogyFrenchAP French LanguagePsychologySociologyMathematics educationForeign languageHumanitiesArt

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper makes a contribution to the field of French immersion studies by examining student attitudes towards the secondary French immersion curriculum. Some of the students had made the decision to stay engaged with the programme while others had become disengaged from it. Drawing on the results of interviews with 23 students in a high school in Ottawa, Canada, the study reveals that the attitudes of engaged and disengaged students were informed by the everyday realities of their respective linguistic and academic situations. Students referred to their family backgrounds and interests in learning and using French inside and outside of school, to their learning styles, to the marks they obtained in school, and to their educational experiences. At times, engaged and disengaged students also shared overlapping attitudes, informed by factors such as language, class, culture and race. This paper concludes with a brief discussion of the implications of the study for the future curriculum development of French immersion programmes in Canada and in other countries.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.069
Threshold uncertainty score0.143

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0110.003
Scholarly communication0.0050.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.005
GPT teacher head0.242
Teacher spread0.237 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations18
Published2010
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueLanguage Culture and CurriculumSame topicSecond Language Learning and TeachingFrench-language works237,207