The evolving sociopolitical context of immersion education in Canada: some implications for program development<sup>1</sup>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In 1997 Swain and Johnson defined immersion as one category within bilingual education, providing examples and discussion from multiple international perspectives. In this article, we review the core features of immersion program design identified by Swain and Johnson and discuss how current sociopolitical realities and new research on second language learning serve to update and refresh the discussion of these features. One feature identified by Swain and Johnson is that “the classroom culture is that of the local L1 community”. The dramatic increase in ethnic diversity in Canada's urban centres calls into question the notion of a monolithic culture in the school community. A second example concerns the use of the L1 in the classroom: while a central feature of immersion education is the use of the L2 as medium of instruction, new research suggests that allowing a judicious use of the L1 on the part of learners may be warranted. The article concludes with suggestions for building on multiple L1s in the immersion classroom.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.008 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.021 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".