Intensive French in British Columbia: Student and Parent Perspectives and English as Additional Language (EAL) Student Performance
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article examines why students participated in British Columbia's first intensive French (IF) program between 2004 and 2008 and what they achieved as a result, with a particular focus on the effect on the French and English language proficiency of English as additional language (EAL) students. Qualitative case studies found that students and parents believe IF affords short- and long-term benefits, especially for education and employment; some, particularly EAL students and their parents, expect advantages related to Canadian citizenship. Oral French proficiency assessments of all IF students (N = 357) found no significant difference between the mean proficiency results of any groups compared, but the distribution of scores showed significant differences between EAL and non-EAL students and between Grade 5 and Grade 6 students in the percentage of students achieving spontaneous communication. English proficiency assessments of EAL students in IF (n = 43) showed their improvement over the school year was significantly greater than that of EAL peers not in IF (n = 43). The implications of this study for inclusion of EAL learners in FSL programs and future research are discussed.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".