The Power of “Can Do” statements: Teachers’ Perceptions of CEFR-informed Instruction in French as a Second Language Classrooms in Ontario
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract This article reports on French as a second language (FSL) teachers’ perceptions of using the Common European Framework of Reference (CEFR)-informed instruction (action-oriented instruction focusing on language use) in FSL classrooms in Ontario. In particular, this paper focuses on teachers’ perspectives of the strengths and challenges of providing CEFR-informed practice in FSL classrooms. FSL teachers (n=93) as well as elementary and secondary school students (n=943) participated in this province-wide study. Participating teachers were introduced to the CEFR and CEFR-informed activities and resources. Teachers then used the resources in their classrooms for approximately three months. At the end of this period, teachers participated in interviews and focus group sessions which focused on their perceptions’ of CEFR’s action-oriented approach. Teachers reported that CEFR-informed instruction increased student motivation, built self-confidence in their learners, promoted authentic language use in the classroom and encouraged learner autonomy. These findings have implications for FSL programs in Canada and possibly other second language education programs worldwide. Résumé Cet article présente les résultats d’une recherche sur les perceptions des enseignant(e)s de FLS (Français Langue Seconde) en Ontario quant à l’utilisation du CECR (Cadre Européen Commun de Référence) dans leurs salles de classe (une approche actionnelle de l’enseignement des langues qui met l’emphase sur l’utilisation même de la langue). Cet article vise principalement à décrire les perspectives des enseignant(e)s quant à la promotion de l’autonomie d’apprentissage tout en utilisant des pratiques proposées par le CECR. Cette étude a été menée dans la province de l’Ontario avec 93 enseignant(e)s de FLS et 943 élèves d’écoles élémentaires et secondaires. Les professeur(e)s ont été tout d’abord introduit(e)s au Cadre et à des activités et des ressources qui développent l’autonomie chez l’apprenant. Ils (elles) ont ensuite utilisé ces ressources en cours pendant plus ou moins trois mois et à terme, ils (elles) ont exprimé leurs perceptions sur l’utilisation de l’approche actionnelle du CECR lors d’entretiens dirigés et de discussions en groupes. La plupart de ces enseignant(e)s ont clairement exprimé que cette approche a élevé la motivation d’apprentissage de leurs élèves, qu’elle a développé la confiance en eux-mêmes, qu’elle a encouragé l’utilisation de la langue cible et qu’elle a favorisé l’autonomie d’apprentissage. Ces résultats ont des conséquences importantes pour les programmes de FLS au Canada et en général, pour l’enseignement des langues au niveau international.
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 | 0.005 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.012 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".