The Power of “Can Do” statements: Teachers’ Perceptions of CEFR-informed Instruction in French as a Second Language Classrooms in Ontario
Bibliographic record
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.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 teacher head, 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".