Exploring the dynamic relationship between the Accelerative Integrated Method (AIM) and the core French teachers who use it: Why agency and experience matter.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Over the last decade, almost 4,000 Canadian schools have moved to using the Accelerative Integrated Method (AIM) for core French (CF) instruction. Following researchers’ recommendations (Brumfit, 1984; Lapkin, Mady, & Arnott, 2009; Larsen-Freeman, 1996, 2000; Prahbu, 1990), I am shifting the focus in this case study from product to process. In other words, investigating how AIM teachers use and shape the method during implementation instead of comparing AIM and non-AIM student outcomes (Bourdages & Vignola, 2009; Carr, 2001; Mady, Arnott, & Lapkin, 2009; Maxwell, 2001; Michels, 2008;). Four interviews and observation sessions were conducted with eight elementary-level CF teachers. Findings showed that while some AIM routines and strategies were used by all, teachers exercised their agency in supplementing recommended AIM activities and materials, especially those with more AIM and CF teaching experience. Establishing that using AIM engaged teachers’ senses of plausibility (Prahbu, 1990) also exposed important implications for future AIM research and board-level policy. Résumé Depuis les années 2000, plus de 4000 écoles canadiennes ont decidé d’utiliser une forme d’enseignement qui s’appelle AIM (Accelerative Integrated Method) pour leurs programmes de français de base (Core French). Selon les recommandations des chercheurs suivants (Brumfit, 1984; Lapkin, Mady, & Arnott, 2009; Larsen-Freeman, 1996, 2000; Prahbu, 1990), au lieu d’étudier les résultats, l’objectif de cette étude de cas était d’examiner la mise en œuvre de AIM. Huit enseignants de français de base ont passé quatre entrevues individuelles. Ils ont eu quatre sessions d’observation de pratique de AIM . Selon les résultats, quoiqu’ils aient employé des stratégies et routines de AIM de la même façon, tous les enseignants ont aussi décidé d’ajouter leurs propres activités et ressources à AIM, surtout ceux experts dans l’enseignement du français de base et de AIM. En démontrant que cette méthode les incite à user de leur sens de plausibilité (Prahbu, 1990), ces résultats impliquent d’autres conséquences importantes pour une recherche ultérieure et la politique des conseils scolaires en ce qui concerne l’utilisation de AIM.
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 | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 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".