Assessing AIM: A Study of Grade 8 Students in an Ontario School Board
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This mixed-method study examines the proficiency in and perceptions of French language learning of Grade 8 students who were exposed to an instructional approach called the Accelerative Integrated Method (AIM). Six AIM classes (n = 125) and six non-AIM classes (n = 135) were observed and their students tested using a four-skills French as a second language (FSL) test package (Harley, Lapkin, Scane, Hart, & Trépanier, 1988). A larger sample of students (N = 439) initially completed a questionnaire about their attitudes towards French, and a sub-sample (n = 94) also participated in a semi-structured interview exploring their perceptions of their French proficiency and learning experiences. Analysis of the FSL test package and questionnaire results revealed no significant differences in French proficiency or attitude towards French between the AIM and non-AIM groups. Interviews offered explanations for observed student and teacher practices, providing insight into student perceptions of their French skill development and the pedagogical method they had experienced. The implications for core French pedagogy 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 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".