Second language education and micro-policy implementation in Canada: The meaning of pedagogical change
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Using data from a study investigating the implementation of a popular French as a second language (FSL) teaching method in Canada (i.e. the Accelerative Integrated Method), this article presents a second language (L2) perspective on micro-policy implementation and pedagogical change. According to Fullan (2007), successful change implementation requires the establishment of ‘shared meaning’: a balanced vision of what the change represents and coordinated management of its implementation. This inquiry compared stakeholder perspectives ( n = 36) on the method and its implementation in contexts where it was mandated and optional for FSL instruction. Data from interviews and focus groups were triangulated to provide a descriptive synthesis of the shared realities and practices of these local players. Findings showed that the bias for action and utility of the method, teacher agency and lack of collaborative monitoring emerged as factors affecting the short-term implementation of this change and its potential long-term sustainability. The findings present important implications for FSL education, micro-level L2 policy implementation and ongoing research focusing on L2 pedagogical change in the Canadian context.
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 | 0.015 | 0.036 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.027 | 0.020 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.015 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| 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".