The bilingual advantage for immigrant students in French immersion in Canada: linking advantages to contextual variables
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AbstractThis study compares the English and French proficiencies of three groups of early French immersion participants at the Grade 6 level: Canadian-born English-speaking, Canadian-born multilingual, and immigrant multilingual students. In addition to English and French multi-skills tests, the participants completed a questionnaire designed to gather data on metalinguistic awareness, strategy use and self-assessments of their languages. The results showed that the immigrant group outperformed the other two groups on the French proficiency tests whereas there were no significant differences on the English tests or in self-assessed language of origin proficiencies for the multilingual groups. Superior performance of the immigrant group was not determined to be a result of enhanced metalinguistic knowledge or strategy use.Keywords: multilingual educationmultilingual language acquisitionsecond language educationsecond language acquisition AcknowledgmentsI would like to thank Dr Stephanie Arnott (University of Ottawa) and Dr Miles Turnbull (Bishop's University) for their comments on an earlier version of this paper.Disclosure statementNo potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.Notes1. The FI program described here offers a minimum of 50% of its content delivery through French with the remainder offered in English.2. In this study's context early FI begins in Grade 1 with 50% of the classes offered in French.Additional informationFundingThis work was supported by Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada [435-2014-1293].
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.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 it