A Case Study of Compact Core French Models: A Pedagogic Perspective
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The overriding objective of core French (CF) teaching in Canada since the National Core French Study (NCFS) is that of communicative competence (R. Leblanc, 1990). Results from the traditional form of CF, though, suggest that students are not developing desired levels of communicative competence in the drip-feed (short daily periods) model (Lapkin, Harley, & Taylor, 1993). The present study aims to investigate the role of compacted second language program formats in promoting higher levels of language proficiency and achievement among elementary core French students; in particular, the study investigates the pedagogic approach, based on the principle that longer class periods should facilitate a more communicative/ experiential teaching approach.\nStudents in three Grade 7 classes served as participants. Two of the classes served as the compacted experimental classes, and the other as a comparison class. Pre-tests, immediate post-tests and delayed post-tests recorded differences in student achievement. A multi-dimensional, project-based curriculum approach was implemented in all three classes, and was recorded by teacher observations in her daybook and daily journal. Student attitudes toward their CF program format and their self-assessed language proficiency were measured during recorded focus group sessions and on student questionnaires. Parental and teacher perceptions of student attitudes were measured using a short survey.\nResults indicate that students in both the compact and comparison classes performed similarly, with few significant differences in measured language growth or retention over time. Parents of all classes indicated satisfaction with the teaching and learning activities, and with the program format in which their child was enrolled. Excerpts from the teacher daybook and reflective journal demonstrated that communicative activities fostering student interaction in the target language were more frequently and readily implemented in the longer compact CF periods. Students generally stated a preference for the program format in which they were enrolled, although only students in the compact classes outlined pedagogic reasons in support for their preference. Additionally, most students self-assessed a higher level of language competence than in previous years, which students in the compact (experimental) classes attributed to the longer class periods, stating that they promoted task completion, group work, in-depth projects and communicative activities.
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 | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".