Core or Immersion? Canadian French-Second-Language Teacher Candidates’ Perceptions and Experiences of the Best and Worst Program Options for Students with Learning Difficulties and for English Language Learners
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Responding to the needs of and/or including students with different need profiles has been an area of focus within Canadian French Second Language (FSL) education for many years. This study draws on quantitative data from two questionnaires (administered before and after Canadian teacher candidates in FSL education completed their practica) and on qualitative interview data from a volunteer sample of questionnaire participants. The purpose of the study was to explore how these participants viewed the best and worst FSL program options, among four choices, for students who had learning difficulties or who were English language learners, and to see the extent to which these views could be linked to their practicum experience. Though some participants did mention less common programs, most participants restricted their responses to the traditional FSL program dichotomy of core French and French immersion. We noted differences in the participants’ views according to the program of their student teaching practicum and according to the learning need under consideration. Implications for FSL teacher education and FSL education are discussed. In particular, we recommend providing research information to teacher candidates at the Bachelor of Education level in order to encourage teacher candidates to consider evidence as they move toward greater inclusion in FSL; given that these future teachers will need to support varying student needs in their career, this information should be included in their preparation.
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 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".