Learning More about our Learners: Comparing the Orientations and Attributes of Allophone and English Speaking Grade 6 FSL Learners
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article compares the motivational orientations and attributes of three different groups of Grade 6 students of French as a second official language (FSOL): Canadian-born English-speaking learners, Canadian-born bilingual learners, and immigrant multilingual allophones. This mixed-methods study used quantitative questionnaire data and qualitative interview data to determine potential differences in the three populations’ willingness to communicate (MacIntyre, Dörnyei, Clément, and Noels, 1998) and other dimensions of integrative motivation. Quantitative findings reveal stronger motivations for immigrant multilingual learners than the other two groups on most measures, but qualitative findings reveal some contradictions to those results. The study offers insight into the ways different groups of learners are differently motivated to pursue FSOL study in Canada. Keywords: second language learning motivation; French as a second language education; willingness to communicate; additional language learning motivation; multilingual language education Cet article compare les orientations et les caractéristiques motivationnelles de trois groupes différents d’élèves en 6e année dans un programme de français comme seconde langue officielle (FSLO) : des élèves anglophones nés au Canada, des élèves bilingues nés au Canada et des immigrants allophones plurilingues. Cette étude à méthodologies mixtes repose sur données quantitatives provenant de questionnaires et des données qualitatives tirées d’entrevues. L’objectif en est de déterminer les différences potentielles dans la volonté de communiquer chez les trois populations (MacIntyre, Dörnyei, Clément, and Noels, 1998) et d’évaluer d’autres dimensions de la motivation intégrative. Les résultats quantitatifs révèlent que la motivation chez les apprenants immigrants plurilingues est plus forte que chez les deux autres groupes et ce, pour la plupart des mesures. Toutefois, les données qualitatives viennent contredire certains de ces résultats. L’étude donne un aperçu des façons dont la motivation d’apprendre le FSLO au Canada varie selon différents groupes d’apprenants. Mots clés : motivation pour apprendre une langue seconde; enseignement en français langue seconde; volonté à communiquer; motivation pour apprendre une langue additionnelle; enseignement plurilingue des langues
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".