Lessons learned from immersion in western Canada’s multilingual and multicultural post-secondary context across the disciplines
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The current educational context in post-secondary institutions world-wide is characterized by a widening participation agenda, and is greatly impacted by trends in globalization and internationalization (Burbules & Torres, 2000, Ilieva, Beck, & Waterstone, 2014). This multilingual and multicultural educational context brings about many opportunities and challenges for students, faculty, and other internal and external stakeholders (Arkoudis et al, 2012; Hafernick & Wiant, 2012; Murray, 2016). Given Canada’s increasing involvement in offering programs predominantly in English to international, transnational, and bi/plurlilingal domestic students, it is important to examine the lessons learned from Canada’s history with immersion (Cummins, 1998). and consider the implications for the post-secondary context (Knoerr, et al. 2016). To that end, it is perhaps time to reconsider language education policies, re-examine how language is used as a medium of instruction, redesign curriculum and instruction, as well as understand how students’ bi/plurlingualism can serve as an additional resource for learning across the disciplines (Camarata, 2016; Coste, Moore & Zarate, 2009; Cummins, 2007; Marshall and Moore, 2013). This article describes the educational development and scholarly activities of a Centre for English Language Learning Teaching, and Research at a comprehensive university in British Columbia, and shares emergent findings of a case study and pilot projects in which faculty in applied linguistics/language education collaborate with faculty across the disciplines to support students’ English language development alongside their disciplinary knowledge and literacy skills at the curricular, instructional, and assessment levels. Key practices and approaches in university French immersion education will be compared and contrasted with Content-based/‘CLIL’ and plurilingual approaches used by language education faculty working alongside disciplinary faculty in order to support students at the curricular core within programs where English is the language of instruction.
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 | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.034 | 0.018 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.017 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.011 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".