MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2902281774 · doi:10.25904/1912/2555

The Negotiation of Meaning: Examining Children's Linguistic Repertoires in a Francophone Preschool

2018· dissertation· en· W2902281774 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Kelly Ann Shoecraft

Bibliographic record

VenueGriffith Research Online (Griffith University, Queensland, Australia) · 2018
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicEFL/ESL Teaching and Learning
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMultilingualismLinguisticsFrenchMeaning (existential)Context (archaeology)PsychologyTagalogNegotiationSociologyPedagogyHistory

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Multilingualism and multiculturalism are increasing around the world, and as a result, classrooms are becoming more linguistically and culturally diverse. This dissertation examines how young plurilingual children communicate in one Francophone preschool in British Columbia, Canada. In this province of Canada, French is a minority language with most people speaking English. There are also many other languages present, such as Mandarin, German, Punjabi, and Tagalog. Speakers of these languages are often higher in number than French home language speakers (Statistics Canada, 2016). Therefore, the children at the Francophone preschool are in contact with multiple, diverse languages. The diversity present in this preschool classroom raises questions about how the linguistic resources available to children influence their classroom interactions. The aim of this study was to identify the linguistic resources demonstrated by the children and determine how they utilised these resources to negotiate meaning in classroom interactions – specifically, interactions during child-initiated play. Research has shown that participation in social interactions is necessary for children to develop language and social skills. In addition, play is an important context in which young children communicate and negotiate meaning. Many studies on classroom interactions have focused on educator-child interactions. In contrast, there are limited studies on peer interactions despite research advocating their benefits in children’s development. In a multilingual classroom, children have a choice of language which often depends on the interactants. Despite educators attempting to separate languages, children usually code-switch and draw upon a range of linguistic resources to communicate. These linguistic resources include the use of multimodal language such as gestures, a recent focus of study in the field of second language acquisition. Considering the diverse linguistic and cultural backgrounds of children in preschool classrooms, it is vital to understand how they incorporate multiple linguistic resources in their communications. By understanding children’s use of linguistic resources, we can further understandings of their language learning processes in the classroom. A conceptual framework drawing on sociocultural and interactionist theories was used to explore how young plurilingual children communicate. Within these two theories, language is a social action in which an interaction is co-constructed by the participants. The two concepts of plurilingualism and multimodal language were part of this framework. From this perspective, each child in the study were considered to possess a unique linguistic repertoire consisting of verbal and nonverbal resources. As a participant-observer, I collected data in one preschool classroom over a 3-month period. The primary data source was video recordings from two cameras – a camcorder and a GoPro camera. In addition, I collected field notes, school-related documents, and a questionnaire completed by the children’s parents/guardians. These data contributed background information on the preschool and participants. Interactions occurring during child-initiated play were analysed in order to answer the research questions. I used a computer software program, ATLAS.ti, to assist with the data analysis. The analysed interactions involved 13 children (3- and 4-year-olds), the classroom teacher, the teaching assistant, and me (as the participant-researcher). The findings of the study showed that the children employed multiple resources in their play interactions. They used French spoken resources, English spoken resources and non-verbal actions, as well as translanguaging (French and English) and non-verbal actions combined with spoken language. The children’s choice of linguistic resources related to the interactant, the purpose of the interaction, and their own motivations to exercise agency. Through the use of various linguistic resources, the children practised their interactional and social skills, organised and advanced their own learning through translanguaging and peer teaching, and enacted agency. The children’s use of multiple linguistic resources in play interactions demonstrated their emerging plurilingual competencies. This study has highlighted the importance of educators and researchers considering individual children’s linguistic resources in a holistic manner. By adopting a holistic approach, educators can understand how children’s use of multiple linguistic resources is beneficial to their learning. Researchers can increase understandings of children and their learning processes by considering how children employ their multiple linguistic resources. The findings of this study demonstrate that young children are resourceful, engaged, creative, and agentive in their use of linguistic resources during play interactions. These skills should be considered as plurilingual assets and educators should provide opportunities for children to practise and develop these skills in the classroom.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.364
Threshold uncertainty score0.724

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.001
Science and technology studies0.0060.004
Scholarly communication0.0060.002
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.109
GPT teacher head0.347
Teacher spread0.238 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGriffith Research Online (Griffith University, Queensland, Australia)Same topicEFL/ESL Teaching and LearningFrench-language works237,207