The Suitability of French Immersion for Allophone Students in Saskatchewan: Exploring Diverse Perspectives on Language Learning and Inclusion
Bibliographic record
Abstract
French immersion programs in Saskatchewan have traditionally served to further the goals of additive bilingualism between Canada’s two official languages, French and English. Whereas these programs have historically consisted of predominantly Anglophone populations, recent trends in immigration have contributed to the increasingly diverse linguistic backgrounds of students throughout the province. The motivation, family support, and high academic achievement of allophone students learning French as an additional language have been documented extensively in Canada (Dagenais & Jacquet, 2000; Mady, 2013, 2014, 2015). Nevertheless, allophone students often do not benefit from the same access to second language education programs as their Anglophone and Francophone peers; indeed, such learners are sometimes excluded from French immersion programs on the basis of their lack of English language proficiency (Roy, 2015). Through Likert-scale surveys and semi-structured interviews, this mixed-methods research explored the perceived suitability of French immersion for allophone students by examining the perspectives of parents and educators in several schools in Saskatoon, Saskatchewan. This study will share the triangulated findings of the research, discuss the suitability of French immersion programs for allophone students, and provide recommendations for the future of such programs in Saskatchewan.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.013 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".