Une approche pédagogique d’enseignement du français langue seconde ajustée aux étudiants venant des programmes d’immersion
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Résumé Cette étude se penche sur la situation des étudiants postimmersifs en première année de français langue seconde à l’université et cherche à les aider à dépasser le niveau plateau de communication (Lyster, 2007). Elle situe la problématique au niveau de l’usage de leur réflexivité ou, plus précisément, d’un manque d’investissement de stratégies d’apprentissage et d’auto-régulation à long terme, en lien avec une conception instrumentale de la langue et de son apprentissage. L’analyse des réponses de 82 étudiants à deux questions ouvertes portant sur leur usage de stratégies donne appui à notre hypothèse. Un test du chi-carré révèle une différence extrêmement significative entre le comportement des étudiants venant d’immersion précoce ou d’une école française et celui des étudiants venant d’autres programmes de français langue seconde, les premiers utilisant moins de stratégies que les deuxièmes à l’écrit. Nous proposons alors une approche pédagogique qui vise à réactiver la réflexivité de nos étudiants. Abstract This study focuses on the circumstances of post-immersion students in their first year of French language study at university. It seeks to assist them in surpassing the plateau level of communication (Lyster, 2007). It views the issue in terms of students’ use of reflexivity, specifically a lack of engagement to learning strategies and long-term auto-regulation. Our study views this situation as relating to an instrumental understanding of language and language learning. Our hypothesis is supported by an analysis of the responses given by 82 students to two open-ended questions, which provides insight into their use of strategy. A chi-square test reveals an extremely significant difference between students with a background in early immersion or French school, and those from other French as a second language programs: the former use fewer strategies in their writing than the latter. We therefore propose a pedagogical approach that aims to reactivate our students’ reflexivity.
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 | 0.012 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 0.002 |
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".