Bibliographic record
Abstract
Bi-multilingual language and literacy research over the past three decades demonstrates the positive benefits of integrated language learning pedagogic approaches. In the Alberta Kindergarten to grade 12 bilingual program construct, where second language (L2) learning and biliteracy are the goals, pedagogic practice has not capitalized on these findings. Instead, there continues to be a parallel monolingual orientation to instruction, resulting in the complete separation of languages in learning. As programs have expanded, pedagogy for middle-years and secondary level learners who have attained intermediate level competencies in the second language has become a challenge in that learners frequently interact in their first language (L1) instead of the second language. Practitioners have begun to question existing instructional practice, and research is needed to explore next pedagogic approaches suited to adolescent learners at intermediate and advanced L2 levels. Educational researchers have reported that for pedagogic practice to evolve, practitioner participation in research is critical. To that end, a participatory action (PAR) research study was conducted. Classroom teachers explored English-Spanish dual language (DL) processes with middle-years learners, and specifically observed the role of the first language (English) as a resource for intermediate level second language instruction. DL approaches such as integration of learning and bridging of knowledge were investigated. Data was gathered chiefly from the perspective of the bilingual program teachers informed by classroom experiences with students, as well as through researcher observations and student feedback. Results demonstrated ways in which L1 was a resource for cognitive mediation, L2 development, biliteracy growth, and adolescent bilingual identity formation.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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.
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".