MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Integrating Formal and Functional Approaches to Language Teaching in French Immersion: An Experimental Study

2001· article· en· W4240864130 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueLanguage Learning · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicEFL/ESL Teaching and Learning
Canadian institutionsYork UniversitySimon Fraser University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologySecond-language acquisitionExperiential learningLanguage proficiencyMathematics educationLinguisticsPedagogy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This experimental study was designed to evaluate the effect on French language proficiency of an integrated formal, analytic and functional, communicative approach (experiential) to second‐language teaching in the immersion classroom. The impetus for the study arises from previous research indicating that immersion children show persistent weaknesses in their grammatical skills despite the fluent, functional proficiency they achieve in their second language. The experimental materials, which were custom‐designed for our study, highlight form‐function relations, promote noticing, encourage metalin‐guistic awareness, and provide opportunities for language practice and thus relate to some of the theoretical issues that Rod Ellis (this volume) has indicated are important in SLA in the 90s. This classroom‐based study on the conditional is one of a series of studies undertaken in Canadian French immersion to investigate the effectiveness of form‐focused instruction in classrooms (see Swain, 2000). The results of our study, which was conducted in grade 7 early immersion, showed that the Experimental group performed significantly higher in writing than the Control group, in both the post‐ and the follow‐up testing. Although this was not found for speaking, an examination of the individual class data revealed greater and more consistent growth in speaking for the Experimental than for the Control classes, suggesting that they benefited somewhat from the experi‐ mental treatment in this domain as well. Although Ellis (this volume) notes that research on form‐focused instruc‐ tion in the 90s has tended to split pedagogy from theory, the immersion research in this area does not seem t o reflect this shift. In a recent article, Swain (2000) reviews the French Immersion (FI) studies and summarizes their re‐ sults as follows: “Overall, the set of experiments conducted in FI classes suggest that there is value in focusing on language form through the use of pre‐planned curriculum materials in the context of content‐based language learn‐ ing” (Swain, 2000, p. 205). Her reference to curriculum materials and to the specific context of content‐based lan‐ guage learning should signal to the reader the orientation t o pedagogical considerations that characterize this research. As Ellis notes, hybrid research using both experimental and qualitative methods is becoming more common in SLA. Recently, the experimental materials in our study were implemented in a grade 8 immersion classroom, and the children's collaborative language activity was observed by a researcher working from a sociocultural theoretical per‐ spective (Spielman‐Davidson, 2000). The uptake of our research by a researcher working in another paradigm introduces another kind of hybridity that we hope will also shed further light on questions in form‐focused instruction and lead to appropriate changes in pedagogy and in the design of immersion curricula.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.065
Threshold uncertainty score0.925

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.068
GPT teacher head0.277
Teacher spread0.210 · 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