French Immersion for English Language Learners?: Kindergarten Teachers’ Perspectives
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Given the increasingly diverse, multilingual student body in Canada, the call for increased inclusion in education, and in light of research highlighting the potential for inclusion in French immersion (FI) to be limited by gatekeepers, this study examines the beliefs of kindergarten teachers regarding the inclusion of English language learners in French immersion where entry begins in Grade 1. The theory of planned behavior as discussed by Ajzen (2005) served as a theoretical lens through which the data were examined. In particular, through their responses to a mixed format questionnaire, including a 12 item Likert scale of agreement and open-ended questions, kindergarten teachers revealed that a) French immersion is not for everyone, and b) may be disadvantageous to English language learners in particular. The teachers grounded their beliefs in the importance and influence of English on students’ future endeavours. Beliefs that FI is not for all students were supported by the board’s provision of information to parents as revealed by a document analysis. Such findings highlight the need for information sharing on multilingual language acquisition to extend beyond administrators to include parents and additional educators who have the potential to influence parents’ choices for their children.
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 | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| 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".