Unravelling the silence around gender and sexuality in a second language curriculum
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study explores the ways in which marginalised genders and sexualities are discussed in the French as a second language (FSL) curriculum in Ontario, Canada. The aim of this paper is to consider how official policy documents reinforce or challenge possibilities for inclusive teaching/curriculum development in modern language programs. Drawing on anti-colonial feminism (Carroll 2018) and queer linguistics (Leap 2015) frameworks, this research employs a critical discourse analysis to investigate how the FSL Grades 9–12 curriculum either reinforces or disrupts cisheteropatriarchal practices. Despite the curriculum's seemingly inclusive language, the findings reveal a reinforcement of binary gender constructs, limiting discussions on marginalised genders and sexualities to superficial inclusionary statements. The rigid scope of gender, coupled with the absence of marginalised sexualities, contradicts the antidiscriminatory goals of the FSL curriculum, which alienates queer, trans and non-binary people. To address this, our research suggests integration of gender-diverse and queer identities into the curriculum to foster more inclusive FSL programming through specific curriculum expectations and instructional tips.
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 | 0.007 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.019 | 0.029 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| 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".