Bibliographic record
Abstract
In Canada, the federally funded Language Instruction for Newcomers to Canada (LINC) program follows a task-based language teaching (TBLT) approach using the Canadian Language Benchmarks (CLB). Aligned with other communicative language approaches, TBLT de-emphasizes systematic instruction of the morpho-syntactic elements of language. Although TBLT does not exclude focus on form from the teaching cycle, the emphasis on tasks may leave instructors with the sense that there is no place for explicit grammar instruction within TBLT. Service-providing organizations (SPOs) also play a role in the interpretation of TBLT and may be limited in the training opportunities they can give instructors to meaningfully integrate grammar instruction into their classrooms. Furthermore, the 2012 CLB document that guides instruction and assessment in LINC also provides only limited support to instructors in selecting appropriate grammatical items for their level. Reporting from a sizable LINC program, this article argues that SPOs and the Centre for Canadian Language Benchmarks need to update the view of task-based teaching to be in line with current developments in TBLT and to provide clarity on which grammatical items are appropriate for each level. A Grammatical Knowledge Graphic is introduced as a possible resource for instructors. Au Canada, le programme des Cours de langue pour les immigrants au Canada (CLIC), financé par le gouvernement fédéral, suit une approche d’enseignement des langues basée sur les tâches (ELBT) en utilisant les Niveaux de compétence linguistique canadiens (NCLC). En cohérence avec d’autres approches communicatives en enseignement des langues, l’ELBT met moins l’accent sur l’enseignement systématique des éléments morphosyntaxiques de la langue. Bien que l’ELBT n’exclue pas l’enseignement de la forme du cycle d’enseignement, l’importance accordée aux tâches peut donner aux enseignants l’impression qu’il n’y a pas de place pour un enseignement explicite de la grammaire dans le cadre de l’ELBT. Les organismes de prestation de services (OPS) jouent également un rôle dans l’interprétation de l’ELBT et peuvent être limités dans les possibilités de formation qu’ils peuvent offrir aux enseignants pour intégrer de manière significative l’enseignement de la grammaire dans leurs salles de classe. En outre, le document des NCLC de 2012 qui guide l’enseignement et l’évaluation dans les CLIC n’offre qu’un soutien limité aux enseignants quant au choix des éléments grammaticaux appropriés au niveau enseigné. Cet article, qui porte sur un programme de CLIC de taille assez importante, soutient que les OPS et le Centre des niveaux de compétence linguistique canadiens doivent mettre à jour la vision de l’enseignement basé sur les tâches afin de refléter les développements récents en matière d’ELBT et de clarifier les éléments grammaticaux appropriés à chaque niveau. Un graphique de connaissances grammaticales est présenté comme une ressource possible pour les enseignants.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.066 | 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 teacher head, 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".