The use of French L1 in English L2 secondary school classrooms in Quebec
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Teaching English as a Second Language (ESL) in Quebec has its own particularities due to language laws and its geographical position, i.e. that it is a French province surrounded by English--speaking provinces within a federally bilingual country.This study investigates the reasons why ESL teachers use the French (L1) language (which is shared by all the students and teachers in this study) in ESL classrooms in Quebec, although it is prescribed to use English (L2) as the language of instruction.This study investigates the matter from two different standpoints: the linguistic perspective as well as the socio--cultural and political perspectives.For this study, nine secondary school students and two ESL teachers were initially interviewed, then observed in the classroom, and interviewed after observation to get a more in--depth perception of why and when they use French (L1) and English (L2) in the classroom.The interviews and observations were audio--recorded, transcribed and thematically analyzed to identify emerging themes amongst teachers and students.After the themes were analyzed, the results were found to be consistent with previous research, in which teachers used the L1 to explain grammar and complicated concepts, to discipline, for classroom management, and to clarify tasks.The political and socio--cultural perspectives revealed that although Quebecois students said they wanted to speak more English and have stricter rules about speaking French in class, they are still not ready to take on native--like English speech.They also can't help but fall back on French when working in groups, negotiating meaning or during off--task behavior.Some students also have confidence issues when it comes to expressing themselves, especially if they feel less proficient than their bilingual peers.4.2.7.Using English in ESL class 74 4.2.8.The English--only rule in class 76 4.2.9.Final reflections on L1 and L2 use in the ESL classroom 78 5. DISCUSSION 78 6. CONCLUSION 93 7. REFERENCES 97 8. APPENDICES
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".