Student Reflections of their Experiences with French as a Second Language Programs in Ontario
Bibliographic record
Abstract
By documenting student perspectives on French as a Second Language (FSL) in Ontario, this study gains a better understanding of the degree to which students appreciate their FSL programs. The literature review reveals that research on FSL focuses primarily on teachers’ working conditions, pedagogy, and student proficiency and motivation. This study aims to provide the voice of students on their experiences of FSL. Participants were university students (n=24) who had previously completed a FSL program in Ontario. Data were collected using a questionnaire and individual interviews (n=8) and were analysed via a mixed method approach through a Complexity Theory framework. Findings revealed that participants generally appreciated their FSL programs, however they also wished to be more proficient in their oral skills, particularly university-level French-studies students who felt underprepared for their French studies. Participants expressed wanting to have more agency and authentic learning in their FSL programs at the elementary/secondary levels. En documentant les points de vue des étudiants sur le français langue seconde (FLS) en Ontario, cette étude permet de mieux comprendre dans quelle mesure ils apprécient leurs programmes de FLS. L'analyse documentaire révèle que la recherche sur le FLS porte principalement sur les enseignants, la pédagogie et la compétence et la motivation des élèves. Les participants étaient des étudiants universitaires (n=24) qui avaient déjà suivi un programme de FLS en Ontario. Les données ont été recueillies par un questionnaire et d'entretiens individuels (n=8) et ont été analysées via une approche de méthode mixte dans un cadre de théorie de la complexité. Les résultats ont révélé que les participants appréciaient généralement leurs programmes de FLS, mais qu'ils souhaitaient également être plus compétents dans leurs compétences orales. Les participants ont exprimé le désir d'avoir plus de pouvoir et l’apprentissage authentique dans leurs programmes de FLS aux niveaux élémentaire/secondaire.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.017 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".