Enseignement dans les programmes d’immersion de l’Ontario: perspectives d’enseignant.e.s sur les approches plurilingues.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Le plurilinguisme a pris une place importante dans le monde académique ces dernières années, influençant le développement de directives éducatives comme le Cadre européen commun de référence pour les langues et le curriculum de littératie de l’Ontario (2023). Cette influence se manifeste dans l’emploi de stratégies plurilingues en classe, permettant aux langues de la communauté apprenante de coexister et mettant en évidence la porosité des barrières linguistiques (Auger et Le Pichon, 2021). Cependant, l’adoption de ces stratégies va à l’encontre des méthodes traditionnelles qui enseignent les langues en isolation (Cummins, 2007a). Cette recherche qualitative, basée sur des questionnaires (27 participant.e.s) et des entretiens (10 participant.e.s), examine l’expérience d’éducateur.e.s en immersion française en Ontario. Les résultats montrent que, malgré une compréhension émergente des approches plurilingues, les participant.e.s ont tendance à envisager ces stratégies principalement pour l’éducation spécialisée et divergent sur l’importance du développement linguistique dans les différentes matières scolaires. Plurilingualism has gained significant prominence in the academic world in recent years, influencing the development of educational guidelines such as the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages and Ontario's Literacy Curriculum (2023). This influence is reflected in the use of plurilingual strategies in the classroom, allowing the languages of the learning community to coexist and highlighting the permeability of language barriers (Auger and Le Pichon, 2021). However, the adoption of these strategies contrasts with traditional methods that teach languages in isolation (Cummins, 2007a). This qualitative research, based on questionnaires (27 participants) and interviews (10 participants), examines the experience of educators in French immersion programs in Ontario. The results show that, despite an emerging understanding of plurilingual approaches, participants tend to use these strategies primarily for special education and disagree on the priority given to the development of linguistic skills in subjects other than French.
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 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.016 | 0.011 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".