↓ Skip to main content

To what extent are Canadian second language policies evidence-based? Reflections on the intersections of research and policy

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Psychology, May 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (96th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (90th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
6 news outlets
twitter
2 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
43 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
112 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
To what extent are Canadian second language policies evidence-based? Reflections on the intersections of research and policy
Published in
Frontiers in Psychology, May 2014
DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00358
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jim Cummins

Abstract

THE PAPER ADDRESSES THE INTERSECTIONS BETWEEN RESEARCH FINDINGS AND CANADIAN EDUCATIONAL POLICIES FOCUSING ON FOUR MAJOR AREAS: (a) core and immersion programs for the teaching of French to Anglophone students, (b) policies concerning the learning of English and French by students from immigrant backgrounds, (c) heritage language teaching, and (d) the education of Deaf and hard-of hearing students. With respect to the teaching of French, policy-makers have largely ignored the fact that most core French programs produce meager results for the vast majority of students. Only a small proportion of students (<10%) attend more effective alternatives (e.g., French immersion and Intensive French programs). With respect to immigrant-background students, a large majority of teachers and administrators have not had opportunities to access the knowledge base regarding effective instruction for these students nor have they had opportunities for pre-service or in-service professional development regarding effective instructional practices. Educational policies in most jurisdictions have also treated the linguistic resources that children bring to school with, at best, benign neglect. In some cases (e.g., Ontario) school systems have been explicitly prohibited from instituting enrichment bilingual programs that would promote students' bilingualism and biliteracy. Finally, with respect to Deaf students, policy-makers have ignored overwhelming research on the positive relationship between academic success and the development of proficiency in natural sign languages, preferring instead to leave uncorrected the proposition that acquisition of languages such as American Sign Language by young children (with or without cochlear implants) will impede children's language and academic development. The paper reviews the kinds of policies, programs, and practices that could be implemented (at no additional cost) if policy-makers and educators pursued evidence-based educational policies.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 112 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Australia 1 <1%
Unknown 111 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 26 23%
Student > Ph. D. Student 18 16%
Researcher 11 10%
Lecturer 7 6%
Student > Bachelor 7 6%
Other 20 18%
Unknown 23 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Social Sciences 26 23%
Linguistics 18 16%
Psychology 11 10%
Arts and Humanities 11 10%
Medicine and Dentistry 8 7%
Other 13 12%
Unknown 25 22%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 50. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 23 October 2022.
All research outputs
#801,325
of 24,752,948 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#1,663
of 33,392 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#7,623
of 232,786 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#33
of 324 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,752,948 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 96th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 33,392 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.0. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 232,786 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 324 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% of its contemporaries.