Navigation – Plan du site

AccueilVolumesVol. 20, n° 3RechercheThe Language Centre: A dynamic sp...

Recherche

The Language Centre: A dynamic space to foster the development of multiple interactions?

Le centre de ressources en langues : un espace dynamique pour développer des interactions plurielles ?
Annick Rivens Mompean et Nicola Macré

Résumés

Le contexte actuel, avec les politiques des langues en œuvre dans les établissements et les évolutions technologiques, nous amène à questionner le rôle du Centre de Ressources en Langues (CRL) aujourd'hui. Quelles sont les pratiques qui s'y développent et comment cet espace soutient-il l'apprentissage ? Est-il en phase avec les besoins des usagers ? Quelle forme d'aide ou de guidage peut apporter une plus-value effective à l'apprentissage ?

Notre étude propose une analyse de données portant sur les usages et les représentations d'étudiants en licence 2 de psychologie à l'université de Lille 3, engagés dans un dispositif intégrant douze heures d'autoformation guidée, en complément du contexte de classe. Afin d'engager le processus progressivement, ils ont deux types de tâches à accomplir, l'une libre (quant au choix de la compétence travaillée, du niveau, du type de ressource ou du sujet) et l'autre plus cadrée (à partir de Certif'langues qui suit le format de la certification CLES). Ces activités se font dans le cadre du CRL qui donne accès à deux types de ressources : des ressources humaines, essentielles pour les aspects sociaux et relationnels, et des ressources matérielles et techniques, au sein de l'espace physique du CRL, "espace ouvert" qui "propose une formation organisée autour de supports pédagogiques variés (dont les Tice), avec des modalités de travail diversifiées, seul, en groupe, avec ou sans enseignant, offrant une souplesse de fréquentation et d'horaires" selon Poteaux (2007 : 78).

Notre étude, menée par le biais de questionnaires et d'entretiens, nous a permis de croiser des données concernant l'usage effectif qui est fait de l'espace (technique, matériel, social et relationnel) et les représentations des apprenants au sujet du centre de langues et de l'autoformation guidée. Les réponses montrent que, malgré nos efforts pour expliquer les fonctions du CRL et inciter les étudiants à y recourir, ses fonctions sont mal comprises. Il est utilisé principalement pour accéder à distance aux ressources numériques répertoriées, ou pour visionner des films sur place, plutôt que pour les interactions sociales et orales qui sont proposées. Les étudiants n'en ont qu'une vision pratique et fonctionnelle alors que nous souhaitons mettre en avant la complémentarité entre le développement de l'autonomie et les interactions sociales (Cappellini, Lewis & Rivens Mompean, 2017).

Ceux-ci ne font pas référence à des interactions ou des usages sociaux lorsqu'on les interroge pour savoir s'ils apprécient ou non d'aller au CRL. Les étudiants ont conscience des avantages de l'apprentissage en autoformation guidée mais soulignent surtout les difficultés de mise en œuvre des changements de pratique que cela implique. Le CRL, ni tout à fait formel ni informel, peine à trouver sa place au sein du dispositif de formation.

Nous constatons donc que la question n'est pas d'opposer un espace physique à un espace virtuel mais, par une approche systémique du dispositif, de bien décrire les types de soutien que ces espaces peuvent offrir, en développant des interactions tant avec des ressources matérielles et numériques que humaines, en proposant tutorat et guidage adapté.

Haut de page

Texte intégral

1. Introduction

1In most French universities, language policies are under construction and we may question the role to be played by Language Centres (LC), associated with the evolution of technology, its effect on language learning with the development of new kinds of practice, including informal or non-formal language learning (Mangenot, 2011) and the way an autonomous learning process can be reinforced in such a context.

  • 1 ALADIN stands for "Apprentissage, Langue, Autonomie, Dispositif, Institution, Numérique", which con (...)

2As a fragile and complex object, the LC is described by Rivens Mompean (2013) as a system in which the process in movement through time has led to a "mega system" that articulates several types of learning environments (several systems) rather than a single system of its own. This modelisation and its adaptation (Macré, 2015) by articulating the six poles of ALADIN1 can take into account the dynamic and temporal influence of the three levels of analysis (micro, meso, and macro) on the evolutionary pedagogical situation(s) and by so doing gives a more comprehensive view of the process in hand. We propose that the LC can take on the role of intermediary or middleman and interactional support if it aims at providing the help necessary to render the process and interaction of the different poles operational in a systemic approach (Morin, 1990).

3In the first part, after giving a brief account of the context, we outline the theoretical framework which relates to the LC and the development of learner autonomy. Then we discuss the methodology used and present our analysis of the data. Finally, we discuss the pedagogical implications of the study and their impact on the creation of future LC structures.

2. The context of our study

4The study concerns a group of second-year psychology students enrolled in a blended learning course at the University of Lille 3 in which they were required to develop their learner autonomy by doing at least twelve hours' work outside of the classroom.

5At the very beginning of the semester, students were required to undergo a placement test (ELAO, DIALANG). Out of the twelve two-hour lessons, two were reserved for tutoring sessions to accompany the students at the beginning (to help fix objectives) and in the middle of the semester. Ten to fifteen minutes were also set aside at the beginning of each lesson to answer any questions and offer specific guidance (methodology).

6In line with Holec (1979), Barbot and Camatarri (1999) or Little (2015), it is widely accepted that taking responsibility for one's learning leads to "better language learning." However, studies have also underlined that the skills necessary to become an efficient learner are acquired over time and are part of a process. For these students it was their first year in a self-directed learning system. This is the reason why they were invited to carry out two tasks, one that they could choose (skills, level, resources, and subjects) and another that was more structured, based on Certif'langues, a learning environment developed locally following the CLES (Certificat de compétences en langues de l'enseignement supérieur) certificate format.

7During the first lesson, a presentation of the LC was given to the students to explain its role and the type of activities available to them. Teachers were asked to emphasize the social aspects of the LC. These include the advantages of watching and discussing films or series with their fellow students, attending the various programmed language workshops, interacting with tutors and/or participating in tandem sessions (regular face-to-face exchanges with a foreign student from the campus) or teletandem sessions (regular distance interactions via Skype with a student abroad). Students were then requested to visit the LC at least once to register and gain access to the LC database. To do so, each student was given a demonstration by the LC monitors on how to use the platform. They were also informed that once they were registered they could access the database from their own homes. Films are only available at the LC and unlimited Internet access is given on request when working at the LC.

2.1. Definition of the LC

8The language centre provides two categories of resources: human resources which are essential for social and relational aspects, and material resources, which consist in the physical space of the LC, with its technical aspect and the pedagogical material offered. Poteaux (2007: 78) defines the LC as an "open" structure:

the LC offers language training in a number of pedagogical forms including the use of ICTE (Information and Communication Technologies for Education) with diversified work modalities: alone, in a group with or without a teacher, offering flexible schedules (our translation).

le Centre de Ressources en Langues propose une formation organisée autour de supports pédagogiques variés (dont les TICE), avec des modalités de travail diversifiées, seul, en groupe, avec ou sans enseignant, offrant une souplesse de fréquentation et d'horaires.

2.1.1. The LC: human, social and relational aspects

9In the reception area monitors greet students, register their presence and answer any technical questions they might have, including a demonstration of the database. Tutors (native speakers who have teaching experience and who have undergone a special training), can meet with students in the dedicated tutor area (21 languages represented), to discuss methodology or improve students' oral interaction. They can attend regularly-held theme-focused conversation workshops, or also get acquainted with the format of the CLES certificate. Otherwise, they can work in groups at the tables or in the dark rooms to discuss or watch films and series between themselves or freely with a tutor. Students can also meet the person in charge of (tele)tandem to find out how it works and sign up to find a partner either at the university (foreign students on exchange) or abroad (via a list of our overseas partners) to interact with.

2.1.2. The LC: technical, material, and physical aspects

10The LC is a physical space which includes a reception area, a large room with computer stations, and a few tables as well as some smaller dark rooms equipped with television screens and dedicated spaces for tutor-student discussions. A large range of videos in original version with the option of English subtitles are available on request (not on line) at the reception desk. Other resources on the LC database have been chosen for their pedagogical interest (eg grammar sites which provide feedback to answers, audio documents which provide transcripts and vocabulary work) and are grouped by skill and/or level so that students can find material which suits their needs very quickly. Certain resources are grouped by theme (preparation for the CLES B1 or B2 or speciality eg psychology, art, history, etc.) and students are also given the option to record any favourites they wish to work from regularly. Once registered, the students are therefore free to access the database from their computers or from the computers at the LC requiring no further help from the monitors unless they have a technical problem. A built-in logbook registers the sources chosen, the time spent working on them and, by inviting students to note down any difficulties, encourages reflexion on the work carried out.

3. Theoretical framework

11Starting from more global questions which concern the role of the LC today and how it supports language learning, we very quickly arrive at more specific research questions regarding the actual usage of the space (technical and material, social and relational aspects) and the students' representations of the LC and of self-directed learning. How can they be taken into account? What support should the LC offer? To answer these questions, the specific status of the LC needs to be clarified before focusing on two notions that are autonomy and social interaction, which are not contradictory at all but in our opinion should rather be seen as complementary (Cappellini, Lewis & Rivens Mompean, 2017).

3.1. The LC: an environment in constant evolution

  • 2 Our translation: "Mediation that organises more or less rigorously relationships between humans and (...)

12The LC provides a learning environment, a learning system better described in French as "dispositif." The concept of "dispositif" articulates both the context which is offered to the users and actual usage, which is exactly what we intend to observe. As such, a "dispositif" can be considered as the space that provides "un moyen de médiation qui organise de façon plus ou moins rigoureuse, un champ de relations fonctionnelles entre humains et outils, buts et moyens, intentions et action". (Linard, 2002).2

  • 3 Our translation: "Complexity consists in escaping the alternative between the reductionist mode of (...)

13The environment can be considered as the combination of material and technical aspects with social and relational elements that may influence the frequency with which the learning space is used (Poteaux, 2007). This flexibility is also implied by Spear and Mocker (1981) when they refer to the notion of "organizing circumstances" that implies that the learning act is linked to the combination of organizing factors external to the learner that may influence his or her practice, emphasizing the "social-physical environment which seems to provide structure for behavior" (Spear & Mocker, 1981: 17). Furthermore, the flexible and adaptive structure of the LC provides a systemic dimension (Morin, 1990) that is illustrated in the ALADIN model provided by Rivens Mompean (2014). By magnifying the specific parts of this environment, the adapted version of the model (Macré, 2015) provides the necessary focus to understand and explain any underlying tensions within the global structure. Indeed, it is by focusing on the global environment that the individual effects of the more complex parts, (macro, meso, and micro) which make up this environment can be apprehended. "La complexité… c'est d'échapper à l'alternative entre la pensée réductrice qui ne voit que les éléments et la pensée globaliste qui ne voit que le tout" (Morin, 1990: 135)3. How the space is apprehended depends therefore on the learner's ability to perceive, organize, and carry out specific actions. The learner's behaviour reflects on skills that require a certain learner autonomy.

3.2. Learner autonomy

14We consider learner autonomy as a process that should go from responsibility and control to social support and interaction. Since autonomy or self-directed learning was first defined by Holec (1979), society has evolved. Although it is now widely accepted that taking control and being responsible for one's learning leads to better language learning (Benson, 2001), studies have also underlined the need to take other psychological and social factors into account if the goal of becoming autonomous, identified as a process and not a state, is to be reached (Barbot & Camatarri, 1999).

15In her definition, Linard (2003: 247) underlines these factors and emphasizes the need to develop certain skills such as attention, auto-control, self-confidence that are not innate.

Autonomy is a high level skill, cognitive but also psychological and social which involves other qualities such as noticing, self-monitoring, intelligence, self-esteem, and connection/interaction/relation(ship) that few people entirely possess naturally (our translation).

L'autonomie est une capacité de haut niveau, cognitive, mais aussi psychologique et sociale, qui implique des qualités d'attention, d'autocontrôle, d'intelligence, de confiance en soi et de relation que peu d'individus possèdent ensemble à l'état naturel (Linard, 2003: 247).

16Others, such as Dörnyei (2001) with his dynamic process-orientated perspective of motivation, Zimmerman (2002) with his self-regulation model, and Raby (2007) with her adapted definition of motivation to include ICT have also underlined the need to take into account the internal and external motivational factors that influence the completion of the task. They also emphasise the cyclic activities or stages involved in its appropriation: interpreting, redefining, apprehending, carrying out, and evaluating the result.

3.3. Social mediation and interaction

17Taking into account these psychological aspects that can block the learning processes, the tutor's role has become an essential part of helping the learner to develop his autonomy (Gremmo, 1995). As he/she advises and counsels the learner, his/her objective is to accompany and offer the social mediation that will help him/her overcome the identified difficulties that working in an autonomous environment entails. As previously stated and underlined in a number of studies (Barbot & Camatarri, 1999; Gremmo, 1995; Macré, 2014; Rivens Mompean & Eisenbeis, 2009), the self-directed learning process of "autonomisation" requires students to develop new skills that are not innate. However, these studies also indicate that development will occur only if representations are modified.

18We think, therefore, that more emphasis should be placed on other types of social mediations that are not considered as important enough in the representations of both learners and teachers, which is the role of social interactions in the autonomisation process. Thus, there is a need for change of representation.

19Social mediation can be defined in keeping with socioconstructivist theories (Vygotsky, 1978; Lantolf, 2000), as:

the whole process (based on personal experience of the actual social interaction) by which a person or a group of people (teachers, parents, friends) are placed between the learner and what he/she is to acquire to facilitate the learning (our translation).

l'ensemble des processus (fondés sur l'expérience personnelle du réel et l'interaction sociale) par lesquels une personne ou un groupe de personnes (les enseignants, les parents, les amis) s'intercale entre le sujet apprenant et les savoirs à acquérir pour lui en faciliter l'apprentissage (Bélisle, 2003: 24).

  • 4 Our translation: "The notion evolves from mediation towards helping the learner to reach a specific (...)
  • 5 Our translation: "The notion evolves from mediation towards encounter: to be with the other one, on (...)
  • 6 Our translation: "The centre for language research and pedagogical applications."

20Ciekanski (2011: 11) makes two further distinctions: firstly, "un guidage relevant d'une logique de contrôle dans la mesure où la médiation conduit l'apprenant vers des savoirs à apprendre prédéfinis (un aller vers)"4 where mediation is predefined and helps the learner "to go towards" a goal, which resembles Bruner's "scaffolding", and secondly where it is defined as "la notion de médiation vers celle de rencontre : être avec l'autre, sur son chemin à lui à un moment donné (un être avec)"5 (ibid.), the latter being more in line with the non-directive counseling given by the CRAPEL (Centre de recherches et d'application pédagogique en langues)6.

21The "organizing circumstances" (Spear & Mocker, 1981) that the LC offers, cause us to believe that the variety and types of mediation should all be acknowledged. The use of one or the other depends on the context in hand, which is in constant movement.

22It should be emphasized that the definitions can refer to officially trained tutors but as Lantolf (2000) and others have underlined, experts and non-experts can also be found amongst the students themselves helping each other out at any point in time.

Second language learners appear quite capable and skilful at providing the type of scaffolded help that is associated in the developmental literature with only the most noticeable forms of expert-novice interaction (...). It appears useful, therefore to consider the learners themselves as a source of knowledge in a social context (Donato, 1994: 52).

23Oral interactions offer the possibility to not only reflect on the learning process but to reinforce language acquisition and appear as "a means of accomplishing social interaction and of managing mental activity" (Ellis, 2003: 176).

24In light of the emergence of new information technologies and communication, the learning environment is in constant evolution (eg web 2.0). It has been criticized that sociocultural theories (Vygotsky, 1978; Lantolf & Thorne, 2006) were based, for the most part, on social interactions in language classrooms (Murray, 2014) and as a result do not, for the most part, take into account the interactions and collaboration (formal and informal) made outside of the classroom.

25For the purpose of this paper, the issue is not how these interactions interplay in the autonomisation processes but rather what types of interactions take place.

4. Research questions and methodology

26To investigate the role played by the LC in fostering social interactions the following research questions were asked:
RQ1: How is the LC used by the students?
RQ2: What are the students' representations of the LC?
RQ3: What are the students' representations of self-directed learning?

4.1. Participants

27As previously stated, the study concerns a group of second-year (L2) psychology students enrolled in a blended learning course at the University Lille 3, the year before. In addition to improving their English, they were required to develop their learner autonomy by doing at least 12 hours' work outside of the classroom (in addition to 24 hours' work in class).

28Students were invited to participate in the research to help improve the LC and better cater to their needs. It was also pointed out that, as psychology students, it would be a good opportunity for them to participate in a research project. Out of the possible three hundred and sixty students registered to take the course, a total of 92 answered the online questionnaires, among which eight students volunteered to participate in semi-structured interviews providing us with the opportunity to confront students' answers to the questionnaires. Placement tests, carried out at the beginning of the course, indicated that 65 of the students (70%) who answered the online questionnaire were at an A1-B1 level and 15 (16%) were at the B2 level; 12 students (13%) did not indicate their level. Out of the eight students who participated in the semi-structured interviews, seven were at an A1-B1 level and one was at the B2 level. The average age of both groups of participants is 21.

4.2. Data collection: instruments and implementation

29Two methods of data collection were implemented to answer the research questions: semi-structured interviews and online questionnaires.

4.2.1. Online questionnaires

30To obtain information concerning students' attendance of the LC, the number of times students visited the space and for what reasons, both quantitative and qualitative data (according to Bardin, 1977; Blanchet & Gotman, 1992) were collected using an online questionnaire (Appendix 1) which included 39 questions of which 12 were open questions (requiring justification or suggestions). We then crossed these data with the students' representations of the LC, which were obtained by asking students to summarise the LC in a few words (question 9 of the questionnaire). To obtain data concerning students' representations of self-directed learning we applied the same method to open questions which were obtained by asking students to give their opinions, based on their experience, about the advantages and disadvantages of self-directed learning. They were also asked whether they liked working this way or not and invited to justify their answers.

4.2.2. Semi-structured interviews

31To back up the data obtained from the questionnaire by allowing students to speak more freely (Piaget, 1926: IX; Blanchet & Gotman, 1992: 10) about the subjects addressed, semi-structured interviews were carried out. The interviewers were all instructed to follow the same guidelines (Appendix 2). Seven open questions concerning the interviewees' use of the LC and their opinions about working in a self-directed environment were also given. The interviews lasted from 20 to 45 minutes. They were conducted face to face and recorded. The data were then transcribed.

32Using content analysis (according to Bardin, 1977) and in order to make our analysis as objective as possible, both authors carried out a first analysis of the data to find recurring themes. By comparing our results, we were then able to categorise the answers. These results were then cross-referenced with the quantitative and qualitative data from the questionnaires. We then focused either on the use and the representations of the LC or on the representations of self-directed learning.

4.3. Analysis of data and discussion

33In this section, we will present the results of our study. It should, however, be noted that some students did not answer all or part of the questions, which is marked as "no answer" in the questionnaire. It explains the fluctuation in the total number of students answering specific questions. This is in contrast to "no opinion" answers, where the student actively indicates his/her desire to not give an opinion on a particular subject.

4.3.1. RQI: How is the LC used by the students?

34Data show (Table 1) that very few students actually worked regularly at the LC itself. One of these visits includes their registration to gain access to the online resources. This is in contrast to the large number of students who claim using the resources through the database at a distance (Table 2). These results indicate that the online LC resources are used but that students do not make use of the other resources offered by the LC.

Table 1–Students who work at the LC.

N° of students who access the LC resources from the LC

Often

3

3%

Little

11

12%

Rarely

38

42%

Never

39

43%

Table 2–Students who access the LC resources from outside of the LC.

35In order to investigate the reasons for attending the LC, students were asked whether they liked to go or not and to justify their responses (Table 3); 85 students (92%) said they preferred to work from home and only five (5%) from the LC, which confirmed previous answers (Tables 1 and 2). When asked why, 80 students (86%) said they found it inconvenient to go and only eight (8.5%) convenient and useful.

Table 3–Students who like attending the LC.

N° of students who like going to the LC

No

47

51%

No opinion

15

16%

Yes

20

22%

No answer

10

11%

36In light of these results, we focused on the reasons given for liking the LC or not, and classified them according to four themes: the atmosphere, the time spent there, motivation, and resources. We then realized that some of the topics could be divided further into two subcategories. Those referring to the physical and technical aspects and those referring to the social and relational aspects. Table 4 below summarizes the results obtained. It should be noted that there is no quantitative data here: no calculation by number of occurrence but rather a selection of the different topics found.

Table 4–Why students like or do not like visiting the LC.

Themes

Categories

Like visiting the LC

Don't like visiting the LC

Atmosphere

Physical space

Technical equipment/resources

Pleasant or cosy atmosphere

Not comfortable, not enough space, poor location

Atmosphere

Social and relational aspects

A calm and peaceful atmosphere

Too much noise

Interactions

Social and relational aspects

Convivial, friendly people

Prefer to be alone to concentrate better

Time spent

Physical space

Technical equipment/resources

A waste of time, easier to access Internet from home, no commuting, too constraining/binding

Motivation

Social and relational aspects

No reason to go. Compared to a documentation centre/resource library

Resources

Technical equipment /resources

For all the available resources (audio, DVD (series and films), choice, variety, interaction with native speakers).

37Ironically, the results for the first theme "Atmosphere" underline the singularity of the learner and the challenge to answer varying perceptions. More importantly, they illustrate how certain environments can be perceived and interpreted in different ways. Those students who complain that there is too much noise contrast with students who find it peaceful just as those who find it easier to concentrate working from home compared to those who like the friendly atmosphere.

38Perhaps one of the most important themes to take into account is the time saving aspect of digital technology and easy access to Internet. Out of the 82 answers we obtained (10 did not give reasons), 20 (24.5%) were positive and 62 (75.5%) were negative. The negative reasons given refer to a preference for working from home without giving further details for 14 of them (22.5%) while 12 specifically referred to the time saving aspect (19%).

39Indeed for these aspects to be overruled, the students needed to be given incentive. However, for those who gave a negative answer, they compared the space to a resource library and indicated the lack of a specific need for them to enter the space (instructions to do something there). This need of overruling motivation could also have been provided by the audio, DVD films, and series available to them but, apparently, the incentive was not strong enough. The possibility to improve their oral interaction through discussions with native speakers or obtain specific support from tutors did not provide sufficient incentive either.

40Indeed, it is quite striking to find out that 88 out of 92 students (96%) admit that they never used the service provided by the tutor. In spite of handouts describing the facilities offered by the LC and their teachers' detailed description of the centre at the beginning of the semester, one of the reasons given for not using the tutor's service includes not having been informed or an incompatible timetable.

41The results of the semi-structured interviews confirm these findings. The atmosphere or the space and the quality of the welcome received from the members of the LC staff (administrators and monitors) influence the students' desire to work from the LC. The other activities available (conversation workshops with tutors, tandem or teletandem sessions) are not sufficiently understood. On the subject of the atmosphere, during the interviews students said (cf. original versions in Appendix 3):

1. Pleasant atmosphere, there are a lot of people, which gives incentive to work, you don't have the impression of being at the fac, one can also ask monitors questions.

2. But I don't often have time; you have to wait to get a seat because there are often too many people there.

42Here the positive reference to a "pleasant atmosphere" and in contrast the negative view point including the waste of time, the need to wait and too many people, underline the varying degrees of perception and the importance that they have in the way the student uses or not the LC as stated by Kronenberg (2017).

43For activities such as teletandem and tutor sessions, they said:

3. The tutors, I would have liked to… but I didn't have the opportunity, I registered but I never did.

4. Who is teletandem?

44Here again the answers given: "I didn't have the opportunity", "I never did", to justify their lack of participation echo the problem concerning "time" and confirm answers given in the questionnaire. In example 4 "who is...", the student's lack of knowledge concerning teletandem sessions and the tutors' existence or what a tutor actually is and does is underlined. The examples illustrate the lack of sufficient motivation to incite students to take the time to participate in such activities at the LC.

4.3.2. RQ2: What are the students' representations of the LC?

45To increase our understanding of students' representations of the LC, we asked them to summarize their perception of it in a few words or a synonym. After a first reading of the data, to find out what subjects are recurrent (Bardin, 1977), five themes were established: atmosphere, time taken, resources, usefulness, and function. They were then further divided into either social and/or technical and material aspects as illustrated in table 5.

Table 5–Students' representations of the LC.

Social and relational aspect

Material technical and physical aspects

Atmosphere

Welcoming, warm, hospitable, pleasant, calm, peaceful, interesting, mysterious, and practical

Time taken

Demanding, obligation

Resources

Varied, abundant, rich, diverse themes, a lot practical, complete, original films, Internet access difficult

Usefulness

Useful platform/database

Useful but not indispensable

Function

Place to exchange/help each other, forum, practise speaking, work on self-directed learning, cultural space, tutor work

Place, space, work room, documentation centre

46From the 56 "summaries" given, 20 are words and 36 are brief sentences. Among the wide range of descriptions given, only 13 refer to the atmosphere and the social and relational aspects of the centre (even if for one student they remain "mysterious", which can only be interpreted as unknown or not fully understood), while the others focus on a global function which concentrates either on the variety of digital resources or on the neutral work space resembling a documentation centre.

47Regarding references to time, even though students constantly complain about the amount of extra work English involves in the self-directed learning system (compared to their traditional lessons), very few students surprisingly associate the centre negatively to this aspect. This may be due to the fact that most students access via the Internet from home and, when asked what they don't like about physically going to the centre, they reply with the time justification.

48When the LC is associated to the term "resources", it is the variety of available resources on the platform and choice of films that is mentioned and not the social or relational aspect provided by the monitors and tutors. Once again, references to the LC with a difficult/complicated Internet access are numerous. Although some references underline the usefulness of the centre, 19 out of 23 answers (83%) focus on the function of the centre while only four of them (17%) focus on the space as devoid of any social interaction (place, space, documentation centre). In spite of functions given such as "to exchange, help, practise, even work with tutors" there is no mention of teletandems or tandems or what working with tutors actually entails. Again, the lack of information concerning these roles is also confirmed by the semi-structured interviews even though, as previously stated, the information is circulated at the beginning of each semester and available for consultation at any time during the term.

4.3.3. RQ3: What are the students' representations of self-directed learning?

49The learners were then asked about their perception of the process of self-guided language learning as such. When asked what the advantages and drawbacks of such a learning environment were, they focused on three main elements: the self-guided language learning approach provides them with the possibility of organizing their learning process, it can foster renewed motivation, and they are aware that they have more flexibility to organize their language learning, especially when time and place are concerned. The answers were classified according to three themes: learning management, motivation, and material organisation or support for the learning process. The themes were further divided into several subcategories that are illustrated through sample answers below. Several recurrent drawbacks for learning in a self-guided learning environment were also identified. The tables below summarize the results obtained: Table 6 for the advantages mentioned and Table 7 for the drawbacks.

Table 6–Perception of self-guided language learning: advantages.

  • 7 These examples are sample answers that have been summarized and translated from French, the languag (...)

Theme

Category

Example7

Learning management

Autonomy vs time problem

Interesting for autonomous people

More autonomy and freedom to choose activities

Self-direction

Self-assessment is interesting

Progress made

Self-organisation (of our work, of our studies)

To be the only one responsible for one's work

Adapted rhythm vs methodology

Work can be done following our own rhythm and level

We organise ourselves as we want

Adapted to my needs and desires

Motivation

Not face-threatening

No shame to start from basis

Based on our desires and needs and away from others' critical judgment

Pleasant

Quite fun to do that

Incentive

Based on personal motivation

It forces us to work

Support

Time and space

Saving time

Working from home

Table 7. Perception of self-guided language learning: drawbacks.

Theme

Category

Example

Learning management

Time problem vs autonomy

Logbook takes too much time

Too much time spent on it, spent in courses

Waste of time

Too much time spent with languages when you are not a specialist

Methodology vs adapted rhythm

Work might be irregular

Difficult to fix goals

Difficult to be disciplined

Requires the organisation of a planning

Doubt and problem of choice

Do not know what to do to progress

Risk of working with unadapted resources.

Motivation

Regulation

Need to find motivation to work

Motivation not always there

Choice of learning resources

Difficult to find adapted activities

Support

Working on one's own

Not always easy to work on one's own

No feedback when working on one's own is frustrating

Lack of guidance

No help provided can limit our work

Nobody to help us.

50The interviews that followed the questionnaires confirm our analysis of their answers to the online questionnaire. Similar results were previously observed in another setting by Macré (2014).

51Some selected extracts of the interviews reported below reveal the ambivalent perception of the students (cf. original version in Appendix 3).

52Autonomy means:

5. We can do what we want, whenever we want, it is motivating.

53but at the same time another student answers that:

6. It requires motivation and long hours of work.

54A paradox is also expressed, which reveals the ambivalent feelings and understandings of the students concerning self-directed learning, that they associate with "freedom" as opposed to compulsory, which is related to traditional classroom setting. Yet, although this language learning setting gives them more freedom for their organisation and choice of resources, studying remains compulsory as they have 12 hours to be done at the LC, as expressed in the following answer:

7. We are less willing to work when it becomes compulsory.

55Concerning the learning process, the students give the following types of answers:

8. I learn better, we memorize better, I am more concentrated, more engaged…

56But at the same time, some seem to miss the traditional teacher's role, which entails the expectation of having questions answered formally:

9. In the classroom setting we are provided with more explanations.

10. We are not so much on our own, we can ask questions.

57As for their perception of progress, they admit that after a year:

11. It has become easier to keep a learning journal… I have made progress since last year.

58To the question: "was self-guided learning useful?" 65 out of 92 students (71%) answer "yes" or "a little", while only 27 (29%) answer negatively or do not answer at all. When asked whether they enjoyed working in a self-guided learning setting, one third answered positively, one third negatively and one third did not answer. These answers show that they recognize that self-guided learning is a useful process but underscore that it is not necessarily enjoyable. They express the lack of human guidance (though not using the tutors available at the LC) and indicate that there are more explanations provided in a traditional classroom setting. We consider, as Barbot and Camatarri (1999), that it expresses rather a need for deconditioning, as we know that they are not necessarily ready for the change of educational paradigm, after so many years in a globally rather transmissive educational setting.

4.4. Synthesis and discussion of the results

59In spite of our efforts to explain and incite students to use the LC to support, enhance, and motivate their language learning, its main function is today misunderstood. Used primarily for access at a distance to the database, and more infrequently for the choice of films it offers rather than the social interactions and oral practice, the students' understanding of its use and their representations of its role remain limited to the practical and more functional usage. When asked why they liked or disliked visiting the LC, once again, there is a noticeable absence of reference to social or interactional needs. Although noted by those few who attend and stress its importance, the ambivalent reactions to the atmosphere, global warmth and friendly environment are not enough to motivate and increase the number of students who visit.

60Indeed, language learning and self-directed learning seem to have been understood as a concrete and fixed object rather than a process which needs to be developed. The ambivalent responses concerning the students' representations of the latter indicate a conscious awareness of the advantages of adopting this type of learning but at the same time underline their difficulties in implementing the necessary changes involved. Not formal but not entirely informal either, the LC has not yet been incorporated into the language learning process.

5. Conclusion

61In light of our results, we are left to wonder what type of support is needed and how to define the LC so that both material and technical, social and relational aspects are included.

62However, it is the social aspects which motivate student attendance. It is these aspects that we believe need to be reinforced. Even though Poteaux (2007: 86-87) is speaking about distance learning, our results are to some degrees similar to hers, thus we agree that:

The difficulty to go from a LC to distance learning resides not in the organisation of the resources, or of their access or in the difficulties involved in transposing the conception of the learning system, but in the implementation of the social dimension of the learning process" (highlighted by us, our translation).

La difficulté à passer des CRL à l'EAD ne réside donc ni dans la configuration des ressources, ni dans leur accès, ni dans l'impossibilité de transposer la conception du dispositif mais davantage dans la mise en scène des dimensions sociales du processus d'apprentissage.

63Our results indicate that we need to develop our comprehension of the impact of the environment on the development of learning autonomy. Some questions still need to be tackled, which include the pedagogical implications of the study and their impact on the creation of future LC structures. According to our results and in view of a restructuring of the present LC, it would seem that there is a need to take into account several poles of the learning environment. This would include the social and relational aspects of the LC which require reflections as to the future roles played by monitors and tutors and the type of atmosphere to create within the centre which will enhance the support necessary for the self-directed learning process.

64Gaps underlined between students' representations about the LC, and the various roles played by teachers and/or tutors and the self-directed learning processes itself indicate the need for more thought concerning how these reflections and meta-reflections can be triggered. Indeed what can be done to encourage reflections and meta-reflection? What support can be implemented to help overcome obstacles that can prevent the learning process from developing? Interactions need to be developed between the two essential constituents of the LC, that is (i) material and technical support combined with (ii) social and relational aspects, so that they are understood as interrelated, complementary, and meaningful rather than just coexisting. This requires a systemic and dynamic understanding of the LC's structure rather than a binary vision of it. The models used have helped underline the dysfunction, the next step would be, as in an action-research, to implement the changes that have proved necessary.

Haut de page

Bibliographie

Barbot, M.-J. & Camatarri, G. (1999). Autonomie et apprentissage – L'innovation dans la formation. Paris: PUF.

Bardin, L. (1977). L'analyse de contenu. Paris: PUF.

Bélisle, C. (2003). "Médiations humaines et médiatisations technologiques – Médiatiser l'apprentissage aujourd'hui." In Barbot, M.-J. (ed.). Médiations, médiatisation et apprentissage – Notions en Questions, n° 7. Lyon: ENS Éditions. pp. 21-33.

Blanchet, A. & Gotman, A. (1992). L'enquête et ses méthodes : l'entretien. (Republication). Paris: Nathan.

Cappellini, M., Lewis, T. & Rivens Mompean, A. (2017). Learner autonomy and web 2.0. CALICO monograph. Abstract available online: https://www.equinoxpub.com/home/learner-autonomy/

Certif'langues (2014). Certif’langues vise des objectifs de certification, sans pour autant consister en des annales types. http://www.uoh.fr/front/notice?id=424141cd-a230-4e9d-b101-5bf0f0ef07ec

Ciekanski, M. (2011). "L'analyse ergonomique du travail d'accompagnement du conseiller dans les systèmes d'apprentissage autodirigé." Mélanges Crapel – Numéro special – Pratiques d'accompagnement(s) des apprenants en présentiel et à distance, n° 32. pp. 9-23. Available online: http://www.atilf.fr/spip.php?article3793

CLES (nd). Certificat de compétences en langues de l'enseignement supérieur. https://www.certification-cles.fr

Donato, R. (1994). "Collective Scaffolding in Second Language Learning." In Lantolf, J. & Appel, G. (1994). Vygotskian Approaches to Second Language Research. London: Ablex publishing. pp. 33-56.

ELAO (nd). Efficient Language Assesment Online. http://www.accentlang.com/fr/outil/elao

Ellis, R. (2003). Task-Based Language Learning and Teaching. Oxford: OUP.

Gremmo, M.-J. (1995). "Conseiller n'est pas enseigner : le rôle du conseiller dans l'entretien de conseil." In Mélanges Crapel – Centre de Ressources, n° 22. Available online: http://www.atilf.fr/spip.php?article3505

Holec, H. (1979). Autonomie et apprentissage des langues étrangères. Strasbourg: Conseil de la coopération culturelle du Conseil de l'Europe.

Kronenberg, F. (2017). From Language Lab to Language Center and Beyond: The Past, Present, and Future of Language Center Design. International Association for Language Learning Technology.

Lantolf, J. (2000). "Introducing sociocultural theory." In Lantolf, J. (ed.). Sociocultural Theory and Second Language Learning. Oxford: OUP. pp. 1-26.

Lantolf, J. P. & Thorne, S. L. (2006). Sociocultural Theory and The Genesis of Second Language Development. Oxford: OUP.

Linard, M. (2002). "Conception de dispositifs et changement de paradigme en formation." Éducation permanente – Regards multiples sur les nouveaux dispositifs de formation. pp. 143-155. Available online: https://halshs.archives-ouvertes.fr/edutice-00000275/document

Linard, M. (2003). "Autoformation, éthique et technologies : enjeux et paradoxes de l'autonomie." In Albero, B. (ed.). Autoformation et enseignement supérieur. Paris: Lavoisier. Available online: https://halshs.archives-ouvertes.fr/edutice-00000276/document

Little, D. (2015). "University language centres, self-access learning and learner autonomy." Recherche et pratiques pédagogiques en langues de spécialité, vol. 34, n° 1. pp 13-26. http://journals.openedition.org/apliut/5008

Macré, N. (2014). "Les apprenants LANSAD de niveau A2/B1 en première année d'anglais en autonomie accompagnée médiatisée : quels besoins ?" Recherche et pratiques pédagogiques en langues de spécialité, vol. 33, n° 2. pp 118-142. http://journals.openedition.org/apliut/4428

Macré, N. (2015). "Situation paradoxale ou catch 22 : le cas d'un dispositif hybride mis en place pour des étudiants LANSAD de niveau A2/B1 en anglais en première année d'université." Recherche et pratiques pédagogiques en langues de spécialité, vol. 34, n° 1. pp 106-126. http://journals.openedition.org/apliut/5053

Mangenot, F. (2011). "Apprentissages formels et informels, autonomie et guidage." In Dejean, C., Mangenot, F. & Soubrié, T. (dir.). Actes du colloque Epal 2011. Available online: http://epal.u-grenoble3.fr/actes/pdf/epal2011-mangenot.pdf

Morin, E. (1990). Introduction à la pensée complexe. Paris: EFF.

Murray, G. (2014). Social Dimensions of Autonomy in Language Learning. London: Palgrave Macmillan.

Poteaux, N. (2007). "Du dispositif ouvert au dispositif à distance : étude de cas pour une nouvelle transportation." In Triby, E. & Heilmann, E. (eds.). À distance – Apprendre, travailler, communiquer. Strasbourg: Presses universitaires de Strasbourg. pp. 77-89.

Raby, F. (2007). "A triangular approach to motivation in Computer-Assisted Autonomous Language Learning (CAALL)." Recall, vol. 19, n° 2. pp. 181-201.

Rivens Mompean, A. (2013). Le Centre de Ressources en Langues : vers la modélisation du dispositif d'apprentissage. Villeneuve d'Ascq: Septentrion.

Rivens Mompean, A. (2014). "Les centres de langues : des dispositifs pluriels à un dispositif modélisé ?" Apprentissage des langues et systèmes d'information et de communication (Alsic), vol. 17. http://alsic.revues.org/2747

Rivens Mompean, A. & Eisenbeis, M. (2009). "Autoformation en langues : quel guidage pour l'autonomisation ?" Les cahiers de l'Acedle, vol. 6, n° 1. pp. 221-244. http://journals.openedition.org/rdlc/2204

Spear, G. E. & Mocker, D. W. (1981). "The Organizing Circumstance: Environmental Determinants in Self-Directed Learning." Adult Education Quarterly, vol. 35, n° 1. pp. 1-10. Draft available online: https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED226148.pdf

Zimmerman, B. (2002). "Efficacité perçue et autorégulation des apprentissages durant les études : une vision cyclique." In Carré, P. & Moisan, A. (dir.). La formation autodirigée – Aspects psychologiques et pédagogiques. Paris: L'Harmattan. pp. 69-88.

Haut de page

Annexe

Appendix 1.

Questionnaire

L'année dernière dans le cadre de votre UE 9 (cours d'anglais), on vous a demandé de travailler pour un minimum de 12 heures) en dehors de vos cours, en autonomie. Vous avez eu des tâches/devoir à faire et vous avez également eu la possibilité de travailler sur vos propres besoins en langue. Afin d'améliorer le dispositif mis en place nous souhaiterions vous poser quelques questions.

Section 1 : Votre profil

1. Quel est votre âge ?

2. Quelle est votre langue maternelle ?

3. Quel est votre niveau en langue ?

4. Quel test de positionnement avez-vous passé ?

Section 2 : Votre apprentissage

1. En moyenne, combien de temps par semaine avez-vous passé pour le travail à faire en dehors ?

2. Êtes-vous satisfait(e) de la façon dont vous organisez votre temps de travail ?

3. Avec quelle régularité venez-vous au CRL ?

4. Avez-vous discuté avec un tuteur, lors des permanences du tuteur au CRL ?

5. Si oui qu'avez-vous fait ?

6. Quelles sont vos attentes vis à vis du tuteur ?

7. Travaillez-vous aussi à l'extérieur du CRL (sur le site du CRL de chez vous par exemple)

8. Aimez-vous venir au CRL ? Pourquoi, pourquoi pas ?

9. Si vous deviez résumez le CRL en quelques mots ou donner un synonyme, que diriez-vous ?

10. Venez-vous seul ou en groupe ? Pourquoi ?

11. Avez-vous participé à un atelier et si oui lequel ?

12. Si oui, qu'avez-vous pensé de l'atelier ?

13. Quand vous avez travaillé en anglais en dehors des cours, avez-vous eu besoin d'aide ?

14. Si oui, qu'avez-vous fait pour avoir cette aide ? (ressource en ligne, tuteur…)

15. Avez-vous été satisfait de l'aide proposée et pourquoi/pourquoi pas ?

16. Utilisez-vous les ressources proposées au CRL ?

17. Quelles sont vos ressources préférées ?

18. Lesquelles utilisez-vous le plus ? (en ligne, CDRom, DVD)

19. Utilisez-vous la rubrique "mes favoris" ?

20. Utilisez-vous le carnet de bord du CRL ?

21. Échangez-vous avec les autres étudiants au sujet des ressources les plus intéressantes ?

22. Utilisez-vous les parcours proposés en ligne ? Si oui, lesquels ?

23. Quelles remarques feriez-vous en ce qui concerne l'organisation des rencontres avec les tuteurs ? Avez-vous des suggestions ?

24. Comment organisez-vous votre progression ? Avec l'aide du tuteur, de l'enseignant en présentiel, tout seul... ?

25. L'offre fournie par le CRL répond-elle à vos attentes ? Si non, que pensez-vous qu'il manque encore pour répondre à vos besoins ?

26. Comment trouvez-vous l'accès à la plateforme et au CRL ?

27. Préférez-vous travailler au CRL ou de chez vous ? Pourquoi ?

28. Est-il important pour vous de vous rendre physiquement au CRL ou est-ce un inconvénient ?

29. Qu'aimeriez-vous trouver d'autre au CRL ?

30. Quels sont pour vous les avantages/inconvénients de l'autoformation ?

31. Avez-vous aimé travailler en autonomie accompagnée en dehors des cours ?

32. Qu'est-ce que vous avez aimé/pas aimé ?

33. Pensez-vous que l'autoformation vous aide dans l'apprentissage d'une langue étrangère ?

34. Le mode de fonctionnement du CRL vous convient-il ? (permanences, horaires, ressources)

35. Avez-vous des suggestions, des remarques complémentaires ?

Appendix 2. Interview guidelines

Déroulement de l'entretien semi-directif construit à partir des notes tirées de Blanchet et Gotman (1992).

Introduction

1. Je mène une enquête pour recueillir vos avis sur votre apprentissage d'anglais.

2. Pourquoi vous ? Parce que vous êtes des étudiants en L3 et vous êtes le mieux placé pour donner un avis. Cet entretien est anonyme, et je vais l'enregistrer pour pouvoir mieux vous écouter.

3. L'année dernière vous avez eu des tâches/devoir à faire et vous avez également eu la possibilité de travailler sur vos propres besoins en langue. Afin d'améliorer le dispositif mis en place nous souhaiterions vous poser quelques questions.

Les consignes à utiliser comme guide pour être sûr de couvrir les sujets importants pour la problématique.

1. Qui êtes-vous ? Quel est votre âge, votre niveau en langue ?

2. Comment le travail à faire en dehors des cours (autonomie) s'est passé pour vous l'année dernière ? (difficultés, résultats).

3. Avez-vous utilisé/fréquenté le CRL et pourquoi/pourquoi pas (demander des détails s'il relève un point sur : carnet de bord du CRL/ambiance/plateforme/tuteur/tandem).

4. Si vous deviez résumez le CRL en quelques mots, que diriez-vous ?

5. Comment trouvez-vous cette façon d'apprendre comparée à avant ? (en autonomie guidée en L1 ou avant)

6. Croyez-vous progresser aujourd'hui ? (comment le mesurez-vous ?)

7. Avez-vous d'autres choses à dire dont nous n'avons pas parlé ? (laissez le temps à l'étudiant de réagir)

Appendix 3. Original answers given during the interviews:

1. "Atmosphère agréable, il y a du monde ce qui incite à travailler, on n'a pas l'impression d'être à la fac, on peut poser des questions aux moniteurs".

2. "Mais je n'ai pas souvent le temps, il faut attendre pour avoir une place car il y a souvent trop de monde".

3. "Les tuteurs, j'aurais aimé mais je n'ai pas eu l'occasion, je me suis inscrit mais je n'ai jamais fait".

4. "C'est qui le tandem ou télétandem" ?

5. "On peut faire ce qu'on veut quand on veut, c'est motivant".

6. "Il faut se motiver, faire des heures".

7. "On a moins envie quand on est obligé".

8. "En classe on a plus d'explication".

9. "J'apprendre mieux, on mémorise mieux, je suis plus concentré, plus investie".

10. "Moins livré à soi-même, on peut poser des questions".

11. "C'est plus facile à tenir un carnet de bord, j'ai progressé plus que l'année dernière".

Haut de page

Notes

1 ALADIN stands for "Apprentissage, Langue, Autonomie, Dispositif, Institution, Numérique", which constitute the different poles of the system: Learning, Language, Autonomy, Learning Environment, Institution, and Multimedia.

2 Our translation: "Mediation that organises more or less rigorously relationships between humans and tools, goals and means, intentions and actions."

3 Our translation: "Complexity consists in escaping the alternative between the reductionist mode of thought that sees only the parts or the globalistic mode that sees only the whole."

4 Our translation: "The notion evolves from mediation towards helping the learner to reach a specific pre-defined goal (being together 'to go towards')."

5 Our translation: "The notion evolves from mediation towards encounter: to be with the other one, on his/her path at a specific moment (some kind of 'being together with')."

6 Our translation: "The centre for language research and pedagogical applications."

7 These examples are sample answers that have been summarized and translated from French, the language used for the questionnaire.

Haut de page

Pour citer cet article

Référence électronique

Annick Rivens Mompean et Nicola Macré, « The Language Centre: A dynamic space to foster the development of multiple interactions? »Alsic [En ligne], Vol. 20, n° 3 | 2017, mis en ligne le 28 décembre 2017, consulté le 28 mars 2024. URL : http://journals.openedition.org/alsic/3211 ; DOI : https://doi.org/10.4000/alsic.3211

Haut de page

Auteurs

Annick Rivens Mompean

Dr Annick Rivens Mompean is Professor in English Didactics and in charge of Language Policy at the University of Lille. Her research involves Computer Aided Language Learning, Computer Mediated Communication and the development of autonomy related to language learning, especially in the context of language resource centres. She is President of RANACLES (Rassemblement National des Centres de Langues de l'Enseignement Supérieur).
Affiliation: University of Lille, France.
Email: annick.rivens@univ-lille.fr
Web: https://pro.univ-lille.fr/annick-rivens/
Address: Laboratoire STL (Savoirs, Textes, Langage) UMR 8163. Université de Lille. Domaine Université Pont de Bois. BP 60149. 59653 Villeneuve d'Ascq, France.

Articles du même auteur

Nicola Macré

Dr Nicola Macré is Lecturer in didactics in English. She is director of the language centre and runs the English programme in the faculty of psychology. Her research involves self-directed learning, including Computer Aided Language Learning and Computer Mediated Communication, in blended learning environments. She is particularly interested in the type and forms of support necessary to help develop language acquisition.
Affiliation: University of Lille, France.
Email: Nicola.macre@univ-lille.fr
Web: https://pro.univ-lille.fr/nicola-macre/
Address:
Laboratoire STL (Savoirs, Textes, Langage) UMR 8163. Université de Lille. Domaine Université Pont de Bois. BP 60149. 59653 Villeneuve d'Ascq, France.

Haut de page

Droits d’auteur

CC-BY-NC-ND-4.0

Le texte seul est utilisable sous licence CC BY-NC-ND 4.0. Les autres éléments (illustrations, fichiers annexes importés) sont « Tous droits réservés », sauf mention contraire.

Haut de page
Rechercher dans OpenEdition Search

Vous allez être redirigé vers OpenEdition Search