1In language education, we have all faced groups where heterogeneous language proficiency is a common occurrence. As teachers, we must try to compose a pedagogical progression, design activities that will not overwhelm lower-level students, and, in the same space (temporal and material), allow the most advanced learners to progress even further. The ultimate challenge is undoubtedly to achieve this differentiation, sometimes with rather large groups, often with 30 students or more. Under such circumstances, how can students be empowered to feel confident and at ease with the requirements of the course?
2With this in mind, for the past fifteen years, I have been practicing a pedagogy of autonomy, far from the face-to-face contact with the teacher that I experienced during my years in secondary and higher education in France, which consisted of having the class do the same activities at the same pace. In my classes, learners are put to work on four language skills, and my role is to guide them. In doing so, I provide them with the theoretical and practical input they need to complete the tasks based on the knowledge they have assimilated during their years of learning in secondary education. They work at their own pace and, if necessary, complete the activity outside class.
3However, this system has its limits when you look at the final results at the end of each semester. Some students are unable to achieve the expected outcomes due to the – sometimes enormous – differences in knowledge among learners in the same group, with levels almost systematically ranging from A1 to C2 (CECRL). This makes it difficult for teachers: how can we avoid discouraging some of the weakest learners, while maintaining activities that motivate the most advanced ones? This question gave rise to the system I propose to describe in the following pages. First, I will define the context in which this pedagogical project was carried out, then I will explain how it was set up, and finally, I will give some critical feedback, both at the teacher and learner levels.
4Differentiated instruction seeks to tailor teaching methods, content, and learning environments to accommodate the diverse needs, abilities, and interests of learners. According to Tomlinson (2001), differentiation involves modifying a curriculum and instructions to ensure that all students have equal access to learning and can enjoy learning. This approach acknowledges that learners vary in readiness levels, learning profiles, and thus promotes flexible teaching strategies. Indeed, learner empowerment emphasizes fostering autonomy and self-regulation in students. Little (1991) explains that empowering learners means helping them develop the confidence, autonomy, and strategies necessary to take charge of their own language learning. Teachers then become facilitators. In the process discussed in this paper, I kept a central role in the organization of the course but gave students autonomy to choose activities and proceed at their own pace. Creating inclusive and engaging learning environments that respect individual differences and support student growth are key aspects of these approaches. When integrated, differentiated instruction and learner empowerment can significantly enhance motivation, achievement, and long-term educational outcomes (Dörnyei, 2001).
5The Programme National (PN) defines the content of the modules offered by the BUT (Bachelor Universitaire de Technologie – a three-year degree – replacing the DUT, Diplôme Universitaire de Technologie – formerly a two-year degree). The skill-based approach initiated in the 2013 version of the PN is clearly reaffirmed in the 2021 update, and the professionalization of students is even more prominent, notably through the SAÉ (Situation d'Apprentissage et d'Évaluation). The SAÉ puts learners in professional situations through cross-disciplinary and interdisciplinary projects, sometimes directly with companies, to work on three main skills: communication, marketing, and sales.
6Professionalization was already present in the DUT, but it is even more so in the BUT. Even in foreign language classes, learners do not study a modern language for the sake of it, for purely grammatical and lexical purposes, or even to communicate in everyday real-life situations, but to apply it in a professional context. Language for Specific Purposes (LSP) is thus asserted in the curriculum even more than before. This diploma also includes internships and tutored projects (renamed cross-disciplinary projects), but the emphasis is placed, especially in the third year, on a work-study program (1 week at university, 1 week at a company), with a target of 100% participation in my department. We reached an average rate of 85% for all third-year programs combined over the past years.
7The content of modern language courses is structured around a number of skills: linguistic skills, of course, but also intercultural and methodological skills. In addition, there are also themes related to the specialization of the degree (digital marketing, management, or sales). Students are expected to be able to negotiate in a professional context, pitch a product or service, design a communication document, or create a customer-satisfaction survey. All these activities are carried out in various modules in French throughout the curriculum. The technical side of the activity has therefore been worked on beforehand and is then reproduced, with different (inter)cultural themes, in a foreign language; English in the present report.
8The project presented in this paper was carried out in the sales, marketing, and communication (Techniques de Commercialisation) department of the University Institute of Toulouse. It involved a group of 26 second-year BUT students, with levels ranging from A1 to C2 according to their first-year placement test. The program was set up in the second semester of the second year. Over the course of the semester, students attended two 2-hour guided tutorials (TDs) and five 2-hour practical exercise sessions (TPs). Groups were formed by dividing students in alphabetical order, rather than by language level, since the practical work is done in parallel with other subjects which do not have the same pedagogical constraints.
9The setting up of a new approach was the consequence of the group’s performance in semester three (first semester of the second year). The particularly pronounced heterogeneity of the group was also a crucial factor in this reconsideration of a more traditional learning scheme. Last but not least, the fact that the number of teaching hours for English – which was almost halved following the introduction of the BUT – was a decisive factor in the search for a new approach.
10Autonomy and differentiation were the keywords of this project. While completing the tasks, students developed the following language skills:
-
Reading => I can understand a text in English and extract the essential elements,
-
Listening => I can understand a video in English and extract the essential elements,
-
Writing => I can write an argumentative document in English that is grammatically and lexically correct,
-
Oral interaction => I can interact with another person, provide elements of argumentation, and react coherently according to what my interlocutor answers.
11The instructions given to the learners were available on the frequently used Moodle platform so that documents were available from the start of the semester, remotely between lessons, and even after the end of the course.
12The first two whole-class lessons (TDs) enabled me to explain the system to students, so that they understood what was expected of them. Subsequent half-group lessons (TPs) provided more effective individual support.
13Beforehand, three language proficiency groups had been set up according to the previous semester results. Group A was the group with the most difficulties in every respect (both linguistic and methodological regarding the students’ learning autonomy), while Group B comprised students capable of expressing themselves both orally and in writing, but with some grammatical and/or lexical difficulties in writing and phonetic/prosodic difficulties in speaking. Finally, Group C was made up of the most advanced students. The two TPs included group A, B, and C students.
14Different tasks were designed for each skill. Quantity and duration requirements were different for each of the three groups, to enable each learner to give their best and, above all, to be able to complete a task corresponding to their skill level, without being lost, but also without it seeming too easy. They were therefore working in the same classroom, during the same timeslots, and for the same number of learning hours.
15All the instructions were uploaded to Moodle before the start of the semester. They consisted of six different documents. The first one contained the general guidelines: an explanation of the process, duration, different groups, expected outcomes, and how progress would be tracked using a color-coded system. The remaining five documents provided instructions for the four language skills, as well as a translation file which included sentences to practice grammar structures and specific business vocabulary.
16A grammar file had to be completed by all students, regardless of their group, but at a different pace depending on the group. It was recommended that students start with this activity in order to reinforce basic grammar rules and vocabulary (a review of the previous semester) and ease back into the course after a one-month break (due to exams, project work in December, and two weeks of vacation).
17The listening comprehension activity included several links to YouTube videos. Students had to submit a summary of what they understood. This summary could be written in either English or French, to ensure that weaker students were not penalized by their writing skills in English, since writing was worked on separately. The same instruction applied to the reading comprehension activity, for which several articles (of about 600 words each) were provided. Students had to read texts and write a summary of the content.
18The writing prompts were varied so that the topic would not become an obstacle to completing the task. Structural expectations increased depending on the group and were also raised on an individual basis, based on the students’ progress from one assignment to the next. The easier a student found a writing task, the more structured and rigorous the requirements became for the next one. This only applied to students from Group A and others from Group B.
19Lastly, the instructions for the speaking interaction activity included several short scenarios, written in French to encourage vocabulary research and thus facilitate acquisition. Students were expected to prepare the necessary vocabulary and a few key phrases. The rest of the interaction was improvised, as it took place face to face with me. The duration of the interaction ranged from 5 to 10 minutes depending on the student’s language ability.
20For each activity, there were always more topic options than the minimum required so that students could choose something that inspired them without wasting time searching for ideas online. Finally, students were allowed to resubmit revised versions as many times as they wanted, to improve their score and earn a “green” (i.e., top) rating.
21Each student had a semi-customized program (by group level) with a certain number of assignments in each skill. The remainder of the customization took place as learners chose the subjects they wished to tackle. In fact, for each skill, a choice of writing topics/videos/texts could be downloaded and was always greater in number than the number of assignments to be completed. Thus, they were free to choose what they were most interested in. This created a feeling of appropriation to motivate them and improve their skills. The task descriptions and instructions can be found in Appendix 1, here: https://bit.ly/4eY2UjV
22Everyone worked at his/her own pace, in partial autonomy, with the aim of completing all activities and handing them in for assessment by the end of the semester. Task submission was also done at their own pace. Students could hand in all their work at the end of the semester, or regularly throughout the weeks. During the lessons, they were able to call on my help for grammatical and lexical remedial work, methodological assistance and/or corrections as well as online via emails. Finally, the class sessions also included role-playing interactions lasting between three and eight minutes, depending on the group, to pass the “oral interaction” skill.
23Feedback came under different forms. For the listening and reading comprehension activities, if the summary seemed too superficial, students were asked to revise their work. Often, the first draft had been completed too quickly and without focusing enough on the work, and the revised versions were significantly better. For the writing tasks, all types of errors were highlighted in yellow. Many of these could be corrected independently by students, such as forgetting the “s” at the third person singular of simple present, or mixing up “who,” and “which,” for example. These were grammatical rules that the students knew but failed to apply automatically while writing. If they did not understand the mistake or couldn’t figure out how to correct it, they had access to online resources or could come to me for help. I would either explain the structure or guide them toward the solution. In most cases, this support led to successful correction. Finally, for the speaking interactions, only two students needed to retake the activity to improve their grade.
24A follow-up table, regularly updated as assignments were handed in, was available to students throughout the course so that they could keep track of their progress, particularly with regard to task validation. The code was as follows: a green box for a validated assignment, an orange box for an assignment that had been handed in but not validated, and which could, if the student wished, be reworked and sent back a second time (or more) for re-correction. White boxes indicated work not yet handed in. At the end of the semester, white boxes were changed to red to indicate work not handed in (at all). As the semester progressed, certain remarks were added, such as a number indicating the number of corrected versions submitted, or an “ok+” to mark particularly high-quality work.
- 1 Names were changed for anonymity purposes. Dark gray represents green (i.e., assignments that have (...)
Table 1. Follow-up table as of February 15, 2023 (i.e., about a month and a half before the end of the semester)1
25This project was part of a pedagogical approach based on encouragement. First of all, the level of work required was adapted to each learner, so each felt at ease with what they were required to do. It was also a way to motivate each learner to go further, because they knew they were dealing with something that was linguistically manageable for them. This reassured learners about their ability to successfully complete the task. What is more, several corrections of the same assignment were possible. This aspect was also reassuring for students, who knew that they had the right to make mistakes and the opportunity to make progress. It also enabled them to better assimilate certain aspects of the language, as they worked on their own mistakes and looked for solutions themselves to improve their output (Monnier, 2011). The difficulty lay in the pace of correction, which the teacher had to keep up if learners were to work on a new version of their assignments on a regular basis.
26As far as listening comprehension was concerned, the language barrier was neutralized, since the report could be written in either French or English, according to students’ choices, with some, particularly the more advanced, preferring to write it in English. For this skill, the emphasis was placed on what students understood, not what they managed to transcribe into the target language. This aspect also reassured students who were not forced to use a language they only partially mastered.
27Last but not least, student empowerment was central to this scheme, as they had complete freedom to organize their work time as they wished, both in and out of class. At the end of the second year, and on the eve of a work-study placement in the third year, the cross-disciplinary skill of organization was essential to practice and contributed to their professionalization. In addition, the differentiated instructions were also an opportunity to see how committed students were to their work, which was often synonymous with success, even for those with the greatest linguistic difficulties.
28The picture seems idyllic; encouragement, autonomy, and involvement. However, as soon as the system was set up, questions and doubts quickly arose.
29On the learner’s side, a number of questions were raised: Am I in the right level group to make progress without getting lost? Am I sufficiently autonomous methodologically and/or linguistically to be successful? As this set-up was very different from what students had been offered up to then, some of them needed time to adapt. Unfortunately, I wasn’t able to examine this aspect in detail, lacking the time to carry out a preliminary examination of each student’s confidence in English and their own skills.
30Further questions also arose from the teacher’s perspective: Is my role as facilitator sufficient? Am I worried about positioning myself in relation to the expectations I have set myself? How do I evaluate this work?
31The adopted system marked tasks as validated (green), to be reworked (orange), or not validated (red), as shown in the follow-up table (Table 1). Nevertheless, at the end of the semester, these colors had to be transformed into a final grade, calculated out of 20. To do this, all the intermediate versions were methodically archived so that they could be taken into account when grading. A submission of the same quality could not receive the same final grade if what was evaluated was a first draft rather than a revised and corrected version, even after two or three rounds of improvement.
32The table below illustrates the evolution of grades according to the versions handed in. An assignment rated green on the first attempt could not receive as high a grade as one that achieved a green rating after two or three attempts.
Table 2. Grade points based on the number of versions handed in and their quality
|
1st draft
|
2nd draft
|
3rd draft
|
Grade after only one version
|
Final grade
|
Comments
|
|
green
|
|
|
Between 15 and 20
|
Between 15 and 20
|
depends on the mistakes still present in the graded draft and the quality of the content (arguments, vocabulary used, examples, etc.)
|
|
orange
|
green
|
|
Between 8 and 12
|
Between 13 and 15
|
|
orange
|
orange
|
green
|
Between 8 and 12
|
Between 11 and 13
|
|
red
|
orange
|
orange
|
Under 5
|
Between 8 and 11
|
33To evaluate this system, an anonymous questionnaire was sent to students at the end of the semester; this feedback was crucial for modifying and improving future iterations of the set-up. The feedback questionnaire can be found in Appendix 2, here: https://bit.ly/4lVmvUg.
34The fears expressed above do not seem to have been justified.
35On the student side, 22 out of the 26 students in the group enjoyed working independently, at their own pace, and choosing their own activities (as far as they were able to in a university context), in stark contrast to more traditional courses where everyone has to progress at the same pace, on the same activities, sometimes without having the time to delve deeper into certain aspects or spend more time than others on tasks that are difficult from their point of view.
36Up to 24 students were satisfied with the group to which they had been assigned and felt comfortable with the language level of the work required. Only one student did not know where they stood on this point. Two students expressed dissatisfaction; one would have liked to be in the top group, the other in the lower group. Nevertheless, this does not seem to have had a negative impact on their final grade. Unfortunately, I cannot be certain of this, as the questionnaires were anonymous, but no such reaction appeared in the formal and informal feedback I had after the final grades were sent.
37The question of autonomy was also raised. Up to 16 students said they were sufficiently autonomous, methodologically and/or linguistically, to be successful in their assigned group. Students should therefore have been able to hand in all assignments on time, as these very assignments offered sufficient quality to validate them. The quantitative results for some students seem to suggest the opposite, since only 10 out of 27 students completed all the prescribed homework, i.e., far less than half the group. If we look in more detail, we can see that 2 out of 7 students in the A1-A2 group, 4 out of 10 in the B1-B2 group and 4 out of 10 in the C1-C2 group did not complete all the tasks required. There is therefore no obvious correlation between proficiency level and assignment submission rate. This raises the question of whether the amount of work required was too demanding. No such feedback was received, however, either during the course or after the end of the semester, or via the anonymous questionnaire.
38This aspect is also reflected in the final grade awarded at the end of the semester. In fact, 15 students felt they had obtained a grade corresponding to what they felt they were able to achieve. In reality, if we look back at the results of these same students, which were used to form the three level groups for the previous semester, we can observe the following: 3 out of 7 students in the A1-A2 group had an average higher than that of semester 3, and 5 out of 10 in the C1-C2 group had a lower average than that of semester 3. This decrease does not reflect their level, but illustrates the fact that they had not been able to organize and/or motivate themselves despite having a good command of the language, since these lower marks were the result of work not handed in at all. These students had not been used to having to work so much in English as they could succeed easily at the end of the year exam without difficulty due to their high level. This system was harder to deal with for them as it forced them to work on a regular basis. On the other hand, students from Group A took full advantage of the opportunity to improve their work, with some submitting up to five different versions. They also appreciated being able to work at their own pace. Several of them even expressed a sense of achievement – something they had not felt during the previous semester, when they had been overwhelmed by an excessive workload.
39On the teaching side, my concerns regarding my role were quickly allayed. Indeed, for years, I have assumed a facilitator role in my classes, which I was easily able to replicate in this new set-up with differentiated instruction. I didn’t experience any particular difficulties or frustration. I had already allowed a second version of an assignment before. I was therefore used to a – sometimes – high correction rate. With this type of system, the teacher can’t afford to correct everything at the end of the semester, and must make a point of correcting the assignments sent in between each lesson, so that subsequent versions can be completed without delay and that both teacher and students can cope with a high workload.
40The other aspect that worried me was grading. The obligation to convert the green/orange/red squares into a mark out of 20 made me fear an imbalance, an injustice to the learners. In reality, no major difficulties arose. The penalties played their part in a balanced way in relation to the work done. For students who completed all the required tasks, the final mark reflected a combination of their overall level and their commitment throughout the semester.
41In conclusion, this new system was comfortable for both my students and me. It was fair in terms of the amount of work involved. Above all, it enabled me to reward hard work, commitment, and autonomy. The feedback was positive, despite the fact that many of the students didn’t complete all the tasks required. The students in Group A appreciated the fact that they could rework on the activities as many times as they wished, and that their different levels could be taken into account. This was also the case for some of the students in Group B. They felt encouraged, supported, and empowered in their learning.
42Unfortunately, my teaching load the following year did not allow me to renew or further develop this approach. Nonetheless, this system deserves to be tested again – and, more importantly, analyzed in greater depth – in order to attempt to quantify the progress students make within this framework. Ideally, the entire three-year BUT program should be involved in such an experiment.
43One of the main positive outcomes of this initial trial was undoubtedly the renewed confidence it gave the weakest students. It helped them develop new skills and greater autonomy, which was the primary objective. Autonomy and empowerment are indeed key factors in helping learners improve their skills in our digital world (Ollivier, 2022).