« Ordo Ab Chao : la modélisation
pour gérer le chaos ? »
Dispositifs d’enseignement/apprentissage en langues
médiatiséset à distance
Jean-Claude BERTIN
UMR IDEES-CIRTAI, Le Havre
Jean-Paul NARCY-COMBES,
DILTEC, Sorbonne Nouvelle - UPMC
Plan de l’intervention
1. Epistemological stance
•
•
•
A systemic approach to language learning environments
Morin’s Complex Thinking
Emergentist perspectives
2. Destructuring the system’s components
•
•
•
Destructuring language
Destructuring learning paths
Destructuring mediation
3. Organizing chaos through modeling ?
•
•
•
The didactic ergonomics model
Evolving relationships within the model
An emergentist perspective for the model
An evolving epistemological stance…
Complex systems theories
refuted
Theoretical
level
complexity
Mathematical
level
Dynamic systems theories
 Focus on changes
within the system
Application
level
Emergentism :
Specific properties of a
complex system
Reductionism :
Specific properties of the
system’s components
Connexionism
 Focus on interactions within
the system
(adapted from Sockett 2010)
Chaos : destructuring language
• Syntax
• The structural properties of sentences can be explained without reference to inborn grammatical
principles.
• Mac Whinney : grammar emerges from conversation as a way to facilitate accurate tracking and
switching of perspective.
• O'Grady : syntactic phenomena are best understood in terms of the operation of a linear,
efficiency-driven processor that seeks to reduce the burden on working memory in the course of
sentence formation and interpretation.
• Morphology
• Morphological structure emerges from statistical regularities in the form-meaning relationship
between words.
• Morphological structure exists but not in the categorical form commonly assumed and coming
from frequency, semantic transparency, phonotactics.
• Lexicon
• The lexicon emerges from the way in which the brain responds to and stores experiences- by
creating units whose strength and productivity is determined largely by frequency of occurrence.
Some of these units corresponds to words, as in traditional lexicon, but many are phrases and other
larger units of organization, including possibly abstract constructions.
• Phonology
• Donegan: Children begin with a set of processes (nasalization, devoicing) that emerge as responses
to the physical limitations of the human vocal tract and the auditory apparatus.
• A language's phonemic inventory and allophonic patterns then emerge as specific processes are
suppresed in response to experience.
• Discourse and pragmatics can be explained in similar terms => our model
environment - teacher identity, personal characteristics and posture
Learning environment = course design and development
Pre-course getting to know the learner
Adjusting the course as a result
INTEGRATION
CONTENT/DOMAIN
and LANGUAGE
TUTOR / LEARNER
interaction
and mediation
Monitoring: yes
Follow-up: yes
Aids : yes / Helps : yes
Feedback: yes
Scaffolding: by teacher
(teacher suggests macro-task)
(3)
L2
restructuring practice
micro-tasks
- with deep processing
- pool of micro-tasks
(2)
(1)
interaction
macro-tasks
selected according to curriculum
(3)
TUTOR / LEARNER
interaction
and mediation
CRITICAL REFLECTION: FORMATIVE ASSESSMENT
(Teacher provides feedback and advice)
Objective: create needs
Monitoring: yes
Follow-up: yes
Aids: yes / helps: no
Feedback: if problems
Scaffolding: by peers
Chaos : destructuring learning paths
• Non-linear
• Cannot be pre-structured
• Triggering interplay of complementary sets of processes in order to create
connexions.
• Complementarity of processes is largely unpredictable in its results, but can
be safely anticipated.
• Three questions remain problematic:
(1) métareflection (Cummins: BICS et CALP).
(2) Mediation.
(3) Individual and cultural differences
. The Learning Cycle model remains one dimensional => lacks temporality
Chaos : destructuring mediation in CALL/distance learning
« an individual’s knowledge is described as a personal construction mediated by
teachers or peers. Distance [and technology] will not affect the individual’s
construction of knowledge, but may make mediation and social interaction more
complex » (Narcy-Combes 2010)
Teacher
Pedagogic mediation
selection of input
selection of input
(language mediation)
(language mediation)
Language
Language
selection of input
(language mediation)
selection of
Distance
selection
of
tasks
(macro/micro)
tasks
(macro/micro)
selection
of
Technological mediation
Language
Te
ch
tasks (macro/micro) follow-up
me nolo
follow-up
g
d
Disiatio ical
follow-up
t an n
ce
Distance mediation
Teacher
Teacher
Te
ch
me nolo
d i a gi c
tio al
n
Learner
Learner
Learner
The “analyser” concept (Lapassade 1971; Petit 1991)
Distance : « nouvelles formes d’échanges pédagogiques non seulement
grâce
au dispositif
technologique
utilisé mais
également
grâce à des
“… anything
that causes
truth to emerge
of what
is hidden;
configurations
socio-pédagogiques
inédites. a
» situation,
(Dejean-Thricuir,
& […]”
anything may refer
to a group, an individual,
an event,Guichon
a scandal
Nicolaev V. (2010, 378).
(Lapassade, 1971, p. 15)
Pedagogic
Pedagogic
mediation
Pedagogic
mediation
mediation
Modeling : towards some kind of order?
• Why refer to models?
•
•
•
•
Emergentism considers real world macro-objects
Finding one’s way in uncertainty
Structuring what can be structured in chaos
Construct functions (technology) and roles (human) from
interactions
• A heuristic model :
• Guiding the construction of the various components of the
system by the various actors
• Identify interfaces (= « places ») for interactions
• The model is neither rigid nor normative
• The model guides the implementation of performances
Simplified Didactic Ergonomics model
context
teacher
Language/culture
Tasks /
learning cycle
technology
learner
- A global vision of the macro-object (simplified here)
- Deconstruction into specialised sub-systems : teaching act, learning act, follow-up and
regulation)  emergence of new actors (teacher/tutor) and new roles (including learners’
roles).
Emergentisme et modèle d’ergonomie
didactique
(Adapted from Miras 2011)
Deconstructing the model
– teacher-centred sub-system
Sub-system 1: teacher-centred
- Process  organization of
materials and pedagogic mediation
• Materials design
• Environment design
Macro-task
Micro-tasks
teacher interface
computer
• Computer literacy / team organizer
•Follow-up
• organization & planning
• provision of monitoring devices
learner
teacher
Monitoring
• Task design (including
technological constraints and
potential)
learning
objectives
constraints
creativity
• Course design
constraints
creativity
Competence in:
language
Deconstructing the model
– learner-centred sub-system
teacher
Sub-system 2: learner-centred
• Process  language learning
• New dimensions / actors due to
specificity of technological mediation +
distance
computer
peers
input
language
Asynchronous articulation between
SS1 and SS2
learner
• Teacher-centred system  organization &
planning (virtual, latent)
• Learner-centred system  only when
learner interacts with materials
interaction
language
tutor
monitoring
Deconstructing the model
– regulation sub-system
•
SS1 and SS2 : 2 different perspectives
•
•
Teacher pedagogy driven + representations of the
computer
Learner  individual representations of language learning
and of technology
teacher
designer

Need for data on system’s operation  monitoring
computer
 Objectives of follow-up


Individual level: learner evaluation, feedback and support
Systemic level: system regulation
Roles
- Tutor contributes to raise learner’s awareness of the
emerging steps in the task (Bygate)
- Contributes to inform teacher about discontinuities .
- Teacher  in charge of reorganising system at T+1
- Modes of reorganisation are context specific.
system
regulation
 Potential gaps between didactic intention and
practices
Computer-mediated
learning space
learner
tutor
monitoring
Conclusions
•
Modeling  concerns the learning environment / not the processes
•
Functions og the learning environment
 Generate the emergence of conditions favorable to language acquisition
 Generate conditions for potential sequencing of language learning related operations
•
The didactic dimension of the learning environment is non linear and unpredictable.
•
Distance highlights discontinuities through the time gap between the teaching and the learning
acts  need for more information on learner activity (monitoring) for regulation purposes (task
and learning environment levels)
•
The technological element cannot accept total unpredictability  its function = stabilize the
environment + flexilbility to adapt to different contexts.
•
The general model ensure designers take into account all the components + interactions within
the system
•
Important : operating the model implies defining the respective responsibility of learner,
teacher and/or tutor, according to specific contexts.
Bibliographie
Conference based on :
• Bertin, J.-C., Gravé, P. & Narcy-Combes, J.-P. (2010). Second-language distance
learning and teaching: theoretical perspectives and didactic ergonomics, IGI Global,
USA
•
• Dejean-Thricuir, C., Guichon, N. & Nicolaev V. (2010). “Compétences interactionnelles des tuteurs
dans des échanges vidéographiques synchrones”. Distance et Savoirs, 8/2010, 377-393.
• Fischer, R. (2006), “How do we know what students are actually doing? Monitoring students’
behavior in CALL”. Conférence plénière : CALL Conference 2006, université d’Anvers.
• Lapassade, G. (1971). L’analyseur et l’analyste. Paris: Gauthier-Villars.
• Miras (2011). Mémoire de Master 2 recherche, Sorbonne-Nouvelle.
• Morin, E., & Lemoigne, J.-L. (1999). Introduction à la pensée complexe. Paris: L’Harmattan
• Narcy-Combes, Jean-Paul (2005). Didactique des langues et TIC: vers une recherche-action
responsable. Gap Paris, Ophrys.
• Petit, F. (1991). Introduction à la psychosociologie des organisations. Paris: Privat, Pratiques
Sociales
• Rabardel, P. (1995). Les Hommes et les Technologies – Approche cognitive des instruments
contemporains, Armand colin, série Psychologie, Paris.
• Sockett, G. (2010), « La complexité, l'émergence et la didactique des langues », Présentation à la
journée d'étude « Permanences et évolutions en didactique des langues » à l'Université de
Nantes, 25 juin 2010.
http://prismelangues.u-strasbg.fr/uploads/media/Complexite__emergence_et_DDL_4GGL_02.pdf
L’approche systémique
Dynamic Interactionism
systems : focus: focus
on interactions
on interactions
+ retroactions
actor 1
actor 2
process
actor 3
La Pensée Complexe (E. Morin)
Holistic perspective
Field A
?
Field B
Field C
?