Technology-Infused French: Foreign-Language Instruction for the Digital Age ed. by Carl Falsgraf
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
would be better served and more challenged by exposure to authentic examples of current journalism. Furthermore, the text is unannotated, devoid of any pedagogical aids (boldface, italics, marginal notes, etc.) that would allow students to situate key vocabulary within the context of the article. The exercises, therefore, inevitably force students to spend an inordinate amount of time locating a particular word or expression in order to study the context. Some of the targeted vocabulary is far too specialized for the intermediate level—e.g., ruban à mesurer, papier de verre, rouleaux de papier peint (37). Another serious drawback is the lack of a glossary, an aid which would greatly facilitate the student’s reading, and would contribute toward the stated objective of the book. A baffling and detracting feature of the book is a table found in each unit contrasting “Constructions fautives à éviter” with “Constructions correctes à utiliser.” It may not be pedagogically effective to show two opposing expressions, side-by-side, and the practice could lead to confusion if the student remembers one of them, but not the other—e.g., “faire une decision” vs. “prendre une decision” (57). More problematic are such oppositions as être 20 ans and avoir 20 ans, être faim and avoir faim, être peur and avoir peur (35). One has to wonder about the efficacy and wisdom of recognizing such egregious errors in print. Downloader seems a strange substitute for télécharger, as does deleter for effacer (77), or cédule for emploi du temps (119). These pairings are puzzling, to say the least, though they are perhaps an attempted remedy against regional contamination of québécois French. Overall, most of the topics are timely and there is a good deal of useful vocabulary embedded in the reading. It is regrettable that the book was not designed with a little more care and with greater attention to the primary objective stated in the title. University of North Carolina, Greensboro David A. Fein FALSGRAF, CARL, ed. Technology-Infused French: Foreign-Language Instruction for the Digital Age. Eugene, OR: International Society for Technology in Education, 2011. ISBN 978-1-56484-282-4. Pp. 168. $24.95. This collection of essays and teaching units provides new insight into integrating technology, not for its own sake but to respond to both foreign language and technology standards, particularly the need to bring authentic situations and materials into the classroom. The first section contains three essays aimed at explaining the need to integrate technology, how technology relates to the ACTFL standards as well as the National Educational Technology Standards for Students (NETS*S), and how to conduct a performance assessment with the help of technology . In the first essay, Falsgraf reminds us that we are striving for authentic and contextualized communication in our classrooms. He then explains how society in general and teachers in particular tend to look at technology, concluding with the advice to use technology in such a seamless way that it becomes virtually invisible. Falsgraf is easy to read, to the point, with practical recommendations . In the second chapter, Kyle Ennis shows how NETS*S standards are integrated and intertwined with ACTFL standards. Ennis shows an awareness of the difficulties most teachers could experience, including the lack of access and time, limited familiarity with technology, and issues of reliability—thus requiring back-up plans. I found this awareness to be reassuring, ensuring that neither his essay nor the rest of the book felt overwhelming. In the third essay, Rita Oleksak Reviews 437 and Kathleen Riordan explain the performance assessment guidelines and how one school district brought about changes through teacher research and data collection. The presentations of the case study and the technologies were interesting and well done, although I found them quite discouraging for someone who works in a district with little money. However, I was also left with the desire to explore the resources mentioned by the authors. The second section offers four teaching units, two each from the ContentBased Language Teaching with Technology (CoBaLTT) Project and the Iowa State National K-12 Foreign Language Resource Center. The units target middleand high-school students at the beginner and intermediate levels. After an introduction to both...
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,003 | 0,002 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».