MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1553550080 · doi:10.21083/synergies.v0i5.1686

Perspective actionnelle et genres textuels : le modèle didactique dans l’enseignement du français langue étrangère

2013· article· fr· W1553550080 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Luiza Guimarães-Santos

Bibliographic record

VenueSynergies Canada · 2013
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicLinguistics and Discourse Analysis
Canadian institutionsUniversity of GuelphUniversité de MontréalUniversité LavalUniversité du Québec à Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Cet article discute de l’intérêt de l’usage de la perspective actionnelle et des genres textuels pour l’enseignement et l’apprentissage du français langue étrangère. Dans un deuxième temps, nous visons à susciter un débat sur l’importance de bien connaître un genre avant d’enseigner à le produire, spécialement si l’on assume que la perspective adoptée est celle de faire agir en langue étrangère. Pour ce faire, nous allons analyser le genre textuel «itinéraire de voyage» et à partir de l’observation de plusieurs textes du même genre, nous allons élaborer un modèle didactique, tel que présenté par Schneuwly & Dolz (2004). La théorie qui sous-tend cette étude repose sur les propositions du Cadre Européen Commun de Référence pour l'utilisation de la perspective actionnelle; et aussi sur les travaux de Schneuwly & Dolz (2004) et Bronckart (1999, 2004, 2006) pour l’élaboration d’un modèle didactique. Celui-ci peut être défini comme un relevé des caractéristiques de dimensions enseignables de textes appartenant au même genre. This article discusses the advantages of using an action-based approach and textual genres for teaching and learning French as a foreign language. I also hope to demonstrate the importance of fully understanding a genre before teaching how to reproduce it, especially if the adopted approach is to incite action in a foreign language. To do this, I will analyse the textual genre “trip itinerary” and, beginning with observations of many texts of the same genre, I will devise a didactic model, such as the one proposed by Schneuwly and Dolz (2004). The underlying theory of this study is based on the recommendations of the Common European Framework of Reference for the use of the action-based approach and on the works of Schneuwly and Dolz (2004) and Bronckhart (1999, 2004, 2006) for the production of a didactic model. This model may be defined as a summary of the characteristics of the teachable dimensions of texts sharing the same genre. Article reçu le 2011-12-09; accepté le 2012-10-11

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.143
Threshold uncertainty score0.285

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.005
Science and technology studies0.0080.019
Scholarly communication0.0140.014
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0030.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0110.001

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.011
GPT teacher head0.206
Teacher spread0.195 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations3
Published2013
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSynergies CanadaSame topicLinguistics and Discourse AnalysisFrench-language works237,207