Intégration de la grammaire dans l'enseignement des langues secondes : Le cas des exercices grammaticaux
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Résumé: Le présent article décrit une étude quasi-expérimentale qui visait à explorer le rôle d'un enseignement explicite de la grammaire dans l'apprentissage du français langue seconde, et plus précisément l'effet de différents types d'exercices grammaticaux. Pour ce faire, un groupe d'apprenants du secondaire du programme régulier a été exposé, dans le cadre d'une séquence d'enseignement à buts communicatifs, à des exercices où il devait comprendre le sens du message afin de pouvoir utiliser le conditionnel ; l'autre groupe a reçu des exercices de type mécanique où il devait manipuler la forme sans avoir à s'attarder au sens. Les habiletés des deux groupes à manipuler le conditionnel ont été comparées à l'aide, entre autres, d'un pré-test et d'un post-test. L'étude avait aussi comme but secondaire de vérifier, à l'aide d'un questionnaire, si les exercices combinant la forme et le sens portaient une charge cognitive plus importante que les exercices axés uniquement sur la forme. Abstract: This article describes a quasi-experimental study that explored the role of explicit grammar teaching in the learning of French by secondary-level students enrolled in regular second language classes. The study investigated whether the type of grammatical exercises used to practise a targeted grammatical feature had an influence on its acquisition. During the experimental treatment, one group of students used mechanical drills in the course of a communicative project-based teaching unit while an other group of students used exercises that forced them to engage with meaning while attending to the form. Both groups were tested on their use of the conditional in a pre-test and in a post-test. The study also attempted to discover, with the help of a questionnaire, whether form-meaning exercises were cognitively more demanding than form-only exercises.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".