MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2325556999 · doi:10.29173/af27042

Difficultés des apprenants iraniens du FLE dans la gestion des finales verbales en /E/

2016· article· fr· W2325556999 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Katayoon Katoozian

Bibliographic record

VenueALTERNATIVE FRANCOPHONE · 2016
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicFrench Language Learning Methods
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesPolitical sciencePhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Étant donné la difficulté de l’homophonie des formes verbales en /E/ qui peuvent s’écrire par au moins dix formes différentes dont l’infinitif (-ER), le participe passé (-É) et l’imparfait (-AI), le choix entre ces formes reste une question délicate dans l’orthographe grammaticale du français. Cette recherche vise à étudier les problèmes des apprenants iraniens du FLE (Français Langue Étrangère) dans la gestion de ce secteur. Basée sur les recherches antérieures menées auprès d’élèves français et québécois, la présente étude cherche précisément à répondre aux questions suivantes : 1- Comment se fait l’évolution de la compétence de gestion des finales verbales en /E/? 2- Parmi les formes en -ER, -É, et -AI laquelle est mieux réussie ? 3- a) Dans les formes en -É, est-ce que les apprenants font l’accord avec le genre et le nombre sujet ? b) Est-ce qu’ils ont des problèmes d’accord en personne dans les formes en -AI ? Afin de répondre à ces questions, nous avons fait passer un test aux 113 apprenants iraniens du français des niveaux A1, A2 et B1 acquis inscrits à quelques instituts de langue de Téhéran. Les résultats de notre étude à l’aide de l’analyse statistique de variance (ANOVA) montrent que : 1- La gestion des finales verbales en /E/ n’est pas maitrisée à travers ces niveaux. Il n’existe pas de différence significative entre les notes globales de ces trois niveaux successifs. 2- La forme en -ER est mieux maitrisée suivie de la forme en -É et celle en -AI ce qui montre la tendance des apprenants pour l’invariabilité. En plus de ces trois formes, nous avons trouvé d’autres types d’erreurs (ex. erreurs phonétiques et erreurs de segmentation) fréquents dans notre corpus qui n’ont pas été rapportés par les recherches antérieures en FLM (Français Langue Maternelle). 3- a) En ce qui concerne les formes en -É, il n’existe pas d’accord avec le sujet et la tendance réside dans l’invariabilité. b) Quant aux formes en -AI, le problème d’accord en personne ne se pose pas. Ces résultats diffèrent de ceux obtenus dans le contexte d’autres recherches en FLM. Comme perspective didactique, nous avons proposé la redéfinition de la place de l’orthographe dans les méthodes actuelles du français tout en soulignant l’efficacité de la démarche réflexive dans l’enseignement-apprentissage de l’orthographe. Abstract Given the difficulty of homophony in verbal endings in /E/ which can be written by at least ten different forms including the infinitive (-ER), the past participle (-É) and the imperfect (-AI), the choice between these forms remains a delicate question in learning French grammatical orthography. The purpose of this research is to study the problems of Iranian learners of French dealing with this issue. Based on previous investigations focusing on French and Quebecois students, the present study aims specifically to answer the following questions: 1- How does the ability to deal verbal endings in /E/ evolve? 2- Among the -ER, -É and -AI forms which is the most successful? 3- a) Among the -É forms, do the learners make agreement between the gender and the number of the subject? b) Do they have any problems with agreement in person among the -AI forms? In order to answer these questions, we have distributed a test to 113 Iranian learners of A1, A2 and B1 levels in French registered in some language institutes in Tehran. Our results based on statistical analysis of variance (ANOVA) show that: 1- The management of verbal endings in /E/ is not mastered at these levels. There is not a significant difference between global scores of these three successive levels. 2- The -ER form is the most successful before the -É and -AI forms respectively, which shows the tendency of learners for invariance. In addition to these three forms, other types of errors (e.g. orthographical errors phonetically-based and errors of segmentation) were frequent in our data yet not reported by previous investigations in French as a First Language (FFL). 3- a) Concerning -É forms, the agreement does not exist and the tendency lies in invariance. b) As for -AI forms, the issue with agreement does not arise. These findings differ from those obtained by other studies in FFL. As a didactic solution, it is suggested to redefine the place of orthography in the actual methods of French language teaching and to emphasize the effectiveness of reflexive way in teaching-learning of French orthography.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.305
Threshold uncertainty score0.607

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0040.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0110.002

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 head0.030
GPT teacher head0.297
Teacher spread0.267 · 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 designQualitative
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

Citations0
Published2016
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueALTERNATIVE FRANCOPHONESame topicFrench Language Learning MethodsFrench-language works237,207