Rétroaction corrective synchrone et écriture collaborative en ligne : perceptions d’enseignants de français langue seconde

Resumen

Avec le récent essor de l’enseignement à distance, les tâches d’écriture collaborative (ÉC), dont la contribution au développement des compétences en écriture en langue seconde (L2) a été démontrée (Elabdali, 2021), se déroulent de plus en plus en ligne. Un tel format permet à l’enseignant de fournir une rétroaction corrective écrite synchrone (RCÉS) aux apprenants, qui collaborent ensuite en temps réel sur la résolution des erreurs. Peu d’études se sont toutefois intéressées aux perceptions des enseignants dans le cadre d’un cours de français L2 en ligne. Cette étude de cas explore ainsi les perceptions d’enseignants de français L2 (N = 3) quant à la mise en place, dans leur cours de français écrit de niveau avancé, de deux tâches d’ÉC en ligne (Google Docs), lors desquelles ils fournissaient de la RCÉS à leurs apprenants (N = 46), qui collaboraient par vidéoconférence en petits groupes (Zoom). Après la réalisation des tâches, les enseignants ont partagé leurs points de vue quant aux forces et aux limites d’une telle pratique pédagogique lors d’une entrevue de groupe semi-dirigée tenue en vidéoconférence. L’analyse de contenu de la transcription de l’entrevue indique que, bien que les enseignants aient des perceptions globalement positives de cette pratique et y voient un potentiel pour l’enseignement-apprentissage du français L2, certaines préoccupations concernant l’aspect pratique et la mise en œuvre des tâches d’ÉC en ligne avec de la RCÉS ont émergé. Les implications pédagogiques quant à la manière de fournir de la RCÉS pendant de telles tâches sont discutées.

Citas

1. Alharbi, M. A. (2020). Exploring the potential of Google Doc in facilitating innovative teaching and learning practices in an EFL writing course. Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching, 14(3), 227-242. https://doi.org/10.1080/17501229.2019.1572157
2. Altamimi, O. A., & Masood, M. (2021). Teacher electronic written corrective feedback, trends and future directions. Arab World English Journal, 12(3), 308-322. https://dx.doi.org/10.24093/awej/vol12no3.21
3. Amrhein, H. R., & Nassaji, H. (2010). Written corrective feedback: What do students and teachers think is right and why? Canadian Journal of Applied Linguistics / La revue canadienne de linguistique appliquée, 13(2), 95-127. https://journals.lib.unb.ca/index.php/CJAL/article/view/19886
4. Atmaca, Ç. (2016). Contrasting perceptions of students and teachers: Written corrective feedback. Journal of Language and Linguistic Studies, 12(2), 166-182. https://dergipark.org.tr/en/pub/jlls/issue/36115/405548
5. Aubrey, S. (2022). Dynamic engagement in second language computer-mediated collaborative writing tasks: Does communication mode matter? Studies in Second Language Learning and Teaching, 12(1), 59-86. https://doi.org/10.14746/ssllt.2022.12.1.4
6. Bahari, A. (2020). Computer‐mediated feedback for L2 learners: Challenges versus affordances. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 37(1), 24-38. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.12481
7. Balaman, U. (2021), The interactional organization of video-mediated collaborative writing: Focus on repair practices. TESOL Quarterly, 55(3), 979-993. https://doi.org/10.1002/tesq.3034
8. Bikowski, D., & Vithanage, R. (2016). Effects of web-based collaborative writing on individual L2 writing development. Language Learning & Technology, 20(1), 79-99. http://dx.doi.org/10125/44447
9. Chapelle, C. A. (2001). Computer applications in second language acquisition. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139524681
10. Cho, H., Kim, Y., & Park, S. (2022). Comparing students’ responses to synchronous written corrective feedback during individual and collaborative writing tasks. Language Awareness, 31(1) 1-20. https://doi.org/10.1080/09658416.2021.1937194
11. Dobao, A. F. (2012). Collaborative writing tasks in the L2 classroom: Comparing group, pair, and individual work. Journal of Second Language Writing, 21(1), 40-58. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2011.12.002
12. Elabdali, R. (2021). Are two heads really better than one? A meta-analysis of the L2 learning benefits of collaborative writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 52, 100788. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2020.100788
13. Ene, E., & Upton, T. A. (2018). Synchronous and asynchronous teacher electronic feedback and learner uptake in ESL composition. Journal of Second Language Writing, 41, 1-13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2018.05.005
14. Erlam, R., & Tolosam, C. (2022). Pedagogical realities of implementing task-based language teaching. Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/tblt.14
15. Guénette, D., & Lyster, R. (2013). Written corrective feedback and its challenges for pre-service ESL teachers. The Canadian Modern Language Review / La revue canadienne des langues vivantes, 69(2), 129-153. https://doi.org/10.3138/cmlr.1346
16. Jodaie, M., & Farrokhi, F. (2012). An exploration of private language institute teachers’ perceptions of written grammar feedback in EFL classes. English Language Teaching, 5(2), 58-67. http://dx.doi.org/10.5539/elt.v5n2p58
17. Khanlarzadeh, M., & Taheri, P. (2017). L2 writing teachers’ perceptions and problems regarding written corrective feedback: Does holding a TEFL degree matter? European Online Journal of Natural and Social Sciences, 6(1), 130-145. https://european-science.com/eojnss/article/view/4917/2425
18. Kim, Y., Choi, B., Kang, S., Kim, B., & Yun, H. (2020). Comparing the effects of direct and indirect synchronous written corrective feedback: Learning outcomes and students’ perceptions. Foreign Language Annals, 53(1), 176-199. https://doi.org/10.1111/flan.12443
19. Kitjaroonchai, N., & Suppasetseree, S. (2021). Online collaborative writing via Google Docs: Case studies in the EFL classroom. Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 12(6), 922-934. https://doi.org/10.17507/jltr.1206.08
20. Kohnke, L., & Moorhouse, B. L. (2020). Facilitating synchronous online language learning through Zoom. RELC Journal, 53(1), 296-301.
21. https://doi.org/10.1177/0033688220937235
22. Komter, M. L. (2006). From talk to text: The interactional construction of a police record. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 39(3), 201-228. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327973rlsi3903_2
23. Li, M. (2018). Computer-mediated collaborative writing in L2 contexts: An analysis of empirical research. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 31(8), 882-904. https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2018.1465981
24. Li, M., & Zhang, M. (2023). Collaborative writing in L2 classrooms: A research agenda. Language Teaching, 56(1), 94-112. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444821000318
25. Li, S. (2017). Student and teacher beliefs and attitudes about oral corrective feedback. Dans H. Nassaji et E. Kartchava (dir.), Corrective feedback in second language teaching and learning (pp. 143-157). Routledge.
26. Lira-Gonzales, M. L., Valeo, A., & Barkaoui, K. (2021). Teachers' beliefs and practice about written corrective feedback: A case study in a French as a foreign language program. Language Teaching Research Quarterly, 25, 5-28. https://doi.org/10.32038/ltrq.2021.25.02
27. Liu, Q., & Brown, D. (2015). Methodological synthesis of research on the effectiveness of corrective feedback in L2 writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 30, 66-81. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2015.08.011
28. Long, M. H. (2017). Problems in SLA. Routledge.
29. Mackey, A., Gass, S., & McDonough, K. (2000). How do learners perceive interactional feedback? Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 22(4), 471-497. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263100004010
30. Mao, Z., & Lee, I. (2020). Feedback scope in written corrective feedback: Analysis of empirical research in L2 contexts. Assessing Writing, 45, 100469. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asw.2020.100469
31. Ng, E. K. J., & Farrell, T. S. (2003). Do teachers’ beliefs of grammar teaching match their classroom practices? In D. Deterding, A. Brown, & E.L. Low (dir.), English in Singapore: Research on Grammar (pp. 128-137). McGraw Hill.
32. Payant, C., & Maatouk, Z. (2022). Collaborative writing in a third language: How writers use and view their plurilingual repertoire during collaborative writing tasks. Canadian Journal of Applied Linguistics / La Revue canadienne de linguistique appliquée, 25(1), 127-151. https://doi.org/10.37213/cjal.2022.31288
33. Phipps, S., & Borg, S. (2009). Exploring tensions between teachers’ grammar teaching beliefs and practices. System, 37(3), 380-390. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2009.03.002
34. Qotb, H. (2014). Écriture collaborative synchrone dans une formation de langue en ligne. Les Langues Modernes. https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-02051707
35. Rajab, H., Khan, K., & Elyas, T. (2016). A case study of EFL teachers’ perceptions and practices in written corrective feedback. International Journal of Applied Linguistics and English Literature, 5(1), 119-131. https://journals.aiac.org.au/index.php/IJALEL/article/view/1969
36. Saldaña, J. (2013). The coding manual for qualitative researchers. Sage Publishing.
37. Séror, J. (2012). Show me! Enhanced feedback through screencasting technology. TESL Canada Journal, 30(1), 104. https://doi.org/10.18806/tesl.v30i1.1128
38. Shili, L., & Ouhaibia, B. (2021). Écriture collaborative en ligne et compétences scripturales d’étudiants de français. Multilinguales, 16, 1-12. https://doi.org/10.4000/multilinguales.7302
39. Shintani, N. (2016). The effects of computer-mediated synchronous and asynchronous direct corrective feedback on writing: A case study. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 29(3), 517-538. https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2014.993400
40. Shintani, N., & Aubrey, S. (2016), The effectiveness of synchronous and asynchronous written corrective feedback on grammatical accuracy in a computer‐mediated environment. The Modern Language Journal, 100(1), 296-319. https://doi.org/10.1111/modl.12317
41. Storch, N. (2013). Collaborative writing in L2 classrooms. Multilingual Matters.
42. https://doi.org/10.21832/9781847699954
43. Storch, N. (2017). Sociocultural theory in the L2 classroom. In S. Loewen & M. Sato (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of instructed second language acquisition (pp. 69-83). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315676968
44. Swain, M. (2006). Languaging, agency and collaboration in advanced second language proficiency. In H. Byrnes (Ed.), Advanced language learning: The contribution of Halliday and Vygotsky (pp. 95-108). Bloomsbury Academic. https://doi.org/10.5040/9781474212113.ch-004
45. Teye, J. C. (2019). Ghanaian university student and teacher preferences for written corrective feedback in French as a foreign language classes [Mémoire de maitrise, Université Laval, Canada]. Corpus UL. https://corpus.ulaval.ca/entities/publication/a6803782-717d-4e39-9af5-27e3eb3d0586/full
46. To, J. (2022). Using learner-centred feedback design to promote students’ engagement with feedback. Higher Education Research & Development, 41(4), 1309-1324. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2021.1882403
47. Yamashita, T. (2021). Evaluation of computer-mediated collaborative writing with synchronous corrective feedback in an English-as-a-Second-Language writing program at a US university: Evidence from replication over three years. [Ph.D. dissertation, Iowa State University.] Iowa State University ProQuest Dissertations Publishing. https://www.proquest.com/docview/2549232107?pq-origsite=gscholar&fromopenview=true
48. Wu, H. J. (2015). The effects of blog-supported collaborative writing on writing performance, writing anxiety and perceptions of EFL college students in Taiwan. [Ph.D. dissertation, University of South Florida.] USF Tampa Theses and Dissertations. https://scholarcommons.usf.edu/etd/5600
49. Zheng, Y., Yu, S., & Lee, I. (2021). Implementing collaborative writing in Chinese EFL classrooms: Voices from tertiary teachers. Frontiers in Psychology, 12. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.631561