Promotion de la production écrite chez étudiants d’anglais langue étrangère à l’enseignement supérieur universitaire à travers une approche par genres
DOI :
https://doi.org/10.17533/udea.ikala.v26n02a10Mots-clés :
écriture académique, anglais langue étrangère, linguistique fonctionnelle systémique, approche fondée sur les genres, comptes-rendusRésumé
La présente étude a examiné les effets de l’approche fondée sur le genre (GBA en anglais) sur les capacités de 54 participants pour rédiger un compte rendu d’une application mobile ou d’un site Web, tout en réfléchissant à la fonction « évaluer un texte» du genre choisi. Les participants étaient inscrits dans un cours d’anglais langue étrangère de niveau pré-intermédiaire (A2.2 cecr), offert par une université de Bogotá, en Colombie, qui avait déjà mis en œuvre cette approche depuis plus de cinq ans. Le programme a récemment adapté le cycle d’enseignement-apprentissage pour inclure un feedback systématique des pairs dans la phase de Construction Conjointe, dans le double but de donner plus d’importance à la participation active des étudiants à cette étape et de leur donner plus d’indépendance par rapport à l’enseignant. L’étude visait à évaluer les effets de la mise en œuvre sur les produits écrits des participants et à explorer leurs perceptions et leurs connaissances du genre choisi. Les données ont été recueillies à travers les travaux des étudiants, d’un questionnaire en ligne et de groupes de discussion, et elles sont analysées à l’aide d’une méthode mixte incorporant la théorie enracinée et la statistique descriptive. Les résultats suggèrent une compréhension générale du but social du genre choisi, des réalisations exceptionnelles de la tâche, une acceptation favorable de la mise en œuvre et une perception de l’utilité liée aux routines de feedback par les pairs, bien que cela ait également été considéré comme le plus grand défi rencontré par les participants.
|Résumé = 901 veces
|
PDF (ENGLISH) = 521 veces|
|
HTML (ENGLISH) = 15 veces|
|
VISOR (ENGLISH) = 5 veces|
Téléchargements
Les données relatives au téléchargement ne sont pas encore disponibles.
Références
Breuch, L.-A. K. (2004). Virtual Peer Review: Teaching and Learning About Writing in Online Environments. State University of New York Press.
Burns, A. (2010). Doing Action Research in English Language Teaching: A guide for practitioners. Ney York: NY: Rotledge.
Butler-Pascoe, M. E. & Wiburg, K. M. (2003). Technology and teaching English language learners. Pearson.
Chala-Bejarano P. A. & Chapetón, C. M. (2013). The role of genre-based activities in the writing of argumentative essays in EFL. Profile, Vol. 15, No. 2, 127-147.
Cushing Weigle, S. (2014). Considerations for Teaching Second Language Writing. In Teaching English as a Second or Foreign Language. (3rd edition). Boston: National Geographic Learning.
DeCuir-Gunby, J. (2008). Designing mixed methods research in the social sciences: A racial identity scale development example. In J. Osborne (Ed.), Best Practices in Quantitative Methods. (pp. 125-136). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Durán-Bautista, D.C. & Huertas-Malagón, S. P. (in press). Mobile phones-assisted practice and note-taking in foreign language oral production. International Journal of Mobile and Blended Learning. 12, 4.
Ellis, R. (2013). Language teaching research and language pedagogy. Malden, MA: John Wiley & Sons Inc.
Edwards, C., & Willis, J. W. (2014). Action research: models, methods, and examples. Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.
García Montes, P.A., Sagre Barboza, A. M., & Lacharme Olascoaga, A. I. (2014). Systemic Functional Linguistics and Discourse Analysis as alternatives when dealing with texts. Profile: Profile: Issues in Teachers' Professional Development, 16, 2, 101-116. Retrieved from https://revistas.unal.edu.co/index.php/profile/article/view/38113/47726.
Gerot, L., & Wignell, P. (1995). Making sense of functional grammar: An introductory workbook. Sydney: Gerd Stabler.
Gómez-Burgos, E. (2017). Use of the genre-based approach to teach expository essays to English pedagogy students. HOW, 24(2), 141-159. http://dx.doi.org/10.19183/how.24.2.330.
Corbin, J., & Strauss, A. (2015). Basics of qualitative research: techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory (4th ed.). Los Angeles, United States: sage Publications.
Halliday, M. A. K. (1993). Towards a language-based theory of learning. Linguistics and Education, 5,93-116.
Halliday, M. A. K. (1978). Language as social semiotic. The social interpretation of language and meaning. London: Edward Arnold.
Halliday, M. A. K., & Hasan, R. (1989). Language, context and texts: Aspects of language in a social-semiotic perspective. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Hammond, J., and Derewianka, B. (2001). Genre. In R. Carter & D. Nunan (Eds). The Cambridge Guide to Teaching English to Speakers of Other Languages. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Handscomb, G., & MacBeath, J. (2009). Professional development through teacher enquiry. In A. Lawson, Action Research: Making a Difference in Education (Volume 1). Slough: NFER.
Harmer, J. (2001). The practice of English language teaching. Cambridge, UK: Longman.
Herazo Rivera, J. D. (2012). Using a genre-based approach to promote oral communication in the Colombian English classroom. Colombian Applied Linguistics Journal, 14(2), 109-126.
Hinkel, E. (2014). Culture and Pragmatics in Language Teaching and Learning. In Teaching English as a Second or Foreign Language. (3rd edition). Boston: National Geographic Learning.
Hirvela, A. (2017). Argumentation and second language writing: Are we missing the boat? Journal of Second Language Writing, 36, 69–74.
Hirvela, A. (1999). Collaborative writing instruction and communities of readers and writers. TESOL Journal, 7–12. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.1949-3533.1999.tb00169.
Hyland, K. (2007). Genre pedagogy: Language, literacy and L2 writing instruction. Journal of Second Language Writing, 16(3), 148-164. doi: 10.1016/j.jslw.2007.07.005.
Katz, A. (2014). Assessment in Second Language Classrooms. In Teaching English as a Second or Foreign Language. (3rd edition). Boston: National Geographic Learning.
Lee, J. J., & Deakin, L. (2016). Interactions in L1 and SL undergraduate student writing: Interactional metadiscourse in successful and less-sucessful argumentative
essays. Journal of Second Language Writing, 33, 21–34.
Martin, J. R. (1984). Language, register, and genre. In F. Christie (Ed.), Children writing: Reader (pp. 21-30). Geelong, AU: Deakin University Press.
Martin, J. R. (1999). Factual Writing: Exploring and Challenging Social Reality. Melbourne: Deakin University Press.
Martin, J. R. (2009). Genre and language learning: A social semiotic perspective. Linguistics and Education, 20,10-21. doi: 10.1016/j.linged.2009.01.003.
Martin J. R. & Rose, D. (2003). Working with discourse: Meaning beyond the clause. London: Continuum.
Martin J. R. & Rose, D. (2007). Interacting with text: the role of dialogue in learning to read and write. Foreign Languages in China 4.5: 66-80.
McKernan, J., & McKernan, J. (2013). Curriculum action research: A handbook of methods and resources for the reflective practitioner. Abingdon: Routledge.
Menard-Warwick, J. (2014). English language teachers on the discursive faultiness: Identities, ideologies and pedagogies. North York, ON: Multilingual Matters.
Moussaoui, S. (2012). An investigation of the effects of peer evaluation in enhancing Algerian students’ writing autonomy and positive affect. Procedia: Social and Behavioral Sciences, 69, 1775-1784. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2012.12.127.
Ramírez Balderas, I., & Guillén Cuamatzi, P. M. (2018). Self and peer correction to improve college students’ writing skills. Profile: Issues in Teachers’ Professional Development, 20(2), 179-194. https://doi.org/10.15446/profile.v20n2.67095.
Renaud, S., Tannenbaum, E., & Stantial, P. (2007). Student-centered teaching in large classes with limited resources. English Teaching Forum, 45(3), 12–18.
Research Connections. (2019). Descriptive Statistics. Retrieved from https://www.researchconnections.org/childcare/datamethods/descriptivestats.jsp
Rose, D. & Martin, J. R. (2012). Learning to Write, Reading to Learn: genre, knowledge and pedagogy in the Sydney school. United Kingdom: Equinox.
Sharma, Sohil. (2019, May). Descriptive Statistics. [Archived document]. Horizons Universiy, Paris, France.
Sultana, A. (2009). Peer correction in ESL classroom. BRAC University Journal, 6(1), 11-19.
Susanti, R., M., D. M., & Indawan. (2020). The Effective Feedback Practices in a Large EFL Writing Class in Indonesia. Talent Development & Excellence, 12(2), 920–932.
Tashakkori, A., & Creswell, J. W. (2007). Editorial: The new era of mixed methods. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 1(1), 3–7. https://doi.org/10.1177/2345678906293042.
Uswar, Y. & Andriani, N. (2019). EFL students’ ability in writing reviews for a novel at a university in Medan. Studies in English Language and Education. 6. 300-308.10.24815/siele.v6i2.14784.
Burns, A. (2010). Doing Action Research in English Language Teaching: A guide for practitioners. Ney York: NY: Rotledge.
Butler-Pascoe, M. E. & Wiburg, K. M. (2003). Technology and teaching English language learners. Pearson.
Chala-Bejarano P. A. & Chapetón, C. M. (2013). The role of genre-based activities in the writing of argumentative essays in EFL. Profile, Vol. 15, No. 2, 127-147.
Cushing Weigle, S. (2014). Considerations for Teaching Second Language Writing. In Teaching English as a Second or Foreign Language. (3rd edition). Boston: National Geographic Learning.
DeCuir-Gunby, J. (2008). Designing mixed methods research in the social sciences: A racial identity scale development example. In J. Osborne (Ed.), Best Practices in Quantitative Methods. (pp. 125-136). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Durán-Bautista, D.C. & Huertas-Malagón, S. P. (in press). Mobile phones-assisted practice and note-taking in foreign language oral production. International Journal of Mobile and Blended Learning. 12, 4.
Ellis, R. (2013). Language teaching research and language pedagogy. Malden, MA: John Wiley & Sons Inc.
Edwards, C., & Willis, J. W. (2014). Action research: models, methods, and examples. Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.
García Montes, P.A., Sagre Barboza, A. M., & Lacharme Olascoaga, A. I. (2014). Systemic Functional Linguistics and Discourse Analysis as alternatives when dealing with texts. Profile: Profile: Issues in Teachers' Professional Development, 16, 2, 101-116. Retrieved from https://revistas.unal.edu.co/index.php/profile/article/view/38113/47726.
Gerot, L., & Wignell, P. (1995). Making sense of functional grammar: An introductory workbook. Sydney: Gerd Stabler.
Gómez-Burgos, E. (2017). Use of the genre-based approach to teach expository essays to English pedagogy students. HOW, 24(2), 141-159. http://dx.doi.org/10.19183/how.24.2.330.
Corbin, J., & Strauss, A. (2015). Basics of qualitative research: techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory (4th ed.). Los Angeles, United States: sage Publications.
Halliday, M. A. K. (1993). Towards a language-based theory of learning. Linguistics and Education, 5,93-116.
Halliday, M. A. K. (1978). Language as social semiotic. The social interpretation of language and meaning. London: Edward Arnold.
Halliday, M. A. K., & Hasan, R. (1989). Language, context and texts: Aspects of language in a social-semiotic perspective. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Hammond, J., and Derewianka, B. (2001). Genre. In R. Carter & D. Nunan (Eds). The Cambridge Guide to Teaching English to Speakers of Other Languages. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Handscomb, G., & MacBeath, J. (2009). Professional development through teacher enquiry. In A. Lawson, Action Research: Making a Difference in Education (Volume 1). Slough: NFER.
Harmer, J. (2001). The practice of English language teaching. Cambridge, UK: Longman.
Herazo Rivera, J. D. (2012). Using a genre-based approach to promote oral communication in the Colombian English classroom. Colombian Applied Linguistics Journal, 14(2), 109-126.
Hinkel, E. (2014). Culture and Pragmatics in Language Teaching and Learning. In Teaching English as a Second or Foreign Language. (3rd edition). Boston: National Geographic Learning.
Hirvela, A. (2017). Argumentation and second language writing: Are we missing the boat? Journal of Second Language Writing, 36, 69–74.
Hirvela, A. (1999). Collaborative writing instruction and communities of readers and writers. TESOL Journal, 7–12. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.1949-3533.1999.tb00169.
Hyland, K. (2007). Genre pedagogy: Language, literacy and L2 writing instruction. Journal of Second Language Writing, 16(3), 148-164. doi: 10.1016/j.jslw.2007.07.005.
Katz, A. (2014). Assessment in Second Language Classrooms. In Teaching English as a Second or Foreign Language. (3rd edition). Boston: National Geographic Learning.
Lee, J. J., & Deakin, L. (2016). Interactions in L1 and SL undergraduate student writing: Interactional metadiscourse in successful and less-sucessful argumentative
essays. Journal of Second Language Writing, 33, 21–34.
Martin, J. R. (1984). Language, register, and genre. In F. Christie (Ed.), Children writing: Reader (pp. 21-30). Geelong, AU: Deakin University Press.
Martin, J. R. (1999). Factual Writing: Exploring and Challenging Social Reality. Melbourne: Deakin University Press.
Martin, J. R. (2009). Genre and language learning: A social semiotic perspective. Linguistics and Education, 20,10-21. doi: 10.1016/j.linged.2009.01.003.
Martin J. R. & Rose, D. (2003). Working with discourse: Meaning beyond the clause. London: Continuum.
Martin J. R. & Rose, D. (2007). Interacting with text: the role of dialogue in learning to read and write. Foreign Languages in China 4.5: 66-80.
McKernan, J., & McKernan, J. (2013). Curriculum action research: A handbook of methods and resources for the reflective practitioner. Abingdon: Routledge.
Menard-Warwick, J. (2014). English language teachers on the discursive faultiness: Identities, ideologies and pedagogies. North York, ON: Multilingual Matters.
Moussaoui, S. (2012). An investigation of the effects of peer evaluation in enhancing Algerian students’ writing autonomy and positive affect. Procedia: Social and Behavioral Sciences, 69, 1775-1784. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2012.12.127.
Ramírez Balderas, I., & Guillén Cuamatzi, P. M. (2018). Self and peer correction to improve college students’ writing skills. Profile: Issues in Teachers’ Professional Development, 20(2), 179-194. https://doi.org/10.15446/profile.v20n2.67095.
Renaud, S., Tannenbaum, E., & Stantial, P. (2007). Student-centered teaching in large classes with limited resources. English Teaching Forum, 45(3), 12–18.
Research Connections. (2019). Descriptive Statistics. Retrieved from https://www.researchconnections.org/childcare/datamethods/descriptivestats.jsp
Rose, D. & Martin, J. R. (2012). Learning to Write, Reading to Learn: genre, knowledge and pedagogy in the Sydney school. United Kingdom: Equinox.
Sharma, Sohil. (2019, May). Descriptive Statistics. [Archived document]. Horizons Universiy, Paris, France.
Sultana, A. (2009). Peer correction in ESL classroom. BRAC University Journal, 6(1), 11-19.
Susanti, R., M., D. M., & Indawan. (2020). The Effective Feedback Practices in a Large EFL Writing Class in Indonesia. Talent Development & Excellence, 12(2), 920–932.
Tashakkori, A., & Creswell, J. W. (2007). Editorial: The new era of mixed methods. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 1(1), 3–7. https://doi.org/10.1177/2345678906293042.
Uswar, Y. & Andriani, N. (2019). EFL students’ ability in writing reviews for a novel at a university in Medan. Studies in English Language and Education. 6. 300-308.10.24815/siele.v6i2.14784.
Téléchargements
Publié-e
2021-01-28
Comment citer
Durán, D. C. (2021). Promotion de la production écrite chez étudiants d’anglais langue étrangère à l’enseignement supérieur universitaire à travers une approche par genres. Íkala, Revista De Lenguaje Y Cultura, 26(1), 117–138. https://doi.org/10.17533/udea.ikala.v26n02a10
Numéro
Rubrique
Rapports de Recherche
Catégories
Licence
(c) Tous droits réservés Íkala 2021
Cette œuvre est sous licence Creative Commons Attribution - Pas d'Utilisation Commerciale - Partage dans les Mêmes Conditions 4.0 International.
