Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-v9fdk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-20T05:28:36.644Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

CMC-based projects and L2 learning: confirming the importance of nativisation

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 September 2011

Muriel Grosbois
Muriel Grosbois*
Affiliation:
Université Paris Sorbonne – IUFM, 10 rue Molitor 75016 Paris, France (email: [email protected])
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Despite the spread of reliable desktop audio and videoconferencing facilities, some CMC-based projects still rely on asynchronous written environments, if only because of the temporal constraints of synchronicity (Guichon, 2009; Develotte, Guichon & Vincent, 2010). Yet speaking is usually the skill students most need to improve when learning a second language (L2). This paper therefore sets out to measure the impact of distant written exchanges between Native Speakers (NS) and Non Native Speakers (NNS) on the development of NNS L2 oral output, focusing specifically on the effect of phonological nativisation. The context of this study is a teacher training programme for future primary school teachers in France. During their L2 course aiming to help them improve their mastery of English, they were given the opportunity to take part in a CMC-based project with PGCE (Postgraduate Certificate in Education) students from King's College, London. Action research was thus carried out to examine the potential of this project in the development of the participants’ L2 oral output.

The L2 course being task-oriented, the trainee teachers’ L2 oral output was evaluated by means of pre- and post-tests based on tasks. The results show that stability prevails over progress, which is in keeping with the fact that interlanguage development is a long process (Chapelle, 2003: 119). The results also confirm the importance of phonological nativisation when learners have access only to written authentic input.

Keywords

Computer-mediated communicationteacher educationoral outputnativisationL2 acquisition
Type
Research Article
Information
ReCALL , Volume 23 , Special Issue 3: Special issue on CALL and CMC teacher education research , 01 September 2011 , pp. 294 - 310
Copyright
Copyright © European Association for Computer Assisted Language Learning 2011

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Abbott, C., Grosbois, M.Klein, M. (2005) A beautiful House Built on Sand. What makes E-communication Projects Succeed – and why are they still so rare? Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 14(2): 225–239.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Andersen, R. (1983) Pidginization and Creolization as Language Acquisition. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.Google Scholar
Brudermann, C. (2010) From action research to the implementation of ICT pedagogical tools: taking into account students’ needs to propose adjusted online tutorial practice. ReCALL, 22(2): 172–190.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bueno, M. C. (2010) Synchronous-Voice Computer-Mediated Communication: Effects on Pronunciation. CALICO Journal, 28(1): 1–20.Google Scholar
Chalhoub-Delville, M. (2001) Task-based assessments: Characteristics and validity evidence. In: Bygate, M., Skehan, P. and Swain, M. (eds.), Researching Pedagogic Tasks, Second Language Learning, Teaching and Testing. Harlow: Longman, 210–228.Google Scholar
Chapelle, C. (2003) English Language Learning and Technology. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Collins, A., Brown, J. S.Newman, S. E. (1989) Cognitive Apprenticeship: Teaching the Crafts of Reading, Writing, and Mathematics. In: Resnick, L. B. (ed.), Knowing, learning, and instruction. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, 453–494.Google Scholar
Corder, P. (1992) A Role For The Mother Tongue. In: Gass, S. and Selinker, L. (eds.), Language Transfer in Language Learning. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company, 18–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cutrim Schmid, E. (2010) Developing competencies for using the interactive whiteboard to implement communicative language teaching in the English as a Foreign Language classroom. Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 19(2): 159–172.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Degache, C. (2006) Didactique du plurilinguisme. Travaux sur l'intercompréhension et l'utilisation des technologies pour l'apprentissage des langues. Habilitation à Diriger des Recherches, Université Stendhal-Grenoble III.Google Scholar
Deschamps, A. (1994) De l’écrit à l'oral et de l'oral à l’écrit. Paris: Ophrys.Google Scholar
Develotte, C., Guichon, N.Vincent, C. (2010) The use of the webcam for teaching a foreign language in a desktop videoconferencing environement. ReCALL, 22(3): 293–312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Duchet, J.-L. (1994) Code de l'anglais oral. Paris: Ophrys.Google Scholar
Ellis, R. (2003) Task-based Language Learning and Teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Gass, S.Selinker, L. (2001) Second Language Acquisition – An Introductory Course. London/Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ginésy, M. (2000) Phonétique et phonologie de l'anglais. Paris: Ellipses.Google Scholar
Grosbois, M. (2006). Projet collectif de création d'une ressource numérique comme levier d'apprentissage de l'anglais. Thèse de doctorat, Université Sorbonne Nouvelle Paris 3.Google Scholar
Grosbois, M. (2009) TIC, tâches et nativisation : impact sur la production orale en L2. Alsic (Apprentissage des Langues et Systèmes d'Information et de Communication), 12: 19–39.Google Scholar
Grosbois, M. (2010) Réflexion autour d'un exemple d’évaluation de la production orale en Langue 2 par les tâches. Les Cahiers de l'Acedle, 7(2): 85–111.Google Scholar
Groussier, M.-L.Rivière, C. (1996) Les mots de la linguistique – Lexique de linguistique énonciative. Paris: Ophrys.Google Scholar
Guichon, N. (2009) Training future language teachers to develop online tutors’ competence through reflective analysis. ReCALL, 21(2): 166–185.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huart, R. (2002) Grammaire orale de l'anglais. Paris: Ophrys.Google Scholar
Jordan, G. (2004) Theory Construction in Second Language Acquisition. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ledoux, J. (2003) Neurobiologie de la personnalité. Paris: Odile Jacob.Google Scholar
Long, M. (1983) Native speaker/non-native speaker conversation and the negotiation of comprehensible input. Applied Linguistics, 4: 126–141.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Long, M. (1996) The role of the linguistic environment in second language acquisition. In: Ritchie, W. and Bhatia, T. (eds.), Handbook of Second Language Acquisition. San Diego: Academic Press, 413–468.Google Scholar
Mangenot, F. (1998) Classification des apports d'Internet à l'apprentissage des langues. Alsic (Apprentissage des Langues et Systèmes d'Information et de Communication), 1(2): 133–146.Google Scholar
Narcy, J.-P. (1998) La problématique “Action Research”/Recherche Action et le travail coopératif. ASp 19/22. La revue du GERAS, 229–238.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Narcy-Combes, J.-P. (2010a) L2 Learning Processes. In: Bertin, J.-C., Narcy-Combes, J.-P. and Gravé, P. (eds.), Second Language Distance Learning and Teaching. Hershey: IGI Global, 78–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Narcy-Combes, J.-P. (2010b) The ‘Learner’ Pole. In: Bertin, J.-C., Narcy-Combes, J.-P. and Gravé, P. (eds.), Second Language Distance Learning and Teaching. Hershey: IGI Global, 105–126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
O'Dowd, R.Ware, P. (2009) Critical issues in telecollaborative task design. CALL, 22(2): 173–188.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pallier, C., Dehaene, S., Ploine, J.-B., Le Bihan, D., Argenti, A.-M., Dupoux, E.Mehler, J. (2003) Brain Imaging of Language Plasticity in Adopted Adults: Can a Second Language Replace the First? Cerebral Cortex, 13(2): 155–161.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Schmidt, R. (2001) Attention. In: Robinson, P. (ed.), Cognition and Second Language Instruction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 3–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Springer, C. (1999) Évaluation de la compétence et problématique de l'acquisition en L2: Préliminaires pour une définition de profils prototypiques de compétence en L2. In: Actes du XIe colloque international FOCAL : Perspectives et Recherches – Usages pragmatiques et acquisition des langues. Paris: Université Paris, 3, 1–15.Google Scholar
Swain, M. (1985) Communicative competence: some roles of comprehensible input and comprehensible output in its development. In: Gass, S. and Madden, C. (eds.), Input in second Language Acquisition. Rowley, MA: Newbury House, 235–253.Google Scholar
Troubetskoy, N. S. (1939) Principes de phonologie. Paris: Klincksieck.Google Scholar
Vygotski, L. S. (1934) Pensée et langage. Paris: Messidor/Editions Sociales, 1985.Google Scholar