ArticlePDF Available

Information Literacy in a Social Action-Oriented Approach (SAOA): From Communicative Competence to Informational Competence

Authors:
  • Université Jean Monnet Saint-Etienne (France)

Abstract

The author shows that the authors of the CEFRL clearly distinguish between the communicative approach, where the tasks are (inter)individual and isolated communicative language tasks, and the "social action-oriented approach" (SAOA), where the actions have a social dimension: so, they are necessarily more or less complex projects in which some of the tasks may be non-language tasks, and in which they are only elements of an overall action scenario. The author of the article draws from this, with concrete examples, one of the major implications that the authors of the CEFRL were unable or unwilling to draw, namely the shift, in terms of teaching-learning objectives, from communicative competence to information literacy, defined as the ability to act on and through information as a social actor, as defined for example by UNESCO in a 2008 book.
ESBB Volume 1, Issue 1, 2021, Puren
50
Information Literacy in a Social Action-Oriented Approach:
From Communicative Competence to Informational Competence
Christian Puren
Professor Emeritus of the University of Saint-Etienne (France)
christian.puren@univ-st-etienne.fr
www.christianpuren.com
Abbreviations
SAOA : Social Action-Oriented Approach
CEFRL : Common European Framework of Reference for Languages
PUREN Christian. 2021. "Information Literacy in a Social Action-Oriented Approach: From
Communicative Competence to Informational Competence", ESBB, English Scholar Beyond
Borders (online magazine, www.englishscholarsbeyondborders.org/), vol. 1, Issue 1, pp.
50-62.
- www.englishscholarsbeyondborders.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/Christian-Puren.pdf
- www.christianpuren.com/mes-travaux/2021g-en/
51
Introduction
The authors of the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages (CFERL) present the
new approach they are promoting at the very beginning of their text:
The approach adopted here, generally speaking, is an action-oriented one in so far as it views
users and learners of a language primarily as “social agents”, i.e. members of society who have
tasks (not exclusively language-related) to accomplish in a given set of circumstances, in a
specific environment and within a particular field of action. While acts of speech occur within
language activities, these activities form part of a wider social context, which alone is able to
give them their full meaning. (p. 9)
It is really surprising that, twenty years after this publication, some didacticians still consider the "action-
oriented approachthus defined as a simple extension of the communicative approach. However, one
does not need to be a specialist in hermeneutic analysis to see in this passage the affirmation of an
essential difference between the reference actions of the two approaches: those of the communicative
approach are the acts of speech; those of a new approach, called "action-oriented", are "tasks not
exclusively language-related", activities (which) form part of a wider social contextand are carried out
"within a particular field of action" by "social agents".
Even if, as we can see in this passage, the authors use the notions of task, action and activity in a very
confused way, even if afterwards, in their whole text, they are only interested in "communicative
language competences", it seems that what they are opposing to acts of speech are social actions, even
if they never use this last expression. This is why I propose to call this new approach the "Social Action-
Oriented Approach" (SAOA). This name also distinguishes it from Task-Based Learning, in which the
tasks have been designed historically as communicative tasks.
This break, the implications of which the authors of the CEFRL were unable or unwilling to draw, is
made necessary by the phenomenon which, in the course of history, is always at the origin of the
emergence of a new methodology, namely a change in the social objective and the social situation. When
the communicative approach was promoted by the Council of Europe in the mid-1970s, it was mainly to
prepare citizens and professionals from European countries for travel to other European countries. Here
52
is, for example, what J.L.M Trim wrote in the preface of a 1980 English version of Threshold level
English (J.A. van Ek, 1975):
Nevertheless, by far the largest single group of learners, everywhere, consists of people who want
to prepare themselves, in a general way, to be able to communicate socially on straightforward
everyday matters with people from other countries who come their way, and to be able to get
around and lead a reasonably normal social life when they visit another country. (Trim, 1980)
The political project of the Council of Europe is not at all the same at the end of the 1990s, because it
takes into account the progress of European integration, with, in particular, the importance taken by
migrations within Europe. This change of objective and social situation is now a matter of “meet[ing]
the needs of a multilingual and multicultural Europe by appreciably developing the ability of Europeans
to communicate with each other across linguistic and cultural boundaries” (p. 3).
That explains the importance given to the competence specifically needed for life in such a society,
namely plurilingual and pluricultural competence. The authors of the English version of the CEFRL,
including the same J.L.M. Trim mentioned above, write:
[…] in a person’s cultural competence, the various cultures (national, regional, social) to which
that person has gained access do not simply co-exist side by side; they are compared, contrasted
and actively interact to produce an enriched, integrated pluricultural competence, of which
plurilingual competence is one component, again interacting with other components. (CEFRL
2001, p. 6)
The authors of the CFRL have also not been able, or willing, to draw all the consequences that appear if
we consider the demands that a social actor must face in a multilingual and multicultural society. It is no
longer just a matter of communicating with others (through communicative competence) or even living
with others (through plurilingual and pluricultural competence), but of working with them and "making
society" with them. The competence required for information literacy in the professional field and for
civic engagement goes far beyond communicative competence: it requires informational competence,
which can be defined as knowing how to act on and through information as a social actor.
53
1. Information literacy, an informational competence
UNESCO published in 2007 a book by Jr. Forest Woody Horton entitled Understanding Information
Literacy: A Primer. Appendix B presents the "Information Literacy Life Cycle Stage" which is in fact
what can be called an "action scenario" of information literacy:
1. Realize that a need or problem exists that requires information for its satisfactory resolution.
2. Know how to accurately identify & define the information needed to meet need or solve
problem.
3. Know how to determine if the needed information exists or not, and if it does not, go to Stage
5.
4. Know how to find needed information if known to exist, and then go to Stage 6.
5. Know how to create, or cause to be created, unavailable information (i.e. create new
knowledge).
6. Know how to fully understand found information or know where to go for help if needed to
understand.
7. Know how to organize, analyze, interpret, and evaluate information, including source
reliability.
8. Know how to communicate and present information to others in appropriate/ usable
formats/ mediums.
9. Know how to utilize information to solve problem, make decision, or meet need.
10. Know how to preserve, store, reuse, record and archive information for future use.
11. Know how to dispose of information no longer needed, and safeguard information that
should be protected.
I emphasize: the communicative approach, which largely favors activity #8, does not allow students to
be trained in information literacy in a foreign language. As for the communicative textbooks for adults,
they do not take into account all these different activities, so they do not even allow these learners to
implement the informational competence that they have already acquired in their mother language.
We are no longer, in today's modern societies, in the situation that prevailed half a century ago, in the
mid-1970s, when the "communication paradigm" prevailed. It was thought that the more we
communicated, the more progress was assured. It was the time when, if a company was in trouble, the
54
managers invited a business communication guru; when, as another example that may seem incredible
now, some psychiatrists assumed that autism in children could be caused by a pathogenic behavior of the
mother, especially in the field of communication.
The disease that strikes us all now is so-called "infobesity". We spend more and more time deleting from
our e-mail inboxes messages, as we say colloquially in French, "dont nous n'avons rien à faire" ("which
we have no interest in at all"), literally: "of which we have nothing to do": the primary criterion for
managing information is not communication, but action. This is why in companies, the instruction has
been, for years, to limit itself strictly to "the right information to the right person at the right time", and
in educational systems, the training of students in information literacy consists in teaching them first to
evaluate and select information, before, eventually, communicating it to those who will be interested in
it or who will use it to act.
2. The consequences of not including informational competence in the CEFRL descriptors
I chose the "Cooperating" grid to illustrate these implications because one would hope that in the 2018
Companion Volume (COE 2018, p. 101), which has an entire section on SAOA ("Implementing the
action-oriented approach," p. 27), this grid would bring out the action-oriented purpose of all cooperation,
which is to reach a decision, such as the ones that will necessarily have to be made together by students
in order to carry out the tasks given as examples in the following passage from that section of the
Companion Volume:
Above all, the action-oriented approach implies purposeful, collaborative tasks in the classroom,
whose primary focus is not language. If the primary focus of a task is not language, then there
must be some other product or outcome (e.g. planning an outing, making a poster, creating a
blog, designing a festival, choosing a candidate, etc.). (p. 27)
In the reproduction below, descriptors taken from the 2001 CEFRL appear in blue script, descriptors
added in the 2018 supplemental volume in black:
55
We can see that in all the descriptors from level B1 onwards, the cooperation is about communication
(“the conversation”, “the discussion”). And this is how the authors of the French translation of the text
understood them:
- They have translated "evaluate" (B2) as "évaluer l'intérêt" (evaluate the interest): the criterion
of evaluation is about the contents of the communication in themselves, and not in relation to an
action to be performed, in which case the corresponding criterion would have been “évaluer la
pertinence” ("evaluate the relevance").
- They translated "an outcome" (C1) not as “un résultat” ("a result"), which would have allowed
an action-type interpretation (an outcome can be a written production, a decision taken) but as
“une conclusion” ("a conclusion"), a term that closes the communication itself.
The set of descriptors from B1 to C2, as well as the French translation of these two terms, show that the
authors of the Companion Volume have remained locked into the paradigm of communication, in which
communication is both the means and its own goal. The conception of interaction betrayed by these
56
descriptors is that of interlocutors who talk to each other in order to exchange ideas and agree on them,
and not that of social actors who consult each other before acting.
In an article published in 2009 on the website of the Association française des Professeurs de Langues
Vivantes (APLV), I presented the following criticisms:
The descriptor chosen for the highest level of competence (C1-C2, "Can relate own contribution
skillfully to those of other speakers")1, emphasizes individual competence and not the
effectiveness of participation in joint work. On the scale of competences of a social actor, the
descriptors proposed here for levels B1 and B2 are certainly more important than this personal
know-how only in language proposed in C1 and C2.
This scale also considers another personal "skill" such as the one already retained above in the
descriptor for level C2 of the "Overall spoken interaction" grid, p. 74 ("Can backtrack and
restructure around a difficulty so smoothly the interlocutor is hardly aware of it."). The
valorization of these two skills - placed as descriptors of the higher levels - apparently comes
from a conception of collective work where the main issue would be to facilitate language
communication and make it efficient.
But here we are really in the middle of a communicativist ideology, which the authors of the
CEFRL have decidedly failed to overcome: in order to cooperate well, it is not enough to
communicate well; knowing how to communicate obviously makes it possible to solve
communicational problems, but it does not make it possible to solve, and may on the contrary
have the effect of obscuring, the actional problems (i.e. the different conceptions of action) and
the different stakes (personal, collective and social). Actional efficiency requires that these
problems and stakes be made explicit and debated by the social actors, to the point of assuming
the risks of confrontation and even rupture: it is precisely the competences necessary for these
activities of explicitation, debate (confrontation of ideas) and management of what used to be
called "group dynamics" (confrontation of persons and groups) that are the "high level"
competences expected of a social actor2.
1 Note: In the then current version of the CFERL, the C1 and C2 levels were presented as such: C1. Can relate
own contribution skillfully to those of other speakers. C2. As C1.
2 At a conference of German-speaking academics at the University of Giessen (Germany) in 2002, which was
57
In the new version of the grid proposed by the 2018 Companion Volume, not only is this criticism of the
C1 level descriptor ignored, but the C2 level takes the same orientation (cf. "Can link contributions
skillfully to those of other speakers"). The opportunity was lost to propose for this C2 level an actional
descriptor such as "Can propose to stop the discussion in order to make the necessary decisions or to
write the expected common text."
Knowing how to manage communication in SAOA means knowing when to stop a discussion. It also
means knowing when not to communicate so as not to hinder the discussion. It would have been
necessary to complete the following levels as follows (my additions in bold italics):
B2. Can summarize and evaluate the main points of discussion on matters within his/her academic
or professional competence. Can avoid speaking on a point of discussion if unsure of his/her
academic or professional competence.
A2. Can indicate when he/she is following. Can indicate that she is not following what is being
said at any given time.
At A1 and Pre-A1 levels, the authors of the Companion Volume have added "No descriptors available",
whereas if a person is present at a discussion that is to lead to action, but does not have the level, by not
communicating, he or she is not helping the discussion, but is helping the action by letting others discuss
effectively. The following descriptors would also have been necessary from SAOA:
A1. Can decline the invitation to cooperate in language if he/she does not feel able to, so as not
to disturb others.
PreA1. Can indicate, if necessary, by mimicry and gesture, that he/she cannot cooperate.
entirely devoted to a (very) critical analysis of the CEFR, Hans Barkowski remarked: "It is [in this document]
a concept of ideal communication (in the sense of Habermas): the facts communicated are always real, there
is a consensus between those who participate in the communication and who, moreover, consider themselves
to be equal partners" (Friederike Delouis Anne, 2008, p. 25).
58
It was also an excellent opportunity to use "non-verbal communication", which is part of communicative
competence.
3. Informational competence in a SAOA French certification, the “Diplôme de compétence en
langue”
There are two official certifications for foreign languages in France:
CLES, Certificat de Compétences en Langues de l’Enseignement Supérieur (CLES,
www.certification-cles.fr/);
Diplôme de compétence en langue (DCL, www.education.gouv.fr/le-diplome-de-competence-
en-langue-dcl-2978).
These two certification assessments are of the SAOA type because they evaluate the degree of
effectiveness of the use of the foreign language in the workplace: that of a university student, for the
CLES, and that of an employee in a company, for the DCL. They were designed based on an
identification and analysis of the different tasks they are likely to perform in a foreign language in their
studies or in their professional activities.
The following table corresponds to the "assessment scenario" of the DCL, which is based on a simulated
mini project.
Phases
Activities
Duration
1
Reading written material
1h20
2
Listening to/view audio materials
Preparing the
oral interview
Taking notes for the oral
20 minutes (preparing
the interview)
3 et 4
Presenting and proposing your
choice
20 minutes maximum
Discussing and questioning
5
Writing a text (letter, preliminary
project, etc.)
40 minutes
The candidate's first document in the dossier is an assignment letter that gives him a fictitious identity
and position in a company where he has been asked to write a working document, for example a letter or
59
a draft of the project (phase 5). In Phases 1 and 2, he/she will have to select only relevant information
and eliminate irrelevant information from the reading and listening comprehension documents provided.
Information can be important within the document, or interesting in itself, but it must be eliminated if it
does not constitute a resource for the draft: this is an essential difference between comprehension in
SAOA and comprehension in the communicative approach: in the latter, it is a question of capturing the
maximum amount of information; the more information the document has communicated, indeed, the
more successful the communication is.
In the first version of this scenario, there was an additional phase after the note-taking, which
unfortunately had to be removed to lighten the certification tests. It consisted of a telephone interview
between the candidate and an examiner playing the role of an informant within the company. The
examiner was instructed to provide additional information to the candidate, but only that the candidate
requested. What was evaluated therefore was one of the components of informational competence,
namely the ability to identify in a dossier the missing information that would be necessary or at least
useful to effectively carry out the work requested.
4. The implications of informational competence in the didactic units of language textbooks
In order for informational competence to be worked on in language textbooks, it is necessary that the
didactic units be conceived on the basis of a “mini-project” with its action scenario (Acar 2020a, 2020b,
2021), and that they integrate a documentary dossier on which the students will be able to practice the
different activities such as those proposed in the UNESCO book mentioned above.
Most of the textbooks of foreign languages currently published in France claim to be based on the SAOA
without the following necessary condition being fulfilled: to integrate in each didactic unit documentary
dossier at least one written or oral document on which the following instruction will be proposed: "Listen
to/read carefully this document and identify in it the information which is not there." This
instruction is absurd in the communicative approach, but it has an obvious meaning in SAOA, even if it
is implicit: "[...] identify in it the information that is not there when you know that you need it to carry
out your action".
If we want to train students to be information literate, i.e., to be able to act on and through information
as social actors, it is necessary that students should be asked then to fill in the missing information
60
themselves: They will have to research, evaluate, select, prioritize, and reformulate it before integrating
it with available information already considered relevant.
In the French as a foreign language textbook Version originale 4 (level B2, Paris: Maison des langues,
2012), after every two didactic units, a "Professional task" is proposed or interested learners on a specific
"Documentary file", which is closely related to the themes of the two previous units, among which the
learners will be able to find other elements of information and other examples that they will judge
relevant for the task indicated below at the end of the scenario, in 3.B.
The scenario following didactic units 3 and 4 is as follows (pp. 54-55):
1. Introduction
Listen and select the words that you think represent the business world.
A. Listen to these stories and then summarize the arguments of each. Discuss in small
groups.
2. Background information
B. You will then choose the sentences that best express your point of view to propose an
answer to the journalist's question.
C. Read the following article. Identify the contexts in which the term "culture" appears.
D. Look for terms in the text that are more specifically associated with business
management and the workplace.
E. Synthesize the most important elements of the text to make an account (written or oral)
with the help of its articulations.
3. Task
A. Make a list of work attitudes that are characteristic of younger and older generations.
B. You will be moderating one of the roundtables proposed by this company: gather your
arguments and develop the outline of your argument.
It can be seen how in this scenario the final task is prepared by activities representative of informational
competence, in particular the search, selection, prioritization and reformulation of information; and how
61
the common task requires learners not only to talk to each other, but to work together with the goal of
making common decisions.
Conclusion
The shift from the communicative approach to SAOA leads to a paradigmatic break in information
literacy: This has strong immediate implications for the activities required of students and the criteria for
evaluating their production.
All learners need native language information literacy in their daily lives. While the communicative
classroom prepares school students for possible future use of the foreign language, SAOA the classroom,
because it requires learners to make a constant and conscious effort to seek out, understand, and manage
information, can function not only as a foreign language-culture classroom, but also as an incubator of
cross-cutting competencies. As for adults, their already acquired informational competence can be
directly exploited in the service of their learning strategies.
References
Acar, Ahmet. 2020a. “Transforming communicative tasks into mini-projects”, Elementary Education
Online, 19(3), 1660-1668. doi:10.17051/ilkonline.2020.734694.
2020b. “An analysis of the English textbook ‘Let’s learn English’ in terms of the action-oriented
approach”, Turkish Studies–Educational Sciences, 15(3), 1449-1458.
https://dx.doi.org/10.29228/TurkishStudies.42832.
–2021. “An Alternative Mini-project Design Proposal for the English Textbook Mastermind”, Ahi
Evran Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 7 (1), 307-320; DOI: 10.31592/aeusbed.833588.
COE 2001. Council of Europe, Common European Framework of reference for languages: learning,
teaching, assessment, Strasbourg, Language Policy Unit, 260 p., https://rm.coe.int/1680459f97.
2018. Council of Europe. Common european framework of reference for languages: learning,
teaching, assessment. Companion volume with new descriptors, https://rm.coe.int/cefr-companion-
volume-with-new-descriptors-2018/1680787989.
62
Forest Woody Horton, Jr. 2007. Undestanding Information Literacy: A Primer, Paris, UNESCO, 94 p,
www.unesco.org/new/en/communication-and-information/resources/publications-and-communication-
materials/publications/full-list/understanding-information-literacy-a-primer/.
Friederike Delouis, Anne. 2008. « Le CECRL : compte rendu du débat critique dans l’espace
germanophone ». Les Langues Modernes n° 2, avril-mai-juin, Dossier : « Le Cadre européen : où en
sommes-nous ? », Paris : APLV, p. 19-31. [Report of: Karl-Richard BAUSCH et al. (dir.), Der
gemeinsame europäische Referenzrahmen für Sprachen in der Diskussion. Arbeitspapiere der 22.
Frühjahrskonferenz zur Erforschung des Fremdsprachenunterrichts. University of Giessen (Germany),
March 2002). Tübingen : Narr, 2003]. On line : www.aplv-languesmodernes.org/spip.php?article1779.
Puren, Christian. 2009. « Les implications de la perspective de l'agir social sur la gestion des
connaissances en classe de langue-culture : de la compétence communicative à la compétence
informationnelle", www.aplv-languesmodernes.org/spip.php?article1841.
2013. "The shift from the paradigm of communication to the paradigm of action, and its implications
for practical implementation from the social action-oriented approach". On line:
www.christianpuren.com/mes-travaux/2013e-en/.
– 2016. Le travail d’élaboration conceptuelle dans la recherche en DLC. L’exemple de l'approche par
compétences et de la perspective actionnelle, 1e éd. numérique, septembre 2016, 81 p.,
www.christianpuren.com/mes-travaux/2016g/.
Trim, J.L.M. 1980. “Foreword” in: EK J.A., van, Threshold level English: in a European unit/credit
system for adults, Oxford: Council of Europe-Pergamon, 1980, xi + 253 p.
... In order to identify the key components of the mechanism of interactive learning, a scientific approach is used. Theoretical data include investigations in constructivism (Dagar & Yadav, 2016;Mcleod, 2023), ecolinguistics with a distributed view on linguistic cognition (Steffensen & Cowley 2021;Steffensen & Trasmundi & Høgh & Ventzel 2023;Cowley 2019;Thibault 2021), ecological psycology (McKinney & Steffensen & Chemero 2022), bio-cognitive philosophy of language (Kravchenko 2017;Kravchenko 2021), practice-oriented learning (action oriented learning, integrated skills learning) (Pardede, 2020;Puren, 2021;Acar, 2020;Yu, 2009), peer learning and tutoring (Topping, 2005;Collins, 2021;Hornby & Greaves, 2022;Makarova 2017Makarova , 2018. ...
... In order to identify the key components of the mechanism of interactive learning, a scientific approach is used. Theoretical data include investigations in constructivism (Dagar & Yadav, 2016;Mcleod, 2023), ecolinguistics with a distributed view on linguistic cognition (Steffensen & Cowley 2021;Steffensen & Trasmundi & Høgh & Ventzel 2023;Cowley 2019;Thibault 2021), ecological psycology (McKinney & Steffensen & Chemero 2022), bio-cognitive philosophy of language (Kravchenko 2017;Kravchenko 2021), practice-oriented learning (action oriented learning, integrated skills learning) (Pardede, 2020;Puren, 2021;Acar, 2020;Yu, 2009), peer learning and tutoring (Topping, 2005;Collins, 2021;Hornby & Greaves, 2022;Makarova 2017Makarova , 2018. ...
Article
Full-text available
The paper deals with the investigation of theoretical and practical issues on the organization and management of EFL peer learning. Lack of understanding of the mechanism of peer learning as a system of relationships and interactions hinders creating the conditions for effective education. The study aims to identify and systematize the key components of interactive learning of the English language, substantiate their significance in modeling peer learning. The scientific approach to the analysis of the concept "interactive learning" is applied. The systematic approach to the synthesis of the components of interactive peer learning is used as a basis for educational modeling. As a result, the components of interactive learning were identified and systematized in the form of peer learning principles, including student activity; educational material selected in compliance with student's knowledge; cyclical stages of a learning process; teacher's preparatory work; classroom peer tutoring. The principles were integrated into a dynamic model of peer learning whose driving factors are learning objectives, content, participants, design and management, control and assessment. The model ensures maximum student involvement in a learning process, increases motivation, develops language proficiency, manages activities and leads to efficient results. Keywords educational modeling, interactivity, peer learning, scientific and systematic approaches How to cite this article (APA, 7th Ed.): Makarova, E. (2024). Scientific and systematic approaches to modeling of EFL Peer Learning In Higher
... The approach employed in this context is primarily focused on action, as it considers users and language learners as "social agents" that are part of a society and have duties to accomplish in certain situations, environments, or domains, which extend beyond language-related activities. Acts of speech are an integral component of language activities; yet, a comprehensive understanding of these behaviours necessitates consideration of their broader social framework (Puren, 2021). The primary focus of the action-oriented strategy lies in the role of language within the context of communication (Supunya, 2022). ...
Article
Full-text available
Teaching a foreign language to low-performing students necessitates thinking multi-dimensionally. It is not only to convey the knowledge to the students, but also it is to be able to take into consideration their needs, expectations, interests, and backgrounds. Thus, educators use some approaches as a base and apply a lot of teaching methods to provide learning in the best way according to their students. However, it is not easy to reach all of the students. Thanks to the CEFR (Common European Framework of Reference)’s Action Oriented Approach (AOA), educators can reach the objectives of their curriculum even by considering Inclusive Education and increasing the active participation of low-performing students. In this study, it is aimed to determine how an AOA is effective in low-performing students’ achievements. This study was conducted during 4 weeks with a 1-hour duration of 12 classes. A quasi-experimental method with one pretest-posttest group and the sequential explanatory pattern was employed to explain and narrate quantitative results of the effect of the AOA on low-performing students’ achievements. There were 9 students 3 girls, and 6 boys who were in 8th grade (13-14 years old). They were chosen according to their cumulative grade point average (GPA) in English lessons the previous year. All of the students had a standardized achievement pretest and posttest. The data were supported by a parental questionnaire which was prepared by taking an expert opinion. At the end of the study, it was observed that there is a significant difference between the previous and current achievements of the students. Moreover, according to the parents’ interview forms, it was understood that there has been a positive change in the attitudes of students toward English lessons and learning English.
Article
Full-text available
The aim of this article is to present the value of modeling in language didactics, taking as examples the model of the different documentary logics that teachers can implement, and that of the different roles that students can assume in relation to documents. Based on a literary project carried out by foreign-language students within the methodological framework of the action-oriented perspective, the author shows how exploiting each of these models and combining them can enrich teaching-learning practices by diversifying the forms of L2 use in the classroom as much as possible. Direct link to the online version on the journal's website (ESBB Volume 10 Issue 1, 2024): https://www.englishscholarsbeyondborders.org/esbb-journal-publications/esbb-volume-10-issue-1-2024/. Also available at https://www.christianpuren.mes-travaux/2024h-en.
An analysis of the English textbook 'Let's learn English' in terms of the action-oriented approach
  • Ahmet Acar
Acar, Ahmet. 2020a. "Transforming communicative tasks into mini-projects", Elementary Education Online, 19(3), 1660-1668. doi:10.17051/ilkonline.2020.734694. -2020b. "An analysis of the English textbook 'Let's learn English' in terms of the action-oriented approach", Turkish Studies-Educational Sciences, 15(3), 1449-1458.
An Alternative Mini-project Design Proposal for the English Textbook Mastermind
https://dx.doi.org/10.29228/TurkishStudies.42832. -2021. "An Alternative Mini-project Design Proposal for the English Textbook Mastermind", Ahi
Council of Europe, Common European Framework of reference for languages: learning, teaching, assessment, Strasbourg, Language Policy Unit
Evran Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 7 (1), 307-320; DOI: 10.31592/aeusbed.833588. COE 2001. Council of Europe, Common European Framework of reference for languages: learning, teaching, assessment, Strasbourg, Language Policy Unit, 260 p., https://rm.coe.int/1680459f97. -2018. Council of Europe. Common european framework of reference for languages: learning, teaching, assessment. Companion volume with new descriptors, https://rm.coe.int/cefr-companionvolume-with-new-descriptors-2018/1680787989.
Undestanding Information Literacy: A Primer
  • Jr Forest Woody Horton
Forest Woody Horton, Jr. 2007. Undestanding Information Literacy: A Primer, Paris, UNESCO, 94 p, www.unesco.org/new/en/communication-and-information/resources/publications-and-communicationmaterials/publications/full-list/understanding-information-literacy-a-primer/.
Les Langues Modernes n° 2, avril-mai-juin, Dossier : « Le Cadre européen : où en sommes-nous ?
  • Friederike Delouis
Friederike Delouis, Anne. 2008. « Le CECRL : compte rendu du débat critique dans l'espace germanophone ». Les Langues Modernes n° 2, avril-mai-juin, Dossier : « Le Cadre européen : où en sommes-nous ? », Paris : APLV, p. 19-31. [Report of: Karl-Richard BAUSCH et al. (dir.), Der gemeinsame europäische Referenzrahmen für Sprachen in der Diskussion. Arbeitspapiere der 22.
« Les implications de la perspective de l'agir social sur la gestion des connaissances en classe de langue-culture : de la compétence communicative à la compétence informationnelle
  • Christian Puren
Puren, Christian. 2009. « Les implications de la perspective de l'agir social sur la gestion des connaissances en classe de langue-culture : de la compétence communicative à la compétence informationnelle", www.aplv-languesmodernes.org/spip.php?article1841. -2013. "The shift from the paradigm of communication to the paradigm of action, and its implications for practical implementation from the social action-oriented approach". On line: www.christianpuren.com/mes-travaux/2013e-en/.
Foreword" in: EK J.A., van, Threshold level English: in a European unit/credit system for adults
  • J L M Trim
Trim, J.L.M. 1980. "Foreword" in: EK J.A., van, Threshold level English: in a European unit/credit system for adults, Oxford: Council of Europe-Pergamon, 1980, xi + 253 p.