Résumés
Résumé
Les croyances des enseignants sur l’enseignement et l’apprentissage de la grammaire sont intimement liées aux pratiques enseignantes en salle de classe (Phipps et Borg, 2009; Sanchez et Borg, 2014). En effet, leurs expériences antérieures d’apprenant semblent plus déterminantes dans la construction de leurs croyances que la formation universitaire (Borg, 2015 ; Simard et Jean, 2011). Les objectifs de cette étude transversale consistaient à identifier les croyances de futurs enseignants d’anglais et de français langue additionnelle (LA) d’une université francophone québécoise sur l’enseignement de la grammaire et à déterminer si les croyances différaient selon l’année de leur formation préparatoire. Cent cinquante-trois futurs enseignants d’anglais ou de français LA ont complété un questionnaire reposant sur quatre continuums : une approche axée sur le sens contre la forme, un enseignement de la forme (FonF) contre des formes (FonFs), un enseignement implicite contre explicite, et un enseignement inductif contre déductif (Graus et Coppen, 2016). Les résultats démontrent que ces futurs enseignants croient en une approche axée sur la forme ainsi qu’un enseignement inductif, et semblent exprimer une indifférence envers un enseignement implicite et explicite, et un enseignement FonF et FonFs. Les résultats indiquent peu de changements dans les croyances selon l’année de formation, sauf pour une évolution d’un enseignement FonFs à FonF. Toutefois, une tendance se dessine en faveur d’un enseignement traditionnel de la grammaire. Plus d’études s’avèrent nécessaires pour mieux comprendre comment les futurs enseignants mobilisent les croyances et les connaissances apprises durant la formation universitaire dans leurs pratiques enseignantes.
Mots-clés :
- Croyances des enseignants en formation,
- enseignement de la grammaire,
- anglais et français langue additionnelle,
- formation préparatoire en enseignement
Abstract
Teacher cognitions, including beliefs, concerning the teaching and learning of grammar are closely linked to teaching in the classroom (Phipps et Borg, 2009; Sanchez et Borg, 2014). Previous research has demonstrated that teachers’ previous learning experiences seem to affect their beliefs more strongly than their university teacher training (Borg, 2015; Simard et Jean, 2011). The objectives of this cross-sectional study conducted with future teachers of French and English as additional languages in a francophone university in Quebec were twofold. Firstly, it was to identify their beliefs in terms of the teaching and learning of grammar. Secondly, it was to understand how these beliefs differed based on their progression within the four-year, teacher-training programmes. One hundred and fifty-five future teachers of French or English as an additional language completed a questionnaire that explored four dichotomies with regards to teaching grammar – 1.) form-focused or meaning-focused approaches; 2.) FonFs or FonF teaching; 3.) implicit or explicit teaching; 4.) deductive or inductive teaching (Graus et Coppen, 2016). The results showed that future teachers believe that approaches should be form-focused and that grammar teaching should occur inductively. They did not have a preference for the other two dichotomies. In terms of changes based on their year of study, the only difference seemed to be a shift towards a preference for FonF rather than FonFs. However, despite this change, overall, their beliefs demonstrate a preference for traditional grammar instruction. More research is needed to understand how future teachers use their beliefs and the knowledge created during their teacher training when they are in their language classrooms.
Keywords:
- Pre-service teachers’ cognitions,
- LA grammar teaching,
- French and English as additional languages,
- pre-service teacher training
Parties annexes
Bibliographie
- Borg, S. (2015). Teacher cognition and language education: Research and practice. Bloomsbury Publishing.
- Borg, S. (2019). Language teacher cognition: Perspectives and debates. Dans Gao, X. (dir.), Second handbook of English language teaching (p.1149-1170). Springer International Handbooks of Education.
- DeKeyser, R. (2005). What makes learning second‐language grammar difficult? A review of issues. Language Learning, 55(S1), 1-25.
- Ellis, R. (2008). The study of second language acquisition (2e éd.). Oxford University Press.
- Ellis, R. et Shintani, N. (2013). Exploring language pedagogy through second language acquisition research. Routledge.
- Fortin, M. F. et Gagnon, J. (2016). Fondements et étapes du processus de recherche : méthodes quantitatives et qualitatives. Chenelière éducation.
- Germain, C. (1993). Évolution de l’enseignement des langues : 5000 ans d’histoire. CLE international et HMH.
- Goo, J., Granena, G. Yilmaz, Y. et Novella, M. (2015). Implicit and explicit instruction in L2 learning: Norris and Ortega (2000) revisited and updated. Dans P. Rebuschat (dir.), Implicit and explicit learning of languages (p. 443-482). John Benjamins.
- Graus, J. et Coppen, P. A. (2016). Student teacher beliefs on grammar instruction. Language Teaching Research, 20(5), 571-599.
- Jean, G. et Simard, D. (2011). Grammar teaching and learning in L2: Necessary, but boring? Foreign Language Annals, 44(3), 467-494.
- Larsen-Freeman, D. et Anderson, M. (2013). Techniques and principles in language teaching 3rd edition-Oxford handbooks for language teachers. Oxford university press.
- Limesurvey GmbH. / LimeSurvey: An Open Source survey tool /LimeSurvey GmbH, Hamburg, Germany. URL http://www.limesurvey.org
- Loewen, S. (2020). Introduction to instructed second language acquisition (2e éd.). Routledge.
- Long, M. H. (1991). Focus on form: A design feature in language teaching methodology. Foreign Language Research in Cross-Cultural Perspective, 2(1), 39-52.
- Long, M. H. (2014). Second Language Acquisition and Task-Based Language Teaching. Wiley Blackwell.
- Lortie, D. (1975). Schoolteacher: A sociological study. University of Chicago Press.
- Mackey, A. et Gass, S. M. (2021). Second language research: Methodology and design. Routledge.
- Moodie, I. (2016). The anti-apprenticeship of observation: How negative prior language learning experience influences English language teachers’ beliefs and practices. System, 60, 29-41.
- Nishimuro, M. et Borg, S. (2013). Teacher cognition and grammar teaching in a Japanese high school. JALT journal, 35(1), 29-50.
- Norris, J. M. et Ortega, L. (2000). Does type of instruction make a difference? Substantive findings from a meta‐analytic review. Language Learning, 51(S1), 157-213.
- Paquet, P. L. et Woll, N. (2021). Debunking student teachers’ beliefs regarding the target-language-only rule. Dans J. Pinto et N. Alexandre (dir.), Multilingualism and third language acquisition: Learning and teaching trends (p. 95-116). Language Science Press.
- Payant, C. et Bell, P. (2022). “Very easy, it’s an English class, therefore they should not rely on a French text” English language teachers’ beliefs regarding L1 use for literacy instruction. Language Teaching for Young Learners, 4(1), 143-170.
- Phipps, S. et Borg, S. (2009). Exploring tensions between teachers’ grammar teaching beliefs and practices. System, 37(3), 380-390.
- Sanchez, H. S. et Borg, S. (2014). Insights into L2 teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge: A cognitive perspective on their grammar explanations. System, 44, 45-53.
- Sato, M. et Loewen, S. (2022). The Research-Practice Dialogue in Second Language Learning and Teaching: Past, Present, and Future. Modern Language Journal, 106(3), 509-527.
- Simard, D. et Jean, G. (2011). An exploration of L2 teachers’ use of pedagogical interventions devised to draw L2 learners’ attention to form. Language Learning, 61(3), 759-785.
- Yuan, R. et Lee, I. (2014). Pre-service teachers’ changing beliefs in the teaching practicum: Three cases in an EFL context. System, 44, 1-12.