Jean-Claude BERTIN UMR IDEES-CIRTAI, Le Havre Jean-Paul NARCY-COMBES,

1. « Ordo Ab Chao : la modélisation pour gérer le chaos ? » Dispositifs d’enseignement/apprentissage en languesmédiatiséset à distance Jean-Claude BERTIN UMR IDEES-CIRTAI, Le Havre Jean-Paul NARCY-COMBES, DILTEC, Sorbonne Nouvelle - UPMC

2. Plan de l’intervention • Epistemological stance • A systemic approach to language learning environments • Morin’s Complex Thinking • Emergentist perspectives • Destructuring the system’s components • Destructuring language • Destructuring learning paths • Destructuring mediation • Organizing chaos through modeling ? • The didactic ergonomics model • Evolving relationships within the model • An emergentist perspective for the model

3. Complexsystemstheories An evolving epistemological stance… refuted Reductionism : Specific properties of the system’s components Theoretical level complexity Dynamic systems theories  Focus on changes within the system Connexionism  Focus on interactions within the system Mathematical level Emergentism : Specific properties of a complex system Application level (adapted from Sockett 2010)

4. Chaos : destructuringlanguage Syntax The structural properties of sentences can be explained without reference to inborn grammatical principles.  Mac Whinney : grammar emerges from conversation as a way to facilitate accurate tracking and switching of perspective. O'Grady : syntactic phenomena are best understood in terms of the operation of a linear, efficiency-driven processor that seeks to reduce the burden on working memory in the course of sentence formation and interpretation. Morphology Morphological structure emerges from statistical regularities in the form-meaning relationship between words. Morphological structure exists but not in the categorical form commonly assumed and coming from frequency, semantic transparency, phonotactics. Lexicon The lexicon emerges from the way in which the brain responds to and stores experiences- by creating units whose strength and productivity is determined largely by frequency of occurrence. Some of these units corresponds to words, as in traditional lexicon, but many are phrases and other larger units of organization, including possibly abstract constructions. Phonology Donegan: Children begin with a set of processes (nasalization, devoicing) that emerge as responses to the physical limitations of the human vocal tract and the auditory apparatus. A language's phonemic inventory and allophonic patterns then emerge as specific processes are suppresed in response to experience. Discourse and pragmatics can be explained in similar terms => our model

6. Chaos : destructuringlearningpaths Non-linear Cannotbepre-structured Triggeringinterplay of complementary sets of processes in order to create connexions. Complementarity of processesislargelyunpredictable in itsresults, but canbesafelyanticipated. Three questions remainproblematic: métareflection (Cummins: BICS et CALP). Mediation. Individual and cultural differences . The Learning Cycle model remains one dimensional=> lackstemporality

7. Chaos : destructuringmediation in CALL/distance learning « an individual’s knowledge is described as a personal construction mediated by teachers or peers. Distance [and technology] will not affect the individual’s construction of knowledge, but may make mediation and social interaction more complex » (Narcy-Combes 2010) Pedagogic mediation Technological mediation Distance mediation The “analyser” concept (Lapassade 1971; Petit 1991) “… anything that causes truth to emerge of what is hidden; anything may refer to a group, an individual, a situation, an event, a scandal […]” (Lapassade, 1971, p. 15) Distance : « nouvelles formes d’échanges pédagogiques non seulement grâce au dispositif technologique utilisé mais également grâce à des configurations socio-pédagogiques inédites. » (Dejean-Thricuir, Guichon & Nicolaev V. (2010, 378).

8. Modeling : towardssomekind of order? • Why refer to models? • Emergentism considers real world macro-objects • Finding one’s way in uncertainty • Structuring what can be structured in chaos • Construct functions (technology) and roles (human) from interactions • A heuristic model : • Guiding the construction of the various components of the system by the various actors • Identify interfaces (= « places ») for interactions • The model is neither rigid nor normative • The model guides the implementation of performances

9. SimplifiedDidacticErgonomics model context teacher Language/culture Tasks / learning cycle technology learner • A global vision of the macro-object (simplified here) • Deconstruction into specialised sub-systems : teaching act, learning act, follow-up and regulation)  emergence of new actors (teacher/tutor) and new roles (including learners’ roles).

10. Emergentisme et modèle d’ergonomie didactique ? Réorganisation du système Temporalité ? Temporalité ? Propriétés émergentes (capacité à générer des activités liées à l’apprentissage)  variables dans le temps (Adapted from Miras 2011)

11. Deconstructing the model – teacher-centred sub-system • Sub-system 1: teacher-centred • Process  organization of materials and pedagogic mediation • Competence in: • Course design • Task design (including technological constraints and potential) • Materials design • Environment design • Computer literacy / team organizer • Follow-up • organization & planning • provision of monitoring devices

12. Deconstructing the model – learner-centred sub-system • Sub-system 2: learner-centred • Process  language learning • New dimensions / actors due to specificity of technological mediation + distance • Asynchronous articulation between SS1 and SS2 • Teacher-centred system  organization & planning (virtual, latent) • Learner-centred system  only when learner interacts with materials

13. Deconstructing the model – regulation sub-system SS1 and SS2 : 2 different perspectives Teacher pedagogy driven + representations of the computer Learner  individual representations of language learning and of technology Potential gaps between didactic intention and practices Need for data on system’s operation  monitoring Objectives of follow-up Individual level: learner evaluation, feedback and support Systemic level: system regulation Roles Tutor contributes to raise learner’s awareness of the emerging steps in the task (Bygate) Contributes to inform teacher about discontinuities . Teacher in charge of reorganising system at T+1 Modes of reorganisation are context specific.

14. Conclusions • Modeling  concerns the learning environment / not the processes • Functions og the learning environment  Generate the emergence of conditions favorable to language acquisition  Generate conditions for potential sequencing of language learning related operations • The didactic dimension of the learning environment is non linear and unpredictable. • Distance highlights discontinuities through the time gap between the teaching and the learning acts  need for more information on learner activity (monitoring) for regulation purposes (task and learning environment levels) • The technological element cannot accept total unpredictability  its function = stabilize the environment + flexilbility to adapt to different contexts. • The general model ensure designers take into account all the components + interactions within the system • Important : operating the model implies defining the respective responsibility of learner, teacher and/or tutor, according to specific contexts.

15. Bibliographie Conference based on : • Bertin, J.-C., Gravé, P. & Narcy-Combes, J.-P. (2010). Second-language distance learning and teaching: theoretical perspectives and didactic ergonomics, IGI Global, USA • Dejean-Thricuir, C., Guichon, N. & Nicolaev V. (2010). “Compétences interactionnelles des tuteurs dans des échanges vidéographiques synchrones”. Distance et Savoirs, 8/2010, 377-393. • Fischer, R. (2006), “How do we know what students are actually doing? Monitoring students’ behavior in CALL”. Conférenceplénière : CALL Conference 2006, universitéd’Anvers. • Lapassade, G. (1971). L’analyseur et l’analyste. Paris: Gauthier-Villars. • Miras (2011). Mémoire de Master 2 recherche, Sorbonne-Nouvelle. • Morin, E., & Lemoigne, J.-L. (1999). Introduction à la pensée complexe. Paris: L’Harmattan • Narcy-Combes, Jean-Paul (2005). Didactique des langues et TIC: vers une recherche-action responsable. Gap Paris, Ophrys. • Petit, F. (1991). Introduction à la psychosociologie des organisations. Paris: Privat, Pratiques Sociales • Rabardel, P. (1995). Les Hommes et les Technologies– Approche cognitive des instruments contemporains, Armand colin, série Psychologie, Paris. • Sockett, G. (2010), « La complexité, l'émergence et la didactique des langues », Présentation à la journée d'étude « Permanences et évolutions en didactique des langues » à l'Université de Nantes, 25 juin 2010. http://prismelangues.u-strasbg.fr/uploads/media/Complexite__emergence_et_DDL_4GGL_02.pdf

18. L’approche systémique Dynamic systems : focus on interactions + retroactions Interactionism : focus on interactions

19. La Pensée Complexe (E. Morin) Holistic perspective ? ?