Oral practice at school

Four ways of considering oral language at school are generally distinguished (PLANE, 2015; WIERTZ et al., 2020[1]). First, oral language occurs in ordinary communication situations. These can take place between teacher and students, and between students, and they do not depend on a particular learning context. Second, oral language is used in pedagogical situations, as part of the interactions making up the life of the class: the transmission and hearing of information, instructions or question/answer type exchanges. Oral communication is then the medium through which the pedagogical relationship unfolds. Third, oral communication can be considered as a teaching and learning tool in the disciplines. It is then a reflexive speaking. Fourth, oral language can itself be an object of learning. It is in this context that it is the subject of specific teaching–learning sequences designed to develop students' oral language skills.

As far as formal instruction is concerned, this fourth dimension of oral language at school, as a learning object, is increasingly present as an issue. Indeed, "oral language education has gained a clear place in L1-curricula all over the world" (WURTH et al., 2019, p. 2). For example, in our school context of French-speaking Belgium, the new regulations specify that "disciplinary skills - listening/reading, speaking/writing - must be of equal importance" (PACTE POUR UN ENSEIGNEMENT D'EXCELLENCE, 2017, p. 48[2]). For all that, and despite the intentions expressed, in some school programs, there is little clarity on what to teach and how (DUMAIS; SOUCY, 2020[3]).

In classrooms, oral language has struggled to become a real object of instruction (COLOGNESI; DESCHEPPER, 2019[4]; DUPONT, 2020[5]; GAGNON; DE PIETRO; FISHER, 2017[6]; SIMARD et al., 2019[7]). On the one hand, this is because teachers say they are ill-equipped to teach it (COLOGNESI; DOLZ, 2017[8]; DUMAIS; LAFONTAINE; PHARAND, 2017[9]; SÉNÉCHAL, 2017[10]; SIMARD et al., 2019[7]; WIERTZ et al., 2021). On the other hand, the components and modes of evaluating it are complex (GAGNON et al., 2017[6]). In addition, oral language has a lower status compared to written language because the acquisition of the written code is more visible in schooling (KALDAHL, 2019[11]). Moreover, the possible difficulty of "keeping traces" of teaching–learning activities dedicated to oral language tends to make its operationalization, visibility, and progression in the classroom complex. Revising oral performances (FAYOL, 2007[12]) and archiving them can pose a problem.

In pre-service and in-service teacher training, the teaching and learning of oral language is not at all or hardly represented in training programs. When it is, it is in an occasional and limited way, unlike training in reading or writing skills (CÔTÉ; PELLERIN, 2017[13]; VIOLA et al., 2015[14]).

Finally, the teaching–learning of oral language is complex. It is complex in terms of the conditions under which it is carried out (time, traces, …), the characterization of its components, the methods of its evaluation, and the relative lack of reference points (training, programs) on which to base instructional sequences. All of this contributes to making teachers insecure. This reinforces the continued usage of highly stereotyped activities in teaching oral communication. These activities are also reassuring because the teachers have often experienced them as students themselves.

Thus, for example, the most popular practices in exercise how to speak are recitation, speaking in the service of self-expression such as expressing the mood of the day or an opinion about an incident), and delivering a presentation (COLOGNESI; DESCHEPPER, 2019[4]). All of these practices are immediately functional. They call upon all oral skills without focusing on one or another more specifically. This makes them complex for students to implement. For listening skills, the practice of administering a listening skills questionnaire is the most common intervention in class (COLOGNESI; DESCHEPPER, 2019[4]). Yet, this tends more to assess an already existing competence than to teach oral comprehension strategies (GAGNON; MARTINET, 2021[15]).

In view of all this, there are therefore real issues at stake in considering the guidelines that can help teachers instruct oral language usage in the classroom.

The perspective of working by genres in the teaching–learning of the oral language

Even though oral language occupies a major place in people's out-of-school daily lives, much more so than written language (LAFONTAINE, 2016[16]), its teaching–learning in the classroom remains secondary. Teaching by genres no longer has to prove itself for the written word. But it has not yet been implemented for oral genres (MATIAS et al., 2020[17]; DOLZ; SCHNEUWLY, 2009[18]). Few of them are covered in class. And if they are, it is without necessarily being the object of specific teaching–learning.

The genres used in working on oral language are thus often the same: the presentation, which is often practiced, rarely taught, or recitation, whose generic authenticity is essentially, if not exclusively, academic. Yet, teaching oral language through genres would allow students to develop their listening–speaking skills in the real-life formats of communication situations they confront or will be confronted with. This is what is at stake in the teaching–learning of oral language in the classroom: teaching students to communicate orally and to understand the oral messages that surround them, in both their diversity and their specific characteristics.

Genre-based instruction in oral communication has been currently advocated for teaching oral language, both by researchers (CHARTRAND; ÉMERY-BRUNEAU; SÉNÉCHAL, 2015[19]; DOLZ; GAGNON, 2008[20]) and by frameworks for language teaching (COUNCIL OF EUROPE, 2001[21]). Teaching oral language through oral genres would make it possible to take into account what students have learned in instruction on writing in the service of benefit oral language, which would therefore bring several advantages.

First, the generic perspective allows understanding oral language from an effective communicative perspective. The genre, which corresponds to an existing communicative practice, carries with it a series of specific oral usages in which oral language use is associated with different discursive and social situations (DOLZ; GAGNON, 2008[20]; HORVERAK, 2016[22]; HYLAND, 2003[23]). Mastering these generic frameworks provides learners with language basics. These basics are necessary to deal adequately with the different life situations that will require calling upon them.

Second, the existing instructional activities for working on written genres can be used to support work on the oral genre. Certain oral genres lend themselves well to the need for in-depth work. This is particularly true of public genres, which can be prepared in advance and are subject to rehearsal (JAUBERT, 2007[24]). This allows getting away from the feeling of immediacy that oral presentations provide, and instead to prepare, anticipate, analyze, and improve a presentation.

Finally, working on genres where the oral language is prepared and rehearsed allows showing the students that taking charge of a complex oral presentation takes time. The presentation is prepared and discussed with others. This makes it possible to place the learning of oral language in a “co-actional approach” that is as valid for the mother tongue as for second languages (PUREN, 2002[25]).

This also makes it possible to anticipate, and if possible, to take charge of, the emotional dimension. In fact, all speaking engenders a "putting at risk" of the speaker (LAVOIE; BOUCHARD, 2017[26]). Anticipating, preparing, and delivering the message when it is "ready" reduces stress, increases the feeling of comfort, and allows better management of emotions (HANIN et al., 2021[27]; STORDEUR; COLOGNESI, 2020[28]).

In sum, for all the reasons mentioned above, it seems to us that genre-based learning and the identification of effective practices for this learning, widely used for writing, constitute a relevant source of guidelines for the teaching–learning of oral language as well. That is the twofold objective of this contribution: (1) to list effective practices for teaching oral language through genres, based on the latest research findings and (2) to propose an instructional program that uses these practices. In short, what are effective practices for teaching and learning oral language through genres and how can they be integrated "in act" within an instructional program?

There is a vast literature on what is meant by effective teaching. Ko, Sammons and Bakkum (2014[29]) conducted a meta-analysis that allowed them to identify effective teaching practices across all disciplines. The authors added that these practices would have to be implemented in (almost) every lesson to be fully effective. They were: (1) know the content of the curriculum and strategies for teaching it; (2) be clear about the learning objectives and explain to students what is expected of them and the usefulness of the learning; (3) use existing instructional materials expertly; (4) know students and adapt interventions; (5) provide regular feedback to students; (6) involve students in the assessment process; (7) teach metacognitive strategies and (8) make links between courses and disciplines.

This examination of effective practices has continued within each discipline. For example, there have also been meta-analyses for language teaching. Thus, Koster et al. (2015[30]) and van Weijen and Janssen (2018) identified effective practices for teaching writing. They are related to the “global”' effective practices just listed: (1) goal setting; (2) teacher feedback; (3) text structure instruction; (4) peer assistance and (5) strategy instruction. These practices seem possible and relevant in the writing-rewriting process (COLOGNESI; NIWESE, 2020[31]).

As far as speaking is concerned, research in this field is still recent, so that there is not yet much work on effective practices for teaching speaking in the classroom. We identified two articles that mention such practices. The authors of the first article aimed to provide guidelines for secondary school teachers, while the second article focused on the primary level.

First, Wurth et al. (2019:2) analyzed the literature to deduce what they called "key elements of good quality L1-oral language teaching". To do so, they selected 13 articles, from which they identified five main aspects: (1) having a clear vision of goals and criteria before beginning oral language instruction; (2) analyzing and monitoring each student's language progress by setting aside time for reflection and analysis in L1 oral language lessons; (3) practicing self-assessment, peer assessment, and teacher assessment of oral products; (4) conducting observation and discussion time on filmed speakers serving as models; and (5) regular practice of a variety of speaking tasks.

Next, Colognesi and Hanin (2020[32]) conducted a study to try to identify effective practices in oral language instruction. For this purpose, they followed 16 pre-service teachers at the end of their training. Their participants were involved in a specific training module on the teaching of oral language. They developed sequences for teaching oral language through the oral genres (DOLZ; GAGNON, 2008[20]; HYLAND, 2003[23]), and then they experimented with them in the classes of pupils aged 7 to 12. These interventions lasted 12 hours in each class. The improvement of the pupils in oral language competence was measured with a pre- and post-test. In addition, written reflective analyses and oral interchanges between student teachers and trainers were analyzed. The triangulation of these data allowed the researchers to select a series of effective practices for teaching oral language through genres. These practices are: (1) planning oral language teaching in the class timetable; (2) establishing a climate conducive to listening and speaking; (3) supporting students with scaffolding; (4) enabling students to self-assess and implementing peer assessment.

Combining these proposals and the literature on effective practices, we have formulated a series of effective practices that are interesting to have as guidelines for teaching oral language, within the framework of teaching by genres. They are presented in Figure 1 and explained below.

Planning oral language teaching in the class timetable

Planning is one of the key tasks of teachers (KANG, 2017[33]). It is a reflective activity (DEPRIT; VAN NIEUWENHOVEN, 2018[34], 2021[34]) which, for oral language teaching, has at least two aspects.

The first aspect is to be convinced that teaching oral language is possible and useful. This is needed to be able to set aside time slots in the week's program to work on speaking.

The second aspect is to know the curriculum relating to the teaching of oral language. On the one hand, it is a question of having an idea of the genres that can be covered in the different years of schooling (COLOGNESI; HANIN, 2020[32]). On the other hand, it is necessary to have knowledge of the oral objectives that can be taught (DUMAIS, 2016[35]) and that are necessary for the communication situation related to the genre that is being worked on. This is the basis for the teacher’s decisions to develop teaching activities, and choose the appropriate method and material (GAGNÉ; BERGER, 2019[36]).

Establishing a climate conducive to listening and speaking

If the work environment is important for all activities that take place in the classroom, it is even more important when working on oral language. Indeed, when speaking, the person exposes himself (GAGNON; DE PIETRO; FISHER, 2017[6]). The speaker engages his body, his voice, his identity (ALRABADI, 2010[37]; GARCIA-DEBANC, 1999[38]). Consequently, it seems necessary to establish a safe working environment and rules, where the student will dare to express himself. Moreover, students can express themselves on video or in front of their peers before having to speak in front of the class or an unknown audience. This takes the stress out of the presentation. In addition, it is important to think about what audience members should do while a speaker is speaking and to assign a specific listening intention (COLOGNESI, 2021[39]).

Presenting the objectives and the communication situation

Regarding goals, in relation to writing, it has been shown that students who had a specific writing goal and sub-goals as they went through the writing process improved the quality of their writing (FERRETTI; MACARTHUR; DOWDY, 2000[40]; GRAHAM et al., 2014[41]). We argue that the same is true for oral language.

Thus, at the beginning of work on oral communication skills, it is necessary to give the pupils objectives for speaking. It is also necessary to explain to them what they have to achieve. This is so that they can understand the communication situation they are in. It is essential that students know why they are producing this message, for whom, what it will be used for, and so forth. Working through genres naturally leads to engaging students in real communication projects, as recommended by the Council of Europe (2001[21]).

This goal-setting step at the beginning of the work as well as in the intermediate phases can take two different forms (KOSTER et al., 2015[30]). The teacher can actually announce to the students the expected goals in terms of the product, for example, the overall length of the text, the expected effects, and so forth. In addition, the teacher can also announce objectives in terms of the process. That is, he can specify what learning or working strategies are expected to be acquired.

Moreover, it is now commonly accepted that a student is motivated to engage in a task if it is meaningful to him or her, but also if he or she believes in his or her chances of success (BOURGEOIS, 2011[42]; ECCLES; WIEGFIELD, 2002[43]). Consequently, when presenting the objectives, it seems necessary also to mention to the pupils the various supports that will be available to help them to achieve the stated objectives.

Enabling students to re-oralize

Inspired by the practice of rewriting, namely, "any operation which returns to what has already been written" (GRÉSILLON, 1994, p. 245[44]), re-oralization (COLOGNESI; DOLZ, 2017, p. 188[8]) returns to what has already been said aloud. The intention is to allow the speaker to improve his spoken product, as many times as necessary, before delivering it to the audience for whom it is intended. This of course depends on the genre that is to be produced. In order to limit stress, the re-oralizations could also be carried out in front of an audience of progressive size: the camera or one or two peers at the beginning, a subgroup of spectators afterwards, and the whole audience at the end.

In addition, from one oral rehearsal to the next, the speaker does not have to repeat the same thing. It is about having the challenge of improving from one time to the next. These challenges may come from teacher-generated scaffolding, or from feedback received either from the teacher or from peers. They can also be determined by the speaker himself. In this way, re-oralization allows the possibility of development for and by the student. It is also a way for the teacher to ensure formative co-assessment of oral language competence.

The ephemeral aspect of oral language can make its evaluation subjective (GARCIA-DEBANC, 1999[38]). This is why it is useful to think about ways to preserve students' oral performances. Digital tools can provide a solution for this. Stordeur and Colognesi's (2020[28]) study showed that when students can replay one or more versions of a presentation by recording themselves, they experience positive emotions such as being happy, relieved, proud, relaxed or feeling good.

It should be noted that, depending on the genre, the re-oralizations can be prepared for. They can be prepared for in writing, as a tool for the elaboration of oral communication (CELLIER; DREYFUS, 2002[45]; DOLZ; GAGNON, 2008[20]).

Helping students through scaffolding: deepening, support and feedback

Scaffolding is what the teacher provides to ensure the student's learning, the actions undertaken to allow the student to accomplish alone a task that he did not know how to accomplish independently at the beginning (BRUNER, 1983[46], 1996[47]). Bucheton (2009[48]) has identified three types of scaffolding functions.

The first function of scaffolding is deepening. It is a matter of the teacher bringing the students to mastery of a specific aspect that they do not yet know and that they need. Thus, for the oral genre being worked on, the teacher can intervene with regard to one or more aspects relating to action, discourse or linguistic-discourse skills (DOLZ; PASQUIER; BRONCKART, 1993[49]).

Considering that action skills are addressed when the task is presented to the student, one of the first deepening scaffolds should be focused on the structure of the message to be produced, that is, on students’ discursive abilities (DOLZ; PASQUIER; BRONCKART, 1993[49]). On this point, Allal (2018) has shown that learning by observing models can contribute significantly to students' progress. This was, in fact, an intervention recommended by Bruner (1996[47]). The issue is to help students discover the regularities of the genre to be produced, its predictable format (DOLZ; GAGNON; VUILLET, 2011[50]).

Dolz et al. (2001[51]) agreed that observation and analysis of existing texts enables the characteristics of the genre to be identified. This is accomplished through the use of models chosen for their representativeness. Colognesi and Lucchini (2018[52]) have shown that this activity of observation of models should be done from observation of real models of confirmed authors, but not only from this. Otherwise, the risk is to make students think that the production goals are too high. Wurth et al. (2019, p. 19[53]) further explained that "these examples should give a varied view on speaking in public, showing students 'different discursive conditions according to categories such as age, race, class, gender and so on’ (Baxter, 2002, p. 94)." The purpose of the model observation and analysis activity is to highlight the similarities of the models, but also the differences. This is to identify the essential characteristics of the genre, but also the possible options. The challenge is to allow speakers to conform to the structure of the message to be produced while retaining creativity and personal agency (COLOGNESI; LUCCHINI, 2018[52]).

Other scaffolding can also be organized according to the specificities of the genre to be produced, related to linguistic-discursive abilities (DOLZ; PASQUIER; BRONCKART, 1993[49]). Such scaffolds can highlight lexical-semantic, morphological, syntactic, paraverbal, non-verbal, or material oral language objectives (DUMAIS, 2016[35]).

The second function of scaffolding is support. This consists of being able to adapt interventions according to the diversity of the students and their needs (ALLAL, 2020[54]; COLOGNESI; GOUIN, 2020[55]), to enable them to succeed in the task (LERY SANTOS; BONNEFON; TRICOT, 2020[56]). In fact, it has been shown that teacher support and behavior in relation to student success are major determinants of student academic success (Maulana et al., 2017[57]). In its supportive function, scaffolding can be offered either to a subgroup of students who have the same need, or more individually. For example, the teacher could, after an initial discussion, identify each student’s most fragile non-verbal skills and provide them with specific support.

The third function of scaffolding is control. The teacher ensures that the students' answers are correct and validates them. Feedback is therefore the key. It has been identified as one of the most powerful levers for learning (DIETRICHSON et al., 2017[58]; HATTIE; TIMPERLEY, 2007[59]). Yet, giving feedback about oral performance can present a set of challenges. First, it is complex to identify the components of speaking within a complete message and to evaluate each component in a single oral performance (LAFONTAINE; PRÉFONTAINE, 2007[60]). Second, oral language is ephemeral, which requires keeping track of it (DUMAIS, 2010[61]; GARCIA-DEBANC, 1999[38]). Third, take into account objective and (inter)subjective dimensions in the evaluation. They are related to the commitment of the speaker. But also to the commitment of the evaluator in the evaluation process (ALRABADI, 2010[37]; GARCIA-DEBANC, 1999[38]; LAVOIE; BOUCHARD, 2017[26]).

In order to deal with this complexity linked to the evaluation of oral language, one practice is to use a criterion-based grid. However, this raises an issue around which multiple questions are focused: who evaluates, what, how, why, on the basis of what criteria and with what indicators of progress? How best to include, consider and integrate all of these parameters in a grid designed to evaluate a student's oral performance is a constant question for teachers, and researchers as well (WIERTZ et al., 2020[1]).

Making time for peer support

Peer assessment involves two or more students in a symmetrical relationship who evaluate their respective learning, progress and/or difficulties (ALLAL, 1999[62], 2020; GIELEN, et al., 2010[63]). It adopts a formative perspective. Regulation through evaluation is no longer considered as just a particular event in learning, but as an integral part of it (ALLAL; MOTTIER LOPEZ, 2005[64]). It has been shown that in many respects, peer assessment can substitute for or even surpass teacher assessment (DOUBLE; MCGRANE; HOPFENBECK 2020[65]). In language instruction, peer assistance is when "students work together in pairs or small groups, and help each other plan, write, and/or revise their texts" (van WEIJEN; JANSSEN, 2018, p. 13[66]).

As mentioned above, assessing speaking is not a simple task for the teacher. This is also the case for students. Established criteria can serve as a guide for them to evaluate the performance of others (DUNBAR; BROOKS; KUBICKA-MILLER, 2006[67]; WIERTZ et al., 2020[1]). In their study, Leenknecht and Prins (2018) investigated whether elementary school students' involvement in setting assessment criteria and standards resulted in better peer assessment and feedback style. The results of the study showed that it did. In particular, students who discussed the criteria and standards before providing feedback on the brochures about their classmates' climate gave more positive and effective feedback than those who did not.

Students often have difficulty using a complete criteria grid: they need to be trained to do so for the feedback to be effective (LAVEAULT; MILES, 2008[68]). Otherwise, the use of a grid has no influence on the effectiveness of peer assessment (DOUBLE; MCGRANE; HOPFENBECK, 2020[65]). Thus, it seems that choosing the focus of the feedback with students, or having them select priorities for the speaker, could be an interesting way to support effective peer feedback.

There is also the question of which modalities are most effective for peers to use in giving feedback to others as part of an oral performance evaluation. In their study, Colognesi et al. (2020b[69]) compared two modalities for students to use in giving feedback on their peers' oral performances: written or oral with discussion. While student performance improved significantly for both modalities, students who received negotiated oral feedback received more guidance and made more progress. This is because in this situation students have to agree and thus co-construct their judgment (WEGMULLER; ALLAL, 1997[70]). They can then discuss it or present it to the speaker with a specific expectation regarding the effect that will be produced by what they say (TREMBLAY; TURGEON, 2019[71]).

Moreover, by providing feedback to others, students will take ownership of the goals set by the teacher (ALLAL; MOTTIER LOPEZ, 2005[64]; HATTIE; TIMPERLEY, 2007[59]). It has been shown that students use feedback from others to improve their products. But, in addition, they also use what they have recommended to others to improve their own products (COLOGNESI; DESCHEPPER, 2018[72]; DUMAIS, 2010[61]). Thus, there is a double gain from peer feedback.

Providing moments of reflection for the speaker (metacognition and self-reflection)

Vosniadou et al. (2021) explained that all theories of metacognition agree that metacognition in the context of learning and academic performance refers to individuals’ ability to improve their learning and academic performance through the use of strategies to plan, manage, and control their learning.

Thus, the teacher can support students' metacognition at three points: before, during, and after the tasks; in this case, the oral performance tasks. This is done by activating strategies for orientation, planning, monitoring, regulation, and evaluation of the product and the process (COLOGNESI et al., 2020b; EFKLIDES, 2008; VEENMAN, 2012). It is then possible to invite students to verbalize their process, make judgments about their learning, or even take a look at how confident they feel about the tasks (DOUBLE; BIRNEY, 2019).

This time spent in working on strategies, and the discussions that go with it, allows for the identification of winning strategies (COLOGNESI, 2021). It is also an opportunity to take into account what the speaker thinks and feels when confronted with delivering an oral message in front of others.

Reflective speaking, considered as a third use of speaking in class, could support the time spent learning how to speak well. The ability to "say what one has done in order to speak" constitutes an interesting way to work on speaking. It generates a double gain. It allows one to reflect on one's oral practice and to equip oneself with a language in which to express it.

35 56 35-56 Bruxelles De Boeck 1999 ALLAL L. DEPOVER C. NOËL B. L’évaluation des compétences et des processus cognitifs, modèles, pratiques et contextes Impliquer l’apprenant dans le processus d’évaluation: promesses et pièges de l’autoévaluation 25 1 60 25-60 10 2018 ALLAL L. Journal of writing research The co-regulation of writing activities in the classroom 332 4 349 332-349 27 2020 10.1080/0969594X.2019.1609411 ALLAL L. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice Assessment and the co-regulation of learning in the classroom OECF 241 264 241-264 OECD-CERI Publication 2005 ALLAL L. MOTTIER LOPEZ L. Formative Assessment – Improving Learning in Secondary Classrooms Formative assessment of learning: A review of publications in French 15 34 15-34 23 2010 http://dx.doi.org/10.5209/rev_DIDA.2011.v23.36308 ALRABADI E. Didáctica. Lengua y Literatura Quelle méthodologie faut-il adopter pour l’enseignement/apprentissage de l’oral ? [What methodology should be adopted for the teaching/learning of oral language?] 233 253 233-253 Paris: France Presses Universitaires de France 2011 BOURGEOIS É BOURGEOIS É Apprendre et faire apprendre La motivation à apprendre Paris Presses universitaires de France 1983 BRUNER J. S. Le développement de l’enfant: Savoir faire, savoir dire Harvard University Press 1996 BRUNER J. S. The culture of education Toulouse, France Octarès Éditions 2009 BUCHETON D. L’agir enseignant: des gestes professionnels ajustés 199 219 199-219 Namur, Belgique Presses universitaires de Namur 2017 CAPPEAU P. DE PIETRO J. F. FISHER C. GAGNON R. L’Oral aujourd’hui: perspectives didactiques La relation oral / écrit : un rocher de Sisyphe? 83 1 101 83-101 26 2002 https://doi.org/10.3406/reper.2002.2393 CELLIER M. DREYFUS M. Repères, Recherches en didactique du français langue maternelle Place et fonctions des écrits intermédiaires ou réflexifs dans des dispositifs didactiques pour travailler l'oral 2e éd Québec Didactica, CÉF 2015 CHARTRAND S. ÉMERY-BRUNEAU J. SÉNÉCHAL K. Caractéristiques de 50 genres pour développer les compétences langagières en franc ̧ais 109 125 109-125 19 2010 CHRISTIANAKIS M. Issues in Teacher Education Collaborative research and teacher education Université de Louvain Louvain-la-Neuve 2015 COLOGNESI S. Faire évoluer la compétence scripturale des élèves (Thèse de doctorat) 13 3 2021 10.1080/03004279.2021.1963802 COLOGNESI S. Education Listening comprehension is not innate to elementary school students: they need to be taught listening strategies 63 4 72 63-72 203 2018 https://doi.org/10.3917/lfa.203.0063 COLOGNESI S DESCHEPPER C. Le français aujourd'hui La relecture collaborative comme levier de réécriture et de soutien aux corrections des textes 1 1 18 1-18 21 2019 COLOGNESI S. DESCHEPPER C. Language & Literacy Les pratiques déclarées de l’enseignement et de l’évaluation de l’oral au primaire: qu’en est-il en Belgique francophone? 119 133 119-133 Toulouse, France Presses universitaires du midi 2020 COLOGNESI S. DESCHEPPER C. DEJAEGHER C. DUPONT P. L’enseignement de l’oral en contexte francophone: pratiques et outils de formation Itinéraires comme dispositif d’enseignement/apprentissage de l’oral. Quand les élèves du primaire apprennent à réaliser des reportages audiovisuels 177 199 177-199 Namur, Belgique Presses universitaires de Namur 2017 COLOGNESI S. DOLZ J. DE PIETRO J. F. FISHER C. GAGNON R. L’Oral aujourd’hui: perspectives didactiques Faire construire des scénarios pour développer les capacités orales des élèves du primaire 2020 10.1080/02671522.2020.1849376 COLOGNESI S. GOUIN J. A. A typology of learner profiles to anticipate and guide differentiation in primary classes 35 1 54 35-54 73 2020 COLOGNESI S. HANIN V. Recherches Quelles pratiques efficaces pour enseigner l’oral? Expérimentations dans 8 classes du primaire et suivi de 16 futurs enseignants 193 2 215 193-215 2016 2016 https://doi.org/10.4074/S0013754516002032 COLOGNESI S. LUCCHINI S. Enfance Mise à l'épreuve de deux dispositifs pour développer l'écriture en milieu scolaire 143 162 143-162 57 2018 https://doi.org/10.4000/reperes.1540 COLOGNESI S. LUCCHINI S. Repères Aider les élèves à améliorer leurs écrits: les effets d’un étayage spécifique sur la superstructure textuelle 1 25 1-25 20 2020 https://doi.org/10.17239/L1ESLL-2020.20.01.05 COLOGNESI S. NIWESE M. L1-Educational Studies in Language and Literature Do effective practices for teaching writing change students' relationship to writing? Exploratory study with students aged 10-12 years 459 5 470 459-470 12 2020b COLOGNESI S. PIRET C. DEMORSY S. BARBIER E. International Electronic Journal Of Elementary Education Teaching Writing—With or Without Metacognition?: An Exploratory Study of 11- to 12-Year-Old Students Writing A Book Review 1 15 1-15 67 2020a https://doi.org/10.1016/j.stueduc.2020.100917 COLOGNESI S. VASSART C. BLONDEAU B. COERTJENS L. Studies in Educational Evaluation Formative peer assessment to enhance primary school pupils’ oral skills: Comparison of written feedback without discussion or oral feedback during a discussion Paris Éditions Didier 2001 CONSEIL DE L’EUROPE Cadre européen commun de référence pour les langues: apprendre, enseigner, évaluer 279 299 279-299 Côte St-Luc Éditions Peisaj 2017 CÔTÉ I. PELLERIN M. DUMAIS C. BERGERON R. PELLERIN M. LAVOIE C. L’oral et son enseignement: pluralité des contextes linguistiques «Parlez! On vous écoute!»: Une recherche-action collaborative sur les pratiques de l’oral interactif en langue seconde 61-78 2 61-78 7 2021 DESCHEPPER C. E-JIREF Comment et pourquoi questionner les grilles d’évaluation de l’oral au cycle 5-8 ans? Description d’un dispositif de formation initiale et perspectives pour la recherche 726 3 752 726-752 41 2018 https://doi.org/10.4000/ripes.3266 DEPRIT A. VAN NIEUWENHOVEN C. Revue canadienne de l’éducation Comment les étudiants se préparent-ils aux stages. Ressources exploitées et choix stratégiques 1 2 26 1-26 37 2021 DEPRIT A. VAN NIEUWENHOVEN C. Revue internationale de pédagogie de l’enseignement supérieur Quand le stagiaire planifie… une question d’équilibre dans ses décisions 243 2 282 87 2017 https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654316687036 DIETRICHSON J. BØG M. FILGES T. KLINT JØRGENSEN A. M. Review of Educational Research Academic interventions for elementary and middle school students with low socioeconomic status: A systematic review and meta-analysis 609 4 617 609-617 28 2012 DOBBER M. AKKERMAN S. F. VERLOOP N. VERMUNT J. D. Teaching and Teacher Education Student teachers' collaborative research: small-scale research projects during teacher education 179 198 179-198 137-138 2008 https://doi.org/10.4000/pratiques.115 DOLZ J. GAGNON R. Pratiques Le genre du texte, un outil didactique pour développer le langage oral et écrit scripturale Genève, Suisse Université de Genève 2011 DOLZ J. GAGNON R. VUILLET Y. Production écrite et difficultés d’apprentissage Bruxelles, Belgique De Boeck 2001 DOLZ J. NOVERRAZ M. SCHNEUWLY B. S’exprimer en françai: séquences didactiques pour l’oral et l’écrit 23 37 23-37 9 1993 DOLZ J. PASQUIER A. BRONCKAERT J. P. L’acquisition des discours: Emergences d’une compétence ou apprentissage de capacités langagières diverses? 4ed Paris ESF: éditeur 1 2009 DOLZ J. SCHNEUWLY B. Pour un enseignement de l'oral - Initiation aux genres formels à l'école 10, article 2755 2019 https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.02755 DOUBLE K. S. BIRNEY D. P. Frontiers in Psychology Reactivity to measures of metacognition 481 509 481-509 32 2020 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-019-09510-3 DOUBLE K. S. MCGRANE J. A. HOPFENBECK T. N. Educational Psychology Review The impact of peer assessment on academic performance: A meta-analysis of control group studies 197 225 197-225 Québec Presses de l’Université du Québec 2010 DUMAIS C. HÉBERT M. LAFONTAINE L. Littératie et inclusion: outils et pratiques pédagogiques Évaluer ses pairs à l’oral: une pratique efficace pour tous les élèves 37 56 37-56 36 2016 http://dse.revues.org/1347 DUMAIS C. Les dossiers des sciences de l’éducation Proposition d’une typologie des objets d’enseignement/apprentissage de l’oral 151 176 151-176 Namur, Belgique Presses universitaires de Namur 2017 DUMAIS C. LAFONTAINE L. PHARAND J. DE PIETRO J. F. FISHER C. GAGNON R. L’Oral aujourd’hui: perspectives didactiques «J’enseigne et j’évalue l’oral» : Pratiques effectives au 3^e cycle du primaire 5 24 5-24 90 2016 DUMAIS C. MESSIER G. Enjeux L’atelier formatif: un modèle didactique pour enseigner l’oral 93 1 112 93-112 73 2020 DUMAIS C. SOUCY E. Repères. Revue de didactique et de pédagogie du français Des genres oraux du primaire qui favorisent l’oral spontané des élèves : résultats d’une recherche collaborative 115 2 128 115-128 31 2006 https://doi. org/10.1007/s10755-006-9012-x DUNBAR N. E. BROOKS C. F. KUBICKA-MILLER T. Innovative Higher Education Oral communication skills in higher education: Using a performance-based evaluation rubric to assess communication skills 32è colloque de l’ADMEE-Europe Casablanca 22-24 Janvier 2020 DUPONT P. Un dispositif innovant pour enseigner l’oral en intégrant sa dimension évaluative, le projet SEMO 109 132 109-132 53 2002 https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.53.100901.135153 ECCLES J. WIGFIELD A. Annual Review of Psychology Motivational beliefs, values, and goals 277 4 287 277-287 13 2008 10.1027/1016-9040.13.4.277 EFKLIDES A. European Psychologist Metacognition: Defining its facets and levels of functioning in relation to self-regulation and co-regulation 365 378 365-378 Paris CNRS 2007 FAYOL M. KAIL M. HICKMANN M. FAYOL M. Apprentissage des langues premiéres et secondes L’approche fonctionnelle de la production verbale écrite. Oú en sommes-nous? 694 4 702 694-702 92 2000 https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.92.4.694 FERRETTI R. P. MACARTHUR C. A. DOWDY N. S. Journal of Educational Psychology The effects of an elaborated goal on the persuasive writing of students with learning disabilities and their normally achieving peers 604 3 624 604–624 54 2019 GAGNÉ A. BERGER J. L. McGill Journal of Education / Revue des sciences de l'éducation de McGill Comment les conceptions de la planification des cours d’enseignants de la formation professionnelle evoluent-elles? Une analyse lexicale 11 42 11-42 Namur, Belgique Presses universitaires de Namur 2017 GAGNON R. DE PIETRO F. FICHER C. DE PIETRO J. F. FISHER C. GAGNON R. L’Oral aujourd’hui : perspectives didactiques Introduction 1 2021 13 1-13 1 2021 GAGNON R. MARTINET C. ForumLecture Stratégies d’apprentissage de la compréhension de textes oraux et écrits: en vue d’une clarification des concepts pour l’enseignement 193 212 193-212 103-104 1999 GARCIA-DEBANC C. Pratiques Evaluer l’oral 304-315 20 2010 GIELEN S. PEETERS E. DOCHY F. ONGHENA P. STRUYVEN K. Learning and Instruction Improving the effectiveness of peer feedback for learning 1015 6 1042 1015-1042 27 2014 https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-013-9495-7 GRAHAM S. CAPIZZI A. HARRIS K. R. HEBERT M. MURPHY P. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal Teaching writing to middle school students: A national survey Paris Presses universitaires de France 1994 GRÉSILLON A. Éléments de critique génétique 287 317 287–317 36 2021 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10212-020-00481-6 HANIN V. COLOGNESI S. VAN NIEUWENHOVEN C. Eur J Psychol Educ From perceived competence to emotion regulation: assessment of the effectiveness of an intervention among upper elementary students 81 1 112 81-112 77 2007 HATTIE J. TIMPERLEY H. Review of Educational Research The Power of Feedback 365 4 387 365–387 32 1981 HAYES J. R. FLOWER L. S. College, Composition and Communication A Cognitive Process Theory of Writing Proceedings of CECIL’s 5 Olomouc: Czech Republic 58 73 58-73 2016 HORVERAK M. O. Students’ and teachers’ perceptions on writing instruction inspired by genre-pedagogy and Systemic Functional Linguistics 17 1 29 17-29 12 2003 https://doi.org/10.1016/S1060-3743(02)00124-8 HYLAND K. Journal of Second Language Writing Genre-based pedagogies: A social response to process Bordeaux Presses Universitaires de Bordeaux 2007 JAUBERT M. Langue et construction de connaissances à l’école: un exemple en sciences 1 24 1-24 19 2019 doi.org/10.17239/L1ESLL-2019.19.03.02 KALDAHL A. G. L1- Educational Studies in Language and Literature Assessing oracy: Chasing the teachers’ unspoken oracy construct across disciplines in the landscape between policy and freedom 55 1 68 55–68 68 2017 doi.org/10.1177/0022487116676313 KANG H. Journal of Teacher Education Preservice Teachers’ Learning to Plan Intellectually Challenging Tasks Washington, DC CfBT Education Trust 2014 KO J. SAMMONS P. BAKKUM L. Effective teaching: A review of research and evidence 299 2 234 299-324 7 2015 doi.org/10.17239/jowr-2015.07.02.2 KOSTER M. TRIBUSHININA E. DE JONG P. F. VAN DEN BERGH H. Journal of Writing Research Teaching children to write: A meta-analysis of writing intervention research 37 4 46 37-46 195 2016 LAFONTAINE L. Le français aujourd’hui Pratiques d’enseignement de l’oral au primaire au Québec: des avancées dans le domaine de la littératie 47 1 66 47-66 33 2007 LAFONTAINE L. PRÉFONTAINE C. Revue des sciences de l’éducation Modèle didactique descriptif de la production orale en classe de francais langue première au secondaire 1 1 29 1-29 31 2008 doi.org/10.7202/1025011ar LAVEAULT D. MILES C. Mesure et évaluation en éducation Utilité des échelles descriptives et différences individuelles dans l’autoévaluation de l’écrit 259 274 259-274 Namur, Belgique Presses universitaires de Namur 2017 LAVOIE C. BOUCHARD E. DE PIETRO J. F. FISHER C. GAGNON R. L’Oral aujourd’hui: perspectives didactiques Formation universitaire à l’évaluation de l’oral: regard sur la capacité d’autoévaluation de futurs enseignants 101 116 101–116 33 2018 LEENKNECHT M. J. M. PRINS F. J. European Journal of Psychology of Education Formative peer assessment in primary school: The effects of involving pupils in setting assessment criteria on their appraisal and feedback style 87 1 117 87-117 26 2020 10.1080/13546783.2019.1577756 LERY SANTOS M. M. BONNEFON J. F. TRICOT A. Thinking and Reasoning Do learners declining to seek help conform to rational principles? Cordoba Universidade de Cordoba 2020 MATIAS R. B. CRISTOVAO V. L. L. LOUSADA E. G. Géneros textuales/discursivos y tecnologias digitales 471 4 493 471-493 23 2017 10.1080/13540602.2016.1211102 MAULANA R. HELMS-LORENZ M. VAN DE GRIFT W. Teachers and Teaching Validating a model of effective teaching behaviour of pre-service teachers Paris L’Harmattan 2016 MORINET C. Ce que l’écrit fait au sujet parlant 63 78 63-78 Villeneuve-d'Ascq Presses universitaires du Septentrion 2019 MORINET C. NIWESE M. LAFONT-TERRANOVA J. JAUBERT M. Écrire et faire écrire dans l’enseignement postobligatoire : Enjeux, modèles et pratiques innovantes Fonction du couple oral-écrit dans la littératie Villeneuve-d'Ascq Presses universitaires du Septentrion 2019 JAUBERT M. Écrire et faire écrire dans l’enseignement postobligatoire: Enjeux, modèles et pratiques innovantes Avis n°3 du groupe central [Central Group Opinion No. 3] http://www.pactedexcellence.be/index.php/documents-officiels/ 2017 PACTE POUR UN ENSEIGNEMENT D’EXCELLENCE Les cahiers pédagogiques http://www.cahierspedagogiques.com/Pourquoi-l-oral-doit-il-etre-enseigne 2020 PLANE S. Pourquoi l’oral doit-il être enseigné? 55 3 72 55-72 96 2002 PUREN C. Langues modernes Perspectives actionnelles et perspectives culturelles en didactique des langues-cultures: vers une perspective co-actionnelle-co-culturelle 131 149 131-149 Namur, Belgique Presses universitaires de Namur 2017 SÉNÉCHAL K. DE PIETRO J. F. FISHER C. GAGNON R. L’Oral aujourd’hui : perspectives didactiques Quels obstacles à la mise en œuvre de séquences didactiques destinées à l’enseignement de l’oral Belgique De Boeck 2019 SIMARD C. DUFAYS J. L. DOLZ J. GARCIA-DEBANC C. Didactique du français langue première 37 50 37-50 France Presses universitaires du midi 2020 SOUCY E. DUPONT P. L’enseignement de l’oral en contexte francophone: pratiques et outils de formation Les centres de littératie: un dispositif d’enseignement-apprentissage prometteur pour intégrer la lecture, l’écriture et l’oral en classe 1 4 12 1-12 28 2020 http://dx.doi.org/10.18162/fp.2020.683 STORDEUR M. F. COLOGNESI S. Formation et profession Transformer l’exposé oral classique en exposé oral enregistré au primaire: quelles modalités de travail de l’enseignant etquels effets pour les élèves? 95 121 95-121 Québec Editions Peisaj 2019 TREMBLAY O. TURGEON E. SÉNÉCHAL K. DUMAIS C. BERGERON R. Didactique de l’oral : de la recherche à la classe, de la classe à la recherche Les cercles d’auteurs, une démarche prometteuse pour un apprentissage intégré de l’oral au primaire 1-41 18 2018 doi.org/10.17239/L1ESLL- 2018.18.03.03 VAN WEIJEN D. JANSSEN T. L1-Educational Studies in Language and Literature High-quality writing instruction in Dutch primary education. A framework for national assessment 21 36 21-36 London Springer 2012 VEENMAN M. ZOHAR A. DORI Y. J. Contemporary Trends and Issues in Science Education Metacognition and Learning Metacognition in science education: Definitions, constituents, and their intricate relation with cognition 73 4 100 73-100 17 2015 VIOLA S. MESSIER G. DUMAIS C. MEUNIER H. Langage et littératie Dispositif de formation pour le développement de la compétence à l’oral de futurs enseignants dans un contexte d’approche-programme: quelles sont les pratiques déclarées efficaces? 2021 doi.org/10.1007/s11409-020-09258-0 VOSNIADOU S. DARMAWAN I LAWSON M. J. Metacognition Learning Beliefs about the self-regulation of learning predict cognitive and metacognitive strategies and academic performance in pre-service teachers 14 15 14-15 3 1997 WEGMULLER E. ALLAL L. LEX-EVAL Résonances Lexique d’évaluation dans le cadre de la scolarité obligatoire 1 3 37 1-37 43 2020 doi.org/10.7202/1083006ar WIERTZ C. VAN MOSNENCK S. GALAND B. COLOGNESIS. Mesure et évaluation en éducation Évaluer l’oral quand on est enseignant ou chercheur: points de discussion et prises de décision dans la coconception d’une grille critériée 1 23 1-23 19 2019 doi.org/10.17239/L1ESLL- 2019.19.01.15 WURTH J. G. R. TIGELAAR E. H. HULSHOF H. DE JONG J. C. ADMIRAALW. F. L1-Educational Studies in Language and Literature Key elements of L1-oral language teaching and learning in secondary education. A literature review 11 42 11-42 Namur, Belgique Presses universitaires de Namur 2017 GAGNON R. DE PIETRO F. FICHER C. DE PIETRO J. F. FISHER C. GAGNON F. L’Oral aujourd’hui: perspectives didactiques Introduction