Call for papers

Evaluation and autonomisation

Although evaluation is an old theme, oft-revisited, it takes on a new dimension when questioning its place in the LRC. While the long-term goal of LRCs is students’ language autonomy, it is also, in the shorter term, their learner autonomy (Germain & Netten, 2004: 58). The fundamental role that evaluation plays in the learning process is today a subject of consensus and scholars such as Little, Dam & Legenhausen (2017) go so far as to declare it “the hinge on which learner autonomy turns”.

However, the ways in which evaluation is construed in different teaching and learning contexts reveals contrasting realities and can, when imposed by the institution, go against the very principles of autonomy, from both an ideological and a formal point of view. To paraphrase Holec (1991: 45): learner autonomy implies actively taking charge of all the constituent elements of learning, from how it is defined, managed and carried out to how it is assessed.

Therefore, the effects of assessment practices on the learning, motivation and self-confidence of the learner can be counterproductive when such evaluation is exclusively summative (Musial et al., 2012). In contrast, it would seem that the implication of the learner in an assessment process with a strong formative dimension, through practices such as co-assessment or self-assessment, contributes to counteracting these effects (Huver & Springer, 2011).

Establishing such autonomy-supportive practices is nonetheless rare in both our societies and in our education systems. The challenge for this Congress is thus to identify such initiatives in language centres, to evaluate their relevance with regards to the objectives set by the educational institutions and the missions embraced by the professionals in the field and to give them a solid theoretical base.

Format of the Congress

In terms of organisation, the flipped classroom has inspired this Congress. It is hoped that delegates will be fully involved in the emergence of new knowledge. A single plenary will set the scene for the parallel ongoing workshops on the six themes defined below. A grand témoin will participate in each of the workshops and, as a group, the grands témoins will undertake to summarise the outcomes during the final morning of the Congress.

In order to move our reflection forward as a joint endeavour in each of these thematic areas, we propose that the greater part of participants’ contributions be shared in advance, enabling a maximum amount of time during the Congress to be consecrated to discussion and exchanges between participants. For this to succeed:

-        participants will be asked to submit long proposals, which will be made available online;

-        three 1.5 hour non-consecutive sessions will be scheduled for each workshop, ideally hosting 10 to 20 participants;

-        during each 1.5 hour session, three speakers will give a very short (10 to 15 minute) presentation of their practices, experiments or research, using a mind map, poster, concise handout, 2-3 diagrams or images, or any other succinct support;

-        the 45-60 minutes remaining in each session will be devoted to debate and discussions on the questions raised by the presentations.

Each grand témoin will attend one of the six three-session workshops for the duration of the Congress. Like all participants s/he will participate in the work of the delegates present. Saturday morning, the grands témoins will have the task of summarising the discussions, debates and progress made on the six themes, bringing critical light to bear, through their own theoretical postures and in dialogue with the rest of the participants.

Workshop themes

The main subject of the Congress will be examined through the prism of the following themes:

  • Co-evaluation: who and why?
  • Evaluation of teaching/learning centres or courses targeting autonomy
  • Self-assessment in language centres
  • Tools, evaluation and autonomy
  • Institutional evaluation and certification in an autonomy approach to learning
  • Games, gaming and evaluation

References

Albero, B., & Poteaux, N. (2010). Enjeux et dilemmes de l’autonomie : une expérience d’autoformation à l’université. Une étude de cas. Paris : Les Éditions de la MSH.

Germain, C., & Netten, J. (2004). Facteurs de développement de l’autonomie langagière en FLE / FLS. Alsic, 7 [en ligne]. https://alsic.revues.org/2280 (consulté le 12 novembre 2017).

Holec, H. (1991). Autonomie de l’apprenant : de l’enseignement à l’apprentissage. Éducation permanente, 107, 1-5.

Huver, E., & Springer, C. (2011). L’évaluation en langues. Nouveaux enjeux et perspectives. Didier : Paris.

Little, D., Dam, L., & Legenhausen, L. (2017). Language Learner Autonomy: Theory, Practice and Research. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.

Musial, M., Pradère, F., & Tricot, A. (2012). Comment concevoir un enseignement ? Bruxelles : De Boeck.

Poteaux, N. (2014). Les langues étrangères pour tous à l’université : regard sur une expérience (1991-2013). Les dossiers des sciences de l’éducation, 32, 17-32. DOI : 10.4000/dse.644
Online user: 1 RSS Feed