2015
DOI: 10.4000/alsic.2858
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Étude longitudinale d'un dispositif hybride d'apprentissage de l'anglais en milieu universitaire – Le point de vue des étudiants

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1

Citation Types

0
1
0

Year Published

2017
2017
2018
2018

Publication Types

Select...
2
1

Relationship

0
3

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 3 publications
(1 citation statement)
references
References 24 publications
0
1
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Previous studies on students' and teachers' representations (McAllister & Narcy-Combes, 2015;McAllister et al, 2012;Narcy-Combes & McAllister, 2011; on the development of accuracy, fluency, and complexity of written production between the beginning and the end of the programme (McAllister, 2013;McAllister & Belan, 2014) and on the students' use of the virtual resource center (McAllister, 2013;Starkey-Perret, McAllister, Belan, & Ngo, 2015) showed that although the programme is generally appreciated for the opportunities it generates for small-group interaction (McAllister et al, 2012;Starkey-Perret et al, 2012), students and teachers tend to prefer a PPP approach, claiming that TBLT does not leave sufficient room for FonF (Belan & Buck, 2012;McAllister, 2013). Questionnaire studies carried out with the students showed that the way 'grammar' is dealt with is the least satisfactory element of the programme and that there simply is not enough FonF (Belan & Buck, 2012).…”
Section: Student and Teacher Representationsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Previous studies on students' and teachers' representations (McAllister & Narcy-Combes, 2015;McAllister et al, 2012;Narcy-Combes & McAllister, 2011; on the development of accuracy, fluency, and complexity of written production between the beginning and the end of the programme (McAllister, 2013;McAllister & Belan, 2014) and on the students' use of the virtual resource center (McAllister, 2013;Starkey-Perret, McAllister, Belan, & Ngo, 2015) showed that although the programme is generally appreciated for the opportunities it generates for small-group interaction (McAllister et al, 2012;Starkey-Perret et al, 2012), students and teachers tend to prefer a PPP approach, claiming that TBLT does not leave sufficient room for FonF (Belan & Buck, 2012;McAllister, 2013). Questionnaire studies carried out with the students showed that the way 'grammar' is dealt with is the least satisfactory element of the programme and that there simply is not enough FonF (Belan & Buck, 2012).…”
Section: Student and Teacher Representationsmentioning
confidence: 99%