Conclusion

In the preface, the authors introduced the research that has led to this book as resulting from a combination of social, political, didactic and pedagogic pressures. The industrialization of knowledge was seen as a challenge that went with the end of the prevailing amateurism in the design and development of online materials and environments. Irrespective of the forms they take, considering such environments as psycho-social constructs entailed the necessity to problematize the use of ICT for language learning purposes. On the one hand, this meant understanding the nature of ICT and distance as well as the nature of their relationships with the various components of the language learning situation. On the other hand, it meant providing suggestions for the design and development of soundly constructed environments. Such questioning therefore involved revisiting accepted theories in traditional language learning settings and reassessing the roles of the various actors, as well as making sure that no component would remain unnoticed. A need emerged for a comprehensive conceptual framework offering a better grasp of the complexity of the situation. Traditional analytical descriptions of language learning are based on typologies that help identify the actors and components involved in distance language learning but that do not necessarily take into account their dynamic nature. As a result, such descriptions tend to be prescriptive and often fail to reflect the changes brought about by innovations of all sorts (such as technological or pedagogic), by socio-organizational changes or by their own dynamic nature.

The ‘Context' Pole

Experimental evidence suggests that the context in which learning environments operate plays such a significant part that it becomes necessary to regard it as just another pole in the didactic ergonomics model. Indeed, as any of the other poles we have described so far, it imposes constraints upon the various actors of the teaching/learning situation and is made to evolve as a result of its interactions with the rest of the system. Several questions are therefore raised: what is exactly meant by ‘context’? How can it be defined? How can its evolution be understood when confronted to technological, pedagogic, or social innovations? In the first step, we will consider how to define context in a systemic and sociological perspective. In order to make the nature of this pole more explicit, we will resort to organizational sociology which will help us analyze the structural and functional aspects of the specific system formed by distance language learning environments.

The ‘Technology' Pole

Whether new or old, technologies are a recurring issue in the practice of university teachers and researchers. While they form an integral part of everyday life, they are considered as specific objects in the field of research and teaching. Although they are prized for their instrumental functions, their epistemic dimension remains largely ignored. Resorting to a technical device to optimize a research or a teaching activity or make it more comfortable seems operational; pondering over what this technical device modifies in the organization of the message and the tasks, as well as in the subject (teacher and learner)’s representations is often regarded a waste of time and efficiency. The energetic and material cost is then considered too high for the individual and the collectivity. Yet, if one easily disregards the changes brought about by the introduction of an artifact in educational interactions, the risk is high simply to reproduce the same thing indefinitely: a technically improved pedagogic model – sometimes at a high cost – but basically still the same1. (Albero, 2004, pp. 253-54)

Pedagogic Consequences

As seen in chapter 4, CLT proponents assumed that the best way to approach learning a second language was to provide the learners with a great quantity of authentic input and with opportunities to discuss and process the second language. It gradually became clear that it is not possible to specify what a learner will learn in linguistic terms and that compatibility with the cognitive processes involved in L2 acquisition had to be ensured. Task-based Language Teaching (TBLT) was one of the responses (see chapter 3). Prabhu (1987) suggested that content could be specified by holistic units of communication, i.e. tasks, and by pre-selection of linguistic items. This did not seem sufficient, as was seen in chapter 5, Long & Crookes (1991) emphasized the need for learners to attend to form consciously. Issues of cognitive demand placed on the learner by the complexity of tasks have raised the question of how to reduce the cognitive load the learner has to cope with. This involves linguistic difficulty, but also problems related to cultural schemata and task familiarity. This cognitive demand may make it difficult for the learner to deploy cognitive resources to notice inter- and intra-lingual gaps.

The ‘Language' Pole

In this chapter, as in the previous chapter, the authors face a ‘linguistic’ dilemma: in French there has long been an easy distinction between language (a human faculty), langue (a tongue/a code) and parole (speech/discourse) (see Saussure, 1972 edition). This distinction can be maintained in English on a conceptual level, but the choice of the words to express it does not necessarily reflect ordinary everyday ways of speaking. As a consequence it may seem to reflect a fine theoretical construction that has little relevance to basic language learning. Our assumption is that understanding the implications of this distinction is of paramount importance.

Designing a Distance Language Learning Environment

The principles introduced in chapter 8 represent a number of guidelines to operate the didactic ergonomics model in specific contexts, which the present chapter will now develop. The didactic ergonomics model outlines the complexity of the (distance) computer-mediated language learning situation affecting the three dimensions of mediation (pedagogic, technological, distance). This complexity makes it even more necessary to organize the reflection on the design and implementation of such environments. A methodology based on engineering seems to us the most appropriate one to operate our model. The first part of this chapter will introduce the four main phases of the engineering approach. It is sometimes perceived as too procedural and disincarnate. To alleviate this criticism, in the second part focusing on its implementation, we will suggest a complementary action-research-training program which can offer a reasoned and operational means to support the introduction of innovation in

Interactions and Distance Learning

In the second part of this book, we discussed the nature of the five poles on which our didactic ergonomics model rests, as well as the nature of the language learning process around which the system revolves. While, in some cases, we could identify sets of theories on which to construct acceptable representations, we were faced with a number of areas where uncertainty proves to be unavoidable. This in no way invalidates the model but points to the complexity inherent in any attempt to describe human behaviors and actions.

L2 Learning Processes

This chapter will deal with one of the processes which connects the poles of our model: learning, and in our case, learning L2 in distance settings. In this study of the different theories that contribute to our understanding of the domain, the specific points that seem of interest in the context of distance second language learning will be highlighted in order for us to be able to integrate these points into a coherent organization. According to Jordan (2004), there are over 60 theories describing Second Language Acquisition (SLA). These theories deal with the same phenomena that can be viewed as the crystals of a kaleidoscope. Each tilt of the kaleidoscope will lead to a different interpretation of how these phenomena can be organized or explained (Narcy, 1990). Some of these theories are ambitious and try and provide global answers, while others limit the scope of their study, but are not necessarily less interesting. Finally a whole body of results may come from less researched everyday classroom practices. This is how the chapter will be organized in the light of the specific demands of distance language learning. Our debt to the various researchers we quote is obvious and we hope we have not misquoted them. With Lamy and Hampel (2007), we agree that all theories can inform our position to distance-learning. Learning L2 is but one aspect of learning, and before going into how learning L2 is described, more general epistemological considerations need to be expressed. They will serve as guidelines to select the relevant crystals.

The ‘Teacher' Pole

The teacher is one of the poles of our model. As is often the case in complex systems, it is difficult to observe one of the poles in isolation, since there is constant interaction between them. Chapters on the language pole, the learner poles, as well as the reflection on the learning process have reduced our description of the teacher pole to what is directly relevant to the person.The reader can initially try and see how he or she would answer the questions and compare with what is described in the chapter. A synthetic table summarizing the content of the chapter will conclude the chapter, followed by a figure illustrating the place of the teacher in the cycle. Anticipating the figure and discussing how different the anticipation is from the position defended in the book may prove a worthwhile way of reading the following pages.

In Favor of a Model of Didactic Ergonomics

This first chapter will introduce the didactic ergonomics approach and present the related computer-mediated language learning model. We will first consider how to tackle the problem of describing reality in all its complexity, as originally developed by Edgar Morin (1990). The initial review of theories will contribute to a better understanding of the nature of complexity and will eventually lead us to advocate a multi-referenced approach to learning. We will then proceed to define the concept of didactic ergonomics (Bertin 2000, 2001). We will show how the original didactic ergonomics model we suggest is articulated with current CALL research and how it can help bridge the gap between theoretical description and actual practice in the field.