Volume 10 (2019) Issue 1, pp. 75-86
Abstract
The
present article draws on Kristeva's (1977) notion of the “subject
in process” to consider French second language (L2) writing. In
particular, Kristeva's "subject in process" is used to
underline the experiential dynamism unique to each “subject.” The
author argues that a heightened emphasis on linguistic,
psychological, and pedagogical processes in this lens can nurture
students as they learn to write in a language. Further, integrating
process in language writing is connected with development in identity
inherent in Kristeva's work. While there ought to be evidence of
support in the L2 French writing process, an examination of the
literature reveals little evidence, just two of nineteen studies,
formally integrating elements that highlight writing processes.
Despite this limitation, four practical considerations apparent in
Kristeva’s language-philosophy theoretical linguistics are offered
for language teaching.
Keywords:
Julia Kristeva, second language writing, French, language learning,
language teaching
Abstract
(Français)
Cet
article emploie l'idée du “sujet en procès” de Kristeva (1977)
pour envisager l’évaluation écrite française comme langue
étrangère. Plus précis, le “sujet en procès” s’emploie en
ce qui concerne le dynamisme expérientiel propre à chaque “sujet.”
L’auteur affirme que l'évaluation vue sous cet angle est une façon
efficace de soutenir les élèves de façon linguistique,
psychologique, et pédagogique dans le procès d’apprendre à
écrire dans une langue étrangère. En intégrant le procès
dans l'acquisition du langage, on répond au développement de
l'identité intrinsèque dans l'œuvre de Kristeva. Bien que les
mesures du procès
exister sans aucun doute dans cette espèce d'évaluation, des
recherches préliminaires suggèrent que la didactique des langues
étrangères néglige l'apprenant comme “sujet en procès,” et
que dans très peu d’études, deux sur dix-neuf, le procès
est intégré. En dépit de ces limitations, des recherches actuelles
offrent quatre considérations pratiques à l’enseignement des
langues étrangères, qui se rapportent à la philosophie
linguistique théorique de Kristeva.
Mots
clés:
Julia Kristeva, apprenant des langues étrangères, évaluation de
langage, enseignement de langues
1
Introduction
This
article explores Julia Kristeva’s (1977) sujet
en procès
as a theoretical lens for conceptualizing ‘process’ in second
language (L2) French writing. The term 'process' can be broadly
defined as “a series of actions or steps taken in order to achieve
a particular end” (Oxford dictionary (2019). In this analysis,
nineteen empirical studies in L2 French writing are examined in the
lens of Kristeva’s work. Although the majority of available
research in L2 French writing does not emphasize 'process'
per
se,
four methodological considerations in critique of the literature
offer practical ways that language teachers can integrate le
sujet en
procès
in
L2 writing. This examination includes studies in L2 French writing.
Research that did not take these criteria into consideration was
excluded from this examination. The range in L2 writing spans from
the early years through university levels (K-16).
2
Research Design
The
goal of this study is to contribute to the understanding of how and
in which ways Kristeva’s (1977) theoretical underpinnings of le
sujet en
procès
are evident in L2 French writing. In the synthesis and analysis of
empirical studies, the primary research question was: How do
different studies in L2 French writing incorporate aspects of
Kristeva’s
sujet en
procès?
Additional goals of this research were to examine (1) which practical
implications suggested in the literature might support the process
of L2 writing development in Kristeva’s theoretical lens, and (2)
how teachers in empirical studies account for individual variation
within that process.
Findings from this analysis offer four specific pedagogical
recommendations for teaching language writing. These suggestions may
have implications for language teaching and teacher education.
2.1
Methods
A
keyword search performed on April 25, 2018, using the database
Education Resources Information Center (ERIC) for the keywords “L2,”
“French,” “assessment,” and “written” and again with
“L2,” “French,” and “writing” identified thirty-one and
thirty-three peer-reviewed journal articles, respectively. The
examination of a total of sixty-four retrieved articles included
article titles, abstracts, keywords, and content to determine their
appropriateness for inclusion. From this process, it was found that
twenty-six articles met the inclusion criteria in both the written
and writing strands: fifteen from the former and eleven in the
latter. Between
searches, the removal of eight duplicated articles resulted in
eighteen studies. An article from previous research was added,
adjusting the total articles examined to nineteen. Articles were then
grouped into eight clusters and divided into three groups: (1)
technology-assisted writing (TA),
(2)
collaborative and self-assessment (C/SA), and (3) other (O),
indicating study abroad contexts, translation, and portfolio work in
L2 writing:
Study
|
Author(s)
|
Sample
(n=)
|
Level
|
Year
|
Group
|
1
|
Arens;
Jansen
|
4,257
|
9th
grade
|
2016
|
C/SA
|
2
|
Bissoonauth-Bedford;
Stace
|
24
|
University
|
2015
|
O
|
3
|
Caws
|
67
|
University
|
2006
|
TA
|
4
|
Chenoweth;
Ushida; Murday
|
354
|
University
|
2013
|
TA
|
5
|
Cohen;
Brooks-Carsen
|
39
|
University
|
2001
|
O
|
6
|
Dagenais;
Toohey; Fox; Singh
|
Ethnographic
|
6th
grade
|
2017
|
TA
|
7
|
Enjelvin
|
1
|
University
|
2009
|
TA
|
8
|
Gabaudan
|
3
|
University
|
2016
|
TA
|
9
|
Garrido-Iñigo;
Rodriguez-Moreno
|
108
|
University
|
2013
|
TA
|
10
|
Godfrey;
Treacy; Tarone
|
8
|
University
|
2014
|
O
|
11
|
Granfeldt;
Agren
|
40
|
Secondary
|
2014
|
TA
|
12
|
Nicol
|
94
|
University
|
2009
|
C/SA
|
13
|
Meara;
Rodgers; Jacobs
|
36
|
University
|
2000
|
O
|
14
|
Orprayoon
|
12
|
University
|
2014
|
C/SA
|
15
|
Paesani
|
15
|
University
|
2006
|
O
|
16
|
Pavis
|
29
|
University
|
1989
|
C/SA
|
17
|
Pellerin
|
16
|
Grades
1-4
|
2014
|
TA
|
18
|
Thouësny
|
14
|
University
|
2011
|
C/SA
|
19
|
Van
Reybroeck; Penneman; Vidick; Galand
|
24
|
University
|
2017
|
C/SA
|
Table
1: Descriptive Characteristics for Empirical Studies of L2 Written
French (n
= 19)
Legend:
T: Technology; C/SA: Collaborative/Self-Assessment; O: Other
(Portfolios, Translation, Study Abroad)
To
address the main research question, a graph depicting the three
categories – Technology (T) Collaborative/Self-Assessment (C/SA;),
and Other (Portfolios, Translation, Study Abroad) (O) - is presented
(Figure 1):
Figure
1: L2 Empirical Studies by Group (n
= 19)
Next,
an examination of French L2 empirical studies considered the
theoretical application of Kristeva’s sujet
en procès
to language teaching. One measure of process in this lens is the
implementation of a writing portfolio in Paesani’s (2006) study. A
second example incorporates grade correlations to student writing
progress for complexity, accuracy, and fluency in an online journal
project (Gabaudan 2016). Although evidence of the measurement of
process in L2 French writing is limited, four practical
recommendations in critique of the literature offer insight into ways
teachers can
support the process of L2 writing development in Kristeva’s lens:
- L2 writing should account for individual differences among students,
- the sociocultural context in which L2 writing takes place ought to be considered,
- consistency between subjective and objective grading of written assessments should be maintained, and
- clear definitions of writing achievement should be established.
3
Kristeva’s sujet
en procès
In
Julia Kristeva’s (1977) book Polylogue,
multiple meanings of signifying processes that appear in language,
discourse, linguistics, literature, and painting are analyzed. In her
chapter Le
sujet en procès,
Kristeva considers primarily Lacanian psychoanalytic theory in order
to relate this evolution of the subject to the evolution of language.
Embedded within Kristeva’s concept of the subject in process, and
by extension language, is a discussion of motion. In this sense,
existence of the subject can be seen as antithetical to a static
state. Kristeva
writes:
Dans
la machine des contradictions et des conflits sociaux, de production
et de classe, l'homme reste une unité intouchable, en conflit avec
d’autres, mais jamais en conflit à ‘lui-même’ et, dans ce
sens, il reste neutre; [...] mais jamais sujet en procès
correspondant au procès objectif. (Kristeva
1977: 60)
Here,
the subject
in process
can be seen as representative of multidimensionality in societies,
cultures, and dialogue. Therefore, in contrast with a view of
language writing as an isolated event, L2 writing can integrate the
subject
in process
with respect to social context, progress, ongoing feedback, and
engaging in dialogue with others in L2 practices. In this way,
adopting a view of students as subjects
in process
in L2 writing can simultaneously support the process of writing and
the continual motion and evolution of the “subjects” throughout
that process.
Within
the process of developing an identity incorporative of his or her L2
language, the student may feel the pull of a divided self (Kristeva
1977: 55). Although
the student is divided, he or she remains a subject of society which
“institue aussi la distinction signifiant / signifié dans laquelle
Lacan voit la détermination de ‘toute censure d'ordre social’”
(Kristeva 1977: 56). Kristeva's
psychoanalysis sets the sujet
unaire ('unary
subject')
in
motion, or en
procès,
and in this motion, the evaluation of the process of language
development can be applied. An L2 student as a sujet unaire perceives
a pull and a lack simultaneously throughout language development,
altering the student's original perceptions of language and, by
extension, one's self. In this sense, the L2 sujet
unaire
experiences a continual motion antithetical to a static state.
Further,
the motion of the subject in a Kristevean context argues against
invariability in language. By
extension, corporeal movement effectively demonstrates this fluidity:
Cette
labilité et cette mobilité des engrammes se montrent dans la
mobilité du corps – corps dansant, gesticulant, volume théâtral.
(Kristeva
1977: 80).
Tying
the struggle of finding meaning between motility and resistance,
Kristeva emphasizes struggle itself as an intrinsic feature of life
(Kristeva 1977: 86). Here, recognizing the struggle to develop fluid
meaning in language writing reflects this motility as well as dualism
in the nature of the process of language learning. In terms of a
practical implication of measuring motility, a teacher may implement
an area for essay drafts within student portfolios or incorporate a
separate section dedicated to journaling, documenting improvement
throughout the process. An example of this is evident in Paesani’s
(2006) study during which students prepared several written drafts
that were evaluated by peers, self-assessment, and instructor
feedback.
An
additional component of L2 assessment is its relationship with
heterogeneity. More specifically, studying an L2 integrates
sociocultural, educational, economic, historical, and psychological
factors, among others. Citing heterogeneity as an additional layer of
the subject in process, Kristeva perceives the process of identity as
a component to the subject in process:
S’identifier
au procès de l'identité signifiante, subjective, sociale,
s'identifier à une identité impossible, c'est précisément avoir
la pratique du procès, mettre en procès le sujet et ses stases,
faire de la sorte que les lois de la signifiance correspondent aux
lois objectives, naturelles, et sociales. (Kristeva
1977: 90)
Extending
this discussion, one might also consider Kristeva's psychoanalytic
work in the context of national identity. For Kristeva, the
undertaking of learning a second language is analogous to the
development of one's identity, highlighting the dangers of fixed
identities. Kristeva
calls upon Artaud to address the “irreplaceable experience” in an
argument against the initiation of surrealism: “Toute expérience
est résolument personnelle, et l'expérience d'un autre ne peut
servir hors lui” (Kristeva 1977: 101). To this point, measuring the
process on an individual level may provide a more meaningful context
to the student as he or she develops in the language.
Contrasted
with stasis, the development of one's self in the context of language
learning is an active process that may flourish with continual
nurturing. L2 assessment can be a source of stress and anxiety for L2
French students, whose limited experiences in the target language can
affect their ability to confidently navigate certain L2 tasks (Kusçu
2016, Aslim Yetis 2017).
Making syntactical and morphological errors is common for an L2
student, yet knowledge that such errors often occur does not
necessarily alleviate his stress. In the context of challenges to
developing proficiency in L2 writing, it can be a stressful
experience to know that certain errors, depending on a variety of
assessment factors, can have a dramatic impact on overall
performance. As a student, working to transmit meaning in L2
assessment also necessitates a metaphorical social space that fosters
understanding of errors and a respect for the experiences of the L2
student, both past and present.
Moreover,
L2 written work measuring process
relates to Kristeva's (1977) use of the Greek term chora
which
means ‘womb’ to help us interpret our own experience. Kristeva
draws upon Plato's theory of chora which “désigne un réceptacle
mobile du mélange, de contradiction et de mouvement, nécessaire au
fonctionnement de la nature” (Kristeva 1977: 57). For Kristeva, the
body becomes a mobile chora, “mutation cosmique et sociale, lieu
essentiel des opérations naturelles et sociales” (Kristeva 1977:
99). Linguistic
structures in Kristeva's writing are the arêtes
('edges')1
of
the process, and the body (chora) serves as receptacle for
pulsations, rhythms, and forces of experience and knowledge (Kristeva
1977: 97-99). Thereby, the interconnectedness of the body as chora to
natural and social operations cannot be solely limited to linguistic
function.
Atwell-Vasey
(1998) develops the use of the term chora
to
“help us imagine our own sensual receptacle of experience”
(Atwell-Vasey 1998: 11). In this sense, Kristeva's (1977) chora for
Atwell-Vasey presents a metaphor for the “nourishing placenta,
which binds together templates and patterns of language”
(Atwell-Vasey 1998: 11). Although Atwell-Vasey recognizes that the
metaphor of a placenta is not entirely interchangeable for language
experience, she presents a perceptive comparison:
Our
language experience is not a placenta, but thinking of language in
the position of one, helps us focus on how language surrounds and
fulfills us. (Atwell-Vasey 1988: 12).
Mapping
the metaphor of the placenta onto L2 learning, the immersed
experience of L2 learning can engage the student holistically. L2
student knowledge develops over time with experience; hypothesizing
language learning as unique to a specific area of knowledge
undermines the receptacle (student) as an aggregate entity.
Further,
the nurturing process of renewal can also be applied to the needs of
L2 students and the experiential L2 process.. One example of this may
feature a student who feels anxiety or fear surrounding potential
errors during an L2 writing assessment. Britzman & Pitt (2004)
discuss trauma in learning and the potential psychological and
pedagogical problems which this type of trauma can pose (Britzman &
Pitt 2004: 353). For example, misunderstandings in learning can be a
source of trauma such as “profound distress, hopelessness, and
helplessness made from the feelings of misunderstanding and being
misunderstood” (Britzman and Pitt 2004: 359). Here, addressing the
psychological process of L2 learning as a component of Kristeva's
semiotic chora, and thus related to the process of renewal, may
reassure L2 students as they grapple with pedagogical trauma.
4
Discussion and Pedagogical Recommendations
The
examination of the literature pointed to four specific areas that
failed to support the process of students’ development in writing
and may represent sources of pedagogical and psychological trauma
(Britzman & Pitt 2004). That is, improvement to the following
areas can sustain the evolution of the subject (Kristeva 1977) and
methodologically strengthen L2 writing practices. Moreover, the
existing body of literature (Clavel et al. 2016) supports this claim,
suggesting that teaching practices can have a measurable impact on
student achievement. Although outside the scope of this discussion,
the investigation of which types of teaching practices may be related
to student achievement (Olson, 2003) is also a consideration.
4.1
Accounting for Differences Among Students
Several
studies point to the limitations of L2 French writing that fail to
account for individual differences in ability among students. The
lack of attention to variation between students presented challenges
in certain studies (Caws 2006, Godfrey et al. 2014). For example,
Godfrey, Treacy, & Tarone (2014) examined four participants in
study-abroad programs and four in on-campus courses during the course
of one semester. A complicating factor in this study involved
evaluating writing across the two groups, as the levels of student
proficiency “differed from one another even before the beginning of
the semester” (Godfrey et al. 2014: 60). More specifically, the
study-abroad group consisted of three French majors, whereas the
domestic group only had one. In addition, the study-abroad group may
have benefited from heightened “access to resources, may have been
less likely to be first-generation college students, and may have
been more likely to have traveled abroad” (Godfrey et al. 2014:
60).
Furthermore, inattention to individual variation in ability can
affect the student’s relationship with the language and his
confidence as he navigates certain linguistic tasks. In Kristeva’s
(1977) view, these considerations alter the continual development of
the student as a sujet
unaire ('unary
subject') throughout the process of language learning.
4.2
Considering Sociocultural Context
A
second pedagogical concern evident in the literature is how
sociocultural context is taken into account when teaching students
how to write in second language courses. This relates to Kristeva’s
(1977) conceptualizations of multidimensionality, heterogeneity, and
the process of identity. Considering
additional context(s) in which writing takes place is a suggested
improvement in certain studies (Gabaudan 2016, Van Reybroeck et al.
2017). Recognizing that social context can take on diverse
interpretations, teaching practices might afford a particular
sensitivity to (a) inclusivity of gender, (dis)ability, student level
or age, and other social, environmental, and possibly virtual
factors, and (b) various interpretations of context as they relate to
the social setting(s) in which language writing occurs (e.g.
urbanicity, class size, and socioeconomic status, among others).
4.3
Consistency between Objective and Subjective Assessments
Another
implication supporting the development of the sujet
en procès
is how consistency is maintained across writing assessments. How
certain types of objective measurement tool(s) are implemented
alongside subjective teacher assessment and whether these tools
conflict with teacher recommendations are additional concerns. For
example, Granfeldt & Agren’s (2014) qualitative analyses
revealed relative agreement among teachers’ subjective assessment
of student work. Yet, when compared with an objective online
diagnostic tool (Direkt Profil), findings showed some discrepancies
between the objective tool and subjective teacher's analyses. This
suggests that when using an automated profile analysis to interpret
results, some insight may be valuable, yet a diagnostic “cannot
replace teacher's evaluation of strengths and weaknesses in learner
production and their constructive feedback to individual learners”
(Grandfeldt & Agren 2014: 303).
In
particular, this lack of consistency conflicts with the perpetual
motion of Kristeva’s (1977) semiotic chora and can also complicate
student understandings of development in writing.
4.4
Clear Definitions of Writing Achievement
Teachers’
incorporation of clear and consistent definitions of writing
achievement throughout coursework is paramount to student support.
The
lack of clear definitions of writing achievement (Arens & Jansen
2016, Dagenais et al. 2017, Gabaudan 2016) was evident in several
studies. For students, a lack of clarity may also represent forms of
pedagogical trauma and risks fractures in the process of renewal
(Kristeva 1977). For example, Granfeldt & Agren’s (2014) work
features not only a lack of uniformity into what exactly is being
measured, there is also the question of how it was being measured.
Otherwise put, “no special instructions about any particular
criteria preceded the teachers’ assessments” (Granfeldt &
Agren 2014: 288). This presents challenges to measurement and has
implications for validity, reliability, and attempts to draw
inferences from the data.
5
Conclusion
Julia
Kristeva’s (1977) sujet
en procès
serves as one example of how psychoanalytical-linguistic theory might
draw attention to the role of process
in
L2 writing assessment. Although examined studies in L2 French writing
varied in nature and type, an emphasis on the process
of L2 writing may serve as an additional pedagogical support to
students. Within the application of the subject
in process
to L2 written assessment, the perpetual motion of chora can provide
an emotional support addressing stress and potential trauma that may
arise in L2 writing. Although evidence of the measurement of process
is limited in available empirical studies, acknowledgment of the
process of L2 writing may enhance students’ learning experience.
Ultimately,
the ability to incorporate the subject in process into L2 written
assessment seems to support L2 students holistically. Dissimilar from
subjects in which one learns in his or her native language(s), L2
learning involves more than language skills: it can involve learning
about other ways of life and affect identity. Therefore, the process
of learning a language is entwined with multifaceted development,
which in Kristeva's (1977) theory exists in perpetual motion. An
elevated emphasis on process in L2 writing would not only assist the
L2 student, it may also be representative of a need to address
varying adaptations and developments in students' cultural
understandings and identity.
Acknowledgements
The
author would like to thank Professor Paula M. Salvio for her input
and guidance throughout this project. This research received no
funding or grants. Comments on a previous version of this article by
Professors Murray Monroe and Danièle Moore were highly appreciated.
References
Arens,
A. K., & Malte Jansen (2016). “Self-concepts in Reading,
Writing, Listening, and Speaking: A Multidimensional and Hierarchical
Structure and Its Generalizability Across Native and Foreign
Languages.” Journal
of Educational Psychology.
108.5: 646-664.
Aslim
Yetis, Veda (2107). “Sources of Writing Anxiety: A Study on French
Language Teaching Students.” International
Education Studies.
10.6: 72.
Atwell-Vasey,
Wendy (1998). Nourishing
Words: Bridging Private Reading and Public Teaching.
Albany, NY: State Univ. of New York Press.
Bissoonauth-Bedford,
Anu, & Ray Stace (2015). “Building a Writing Community Through
Learning of French.” Journal
of University Teaching and Learning Practice.
12.2.
Britzman,
Deborah P., & Alice J. Pitt (2004). “Pedagogy and Clinical
Knowledge: Some Psychoanalytic Observations on Losing and Refinding
Significance.” Jac
Ames.
24.2: 353-374.
Caputi,
M. (1996). “National Identity in Contemporary Theory.” Political
Psychology.
17.4: 683-694.
Caws,
Catherine (2006). “Assessing Group Interactions Online: Students’
Perspectives.” Journal
of Learning Design.
1.3: 19-28.
Chenoweth,
N. Ann, Eiko Ushida, & Kimmaree Murday (2013). “Student
Learning in Hybrid French and Spanish Courses: An Overview of
Language Online.” Calico
Journal.
24.1: 115-146.
Clavel,
José G., Francisco Javier G. Crespo, & Ildefonso Méndez (2016).
Are
Teacher Characteristics and Teaching Practices Associated with
Student Performance? Policy Brief No. 11.
International Association for the Evaluation of Educational
Achievement.
Cohen,
Andrew D., & Amanda Brooks-Carson (2001). “Research on Direct
Versus Translated Writing: Students’ Strategies and Their
Results.” Modern
Language Journal.
85.2: 169-188.
Dagenais,
Diane, Kelleen Toohey, Alexa B. Fox, & Angelpreet Singh (2017).
“Multilingual and Multimodal Composition at School: ScribJab
in Action.” Language
and Education.
31.3: 263-282.
Dolosic,
Haley N, Cindy Brantmeier, Michael Strube, & Mark C. Hogrebe
(2016). “Living Language: Self-Assessment, Oral Production, and
Domestic Immersion.” Foreign
Language Annals.
49.2: 302-316.
Enjelvin,
Geraldine D. (2009). “Teaching French to a Non‐sighted
Undergraduate: Adjusting Practices to Deliver Inclusive
Education.” Journal
of Further and Higher Education.
33.3: 265-279.
Gabaudan,
Odette (2016). “Too Soon to Fly the Coop? Online Journaling to
Support Students’ Learning During Their Erasmus Study
Visit.” Recall.
28.2: 123-146.
Garrido-Iñigo,
Paloma, & Francisco Rodríguez-Moreno (2015). “The Reality of
Virtual Worlds: Pros and Cons of Their Application to Foreign
Language Teaching.” Interactive
Learning Environments.
23.4: 453-470.
Godfrey,
LeeAnne, Corbin Treacy, & Elaine Tarone (2014). “Change in
French Second Language Writing in Study Abroad and Domestic
Contexts.” Foreign
Language Annals.
47.1: 48-65.
Gosetti,
Jennifer A. (1999). “Language and Subject in Heidegger and
Kristeva.” Philosophy
Today Michigan.
43: 76-87.
Granfeldt,
Jonas, & Malin Agren (2014). “SLA Developmental Stages and
Teachers’ Assessment of Written French: Exploring Direkt Profil As
a Diagnostic Assessment Tool.” Language
Testing.
31.3: 285-305.
Housen,
Alex, Folkert Kuiken, & Ineke Vedder (2012). Dimensions
of L2 Performance and Proficiency: Complexity, Accuracy and Fluency
in SLA.
Amsterdam: John Benjamins Pub. Co.
Kissau,
Scott, & Bob Algozzine (2017). “Effective Foreign Language
Teaching: Broadening the Concept of Content Knowledge.” Foreign
Language Annals.
50.1: 114-134.
Kristeva,
Julia (1977). Polylogue.
Paris: Seuil.
Kusçu,
Ertan (2016). “The Anxiety of Learning a Foreign Language That
Influences High School Students in Learning French As the Second
Foreign Language ‘the Sample of Deni̇zli̇’.” International
Journal of Languages’ Education.
1: 59.
Meara,
Paul, Catherine Rodgers, & Gabriel Jacobs (2000). “Vocabulary
and Neural Networks in the Computational Assessment of Texts Written
by Second-Language Learners.” System.
28.3: 345-354.
Myers,
Marie J. (July 2012). “New Trends in French Second Language (FSL)
Education in Ontario and their Impact on Teacher Education.”
IJONTE.
3.3: 15-24.
Nicol,
David (2009). “Assessment for Learner Self‐regulation:
Enhancing Achievement in the First Year Using Learning
Technologies.” Assessment
& Evaluation in Higher Education.
34.3: 335-352.
Olson,
Lynn (January 2003). The Great Divide. Education
Week.
22.17: 9-18.
Orprayoon,
Soudaya (2014). “Effects of Cooperative Learning on Learning
Achievement and Group Working Behavior of Junior Students in Modern
French Literature Course.” Journal
of Effective Teaching.
14.1: 80-98.
Paesani,
Kate (2006). “Developing Literacies - Exercices De Style:
Developing Multiple Competencies Through a Writing
Portfolio.” Foreign
Language Annals.
39.4: 618.
Pavis,
José (1989). “Involving the Foreign Language Learner in the
Learning Process: Self-Evaluation and the Learner's Diary.” Babel.
24.1: 20-30.
Pellerin,
Martine (2014). “Using Mobile Technologies with Young Language
Learners to Support and Promote Oral Language
Production.” International
Journal of Computer-Assisted Language Learning and Teaching.
4.4: 14-28.
Oxford
Dictionary (2019): “Process”
(https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/process;
16-06-2019)
Thouësny,
Sylvie (2011). “Dynamically Assessing Written Language: to What
Extent Do Learners of French Language Accept Mediation?” Second
language teaching and learning with technology: views of emergent
researchers.
Eds. Sylvie Thouësny and Linda Bradley. Dublin:
Research-publishing.net. 169-188.
Van
Reybroeck, Marie, Jessica Penneman, Charline Vidick, & Benoît
Galand (2017). “Progressive Treatment and Self-Assessment: Effects
on Students’ Automatisation of Grammatical Spelling and
Self-Efficacy Beliefs.” Reading
and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal.
30.9: 1965-1985.
Author:
Sheri
K. Dion
Ph.D.
Candidate
University
of New Hampshire
Department
of Education
86
Court St
Exeter
NH
USA 03833
Email:
sheridion@gmail.com
1 Kristeva
(1997) explains that linguistic structures, as edges of the process,
capture and immobilize it, rendering process
in some sense conditional upon linguistic expression.