1. Action-oriented approach
and learner autonomy in
Tout va bien ! 1 and Latitudes 1
textbooks
A comparative analysis
By Raquel Pollo Gonzalez
Master 1 – Linguistic Studies
Area: French as Foreign Language (FFL) - 3 credits
Academic year: 2011 - 2012 –1st Exam session
Course Project: Methodological tendencies and methods' analysis
(Previously, Evolution of the methodological tendencies)
Teachers: Charlotte Dejean - Thircuir and Catherine Metton
Last Name: Pollo Gonzalez; First name: Raquel / Student number: 21033557

2. 2
Contents
1. Introduction: Choice of methods, topic and features to be compared.................................................2
2. Factual presentation of both textbooks. Some nuances, remarks, criticisms and subjective
observations. ...............................................................................................................................................3
3. Action-oriented approach and task concept in both textbooks. An analysis of its implementation:
Trial and error or success?..........................................................................................................................6
3.1. Learners as social actors and the class as a micro-society: Searching for traits of a collective
dimension in both textbooks.................................................................................................................11
4. Learner's self-assessment versus self-correction:..............................................................................13
5. Learner autonomy: Self-assessment and learning strategies.............................................................15
6. Conclusion.......................................................................................................................................165
7. Bibliography....................................................................................................................................187
1. Introduction: Choice of methods, topic and features to be compared.
The textbooks to be compared throughout this work are Tout va bien! 11
and Latitudes 12
. This
comparative analysis was the final assessment of one of the courses (Methodological tendencies and methods'
analysis) I took in Cuba in order to complete a Master 1 Distance Program of the Stendhal University
Grenoble III (France).
I have been a FFL teacher at the Alliance Française of Havana (Cuba) since 2005 and I have used
Tout va bien! 1 and 23
in my classes ever since. I therefore believe that I have appropriated this textbook by
using it and that I am in position to examine it from a theoretical point of view. It seemed interesting to me
to analyze it now taking a certain distance from the utilitarian vision that my daily professional practice may
have imbued me with.
Five years after introducing the method in Cuba and having as many followers as detractors, the
Alliance's directors decided to replace it with another textbook. Several possibilities were considered and
many textbooks tested. Some of them were presented to us by their publishers. Latitudes 1 was one of
them.
Interested as I was in action-oriented approach, a very important tendency in today's language
teaching, I decided to study its evolution through a comparative analysis of its implementation in these two
FFL textbooks. Tout va bien 1 was one of the first methods to adhere to it, while the more recently created
Latitudes 1 also claims to follow this approach and to respect CEFR's recommendations. In addition, being
1
H. Augé, M. Cañada Pujols, C. Marlhens, L. Martin, INTERNATIONAL Editions CLE, 2004.
2
Régine Mérieux, Yves Loiseau, DIDIER Editions, 2008.
3
Following a traineeship with one of the textbook's authors, Mrs. H. Augé

3. 3
captivated by learner's autonomy, I could not avoid observing the treatment of learner autonomy as an
intersection zone of the action-oriented approach.
My choice of research topic obeyed to a desire of both modestly contributing to the selection (or not)
of a new method for the Alliance Française of Havana while looking both textbooks in a theoretical light,
and of putting in practice the assets provided to me by this course4
. My main objective is to compare and
evaluate both method-textbooks as well as to identify the advocated methodological tendency.
2. Factual presentation of both textbooks.
Some nuances, remarks, criticisms and subjective observations.
Tout va bien! 1 is a French method for learners adult or in their late teens, of various sociocultural
and professional backgrounds. It was conceived to help learners-users reach the A2 level of the Common
European Framework of Reference for Languages (CEFRL) in a time lapse of nearly 120 hours of lessons.
In fact, the authors use the Framework as a basis to define the methodological and didactical linguistic
approach of the method: Tout va bien! 1 is placed "in the tendency of an action-oriented type of
approach"5
. The textbook's authors consider learners, following the Framework's recommendations, as
social actors compelled to accomplish tasks "suggested in the form of problems" (p.10). Autonomy
encouragement is one of the cornerstones of this method that conceives learning "as a content to be treated
in an explicit manner" (p.11).
Tout va bien! 1 consists of a Student's book and a Workbook (an audio CD is included in both), a
Teacher's Guide and a Portfolio. The contents of the Student's book are organized in 12 lessons (6 units,
each composed of 2 lessons), 6 assessments, 2 projects and a grammar memento. At the beginning of each
unit, both lessons' contents and aims are announced. Linguistic communicative skills -and all of the
contents- were included in Tout va bien! 1 "according to a deliberately traditional approach, i.e., by
organizing them into headings" (p. 10): "Situations" (communication), Grammaire, Lexique-Prononciation,
Civilisation, Compétences (Speaking "Parler" or Writing "Ecrire" activities), Bilan Langue (grammar, vocabulary
and pronunciation exercises).
Each lesson consists of 5 double pages. An introduction is made in each lesson: Two double pages
named Ouverture and Situation in lessons 1 and 2, and a double page (Situation) for the rest. Double pages
systematically include audio texts. I take the liberty of saying that the transition from a double page to the
next one proves sometimes difficult, and that the Teacher's guide does not elaborate sufficiently on this
matter. Its nature as a "constructed" text fades as one makes progress through the book and the degree of
4
Methodological tendencies and methods analysis

4. 4
difficulty increases. It is not the same with the degree of difficulty of the Listening exercises suggested for
each recording throughout the 6 units. A particular characteristic should be announced: The Audio texts,
very long and of a great discursive complexity, always have a background sound (sometimes a little
excessive in my opinion) that confers them authenticity and increases their difficulty. The authentic and
sometimes semi-authentic written texts appear particularly in the "Compétences" pages in order to develop
Reading skills, and to model written expression. The activities suggested in this heading require rather often
learner's ludic participation and therefore seek to involve the group considering different learning strategies
varying from an individual to another6
. The authors wanted to privilege two great communicative situation
types: "group communicative situations and communicative situations simulated within the group" (p.5) "all
of these activities are aimed at two learning modes: an individualized, even autonomous learning and group
learning"(p.9). It needs to be said that grammar is explained -as in most of the methods- using texts as
starting points, but it is also explicitly announced and presented by a "Grammaire" double page and considers
the Spanish-speaking community's characteristics as well. The "Lexique-Prononciation" page is set and
designed to be re-used during production activities as well as to fixate acquired knowledge, rather than as an
aid to understanding the texts used as starting points. The heading "Civilisation" introduces topics of general
culture "in order to provide learners with a global knowledge of France (…), Francophonie
(…)"(p.8).Teacher's Guide contains each unit's aims and contents, a proposal for the development of each
lesson, answers to the exercises presented in the Student's Book, transcriptions of the audio texts,
indications for the activities, some additional activities to enrich and to develop the lessons' contents
further, and additional information to assist teachers.
Latitudes 1 is also aimed at learners adult or in their late teens. This method is conceived for a 100 to
120 hours teaching-learning course. It is supposed to allow learners to succeed in the DELF A1 test while
overlapping their progression to the A2 level of CEFRL7
. Latitudes 1 also claims to subscribe to an action-
oriented approach: following the acquisition of communicative, linguistic and cultural know-hows, "learners
will have to carry out daily social actions inserted in a specific context"8
. This method also privileges
learners' implication in the learning process and puts discovery learning into practice. Likewise, Latitudes 1
privileges group activities to increase learner's motivation, to support the construction of a cooperative
learning as well as to optimize speaking time. It claims to be centered on learners and subscribes to an
intercultural approach.
5
Tout va bien! 1, Teacher's Guide, page 4.
6
"They use the body, the affectivity and the head". Tout va bien! 1, Teacher's guide, page 9.
7
The contents were determined on the basis of reference frames published in France by Didier: Niveau A1 pour le français (2007), Niveau A2
pour le français (2008).
8
Latitudes 1, Teacher's guide, page 3.

5. 5
Latitudes 1 consists of a Student's book including two audio CDs as well as a Workbook including an
audio CD. Audio texts are remarkably shorter than in Tout va bien! 1 (and may also be more numerous).
Latitudes 1 also includes a DVD containing video sequences (of short duration and varied nature) related to
each unit's topic that can be used optionally, a Teacher's guide, a companion website and complementary
material (self-correction exercises) for learners and teachers. Student's Book is structured in 4 modules of 3
units each and an "Outils" dossier at the end of the work. Each module is introduced by a first page, "Contrat
d'apprentissage", presenting the module's contents and aims in a functional way (contrary to Tout va bien! 1),
ended by a self-assessment page (as in Tout va bien 1). Each unit -they also have a recurring structure- is
composed of 5 double pages having a repetitive composition: there is always a functional introduction
(under an action-based title) depending on which linguistic contents are added.
Contents are integrated into units in terms of Listening and Reading, Speaking and Writing, phonetics
and sociocultural subjects. There is neither a Grammaire (grammar) nor a Lexique (vocabulary) heading or
section; linguistic knowledge is never explicitly announced, which is a remarkable departure from Tout va
bien 1. The first double page uses a text as a starting point which entries alternate audio (mostly as in Tout
va bien 1) and written texts, thus providing -as in Tout va bien 1- a context for occurrences of the language
aspects dealt with in the unit. It also contains Listening/Reading activities. The second double page is also
devoted to communication, even to the speech act -also using a text as a starting point-, and to the
operation rules (language and culture aspects) to be learned. On each of the third double pages, there is a
new starting point text (sometimes to listen, sometimes to read), on which characters will be the same
throughout the book (taking advantage of the emotional side of learning), followed by summary tables
useful for studying the functional content to learn. In these double pages, devoted to linguistic knowledge
but especially to know-how, work is proposed in a much contextualized way. In the fourth double page, the
preceding work is retaken by exercises and summary tables (grammar, vocabulary, speech acts). The
linguistic knowledge proposed each time in these doubles pages is also set and designed to be re-used
during production activities as well as to fixate the acquired knowledge, rather than as an aid to understand
the text used as a starting point. The suggested free production activity, always announced as the "final
task", would be equivalent to the "Compétences" production double page of Tout va bien 1. This "task" must
allow learners "to use all of the unit's contents in a pragmatic way in an identifiable context"9
. They are very
often asked to collaborate with each other. Phonetics is then proposed as a support to Speaking, rather than
as an aid to understand the text used as a starting point. Unlike Tout va bien 1, Latitudes 1 devotes a
double page (the fifth) to culture -which is present and systematically dealt with well beyond that, in the "Et
9
Latitudes 1, Teacher's Guide, page 24.

6. 6
vous?" heading- and interculturalism: Tracks and incentives to reflect and exchange on similarities and
differences in cultural identities encourage interaction between students. At the end of each module (every
three units), there is an "Autoévaluation" double page of self-correction exercises followed by a double page
of training exercises aimed at training learners to pass DELF (A1 and then A2).
In Latitudes 1 there are considerably less grammar explanations but much more exercises and
activities, therefore a better systematization of contents (not just grammatical ones). Activities and exercises
form a more logical sequence than in Tout va bien 1 and they are much more in context. However there are
less free production activities in Latitudes 1.
3. Action-oriented approach and task concept in both textbooks.
An analysis of its implementation: Trial and error or success?
I will now focus my comparison of these two textbooks on the implementation (or not) of the action-
oriented approach, and more particularly on the assimilation of the task concept. Action-oriented approach,
associated to the concept of a not-just-linguistic task to accomplish in society was born in 2001, with the
first issue of the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages (from now on CEFRL). This
new teaching paradigm is based on action because it regards language learners as social actors having tasks
to accomplish in society. Action-oriented approach moves away -even though it cannot be said that it
entirely departs- from communicative approach (a preceding methodological tendency), from its focus on
language, from its class concept to the profit of group concept, and from the simulation method to the
profit of real communication and well justified interaction.
But "to act together, in order to act in society implies the creation or the modification of learning
tasks, until now rather focused on communication"10
. It is now a matter of mobilizing one or more subject's
skills "in order to achieve a determinate result."11
Following this idea, the first aim of any language task will
be extra-linguistic since it brings learners not just to communicate with each other but also to interact. "A
task is any deliberate action that an individual considers necessary to obtain a concrete result related to the
resolution of a problem, the accomplishment of an obligation or the achievement of a goal"12
. In other
words, a task it is a "contextualized activity": a situation that any of us is likely to meet (…) in daily life
(…). This activity posits a problem (…). This activity is finalized: it has a goal, a finality (…). This activity
is complex and forces participants to convene to different kinds of knowledge, to make calculations,
10
"Agir d’usage et agir d’apprentissage en didactiques des langues-cultures étrangères : enjeux conceptuels, évolution historique et
construction d’une nouvelle perspective actionnelle ". PhD Thesis of Émilie Perrichon (October 2008).
11
Common European Frame of Reference, Didier, Paris, 2005.
12
CEFRL, translated from the Spanish version.

7. 7
everything through an appropriate process (…).This activity must have a result (…) "13
, leave a trace.
To compare these two textbooks, I will use as criteria the elements showing the more or less obvious
and more or less successful transition from communicative activity to action-based activity: Contents'
introduction, suggested class exercises and, later, participation configuration.
a) Contents introduction: introduction by communication or action?
An introduction is the element by which a teacher or textbook chooses to begin a teaching sequence,
to divide contents, to approach a topic. The "introduction" constitutes "the principle of coherence
connecting the various heterogeneous parts of its object of teaching"14
.
Throughout history, there have been many types of introductions, used to divide and connect FFL
teaching-learning process. Introductions were selected according to each stage of teaching tendencies
evolution: The introduction through grammar -traditional methodology-, introduction through vocabulary -
direct methodology-, introduction trough culture -active methodology-, introduction through
communication -audio-visual/communicative methodology-, introduction through action -action-oriented
methodology/approach15
-. Let us analyze the transition towards the action-oriented approach method in
Tout va bien 1 and Latitudes 1 by the suggested introduction types.
13
Denyer, Monique, La perspective actionnelle définie par le CECR et ses répercussions dans l’enseignement des langues.
14
Christian Puren, Domaines de la didactique des langues-cultures. Entrées libres. Published in the Les Cahiers
pédagogiques review, n. 437, November 2005, pp41 ‐ 44 (Paris: CRAP).
15
Idem. See summary table of Historical Evolution of Entries in Foreign Culture‐Languages Teaching.

8. 8
Comparison
elements
Tout va bien 1 Latitudes 1
Table of
contents:
-contents
-titles
Too briefly presented in a very traditional
structure: Unit's title, title of the
communicative situations used as starting
points. The most significant headings
concerning linguistic knowledge are
Grammaire, Lexique-Prononciation, Culture, and
finally Compétences. One could think
knowledge is there, and that to acquire it,
one only needs to read/consult the
contents in a linear way.
Unit's titles are of the communicative type.
They make reference whether to
places/spaces which refer to
communicative situations, or they allude to
grammar concepts that it will be necessary
to learn in order to communicate. One can
also observe, in certain lessons, a culture
introduction. The introduction by action is
non-existent in this method, except in the
last didactic unit (Lesson 11).
The most significant and strongly
connected headings would be
Communication (communicative situations
and speech acts) and, side by side,
Grammaire.
Neither in the Table of contents nor in the
Contents Summary, is there a reference to
self-assessment or metacognitive sections
proposed in some lessons.
Already called "Learning path", its
esthetic design and the arrangement of
contents make one think of learning as a
process/a project to prepare and on
which to involve oneself, throughout the
way.
Modules' titles refer to communicative
situations and needs (of information) on
which to act. Units' titles always refer to
speech acts.
The most significant headings would
be Objectifs de communication and then
Tâches, (tasks) that learners will be able
to accomplish, having carried out
actions: Listening/Speaking activities as
well as Reading and Writing activities.
Linguistic knowledge is proposed as
some kind of toolbox to support
learners with vocabulary, grammar, and
speech acts, all combined.
Self-assessment and DELF training
sections are explicitly highlighted.

9. 9
Didactical
unit16
Starting
points and
sequence of
contents
Units are divided into lessons, introduced
by a dialogue (which is inherent to
communication approach) that gives the
lesson its title. Harmony or coherence of
the didactical unit is not ensured by this
dialogue that is no longer the thematic
axis of language exercises, neither of
production activities, nor of projects.
Furthermore, grammar explanations are
not related neither to the topic
approached in the lesson, nor to the
communicative situation which was used
as an introduction.
Unlike Latitudes 1, linguistic knowledge
is clearly stated and proposed separately.
It is not shown as means but as an aim,
as it is inherent to communicative
activity.
Presented by a "Contract of
apprenticeship" where contents are
displayed in a functional way. While
reading, learners establish a kind of
compromise and commit themselves
"Pour" (to) communicate in stated
situations: "j’apprends…" (I learn)
sociolinguistic knowledge and "Je prends
des cours, me présente, participe à…" (I
take lessons, I introduce myself, I
participate in…), and finally "j’agis" (I
act).
Though contents are presented in a
more functional way and units have a
less communicative approach title, the
introduction is almost always made by
an audio text (as in Tout va bien 1). In
most cases it is a dialogue, from which
other micro-dialogues containing
linguistic knowledge are derived.
Contents are integrated in terms of
Listening/Reading and
Speaking/Writing, phonetics and
sociocultural. Linguistic knowledge is
never presented as such but as know-
how to acquire17
.
16
"Didactical units correspond to the regrouping of various contents (…). They are built upon learning aims (…) ". : Methodological tendencies
and methods analysis, Course booklet, page 78
17
Example: "Speak about projects" for conceptualization of Immediate Future Tense, the pronoun on and revision of Present Tense; "Speak
of past actions" to conceptualize Composed Past Tense and articles.

10. 10
b) Suggested class exercises.
Exercises, activities, tasks and projects: Learning to do versus Acting to learn
Exercises: "any activity which aims at acquisition, installation and autonomy of a resource, (…) even if it is
ludic, (…) control of morphology"18
Completely focused on form and being used as models in the two analyzed textbooks, they are much
more contextualized and varied in Latitudes 1 and better integrated into the unit's set of themes. As with
Tout va bien 1, grammar, vocabulary and pronunciation exercises are always lacunar and intended to fixate
structures and to being re-used at the time of production activities. In Latitudes 1, exercises are proposed in
order to integrate linguistic knowledge assets, and also to act as an aid to understand audio texts and to the
transition from an audio document to another. In fact, there are too many suggested vocabulary or
grammar exercises for an audio text.
Activities: "Do as if you were… ". Vestiges of communicative activity.
"Activities bring learners to handle and use the foreign language, they are recognizable through the means
of instructions and there is a use of language for communicative ends"19
.
The activities suggested in the two analyzed textbooks concern mainly Reading and Listening, as well
as Speaking and Writing. They end on the moment in which the effectiveness of the communication act is
verified. Most of the communicative activities consist on simulation or re-employment of structures
"learned"/listened in the dialogues. The required exchanges have no interaction justification: Learners really
do not need one another to interact. They could sometimes do short monologues in front of each other
instead of the dialogues they are requested to do.
The progression of resources, exercises and activities is better established in Latitudes 1. However,
neither in Latitudes 1 nor in Tout va bien 1 is there any activity to do before or after the communication act
(for example, Speaking or Writing sections "Parler" and "Écrire"), which is typical of a communicative skill.
Even when instructions demand to post the activity's outcome on the classroom's wall, there is no post-
communicative treatment of the information (inherent to the informational skill that, according to CEFR,
learners-social actors should acquire): One is not asked to complete, enrich, or update this "newly produced
information". This interruption of activities, once noticed the effectiveness of communication, prevents
learners from self-involvement in the assessment of the produced texts, which also contradicts the
18
Denyer, Monique, La perspective actionnelle définie par le CECR et ses répercussions dans l’enseignement des langues.
19
Vetter, Ana; Training course for FFL teachers, Besancon CLA, 2007.

11. 11
autonomy intentions declared by the authors of both textbooks.
Tasks and Projects: "You are therefore you do!"
"The task becomes an activity that is not only probable from a communicational point of view, but also
justified from an interactional point of view within the community where it is held ". Bouchard (1985).
"A task's design requires considering six parameters: Aims, starting data, activities that learners will be
brought to do, teacher's and learners' respective roles, and finally the device ". Nunan (1991).
"Furstenberg (1997) assigns to the task a double role: That of facilitating exploration and allowing the
construction of meaning by the user and that of assessing what will be understood and retained"20
One cannot speak about the concept of "task " in the meaning advocated by the CEFR, because all
the activities suggested in both analyzed methods aim at simple communication between learners in a
simulated situation, preparing them for exchanges in a French-speaking environment (in my opinion in a
rather French one), as advocated by communicative methodology. In neither of these two textbooks
learners accomplish the creation of a new product, and almost never see a trace of their interaction's results;
the fact of posting any written production on the classroom's wall, to never make use of this paper
afterwards, does not transform an activity into a task. It would be necessary to mention as an exception,
even though instructions are not very clear or elaborate, the "Grand Reporter" Task, Unit 9 - Module 3 of
Latitudes 1, and the "Écrire" activity, page 25 of Tout va bien 1.
Overall in these two textbooks learners are not brought to share information or their know-how in an
equitable way to arrive to common solution. One could mention as an exception "Grand Reporter",
"Bienvenue!", Unit 4 - Module 2, and "Voyages ", Unit 12-Module 4, all three of Latitudes 1.
Tout va bien 1 proposes three sections called "Projets". Even in these sections the collective
dimension of work to be done is not clear. Individual connotation appears already in the instructions and
work to be done by small groups never comes to involve all the class-group. The small teams created
because activities and projects' instructions demand so, never have a real need to interact among
themselves: There is neither a data difference between teammates or subgroups, nor a distribution of
subtasks/work to be done so that learners have half of the information requested to achieve the whole task
and need of other's work / information to achieve their own part of the task.
3.1. Learners as social actors and the class as a micro-society.
Searching for traits of a collective dimension in both methods
20
Bouchard (1985), Nunan (1991), in F. Mangenot, Quelles tâches dans ou avec les produits multimédias ?

12. 12
"In the light of this evolution, the targeted goal is social co-action, i.e. the finalized and joint action by
means of learning a language within a given social framework, (…)." In today's world, the learner is also a
social actor that is no longer a person who just cohabits with foreigners but who acts in society, i.e. together
with others. It is then by acting and working together that common representations are built.
The most significant thing for action-oriented approach is thus no longer simple communication ("as
aim to be achieved and privileged means to achieve this goal"21
) between learners (dyads), but the formation
of social actors within the micro-society that the class would be. The aim is no other than to teach social
actors not just to communicate with one another but to act as a group in a society. These tasks contain a
deep collective dimension. Let us see if this collective dimension is present in both analyzed methods even
if, as we already saw, the "task" concept advocated by the CEFR is not well integrated in any of the two
analyzed textbooks.
Tout va bien 1: Speaking activities, localized in the "Parler" section, are conceived (already in the
instructions) for pairs or triads if else. The Speaking activities involving all the class are, as it is typical of the
communicative method, very rare. Even in the three sections devoted to projects development, the
collective dimension of work to be done is not clear. As we have already seen, the individual connotation
appears already in the instructions and work to be made by small groups never comes to involve the whole
class-group. Small teams created because instructions demand so, never need to interact with each other.
Tout va bien 1's collective dimension is sometimes assured and some other times favored by the
"pooling", suggested at the end of almost every language exercises and Reading/Listening activities. In the
pooling of Speaking/Writing activities, systematically indicated in the Teacher's guide, each team shares
with the others what each one of them did on their own.
Latitudes 1: Latitudes 1's foreword could make one think that the "suggested actions of
communications are consistent with a clear social context". The authors say, indeed, in the Teacher's guide
that "By working in groups, learners can confront their ideas with those of the other learners'"22
.These
assertions are not obviously reflected in all of the method's activities. Unlike Tout va bien 1, the
instructions of the exercises and of the activities concerning understanding, contents fixation, and even
Writing neither encourage learners to compare their answers to those of their colleagues, nor "to build their
learning and conceptualize the language's system with the others "(p.4) as said in the Guide. It is only in
certain Speaking activities, and in a restricted number of Listening exercises that group's (pairs) work is
21
Christian Puren, Formes pratiques de combinaison entre Perspective actionnelle et approche communicative : analyse
comparative des trois manuels. Article published on APLV's website, 2008.
22
Latitudes 1, Teacher's guide, page 3

13. 13
explicitly required from learners, this invitation having eminently communicative ends. Example: "repeat by
groups of two", "by groups of two, represent the situation", "complete, then act out the dialogues" "(…) act
out the same dialogue with your neighbor", "imagine and represent the scene ", "form pairs".
Contradictorily, in most of the activities called "tasks" in this method, groups' or pairs' work is not
explicitly instructed. The employment of "you" and the way instructions are written could make one think
of a completely individual work, of a basically individual work with the specific assistance of one fellow
student, or of an initially individual and then confronted work. Example: "You will work six months in
Canada. (…)", "You go to the Alliance Française to take a Cooking course. (…)", "You are in a café and
you meet some persons. In pairs, introduce yourself quickly (…)", "Ask your neighbor about", "Work with
your neighbor. Describe a town of your area." There is only one instruction in Latitudes 1 that involves the
whole class. In fact, it forces teachers to carefully organize the development to avoid chaos and to fairly
distribute the speaking turns: "Discuss in class: Which style do you prefer, Anne's or Pauline's? Why?"
4. Learner's self-assessment versus self-correction:
From nonfactual intention to its reach
Before analyzing the place granted to self-assessment in these two methods, I would like to establish a
basis, a definition to be used as a reference for the comparison. According to the Dictionnaire de didactique du
français langue étrangère et seconde (p. 30), "self-assessment is an assessment undertaken by the one that learns;
that is to say, an assessment in which learners select the field, based on the learning aims that they really set
for themselves, modes (…) and finality". "It is an internal and thus not certifying assessment that allows
learners on one hand, to appreciate their results in terms of knowledge acquisition and their learning efforts
and, on the other, to look on learning with a critic's eye (…)". Self-correction, on its part, "is learners'
undertaking of the process of improve and remediate their work based on their own assessment or that of
the teacher"(p.29).
The authors of Latitudes 1 declare that: "Self-correction is privileged in the use of the Workbook
containing the answers to all of the activities and the audio-documents transcriptions"23
. It is only possible
to do in the Student's book by means of transcriptions and of the answers to the 4 proposed "Self-
assessments", the remainder of the Listening/Reading activities and of the language/vocabulary exercises
are to be corrected by the teacher. In this method "three types of assessment coexist": "After each unit, a
test makes it possible for the teacher to verify the acquisition of knowledge. This test is at the end of the
Teacher's guide and can be photocopied. (…) The teacher is provided with the answers to each test in this
very Teacher's guide"(p. 4). It would be therefore an individual assessment that could be formative or
23
Latitudes 1, Teacher's guide, page 3

14. 14
summative (according to decision of the teacher or the institution) but that does not constitute, in any case,
a self-assessment because the test was conceived by the teacher. Then, there is "a DELF exams training
(…). Learners (…) can thus assess their communicative capacities". This assessment makes it possible for
learners to grade themselves in each skill proposed by the CEFRL. However, the evaluation grids and
answers are not accessible to learners because they only appear in the Teacher's guide. "After each module,
a self-assessment page proposes short activities specifically targeted on communicative skills. After each
unit, learners can know their results in quantitative terms and grade themselves in their learning."
Tout va bien 1 proposes several self-assessment tools. First of all, there are many of them in the
Portfolio, a self-assessment tool inspired by that of the CEFR. "This small personalized booklet allows
students to follow their progression in each communicative skill in an active manner". It thus meets three
different aims. Initially, it proposes a Linguistic Biography, a kind of initial assessment which is supposed to
make students conscious of the learning aims, of their cultural context, and of their linguistic biography and
their classmates. Secondly, there are three formative assessments concerning know-how, where learners can
"take stock" on the linguistic skills that they must have acquired. They are adapted self-assessment grids
inspired by the skills descriptors of the CEFR. Lastly, Tout va bien 1's Portfolio proposes a collective
summative assessment, made up of six Bilan Communications, which are articulated with Student's book
because, even if the test is in the Portfolio, it is also shown there at the end of a section devoted to linguistic
contents fixation: the Bilan Langue.
Moreover, the authors of this method place themselves in the co-assessment paradigm. They consider
it "more attractive than individual assessment and often easier to do with beginners"24
. That is also obvious
throughout the method, each time the Teacher's guide systematically indicates to pool (after production
activities) and each time Student's Book's instructions demand learners to compare their results with those
of their classmates, before the collective pooling. In the same manner, this method provides learners with
grids to (systematically) assess classmates' productions, out of the context of an exam or an assessment
made by the teacher.
Both methods thus claim to grant a place to self-assessment, but Tout va bien 1 is the one that
provides real tools for learners to be able to assess themselves on their own. The latter method offers
learners a true possibility to undertake their learning and their progression assessment, while guiding,
accompanying and especially teaching them how to do it.
24
Tout va bien 1, Teacher's Guide, page 11

15. 15
5. Learner autonomy: Self-assessment and learning strategies.
Before plunging into the observation of learner autonomy strategies/tools set up by these two
methods, I would like to start with a conceptualization of Autonomy. "The concept of autonomy is opposed
to those of dependence and constraint, according to which the individual is deprived of his freedom or
obeying another law than his; "Autonomy is possible not in absolute but in relational and relative terms"
(Morin, 1999, p.145)"25
.
Both methods analyzed throughout this work seem to grant importance to the development of
learner autonomy in the sense which interests us more: "learner's capacity to undertake learning" (J. P.Cuq,
2003, p. 31). The one method that grants a very particular importance in its presentation discourse and all of
its materials is Tout va bien 1 that offers activities making learners think about their development of
learning strategies (metacognitive activity). This methodological aid teaches them to observe/know their
learning profiles, gives them tips, and finally teaches them how to learn thus making them autonomous. It is
in the relatively systematic treatment of learning strategies (Section "Réfléchissons!") and of self-assessment
where Tout va bien 1 grants the development of learner's autonomy a much more significant place than
Latitudes 1 and other methods, without losing sight of the concepts of group and collective dimension. Let
us see some examples: "How to more easily memorize a situation? (…), comment with your neighbors",
"Think of the new words of this lesson. What do you do to memorize them? (…)", "What do you do to
understand a long and complex dialogue overall?", "Since Lesson 1, you have performed many
representations. Which is your strategy?", "How do you proceed when you improvise a dialogue?" This
section, dealing with learning contents in an explicit manner, allows learners to set up a metacognitive
control of their own skills and strategies, which makes one think of the forecast "time to unfold progress"
advocated by the CEFR (p. 132).
In addition, both methods suggest actions for students to assess themselves with a partial
accompaniment of the teacher. Accompaniment which is even more discrete in Tout va bien 1. The Portfolio
proposed by Tout va bien 1 constitutes a self-assessment tool allowing more learning and assessment
autonomy than Latitudes 1's four "Self-assessments". Besides, Tout va bien 1 offers a tool for qualitative
co-assessment (Student's book p. 56), it acts as a grid "to learn how to assess other student's Speaking" in
terms of pragmatic and linguistic components. This allows learners to define their aims and teaches them to
assess their assets.
Moreover, Tout va bien 1 promotes other reflexive practices "that clarify and mirror the individual
25
Pillonel, M., Rouiller, J, "Faire appel à l’auto-évaluation pour développer l’autonomie de l’apprenant"

16. 16
functioning of each one, (…)"26
, in the Grammaire heading. Contents' presentation stresses similarities
between Romance languages and takes the former grammatical learning assets as a basis. Grammar elements
are always accompanied by a reflection making learners deduce grammatical rules, for example: "Observe
the following verbs. Which ones end with…?" "Observe the following questions. What do you notice?"
"Do possessive adjectives always have different forms for masculine and feminine?"
"Latitudes 1's approach aims at directing learners towards autonomy while making them responsible
and conscious of their learning process."(Student's book, p. 2) However, this intention to make learners
autonomous and conscious is neither factual nor obvious anywhere in the method, and remains attached,
even in the book's foreword, to the possibilities of self-correction by means of the Workbook, and to the
possibilities of accomplishing "tasks" that learners acting in groups will have. "Through the task, students
become effectively active and work acquires meaning for them. The task favors their personal engagement
to learn"27
, though, as it has already been said, the concept of "task" advocated by the CEFR is not well
integrated in this method, and the activities suggested under the label "tasks" are not really tasks.
6. Conclusion
Though the authors of the two textbooks analyzed claim in the foreword of Teacher's Guide to
follow an action-oriented approach, a more meticulous analysis of the argumentations shows that this
approach is not truly integrated. They make reference to CEFR's recommendations only to speak about
assessments or levels' descriptors, or in the case of Latitudes to name some activities by using the label
"tasks". In both textbooks students are continuously asked to imagine that they are…, or that they are at....
They are also continuously asked to do "as if they were…" The suggested activities continue to be non-
authentic in student's eyes. The instructions are not carefully elaborated to set up the development claimed
in these methods' foreword, and Teacher's guides do not support/complement instructions. With regard to
skills to be acquired at learning, in both methods it is still a matter of giving linguistic answers to identifiable
and appraisable needs. They do not always succeed in making skills development the discussion thread of
the progression.
The fact of understanding the action-oriented approach and the task concept, of adhering to it, of
being able to identify it in a textbook or in any activity, does not directly confers teachers/designers the
capacity to create/conceive instructions constituting true tasks, real action-oriented textbooks or classroom
activities. It would be necessary first of all, not to idealize the action-oriented approach and accept that it
does not replace the communicative approach (or the preceding ones), it enriches them, and it complements
26
Cuq, J. - P., Dictionnaire de didactique du français langue étrangère et seconde. Paris, 2003.
27
Ribba, P., "De l’approche communicative à l’approche actionnelle : Rapports du CECR (2006).

17. 17
them while adding itself to them. The most traditional exercises and activities can therefore accompany the
tasks. "(…) it is a matter of integrating this task in the progression imposed by the education system; it must
be an integral part of learning and not the icing on the cake, (…)"28
. In addition, the class remains an
artificial place, but one must work out instructions so that this micro-society may be as least artificial as
possible. It will also be necessary to divert circumstances, the context, in order to make learners forget the
framework of the classroom/course to the profit of the group concept.
As for self-assessment, as we saw, it is not limited to self-correction. Self-assessment requires learners
to learn, and the means to allow the practical application of self-assessment activities, at student's service,
which constitutes a challenge for teachers and designers of teaching materials. But the track-race for
international diplomas to which learners are encouraged, the referent of DELF/DALF advocated by
CEFR, and the homogenization of western values exclude individual learning differences and constitute,
contradictorily, a constraint for learner's autonomy and authentic self-fulfillment. "To assess linguistic and
pragmatic component of the communication skill through candidate's performance requires that the
assessment be of the qualifying type using a criteria grid and not of the quantitative type, as it is the case in
most of the existing certifications"29
. Task concept and the assessment of its accomplishment or not come
to add a brick to this challenge, because parameters of the sociocultural order intervene there. The
definition of a communicative skill level in language, including linguistic and pragmatic components, and
the creation of an instrument to measure, assess and identify it, also remain a challenge.
28
Rodier, Christian, La Perspective actionnelle : évolution ou révolution ? L’exemple Babelweb. (2009)
29
Delahaye, P., "Perspective actionnelle et évaluation : le Diplôme de Compétences en Langue ". Conference given at APLV's general
assembly, December 9 2006, Marseilles.

18. 18
7. Bibliography
AUGE, H., CANADA PUJOLS, M. D., MARLHENS, C. & MARTIN, L. (2004). Tout va bien
! 1 Méthode de français. Paris : CLE International.
HUCK HOAREAU, S., MERIEUX, R. & LOISEAU, Y. (2008). Latitudes 1 Méthode de
français. Didier.
CHALARON, M.-L. (2007). "Évolution des courants méthodologiques" course booklet.
Common European Framework of Reference, Didier, Paris, 2005
European Council (2000).A common European framework of reference for languages:
Learning, teaching and assessing. Language Policies Division, Strasbourg.
CUQ, J.-P. (dir.), (2003). Dictionnaire de didactique du française langue étrangère et seconde.
Paris : CLE International.
DEJEAN-THIRCUIR, C., METTON,C. (2011). "Courants méthodologiques et analyse de
manuels" course booklet.
DELAHAYE, P., "Perspective actionnelle et évaluation: le Diplôme de Compétences en
Langue". (2007). Acces : http://www.aplv-languesmodernes.org/spip.php?article577
DENYER, MONIQUE, "La Perspective actionnelle définie par le CEFR et ses répercussions
dans l’enseignement des langues"
Official Christian PUREN Website: http://www.christianpuren.com/
PERRICHON, EMILIE (2008) "Agir d’usage et agir d’apprentissage en didactiques des
langues-cultures étrangères : enjeux conceptuels, évolution historique et construction d’une nouvelle
perspective actionnelle". PhD thesis.
PILLONEL, M., ROUILLER, J., "Faire appelle à l’auto-évaluation pour développer
l’autonomie de l’apprenant ".
PUREN, CHRISTIAN "Formes pratiques de combinaison entre Perspective actionnelle et
approche communicative : analyse comparative de trois manuels". Article published on APLV's
website, 2008.
RODIER, CHRISTIAN, "La Perspective actionnelle : évolution ou révolution ? L’exemple
Babelweb." (2009).

19. 18