“Facets” and “Prisms” as a Means to Achieve Pedagogical Indexation of Texts for Language Learning: Consequences of the Notion of Pedagogical Context

  • Mathieu Loiseau
  • Georges Antoniadis
  • Claude Ponton
Part of the Communications in Computer and Information Science book series (CCIS, volume 170)


Defining pedagogical indexation of texts for language learning as an indexation allowing users to query for texts in order to use them in language teaching requires to take into account the influence of the properties of the teaching situation we define as “pedagogical context”.

We propose to justify the notions of prisms and facets on which our model rely through the description of material selection in the task of planing a language class as an adaptation of Yinger’s model of planing. This interpretation of Yinger’s model is closely intertwined with the elaboration of the notion of pedagogical context. The latter provides sounder bases on which to build our model. This resulted in improvements in the potentialities of the model compared to its first published version.


Pedagogical indexation Computer Assisted Language Learning Natural Language Processing Metadata End User Programming 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Antoniadis, G., Échinard, S., Kraif, O., Lebarbé, T., Ponton, C.: Modélisation de l’intégration de ressources TAL pour l’apprentissage des langues : la plateforme MIRTO. ALSIC 8, 65–79 (2005), Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Balatsoukas, P., Morris, A., O’Brien, A.: Learning objects update: Review and critical approach to content aggregation. Journal of Educational Technology & Society 11, 119–130 (2008), Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bertrand, A., Cellier, J.M., Giroux, L.: Expertise and strategies for the identification of the main ideas in document indexing. Applied Cognitive Psychology 10, 419–433 (1996), CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    edna: edna resources - metadata application profile (2006),
  5. 5.
    GEM: Listing  of  gem  2.0  top-level  elements  (2004),
  6. 6.
    Blanchard, A., Kraif, O., Ponton, C.: Mastering noise and silence in learner answers processing: simple techniques for analysis and diagnosis. CALICO Journal (2009),
  7. 7.
    Bourda, Y.: Des objets pédagogiques aux dossiers pédagogiques (via l’indexation). Document Numérique 6, 115–128 (2002), CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Charlier, É.: Planifier un cours, c’est prendre des décisions. Pédagogies en développement. Série 5, Nouvelles pratiques de formation. De Boeck Université, Bruxelles; Paris (1989)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Final 1484.12.1 LOM draft standard document. Technical report, IEEE LTSC WG12 (2002),
  10. 10.
    Loiseau, M.: Élaboration d’un modèle pour une base de textes indexée pédagogiquement pour l’enseignement des langues. PhD thesis, Université Stendhal Grenoble 3 (2009),
  11. 11.
    Loiseau, M., Antoniadis, G., Ponton, C.: Model for pedagogical indexation of texts for language teaching. In: Cordeiro, J., Shishkov, B., Ranchordas, A., Helfert, M. (eds.) ICSOFT (ISDM/ABF), vol. ISDM/ABF, pp. 212–217. INSTICC Press (2008),
  12. 12.
    Loiseau, M., Antoniadis, G., Ponton, C.: Pratiques enseignantes et  contexte pédagogique  dans le cadre de l’indexation pédagogique de texte. In: Neveu, F., Muni Toke, V., Durand, J., Klinger, T., Mondada, L., Prévost, S. (eds.) 2e Congrès Mondial de Linguistique Française, Paris, Institut de Linguistique Française, EDP Sciences, pp. 479–492 (2010),
  13. 13.
    Nardi, B.A.: A Small Matter of Programming: Perspectives On End User Computing. Second printing (edn.). MIT Press (1995)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Pernin, J.P.: Normes et standards pour la conception, la production et l’exploitation des EIAH. In: Grandbastien, M., Labat, J.M. (eds.) Environnements Informatiques Pour l’apprentissage Humain. Hermès et Lavoisier, Paris, pp. 201–222 (2006)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Portier, P.E., Calabretto, S.: Multi-structured documents and the emergence of annotation vocabularies. In: Balisage: The Markup Conference 2010. Balisage Series on Markup Technologies (2010),
  16. 16.
    Recker, M.M., Wiley, D.A.: A non-authoritative educational metadata ontology for filtering and recommending learning objects. Interactive Learning Environments 9, 255–271 (2001), CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Scorm overview. Specifications SCORM 2004 3rd Edition Content Aggregation Model Version 1.0, ADL (2006),
  18. 18.
    Yinger, R.J.: A study of teacher planning: Description and a model of preactive decision making, East Lansing, MI, Michigan State University, Institute for Research on Teaching (1978),

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Mathieu Loiseau
    • 1
  • Georges Antoniadis
    • 1
  • Claude Ponton
    • 1
  1. 1.LIDILEMUniversité Stendhal Grenoble 3Grenoble cedex 9France

Personalised recommendations