dataesr/scientific-paragraphs-categorization huggingface dataset:
Classroom foreign language teachers using technology in task-based language teaching (TBLT) may experience pedagogical regression during technological development  (Fullan, 2001) , and fail to transform pedagogy because tools like interactive whiteboards (IWBs) support traditional as well as newer approaches  (Avvisati et al. , 2013). IWB-supported teacher education in TBLT must therefore develop new technological know-how and encourage pedagogy often also experienced as innovative. This study used questionnaire, video, and interview data from 9 French EFL teachers contributing to a website for IWB-supported TBLT to explore a) teachers' IWB use; b) task versus non-task-oriented activities; and c) teachers' IWB confidence and engagement. Results suggest three developmental stages: 1) restricted IWB use, little technopedagogical development; 2) improvement in technical but not pedagogical skills; and 3) high IWB fluency, greater pedagogical engagement, and some more task-oriented teaching.
Thus integrating technology into task-based approaches to teaching represents a double challenge for language teachers. The research presented in this study is based on a large-scale teacher education project which sought to support language teachers in using the interactive whiteboard (IWB) for CLT and TBLT: iTILT (interactive Technologies In Language Teaching; http://itilt. eu). The project aimed to provide professional development for participating teachers, obtain research insights into teacher practice and reflection, and generate examples of IWB-supported language teaching for other teachers and trainers which are both "consistent with current models of foreign language teaching" and help "make the most of IWBs and the new technologies in today's language classrooms"  (Whyte, Cutrim Schmid & van Hazebrouck, 2011, p.
The IWB in Language Education The IWB consists of a large touch-sensitive display connected to a computer and video projector to allow the manipulation at the board with a finger or stylus of any computer programme or internet application for collective viewing. A substantial body of general education research into the impact of the IWB on classroom practice and learning outcomes conducted over the past ten years shows the potential of this tool for integrating multimodality, increasing the pace of lessons, and improving motivation (see Cutrim  Schmid & Whyte, 2012; Hillier, Beauchamp & Whyte 2013, for recent overviews). This research also reveals that although most teachers are able to begin using the tool relatively easily, since it fits with most pedagogical models  (Avvisati et al. , 2013) , sustained support is necessary to ensure greater pedagogical effectiveness.
Interestingly, however, they saw the value of learner use of the IWB: in contrast with  Beauchamp's (2004)  finding that only the most advanced IWB users gave learners access to the IWB, even the novice IWB users in this study wanted their learners to manipulate the IWB. The authors conclude that a "lack of self-efficacy with the various IWB tools does not necessarily affect teachers' appreciation of the opportunities for interactivity offered by the IWB, or prevent learner use of it"  (Hillier et al. , 2013, p. 16 ). Nevertheless, early research findings from the iTILT project revealed a rather "conservative or cautious approach to IWB use for language teaching"  (Whyte, Beauchamp & Hillier, 2012, p. 325). The subset of French and Welsh primary teachers in this study used only a narrow range of basic IWB tools and features for circumscribed teaching objectives (often subskills like pronunciation and vocabulary), and most frequently with one learner at the IWB before the whole class.
167). It is clear from the preceding literature review that more research in teacher education is required, with respect both to technology uptake and to pedagogical beliefs. Moreover, much task-based CALL research has been conducted in distance and hybrid environments. Learning technologies are also widely used in face-to-face settings, and Müller-Hartmann and Schocker von Ditfurth note that "we are still lacking classroom-based research, however, in primary and secondary schools"  (2010, p. 35). The iTILT project has provided an opportunity to fill this gap and the means to investigate the role of the teacher in classroom CALL by focusing on IWBsupported language tasks.
Data Collection The research protocol for the French team covered initial training, classroom data collection, and ongoing researcher-teacher collaboration. The teachers were trained in their own teaching contexts on their own brand of IWB, using a) a 40-page training manual developed specifically for the project to cover technical aspects and pedagogical examples of IWB-supported language teaching 2  and b) sample electronic IWB resources appropriate to teachers' own learners, also developed in the project as examples of complete, self-contained learning scenarios or teaching units constructed along TBLT principles and including explanatory notes. 3 To obtain classroom practice data, EFL lessons were then filmed twice during one academic year, each session followed by learner focus group interviews; short video examples of IWB-supported language teaching were selected for the project website via video-stimulated reflective (VSR) interviews with each teacher.
Classroom use of the IWB IWB use: access, objectives and affordances. As part of the wider iTILT project, all 267 video clips of classroom practice collected in 81 language sessions by 44 teachers in 7 countries were tagged in the project database to allow website users to search the collection (cf  Whyte et al. , 2013). Some of these metadata involved straightforward tags for native and target language, learner age and proficiency level. Other aspects of classroom practice were also coded to allow fine-grained searches of the video collection by teachers and teacher educators, and analysis of these data provides an interesting snapshot of IWB use among teachers in the project. Three areas of relevance for IWB-supported language teaching were coded: who manipulates the IWB, for what teaching objectives, and using which IWB tools and features? Categories were defined based on previous research and researchers' experience in teacher education, then refined via the double coding and discussion of a subset of 27 videos from the first round of films for 8 teachers  (Whyte et al.
g. , 46 learnercentred clips out of a total of 56 gives 82%). Note that "plenary," "stationwork," and "roleplay" are supplementary descriptors coded in addition to another category, and so are not included in the overall totals. This analysis shows that the teachers overwhelmingly chose practice examples with one learner at the IWB, with few clips showing teacher use or pair or group-work. Whole class instruction was seen only in primary classes, while whole class discussion featured exclusively in upper secondary sessions. Group work and stationwork (groups rotating round several activities) occurred only in primary or student teacher sessions (which involved pre-service primary teachers). The proportion of learner-centred examples did not change over time, and confirms findings from pre-training attitude questionnaire data where iTILT language teachers, unlike the generalist teachers investigated in  Beauchamp (2004) , expressed willingness to allow learners to manipulate the IWB despite their own sometimes low levels of IWB confidence  (Hillier et al.
Examples of speaking came predominantly from lower secondary classrooms and student teacher training; respectively 77% and 71% of clips chosen by those teachers involved this language skill. The final level of coding concerned the specific affordances of the IWB, or which tools and features were used in the classroom excerpts. These elements can be divided into objects, which are generally embedded into IWB file pages during the preparation of materials, and actions, which refer to participant activity during class. Table  4  suggests that the excerpts selected for the project website showed a balance between embedded objects and participant actions; indeed only one teacher never used IWB software and confined her tool use essentially to the pen. According to Table  4  the most popular IWB tool or feature in the video clips chosen by teachers was embedded images, which featured in 83% of primary clips.
Image use was followed by sound, which was more frequent by the second round of filming (22% to 45%) and again favoured by primary teachers (used in 52% of their clips; not shown). This development in use of embedded audio over the course of the project occurred in tandem with an increase in the teaching of listening (Table  3 ) as three of the four primary teachers learned how to insert audio files using IWB software. In terms of IWB tools and features to permit actions, the most common were the pen tool, used in over half of both lower and upper secondary school videos, and the drag and drop function, which allows users to move objects on a given page. The "other" category in the final row of Table  4  represents a summing of incidences of a range of different tools and features (e. g. , ad hoc and content marking, which constitute further, different uses of the pen tool) none of which occurred more than 7 times over the two filming sessions.
Teaching and learning activities: is there a TBLT orientation? Moving beyond the tagging system designed to help teachers and trainers using the project website to filter online content efficiently, it is important to consider the teaching and learning activities selected by teachers for inclusion in the collection as examples of good practice. While the principles of CLT and TBLT were mentioned during initial training and featured prominently in the manual and teaching materials discussed and shared with teachers, it is understandable that in the early stages of the project, technical issues regarding the IWB hardware and software tended to take precedence over pedagogical issues. All teachers designed activities and prepared materials for the filmed lessons according to their own preferences and priorities, though with a view to sharing both video excerpts and IWB files on the project website.
The video episodes selected in collaboration with each teacher thus correspond relatively closely to their own views on effective IWB-supported teaching activities. When the activities in the 56 video examples are analysed in TBLT terms, it is immediately apparent that very few meet a full range of strict task-based criteria. Table  5  compares taskoriented activities with pedagogical exercises in terms of the goals of each (creation of a meaningful context for language use versus practising language forms), the way language is used (authentic, unscripted language versus planned, error-free production), and the outcome of activities (communicative success versus accurate language use). Using a binary coding system which awards 1 or 0 for each of these three criteria in each activity, only 7 activities from 3 teachers can be judged to constitute tasks (3 points).
, 2013  for more details of the questionnaire). Scores for each teacher on the items most relevant to the present study are given in two columns corresponding to pre-and post-intervention responses in Table  7. This table gives an overview of teachers' views on their use of the IWB, their ICT confidence, the IWB confidence, and their convictions regarding the value of the IWB. The data in Table  7  can be judged to reveal two distinct teacher profiles: teachers who strongly believed learners should manipulate the IWB and who were very confident in their own IWB skills from the beginning of the project, (highlighted in green) and teachers who gained a large measure of confidence in their IWB skills using various tools and features over the course of the project (yellow). At the start of the project, while the majority of teachers were fairly confident in their ICT skills and (except for Teacher H) convinced of the utility of the IWB for language teaching, Teachers D and F showed the strongest convictions regarding learner IWB use and the greatest self-efficacy perceptions of their own abilities to use the IWB, neither of which waned over the project lifetime.
She was a novice IWB user who undertook to have her classroom equipped with an IWB specifically in order to participate in the project, and was an active (peripheral) participant in online and face-to-face collaboration. Her pre-project questionnaire responses (Table  7 ) showed a lack of confidence with many IWB tools and features, and she was the only teacher not to express strong beliefs in the potential of the IWB to engage and motivate learners at the outset. This teacher experienced a number of difficulties related to the physical installation of the equipment, as well as more customary software teething problems, which slowed the development of her IWB skills and delayed filming (only one class session was recorded). Her comments in Table  10  reflect these frustrations. The quotes in Table  10  suggest that this teacher's main concern is with the technology itself: her IWB "won't work," is liable to "conk out," and requires "constantly recalibrating.
" She seems to set high standards for herself, aiming for "very creative," "ambitious," even "spectacular stuff" which must add to the frustration of her "own difficulties in working with the board. " She thus finds it "reassuring" to see "authentic," "apply-able" examples of other teachers' classroom practice which she judges to aim a little lower but still have an impact: "injecting [more visual and more kinesthetic] elements into our lessons" though "not necessarily in a highly-focused way. " Efficiency is also a concern for this teacher, who welcomes changes which will only take up "a short time in every 50 minute class" and which could be operable "if I take the time" to learn the software. By the end of the project, Teacher H was more convinced of the value of the IWB, though very confident only with the pen and eraser tools (Table  7 ).
Indeed, this teacher used the IWB in a more restricted manner than many of the other teachers: her classroom video clips showed only a single learner at the IWB, and almost exclusively productive skills (speaking and writing, and the associated subskills of pronunciation, grammar, and vocabulary). Since she did not use specific IWB software, there are no examples of embedded objects, and the main tool use was the pen for writing, highlighting, and drawing tables and diagrams in a wordprocessing file. It seems likely that technical difficulties held back the development of this teacher's technical IWB skills. In terms of teaching and learning activities, on the other hand, Teacher H's four classroom clips included two pedagogical exercises designed to practice grammar and pronunciation, and two task-oriented activities involving authentic language (an extract from a movie trailer) with either a communicative workplan or outcome.
Although came to the project with considerable technological fluency, she also showed development from the first to second rounds of filming: she learned to embed audio files and accordingly devised more listening activities. Table  11  provides a sample of Teacher D's comments presented according to the same rubrics in Table  10  to facilitate comparison. While Teacher D also experienced a number of technical difficulties (software bugs resulting in ongoing formatting problems, and numerous crashes with embedded audio during one filmed session), she did not dwell on these in interviews, discussions or on Google+. She tended to make light of problems ("maybe I haven't all the power on the machine!!!") and offered technical assistance to other teachers ("make a shorter video […] just to try").
She appreciated the collaborative opportunities offered in the project for her own development: "I can discover other ways of teaching" and "feel less isolated" (echoing Teacher F in Table  8 ). However she was also quick to exploit opportunities directly with her learners "I also think [iTILT project] videos can be used with my pupils" and she initiated a video exchange between her class and project researchers as native-speaker models, inspired by the Google+ exchanges. In terms of pedagogical development, this teacher commented on a wide range of issues related to IWB-supported language teaching, but concentrated particularly on the specific question of learner autonomy with her special education learners. Following a learner focus group activity involving drawings of the English lessons with the IWB, Teacher D began to feel her lessons were too teacher-centred.
In the final teacher focus group session she explained how she was struck by the prominence in her learners' depictions of IWB-supported language sessions of both the stylus, representing technical access to the IWB, and herself as teacher, the participant who held the power to grant or deny this access. Collaboration I wish we can share a lot of things and I wish the project will be very rich not only for the kids of course when we use the IWB but also sharing all the resources and the experiences that we can have. November 2012.
Google+ Figure  1  shows three learner drawings in which the size of the IWB pens on the right of each IWB is greatly exaggerated. The teacher herself, also on the right of the IWB (dressed in black) is also very prominent in two of the three pictures. This experience led Teacher D to set herself a goal of 'bringing more autonomy into the group," and "finding a solution to get [her]self more on the sidelines, because the objective is for them to be more autonomous" (Table  11 ). A comparison of classroom video clips between first and second rounds reveals the increase in embedded audio and listening activities already mentioned, but also shows a higher incidence of task-oriented activities. Her three first round clips met one or two task criteria, while the five from the second round all met two or three, particularly in terms of authentic language use by both teacher and learners, and of communicative outcomes, which were absent in the early clips.
In keeping with this rather teacher-controlled approach, a second level of analysis of the IWB-supported teaching/learning activities according to TBLT criteria revealed that only two teachers designed and implemented a significant proportion of task-oriented activities. The majority of video examples of IWB-supported classroom language teaching more closely resembled pedagogical exercises with a focus on decontextualised language practice and error correction. Of course the project itself imposed some constraints which limit the generalizability of findings: the teachers were necessarily expected to show IWB-mediated activities (rather than use other technologies, or none); the episodes analysed are selections rather than full lessons; and the project timetable allowed only a few months for development between filming sessions.
Acknowledgements: This paper draws on research from the iTILT project which is funded by the  European Union   Lifelong Learning Programme. [EACEA Lifelong Learning Project ,  Key Area Languages ,  511751-LLP-1-2010-1-BE-KA2-KA2MP , Jan 2011-April 2013] Whilst the project has been funded with support from the  European Commission  it cannot be held responsible for any use which may be made of the information contained therein.
Véritable archive à ciel ouvert, placée sous le regard de chacun, ils font l'objet de l'attention des historiens professionnels et amateurs depuis un peu plus de trente ans Une base de données sur les monuments aux morts : histoire concrète et valori. In Situ, 25 | 2014  et ont trouvé leur place dans l'historiographie contemporaine de la guerre et de ses représentations. Depuis 2006, une équipe d'historiens de l'université de Lille 3 2 s'est mobilisée pour mener à bien une enquête à vocation tout d'abord départementale puis régionale. Disposant bientôt d'une masse considérable d'informations, les enseignants-chercheurs de l'Institut de Recherches Historique du Septentrion (IRHiS -UMR CNRS 8529) ont opté pour la mise sur pied d'une base de données leur permettant de clairement visualiser les « blancs sur la carte » et de traiter systématiquement les informations recueillies à partir d'un questionnaire précis.
Les nouvelles technologies offrent en effet la possibilité de fédérer les initiatives éparses et de rassembler en un seul lieu, virtuel, l'ensemble des informations disponibles, tout en permettant, au prix d'un effort d'approfondissement et d'uniformisation des données, des requêtes croisées. Les commémorations du centenaire de la Première Guerre mondiale ont constitué, on le comprend aisément, une occasion de donner à cette initiative une ampleur plus large tout en permettant des comparaisons à l'échelle du pays tout entier. Les éléments recueillis aux échelles locales, régionales et/ou nationales permettent dès lors de confronter les conclusions des travaux jusque-là disponibles avec les informations géographiques, physiques et archivistiques disponibles et réunies au sein d'une base de données nationale, labellisée par la Mission du centenaire en 2013.
Dans sa configuration actuelle, la base de données consacrée aux monuments aux morts abritée par l'IRHiS couvre la quasi-totalité de la France métropolitaine  3. Elle recense à ce jour près de 2 500 monuments en France (sans compter 11 monuments belges), même si des biais méthodologiques sont à signaler : à ce jour, plus des trois quarts de ces monuments sont situés dans le Nord (913) et le Pas-de-Calais (922), près des neuf dixièmes dans la moitié septentrionale du pays, seules les régions Rhône-Alpes (65 monuments) et Auvergne (61 monuments) allant au-delà d'une présence parfois symbolique. Ce chiffre est à mettre en regard des 36 683 communes françaises (actuelles) et permet de mesurer le chemin qui reste à parcourir pour couvrir l'ensemble du territoire, DOM et TOM inclus, d'ici au centenaire de l'armistice de 1918.
Dans la plupart des cas, il n'existe qu'un seul monument aux morts par commune et de fait, la base recense 1989 « monuments communaux », soit plus de 80 % du total. Pour autant, certaines villes, et les plus importantes d'entre elles au premier chef, peuvent en compter plusieurs, ne serait-ce qu'au titre des quartiers ou des arrondissements. On en trouve par exemple 8 dans la capitale et 3 à Lyon, et la liste est très loin d'être exhaustive. Mais là encore, les résultats demeurent très lacunaires et demandent à être complétés peu à peu, grâce à une large mobilisation des équipes universitaires comme des passionnés, organisés ou non en sociétés savantes et autres clubs de généalogie. La souplesse d'utilisation de la base de données, en particulier via la fonction « dépôt », permet à chacun d'apporter sa pierre à l'édifice et de constater en temps réel l'avancée des travaux.
Un tour d'horizon historiographique 9 Le premier à s'être véritablement saisi de la question est Antoine Prost qui, dans sa thèse sur Les Anciens combattants et la société française 1914-1939  4  , s'est livré à la première enquête sur les monuments aux morts : il estime alors leur nombre à 38 000, ce qui placerait le corpus réuni par la base de données à environ 6,5 % de ce chiffre de départ. Il établit également une première typologie, selon la forme générale, l'ornementation, l'épigraphie ou encore l'emplacement  5. Ces travaux pionniers ont été successivement prolongés par les synthèses de Philippe Rivé et d'Annette Becker, qui y voit une bonne illustration de la « Mémoire de la Grande Guerre » 6 : entretenant la mémoire des morts afin que celle-ci prenne un sens, ils représentent le plus souvent des soldats et célèbrent selon les cas la Victoire, la Liberté, la République ou encore la Paix.