27. Didactics - Learning and Teaching
Paper
Analysis of the Collaboration between the Participants of a Didactic Engineering in Physical Education
Benoît Lenzen1, Claire Barthe2, Thomas Stulz3, Serge Weber4, Nicolas Voisard2
1Université de Genève, Switzerland; 2HEP BEJUNE, Switzerland; 3PH Freiburg, Switzerland; 4HEP Vaud, Switzerland
Presenting Author: Lenzen, Benoît
The respective curricula for compulsory school in French-speaking Switzerland and German-speaking Switzerland now require teachers to (a) implement a competency-based approach in all subjects, and (b) integrate the development of "life skills" into their subject teaching (Cronin et al., 2020). It is in this context of change that PROJEPS/PROJEBS emerged, a second-generation didactic engineering project (Perrin-Glorian, 2011) aimed at the collective creation, experimentation and publication of curricular resources in physical education (PE). In line with recent initiatives aiming to harmonise training and teaching practices in PE in the two main linguistic regions of the country (e.g., Hayoz et al., 2021), this project is situated at the interface of different epistemologies and linguistic cultures. It mobilises three groups of participants with distinct profiles and mandates: (a) a steering group composed of five experts with a researcher/teacher trainer profile, whose mandate is to supervise and assess the creation and publication of the curriculum resources, (b) a group of drafters composed of five bilingual pairs of drafters with a teacher trainer/teacher profile, whose mandate is to create resources with reference to different physical activities and grades, and (c) a group of experimenters composed of volunteer teachers who are responsible for experimenting with the resources produced and providing feedback to the drafters on this experimentation. The challenge is therefore to publish curricular resources that meet the requirements of both the curriculum for French-speaking Switzerland and the curriculum for German-speaking Switzerland, and that are suitable for all types of teachers who teach PE in compulsory schools (generalists and specialists, depending on the cantons).
The theoretical background of this study is based on the didactic engineering framework (Artigue, 2002; Perrin-Glorian, 2011). In the early 80s, didactic engineering was presented as a research methodology that could bring up didactic phenomena under controlled conditions as close as possible to the normal functioning of a class. Didactic engineering for development and training is a second-generation didactic engineering which deals with two dimensions. At a first level, it is a question of testing the theoretical validity of the curriculum resources produced and identifying the essential properties of the engineering. At a second level, it is a question of studying the adaptability of these curriculum resources to ordinary teaching. Indeed, in didactic engineering approaches, it is common for the produced curricular resources to be reinterpreted by their users, with the risk that their learning potential is reduced (Perrin-Glorian, 2011; Lenzen et al., 2022).
This contribution aims to study the collaboration between participants at three stages of the didactic engineering process: (a) within a pair of drafters during the drafting of a curricular resource in badminton for pupils of 7-8H (10 to 12 years old), consisting of a scholastic form of practice (SFP – Mascret & Dhellemmes, 2011) and some learning situations; (b) between this pair of drafters and their assigned expert from the steering group; and (c) between this pair of drafters and four experimenters. It focuses more specifically on the negotiations and compromises between these participants and their consequences in terms of the evolution of the resources produced and the teaching of PE.
Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources UsedThe following traces of this collaborative process were analysed: successive versions of the targeted curricular resource; notes of the working sessions between the drafters and the expert; written feedback from the experimenters; focus group with the pair of drafters.
The analysis consisted, firstly, in identifying, at each of the three levels of the process, a significant critical incident, defined in the context of collaborative research as "an event [...] that proves to be significant for the subject and for the people with whom this subject interacts in his or her professional space; this event [...] is perceived as being able to change the course of things" (Leclerc et al., 2010, p. 17, our translation). In the context of this study, a critical incident is considered significant if it either results in an evolution of the targeted curricular resource or leads to a modification of the teaching practice in PE. At the third level of the process (experimentation), we finally selected two critical incidents, respectively corresponding to the two criteria mentioned above.
In a second step, the traces corresponding to the selected critical incidents were analysed in depth to describe the effects of the collaboration in terms of the content of the curricular resource produced and/or the characteristics of the teaching practice resulting from the use of this resource.
Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or FindingsAt the first level of the didactic engineering process, the drafter in charge of the draft of the resource had imagined a SFP based on Shuttle Time (Swiss Badminton, 2022), including times of collective play, opposition play as well as technical workshops. This draft was considered too heterogeneous by the second drafter. During a working session, the drafters referred to the definition of the competency-based approach and to the recommendations of the steering group to refocus the SFP on a competency in the opposition play.
At the second level, the expert still considered the SFP to be too heterogeneous and complex. The drafters and the expert clarified what the FPS should aim to achieve and the meaning of the roles assigned to the pupils. Confronted with their own professional epistemologies (Amade-Escot, 2014), the three partners finally agreed on a SFP ready for experimentation.
At the third level, two critical incidents deserve to be developed. The first concerns the modification of the teaching practice of an experimenter in the direction of a lower topogenetic posture (Loquet, 2007), more likely to contribute to the development of "life skills" (e.g., learning strategies, reflective practice), as illustrated by this written feedback: “I have a lot of time to observe the pupils […], I am forced to respect the 4’ timing without speaking, interrupting, intervening (very interesting and formative for me)”. The second critical incident lies in the simplification of the SFP following the observation of the experimenters that there were too many forms to fill in and too many indicators for the pupils to observe during the matches. This feedback from the experimenters led the drafters, in agreement with their assigned expert, to eliminate the doubles matches and keep only the singles matches, which reduced the teaching content and simplified the pupils’ observation task.
ReferencesAmade-Escot, C. (2014). De la nécessité d’une observation didactique pour accéder à l’épistémologie pratique des professeurs. Recherches en éducation, 19, 18-29. https://doi.org/10.4000/ree.8284
Artigue, M. (2002). Didactical engineering as a framework for the conception of teaching products. In R. Biehler, R.W. Scholz, R. Sträßer and B. Winkelmann (Eds.), Didactics of mathematics as a scientific discipline (pp. 27-39). New York: Kluwer Academics Publishers.
Cronin, L., Marchant, D., Johnson, L., Huntley, E., Kosteli, M.C., Varga, J., & Ellison, P. (2020). Life skills development in physical education: A self-determination theory-based investigation across the school term. Psychology of Sport & Exercise, 49. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychsport.2020.101711.
Hayoz, C., Lanthemann, N., Patelli, G. & Grossrieder, G. (Eds.) (2021). Apprendre et enseigner l’éducation physique. Repères didactiques pour une approche par compétences/Kompetenzorientiertes Lernen und Lehren im Bewegungs- und Sportunterricht. Le Mont-sur-Lausanne : Éditions LEP.
Leclerc, C., Bourassa, B. & Filteau, O. (2010). Utilisation de la méthode des incidents critiques dans une perspective d’explicitation, d’analyse critique et de transformation des pratiques professionnelles. Éducation et francophonie, 38(1), 11-32. https://doi.org/10.7202/039977ar
Lenzen, B., Barthe, C., Cordoba, A., Deriaz, D., Poussin, B., Pürro, C., Saillen, l., Suter, Y. & Voisard, N. (2022). Merging observational and interview data to study and improve the adaptibility of the products of didactic engineering to ordinary teaching in physical education. Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy, 27(2), 186-199. https://doi.org/10.1080/17408989.2021.1999917
Loquet, M. (2007). Les techniques didactiques du professeur. In C. Amade-Escot (Ed.), Le didactique (pp. 49-62). Paris : Éditions Revue EP.S.
Mascret, N. & Dhellemmes, R. (2011). Culture sportive et culture scolaire des APSA. In M. Travert & N. Mascret (Eds.), La culture sportive (pp. 99-115). Paris : Éditions EP&S.
Perrin-Glorian, M.-J. (2011). L’ingénierie didactique à l’interface de la recherche avec l’enseignement. Développement de ressources et formation des enseignants. In C. Margolinas, M. Abboud-Blanchard, L. Bueno-Ravel & N. Douek (Eds.), En amont et en aval des ingénieries didactiques (pp. 57-78). Grenoble : La Pensée sauvage.
Swiss Badminton (2022). Shuttle Time Switzerland. Retrieved September 6, 2022, from https://shuttletime.ch.
27. Didactics - Learning and Teaching
Paper
Working with a Didactic Model in a Teacher-researcher Collaboration in Primary Science
Maria Weiland
Stockholm University, Sweden
Presenting Author: Weiland, Maria
This presentation will present preliminary findings from a study of collaboration between a researcher and primary teachers working together to develop a tentative didactic model through didactic modelling. Didactic modelling is here defined as it is described in Wickman, Hamza and Lundegård (2018; 2020) and Ingerman and Wickman (2015). The study is part of an ongoing doctoral project in science education in primary school. The research project consists of two parts and the focus of the research reported in this presentation is on the second part where the tentative model from the first part is further modified together with teachers.
Teachers make many didactic considerations in their teaching and need to have a solid professional base on which to ground their choices (Ingerman & Wickman, 2015). In order to manage, distinguish and reflect on a complex content, teachers therefore need different kinds of tools. For this purpose, various types of didactic models have been created (cf. Jank & Meyer, 2006; Sjöström, Eilks & Talanquer, 2020; Wickman, Hamza & Lundegård, 2018; 2020). A didactic model can be said to function as a didactic tool by providing teachers with concepts and conceptual schemes which increase teachers’ possibilities of making relevant distinctions and judgments concerning certain features of teaching (cf. Joffredo-Le Brun et al., 2018; Wickman, Hamza & Lundegård, 2018). Didactic models can be used to plan, sort, structure and analyze teaching in a systematic way - and they can also be useful for arguing and reasoning about different didactic choices. To work with didactic models is an essential part of the discipline of didactics (Arnold, 2012; Jank & Meyer, 2006).
Didactic models are designed through so-called didactic modelling, where modelling includes both the production and application of didactic models (Wickman, Hamza & Lundegård, 2018; 2020). The production of a didactic model has three integrated phases called extraction, mangling and exemplifying and the process takes place in interaction between practice and theory and usually works in cycles (Wickman, Hamza & Lundegård, 2018; 2020). Through didactic modelling, models are, thus, created (the extraction phase), refined and modified (the mangling phase) and also supplemented with examples from how the models apply to teaching practice (the exemplifying phase).
Didactic modelling may be one way of reducing the gap between research and teaching, because it includes teachers as a necessary voice in the development of a didactic model, in particular in connection to the mangling phase of didactic modelling (Ingerman & Wickman, 2015; Wickman, Hamza & Lundegård, 2020). An overall aim in the second part of the doctoral project is to further develop the extracted tentative model (Weiland, 2019) from the first part of the project – called “didactic score” – in collaboration with primary school teachers. This study thus concentrates primarily on the second phase of the modelling process, i.e., mangling. The intention is to study the collaborative teacher-researcher process. More specifically, my interest is the joint actions of teachers and researcher during the mangling process, when working together with a tentative model in order to make the model functional as a didactic tool for teachers in early grades.
The theoretical framework and central concepts in the study is mainly grounded in Dewey´s pragmatic philosophy.
Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources UsedDidactic modelling has been chosen as a method and the study was planned after the modelling phases, with adaptation following the participation schools and teachers during the semesters.
The study was conducted with a small group of primary school teachers in Sweden. Five teachers and students in two classes (grade 3) from two different schools participated in the project. The empirical material consists of conversations between teachers and researcher (e.g. notes, video- and audio recordings, pictures and sketches of the model) as well as data collected from lessons from two of the participating teachers’ classrooms (e.g. field notes, photos, video- and audio recordings).
Didactic models cannot be applied directly into school practice - without the need for an exchange between teaching and research practices (cf. Ingerman & Wickman 2015; Hamza et al. 2018). The research project has been designed to ensure that the research practice takes a responsibility, for example of how the model can be transformed and concretized in the current teaching practice. The participating teachers need to see the benefit and usefulness of the model, and the research practice to understand the model's meaning in teaching practice.
Data was analyzed using PEA, Practical Epistemology Analysis (Wickman & Östman, 2002).
Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or FindingsThe primary finding so far concerns the important role that imagination seemed to play for teachers’ possibilities of approaching and working with the new model. First, imagination played a role initially as the teachers drew and sketched as a way for them to become familiar with the didactic model. Second, imagination also played a role when moving from the particular to the abstract. For example, imagination became important when the teachers invented new combinations, in a way of blending experiences from the classroom practice with the illustration of the model, which also seemed to have consequences for the further discussions. Third, imagination seems to play a role when teachers used their experiences from teaching to create new ideas about how the model could be modified or used for other purposes than those originally intended, as communicated by the researcher. Fourth, likely, but also tentatively, imagination seemed to play a role for supporting teachers to identify and associate various examples from their own teaching and connect them to the model. At the presentation, more detailed analyses and refined results will be presented, along with a discussion on what bearing they may have for teacher-researcher collaboration during the mangling phase of didactic modelling. Moreover, the potential significance of the results also for other teacher-collaboration initiatives will be discussed.
ReferencesArnold, K.-H. (2012). Didactics, didactic models and learning. In N. M. Seel (Ed.), Encyclopedia of the Sciences of Learning (pp. 986-990). Springer US. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4419-1428-6_1833
Dewey, J. (1938/1997). Experience and education. New York: Simon & Schuster.
Dewey, J. (2005). Art as experience. New York: Penguin books.
Ingerman, Å., & Wickman, P.-O. (2015). Towards a teachers’ professional discipline : Shared responsibility for didactic models in research and practice. In Transformative Teacher Research : Theory and Practice for the C21st (pp. 167–179). https://doi.org/10.1163/9789463002233_014
Jank, W., & Meyer, H. (2006). Didaktiske modeller: grundbog i didaktik (Original title: Didaktische Modelle, 6th Ed). Cobenhagen: Hans Reitzels Forlag.
Joffredo-Le Brun, S., Morellato, M., Sensevy, G., & Quilio, S. (2018). Cooperative engineering as a joint action. European Educational Research Journal, 17(1), 187-208. https://doi.org/10.1177/1474904117690006
Sjöström, J., Eilks, I., & Talanquer, V. (2020). Didaktik Models in Chemistry Education. Journal of Chemical Education. doi:10.1021/acs.jchemed.9b01034
Weiland, M. (2019). Hänsyn till helheten: extrahering av en didaktisk modell för det komplexa innehållet i den naturorienterande undervisningen på lågstadiet. Licentiatuppsats. Uppsala universitet.
Wickman, P.-O., Hamza, K., & Lundegård, I. (2018). Didaktik och didaktiska modeller för undervisning i naturvetenskapliga ämnen. NorDiNa, 14(3), 239–249. doi.org/10.5617/nordina.6148
Wickman, P.-O., Hamza, K., & Lundegård, I. (2020). Didactics and didactic models in science education. In P. White, R. Tytler, J. C. Clark, & J. Ferguson (Eds.), Methodological approaches to STEM education research, 2019. Newcastle upon Tyne, U.K: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
Wickman, P-O., & Östman, L. (2002). Learning as Discourse Change: A Sociocultural Mechanism. Science Education, 86(5), 601-623.
27. Didactics - Learning and Teaching
Paper
Teacher, Researcher and Their Models
Christophe Ronveaux1, Vincent Capt2
1unige, Switzerland; 2hepl, Switzerland
Presenting Author: Ronveaux, Christophe;
Capt, Vincent
Collaborative research is on the rise. From the first generation of engineering that went back and forth between researchers and teachers, to the more recent design-oriented research, French didactics has always been concerned with the articulation between theoretical modelling and teaching constraints. The implementation of vast reform programmes throughout the French-speaking world may have dictated the need to develop "feasibility didactic research" (Astolfi, 1993) aimed primarily at teachers. The aim was to ensure the control and transferability of the innovations tested in the classroom. This research has been criticised for its pragmatism and its difficulty in going beyond the context in which it was carried out for a generalisation and change of scale. Methodologies more oriented towards "sharing praxeologies" have developed, in particular design-based research. The GRAFElln research (SNF 100019_205162), which we present here, is part of design-based research (DBRC, 2003; Sanchez and Monod-Ansaldi, 2014) and focuses on the transformation of teacher tools for reading composite texts.
With the advent of digital technology and the technologisation of printing processes, reading materials and their contexts have changed (Kress and Van Leeuwen, 2001). Composed of written texts, images, diagrams, sound and animated documents, texts are becoming more complex (Bonnéry, 2015). The reading of digital documentaries in particular, which is highly valued by both school and non-school users, requires new skills and specific support (Rouet, 2012). A few instruments are beginning to spread on the market of teaching manuals, without however responding to the imperatives of a curricular progression. Moreover, the authorities are integrating these new contexts into the study plans, programmes, etc., by means of a few transversal recommendations that are not very formalised. Our GRAFElln research aims to better understand the genesis of the instruments of reading instruction "to enable a greater number of students to access extended literacy, including digital literacy" (Crinon, 2012, p. 113).
Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources UsedThe radically transpositive viewpoint we adopt considers conceptual and praxeological constructions from their respective places of production. In the GRAFElln collaborative device, the research conditions are created so that a modelling activity can develop in the back-and-forth between the planning of a sequence and its implementation. We observe this instrumental genesis from two variables: the variable of school levels and transitions between cycles to follow the curricular progression, the variable of the text to identify the components of the objects to be taught. We gather teachers of 4H and 5H for the first transition between cycle 1 and 2, and teachers of 8H and 9H for the transition between cycle 2 and 3. Each grade includes 3 teachers (3 X 4 grades), i.e. 12 teachers for the first year. This experimentation is reproduced over a three-year iteration (Nb=36 teachers).
We imposed two contrasting texts on the teachers, a paper narrative text, familiar to the teachers, and a digital documentary text, unfamiliar to the teachers. Researchers and teachers meet to plan a sequence and specifically prepare three tasks operating at different times in the sequence: a discovery task, a "between the lines" reading task and a condensation task. We hope that these tasks will act in contrasting ways on the didactic situations.
Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or FindingsWe observe how the didactic models of the different participants interact and answer the question of the teaching objects modelled by the researcher and actually taught by the teacher. We compare the planned sequences and tasks, then the students' productions, and report, through a partial didactic analysis, on the tensions between the models. We focus more specifically on the "student collective" (Bromme, 2005), imagined by the teachers and the students.
ReferencesAstolfi, J.-P. (1993). Trois paradigmes pour les recherches en didactique. Revue française de pédagogie, 103, 5-18.
Bonnéry, S. (2015). Supports pédagogiques et inégalités scolaires. Études sociologiques. La Dispute.
Bromme, R. (2005). « The “collective student” as the cognitive reference point of teachers’ thinking about their students in the classroom ». In P. M. Denicolo & M. Kompf (eds.), Teacher thinking and professional action (pp. 31-40). Londres : Routledge.
Crinon, J. (2012). Enseigner le numérique, enseigner avec le numérique. Le français aujourd’hui, 178, 107-114.
Design-Based-Research-Collective (DRB) (2003). Design-based research: An emerging paradigm for educational inquiry. Educational Researcher, 32, 5-8.
Kress, G. et Van Leeuwen, T. (2001). Multimodal Discourse: The Modes and Media of Contemporary Communication. Oxford University Press.
Renaud, J. (2020). Quelles cibles didactiques viser dans l’enseignement de la lecture documentaire sur support numérique au cycle 3 ? Repères, 61, 223-242.
Ronveaux, C. et Schneuwly, B. (2018). Lire des textes réputés littéraires : disciplination et sédimentation. Enquête au fil des degrés scolaires en Suisse romande. Bruxelles : Peter Lang.
Rouet, J.-F. (2012). Ce que l‘usage d’internet nous apprend sur la lecture et son apprentissage. Le français aujourd’hui, 178, 55-64.
Schneuwly, B. (2000). Les outils de l’enseignant. Un essai didactique. Repères, 22, 19-38.
|
