Teaching Practices and Student Action in Physical Education Classes: Perspectives for Teacher Education

Nabila Bennour^1,2

¹University of Gafsa, Gafsa, Tunisia.
²UMR EFTS, Toulouse 2, Tolouse, France.

DOI: 10.4236/ce.2015.610095                

Abstract

This research is part of an educational framework for analyzing teaching practices. It attempts to understand teachers’ practices in physical education. For this matter, it relies on the theoretical framework of didactic joint action. Using “ordinary didactics” Schubauer-Leoni & Leutenegger, (2002), as a method of observation, we describe the teaching practices of two non-specialized teachers during two gymnastics units in two senior classes. The subject of our research is to joint didactic action in two didactic school systems: the first one is public while the second is private. In other terms, this research attempts the analysis of what the preselected teachers and students say and do while interacting. It attempts to identify teaching conditions that enable students to teach themselves, i.e. practice autonomous learning. The results put in evidence some generic characteristics of the topo-genetic process that may favor task transformation behavior among students in the context of each school system. The results open new perspectives of physical education for teacher education.

Keywords

Teaching Practices, Student Action, Joint Didactic Action, Teacher Education

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

[1]	Amade-Escot, C. (2003). The Interactive Management of Didactic Contract in Volleyball: Arrangement of Environments and Regulations of the Teacher. In C. Amade-Escot (Ed.), Didactics of Physical Education, State of Research (pp. 255-278). Paris: EPS.
[2]	Amade-Escot, C. (2004). Teaching Content and Vagaries of Didactic Relation in Physical Education. In G. Carlier (Ed.), If We Spoke of the Pleasure of Teaching Physical Education (pp. 227-239). Montpellier: AFRAPS.
[3]	Amade-Escot, C., & Marsenach, J. (1995). Didactics of Physical Education. Grenoble: La pensée sauvage.
[4]	Amade-Escot, C., & Léziart, Y. (1996). Contribution to the Study of the Distribution of Didactic Engineering Proposals from Practitioners. Case Analysis of Voluntary Physical Education Teachers. Recherche INRP, No. 30506.
[5]	Amans-Passaga, C., & Dugal, J.-P. (2007). Observe and Intervene. In C. Amade-Escot (Ed.), The Didactic (pp. 99-115). Paris: Revue EPS.
[6]	Bennour, N. (2014). Productive Disciplinary Student Engagement in the Joint Didactic Action in Gymnastics. Case Studies in Two Contrasting Institutions in Tunisia. PhD Thesis in Educational Sciences. Toulouse: University of Toulouse II Jean Jaurès.
[7]	Bennour, N., & Zghibi, M. (2013). Language Interaction and Co-Construction of Knowledge in Football: Didactic Study and Modeling Attempt. Indian Journal of Applied Research (IJAR), 3, 514-515.
[8]	Brousseau, G. (1988). The Didactic Contract: The Environment. Recherche en didactique des mathématiques, 9, 309-336.
[9]	Deriaz, D., Poussin, B., & Gréhaigne, J.-F. (1998). The Debate of Ideas. Revue EPS, 273, 80-82.
[10]	Elandoulsi, S. (2011). The Practical Epistemology of Teachers: Effects of Experience and Expertise in Teaching of the Handstand in Coeducational Classes. Comparative Analysis of Three Physical Education Teachers in Tunisia. PhD Thesis, Toulouse: University of Toulouse 2 Le Mirail.
[11]	Elandoulsi, S. (2013). Gender Position and Learning Physical Education. The Case of the Teaching of the Handstand in Gymnastics in Tunisia. Communication Invited to the International Symposium “Education, Socialization and Gender: From Childhood to Adulthood.” AREF International Congress 2013 “Current Research in Education and Teacher Education”. Montpellier.
[12]	Fernandez, G. (1999). For an Accessible and Attractive Practice. Revue EPS, 279, 67-71.
[13]	Goirand, P. (1998). Physical Education in College and Gymnastics. Paris: INRP.
[14]	Gréhaigne, J.-F., & Cadopi, M. (1990). Learning in Physical Education. In AEEPS (Ed.), Physical Education and Teaching of Physical and Sports Activities (pp. 17-24). Paris: AEEPS.
[15]	Huberman, M., & Miles, M. B. (1991). Qualitative Data Analysis: A Collection of New Methods. Bruxelles: De Boeck.
[16]	Johsua, S., & Felix, C. (2002). Student Homework: A Didactic Analysis in Terms of Environment for Study. Revue Française de Pédagogie, 141, 89-97. http://dx.doi.org/10.3406/rfp.2002.3074
[17]	Leutenegger, F. (2003). Study Didactic Interactions in Math Class: A Methodological Prototype. In A. Danis, M. L. Schu- bauer-Leoni, & A. Weil-Barais (Eds.), Interaction, Learning and Development (Vol. 56, pp. 559-571). Persée: Bulletin de psychologie.
[18]	Margolinas, C. (1996). Elements for the Analysis of the Role of the Teacher: The Concluding Sentences. Recherches en Didactique des Mathématiques, 12, 113-158.
[19]	Marsenach, J., & Mérand, R. (1987). The Formative Evaluation in Physical Education in Colleges. Paris: INRP.
[20]	Marsenach, J. et al. (1991). Physical Education: What Education? Paris: INRP.
[21]	Perrenoud, P. (1997). Differentiated Pedagogy, from Intentions to Action. Paris: ESF.
[22]	Schubauer-Leoni, M. L. (2008). The Construction of the Reference in the Joint Action Teacher-Student. In N. Wallian, M.-P. Poggi, & M. Musard (Eds.), Co-Construct of Knowledge: The Art of Intervention by the APSA (pp. 67-86). Besançon: PUFC.
[23]	Schubauer-Leoni, M. L., & Leutenegger, F. (2002). Explain and Understand in a Clinic-Experimental Approach in Ordinary Didactics. In F. Leutenegger, & M. Saada-Robert (Eds.), Explaining and Understanding in Science Education (pp. 227- 251). Bruxelles: De Boeck.
[24]	Sensevy, G. (2001). Action Theory and Teacher Action. In J. M. Baudouin, & J. Friedrich (Eds.), Theories of Action and Education (pp. 203-224). Bruxelles: De Boeck, Raisons Éducatives.
[25]	Sensevy, G., & Mercier, A. (2007). Acting Together. The Joint Didactic Action of the Teacher and Students. Rennes: Presses universitaires de Rennes.
[26]	Sensevy, G., Mercier, A., & Schubauer-Leoni, M. L. (2000). Towards a Model of the Didactic Action of the Teacher. About the Race of 20. Recherches en Didactique des Mathématiques, 20, 263-304.
[27]	Tousignant, M. (1985). The Degree of Cooperation of Students: A Source of Equity for the Teacher Assumptions. La Revue Québécoise de l’Activité Physique, 3, 69-74.
[28]	Venturini, P., & Amade-Escot, C. (2014). Analysis of Conditions Leading to a Productive Disciplinary Engagement during a Physics Lesson in a Disadvantaged Area School. International Journal of Educational Research, 64, 138-170. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2013.07.003
[29]	Verscheure, I. (2005). Differential Dynamic of Didactic Interaction and Co-Construction of Gender Differences in Physical Education: The Case of the Attack in Volleyball in Agricultural Colleges. Ph.D. Thesis in Educational Sciences, Toulouse: III Paul Sabatier University.
[30]	Wallian, N., & Gréhaigne, J. F. (2004). Towards Semio-Constructivist Approach to Motor Learning. In G. Carlier (Ed.), If We Spoke of the Pleasure of Teaching Physical Education (pp. 257-268). Montpellier: AFRAPS.