Specialized Teaching Proof against the “Déjà-La” Case Study of Two Teachers of Adapted Physical Activity in Tunisia

Lengliz Hanene¹, Guerchi Meher², Carnus Marie France³

¹EFTS-Laboratory of Education, Formation and Knowledge, UMR University of Toulouse, France/Higher School of Sport and Physical Education, Ksar-Said, Tunis.
²EFTS-Laboratory of Education, Formation and Knowledge, UMR University of Toulouse, France/Higher school of Sports and Physical Education, Kef, Tunis.
³UMR EFTS, University of Toulouse 2-Le Mirail, France.

DOI: 10.4236/ape.2015.54035                

Abstract

This article is a part of a research which joins in a work of a doctoral thesis in clinical didactics of physical education (PE). We analyze the Specialized Teaching Practices (STP) intended for pupils with particular needs, presenting here a mental deficiency, by trying to articulate certain concepts stemming from disciplinary didactics together with a clinical study of psycho-analytical orientation. In view of our progress, which is still at an exploration stage, our interest is focused on the concept of “déjà-là”, representing the hidden side of the Teacher’s Decisional Process (TDP) and providing motives and potential drives of the teacher’s professional activity. We proceed to the study of closely-related cases of two teachers of Adapted Physical Activities (APA) practiced in Specialized Institutions in Tunisia. The analysis of the contents of the interviews organized according to the clinical didactic methodology shows that the teacher’s “déjà-là” can determine to a great extent his didactic and professional decisions.

Keywords

Specialized Teaching Practice, Adapted Physical Activities, Clinical Didactics, Case Study, “Déjà-Là”, Mental Deficiency, Teacher’s Decisional Process, Disciplinary Didactics

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

[1]	Aulagnier, P. (1975). The Violence of Interpretation. From Pictogram to Statement. Paris: PUF. http://dx.doi.org/10.4324/9780203361290
[2]	Bardin, L. (1977). The Content Analysis. Paris: PUF.
[3]	Beillerot, J., Blanchard-Laville, C., & Mosconi, N. (1996). Towards a Clinic of “Rapport au Savoir” (Relationship to Knowledge). Paris: L’Harmattan.
[4]	Brunet, F., Bui-Xuan, G., & Bluteau, S. (2001). Teaching and Animating the Adapted Physical Activities for People with Intellectual Disabilities. In J. Bilard, G. Ninot, & A. Varray, (Dir), Teaching Adapted Physical Activities (pp. 134-142). Revue EPS, No. 55.
[5]	Blanchard-Laville, C. (2001). Teachers between Pleasure and Suffering. Paris: PUF.
[6]	Bourdieu, P. (1980). The Practical Sense. Paris: Editions de Minuit.
[7]	Bru, M. (1992). The Didactic Variations in the Organization of learning Conditions. Toulouse: South University Editions.
[8]	Carnus, M. F. (2002). Beliefs, Conceptions, Intentions and Effective Practices in the Teaching of Gymnastics. In J. F. Robin, & A. Durny, (Eds.), Current Work in Gymnastics and Acrobatic Activities (pp. 160-164). Dossier EPS, 57, Paris. Paris: Editions Revue EPS.
[9]	Carnus, M. F. (2003). Didactic Analysis of the Decision-Making Process of Teachers in Physical and Sports Education. A Study of Crossed Cases. In C. Amade-Escot, (Ed.), Didactic of Physical Education, State of Research (pp. 193-224). Paris: Editions EPS.
[10]	Carnus, M. F. (2009). The Teacher’s Decision in Clinical Didactic. A Case Study in Physical Education. In A. Terrisse, & M. F. Carnus, (Dir), Clinical Didactic of Physical and Sports Education, Which Issues of Knowledge (pp. 63-81)? Bruxelles: De Boeck.
[11]	Carnus, M. F. (2013). Teacher Is Not Master in His/Her Own Institution. In M. F. Carnus, & A. Terrisse, (Ed.), Clinical Didactic of Physical and Sports Education, Teachers Entity in Question (pp. 23-32). Paris: Revue EPS.
[12]	Carnus, M. F., & Terrisse, A. (2013). Clinical Didactic of Physical and Sports Education, Teacher’s Entity in Question. Paris: Revue EPS.
[13]	Ciccone, A. (2012). The Unconscious Psychic Transmission, Projective Identification and Phantasm of Transmission. Paris: Dunod.
[14]	Freud, S. (1927). The Future of an Illusion. Paris: PUF.
[15]	Freud, S. (1985). Construction in the Analysis. In Results, Ideas, Problems (pp. 269-283). Paris: PUF.
[16]	Gomez, J. F. (2004). An Educator in Walls. Anti-Pedagogical Poem for the XXI Century. Paris: Téraèdre.
[17]	Haber, S. (2012). Freud and Social Theory. Paris: La Dispute.
[18]	Jourdan, I. (2006). Relation to the Body, Relation to Sports and Artistic Physical Activities and Professional Logic: Two Case Studies in Initial Training in Physical and Sports Education. Aster, 42, 57-78.
[19]	Klein, M., & Riviere, J. (1978). Love and Hatred. Paris: Payot.
[20]	Loizon, D. (2004). The Clinical Analysis of the Experience of Teachers and Knowledge Transmission: Clinical Research in Educational Sciences, Contribution for an Analysis of Teaching Practices, 5th Congress of l’AECSE. Paris: CNAM.
[21]	Mucchielli, R. (1975). Content Analysis. Paris: ESF.
[22]	Robert, M., & Carnus, M. F. (2013). Nonverbal Ostensive Forms in Gymnastics, Constitutive of Professional Signature of Two PE Teachers. In M. F. Carnus, & A. Terrisse, (Dir). Clinical Didactic of Physical and Sports Education. Teachers Entity“le sujet enseignant” in Question (pp. 81-92). Revue EPS (Eds.).
[23]	Rouzel, J. (2004). The Daily Practices in Special Education. Paris: Dunod.
[24]	Terrisse, A., & Carnus, M. F. (2009). Clinical Didactic of Physical and Sports Education: What Stakes of Knowledge? Bruxelles: De Boeck University.
[25]	Vandermersch, B., & Chemema, R. (2009). Dictionary of Psychoanalysis. Paris.