This contribution focuses on Physics and chemistry teachers’ professional knowledge. We present our theoretical framework for knowledge acquisition that we constructed is based on the theoretical frameworks of science didactics and professional didactics. We have elaborated some theoretical tools that express the acquisition by teachers of new knowledge from the in-class activity and, at the same time, show the impact of this new knowledge on how the teacher organizes his activity. This impact can be measured by in-class and out-of-class work. It suggests that the activity has a constructive factor and a productive factor (Samurcay & Rabardel, 2004).  

We illustrate the interest of this framework with an empirical study based on the implementation of a science lesson which is founded on inquiry, in the French curricular context. We study two physics and chemistry teachers at middle school (9th grade) who are teaching mechanics. We specifically focus on the difference between what is planned and what is implemented by the teachers in their class. We investigate the unexpected events in the class (Huber & Chautard, 2001). In order to do that, we have used a specific method whose principles included monitoring of teachers over two consecutive years, encompassing their out-of-class activities.

In our study, we examine teacher’s action (in class and out of class) by identifying his professional knowledge and how it is developed. The study of different kinds of knowledge refers to the concept of Pedagogical Content Knowledge (PCK), elaborated by Shulman (1987). PCK can be considered as a specific knowledge for teaching and it is partially enriched by content knowledge (Sensevy & Amade-Escot, 2007). Therefore, this theoretical tool can be used to understand the specific knowledge involved in the teaching of subject-related knowledge, in order to distinguish a teacher from an expert. We also refer to Grossman (1990) in order to specifically analyze the nature of Pedagogical Knowledge (PK) or the links between PK and PCK and to Magnusson and al.’s model (1999) to categorize the knowledge involved in teaching practice. This last model is composed of categories and subcategories that distinguish finely teacher knowledge and student knowledge between knowledge at the level of the teacher, which he uses in relation to the content to be taught (weight and mass in our study), and knowledge at the student level that is specific to the teaching of this content.

So as to study the developments of professional knowledge, we refer to professional didactics in order to analyze the organization of teacher activity and the accompanying regulation mechanisms (Pastré, 1999; Leplat, 2006; Coulet, 2011). Leontiev (1978) considers that actions are essential components of human activities. They are subordinated to activities. Activities are carried out through actions and actions respond to conscious goals. These goals are part of the task that Leontiev (1978) defines as a specific goal under defined conditions. Therefore, it is important to differentiate what is related to the task from what is related to the activity, in order to study the tasks required from the students. The work of Leplat (2006) connects these two elements while showing precisely what differentiates them.

The theoretical framework presented above allows us to articulate the action of teachers with their knowledge. Our inquiry focuses on two main issues:

- What are the types of professional knowledge mobilized by teachers?

- Does this knowledge evolve? Which factors lead to evolutions of knowledge?

Abell, K. (2007). Research on science teacher knowledge. In K. Abell, & N. Lederman (Éds.), Handbook of research on science education (pp. 1105-1150). Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Clot, Y., & Faïta, D. (2000). Genres et styles en analyse du travail. Concepts et Méthodes. Travailler, 4, 7-42. Clot, Y., Faïta, D., Fernandez, G., & Scheller, L. (2001). Entretiens en autoconfrontation croisée : une méthode en clinique de l’activité. Education permanente, 146(1), 17-25. Coulet, J.-C. (2011). Une approche psychologique de la gestion des compétences, Au delà de l'opposition expert/novice. Clermont-Ferrand: GESCO Conference. Grossman, P. (1990). The making of a teacher: Teacher knowledge and teacher education. New York : Teachers College Press. Gueudet, G., Pepin, B., & Trouche, L. (2012). From text to ’lived resources’: curriculum material and mathematics teacher development. New York : Springer. Huber, M. & Chautard, P. (2001). Le savoir caché des enseignants. Paris: L’Harmattan Jameau, A. (2014, à paraître). Les connaissances professionnelles des enseignants et leur évolution à travers une analyse de l’activité. Une étude de cas en physique au collège. Education & Didactique, 8. Leontiev, A.N. (1978): Activity, Consciousness and Personality. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice Hall Leplat, J. (2006). Les contextes de formation. Education Permanente, 166, 29-48. Magnusson, S., Krajcik, J., & Borko, H. (1999). Nature, sources and development of pedagogical content knowledge for science teaching. In J. Gess-Newsome, & N. Lederman (Éds.), Examining pedagogical content knowledge: The construct and its implications for science education (pp. 95-132). Boston: Kluwer. Pastré, P. (1999). La conceptualisation dans l’action : bilan et nouvelles perspectives. Education Permanente, 139, 13-35. Power, M. (2008). Le concepteur pédagogique réflexif : un journal de bord. Athabasca, AB: Athabasca University Press. Samurçay, R., & Rabardel, P. (2004). Modèles pour l'analyse de l'activité et des compétences, propositions. In R. Samurçay, & P. Pastré (Éds.), Recherches en didactique professionnelle (pp. 163-180). Toulouse: Octarès. Sensevy, G., & Amade-Escot, C. (2007). Une présentation de "Those who understand knowledge growth in teaching". Education & Didactique, 1(1), 95-96. Shulman, L. S. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational researcher, 15(2), 4-14. Shulman, L. S. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reform. Educational Review, 57(1), 1-22.