Session Information
27 SES 07 B, Tasks, Tools, and Conceptualisation in Mathematics and Sciences
Paper Session
Contribution
Following the framework of the Joint Action Theory in Didactics (JATD; Sensevy, 2011, 2012), my work addresses the issue of the understanding of concepts as forged within the situations in which these concepts are studied in classrooms, or produced and used in culture. This actional approach aims at re-examining the issue of efficiency of the didactic action by scrutinizing the relevance of the epistemic capacities acquired in classrooms for becoming capable of acting in social practices of reference. A modeling of action, didactic or cultural, as games is used to make this possible. The comparison of these games in their definitory and strategic dimensions allows to discuss the efficiency of the didactic action for the social practice of reference. Methodologically, this comparison is based on the construction of a tertium comparationis of epistemic capacities enacted in the unfolding of the didactic game.
From a theoretical point of view, I apprehend conceptualization as immanent to the praxis. This claim follows the line of argument developed by Occam (in Panaccio, 2011, pp. 83-84). Under Occam's razor principle, this author considers that an ontology of concepts as abilities is adequate to account for the process of conceptualization. I also draw upon the Peirce’s principle of individuation (Peirce, 1878). Indeed, Peirce claims that differences between conceptualization must imply differences in action, unless they are the same. For my work, I postulate the reciprocal principal, thats means that differences in the functioning of didactic systems must lead to differences in conceptualization, unless they are not significant differences for the learning of concepts.
Drawing upon Sensevy et al. (2005), I use the notion of game to model didactic actions but also social practices of reference. Indeed, the notion of game enables to account both for the strategies of the actors and the grammar of their actions. I then use a system of knowledge games and capacities to describe and characterize the elaboration of conceptual understanding in classes (Santini & Sensevy, 2014). This modeling is a system of 1) learning games modeling the unfolding of the didactic action, 2) epistemic capacities modeling the knowledge enacted through the participation to learning games, and 3) epistemic games modeling the social practices of reference. Finally, I consider that conceptualization is not the result of a sole individual but carried by a thought collective (Fleck, 1979), as well in classrooms than in social practices of reference.
I use this modeling of action as games particularized to contexts and issues, may it be in classrooms, in social practices of reference or in the history of knowledge. This common background of modeling action with games enables to compare between the didactic action, the social practice of reference and the history of knowledge. Such a comparison is intended to scrutinize how the winning of learning games may contribute to the winning of epistemic games. In other words, it aims to describe how the experiences lived by the students in classrooms might become efficient for further experiences to come in more expert situations. This leads to conclude on the efficiency of the didactic action.
Method
Expected Outcomes
References
Brandom, R. B. (1999). Some pragmatist themes in Hegel’s idealism: negotiation and administration in Hegel’s account of the structure and content of conceptual norms. European Journal of Philosophy, 7(2), 164–189. Dewey, J. (1938). Experience and Education. New York: Collier Books. Ercikan, K., & Roth, W. M. (2006). What good is polarizing research into qualitative and quantitative? Educational Researcher, 35(5), 14‑23. Fleck, L. (1979). Genesis and development of a scientific fact. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. Foucault, M. (2003). The Birth of the Clinic. London: Routledge. Panaccio, C. (2011). Qu’est-ce qu’un concept? Paris: Vrin. Peirce, C.-S. (1878). How to Make Our Ideas Clear. Popular Science Monthly, 12, 286‑302. Santini, J., & Sensevy, G. (2014). Investigating Conceptualization As A System Of Knowledge Games. A Comparative Case Study Of Earthquakes In Seismology And Classroom Sequences. Presented at European Conference on Educational Research (ECER), Porto, Portugal. Sensevy, G. (2011). Overcoming Fragmentation: Towards a Joint Action Theory in Didactics. In Beyond Fragmentation: Didactics, Learning and Teaching in Europe (B. Hudson & A. Meinert, p. 60‑76). Portland, OR: Barbara Budrich. Sensevy, G. (2012). About the Joint Action Theory in Didactics. Zeitschrift für Erziehungswissenschaft, 15(3), 503–516. Sensevy, G. (2014). Characterizing teaching effectiveness in the Joint Action Theory in Didactics: an exploratory study in primary school. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 46(5), 577‑610. Sensevy, G., Schubauer-Leoni, M. L., Mercier, A., Ligozat, F., & Perrot, G. (2005). An attempt to model the teacher’s action in the mathematics class. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 59(1), 153–181. Shaffer, D. W., & Serlin, R. C. (2004). What Good are Statistics that Don’t Generalize? Educational Researcher, 33(9), 14‑25.
Search the ECER Programme
- Search for keywords and phrases in "Text Search"
- Restrict in which part of the abstracts to search in "Where to search"
- Search for authors and in the respective field.
- For planning your conference attendance you may want to use the conference app, which will be issued some weeks before the conference
- If you are a session chair, best look up your chairing duties in the conference system (Conftool) or the app.