Sciences Education at secondary school often takes place in specific sciences classrooms. In those classrooms, lab workstations are blocked down in specifics configurations that constrain actions/movements of teachers.
We investigate the extent to which configuration of workspace supports, prevents or restricts actions of teachers and how teachers use professional skills to adapt their work .
Different countries in Europe preconize Inquiry Based Teaching. This method of teaching includes group working sessions. Configuration of workspace can facilitate group working, or not. We observe interactions between teacher and pupils, especially the quality of the engagement of pupils in activity during working group sessions.

(We shall say “he” for the teacher to simplify reading)

Our research questions are :
1 - How does physical workspace interact with the professional activity of the teacher, especially:
a - What movements/actions of the teacher support pupils' engagement in task during group working in the context of Inquiry Based Teaching ?
b - What class configuration supports/allows/prevents these movements/actions ?
2 - How can movement awareness be used by the teacher to adjust his practices and improve his vocational skills?

Our theoretical framework calls two domains: activity analysis and working space.

-Our study considers teacher activity (Leplat, 2008), which Grangeat (2009, 2016) describes with concept of Teaching Process Knowledge (TPK). Four elements are parts of SP: Cue, Teacher’s goal, Action’s rules, Professional Knowledge (PK). Teacher gets cues in the classroom (like hands up or pupil glance), according to his goal (fostering engagement in task), and acts according to his action’s rules and PK, for instance by movements and stops. We consider movements and stops as observable traces of teacher activity.
Some of the activity is not conscious (Clot, 2000, Vergnaud, 2011). Vermersh (2000) developed the technique of elicitation interview : teacher, confronted with his activity through videotape recording, becomes able to put words on it, and becomes aware of the unconscious part of activity. We hypothesise that movement tracking, as videotape recording, can be a medium used in elicitation interview framework to help teacher to become conscious of his actions.

 -Research shows that out of school, physical working-space changes, in accordance with work organisation. For Fischer & Fousse, (2002) for instance, open spaces replace closed offices, to adapt space to more interaction and autonomy for workers.

At school, new teaching models are preconized, but there is few change in space configuration, although new spaces are to imagine, to enhance interaction and collaboration (Long & Erhrman, 2005). An essential need for teachers is to have enough space to rearrange tables to ease group working and foster interactions between pupils (Lang, 2002). Walls, Schopieray, & DeVoss, (2009) point five factors that can interfere with teaching and learning, and two of them are present in science classroom: arrangement into raws and locked down tables.

Rißler, Bossen and Blasse, (2014) examine the arrangement of pupils in classrooms. They point out that, although teachers place pupils on the basis of gender and difficulties, inequalities persist. Kregenow, Rogers, & Price, (2011) show that in frontal configuration (professor in center of room, rows of tables),  high achievement pupils are ahead, and low achievement pupils are at the back of the room. Our study will examine the arrangement of  pupils during group working.

Forest (2006), uses concept of proxemics, developed in anthropologic field by Hall (1966). Hall identifies four distances: intimate, personal, social, public. Forest (2009) shows that teacher uses proxemic patterns to capture the attention of pupils, moving in or out of the different distances of Hall. Movements are not trivial professional gestures. So, our study will examine them as indicators of professional knowledge about using of physical workspace.

Clot, Y. (2008). Travail et pouvoir d’agir. Paris: Presses universitaires de France. Fischer, G.-N., & Fousse, C. (2002). Espaces de travail et communication–Une lecture psychosociale. Communication et Organisation, (21). Retrieved from http://communicationorganisation.revues.org/2651 Forest, D. (2006). Analyse proxémique d'interactions didactiques. Carrefours de l'éducation, (1), 73-94. Forest, D. (2009). Agencements didactiques, pour une analyse fonctionnelle du comportement non-verbal du professeur. Revue française de pédagogie, (165), 77-89. En ligne http://rfp.revues.org/1108 Grangeat, M. (2009). Analyser le travail enseignant pour concevoir l’intervention éducative : est-ce utile et pour quoi faire ? Nouveaux c@hiers de la recherche en éducation, 12(1), 31-46. Grangeat, M. (2016). Dimensions and Modalities of Inquiry-Based Teaching: Understanding the Variety of Practices. Education Inquiry, [S.l.], v. 7, n. 4, dec. 2016. ISSN 2000-4508. Available at: . Date accessed: 14 Jan. 2017. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.3402/edui.v7.29863. Kregenow, J. M., Rogers, M., & Price, M. F. (2011). Is There a “Back” of the Room when the Teacher Is in the Middle? Journal of College Science Teaching, 40(6), 45–51. Lang, D. C. (2002). Teacher Interactions within the Physical Environment: How Teachers Alter Their Space and/or Routines Because of Classroom Character. Consulté à l’adresse http://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED472265 Leplat, J. (Éd.). (2008). Repères pour l’analyse de l’activité en ergonomie. Paris: Presses universitaires de France. Long, P. D., & Ehrmann, S. C. (2005). LEARNING SPACE. Retrieved from https://net.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/erm0542.pdf Rißler, G., Bossen, A., & Blasse, N. (2014). School as Space: Spatial Alterations, Teaching, Social Motives, and Practices. Studia Paedagogica, 19(4), 145–160. https://doi.org/10.5817/SP2014-4-7 Vergnaud, G. (2011). Au fond de l'action, la conceptualisation. In Savoirs théoriques et savoirs d'action (pp. 275-292). Presses Universitaires de France. Vermersch, P. (2000). L’entretien d’explicitation (3e éd). Paris: ESF éd. Walls, D. M., Schopieray, S., & DeVoss, D. N. (2009). Hacking Spaces: Place as Interface. Computers and Composition, 26(4), 269-287. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.compcom.2009.09.003