Educators in most contexts of intervention are now facing more and more equipped and connected audiences as it is evidenced by a number of indicators (Eurostat, 2017 ; Croutte, Lautié & Hoibian, 2016). This deployment confronts all educators to specific attitudes and practices with particularities and implications that vary according to the field concerned. This applies in the field of Physical Education and Sport (PES) where organisations develop and promote physical education and sport and carry out training and competition activities for one or more sports. The visibility of activities in the public space takes new forms and the digital experience generates expectations regarding the activity. Technology can literally change the way the activity is conducted.

Empirical studies specifically dealing with the effects of societal changes in the field of PES remain few. On the other hand, a great deal of empirical research focused on occupations confronted with rapid changes or mutations (Perez-Roux and Balleux, 2014; Mazade & Hinault, 2014). Much of this research is concerned with all areas of intervention in education or training. It makes it possible to apprehend the effects on the perception of the activity inevitably caused by socio-economic and managerial changes. It shows also how these societal evolutions are likely to disturb, at least for a time, identity building processes, previous logics and ways of understanding the occupational sphere and its outlines (Dubar, 2000).

In addition, the last 50 years have seen various attempts to integrate digital technologies into the school context of many countries. This integration was carried out sometimes by the initiative of actors motivated by what the technology could bring to their teaching and, more generally, on the basis of voluntarist policies (Assude & alii., 2010). Over time these efforts have given rise to recurrent discussions (Cuban, 2001), both in educational policy and in the scientific community. At the level of educational policies, the discussion often reveals high expectations about the digital capacity to improve education (Larose & Grenon, 2014, Wastiau, Blamire, Kearney, Quittre, Van de Graer & Monseur, 2013), while evaluation indicates that such expectations seem exaggerated (Hattie, 2011, OECD, 2015, Wang, Hsu, Reeves & Coster, 2014).

However, all of this work does not make it possible to analyse precisely the effects of digitalisation in the field of PES and the possible adaptations of professional practices. It is the contribution of this communication. The main interest of the communication is to propose a specific analysis of its consideration in a non-prescriptive institutional context. In our opinion, the actors are necessarily challenged by the digital transformation. The literature presented shows that audiences are largely affected by digital, with for some of them the possibility of being confronted with risk situations (eg cyberbullying, cyber-pornography, cyber-radicalization, addiction, deficit attentional, etc.). Moreover, the actors of the intervention are themselves also affected by technological developments (eg digital administration, acquisition of goods and services, social networks). Our goal is to report on the changes that the digital transformation brings to the workplace, and to document these changes in order to understand their characteristics. 

Based on a research focussing on French Judo educators in their relationship with their occupational activity (Perez-Roux, Perez & Author, 2016), the presentation aims to contribute to an analysis of the way digitalisation affects the field of PES. Starting from the principle according to which the adaptations of the actors are influenced by a set of knowledge of common sense socially marked and with a practical aim (what Jodelet [1994] calls a social representation), the analysis is interested in educators' perceptions of digital technologies and of the relationship their audiences has to these technologies.

To achieve our objectives, we chose a mixed research methodology. Since our intention is to conduct the most useful and informative research possible, we have combined approaches to superimpose quantitative scales and dimensions on qualitative data (Patton 1987, Karsenti-Savoie-Zajc 2000). The audience concerned by the analyses relating more specifically to digitalisation is made up of French Judo teachers from the Occitanie and Provence Alpes Côte d'Azur Regions and by Judo teachers who subscribe to a social network of French Judo teachers. The data collection was carried out during two series of semi-structured interviews, with general public (N = 12), then during a rehearsal course organised by the Regional League of the Occitan Region on the basis of diversified criteria (age, sex, rural / urban sector, full / part time, volunteer / salaried, teaching in one or more clubs, N = 44). A questionnaire was also completed by the participants of this internship (N = 132) and online (N = 108).

Our study interviewed Judo teachers to understand how digitalisation affects the field of PES. On the basis of the data collected by questionnaire and interviews, the results confirm the fairly broadly shared sensibility of the actors to digitalisation, including, as here, in a non-prescriptive institutional context. This sensitivity is consistent with a generally positive attitude towards the integration of the digital dimension into professional practices. In this respect, our observations support those of Tearle and Golder (2008) attesting to some form of enthusiasm of digital sports educators. Teachers who have spoken about digital technology refer to the added value it can bring to their business, in terms of saving time and energy. Since our goal is to document the changes that digital transformation has brought to occupational activity, we have identified three main aspects: dissemination of information about the club and practices, training and pedagogy and appropriation of digital means. The interviews are cross-cutting between these three aspects. We may also think that the initial training of Judo teachers does not prepare them particularly for taking into account the impact of digitalisation in their activity. This study has a number of limitations related to its methodology and its circumscribed nature in the world of Judo, but we believe that the methodology used has yielded results that provide an original and useful insight into the understanding of how the field of PES faces the challenge of the digital transition. The approach made it possible to grasp a large part of the complexity of the reality of Judo teachers' relationship to the digital world, by creating a dialogue between complementary methods, and it also helped to identify professionalisation issues that were little discussed in the field.

• Assude, T., Bessieres, D., Combrouze, D., & Loisy, C. (2010). Conditions des genèses d'usage des technologies numériques dans l'éducation, Revue STICEF, 17, ISSN : 1764-7223, mis en ligne le 10/072010, http://sticef.org • Butori, R., & Parguel, B. (2010). Les biais de réponse - Impact du mode de collecte des données et de l'attractivité de l'enquêteur. AFM, 2010, France. Repéré à https://halshs.archives-ouvertes.fr/halshs-00636228 • Croutte, P., Lautié, S., & Hoibian, S. (2016). Baromètre du Numérique (Edition 2016). Paris: CREDOC, coll. des Rapports. • Cuban, L. (2001). Oversold and Underused: Computers in the Classroom. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 256 p. Daniels, J.S., Jacobsen, M., Varnhagen, S., & Friesen, S. (2013). Barriers to Systemic, Effective, and Sustainable Technology Use in High School Classrooms / Obstacles à l’utilisation systémique, efficace et durable de la technologie dans les salles de classe des écoles secondaires. Canadian Journal Of Learning and Technology, 39 (4). Retrieved from http://www.cjlt.ca/index.php/cjlt/article/view/761. (28/01/2015). • Dubar, C. (2010). La crise des identités: L'interprétation d'une mutation. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France. doi:10.3917/puf.dubar.2010.01. • Jodelet, D. (1994). Les représentations sociales, Paris, PUF. • Karsenti, T. et Savoie-Zajc, L. (2000). Vers une formation globale à la recherche. In T. Karsenti et L. Savoie-Zajc (dir.), Introduction à la recherche en éducation (pp. 7-15). Sherbrooke, QC: Éditions du CRP. • Patton, Q. M. (1987). How to use qualitative methods in evaluation. Newsbury Park, London, New Dehli Sage Publications. • Perez-Roux Th. et Balleux A. (dir.) (2014). Mutations dans l’enseignement et la formation : brouillages identitaires et stratégies d’acteurs. Paris : L’Harmattan, coll. « Défi-Formation », 258 p., ISBN : 978-2-343-03881-0 • Tearle, P. & Golder, G. (2008). The Use of ICT in the Teaching and Learning of Physical Education in Compulsory Education: How Do We Prepare the Workforce of the Future?. European Journal of Teacher Education, 31 (1), 55-72. Retrieved December 25, 2017 from https://www.learntechlib.org/p/101455/. • Wang, S.-K., Hsu, H.-Y., Reeves, T., & Coster, D. (2014). Professional Development to Enhance Teachers' Practices in Using Information and Communication Technologies (ICTs) as Cognitive Tools: Lessons Learned from a Design-Based Research Study. Computers & Education, 79, 101-115. DOI: 10.1016/j.compedu.2014.07.006