The research we will present is part of a research project called e-FRAN¹ IDEE (Digital Interactions for Education and Teaching) conducted in Rennes, France, in relation with a group studying Collectives of Teachers Groups and Resources for Students' Autonomy (CERAD). It studied the issues of digital appropriation by teachers and identified uses that can promote the development of student autonomy (Kistansas, 2013 ; Johnson & Davies, 2014). Part of this research is based, within the framework of collaborative research (Lieberman, 1986), on the collective design, between teachers and researchers, of an open educational resource (OER) in English in the manner of cooperative engineering (Sensevy, Forest, Quilio & Morales-Ibarra, 2013; Gruson, 2019; Quéré, 2019).

The aim of the group was to produce a digital educational resource that supports the development of year 9 students' autonomy. The following working principles (Sensevy & Bloor, 2019) have been adopted. The first principle is the principle of quasi-symmetry: all the members of the group, despite their different skills, work together to design activities. The second principle is the sharing of common purposes, such as the knowledge at stake, or the conception of a digital resource that would be likely to enable an "autonomous" understanding of the English language by the students. The third principle is the assumption of differences: the past experience of the teachers in the group is recognized as a particular expertise that can feed the design work, while, for example, one of the doctoral students is conducting specific research on autonomy. Finally, the last principle is an engineer's posture that all the participants adopt throughout the collective work, building together the activities for the classes. The monitoring of this collective was carried out over two years, 2017-2018 and 2018-2019.

To understand how the didactic activity takes place during the implementation of the resource, we use the Joint Action Theory in Didactics (JATD). In the JATD, the concepts of didactic contract and milieu (CDPE, 2019) help define a strategic system, which is the strategic system of teaching and learning. These concepts are closely articulated. The contract can be described as what is already known by the students and the milieu as what is to be known.

Thus, we study the following research questions. To what extent do the different iterations carried out within a cooperative engineering allow to densify the knowledge worked on ? How do digital resources support problematization of an activity in a sufficiently resistant didactic environment?

To answer these questions, we have analyzed a particular activity, in which students design interactive computer games for their classmates, on the basis of summaries of Conan Doyle’s novels. Thanks to our theoretical framework, we have conducted an analysis of the didactical itransactions during these lessons. We will present the results of our analyses during our presentation.

1 http://www.education.gouv.fr/cid94346/appel-a-projet-e-fran.html

We have constructed a qualitative methodology based on the principles of cooperative engineering (Sensevy, Forest, Quilio and Morales, 2013). The latter proposes, like Lesson Studies, or collective study of a lesson, (Miyakawa and Winslow, 2009; Clivaz, 2015) to co-design teaching-learning situations or sessions. Cooperative engineering has a dual function. They must make it possible: "(1) to better understand the practice, as any anthropological type of study; (2) to transform the practice according to the goals that the engineering collective has set for itself" (CDPE, 2019). The core of the work within an engineering group thus concerns the preparation, execution and evaluation of sessions, or even sequences, designed collectively. In this context, the aim is to implement and re-implement these sessions in an iterative process. This type of engineering enables "constructive dialogue between researchers and teachers" (Bednarz, 2015) for the co-construction of teaching-learning situations and the development of reflection on classroom practices. Our study tends to show how the collective design, over several years, helps to densify the activities presented. The choice of this methodology thus places the design of the resource as well as its implementation at the heart of our research. Cooperative educational engineering was conducted over two years. During the latter, we constituted two main collection periods by collecting, on the one hand, data resulting from the collective conception of the sequence, and, on the other hand, data resulting from the individual work of the teachers during its implementation. All this data was filmed over two iterations. This video data have been reduced into synopses and transcriptions of significant episodes in order to compare the activities.we supplemented the data with interviews conducted with the teachers taking part in this work in order to better understand their design work in their practice and also to target the place of digital in this work. In this presentation, we focus our analyses on a part of this engineering by studying the work one of the three teachers followed. Moreover, in order to understand the effects of collective work on the activities produced, we have, as mentioned earlier, analyzed the development of the same activity, implemented over the two years of follow-up in this teacher's class.

Having observed this specific activity over two years allows us to reveal the effects of the collective design has on its construction. During the first implementation, in Val’s classroom, the students constructed their questions sans avoir été confrontés à un milieu-problème suffisamment résistant pour les amener à réfléchir sur la langue. For instance, if a text had been less well understood by a pair, it was quite possible for the latter to succeed in the game . During the second implementation, the students were required to do additionnal work on the language. They had to produce definitions of words identified before by the teacher. For example, the word « clues » was defined as "they help find answers". Then they had to enter these definitions into a crossword on the LearningApps software that their peers could then play and complete. The place of digital technology is also important in the construction of knowledge. Indeed, the crossword activity, carried out on the LearningApps software, produces feedback, specifying what is correct and what is not. It allows students to make several attempts in their search for correct answers. In addition, it is important to point out that digital technology allows students to spend more time working on the language, unlike what could be achieved with a more traditional paper-based activity. In conclusion, we can say that the effectiveness of the activity between year 1 and year 2 has increased. The added complexity required the students to complete the design of the game with a reflexion on the language. We will also show, during the conference, the impact of the iterative and collective reflection conducted within the group, in order to promote this epistemic quality of the activities.

Bednarz, N. (2015). La recherche collaborative. Carrefours de l’éducation, 1, 171-184. Clivaz, S. (2015). Les Lesson Study : Des situations scolaires aux situations d’apprentissage professionnel pour les enseignants. Formation et Pratiques d’Enseignement en Questions - Revue des HEP de Suisse romande et du Tessin, 19, 99-105. Collectif Didactique pour enseigner. (2019). Didactique pour enseigner. Rennes, France: Presses Universitaires de Rennes. Gruson, B. (2019).L’action conjointe en didactique des langues: élaboration conceptuelle et méthodologique.Rennes, France: Presses Universitaires de Rennes. Johnson, G. & Davies, S. (2014). Self-regulated learning in digital environments: theory, research, praxis. British Journal of Research. 1(2), 1-14. Repéré à https://espace.curtin.edu.au/handle/20.500.11937/45935 Kistantas, A. (2013). Fostering college students' self-regulated learning with learning technologies. Hellenic Journal of Psychology, 10, pp. 235-252 Lieberman, A. (1986). Collaborative researche: Working with, not working on. Educational leadership, 43(5), 29-32. Miyakawa, T., & Winsløw, C. (2009). Un dispositif japonais pour le travail en équipe d’enseignants : étude collective d’une leçon. Éducation et didactique, 3(1), 77-90. Quere, N. (2019). Numérique et genèses documentaires : études de collectifs de professeurs d’anglais. Brest, Bretagne, France: Université de Bretagne occidentale. Sensevy G., & Bloor T. (2019). Cooperative Didactic Engineering.Encyclopedia of Mathematics Education, 1-5. Sensevy, G., Forest, D., Quilio,S., & Morales-Ibarra, G. (2013). Cooperative engineering as a specific design-based research. ZDM The international Journal on Mathematics Education, 45(7), 1031-1043.