This contribution aims at discussing the complementary of two concepts used for the analysis of co-produced knowledge in collaborative research: boundary object and two-sided object. To compare the two concepts, we rely on an analysis tool dedicated to identify the shared elements during collaborative workshops. Design-based research (DBRC, 2003) and cooperative engineering (Sensevy et al., 2013) are two methodological approaches involving collaboration between researchers and practitioners. They both develop educational tools, practices or curricula based on didactic models. Within this context, collaboration aims to co-produce and formalize theoretical and pragmatic knowledge. The meta-didactic transposition framework (Arzarello et al., 2014) is often used for the analysis of interactions and knowledge productions by design-based research (Sanchez et al., 2017) while cooperative engineering relies on joint action theory (Sensevy, 2011) to analyze didactic transactions of knowledge between teachers and researchers (Ligozat & Marlot, 2016). We believe it is worth discussing the complementarity of two concepts at the core of each of these frameworks. Boundary object is defined as concrete and abstract objects, sufficiently generic to be apprehended by different professional communities, but specific enough to keep the characteristics of each of them (Monod-Ansaldi et al., 2019; Star & Griesemer, 1989). Two-sided object characterizes two facets of the same object perceived as a didactic concept by researchers and referred to as an emblematic example by teachers (Marlot & Roy, 2020). In this paper, we mobilize both of these concepts addressing a design-based research context. PLAY is a design-based research project (Sanchez & Monod-Ansaldi, 2015) which brings together computer scientists, teachers, researchers and geologists. They collaborate in the design of Geome, a digital learning game dedicated to museum school visits (Bonnat et al., 2020). Several workshops conducted in PLAY were recorded (audio and video), transcribed and studied with an analysis model which allows us to understand shared elements (Paukovics, 2020). Thus, Geome is identified as a boundary object built by professional communities. It is constituted of themes belonging to the following registers: didactical, technical and organizational. The game metaphor is one of the components of this boundary object which can be characterized as a two-sided object presenting two complementary facets; the one linked to the conception of the game prototype (mission of the players, universe, game mechanics) and the other related to the didactic concept of metaphor. We assume the two concepts are compatible and complementary since two-sided objects are part of a boundary object.

Arzarello, F., Robutti, O., Sabena, C., Cusi, A., Garuti, R., Malara, N., & Martignone, F. (2014). Meta-Didactical Transposition: A theoretical Model for Teacher Education Programmes. In A. Clark-Wilson, O. Robutti, & Sinclair (Éds.), The Mathematics Teacher in the Digital Era (p. 347‑372). Springer. Ligozat, F., & Marlot, C. (2016). Un espace interprétatif partagé entre l’enseignant et le didacticien est-il possible ? Développement de séquences d’enseignement scientifique à Genève et en France. In A. Müller (Éd.), Le partage de savoirs dans les processus de recherche en éducation (p. 143‑163). De Boeck. Monod-Ansaldi, R., Vincent, C., & Aldon, G. (2019). Objets frontières et brokering dans les négociations en recherche orientée par la conception. Education & didactique, 13(2), 61‑84. Sanchez, E., Monod Ansaldi, R., Vincent, C., & Safadi-Katouzian, S. (2017). A praxeological perspective for the design and implementation of a digital role-play game. Education and Information Technologies, 22(6), 2805‑2824. Sensevy, G., Forest, D., Quilio, S., & Morales, G. (2013). Cooperative engineering as a specific design-based research. ZDM, 45(7), 1031‑1043. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-013-0532-4 Star, S. L., & Griesemer, J. R. (1989). Institutional Ecology, `Translations’ and Boundary Objects : Amateurs and Professionals in Berkeley’s Museum of Vertebrate Zoology, 1907-39. Social Studies of Science, 19(3), 387‑420.