The recent development of new teacher-researchers training in various contexts of higher education is named "university pedagogy”. Like the case for other fields, its scope has progressively widened (...) especially at the conceptual level, (...) if, in the early days, the focus was on pedagogical activities within universities (teaching activities and, later, learning activities), it soon became apparent that these could hardly be studied in isolation" (De Ketele, 2010). This training borrows methodologies already developed in teacher training, such as analysis of practices, pedagogical advice, companionship, etc. This development shows the progressive importance given by the institution to the pedagogical aspects of the teacher-researcher's job. Nevertheless, in these different approaches, there is a little place for didactic approaches, unlike in the training of secondary school teachers. The underlying assumption seems to be a better mastery of knowledge, linked to the research career of teacher-researchers, "A century ago, the defining characteristic of pedagogical achievement was content knowledge" (Schulman, 2007). However, this postulate not really verified, especially the extent of the knowledge to be taught, which is sometimes far removed from the research objects of teacher-researchers. Thus, their practical epistemology can be questioned in the context of the development of this 'university pedagogy'.

A training experiment conducted in agricultural higher education based on a collective didactic analysis of teaching practices (Gardiès, 2019) led us to implement a didactic approach that guided the participants towards a reflection on their teaching practices in relation to the knowledge taught and the study practices of their students. Indeed, "transpositive phenomena are the result of teacher and student co-activity in relation to knowledge issues, unfolding against the background of implicit contractual phenomena that partly determine the evolution of the system" (Amade-Escot, 2014). However, this approach requires epistemological vigilance on the part of trainers who are not specialists in this knowledge, which guides the choice of descriptors used in these analyses. Consequently, several research questions are being examined. What forms the didactic analyses of practices take? How is knowledge taken into account in this ternary approach (teacher/knowledge/students)? What theoretical descriptors are mobilised in the didactic analyses of practices? How do teacher-researchers appropriate the didactic approach to analyse their practices?

This communication examin the didactic approach in university pedagogy training by a didactic and collective analysis of practices. In other words, by putting the question of knowledge at the heart of this pedagogical training, it allows us to question the practical epistemology of teacher-researchers in higher agricultural education. From a theoretical point of view, we rely on the notion of practical epistemology (Brousseau, 1986, Amade-Escot, 2014), on didactic transposition (Chevallard, 1991) and on the descriptors of the theorization of joint action in didactics (Amade-Escot & Venturini, 2009, Sensevy & mercier, 2007). For the methodological approach we analyse the traces of activities produced by the teacher-researchers during a training module. These traces concern the results of the collective didactic analysis of practices and their remobilisation in a professional writing. Their analyses allow us to discuss the development of their practical epistemology.

From a methodological point of view, we analysed a pedagogical training of teacher-researchers in higher agricultural education based on the analysis of professional practices. The traces collected concern the contribution of knowledge before the analysis of practices, then the traces of collective analyses and finally the individual articles formalising the analysis. We analysed these data using content analysis. The context of the empirical investigation concerns the training cycle for new teacher-researchers in agricultural higher education for the year 2019-2020. We observed two training sessions. These sessions, based on the principle of analysis of practices, included several stages: a phase of theoretical input centred on the didactics of the disciplines and a collective work to extract descriptors for analysing situations. The group was composed of 9 teacher-researchers from different disciplines. The instructions were to film an ordinary session, to extract a few episodes, to present these episodes to the group and collectively to propose an analysis using the theoretical descriptors established beforehand. Then each teacher-researcher had to write an article reporting on the analysis of his or her practices. We collected the initial contributions, the filmed episodes, the traces of the collective analyses of practices (on a paper-board that we will call "poster" here) and the articles produced and published. The corpus is thus composed of a slide show of 57 slides constituting the initial input before the analyses, 9 filmed sessions carried out by the training, including a choice of 18 significant episodes made by the actors, 9 posters and 9 articles. We use content analysis in the sense of Bardin (1977) to analyse this corpus. We analyse the initial slide show to extract categories of knowledge introduced in the training. The posters and articles produced by the teacher-researchers are analysed using the same content analysis approach in order to compare them with the objects of knowledge put into circulation.

The results and their analysis allow us to say that the teacher-researchers in this training explained the theorisations underlying the analysis of their professional practices. The collective phases allowed for the development of a social dimension while the more individual phases allowed for the emergence of a strong experiential dimension. The whole process of analysing practices contributed to an epistemic understanding of the teaching situations observed. The language experience implemented in all the phases allowed for a deployment of thought and a circulation of knowledge, even if their appropriation remains partial. Subjective and institutional constraints were brought to light, but putting them into perspective made it possible to envisage transformations of practices resulting from a better understanding of the situations. It seems possible to say here that this type of training contributes to the development of a practical epistemology for teachers: "in order to make the decisions that are imposed on them, teachers explicitly or implicitly use all sorts of knowledge, methods and beliefs on how to find, learn or organise knowledge. This epistemological baggage is essentially constructed empirically to meet the didactic conditions, very specific conditions of the need to teach something to someone who does not really see the need. Despite its contradictions, it is the only means by which they can support their didactic processes and have them accepted by their students and their environment. What the teacher, the students or the parents believe about what should be done in order to teach, learn or understand the "knowledge transmitted" plays the role of a practical epistemology that cannot be ignored and eliminated. Philosophical or scientific epistemology is far from being able to claim to play this role" (Brousseau, 2006).

Amade-Escot C. et Venturini P. (2009), « Le milieu didactique : d'une étude empirique en contexte difficile à une réflexion sur le concept », Éducation & Didactique, volume 3 (1), p. 7- 43. Amade-Escot, C. (2014). De la nécessité d’une observation didactique pour accéder à l’épistémologie pratique des professeurs. Recherches en éducation, (19). Amade-Escot, C. (2019). Épistémologies pratiques et action didactique conjointe du professeur et des élèves. Éducation & didactique, volume 13 (1), p. 109-114. Beillerot, J. (2000). Le rapport au savoir. Formes et formations du rapport au savoir, 39-57. Brière-Guenoun, F. (2016). Les déterminants de l’activité didactique du professeur débutant en éducation physique et sportive. Recherches en éducation, (Hors série n° 9). Brousseau G. (1986). Fondements et méthodes en didactique des mathématiques. Recherches en didactiques des mathématiques, volume 7(2), p. 33-115. Brousseau, G. (1998). Les obstacles épistémologiques, problèmes et ingénierie didactique. Chevallard, Y. (1991). Concepts fondamentaux de la didactique : perspectives apportées par une approche anthropologique. Publications mathématiques et informatique de Rennes, (S6), 160-163. Conne, F. (1992). Savoir et connaissance dans la perspective de la transposition didactique. Recherches en didactique des mathématiques, 12(2.3), 221-270. Deci, E. L., et Ryan, R. M. (1993). Die Selbstbestimmungstheorie der Motivation und ihre Bedeutung für die Pädagogik. Zeitschrift für Pädagogik, 39(2), 223-238. Dupin, J. J., et Johsua, S. (1989). Analogies and" modeling analogies" in teaching: some examples in basic electricity. Science Education, 73(2), 207-24. Margolinas, C. (2012). Connaissance et savoir. Des distinctions frontalières ?. In Sociologie et didactiques : vers une transgression des frontières (pp. 17-44). Haute Ecole pédagogique de Vaud. Martinand J.-L. (1989). Pratiques de référence, transposition didactique et savoirs professionnels en sciences techniques. Les Sciences de l’éducation pour l’Ère nouvelle, 2, 23-29. Ketele, J. M. D. (2010). La pédagogie universitaire : un courant en plein développement (No. 172, pp. 5-13). ENS Éditions. Pautal, E., Venturini, P., et Schneeberger, P. (2013). Analyse de déterminants de l’action de maîtres-formateurs en sciences du vivant. Deux études de cas à l’école élémentaire. Éducation et didactique, 7(7-2), 9-28. Scott, P., et Mortimer, E. (2005). Meaning making in high school science classrooms: A framework for analysing meaning making interactions. In Research and the quality of science education (pp. 395-406). Springer, Dordrecht. Sensevy G. et Mercier A. (2007), Agir ensemble : éléments de théorisation de l'action conjointe du professeur et des élèves, Rennes, Presses Universitaires de Rennes. Verret, M. (1975). Le temps des études. Paris, France : Librairie Honoré Champion