Well-accepted theories and extensive research illustrate and document learning differences. They also show that the individual learner's culture, family background, and socioeconomic level affect his or her learning. Numerous French and international studies (Guild, P.B. & Garger, S., 1998 ; Rochex, 2001) show that students vary in their relationship to the culture of learning, which has an important impact on the opportunities for success for every student in our schools. We think that the concept of « capital of adequacy ¹ » proposed by Sensevy (1998), Tambonne & Mercier (2000) and Marlot, (2008) can enable us to acknowledge for the diversity of students' level of competence and, particularly, for the relation they have built with learning and the educational culture.

In our research, we show that some teachers tend to confine less-able students to low-level tasks and routine activities, which doesn't encourage the development of higher-level skills and the acquisition of specific knowledge. In doing so they neither help students increase their « capital of adequacy» nor heighten their self-confidence. The necessity to put forward the didactic time leads teachers to widen the gap between less-able students and more able students (Sensevy & al., à paraître). This brings us to think that the teacher's action is mainly selective.

Our presentation will be based upon two primary school case studies involving the teaching and learning of biology and English as a foreign language. This comparative study will examine the « learning games » (Sensevy, 2007) in which teachers and students are involved. It will try to provide answers to the following questions : « do teachers make all their students play the same learning games? What elements can explain the way they select students to accomplish specific tasks? In what way does their action may have an impact on their students' « capital of adequacy » and self-confidence?

To analyse those « learning games » and the teachers and students' joint action, we refer to different theoretical categories mainly borrowed from the learning theory of mathematics (Brousseau, 1998 ; Chevallard, 1992), comparative didactics and the joint action theory for didactics (Sensevy & Mercier, 2007). Among the theorerical tools we use, we will focus in this presentation on the concepts of didactic contract and milieu (Brousseau, 1998 ; Gruson, 2009) associated with the game at play, the notions of definitory and strategic rules (Hintikka, 1993) and of winning strategies and, lastly, on the genesis triplet.

1 This notion accounts for the « quasi-natural » capacity of some students to focus their attention on the adequate objects of knowledge.

Brousseau, G. (1998). Théories des situations didactiques, Grenoble : La Pensée Sauvage. Chevallard, Y. (1991). La transposition didactique. Grenoble : La Pensée Sauvage Foucault, M. (1963). Naissance de la clinique. Paris : PUF Guild, P.B. & Garger S. (1998).  Marching to different drummers (2nd Ed). Alexandria, VA: ASCD. Gruson, B. (2009). Etude de la dialectique contrat-milieu dans l’enseignement-apprentissage de l’anglais en CM2 et en 6è. Revue Suisse des Sciences de l'éducation. Vol. 3. Hintikka, J. (1993). Fondements d’une théorie du langage. Paris : Presses Universitaires de France. Leutenegger, F. (2000). Construction d’une clinique pour le didactique. Une étude des phénomènes temporels de l’enseignement. Recherche en didactique des mathématiques, 20.2, pp 209-250 Marlot, C. (2008). Caractérisation des transactions didactiques : deux études de cas en Découverte du monde vivant au cycle 2 de l’école élémentaire. Thèse de doctorat en sciences de l’éducation. Université de Rennes 2. Rochex, J-Y. (2001). La transmission du savoir comme problème culturel et identitaire, actes de colloque, Karolinom Press - Charles University Prague, Prague. Sensevy, G. (1998). Institutions didactiques. Paris : PUF. Sensevy, G. (2007). Des catégories pour décrire et comprendre l’action didactique. In G. Sensevy & A. Mercier (dir), Agir ensemble : l’action didactique conjointe du professeur et des élèves. Rennes : PUR. Sensevy, G. & Mercier, A. (2007). Agir ensemble : l’action didactique conjointe. Rennes : PUR. Sensevy, G. Maurice, J.J, Clanet, J. & Murillo, A. (à paraître). La différenciation passive didactique : un essai de définition et d’illustration. Les dossiers des sciences de l’éducation. Tambone, J. & Mercier, A. (2000). Les pratiques des maîtres spécialisés AIS chargés de l’aide à dominante pédagogique : enquête sur un dispositif et sur le métier correspondant. 3ième colloque international Recherche & Formation des enseignants – IUFM d’Aix- Marseille.