The aim of this paper is to discuss how a systematic model for analyzing teaching quality based on a didactic framework can shape a protocol for teacher professional development. In the context of this study, we will discuss the case of the JAD-MTQ (Model for analyzing Teaching Quality based on the Joint Action in Didactics) developed by Ligozat and Buyck (2024).

Since the 2000’s, the Joint Action framework in Didactics (JAD) has been developed in the context of the French-speaking research in Comparative didactics (Mercier et al., 2002; Sensevy and Mercier, 2007; also see Ligozat, 2023). Studies carried out with this framework typically investigate how knowledge contents develop in the teacher and students’ classroom interactions. Over the years, JAD has proved its capacity to analyze classroom practices in various subjects (mathematics, sciences, physical education, French language, etc.; e.g., Amade-Escot & Venturini, 2015; Ligozat et al., 2018; Sensevy, 2011; 2014). To address the feasibility of examining teaching quality from a didactic standpoint, Ligozat and Buyck (2024) suggests a Model for analyzing Teaching Quality grounded in the JAD framework. This model considers three dimensions of teaching: (I) selection of knowledge contents and tasks (II) structuration of learning situations and (III) organization of teacher and students’ interactions.

The JAD-MTQ categories, drawn from the broader JAD framework, have a high potential of genericity for being used across school subjects. However, school subjects also rely upon different teaching traditions (e.g., Forest et al., 2018) and undergo various constraints (didactic transposition; Chevallard, 1985/1991; also see Schneuwly, 2021). For instance, as shown in Ligozat and Buyck (2024), a science teaching unit often includes lab work sessions that are run by groups of students, and the results need to be represented (graphs, diagrams, measurement tables, etc.) and discussed collectively to draw some results; In contrast, a physical education (PE) teaching unit requires alternating between technical tasks (focus on teaching sport technical skills) and complex authentic tasks (focus on teaching tactics and strategies through playing a scholar form of the game).

From the results found in using the JAD-MTQ for the PE unit, a teacher professional development protocol was designed 1) to provide structured feedback to the teachers and 2) to support the teachers in implementing a transformed teaching unit, which addresses the possible improvements identified.

This paper focuses on the methodological and epistemological aspects of this protocol. Since JAD-MTQ is a didactic model for improving teaching practices, epistemological aspects of the knowledge content taught are core concerns during the whole process.

This leads us to the following research questions:

-       Do we notice any significative improvements of teaching practices before and after giving feedback to teachers from findings with the JAD-MTQ?

-       What are the direct and indirect effects of each JAD-MTQ categories in shaping teacher’s practices?

-       What is the added value of using an analytical systematic instrument in a professional development protocol?

The protocol goes through the following steps: 1. A full ordinary teaching unit is video recorded in the classroom of the teacher participating to the program. The selection of the topic of the unit is made in agreement with the teacher, who informs the research team about the planning of the sessions. 2. The video data of the sessions are condensed into synopses reflecting the main thematic units (macro-level), teaching phases based on instructional tasks (meso-level) and episodes of discourses dealing with successive aspects of tasks (micro-level), as detailed in Ligozat & Buyck (2024). 3. The analysis of the teaching unit with the JAD-MTQ is run by the research team (including the teacher-trainer) to assess and diagnose the strengths and weaknesses of each dimension of teaching: (I) Content and task selection; (II) Learning situations and (III) teacher-students’ interactions. 4. A feedback meeting is organized, involving the teacher, the teacher-trainer, and a member of the research team as a facilitator. The trainer unpacks the main findings of the teaching quality analyses, starting from dimension (I) until dimension (III) and checks the teacher’s interest and understanding at each step. On demand from the teacher, the trainer provides some specific support to the teacher for transforming the teaching unit. 5. A lesson planning meeting is organized, in which the teacher presents a new teaching unit plan on the same topic and adjust it with the support of the trainer. This lesson planning is expected to repack certain content of the feedback meeting into a transformed teaching unit. 6. The transformed teaching unit is implemented in the classroom and video recorded. A subsequent cycle of analyses and feedback is run with the JAD-MTQ, to assess the improvement of the teaching practice. In this paper, we present the implementation of this protocol in a PE primary school classroom (grade 8, 11-12 y.o.) taught by a PE specialist teacher. All the meetings organized with the teacher were video-recorded and transcribed.

In order to discuss the effect of JAD-MTQ as a systematic instrument supporting a professional development protocol, we will address the following results: First, we present how a video and audio recording protocol shapes the quality of data, which the trainer rely on for the diagnostic phase. In particular, we will highlight the continuum between systematization and contextualization to the school subject that this protocol must hold. Second, we present how the JAD-MTQ shaped, transformed but above all improved the quality of the PE units. We synthesize the major differences observed from the model effects. Third, we present certain methodological and epistemological issues of leading a professional development protocol through a systematic and holistic three-step approach: a) pack (analysis and diagnostic by the trainer), b) unpack (in feedback meeting, the trainer presents the diagnostic to the teacher), c) repack (in the planning meeting, the trainer and the teacher discuss the new unit plan regarding JAD-MTQ categories improvements to make). These three-steps systematic and holistic approach shed light on the level of coherence of feedback that the JAD-MTQ enables to provide. Challenges of using this protocol, and more broadly, JAD-MTQ systematic instrument for teacher professional development will be discussed.

Amade-Escot C. and Venturini P. (2015). Joint Action in Didactics and Classroom Ecology: Comparing Theories using a Case Study in Physical Education. Interchange, 46(4), 413 437. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10780-015-9263-5 Chevallard Y (1985). La transposition didactique : Du savoir savant au savoir enseigné (3ème éd. revue et augmentée). La Pensée Sauvage, Ed. Ligozat F (2023). Comparative Didactics. A Reconstructive Move from Subject Didactics in French-Speaking Educational Research. In F. Ligozat, K. Klette, and J. Almqvist (Éds.), Didactics in a Changing World: European Perspectives on Teaching, Learning and the Curriculum (p. 35 54). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-20810-2_3 Ligozat, F., & Buyck, Y. (2024). Comparative didactics: Toward a generic model for analyzing content-specific dimensions of teaching quality. European Educational Research Journal, 23(6), 810-838. https://doi.org/10.1177/14749041241257282 Ligozat F., Lundqvist E. and Amade-Escot C. (2018). Analyzing the continuity of teaching and learning in classroom actions: When the joint action framework in didactics meets the pragmatist approach to classroom discourses. European Educational Research Journal, 17(1), 147 169. https://doi.org/10.1177/1474904117701923 Mercier A., Schubauer-Leoni, M.-L. and Sensevy G. (2002). Vers une didactique comparée. Editorial. Revue Française de Pédagogie, 141 (Numéro thématique), 5 16. Schneuwly B (2021). « Didactiques » is not (entirely) « Didaktik ». The origin and atmosphere of a recent academic field. In E. Krogh, A. Qvortrup and S Ting Graf (Éds.), Didaktik and Curriculum in Ongoing Dialogue (p. 164 184). Routledge Taylor & Francis. Sensevy G (2011). Overcoming Fragmentation: Towards a Joint Action Theory in Didactics. In B. Hudson & M.A. Meyer (Éds.), Beyond Fragmentation : Didactics, Learning and Teaching in Europe (p. 60 76). Barbara Budrich Publishers. Sensevy G (2014). Characterizing teaching effectiveness in the Joint Action Theory in Didactics: An exploratory study in primary school. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 46(5), 577 610. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220272.2014.931466 Sensevy G. and Mercier A. (Éds.). (2007). Agir Ensemble : L’action didactique conjointe du professeur et des élèves. Presses universitaires de Rennes.