Proceedings Chapter
Reference
What object is taught in the classroom ? Analysis of teaching practices on writing in French-speaking Switzerland
SCHNEUWLY, Bernard, SALES CORDEIRO, Glaís
SCHNEUWLY, Bernard, SALES CORDEIRO, Glaís. What object is taught in the classroom ? Analysis of teaching practices on writing in French-speaking Switzerland. In: L. Allal & J. Dolz.
9th International Conference of the EARLI Special Interest Group of Writing.
Proceedings writing 2004 . 2005. p. 249-256
Available at:
http://archive-ouverte.unige.ch/unige:34347
Disclaimer: layout of this document may differ from the published version.
1 / 1
9th International Conference of the EARLI Special Interest Group of Writing
PROCEEDINGS WRITING 2004
University of Geneva September 20-22, 2004
Editors: Linda Allal & Joaquim Dolz with the assistance of Fanny Rochat
Mai 2005
produced by Adcom Production AG
What object is taught in the classroom?
Analysis of teaching practices on writing in French-speaking Switzerland Bernard Schneuwly
University of Geneva Bernard.Schneuwly@pse.unige.ch
Glaís Sales Cordeiro University of Geneva Glais.Cordeiro@pse.unige.ch
Key words: didactic transposition, object actually taught, school task, classroom teaching practices, argumentative text
Introductory remarks
Many studies on how to teach (best practices analysis), on teaching effects, on teacher-student interaction, on new ways of teaching have been conducted (see for an interesting overview in French Bayer & Ducret, 2001); few studies exist on what is actually taught in the classroom (see, for instance, Marton & Tsui, 2004). The aim of our research group1: to analyze and to understand what objects are constructed in French L1 classes, more particularly in writing, and why they are constructed the way they are. Our general hypothesis is that there are always constraints which somehow determine what may be taught and, consequently, that there is relatively few variability concerning objects as they are actually taught.
In this paper we will limit ourselves to:
- a preliminary description of everyday teaching practices on argumentative texts;
- the development of a method for describing teaching practices;
- the provisional testing of our hypothesis that teaching practices on argumentative texts are relatively standardized although there are no explicit curricula nor official textbooks; they probably relay on classical rhetoric techniques.
The project
A didactic transposition theory (Verret, 1974; Chevallard, 1991)
This theory describes the complex process of transformation of a social object (knowledge, practices) into a didactic version of this object. This process, which is often historically very ancient and can have many versions, has necessary effects on the object as it has been described in the literature: desyncretization, depersonalization, programmability, accessibility, publicity, social control of learning.
Two levels of transposition can be distinguished (see figure 1):
- first level: knowledge and practices become objects to be taught (curricula, textbooks, teaching practices);
- second level: objects to be taught are reconstructed and reconfigured through didactic interaction and become objects as they are actually taught.
We are interested in this second level of the transposition process.
1 This paper is part of a project financed by the SNF n° 12114-068110 and conducted by the GRAFE (Groupe Romand d'Analyse du Français Enseigné).
social objects (notions, concepts, practices)
objects to be taught
objects actually taught
external transposition
internal transposition - desyncretization
-depersonalization - programmability - accessibility - publicity - social control
materialized in the:
- curricula - text books - instructions
- historical practices - ensemble of tasks
and exercises - social representations
of the object - material constraints
(classes, classrooms, etc.) - partners socialization
Didactic Transposition
figure 1
The didactic system
The exploratory research we have undertaken aims at describing and understanding the construction of objects as they are actually taught in the classroom, i.e. contents which are elaborated in French L1 lessons, through the interaction between the three components of the didactic system (teacher – student – object) (see figure 2).
The construction of an object is conceived as an interactive process that is determ ined by the history of teaching/learning practices and where the three poles defined by the school system intervene:
- an object to be taught, transposed to the school system by means of programs, curricula, teaching material, historical practices;
- the teacher's knowledge about the object to be taught and his pedagogical knowledge (for a discussion about these concepts, see Shulman, 1987);
- the students' knowledge about the object, their motivation and their resistance to learn.
This means that the institutional framework is determined, on the one hand, by the existence of both a class and a teacher2 and, on the other hand, by chronological constraints which determine the progression of the object construction process3.
Since we do not analyze the second level of didactic transposition from the point of view of teaching efficiency, we do not apprehend the “students” pole from the perspective of what is learned. We have a descriptive and
“comprehensive” approach which concerns a teaching theory. For us, students come into sight from the way the teacher takes into account individual or collective reactions due to the advancem ent of the object construction and to the topical relationship to this object.
2 For Chevallard (1991), this defines essential phenomena of topogenesis, that is, the reciprocal social places a teacher and his students take for an object to be taught and learned.
3 We are claiming that the time allotted to teach an object depends on it, but also defines the way it is approached and treated. Chevallard (1991) calls this a chronogenesis phenomenon.
students (their knowledge about the object, their resistance, their cognitive obstacles)
objects (to be taught)
teacher (his/her knowledge about the object to be taught;
pedagogical knowledge)
The didactic triangle
figure 2
The pole "teacher" is our privileged entry to analyze the co-construction of an object. As a consequence, the analysis of his or her activity – of his or her work – constitutes the way by which we observe the co-construction of the object as it is actually taught. The teacher’s activity has at least the following essential dim ensions that have been shown in different studies (for a general overview on teachers’ work, see Tardif & Lessard, 1999):
- choice of material and tasks to "presentify" an object;
- creation of "milieux" (environments) in order to present an object;
- regulation of the relation between the students and the "milieu";
- knowledge and practice institutionalization;
- students assessment;
- tasks and "milieux" enchainment.
Tasks enchainement and variability
In this paper, we will concentrate only on the last dimension indicated above.
As we have already declared, our general thesis can be stated as follows. Behind an apparent variability among teachers while (re-)constructing objects to be taught in the classroom, there are important invariants due, on the one hand, to the school system definition of the objects to be taught (practices history, the ensemble of ordinary school tasks and exercises, shared representations of the objects) and, on the other hand, to the system constraints and to the partners socialization.
This is absolutely not a pessimistic thesis, but a realistic one, or perhaps even an optimistic one: in L1, some contents seem to be very strong and resistant; one can find their origin far away in history. Over the years, the teacher profession has constructed some complex knowledge about teaching that has to be very carefully studied for the understanding of its coherence.
Method Data collection
The same object, the argumentative text, has been taught in 15 classes. Teachers were randomly chosen in three Swiss French speaking cantons. They were totally free to decide when they would like to teach the chosen object, to organize their teaching sequence, to determine the number of lessons they would like to teach as well as the material they would like to use. All of them were asked to:
- refer to their ordinary teaching practices on argumentative texts;
- take part in an interview before the teaching sequence (object conception and didactic choices);
- have their teaching sequence videotaped (maximum 6 lessons);
- take part in an interview after the sequence has been taught (critical moments, adjustments, feedbacks);
- take part in a collective meeting between teachers and researchers.
The teaching sequences have been video- and audio taped (mobile digital camera; mini-disc recorder with wireless microphone on the teacher). All material used during the sequences has been photocopied or filmed (texts and exercises sheets, texts and exercises copied on the blackboard or on the overhead projector).
Data treatment
We have captured the mini-DV cassettes images and created MPEG files for each lesson in order to transcribe data using TRANSANA software4 (video and transcription synchronization). All lessons have been fully transcribed, following general transcription conventions (prosodic elements, main gestures, contextual information).
Data analysis
We have conceived a four step analysis of our data as follows:
1. Elaborating a synopsis5 of the teaching sequences: a "synopsis", in our approach, is a general description of the main actions composing a sequence, structured in different embedded levels; it provides an overview of each sequence and allows comparisons between them.
2. Listing the school activities or tasks enchainment organized by the teachers (see below).
3. Case analysis of each teaching sequence (see below).
4. Interpreting and comparing school activities enchainment - first provisional model definition of how teachers teach argumentative texts (see below).
In this paper, we will analyze the following teaching sequences:
Teachers Grade Number of lessons
SM 9 6
MFB 9 6
EG 8 - 9 5
CHE 9 4
The tasks enchainment organized by the teachers
On the basis of the teaching sequences synopsis, it is possible to reconstruct the tasks enchainment teachers have presented to their students. We may define a school task as a m eans of learning contents presentation or materialization conceived by the tea cher and determined by curricula and textbooks. For us, a school task constitutes a space of students' mental capacities transform ation. From a didactic point of view, that means that the teacher's specific work consists on organiz ing and conducting a planned ensemble of hierarchically enchained tasks in order to create learning conditions. (Dolz, Schneuwly, Thévenaz-Christen & Wirthner, 2002).
SM teaching sequence
School activities or tasks Fa Tb Mc
1. Answering the question: What is it to argue? Q 45’
2. Based on a drawing showing a circle of persons that are debating, arguing on the reasons why the drawing could illustrate an argumentation.
Q 11’ C
4 This is a free software (http: //www.transana.org) created by Chris Fassnacht and developed by David K. Woods, both researchers at the Wisconsin Center for Education Research from the University of Wisconsin-Madison.
5 This step is not illustrated here.
3. Debating on the necessity of using mobile phones. Co 17’ - 4. Determining the important criteria for the production of a good argumentation. Q 13’ - 5. Reading and analyzing an extract from "Le malade imaginaire" by Molière:
- reading - determining the text genre;
- defining the dialogues’ and theses’ theme;
- finding Béralde’s and Argan’s arguments.
Q 8’
20’
28’
C
6. Reading and analyzing an informative text on waste recycling:
- highlighting each paragraph’s main idea;
- finding the transitions.
I Q 34 C
7. Writing an introduction to a possible argumentative text (on mobile phones or on assessment grades).
I 21’ D
a Social forms of working: G: group; Q: question-answer; I: individual; Co: collective in class
b Time in minutes
c Material: C: text or image photocopy; B: booklet with exercises; W: working sheet; D: draft sheet; NB: notebook; O: overhead projector; BB:
blackboard
MFB teaching sequence
School activities or tasks F T M
1. Classing 6 text extracts and defining: 3 characteristics; the objective; the type of text.
G 39' W 2. 3 everyday situations of com munication, given in written form (a policeman and an
influential person, a policeman and a driver driving too fast, members of a traffic security commission): analysis of the relation between speakers, speakers' intentions, argumentation potential.
Q 33' C
3. Fable "The wolf and the lamb" by Lafontaine: same analysis as 2. Q 6' C 4. Writing two short texts on the following subject: a policeman persuades a driver and
vice-versa.
I 8’ D 5. Debate on the subject "girls and boys succeeding in school and in a professional
career" based on a text; designation of a chairman: having and evaluating a debate.
Co 35' C 6. Writing an argumentative text on the subject "Citizens need more and more to
escape. What do you think about it?" based on a student text and a criteria table (language, text and argumentation structure, coherence).
I 45’ D
7. Comparison between students' texts and a model text guided by a questionnaire on:
text plan; quality of the arguments; connectors; vocabulary precision.
G 45’ W 8. [working on concession]
EG teaching sequence
School activities or tasks F T M
1. Writing a text on mobile phones:
- Presenting the questions and formal criteria of evaluation (introduction, development, conclusion; paragraphs; transitions; connectors);
- Writing the text.
Q I
17' 65’
BB D 2. Finding a title and a caption for a picture showing two adolescents using mobile
phones:
- individual writing;
- collective discussion on the solutions proposed by the students.
I CO
6’
13’
O D 3. In an interview with an author (in a book on mobile phones and adolescents),
looking for three arguments for and against the thesis each student is defending:
- collective reading;
- in a prepared sheet, writing down the arguments found.
CO I
11’
16’
C W 4. Same activity as 3 with another text presented in the same book. I ? C 5. Writing a text favorable or not to mobile phones: the following indications are given
on a working sheet: introduction with a question; development (3 arguments against and for mobile phones, illustrated by an example); conclusion providing an answer;
I 45 W
using text connectors.
CHE teaching sequence
School activities or tasks F T M
1. Defining what is a contradictory debate and working on examples of illustrating themes (TV debate, elections, music, etc.).
Q 13' BB 2. Doing a sketch to learn how to debate:
- presenting the activity, giving some information about the work in groups;
- defining the theme (for instance, "religion and beliefs"); choosing a situation (for instance, "believers x non-believers); choosing the number of interlocutors (for instance, Christian, Jewish, polytheist, non-believer) and preparing a sketch.
Q G
8' 17
BB D
3. Presentations of each sketch:
- presenting each sketch;
- evaluating and discussing about each presentation ("children education";
"beliefs"; "going out to a party"; "mobile phones").
G Co
19' D
4. Writing down the arguments provided during the sketch presentations and discussions.
I 10' NB 5. Preparing to write an argumentative text:
- discussing about criteria and steps to obey when writing; writing them down (imagining an argumentative situation with emitter – receptor; organizing a plan of favorable and not-favorable arguments; using connectors; giving examples for each argument; following a text structure: introduction, discussion, conclusion);
- thinking out the text which will be written next day (writing down ideas).
Q
I 18'
17 BB NB
D
Case analysis of the 4 teaching sequences
We will present each case analysis as an ensem ble of short notes only, in order to illustrate our current main findings.
This allows us to develop a first attempt of comparison that has to be completed by further cases analysis.
Each case analysis takes into account the following aspects:
- the material the teacher uses in his teaching sequence;
- the structure of the school activities enchainment in the teaching sequence;
- the characteristics of the activities or tasks the teacher proposes to his students.
SM analysis
Material: a drawing illustrating an argumentation situation; an organized debate; text extracts (theater dialogue and informative text). Argumentation is shown as general speech activities.
Structure: tasks 1-4: argumentation definition; tasks 5-6: reading and analysis of two texts from the point of view of general argumentation notions (thesis, main idea, arguments); task 7: simplified writing of an introduction to an (imagined) argumentative text.
Characteristics of the tasks:
- the definition of a good argumentation gives general criteria with no reference to specific text forms;
- the heart of an argumentation is the thesis and its favorable arguments;
- the introduction provides the text thesis.
MFB analysis
Material: a collection of texts to be classified in order to define an argumentative type; dialogic texts to analyze the relation between speakers, their intentions and the potential of some arguments in general argumentative situations; a text and a questionnaire to guide the evaluation of an argumentative text.
Structure: tasks 1-4: analysis of general argumentation characteristics; task 5: doing and evaluating a debate to observe how an argumentation works in a given situation; tasks 6-7: writing and evaluating an argumentative text.
Characteristics of the tasks:
- the definition of argumentation provides general criteria;
- the debate is evaluated following the students' common sense criteria;
- the argumentative task is defined by a question and by indications concerning the text plan (introduction, development, conclusion), the quality of the arguments and the vocabulary precision.
EG analysis
Material: a criteria list for a good argumentation; a picture illustrating the topic; two non-argumentative texts containing possible favorable and not favorable arguments to mobile phones; working sheets presenting the structure of an argumentative text.
Structure: task 1: writing an argumentative text based on some formal indications on the general structure; tasks 2-4:
working on the topic of the argumentative text to be produced; task 5: preparation of a second argumentative text on the same topic based on precise indications about its structure and functioning.
Characteristics of the tasks:
- writing a text without much preparation in order to present the learning object;
- main work on the elaboration of favorable and not favorable arguments in order to discuss from a general (neutral) point of view the asked question;
- writing a text presenting favorable and not favorable arguments (a "dissertation" according to the teaching French tradition).
CHE analysis
Material: no material is used, except the blackboard.
Structure: task 1: defining what an argumentative debate is; tasks 2-3: preparing, on a freely chosen topic, a debating sketch; tasks 4-5: writing down arguments developed in each sketch and preparing the writing task on the basis of a criteria list and by imagining an argumentative situation.
Characteristics of the tasks:
- starting point: defining three main elements when doing a debate (situation of communication; arguments reservoir;
emitter – receptor relation);
- the debate is a prototype of an argumentation which favors the development of arguments on a given topic; no activities on the dimensions of an argumentative text are proposed;
- writing an argumentative text based on a list of elements (situation of communication definition; emitter – receptor choice; arguments organizing plan; connectors utilization; introduction – discussion – conclusion); no indications about a communicative situation are provided.
Preliminary comparisons
After analyzing the 4 teaching sequences presented above, we are able to establish the following comparisons:
1. In all the sequences, argumentation is approached as a general speech activity, independent from a particular situation of communication. Therefore, we may say that a logical model of argumentation seems to be founding these teaching practices on argumentation.
2. Teacher EG differs from the other teachers, since she begins and finishes her teaching sequence by proposing a text writing task. A detailed writing structure underlying an argumentative text, following the classical structure of a
dissertation, is provided and contents are strongly worked on.
3. Teachers SM, MFB and CHE start their sequences by a general definition of argumentation. For them, the debate seems to constitute a prototype of an argum entation. Besides, general indications concerning an argumentative text structure (introduction, development, conclusion; connectors) are given.
4. Teacher CHE uses the debate (sketch) as a way of producing arguments but no text is read all over the sequence.
5. Teachers SM and MFB propose texts reading tasks in order to illustrate the notions of thesis, theme, argument and intention.
Concluding remarks
In our introduction we have claimed that there are few studies on what is actually taught in the classroo m and we have pointed out the necessity to carrying out some more research in this field. We have also declared that our research group is interested in analyzing and understanding what objects are constructed in French L1 classes, more particularly in writing, and that we are presently developing a method for describing teaching practices.
The analysis of teaching sequences we have proposed in this paper seems to evidence the potentiality of our method.
We may say that the study of tasks characteristics and tasks enchainment provides us means to retrace the transformations an object to be taught undergoes in the didactic interaction in order to become an object actually taught. As a result, the comparison of different teaching sequences allows us to identify models, conceptions and practices related to an object.
In our particular case, the 4 teaching sequences on argumentative texts we have analyzed reveal that:
- the representational model of argumentation seems to be dominant and not the communicational one;
- the main structure of a teaching sequence goes from the presentation of the argumentation notion, followed by its illustration through texts and debates and, finally, by a writing task;
- variations of this general model are possible.
Nevertheless, we need to analyze the other 11 sequences we have videotaped and transcribed to look more into detail how different notions are mediated in didactic interactions. This will certainly help us to understand more deeply the significance of these first preliminary conclusions and perhaps shed some light on research about teaching practices on argumentative texts.
References
Bayer, E. & Ducrey, F. (2001). Une éventuelle science de l’enseignement aurait-elle sa place en sciences de l’éducation? In R. Hofstetter & B. Schneuwly (Ed.), Le pari des sciences de l’éducation (pp. 243-277). Bruxelles: De Boeck.
Chevallard, Y. (1991). La transposition didactique. Du savoir savant au savoir enseigné (2nd ed. rev. and amp.).
Grenoble: La Pensée sauvage.
Dolz J., Schneuwly, B., Thévenaz-Christen, T. & Wirthner, M. (2002). Les tâches et leurs entours en classe de français. In J. Dolz, T. Thévenaz-Christen, M. Wirthner & B. Schneuwly (Ed.), Les tâches et leurs entours en classe de français: Actes du 8ème colloque international de la DFLM (Neuchâtel, 26-28 septembre 2001) [CD-ROM]. Neuchâtel:
IRDP.
Marton, F. & Tsui, A.B.M. (2004). Classroom Discourse and the Space of Learning. New Jersey: Erlbaum.
Shulman, L. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reform. Harvard Educational Review, 57, 1-22.
Tardif, M. & Lessard, C. (1999). Le travail de l’enseignant au quotidien. Bruxelles: De Boeck.
Verret, M. (1974). Le temps des études. PHD thesis, Université de Paris V.
