The Modalities of Students’ Engagement in Tunisian Private School

Nabila  Bennour

doi:10.4236/ape.2015.52017

Nabila Bennour^{1, 2}

Abstract: In this article, we describe a particular aspect of the teaching-learning process: students’ cooperation. Our research attempts to understand the modalities of student engagement at a private institution in Tunisia. We mobilize the theoretical framework of the ecology of physical education (Tousignant, 1982) as a framework for this research. The data results from video recording and ethnographic observations of a gymnastics cycle conducted by a teacher specialist of tennis. The study was conducted according to a macroscopic analysis of students’ behavior of cooperation during three sessions of school education of gymnastics. Through the comparison of forms of engagement for contrasted students (high vs. low), the results reveal recurring characteristics and differences in degrees of cooperation between students according to their school levels.

Keywords: Ecology of Physical Education, Engagement, Gymnastics

Cite this paper: Bennour, N. (2015) The Modalities of Students’ Engagement in Tunisian Private School. Advances in Physical Education, 5, 136-142. doi: 10.4236/ape.2015.52017.

References

[1] Altet, M., Bressoux, P., Bru, M., & Leconte-Lambert, C. (1996). Exploratory Study of Teaching Practices in the Classroom of CE2. Les Dossiers d’éducation et Formations, 70.

[2] Amade-Escot, C. (2013). The Practical Epistemology of Teachers and Research on Intervention. Perspectives for Future Dialogues. In B. Carnel, & J. Moniotte (Eds.), Intervention, Research and Teaching Education: What Challenges, What Transformations? (pp. 37-58). Amiens: Amiens Picardie University and ARIS.

[3] Amade-Escot, C., & Léziart, Y. (1996). Contribution to the Study of the Distribution of Didactic Engineering Proposals from Practitioners. Case Analysis of Voluntary Physical Education Teachers. Rapport Scientifique. Recherche INRP, No. 30506.

[4] Amade-Escot, C., & Marsenach, J. (1995). Didactics of Physical Education. Grenoble: La Pensée Sauvage.

[5] Amade-Escot, C., & Venturini, P. (2009). Ecological and “Didactique” Perspectives: How Knowledge Co-Construction Is Grasped through the Concepts of “Learning Environment” and “Didactic Milieu” Which Throw Light on “Students’ Productive Disciplinary Engagement”. The AIESEP International Seminar Situated Learning, Reflective Practice & Knowledge Construction in Physical Education, Besancon, 27-29 May 2009.

[6] Brunelle, J., Drouin, D., Godbout, P., & Tousignant, M. (1988). The Supervision of the Physical Activity Intervention. Montréal: Gaetan Morin Editeur.

[7] Carlier, G. (2004). If We Spoke of the Pleasure of Teaching Physical Education. Montpellier: éditions AFRAPS.

[8] Crahay, M. (1989). Constraints Situation and Teacher-Student Interactions, Is It Possible to Change Their Way of Teaching? Revue Francaise de Pédagogie, 88, 67-84. http://dx.doi.org/10.3406/rfp.1989.2459

[9] Doyle, W. (1986). Paradigms of Research on Teacher Effectiveness. In M. Crahay, & D. Lafontaine (Eds.), The Art and Science of Teaching (pp. 435-481). Bruxelles: Labor.

[10] Elandoulsi, S. (2011). The Practical Epistemology of Teachers: Effects of Experience and Expertise in Teaching of the Handstand in Coeducational Classes. Comparative Analysis of Three Physical Education Teachers in Tunisia. Ph.D. Thesis, Le Mirail: University of Toulouse 2.

[11] Florence, J., Brunelle, J., & Carlier, G. (1998). Enseigner l’Education Physique au Secondaire. Bruxelles: De Boeck.

[12] Leutenegger, F. (2003). Study Didactic Interactions in Math Class: A Methodological Prototype. In A. Danis, M. L. Schubauer-Leoni, & A. Weil-Barais (Eds.), Interaction, Learning and Development (pp. 559-571). Bulletin de Psychologie, 56, 559-571.

[13] Musard, M., Loquet, M., & Carlier, G. (2010). Sciences of the Intervention in Physical Education and Sport. Research Findings and Theoretical Foundations. Paris: Aris et Editions de la revue EPS.

[14] Placek, J. H. (1983). Conceptions of Success in Teaching: Busy, Happy and Good? In T. Templin, & J. Olson (Eds.), Teaching in Physical Education (pp. 46-56). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.

[15] Schubauer-Leoni, M. L. (1996). Study Teaching Contract for Students in Difficulty in Math: Educational Issues and/or Psychosocial. In C. Raitsky, & M. Caillot (Eds.), Beyond Didactics, the Didactic: Debates around Common Concepts (pp. 160-189). Paris and Bruxelles: De Boeck.

[16] Schubauer-Leoni, M. L. (2008). The Construction of the Reference in the Joint Action Teacher-Student. In N. Wallian, M. P. Poggi, & M. Musard (Eds.), Co-Construct of Knowledge: The Art of Intervention by the APSA (pp. 67-86). Besancon: PUFC.

[17] Siedentop, D. (1994). Learning to Teach Physical Education. Montréal: Gaetan Morin.

[18] Tousignant, M. (1982). Analysis of the Task Structures in Secondary Physical Education Classes. Ph.D. Thesis, Columbus, OH: Ohio State University.

[19] Tousignant, M. (1985). The Degree of Cooperation of Students: A Source of Equity for the Teacher Assumptions. La revue québécoise de l’activité physique, 3, 69-74.

[20] Tousignant, M., & Siedentop, D. (1983). The Analysis of Task Structures in Physical Education. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 3, 47-57.

[21] Venturini, P., & Amade-Escot, C. (2009). Conditions Fostering Productive Disciplinary Engagement during a Regular Physics Lesson in a Depressed Area School. Proceedings of the 13rd Biennial EARLI Conference on Fostering Communities of Learners, Amsterdam, 25-29 August 2009.