Abstract
In this paper, we first sketch the joint action theory paradigm from a general viewpoint in sciences of culture. Then we specify this generic description by focusing on the joint action theory in didactics (JATD). We elaborate on three currently developed elements of the theory: the reticence-expression dialectics; the contract-milieu dialectics, through what we call the equilibration process; the didactic semiosis. The empirical part of this paper aims at presenting two empirical studies, which may function as exemplars for JATD, relating to the three aforementioned elements. In the concluding part, we produce a brief synthesis of the main features of our paper, by reframing our empirical analysis. We argue that the didactic contract can be seen as common background in the semiosis process, we show the entanglement between the two kinds of semiosis that we previously delineated, and we conclude by making explicit some features of the comparative approach in didactics.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
This can be a kind of “constructivist fallacy”, according to which the teacher has to “withdraw” permanently so that the students may act on their own.
In Brousseau's sense, a fundamental situation is seen as a game. In order to win, one has to master specific knowledge, which constitutes an optimum winning strategy for this game.
The red circle indicates what monster is the secret monster in the episode analyzed in this paper.
References
Bazin, J. (2008). Des clous dans la Joconde. L’anthropologie autrement. Toulouse: Anacharsis.
Blumer, H. (2004). George Herbert Mead and human conduct. Walnut Creek: AltaMira Press.
Bourdieu, P. (1990). In other words: Essays towards a reflexive sociology. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Brandom, R. (2003). Articulating reasons. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Brousseau, G. (1997). The theory of didactic situations in mathematics. Dortrecht: Kluwer.
Brousseau, G. (2004). Les représentations : étude en théorie des situations didactiques. Revue des sciences de l’éducation, 2(30), 241–277.
Bruner, J. (1977). Early social interaction and language acquisition. In H. R. Schaffer (Ed.), Studies in mother-infant interaction (pp. 271–289). New York: Academic Press.
Bruner, J. (1983). Child’s talk. Learning to use language. New York: W.W.Norton and Company.
Clark, H. (1996). Using language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Dewey, J. (1925/1981). Experience and nature. In J. A. Boydston (Ed.), The later works, (Vol. 1). Carbondale: University of Southern Illinois Press.
Douglas, M. (1986). How institutions think. Syracuse: Syracuse University Press.
Durkheim, E. (1982). Rules of sociological method. New York: The Free Press.
Eilan, N., Hoert, C., Teresa, M., & Johannes, R. (2005). Joint attention: Communication and other minds. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Elias, N. (2012). What is Sociology? (Édition: Revised edition). Dublin: University College Dublin Press.
Fleck, L. (1979). Genesis and development of a scientific fact. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Gibson, J. J. (1979). The ecological approach to visual perception. Hilsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Goffman, E. (1970). Strategic interaction. London: Basil Blackwell.
Gruson, B. (2006). L’enseignement d’une langue étrangère à l’école et au collège : vers une meilleure compréhension des situations didactiques mises en oeuvre. Thèse de doctorat. Université Rennes 2.
Gruson, B. (2010). Analyse comparative d’une situation de communication orale en classe ordinaire et lors d’une séance en visioconférence. Distances et Savoirs, 3(8), 395–423.
Gruson, B. & Sensevy, G. (2013). The joint action theory in didactics: A case study in videoconferencing at primary school. The 10th international conference on computer supported collaborative learning (CSCL) (Vol. 1) (pp. 216–233), Madison, Retrieved June 15–19.
Hintikka, J., & Sandu, G. (2006). What is logic? In D. Gabbay, P. Thagard, & P. Woods (Eds.), Handbook of the philosophy of science (Vol. 5, pp. 13–38)., Philosophy of logic London: Elsevier.
Kuhn, T. (1979). The essential tension. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Leutenegger, F. (2008). L’entrée dans un code écrit à l’école enfantine et l’articulation entre le collectif et l’individuel: comparaison de deux études de cas. Éducation et didactique, 2(2), 7–42.
Leutenegger, F. & Ligozat, F. (2009). The treasure game: Grasping the premises of the subject matter norms in pre-school classes. Communication, Network 27, European Congress in Educational Research (ECER) “Theory and evidence in European educational research?”, University of Vienna, Retrieved from 28–30 September.
Ligozat, F. (2011). The Determinants of the Joint Action in Didactics: the Text-Action Relationship in Teaching Practice. In B. Hudson & M. A. Meyer (Eds.), Beyond fragmentation: Didactics, learning and teaching in Europe (pp. 157–176). Opladen & Farmington Hills MI: Barbara Budrich Publishers.
Mead, G. H. (1967). Mind, self, and society. Chicago: The University Of Chicago Press.
Piaget, J. (1977). The development of thought: Equilibration of cognitive structures. New York: Viking Press.
Schubauer-Leoni, M.-L., Leutenegger, F., & Forget, A. (2007). L’accès aux pratiques de fabrication de traces scripturales convenues au commencement de la forme scolaire. Éducation et didactique, 1(2), 9–35.
Searle, J. (2005). What is an institution? Journal of Institutional Economics, 1(1), 1–22.
Sebanz, N., Bekkering, H., & Knoblich, G. (2006). Joint action: Bodies and minds moving together. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 10(2), 70–76.
Sensevy, G. (2011). Le sens du savoir. Éléments pour une théorie de l’action conjointe en didactique. Bruxelles: De Boeck.
Sensevy, G. (2012). About the joint action theory in didactics. Zeitschrift für Erziehungswissenschaft, 15(3), 503–516.
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.
Sensevy, G. & Forest, D. (2011). Semiosis process in instructional practice. Proceedings of the ICLS 2011 conference. The International Conference of the Learning Sciences, Sydney, Retrieved from 2–6 July.
Sensevy, G., & Tiberghien, A. (2015). Milieu. In R. Gunstone (Ed.), Encyclopedia of science education (Vol. 2, pp. 639–641). Dordrecht: Springer.
Tiberghien, A., & Malkoun, L. (2009). The construction of physics knowledge in a classroom community from different perspectives. In B. Schwarz, T. Dreyfus, & R. Hershkovitz (Eds.), Transformation of knowledge through classroom interaction (pp. 42–55). New York: Routledge.
Tomasello, M. (2014). A natural history of human thinking. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Venturini, P., & Amade-Escot, C. (2013). Analysis of conditions leading to a productive disciplinary engagement during a physics lesson in a deprived area school. International Journal of Educational Research, 64, 170–183.
Wickman, P.-O. (2012). A comparison between practical epistemology analysis and some schools in French didactics. Éducation & Didactique, 6(2), 145–159.
Wickman, P.-O., & Östman, L. (2002). Learning as discourse change: A sociocultural mechanism. Science Education, 86(5), 601–623.
Wittgenstein, L. (1969). On certainty. Oxford: Blackwell.
Wittgenstein, L. (1997). Philosophical investigations. Oxford: Blackwell.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Sensevy, G., Gruson, B. & Forest, D. On the Nature of the Semiotic Structure of the Didactic Action: The Joint Action Theory in Didactics Within a Comparative Approach. Interchange 46, 387–412 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10780-015-9266-2
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10780-015-9266-2