Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Interactions et apprentissages en classe dans l’enseignement supérieur technologique

  • Published:
Canadian Journal of Science, Mathematics and Technology Education Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Résumé

La nature des technologies, les finalités de l’éducation technologique et les caractéristiques des pratiques d’enseignement technologique font l’objet de controverses. Notre recherche consiste à cerner la rhétorique courante en classe dans l’enseignement supérieur technologique et ses possibilités pour favoriser une compréhension des objets de l’étude, ici le filtrage électrique. Elle s’inscrit dans un cadre plus large portant sur les connaissances en technologies et sur les technologies élaborées en classe dans les Instituts Supérieurs des Études Technologiques en Tunisie. Dans cet article, nous présentons une analyse de pratiques effectives d’enseignement. La posture analytique qui sous-tend notre format d’investigation empirique est inspirée des approches ethnométhodologiques. Selon une perspective pragmatique du langage, une analyse des pratiques sociolangagières a permis de cerner que ce qui compte comme enseignement du filtrage électrique consiste à mettre en oeuvre des procédures mathématiques, plutôot que d’engager un dialogue sur la signification des concepts technologiques.

Abstract

The nature of technology, the objectives of technology education and the characteristics of teaching practices in technology are controversial. Our research involves determining the standard in-class language used in higher technology education and its ability to foster comprehension of the subject matter, which in this case is electric filtration. This research is part of a larger body of work that focuses on technological knowledge and technology developed in-class at the Higher Institutes of Technological Studies in Tunisia. In this article, we present an analysis of effective teaching practices. Our method of empirical study is underpinned by an analytical position derived from ethnomethodological approaches. From a pragmatic language perspective, an analysis of socio-linguistic practices has enabled us to determine that in the teaching of electric filtration, it is more important to implement mathematical procedures than to discuss the meaning of technological concepts.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Bibilographie

  • Albe, V. (2007). Des controverses scientifiques socialement vives en Éducation aux sciences. État des recherches et Perspectives. Mémoire de synthèse pour l’Habilitation à diriger des Recherches. Université Lyon 2, France.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barlet, R., et Mastrot, G. (2000). L’algorithmisation-refuge, obstacle à la conceptualisation. L’exemple de la thermochimie en 1er cycle universitaire. Didaskalia, 17, 123–159.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bloome, D., Puro, P. & Theodorou, E. (1989). Procedural display and classroom lessons. Curriculum Inquiry, 19, 265–291.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bungum, B. (2006). Transferring and transforming technology education: A study of norwegian teachers’ perceptions of ideas from design & technology. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 16, 31–52.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carlsen, W. S. (1997a). Closing down the conversation: Discouraging student talk on unfamiliar science content. Journal of classroom interaction, 27(2), 15–21.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carlsen, W. S. (1997b). Never ask a question if you don’t know the answer: The tension in teaching between modeling scientific argument and maintaining law and order. Journal of classroom interaction, 32(2), 14–23.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dawes, L. (2004). Talk and learning in classroom science. International Journal of Science Education, 26, 677–695.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Driver, R., Leach, J., Millar, R., et Scott, P. (1996). Young People’s Image of Science. Buckingham, Royaume-Uni: Open University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Driver, R., Newton, P., et Osborne, J. (2000). Establishing the norms of scientific argumentation in classrooms. Science Education, 84(3), 287–312.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • El Hajjami, A., Lahlou, F., Benyamna, S., et Tiberghien, A. (1999). Élaboration d’une méthode d’analyse des discours d’enseignants; cas de l’énergie. Didaskalia, 15, 59–86.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fourez, G. (2002). Les sciences dans l’enseignement secondaire. Didaskalia, 21, 107–122.

    Google Scholar 

  • Garcia-Debanc, C., et Laurent, D. (2003). Gérer l’oral en sciences: la conduite d’une phase d’émergence des représentations par un enseignant débutant. Aster, 37, 109–137.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Garnier, C., Marinacci, L., Vincent, S., Gauthier, D., St Jean, M., Patenaude, J., Quesnel, M., Hall-Gnom, V., Bonenfant, C., et Séguin-Noël, H. (2004). Systèmes de représentations sociales et de pratiques éducatives en science et technologie au secondaire. Québec, Canada: Rapport de recherche (Programme FCAR 00-RS-70052).

    Google Scholar 

  • Ginestié, J. (2003, 20–21 novembre). Quelle place pour une éducation technologique? Le complexe culturel à l’égard de la chose technique. Communication présentée au Colloque européen «La culture technique: un enjeu de société», Paris, France.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jasanoff, S. (2004). States of Knowledge: The Co-production of Science and Social Order. Londres, Royaume-Uni, et New York, NY: Routledge.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Jiménez-Aleixandre, M.-P., et Pereiro-Muñoz, C. (2002). Knowledge producers or knowledge consumers? Argumentation and decision making about environmental management. International Journal of Science Education, 24, 1171–1190.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kelly, G. et Crawford, T. (1997). An ethnographic investigation of the discourse processes of school science. Science Education, 81, 533–559.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kelly, G. J., Druker, S. et Chen, C. (1998). Students’ reasoning about electricity: combining performance assessments with argumentation analysis. International Journal of Science Education, 20(7), 849–871.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kerbrat-Orecchioni (1990). Les interactions verbales. Paris, France: Armand Colin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Klaassen, C. W. J. M. et Lijnse, P. L. (1996). Interpreting students’ and teachers’ discourse in science classes: an underestimated problem? Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 33, 115–134.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Laugksch, R. C. (2000). Scientific literacy: A conceptual overview. Science Education, 84, 71–94.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lebeaume J. (1999). Perspectives curriculaires en éducation technologique. Mémoire HDR, Université Paris Sud, France.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lemke, J.L. (1990). Talking Science: Language, Learning and Values. New York, NY: Ablex, Norwood.

    Google Scholar 

  • McRobbie, C. J., Ginns, I. S. et Stein, S. J. (2000). Preservice primary teachers’ thinking about technology and technology education. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 10, 181–101.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mehan, H. (1979). Learning Lessons. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Mortimer, E.F. et Scott, P.H. (2003). Meaning Making in Secondary Science Classroom. Milton Keynes, Royaume-Uni: Open University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Newton, P., Driver, R., et Osborne, J. (1999). The place of argumentation in the pedagogy of school science. International Journal of Science Education, 21(5), 553–576.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • O’Neil, D. K. et Polman, J. L. (2004). Why educate “Little Scientists”? Examining the potential of practice-based scientific literacy. Journal of research in Science Teaching, 41, 234–266.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pestre, D. (2006). Introduction aux Science Studies. Paris, France: La Découverte.

    Google Scholar 

  • Roberts, D. A. (2007). Scientific literacy/science literacy. Dans S. K. Abell et N. G. Lederman (dir.), Handbook of Research on Science Education (p. 729–780). Mahwa, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sinclair, J. et Coulthard, R. (1975). Toward an Analysis of Discours. Oxford, Royaume-Uni: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sutton, C. (1992). Words, Science and Learning, Buckingham, Royaume-Uni: Open. University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sutton, C. (1995). Quelques questions sur l’écriture et la science: une vue personnelle d’outre-manche. Repères, 12, 37–51.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. ISET de Nabeul & ISEFC, Tunis, Tunisie

    Adel Bouras

  2. UMR STEF ENS Cachan-INRP-UniverSud Paris, Bureau 304, Bâtiment Cournot, Ecole Normale Supérieure de Cachan, 61, av. du Président Wilson, 94235, Cachan Cedex, France

    Virginie Albe

Authors
  1. Adel Bouras
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Virginie Albe
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Virginie Albe.

Additional information

This article was accepted by Dr. Jacques Désautels.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Bouras, A., Albe, V. Interactions et apprentissages en classe dans l’enseignement supérieur technologique. Can J Sci Math Techn 9, 243–261 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1080/14926150903314321

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/14926150903314321

Search

Navigation