Télécharger le tome 2 - IUFM

they think they have learnt in these disciplines throughout the school year.
A student’s answer can be considered as indicators of the way he puts back together the
school discipline referred to and to the way it is organized, throughout his memories of it,
how useful he thinks it is and what definition he gives to the discipline. We therefore consider
it as tracks of what Yves Reuter calls “discipline awareness”.
To understand the graphic we have only kept the characteristics of related answers.
The organization into a hierarchy of the different items shows us how the students deal
with the three different disciplines. They have most trouble identifying Analysis whereas
they identify Mathematics and Statistics more clearly. One of the first results of this study is
therefore to show that pupils dealing with closely related fields of knowledge, in the same
physical space of the classroom have some trouble delimitating the different fields involved.
This result is important for us to know, because in French educational system, even in Junior
High School, it is often the case : students face classes like “Histoire-Géographie” (History-
Geography), “Physique-Chimie” (Physics- Chemistry) etc…
Looking at the graphic (Graph 2) shows that these identifications are interrelated.
(1)”Giving characteristics to an Analysis class” implies “giving characteristics to an
analysis exercise” (85.%)
(2) “Giving characteristics to an Analysis exercise” implies “Giving a list of the
knowledge learnt in Analysis class” (90%)
The two combined rules can be interpreted as the tracks of a complex network of knowledge
which keeps the representations of a specific discipline. They suggest several levels to
these representations of analysis : the highest level would be determined by the ability to
identify, among what is taught, the discipline’s characteristics.
Other implicative ways are also to be considered
(3) “Giving characteristics to an analysis class” implies “Giving characteristics to a
Mathematics exercise” (85%).
(4) “Giving characteristics to a Mathematics exercise” implies “Giving characteristics
to a Statistics lesson” (85%).
The degrees of discipline awareness are therefore probably not independent from one
another : the graph nods in particular (here the identification of an Analysis class specificities)
show the interrelation of these networks.
Lastly, the graphs separation also suggests that factors of disciplines’ identification are
different and not linked. As a matter of fact, one can notice that items in the central graph
send back to everything that has to do with reconstruction within work tasks.
The items on the right end side graphic send back mainly to what has to do with reconstruction
involving other parties, here the teacher.
(5) “To remember a teacher’s presentation of the usefulness of analysis” implies
“Remembering the presentation of analysis usefulness by a teacher” (85%).
This separation among implicative ways and therefore among networks making up the
representations studied here, is interesting.
What seems important here is, outside of the fact that what the teacher says can help define
the disciplines taught, is on the contrary to find out that there is no link between discipline
110
IUFM Nord-Pas de Calais