Télécharger le tome 2 - IUFM

criteria).
3.2. Characteristic abilities
S.I.A. makes it possible to perceive the cases where characteristics are those of a part
of the group of pupils studied, compared to a group where all the pupils of the group were
studied. They “almost” all share the same characteristics, contrary to the modes of analysis
which produce symmetrical links. We will start by presenting a case where a characteristic
comes up as specific to one of the groups.
The example is that of the characteristic “writing a text using “I” which is the characteristic of
one of the classes coded CM1WB.
– (1) “Writing a text using “I”” implies “belonging to class CM1 WB” (99%)
Only the pupils of this class chose a particular writing behaviour, which indicates that pupils
read into a suggested situation an evaluation situation : the expected reader is the teacher
and pupils show what they can do. But what seems even more important is the fact that
the implicative link of maximal intensity means that no pupil “or rather almost none” in other
classes have reacted in that way. To explain this specificity, we venture the hypothesis that
the way the task was done has been singularized in class : maybe only this CM1 teacher
has presented the exercise as an evaluation, or at least like an exercise that he would check
on.
3.3. Groups characterized by capacities
On the other hand, other implicative links show that almost all pupils of a same class share
some skills and also make the same mistakes etc. Let’s keep in mind some of them :
(95%)
–
–
(1) “Belonging to CM2H03” implies “using “tu””(90%)
(2) “Belonging to CM2WB” implies “Mentioning point 0 and changing its status”
This time, these characteristics are met in almost all the pupils of a same class.
We think that they are the results – sometimes indirect – of the didactical or pedagogical
ways used in class. What is left is to interpret these different rules. If almost all the pupils
of the first particularized class address a reader who acts like “a peer” in their writings, it is
no doubt because help and cooperation are legitimized and encouraged in these classes or
because these forms of communication are used. If almost all the pupils of the second class
show good geometrics skills, it is no doubt thanks to the teaching techniques used.
But this geometrics skill cannot be understood without linguistic skills which make it
possible to communicate it. Using “tu” (informal “you”) is not always the required school
form required. Now, these two classes have pupils from different social backgrounds :
in the second class the pupils come from more privileged families than the other studied
classes. Relationships between social classes and linguistic ways are certainly complex
and not mechanical. However, the results we are getting are coherent with those of other
studies on these relations. As a consequence, we cannot neglect the explicative factor of
cohesion between observed behaviours. We are bumping here into a recurrent problem : the
principles of subjects’ categorisation are obviously never unique or uniform. The gatherings
of pupils in this particular case cover both institutional groups (school classes) and “social”
116
IUFM Nord-Pas de Calais