The aim of this study was to compare two
methods of teaching using two different modalities of verbalization: oral and oral/graphic. We opted for
a quantitative-comparative analysis of the pupils’ language typologies taken
from oral and written productions of third secondary grade pupils who play football
in a professional club (juniors of Olympic Kef, IInd league, 18 years old on
average). The comparisons between
the group proceeding to an oral verbalization versus the group using an
oral/graphic one as well as intra-groups’ comparisons did not show clear
significant differences. Despite of a statistical signification absence, we
note that the two teams made a progress (increase in the number of played and
conquered balls and the shots on target) especially during the last three
sessions. Indeed, the debate of ideas is a process. It is relevant that the
interaction between learning oral and graphic verbalization is more dynamic,
whenever pupils verbalize orally and graphically, they are more motivated to
learn.
References
[1]
De Landsheere V. (1992). Education and formation. Paris: University Press
[2]
De Landsheere G. (1972). Experimental comparative education. In Dictionary of Evaluation and Research in Education. Paris: France University Press.
[3]
Gréhaigne, J. F. (1992). Game organasation in football. Paris : ACTIO.
[4]
Gréhaigne, J. F. (2009). Around time. Spaces, learning, projects in team sports. Besancon: University Press of Franche-Comté.
[5]
Gréhaigne, J. F., & Godbout, P. (1998). Formative assessment in team sports with a tactical approach. Journal of Physical Education, Recreation and Dance, 69, 46-51.
doi:10.1080/07303084.1998.10605048
[6]
Gréhaigne, J. F., Billard, M., & Laroche, J. Y. (1999). Collective sports teaching at school. Paris: Bruxelles.
[7]
Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning. Cambridge: University Press.
[8]
Lê Thanh Khoi (1995). Education and Civilisations. Yesterday’s Societies. Paris: UNESCO, BlE, Nathan.
[9]
Nachon, M. (2004). Interaction on physical and sportive education: The case of Basketball. Semio-linguistics kills approachand knowledge construction. Besancon: University of Franche-Comté.
[10]
Pieron, M. (2000). Sport and teaching. Liège: King Baudouin Foundation’s edition.
[11]
Roulet, E., Auchlin, A., Moeschler, J., Rubattel, C., & Schelling, M. (1985). The articulation of discourse on contemporary French. Berne: Lang.
[12]
Van Daele H. (1993). Comparative education. Paris: France University Press.
[13]
Wallian, N., & Chang, C. W. (2007). Semiotics of motor action and language activities: to an epistemology of the co-constructed team sports knowledge. In J. F. Gréhaigne (Ed.), Game configurations. Debate of ideas and learning in football and team sports (pp. 145 164). Besancon: PUFC.
[14]
Wallian, N., & Gréhaigne, J.F. (2004). To a semio-constructivist approach in motor learning. In G. Carlier (Ed.), If we spoke about the pleasure of physical education teaching (pp. 167-179). Montpellier: AFRAPS.
[15]
Zghibi, M. (2012). Semio-constructivist approached learning in Foot ball. Berlin: European University Editions.
[16]
Zghibi, M., Sahli, H., Bennour, N., Guinoubi, Ch., Guerchi, M., & Hamdi, M. (2013b). The Pupil’s discourse and action projects: The case of third year high school pupils in Tunisia. Creative Education, 4, 165-171.
[17]
Zghibi, M., Gunoubi, Ch., Bennour, N., Jbeli, M., Sahli, F., & Jabri, M. (2013a). Evolution of language productions and action rules extraction: Case study of an 8th grade class girls during a Handball cycle. Creative Education, 4, 172-179.
[18]
Zerai, Z. (2011). Handball learning among Tunisian and French young ladies: verbalization effect. Sport sciences non published Ph.D. The sis, Franche comté. University.
