Evolution of Language Productions and Action Rules Extraction: Case Study of an 8th Grade Class Girls during a Handball Cycle

Makram Zghibi, Chamseddine Gunoubi, Nabila Bennour, Mohamed Ali Jbeli, Faten Sahli, Mohamed Jabri

Higher Institute of Education and Training Contained, Tunis, Tunisia.
Higher Institute of Sports and Physical Education, Kef, Tunisia.
LASELDI, University of Franche-Comté, Besan?on, France.
UMR EFTS, Mirail University of Toulouse II, Toulouse, France.

DOI: 10.4236/ce.2013.43025                

Abstract

The aim of this study is to describe the speech act of girls facing handball play situations and then see how to construct efficient action rules. The used method is choosing a descriptive, exploratory and heuristic analysis of the discursive practices of a group of girls (8 hoursof effectivelessons, 14 girls aged 14, T =12 hours of actual practice). The study includes analyze of girl’s speech during the debate of idea’s situa-tion. On the other hand,we aim the extraction of effective action rules. The quantitative study showed that speech productions increase notably more than the evolution of action rules formulation during the cycle. The qualitative analysis showed that the decisions made by the girls guide to re-question the relationship to knowledge in the educative cycles using collective sport games. Added to that, integrating moments where students can debate and share opinions about the game is didactically interesting in order to broaden and refine their repertoire of solutions to win.

Keywords

Debate of Ideas; Discourse Analysis; Action Rules; Handball

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

[1]	Austin, J. L. (1970). When saying is doing. Paris: Seuil.
[2]	Austin, J. L. (1962). How to do things with words. Oxford: University Press.
[3]	Chabchoub, A. (2001). Introduction to disciplines’ didactics. Tunis: ISEFC.
[4]	Chang, C.-W. (2009). Language, thought and action: Semio-constructivist approach in basket-ball game learning among CM2 (5th grade) pupils. Doctorate Thesis, Besan?on: University of Franche-Comté.
[5]	Charaudeau, P., & Maingueneau, D. (2002). Dictionary of discourse analyzes. Paris: Seuil.
[6]	Cottinet, C., & Harmand, M. (2003). Verbalize to learn, a main activity on PSE.
[7]	Deriaz, D., Poussin, B., & Gréhaigne, J.-F. (1998). The debate of ideas. E.P.S. Journal, 273, 80-82.
[8]	Doise, W., & Mugny, G. (1981). The social development ofintelligence. Paris: Inter Edition.
[9]	Doise, W. (1991). Social interactions and cognitive instruments’ development among children. In H. Malewska, & P. Peyre. T. (Eds.), Thesocialization (pp. 21-48). Paris: PUF.
[10]	Lindemann, H. (2007). Constructivism and Pedagogy. München: Ernst Reinhardt.
[11]	Gilly, M. (1988). In A. N. Perret-Clermont, & M. Nicolet (Eds.), Interact and know. Cousset: Delval.
[12]	Gréhaigne, J. F., Billard, M., & Laroche, J. Y. (1999). Collective sports teaching at school. Paris: Bruxelles.
[13]	Grice, H. P. (1957). Meaning. Philosophical Review, 66, 377-388.
[14]	Kerbrat-Orecchioni, C. (2008). Language acts within the discourse: Interactive approach and conversations’ structure. Paris: Armand Colin.
[15]	Kerbrat-Orecchioni, C. (2001). Language acts within the discourse. Paris: Nathan.
[16]	Kerbrat-Orecchioni, C. (1998). Verbal interactions: Interactive approach and conversations’ structure.. Paris: Armand Colin.
[17]	Mahut, B. (2003). Semiotic approach of didactic interactions: Gesture and verb in a PSE situation. Thesis, Besan?on: Université de Franche-Comté.
[18]	Masciotra et al. (2008). In C.-W. Chang (Ed.), Language, thought and action: Semio-constructivist approach in basket-ball game learning among CM2 (5th grade) pupils. Doctorate Thesis, Besan?on: University of Franche-Comté.
[19]	Mugny, H. (1985). Social psychology of cognitive development. Berne: Peter Lang.
[20]	Nachon, M. (2004). Interaction on physical and sportive education: The case of Basketball. Semio-linguistics kills approachand knowledge construction. Besan?on: University of Franche-Comté.
[21]	Perret-Clermont, A. N, (1979). Intelligencebuilding in the socialinteraction. Berne: Peter Lang.
[22]	Shannon, C. E., & Weaver, W. (1949). Mathematical theory of communication. Urbana: Illinois University Press.
[23]	Sperber, D., & Wilson, D. (1989). The relevance. Paris: Minuit.
[24]	Thabuy, A. (2007). Training teachers to focus on the learner. Bulletin Expliciter, 72.
[25]	Vygotsky, L. (1985). Thought andlanguage. Paris: Sociales.
[26]	Zghibi, M. (2010). Linguistic interactions and learning on football. European University.
[27]	Zghibi, M., Zerai, Z., & Rezig, M. (2009). Verbalization’s direct effectson action’s strategies and decision makingsamong pupils at a football cycle. Journal of Research about the Intervention on Physical and Sportive Education, 16, 118-140.