The Role of Communication in Teaching Swimming
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.24193/subbeag.68(3).24Keywords:
teaching swimming, learning and teaching of swimming, communication, semiotics, linguistic productions.Abstract
The present research study includes, in the first part, the synthesis of the literature regarding the theoretical framework of meaning construction, from information theory to the semiotics of reception and the concept of “horizon of expectation” in the reception of the teacher’s linguistic productions, and in the second part, it includes the research methodology. The results of the research identify the average frequency of responses for all situations. After the study took place resulted 6 important findings like a direct and unambiguous reading strategy for the teacher (P), a considerable loss of meaning between the teacher’s language production and the student’s reception, higher reading fluency in the GE group, reading difficulties in GT group, recognition of meaning is earlier and more relevant in GE, and the fact that verbal productions make it possible to complete sequence, a misunderstanding for GT. The conclusions reveal that the messages transmitted through verbal and non-verbal teacher-student communication are received rather by connotation than by denotation.
Rolul comunicării în predarea înotului. Prezentul studiu de cercetare cuprinde, în prima parte, sinteza literaturii de specialitate privind cadrul teoretic al construcției sensului, de la teoria informației la semiotica receptării și conceptul de „orizont de așteptare” în receptarea producțiilor lingvistice ale profesorului, iar în partea a doua, include metodologia cercetării. Rezultatele cercetării identifică frecvența medie a răspunsurilor pentru toate situațiile. După interpretarea studiului au rezultat 6 constatări importante, precum o strategie de lectură directă și neechivocă pentru profesor (P), o pierdere considerabilă a sensului între producția de limbaj a profesorului și recepția elevului, fluență mai mare în citire la grupul GE, dificultăți de citire în grupul GT, recunoașterea semnificației este mai devreme și mai relevantă în grupul GE și faptul că producțiile verbale fac posibilă completarea secvenței, o neînțelegere pentru grupul GT. Concluziile relevă faptul că mesajele transmise prin comunicare verbală și nonverbală profesor-elev sunt primite mai degrabă prin conotație decât prin denotație.
Cuvinte-cheie: predarea înotului, învățarea și predarea înotului, comunicarea, semiotică, producții lingvistice.
Received 2023 July 23; Revised 2023 September 3; Accepted 2023 September 4; Available online 2023 September 30; Available print 2023 November 30
References
Argyris, C. (1983). Reasoning, Learning, and Action. Jossey-Bass Publishers.
Argyris, C. (1985). Strategy Change and Defensive Routines. Mass.: Putman Publishing Co.
Arnheim, R. (1966) in Group?. (1992). Treatise on the visual sign. For a rhetoric of the image. Threshold.
Austin, J. (1970). When saying is doing. Threshold.
Barbier, J.M. (2000). The analysis of the singularity of the action. Paris: PUF.
Buttterworth, B. & Hadar, U. (1989). Gesture, speech, and computational stages: A reply to McNeill. Psychological review, 96, 168 - 174.
Chi, Mth. (1997). Quantifying qualitative analyzes of verbal data: a practical guide. The Journal of Learning Sciences, 6, 271-315.
Cosnier, J. & Brossard, A. (1984). Non-verbal communication. Paris, Neuchâtel: Delachaux and Niestlé.
De Landsheere, G. & Delchambre, A. (1979). The teacher’s non-verbal behaviors. Paris: Nathan.
Doyle, W. (1986). Classroom organization and management. In Wittrock, M.C. (Ed.) Handbook of research on teaching. New York: McMillan.
Dunkin, M.J. & Biddle, B.J. (1974). The study of teaching. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston Inc.
Durand, M. (1996). School-based education. Paris: PUF.
Ericsson, K.A. & Simon, H.A. (1993). Protocol analysis: verbal reports as data. Cambridge, MA: MITPress.
Gadamer, H.G. (1976). Truth and method. Paris.
George, C. (1983). Learn by doing. Paris: PUF.
Gilly, Y. (1992). Signifier, Referent, Real and literary text. In Literary Annales of the University of Besançon (Eds.). Signifier, Referent, Real. Paris: The Beautiful Letters.
Husserl, E. (1950). Guiding ideas for a phenomenology. Paris: Gallimard.
Iser, W. (1975). The reading process: a phenomenological approach. In New literary history, 3, 1971-1972. In Warning, R. & co., Rezeptionsästetik: Theorie und Praxis. Munich.
Jauss, H. (2001). For an aesthetic reception. Paris: Gallimard.
Kendon, A. (1980). Gesticulation and speech: two aspects of the process of utterance. In Richie Key, M., (Ed.) The relationship of verbal and non-verbal communication, (pp. 207-227). The Hague: Mouton.
Kirschner, A.C. & Whitson, D.H. (1997). Situated cognition. Social, semiotic, and psychological perspectives. Mahwah: Erlbaum associates.
Krauss, R.M., Chen, Y. & Chawla, P. (1996). Nonverbal behavior and nonverbal communication: What do conversational hand gestures tell us? Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 28, 389-450.
Light, R. (2008) Complex learning theory in physical education: An examination of its epistemology and assumptions about how we learn. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 27, 21-37.
Light, R. (2009). Understanding and enhancing learning in TGfU through complex learning theory. In T. Hopper, J. Butler, & B. Storey (eds), TGf. Simply good pedagogy: Understanding a complex challenge. Toronto, HPE Canada, pp. 23-34.
Light, R. L. & Evans, J. R. (2010) The impact of Game Sense pedagogy on elite level Australian rugby coaches’ practice: A question of pedagogy. Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy, 15(2), 103–115.
Mahut, B. (1998). Gestural interventions in the teaching of physical education. DEA Language Sciences, Didactics, Semiotics. Faculty of Letters Besançon.
Mahut, B., Mahut, N., Gréhaigne, J.F. & Masselot, M. (2002a). The sharing of the semantic universe between teacher and students. An example in swimming. Proceedings of the GEDIAPS-INRP Colloquium. Paris, March 22-24.
Mahut, B., Mahut, N., Nachon, M. & Masselot, M. (2002b). Horizon of expectation and interpretation of language productions in EPS. Proceedings of the Colloquium for Young Researchers in Semiotics. Montpellier, June 20-21.
Mahut, N., Outrey, E., Mahut, B. & Gréhaigne, J.F. (2000). Professional knowledge and decision making in scholar settings: comparative study on four teacher populations in swimming. Proceedings of AIESEP Rockhampton World Conference (AU), September 2-6, 2000.
Masselot, M. (1978). Pluri-codicity in kindergarten. State doctorate thesis (unpublished) in language sciences. University of Franche-Comte.
Masselot-Girard, M. (1999). Image, languages. Research and teaching practices. Paris: INRP.
McNeil, D. (1992). Hand and mind. What gesture reveal about thought. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Meirieu, P. (1990). Learn… yes, but how. Paris: ESF.
Perrenoud, P. (1995). Student’s job. Paris: ESF.
Piaget, J. (1976). Language and thought in children. Neuchâtel: Delachaux and Niestlé.
Pujade-Renaud, C. & Zimmermann, D. (1983). The teacher’s body in the classroom. Paris: ESF.
Siedentop, D. (1986). Modification of teacher behaviour, Sport pedagogy: proceedings of the 1984 Olympic Congress. Champaign: IL: Human Kinetics.
Suchman, L. (1987). Plans and situated actions: the problem of human-machine communication. Cambridge UK: University Press.
Vermersch, P. (1978). Task analysis and cognitive functioning in teaching programming. Bulletin of Psychology, 33.
Vygotsky, L. (1997). Thought and language. Paris: The Dispute.
Weil Barrais, A. (1999). The cognitive man. Paris: PUF.
Winkin, Y. (1981). The new communications. In Bateson G, Birdwhistell RL, Goffmann E, Hall ET, Jackson D, Schlefen A, Sigman S & Watzlawick P (Eds). Paris: Threshold.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2023 Studia Universitatis Babeș-Bolyai Educatio Artis Gymnasticae
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
