L'intégration de données biomécaniques et d'expérience pour comprendre l'activité de nageurs élites et concevoir un dispositif d'évaluation

Abstract

Cette étude vise à montrer l’intérêt d’articuler des données biomécaniques et d’expérience pour mieux comprendre l’activité en sport et, plus largement, l’activité. Afin d’étudier l’activité de nageurs élites confrontés à un dispositif technologique (le MAD system) évaluant les facteurs biomécaniques de la performance, elle intègre deux approches : l’ « approche biomécanique » et celle du « cours d’action ». Trois nageurs élites ont participé à l’étude. Le traitement des données a consisté à reconstruire, et comparer, le cours d’in-formation de chaque nageur par l’articulation des analyses biomécaniques et celles de l’expérience des nageurs. Les résultats révèlent des traits typiques de l’activité organisant la dynamique de leur interaction avec le dispositif et montrent les liens entre l’organisation de leur activité, les caractéristiques physiques du dispositif technologique et les consignes de réalisation du protocole d’évaluation.

Combining first- and third-person data in Sports Sciences in France: analysis of an original methodology

“…However, it is acceptable "in an enactive perspective only if primacy is given to the course of experience; in other words, it should be founded on a preliminary analysis of the course of experience". This theoretical object is notably mobilized by Saury et al, (2010) and Gal-Petitfaux et al, (2013).…”

“…The second study object "privileged" by the jointanalysis approach (Grison & Riff, 2002) involves activities mediated by equipment or including interaction with a technological device (rowing, swimming with the MADsystem, golf, etc.). This is the case in Saury et al 2010in rowing, Gal-Petitfaux et al (2013) in swimming, Roberts, Jones and Rothberg (2001) in golf, and Poizat, Bourbousson, in table tennis. Referring to the work of Roberts et al (2001) on golf equipment, Gal-Petitfaux et al (2013, p.260.…”

“…The concern for the practicality of research appears, at a first level, in an ergonomic view of conceiving and improving sports gear. This is the case for authors such as Roberts et al (2001), Poizat, Haradji and Seifert (2011) or Gal-Petitfaux et al, (2013). Talking about the research he co-signed with Poizat (Poizat et al, 2011), Seifert (2010) indicates that they are analysing "ergonomic issues with a view to help with the conception of material in partnership with Petzl and Simond".…”

“…Talking about the research he co-signed with Poizat (Poizat et al, 2011), Seifert (2010) indicates that they are analysing "ergonomic issues with a view to help with the conception of material in partnership with Petzl and Simond". At a second level, this concern for practicality is anchored in a will to improve or even create new training devices as with Gal-Petitfaux et al (2013) whose "study hopes to open up new ways to support the conception of situations of assessment for elite swimmers" (Gal-Petitfaux et al, 2013). This is also the case with Brault (2011) studying the detection of body-swerves in rugby from a biomechanical and perceptual point of view.…”

“…Secondly, Gal-Petitfaux et al (2013) also specify the need for a common study object: "the crossing of both types of approach is possible inasmuch as they share a same study object: human activity" (Gal-Petitfaux et al, 2013, p. 262). This is also what Bourbousson and Fortes (2012) postulate: for them, one of the reasons "which would make the results obtained within the scope of the course of action research program an interesting candidate to explain the entire mechanisms observed in the dynamic approach of interpersonal coordination resides in the similarity of the research objects: the collective activity as it is unfolding" (Bourbousson & Fortes, 2012, p. 181).…”