Abstract:

Why not try to leave the ancestral (Charles Quint) mode of education?
The main philosophy is: “Give more initiative and more responsibilities to the pupils”. One method is addressed to the pupils of the beginning of the secondary school, the other is addressed to the pupils of the end of the higher secondary.
Let us begin with the first years of secondary studies. In this case they are the pupils who make the experiments, carry out tests, take notes, consult appropriate documents. They group by three to learn working together and to use less material. The teacher gives explanations initially on what it will be studied and distributes the didactic material, then circulates among the pupils, gives advises and explanations. The pupils discuss between them and propose sometimes new experiments. At the end of the lesson, the teacher asks to a volunteer for making a summary which is corrected by him, and the pupils take note. There is noise in the room but not of uproar, because probably silence is not required and it is more difficult to organize it when pupils are dispersed. All the lessons always do not lend themselves to this kind of teaching, it is perhaps the occasion to leave freedom to the teacher to make his course active and interactive . All the experiments were carried out with hardware of fortune: tie up, sticking paper, rubber bands, goblets, and so on . Except in electricity where the bulbs, the batteries the measuring devices must be bought.
For higher secondary studies.
The tables are laid out in an unspecified way in the room. The pupils group freely by three around each table. The professor prepared a small document for each table. It consists of a kind of challenge for the pupils who will have to elucidate it thereafter.
On a table the professor put books of various levels (library) that they can carry on their table. They first learn how to consult a matter table, then they discover new terms and try to understand while discussing between them. During this time the teacher goes from one table to another, listens to the questions and helps to answer it. At the end of the lesson, one pupil by table prepared a transparency and explains it to the others. The teacher recalls what it was studied in more structured way of which the pupils take notes. So, if in more, the pupils have experiments related to the subject on their table, the results are still improved.
Advantages:
The pupils are active and consequently retain better and the training is improved since they must learn directly in their books.
The good students explain to the other ones, those feel obliged to take part at the work. The students learn too how to synthesize.The teacher knows his pupils better and realizes where are the difficulties which the pupils encounter. All the pupil’s opinions were positive. The teaching enthusiasm was not general because a lesson of this kind is not appropriate for all the professors, because here they are exposed to questions of pupils whose they have sometimes difficulties of answering it. But they must also learn to say: “I cannot answer immediately, but certainly I will do it for the next lesson”. No one is held to know all. This method can be adapted to other disciplines.
Such kind of lessons requires a very good knowledge of the subject and probably an other training of the teachers because the preparation of the lessons are completly different.