Enaction and Normativity of Activity: Distinctions between Learning and Development in Training

Education and training are normalizing practices that arrange contexts in the aim of producing positive changes in the trainees pratice. The enactive approach of activity postulates the agentivity of each trainee and his own normative regulation of interactions with the environment. Could this approach be used to suggest training options that might reduce this apparent contradiction? What then are the conditions that support the acquisitions aimes? Are there different types of conditions? Canguilhem's theory of norms is valuable in addressing these questions from an enactivist point of view. It makes it possible to conceptualise a practitioner's own world of interactions and the overall coherence of his/her activity with reference to his/her locally Prevalent Activity Norm (PAN). It has a structuring status for the practitioner’s activity in relation with the socio-cultural practice area concerned by the training. This field is also characterised by a Valued Cultural Norm (VCN), which determines the expected performance and the actions leading to it. Putting these two kinds of norms into perspective leads us to distinguish two major proceses in training: (1) learning, as the acquisition of new resources to better satisfying the trainee's current PAN; (2) development, as the enactment of a new PAN. By articulating an enactivist perspective and a theory of norms, we propose training principles aimed at the development of trainees whose current PAN is not in line with the VCN–this gap hinders the trainees’ performance and their expected progress. This proposal is based on a fieldwork carried out in volleyball, which is a competitive and standardised practice. Development is the real target of the proposed training; several development levers are presented.