Читать книгу Devolution and Autonomy in Education - Группа авторов - Страница 20

In order to position these orientations in relation to diversity, the work is in two parts, according to a relatively simple structure, both attached to the didactic tradition of the concept and to a contemporary problematization of its contributions.

In order to respect its origin in disciplinary didactics, Part 1 proposes a first set of variations on the concept of devolution while remaining within the world of teaching specific disciplines. Even more specifically, a dedication is made to the mathematical roots of the concept in this first part, which begins and ends with texts related to the didactics of mathematics. Chapters 1, 2 and 3 question disciplinary specificities, as such, based on reflections on original objects of devolution, inherent to these disciplines.

In Chapter 1, Jean-Philippe Georget analyzes the processes of devolution in situations of peer-to-peer research and proof in mathematics. He shows how difficult it is to circumscribe the objects that are taught through these processes of devolution and how the social aspect of proof, the fundamental object of the discipline, remains subtle to teach.

In Chapter 2, Faouzia Kalali questions the contrast between devolution in mathematics and in experimental sciences, in order to progressively show the specificity of the objects of devolution in science. The experimental dimension, the social stakes of science, the scientific attitude and more thus find possible ways of devolution through a subtle variety of objects to devolve: the tight resolution of problems, the investigative approach, the daily observations of free time and so on.

In Chapter 3, Benjamin Delattre circumscribes an object of devolution that is new to the didactic field: the double of action. From PE, he analyzes the textual productions of different actors in the discipline to show how the epistemic background of these productions makes it complicated to understand this original object and thus the very transformation of usual didactic practices and their associated devolutions. The next three chapters also question objects from specific fields of knowledge, but this time more as objects to devolve and by targeting even more specifically the audiences to whom the devolving subject is addressed, in order to take into account the joint dimension of its action.

In Chapter 4, Hervé Daguet calls upon the digital field as an object to devolve and shows how polymorphic it is. The specific public of his studies, REP+ students¹ considered to be in academic difficulty, leads teachers in particular to emphasize the difficulty of their students’ autonomy and to consider all the more the necessity of their own human commitment to supporting these students through digital means.

In Chapter 5, Sophie Briquet-Duhazé focuses on the “worksheet” object from the didactics of French in kindergarten to show its stakes and limits. Her reflection on the specificity of the kindergarten audience and the learning of an object as vast as language leads, in particular, to further questioning of the considerable extent of the processes of devolution.

In Chapter 6 and the last Chapter of Part 1, Laurence Leroyer returns to the didactics of mathematics by analyzing the handling of a didactic support very specifically developed by a teacher in the context of ULIS (local school inclusion units in France). In particular, she shows how, faced with such an audience, the adaptations produced mainly fall within a technical register that promotes devolution in a general way, but does not really allow for devolution of the mathematical learning issue. The six chapters of Part 1 thus invite reflection on the objects of devolution and the objects to be devolved, in a variety of disciplines. In doing so, they also explicitly call into question the activity of the devolving subject and sometimes question the use of the subject to devolve.

Part 2 of this book proposes a second set of variations on the concept of devolution by moving beyond the teaching of specific disciplines. If the attachment to the didactic field and to school teaching continues to run through the different texts in one way or another, they borrow more from philosophy or the clinic and focus more on the worlds of professional training or animation, or even propose moving beyond the institutionalized perimeters of education.

In Chapter 7, Hubert Vincent proposes a reflection “before devolution”, thus recalling that a reflection beyond disciplinary didactics also humbly refers to a questioning of what is upstream of these fields of research. Based on the writings of Montaigne and Alain, he shows, in particular, that certain objects of devolution from the philosophical tradition are already questioned in education and analyzes how particular school forms support the specificity of reflection in terms of devolution. The two following texts recontextualize the concept of devolution in the field of professional training and question the specificity of its audience. The extension of reflection outside school teaching of specific disciplines then leads to thinking about devolution on a large scale, while questioning the specificity of what is devolved. Is it professional problems, a professional activity, a profession?

In Chapter 8, Florian Ouitre questions devolution from the perspective of problematization. His approach leads him to understand the complexity of the processes involved. By thinking about them in terms of professional training, he questions the constraints of devolution from devolution, that is, the activity of a devolving trainer with a devolving teacher. This mise en abyme of devolution then leads him to question head-on the subtlety of the game of transfers of responsibility that is established in any didactic relationship, and in particular the conditions of adherence of the subject to whom the devolution is addressed.

In Chapter 9, Bruno Hubert also questions the adherence of the subject to consider the complexity of the devolution processes involved in vocational training. His approach leads him to characterize the devolution of a particularly vast professional space, which goes beyond the specific professional situations involved in training work, integrating, in particular, the experiences of the subjects involved and the personal stories that accompany them. He analyzes an entire professional writing system in which several training spaces are described and shows how this tangled expanse appears necessary in order to envisage the subject’s adherence. In line with the clinical sensitivity of this text, the last two chapters of the book directly address the question of the subject’s involvement in the processes of devolution. This particular view then leads us to rethink the initial distinction introduced between subjects and objects of devolution.

In Chapter 10, Pablo Buznic-Bourgeacq questions the devolution of an object that is not really an object, since it is the test experienced by the subject before becoming a teacher and the knowledge that may have emerged from it, which is never really separable from the devolving subject. At the interface between didactic and clinical, he shows that the transfer of responsibility to the learner refers in part to the devolution of a part of oneself. He then questions this situation from its extrapolation, from the lives of subjects passionate about the discipline they teach, to think about the possibility of a devolution of the test supporting the passion that drives the existence of knowledge.

In Chapter 11 and the last chapter of Part 2, Vanessa Desvages-Vasselin continues outside the school teaching of specific disciplines to highlight this attachment of the devolving subject to the objects of devolution in the field of animation. By conducting a simultaneous epistemological, didactic and clinical analysis of an original object, the game, she identifies how the devolution of this object is conducted “under influence”. She then shows how, through the transformation of its stakes during its didactic transposition, this object itself remains attached to the one who puts it into play in order to devolve it.

This double set of variations thus allows us to rework the concept of devolution to enhance its heuristic dimension in a wide variety of fields related to education. By putting it to work everywhere from disciplinary didactics, upstream and beyond, by manipulating it in the field of school teaching, professional training, animation and education in general, it is also the comparative project in didactics that is held here. It is a matter of questioning the specificity and the generality of the phenomena of devolution by crossing the knowledge that orientates them and the institutions that condition them. The filter of the subjects and objects of devolution then also proposes going beyond the perspective by opening up the concept of devolution to the pedagogical, philosophical and clinical sensitivities it carries with it. With the concept of devolution, it is education itself that is questioned, for this is precisely what it is about studying: an institution of autonomy.