Symposium: “Improvising Teaching, Teaching Improvisation”

Theme of the 2021 IEEI Conference

Improvisation? This concept is commonly associated with the arts. But it also extends to other fields of practice and research, such as medicine, the legal profession, defense, civil security, crafts, sports, and teaching, learning, and training. It is worth noting that the term regularly appears in the vocabulary of many practitioners (often outside established professional frameworks) or in that of certain work analysts. The concept can reflect a form of practical reality, considered more or less acceptable or unavoidable; it can also be used to point the finger at questionable amateurism or, conversely, to sing the praises of experts and virtuosos. The disparate nature of the varying degrees of regard for improvisation raises questions.

Does the classic dichotomy between the “mythical valorization” and “critical devaluation” of improvisation (De Raymond, 1980)—or the equally common one pitting structure against spontaneous outburst—constitute a heuristic opportunity or an obstacle? What isthis praxisknown as improvisation? Is it an experience, a distinct activity? Are there conditions under which we can speak of improvisation? To what extent can improvisation be linked to imagination and/or creation and/or intuition and/or invention, etc.? Can improvisation and adaptation be conflated? Is it preferable to distinguish between them? What is the interactional, attentional, sensory, or cognitive functioning of improvisation? What is the relationship between improvisation and preparation? Can improvisation be considered a form of emancipation? Is improvisation primarily an individual or a collective practice? Is improvisation solely the domain of experts? Or is it part of the conditions of expertise? Can it be thought of as a path to becoming a professional—and remaining one? Should we consider that one must learn in order to improvise, or improvise in order to learn? Can one learn to improvise? Etc. These are all questions that will be explored throughout this conference.

Laborde (2005) describes the practice of improvisation as an art of memory and the moment (a practice that is at once embodied, cultural, and elevated by the relationship with the other). Pierrepont (2009), regarding collective improvisation, identifies a set of four specific properties: it is propositional, situational, immanent, and consists of a combinatorial and transformative dynamic. Hennion (2018) considers that improvisation is best understood not only from the perspective of the improviser (who acts, and acts in order to let things happen) but also, building on Souriau and adopting a pragmatist viewpoint, from the perspective of the work (which both comes into being on its own and is yet to be made—in its perpetual unfolding, it is thus possible and relevant to consider it as accompanied in a distributed manner, not only by the improviser but also by other participants in the interaction, such as the audience). Anthropologists and sociologists have thus proposed fruitful hermeneutics of improvisation. This is also the case with other researchers such as Mouëllic (2011), who, in his book *Improviser le cinéma*, argues, among other things, for a form of continuity between writing (a certain kind of writing) and improvisation during filming, or Citton (2014), who, in an essay, links co-attentional dynamics and improvisation, as well as the agency of the collective attentional ecosystem that, in his view, a classroom constitutes.

In the fields of education and training research, pedagogy, and didactics, improvisation is used in a variety of ways. For over 40 years, this concept has been employed to describe and understand classroom interactions and their dynamics (e.g., Erickson, 1982; Gershon, 2006; Sawyer, 2004), to shed light on how students learn (e.g.,Baker-Sennett & Matusov, 1997) and how teachers teach (e.g., Borko & Livingstone, 1989; Perrenoud, 1994; Tochon, 1993), or to understand teachers’ work (Azéma, 2019), study and transform their training (e.g.,Pelletier & Jutras, 2008), or even to discuss specific learning situations and analyze their implications (e.g.,Gagnon, 2011). It is clear that the term encompasses different realities, multiple meanings, and sometimes contradictory viewpoints that, in this sense, contribute to diverse understandings.

Today, teachers, trainers, and coaches are constantly seeking insights into their practices, as well as ways to improve their effectiveness. Learning and development processes are being reexamined, particularly through the lens of neuroscience. In this context, it seems essential to continue describing and understanding the forms of educational interactions in the classroom, as well as those related to training and professional development, coaching, and performance capacity. Similarly, it is crucial to continue exploring the dynamics of individuation (Simondon, 2013) among those involved in teaching, education, training, or coaching. By placing improvisation at the heart of reflections, practices, and debates, this conference aims to critically examine not only the ways of teaching, training, or coaching, but also the processes of learning and development.

Bibliographic references:

• Azéma, G. (2019). Improvisation and the day-to-day work of new teachers. What activities? What challenges?*Activités*[Online], 16-1 | 2019, published online on April 15, 2019, URL: http://journals.openedition.org/activites/3941
• Baker-Sennett, J., & Matusov, E. (1997). School “performances”: Improvisational processes in development and education. In R. K. Sawyer (DS.),Creativity in performance(pp. 197–212). Greenwich, CT: Ablex Publishing Company.
• Borko, H., & Livingston, C. (1989). Cognition and improvisation: Differences in mathematics instruction by expert and novice teachers.*American Educational Researcher*, 26(4), 473–498.
• Citton, Y. (2014).Toward an Ecology of Attention. Paris: Seuil.
• De Raymond, J.-F. (1980).*Improvisation*. Paris: Vrin.
• Erickson, F. (1982). Classroom discourse as improvisation: The relationship between academic task structure and social participation structure in lessons. In L.C. Wilkinson (DS.),*Communicating in the Classroom*(pp. 153–181). New York: Academic Press.
• Gagnon, R. (2011). Theatrical improvisation as a tool for oral and written expression and its teaching.Swiss Journal of Educational Sciences, 33(2), 251–265.
• Gershon, W. (2006). Collective improvisation: A theoretical lens for classroom observation.*Journal of Curriculum and Pedagogy*, 3(1), 104–135.
• Hennion, A. (2018). The Object, Belief, and the Sociologist,Transposition[Online], Special Issue 1 | 2018, published online on January 30, 2018, accessed on May 14, 2018. URL:http://journals.openedition.org/transposition/1673; DOI: 10.4000/transposition.1673
• Laborde, D. (2005).The Memory of the Moment: The Sung Improvisations of the Basque Bertsulari. Bayonne: Elkar.
• Mouëllic, G. (2011).Improvising Cinema. Crisnée: Yellow Now.
• Pelletier, J.-P., & Jutras, F. (2008). Components of active improvisation training for managing unexpected situations in secondary school classrooms.McGill Journal of Education, 43(2), 187–211.
• Perrenoud, P. (1994). Teaching practice between regulated improvisation and improvisation. In P. Perrenoud (DS.),Training between theory and practice(pp. 21–41). Paris: L’Harmattan. (Article originally publishedin *Education et Recherche*, 1983, 2, 198–212).
• Pierrepont, A. (2009). Improvisation Games, Construction Games. In A. Pierrepont and Y. Séité (eds.), Improvisation: Order and Disorder. Human and Social Realities (pp. 19–36).Journal of the Faculty of Letters, Arts, and Cinema. Paris Diderot University – Paris 7.
• Sawyer, R. K. (2004). Creative teaching: Collaborative discussion as disciplined improvisation.Educational Researcher, 33(2), 12–20.
• Simondon, G. (2013).Individuation in Light of the Concepts of Form and Information. Grenoble: Millon. (Original text, 1958).
• Tochon, F. V. (1993). The “improvisational” approach of the expert teacher.*Revue des sciences de l’éducation*, 19(3), 437–461.

Registration and practical information

• Registration opens on January 31, 2021
• Registration closes on May 30, 2021
• Deadline for withdrawal (if the conference is held): May 14, 2021.

Everyone attending the conference (speakers, presenters, moderators, audience members, etc.*) must register as a conference participant via the online registration system (below). This applies to authors, co-authors, and audience members.

Prices

• Researcher, faculty member, doctoral student (institutional rate).**: €80
• Professionals (including educators, K-12 teachers, mediators, coaches, etc.)**: €50
• Student: €30

* Masculine nouns referring to people include both men and women.
** Excluding UM faculty and staff (staff and students of the host institution are exempt from registration fees)

The registration fee includes:

• participation in all of the activities offered;
• lunch;
• coffee or tea and pastries during the morning welcome and during breaks.

The registration fee does not include other meals, lodging, or the gala dinner.

Gala Dinner

• The price of the gala dinner at the Brasserie du Corum is €40.
• Advance payment must be made at the time of online registration. There is a checkbox provided for this purpose.

Payment Terms

Registration fees can be paid either by credit card or by administrative payment order with a purchase order*.

* IMPORTANT! IF YOU ARE PAYING BY PURCHASE ORDER, once you receive the preliminary order form (generated automatically by the system upon completion of your registration), have your unit’s administrator use it to prepare your purchase order and send itto Laura Gervais.