IEEI 2021 conference theme

Improvisation? Improvisation is commonly associated with the arts. But it is also used in other fields of practice and research, such as medicine, the bar, defense, civil security, crafts, sport, teaching and training. It's worth noting that the term is regularly found in the lexicon of many practitioners (often on the bangs of professional frames of reference) or in that of certain work analysts. The notion can reflect a form of practical reality, considered more or less avowed or inescapable; it can also be used to point the finger at dubious amateurism or, conversely, to sing the praises of experts and virtuosos. The disparate degrees of consideration given to improvisation beg the question.

Does the classic dualism between "mythical valorization" and "critical devalorization" of improvisation (De Raymond, 1980), or the equally common dualism between framework and instantaneous outpouring, constitute a heuristic scope or obstacle? What is the praxisthat goes by the name of improvisation? Is it an experience, an activity in its own right? Are there any conditions under which we can speak of improvisation? To what extent can we link improvisation to imagination and/or creation and/or intuition and/or invention, etc.? Can improvisation and adaptation be confused? Is it preferable to distinguish between them? How does improvisation function interactionally, attentionally, sensitively or cognitively? What is the relationship between improvisation and preparation? Can improvisation be considered as emancipation? Is improvisation primarily an individual or collective practice? Is improvisation just a matter for experts? Or does it play a part in the conditions of expertise? Can we think of it as a way of becoming and remaining a professional? Do we need to learn to improvise, or improvise to learn? Can you learn to improvise? Etc. These are just some of the questions that will be explored throughout the symposium.

Laborde (2005), describes the practice of improvisation as an art of memory and the moment (a practice at once embodied, cultural and sublimated by the situated relationship to the other). Pierrepont (2009), concerning collective improvisation, comes to identify a complex of 4 specific properties: it is propositional, situational, immanent, and consists of a combinatory and transformative dynamic. Hennion (2018), considers that improvisation should be apprehended not only on the side of the improviser (who does, and does in order to let himself be done) but also, extending Souriau and following a pragmatist point of view, on the side of the work (which both makes itself and is to be made - in its perpetual accomplishment, it is thus possible and relevant to consider it as accompanied in a distributed way, by the improviser but also by other actors in the interaction, such as the audience). Anthropologists and sociologists have proposed fruitful hermeneutics of improvisation. This is also the case for other researchers such as Mouëllic (2011), who, in his book "Improviser le cinéma" (Improvising Cinema), defends, among other things, a form of continuity between writing (a certain kind of writing) and improvisation during filming, or Citton (2014), who, in an essay, brings together co-attentional dynamics and improvisation, and the agentivity of the collective attentional ecosystem that a class constitutes, according to him.

In the fields of education and training, pedagogy and didactics, improvisation is used in a variety of ways. For over 40 years, the category has been used: 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), how teachers teach(e.g.Borko & Livingstone, 1989 ; Perrenoud, 1994 ; Tochon, 1993), or to understand their work (Azéma, 2019), to study and transform their training(e.g.Pelletier & Jutras, 2008), or to talk about specific learning situations and analyze their scope(e.g.Gagnon, 2011). We understand that it covers different realities, plural meanings and sometimes contradictory points of view, all of which contribute, in this sense, to diverse understandings.

Today, teachers, trainers and coaches are always on the lookout for new insights into their practices, and for ways to improve their efficiency. Learning and development processes are being reexamined, particularly by neuroscientists. In this context, it is vital to continue to describe and understand the forms of school interactions, in the classroom, or those concerning training and professionalization, training and performance capacity. Similarly, it seems crucial to continue exploring the dynamics of individuation (Simondon, 2013) of those involved in teaching, education, training or coaching. By placing improvisation at the heart of reflections, practices and debates, this symposium aims to critically question ways of teaching, training or coaching, but also learning or development processes.

References :

Azéma, G. (2019). Improvisation and the ordinary work of teachers entering the profession. What activity? Quels enjeux[ Online], 16-1 | 2019, online 15 April 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 instructions by expert and novice teachers.American Educational Researcher Journal, 26(4), 473-498.

Citton, Y. (2014).Pour une écologie de l'attention. Paris : Seuil.

De Raymond, J.-F. (1980)L'improvisation, Paris: Vrin.

Erickson, F. (1982). Classroom discourse as improvisation: 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 in the service of oral and written expression and its teaching.Revue Suisse des Sciences de l'Education, 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). L'objet, la croyance et le sociologue,Transposition[En ligne], Hors-série 1 | 2018, online January 30, 2018, accessed May 14, 2018. URL:http://journals.openedition.org/transposition/1673; DOI : 10.4000/transposition.1673

Laborde, D. (2005)La mémoire de l'instant. Les improvisations chantées du bertsulari basque. Bayonne : elkar.

Mouëllic, G. (2011).Improvising cinema. Crisnée : Yellow Now.

Pelletier, J.-P., & Jutras, F. (2008). Components of active improvisation training in managing the unexpected in the secondary classroom.McGill Journal of Education, 43(2), 187-211.

Perrenoud, P. (1994). La pratique pédagogique entre l'improvisation réglée et le bricolage. In P. Perrenoud (DS.),La formation entre théorie et pratique(pp. 21-41). Paris : L'Harmattan (Article originally published inEducationet Recherche, 1983, 2, 198-212).

Pierrepont, A. (2009). Improvisation games, construction games. In A. Pierrepont and Y. Séité (dir.), L'improvisation : Ordres et désordres. Faits humains et faits de société (pp. 19-36), Revue de l'UFR de Lettres, Arts, Cinéma. Université Paris Diderot - Paris 7.

Sawyer, R. K. (2004). Creative teaching: Collaborative discussion as disciplined improvisation.Educational Researcher, 33(2), 12-20.

Simondon, G. (2013).Individuation in the light of the notions of form and information. Grenoble: Millon (Original text, 1958).

Tochon, F. V. (1993). Le fonctionnement " improvisationnel " de l'enseignant expert.Revue des sciences de l'éducation, 19(3), 437-461.