|
|
|
|
|
|
Journée d’étude consacrée à l’exploration de pratiques éducatives innovantes et à la place occupée par les enseignants et les éducateurs qui se saisissent de la perspective des humanités numériques dans ces nouveaux rapports aux savoirs.
Plus d’informations ici: https://calenda.org/1067455
Au cours des dernières années, les technologies numériques ont pénétré massivement les pratiques scolaires (Aillerie, 2017). La crise sanitaire vécue à l’échelle mondiale au début des années 2020 a contribué à accélérer ce phénomène. De l’école maternelle à l’université, les technologies sont aujourd’hui mises au service de la collaboration, de l’exploration ou du partage de connaissances, mais aussi du développement de pratiques hybrides ou à distance (Bihl, 2020 ; Trémion, 2019 ; Dagiral, 2011). Ce faisant, elles renouvellent des approches de la forme scolaire qui semblaient presque figées depuis Jean-Baptiste De La Salle, offrant notamment des opportunités pour mieux prendre en compte les besoins spécifiques ou particuliers des élèves (Barchechath, Magli & Winkin, 2016 ; Vincent, Courtebras & Reuter, 2012). Du côté de la recherche universitaire, ces technologies facilitent également l’analyse de corpus de données numériques et instrumentent l’enquête sur le terrain (Bourgatte & Jacobi, 2019 ; Sensevy, Kuster, Hélary & Lameul, 2005).
Ces pratiques numériques, souvent qualifiées d’innovantes, génèrent des attentes fortes de la part des institutions scolaires et universitaires (Cros, 2002). Les discours institutionnels et les curricula qui en découlent insistent sur la nécessité de l’acquisition d’une culture numérique minimale permettant de mettre en place des projets ou encore de repenser sa pédagogie. Pour autant, les usages scolaires et universitaires du numérique sont loin de faire consensus : des débats et des tensions demeurent. Ainsi, la technique peut aussi être envisagée comme un frein aux apprentissages. Sa maîtrise n’est pas toujours ni aisée ni neutre, elle ne répond pas toujours à des besoins réels, elle nécessite des investissements économiques ou pose des questions éthiques. Des controverses entourent également les usages éducatifs du numérique, quant à leur valeur ajoutée (est-elle significative ou seulement cosmétique ?) ou les conséquences possibles de leur usage intensif (baisse de l’attention et des capacités de concentration par exemple).
Plusieurs paradigmes scientifiques et éducatifs tentent d’apporter des réponses à ces questions. Parmi eux, celui des humanités numériques occupe une place particulière (Bourgatte & Tessier, 2022 ; Tessier, 2020 ; Morandi, 2017). Les humanités numériques ne constituent pas à proprement parler une discipline nouvelle, dotée d’une didactique propre, mais proposent plutôt un réagencement transdisciplinaire. ayant un impact sur la pratique des Lettres, Langues, Sciences Humaines et Sociales (LLSHS) (Bourgatte, Ferloni & Tessier, 2016). Les chercheur·e·s engagé·e·s dans ce mouvement tentent d’articuler pratiques innovantes et regard critique sur le numérique, de renouveler les formes de la recherche et de l’enseignement de leurs disciplines sans pour autant perdre de vue les objectifs fondamentaux des humanités (Berra, 2015 ; Doueihi, 2015). Elles posent, au sens fort, la question de la revitalisation du projet humaniste en évitant l’écueil d’un techno-enthousiasme naïf, mais aussi celui d’une diabolisation caricaturale du numérique. Elles soutiennent au contraire l’intégration des technologies dans l’espace de la recherche et de l’enseignement. Pour autant, les humanités numériques ne sont pas exemptes d’interrogations et de critiques : sont-elles adaptées à l’ensemble des parcours scolaires ou sont-elles réservées à l’enseignement supérieur et aux sciences humaines ? Constituent-elles une véritable rupture dans l’enseignement des LLSHS et une nouvelle manière d’introduire les technologies à l’école et l’université ou ne sont-elles qu’un nouveau prétexte pour la numérisation des enseignements ? (Blanc, 2017 ; Crouzier, 2015 ; Meunier, 2019 ; Tessier, 2020).
Cette journée d’étude, intitulée « Humanités numériques et innovations éducatives », sera consacrée à l’exploration des pratiques éducatives innovantes et à la place occupée par les enseignants et les éducateurs qui se saisissent de la perspective des humanités numériques dans ces nouveaux rapports aux savoirs. Favorisant les échanges interdisciplinaires, l’appel à communication s’adresse aux chercheur·e·s et aux doctorant·e·s en LLSHS travaillant sur les questions des humanités numériques et de l’innovation éducative. Ces questions pourront s’articuler autour de plusieurs thématiques :
Pour plus d’informations cliquez ici.
Schools and classrooms are “communities of practice” (Torney-Purta et al., 2007), where students can experience and practice democracy (Flanagan, 2013; Nieuwelink et al., 2016; Maurissen et al., 2018), and where they gain participatory skills in debates and collaborative decision-making processes (Godfrey et al., 2014). In this scenario, words become tools for knowledge acquisition and they represent a bridge of shared meanings, through which it is possible to act both on the level of knowledge’s active co-construction by students and on the level of citizenship education (Ferrero, 2021).
Dialogic pedagogies emphasize the word’s role as a conduit for relationships and cultural transmission. It has been shown how the human unfolding is founded on possession of language as a means of participation in democratic life, because the individual realizes himself only if he can dialogue with others (Granata, 2018). The ability to communicate is closely linked to the ability to listen: in particular, one of the conditions for dialogue to take place is active listening, that requires the overcoming of an egocentric perspective and an emotional neutrality to the listener, as his positive or negative emotions may alter communication’s interpretation (Merritt, 2021). Through such elements, what Buber (1993) calls “authentic dialogue” is realized, i.e. the form of dialogue where each participant understands the others in their uniqueness and, in this way, creates a living reciprocity (Buber, 1993) and a state of intersubjectivity (Rommetveit, 1985; Wells, 2006).
Thus, dialogue is configured as a tool for the development of citizenship skills and democratic values in the learning environment, because it allows to create a classroom climate characterized by free and respectful sharing of opinions among students and teacher (Scheerens, 2009; Scheerens, 2011; Torney-Purta and Amadeo, 2011; Torney-Purta and Barber, 2011; Reichert et al., 2018). Specifically, open classroom climate could be defined as the atmosphere in the classroom (Scheerens, 2016) and it represents the major element for the development of critical consciousness, since it permits students to improve the awareness of themselves as active members of a civil society (Godfrey and Grayman, 2014). A relevant body of research demonstrates how open classroom climate, measured by students’ individual perceptions, enables them to improve «a sense of themselves as members of a political community and as effective civic actors in that community, developing a sense of efficacy because proximate authorities listen and pay attention to them» (Flanagan et al., 2007, p. 423).
This aspect has been investigated in every civic and citizenship education’s survey conducted by the International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement (IEA) from 1971 to 2016. In these studies, a positive correlation between an open classroom climate and students’ civic knowledge outcomes has been established (Campbell, 2008; Schulz et al., 2010; Schulz et al., 2016). The 2016 International Civic and Citizenship Education Study (ICCS) survey confirms how students’ perceptions of openness to dialogue at school have a direct impact both on citizenship skills and knowledge and on the willingness to engage in public activities. Data indicate a positive perception of a supportive climate to discussion within schools, with average values across the 24[1] participating countries in the ICCS 2016 study between 44% and 85% (Schulz et al., 2016) for the various aspects examined[2] in the student questionnaire.
In accordance with these studies, the open and democratic classroom climate coincides especially with the opportunity to freely debate contentious issues in class, accepting others’ different viewpoints. In this way, it is possible to act on the perception of the student who feels he can express his thoughts in a climate of mutual respect and active listening, even in the presence of an asymmetrical relationship such as the one with the teacher. Thus, teachers, through the systematic use of classroom debate, can create chances for conversation, and support students’ engagement and motivation in the learning process (Maurissen et al., 2018). Consequently, the school becomes the primary environment where the students feel to be effective members of a community and develop a civic identity. Attention must be paid to the relational dimension not only because it contributes to the subject’s well-being, but also because it holds the learning potential that must be identified and recognized (Castoldi, 2011).
References
Buber, M. (1993). Il principio dialogico e altri saggi. San Paolo.
Campbell, D. E. (2008). Voice in the classroom: How an open classroom climate fosters political engagement among adolescents. Political behavior, 30(4), 437-454.
Castoldi, M. (2011). Progettare per competenze. Percorsi e strumenti. Carrocci.
Ferrero, V. (2021). Prender parola. Il dialogo come strumento educativo e l’insegnante come facilitatore per costruire una classe-comunità inclusiva. Riflessioni a partire dalle pedagogie della parola e del dialogo e dalla Philosophy for Children. Annali online della Didattica e della Formazione Docente, 13(22), 88-103.
Flanagan, C. A. (2013). Teenage citizens. In Teenage Citizens. Harvard University Press.
Flanagan, C. A., Cumsille, P., Gill, S., & Gallay, L. S. (2007). School and community climates and civic commitments: Patterns for ethnic minority and majority students. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99(2), 421–431.
Godfrey, E. B., & Grayman, J. K. (2014). Teaching citizens: The role of open classroom climate in fostering critical consciousness among youth. Journal of youth and adolescence, 43(11), 1801-1817.
Granata, A. (2018). La ricerca dell’altro. Prospettive di pedagogia interculturale. Carrocci.
Maurissen, L., Claes, E., & Barber, C. (2018). Deliberation in citizenship education: How the school context contributes to the development of an open classroom climate. Social Psychology of Education, 21(4), 951-972.
Merritt, M. R. (2021). Active Listening in the Diverse Roles of International School Leaders. IMCC Journal of Science, 1(2), 115-130.
Nieuwelink, H., Dekker, P., Geijsel, F., & ten Dam, G. (2016). “Democracy always comes first”: Adolescents’ views on decision-making in everyday life and political democracy. Journal of Youth Studies, 19(7), 990-1006.
Reichert, F., Chen, J., & Torney-Purta, J. (2018). Profiles of adolescents’ perceptions of democratic classroom climate and students’ influence: The effect of school and community contexts. Journal of youth and adolescence, 47(6), 1279-1298.
Rommetveit, R. (1985). Language acquisition as increasing linguistic structuring of experience and symbolic behavior control. In J. V. Wertsch (Ed.), Culture, communication, and cognition: Vygotskian perspectives (pp. 183-204). Cambridge University Press.
Schulz, W., Ainley, J., Fraillon, J., Kerr, D., & Losito, B. (2010). ICCS 2009 International Report: Civic Knowledge, Attitudes, and Engagement among Lower-Secondary School Students in 38 Countries. International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievemen. Herengracht 487, Amsterdam, 1017 BT, The Netherlands.
Schulz, W., Ainley, J., Fraillon, J., Losito, B., Agrusti, G. (2016). IEA International Civic and Citizenship Education Study 2016 Assessment Framework. Amsterdam: IEA.
Scheerens, J. (Ed.). (2009). Informal learning of active citizenship at school: An international comparative study in seven European countries (Vol. 14). Springer Science & Business Media.
Scheerens, J. (2011). Indicators on informal learning for active citizenship at school. Educational assessment, evaluation and accountability, 23(3), 201-222.
Scheerens, J. (2016). Educational effectiveness and ineffectiveness. A critical review of the Knowledge Base. Springer.
Torney-Purta, J., Barber, C. H., & Wilkenfeld, B. (2007). Latino adolescents’ civic development in the United States: Research results from the IEA Civic Education Study. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 36(2), 111–125.
Torney-Purta, J., & Amadeo, J.-A. (2011). Participatory niches for emergent citizenship in early adolescence: an international perspective. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 633(1), 180–200.
Wells, G., & Arauz, R. M. (2006). Dialogue in the classroom. The journal of the learning sciences, 15(3), 379–428.
[1] Belgium (Flemish), Bulgaria, Chile, Chinese Taipei, Colombia, Croatia, Denmark, Dominican Republic, Estonia, Finland, Hong Kong SAR, Italy, Korea, Republic of Latvia, Lithuania, Malta, Mexico, Netherlands, North Rhine-Westphalia (Germany), Norway, Peru, Russian Federation, Slovenia, Sweden.
[2] Some of these aspects are teachers’ encouragement of students to develop and express their own opinions, and teachers’ tendency to present different views on the topics.
Francesca Fioretti is a PhD Student in Contemporary Humanism at Lumsa University (curriculum Education).
Paper presented at the Conference “Dialogo a tutto campo” organised by the Catholic Forum Roma.
