.
objective of this book is to revisit the concept of devolution in a variety of fields of knowledge and educational fields through a consideration of its subjects and objects. It is about questioning a major process for thinking about education today based on the subjects that drive it and the objects that enable it. From this perspective, the challenge is to propose the heuristic specific to the concept of devolution. To synthesize the preceding developments, we will consider here that it allows us to direct the researchers’ gaze in particular: towards objects of devolution specific to disciplines, which allows a better understanding of the disciplines themselves from what remains of them when a subject becomes responsible for them; towards devolving subjects whose activity consists of acting intensely while fading away, allowing a better grasp of the paradoxical and particularly original structure of any teaching activity; towards objects to devolve, which make it possible to better understand and thus organize the infinite world of things that are manipulated to be taught; and towards subjects to devolve, making it possible to better understand the subjective springs of this treatment and thus to grasp the limits of the objectification of the devolving subject.
1.3. Structure of the work. Contemporary variations on devolution
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