Résumé:
"Since the beginning of the modern era, the
notion of innovation has been continually
evoked in a multitude of contexts. In these
contexts, innovation is equated with positive change, with improvement. However,
this view is challenged by a number of critics
who point out the questionable nature of this
assimilation and warn against "change for
change’s sake." In the educational context, the
same tension can be observed when discussing
the concept of pedagogical innovation (PI). In
the field, three positions can generally be observed: those who advocate PI and see it as a
potential solution to the many challenges
faced in the educational environment; those
who are wary of it and feel that it is often
nothing more than an approach that costs a
great deal of energy for the main stakeholders with no guarantee of a return on
investment; and finally, the position of
those "to be convinced" who, without being
closed to change, demand proof of effectiveness or evidence-based data before considering its possible implementation.
The fact is, anyone who regularly works in a PI
context will recognize that each of these three
clans has good reasons for adopting such positions, be they political, scientific, historical or
pragmatic. In all these positions, one constant
can be observed: PI is associated with its end
goal, which is itself generally associated with
improved learning or success. The first position hopes for it, the second doubts whether
it can be achieved, and the last wants to see
whether the goal can be reached before committing itself. This article proposes to look
at PI from a different angle: that of a professional act. A professional act cannot be
summed up by its end goal: it takes place in
complex professional situations, interwoven
with constraints, opportunities and limits,
where individuals must succeed in deploying
"competent action" in order to achieve their
goals, but also to respect certain processes
and intentions." -- AQPC
