La thèse socioconstructiviste dans les nouveaux programmes d’études au Québec : un trompe l’œil épistémologique ?

Résumé

Le Ministère de l’Éducation du Québec (MEQ) propose actuellement de nouveaux programmes d’études. La dernière version de ceux-ci pour le premier cycle de l’école primaire a été soumis à la Commission Nationale des Programmes qui, malgré quelques réserves sur la présentation, n’a pas émis d’objections majeures à leur implantation dès l’automne 2000. Le discours de ces programmes nous semble toutefois comporter des lacunes importantes. Ainsi, à l’analyse, on peut noter un décalage épistémologique entre le discours sur la cognition et le format des programmes ancré dans une tradition positiviste du savoir; une incohérence qui résulte de l’usage simultané de discours sur la cognition liés à des paradigmes incompatibles (socioconstructivisme et cognitivisme); la réduction dans ce même discours du statut conceptuel de la notion de compétence à celui d’objectif pédagogique. Ce sont là des obstacles sérieux à une véritable intégration de la perspective constructiviste dans les pratiques pédagogiques.

Abstract

The purpose of this text is to reflect on the new curricula put forward by the Québec department of education (Ministère de l’Éducation du Québec, or MEQ). These new curricula daringly adhere to the socio-constructivist paradigm of cognition. An analysis of the provisional documents released by the MEQ to date has brought out at least three types of potential problems in connection with (1) the epistemological gap that separates the discourse surrounding curricula in relation to cognition from the organization of class contents, whose format is descended from the positivist tradition of academic subjects; (2) the inconsistency that underlies this discourse because it simultaneously refers to several incompatible paradigms of cognition (constructivism, cognitivism, and behaviourism); and, (3) within this same discourse, the reduction of the conceptual status of the notion of competency to that of instructional objective. Such issues are the basis of major criticisms that must be accounted for in order to integrate the constructivist perspective into teaching practices. Is it impossible for such a mission to succeed?

That is not my opinion. The latest documents released by the MEQ show evidence of a determination to renew teaching practices. This project, however, demonstrates that the authors of curricula are at an epistemological cross-roads. They have attempted to extricate themselves from the behaviourist thesis of cognition that has held sway over the development of teaching programs for many years now. Nevertheless, here and there remain ways of conceiving cognition that, in a certain way, have become ‘normal’ and self-evident. The inconsistencies mentioned above are part of this legacy, which makes it necessary to begin a long process of conversion. The first results of curriculum reform have not been entirely negative. They do, however, necessitate a number of major readjustments in connection with the criticisms put forward here, in particular, eliminating the epistemological gap and creating a new format for presenting the multifarious aspects of the new curricula; eradicating the contradictions surrounding the paradigm of cognition used to frame and orient teaching practices; and redefining the concept of competency from a socio-constructivist perspective so as to dissociate it from the concept of objective or teaching goal and, conversely, associate it with the concept of educational situation.