These challenging times (COVID-19 pandemic and the following disruptions to activities in schools; the ongoing Russian war of aggression against Ukraine) have highlighted inequalities still permeating our education institutions (EU, 2022; p.3). Equity and inclusion in education and training demand to eradicate the negative effects of individual circumstances on people’s prospects in life, looking at diversities not as disadvantages but as human conditions from which all education reasonings have to start (Sen, 1999). Recognizing and respecting diversities can create tensions and can challenge the homogeneous system framework. In a society that, through techniques and technologies, favors the value of repeatability (of recording), in a scientific world that, from positivism onwards, appreciates ​​the effectiveness of replicability, a changing perspective could be to valorize diversities (against homologation) and the unrepeatable (against repeatability). 

In the pedagogical field, the unrepeatable is traceable and recognizable in the "awareness of diversity" that constitutes the Shibboleth of every genuine educator (Borghi, 2000, p. 103). The educator who does not bother to identify the singular and unrepeatable characteristics of each pupil, who instead of conceiving and conducting teaching as a perennial apprenticeship and living in school and class as a "laboratory", lays down in the cotton wool of general ideas, is placed in the enclosure of a pedagogical province where the transmission of notions and habits of homogenizing behavior are the instrumental forms, suitable for the conservation (repetition?) of the existing state of affairs (Borghi, 2000, p .103, in Bocci, 2021, p.93). Therefore the unrepeatable can be the common value which connects all the diversities and differences: everyone, everything, and every moment are unique and unrepeatable and this is the core of teaching-learning processes which want to recognize dignity and respect for the actors and knowledge involved. 

The concept of unrepeatable is central in improvisation and deeply rooted in the very process of making it (Berliner, 1994; Becker, 2000). Five dimensions make possible the unrepeatable (Sparti, 2005, p.118): inseparability (process and product occur and flow simultaneously); originality and uniqueness (each act is different from the previous one every time); impromptu (everything takes place in a here and now and is a response to a series of circumstances, perceived as unrepeatable and propitious moments); irreversibility (one can go only forward, signifying what has already done); responsiveness, (the ability to react to changes, to make decisions). A further aspect differentiates true improvisation, from improvisational processes of another nature: awareness of doing and while doing improvisation (Bertinetto, 2016; Zorzi, 2020, p.32). 

So improvisation can be conceived as the process in which the awareness of diversities and the unrepeatable of each one are manifested, collocated in the pedagogical perspective of pedagojazz (Santi, 2016) and of the educational and didactic differentiation (Tomlinson, Mc Tighe, 2006; D'Alonzo, Monauni, 2021; Ingold, 2018). 

This work - based on previously published studies (Santi, Zorzi, 2016; Zorzi, 2020) - deals with the topic of diversity intended also as unrepeatable in the educational field, investigating how improvisation can be a generative teaching-learning perspective and procedure in the classroom. The research aims are to understand when and how improvisation emerges in teaching-learning processes, and to investigate which kind of didactic activities are connected to improvisation as a practice that sustains diversities and valorizes the unrepeatable. Research questions are: How is it possible to realize improvisation in teaching? Which kinds of activities or practices can offer space for improvisation in the classroom? Can teachers conceive the practice of improvisation - in the fullness of its dimensions (Zorzi, 2020) - as a perspective/procedure to express their awareness of diversities and unrepeatable, promoting well-being through this practice in the classroom?

Qualitative methodology (Bogdan, Biklen, 2007; Denzin, Lincoln, 2008) drove the research reflection on the aims and the questions, and the phenomenological approach (Husserl, 2002) allowed us to choose the best procedures to collect and analyze the data. To answer the research questions and to develop the research aims, 6 focus groups were conducted (Vanassche, Kelchtermans, 2016), with volunteer professional teachers (expert and novice), to discuss with them their experiences with improvisation in the classroom and their reflections about its characteristics. Participants were 35 in total: 2 early school teachers; 10 primary school teachers; 7 lower secondary school teachers; 16 upper secondary school teachers. In this way, all the different grades of school were represented. Also, different disciplines were represented because there were 22 teachers from linguistic and humanities areas; 9 teachers from scientific-technical areas, and 2 support teachers. Every focus group was composed of 5-6 participants and lasted about 2 hours: this choice has been taken to facilitate a deep discussion and to have enough time for everyone to share experiences and reflections. In every group were represented at least 3 or 4 different school grades and at least 2 or 3 different discipline areas. The results of the focus groups have been drawn by a content analysis (using Atlas-ti 9) conducted on the transcriptions of the discussions. Starting from a bottom-up process, the coding procedures followed the grounded theory coding phases (Charmaz, 2006), guided by the intention of preserving the meaning of participants as accurately as possible, to close improvisation and its dimensions by their professional perspectives. Every focus group started with some general and exploratory questions: what do you think about improvisation in the classroom? Do you think you sometimes improvise during your teaching? How do improvisational processes emerge during a lesson? Which kind of activities could promote it? Do you think that improvisational activities could be useful in teaching practice? In which ways? Questions were posed just as stimuli to reflect and start, but every discussion was open to variations and to follow authentic teachers’ interests. The researcher was most of all a facilitator and moderator (Goodman, Goodman, 1990) of the discussion, and every group was looked at as a community of inquiry (Lipman, 2003): teachers and researcher co-constructed didactic and pedagogical knowledge and concept in collaboration; participants and facilitator were shaped in the reciprocal dialogue (Edwards-Groves, et al., 2016).

From the content analysis (that will be concluded within the next month) the results emerged are the following. For the first research question (how is it possible to realize improvisation in teaching?) improvisation is conceptualized by teachers as a process that can characterize two different moments of teaching. Improvisation emerges within (1) teaching design as an approach that promotes processes that make students protagonists, letting them space: it means that teachers set lessons on a canvas, minimal structure/maximal autonomy (Barrett, 2012), managing and optimizing time. Improvisation emerges also during (2) teaching-learning processes when teachers make themselves available to relationships, to listening and tuning with students: it means sharing perspectives and learning priorities with the classroom and developing a work method that starts from (a) experiences lived by students; (b) students’ questions, curiosities, provocations; (c) errors and misunderstandings; (d) discussing and reasoning together with students; (e) classroom’s needs and requests. For the second research question (which kind of activities can offer space to improvisation?), the activities emerged that offer improvisational processes, valorizing diversity and the unrepeatable are: (1) laboratories (i.e. theater laboratory, body, and voice); (2) cooperative and collaborative works (i.e. digital classroom, group works; collective texts); (3) project-works (i.e. documentaries; videos; questionnaires); (4) real-experiences and practical activities (i.e. problem-solving; case analysis; debates; experiments); (5) questioning and discussing (i.e. thematic discussions; inquiry discussions; deepenings). They are all activities aimed at students’ participation and autonomy. The complete content analysis will also specify the different didactic proposals connected to the disciplinary areas offering a more complex vision of the topic. Teachers who are open to improvisation, perceive the awareness of the unrepeatable because every lesson and every student are different from the other: they facilitate and scaffold students valorizing diversities and the resources of what is happening.

Barrett, F. (2012). Yes to the mess. Harvard, Boston: Harvard Business School. Becker, H.S. (2000). The etiquette of improvisation. Mind, Culture and Activity, 7 (3), 171-176. Berliner, P.F. (1994). Thinking in Jazz: the Infinite Art of Improvisation. Chicago; London: University of Chicago Press. Bertinetto, A. (2016). Eseguire l’inatteso. Ontologia della musica e improvvisazione (Italian Edition). Il Glifo ebook. Edizione del Kindle. Bogdan, R. C., Biklen, S. K. (2007). Qualitative Research for Education. Boston: Pearson Education, Inc, (5th edition). Bocci, F., De Castro, M. (2021). La pedagogia impegnata di bell hooks. L’integrazione scolastica e sociale. Vol.21, n.1, febbraio; pp. 74-92. Borghi, L. (2000). La città e la scuola. Milano: Elèuthera. Charmaz, K. (2006). Constructing Grounded Theory. London et al: Sage Publications. D’Alonzo, L., Monauni, A. (2021). Che cos’è la differenziazione didattica. Brescia: Scholé. Denzin, N.K, Lincoln, Y.S. (eds) (2008). Collecting and interpreting qualitative materials. Los Angeles: Sage Publications. Edwards-Groves, C. Olin, Karlberg-Granlund, G. (2016). Partnership recognition in action research: understanding the practices and practice architectures for participation and change. Educational Action Research, 24(3), 321-333. EU (2022). Education and Training Monitor 2022 (https://op.europa.eu/webpub/eac/education-and-training-monitor-2022/downloads/comparative-report/Education-and-Training-Monitor-Comparative-Report.pdf). Goodman, Y.M., Goodman, K.S. (1990). Vygotsky in a whole-language perspective. In C. L. Moli (Ed.). Vygotsky and Education: Instructional Implications and Application of Sociohistorical Psychology. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press. Husserl, E. (2002). Idee per una fenomenologia pura e una filosofia ermeneutica. Torno: Einaudi [Or. title (1931). Sein und Zeit. Halle: Max Niemeyer Verlag] Ingold, T. (2018). Anthropology and/as Pedagogy. Routledge. Lipman, M. (2003). Thinking in Education, 2nd. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Santi, M. (2016). Education as jazz: a framework to escape the monologue of teaching and learning. In M. Santi, E. Zorzi (Eds.); pp. 3-27. Santi, M., Zorzi, E. (eds.) (2016). Education as Jazz. Interdisciplinary Sketches on a New Metaphor. New Castle Upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing. Sen A. (1999). Development as freedom. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Sparti, D. (2005). Suoni inauditi. Bologna: Il Mulino. Tomlinson, C.A., Mc Tighe, J. (2006). Integrating differentiated instruction and understanding by design: connecting content and kids. ASCD: Alexandria, VA. Vanassche, E., Kelchtermans, G. (2016). “Facilitating self-study of teacher education practices: toward a pedagogy of teacher educator professional development”, in Professional Development in Education. Vol. 42, n.1, pp. 100-122. Zorzi, E. (2020). L’insegnante improvvisatore. Napoli: Liguori.