Los Materiales Educativos en la fase de Planificación de la Enseñanza de los Docentes de Educación Primaria de Quebec
Bibliographic record
Abstract
El presente artículo tiene por objeto analizar la importancia otorgada por los docentes de educación básica de Quebec a los materiales educativos durante la planificación de sus prácticas de enseñanza. Con este fin presentamos los resultados surgidos a partir de una investigación realizada por el equipo de la Cátedra de investigación de Canadá (CRCIE) sobre la intervención educativa.Los datos fueron recogidos desde un punto de vista cualitativo bajo la utilización de entrevistas semi-estructuradas. Los resultados nos muestran que en el discurso de los docentes hay poca reflexión sobre cómo los materiales educativos son utilizados en el proceso de enseñanza aprendizaje. Es decir, el proceso de reflexión sobre el uso y adaptación del material educativo en la etapa de la planificación de la enseñanza de los docentes, pareciera ser escasa.Palabras clave: Planificación, materiales educativos, prácticas de enseñanza, educación primaria de Quebec. This article aims to analyze the importance of teaching materials in teaching practices planning of primary teachers in Quebec. We present the results from a research conducted by the team of the Canada Research Chair in Pedagogical Intervention (CRCIE). The data were collected from a qualitative point of view, on the using semi-structured interviews.The results show evidence of little reflection about the use of teaching materials in the teaching-learning planning process in teachers’ discourses. That is to say, reflection about the use and adaptation of teaching materials in the teaching planning stage seems to be scant.Keywords: Planning, teaching materials, teaching practices, Quebec primary education.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.009 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".