MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1493739361 · doi:10.4000/ripes.385

L’influence d’innovations pédagogiques sur le profil motivationnel et le choix de stratégies d’apprentissage d’étudiantes et d’étudiants d’une faculté d’ingénierie

2010· article· fr· W1493739361 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueRevue internationale de pédagogie de l’enseignement supérieur · 2010
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldPsychology
TopicInnovative Teaching and Learning Methods
Canadian institutionsPolytechnique MontréalHEC Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesPolitical scienceSociologyPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

L’étude vise à dégager une typologie des caractéristiques motivationnelles ainsi que des stratégies d’apprentissage utilisées par les étudiants en fonction de trois approches pédagogiques, soit l’exposé, l’approche par projet et l’apprentissage individualisé sur le web. Un questionnaire a été rempli par 494 étudiants du premier cycle universitaire. L’analyse des correspondances et de classification montre que ce sont l’approche par projet et l’exposé magistral qui suscitent le plus la motivation, alors que l’approche de l’apprentissage individualisée sur le web est celle qui en suscite le moins. L’approche individualisée et l’exposé magistral incitent davantage le recours aux stratégies de mémorisation, de répétition et d’organisation, alors qu’on a davantage recours aux stratégies de régulation de l’effort et de gestion du temps dans les cours-projets. Une discussion tente d’expliquer les différences observées.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Research integrity
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.616
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.048
GPT teacher head0.352
Teacher spread0.304 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it