Transposition didactique interne et aspects clés de l’apprentissage de l’accord du verbe en français
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Nos travaux visent à décrire les connaissances grammaticales élaborées par des élèves 1re secondaire en cours d’apprentissage de l’accord du verbe. Cette description se fonde sur l’observation des échanges entre les élèves d’une part, et entre les élèves et leur enseignant d’autre part, à propos de l’objet de savoir « accord du verbe », échanges recueillis grâce à la captation vidéo en classe. Notre analyse des données révèle que l’élaboration des connaissances relatives à l’accord du verbe dépend de la manière dont les outils grammaticaux (manipulations syntaxiques et phrase de base) sont utilisés par les élèves. Plus précisément, le savoir piétine ou recule lorsque les manipulations syntaxiques ne sont pas appliquées dans la phrase ou qu’elles ne sont pas adaptées dans certains contextes syntaxiques; le savoir fait des bonds en avant dans les classes où les élèves recourent à la phrase de base pour soutenir leur analyse grammaticale. Abstract The goal of our project is to describe the grammatical knowledge developed by students in Secondary 1 as they are learning the agreement of the verb. This description is based on the observation of exchanges among students, on the one hand, and, on the other, between students and their teacher as concerns the subject at hand, “the agreement of the verb,” recorded in class on video. Our analysis of the data shows that the development of knowledge about the agreement of the verb depends on the way in which grammatical tools (syntactic manipulations and basic sentence) are used by the students. More specifically, knowledge makes no headway or even takes a step backward when the syntactic manipulations are not applied in the sentence or are not adapted in certain syntactic contexts. Knowledge takes a leap ahead in classes where students refer to the basic sentence to support their grammatical analysis.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".