Le développement d’une pensée critique chez de futur-e-s enseignant-e-s en éducation physique et à la santé
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Au Quebec, la formation initiale a l'enseignement est orientee vers l'acquisition de competences professionnelles permettant aux futurs enseignantes et enseignants de porter un regard critique sur leurs pratiques. L'objectif de la presente etude consistait a identifier dans quelle mesure des futurs enseignants en education physique et a la sante (EPS), a la fin de leurs etudes universitaires, parvenaient a mobiliser une pensee critique (PC). Nous nous sommes appuyes sur un modele developpemental selon lequel la PC est un processus qui presuppose la mobilisation de quatre modes de pensee (logique, creatif, responsable et metacognitive), chacun d'eux se complexifiant selon trois perspectives epistemologiques (egocentrisme, relativisme, intersubjectivite). Les donnees ont ete collectees par le biais d'entrevues, individuelles semi-dirigees et de groupe, aupres de neuf etudiantes et etudiants. Les resultats ont indique que les modes de pensee logique et metacognitive des participants etaient fortement mobilises, alors que les modes creatif et responsable etaient peu presents dans les verbatim. Par ailleurs, l'epistemologie des stagiaires chevauchait l'egocentrisme et le relativisme. L'intersubjectivite etant la perspective la plus marginalisee, nous pouvons supposer que la pensee des participants etait reflechie, mais pas encore evaluative. Teacher education programs in Quebec focus on the acquisition of skills allowing future teachers to have a critical perspective on their practices. The purpose of this study was to identify how future teachers in Physical Education and Health, at the end of their program, were able to demonstrate critical thinking (CT). The study is anchored in a developmental model where CT is a process which supposes the mobilization of four modes of thinking (logical, creative, responsible and metacognitive) and three epistemological perspectives (egocentricity, relativism and intersubjectivity) for each mode. The data has been collected through idividual and group interviews with nine students. The results indicated that, the logical and metacognitive thinking modes of participants are highly mobilized, while the creative and responsible modes were less present in the verbatim. The student's dominant epistemologies are egocentric and relativist. The intersubjectivity perspective being the most marginalized, we can assume that the thinking of participants was reflexive but not evaluative.
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 | 0.004 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".