La compréhension en lecture aux deuxième et troisième cycles du primaire: regard sur les pratiques déclarées d’enseignement
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Résumé Afin de dresser le portrait actuel des pratiques enseignantes en matière de compréhension en lecture aux deuxième et troisième cycles du primaire, la présente recherche a identifié, par le biais d'un questionnaire, les pratiques pédagogiques de 413 enseignants de différentes régions du Québec. Alors que les études réalisées au tournant des années 2000 laissaient penser que les enseignants se conformaient à un enseignement relativement traditionnel et peu tourné vers l'enseignement de stratégies de compréhension, les résultats de la présente recherche démontrent que les enseignants déclarent équiper leurs élèves de stratégies en vue de développer leur compétence à comprendre le discours écrit. Toutefois, il semble évident que certaines pratiques, notamment celles liées à l'enseignement de stratégies métacognitives et à l'enseignement réciproque sont délaissées par plus de la moitié des enseignants. Ainsi, des améliorations sont souhaitables, voire fondamentales afin d'améliorer la compétence des élèves. Abstract This article presents the results of a survey completed by 413 elementary school teachers across Quebec. The study aimed to document current teaching practices relating to reading comprehension. While studies completed at the beginning of this century suggested that teachers tend to resort to relatively traditional teaching that does not focus explicitly on teaching comprehension strategies, the results of this study show that teachers claim that they equip their students with strategies that enhance their reading comprehension skills. However, some practices, and in particular those linked to metacognitive strategies and reciprocal teaching, appear to be neglected by more than half of the participants in this study. Implications for improving reading instruction are offered.
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 | 0.003 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.013 | 0.002 |
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".