La pratique réflexive en enseignement supérieur : d’une approche théorique à une perspective de développement professionnel
Bibliographic record
Abstract
La formation des enseignants du supérieur est de plus en plus valorisée dans les institutions du monde entier. Les modèles de formation et de valorisation semblent par ailleurs multiples. Considérant que le développement professionnel initial ou continu des enseignants passe, du moins en partie, par le développement d’une pratique réflexive appuyée sur la base d’écrits scientifiques, nous proposons d’une part de réfléchir à un modèle de pratique réflexive, celui de Kelchtermans, à travers quatre dimensions (instrumentale, morale, politique et affective), et d’autre part à la formation des enseignants du supérieur dans une perspective de Scholarship of Teaching and Learning 1 . Ce texte, qui se veut avant tout une réflexion ouverte sur le développement de la pratique réflexive en formation à l’enseignement supérieur, se base sur des écrits scientifiques, mais également, en bonne partie, sur notre pratique d’enseignante.
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 | 0.021 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.078 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.015 | 0.030 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.012 |
| 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".