Dispositivos Didácticos en la Enseñanza Primaria de Quebec
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Teniendo a la base los conceptos de intervención educativa y de dispositivos (materiales), el presente artículo muestra cuáles son los dispositivos didácticos más utilizados por los docentes de primaria de Quebec, el cómo y el porqué de su utilización, al igual que su predominancia en las distintas disciplinas del currículum escolar. Para dar cuenta de estas preguntas, se exponen los resultados parciales de dos instrumentos metodológicos: un cuestionario respondido por 72 docentes y una entrevista individual efectuada a 7 docentes que permitió caracterizar en detalle el discurso de los docentes sobre los dispositivos didácticos, pero, en especial, el del texto escolar. Los resultados que se desprenden del discurso de los docentes indican que éstos utilizarían principalmente tres dispositivos: las actividades diseñadas por ellos, los documentos que ellos seleccionan y el texto escolar. Respecto a este último dispositivo –el texto escolar– el discurso de los docentes destaca que las finalidades de su utilización variarían según la disciplina escolar implicada, concediéndole más importancia en la disciplina de matemáticas. Igualmente, estos resultados evidencian que a pesar de que este dispositivo didáctico sea altamente apreciado y usado por los docentes encuestados, dicha utilización no guarda necesariamente relación con los objetivos didácticos que proponen los textos escolares.Palabras clave: Dispositivos didácticos de orden material, intervención educativa, prácticas docentes, educación primaria. Based on the concepts of educational intervention and teaching devices, this article outlines the use of teaching devices by elementary school teachers in Quebec. It explains how and why they are used and also summarizes the predominance of usage of the different devices according to the various subjects of the school curriculum. These findings are based on the partial results of two instruments: a questionnaire administered to 72 teachers from a Sherbrooke (Quebec, Canada) school board and individual interviews of seven teachers. This study allowed for the detailed analysis of the teachers discourse regarding teaching devices and more particularly textbooks. The results extracted from the teacher’s discourse, showed that they basically used three types of devices: activities that they themselves had prepared, documents chosen by themselves and finally textbooks. Regarding the last device, the teacher’s discourse revealed that the ultimate aim of textbook usage varied according to the school subject, with mathematics being given the highest priority to textbooks. The results also showed that although this teaching device is greatly appreciated and used, its usage is not necessarily linked to the specific aims recommended by the textbooks.Keywords: Teaching devices, educational intervention, teaching practices, elementary school.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 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".