La perception de formateurs de stagiaires quant au développement et à l’évaluation formative des quatre compétences liées à l’acte d’enseigner
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Dans les deux dernieres decennies, la formation pratique semble s’etre imposee comme un incontournable pour assurer le developpement des competences professionnelles des futurs enseignants quebecois du primaire et du secondaire dans une perspective de professionnalisation. Ainsi, la pertinence de la formation en alternance, afin de mieux preparer les futurs enseignants pour leur insertion professionnelle, a ete reconnue et le projet mis sur pied (Korthagen & Vasalos, 2005; Mukamurera, 2005; Pelpel, 2002). Une reforme de la formation des maitres a ainsi eu lieu dans les annees 90 afin d’augmenter a 700 heures la formation pratique des futurs enseignants dans les programmes universitaires. Pres de 15 ans apres l’implantation de ce referentiel, quelle est la perception des formateurs de stagiaires quant au developpement et a l’evaluation formative de ces competences chez leurs stagiaires? Cet article permettra de soulever des aspects importants de l’accompagnement des stagiaires quebecois, et de realiser que malgre la presence du referentiel, l’accompagnement en formation pratique presente encore des zones grises.
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 | 0.010 | 0.023 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".