MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1834492518 · doi:10.21432/t2sp4j

Un nouveau regard sur les profils des enseignants à l’égard de l’intégration des TIC

2007· article· fr· W1834492518 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Martine Leclerc

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Learning and Technology · 2007
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicEducation and Technology Integration
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec en Outaouais
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologyHumanitiesSociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Cette étude de cas trace le profil des enseignants d’une école élémentaire francophone de l’Ontario à partir de trois modèles : les représentations des enseignants face à leurs compétences avec les TIC (Desjardins, 2005), les catégories d’adoptants à partir des traits de personnalité (Rogers, 1995) ainsi que l’évolution des préoccupations et de l’utilisation de l’innovation (Hall & Hord, 1987). Elle met en évidence six regroupements : les initiateurs, les collaborateurs, les observateurs, les apprentis, les hésitants et les réfractaires. Ces profils constituent un moyen pour mieux comprendre les enseignants face au changement qu’ils vivent en regard de l’intégration des TIC et ainsi permettre aux décideurs de mieux intervenir. (A new perspective on teacher profiles with regards to their integration of ICTs) This case study highlights the profiles of teachers in a francophone elementary school of Ontario using three models: the representations of the teachers’ competencies in regards to ICT’s (Desjardins, 2005), the categories of adopters based on personality traits (Rogers, 1995) as well as the evolution of preoccupations and use of innovation (Hall & Hord, 1987). This study focuses on six profiles: the initiators, the collaborators, the observers, the apprentices, the hesitant and the refractory. These profiles constitute a way of better understanding teachers’ adjustment as a result of the changes they are currently facing regarding the integration of ICT’s and thus allows school administrators to better intervene.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesScience and technology studies
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.545
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.029
GPT teacher head0.276
Teacher spread0.247 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designOther design
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations3
Published2007
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Learning and TechnologySame topicEducation and Technology IntegrationFrench-language works237,207