Pour une pédagogie de la créativité en classe de langue : réflexion théorique et pratique sur la triade créativité, émotion, cognition
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Contrairement à Beaudot (1973) qui réduisait la pédagogie de la créativité à la pensée divergente et aux tests de créativité, cet article propose un sens plus large, plus complexe et qui s’insère dans l’approche multivariée de Lubart (2003). Deux types de tâches créatives peuvent être élaborées : avec ou sans l’objet. Cet article présente uniquement la première qui consiste à faire produire aux élèves des objets créatifs, en lien avec l’apprentissage de la langue, que les élèves socialisent en classe. La créativité a pour but d’amener l’élève à réfléchir sur comment insérer le contenu disciplinaire dans l’objet créatif et comment ensuite construire, de manière pertinente, la production. Ainsi cet article illustre quelques fondements possibles d’une pédagogie de la créativité et montre en quoi elle agit sur la dimension émotionnelle comme variable facilitatrice et non perturbatrice de l’apprentissage. Pour conclure, une enquête qualitative, menée dans un lycée professionnel hôtelier en Italie, sera illustrée. À l’issue de la séquence d’apprentissage sur le texte descriptif, les élèves devaient réaliser un objet créatif qui accompagne la description d’un hôtel ou restaurant de leur rêve. L’Hypothèse de départ était de canaliser les émotions parasites de l’apprentissage par l’évocation d’émotions facilitatrices et d’améliorer ainsi la performance orale. A pedagogy of creativity in language learning. Theoretical and practical reflection on the triad creativity, emotion, cognition Abstract: Contrary to Beaudot (1973) who reduced the pedagogy of creativity to divergent thought and to the tests of creativity, this article proposes a more complex sense that fits into a multivariate approach to creativity of Lubart (2003). Two types of creative tasks can be elaborated: with or without an object. This article presents only the former, which consists in making creative objects, in connection with the language course, that the students socialize in the classroom. Students must think about how to insert the disciplinary contents into the creative object and then how to build their texts in a relevant way. This paper illustrates some possible foundations of pedagogy of creativity and the role of emotion as a variable that enables and does not disable learning. To conclude, a qualitative survey, led in a vocational school in Italy, will be illustrated. After the descriptive text learning, the students had to produce a creative object as a medium accompanying their description of a hotel or restaurant of their dreams. The hypothesis was to channel parasite emotions of the learning by the evocation of enabling emotions and thus improve the oral performance.
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 | 0.008 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.036 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.013 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 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".