Communauté d’apprentissage et communauté de pratique en ligne : le processus réflexif dans la formation des formateurs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Saisissant l'occasion offerte par de rcentes politiques ducatives qui orientent la formation des enseignants vers le travail collectif en rseaux, nous abordons ici la dlicate question de l'association entre pratique rflexive et participation des communauts de pratique en ligne. Motivs par le dveloppement professionnel de l'enseignant, nous montrons l'intrt de concevoir des formations qui ont pour enjeux d'tre un terreau favorisant l'mergence de communauts de pratique en ligne et d'ouvrir les praticiens de nouvelles postures pdagogiques. Nous prsentons un paradigme qui articule quatre notions : rflexion sur les pratiques, cadre dialogique pour le processus rflexif, communaut d'apprentissage et communaut de pratique. Nous dcrivons un dispositif de travail rflexif intgr au sein d'une formation collaborative avec ses supports d'expression, son scnario et son processus dialogique. L'ensemble est illustr par une tude de cas portant sur une formation de formateurs qui s'est rpte sur deux annes conscutives.
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 | 0.011 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.018 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.012 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.015 | 0.003 |
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".