Le développement du sentiment d’efficacité personnelle en formation initiale en éducation physique et à la santé
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Le sentiment d’efficacité personnelle (SEP) (Bandura, 2007) des enseignants influence positivement leurs pratiques pédagogiques ainsi que la réussite de leurs élèves (Skaalvik & Skaalvik, 2007). Il est donc important de se préoccuper du SEP dès la formation initiale des enseignants. Cette recherche vise à mieux comprendre ce qui contribue au développement du SEP lors des stages. À la suite de la passation du questionnaire Sentiment d’Efficacité personnelle en Éducation Physique et à la Santé (SEP-ÉPS) (Grenier, Gagnon, Monfette & Gosselin, 2012), deux stagiaires finissants ont participé à un entretien semi-dirigé afin de décrire l’évolution de leur SEP. L’article présente les résultats issus de ces entretiens qui ont permis de dégager les conditions favorables au développement du SEP de ces stagiaires. Les résultats indiquent qu’ils considèrent le contexte authentique d’enseignement, la liberté d’expérimenter et la durée du stage comme étant les conditions ayant contribué au développement de leur SEP.
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 | 0.004 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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".