L'acceptation et l'appropriation des ENT (Espaces Num{é}riques de Travail) par les enseignants du primaire
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cet article présente une évaluation des conditions d'usage d'un ENT (appelé ONE) par des enseignants du primaire. Elle est réalisée à travers deux études utilisant la théorie de l'activité comme cadre d'analyse. La première évalue les activités réelles effectuées par les enseignants sur l'ENT en analysant thématiquement le contenu des publications faites sur l'ENT, afin de comprendre comment les utilisateurs s'approprient l'outil. La seconde évalue les facteurs d'acceptation et de refus de la technologie, en décrivant la manière dont les enseignants vivent et perçoivent le rôle que l'ENT peut jouer sur l'évolution de leurs pratiques professionnelles (en les maintenant, les transformant ou les restreignant). Ces études ont permis de montrer que l'appropriation de ONE s'est produite notamment à travers les activités pédagogiques et de communication avec les parents d'élèves. L'acceptation favorable de cet ENT est due à la facilité d'usage et l'adéquation de l'interface aux enseignants et jeunes enfants. Abstract: This article presents an evaluation of the conditions of use of a VWE (Virtual Work Environment) by primary school teachers. To this end, we conducted two studies and used activity theory as theoretical framework. Our first study aims to assess real practices carried out with the VWE and analyzed publications'content in order to understand how users appropriate the tool. The second study describes how teachers perceive the role of the VWE in the evolution of their working practices (maintaining, transforming and restricting the existent practices). These studies indicate that technological appropriation is achieved through instructional and communicational uses. The acceptance of this VWE is due to its ease of use and interface adequacy to teachers and young children.
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 | 0.037 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 0.002 |
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".