Perceptions de stagiaires quant au soutien des deux formateurs à l’articulation entre théorie et pratique
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ésuméEn formation à l' enseignement, les étudiants sont appelés à articuler des savoirs théoriques et pratiques.Or, les stagiaires peinent à percevoir l'interdépendance des savoirs et ont besoin d' être soutenus pour y parvenir (Waege et Haugalokken, 2013).Quel soutien obtiennentils de leurs formateurs?Six stagiaires québécois en stage d'internat au secondaire et leurs formateurs, l' enseignant associé et le superviseur universitaire, ont participé à une recherche interprétative.Une entrevue individuelle avec les stagiaires a porté sur le soutien perçu.L'analyse révèle que les stratégies de soutien à l'articulation entre théorie et pratique, quoique prédominantes chez le superviseur, sont distinctes et complémentaires. Mots-clésFormation à l' enseignement, stages en enseignement secondaire, articulation théorie-pratique, formation en alternance, formateurs du stagiaire
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 | 0.009 | 0.023 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.011 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".