Rapport à la culture et approche culturelle de l'enseignement
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cet article présente les résultats d’une recherche exploratoire qui visait à comprendre la relation entre le rapport à la culture d’étudiants en formation initiale à l’enseignement et la mise en œuvre d’une approche culturelle de l’enseignement dans la discipline « français », ainsi qu’à préciser le cadre théorique du rapport à la culture. Nous avons analysé les textes de trente‐cinq étudiants (n=35), dans lesquels ils devaient définir ce que signifie pour eux la culture ainsi que leur conception du rôle de l’enseignant dans le développement culturel de leurs futurs élèves. L’analyse de contenu et de discours, réalisée dans chacun de ces textes, combinée à plusieurs travaux sur le rapport au savoir − notamment ceux de l’équipe ESCOL − nous a permis dans un premier temps de circonscrire quatre types de rapport à la culture : désimpliqué, instrumentaliste, scolaire et intégratif/évolutif. De plus, comme il s’agit de futurs enseignants, nous avons dégagé deux plans de leur rapport à la culture, soit les plans individuel et pédagogique − ce dernier étant compris comme l’accompagnement de l’élève dans son appropriation de la culture. Enfin, l’analyse montre que le rapport à la culture de type intégratif‐évolutif sur le plan individuel semble être un préalable à la mise en œuvre d’une approche culturelle de l’enseignement. Mots clés : Culture, rapport à la culture, approche culturelle de l’enseignement, formation initiale à l’enseignement In this article, we present the results of an exploratory research which aimed at understanding the relationship between the relation to culture of students in a teacher education program and the undertaking of a cultural approach to French teaching, and at specifying the relation to culture’s theoretical framework. We have analyzed texts written by thirty‐five aspiring teachers (n=35), who had to tell how they define culture and how they conceive the teacher’s role in students’ cultural development. The combination of content and discourse analysis of each of these texts and of writings on the relation to culture – especially those of the ESCOL team – led us at first to circumscribe four types of relation to culture: the non‐implicated type, the instrumentalist type, the schooled type and the integrative‐evolutive type. Furthermore, since the research’s participants are prospective teachers, we have identified two sides of their relation to culture, the individual side and the pedagogical one – the latter being understood as the accompanying of the learner in his or her appropriation of culture. Finally, the analysis shows that an integrative‐ evolutive type of relation to culture on the individual side seems to be a prerequisite to the undertaking of a cultural approach to teaching. Key words: Culture, relation to culture, cultural approach to teaching, teacher education program
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 | 0.024 | 0.034 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.014 | 0.027 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.018 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| 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".