L’activité de tutorat conjointe et médiatisée : comment former dans la zone proximale de développement des enseignants novices et susciter leur pouvoir d’agir?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cette étude porte sur l’entretien de tutorat d’enseignants novices en année de formation professionnelle en alternance à l’université en France. Elle interroge la contribution de l’aménagement de ces situations de formation au processus d’apprentissage-développement de l’activité des formés. À l’appui de présupposés issus d’une psychologie culturelle historique et d’une théorie psychologique de l’activité, l’analyse d’une étude de cas apporte deux principales contributions. Tout d’abord, il s’agit de l’apport d’une activité conjointe médiatisée à l’opérationnalisation du conseil dans la zone proximale de développement des enseignants novices. Puis, il s’agit de la contribution de la posture du tuteur comme «agent de développement» du pouvoir d’agir des enseignants novices en classe.
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 | 0.003 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.016 | 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".