MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2790258029

Écriture script, écriture cursive, écriture au clavier : performances d'élèves de sixième année du primaire

2016· article· fr· W2790258029 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Joannie Pleau

Bibliographic record

VenueSémaphore (Université du Québec à Rimouski) · 2016
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicWriting and Handwriting Education
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCursiveHumanitiesArtComputer scienceArtificial intelligence
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

RÉSUMÉ: Bien que l’écriture soit enseignée aux élèves tôt dans leur parcours scolaire, l’automatisation de cette compétence est un processus de longue durée. Script, cursive ou au clavier, le développement de cette habileté est complexe. Nécessitant le développement des habiletés graphomotrices et de la fluidité en saisie au clavier, les modalités d’écriture animent les débats internationaux. Le manque de consensus scientifique pousse certains pays à abandonner la cursive et privilégier l’enseignement du script et de la saisie au clavier. Au Québec, de manière traditionnelle, la plupart des élèves apprennent l’écriture script et la cursive successivement. C’est en considérant l’importance grandissante de l’activité d’écriture au clavier de même que les défis reliés au développement des habiletés graphomotrices que cette étude, souhaitant comparer les performances graphomotrice, orthographique et rédactionnelle de 84 élèves de sixième année selon le style (script, cursif) et l’outil (crayon, clavier) d’écriture, a été réalisée. Poursuivant ces objectifs, les participants, divisés en sous-groupes, ont été évalués selon cinq critères : vitesse d’écriture (rappel écrit de l’alphabet), orthographe lexicale et grammaticale (dictée), longueur et qualité des productions textuelles (résumé d’un court récit narratif).
\nD’abord, les tâches d’écriture furent accomplies au crayon, puis au clavier. Les résultats ont ensuite été comparés au regard des associations script-cursive et crayon-clavier. La première comparaison a révélé qu’au crayon, le script était plus rapide, permettait des textes plus longs et mieux détaillés que la cursive. Au clavier, peu de différences ont pu être observées entre les groupes. Lorsque les résultats furent analysés en fonction de l’outil d’écriture, ils ont indiqué qu’en général, écrire au clavier permettait une écriture plus rapide. De plus, pour le groupe cursive, elle permettait des textes plus longs et mieux détaillés. Considérant les résultats de cette étude, nous croyons que l’écriture script serait un choix intéressant de style unique à enseigner aux élèves du primaire. Contrairement à la cursive, le script permet une écriture rapide au crayon de même que des textes plus longs et mieux détaillés. Il semble d’ailleurs qu’il puisse être automatisé rapidement en raison de son geste moteur simple ; simplicité également associée à l’écriture au clavier. -- Mot(s) clé(s) en français : script, cursive, clavier, modalités d'écriture, sixième année, composante graphomotrice, composante orthographique, composante rédactionnelle, saisie au clavier. -- ABSTRACT: Despite the fact that writing has been taught to students in the early stages of their scholarship, the automaticity related to this competency is a long term process. Manuscript, cursive or keyboard, this activity is a complex skill to develop. Referring to graphomotor skill development and key typing fluidity, the writing modalities enliven international debates. The absence of scientific consensus leads some countries to abandon cursive letters and in order to concentrate their teaching on manuscript and keyboarding acquisition. In Quebec, based on a strong tradition, most of the students learn successively both handwriting styles. Considering the increasing importance of keyboarded text production and the challenges of graphomotor skill development, this study aimed to compare letter production, orthographic and writing performances in regards to handwriting (manuscript, cursive) and writing tools (pencil, keyboard) among 84 sixth graders. With this intention, participants, divided in subgroups, were evaluated in regards to five criteries: writing speed (written recall of the alphabet sequence), lexical and grammatical orthographic production (dictation), text production length and quality (summary of a short narrative).
\nAt first, the writing tasks were handwritten, then keyboarded. The results were subsequently compared in regards of the manuscript-cursive and the pencil-keyboard associations. The first comparison revealed that, with the pencil, manuscript was faster and allowed longer and more detailed texts than cursive. When tasks were assessed by keyboard, few difference was observed between the groups. When results were analyzed in regards of the writing tool, they indicated that, in general, writing with a keyboard generally contribute to increase writing speed. Furthermore, for the cursive group, it allowed longer and more detailed texts. Considering the results of this study, we believe that manuscript would be an interesting choice of handwriting style to be exclusively taught to primary school students. In contrary to cursive, manuscript leads to faster handwriting and longer and more detailed texts. It also seems that it can be automated quickly because of its simple motor movement; simplicity also associated with keyboarding. -- Mot(s) clé(s) en anglais : manuscript, cursive, keyboard, writing modalities, sixth grade, graphomotor component, orthographic component, writing component, keyboarding.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.465
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0040.003
Scholarly communication0.0000.002
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.010
GPT teacher head0.228
Teacher spread0.218 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSémaphore (Université du Québec à Rimouski)Same topicWriting and Handwriting EducationFrench-language works237,207