Processus de changement vers des pratiques plus inclusives : étude de la nature et de l’impact de conflits cognitifs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Pour soutenir les changements inhérents à l’inclusion scolaire, plusieurs chercheurs démontrent l’importance d’offrir aux enseignants des moments leur permettant de rendre explicites et de remettre en question les croyances, les théories subjectives ainsi que les valeurs sur lesquelles s’appuient leurs pratiques. Le fait de vivre des déséquilibres sur certaines de ces dimensions permettrait ainsi d’entrevoir de nouvelles options pour soutenir le projet inclusif (Ainscow, 2005). Cet article s’appuie sur une analyse secondaire des résultats de deux recherches-actions-formations et vise à décrire la nature de conflits cognitifs vécus par des enseignants et leur impact sur le processus de changement. Les résultats mettent en évidence l’influence de conflits entourant les conceptions de la diversité, de l’apprentissage et de l’enseignement. Ces conflits aident les enseignants à être plus attentifs aux manifestations de la différence, à mettre à l’essai de nouvelles pratiques centrées sur l’apprentissage et à s’engager davantage dans le processus de changement.
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 | 0.017 | 0.041 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.018 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.015 | 0.016 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.015 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 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".