La réflexion sur l'action pédagogique des enseignants novices et expérimentés à l'ordre d'études collégiales dans les domaines de la santé
Bibliographic record
Abstract
La recherche qualitative presentee s'interesse aux enseignants novices et experimentes au collegial qui oeuvrent au secteur technique dans les domaines de la sante (protheses dentaires, denturologie, hygiene dentaire, radiodiagnostic, ortheses visuelles, soins infirmiers). La pratique reflexive peut contribuer a l'amelioration de l'enseignement mais les enseignants ne savent pas toujours comment la developper et comment en tirer parti. La recherche vise a comprendre la reflexion sur l'action pedagogique des enseignants afin de bonifier leur enseignement, de developper leurs competences professionnelles, de favoriser la reussite des etudiants et de contribuer a la qualite de la pratique clinique de ces derniers. Un dispositif, comportant des outils reflexifs (retroaction video, journal de bord et autoevaluation, autoconfrontation simple), a ete experimente sur deux trimestres. Une reconstitution des moments significatifs et les conditions de transformation des facons de concevoir et d'exercer la profession enseignante etait un des objectifs. La comparaison des resultats obtenus qui font ressortir la synergie de la communication entre les novices et les experts sera presentee. Les liens ont ete etablis entre les competences a l'enseignement et les outils, ainsi qu'avec les categories de reflexion de Mezirow les plus sollicitees. La recherche s'est prevalue d'une subvention du CRSH.
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 | 0.037 | 0.062 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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".