Pour des apprentissages de l’oral qui traversent le temps : l’oral pragmatique, une approche didactique à utiliser !
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cet article fait état du renouvellement des pratiques de deux enseignantes du primaire lors d’une recherche-action. Utilisant principalement l’exposé oral pour enseigner et pour évaluer les élèves, les participantes de notre recherche ont transformé leurs pratiques en s’intéressant à l’oral pragmatique, une approche didactique qui consiste à développer les capacités des élèves à communiquer oralement tout en les sensibilisant aux enjeux d’une communication harmonieuse. Les résultats présentés font état, dans un premier temps de la réflexion des participantes les menant vers le choix de l’objet à enseigner. Ensuite, la planification, l’enseignement et l’activité de mise en pratique de l’objet de l’oral choisi sont explicités.
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 | 0.027 | 0.048 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.013 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.015 | 0.014 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 0.005 |
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".