Cercle pédagogique et analyse de cas : dispositifs complémentaires de réflexion collective au coeur de la formation initiale des enseignants
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ésuméCertains chercheurs considèrent la réflexion comme une métacompétence favorisant le développement des autres compétences professionnelles en enseignement.Il importe ainsi que la formation initiale permette aux personnes étudiantes stagiaires (PES) d'apprendre à réfléchir de manière autonome, c' est-à-dire de s' engager elles-mêmes dans ce processus sans que cela leur soit demandé.C' est dans cette optique que deux dispositifs pédagogiques de réflexion collective ont été adaptés puis expérimentés avec des PES en 2017 : 1) le cercle pédagogique et 2) la démarche d'analyse de cas.Les commentaires des PES révèlent un bilan intéressant quant aux apprentissages perçus, aux apports et à la complémentarité des deux dispositifs, offrant ainsi des pistes pour la formation initiale des enseignants. Mots-clésFormation initiale à l' enseignement, réflexion sur la pratique, identité professionnelle, dispositifs pédagogiques, cercles pédagogiques, démarche d'analyse de cas, réflexion collective.
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 | 0.016 | 0.092 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.011 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.014 | 0.012 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.016 | 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".