FEEDBACK MANAGEMENT OF PEDAGOGICAL INSPECTIONS OF PRESERVICE SPORT AND PHYSICAL EDUCATION TEACHERS IN INJEPS - REPUBLIC OF BENIN
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The aim of this research is to analyze the pedagogical management system of students in Science and Technology of Physical and Sports Activities in initial training at the National Institute of Youth, Physical Education and Sports (INJEPS ) during their internships in secondary schools. From a reading grid composed of the systemic model of the intervention process of Dunkin and Biddle (1974) and that of Chevallard (1992), this study problematizes on the one hand the didactic fact based on the variables of context, program, process and product and on the other hand the concept of praxeology. It also seeks to understand the key variables in the pedagogical supervision process and how the INJEPS manages the feedback produced by the supervisors of the INJEPS and the Pedagogical Inspectorate. From the analysis of the results of the investigations, it emerges that the supervisors of the two institutions focus mainly on the context, process and product variables during the pedagogical supervision of the trainees of the 3rd, 4th and 5th year, while the program variables are also taken into account in the first and second year. At the end of the supervisions, only the internship notes produced by the supervisors' teaching reports are taken into account by the administration during the partial and final evaluations of the students. No didactic treatment of the content of the feedbacks is done with a view to improving the pedagogical training of future teachers.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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 teacher head, 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".