SOSTENER LA PRÁCTICA REFLEXIVA DE LOS FUTUROS DOCENTES: EL ROL DE LA RETROACCIÓN DEL SUPERVISOR
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Las prácticas pre profesionales constituyen un medio privilegiado para el desarrollo de competencias profesionales de los futuros docentes, siendo el análisis reflexivo un factor crucial en dicho desarrollo. El presente artículo reporta los resultados obtenidos en un estudio exploratorio descriptivo-interpretativo sobre el análisis reflexivo de los futuros profesores en las facultades de educación de dos universidades en Quebec (Canadá). Utilizando la tipología de retroacción de Rodet (2000) y los de niveles de reflexividad de Derobertmasure (2012), se plantearon dos preguntas de investigación: (1) ¿Cuáles son los tipos de retroacción ofrecidos por un supervisor después de escuchar los análisis de los practicantes en las cápsulas de video? y (2) ¿Cuál es la evolución del discurso de los practicantes a través de diferentes niveles de reflexividad, del principio al final de un semestre de práctica pre profesional? En este escrito se presentan y discuten las respuestas a ambas preguntas para finalmente proponer pistas de investigaciones futuras.
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 | 0.009 | 0.025 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".