La didactique professionnelle et la formation à l’enseignement : apports et questionnements
Bibliographic record
Abstract
En partant des résultats du mémoire de recherche et de la thèse de doctorat du premier auteur, l’article s’arrête d’abord à la conception de la didactique professionnelle en rappelant la définition qui la caractérise et en présentant ensuite le cadre conceptuel qui la constitue et qui s’appuie sur trois courants théoriques: la psychologie piagétienne du développement, la psychologie du travail et de l’ergonomie, et les didactiques des disciplines. Il distingue ensuite entre la formation initiale à l’enseignement et les formations aux métiers au sein desquelles la didactique professionnelle a émergé. Puis, l’article expose différents apports que cette didactique peut fournir à la formation à l’enseignement, dont la fonction centrale de la notion de situation et la logique de l’action. Le texte se termine en s’arrêtant sur un ensemble de questions relatives, entre autres, à la place des savoirs, aux relations entre les deux types de didactique et à la dimension sociale que soulève le recours de la didactique professionnelle au sein de la formation initiale à l’enseignement.
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 | 0.024 | 0.028 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.036 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.019 | 0.021 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.011 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 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".