Animer un débat interprétatif : présentation d’une grille d’analyse des gestes didactiques des enseignants du secondaire
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Nous présentons la démarche méthodologique qui nous a conduits à élaborer un outil d’analyse des gestes didactiques des enseignants dans le cadre d’une recherche sur l’enseignement du débat interprétatif au 2e cycle du secondaire québécois. « Fourretout » théorique ou notion productive, les gestes sont au cœur de nombreuses recherches en didactique de la littérature. Nous rendons compte des questionnements théoriques et méthodologiques qui nous ont amenés à clarifier l’usage de cette notion relativement à l’analyse des pratiques enseignantes concernant l’interprétation littéraire. Le cadre d’analyse repose sur le principe d’une analyse multifocale de l’objet enseigné, des gestes didactiques et des interactions, tels qu’ils s’observent durant des débats interprétatifs filmés et retranscrits. La grille d’analyse est décrite et sa pertinence est discutée au regard des objectifs de l’étude.
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 | 0.005 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.011 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.014 | 0.002 |
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".