Le journal de bord comme outil de réflexion dans la classe d'anglais langue seconde du primaire: Qu'en pensent les premiers concernés?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cet article fait état d'une recherche visanta à explorer les perceptions de jeunes francophones de sixième année primaire apprenant l'anglais langue seconde (ALS) relativement à l'utilisation du journal de bord (JB). Les participants (n = 54) provenaient de deux classes intactes (groupe Enrichi et groupe Régulier). Un questionnaire a été passé aux participants après deux mois d'utilisation du journal de bord. Un pré-test et un post-test ont été utilisés afin d'observer l'effet de l'utilisation du JB sur la capacité de réflexion métalinguistique des participants ainsi que sur leur acquisition de l'ALS. Les réponses fournies ont révélé que bien que la majorité des participants ait aimé utiliser le JB, une plus grande proportion d'entre eux provenait du groupe Enrichi. Elles mettent également en lumière qu'une plus grande proportion de participants provenant du groupe Enrichi a observé un effet positif de l'utilisation du JB sur leur acquisition de l'anglais L2 et que cette observation s'est avérée juste.
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 | 0.006 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".