Effets de l’évaluation des dispositifs curriculaires sur les conceptions et les pratiques d’enseignants de l’école primaire
Bibliographic record
Abstract
L’étude cherche à définir des conditions sous lesquelles un processus d’évaluation des dispositifs d’enseignement peut être formatrice pour ses acteurs. Ces dispositifs définissent la qualité du curriculum réel, construit par chaque établissement de façon plus ou moins réfléchie. L’étude porte sur l’analyse d’une formation d’enseignants centrée sur la construction d’outils d’évaluation de leurs propres dispositifs. L’investigation, menée ici par questionnaires, montre que l’engagement des enseignants dans la construction des référentiels bouscule leurs certitudes et que le travail d’élaboration se poursuit après le stage, que la dynamique d’adaptation des dispositifs d’enseignement aux élèves est renforcée et que l’attention se porte sur l’efficacité des actions en fonction des particularités du public. Une telle formation semble donc participer à l’amélioration de la qualité du curriculum.
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 | 0.053 | 0.183 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 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".