L’activité de conception de scénarios pédagogiques intégrant le numérique comme démarche créative dans la formation des enseignants
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper analyses technology-enhanced teaching and learning (TET/TEL) design in the context of in-service teacher training. It is presented as a creative (Glăveanu, 2015, 2020), agentive (Sannino, 2015) activity to help teachers transform teaching and learning and address the challenge of integrating digital technology and education in the classroom (Giraudon et al., 2020). Mainly based on third generation (Engeström, 2001, 2009) of cultural-historical activity theory (CHAT) and in line with epistemological pluralism (Turkle & Papert, 1990), this study also draws upon contributions in didactics and cognitive sciences. It develops the theoretical argument leading to a formative intervention (Engeström, 2011) inspired by the Change Laboratory methodology (Virkkunen & Newnham, 2013). The Change Laboratory is aimed at co-designing TET/TEL scenarios for teachers and thus to model a new concept (Engeström & Sannino, 2010) for teaching and learning. To support this process, teachers are assisted by a card deck as a design artefact. The cards represent the potential components of a TET/TEL scenario.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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 it