La cocréation avec les institutions scolaires et culturelles : recherche design en littératie numérique
Bibliographic record
Abstract
RésuméPlus qu’un concept à redéfinir, lalittératie numérique s’insère dans la mission même des institutionsresponsables de l’éducation à la communication, à la culture et à lacréation. Dans cet article, nous présenterons les résultats d’une recherchedesign en éducation (Lacelle et al. 2017-2020), ciblant la cocréationpédagogique avec des institutions scolaires et leurs partenaires culturels.Cette recherche vise à expliciter la démarche de cocréation d’activitésimpliquant la réalisation d’une recherche documentaire et/ou d’une créationartistique/médiatique en contexte (écoles; bibliothèques; centres culturels),ainsi que l’adaptation des milieux participants aux ressources numériques,multimodales, culturelles, matérielles et humaines. Après avoir identifiéquelques principes guidant la cocréation d’activités en littératie numérique,nous illustrerons, en nous appuyant sur trois terrains de recherche, notreméthode d’analyse des 4P (Portrait, Processus, Projet, Production),associée aux dimensions de la recherche design. Nous verrons comment cetterecherche donne lieu, entre autres, à une redéfinition des rôles des acteurs,des objets didactiques et des méthodes pédagogiques dans l’élaborationd’activités disciplinaires de littératie numérique à laquelle participent lesinstitutions culturelles. AbstractMore than a concept to be redefined, digital literacy fits into the very mission of the institutions responsible for education in communication, culture, and creation. In this article, we present the results of a design-based research in education(Lacelle et al. 2017-2020), focusing on pedagogical cocreation with educational institutions and their cultural partners. This research aims to clarify the process of co-creating activities involving carrying out a documentary research and/or artistic/media creation in context (schools, libraries, cultural centers), as well as the adaptation of participating environments to digital, multimodal, cultural, material, and human resources. After having identified some principles guiding the cocreation of digital literacy activities, we will illustrate, based on three research sites, our method of analysis of the 4Ps (Portrait, Process, Project, Production), associated with design-based research dimensions. We will see how this research gives rise, among other things, to a redefinition of the roles of actors, didactic objects, and teaching methods in the development of disciplinary digital literacy activities.
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 | 0.028 | 0.038 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.011 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.016 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.028 | 0.004 |
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".