L’impact des Styles d’Enseignement de Mosston et Ashworth et la Formation de la Pensée Critique des Futurs Enseignants d’Education Physique et Sportive : Le Cas de l’Institut Supérieur d’Education Physique et Sportive de Brazzaville en République du Congo
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Dans l’objectif d’examiner l’impact des styles d’enseignement privilégiés par les formateurs universitaires des Activités Physiques et Sportives (APS) sur le développement de la pensée critique des futurs enseignant.e.s d’EPS, une fiche d’enquête contenant les 11 styles d’enseignement de Mosston et Ashworth (2006) a été adressée aux formateurs chargés d’enseignement des Activités Physiques et Sportives (APS)à l’Institut Supérieur d’Education Physique et Sportive (ISEPS). Après avoir suivi une séance de formation sur les styles d’enseignement de Mosston et Ashworth, les enseignants devraient indiquer, sur une fiche, les styles d’enseignement qu’ils utilisent et les raisons qui justifient leurs choix. Les résultats révèlent une domination des styles d’enseignement de la catégorie de reproduction (70%) sur ceux de la catégorie de production (30%). De plus, la plupart des formateurs évoque la raison d’une quête de développement à la responsabilité chez les étudiants par le choix des styles d’enseignement. Ces résultats indiquent que l’enseignement des APS, à l’ISEPS, se fait en utilisant plus des styles d’enseignement reproductifs que les styles productifs. Ce qui montre que le développement de la pensée critique des étudiants, pendant les apprentissages pratiques, se fait à un degré faible. Même si le développement de la responsabilité des étudiants, à travers ces cours, est le but poursuivi par les formateurs universitaires, l’usage d’une approche béhaviorale de l’enseignement rend difficilement atteignable l’intention de ces formateurs universitaires. 
 
 The purpose of this study was to examine the impact of the teaching styles favoured by University level Sports and Physical Activities (SPA) Trainers on the development of critical thinking skills in future SPA Teachers. A survey sheet outlining Mosston and Ashworth's (2006) eleven teaching styles was distributed to all SPA Trainers at the Higher Institute of Physical Education and Sports (HIPES). After attending a training session on Mosston and Ashworth's teaching styles, the trainers were asked to complete a form on which they indicated the teaching styles they used and the reasons underlying their preferred methods. The results revealed a preponderance of teaching styles in the reproduction category (70%) compared with those in the production category (30%). Furthermore, the majority of trainers cited the desire to develop responsibility in their students as the primary reason for their choice of teaching styles. These results indicate that SPA teaching at HIPES uses more reproductive than productive teaching styles, suggesting that the development of students' critical thinking skills during practical learning sessions takes place to a lesser extent. Moreover, even if the primary goal pursued by university trainers is the development of student responsibility, employing a behavioral approach in their teaching methods renders their objective more difficult to achieve.
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 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 | 0.031 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".