Perspectives et défis de la relation pédagogique en formation à distance Résumé du mémoire de maîtrise de Monette (2022)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cette note de lecture résume les principales conclusions d’un mémoire de maîtrise portant sur la relation pédagogique en formation à distance (FAD). Les résultats de cette recherche démontrent qu’en contexte de FAD, bien que plus de la moitié du corps enseignant (n = 73) considère la relation comme satisfaisante, la majorité estime que la distance impacte négativement cette dynamique. Confrontées aux défis liés à la distance physique ou aux limitations techniques, les personnes enseignantes déploient diverses stratégies innovantes pour favoriser un climat de classe positif, une présence accrue et une qualité relationnelle optimale. Les résultats de cette recherche soulèvent des questions sur la FAD, soulignant l’importance d’ajuster les pratiques éducatives tout en préservant la qualité de la relation pédagogique.
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 | 0.010 | 0.022 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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; 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".