Espaces d’apprentissage innovants : pratiques pédagogiques effectives et usages de l’environnement physique-matériel
Bibliographic record
Abstract
L'mergence croissante des espaces d'apprentissage innovants (EAI) dans les universits amne s'interroger sur leur utilisation relle.Cette tude prsente les rsultats des analyses des pratiques pdagogiques et d'utilisation du potentiel de l'environnement physique-matriel.Vingt-six sances de cours observes, faisant au total 2 942 minutes d'enregistrement vido, ainsi que des entretiens avec les enseignants et enseignantes sont raliss.Les rsultats des analyses frquentielles, temporelles et squentielles montrent une prdominance, en matire de frquence d'occurrence et de temps consacr, des situations de mise en activit pratique des tudiants et tudiantes.Le caractre collaboratif, centr sur les tudiants et tudiantes et vari des activits est mis en vidence.On observe une utilisation stratgique et adapte du potentiel de flexibilitmodularit en lien avec les activits d'apprentissage.Cependant, le potentiel technologique reste sous-exploit et moins positivement peru comme pertinent par les enseignants et enseignantes.Les principaux avantages et contraintes des EAI perus par les enseignants et enseignantes sont aussi prsents.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".