La construction des routines professionnelles chez de futurs enseignants de l'enseignement au secondaire intervention éducative et gestion de la classe
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This doctoral thesis situates itself within the domain of exploratory research in secondary teacher education. In the itinerary of this four-year university teacher education program, we focused our study on the phase of practicum IV of teacher education in the school environment. With the support of video observation, we chose to analyze the effective practice of future teachers trained in the teaching of various high school subjects. The object of our study concerns the construction process of professional routines by future teachers.This is a process that at present is overlooked in the Teacher Education Curriculum at the high school level. In the spirit of the Reform in Teacher Education (2001), professional routines, one element to the act of teaching, are necessary to classroom management in order to sustain educative success of all students. On the level of the problematic, this study inscribes itself in the sub-fields of teaching practice, in educational intervention, classroom management and the referentials of preservice teacher education of the Ministry of Education (1992, 2001). On the conceptual framework level, our research stems from research fields in education, sociology and ergonomics related to work. The writings of Malgaive (1990), on the psychology of work, investment theory and the formalization of knowledge allowed us to infer a schema for the process of routine construction, after having defined the meaning and syntax of the term"construct". On the level of methodology, it presents a constructivist view of learning and gathers data from video supported explanatory interviews and from the study of multiple cases. To access this process, we developed a video supported situation to analyze the practice of each of the 30 research participants from two preservice teacher education programs at the same Quebec University. The analysis of the data corpus collected on the effective practice of the participants focuses on four dimensions: (1) algorithms or procedural knowledge invested into action, (2) heuristics or variants incorporated with know-how, (3) characteristics and functions of routines, and (4) the origins of routines, in order to access their modes of construction. Lastly, on the level of data treatment, it uses a mixed process that allies qualitative and quantitative analysis procedures. As a result of the corpus analysis, we observe that future teachers are able to express in a serial order operations for the implementation of their procedural knowledge into action.This capacity becomes observable in the process of construction of routines by future teachers. The process of construction is therefore conceptualized as a non-linear movement of investment and formalization of knowledge. Which one, coming from prior knowledge, becomes procedural knowledge (algorithms) invested in know-how (composed or not of heuristics) of social practices of reference. Moreover, there emerged a typology of routine types, a temporal pedagogical structure of lesson routines and a process that outlines the profile of a specific routine of a future teacher.
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 | 0.003 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".