Comment les enseignants ont-il vécu l’implantation du programme d’HEC et d’HQC de troisième secondaire et dans quelle mesure cela les a-t-il amené à modifier leurs pratiques d’enseignement?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cette recherche est basée sur le fait que bien que le Québec ait vécu de nombreux changements de programme en histoire au deuxième cycle du secondaire dans les trente dernières années, nous constatons que les enseignants semblent très peu enclins à modifier leurs pratiques enseignantes. Comme ces changements de programme devraient influer sur le quotidien des enseignants et la façon dont ils préparent, enseignent et évaluent, nous avons cherché à comprendre les raisons derrière cette réticence au changement. Afin de valider nos interrogations, trois études de cas ont été menées auprès d’enseignants de la province. À l’aide d’une entrevue semi-dirigée, ces enseignants ont été interrogés sur cinq grands sujets : les fondements épistémologiques du programme, la planification, les pratiques pédagogiques, l’évaluation et la formation continue. Une fois les propos recueillis et analysés, nous avons pu constater que les facteurs qui n’amènent pas la modification des pratiques enseignants sont la réticence au changement et la compréhension du programme, alors que ceux qui favorisent un changement de pratique sont la formation continue, le soutien par les pairs et une évaluation cohérente. \n \nThis research is based on the fact that although Quebec has experienced many curriculum changes in senior high school history over the past thirty years, we find that teachers seem very reluctant to change their teaching practices. Since these curriculum changes directly affect teachers' daily lives and the way they prepare, teach and evaluate, we sought to understand the reasons behind this reluctance to change. To validate our questions, three case studies were conducted with teachers in the province. Using a semi-structured interview, these teachers were asked about five main topics: the epistemological foundations of the program, planning, pedagogical practices, evaluation and continuing education. After collecting and analyzing the data, we found that the factors that do not lead to changes in teaching practice are reluctance to change and understanding of the program, while those that do lead to changes in practice are in-service training, peer support, and consistent assessment.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.047 | 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".