MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7029375186

Impacts de l’utilisation d’un réviseur orthographique, comme aide technologique à l’apprentissage, sur les compétences en orthographe grammaticale de tous les élèves d’une classe inclusive du secondaire

2020· other· fr· W7029375186 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueConstellation (Université du Québec à Chicoutimi) · 2020
Typeother
Languagefr
Field
Topic
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCarpentryIdentity (music)Mulligan
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

L’augmentation du nombre d’élèves handicapés ou en difficulté d’adaptation ou d’apprentissage au sein du système scolaire québécois rend nécessaire des pratiques plus inclusives, telle la conception universelle de l’apprentissage. En se basant sur cette conception, donner l’opportunité à tous les élèves en difficulté ou non d’utiliser une aide technologique à l’apprentissage, mesure d’adaptation actuellement réservée pour les élèves HDAA, pourrait donner les moyens à tous d’exploiter leur plein potentiel. En raison des difficultés marquées en orthographe grammaticale des jeunes du secondaire, mesurer les impacts d’un réviseur orthographique sur leurs compétences est une bonne avenue pour vérifier la concrétisation possible de cette hypothèse. Deux objectifs spécifiques en découlent, soit 1) identifier les impacts individuels de l’utilisation de l’outil sur les compétences grammaticales et 2) identifier les impacts intergroupes de l’utilisation du réviseur. La collecte de données s’est effectuée auprès d’un groupe-classe de 25 élèves de deuxième secondaire. Nous avons analysé les données à l’aide d’ANOVA mixtes (3 x 3) pour la compétence en orthographe grammaticale totale et pour cinq catégories grammaticales. Les résultats démontrent que le traitement quasi expérimental, soit l’intégration du réviseur à l’intérieur des activités d’écriture durant deux mois, a contribué à l’augmentation des performances à accorder un participe passé avec avoir de l’ensemble des participants. De plus, il a été davantage profitable aux groupes d’élèves avec difficultés majeures et avec difficulté mineures qu’au groupe sans difficulté. Ainsi, cela a réduit les écarts entre les élèves. Finalement, la valeur ajoutée de l’outil lors de son utilisation est positive pour l’ensemble des participants. Ce projet remet donc en question les critères de l’octroi des aides technologiques et pourrait ouvrir la voie à un accès universel dans le but de favoriser le développement du plein potentiel de tous. \n \nThe increasing number of students with handicaps, social maladjustments or learning difficulties within Quebec’s education system requires more inclusive practices, such as the Universal Design for Learning. Based on that design, giving the opportunity to all students with or without learning difficulties to use assistive technology, which is currently limited to students with SHSMLD, could help them reach their full potential. Because of the important spelling difficulties among high school students, measuring the impacts of a spell checker on their competences is a good way of verifying if this hypothesis is true. This study has two specific objectives: 1) to identify the individual impacts of using the tool on grammatical competences and 2) to identify the intergroup impacts of using the spell checker. Data was collected from a classroom group of 25 students in the second year of high school. It was then analyzed using mixed ANOVA (3x3) for the whole spelling competence and for five grammatical categories. Results have shown that the quasi-experimental process, i.e. the implementation of the spell checker to the writing activities for 2 months, contributed to enhance every participant’s performance with the agreement of a past participle with "avoir". Moreover, it was more beneficial for the student groups with major and minor difficulties than for the group without difficulty. Thus, it reduced the gap between students. Lastly, the added value of the tool when used is positive for all the participants. This project questions the criteria for according assistive technologies and could pave the way to a universal access to help every student reach their full potential.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.283
Threshold uncertainty score0.563

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0040.002
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0210.003

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.

Opus teacher head0.014
GPT teacher head0.206
Teacher spread0.191 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueConstellation (Université du Québec à Chicoutimi)French-language works237,207