Le dessin au service de la mémorisation du vocabulaire chez l'enfant de 5 à 10 ans en contexte de camps d'été au Canada : Facteurs influents et enjeux didactiques
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This dissertation addresses the use of drawing activities, particularly illustrations, to promote the acquisition and memorisation of vocabulary in a playful way in children aged 5 to 10, at all levels, in the context of summer camps organised in Canada. The aim of this study was to find out whether drawing helps to memorise vocabulary and to highlight the various factors influencing its use. The results indicate that its use depends first and foremost on how much children enjoy drawing in general. Learners will be more committed to the exercise if they enjoy the act of drawing (like to draw), if they value it (give it importance), if they perceive it as effective (know how to draw) or if they find it interesting (are interested in drawing). However, affect is not the only determining factor: it is possible to have no affect for drawing and still learn with it thanks to other parameters such as linguistic parameters (e.g. familiarity with French) or cognitive parameters (e.g. learning strategies put in place). Its use also provided real support for memorisation, as it enabled key strategies in vocabulary learning to be mobilised, such as subvocalization, repetition and the use of retrieval cues.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".