Le théâtre-forum comme artefact : accompagner le développement professionnel des enseignants au 21ème siècle.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The thesis deals with the true activity of teachers and the way they act daily in their class, starting from the postulate that what we see in the activity is not enough to grasp its complexity. This means that to fully understand the activity, for the researcher as well as for the practitioner, implies an access to the intentions, the concerns and the clues derived from the action, and therefore to the professional gestures (Bucheton, 2019). This research topic relies on the theory of conceptualization in action (Vergnaud, 1996) and the contributions of professional didactics (Pastré, 2011). The analysis of professional gestures makes it possible to infer the schemes and operating models of the actors, thus giving access to the understanding of invariance and variability of practices within educational situations. A complex system of activity analysis was tested in the Reunion academy, before being implemented on an initial field of inquiry, in a middle school located in priority education area, in Reunion island. The third phase of the research-training took place in a French high school in Quebec. The device is organized around a diverted use of forum theater (Boal, 1985). For our research, the forum theatre is a way to play again critical situations lived by teachers and educational staff who work with them, to understand and face the difficulties and the dilemmas in the action. In that case, it offers many opportunities, thanks to the proposal of alternatives played by the « spect-actors » (Boal, 1985) and to the risk-taking permitted by the theatre. The forum theatre becomes an « artefact » (Rabardel, 1995) given to the protagonists, who can use it as a psychological instrument, in a process of « instrumental genesis » (Rabardel, 2005). The heuristic vision of the research lies in the shared understanding of the complexity of the teacher's doing. On the praxeological front, the goal is to support the professional development of teachers by highlighting and discussing the professsional gestures that will promote learning among all the students, therefore building a living conservatory of possible actions.
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 | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.003 |
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.
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".