« Des facteurs d’obstacles à la remédiation pédagogique dans les écoles primaires de la sous division de l’EPST Kirumba. »
Abstract
Considering the regular reactions of teaching staff to oral questions asked by inspectors on the reasons that prevent primary school teachers in the KIRUMBA Sub-Division from implementing educational remediation in their schools; this motivated us to conduct a study to understand these presumptive reasons for the absence of remediation/correction sessions on the timetable of didactic activities in primary schools in this Sub-Division. The main objective of this study was to verify teachers' knowledge of the concept of educational remediation/correction, test the level of involvement of heads of establishments and identify the major factors that hinder the organization of remediation/pedagogical correction sessions. We obtained the results according to which, teachers do not have sufficient knowledge of the concept of educational remediation/correction; there is a clear absence of hours of educational remediation on teachers' working hours, and the lack of time for monitoring by heads of establishments. So our hypothesis was refuted. The other reasons underline that the heads of establishments do not attach much importance to the remediation stage and others say that they do not know what remediation/pedagogical recovery means.
References
2. Circulaire n° 884/MEN/SG/ du 10/09/2009, Loi sur l’Education du 23 janvier 2008,
3. De KETELE, J.M. (1980). L’évaluation des acquis scolaires », Revue tunisienne des Sciences de l’Education
4. DEHON, A et al. (2009). La remédiation immédiate », fascicule, Institut d’administration scolaire, Université Mons.
5. Isabelle, JEUGE, MAYNART et al. (2012). Le petit Larousse illustré. Ed. SME. Paris.
6. LAROUSSE. (2012). Le petit Larousse illustré 2012. Paris. France
7. LAFON, R. (1979). Vocabulaire de psychopédagogie et de psychiatrie de l’enfant. PUF. Paris.
8. Ministère de l’éducation Nationale. (2012). Guide de remédiation pédagogique pour l’enseignement au cycle primaire. ALGERIE.
9. MERLE, P. (2018). Les pratiques d’évaluation scolaire : historique, difficultés, perspectives. Paris : Paris : Presses universitaires de France.
10. MUCHIELLI, R. (1993). , Le Questionnaire dans l'enquête psycho-sociale : connaissance du problème, applications pratiques, Paris, Entreprise moderne d'édition.
11. NADEAU A-M (1991). L’évaluation de programme. Laval : Presse universitaire Laval.
12. NOIZET et CAVERNI. (1978). Psychologie de l’évaluation scolaire. IN REVUE FRANÇAISE DE PEDAGOGIE. V. 49.
13. RDC. (2014). Loi-cadre de l’enseignement national N°14/004 du 11 février 2014.
9. SUCHAUT BRUNO. ( ). La qualité de l’éducation de base en Afrique francophone : contexte, constat et facteurs efficacité. IN EDUCATION DE BASE FONDEMENT D’UN DEVELOPPEMENT DURABLE EN AFRIQUE.
10. SCRIVEN, M. (1967). The Methodology of Evaluation. In R. W. Tyler, R. M. Gagne, & M. SCRIVEN (EDS.), Perspectives of Curriculum Evaluation Chicago (pp. 39-83). RAND MCNALLY.
11. VANDEVELDE, M. (). Evaluer, enseigner les pratiques de jeux sportifs collectifs : le basket-ball.EPD. AMAZON. France.
Author(s) and co-author(s) jointly and severally represent and warrant that the Article is original with the author(s) and does not infringe any copyright or violate any other right of any third parties and that the Article has not been published elsewhere. Author(s) agree to the terms that the IJO Journal will have the full right to remove the published article on any misconduct found in the published article.
