Rural vs Urban Crossed Approaches: School and Territory Representations of Pupils at the End of Primary Education. Case Study of Drôme, France

Learning, trajectories and social representations of pupils at the end of primary school (CM2) have often been the object of territorial analysis, both rural and urban. But, so far, few comparative studies have picked up on this subject. This is what began here: after twice characterizing the education of rural students in CM2 (in 2000 and 2012, in the context of longitudinal studies), in 2014 the Ardèche and Drôme researchers of the Observatory of Education and Territories (OET) proceeded to «survey» CM2 students from three schools-one in a «small town» (Privas), a downtown one in a «big city» (Valencia) and one in a «difficult neighbourhood» in a big city (Valencia once again)-in an attempt to explore and map out the future research that started in the spring of 2015. The very first «results» are presented in this article, which focuses on an ongoing experiment in the field of «educational planning» («didactique du territoire»)

The effects of rural territorial contexts on educational trajectories of boys and girls : the case of rural and isolated areas in low urban influence

Cette thèse se situe dans le prolongement direct des travaux de recherche de l'« Observatoire de l'école rurale », dont l'auteur est membre depuis 2002, qui a étudié la scolarité de près de 2400 élèves du rural français depuis l'année 1999/2000 correspondant à la classe de CM2 pour tous jusqu'à l'année 2006/ 2007 correspondant à la classe de terminale pour ceux qui n'ont jamais pris de retard. Elle aborde une thématique jusque là peu traitée par les membres de l'OER : une approche croisant genre et typologie des territoires au niveau des trajectoires scolaires des jeunes ruraux. L'objectif est de déterminer s'il existe des « effets de territoire » qui impactent de façon distincte la scolarité des filles et celle des garçons et de mesurer leur incidence sur celle-ci. Pour y parvenir, deux types de milieux ruraux ont été étudiés : le « rural isolé » et le « rural sous faible influence urbaine ». L'étude s'est appuyée sur six variables de la scolarité des élèves ruraux : les résultats scolaires ; le goût pour les études ; les ambitions scolaires ; l'opinion des élèves sur leur propre niveau scolaire ; les pratiques culturelles ; le potentiel de mobilité. Cette recherche a l'ambition d'ouvrir de nouvelles pistes de recherches prenant en compte l'évolution d'un milieu en perpétuelle mutation et l'espoir de contribuer à nourrir les débats éducatifs autour de « l'école rurale » au sens générique du terme.This thesis is situated in the direct continuation of the research works of the Monitoring Observatory of the rural school the author of which is member and which studied the schooling of about 2400 pupils of the French countryman for the year 1999/2000 corresponding to the 5th year of primary school for all until year 2006/2007 corresponding to the final year of high school for those who have never taken delay. It approaches a theme to there little treated by the members of the OER: an approach by kind(genre) and typology of the school trajectories of the young countrymen. The objective to determine if there are « effects of territory «which impact in a different way on the schooling of the girls and on that of the boys and to measure their incidence on this one. To reach there, two types of rural circles were studied: the isolated countryman and the countryman under low urban influence and the study leaned on six variables of the schooling of the rural pupils: The school results; the motivation for the studies; the school ambitions; the opinion of the pupils on their own school level; the cultural practices; the potential of mobility. This research has also the ambition to open new avenues of research in connection with the evolution of an environment in perpetual transformation and the hope to contribute to feed the educational debates around «the rural school" in the generic sense of the term

Co-enseignement, classe unique et territoire rural isolé de moyenne montagne : une forme scolaire réinventée ?

International audienc

Co-enseignement, classe unique et territoire rural isolé de moyenne montagne : une forme scolaire réinventée ?

International audienc

Rural vs Urban Crossed Approaches: School and Territory Representations of Pupils at the End of Primary Education. Case Study of Drôme, France

Learning, trajectories and social representations of pupils at the end of primary school (CM2) have often been the object of territorial analysis, both rural and urban. But, so far, few comparative studies have picked up on this subject. This is what began here: after twice characterizing the education of rural students in CM2 (in 2000 and 2012, in the context of longitudinal studies), in 2014 the Ardèche and Drôme researchers of the Observatory of Education and Territories (OET) proceeded to «survey» CM2 students from three schools-one in a «small town» (Privas), a downtown one in a «big city» (Valencia) and one in a «difficult neighbourhood» in a big city (Valencia once again)-in an attempt to explore and map out the future research that started in the spring of 2015. The very first «results» are presented in this article, which focuses on an ongoing experiment in the field of «educational planning» («didactique du territoire»)

Évaluation du dispositif de co-enseignement mis en œuvre dans le cadre de la “convention ruralité” du département de l’Ardèche

ÉVALUATION DU DISPOSITIF DE CO-ENSEIGNEMENT mis en oeuvre dans le cadre de la "convention ruralité" du département de l'Ardèche RAPPORT DE RECHERCHE 2020 (Élaboré à la suite du Contrat de collaboration de recherche signé entre le rectorat de l'académie de Grenoble et l'université Lumière Lyon2 le 1er septembre 201

Guidelines for the use and interpretation of assays for monitoring autophagy

In 2008 we published the first set of guidelines for standardizing research in autophagy. Since then, research on this topic has continued to accelerate, and many new scientists have entered the field. Our knowledge base and relevant new technologies have also been expanding. Accordingly, it is important to update these guidelines for monitoring autophagy in different organisms. Various reviews have described the range of assays that have been used for this purpose. Nevertheless, there continues to be confusion regarding acceptable methods to measure autophagy, especially in multicellular eukaryotes. A key point that needs to be emphasized is that there is a difference between measurements that monitor the numbers or volume of autophagic elements (e.g., autophagosomes or autolysosomes) at any stage of the autophagic process vs. those that measure flux through the autophagy pathway (i.e., the complete process); thus, a block in macroautophagy that results in autophagosome accumulation needs to be differentiated from stimuli that result in increased autophagic activity, defined as increased autophagy induction coupled with increased delivery to, and degradation within, lysosomes (in most higher eukaryotes and some protists such as Dictyostelium) or the vacuole (in plants and fungi). In other words, it is especially important that investigators new to the field understand that the appearance of more autophagosomes does not necessarily equate with more autophagy. In fact, in many cases, autophagosomes accumulate because of a block in trafficking to lysosomes without a concomitant change in autophagosome biogenesis, whereas an increase in autolysosomes may reflect a reduction in degradative activity. Here, we present a set of guidelines for the selection and interpretation of methods for use by investigators who aim to examine macroautophagy and related processes, as well as for reviewers who need to provide realistic and reasonable critiques of papers that are focused on these processes. These guidelines are not meant to be a formulaic set of rules, because the appropriate assays depend in part on the question being asked and the system being used. In addition, we emphasize that no individual assay is guaranteed to be the most appropriate one in every situation, and we strongly recommend the use of multiple assays to monitor autophagy. In these guidelines, we consider these various methods of assessing autophagy and what information can, or cannot, be obtained from them. Finally, by discussing the merits and limits of particular autophagy assays, we hope to encourage technical innovation in the field

Guidelines for the use and interpretation of assays for monitoring autophagy

In 2008 we published the first set of guidelines for standardizing research in autophagy. Since then, research on this topic has continued to accelerate, and many new scientists have entered the field. Our knowledge base and relevant new technologies have also been expanding. Accordingly, it is important to update these guidelines for monitoring autophagy in different organisms. Various reviews have described the range of assays that have been used for this purpose. Nevertheless, there continues to be confusion regarding acceptable methods to measure autophagy, especially in multicellular eukaryotes. A key point that needs to be emphasized is that there is a difference between measurements that monitor the numbers or volume of autophagic elements (e.g., autophagosomes or autolysosomes) at any stage of the autophagic process vs. those that measure flux through the autophagy pathway (i.e., the complete process); thus, a block in macroautophagy that results in autophagosome accumulation needs to be differentiated from stimuli that result in increased autophagic activity, defined as increased autophagy induction coupled with increased delivery to, and degradation within, lysosomes (in most higher eukaryotes and some protists such as Dictyostelium) or the vacuole (in plants and fungi). In other words, it is especially important that investigators new to the field understand that the appearance of more autophagosomes does not necessarily equate with more autophagy. In fact, in many cases, autophagosomes accumulate because of a block in trafficking to lysosomes without a concomitant change in autophagosome biogenesis, whereas an increase in autolysosomes may reflect a reduction in degradative activity. Here, we present a set of guidelines for the selection and interpretation of methods for use by investigators who aim to examine macroautophagy and related processes, as well as for reviewers who need to provide realistic and reasonable critiques of papers that are focused on these processes. These guidelines are not meant to be a formulaic set of rules, because the appropriate assays depend in part on the question being asked and the system being used. In addition, we emphasize that no individual assay is guaranteed to be the most appropriate one in every situation, and we strongly recommend the use of multiple assays to monitor autophagy. In these guidelines, we consider these various methods of assessing autophagy and what information can, or cannot, be obtained from them. Finally, by discussing the merits and limits of particular autophagy assays, we hope to encourage technical innovation in the field