Electronic student portfolios: documenting learning in grade 2/3
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Capturing, documenting, assessing, and highlighting the dynamic nature of learning has challenged educators for decades.Student portfolios offer flexible and versatile options in meeting these goals.Rapid advances in technology have permitted and indeed, enticed educators in the exploration of electronic portfolios.Technology such as computers, scanners, digital cameras, CD writers, and the World Wide Web have expanded the possibilities in documenting student growth and learning.My qualitative study focuses on using electronic portfolios in my grade 2/3 class at Blackie School.Four students were selected to participate, with equal representation from males, females, grade 2, and grade 3. The participants compiled electronic portfolios to document their learning and growth throughout the school's second reporting period.The creation of the electronic portfolios took place over a six-week period in March and April 2001.Data was collected from my journal, observations, studentjoumals, student surveys, and parent surveys.From the data, two general conclusions emerged.Firstly, an electronic showcase portfolio or an electronic component within the traditional paper portfolio, may be more viable options for Division I (K-3) students.The time and challenges encountered in digitizing the volumes of paper samples necessary for an electronic process portfolio were enormous.Secondly, a robust computer network including a fileserver and peripherals are essential, as is technological support and training for educators.The computer system must be able to support the daily demands of the general school popUlation in addition to supporting massive multimedia files created by electronic portfolios.Indeed, technology can be incorporated into student portfolios, offering new avenues in documenting student IV learning and growth.However, the extent and role oftechnology must be examined.This study revealed that, given the current setting at Blackie School, creating completely electronic student process portfolios for a full class of Division I students would not be a viable alternative at this time.This study documents our experiences with creating electronic student portfolios in grade 2/3.I hope that it will be of some assistance to other Division I educators in exploring and determining the role of technology in documenting student learning.v Preface "The teacher is no longer merely the-one-who-teaches but one who is himselftaught in dialogue with the students, who in turn while being taught also teach.They become jointly responsible for a process in which all grow."Paulo Freire in Pedagogy of the Oppressed VI
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,007 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,001 | 0,004 |
| Science ouverte | 0,002 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,003 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».