Professional Portfolios during Preservice and First Year of Teaching: Creating a Base for Ongoing Professional Growth.
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
This paper outlines a study involving the use of portfolios by first-year teachers after their experiences in a 10-month preservice teacher education program in which professional portfolios were implemented. Data were gathered from a questionnaire administered to teacher candidates at the end of their program, as well as from 2 sets of interviews with 11 subjects at the end of their first year of teaching. If and how new teachers valued the instruction and collaborative experience of creating professional portfolios in their preservice year was studied, and whether preservice teachers maintained their portfolios and continued using them as tools for growth were studied. Whether these first-year teachers implemented portfolios with their own students was also studied. Overall, the data reveal that the first-year teachers did value portfolios as an important form of collaborative assessment and reflection, both for themselves and for their students. Most of them did continue to use their professional portfolios in a modified way during their first year or had an intent to maintain their portfolios in the future, but their capacity to use portfolios with students during their first year of teaching varied. This study reports on the conditions that supported and hindered portfolio implementation during the first year of teaching, including cooperative relationships with peers. It also explores the implications for teacher/educators and for school and district leaders in supporting innovation by new teachers. (Contains 23 references.) (Author/8Lp) Reproductions supplied by EDRS are the best that can be made from the original document. Professional Portfolios during Preservice and First Year of Teaching: Creating A Base for Ongoing Professional Growth U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION Office of Educational Research and Improvement EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES INFORMATION CENTER (ERIC) TJJ -1:..tu,' ent has been reproduced as rceiv_ vom the person or organization originating it. 0 Minor changes have been made to improve reproduction quality. Points of view or opinions stated in this document do not necessarily represent official OERI position or policy. Carol Rolheiser* Susan Schwartz Ontario Institute for Studies in Education of the University of Toronto (OISE/UT *Corresponding author: Carol Rolheiser, OISE/UT 252 Bloor Street West, Toronto, Ontario, Canada M5S 1V6 crolheiser@oise.utoronto.ca oo oo Tel: (416) 923-6641 Ext. 7501 Fax: (416) 975-1925
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 machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,004 | 0,014 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,003 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,005 | 0,003 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,005 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,002 | 0,001 |
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 source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), 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 ».