PORTFOLIOS FOR LEARNING AND RE-CREDENTIALING FOR PHARMACISTS
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
The purpose of this study was to explore the experiences of pharmacists using learning portfolios as part of continuing professional learning and re-credentialing in Saskatchewan. This study sought to describe the learning experiences and activities of the participants, and their perception and experience of portfolio use as part of their learning experiences. More specifically, the study focused on the participants' use of the learning portfolio as a self-assessment tool. \nSemi-structured interviews were conducted with 14 pharmacists who participated in a pilot study investigating the use of learning portfolios in the province. Participants' portfolios and other printed matter relating to participants' experiences were also used in this study. The information obtained was analyzed to identify categories and themes emerging from the participants' experiences. \nResults showed that participants learned via instruction from continuing professional education programs, and from self-initiated personal inquiry and experiences. Participants' learning efforts were directed by their professional goals and interest, and moderated by situational factors. While participation in educational programs helped participants to keep up-to-date, maintain a broad knowledge base, and meet re-licensing requirements, learning through personal inquiry and experiences were directed by meeting workplace needs. \nParticipants understood self-assessment to be a self-reflective process whereby they identified their personal strengths and weaknesses, and evaluated their progress and achievements. Difficulties with self-assessment occurred when participants did not have sufficient knowledge in the subject matter, or when they did not know what the larger professional community expected of them. \nParticipants were initially anxious and uncertain about learning portfolio use. These feelings abated with continued use of the learning portfolio. Participants indicated no changes in their learning activities with portfolio use. The only change was to record their learning into a portfolio, rather than to collect continuing education units from participating in educational programs for re-credentialing purposes. \nParticipants used the learning portfolio primarily as a record to showcase their learning activities. Majority of the participants did not use the portfolios actively for self- assessment, although when reporting according to the portfolio format presented, they had to identify their learning needs and evaluate their learning outcomes. \nDifficulties with portfolio use were related to the novelty of the process, re-credentialing context, discrepancy between individual reporting style and portfolio format, and time constraints. Benefits of portfolio use resulted from the need to account for one's learning in writing, reporting according to the portfolio format presented, and the recognition of a wider range of learning activities for re-licensure.
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 | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,002 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 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 ».