Creating Electronic Portfolios Using Laptops: A Learning Experience for Preservice Teachers, Elementary School Pupils, and Elementary School Teachers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The preservice teachers in this study were provided computers to use in the course of a yearlong fieldwork experience in an elementary school. Participant observations and indepth interviews were conducted to investigate how the preservice teachers used the laptops and the impact of this use. Each preservice teacher worked together an elementary pupil to develop an electronic portfolio for the pupil. Findings indicate that laptops computers are indeed a viable means of achieving several goals at the same time. These include giving preservice teachers quick access to technology, providing them an opportunity to develop confidence in the integration of technology in teaching, providing elementary pupils an opportunity to become comfortable and effective participants in the information age, and providing classroom teachers an example of how technology can be used. The findings suggest that providing an opportunity to practice using technology elementary pupils in a nonthreatening setting is one solution to the search of what works in preparing teachers who are willing and able to integrate technology in their own classrooms. The study recommends the use of a project-based approach, such as electronic portfolios, when preservice teachers are provided access to technology. ********** Literature indicates that there is a trend by teacher trainers to put more and more effort towards integrating technology in the teacher education curriculum (Aho, 1985; Balli & Diggs, 1996; Holt, 1996; 1997; Kahn, 1996; Schrum & Dehoney, 1998; Thomas, Larson, Clift, & Levin, 1996). The use of computers in the field of education is also on the increase as indicated by several studies (Balli & Diggs, 1996; Creighton, 1997; Freeman, 1996; Hoelscher, 1997; Johnston, Proctor, & Corey 1995; Riggsby, 1998; Robertson, Calder, Fung, & Jones, 1997). These two trends have started to intersect, the result that equipping preservice teachers laptops is providing a different way of integrating technology in the teacher education curriculum. This article presents the results of a research study on the use of computers by preservice teachers. It begins a brief description of the study including the setting, participants, and research design; followed by a summary of the findings, plus a discussion of the contributions of the study to the ongoing quest for the best methods of integrating technology into the teacher preparation curriculum. LITERATURE REVIEW The portability and constant availability of laptops have made them a convenient means of executing various academic-related activities. Teachers, for example, have used laptops for administrative purposes, such as keeping class lists and related data, and for preparing class materials inside as well as outside the classroom (Freeman, 1996; Johnston et al., 1995; Robertson et al., 1997). There are reports indicating that disabled students, (Anderson, 1996; Geraldine, 1994; James & Hammersley, 1993; Johnston et al., 1995; NCIP Profiles, 1994; Todd, 1992;), mainstream students (Gardner, 1994; McMillan & Honey, 1993; Robertson, et al., 1997), and college students have used laptops in a variety of educational purposes. Among the college students, the group of preservice teachers has attracted attention when it comes to equipping students computers (Riggsby, 1997; Schrum & Dehoney, 1998; Thomas et al., 1996) For instructional purposes, laptop computers offer a unique way to package a course so that students will learn academic communication skills using latest technological tool (Bradshow & Massey, 1996, p. 4). As Bradshow and Massey have reported, laptops in the hands of students offer a convenient alternative to a computer lab with its administrative and technical overheads, networking equipment, custodial [and] building costs (p. 4). They also free individuals from the restrictions of the four walls of a classroom and equipment such as overhead projectors. …
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".