Une analyse des représentations des enseignants réfléchissant sur une expérience d’implantation d’un portfolio électronique / An Analysis of the Perceptions of Teachers Reflecting on an Experience of e-Portfolio Implementation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cet article rend compte d’une analyse des représentations avec des enseignants, qui a eu lieu à la fin d’une expérience d’implantation d’un portfolio électronique favorisant l’autorégulation des apprentissages des élèves et la professionnalisation des enseignants. Le texte s’appuie sur le contexte éducatif québécois actuel. Ensuite, il présente une revue de littérature entourant les compétences technologiques, les portfolios électroniques et l’autorégulation des apprentissages. La méthodologie présente le design de la recherche, les instruments utilisés pour les entretiens et pour animer le groupe de discussion. Les résultats montrent que pour une enseignante qui avait déjà adopté la pédagogie sous-jacente au renouveau pédagogique Québécois, le portfolio électronique était une expérience fort utile. Toutefois, pour les deux autres enseignants, l’implantation du portfolio électronique était beaucoup trop exigeante. Finalement, nous discutons des implications des résultats, autant au point de vue de l’expérience d’implantation des portfolios électroniques que du point de vue de la contribution méthodologique. This article presents an analysis of the perceptions of teachers, which took place in 2010 at the end of an experiment implementing an e-portfolio that facilitates student self-regulation of learning. The article is based on the current Quebec educational context. It presents a review of literature on technology skills, e-portfolios and the self-regulation of learning. The methodology describes the research design, the tools used in the individual interviews and in the group discussion. The results indicate that the e-portfolio was a valuable experience for a teacher who had already adopted the pedagogy underlying the education reform in Quebec. However the implementation of the e-portfolio was difficult for the other two teachers due to challenges in terms of technology and managing students. Finally, this article discusses the implications of the results, both in terms of the experience of implementing e-portfolios and the methodological contribution.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".