The value of eJournals to support ePortfolio development for assessment in teacher education
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper presents findings from a two-year pilot project into the use of ePortfolios as a tool for assessment in a two year, field-oriented, inquiry-based teacher preparation program. Participants consisted of five cohorts of pre-service student teachers and five instructors; interviews, focus groups, artifacts, and project meetings provided the raw data for analysis. The originality of this work rests in the importance of establishing an eJournal to accompany the ePortfolio. Based on our findings in this action research study, we challenge and add to the existing ePortfolio literature around such issues as ePortfolio project design, process vs. product, the use of templates, social software, and documentation. Résumé : Cet article présente les résultats d’un projet pilote de deux ans portant sur l’utilisation des portfolios électroniques comme outil d’évaluation au sein d’un programme de préparation des enseignants axé sur la recherche et la pratique d’une durée de deux ans. Les participants se composaient de cinq cohortes d’étudiants en enseignement non encore sur le marché du travail ainsi que de cinq instructeurs; les données brutes qui ont été analysées proviennent d’entretiens, de groupes de discussion, d’artefacts et de réunions de projet. L’originalité de ce travail réside dans l’importance attachée à la création d’un journal électronique pour accompagner le portfolio. Sur la base de nos conclusions dans cette étude de recherche appliquée, nous remettons en question la documentation existante tout en y contribuant sur des sujets tels que la conception du projet de portfolio électronique, la comparaison du processus et du produit, l’utilisation de modèles, les logiciels sociaux et la documentation.
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.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 it