A model of engagement in reflective writing-based portfolios: Interactions between points of vulnerability and acts of adaptability
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Portfolios are widely used for meeting new accreditation standards in the age of competency-based medicine. However, the method of learning through portfolio has been suggested to be vulnerable. AIM: The aim of this study was to explore conditions affecting the experience of teaching and learning from the perspective of both students and mentors in a reflective writing-based portfolio initiative. METHOD: Using mixed-methods rooted in grounded theory, 139 students and 13 mentors completed questionnaires, 23 students participated in four focus groups and 9 mentors in individual interviews. RESULTS: The overarching theme in our data was student-mentor engagement. Our results confirm previous literature describing portfolio as a vulnerable method of learning, extend this concept by identifying and categorizing specific points of vulnerability, and contribute new knowledge regarding acts of adaptability, which serve to strengthen the student-mentor relationship. CONCLUSION: Engagement is central to the success of portfolio and is shaped by a dynamic interaction between points of vulnerability and acts of adaptability. We propose a model of engagement in portfolio that can be used for faculty development to optimize student-mentor engagement.
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 | 0.005 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 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".