MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2103518212 · doi:10.21432/t29w2h

From ePortfolios to iPortfolios: The find, refine, design, and bind model

2009· article· en· W2103518212 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Sebastian Foti, Gail Ring

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Learning and Technology · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicReflective Practices in Education
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesPortfolioSociologyPolitical scienceArtBusiness

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

During the past two decades, educational institutions around the world began formalizing the process of collecting student work as a means of showcasing student accomplishments and ultimately providing students a forum for reflecting on their accomplishments. In this article, the authors propose a redefinition of the electronic portfolio development process in a way that supports 21st century learning in which students FIND, REFINE, DESIGN, and BIND materials in the virtual "cloud”. The authors believe that by incorporating Web 2.0 tools educators will have the opportunity to technologically integrate the students’ school work into their general work flow, their entertainment flow, and ultimately into their web-based curricular work flow. Integration will hopefully reduce student resistance to portfolio development as an add-on activity and allow portfolios to become more personal, providing a richer connection between the students’ lives, their education, and their paths to knowledge. Résumé : Au cours des deux dernières décennies, les établissements d’enseignement à travers le monde ont commencé à formaliser le processus de collecte des travaux des élèves comme moyen de présenter leurs réalisations et, à terme, de fournir aux élèves un forum leur permettant de réfléchir sur leurs réalisations. Dans cet article, les auteurs proposent de redéfinir le processus d’élaboration du portfolio électronique de manière à ce qu’il soutienne l’apprentissage du 21e siècle au sein duquel les élèves TROUVENT et AFFINENT les matériaux, CONÇOIVENT une présentation et LIENT les éléments ensemble dans le « nuage » virtuel. Les auteurs estiment qu’incorporer les outils Web 2.0 donnera aux éducateurs l’occasion d’intégrer technologiquement les travaux scolaires des élèves dans leur flux de travaux général, leur flux de divertissement et, enfin, dans leur flux de travaux scolaires en ligne. Cette intégration, nous l’espérons, permettra de diminuer la réticence des étudiants à l’égard des portfolios en présentant leur élaboration comme une activité complémentaire; les portfolios pourraient ainsi devenir plus personnels et constituer un lien plus riche entre la vie des élèves, leur éducation, et leurs chemins vers la connaissance.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.818
Threshold uncertainty score0.521

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.022
GPT teacher head0.333
Teacher spread0.311 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designOther design
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations4
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Learning and TechnologySame topicReflective Practices in EducationFrench-language works237,207