Student ePortfolios to develop reflective skills and demonstrate competency development: Evaluation of a curriculum pilot project
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: The University of British Columbia Faculty of Dentistry developed a longitudinal curriculum pilot project to assess the usefulness of portfolios for dental students to develop reflective skills and demonstrate competency development, and to examine relationships between portfolio grades and clinical success. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Students in one dental class created portfolios with reflections on examples relevant to eight selected competency statements each year of the program. As part of our program evaluation, we set out to look at trends in portfolio grades, meta-reflection skills, student and faculty views of the project, and relationships among portfolio grades, 4th year clinical grades and faculty rankings. RESULTS: Portfolio grades improved from years 1 to 3, dropping off slightly in year 4. The highest level of internal consistency for grades within and between years occurred with Competency 42, while the lowest level occurred with Competency 4. Most students were able to demonstrate meta-reflection by 4th year. Students generally agreed with portfolios and reflection in concept, but suggested a looser structure, and they shared concerns with faculty about the workload involved. Portfolio grades did not correlate with clinical course grades (P = 0.092), but they did correlate significantly with faculty rankings except for year 1. CONCLUSION: While portfolio grades for reflections were not consistent, and they did not quite correlate with clinical course grades, they correlated strongly with faculty rankings. Future use of portfolios at UBC Dentistry will be enhanced by increasing curricular support regarding both competency development and the importance of reflection for professionals, decreasing workload by focusing on five Key Competencies, incorporating more formative and face-to-face feedback, and providing greater opportunities for peer sharing.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.018 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".