L’expérimentation du eportfolio à l’université : questionnements autour de la réflexivité
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Le développement des compétences professionnelles oriente les politiques d’établissements universitaires français, plus particulièrement depuis la loi relative aux libertés et aux responsabilités des universités de 2007. Ce terrain est d’autant plus favorable à la mise en place d’eportfolios avec la volonté d’intégrer des technologies numériques. Ces injonctions institutionnelles s’accompagnent rarement d’un discours pédagogique (Houot, Issenmann et Nowakowski, 2013). L’eportfolio montre alors, dans ses fonctions et ses usages, de multiples facettes (Salinas, Marín et Escandell, 2013 ; Siampou & Komis, 2011). Mettant l’accent sur les processus, il sous-entend le développement d’une démarche réflexive (Loisy et Lison, 2013), mais à certaines conditions (Bibeau, 2007 ; Naccache, Samson et Jouquan, 2006). Cet article permet de documenter cette place accordée à la fonction réflexive de l’eportfolio par les parties prenantes à sa mise en place. L’étude a été menée en 2016-2017 auprès de sept établissements de l’enseignement supérieur. Trente-huit enseignants-chercheurs, ingénieurs de formation, formateurs, porteurs de projets et étudiants ont fait part de leur expérience lors d’entretiens semi-directifs. Tout d’abord, des eportfolios mis en place visent le développement de la réflexivité des étudiants sur leurs apprentissages et leurs pratiques. Les modalités d’autorisation d’accès influencent la possibilité d’exercer une réflexivité, surtout lorsqu’il faut peser entre la promotion et la protection de soi. Enfin, la facilité d’usage de l’eporfolio est essentielle. Sans elle, le risque est de freiner la réflexivité ou d’entrer en contradiction avec la démarche : en d’autres termes, mettre en place un eportfolio ne garantit pas une pratique réflexive (Garnier & Marchand, 2012). The development of professional skills has been guiding French university policies, especially since the 2007 Loi relative aux libertés et aux responsabilités des universités (LRU, Law on the Liberties and Responsibilities of Universities). The will to integrate digital technologies makes this area all the more favourable to setting up eportfolios. Institutional injunctions are rarely accompanied by a pedagogical discourse (Houot, Issenmann & Nowakowski, 2013). So, the eportfolio, in the way it works and can be used, is multifaceted (Salinas, Marín & Escandell, 2013; Siampou & Komis, 2011). Emphasizing processes, it implies the development of a reflexive initiative (Loisy & Lison, 2013), but under certain conditions (Bibeau, 2007; Naccache, Samson & Jouquan, 2006). This article documents the place given to the reflexive function of the eportfolio for its implementation by stakeholders. The study was conducted between 2016 and 2017 in seven institutions of higher education. In semi-structured interviews, thirty-eight teacher-researchers, trained engineers, trainers, project holders and students shared their experiences. Firstly, the eportfolios that were set up aim for the development of students’ reflexivity in their learning and practices. The terms and conditions for access influence the possibility of exercising reflexivity, particularly when deciding between self-promotion and self-protection. Finally, the eportfolio’s ease of use is essential. Without it, there is a risk of hampering reflexivity or contradicting the initiative: in other words, establishing an eportfolio does not guarantee a reflexive practice (Garnier & Marchand, 2012).
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 | 0.023 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.014 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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".