L'implantation du portfolio électronique et le développement des environnements personnels d'apprentissage des étudiants
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cet article présente les résultats d’une enquête par questionnaire réalisée à quatre reprises auprès d’étudiants en formation à l’enseignement. L’objectif de cette recherche est de montrer dans quelle mesure l’implantation du portfolio électronique permet le développement de compétences professionnelles en technologies éducatives et améliore le sentiment d’auto-efficacité des étudiants dans le domaine. Les résultats de cette étude longitudinale montrent que l’appropriation du portfolio électronique par les étudiants permet de développer leurs compétences en technologies éducatives ainsi que leurs environnements personnels d’apprentissage (EPA) et améliore leur sentiment d’auto-efficacité dans le domaine. This article presents the results of a questionnaire survey conducted four times among students in teacher training. The purpose of this research is to demonstrate to what extent the implementation of the e-portfolio allows for the development of professional skills in educational technologies and improves the feeling of self-efficacy of the students in the field. The results of this longitudinal study show that the utilization of the electronic portfolio by students helps to develop their skills in educational technologies as well as their personal learning environments (PLEs) and improves their feeling of self-efficacy in the field.
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 | 0.018 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.019 | 0.002 |
| 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".