Curated carefully : shifting pedagogies through e-portfolio use in elementary classrooms
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Although many studies have been conducted looking at the use of electronic portfolios (e-Portfolios) in higher education, there is a lack of research looking at them as an integrated system for assessing, documenting, and reporting on student work in elementary school settings. This study examines teachers’ perceptions of the advantages and disadvantages of using e-Portfolios in elementary school, what teachers are using them for, and how using e-Portfolios is affecting teacher pedagogy. The study took place in a school district in British Columbia that has adopted e-Portfolios as a replacement for traditional report cards and where they are being used to document student work, give feedback, communicate with parents, assess students, and express learning. This qualitative research study was designed to gain insights into teachers’ attitudes and beliefs about using e-Portfolios and to uncover if their use was shifting teacher practice and pedagogy. It also aimed to examine why some teachers were choosing to continue with traditional report cards and had decided to forego using e-Portfolios altogether. Thirty-one teachers participated in the study which consisted of an online questionnaire and a small group sample of follow-up interviews with six respondents. Key findings from the research include that teachers felt: e-Portfolios changed their pedagogy in a positive way, e-Portfolios enhanced their assessment practices and communication with parents, and using them was making students more self-reflective. For those who chose not to use e-Portfolios, the main reason cited was difficulty with the chosen platform, while a small group explained that they felt e-Portfolios were not as meaningful as a form of assessment and reporting as traditional report cards were. This study provides insight into how the design of an e-Portfolio platform can negatively impact teachers’ usage of it as an educational tool and presents ideas for future research into e-Portfolio use at the elementary level. It also provides a glimpse into how teachers are carefully curating these digital containers of student work by creating what they felt were more meaningful learning experiences for their students.
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 | 0.004 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".