MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4205364897 · doi:10.18357/otessac.2021.1.1.59

E-Portfolios and Practicum in Teacher Education

2021· article· en· W4205364897 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Christine Ho Younghusband

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Open/Technology in Education Society and Scholarship Association Conference · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicReflective Practices in Education
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Northern British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPracticumTeacher educationFormative assessmentPortfolioCurriculumPresentation (obstetrics)PedagogyNarrativeSummative assessmentPsychologyMathematics educationMedicineBusiness

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Teacher Education Program at the University of Northern British Columbia (UNBC) implemented three initiatives in 2018 to improve the practicum experience for teacher candidates. One of these initiatives was to extend the use of e-Portfolios into final practicum. E-Portfolios are first developed by teacher candidates in EDUC 431, the Education Technology course, but they were asked to continue its use in the following term during final practicum. The extended use of e-Portfolios served as one response in the teacher education program to BC’s Curriculum (2021) and changes in the K-12 system, which in turn modelled several aspects of BC’s Curriculum such as personalization, Core Competencies, formative assessment, and the First Peoples Principles of Learning. Including final practicum as part of the e-Portfolio, teacher candidates were able to deepen their understanding of the Professional Standards for BC Educators (2019), reflect on their teaching experience, and conclude the program with a presentation at the Celebration of Learning. Teacher candidates were able to maintain an e-Portfolio during final practicum, identify additional artefacts to demonstrate their understanding of the professional standards, and create a digital narrative describing who they are as educators.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.218
Threshold uncertainty score0.948

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.040
GPT teacher head0.414
Teacher spread0.374 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations1
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Open/Technology in Education Society and Scholarship Association ConferenceSame topicReflective Practices in EducationFrench-language works237,207