E-Portfolios and Exploring One’s Identity in Teacher Education
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Academic faculty in a two-year post-baccalaureate teacher education program at a small research university in British Columbia explored the extended use of e-Portfolios into final practicum over a three-year period. The education technology course offered in Term Three asked teacher candidates to create and design an e-Portfolio as part of the coursework. In this program evaluation, the author investigated the continued use of e-Portfolios into Term Four during final practicum. Faculty in this teacher education program sought ways to improve the program, particularly the practicum experience for teacher candidates. Extending the use of e-Portfolios into Term Four was one of three initiatives that were adopted. The e-Portfolio served as a digital platform for teachercandidates to archive, reflect, and sense-make; italso functioned as a means to develop theirprofessional identities and understanding of theprofessional standards. The final practicumconcluded with a Celebration of Learning and thecapstone presentations referenced e-Portfolios.This paper focuses on how e-Portfolios wereintroduced and implemented with six cohorts, whatwas observed by the faculty member, and whatwas learned from the implementation to inform thefuture use of e-Portfolios in the program andprogram redesign. The extended use of e-Portfolios during the final practicum was found tobe a viable initiative and revealed professionalqualities of teacher candidates that may not havebeen visible otherwise.
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 | 0.009 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| 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".