Exploring Students' Views of Portfolio Assignments to Foster Self-reflection in Preclinical Dental Education.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Portfolios, collected evidence of students' learning and achievement, have been widely used in health profession education for learning and assessment purposes. However, little has been documented on their use to foster self-reflection in preclinical dental education. This exploratory study assessed students' views of portfolio assignments to foster self-reflection in preclinical operative dentistry courses. METHODS: Participants were first- (Y1) and second-year (Y2) undergraduate dental students who completed a preclinical operative course in the College of Dentistry at the University of Saskatchewan. These students were asked to answer an online post-course survey to assess their view of the portfolio assignments that were part of the course. Specifically, they were asked to rate 13 statements related to experiential and instrumental outcomes of portfolio assignments (outcome evaluation) and their level of comfort with the activities involved in completing the assignments (process evaluation) on a 5-point Likert scale from strongly agree (1) to strongly disagree (5). Descriptive statistics (standard deviation, mean) were used to report the data. A t test was performed to assess statistical differences between Y1 and Y2 dental students. RESULTS: Of the 69 students enrolled in the preclinical courses, 25 Y1 and 25 Y2 students completed the survey (72.5%). No statistically significant differences between the ratings of Y1 and Y2 students were observed (p ≥ 0.05). Their combined ratings showed that students enjoyed the portfolio assignments, found them beneficial and felt comfortable performing the activities involved in developing the portfolios (mean scores 1.54-2.42). CONCLUSION: Students viewed portfolio assignments as a learning tool to foster self-reflection in preclinical operative dentistry courses. Further research is needed to measure the effects of portfolio assignments on student learning, including self-reflection.
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 | 0.006 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".