ePortfolio to support professional development during experiential learning placements: Guided by students-as-partners theory, enabled through students-as-partners practice
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This case study applies a students-as-partners focus to the use of ePortfolio concepts during experiential learning placements. In describing our project and as evident here, in referring to ePortfolio in the singular, we cite it as an abstract concept, while the plural reference marks practice, in this study taking the form of student-generated instances of ePortfolio use, in particular as detailed in the ePortfolios experiences of two final-year students on experiential placement in a pharmacy programme. These two students used their ePortfolio to document and reflect critically on their experiential placements, showcasing their own student-generated ePortfolios at a symposium co-hosted by student partners, their placement preceptor, and other mentors. This student co-developed case study summarises key findings, including how the use of ePortfolio can support learner agency, and outlines recommendations for further incorporating ePortfolio use in experiential learning contexts. While grounded in the context of an undergraduate pharmacy programme, much of the study will resonate with colleagues based in other disciplines aligned with competency frameworks. The staff-student collaborative approach explored in this case study is likely of interest to students, educators, preceptors, tutors, mentors, and others developing curricula with an ePortfolio component.
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 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".