PORTFOLIOS FOR LEARNING AND RE-CREDENTIALING FOR PHARMACISTS
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to explore the experiences of pharmacists using learning portfolios as part of continuing professional learning and re-credentialing in Saskatchewan. This study sought to describe the learning experiences and activities of the participants, and their perception and experience of portfolio use as part of their learning experiences. More specifically, the study focused on the participants' use of the learning portfolio as a self-assessment tool. \nSemi-structured interviews were conducted with 14 pharmacists who participated in a pilot study investigating the use of learning portfolios in the province. Participants' portfolios and other printed matter relating to participants' experiences were also used in this study. The information obtained was analyzed to identify categories and themes emerging from the participants' experiences. \nResults showed that participants learned via instruction from continuing professional education programs, and from self-initiated personal inquiry and experiences. Participants' learning efforts were directed by their professional goals and interest, and moderated by situational factors. While participation in educational programs helped participants to keep up-to-date, maintain a broad knowledge base, and meet re-licensing requirements, learning through personal inquiry and experiences were directed by meeting workplace needs. \nParticipants understood self-assessment to be a self-reflective process whereby they identified their personal strengths and weaknesses, and evaluated their progress and achievements. Difficulties with self-assessment occurred when participants did not have sufficient knowledge in the subject matter, or when they did not know what the larger professional community expected of them. \nParticipants were initially anxious and uncertain about learning portfolio use. These feelings abated with continued use of the learning portfolio. Participants indicated no changes in their learning activities with portfolio use. The only change was to record their learning into a portfolio, rather than to collect continuing education units from participating in educational programs for re-credentialing purposes. \nParticipants used the learning portfolio primarily as a record to showcase their learning activities. Majority of the participants did not use the portfolios actively for self- assessment, although when reporting according to the portfolio format presented, they had to identify their learning needs and evaluate their learning outcomes. \nDifficulties with portfolio use were related to the novelty of the process, re-credentialing context, discrepancy between individual reporting style and portfolio format, and time constraints. Benefits of portfolio use resulted from the need to account for one's learning in writing, reporting according to the portfolio format presented, and the recognition of a wider range of learning activities for re-licensure.
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 | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".