MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W1524584542 · doi:10.18438/b83w5j

Master’s Students in an Information Studies Program Enter the Program with Excitement and Leave with Concerns about Professional Preparation for their Chosen Fields

2011· article· en· W1524584542 sur OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Christina E. Carter

Notice bibliographique

RevueEvidence Based Library and Information Practice · 2011
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineSocial Sciences
ThématiqueLibrary Science and Information Literacy
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésMedical educationPsychologyDemographicsAccreditationPerceptionMedicineDemography

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Objective – To assess master’s students’ perceptions of their information studies program with regard to the program’s academic quality and professional preparation as it moved to become an iSchool.
 
 Design – Longitudinal survey, employing both quantitative analysis of demographics and closed responses, and thematic analysis of open-ended responses.
 
 Setting – University of Toronto, Canada, Faculty of Information, Master of Information Studies (MISt) ALA-accredited program.
 
 Subjects – Students enrolled in the MISt program from fall 2003 to spring 2007.
 
 Methods – Between 2003 and 2007, a self-administered confidential questionnaire was distributed eight times: a short version of the questionnaire to incoming students in the fall term over the four years, and a longer version to the entire MISt student body in the spring term of the four years. Thus, individual students participated in the survey multiple times. Survey questions fell into four categories: program assessment, perceptions on the information professions, career and personal achievements, and demographics. The first questionnaire was mailed in paper form; after that, Web-based questionnaires were used. Quantitative data collected was analyzed using SPSS, version 17, and open-ended responses were examined for recurring themes.
 
 Main Results – Across the four years of the survey, researchers obtained about 1,000 completed questionnaires. The response rate was always higher in the fall term than in the spring term, ranging from a high of 67% in fall 2003, to a low of 47% in spring 2007 which seemed to indicate “fatigue” with the study (p. 124). Respondents primarily were interested in the information professions and the majority planned to work in one of them (archives, library systems, or library and information science) after graduating. No statistically significant differences relating to the year the survey was completed were found for student perceptions of career prospects or for amount of computer knowledge required. A statistically significant difference was found for perceptions of new students of occupational prestige for archivists and librarians; it increased over the four years. The majority of students surveyed over the four years indicated that: 1) job prospects would grow, 2) required computer knowledge was high and would increase in the next five years, and 3) computer and systems-related tracks garnered higher perceived social status than the archivist and librarian “streams.” Students who had been in the program longer (completing nine or more courses) more strongly supported the master’s program’s move to an iSchool with more emphasis on technology and computing, and an increased emphasis on professional work. These students were also less positive about their academic programs than the students who had completed less coursework. Open-ended responses echoed many other studies pointing to social status assigned to library professionals being lower than the opinion of the students themselves. 
 
 Conclusion – The authors’ longitudinal approach and survey methodology revealed perceptual differences between new and more veteran MISt students at the University of Toronto of their master’s program, and that as students progressed through the program, they felt the need for more professional preparation. Between 2008 and 2010, the authors conducted similar studies regarding the perceptions of students at five other Canadian institutions, and planned to survey students at many other North American graduate library science programs via Web-based questionnaire to compare findings cross-institutionally.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction distillée sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,001
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesCommunication savante
Catégories consensuellesCommunication savante
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Sans objet · Signal consensuel: aucune
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,756
Score d'incertitude au seuil1,000

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0010,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0000,000
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0010,000
Communication savante0,0010,505
Science ouverte0,0000,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,000
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0000,000

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,067
Tête enseignante GPT0,387
Écart entre enseignants0,320 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; les deux têtes enseignantes s’accordent sur ce qui est montré ici.

Devis d'étudeSans objet
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations1
Publié2011
Routes d'admission2
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueEvidence Based Library and Information PracticeMême sujetLibrary Science and Information LiteracyTravaux en français237 207