Librarians View Instruction as Integral to Their Professional Identities
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Objective – To explore the ways that professional and non-professional library staff experience and relate to their instructional roles.
 
 Design – Online survey.
 
 Setting – All types of Canadian libraries, including public, school, post-secondary, medical, special, and other libraries.
 
 Subjects – A total of 788 library staff persons with instructional responsibilities.
 
 Methods – In 2009, the authors constructed a 20-minute anonymous survey that contained questions about the nature of librarians’ instructional work, their preparation for doing instruction, and their experiences as instructors. Subjects were recruited via several electronic mail lists. The authors used SPSS to analyze the quantitative data and NVivo to analyze the qualitative data. 
 
 Main Results – The study found that the majority of subjects believed instruction to be integral to their professional identities, although some viewed it as an imposition. The nature of instructional work varied greatly, but included short presentations; a series of sessions; semester-length courses; and one-on-one instruction. Subjects prepared for instruction through on-the-job training; reading professional literature; attending workshops and conferences; taking a formal course in instruction; and other methods. On the whole, training helped library staff to feel more prepared for teaching and to embrace instructional work as integral to their professional identities. Study participants derived enjoyment from instruction in the form of satisfaction with facilitating student learning; relationship building; personal development; task variety; and appreciation of the heightened profile of library staff. Subjects also described several barriers to teaching, including administrative, technological, and logistical barriers; client and faculty interactions; and interpersonal challenges such as nervousness or lack of preparation. Finally, subjects described the ways that instruction has changed with the impact of new technologies, increased expectations, and changing pedagogical practices.
 
 Conclusion – Library administrators should support the teaching duties of librarians and library staff by helping to provide them with adequate preparation time, resources, emotional support, and training. In addition, formal preparation for instruction should be integrated into professional library training programs, including MLIS programs, to better prepare librarians and other library staff to participate in information literacy instruction.
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 enseignantsNi 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.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,001 | 0,775 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,004 | 0,001 |
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.
score_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 découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; les deux têtes enseignantes s’accordent sur ce qui est montré ici.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».