MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W1589556642 · doi:10.18438/b8m04v

Using Evidence Based Practice in LIS Education: Results of a Test of a Communities of Practice Model

2010· article· en· W1589556642 sur OpenAlexvenueno aff
Joyce Yukawa

Notice bibliographique

RevueEvidence Based Library and Information Practice · 2010
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineSocial Sciences
ThématiqueOnline and Blended Learning
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésSummative assessmentFormative assessmentPsychologyTest (biology)UsabilityMedical educationStrengths and weaknessesCommunity of practiceMathematics educationPedagogyComputer scienceMedicineSocial psychology

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Objective - This study investigated the use of a communities of practice (CoP) model for blended learning in library and information science (LIS) graduate courses. The purposes were to: (1) test the model’s efficacy in supporting student growth related to core LIS concepts, practices, professional identity, and leadership skills, and (2) develop methods for formative and summative assessment using the model.
 
 Methods - Using design-based research principles to guide the formative and summative assessments, pre-, mid-, and post-course questionnaires were constructed to test the model and administered to students in three LIS courses taught by the author. Participation was voluntary and anonymous. A total of 34 students completed the three courses; response rate for the questionnaires ranged from 47% to 95%. The pre-course questionnaire addressed attitudes toward technology and the use of technology for learning. The mid-course questionnaire addressed strengths and weaknesses of the course and suggestions for improvement. The post-course questionnaire addressed what students valued about their learning and any changes in attitude toward technology for learning. Data were analyzed on three levels. Micro-level analysis addressed technological factors related to usability and participant skills and attitudes. Meso-level analysis addressed social and pedagogical factors influencing community learning. Macro-level analysis addressed CoP learning outcomes, namely, knowledge of core concepts and practices, and the development of professional identity and leadership skills. 
 
 Results - The students can be characterized as adult learners who were neither early nor late adopters of technology. At the micro-level, responses indicate that the online tools met high standards of usability and effectively supported online communication and learning. Moreover, the increase in positive attitudes toward the use of technology for learning at the end of the course may indicate that an effective balance between face-to-face and online media was achieved. At the meso-level, students valued learning in community for developing mutual respect, confidence building, risk taking, deeper and more varied learning, learning with and from their peers, and greater enjoyment in the classes. Students found that the online environments were useful for organizing the class objectives and subject matter, “staying connected” between classes, sharing ideas, keeping track of their work, and preparing them for future work in blended environments. At the macro-level, the findings of the effects on student growth related to core LIS concepts, practices, professional identity and leadership skills were inconclusive. However, students’ expressed a high regard for the value of collaboration, and there were indications that the model supported differentiated learning of professional knowledge and skills.
 
 Conclusion - The findings strongly suggest that the use of the CoP model had positive effects on the learning process. Students’ high regard for the value of collaboration appears to be a clear effect of using the CoP model. The assessment methods were sufficient for testing the efficacy of most aspects of the model under the limited conditions of this study. Student responses led to refinements in both the model and methods. This study contributes to social constructivist learning approaches and LIS curricular development by presenting an innovative model for supporting professional growth among adult learners, as well as a conceptual framework to guide evidence -based practice. Further testing and refinement of the model in other contexts and by other educators are needed to ensure that the model is robust and broadly applicable.

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)0,005
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,101
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesMétarecherche, Communication savante
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Sans objet · Signal consensuel: aucune
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: aucune
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,574
Score d'incertitude au seuil1,000

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0050,101
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0000,001
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,000
Communication savante0,0000,227
Science ouverte0,0000,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,001
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 Opus0,042
Tête enseignante GPT0,366
Écart entre enseignants0,323 · 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; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.

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

Citations6
Publié2010
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueEvidence Based Library and Information PracticeMême sujetOnline and Blended LearningTravaux en français237 207