Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Objective – To explore student thought on both reflection and reflective writing as a process, and to analyze the writing by the application of clearly defined and identifiable outcomes. Design – Mixed method approach consisting of a qualitative analysis of 116 written reflections from master’s level students as well as a quantitative statistical analysis. Setting –The University of Sheffield masters-level librarianship program’s course INF6005, “Management for LIS.” Subjects – Of the 31 students registered the course during the 2007-2008 academic year, 22 (71%), allowed their reflections to be used for the purposes of research. Of these, 7 students identified themselves as male, and 15 were female. All students included were over 21 years of age and had previous library experience, with varying degrees of management experience in supervisory roles. Not all supervisory experience was gathered within the library domain. Methods –A total of 116 reflective journal entries were submitted by the participating students during the eight month period from October 2008 to May 2009. In order to identify themes, qualitative analysis was applied to the reflective writing responses. Descriptive statistics were also applied to test the hypothesis, illustrate the relationships between reflective writing and outcomes, and locate identifiable outcomes. Main Results – Practising reflection demonstrated benefits for individuals and groups both in and outside of the workplace. On the whole, individuals gained the most from reflection and saw it in the most positive light when it was practised as a daily activity. Quantitatively, when students began to master the practice of reflection, they demonstrated an increase in their ability to learn and an overall improvement of self-development and critical thinking skills, and gained a defined awareness of personal mental function. When decision making became easier, students understood they had begun to master the art of reflective practice and analytical reflective writing. Qualitatively, when the students’ reflections were assessed, ten different themes emerged: (1) Nature of reflection (2) Reflection seen as useful in providing support for a career and professional development (3) Reflective writing – benefits (4) Reflective writing – potential in future employment and workplace (5) Encouraging others to use reflective practice (6) Reflecting positively (7) Reflection applicable to both individuals and groups (8) Reflection in support of personal awareness (9) Exploration of different methods of reflection (10) Difficulties in focusing enough to be able to reflect deeply Conclusion – Reflection is a skill that can be practised and developed. Initially, not all students enrolled in the class and participating in the study knew what reflective writing was or what it entailed. Students were given support to educate them in this area. Support included academic reading, lectures, reflective writing workshops and an overall opportunity to develop their skills further. Reflective writing was demonstrated to have a very positive relationship with several key outcomes. The areas impacted include academic learning, self-development, and critical review, with key outcomes including an increased awareness of personal mental function and increased support for decision making, as well as empowerment and emancipation. The clearest benefit was represented when students wrote about their analytical reflections.
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 machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,014 | 0,028 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,002 | 0,004 |
| Communication savante | 0,007 | 0,005 |
| Science ouverte | 0,003 | 0,007 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,002 | 0,003 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,004 | 0,003 |
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; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».