Better Collaborative Working is Likely to Increase Uptake of Library Resources in a University Setting
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
A review of: Hightower, Barbara, Carolyn Rawl, and Michelle Schutt. “Collaborations for Delivering the Library to Students Through WebCT.” Reference Services Review 35.4 (2007): 541-51. Objectives – To ascertain the extent to which university faculty members are integrating library resources within the WebCT course management system / managed learning environment. Also, to identify the reasons why faculty members are not integrating library resources within WebCT, and to explore their willingness to do so in future. Design – Case study with survey questionnaire and selected interview follow up. Setting – Urban campus of Auburn University in Montgomery, Alabama, United States of America. Subjects – One hundred and two members of faculty received a questionnaire. Five follow-up interviews were conducted. Methods – One hundred and two members of faculty with WebCT-supported courses received a questionnaire. They were asked to indicate if they linked to library resources, and if so which specific ones (e.g. library homepage, online catalogue, etc.). If they did not link to library resources they were asked to indicate the reason why not, either by selecting one or more of five pre-selected reasons, or by detailing their own. Follow-up interviews were conducted with five respondents, two of whom (Education and Nursing) linked to library resources, and three of whom (from Business, Education and Science) did not. Server log reports were also examined to identify how many students were entering library resources from WebCT. Main Results – The survey response rate was 28% (29 individuals), and of these Nursing and Sciences were the highest users with 7 individuals in each faculty. Of the 29 respondents only 7 (24%) currently linked to library resources. Nursing were the biggest group with 10 links (38% of the total), Science with 6 (23%) and 5 each from Liberal Arts and Education (19%). The resources chosen to link to were • Article databases (6) • Library homepage (5) • Ask a Librarian e-mail service(3) • Net library e-book collection (3) Six other library resources scored lower and two were not linked to at all. While few respondents actually provided links at present, 77% of those did express an interest in doing so in the future. Almost a third of respondents asked to be contacted to learn more about how to provide links and to learn more about library services. Only 57 incidents of students linking through to library resources from WebCT occurred in the study period. Conclusion – Numbers of faculty currently providing links from WebCT to the library is very small, and few students find their way to library resources via this route. However, interest generated by the survey and follow up indicates that this may be a valuable means of promoting library resources.
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 | 0,028 | 0,111 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,005 | 0,005 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,006 | 0,003 |
| Communication savante | 0,013 | 0,011 |
| Science ouverte | 0,003 | 0,014 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,004 | 0,002 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,030 | 0,005 |
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 ».