MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W188243981

Research in Action: Taking Classroom Learning to the Field

2013· article· en· W188243981 sur OpenAlex

Pourquoi ce travail est dans la base

Une base qui oublie comment elle a trouvé un travail ne peut pas être vérifiée. Voici les voies qui ont admis celui-ci.

aboutLe titre ou le résumé porte un signal canadien du lexique géographique.
no affAucune affiliation canadienne : ce travail est invisible pour une base fondée sur la seule affiliation.
Aucune affiliation canadienne. Une base fondée sur la seule affiliation (le devis habituel) n'aurait jamais vu ce travail. C'est l'un des travaux qui justifient l'inversion de la base.

Notice bibliographique

RevueJournal of Education for Library and Information Science · 2013
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineMathematics
ThématiqueStatistics Education and Methodologies
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésAccreditationVariety (cybernetics)Action researchAction (physics)Field (mathematics)SociologyFace (sociological concept)Field researchEducational researchLibrary sciencePublic relationsMedical educationPsychologyPolitical sciencePedagogySocial scienceMedicineComputer science
DOInon disponible

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Over the past two decades, preparation of LIS professionals to conduct credible research has been both scrutinized and encouraged by a variety of scholars. The conclusion of these researchers has been that there is a paucity of courses and that opportunities for students to participate in authentic field research are few. There is a resulting need for improvements to the research methods education of LIS graduate students in general.Keywords: Teaching research methods, research courses, field researchLiterature ReviewO'Connor and Park (2001), echoed by Hernon and Schwartz (2003), have argued that the LIS field professionals who can be both producers and critical consumers of research if it is to continue to evolve. Stephenson (1990) stated that library practitioners need to take a more active role in research and participate at a level that more accurately represents their numbers in the In 1 990, at the time of Stephenson's writing, a disproportionately small number of practitioners produced research while library educators and doctoral students were greatly over-represented. Research, Stephenson argued, needs to be recognized as an integral part of a continuing process of exploration, analysis, planning, and growth that extends to all aspects and participants in the field. (1990, p. 15). In the face of looming budget cuts, this is especially important because collecting empirical data is one way that practitioners can demonstrate the efficacy of their programs and help protect them against cuts (Feldman, 2010, 201 1).In her survey of ALA-accredited MLIS programs across the US and Canada (1990), Stephenson found that only 14 of the 51 responding programs offered advanced courses in research methods, despite recognition in the field that advanced courses are necessary if MLIS students are to become competent researchers. Twenty-four of the responding programs also did not require students in their basic research methods course to carry out any research. Of those that did include a research project, the survey was the most common method of data collection. Stephenson concluded that MLIS graduates were not consistently prepared with the skills or the inclination to make research a part of their professional lives.Park (2003) showed that many of Stephenson's concerns were still valid over a decade later, and she recommended that ALA make research methods training necessary for program accreditation if MLIS programs continued to leave research methods out of the core curriculum. Park compared research methods courses across ALA-accredited MLIS programs and also across other professional disciplines at the same institutions (2003). In Stephenson's study, 35 (69%) of the responding programs required research methods (1990); this number had decreased by the time of Park's (2003) review, in which she found that 32 (59%) of the 54 programs examined required research methods. The accreditation standards for business and social work programs, on the other hand, required research methods in all programs. Where there was a core research methods class in MLIS programs, Park found the content to be inconsistent and that qualitative methods were often given short shrift in favor of more traditional quantitative methods. Even though Powell (1999) noted the growing popularity of qualitative methods and multi-disciplinary research efforts in LIS research, Park's (2003) research showed that these changes in the field did not appear to be reflected in the training of future LIS professionals.In 2010, the status of research methods in MLIS curricula remained relatively unchanged: 61% of ALA-accredited MLIS programs required research methods (Luo, 2011). As part of the same study, Luo surveyed librarians about their involvement in research. The majority (84.3%) of Luo's respondents were involved in or made use of research at work, although more were consumers than producers. Of the respondents, 51. …

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.

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)0,002
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,006
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Théorique ou conceptuel · Signal consensuel: aucune
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,540
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,695

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0020,006
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0010,001
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,000
Communication savante0,0000,009
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 Opus0,306
Tête enseignante GPT0,516
Écart entre enseignants0,210 · 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