Evidence or Evidence Based Practice? An Analysis of IASL Research Forum Papers, 1998-2009
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Objective - Conferences are essential opportunities for professional development and for learning about research. This study analyses papers presented in the Research Forum track of the International Association of School Librarians (IASL) conferences to determine whether the amount of school library research reporting increased or decreased over time; who (i.e., what author roles and affiliations) has written about research; which countries were represented in the research articles; what topics were discussed in research articles; and what research methodologies were used. The aim was to determine the extent to which the Research Forum provides research evidence that relates to practice. Methods - This study continues the longitudinal analysis of published school library research begun by Clyde (1996) by analyzing Research Forum papers published in IASL conference proceedings from 1998-2009 and using the same approaches and metrics as previous studies by Clyde (e.g., 1996; 2002; 2004), Clyde and Oberg (2004), and Oberg (2006). Results - Conference paper topics, author origins, quantities, and research approaches remained static through the 11 years analyzed. The analysis reveals that the papers’ authors, methods, and topics reflected those found in previous studies of school library research. As well as replicating previous studies, the role of academic research at a practitioner-based conference was investigated. Conclusions - Based on long-established imperatives from leaders in the profession, the IASL conferences provide both evidence and evidence -based practice for school librarians from all over the world. However, when scholarly research is shared at practitioner venues, it is possible that school librarians may assume that research results constitute evidence -based practice (EBP), not evidence upon which practice should be based. This distinction is important if considering that the purpose of academic research is to objectively inform, not to advocate a particular position or practice. The Research Forum can be a valuable venue for the presentation of empirical research findings and conclusions and objective program evaluations and provide a valuable complement to the evidence -based practice descriptions shared in the Professional Papers portion of the conference program. It is argued that the Research Forum must be clear in its purpose: to present the results of research; to present effective practice determined by rigorous evaluation; or to present research-supported arguments for the support of school libraries. Through a reconceptualization of EBP, the paper demonstrates how EBP is both a method and a methodology for the presentation of school library research and practice in a conference atmosphere.
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 | 0,186 | 0,482 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,058 | 0,079 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,003 | 0,002 |
| Communication savante | 0,011 | 0,007 |
| Science ouverte | 0,002 | 0,005 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,005 | 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; 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 ».