MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W244106523

Digital Natives, 21st Century School Libraries, and 21st Century Preparation Programs: An Informal Affirmation of Branch and deGroot

2012· article· en· W244106523 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.

venuePublié dans une revue dont le pays d'attache est le Canada.
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

RevueSchool Libraries Worldwide · 2012
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineComputer Science
ThématiqueWeb and Library Services
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésYesterdaySchool libraryLibrary scienceSociologyTheme (computing)State (computer science)World Wide WebComputer science
DOInon disponible

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

The presentations from the 2011 IASL conference theme School Libraries: Empowering the 21st Century Learner offered much to think about for graduate programs preparing future teacher librarians. Research indicates that school librarians are not actively integrating Web 2.0 tools into their programs, but students are regularly using these tools outside of school for accessing and sharing information. Professional preparation programs must help future librarians master these tools so they can be school leaders on the Web 2.0 technology frontier. This paper discusses issues related to Web 2.0 integration in online graduate programs in school librarianship and offers examples of Web 2.0 activities that can be used in graduate courses. Introduction My how time flies! I have just spent the last hour on Facebook chatting with my friend and colleague, with whom I attended the 49th annual International Association of School Librarianship (IASL) conference in Kingston, Jamaica in August 2011. We were just sharing our views on yellow versus black plantains, recipes for mango sorbet and other important tidbits of information from the conference. At the same time, I was hanging out on Google Plus with my daughter, chatting about the new hire at her library and a new date for the upcoming state fair. Just moments before, I posted some links on our WKU Library Media Education (LME) program's Facebook page promoting International School Library Month and our state library association's upcoming conference. While yesterday I was on Skype, chatting with a colleague in Spain about various personal and professional matters. By the way, the weather in Barcelona is superb! Tomorrow I plan to create YouTube videos and Podomatic podcasts for graduate students in my online classes in school librarianship to help them get started with the semester, and I have yet to begin my day's work! Or have I? That's just how our learning ecology works online. When we use these tools simultaneously for work and play, the boundaries between learning in our personal and professional lives start to blur and intersect. In writing this article, I have come to realize that I have become the subject of my own research! It seems that lately that my own interests and experiences drive much of my current research in teacher librarianship. So, here I sit, laptop in hand, iPod at the ready, busy creating and sharing information in the personal, professional, and academic areas of my life using Web 2.0 applications. Coincidentally, these very activities were the subject of my research on Web 2.0 tool usage last semester (Houston, 2011). My interest at the time was in exploring the learning ecology of our graduate students' use of Web 2.0 tools in the different areas of their lives to better understand what they know and what they might need to learn about this exciting educational technology frontier. I use the learning ecology framework because the Web 2.0 tools we use for informal learning have the potential to influence teach in formal environments, and vice versa (Barron, 2006). In my own case, I started a travel blog with my friend and parlayed this knowledge into developing a blog for my graduate students on Web 2.0 information resources. As this example demonstrates, the learning ecology perspective moves Web 2.0 tools to the forefront of teaching and learning in the 21st century because of the way we tend to use them in different learning contexts, and the potential they have to merge our learning experiences from one context into another. This is especially true for our young digital natives who use Web 2.0 applications regularly for informal learning activities. Researchers assert that these 21st century tools could have powerful formal educational applications if they are effectively integrated into learning experiences taking place inside the school walls (Barron, 2006; Zhao & Frank, 2003). Aside from developing a keen affection for Jamaican cuisine, my most valuable souvenir from the IASL conference was the overwhelming sense of urgency I felt to integrate Web 2. …

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)0,000
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesMéta-épidémiologie (sens strict), Communication savante
Catégories consensuellesCommunication savante
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Observationnel · Signal consensuel: aucune
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,428
Score d'incertitude au seuil1,000

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0000,000
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 savante0,0030,069
Science ouverte0,0010,001
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 Opus0,010
Tête enseignante GPT0,216
Écart entre enseignants0,206 · 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