MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2808376598 · doi:10.18438/eblip29419

Academic Librarians Perceive Duration and Social Interaction as Important Elements for Professional Development

2018· article· en· W2808376598 sur OpenAlexvenueno aff
Hilary Bussell

Notice bibliographique

RevueEvidence Based Library and Information Practice · 2018
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineSocial Sciences
ThématiqueLibrary Science and Information Literacy
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésTransformational leadershipProfessional developmentQualitative researchPsychologyPerceptionSet (abstract data type)Duration (music)PedagogySociologyMedical educationSocial psychologyMedicineSocial scienceComputer science

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

A Review of: Attebury, R. I. (2017). Professional development: A qualitative study of high impact characteristics affecting meaningful and transformational learning. The Journal of Academic Librarianship, 43(3), 232-241. http://dx.doi.org//10.1016/j.acalib.2017.02.015 Abstract Objective – To understand the characteristics of meaningful and transformational professional development experiences of academic librarians. Design – Qualitative analysis of in-depth interviews using a hermeneutic phenomenological approach. Setting – Public and private colleges and universities in the United States of America. Subjects – 10 academic librarians. Methods – The researcher selected 10 participants using an initial survey distributed through national library electronic mail lists. Two rounds of semi-structured, in-depth interviews were conducted over Skype during fall 2014 and spring 2015. The first round of interviews began with background questions about participants’ careers, then moved on to questions about professional development experiences that were meaningful and/or transformational. The responses from this first round of interviews were used to develop questions for a second round of interviews with the same participants. After completing the interviews, the researcher sent follow-up emails to participants in order to gather feedback on summaries and interpretations of interviews. The transcribed interviews were used to create an initial set of codes and then imported into NVivo for analysis using a hermeneutic phenomenological approach. Main Results – All participants reported on professional development experiences that they found to be meaningful. Half of the participants discussed professional development experiences that were transformational for their perceptions and practice of librarianship. The themes of duration and interaction were identified in every participant’s discussions of meaningful or transformational professional development. Reflection, discomfort, and self-awareness were also identified as prominent themes. Conclusion – The study found that two of the most important ingredients for meaningful and transformational professional development are activities that are sustained over time and that include social interaction. The participants perceived long-term, interactive professional development activities as opportunities to identify and address gaps in their professional knowledge, which benefits themselves and their organizations. On-the-job learning, single-theme workshops or institutes, and professional committee work were particularly promising forms of meaningful professional development. The author recommends that academic librarians who are interested in meaningful or transformational professional development look for activities that are sustained and interactive, that promote reflection, and that provide opportunities to increase self-awareness of gaps in knowledge. Facilitators of professional development activities should include interactive components and ensure that participants have a chance to stay in contact after the event in order to encourage long-term interaction and reflection.

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 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)0,001
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesÉtudes des sciences et des technologies, Communication savante
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Sans objet · Signal consensuel: aucune
GenreSignal candidat: Commentaire · Signal consensuel: aucune
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,954
Score d'incertitude au seuil1,000

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0010,001
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0000,000
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0020,000
Communication savante0,0010,599
Science ouverte0,0000,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,000
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0010,000

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 Opus0,027
Tête enseignante GPT0,346
Écart entre enseignants0,319 · 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

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.

Devis d'étudeSans objet
Domainenon disponible
GenreCommentaire

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations1
Publié2018
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueEvidence Based Library and Information PracticeMême sujetLibrary Science and Information LiteracyTravaux en français237 207