Collaborative and Interactive Teaching Approaches have a Positive Impact on Information Literacy Instruction Supporting Evidence Based Practice in Work Placements
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
A Review of: Kolstad, A. (2017). Students’ learning outcomes from cross-collaborative supervision in information seeking processes during work placements. Nordic Journal of Information Literacy in Higher Education, 9(1), 2-20. https://doi.org/10.15845/noril.v9i1.231 Abstract Objective – To analyze the effect of collaborative interdisciplinary teaching and supervision using physical and digital tools on students’ information literacy (IL) and evidence based practice (EBP) abilities. Design – Qualitative and quantitative text analysis. Setting – Learning Centre at Oslo University College and student work placements in Oslo, Norway. Subjects – Approximately 400 students enrolled in the undergraduate nursing degree programme. Methods – The author is a librarian and project manager of the Langerud project, an initiative wherein nursing students were jointly trained and supervised by nurse educators, nurse supervisors, and librarians in preparation for and during work placements over an eight-week period. In this role, the librarian author collected 36 student group assignments, 285 blog/wiki comments from students, nurse educators, nurse supervisors, and librarians, and 102 individual student logs written during six work placements between Spring 2010 and Spring 2012, which were posted in a learning management system (LMS), as well as in an evaluation form from Spring 2010. The unstructured text is analyzed according to how the students fulfilled the learning outcome of integrating steps zero to four of the seven-step EBP model: (1) Cultivate a spirit of inquiry; (2) Ask clinical questions in the PICO format; (3) Search for the best evidence; (4) Critically appraise the evidence; and (5) Integrate the evidence with clinical expertise and patient preferences and values. The logs are also analyzed quantitatively to measure if and how many students combined the three aspects of EBP - defined as being the practitioner’s individual expertise, best research evidence, and client values and expectations. Lastly, the author seeks to evaluate the role of the LMS as a mediating tool. Main Results – The author found that the majority (83%) of students successfully met the learning outcome, particularly for steps 1, 2, and 5. For step three, the author observed that some students did not apply PICO in the information-seeking process and were thus not sufficiently thorough in their searching. For step four, the author found that most students failed to demonstrate critical appraisal of the evidence and that many struggled to find up-to-date research findings. The author noted that the results for both steps three and four could be attributed to the students finding international databases and English-language research articles too challenging, given the language barrier. The author’s analysis of the logs reveals that two-thirds of the students combined the 3 aspects of EBP and that 39% described 1 or 2 aspects, of which most described user-based knowledge and experience-based knowledge. One department produced twice as many log entries as the other seven departments; in this department, students were able to choose what aspect of EBP to focus on and the librarian had a co-teaching role in that learning group. Overall, 60% of all students described research-based knowledge, which increased over time from 46% in Spring 2011, to 60% in Autumn 2011, and 83% in Spring 2012. On the evaluation form from Spring 2010, most students rated the supervision by and satisfaction with the nurse educator, nurse supervisor, and librarian as good, very good, or excellent, and many commented that the LMS was a useful learning platform. Conclusion – The author concludes that the project had a positive impact on students’ preparedness for work placements and that the early educational intervention improved IL and EBP competencies. Furthermore, the working relationship between the Nursing Department and Library was strengthened. After the Langerud project ended, the curriculum was revised to add more searching for research-based information in written assignments. Additionally, a lecture on EBP was developed based on real-life experiences from the project and delivered collaboratively by the project’s manager, a nurse educator, and a librarian.
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 enseignantsNi 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.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,005 | 0,027 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,001 | 0,407 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,002 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
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.
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 tête enseignante, 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 ».