Teaming up to Teach Teamwork in an LIS Master’s Degree Program
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Abstract Objective – Collaboration and working in teams are key aspects of all types of librarianship, but library and information studies (LIS) students often perceive teamwork and group work negatively. LIS schools have a responsibility to prepare graduates with the skills and experiences to be successful working in teams in the field. Through a grant from the university office of assessment, the assessment committee at the University of Rhode Island Graduate School of Library and Information Studies explored their department’s programmatic approach to teaching teamwork in the MLIS curriculum. Methods – This research followed a multi-method design including content analysis of syllabi, secondary analysis of student evaluation of teaching (SET) data, and interviews with alumni. Syllabi were analyzed for all semesters from fall 2010 to spring 2016 (n = 210), with 81 syllabi further analyzed for details about their team assignments. Some data was missing from the dataset of SETs purchased from the vendor, resulting in a dataset of 39 courses with SET data available. Interviews were conducted with a convenience sample of alumni about their experiences with teamwork in the LIS program and their view of how well the LIS curriculum prepared them for teamwork in their careers (n = 22). Results – Findings indicate that, although alumni remembered teamwork happening too often, it was required in just over one-third of courses in the sample period (fall 2010 to spring 2016), and teamwork accounted for about one-fifth of assignments in each of these courses. Alumni reported mostly positive experiences with teamwork, reflecting that teamwork assignments are necessary for the MLIS program because teamwork is a critical skill for librarianship. Three themes emerged from the findings: alumni perceived teamwork to be important for librarians and therefore for the MLIS program, despite this perception there is also a perception that the program has teamwork in too many courses, and questions remain about whether faculty perceive teaching teamwork as important and how to teach teamwork skills in the MLIS curriculum. Conclusions – Librarians need to be able to collaborate internally and externally, but assigning team projects does not guarantee students will develop the teamwork skills they need. An LIS program should be proactive in teaching skills in scheduling, time management, personal accountability, and peer evaluation to prepare students to be effective collaborators in their careers.
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 | 0,007 | 0,009 |
| 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 | 0,005 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,003 | 0,002 |
| Science ouverte | 0,002 | 0,006 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,008 | 0,002 |
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 ».