MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W4256676542 · doi:10.1108/s2055-364120200000029016

Subject Index

2020· book-chapter· en· W4256676542 sur OpenAlexaboutno aff

Notice bibliographique

RevueInnovations in higher education teaching and learning · 2020
Typebook-chapter
Langueen
DomaineSocial Sciences
ThématiqueEducational Environments and Student Outcomes
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésSubject (documents)Index (typography)Computer scienceLibrary scienceWorld Wide Web

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Citation (2020), "Subject Index", Sengupta, E., Blessinger, P. and Cox, M.D. (Ed.) Designing Effective Library Learning Spaces in Higher Education (Innovations in Higher Education Teaching and Learning, Vol. 29), Emerald Publishing Limited, Bingley, pp. 203-205. https://doi.org/10.1108/S2055-364120200000029016 Publisher: Emerald Publishing Limited Copyright © 2020 Emerald Publishing Limited INDEX Subject Index Academic Achievement Center, 153–156, 163 Academic business library, 14–15, 18, 24, 26, 30 Academic librarians, 5, 47–48 Academic libraries, 5, 6–8, 10, 15, 17, 34–35, 37–38, 40–41, 126, 132–135, 148 Academic literacies, 48, 54 Academic Technology (AT), 76, 85 Acquisition, 19, 38, 40 Active learning, 14, 22–23 Active learning classroom (ALC), 8, 14, 18 Active learning space, 14, 21, 26–27, 29 Adaptable spaces, 133, 168 Affordable Learning Georgia Initiative (ALG) Initiative, 8, 35 Affordances, 11, 170–171, 174, 178–185, 190 Architectural explorations, 6 Assessment, 51, 104, 108, 116, 153 Association of College and Research Libraries (ACRL), 31, 49, 53, 56 BYOD (Bring Your Own Device), 14 Campus, 14, 28, 34, 149, 151, 155, 160–161, 163, 169, 186 libraries, 84 Campus bookstores, 35–36 Campus ecosystem, 10, 148 Canadian universities, 9, 18, 47–48, 54, 57 Case studies, 8, 10, 46–56 Changes in digital environment, 61–62, 64 Changes in physical environment, 61–62, 64 Co-location, 153, 155, 160, 162, 164–165 Collaboration, 8, 14, 22, 30, 48, 54–55 librarian and faculty digital learning, 90–91 between spaces, 140–141 Collaborative learning, 5, 15, 18–20, 22–24, 26, 149, 151 pods, 27, 29 Collection development policies, 8, 35, 41 College or University, 4, 18, 159 Comfort, 175, 177, 180, 183 Construction, 10, 24–25, 136, 152, 172 Control, 23, 182, 184 Convenience, 104, 179, 182, 185–186 Course materials, 8, 35–41 Course reserves, 8, 38–42 Creativity, 50, 128, 130, 135 Design flaws, 25 pedagogy and, 51–54 Digital active learning, 17 Digital and Information Literacy Framework (DIL), 10, 78–83, 87, 90, 105–108, 110 Digital ecology, 9, 78 Digital information literacy, 78 Digital learning, 9–10, 26, 76–92, 111 Digital literacy, 76–92, 105 Digital self-efficacy, 9, 82, 90–91 Digital spaces, 62, 111–112, 118 Dimensions of Digital Learning, 9, 91–92 Distance education, 10, 102–104 DRM-free ebooks, 37–41 E-book(s), 19, 34, 38–40 subscription packages, 39 turnaway statistics, 38 E-resource, 41, 48, 57, 149 Educational technology, 42, 133 Educational technology solution, 14, 22, 24, 26 Entrepreneurship, 156 Environment, 170, 174, 179–180 classroom, 22 digital learning, 111 group, 26 learning, 5–7, 86, 88–89, 105 low intensity, 69 online learning, 42 research, 5 technology-driven, 16 Ethnographic methods, 65, 72 Faculty digital learning, 81, 90–91 Feedback, 22–23, 27, 50, 56, 109, 109, 113, 142 Feeling, 172, 174, 177–178 Flexible learning space, 18 Footprint, 129, 149, 154, 161, 186 Georgia Tech Library, 8, 35, 37–42 Gibson, 170, 175 Graduate students, 8, 48–50, 54–55 Green, 159, 161, 171 HCD, 62 Higher education (HE), 6, 8–9, 34, 46–47, 49, 65, 76–77, 102, 104, 148, 159, 186 Higher Education Opportunity Act (HEOA), 35–37 Human-centered design, 62, 68 Inductive reasoning, 174 Informal learning space, 11, 169 Information commons, 151 Information literacy (IL), 10, 28, 46, 83, 102, 151 Innovation, 8–9, 46, 76, 79, 126, 134, 156, 163 Instruction, 9, 18, 25–27, 78, 85, 90, 102 Intellus Learning, 41 Interactivity, 108–109, 113, 115 Learning design, 8, 46 objectives, 79, 126 outcomes, 50–53, 55–56, 81, 83–84, 104 space, 7, 11, 14, 17–19, 23, 126, 128, 132, 152, 186 Learning Commons, 149–154, 156, 168 Learning Management Systems (LMS), 41–42, 82–84, 86 Liaison librarians, 89 Librarian and Faculty Digital Learning Collaboration, 90–91 Library, 4–8, 14 changes, 69, 72 collection policies, 37–41 innovations, 68 instruction, 19, 26–27, 79, 133 learning spaces, 46, 88–90 policies, 134, 138 renovation, 15, 24–25, 30, 168 spaces, 4–7, 72, 127, 148–165 study, 150 Location, 31, 38, 55, 87, 96, 150, 155 Makerspace, 128–130, 132–142, 158–159 Making, 4, 42, 104–105, 113, 134–136, 141, 183 Master plan, 10, 148 Mobile podium, 24, 25 Mobile whiteboard partitions, 20 Modular furniture, 24, 26 Multi-user license, 41 Node chairs, 14, 20, 24 Online learning, 17, 47, 111 Online learning environment, 42 Online survey, 82, 100, 113, 173 Open educational resources (OER), 34 Open University (OU), 10, 102 Participant-generated photographs, 171–172 Patron-driven acquisitions (PDA), 38 Pedagogy, 9, 10, 48, 51, 77, 87, 103 Peer-to-peer learning, 22, 23 Perception, 81–82, 90–91, 169–170 Photo-elicitation, 171–172 Possession, 178–180, 182–186 Qualitative research, 81 surveys, 81 visual ethnography, 171 Quality Matters (QM), 86 Queen’s University, 48, 54 Reading lists, 42–43 Reference, 5, 65 Research skills, 48–49, 54–55 Resources, 4–7, 41–42, 87, 90, 107, 154 Scholarship, 7, 49, 53, 130 Screen mirroring, 14, 18, 22–23, 29 Screen sharing, 22, 106, 108 Self-efficacy, 9, 76, 81–86, 88–92 Sony Vision Exchange, 14 Space, 5, 163, 183 Space redesign, 62 Spirituality, 159 Stakeholders, 4–5, 7, 16, 31, 36, 164–165 State of being, 177 Student-centered learning, 4–6 Student2Scholar (S2S), 8–9, 46 Study environment, 11, 184 Synchronous online teaching, 100–102, 111–112, 115 Teaching, 4, 6, 10, 16, 29, 46–47, 51, 82, 112 Teaching spaces, 18, 20, 22, 30 Technological changes, 46–48, 77 Technology, 46 digital learning, 77 educational, 42, 133 integration, 103 Testing, 48, 52, 56 Textbook affordability, 35–36 Textbooks, 8, 34–42, 133 Themes, 70, 100, 174, 176, 179 Tradition, 154, 156, 159 Traditional classrooms, 133 Traditional libraries, 6 Traditional model, 4, 78 Traditional role of librarians, 6 Traditional textbooks, 41 Training sessions, 106–112 Transactional distance, 103, 109, 115 Turnaways, 39 Ubiquitous learning, 78 University of Cambridge, 68–70 of Fresno, 65–68 libraries, 9, 48, 62, 114 of North Carolina, 10, 62–64 of Toronto Ontario Institute for Studies in Education, 48 of Western Ontario, 48 of York, 64–66 Unlimited users license, 40–41 User experience, 9, 60–73 in Brazil, 72 User Study, 70 UX, 9, 60–73 Virtual learning, 42, 78 Virtual learning environment, 76, 105 Virtual spaces, 8 Visual ethnography, 11, 171, 174 Webchat, 10, 114–118 Wireless active learning, 14, 23 Book Chapters Prelims Part I: Collaborative Learning Space Chapter 1: Introduction to Designing Effective Library Learning Spaces in Higher Education Chapter 2: From “Dust to the Dawn of a New Age”: Creating a 21st Century Active Learning Classroom Chapter 3: Library Collections at Georgia Tech and the Affordable Learning Georgia Initiative Chapter 4: Designing Effective Library Learning Spaces – Student2Scholar: A Case Study Chapter 5: User Experience Applied at University Libraries Chapter 6: A Study on Digital Literacy Perspectives when Designing Library Learning for Rural Community Colleges in the Connected Age Chapter 7: Live Online Information Literacy Teaching and Learning – Challenges and Opportunities Part II: Effective Design Chapter 8: Beyond the Classroom: Developing Nontraditional Learning Spaces in an Academic Library Chapter 9: Designing Library Space to Support Evolving Campus Needs Chapter 10: Building a Better Space: Using Affordances to Build Better Locations of Study About the Authors Name Index Subject Index

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)0,000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesCharge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Théorique ou conceptuel · Signal consensuel: aucune
GenreSignal candidat: Autre · Signal consensuel: Autre
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,939
Score d'incertitude au seuil1,000

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0010,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0000,000
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0010,000
Communication savante0,0000,000
Science ouverte0,0000,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,002
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 Opus0,048
Tête enseignante GPT0,348
Écart entre enseignants0,300 · 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'étudeThéorique ou conceptuel
Domainenon disponible
GenreAutre

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

En bref

Citations0
Publié2020
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueInnovations in higher education teaching and learningMême sujetEducational Environments and Student OutcomesTravaux en français237 207