Better together: combining research and writing support for student scholars
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Originally presented at the Medical Library Association 2016 Annual Meeting and Exhibition, Toronto, ON, May 16, 2016. Objectives: Libraries offer workshops on finding evidence; writing centers offer assistance with synthesizing evidence into effective literature reviews. The University of Maryland (UMD) Libraries and the UMD Graduate School Writing Center investigated the effectiveness of combining these traditionally separate efforts into a suite of instructional programming, which presented research and writing as linked and iterative components of a process rather than distinct stages of scholarship. Methods: The UMD Libraries sought to increase its impact on student scholarship by creating information literacy workshops that better met the needs of students. To determine student needs, library staff queried liaison librarians, who noted that graduate and upper-level undergraduate students struggle with entering into their discipline’s academic discourse. To demonstrate to students the iterative process of finding and using evidence, library and writing center staff developed programming on how to write a literature review for a thesis or dissertation. Staff from both departments designed instructional content on how to find, access, store, and use evidence effectively when writing. These sessions also introduced students to the concept of scholarship as a conversation, how to apply the stasis theory of composition, and explained the rhetorical purpose of conducting a literature review. Attendance and session evaluations were used to measure effectiveness. Results: A traditional graduate student workshop series held in the library, which presented research and writing as separate processes, was attended by 22 students in 2013 and 35 students in 2014. The literature review workshops, which offered integrated research and writing instruction, were attended by 119 students in 2014 and 96 students in 2015. Conclusions: This successful collaboration highlights the benefits of forming strategic partnerships with groups on campus who have shared values with the library, as these sessions developed in concert with the Graduate School Writing Center substantially improved student attendance at library workshops. Subsequently, discipline specific breakout sessions have been developed, which utilize the expertise of liaison librarians to offer focused training on specific resources and writing techniques within subject disciplines. This collaboration also has led to the development of additional experimental programming with the Graduate School Writing Center. Some of these initiatives include librarian office hours in the writing center, and workshops on transforming a traditional research paper into a compelling oral presentation.
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 | 0,094 | 0,233 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,006 | 0,004 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,011 | 0,006 |
| Communication savante | 0,022 | 0,018 |
| Science ouverte | 0,006 | 0,047 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,006 | 0,007 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,015 | 0,007 |
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 ».