Practice as Conversation: Information Literacy in Pre-Doctoral Dentistry Programs
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
opinion when no published research evidence exists; and considering the influence of bias in non-experimental study designs.For example, randomized controlled trials are often not available in dentistry, and a well-considered case report is often good evidence if it includes real-world constraints faced by practicing dentists. 4igher education focuses on academic pursuits, such as research and scholarship; however, dentists are often practitioners rather than scholars and are therefore far more focused on developing skills they deem most relevant.According to a 2022 survey from the American Dental Education Association (ADEA) of graduating seniors, over half of respondents (53 percent) intended to go directly into private practice upon graduation.Of the 38 percent pursuing advanced education, 57 percent were doing so in a residency that would provide advanced training in general dentistry, such as a general practice residency or advanced education in general dentistry. 5Therefore, focusing information literacy instruction on applying knowledge in a general practice context has proven more helpful than focusing instruction on conducting research.This requires librarians to shift our definition of "scholarship" to involve dentists discussing treatments with patients, assessing clinical variables, and arriving at informed decisions.In light of this focus on clinical application, dental librarians needed to reconcile information literacy concepts, including the ACRL Framework for Information Literacy for Higher Education, with meeting the needs of clinically-focused dental students. 6The authors of this chapter were members of a team who created the Dental Competencies and Information Literacy Concepts Rubric (the Rubric). 7We believe that the lessons learned in developing and using this tool may be applicable to librarians working with other practice-focused disciplines.Rubric development began in 2017 when a group of dental librarians from across the United States and Canada started work on what would become the Rubric. 8The Rubric allows librarians and dental faculty to calibrate learning outcomes with professional competencies while maximizing the expertise of the two disciplines in the education environment.It aligns dental competencies from American and Canadian accrediting bodies (Commission on Dental Accreditation and the Academy of Canadian Faculties of Dentistry, respectively) with concepts from the Framework and Bloom's Taxonomy. 9Since its publication in 2021, the Rubric has been downloaded 542 times (as of July 7, 2023).A more detailed discussion of the Rubric's development may be found in Schvaneveldt, et al., 2021. 10 In this chapter we will discuss the ways the Framework-influenced Rubric has improved our work with a practice-focused discipline.We will provide examples and insight into how we use the Rubric to improve instruction and librarian collaboration both inside and outside the classroom.Finally, we briefly discuss how the Rubric can be used as a professional development tool for librarians. Using the Rubric in Curricular InstructionRubric development integrated several resources primarily aimed at classroom instruction, making it exceptionally useful for this purpose.The Rubric can be used to determine
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 | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| 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 | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,003 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,001 | 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 ».