MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1524584542 · doi:10.18438/b83w5j

Master’s Students in an Information Studies Program Enter the Program with Excitement and Leave with Concerns about Professional Preparation for their Chosen Fields

2011· article· en· W1524584542 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Christina E. Carter

Bibliographic record

VenueEvidence Based Library and Information Practice · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicLibrary Science and Information Literacy
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedical educationPsychologyDemographicsAccreditationPerceptionMedicineDemography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Objective – To assess master’s students’ perceptions of their information studies program with regard to the program’s academic quality and professional preparation as it moved to become an iSchool. Design – Longitudinal survey, employing both quantitative analysis of demographics and closed responses, and thematic analysis of open-ended responses. Setting – University of Toronto, Canada, Faculty of Information, Master of Information Studies (MISt) ALA-accredited program. Subjects – Students enrolled in the MISt program from fall 2003 to spring 2007. Methods – Between 2003 and 2007, a self-administered confidential questionnaire was distributed eight times: a short version of the questionnaire to incoming students in the fall term over the four years, and a longer version to the entire MISt student body in the spring term of the four years. Thus, individual students participated in the survey multiple times. Survey questions fell into four categories: program assessment, perceptions on the information professions, career and personal achievements, and demographics. The first questionnaire was mailed in paper form; after that, Web-based questionnaires were used. Quantitative data collected was analyzed using SPSS, version 17, and open-ended responses were examined for recurring themes. Main Results – Across the four years of the survey, researchers obtained about 1,000 completed questionnaires. The response rate was always higher in the fall term than in the spring term, ranging from a high of 67% in fall 2003, to a low of 47% in spring 2007 which seemed to indicate “fatigue” with the study (p. 124). Respondents primarily were interested in the information professions and the majority planned to work in one of them (archives, library systems, or library and information science) after graduating. No statistically significant differences relating to the year the survey was completed were found for student perceptions of career prospects or for amount of computer knowledge required. A statistically significant difference was found for perceptions of new students of occupational prestige for archivists and librarians; it increased over the four years. The majority of students surveyed over the four years indicated that: 1) job prospects would grow, 2) required computer knowledge was high and would increase in the next five years, and 3) computer and systems-related tracks garnered higher perceived social status than the archivist and librarian “streams.” Students who had been in the program longer (completing nine or more courses) more strongly supported the master’s program’s move to an iSchool with more emphasis on technology and computing, and an increased emphasis on professional work. These students were also less positive about their academic programs than the students who had completed less coursework. Open-ended responses echoed many other studies pointing to social status assigned to library professionals being lower than the opinion of the students themselves. Conclusion – The authors’ longitudinal approach and survey methodology revealed perceptual differences between new and more veteran MISt students at the University of Toronto of their master’s program, and that as students progressed through the program, they felt the need for more professional preparation. Between 2008 and 2010, the authors conducted similar studies regarding the perceptions of students at five other Canadian institutions, and planned to survey students at many other North American graduate library science programs via Web-based questionnaire to compare findings cross-institutionally.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.034
Threshold uncertainty score0.112

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0340.007

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.067
GPT teacher head0.387
Teacher spread0.320 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2011
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEvidence Based Library and Information PracticeSame topicLibrary Science and Information LiteracyFrench-language works237,207