Face-to-face Training is the Preferred Modality of Professional Continuing Education for Librarians of All Ages, but More Evidence is Needed
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A Review of:
 Lynn, V. A., Bose, A., & Boehmer, S. J. (2010). Librarian instruction-delivery modality preferences for professional continuing education. Journal of the Medical Library Association, 98(1), 57-64.
 
 Objective — To establish the preferred modality for professional continuing education (CE) among members of three library associations. The primary hypothesis was that face-to-face training is the preferred modality, and the secondary hypothesis was that younger librarians are more likely to favour online or blended training modalities. In addition, the authors sought to investigate which factors influence participants' decisions to take up training.
 
 Design — Online questionnaire.
 
 Setting — Three library associations based in the United States of America. These were the American Library Association (ALA), the Special Libraries Association (SLA), and the Medical Library Association (MLA).
 
 Subjects — A random sample of 328 members of the ALA (86 participants), SLA (63 participants), and MLA (291 participants). Some participants were members of more than one association.
 
 Methods — Participants were recruited to complete an online survey via direct e-mail contact (MLA), messages on email discussion lists (SLA) and social networks (ALA). The survey asked about participants' experience of, and preference for, five different training modalities for CE. These were: face-to-face (classroom instruction), web-based synchronous (with real-time participant-instructor interaction), web-based asynchronous (with instructor involvement, but not in real time), blended (a combination of different modalities), and webcasts (live online presentations with limited participant-instructor interaction). Participants were then asked to rank factors which would influence their decision to undertake CE courses. The factors were cost, opportunity to socialize/network, time away from work, learning at their own pace, and having immediate access to either the class instructor or other participants. Participants were also given space to comment on both CE modalities and influencing factors.
 
 Main Results — There was a statistically significant preference for face-to-face instruction in this sample, being preferred by at least 73.1% of participants in all age ranges. Younger librarians did not display a preference for online or blended training modalities. There was a significant difference in second preference between ALA and MLA members, who both preferred Web based asynchronous training, and SLA members, who preferred the web-based synchronous format. Participants' preferences for all modalities apart from face to face were significantly different depending on whether or not they had experienced the particular modality. Cost was ranked as the most influential factor in the decision to undertake CE by members of all three library associations (significant at P
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.176 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".