MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1589556642 · doi:10.18438/b8m04v

Using Evidence Based Practice in LIS Education: Results of a Test of a Communities of Practice Model

2010· article· en· W1589556642 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Joyce Yukawa

Bibliographic record

VenueEvidence Based Library and Information Practice · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicOnline and Blended Learning
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSummative assessmentFormative assessmentPsychologyTest (biology)UsabilityMedical educationStrengths and weaknessesCommunity of practiceMathematics educationPedagogyComputer scienceMedicineSocial psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Objective - This study investigated the use of a communities of practice (CoP) model for blended learning in library and information science (LIS) graduate courses. The purposes were to: (1) test the model’s efficacy in supporting student growth related to core LIS concepts, practices, professional identity, and leadership skills, and (2) develop methods for formative and summative assessment using the model.
 
 Methods - Using design-based research principles to guide the formative and summative assessments, pre-, mid-, and post-course questionnaires were constructed to test the model and administered to students in three LIS courses taught by the author. Participation was voluntary and anonymous. A total of 34 students completed the three courses; response rate for the questionnaires ranged from 47% to 95%. The pre-course questionnaire addressed attitudes toward technology and the use of technology for learning. The mid-course questionnaire addressed strengths and weaknesses of the course and suggestions for improvement. The post-course questionnaire addressed what students valued about their learning and any changes in attitude toward technology for learning. Data were analyzed on three levels. Micro-level analysis addressed technological factors related to usability and participant skills and attitudes. Meso-level analysis addressed social and pedagogical factors influencing community learning. Macro-level analysis addressed CoP learning outcomes, namely, knowledge of core concepts and practices, and the development of professional identity and leadership skills. 
 
 Results - The students can be characterized as adult learners who were neither early nor late adopters of technology. At the micro-level, responses indicate that the online tools met high standards of usability and effectively supported online communication and learning. Moreover, the increase in positive attitudes toward the use of technology for learning at the end of the course may indicate that an effective balance between face-to-face and online media was achieved. At the meso-level, students valued learning in community for developing mutual respect, confidence building, risk taking, deeper and more varied learning, learning with and from their peers, and greater enjoyment in the classes. Students found that the online environments were useful for organizing the class objectives and subject matter, “staying connected” between classes, sharing ideas, keeping track of their work, and preparing them for future work in blended environments. At the macro-level, the findings of the effects on student growth related to core LIS concepts, practices, professional identity and leadership skills were inconclusive. However, students’ expressed a high regard for the value of collaboration, and there were indications that the model supported differentiated learning of professional knowledge and skills.
 
 Conclusion - The findings strongly suggest that the use of the CoP model had positive effects on the learning process. Students’ high regard for the value of collaboration appears to be a clear effect of using the CoP model. The assessment methods were sufficient for testing the efficacy of most aspects of the model under the limited conditions of this study. Student responses led to refinements in both the model and methods. This study contributes to social constructivist learning approaches and LIS curricular development by presenting an innovative model for supporting professional growth among adult learners, as well as a conceptual framework to guide evidence -based practice. Further testing and refinement of the model in other contexts and by other educators are needed to ensure that the model is robust and broadly applicable.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.101
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Scholarly communication
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.574
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.101
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.227
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.042
GPT teacher head0.366
Teacher spread0.323 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
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

Citations6
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEvidence Based Library and Information PracticeSame topicOnline and Blended LearningFrench-language works237,207