MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2028040158 · doi:10.1080/01930821003667054

The Embedded Science Librarian: Partner in Curriculum Design and Delivery

2010· article· en· W2028040158 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Library Administration · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicWeb and Library Services
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
FundersUniversity of Guelph
KeywordsCurriculumSociologyEngineering managementComputer scienceEngineering ethicsLibrary scienceKnowledge managementPsychologyPedagogyEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT Information literacy is essential for success in undergraduate science programs, but teaching faculty are generally ill-prepared or unwilling to provide intentional support in their courses. Librarians are uniquely qualified to help. In this article, the author presents one example of a faculty–librarian collaboration in which the science librarian is embedded in a first-year, undergraduate course in nanoscience, both as a codesigner of the curriculum and a member of the teaching team. She traces her progress from new appointee to faculty partner, and describes the unique, electronic-journal project they designed to promote the development of information and academic literacies. KEYWORDS: assessment rubricscurriculum designelectronic journal publishingfaculty–librarian collaborationinformation literacylearning commonsundergraduate science studentswriting ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The electronic journal project developed for the University of Guelph's first-year undergraduate nanoscience course has been a truly collaborative venture and would not have succeeded without the contributions of many specialists from across campus. The author would like to thank the following people, in particular, for their unwavering support and assistance: Dean Tony Vannelli, College of Physical and Engineering Science; science specialists Dan Thomas (associate professor of chemistry, associate dean academic, College of Physical and Engineering Science), Detong Jiang (assistant professor, Department of Physics), John Dutcher (professor, Department of Physics), and Paul Rowntree (professor, Department of Chemistry); information specialist Wayne Johnston (head, Research Enterprise and Scholarly Communications, University Library); Writing Services specialists Barbara Christian (manager, Writing Services), Margaret Hundleby (science-writing consultant), and Elizabeth Murison (science-writing specialist); Learn- ing Services specialist Dale Lackeyram (science learning specialist); teaching and curriculum-development specialists Peter Wolf (associate director, Teaching Support Services [TSS]), Mary Wilson (curriculum-development associate, TSS), and Nancy Schmidt (director, Learning and Pedagogy Initiatives, Office of the Associate Vice-President [Academic]). Finally, the author is grateful to Daniel Thomas, Janet Kaufman, Margaret Hundleby, Andrew Kropinski, Nancy Schmidt and Helen Salmon (associate chief librarian, Learning & Collections) for their careful and critical reading of this manuscript, insightful comments and helpful suggestions. Special thanks go to Helen and Nancy for sharing so much of their time and expertise. Notes 1. http://www.uoguelph.ca. 2. Available online at http://www.uoguelph.ca/registrar/calendars/undergraduate/current/c02/c02-learningobjectives.shtml. 3. http://www.nano.uoguelph.ca. 4. The organizational renewal document is available online at: http://www.lib.uoguelph.calabout/components/documents/organizational_renewal_2009.pdf. 5. Library associates are support staff who have earned undergraduate degrees but do not have LIS credentials. 6. The Canadian National Centre for Supplemental Instruction (SI) Programs http://www.siprograms.ca/ is located at the University of Guelph: http://www.lib.uoguelph.ca/assistance/supported_learning_groups. 7. http://www.academicintegrity.uoguelph.ca. 8. See Schmidt & Kaufman (2007, pp. 248–249) for details. 9. The successes of the author as an award-winning university lecturer, and the learning specialists as leaders and innovators in Supplemental Instruction (see Note 6), were evidence of what the team could achieve. 10. http://www.tss.uoguelph.ca/cdinst/index.cfm. 11. Topics may fall under one of three main areas: (1) a fundamental aspect of nanoscience, (2) an aspect of future possibilities, or (3) a nanoscience issue in the news. 12. http://davinci.lib.uoguelph.ca. da Vinci's Notebook can also be linked to through the University of Guelph's electronic journal page: http://journal.lib.uoguelph.ca/index.php. 13. "Open Journal Systems (OJS) is a journal management and publishing system that has been developed by the Public Knowledge Project through its federally funded efforts to expand and improve access to research." http://pkp.sfu.ca/?q = ojs. 14. http://pkp.sfu.ca. 15. See Acknowledgements. 16. These rubrics were developed by the author and her faculty colleague (D. Thomas), in consultation with their Learning Commons colleagues. Inspiration was also drawn from the free rubric databases maintained by iRubric, http://www.rcampus.com/indexrubric; and Rubistar, http://www.rubistar.4teachers.org/index.php 17. Studies by Undergraduate Researchers at Guelph (SURG) is a refereed, multidisciplinary electronic journal that publishes research articles by University of Guelph undergraduate students. Available at http://journal.lib.uoguelph.ca/index.php/surg. 18. "Columbia Undergraduate Science Journal is a professional-level, refereed, electronic journal that publishes scholarly research articles by Columbia University undergraduate students." Available at http://cusj.columbia.edu/cusj/.

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.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScholarly communication
Consensus categoriesScholarly communication
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.742
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.016
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.234
Teacher spread0.223 · 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