What do LIS faculty need for professional development?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Although there are some reports of research and activities related to professional development and continuing education for faculty in other fields, no such study has been conducted in the information field. Therefore a survey was conducted in the spring of 2010, for the purposes of (1) determining the professional development needs of faculty in schools of library and information studies in the U.S. and Canada, (2) determining whether support mechanisms and activities to meet these needs are available in the schools or the universities that employ these faculty, and (3) identifying other sources of professional development on which faculty rely. Data were obtained via an anonymous online survey of the full‐time faculty members in the schools. Among the findings were that professional development needs and preferences are significantly different for faculty in traditional library schools compared to those faculty whose schools are members of the iSchool Caucus. In general, opportunities for development and training are much more prevalent at the university level than at the school level. Results of this study will inform enhancement of professional development activities by the schools, the host universities, and professional associations.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.029 |
| 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".