Collaborative and Interactive Teaching Approaches have a Positive Impact on Information Literacy Instruction Supporting Evidence Based Practice in Work Placements
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A Review of: Kolstad, A. (2017). Students’ learning outcomes from cross-collaborative supervision in information seeking processes during work placements. Nordic Journal of Information Literacy in Higher Education, 9(1), 2-20. https://doi.org/10.15845/noril.v9i1.231 Abstract Objective – To analyze the effect of collaborative interdisciplinary teaching and supervision using physical and digital tools on students’ information literacy (IL) and evidence based practice (EBP) abilities. Design – Qualitative and quantitative text analysis. Setting – Learning Centre at Oslo University College and student work placements in Oslo, Norway. Subjects – Approximately 400 students enrolled in the undergraduate nursing degree programme. Methods – The author is a librarian and project manager of the Langerud project, an initiative wherein nursing students were jointly trained and supervised by nurse educators, nurse supervisors, and librarians in preparation for and during work placements over an eight-week period. In this role, the librarian author collected 36 student group assignments, 285 blog/wiki comments from students, nurse educators, nurse supervisors, and librarians, and 102 individual student logs written during six work placements between Spring 2010 and Spring 2012, which were posted in a learning management system (LMS), as well as in an evaluation form from Spring 2010. The unstructured text is analyzed according to how the students fulfilled the learning outcome of integrating steps zero to four of the seven-step EBP model: (1) Cultivate a spirit of inquiry; (2) Ask clinical questions in the PICO format; (3) Search for the best evidence; (4) Critically appraise the evidence; and (5) Integrate the evidence with clinical expertise and patient preferences and values. The logs are also analyzed quantitatively to measure if and how many students combined the three aspects of EBP - defined as being the practitioner’s individual expertise, best research evidence, and client values and expectations. Lastly, the author seeks to evaluate the role of the LMS as a mediating tool. Main Results – The author found that the majority (83%) of students successfully met the learning outcome, particularly for steps 1, 2, and 5. For step three, the author observed that some students did not apply PICO in the information-seeking process and were thus not sufficiently thorough in their searching. For step four, the author found that most students failed to demonstrate critical appraisal of the evidence and that many struggled to find up-to-date research findings. The author noted that the results for both steps three and four could be attributed to the students finding international databases and English-language research articles too challenging, given the language barrier. The author’s analysis of the logs reveals that two-thirds of the students combined the 3 aspects of EBP and that 39% described 1 or 2 aspects, of which most described user-based knowledge and experience-based knowledge. One department produced twice as many log entries as the other seven departments; in this department, students were able to choose what aspect of EBP to focus on and the librarian had a co-teaching role in that learning group. Overall, 60% of all students described research-based knowledge, which increased over time from 46% in Spring 2011, to 60% in Autumn 2011, and 83% in Spring 2012. On the evaluation form from Spring 2010, most students rated the supervision by and satisfaction with the nurse educator, nurse supervisor, and librarian as good, very good, or excellent, and many commented that the LMS was a useful learning platform. Conclusion – The author concludes that the project had a positive impact on students’ preparedness for work placements and that the early educational intervention improved IL and EBP competencies. Furthermore, the working relationship between the Nursing Department and Library was strengthened. After the Langerud project ended, the curriculum was revised to add more searching for research-based information in written assignments. Additionally, a lecture on EBP was developed based on real-life experiences from the project and delivered collaboratively by the project’s manager, a nurse educator, and a librarian.
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 | 0.005 | 0.027 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.407 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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".