Walking the Walk, Talking the Talk: A Learning-Centered Approach to the Design of a Workshop on Teaching for McGill Librarians
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
McGill Library, in partnership with the University's Teaching and Learning Services unit, offers a 1.5 day workshop, Designing and Delivering Effective Information Skills Sessions.This workshop is designed to expose librarians to teaching theory and practice.It provides an opportunity for liaison librarians to (re)design their information literacy instruction according to course context, content, desired learning outcomes, and strategies that facilitate and assess learning.Library literature, and data collected within the McGill Library, indicates that teaching theory and practice are typically not covered in formal MLIS education programs or in on-the-job training.In order to facilitate staff development on learner-centered instructional design, active learning techniques, and assessment, a project team consisting of members from the Library and the Teaching and Learning Services unit at McGill took a learning-centered approach to design the workshop, which incorporates a variety of active learning exercises, and provides opportunities for reflection, assessment, and information literacy instruction session (re)design.In this article, the authors describe the preparation, planning, construction, and presentation of the workshop that resulted from the collaboration.
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 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 it