Practice as Conversation: Information Literacy in Pre-Doctoral Dentistry Programs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
opinion when no published research evidence exists; and considering the influence of bias in non-experimental study designs.For example, randomized controlled trials are often not available in dentistry, and a well-considered case report is often good evidence if it includes real-world constraints faced by practicing dentists. 4igher education focuses on academic pursuits, such as research and scholarship; however, dentists are often practitioners rather than scholars and are therefore far more focused on developing skills they deem most relevant.According to a 2022 survey from the American Dental Education Association (ADEA) of graduating seniors, over half of respondents (53 percent) intended to go directly into private practice upon graduation.Of the 38 percent pursuing advanced education, 57 percent were doing so in a residency that would provide advanced training in general dentistry, such as a general practice residency or advanced education in general dentistry. 5Therefore, focusing information literacy instruction on applying knowledge in a general practice context has proven more helpful than focusing instruction on conducting research.This requires librarians to shift our definition of "scholarship" to involve dentists discussing treatments with patients, assessing clinical variables, and arriving at informed decisions.In light of this focus on clinical application, dental librarians needed to reconcile information literacy concepts, including the ACRL Framework for Information Literacy for Higher Education, with meeting the needs of clinically-focused dental students. 6The authors of this chapter were members of a team who created the Dental Competencies and Information Literacy Concepts Rubric (the Rubric). 7We believe that the lessons learned in developing and using this tool may be applicable to librarians working with other practice-focused disciplines.Rubric development began in 2017 when a group of dental librarians from across the United States and Canada started work on what would become the Rubric. 8The Rubric allows librarians and dental faculty to calibrate learning outcomes with professional competencies while maximizing the expertise of the two disciplines in the education environment.It aligns dental competencies from American and Canadian accrediting bodies (Commission on Dental Accreditation and the Academy of Canadian Faculties of Dentistry, respectively) with concepts from the Framework and Bloom's Taxonomy. 9Since its publication in 2021, the Rubric has been downloaded 542 times (as of July 7, 2023).A more detailed discussion of the Rubric's development may be found in Schvaneveldt, et al., 2021. 10 In this chapter we will discuss the ways the Framework-influenced Rubric has improved our work with a practice-focused discipline.We will provide examples and insight into how we use the Rubric to improve instruction and librarian collaboration both inside and outside the classroom.Finally, we briefly discuss how the Rubric can be used as a professional development tool for librarians. Using the Rubric in Curricular InstructionRubric development integrated several resources primarily aimed at classroom instruction, making it exceptionally useful for this purpose.The Rubric can be used to determine
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".